|Re: U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking

[Kane]

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 09:54:34 -0500, "Michael S. Morris"
> wrote:

>
>
> Thursday, the 9th of October, 2003
>
>Ray Drouillard wrote:
> Committee on the Rights of the Child issues decision in Geneva
> <http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35000>
> [...]
> The U.N. body says Canada should "explicitly
> prohibit all forms of violence against children,
> however light, within the family, in schools and
> in other institutions where children might be placed."
> [...]
>Paul:
> For more context,
><http://www.unog.ch/news2/documents/newsen/crc0338e.htm> and
> the report by the Canadian delegation
> <http://www.unog.ch/news2/documents/newsen/crc0329erev1.htm>
>
>I'm not sure that any context could make this kind of
>action against the corporal punishment of children in the home
>other than outrageously objectionable.

You are outraged that you cannot bully, humiliate, injure, torture,
your children at your whim?

Fancy that.

>It seems to me a prime
>example of legislation by people who appoint themselves as
>scientific experts on stuff that science cannot possibly
>address,

On the contrary. Science does address this issue. Brain scan studies
show that distractions inhibit and distract from learning tasks, and
if you aren't spanking to teach what ARE you doing it for?

> and then bolster social engineering programs with
>"studies" that do not show what they purport to show.

"Social engineering" is what YOU do when you proport to teach children
using physical and psychological pain.

Your opponents at least aren't taking you literally out behind the
woodshed.

Whose the more honorable party, those that want parents to learn how
to teach their children without the deliberate use of pain and
humiliation or those, such as you, that want to continue to lie to
each other about what you are doing.

> In
>my opinion, the decline of the widespread acceptance of spanking
>in the US is directly correlated with the widespread bad behaviour
>of children in the US, not to mention a whole lot nastier set of
>adults.

Actually you are completely wrong. In the US, for instance, some of
those "unscientific" studies show that 90% or more of citizens report
they have been spanked. Children are being spanked at at least the
same, or possibly greater rates than in the past and more abuse is an
outgrowth of spanking that didn't work (as it mostly doesn't) so was
escalated to injury.

The nastiness you are experiencing in people comes precisely from
being humiliated and tortured by parents who believe your nonsense.

Non spanked children are consistently better behaved and far less
likely to be involved in criminal activity. And I don't mean that a
child who is spanked then when not spanked for a few weeks shows signs
of improvement. I mean a consistently gently parented child.

>It looks to me like US conservatives were exactly
>right to oppose this Convention.

What makes you think the idea of not spanking children is exclusive to
liberals? I'm a conservative and I consider those that spank either
stupid, ignorant, or vicious, not to mention socially maladjusted
because of the spankings they got as a child. I know plenty of other
conservatives that agee with me, and rather a lot of liberals who do
NOT extend their politics to their child rearing practices. They
spank.

>
> Mike Morris
> )

Have a good one, Mike.

Kane

[Ray Drouillard]

"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
> On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 09:54:34 -0500, "Michael S. Morris"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Thursday, the 9th of October, 2003
> >
> >Ray Drouillard wrote:
> > Committee on the Rights of the Child issues decision in Geneva
> > <http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35000>
> > [...]
> > The U.N. body says Canada should "explicitly
> > prohibit all forms of violence against children,
> > however light, within the family, in schools and
> > in other institutions where children might be placed."
> > [...]
> >Paul:
> > For more context,
> ><http://www.unog.ch/news2/documents/newsen/crc0338e.htm> and
> > the report by the Canadian delegation
> > <http://www.unog.ch/news2/documents/newsen/crc0329erev1.htm>
> >
> >I'm not sure that any context could make this kind of
> >action against the corporal punishment of children in the home
> >other than outrageously objectionable.
>
> You are outraged that you cannot bully, humiliate, injure, torture,
> your children at your whim?
>
> Fancy that.
>
> >It seems to me a prime
> >example of legislation by people who appoint themselves as
> >scientific experts on stuff that science cannot possibly
> >address,
>
> On the contrary. Science does address this issue. Brain scan studies
> show that distractions inhibit and distract from learning tasks, and
> if you aren't spanking to teach what ARE you doing it for?
>
> > and then bolster social engineering programs with
> >"studies" that do not show what they purport to show.
>
> "Social engineering" is what YOU do when you proport to teach children
> using physical and psychological pain.
>
> Your opponents at least aren't taking you literally out behind the
> woodshed.
>
> Whose the more honorable party, those that want parents to learn how
> to teach their children without the deliberate use of pain and
> humiliation or those, such as you, that want to continue to lie to
> each other about what you are doing.
>
> > In
> >my opinion, the decline of the widespread acceptance of spanking
> >in the US is directly correlated with the widespread bad behaviour
> >of children in the US, not to mention a whole lot nastier set of
> >adults.
>
> Actually you are completely wrong. In the US, for instance, some of
> those "unscientific" studies show that 90% or more of citizens report
> they have been spanked. Children are being spanked at at least the
> same, or possibly greater rates than in the past and more abuse is an
> outgrowth of spanking that didn't work (as it mostly doesn't) so was
> escalated to injury.
>
> The nastiness you are experiencing in people comes precisely from
> being humiliated and tortured by parents who believe your nonsense.
>
> Non spanked children are consistently better behaved and far less
> likely to be involved in criminal activity. And I don't mean that a
> child who is spanked then when not spanked for a few weeks shows signs
> of improvement. I mean a consistently gently parented child.
>
> >It looks to me like US conservatives were exactly
> >right to oppose this Convention.
>
> What makes you think the idea of not spanking children is exclusive to
> liberals? I'm a conservative and I consider those that spank either
> stupid, ignorant, or vicious, not to mention socially maladjusted
> because of the spankings they got as a child. I know plenty of other
> conservatives that agee with me, and rather a lot of liberals who do
> NOT extend their politics to their child rearing practices. They
> spank.
>
> >
> > Mike Morris
> > )
>
> Have a good one, Mike.
>
> Kane


I have seen the social engineer types massage their data. Statistics
are easy to wield in a deceptive manner, and most people don't have the
skill to figure out how they are being deceived.

Kids who are raised without proper discipline end up being rotten
adults. One must only look around to see examples.



Of course, the real answer can be found in the "user's manual" that our
maker gave to us:


Pro 13:24 One who spares the rod hates his son, But one who loves him is
careful to discipline him.

Pro 22:15 Folly is bound up in the heart of a child: The rod of
discipline drives it far from him.

Pro 23:13 Don't withhold correction from a child. If you punish him with
the rod, he will not die.
Pro 23:14 Punish him with the rod, And save his soul from Sheol.

Pro 29:15 The rod of correction gives wisdom, But a child left to
himself causes shame to his mother.

Pro 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he
will not depart from it.




Ray

[Bruce D. Ray]

In article >,
(Kane) wrote:

{big snip}

> On the contrary. Science does address this issue. Brain scan studies
> show that distractions inhibit and distract from learning tasks, and
> if you aren't spanking to teach what ARE you doing it for?

As a research scientist whose projects have recently been
expanded to include functional MRI studies in humans, I
find this remark about brain scan studies and distractions
quite interesting. Please provide your citations on this.
In particular, please include in these citations of human
subject data.

[Michael S. Morris]

Thursday, the 9th of October, 2003

Ray Drouillard wrote:
Committee on the Rights of the Child issues decision in Geneva
<http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35000>

[...]
The U.N. body says Canada should "explicitly
prohibit all forms of violence against children,
however light, within the family, in schools and
in other institutions where children might be placed."
[...]
Paul:
For more context,
<http://www.unog.ch/news2/documents/newsen/crc0338e.htm> and
the report by the Canadian delegation
<http://www.unog.ch/news2/documents/newsen/crc0329erev1.htm>
I said:
I'm not sure that any context could make this kind of
action against the corporal punishment of children in the home
other than outrageously objectionable.
Kane:
You are outraged that you cannot bully, humiliate, injure, torture,
your children at your whim?

No one I believe said *anything* about bullying, humiliating,
injuring, torturing or indeed *anything* about *at my whim*.
We were talking spanking, which has zero to do with any of the
above.

Kane:
Fancy that.

Yeah, fancy it.

I said:
It seems to me a prime
example of legislation by people who appoint themselves as
scientific experts on stuff that science cannot possibly
address,
Kane:
On the contrary.

On the contrary, on the contrary. This is absolutely unaddressable
by science. You cannot possibly control hundreds or thousands
of possibly important variables. If no control then no science.

If you want to provide a cite to a study, I would be happy to critique
it directly.

Kane:
Science does address this issue.

No, it does not address this issue at all. What addresses
this issue is ideology. And, well, my ideology is a better
(as in objectively better) than yours.

Kane:
Brain scan studies show that distractions inhibit and
distract from learning tasks,

This is the fallacy that measurement of something equals science.

Kane:
and if you aren't spanking to teach what ARE you doing it for?

Simple, to punish my children for disobeying a rule.
Precisely so that they learn obedience to important
commands, precisely for their own safety when they
are of an age too young to reason about it. It also
is muchly to be preferred to the "time-out" in that
forgiveness and forgetting are immediate. Lesson
learned. Case closed. We don't do that again. The
time out strateches the whole thing into a drama, with
no clear end and no clear lesson taught. And that is
the problem. You can always tell a child which has not been
disciplined. He's precisely the sort of child the "childproofing"
one's house, and the schools and the daycares notion got
started for---the idea that the children cannot be expected to
behave themselves and opbey simple safety rules, and instead
the world needs to be made safe for them.

I said:
and then bolster social engineering programs with
"studies" that do not show what they purport to show.
Kane:
"Social engineering" is what YOU do when you
proport to teach children using physical and psychological pain.

I spank my children, or did at a young age, in order to
demand obedience at that age. For their safety and in
order to give them good ethical habits of respect for other people
and for other people's property.

Kane:
Your opponents at least aren't taking you literally out behind the
woodshed.

My children do have the freedom to disagree with and oppose me
as soon as they reach an age of reason.

Kane:
Whose the more honorable party, those that want parents to learn how
to teach their children without the deliberate use of pain and
humiliation or those, such as you, that want to continue to lie to
each other about what you are doing.

The issue is whether you actually do teach the children so
that the child, for instance, fastens his seat belt as a matter
of habit, and stops upon command when he is about to run out
into the street, or reaches by habit for his parent's hand in
a supermarket parking lot. These things are not reasoned out
with a young child, is the problem, and that is a problem that was
well understood and addressed by the ancients. Hence, you begin
in authority and discipline, you inculcate good habits, and the child
grows into free choice with a default mode of good habits to
sustain him and keep him safe while he grows.

I said:
In my opinion, the decline of the widespread acceptance of spanking
in the US is directly correlated with the widespread bad behaviour
of children in the US, not to mention a whole lot nastier set of
adults.
Kane:
Actually you are completely wrong. In the US, for instance, some of
those "unscientific" studies show that 90% or more of citizens report
they have been spanked.

No, I think I am completely right. The number used to be about 100%.
The leftish social activists have tried to equate spanking with abuse,
and have consequently tried to shame it underground. As a result,
many parents don't spank except as a last resort, by which time they
are angrier and spank less consistently and in a less controlled way.

Kane:
Children are being spanked at at least the same, or possibly
greater rates than in the past and more abuse is an
outgrowth of spanking that didn't work (as it mostly doesn't) so was
escalated to injury.

Sorry, but your statistic neither shows this (since the survey surveys
adults)
and there is no evidence that abuse comes from spanking.

Kane:
The nastiness you are experiencing in people comes precisely from
being humiliated and tortured by parents who believe your nonsense.

Nope. It comes from kids not being disciplined and, consequently,
disrespecting the property and person of other people. My wife,
a veterinarian, has story upon story to tell of children coming
into the exam room with parents and Fido, and children making noise and
climbing all over mega-expensive equipment while parent is trying to
tell vet what is wrong with Fido. And, interrupting every moment or
two to tell kids to stop doing whatever it is they are doing, and the
kids just ignoring the command. This comes from no discipline. No
expectation that good behaviour *will* happen or else.

Kane:
Non spanked children are consistently better behaved and far less
likely to be involved in criminal activity. And I don't mean that a
child who is spanked then when not spanked for a few weeks shows signs

of improvement. I mean a consistently gently parented child.

I seriously doubt it, and doubt you can give *any* study to show it.

I said:
It looks to me like US conservatives were exactly
right to oppose this Convention.
Kane:
What makes you think the idea of not spanking children is exclusive to

liberals?

Sorry, I do not use "liberal" to mean "social progressives". I am liberal.

Kane:
I'm a conservative and I consider those that spank either
stupid, ignorant, or vicious, not to mention socially maladjusted
because of the spankings they got as a child. I know plenty of other
conservatives that agree with me, and rather a lot of liberals who do
NOT extend their politics to their child rearing practices. They
spank.

A majority spank at some point or the other. The issue is whether it
is wrong and shameful to do so, so that spanking ends up being associated
with last-ditch frustration and anger. Or whether it is a line of first
resort,
in which case it is controlled and immediate and, well, attention-getting.

Kane:
Have a good one, Mike.

You, too, Kane.

Mike Morris
)

[Kane]

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 12:52:54 -0400, "Ray Drouillard"
> wrote:

>
>"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
>> On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 09:54:34 -0500, "Michael S. Morris"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Thursday, the 9th of October, 2003
>> >
>> >Ray Drouillard wrote:
>> > Committee on the Rights of the Child issues decision in Geneva
>> > <http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35000>
>> > [...]
>> > The U.N. body says Canada should "explicitly
>> > prohibit all forms of violence against children,
>> > however light, within the family, in schools and
>> > in other institutions where children might be placed."
>> > [...]
>> >Paul:
>> > For more context,
>> ><http://www.unog.ch/news2/documents/newsen/crc0338e.htm> and
>> > the report by the Canadian delegation
>> > <http://www.unog.ch/news2/documents/newsen/crc0329erev1.htm>
>> >
>> >I'm not sure that any context could make this kind of
>> >action against the corporal punishment of children in the home
>> >other than outrageously objectionable.
>>
>> You are outraged that you cannot bully, humiliate, injure, torture,
>> your children at your whim?
>>
>> Fancy that.
>>
>> >It seems to me a prime
>> >example of legislation by people who appoint themselves as
>> >scientific experts on stuff that science cannot possibly
>> >address,
>>
>> On the contrary. Science does address this issue. Brain scan
studies
>> show that distractions inhibit and distract from learning tasks,
and
>> if you aren't spanking to teach what ARE you doing it for?
>>
>> > and then bolster social engineering programs with
>> >"studies" that do not show what they purport to show.
>>
>> "Social engineering" is what YOU do when you proport to teach
children
>> using physical and psychological pain.
>>
>> Your opponents at least aren't taking you literally out behind the
>> woodshed.
>>
>> Whose the more honorable party, those that want parents to learn
how
>> to teach their children without the deliberate use of pain and
>> humiliation or those, such as you, that want to continue to lie to
>> each other about what you are doing.
>>
>> > In
>> >my opinion, the decline of the widespread acceptance of spanking
>> >in the US is directly correlated with the widespread bad behaviour
>> >of children in the US, not to mention a whole lot nastier set of
>> >adults.
>>
>> Actually you are completely wrong. In the US, for instance, some of
>> those "unscientific" studies show that 90% or more of citizens
report
>> they have been spanked. Children are being spanked at at least the
>> same, or possibly greater rates than in the past and more abuse is
an
>> outgrowth of spanking that didn't work (as it mostly doesn't) so
was
>> escalated to injury.
>>
>> The nastiness you are experiencing in people comes precisely from
>> being humiliated and tortured by parents who believe your nonsense.
>>
>> Non spanked children are consistently better behaved and far less
>> likely to be involved in criminal activity. And I don't mean that a
>> child who is spanked then when not spanked for a few weeks shows
signs
>> of improvement. I mean a consistently gently parented child.
>>
>> >It looks to me like US conservatives were exactly
>> >right to oppose this Convention.
>>
>> What makes you think the idea of not spanking children is exclusive
to
>> liberals? I'm a conservative and I consider those that spank either
>> stupid, ignorant, or vicious, not to mention socially maladjusted
>> because of the spankings they got as a child. I know plenty of
other
>> conservatives that agee with me, and rather a lot of liberals who
do
>> NOT extend their politics to their child rearing practices. They
>> spank.
>>
>> >
>> > Mike Morris
>> > )
>>
>> Have a good one, Mike.
>>
>> Kane
>
>
>I have seen the social engineer types massage their data. Statistics
>are easy to wield in a deceptive manner, and most people don't have
the
>skill to figure out how they are being deceived.

I do not need social engineer's to be able to tell what hurts and
distracts a child from learning. Though I do tend to understand as
well the results of brain scan technology.

Last I heard they were neurological researchers, not social
researchers.

>Kids who are raised without proper discipline end up being rotten
>adults. One must only look around to see examples.

I do. I see them all the time. Spanked. Humiliated. Treated like
possessions. They turn out very badly.

On the other hand the hundreds of children I've known whose parents
either never spanked, or reformed and became loving parents, grow up
responsible citizens, and unavailable for demigogs to exploit.

This last item, the desire to weild power over others, is what ****es
you people off when we escape you and help our children escape.
>
>Of course, the real answer

"real answer?" As in I have all the scientific knowledge to support my
claims, or is it, "I have the right to express my opinion?"

>can be found in the "user's manual" that our
>maker gave to us:

My mother and father didn't give me a users manual. Though many of my
caregivers gave me examples that fly in the face of the Christian crap
you are about to shovel.

>
>
>Pro 13:24 One who spares the rod hates his son, But one who loves him
is
>careful to discipline him.

Unfortunately for you I was well trained as a Christian, and consider
myself in recovery for the last 45 years or so. You are citing the OT.
Are you unaware of the Good News in the NT?

>Pro 22:15 Folly is bound up in the heart of a child: The rod of
>discipline drives it far from him.

The son of the ruler who spoke such cruelty was run out of his country
for his cruelty to his subjects. Solomon was no favorite of his people
either. He'd have had his guards slice the child in two had the real
mother not given up her child for it's life. I'm sure you, OT lover,
think that was just grand.

>Pro 23:13 Don't withhold correction from a child. If you punish him
with
>the rod, he will not die.

Sometimes.

>Pro 23:14 Punish him with the rod, And save his soul from Sheol.

So he can grow up to become yet another beast with a poorly developed
conscience.

>Pro 29:15 The rod of correction gives wisdom, But a child left to
>himself causes shame to his mother.

"Shebet." Look it up.

>Pro 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old
he
>will not depart from it.

I'd rather NOT have a world run by people that were shamed,
humiliated, raised up in pain, to rule the world. But as it is I am
stuck with quite a few of them right now. I'm looking forward to you
savages being displaced eventually with kind and loving people who
produce responsible leaders and decision makers.

Since about 90% of the people in this country claim they were spanked
as children it seems your thinking is somewhat screwed up.

As was Solomon's.

He was a tyrant and a fool who treated his successor, as a child, so
badly he could not rule because of his cruelty.

Spanking and other forms of 'discipline" which a not true teaching at
all produce such. Dangerous, angry, conscience disabled humans with a
strong desire for vengence but fear of their parent. So they visit
their vengence, as you appear to want to do, on those smaller and
weaker than themselves.

Those who are not cowards, even if they were spanked, rise up against
the nonsense you preach, and overcome their hate and find how to love.

Sorry about you.

>Ray
...of sunshine, I presume?

Kane

[Kane]

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 12:36:03 -0500, (Bruce D. Ray)
wrote:

>In article >,
(Kane) wrote:
>
>{big snip}
>
>> On the contrary. Science does address this issue. Brain scan
studies
>> show that distractions inhibit and distract from learning tasks,
and
>> if you aren't spanking to teach what ARE you doing it for?
>
>As a research scientist whose projects have recently been
>expanded to include functional MRI studies in humans,

Being new to the field you'll want to do some catching up.

http://anon.user.anonymizer.com/http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22brain+scan+studies%22+learning

>I
>find this remark about brain scan studies and distractions
>quite interesting.

I hope so.

>Please provide your citations on this.
>In particular, please include in these citations of human
>subject data.

You can do your own provision of citations when you have done your
homework. See the URL above.

Again and again in studies on learning, using brain scan imagery,
anything that distracts creates more learning difficulty.

And that was known long before imaging technology uncovered it. But
social scientists weren't believed by some, apparently.

So professor, unless you are one of those strange thinking error
impaired folks that believes that pain and humiliation wonderfully
concentrates one's focus I think you'd have to admit that spanking is
a distraction from learning, not an aid to it.

All pain and humiliation does is wonderfully concentrate one's
attention on the pain and humiliation, and the lessons in that can be
very bad for the child and the rest of us when he or she becomes an
adult.

Pain can stop a behavior, something we want the child not to learn,
but it is a poor teacher of what behavior is wanted, and the side
effects aren't worth it.

Kane

[Kane]

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 15:24:00 -0400, "Ray Drouillard"
> wrote:

>
>"MaG Douglas" > wrote in message
...
>> Come on Ray... Let's remember to trim out the crossposted fat! :)
>>
>> MaG
>
>Sorry. I didn't notice that it was cross-posted.
>
><looking at previous posts>
>
>It looks like citizen Kane is engaging in troll-like behavior.

`Fraid not. Crossposting is an exceptable action if the ngs are
relevant to the post. Which were not?

Each has something to do with the content our of thread. Methinks it's
you that have trouble with being called on your tripe and are so
uncomfortable you don't wish it known any further than you can help.

I'm not inhibited by your problem.

And you don't know what a troll is. All you need do it hit that
pointer on my name and you'll see I have posted for years on this same
subject.

That is not what trolls do.

Your understanding of the meaning of "troll" is on a par with your
understanding of children's needs and teaching them properly.

The former mistake costs neither you or I, but the latter is going to
come back and bite you in the butt if you don't start looking for ways
to bury your head further up your behind.

Can you say, "Teenager," Ray?

>
>Ray
>

And you have my name wrong. It's not "cane" or "cain" it's Kane.

It's pronounced nothing like the former.

Basically, Ray, you are a coward. You are afraid to defend your brutal
practice of spanking in a larger arena so try to confine it to this
small one where you know there will be plenty of supporters.

Cowardice over your ignorance, and cowardice in child rearing
practices.

Spankers are doomed, Ray. If we don't stop it in this generation we
will in the next. If you don't volunteer to learn better eventually
the cure that even I don't want will come into play. The law will stop
you.

So tell us, Ray, why do little children defy their parents?

Kane

[Kane]

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 17:53:15 -0400, "Ray Drouillard"
> wrote:

>It looks like one of those crusaders who google for certain key words
>and start stirring up the mud.

No, actually I've been a serial lurker to this ng for some time now.
And I do think it unwise of you to equate your comments and opinions
about spanking with "mud," don't you.

>I wonder if Kane has a standard rant
>that is saved to his or her hard drive.

No, it's spontaneous, though I do have some sources and citations with
quotes archived. It's a pain to have to wade through the piles of
dross of the spanking enthusiasts to once again rub their noses in
their nonsense.

I wonder what made YOU think of that particular tactic though? I never
have.

Hmmmmm....?

I note that after the first exchange, when you can no longer answer
with your denial of the pain and humiliation of the child you move
right to trying to kill the messenger.

Coward.


Everybody loves.....

>Ray

mond.

Me too. I'd love you even more if you'd stop defending the pounding of
children and pretending it is a loving spanking.

I hope you reform. May I point you to:

http://parentinginjesusfootsteps.org

"Treat children as you would have them
treat you when they're grown."

For they very well might.

The New Testament freed you. Why not accept it?

