What has hapenned to this group?
Jeremy James
What has happenned to this newsgroup? It used to consist primarily of
parenets like myself, parents that know that when spanking is used as a
loving discliplinary tool, it is very effective. Parents that wanted to be
able to discuss this with other parents that felt the same way. Recently
however it seems to consist more of people that simply want to argue with
each other. I.E. people like Kane and LaVonne. These two people have
somehow managed to convince themselves that they are enlightened in some
way, or that they are intellectually superior to the other members here, or
some other thing. They are neither of course. When I first joined this
group I tried to debate with them, however they do not debate, they dictate.
Debating means that you are willing to listen to ther other person's
opinion, however they are totally obtuse. They are so convinced that their
own opinion is right that your opinion must be wrong. If you disagree with
them you must be a horrible person and you are abusive toward your children.
When they run out of logical arguments, they resort to insults. In their
world if you spank your children it means that you are an ingorant redneck,
and probably a pedophile with latent homesexual tendencies as well. Kane
has even implied that I spank my children because I get sexually aroused
when I do so. I have an 8year old and a 5 year old daughter and a 2 year
old son. I use spanking for all three of them because it works. And this
drives them crazy because I refuse to convert over to their narrow point of
view. From their viewpoint, if I am spanking my children I must have some
alterior motive, they cannot accept the fact that there are times when
spanking is the best way to handle the situation. And that I spank my
children because I love them and because IT WORKS!
I have stopped reading anything by either of them and I refuse to reply to
anything they say. I am sure they will have something to say about this
post but I will not read or respond to it. Not because I am admitting that
they must be right or because I can't think of anything to say, I simply
refuse to discuss anything with either of them because they refuse to
listen. I encourage others to follow suit.
Jeremy J
pohak...@gmail.com
Jeremy James wrote:
> Fellow parents:
>
> What has happenned to this newsgroup? It used to consist primarily of
> parenets like myself, parents that know that when spanking is used as a
> loving discliplinary tool, it is very effective.
Those you refer to were only part of the group. Nor were they primary
except in number. They lacked primacy in argument. Unable to support
their view sufficiently to feel they were in like company and
comfortable they chose to leave.
> Parents that wanted to be
> able to discuss this with other parents that felt the same way.
The World Wide Web is world wide. There are many places within it to
find those who make you feel comfortable with your choice. If you wish
not to be challenged, then I would suggest another place than this. It
was not established for you alone.
> Recently
> however it seems to consist more of people that simply want to argue with
> each other. I.E. people like Kane and LaVonne.
LaVonne and I argue with each other? Novel Idea. Yes, I can think of a
couple of areas worth arging about with LaVonne. Let me see....maybe a
discussion of how much damage to humanity the use of corporal
punishment has caused. I'd be happy to take the "less" side and offer
her the "more" side. But, whichever, it's worth discussing.
> These two people have
> somehow managed to convince themselves that they are enlightened in some
> way,
No, we simply read, experience, think. It's not hard, honest.
Then we come to conclusions which we modify over time based on new
evidence.
Again, thinking. It's not hard, honest. Not for those that practice it
regularly. It is apparently very hard for those that have a single view
on spanking though and need to adhere to it and seek out only like
minded folks to discuss it wiht. Notice that LaVonne and I are not
hanging out in a 'anti spanking' environment?
> or that they are intellectually superior to the other members here, or
> some other thing.
Well let me see. First let me remove your attempt to ghettoize LaVonne
and I into a small group of our own. I am Kane, she is LaVonne, and
likely if we explored spanking issues enough we'd find things to debate
from different perspectives.
She comes from education (among other experiences) and I from mental
health, professionall.
> They are neither of course.
Of course. Intellectual ability isn't a prerequisite for thinking. One
can do a very workmanlike job of taking you folks apart and exposing
your yellow bellies without a lot of intellectual strain. Those that
think have that unfair advantage over those that babble jingoistic
myth.
> When I first joined this
> group I tried to debate with them, however they do not debate, they dictate.
No you didn't. You are projecting like mad. The folks in this ng that
do not advocate spanking have made it a practice to debate, rather than
babble slogans. We are the one's that most go to academia, and share
out own experience, two ends of an argument, both valid.
The spankers hide.
I, personally, and I'll bet LaVonne as well, practiced our nonspanking
publically, with never a complaint or a call to CPS by anyone. Fancy
that.
> Debating means that you are willing to listen to ther other person's
> opinion, however they are totally obtuse.
Please give some examples where either of us...no, let's keep this
between you and I for the moment, as LV can handle her own debate, give
ME some examples where I failed to listen.
If it did so, I'd be happy to extend that courtesy to you now, if you'd
care to take advantage of it.
What I actually saw most often was that the spanker compulsives, upon
facing solid evidence, clear and unadulterated logic, simply ran.
Babbling as they went out the door, of course.
> They are so convinced that their
> own opinion is right that your opinion must be wrong.
Well, that is one possible outcome in debate. And in spanking, since
it's hard to call it spanking if it's not, and there are no real
gradiations in the term (though there can be in the act...somewhat) one
is right, or one is wrong.
> If you disagree with
> them you must be a horrible person and you are abusive toward your children.
No, that is a lie. We have considered and even posted data that deals
with spanking that is deemed by the author as non-abusive. We'd hardly
use that if we believed all spanking to be "abusive."
I certainly have said often enough that there is a line between the two
lacking. One cannot tell when one is being abusive and one is
not.....and I'd hardly make such a distinction if I believed all and
every "spank" was in fact abuse.
The issue is unresolved. I suspect it will never be otherwise, since
humans are so disparate in the experience of a similar event. What is a
tap to one child is horrendous injury to another, and given our
capacity for self protection, the latter is more likely to be covered
up by the vulnerable child than the former.
> When they run out of logical arguments, they resort to insults.
Asshole!
Oh, excuse me, was that a "logical argument" on your part, or an
"insult?" I mistakenly took if for the latter, possibly, and responded
in kind...the only way I deliberately insult, unless I detect a
deliberate lie.
You just deliberately lied, sir! It's a habit among the spanked and the
spanking compulsive advocates.
> In their
> world if you spank your children it means that you are an ingorant redneck,
I have never claimed all spankers are ignorant rednecks. Some are
intelligent rednecks. Some are ignorant and not rednecks, and some are
damaged beyond their own noting compulsives.
> and probably a pedophile with latent homesexual tendencies as well.
Nearly everyone (some researchers claim all) has some "latent
homesexual[sic] tendencies. So of course your claim could be correct
about me, had I made that connection. I did not.
As coming from a mental health background I tend not to make those
distinctions in child abuse or spanking.
Don't assume that because some pedophiles use causing pain as part of
their arrousal that I would suggest that you all do, and are thus all
pedophiles.
Examples are to make a point, not to accuse everyone.
The point with masochists is that a great many of them were indeed
spanked as children and they themselves identify it with their adult
perversion.
> Kane
> has even implied that I spank my children because I get sexually aroused
> when I do so.
Please refer us to the thread where you think I implied that. Let's see
on what I would base such an implication and if you might have deserved
it. Or did I ask you questions about it?
> I have an 8year old and a 5 year old daughter and a 2 year
> old son. I use spanking for all three of them because it works.
"Works" is an highly subjective term in the subject of child rearing.
Lots of things seem to be something they are not, including successful.
I can usually get a horse to jump a ditch by beating him...once. The
next time we approach the ditch what do you think the horse might do?
Now humans are more complex. and we are soooo much bigger than little
children, but they will find a way to "throw" us, now or later, often
later.
> And this
> drives them crazy
Being concerned about the safety and possible injury of children
indicates mental illness?
Please provide some examples, and a logical explanation of your claim.
I've not heard of the "don't hit the children" syndrome before.
> because I refuse to convert over to their narrow point of
> view.
Odd.
How is it that spanking compulsives continually assume that
"non-spanking" is the only thing an advocate for child rearing in more
painless ways is advocating for? In fact, I think I've even posted here
about a much broader repertoire being considered.
In fact, and I'm sorry you missed the post apparently, I've posted
active links to sources for replacing even the need to spank.
> From their viewpoint, if I am spanking my children I must have some
> alterior motive, they cannot accept the fact that there are times when
> spanking is the best way to handle the situation.
That's because in the course of thinking about this issue, and child
rearing in general, we have discovered that you are wrong. There is
never a time when "spanking is the best way to handle a situation."
It's just he way you chose over others that you might either not know
about, or have not learn how to do.
> And that I spank my
> children because I love them and because IT WORKS!
As the word "works" is subjective, "love" is ten times moreso.
There is love that is full of concern. Love that is attachment and can
be anything from tender to murderous. People use the term "love" rather
a lot to mean many things that are quite dissimilar.
I presume by your use you wish the best for your children, and regard
them highly, and have a tender heart when you think of them.
How is it you then hit them?
You know somewhere in you, probably going back to that baby you once
were that had not been spanked yet, that a hit from a parent can change
a child's perception of herself and the universe in ways so profound it
amounts to the single flap of a butterfly's wing at the equator that
results in tornados in Kansas.
Look at our world.
There has been a pretty universal use of pain to raise children for a
very long time now over a widespread area.
Would you say we live in a universally peaceful and prosperous world?
Children raised with peace will practice peace. Peace does not, in my
version, include hitting or being hit.
So I avoid it every chance I get.
Especially with children.
And I extend it to my words. They too much be kindly, supportive, and
gentle or I might cross that very line I caution spanking compulsives
about...the one they cannot define, and neither can I, between
"discipline" and "abuse."
> I have stopped reading anything by either of them and I refuse to reply to
> anything they say.
Yes, of course.
There are a lot of people on my side of this issue that don't bother
coming here anymore either. They recognize the paucity of logic, fact,
and honesty from you folks.
It seems pointless for them to come here, just as it is pointless for
the spankers to come here, because the debate is over.
Are you unaware of that?
Look at the pro-spankers and what they post. Just attacks.
Just this silly nonense, which is an attack barely disguised, and on
rare occasion already more than adequately refuted and rebutted
supports for spanking.
Still posting the sad poorly disguised propaganda of Larzerele, that
because it's presented in faux academic language is believed by the
unwary and uninformed, they have given up on the obvious thugs like
Dodson.
> I am sure they will have something to say about this
> post but I will not read or respond to it.
How ethical. In fact, do you know that you border on slander?
> Not because I am admitting that
> they must be right or because I can't think of anything to say, I simply
> refuse to discuss anything with either of them because they refuse to
> listen. I encourage others to follow suit.
To whom are you addressing yourself? Outside of two loonies beating
upon the hollow heads of each other and themselves, there's no one
attempting to post cogent argument here. Or is my newsreader filter
working overtime against twits?
> Jeremy J
Jeremy J, whatever makes you feel better. At least it will lower the
chances by a hair or two, you getting in a funk and taking it out on
your kids.
Give them my hearty, Q{}:o } ho ho ho ho
And tell them to run run run as fast as they can from the nutcases that
were made by folks like you that did it to you, that did it to them,
who did it to them.
Tell them to break the cycle. We're pullin' for 'em.
You could break the cycle before it's too late, Jeremy J. Want to give
it a try?
Take a couple of classes, or even one training on non punitive
parenting. It will amaze the hell out of you when you find out how
mistaken most adults are about their own children and why they do what
they do that prompts the parent to spank them.
Yer damaged, Jeremy J, and of course you cannot admit your parents did
that to you, but you can heal, and keep your kids from becoming
abusers. I've never met a child abuser that was not spanked as a child,
and it recognized by many of them as the cause of their adult choices.
Some even brag about it. Weird, eh. Just ... like ... you.
Kane
Doan
That is the nature of the anti-spankig zealotS. They will lie and, when
that doesn't work, they will resort to insults. They said their mothers
approve of it. ;-)
Doan
Doan
> > When they run out of logical arguments, they resort to insults.
>
> Asshole!
Another example of a fine response from the "never-spanked" boy. His mom
also approve! ;-)
Doan
pohak...@gmail.com
Doan
The "never-spanked" boy got caught lying again; just like his master, the
LYING LaVonne. ;-)
Doan
On 23 Dec 2005 pohak...@gmail.com wrote:
> Dance monkeyboy, dance.
>
>
pohak...@gmail.com
screeching dancing lying monkeyboy to come to his rescue:
http://groups.google.com/groups?enc_author=7qPzgAwAAAAOd9I5rSqa2o5rAIyYMqgO&scoring=d&hl=en
If you don't think he is an hysterical screeching dancing lying
monkeyboy take a look at his long record of just such postings.
Sort by relevance Sorted by date
What has hapenned to this group?
The "never-spanked" boy got caught lying again; just like his master,
the LYING LaVonne. ;-) Doan Dance monkeyboy, dance.
alt.parenting.spanking - Dec 23, 10:50 pm by Doan - 6 messages - 3
authors
Opinion's Lies are a giggle and a hoot! was Re: Is punishment ...
Ha! Ha! Ha! The little Kane0 found the study??? Let's see What Chris
forgets
to tell you is that this same study also looks at non ...
alt.parenting.spanking - Dec 23, 9:48 pm by Doan - 15 messages - 5
authors
The question no-spanks fear.
While many no-spanks are childless, some have children. Although given
to bragging about never spanking their kid, they are much ...
alt.parenting.spanking - Dec 23, 2:32 pm by Doan - 4 messages - 4
authors
Fear and Loathing in the newsgroup alt.parenting.spanking
Are you talking about your master, the LYING LaVonne? ;-) Doan What is
it that the spanking compulsives fear in this ng? Could it ...
alt.parenting.spanking - Dec 23, 2:01 pm by Doan - 2 messages - 2
authors
Cisco 2505 configuration questions
Have you tried "erase startup-config" and reboot? Doan JW, Thank you
for
your lead. Could you tell me how to wipe out the whole ...
alt.certification.cisco - Dec 20, 3:03 pm by Doan - 11 messages - 8
authors
Need advice
Still carping your child hatred nitwittery, pissant? Let's hope you
worked
your own children over well enough they will remain cowed ...
alt.parenting.spanking - Dec 18, 9:04 pm by Doan - 10 messages - 6
authors
1602 not reading startup-config....
