Would you spank in this situation?
Amanda
I got a terrible infection, Im better now. Back to work and to Google.
How is everybody? How is La Vonne?
I have a question to those parents who consider spanking a good
disciplinary tool (though everyone can answer, of course). With this, I
just want a beter understanding of what such parents think. I oppose
spanking, but many parents believe in it
In the situations below, would you spank you daughter?
My 12 yo daughter was studying with one of her friends, the same age,
at her home. They ended up alone. There was a bottle of wine. The girls
got curious and ended up drinking some wine. I got to know because my
girl knew that was wrong, felt bad with herself, and decided to tell me
the truth. She apologized and was afraid I'd be disappointed and she'd
lose my trust. I forgave and told her I loved her honesty and still
trustef her. But since she did something wrong, she had to write an
essay on the dangers of drinking, specially underage. So, for a week,
she had to spend about one hour a day on her essay, after homework,
before hanging out with her friends. I wouldn't call this a punishment,
but a lesson, though, of course, writing essays on this is not
something a 12 yo girls likes. I think it was a good solution, a
corection without resentment.
Some parents told me she should have got a harsh spanking and say
she'll do it again. I don't think so.
What do you think?
My girl knew she wouldn't be spanked, though she knew she' might be
grounded. Would she have told me what happened if I was a spanking
mother? (I didn't ask her)
My girl asked me what I would do if I had got to know that by someone
else. I got embarrassed and said I'd sure wait for a while until she
herself told me.
Amanda
Sharon Long
"Amanda" <sc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155133862.0...@n13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hello
>
> I got a terrible infection, Im better now. Back to work and to Google.
> How is everybody? How is La Vonne?
>
> I have a question to those parents who consider spanking a good
> disciplinary tool (though everyone can answer, of course). With this, I
> just want a beter understanding of what such parents think. I oppose
> spanking, but many parents believe in it
>
> In the situations below, would you spank you daughter?
>
> My 12 yo daughter was studying with one of her friends, the same age,
> at her home. They ended up alone. There was a bottle of wine. The girls
> got curious and ended up drinking some wine. I got to know because my
> girl knew that was wrong, felt bad with herself, and decided to tell me
> the truth. She apologized and was afraid I'd be disappointed and she'd
> lose my trust. I forgave and told her I loved her honesty and still
> trustef her. But since she did something wrong, she had to write an
> essay on the dangers of drinking, specially underage. So, for a week,
> she had to spend about one hour a day on her essay, after homework,
> before hanging out with her friends. I wouldn't call this a punishment,
> but a lesson, though, of course, writing essays on this is not
> something a 12 yo girls likes. I think it was a good solution, a
> corection without resentment.
>
> Some parents told me she should have got a harsh spanking and say
> she'll do it again. I don't think so.
Hi Amanda -
Never heard that term 'harsh spanking' before - so I googled it and -
oh well -
>
> What do you think?
I think talk of 'harsh spankings' for 12yo's migt go better on
alt.sex.pickone
Amanda
use. Harsh spanking is just a spanking that causes much pain. This has
no sexual meaning.
I guess you didn't read my post. It's incredible you got it so wrong.
Amanda
Sharon Long
> You didn't get the point. Spanking is a disciplinary tool many parents
> use. Harsh spanking is just a spanking that causes much pain. This has
> no sexual meaning.
>
> I guess you didn't read my post. It's incredible you got it so wrong.
Amanda - most folk don't come hear to learn about raising kids - they come
for spanking stories or audios - like LaCrissies jerk off audio.
Harsh spanking is a term that is so rare outside of sexual spankers I
naturally assume you were playing to the lurker who likes to discuss
spanking young girls while he... well you know. In fact you'd be hard
pressed (no pun intended) to find it used any other way on google unless you
count Butch (Kane) lol
0:->
Didn't you post this not long back, and didn't we already have a discussion?
Kane
--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
Amanda
Amanda
Angel Mom
have spanked her. But I think this was a trivial offense, unless
previously discussed and forbidden. I let my two daughters taste and
even drink wine at dinner beginning when they were twelve. One is now
32, the other 19. Neither has ever been drunk and don't respect people
who are. There is no charisma attached to people who drink, nor to
those on drugs as well.
Greegor
A CRIMINAL OFFENSE throughout the USA
and no exception is made for this old teaching technique.
Greegor
0:->
> Now'days serving liquor to a minor is
> A CRIMINAL OFFENSE throughout the USA
> and no exception is made for this old teaching technique.
"Old teaching technique?"
I'll just bet you are a proponent of this technique as the French use it
to teach their children to handle drinking responsibly, right?
Just for fun check out the alcoholism rates for France sometime, dummy.
0:->
>
> Angel Mom wrote:
>> I let my two daughters taste and even drink wine at dinner
>> beginning when they were twelve. One is now 32, the other 19.
>> Neither has ever been drunk and don't respect people
>> who are. There is no charisma attached to people who drink,
>> nor to those on drugs as well.
>
dragonsgirl
My answer:
Most assuredly.
This mom needs a good spanking to teach her how to act.
"Greegor" <Gre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156369744....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Greegor
> Just for fun check out the alcoholism rates for France sometime, dummy.
1. The USA is not France.
2. Are statistics more important than a parents right to teach as they
see fit?
3. You ignored that for the woman who described it, it WORKED!
4. Got the stats monkey on your back again? You said stats lie!
5. You ARE your own worst enemy, Kane.
6. All I did was point out that now the method is CRIMINAL!
7. Do you deny # 6 is true?
dragonsgirl
> Kane wrote
>> Just for fun check out the alcoholism rates for France sometime, dummy.
>
> 1. The USA is not France.
No kidding?
> 2. Are statistics more important than a parents right to teach as they
> see fit?
You pointed out that giving wine to kids is done often in France, he pointed
out that the stats for alocoholism in France may be high.
Common practice vs Negative outcome.
Make sense?
> 3. You ignored that for the woman who described it, it WORKED!
Did it?
Or did her children simply not carry a gene for alcoholism?
Did they maybe not like wine?
Or maybe momma doesn't know everything she thinks he does, huh?
> 4. Got the stats monkey on your back again? You said stats lie!
I have no idea what that means, but early introduction to alcohol does not a
model citizen make.
> 5. You ARE your own worst enemy, Kane.
That's cute.
> 6. All I did was point out that now the method is CRIMINAL!
By calling it a 'teaching method'...
Giving alcohol to children is a teaching method?
What, exactly, would one be teaching by doing so?
And yes, it's criminal....just because Kane didn't reply to that particular
part of your post doesn't mean a thing.
> 7. Do you deny # 6 is true?
I would deny it.
Seems no matter what the subject of a post, what issues are brought up, etc
you feel a need to pick and choose what you want to from them, and often
times infer things based on simple statements.
YOU made it sound as if you believe that giving a child alcohol is a
learning experience.
Then you went on to say that it's illegal.
And THEN ask if stats are more important than a parent's right to 'teach' as
they see fit.
Oh brother.
>
Greegor
> Seems no matter what the subject of a post, what issues are brought up, etc
> you feel a need to pick and choose what you want to from them, and often
> times infer things based on simple statements.
Thank You Betty!
Doan
>
> "Greegor" <Gre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1156410211.1...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Kane wrote
> >> Just for fun check out the alcoholism rates for France sometime, dummy.
> >
> > 1. The USA is not France.
>
> No kidding?
>
> > 2. Are statistics more important than a parents right to teach as they
> > see fit?
>
> You pointed out that giving wine to kids is done often in France, he pointed
> out that the stats for alocoholism in France may be high.
> Common practice vs Negative outcome.
> Make sense?
>
Except that he might be lying, as usual. Why don't you look up the stats
and see if Kane is telling the truth? Here is my simple search using
google:
Alcoholism in Western Europe (Extrapolated Statistics)
Britain (United Kingdom) 3,345,910 60,270,708 for UK2
Belgium 574,481 10,348,2762
France 3,354,432 60,424,2132
Ireland 220,368 3,969,5582
Luxembourg 25,686 462,6902
Monaco 1,791 32,2702
Netherlands (Holland) 905,900 16,318,1992
United Kingdom 3,345,910 60,270,7082
Wales 161,991 2,918,0002
Wanna look up the stats for good old USA? ;-)
Doan
Greegor
> Alcoholism in Western Europe (Extrapolated Statistics)
> Britain (United Kingdom) 3,345,910 60,270,708 for UK2
> Belgium 574,481 10,348,2762
> France 3,354,432 60,424,2132
> Ireland 220,368 3,969,5582
> Luxembourg 25,686 462,6902
> Monaco 1,791 32,2702
> Netherlands (Holland) 905,900 16,318,1992
> United Kingdom 3,345,910 60,270,7082
> Wales 161,991 2,918,0002
>
> Wanna look up the stats for good old USA? ;-)
> Doan
Roar ROFL!
0:->
Why no source cite and link, Monkeyboy?
0:->
>
> Doan
Greegor
> This mom needs a good spanking to teach her how to act.
Clearly Betty believes in the efficacy of spanking!
Thanks Betty!
0:->
She has said so. The quality of your memory suggests you may need to be
evaluated for early Alzheimer's, Greg. Check yourself in.
> Thanks Betty!
You asking her for a date next?
R R R R R R R
You'd probably be among the first she'd spank, and not for fun, either.
I take it she does not abide liars and those who are cruel to children.
0:->
Doan
What? Can't use that "formidable research skill" of yours, Neverspanked
boy? ;-)
Doan
0:->
Your source is not my homework, boy.
Provide it or be seen again, as wearing no clothes and flinging shit.
0:->
>
> Doan
dragonsgirl
Now Greg, let's not get all cocky and crude, as is your usual way.
I have never said that I did not agree with spanking...or, ore the the
point, I didn't disagree with others doing so.
I used to spank, and I believe I made it clear that I od not any longer
because I see no need for it after learning some behavior modification
technics.
Isn't that so, Greg?
>
Doan
Hihihi! Shit coming out of your mouth again!
Doan
0:->
Compared to the fact YOU did not prove that the French have overcome the
drunkenness problem by "teaching" their children how to drink responsibly.
R R R R R R R
>
> Doan
>
I see you still won't provide a citation for your source.
What are you afraid of?
0:->
Doan
Nice try! I've never claimed that, STUPID!
> >
> > Doan
> >
> I see you still won't provide a citation for your source.
>
> What are you afraid of?
>
Where your citation for the French drunkenness problem, the New England
Journal of Medicine? ;-)
AF
Ron
"dragonsgirl" <drago...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:v1GHg.3053$yO7...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
Spanking is and of itself a behavior modification technique. The difference
in the frame of the discussion is, is it being applied by a vengeful/angry
parent or a parent who is trying to modify behavior?
Ron
dragonsgirl
"Ron" <apositi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:2wKHg.12964$ok5.4754@dukeread01...
Regardless of how it applies to this discussion, I do not feel a need to
spank anymore.
I find that other types of discipline work rather effectively, and spanking
isn't at all as useful as I had once thought it was.
>
>
Ron
>
> "Ron" <apositi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:2wKHg.12964$ok5.4754@dukeread01...
>>
>> "dragonsgirl" <drago...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:v1GHg.3053$yO7...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>> "Greegor" <Gre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1156520923.5...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Betty wrote
>>>>> This mom needs a good spanking to teach her how to act.
>>>>
>>>> Clearly Betty believes in the efficacy of spanking!
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Betty!
>>>
>>> Now Greg, let's not get all cocky and crude, as is your usual way.
>>> I have never said that I did not agree with spanking...or, ore the the
>>> point, I didn't disagree with others doing so.
>>> I used to spank, and I believe I made it clear that I od not any longer
>>> because I see no need for it after learning some behavior modification
>>> technics.
>>> Isn't that so, Greg?
>>
>> Spanking is and of itself a behavior modification technique. The
>> difference in the frame of the discussion is, is it being applied by a
>> vengeful/angry parent or a parent who is trying to modify behavior?
>>
>> Ron
>
> Regardless of how it applies to this discussion, I do not feel a need to
> spank anymore.
Well, then thats your decision. Congratulations.
> I find that other types of discipline work rather effectively, and
> spanking isn't at all as useful as I had once thought it was.
I find it quite useful, but only use it when it is required. Each
individual must make their own decisions about parenting and discipline. I
don't slight anyone for making these decisions as long as they do so for
reasons that are in the best interests of their child(ren).
What I object to is someone trying to foist their opinion of what is and is
not good parenting on the parents of this country through legislation. I
also object to those who have a bit of education trying to use it to
browbeat us parents into believing that their limited education is more
valid than 20,000+ years of historical experience and fact.
Ron
0:->
Oh, then why did you post the list of countries data?
>>> Doan
>>>
>> I see you still won't provide a citation for your source.
>>
>> What are you afraid of?
>>
> Where your citation for the French drunkenness problem, the New England
> Journal of Medicine? ;-)
http://www.aaw.com/under/four.html
"Parent cultures? Both French and Italian children commonly grow up with
wine as a table beverage. Again, the French alcoholism rate is many
times higher than the Italian, this in spite of the Italians drinking
about the same amount of alcohol per capita. To the drink counters this
difference in alcoholism rates disappears into per capita equivalence."
http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/36/1/89
"According to the HCSP (Chevalier and Lambrozo, 1990Go), five million
persons are at medical, psychological and social risk through excessive
alcohol consumption, i.e. 15% of the population aged over 18 years (high
estimate). According to the health survey of 1991–1992 conducted by the
French Public Statistical Office (INSEE) (Tellier, 1996Go), 16% of men
consume more than five drinks a day, and 5% of women more than three
drinks a day, i.e. 10% of the population are considered as heavy
drinkers (low estimate).
Table 1Go shows the AAF for an alcohol abuse prevalence of 10%
(low-bound estimate). Most of these health disorders stem directly from
alcohol abuse, i.e. AAF = 100%. These calculations were repeated for a
prevalence of 15% (high estimate)."
So now. Would YOU like to take a position? Or are you just Monkeying
around?
R R R R R R R R R R
>
> AF
dragonsgirl
I agree with you to a point...some parents was to take the 'friend'
approach.
Yes, 'friends' who give their kids alcohol, let them have sex at home, etc
etc.
Other than that, yeah, I agree...others can raise kids as they please, and
you will note that I rarely make comment on spanking in general because I
don't care much if others do spank.
0:->
http://www.paris-anglo.com/dedent/dedent.php?request=guide/understand/howParisianslive/81.php
"The need to "let loose" or partake in anti-social behavior is not as
prevalent in France, mostly in that the culture is socially less
repressed in general. It has been estimated that the average French
person over 20 years old consumes an average of 53 grams (1.87 ounces)
of pure alcohol per day, making him a participant in an impressive
percentage: the French remain the world愀 heaviest consumers of alcohol
per capita after the Luxembourgeois.
Wine is still served with both lunch and dinner in many families, but
the meal is no longer considered incomplete without it (see Wine).
Alcoholism in France is responsible for 17,000 deaths a year, caused
more by cheap red wine than hard alcohol, and it is a phenomenon which
is vastly more common in rural and slum areas."
Wanna bet those Luxembourgers also "teach" their children "responsible
drinking" young?
Ever been to Europe, Dummy?
0:->
>
> AF
Greegor
appreciative of the intent to DEMYSTIFY liquor.
Preaching abstinence when it comes to liquor just doesn't work.
Doan
What does this have to do with "drunkenness", stupid? How many people
in the USA died each year due to alcoholism?
> Wanna bet those Luxembourgers also "teach" their children "responsible
> drinking" young?
>
> Ever been to Europe, Dummy?
>
Hihihi! Yes!
AF
Doug
>> spanking isn't at all as useful as I had once thought it was.
>
> I find it quite useful, but only use it when it is required. Each
> individual must make their own decisions about parenting and discipline.
> I don't slight anyone for making these decisions as long as they do so for
> reasons that are in the best interests of their child(ren).
Hi, Ron!
I agree that it remains for each parent to decide about how they are going
to parent their children. People outside the family (including the
government) have a very limited, specifically defined say so only in cases
where the child has been maltreated or abandoned. Yet, as I suppose we both
know, it is an ongoing preoccupation among many people to force their ideas
on parenting upon others and to judge other parents based upon their own
individualized concepts of parenting. No subject gets more airing around
the gossip tables of this country.
It is altogether proper and fitting for a parent to decide themselves
whether to employ spanking as discipline. Personally, I have never spanked
any of my children. It was my decision and is just as valid as the decision
made by another parent to spank their children. I do not have the provance
to decide for another parent who he or she should discipline their children.
> What I object to is someone trying to foist their opinion of what is and
> is not good parenting on the parents of this country through legislation.
I share your objection and spend a good deal of my time fighting this
ill-conceived legislation. There is a concerted attempt by *some* with
social science degrees to bring the gossip table into the statehouse. The
would have government inflict their institutionalized vision of parenting
upon families.
> I also object to those who have a bit of education trying to use it to
> browbeat us parents into believing that their limited education is more
> valid than 20,000+ years of historical experience and fact.
Well said! We have seen a history of attempts by these slightly educated
social engineers to sway legislators into empowering government intrusions
into the family decision-making.
Increasingly, the state pays therapists to draw upon flimsy, unproven
psychobabble to dictate how a parent should interact with her/his child
without meeting either. There is no "archtype" of ideal parenting found in
a textbook. Rather, the art of parenting involves family interactions based
upon parent and child knowing one another intimately and understanding what
is in their best interests. A family empowers each of its members to be who
they are as individuals.
Over the last two decades, the state is turning more and more toward our
21st century version of the witchdoctor -- the therapist -- to ordane for
all of us "appropriate" behavior and find pathology in the most innocent and
routine of day to day family interactions.
0:->
Greegor wrote:
> Kane, Being an ATHEIST, you should be specially
> appreciative of the intent to DEMYSTIFY liquor.
I fail to see the connection. Possibly you could explain?
> Preaching abstinence when it comes to liquor just doesn't work.
I don't recall having preached abstinence. Can you explain which
statement(s) of mine were preaching and abstinence?
I did call into question the idea of "teaching children to drink
responsibly," though.
My idea of drinking responsibly is following the law...being
responsible, both as parent and child.
I took my children out for a drink when they were of legal age.
They weren't impressed, still aren't, decades later. I did no
preaching.
0:->
0:->
Interesting you should pop into this thread at THIS particular
juncture.
The subject had gone, before this, to the idea of "teaching children to
drink responsibly."
Any thoughts?
0:->
Doug
> juncture.
>
> The subject had gone, before this, to the idea of "teaching children to
> drink responsibly."
>
> Any thoughts?
Hi, Kane,
Early onset of the use of alcohol or other drugs is correlated to major
dysfunction in adults who have identified themselves as chemically
dependent. If a child carries the set of genes that increase one's
vulnerability to alcoholism, it is hard to imagine how he or she could be
taught to drink responsibly, since the inability to do so is the very
essence of the disorder.
Nonetheless, Children are bombarded by the advertising of an industry which
sells 70% of its product to 15% of its customers. Despite governmental
pressure to deliver messages about responsible drinking, the liquor industry
is hard put to encourage drinking in small quanities. I am reminded of the
late 1970's, when sale of alcoholic drinks leveled off and became stagnant.
The industry came up with a multitude of new beverages aimed at the very
young and female (cheap pop wines, etc). An unexpected benefit of the
marketing plan was male consumers buying "light beer," a beverage designed
for the female market.
Without doubt, drinking at an early age can only increase cellular
dependence on alcohol. Alcoholism is a biological, psychological and social
disease. Introducing a child to drinking at any early age in the misguided
mission of providing a more secure social environment for experimentation
can only ignite the biological component for those who carry the genetic
coding of alcoholism. There is substantial evidence that drinking at an
early age interrupts developmental tasks of children, impacting the
psychological domain of chemical dependency disorders. Where will the
children go and how much will they drink after the home "experiment" with
alcohol is concluded?
Those who are not predisposed toward alcoholism do not need to be taught how
to drink responsibly. Those who are, are incapable of it.
Children learn about alcohol by watching how adults in their family system
use it. No amount of controlled training on responsible drinking is going
to override what the children observe their parents doing. How and why
adult members of the family use alcohol is the overriding social message
children incorporate into their construction of what drinking will do for
them.
Lessons in responsible drinking delivered by, say, an alcoholic father to
his son, is likely to produce the same results as blowing a french horn into
the ear of a sleeping lion.
Greegor
genetic predisposition to alcoholism.
Aren't those predisposed a MINORITY and for the
MAJORITY wouldn't SOCIAL factors such as
PEER PRESSURE be the main issue?
Apparently my parents, siblings and I are all not
predisposed to alcoholism, so our biggest
vulnerability was SOCIAL rather than genetic predisposition.
My parents almost never drink and DEMYSTIFIED
liquor for us, teaching moderation.
When I went to college, I was strongly pressured
SOCIALLY to drink liquor, but I was NOT INTERESTED.
In other one on one situations like dating I did
drink minimally for SOCIAL reasons.
I do not drink liquor at all.
I also don't smoke or do any drugs.
Apparently we disagree about the importance of the
SOCIAL and peer pressure aspects of liquor consumption.
While I must comply with the law, I lament that
parents are no longer allowed to DEMYSTIFY liquor
or teach moderation in this way.