Kane


>
>"MaG Douglas" > wrote in message
...
>> Trip Trap, Trip Trap went the middle goat's hooves on the bridge.
>> "Who's that crossing my bridge?" asked the _ _ _ _ _.
>>
>> Ho hum... another bit of crossposted tripe.
>>
>> MaG
>>
>>
>> "Kane" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> > On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 09:54:34 -0500, "Michael S. Morris"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Thursday, the 9th of October, 2003
>> > >
>> > >Ray Drouillard wrote:
>> > > Committee on the Rights of the Child issues decision in
Geneva
>> > >
><http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35000>
>> > > [...]
>> > > The U.N. body says Canada should "explicitly
>> > > prohibit all forms of violence against children,
>> > > however light, within the family, in schools and
>> > > in other institutions where children might be placed."
>> > > [...]
>> > >Paul:
>> > > For more context,
>> > ><http://www.unog.ch/news2/documents/newsen/crc0338e.htm> and
>> > > the report by the Canadian delegation
>> > > <http://www.unog.ch/news2/documents/newsen/crc0329erev1.htm>
>> > >
>> > >I'm not sure that any context could make this kind of
>> > >action against the corporal punishment of children in the home
>> > >other than outrageously objectionable.
>> >
>> > You are outraged that you cannot bully, humiliate, injure,
torture,
>> > your children at your whim?
>> >
>> > Fancy that.
>> >
>> > >It seems to me a prime
>> > >example of legislation by people who appoint themselves as
>> > >scientific experts on stuff that science cannot possibly
>> > >address,
>> >
>> > On the contrary. Science does address this issue. Brain scan
studies
>> > show that distractions inhibit and distract from learning tasks,
and
>> > if you aren't spanking to teach what ARE you doing it for?
>> >
>> > > and then bolster social engineering programs with
>> > >"studies" that do not show what they purport to show.
>> >
>> > "Social engineering" is what YOU do when you proport to teach
>children
>> > using physical and psychological pain.
>> >
>> > Your opponents at least aren't taking you literally out behind
the
>> > woodshed.
>> >
>> > Whose the more honorable party, those that want parents to learn
how
>> > to teach their children without the deliberate use of pain and
>> > humiliation or those, such as you, that want to continue to lie
to
>> > each other about what you are doing.
>> >
>> > > In
>> > >my opinion, the decline of the widespread acceptance of spanking
>> > >in the US is directly correlated with the widespread bad
behaviour
>> > >of children in the US, not to mention a whole lot nastier set of
>> > >adults.
>> >
>> > Actually you are completely wrong. In the US, for instance, some
of
>> > those "unscientific" studies show that 90% or more of citizens
>report
>> > they have been spanked. Children are being spanked at at least
the
>> > same, or possibly greater rates than in the past and more abuse
is
>an
>> > outgrowth of spanking that didn't work (as it mostly doesn't) so
was
>> > escalated to injury.
>> >
>> > The nastiness you are experiencing in people comes precisely from
>> > being humiliated and tortured by parents who believe your
nonsense.
>> >
>> > Non spanked children are consistently better behaved and far less
>> > likely to be involved in criminal activity. And I don't mean that
a
>> > child who is spanked then when not spanked for a few weeks shows
>signs
>> > of improvement. I mean a consistently gently parented child.
>> >
>> > >It looks to me like US conservatives were exactly
>> > >right to oppose this Convention.
>> >
>> > What makes you think the idea of not spanking children is
exclusive
>to
>> > liberals? I'm a conservative and I consider those that spank
either
>> > stupid, ignorant, or vicious, not to mention socially maladjusted
>> > because of the spankings they got as a child. I know plenty of
other
>> > conservatives that agee with me, and rather a lot of liberals who
do
>> > NOT extend their politics to their child rearing practices. They
>> > spank.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Mike Morris
>> > > )
>> >
>> > Have a good one, Mike.
>> >
>> > Kane
>>
>>
>

[Jon Houts]

On 9 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:

> "Ray Drouillard" wrote:
>
> >It looks like one of those crusaders who google for certain key words
> >and start stirring up the mud.
>
> No, actually I've been a serial lurker to this ng for some time now.
>
> >I wonder if Kane has a standard rant
> >that is saved to his or her hard drive.
>
> I wonder what made YOU think of that particular tactic though? I never
> have.

If you *really* were a "serial lurker" in meh-sc, you'd know why he
thought that. Makes me think you're lying about your ng habits.


but,but...
Jon

[Michael S. Morris]

Thursday, the 9th of October, 2003

Kane:
Basically, Ray, you are a coward. You are afraid to defend your
brutal
practice of spanking in a larger arena so try to confine it to this
small one where you know there will be plenty of supporters.
Ray:
I don't need to defend it. The practice needs no defence -- though
Michael S Morris did a very good job while simultaneously tearing
your
arguments into tiny little pieces. I was quite impressed, actually.

Ray, I don't think I began to tear any arguments up yet---I feel
in fact that all I really did was stake out a position. I am especially
embarassed when, driving around this evening, I got to thinking about
some of the things Kane has said, and I realized how much utter hokum
and
nonsense they are. He did say---did he not?---that science has somehow
shown that pain can't teach children anything. Now, the "science" of
brain scans or no, I would suggest that nearly every one of us
has had some experience of doing something really stupid---like putting
your hand on a hot burner or touching a "hot" wire or slamming
a car door on your hand---and being rewarded for it with an immediate,
and possibly longlasting, painful feedback which feedback has taught us
never
to do that again. My most recent case was rolling a riding lawn a couple
summers ago, throwing myself off it to get clear, and snapping my left
humerus in two as a result. I now have a much healthier respect for the
design envelope of a riding mower. If Kane's claim *really* is that pain
blocks learning, then he has just ruled out all of our common sense and
common experience. He is probably also at odds with any and every
evolutionary biological explanation for pain that I've ever run across.

Also, think about it for a moment: Whence brain scans "proving" that
pain blocks learning? I mean, I've read Milgram's summary of his
psychological experiments in _Obedience to Authority_. Those experiments
*simulated* pain in a "victim" in order to observe a subject's
reaction to it. And that kind of experimental procedure has long since
been declared unethical. So, I'd say it's pretty obvious that no
one in recent history has run experiments subjecting people to
pain in order to test whether or not people (and certainly not kids)
can learn under the influence of pain. So, any "brain scan" claims
there could be would have to be just wild extrapolation, making
all kinds of assumptions about what causes what and what activity
here or there in the brain might mean in terms of learning or not
learning something.

Again, all one has to do is talk to an older teacher who remembers the
days in public school when he had a wooden paddle and the authority
to use it if students misbehaved. Guess what? Those were days when
he shooting at Columbine, not to mention metal detectors at the
entrances
to schools, and armed policemen to patrol the halls, were unthinkable.

Mike Morris
)

[Julie Pascal]

"Kane" > wrote in message
m...
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 17:53:15 -0400, "Ray Drouillard"
> > wrote:
>
> >It looks like one of those crusaders who google for certain key words
> >and start stirring up the mud.
>
> No, actually I've been a serial lurker to this ng for some time now.
> And I do think it unwise of you to equate your comments and opinions
> about spanking with "mud," don't you.

Which newsgroup? Crossposting is *always* rude. People who
don't care about being rude, and who post on purpose to a list of
newsgroups in order to start a fight are trolls. Saying you aren't
is like spammers who send a "this is not spam" disclaimer to your
e-mail box, proving nothing except that they are a spammer *and*
a liar both.

Some trolls do it for fun... some trolls do it because it is
their nature. Being sincere is not an excuse.

--Julie

[Kane]

"Michael S. Morris" > wrote in message
>...
> Thursday, the 9th of October, 2003

....to once again try and go around the issue by misquoting and
claiming something not in evidence and then try to build an argument
upon it.

> Kane:
> Basically, Ray, you are a coward. You are afraid to defend your
> brutal
> practice of spanking in a larger arena so try to confine it to this
> small one where you know there will be plenty of supporters.
> Ray:
> I don't need to defend it. The practice needs no defence -- though
> Michael S Morris did a very good job while simultaneously tearing
> your
> arguments into tiny little pieces. I was quite impressed, actually.

First of all, if it didn't need defending you wouldn't and you have.
That
nullifies your current claim that it doesn't need defending.

Secondly, the sentence you use to try and deny your need to defend
"don't need
to defend" is defensive.

> Ray, I don't think I began to tear any arguments up yet---

You may try, It won't fly.

>I feel
> in fact that all I really did was stake out a position.

Weasel Word Play...not today.

Staking "out a position" differs from an "argument" how?

You are arguing. Don't be shy. I don't mind. I like good arguments.
Let's see
some. The stuff you came up with below is lame. Just as the prior
"stuff."

>I am especially
> embarassed when,

Heaven'stobetsyIshouldhopeso.

> driving around this evening,

How many wrecks will it take for you to stop that day dreaming while
you
drive? Or should we spank you?

>I got to thinking about
> some of the things Kane has said, and I realized how much utter hokum
> and
> nonsense they are.

That was our shame based neurosis from your own childhood cp reshaping
your
thinking to rationalize your beliefs and actions.

The last thing you can do is accuse our parents of not loving you, or
of being
bad parents....and they weren't of course, and I've no idea if they
loved you
or not, but that small frightened pain filled and betrayed child still
resides
within you and cannot let go of the self protection it was taught WITH
PAIN
and humiliation.

It was that "utter hokum and nonsense" remark that tipped me off.

I don't consider your position as such. I think it derives from
identifiable
events and known common human reactions to pain, both physical and
psychological. You are spouting nonsense, but it isn't utter and it
isn't
hokum. It was taught to you and you believe it faithfully as taught.
You are a
good boy.

>He did say---did he not?

He did NOT say the statement you try and attribute to him below. It
was not
that limited. I expanded the subject adequately for a reasonable
person, not
driven into sniveling whining, to understand the broader implications
of ALL
distraction while learning.

---that science has somehow
> shown that pain can't teach children anything.

I said no such thing. I said that distraction interfers with learning
the
thing to be learned. Are you going to try and claim that pain isn't a
distraction?

Tell you what. Assuming you've never had any training in calculus,
let's set
up a little experiment. You crack the books and at random times I'll
swat your
ass with a small board.

Let's see how well you learn, compared to another calculus ignorant
person
that is instead assisted when they are stuck with support,
information, and
paitence by the teacher.

> Now, the "science" of
> brain scans or no,

Why do I get the feeling you don't really want to know what the brain
scan
studies show?

One of the most interesting to me was the one that showed that in
children who
had experienced abuse that section of the brain that is the locus for
indications of moral choices is black...dead...no neurons firing.
Thought
provoking and immediately jumped on by the word twisters with
"spanking isn't
abuse."

Well, the human body and brain do not know that. Certainly not a
child's body
and brain.

> I would suggest that nearly every one of us
> has had some experience of doing something really stupid---like putting
> your hand on a hot burner or touching a "hot" wire or slamming
> a car door on your hand---and being rewarded for it with an immediate,
> and possibly longlasting, painful feedback which feedback has taught us
> never
> to do that again.

Those are called logical consequences. Perfectly natural. No problem,
except
of course that given the child being young enough you have the
responsibility
(or not as you see fit) of protecting the child. Keep the child away
from the
hot stove with barriers and proper supervision until you can teach the
child
about the dangers. Same goes with electrical outlets.

And supervise your too young child around things that slam.

By the way, I love your examples.....they are a perfect argument for
me to
"stake out my position."

Let me demonstrate how well pain taught you to avoid a behavior.

Ever touched anything hot and burned yourself yet again since the very
first
experience you had with being burned?

Only slammed your fingers in something once, did you?

Only been zapped by an electrical current once in your life?

If you answered "yes" to any of the above questions you are extremely
rare or
a very sheltered person that goes nowhere and does nothing.

The truth is that if you allow your child to be too "consequenced" by
her
environment she will either be killed or so inhibited from learning
that she
will be as disabled from learning more (exploring and experimenting)
as her
constitution and pain tolerance will allow.

Is that your goal?

Is so, spanking is a wonderful tool to inhibit the child.

I applaud your desire to keep her alive. I abhor your methods as
damaging to
the child and possibly to society.

But most parents have to, or know to, (you are likely one of the "have
tos")
let their child out little by little so the environment won't
overwhelm them.
You mistake spanking for supervision. Or you try to substitute one for
the
other.

> My most recent case was rolling a riding lawn a couple
> summers ago, throwing myself off it to get clear, and snapping my left
> humerus in two as a result. I now have a much healthier respect for the
> design envelope of a riding mower.

If you were three years old would the same example apply? Of course
not. You
would pull the child off the lawn mower seat and whack her bottom and
think
you had taught her not to get on the lawn mower. I would lift her
gently down
and explore with her why mowers are dangerous, discuss how she can
ride the
toy mower I'm going to buy her, and look for other ways to encourage
her
climbing and exploring behaviors that are safer.

She's obviously, if she can climb, had enough experience with falling
and pain
to listen to my lesson with some understanding. I don't need to give
her MORE
pain.

Your child will need more lessons, in fact, since nature drives her,
compels
her, to explore, and you'll have to do YOUR lesson again and again,
and she
NEVER WILL COME TO YOU FOR HELP WHEN SHE IS FACED WITH A CHOICE of
exploring
something potentially dangerous. At 38 my daughter felt perfectly
comfortable
coming to me and asking my opinion of an ethical business question she
was
confronted with by her company.

I DID NOT SOLVE IT FOR HER. I did the same thing I did when she was
young. I
respected her desire to explore and experiment and acted as consultant
and
supporter as she did so. She chose the moral and ethically safer path,
just as
she chose the safer path as child.

And it involved no pain.

Now had she taken the less moral path I would have given her my own
opinion
ONCE, and left her to live with the consequences, because she's a big
girl
now....mentally probably my superior...and can take care of her self.

Your path creates the teens you would like to claim are the
"undisciplined"
when in fact they are the most self disciplined of all. The don't fear
their
parent....and are tempted to defiance. They love and trust their
parent so
that bad choices are extremely hard to make. It hurts their hearts to
go
against their parents.

Works far better than a short thought of a pained butt at three with
immediately rejection and moving right on to sex, drugs and rock and
roll in
an effort to blot out the ugly painful parentl....... r r r r r

>If Kane's claim *really* is that pain
> blocks learning,

It isn't. Had you read more carefully, ....or should I say your
neurotic
terrified inner child had allowed you....you'd have seen I didn't say
that
pain blocks learning, as in all learning about something. I said it
blocks the
learning of the desired skill or ability. It teaches alright, but not
the
skill.

What it blocks is full access to the desired lesson. Enthusiastic
focus and
determination to learn the desired ability. Did you spank your child
to teach
them to ride a bicycle? Jeez, I hope not.

That same patience and understanding about needing to learn balance
and
coordination applies absolutely to the lesson of why we don't hit our
little
sister with the sauce pan.

Your own life experience blocks you from seeing that. The examples
from your
own childhood rarely, if ever, included that understanding and
patience, and
your being hooked, as I presume your are (correct me if I'm wrong), on
the
inherent "evil" in humans, requires you to think in terms of
punishment.

"Disere" the latin root for the world "discipline" and "disciple" has
a
beautiful meaning when it comes to human learning....it means to
"bring out,"
and that is not what happens when a child who is busy experimenting
and
exploring (no matter how YOU interpret that behavior) is met with pain
from
the one person that she should be able to trust as a teacher...a true
teacher.


Pain does not bring out the ability to ride a bicycle, nor to ponder
the moral
issues in hitting one's sister, or the empathy that is the basis for
the
development of conscience. Empathy is retarded by distraction, built
by focus
on the other person.

You can't even get a child to pay attention to YOUR feelings, let
alone
another's feelings, by the use of pain.

Now this conversation may well end if you are one of those that
believes that
morality is not human based but rule based. I don't follow rules
because they
are rules and they come from some authority. I follow rules because
they have
proven to be the wisest choice of all in how I feel if I break them,
and how I
feel if I keep them.

If we all did that there would be need for enforcement, and whackin'
away on
kids butts.

> then he has just ruled out all of our common sense and
> common experience.

R R R R, I've ruled out nothing but your neurosis and your lack of
common
sense. Common sense based on ignorance is not sense, it is just
ignorance.

How common sense is built is by observing. How it turns into valuable
knowledge that can be applied is by never closing the loop....always
being
open to new interpretations and new views being considered.

Consider this.....everything the child does, no matter how YOU might
interpret
it, is no more or less than an experiment to learn how to live.

When you, their assigned guardian and protector, their trusted teacher
of how
to tie shoelaced, feed themselves, bake a cupcake, think their
throwing of
objects out of their play pen is defiance and just to make you pick up
after
them, and you resort to the shocking act of hitting them, they just
were
betrayed.

Do you KNOW why little children throw things out of their playpen or
off their
highchair tray, again and again and again...ad neauseum?

Think about it in learning terms.

The answer is here.

Whey does a child keep repeating new words over and over and over?

What natural phenomena is the child experimenting with in the object
throwing?


Children are compelled to be practical physicists. They MUST
experiment, and
it has to be replicated to be believed. And they must do it for
themselves.
Hitting inhibits that learning.

> He is probably also at odds with any and every
> evolutionary biological explanation for pain that I've ever run across.

No, only with the ones based on ignorance of learning theory. I'm not
against
learning from pain. I'm against the deliberate application of pain by
(from
his point of view) a child's protector. Children get more than enough
naturally consequential pain to learn about what does and doesn't
cause pain.

Why would you want to create an artificial application of pain that to
the
child is so often impossible to connect to the exploritory behavior
they were
performing?

Are you so insistent on them developing a sense of guilt, shame, fear,
about
their environment and insistent on them being challenged with the
thought that
they may in fact be evil creatures deserving torture?

A child believes the parenting they get is the parenting they deserve.
The
parent is all powerful to the child, even in defining who the child
is.

Consider: A child treated with respect, even when they make mistakes,
then
would believe they deserve what?

Now substitute "pain" for "respect."

And either is, for the child, what they will grow to seek for
themselves, as
it honors the beloved parent. They will do it until they die of old
age. A
life of self induced pain, or one of self respect. Your choice.

The power that parents have awes me, still.

> Also, think about it for a moment: Whence brain scans "proving" that
> pain blocks learning?

That is not what I said. I said it blocks the learning of the desired
task.
One can still learn....it just becomes exceedingly difficult and other
things,
not intended, are learned as well.

How good are your math skills? Or writing. What subjects were hard for
you in
school? Were they taught by your favorite teacher? Did you parent
"assist" in
your learning with punishments involved with your attempts to learn?
Did you
feel stupid when they "helped" you?

One of the toughest teachers I had was extremely respectful, but
still,
insisted quietly and respectfully, that one applied themselves. I had
flunked
algebra twice until him. Both prior teachers were insulting martinets.

I aced his class. And he graded hard, very. I learned about learning
from
him. I picked my teachers with care in college. Aced it too, all of
it. And I
was barely a C student in highschool. Lousy teachers until the algebra
teacher.

> I mean, I've read Milgram's summary of his
> psychological experiments in _Obedience to Authority_. Those experiments
> *simulated* pain in a "victim" in order to observe a subject's
> reaction to it.

That is something of a departure from my position...but let's see if
it is
worthy of the frightened child that forced that to the surface of your
consciousness to avoid my point.

> And that kind of experimental procedure has long since
> been declared unethical.

Okay. Let's see where this goes.

> So, I'd say it's pretty obvious that no
> one in recent history has run experiments subjecting people to
> pain

Wrong. It's common still. All it takes is consent of the subject. Go
to your
nearest college or university psych department and ask. Or try
neurological
departments of medical schools.

Besides, the question isn't "pain" alone. It's any distraction up to
and
including pain.

> in order to test whether or not people (and certainly not kids)
> can learn under the influence of pain.

And I was working, as I pointed out clearly, backward from pain to any
distraction. Any distraction changes learning from more easily done to
more
difficultly done and has unwanted side effects, such as the learning
of things
that might even interfer with performance of the desired skill.

Dr. Thomas Gordon, when a young man, was a military flight instructor.
He
observed that a lot of young student pilots were flying their aircraft
into
the ground and dying. He noted also that the instructor's, an a
misguided by
sincere attempt to save lives, were screaming at the students more and
more
and calling them more names and insults.

Gordon turned that around and developed a supportive approach. His
students
lived. The others continued to die.

Later he counseled parents and eventually wrote a book that is a
standard for
supportive parenting...that is supportive of the child learning, not
being
tortured.

> So, any "brain scan" claims
> there could be would have to be just wild extrapolation,

Nice try. No cigar. As I said. Consent allows for the use of
distraction up to
and including pain. But distraction alone is sufficient to support my
position. Unless you would care to label pain as not being a
distraction.

> making
> all kinds of assumptions about what causes what and what activity
> here or there in the brain might mean in terms of learning or not
> learning something.

Well, that usually IS the point of experimenting.

Just as children do it. They are trying, no matter what you think they
are
doing, to find out about the world and how it works. They are, by our
adult
view, terribly ignorant and clumsy, even doing things we've come to
label as
"bad," or "evil," "perverse," and even "sinful" but to them, in their
ignorance and nature driven compulsion to learn, those actions are not
labeled
as yet.

> Again, all one has to do is talk to an older teacher who remembers the
> days in public school when he had a wooden paddle and the authority
> to use it if students misbehaved. Guess what? Those were days when
> he shooting at Columbine, not to mention metal detectors at the
> entrances
> to schools, and armed policemen to patrol the halls, were unthinkable.

My very favorite. I've seen this come up so many times on the
talk.politics.guns website I grow weary of it.

You do know that children that were spanked were the ones doing the
shooting,
did you not? Check out all the school shootings in recent years. These
weren't
"unspanked" children.

Do you know how far back kids were walking into classrooms and
shooting
people? Try the 30's. The shooting at Columbine was not caused by the
failure
to spank. It was caused by the failure to inculcate a conscience.

That is the product of pain based parenting, whether it is physically
based,
or psychologically based. My take on the boys that did the shooting
was more
of the psychologically based, but I doubt anyone is going to get out
of the
families of the boys how they were parented. I've certainly seen more
than
enough mental illness in teens whose histories I did have access to to
tell
you that pain based parenting...even when done with cold precision....
results
in less conscience and morals, not more.

You are spouting like a Scientologist.

"One panel reads: *Since psychiatrists and psychologists entered the
classroom
in the 1960s, SAT scores have plummeted.* A huge line graph beside
this
statement illustrates the dramatic plunge. And yet, what do these two
things
have to do with each other? And what do they mean *since psychiatrists
entered
the classroom* anyway? The panel goes on to list shocking, but
uncited,
statistics about the dire state of American education: A 1999 study
showed
that 10% of college graduates could not read the back of a cereal box.
It
drums up experts with fancy-sounding pedigrees to testify on their
behalf:
*Dr. Fred A. Baughman Jr., a pediatric neurologist and Fellow of the
Academy of Neurology, says ADHD and other childhood psychiatric
disorders and
*learning disabilities* are *inventions, contrivances,* and *100%
fraud.**
Pictures of child killers like Eric Harris have captions like, *Took
Prozac
prior to killing 14 of his classmates.*
"

The lack of the paddle hasn't increased the school shootings. In fact
school
shootings are down, and have been for years. Even the year of the
Columbine
shootings school was still the safest place for children. And I say
that with
my teeth gritted as I am a dedicated homeschooling champion.

Except for the wonder of incongruence, California, it is consistently
the
states WITH school house paddling that has the most child perps of
shootings.
I'm damned if can explain California, but then who can? <smile>

You don't have your facts Mike. You come up with speculations you
haven't
researched adequately to use them as support for the position you have
staked
out. Keep trying.

> Mike Morris
> )

It's been fun Mike.

And no, I'm not a troll. If you haven't figured that out by now, well,
tough
****.

Kane

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

"Kane" > wrote in message
...

[]
> You have developed a strawman ("no one likes trolls"). And you have
> failed to establish that I am a troll and I am here just to start a
> fight.
>
> I give this evidence that I am not here for either:
>
> I am passionate about and dedicated to exposing the pointlessness, the
> wrong thinking, and perpetration of pain and humiliation on children
> with the misleading and false name of "discipline."

I would find your protestations of passion and sincerity much more
convincing if you has posted to just one group. I'm not ruling out the
possibility that you are sincere. Perhaps you are simply new to Usenet and
do not realize that you have posted your comments to groups with
diametrically opposed views. Perhaps you do not realize the participants of
these groups are virtually guaranteed to engage in an acrimonious
interchange. If you truly wish a productive debate on the subject that is
of such interest to you, you will avoid cross-posting. (BTW, it would also
be conducive to a more fruitful conversation if you refrained from using
such highly emotional language.)

I have no objections at all to discussing this topic if the discussion is
posted to only one newsgroup. If you feel too outnumbered on mehsc, then
suggest another group where you will be more comfortable and I will come to
discuss it with you there. If you insist on cross-posting now that I have
explained its significance, I will consider that evidence that your goal is
strife rather than intelligent debate.

Jayne

[Jon Houts]

On 10 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:

> "Michael S. Morris" > wrote

> Staking "out a position" differs from an "argument" how?

Much as "debate" differs from "fight," I suspect.

> >I am especially
> > embarassed when,
>
> Heaven'stobetsyIshouldhopeso.
>
> > driving around this evening,
>
> How many wrecks will it take for you to stop that day dreaming while
> you
> drive? Or should we spank you?

Is this the level of debate that can be expected by those who wish to
debate you?

> > Now, the "science" of
> > brain scans or no,
>
> Why do I get the feeling you don't really want to know what the brain
> scan studies show?
>
> One of the most interesting to me was the one that showed that in
> children who
> had experienced abuse that section of the brain that is the locus for
> indications of moral choices is black...dead...no neurons firing.
> Thought
> provoking and immediately jumped on by the word twisters with
> "spanking isn't
> abuse."

It's all fine and dandy for you to consider spanking to be abuse,
but,but...if the researchers didn't include the type/frequency of spanking
that most children receive to be abuse, then it's just downright dishonest
for you to say that what these researchers concluded has anything to do
with spanking.