Check the config register. Doan Got a problem I haven't had, but
hopefully
it's an easy one. Client has a Cisco 1602 router. The ...
comp.dcom.sys.cisco - Dec 16, 9:54 am by Doan - 3 messages - 2 authors
Problems byond the paddle
The question is what are the alternative? When you can't control the
kids
anymore, it will lead to situation like this: http://cbs2 ...
alt.parenting.spanking - Dec 15, 8:08 pm by Doan - 4 messages - 4
authors
Paddle by proxy
The bright ones know how children best learn, grow, and develop. They
are
able to choose guidance and discipline strategies that ...
alt.parenting.spanking - Dec 1, 7:08 pm by Doan - 6 messages - 4
authors
But it's da law!
"Re: But it's da law!" Not in the US, yet, everywhere. But it's
happening in the
schools, and Minnesota, and our neighbors, and our compatriots in other
lands. ...
alt.parenting.spanking - Dec 1, 4:13 pm by Doan - 5 messages - 3
authors
And on and on and on for year after year, frustrated at every turn,
blatantly lying as to what others and even he has said, that is the
strategy of the monkeyboy, including lying about others by claiming
they are lying.
Go climb back up in your tree, monkeyboy. You'll be safer there to hurl
your silly insults and lies.
Dance, monkeyboy, dance.
Doan
So where are those studies? Can't fetch them for your
master, LYING Lavonne? ;-)
Doan
Carlson LaVonne
I joined this ng in 1995, shortly after it was created. The ng was
created for the discussion of corporal punishment and alternative
parenting practices.
The ng has definitely changed. There was a time when individuals posted
with the intent of honest debate.
As for Kane and I arguing, this is bunk. We disagree, but this is the
point of debate. As far as I can tell, both Kane and I abhor the
practice of hitting children in the name of discipline.
And if the only way you can discipline an 8 year old daughter and a 3
year old daughter is by hitting their tiny bodies, you need to learn
something about child development and parenting.
LaVonne
Doan
> Jeremy,
>
> I joined this ng in 1995, shortly after it was created. The ng was
> created for the discussion of corporal punishment and alternative
> parenting practices.
>
> The ng has definitely changed. There was a time when individuals posted
> with the intent of honest debate.
>
And then Doan started pointing out the HOLES in the anti-spanking zealotS
argument. He started asking me if there are any study where the non-cp
alternatives are any better. I can't answer him, especially when he
pointed to the fact that even researcher like Gershoff can't find such
a study. So I, Lying LaVonne, has to resort to lying and my little pooch,
Kane9 -9 = Kane0, hurling insults and vulgarities at anybody who dare to
opposed us. You see, I want to the the emperor and tell other parents
what to do. However, Doan pointed out that not only that I have no
clothe on, but I don't even have a penis! ;-)
Doan
Jeremy James
Thanks for replying. I was hoping to get at least one articulate response.
I noticed that both Kane and LaVonne posted replies even though I made a
point of stating in my original post that I no longer read anything by
either of them, so I hope they didn't invest their time with the expectation
of me reading or even caring what they had to say. I have been a father for
over 8 years now, I spank all three of my children and have spanked other
children as well and the plain simple truth that neither of them can seem to
handle is that spanking is an effective form of discpline. I was spanked as
a child also, I didn't turn to a life of crime, I don't use drugs, my self
esteem is fine, I know my father spanked me because he loved me...blah.
blah, blah and all that other babble that the anti-spanking nazis claim we
are doing to our children. I have said this before but I will state it
again. I have no issues with another parent choosing not to spank his or
her child, that is every parent's individual choice. What I do have an
issue with is people who don't even know me trying to judge me and tell me
how to raise my children. And despite the anti-spanking nazis claims that
spanking is dying out, it is alive and well, and in fact is even regaining
in popularity.
Jeremy
"Doan" <do...@usc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.33.051227...@skat.usc.edu...
pohak...@gmail.com
Jeremy James wrote:
> Doan
>
> Thanks for replying. I was hoping to get at least one articulate response.
You read the screeching monkey and think it was articulate?
> I noticed that both Kane and LaVonne posted replies even though I made a
> point of stating in my original post that I no longer read anything by
> either of them, so I hope they didn't invest their time with the expectation
> of me reading or even caring what they had to say.
No. You just provide "food for thought," so we have some idea where the
"spanking compulsives" are coming from.
Not speaking for LaVonne, but I'd be hard pressed to come up with the
weirdness you folks reveal all on my own.
> I have been a father for
> over 8 years now, I spank all three of my children and have spanked other
> children as well and the plain simple truth that neither of them can seem to
> handle is that spanking is an effective form of discpline.
No, we "handle" it quite well. It's short term compliance with long
term effects you are not going to like. Some children survive it pretty
well (thank goodness for the sturdy and adaptable nature of human
beings) so that you never have to see what results you created. They
just live silently with it, some of them going on to be like you.
Others, however, don't fair so well. You see them in our prisons and
accessing mental health resources, or simply living lives less rich
than they could have been.
> I was spanked as
> a child also, I didn't turn to a life of crime, I don't use drugs, my self
> esteem is fine, I know my father spanked me because he loved me...blah.
> blah, blah and all that other babble that the anti-spanking nazis claim we
> are doing to our children.
Interesting you'd phrase is just that way. I'll bet you use drugs. Just
not illegal ones.
> I have said this before but I will state it
> again. I have no issues with another parent choosing not to spank his or
> her child, that is every parent's individual choice.
Sure you do or you wouldn't be here.
> What I do have an
> issue with is people who don't even know me trying to judge me and tell me
> how to raise my children.
There is not the slightest difference, other than your cowardice,
between you and us. You are judging when you say you don't about other
parent's choices. That is a choice to judge not to judge.
> And despite the anti-spanking nazis
<yawn>
> claims that
> spanking is dying out, it is alive and well, and in fact is even regaining
> in popularity.
Please list for us all the countries of the world that have decided to
bring spanking back as legal and desireable. Then try doing the same of
the state's school systems.
Not also that the last place you'd expect to see a growing movement
against spanking would be from Christians.
You are aware that we just had a visit from someone that declares she's
a Christian EX-spanker, right? She had the courage to work toward a
better way of parenting and seems apparently to hanging in there and
can see explain the issues from a "spankers" perspective.
There are more and more folks like this.
Have you checked out Sue Lawrences page and her campaign to fight the
commercial interests that make a buck off spanking?
I've also watched the longest lived more active group of anti spanking
advocates grow and grow across the country. They appear at school board
meetings, country commissions meetings, wherever they think they will
have an impact...and it is working. Some recent legislation and rulings
are directly tracable to their efforts.
http://parentinginjesusfootsteps.org/
And see also the petition against spanking
http://parentinginjesusfootsteps.org/petition.html 457 names so far.
As for you claim of spanking making a comeback, please.
You are just avoiding the truth by not reviewing the available
material.
A few sad souls that are lost in the compulsions that spanking creates
and perpetuates are trying to get it back in schools, but, you'll
notice, they are not succeeding, while getting it stoped IS succeeding.
And the sentiments of people all over the country are that it should be
stopped.
I used to work, in fact for years, even professionally, to try and
raise the consciousness of people and urging them to make personal
moral choices to stop. I was successful to a considerable degree.
However, I knew that there would be those that could't hear. Those
whose capacity for empathy (the foundation of self determined
conscience) was destroyed, or made disfuntional by their childhood
experience of parental betrayal of them by spanking.
And sadly, the past year I had to move, in good conscience, to the camp
of those that advocate for legal sanctions against spanking.
You will be marked for what you are one day, Jeremy, a criminal that
assaults children. It's happened in other countries and is overdue
here. It's coming now, and it won't be long.
http://www.stophitting.com/disathome/newsletter/EPOCH_Newsletter_2005v1Iss9.pdf
> Jeremy
Doan's comments below are the usual pack of lies he's foisted here for
years.
He does, in fact, the very thing he accuses others of. But then that's
the usual for those poor souls that could not and cannot get over
having been spanked and betrayed by their own parents.
Others, did get over it and move on. Some have even worked toward
reducing the chance other children well be battered and assaulted with
legal protection of the perp....so far.
But that's all changing.
http://www.stophitting.com/disathome/newsletter/EPOCH_Newsletter_2005v1Iss9.pdf
Kane
beccafromlalaland
Jeremy James Wrote:
>
>
> I have been a father for
> over 8 years now, I spank all three of my children and have spanked
> other
> children as well and the plain simple truth that neither of them can
> seem to
> handle is that spanking is an effective form of discpline.
Sure it's effective...but does it have the effect you want in the long
run? Are your children well behaved because they WANT to be, because
they know it's the right thing to do. Or are they well behaved
because they Fear being spanked? And under what athority have you
spanked other children? NO ONE Should EVER strike a child that is not
thier offspring (blood or legal) under ANY circumstances.
Jeremy James Wrote:
> I was spanked as a child also, I didn't turn to a life of crime, I don't
> use drugs, my self esteem is fine, I know my father spanked me because
> he loved me...
I'm intrigued by this "I know my father spanked me because he loved me"
if he loved you why did he hit you? Couldn't he have found a better
more appropriate/effective way of discipline? Striking a child does
not sound like an act of love to me...it sounds like an act of anger.
As for the rest...perhaps you were fortunate enough to have other
things in your life to validate you, make you feel important/valued in
your family. Maybe you were really good in sports or an A+ student so
you didn't have to look inward for your self worth. Perhaps you were
in a stable loving houshold. So you had no need to commit crimes, or
use drugs and your self esteem was fine.
What about kids who come from broken homes, who wonder if they will eat
breakfast in the morning, who don't have anything good going for them,
would you agree that being spanked would only add to their feelings of
self loathing and possibly push them into crime/drugs/etc etc?
Jeremy James Wrote:
> anti-spanking nazis claim we are doing to our children.
First let me just say the flippant use of the word nazi is offensive
and detrimental to the memory of what the REAL Nazis did.
And how do you know you aren't hurting your childs psyche? Can you see
into the future to know what kind of person your child will grow up to
be? Can you predict that they will have great self esteem, won't do
drugs, won't commit a crime? Can you know that when they grow up they
will believe that you spanked them out of love? Or is that just a lie
you tell yourself so you can feel justified in striking a defensless
child?
Jeremy James Wrote:
> And despite the anti-spanking nazis claims that
> spanking is dying out, it is alive and well, and in fact is even
> regaining
> in popularity.
>
> Jeremy
>
>
Again with the nazi statement. Spanking is dying out whether you want
to believe it or not. Are you aware that the American Academy of
Pediatrics no longer condones corporal punishment? Are you aware that
spanking is no longer a part of Parenting classes?
--
beccafromlalaland
Carlson LaVonne
Jeremy James wrote:
> Doan
>
> Thanks for replying. I was hoping to get at least one articulate response.
> I noticed that both Kane and LaVonne posted replies even though I made a
> point of stating in my original post that I no longer read anything by
> either of them, so I hope they didn't invest their time with the expectation
> of me reading or even caring what they had to say.
As other readers who have a better grasp on the dynamics of a ng might
realize, one does not simply respond to a poster for his/her benefit.
Posts and responses are read by anyone who chooses to either actively
participate in the ng or simply read posts and responses. Whether or
not Jeremy reads my posts is simply irrelevant!
I have been a father for
> over 8 years now, I spank all three of my children and have spanked other
> children as well and the plain simple truth that neither of them can seem to
> handle is that spanking is an effective form of discpline.
How proud Jeremy must be. He not only hits his own children in the name
of discipline, but other people's children as well. I had to chuckle
when I read that neither Kane nor I can seem to handle that spanking is
an effective form of discipline. What we have both handled successfully
is parenting that doesn't resort to hitting and hurting a child. I'd
say we have both handled the issue quite well.
I was spanked as
> a child also, I didn't turn to a life of crime, I don't use drugs, my self
> esteem is fine, I know my father spanked me because he loved me...blah.
> blah, blah and all that other babble that the anti-spanking nazis claim we
> are doing to our children. I have said this before but I will state it
> again. I have no issues with another parent choosing not to spank his or
> her child, that is every parent's individual choice. What I do have an
> issue with is people who don't even know me trying to judge me and tell me
> how to raise my children. And despite the anti-spanking nazis claims that
> spanking is dying out, it is alive and well, and in fact is even regaining
> in popularity.
I certainly would question Jeremy's self-esteem. Most individuals with
a healthy sense of self have little need to resort to name calling and
disrespectful behavior. Children who were not parented with respect
tend to become adults who lack respectful behavior. Jeremy appears to
be a classic case of a hurt child who has become an adult that hurts
children and disrespects adults who disagree with him.
I'd like to thank Jeremy for making an excellent case for not spanking
children.
LaVonne
Carlson LaVonne
beccafromlalaland wrote:
> Jeremy James Wrote:
>
>>
>>I have been a father for
>>over 8 years now, I spank all three of my children and have spanked
>>other
>>children as well and the plain simple truth that neither of them can
>>seem to
>>handle is that spanking is an effective form of discpline.
>
>
> Sure it's effective...but does it have the effect you want in the long
> run? Are your children well behaved because they WANT to be, because
> they know it's the right thing to do. Or are they well behaved
> because they Fear being spanked? And under what athority have you
> spanked other children? NO ONE Should EVER strike a child that is not
> thier offspring (blood or legal) under ANY circumstances.
