Re: Spanking Leads To Child Aggression And Anxiety, Regardless Of Cultural Norm
Doan
Just as I expected, LaVonne is the one that is doing the avoidance while
letting her little chihuahua, aka Kane9, doing the verbal abuse for her.
What a laugh!
Doan
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Doan wrote:
>
> First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied.
> Thus, the claim that spanking "Leads" to child aggression and anxiety
> is bogus! Second, the authors themselves admitted that they included
> beatings that are certainly abusive in the USA in study. If you really
> want to debate this study, I am willing to give it a shot - no verbal
> abuse warranted. ;-) Wanna give me a try? My guess is you will be
> the one that do the avoidance and instead will use your little Kane9
> to do the verbal abuse and attack for you.
>
> Doan
>
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Carlson LaVonne wrote:
>
> > Well, I received a multitude of similar responses when I posted a
> > reference to this study. It's hard to accept defeat or to debate
> > intelligently in light of solid evidence that refutes one's personal
> > beliefs.
> >
> > When that happens, one can engage in avoidance, changing the subject, or
> > verbal abuse. In my over ten years of involvement on this ng, and in
> > working with families, children, and students, I'm familiar with all
> > three strategies.
> >
> > None of the strategies change the evidence research has demonstrated.
> > Hitting children is no more effective than alternative strategies that
> > model, teach, and hold children accountable, and it carries the
> > potential for both short and long term harm. We now have evidence that
> > context and culture does not eliminate the potential for negative
> > outcomes or decrease the effectiveness of alternative discipline strategies.
> >
> > LaVonne
> >
> > 0:-> wrote:
> > > 0:-> wrote:
> > >> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051114110820.htm
> > >>
> > >> Source: Society for Research in Child Development
> > >
> > >
> > > ... * More frequent use of physical discipline was less strongly
> > > associated with child aggression and anxiety when it was perceived as
> > > being more culturally accepted, but physical discipline was also
> > > associated with more aggression and anxiety regardless of the
> > > perception of cultural acceptance. ...
> > >
> > >
> > > ... * In all countries, however, higher use of physical discipline
> > > was
> > > associated with more child aggression and anxiety. ...
> > >
> > > The silence is deafening.
> > >
> > > Will I simply get another babbling change of subject from Doan?
> > >
> > > Or will he continue to display his cowardice and shame his good family
> > > name?
> > >
> > > R R R R ....hihihi
> > >
> > >
> > >> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051114110820.htm
> > >
> >
>
>
krp
"Doan" <do...@usc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.33.070111...@skat.usc.edu...
>>
>> First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied.
>> Thus, the claim that spanking "Leads" to child aggression and anxiety
>> is bogus! Second, the authors themselves admitted that they included
>> beatings that are certainly abusive in the USA in study. If you really
>> want to debate this study, I am willing to give it a shot - no verbal
>> abuse warranted. ;-) Wanna give me a try? My guess is you will be
>> the one that do the avoidance and instead will use your little Kane9
>> to do the verbal abuse and attack for you.
There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
spanking can produce sociopathy in children.
Doan
Do you know that Kane is a "never-spanked" boy?
Doan
krp
Wouldn't surprise me.
0:->
> "Doan" <do...@usc.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.33.070112...@skat.usc.edu...
>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, krp wrote:
>>
>>> "Doan" <do...@usc.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:Pine.GSO.4.33.070111...@skat.usc.edu...
>>>>> First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied.
>>>>> Thus, the claim that spanking "Leads" to child aggression and anxiety
>>>>> is bogus! Second, the authors themselves admitted that they included
>>>>> beatings that are certainly abusive in the USA in study. If you
>>>>> really
>>>>> want to debate this study, I am willing to give it a shot - no verbal
>>>>> abuse warranted. ;-) Wanna give me a try? My guess is you will be
>>>>> the one that do the avoidance and instead will use your little Kane9
>>>>> to do the verbal abuse and attack for you.
>>>
>>> There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
>>> aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
>>> spanking can produce sociopathy in children.
>>>
>> Do you know that Kane is a "never-spanked" boy?
>
>
> Wouldn't surprise me.
I asked you to confine debate on this issue to alt.parenting.spanking.
Can I take this as your chosen opportunity to run then?
My status, or yours, has no bearing on the facts, Ken.
You may have been spanked, I may not have been.
How would this change our debate if we are going to stick to the facts?
You made a claim. I've asked you to support it. I've clarified the
conditions that are reasonable for debate....in this case that we
confine ourselves to the debating protocols of 'argument.'
This means we deal only in facts. And only those relevant to the issue.
Now if you aren't going to dodge again, how about replying, and removing
the ascps addy so that we continue only in aps?
Thanks. Kane
>
>
0:->
> "Doan" <do...@usc.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.33.070112...@skat.usc.edu...
>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, krp wrote:
>>
>>> "Doan" <do...@usc.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:Pine.GSO.4.33.070111...@skat.usc.edu...
>>>>> First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied.
>>>>> Thus, the claim that spanking "Leads" to child aggression and anxiety
>>>>> is bogus! Second, the authors themselves admitted that they included
>>>>> beatings that are certainly abusive in the USA in study. If you
>>>>> really
>>>>> want to debate this study, I am willing to give it a shot - no verbal
>>>>> abuse warranted. ;-) Wanna give me a try? My guess is you will be
>>>>> the one that do the avoidance and instead will use your little Kane9
>>>>> to do the verbal abuse and attack for you.
>>>
>>> There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
>>> aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
>>> spanking can produce sociopathy in children.
>>>
>> Do you know that Kane is a "never-spanked" boy?
Did you notice, Ken, that Doan didn't agree with you? Didn't contribute
anything to the issue?
My status or yours as having been spanked or not is not relevant to the
issue if we are going to discuss facts....and FACTS seem to be what you
claim you have.
Shall we then? You first.
>
>
> Wouldn't surprise me.
Looks as though you just refused to support your claims, two of them,
with anything but games common to the dishonorable Doan.
I've two prior posts in this thread here in asp. Presuming you might
have missed them, because they are not cross-posted to ascps, I suggest
you go to aps and look them up. Do not reply to this post in ascps,
thank you.
Those posts at aps are invitations. To you.
Thanks. Kane
Doan
> krp wrote:
> > "Doan" <do...@usc.edu> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.GSO.4.33.070112...@skat.usc.edu...
> >> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, krp wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Doan" <do...@usc.edu> wrote in message
> >>> news:Pine.GSO.4.33.070111...@skat.usc.edu...
> >>>>> First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied.
> >>>>> Thus, the claim that spanking "Leads" to child aggression and anxiety
> >>>>> is bogus! Second, the authors themselves admitted that they included
> >>>>> beatings that are certainly abusive in the USA in study. If you
> >>>>> really
> >>>>> want to debate this study, I am willing to give it a shot - no verbal
> >>>>> abuse warranted. ;-) Wanna give me a try? My guess is you will be
> >>>>> the one that do the avoidance and instead will use your little Kane9
> >>>>> to do the verbal abuse and attack for you.
> >>>
> >>> There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
> >>> aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
> >>> spanking can produce sociopathy in children.
> >>>
> >> Do you know that Kane is a "never-spanked" boy?
>
> Did you notice, Ken, that Doan didn't agree with you? Didn't contribute
> anything to the issue?
>
What? Where did I say that I didn't agree, Kane? There is no
scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes aggression in
Children!
> My status or yours as having been spanked or not is not relevant to the
> issue if we are going to discuss facts....and FACTS seem to be what you
> claim you have.
>
Hihihi!
> Shall we then? You first.
Where is the evidence that spanking CAUSES aggression in children?
Doan
Doan
> krp wrote:
> > "Doan" <do...@usc.edu> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.GSO.4.33.070112...@skat.usc.edu...
> >> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, krp wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Doan" <do...@usc.edu> wrote in message
> >>> news:Pine.GSO.4.33.070111...@skat.usc.edu...
> >>>>> First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied.
> >>>>> Thus, the claim that spanking "Leads" to child aggression and anxiety
> >>>>> is bogus! Second, the authors themselves admitted that they included
> >>>>> beatings that are certainly abusive in the USA in study. If you
> >>>>> really
> >>>>> want to debate this study, I am willing to give it a shot - no verbal
> >>>>> abuse warranted. ;-) Wanna give me a try? My guess is you will be
> >>>>> the one that do the avoidance and instead will use your little Kane9
> >>>>> to do the verbal abuse and attack for you.
> >>>
> >>> There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
> >>> aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
> >>> spanking can produce sociopathy in children.
> >>>
> >> Do you know that Kane is a "never-spanked" boy?
> >
> >
> > Wouldn't surprise me.
>
> I asked you to confine debate on this issue to alt.parenting.spanking.
>
Then why did you cross-posted this?
> Can I take this as your chosen opportunity to run then?
>
Run??? The only one that doing the running is YOU, STUPID KANE! ;-)
Doan
monkeysgirl
You're wrong. Kane is Don Fisher/d'geezer and he has had quite a 'brutal
upbringing' before his adoption.
>
> Doan
>
>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
0:->
No others will be responded to.
And my name, past, experiences, are of no consequence to this debate
with krp.
Unless of course anyone wishes to divert from the facts and evidence of
krp's claim and my challenge.
I will consider that krp's allow others to do so in his behalf unless he
takes up the challenge as I stated in previous posts and posts only to
me on the issue.
Otherwise, the lot of you silly asses can go piss up a rope.
0:-]
0:->
krp, do you need help?
If not, let's open the debate.
Please confine yourself to the alt.parenting.spanking newsgroup so we
are on topic with our discussion. I will, of course, do the same.