0:->
>> Interesting you should pop into this thread at THIS particular
>> juncture.
>>
>> The subject had gone, before this, to the idea of "teaching children to
>> drink responsibly."
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>
> Hi, Kane,
>
> Early onset of the use of alcohol or other drugs is correlated to major
> dysfunction in adults who have identified themselves as chemically
> dependent. If a child carries the set of genes that increase one's
> vulnerability to alcoholism, it is hard to imagine how he or she could be
> taught to drink responsibly, since the inability to do so is the very
> essence of the disorder.
Why are you addressing JUST ME, Doug. I am NOT THE one that posted
suggesting that this is a good practice.
Are you fraudulently CHERRY PICKING, AGAIN, Doug? Pretending one of your
"sicophants"[sic] isn't the one supporting such practices?
Yep. Now why did you address ONLY me, Doug?
Grooming the other's perhaps?
0:-> R R R R RR ...
you are SUCH a phony.
0:->
What do you mean by "this way," Greg?
Parents themselves setting the example by drinking in moderation, as you
say your parents did with you and your sibs, or letting you and they
have a little drinky yourselves now and then?
You are fogging the issue.
Doug made it very clear what his position was. Now you are trying to
drag it back to your "pretending" bullshit.
Be clear, Greg, or you in fact DO sound like an alchy in mindset if not
in factual use.
That's the kind of equivocating common to drunks and druggies.
Which do you mean?
Kane
PS. There are theories such as generational skipping, where no one in a
family for three generations has ever had a drop, yet they exhibit all
the characteristics of the drug effected family....the dynamic of
personal interaction being carried forward even though the drugs or
alcohol were not.
Weird stuff, eh? I haven't made my mind up about it, but you can trust
Doug will have an opinion. R R R R R K
Doug
> suggesting that this is a good practice.
Hi, Kane,
...Because you are the one who asked me if I had any thoughts on the
subject.
"Interesting you should pop into this thread at THIS particular
juncture."
"The subject had gone, before this, to the idea of "teaching children to
drink responsibly."
"Any thoughts?"
I gave you my thoughts on the subject.
> Yep. Now why did you address ONLY me, Doug?
Because only you asked for my thoughts on the subject.
You appear a bit...how does one say....defensive. <g>
Doug
> genetic predisposition to alcoholism.
>
> Aren't those predisposed a MINORITY and for the
> MAJORITY wouldn't SOCIAL factors such as
> PEER PRESSURE be the main issue?
Hi, Greg,
Alcoholism is a bio-psycho-social disease. All domains are involved, but
the biological, genetic component is a big part of the picture.
And yes, those predisposed to alcoholism represent a decided minority of the
population -- 10%.
> Apparently my parents, siblings and I are all not
> predisposed to alcoholism, so our biggest
> vulnerability was SOCIAL rather than genetic predisposition.
>
> My parents almost never drink and DEMYSTIFIED
> liquor for us, teaching moderation.
In your case, it appears that both the biological and social components were
non-alcoholic. Since your parents almost never drank and demonstrated
moderation when they did so, the social domain you were subjected to was one
of moderation.
> When I went to college, I was strongly pressured
> SOCIALLY to drink liquor, but I was NOT INTERESTED.
> In other one on one situations like dating I did
> drink minimally for SOCIAL reasons.
Many non-alcoholic people are pressured by peers in college and succumb to
the pressure through binge drinking, etc. It is a common ritual at that
age. However, laking the other components to the disease of alcoholism,
these folks stop drinking in this way when they leave college. These young
people are certainly using alcohol irresponsibly and, at that time, may be
diagnosed as substance abusers, but they are not chemically dependent. An
alcoholic, on the other hand, is dependent on the drug.
I should have made the distinction between chemical abuse and chemical
dependency in my initial post. I apologize for the resulting confusion. My
post concentrated on alcoholism, which involves those who are chemically
dependent upon the drug.
> I do not drink liquor at all.
> I also don't smoke or do any drugs.
Alcohol effects those who are predisposed to alcoholism in an entirely
different way. They are a different reaction to the drug from the onset.
To them, it goes "BOOM." To those who are not predisposed, it goes "tinkle,
tinkle."
> Apparently we disagree about the importance of the
> SOCIAL and peer pressure aspects of liquor consumption.
Perhaps. It is more likely we were talking about two different things.
Peer pressure and other elements in the social domain are a big player in
liquor consumption. I agree with your views in this respect. But for the
user to become dependent upon the drug, there are usually contributors from
the biological and psychological domains.
> While I must comply with the law, I lament that
> parents are no longer allowed to DEMYSTIFY liquor
> or teach moderation in this way.
My point was that children learn moderation by observing how their parents
drink. This would certainly be influence in the social domain and very
powerful.
0:->
>> Why are you addressing JUST ME, Doug. I am NOT THE one that posted
>> suggesting that this is a good practice.
>
> Hi, Kane,
>
> ...Because you are the one who asked me if I had any thoughts on the
> subject.
>
> "Interesting you should pop into this thread at THIS particular
> juncture."
>
> "The subject had gone, before this, to the idea of "teaching children to
> drink responsibly."
>
> "Any thoughts?"
>
> I gave you my thoughts on the subject.
Nope. You did not. Not on the above, until later...after I asked that
question.
>> Yep. Now why did you address ONLY me, Doug?
>
> Because only you asked for my thoughts on the subject.
Others brought up the subject, Doug. <smile>
> You appear a bit...how does one say....defensive. <g>
Really?
To mention others in the thread is defensive?
In fact, I'd say your comment itself with the "<g>" is exactly that;
defensive.
0:->
0:->
>> Doug, You place a great deal of emphasis on the
>> genetic predisposition to alcoholism.
>>
>> Aren't those predisposed a MINORITY and for the
>> MAJORITY wouldn't SOCIAL factors such as
>> PEER PRESSURE be the main issue?
>
> Hi, Greg,
>
> Alcoholism is a bio-psycho-social disease. All domains are involved, but
> the biological, genetic component is a big part of the picture.
>
> And yes, those predisposed to alcoholism represent a decided minority of the
> population -- 10%.
Heck, that's just 30,000,000 people, Greg ... and a lot of them parents.
No reason to get excited and presume that child abuse might just be a
part of the picture, big time.
Naw. 0;->
>
>> Apparently my parents, siblings and I are all not
>> predisposed to alcoholism, so our biggest
>> vulnerability was SOCIAL rather than genetic predisposition.
>>
>> My parents almost never drink and DEMYSTIFIED
>> liquor for us, teaching moderation.
>
> In your case, it appears that both the biological and social components were
> non-alcoholic. Since your parents almost never drank and demonstrated
> moderation when they did so, the social domain you were subjected to was one
> of moderation.
>
>> When I went to college, I was strongly pressured
>> SOCIALLY to drink liquor, but I was NOT INTERESTED.
>> In other one on one situations like dating I did
>> drink minimally for SOCIAL reasons.
>
> Many non-alcoholic people are pressured by peers in college and succumb to
> the pressure through binge drinking, etc. It is a common ritual at that
> age. However, laking the other components to the disease of alcoholism,
> these folks stop drinking in this way when they leave college. These young
> people are certainly using alcohol irresponsibly and, at that time, may be
> diagnosed as substance abusers, but they are not chemically dependent. An
> alcoholic, on the other hand, is dependent on the drug.
>
> I should have made the distinction between chemical abuse and chemical
> dependency in my initial post. I apologize for the resulting confusion.
Greg, confused? Naw, not Greg. He jumps through your hoops with hardly a
bobble, on schedule.
0:->
> My
> post concentrated on alcoholism, which involves those who are chemically
> dependent upon the drug.
I don't know, Doug. If you aren't a drunk, or if you are, you aren't
authorized to speak on the subject. At least that's the logic Greg has
been following in his posts on other subjects.
Unless someone has been a parent they can't be experts on child
behavior, and yet, if they have been abused as a child they can't be
experts on abuse and child behavior because they are "biased," and
subjective.
You folks crack me up, Doug.
He's been reading you too long and has gone into permanent spin mode.
>> I do not drink liquor at all.
>> I also don't smoke or do any drugs.
>
> Alcohol effects those who are predisposed to alcoholism in an entirely
> different way. They are a different reaction to the drug from the onset.
> To them, it goes "BOOM." To those who are not predisposed, it goes "tinkle,
> tinkle."
Is this potty humor?
>> Apparently we disagree about the importance of the
>> SOCIAL and peer pressure aspects of liquor consumption.
>
> Perhaps. It is more likely we were talking about two different things.
> Peer pressure and other elements in the social domain are a big player in
> liquor consumption. I agree with your views in this respect. But for the
> user to become dependent upon the drug, there are usually contributors from
> the biological and psychological domains.
Usually, Doug. But not always. Where do you come by this special knowledge?
Get enough booze into someone over a long enough period of time and they
can be just as hooked as the bio-psycho domains.
>> While I must comply with the law, I lament that
>> parents are no longer allowed to DEMYSTIFY liquor
>> or teach moderation in this way.
>
> My point was that children learn moderation by observing how their parents
> drink. This would certainly be influence in the social domain and very
> powerful.
I other words you don't want to go to the area HE is talking about but
dodged when I asked him.
The subject of the thread at the time this issue opened up was having
children drink in moderation with their parents, when the child is very
young.
HE defended it by REFUSING TO DISCUSS THE SUBJECT WHEN I ASKED HIM IF
THAT WAS WHAT HE MEANT...a smart ass retort as I recall, off topic, was
all he'd say.
Now, what is YOUR viewpoint on teaching children moderation by having
them drink with the parents as "The French" and other Europeans do?
And don't give me the bullshit about, "Well, if they are predisposed."
This is RISK QUESTION, and I won't kid you about it. No traps being
laid. I'm asking you out front, do YOU personally and PROFESSIONALLY
think that taking the risk is worth the "moderation" "taught?"
You and Greg both can stop your dodging and weasel dancing now.
Doan
> Doug wrote:
> >> Doug, You place a great deal of emphasis on the
> >> genetic predisposition to alcoholism.
> >>
> >> Aren't those predisposed a MINORITY and for the
> >> MAJORITY wouldn't SOCIAL factors such as
> >> PEER PRESSURE be the main issue?
> >
> > Hi, Greg,
> >
> > Alcoholism is a bio-psycho-social disease. All domains are involved, but
> > the biological, genetic component is a big part of the picture.
> >
> > And yes, those predisposed to alcoholism represent a decided minority of the
> > population -- 10%.
>
> Heck, that's just 30,000,000 people, Greg ... and a lot of them parents.
> No reason to get excited and presume that child abuse might just be a
> part of the picture, big time.
>
> Naw. 0;->
>
Well! We can try Prohibition again! ;-)
Doan
Doug
>
> Nope. You did not. Not on the above, until later...after I asked that
> question.
>
Hi, Kane,
I only made one post in the thread -- that one answering your question. And
you then replied, why did you answer me?
>Now why did you address ONLY me, Doug?
>>
>> Because only you asked for my thoughts on the subject.
>
> Others brought up the subject, Doug. <smile>
...Only you asked the question. So I answered it.
0:->
chose not to spank," argument.
How do you feel about slavery then?
I understand a lot of folks approved that weren't slave holders themselves.
Here's a peach of a story.
And I wonder how you'll excuse parents but not the perps in this case.
I mean, what's the difference, eh?
Why shouldn't any caregiver make their own choice about how to discipline?
Greegor
Kane wrote
> Why shouldn't any caregiver make their own choice about how to discipline?
A DAY CARE provider??
lw_ca...@yahoo.co.uk
that this was sutible punishment
lw_ca...@yahoo.co.uk
their children
>
> AF
0:->
Oh, then there's something so special about spanking that it should be
prohibited?
What might that be?
After all, if the child were sick wouldn't you want the provider to use
good judgement and deliver the child to a health professional for
treatment?
0:->
Doan
Even when the substitute is worse than spanking???
AF
0:->
.......................snip...............
> > I think parents should always try to find a substitute to spanking
> > their children
>
> Even when the substitute is worse than spanking???
Even if the stupid question is asked by a stupid hysterical dancing
screeching monkeyboy?
> AF
R R R R R R R
0:->
Doan
Hihihi! We already determined who's the stupid one here on this newsgroup
- JUST LOOK IN THE MIRROR!
AF
0:->
I can't look in your mirror, thanks, monkeyboy.
0:->
>
> AF
Greegor
> A DAY CARE provider??
Kane wrote
> Oh, then there's something so special about
> spanking that it should be prohibited?
Greg wrote
Clearly they didn't have parental permission.
Doan
I was talking about YOU, STUPID! ;-)
Doan
0:->
What is it about spanking, a harmless activity for discipline, according
to some posters here, that would require special permission?
Is there some risk?
Do you think that any actions that are disciplinary, such as timing a
child out, or punishing them with having to sit out an activity other
children are participating in, should require parental permission for
the caregiver to be able to use them?
If not, why not?
Aren't they both, non-CP and CP equally risk free?
0:->
Greegor
> Aren't they both, non-CP and CP equally risk free?
To be alive is a risk.
It's not some socratic philisophy discussion
for you to bend and contort.
It's a LEGAL issue, and so lack of parental permission
would be a HUGE issue.
Doug
>not to spank," argument.
>
> How do you feel about slavery then?
Hi, Kane,
I am against slavery, as we all are. There are also laws against it.
But slavery has nothing to do with spanking.
> I mean, what's the difference, eh?
There is a huge difference, of course. Asking a child to clean his room is
not slavery. Spanking is not abuse. The art of living carries us through a
multitude of such distinctions.
There are always a few citizens who want the state to dictate to parents how
to raise their children. They differ from the vast majority of citizens,
who would leave the job of parenting to parents. The kids like it better
that way, too. So that's what our law says.
> Why shouldn't any caregiver make their own choice about how to discipline?
...Which is society's stance. It is a parent's choice about how to
discipline. It's the law.
In the United States of America, the best interests of children are presumed
to be with their parents unless the state proves the parents have abandoned
their children or abused/neglected their children.
0:->
Doug wrote:
> >I just loved your response, Doug. Your defense of spanking though "I chose
> >not to spank," argument.
> >
> > How do you feel about slavery then?
>
> Hi, Kane,
>
> I am against slavery, as we all are. There are also laws against it.
Actually you are wrong. We are not "all" against it. It is becoming a
major problem in the U.S. only now becoming recognized. And world wide,
me oh my.
So you are wrong again, Doug.
> But slavery has nothing to do with spanking.
It's called a metaphor, Doug. Ever heard of them?
> > I mean, what's the difference, eh?
>
> There is a huge difference, of course. Asking a child to clean his room is
> not slavery.
It's called a metaphor, Doug. Ever heard of them?
> Spanking is not abuse.
Sure it is. It's just legal abuse. Hitting another IS abusive. In fact
in some states hitting a dog or horse or other pet is abuse, which they
label as "cruelty." Even if you call it "spanking."
> The art of living carries us through a
> multitude of such distinctions.
"The art of living?"
Oh, you mean the sophistry and delusion that hitting (as long as you
call it "spanking") a 17 year, 11 month old teen is not assault, but in
a month it will be so don't do it then, as renaming it won't save your
ass and you'll go to jail for doing it?
> There are always a few citizens who want the state to dictate to parents how
> to raise their children.
No, if you follow the issue more you'll find that there are a huge
number of citizens that in fact want to stop the assualting of children
under color of law.
> They differ from the vast majority of citizens,
Over the past five years I've watched the data on this, and surveys
then showed that well over 60%+ of the population approved of the use
of spanking. It's not down around 50%.
> who would leave the job of parenting to parents.
If they would do so.
> The kids like it better
Dogs will crawl slavishly to their master that beats them. So what's
new?
> that way, too. So that's what our law says.
Ah, then you are willing to follow rule of law. Just watch.
The schools have nearly wiped out paddling. It's not an isolated trend.
> > Why shouldn't any caregiver make their own choice about how to discipline?
>
> ...Which is society's stance. It is a parent's choice about how to
> discipline. It's the law.
Excuse me? Do parents agree to a caregiver yelling at their child, or
making them sit apart from other children for punishment, or write the
same phrase over and over again as a form of punishment-discipline?
Why is spanking set aside with legal sanctions one way or the other,
and these other disciplines not?
Could it be that there is, even in the apologists, like you, for
spanking, a realization there is a very real risk involved?
> In the United States of America, the best interests of children are presumed
> to be with their parents unless the state proves the parents have abandoned
> their children or abused/neglected their children.
Yes, and that will be the downfall of anachronistic child abuse under
color of law called "spanking."
We can't even get away legally with doing to animals what we do to
children.
You are not more "right" morally or otherwise (and especially stupid
and ignorant apparently) on this issue than you will find one day you
are about moving more money to "reunification" services in the funding
stream for child protection.
You don't understand child abuse, and THIS sir, is a very real example
of yoru ignorance.
You have a little axe to grind, Doug, and it's the same one your lackey
Greg grinds stupidly daily.
0:->
Doan
On 1 Sep 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > Spanking is not abuse.
>
> Sure it is. It's just legal abuse. Hitting another IS abusive. In fact
> in some states hitting a dog or horse or other pet is abuse, which they
> label as "cruelty." Even if you call it "spanking."
>
So when the police "hit" you for not complying, it IS abusive? So do you
say that LaVonne was abused by her parents? ;-)
Doan
0:->
Doan wrote:
> On 1 Sep 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
> > > Spanking is not abuse.
> >
> > Sure it is. It's just legal abuse. Hitting another IS abusive. In fact
> > in some states hitting a dog or horse or other pet is abuse, which they
> > label as "cruelty." Even if you call it "spanking."
> >
> So when the police "hit" you for not complying, it IS abusive?
Nope. They might have to prove they needed to use force to control me
though. In a court of law.
The child doesn't get this break because the parent is given, by law,
the right to assault the child at the parent's pleasure. All the parent
must do is not cause injury to the point a court would convict.
Recently we've seen a couple of cases here and in the media where
parents did in fact get away with beatings severe enough to leave long
lasting marks, like from belt buckles, by finding of the court.
How sad that our country is so foolishly unclear on this issue.
You could help, monkeyboy, by actually taking a neutral stance, as you
like to claim for yourself, "let the parent's decide" hystercial
dancing screeching lying monkeyboy.
> So do you
> say that LaVonne was abused by her parents? ;-)
Yep. Of course. What a silly question. Sadly there was no law to
protect her. It's coming, of course. And you twits are terrified
because you are so cowardly as to need some last desperate measure to
"control" little tiny weaker than you children.
Your question, of course, was meant to be harrassing, wasn't it, little
monkeyboy?
Or are you doing a scientific survey?
R R R R R R
> Doan
0:->
Doug
>
> Actually you are wrong. We are not "all" against it. It is becoming a
> major problem in the U.S. only now becoming recognized. And world wide,
> me oh my.
Hi, Kane,
By "we" I was referring to members of this newsgroup. We are all against
slavery.
>> But slavery has nothing to do with spanking.
>
> It's called a metaphor, Doug. Ever heard of them?
Yes, I believe I have heard of methaphors. But slavery has nothing to do
with spanking.
>> > I mean, what's the difference, eh?
>>
>> There is a huge difference, of course. Asking a child to clean his room
>> is
>> not slavery.
>
> It's called a metaphor, Doug. Ever heard of them?
Yes, I have heard of them. But asking a child to clean his room is not
slavery.
>> There are always a few citizens who want the state to dictate to parents
>> how
>> to raise their children.
>
> No, if you follow the issue more you'll find that there are a huge
> number of citizens that in fact want to stop the assualting of children
> under color of law.
I would imagine that a lot of people rightfully would want to stop
assualting of children. I was talking about spanking. The statement to
which you replied was that there are always a few citizens who want to state
to dictate to parents how to raise their children. There are very few. And
thankfully, the Constitution -- through well-established case law --protects
citizens from such governmental intrusion even if the meddlers became the
majority.
The only time the state has a right to intervene in the raising of children
is when there is a showing of proof that the parents have maltreated the
child or abandoned the child.
Otherwise, the legal presumption is that the child's best interests rests
with her parents.
>> They differ from the vast majority of citizens,
>
> Over the past five years I've watched the data on this, and surveys
> then showed that well over 60%+ of the population approved of the use
> of spanking. It's not down around 50%.
You are correct. It is not down to around 50%. Such a law will never pass
in most states, if not all.
>> who would leave the job of parenting to parents.
>
> If they would do so.
They are doing so. And will continue to do so.
>> The kids like it better
>
> Dogs will crawl slavishly to their master that beats them. So what's
> new?
> Ah, then you are willing to follow rule of law. Just watch.
>
> The schools have nearly wiped out paddling. It's not an isolated trend.
That the state has prohibited its employees from paddling citizens children
has nothing to do with an ordinance that would pretend to tell parents they
could not spank their children. Apples and oranges.
First, you are talking about ordinance against strangers hitting other
people's children.
Second, you are talking about state employees, who fall under the regulation
of and incurr liability on behalf of the state. The state has the right to
regulate its employee's behavior. It does not have the right to tell
parents how to raise their own children.
>> > Why shouldn't any caregiver make their own choice about how to
>> > discipline?
>>
>> ...Which is society's stance. It is a parent's choice about how to
>> discipline. It's the law.
