Spanking Leads To Child Aggression And Anxiety, Regardless Of Cultural Norm
0:->
Source: Society for Research in Child Development
The study grew out of existing controversies over whether parents
should spank their children or use other forms of physical discipline.
While some experts argue that physical discipline should never be used
because of evidence that it is related to more, rather than fewer,
child behavior problems and might escalate into physical abuse, others
argue that the effects of physical discipline might depend on
characteristics of children and families and the circumstances in which
physical discipline is used.
To find out if the latter theory was valid, researchers from Duke
University in North Carolina, Chinese University of Hong Kong,
Göteborg University in Sweden, the University of Naples, the
University of Rome and the Istituto Universitario di Scienze Motorie in
Italy, Chiang Mai University in Thailand, the University of Delhi in
India, the University of Oregon and California State University-Long
Beach questioned 336 mothers and their children in China, India, Italy,
Kenya, the Philippines, and Thailand about cultural norms surrounding
the use of physical discipline and how it affects children's aggression
and anxiety.
They first asked mothers how often they physically disciplined their
children, and then asked mothers and children how often they thought
other parents in their country physically disciplined their children.
Finally, they asked mothers and children how often the child worries,
is fearful, gets in fights, bullies others and other questions to
measure children's aggression and anxiety.
The researchers found differences in how often mothers used physical
discipline and the mothers' perceptions of how often other parents used
physical discipline. Specifically:
* Mothers in Thailand were least likely to physically discipline
their children, followed by mothers in China, the Philippines, Italy,
India, and Kenya, with mothers in Kenya most likely to physically
discipline their children.
* More frequent use of physical discipline was less strongly
associated with child aggression and anxiety when it was perceived as
being more culturally accepted, but physical discipline was also
associated with more aggression and anxiety regardless of the
perception of cultural acceptance.
* In countries in which physical discipline was more common and
culturally accepted, children who were physically disciplined were less
aggressive and less anxious than children who were physically
disciplined in countries where physical discipline was rarely used.
* In all countries, however, higher use of physical discipline was
associated with more child aggression and anxiety.
"One implication of our findings is the need for caution in making
recommendations about parenting practices across different cultural
groups," said lead researcher Jennifer Lansford, Ph.D., a research
scientist at the Center for Child and Family Policy at Duke University.
"A particular parenting practice may become a problem only if parents
use it in a cultural context that does not support the practice (for
example, if they migrate from one country to another)."
However, she notes, some practices that were condoned historically
(e.g., child labor) are now condemned, at least in certain countries.
"A larger question is whether a parenting practice is acceptable,
regardless of whether it occurs commonly within a cultural group."
###
Summarized from Child Development, Vol. 76, Issue 6, Physical
Discipline and Children's Adjustment: Cultural Normativeness as a
Moderator by Lansford JE. Dodge KA Malone PS and Quinn N. (Duke
University), Chang L (Chinese University of Hong Kong), Oburu P and
Palmérus K (Göteborg University), Bacchini D (University of Naples),
Pastorelli C and Bombi AS (Rome University), Zelli A (Istituto
Universitario di Scienze Motorie), Tapanya S(Chiang Mai University),
Chaudhary N (University of Delhi), Deater-Deckard K (University of
Oregon), and Manke B (California State University, Long Beach).
Copyright 2005 The Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. All
rights reserved.
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Society
for Research in Child Development.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051114110820.htm
0:->
0:-> wrote:
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051114110820.htm
>
> Source: Society for Research in Child Development
... * More frequent use of physical discipline was less strongly
associated with child aggression and anxiety when it was perceived as
being more culturally accepted, but physical discipline was also
associated with more aggression and anxiety regardless of the
perception of cultural acceptance. ...
... * In all countries, however, higher use of physical discipline
was
associated with more child aggression and anxiety. ...
The silence is deafening.
Will I simply get another babbling change of subject from Doan?
Or will he continue to display his cowardice and shame his good family
name?
R R R R ....hihihi
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051114110820.htm
Carlson LaVonne
reference to this study. It's hard to accept defeat or to debate
intelligently in light of solid evidence that refutes one's personal
beliefs.
When that happens, one can engage in avoidance, changing the subject, or
verbal abuse. In my over ten years of involvement on this ng, and in
working with families, children, and students, I'm familiar with all
three strategies.
None of the strategies change the evidence research has demonstrated.
Hitting children is no more effective than alternative strategies that
model, teach, and hold children accountable, and it carries the
potential for both short and long term harm. We now have evidence that
context and culture does not eliminate the potential for negative
outcomes or decrease the effectiveness of alternative discipline strategies.
LaVonne
0:->
Carlson LaVonne wrote:
> Well, I received a multitude of similar responses when I posted a
> reference to this study. It's hard to accept defeat or to debate
> intelligently in light of solid evidence that refutes one's personal
> beliefs.
>
> When that happens, one can engage in avoidance, changing the subject, or
> verbal abuse. In my over ten years of involvement on this ng, and in
> working with families, children, and students, I'm familiar with all
> three strategies.
>
> None of the strategies change the evidence research has demonstrated.
> Hitting children is no more effective than alternative strategies that
> model, teach, and hold children accountable, and it carries the
> potential for both short and long term harm. We now have evidence that
> context and culture does not eliminate the potential for negative
> outcomes or decrease the effectiveness of alternative discipline strategies.
I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for any comprehensive debate
from the pro spank faction. Though doubtless they wish I would. 0:-]
Kane
Doan
First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied.
Thus, the claim that spanking "Leads" to child aggression and anxiety
is bogus! Second, the authors themselves admitted that they included
beatings that are certainly abusive in the USA in study. If you really
want to debate this study, I am willing to give it a shot - no verbal
abuse warranted. ;-) Wanna give me a try? My guess is you will be
the one that do the avoidance and instead will use your little Kane9
to do the verbal abuse and attack for you.
Doan
Doan
>
> Carlson LaVonne wrote:
> > Well, I received a multitude of similar responses when I posted a
> > reference to this study. It's hard to accept defeat or to debate
> > intelligently in light of solid evidence that refutes one's personal
> > beliefs.
> >
> > When that happens, one can engage in avoidance, changing the subject, or
> > verbal abuse. In my over ten years of involvement on this ng, and in
> > working with families, children, and students, I'm familiar with all
> > three strategies.
> >
> > None of the strategies change the evidence research has demonstrated.
> > Hitting children is no more effective than alternative strategies that
> > model, teach, and hold children accountable, and it carries the
> > potential for both short and long term harm. We now have evidence that
> > context and culture does not eliminate the potential for negative
> > outcomes or decrease the effectiveness of alternative discipline strategies.
>
> I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for any comprehensive debate
> from the pro spank faction. Though doubtless they wish I would. 0:-]
>
> Kane
>
In other words, you will resort to lies and verbal abuses! Is it you that
said that your mom approved your calling other women a "smelly-cunt"?
AF
0:->
Doan wrote:
> First, the study is a correlation study.
Yes?
> No CAUSATION can be implied.
Do you have a "causation" study to share with us that supports spanking?
Please show it.
No causation was implied by LaVonne. Read what she actually said, before
you start your usual stream of weaseling dodges and outright lies, stupid.
> Thus, the claim that spanking "Leads" to child aggression and anxiety
> is bogus!
Really? We make judgments about what is and isn't true based only on
"causation" research outcomes?
When you have enough correlation you can make determinate assumptions
that are considered quite valid in social, and for that matter, other
sciences.
You are abusing science by your comments.
Correlation is a valid scientific concept. It is and has been used
successfully to make major policy and decisions to action on things as
varied as rocket launches, and what to serve for breakfast.
You are full of bullshit, Doan.
> Second, the authors themselves admitted that they included
> beatings that are certainly abusive in the USA in study.
The same kind of "beatings" that have been defended in this very
newsgroup as acceptable corporal punishment.
They also said that regardless of where they got the data from,
including were children are NOT beaten, it resulted in negative outcomes.
Why do you start off right out of the chute lying, Doan?
> If you really
> want to debate this study, I am willing to give it a shot - no verbal
> abuse warranted. ;-)
Bullshit. You will be into ad hom the first time you are stumped.
> Wanna give me a try?
No. You are a liar, and as a debater, rank right up there with Goebbels,
as a thug and attack monkey.
I'd like to debate someone that debates.
> My guess is you will be
> the one that do the avoidance and instead will use your little Kane9
> to do the verbal abuse and attack for you.
Trying your best to keep me out of the argument, I see. Trying to negate
LaVonne's argument by pretending that my joining in would contaminate
her debate. I see.
You are a liar and fool, you stupid little git.
SEE STUPID DOAN THE HYSTERICAL MONKEYBOY.
YOU, Doan, started OFF with verbal abuse and attack on the poster.
Go piss up a rope stupid. You are unethical, immoral, a liar, and an
insult to the Doan family name. YOU just proved it AGAIN.
Get some of them here to witness what you are up to and you'd be
ostracized by your own kin. I have far too much respect for them to let
you get away with this, you little pissant.
LIAR.
Have a happy new year, Coward, Liar, dishonorable little steaming
dog-shit pile
Start with an insult, you are going to get them back. Trust me.
Would you like to go back and try another start? A polite one, devoid of
ad hom or sly attack on the poster, and begin with facts and logic
instead of the usual lies you promulgate?
Kane
Doan
>
> Doan wrote:
> > First, the study is a correlation study.
>
> Yes?
>
> > No CAUSATION can be implied.
>
> Do you have a "causation" study to share with us that supports spanking?
> Please show it.
>
> No causation was implied by LaVonne. Read what she actually said, before
> you start your usual stream of weaseling dodges and outright lies, stupid.
>
> > Thus, the claim that spanking "Leads" to child aggression and anxiety
> > is bogus!
>
> Really? We make judgments about what is and isn't true based only on
> "causation" research outcomes?
>
> When you have enough correlation you can make determinate assumptions
> that are considered quite valid in social, and for that matter, other
> sciences.
>
> You are abusing science by your comments.
>
And you are, once again, exposing your STUPIDITY by yours!
> Correlation is a valid scientific concept. It is and has been used
> successfully to make major policy and decisions to action on things as
> varied as rocket launches, and what to serve for breakfast.
>
Hahaha! Correlation is not causation is the first thing they teach in
statistics 101! Are you this STUPID???
> You are full of bullshit, Doan.
Oops! More shit coming out of more mouth again! ;-)
>
> > Second, the authors themselves admitted that they included
> > beatings that are certainly abusive in the USA in study.
>
> The same kind of "beatings" that have been defended in this very
> newsgroup as acceptable corporal punishment.
>
> They also said that regardless of where they got the data from,
> including were children are NOT beaten, it resulted in negative outcomes.
>
Hahaha! Which children were not beaten, Kane.
> Why do you start off right out of the chute lying, Doan?
>
Why do you always a STUPID liar, Kane?
> > If you really
> > want to debate this study, I am willing to give it a shot - no verbal
> > abuse warranted. ;-)
>
> Bullshit. You will be into ad hom the first time you are stumped.
>
What a hypocrite!
> > Wanna give me a try?
>
> No. You are a liar, and as a debater, rank right up there with Goebbels,
> as a thug and attack monkey.
>
> I'd like to debate someone that debates.
>
> > My guess is you will be
> > the one that do the avoidance and instead will use your little Kane9
> > to do the verbal abuse and attack for you.
>
> Trying your best to keep me out of the argument, I see. Trying to negate
> LaVonne's argument by pretending that my joining in would contaminate
> her debate. I see.
>
> You are a liar and fool, you stupid little git.
>
> SEE STUPID DOAN THE HYSTERICAL MONKEYBOY.
>
See STUPID KANE doing the dirty works for his master, LaVonne.
> YOU, Doan, started OFF with verbal abuse and attack on the poster.
>
Another STUPID LIE, Kane.
> Go piss up a rope stupid. You are unethical, immoral, a liar, and an
> insult to the Doan family name. YOU just proved it AGAIN.
>
Hihihi! I have proven that you are a STUPID liar!
> Get some of them here to witness what you are up to and you'd be
> ostracized by your own kin. I have far too much respect for them to let
> you get away with this, you little pissant.
>
Hahaha! And your mom should be proud of you; especially when called
others "smelly-cunt"!
> LIAR.
>
That would be YOU, Kane!
> Have a happy new year, Coward, Liar, dishonorable little steaming
> dog-shit pile
>
You are Kane9 so the "dog-shit" must come from your mouth! ;-)
> Start with an insult, you are going to get them back. Trust me.
>
Hihihi! Your mom taught you well!
> Would you like to go back and try another start? A polite one, devoid of
> ad hom or sly attack on the poster, and begin with facts and logic
> instead of the usual lies you promulgate?
>
Hahaha! Would you stop being an attack dog for LaVonne?
> Kane
>
AF
0:->
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
Hysterical yammering screeching monkeyboy nonsense.
Go away, stupid.
Doan
> Doan wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> Doan wrote:
>
> Hysterical yammering screeching monkeyboy nonsense.
>
> Go away, stupid.
>
Hihihi! And I thought you wanna debate. Where is LaVonne?