Thanks, Kane
monkeysgirl
Your nonsense is ot is ASCPS Don.
monkeysgirl
Don
We know you have serious issues - but please snip ASCPS
Your hysterical spanking rants are ot here.
krp
"0:->" <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6aGdnVc0b-atcTrY...@scnresearch.com...
>>>>>> First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be
>>>>>> implied.
>>>>>> Thus, the claim that spanking "Leads" to child aggression and anxiety
>>>>>> is bogus! Second, the authors themselves admitted that they included
>>>>>> beatings that are certainly abusive in the USA in study. If you
>>>>>> really
>>>>>> want to debate this study, I am willing to give it a shot - no verbal
>>>>>> abuse warranted. ;-) Wanna give me a try? My guess is you will be
>>>>>> the one that do the avoidance and instead will use your little Kane9
>>>>>> to do the verbal abuse and attack for you.
>>>>
>>>> There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
>>>> aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
>>>> spanking can produce sociopathy in children.
>>>>
>>> Do you know that Kane is a "never-spanked" boy?
>>
>>
>> Wouldn't surprise me.
> I asked you to confine debate on this issue to alt.parenting.spanking.
No you didn't ask ME, but it applies in both places.
The leading proponent of ANTI-SPANKING has been Richard Gelles.
The book "Behind Closed Doors" by Strauss, Steinmetz, and Gelles was
the groundbreaking book on family violence. Since the book almost 25 years
ago, Gelles has gone on the stump against corporal punishment of children.
His writings on the subject have been Non-scientific, and at best anecdotal.
It is interesting to note that one of his fellow Authors Suzanne Steinmetz
has taken issue with his claims. It is also important to recognize that the
founder of no spanking, Dr. Benjamin Spock in the later years of his life
repudiated his earlier notions as "wrong headed." He learned how WRONG he
had been only after he became a parent.
In 1950 sociopathy was a rare commodity. There were sociopaths, there
have always been sociopaths. But it is estimated by some scholars (Adams U.
Ga.) as far back as 20 years ago that sociopathy was hitting as much as 30%
of the population.
Ron there are children who self discipline. They never need a spanking.
My youngest daughter was like that. When she did something wrong she'd
really punish herself, often too much, and she needed a great deal of
reassurance and nurturing. there ARE however children who don't naturally
develop a conscience on their own who can be taught by corporal punishment
to consider others. There are, of course some who can't. In any event a
parent only has a small window of opportunity to teach a child, because if a
child reaches 10 and has no empathy for others, no matter what you do it is
pointless. Spanking would be a waste of time. However between 4 and 10 it
can be a valuable tool.
Now as to spanking... I am not speaking of wild uncontrolled angry
outbursts that injure a child. I am speaking of traditional, reasoned,
spanking. Ron they call the rear end "the seat of learning" for a reason.
It works if done correctly. Reasoned, temperate, minimal but forceful.Some
pain is needed. No pain, no gain as they say.
krp
>>>>>> First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be
>>>>>> implied.
>>>>>> Thus, the claim that spanking "Leads" to child aggression and anxiety
>>>>>> is bogus! Second, the authors themselves admitted that they included
>>>>>> beatings that are certainly abusive in the USA in study. If you
>>>>>> really
>>>>>> want to debate this study, I am willing to give it a shot - no verbal
>>>>>> abuse warranted. ;-) Wanna give me a try? My guess is you will be
>>>>>> the one that do the avoidance and instead will use your little Kane9
>>>>>> to do the verbal abuse and attack for you.
>>>>
>>>> There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
>>>> aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
>>>> spanking can produce sociopathy in children.
>>>>
>>> Do you know that Kane is a "never-spanked" boy?
> Did you notice, Ken, that Doan didn't agree with you? Didn't contribute
> anything to the issue?
Should I fly off the handle at him? Call him names? Belittle him? Find
somebody that says bad things about him and proclaim that I agree 100% with
what his detractors claim about him? No Kane - I AM NOT YOU!
> My status or yours as having been spanked or not is not relevant to the
> issue if we are going to discuss facts....and FACTS seem to be what you
> claim you have.
A lack of discipline as a child can and usually does explain abusive
behavior in adults.
krp
>> >>>>> First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be
>> >>>>> implied.
>> >>>>> Thus, the claim that spanking "Leads" to child aggression and
>> >>>>> anxiety
>> >>>>> is bogus! Second, the authors themselves admitted that they
>> >>>>> included
>> >>>>> beatings that are certainly abusive in the USA in study. If you
>> >>>>> really
>> >>>>> want to debate this study, I am willing to give it a shot - no
>> >>>>> verbal
>> >>>>> abuse warranted. ;-) Wanna give me a try? My guess is you will
>> >>>>> be
>> >>>>> the one that do the avoidance and instead will use your little
>> >>>>> Kane9
>> >>>>> to do the verbal abuse and attack for you.
>> >>>
>> >>> There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
>> >>> aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
>> >>> spanking can produce sociopathy in children.
>> >>>
>> >> Do you know that Kane is a "never-spanked" boy?
>>
>> Did you notice, Ken, that Doan didn't agree with you? Didn't contribute
>> anything to the issue?
> What? Where did I say that I didn't agree, Kane? There is no
> scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes aggression in
> Children!
The MAIN proponent of the Anti_Spanking issue is Richard Gelles. To date
I have seen nothing in his journal articles that even remotely approached
scientific evidence of the claim that spanking makes kids agressive. He may
have a point when we speak of wild angry excessive beatings, but not
rational controled spanking. In fact evidence suggests the opposite.
>> My status or yours as having been spanked or not is not relevant to the
>> issue if we are going to discuss facts....and FACTS seem to be what you
>> claim you have.
> Hihihi!
>> Shall we then? You first.
> Where is the evidence that spanking CAUSES aggression in children?
If you notice Kane and Ron have a credibility problem, including things
like claiming you said things you didn't. It seems to be de rigueur in their
argument style.
Ron
" krp" <web2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:bI6qh.162$AG6.110@trnddc06...(snip)
>
> Ron there are children who self discipline. They never need a spanking.
Kenny, I'm not involved in this discussion, and rarely comment on CP issues.
Do some research dopy, get the facts before you again make yourself look
like an idiot.
Ron
krp
>I offered to debate this issue with krp.
Let see your PROOF that spanking causes agression in children. It's YOU
claim, PROVE IT!
Debate the FACTS if you can and leave personalities out of it IF you can. I
bet you can't.
krp
"Ron" <apositi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:HV6qh.38636$X97....@newsfe18.lga...
> (snip)
>>
>> Ron there are children who self discipline. They never need a
>> spanking.
> (snip)
> Kenny, I'm not involved in this discussion, and rarely comment on CP
> issues. Do some research dopy, get the facts before you again make
> yourself look like an idiot.
I see you deliberately SNIPPED all references to the claims of Dr.
Gelles and the refutations from Dr. Steinmetz and Dr. Spock..
Ron
Yes, they were not relevant to my post. Only your own stupidity.
Ron
krp
>>
>>> (snip)
>>>>
>>>> Ron there are children who self discipline. They never need a
>>>> spanking.
>>> (snip)
>>
>>> Kenny, I'm not involved in this discussion, and rarely comment on CP
>>> issues. Do some research dopy, get the facts before you again make
>>> yourself look like an idiot.
>>
>> I see you deliberately SNIPPED all references to the claims of Dr.
>> Gelles and the refutations from Dr. Steinmetz and Dr. Spock..
>
> Yes, they were not relevant to my post. Only your own stupidity.
Yeah they are but feel FREE to show us your "SCIENTIFIC PROOF" that spanking
CAUSES aggression in children.
So you can "DEBATE" me.
Firemonkey
what?
Have you tried non-violent ways to disipline?
0:->
Well, I can see that my attempt to open a debate with you, based on
your claims (I made none related to your reply) is not going to go
anywhere. You still can't seem to stop lying.
And you have attempted to draw others into this exchange between you
and I.
I said I'd debate YOU, and no one else.
Oddly enough you pick the person who holds opinions that differ with
mine on the subject of corporal punishment who I respect in these
forums, and try to force him to my side on this issue.
Ron and I have stated our case on CP to each other. We are satisfied,
if I understood him correctly, that we disagree, that neither of us are
"lying," or attempting the kind of games Doan, or you, are playing and
let it go at that.
I asked you to debate me, and with specific simple easily met
conditions. Clarification of terms, mostly. And to confine ourselves to
aps, and each other in the debate.
You have shown me that you refuse.
I'll give you one more opportunity, and you if fly off in other
directions, you can forget it. I won't respond.
Let's start at the beginning. I posted a quote from an article on an
international study, a survey of families in a number of countries,
across the spectrum of CP acceptability or rejection.
It was met with comments by Doan and LaVonne, and you dropped in at one
point with this comment, your first, in the thread:
"There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
spanking can produce sociopathy in children. "
You made this statement in reply to Doan's claim that the title of the
article was bogus.
Now if you two wish to sign each other's dance card, be my guest, but
I, Kane, offerred to take you up on your claim.
You have chosen, so far to go everywhere but to my challenge.
You have NOT, as I requested, clarified what you would consider
"acceptable," in "scientifically acceptable evidence," and you have not
stuck to aps as the forum to have our debate in.
You have not presented your evidence for proof of sociopathy in
children being produced by a lack of "spanking," as you put it. And you
most certainly made a statement that this is true because more
sociopathogy is present now than in the past in the population.
This was presented as fiat but NO proof, no data, no facts, no
authoritative sources.
If you wish to have a war of opinions you can certainly do so. But, Ken
it was NOT I who made a claim about this issue, I simply posted an
article and YOU then made personal claims regarding and quoted by me as
above.