[Kane]

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 23:57:54 -0500, Jon Houts >
wrote:

>
>On 10 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:
>
>> "Ray Drouillard" > wrote
>> > "Kane" > wrote
>> > > "Ray Drouillard" > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >I wonder if Kane has a standard rant
>> > > >that is saved to his or her hard drive.
>> > >
>> > > I wonder what made YOU think of that particular tactic though?
I never
>> > > have.
>
>> > The fact is, there is one troll who uses that tactic, and another
who I
>> > strongly suspect uses that tactic. Both currently occupy my
killfile.
>> > I killfile very few people, but some sound like broken records
and tend
>> > to splatter garbage all over the place. For the sake of
cleanliness, I
>> > have chosen to ignore their posts.
>>
>> Do I appear to be either? Do they continue the debate?
>
>> > I don't abuse them.
>>
>> Legally you may not. It is legal to spank a child in all 50 states
if
>> you are they legal caregiver, guardian, parent.
>
>What about Minnesota?

Thank you again sir. You are correct. I have read the law. It is very
shakey. I am unaware of case law pertaining. Do you know of any? It
might help settle my questions about Minnesota law.

>
>http://www.nospank.net/n-g02.htm


SUSAN H. BITENSKY points out that it's a well kept secret. Since she
is, I believe, a professor of law, I'd like very much to see her say
more (she simply said it against the law, no argument) before I buy
it.

But claiming only one state isn't exactly a winning argument. It's a
50th of an argument, if you get my meaning.

>http://www.law.msu.edu/faculty/bitensky/i_h.pdf

If you actually read the pdf file you will see that it doesn't say
parents may not spank. In fact it outlines wherein they may do so.

One could extrapolate, very possibly if they stretched really hard,
that giving the outline of when and why there might be some NO and
NOT.

But that isn't the case in the cited section. As I said. I'm not
decided on this yet. I would like it to, for debate sake, but I would
HATE it to for parent and child's sake.

The only really kind and gentle parent will be one that lovingly
endorses, commits, and learns for him or herself how to parent gently.

A parent forced into not spanking, by law, will simply devise other
punishments, and cruel those will be. I've seen them. I've seen what
they can do.

Given the two as choices (and there are more that two of course),
spanking or psychological abuse, I'd go for spanking as the lessor of
two evils.

That's not an endorsement of cp. Cp runs a very close second to pa for
damanging human beings.

Uncharacteristically, I am not for laws against spanking. I am for
laws against assault, whether adult or child. If I hit, for instance,
your child with the exact same intent you would (calling it "spanking
to teach" of course to ease my conscience) I would be charged with
assault and arrested. You would not.

I do not want such laws. I want people of good conscience to continue
these debates with those that spank.

>but,but...

Try Rislone (TM)

>Jon

Kane

[Kane]

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 23:09:38 -0500, Jon Houts >
wrote:

>
>On 9 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:
>
>> "Ray Drouillard" wrote:
>>
>> >It looks like one of those crusaders who google for certain key
words
>> >and start stirring up the mud.
>>
>> No, actually I've been a serial lurker to this ng for some time
now.
>>
>> >I wonder if Kane has a standard rant
>> >that is saved to his or her hard drive.
>>
>> I wonder what made YOU think of that particular tactic though? I
never
>> have.
>
>If you *really* were a "serial lurker" in meh-sc, you'd know why he
>thought that.

No, actually I wouldn't. Serial lurkers are, by virtue of being
"serial," not privy to everything that is posted. Didn't you know
that?

Still don't want to discuss spanking, I take it?

> Makes me think you're lying about your ng habits.

I don't particular care what you think when I know you are wrong.
Unless it damages a child in some why.

Care to discuss spanking?

>
>but,but...

Maybe some Castrol (tm)

>Jon

Kane

[Greg Hanson]

> It's pronounced nothing like the former.

As in "Raising Cane" but he has also gone by Kane9

> Basically, Ray, you are a coward. You are afraid
> to defend your brutal practice of spanking in a
> larger arena so try to confine it to this small
> one where you know there will be plenty of
> supporters.

The MRI guy posted one short message asking you
to cite your references. You respond WITHOUT
citing your sources and throw this little 12 year
old temper tantrum response?

> Cowardice over your ignorance, and cowardice
> in child rearing practices.

Where did he say a darn thing about child rearing?
You think EVERYBODY is ignorant except you.

It looks more like he just didn't like your MISUSE
of so-called information from his field of research.

I wonder if he saw you get laughed out for trying
the old "I asked my [unnamed] psychiatrist friend
to read your messages and they diagnosed you as.."
thing? Another way you attempted to MISUSE or
coopt some supposed scientific authority.

Ray, Google the archive of this newsgroup for
"Telemetric" and notice that one was tried and
laughed out two different times.

If Kane ever provides and specific citations, watch
to see if it equates spanking to "beating".

> Spankers are doomed, Ray. If we don't stop it in
> this generation we will in the next. If you don't
> volunteer to learn better eventually the cure that
> even I don't want will come into play. The law will
> stop you.

It's interesting to see you acknowledge that
you do NOT have the constituency you'd like
for your totalitarian wish to IMPOSE anti-spanking.

> So tell us, Ray, why do little children defy their parents?

Trick question without giving an age?
Different issues at different stages.

Actually I also saw something on educational TV
about how repeated extreme traumas can rewire the
brain, inhibit growth of certain centers, etc. but
if spanking is traumatic enough to cause this, you
must remember that many children seem to turn lots
of small things into big traumas. Do you think
badly behaved kids who demand that checkout aisle
candy bar and then throw a COW of a temper tantrum..
Is that also traumatic enough to cause "damage" if
it goes that far? Some kids learn no discipline
and are nasty little manipulators. Parents who
allow or reward this may be doing the kid a disservice.

And spare me the textbook parent skills "take them out
of the store" answer with a half hour invested in a
full grocery cart. Forget leaving the bratty kid
sitting in the car stewing to themself. (illegal)

Some other kids act like big time drama queens,
exaggerated pathos. I've seen kids throw giant
temper tantrums over the stupidest crap,
obviously the manipulation WORKED before.

I was oldest of four, and we had empathy and sympathy
for each other all the time, BUT when we recognized a
sibling was pouring on the pathos, we'd all pour on
fake dramatic sympathy to ridicule the one who
started it. They'd often crack a smile, realize how
dumb it was and we'd all end up laughing our butts off
together.

If we got spanked, on the sly we would be sarcastic
about spankings through blue jeans.
"What're ya trying to do, tickle me?" we'd wisper among us.
The token was understood, however.

If the trauma of spanking causes brain problems, then
what about other traumas like needle vaccinations,
falling down, playground fights, or CPS child removal?
Healthy Kids normally have many "owies" worse than spanking.

Please go back to calling all spanking "beating"
because most of the general public will recognize
immediately what kooks you anti-spanking zealots are.

[Greg Hanson]

Why would the UN single out Canada as needing a ban on spanking?
As physical discipline goes, half the world is ten times worse!
Caning and strapping are still used in MANY places.

No wonder they can't act to prevent real death,
rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Just like Child Protection agencies.

[Greg Hanson]

Re: Crossposting complaints
1. Most FAQ's imply that TELLING people not to flame is as bad
as flaming itself. Doesn't that apply to the crossposting ""issue""
as well?

2. All of the newsgroups I see listed SEEM to all be legit places for
this thread about the UN ruling Canada should bad spanking. Germain
to all newsgroups I'm seeing listed.

3. If crossposting is a no-no, then WHY do newsgroups even HAVE
facilities for crossposting? Conversely, When would it ever BE
appropriate to cross post to several newsgroups where the subject
would seem to be germain?

4. Are there technical problems with this thread that cause
fragmentation?
A message from the MRI guy is missing from the incarnation I'm reading
now.

5. How can we decide where to shift this entire thread without
fragmentation?
I hereby nominate alt.parenting.spanking if LaVonne will allow.

[tj]

"Julie Pascal" > wrote in message
...
>


> Which newsgroup? Crossposting is *always* rude.

I'm sorry, Julie, but that is not correct. Crossposting is and has always
been part of the design of Usenet. It was designed that way to allow
discussions (and even arguments) to happen between groups. Using that
design, in and of itself, rude. It is using the Usenet as it was designed
to be used. You may not like it. You may not like the groups to which he
posted. That does not make his behavior rude either. If the thread is
offensive to you (for any reason).... well, that's what filters are for. If
you're using MS Outlook Express, you can simply click on Ignore Thread.

If he had picked a gazillion unrelated ngs and the thread had little to do
with any of the ngs' themes, then you would have a point. This is not the
case here. The fact that the groups included may (or may not) have
diametrically opposed viewpoints is also irrelevant. If people here only
want a select viewpoint to be included in the conversations, then they are
using the wrong medium. They should be making use of invitation-only email
lists.

[Kane]

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 23:44:10 -0500, Jon Houts >
wrote:

>
>On 10 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:
>
>> "Michael S. Morris" > wrote
>
>> Staking "out a position" differs from an "argument" how?
>
>Much as "debate" differs from "fight," I suspect.
>
>> >I am especially
>> > embarassed when,
>>
>> Heaven'stobetsyIshouldhopeso.
>>
>> > driving around this evening,
>>
>> How many wrecks will it take for you to stop that day dreaming
while
>> you
>> drive? Or should we spank you?
>
>Is this the level of debate that can be expected by those who wish to
>debate you?

Is this the level we can expect from you, avoider?

>> > Now, the "science" of
>> > brain scans or no,
>>
>> Why do I get the feeling you don't really want to know what the
brain
>> scan studies show?
>>
>> One of the most interesting to me was the one that showed that in
>> children who
>> had experienced abuse that section of the brain that is the locus
for
>> indications of moral choices is black...dead...no neurons firing.
>> Thought
>> provoking and immediately jumped on by the word twisters with
>> "spanking isn't
>> abuse."
>
>It's all fine and dandy for you to consider spanking to be abuse,

Oh, it's considerably more than fine and dandy.

>but,but...if the researchers didn't include the type/frequency of
spanking
>that most children receive to be abuse,

I didn't say the researchers discriminated between abuse and spanking.
I suspect they confined themselves to victims of what would legally be
termed abuse...which would preclude spanking.

Do you demand that all uses of electricity be considered when one use
is being examined?

>then it's just downright dishonest
>for you to say that what these researchers concluded has anything to
do
>with spanking.

No, you are now lying, as in attempting to deceive by making a claim
about me you cannot prove. That I'm being dishonest. Honesty has
nothing to do with my exploring possible connections between causes
and effects. If you think that is dishonest then I guess science, to
you, is dishonest.

However, I presume it's yet another of your attempts to divert.

It isn't dishonest of me to consider the link between abuse and
spanking nor is it dishonest of me to consider the state of the world
and its societies as possibly being linked to the use of pain and
humiliation in parenting.

You may not LIKE it, my examining and questioning, but there is
nothing dishonest about it.

If you think so I'm sure you can point out what is dishonest on my
part by showing us the truth you think I am not showing.

No?

Kane

[Ray Drouillard]

"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...
> Why would the UN single out Canada as needing a ban on spanking?
> As physical discipline goes, half the world is ten times worse!
> Caning and strapping are still used in MANY places.

Very good question, actually.

It looks like Canada is not being singled out. According to the
article, every country that signed that treaty is being given the same
recommendation.



>
> No wonder they can't act to prevent real death,
> rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
>
> Just like Child Protection agencies.

The ineffectiveness of the UN could be the subject of a completely new
debate.



Ray

[Kane]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 13:31:01 -0400, "Ray Drouillard"
> wrote:

>
>"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...
>> Why would the UN single out Canada as needing a ban on spanking?
>> As physical discipline goes, half the world is ten times worse!
>> Caning and strapping are still used in MANY places.
>
>Very good question, actually.
>
>It looks like Canada is not being singled out. According to the
>article, every country that signed that treaty is being given the
same
>recommendation.
>
>
>
>>
>> No wonder they can't act to prevent real death,
>> rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
>>
>> Just like Child Protection agencies.
>
>The ineffectiveness of the UN could be the subject of a completely
new
>debate.

Classic understatement. You Canadian?

The UN (though not some of its subordinate organizations) are the
worst thing that has ever happened to this planet and its peoples.

Conditions around the world are spiralling downward at the instigation
and cultivation of this organization.
>
>
>Ray
>

Kane

[Kane]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:52:04 -0400, "Ray Drouillard"
> wrote:

>
>"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
>
>[...]
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: jordan riak
>> To:
>> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 1:30 PM
>> Subject: Bill O'Reilly, well-spanked
>>
>> ....................
>>
>> "I have some first-hand evidence to support my theory. I routinely
>> poll each new class of students to find out what percentage were
>> raised without corporal punishment. I lecture a new group of 20 to
30
>> adults every three weeks, and have been doing so over the course of
>> the past four years. In the process of looking for an unspanked
>> student, I think I know how Diogenes felt holding up his lantern in
>> the market place at midday in search of an honest man. My polling
>> results are consistently at, or very near, 0%. If their childhoods
>> were deficient in any way, it certainly wasn't due to the lack of
>> spanking.
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>>
>> My students are inmates in the Pre-Release Program at California
State
>> Prison Folsom."
>
>
>Interesting. All of the prisoners that he interviewed were spanked
as
>children.
>
>Perhaps he didn't ask the right questions. I'll bet that every one
of
>the prisoners that he interviewed also ate bread as children. Maybe
>bread is the villain.

Quite possible, if eating bread were painful.

As far as I know bread has not been implicated in reactive
psychological disorders. Spanking has been. What it's implication
amounts to is the question, not wither or not it is implicated.

Nice try Ray. You are still about two hairs short of a toupee.

>
>Ray Drouillard
>

Peace. Love. Victory.

Kane

[Kane]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:34:27 -0500, Jon Houts >
wrote:

>
>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Ray Drouillard wrote:
>
>> Interesting. All of the prisoners that he interviewed were spanked
as
>> children.
>>
>> Perhaps he didn't ask the right questions. I'll bet that every one
of
>> the prisoners that he interviewed also ate bread as children.
Maybe
>> bread is the villain.
>
>Scary. "Eating bread" is exactly what I was thinking...

You do know, do you not, this little diversion has been fully
exploited in the past and proved to be as limp as a post
orgasmic...well, you know.

As far as my research has taken me I've never once run across any
study to implicate bread as a factor, causal or correlational, in
criminal behavior.

If you know of one, pop it up here.

It would be fascinating.

Unless you stick to those phenomena in folks lives that have to do
with pain and humiliation you are diverting, putting up strawmen to
kick around, throwing red fish at us, and making extremely hasty
generalizations...all serious logical reasoning faults.

You wouldn't want to be guilty of that, now would you, boys?

>but,but...

My little 5 horse outboard makes a similar noise. I use Rislone.

>Jon

Kane

[Jon Houts]

On 11 Oct 2003, Greg Hanson wrote:

> Re: Crossposting complaints
> 1. Most FAQ's imply that TELLING people not to flame is as bad
> as flaming itself.

but,but...is it wrong to tell people that telling people not to flame is
bad?

> 4. Are there technical problems with this thread that cause
> fragmentation?

Most likely, a lot of sub-threads have cropped up which weren't
crossposted to all of the groups.


Jon

[Jon Houts]

On 11 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Ray Drouillard wrote:
>
> > Interesting. All of the prisoners that
> > he interviewed were spanked as children.
> >
> > Perhaps he didn't ask the right questions.
> > I'll bet that every one of the prisoners
> > that he interviewed also ate bread as
> > children. Maybe bread is the villain.
>
> As far as my research has taken me I've never once run across any
> study to implicate bread as a factor, causal or correlational, in
> criminal behavior.
>
> If you know of one, pop it up here.

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/bread.html


;)


but,but...
Jon

[Jon Houts]

On 11 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:

> Jon Houts > wrote:
>
> >On 10 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:
> >
> >> "Michael S. Morris" wrote
> >
> >> > Now, the "science" of
> >> > brain scans or no,
> >>
> >> Why do I get the feeling you don't really
> >> want to know what the brain scan studies show?
> >>
> >> One of the most interesting to me was the
> >> one that showed that in children who had
> >> experienced abuse that section of the brain
> >> that is the locus for indications of moral
> >> choices is black...dead...no neurons firing.
> >> Thought provoking and immediately jumped on
> >> by the word twisters with "spanking isn't
> >> abuse."
> >
> > It's all fine and dandy for you to consider
> > spanking to be abuse, but,but...if the
> > researchers didn't include the type/frequency
> > of spanking that most children receive to be
> > abuse,
>
> I didn't say the researchers discriminated
> between abuse and spanking. I suspect they
> confined themselves to victims of what would
> legally be termed abuse...which would preclude
> spanking.

Then why throw that study out as evidence against spanking?

> Do you demand that all uses of electricity
> be considered when one use is being examined?

Let's run with that "electricity" thing....

If you were to say that blowdryers were deadly, and should be
banned outright, and offered up as proof a study showing that
using blowdryers while taking a bath caused people to electroculte
themselves, I'd call you on that, too.

> > then it's just downright dishonest for
> > you to say that what these researchers
> > concluded has anything to do with spanking.
>
> No, you are now lying, as in attempting to
> deceive by making a claim about me you
> cannot prove. That I'm being dishonest.

You're trying to use a study on abuse to prove a case about spanking.
That's dishonest.

> It isn't dishonest of me to consider the
> link between abuse and spanking

Well, that's the missing piece right now, isn't it?

> nor is it dishonest of me to consider the
> state of the world and its societies as
> possibly being linked to the use of pain and
> humiliation in parenting.

Let's see. You're saying that spanking causes the problems we see in the
"state of the world and its societies." (let's say A->C) You post
something about a study showing a link between abuse a morality (let's
call that (B->C). What you're missing is something to prove that
spanking, itself, constitutes abuse (A->B). If you use B->C as your sole
proof that A->C, you're being dishonest.


Jon

[Kane]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 13:28:02 -0500, Jon Houts >
wrote:

>
>On 11 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Ray Drouillard wrote:
>>
>> > Interesting. All of the prisoners that
>> > he interviewed were spanked as children.
>> >
>> > Perhaps he didn't ask the right questions.
>> > I'll bet that every one of the prisoners
>> > that he interviewed also ate bread as
>> > children. Maybe bread is the villain.
>>
>> As far as my research has taken me I've never once run across any
>> study to implicate bread as a factor, causal or correlational, in
>> criminal behavior.
>>
>> If you know of one, pop it up here.
>
>http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/bread.html


Excellent. Nice going. Of course a humourous post of correlation
hardly equates with the serious subject of using pain for teaching.

You have a point...only one of course.
>
>;)
>
>
>but,but...
>Jon

Beansal do that to you.

Kane

[Kane]

Jon Houts > wrote in message >...
> On 11 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:
>
> > Jon Houts > wrote:
> >
> > >On 10 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Michael S. Morris" wrote
>
> > >> > Now, the "science" of
> > >> > brain scans or no,
> > >>
> > >> Why do I get the feeling you don't really
> > >> want to know what the brain scan studies show?
> > >>
> > >> One of the most interesting to me was the
> > >> one that showed that in children who had
> > >> experienced abuse that section of the brain
> > >> that is the locus for indications of moral
> > >> choices is black...dead...no neurons firing.
> > >> Thought provoking and immediately jumped on
> > >> by the word twisters with "spanking isn't
> > >> abuse."
> > >
> > > It's all fine and dandy for you to consider
> > > spanking to be abuse, but,but...if the
> > > researchers didn't include the type/frequency
> > > of spanking that most children receive to be
> > > abuse,
> >
> > I didn't say the researchers discriminated
> > between abuse and spanking. I suspect they
> > confined themselves to victims of what would
> > legally be termed abuse...which would preclude
> > spanking.
>
> Then why throw that study out as evidence against spanking?

I don't recall saying it should be thrown out. In fact it shouldn't
be. Any factors that reduce learning, and brain development deserve
closer scrutiny.

Don't you think?

> > Do you demand that all uses of electricity
> > be considered when one use is being examined?
>
> Let's run with that "electricity" thing....
>
> If you were to say that blowdryers were deadly, and should be
> banned outright, and offered up as proof a study showing that
> using blowdryers while taking a bath caused people to electroculte
> themselves, I'd call you on that, too.

So?

I'd still say that the use of blowdryers in the shower were unwise,
just as I say the use of spanking is highly questionable, and possibly
dangerous to humankind.

I'll go you one better. Look at the analogy this way.

The use of spanking, in itself, equates with the use of blowdryers.

The use of spanking on the non-consenting, the child, equates with
using blowdryers in the shower.

> > > then it's just downright dishonest for
> > > you to say that what these researchers
> > > concluded has anything to do with spanking.
> >
> > No, you are now lying, as in attempting to
> > deceive by making a claim about me you
> > cannot prove. That I'm being dishonest.
>
> You're trying to use a study on abuse to prove a case about spanking.
> That's dishonest.

Nothing dishonest about it at all. What did I conceal about the study?
Did I pretend it was about spanking?

Do you suppose that the subjects were only abused and never spanked?

Just where is the cutoff between spanking and abuse?

Is it possible that while abuse resulted in blacked out activity,
spanking might not be considered to retard development...a brownout as
it were?

I'm not providing "proof." I'm offering speculation.

The only proof I am absolutely sure of is the thousands of children
I've worked with over a very long lifetime. They showed me daily the
results of pain and humiliation parenting methods. I know spanking,
not legally classifiable abuse, to have been a factor in some chilling
outcomes for children and the people around them as they aged out of
childhood.

I recall one case where a 14 year old got tired of his mother thinking
she could spank him for anything (this is an example of retarded moral
development) who had turned into a major sneak. One day she came for
him with a switch, and he knocked her down, and then brutally raped
her.

Extremely rare of course, but I had the task of rehabilitating this
"child." In searching his background growing up in a little community
I found that two small children in the three years prior to his being
in my care diappeared from that community.

No connection perhaps, but when I looked at that boy, and his
perfectly guileless exterior, and knew what he had done to his mother,
I had my suspicions.

The of pain and humiliation in teaching any one or anything often
turns up such outcomes. Human know to hide it when they are just a few
years old (a screwed up three year old is about the highest age where
the child won't hide the growing savagery), but animals will clearly
reveal the results of being "spanked" and humiliated. Cowering, they
can and do suddenly turn and bite or claw.

> > It isn't dishonest of me to consider the
> > link between abuse and spanking
>
> Well, that's the missing piece right now, isn't it?

No, actually it's not. The brain scan studies are one of the areas of
research that may well now be exploring it. On going research isn't
something I've looked at.

Any much research has been done that is as thorough as the research
was into electricity that still hadn't adequately explained it but
electricity was being used based on those incomplete studies.

I think I am perfectly safe in suggesting parents try using gentle
supportive non threatening, non painful, non humiliating methods given
the level of research we have right now. It's far beyond where
electrical research was at the time electricity became a universal
tool in industrial countries.

One of the most interesting things to research, would not be the
connection between spanking and abberent behavior, but non punitive
parenting and the outcomes.

There is a cry that goes up often that it's the non-spanked child that
is the menace to society. I always find it amusing in that people
can't prove it and even when they try close examination shoes they
aren't really talking about the non-spanked child (turns out that they
really mean...not spanked enough...the subject invariably are revealed
as having been spanked some) and certainly not about the non-punished
child.

The latter is well known to me. But not from the professional contact
I've had with children, but rather from the families, more
particularly homeschooling families, that have never used a punishment
regimen for discipline.

As I meet the adults that are the result of such child rearing I'm
stunned by the quality of human it produces. Moral, industrious,
nearly incorruptable, socially conscious, and I don't mind asking them
to let me survey them and study their past and their lives.

Fascinating. Something 40 years ago I wouldn't have believed existed.

You don't really think I come here to Troll do you?

I not only believe in what I claim, I have seen it. Frankly I'd prefer
a world where everyone was like these fascinating people.

And they are rich in diversity. They are all kinds of persons with all
kinds of personalities, but they have those few qualities in common
that I mentioned above.

You don't know any, do you?

> > nor is it dishonest of me to consider the
> > state of the world and its societies as
> > possibly being linked to the use of pain and
> > humiliation in parenting.
>
> Let's see. You're saying that spanking causes the problems we see in the
> "state of the world and its societies." (let's say A->C)

That is correct. You are of course attempting to reframe my statement
into something I did not say.

I said, and you conveniently and dishonestly left out of your
"question," the words from my statement, "consider," and "possibly."

I consider many factors. I consider parenting practices, which are
assumed to be applied to create a particular kind of human being, a
very likely culprit.

> You post
> something about a study showing a link between abuse a morality (let's
> call that (B->C). What you're missing is something to prove that
> spanking, itself, constitutes abuse (A->B). If you use B->C as your sole
> proof that A->C, you're being dishonest.

You are being dishonest when you say I am using any one thing as sole
proof.

I've not done that. I've talked, in these few short posts, of many
things that provide support (I've not once used the term "proof" or
"proved" or "proven" intentionally. And if you can find it I will
retract it.)

I cannot say that I have proof that the current economic policies of
GW Bush are threatening the economy of the middle and lower income
people, but I feel confident that what I do see is adequate for me to
strongly suggest other policies be explored....like voting their butts
out and getting a <gag> Democrat administration for a time.

I offer the thought that non-punitive parenting (that would rule out
spanking) produces some very admirable results and few if any unwanted
side effects.

If you haven't tried it, you might try not knocking it.