AF
Doan
Just as I expected, LaVonne is the one that is doing the avoidance while
letting her little chihuahua, aka Kane9, doing the verbal abuse for her.
What a laugh!
Doan
krp
"Doan" <do...@usc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.33.070111...@skat.usc.edu...
>>
>> First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied.
>> Thus, the claim that spanking "Leads" to child aggression and anxiety
>> is bogus! Second, the authors themselves admitted that they included
>> beatings that are certainly abusive in the USA in study. If you really
>> want to debate this study, I am willing to give it a shot - no verbal
>> abuse warranted. ;-) Wanna give me a try? My guess is you will be
>> the one that do the avoidance and instead will use your little Kane9
>> to do the verbal abuse and attack for you.
There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
spanking can produce sociopathy in children.
0:->
Happy to discuss these claims with you in alt.parenting.spanking. Cross
posting to any other newsgroup will give you an easy way out when you
are proven wrong and can't support you claim with evidence.
We on then?
Before you commit, consider this: If you are going to claim, "There is
NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes aggression in
Children," then you are going to be asked two questions.
One: what do you consider "acceptable?'
Two: Produce, based on YOUR definition of "acceptable," acceptable
evidence to support your claim, "There is considerable evidence that a
lack of spanking can produce sociopathy in children."
We might also consider the meaning you place on the term "considerable,"
as in number, I presume you to mean.
I'll be interested in seeing what you come up with based on these simple
but vital criteria I've mentioned.
I'm very familiar with the literature and research from both sides. If
you need my help, just ask.
Happy to oblige.
Kane
0:->
> "Doan" <do...@usc.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.33.070111...@skat.usc.edu...
>>> First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied.
>>> Thus, the claim that spanking "Leads" to child aggression and anxiety
>>> is bogus! Second, the authors themselves admitted that they included
>>> beatings that are certainly abusive in the USA in study. If you really
>>> want to debate this study, I am willing to give it a shot - no verbal
>>> abuse warranted. ;-) Wanna give me a try? My guess is you will be
>>> the one that do the avoidance and instead will use your little Kane9
>>> to do the verbal abuse and attack for you.
Notice how Doan starts with insult but claims "no verbal abuse warranted?"
That kind of slimy language of attack is common to him. That's why he is
on my do-not-reply list. He's a liar, and unethical. He has shamed
his honorable family by his conduct here.
> There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
> aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
> spanking can produce sociopathy in children.
Please pardon me, I completely forgot to clarify this term you brought
into the debate:
... so·ci·o·path /?so?si??pć?, ?so??i-/ Pronunciation Key - Show
Spelled Pronunciation[soh-see-uh-path, soh-shee-] Pronunciation Key -
Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun Psychiatry.
a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial
and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience....
Do you accept this as a definition of "sociopath," for our purposes of
discussion?
Thanks, Kane
Doan
> krp wrote:
> > "Doan" <do...@usc.edu> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.GSO.4.33.070111...@skat.usc.edu...
> >>> First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied.
> >>> Thus, the claim that spanking "Leads" to child aggression and anxiety
> >>> is bogus! Second, the authors themselves admitted that they included
> >>> beatings that are certainly abusive in the USA in study. If you really
> >>> want to debate this study, I am willing to give it a shot - no verbal
> >>> abuse warranted. ;-) Wanna give me a try? My guess is you will be
> >>> the one that do the avoidance and instead will use your little Kane9
> >>> to do the verbal abuse and attack for you.
>
> Notice how Doan starts with insult but claims "no verbal abuse warranted?"
>
> That kind of slimy language of attack is common to him. That's why he is
> on my do-not-reply list. He's a liar, and unethical. He has shamed
> his honorable family by his conduct here.
>
Hahaha! This is funny. Since when that I am on your "do-not-reply list",
Kane? The proven liar here is YOU!
Doan
Doan
Do you know that Kane is a "never-spanked" boy?
Doan
krp
Wouldn't surprise me.
0:->
> "Doan" <do...@usc.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.33.070112...@skat.usc.edu...
>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, krp wrote:
>>
>>> "Doan" <do...@usc.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:Pine.GSO.4.33.070111...@skat.usc.edu...
>>>>> First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied.
>>>>> Thus, the claim that spanking "Leads" to child aggression and anxiety
>>>>> is bogus! Second, the authors themselves admitted that they included
>>>>> beatings that are certainly abusive in the USA in study. If you
>>>>> really
>>>>> want to debate this study, I am willing to give it a shot - no verbal
>>>>> abuse warranted. ;-) Wanna give me a try? My guess is you will be
>>>>> the one that do the avoidance and instead will use your little Kane9
>>>>> to do the verbal abuse and attack for you.
>>>
>>> There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
>>> aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
>>> spanking can produce sociopathy in children.
>>>
>> Do you know that Kane is a "never-spanked" boy?
>
>
> Wouldn't surprise me.
I asked you to confine debate on this issue to alt.parenting.spanking.
Can I take this as your chosen opportunity to run then?
My status, or yours, has no bearing on the facts, Ken.
You may have been spanked, I may not have been.
How would this change our debate if we are going to stick to the facts?
You made a claim. I've asked you to support it. I've clarified the
conditions that are reasonable for debate....in this case that we
confine ourselves to the debating protocols of 'argument.'
This means we deal only in facts. And only those relevant to the issue.
Now if you aren't going to dodge again, how about replying, and removing
the ascps addy so that we continue only in aps?
Thanks. Kane
>
>
0:->
> "Doan" <do...@usc.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.33.070112...@skat.usc.edu...
>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, krp wrote:
>>
>>> "Doan" <do...@usc.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:Pine.GSO.4.33.070111...@skat.usc.edu...
>>>>> First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied.
>>>>> Thus, the claim that spanking "Leads" to child aggression and anxiety
>>>>> is bogus! Second, the authors themselves admitted that they included
>>>>> beatings that are certainly abusive in the USA in study. If you
>>>>> really
>>>>> want to debate this study, I am willing to give it a shot - no verbal
>>>>> abuse warranted. ;-) Wanna give me a try? My guess is you will be
>>>>> the one that do the avoidance and instead will use your little Kane9
>>>>> to do the verbal abuse and attack for you.
>>>
>>> There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
>>> aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
>>> spanking can produce sociopathy in children.
>>>
>> Do you know that Kane is a "never-spanked" boy?
Did you notice, Ken, that Doan didn't agree with you? Didn't contribute
anything to the issue?
My status or yours as having been spanked or not is not relevant to the
issue if we are going to discuss facts....and FACTS seem to be what you
claim you have.
Shall we then? You first.
>
>
> Wouldn't surprise me.
Looks as though you just refused to support your claims, two of them,
with anything but games common to the dishonorable Doan.
I've two prior posts in this thread here in asp. Presuming you might
have missed them, because they are not cross-posted to ascps, I suggest
you go to aps and look them up. Do not reply to this post in ascps,
thank you.
Those posts at aps are invitations. To you.
Thanks. Kane
Doan
> krp wrote:
> > "Doan" <do...@usc.edu> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.GSO.4.33.070112...@skat.usc.edu...
> >> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, krp wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Doan" <do...@usc.edu> wrote in message
> >>> news:Pine.GSO.4.33.070111...@skat.usc.edu...
> >>>>> First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied.
> >>>>> Thus, the claim that spanking "Leads" to child aggression and anxiety
> >>>>> is bogus! Second, the authors themselves admitted that they included
> >>>>> beatings that are certainly abusive in the USA in study. If you
> >>>>> really
> >>>>> want to debate this study, I am willing to give it a shot - no verbal
> >>>>> abuse warranted. ;-) Wanna give me a try? My guess is you will be
> >>>>> the one that do the avoidance and instead will use your little Kane9
> >>>>> to do the verbal abuse and attack for you.
> >>>
> >>> There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
> >>> aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
> >>> spanking can produce sociopathy in children.
> >>>
> >> Do you know that Kane is a "never-spanked" boy?
>
> Did you notice, Ken, that Doan didn't agree with you? Didn't contribute
> anything to the issue?
>
What? Where did I say that I didn't agree, Kane? There is no
scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes aggression in
Children!
> My status or yours as having been spanked or not is not relevant to the
> issue if we are going to discuss facts....and FACTS seem to be what you
> claim you have.
>
Hihihi!
> Shall we then? You first.
Where is the evidence that spanking CAUSES aggression in children?
Doan
Doan
> krp wrote:
> > "Doan" <do...@usc.edu> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.GSO.4.33.070112...@skat.usc.edu...
> >> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, krp wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Doan" <do...@usc.edu> wrote in message
> >>> news:Pine.GSO.4.33.070111...@skat.usc.edu...
> >>>>> First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied.
> >>>>> Thus, the claim that spanking "Leads" to child aggression and anxiety
> >>>>> is bogus! Second, the authors themselves admitted that they included
> >>>>> beatings that are certainly abusive in the USA in study. If you
> >>>>> really
> >>>>> want to debate this study, I am willing to give it a shot - no verbal
> >>>>> abuse warranted. ;-) Wanna give me a try? My guess is you will be
> >>>>> the one that do the avoidance and instead will use your little Kane9
> >>>>> to do the verbal abuse and attack for you.
> >>>
> >>> There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
> >>> aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
> >>> spanking can produce sociopathy in children.
> >>>
> >> Do you know that Kane is a "never-spanked" boy?
> >
> >
> > Wouldn't surprise me.
>
> I asked you to confine debate on this issue to alt.parenting.spanking.
>
Then why did you cross-posted this?
> Can I take this as your chosen opportunity to run then?
>
Run??? The only one that doing the running is YOU, STUPID KANE! ;-)
Doan
monkeysgirl
You're wrong. Kane is Don Fisher/d'geezer and he has had quite a 'brutal
upbringing' before his adoption.
>
> Doan
>
>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
0:->
No others will be responded to.
And my name, past, experiences, are of no consequence to this debate
with krp.
Unless of course anyone wishes to divert from the facts and evidence of
krp's claim and my challenge.
I will consider that krp's allow others to do so in his behalf unless he
takes up the challenge as I stated in previous posts and posts only to
me on the issue.
Otherwise, the lot of you silly asses can go piss up a rope.
0:-]
0:->
krp, do you need help?
If not, let's open the debate.
Please confine yourself to the alt.parenting.spanking newsgroup so we
are on topic with our discussion. I will, of course, do the same.
Thanks, Kane
monkeysgirl
Your nonsense is ot is ASCPS Don.
monkeysgirl
Don
We know you have serious issues - but please snip ASCPS
Your hysterical spanking rants are ot here.
krp
"0:->" <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6aGdnVc0b-atcTrY...@scnresearch.com...
>>>>>> First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be
>>>>>> implied.
>>>>>> Thus, the claim that spanking "Leads" to child aggression and anxiety
>>>>>> is bogus! Second, the authors themselves admitted that they included
>>>>>> beatings that are certainly abusive in the USA in study. If you
>>>>>> really
>>>>>> want to debate this study, I am willing to give it a shot - no verbal
>>>>>> abuse warranted. ;-) Wanna give me a try? My guess is you will be
>>>>>> the one that do the avoidance and instead will use your little Kane9
>>>>>> to do the verbal abuse and attack for you.
>>>>
>>>> There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
>>>> aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
>>>> spanking can produce sociopathy in children.
>>>>
>>> Do you know that Kane is a "never-spanked" boy?
>>
>>
>> Wouldn't surprise me.
> I asked you to confine debate on this issue to alt.parenting.spanking.
No you didn't ask ME, but it applies in both places.
The leading proponent of ANTI-SPANKING has been Richard Gelles.
The book "Behind Closed Doors" by Strauss, Steinmetz, and Gelles was
the groundbreaking book on family violence. Since the book almost 25 years
ago, Gelles has gone on the stump against corporal punishment of children.
His writings on the subject have been Non-scientific, and at best anecdotal.
It is interesting to note that one of his fellow Authors Suzanne Steinmetz
has taken issue with his claims. It is also important to recognize that the
founder of no spanking, Dr. Benjamin Spock in the later years of his life
repudiated his earlier notions as "wrong headed." He learned how WRONG he
had been only after he became a parent.
In 1950 sociopathy was a rare commodity. There were sociopaths, there
have always been sociopaths. But it is estimated by some scholars (Adams U.
Ga.) as far back as 20 years ago that sociopathy was hitting as much as 30%
of the population.
Ron there are children who self discipline. They never need a spanking.
My youngest daughter was like that. When she did something wrong she'd
really punish herself, often too much, and she needed a great deal of
reassurance and nurturing. there ARE however children who don't naturally
develop a conscience on their own who can be taught by corporal punishment
to consider others. There are, of course some who can't. In any event a
parent only has a small window of opportunity to teach a child, because if a
child reaches 10 and has no empathy for others, no matter what you do it is
pointless. Spanking would be a waste of time. However between 4 and 10 it
can be a valuable tool.
Now as to spanking... I am not speaking of wild uncontrolled angry
outbursts that injure a child. I am speaking of traditional, reasoned,
spanking. Ron they call the rear end "the seat of learning" for a reason.