Debate here in aps without crossposting. Debate with ME alone. Agree to
and adhere to no ad hom. Remove all personal issues about me or other
posters.
Define your terms. I will not debate with opinion.
And then use YOUR definitions of your terms to make your argument.
"There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
spanking can produce sociopathy in children. "
Gelles et al are not the only researchers.
As I said, define what you mean by 'acceptable,' in terms that go
beyond opinion, and show your evidence....beyond opinion, that would
meet your definition of "scientifically acceptable evidence," for lack
of spanking producing sociopathology in children.
Can you handle it? Can you control yourself?
Let's see.
I will cross post this out to ascps soley that you might not miss it.
The exchange between us on topic won't begin until you meet those
simple criteria, including posting only to aps.
Best wished, Kane
Dan Sullivan
Spanking should always be the LAST resort.
If spanking is to be used, it should be three swats on the behind with
an open hand NOT to cause injury, but to gain the child's attention...
and NOT while the parent who's doing the spanking is angry.
NO IMPLEMENTS other than an open hand!!!!
monkeysgirl
Spanking rants are ot here.
monkeysgirl
Don,
Your hyterical rants do not belong here.
Are you Pangs big brother?
monkeysgirl
Don Fisher's spanking rants are ot here.
IOW - yo disgusting daddy ain't welcome.
0:->
Ken, you did not invite Ron to debate you. You PRESUMED he said
something when in fact you were responding to ME. You said, "Ron there
are children who self discipline."
He responded by telling you simply he wasn't part of the debate...he
had NOT posted previously to the thread, and you were mistaken in
answering ME as though I was Ron.
Then you posted:
" If you notice Kane and Ron have a credibility problem, including
things
like claiming you said things you didn't. It seems to be de rigueur in
their
argument style. "
Ron came back telling you he doesn't debate this issue.
Then you attack him again for clarifying he's not interested in the
issue...and your inclusion of him is pointless.
Hello!?
Are you awake in there?
Stop dodging. We have enough of this with Doan. I simply don't debate
dodgers any longer.
Stay on the topic, talk to ME and with ME, and no others until you have
decided we are at an end in the discussion. Drawing Ron or Doan, or
anyone else I see simply as a diversion by the opponent.
(And getting Ron involved when he simply pointed out that you weren't
providing evidence is rather stupid. When Ron debated me previously on
this he DID provided evidence, as did I...not dodging, no lying, no
bullshit, and openly agreeing we had differing opinions on the subject)
If you cannot meet simple rules of debate (one to one is usually the
rule) then forget it.
Thanks. Kane
monkeysgirl
Don - we know you have serious issues. Please get help.
In the meantime, your hysterical OT spanking rants are not welcome here.
Don't you have some kiddies you can abuse for an extra buck.
krp
news:1168711126....@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
> Can the pro-spankers define spanking? how hard, where on body, and for
> what?
Sure. Hard enough to hurt. Moderate enough not to cause any lasting
physical injury. For? Doing bad things to others.
> Have you tried non-violent ways to disipline?
I have. Most of them, like "Time Out" are just SILLY as hell.
krp
>> Yeah they are but feel FREE to show us your "SCIENTIFIC PROOF" that
>> spanking CAUSES aggression in children.
>> So you can "DEBATE" me.
> Well, I can see that my attempt to open a debate with you, based on
> your claims (I made none related to your reply) is not going to go
> anywhere. You still can't seem to stop lying.
I see you cannot address the "debate" with scientific evidence to
support YOUR endorsement of spanking causing children to be aggressive,
instead you make the debate about ME! Noted. You lose again!
> And you have attempted to draw others into this exchange between you and
> I.
Nope I have NOT. LIAR!
> I said I'd debate YOU, and no one else.
That's YOUR problem not mine. So far you aren't debating me but you're
whining like a child and changing the subject.
> Oddly enough you pick the person who holds opinions that differ with mine
> on the subject of corporal punishment who I respect in these
> forums, and try to force him to my side on this issue.
I didn't pick anyone Kane.
> I asked you to debate me, and with specific simple easily met
> conditions. Clarification of terms, mostly. And to confine ourselves to
> aps, and each other in the debate.
Fine show me scientific evidence to support your position. YOU WON'T!
YOU CAN'T! SO you make this about me. What debating skills.
> You have shown me that you refuse.
No it is YOU who is refusing.
> Let's start at the beginning. I posted a quote from an article on an
> international study, a survey of families in a number of countries,
> across the spectrum of CP acceptability or rejection.
Let's start with one point of agreement. A "survey" is NOT a "study" and
typically is NOT "scientific." Certainly NOT proof of causality.
> It was met with comments by Doan and LaVonne, and you dropped in at one
> point with this comment, your first, in the thread:
> "There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
> aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
> spanking can produce sociopathy in children. "
There isn't! You have repeatedly been challenged to present some, to this
point you have REFUSED to do so!
> You made this statement in reply to Doan's claim that the title of the
> article was bogus.
The claim IS bogus from a scientific standpoint. Uf you want to debate
that, SHOW US YOUR EVIDENCE!
> Now if you two wish to sign each other's dance card, be my guest, but
> I, Kane, offerred to take you up on your claim.
No you have chosen so far to be a blowhard. Present your evidence ort
admit defeat!
> You have chosen, so far to go everywhere but to my challenge.
I went straight at it. Present your PROOF!!! Burden is on YOU.
> You have NOT, as I requested, clarified what you would consider
> "acceptable," in "scientifically acceptable evidence," and you have not
> stuck to aps as the forum to have our debate in.
I don't subscribe to that forum. Why must I confine it there? What's
scientifically acceptable? A "study" (not a survey) conducted by a qualified
authority that uses the scientific mthod to demonstrate causality. NOT an
opinion piece by another blowhard you agree with. SCIENCE documented as to
methodology and verified and subjected to peer review published in a
recognized journal.
> You have not presented your evidence for proof of sociopathy in
> children being produced by a lack of "spanking," as you put it. And you
> most certainly made a statement that this is true because more
> sociopathogy is present now than in the past in the population.
Yeah I did, you snipped it and ignore it.
> This was presented as fiat but NO proof, no data, no facts, no
> authoritative sources.
YOU made the dogmatic claim that spanking "CAUSES AGRESSION IN CHILDREN"
Yopu have not offered anything by an OPINION piece bereft opf har evidence.
> If you wish to have a war of opinions you can certainly do so. But, Ken
> it was NOT I who made a claim about this issue, I simply posted an
> article and YOU then made personal claims regarding and quoted by me as
> above.
You claim the article is definative. I said it isn't ans asked for PROOF
from you that it is CAUSAL. SO far - 100% of your efforts have been attacks
on ME and NADA as to evidence to support the original bullshit claim.
> Debate here in aps without crossposting. Debate with ME alone. Agree to
> and adhere to no ad hom. Remove all personal issues about me or other
> posters.
You first and I will maintain ASCPS. Afraid? Need to summon your
supporters? Want a firendly forum?
> Define your terms. I will not debate with opinion.
YOU FIRST!
> And then use YOUR definitions of your terms to make your argument.
> "There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
> aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
> spanking can produce sociopathy in children. "
I have started, BUT - YOU made the original claimm and REFUSE to present
supporting evidence. Again OPINION SURVEYS are NOT "science!"
PERIOD!
> Gelles et al are not the only researchers.
Just the most respected.
> As I said, define what you mean by 'acceptable,' in terms that go beyond
> opinion, and show your evidence....beyond opinion, that would
> meet your definition of "scientifically acceptable evidence," for lack of
> spanking producing sociopathology in children.
YOU FIRST!
> Can you handle it? Can you control yourself? Let's see.
Physician heal thyself first.
> I will cross post this out to ascps soley that you might not miss it.
Tell you what Kane. Post it ONLY do your spanking newsgroup so I won't
have to see your whining bullshit. Then you can declare yourself to be the
WINNER in your little circle, opr debate me OPENLY and start presenting
FACTS and not your usual bullshit.
> The exchange between us on topic won't begin until you meet those simple
> criteria, including posting only to aps.
No - weenie - YOU do NOT get to make all the rules Mein Fuehrer! Debate
me openly or STFU! And start presenting scientific evidence to support your
claim. You do NOT get to throw a hissy-fit and demand that I disprove your
silly bullshit first. Get one thing through your head Kane you are NOT the
BOSS here, NOT with me you ain't. Save that bullshit for people you CAN
bully into giving up their kids to you! You don't come remotely close to
scaring me pr making me back down. Now if you really want to debate -
PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE and then I will respond to it.
krp
>> >>> (snip)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Ron there are children who self discipline. They never need a
>> >>>> spanking.
>> >>> (snip)
>> >>
>> >>> Kenny, I'm not involved in this discussion, and rarely comment on CP
>> >>> issues. Do some research dopy, get the facts before you again make
>> >>> yourself look like an idiot.
>> >>
>> >> I see you deliberately SNIPPED all references to the claims of Dr.
>> >> Gelles and the refutations from Dr. Steinmetz and Dr. Spock..
>> >
>> > Yes, they were not relevant to my post. Only your own stupidity.
>>
>>
>> Yeah they are but feel FREE to show us your "SCIENTIFIC PROOF" that
>> spanking CAUSES aggression in children.
>> So you can "DEBATE" me.
> Ken, you did not invite Ron to debate you. You PRESUMED he said
> something when in fact you were responding to ME. You said, "Ron there
> are children who self discipline."
> He responded by telling you simply he wasn't part of the debate...he
> had NOT posted previously to the thread, and you were mistaken in
> answering ME as though I was Ron.