It's always effective in the short turn. Children aren't stupid. When
they are being hit by someone two, three, or four times their size, they
will comply in the presence of the hitter. So the disciplinary hitter,
in his/her short term view of guidance and discipline, thinks the
hitting "worked." In the mind of this individual, spanking worked!
No one should have the authority to strike children under any
circumstances. Children deserve the right to live without fear of
physical assault, just as adults have the right to live without fear of
physical assault.
Thanks for your posts.
LaVonne
Doan
> No one should have the authority to strike children under any
> circumstances. Children deserve the right to live without fear of
> physical assault, just as adults have the right to live without fear of
> physical assault.
>
And yes, the police can strike you with a baton and it would not be
considered physical assault according to the anti-spanking zealotS.
Or the police can jolt children as young as SIX-YEAR OLDs and
anti-spanking zealotS would defend it as SAFE! Logic and the
anti-spanking zealotS... are they mutually exclusive? ;-)
Doan
pohak...@gmail.com
now at your favorite computer monitor. R R R R R R
Doan wrote:
>
> And yes, the police can strike you with a baton and it would not be
> considered physical assault according to the anti-spanking zealotS.
> Or the police can jolt children as young as SIX-YEAR OLDs and
> anti-spanking zealotS would defend it as SAFE! Logic and the
> anti-spanking zealotS... are they mutually exclusive? ;-)
>
> Doan
Doan
LIES and personal insults, that's all that the anti-spanking zealotS
are good for, just as Jeremy noted.
Doan
pohak...@gmail.com
Opinions
Often they were mistreated as children and never got over it. Anytime
they are confronted with a parent who does not agree with their
extremist point of view, painful memories emerge from their childhood.
The angry child within lashes out at the new proxy parent in their
life. Much like antisocial children, no-spanks take great delight in
antagonizing parents who do not cater to their whim. Whether in person
or in a newsgroup, trying to communicate to a no-spank is much like
trying to talk to a grizzly that feels cornered.
pohak...@gmail.com
Opinions wrote:
> Deep inside, older no-spanks are usually very wrath-filled people.
What an odd speculation.
> Often they were mistreated as children and never got over it.
I venture that no one every really get's over it.
> Anytime
Absolutes...hmmm...what could that mean, I wonder?
> they are confronted with a parent who does not agree with their
> extremist point of view,
It's extremist to not want children hit? What would non-extremist be?
To want them hit?
> painful memories emerge from their childhood.
Pure, refined, Maple Projection. No Additives or Extenders.
> The angry child within lashes out at the new proxy parent in their
> life.
Funny, you and monkeyboy seem to be the best examples here. Yet we have
no desire to be your parent, proxy or otherwise. And you've misused the
term "proxy,' in this context.
> Much like antisocial children, no-spanks take great delight in
> antagonizing parents who do not cater to their whim.
I'm sure it's just horrible for you to have your assualtive behaviors
pointed out to you. I'll try to be more gentle next time. Really, I
will. Really.
> Whether in person
> or in a newsgroup, trying to communicate to a no-spank is much like
> trying to talk to a grizzly that feels cornered.
Hmmm....feeling that threatened are you? Now what would that indicate?
Oh, I know.
That you have good reason to feel that way. You and those like you
will, in the not too distant future (and already if they are teachers
in some states), face fines, and possible imprisonment for assualting
children. The rubric of "spanking" is not going to continue fooling
anyone, and even your delusional denying selves will have to face it
when look up at the judge on the bench. Spanking will be seen as what
it is not...that you claim it is, "discipline."
The word has been a place to hide. But no longer. The act you now know
as "spanking" will receive it's proper name: "ASSAULT."
Or you can quit spanking now.
Watching you in your despiration reminds us this isn't an easy task,
and that we need to keep pressing forward.
There are no state laws against spanking, although 27 states have
policies against the practice and this year Pennsylvania has become the
28th. These apply to schools.
One state already has a statute that is more on the side of the child
being protected than the parent's "right" to hit them.
I wonder what would happen to an American parent that was traveling in
one of the countries that ban spanking as criminal and were caught by
authorities spanking their child?
To a child, a parent that hits, is simply a big terrorist.
Eventually they'll get you back, just like YOU are using US as your
surrogate parent.
Poor boy. You go ahead and pour your heart out. We understand.
0:->
kathleen
We were brutalized as kids. My parents were among
the most violent people in the neighborhood. Physical
discipline took place on a daily basis.
But they were *usually* light-weight assaults. A cat of nine tails.
Plenty of pain. No broken bones.
You could call this "the fine art of child abuse."
They were also Church people. Few people knew about
it. I felt vindicated when the gym teacher asked my brother
(in the 1960s) if he wanted to press charges when he
saw the welts.
Jim knew such an action would bring even more welts.
And the violence wasn't just about the violence, you know?
The other family in our neighborhood who was high-ranking
for violence used a baseball bat.
I think it is regrettable that people think child abuse is
helpful.
I don't know how they think this is a good thing.
I truly believe it is ignorance, lack of self-control,
and in especially our case, I can tell you no one was ever
"bad" enough to deserve a beating. I think there was a lot
of transferred hatred going on there. Anger towards the
spouse, running both ways, was taken out on the kids.
For example, my sister was LOUD a lot. This was a
definitely a crime in that house.
I had the good fortune of being naturally quiet.
In modern times being banished to the bedroom, or some
assignment of toil, with exclusion of some desirable activity
seems so much more logical.
Nobody, none of my siblings, ever got over this abuse.
And when my brother was killed when he 18, my father deeply
regretted his tactics. Then *he* never got over it. I never
saw the man cry before in my life or since. And the extreme
abuse towards this boy was what the tears were about.
Now he knows he, alone, should not have felt so guilty.
'Because of the beatings that when on when Dad wasn't
there. That's when the assaults were no longer what you
could call "light-weight."
These are church people. 'Wouldn't think of missing a
Holy Day of Obligation. Small time hypocrites, I imagine
you could call them.
Look at what Bush has done.
There are a lot of variables to this equation, obviously, and your
kid is your kid, but anyone who says violence is a good way
to raise kids is very, very ignorant- I would declare that ignorance is
primary.
But it's when ignorance and pure hatred combine, in my opinion,
that you can't expect a good outcome. It's hard to *find* or see
this hatred, because usually the abusers do a better job of explaining
why the kid deserved it, than the kid explaining why he didn't.
And Mom and Dad pay the Psychiatrist's bills. If the Psychiatrist
says "STOP ABUSING THE KID," the parents will simply take
the child to someone else who agrees to see the kid as the
problem.
Once in a while the kid *is* the problem 1% of the time in females
and 6% of the time in males. Therefore it's a better bet that
the parents are not telling the whole story.
It seems that only the people who did not survive a violent
childhood think physical discipline is a good idea. Maybe it's
a function of orders of magnitude.
The current social era suffers an undeniable dearth of love
and an undeniable excessive degree of violence in the media.
We are a violent nation, no doubt about it.
Note also that there isn't an entry in the DSM for "SURVIVED
INSANELY VIOLENT PARENTS." The victim gets the assignment
of the "mental illness" diagnosis. So we can thank the APA
for serving their own ends and their clear lack of success in helping
people, across the board.
Remember Freud started out with the premise that his "hysterical"
patients were victims of childhood sexual abuse. Later this became
the notion that these women were "sexually repressed," because the
fathers of these abused women were not fond of the notion of
being discovered to be the cause of the "hysteria."
Freud even performed nasal surgery on a woman because somehow
he thought the nose was connected to the... libido? I kid you not.
Anyway, "blame the victim," seems to be the perceptual framework
of psychiatry and that is probably why we are still having this
discussion today. It's the lack of love, and things don't appear
to be taking a course for a correction.
"BRING EM ON!!!"
That's our fearless leader- George W. AWOL during the Swift
Boat Years Bush.
Anyone who thinks violent discipline of children is a good idea
should experience it themselves. Tie the person down. Face
down. Get a cat of nine tails... Then throw them in a cage for
a while until the evidence of the welts is gone.
Then, when the person complains, everyone together say the
abusee is lying.
Repeat...
Kathleen
Jeremy James
the old saying "My mind is made up so don't confuse me with the facts".
They are so determined to be right that anyone that dares to have a
different opinion infuriates them. Yes, I choose spanking as a form of
disclipline for my children as a lot of parents do. That is my decision to
make, not the government's and certainly not anyone else's either. If
another parent chooses NOT to use spanking as a form of disclipline, that is
their decision to make. I would never question another parent's decision
not to use it, and no one has any place questioning my decisions. If the
parents of my children's friends have choosen to allow me to spank their
child while that child is at my house, then again that is those individuals'
decision to make and no one elses. So once again...I am NOTopposed to
another parent's decision to not use spanking, what I have an issue with is
people trying to tell me how to raise my children. Yes, this is a news
group and you have a right to state your opinion. Debating an issue means
to view it from all angles, not attacking the other person.
"Opinions" <opinionsare...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1136238646....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jeremy James
that people confuse these two issues. There is no "fine line" between
spanking and abuse, there is a broad valley. Spanking is a loving and
effective form of disclipline. Abuse is cruel and a criminal act. Hitting
a child with an impliment such as a cat-of-nine-tails is definetely abuse.
If you are leaving bruises, welts or anything like that it is abusive.
"kathleen" <kathleen...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:1136286377.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
pohak...@gmail.com
Jeremy James wrote:
> Yes of course you are welcome to join the discussion. It is unfortionate
> that people confuse these two issues. There is no "fine line" between
> spanking and abuse, there is a broad valley.
It's the easiest thing in the world to define the difference by using
two extremes. There is a fine line, Jeremy. And those that claim they
know where it is are unable to describe it except in the morally
questionable terms you just did.
But more important, the line is variable. It moves. According to
circumstances. The child, the parent, the relationship. Health. The
events. The desired outcomes. The mental state of both parties. The
culture. Each of these have some variation in theselves, for each
involved individual.
Of course parents who spank, such as yourself, can claim they don't
abuse, but we know, but interviewing grownups that were "spanked" that
this is simply rationalization.
> Spanking is a loving and
> effective form of disclipline.
Then why do you not use it on your wife when she needs to learn
something? How is it that teachers have successfully given it up in the
discipline of learning and teaching?
> Abuse is cruel and a criminal act.
Yes, it certainly is. Is it abusive to hit anyone not a child? Is it
abusive to hit and animal? Is it criminal to hit anyone not a child, an
animal?
WE don't really need to debate you on this, Jeremy. For YOU have the
answers yourself if you use logic, and facts.
> Hitting
> a child with an impliment such as a cat-of-nine-tails is definetely abuse.
> If you are leaving bruises, welts or anything like that it is abusive.
I see every day arguments to the contrary, even legal ones, where
judges have decided that leaving marks is perfectly okay. That is why
we need laws, Jeremey; because even judges can't judge.
You have such strong opinions for someone so rigorously ignorant. I
think the capacity to delude one's self may one day be traced right
back to childhood trauma, like having the person who holds your life in
their hands, that you are so vulnerable to, that you love and who says
loves you, hits you.
The paradox doesn't escape the child the first time or two, but too
retain one's life, the love of and for the parent, the child then must
somehow detach from the reality of love equating with pain.
You are deluded, Jeremey. And I'm sorry your parents "loved" you in
this way, and that you are perpetuating this on your chidlren.
Ask yourself this. If you saw a man hitting his wife and asked why and
he said he was doing it out of love for her, would you not wonder if
he was deluded?
You have to live with this, Jeremey and to preserve your delusion that
hitting=love, you should have never come here. Or is it that you are
looking to actually love your children and want to be talked out of
this delusion of yours? Stop hitting them Jeremey.
However, since you never read anything that LaVonne or I post you'll
never see this and our children will continue to have the strange
delusion that hitting euals love delivered to them and then to their
children. And along the way humans will suffer because you could not
break the cycle as so many others have.
Kane
SRplus
I've seen your posts on other ng's and I agree w/you. But this is a
foster parenting group wherein your trip is an ancillary concern.
Also, fighting for no-spanking is like F!@%^#&^ for abstinence.
0;->
What is there about an "ancillary concern" to foster parenting that
would make this subject unsuitable for the foster parenting group?
May I presume that the last line refers to "fighting" for no-spank is
using the tactics of the spanker?
Yes, you noticed.
Pacifism works with those who are moral, ethical, and have a limited
self delusion.
It should have become apparent to me long ago that spankers are not in
that category. No fault of their own, for the most part.
If you have something to contribute?
I understand foster parents are restrained from spanking and the
children they parent usually have been before. Folks with such
experience might have a lot to offer on this subject.
Or were you just trolling?
0:->
Opinions
child or a childless idealist dazzled with a utopian dream. They often
have a heavily alternative mindset. Many are aging antiestablishment
flower children. Others have acquired some higher education and think
themselves in the mold of some latter day Lord Byron with his
condescending view of the common man.
In many ways no-spanks are snake oil peddlers. Mankind is infected
with the disease of spanking for they have the cure - for a price. The
new bottle of elixir is a course, a book, a counselor, or a degree.
Implied promises abound. Like mythical Lake Woebegone, all children
will be above average. Wars will cease. Crime will disappear. Of
course, ask for a written guarantee for these hollow promises and
no-spanks will rapidly back peddle as they hurl invectives.
pohak...@gmail.com
You've accused me of claiming you are a former poster you claim you
are not. That it's typical of antispank folks to make such accusations.
Let's establish this clearly...you are lil 'o' and observer.