I tried it. The more I tried it the better life became for my children
and myself. And the more of the admired and desired traits I want in
human beings surfaced and were cultivated...almost without input from
me, suggesting yet another startling possibility...that children are
not born into evil ways.

They learn then at the hands of parents who consider themselves good,
among other sources.

So, Jon. Have you raised a child with a mind to viewing all behaviors
as developmental exploritory events for children, and wherein you
would guide gentle to your desired results instead of pound their
butts?

I have. I like the results. My 43 and 38 year old children are proof
enough to me, and the children of other parents I know who adult
children turned out very much the same, morally, ethically,
intelligently, industriously, responsibly.

I'd like other folks to think and take a look at the possibility I'm
right.

You may not wish to. You may prefer to avoid looking at this
possibility of my correctness in my speculation of goodness coming out
of gentleness by arguing points of logic with me on subjects you make
up by presuming I'm saying something I'm not, even changing my words
to make YOUR presentation.

I find you silly. And quite dishonest.

> Jon

but-but.

Kane

[LaVonne Carlson]

Ray Drouillard wrote:

>
> Kids who are raised without proper discipline end up being rotten
> adults. One must only look around to see examples.

Yes, children both need and deserve proper discipline. What they do not
need is physical assault in the name of discipline.

> Of course, the real answer can be found in the "user's manual" that our
> maker gave to us:
>
> Pro 13:24 One who spares the rod hates his son, But one who loves him is
> careful to discipline him.
>
> Pro 22:15 Folly is bound up in the heart of a child: The rod of
> discipline drives it far from him.

And Deuteronomy recommends stoning children to death for rebellious
behavior. Do you recommend killing children who do not obey, or do you
prefer selective Biblical interpretation and application? By the way,
nothing in the NT suggests that Jesus would recommend hitting and hurting a
little child with rods or anything else.

>
> Pro 23:13 Don't withhold correction from a child. If you punish him with
> the rod, he will not die.
> Pro 23:14 Punish him with the rod, And save his soul from Sheol.

And Deuteronomy recommends killing rebellious children. Since you
literally apply Proverbs, I'm sure you advocate killing as a form of
discipline.

> Pro 29:15 The rod of correction gives wisdom, But a child left tto
> himself causes shame to his mother.

And Deuteronomy recommends killing children. I must assume that if you use
Proverbs to justify hitting children with rods, you also recommend stoning
those children to death who remain rebellious.

> Pro 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he
> will not depart from it.

And one can discipline and one can train without hitting and hurting a
child. And one can certainly parent without stoning children to death.
Read the New Testament, Ray. And read the Old Testament. If you advocate
everything in the Old Testament, you advocate capital punishment for
rebellious children, for adulterers, for women who are not virgins when
they marry. Jesus' disciples tried this thinking when they desired to
stone the woman at the well. Jesus intervened. Funny about that, isn't
it.

LaVonne

[Ray Drouillard]

"LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
...
> Ray Drouillard wrote:
>
> >
> > Kids who are raised without proper discipline end up being rotten
> > adults. One must only look around to see examples.
>
> Yes, children both need and deserve proper discipline. What they do
not
> need is physical assault in the name of discipline.
>
> > Of course, the real answer can be found in the "user's manual" that
our
> > maker gave to us:
> >
> > Pro 13:24 One who spares the rod hates his son, But one who loves
him is
> > careful to discipline him.
> >
> > Pro 22:15 Folly is bound up in the heart of a child: The rod of
> > discipline drives it far from him.
>
> And Deuteronomy recommends stoning children to death for rebellious
> behavior. Do you recommend killing children who do not obey, or do
you
> prefer selective Biblical interpretation and application? By the way,
> nothing in the NT suggests that Jesus would recommend hitting and
hurting a
> little child with rods or anything else.
>
> >
> > Pro 23:13 Don't withhold correction from a child. If you punish him
with
> > the rod, he will not die.
> > Pro 23:14 Punish him with the rod, And save his soul from Sheol.
>
> And Deuteronomy recommends killing rebellious children. Since you
> literally apply Proverbs, I'm sure you advocate killing as a form of
> discipline.
>
> > Pro 29:15 The rod of correction gives wisdom, But a child left tto
> > himself causes shame to his mother.
>
> And Deuteronomy recommends killing children. I must assume that if
you use
> Proverbs to justify hitting children with rods, you also recommend
stoning
> those children to death who remain rebellious.
>
> > Pro 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is
old he
> > will not depart from it.
>
> And one can discipline and one can train without hitting and hurting a
> child. And one can certainly parent without stoning children to
death.
> Read the New Testament, Ray. And read the Old Testament. If you
advocate
> everything in the Old Testament, you advocate capital punishment for
> rebellious children, for adulterers, for women who are not virgins
when
> they marry. Jesus' disciples tried this thinking when they desired to
> stone the woman at the well. Jesus intervened. Funny about that,
isn't
> it.
>
> LaVonne


Again, the term "justify" is used.

Do you have to justify eating? Do you have to justify sleeping? You
justify bad things, not good things. Discipline is a good thing.

Also, we see the old trick of picking some part of the Law out and using
that to discredit the Old Testament.

The answer to that can be quite complex, but I'll make it simple and
leave out a whole lot of details.

Galatians 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the
law.

There is a whole lot more to it, of course. The Law was for the Jews,
not the Gentiles. Sacrifice no longer needs to be practiced because
Jesus was the perfect sacrifice. In the NT, God mad all food clean.
The list goes on.

So, that bit about stoning defiant children doesn't hold water. Even if
it was still in effect, it couldn't be practiced because there are no
city gates and no group of city officials hanging out there.

Trying to use that argument is simply silly.

Now, moving on to the second part of my project at disassembling the
above argument:

Proverbs is not a book of law, but a book of wise counsel. We are free
to disregard it -- at our own risk, of course. God's wisdom does not
pass away. He may change the rules as the situation merits, but the
wise advice in Proverbs still stands.



Ray Drouillard

[Ray Drouillard]

"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:52:04 -0400, "Ray Drouillard"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Kane" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: jordan riak
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 1:30 PM
> >> Subject: Bill O'Reilly, well-spanked
> >>
> >> ....................
> >>
> >> "I have some first-hand evidence to support my theory. I routinely
> >> poll each new class of students to find out what percentage were
> >> raised without corporal punishment. I lecture a new group of 20 to
> 30
> >> adults every three weeks, and have been doing so over the course of
> >> the past four years. In the process of looking for an unspanked
> >> student, I think I know how Diogenes felt holding up his lantern in
> >> the market place at midday in search of an honest man. My polling
> >> results are consistently at, or very near, 0%. If their childhoods
> >> were deficient in any way, it certainly wasn't due to the lack of
> >> spanking.
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >>
> >> My students are inmates in the Pre-Release Program at California
> State
> >> Prison Folsom."
> >
> >
> >Interesting. All of the prisoners that he interviewed were spanked
> as
> >children.
> >
> >Perhaps he didn't ask the right questions. I'll bet that every one
> of
> >the prisoners that he interviewed also ate bread as children. Maybe
> >bread is the villain.
>
> Quite possible, if eating bread were painful.
>
> As far as I know bread has not been implicated in reactive
> psychological disorders. Spanking has been. What it's implication
> amounts to is the question, not wither or not it is implicated.
>
> Nice try Ray. You are still about two hairs short of a toupee.


My point is that your attempted use of scanty statistical data is
totally invalid. I expanded upon it in another part of the thread.



Ray

[Kane]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:20:22 -0500, "Dalene Barnes"
> wrote:

>Kane wrote:
>
>> Excellent. Nice going. Of course a humourous post of correlation
>> hardly equates with the serious subject of using pain for teaching.
>
> (and a bunch of other stuff)
>
>
>The human body itself is designed to teach by pain...as in "Doc, it
hurts
>when I do this...."

That is correct. However if one pays attention to their body and
learns its signals one can intervene before pain becomes extreme.

>We are made aware of many things in our body by pain -
>tooth hurts, it needs attention; head hurts, it needs rest; fire
hurts,
>don't touch it; eyes hurt, I may need glasses; falling off a cliff
hurts,
>stay away from the edge.

That is correct. That is the body itself delivering messages directly
related to the actions of that body. Very smart of you to notice.

>We are taught, through nature and our own body,
>through pain.

That is correct. Parents have a very special role in all this.

>We are also taught other ways, so those are valid also. If
>you correlate pain in the body with spanking, it *should* only take
one
>(maybe two for some) experiences to learn where the pain comes, and
where
>the reward comes.

That is correct. The parent has a very special role to play in all
this.

>But learning by pain CAN BE and IS a very natural
>process.

Excellent. Gold star for you. Two maybe. The parent has a very special
role to play in all this.

>I would also contend that teaching by corporal punishment is very
natural,
>because it is a behavior that can be seen in many animals. Our dog,
when
>she has puppies, weans her pups by nipping at them when they try to
nurse.

That is correct. If you nursed your children when you were ready to
wean them did you nip at them.

I'll bet not. And therein lies the fallacy of your metaphore. We are
not dogs and puppies. A bitch cannot teach her puppies by any other
means. A human has quite a repertoire a dog does not.

And you have used just one example. I have, and I've bred and trained
dogs for income, seen most bitches that are through nursing simply get
up and walk away. She can easily tire the puppies out, and with my
help can isolate herself from them. Many simply jumped up on their
shelters and sat there so the pups couldn't nurse.

That was very quick and easy to. The pups took to a dish quite easily,
and were ready for more solid food at an appropriate time.

>They learn very quickly. They also learn that just approaching mom
to
>cuddle has rewards.

Actually weaning time often marks the mother taking off a lot more.
And the pups have to turn to other pursuits much more often to get
their cuddling.

>I've seen videos (but never in person) of other animals
>that teach their offspring with a swat. This leads to survival of
the
>fittest;

You are a believer in evolution then? But you are wrong. Sometimes
animals disciplining their young do kill them. Male dogs, and wolves,
quite gentle with pups, when to harrased by them have been known to
snap and break their little necks.

Farley Mowat documented it in the Canadian wilds. Great book. Read it.

I'm sure you don't intend your metaphore to attach to anything that
broad an would prefer I confined it to just your argument. Sorry.
Cannot do that.

>it doesn't mar the babes for life, it teaches them to live.

How do you know, assuming we are still talking about animals, what it
does in terms of maring.

I had a dog, his name was Po. His mother was so tiny and he so big
that I had to help her deliver him. He was a handsome devil, kind of a
stouter model pointer, broad chest, strong as an ox. Black and white.

I fed him, as she couldn't. In fact I had to teach him to bark, as he
never had litter mates and a mother to grow up with (by the way,
barking is not taught by pain, but by example...ring any bells as a
metaphore for you?)

I was, in effect, his mother in all ways but nursing.

I was late teaching him to bark as for some time I didn't realize why
he whined instead of barking. When I taught him forever after when
people would hear him bark they'd say his back sounded like my voice.
r r r r

He tured out to be an exceptional dog in many ways. Saved my daugher
from a pack of abandoned stray dogs that were running the
neighborhood. Later he and I fought of a pack of them, probably 40 or
more, that were going for my horses.

And finally, and I'm sure you'll discount everything I say when I tell
you this...he always tried to mimic my voice and words and one day
said to me as clear as day, "that's okay."

But you know the human brain, it will do everything it can to make new
information match old patterns...so I probably morphed it a bit. It
was probably just him clearing his throat.

>Now while it's true that we are definitely a step above animals
(although
>some may argue that we are not....)

That would be a silly argument given just simple observation. We are
many steps above dogs. Our nearest relatives cannot design or make a
computer chip, for instance. I'd say that qualifies as something of a
giant step.

>I don't think you can reasonably argue
>that learning through pain is an invalid method of learning; it
appears to
>be natural.

How IS it that people fail to read and then reply to something that
that poster never said? Please go back and read...if you will....and
tell me where you find me saying pain is an invalid method of
learning.

I claim it is inferior, for humans...and my dog....you'd be amazed at
the things he learned to do by my patience.

>BUT it MUST be done correctly.

Ah finally someone that can debate. I invite you to present the
correct methods and circumstances for the use of pain as a teacher
when delivered by a parent.

I already have made clear I accept and know how to use natural
consequences deriving from the environment and the child's own body.

>To corrupt that natural method would most
>definitely lead to problems.

I also invite you to define what particular teaching that is non-pain
based, and that must include mental as well as physical pain, that is
corrupted or corrupting the use of pain as a teacher administered by a
parent.

Let me break that long convuluted sentence down. Please tell me what
non pain based teachings are corrupting.

Thank you for you thoughtful,intelligent, and couragious contribution.

Some here have demonstrated their weasely cowardice in the first
couple of posts. Disgusting.

>
>Dalene
>

Respectfully, Kane

[Kane]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:18:14 -0400, "S.J. King"
> wrote:

>In ,
>Ray Drouillard > typed:
>> "Kane" > wrote in message
>> om...
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: jordan riak
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 1:30 PM
>>> Subject: Bill O'Reilly, well-spanked
>>>
>>> ....................
>>>
>>> "I have some first-hand evidence to support my theory. I routinely
>>> poll each new class of students to find out what percentage were
>>> raised without corporal punishment. I lecture a new group of 20 to
30
>>> adults every three weeks, and have been doing so over the course
of
>>> the past four years. In the process of looking for an unspanked
>>> student, I think I know how Diogenes felt holding up his lantern
in
>>> the market place at midday in search of an honest man. My polling
>>> results are consistently at, or very near, 0%. If their childhoods
>>> were deficient in any way, it certainly wasn't due to the lack of
>>> spanking.
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>>
>>> My students are inmates in the Pre-Release Program at California
>>> State Prison Folsom."
>>
>>
>> Interesting. All of the prisoners that he interviewed were spanked
as
>> children.
>>
>> Perhaps he didn't ask the right questions. I'll bet that every one
of
>> the prisoners that he interviewed also ate bread as children.
Maybe
>> bread is the villain.
>
>I'd bet it's white bread, too...
>
>~Lee

I just love smart asses. They so quickly eliminate themselves from the
debate.

Thanks Lee.

Feel free to not be a smart ass anytime you are so moved.

And please see my reply in another post that shoots that silly
argument right out of its bread wrapper.

Kane

>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ray Drouillard
>

[LaVonne Carlson]

Ray Drouillard wrote:

> "LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > And Deuteronomy recommends killing rebellious children. Since you
> > literally apply Proverbs, I'm sure you advocate killing as a form of
> > discipline.

> Also, we see the old trick of picking some part of the Law out and using
> that to discredit the Old Testament.

What you have done is pick and choose portions of the Old Testament to
justify your behavior, and ignore those portions that you do not like or
agree with.

> So, that bit about stoning defiant children doesn't hold water. Even if
> it was still in effect, it couldn't be practiced because there are no
> city gates and no group of city officials hanging out there.

City gates can apply either to city limits or citiy government buildings.
City officials may and do hang out at both city limits or city government
buildings.

> Trying to use that argument is simply silly.

Attempting to refute as you did is what is truly silly.

> Proverbs is not a book of law, but a book of wise counsel. We are free
> to disregard it -- at our own risk, of course. God's wisdom does not
> pass away. He may change the rules as the situation merits, but the
> wise advice in Proverbs still stands.

So why did Jesus so openly defy the Old Testament? I see nothing in His
words that recommend hitting children with rods as a parenting strategy.
In fact, he recommends a millstone around the neck and being cast into the
depths of the sea for anyone who offends a child. And when his disciplines
want to stone a woman for wanton behavior )as the OT recommends), he stops
them, forgives the woman, and tells her to "go and sin no more."

I think Jesus had a bit more understanding of the Bible than you do, and a
lot more respect for little children.

LaVonne

>
>
> Ray Drouillard

[Kane]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 22:36:55 -0400, "Ray Drouillard"
> wrote:

>
>"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 13:28:02 -0500, Jon Houts
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >On 11 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Ray Drouillard wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Interesting. All of the prisoners that
>> >> > he interviewed were spanked as children.
>> >> >
>> >> > Perhaps he didn't ask the right questions.
>> >> > I'll bet that every one of the prisoners
>> >> > that he interviewed also ate bread as
>> >> > children. Maybe bread is the villain.
>> >>
>> >> As far as my research has taken me I've never once run across
any
>> >> study to implicate bread as a factor, causal or correlational,
in
>> >> criminal behavior.
>> >>
>> >> If you know of one, pop it up here.
>> >
>> >http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/bread.html
>>
>>
>> Excellent. Nice going. Of course a humourous post of correlation
>> hardly equates with the serious subject of using pain for teaching.
>>
>> You have a point...only one of course.
>
>
>The point, which I would have expected most people to get,

Why? Most people aren't reading this thread. Most are bored to tears
by now with your one note charlie responses.

>is that
>proving that 100% of the inmates were spanked means absolutely
nothing.

Sorry. It means that each of those prisoners, and class after class
every three weeks (did you miss that paret) has the same demographic
on spanking. Most at 100%, the remainder very close.

>It is statistically worthless information.

How so?

>If you use a big enough sample, and prove that the fraction of
inmates
>who were spanked is much greater than the fraction of the general
public
>who were spanked, you might have something to stand on.

Okay, there is such information available. A number of times it's been
posted in alt.parenting.spanking that surveys of college students were
asked if they had been spanked. I believe the figure given was 90% or
better.

That should give you a starting place to shoot me down. Successful
people being spanked...oh my.

>As it is, the statement is either stupid or dishonest.

I believed you have used that about three times now. It leads one to
the conclusion that you are stupid or dishonest.

You forget the premise you that you and those like you put forward so
often, and was mentioned in this very thread at least
once.....unspanked children are not properly disciplined and are
menaces to society.

You leave the most interesting things out of your replies,
Ray...dishonestly and stupidly.

The question for you is this: Why are there essentialy NO unspanked
children in prisons.

If there are please show us a study that even suggests that.

Years ago I read one of the shortest studies I'd ever seen on this
prisoner - spanking issue. I think it was out of University of Chicago
Graduate School of Social Work. The researcher's name was Fischer.

It was one paragraph. I'll have to paraphrase, "After months of
surveying the prison population of three (maybe more) prisons and
finding NO inmates that hand not been spanked I came to the conclusion
I could not do a meaningfull study...the legal system had done it for
me."

You just assumed that Riak, and I, since I cited him, was trying to
prove that all prisoners are spanked children grown up. Not very
insightful of you...but I left it, free of comment, up to the reader
to draw their own conclusions and I had a hunch I'd get even dumber
responses than yours. Looks like you are alone with yours now.

Now one else has responded quite as ... mmmmm.... shall we say,
mindlessly.

Can we assume you are entertaining the thought that the Unspanked are
so Eee-vile that their criminal cleverness is so enhanced from lack of
spanking to the point they just aren't being caught?

I mean, you might as well try that tack, given you failed on the first
test of the prison story.

Or maybe you have something even more clever to offer.

>
>Ray
>

It's a business doing pleasure with yah, Ray. Really.

Kane

[Kane]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 22:40:36 -0400, "Ray Drouillard"
> wrote:

>
>"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:52:04 -0400, "Ray Drouillard"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Kane" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> >
>> >[...]
>> >
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: jordan riak
>> >> To:
>> >> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 1:30 PM
>> >> Subject: Bill O'Reilly, well-spanked
>> >>
>> >> ....................
>> >>
>> >> "I have some first-hand evidence to support my theory. I
routinely
>> >> poll each new class of students to find out what percentage were
>> >> raised without corporal punishment. I lecture a new group of 20
to
>> 30
>> >> adults every three weeks, and have been doing so over the course
of
>> >> the past four years. In the process of looking for an unspanked
>> >> student, I think I know how Diogenes felt holding up his lantern
in
>> >> the market place at midday in search of an honest man. My
polling
>> >> results are consistently at, or very near, 0%. If their
childhoods
>> >> were deficient in any way, it certainly wasn't due to the lack
of
>> >> spanking.
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >>
>> >> My students are inmates in the Pre-Release Program at California
>> State
>> >> Prison Folsom."
>> >
>> >
>> >Interesting. All of the prisoners that he interviewed were
spanked
>> as
>> >children.
>> >
>> >Perhaps he didn't ask the right questions. I'll bet that every
one
>> of
>> >the prisoners that he interviewed also ate bread as children.
Maybe
>> >bread is the villain.
>>
>> Quite possible, if eating bread were painful.
>>
>> As far as I know bread has not been implicated in reactive
>> psychological disorders. Spanking has been. What it's implication
>> amounts to is the question, not wither or not it is implicated.
>>
>> Nice try Ray. You are still about two hairs short of a toupee.
>
>
>My point is that your attempted use of scanty statistical data is
>totally invalid. I expanded upon it in another part of the thread.

Yes and I shot that down too.

You assumed the wrong claim and hence answered YOUR invented question,
not mine.

What makes you think I was, by citing Riak, trying to claim that
prisoners are all spanked?

There is yet another more important question being presented in Riak's
statement. You missed it of course.

If you wish to debate this you really have to think things through a
bit. You go off too quickly. There are therapies for that. Your wife
will appreciate it if you get help.

The first time another poster, a women I think, replied to me, though
I do not think her arguments were strong, she showed a lot of thought,
considerably more courage...it took you a great many posts to stop
playing the avoidance game of "itsatroll, itsatroll, run for the
hills."

And she had, despite the limits exhibited, nice clean claims to make.
No sliding off and pretending to answer by changing my wording...well
not as much as you.

>Ray

Sleep well.

Kane

[Mark and Bev Tindall]

(Kane) wrote

> YOU are the one being rude, through the device of ad hominem.

IMPOSTER!!!! Anyone who accuses people of ad homs, but consistently
misspells "metaphor" is NOT ME!!!!

PLONK TO THE HAND!

[Kane]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 22:29:21 -0400, "Ray Drouillard"
> wrote:

>
>"LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
...
>> Ray Drouillard wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Kids who are raised without proper discipline end up being rotten
>> > adults. One must only look around to see examples.
>>
>> Yes, children both need and deserve proper discipline. What they
do
>not
>> need is physical assault in the name of discipline.
>>
>> > Of course, the real answer can be found in the "user's manual"
that
>our
>> > maker gave to us:
>> >
>> > Pro 13:24 One who spares the rod hates his son, But one who loves
>him is
>> > careful to discipline him.
>> >
>> > Pro 22:15 Folly is bound up in the heart of a child: The rod of
>> > discipline drives it far from him.
>>
>> And Deuteronomy recommends stoning children to death for rebellious
>> behavior. Do you recommend killing children who do not obey, or do
>you
>> prefer selective Biblical interpretation and application? By the
way,
>> nothing in the NT suggests that Jesus would recommend hitting and
>hurting a
>> little child with rods or anything else.
>>
>> >
>> > Pro 23:13 Don't withhold correction from a child. If you punish
him
>with
>> > the rod, he will not die.
>> > Pro 23:14 Punish him with the rod, And save his soul from Sheol.
>>
>> And Deuteronomy recommends killing rebellious children. Since you
>> literally apply Proverbs, I'm sure you advocate killing as a form
of
>> discipline.
>>
>> > Pro 29:15 The rod of correction gives wisdom, But a child left
tto
>> > himself causes shame to his mother.
>>
>> And Deuteronomy recommends killing children. I must assume that if
>you use
>> Proverbs to justify hitting children with rods, you also recommend
>stoning
>> those children to death who remain rebellious.
>>
>> > Pro 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is
>old he
>> > will not depart from it.
>>
>> And one can discipline and one can train without hitting and
hurting a
>> child. And one can certainly parent without stoning children to
>death.
>> Read the New Testament, Ray. And read the Old Testament. If you
>advocate
>> everything in the Old Testament, you advocate capital punishment
for
>> rebellious children, for adulterers, for women who are not virgins
>when
>> they marry. Jesus' disciples tried this thinking when they desired
to
>> stone the woman at the well. Jesus intervened. Funny about that,
>isn't
>> it.
>>
>> LaVonne
>
>
>Again, the term "justify" is used.

Yes. Logical to use it.

>Do you have to justify eating?

No, unless the eating has become gluttony.

>Do you have to justify sleeping?

No, unless the sleeping has become narcolepsy or due to a mental
disorder like clinical depression.

>You
>justify bad things, not good things.

I justify, quite eloquently I think, my belief in not spanking. I
consider that a good thing.

Your attempt to label all things that YOU call good and deny others
the right to justify what THEY call good, suggests that you wish to be
the arbiter of what are good things and bad things.

The point of the debate is to determine that, not arrogantly declare
it an accomplished fact....one of the more ugly characteristics of the
Theosophists.


>Discipline is a good thing.

Absolutely. I am completely in agreement.

Do you know the aetiology of that word? What the latin, "discere" or
"discere" means?

Here's an example of use in latin:

ediscendis -- ablative plural feminine of gerund(ive) of <e¯disco¯,
e¯discere, e¯didici, -> learn, memorize -- in learning

I see nothing about punishment to facilitate learning.

And yet another:

didicit -- verb; 3rd person singular perfect of <disco¯, discere,
didici¯, -> learn -- knew

And another:

discenda -- verbal adjective; ablative singular feminine of <disco¯,
discere, didici¯, -> learn -- learning

Still no pain mentioned.