Look Kane both you and Ron have to learn that YOU do not dictate the
terms of a debate. Get over yourselves. I know you are used to bullying
people into submitting to you and your AUTHORITY, it don't work on me. You
want to debate, or Ron does, then DEBATE. Present our evidence or shut the
hell up and quit whining like a baby!
0:->
> "0:->" <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:VZadnTfKcrfscDrY...@scnresearch.com...
>
>>>>>>> First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be
>>>>>>> implied.
>>>>>>> Thus, the claim that spanking "Leads" to child aggression and anxiety
>>>>>>> is bogus! Second, the authors themselves admitted that they included
>>>>>>> beatings that are certainly abusive in the USA in study. If you
>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>> want to debate this study, I am willing to give it a shot - no verbal
>>>>>>> abuse warranted. ;-) Wanna give me a try? My guess is you will be
>>>>>>> the one that do the avoidance and instead will use your little Kane9
>>>>>>> to do the verbal abuse and attack for you.
>>>>> There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
>>>>> aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
>>>>> spanking can produce sociopathy in children.
>>>>>
>>>> Do you know that Kane is a "never-spanked" boy?
>
>> Did you notice, Ken, that Doan didn't agree with you? Didn't contribute
>> anything to the issue?
>
> Should I fly off the handle at him?
I can't think why. He supports you.
> Call him names?
That's entirely up to you who you call names. Seems you've chosen me.
> Belittle him?
You don't belittle people?
> Find
> somebody that says bad things about him and proclaim that I agree 100% with
> what his detractors claim about him? No Kane - I AM NOT YOU!
Where did I agree 100% with your detractors?
I agree with them when I look at your postings, not with their claims.
I take their claims with a grain of salt. I've said so.
>> My status or yours as having been spanked or not is not relevant to the
>> issue if we are going to discuss facts....and FACTS seem to be what you
>> claim you have.
> A lack of discipline as a child can and usually does explain abusive
> behavior in adults.
A lack of personally integrated self control, by way of developing a
conscience, usually does explain abusive behavior in adults.
Now which is it for you, Ken?
Ron
I don't have any such proof ken, and have never claimed it. The only thing
I have proven is that you are a liar, again. But you should be getting that
point by now, everyone else is.
Ron
Doan
My bet is Kane won't and can't. He got his ass kicked by me so many in
this newsgroup that he now afraid to face me directly because I keep
exposing his STUPIDITY so that everyone can see it. His latest STUPIDITY
is this claim:
"Correlation is a valid scientific concept. It is and has been used
successfully to make major policy and decisions to action on things
as varied as rocket launches, and what to serve for breakfast."
Doan
Doan
Still now "scientific" proof from Kane! ;-)
Doan
Doan
Kane is claiming that he has the proof, Ron.
Doan
0:->
....hihihi....
0:->
.....hihihi.....
<chuckle>
0:->
...more "hihihi".....
<R R R R>
Dan Sullivan
krp wrote:
> "Firemonkey" <hone...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1168711126....@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Can the pro-spankers define spanking? how hard, where on body, and for
> > what?
>
> Sure. Hard enough to hurt. Moderate enough not to cause any lasting
> physical injury. For? Doing bad things to others.
How many swats and where on the body?
> > Have you tried non-violent ways to disipline?
>
> I have. Most of them, like "Time Out" are just SILLY as hell.
Please describe the ones other than the "most of them" that weren't
"just SILLY as hell."
I used the threat of going to bed early as an effective method of
controling poor behavior.
Let them get sent to bed early a few times and they learn NOT to
continue whatever it was they were doing.
NO KID wants to go to bed early!!!
Doan
So much for the claim that I am on your "do-not-reply" list. Once again,
you have proven yourself to be a STUPID liar! Hihihi!
Doan
Doan
Hahaha! I thought that I am on your "do-not-reply" list. You are such
a STUPID liar! ;-)
Doan
Doan
Hihihi! What a STUPID liar you are!
Doan
0:->
....hihihi.......
0:->
.........hihihi...............
<snicker>
Doan
>
> krp wrote:
> > "Firemonkey" <hone...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1168711126....@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > Can the pro-spankers define spanking? how hard, where on body, and for
> > > what?
> >
> > Sure. Hard enough to hurt. Moderate enough not to cause any lasting
> > physical injury. For? Doing bad things to others.
>
> How many swats and where on the body?
>
Why don't you ask Kane how hard he hit his own children? ;-)
Doan
0:->
....hihihi.......
<smile>
Greegor
you don't submit he will throw a hissy fit!
1 on 1
alt.parenting.spanking only
It's just part of Kane's Megalomania.
Neither ascps nor aps is moderated nor are they Kane's.
Greegor
> If you notice Kane and Ron have a credibility problem, including things
> like claiming you said things you didn't. It seems to be de rigueur in their
> argument style.
It has been for ages.
krp wrote:
> Should I fly off the handle at him? Call him names? Belittle him? Find
> somebody that says bad things about him and proclaim that I agree 100% with
> what his detractors claim about him? No Kane - I AM NOT YOU!
>
> > My status or yours as having been spanked or not is not relevant to the
> > issue if we are going to discuss facts....and FACTS seem to be what you
> > claim you have.
>
> A lack of discipline as a child can and usually does explain abusive
> behavior in adults.
Would that include Kane's year of posting gratuitous profanity?
I think Kane's claim of "never spanked" is a lie.
Kane has defended "moral or ethical" lies.
Can you guess from his hysterics what he considers moral and ethical?
I think the Donald L. Fisher "brutal upbringing" explains Kane's
rabid obsession as a CATHARSIS.
0:->
> krp wrote
>> If you notice Kane and Ron have a credibility problem, including things
>> like claiming you said things you didn't. It seems to be de rigueur in their
>> argument style.
>
> It has been for ages.
Name a few things either Ron or I have said you said that you didn't, Greg.
There's a good boy.
> krp wrote:
>> Should I fly off the handle at him? Call him names? Belittle him? Find
>> somebody that says bad things about him and proclaim that I agree 100% with
>> what his detractors claim about him? No Kane - I AM NOT YOU!
>>
>>> My status or yours as having been spanked or not is not relevant to the
>>> issue if we are going to discuss facts....and FACTS seem to be what you
>>> claim you have.
>> A lack of discipline as a child can and usually does explain abusive
>> behavior in adults.
>
> Would that include Kane's year of posting gratuitous profanity?
Could. Anything is possible. Are you suggesting that people that
parent's spanked are prone to cursing? And those that are, aren't?
> I think Kane's claim of "never spanked" is a lie.
No, Doan's claim is a lie. That's not what I said. He's a "context
abortion" liar, just like you are an attribution abortion liar, Greg.
But anyone can see that in a few post in a thread.
> Kane has defended "moral or ethical" lies.
Odd, I have, when doing so, asked you, and you ran, "would you lie to
protect someone's life?"
Why not answer?
> Can you guess from his hysterics what he considers moral and ethical?
I sure can. I consider lying to protect someone safety and life very
ethical indeed. In fact far more ethical and moral than telling the
truth and them being killed or injured.
How about you, Greg? You going to answer my simple question, or is it
going to be a couple of years, like the question I asked you to help
clarify your meaning on the "use of lethal force by parents?"
> I think the Donald L. Fisher "brutal upbringing" explains Kane's
> rabid obsession as a CATHARSIS.
What brutal upbringing?
So let me see now. Lack of CP creates those that swear. Brutal
upbringing, if we follow your lying logic that I'm Don Fisher, explains
my obscenities.
Can you explain your logic here? It escapes me?
In fact, you make a very good case for the fact I'm not your Donald L.
Fisher.
It's nice you have a playmate though. We were getting worried about you
as Dennis became more and more obvious, and now Michael.
R R RR R R R
0:->
monkeysgirl
Don - r u gay?
Did u raise gay spawn?
0:->
> 0:-> wrote:
>
> Don - r u gay?
No. I'd tell you if I was though. It's nothing to be ashamed of.
>
> Did u raise gay spawn?
>
I haven't asked them. Nothing indicates they are gay.
If they were and I had their permission I'd certainly say so. It's
nothing to be ashamed of.
Michael, are you now going back to your typical gay bashing ways?
0:->
monkeysgirl
> monkeysgirl wrote:
>> 0:-> wrote:
>>
>> Don - r u gay?
>
> No. I'd tell you if I was though. It's nothing to be ashamed of.
>>
>> Did u raise gay spawn?
>>
> I haven't asked them. Nothing indicates they are gay.
>
> If they were and I had their permission I'd certainly say so. It's
> nothing to be ashamed of.
Then y r they hiding it from you?
>
> Michael, are you now going back to your typical gay bashing ways?
>
>
> 0:->
--
0:->
> 0:-> wrote:
>> monkeysgirl wrote:
>>> 0:-> wrote:
>>>
>>> Don - r u gay?
>>
>> No. I'd tell you if I was though. It's nothing to be ashamed of.
>>>
>>> Did u raise gay spawn?
>>>
>> I haven't asked them. Nothing indicates they are gay.
>>
>> If they were and I had their permission I'd certainly say so. It's
>> nothing to be ashamed of.
>
> Then y r they hiding it from you?
I wouldn't have the faintest idea.
Why did they reveal it to you and not me?
>
>>
>> Michael, are you now going back to your typical gay bashing ways?
Can't handle the role playing, I see.
0:->
>>
>>
>> 0:->
>
Doan
Doan
you have proven yourself to be a STUPID liar! Hihihi!
Doan
Doan
you have proven yourself to be a STUPID liar! Hihihi!
Doan
0:->
....hihihi.....