It works if done correctly. Reasoned, temperate, minimal but forceful.Some
pain is needed. No pain, no gain as they say.
krp
>>>>>> First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be
>>>>>> implied.
>>>>>> Thus, the claim that spanking "Leads" to child aggression and anxiety
>>>>>> is bogus! Second, the authors themselves admitted that they included
>>>>>> beatings that are certainly abusive in the USA in study. If you
>>>>>> really
>>>>>> want to debate this study, I am willing to give it a shot - no verbal
>>>>>> abuse warranted. ;-) Wanna give me a try? My guess is you will be
>>>>>> the one that do the avoidance and instead will use your little Kane9
>>>>>> to do the verbal abuse and attack for you.
>>>>
>>>> There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
>>>> aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
>>>> spanking can produce sociopathy in children.
>>>>
>>> Do you know that Kane is a "never-spanked" boy?
> Did you notice, Ken, that Doan didn't agree with you? Didn't contribute
> anything to the issue?
Should I fly off the handle at him? Call him names? Belittle him? Find
somebody that says bad things about him and proclaim that I agree 100% with
what his detractors claim about him? No Kane - I AM NOT YOU!
> My status or yours as having been spanked or not is not relevant to the
> issue if we are going to discuss facts....and FACTS seem to be what you
> claim you have.
A lack of discipline as a child can and usually does explain abusive
behavior in adults.
krp
>> >>>>> First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be
>> >>>>> implied.
>> >>>>> Thus, the claim that spanking "Leads" to child aggression and
>> >>>>> anxiety
>> >>>>> is bogus! Second, the authors themselves admitted that they
>> >>>>> included
>> >>>>> beatings that are certainly abusive in the USA in study. If you
>> >>>>> really
>> >>>>> want to debate this study, I am willing to give it a shot - no
>> >>>>> verbal
>> >>>>> abuse warranted. ;-) Wanna give me a try? My guess is you will
>> >>>>> be
>> >>>>> the one that do the avoidance and instead will use your little
>> >>>>> Kane9
>> >>>>> to do the verbal abuse and attack for you.
>> >>>
>> >>> There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
>> >>> aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
>> >>> spanking can produce sociopathy in children.
>> >>>
>> >> Do you know that Kane is a "never-spanked" boy?
>>
>> Did you notice, Ken, that Doan didn't agree with you? Didn't contribute
>> anything to the issue?
> What? Where did I say that I didn't agree, Kane? There is no
> scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes aggression in
> Children!
The MAIN proponent of the Anti_Spanking issue is Richard Gelles. To date
I have seen nothing in his journal articles that even remotely approached
scientific evidence of the claim that spanking makes kids agressive. He may
have a point when we speak of wild angry excessive beatings, but not
rational controled spanking. In fact evidence suggests the opposite.
>> My status or yours as having been spanked or not is not relevant to the
>> issue if we are going to discuss facts....and FACTS seem to be what you
>> claim you have.
> Hihihi!
>> Shall we then? You first.
> Where is the evidence that spanking CAUSES aggression in children?
If you notice Kane and Ron have a credibility problem, including things
like claiming you said things you didn't. It seems to be de rigueur in their
argument style.
Ron
" krp" <web2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:bI6qh.162$AG6.110@trnddc06...(snip)
>
> Ron there are children who self discipline. They never need a spanking.
Kenny, I'm not involved in this discussion, and rarely comment on CP issues.
Do some research dopy, get the facts before you again make yourself look
like an idiot.
Ron
krp
>I offered to debate this issue with krp.
Let see your PROOF that spanking causes agression in children. It's YOU
claim, PROVE IT!
Debate the FACTS if you can and leave personalities out of it IF you can. I
bet you can't.
krp
"Ron" <apositi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:HV6qh.38636$X97....@newsfe18.lga...
> (snip)
>>
>> Ron there are children who self discipline. They never need a
>> spanking.
> (snip)
> Kenny, I'm not involved in this discussion, and rarely comment on CP
> issues. Do some research dopy, get the facts before you again make
> yourself look like an idiot.
I see you deliberately SNIPPED all references to the claims of Dr.
Gelles and the refutations from Dr. Steinmetz and Dr. Spock..
Ron
Yes, they were not relevant to my post. Only your own stupidity.
Ron
krp
>>
>>> (snip)
>>>>
>>>> Ron there are children who self discipline. They never need a
>>>> spanking.
>>> (snip)
>>
>>> Kenny, I'm not involved in this discussion, and rarely comment on CP
>>> issues. Do some research dopy, get the facts before you again make
>>> yourself look like an idiot.
>>
>> I see you deliberately SNIPPED all references to the claims of Dr.
>> Gelles and the refutations from Dr. Steinmetz and Dr. Spock..
>
> Yes, they were not relevant to my post. Only your own stupidity.
Yeah they are but feel FREE to show us your "SCIENTIFIC PROOF" that spanking
CAUSES aggression in children.
So you can "DEBATE" me.
Firemonkey
what?
Have you tried non-violent ways to disipline?
0:->
Well, I can see that my attempt to open a debate with you, based on
your claims (I made none related to your reply) is not going to go
anywhere. You still can't seem to stop lying.
And you have attempted to draw others into this exchange between you
and I.
I said I'd debate YOU, and no one else.
Oddly enough you pick the person who holds opinions that differ with
mine on the subject of corporal punishment who I respect in these
forums, and try to force him to my side on this issue.
Ron and I have stated our case on CP to each other. We are satisfied,
if I understood him correctly, that we disagree, that neither of us are
"lying," or attempting the kind of games Doan, or you, are playing and
let it go at that.
I asked you to debate me, and with specific simple easily met
conditions. Clarification of terms, mostly. And to confine ourselves to
aps, and each other in the debate.
You have shown me that you refuse.
I'll give you one more opportunity, and you if fly off in other
directions, you can forget it. I won't respond.
Let's start at the beginning. I posted a quote from an article on an
international study, a survey of families in a number of countries,
across the spectrum of CP acceptability or rejection.
It was met with comments by Doan and LaVonne, and you dropped in at one
point with this comment, your first, in the thread:
"There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
spanking can produce sociopathy in children. "
You made this statement in reply to Doan's claim that the title of the
article was bogus.
Now if you two wish to sign each other's dance card, be my guest, but
I, Kane, offerred to take you up on your claim.
You have chosen, so far to go everywhere but to my challenge.
You have NOT, as I requested, clarified what you would consider
"acceptable," in "scientifically acceptable evidence," and you have not
stuck to aps as the forum to have our debate in.
You have not presented your evidence for proof of sociopathy in
children being produced by a lack of "spanking," as you put it. And you
most certainly made a statement that this is true because more
sociopathogy is present now than in the past in the population.
This was presented as fiat but NO proof, no data, no facts, no
authoritative sources.
If you wish to have a war of opinions you can certainly do so. But, Ken
it was NOT I who made a claim about this issue, I simply posted an
article and YOU then made personal claims regarding and quoted by me as
above.
Debate here in aps without crossposting. Debate with ME alone. Agree to
and adhere to no ad hom. Remove all personal issues about me or other
posters.
Define your terms. I will not debate with opinion.
And then use YOUR definitions of your terms to make your argument.
"There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
spanking can produce sociopathy in children. "
Gelles et al are not the only researchers.
As I said, define what you mean by 'acceptable,' in terms that go
beyond opinion, and show your evidence....beyond opinion, that would
meet your definition of "scientifically acceptable evidence," for lack
of spanking producing sociopathology in children.
Can you handle it? Can you control yourself?
Let's see.
I will cross post this out to ascps soley that you might not miss it.
The exchange between us on topic won't begin until you meet those
simple criteria, including posting only to aps.
Best wished, Kane
Dan Sullivan
Spanking should always be the LAST resort.
If spanking is to be used, it should be three swats on the behind with
an open hand NOT to cause injury, but to gain the child's attention...
and NOT while the parent who's doing the spanking is angry.
NO IMPLEMENTS other than an open hand!!!!
monkeysgirl
Spanking rants are ot here.
monkeysgirl
Don,
Your hyterical rants do not belong here.
Are you Pangs big brother?
monkeysgirl
Don Fisher's spanking rants are ot here.
IOW - yo disgusting daddy ain't welcome.
0:->
Ken, you did not invite Ron to debate you. You PRESUMED he said
something when in fact you were responding to ME. You said, "Ron there
are children who self discipline."
He responded by telling you simply he wasn't part of the debate...he
had NOT posted previously to the thread, and you were mistaken in
answering ME as though I was Ron.
Then you posted:
" If you notice Kane and Ron have a credibility problem, including
things
like claiming you said things you didn't. It seems to be de rigueur in
their
argument style. "
Ron came back telling you he doesn't debate this issue.
Then you attack him again for clarifying he's not interested in the
issue...and your inclusion of him is pointless.
Hello!?
Are you awake in there?
Stop dodging. We have enough of this with Doan. I simply don't debate
dodgers any longer.
Stay on the topic, talk to ME and with ME, and no others until you have
decided we are at an end in the discussion. Drawing Ron or Doan, or
anyone else I see simply as a diversion by the opponent.
(And getting Ron involved when he simply pointed out that you weren't
providing evidence is rather stupid. When Ron debated me previously on
this he DID provided evidence, as did I...not dodging, no lying, no
bullshit, and openly agreeing we had differing opinions on the subject)
If you cannot meet simple rules of debate (one to one is usually the
rule) then forget it.
Thanks. Kane
monkeysgirl
Don - we know you have serious issues. Please get help.
In the meantime, your hysterical OT spanking rants are not welcome here.
Don't you have some kiddies you can abuse for an extra buck.
krp
news:1168711126....@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
> Can the pro-spankers define spanking? how hard, where on body, and for
> what?
Sure. Hard enough to hurt. Moderate enough not to cause any lasting
physical injury. For? Doing bad things to others.
> Have you tried non-violent ways to disipline?
I have. Most of them, like "Time Out" are just SILLY as hell.
krp
>> Yeah they are but feel FREE to show us your "SCIENTIFIC PROOF" that
>> spanking CAUSES aggression in children.
>> So you can "DEBATE" me.
> Well, I can see that my attempt to open a debate with you, based on
> your claims (I made none related to your reply) is not going to go
> anywhere. You still can't seem to stop lying.
I see you cannot address the "debate" with scientific evidence to
support YOUR endorsement of spanking causing children to be aggressive,
instead you make the debate about ME! Noted. You lose again!
> And you have attempted to draw others into this exchange between you and
> I.
Nope I have NOT. LIAR!
> I said I'd debate YOU, and no one else.
That's YOUR problem not mine. So far you aren't debating me but you're
whining like a child and changing the subject.
> Oddly enough you pick the person who holds opinions that differ with mine
> on the subject of corporal punishment who I respect in these
> forums, and try to force him to my side on this issue.
I didn't pick anyone Kane.
> I asked you to debate me, and with specific simple easily met
> conditions. Clarification of terms, mostly. And to confine ourselves to
> aps, and each other in the debate.
Fine show me scientific evidence to support your position. YOU WON'T!
YOU CAN'T! SO you make this about me. What debating skills.
> You have shown me that you refuse.
No it is YOU who is refusing.
> Let's start at the beginning. I posted a quote from an article on an
> international study, a survey of families in a number of countries,
> across the spectrum of CP acceptability or rejection.
Let's start with one point of agreement. A "survey" is NOT a "study" and
typically is NOT "scientific." Certainly NOT proof of causality.
> It was met with comments by Doan and LaVonne, and you dropped in at one
> point with this comment, your first, in the thread:
> "There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
> aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
> spanking can produce sociopathy in children. "
There isn't! You have repeatedly been challenged to present some, to this
point you have REFUSED to do so!
> You made this statement in reply to Doan's claim that the title of the
> article was bogus.
The claim IS bogus from a scientific standpoint. Uf you want to debate
that, SHOW US YOUR EVIDENCE!
> Now if you two wish to sign each other's dance card, be my guest, but
> I, Kane, offerred to take you up on your claim.
No you have chosen so far to be a blowhard. Present your evidence ort
admit defeat!
> You have chosen, so far to go everywhere but to my challenge.
I went straight at it. Present your PROOF!!! Burden is on YOU.
> You have NOT, as I requested, clarified what you would consider
> "acceptable," in "scientifically acceptable evidence," and you have not
> stuck to aps as the forum to have our debate in.
I don't subscribe to that forum. Why must I confine it there? What's
scientifically acceptable? A "study" (not a survey) conducted by a qualified
authority that uses the scientific mthod to demonstrate causality. NOT an
opinion piece by another blowhard you agree with. SCIENCE documented as to
methodology and verified and subjected to peer review published in a
recognized journal.
> You have not presented your evidence for proof of sociopathy in
> children being produced by a lack of "spanking," as you put it. And you
> most certainly made a statement that this is true because more
> sociopathogy is present now than in the past in the population.
Yeah I did, you snipped it and ignore it.
> This was presented as fiat but NO proof, no data, no facts, no
> authoritative sources.
YOU made the dogmatic claim that spanking "CAUSES AGRESSION IN CHILDREN"
Yopu have not offered anything by an OPINION piece bereft opf har evidence.