Yes, children do need discipline and I would be the first to defend
and support your obligation to give learning through discipline.

And yes, it is possible to use punishment to teach, but why would one
of another non punitive method had more lasting results with less
chance of side effects?

There is ample "punishment" in the world without the teacher using it
too.

Each day we let the parental protective boundaries out just a tad more
so the child can explore the consequencs of their behavior. We limit
it for their safety. Why would we want to ad pain to it when the child
is already experiencing pain from his environment?

I've asked many mothers (as they are more often the one that does it)
what happened the first time they slapped or spanked their child? It's
been pretty standard for them to answer that the baby expressed
surprised disbelief, in reverse order of course.

First they are stunned at the source of the pain, then they do not
believe it...they ignore the mother. She has to hit again, and the
cycle starts.

The child accepts, in only a few swats, the source, and that source is
the beloved mother, who has up to that point given the baby everything
he or she needs to survive, to feel good, to be charged up with the
energy to explore. That is a clear messgae to the baby.

She deserves, totally, what the mother delivers in the way of
parenting.

And if it's pain, she deserves pain. And her exploritory behavior
deserves pain. Forever she will be influenced as she explores the
world later with that first discovery of what she deserved, and her
life will be intertwined with pain.

As any adult. Is life painful?

When you find one that says, emphatically, "no!" you very likely only
found an unspanked person but one that has not been punished by their
parents. They learned from the world what was painfully dangerous, and
they learned from their parents what was expected of them in the way
of social and personal responsibility.

Discovering one is enough to make anyone that never encountered
someone like that before break down and cry.

I met my first one on a train. A young women that seemed uncommonly
quiet, but gently assertive, and above all very empathetic.

I was so curious I moved over by her in the club car and began to
probe into her past. I'd never met and unspanked person before,
outside of my own child, my first born at that time, and only months
old.

The young lady smiled at my questions and told where she thought I was
going, and answered for me. "No, I wasn't spanked or punished as a
child. All I recall are my parents coming to my aid when I did
something that they didn't want me too and teaching me."

She knew that others were spanked and punished and humiliated, but it
just didn't compute for her. I do hope she married and had some
children.

She certainly didn't seem to be a criminal or menace to society.

>Also, we see the old trick of picking some part of the Law

What Law are you referring to here?

>out and using
>that to discredit the Old Testament.

No, in fact that is a lie. She not only didn't pick out some "part,"
she mentioned yours and others. And she did not even attempt to
discredit the Old Testament, just to question it's appropriateness in
modern times, and more especially with the advent of the NT.

Are you jewish?

>The answer to that can be quite complex, but I'll make it simple and
>leave out a whole lot of details.

You will, if I am not mistaken, go to quoting your own carefully
picked biblical citations, skirting any that might be construed by
intelligent people as refuting your claims.

>
>Galatians 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under
the
>law.

So being a believer in the Spirit gives you license to use punishment
on little children. Hmmm. Interesting. And you believe that the Old
Testament holds dominion over the NT?

>There is a whole lot more to it, of course. The Law was for the
Jews,
>not the Gentiles.

You are a jew?

>Sacrifice no longer needs to be practiced because
>Jesus was the perfect sacrifice.

Interesting. I consider children who are punished to teach them as a
sacrifice, by Christians, to the Old Testament, as surely as Solomon
would have had the child cleaved in two had the real mother not
sacrificed.

I am not happy with OT Christians. Christ is not in it.

>In the NT, God mad all food clean.
>The list goes on.

Yes. But by avoiding the fact she brought up, that Jesus never
sanctioned the use of pain to parent you have shown what...that you
are devious?

>So, that bit about stoning defiant children doesn't hold water.

I see. So you are going to only admit to those parts of the OT being
valid that fit your agenda. Is that because you are now speaking
directly with god and she has told you what she meant to be retained
and what discarded?

>Even if
>it was still in effect, it couldn't be practiced because there are no
>city gates

Sure there are. On that freeway coming in one end of the city and
going out the other.

> and no group of city officials hanging out there.

Well, you might have to go to city hall, but that's no biggy.

You wish to be a literalist when it suits our purpose, but an
apologist when the other person's argument defeats you. I see.

>Trying to use that argument is simply silly.

Trying to wriggle out from under the weight of that argument by
denying parts of the OT and cleaving to others is a great deal worse
than being simply silly. It's a lie. It is weaseling of the worst
sort. How can you claim you are a Christian? Well without blushing.

>Now, moving on to the second part of my project at disassembling the
>above argument:

Your "project"...oh, that's really goood.

>Proverbs is not a book of law, but a book of wise counsel.

From a despot and brute? Okay, if you say so.

>We are free
>to disregard it -- at our own risk, of course.

We are free to disregard the OT and NT, and the OT if we are a
Christian.

And of course there is a risk. All life is a risk. I have disregarded
the OT for the better part of 40 years, and I've come to no harm, my
children and the children I've worked with turned out wonderfully with
few acceptions, and those were the ones that were pain and humiliation
parented beyond my small capacity to recover and heal them from.

>God's wisdom does not
>pass away.

There is no god. Nor gods. There are no spirits in the sky or ground.
There is no devil or heaven or hell. It's all a set of fairy tales
generated by folks trying very hard to understand and explain (a
function of the human brain...it's called rationalizing) the poorly
understood physical universe.

The true mystery of our existence and that of the universe is much
larger than books of fairytale sayings.

>He may change the rules as the situation merits, but the
>wise advice in Proverbs still stands.

There is no bearded old man called Yehwah or Allah or any other name.
That image is the symbol of our once allpowerful father that protected
us and awed us with his great booming voice, his large powerful hands,
his quickness and his knowing what we did not.

As he, our real father aged we replace him with the image of him we
had as tiny babies. We wish to be cared for as we were then, and we
built and still build, legends and mysteries around that hungered for
image.

In materlinial societies is done with a goddess mother image and it is
just as much a fairy tale to comfort us.

As you die you will see the truth. Your brain will work overtime to
bring that image to you and bits and pieces of the great fairy tale of
the major religions and philosophies, but you will know it's all false
at that moment of death, and that you are going to cease to exist,
totally.

You get to die mad. I'll die quite at peace with endless nothingness.

>
>Ray Drouillard
>

You can't defend spanking by calling on the authority of nonexistant
beings, Ray. They have no proof to give you, just your childish faith
and the need for it to shelter you from the reality that you are
entirely on your own in the universe, completely in charge of what you
do and what happens to you.

If you wish to call on God and His Word, Ray, I'll have to ask you to
introduce me, personally. Let me know if it's okay to shake hands, or
maybe hug.

I don't accept the authority of people that I cannot meet. And I can
meet anyone alive if I have the time and money to travel.

No "god" is guiding you or protecting you, Ray.

You are, like us all, just potentially a flat possum, roadkill, on the
universal highway of life. And that is far more awe inspiring to me
than some old outmoded fairytail. The NOT knowing is the same
delicious thrill children feel when their father makes loud growling
noises and chases them about playfully.

This universe is going to grab me up one day, and I'll get to see if
nonthingness is true, or if there is something after death. But I'm
pretty convinced that it isn't going to be some old bearded ancient
sitting on a cloud borne throne weighing my "sins" or my belief in his
"son."

If I have to do that then I'm just as happy giving up eternal life. I
wouldn't want to spend it with a lot of Christians I know.

Kane

[Mark and Bev Tindall]

(Kane) wrote

>> >YOU are the one being rude, through the device of ad hominem.
>
>> IMPOSTER!!!!

> Who am I pretending to be?

ME!!! This fishin hole ain't big enough for the both of us!

> I can't say "inebriated" without switching
> the syllables unless I slow down a tad and
> speak more carefully.

I have trouble saying "inebriated" when I'm inebriated.

[BOB!!]

On 10/11/03 1:46, Kane wrote:

> "Ray Drouillard" > wrote in message
> >...

>> Crossposting for the purpose of stirring up contraversy is not generally
>> acceptable. It is considered to be troll-like behavior.
>
> Have I stumbled inadvertantly across a moderated USENET newsgroup
> then?
>
> There is no set use of newsgroups if they are unmoderated. So even if
> I were attempting to stir up "contraversy" (sic), it would be well
> within USENET protocols.

Actually, there are set uses. Just because they exist due to custom and
longstanding usage and not law doesn't make the customary usage any less
set.

To learn about USENET protocols on crossposting, see:

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/xpost.html

Unless you are discussing spanking specifically as it applies to
homeschooling, a discussion of spanking isn't particularly on-topic to a
homeschooling newsgroup. If you really felt the need to get homeschoolers
involved with a discussion of spanking, but weren't interested in discussing
it specifically as relates to spanking, a more appropriate way of generating
such a discussion would be a post to the homeschool newsgroups saying "I'm
interested in having a discussion of spanking that includes homeschoolers.
Please join me to discuss it on alt.parenting.spanking."

> Nothing sinister nor Trollish in my motives or methods. I am pretty
> scrupulous about observing logical argument rules, though I have been
> known to pull one than reveal it myself....a logical fallacy that is.

Actually, Trollish or spammish perfectly describes your methods. Whether
you were motivated by trollishness is open to debate.


> Your responses, and those of other responders to my posts, have been a
> litany of known logical fallacies.
>
> To call me a "Troll" accomplishes two of them at once. Ad hominem upon
> the messenger, and attempting to misdirect the discussion by raising
> an unrelated point...the classic Red Herring ploy.
>
> Even if I WERE a troll, how would that detract from my argument and
> position as a viable subject for discussion and debate?
> What war is taking place between groups here? I see none so far.

Note that I care not a whit about your topic. But even if I did, it would
still not make your method of posting any less trollish.

Regards,

BOB!!

[Ray Drouillard]

"LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Ray Drouillard wrote:
>
> > "LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > And Deuteronomy recommends killing rebellious children. Since you
> > > literally apply Proverbs, I'm sure you advocate killing as a form
of
> > > discipline.
>
> > Also, we see the old trick of picking some part of the Law out and
using
> > that to discredit the Old Testament.
>
> What you have done is pick and choose portions of the Old Testament to
> justify your behavior, and ignore those portions that you do not like
or
> agree with.

Actually, it looks like that is what you have done. You are trying to
justify your practice of not disciplining your children,

Proverbs 19:18 Discipline your son, for there is hope; Don't be a
willing party to his death.


>
> > So, that bit about stoning defiant children doesn't hold water.
Even if
> > it was still in effect, it couldn't be practiced because there are
no
> > city gates and no group of city officials hanging out there.
>
> City gates can apply either to city limits or citiy government
buildings.
> City officials may and do hang out at both city limits or city
government
> buildings.

Interesting theory.

Still, that law is for a specific people at a specific time.

[...]


> So why did Jesus so openly defy the Old Testament?

He is God. He can do what he considers to be best.

> I see nothing in His
> words that recommend hitting children with rods as a parenting
strategy.

Correct. Unlike the laws for divorce, he did not change the counsel
regarding child rearing.

> In fact, he recommends a millstone around the neck and being cast into
the
> depths of the sea for anyone who offends a child.

Right. And raising a child without discipline is pretty offensive.

> And when his disciplines
> want to stone a woman for wanton behavior )as the OT recommends), he
stops
> them, forgives the woman, and tells her to "go and sin no more."

Right again. What does stoning have to do with spanking?

>
> I think Jesus had a bit more understanding of the Bible than you do,
and a
> lot more respect for little children.

Of course he is understanding. I'm certain that he understands that
disciplining children is crucial to their development.



Ray Drouillard

[Kane]

BOB!! > wrote in message >...
> On 10/11/03 1:46, Kane wrote:
>
> > "Ray Drouillard" > wrote in message
> > >...
>
> >> Crossposting for the purpose of stirring up contraversy is not generally
> >> acceptable. It is considered to be troll-like behavior.
> >
> > Have I stumbled inadvertantly across a moderated USENET newsgroup
> > then?
> >
> > There is no set use of newsgroups if they are unmoderated. So even if
> > I were attempting to stir up "contraversy" (sic), it would be well
> > within USENET protocols.
>
> Actually, there are set uses. Just because they exist due to custom and
> longstanding usage and not law doesn't make the customary usage any less
> set.
>
> To learn about USENET protocols on crossposting, see:
>
> http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/xpost.html
>
> Unless you are discussing spanking specifically as it applies to
> homeschooling, a discussion of spanking isn't particularly on-topic to a
> homeschooling newsgroup. If you really felt the need to get homeschoolers
> involved with a discussion of spanking, but weren't interested in discussing
> it specifically as relates to spanking, a more appropriate way of generating
> such a discussion would be a post to the homeschool newsgroups saying "I'm
> interested in having a discussion of spanking that includes homeschoolers.
> Please join me to discuss it on alt.parenting.spanking."
>
> > Nothing sinister nor Trollish in my motives or methods. I am pretty
> > scrupulous about observing logical argument rules, though I have been
> > known to pull one than reveal it myself....a logical fallacy that is.
>
> Actually, Trollish or spammish perfectly describes your methods. Whether
> you were motivated by trollishness is open to debate.
>
>
> > Your responses, and those of other responders to my posts, have been a
> > litany of known logical fallacies.
> >
> > To call me a "Troll" accomplishes two of them at once. Ad hominem upon
> > the messenger, and attempting to misdirect the discussion by raising
> > an unrelated point...the classic Red Herring ploy.
> >
> > Even if I WERE a troll, how would that detract from my argument and
> > position as a viable subject for discussion and debate?
> > What war is taking place between groups here? I see none so far.
>
> Note that I care not a whit about your topic.

But doesn't that make YOUR post trollish and spammish?

Goose, gander.

> But even if I did, it would
> still not make your method of posting any less trollish.

Typical net nazi. The most trollish of the Trolls.

>
> Regards,
>
> BOB!!

and weave.

Back under your bridge. Smack!

Kane

[Kane]

BOB!! > wrote in message >...
> On 10/11/03 1:46, Kane wrote:
>
> > "Ray Drouillard" > wrote in message
> > >...
>
> >> Crossposting for the purpose of stirring up contraversy is not generally
> >> acceptable. It is considered to be troll-like behavior.
> >
> > Have I stumbled inadvertantly across a moderated USENET newsgroup
> > then?
> >
> > There is no set use of newsgroups if they are unmoderated. So even if
> > I were attempting to stir up "contraversy" (sic), it would be well
> > within USENET protocols.
>
> Actually, there are set uses. Just because they exist due to custom and
> longstanding usage and not law doesn't make the customary usage any less
> set.
>
> To learn about USENET protocols on crossposting, see:
>
> http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/xpost.html

Notice this is NOT a USENET site. In fact it's what we like to refer
to as a NetNazi site.

Everybody with a severe issue of anal retentiveness creates such rules
out of their opinions.

One can almost hear, in his smugness, his ass cheeks squeeking.

>
> Unless you are discussing spanking specifically as it applies to
> homeschooling, a discussion of spanking isn't particularly on-topic to a
> homeschooling newsgroup. If you really felt the need to get homeschoolers
> involved with a discussion of spanking, but weren't interested in discussing
> it specifically as relates to spanking, a more appropriate way of generating
> such a discussion would be a post to the homeschool newsgroups saying "I'm
> interested in having a discussion of spanking that includes homeschoolers.
> Please join me to discuss it on alt.parenting.spanking."

Such artifice is commonly used by trolls to bait the unwary. Rather
like your post on the subject of trolling and spam.

Nice going, troll. I'm sure someone will fall for it.

> Regards,
>
> BOB!!

Not of the Church of Bob?

Kane

[Kane]

BOB!! > wrote in message >...
> On 10/11/03 1:46, Kane wrote:
>
> > "Ray Drouillard" > wrote in message
> > >...
>
> >> Crossposting for the purpose of stirring up contraversy is not generally
> >> acceptable. It is considered to be troll-like behavior.
> >
> > Have I stumbled inadvertantly across a moderated USENET newsgroup
> > then?
> >
> > There is no set use of newsgroups if they are unmoderated. So even if
> > I were attempting to stir up "contraversy" (sic), it would be well
> > within USENET protocols.
>
> Actually, there are set uses. Just because they exist due to custom and
> longstanding usage and not law doesn't make the customary usage any less
> set.
>
> To learn about USENET protocols on crossposting, see:
>
> http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/xpost.html

Notice this is NOT a USENET site. In fact it's what we like to refer
to as a NetNazi site.

Everybody with a severe issue of anal retentiveness creates such rules
out of their opinions.

One can almost hear, in his smugness, his ass cheeks squeeking.

>
> Unless you are discussing spanking specifically as it applies to
> homeschooling, a discussion of spanking isn't particularly on-topic to a
> homeschooling newsgroup. If you really felt the need to get homeschoolers
> involved with a discussion of spanking, but weren't interested in discussing
> it specifically as relates to spanking, a more appropriate way of generating
> such a discussion would be a post to the homeschool newsgroups saying "I'm
> interested in having a discussion of spanking that includes homeschoolers.
> Please join me to discuss it on alt.parenting.spanking."

Such artifice is commonly used by trolls to bait the unwary. Rather
like your post on the subject of trolling and spam.

Nice going, troll. I'm sure someone will fall for it.

> Regards,
>
> BOB!!

Not of the Church of Bob?

Kane

[Kane]

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 00:42:22 -0500, Jon Houts >
wrote:

>
>"Ray Drouillard" wrote
>
>> It looks like one of those crusaders who
>> google for certain key words and start
>> stirring up the mud.
>
>On Sept 24, in msg no.
>
>Jenny Harkins wrote:
>
>:: That reminds me of the time I broke my
>:: oldest daughter's jaw for talking back.
>
>...and not a peep from Kane. Of course, it didn't contain the word
he
>Googles.

It's always so funny how twits behave when they don't have an
arguement that can stand up to the truth.

>but,but...
>Jon

Try Beano (tm).

Kane

[Kane]

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 10:47:17 -0400, "Ray Drouillard"
> wrote:

>
>"LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>> Ray Drouillard wrote:
>>
>> > "LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> > > And Deuteronomy recommends killing rebellious children. Since
you
>> > > literally apply Proverbs, I'm sure you advocate killing as a
form
>of
>> > > discipline.
>>
>> > Also, we see the old trick of picking some part of the Law out
and
>using
>> > that to discredit the Old Testament.
>>
>> What you have done is pick and choose portions of the Old Testament
to
>> justify your behavior, and ignore those portions that you do not
like
>or
>> agree with.
>
>Actually, it looks like that is what you have done. You are trying
to
>justify your practice of not disciplining your children,
>
>Proverbs 19:18 Discipline your son, for there is hope; Don't be a
>willing party to his death.
>
>
>>
>> > So, that bit about stoning defiant children doesn't hold water.
>Even if
>> > it was still in effect, it couldn't be practiced because there
are
>no
>> > city gates and no group of city officials hanging out there.
>>
>> City gates can apply either to city limits or citiy government
>buildings.
>> City officials may and do hang out at both city limits or city
>government
>> buildings.
>
>Interesting theory.

So is yours.

>
>Still, that law is for a specific people at a specific time.

So then only the parts you wish apply to the people that exist in this
time are valid. The rest you are comfortable discarding.

That's interesting.

>
>[...]
>
>
>> So why did Jesus so openly defy the Old Testament?
>
>He is God. He can do what he considers to be best.

No he isn't. He WAS a man with likely some quite severe delusions, but
a kind heart.

>> I see nothing in His
>> words that recommend hitting children with rods as a parenting
>strategy.
>
>Correct. Unlike the laws for divorce, he did not change the counsel
>regarding child rearing.

Odd, he spoke directely to them and you have have disregarded the
meaning below.

>> In fact, he recommends a millstone around the neck and being cast
into
>the
>> depths of the sea for anyone who offends a child.
>
>Right. And raising a child without discipline is pretty offensive.

Sure is. Where did LaVonne say that children should not be
disciplined, or where did I for that matter.

Discipline does not require punishment, and it certainly doesn't
require hitting.

>> And when his disciplines
>> want to stone a woman for wanton behavior )as the OT recommends),
he
>stops
>> them, forgives the woman, and tells her to "go and sin no more."
>
>Right again. What does stoning have to do with spanking?

I see. The bible can use vast amounts of metaphor, you can use
metaphor, but your opponent is proscribed.

Typical arrogant religionist.

>>
>> I think Jesus had a bit more understanding of the Bible than you
do,
>and a
>> lot more respect for little children.
>
>Of course he is understanding. I'm certain that he understands that
>disciplining children is crucial to their development.

As does LaVonne, and as do I. We simply disagree with you what IS and
is not discipline.

Given what He had to say about little children, I'd venture He would
disagree with you as well.

By the way, when you write of Him, since you say He is God, then it's
more proper to capitalize, if you will.

I'm not so constrained, so I'll likely use "he" and "him." Don't
embarrass yourself in front of your fellows.

Hitting is not "discipline." And despite the disengenuous attempts to
disquise hitting as not hitting by calling it spanking, spanking is
not "discipline."

I "disciplined my children for the first 18 years or so of their
lives, and later, from time to time they came to me, as their equal
and asked me to "discipline" them.

As they quickly learned when they were young, "discipline" in our
household was the true and pure form. To "lead out." How those who
truly teach (rather than brutally force) conduct "discipline."

Look up the origins sometime.

So when my child indicated by observed word, action, or direct
request, I tried to put on my little thinking cap and first ask myself
what was being asked and why...then I would pursue the task finding
out the answers to my question before I answered theirs.

Often that was sufficient for them as they explored with me what they
were doing and why they might be doing it. I never really had to
answer their questions much. Humans have an amazing capacity to figure
things out, with support, themselves.

Oddly it seems to be one of the most powerful learning methods.

A typical scenario might have been as follows: Child assiduously bugs
other child for 15 minutes or until other child blows up and screams
at bugging child.

What's up, I ask myself? Then I ask the children the same question. A
wide range of responses are possible. Some may be resistant and would,
more likely with a spanking punishing parent, result in some
moralizing bull**** being shoveled and a punishment meted out.

With me it was just a wonderful opportunity to present an example I
wanted my children to follow later when they were adults....thoughtful
problem solving on the model of business and responsible adult social
behavior.

Much to my chagrin I failed miserably.

They didn't wait until they were adults but were, in a few days,
sponteaneously using such methods themselves and in short order were
expanding on what can only be described as ethical experimentation.

Poor me, failed parent. My children were, at 5 and 9, disciplining
themselves. I had broken the bibilical admonishion...shame on me.

I hardly EVER got to discipline them.

All smart ass remarks of mine aside. They learned the lessons (my
discipline) in only a few times out and because the older was of the
age of reason they expanded the lessons, cause and effect reasoning,
into more of what I had intended.

Now the spanking disciplinarian, I've noted, gets to do lots more
"discipline" than I did. <sob>

Obviously they are my moral superiors...right?

>
>Ray Drouillard
>

Ray, I have to say you are about as devious a religionist as any I've
run into.

How soon will you be equating LaVonne and myself with the devil?

Kane

[Michael S. Morris]

Sunday, the 12th of October, 2003

(response part 1 of 2)

************************************************** ****

Kane:
...to once again try and go around the issue by
misquoting and claiming something not in evidence
and then try to build an argument upon it.

We'll see whether you have been misquoted to any effect
and whether anything not in evidence has been claimed.
Forgive me if I doubt both at this juncture. The
distinction you draw later between what I said, "pain",
and what you said. "distraction", is simply not a logically
relevant distinction.

Kane:
Basically, Ray, you are a coward. You are afraid
to defend your brutal practice of spanking in a larger
arena so try to confine it to this small one where you
know there will be plenty of supporters.
Ray:
I don't need to defend it. The practice needs no
defence -- though Michael S Morris did a very good
job while simultaneously tearing your arguments
into tiny little pieces. I was quite impressed,
actually.
Kane:
First of all, if it didn't need defending you
wouldn't and you have. That nullifies your current
claim that it doesn't need defending.

You have a very limited understanding of human
psychology, Kane. Not to mention rhetorical technique.
Starting with your enthymemic assumption here that
any defence of spanking Ray may have engaged in
happened out of some need on his part to defend.

That is the timeworn reduction of rational argument to
"subconscious" psychology of Nietzsche and then
of Freud. It has zero basis in any scientific fact.
There is no scientific experiment which ever could be done
to show the kind of causal relationship between a "need
to defend" and a "defence" that you here imply. Moreover,
the instant we buy into that sort of pseudoscience is
the instant we begin to question your own "need to
psychologize"---to treat the human as though it were
a machine, subject to the impingement of buffet "forces"
from society, from uncontrollable forces out of the
subconscious, and from the genetic determinism of one's
own biological makeup. We would begin to wonder why
you would find the abdication of your human self---
something CS Lewis has called rightly "The Abolition of
Man"---so appealing, so comforting.

That's not science, either, but the point is simply that
you start playing the game of peeling back the layers of
that onion, and it keeps going. And there is no inner layer,
no core of inner psychological truth. No answer. Human creativity
in the matter of devising motivations and justifications
for human behaviour is infinitely deep and,
therefore, utterly and transparently shallow.