<snicker>
Doan
That's true and it only, once again, exposed Kane's STUPIDITY! ;-)
Doan
0:->
....hihihi.....
<R R R R R>
inkspot
--
Doan
Stop exposing your STUPIDITY, Kane! ;-)
krp
>
>>>>>>>> First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be
>>>>>>>> implied.
>>>>>>>> Thus, the claim that spanking "Leads" to child aggression and
>>>>>>>> anxiety
>>>>>>>> is bogus! Second, the authors themselves admitted that they
>>>>>>>> included
>>>>>>>> beatings that are certainly abusive in the USA in study. If you
>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>> want to debate this study, I am willing to give it a shot - no
>>>>>>>> verbal
>>>>>>>> abuse warranted. ;-) Wanna give me a try? My guess is you will
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> the one that do the avoidance and instead will use your little
>>>>>>>> Kane9
>>>>>>>> to do the verbal abuse and attack for you.
>>>>>> There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
>>>>>> aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
>>>>>> spanking can produce sociopathy in children.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Do you know that Kane is a "never-spanked" boy?
>>
>>> Did you notice, Ken, that Doan didn't agree with you? Didn't contribute
>>> anything to the issue?
>> Should I fly off the handle at him?
> I can't think why. He supports you.
Oh does he? Were those HIS lips on my ass? Grow up Kane the paranoid.
> > Call him names?
> That's entirely up to you who you call names. Seems you've chosen me.
I have not called you anything you haven't earned.
> > Belittle him?
> You don't belittle people?
Only people who beg for it, like you and Ron.
> > Find
>> somebody that says bad things about him and proclaim that I agree 100%
>> with what his detractors claim about him? No Kane - I AM NOT YOU!
> Where did I agree 100% with your detractors?
Come on Kane. If Moore takes a shap turn the concussion of your nose
coming out of his ass would be loud enough to break windows in 17 states!
> I agree with them when I look at your postings, not with their claims.
>
> I take their claims with a grain of salt. I've said so.
You swallow them whole. You NEED to. Otherwise you'd have to confron
that your Emperor is buck naked!
>>> My status or yours as having been spanked or not is not relevant to the
>>> issue if we are going to discuss facts....and FACTS seem to be what you
>>> claim you have.
>
>> A lack of discipline as a child can and usually does explain abusive
>> behavior in adults.
> A lack of personally integrated self control, by way of developing a
> conscience, usually does explain abusive behavior in adults.
Kane - most people are natural self regulators. The vast majority of
humans are both with the capacity for empathy. Those that are not fall into
two categories, those who CAN be taught self regulation and those who
cannot. Those who CAN be taught self regulation (depends on where they fall
on the spectrum) learn by corporal punishment. TGhey don't call a child's
ASS the "seat of learning" for nothing.
The problem with people like you, HARD LINE EXTREMISTS, is that
intelectually you can't differentiate between beating a child into a coma,
and a spanking that may leave the kid's ass sore and red. Your view can't
discriminate between a parent insane with anger and a parent who loves their
child enough to correct them. It's beyond the scope of your experience to
understand that most parents really dread corporal puunishment and causing
the child they love pain. YOU need to believe they enjoy it.
>
0:->
....a clear attempt to dodge by posting to ascps, instead of just aps
where this particular debate belongs. ...
I invite you to meet me in aps to continue this brilliant dialogue you
posted.
Thanks, Kane
krp
>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron there are children who self discipline. They never need a
>>>>>> spanking.
>>>>> (snip)
>>>>
>>>>> Kenny, I'm not involved in this discussion, and rarely comment on CP
>>>>> issues. Do some research dopy, get the facts before you again make
>>>>> yourself look like an idiot.
>>>>
>>>> I see you deliberately SNIPPED all references to the claims of Dr.
>>>> Gelles and the refutations from Dr. Steinmetz and Dr. Spock..
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yeah they are but feel FREE to show us your "SCIENTIFIC PROOF" that
>> spanking CAUSES aggression in children.
>> So you can "DEBATE" me.
> I don't have any such proof ken, and have never claimed it. The only
> thing I have proven is that you are a liar, again. But you should be
> getting that point by now, everyone else is.
I knew that from the start because there isn't any! I am getting the
point that you could use some in-patient care at a mental facility Ron.
There is, then, NO "debate" and the challenges were mental aberrations.
OKAY!
krp
"Doan" <do...@usc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.33.070113...@skat.usc.edu...
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Ron there are children who self discipline. They never need a
>> >>>>> spanking.
>> >>>> (snip)
>> >>>
>> >>>> Kenny, I'm not involved in this discussion, and rarely comment on CP
>> >>>> issues. Do some research dopy, get the facts before you again make
>> >>>> yourself look like an idiot.
>> >>>
>> >>> I see you deliberately SNIPPED all references to the claims of Dr.
>> >>> Gelles and the refutations from Dr. Steinmetz and Dr. Spock..
>> >>
>> >> Yes, they were not relevant to my post. Only your own stupidity.
>> >
>> >
>> > Yeah they are but feel FREE to show us your "SCIENTIFIC PROOF" that
>> > spanking CAUSES aggression in children.
>> > So you can "DEBATE" me.
>>
>> I don't have any such proof ken, and have never claimed it. The only
>> thing
>> I have proven is that you are a liar, again. But you should be getting
>> that
>> point by now, everyone else is.
>>
>
> Kane is claiming that he has the proof, Ron.
Neither of them do, it's BULLSHIT!
krp
Tell us Kane where is your proof that a spanking will cause a child to
become a wild beast? Or will you admit like Ron that you lied and you have
NO proof????
I bet you don't have it in you. It's that you find it impossible to admit
you're wrong about things. It's a personality defect.
krp
>> >> spanking CAUSES aggression in children.
>> >> So you can "DEBATE" me.
>>
>> > aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
>> > spanking can produce sociopathy in children. "
>>
>> > aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
>> > spanking can produce sociopathy in children. "
>>
Of course it is. Often in "science" as opposed to CPS voo doo,
"correlation" is the best evidence we have because "causation" is so hard to
prove. But in this case Kane has NADA! Ron has finally admitted he has NO
evidence of any kind. Progress toward sanity.
krp
> Doan wrote:
>
> ....hihihi....
>>
>> "Correlation is a valid scientific concept. It is and has been used
>> successfully to make major policy and decisions to action on things
>> as varied as rocket launches, and what to serve for breakfast."
\
I see - NO substantive retort. As expected.
krp
"inkspot" <inky...@inkydink.net> wrote in message
news:45a9826f$0$4750$8826...@free.teranews.com...
> I'm not even gonna OT these gems - I luv it when you clowns kook out.
Buit Kane actually believe he has DEVASTATED everyone who has disagred with
him. PLEASE don't tell him he hasn't., His delusions are so much fun.
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:1168730036.1...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>> > Can the pro-spankers define spanking? how hard, where on body, and for
>> > what?
>>
>> Sure. Hard enough to hurt. Moderate enough not to cause any lasting
>> physical injury. For? Doing bad things to others.
> How many swats and where on the body?
Generally on the ass, how many is situationally dependent. With some
kids ONE is enough. With others - depends on the child's pain threshold. The
object IS to cause the child enough pain that they LEARN. It has to be
consistant and moderate. And NOT done in anger.
>> > Have you tried non-violent ways to disipline?
>> I have. Most of them, like "Time Out" are just SILLY as hell.
> Please describe the ones other than the "most of them" that weren't "just
> SILLY as hell."
That I used with my kids? Grounding. Denial of prividges. Loss of
objects of significance. Such as toys. Not taking them places. Such as
cancelling a trip to Disneyworld they badly wanted. Good for dealing with
oppositional defiance. Often it becomes a contest, much like here.
> I used the threat of going to bed early as an effective method of
> controling poor behavior.
Problem is like "Time Out" you have to stay up to supervise. You wind up
punishing yourself instead of the child.
> Let them get sent to bed early a few times and they learn NOT to continue
> whatever it was they were doing.
> NO KID wants to go to bed early!!!
Unless they have a RV, video game or CD player.
0:->
I know you think that was brilliant reparte and debate Ken, but actually
it comes across as more of the blowhard you have proven yourself to be
even before coming to these ngs.
Claiming someone is nuts because they "never claimed" something, so they
can't (and don't wish to) debate it, shows you are a nut, does it not?
0?-]
krp
"Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168731572....@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Ken, Kane wants you to capitulate to his terms, and if
> you don't submit he will throw a hissy fit!
Oh I got the THREATS today from Ron that he's take it OFF Usenet with me and
that I had better be afraid of what he can do to me!
One thing the two cowboys need to know about me is that "threats" don't
work. Moore has been making them for a DECADE and carrying some of them out.
Like listing things of Freecycle and sending MORONS to my door looking for
things like laptops, a FREE corvette, a FREE Centennial Edition Harley
Motorcycle. And a free Lamborghini... That Moore would do such juvenile
pranks isn't at all surprising to me. He's been doing that shit to me and
others for years. He especially loves to bully women. Maybe Kane could look
at Moore's harassment of Stacy Rupp Anderson, and Judy McLinn. Often
SEXUALLY VIOLENT harassment. Stuff they buy into with their new PAL Moore!
They give Moore a PASS on all that, on Joe and John and Keith Ray, and so
MANY MANY MANY others. Especially women.