>
> Excuse me? Do parents agree to a caregiver yelling at their child, or
> making them sit apart from other children for punishment, or write the
> same phrase over and over again as a form of punishment-discipline?
Apples and oranges. The state and school district tells their employees how
to discipline other people's children. The state does not tell parents how
to discipline their children.
> Why is spanking set aside with legal sanctions one way or the other,
> and these other disciplines not?
It is not the type of discipline that is in question concerning these laws.
It is the one who is delivering the discipline and who provides them their
paycheck.
> Could it be that there is, even in the apologists, like you, for
> spanking, a realization there is a very real risk involved?
>> In the United States of America, the best interests of children are
>> presumed
>> to be with their parents unless the state proves the parents have
>> abandoned
>> their children or abused/neglected their children.
>
> Yes, and that will be the downfall of anachronistic child abuse under
> color of law called "spanking."
> We can't even get away legally with doing to animals what we do to
> children.
An absurd statement.
>
> You are not more "right" morally or otherwise (and especially stupid
> and ignorant apparently) on this issue than you will find one day you
> are about moving more money to "reunification" services in the funding
> stream for child protection.
Thanks for the reassurance. Since I believe I am right in agreeing with the
Pew Commission that federal funding needs to be redistributed to provide for
reunification over foster care, I am reassured that my position governmental
involvement in spanking is well taken.
> You don't understand child abuse, and THIS sir, is a very real example
> of yoru ignorance.
It is my understanding of child abuse that leads me to agree with the laws
and child protective agencies' policy regarding spanking.
Spanking is not child abuse.
Huge Value
"Doug" <doug...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:lj7Kg.1347$Xb2...@newsfe04.lga...
hehe - did you move to France? I know you can't mean the US *constitution*.
*Protects* citizens- hehe - they'll lock you in MoMar's basement and
electrify your gonads for buying a few cell phones !! hehe - Some
protection.
CPS ran rampant ignoring this *constitution* before it became chic. Now -
OMG - soon caseworkers will have M-16's
hehe - *constitution* protecting citizens in the US- Man where you been ?
0:->
Doug wrote:
> >> I am against slavery, as we all are. There are also laws against it.
> >
> > Actually you are wrong. We are not "all" against it. It is becoming a
> > major problem in the U.S. only now becoming recognized. And world wide,
> > me oh my.
>
> Hi, Kane,
>
> By "we" I was referring to members of this newsgroup. We are all against
> slavery.
Presumptive. This newsgroup has no "members." It's not moderated nor do
we "sign up and join" this newsgroup.
Presumptive. Rather like a lot of your "opinions" under color of what
you present as "facts" that are nothing but your opinion in clever
prose, this is NOT established as true.
You have neither polled the "members" (the posters that come and go
here) as to their opinion of slavery, nor, I am sure have you developed
an interview instrument that would uncover there REAL thoughts and
attitudes about "slavery."
I'd venture, from some of the things I've seen them post that they do
indeed personally endorse (though they will not honestly name it, of
course) slavery in the form of economic restraints.
> >> But slavery has nothing to do with spanking.
> >
> > It's called a metaphor, Doug. Ever heard of them?
>
> Yes, I believe I have heard of methaphors. But slavery has nothing to do
> with spanking.
Your statement is true. Your application to MY use of metaphor is noted
as illogical.
I did not claim they were the same.
Though there are some characteristics of being dependent, as children
or disabled folks have, that are indeed shared by slaves.
The application of humiliation being one, and for children and slaves
the application of pain withhout recourse.
> >> > I mean, what's the difference, eh?
> >>
> >> There is a huge difference, of course. Asking a child to clean his room
> >> is
> >> not slavery.
> >
> > It's called a metaphor, Doug. Ever heard of them?
>
> Yes, I have heard of them. But asking a child to clean his room is not
> slavery.
Neither I nor anyone else has made such a claim, so YOU are rewriting
my comments into something they are and were not.
The "slavery" part applies to that state where very bad things can be
done to both slaves and children and there is no recourse for the
victim. One instance protected by secrecy (slavery) and the other
protected by both secrecy AND legal sanctions supporting the action
against children.
You don't stand a chance arguing in favor of the spanking choice, Doug,
but deep down it is immoral, just as slavery is, to hit someone,
regardless of the circumstances unless it is an act of self protection.
Would you care to argue that parents are only protecting themselves
when they spank?
> >> There are always a few citizens who want the state to dictate to parents
> >> how
> >> to raise their children.
> >
> > No, if you follow the issue more you'll find that there are a huge
> > number of citizens that in fact want to stop the assualting of children
> > under color of law.
>
> I would imagine that a lot of people rightfully would want to stop
> assualting of children. I was talking about spanking.
Show how hitting a child can be anything BUT assault under color of
law. The very same action...in fact if I TOUCH you lightly without your
premission, IS in fact assault, divided by a single day -- a birth day
-- from legal "spanking."
Your logic in this is as flawed as in other matters.
> The statement to
> which you replied was that there are always a few citizens who want to state
> to dictate to parents how to raise their children. There are very few.
You are wrong. And it doesn't take more than a few to change the law.
Constitutionally.
> And
> thankfully, the Constitution -- through well-established case law --protects
> citizens from such governmental intrusion even if the meddlers became the
> majority.
It once did the same for slave owners, and for those that would oppress
women. And even for those that exploited children economically.
> The only time the state has a right to intervene in the raising of children
> is when there is a showing of proof that the parents have maltreated the
> child or abandoned the child.
Spanking is maltreatment. Why else would you chose not to do it to
discipline your children?
If it's harmless it should be for your children as well.
You are being illogical and stupid to claim that it's NOT harmful if
YOU are avoiding using it with your children.
> Otherwise, the legal presumption is that the child's best interests rests
> with her parents.
That's not a legal presumption. Again you misuse the language and
logic.
Laws are "rules" not presumptions.
Presumptions stand outside of law, just like the presumption we have
the right to self protection. Laws are used to enforce presumptions.
YOU presume the use of corporal punishment is a right of parents.
Others babble about it as well, some even within the practices of law.
That will be sorted out in due time...when when considers the
presumption that we have a right to self protection and no one may
simply hit us and get away with it because they relabel it some way.
Like using the euphenism "spank." It is striking. Striking is hitting.
It is the application of pain. Against YOU it would be illegal unless
done by a police officer under carefully controlled constitutionally
supported and continually proven guidelines.
You have some place in the constitution where it says the parent has
the right to hit their child?
>
> >> They differ from the vast majority of citizens,
> >
> > Over the past five years I've watched the data on this, and surveys
> > then showed that well over 60%+ of the population approved of the use
> > of spanking. It's not down around 50%.
>
> You are correct. It is not down to around 50%. Such a law will never pass
> in most states, if not all.
I misspelled by hitting the wrong key. It was meant to be "now," and I
think you knew that.
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP44-ID44-douglas.pdf#search=%22approval%20for%20spanking%20%22
I think you need to do a little study and stop with your quick and
dirty bullshit, Doug. I tire of it.
The range of beliefs about spanking vary considerably based on
demographic characteristics, even to the point of cultures changing
when people immigrate here from where child beating is very common.
They REDUCE after they come here.
The die is cast, Doug. It's just, as you say, a matter of time, as in
"it won't be long now."
> >> who would leave the job of parenting to parents.
> >
> > If they would do so.
>
> They are doing so. And will continue to do so.
Some do, some don't. I'm interested in those that don't, and especially
those that resort to hitting, call it spanking, and it escalates into
what is now legally abuse.
Why, Doug, is it okay to hit a child but not an adult? Why can't we
just call it spanking and get away with hitting an adult?
Why can't we men "spank" our wives any more, Doug? It was once quite
legal to do so, and culturally expected.
Hint: the culture has changed. And this area, children's rights, is one
of those things that is also changing.
While YOUR kind may be enjoying a pendulum swing to the conservative
extremes, there WILL be a backlash, just as we saw in the sixties, and
from the same source...youth.
And more and more people are against spanking.
> >> The kids like it better
> >
> > Dogs will crawl slavishly to their master that beats them. So what's
> > new?
>
> > Ah, then you are willing to follow rule of law. Just watch.
> >
> > The schools have nearly wiped out paddling. It's not an isolated trend.
>
> That the state has prohibited its employees from paddling citizens children
> has nothing to do with an ordinance that would pretend to tell parents they
> could not spank their children. Apples and oranges.
All fruit, Doug. All fruit.
And your nonsense that it "has nothing to do" is complete bullshit.
Of course it does. The schools are a powerful social influence. And you
know it.
I certainly do, being a homeschooling advocate for 40+ years now.
> First, you are talking about ordinance against strangers hitting other
> people's children.
A teacher is NOT a stranger. School staff are in loco parentis and in
KNOW IT.
Else there could NOT still be places where the schools DO STILL INFLICT
paddling LEGALLY.
> Second, you are talking about state employees, who fall under the regulation
> of and incurr liability on behalf of the state.
Then those states that still paddle are breaking the law?
> The state has the right to
> regulate its employee's behavior. It does not have the right to tell
> parents how to raise their own children.
The hell it doesn't, Doug. You are stupid as a stump, though not
ignorant. At least Greg has maintained that excuse well.
The state has many areas it legally can incur in families and DOES.
This is but one more.
And many other nations have seen to it. This one will too.
> >> > Why shouldn't any caregiver make their own choice about how to
> >> > discipline?
> >>
> >> ...Which is society's stance. It is a parent's choice about how to
> >> discipline. It's the law.
> >
> > Excuse me? Do parents agree to a caregiver yelling at their child, or
> > making them sit apart from other children for punishment, or write the
> > same phrase over and over again as a form of punishment-discipline?
>
> Apples and oranges. The state and school district tells their employees how
> to discipline other people's children. The state does not tell parents how
> to discipline their children.
Nonsense. UTTER stupidity. The state does too. Spanking is simply the
next step of control the state WILL invoke. It stopped the beatings,
didn't it? Legally.
You cannot starve your child, or imprison your child, or deny him or
her education...all things you could once do with impunity.
> > Why is spanking set aside with legal sanctions one way or the other,
> > and these other disciplines not?
>
> It is not the type of discipline that is in question concerning these laws.
> It is the one who is delivering the discipline and who provides them their
> paycheck.
Apples and oranges, Doug. We are discussing social and cultural issues.
Hitting is the subject, whether it be paddling or spanking.
And siince the one is going out, from social pressure as much as
"economic" fears of being sued, you can be assured that spanking in any
form will go. Just a little time.
> > Could it be that there is, even in the apologists, like you, for
> > spanking, a realization there is a very real risk involved?
>
> >> In the United States of America, the best interests of children are
> >> presumed
> >> to be with their parents unless the state proves the parents have
> >> abandoned
> >> their children or abused/neglected their children.
> >
> > Yes, and that will be the downfall of anachronistic child abuse under
> > color of law called "spanking."
>
> > We can't even get away legally with doing to animals what we do to
> > children.
>
> An absurd statement.
Absurd?
What is it about children that makes them more morally subject to being
hit than animals?
How do you defend NOT hitting animals but it being okay to hit
children?
> > You are not more "right" morally or otherwise (and especially stupid
> > and ignorant apparently) on this issue than you will find one day you
> > are about moving more money to "reunification" services in the funding
> > stream for child protection.
>
> Thanks for the reassurance. Since I believe I am right in agreeing with the
> Pew Commission that federal funding needs to be redistributed to provide for
> reunification over foster care, I am reassured that my position governmental
> involvement in spanking is well taken.
Apples and oranges, Doug. 0:->
And I assure you you are wrong in both instances. Very wrong indeed.
The same kind of wrong headedness that resulted in CAPTA. And it's
failure.
Your own posts, now and then, and your claims in them, have shown YOU,
if you'd pay attention, that intervention services are doomed to fail
-- unless they are legally enforcable.
In other words, there will have to be a "crime," and that is NOT going
to let more parents OFF the hook, Doug, but will simply demonstrate to
society, as before, that standards of what IS a crime and is not a
crime must change, or children will suffer and die.
How you can be so articulate and stupid at the same time is something
of a puzzle to me, but there it is.
> > You don't understand child abuse, and THIS sir, is a very real example
> > of yoru ignorance.
>
> It is my understanding of child abuse that leads me to agree with the laws
> and child protective agencies' policy regarding spanking.
You don't understand child abuse, and THIS sir, is a very real example
of your ignorance.
> Spanking is not child abuse.
Not legally...yet.
There is a considerable body of knowledge that shows that indeed it is
a high risk behavior by parents, and does often escalate as well as do
damage once not known or understood.
Why don't you spank you children? What possible harm could it have done
them?
Why aren't they out of control?
0:->
0:->
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP44-ID44-douglas.pdf#search=%22approval%20for%20spanking%20%22
[[[ One of the claims often made in this newsgroup, aps, is that in
'survey' of university students anything from 90% to 98% report having
been spanked. This, I presume, is supposed to prove that 'successful'
people (university students presumable R R R R R) have been spanked. But
what do these university students actually think about spanking? The
population MORE likely to effect social and cultural norms, in other
words. And coming up on voting age?
Like you say, "It won't be long now." ]]]
... The different rates of approval based on university site are listed in
Table 3; the approval of spanking a child ranged from 12% to 85%,
with a median score of 38%. Approval rates for slapping a teenager
ranged from 13% to 72%, with a median approval rating of 32%.
In 12 of the sites, spanking a child was condoned by more than
50% of the students; however, in only 6 of the sites was slapping
a teenager condoned by more than 50% of the students....
[[[ As for your argument, Doug, that of course it's up to the parents to
decide, and "spanking is not abuse," that depends very much on what
spanking is defined as, and the support of "situational ethics"
something I believe I've seen you indulge in a great deal of in the
past. No, it is NOT ultimately up to the parents to decide about
spanking, because stripping spanking of all it's excuses it is nothing
more nor less than assault. It is hitting. It is meant to and produces
pain. It is offense against the person.
Hence it IS assault, and unethical just as slavery, and wife beating,
and exploitation of children in factories and on farms was unethical.
Just strip away the situational ethics you silly people indulge
yourselves in, and it's plain enough. It will become illegal. And none
too soon. ]]]
..The socialization of violence within the family was related to
attitudes about corporal punishment at both the individual and the
group levels. Students who had experienced a higher level of
familial violence socialization were more likely to endorse the
spanking of a child and the slapping of a teenager than students
with lower levels of violence socialization. In addition to the
individual experiences of students, the combined experiences of
students at each university significantly affected the individual
level of student endorsement of corporal punishment. Thus, students
who were from universities with higher levels of violence
socialization were more likely to endorse corporal punishment as
a good disciplinary technique, regardless of their own experiences
with violence socialization. This is an important result because it
expands on previous findings already addressed in this paper: even
after I controlled for individual experiences, group experiences (or
culture—as it is loosely approximated in this study) was a significant
predictor of attitudes about hitting children. ...
[[[ In other words, the range of attitudes is from a specific range of
demographics.
The more accepting of violence the more accepting of spanking.
Tell you anything, bright boy? We are long overdue for a law.
And if you do some simple searching on google you'll find it's not just
a small number of citizens that are against spanking. And a majority is
not needed to make spanking against the law. Just like OTHER abuses to
children by parents, this one too will be recognized and outlawed.
Regardless of what YOU call it.
Why did you not use spanking with your children? Did you use mental
torture instead? Of course not.
]]]
0:->
0:->
Yes he can. And does.
While your nonsense barely deserves a reply it might help others to
refresh their memory a bit to review the truth.
In fact the exchanges we have, Doug and I, are protected
constitutionally in this forum. So far, neither he, nor I, should we
have tried, would have been able to stop the other from posting our
thoughts and opinions.
> *Protects* citizens- hehe - they'll lock you in MoMar's basement and
> electrify your gonads for buying a few cell phones !! hehe - Some
> protection.
Not legally. And you are discussing an issue that IS in fact covered
constitutionally. As we are currently seeing being played out in our
court system.
> CPS ran rampant ignoring this *constitution* before it became chic. Now -
> OMG - soon caseworkers will have M-16's
Bullshit.
> hehe - *constitution* protecting citizens in the US- Man where you been ?
I presume he's a US Citizen by birth and likely knows, despite my
arguments with him, at least SOME of what the constitution is for and does.
You simply wish to babble. Enjoy yourself.
We have legions of fools such as you the Web gives a playground to.
Hopefully it keeps you busy, off the street, and minimizes the damage
you might do in the real world.
Hopefully you are posting from confinement.
0:->
0:->
of your ignorance, as I've said before. 0:->
Which demographic groups in the US are more prone to use corporal
punishment more, and more severe forms of it?
But then, you feel the state should not intervene, right? That is
according to the constitution according to YOUR interpretation, right?
Society has no right collectively to try and reduce things such as
violent crime, RIGHT, you pissant?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14137625/
Communities grapple with rise in violence
Summer crime wave hits Washington, Seattle, Indianapolis, other U.S. cities
... Epidemic of apathy
Race intrudes into any discussion of this summer’s crime wave. A
recurrent theme is young black men killing other young black men.
“You look at the individuals that are dying, the individuals that are
committing the crimes —there’s a large percentage of them that are young
black males, many of them without an education, who dropped out of
school. A number of individuals out there without hope,” said
Indianapolis police Sgt. Matthew Mount.
Thirteen people were killed in Indianapolis in the first week of August
— all but two of them black men. In June, seven family members,
including four children, were shot in a home. The victims, all Hispanic,
were killed “execution style,” police said. It was the city’s worst mass
killing in 25 years. There have been nearly 100 murders in greater
Indianapolis this year. Last year, that number wasn't reached until
October. ...
So, Doug, are blacks and Hispanics just evil crime prone people, or
could there be a factor in their environment, besides poverty and
bigotry, that creates a reactive adult who is prone to violence?
Think about it, you stupid self serving little piece of shit.
And have a wonderful day.
0:->
It's No Fun
"0:->" <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:wuudna_XJrkV2WfZ...@scnresearch.com...
No - it's a very real example of your delusions -
SPANKING IS NOT CHILD ABUSE nutcase - it's legal in every state.
Only delusional fruitcakes keep beating the same dead horse.
>
> Which demographic groups in the US are more prone to use corporal
> punishment more, and more severe forms of it?
>
> But then, you feel the state should not intervene, right? That is
> according to the constitution according to YOUR interpretation, right?
No asshole - it's according to laws of the 50 states -- SAKING IS NOT CHILD
ABUSE - it is legal in 50 states
When the state terrorizes innocent citizens who have violated no laws - it's
a crime.
Why do you advocate for the government to interfere with lawful behavior??
Your moral and ethical vacuum - coupled with your blatent hypocracy (nice
sig ninnyboy) - must make your mammy proud.
>
> Society has no right collectively to try and reduce things such as violent
> crime, RIGHT, you pissant?
Stop the lies. Folks have discredited this lie for years, yet you continue
to spout it like a good little parrot with a wee brain.
Spanking leads to violence?? hahahahaha It's been discredited every time you
puke that lie.
Your lies and delusions destroy children and families - that you hide behind
our littlest, most vulnerable demographic group speaks volumns of your
manliness (ruff ruff) - and speaks LOUDLY of your lack of morals and
ethics - and most importantly your disgusting hypocracy.
You folks stop at nothing to have your way, huh Butch.
<snipped rest of kook rant>
0:->
I have no delusions. I utilize authoritative research, and often quote
it in this newsgroup.
Spanking has been linked to later life increase in substance abuse,
depression and other mental illness, and criminal behavior.
Groups that have high incidence of crime, and especially violent crime
universally are also cultures that use corporal punishment on their
children.
> SPANKING IS NOT CHILD ABUSE nutcase - it's legal in every state.
I have made the same observation about its legality myself, and my point
is about it being made illegal, so your observation is rather obtuse and
evidence of how thick you are.
> Only delusional fruitcakes keep beating the same dead horse.
Under various socks you keep coming back and saying similar things.
Trust me, your horse died long ago.
> >
> > Which demographic groups in the US are more prone to use corporal
> > punishment more, and more severe forms of it?
> >
> > But then, you feel the state should not intervene, right? That is
> > according to the constitution according to YOUR interpretation, right?
>
> No asshole - it's according to laws of the 50 states -- SAKING IS NOT
CHILD
> ABUSE - it is legal in 50 states
No sequitur. I made no mention of "legality." The issue I address is one
of historical note in conversations with the correspondant I'm writing to.
The only thing standing between abuse and none abuse in spanking is the
legal definition, but no law could make slavery "legal" when it was. It
was still morally reprehensible. And still is.
So is hitting a child and giving it a special name to hide from the
truth: spanking is an extremely high risk behavior, for the victim, and
does overall more harm than good. LIttle is learned from it, except
things we, as civilized people, should NOT want our children learning.
One being that might makes right and big people get to hit little people.
> When the state terrorizes innocent citizens who have violated no laws
- it's
> a crime.
Where is this happening? No one is being prosecuted for spanking. On the
contrary, we have seen recent cases that were clearly cases of beating
that the courts found in favor of the parent doing the beating, as
acceptable discipline.
That's one reason there has to be a law, finally.
I have been, most of my adult life, a proponent of moral suasion in the
spanking question. That people should be encouraged to replace spanking
and other forms of CP with education, appeals to their morals, and
argument in the realm of ethics, using scientific evidence to back up
the claims I make.
