 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Spanking / February 2004Kane is Saddened - - deeply saddened
I'm truly saddened at the turn of events. The master debater of alt.parenting.spanking, holding sway all these years, has failed us. Failed me. I gave him a chance to prove a simple but long accepted premise that he, and others who have come here, hold as a given. That there is a line between Corporal Punish, and the more dangers abusive use of hitting, that they knew and thus could safely NOT CROSS, for the sake of their children. I just wanted to know where that line was, as a service to all parents who Doan says he just wants to encourage to make up their own informed minds. His reason for even posting here is to encourge, he claims, folks to seek out their OWN knowledge for decision making on the CP question. Yet, his only answer to The Question, one asking for practical accuracy, was "reasonable standards," "or what reasonable people would agree upon." Of course, trying hard not to laugh, most of you just let that sit for awhile as he attempted to answer clarifying questions, and failed with even a Canadian jurist in the same debacle admitted (honest and Doan seem to be strangers) that a "reasonable" standard is NOT attainable since no standard can be agreed upon. Do you suppose that judge knows that while there it isn't actually measurable? Then Doan challenged me with a "I DARE YOU I DOUBLE DARE YOU," yet strangly when I told to go ahead and prove his claim about my supposed claim that I've never been spanked, he fell silent. Around the same time, when The Question was still awaiting a reasonable answer, and gone begging, he comes up with a challenge to my quote of a Dennis Embry quote from a magazine article. Doan challenges me to debate the Embry study, and claiming I didn't have it. I, being the patient soul I am, simply agreed if he'd clear up these to question/challenges of his and obtain his own copy of the Embry study. Since then he's completely avoided The Question with the strange and inaccurate answer, "already answered." He answered "A" question I suppose, from his vast store of made up nonsense, but he didn't usefully (as he claims he wants parents to have) answer THE Question. And now we have the Embry study debacle. He claims he has it, yet is unable to answer even the simplist question to varify...instead pretending he'll send it to anyone that asks for it. ... an no one has popped here saying they want it, or have it from him. Odd..... All I've asked is that he name a page with particular information on it, not the information itself. And he chokes. And runs. Off to engage others and do busy work on subjects long covered in depth before. Oh Drooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaany. Oh Drooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaany. Where forth art thou Droaner? Try the latest Nikes. Great tread I'm told. Marathon grade running shoes. Maybe you'll make the O'lump-hics. You ARE maintaining amateur status. Kane > I'm truly saddened at the turn of events. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > abusive use of hitting, that they knew and thus could safely NOT > CROSS, for the sake of their children. There is a fundamental problem with this idea of a line between spanking and abuse. For their to be a line one could be assured one would not cross, the administrator of the spanking must be the determinant of abuse. But abuse is in the eye of the abused. The harm is done unto them and determined by them. The line will shift and move according to some unknown qualities of the administrator and the vastly more important reception of the spanked child. The spanked child does not have the ability to understand, nor the control to change, the environment. That is, s/he could not say "Hey bud, you crossed the line. Knock it off." So when some of us are walking examples of not being horribly damaged by our spanking past, it is not by some measurable means which the parents could have applied to ensure this end. But really it is just a happy accident. > I just wanted to know where that line was, as a service to all parents > who Doan says he just wants to encourage to make up their own informed [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > accuracy, was "reasonable standards," "or what reasonable people would > agree upon." Uggghhh. Reasonable AGREED UPON standards are problematic. You bring up the issue of the inability to reach agreement. More pointed though is that the agreement of a bunch of detached adults is irrelevant. If we all got into a room and agreed that making a kid go cut the switch we were going to beat them with is OK, that would certainly not eliminate the possibility of abuse occuring. Because the adults administering the hitting are not the aribiters of the abuse or the determinant of whether or not it is damaging. Whether or not the child is damaged is. The only truly 100% effective way to ensure that you do not physically abuse your kids is to refrain from hitting 100% of the time. Now if you are of a punitive mindset, that does not guarantee that you will not mentally abuse them. But there can be no guarantee of that. Anyway... Weird argument. <SNIP> > > I'm truly saddened at the turn of events. > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > to change, the environment. That is, s/he could not say "Hey bud, you > crossed the line. Knock it off." Using that logic, there is a fundamental problem with the use of "reasonable" force by the police , the use of "reasonable" doubt in court case.... > So when some of us are walking examples of not being horribly damaged by our > spanking past, it is not by some measurable means which the parents could > have applied to ensure this end. But really it is just a happy accident. Illogical! You have already concluded that spanking is harmful when no proof is given by you to support that! Using your logic, I can say: "So when some of us are walking examples of not being horribly damaged by our XXXX, it is not by some measurable means which the parents could have applied to ensure this end. But really it is just a happy accident." Try replacing XXXX with any non-cp alternative! > > I just wanted to know where that line was, as a service to all parents > > who Doan says he just wants to encourage to make up their own informed [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > of the abuse or the determinant of whether or not it is damaging. Whether or > not the child is damaged is. So we should have no "reasonable" standards??? The police should not use "reasonable" force and the courts should not use "reasonable" doubt standard!!! > The only truly 100% effective way to ensure that you do not physically abuse > your kids is to refrain from hitting 100% of the time. Now if you are of a > punitive mindset, that does not guarantee that you will not mentally abuse > them. But there can be no guarantee of that. Seem like the only sure way is to do NOTHING! ;-) Since we have to do something, let's compare spanking to the non-cp alternatives and see. In Straus & Mouradian (1998), they looked at:1) Talking to the child calmly, 2) Sent the child to the room, 3) Time-out and 4) Removal of privileges. They found that these "was found to have a much stronger relation than any of the other variables." (to ASB - antisociable behavior). 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. Do you know of any non-cp alternatives that has stood to the same statiscal scrutiny that spanking was subjected to? > Anyway... Weird argument. Weird indeed! :-0 Doan > <SNIP> > > > I'm truly saddened at the turn of events. > > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Using that logic, there is a fundamental problem with the use of "reasonable" > force by the police , the use of "reasonable" doubt in court case.... Not at all. The goal of the police officer is not to refrain from abusing their target. Their task is to aprehend the suspect. The treatment of the suspect is only one consideration to take into account. The power difference in the case of police officer and suspect is so much less than in a parent / child relationship the risk of abuse is greatly diminished. A child is not a criminal suspect. > > So when some of us are walking examples of not being horribly damaged by our > > spanking past, it is not by some measurable means which the parents could > > have applied to ensure this end. But really it is just a happy accident. > > > Illogical! You have already concluded that spanking is harmful when no > proof is given by you to support that! No I didn't. I said that there is no way to be certain that it wasn't harmful. The better part of caution would be do avoid it if you cannot guarantee the absence of harm. > Using your logic, I can say: "So > when some of us are walking examples of not being horribly damaged by our > XXXX, it is not by some measurable means which the parents could have applied > to ensure this end. But really it is just a happy accident." It would rather depend on what XXX is and whether the final arbiter of the possible damage caused by XXX is the child himself. If that were the case with XXX then, yes, that is what I would say. > Try replacing XXXX with any non-cp alternative! OK, let's assume that there is a line between spanking and abusive hitting, henceforth just referred to as abuse. It is a given that abuse is damaging, would you not agree? If you further accept that the aributer of damage is the victim of the abuse, then it follows that you cannot be certain of where to place the line. Now, let's take redirection in the case of a very small child. This is a technique that is frequently used in situations where a small child might be spanked or slapped on the hand. There is no extreme to distraction which could cause damaging as with spanking / hitting. There is no presence or possibility of abuse. So there is no line which can be misplaced. > > > I just wanted to know where that line was, as a service to all parents > > > who Doan says he just wants to encourage to make up their own informed [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > "reasonable" force and the courts should not use "reasonable" doubt > standard!!! I have no problem with the use of the word reasonable as it relates to courts and police. But those analogies are not comparable to the situation of raising a child. In the case of the police, they are trying to apprehend a suspect. In the case of the courts, they are trying to remove a threat to society. In the case of a child, we are trying to raise a thinking, loving, caring human being who is the best person s/he can be. Quite a bit different endeavors, which demonstrates the inadequacy of the analogies that you used. That some adults AGREE that a certain level of CP is "OK" if you accept that said adults are not the final aribiters of what is damage, but the child who is damaged it, albeit unknowingly. > > The only truly 100% effective way to ensure that you do not physically abuse > > your kids is to refrain from hitting 100% of the time. Now if you are of a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > relation than any of the other variables." (to ASB - antisociable > behavior). You look at this as a single incident situation. If you must have immediat compliance this second for this offense, then spanking can work. There is a lot more to parenting than just which mode of punishment you select, if any. My son is 3 years old; he is very rarely punished, and on several of those issues, it was I who was in the wrong for meting out the punishment. He is a wonderfully behaved child. The whole package of interaction between parent and children has to be examined, not just whether or not to subsitute one punitive method for another. Discipline, after all, is meant to help the child to learn SELF discipline. > 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. > > Do you know of any non-cp alternatives that has stood to the same > statiscal scrutiny that spanking was subjected to? Do you want to discuss the merits of my argument? There are studies that demonstrate everything. I do not know what the studies that you are quoting are attempting to ascertain. So I cannot comment on them. I would be interested if you have a specific refutation of my arguments aside from one line sentences of irrelevant analogies. It would certainly be fine if you want to use the material you learned in the studies that you have read. > > Anyway... Weird argument. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > <SNIP> > > > > I'm truly saddened at the turn of events. > > > > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Not at all. The goal of the police officer is not to refrain from abusing > their target. You are kidding, I hope! Where in the police training manual does it say that their goal is not to refrain from abusing their target? And in court case, the "reasonable" doubt can be a matter of life and death! >Their task is to aprehend the suspect. The treatment of the > suspect is only one consideration to take into account. The power difference > in the case of police officer and suspect is so much less than in a parent / > child relationship the risk of abuse is greatly diminished. A child is not a > criminal suspect. WHAT??? Are you saying that parents are more likely to abuse their kids than it is for the police to abuse their suspects??? And true, a child is not a criminal suspect - He/she DOES NOT HAVE THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENT! > > > So when some of us are walking examples of not being horribly damaged by > our [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > harmful. The better part of caution would be do avoid it if you cannot > guarantee the absence of harm. Wrong logic, again. Do you also avoid talking to your kids if you cannot guarantee the absence of harm? > > Using your logic, I can say: "So > > when some of us are walking examples of not being horribly damaged by our [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > possible damage caused by XXX is the child himself. If that were the case > with XXX then, yes, that is what I would say. Ok, how about time-out, talking to your kids and removing privileges? > > Try replacing XXXX with any non-cp alternative! > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the victim of the abuse, then it follows that you cannot be certain of where > to place the line. I can be certain that one light swat on the buttock, with the same force that you use to clap your hands, is not abuse. Do you agree? And no, I do not agree that the aributer of the damage is the victim. Otherwise, ALL suspects would claim that they were ABUSED by the police! > Now, let's take redirection in the case of a very small child. This is a > technique that is frequently used in situations where a small child might be > spanked or slapped on the hand. There is no extreme to distraction which > could cause damaging as with spanking / hitting. There is no presence or > possibility of abuse. So there is no line which can be misplaced. Agreed! If redirection works, there is no need for the spankings! You are not claiming that redirection will work in 100% of the cases, are you? And you also wrong about spanking as a first response, as you implied above. Look at: http://parenthood.library.wisc.edu/Larzelere/Larzelere.html The model is: reasoning --> non-cp - spanking. > > > > I just wanted to know where that line was, as a service to all parents > > > > who Doan says he just wants to encourage to make up their own informed [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > I have no problem with the use of the word reasonable as it relates to > courts and police. WHY? >But those analogies are not comparable to the situation > of raising a child. In the case of the police, they are trying to apprehend > a suspect. Which means that they are far more likely to abuse the suspect than a parent to abuse their kids. > In the case of the courts, they are trying to remove a threat to > society. Which means that there is no inherent loving relationship as with a parent/child. > In the case of a child, we are trying to raise a thinking, loving, > caring human being who is the best person s/he can be. And parents have demonstrated through out the ages, across cultures, nationalitiies and religions, that they are capable of doing that - WITH SPANKING! > Quite a bit different > endeavors, which demonstrates the inadequacy of the analogies that you used. In other words, you pick and choose where it fit your purpose but cried foul when other situation are pointed out. How about CPS deciding whether or not to remove a child? Shouldn't there be a "reasonable" standard there too? > That some adults AGREE that a certain level of CP is "OK" if you accept that > said adults are not the final aribiters of what is damage, but the child who > is damaged it, albeit unknowingly. I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Please clarify. > > > The only truly 100% effective way to ensure that you do not physically > abuse [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > compliance this second for this offense, then spanking can work. There is a > lot more to parenting than just which mode of punishment you select, if any. There are times that immediate compliance is needed, other times there is not. Did I say anything about parenting being only about punishment? You are setting up a strawman here. > My son is 3 years old; he is very rarely punished, and on several of those > issues, it was I who was in the wrong for meting out the punishment. He is a > wonderfully behaved child. Good for you. But what does this have to with the price of gas? :-) > The whole package of interaction between parent > and children has to be examined, not just whether or not to subsitute one > punitive method for another. Discipline, after all, is meant to help the > child to learn SELF discipline. DEFINITELY! Read the classic study on parenting styles by Dr. Baumrind. > > Straus, Murray A. & Vera E. Mouradian. 