> If you wish to have a war of opinions you can certainly do so. But, Ken
> it was NOT I who made a claim about this issue, I simply posted an
> article and YOU then made personal claims regarding and quoted by me as
> above.
You claim the article is definative. I said it isn't ans asked for PROOF
from you that it is CAUSAL. SO far - 100% of your efforts have been attacks
on ME and NADA as to evidence to support the original bullshit claim.
> Debate here in aps without crossposting. Debate with ME alone. Agree to
> and adhere to no ad hom. Remove all personal issues about me or other
> posters.
You first and I will maintain ASCPS. Afraid? Need to summon your
supporters? Want a firendly forum?
> Define your terms. I will not debate with opinion.
YOU FIRST!
> And then use YOUR definitions of your terms to make your argument.
> "There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
> aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
> spanking can produce sociopathy in children. "
I have started, BUT - YOU made the original claimm and REFUSE to present
supporting evidence. Again OPINION SURVEYS are NOT "science!"
PERIOD!
> Gelles et al are not the only researchers.
Just the most respected.
> As I said, define what you mean by 'acceptable,' in terms that go beyond
> opinion, and show your evidence....beyond opinion, that would
> meet your definition of "scientifically acceptable evidence," for lack of
> spanking producing sociopathology in children.
YOU FIRST!
> Can you handle it? Can you control yourself? Let's see.
Physician heal thyself first.
> I will cross post this out to ascps soley that you might not miss it.
Tell you what Kane. Post it ONLY do your spanking newsgroup so I won't
have to see your whining bullshit. Then you can declare yourself to be the
WINNER in your little circle, opr debate me OPENLY and start presenting
FACTS and not your usual bullshit.
> The exchange between us on topic won't begin until you meet those simple
> criteria, including posting only to aps.
No - weenie - YOU do NOT get to make all the rules Mein Fuehrer! Debate
me openly or STFU! And start presenting scientific evidence to support your
claim. You do NOT get to throw a hissy-fit and demand that I disprove your
silly bullshit first. Get one thing through your head Kane you are NOT the
BOSS here, NOT with me you ain't. Save that bullshit for people you CAN
bully into giving up their kids to you! You don't come remotely close to
scaring me pr making me back down. Now if you really want to debate -
PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE and then I will respond to it.
0:->
> "Firemonkey" <hone...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1168711126....@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Can the pro-spankers define spanking? how hard, where on body, and for
>> what?
>
> Sure. Hard enough to hurt.
How do you know it's not hard enough to injure?
> Moderate enough not to cause any lasting
> physical injury.
How do you know it's not hard enough to injure?
If you hit an adult you'd be charged with assault and battery, would you
not?
> For? Doing bad things to others.
What bad things?
>
>> Have you tried non-violent ways to disipline?
>
> I have. Most of them, like "Time Out" are just SILLY as hell.
If the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems resemble nails.
What other methods have you tried besides "Time Out?"
Any that are not punishment based? Which ones?
I can't find any response to my challenge to your claim that there is no
research based on scientifically acceptable evidence, and that there is
ample evidence to show that failure to spank produces pathology in
children.
Did I lose the thread somewhere, or are you unwilling to define terms,
and apply them equally to my your argument as you wish to to mine?
You appear to be responding to anyone but me. Can I presume you do not
wish to defend your claim any longer?
Kane
PS I've dropped ascps from the addy's....to remain in a group that is on
topic and out of one that is not. 0:-]
krp
>> >>> (snip)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Ron there are children who self discipline. They never need a
>> >>>> spanking.
>> >>> (snip)
>> >>
>> >>> Kenny, I'm not involved in this discussion, and rarely comment on CP
>> >>> issues. Do some research dopy, get the facts before you again make
>> >>> yourself look like an idiot.
>> >>
>> >> I see you deliberately SNIPPED all references to the claims of Dr.
>> >> Gelles and the refutations from Dr. Steinmetz and Dr. Spock..
>> >
>> > Yes, they were not relevant to my post. Only your own stupidity.
>>
>>
>> Yeah they are but feel FREE to show us your "SCIENTIFIC PROOF" that
>> spanking CAUSES aggression in children.
>> So you can "DEBATE" me.
> Ken, you did not invite Ron to debate you. You PRESUMED he said
> something when in fact you were responding to ME. You said, "Ron there
> are children who self discipline."
> He responded by telling you simply he wasn't part of the debate...he
> had NOT posted previously to the thread, and you were mistaken in
> answering ME as though I was Ron.
Look Kane both you and Ron have to learn that YOU do not dictate the
terms of a debate. Get over yourselves. I know you are used to bullying
people into submitting to you and your AUTHORITY, it don't work on me. You
want to debate, or Ron does, then DEBATE. Present our evidence or shut the
hell up and quit whining like a baby!
0:->
> "0:->" <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1168711727.8...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>>> Yeah they are but feel FREE to show us your "SCIENTIFIC PROOF" that
>>> spanking CAUSES aggression in children.
>>> So you can "DEBATE" me.
>
>> Well, I can see that my attempt to open a debate with you, based on
>> your claims (I made none related to your reply) is not going to go
>> anywhere. You still can't seem to stop lying.
>
> I see you cannot address the "debate" with scientific evidence to
> support YOUR endorsement of spanking causing children to be aggressive,
> instead you make the debate about ME! Noted. You lose again!
But I did. I posted the article on the international research. Then YOU
came back saying it was questionable, by posting your comment that there
was no acceptable scientific evidence to support the claim that spanking
causes problems.
I challenged you on YOUR comment...and I await your cessation of dodging
and demanding I prove something I didn't claim.
No, I'm not making the debate about you, Ken. I asked that all
personality and personal issues be dropped and the debate be based on
facts and evidence, and definition of terms.
You have failed to respond to my request for a clarification of terms
that we can both agree on. That's all.
I'll be happy to respond to YOUR presentation of evidence to support
YOUR claims. For you see, I did, you challenged, I challenged your
challenge.
It's your turn.
>
>> And you have attempted to draw others into this exchange between you and
>> I.
>
> Nope I have NOT. LIAR!
Yes you have.
You brought up Ron's name, addressing him directly by name when he had
not posted to this thread.
You have since also opened a conversation with Firemonkey rather than
respond to my challenge.
Your claim that I am a liar is a lie, Ken.
You may converse with who you wish, of course.
I offered, in this thread, to debate you, and only you. You chose to
speak to others, then you are drawing them into the debate.
The proof is in your posts, and your unwillingness to debate on
reasonable grounds of definition of YOUR terminology.
Feel free to demand the same of me.
>
>> I said I'd debate YOU, and no one else.
>
> That's YOUR problem not mine.
It becomes your responsibility when you refuse the terms of my challenge.
> So far you aren't debating me but you're
> whining like a child and changing the subject.
I am not debating you because you aren't debating me. You have not
defined your own terms. You have not produced a single piece of evidence
to support your two claims:
"There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
aggression in Children," and "There is considerable evidence that a lack
of spanking can produce sociopathy in children."
First, define you terms.
Next provide evidence that meets your own definitions.
I will then, of course, respond in kind if you wish.
>> Oddly enough you pick the person who holds opinions that differ with mine
>> on the subject of corporal punishment who I respect in these
>> forums, and try to force him to my side on this issue.
>
> I didn't pick anyone Kane.
Yes you did. Ron had not contributed to this thread up to the point you
addressed me as though I was Ron.
He responded with only that he was not involved in this debate. You came
back at him with a reply that ignored his statement requiring him to
prove proof of something he had not claimed. Ron would not claim to
support anti spanking agendas.
You insisted he was doing so and was thus required to provide proof for
"his claims," which of course never existed.
He simply asked YOU to provide, as I had done, proof of YOUR claims.
You addressed him ... and he had not posted ... in your comments about
your daugther and raising her. That's when he told you he was not
interested in debate but you might provide something beyond anecdotal
evidence.
I think he was even a bit impolite R R R R R...as you seem to be
working to earn.
>
>> I asked you to debate me, and with specific simple easily met
>> conditions. Clarification of terms, mostly. And to confine ourselves to
>> aps, and each other in the debate.
>
> Fine show me scientific evidence to support your position. YOU WON'T!
> YOU CAN'T! SO you make this about me. What debating skills.
No, the fact is you can't and that's why you, instead of taking your
turn, insist I carry the load I already assumed when I posted the
article on the international study that did indeed show some
correlations, by survey, of children having bad outcomes from being
spanked even in countries where spanking was accepted, but all across
every country...or most...regardless of the level of acceptance of
spanking.
You see, when you then come back with your declaration that, "There is
NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes aggression in
Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of spanking can
produce sociopathy in children," and I challenge your claim, it becomes
YOUR turn, not mine.
What would be the next logical item in the list below, krp?
Kane, krp, Kane.
Yes, you got it right. It IS your turn. And I'm not taking mine until
you define your terms, and provide evidence to support YOUR claims.
It's not my turn to answer with argument and evidence as yet.
I took my "turn" opening the thread.
>
>> You have shown me that you refuse.
>
> No it is YOU who is refusing.
R R R ..no, Ken. That is a lie.
I told you what I'd respond to. If you aren't willing too produce, then
I'm not under any obligation to respond.
I refuse to respond to anything but what I said I would.
>> Let's start at the beginning. I posted a quote from an article on an
>> international study, a survey of families in a number of countries,
>> across the spectrum of CP acceptability or rejection.
>
> Let's start with one point of agreement. A "survey" is NOT a "study" and
> typically is NOT "scientific." Certainly NOT proof of causality.
No proof of causality was claimed by me.
And yes, survey methods are in fact scientific.
And yes, they are a study of an issue.
You are obviously shuffling away from my request.
Provide a definition of YOUR terms for YOUR claim.
"There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
spanking can produce sociopathy in children."
What is acceptable evidence. And where is YOUR evidence for that second
sentence claim above, that will meet YOUR definition of "acceptable
evidence?"
>> It was met with comments by Doan and LaVonne, and you dropped in at one
>> point with this comment, your first, in the thread:
>
>> "There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
>> aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
>> spanking can produce sociopathy in children. "
>
> There isn't!
I do not agree. But you have not accepted the responsibility of defining
your terms.
I cannot debate an opinion, Ken, and unless you define "acceptable" in
the context you use it, it's your context is opinion.
> You have repeatedly been challenged to present some, to this
> point you have REFUSED to do so!
Of course. I am not going to present "evidence" that is "acceptable" to
you, until I know what "acceptable" means in your terms.
Once I know that, and you include with it, since it's still your turn,
YOUR evidence that lack of spanking produces pathology in children, I
have nothing to debate.
Only that you have failed to meet the terms of our debate I require to
debate at all.
>> You made this statement in reply to Doan's claim that the title of the
>> article was bogus.
>
> The claim IS bogus from a scientific standpoint. Uf you want to debate
> that, SHOW US YOUR EVIDENCE!
I posted the article. It is my evidence. You challneged it as you did,
and I then invited you to provide your proof.
Mine was evidence from an authoritation source. Read it. Look at how did
it, et al, and show either were they are wrong, or you have confounding
evidence from equally authoritative sources.
So far, I have opinion from you, and the most clumsy of dodging I've
witnessed in these ng for some time. You are almost as witless as Greg,
it seems.
>> Now if you two wish to sign each other's dance card, be my guest, but
>> I, Kane, offerred to take you up on your claim.
>
> No you have chosen so far to be a blowhard. Present your evidence ort
> admit defeat!
No.
It's still your turn. My evidence is the article I posted, and any
material related to it. Go and read it and any related material you wish
to find regarding it, and get back to me.
Bring with you that definition I asked for, and some proof of your claim
about children becoming pathological for lack of spanking and we can
move to the next level. Until then, sir, you are projecting the
"blowhard" claim, obviously.
>> You have chosen, so far to go everywhere but to my challenge.
>
> I went straight at it. Present your PROOF!!! Burden is on YOU.
You answered my request for a definition for "scientifically acceptable
evidence?" I must have missed it. Can you point me to your post where
you did indeed honor my request?
My proof consists of the article in question. An international study of
a number of countries that found that indeed, regardless of the level of
acceptance for the us of CP in that county there were negative outcomes
from the use of "spanking."
>> You have NOT, as I requested, clarified what you would consider
>> "acceptable," in "scientifically acceptable evidence," and you have not
>> stuck to aps as the forum to have our debate in.
>
> I don't subscribe to that forum.
Subscribe. It's not hard. You seem to find your way into others without
a problem. Lack of motivation here?
> Why must I confine it there?
You aren't required to. It was a request. I will not debate it anywhere
but here because it is not on topic elsewhere. You'll see I've removed
the ascps addy for this reply.
> What's
> scientifically acceptable? A "study" (not a survey) conducted by a qualified
> authority that uses the scientific mthod to demonstrate causality. NOT an
> opinion piece by another blowhard you agree with. SCIENCE documented as to
> methodology and verified and subjected to peer review published in a
> recognized journal.