Here is a difference between Moore and I. Both of us have been divorced
twice. He HATES women. I don't. my first wife was a beautiful woman who was
a victim of a bad family tree, and cursed with alcohol and drug abuse that
eventually cost her her life. I never hated her, I felt sorry for her
because I loved her. My second wife of 22 years had her childhood catch up
with her in a mid-life crisis. Again she destroyed lives around her, but
she is paying the price, now she gets drunk many nights a week and weekends
are lost weekends in booze. She was an child incest victim and a victim of a
gang rape when she was 15 and an abortion that has always caused her great
conflicts. It all came out almost overnight. She was exploited by a
co-worker. Now she is miserable. I'm not. I moved on and made a generous
settlement with her at the divorce that was far more than the court ordered
or she really deserved. Why? Because I loved her too. Moore on the other
hand harasses his ex wives by pulling the same shit on them he does on me
and others. I still do favors for my ex. I remarried and won the lottery
with a great woman I married. I have no reason to hate women, Moore does. He
has had both ex-wives given him problems with seeing his kids. Why? because
he has acted in ways to deserve it. With the second batch of kids, again
he's a deadbeat dad.
Kane and Ron can do a search on Stacy Rupp Anderson and Judy McLinn and
her daughter Jade. It's in Google.... I think it's hilarious which side they
chose.
krp
>> If you notice Kane and Ron have a credibility problem, including
>> things
>> like claiming you said things you didn't. It seems to be de rigueur in
>> their
>> argument style.
>
> It has been for ages.
>> Should I fly off the handle at him? Call him names? Belittle him?
>> Find
>> somebody that says bad things about him and proclaim that I agree 100%
>> with
>> what his detractors claim about him? No Kane - I AM NOT YOU!
>>
>> > My status or yours as having been spanked or not is not relevant to the
>> > issue if we are going to discuss facts....and FACTS seem to be what you
>> > claim you have.
>>
>> A lack of discipline as a child can and usually does explain abusive
>> behavior in adults.
>
> Would that include Kane's year of posting gratuitous profanity?
He tries very hard to be a bully. Which generally means he has a ban
conflict with his inferiority complex. Actually what he is confronting is
the fact that he IS inferior.
> I think Kane's claim of "never spanked" is a lie.
> Kane has defended "moral or ethical" lies.
> Can you guess from his hysterics what he considers moral and ethical?
>
> I think the Donald L. Fisher "brutal upbringing" explains Kane's
> rabid obsession as a CATHARSIS.
He's not worth that deep of analysis. That he abuses others so he can
feel good about himself says all that needs to be said.
krp
>
> So much for the claim that I am on your "do-not-reply" list. Once again,
I think Kane and Ron are having out of body experiences today. First the
admission that they have NO evidence to support the claim that spanking
turns children into crazed zombies (sorry for the hype just reductio ad
absurdum) now Ronny TRIES to prove the INFALLIBILITY of SAC dolls and shows
us a case where he THINKS a court in Ohio gave them a RINGING ENDORSEMENT OF
INFALLIBILITY! Too bad his reasoning skills are so POOR. AT least he has
NO idea of how to read a court decision. The court didn't address the dolls
at all, except to say that the expert had "other evidence." Which is a
court's way of saying; "okay we know the dolls are bullshit so we'll ignore
them. and not deal with the question." The decision is almost 20 years old.
Lots of water has flowed under that bridge in the 20 years since. The guy's
belief in his own BULLSHIT amuses the hell out of me.
krp
> krp wrote:
> ....a clear attempt to dodge by posting to ascps, instead of just aps
> where this particular debate belongs. ...
YES MEIN FUEHRER! Yoiur promotion to MESSIAH is under consideration.
> I invite you to meet me in aps to continue this brilliant dialogue you
> posted.
Running away Kane? SCREAMING in DEFEAT? Looking for the reserves to come
save you? Notice how you and Ron are ALL ALONE?
krp
>>>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>>>> Ron there are children who self discipline. They never need a
>>>>>>>> spanking.
>>>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>>> Kenny, I'm not involved in this discussion, and rarely comment on CP
>>>>>>> issues. Do some research dopy, get the facts before you again make
>>>>>>> yourself look like an idiot.
>>>>>> I see you deliberately SNIPPED all references to the claims of Dr.
>>>>>> Gelles and the refutations from Dr. Steinmetz and Dr. Spock..
>>>>> Yes, they were not relevant to my post. Only your own stupidity.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah they are but feel FREE to show us your "SCIENTIFIC PROOF" that
>>>> spanking CAUSES aggression in children.
>>>> So you can "DEBATE" me.
>>
>>> I don't have any such proof ken, and have never claimed it. The only
>>> thing I have proven is that you are a liar, again. But you should be
>>> getting that point by now, everyone else is.
>>
>> I knew that from the start because there isn't any! I am getting the
>> point that you could use some in-patient care at a mental facility Ron.
>> There is, then, NO "debate" and the challenges were mental aberrations.
>> OKAY!
>
> I know you think that was brilliant reparte and debate Ken, but actually
> it comes across as more of the blowhard you have proven yourself to be
> even before coming to these ngs.
So where is your "ABSOLUTE SCIENTIFIC PROOF" there Kane? We're still
waiting. With you and Ron I have become convinces the Shrine Circus is in
town and we are watching you two get out of your clown car. I await the
evidence. I won't hold my breath.
Ron
Let me see if I can clear this up for you ken, if its possible.
Understanding your mental limitations and all.
Kane and I are on opposite sides of this issue. We have agreed to disagree
on this one, as gentlemen should. The few times I have commented on this
subject he has done the gentlemanly thing and has not challenged me, and I
afford him the same courtesy. We have a relationship in Usenet that we know
this issue could damage, so we have agreed to give each other a pass here,
in furtherance of that relationship.
You want to debate Kane on this topic, go ahead. It should be entertaining
to watch. And I might, but then again I might not. In either case I'm
pretty sure that in this area you are WAY over your head. Kane has far to
much experience with this issue, just as I do with CPS, for you to have any
hope at all of coming out with anything less than egg on your face. Which
of course has its own entertainment value.
Ron
Ron
Given the caliber of his opponent, I think Kane does not need my assistance.
He is easily a match and more for you.
He wishes to take the conversation to the proper venue ken, not only is it a
common sense action it is also a common courtesy thing. Now of course that
may be something that is lost on you, but the other readers here will see it
for what it is.
Ron
krp
Whoakay!
> Kane and I are on opposite sides of this issue. We have agreed to
> disagree on this one, as gentlemen should. The few times I have commented
> on this subject he has done the gentlemanly thing and has not challenged
> me, and I afford him the same courtesy. We have a relationship in Usenet
> that we know this issue could damage, so we have agreed to give each other
> a pass here, in furtherance of that relationship.
Kane is simply full of shit and himself. (Same thing.)
> You want to debate Kane on this topic, go ahead. It should be
> entertaining to watch. And I might, but then again I might not. In
> either case I'm pretty sure that in this area you are WAY over your head.
> Kane has far to much experience with this issue, just as I do with CPS,
> for you to have any hope at all of coming out with anything less than egg
> on your face. Which of course has its own entertainment value.
I only have 30 years experience. When's he gonna start?
krp
>
>>> ....a clear attempt to dodge by posting to ascps, instead of just aps
>>> where this particular debate belongs. ...
>>> '
>>
>> YES MEIN FUEHRER! Yoiur promotion to MESSIAH is under consideration.
>>
>>> I invite you to meet me in aps to continue this brilliant dialogue you
>>> posted.
>>
>> Running away Kane? SCREAMING in DEFEAT? Looking for the reserves to come
>> save you? Notice how you and Ron are ALL ALONE?
>
> Given the caliber of his opponent, I think Kane does not need my
> assistance. He is easily a match and more for you.
Good,. BYE.
Ron
An interesting opinion, and of course again not one supported by the facts.
Maybe he sould start from that, that you are unable to state anything
supported by facts. That has pretty much been your debate style so far,
just as predicted by mr moore (again), but I'm kind of curious why you would
wish to provide him with such a major advantage even before the debate
begins.
>> You want to debate Kane on this topic, go ahead. It should be
>> entertaining to watch. And I might, but then again I might not. In
>> either case I'm pretty sure that in this area you are WAY over your head.
>> Kane has far to much experience with this issue, just as I do with CPS,
>> for you to have any hope at all of coming out with anything less than egg
>> on your face. Which of course has its own entertainment value.
>
> I only have 30 years experience. When's he gonna start?
Your experience as usual is questionable. As for when he starts, well I'd
suggest that you put your seatbelt on, you are in for quite a ride.
Ron
0:->
> "Ron" <apositi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:tUcqh.110627$Pv5....@newsfe17.lga...
>>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>>> Ron there are children who self discipline. They never need a
>>>>>>> spanking.
>>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>> Kenny, I'm not involved in this discussion, and rarely comment on CP
>>>>>> issues. Do some research dopy, get the facts before you again make
>>>>>> yourself look like an idiot.
>>>>> I see you deliberately SNIPPED all references to the claims of Dr.
>>>>> Gelles and the refutations from Dr. Steinmetz and Dr. Spock..
>>>> Yes, they were not relevant to my post. Only your own stupidity.
>>>
>>> Yeah they are but feel FREE to show us your "SCIENTIFIC PROOF" that
>>> spanking CAUSES aggression in children.
>>> So you can "DEBATE" me.
>
>> I don't have any such proof ken, and have never claimed it. The only
>> thing I have proven is that you are a liar, again. But you should be
>> getting that point by now, everyone else is.
>
> I knew that from the start because there isn't any!
Yes. That has been conceded by Ron as his reason for, one of them, for
not debating the issue with you. Are you going to continue to pretend
that somehow proves you are correct?
> I am getting the
> point that you could use some in-patient care at a mental facility Ron.
And I that you are projecting.
> There is, then, NO "debate" and the challenges were mental aberrations.
> OKAY!