1998 "Impulsive Corporal Punishment > by [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Do you want to discuss the merits of my argument? Already have! By showing that these studies don't support an anti-spanking agenda. > There are studies that demonstrate everything. Really? Then perhaps you cannot show me one that demonstrate your alternatives to spanking are better under the same conditions. > I do not know what the studies that you are quoting > are attempting to ascertain. So I cannot comment on them. I would be > interested if you have a specific refutation of my arguments aside from one > line sentences of irrelevant analogies. It would certainly be fine if you > want to use the material you learned in the studies that you have read. Your arguments are just not logical. You are blinded by your belief that all spankings is harmful without looking at facts. When confronted with evidences contrary to you blind faith, all you could countered is: "There are studies that demonstrate everything." Doan > "Doan" <doan@usc.edu> wrote in message > > OK, let's assume that there is a line between spanking and abusive hitting, > henceforth just referred to as abuse. ---------------------- No, you f.cking squirrel!! They just got done telling you that no one can MAKE a reasonable argument to that effect, you cannot be ALLOWED to postulate that! The only person fit to decide abuse is the victim of it! The child is that person, and is the only one fit to govern their treatment! The fact that you just don't LIKE that is just too f.cking bad!! Steve > > "Doan" <doan@usc.edu> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The fact that you just don't LIKE that is just too f.cking bad!! > Steve Isn't that about what I was saying at the point AFTER you gave up reading? S > > > "Doan" <doan@usc.edu> wrote in message > > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Isn't that about what I was saying at the point AFTER you gave up reading? Have you learned enough about Steve about now? :-) Funny thing is Steve believe that infantcide is ok up to about 4months. I guess babies that young are not FIT to decide abuse heh? Doan > > > > "Doan" <doan@usc.edu> wrote in message > > > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Doan ---------------------------- Abuse damages, permanently. But if the person never inhabits it, it makes no difference. Abortion of infanticide before 2-4 months after birth is acceptible because no person is actually home. Steve > > > > > "Doan" <doan@usc.edu> wrote in message > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > because no person is actually home. > Steve On what do you base the presence of said person after 4 months? Curiosity. S > > > > > > "Doan" <doan@usc.edu> wrote in message > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > S ---------------- Cognitive science has determined that the infant before 2 - 4 months has no sense of self, no model of their own existence and no belief in their own existence. They do not experience pain personally, or experience the world and life as we conceive of life in the world, namely, as one of ourself as the key player modeled into a mental model of our life in the world. Neither fetuses, nor newborn can not yet produce the key feature of the human mentality, namely, Self Awareness, Consciousness. And so, we never recall being an infant anymore than we recall being a fetus, or even a rock! Because we NEVER EVER WERE ONE! Nobody ever exists as "them". Every other legitimate stage of human life, we have a memory of being that proves we were there and Self-Aware. But there is no such thing with supposed life in utero, or before a newborn 2-4 months of age, it varies. You see, a baby, in the first year, unlike other species, triples the size of its brain, leaping the evolved human gulf between us and lower animals in the first year! It is reasonable NOT to expect awareness out of an insufficiently large brain!!! A smaller brain cannot do it! Steve > > > > "Doan" <doan@usc.edu> wrote in message > > > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Doan I am exceedingly familiar with Steve. The onlt thing about him that pisses me off is when he does not live up to the intelligence I think of him. I think he is likely quite intelligent. And a complete loon. S > > > > > "Doan" <doan@usc.edu> wrote in message > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > S ----------------------- You contradict yourself. Steve > > > > > > "Doan" <doan@usc.edu> wrote in message > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > You contradict yourself. > Steve I do? Are being intelligent and nuts mutually exclusive? S > > > > > > > "Doan" <doan@usc.edu> wrote in message > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > S I didn't know you have it in you, Stephanie. :-) Doan > > > > > > > > "Doan" <doan@usc.edu> wrote in message > > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Doan What do you mean? Do you think not agreeing with you means I automatically agree with Steve? Hardly likely. S > > > > > > > "Doan" <doan@usc.edu> wrote in message > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > S ----------------- of course they are. Steve > > > > > > > > "Doan" <doan@usc.edu> wrote in message > > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > of course they are. > Steve :) > > > "Doan" <doan@usc.edu> wrote in message > > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > S ----------- Sorry, I noted later my attributions on this thread went one-off when I got to you. Steve >On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Stephanie Stowe wrote: > >> > I'm truly saddened at the turn of events. >> > >> > The master debater of alt.parenting.spanking, holding sway all these >> > years, has failed us. >> > >> > Failed me. >> > >> > I gave him a chance to prove a simple but long accepted premise that >> > he, and others who have come here, hold as a given. >> > >> > That there is a line between Corporal Punish, and the more dangers >> > abusive use of hitting, that they knew and thus could safely NOT >> > CROSS, for the sake of their children. >> >> There is a fundamental problem with this idea of a line between spanking and >> abuse. For their to be a line one could be assured one would not cross, the >> administrator of the spanking must be the determinant of abuse. But abuse is >> in the eye of the abused. The harm is done unto them and determined by them. >> The line will shift and move according to some unknown qualities of the >> administrator and the vastly more important reception of the spanked child. >> The spanked child does not have the ability to understand, nor the control >> to change, the environment. That is, s/he could not say "Hey bud, you >> crossed the line. Knock it off." >> >Using that logic, there is a fundamental problem with the use of "reasonable" >force by the police , the use of "reasonable" doubt in court case.... Using that logic there is a fundamental piece of simple fact missing from your argument.....a parent isn't a lawyer, cop, and judge. Nor do they have ready access to the resources, education, and experience of same. And a major bit of hightailing out before you had to admit you are running.....no answer to the three questions, all responses to YOUR challenges that you now WON'T follow up on. You are a coward, and a liar. Dishonest too. >> So when some of us are walking examples of not being horribly damaged by our >> spanking past, it is not by some measurable means which the parents could >> have applied to ensure this end. But really it is just a happy accident. >Illogical! You have already concluded that spanking is harmful when no >proof is given by you to support that! And YOU can provide no proof that is isn't. Notice that? Between decideing whether or not to smack you upside the head, harmwise outcomes considered, it really really easy to decide not to to avoid harming you. The law says that clearly. Why it is withheld from children for their protection is a good support for decent and careful parenting. I don't see huge amounts of that kind of care from parents. >Using your logic, I can say: "So >when some of us are walking examples of not being horribly damaged by our >XXXX, it is not by some measurable means which the parents could have applied >to ensure this end. But really it is just a happy accident." You are assuming you are alright, and example of not being horribly damaged. One of the common characteristics, while they are killing others, raping, and otherwise behaving as though they have been harmed, is that they don't think there is a thing wrong with them...in fact they think there is something wrong with everyone that isn't like them. >Try replacing XXXX with any non-cp alternative! Between hitting a child and risking some harm I cannot predict even if I am careful to stay as far away from that oh so fuzzy line, and simply not hitting him or her and using other NON-PUNITIVE means of reaching my parenting goal, there is no contest. >> > I just wanted to know where that line was, as a service to all parents >> > who Doan says he just wants to encourage to make up their own informed >> > minds. >> > >> > His reason for even posting here is to encourge, he claims, folks to >> > seek out their OWN knowledge for decision making on the CP question. >> > Yet, his only answer to The Question, one asking for practical >> > accuracy, was "reasonable standards," "or what reasonable people would >> > agree upon." >> >> Uggghhh. Reasonable AGREED UPON standards are problematic. You bring up the >> issue of the inability to reach agreement. More pointed though is that the >> agreement of a bunch of detached adults is irrelevant. If we all got into a >> room and agreed that making a kid go cut the switch we were going to beat >> them with is OK, that would certainly not eliminate the possibility of abuse >> occuring. Because the adults administering the hitting are not the aribiters >> of the abuse or the determinant of whether or not it is damaging. Whether or >> not the child is damaged is. >> >So we should have no "reasonable" standards??? The police should not use >"reasonable" force and the courts should not use "reasonable" doubt >standard!!! The police have the restraint of the courts, the training and regulations they must following, and yet the err. If they could enforce the law without ever having to hit would you think it okay for them to? Well, I've proven, as have hundred I know, and thousands I have trained, and more that one can find by diligent search on the Web, that have successfully parented without hitting. You are peddling the same old oft repeated song of the spanking compulsives that has gone on for years over in aps, and the only reason you have for seeking out someone new and unexperienced with aps is to escape the trap YOU built for yourself there. You are on the run, it's plain. Only folks in miscK are unaway of it. They won't be for long if you keep annoying them with your sick "logic" and your weasely arguments. You talk like a weasel, you walk like a weasel, and you smell like a weasel. What do you think you actually are? >> The only truly 100% effective way to ensure that you do not physically abuse >> your kids is to refrain from hitting 100% of the time. Now if you are of a >> punitive mindset, that does not guarantee that you will not mentally abuse >> them. But there can be no guarantee of that. >> >Seem like the only sure way is to do NOTHING! ;-) Great logic: The only alternative to not punishing is to do nothing. Non-spanking advocates have never to my knowledge, and I've read the archives, suggested doing nothing, nor does this poster. You are just having fun with her and eventually she'll get it, give up on you in disgust and you, with your poor flabby ego temporarily pumped up, will be able to, as you always do, claim she "ran away and wouldn't debate me." >Since we have to do >something, let's compare spanking to the non-cp alternatives and see. >In Straus & Mouradian (1998), they looked at:1) Talking to the child >calmly, The only non-punitive one of the four. And NOT separated out for it's results. Very very significant and ignored by you for years when brought to your attention and will be again, is my bet. >2) Sent the child to the room, Nominally punitive and doe NOT teach the wanted behavior the unwanted should be replaced with. Again, one of your major thinking errors about child rearing...and common among the dedicated spanking compulsives. >3) Time-out Again, nominally punitive and does NOT, despite mothers admonishement to think about it, while she goes off for a much needed break from children roughhousing) teach a thing to the child except don't bother mommy for more than an hour at a time. >and 4) Removal of >privileges. Yep. Punishment again, and again we do NOT know the variables that could be instructive or not by their presence or absence in the process of giving the priv removal. >They found that these "was found to have a much stronger >relation than any of the other variables." (to ASB - antisociable >behavior). The fact that most kids would prefer a less than ferocious beating kind of spanking to having three other punishments, does not prove anything but that punishment methods are a total mess, all kinds. This just compares punishments of one kind to punishments of another, and ALL, except the "talking with", (which could or could not be instructive according the content) are NOT conducive to learning something, only how to do NOTHING, FOR THE MOMENT. >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. > >Do you know of any non-cp alternatives that has stood to the same >statiscal scrutiny that spanking was subjected to? They haven't been tested. Why? Because they are hardly in question. They work so well when actually done that few have bothered. In fact parents that do spank often report far better results when they switch to non punitive, and the child's experience of having many teachers that do NOT spank and they learn better shows it to be pointless. The only study in existence that was rigorously scientific social research was Embry's and you are studiously avoiding doing the simple thing's it takes to discuss it in debate. On the other hand there ARE studies that you are ignoring, and some that you have quoted from that when studied broadly, that is in sections OTHER than you cherry pick, support more effect from both less CP in a straight or exponential downward trend of same. In other words, you either don't know what you read, or you are out to deceive. Some of both is going on from what I've seen of your many years of posting. >> Anyway... Weird argument. >> >Weird indeed! :-0 You deceptively challenged me and when I responded you ran. You are running now by for one of the first times ducking out to another ng and engaging someone on subjects long explored and laid to rest in aps. Why else would you be over here in miscK? Vacation? You know the answer to The Question, and your coorespondant, even brand new to that issue, laid it out for you honestly and rather well. Yet stil you "have fun with" folks. If you aren't here to debate issues let me be the first to point it out to any new posters coming to aps. I'll keep your comments handy and point to them if needed. You are running, and scared. Your compulsion is surfacing in fact and truth and that made you run faster and harder than I've ever seen you do before. Better bail or come clean real quick, as it's becoming more and more apparent to not only others, but I fear, to YOU. >Doan...... ......The lying cowardly weasel. Thanks mom and dad. You taught him well. Tah. kane >> <SNIP> And smacks the child's butt most thoroughly.....R R R R Nice going Stephanie...... If you care you can google on his name and look for this cops and batons subject....you'll see he's posted on this before and been told pretty much, with less eloquence than yours I might add, the same thing. There is no comparison between cops and perps and children and parents. Just doesn't compute for who each is and the variable outcomes desired. He'll keep you going though until he finds something, anything, that you have no answer for, like why you chose one word and not another and that that then makes you a liar...seriously, he'll do that. It's been his posting style for years. When you wear him down through all his garbage and fuzzy brained nonsense that will be all that is left. And he's come here, as I predicted he would do, in search of a time consuming rest while he avoids actually giving the answer he knows, and you demonstrate once again to him (dozen of folks have before) that The Question has been answered, as unanswerable, with the same considerations then that you offer. The safe route is to not spank. Then he'll drag you back with arguments of law...when of course that was not the question and not any of your answers went to that. He has an endless supply of this garbage is you let him, but they are all variations on a repetative theme....just a very few logical fallacy debating ploys. He's a highschool sophomore intellectual...bright but unskilled because he keeps, instead of find new ways, doing the same thing over and over endlessly. Catch his "debates" with Gowtch, Jerry Alborn, Chris, LaVonne, myself. Nothing new for years. ... and in most instances he bounced from one to the other at the first sign of fact and logic refuting his nonsensical balogna. >> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Stephanie Stowe wrote: >> >> > > I'm truly saddened at the turn of events. >> > > >> > > The master debater of alt.parenting.spanking, holding sway all these >> > > years, has failed us. >> > > >> > > Failed me. >> > > >> > > I gave him a chance to prove a simple but long accepted premise that >> > > he, and others who have come here, hold as a given. >> > > >> > > That there is a line between Corporal Punish, and the more dangers >> > > abusive use of hitting, that they knew and thus could safely NOT >> > > CROSS, for the sake of their children. >> > >> > There is a fundamental problem with this idea of a line between spanking >and >> > abuse. For their to be a line one could be assured one would not cross, >the >> > administrator of the spanking must be the determinant of abuse. But >abuse is >> > in the eye of the abused. The harm is done unto them and determined by >them. >> > The line will shift and move according to some unknown qualities of the >> > administrator and the vastly more important reception of the spanked >child. >> > The spanked child does not have the ability to understand, nor the >control >> > to change, the environment. That is, s/he could not say "Hey bud, you >> > crossed the line. Knock it off." >> > >> Using that logic, there is a fundamental problem with the use of >"reasonable" >> force by the police , the use of "reasonable" doubt in court case.... >Not at all. The goal of the police officer is not to refrain from abusing >their target. Their task is to aprehend the suspect. The treatment of the >suspect is only one consideration to take into account. The power difference >in the case of police officer and suspect is so much less than in a parent / >child relationship the risk of abuse is greatly diminished. A child is not a >criminal suspect. Interestingly I believe Doan may have, certaily other spanking compulsives have, cited Dr. Dobson, an early childhood development specialist that portrays children as filled with violence and guile and out to defeat adults for their own less than honorable ends. He not only advocates spanking, but very brutal spanking, and grabbing the nape of the neck and squeezing to create a high level of pain, and he thinks a dachshund is a formidable opponent to be beaten into submission....all this by a rather large man. Doan is a punishment maven. He is unable to conceive of nonpunitive means of learning and is committed to the ideas of Dobson that humans are resistant until conquered. >> > So when some of us are walking examples of not being horribly damaged by >our >> > spanking past, it is not by some measurable means which the parents >could >> > have applied to ensure this end. But really it is just a happy accident. >> Illogical! You have already concluded that spanking is harmful when no >> proof is given by you