I haven't seen much progress so earlier this year I looked at my logic
in this matter, related to real world events, and came to the conclusion
that no, that was not going to work soon enough for children.
Hence I changed my mind and see and support the effort for a law banning
corporal punishment as the only sensible way to proceed, just as we did
in matters of women's rights, child labor laws, slavery, and other
social ills we needed to correct.
>
> Why do you advocate for the government to interfere with lawful
behavior??
>
For the same reason I would have, had I been alive then, voted for women
to have the vote, to be able to make legal contract in their own names,
and to NOT be beaten by their husbands.
> Your moral and ethical vacuum - coupled with your blatent hypocracy
(nice
> sig ninnyboy) - must make your mammy proud.
Can I presume there's a touch of racism there?
As for my moral and ethical "vacuum," I do not shape shift words to mean
things they do not truly represent.
If I hit a child with my open hand on the bottom, or anywhere for that
matter, and call it spanking, I do NOT accept that it was not hitting.
It was. Hence, in all interactions with adults had I done the same thing
I'd be subject to criminal charges.
And, in my book, morally corrupt if I tried to justify it by changing
it's name to "spanking."
> >
> > Society has no right collectively to try and reduce things such as
violent
> > crime, RIGHT, you pissant?
>
> Stop the lies. Folks have discredited this lie for years, yet you
continue
> to spout it like a good little parrot with a wee brain.
It's a lie that society has the right to attempt to reduce it's crime rate?
> Spanking leads to violence?? hahahahaha It's been discredited every
time you
> puke that lie.
Your proof please.
> Your lies and delusions destroy children and families - that you hide
behind
> our littlest, most vulnerable demographic group speaks volumns of your
> manliness (ruff ruff) - and speaks LOUDLY of your lack of morals and
> ethics - and most importantly your disgusting hypocracy.
I could hardly be hiding "behind our littlest, most vulnerable
demographic group," if I openly speak of it here, now could I? And I
certainly am even more public with my stand on this issue.
> You folks stop at nothing to have your way, huh Butch.
Of course not. We wouldn't, for instance, resort to the use of physical
force, even if you BROKE the law on spanking that is comming. We'd
proceed legally to fine, and or imprison you and take your children away
only if you continued to stubbornly lie to yourself and use the delusion
that spanking is not hitting.
>
> <snipped rest of kook rant>
Oh, that's okay. I don't mind reading your kook rant. What of yours did
you leave off?
0:->
Greegor
> Of course not. We wouldn't, for instance,
> resort to the use of physical force, even
> if you BROKE the law on spanking that is comming.
Can a law OPENLY throw away the high court
interpretations of the Bill Of Rights?
Kane wrote
> We'd proceed legally to fine, and or imprison you and
> take your children away only if you continued to
> stubbornly lie to yourself and use the delusion
> that spanking is not hitting.
You started out POSING as a Family Rights
activist but your deception has become more and
more obvious. You denied your career and
economic connection to them until recently.
Have you now decided to take off your mask
and admit to your STATIST obsession?
Comments like your above really do indicate
you think yourself superior to most citizens
and that you FEAR citizens in general.
Is THAT why you're such a STATIST?
Being INSIDE made you feel POWERFUL and safe?
0:->
> Kane wrote
>> Of course not. We wouldn't, for instance,
>> resort to the use of physical force, even
>> if you BROKE the law on spanking that is comming.
>
> Can a law OPENLY throw away the high court
> interpretations of the Bill Of Rights?
What has that to do with the quote of my comments above?
If you are referring to a law against spanking can you tell us where the
high court has ruled that spanking is a constitutional issue?
The answer would be "Yes, it can." Then it can be tested, like all laws
can be.
It would stand, just as the amendment against slavery stood, and the one
that gave women the vote.
> Kane wrote
>> We'd proceed legally to fine, and or imprison you and
>> take your children away only if you continued to
>> stubbornly lie to yourself and use the delusion
>> that spanking is not hitting.
>
> You started out POSING as a Family Rights
> activist but your deception has become more and
> more obvious.
You are incorrect. I've never posed.
There is no conflict between advocating for families, and supporting a
law against spanking.
In fact I am against CPS intervention for spanking...since it is legal,
NOW.
In other words, I support law, and I support the right to make and
change law.
If you don't like that because it's your ox I'm goring, though shit
little liberal fascist.
> You denied your career and
> economic connection to them until recently.
What are you babbling about now?
> Have you now decided to take off your mask
> and admit to your STATIST obsession?
That I stand for rule of law? It isn't "STATIST" nor an obsession to
have a particular view point and PRESS IT LEGALLY BY THE PROCESSES
AFFORDED ME BY THE LAWS OF THIS COUNTRY.
> Comments like your above really do indicate
> you think yourself superior to most citizens
> and that you FEAR citizens in general.
One, I do not think myself superior and nothing I've said in any way
supports your claim about me. You are delusional, again.
And I'm certainly not in fear of citizens in general or otherwise.
What would my wanting a law to ban spanking have to do with your silly
claim?
You are just babbling for effect, again.
> Is THAT why you're such a STATIST?
I am not a "statist." (Does yelling it make it more believable for you,
little boy?)
> Being INSIDE made you feel POWERFUL and safe?
On the contrary I left after my student days on a work study contract to
go into mental health work and education, as well as develop my own
businesses. I'm not terrible impressed with government work, though I
understand and support the need for government services.
You have posted with even less sense than usual. Just babble.
Greegor
> mental health work and education
Aren't you too OLD for it to help much?
0:->
In reference to ... ?
(In other words you don't want to argue issues, isn't that right, Greg?)
Greegor
> you don't want to argue issues, isn't that right, Greg?
When you posted gratuitous obscenity for over a year,
did that conform to Roberts rules of order?
Doan
>
> Doan wrote:
> > On 1 Sep 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> > > > Spanking is not abuse.
> > >
> > > Sure it is. It's just legal abuse. Hitting another IS abusive. In fact
> > > in some states hitting a dog or horse or other pet is abuse, which they
> > > label as "cruelty." Even if you call it "spanking."
> > >
> > So when the police "hit" you for not complying, it IS abusive?
>
> Nope. They might have to prove they needed to use force to control me
> though. In a court of law.
>
Hahaha! And who do you think the judge would believe, you or the police
officer?
> The child doesn't get this break because the parent is given, by law,
> the right to assault the child at the parent's pleasure. All the parent
> must do is not cause injury to the point a court would convict.
>
And now you want the child to have his day in court too? So in your
logic, the police hit you with a baton is not assault but a parent
who spank their kids is?
Doan
Greegor
> And now you want the child to have his
> day in court too? So in your logic, the
> police hit you with a baton is not assault
> but a parent who spank their kids is?
That's Kane!
Government as king, parents as perps.
Children all with rights OVER their parents.
"The Lord of the Flies" all over again!
0:->
And did I not argue issues with every post, regardless of the
'embellishments' I provided to keep your attention?
So I ask you again, to answer the question, rather than resort to
logical fallacy of Tu quoque.
So, it becomes even more apparent, "you don't want to argue issues,
isn't that right, Greg?"
We WERE discussing spanking in a certain situation. When you could no
longer maintain your side of the debate we found ourselves with "When
you posted gratuitous obscenity for over a year, did that conform to
Roberts rules of order?"
Which was not even to the point for the current placeholder in our
exchange.
A diversion, Greg.
You are unethical.
0:->
> Doan wrote to Kane
>> And now you want the child to have his
>> day in court too? So in your logic, the
>> police hit you with a baton is not assault
>> but a parent who spank their kids is?
>
> That's Kane!
If a police officer hits me with a baton and he or she had no legal
right to do so, that's assault.
If I presented a threat to him, her, or others, he or she can chose to
use a baton on me, legally, to control and stop me. To effect arrest, as
it were.
That is the law.
Currently I can find no one in particular in disagreement with this to
the point they feel it necessary to lobby against it. I'll keep watch.
With children there is no similar situation, generally, where the force
of hitting would be needed to stop a child, though I can see how it
might be needed in SOME circumstances, and should not be judged as assault.
Spanking, on the other hand, is not an 'emergency' measure, as use of a
baton is. It's a deliberate act with intent to cause pain for "teaching."
A police officer in a brutality case would surely lose if they were to
say, in court, "I used my baton to teach him not to do that again."
That IS assault, in all jurisdictions, Greg.
You may NOT teach someone by hitting them, IF they are an adult, Greg.
> Government as king, parents as perps.
Nope. Government as agent of those that cannot protect themselves.
Abusive parent as perps.
> Children all with rights OVER their parents.
Nope. You seem to have this either/or fixation, Greg.
You and I can have conflicting rights, Greg, and I presume you have no
problem accepting that and accepting that sometimes the court system
must be used to sort that out.
Why is it you cannot afford children that same right?
>
> "The Lord of the Flies" all over again!
>
I see no appropriate analogy, unless I accept your fallacious either/or
reasoning, Greg.
It's both.
Both the child and the parent have rights. Sometimes they are in
conflict. Thus, CPS. Or criminal court.
A child has a right to life, and to not be assaulted. As yet, spanking
has not been seen for what it obviously and factually is. To hit is to
assault, unless you have circumstances you can show warranted the hitting.
What support do you have for spanking as being warranted?
And please, don't give me the old history argument. Historical evidence
has been proven wrong in many instances.
Slavery, women's suffrage, etc.
Once there were well argued supports for such things. No more.
And on less evidence than there currently is for the lacking efficacy of
spanking.
bachc...@gmail.com
Doan
> Greegor wrote:
> > Doan wrote to Kane
> >> And now you want the child to have his
> >> day in court too? So in your logic, the
> >> police hit you with a baton is not assault
> >> but a parent who spank their kids is?
> >
> > That's Kane!
>
> If a police officer hits me with a baton and he or she had no legal
> right to do so, that's assault.
>
A parent who spank his/her kid has the legal right to do so, STUPID!
Doan
0:->
I never claimed they didn't, Stupid.
I'm saying the law is wrong, stupid.
Just like slavery was wrong, just like oppression of women under color
of law was wrong, just like exploitation of children from lack of law
was wrong. Stupid.
Hence, the result that is inevitable in coming, just as it has elsewhere
in this world, a law making the hitting of children for any reason other
than self defense (just like the law that applies to adults...age 18 and
up) assault, stupid.
The law that gives the officer the right to hit with his or her baton is
no different than the right I have to strike a child to protect myself
from him or her.
But that should not give me a legal right to strike a child and NOT call
it assault because I want to "teach" him or her something. The cop can't
do it, and the parent should not be able to do it.
>
> Doan
>
Keep trying monkeyboy. You are looking stupider by the post.
Greegor
> If a police officer hits me with a baton and he or she had no legal
> right to do so, that's assault.
>
> If I presented a threat to him, her, or others, he or she can chose to
> use a baton on me, legally, to control and stop me. To effect arrest, as
> it were.
>
> That is the law.
<attempt to divert snipped>
> With children there is no similar situation,
Golly that's damn convenient for you!
However, even CPS expects parents to be LAW in their home.
When it's convenient for CPS that is.
Kane wrote
> generally, where the force of hitting would be needed to
> stop a child, though I can see how it might be needed
> in SOME circumstances, and should not be judged as assault.
Yes, some of us know about your belief it's OK to Taser kids!
Kane wrote
> Spanking, on the other hand, is not an 'emergency' measure, as use of a
> baton is. It's a deliberate act with intent to cause pain for "teaching."
Whereas cops don't act for that reason, no doubt! Haha!
Kane wrote
> A police officer in a brutality case would surely lose if they were to
> say, in court, "I used my baton to teach him not to do that again."
95% of the bad acts by cops are never litigated.
I estimated.
The hard data simply vanishes like the Meth in the evidence locker!
Not a trace!
Kane wrote
> That IS assault, in all jurisdictions, Greg.
Even if it's not prosecuted?
Kane wrote
> You may NOT teach someone by hitting them,
> IF they are an adult, Greg.
And YET such cops DO exist! Amazing!
Myriad examples where adults are "taught"
in such ways or worse, come to mind.
Greg wrote about Kane
> government as king, parents as perps.
Kane wrote
> Nope. Government as agent of those that cannot
> protect themselves. Abusive parent as perps.
The veritable all seeing eye of government?
Hardly the Oracle of Delphi!
Our government can barely operate ITSELF!
The "all seeing eye" is blind and stupid!
HYPOTHETICALLY OF COURSE!
Greg wrote
> Children all with rights OVER their parents.
Kane wrote
> Nope. You seem to have this either/or fixation, Greg.
What a COINCIDENCE that I point out how you
POLARIZE any opponents and twice now you
have tried this reversal of that observation.
Nice try!
Kane wrote
> You and I can have conflicting rights, Greg, and
> I presume you have no problem accepting that
> and accepting that sometimes the court system
> must be used to sort that out.
SOUNDS good. Waiting for the other shoe to drop!
Kane wrote
> Why is it you cannot afford children that same right?
Ah! There it is!
If the GAL would just allow it!
But she's been telling LIES about what the child
has to say, and has the power (for now) to prevent
the child from actually expressing her own wishes
in court.
The GAL represents supposed "best interests"
of the child, but in reality she is a CPS sicophant.
HYPOTHETICALLY of course!
It won't be long now!
Greg wrote
> "The Lord of the Flies" all over again!
Kane wrote
> I see no appropriate analogy, unless I accept your
> fallacious either/or reasoning, Greg.
Kane wrote
> It's both.
> Both the child and the parent have rights.
> Sometimes they are in conflict.
> Thus, CPS. Or criminal court.
Oh yes! I have been SO IMPRESSED with how
Parents Rights under the constitution have been
protected in Juvenile Court..
Refusal to correct PERJURY repeatedly over YEARS,
altered transcript, Judge tried to "unrecuse" herself,
prerequisite before TPR violated and hearing that
should never have taken place proved small
conspiracy. Judges making snotty apparently
spiteful comments as they are FORCED to
rule in our favor.
ALL HYPOTHETICAL MIND YOU!!!
Kane wrote
> A child has a right to life, and to not be
> assaulted. As yet, spanking has not been
> seen for what it obviously and factually is.
> To hit is to assault
Assault is a legal term. Spanking is not legally assault.
Kane wrote
> unless you have circumstances you can
> show warranted the hitting.
> What support do you have for spanking as being warranted?
Best interests of the child.
Parents determine that, period.
Kane wrote
> And please, don't give me the old history argument.
> Historical evidence has been proven wrong in many
> instances. Slavery, women's suffrage, etc.
Of course not, those are juvenile arguments,
pedantic, and stright out of some lame
high school debate society.
You've use both of them.
Kane wrote
> Once there were well argued supports for such things. No more.
> And on less evidence than there currently is
> for the lacking efficacy of spanking.
Of course you think YOU determine that!
Having mere CITIZENS, PARENTS deciding
what is in a child's best interests is a
threat to your favorite megalomaniac BUREACRACY!
0:->
> Kane wrote
>> If a police officer hits me with a baton and he or she had no legal
>> right to do so, that's assault.
>>
>> If I presented a threat to him, her, or others, he or she can chose to
>> use a baton on me, legally, to control and stop me. To effect arrest, as
>> it were.
>>
>> That is the law.
>
> <attempt to divert snipped>
It works better for your credibility, when making a claim about
unethical debating tactics, to not snip and let people see the evidence
for themselves.
Here is what I said that you snipped and lied about my purpose for posting:
"Currently I can find no one in particular in disagreement with this to
the point they feel it necessary to lobby against it. I'll keep watch."
We are discussing changes in law here, Greg, in this thread, so my point
is well taken, and not a diversion at all. Nor an attempt. If it were
I'd then, as you do when you pull off a diversion, change the subject. I
have not, as you can see.
>> With children there is no similar situation,
>
> Golly that's damn convenient for you!
> However, even CPS expects parents to be LAW in their home.
> When it's convenient for CPS that is.
There is no similar situation where the child presents a need for self
defense, that is until they are older.
The last two sentences are not on topic. They are, <chuckle> diversions.
But you'll notice I didn't snip them.
> Kane wrote
>> generally, where the force of hitting would be needed to
>> stop a child, though I can see how it might be needed
>> in SOME circumstances, and should not be judged as assault.
>
> Yes, some of us know about your belief it's OK to Taser kids!
And were those to discipline the child, the point of spanking, or were
those to protect the child and others in self defense or safety actions?
Each and every instance that I defended the use of the Taser, it was
either or both. In one a teen was attacking school staff. In another a
little boy was hacking at himself, already having done some serious
cutting with a shard of glass, on his leg, close to a major artery. He
was tasered to stop the risky behavior. A grab of him could have
resulted in his making the cut. An electric shock is paralyzing.
The last case was of a 12 year old drunk girl running and about to enter
a busy thoroughfare.
So, you are either repeating the lies of others with out checking, or
you knew this information I've just provided, and worked up your own lie.
It is not okay to taser kids for discipline. It is for protection, just
as I've said hitting and other physical actions are okay for defense
with a child.
> Kane wrote
>> Spanking, on the other hand, is not an 'emergency' measure, as use of a
>> baton is. It's a deliberate act with intent to cause pain for "teaching."
>
> Whereas cops don't act for that reason, no doubt! Haha!
If they do, and they are caught at it, they are in trouble, as that
would be assault. As I've said.
> Kane wrote
>> A police officer in a brutality case would surely lose if they were to
>> say, in court, "I used my baton to teach him not to do that again."
>
> 95% of the bad acts by cops are never litigated.
> I estimated.
That does not change that their actions would be illegal, just as
hitting a child to "teach them" should also be illegal. I daresay a law
to that effect will not all be litigated either, Greg.
Do you think the law limiting police actions should be removed because
only a percentage are litigated.
> The hard data simply vanishes like the Meth in the evidence locker!
> Not a trace!
Off topic. We aren't discussing the litigation, it's use, success, or
failure, but the law.
> Kane wrote
>> That IS assault, in all jurisdictions, Greg.
>
> Even if it's not prosecuted?
Good heavens, a major thinking error not even disguised by some ad hom
or other diversion? What ever were you thinking, Greg...oh wait, it's
Greg, after all. Sorry boy.
Greg, all laws are laws whether prosecuted or not on occasion.
> Kane wrote
>> You may NOT teach someone by hitting them,
>> IF they are an adult, Greg.
>
> And YET such cops DO exist! Amazing!
Yep. And such parents exist, in rather large numbers, sadly. But that
will come to an end.
You keep confusing one thing for another. We don't remove laws on rape
because rape still happens, Greg. Or would you argue we should?
> Myriad examples where adults are "taught"
> in such ways or worse, come to mind.
Yep. And that makes it okay for parents to beat their children to "teach
them?" How does that work?
Police brutality is illegal, Greg. So is parental brutality. Now the
only task is to show that spanking is a brutal practice.
> Greg wrote about Kane
>> government as king, parents as perps.
>
> Kane wrote
>> Nope. Government as agent of those that cannot
>> protect themselves. Abusive parent as perps.
>
> The veritable all seeing eye of government?
I see nothing in my statement that would indicate I am making such a
claim. Why would you argue it with me then?
> Hardly the Oracle of Delphi!
> Our government can barely operate ITSELF!
> The "all seeing eye" is blind and stupid!
Well, then, let's do away with government. Anarchism rules, right, Greg?
Sonny boy, YOU'D be among the first to go, with your inability to
process information accurately.
> HYPOTHETICALLY OF COURSE!
Of course. 0:->
We wouldn't want to get the idea that you are anti government, in
general, rather than aware of specific instances of government
malfeasance and want to fix just that, now would we?
> Greg wrote
>> Children all with rights OVER their parents.
>
> Kane wrote
>> Nope. You seem to have this either/or fixation, Greg.
>
> What a COINCIDENCE that I point out how you
> POLARIZE any opponents and twice now you
> have tried this reversal of that observation.
Yes, and yet I've never used the word POLARIZE in this context, Greg.
And so there is no observation to reverse.
I'm pointing out that you have an either/or fixation. One has to be all
wrong, or all right in your little world.
> Nice try!
Nothing to it, thanks.
> Kane wrote
>> You and I can have conflicting rights, Greg, and
>> I presume you have no problem accepting that
>> and accepting that sometimes the court system
>> must be used to sort that out.
>
> SOUNDS good. Waiting for the other shoe to drop!
There is no other shoe.
>
> Kane wrote
>> Why is it you cannot afford children that same right?
>
> Ah! There it is!
Oh, that shoe. So obvious it never occurred to me that it was a special
"shoe."
Now rather than agree that children have rights equal to parents, Greg,
go into "your case" to divert to YOUR agenda, as per usual. 0:->
> If the GAL would just allow it!
> But she's been telling LIES about what the child
> has to say, and has the power (for now) to prevent
> the child from actually expressing her own wishes
> in court.
0:->
> The GAL represents supposed "best interests"
> of the child, but in reality she is a CPS sicophant.
>
> HYPOTHETICALLY of course!
>
> It won't be long now!
Sloganeering again, Greg, and not even an original. Tsk.
> Greg wrote
>> "The Lord of the Flies" all over again!
>
> Kane wrote
>> I see no appropriate analogy, unless I accept your
>> fallacious either/or reasoning, Greg.
>
> Kane wrote
>> It's both.
>> Both the child and the parent have rights.