Let me see now, except for your ad hom, I find this a reasonable
definition, but I doubt you can manage to find a single study that
supports your claim of pathology in children caused by lack of spanking,
that will meet your definition of scientifically acceptable.
I do not in fact demand that of you. I would be perfectly happy for you
to show a study or studies or research that meet and or exceed the one I
listed for the opening post to this thread.
And it was accepted for peer review. That's why we are reading it.
Social science does not conduct much in the way of 'causality' based
research for the simple reason that to do so would most often require
methods that would violate research ethics standards. Take sample
destruction as an example
Certain former research that was very productive to the field of social
science is now outlawed. The infamous "Guards and Prisoners" experiment
could not be duplicated now.
And we cannot take a random sample from the population, and make a
random assignment of spanking and not spanking using children....not
even adults for that matter, not even if they volunteered.
So demands to produce what cannot be produced, as you have just done,
are suspect as dishonest, unless you were unaware of this issue in
social science research.
The fact is we run this world on "what we think," based on observations,
and the power of correlations from research. If we relied solely on
"causation" we would either be frozen in time, or this would be utter
chaos.
>> You have not presented your evidence for proof of sociopathy in
>> children being produced by a lack of "spanking," as you put it. And you
>> most certainly made a statement that this is true because more
>> sociopathogy is present now than in the past in the population.
>
> Yeah I did,
I've missed your scientifically acceptable evidence, Ken. Where is it
please.
> you snipped it and ignore it.
I've snipped not a single bit of any post to this thread, Ken. You are
mistaken, or lying to dodge that you have failed to respond with the
simple guidelines for this debate.
Your own definition, now in existence in this post I reply to, shows ou
failed to meet your own criteria.
And I don't even demand that level of proof. I'd be happy with peer
reviewed CORRELATION study or studies and research.
>> This was presented as fiat but NO proof, no data, no facts, no
>> authoritative sources.
>
> YOU made the dogmatic claim that spanking "CAUSES AGRESSION IN CHILDREN"
> Yopu have not offered anything by an OPINION piece bereft opf har evidence.
You seem to be losing it.
I did indeed offer peer reviewed research. It's in the first post to
this thread. My post.
What part of it do you challenge, based on your own criteria of
"acceptable scientific evidence?"
I concede it does not meet standards for "causality." Do you know of any
study on either side of the debate that do?
I'd be interested in seeing them. Or you can change your criteria, to
peer reviewed research with clear correlation.
Be my guest.
>> If you wish to have a war of opinions you can certainly do so. But, Ken
>> it was NOT I who made a claim about this issue, I simply posted an
>> article and YOU then made personal claims regarding and quoted by me as
>> above.
>
> You claim the article is definative.
I didn't use that word. I accept that all social science research in
these times, in civilized countries, are limited exclusively to that
which will NOT produce 'causality' related outcomes.
Ever read the Embry study? Get it from Doan if you are interested. Embry
has a few interesting observations about the use of other than spanking,
and some comments on what spanking can produce in some children.
> I said it isn't ans asked for PROOF
> from you that it is CAUSAL.
And I asked you provide, since you challenged with a claim that failure
to spank produces pathology in children, to provide at LEAST the same
level of research of the article, and I'm not holding you to the higher
demand of 'causality,' because of two things. One can do that kind of
research on humans, and especially children, and two, it doesn't exist.
> SO far - 100% of your efforts have been attacks
> on ME and NADA as to evidence to support the original bullshit claim.
Nope. YOU have failed first to define, then provide.
The original claim stands. YOU attacked it with YOUR claim. I asked you
to support your claim.
The report stands as provided.
YOU have only given opinion since.
>> Debate here in aps without crossposting. Debate with ME alone. Agree to
>> and adhere to no ad hom. Remove all personal issues about me or other
>> posters.
>
> You first and I will maintain ASCPS.
Nope. Here alone or nowhere.
I predicted you'd take this dodge, and here you are jumping through my
hoop, like a good little trained weasel. 0:->
> Afraid?
Not in the least.
> Need to summon your
> supporters?
I've just asked that no one else participate to avoid either of us
having to deal with the other's "supporters," Ken. In other words, I am
requiring for both of us a level playing field.
> Want a firendly forum?
aps a "firendly"[sic] "forum?" You have got to be kidding. You already
courted and were invited to dance with Doan.
If we did this in ascps you can be sure I'd have more friendly readers
there than here.
Sadly, there aren't too many people still buying the "spank'm 'til the
hurt," gospel any more....but that's not my fault. It's there's for
being unable to support their agenda.
>> Define your terms. I will not debate with opinion.
>
> YOU FIRST!
I did. Mine is to accept YOURS when you have done so.
I cannot meet the "causality" requirement precisely because it is not in
the research. If you know of causality based research outcomes for YOUR
claims, do feel free to post them as I've requested.
However, as I said, I'm willing to accept good solid peer reviewed
correlational studies to support your claim that children who are not
spanked result in pathology in those children.
>
>> And then use YOUR definitions of your terms to make your argument.
>
>> "There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
>> aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
>> spanking can produce sociopathy in children. "
>
> I have started,
Hmmmm...well, yes, you "started," but you didn't complete the request.
You made two claims. One that the scientific evidence was lacking. The
other that children will become pathological if they aren't spanked.
> BUT - YOU made the original claimm and REFUSE to present
> supporting evidence. Again OPINION SURVEYS are NOT "science!"
> PERIOD!
I could be asked to continue to support the evidence I presented (the
study in the first post, Ken) until the cows come home.
It's a turnabout game here, Ken, and anywhere people discourse civilly.
I took my turn...first post, you took yours, with your challenge I keep
quoting, I took my turn asking for clarification and support for your
claim.
Mine was evidence, yours has not been so.
The article is the evidence. You have not refuted it, rebutted it, or
successfully challenged it with counter evidence at the same or greater
level of authoritative evidence.
>
>> Gelles et al are not the only researchers.
>
> Just the most respected.
Hmmm...maybe, maybe not. I'm not arguing "respect."
>> As I said, define what you mean by 'acceptable,' in terms that go beyond
>> opinion, and show your evidence....beyond opinion, that would
>> meet your definition of "scientifically acceptable evidence," for lack of
>> spanking producing sociopathology in children.
>
> YOU FIRST!
I am to define YOUR terms?
How does this work, Ken? Do you always dodge when asked to explain YOUR
terms and commentary?
And you have in this post my reply...that I will accept any evidence you
provide that is based on peer reviewed correlation based research
(because that is all there is or can be) and will be happy to debate
your claims based on that evidence.
>
>> Can you handle it? Can you control yourself? Let's see.
>
> Physician heal thyself first.
My last physical showed me to be in better shape than most people 30
years my junior, junior.
And you have engaged here in ad hom, a request of mine you have ignored,
I presume based on your desire to NOT debate this, since I said it was a
criteria for debate, and you have engaged in dodging the request for you
to take your turn, as I took mine already.
But then, there you go, eh?
You have one more claim on the table that you have refused to answer,
Ken. The one about pathology in children based on a lack of spanking.
Do you wish to pursue it, or not?
Where is the evidence?
I produced a study. Now YOU produce yours.
We'll go from there.
>
>> I will cross post this out to ascps soley that you might not miss it.
>
>
> Tell you what Kane. Post it ONLY do your spanking newsgroup so I won't
> have to see your whining bullshit.
In other words, you are bailing.
Thought so.
> Then you can declare yourself to be the
> WINNER in your little circle,
Nope. There is no "winner," on the subject of your challenge to me, or
my counter challenge.
The only thing that has happened is that you have demonstrated your
unwillingness to admit to an error, and your determination to dodge.
> opr debate me OPENLY and start presenting
> FACTS and not your usual bullshit.
I have. I posted the article on the international study that made
certain claims based on the outcomes of their research into spanking
customs in many countries.
You ask me to provide 'evidence.' No, THEY DID. Deal with that.
You came back with a claim of your own, SANS ANY STUDY, no evidence, one
claiming there is a lack of evidence that is acceptable...but you have
not pointed to what in that study was lacking.
Then you went off on another study...which I had not mentioned, to
"prove" the former study is wrong? Weird, but Ken all over.
>> The exchange between us on topic won't begin until you meet those simple
>> criteria, including posting only to aps.
> No - weenie - YOU do NOT get to make all the rules Mein Fuehrer! Debate
> me openly or STFU!
I get to make them for myself. My rule is that I will respond as stated.
If you don't define the terms (this is now cleared up for me, how about
you?) and you don't provide evidence for your claim of children being
made pathological by lack of spanking, then we have nothing to debate.
Why would I argue against your opinion, rather than evidence you can
provide? You can provide it, right?
0:-]
> And start presenting scientific evidence to support your
> claim.
The first thing I offered in this thread, the first post in fact, was
just that. The results of a study. Evidence.
> You do NOT get to throw a hissy-fit
Funny, it's you that is obviously losing it and hissy fitting, Ken.
I am asking for simple rules of debate, to level the playing field, so
neither of us has any advantage, but THE TRUTH, based on facts as they
can best be defined.
No hissy, no fit.
> and demand that I disprove your
> silly bullshit first.
Yep. Mine is the study. You have given nothing in response but to bring
up another study and attack it. Strawman fallacy invocations, Ken. It
won't fly.
And I don't really demand you do anything. I simply state I won't do
certain things unless you play on a level field. Nothing more.
We are still defining some terms and boundaries here, Ken.
I will not respond to your failure to accept the boundaries I require,
Ken. That's all. No hissy, no fit.
If you cross post anything where you are addressing me I will not
respond. No hissy, no fit.
Just a level playing field in a proper forum to the subject.
> Get one thing through your head Kane you are NOT the
> BOSS here, NOT with me you ain't.
I'm not your boss. You don't have to accept my request for a level
playing field. You can even debate that with me if you wish. But you
will be more obviously dodging than before, even.
As you are doing now. Anyone can see my requests are not oppressive, but
simply to remove all the background static such discussions generate.
And a request to base our debate on facts.
> Save that bullshit for people you CAN
> bully into giving up their kids to you!
I don't have anyone's kids but my own. Another attempt to dodge, Ken?
I've never been a CPS caseworker. My work with CPS was as a student.
They are hardly allowed to make casework decisions of any kind. I did
have a tiny bit of influence back then though. I got a pack of workers
planning to entrap a mother, and risk the lives of her children in the
bargain, to NOT do that, and to act quickly to get the children out of
danger. She was alledged, and as it turned out the allegation was true,
to be drugging her children ..three of them.. to control them so she
could party without interruption. You may fill in the blanks there.
Otherwise my involvement with CPS was always helping kin to adopt or
foster, but definately to get custody, of their relatives abused and
neglected children, and ace the state out of said children.
> You don't come remotely close to
> scaring me pr making me back down.
Scaring?
Back down from what?
> Now if you really want to debate -
> PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE and then I will respond to it.
I did. Your response was
"There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
spanking can produce sociopathy in children."
I challenge that, and am waiting for you to respond with evidence equal
to or surpassing mine (the article, remember) that proves or supports
your claims.
And I'm not even requesting, as you did, "causal" studies, but
correlation studies. Peer reviewed, as you requested of me, and I had
provided.
So, when are you going to meet me in aps, stop the ad hom and dodging,
produce your evidence for you claim, as I presented mine?
Pathology from not spanking....<snicker> RR R R R .. sure Ken.
Do you wish to be taken seriously? As honest?
As intelligent?
As a trial and jury consultant?
I hope no potential clients miss this little debate and your behavior.
One study, peer reviewed, Ken, that says children become pathological
from failure to spank them.
0:-]
0:->
> "0:->" <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:VZadnTfKcrfscDrY...@scnresearch.com...
>
>>>>>>> First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be
>>>>>>> implied.
>>>>>>> Thus, the claim that spanking "Leads" to child aggression and anxiety
>>>>>>> is bogus! Second, the authors themselves admitted that they included
>>>>>>> beatings that are certainly abusive in the USA in study. If you
>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>> want to debate this study, I am willing to give it a shot - no verbal
>>>>>>> abuse warranted. ;-) Wanna give me a try? My guess is you will be
>>>>>>> the one that do the avoidance and instead will use your little Kane9
>>>>>>> to do the verbal abuse and attack for you.
>>>>> There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
>>>>> aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
>>>>> spanking can produce sociopathy in children.
>>>>>
>>>> Do you know that Kane is a "never-spanked" boy?
>
>> Did you notice, Ken, that Doan didn't agree with you? Didn't contribute
>> anything to the issue?
>
> Should I fly off the handle at him?
I can't think why. He supports you.
> Call him names?
That's entirely up to you who you call names. Seems you've chosen me.
> Belittle him?
You don't belittle people?
> Find
> somebody that says bad things about him and proclaim that I agree 100% with
> what his detractors claim about him? No Kane - I AM NOT YOU!
Where did I agree 100% with your detractors?
I agree with them when I look at your postings, not with their claims.
I take their claims with a grain of salt. I've said so.
>> My status or yours as having been spanked or not is not relevant to the
>> issue if we are going to discuss facts....and FACTS seem to be what you
>> claim you have.
> A lack of discipline as a child can and usually does explain abusive
> behavior in adults.