What challenges? Ron wasn't participating. You simply set up a
delusional confrontation and pretended (or possibly you actually believe
it happened in the real world) that Ron had participated.
All he did was say, in effect, "I'm not participating, stop inviting me
to a party I already told you I chose not to attend."
Now isn't that right, Ken?
Can you show us, by directly quoting, in context, fully, a statement of
Ron's that indicates he thought he had evidence, or thought he didn't,
but wanted to support a claim of some kind?
I'll be here awaiting your dodge. I know you aren't going to answer the
simple question I just asked, but hey, I could use a little diversion on
a cold winter day.
And each wild ranting post of yours helps establish that indeed, you ARE
what has been claimed you are.
0:->
Greegor
> I offered to debate this issue with krp.
How magnanimous of you!
> No others will be responded to.
Liar.
> And my name, past, experiences, are of no
> consequence to this debate with krp.
They define everything you do and say.
> Unless of course anyone wishes to divert from
> the facts and evidence of krp's claim and my challenge.
Free will's a bitch for a Megalomaniac like Kane.
> I will consider that krp's allow others to do so in his behalf unless he
> takes up the challenge as I stated in previous posts and posts only to
> me on the issue.
You pretend Ken could stop others from commenting if he wanted to?
> Otherwise, the lot of you silly asses can go piss up a rope.
WHY can't you stand open debate Donald?
0:->
> "Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1168731572....@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Ken, Kane wants you to capitulate to his terms, and if
>> you don't submit he will throw a hissy fit!
>
>
> Oh I got the THREATS today from Ron that he's take it OFF Usenet with me and
> that I had better be afraid of what he can do to me!
"THREATS?" Actually he clarified your threat.
> One thing the two cowboys need to know about me is that "threats" don't
> work.
That's nice. But show us where a threat was made.
> Moore has been making them for a DECADE and carrying some of them out.
> Like listing things of Freecycle and sending MORONS to my door looking for
> things like laptops, a FREE corvette, a FREE Centennial Edition Harley
> Motorcycle. And a free Lamborghini... That Moore would do such juvenile
> pranks isn't at all surprising to me. He's been doing that shit to me and
> others for years. He especially loves to bully women. Maybe Kane could look
> at Moore's harassment of Stacy Rupp Anderson, and Judy McLinn. Often
> SEXUALLY VIOLENT harassment. Stuff they buy into with their new PAL Moore!
> They give Moore a PASS on all that, on Joe and John and Keith Ray, and so
> MANY MANY MANY others. Especially women.
You post a lot of claims, but unlike Moore, you do not post evidence or
point to how to find it.
> Here is a difference between Moore and I. Both of us have been divorced
> twice. He HATES women. I don't. my first wife was a beautiful woman who was
> a victim of a bad family tree, and cursed with alcohol and drug abuse that
> eventually cost her her life. I never hated her, I felt sorry for her
> because I loved her. My second wife of 22 years had her childhood catch up
> with her in a mid-life crisis. Again she destroyed lives around her, but
> she is paying the price, now she gets drunk many nights a week and weekends
> are lost weekends in booze. She was an child incest victim and a victim of a
> gang rape when she was 15 and an abortion that has always caused her great
> conflicts. It all came out almost overnight. She was exploited by a
> co-worker. Now she is miserable. I'm not. I moved on and made a generous
> settlement with her at the divorce that was far more than the court ordered
> or she really deserved. Why? Because I loved her too. Moore on the other
> hand harasses his ex wives by pulling the same shit on them he does on me
> and others. I still do favors for my ex. I remarried and won the lottery
> with a great woman I married. I have no reason to hate women, Moore does. He
> has had both ex-wives given him problems with seeing his kids. Why? because
> he has acted in ways to deserve it. With the second batch of kids, again
> he's a deadbeat dad.
>
> Kane and Ron can do a search on Stacy Rupp Anderson and Judy McLinn and
> her daughter Jade. It's in Google.... I think it's hilarious which side they
> chose.
No, YOU do the searching and pointing to prove YOUR claims, Ken.
Otherwise you don't know what we believe or why we believe it.
Ron
> krp wrote:
>> "Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1168731572....@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Ken, Kane wants you to capitulate to his terms, and if
>>> you don't submit he will throw a hissy fit!
>>
>>
>> Oh I got the THREATS today from Ron that he's take it OFF Usenet with me
>> and that I had better be afraid of what he can do to me!
>
> "THREATS?" Actually he clarified your threat.
>
Oh no Kane, if he prefers to think my comments were a threat I'm more than
happy to let him believe it. After all, ken's grasp of reality has shown
many times to be less than firm. My idea of what a "WAR" is is
significantly different than ken's, obviously. And if I were to initiate a
"WAR" with ken I'm sure that he would find it not to his liking.
So please, do not try and convince him otherwise. Its actually kind of fun
watching him squeal and squirm.
Ron
0:->
Done.
>
> Ron
>
>
krp
>> Kane is simply full of shit and himself. (Same thing.)
> An interesting opinion, and of course again not one supported by the
> facts. Maybe he sould start from that, that you are unable to state
> anything supported by facts. That has pretty much been your debate style
> so far, just as predicted by mr moore (again), but I'm kind of curious why
> you would wish to provide him with such a major advantage even before the
> debate begins.
Ron you seem to miss that the BURDEN here is on YOU and KANE. I indeed
HAVE supported my position, AND what is worse, I have shown where the
sources of you and Kane support my statements.
>>> You want to debate Kane on this topic, go ahead. It should be
>>> entertaining to watch. And I might, but then again I might not. In
>>> either case I'm pretty sure that in this area you are WAY over your
>>> head. Kane has far to much experience with this issue, just as I do with
>>> CPS, for you to have any hope at all of coming out with anything less
>>> than egg on your face. Which of course has its own entertainment value.
>> I only have 30 years experience. When's he gonna start?
> Your experience as usual is questionable. As for when he starts, well I'd
> suggest that you put your seatbelt on, you are in for quite a ride.
I guess I am going to spend lots of times upside down reading the
bullshit of you two.
krp
>>>>>>>> Ron there are children who self discipline. They never need a
>>>>>>>> spanking.
>>>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>>> Kenny, I'm not involved in this discussion, and rarely comment on CP
>>>>>>> issues. Do some research dopy, get the facts before you again make
>>>>>>> yourself look like an idiot.
>>>>>> I see you deliberately SNIPPED all references to the claims of Dr.
>>>>>> Gelles and the refutations from Dr. Steinmetz and Dr. Spock..
>>>>> Yes, they were not relevant to my post. Only your own stupidity.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah they are but feel FREE to show us your "SCIENTIFIC PROOF" that
>>>> spanking CAUSES aggression in children.
>>>> So you can "DEBATE" me.
>>
>>> I don't have any such proof ken, and have never claimed it. The only
>>> thing I have proven is that you are a liar, again. But you should be
>>> getting that point by now, everyone else is.
>>
>> I knew that from the start because there isn't any!
> Yes. That has been conceded by Ron as his reason for, one of them, for not
> debating the issue with you. Are you going to continue to pretend that
> somehow proves you are correct?
Well Kane - your TOTAL INABILITY to provide ANY scientific evidence to
support your claims regarding Spanking CAUSING aggression in children, and
My providing sources to support my position that there is NO such evidence
does prove me correct. You have now had TWO WEEKS to come up with something
that supports you. Maybe it is frustrating that I rules OUT "non-scientific
surveys" and opinion pieces as "evidence." Boo Hoo! Play your bullshit on
people with no knowledge.
> > I am getting the point that you could use some in-patient care at a
> > mental facility Ron.
> And I that you are projecting.
Make whatever conclusion you need to delude yourself into a comfort zone
Kane. OR try actually supporting your claim.
>> There is, then, NO "debate" and the challenges were mental aberrations.
>> OKAY!
> What challenges? Ron wasn't participating. You simply set up a delusional
> confrontation and pretended (or possibly you actually believe it happened
> in the real world) that Ron had participated.
> All he did was say, in effect, "I'm not participating, stop inviting me
> to a party I already told you I chose not to attend."
No - he honestlky admitted he had NO proof to support your absurd claim.
Of course neither do you and you continue to do your best to make as much
gorilla duct as you can and RUN away from your own challenge beacsusde you
know you're full of shit!
> Now isn't that right, Ken?
Only partly as usual with you two. HALF TRUTHS.
Let's see - HALF TRUTHS, GLITTERING GENARALITIES, the BIG
LIE.............Yeah I am familiar with your debate tactics. Old Joe
Goebbels documented thewm quite well. I read his book.
> Can you show us, by directly quoting, in context, fully, a statement of
> Ron's that indicates he thought he had evidence, or thought he didn't, but
> wanted to support a claim of some kind?
>
> I'll be here awaiting your dodge. I know you aren't going to answer the
> simple question I just asked, but hey, I could use a little diversion on a
> cold winter day.
>
> And each wild ranting post of yours helps establish that indeed, you ARE
> what has been claimed you are.
Ron is out of the picture. He WAS supporting you. You are now ALONE
Kane. Where's your PROOF?????????
krp
>>> Ken, Kane wants you to capitulate to his terms, and if
>>> you don't submit he will throw a hissy fit!
>>
>>
>> Oh I got the THREATS today from Ron that he's take it OFF Usenet with me
>> and that I had better be afraid of what he can do to me!
> "THREATS?" Actually he clarified your threat.
MY THREAT? Of what? Whipping your ass here in public. Benn here did
that! Too Late!
>> One thing the two cowboys need to know about me is that "threats"
>> don't work.
> That's nice. But show us where a threat was made.
Taking it OFF the newsgroup to personal.