>> Sometimes they are in conflict.
>> Thus, CPS. Or criminal court.
>
> Oh yes! I have been SO IMPRESSED with how
> Parents Rights under the constitution have been
> protected in Juvenile Court..
You should be. They usually don't even get that far. Look at the data on
children in cases investigated by CPS. Most are not moved to being
opened, and those opened often never get to court before the child is
returned home, or the case closed.
So much for a failure to protect parent's rights, Greg. So common it's
hardly even worth mentioning, but you will pretend it doesn't exist.
By the time it reaches court, Greg, it's already bad news.
> Refusal to correct PERJURY repeatedly over YEARS,
> altered transcript, Judge tried to "unrecuse" herself,
Tried?
> prerequisite before TPR violated and hearing that
> should never have taken place proved small
> conspiracy. Judges making snotty apparently
> spiteful comments as they are FORCED to
> rule in our favor.
I can't imagine why a judge wouldn't just love you and want to romance
you, Greg. 0;->
> ALL HYPOTHETICAL MIND YOU!!!
Oh, then this didn't happen at all?
> Kane wrote
>> A child has a right to life, and to not be
>> assaulted. As yet, spanking has not been
>> seen for what it obviously and factually is.
>> To hit is to assault
>
> Assault is a legal term. Spanking is not legally assault.
Yes, that was the point. No one has tried, Greg, to claim that spanking
is illegal, yet.
Now have they?
I am, of course, pointing out the sophistry present in the laws the
protect "spanking" as though hitting were not involved. The same act
that against an adult is actionable as an assault.
What is it about children, Greg, that makes them hittable, and not you,
legally speaking?
All it's going to take is a law, Greg. Just like slavery, just like
suffrage, just like child protection.
> Kane wrote
>> unless you have circumstances you can
>> show warranted the hitting.
>> What support do you have for spanking as being warranted?
>
> Best interests of the child.
And your proof that spanking is in the best interests of the child would
be......?
> Parents determine that, period.
Yep, there it is folks. Only the parents, no matter what, apparently,
will decide what is and isn't in the best interests of the child.
Does that include starving them?
Beating them and calling it spanking?
Teaching the about sex by example and live experiments?
Any other things that you think only the parents should make the best
interests decision on, Greg?
> Kane wrote
>> And please, don't give me the old history argument.
>> Historical evidence has been proven wrong in many
>> instances. Slavery, women's suffrage, etc.
>
> Of course not, those are juvenile arguments,
> pedantic, and stright out of some lame
> high school debate society.
> You've use both of them.
You mean we were wrong to end slavery? Wrong to give women the vote? We
should still be using children 14 hours a day in factories and mines?
Or that it's juvenile to claim that we shouldn't?
> Kane wrote
>> Once there were well argued supports for such things. No more.
>> And on less evidence than there currently is
>> for the lacking efficacy of spanking.
>
> Of course you think YOU determine that!
Nope. The researchers do.
> Having mere CITIZENS, PARENTS deciding
> what is in a child's best interests is a
> threat to your favorite megalomaniac BUREACRACY!
I'm more than supportive of parents deciding what is in the best
interests of children, until it isn't, Greg.
And spanking is a thing that I believe, and believe strongly enough to
support a law banning it, to not be in the best interests of the children.
We once had a common belief, and not too long ago, with repercussions
currently, that black people were not disposed to manage their own
affairs. That they were childish, uncivilized, crime prone, lazy, and
mentally deficient compared to whites.
This was universally believed, Greg. Up to a point. Some few of us,
including Black people themselves came to NOT believe this nonsense.
I think spanking is in many ways similar. The idea that pain is a great
teacher has severe limitations as to effectiveness.
In fact, pain can make us do things that are NOT in our or society's
best interest, Greg.
You can, with CP, make a child stop a behavior when you are present. If
you use it in certain ways, you can even extinguish an unwanted behavior
completely.
The problem with that is that it may not be moral for you to do so. It
may be the behavior had to do with the child's developmental needs,
Greg, actions and activities they needed to do in a protected setting to
learn something that humans need to learn to do.
We see that often in mental health work. A person with a block. Unable
to preform something that most other folks can do easily. It requires
sometimes extensive retraining in childhood skills to gain the needed
skills.
Sometimes the best that can be accomplished is a compensatory OTHER
actions to reach a desired goal, and the original is lost forever.
Often this is tied to, one way or another, an 'extinguished' behavior
they needed to go through in childhood.
Too bad you are so ignorant in this area.
AFfromD...@gmail.com
> I have no delusions. I utilize authoritative research, and often quote
> it in this newsgroup.
>
> Spanking has been linked to later life increase in substance abuse,
> depression and other mental illness, and criminal behavior.
>
The same can be said about non-cp alternatives since, according
to Straus, spanking is the result of non-cp not working.
> Groups that have high incidence of crime, and especially violent crime
> universally are also cultures that use corporal punishment on their
> children.
>
Did you do your research on the Hutterites? ;-) Not a single homocide
in the last 5 years! Remembered? All because they used spanking as
part of their "non-violent" parenting! ;-)
AF
0:->
> On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>> I have no delusions. I utilize authoritative research, and often quote
>> it in this newsgroup.
>>
> You meant LIES! Remember the Embry Study, Kane? ;-)
Sure I do. You lied through your teeth for about two years.
>> Spanking has been linked to later life increase in substance abuse,
>> depression and other mental illness, and criminal behavior.
>>
> The same can be said about non-cp alternatives since, according
> to Straus, spanking is the result of non-cp not working.
No, that is not what Straus found. Parents may chose to spank because
their attempt to use non-cp failed. That suggests they do not have good
non-cp methods, and I've pointed that out.
There is a bit too much of non-cp PUNISHMENT going on, instead of
learning about and applying developmentally appropriate tactics in
parenting.
Many have learned to do so and do not have to revert to spanking.
Remember observer?
>> Groups that have high incidence of crime, and especially violent crime
>> universally are also cultures that use corporal punishment on their
>> children.
>>
> Did you do your research on the Hutterites? ;-) Not a single homocide
> in the last 5 years!
Gee, I wonder why you chose "five years." In the large community of
non-spankers I know there are no homicides for GENERATIONS.
> Remembered? All because they used spanking as
> part of their "non-violent" parenting! ;-)
Hardly a typical society, monkeyboy.
Do you have any idea now easy it would be to hide a homicide (learn to
spell unless you meant murders of homosexuals, 0:-> ) in such a closed
society?
And according to your logic then, all murderers would have to be
non-spanked children.
Those that are spanked, don't murder, right?
Find us a few un-spanked murderers, monkeyboy.
This claim of yours reminds me of your claim about Singapore.
If you wish to live in a fascist government controlled society of
oppression you not only can control human behavior more, YOU CAN GET
AWAY WITH LYING ABOUT IT.
Singapore has a huge hidden child abuse and crime problem. It pops to
the surface, then is quickly suppressed by the government. But you'll
buy about anything that supports your little insane rants, monkeyboy.
It's not because the Hutterites spank, stupid. It's because this is an
ultimate socialist controlled society.
And all is not all flowers and sunlight in said community, monkeyboy:
http://www.perefound.org/em-s_sp.html
Not much to recommend the Bruderhof monkeyboy, except they spank. 0:->
Yet again proof that spanking is a form of abuse and is part and parcel
of a sick society.
>
> AF
0:->
Here is an example of their doublethink that is so similar to the
thinking of the spanking cabal in this ng:
""Corporal punishment can have no place in our education" but "we cannot
always avoid a certain use of force." "
This right out of their teachings.
Value Contradictions
The children must learn to "fight" for truthfulness (Arnold 1976:
43,39,54) but "love" everyone. Children are "free," but when "the sun
hides behind a cloud, the Servant of the Word will interfere." "Corporal
punishment can have no place in our education" but "we cannot always
avoid a certain use of force." As the children grow toward adolescence,
"They adopt a militant stand," but "without violence or coercion."
You picked an interesting group to hold up as champions of spanking,
monkeyboy.
http://www.perefound.org/em-s_sp.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1882260074/categoricalgeome
And:
http://www.perefound.org/KIT7_98.html
"The Calgary Sun, Alberta, Canada, 5/22/98:
Hutterites Face Judge
"Incidents alleged over a ten-year span,"
by Michael Lau
Ten members of two Hutterite colonies east of Calgary, Alberta, have
been charged with 34 counts of sexual assault, sexual interference and
incest over a ten-year period.
Two of the accused men, ranging in age from 17 to 62, pleaded guilty in
Drumheller provincial court to sexual assault and sexual interference.
Nine of the accused are from Ridge Land Colony near the town of Hussar,
and one from another unnamed colony nearby. The alleged offenses
occurred between 1987 and last year against four Hutterites aged 4 to 20
at the time of the incidents.
"I've never see anything of this severity in a Hutterite colony," said
Sgt. Jerry Kopp, commander of the Gleichen/Bassano detachment. "It's
very unusual. They're a very close-knit group of people."
Kopp, an RCMP officer for 28 years including four years in Gleichen,
said Hutterites he's known across Canada are mostly law-abiding
citizens. "They pick up the odd speeding ticket," he said, adding the
colonies of the accused have been very cooperative with police.
"If you look at the outside world, we certainly don't get that kind of
cooperation."
The investigation started after an undisclosed number of victims came
forward and reported the alleged assaults. Further investigation
uncovered several other incidents that led to more charges. The fact the
alleged victims approached outside authorities shows the seriousness of
the offenses -- since Hutterites prefer to resolve their own problems,
said Kopp.
None of the accused are to have contact with children under the age of
17. RSMP have not officially released the names of the two colonies near
Hussar... NOTE: According to the published reports, lawyer Hugh
Sommerville, acting as a friend of the court in advising the colony but
not representing any of the men, said, "These charges involved every boy
touching a girl in the last ten years. Only one of the charges is
serious, that'll be proven in court. We're not dealing with a group of
rapists."
No details of the crimes were given with the guilty pleas. According to
lawyer Sommerville, "I can tell you if investigators went through any
local town school questioning the young girls, they'd find no lack of
young boys doing some improper touching."
click here to return to Table of Contents
ITEM: According to a Reuters dispatch by Jeffrey Jones, four young
Hutterite men were sentenced in Drumheller, Alberta, on Friday, June 26,
to six months probation for sexual assaults.
"In sentencing the men -- all as youths because they were under 18 when
the fondling offenses on young girls were committed -- the judge advised
Hutterites to consider sex education for their children in an effort to
prevent similar tragedies occurring in the future. The four sentenced on
Friday all pleaded guilty to the charges...
"Alberta Judge Gordon Clozza also ordered them to write letters of
apology to their victims for the incidents that took place in classrooms
and basements on the colonies from the late 1980s to mid-1990s. The
girls are acquaintances and relatives of the four men and were six and
seven years old at the time of the assaults.
"Clozza said the men, who cannot be named to protect the identity of the
victims, had already suffered shame and humiliation within the Hutterite
community, whose elders had banished them to other colonies after
details came to light.
"The judge agreed with the defense lawyer's contention that the young
men... were motivated in their actions by curiosity and ignorance.
'Sexual curiosity at that age is understandable, but I know the colony
doesn't like to talk about these matters and does not educate about
these matters,' he said, adding that the major shift to sex education
should now be strongly considered.
"The other six men in the scandal were charged as adults for several
alleged offenses and face trials this summer. A 64-year-old man who was
expected to enter a plea was in the Drumheller hospital on Friday after
suffering a heart attack or stroke earlier in the day in his lawyer's
office, the colonies' legal advisor said.
"During a break in the proceedings, a group of six Hutterite men broke a
stony silence they had maintained since the charges were laid, berating
reporters over the attention given to the scandal, which they said
brought them deep shame.
"'You're just like a bunch of vultures,' one bearded Hutterite man
asserted during a heated exchange with reporters and photographers
outside the courtroom.
"Calling the Hutterites mostly honest and hard-working people, Clozza
said the public should not condemn the entire sect for the actions of a
few." ...
So much for the success of a group using spanking to teach children.
AFfromD...@gmail.com
0:-> wrote:
> AFfromD...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >> I have no delusions. I utilize authoritative research, and often quote
> >> it in this newsgroup.
> >>
> > You meant LIES! Remember the Embry Study, Kane? ;-)
>
> Sure I do. You lied through your teeth for about two years.
>
gotten from Dr. Embry himself. It was YOU who said that the children
in this
study who were spanked had the highest rate of street entries. It was
a lie
and I have proven so!
It is also funny that you claimed Alina and beccafromlalaland were my
socks
out to con you out of a copy of this study. You are hilariously
STUPID, Kane!
> >> Spanking has been linked to later life increase in substance abuse,
> >> depression and other mental illness, and criminal behavior.
> >>
> > The same can be said about non-cp alternatives since, according
> > to Straus, spanking is the result of non-cp not working.
>
> No, that is not what Straus found. Parents may chose to spank because
> their attempt to use non-cp failed. That suggests they do not have good
> non-cp methods, and I've pointed that out.
>
Hihihi! That still meant the link you saw with spanking is also seen
with
the non-cp alternatives in these parents. Got it, STUPID?
> There is a bit too much of non-cp PUNISHMENT going on, instead of
> learning about and applying developmentally appropriate tactics in
> parenting.
>
Citatation please!
> Many have learned to do so and do not have to revert to spanking.
>
That does not mean they were never-spanked, STUPID!
> Remember observer?
>
Yup! He pointed out your stupidity every time, just like me! ;-)
> >> Groups that have high incidence of crime, and especially violent crime
> >> universally are also cultures that use corporal punishment on their
> >> children.
> >>
> > Did you do your research on the Hutterites? ;-) Not a single homocide
> > in the last 5 years!
>
> Gee, I wonder why you chose "five years." In the large community of
> non-spankers I know there are no homicides for GENERATIONS.
>
Really? Which community is that? See? I caught you with your LIES
again. ;-)
> > Remembered? All because they used spanking as
> > part of their "non-violent" parenting! ;-)
>
> Hardly a typical society, monkeyboy.
>
Hihihi! You were the one who touted them as a "non-violent" society,
remembered?
> Do you have any idea now easy it would be to hide a homicide (learn to
> spell unless you meant murders of homosexuals, 0:-> ) in such a closed
> society?
>
Hahaha, a freudean slip? ;-) Where is that non-spanking society?
> And according to your logic then, all murderers would have to be
> non-spanked children.
>
How did you got that? Another logic of the anti-spanking zealotS?
> Those that are spanked, don't murder, right?
>
Did I say that?
> Find us a few un-spanked murderers, monkeyboy.
>
Find us some un-spanked great men, "never-spanked" Kane0.
> This claim of yours reminds me of your claim about Singapore.
>
Hihihi! Lower crime rate than Sweden!
> If you wish to live in a fascist government controlled society of
> oppression you not only can control human behavior more, YOU CAN GET
> AWAY WITH LYING ABOUT IT.
>
You meant like our government spying on its citizens? ;-)
> Singapore has a huge hidden child abuse and crime problem. It pops to
> the surface, then is quickly suppressed by the government. But you'll
> buy about anything that supports your little insane rants, monkeyboy.
>
Hihihi! I should believe you instead, right?
> It's not because the Hutterites spank, stupid. It's because this is an
> ultimate socialist controlled society.
>
> And all is not all flowers and sunlight in said community, monkeyboy:
>
> http://www.perefound.org/em-s_sp.html
>
Hahaha! Anotheer of your "formidable research skill", Kane?
> Not much to recommend the Bruderhof monkeyboy, except they spank. 0:->
>
> Yet again proof that spanking is a form of abuse and is part and parcel
> of a sick society.
>
Only to the mind of the sick people like you, who think that your
mother would approve
of you calling other a "smelly-cunt"! ;-)
AF
AFfromD...@gmail.com
0:-> wrote:
> Doan wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 Sep 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> Greegor wrote:
> >>> Doan wrote to Kane
> >>>> And now you want the child to have his
> >>>> day in court too? So in your logic, the
> >>>> police hit you with a baton is not assault
> >>>> but a parent who spank their kids is?
> >>> That's Kane!
> >> If a police officer hits me with a baton and he or she had no legal
> >> right to do so, that's assault.
> >>
> > A parent who spank his/her kid has the legal right to do so, STUPID!
>
> I never claimed they didn't, Stupid.
Then, by definition, it's not assault, STUPID!
> I'm saying the law is wrong, stupid.
You are not the emperor, STUPID! Just as anti-abortinists say Roe vs.
Wade
is wrong and abortion is murder does make them so.
> Just like slavery was wrong, just like oppression of women under color
> of law was wrong, just like exploitation of children from lack of law
> was wrong. Stupid.
>
False analogies, STUPID!
> Hence, the result that is inevitable in coming, just as it has elsewhere
> in this world, a law making the hitting of children for any reason other
> than self defense (just like the law that applies to adults...age 18 and
> up) assault, stupid.
>
But the police hitting you with a baton to gain compliance is not,
right? ;-)
> The law that gives the officer the right to hit with his or her baton is
> no different than the right I have to strike a child to protect myself
> from him or her.
>
So when the police hit you with his baton, you can hit back, right?
;-)
> But that should not give me a legal right to strike a child and NOT call
> it assault because I want to "teach" him or her something. The cop can't
> do it, and the parent should not be able to do it.
>
The cop can't give a time-out to "teach" you soemting neither, STUPID!
Are you saying the parents can't give time-out now?
> Keep trying monkeyboy. You are looking stupider by the post.
If you want to see something stupid, just look in the mirror,
never-spanked boy! ;-)
AF
0:->
> 0:-> wrote:
>> AFfromD...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>>>> I have no delusions. I utilize authoritative research, and often quote
>>>> it in this newsgroup.
>>>>
>>> You meant LIES! Remember the Embry Study, Kane? ;-)
>> Sure I do. You lied through your teeth for about two years.
>>
> The PROVEN liar is YOU! It was YOU who said that the study can only be
> gotten from Dr. Embry himself.
Would it be a lie if he himself told me that when I inquired?
He did so. And was kind enough to supply me with a copy personally.
> It was YOU who said that the children
> in this
> study who were spanked had the highest rate of street entries. It was
> a lie
> and I have proven so!
No, that is not what I said. And you've proven nothing of the sort.
I have, as others have, quoted Dr. Embry in an interview given to a
parenting magazine, where HE said that. Not I. It did not come from the
study, nor did I claim it did.
Here is what I said:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.true-crime/msg/d9bd31d77da522f6
... in response to a post from ChrisScaife:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 15:01:06 +1300, "ChrisScaife"
<ChrisSca...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>I posted the start of this thread on the wrong news group.
>I am now aware that it might be more of interest here. Not much was
said
>before this one so...
>"dejablues" <dejabl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:bquco3$26okf8$1...@ID-172312.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> Burning up an occupied dollhouse and gazing upon roadkill?
>> Uh................
>An image is worth a thousand words.
>Especially to a young child for whom language itself is a novelty.
>Say you have a little toddler who runs to the car, straight across
the road
>when it's time to go...
>What will make her/him stop and think next time ?
>1: "How many-spank- times-spank- have I told-spank-you-spank... not
>to -spank- run out-spank- in the road-spank-"
>2: The mental image of a squashed animal on the side of the road with
the
>words "That can happen to children too if they run out in the road"
>3: Reader's suggestion here...?
>Take your pick, but everyday, for someone going "Uh...." at road kill
it is
>their dead child they are looking at.
>Some things we can't afford to let them learn the hard way!
You haven't heard what the Embry study revealed, have you?
Let me explain.
1- If your child is so young they cannot be trusted NOT to run into
traffic, they are too young to be supervised without contact...that is
you should have a hold of them or have adequate barriers in the way.
2- Children that are raised by a parent that support and encourages
the child as they explore, tend to look to the parent in new
situations...and even in the old ones, still.
Hence they are faaaar less likely to run toward traffic.
3- Children, even toddler's, to the suprize of Dr Dennis Embry who
thought punishment models would be effective, were seen to attempt
traffic entries MORE when punished, and LESS when given instruction on
where to play to be safe.
http://www.neverhitachild.org/embry.html
The study, the very first one of its kind, and so far not refuted by
any other studies, is about 25 years old.
He has a whole web site on how this principle works in other things as
well, where he apparently continued to look at the learning models
that are proven to work.
http://www.paxis.org/Default.htm
Humans simply don't work well on a punishment model.
It's been shown again and again. First of all it's way too hard to
sort out the distracting experience of violence tied to a learning
situation, and secondly it can have dangerous side effects...just as
he found...MORE attempts to do the proscribed behavior.
Even adults show strong tendencies such as this.
Of course if all they have known is externally applied
sanctions...through the device of punishment....they come to believe
in them as an adult and are somewhat immune to appeals to conscience
and ethics.
Ever noticed?
Kane
>
> It is also funny that you claimed Alina and beccafromlalaland were my
> socks
> out to con you out of a copy of this study.
You don't have the study yet, Doan. And you cannot provide a link to it.
If you can why have you not? Surely you would have given it to becca?
And Alina?
Why the requirement to have "postage paid" for you to "ship it" to them,
Doan? 0:->
> You are hilariously
> STUPID, Kane!
You are lying again. With becca I said she might be. With Alina it's
pretty obvious. A sometimes poster, with almost NO history, and only two
posts since 'her' short string of posts to this newsgroup (your ass
covering, Doan).