A lack of personally integrated self control, by way of developing a
conscience, usually does explain abusive behavior in adults.
Now which is it for you, Ken?
0:->
> "0:->" <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1168712651.4...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>>> Ron there are children who self discipline. They never need a
>>>>>>> spanking.
>>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>> Kenny, I'm not involved in this discussion, and rarely comment on CP
>>>>>> issues. Do some research dopy, get the facts before you again make
>>>>>> yourself look like an idiot.
>>>>> I see you deliberately SNIPPED all references to the claims of Dr.
>>>>> Gelles and the refutations from Dr. Steinmetz and Dr. Spock..
>>>> Yes, they were not relevant to my post. Only your own stupidity.
>>>
>>> Yeah they are but feel FREE to show us your "SCIENTIFIC PROOF" that
>>> spanking CAUSES aggression in children.
>>> So you can "DEBATE" me.
>
>> Ken, you did not invite Ron to debate you. You PRESUMED he said
>> something when in fact you were responding to ME. You said, "Ron there
>> are children who self discipline."
>
>> He responded by telling you simply he wasn't part of the debate...he
>> had NOT posted previously to the thread, and you were mistaken in
>> answering ME as though I was Ron.
>
> Look Kane both you and Ron have to learn that YOU do not dictate the
> terms of a debate.
I don't dictate the terms for others. I dictate what I will or won't
participate in. Nothing more.
You do as you wish, I'll do as I wish.
> Get over yourselves.
What's to get over? I simply require a level playing field. I expect
truth to prevail.
I notice no study or other evidence, outside of opinion from you, on the
subject of "There is considerable evidence that a lack of spanking can
produce sociopathy in children."
Why is that I wonder?
> I know you are used to bullying
> people into submitting to you and your AUTHORITY, it don't work on me.
I don't have any special authority, nor have I ever had. I've less than
you most likely.
And I haven't asked you to submit to anything. I've simply outlined
those criteria under which I will debate, or I won't debate.
You going to miss the opportunity then to prove that "a lack of spanking
can produce sociopathy in children?"
> You
> want to debate, or Ron does, then DEBATE.
Ron made it plain to you, and I've reiterated, that you invited him to a
party he doesn't attend. You brought up his name, I think addressing me
mistakenly. He responded.
He does see that you are a blow hard and are not producing evidence.
Even though he and I have some clearly defined differences between us on
the issues of CP, he knows you are in way over your head.
> Present our evidence or shut the
> hell up and quit whining like a baby!
Okay. Here it is:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051114110820.htm
Source: Society for Research in Child Development
The study grew out of existing controversies over whether parents
should spank their children or use other forms of physical discipline.
While some experts argue that physical discipline should never be used
because of evidence that it is related to more, rather than fewer,
child behavior problems and might escalate into physical abuse, others
argue that the effects of physical discipline might depend on
characteristics of children and families and the circumstances in which
physical discipline is used.
To find out if the latter theory was valid, researchers from Duke
University in North Carolina, Chinese University of Hong Kong,
Göteborg University in Sweden, the University of Naples, the
University of Rome and the Istituto Universitario di Scienze Motorie in
Italy, Chiang Mai University in Thailand, the University of Delhi in
India, the University of Oregon and California State University-Long
Beach questioned 336 mothers and their children in China, India, Italy,
Kenya, the Philippines, and Thailand about cultural norms surrounding
the use of physical discipline and how it affects children's aggression
and anxiety.
They first asked mothers how often they physically disciplined their
children, and then asked mothers and children how often they thought
other parents in their country physically disciplined their children.
Finally, they asked mothers and children how often the child worries,
is fearful, gets in fights, bullies others and other questions to
measure children's aggression and anxiety.
The researchers found differences in how often mothers used physical
discipline and the mothers' perceptions of how often other parents used
physical discipline. Specifically:
* Mothers in Thailand were least likely to physically discipline
their children, followed by mothers in China, the Philippines, Italy,
India, and Kenya, with mothers in Kenya most likely to physically
discipline their children.
* More frequent use of physical discipline was less strongly
associated with child aggression and anxiety when it was perceived as
being more culturally accepted, but physical discipline was also
associated with more aggression and anxiety regardless of the
perception of cultural acceptance.
* In countries in which physical discipline was more common and
culturally accepted, children who were physically disciplined were less
aggressive and less anxious than children who were physically
disciplined in countries where physical discipline was rarely used.
* In all countries, however, higher use of physical discipline was
associated with more child aggression and anxiety.
"One implication of our findings is the need for caution in making
recommendations about parenting practices across different cultural
groups," said lead researcher Jennifer Lansford, Ph.D., a research
scientist at the Center for Child and Family Policy at Duke University.
"A particular parenting practice may become a problem only if parents
use it in a cultural context that does not support the practice (for
example, if they migrate from one country to another)."
However, she notes, some practices that were condoned historically
(e.g., child labor) are now condemned, at least in certain countries.
"A larger question is whether a parenting practice is acceptable,
regardless of whether it occurs commonly within a cultural group."
###
Summarized from Child Development, Vol. 76, Issue 6, Physical
Discipline and Children's Adjustment: Cultural Normativeness as a
Moderator by Lansford JE. Dodge KA Malone PS and Quinn N. (Duke
University), Chang L (Chinese University of Hong Kong), Oburu P and
Palmérus K (Göteborg University), Bacchini D (University of Naples),
Pastorelli C and Bombi AS (Rome University), Zelli A (Istituto
Universitario di Scienze Motorie), Tapanya S(Chiang Mai University),
Chaudhary N (University of Delhi), Deater-Deckard K (University of
Oregon), and Manke B (California State University, Long Beach).
Copyright 2005 The Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. All
rights reserved.
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Society
for Research in Child Development.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051114110820.htm
...
Notice it's peer reviewed, as you claimed my evidence must be?
Your reply to this was, by way of addressing Doan's comments on this
study, and your first contribution to the thread:
... There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
spanking can produce sociopathy in children. ...
I challenged you to define your terms and provide evidence equal to or
greater than the article above, my evidence of the claim that spanking
causes aggression in children.
I await your evidence counter to that. Gelles research is not counter to
that claim. Disproving Gelles to disprove this more current research
would be considered a dodge. Gelles could not have addressed this in his
research since chronologically his came before.
You must, if you wish to make a credible argument, produce later
research that refutes MY evidence as posted above.
Or studies by opposing peers that disprove some or all of the article
and study claims.
As to the second issue: I await your evidence, meeting your own criteria
as to peer review, but excusing you from what you tried on me....a
requirement for what cannot ethically have occurred, causal research on
human subjects...that "There is considerable evidence that a lack of
spanking can produce sociopathy in children."
Do you have some?
Will you stop dodging and present it here?
Will you admit it does not exist?
It's all up to you.
I'm making no demands of you that I do not place upon myself.
I gave my evidence.
Where is yours to refute it, and where is yours to support your
pathology in children claim?
I'd just love to move this on to how spanking does produce pathology in
children...but we are stuck with your dodging, are we not?
0:-]
Ron
I don't have any such proof ken, and have never claimed it. The only thing
I have proven is that you are a liar, again. But you should be getting that
point by now, everyone else is.
Ron
Doan
My bet is Kane won't and can't. He got his ass kicked by me so many in
this newsgroup that he now afraid to face me directly because I keep
exposing his STUPIDITY so that everyone can see it. His latest STUPIDITY
is this claim:
"Correlation is a valid scientific concept. It is and has been used
successfully to make major policy and decisions to action on things
as varied as rocket launches, and what to serve for breakfast."
Doan
Doan
Still now "scientific" proof from Kane! ;-)
Doan
Doan
One more time, Kane. A correlation is NOT proof of a causal effect!
It is just that simple. STOP EXPOSING YOUR STUPIDTY!
Doan
Doan
Kane is claiming that he has the proof, Ron.
Doan
0:->
....hihihi....
0:->
.....hihihi.....
<chuckle>
0:->
...more "hihihi".....
<R R R R>
Dan Sullivan
krp wrote:
> "Firemonkey" <hone...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1168711126....@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Can the pro-spankers define spanking? how hard, where on body, and for
> > what?
>
> Sure. Hard enough to hurt. Moderate enough not to cause any lasting
> physical injury. For? Doing bad things to others.
How many swats and where on the body?
> > Have you tried non-violent ways to disipline?
>
> I have. Most of them, like "Time Out" are just SILLY as hell.
Please describe the ones other than the "most of them" that weren't
"just SILLY as hell."
I used the threat of going to bed early as an effective method of
controling poor behavior.
Let them get sent to bed early a few times and they learn NOT to
continue whatever it was they were doing.
NO KID wants to go to bed early!!!
Doan
So much for the claim that I am on your "do-not-reply" list. Once again,
you have proven yourself to be a STUPID liar! Hihihi!
Doan
Doan
Hahaha! I thought that I am on your "do-not-reply" list. You are such
a STUPID liar! ;-)
Doan
Doan
Hihihi! What a STUPID liar you are!
Doan
0:->
....hihihi.......
0:->
.........hihihi...............
<snicker>
Doan
>
> krp wrote:
> > "Firemonkey" <hone...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1168711126....@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > Can the pro-spankers define spanking? how hard, where on body, and for
> > > what?
> >
> > Sure. Hard enough to hurt. Moderate enough not to cause any lasting
> > physical injury. For? Doing bad things to others.
>
> How many swats and where on the body?
>
Why don't you ask Kane how hard he hit his own children? ;-)
Doan
0:->
....hihihi.......
<smile>
Greegor
you don't submit he will throw a hissy fit!
1 on 1
alt.parenting.spanking only
It's just part of Kane's Megalomania.
Neither ascps nor aps is moderated nor are they Kane's.
Greegor
> If you notice Kane and Ron have a credibility problem, including things
> like claiming you said things you didn't. It seems to be de rigueur in their
> argument style.
It has been for ages.
krp wrote:
> Should I fly off the handle at him? Call him names? Belittle him? Find
> somebody that says bad things about him and proclaim that I agree 100% with
> what his detractors claim about him? No Kane - I AM NOT YOU!
>
> > My status or yours as having been spanked or not is not relevant to the
> > issue if we are going to discuss facts....and FACTS seem to be what you
> > claim you have.
>
> A lack of discipline as a child can and usually does explain abusive
> behavior in adults.
Would that include Kane's year of posting gratuitous profanity?
I think Kane's claim of "never spanked" is a lie.
Kane has defended "moral or ethical" lies.
Can you guess from his hysterics what he considers moral and ethical?
I think the Donald L. Fisher "brutal upbringing" explains Kane's
rabid obsession as a CATHARSIS.
0:->
> Ken, Kane wants you to capitulate to his terms,
It's called a level playing field, Greg. As good for one side as the
other, as long as they stick to facts.
> and if
> you don't submit he will throw a hissy fit!
No, I'll just point out that he dodged. You are the hissy fit expert.
> 1 on 1
> alt.parenting.spanking only
Seems fair to me, why not to you?
In fact, posters in ascps have complained about off topic posting
(though the one I'm thinking of lied).
> It's just part of Kane's Megalomania.
What that I want Ken and I to have the same criteria for debate, and
work from a level playing field?
>
> Neither ascps nor aps is moderated nor are they Kane's.
>
That's correct. He need not meet the debate criteria if he doesn't wish to.
I wish to.
I'll debate where and when I wish under the conditions I wish. If he
doesn't like them he can do a couple of things. Suggest other and see if
I agree...he tried that, with lies, accusations, and other assorted
dodging bullshit...or he can put is tail MOORE firmly between his legs
and stop running interference for you, Greg. 0:-}
There's nothing complex or difficult or unfair in my request.
Sticking to a newsgroup that is on topic. Defining a term HE used for
clarity in argument, and responding to HIS turn to provide evidence on
the same level or better, if he wishes, after I had my turn.
Do you actually believe, yourself, Greg, that some children, because
they aren't spanked, develop pathologies, and that he can produce the
scientific evidence to support that claim?
Maybe you want to try doing that?
I can handle two of you at once, easily.
Especially on such a stupid ignorant claim.
You game?
Or can I assume that you too know that's not true, not possible, and
certainly there IS no such "evidence" as he claims there is.
I'm taking this back to the correct ng to be on topic. If you miss it
there, tough shit, chesai tomadachi.
Kane
0:->
> krp wrote
>> If you notice Kane and Ron have a credibility problem, including things
>> like claiming you said things you didn't. It seems to be de rigueur in their
>> argument style.
>
> It has been for ages.
Name a few things either Ron or I have said you said that you didn't, Greg.
There's a good boy.
> krp wrote:
>> Should I fly off the handle at him? Call him names? Belittle him? Find
>> somebody that says bad things about him and proclaim that I agree 100% with
>> what his detractors claim about him? No Kane - I AM NOT YOU!
>>
>>> My status or yours as having been spanked or not is not relevant to the
>>> issue if we are going to discuss facts....and FACTS seem to be what you
>>> claim you have.
>> A lack of discipline as a child can and usually does explain abusive
>> behavior in adults.
>
> Would that include Kane's year of posting gratuitous profanity?