Stop lying about it. Note the three posts that turned up when I
searched the aps ng:
To raise superior kids--move to Sweden
"Clearly all concerned parents should move to Sweden to ensure that
their child
is 'above average.'" It might be easier to just move to Lake Woebegone
Oct 21 2001, 11:36 am by observer - 6 messages - 3 authors
Answered Question
... Of course, what I really love is the Lake Woebegone way of putting
local school
districts above the national average in high stakes standardized
testing. ...
Sep 28 2001, 2:50 am by observer - 168 messages - 18 authors
What has hapenned to this group?
... Implied promises abound. Like mythical Lake Woebegone, all children
will
be above average. Wars will cease. Crime will disappear. ...
Jan 3, 11:25 am by Opinions - 28 messages - 8 authors"
Just a coincidence? R R R R R
Now for the fun of it, let's look at your post, and Jeremey's to see
all the logical fallacy and disinformation you both have posted.
Opinions wrote:
> Scratch a no-spank and there is a good chance of finding either a hurt
> child or a childless idealist dazzled with a utopian dream.
Yes, that certainly fits your new name, observer. Just an opinion. Or
possibly you can collect a series of posts from us and point out where
we are "dazzled" or have a "utopian dream?"
Frankly everyone can see you are reduced to frantic babbling.
So just how "good" is a "good chance," eh?
My own experience with both spanked children and unspanked children and
the adults each has grown into show you have it backward. The spanked
were in treatment centers, jails, and sadly, a few graveyards.
The unspanked...which I've never found in a single mental health
facility...and I've been professionally involved with many, nor once in
a single jail, and I've done various services in those settings. Not
once, lil 'o'
> They often
> have a heavily alternative mindset.
"Heavily alternative mindset?" What is that I wonder?
They don't believe in hitting kids so they are out of the mainstream? R
R R R R
> Many are aging antiestablishment
> flower children.
Odd, I'm a conservative that defends the "establishment" to the point
I'm often labled as being an apologist by the opposition. Yet, here I
am, with decades of experience with the establishment, and especially
around child and families issues, and a moderate conservative. I'm anti
Drug, (and an activist), pro Homeschooling, (and an activist) and just
an all around well rounded guy.
> Others have acquired some higher education
My goodness. You graduated only 7th grade then? What is it about
education that bothers you so, lil ~'o'? Afraid of facts and
information and logic?
> and think
> themselves in the mold of some latter day Lord Byron with his
> condescending view of the common man.
Nothing in this post so far but ad hom, lil~'o' not a thing.
> In many ways no-spanks are snake oil peddlers.
No, we are what came after the snake oil peddlers. You spanking
compulsives are right out of the middleages, and we are the civilized
that came after you.
> Mankind is infected
> with the disease of spanking for they have the cure - for a price.
I've posted lots of information here, and I'm always available. Ever
seen me put up a fee schedule?
Heck, you can google up non-punitive child rearing information on the
Web, and join groups that support each other in finding ways to parent
without hitting. I'm a member of one of them, and advisor to many
others. So far, not a nickel have I earned.
> The
> new bottle of elixir is a course, a book, a counselor, or a degree.
> Implied promises abound.
Naw, and in fact what's most surprising to folks is that so much of it
is attitude, that they can recall some of the relatives having, like
grandmas. Gentleness, support, guidance, giving up force and obsessive
controlling.
> Like mythical Lake Woebegone, all children
> will be above average.
Odd, I've seen that somewhere before, I think. R R R R R R
But you are right on this one. If all the children of the world were
raised gently without having to fear pain and humiliation as they tried
to learn, this would be a peaceful world. In fact that's a common
characteristic of the adults I know that were not spanked as children.
They are gentle.
> Wars will cease. Crime will disappear.
Probably, or very near to zero. But then, we are a long way from
getting the entire world on board here....but notice the progress. So
many countries that have outlawed spanking.
> Of
> course, ask for a written guarantee for these hollow promises
What promises? No promises were made.
> and
> no-spanks will rapidly back peddle as they hurl invectives.
I'll tell you what, I'll draw up a list of promises I'll post right
here, a few days after you or any one of you compulsives posts your
guarantee for the effectiveness of spanking.
After all, that's what this ng is about, no?
Now let's see how he who never reads my posts but oddly manages to
coincidently respond to things in them fares with a little simple
critical thinking and analysis.
>
> Jeremy James wrote:
> > That's a good analogy. The 'no spank radicals'
No, a radical would seek you out and beat you to a bloody pulp if they
caught you hitting a child. We are peaceful and just use words. Or are
you haven't a fantasy?
> > on this group remind me of
> > the old saying "My mind is made up so don't confuse me with the facts".
You got to be kidding. The major arguments for spanking are solidly
based on that mindset.
"I turned out okay," "spanking is not abuse," "............" the
silence there is for all the times facts have been presented and
ignored.
> > They are so determined to be right that anyone that dares to have a
> > different opinion infuriates them.
Actually some of us differ with each other. It took two years posting
here and lifetime of observations to finally decide you folks are too
warped to be fixed by persuasion and I moved to the same position I
disagreed with LaVonne about.....that there needs to be law to back up
banning the practice of assaulting children under the banner of
"spanking them with love."
> > Yes, I choose spanking as a form of
> > disclipline for my children as a lot of parents do. That is my decision to
> > make, not the government's and certainly not anyone else's either.
And if you should choose starvation, death, beatings, would that not be
of interest to 'the government?" We, all of us in this country,
Jeremey, are "the government." And we say no, you may not hit your
child anymore and call it love.
And we are going to win. You can see it in the trends if you have the
intelligence to look at data and believe in the facts presented.
More and more countries have done it, even Canada with a long tradition
of BEATING under law now has it so restricted there's hardly anything
left to hit and call it spanking.
> > If
> > another parent chooses NOT to use spanking as a form of disclipline, that is
> > their decision to make.
Oh I see. And if another parent choses trail by fire that's okay too?
> > I would never question another parent's decision
> > not to use it, and no one has any place questioning my decisions.
Well of course, and you should question someone choosing not to hurt
their child. But you are wrong about "no one has any place questioning
my decisions." Of you really believed that you wouldn't be here
defending them. Your decisions that is.
And unless you live on a desert island in your own country, or you live
in a country that allows members of it's society to be beaten then no,
you cannot stop us from interferring in your decision to risk making
another misfit in OUR society. Everytime you hit, and for all the times
between you child fears you, even if they say nothing, the potential to
make a criminal, or a mental patient goes up, and up, and up.
You want to be a thug, and treat your children like thugs, go find your
own planet.
> > If the
> > parents of my children's friends have choosen to allow me to spank their
> > child while that child is at my house, then again that is those individuals'
> > decision to make and no one elses.
I wonder at your obtuseness. You live in a litigenous society. That
child could sue you one day, and the chances are better all the time.
Expecially when we add civil penalties to the new banning law. 0:->
YOu can be sure they'll be there. We aren't wimpy like the Swedes.
> > So once again...I am NOTopposed to
> > another parent's decision to not use spanking,
If you really believed spanking was a superior, and much needed tool
for child rearing, why would you not be opposed to others not spanking?
Aren't they then harming their children, and according to some, putting
violent children out in society to run amuck?
You don't care about society, and the safety of yourself and your
family in it? Imagine all those wildeyed, violent, acting out,
unspanked children running around out there doing crime...tsk.
> > what I have an issue with is
> > people trying to tell me how to raise my children.
Easy cure. Just leave society. Don't let your kids ever leave the
house. Or find your own country or planet where people agree with you,
or you are alone.
Here, you have to put up with us. And we are gonna getcha, trust me.
> > Yes, this is a news
> > group and you have a right to state your opinion.
Boy, you have no idea what a relief that is. Thanks.
> > Debating an issue means
> > to view it from all angles, not attacking the other person.
You might hurt lil 'o's feelings if you criticize his posting habits
like that, JJ.
The lengths compulsives will go to to protect themselves from reality
still, after all these years, and an extensive background in mental
health, with a strong grounding in learning theory and methods, amazes
the hell out me. I should know and expect you to be stuck where you
are, but reality seems to escape you, no matter what.
It's as though you hold a light in front of them yet they are so deeply
imbedded in the delusion smacked into them as a child they frantically
declare, "it's dark in here."
Why can't you spank your child when he's one day older than 17 years,
364 days old?
That there should even have to be a law is proof of the madness you
folks have been involved in for all these centuries of drinking your
own snake oil.
When you spank your child her heart hurts. No matter if she smiles and
you feel good.
And, you are a coward to hit someone that cannot fight back.
Of course one day...............................
Kane
beccafromlalaland
Jeremy James Wrote:
> Yes of course you are welcome to join the discussion. It is
> unfortionate
> that people confuse these two issues. There is no "fine line" between
> spanking and abuse, there is a broad valley. Spanking is a loving and
> effective form of disclipline. Abuse is cruel and a criminal act.
> Hitting
> a child with an impliment such as a cat-of-nine-tails is definetely
> abuse.
> If you are leaving bruises, welts or anything like that it is abusive.
>
>
Lets look at this in a non personal view. Lets say Joe Shmoe is
stopped by police. Joe is a bit tipsy and resists arrest. So the Cop
Smacks Joe. Now Joe wants to press charges of Police Brutality/
Excessive Force. Sure a smack isn't as bad as being beaten with a
stick or kicked...but it's still Excessive Force (that means not
necessary) and that Police Officer would be reprimanded and Joe would
be given some sort of token to appease his anger.
Spanking is Excessive Force. You can gain compliance without using
physical aggression...it's been proven to work time and time again by
us "radicals"
If Spanking is so loving why don't you go Smack your Wife on the bottom
when she goes over the Grocery budget for the week.
Since you obviously don't spank with an Implement because Implement =
Abuse, the you strike your children with the same hands that tuck them
in at night, the same hands that wipe away tears, blow noses, The hands
that are mean to show love...and I'm sure your hands have never left
bright red imprints on little kid skin. Because leaving a mark =
Abuse.
--
beccafromlalaland
Jeremy James
suspect relates to a parent taking care of a child. I am not saying that
your opinion is wrong, just that I disagree with it. This is, after all, a
discussion board and we are discussing a topic. Spanking is not excessive
if used correctly, and yes you can gain compliance without hitting in some
cases. I do not feel that spanking should be used in all cases of child
disobedience nor as a first line of defense. I use lesser means of
disclipline and then spanking only if the lesser means do not work. For
example I will use cornertime or time out, when given the lesser punishment,
the child is warned that is the misbehavior is continued they will be
getting a spanking. Sometimes it works and the child decides to behave.
For times that it doesn't, I then raise the level of the consequence. It is
pointless to go from one lower level punishment to another. If you give
cornertime and the child continues to misbehave so you then give a time
out...you are waisting time, the child obviously does not intend to stop or
change what they are doing. There are only a few exceptions where I will
skip any lower punishments and go directly to a spanking. And yes, I
believe that a child show know that the same hand that can offer a warm
touch or tenderly wipe away a tear can also be firm and make their little
backsides red and stinging. And yes, their little bottoms are quite red
when I am finished. A spanking is meant to be unpleasant. Spanking is not
a means of communication, not a way to simply win an argument, it is
punishment.
"beccafromlalaland" <beccafromlal...@news.parentingbanter.com>
wrote in message news:beccafromlal...@news.parentingbanter.com...
cathryn
two bobs worth:
Violence against children is never okay, under any circumstances, ever.
Discipline is a virtue; violence is a crime- and the two are completely
seperate actions. It's completely possible to teach discipline without
violence.
We have laws against hitting other adults: those laws should extend
their reach to protect children at least as well as they protect
adults.
Violence against children is simply doing what was done unto us.... it
doesn't require any intelligence to hit a child. It does however
require intelligence to understand why we do it, and how we might teach
discipline without resorting to violence.
Cathryn
toto
wrote:
>I'm not sure I understand where this thread has come from but .... my
>two bobs worth:
>
The thread was x-posted from alt.parenting.spanking which is a group
that discusses spanking and is mostly US participants.
>Violence against children is never okay, under any circumstances, ever.
>Discipline is a virtue; violence is a crime- and the two are completely
>seperate actions. It's completely possible to teach discipline without
>violence.
>
>We have laws against hitting other adults: those laws should extend
>their reach to protect children at least as well as they protect
>adults.
>
Many people in the US don't believe that such laws are a good thing.
>Violence against children is simply doing what was done unto us.... it
>doesn't require any intelligence to hit a child. It does however
>require intelligence to understand why we do it, and how we might teach
>discipline without resorting to violence.
>
I agree with you. Spanking (and, in fact, punishment itself) is
unnecessary and mostly unproductive in terms of teaching self-
discipline.
Those who claim that parents who don't spank resort to other
forms of punishment have never seen a truly non-punitive, positive
parenting family. It is difficult to give up what our parents did,
but if we are to progress to a truly peaceful society, we need to
give up on violence by individuals *and* by the state.
>Cathryn
--
Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
The Outer Limits
Doan
On 4 Jan 2006, cathryn wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand where this thread has come from but .... my
> two bobs worth:
>
> Violence against children is never okay, under any circumstances, ever.
> Discipline is a virtue; violence is a crime- and the two are completely
> seperate actions. It's completely possible to teach discipline without
> violence.
>
You are lumping everything into a single pile. Is jolting a SIX-YEAR
OLD with 50,000 volt taser gun ok?
> We have laws against hitting other adults: those laws should extend
> their reach to protect children at least as well as they protect
> adults.
>
And yet the police carry guns and batons!
> Violence against children is simply doing what was done unto us.... it
> doesn't require any intelligence to hit a child. It does however
> require intelligence to understand why we do it, and how we might teach
> discipline without resorting to violence.
>
You might want to read up on some studies first. Try to find one that
compare spanking to non-cp alternatives under the same conditions.
Doan
> Cathryn
>
>
0;->
screeching dancing monkeyboy?