'Alina's' first known post to Usenet, Doan, was Jan 24 2004 just about
the time we were most engaged in our discussion of your lies about
having the Embry study.
'Aline' is the name of a nun who is a well known on the campus where you
are. That's how original you are at lying.
'Alina's' last known post was Feb 13, 2006. And so sparce a posting
history, outside our newsgroup, aps, that's obvious it was to create a
trace to give your sock credibility.
'She' would jump into a thread, drop a comment, ONCE, and disappear, and
not respond to other posters answering 'her' post.
A single post, out of all her posts, to a Spanish language ng called
alt.mexico, so obviously a 'demonstration' sockerage that it made me
laugh for a week.
And 'she' didn't even reply in Spanish:
"
From: Alina - view profile
Date: Wed, Apr 28 2004 9:34 am
Email: a...@et.com.mx (Alina)
Groups: alt.mexico
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
"?" <shollan...@genie.co.uk> wrote in message
<news:c687vs$c1v$1...@titan.btinternet.com>...
> alguien sobre aquí ser capaz de señalarme en la dirección derecha
cuando me
> gustaría a emmigrate a México de Inglaterra y estaría interesado en
> cualquier información o sitios que pueden ser capaces de ayudar a
conseguir
> este abogados etc...
What kind of info are you after, exactly? When do you wish to move? "
And the question ALREADY HAD that in it, stupid.
The poster YOU responded to (likely after looking up a translation...if
you weren't too lazy and stupid and tried to figure it out with a little
Spanish you might know) simply asked if there was anyone that could
refer him or her TO A WEBSITE with information (and attorneys)
concerning immigrating to Mexico, coming from England.
YOUR response was not logical, non sequitur of the worst kind. He
already ASKED FOR WHAT HE WANTED, though oddly poorly spoken, in
Spanish. Misplaced plural and singular, a turn of phrase I've never seen
in Spanish before....like a clumsy attempt to indicate which direction
'he' wished to immigrate that turns into a conglomeration of two
countries. Very strange stuff here, Doan.
In fact there was a gross error that puzzles me.
But then he's a British nitwit probably sexual pervert racist pissant,
that YOU picked at random to try and make your sock credible with a
SINGLE post, that could have, had you been a Mexican citizen, a simple
answer to his request. An URL to a website providing what he clumsily
asked for in his broken Spanish.
Why, I wonder, didn't "Alina" a usually polite and helpful person,
simply answer him? R R R R R R.
Alina's last post, after I had been questioning 'her' credibility by
asking what happened to her....gone for months.
You ARE stupid, Doan.
"From: Alina - view profile
Date: Mon, Feb 13 2006 2:12 pm
Email: "Alina" <a...@et.com.mx>
Groups: rec.arts.tv, alt.gossip.celebrities, misc.kids,
alt.parenting.solutions
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
Carseats are overrated . "
>>>> Spanking has been linked to later life increase in substance abuse,
>>>> depression and other mental illness, and criminal behavior.
>>>>
>>> The same can be said about non-cp alternatives since, according
>>> to Straus, spanking is the result of non-cp not working.
>> No, that is not what Straus found. Parents may chose to spank because
>> their attempt to use non-cp failed. That suggests they do not have good
>> non-cp methods, and I've pointed that out.
>>
> Hihihi! That still meant the link you saw with spanking is also seen
> with
> the non-cp alternatives in these parents. Got it, STUPID?
Well, I might if you could have someone translate it into standard
English, bright little monkeyboy.
>> There is a bit too much of non-cp PUNISHMENT going on, instead of
>> learning about and applying developmentally appropriate tactics in
>> parenting.
>>
> Citatation please!
To what? There are two points above. And If YOU wish to learn about
developmental appropriate tactics in parenting, there are hundreds of
websites listing such information.
And the field of child development is old and broad with a great deal of
research. Look it up, stupid.
>> Many have learned to do so and do not have to revert to spanking.
>>
> That does not mean they were never-spanked, STUPID!
I don't see a claim to that effect by me.
>> Remember observer?
>>
> Yup! He pointed out your stupidity every time, just like me! ;-)
Nope. He fumbled all over himself, came back recently as a sock, has
disappeared again, and 'tried' non-cp parenting and couldn't to it.
It was pointed out to him that likely he had not let go of PUNISHMENT
methods, just CP. And that punishment can easily be misused.
That's why when advocates for non CP methods discuss it they refer to
NON PUNISHMENT methods to replace CP, not PUNISHMENT methods.
We are quite aware of what we are saying and why.
>>>> Groups that have high incidence of crime, and especially violent crime
>>>> universally are also cultures that use corporal punishment on their
>>>> children.
>>>>
>>> Did you do your research on the Hutterites? ;-) Not a single homocide
>>> in the last 5 years!
>> Gee, I wonder why you chose "five years." In the large community of
>> non-spankers I know there are no homicides for GENERATIONS.
>>
> Really? Which community is that? See? I caught you with your LIES
> again. ;-)
Let me see now, you do not know what community I refer to buy you say
you "caught me?" That, Doan, would of course, be either a lie, or
stupid, or both. I vote for both.
>> > Remembered? All because they used spanking as
>>> part of their "non-violent" parenting! ;-)
>> Hardly a typical society, monkeyboy.
>>
> Hihihi! You were the one who touted them as a "non-violent" society,
> remembered?
And after further research what did I report to this newsgroup, Doan?
You are attempting to mislead, by omission. Do you know what one
dictionary definition of lying is? Attempting to mislead by omission.
>> Do you have any idea now easy it would be to hide a homicide (learn to
>> spell unless you meant murders of homosexuals, 0:-> ) in such a closed
>> society?
>>
> Hahaha, a freudean slip? ;-) Where is that non-spanking society?
Yours?
YOU wrote HOMOcide, Doan. Not I.
In a large portion of the homeschooling community. And among a very
large group of people from many walks of life that I have known over the
years.
>> And according to your logic then, all murderers would have to be
>> non-spanked children.
>>
> How did you got that? Another logic of the anti-spanking zealotS?
No, the logic of the pro spanking advocated, the compulsives.
You claimed that the Hutterites, because they spank, had no murders in
the past five years. (Of course they don't seem to be entirely violent
crime free, now do they? R R R R R)
That would equate with murders being the more common provenance of
NON-SPANKERS, would it not?
>> Those that are spanked, don't murder, right?
>>
> Did I say that?
Logically, by claiming a spanking community has had no murders, yes.
Or, you might have to admit that spanking is NOT the reason there are no
murders for the past five years in the Hutterite community.
>
>> Find us a few un-spanked murderers, monkeyboy.
>>
> Find us some un-spanked great men, "never-spanked" Kane0.
Being unspanked is so unremarkable, to those that haven't been they
often do not mention it. No reason to. It's the absence of an act.
I would hardly mention casually that I have had never been held up at
gun point, but far more likely to mention it if I had.
>> This claim of yours reminds me of your claim about Singapore.
>>
> Hihihi! Lower crime rate than Sweden!
If you wish to live in an oppressive fascist society.
>> If you wish to live in a fascist government controlled society of
>> oppression you not only can control human behavior more, YOU CAN GET
>> AWAY WITH LYING ABOUT IT.
>>
> You meant like our government spying on its citizens? ;-)
Yep.
Is this why Singapore oppresses it's citizens? Because they have had a
war on terror going on for all these years?
>> Singapore has a huge hidden child abuse and crime problem. It pops to
>> the surface, then is quickly suppressed by the government. But you'll
>> buy about anything that supports your little insane rants, monkeyboy.
>>
> Hihihi! I should believe you instead, right?
Yes.
You seem to have forgotten the posts where I cited (and source linked
to) rising youth crime rates in Singapore, now haven't you, Doan? 0:->
There should be, if this is the bastion of non - crime you seem to have
deluded yourself into believing, almost no crime at all, particularly
against children.
http://www.childrensociety.org.sg/c_abuse.html
Seems the do indeed have such a problem with child abuse.
http://www.childrensociety.org.sg/doc/Monograph1.pdf#search=%22%2BSingapore%20%20%22child%20abuse%22%20%22
Not uncommon for societies that are indulging in the self delusion that
spanking is a loving act.
I find it unconsciounable that a society as "crime free" as Singapore
even needs to make an attitude study on child abuse. It just shows HOW
FAR BEHIND THEY ARE SOCIALLY, and I attribute that to their oppression
by their government.
From the study above:
"SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
After the findings of the study were summarized, a definition of child
abuse and
neglect was proposed. The definition took into account the views of the
community
that was sampled, but it also included within its scope childrearing
practices which
may be detrimental to children and was sensitive to the legal situation
in Singapore.
Firstly, the definition made a distinction between maltreatment and abuse.
Secondly, abuse was further divided into three main types. The proposed
definitions
were as follows:
Maltreatment of a child occurs in any behaviour, that has or is likely
to have a net
damaging or adverse consequence on a child, whether or not intended, by
any person
having the custody, charge or care of the child, or from whom the child
could
reasonably expect proper treatment (with the exception of sexual
maltreatment which
can be perpetrated by any adult).
Abuse is maltreatment resulting from wilful action on the part of a person
responsible for a child (with the exception of sexual abuse which can be
perpetrated
by any adult). It is broken down into three types, namely child abuse,
child sexual
abuse and neglect. These types correspond to the categories found in the
CYPA.
It is suggested that child abuse be defined as comprising wilful
physical and/or
emotional maltreatment; child sexual abuse be defined as the wilful sexual
maltreatment of the child; and child neglect as the failure to provide
adequate care
amounting to wilful maltreatment.
Conclusion
106
As a result of this study, some recommendations were also made. There were
suggestions that:
1. Various organizations and individuals should be encouraged to conduct
more
research in the local context;
2. There should be a central register of child abuse and neglect, which
can collect
data on official as well as unofficial cases;
3. The public should be educated to report child abuse and neglect;
4. Public education should feature emotional maltreatment, although they
should
not forget about the other three forms of child abuse and neglect;
5. There should be therapy for the victims in order to meet their
psychological,
emotional and social needs and not just treatment for their physical
injuries;
6. There should be treatment for perpetrators of child abuse and neglect;
7. Prevention programmes should target “high risk” parents and provide
parent
education and support;
8. Professionals should be trained in the proper management of cases of
child
abuse & neglect and multi-disciplinary “child protection” teams should
be set
up;
9. A law to make reporting mandatory could be considered."
They KNOW, in other words that they have a serious problem with child
abuse, but that they have NOT done much about it in Singapore.
http://www.corpun.com/sgd00005.htm
The is story is interesting as it supports a number of claims
non-spanking advocates have made in this ng.
One I point to, that is obvious, is that caning was NOT working. Even
being hit that hard did not stop the girls from being noisy.
http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=126&art_id=qw1127881266738B252
One of the most violent places on the planet, barring war, is South
Africa. You ARE aware they use CP on children there, are you not?
Why did it work in Singapore and not in SA, Doan?
Could it be CP is not the critical element?
That it's actually NOT needed to raise children, or run a country well?
http://www.sma.org.sg/smj/3904/articles/3904a3.html
In fact, in Singapore society "caning" children is considered
non-abusive. Do YOU personally think hitting a child with the typical
cane they use (usually a piece of Rattan...so you know what that is?) is
not abusive?
This is what THEIR kind of government has brought them too. Creating
what appears on the surface to be an orderly and healthy society, while
rot such as this is going on under cover.
http://www.law.washington.edu/pacrim/abstract/6.2.htm
... While most literature in this area concentrates either on the rights
guaranteed by the Convention or issues raised by studying child abuse
across cultures, this Comment incorporates elements of both approaches
into its analysis. Examination of the child abuse statutes and relevant
policies of Hong Kong, China, Singapore, and Indonesia reveals that
child maltreatment is particularly influenced by cultural relativism.
This analysis further indicates that cultural attitudes, a government's
regulatory strength within the familial context, and economic prosperity
all contribute to obscure the fine line between child abuse and child
discipline. Consequently, a full realization of the benefits guaranteed
by Article 19 in these four countries may not be achieved until children
are understood as rights bearers within the family as well as in
society. ...
>
>> It's not because the Hutterites spank, stupid. It's because this is an
>> ultimate socialist controlled society.
>>
>> And all is not all flowers and sunlight in said community, monkeyboy:
>>
>> http://www.perefound.org/em-s_sp.html
>>
> Hahaha! Anotheer of your "formidable research skill", Kane?
No comment on the content, then? R R R R R R R
>> Not much to recommend the Bruderhof monkeyboy, except they spank. 0:->
>>
>> Yet again proof that spanking is a form of abuse and is part and parcel
>> of a sick society.
>>
> Only to the mind of the sick people like you, who think that your
> mother would approve of you calling other a "smelly-cunt"! ;-)
I don't have to "think" it, dummy. She told me so. She was alive at the
time I made the remark. She looked at the quotes from Fern supporting
the beating of children by church members and was more offended than I.
We are open and honest with our feelings in our family. Unlike you.
And what would be sick about being against the self delusion that
spanking is not hitting, and that spanking is not simply assault under
color of law?
It's just fact.
0:->
> 0:-> wrote:
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Greegor wrote:
>>>>> Doan wrote to Kane
>>>>>> And now you want the child to have his
>>>>>> day in court too? So in your logic, the
>>>>>> police hit you with a baton is not assault
>>>>>> but a parent who spank their kids is?
>>>>> That's Kane!
>>>> If a police officer hits me with a baton and he or she had no legal
>>>> right to do so, that's assault.
>>>>
>>> A parent who spank his/her kid has the legal right to do so, STUPID!
>> I never claimed they didn't, Stupid.
>
> Then, by definition, it's not assault, STUPID!
The only valid definitions are those made by law?
How quaint, Doan.
By LAW, as I've said, it's not assault. By definition it most certainly
is. The legal definition is not the only standard.
>
>> I'm saying the law is wrong, stupid.
>
> You are not the emperor, STUPID!
Nothing in my claim suggests I am. Is everyone that disagrees with a
law, trying to be "the emperor" then?
So all lobbyists, letters to the editor writers, protesters, outspoken
advocates are all "wrong" because it's the law?
Remember Thurgood Marshall? Would you say he, earlier in his law career
was trying to be "the emperor?"
And thousands of other people that have gotten laws changed?
Just as anti-abortinists say Roe vs.
> Wade
> is wrong and abortion is murder does make them so.
Correct. Thus my saying spanking is wrong, and the law that supports it
is wrong, doesn't make it right.
>> Just like slavery was wrong, just like oppression of women under color
>> of law was wrong, just like exploitation of children from lack of law
>> was wrong. Stupid.
>>
> False analogies, STUPID!
Nope. Slavery was wrong because it allowed people to beat, and even
kill, should they chose, other humans in their power.
Spanking is wrong because it allows people to hit children and cause
pain and humiliation for reasons that are not supportable. Teaching can
be done with out it.
And very well, at that.
Or do you think parents spank for reasons other than to teach?
>> Hence, the result that is inevitable in coming, just as it has elsewhere
>> in this world, a law making the hitting of children for any reason other
>> than self defense (just like the law that applies to adults...age 18 and
>> up) assault, stupid.
>>
> But the police hitting you with a baton to gain compliance is not,
> right? ;-)
Nope. As long as they can defend it under the law. If they cannot, it is
not.
You have not responded to the issue, and if there was ever an
inappropriate analogy yours would be it, Doan.
People don't hit children to "gain compliance," or they will be breaking
the law.
They can do it only to discipline, and the word means to teach.
>> The law that gives the officer the right to hit with his or her baton is
>> no different than the right I have to strike a child to protect myself
>> from him or her.
>>
> So when the police hit you with his baton, you can hit back, right?
> ;-)
If he or she is illegally using their baton, yes, of course. In fact I
could shoot him or her, since a baton can be considered lethal force.
Can the cop get away with it? Probably more likely than not, but as you
know if you can read, they most certainly have been caught using the
baton and other tools illegally.
>> But that should not give me a legal right to strike a child and NOT call
>> it assault because I want to "teach" him or her something. The cop can't
>> do it, and the parent should not be able to do it.
>>
> The cop can't give a time-out to "teach" you soemting neither, STUPID!
Nor can he hit me to "teach" me something either, dummy.
> Are you saying the parents can't give time-out now?
Circular logic does not support itself, stupid.
It's not a cop's job to teach a suspected criminal anything, little
hysterical stupid monkeyboy.
But he most certainly give one a 'time-out' say in the back of a squad
car. That is legal. If the purpose is.
We may control our children, legally, in many ways, Doan, but if we
escalate some of them sufficiently we would break the law.
I want the line moved.
>> Keep trying monkeyboy. You are looking stupider by the post.
>
> If you want to see something stupid, just look in the mirror,
> never-spanked boy! ;-)
You weren't there. So I looked in the toilet before flushing, and damn,
there you were.
<flush> R R R R R R R
>
> AF
Greegor
> 2- Children that are raised by a parent that support and encourages
> the child as they explore, tend to look to the parent in new
> situations...and even in the old ones, still.
>
> Hence they are faaaar less likely to run toward traffic.
But did they COMBINE the two methods?
I saw no mention of that.
Did you think that anti-spankers did the
kinds of explanation before and after
an incident or did they act out their worst
cliche' about <spank> How many times <spank>
do I need to tell you <spank> not to run out
into the <spank> street?
Didn't they pit the WORST spanking method
against a very INTENSIVE alternative of verbal
counseling alone?
Why was the verbal part of spanking done so BADLY??
Was the intent to bias the results?
Or was that just accidental?
Kane wrote
> He has a whole web site on how this principle works in other things as
> well, where he apparently continued to look at the learning models
> that are proven to work.
> http://www.paxis.org/Default.htm
Golly, maybe the BIAS was NOT acidental!
Did this biased PUKE actually pass any PEER REVIEW?
What did he do, find some flaky liberal pukes like himself
to agree with him?
Is THAT what PEER REVIEW is all about?
Finding people with the SAME BIAS HE HAS?
0:->
> Kane wrote
>> 2- Children that are raised by a parent that support and encourages
>> the child as they explore, tend to look to the parent in new
>> situations...and even in the old ones, still.
>>
>> Hence they are faaaar less likely to run toward traffic.
>
> But did they COMBINE the two methods?
> I saw no mention of that.
What two methods?
> Did you think that anti-spankers did the
> kinds of explanation before and after
> an incident or did they act out their worst
> cliche' about <spank> How many times <spank>
> do I need to tell you <spank> not to run out
> into the <spank> street?
This makes no sense. Can you explain so we can understand?
> Didn't they pit the WORST spanking method
> against a very INTENSIVE alternative of verbal
> counseling alone?
No. Who is this "they" you are referring to? The Embry Study?
Doan can give you a link to it, so he claims. Ask him and read it for
the answers.
The study was an experiment. Not just data collection. I used certain
methods to teach. Read it.
> Why was the verbal part of spanking done so BADLY??
To what are you referring? You seem to think Doan is telling the truth.
Learn for yourself. Read the study. Doan says he has it. You two seem
like butt buddies. Surely he'll supply you with a copy.
Can you afford the postage he demanded from other requesters?
I'll pay yours for you if he'll send it to you. I figure five bucks tops
by any method of shipment, OR, since he says it's on line, have him link
you to it. The you won't cost me any more than the trouble I go to spank
you awake almost every day.
>
> Was the intent to bias the results?
You are off on a line of babble arising out of being ignorant of the
subject matter. Read the study, stupid.
Prove you have it, by answering a couple of questions based on content,
and I'll debate you as long as you like. And explain the study to you.
> Or was that just accidental?
Non sequitur. You don't know that you are asking about so you are asking
nonsense questions. Read the study.
>
> Kane wrote
>> He has a whole web site on how this principle works in other things as
>> well, where he apparently continued to look at the learning models
>> that are proven to work.
>> http://www.paxis.org/Default.htm
>
> Golly, maybe the BIAS was NOT acidental!
Actually he was a believer, as you would know if you read the link I
provided to the original interview of him by a parent's magazine, in
using corporal punishment to teach. HE said he was surprised to learn
that punishment showed MORE street entries per child, than simply
teaching with some simple techniques.
> Did this biased PUKE actually pass any PEER REVIEW?
Embry is a biased "PUKE?" A man that is a well respected and skillful
researcher and is hired to provide programs for cities and states about
safety issues? That Dr. Embry?
The man that once believed in effectiveness of spanking and had his own
research show otherwise? That "PUKE?" Why don't you ask him yourself.
I've both e-mailed and spoken to him by phone. And in snail mail. Surely
he'll love to discuss this issue with someone as well informed as
you...the man that teaches cats dog tricks and helps his paramour with
child care.
> What did he do, find some flaky liberal pukes like himself
> to agree with him?
I don't know his politics. You suddenly do?
You know Dr. Embry, do you? Or have researched him enough to make a
qualified statement as to his politics and biases?
> Is THAT what PEER REVIEW is all about?
I do not think his study was for publication in a journal. He had no
interest, apparently. I can't say it wasn't since I've not looked to see.
He was not collecting data from the public. He was watching people he
and his staff had taught a few simple parenting skills to, three as I
recall, so simple even YOU could do them, and recording the results.
Why not read the study, Greg. Doan has it. 0:-> doesn't he?