> You post a lot of claims, but unlike Moore, you do not post evidence or
> point to how to find it.
Well when you two SNIP them and ignore them. But Kane the monkey is on YOUR
back to prove YOUR claim. The amount of verbal tonnage you use to SMOKE the
issue stands as proof that you are full of shit.
YOU want the debate. Then START with your PROOF that spanking creates
aggression in children!
All of your diversion proves you CANNOT!
krp
>
> "0:->" <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5PKdnc9ImdK0BDfY...@scnresearch.com...
>> krp wrote:
>>> "Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1168731572....@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> Ken, Kane wants you to capitulate to his terms, and if
>>>> you don't submit he will throw a hissy fit!
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh I got the THREATS today from Ron that he's take it OFF Usenet with me
>>> and that I had better be afraid of what he can do to me!
>>
>> "THREATS?" Actually he clarified your threat.
>>
>
> Oh no Kane, if he prefers to think my comments were a threat I'm more than
> happy to let him believe it. After all, ken's grasp of reality has shown
> many times to be less than firm.
Why don't you two just blow each other and leave the rest of us alone?
krp
Again - why don't you two just blow each other and leave the rest of us
out of it?
inkspot
You ain't seen nothing yet. Ron is just a bit player. Wait till the
whole family gets here and they ALL start sucking each other off - it's
truly disgusting.
krp
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ken, Kane wants you to capitulate to his terms, and if
>>>>>> you don't submit he will throw a hissy fit!
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh I got the THREATS today from Ron that he's take it OFF Usenet with
>>>>> me and that I had better be afraid of what he can do to me!
>>>> "THREATS?" Actually he clarified your threat.
>>>>
>>> Oh no Kane, if he prefers to think my comments were a threat I'm more
>>> than happy to let him believe it. After all, ken's grasp of reality has
>>> shown many times to be less than firm.
>>
>> Why don't you two just blow each other and leave the rest of us alone?
>>
>>
>
> You ain't seen nothing yet. Ron is just a bit player. Wait till the whole
> family gets here and they ALL start sucking each other off - it's truly
> disgusting.
Maybe they can make a porno flick and leave us alone?
Ron
>
> No - he honestlky admitted he had NO proof to support your absurd
> claim. Of course neither do you and you continue to do your best to make
> as much gorilla duct as you can and RUN away from your own challenge
> beacsusde you know you're full of shit!
Once again kenny, I have chosen to not enter the debate. Not because I have
proof, or because I don't, but because I choose not to enter the debate.
You claimed that I said that I had some kind of proof about something, I
never made any such claim and told you that very clearly. And of course
when Kane challenges you to show where I made any such claim you are (again)
unable to support that belief. You continue to walk mr moores line.
Tell us please, when do you roll over and play dead, or beg for your dog
biscuit?
>> Now isn't that right, Ken?
>
> Only partly as usual with you two. HALF TRUTHS.
>
> Let's see - HALF TRUTHS, GLITTERING GENARALITIES, the BIG
> LIE.............Yeah I am familiar with your debate tactics. Old Joe
> Goebbels documented thewm quite well. I read his book.
>
>
>> Can you show us, by directly quoting, in context, fully, a statement of
>> Ron's that indicates he thought he had evidence, or thought he didn't,
>> but wanted to support a claim of some kind?
>>
>> I'll be here awaiting your dodge. I know you aren't going to answer the
>> simple question I just asked, but hey, I could use a little diversion on
>> a cold winter day.
>>
>> And each wild ranting post of yours helps establish that indeed, you ARE
>> what has been claimed you are.
>
> Ron is out of the picture. He WAS supporting you. You are now ALONE
> Kane. Where's your PROOF?????????
Where is your proof kenny that I was supporting Kane on this subject? A
link to the post would be sufficient. I have supported the fact that Kane
is more than a match for you, on this subject and many others, but that is
all. Once again kenny, he and I are on opposite sides of this particular
debate.
Now, go take a real big shit and clear your head.
Ron
krp
>> No - he honestly admitted he had NO proof to support your absurd
>> claim. Of course neither do you and you continue to do your best to make
>> as much gorilla duct as you can and RUN away from your own challenge
>> beacsusde you know you're full of shit!
> Once again kenny, I have chosen to not enter the debate. Not because I
> have proof, or because I don't, but because I choose not to enter the
> debate. You claimed that I said that I had some kind of proof about
> something, I never made any such claim and told you that very clearly.
> And of course when Kane challenges you to show where I made any such claim
> you are (again) unable to support that belief. You continue to walk mr
> moores line.
Okay you are afraid of the debate then.
0:->
> "Ron" <apositi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:gLuqh.37371$oA1....@newsfe19.lga...
>
>
>>> Kane is simply full of shit and himself. (Same thing.)
>
>> An interesting opinion, and of course again not one supported by the
>> facts. Maybe he sould start from that, that you are unable to state
>> anything supported by facts. That has pretty much been your debate style
>> so far, just as predicted by mr moore (again), but I'm kind of curious why
>> you would wish to provide him with such a major advantage even before the
>> debate begins.
>
> Ron you seem to miss that the BURDEN here is on YOU and KANE.
Yes, I do miss that. Because it's not. You have not supported your
claims, and you made them first.
> I indeed
> HAVE supported my position, AND what is worse, I have shown where the
> sources of you and Kane support my statements.
No you haven't. You've simply claimed you have. You did it by the
creation of a strawman, pretending we "attacked" you.
>>>> You want to debate Kane on this topic, go ahead. It should be
>>>> entertaining to watch. And I might, but then again I might not. In
>>>> either case I'm pretty sure that in this area you are WAY over your
>>>> head. Kane has far to much experience with this issue, just as I do with
>>>> CPS, for you to have any hope at all of coming out with anything less
>>>> than egg on your face. Which of course has its own entertainment value.
>
>>> I only have 30 years experience. When's he gonna start?
>
>> Your experience as usual is questionable. As for when he starts, well I'd
>> suggest that you put your seatbelt on, you are in for quite a ride.
>
> I guess I am going to spend lots of times upside down reading the
> bullshit of you two.
You've been exposed repeatedly as a blowhard and liar, by me.
You tried it yet again with the "deletes" bullshit lie.
You tried it repeatedly with the "Ron posted the requirements for a
counselor," crap.
He didn't. You didn't prove he did. He proved that the job requirements
for exactly what he claimed was indeed at the source he provided, and
you even argued on that basis.
You are a self revealed liar, Ken.
0:->
>
>
>
Doan
> krp wrote:
> > "Ron" <apositi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> > news:gLuqh.37371$oA1....@newsfe19.lga...
> >
> >
> >>> Kane is simply full of shit and himself. (Same thing.)
> >
> >> An interesting opinion, and of course again not one supported by the
> >> facts. Maybe he sould start from that, that you are unable to state
> >> anything supported by facts. That has pretty much been your debate style
> >> so far, just as predicted by mr moore (again), but I'm kind of curious why
> >> you would wish to provide him with such a major advantage even before the
> >> debate begins.
> >
> > Ron you seem to miss that the BURDEN here is on YOU and KANE.
>
> Yes, I do miss that. Because it's not. You have not supported your
> claims, and you made them first.
>
Oops! Another STUPID LIE, Kane! You are the one that started
this thread "Spanking Leads To Child Aggression".
Doan
0:->
My request, early in this exchange, when you challenged the article, was
that I wished to debate YOU, and you alone. That I wanted no other
persons involved.
That is because strictly speaking, if more than two participate it's no
longer debate.
It's just a shouting match with flack and fog.
I can get enough of that from you alone, Ken.
And since I'm not in the least concerned about your debating "skills"
being a challenge I don't need Ron, or anyone else to be in support of me.
You keep trying to draw him in, and welcome, apparently, the comments of
others and reply to them when they pop in her, either with more
diversion, and or diversion and personal attacks on me.
You do understand, when you use them in this way, what it does to your
credibility, and how it weakens your impotent little forays into
argument with me so far, right?
Ron does not have a reputation, by the way, of being afraid of argument.
He choses to honor my request that only you and I debate this issue at
this time.
Until we are through.
And I hope you are not, but all the signs are that you are now just
trying to find more ways to hide from your comments I challenged, rather
than answer them directly.
"There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
spanking can produce sociopathy in children."
I notice you recently claimed you had proven there is no scientifically
acceptable evidence of my title being proven by evidence. The claim that
"Spanking Leads To Child Aggression And Anxiety, Regardless Of Cultural
Norm."
I submit that the posted article is the scientifically acceptable
evidence in the form you demanded it, and agreed to define it by.
As yet you have not addressed the article other than to make a false
claim you "proved" it did not, presuming you can read it, and you are
referring to it, constitute scientific evidence.
Please explain how it fails to meet the criteria of your definition.
And while we are on the subject, you as yet have failed completely to
address, other than one run at restating it in the form of personal
opinion, without research citation as evidence, "There is considerable
evidence that a lack of spanking can produce sociopathy in children."
May we see this evidence please? By cite, quote, and live link to a
source, or two, or three, since you claim "considerable," as your number.
Do you intend to rant now and dodge again? Please don't bother.
That's a public display of running away, Ken.
Are you a coward, the very thing you falsely accuse Ron of...being
afraid to debate the actual issues?
I'm here. I'm waiting. You have not taken your turn honorably or
honestly. Your opinion is not in question. It is yours. Welcome to it.
Your claims though, are in question.
The claim that there is no evidence of the title being true, and that
there is considerable evidence of pathology in children that is caused
by not spanking them.
If you can come up with evidence, I'll be happy to rebut with further
evidence on that very subject. But it's still your turn.
Any time now, Ken