Kane:
Secondly, the sentence you use to try and deny your
need to defend "don't need to defend" is defensive.

As I just said, you've read too much pseudoscientific
psychobabble.

I said:
Anyway, I don't think I began to tear any arguments up yet---
Kane:
You may try, It won't fly.

Still waiting for a cite, Kane. You know, to those scientific
studies. I warn you, though, if you do that, you better damn
well know what you are up to. I know the difference between a
pop psych book and a refereed journal paper, and I assure you
I know what a data set with a correlation coefficient of .2
might look like.

I said:
I feel in fact that all I really did
was stake out a position.
Kane:
Weasel Word Play...not today.

Sorry, Kane, I *love* argument, and I am quite
willing and able to go the course on this topic.
I just do not dignify as "argument" my opening
remarks which have staked out a position. We have
a long course of "coming to terms" to do before we
could even honestly and clearly define what our
differences might be, let alone marshal evidence
to argue them.

Kane:
Staking "out a position" differs from an
"argument" how?

Staking out a position is, quite possibly, the
opening of an argument. Much like moving a pawn
might be the opening of a chess game. An opening
move, however, is not a chess game. It is a part
only of a chess game if a chess game gets played.
The next stage in argument would be coming to terms.
After which point, we might be able to present evidence
in support of either position and argue its relevance.
It remains to be seen whether you are capable of coming to
terms.

Kane:
You are arguing.

No, I am beginning to argue. Whether an argument
will be had or no will depend upon what ensues,
and whether you can provide those "scientific
studies" you have claimed.

Kane:
Don't be shy.

I assure you, I am not shy in an endeavour like
this.

Kane:
I don't mind.

Good, because I do not mind either.

Kane:
I like good arguments.

Me, too.

Kane:
Let's see some.

You've been asked for those studies. Both by me and by
Bruce D. Ray. We are both eager to see those "scientific"
studies you are citing. Bring them on. Let's do the math.
Let's examine whether the claims of the authors of these
studies are in fact supported by the empirical findings
of these studies. Let's see what exactly has been assumed
in those claims. Let's examine whether the claims you have
made about these studies are in detail supported by the
claims the authors make. We'll also look at whether all
possible variables in these studies have been controlled for.

Kane:
The stuff you came up with below is lame.

No, it's not too bad really. It deals with what you've
claimed so far. And dismisses it out of hand. And for
fairly elementary reasons.

Kane:
Just as the prior "stuff."

The prior stuff was OK, too. Not really refuted by
anything you have been able to say so far. But, I
agree that at that point all I had done is stake
out a position. As I believe I said.

I said:
I am especially embarassed when,
Kane:
Heaven'stobetsyIshouldhopeso.

So, is "Kane" your name or is it an allusion
to Will Kane?

I said:
driving around this evening,
Kane:
How many wrecks will it take for you to
stop that day dreaming while you
drive?

Well, I suppose just one might do the trick,
but I drive a huge SUV, so there is a chance I
suppose I might survive to 2 or 3 wrecks out.

Kane:
Or should we spank you?

You could try of course. But, last time I
checked, thinking while driving ain't either
a crime or a moral fault, so I'd expect you'd
be in error to try. On several counts.

I said:
I got to thinking about some of the things
Kane has said, and I realized how much
utter hokum and nonsense they are.
Kane:
That was our shame based neurosis from your
own childhood cp reshaping your thinking to
rationalize your beliefs and actions.

Ditto that hokum and nonsense here. Id est, etiam
pseudoscientific psychobabble.

Which of course may well bring to the open
the fundamental difference between us. I
employ an ancient psychology based on the
moral universe assumed by ethical thinkers---thinkers
such as Plato, Aristotle, Epictetus, Seneca,
St. Augustine, John Locke. I do not believe their
notions and assumptions of psychology have been
superceded by anything done or thought in the
last 200 years. That is, I assume human free will
operating in a world of externally fixed Natural Law
(do not confuse Natural Law with the scientific
Laws of Nature). So that human beings may choose
good or evil, but human beings are not autonomous---
may not decide for themselves what good and evil are.

Kane:
The last thing you can do is accuse our parents of
not loving you, or of being bad parents....and they
weren't of course, and I've no idea if they loved you
or not, but that small frightened pain filled and betrayed
child still resides within you and cannot let go of the self
protection it was taught WITH PAIN and humiliation.

Two can play that game. Why this need to reduce the
human to a deterministic effect of some cause beyond
our control? Why do you find that model so comforting?
Is it because of the abdication of moral responsibility?
Do you find freedom so very frightening that you cannot
possibly face it? What is it in yourself that you are
so frightened of, you would make of the world and of
human nature itself a fascism of control? How many
books would you burn, Kane? Do you see a pattern of
psychological woundings that explain everything? Do
you wish for laws that would limit what people can say
and write? Do you like guns, Kane? Or do you argue
in favour of anti-gun laws, and deny the Gewaltmonopol---
the policeman's gun you stick to everybody's head the
second you resort to legislation? Do you know what
it would be to be a free man, Kane? Do you find that
so frightening you'd rather lock us all into your
own concentration camp?

Do not ever try and psychologize an argument with me.

Kane:
It was that "utter hokum and nonsense" remark that
tipped me off.

It tipped you off to precisely nothing whatsoever. If you
want to have a good cry mollycoddled in the belief that
you are or were a victim of your parents, and this confers
upon you some blessing, then do so and be my guest.
By all means memorize all twelve lines of Philip Larkin's
"This Be the Verse", and trot it out for a party trick. But
lay off the Freudian evangelism with me and do not begin to
insinuate onto me any of your own pantywaist moral weakness.

Kane:
I don't consider your position as such.

Well, maybe that was your first mistake.

Kane:
I think it derives from identifiable
events and known common human reactions
to pain, both physical and psychological.

"Applying the axioms of physical science to
human behaviour has something reprehensible
about it." Albert Einstein

Kane:
You are spouting nonsense, but it isn't utter
and it isn't hokum. It was taught to you and
you believe it faithfully as taught. You are a
good boy.

I am a pretty good man. I am also an observant father
of three children. With respect to spanking, I know
whereof I speak.

I said:
He did say---did he not?
Kane:
He did NOT say the statement you try
and attribute to him below.

Here is precisely what you said:
"On the contrary. Science does address this issue.
Brain scan studies show that distractions inhibit
and distract from learning tasks, and if you aren't
spanking to teach what ARE you doing it for?"

Kane:
It was not that limited. I expanded the subject adequately
for a reasonable person, not driven into sniveling whining,
to understand the broader implications of ALL distraction
while learning.

So, "it was not that limited". Now, simple logic
suggests then that my task of refutation were even
*easier*, since you were making a broader statement
than what I was attributing to you. I.e., not just one
example of pain leading to learning, but any example
of any distraction leading to learning would also refute
you, and to cause you to have to consider the cases of
those distractions which enhance learning and those
distractions which inhibit learning. Hmm, why not just
stick with example I gave---pain as an immediate response
to, say, touching a hot burner with one's hand? Does that
not distract from what one was doing? Can one not learn
very well thereby? Is there any evidence that learning not
to touch hot burners is inhibited by the pain of touching
them? Are people who touch hot burners, and who have been
burned by them, more likely to touch them again, because
their ability to learn not to touch was inhibited by the
distracting experience of pain? What do you think, Kane?

I said:
---that science has somehow
shown that pain can't teach children anything.
Kane:
I said no such thing. I said that distraction
interferes with learning the thing to be learned.

Which it clearly does not, in the case of getting burnt by a
hot burner. I.e., if the thing to be learned is how to avoid
getting injured, then the distraction of pain quite plainly
facilitates the thing to be learned. Would that we could
learn so quickly without the object lesson of pain.

Kane:
Are you going to try and claim that pain isn't a
distraction?

Not at all. That is, in terms of your supposed "brain scan"
studies, pain well may turn out to have zero to do with any
claims for "distraction" that have made. But, that would have
to await a careful argument over the text of the particular
brain scan study you think most indicative of your claim.
But, for my purposes---since I took you to be claiming contextually
that the distractive pain of spanking blocked learning the
thing to be learned---I am quite happy to grant that pain is
"distractive", since the obvious power of pain to teach us
important stuff becomes a refutation of any studies which
purport to show that distraction somehow intrinsically
inhibits learning.

I can't speel it out for you any plainer than that, so
I trust that finishes with any possible objectiosn you
could have with "misquoting".

Kane:
Tell you what. Assuming you've never had
any training in calculus,

Tell you what. Why don't you give up on that one before you
get yourself in way over your head.

Kane:
let's set up a little experiment. You crack
the books and at random times I'll swat your
ass with a small board.

Let's see how well you learn, compared to
another calculus[-]ignorant person that is
instead assisted when they are stuck with support,
information, and patience by the teacher.

Well, my guess is it might be a little too late for that
particular experiment. But your point here ends up being
only a display of your own illogic: No one anywhere that
I have seen in this newsgroup, and certainly not myself
has asserted that the administration of spanking has a
facilitative effect in math pedagogy. No one around here
is claiming the use of spanking or corporal punishment for
the sake of academic instruction.

Now, let us go back and review.

I had said, of legislation that would "explicitly
prohibit all forms of violence against children,
however light, within the family, in schools and
in other institutions where children might be placed":
It seems to me a prime example of legislation by
people who appoint themselves as scientific experts
on stuff that science cannot possibly address,
That is precisely where you, Kane, stepped in and said:
On the contrary. Science does address this issue.
Brain scan studies show that distractions inhibit
and distract from learning tasks, and if you aren't
spanking to teach what ARE you doing it for?

Now, let me repeat: No one is spanking his children in order to
teach them mathematics. No one is spanking his children in
order to teach them Latin, or history, or literature, or grammar,
or physics or chemistry. No one has claimed anything even remotely
like that. Academic pedagogy is not why the 90% of people who
have been spanked (according to your number) were spanked.
So, what are your supposed "brain scan studies" meant to show?
Was that meant to refute my claim or no? I mean, probably it
was an illogical irrelevant remark on your part. Probably you
haven't actually read any of these studies, probably you are
taking some pop psychology book's authority that such studies
exist. But, I don't know. It was reasonable of me to give you
the benefit of the doubt and to allow that maybe there are
"brain scan studies" out there which you believe actually
show that distraction inhibits learning, and that this has some
application to spanking. So, all you have to do now is produce
the studies. We can look at them and see whether they prove
what you claim they do, or whether they have anything to say
against spanking at all.

In any event, short of reading and carefully critiquing those
studies, I noted that pain can and does teach. It does not
teach mathematics (although I could argue even with that),
but it does teach the avoidance of pain, and has benefits
in the promotion of human safety. In fact, the evolutionary
biologists tell us, that is what pain is for, as teleological
as that sounds.

So, you have a clear choice here: Apologize for your misreading
of what I said and go on your merry way with your tail
between your legs and your ears pinned down, or address the
issue of whether the distraction of pain can teach us things like
"Don't reach they hand out and touch the pretty red burner
on the stove."

I said:
Now, the "science" of brain scans or no,
Kane:
Why do I get the feeling you don't really want to know
what the brain scan studies show?

Because you are clueless about what I want?

I have access to research libraries. I am quite capable
of going directly to the scientific papers in question,
far more capable than you might guess. Put up or shut up.

Kane:
One of the most interesting to me

Where is the damned cite to the damned study? Why are you so
afraid somebody is going to actually read the thing unfiltered
by your (or your pop psychology book's) interpretations thereof?

Kane:
was the one that showed that in children who
had experienced abuse that section of the brain
that is the locus for indications of moral choices
is black...dead...no neurons firing. Thought
provoking

Not really thought provoking at all. A child who has been
abused has been the victim of extremely immoral behaviour.
Why wouldn't the moral faculty in the child be all but dead?

I just love it how you give a guy just a few scientisms---
"neurons firing" is a telltale example---and he imagines
his own happenstance of modernity confers upon him automagically
an understanding beyond anything Aristotle could have written,
not that he's read any.

Kane:
and immediately jumped on by the word twisters with
"spanking isn't abuse."

Let us look directly at the data. The problem is precisely
"spanking isn't abuse". You yourself gave the figure at 90%
of people now having been spanked. If spanking were abuse,
and if 100% of abused people had their "locus for indications of
moral choices [] black...dead...no neurons firing" then 90% of
human beings in this society would have that locus dead.
One of course could then wonder how "indications of moral
choice"---by which is meant somebody's loose interpretation of
certain neurons firing---ever got defined by the psychologists in the
first place if that were the case. Also, of course, one would
wonder how it is, since spanking was much more widely accepted
fifty years ago, how anyone back then ever made a moral choice
about anything, since they all must have been brain dead in their
moral faculty, but, sure, we could look at the data and see
whether it is true or not, what you claim. All you need do is give
the citation to the study which you think scientifically shows
what you claim.

Kane:
Well, the human body and brain do not
know that. Certainly not a child's body
and brain.

Quaintly put, but simply untrue. Since spanking is plainly
not abuse---since 90% of American human beings have undergone
it and the vast majority of those are quite capable of moral
reasoning and moral choice---the human body and the brain do
in fact know the difference. And certainly a child's body and
brain know it.

I said:
I would suggest that nearly every one of us
has had some experience of doing something
really stupid---like putting your hand on a hot
burner or touching a "hot" wire or slamming a car
door on your hand---and being rewarded for it with
an immediate, and possibly longlasting, painful feedback
which feedback has taught us never to do that again.
Kane:
Those are called logical consequences.

Nothing logical at all. I touch the hot burner. It damages my
skin, and at the same time causes me pain. The consequences are
physical and physiological and psychological. I respond by pulling
my hand back, I hurt.

*Now* the question of logic comes into play. Do I or do I not
*learn* the physical and physiological connection between that
hot burner and my hurt? According to your uncited "brain scan"
studies, distractions inhibit learning. So, if that were true,
wouldn't the distraction of the pain inhibit me from learning
that I shouldn't touch hot burners? Wouldn't people who got
burnt by hot burners have a lot higher instance of getting
burnt a second and third time, because of all that inhibition
of learning caused by all that pain?

The logic part has to be reasoned, i.e. learned. If, as you claim
has been scientifically shown, distractions inhibit learning,
there's a problem: One never can learn the consequences
of touching hot burners, since learning is inhibited by pain,
which is a distraction.

Or maybe your studies are not so conclusive as that? Maybe
the inhibition of learning is not total? If not, how strong
is it? And if it is not total, why isn't it total? What
other variables might come into play, if one can in fact
still learn in the face of distractions? Oh, and is it
possible that pain is not "a distraction" but is a different
kind of distraction than your studies address? And
conclusions about the one kind of distraction have nothing
whatsoever to say about the other? Not to mention the question
of legislation---if these brain scan studies are good enough
to address the question of legislation against spanking, then
why are they not good enough to allow us to legislate against
distractions? Maybe anybody distracting anyone for any reason
should be hauled off to prison?

Kane:
Perfectly natural.

Only perfectly "natural" once one has deduced effect from
cause and *learned* the natural connection, a learning
process which you say is inhibited by the pain.

Kane:
No problem, except of course that given the
child being young enough you have the responsibility
(or not as you see fit) of protecting the child.

I haven't a clue what you could mean by "or not as you
see fit". I have the responsibility to protect my child
from danger he has not rationally consented to. It doesn't
have anything to do with whether I "see fit" to have that
responsibility or not. It is an external given.

Kane:
Keep the child away from the hot stove with
barriers and proper supervision until you can
teach the child about the dangers. Same goes
with electrical outlets.

And supervise your too young child around
things that slam.

Done. And in the best way that tradition has told me
how to do it. Demand obedience to his parents from my
small child. Enforce that with spanking and do so
consistently and swiftly whenever he is disobedient.
Then my small child can very easily and safely be kept
away from hot stoves and electrical outlets and slamming
doors. He will, in fact, learn to keep himself away
from these dangerous things because I have told him
to. Precisely because a spanking given in response to
disobedience teaches obedience. It hurts approximately
transfinitely less than getting burnt or getting one's
fingers caught in a car door. And obedience is the extra
edge necessary to protect young children from
dangerous things. Which is why I wholly agree with the
poster who said that not to spank is abuse.


And it is the habit of self-control (a psychological
and ethical concept of an ancient kind---certainly present
in Aristotle, and definitely un-Freudian) in the child
that is the most important ethical lesson he will ever
learn, regardless of what choices he may make for himself
once he reaches the age of reason.

Kane:
By the way, I love your examples.....they are a perfect
argument for me to "stake out my position."

Let me demonstrate how well pain taught you to avoid a behavior.

Ever touched anything hot and burned yourself yet again
since the very first experience you had with being burned?

Only slammed your fingers in something once, did you?

Only been zapped by an electrical current once in your life?

If you answered "yes" to any of the above questions you
are extremely rare or a very sheltered person that goes nowhere
and does nothing.

Not so fast. The question is not whether I have been burned
twice but whether I learned not to touch something by being
hurt by it.

One can learn perfectly well how to set up and integrate
the Biot-Savart Law using vector calculus, and still get
it wrong upon occasion. One can learn many things, and
still make mistakes at doing them.

The issue is: Does one still reach out to touch the pretty red
stove burner in the same way one was tempted to do so once
as a kid? The answer is: No, one trips and falls with one's hand
on the burner, or touches it when it's black and one thinks
it's cold and off, that sort of thing. One certainly has learned.

Kane:
The truth is that if you allow your child to be too
"consequenced" by her environment she will either
be killed or so inhibited from learning that she
will be as disabled from learning more (exploring
and experimenting) as her constitution and pain
tolerance will allow.

My point exactly. Which is why spanking is a much
better choice than letting my child put his hand
on a hot burner.

Kane:
Is that your goal?

My goal is to teach my children self-dicipline. For that,
they first have to learn external discipline. Then they
will have a self from which to make their own choices when
they reach an age of reason. Instead of simply making a
chameleon-like adoption of the choices of those in their
peer group. Or the idiot choices offered them by the ad men
who represent this or that political party and try to
manipulate them and manufacture democratic consent. Or
the idioter choices offered them by the makers of
television sitcoms and the purveyors of pop movie
morality.

Kane:
I[f] so, spanking is a wonderful tool to
inhibit the child.

It is a wonderful tool to teach obedience to parental
authority. That is all. If that authority is used to good
purpose, then the child will be able to outgrow parental
authority and that authority will be surrendered by the
parent to the child, who will then be able to govern
himself. If that authority is used tyrannically or abused in
some way that lords it over the child past that age, then the
parent has done the child wrong. But if that authority is never
taken up in the first place, then the only thing parent is doing
is abdicating his own responsibility to his children to
the other authorities in this society that are all too eager
to govern our children and which are guaranteed to be both
tyrannical and destructive to our children and to liberty.

Kane:
I applaud your desire to keep her alive. I abhor
your methods as damaging to the child and possibly
to society.

On the contrary, it is *your* counsel of abdication of parental
responsibility for discipline of children that is certainly
damaging both to the child and to society.

Kane:
But most parents have to, or know to,
(you are likely one of the "have
tos")

You are an absolute fool for that parenthetical
comment.

Kane:
let their child out little by little so the
environment won't overwhelm them. You mistake
spanking for supervision. Or you try to substitute
one for the other.

Nope. I told you I am a liberal. In the classical sense.
That is, I school my children to become free men and
free women. I give them discipline at a young age to
protect them from harm, but also to school them to
discipline, so that they may grow thence into self-dicipline.
Of course the process of parenting is the slow transfer
of liberty of choice from the parent to the child. I tend
to want to make that transfer faster than my wife does, in
point of fact (my experience of that dynamic has made a
powerful argument to me for why it is best for children to
have two parents). But there has to be a human being there
to transfer sovereignty to, else what you have is a moral
chameleon who adapts his moral coloration to whatever his
peer group or the TV sitcom writers want for him. And,
the problem is that the danger to my child and to my
country in that are a whole helluva lot more serious than
burns to a hand on a stovetop.

I said:
My most recent case was rolling a riding lawn a
couple summers ago, throwing myself off it to get
clear, and snapping my left humerus in two as a
result. I now have a much healthier respect for the
design envelope of a riding mower.
Kane:
If you were three years old would the same example
apply? Of course not.

My four year old wouldn't get on the lawn mower in the
first place. So, no.

Kane:
You would pull the child off the lawn mower seat and
whack her bottom and think you had taught her not to get
on the lawn mower.

I'm sorry, but you have this entirely backwards. What
I would do is order my child not to drive the lawn
mower, and would expect him to obey that commandment
(I prefer the neuter use of the masculine pronoun---
"he/anthropos", as distinct from "he/aner"---and will
stick to it in what I write, thank you). I would spank
him only if he disobeyed that clear commandment. If I
had failed to tell him he shouldn't get on the tractor,
then I wouldn't spank him for doing it. So, the thing
I am teaching him, and which spanking works to teach
him, is obedience to parental authority. Not ex post
facto punishment for getting on a riding mower.

Kane:
I would lift her gently down and explore with her
why mowers are dangerous, discuss how she can ride
the toy mower I'm going to buy her, and look for
other ways to encourage her climbing and exploring
behaviors that are safer.

And you will have perhaps led her to slaughter, precisely
because what she may well have learned here is "Daddy will
buy me a toy mower if I go climb on that real mower again."

Kane:
She's obviously, if she can climb, had enough
experience with falling and pain to listen to
my lesson with some understanding. I don't need
to give her MORE pain.

If she is at an age of reason, so that she knows that it is
dangerous for her to go on the tractor, then maybe she
won't disobey your gentle entreaty. If you get it wrong,
however, and she isn't yet of an age to listen *with
understanding*, then the consequences can be severe, to her
and to yourself. And the point is those consequences will
happen to her and to yourself without her having made any
kind of rational choice to accept the possibility. She will
have never had a chance to explore, in fact.

Kane:
Your child will need more lessons, in fact,
since nature drives her, compels her, to explore,
[rant snipped]

As I said, you've internalized too much pseudoscientific
psychobabble. Let's have the studies. One study will do.
Let's see if it shows anything of what you claim.

I said:
If Kane's claim *really* is that pain
blocks learning,
Kane:
It isn't. Had you read more carefully,
[attempted psychologization of my argument
deleted] you'd have seen I didn't say that
pain blocks learning, as in all learning about
something. I said it blocks the learning of
the desired skill or ability. It teaches
alright, but not the skill.

I thought you said brain scan studies showed inhibition
of learning from distraction. I thought you said that.
Must've been something in my eye.

Oh well, it's certainly OK by me if you want to revise
what you said. I mean, there's no reason why any position
we first staked out needs to be defended in spite of all
evidence to the contrary. So, *now* you say pain does teach,
"but not the skill". What skill? I wasn't claiming to teach
any skill by means of pain. By using corporal punishment,
the only thing I have intended to teach, and in fact
have taught to my children, is obediece to parental
authority. Now, I also claim this inculcates a habit of
self-discipline, as opposed to a default discipline
adopted socially. Which I guess you could count as a
skill, if you want. But it does teach that.

Kane:
What it blocks is full access to the desired lesson.

You haven't a clue what the desired lesson is, is the
problem here.

Kane:
Enthusiastic focus and
determination to learn the desired ability. Did you
spank your child to teach them to ride a bicycle? Jeez,
I hope not.

Who said anything about the use of corporal punishment
to try and teach bicycling? Or calculus? Or Latin?
No one claimed anything like that. That is an utter
red herring to this discussion. Please focus on the
question at hand.

Kane:
That same patience and understanding about needing
to learn balance and coordination applies absolutely
to the lesson of why we don't hit our little sister
with the sauce pan.

The problem is patience and understanding about needing to
learn balance and coordination apply to bicycle riding at
age 5. Hitting our little sister with the sauce pan, however,
has very little to do with balance or coordination and can be
just what we feel like doing at age 3 or 4, *before* we are capable
of governing ourselves or reasoning about hitting other
people.

Kane:
[another pop psychologization of my argument deleted], and
your being hooked, as I presume your are (correct me
if I'm wrong),

Christian orthodoxy is exactly correct about that. Rousseau was
exactly wrong about it. Evil begins in the human at birth and
civilization is the only means we have against it. Were every
human alive an angel, the next baby born into the world would be
born wholly capable of reinventing Auschwitz.

Kane:
on the inherent "evil" in humans, requires you to
think in terms of punishment.

"Requires" is again a psychologization. Which means
again you are making something up about that which
you have no clue about. Punishment is for disobedience
to parental commands. It is my responsibility as a parent
to make those parental commands good ones. Few, and to
the point. The point is one can get that mostly right.
And the point is also that one does not have to be perfect,
and one's imperfections and errors are simply not the
causal initial conditions which create "psychological
wounds" in the child that he carries about and needs
therapy for the rest of his life. We are simply not talking
abuse or trauma here.