0:->
Doan
Have you ever seen the LIES propagated by this "never-spanked" boy?
Do you know that this "never-spanked" boy called other women "smelly-cunt"
and proudly proclaim that his mother approved of it?
Doan
0;->
Dance, monkeyboy, dance.
Opinions
reality that gun control does not equal a reduction in crime. Liberals
tend to promise utopia in much the same way that preachers do. The end
result in both cases is usually a loss of freedom to think for one's
self. Guns are a favorite target. In time, so will sharp pointed
knives. To name a few items: Powdered soap, mercurochrome, certain
types of matches, fertilizers and other useful garden chemicals have
quietly disappeared from store shelves. It's not just DDT anymore.
Where the products cannot be banned outright, liberals want to plaster
big warning labels like those found on Canadian cigarettes. It time,
everything will be safe and useless. When that happens, the safety at
any cost movement will disappear as well.
Opinions
cathryn
>OLD with 50,000 volt taser gun ok?
Yes I am. Violence against children is not okay. Period.
>And yet the police carry guns and batons!
I believe the name of this group is alt.support.foster-PARENTS. The
discussion relates to the name of the group. I don't know any parents
who carry guns and batons (though there probably are some).
>You might want to read up on some studies first. Try to find one that
>compare spanking to non-cp alternatives under the same conditions.
I don't need to. My five children (aged between 14 & 27) plus the many
I've fostered is enough proof for me. Kids needs love and discipline;
and violence (yes, spanking is violence) is antithetical to both of
these.
Cathryn.
pohak...@gmail.com
Opinions wrote:
> Many no-spanks are verbally abusive.
Of course and so are you compulsives. It's human. I don't try to use
basic human nature as a debating point against you. Why do you try to
use it on me? Because you have nothing else?
You need to have someone proof your posts for name calling observer.
They are as loaded with name calling now as they ever where, before you
became, "Opinion."
Feel free to be as abusive as you always have been. You lead off almost
every paragraph with ad hom, or hadn't you notice?
0:->
pohak...@gmail.com
Opinions wrote:
> Increasingly the propaganda against guns is being confronted with the
> reality that gun control does not equal a reduction in crime.
"Increasingly?" Hell I've been debating this for five years now.
Nothing very different has shown up. We've known for a long time that
gun control does not equate with crime control.
> Liberals
> tend to promise utopia in much the same way that preachers do.
You confuse yourself. It's preachers that are often not liberals and
this has almost nothing to do with spanking, not even as a decent
analogy.
> The end
> result in both cases is usually a loss of freedom to think for one's
> self.
Contention REDUCES thinking? R R R R ....yah got's tah be kiddin'
> Guns are a favorite target.
I presume, given how humorless you are, that was unintentional. I liked
it and may steal it next time I'm on talk.politics.guns.
> In time, so will sharp pointed
> knives.
Naw. Won't happen. Not to any great extreme. Just sensible control over
the use of them.
>To name a few items: Powdered soap, mercurochrome, certain
> types of matches, fertilizers and other useful garden chemicals have
> quietly disappeared from store shelves.
You know what that's about. But apparently you don't know the
devestation involved with meth. I am on a local meth action committee
and from my mental health days I know the problem. And no, I can get
most of those easily. Mercurochrome though, is out. Too much mercury
showing up in children. Bad juju. Effects brain developlopment. Yer mom
use it much on you?
> It's not just DDT anymore.
> Where the products cannot be banned outright, liberals want to plaster
> big warning labels like those found on Canadian cigarettes. It time,
> everything will be safe and useless.
Now now. Unsafe does not equate with useful, lil 'o'.
Usefullness hasn't a thing to do with safety or the lack thereof.
> When that happens, the safety at
> any cost movement will disappear as well.
Wonderful. Brilliant. Reminds me of those old sayings from ancient Rome
on how our youth were so profligate.
And we are a long long way from things being all that safe. Take our
cars for instance.
Saw a photo yesterday from Portland Oregon, of a little car that had
become disabled and parked just off an on ramp to a freeway. Two people
inside. A Hummer hit them from behind. There wasn't much left but the
engine compartment.
Now I drive an SUV myself, so I'm very careful indeed to give all those
little cars on the road lots of room and keep an eye on them. But then
I like people and society and hope to make it better. It's an empathy
thing probably, and though I suspect it's kept my children from using
their talents in a Donald Trump sort of way, I notice how very caring
they are of others, and how deeply important honor and ethics are to
them. They are still, after all these years. (one's in her early
forties the other late 30s), my teachers.
You are still a captive of the corrupt parenting you had as a child.
Your protector betrayed you. You likely can't remember that first time
but the shock of it does something to a child. Some can weather it, and
some cannot. Those that can still have the capacity to develop a caring
view of their own and socieity. That that cannot weather that first hit
and subsequent ones have a very difficult time acquiring empathy and
the capacity to care and act on that care.
It's the key to being a good human and a good citizen and a productive
member of society...productive in the sense of not endanger it and
helping preserve it.
I wonder of often at the childhoods of the founders of our system. Some
were harsh I know, but I've heard bits and pieces how some were
"spoiled" and indulged.
Look at Washington. You do remember that his father did no beat him for
the cherry tree incident. Hmmmm....what did he know about his father, I
wonder.
No no, don't thank me. Glad to help.
Kane
Opinions
abuse. As you implied, they can even shop counselors until they find
one that agrees with their perspective. Abuse generally begins when
parents are unable to get beyond themselves and their needs.
Mistreatment may be verbal, physical, or psychological. Often the
greatest damage done to children is psychological. Yet, its effects
are difficult to prove until long after the damage is done.
I doubt that George W. Bush was physically abused as a child. More
likely the abuse he received was in never being held accountable for
his actions. Whether it was a drug abuse problem or running a business
venture into the ground, there was always someone around to get him out
of this or that disaster. Paperwork disappeared; witnesses
conveniently forgot. Some individuals reportedly died to save George's
good name. Now, for the first time in his life, there is no one able
to rush to his rescue. Being abandoned by his own political party, he
will be left to twist in the political wind.
In a very tragic way, an overly comfortable lifestyle and the right
family name can be the worst form of abuse for children. George Bush
is not alone in this regard. Michael Skakel (belatedly convicted of
brutally murdering Martha Moxley with a golf club) is a good example.
Even the police made incriminating evidence disappear. They went so
far as to claim the recently arrived tutor did it! Then, that was
nothing new since people had been covering for the Skakels for longer
that Michael had been alive. Michael's cousin Ted Kennedy (who left
Mary Jo Kopechne to drown at Chappaquiddick while he sobered up) is
another example. What should have been at least a manslaughter
conviction disappeared in the crocodile tears of a mea culpa plea on
national television.
The good news is that physical abuse is often more easily spotted than
other form of ill-treatment. The bad news is that other forms of abuse
are not so easily spotted until someone dies.
0;->
Opinions wrote:
> Abuse takes many forms. Truly bad parents can turn anything into
> abuse. As you implied, they can even shop counselors until they find
> one that agrees with their perspective. Abuse generally begins when
> parents are unable to get beyond themselves and their needs.
> Mistreatment may be verbal, physical, or psychological. Often the
> greatest damage done to children is psychological. Yet, its effects
> are difficult to prove until long after the damage is done.
That is the problem with CP. It has a massive psychological component,
even when it leaves no marks and it's effects are difficult to prove
until long after the damage is done.
> I doubt that George W. Bush was physically abused as a child. More
> likely the abuse he received was in never being held accountable for
> his actions.
Nonsense. His mother was a domineering control freak who in fact washed
his mouth out with soap, according to him and his brother. She herself
was harshly beaten by her own mother when a child, both with a
hairbrush and clothes hanger. In those days clothes hangers were heavy
wood.
> Whether it was a drug abuse problem or running a business
> venture into the ground, there was always someone around to get him out
> of this or that disaster.
Typical behavior of a child subjected to childhood trauma by their own
parent.
> Paperwork disappeared; witnesses
> conveniently forgot. Some individuals reportedly died to save George's
> good name.
Really? You have a habit, and always have, lil 'o', of making
outlandish and in this case slanderous claims, without anything to back
them up. Would you care to change that to, "it's my opinion," or are
you willing to provide that proof?
> Now, for the first time in his life, there is no one able
> to rush to his rescue. Being abandoned by his own political party, he
> will be left to twist in the political wind.
Nonsense. He still has his family all around him, though given what
I've read, and will happily cite, should you request it, AFTER YOU HAVE
HONORED MY REQUEST TO SITE YOUR SOURCE AS ABOVE, instances of and
claims that she in fact did use CP on her sons.
> In a very tragic way, an overly comfortable lifestyle and the right
> family name can be the worst form of abuse for children. George Bush
> is not alone in this regard. Michael Skakel (belatedly convicted of
> brutally murdering Martha Moxley with a golf club) is a good example.
> Even the police made incriminating evidence disappear. They went so
> far as to claim the recently arrived tutor did it! Then, that was
> nothing new since people had been covering for the Skakels for longer
> that Michael had been alive. Michael's cousin Ted Kennedy (who left
> Mary Jo Kopechne to drown at Chappaquiddick while he sobered up) is
> another example. What should have been at least a manslaughter
> conviction disappeared in the crocodile tears of a mea culpa plea on
> national television.
I do hope you aren't going to try and claim these are unspanked people.
You are going to be very disappointed it you actually look it up.
> The good news is that physical abuse is often more easily spotted than
> other form of ill-treatment. The bad news is that other forms of abuse
> are not so easily spotted until someone dies.
Yep, that's bad news. However, worse news is that a great deal of what
is claimed to fall well within the confines of "spanking with love"
turns out to have long term negative consequences.
Don't ask for citations, of course, unless you are willing to
reciprocate.
0:->
kathleen
Thank you. Good report and good insight.
The main problem is that Psychiatry is about abusing
the abused, as is DCF. Neither can make any money if
the victim is not defined as the perp.
Even if you don't abuse your children, the abusive grandparents
can seek to destroy their children by destroying and harming
their grandchildren. (False DCF allegations).
Some people never let go of their victims. This is the definition
of sociopath.
My own "mother" invented for me that I showed up at her
house and "threatened to slit my own throat."
She made that up entirely in her own clearly very sick head.
Throats were always her main theme.
Now my kids are with this maniac, who also told the DCF
that I threatened to kill my own kids.
http://actionlyme.org/THE_REAL_DON_DICKSON.htm
Kids who I clearly attempted to keep safe from this maniac.
DCF knows this. They gave my kids to that maniac on purpose.
Kathleen
Doan
On 4 Jan 2006, cathryn wrote:
> >You are lumping everything into a single pile. Is jolting a SIX-YEAR
> >OLD with 50,000 volt taser gun ok?
>
> Yes I am. Violence against children is not okay. Period.
>
And this makes you sound like a zealot instead of a rational individual.
> >And yet the police carry guns and batons!
>
> I believe the name of this group is alt.support.foster-PARENTS. The
> discussion relates to the name of the group. I don't know any parents
> who carry guns and batons (though there probably are some).
>
And the group I am posting from is alt.parenting.spanking! There are
also other groups that this thread got crossposted to. Just as the
police has authority to use force, parents has the authority to
spank their kids.
> >You might want to read up on some studies first. Try to find one that
> >compare spanking to non-cp alternatives under the same conditions.
>
> I don't need to. My five children (aged between 14 & 27) plus the many
> I've fostered is enough proof for me. Kids needs love and discipline;
> and violence (yes, spanking is violence) is antithetical to both of
> these.
>
I see. You mind is already made up so don't confuse you with facts.
Spanking has been used by parents or generations, accross cultures,
religions and race. Many children have grown up to be exceptional
individuals (e.g Martin Luther King and Mother Theresa). Do you
think you are better than BILLIONS of other parents who incorporated
spanking into their disciplinary strategy?
Doan
pohak...@gmail.com
children are not criminals that need to be defended against, as police
to..(they may NOT "discipline" with force). And two: yes, she IS better
than BILLIONS of parents that also produced mad men and murderers and
filled our jails to the brime, not to mention mental hospitals and
treatment centers, and CPS offices and foster homes.
Even a dancing Monkeyboy deserves the occasional answer.
But of course she would not know that you have been kicked in the butt
for this very same argument before repeatedly and that that is what
turned you into a screeching, hysterical, dancing, lying monkeyboy.
Parent's teach, and attempt to with spanking. Police do not teach, and
they use force to control a prisoner, presumable many who are
criminals.
Are children criminal suspects?
They will become so if they are spanked. Prison records support that.
cathryn, before you consider debating this fool further, why not bring
up his posting history and see that he is dishonest, lies, continues
the same argument over and over again when he's been roundly defeated
repeated on the issue, and is full of smartass pretense.
He speaks and writes english as well as anyone here, but pretends not.
He's posted a a mexican lady to try and con me out of a copy of study
he claims he has, that he does not and I refuse to debate him until he
does (he even used the name, very slightly changed, for the mexican
"lady" from a well known character, a nun, on the campus where he
works)
This guy is a three dollar bill if ever there was one. He has NO desire
to promote and stand up for EITHER position. He simply pretends so he
can dance (even weasels would laugh), exhibit his hysteria (as a
spanked child), lie for practice (as spanked children often do out of
dread and anticipation), and show the intelligence and emotional
stability of a lab monkey used in pain experiments.
If you wish to waste your time, at least arm yourself, before he does
his "number" on you.
Best wishes, Kane
PS. Doan, this was a freebie. Unless you can come up with something
original, don't expect any more. 0:->
Doan
LOL! Showing your stupidity again. NO ONE is a criminal unless
proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law!