to support that! > >No I didn't. I said that there is no way to be certain that it wasn't >harmful. You have the pleasure of being the two thousand four hundredth recipient, if you count each hit, of the reframing of your words into something you didnt' say, but the Doananator. That is what Donanism IS, among other little tricks he's quite proud of. >The better part of caution would be do avoid it if you cannot >guarantee the absence of harm. And in that sentence is eloquently wrapped up what has been offered to him for years, and all he's done is weasle and squirm and change the subject and try his reframing of your words, but claiming you are presenting a "logic" that means that kids and parents and cops and baton use are somehow metaphorically linked in refutation of your claim. Convoluted enough for you? He thinks it's intelligent. >> Using your logic, I can say: "So >> when some of us are walking examples of not being horribly damaged by our >> XXXX, it is not by some measurable means which the parents could have >applied >> to ensure this end. But really it is just a happy accident." > >It would rather depend on what XXX is and whether the final arbiter of the >possible damage caused by XXX is the child himself. If that were the case >with XXX then, yes, that is what I would say. I probably misunderstand, but as long as the child is the only arbiter of the damage the risk is extremely high. The parent is all poweful, even to influencing the views and biases of the child when they are NOT in the child's best interest. Child will willingly present for a blood drawing thrashing if the parent convinces them it's deserved and appropriate. >> Try replacing XXXX with any non-cp alternative! > >OK, let's assume that there is a line between spanking and abusive hitting, >henceforth just referred to as abuse. It is a given that abuse is damaging, >would you not agree? If you further accept that the aributer of damage is >the victim of the abuse, then it follows that you cannot be certain of where >to place the line. Gee, now if that isn't a bushel of weasel "hides"? He'll keep you busy for a week with all that. Cut him down to one issue at a time and wait for an answer. Of course he'll be gone when you do and claim YOU ran. That's what happened to him with The Question. He set it up himself with his claim to neutrality, and his insistance that the parent is the arbiter of the difference between spanking and abuse. I merely asked for a bit of clarity on how parents draw that line. Instead of being honest, probably congenitally impossible for him. he actually pretended to himself there was an availabel LINE, he still instists it exists forgetting that I asked for the measure to be practical. We are reasonable sure there is actually an end to the universe, but nobody I know had been there and can use it do decide where on this planet would be best to live, ...so they don't go there. He is incapable of understanding even the most basic logic, that does not serve his compulsions and neurotic twitches, as you are learning. >Now, let's take redirection in the case of a very small child. This is a >technique that is frequently used in situations where a small child might be >spanked or slapped on the hand. There is no extreme to distraction which >could cause damaging as with spanking / hitting. There is no presence or >possibility of abuse. So there is no line which can be misplaced. Again, exactly to the point. He'll just claim that that might be true but what has that to do with spanking...spanking is proven to work too...and of course shinin' on the risk factor. He play both sides of the net very well, but not to any conclusions. >> > > I just wanted to know where that line was, as a service to all parents >> > > who Doan says he just wants to encourage to make up their own informed >> > > minds. >> > > >> > > His reason for even posting here is to encourge, he claims, folks to >> > > seek out their OWN knowledge for decision making on the CP question. >> > > Yet, his only answer to The Question, one asking for practical >> > > accuracy, was "reasonable standards," "or what reasonable people would >> > > agree upon." >> > >> > Uggghhh. Reasonable AGREED UPON standards are problematic. You bring up >the >> > issue of the inability to reach agreement. More pointed though is that >the >> > agreement of a bunch of detached adults is irrelevant. If we all got >into a >> > room and agreed that making a kid go cut the switch we were going to >beat >> > them with is OK, that would certainly not eliminate the possibility of >abuse >> > occuring. Because the adults administering the hitting are not the >aribiters >> > of the abuse or the determinant of whether or not it is damaging. >Whether or >> > not the child is damaged is. >> > >> So we should have no "reasonable" standards??? The police should not use >> "reasonable" force and the courts should not use "reasonable" doubt >> standard!!! > >I have no problem with the use of the word reasonable as it relates to >courts and police. But those analogies are not comparable to the situation >of raising a child. In the case of the police, they are trying to apprehend >a suspect. In the case of the courts, they are trying to remove a threat to >society. In the case of a child, we are trying to raise a thinking, loving, >caring human being who is the best person s/he can be. Quite a bit different >endeavors, which demonstrates the inadequacy of the analogies that you used. Noooo....Droany? Inadequacy? But that IS his point. He can keep people, decent, honorable, thoughtful, concerned people his to play with for months. that's the same method all sociopaths use as well. They can't and don't go after their own kind. They go after the decent normal folks that do not have a lot of knowledge of their nonsense. My background is primarily in mental health. >That some adults AGREE that a certain level of CP is "OK" if you accept that >said adults are not the final aribiters of what is damage, but the child who >is damaged it, albeit unknowingly. Oh, he has made it clear, with his statement of "let the parent make up their own mind" claim of innocence of bias on his part. He does NOT want anyone else having any input until the damage is done. A true son of Darwin approach. He might be right, but I'm not buying. Not as long as children are the unwilling ones at risk in that experiment. >> > The only truly 100% effective way to ensure that you do not physically >abuse >> > your kids is to refrain from hitting 100% of the time. Now if you are of >a >> > punitive mindset, that does not guarantee that you will not mentally >abuse >> > them. But there can be no guarantee of that. >> > >> Seem like the only sure way is to do NOTHING! ;-) Since we have to do >> something, let's compare spanking to the non-cp alternatives and see. >> In Straus & Mouradian (1998), they looked at:1) Talking to the child >> calmly, 2) Sent the child to the room, 3) Time-out and 4) Removal of >> privileges. They found that these "was found to have a much stronger >> relation than any of the other variables." (to ASB - antisociable >> behavior). Don'tchajustloveit? If you don't punish then your only alternative is "to do nothing?" Does THAT not point directly to neurotic hysterical blindness? >You look at this as a single incident situation. If you must have immediat >compliance this second for this offense, then spanking can work. With two very common risks: having to escalate to the point of abuse to get compliance, the extinguishing factor; and the creation of a sneak or a monster. Fortunately "sneak" is most common, but the monsterous brute comes along now and then. Have YOU ever known any unspanked kids that were sneaky or monsters as a rule? >There is a >lot more to parenting than just which mode of punishment you select, if any. >My son is 3 years old; he is very rarely punished, and on several of those >issues, it was I who was in the wrong for meting out the punishment. He is a >wonderfully behaved child. The whole package of interaction between parent >and children has to be examined, not just whether or not to subsitute one >punitive method for another. Discipline, after all, is meant to help the >child to learn SELF discipline. Your experience with your son is the rule, not the exception. Parents who determine to not punishe immediately have but a few alternatives. And these are the best of all ways to raise a child. Respect for his or her actual inner state of being....spankers never have to even learn this....no motivation. Non-spankers have to look at coaching and methods from proven learning theory, and apply them for the best mix and match for their children under changing environmental conditions, age, etc. Spankers have nearly zero motivation compared to a non-spanking parent. ALL the attention of nonspankers goes for a time to non punitive parenting. Spankers hardly ever examine the whole body of knowledge unless it relates to their punishment model in some way. >> 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. >> >> Do you know of any non-cp alternatives that has stood to the same >> statiscal scrutiny that spanking was subjected to? > >Do you want to discuss the merits of my argument? Do you want to learn to dance with a weasel? >There are studies that >demonstrate everything. I do not know what the studies that you are quoting >are attempting to ascertain. Interestingly one of the reasons he's skipped from debating me is that I offered, if he would abandon a couple of his more common evasive ploys, unmet loudmouthed dares to refute information he claims he already has, but won't produce himself, and an unwillingness to admit when he's been bested, we could move to the one most outstanding study on the successful use of non-punitive methods done about 26 years ago in a study by Dennis Embry (you should look him up...he went on to apply the principles learn on larger projects...and is used by major government bodies for safety planning etc. ) on street entries of preschoolers. Hot stuff, and Doan is here avoiding it by babbling old and resolved issues, even using the same tired disproven metaphors, He insists I'm running by asking him to answer the three questions/challenges first. But I was NOT the one that made the challenges other than the one question he can't answer honestly, The one you are talking about now. >So I cannot comment on them. Any time he can run YOU he's avoided the valid question you pose of HIS claims. It's a constant for him. Just another dodge of the weasel, first left, then right, etc. endlessly. >I would be >interested if you have a specific refutation of my arguments aside from one >line sentences of irrelevant analogies. His only "refutation" will be that you continue to come up with more and more support for your claim, no matter what you offer. Post after post of it for weeks if he can sucker you into it. >It would certainly be fine if you >want to use the material you learned in the studies that you have read. Read closely and insist on the source...one that has access you can obtain. Read them for yourself, noticing the variable present he doesn't admit to, and more importantly, the one's absent the researcher didn't account for. Which he also avoids responding to when mentioned to him. Good hunting. Weasels can't stand bright light. Kane > And smacks the child's butt most thoroughly.....R R R R > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > parents. Just doesn't compute for who each is and the variable > outcomes desired. My interest in arguing with him is very diminished. He does not seem too bright. > He'll keep you going though until he finds something, anything, that > you have no answer for, like why you chose one word and not another > and that that then makes you a liar...seriously, he'll do that. See above. > It's been his posting style for years. When you wear him down through > all his garbage and fuzzy brained nonsense that will be all that is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Then he'll drag you back with arguments of law...when of course that > was not the question and not any of your answers went to that. I wish he would actually refute any of my arguments. > He has an endless supply of this garbage is you let him, but they are > all variations on a repetative theme....just a very few logical [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to the other at the first sign of fact and logic refuting his > nonsensical balogna. Sigh. > >> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Stephanie Stowe wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 397 lines] > > Kane > My interest in arguing with him is very diminished. He does not seem too > bright. As I expected, you can't argue on facts and ended up resorting to ad-hom. I am really disappointed. Nice chatting with you though. :-) Regards, Doan > > My interest in arguing with him is very diminished. He does not seem too > > bright. > > > As I expected, you can't argue on facts Doananism 4,321: ignore what the person said in a prior post, and pretend it's relevant so you can run. She said she wasn't interested on debating on anything but her opinion but would look at your "facts" (that do not even make YOUR point but are diversionary in the extreme) and give her opinion. Then you claim she won't "debate on the facts." Cute weasel. > and ended up resorting to ad-hom. An opinion of your possible intelligence isn't an ad hom. "Stupid a.s Liar" would be. She didn't call you a name or attack you. She questioned your intelligence. For an old hand at ad hom you look suspiciously like a cornered weasel. > I am really disappointed. You are tickled to death to find a way out when yet another Usenet poster catches on to you....and this one rather quickly. {:-> >Nice chatting with you though. :-) Let me see now, what would be a perfect "last word" little weasel bite...oh yes, the pretense of politeness ploy. > Regards, Translated: "I'm out of here. This poster has caught on to me too damn quick for my cowardly stupid child hating butt." >Doan.......... .....wanna debate so I'll just find another easy weasel bolt hole, "she ad hom'd me," and that always works, well, unless I DO IT to someone else, then they are 'RUNNING AWAY AND REFUSING TO DEBATE.'" R R R R R R You are such a knownothing loudmouth, boy. Transparent and stupid about it. Go back and read some of your postings from years ago. You'll see what I mean. Kane > > My interest in arguing with him is very diminished. He does not seem too > > bright. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Doan I was not actually talking to you. I was referring to you in a reply to Kane. As soon as you offer a refutation of one of my arguments, I will be pleased to resume coversing with you. S > > > My interest in arguing with him is very diminished. He does not seem too > > > bright. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > S Let's me see if I get this right. If I were to refer to you as a "smelly-c.nt" in a reply to Kane, that somehow make it OK??? Your arguments have been refuted, over and over. A glaring example is your argument that only the victim can be the arbiter of abuse. Otherwise, you could have nut-cases like Steve abusing infants to death and claiming that it is ok. Do you think a baby can make a determination of what abuse is??? Doan > > "Doan" <doan@usc.edu> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Your arguments have been refuted, over and over. A glaring example is > your argument that only the victim can be the arbiter of abuse. ----------------- It is the Truth! We cannot let you perps decide any such thing, EVER! > Otherwise, you could have nut-cases like Steve abusing infants > to death and claiming that it is ok. ----------------- No, you don't have any such thing, you're a sh.t-f.cking liar. > Do you think a baby can make a determination > of what abuse is??? > Doan ----------------- Of course. Anything that makes a child cry IS abuse! Period! Steve > > > "Doan" <doan@usc.edu> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ----------------- > It is the Truth! We cannot let you perps decide any such thing, EVER! LOL! Who are "We"? Is this "Truth" the stuff that came out of your ass-hole...I mean mouth? ;-) > > Otherwise, you could have nut-cases like Steve abusing infants > > to death and claiming that it is ok. > ----------------- > No, you don't have any such thing, you're a sh.t-f.cking liar. LOL. Since sh.t is coming out of your mouth, a "sh.t-f.cking" liar would be f.cking your mouth! :-) > > Do you think a baby can make a determination > > of what abuse is??? > > Doan > ----------------- > Of course. Anything that makes a child cry IS abuse! Period! > Steve I told you he is a troll! ;-) Doan > > > > "Doan" <doan@usc.edu> wrote in message > > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > LOL! Who are "We"? ------------------ The counsel of the truthful. > Is this "Truth" the stuff that came out of your > ass-hole...I mean mouth? ;-) -------------------- MY mouth. YOU'RE the only a.shole. > > > Otherwise, you could have nut-cases like Steve abusing infants > > > to death and claiming that it is ok. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > LOL. Since sh.t is coming out of your mouth, a "sh.t-f.cking" liar > would be f.cking your mouth! :-) --------------------- You're the sh.t, your mouth is the a.shole, you're doing it again. > > > Do you think a baby can make a determination > > > of what abuse is??? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I told you he is a troll! ;-) > Doan ----------------------- That is the God's Truth, you abyssmal piece of sh.t! Steve > > > > > "Doan" <doan@usc.edu> wrote in message > > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > ------------------ > The counsel of the truthful. That is funny! :-) > > Is this "Truth" the stuff that came out of your > > ass-hole...I mean mouth? ;-) > -------------------- > MY mouth. > YOU'RE the only a.shole. So the things that came out of my a.shole got into your mouth. That is a good one, Steve. :-) > > > > Otherwise, you could have nut-cases like Steve abusing infants > > > > to death and claiming that it is ok. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > --------------------- > You're the sh.t, your mouth is the a.shole, you're doing it again. Nope, Steve. You have proven that your mouth is full of sh.t. The only question now is that sh.t came from my a.shole or yours. My guess is you produce your own. :-) Eat sh.t and die, Steve! ;-) > > > > Do you think a baby can make a determination > > > > of what abuse is??? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > That is the God's Truth, you abyssmal piece of sh.t! > Steve Oops, more sh.t coming from your mouth. Is that yours? ;-) Doan > > > > > your argument that only the victim can be the arbiter of abuse. > > > > ----------------- [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > That is funny! :-) ---------------------- No, you're out of anything logical to say. > > > Is this "Truth" the stuff that came out of your > > > ass-hole...I mean mouth? ;-) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > So the things that came out of my a.shole got into your mouth. -------------------- Nope, your mouth produced the sh.t, it remains there, I merely pointed at it, you lying little piece of pigshit! > > > > > Otherwise, you could have nut-cases like Steve abusing infants > > > > > to death and claiming that it is ok. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > Nope, Steve. You have proven that your mouth is full of sh.t. --------------- Nope, it remains in your mouth after you sucked it from your own rectum. > > > > > Do you think a baby can make a determination > > > > > of what abuse is??? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Oops, more sh.t coming from your mouth. Is that yours? ;-) > Doan --------------------- Yours is the only sh.t, it remains in your mouth after you sucked it from your own a.s, you lying piece of sh.t. Steve > > > > > > your argument that only the victim can be the arbiter of abuse. > > > > > ----------------- [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ---------------------- > No, you're out of anything logical to say. LOL! > > > > Is this "Truth" the stuff that came out of your > > > > ass-hole...I mean mouth? ;-) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Nope, your mouth produced the sh.t, it remains there, > I merely pointed at it, you lying little piece of pigshit! Oops! Now it's "pigshit" coming out of your mouth too! :-) > > > > > > Otherwise, you could have nut-cases like Steve abusing infants > > > > > > to death and claiming that it is ok. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Nope, it remains in your mouth after you sucked it from your > own rectum. Nope! It's actualy from my a.shole going to you mouth, up to your brain and come right back out of your mouth again BECAUSE YOUR BRAIN ALREADY FILLED WITH sh.t! ;-) > > > > > > Do you think a baby can make a determination > > > > > > of what abuse is??? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > it from your own a.s, you lying piece of sh.t. > Steve Oops! Your brain can hold anymore sh.t, it's spewing from your mouth again. :-) Doan > > Nope, your mouth produced the sh.t, it remains there, > > I merely pointed at it, you lying little piece of pigshit! > > > Oops! Now it's "pigshit" coming out of your mouth too! :-) -------------------- No, that'syou in the mirror. > > Nope, it remains in your mouth after you sucked it from your > > own rectum. > > > Nope! It's actualy from my a.shole going to you mouth, up to your brain > and come right back out of your mouth again BECAUSE YOUR BRAIN ALREADY > FILLED WITH sh.t! ;-) ---------------------- Nope, you're the only sh.t-mouth. > > Yours is the only sh.t, it remains in your mouth after you sucked > > it from your own a.s, you lying piece of sh.t. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Doan -------------------- You're gazing in the mirror again. Steve > > > Nope, your mouth produced the sh.t, it remains there, > > > I merely pointed at it, you lying little piece of pigshit! > > > > > Oops! Now it's "pigshit" coming out of your mouth too! :-) > -------------------- > No, that'syou in the mirror. Nope! That's you in real life! :-0 > > > Nope, it remains in your mouth after you sucked it from your > > > own rectum. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ---------------------- > Nope, you're the only sh.t-mouth. Your mouth full of sh.t! ;-) > > > Yours is the only sh.t, it remains in your mouth after you sucked > > > it from your own a.s, you lying piece of sh.t. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You're gazing in the mirror again. > Steve You are! :-) Doan > Nope! That's you in real life! :-0 -------------- Eat your sh.t and die, you sh.t-eating liar! > Your mouth full of sh.t! ;-) -------------------------------- Eat your sh.t and die, you sh.t-eating liar! > You are! :-) > > Doan -------------------- Eat your sh.t and die, you sh.t-eating liar! Steve > > Nope! That's you in real life! :-0 > -------------- > Eat your sh.t and die, you sh.t-eating liar! It looks like you are taking your own advice; sh.t still spewing out of your mouth! :-) > > Your mouth full of sh.t! ;-) > -------------------------------- > Eat your sh.t and die, you sh.t-eating liar! It looks like you are taking your own advice; sh.t still spewing out of your mouth! :-) > > You are! :-) > > > > Doan > -------------------- > Eat your sh.t and die, you sh.t-eating liar! > Steve It looks like you are taking your own advice; sh.t still spewing out of your mouth! :-) Doan > It looks like you are taking your own advice; sh.t > still spewing out of your mouth! :-) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > still spewing out of your mouth! :-) > Doan --------------------------- The sh.t is in your mouth, you're looking in the mirror. See the reflections! Steve > > It looks like you are taking your own advice; sh.t > > still spewing out of your mouth! :-) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > See the reflections! > Steve The mirror is one way and I see you! The reflections is the sh.t that I am throwing back into your mouth! :-) Doan > > The sh.t is in your mouth, you're looking in the mirror. > > See the reflections! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > sh.t that I am throwing back into your mouth! :-) > Doan -------------------------------- The sh.t is in your mouth, you're looking in the mirror. See the reflections! Steve > > > The sh.t is in your mouth, you're looking in the mirror. > > > See the reflections! [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > See the reflections! > Steve The mirror is one way and I see you! The reflections is the sh.t that I am throwing back into your mouth! :-) Doan > > > > The sh.t is in your mouth, you're looking in the mirror. > > > > See the reflections! [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > sh.t that I am throwing back into your mouth! :-) > Doan ---------------- The sh.t is in your mouth, you're looking in the mirror. See the reflections! Steve > > > > > The sh.t is in your mouth, you're looking in the mirror. > > > > > See the reflections! [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > See the reflections! > Steve The mirror is one way and I see you! The reflections is the sh.t that I am throwing back into your mouth! :-) Doan > > > > My interest in arguing with him is very diminished. He does not seem too > > > > bright. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Doan Don't lump me with someone else based on characterization. The fact that both Steve and I belive that hitting kids is wrong does not mean that we agree that infanticide is right. I most certainly do not. So let's review the business about what determines abuse. I guess it depends on what the fear outcome of abuse is. One would need this reasonable agreement you are discussing if one were primarily concerned with teh legislation and prosecution of abuse cases. But if one is primarily concerned with the wellbeing of the child, then only the child can "determine" what consitutes that which damages them. Let;s take an anolgy. Have you ever made whipped cream? If you beat the cream enough, it becomes lovely whipped cream. If you whip it too much, it becomes butter. An arbitrary standard of how much whipping is to be done cannot be made which ensure properly whipped cream to top yummy apale pie. Because it is the RESULT of properly whipped cream which is the determinant. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak. (Well in this case in the cream.) So if you are talking about raising an unharmed child, again, the proof is in the pudding, and that is whether or not the child is harmed. I do not beleive that you refuted this argument at all. I believe that you did effectively this: - You can't be serious. (While your incredulity may be sincere, it does nothing to refute the argument.) - What about a police officer. (If this analogy somehow illucidates your point, I failed to see it as I countered your argument in another post. So if this analogy can be explained in more detail, perhaps you can try to use this as a refutation. But I am not holding my breath.) - You and Steve are both crazy. (Again, this is true beyond a doubt. But again, it does nothing to refute the argument.) S > > > > > My interest in arguing with him is very diminished. He does not seem > too [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > both Steve and I belive that hitting kids is wrong does not mean that we > agree that infanticide is right. I most certainly do not. Strawman again. Where did I say that you believe infanticide is right? > So let's review the business about what determines abuse. I guess it depends > on what the fear outcome of abuse is. One would need this reasonable > agreement you are discussing if one were primarily concerned with teh > legislation and prosecution of abuse cases. So we agreed that there is a "reasonable" standard. > But if one is primarily > concerned with the wellbeing of the child, then only the child can > "determine" what consitutes that which damages them. Wrong again! First, the child can be too young or too immature to make that determination. Second, the child can be mad at the parents and make false accusation of abuse. Third, the child can be too intimate with the parents that, in case of real abuse, lied. Do you think a CPS worker can make a determination of abuse by just asking the children? We had the famous McMartin case here in Los Angeles where the children really believed that they were abused. Should we have just thrown the adults in jail because these kids were manipulated by the "experts"? > Let;s take an anolgy. > Have you ever made whipped cream? If you beat the cream enough, it becomes [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > talking about raising an unharmed child, again, the proof is in the pudding, > and that is whether or not the child is harmed. False analogy! The cream cannot make any determination; that determination is made by a THIRD party. > I do not beleive that you refuted this argument at all. I believe that you > did effectively this: > > - You can't be serious. (While your incredulity may be sincere, it does > nothing to refute the argument.) It showed the ridiculouas nature of your argument - LIKE THE ONE ABOVE!. > - What about a police officer. (If this analogy somehow illucidates your > point, I failed to see it as I countered your argument in another post. So > if this analogy can be explained in more detail, perhaps you can try to use > this as a refutation. But I am not holding my breath.) It is a fit analogy! The police officer can be abusive just as a parent can be abusive. But to prove abuse, there has to a "reasonable" standard. In case of the police, it's often determined by a jury using the "reasonable doubt" standard; in case of the parents, the decision whether to remove the child is often made by a social worker using the "reasonable" guideline set by the local CPS agency. > - You and Steve are both crazy. (Again, this is true beyond a doubt. But > again, it does nothing to refute the argument.) Ad-hom again. Nice chatting with you though. :-) Doan > > > > > > My interest in arguing with him is very diminished. He does not seem > > too [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > So we agreed that there is a "reasonable" standard. In order to legislate something, one would have to come up with a standard against which cases can be applied. Presumably the legislators would attempt to use reason to the creation of said standard. Personally, I could not care less about the legislation angle. Some form of whatever is defined as abuse will be legislated. I do not have a great opinion on how this legislation should be handled. I am attempting to discuss the wellbeing of children. > > But if one is primarily > > concerned with the wellbeing of the child, then only the child can > > "determine" what consitutes that which damages them. > > Wrong again! First, the child can be too young or too immature to make > that determination. I agree. The child, herself, will likely not even be cogniscent of any damage done. But a child needn't be aware that damage is done for damage to be done. Kids who are sexually abused do not sit around thinking about their psychological well being and how badly they are being damaged. > Second, the child can be mad at the parents and > make false accusation of abuse. So? Are we talking about legislation again? I do not care about legislation. But I do wonder what a child's ability to make false accusations of abuse has to do with spanking kids and whether or not said spanking damages. > Third, the child can be too intimate > with the parents that, in case of real abuse, lied. Do you think [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > just thrown the adults in jail because these kids were manipulated > by the "experts"? Well, this could explain a thing or two. You and I are not arguing the same thing at all. I have no formed opinion on how child protection law should work. My entire posting sequence has been about what is best for children. NOT what we should base legislation on. I am a poster on misc.kids. I am interested in the wellbeing of kids. > > Let;s take an anolgy. > > Have you ever made whipped cream? If you beat the cream enough, it becomes [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > False analogy! The cream cannot make any determination; that > determination is made by a THIRD party. It is not a false analogy. The damage either is or is not present, completely in the absence of a third party to recognize it. Let;s take an extreme example. Let's say, for argument's sake, that a young boy is: - beaten - made to drink ammonia - banished to live in the garage - knifed and left for dead all by his mother. Let us further assume, for the sake of argument, that no one ever finds out that this mother is doing this to this boy. Is the boy NOT damaged simply by the absence of someone's observation of the damage? Even if this mythical boy were never allowed out of the garage, and no one ever found out about his situation, he would sit be physically and psychologically damaged by the treatment at the hands of his mothers. The question is, since the child cannot necessarily discern or express what is damaging to herself, where can one safely draw the line between harmless spanking and spirit busting abuse? > > I do not beleive that you refuted this argument at all. I believe that you > > did effectively this: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It showed the ridiculouas nature of your argument - LIKE THE ONE ABOVE!. No it does not. It merely shows that YOU find the argument ridiculous. If a philosopher says: "I think, therefore I am." And I say, "You can't be serious!?!!?" Have I shown that the philosopher's assertyion is ridiculous? Or have I merely shown my own incredulity? > > - What about a police officer. (If this analogy somehow illucidates your > > point, I failed to see it as I countered your argument in another post. So [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It is a fit analogy! The police officer can be abusive just as a parent > can be abusive. But to prove abuse, there has to a "reasonable" standard. Again, I think we are arguing different things. As I say, I have no formed opinion on what the semi-arbitrary definition of abuse for the sake of legislation nad criminal enforcement. Presumably, a parent has a higher goal than failing to get arrested for child abuse. > In case of the police, it's often determined by a jury using the > "reasonable doubt" standard; in case of the parents, the decision whether [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > Ad-hom again. Nice chatting with you though. :-) I called myself and Steve crazy. How can that be argument adhominem? Those bullet items were parroting you, pretending your point of view. Therefore the "you" refers actually to ME. I was calling MYSELF crazy, which I think is likely true. > Doan > > > > > > > My interest in arguing with him is very diminished. He does not > seem [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > > > > Strawman again. Where did I say that you believe infanticide is right? I see that you have no response. > > > So let's review the business about what determines abuse. I guess it > depends [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > will be legislated. I do not have a great opinion on how this legislation > should be handled. I am attempting to discuss the wellbeing of children. But "wellbeing of children" based on what? You see, it has to base on some "reasonable" standard! > > > But if one is primarily > > > concerned with the wellbeing of the child, then only the child can [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > be done. Kids who are sexually abused do not sit around thinking about their > psychological well being and how badly they are being damaged. Exactly! That is why abuse has to be determine by a third party! > > Second, the child can be mad at the parents and > > make false accusation of abuse. > > So? Are we talking about legislation again? I do not care about legislation. > But I do wonder what a child's ability to make false accusations of abuse > has to do with spanking kids and whether or not said spanking damages. Legislation is just one example. The reason legislation came about is because it has been determined by some "reasonable" standard that child abuse is bad. > > Third, the child can be too intimate > > with the parents that, in case of real abuse, lied. Do you think [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > NOT what we should base legislation on. I am a poster on misc.kids. I am > interested in the wellbeing of kids. Again, wellbeing of kids base on what standard? > > > Let;s take an anolgy. > > > Have you ever made whipped cream? If you beat the cream enough, it [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > It is not a false analogy. The damage either is or is not present, > completely in the absence of a third party to recognize it. But the problem is who determines whether it is or it is not present? > Let;s take an > extreme example. Let's say, for argument's sake, that a young boy is: Extreme example is never very good but I'll play along with you. > - beaten Already determined by every "reasonable" person as bad. > - made to drink ammonia Already determined by every "reasonable" person as bad. > - banished to live in the garage Already determined by every "reasonable" person as bad. > - knifed and left for dead Already determined by every "reasonable" person as bad. > all by his mother. Let us further assume, for the sake of argument, that no > one ever finds out that this mother is doing this to this boy. Is the boy > NOT damaged simply by the absence of someone's observation of the damage? So WHO determine the damage in this case? > Even if this mythical boy were never allowed out of the garage, and no one > ever found out about his situation, he would sit be physically and > psychologically damaged by the treatment at the hands of his mothers. How do you know? Is it not by some "reasonable" standard? > The > question is, since the child cannot necessarily discern or express what is > damaging to herself, where can one safely draw the line between harmless > spanking and spirit busting abuse? Exactly, since the child cannot discern, it has to be somebody else that make that discernation! Seem like you just refuted your own argument. > > > I do not beleive that you refuted this argument at all. I believe that > you I just did! :-) > > > did effectively this: > > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > And I say, "You can't be serious!?!!?" Have I shown that the philosopher's > assertyion is ridiculous? Or have I merely shown my own incredulity? "I think, therefore I am." has proven to be not ridiculous. The same cannot be said about the argument you made that ONLY the victim can be the arbiter of abuse. Apples and lemons! > > > - What about a police officer. (If this analogy somehow illucidates your > > > point, I failed to see it as I countered your argument in another post. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > opinion on what the semi-arbitrary definition of abuse for the sake of > legislation nad criminal enforcement. But think about it, why are there legislation against abuses by police and abuses by parents? > Presumably, a parent has a higher goal > than failing to get arrested for child abuse. True, but that doesn't mean that the parent abuse or not abuse their children. That determination still has to be based on some "reasonable" standard. > > In case of the police, it's often determined by a jury using the > > "reasonable doubt" standard; in case of the parents, the decision whether > > to remove the child is often made by a social worker using the > > "reasonable" guideline set by the local CPS agency. I see that you don't have a refutation of this neither. > > > - You and Steve are both crazy. (Again, this is true beyond a doubt. But > > > again, it does nothing to refute the argument.) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I called myself and Steve crazy. How can that be argument adhominem? Those > bullet items were parroting you, pretending your point of view. So I am the one that doing the ad-hom??? > Therefore > the "you" refers actually to ME. I was calling MYSELF crazy, which I think > is likely true. Huh? You are not making sense here. Doan > > In order to legislate something, one would have to come up with a standard > > against which cases can be applied. Presumably the legislators would attempt [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > But "wellbeing of children" based on what? You see, it has to base on > some "reasonable" standard! ----------------------------- It's based on the well-being of children, of course. That you imagine that there is no reasonable standard for that in the heart of each child, and in the hearts of adults who are not criminals, this only reveals that you are a disturbed criminal!!! It means you don't think that God is watching you, and that you can get away with your sick "fun" if you can confuse your victims or the rest of us. > > I agree. The child, herself, will likely not even be cogniscent of any > > damage done. But a child needn't be aware that damage is done for damage to > > be done. Kids who are sexually abused do not sit around thinking about their > > psychological well being and how badly they are being damaged. ------------------ Nonsense, the child knows inside, even if they were made to fear telling. > Exactly! That is why abuse has to be determine by a third party! ------------------------------- No, merely revealed courtesy of the child's defender who gives the child safety in which to admit whom it is they know has harmed them. > > > Second, the child can be mad at the parents and > > > make false accusation of abuse. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > because it has been determined by some "reasonable" standard that child > abuse is bad. ----------------- You're assuming that something vicious and horrible should be done to people as children to "civilize them", and that any children who go without being abused are inherently BAD! There is NO ACTUAL evidence for ANY such thing in all of psychology, that is a nothing but a sick guilt/shame-based suspicion common to damaged people who have been severely abused as a rationalization for their parents or caregivers criminal abuse whereby the child tries to prove that what was done them was "out of love", no matter how horrible. It is the adult-child/perp's final effort as a sick adult to prove to themselves that everything evil that was done to them was their own fault for "being bad". Abuse of their own child as the next new victim is only the perp's final desperate effort to prove to themselves that their abuser "actually only" severely abused them "because they loved them". Everyone who has not been damaged by abuse knows that abuse is wrong. That YOU don't know is merely evidence that you're severely damaged. > > Well, this could explain a thing or two. You and I are not arguing the same > > thing at all. I have no formed opinion on how child protection law should [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > Again, wellbeing of kids base on what standard? ----------------------- The result in the heart of the victim is the only standard that God requires to find you GUILTY! The victim is the ONLY RIGHTFUL ARBITER of their own victimization! THEY AND ONLY THEY are fit to judge you! > > It is not a false analogy. The damage either is or is not present, > > completely in the absence of a third party to recognize it. > > But the problem is who determines whether it is or it is not present? ---------------------------- Damage, in the heart, is EXACTLY THE SAME as perceived damage. There is NO DIFFERENCE! This is WHY the victim is the only fair and final arbiter of whether what you did to them was CRIME or not. > > Let;s take an > > extreme example. Let's say, for argument's sake, that a young boy is: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > So WHO determine the damage in this case? ----------------- The child first, and then everyone who has ever been a child. > > Even if this mythical boy were never allowed out of the garage, and no one > > ever found out about his situation, he would sit be physically and > > psychologically damaged by the treatment at the hands of his mothers. > > How do you know? Is it not by some "reasonable" standard? -------------------- We all know how we would feel, and you do too, if you would give up your attempt to relabel YOUR abusers as GOOD and admit that you HATE them for what they did to you! Your problem is that you won't hate your own abusers, you would be giving up your desperate need to feel you had been loved in this life to do so, and you can't dare ever take the chance! But your twistedness is obvious, everyone can see it, and that you're harmed! > > The > > question is, since the child cannot necessarily discern or express what is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Exactly, since the child cannot discern, it has to be somebody else that > make that discernation! Seem like you just refuted your own argument. ----------------------------- The child can discern given time, they simply need the safety that the outer authority of the society can afford them, by removing them from their abuser. > > > > I do not beleive that you refuted this argument at all. I believe that > > you > > I just did! :-) ------------------ No, you just effectively asked why YOU YOURSELF had never identified your OWN abusers and admitted you hated them and named them as perps. The why is because you never had that safety afforded to you. > > And I say, "You can't be serious!?!!?" Have I shown that the philosopher's > > assertyion is ridiculous? Or have I merely shown my own incredulity? > > > "I think, therefore I am." has proven to be not ridiculous. The same > cannot be said about the argument you made that ONLY the victim can be > the arbiter of abuse. Apples and lemons! ------------------------------ The Universe/Life runs by cause and effect. The child who is harmed knows they are harmed, they KNOW what feels bad. All they have to be permitted to do is to believe in their own judgement. > > Again, I think we are arguing different things. As I say, I have no formed > > opinion on what the semi-arbitrary definition of abuse for the sake of > > legislation nad criminal enforcement. > > But think about it, why are there legislation against abuses by police and > abuses by parents? ------------------------------------ When people entrusted with protection do the reverse, they are no longer being protectors, they are, in effect, NOT parents, NOT police at ALL! They must be apprehended and stopped by the REAL parents and the REAL police, because they are merely criminal imposters! The parents/police didn't abuse, the imposters abused, and should be caught!! > > Presumably, a parent has a higher goal > > than failing to get arrested for child abuse. > > > True, but that doesn't mean that the parent abuse or not abuse their > children. That determination still has to be based on some "reasonable" > standard. ----------------------- The resultant effect in the child is the ONLY reasonable standard! > > > In case of the police, it's often determined by a jury using the > > > "reasonable doubt" standard; in case of the parents, the decision whether > > > to remove the child is often made by a social worker using the > > > "reasonable" guideline set by the local CPS agency. > > > > I see that you don't have a refutation of this neither. ------------------------------ You're pitiful, your comment is irrelevant here. Steve On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:51:07 -0500, "Stephanie Stowe" <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> wrote: Not that you didn't do a bang up job on the little weasel, but I thought you might like a bit more insight into his debating methods. Here's few post from a google on "policeman" that you might enjoy. I believe the first was in 02. http://tinyurl.com/2hfcu And he had his little weasel butt sounded thrashed over this nonsense before. In fact he hasn't every come up with anything one could call new until The Question, and if you look far enough you'll see his answers to that are also not really new. He assures us that parents can make up their own mind, which they can of course, without risk to children...which they most assuredly have demonstrated they cannot do. The use of CP has a risk, and he and the compulsive spanker crowd are in heavy denial about it. They rarely last more than a month or two unless they total nutcases, and even they eventually off elsewhere to peddle nonsense. Droany is our resident pet weasel. Kane > On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:51:07 -0500, "Stephanie Stowe" > <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> wrote: > > Not that you didn't do a bang up job on the little weasel, but I > thought you might like a bit more insight into his debating methods. What debating methods? I have given up. Just keep repeating and not clarifying just gets boring. > Here's few post from a google on "policeman" that you might enjoy. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Kane > What debating methods? I have given up. Just keep repeating and not > clarifying just gets boring. Nice chatting with you! ;-) Doan >> What debating methods? I have given up. Just keep repeating and not >> clarifying just gets boring. >> >Nice chatting with you! ;-) So much for debate. He always runs like this Stephanie. A one trick pony. Challenge and run, pretending it's the other person who is at fault. A troll in childish acting out boy disquise. >Doan Come by alt.parenting.spanking on the afternoon of February 25th, Wednesday next week. Let's see if he can follow through on the challenges he presented to me, when I asked him The Question. If he did I should be ready to respond by then or at the longest the next day. I actually do have another life. <smile> He claims to want to debate me, but can't even produce credible evidence he has the study I have he claims he wants as the subject of the debate. How weird is that? He kept demanding MY proof when I did NOT challenge him to debate. Cute...oh yes, like an 8 year old. He's a coward and thinks his elaborate dodging patterns will dazzle the onlooker. You saw it back in the 4th grade at recess. We are almost done with him, then the grownups can get on with the serious business of debating the actual issues. He's already reduced to babbling and running off to try and find someone to debate that is unfamiliar with his childishness...seems you weren't easily fooled. That's why he ran....he can't debate someone honest, just babble. We have years of watching him do this. Tsk. He's a disgusting little snot nose on the playground tagging along with the older kids and doing monkey tricks. Kane > >> What debating methods? I have given up. Just keep repeating and not > >> clarifying just gets boring. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > He always runs like this Stephanie. A one trick pony. I don't think he knows. I think he thinks he debated with me. > Challenge and run, pretending it's the other person who is at fault. > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Kane > > >> What debating methods? I have given up. Just keep repeating and not > > >> clarifying just gets boring. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I don't think he knows. I think he thinks he debated with me. Using the logic of the anti-spanking zealotS, I RAN from debating you! ;-) Doan > > > >> What debating methods? I have given up. Just keep repeating and not > > > >> clarifying just gets boring. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > ;-) > Doan ------------- Yup. Steve > > > > >> What debating methods? I have given up. Just keep repeating and not > > > > >> clarifying just gets boring. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Yup. > Steve I told you! :-) Doan >On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Stephanie Stowe wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > >> > > What good does it do? He hasn't changed my mind. If anything, he has >> > > succeeded in clarifying even stronger what I already knew. >> > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >My typo! I am NOT here to change your mind. Your Freudian Slip. Ones does not post the volume you do on the pro spank side and debate consistently and completely against the anti spank pro non punishment side unless they are trying to influence to their own bias. You are diishonest in trying to claim this neutrality, or badly flaw by thinking error problems. It humorous to see you trying to keep up the facade of just being a contributor to people making up their own minds. Would you say I am just asking people to make up their own minds, and trying to convince them that a measure to use for stoping spanking at a certain point before harm was done was something as vague as "a reasonable standard?' You can't point them to anywhere anyone, not the law, not even your favorite prospanker advocates can come up with anything but, "it varies." Yeah, we all know it varies, and the variables are NOT controllable by day to day normal means, (I don't care for Skinner Boxes). Your unwillingness to be honest about this is banner proclaiming your bias, and your determination to have parents make decisions for which there is NO information in the ordinary day to day practice of parenting. It's not even available to professionals in mental health treatment modalities. Your are a fraud that has been exposed before, and yet again now, and desparately trying to deflect attention with these little side trips. You have run from debating me. You gave your argument, I responded and you have NOT responded back except to chant the mantra of "reasonable standards" and call upon authority that itself has admitted cannot measure BEFORE the fact of abuse occuring. They say what NOT to do but now HOW to not do it and still spank, and they leave spanking and protect spanking as legal. The moral and ethical problems that have NOT been adequately addressed for caring parents, that happen to be users of CP. And you ADD to the inaccessibility of the truth by your deliberate misdirections, your refusal to discuss points brought up that you are NOT confident you can refute...and even in that you fail. Challenges you have taken you have NOT resolved and you ran from debating me over them. You did the same, historically to Chris, and you do so with LaVonne. You are challenged and you cut out an inconsequential segment and challenge on THAT instead of the intact issue presented, and when the opponent insists on resolving the waiting entire and intact issue you start screaming THEY won't debate YOU. This is a prime example of weasel debating. And you haven't gotten better at it, or fooled anyone with it for years. When you ARE called on it you start your diversion dance....which is what you are doing in misc.kids...and NOT staying to debate me, and NOT meeting simple criteria for a clean start. I've told you the precise reasons a "reasonable standard" cannot be used with safety by a parent...and you refused to attempt to refute my points. After your dodge from The Question by coming up with stupid challenges to me to prove I didn't say something (classic dodge asking a question with a negative outcome....impossible to answer) you jumped at the old Embry study statement from a magazein article and ran on me the same scam you tried on Chris...."you don't have the study." Of course, ignoring that no one was quoting the study but Embry, nor claiming they had it, who was being quoted and cited by the poster. Study pet tricks, little boy. School yard bravado from snot nosed kid that is picked last for dodgeball. Anything to make up for your lack of morals and your all too obvious lies. Jumping up and down for years babbling "you don't have it you don't have it you don't have it" in singsong playground chanting is about as childish a debating tactic as there is. No one claimed they did. You are jumping up and down all alone. And YOU can't even prove you have the study I have, and that you even had A study by Embry by citing from page numbers. What a dunce at bluff. I've cited content and page. You've pretended, and demanded I answer a question abut YOUR fictitious study..but won't include a page number of the content of the question. Fraud or stupid little childish tricks. Take your pick. >> > I am here >> > to give you the information so that you can formulate your own. Then why do you withhold information? Show the line or admit you can't. THAT would be "information" a parent can use for decision making. One cannot formulate what you claim, they can only theorise on not yet revealed information. And testing out theories on kids results in injuries, deaths, and jail time. >> I am >> > sure that you, like other parents, love and know your kid more than me >> > or any other "expert". Smarmy appeal to emotions. And no, a loving parent not only does not consider themselves the sole arbiter of what is best for their own child...or they would do their own surgery when the child needed it. Or maybe when they didn't. Parents routinely consult experts that more than they. And on the spanking issue there is nothing to go on except emotion driven opinions and tradition. That is ALL the prospankers have ever offered, and you have parrotted for them. >> >I just hope that you extend the same courtesy >> > to other parents. Underhanded statement suggesting she wouldn't, when you know perfectly well that parents that do NOT seek out expertise on important matters of risk and safety concerning their child are risking their child. You are a fraud. >> All you kept doing was repeating "Reasonable Standard" over and over. WHAT >> information? You cannot even clarify for me if you are discussing a legal >> framework or the more general concept of what is good for a child. Hopefully >> you do not think they are one in the same. THAT would be truly horrifying. >And both can use a "reasonable standard"! Of course, and maim and kill children and lose their children and go to jail and any number of things that are ZERO risks from cause if one simply doesn't hit their child. This is historically proven. And currently as well. People are losing their children for disciplining with CP and crossing that line..they cannot see. "Reasonable Standard" does not point to the spot one must stop at to ensure no harm...because that could well be with all the variables (which by definition means changing and dynamic, not static) that is, for a different child, at a different time, with the parent in a different state of reaction, very possibly at the zero mark. You ARE telling parents to risk it. You are baiting and trapping parents. The honest answer to The Question? No one can know. Kane >> > > You cannot win an argument with a stupid person if he fails to see he >> has >> > > lost. >> > >> > Oops! "Name-calling" again. :-) >> >> I did not call you a name. I referred to you. I did not try to change an >> opinion or mask a lack of argument. I simply commented to Kane that I do not >> think you are capable to recognizing an argument. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Doan >> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:51:07 -0500, "Stephanie Stowe" >> <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >What debating methods? I have given up. Just keep repeating and not >clarifying just gets boring. No, that IS a debating method. I didn't claim he was using honest or even standard methods. He's a bully with the skills of a thug. I knew many in my travels. This one is the "wear you down with nonsense and repetition" gimmick, and that's all it is. I detected his lack of actual strategy and tactical weakness a year ago, just watching, not posting. When I first posted he had been baited a bit by a friend of mine, and that guy introduced me to the ng haunt of doan and some other thug debaters that oddly, are gone now....R R R R Seems they coudn't handle their own tactics with strategy applied. They have no long range capacity what so ever. All Doan has is stamina and stupidity. He actually thinks he's good. No humility at all... Me, I am humble. There ARE those that are better than I at debate, and tactical ability. I meet them now and then, and they aren't here in Usenet. We play...mostly in asia. I'd love to meet Doan in person. If he's half as dumb in life as he is here he'd be an open book. I used to trade in asian and have family that are merchants and asian. I'm their pet. They teach me everything. Well, as far as I know....R R R R But if you want to learn to read people and direct their behavior apprentice to a jade dealer. My uncle Song is one. And a relative of the famous Dr. Sun Yet Sen...whose real name is Song. I started with Doan by telling him, or posting things to others that I know he read, all about myself....he just didn't believe or was waaay to busy with you self pleasuring ego stroking. And telling himself he was clevery and inscrutable. You can see of course what a child he really is. I don't really think he was damaged all that much more than anyone by being spanked, but there is something slighty out of kilter. That's why I keep playing with him. Facinating and curious, that one little thing. Could be his mother drank a little too much Sweet Potato hooch when he was in her tummy. One never knows. I've worked with drug effected kids a lot, and the cocaine exposed in utero are very curious. They can be absolutely brilliant in some ways....savants....yet dumb as stumps in others. Get my drift here? Well, too bad you and I couldn't be debating opponents. Though playing the thugs against themselves has it pleasures, I like how refreshing the challange can be with an honest person that knows the rules and standards. See yah Wednesday. Kane >> Here's few post from a google on "policeman" that you might enjoy. >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> >> Kane > >> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:51:07 -0500, "Stephanie Stowe" > >> <stowe@whackthisvsac.org> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > and that's all it is. I detected his lack of actual strategy and > tactical weakness a year ago, just watching, not posting. What good does it do? He hasn't changed my mind. If anything, he has succeeded in clarifying even stronger what I already knew. > When I first posted he had been baited a bit by a friend of mine, and > that guy introduced me to the ng haunt of doan and some other thug [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > tactical ability. I meet them now and then, and they aren't here in > Usenet. We play...mostly in asia. I suspect you would kick my a.s in a debate. So I won't oblidge. :) As fun as it would be to get my a.s kicked in a debate, it is hard to do when you largely agree. > I'd love to meet Doan in person. If he's half as dumb in life as he is > here he'd be an open book. I used to trade in asian and have family > that are merchants and asian. I'm their pet. They teach me everything. You cannot win an argument with a stupid person if he fails to see he has lost. > Well, as far as I know....R R R R > [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > >> > >> Kane > What good does it do? He hasn't changed my mind. If anything, he has > succeeded in clarifying even stronger what I already knew. And there is your problem! I AM HERE TO CHANGE YOUR MIND! I am here to give you the information so that you can formulate your own. I am sure that you, like other parents, love and know your kid more than me or any other "expert". I just hope that you extend the same courtesy to other parents. > You cannot win an argument with a stupid person if he fails to see he has > lost. Oops! "Name-calling" again. :-) Regards, Doan > > What good does it do? He hasn't changed my mind. If anything, he has > > succeeded in clarifying even stronger what I already knew. > > > And there is your problem! I AM HERE TO CHANGE YOUR MIND! And you failed. > I am here > to give you the information so that you can formulate your own. I am > sure that you, like other parents, love and know your kid more than me > or any other "expert". I just hope that you extend the same courtesy > to other parents. All you kept doing was repeating "Reasonable Standard" over and over. WHAT information? You cannot even clarify for me if you are discussing a legal framework or the more general concept of what is good for a child. Hopefully you do not think they are one in the same. THAT would be truly horrifying. > > You cannot win an argument with a stupid person if he fails to see he has > > lost. > > Oops! "Name-calling" again. :-) I did not call you a name. I referred to you. I did not try to change an opinion or mask a lack of argument. I simply commented to Kane that I do not think you are capable to recognizing an argument. Have a nice day. > Regards, > > Doan > > > What good does it do? He hasn't changed my mind. If anything, he has > > > succeeded in clarifying even stronger what I already knew. > > > > > And there is your problem! I AM HERE TO CHANGE YOUR MIND! > > And you failed. My typo! I am NOT here to change your mind. > > I am here > > to give you the information so that you can formulate your own. I am [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > framework or the more general concept of what is good for a child. Hopefully > you do not think they are one in the same. THAT would be truly horrifying. And both can use a "reasonable standard"! > > > You cannot win an argument with a stupid person if he fails to see he > has [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Have a nice day. You too! :-) Doan > > What good does it do? He hasn't changed my mind. If anything, he has > > succeeded in clarifying even stronger what I already knew. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > sure that you, like other parents, love and know your kid more than me > or any other "expert". -------------------------- That's only true of non-abusers, and we can tell which ones they are simply by noting whether they spout stupid sh.t like you! > I just hope that you extend the same courtesy > to other parents. ----------------------- Not parents who abuse! You hope we'll just let abusive parents just go ahead and damage their kid with their abuse. Sorry, buttfuck, but that's against the law! > Oops! "Name-calling" again. :-) > Regards, > Doan ------------------------ And you deserve every single one! -Steve  Signature-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!! http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public > > > What good does it do? He hasn't changed my mind. If anything, he has > > > succeeded in clarifying even stronger what I already knew. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That's only true of non-abusers, and we can tell which ones they are > simply by noting whether they spout stupid sh.t like you! Ooops! MORE sh.t COMING FROM YOUR MOUTH! ;-) > > I just hope that you extend the same courtesy > > to other parents. > ----------------------- > Not parents who abuse! > You hope we'll just let abusive parents just go ahead and damage their > kid with their abuse. Sorry, buttfuck, but that's against the law! What law would that be, Steve. Spanking is legal in all 50 states. Infanticide, however, is ILLEGAL! > > Oops! "Name-calling" again. :-) > > Regards, > > Doan > ------------------------ > And you deserve every single one! I know, Steve. When are you going to call me "never-spanked"? ;-) Doan > > > > What good does it do? He hasn't changed my mind. If anything, he has > > > > succeeded in clarifying even stronger what I already knew. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > Ooops! MORE sh.t COMING FROM YOUR MOUTH! ;-) ------------------------- The sh.t is in your mouth, you're looking in the mirror. See the reflections! > > You hope we'll just let abusive parents just go ahead and damage their > > kid with their abuse. Sorry, buttfuck, but that's against the law! > > > What law would that be, Steve. Spanking is legal in all 50 states. > Infanticide, however, is ILLEGAL! ------------------------------- Child Abuse is against the law. You sh.t are losing, in jail or dying EVERYWHERE! Steve > > > > > What good does it do? He hasn't changed my mind. If anything, he has > > > > > succeeded in clarifying even stronger what I already knew. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > The sh.t is in your mouth, you're looking in the mirror. > See the reflections! It's a one-way mirror and I see you licking your own sh.t! :-) > > > You hope we'll just let abusive parents just go ahead and damage their > > > kid with their abuse. Sorry, buttfuck, but that's against the law! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > EVERYWHERE! > Steve Oops! More sh.t coming out of mouth! Spanking is not child abuse Doan > > > > > > What good does it do? He hasn't changed my mind. If anything, he has > > > > > > succeeded in clarifying even stronger what I already knew. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > > Oops! More sh.t coming out of mouth! ------------------------------- The sh.t is in your mouth, you're looking in the mirror. See the reflections! > Spanking is not child abuse > Doan ------------------ Of course it is, you vicious piece of sh.t. Steve > > > > > > > What good does it do? He hasn't changed my mind. If anything, he has > > > > > > > succeeded in clarifying even stronger what I already knew. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > The sh.t is in your mouth, you're looking in the mirror. > See the reflections! It's a one-way mirror and I see you licking your own sh.t! :-) > > Spanking is not child abuse > > Doan > ------------------ > Of course it is, you vicious piece of sh.t. > Steve Really? Then you are really stupid! Your head is full of sh.t. So full that it is oozing out your mouth everytime you speak. Infanticide is child abuse; spanking is legal in all 50 states. Doan > > > Oops! More sh.t coming out of mouth! > > ------------------------------- > > The sh.t is in your mouth, you're looking in the mirror. > > See the reflections! > > It's a one-way mirror and I see you licking your own sh.t! :-) ---------------------------- The sh.t is in your mouth, you're looking in the mirror. See the reflections! > Infanticide is child abuse; ------------------- There is no human beikng there till 2-4 months after birth. No one exists there, no one ever remembers being there! >spanking is legal in all 50 states. > Doan ---------------------- Nope, it's abuse, it's just hard to catch. Not for long, it's abuse! Steve > > > > Oops! More sh.t coming out of mouth! > > > ------------------------------- [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The sh.t is in your mouth, you're looking in the mirror. > See the reflections! It's a one-way mirror and I see you licking your own sh.t! :-) > > Infanticide is child abuse; > ------------------- > There is no human beikng there till 2-4 months after birth. > No one exists there, no one ever remembers being there! Tell that to the courts! > >spanking is legal in all 50 states. > > Doan > ---------------------- > Nope, it's abuse, it's just hard to catch. > Not for long, it's abuse! > Steve It has been so since recorded history. Doan > > >spanking is legal in all 50 states. > > > Doan [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It has been so since recorded history. > Doan ------------------- You're ashit-sucking liar! Steve > > > >spanking is legal in all 50 states. > > > > Doan [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You're ashit-sucking liar! > Steve You are! :-) Doan >Spanking is not child abuse and taking chocolate bars from the corner shop isn't theft.... Daniel Roach Colindale, London, England Music lover, Simpsons fan, Playstation owner and Amiga guru :>Spanking is not child abuse : and taking chocolate bars from the corner shop isn't theft.... If one "spanked" an adult without their consent, that would constitute assault. In fact the only reason spanking of children is not legally prosecutable under assault laws is that special legal language exempts parents from prosecution. For examples of such exclusionary clauses, see: http://www.geocities.com/cddugan/CorPunExclusion.html Chris I just love the logic of an anti-spanking zealotS. Using that logic, CPS would be guilty of kidnapping, since they often remove kids from the kids' home WITHOUT the kids' consent! Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS, are they mutually exclusive? :-) Doan > :>Spanking is not child abuse > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Chris >On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Stephanie Stowe wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > > > >> > > > > My interest in arguing with him is very diminished. He does not seem >> too >> > > > > bright. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> > > >> > > I was not actually talking to you. I was referring to you in a reply to >> > > Kane. As soon as you offer a refutation of one of my arguments, I will >> be >> > > pleased to resume coversing with you. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> > your argument that only the victim can be the arbiter of abuse. >> > Otherwise, you could have nut-cases like Steve abusing infants to death >> > and claiming that it is ok. Do you think a baby can make a determination >> > of what abuse is??? >> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >Strawman again. Where did I say that you believe infanticide is right? No strawman. That's your speciality. You lumped them together in an attempt to discredit her, a common behavior for bigots such as you, and she was clarify what she doesn't believe that Steve does. Now on what grounds WERE you lumping her together with Steve? And why? >> So let's review the business about what determines abuse. I guess it depends >> on what the fear outcome of abuse is. One would need this reasonable >> agreement you are discussing if one were primarily concerned with teh >> legislation and prosecution of abuse cases. > >So we agreed that there is a "reasonable" standard. Yep, it's in the law. It still, as she makes clear, is NOT sufficient to provide safety for the child. That's why I asked the question. I'd hardly ask a question that was so obviously available, now would I. Where is the line, precisely? >> But if one is primarily >> concerned with the wellbeing of the child, then only the child can >> "determine" what consitutes that which damages them. > >Wrong again! First, the child can be too young or too immature to make >that determination. That's IS correct. You do get the brass ring, but there more of them. For instance who will protect the child when the parent pretends to know, as all DO, where that line is an crosses it? And the child DOES indicate the know they have taken an injury. They signify by their behavior. I'll accept the child's perception. Since it's the one that actually counts, not the parents bovine exrcrement attempt to justify using pain and pretending it's parenting. >Second, the child can be mad at the parents and >make false accusation of abuse. Yep. And probably for very good reasons. You worried are yah? >Third, the child can be too intimate >with the parents that, in case of real abuse, lied. You are dreaming. A child that is close to her parents emotionally has a very difficult time lying to them, often failing to even when they try. You know nothing about un spanked unpunished children. They cherish their parents as they are obviously cherished. It's on the beaten that turn on their parents. >Do you think >a CPS worker can make a determination of abuse by just asking the >children? Nope. They usually collect other evidence. >We had the famous McMartin case here in Los Angeles where >the children really believed that they were abused. Should we have >just thrown the adults in jail because these kids were manipulated >by the "experts"? No. Why would you think that some of the 98% who are spanked would be missing from that group. They are easily confused because adult behavior of spankers confuses them. Children raised with more than lip service they are loved, that