Kane:
"Disere" the latin root for the world "discipline" and
"disciple" has a beautiful meaning when it comes to human
learning....it means to "bring out,"

Did you get that from a pop psychology book? The
Latin root for "discipline" and "disciple" is "disco"
"I learn". Or "discere" "to learn" in the infinitive.
I would guess what you are misremembering (or following
some clueless pop author in erring about) is the Latin
verb "duco" "to lead". So "education" would be
"to lead out of". A pedantic digression, I know, but
to me at least it is important to get these things right.

************************************************** ********

(end response part 1 of 2)

Mike Morris
)

[Michael S. Morris]

Sunday, the 12th of October, 2003

(beginning of part 2 of 2)



************************************************** ********

Kane:
and that is not what happens when a child who is
busy experimenting and exploring (no matter how
YOU interpret that behavior) is met with pain
from the one person that she should be able to
trust as a teacher...a true teacher.

He is not met with pain for exploring and experimenting.
He is met with pain for disobeying a commandment I have
given him. That is all. Certainly not everything I tell him or
do with him counts as a commandment I have given him.
In fact very few things count as commandments, and
he knows which ones those are. The commandments are few
and are designed for his safe and for his good behaviour
*until he is an age to know and understand and,
possibly, choose for himself, safety and goodness*.

There is no such thing with me, or I doubt with any
other parent around these parts, with using pain in
order to teach academic lessons or bicycle riding
or anything else like that. A spanking is simply not
about that. At all. It is about punishment for disobedience
to a commandment, and that commandment given for the child's
safety and to inculcate a habit of good behaviour.

Kane:
Pain does not bring out the ability to ride a bicycle,
nor to ponder the moral issues in hitting one's sister,

Whoa! Not at all the desired thing. Pondering the
moral issues in hitting one's sister is something I
want my child to be able to do at age 15 and at age
18 and at age 40. *When he is of an age to ponder,
then let him ponder*. What is desired now is simply
that he does not hit his sister!

Kane:
or the empathy that is the basis for the
development of conscience. Empathy is retarded
by distraction, built by focus on the other person.

Sympathy is possible, empathy, no.

And, no, I do not think it is the basis for the development of
conscience, so I quarrel right there with another of your pop
psych tenets.

Kane:
You can't even get a child to pay attention
to YOUR feelings, let alone another's feelings,
by the use of pain.

This is the part that is nonsense. I'm not trying to
get him to pay attention to anyone else's goddam
feelings, fer chrissake. Their feelings are their
responsibility. And I am not the keeper of my brother's
feelings. All of society would plummet into the
emotional basket-case level of daytime talkshow
therapy were we to agree to that kind of principle.

**** other people's *feelings*. Am I being clear enough
about this point for you? I said I am liberal. I mean that,
and absolutely so. Free speech as an absolute and inalienable
Right, and precisely because an auditor's *feelings* about
what I say to him are *his choice* and his responsibility
under his own self-discipline to choose his feelings wisely.
Spanking my child is about punishing him for hitting his sister,
when I have told him not to hit his sister, so that he does
not hit his sister again. It has zero to do with having him
think about how his sister might *feel* about being hit, or
whether, regardless of what she feels, it mightn't be cool to
go ahead and hit her anyway. There will come a time when he
will be of an age of reason and can think about those
things, and if he decides, like Raskolnikov, he wants to go ahead
and hit his sister anyway, he will be ethically, and then of
a certain age, legally responsible for *his* decision. What we
are talking about when he is 3 is not "reasoning it out" but
simply not doing it in the first place.

Kane:
Now this conversation may well end if you are
one of those that believes that morality is
not human based but rule based.

I haven't a clue what you could mean by that. I believe
in Natural Law (as a distinct belief from my belief in
scientific Laws of Nature). I.e. I believe ethical rules
are written into the fabric of the universe and into the
human condition. I do not believe that humans have
any choice, any autonomy, about being able to rewrite those
ethical rules. I reject utterly the idea that "To the Nazis,
Auschwitz may have been the right thing to do". I reject
moral relativism. But that certainly does not mean I think
ethics is reduceible to 10 commandments or to 37 approved
sexual positions.

Kane:
I don't follow rules because they are rules and they
come from some authority. I follow rules because
they have proven to be the wisest choice of all in how
I feel if I break them, and how I feel if I keep them.

Why is it this pop psych stuff always comes down to
waving around feelings like some banner? God save us
from government by feelings! In any event, I don't care
if "thou shalt not commit murder" comes from God or
is written into your Freudian subconscious so you feel
uneasy about it when you break it. All I care about is
you don't commit murder.

Kane:
If we all did that there would be [no] need
for enforcement, and whackin' away on kids butts.

I stuck in my emendation, which I trust is
what you meant. And sure, if men were angels
there would be no need for enforcement of any kind.
But, guess what? Men come hard-wired for evil. And
that is the problem. And they are hard-wired for it as
children long before they get to an age to reason
about it. Behaving badly is easy. It takes reason
and it takes long habit to be able to behave well.

I said:
then he has just ruled out all of our
common sense and common experience.
Kane:
R R R R, I've ruled out nothing but your neurosis
and your lack of common sense. Common sense based
on ignorance is not sense, it is just ignorance.

Kids who are disciplined are well-behaved. Kids who are
not disciplined are ill-behaved.

Kane:
How common sense is built is by observing.

My point exactly. The child, on a visit as a guest to
another house, whose hand has not ever been whacked
for disobedience, will destroy anything he finds that
he is curious about and which, lacking self-discipline,
he reaches for and finds, too late, fragile. I have observed this
too many times to count: How a lack of discipline---probably
parental fear of imparting discipline, and probably resultant
from the infection of society with pop psychological beliefs---leads
to a child's disregard of and destruction of other people's
property and, ultimately, to a disregard of other people's
person as that child's default mode of behaviour.

Kane:
How it turns into valuable knowledge that can
be applied is by never closing the loop....always
being open to new interpretations and new views
being considered.

Consider this.....everything the child does, no matter
how YOU might interpret it, is no more or less than an
experiment to learn how to live.

You know, I'm a physicist. We fry things and blow them up in
experiments. My children are not "experiments in how to live".
They are precious trusts to me, every one of whom I have to do
right by, and none of whom I will actually be able to do 100% right
by. Anyway, you sound like you are quoting glib language from
a pop psych book again. And, well, it's just wrong.

Kane:
When you, their assigned guardian and protector,
their trusted teacher of how to tie shoelaced,
feed themselves, bake a cupcake, think their
throwing of objects out of their play pen is
defiance and just to make you pick up after them,
and you resort to the shocking act of hitting them,
they just were betrayed.

Well, you are, quite stereotypically I might add, confusing
several things together here. Since my children wouldn't be
put in a playpen at an age when they could bake a cupcake.
In fact, at an age when they were in a playpen, I doubt spanking
would have been the appropriate response. Since, for spanking
to work, they have to be able to take a clear command before
they can be punished for disobeying it, and I associate a
playpen with probably too young a child for that.

But, no, the betrayal is in not punishing them for misbehaviour
that you have told they shall not do. *That* is betrayal. Of your
responsibility as a parent. To show them the rules that invisibly
surround them, Spanking is one method of that punisment. Often
it is the best method available. But I certainly would not insist
that it is the only method.

Kane:
Do you KNOW why little children throw things
out of their playpen or off their highchair tray,
again and again and again...ad neauseum?

Give me a break, Kane. I have not spanked my children
for being toddlers and throwing food off their high chairs.
Once again, you miss the point with a straw-man-style
argument.

[...]

Kane:
Children are compelled to be practical physicists.
They MUST experiment, and it has to be replicated
to be believed. And they must do it for themselves.
Hitting inhibits that learning.

And so on. Look, perhaps we could skip over the
pop psych book and get to the scientific study which
backs up, well, really, anything you say? I mean, it's
cute that you want to write "children are compelled to
be practical physicists" and you are caught up in their
"natural creativity" and this sort of Rousseauian
picture of childhood as innocence and the evil
hand of civilization and conservative tradition of
corporal punishment as the thing that crushes the
natural good out of them and turns them all into ax
murderers (which begs the question why more of 'em
weren't ax murderers 50 years ago when spanking was
more universally accepted). But, sooner or later we
need a fact or two (maybe like a cite to a study?) to
bolster the rhetorical expansiveness, don't you think?

I said:
He is probably also at odds with any and
every evolutionary biological explanation
for pain that I've ever run across.
Kane:
No, only with the ones based on ignorance of
learning theory. I'm not against learning from pain.

Oh, I thought you said distraction inhibits learning and
that pain is a distraction. Must've been my mistake about that.
So, you now think pain doesn't necessarily inhibit learning?
So, what was the point about those scientific brain scan studies
anyway? Or do you now agree with my original point that science does
not and cannot address the question of the goodness of the practice
of spanking?

Kane:
I'm against the deliberate application of pain by
(from his point of view) a child's protector.

I'm sure you are. It probably seems icky to you.
I can't help you there. Don't spank your kids, I
guess.

Kane:
Children get more than enough naturally
consequential pain to learn about what
does and doesn't cause pain.

Sometimes they learn, sometimes they are killed in
those kind of lessons. I am willing to spank in order
to better the odds that my kids will learn more quickly
how to keep themselves safe.

Kane:
Why would you want to create an artificial application
of pain that to the child is so often impossible to connect
to the exploritory behavior they were performing?

Connection to what they were doing is absolutely irrelevant.
The connection of spanking is to a commandment I gave them and
they then transgressed. That is all that is needed. And the artificial
is simply on a whole different scale to the natural pain,
which might injure them or kill them, that they could
encounter.

Kane:
Are you so insistent on them developing a sense of
guilt, shame, fear, about their environment and insistent
on them being challenged with the thought that
they may in fact be evil creatures deserving torture?

You are simply clueless about this. My children
have snorkeled with sharks in the wild (while Martha
and I were scuba diving on the reef 25 feet below them).
Helen got to touch a shark (which the divemaster brought
up to her to do). I am certainly not insistent on developing
guilt, shame, or fear about their environment. Helen also
now does equestrian eventing, which includes the quite
dangerous activities of stadium- and cross-country-jumping.
She is 11 years old. The issue is certainly not eliminating
danger from their environment, but in teaching them to have
self-discipline, so that they may be as free as is possible
for them to be when they reach the age of adulthood. And
in keeping them as safe as is possible up until the age
of reason when they can start beginning to make
judgments for themselves.

Kane:
A child believes the parenting they get is the
parenting they deserve.

More pop psychology? Did you get that from a book? From
five or six books? Do you think it a truism? Do you figure
there is scientific evidence to prove that "a child"
believes this? Do all children believe this? 90% of
them? 20% of them? One child?

Kane:
The parent is all powerful to the child, even in
defining who the child is.

Says you. Ho hum.

Kane:
Consider: A child treated with respect, even when
they make mistakes, then would believe they
deserve what?

A child treated with respect is a child punished for
disobedience to a parental command. Punishment
presumes that the child had the power to choose otherwise.
*That* respects the child as a person. Failure to punish
disobedience to a command exactly treats the child without
respect as a person. It teaches the child he cannot be expected
to choose for himself. It too readily interprets his
willful choice as a "mistake"---as something beyond his
control.

Kane:
Now substitute "pain" for "respect."

Been there, done that, and I'm already looking back
up at you from the inside.

Kane:
And either is, for the child, what they will
grow to seek for themselves, as it honors the
beloved parent. They will do it until they die
of old age. A life of self induced pain, or one
of self respect. Your choice.

Then punish disobedience swiftly and consistently.
And you will respect your children as human beings,
and not as though they were particles, planets, or
billiard balls, subject to the external forces of
physics.

Kane:
The power that parents have awes me, still.

Again, the rhetorical pose right from out of
a pop pysch book. Oh well, why not?

This Be the Verse

They **** you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had.
And add some extra, just for you.

But they were ****ed up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another's throats.

Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can.
And don't have any kids yourself.

Philip Larkin

Just for you, and for that party trick, Kane.


I wrote:
Also, think about it for a moment: Whence brain
scans "proving" that pain blocks learning?
Kane:
That is not what I said. I said it blocks the learning
of the desired task.

Then we'd have to see those "brain scan" studies in some
detail, wouldn't we? I mean pain is teaches something, just not
the desired task. I don't recall ever talking about a desired task.
Certainly not using spanking to teach mathematics, as in
your example.

Kane:
One can still learn....it just becomes exceedingly
difficult

You sound like you can put a number on how difficult
learning becomes. And that that number supports
your adverb "exceedingly". I mean the distraction
studies show 99% of what is taught isn't learned in
the presence of distraction? What do you mean by
"exceedingly"? Cites to those studies, please...

Kane:
and other things,
not intended, are learned as well.

Yeah, the Freudian subconscious, right?
What if those things are in fact intended.
And just what things did you mean, anyway.

See, the issue here is those pop psych books
you've been reading say my way is the
fascist, but I think *their* way is the real
fascism.

Kane:
How good are your math skills?

Oh, fair to middlin', I suppose.

Kane:
Or writing.

Some would say pretty poor.

Kane:
What subjects were hard for you in
school? Were they taught by your favorite
teacher? Did you parent "assist" in
your learning with punishments involved
with your attempts to learn?
Did you feel stupid when they "helped" you?

What utter nonsense you speak. My mother taught me to
read on her lap ay age three or four using some stupid
phonics books bought from the grocery store. By the time
I reached kindergarten, the teacher could hand me a storybook
and have me read aloud to keep the entire class entertained.
I was a straight A student in everything but gym. No punishment
was involved in my mother teaching me to read. Why do you keep
imagining punishment used as pedagogy, like some nightmare
vision out of a Dickens novel? The whole punishment-to-teach-subjects
thing seems to be your own personal bugbear, brought into
this argument for no relevance or reason I can think. I was
spanked for doing what I had been not to do. Hand in the cookie
jar, running in the house, hitting my kid brother, breaking
his toys, that sort of thing.

Kane:
One of the toughest teachers I had was extremely
respectful, but still, insisted quietly and respectfully,
that one applied themselves. I had flunked algebra twice
until him. Both prior teachers were insulting martinets.

I aced his class. And he graded hard, very. I learned
about learning from him. I picked my teachers with care
in college. Aced it too, all of it. And I was barely a
C student in highschool. Lousy teachers until the algebra
teacher.

I'm glad you learned to get proactive in your search for good
teachers. Wonderful. What does this have to do with anything
before us?

I said:
I mean, I've read Milgram's summary of his
psychological experiments in _Obedience to Authority_.
Those experiments *simulated* pain in a "victim" in
order to observe a subject's reaction to it.
Kane:
That is something of a departure from my position...

No, the issue is you can't set up an experiment nowadays
which would test your learn-calculus-with-a-paddle,
since it wouldn't pass ethical guidelines. The Milgram
experiment had the "learner" undergoing electroshock
for missed answers to a "rote learning" memorization
test. The learner was a paid actor, who screamed and
pleaded with the "teacher" to stop the lesson. The real
subject of the experiment was the "teacher" and to see
how far the teacher would go in administering what he
believed were electric shocks to the "learner". The
famous/infamous findings of this experiment were that most
people would go all the way to killing the learner in
obedience to the authority of a fellow in a white lab
coat who was only allowed to say "The experiment must go on."

I.e., that people are very happy to yield up their
sense of ethical responsibility to anyone in a
position of authority---to anyone who can defraud them
into believing he can relieve them of their ethical
responsibility for what they do. The amazingly small
number of people who resisted either were very well
educated to the point where they felt *themselves* to have
more authority than the guy in the white lab coat, or
the very religious (i.e. who felt themselves to be under
a much higher authority than the guy in the white lab
coat).

The point is, in aftermath, Milgram himself was
roundly criticized for subjecting his subjects to
emotional stress in their administering of what they
thought were electric shocks. So, we aren't talking about
administering direct pain here, we are talking about even
emotional stress for the sake of the experiment. Every
subject had volunteered to do it.

Kane:
but let's see if it is worthy of the frightened
child that forced that to the surface of your
consciousness to avoid my point.

Would you please cut this kind of amateur
pop-psych diagnostic stuff out?

I've already long since dealt with your point,
and we are well beyond it. The issue is what science
there might be out there which can tell us outlawing
spanking is a good thing. So far, all that has been
offered by you is uncited "brain scan studies" which
you say show that distraction inhibits learning. But,
so what? That's utterly irrelevant to the question of
the efficacy or wrongness of spanking, though you tried
to claim otherwise. So, the question becomes: What
scientific studies could there be which might address
the real question we want to know? Real studies which
show spanking is bad.

(By the way, there was a big
study that hit all the newspapers some while ago---
maybe Straus, M. A., Sugarman, D. B., & Giles-Sims, J.
(1997). Spanking by parents and subsequent antisocial behavior
of children. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine,
151, 761-767
<http://www.unh.edu/frl/cp24.htm>
---which did try to claim something along these
lines. But also see critiques of this paper and of
its methodology at:
<http://people.biola.edu/faculty/paulp/>

Note these three points of criticism therein:
A Comparison of Two Recent Reviews of Scientific Studies
of Physical Punishment by Parents by Larzelere, June 2002.
In a more comprehensive review of Gershoff's article, Larzelere
shows that "child outcomes associated with ordinary physical
punishment are also associated with alternative disciplinary
tactics when similar research methods are used. Detrimental
child outcomes are associated with the frequency of any
disciplinary tactic, not just physical punishment. Therefore,
it is the excessive misbehavior that is the actual cause of
detrimental outcomes in children."

"Not one of the 17 causally relevant studies found
predominantly detrimental outcomes if they did anything
to rule out parents who used physical punishment too
severely." p. 209 This is Larzelere's conclusion in a
recent review of outcomes associated with nonabusive
physical punishment in Child Outcomes of Nonabusive and
Customary Physical Punishment by Parents: An Updated
Literature Review in Clinical Child and Family
Psychology Review 2000, 3(4):199-221 (the December
2000 issue).

Larzelere/Straus Debate (June, 1999) A summary of
Dr. Larzelere's presentation in a debate with Straus
about spanking. In this summary, Larzelere reports
that the small detrimental child outcomes reported by
Straus, Sugarman & Giles-Sims (1997) for 6- to 9-year-olds
is not unique to spanking. A further analysis of the
Straus, et al. data revealed that identical small
detrimental child outcomes were also found for all four
alternative disciplinary responses for 6- to 9-year-olds
(grounding, sending the child to a room, removing
privileges, and taking away an allowance). The debate
was held at a conference of the National Foundation
for Family Research and Education at Banff in Alberta,
Canada.

Notice the second point of criticism would suggest a completely
objective measurement by which one would distinguish between
corporal punishment and the violent abuse of children.)

I said:
And that kind of experimental procedure has long since
been declared unethical.
Kane:
Okay. Let's see where this goes.

OK.

I said:
So, I'd say it's pretty obvious that no
one in recent history has run experiments
subjecting people to pain
Kane:
Wrong. It's common still. All it takes is consent of
the subject. Go to your nearest college or university
psych department and ask. Or try neurological
departments of medical schools.

Maybe I'm wrong. I don't think so, given the Milgram
study, and given the banning of studies like that.
But, my psych colleagues are a little ways down the
hall from my office at Butler University, so I guess
I can go ask one of them and report back about the ethical
restrictions on psych experimental design.

Kane:
Besides, the question isn't "pain" alone. It's any
distraction up to and including pain.

True, but insofar as distractions which were not painful
were tested and ones which were painful were not tested,
the experiment you spoke of doesn't say anything about learning
inhibition from spanking. As I said, you'd have to extrapolate
(you'd have to assume that what was true of learning inhibition
about a non-painful distraction would then also be true of a
painful one, and, surely, that would be a matter of evolutionary
biological contention, which should be tested directly before
any claim were made about it).

I said:
in order to test whether or not people (and certainly not kids)
can learn under the influence of pain.
Kane:
And I was working, as I pointed out clearly,
backward from pain to any distraction.

Which, as I trust you understand scientifically, you can't do.
It is an assumption, an extrapolation, which is precisely in
contention.

Kane:
Any distraction changes learning from more
easily done to more difficultly done and
has unwanted side effects, such as the learning
of things that might even interfer with performance
of the desired skill.

Well, I doubt that any scientific study is available
which could bolster such a sweeping claim, but,
I think in the case of a child reaching out to touch a
pretty red burner on a stove, a spank to the hand
(assuming the child has been previously instructed
not to touch the stovetop) definitely interferes with
the child's thought processes and curiosity,
let's say with what the pretty red object might feel
like, and focuses the child's attention on something
entirely different---namely that the child should have
been nixing that particular line of investigation
because of the parental command not to put thy hand
on the stovetop.

Kane:
Dr. Thomas Gordon, when a young man, was a military
flight instructor. He observed that a lot of young
student pilots were flying their aircraft into the
ground and dying. He noted also that the instructor's,
an a misguided by sincere attempt to save lives, were
screaming at the students more and more and calling them
more names and insults.

Gordon turned that around and developed a supportive approach.
His students lived. The others continued to die.

Later he counseled parents and eventually wrote a book that is a
standard for supportive parenting...that is supportive of the
child learning, not being tortured.

Would _Parent Effectiveness Training_ be the source of
your "brain scan" studies? Would that be your cite? And
do you figure spanking occurs in a parental panic of
screaming at the kid? I figure if a parent is screaming
at the kid, he is out of control himself and probably
should have spanked much, much earlier rather than letting
the disobedience get to the point of emotional stress
and panic at near-disaster.

I said:
So, any "brain scan" claims
there could be would have to be just wild
extrapolation,
Kane:
Nice try.

No, in fact wild extrapolation is quite likely the
case here. Maybe there were some distraction
studies. That seems likely. And it seems plausible
something or the other was in measured in them that
could be interpreted as distraction-inhibits-learning.
Probably there was not anything remotely like the
learn-calculus-under-the-paddle experment, however.
So, any claim about the latter is quite likely
a wild extrapolation from the former.

Kane:
No cigar. As I said. Consent allows for the use of
distraction up to and including pain.

Then I don't understand why Milgram's experiments
would be now forbidden. They certainly didn't cause any
physical pain to anybody, and all the subjects consented.

Kane:
But distraction alone is sufficient to support my
position.

Or the counterexample I gave of learning by means of
pain is enough to show that not all distractions inhibit
all learnings. There's huge range of what might
constitute learning and one is tempted to recall
"That which does not destroy me, makes me stronger."
I've learned to bench press 200 lbs over the last
two years of effort working out. I've had to go through
some pain to get there. Etc..

Kane:
Unless you would care to label pain as not being a
distraction.

I would certainly think that a "brain scan" sudy of
the effect of non-painful distraction on academic-style
learning would have zero to say about whether spanking
can be used to teach children anything to the good. I
would be embarassed in fact intellectually for even
bringing up such brain-scan studies in this context if
that were all they had to say. "Let's outlaw behaviour X
because we have some studies which indicate behaviour Y
has weak correlation with outcome Z, which outcome Z
happens all the time and sometimes might not
be desired, and because in some twists of language
behaviour X is a subset of behaviours Y and besides,
I think X is real icky." I mean, if those studies
really show enough to outlaw spanking, why don't
they also show enough to outlaw distraction?

I said:
making all kinds of assumptions about what
causes what and what activity here or there
in the brain might mean in terms of learning
or not learning something.
Kane:
Well, that usually IS the point of experimenting.

cf. Richard Feynman, "Cargo-Cult Science".

Kane:
Just as children do it. They are trying, no matter
what you think they are doing, to find out about the
world and how it works. They are, by our adult view,
terribly ignorant and clumsy, even doing things we've
come to label as "bad," or "evil," "perverse," and
even "sinful" but to them, in their ignorance and
nature driven compulsion to learn, those actions are not
labeled as yet.

Then it is for us to keep them from doing evil things
until they have been able to learn that those things
are, in point of fact and not label, evil.

I said:
Again, all one has to do is talk to an older
teacher who remembers the days in public school
when he had a wooden paddle and the authority
to use it if students misbehaved. Guess what?
Those were days when the shooting at Columbine,
not to mention metal detectors at the
entrances to schools, and armed policemen to
patrol the halls, were unthinkable.
Kane:
My very favorite. I've seen this come up
so many times on the talk.politics.guns website
I grow weary of it.

Right.

Kane:
You do know that children that were spanked
were the ones doing the shooting, did you not?
Check out all the school shootings in recent years.
These weren't "unspanked" children.

You said 90% are spanked. I've seen claims going from
99% in the 1950's down to 50% in the 1990's. But, given
your number, the lack of correlation between spanking and
going postal that that observation immediately
demonstrates (i.e. millions of spanked children do not
go shoot up their classmates, so the effect
of a kid going postal is on the order of few out of millions---
it is easy to do the calculation and to be more precise,
but there is no need here, since the idea is simple:
same cause leading to different effect means there are
other causes), I would assume they probably were spanked. So,
all that means that spanking alone isn't enough. Then again,
I never said it was enough. The rules you lay down for your kids
also have to be good rules---not ones that "we label as good"
but actual rules that coincide with goodness as the
universe dictates goodness to us.

Kane:
Do you know how far back kids were walking
into classrooms and shooting people? Try the 30's.

Show me the cites to this.