Is your mom still think it's ok to call other women "smelly-cunt",
"never-spanked" boy? ;-)
Doan
0;->
Ron
20,000 years or more of parents correcting inappropriate behaviors by
using natures own behavior modification system. And it has worked. We
are where we are as a species because we use those methods that prove
reliable, and those things that are a natural part of being human. Pain
is the best behavior modifier ever known. It is built into the human
body and we depend on it every minute of every day to tell us when we
are doing something that we should not be doing. It works, period.
Always has, always will. 20,000 years of testing, and while its not
quite perfect, as nothing is, it is effective.
Spanking is one of the tools available to parents. One, of many. As
with anyone who is shaping something, one must use the correct tool at
the proper time to achieve the result wanted. Remove the tool from the
tool box and you either dont get a finnished product or not the one you
intended to make when you started. And not every tool is necessary for
every child. Some tools you may never use, some you may use once, and
some may be required on an ongoing basis.
But, as with anything, corporal punishment has its place and time.
There are times when it is effective, and times when it is
counterproductive. A good parent learns to distinguish between the two,
and apply the best correction technique for the situation. Some people
never learn this subtle lesson, hence we get child abuse or out of
control children. Neither of those is good, for either the child or for
society. No matter one's resons for having children, our society
demands that we do our best to raise them to be responsible members.
When we fail to do so then the child pay's the bulk of the price for
our failure, not us.
As for your having fostered children, well so have I. More than 200 of
them over the last 15 years, well Corporal Punishment is
counterproductive in most cases when dealing with children in the
system. Most of them have already been abused in one way or another,
and could view corporal punishment as an extension of that abuse. The
objective of foster care is to prevent that type of thing, and
therefore corporal punishment is not an option, nor should it be.
I have seen Kane and others here quote studies that say that the vast
number of individuals in our nations prisons come from spanking
households. OK, this may be true, but to pin that group of individuals
criminal behaviors and background on whether their parents spanked them
or not as a child is like saying that someone is a carpenter rather
than a banker because they got toys rather than money for Christmas as
a kid. Both are nonsensical analogies
We can debate the pro's and cons of spanking all we like here. We all
have our opinions one way or the other (and some of us even admit it),
but to state absolutes such as "spanking is violence", or "spanking is
hitting" shows that the individual making that statement does not have
a very good grasp of the concepts or realities of the discussion.
Ron
Doan
Well said!
Doan
Opinions
from children. Difficulties have arisen because there is big money to
be made from expanding the potential pool in a society composed largely
of strangers.
In a highly mobile society, people do not know their neighbors. In the
United States, they don't trust the government and, for the most part.
While it has gone up and down, trust in the national government has
been declining for the past 40 years.
Heavily in debt because of fooling wars, social meddling, glib liberal
promises of a promised land, and heavy doses of conservative
propaganda, government is seen as more problem than solution. This
makes it much easier for those prone to abuse to become foster parents,
child welfare workers, schoolteachers, and assume positions as role
models. Most real abusers play with kids' minds rather than engage in
physical abuse.
When the whole bureaucratic mess collapses, most probably from a lack
of public support, all that will be left is parents and kids. Some of
those parents will be good. Others will be bad. Meanwhile, the world
will continue to go 'round.
Opinions
SRplus wrote:
...fighting for no-spanking is like F!@%^#&^ for abstinence.
Opinions
that might cause or be used for violent purposes. In large measure, it
is very much like the time when the Catholic Church tried to come up
with an appropriate response for every situation encounter by mankind.
It is a task that rivals emptying the ocean with a teacup.
One of the more curious attacks on spanking has been to link it to
Christianity. Some no-spank strategists have used this link to justify
attacks of the religion. Others have thought hijacking the religion a
more appropriate response. Neither will probably solve the problem
since, as various posters on the web have pointed out, spanking is
probably older than the religion.
Another oddity is that even no-spanks often voluntarily concede that
aversive stimuli are effective in deterring unwanted behavior. Links
have been made between grounding and prison. It is also interesting
that, often when no-spanks don't get their way, they become threatening
in their tone. Obviously, they know what bring about results; just
can't bring themselves to admit it.
0;->
RRR, no dimwits.
If you are to be consistent in analogy, it would have to be "hitting
for nonspanking."
Or, "NOT-F!@%^#&^ for abstinence."
You don't really think that nonspankers are spanking for nonspanking,
do you?
This is the level of intelligence and reason we've come to expect
though.
You got hit too many times to high up your butt there lil 'o'
Kane
toto
wrote:
>"spanking is hitting" shows that the individual making that
>statement does not have a very good grasp of the concepts
>or realities of the discussion.
It seems that you are the one who doesn't have a grasp of
reality.
I wish someone would show us how you can spank without
hitting the child.
hitting - the act of contacting one thing with another
in the case of spanking, you are hitting the child with
your hand (or an implement depending on how you
spank). You simply cannot spank without contact. That's
a contradiction in terms.
Doan
> On 8 Jan 2006 08:18:42 -0800, "Ron" <APositi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"spanking is hitting" shows that the individual making that
> >statement does not have a very good grasp of the concepts
> >or realities of the discussion.
>
> It seems that you are the one who doesn't have a grasp of
> reality.
>
> I wish someone would show us how you can spank without
> hitting the child.
>
> hitting - the act of contacting one thing with another
> in the case of spanking, you are hitting the child with
> your hand (or an implement depending on how you
> spank). You simply cannot spank without contact. That's
> a contradiction in terms.
>
The problem with that is using a general term, "hitting" for
a specific term, "spanking" leads to obfuscation; even a
pat on the back would fit your definition of "hitting".
Doan
toto
And how do you spank without hitting the child, Doan?
You can't. Now, you can pat lightly (though it is very doubtful
if spankers would consider that a spanking), but you can't
spank without hitting. You can hit without spanking since
spanking is a rather specific kind of hitting, but you guys
are ridiculous in claiming that spanking is not hitting.
>Doan
Doan
And where did I claim that spanking is not hitting? How do
pat someone without "hitting" him/her, Dorothy?
Doan
toto
See above. The person you said *well stated* for claimed it.
Doan
Please quote EXACTLY where I said that. And please response to
my question with regarding to patting.
Doan
Ron
definition can be considered "hitting".
The difference between a spanking and "hitting" is the purpose in the
minds of both the individuals administering and receiving.
Administering correction in ANY form requires that the individual
receiving the correction understands the reasons and the expected
outcome of the correction. Failure to make that clear to the child
changes the correction from a spanking to hitting.
A good solid spanking for reasonable purposes can be considered one of
those ultimate expressions of love, since we are willing to cause some
pain to those we love, and therefore to ourselves, for that individuals
betterment.
Ron
toto
wrote:
>Doan is quite correct. A pat on the back, a touch of any kind by your
>definition can be considered "hitting".
>
Sure it can, but no one would pat lightly as a spank, I am sure.
And spanking *is* still hitting the child.
>The difference between a spanking and "hitting" is the purpose in the
>minds of both the individuals administering and receiving.
LOL. A person who is hitting someone else in a fight probably
thinks that will correct the behavior of the other person too.
This is especially true in the case of someone who is *fighting
back* after being bullied or abused.
>Administering correction in ANY form requires that the individual
>receiving the correction understands the reasons and the expected
>outcome of the correction. Failure to make that clear to the child
>changes the correction from a spanking to hitting.
>
Parents need to consider the reasons for the child's behavior as well.
Using spanking does not do that in general.
>A good solid spanking for reasonable purposes can be considered one of
>those ultimate expressions of love, since we are willing to cause some
>pain to those we love, and therefore to ourselves, for that individuals
>betterment.
>
Bullshit.
Spanking is in general ineffective in the long term. It is a short
term solution for *controlling* behavior, but even behaviorists have
noted that rewards work better than aversives in controlling the
behavior of both animals and children. Sometimes it works in
that short term, but the long term consequences produce a loss
of internal ethical standards. Those who were spanked will, in
general, try to justify it because they cannot bear to see their own
parents methods criticized and because they are going along
with *tradition* because after all, tradition is always right.
Spanking does several things in the long term that are detrimental
to the development of good self-discipline in children. Any
behaviorist treatment is controlling and children learn the wrong
message about their behavior and who should control it. This
includes using material rewards, btw.
Children when spanked learn the following (these are not mutually
exclusive and some children learn to apply each lesson at different
times in their lives)
The child may learn to be sneaky. This child will do whatever she
wants to do when no adult is around because he has learned that
he can get away with things as long as she doesn't get caught and
punished. This child has no sense of right and wrong. She has
learned that someone outside himself sets the standard, but that
she doesn't need to have that standard when the adult is not around.
ShHe is at the lowest level of ethical functioning.
The child may learn to obey out of fear of getting caught. Again
this child has no sense of what is right and what is wrong other
than what the adult in his life tells him. This is the child too who
probably looks to authority to define his values. These are the
sheeple who follow the crowd. They will believe that the values that
society holds are correct. They will not fight against slavery or any
other societal ill because after all the authorities defined what was
correct.
The child may, otoh, learn to rebel against all authority. This is
the child who gets into big trouble in school, with the law, with
parents, etc. This child won't obey because that would mean her
spirit was broken. She will fight tooth and nail to hold onto her
dignity even if it means going to jail. She too has no sense of what
is right and wrong beyond the fact that she will *not* obey you
because you are the authority who is trying to control her.
>Ron
Doan
> On 10 Jan 2006 05:56:49 -0800, "Ron" <APositi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Doan is quite correct. A pat on the back, a touch of any kind by your
> >definition can be considered "hitting".
> >
> Sure it can, but no one would pat lightly as a spank, I am sure.
> And spanking *is* still hitting the child.
>
So is patting! Saying that you "hit" your child instead of patting
on the back is an obvius attempt at obfuscation. It's a common
tactic used when a debater has nothing better to offer.
Doan
beccafromlalaland
Ron Wrote:
> Doan is quite correct. A pat on the back, a touch of any kind by your
> definition can be considered "hitting".
>
>
I think you're both quite daft. Hitting is done with the intent to
cause pain or other bodily harm. Now if you are patting somone on the
back in an effort to cause them bodily harm then yes that is hitting.
Ron Wrote:
>
> The difference between a spanking and "hitting" is the purpose in the
> minds of both the individuals administering and receiving.
> Administering correction in ANY form requires that the individual
> receiving the correction understands the reasons and the expected
> outcome of the correction. Failure to make that clear to the child
> changes the correction from a spanking to hitting.
Again Hitting is doing so with the intent to cause pain and or bodily
harm. Spanking is done to cause pain and or bodily harm. The two are
the same. Trying to dress up Spanking into something positive, is like
putting a Rottweiler in a Poodle costume and Naming it "fluffy"
Ron Wrote:
> A good solid spanking for reasonable purposes can be considered one of
> those ultimate expressions of love, since we are willing to cause some
> pain to those we love, and therefore to ourselves, for that
> individuals
> betterment.
>
> Ron
So you think you are making your child a better person by striking
them? Interesting justification. I love you so much so I'm going to
hurt you and/or cause you bodily harm and emotional trauma.
You know pedephiles use the same logic to justify raping children. "I
did it because I love him/her so much"
--
beccafromlalaland
0;->
Another question might be, "when is a hit a spank and a hit a spank?"
A pat, obviously is neither. But a pat is very light indeed.
Is a spank light enough not to be a hit?
If so, how is it that some spankers include hitting with a paddle, and
hitting with a switch, and hitting with a belt or strap?
Are those users of Corporal Punishment not acceptable to the
"spankers," and not spankers themselves because they hit with an
object?
Is the question then even tied to what we call the impact, but rather
to the force used?
It brings up the same question I've asked before of, 'When is CP
abusive and where is the line between abuse and instructional
discipline?"
If one can teach without using CP, why use it? Since there is exactly
this risk of going over line without even knowing it until it's too
late?
Or are there some things that can't be taught without the use of CP?
What would they be?
I had little difficulty in teaching my children and hundreds of far
more difficult children not to do unwanted behavior. It wasn't that
hard, compared to how hard it is to deal with the risks, and the
everpresent sideeffects of CP? Or for that matter, any kind of
punishment, even non CP.
Must we spank? Why?
All the currect data, that observer for instance, wishes to deny and
ignore, tells us that violent crime among youth has dropped
consistently over the years, in fact for two decades. I believe
unwanted pregnancies are down. I personally have see no more, and I'd
say actually less "disrespect" in the current crop of kids over the
ones I grew up with. We were the James Dean crowd back then. We had
gangs, and we had lots of defiance, but we simply hid it better.
Is that what we want? The appearance of compliance, but the crime rates
of my day?
Or maybe the slightly nuttier LOOKING kids of today and more compliance
willingly as seems to be the case given the stats on real behaviors?
(We all looked nutty to the prior generation...my dad complained of it,
and his about him. And the Romans about theirs.)
Kane
beccafromlalaland
You are splitting straws Doan. That is a commen tactic used when a
debater has nothing better or new to add to the debate, and so tries to
discredit the other person by pointing out imaginary holes in the
argument succeeding only making themselves look less than credible.
--
beccafromlalaland
Doan
Why is it so easy for you to see the speck in other people's eyes yet
not see the beam in yours! ;-)
Doan
Jeremy James
tool and like any other tool it can be very effective if used properly.
However only if used properly.
"Ron" <APositi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1136737122.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
0;->
Jeremy James wrote:
> Thanks Ron, very well said. And you bring up a good point. Spanking is a
> tool and like any other tool it can be very effective if used properly.
> However only if used properly.
For every "job" there is a proper tool, or a better tool. A hammer is a
tool. It's not much good at cutting.
A power drill is a tool. It's not much use as a hammer.
There are many tools one can choose from to raise children. To teach
children.
Some are damaging.
Some have high risk of damaging.