is with constant demonstration of it, are very hard to fool. >> Let;s take an anolgy. >> Have you ever made whipped cream? If you beat the cream enough, it becomes >> lovely whipped cream. If you whip it too much, it becomes butter. An >> arbitrary standard of how much whipping is to be done cannot be made which >> ensure properly whipped cream to top yummy apale pie. Because it is the >> RESULT of properly whipped cream which is the determinant. The proof is in >> the pudding, so to speak. (Well in this case in the cream.) So if you are >> talking about raising an unharmed child, again, the proof is in the pudding, >> and that is whether or not the child is harmed. >> >False analogy! The cream cannot make any determination; that >determination is made by a THIRD party. You are full of baloney. YOU make such metaphorical connects and far more innacurate to the facts. Police and batons to parents and spanking...your logic is peckable. >> I do not beleive that you refuted this argument at all. I believe that you >> did effectively this: >> >> - You can't be serious. (While your incredulity may be sincere, it does >> nothing to refute the argument.) > >It showed the ridiculouas nature of your argument - LIKE THE ONE ABOVE!. It was a perfectly useful metaphor for the point she was making, not something you tried to twist the meaning into. >> - What about a police officer. (If this analogy somehow illucidates your >> point, I failed to see it as I countered your argument in another post. So >> if this analogy can be explained in more detail, perhaps you can try to use >> this as a refutation. But I am not holding my breath.) > >It is a fit analogy! The police officer can be abusive just as a parent >can be abusive. Yep. >But to prove abuse, there has to a "reasonable" standard. >In case of the police, it's often determined by a jury using the >"reasonable doubt" standard; in case of the parents, the decision whether >to remove the child is often made by a social worker using the >"reasonable" guideline set by the local CPS agency. Which is NOT the answer to The Question, the subject of your debate now. I clearly asked for a standard line that could be identified BEFORE being crossed and all your answers and your analogies depend on the offense having been committed first, so one has lookback....oddly, that doesn't even say where the line was, just that it was crossed. It's like a no-tresspassing sign that is obscure. Sure it's there but it can't be seen. >> - You and Steve are both crazy. (Again, this is true beyond a doubt. But >> again, it does nothing to refute the argument.) >> >Ad-hom again. Nice chatting with you though. :-) She's got you pegged to a tee, though she hasn't seen through you sufficently to know you are a coward and liar as well as a nutcase. I understand you wish to debate Embry with me. I have a time limit. I've decided that I am not going to let you decide when unilaterally. I've volunteered many times to debate you, even to participate with you in some clarification of your challenges to me, but you have choked every time. You have a week. The morning of February 25th if you do not have all your ducks in a row, answer The Question the only way I asked for it to be answered, or simply admit you cannot answer it, clear the "never-spanked" claim you make about me, and prove beyond a doubt you have the Embry study, then I'll know you have been bluffing all along and have and never had any intention of honest debate and were just "having fun." When you can't make up your own mind, Droany, it gets made up for you. And I'll announce from that day forward you are a coward, a liar, and you RAN. Because you are and you did. And no, Nothing you can do after that time will engage me to discuss any of the questions at issue. You'll have to come up with some new entertainment and pretend you are honest. Then I'll run you over the jumps again. And feel free to put me on a reasonable limit time line for any challenges I make to YOU and fail to come up with the answer or information, and cut me off. Won't bother me at all. I don't play at dragging things out waiting for people to forget what I said or did. YOU do. >Doan Kane >On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Stephanie Stowe wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > My interest in arguing with him is very diminished. He does not >> seem >> > > too >> > > > > > > bright. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > As I expected, you can't argue on facts and ended up resorting to >> > > ad-hom. >> > > > > > I am really disappointed. Nice chatting with you though. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> > > > > >> > > > > I was not actually talking to you. I was referring to you in a reply >> to >> > > > > Kane. As soon as you offer a refutation of one of my arguments, I >> will >> > > be >> > > > > pleased to resume coversing with you. >> > > > > >> > > > > S >> > > > Let's me see if I get this right. If I were to refer to you as a >> > > > "smelly-c.nt" in a reply to Kane, that somehow make it OK??? >> > > > >> > > > Your arguments have been refuted, over and over. A glaring example is >> > > > your argument that only the victim can be the arbiter of abuse. >> > > > Otherwise, you could have nut-cases like Steve abusing infants to >> death >> > > > and claiming that it is ok. Do you think a baby can make a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> > > >> > > Don't lump me with someone else based on characterization. The fact that >> > > both Steve and I belive that hitting kids is wrong does not mean that we >> > > agree that infanticide is right. I most certainly do not. >> > > >> > Strawman again. Where did I say that you believe infanticide is right? >I see that you have no response. I did. You are full of baloney...it was about lumping her with someone that has such an opinion, and not clarifying which similar trait you believe they have...she was only clarifying for you who wishes to fog. >> > > So let's review the business about what determines abuse. I guess it >> depends >> > > on what the fear outcome of abuse is. One would need this reasonable >> > > agreement you are discussing if one were primarily concerned with teh >> > > legislation and prosecution of abuse cases. >> > >> > So we agreed that there is a "reasonable" standard. >> >> In order to legislate something, one would have to come up with a standard >> against which cases can be applied. Presumably the legislators would attempt >> to use reason to the creation of said standard. Personally, I could not care >> less about the legislation angle. Some form of whatever is defined as abuse >> will be legislated. I do not have a great opinion on how this legislation >> should be handled. I am attempting to discuss the wellbeing of children. >But "wellbeing of children" based on what? You see, it has to base on >some "reasonable" standard! The "reasonable standard" is about harm, not the line of demarcation. If you have found a line of demarcation defined in legislation, between legal nonabusive CP, and abusive injury, please perform the public service I've asked of you and reveal it to those of us unable to locate that legislation. There's a good boy and thanks. Praise be to Droany. >> > > But if one is primarily >> > > concerned with the wellbeing of the child, then only the child can >> > > "determine" what consitutes that which damages them. >> > >> > Wrong again! First, the child can be too young or too immature to make >> > that determination. >> >> I agree. The child, herself, will likely not even be cogniscent of any >> damage done. But a child needn't be aware that damage is done for damage to >> be done. Kids who are sexually abused do not sit around thinking about their >> psychological well being and how badly they are being damaged. >> >Exactly! That is why abuse has to be determine by a third party! No actually many children grow up to understand they were abused. In fact there is a small but growing vocal group doing just that. Even elderly ladies finally coming to grips with having been sexually abused as children and never letting themselves think about it. >> > Second, the child can be mad at the parents and >> > make false accusation of abuse. >> >> So? Are we talking about legislation again? I do not care about legislation. >> But I do wonder what a child's ability to make false accusations of abuse >> has to do with spanking kids and whether or not said spanking damages. >Legislation is just one example. The reason legislation came about is >because it has been determined by some "reasonable" standard that child >abuse is bad. Yep. After the fact. there is no legislation that tells where the line is...just what NOT to do, and what injuries not to do. And NO line on CP. The only way to be sure one will not abuse in the use of CP is to simply not use it. Unless of course one knows precisely where that line is. You tell'em Droany. I'm busy telling them the easiest way out...just don't use CP. Nothing to it. >> > Third, the child can be too intimate >> > with the parents that, in case of real abuse, lied. Do you think >> > a CPS worker can make a determination of abuse by just asking the >> > children? We had the famous McMartin case here in Los Angeles where >> > the children really believed that they were abused. Should we have >> > just thrown the adults in jail because these kids were manipulated >> > by the "experts"? >> >> Well, this could explain a thing or two. You and I are not arguing the same >> thing at all. I have no formed opinion on how child protection law should >> work. My entire posting sequence has been about what is best for children. >> NOT what we should base legislation on. I am a poster on misc.kids. I am >> interested in the wellbeing of kids. >> >Again, wellbeing of kids base on what standard? Not crossing the line into injury. Pretty simple eh? You establish where the line is, and tell the parents, and I'll establish that they need never even go down the path of CP so the line will be of no consequence to parenting safely. Don't use CP and you never have to guess. Use CP, and any honest person will have to admit there is a risk of crossing the line, and you won't know until you have. Because it can't be charted accurately. But Droany will tell us, someday, maybe. If he's through having fun. Until then he'll dodge. >> > > Let;s take an anolgy. >> > > Have you ever made whipped cream? If you beat the cream enough, it >> becomes >> > > lovely whipped cream. If you whip it too much, it becomes butter. An >> > > arbitrary standard of how much whipping is to be done cannot be made >> which >> > > ensure properly whipped cream to top yummy apale pie. Because it is the >> > > RESULT of properly whipped cream which is the determinant. The proof is >> in >> > > the pudding, so to speak. (Well in this case in the cream.) So if you >> are >> > > talking about raising an unharmed child, again, the proof is in the >> pudding, >> > > and that is whether or not the child is harmed. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >But the problem is who determines whether it is or it is not present? No, actually that is NOT the problem in determining the limit: the line that must not be crossed. It is an aside you are most happy to be fallaciously debating as you avoid The Simple Question. >> Let;s take an >> extreme example. Let's say, for argument's sake, that a young boy is: >Extreme example is never very good but I'll play along with you. So the cop and baton isn't an extreme example then...or are you willing to admit it is not very good? >> - beaten >Already determined by every "reasonable" person as bad. not the line >> - made to drink ammonia >Already determined by every "reasonable" person as bad. not the line >> - banished to live in the garage >Already determined by every "reasonable" person as bad. Not the line >> - knifed and left for dead >> >Already determined by every "reasonable" person as bad. Yep. And where is the line where the mother should have stopped? Obviously she has some interest in "punishment." And in extreme punishment....a perfect candidate, if she were humane and loving, for the answer to The Simple Question: Where is the line that must not be crossed, not where was it after you destroyed the child...where must you stop? >> all by his mother. Let us further assume, for the sake of argument, that no >> one ever finds out that this mother is doing this to this boy. Is the boy >> NOT damaged simply by the absence of someone's observation of the damage? >So WHO determine the damage in this case? The boy knows he's damaged, obviously, but no one else is. That is a perfect anology that you are in denial about and busy trying, as is your way, to twist into something it is not. It does NOT show where the line is. And it is YOUR argument thrown back at you concerning The Question.. >> Even if this mythical boy were never allowed out of the garage, and no one >> ever found out about his situation, he would sit be physically and >> psychologically damaged by the treatment at the hands of his mothers. >How do you know? Is it not by some "reasonable" standard? The questions isn't is he damaged, but what punishments could have been administered that would NOT have damaged him....that would require there to be a LINE. YOU cannot locate that line. Admit it. You are still arguing the extremes which is unarguable. the strawman ploy and fallacious argument. No one but you is interested in the argument of extremes, just show us the line I asked for, and the poster is trying to pound into your little pointy head. >> The >> question is, since the child cannot necessarily discern or express what is >> damaging to herself, where can one safely draw the line between harmless >> spanking and spirit busting abuse? >> >Exactly, since the child cannot discern, it has to be somebody else that >make that discernation! Seem like you just refuted your own argument. Nope. Not in the least. The child experiences the damage, just is unable to assess it. That does not refute the damage, now does it? Well, maybe to you it does. >> > > I do not beleive that you refuted this argument at all. I believe that >> you > >I just did! :-) You just twisted and dodged. That's not winning....well, to you maybe. That seems to be about all you've ever done. She isn't arguing the child can act in their own behalf, only that they can be damaged. >> > > did effectively this: >> > > >> > > - You can't be serious. (While your incredulity may be sincere, it does >> > > nothing to refute the argument.) >> > >> > It showed the ridiculouas nature of your argument - LIKE THE ONE ABOVE!. >> No it does not. It merely shows that YOU find the argument ridiculous. If a >> philosopher says: >> >> "I think, therefore I am." >> >> And I say, "You can't be serious!?!!?" Have I shown that the philosopher's >> assertyion is ridiculous? Or have I merely shown my own incredulity? >"I think, therefore I am." has proven to be not ridiculous. Again a dodge. You ignore the fact she is pointing out that you claim she is wrong because you don't want to accept her right to have an opinion in this matter NOT based on law but on probable or possible damage. In some states it is legal, and case law proves it, to damage a child with a spanking. Doesn't make it okay....oh wait....to you maybe. >The same >cannot be said about the argument you made that ONLY the victim can be >the arbiter of abuse. Apples and lemons! > >> > > - What about a police officer. (If this analogy somehow illucidates your >> > > point, I failed to see it as I countered your argument in another post. >> So >> > > if this analogy can be explained in more detail, perhaps you can try to >> use >> > > this as a refutation. But I am not holding my breath.) >> > >> > It is a fit analogy! The police officer can be abusive just as a parent >> > can be abusive. But to prove abuse, there has to a "reasonable" standard. >> Again, I think we are arguing different things. As I say, I have no formed >> opinion on what the semi-arbitrary definition of abuse for the sake of >> legislation nad criminal enforcement. > >But think about it, why are there legislation against abuses by police and >abuses by parents? That's not the question being asked. There are no laws against spanking, and even some very brutal kinds of spanking in some states is allowed. The same behavior by a cop, even what would be a mild spanking, would be illegal. >> Presumably, a parent has a higher goal >> than failing to get arrested for child abuse. >> >True, but that doesn't mean that the parent abuse or not abuse their >children. That determination still has to be based on some "reasonable" >standard. > >> > In case of the police, it's often determined by a jury using the >> > "reasonable doubt" standard; in case of the parents, the decision whether >> > to remove the child is often made by a social worker using the >> > "reasonable" guideline set by the local CPS agency. >> > >I see that you don't have a refutation of this neither. And that wasn't her argument. How long are you going to play at "it's a cop and CPS solution" after she's told you that parents should be expect to parent with more in mind than avoiding being arrested? Hmmm...maybe I'll take that back. YOU DO think parents should parent in ways that inflict harm on children but won't fall under the limits set by law, don't you? >> > > - You and Steve are both crazy. (Again, this is true beyond a doubt. But >> > > again, it does nothing to refute the argument.) >> > > >> > Ad-hom again. Nice chatting with you though. :-) >> >> I called myself and Steve crazy. How can that be argument adhominem? Those >> bullet items were parroting you, pretending your point of view. > >So I am the one that doing the ad-hom??? Yes, you do it all the time. >> Therefore >> the "you" refers actually to ME. I was calling MYSELF crazy, which I think >> is likely true. >> >Huh? You are not making sense here. Still can't read english eh? Or just pretending. She was making an assumption of YOUR opinion pseudo-quote. As though you had said, "you an steve" That help a little? Do you need a rest after a long hour of dodging and weaving and NOT responded to what she said but to what you claim she said? >Doan > "Doan" <doan@usc.edu> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I agree. The child, herself, will likely not even be cogniscent of any > damage done. --------------------------- Don't be stupid, of course they will, or else there isn't any. > But a child needn't be aware that damage is done for damage to > be done. --------------------------- Nonsense. A child may not identify "damage" by specific name, but they react in a harmed manner, and if encouraged to trust their feelings they can conclude whether they were harmed or not and by what agency! > Kids who are sexually abused do not sit around thinking about their > psychological well being and how badly they are being damaged. ---------------------------------- Actually, the do, and little else. A child who has been harmed in their own estimation dwells on it and ponders their abuse to a degree that hamstrings them from other creative endeavor for quite