Could. Anything is possible. Are you suggesting that people that
parent's spanked are prone to cursing? And those that are, aren't?
> I think Kane's claim of "never spanked" is a lie.
No, Doan's claim is a lie. That's not what I said. He's a "context
abortion" liar, just like you are an attribution abortion liar, Greg.
But anyone can see that in a few post in a thread.
> Kane has defended "moral or ethical" lies.
Odd, I have, when doing so, asked you, and you ran, "would you lie to
protect someone's life?"
Why not answer?
> Can you guess from his hysterics what he considers moral and ethical?
I sure can. I consider lying to protect someone safety and life very
ethical indeed. In fact far more ethical and moral than telling the
truth and them being killed or injured.
How about you, Greg? You going to answer my simple question, or is it
going to be a couple of years, like the question I asked you to help
clarify your meaning on the "use of lethal force by parents?"
> I think the Donald L. Fisher "brutal upbringing" explains Kane's
> rabid obsession as a CATHARSIS.
What brutal upbringing?
So let me see now. Lack of CP creates those that swear. Brutal
upbringing, if we follow your lying logic that I'm Don Fisher, explains
my obscenities.
Can you explain your logic here? It escapes me?
In fact, you make a very good case for the fact I'm not your Donald L.
Fisher.
It's nice you have a playmate though. We were getting worried about you
as Dennis became more and more obvious, and now Michael.
R R RR R R R
0:->
monkeysgirl
Don - r u gay?
Did u raise gay spawn?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
0:->
> 0:-> wrote:
>
> Don - r u gay?
No. I'd tell you if I was though. It's nothing to be ashamed of.
>
> Did u raise gay spawn?
>
I haven't asked them. Nothing indicates they are gay.
If they were and I had their permission I'd certainly say so. It's
nothing to be ashamed of.
Michael, are you now going back to your typical gay bashing ways?
0:->
monkeysgirl
> monkeysgirl wrote:
>> 0:-> wrote:
>>
>> Don - r u gay?
>
> No. I'd tell you if I was though. It's nothing to be ashamed of.
>>
>> Did u raise gay spawn?
>>
> I haven't asked them. Nothing indicates they are gay.
>
> If they were and I had their permission I'd certainly say so. It's
> nothing to be ashamed of.
Then y r they hiding it from you?
>
> Michael, are you now going back to your typical gay bashing ways?
>
>
> 0:->
--
0:->
> 0:-> wrote:
>> monkeysgirl wrote:
>>> 0:-> wrote:
>>>
>>> Don - r u gay?
>>
>> No. I'd tell you if I was though. It's nothing to be ashamed of.
>>>
>>> Did u raise gay spawn?
>>>
>> I haven't asked them. Nothing indicates they are gay.
>>
>> If they were and I had their permission I'd certainly say so. It's
>> nothing to be ashamed of.
>
> Then y r they hiding it from you?
I wouldn't have the faintest idea.
Why did they reveal it to you and not me?
>
>>
>> Michael, are you now going back to your typical gay bashing ways?
Can't handle the role playing, I see.
0:->
>>
>>
>> 0:->
>
Doan
Doan
you have proven yourself to be a STUPID liar! Hihihi!
Doan
Doan
you have proven yourself to be a STUPID liar! Hihihi!
Doan
0:->
....hihihi.....
<snicker>
Doan
That's true and it only, once again, exposed Kane's STUPIDITY! ;-)
Doan
0:->
....hihihi.....
<R R R R R>
inkspot
--
Doan
Stop exposing your STUPIDITY, Kane! ;-)
Ron
(snip)
>> want to debate, or Ron does, then DEBATE.
>
> Ron made it plain to you, and I've reiterated, that you invited him to a
> party he doesn't attend. You brought up his name, I think addressing me
> mistakenly. He responded.
>
> He does see that you are a blow hard and are not producing evidence.
>
> Even though he and I have some clearly defined differences between us on
> the issues of CP, he knows you are in way over your head.
Wurd!
Ron
krp
>
>>>>>>>> First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be
>>>>>>>> implied.
>>>>>>>> Thus, the claim that spanking "Leads" to child aggression and
>>>>>>>> anxiety
>>>>>>>> is bogus! Second, the authors themselves admitted that they
>>>>>>>> included
>>>>>>>> beatings that are certainly abusive in the USA in study. If you
>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>> want to debate this study, I am willing to give it a shot - no
>>>>>>>> verbal
>>>>>>>> abuse warranted. ;-) Wanna give me a try? My guess is you will
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> the one that do the avoidance and instead will use your little
>>>>>>>> Kane9
>>>>>>>> to do the verbal abuse and attack for you.
>>>>>> There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
>>>>>> aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
>>>>>> spanking can produce sociopathy in children.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Do you know that Kane is a "never-spanked" boy?
>>
>>> Did you notice, Ken, that Doan didn't agree with you? Didn't contribute
>>> anything to the issue?
>> Should I fly off the handle at him?
> I can't think why. He supports you.
Oh does he? Were those HIS lips on my ass? Grow up Kane the paranoid.
> > Call him names?
> That's entirely up to you who you call names. Seems you've chosen me.
I have not called you anything you haven't earned.
> > Belittle him?
> You don't belittle people?
Only people who beg for it, like you and Ron.
> > Find
>> somebody that says bad things about him and proclaim that I agree 100%
>> with what his detractors claim about him? No Kane - I AM NOT YOU!
> Where did I agree 100% with your detractors?
Come on Kane. If Moore takes a shap turn the concussion of your nose
coming out of his ass would be loud enough to break windows in 17 states!
> I agree with them when I look at your postings, not with their claims.
>
> I take their claims with a grain of salt. I've said so.
You swallow them whole. You NEED to. Otherwise you'd have to confron
that your Emperor is buck naked!
>>> My status or yours as having been spanked or not is not relevant to the
>>> issue if we are going to discuss facts....and FACTS seem to be what you
>>> claim you have.
>
>> A lack of discipline as a child can and usually does explain abusive
>> behavior in adults.
> A lack of personally integrated self control, by way of developing a
> conscience, usually does explain abusive behavior in adults.
Kane - most people are natural self regulators. The vast majority of
humans are both with the capacity for empathy. Those that are not fall into
two categories, those who CAN be taught self regulation and those who
cannot. Those who CAN be taught self regulation (depends on where they fall
on the spectrum) learn by corporal punishment. TGhey don't call a child's
ASS the "seat of learning" for nothing.
The problem with people like you, HARD LINE EXTREMISTS, is that
intelectually you can't differentiate between beating a child into a coma,
and a spanking that may leave the kid's ass sore and red. Your view can't
discriminate between a parent insane with anger and a parent who loves their
child enough to correct them. It's beyond the scope of your experience to
understand that most parents really dread corporal puunishment and causing
the child they love pain. YOU need to believe they enjoy it.
>
0:->
....a clear attempt to dodge by posting to ascps, instead of just aps
where this particular debate belongs. ...
I invite you to meet me in aps to continue this brilliant dialogue you
posted.
Thanks, Kane
krp
>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron there are children who self discipline. They never need a
>>>>>> spanking.
>>>>> (snip)
>>>>
>>>>> Kenny, I'm not involved in this discussion, and rarely comment on CP
>>>>> issues. Do some research dopy, get the facts before you again make
>>>>> yourself look like an idiot.
>>>>
>>>> I see you deliberately SNIPPED all references to the claims of Dr.
>>>> Gelles and the refutations from Dr. Steinmetz and Dr. Spock..
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yeah they are but feel FREE to show us your "SCIENTIFIC PROOF" that
>> spanking CAUSES aggression in children.
>> So you can "DEBATE" me.
> I don't have any such proof ken, and have never claimed it. The only
> thing I have proven is that you are a liar, again. But you should be
> getting that point by now, everyone else is.
I knew that from the start because there isn't any! I am getting the
point that you could use some in-patient care at a mental facility Ron.
There is, then, NO "debate" and the challenges were mental aberrations.
OKAY!
krp
"Doan" <do...@usc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.33.070113...@skat.usc.edu...
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Ron there are children who self discipline. They never need a
>> >>>>> spanking.
>> >>>> (snip)
>> >>>
>> >>>> Kenny, I'm not involved in this discussion, and rarely comment on CP
>> >>>> issues. Do some research dopy, get the facts before you again make
>> >>>> yourself look like an idiot.
>> >>>
>> >>> I see you deliberately SNIPPED all references to the claims of Dr.
>> >>> Gelles and the refutations from Dr. Steinmetz and Dr. Spock..
>> >>
>> >> Yes, they were not relevant to my post. Only your own stupidity.
>> >
>> >
>> > Yeah they are but feel FREE to show us your "SCIENTIFIC PROOF" that
>> > spanking CAUSES aggression in children.
>> > So you can "DEBATE" me.
>>
>> I don't have any such proof ken, and have never claimed it. The only
>> thing
>> I have proven is that you are a liar, again. But you should be getting
>> that
>> point by now, everyone else is.
>>
>
> Kane is claiming that he has the proof, Ron.
Neither of them do, it's BULLSHIT!
krp
Tell us Kane where is your proof that a spanking will cause a child to
become a wild beast? Or will you admit like Ron that you lied and you have
NO proof????
I bet you don't have it in you. It's that you find it impossible to admit
you're wrong about things. It's a personality defect.
krp
>> >> spanking CAUSES aggression in children.
>> >> So you can "DEBATE" me.
>>
>> > aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
>> > spanking can produce sociopathy in children. "
>>
>> > aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
>> > spanking can produce sociopathy in children. "
>>
Of course it is. Often in "science" as opposed to CPS voo doo,
"correlation" is the best evidence we have because "causation" is so hard to
prove. But in this case Kane has NADA! Ron has finally admitted he has NO
evidence of any kind. Progress toward sanity.
krp
> Doan wrote:
>
> ....hihihi....
>>
>> "Correlation is a valid scientific concept. It is and has been used
>> successfully to make major policy and decisions to action on things
>> as varied as rocket launches, and what to serve for breakfast."
\
I see - NO substantive retort. As expected.
krp
"inkspot" <inky...@inkydink.net> wrote in message
news:45a9826f$0$4750$8826...@free.teranews.com...
> I'm not even gonna OT these gems - I luv it when you clowns kook out.
Buit Kane actually believe he has DEVASTATED everyone who has disagred with
him. PLEASE don't tell him he hasn't., His delusions are so much fun.
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:1168730036.1...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>> > Can the pro-spankers define spanking? how hard, where on body, and for
>> > what?
>>
>> Sure. Hard enough to hurt. Moderate enough not to cause any lasting
>> physical injury. For? Doing bad things to others.
> How many swats and where on the body?
Generally on the ass, how many is situationally dependent. With some
kids ONE is enough. With others - depends on the child's pain threshold. The
object IS to cause the child enough pain that they LEARN. It has to be
consistant and moderate. And NOT done in anger.
>> > Have you tried non-violent ways to disipline?
>> I have. Most of them, like "Time Out" are just SILLY as hell.
> Please describe the ones other than the "most of them" that weren't "just
> SILLY as hell."
That I used with my kids? Grounding. Denial of prividges. Loss of
objects of significance. Such as toys. Not taking them places. Such as
cancelling a trip to Disneyworld they badly wanted. Good for dealing with
oppositional defiance. Often it becomes a contest, much like here.
> I used the threat of going to bed early as an effective method of
> controling poor behavior.
Problem is like "Time Out" you have to stay up to supervise. You wind up
punishing yourself instead of the child.
> Let them get sent to bed early a few times and they learn NOT to continue
> whatever it was they were doing.
> NO KID wants to go to bed early!!!
Unless they have a RV, video game or CD player.
0:->
Doan? You and he have a 'thing' going on?
>>> Call him names?
>
>> That's entirely up to you who you call names. Seems you've chosen me.
>
> I have not called you anything you haven't earned.
Debatable.
>>> Belittle him?
>
>> You don't belittle people?
>
> Only people who beg for it, like you and Ron.
You've continually lied concerning our posts and contents.
You do so by adjective jockey fallacious reframing of our words.
>>> Find
>>> somebody that says bad things about him and proclaim that I agree 100%
>>> with what his detractors claim about him? No Kane - I AM NOT YOU!
>
>> Where did I agree 100% with your detractors?
>
> Come on Kane. If Moore takes a shap turn the concussion of your nose
> coming out of his ass would be loud enough to break windows in 17 states!
That's not an answer to my question. It's an evasion. I'll ask you
again, just to watch you choke, yet again.
Where did I agree 100% with your detractors?
>> I agree with them when I look at your postings, not with their claims.
>>
>> I take their claims with a grain of salt. I've said so.
>
> You swallow them whole. You NEED to. Otherwise you'd have to confron
> that your Emperor is buck naked!
Show any of my posts that indicate I'm swallowing their claims whole.
I don't have an Emperor.
>>>> My status or yours as having been spanked or not is not relevant to the
>>>> issue if we are going to discuss facts....and FACTS seem to be what you
>>>> claim you have.
>>> A lack of discipline as a child can and usually does explain abusive
>>> behavior in adults.