> Finding people with the SAME BIAS HE HAS?
"Finding people?"
You couldn't mean his demographic target group for the study could you?
Why not read the study, or just ask Doan, and find out.
I don't think I say anything about them to indicate they were liberals,
or biased for non-spanking, or non-punitive methods.
Even Embry, which Doan likes to take up as one of my "lies," used
language describing one of the techniques...a time out....a brief
punishment.
If you read the study you'll see that the way this "time out" is
performed in fact it is an intense connection with "mommy" while the
child watches and is coached by her as other children play safely.
I disagreed that Embry called it 'punishment' when it's highly
questionable the child would experience it that way. It could have been,
and such actions usually are, much more of a reward. I simple call it
teaching. And so did he elsewhere in the study, after having used the
word "time out" as "brief punishment."
That would hardly make it true that I "lied," as disagreement is not a lie.
Now, do you wish to debate the Embry study, or do you wish to babble
pointless fact deficient unrelated and stupid questions at me about it?
If the latter, don't waste your time. I'll simply let people see you
make a fool of yourself again.
Like Doan does. (to you every time you fall for his bullshit and lies)
Greegor
> The only valid definitions are those made by law?
Of a LEGAL term, yes, and an attempt by any
extreme minority kook fringe to define such a
common term "THEIR WAY" is dishonest or worse.
Redefining such a clearly defined word for the purposes
of RHETORIC is hardly Roberts Rules old chap.
0:->
> 0:-> wrote:
>> AFfromD...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>>>> I have no delusions. I utilize authoritative research, and often quote
>>>> it in this newsgroup.
>>>>
>>> You meant LIES! Remember the Embry Study, Kane? ;-)
>> Sure I do. You lied through your teeth for about two years.
>>
> The PROVEN liar is YOU! It was YOU who said that the study can only be
> gotten from Dr. Embry himself. It was YOU who said that the children
> in this
> study who were spanked had the highest rate of street entries. It was
> a lie
> and I have proven so!
No you haven't. I quoted someone, and said I was quoting someone, liar.
Here's YOUR posted comments with mine that SHOWS you know this, and are
lying through your little monkey teeth. 0:->
> Doan wrote:
>
>
> The Lie:
>
> "Pretty remarkable when one considers that parents who spanked before
> had children that attemped entries at the highest rate of all per
> hour."
>
> Still don't know where I got that, eh? R R R R RR
>
> NOT FROM THE EMBRY STUDY!
>
> Didn't say I did. 0:->
>
> Ever think there might be commentary from other sources on the study.
> Authoritative commentary. By people that know the study in more depth
> than was printed in the report?
............
See stupid monkeyboy?
And in my February 22nd 06, 05:04 PM posted to alt.parenting.spanking
I pointed out that YOU were lying by attempting to claim YOU had the
study when THIS quoted paragraph FROM the study is considered. Notice it
IS instructions to the observers of child and parent behaviors to NOTE
the "hitting" and other use of force?
Man you are stupid, considering there is a record of everything you
stupidly claim and lie about.
"
0:->
external usenet poster
Posts: n/a
Default The Embry study: What it actually said.
Doan wrote:
Yup! And get this, the Embry study has nothing to do with
spanking at all. He has been lying about it all along.
He is caught in a lie and now trying very hard to extricate
himself.
Doan
[[[ My response ]]]
From page 23, instructions to the six (with the author making the
seventh) observers.
Item 11.
Parental Use of Punishment. If the parent used force (pulling, pushing,
squeezing hard, or HITTING)[emphasis mine] as a consequence for a
child's play in the street during an interval (of observation), the
observers coded this force as "PUNISHMENT." [emphasis mine again].
I'd say "hitting" falls under "spanking" descriptively. YMMV
So Doan, the study "has nothing to do with spanking at all?"
.....
Get it yet, Doan?
You lied, you compounded your lies many times, and are doing so again now.
Anyone interested in the history of this resurrected nonsense of Doan's
is invited to read the central post that showed clearly that he was
lying then, thus lying now.
http://www.talkaboutparenting.com/group/alt.parenting.spanking/messages/142745.html
He does this periodically as a way to harass rather than debate.
Harassment is what he is about, not information, not logical argument,
nothing but monkeyboy tricks.
AFfromD...@gmail.com
0:-> wrote:
> AFfromD...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 0:-> wrote:
> >> AFfromD...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >>>> I have no delusions. I utilize authoritative research, and often quote
> >>>> it in this newsgroup.
> >>>>
> >>> You meant LIES! Remember the Embry Study, Kane? ;-)
> >> Sure I do. You lied through your teeth for about two years.
> >>
> > The PROVEN liar is YOU! It was YOU who said that the study can only be
> > gotten from Dr. Embry himself.
>
> Would it be a lie if he himself told me that when I inquired?
A simple google search, as Dorothy did, has proven that to be false!
;-)
>
> He did so. And was kind enough to supply me with a copy personally.
>
Couldn't even keep your story straight, Kane? You first said that you,
as a researcher,
keep a copy in your garage. Remember? I have it. I don't have it. I
read it. I didn't
read it. That's your problem, Kane. You lied so many times that you
can't even keep
your straight! ;-)
> > It was YOU who said that the children
> > in this
> > study who were spanked had the highest rate of street entries. It was
> > a lie
> > and I have proven so!
>
> No, that is not what I said. And you've proven nothing of the sort.
>
I just did again, LIAR!
> I have, as others have, quoted Dr. Embry in an interview given to a
> parenting magazine, where HE said that. Not I. It did not come from the
> study, nor did I claim it did.
>
> Here is what I said:
>
Hahaha! Couldn't keep your story straight. Here is your exact words:
"No, I did not claim the study showed any such thing. I stated simply
that spanked children were known to have twice as many street entries
as
children that were trained not to enter the street."
You know that is false because your have a copy of the study yourself.
So now
you have a terrible dilema: either you are too stupid to understand
the study
or you a terrible liar. Which is it, Kane? Your mom must be proud!
;-)
Hihihi! The study employed punishment, STUPID!
> It's been shown again and again. First of all it's way too hard to
> sort out the distracting experience of violence tied to a learning
> situation, and secondly it can have dangerous side effects...just as
> he found...MORE attempts to do the proscribed behavior.
>
More lies! ;-)
> Even adults show strong tendencies such as this.
>
So you are calling for a ban on ALL PUNISHMENT???
> Of course if all they have known is externally applied
> sanctions...through the device of punishment....they come to believe
> in them as an adult and are somewhat immune to appeals to conscience
> and ethics.
>
Hihihi! You don't have any conscience nor ethics!
> Ever noticed?
>
Yup! I see it every time you posted. ;-)
AF
> Kane
Stupid!
>
>
>
> >
> > It is also funny that you claimed Alina and beccafromlalaland were my
> > socks
> > out to con you out of a copy of this study.
>
> You don't have the study yet, Doan. And you cannot provide a link to it.
> If you can why have you not? Surely you would have given it to becca?
> And Alina?
>
And claimed to have sent one to Alina. Is that a lie too? ;-) Where
are
the three people that you claimed to have sent copies to? You are not
a good LIAR, Kane! ;-)
> Why the requirement to have "postage paid" for you to "ship it" to them,
> Doan? 0:->
AAA Foundation charged more than $20.00 to send it.
>
> > You are hilariously
> > STUPID, Kane!
>
> You are lying again. With becca I said she might be. With Alina it's
> pretty obvious. A sometimes poster, with almost NO history, and only two
> posts since 'her' short string of posts to this newsgroup (your ass
> covering, Doan).
>
Hihihi! So you were wrong about becca. Did you apologize to her?
> 'Alina's' first known post to Usenet, Doan, was Jan 24 2004 just about
> the time we were most engaged in our discussion of your lies about
> having the Embry study.
>
So how did you sent a copy of the study, Kane? ;-)
> 'Aline' is the name of a nun who is a well known on the campus where you
> are. That's how original you are at lying.
>
Hihihi! That's how stupid you are.
> 'Alina's' last known post was Feb 13, 2006. And so sparce a posting
> history, outside our newsgroup, aps, that's obvious it was to create a
> trace to give your sock credibility.
>
Hihihi! That's funny!
> 'She' would jump into a thread, drop a comment, ONCE, and disappear, and
> not respond to other posters answering 'her' post.
>
> A single post, out of all her posts, to a Spanish language ng called
> alt.mexico, so obviously a 'demonstration' sockerage that it made me
> laugh for a week.
>
> And 'she' didn't even reply in Spanish:
>
Hihihi! So did you sent a copy?
Hilarious! The STUPID FOOL is you!
Hihihi! He kicked your butt everytime. You are still fuming over it.
> It was pointed out to him that likely he had not let go of PUNISHMENT
> methods, just CP. And that punishment can easily be misused.
>
But you don't call for a ban on punishment, right? ;-)
> That's why when advocates for non CP methods discuss it they refer to
> NON PUNISHMENT methods to replace CP, not PUNISHMENT methods.
>
> We are quite aware of what we are saying and why.
>
With nothing to back it up. ;-)
> >>>> Groups that have high incidence of crime, and especially violent crime
> >>>> universally are also cultures that use corporal punishment on their
> >>>> children.
> >>>>
> >>> Did you do your research on the Hutterites? ;-) Not a single homocide
> >>> in the last 5 years!
> >> Gee, I wonder why you chose "five years." In the large community of
> >> non-spankers I know there are no homicides for GENERATIONS.
> >>
> > Really? Which community is that? See? I caught you with your LIES
> > again. ;-)
>
> Let me see now, you do not know what community I refer to buy you say
> you "caught me?" That, Doan, would of course, be either a lie, or
> stupid, or both. I vote for both.
>
I asked you what community. You can't name any because there are
none.
That's the lie, STUPID!
> >> > Remembered? All because they used spanking as
> >>> part of their "non-violent" parenting! ;-)
> >> Hardly a typical society, monkeyboy.
> >>
> > Hihihi! You were the one who touted them as a "non-violent" society,
> > remembered?
>
> And after further research what did I report to this newsgroup, Doan?
>
That spanking is part of a non-violent parenting. Remembered? ;-)
> You are attempting to mislead, by omission. Do you know what one
> dictionary definition of lying is? Attempting to mislead by omission.
>
That fit you PERFECTLY! ;-)
> >> Do you have any idea now easy it would be to hide a homicide (learn to
> >> spell unless you meant murders of homosexuals, 0:-> ) in such a closed
> >> society?
> >>
> > Hahaha, a freudean slip? ;-) Where is that non-spanking society?
>
> Yours?
>
> YOU wrote HOMOcide, Doan. Not I.
>
You were the one that pointed it out. I didn't see the connection.
You did!
> In a large portion of the homeschooling community. And among a very
> large group of people from many walks of life that I have known over the
> years.
>
Hihihi! Homeschooler don't spank???
> >> And according to your logic then, all murderers would have to be
> >> non-spanked children.
> >>
> > How did you got that? Another logic of the anti-spanking zealotS?
>
> No, the logic of the pro spanking advocated, the compulsives.
>
> You claimed that the Hutterites, because they spank, had no murders in
> the past five years. (Of course they don't seem to be entirely violent
> crime free, now do they? R R R R R)
>
That's not my claim. You were the one that did the "research" and
claimed
that they have no homicide, not I.
> That would equate with murders being the more common provenance of
> NON-SPANKERS, would it not?
>
That do not follow logic!
> >> Those that are spanked, don't murder, right?
> >>
> > Did I say that?
>
> Logically, by claiming a spanking community has had no murders, yes.
>
Did I said the USA has no murder? The USA is a spanking country so
how could I make such a claim? Got it, STUPID!
> Or, you might have to admit that spanking is NOT the reason there are no
> murders for the past five years in the Hutterite community.
You were the one that made the claim. Why the change now?
> >
> >> Find us a few un-spanked murderers, monkeyboy.
> >>
> > Find us some un-spanked great men, "never-spanked" Kane0.
>
> Being unspanked is so unremarkable, to those that haven't been they
> often do not mention it. No reason to. It's the absence of an act.
>
Hihihi! Like Einstein?
> I would hardly mention casually that I have had never been held up at
> gun point, but far more likely to mention it if I had.
>
Are you saying that 90+% of people have been held up at gun point?
YOU ARE STUPID! ;-)
> >> This claim of yours reminds me of your claim about Singapore.
> >>
> > Hihihi! Lower crime rate than Sweden!
>
> If you wish to live in an oppressive fascist society.
Like the USA? ;-)
>
> >> If you wish to live in a fascist government controlled society of
> >> oppression you not only can control human behavior more, YOU CAN GET
> >> AWAY WITH LYING ABOUT IT.
> >>
> > You meant like our government spying on its citizens? ;-)
>
> Yep.
>
> Is this why Singapore oppresses it's citizens? Because they have had a
> war on terror going on for all these years?
>
Is that why? ;-)
> >> Singapore has a huge hidden child abuse and crime problem. It pops to
> >> the surface, then is quickly suppressed by the government. But you'll
> >> buy about anything that supports your little insane rants, monkeyboy.
> >>
> > Hihihi! I should believe you instead, right?
>
> Yes.
>
Hahaha! I don't believe LIARS!
> You seem to have forgotten the posts where I cited (and source linked
> to) rising youth crime rates in Singapore, now haven't you, Doan? 0:->
>
> There should be, if this is the bastion of non - crime you seem to have
> deluded yourself into believing, almost no crime at all, particularly
> against children.
>
> http://www.childrensociety.org.sg/c_abuse.html
> Seems the do indeed have such a problem with child abuse.
>
All countries have problems with child abuse, Kane. Are you this
desperate?
Have you checked Sweden? Here is what I found through MEDLINE:
Physical child abuse in Sweden: a study of police reports between 1986
and 1996.
Lindell C, Svedin CG.
Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Faculty of Health
Sciences, Linkopi
ng University, Sweden. charlott...@lio.se
BACKGROUND: This study aims at investigating physical child abuse in
Sweden duri
ng 1986-1996, a period when alarm was being raised about an increased
number of
police reports on physical child abuse. The study focuses on abuse
committed by
a parent or carer and aims at analyzing the victim and the perpetrator,
family e
nvironment, injuries and judicial consequences of physical abuse.
METHOD: All po
lice reports on physical child abuse (0-14 years old) in a designated
police dis
trict in Sweden during 1986-1996 were examined, as well as any judicial
proceedi
ngs that followed. RESULTS: Our research yielded three major findings.
Firstly,
a large part of the increased number of police reports had to do with
violence o
utside the family: 145 children (0.5 per 1000 children) were found
abused within
the families, by a parent or a carer. Secondly, there was a tendency
toward mal
es abusing boys and females abusing girls, and the biological father
was the mos
t frequent suspected perpetrator. Thirdly, 20% of the police reports
led to pros
ecutions, and the investigations were time consuming. Known risk
factors for phy
sical abuse, such as unemployment, violent spouse relations, substance
and drug
abuse and poor mental health were found in several families, often
among the pro
secuted perpetrators. When examining incidence of physical abuse,
Sweden was com
parable to the other Scandinavian countries, where legislation and
social contex
t are similar. CONCLUSIONS: The numbers of physically abused children
that have
been reported to the police in Sweden has increased during the
investigated peri
od. Familiar risk factors are present in our study, accompanied by new
findings,
such as, for instance, a gender preference towards the abuse victim.
PMID: 11465787 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Funny that the anti-spanking law did nothing to reduce it.
> http://www.childrensociety.org.sg/doc/Monograph1.pdf#search=%22%2BSingapore%20%20%22child%20abuse%22%20%22
> Not uncommon for societies that are indulging in the self delusion that
> spanking is a loving act.
>
It's part of "non-violent" parenting was your claim, Kane! ;-)
How about Sweden?
> Could it be CP is not the critical element?
>
Neither are the non-cp alternatives?
> That it's actually NOT needed to raise children, or run a country well?
>
Tell that to the Singaporean. ;-)
> http://www.sma.org.sg/smj/3904/articles/3904a3.html
> In fact, in Singapore society "caning" children is considered
> non-abusive. Do YOU personally think hitting a child with the typical
> cane they use (usually a piece of Rattan...so you know what that is?) is
> not abusive?
>
They cane adults too! ;-)
> This is what THEIR kind of government has brought them too. Creating
> what appears on the surface to be an orderly and healthy society, while
> rot such as this is going on under cover.
>
> http://www.law.washington.edu/pacrim/abstract/6.2.htm
> ... While most literature in this area concentrates either on the rights
> guaranteed by the Convention or issues raised by studying child abuse
> across cultures, this Comment incorporates elements of both approaches
> into its analysis. Examination of the child abuse statutes and relevant
> policies of Hong Kong, China, Singapore, and Indonesia reveals that
> child maltreatment is particularly influenced by cultural relativism.
> This analysis further indicates that cultural attitudes, a government's
> regulatory strength within the familial context, and economic prosperity
> all contribute to obscure the fine line between child abuse and child
> discipline. Consequently, a full realization of the benefits guaranteed
> by Article 19 in these four countries may not be achieved until children
> are understood as rights bearers within the family as well as in
> society. ...
>
> >
> >> It's not because the Hutterites spank, stupid. It's because this is an
> >> ultimate socialist controlled society.
> >>
> >> And all is not all flowers and sunlight in said community, monkeyboy:
> >>
> >> http://www.perefound.org/em-s_sp.html
> >>
> > Hahaha! Anotheer of your "formidable research skill", Kane?
>
> No comment on the content, then? R R R R R R R
>
I don't need too because it's funny that you took a 180 degree turn on
the
Hutterites. ;-0
> >> Not much to recommend the Bruderhof monkeyboy, except they spank. 0:->
> >>
> >> Yet again proof that spanking is a form of abuse and is part and parcel
> >> of a sick society.
> >>
> > Only to the mind of the sick people like you, who think that your
> > mother would approve of you calling other a "smelly-cunt"! ;-)
>
> I don't have to "think" it, dummy. She told me so. She was alive at the
> time I made the remark. She looked at the quotes from Fern supporting
> the beating of children by church members and was more offended than I.
>
Hihihi!
> We are open and honest with our feelings in our family. Unlike you.
>
Open and honest? That's a laugh!
> And what would be sick about being against the self delusion that
> spanking is not hitting, and that spanking is not simply assault under
> color of law?
>
It's part of "non-violent" parenting were you your claim! ;-)
> It's just fact.
>
To stupid people like you! ;-)
AF
0:->
> Kane wrote
>> The only valid definitions are those made by law?
>
> Of a LEGAL term, yes, and an attempt by any
> extreme minority kook fringe to define such a
> common term "THEIR WAY" is dishonest or worse.
When did "spanking" become solely a "legal term," Greg?
What would you call it if the law wasn't involved....and what was it
called before there was a law protecting it?
> Redefining such a clearly defined word for the purposes
> of RHETORIC is hardly Roberts Rules old chap.
"Redefining?
Could you explain precisely how it's being redefined.
Here is my definition.
But for the delusion represented by protection color of law allowing
spanking it would be called assault.
Now show me how that redefines. I am defining it as IT IS, protected by
law, just like other laws.
Robbery is the taking of another's goods1 regardless of the legal
definition, is it not, Greg?
Spanking is the hitting of a child, sanctioned as legal by statute.
Where is the redefinition?
I see hitting and assault as being redefined by you kooks and protected,
temporarily, by law.
Just as it was legal to own slaves. Just as it was legal to beat your
wife. Just as it was legal to torture animals. Just as it was legal to
execute children for some crimes. Just as it was legal to economically
exploit children. Just as it was legal to sell opiates without
prescription. Just as it was legal to flog adults in the name of
punishment.
Things change as times change, and we learn and thus grow more moral.
Corporal punishment of children will go the way of corporal punishment
of adults. It will be called, finally, what it is, assault.
0:->
police officers.
Greg and Doan think that the police use of a baton is a fit analogy to
the use of spanking by parents.
Or is that not what you said or meant, boys?
Let's see if Greg or Doan can figure out how to apply this to parents
disciplining children, unless of course they wish to claim that spanking
is claimed by parents to be used for things other than discipline
(teaching).
And note, before you get too carried away, I have never claimed force
can and should be used with children. It's how you teach a baby to take
a bath. 0:->
And in fact, dipwad brothers, the police are far more careful in the
legal use of the baton than parents are in the legal use of spanking.
At least they provide a clear explanation so that the possiblity,
<chuckle> of CROSSING THE LINE TO ABUSE is less likely out of ignorance.
http://www.policebatons.com/mptc/uof3.html
...
Chapter Three:
The Monadnock Baton Chart
INTRODUCTION
The use of force by officers is permissible when used to effect an
arrest; to overcome resistance; to prevent escape; in self-defense; or
in the defense of others. The force used must be objectively reasonable
based on facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time the
force is used. Officers should take into consideration; the severity of
the crime involved; the actions of the subject; whether the subject
poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or to others;
and officer/subject factors. Officers' decisions are often made in
circumstances that are stressful and ever changing, thus officers are
not required to determine the least intrusive measure of force that
might resolve the situation. Officers are required to select an
objectively reasonable option given the totality of the circumstances
known to them at the time.
Determining whether the force used is objectively reasonable requires a
careful balancing of factors including, but not limited to, the probable
severity of injury to officers, subjects and others as a result of the
application of force. Target selection based on medical evaluations of
the vulnerability of the various parts of the human body and potential
injury to subjects may assist officers in reducing injuries to subjects.