And some are from that infamous discount tool bin by the entrance of
the hardware store. Cheap crap made with slave labor in a third world
backwater.
Corporal punishment is possibly a tool to use on some, but it's against
the law in this country for all except children and then use only by
specific adults related or in legal custody of them.
There are a great many ways "pain" is an appropriate outcome of an
action or inaction. Yet we do not let our child touch the stove if he
knows no better. We screen the stove and or limit the movements of the
child.
The one thing that brings the deliberate use of pain (whether physical
or psychological) by a parent or other trusted caregiver into question
is the traitorous betrayal. However many months or years we spend
protecting the child from pain and discomfort builds trust. One
instance of that protector then deliberately applying pain to the child
can and often does destroy that trust and replace it with other things.
Is there pain in the world?
Of course.
Does it teach?
Of course.
Where it comes from under what circumstances is far more important than
is teaching potential, however.
A child raised with consistent protection from unecessary pain, just as
dentistry, or an accidental bump or scrape feels safe with his parent.
A child that feel safe under all circumstances with her parent trusts
that parent, now and later, and is consistently available for
instruction and eager to learn and accepts the parent's assistance and
support.
That first hit, that first insult, changes this trust to something
else.
Kane
beccafromlalaland
Right back atcha
--
beccafromlalaland
Doan
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:
>
> Ron Wrote:
> > Doan is quite correct. A pat on the back, a touch of any kind by your
> > definition can be considered "hitting".
> >
> >
>
> I think you're both quite daft. Hitting is done with the intent to
> cause pain or other bodily harm. Now if you are patting somone on the
> back in an effort to cause them bodily harm then yes that is hitting.
"You are splitting straws, beccafromlalaland. That is a commen tactic
used when a debater has nothing better or new to add to the debate, and
so tries to discredit the other person by pointing out imaginary holes in
the argument succeeding only making themselves look less than credible."
Doan
Opinions
do with the action than the target. The idea of bare buttocks getting
slapped drives prissy no-spanks nuts. Not even the stuffy Victorians
were that out of touch with reality!
For reasons no one has ever quite been able to adequately explain,
societies go through these emotion-driven Saint Vitus Dance-like
phases. These frenzies are easily exploited by opportunists. In the
end, the whole thing turns out to be much to do about nothing.
pohak...@gmail.com
Opinions wrote:
> The whole notion of hitting, patting, slapping, or spanking has less to
> do with the action than the target. The idea of bare buttocks getting
> slapped drives prissy no-spanks nuts. Not even the stuffy Victorians
> were that out of touch with reality!
You mean sadistic sexual excitation?
And no one believes, except the mentally ill and sexually repressed
such as you, that "hitting, patting, slapping, or spanking has less to
do with the action than the target."
That's an absurd non sequitur.
It is meaningless.
> For reasons no one has ever quite been able to adequately explain,
But you are going to try, aren't you?
> societies go through these emotion-driven Saint Vitus Dance-like
> phases. These frenzies are easily exploited by opportunists. In the
> end, the whole thing turns out to be much to do about nothing.
Let me see now. People that want children to not be subjected to
"hitting, patting, slapping, or spanking" have an agenda of
exploitation. Do I understand you correctly?
Pray tell, what would it be that we want? There's no personal profit in
it for the vast majority of us, and I assure you, very little in
writing books on the subject of non-spanking parenting.
My agenda is exactly what you see. To stop the assault of children
under color of "discipline" which it is not.
Yours is, quite obviously, obvious, to continue business as usual.
Now I get no sexual kick out of not spanking children, and of course
not out of spanking children either. But you, and others here, likely
have amongst you those that do. They do tend to be secretive about
their business. <chuckle>
cathry...@gmail.com
I make no apology for stating in absolute terms that "spanking is
violence". That is absolutely what I believe: there is, in my opinion,
no compromise position. IMO, spanking is the ineffective resort of
uneducated parents. I have - of course - informed myself through
numerous books, studies, research, etc over the years. I was in fact a
'spanker' when I first had children, before I learned that there are
many other more effective methods of teaching discpline... and they
don't need to involve humiliation or power-abuse.
I'm not at all interested in getting into a flame session but I am
interested in reasoned debate. I'd be interested to know under what
circumstances you would see spanking as "not violence" or as "not
hitting".
Cathryn.
Ron
>>definition can be considered "hitting".
>Sure it can, but no one would pat lightly as a spank, I am sure.
>And spanking *is* still hitting the child.
So, when the man who does not know his own strength slaps a kid on the
back in friendship and drives the kid 4 feet forward, he is spanking
the child?
Sorry toto, intent has far more to do with physical contact than that.
Your comment is meaningless.
>>Administering correction in ANY form requires that the individual
>>receiving the correction understands the reasons and the expected
>>outcome of the correction. Failure to make that clear to the child
>>changes the correction from a spanking to hitting.
>Parents need to consider the reasons for the child's behavior as well.
>Using spanking does not do that in general.
Nice assumption. Since you are a non-CP parent how would you know?
Reasons for the childs behavior is not really of immediate importance,
unless the behavior is potentially hazardous in some way. What is of
importance is that the behavior be corrected quickly and effectively
and life continues.
>>A good solid spanking for reasonable purposes can be considered one of
>>those ultimate expressions of love, since we are willing to cause some
>>pain to those we love, and therefore to ourselves, for that individuals
>>betterment.
>Bullshit.
>Spanking is in general ineffective in the long term.
Another nice assumption, one that remains unproven is this forum. An
assumption that is disproven quite easily by the 20,000+ years of
evidence and historical fact available to us.
As I have said before, the 1 or two decades of biased "research"
you have available that may or may not support your theories pale in
comparison when placed next to the 10 to 20 Millennia of unbiased
historical fact.
Ron
Ron
>> definition can be considered "hitting".
>I think you're both quite daft. Hitting is done with the intent to
>cause pain or other bodily harm. Now if you are patting somone on the
>back in an effort to cause them bodily harm then yes that is hitting.
Hitting is indeed done with that in mind. Define "hitting".
That is the crux of the discussion, and toto's definition seems to be
physical contact of any kind.
>Again Hitting is doing so with the intent to cause pain and or bodily
>harm. Spanking is done to cause pain and or bodily harm. The two are
>the same. Trying to dress up Spanking into something positive, is like
>putting a Rottweiler in a Poodle costume and Naming it "fluffy"
So, you know the mind of every parent in the world 'eh? Interesting.
Spanking is a behavior correction technique. When used correctly and
appropriately it is the most effective technique ever known. 20,000+
years of historical data proves that beyond any doubt. But the problem
is that humans have the capacity to intentionally ignore the facts that
disprove their belief's, which is how discussions of this type come
about.
So, lets take your statement apart and look at it. "Spanking is done
to cause pain and or bodily harm." Cause pain I can agree with,
since pain is the best behavior modifier ever known. Cause bodily
harm? Rarely does a spanking do this. And then only when
inappropriately or incorrectly applied. "The two are the same."
Obviously that is an error in thinking. They are not the same.
Hitting has the intent of causing bodily harm and nothing else. The
intent of spanking is to correct unacceptable behaviors. Not even
close to the same. Hitting is and can be applied to any part of an
individuals body, whereas a spanking that is applied properly is only
applied to that individuals posterior. Hitting can use one's hand or
an object of any kind, whereas a spanking is applied only with an open
hand. As for "Rottweiler's", I know many of them that could have
the name Fluffy applied to them simply for their temperament, and among
Rot's they are the rule and NOT the exception.
>So you think you are making your child a better person by striking
>them? Interesting justification. I love you so much so I'm going to
>hurt you and/or cause you bodily harm and emotional trauma.
>You know pedephiles use the same logic to justify raping children. "I
>did it because I love him/her so much"
Historical evidence clearly proves that a spanking is the most
effective form of behavior modification known. Period. Your
"analogy" is inane, senseless, and of course designed to illicit
some specific form of response from the less astute readers here.
A correctly applied spanking does not cause "bodily harm", cannot
cause "emotional trauma" (BTW, the whole "emotional trauma"
theory of yours is completely unproven, not just overwhelmed by the
evidence), and has absolutely nothing to do with pedophilia.
I love how you and others tend to go to extremes when trying to make a
point. Pedophiles, Nazi's, bodily harm, etc. Cant you people ever
have a conversation without playing to emotional extreme's? Must you
always try your best to bring inappropriate analogies to the
conversations, trying to play on the emotional responses that certain
well known subjects illicit from readers? Can't you just play it
straight, instead of pandering to your own need to manipulate others?
Of course not. Why should anyone expect someone here to actually
converse without manipulation and extremism? That would be like
someone being honest, and in Usenet that just doesn't happen. Its
pathetic, just like your argument.
Ron
Ron
>I make no apology for stating in absolute terms that "spanking is
violence".
Never make an apology in Usenet, the reaction is predictable.
>That is absolutely what I believe: there is, in my opinion,
no compromise position.
Congratulations.
>IMO, spanking is the ineffective resort of
uneducated parents.
I am far from uneducated, and I support its use. Nor has it been
ineffective, not in more than 20,000+ years of use. History proves
that it is indeed the most effective behavior modification technique
known to man.
>I have - of course - informed myself through
>numerous books, studies, research, etc over the years.
All written in the last 20 years I suspect, right? Interesting that
one would take the word of some unknown individual with 6 to 8 years of
study under his belt, and a bit of research, over 20,000+ years of
historical data and precedent. Personally, I'm not willing to take
the word of someone whom I have never met, who has so little support to
his or her belief's or data.
> I was in fact a
>'spanker' when I first had children, before I learned that there are
>many other more effective methods of teaching discpline... and they
>don't need to involve humiliation or power-abuse.
Its only humiliation or abuse of power if you make it so. Again,
it's the intent and method of application that define the outcome.
And none of the methods you believe are effective are proven to be as
effective as an appropriately applied spanking. None. The supporting
data just isn't there to support your belief.
>I'm not at all interested in getting into a flame session but I am
>interested in reasoned debate. I'd be interested to know under what
>circumstances you would see spanking as "not violence" or as "not
>hitting".
>Cathryn.
Honestly neither am I. I enjoy a good conversation and leave the flame
wars to someone else when I am able.
Circumstances vary. They must. Each individuals perception of a given
situation is different, and must be since we are all human. An
appropriately applied spanking can never be "violence", can never
be "hitting". Its all in the level of understanding between the
child and the parent. Emotional, as well as physical. "Hitting"
and "Violence" require anger, and an appropriately applied spanking
can never be given in anger. The intent of an appropriately applied
spanking is to prevent further inappropriate or hazardous behavior by
using natures own behavior modification system. The one that is built
into our bodies, the one that we depend on it every minute of every day
to tell us when we are doing something that we should not be doing.
Pain. A bee sting teaches us to respect the authority a bee has over
its territory, and its method of enforcing that authority. A burn
teaches us that we should not touch things that are hot without proper
precautions. It's a physical response to stimuli. Its subconscious,
a reaction or a precaution we take without having to resort to
cognitive thought. Automatic.
A spanking works in the same way. If in the past an action has caused
us physical pain we tend to subconsciously avoid that action and
thereby avoid the associated pain of that action. One must actively,
willfully, accept that there will be an associated pain to take the
action. And that takes time. Subconscious thought takes much less
time, and therefore has a better chance of preventing harm to the
individual. Sure, some of the methods you propound work along the same
lines, but take significantly longer to reach the level of subconscious
thought needed to prevent harm, and we as parents have a great deal to
teach our children before we release them on society. Is it not best
to use the fastest and most reliable methods given all that we must
teach our children? Or are we going to inflict our children on society
half taught, half responsible members?
After all, that IS the outcome of our parenting in each and every case.
We inflict our society with the products of our parenting each and
every time we take them out of our homes. Our society has defined what
is and is not acceptable behavior, and brooks no argument in this area.
Is it not best that we take the time to teach our children what is and
is not acceptable behaviors before our society does it for us? After
all, our methods may seem a bit harsh at times to both ourselves and
our children, but societies methods are by comparison quite brutal.
Children are learning what is and is not acceptable by our society, and
therefore are given a great deal of leeway in their behaviors at
younger ages. But they are progressively held more and more
responsible for their actions and behaviors as they grow older. And on
their 18th birthday are held totally responsible by society for
appropriate or inappropriate behavior, with the total weight of
societies behavior modification techniques as the consequences for
failing to meet societies standards. Any parent can tell you that 18
years is not all that long a time to teach all that we must teach our
children. And we never complete the job in reality, all we can do is
give the basics and some specifics and hope that is enough. Sometimes
it is not, but in most cases we do a fairly good job and they figure
the rest out for themselves.
Personally, I want to teach my children as much as I can in the short
time I have. I use those methods that are fastest, most effective, and
move on to the next subject. Our societies jails and prisons are full
of people who didn't get as much parental teaching as they should
have. They have made inappropriate decisions or taken inappropriate
actions because they were not taught what is and is not acceptable in
our society. In those cases we as parents have failed the child, and
our society. We can dodge responsibility all we like, but in the end
it comes down to the fact, FACT, that we as parents failed to teach our
children. I will be happy to take that responsibility when the time
comes. I know that my children will have learned everything I could
teach them in the short time I had. And I can hope that it was enough
to allow them to take their places in society and be productive members
and not a drain. If they fail, then I have failed. Period. Spanking
directly relates to how much and how well I can teach my children. I
will do the best job I can, using whatever tools and techniques are
available to me. I discount nothing, I avoid the unproductive, and do
my very best to use what works.
Ron
toto
wrote:
>Another nice assumption, one that remains unproven is this forum. An
>assumption that is disproven quite easily by the 20,000+ years of
>evidence and historical fact available to us.