>
>> A lack of personally integrated self control, by way of developing a
>> conscience, usually does explain abusive behavior in adults.
>
> Kane - most people are natural self regulators.
Except the few, proportionately in the population, that are mentally ill
with various pathologies and personality disorders.
> The vast majority of
> humans are both with the capacity for empathy.
Actually while they are born with that capacity, as one can witness in
the nursery where one baby cries, they can lose it, or have it severely
suppressed by how they are raised.
> Those that are not fall into
> two categories, those who CAN be taught self regulation and those who
> cannot.
Simplistic, but I'll entertain it as argument for the sake of this one.
> Those who CAN be taught self regulation (depends on where they fall
> on the spectrum) learn by corporal punishment.
"Spectrum?"
Of what? You said two kinds.
Where is the passover point from one to the other on this spectrum of
those who can be and those who can't be taught self regulation?
> TGhey don't call a child's
> ASS the "seat of learning" for nothing.
Of course not. They call it that to excuse and rationalize the assualt
and battery of children under the guise of 'discipline.'
> The problem with people like you, HARD LINE EXTREMISTS,
Among advocates of non-spanking alternatives in disciplining children
I'm considered a wuss. For all of my adult life until about mid year
last, 2006, I in fact refused to support any legislative solution to the
spanking of children problem.
I have since, by spending much time here, and reading a great deal more
information about spankers and their mindset, decided I was being
foolishly naive.
Still, my legal solution is one of the most benign of methods. A
'Swedish' model where this is no penalty for being "charged" with
violating the law on CP. Just a voluntary participation in parenting
training programs.
The Swedes can refuse to participate and there is not penalty. It's a
"moral suasion" solution that goes along with my own values prior to my
"conversion" to accepting we must have a law to stop this assault of
children in our country.
> is that
> intelectually you can't differentiate between beating a child into a coma,
Sure I can. Are you suggesting there is no harm unless the child is beat
to the point of coma?
> and a spanking that may leave the kid's ass sore and red.
You are describing what would constitute assault and battery if done to
an adult. What is the difference when it is instead a child? Other than
superstition and the current law?
So far, by the way, I'm indulging you a bit. You have totally failed to
provide what you yourself demanded and I asked for in
return....scientifically acceptable evidence.
You are still "arguing" with opinion.
And you have not said you accept my definition, that I countered yours
with, that peer reviewed evidence that meets the scientific requirement
for correlation. We know that we won't find a study on either side for
"causality," because we cannot 'destroy the sample' by experimenting
with real children in a typical 'medical' research model.
> Your view can't
> discriminate between a parent insane with anger
Sure it can, and most surely I can. That's my professional background.
> and a parent who loves their
> child enough to correct them.
I hope you aren't assuming that my rejection of hitting children and
calling it, falsely, "discipline," means that I support not correcting
children.
> It's beyond the scope of your experience to
> understand that most parents really dread corporal puunishment and causing
> the child they love pain.
That doesn't in the least show that it's unlikely to harm even MORE than
the actions of an out of control parent. There is nothing quite like
having the person you trust, and who is expected to protect you,
themselves attacking you physically...especially if they mouth the
platitudes of "I'm doing this for you own good," and "this hurts me more
than it hurts you."
Such patronizing hypocracy can and does make children pathological.
> YOU need to believe they enjoy it.
After you've given a spanking notice the sense of relief you feel?
Even the child does.
It's called an abreaction, and it's related to the same experiences of
orgasm, the sexual kind.
Trust me, it's been researched.
And among those that get off sexually on 'spanking' games, it's proof
enough that spanking is "enjoyed," to some degree, by the spanker and
the spankee.
That's what makes is so very questionable in doing it to children.
Unless of course you wish to raise a spanking fetishist.
You've heard of "The English Vice," have you not? Cultivated and
expanded on by the school system there.
I have a wealth of data and research to share with you, but so far you
haven't met YOUR responsibility here.
Why is that I wonder?
Do you have that "... considerable evidence that a lack of
spanking can produce sociopathy in children" study and research to share
with us yet?
As I said earlier, I've indulged you a bit to encourage continuation of
this argument, but I don't have infinite patience with fools and liars.
If you aren't either you'll back your claims with what you require I
back mine with...and your turn still awaits you.
I put up the International study. What have you responded with but a
demand for more, while offering nothing yourself but your questionable
opinion.
And I await your pleasure sir, in providing you with what you requested,
when you provide in kind.
The study or research to back your claim of, "... considerable evidence
that a lack of spanking can produce sociopathy in children," if you
please.
Opinions, as they say, are like assholes. Everybody has one.
This newsgroup, in fact has been crowded with assholes for years. I'm
tired your, and their, opinions.
I'd like to see the proofs you and they claim they have for this
"failure to spank" pathology of children.
Otherwise.. ... this "debate" will have to end rather quickly.
Thanks, Kane
0:->
I know you think that was brilliant reparte and debate Ken, but actually
it comes across as more of the blowhard you have proven yourself to be
even before coming to these ngs.
Claiming someone is nuts because they "never claimed" something, so they
can't (and don't wish to) debate it, shows you are a nut, does it not?
0?-]
krp
"Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168731572....@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Ken, Kane wants you to capitulate to his terms, and if
> you don't submit he will throw a hissy fit!
Oh I got the THREATS today from Ron that he's take it OFF Usenet with me and
that I had better be afraid of what he can do to me!
One thing the two cowboys need to know about me is that "threats" don't
work. Moore has been making them for a DECADE and carrying some of them out.
Like listing things of Freecycle and sending MORONS to my door looking for
things like laptops, a FREE corvette, a FREE Centennial Edition Harley
Motorcycle. And a free Lamborghini... That Moore would do such juvenile
pranks isn't at all surprising to me. He's been doing that shit to me and
others for years. He especially loves to bully women. Maybe Kane could look
at Moore's harassment of Stacy Rupp Anderson, and Judy McLinn. Often
SEXUALLY VIOLENT harassment. Stuff they buy into with their new PAL Moore!
They give Moore a PASS on all that, on Joe and John and Keith Ray, and so
MANY MANY MANY others. Especially women.
Here is a difference between Moore and I. Both of us have been divorced
twice. He HATES women. I don't. my first wife was a beautiful woman who was
a victim of a bad family tree, and cursed with alcohol and drug abuse that
eventually cost her her life. I never hated her, I felt sorry for her
because I loved her. My second wife of 22 years had her childhood catch up
with her in a mid-life crisis. Again she destroyed lives around her, but
she is paying the price, now she gets drunk many nights a week and weekends
are lost weekends in booze. She was an child incest victim and a victim of a
gang rape when she was 15 and an abortion that has always caused her great
conflicts. It all came out almost overnight. She was exploited by a
co-worker. Now she is miserable. I'm not. I moved on and made a generous
settlement with her at the divorce that was far more than the court ordered
or she really deserved. Why? Because I loved her too. Moore on the other
hand harasses his ex wives by pulling the same shit on them he does on me
and others. I still do favors for my ex. I remarried and won the lottery
with a great woman I married. I have no reason to hate women, Moore does. He
has had both ex-wives given him problems with seeing his kids. Why? because
he has acted in ways to deserve it. With the second batch of kids, again
he's a deadbeat dad.
Kane and Ron can do a search on Stacy Rupp Anderson and Judy McLinn and
her daughter Jade. It's in Google.... I think it's hilarious which side they
chose.
krp
>> If you notice Kane and Ron have a credibility problem, including
>> things
>> like claiming you said things you didn't. It seems to be de rigueur in
>> their
>> argument style.
>
> It has been for ages.
>> Should I fly off the handle at him? Call him names? Belittle him?
>> Find
>> somebody that says bad things about him and proclaim that I agree 100%
>> with
>> what his detractors claim about him? No Kane - I AM NOT YOU!
>>
>> > My status or yours as having been spanked or not is not relevant to the
>> > issue if we are going to discuss facts....and FACTS seem to be what you
>> > claim you have.
>>
>> A lack of discipline as a child can and usually does explain abusive
>> behavior in adults.
>
> Would that include Kane's year of posting gratuitous profanity?
He tries very hard to be a bully. Which generally means he has a ban
conflict with his inferiority complex. Actually what he is confronting is
the fact that he IS inferior.
> I think Kane's claim of "never spanked" is a lie.
> Kane has defended "moral or ethical" lies.
> Can you guess from his hysterics what he considers moral and ethical?
>
> I think the Donald L. Fisher "brutal upbringing" explains Kane's
> rabid obsession as a CATHARSIS.
He's not worth that deep of analysis. That he abuses others so he can
feel good about himself says all that needs to be said.
krp
>
> So much for the claim that I am on your "do-not-reply" list. Once again,
I think Kane and Ron are having out of body experiences today. First the
admission that they have NO evidence to support the claim that spanking
turns children into crazed zombies (sorry for the hype just reductio ad
absurdum) now Ronny TRIES to prove the INFALLIBILITY of SAC dolls and shows
us a case where he THINKS a court in Ohio gave them a RINGING ENDORSEMENT OF
INFALLIBILITY! Too bad his reasoning skills are so POOR. AT least he has
NO idea of how to read a court decision. The court didn't address the dolls
at all, except to say that the expert had "other evidence." Which is a
court's way of saying; "okay we know the dolls are bullshit so we'll ignore
them. and not deal with the question." The decision is almost 20 years old.
Lots of water has flowed under that bridge in the 20 years since. The guy's
belief in his own BULLSHIT amuses the hell out of me.
krp
> krp wrote:
> ....a clear attempt to dodge by posting to ascps, instead of just aps
> where this particular debate belongs. ...
YES MEIN FUEHRER! Yoiur promotion to MESSIAH is under consideration.
> I invite you to meet me in aps to continue this brilliant dialogue you
> posted.
Running away Kane? SCREAMING in DEFEAT? Looking for the reserves to come
save you? Notice how you and Ron are ALL ALONE?
krp
>>>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>>>> Ron there are children who self discipline. They never need a
>>>>>>>> spanking.
>>>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>>> Kenny, I'm not involved in this discussion, and rarely comment on CP
>>>>>>> issues. Do some research dopy, get the facts before you again make
>>>>>>> yourself look like an idiot.
>>>>>> I see you deliberately SNIPPED all references to the claims of Dr.
>>>>>> Gelles and the refutations from Dr. Steinmetz and Dr. Spock..
>>>>> Yes, they were not relevant to my post. Only your own stupidity.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah they are but feel FREE to show us your "SCIENTIFIC PROOF" that
>>>> spanking CAUSES aggression in children.
>>>> So you can "DEBATE" me.
>>
>>> I don't have any such proof ken, and have never claimed it. The only
>>> thing I have proven is that you are a liar, again. But you should be
>>> getting that point by now, everyone else is.
>>
>> I knew that from the start because there isn't any! I am getting the
>> point that you could use some in-patient care at a mental facility Ron.
>> There is, then, NO "debate" and the challenges were mental aberrations.
>> OKAY!
>
> I know you think that was brilliant reparte and debate Ken, but actually
> it comes across as more of the blowhard you have proven yourself to be
> even before coming to these ngs.
So where is your "ABSOLUTE SCIENTIFIC PROOF" there Kane? We're still
waiting. With you and Ron I have become convinces the Shrine Circus is in
town and we are watching you two get out of your clown car. I await the
evidence. I won't hold my breath.
0:->
> "0:->" <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:_PKdnZpLa_7H9zTY...@scnresearch.com...
>
> Tell us Kane where is your proof that a spanking will cause a child to
> become a wild beast?
Where is yours that I claimed that?
> Or will you admit like Ron that you lied and you have
> NO proof????
Ron didn't admit to any such thing. He said he didn't have because he
wasn't engaged in the argument.
> I bet you don't have it in you.
Sure I do. I'm patiently waiting my turn, Ken.
You haven't taken yours as yet.
> It's that you find it impossible to admit
> you're wrong about things. It's a personality defect.
Then I'm in good shape mentally so far. I've neither admitted to and
denied any wrong or right in this debate with you....which so far has
confined itself, except for my first post with evidence of my claim,
from a peer reviewed research report, to opinion.
You are still trying to dodge by cross posting, assuming I won't
respond. I simply won't, where I catch you at it, by posting back to ascps.
Now, about that research you claim exists that supports a claim of a
lack of spanking will create pathology in some children?
Any time now, Ken.
Ron
Let me see if I can clear this up for you ken, if its possible.
Understanding your mental limitations and all.
Kane and I are on opposite sides of this issue. We have agreed to disagree
on this one, as gentlemen should. The few times I have commented on this
subject he has done the gentlemanly thing and has not challenged me, and I
afford him the same courtesy. We have a relationship in Usenet that we know
this issue could damage, so we have agreed to give each other a pass here,
in furtherance of that relationship.
You want to debate Kane on this topic, go ahead. It should be entertaining
to watch. And I might, but then again I might not. In either case I'm
pretty sure that in this area you are WAY over your head. Kane has far to
much experience with this issue, just as I do with CPS, for you to have any
hope at all of coming out with anything less than egg on your face. Which
of course has its own entertainment value.
Ron