In the "Monadnock Baton Chart", the potential trauma to the body has
been designated by colors denoting the level of risk incurred by the
application of physical force by means of a baton.
ESCALATION AND DE-ESCALATION OF TRAUMA
[[[ chart at this point, showing target areas on the body ]]]
The concept of Green, Yellow and Red Target Areas of the Monadnock Baton
Chart was developed to assist officers in assessing the probability of
injury to subjects. When time allows, officers' use of force should take
into consideration escalating and de-escalating options based on threat
assessment, officer/subject factors and the probable severity of injury.
THE CONCEPT IN ACTION
Green Target Areas are for confrontations where the subject is resisting
an officer or another. Yellow Target Areas are for confrontations where
the subject is assaulting an officer or another, or when force applied
to a Green Target Area fails to overcome resistance or does not
correspond with the threat level. Red Target Areas are for
confrontations where the subject is attempting to cause serious bodily
injury to an officer or another; or situations where force to lower
level target areas fail to overcome the resistance and end the
confrontation. Physical force directed at Red Target Areas pose a
greater risk of injury to the subject and in certain areas may
constitute deadly force because of the probability of causing death.
MONADNOCK BATON CHART AND THE RESISTANCE-RESPONSE MODEL
The target areas of the Monadnock Baton Chart are included in a
Resistance-Response Model as illustrated.
In a situation where an officer is suddenly assaulted by a subject with
a knife it would be reasonable for the officer to utilize a firearm.
However, circumstances might force an officer to utilize a baton in
response to such a threat. Given the fact that the officer is facing a
potential lethal threat any target area or technique would be acceptable
including jabs, spins and chops to RED AREAS. A note of caution should
be made that any officer who decides to use a less than lethal level of
force in response to a lethal threat does so at a high risk to his/her
personal safety, the safety of others and risks the possibility that the
subject will evade apprehension.
UPDATES AND FLEXIBILITY
Last year the Monadnock Police Training Council Updated its Baton Chart
to more closely adhere to the current definition of acceptable use of
force. The chart was analyzed from a medical and legal stand point to
ensure its accuracy. As a result, some of the color-coded
classifications were lowered. To learn more about why the Council made
these changes you can read the 1998 Monadnock Baton Chart Release by
clicking here.
It is important to note that Monadnock still supports the initial
Monadnock Baton Chart, called the Escalation of Trauma Chart. In fact,
the Council would support any agency or instructor who finds it
necessary to raise a specific target area to a higher color-coded
classification; for example, the collarbone from a Yellow to a Red
Target Area. Any agency or instructor who elects to do so must clearly
document that action. The Council would not support any change whereby a
specific Target Area's color-code is lowered; for example, changing the
collarbone from a Yellow to a Green Target Area.
...
0:->
> 0:-> wrote:
>> AFfromD...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> 0:-> wrote:
>>>> AFfromD...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>>>>>> I have no delusions. I utilize authoritative research, and often quote
>>>>>> it in this newsgroup.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You meant LIES! Remember the Embry Study, Kane? ;-)
>>>> Sure I do. You lied through your teeth for about two years.
>>>>
>>> The PROVEN liar is YOU! It was YOU who said that the study can only be
>>> gotten from Dr. Embry himself.
>> Would it be a lie if he himself told me that when I inquired?
>
> A simple google search, as Dorothy did, has proven that to be false!
> ;-)
Citation.
>
>> He did so. And was kind enough to supply me with a copy personally.
>>
> Couldn't even keep your story straight, Kane? You first said that you,
> as a researcher,
> keep a copy in your garage. Remember? I have it. I don't have it. I
> read it. I didn't
> read it. That's your problem, Kane. You lied so many times that you
> can't even keep
> your straight! ;-)
You are lying. What would having a copy in my garage have to do with how
I got that copy.
>> > It was YOU who said that the children
>>> in this
>>> study who were spanked had the highest rate of street entries. It was
>>> a lie
>>> and I have proven so!
>> No, that is not what I said. And you've proven nothing of the sort.
>>
> I just did again, LIAR!
I see no citations. No support for the claims you are making.
>> I have, as others have, quoted Dr. Embry in an interview given to a
>> parenting magazine, where HE said that. Not I. It did not come from the
>> study, nor did I claim it did.
>>
>> Here is what I said:
>>
> Hahaha! Couldn't keep your story straight. Here is your exact words:
>
> "No, I did not claim the study showed any such thing. I stated simply
> that spanked children were known to have twice as many street entries
> as
> children that were trained not to enter the street."
Yep. And I got that information from authoritative sources. It would be
a mistake if YOU could show that there is research showing a contrary
outcome. It would be a lie if I KNEW of that research before hand and
still made MY claim.
YOU are lying.
> You know that is false because your have a copy of the study yourself.
> So now
> you have a terrible dilema: either you are too stupid to understand
> the study
> or you a terrible liar. Which is it, Kane? Your mom must be proud!
> ;-)
I have the study. I did not say the above in relationship to the study.
Notice I even say that I did not claim the study showed it.
You are lying again, with the evidence right here on the page, above.
So? I didn't claim it didn't. I claimed that the use of the word
"punishment" to describe (and I've told you this many times before,
publicly, liar) by Dr. Embry to describe a parent instructing a child in
a time out to "watch children playing properly" was not what I
considered punishment.
A disagreement is not a lie, liar.
>> It's been shown again and again. First of all it's way too hard to
>> sort out the distracting experience of violence tied to a learning
>> situation, and secondly it can have dangerous side effects...just as
>> he found...MORE attempts to do the proscribed behavior.
>>
> More lies! ;-)
"Lies?" My opinion is a lie? Opinions aren't lie, stupid.
>> Even adults show strong tendencies such as this.
>>
> So you are calling for a ban on ALL PUNISHMENT???
Nope. I'm calling for further examination of it. And if it shows that
I'm correct, a ban on it.
>> Of course if all they have known is externally applied
>> sanctions...through the device of punishment....they come to believe
>> in them as an adult and are somewhat immune to appeals to conscience
>> and ethics.
>>
> Hihihi! You don't have any conscience nor ethics!
Now we know you are lying.
>> Ever noticed?
>>
> Yup! I see it every time you posted. ;-)
Interesting that you'd take my comment that the use of externally
applied sanctions through the use of punishment tends to create an
immunity to appeals to conscience and claim I have that problem.
It's you that got physically punished.
>
> AF
>
>> Kane
>
> Stupid!
You should sign off that way all time. At least it's honest to sign
yourself as "Stupid!"
>>> It is also funny that you claimed Alina and beccafromlalaland were my
>>> socks
>>> out to con you out of a copy of this study.
>> You don't have the study yet, Doan. And you cannot provide a link to it.
>> If you can why have you not? Surely you would have given it to becca?
>> And Alina?
>>
> And claimed to have sent one to Alina. Is that a lie too? ;-) Where
> are
> the three people that you claimed to have sent copies to? You are not
> a good LIAR, Kane! ;-)
Well, since Alina is you, stupid, I'd hardly expect YOU to admit you got
it when you had been claiming at the time you had it. 0:->
>> Why the requirement to have "postage paid" for you to "ship it" to them,
>> Doan? 0:->
>
> AAA Foundation charged more than $20.00 to send it.
Oh, you wanted to see if you could turn a profit for document that was
produced by someone else?
I paid for postage, though it was not requested, and it was not anywhere
near $20, from Dr. Embry.
I thought you said you had it available electronically. 0:-> R R R R R
...liar.
>>> You are hilariously
>>> STUPID, Kane!
>> You are lying again. With becca I said she might be. With Alina it's
>> pretty obvious. A sometimes poster, with almost NO history, and only two
>> posts since 'her' short string of posts to this newsgroup (your ass
>> covering, Doan).
>>
> Hihihi! So you were wrong about becca. Did you apologize to her?
Yep.
>> 'Alina's' first known post to Usenet, Doan, was Jan 24 2004 just about
>> the time we were most engaged in our discussion of your lies about
>> having the Embry study.
>>
> So how did you sent a copy of the study, Kane? ;-)
To the address "Alina" gave to me. I got no response after that.
>> 'Aline' is the name of a nun who is a well known on the campus where you
>> are. That's how original you are at lying.
>>
> Hihihi! That's how stupid you are.
No, Doan, it's how obvious and stupid YOU are. I've told you I'm very
familiar with the campus there. People, places, events. You should have
factored that into choosing a name for your sock.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/pubrel/trojan_family/summer99/alumninews/AP_gerber.html
By the way, I've met Sr. Aline a number of times, stupid.
Tell me, is she still living? I'll drop her a card if so.
>> 'Alina's' last known post was Feb 13, 2006. And so sparce a posting
>> history, outside our newsgroup, aps, that's obvious it was to create a
>> trace to give your sock credibility.
>>
> Hihihi! That's funny!
Yes, you are pitifully funny most of the time.
By the way, do you happen to know if Alina Alexeenko is still a post
doctoral fellow at USC?
>> 'She' would jump into a thread, drop a comment, ONCE, and disappear, and
>> not respond to other posters answering 'her' post.
>>
>> A single post, out of all her posts, to a Spanish language ng called
>> alt.mexico, so obviously a 'demonstration' sockerage that it made me
>> laugh for a week.
>>
>> And 'she' didn't even reply in Spanish:
>>
> Hihihi! So did you sent a copy?
Sure. You got it didn't you? Or was it a phony address.
I'll leave that up to any poster to decide for themselves.
He? R R R R .... you are reading impaired as well as brain damaged from
being spanked too high up the back as a child apparently?
>> It was pointed out to him that likely he had not let go of PUNISHMENT
>> methods, just CP. And that punishment can easily be misused.
>>
> But you don't call for a ban on punishment, right? ;-)
You answer your questions instead of waiting until I do? I would like to
see "punishment" phased out of the human experience. Given enough time
we might just do it.
I most certainly believe in doing away with physical punishment.
>> That's why when advocates for non CP methods discuss it they refer to
>> NON PUNISHMENT methods to replace CP, not PUNISHMENT methods.
>>
>> We are quite aware of what we are saying and why.
>>
> With nothing to back it up. ;-)
Just a century or so of research.
>>>>>> Groups that have high incidence of crime, and especially violent crime
>>>>>> universally are also cultures that use corporal punishment on their
>>>>>> children.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Did you do your research on the Hutterites? ;-) Not a single homocide
>>>>> in the last 5 years!
>>>> Gee, I wonder why you chose "five years." In the large community of
>>>> non-spankers I know there are no homicides for GENERATIONS.
>>>>
>>> Really? Which community is that? See? I caught you with your LIES
>>> again. ;-)
>> Let me see now, you do not know what community I refer to buy you say
>> you "caught me?" That, Doan, would of course, be either a lie, or
>> stupid, or both. I vote for both.
>>
> I asked you what community. You can't name any because there are
> none.
I can't name any because it's not an isolated community but simply many
families I know.
> That's the lie, STUPID!
It can't be a lie, stupid.
Did you snip some of my reply? I believe I told you that.
>>>> > Remembered? All because they used spanking as
>>>>> part of their "non-violent" parenting! ;-)
>>>> Hardly a typical society, monkeyboy.
>>>>
>>> Hihihi! You were the one who touted them as a "non-violent" society,
>>> remembered?
>> And after further research what did I report to this newsgroup, Doan?
>>
> That spanking is part of a non-violent parenting. Remembered? ;-)
Nope. That's not what I said at all. Now we KNOW you are lying. Cite me
please, with a link to my post.
>> You are attempting to mislead, by omission. Do you know what one
>> dictionary definition of lying is? Attempting to mislead by omission.
>>
> That fit you PERFECTLY! ;-)
What would I be leaving out? You are the one making continued claims and
refusing to use citations called for to prove your claims.
>>>> Do you have any idea now easy it would be to hide a homicide (learn to
>>>> spell unless you meant murders of homosexuals, 0:-> ) in such a closed
>>>> society?
>>>>
>>> Hahaha, a freudean slip? ;-) Where is that non-spanking society?
>> Yours?
>>
>> YOU wrote HOMOcide, Doan. Not I.
>>
> You were the one that pointed it out. I didn't see the connection.
> You did!
Yes, and that is what I said. That is why the use of the word, "unless."
>> In a large portion of the homeschooling community. And among a very
>> large group of people from many walks of life that I have known over the
>> years.
>>
> Hihihi! Homeschooler don't spank???
Where did I claim that?
Do you not understand the words, "a large portion?"
And you see, of course that I did in fact answer your question, yet you
left your lie claiming I lied by not naming the "community." Tsk, Doan.
>>>> And according to your logic then, all murderers would have to be
>>>> non-spanked children.
>>>>
>>> How did you got that? Another logic of the anti-spanking zealotS?
>> No, the logic of the pro spanking advocated, the compulsives.
>>
>> You claimed that the Hutterites, because they spank, had no murders in
>> the past five years. (Of course they don't seem to be entirely violent
>> crime free, now do they? R R R R R)
>>
> That's not my claim. You were the one that did the "research" and
> claimed
> that they have no homicide, not I.
You stated they had no murders in the past five years and did NOT
identify it as my comment, quoting me?
How interesting.
You took my word for it, yet you continually, by lying, call me a liar.
Funny that.
>> That would equate with murders being the more common provenance of
>> NON-SPANKERS, would it not?
>>
> That do not follow logic!
Oh? Then if spanking is the reason the Hutterites have had no murders
for five years, would not spanking not be the factor that causes people
to murder?
That's YOUR logic, Doan. Unless of course you wish to admit that
spanking may or may not be a factor in an isolated community such as the
Hutterites.
>>>> Those that are spanked, don't murder, right?
>>>>
>>> Did I say that?
>> Logically, by claiming a spanking community has had no murders, yes.
>>
> Did I said the USA has no murder?
I don't see any mention of the USA in my comments. Nor yours, so no, you
didn't, and of course, I didn't. 0:-> You cute little monkeyboy.
> The USA is a spanking country so
> how could I make such a claim? Got it, STUPID!
You didn't make the claim and I didn't claim you made the claim. Got it,
Stupid monkeyboy? 0:-]
>> Or, you might have to admit that spanking is NOT the reason there are no
>> murders for the past five years in the Hutterite community.
>
> You were the one that made the claim. Why the change now?
I changed it long ago when I interviewed a Hutterite spokesperson and
posted his comments to me here, Doan the liar.
>>>> Find us a few un-spanked murderers, monkeyboy.
>>>>
>>> Find us some un-spanked great men, "never-spanked" Kane0.
>> Being unspanked is so unremarkable, to those that haven't been they
>> often do not mention it. No reason to. It's the absence of an act.
>>
> Hihihi! Like Einstein?
Prove he was spanked.
I cannot prove a negative, nor can you, so YOU have the onus here, Doan.
>> I would hardly mention casually that I have had never been held up at
>> gun point, but far more likely to mention it if I had.
>>
> Are you saying that 90+% of people have been held up at gun point?
> YOU ARE STUPID! ;-)
Nope. I'm not saying that. So who's being stupid here?
>>>> This claim of yours reminds me of your claim about Singapore.
>>>>
>>> Hihihi! Lower crime rate than Sweden!
>> If you wish to live in an oppressive fascist society.
>
> Like the USA? ;-)
Your strawman, you feed him. 0:->
>>>> If you wish to live in a fascist government controlled society of
>>>> oppression you not only can control human behavior more, YOU CAN GET
>>>> AWAY WITH LYING ABOUT IT.
>>>>
>>> You meant like our government spying on its citizens? ;-)
>> Yep.
>>
>> Is this why Singapore oppresses it's citizens? Because they have had a
>> war on terror going on for all these years?
>>
> Is that why? ;-)
I asked you.
>>>> Singapore has a huge hidden child abuse and crime problem. It pops to
>>>> the surface, then is quickly suppressed by the government. But you'll
>>>> buy about anything that supports your little insane rants, monkeyboy.
>>>>
>>> Hihihi! I should believe you instead, right?
>> Yes.
>>
> Hahaha! I don't believe LIARS!
Must be hard living with you then. You can't even be sure of your bank
account.
>> You seem to have forgotten the posts where I cited (and source linked
>> to) rising youth crime rates in Singapore, now haven't you, Doan? 0:->
>>
>> There should be, if this is the bastion of non - crime you seem to have
>> deluded yourself into believing, almost no crime at all, particularly
>> against children.
>>
>> http://www.childrensociety.org.sg/c_abuse.html
>> Seems the do indeed have such a problem with child abuse.
>>
> All countries have problems with child abuse, Kane. Are you this
> desperate?
Really?
> Have you checked Sweden? Here is what I found through MEDLINE:
>
> Physical child abuse in Sweden: a study of police reports between 1986
> and 1996.
The period that child abuse became an issue in Sweden, and REPORTING
began to reveal the extent of the previously unreported child abuse, and
during a time when a huge population of foreign born folks came to
Sweden from lands where the use of CP is notorious.
>
> Lindell C, Svedin CG.
>
> Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Faculty of Health
> Sciences, Linkopi
> ng University, Sweden. charlott...@lio.se
>
> BACKGROUND: This study aims at investigating physical child abuse in
> Sweden duri
> ng 1986-1996, a period when alarm was being raised about an increased
> number of
> police reports on physical child abuse.
Prior those very same abuses were NOT being reported. Sweden itself was
a country with a harsh child rearing history, Doan. You are lying by
omission. I've told you this before. I've cited and linked to reports on
this very thing.
You've read it here before, and are lying, or have brain damage from all
that childhood spanking....or are you still into it?
NO, it made it illegal so IT GOT REPORTED when the same acts would not
have been reported before.
Your logic is as usual up your butt.
>> http://www.childrensociety.org.sg/doc/Monograph1.pdf#search=%22%2BSingapore%20%20%22child%20abuse%22%20%22
>> Not uncommon for societies that are indulging in the self delusion that
>> spanking is a loving act.
>>
> It's part of "non-violent" parenting was your claim, Kane! ;-)
Non sequitur.
I made no such claim.
They have been set back by an immigrant population with considerable
problem with follow laws. And in particular this one.
In fact they still have problems with female genital mutilation in
Sweden in the immigrant population.
Laws don't stop behaviors entirely Doan. Or we wouldn't still have bank
robberies. 0:->
Sweden is still a leader in the fight against child abuse.
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/8963fbb55dc6bba680256713003e9623?Opendocument
...55. Mrs. KARP asked what was being done to encourage parents to avail
themselves of counselling services, with regard to corporal punishment
in particular, in a country which had a vast immigrant population with
many cultural differences. What practical assistance for rehabilitation
was offered to victims of sexual assault, including incest? On the
subject of association, while she understood that children could belong
to any number of associations, she wondered whether there were any
restrictions on the actual formation of associations by children....
Would you say, Doan, that if a country passes a law against bank robbery
and suddenly bank robberies are being reported more, that the increase
was caused by the law?
Would you say if a law against bank robbery did not reduce bank
robberies considerably, because more banks were being built, should be
repealed because "it didn't work," would be a good idea?
Sweden has a huge immigrant population from countries that sanction
child abuse and call it discipline.
>> Could it be CP is not the critical element?
>>
> Neither are the non-cp alternatives?
You seem unable to answer a question.
>> That it's actually NOT needed to raise children, or run a country well?
>>
> Tell that to the Singaporean. ;-)
I think I will. You should have read further before that comment was
made, or after reading further come back and removed it.
>> http://www.sma.org.sg/smj/3904/articles/3904a3.html
>> In fact, in Singapore society "caning" children is considered
>> non-abusive. Do YOU personally think hitting a child with the typical
>> cane they use (usually a piece of Rattan...so you know what that is?) is
>> not abusive?
>>
> They cane adults too! ;-)
And you think this is what makes Singapore a law abiding country?
I did so because I am honest and continued my research and found I was
mistaken, based on incorrect information I read. I corrected that in
this newsgroup, by reporting the new information I had found.
More than you have ever done, Doan.
>>>> Not much to recommend the Bruderhof monkeyboy, except they spank. 0:->
>>>>
>>>> Yet again proof that spanking is a form of abuse and is part and parcel
>>>> of a sick society.
>>>>
>>> Only to the mind of the sick people like you, who think that your
>>> mother would approve of you calling other a "smelly-cunt"! ;-)
>> I don't have to "think" it, dummy. She told me so. She was alive at the
>> time I made the remark. She looked at the quotes from Fern supporting
>> the beating of children by church members and was more offended than I.
>>
> Hihihi!
Yes, I expected you to not have an intelligible response, monkeyboy.
>> We are open and honest with our feelings in our family. Unlike you.
>>
> Open and honest? That's a laugh!
You wouldn't know it if it bit you in the ass. 0:->
>> And what would be sick about being against the self delusion that
>> spanking is not hitting, and that spanking is not simply assault under
>> color of law?
>>
> It's part of "non-violent" parenting were you your claim! ;-)
Brilliant, if only I had an interpreter.
>> It's just fact.
>>
> To stupid people like you! ;-)
Nope. I've seen thousands and thousands of examples of what non-violent
parenting and teaching methods can do. And it does not make violent
children, nor does it make mental illness, nor drug dependency.
Not like corporal punishment appears to do.
> AF
You are in dreamland, alright.