 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Spanking / September 2006What Grown-Ups Understand About Child Development: A National Benchmark Survey
Greg, I draw your attention to #3 on the list below. And of course, the last one. Why not just spank the three month old? That HAS been defended as rational thinking. http://www.civitas.org/grown_ups.html ... These gaps hold real implications as to how we raise and interact with our children. Findings include that: 1. 29% of all adults do not understand that brain development can be impacted very early on. 2. 64% of all adults incorrectly believe that educational TV is beneficial to intellectual development. 3. 26% of all adults incorrectly believe that a child as young as six months will not suffer any long-term effects from witnessing violence. 4. 67% of all adults incorrectly believe that working parents cannot develop a bond with their children as strong as stay-at-home parents. 5. 44% of parents of young children incorrectly believe picking up a three-month-old every time he cries will spoil a child. ... http://www.civitas.org/grown_ups.html  Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) Kane, Since this is clearly your answer to the expert testimony that I posted, would you explain why you did not post this in that thread? You do this a lot, post an answer to something in an entirely new or unrelated thread. That's not how your dyslexia works. This propaganda piece is NOT research results, not proof of anything other than people's opinions and most certainly does NOT refute the expert testimony you are ""answering"". Is that why you didn't post this ""answer"" to the expert testimony in that message thread? The thread IS still open for posting. > Greg, I draw your attention to #3 on the list below. > And of course, the last one. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.civitas.org/grown_ups.html > 3. 26% of all adults incorrectly believe that a child as young as six > months will not suffer any long-term effects from witnessing violence. > 5. 44% of parents of young children incorrectly believe picking up a > three-month-old every time he cries will spoil a child. > Kane, Since this is clearly your answer to the expert testimony > that I posted, would you explain why you did not post this in that > thread? What thread was that, Greg? And why would I be held to a higher standard then you, Greg? 0:-> > You do this a lot, post an answer to something in an > entirely new or unrelated thread. Nope. I only just found it and did not care to wade through the mounds of delusional sh.t you mistake for your thoughts. > That's not how your dyslexia works. How would you know how my dyslexia works? > This propaganda piece is NOT research results, It could be. Or not. It came from a survey. I did not hide that or make claims about that being definitive research. It is what it is. Believe it or not. > not proof of anything other than people's opinions > and most certainly does NOT refute the > expert testimony you are ""answering"". The expert testimony, as it should be, was conflicted, or didn't you read it all? The experts did not agree. A court finding has a couple of things you need to think about. One, the JUDGE IS NOT AN EXPERT IN RESEARCH, or even a researcher. Two, the "experts" called are not the entire field of experts available, and may have been hand picked. After all, who picks them? I think you need to read more in this field before presuming that your appeal to authority on this matter resolves it now or forever. > Is that why you didn't post this ""answer"" to the > expert testimony in that message thread? Oh, just being Greggorated, I guess. And not wishing to waste too much of my time on such a pissant as you. You did notice it, right? And you did respond, right? Now, what arguments do you propose to refute MY claim that there are experts in addition to the ones YOU posted about that disagree with the court's ruling? Obviously there are some. Do you suppose you could actually review the available research and find factual, logical, and defensible support for a claim that there is little evidence of damage to children by witnessing domestic violence? It could be, Greg, that some instances don't and some instances do, and many variables take place. So, Greg, making a blanket statement in defense of NOT intervening based on SOME OF IT NOT BEING HARMFUL kinds withers up and dies, now doesn't it, when you get into the real world out of your fantasy life? Or weren't you arguing that CPS is wrong to intervene in domestic abuse cases? Here, let me explain one of the thinking errors the judge made, Greg. It might make your own long history of such acts more palatable for you. The claim is that removal of the children CAN be damaging. Well, I've a surprise for you...though it's been printed here in these ngs before: ANY REMOVAL OF A CHILD FROM HOME AND FAMILY HAS HIGH POTENTIAL FOR DAMAGE TO THE CHILD. And not only does CPS NOT deny this, they take pains to do removals as best they can under the circumstance to make the removal as untraumatic as possible. THEY IN FACT ARE THE ONES THAT EXPOSED, MANY YEARS AGO, ABOUT TEN YEARS BEFORE I WAS IN SCHOOL, this very thing. It's been a standard part of ALL social work major curriculum for over 30 years, stupid. So it's real real easy to claim that removal is damaging....with a bit woo woo woo...like no one knew that. > The thread IS still open for posting. Then carry this to the thread if you feel the need. I have the capacity to remember the thread and respond to it in either place. How about you? And you didn't answer my question below, notice? Why not just spank? 0:-> >> Greg, I draw your attention to #3 on the list below. >> And of course, the last one. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> 5. 44% of parents of young children incorrectly believe picking up a >> three-month-old every time he cries will spoil a child. Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) > Well, I've a surprise for you...though it's been printed here in these ngs > before: ANY REMOVAL OF A CHILD FROM HOME AND FAMILY HAS HIGH POTENTIAL FOR [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It's been a standard part of ALL social work major curriculum for over 30 > years, stupid. Hi, Kane, Your wording may mislead people into believing that child protective work is exclusive to social work. Most CPS workers are not social workers. And most social workers are not CPS workers. That forcibly removing children from their families is damaging to children -- sometimes irreparably so -- is taught in any undergraduate psychology, child development, or other class. The question remains: Why does CPS keep doing it after its workers unsubstantiate allegations of risk of or actual maltreatment? > Kane, Since this is clearly your answer to the expert testimony > that I posted, would you explain why you did not post this in that > thread? > > You do this a lot, post an answer to something in an > entirely new or unrelated thread. ...snip.... Greg, everyone does this. Stop obsessing and making decisions to act on your delusions. It will make a winner out of a loser, if you can. 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) Greegor wrote: > Kane, Since this is clearly your answer to the expert testimony > that I posted, would you explain why you did not post this in that > thread? > > You do this a lot, post an answer to something in an > entirely new or unrelated thread. Kane wrote > Greg, everyone does this. Please show proof. Kane wrote > Stop obsessing and making decisions to act on > your delusions. What delusions, the stuff you just said everybody does? Kane wrote > It will make a winner out of a loser, if you can. You're all about manipulation, right Kane? If it takes methods like that to win, I'd rather lose. > Greegor wrote: >> Kane, Since this is clearly your answer to the expert testimony [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Please show proof. Of the obvious? You wouldn't want to claim that everyone stays on topic in every post would you now? Or that they don't discuss things in new threads that relate to older other threads, now would you? R R R R R R > Kane wrote >> Stop obsessing and making decisions to act on >> your delusions. > > What delusions, the stuff you just said everybody does? No, there aren't many that have your level of delusion going on, Greg. I was speaking of just you, was I not? What don't you comprehend about "your delusions?" > Kane wrote >> It will make a winner out of a loser, if you can. > > You're all about manipulation, right Kane? Nope. I'm about calling you on your bullshit, Greg. You haven't figured it out in three years? You should have gotten a hint when I asked about what you meant concerning the use of lethal force. But nooooooo, you need your delusions and bullshit to function, apparently. > If it takes methods like that to win, I'd rather lose. Methods like what, Greg? Discussing a subject previously discussed in an older thread? Sure sounds like a mighty crafty ploy and dangerously subversive Kane Trickery, eh? Like what was I hiding, Greg? Compared to you constantly aborting the contents of prior posts when you answer...or pretend to claim to maybe challenging? Now there's a huckleberry, eh? 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) > Greegor wrote: >> Kane, Since this is clearly your answer to the expert testimony [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > If it takes methods like that to win, I'd rather lose. Is that why Fern is no longer with us? Here, for instance, is a post of her's, openning a BRAND NEW THREAD. Apparently she is referring to something I wrote, but like YOU, little man, she is being obtuse about what it was. I, on the other hand, made it quite clear what comments of yours I was referring to. See the proof you wanted right here, boyo: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_thre ad/thread/eafe20ddc4b7c7e7/65d018029c2fceef?lnk=gst&q=fern5827+%22gratuitious+ly ing%22&rnum=1#65d018029c2fceef http://tinyurl.com/nzqrh Enjoy, stupid. "Wrong again, Kane. It seems you are in the market for gratuitious lying. http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0004/16/sm.02.html DESCRIPTORS; PARENTAL RIGHTS, IMMIGRATION, CHILD'S BEST INTERESTS, JANET RENO" End of Fern's COMPLETE posted comment in the Usenet group posting. Note that this is the FIRST POST IN A NEW THREAD, dummy. Don't you ever learn? Never ask me to prove something. It ALWAYS HAPPENS. Want a couple of dozen MORE. Fern was constantly coming from no where with nothing and expecting people to know what IT was talking about, just like you. 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) Greegor wrote: > Kane, Since this is clearly your answer to the expert testimony > that I posted, would you explain why you did not post this in that > thread? > > You do this a lot, post an answer to something in an > entirely new or unrelated thread. I just created a new thread about a recent pit bull case. I had to because the old ones are too old and closed to new posts. Kane wrote >Greg, everyone does this. Greg wrote > Please show proof. Kane wrote > Stop obsessing and making decisions to act on your delusions. Greg wrote > What delusions, the stuff you just said everybody does? Kane wrote > It will make a winner out of a loser, if you can. Greg wrote > You're all about manipulation, right Kane? > If it takes methods like that to win, I'd rather lose. Kane wrote > Is that why Fern is no longer with us? She is fighting CPS in her own way. She sends her regards. But I am not Fern. > Greegor wrote: >> Kane, Since this is clearly your answer to the expert testimony [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I just created a new thread about a recent pit bull case. > I had to because the old ones are too old and closed to new posts. That's nice. So? I didn't bring this up, you did. Why? > Kane wrote >> Greg, everyone does this. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > She is fighting CPS in her own way. Sure she is. > She sends her regards. That's nice. > But I am not Fern. Oh, you want "proof" of YOUR posting methods that include starting threads on a subject that has already been covered in another thread? Are you serious? 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) > Greegor wrote: > > Kane, Since this is clearly your answer to the expert testimony [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > If it takes methods like that to win, I'd rather lose. Typical of Kane. Hihihi! AFfromDreamLand |
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.