No, the years when spanking has been used don't prove anything about
its effectiveness. We are always working on improving methods in all
areas including parenting, you know.
toto
wrote:
>As I have said before, the 1 or two decades of biased "research"
>you have available that may or may not support your theories pale in
>comparison when placed next to the 10 to 20 Millennia of unbiased
>historical fact.
I am not going by research, but on my own experience as both a
parent and teacher.
In preschool classes in particular, you can tell by behavior which
children were spanked and which were not. The children who are
spanked are much more likely to hit other kids when they are
frustrated or angry. Not that other children don't hit, but they get
the idea of solving problems using words much more quickly.
Doan
> On 14 Jan 2006 06:34:33 -0800, "Ron" <APositi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >As I have said before, the 1 or two decades of biased "research"
> >you have available that may or may not support your theories pale in
> >comparison when placed next to the 10 to 20 Millennia of unbiased
> >historical fact.
>
> I am not going by research, but on my own experience as both a
> parent and teacher.
>
So your experience outtrumped the experience of hunmanity???
> In preschool classes in particular, you can tell by behavior which
> children were spanked and which were not. The children who are
> spanked are much more likely to hit other kids when they are
> frustrated or angry. Not that other children don't hit, but they get
> the idea of solving problems using words much more quickly.
>
And how do know which children were spanked and which were not? Is this
data part of the school record?
Doan
Doan
> On 14 Jan 2006 06:34:33 -0800, "Ron" <APositi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Another nice assumption, one that remains unproven is this forum. An
> >assumption that is disproven quite easily by the 20,000+ years of
> >evidence and historical fact available to us.
>
> No, the years when spanking has been used don't prove anything about
> its effectiveness. We are always working on improving methods in all
> areas including parenting, you know.
>
But it does prove the "non-spanking" cultures didn't thrive.
Doan
toto
We ask parents what discipline techniques they use and we observe how
they act around the children when they are at school as well. And, of
course, the children role play in the housekeeping corner. If you
don't think that the preschool teachers know a lot about what goes on
in your home, you are kidding yourself because 3 to 5 year olds are
the greatest mimics in the world and they often talk in their parents
voices.
>Doan
Doan
Do you know how "unscientific" this method is? Do you keep records?
Do you allow for confounding factors? If you think that preschool
teachers know lot about what's going on in EVERY student house, YOU
ARE KIDDING yourself!
Doan
toto
No, how does it prove that?
It doesn't prove anything about any cultures *thriving*. I don't
consider American culture to be *thriving* nor do I consider
Iraqi culture to be *thriving*. I don't know what your standard
is for that. My goal is individual self-discipline. Children who
don't learn that don't thrive. Kids who are spanked don't learn
this from spanking. If they learn it at all, it is from other things
in their environment.
>Doan
Doan
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 15:36:30 -0800, Doan <do...@usc.edu> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, toto wrote:
> >
> >> On 14 Jan 2006 06:34:33 -0800, "Ron" <APositi...@netscape.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Another nice assumption, one that remains unproven is this forum. An
> >> >assumption that is disproven quite easily by the 20,000+ years of
> >> >evidence and historical fact available to us.
> >>
> >> No, the years when spanking has been used don't prove anything about
> >> its effectiveness. We are always working on improving methods in all
> >> areas including parenting, you know.
> >>
> >But it does prove the "non-spanking" cultures didn't thrive.
> >
> No, how does it prove that?
>
Survival of the fittest. Do you know of any non-spanking culture
that thrive?
Doan
toto
>> No, how does it prove that?
>>
>Survival of the fittest. Do you know of any non-spanking culture
>that thrive?
Social Darwinism is passe, Doan
0;->
toto wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 16:40:44 -0800, Doan <do...@usc.edu> wrote:
>
> >> No, how does it prove that?
> >>
> >Survival of the fittest. Do you know of any non-spanking culture
> >that thrive?
>
> Social Darwinism is passe, Doan
And "thrive" is such a subjective concept as well.
Personally I like how the Hutterites have thrived as a society, even
across a border between two nations. I understand they have never had a
homicide in all their years of existence.
Nor are they violent with each other. And somewhat egalitarian.
It may be that they have been known to spank a child, but it would be
the rarest of occurances. And certainly not a factor in their capacity
to "thrive."
It's the non-violent gentle nature of their parenting with a fine tuned
application of developmentally approriate teaching.
'Course they don't appear, to the outsider, to even be trying...they
are so laid back about child rearing.
They aren't the only society that has thrived without battering
children and calling it their equivalent of "spanking."
I suppose "thrive" could mean more consumption/production and
environmental degradation.
0:-)
Doan
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 16:40:44 -0800, Doan <do...@usc.edu> wrote:
>
> >> No, how does it prove that?
> >>
> >Survival of the fittest. Do you know of any non-spanking culture
> >that thrive?
>
> Social Darwinism is passe, Doan
>
>
That doesn't change the fact that non-spanking cultures just don't thrive!
Doan
Doan
Doan
ISD - Data Network Operations
(213) 821-5238
http://www.usc.edu/isd/services/feedback
I am taking this from their website:
Courtship
What about dating practices?
Young people are provided means for meeting each other if they are from
different communities (they usually are); for example, they could ask for
permission to go for a visit, or they might be in the area and drop in
for the day.
We strongly encourage purity in relationships, for we want our young
people to be a witness for Christ. If young people think that they have
been led together by God, they are encouraged to remain totally pure in
their relationship. Impurity is dealt with severely. The Schmiedeleut
*******************************
Hutterian Brethren have an "open door" policy for young people who are
courting.
Joining
Can a person become a Hutterite?
Yes. If a person is really sincere about becoming a Hutterite, he or she
could potentially join. Of course, one would first have to live on a
Hutterite Colony for a time to ensure that they really do want to join. A
serious candidate would obviously have to fully agree with the doctrine
of the Hutterian Brethren Church and be willing to give up all personal
ownership. Upon being baptised, he or she would be considered a
full-fledged Hutterite.
As usual, Kane0 is stupid but pretending to know more than others. ;-)
Well, I guess an empty Kane will always make lot of noise. ;-0
Doan
beccafromlalaland
Ron Wrote:
>
> I am far from uneducated, and I support its use. Nor has it been
> ineffective, not in more than 20,000+ years of use. History proves
> that it is indeed the most effective behavior modification technique
> historical data and precedent.
I have read 20,000+ years of corporal punishment more times than I can
count Ronny. But yet you seem to be ignoring cultures who don't strike
their children. Like Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Cyprus,
Latvia, and Croatia. And yet their children are not unruly,
undiciplined little brats. Nor have you addressed cultures who don't
strike their children, never have because Children are viewed as
precious and thought of as beautiful gifts to be guided into
responsible adults.
--
beccafromlalaland
Doan
And how do Swedish parents discipline their kids?
"Swedish parents now discipline their children; and in doing so, they rely
on a variety of alternatives to physical punishment. The method most
commonly used is _verbal_conflict_resolution_, which invites parents as
well as children to express their anger in words. Parents insist that
discussions involve constant eye contact, even if this means taking firm
hold of young children to engage their attention. Parents and
professionals agree that discussions may escalate into yelling, or that
yelling may be a necessary trigger for discussion. Still, many point out
that while yelling may be humiliating, it is better than ignoring the
problem or containing the anger, and it is usually less humiliating than
physical punishment."
It is better to yell at your kid - just call it "verbal conflict
resolution"! ;-)
Doan
Doan
""Tolerable" physical abuse is hard to contemplate. What would it look
like? Consider the case of the Hutterites described by Claudia Konker
(1992). The Hutterites, a 16th Century German-speaking anabaptist
religious community which emigrated to North America in the 1870's, are
traditional in every sense of the word. Theologically related to the Amish and
Mennonites, the Hutterites practice strict gender segregation and raise
their children according to literal interpretation of the Christian Bible.
This interpretation involves corporal punishment. Children, they believe,
are innately bad and must be made good and kept good until they can make a
free choice in adulthood to live in accordance with the Scriptures. "
Did Kane do his homework on the Hutterites? ;-)
Doan
beccafromlalaland
Doan....I'm really trying hard...so help me out here What does
Courtship and Joining the Hutterite faith have ANYTHING whatsoever to
do with spanking?
--
beccafromlalaland
Doan
Doan
beccafromlalaland
Doan Wrote:
> And how do Swedish parents discipline their kids?
>
> "Swedish parents now discipline their children; and in doing so, they
> rely
> on a variety of alternatives to physical punishment. The method most
> commonly used is _verbal_conflict_resolution_, which invites parents
> as
> well as children to express their anger in words. Parents insist that
> discussions involve constant eye contact, even if this means taking
> firm
> hold of young children to engage their attention. Parents and
> professionals agree that discussions may escalate into yelling, or
> that
> yelling may be a necessary trigger for discussion. Still, many point
> out
> that while yelling may be humiliating, it is better than ignoring the
> problem or containing the anger, and it is usually less humiliating
> than
> physical punishment."
>
> It is better to yell at your kid - just call it "verbal conflict
> resolution"! ;-)
>
> Doan
I'm sure spanking families "NEVER" yell at their kids...noooOooo Never
ever.
Honestly given the choice between being yelled at and being hit as a
Child I would have chosen the yelling everytime.
--
beccafromlalaland
0;->
Michael wrote:
> Doan submitted this idea :
R R R R...apparently far better than you and your monkeyboy companion.
There is more that one "Hutterite" social congregate to consider.
http://www.th-record.com/1997/9-12-97/sujmfede.htm
The confusion may start here. I like confusion. It sifts the bullshit
artists that do NOT do adequate research, before they start accusing
other of it. R R R R
Many have confused the one for the other. I just knew I could smoke out
a screaching hysterical dancing monkeyboy, but look at what other
vermin I managed to bring out of the bushes.
> It pops its chops off on shit it doesn't understand on a regular basis.
> 8-o
Odd, I have repeadedly, just as now, nailed you nearly every time...and
especially when you challenge me like this. Aren't you getting tired of
being exposed for the fool you are?
You are aware, because of course you looked up the source the monkeyboy
quoted, that that is an opinion piece, right?
Most likely taken from here: http://www.cwu.edu/~chasm/phikphi.htm
... a blatant anti Child Protection diatribe that may or may not be, in
this instance, a real search and disclosure of Hutterite child rearing
practices OVER ALL...but focusing instead on an historical period that
may or may not reflect contemporary Hutterite practices.
Shall we study further? As you failed to do before jumping in the
sinking ship that the screaching monkeyboy paddles?
http://www.peacefulsocieties.org/News.html (you might find this
useful...as might other posters to this ng)
But, on to the question of the "Hutterites" and corporal punishment of
children.
http://www.peacefulsocieties.org/Society/Hutter.html
Well, it doesn't say they do spank, nor that they don't spank.
My bet...they do.
I have no problem with being corrected.
On the other hand, do you think spanking is how they managed to be a
society that thrives?
Why do you and the monkeyboy so cowardly avoid accepting when you are
wrong?
I suppose the answer is in my admittedly rhetorical question.
You are cowards.
Kane 0:->
Doan
Don't you just love this "never-spanked" boy? Even when he is caught
red-handed, he is still saying that he is right! His mother must
be proud of the way she raised him. According to Kane, his mother
even approved of his calling other women "smelly-cunt". What a mom! ;-)
Doan
Kane
Well, let me help you explain. The dancing screeching monkeyboy could
not read what I said (which included that Hutterites likely DO
spank...it's just a low priority for them in child rearing...and most
certainly NOT why they "thrive.")
He is so frightened of being found wrong (which of course is his
constant) he frequently claims his opponent says things they did not.
Which of course in this case again, he has done. I did not say the
Hutterites didn't spank.
He was so busy cherry picking, all that he knows how to do in debate,
that he didn't bother to investigate more widely. I have, for instance,
in this case, not only read far more widely than he on this issue, but
I've even posted an e-mail to the Hutterite community asking if they'd
mind filling me in on their practices concerning child discipline.
I'll share their answer if it does not breach confidentiality. But I
certainly won't mangle it or claim they said something they didn't to
try and "win" a debating contest as this silly ass has made a practice
of for many years now.
I don't know how much time you have, but if you have a moment you might
get a kick out of a search on his posting archives through google on
the subjects of (sans quote marks)
"Embry study" (in that one he faked being a Mexican women asking me for
a copy..using the name of a prominate well known person were he
works..which I've more than passing familiar with). He claimed to have
the study himself (which I required for debate, him being a constant
liar and all, interested in the game of debate, rather than the
truth.) but would not provide any proof by answering questions
concerning content related to page and paragraph. He thinks he's
clever, but just another babbling fool exercising his pathology on this
medium.
"The Question" is an entertaining romp through thinking errors
expanded. He tried to answer The Question with every device he could
think of, including the usual attack dodges, subject changing, etc.
when any objective person could see immediately the claim by spankers
they know the limit when it comes to spanking so it will not become
abuse was bs.
It can't be known. Not by law, not even by science. The number of
uncontrolled variables is too great. They would approach near infinite
variations and combinations possiblities.
His major tactic is to attack. Never to answer challenges, with
anything other than attack. It's the oldest debating ploy in the book.
Common to those such as the Holocaust Deniers, Creationists,
Intelligent Designers, etc.
They have an empty claim with no way to defend it factually so they
attack bits and pieces of the opponents position, rather than the whole
of it. Same ol' same ol.
There is little ethic in attacking the pieces removed from the whole.
It's glib and easy. I indulge in it myself, when I tire of them doing
it, rather than sticking to the point under debate. He's in the middle
of such a foray right now.
The Hutterites was a bone I through him, and as usual he bite himself
instead. I was agreeing that some spanking takes place even in peaceful
communities. He was so excited that he missed it.
Interesting, isn't it?
Kane