some time. > > Second, the child can be mad at the parents and > > make false accusation of abuse. > > So? Are we talking about legislation again? I do not care about legislation. > But I do wonder what a child's ability to make false accusations of abuse > has to do with spanking kids and whether or not said spanking damages. --------------------------------- The spanker is terrified that his victims will reveal his abuse of them, and ruin his "fun". > > Third, the child can be too intimate > > with the parents that, in case of real abuse, lied. Do you think [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > damaging to herself, where can one safely draw the line between harmless > spanking and spirit busting abuse? -------------------------------- There is no such thing as "harmless spanking". The child ALWAYS, if only secretly in their heart of hearts, knows that the abuse done to them was WRONG!! Steve > > > I do not beleive that you refuted this argument at all. I believe that > you [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > the "you" refers actually to ME. I was calling MYSELF crazy, which I think > is likely true. > > "Doan" <doan@usc.edu> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > feelings they can conclude whether they were harmed or not and > by what agency! I concur. What they cannot do is dope slap their parent and say "Hey - you damged me!" > > Kids who are sexually abused do not sit around thinking about their > > psychological well being and how badly they are being damaged. [quoted text clipped - 116 lines] > > the "you" refers actually to ME. I was calling MYSELF crazy, which I think > > is likely true. > > > "Doan" <doan@usc.edu> wrote in message > > > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > I concur. What they cannot do is dope slap their parent and say "Hey - > you damaged me!" ------------------- At least, not till they're older. Steve > > > Kids who are sexually abused do not sit around thinking about their > > > psychological well being and how badly they are being damaged. [quoted text clipped - 148 lines] > think > > > is likely true. > > Don't lump me with someone else based on characterization. The fact that > > both Steve and I belive that hitting kids is wrong does not mean that we [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Wrong again! First, the child can be too young or too immature to make > that determination. --------------------- NEVER, its reaction at that point *IS* its very Well-Being!! While there are other considerations, the child IS the arbiter of whether you are a criminal!!! > Second, the child can be mad at the parents and > make false accusation of abuse. --------------------------- ANY child who is mad at a parent *IS* correct in their judgement! PERIOD! There can be NO "false" accusation of abuse in the heart of a child! > Third, the child can be too intimate > with the parents that, in case of real abuse, lied. --------------------------- A child can be browbeaten into confusion and self-hatred, but again, this is merely a form of abuse itself, and in their deepest heart they do indeed know their abusers!! The child MUSt be given the credence at every instant that their judgment of their captors is the one that is relevant to the moral value of their treatment!! > Do you think > a CPS worker can make a determination of abuse by just asking the > children? ---------------------- Given the time to get what the child wants to say, yes. > We had the famous McMartin case here in Los Angeles where > the children really believed that they were abused. Should we have > just thrown the adults in jail because these kids were manipulated > by the "experts"? ------------------------------- The experts were themselves abusers, they should have been jailed along with their alleged abusers until the children were permitted to figure out for themselves what had really happened in an atmosphere where were given Authority and where they were regarded as the only source of Truth, even if that took YEARS! > > Let;s take an anolgy. > > Have you ever made whipped cream? If you beat the cream enough, it becomes [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > False analogy! The cream cannot make any determination; that > determination is made by a THIRD party. ------------------------ Nope, the cream makes it by the process of cause and effect. Likewise for children, if you anger children, you fully deserve their wrath! ONLY if they are convinced that you are innocent ARE YOU ACTUALLY INNOCENT!! > > I do not beleive that you refuted this argument at all. I believe that you > > did effectively this: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It showed the ridiculouas nature of your argument - LIKE THE ONE ABOVE!. --------------------------- Nonsense. > > - What about a police officer. (If this analogy somehow illucidates your > > point, I failed to see it as I countered your argument in another post. So [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > to remove the child is often made by a social worker using the > "reasonable" guideline set by the local CPS agency. ---------------------------- Any police officer who does not exceed his authority or use force where unneeded will be found at fault. All they do is intercede to protect a possible victim, and possible is all it needs to be for proper probable cause. Steve > > > > > My interest in arguing with him is very diminished. He does not seem > too [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > S ------------ Nope, you missed it. I'm not at all crazy. I'm MORAL! There are few people who are genuinely moral. Infanticide of very early newborn who have not yet grown a mind is not the killing of an existent being, because self-existence requires a mind. Torture of an infant you then permit to grow a mind, however, is a crime against all of humanity, and should be punished by death by prolonged public torture, because they let a being come into existence in a body that they have harmed neurologically. If you would harm a pre-mental human body, then kill it and be blameless, else you incur the holy wrath of the Infinite by stealing from one who is to Exist. After a Person Exists, That Person is the Ultimate Arbiter of its victimization, and no one has the right to subsume that judgement before God! Steve >On 15 Feb 2004, Kane wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> >> >> ---------------------- >> >> >> No, you f.cking squirrel!! They just got done telling you that >> no >> >> >> one can MAKE a reasonable argument to that effect, you cannot be >> >> >> ALLOWED to postulate that! >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> treatment! >> >> >> The fact that you just don't LIKE that is just too f.cking bad!! >> >> >> Steve >> >> > >> >> >Isn't that about what I was saying at the point AFTER you gave up >> >> reading? >> >> >> >> Yes. Steve is pointing that out to Droany. Not to you. He is saying >> >> "They just got done telling you" meaning both you and I. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> Doan, you are too dumb. Steve THOUGHT he was addressing you. The >> attributions got jangled. Even a sleeping dog like you should be able >> to figure that you. Think YOU said that, linked with the nonsense of >> YOURS the poster was actually responding to, is exactly what happened. >In other words, Steve is dumb and I was too dumb to see his dumbness? I did not say you were too dumb for missing the mistake, but for denying it when I pointed out the mistake to the other poster. The matter was clarified and you still insisted on trying to pump your little ego up, as you are doing now. In other words you are an arrogant little twit demonstrating yet again how ethically and morally bancrupt you really are. You are desperately seeking your usual way out. Some small unimportant item you can grap up to shield yourself from the obious paucity of reason and fact that is reprseted by the stand taken by you and the other spanking compulsives. Your argument feel out in a few posts to someone that isn't even familiar with your misleading and misdirecting logical fallacies in debate. She tried to engage you in normal conversation, clarifying her desire to NOT debate the data but offering to express her opinion. And you, with nowhere to go as usual, with data you don't even understand, from a study that does NOT compare punishment and non punishment, but instead fails by comparing two types of punishment....neither of which have ever been shown ot be successful in raising children....fell on your stupid a.s once again, and resort not to attacking. >Tell me, what "smelly-c.nt" did you crawl out of to come up with such >a logic? As I said. You don't want to debate the facts, and you never have, because each time your nonsense is pointed out, you continue it until someone expresses disgust at your apparent obtuseness (the mistake hubris for obtuseness) and you get to bail out like you are doing now, a bailout from another bailout. How many levels of moral deficiency are you cabable of before you stop and admit you lost? >> >Do you have a problem with logic or are you just naturally this >> >stupid? ;-) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >Oops! Another contradiction. First, you claimed that Steve "THOUGHT >he was addressing me" Yes, a mistake on my part. How does that excuse you from you dodges? >and now you claim he is not responding to me! He is responding to you about you, dummy. . >Tell me, which side of your family has this defective gene? The >"smelly-c.nt" side? ;-) Tell me, which part of The Question are you unable to answer? All of it? And why are you running from debate on the Embry Study, which you steadly lie that you have. >> >> Steve has a real problem with suffering fools. Probably even >> >> surpassing me. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >I DO know more about you than you think? That's nice. And that is total obscure. Care to clarify? >> Wouldn't be hilarious of I WAS spanked as a child and STILL had the >> guts that so many who were spanked, to put an end to it in my family? >It's your choice! Am I seeing a change of direction in your story >making? Remember, google has the archive! ;-) Did I not say, and the typo is obvious,"IF I was a spanked child." Yes I know. And yet you won't show the proof that I said one way or another. Would you like me to show you admitted your parents spanked you? >> So do you consider all people that were unspanked as having a problem >> because of it? >> >Nope! I have not met ALL. :-) I can only determine it on a case by >case basis. So far I have you and STEVE! You know TWO people you claim are unspanked? Do you live in a shoebox with your pet frog? >> Funny, I actually DO think that all people that were spanked have >> various life problems to sort out...some do so, gallantly, and some do >> not. Hi! Droany. >> >Funny thing is I DO NOT CARE what you think. Well, socially deficient one, I DO care what people think, even one so obviously socially and morallly arrested as you. > Fortunately, it's the >spanked like BUSH that is running the world. It's the spanked like [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >a compunter, hiding behind fake aliases, to spout vulgar language. :-) You think there are two unspanked and the rest of the unspanked are destroying the world? Your logic amazes me. How do YOU know Mother Teresa was spanked? And you really think Bush is making the best choices? And who is Ted and how do you know he was spanked? I love your world leader referance though. I'm sure any reader but your morally deficent spanking compulsives would have laughed at the flood of memories of past bloody dictators this world has been treated to that were "spanked." The spanked battling the spanked is all it amounts to....with neither of them spilling their blood, just everyone elses. Yeah, lets hear it for Hitler and Roosevelt, Stalin and Kennedy, Tojo and Truman. Bush and Saddam. And all the spanked string pullers in business and industry that profit from such wars.....and lose non of their blood. If only somewhere between 2 and 10% of the population is unspanked it's hardly a wonder they don't win elections or rise to high level business positions. All you are bragging about little man, is tht there are more of you than of the unspanked. Do you consider that some kind of win? >> >> Wasn't addressed to you and recognised what you said about the >> victim [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >So Steve is stupid? ;-) No, he made a mistake and acknowledged the mistake. While you, being told he made a mistake and being told you are stupid for very different reasons, mostly that you can't get the significance of data you offer up in evidence that PROVES YOU WRONG, are a yak a minute. >> He did not understand that the attributions made it appear her words >> were yours. >> >So Steve is stupid? ;-) Are people that make attribution mistakes stupid? Or are people that have had explained to the again and again for year after year that they are misinterpreting the content and meaning of studies on CP stupid? If we who keep telling you you are misinterpreting are stupid it must be because we keep thinking you are going to have some ethics and intelligence and sort out the other possibilities than the ones you cling to so hysterically. I'd say that is stupidly and naively and hopeful of us, wouldn't you? I confess. When it comes to expecting honesty and intelligence from you we look like dunces, or it could be that as advocates for non-spanking we are patient and hopeful. And all around, in the long run, decent and admirable trait. >> Said by her, it was clarification, but said by you, the very same >> words, in the context of your stupidity, were responded to with >> considerable accuracy. >> >Only if you have the logic of a "never-spanked" boy. :-) No, the problem is that you are invested in scrabbling around with this to draw attention away from the fact she engaged you fairly and you ignored her request for dealing with opinion, then blamed her for not debating on what YOU wanted to and she had said she didn't. In other words, little sneak, she was honest and took advantage of it. But that is common among the spanked, and why the world is not very well run. When you claim that the spanked are doing all these wonderful things you also forget there is a very good chance it's other spanked that put us in the trouble the other get to play at making up for. >> YOU have both a problem with English and context, but more seriously >> one with honor..but we've known that for years. You are basically a >> damaged child still stuck at the 5 year age when cheating is >> considered clever by the child. No conscience, yet. >> >You are looking in the mirror again. :-) No, obviously I wasn't saying that. And is that the best comeback you have when you have been outed? >> How we doin' on Doan? >> >Very good, Kane. You are almost there. Keep posting. :-) I'll be "almost there" when you stop playing with your appendage publically and answer The Question, prove your allegations that I'm unspanked, and prove you have the Embry study by quoting with a page citation or answering my page citation question. So far nothing but babble from you. As though your dodging is a sign of superiority. >> Well, I think I see a light coming on over his little pointy head. >> Look how quick he ran, with one of his usual excuses (for something he >> does himself all the time..and did again in this post) the "ad hom >> bailout" ploy. >> >You are confusing me with Chris Dugan. Didn't he pull that one on you? >;-) Well, I don't recall debating him, so what would he bail out from? You mistake a genuine disagreement honestly stated for a weasel dodging his own stupidity by lying and misdirecting. >> You can't even trick someone brand new to your nonsense. And boy,..... >I don't have to "trick" anyone. In a previous post, you claimed that >only 2% are "never-spanked". Do I need to trick the other 98%? I didn't "claim" it, I simply conceeded that others claim it. And what an obvious and stupid ploy to try and evade the point I made....someone else, without any history with you caught on to you that quick. And you are nothing but tricks little man. You throw up claims and refuse to support them for months at a time. And you do it when you are cornered and mistaken instead of simply admitting you don't know or you can't answer. You can't answer The Question and you won't admit it in defense, I have to presume, of the spanking compulsives argument. You refuse to back up a claim you know I'm never spanked, claiming something in the archives. But you can't answer a challene to produce your evidence. You can't prove you have the Embry study except by coming up with things, some of which I KNOW is not in the study in question, that could be dredged up from others citations and bits and pieces of Embry. In other words you are just a lying little weasel, as you always have been...year after year. Others don't have the logic you have. Others don't have the facts you have. Others don't have the neutrality you have. All shown as a great pile of rotting garbage. Defended by a belief in spanking as a right of parents to damage their children. >> I'm here to help you. > >Thank you. You don't know it but you are helping me with every post you >made. Ask LaVonne; she was trying to tell you PRIVATELY but you made >her plea public. Need I say you are stupid? Chris Dunga publicly trying >to tell you, but for his trouble, all he got is a "f.ck YOU". Need I say >you are stupid? Now it is Stephanie trying to tell you the same thing. >Could I expect a "smelly-c.nt" coming from your mouth? ;-) Oh, then you are offering, if I stop using obscenities, to answer The Question honestly, to prove I claim to be unspanked, and to come up with the Embry study. I'm glad to hear that. Now check on my posting for the last, oh say, 4 days or so. You won't find obscenties. You might find an occasional swear word, but no obscenties. So are you read NOW, little twit? >> Yer slipping, Droany. >> >You are winning, Kane9 Kunt! ;-) Actually I am, because I've known what you are up to for years. And you slid all too easily into using obscenties yourself while claiming the moral highground. Notice? Yer a sucker. Your own self importance trips you up repeatedly. And you are left to run, as you have been doing now for weeks, and claiming my obscene language as your excuse. That is so funny. Like you can't answer three simple challenges because the other person calls you dirty names. Sure, Droany. Sure. Well, Do you see any obscenties on this page but YOURS? Have you for days, but YOURS? And you claim YOU win. Sure, Droany. Sure. Let's see how honest you really are, now! >> >Doan >> >> R R R R R >> >Stop barking! Stop lying. >> Kane9 Kunt Tsk, Droany, Tsk. >Doan.................. .......the morally superior liar. Because someone calls him names he can thereby support child abuse, through parents being denied exact guidelines, and lying about it with a clear conscience. Well, isn't that conveeeeeeenient. (thanks Dana) Kane |
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.