I was aware of newspapers and schools since
the 60's and unless the media were just covering up
school shootings back then, they didn't happen anything
like the way they have happened in the last 10 years.

Kane:
The shooting at Columbine was not caused by the
failure to spank.

Yeah, it probably was. The discipline once upon a
time in schools (and reinforced in the homes) meant
that kids did not act up in the ways they do now.
Heck, I remember a time back in the 1970's in junior
high school when the Principal interrupted class and
lectured the whole school for an hour over the intercom
about "behaviour your parents wouldn't approve of", and
how the offending students needed to turn themselves
voluntarily in. He was so vague about just what had
happened, I hadn't a clue what it was all about until
the grapevine got to me afterwards. Turns out, someone
had written "****" in the snow outside the school.
Compare that disciplinary line with the one today found
at Northwest High School in Indianapolis---mother gets
call at work to come to the hospital because her son
happened to be wearing glasses in the hallway when
some drug-pusher type came wandering through wanting
to smash some resistance-less victim's head
repeatedly against the floor. Same town, same school
system, historically different standards of discipline.

Kane:
It was caused by the failure to
inculcate a conscience.

And you figure gentle cajoling when Junior hits his
sister is the way to do that?

Kane:
That is the product of pain based parenting,

Nope. What it is the product of is psychological
beliefs like you have been touting. The widespread
infection of Freud in this society, the widespread
idea that we are trapped by society, by our own
subconscious, by our genes and by victimizations of
ourselves as children beyond our control or our choice.
The basic problem is CS Lewis's The Abolition of Man,
the conception of man as incapable of ethical
choice and not responsible for what he does.

Kane:
whether it is physically based, or psychologically
based. My take on the boys that did the shooting
was more of the psychologically based, but I doubt
anyone is going to get out of the families of the
boys how they were parented. I've certainly seen
more than enough mental illness in teens whose
histories I did have access to to tell you that
pain based parenting...even when done with cold
precision....results in less conscience and morals,
not more.

Then consider this pivotal moment from Peter Shaffer's _Equus_:
Dysart: Sit down, Mrs Strang.
Dora [ignoring him: more and more urgently]: Look, Doctor: you
don't have to live with this. Alan is one patient to
you: one out of many. He's my son. I lie awake every
night thinking about it. Frank lies there beside me.
I can here him. Neither of us sleeps all night. You come
to us and say, who forbids television? who does what
behind whose back?---as if we're criminals. Let me tell
you something. We're not criminals. We've done nothing
wrong. We loved Alan. We gave him the best love we
could. All right, we quarrel sometimes---all
parents quarrel---we always make it up. My husband
is a good man. He's an upright man, religion or
no religion. He cares for his home, for the world,
and for his boy. Alan had love and care and treats,
and as much fun as any boy in the world. I know
about loveless homes: I was a teacher.
Our home wasn't loveless. I know about privacy too---
not invading a child's privacy. All right, Frank may be
at fault there---he digs into him too much---but nothing
in excess. He's not a bully...[Gravely.] No, doctor.
Whatever's happened has happened *because of Alan*.
Alan is himself. Every soul is itself. If you added
up everything we ever did to him, from his first day on
earth to this, you wouldn't find why he did this
terrible thing---because that's *him*; not just all
of our things added up. Do you understand what
I'm saying? I want you to understand, because I
lie awake thinking it out, and I want you to know
that I deny it absolutely what he's
doing now, staring at me, attacking me for what *he's*
done, for what *he* is! [Pause: calmer.] You've got your
words, and I've got mine. You call it a complex, I
suppose. But if you knew God, Doctor, you would
know about the Devil. You'd know the Devil isn't
made by what mummy says and daddy
says. The Devil's *there*. It's an old-fashioned word,
but a true thing...I'll go. What I did in there was
inexcusable. I only know he was my little Alan and
then the Devil came.
[She leaves...]

Kane:
You are spouting like a Scientologist.

Uh-huh.

[snipped]

Kane:
The lack of the paddle hasn't increased the school shootings.
In fact school shootings are down, and have been for years.

Umm, please back that one up with a cite. I don't believe you.

Kane:
Even the year of the Columbine
shootings school was still the safest
place for children.

An entirely unexceptionable statement, given that
most kids were in school. Obviously
Columbine was a small event, effecting only a very
fraction of the total population of kids in school.

Kane:
And I say that with my teeth gritted as I am a
dedicated homeschooling champion.

Except for the wonder of incongruence, California,
it is consistently the states WITH school house
paddling that has the most child perps of shootings.
I'm damned if can explain California, but then who
can? <smile>

You don't have your facts Mike. You come up with
speculations you haven't researched adequately to
use them as support for the position you have
staked out. Keep trying.

Well, so far my speculations are looking pretty good to me
in the absence of any supporting data for your position.

Kane:
It's been fun Mike.

And no, I'm not a troll. If you haven't figured
that out by now, well, tough ****.

I don't believe I ever called you a troll, Kane.

(end part 2 of 2)

Mike Morris
)

[Kane]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 22:29:50 -1000, "Brandon"
> wrote:

>
>"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
>
>> Asking for proof of schooling one's child is objectionable? Well, I
>> can see it would be if there were no allegation.
>>
>> Are you saying then that an allegation, a claim, of wrongdoing
should
>> be ignored by those charged with investigating such claims?
>
>Such allegations should be investigated just as an allegation that
you had
>murdered someone would be investigated.

Yep, that's just what I expect. Though I do think you are overstating
just a tad. I don't think, for instance, that someone pilfering from
my tool shed would or should be investigated in quite the same manner
as a murder of someone in my family.

If you can overstate to make a point, you give me license to
understate. Kinda silly, no?

>The government should *assume* that every parent is a good parent who
is
>properly providing for their children, just as the government must
assume
>you are innocent of murder.

Yep, that is the case in this country, though again I wouldn't go so
far. In fact the minimal acceptable standards for CPS investigatings
being triggered are usually much LOWER than you or I would label as
"good parent."

>They cannot simply walk up to your house and
>demand that you prove your innocence.

Yep, they cannot do that. They don't. Not without risking you turning
them away.

But they can walk up and ask you questions about your parenting if
they have received ANY information that you the safety of your child
is imperiled.

>There is due process.

Yep, and there is. You haven't described one such instance of it so
far. Everthing you have listed IS within due process limits.

CPS investigators take the same kind of accusatory calls that 911
police calls receive...in fact many child safety allegation calls are
to 911.

CPS investigators, unlike police, to not patrol looking for violators
or public safety concerns. They still have the same responsibilities
though if any come to their attention that involved children.

The police go out without a warrant and investigate. CPS investigators
do the same.

Requiring either to obtain a warrant prior to gaining enough knowledge
to convince a magistrate to issue a warrant would be quite a nice win
for criminals and abusers. They wouldn't get one.

Hence, I, and I presume you if you are the least civic minded,
understand why families are INVESTIGATED.

The limits of what police and cps investigators can say and do are
quite careful proscribed. If you don't personally know those limits
neither LEs or CPSIs are required to advise you of them. Only when an
arrest is affected and charges are in the offing (either the LE has
witnessed a chargable offense, or has enough to get a warrant and is
back to investigate further) are they required by law to so advise
you.

Have you noticed there is a movement afoot to end Mirandizing
suspects?

>
>When it comes to intrusion into the home, due process is frequently
thrown
>out the window "for the children."

Give us some instances. I know there are a few, and the perps were
charged and often civil penalties were levied as well as disciplines
for officers or investigators. But that does not show that all such
investigations are not pursued within the limits of due process.

Kane

[Kane]

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 16:09:23 -0500, "Michael S. Morris"
> wrote:

>
>
>
> Sunday, the 12th of October, 2003
>
>(beginning of part 2 of 2)
>
>
>
>************************************************** ********
>
>Kane:
> and that is not what happens when a child who is
> busy experimenting and exploring (no matter how
> YOU interpret that behavior) is met with pain
> from the one person that she should be able to
> trust as a teacher...a true teacher.
>
>He is not met with pain for exploring and experimenting.
>He is met with pain for disobeying a commandment I have
>given him. That is all.

His activity that you command him to stop or modify was exploring
experimenting. You deflect him to slavish attention to you at the
peril of his development and the safety of others on the planet.

>Certainly not everything I tell him or
>do with him counts as a commandment I have given him.
>In fact very few things count as commandments, and
>he knows which ones those are. The commandments are few
>and are designed for his safe and for his good behaviour
>*until he is an age to know and understand and,
>possibly, choose for himself, safety and goodness*.

He has had to aquiese to you what he should be encouraged to discover
for himself.

It is simply laziness that you do not simply phsically supervise and
modify the environment sufficiently so you do not have to give
"commands" until he is old enough to learn by other means.

You are imposing your arrogant will on him.

>
>There is no such thing with me, or I doubt with any
>other parent around these parts, with using pain in
>order to teach academic lessons or bicycle riding
>or anything else like that. A spanking is simply not
>about that. At all. It is about punishment for disobedience
>to a commandment, and that commandment given for the child's
>safety and to inculcate a habit of good behaviour.

The same principles of teaching a child to do things without using
pain apply in those things you have chosen to use pain for.

Read the Embry report.
>
>Kane:
> Pain does not bring out the ability to ride a bicycle,
> nor to ponder the moral issues in hitting one's sister,
>
>Whoa! Not at all the desired thing. Pondering the
>moral issues in hitting one's sister is something I
>want my child to be able to do at age 15 and at age
>18 and at age 40. *When he is of an age to ponder,
>then let him ponder*. What is desired now is simply
>that he does not hit his sister!

He can "ponder" it far younger than that. He can get the basics
without much understanding as early as four if he's normal in his
development...but given the reliance on our mediating his learning
through the use of pain you may no other choice but to continue it.

I do not have to hit a child to get him to stop hitting another one.
Even young nursery school attendents are taught how to do that.

>
>Kane:
> or the empathy that is the basis for the
> development of conscience. Empathy is retarded
> by distraction, built by focus on the other person.
>
>Sympathy is possible, empathy, no.

Sorry, you are a product then of someone that pounded the seeds of
empathy out of you. It's evident in your inability to fathom why pain
parenting is counterproductive.

The seed of empathy, and empathy being the path to conscience, is that
response a tiny child, a crawler, has to cry when another child cries.

It isn't sympathy, it's an automatic reaction. It is not controlled by
the child thinking about the other child's experience that made them
cry (that is what sympathy is...feeling sorry for someone on observing
or learning of their discomfort).

Empathy is a very different sort of thing indeedy. It is a form of
feeling what the other person is feeling. Often it's clumsy when being
learned and inaccurate as all getout if intellectually modulated, as
it is a feeling, not a thought.

>
>And, no, I do not think it is the basis for the development of
>conscience, so I quarrel right there with another of your pop
>psych tenets.

There is a very long line of researchers and investigators that I'd
hardly refer to as pop psi that I drew that information from, and my
own late in life discovery of the feeling of empathy.

>
>Kane:
> You can't even get a child to pay attention
> to YOUR feelings, let alone another's feelings,
> by the use of pain.
>
>This is the part that is nonsense. I'm not trying to
>get him to pay attention to anyone else's goddam
>feelings, fer chrissake.

Tsk tsk. I am, as later when it counts and I'm not their to enforce
compliance and he is tested in an ethical matter I wish feelings of
empathy...conscience, to come into play.

>Their feelings are their
>responsibility. And I am not the keeper of my brother's
>feelings.

Damn certain. The attention to another's feelings is a highly self
interested exercise. If I know his or her feelings and can avoid
getting my ass shot off. It's worked for me in Northern Cambodia, and
in parts of China, as well as in our own more isolated communities in
the US.

About the time I stop paying attention to what others think and feel I
get knives pulled on me...or did.

>All of society would plummet into the
>emotional basket-case level of daytime talkshow
>therapy were we to agree to that kind of principle.

Hyperbole. Never happen. Empathy was a key component of Jesus message,
and I'm not a Christian so this isn't some slavish adherence to
doctrine, and the foundation of a new way of being in the world.

>**** other people's *feelings*.

Tell you what. You try comin' over to my neck of the woods. I'll
introduce you to some of my neighbors and I'll watch you get very damn
interested in their ****in' feelings PDQ, or end up in the river
feeding fish your toes and eyes.

>Am I being clear enough
>about this point for you? I said I am liberal. I mean that,
>and absolutely so.

Sure you are, and you are chicken **** to exercise it in the manner
you just claimed, "**** other people's *feelings*."

Try it and watch what happens.

This is why I refer to your kind, child pain enforcers, as cowards.
They are helpless to stop you ****in' other people's feelings. We are
not.

>Free speech as an absolute and inalienable
>Right,

to the end of my nose and no further. That's my physical, virtual, and
metaphorical nose.

>and precisely because an auditor's *feelings* about
>what I say to him are *his choice* and his responsibility
>under his own self-discipline to choose his feelings wisely.

Excellent. I see evolution at work once again.

>Spanking my child is about punishing him for hitting his sister,
>when I have told him not to hit his sister, so that he does
>not hit his sister again.

Yes, I understand that perfectly and it works perfectly for you? He
doens't hit his sister any more? And he hasn't yet worked out other
ways to get her?

My kids stopped squabbling the day I learned to listen to them in a
supportive way, respecting their thoughts and their emotions in my
reponses. Funny how that worked. My son talked for six days straight
he was full of pent up thoughts and feelings, then became a very
quiet, project focused little boy, learning a great clip (we
homeschooled) far more than ever before. To this day he is the same,
quiet, thoughtful, moral as a deacon (well, more moral), and the best
roomie I ever stayed with.

>It has zero to do with having him
>think about how his sister might *feel* about being hit, or
>whether, regardless of what she feels, it mightn't be cool to
>go ahead and hit her anyway.

So morality is not going to be based on his obeying you, not on his
being helped to understand why we don't hit?

>There will come a time when he
>will be of an age of reason and can think about those
>things, and if he decides, like Raskolnikov, he wants to go ahead
>and hit his sister anyway, he will be ethically, and then of
>a certain age, legally responsible for *his* decision. What we
>are talking about when he is 3 is not "reasoning it out" but
>simply not doing it in the first place.

At three I don't have to hit a child or teach him a damn thing except
by example. I see far too many parents moralizing and preaching to
three year olds. All I have to do to be responsible is remove him from
the play area ( a bit of a lesson in itself ) and comfort his sister
if he managed to hit her.

I don't have to demonstrate how to hit to try and get him to stop.
>
>Kane:
> Now this conversation may well end if you are
> one of those that believes that morality is
> not human based but rule based.
>
>I haven't a clue what you could mean by that. I believe
>in Natural Law (as a distinct belief from my belief in
>scientific Laws of Nature). I.e. I believe ethical rules
>are written into the fabric of the universe and into the
>human condition. I do not believe that humans have
>any choice, any autonomy, about being able to rewrite those
>ethical rules. I reject utterly the idea that "To the Nazis,
>Auschwitz may have been the right thing to do". I reject
>moral relativism. But that certainly does not mean I think
>ethics is reduceible to 10 commandments or to 37 approved
>sexual positions.

That's nice. Now wipe the spittle from your chin. It's embarrassing
me.

You are assigning me characteristics again that I haven't exhibited,
but if it makes you feel better and gives relief, have a go.

>Kane:
> I don't follow rules because they are rules and they
> come from some authority. I follow rules because
> they have proven to be the wisest choice of all in how
> I feel if I break them, and how I feel if I keep them.
>
>Why is it this pop psych stuff always comes down to
>waving around feelings like some banner?

Oh, maybe because they are one of the factors in morals. I can get a
whole lot more long term trustworthy compliance out of a child the
respects and trusts me than one that is afraid of me. Respect is a
feeling as is trust and fear.

So feelings it is. I think you are feeling disabled. You assume
feelings are somehow mawkish and useless. How one feels about
something is a very powerful part of humans.

Are you not having feelings right now about this exchange? Do those
feelings not drive you to some thoughts?

You may think you think in a vacume but that is just a feeling....r r
r r

>God save us
>from government by feelings!

There is no God.

And government is one huge bundle of feelings and our government was
based on a great many motivating factors that were feelings. Feelings
of being exploited by George, of being abused by his minions, of being
empoverished by practicies, and most especially over all this, the
feeling of being negated, disrespected, by him.

The refusal to admit to feelings and to face up to them has created a
lot of agony for humans.

>In any event, I don't care
>if "thou shalt not commit murder" comes from God or
>is written into your Freudian subconscious

I don't have a subconcious. I have memory tracks I don't access
regularly. Thats about it.

>so you feel
>uneasy about it when you break it.

Uneasiness if for the timid about feelings. I look'em squarly in the
face and know them to be nothing or damned important in the moment.

Saved my ass in some very hairy situations.

>All I care about is
>you don't commit murder.

If I did would you have a feeling about that? Like someone you loved?

You big old liberal macho posturers are the first to fall into a heap
sobbing and helpless when something really imporatant happens and you
suffer a loss.

It's not because you are wimps. It's because you don't practice having
feelings and are stuck with your poor coping skills, like booze, and
drugs, and moralizing, and pontificating, and being the village
buffoon.

>
>Kane:
> If we all did that there would be [no] need
> for enforcement, and whackin' away on kids butts.
>
>I stuck in my emendation, which I trust is
>what you meant.

I don't recall seeing any improvement to your prior statement. It's
just more of the same offal.

>And sure, if men were angels
>there would be no need for enforcement of any kind.

I have no hope of nonenforcement.

>But, guess what? Men come hard-wired for evil.

They also come hard wired for good. It's all in the way you cast the
world around you in the image you believe in.

>And
>that is the problem. And they are hard-wired for it as
>children

Bull****. Children have no concept of evil. They are explorers, even
of the concepts of evil and good. They don't know it in any sense
until later in life.

Forcing them to identify themselves or their actions as evil early in
life is what hardens the wiring...and it can go either way, good or
evil.

Good and or evil are taught because the child is available with both
for the nurturing and teaching.

>long before they get to an age to reason
>about it.

Bull**** the best quality. You could grow a champion Pumpkin on yours.

>Behaving badly is easy.

Behaving good is easy. Children do it all the time. The problem here
is that they don't know it is good or bad, only if it passes or it
doesn't. Goodness or badness is taught.

> It takes reason
> and it takes long habit to be able to behave well.

That is obviously spoken by someone that had to work at it. My kids
moved right into angelic behavior with an eager and happy enthusiasm
shortly after I had my first empathetic experienced and learned that
they had feelings I could tap into respectfully.

You have a desert in your heart.

>I said:
> then he has just ruled out all of our
> common sense and common experience.
>Kane:
> R R R R, I've ruled out nothing but your neurosis
> and your lack of common sense. Common sense based
> on ignorance is not sense, it is just ignorance.
>
>Kids who are disciplined are well-behaved. Kids who are
>not disciplined are ill-behaved.

At one, six months, two, three?

And you are dead wrong there bubbah. Kids that are disciplined is what
I had. Very. Highly. And are disciplined adults as a result.

Droves of kids that I say "disciplined" with pain are not self
disciplained in their adult lives.

There are numerous examples among public figures as well, some coming
from highly moral venues. They fall apart when tempted. My kids have
been tempted just as all kids.

I did not have to supervise them as teens. They had their own powerful
discipline to rely on and they did very well indeed.

Spanked kids end up in jail rather a lot. Unspanked kids are a super
rarity in prisons. Researchers, like Fischer of the Chigago School of
Social Science couldn't find any when he tried to find them. He was
just looking for unspanked kids and probably expected the place to be
loaded with them. Nope, not a one.

>
>Kane:
> How common sense is built is by observing.
>
>My point exactly. The child, on a visit as a guest to
>another house, whose hand has not ever been whacked
>for disobedience, will destroy anything he finds that
>he is curious about and which, lacking self-discipline,
>he reaches for and finds, too late, fragile.

Not if he's young and properly constrained and supervised. If he is
older one cannot be sure of what he will do. I have often heard
parents say things, after a particularly eggregious offense declare,
"I don't understand it, he's never done anything like this before, we
have taught him better." And we all in this society know what "taught"
stands for in this format.

I took my children everywhere with me, even my tiny baby son to
college classes. They were welcome everwhere and enjoyed by the
adults. They did not interupt adult conversation without asking
permission, they did not touch other's things without asking, they did
not destroy anything ever unless it was a complete accident and I
can't remember one anyway.

This from the earliest age I could release them from kiddie restraints
of various kinds, at about 2 and a half, to their adult years. They
still are respectful of others things, and my son is a damn compulsive
neatnick...embarrasses me, something of a slob, to visit his house and
after all these years see him still making up his bed the way I taught
him at 8 or 9, with military folds. He can bounce that pervervial 50
cent piece now just as we played with to teach him to make that
hospital cornered bed then.

My children were gracious hosts at as young as 9 or 10 to visitors,
but oddly my daugher once asked me to kick a man off our ranch when
she was twelve.

I was stunned by the request given the kindness and friendliness of
this kid. I asked her why. She told me he had been threatening to hit
children that were watching him work on a bunk house I had hired him
to build.

My kids and the others there never got in anyone's way, but they
wanted very much to learn by watching and imitating...I sanctioned it
strongly and he had been told about and agreed to it.

I drove him forthwith the the highway and put him and his bags out and
invited him to ride his rude thumb out of the country. He went. He was
incredulous when I told him I was firing and kickin' for what a child
had requested.

No one threatens children in my presence and certainly not on my land.
You come here and hit a child, even your own and you are going to pay
big time. And I own the local law so you can forget going that way.

>I have observed this
>too many times to count: How a lack of discipline---probably
>parental fear of imparting discipline, and probably resultant
>from the infection of society with pop psychological beliefs---leads
>to a child's disregard of and destruction of other people's
>property and, ultimately, to a disregard of other people's
>person as that child's default mode of behaviour.

And you can prove to us these where unpunished children then? In a
country where folks claim that 90% are spanked?

They may not have been hit when you were watching but my guess is they
were reactive children. I've seen it, since I have about 90% of the
population to observe, rather a lot.

Spanked children that are NOT well behaved. Unspanking isn't the
problem you are seeing. It's undisciplined. They have not been taught
to repesctfully to respect others. Far more likely to have been
spanked.

I never had to hit my children in public to make them behave...because
I never had to hit them to make them behave, and they were high energy
extremely active and curious.

I could be laying in the hammock napping, they'd come screaming and
chasing each other with their freinds into the yard, and suddenly
withint about thirty feet dead silence and running past on tip toes.

I never asked them to do that. They chose to and asked their friends
to, and we had a supremely joyful life.

>
>Kane:
> How it turns into valuable knowledge that can
> be applied is by never closing the loop....always
> being open to new interpretations and new views
> being considered.
>
> Consider this.....everything the child does, no matter
> how YOU might interpret it, is no more or less than an
> experiment to learn how to live.
>
>You know, I'm a physicist. We fry things and blow them up in
>experiments. My children are not "experiments in how to live".
>They are precious trusts to me, every one of whom I have to do
>right by, and none of whom I will actually be able to do 100% right
>by. Anyway, you sound like you are quoting glib language from
>a pop psych book again. And, well, it's just wrong.

I can't believe you are a scientist. Oh, not that I don't believe what
you are saying but that you are so locked into a traditional belief
about human beings when you have to, by your discipline NOT be about
the physical universe.

Do you think I meant that one had to do distructive testing on humans?
One can try things without harm of all kinds with humans. And kids
love those things.

They used to really get kick out of experiments in social change. We'd
have a switch day...they could be anyone they wished, and so would we.
Every had to play or we wouldn't do it...no hurt feelings.

It was fun, and a bit embarassing to seem my son stand with his hands
on his hips and ask me, "are you going to line up your shoes by the
door or not?" You can easily guess who he was that day.

We learned a lot doing those things. My kids got to lecture and
discipline me. And at the end of the game happily gave up that role.
It gets tiresome quickly.

We would take rides on public transportation (because we lived so far
out I had to find ways to expose my homeschooled kids to society) and
watch families and individuals and speculate on outcomes of how they
treated each other.

>
>Kane:
> When you, their assigned guardian and protector,
> their trusted teacher of how to tie shoelaced,
> feed themselves, bake a cupcake, think their
> throwing of objects out of their play pen is
> defiance and just to make you pick up after them,
> and you resort to the shocking act of hitting them,
> they just were betrayed.
>
>Well, you are, quite stereotypically

Bull****, Mike. Utter. I've been admired and abjured as a damn
annoying pioneer in many things human behavior wise. I am not anything
like anyone you've known before though you want to pretend I am.

>I might add, confusing
>several things together here.

If you, in a discussion of the elements listed everything in the
periodic table would you be mixing several things together? And that
would be wrong or bad how?

>Since my children wouldn't be
>put in a playpen at an age when they could bake a cupcake.

I didn't name an age. There you go again.

>In fact, at an age when they were in a playpen, I doubt spanking
>would have been the appropriate response.

Ah, a spark of humanity. I kept on with when I was tempted to just
give up because I had a "feeling" r r r r

>Since, for spanking
>to work, they have to be able to take a clear command before
>they can be punished for disobeying it, and I associate a
>playpen with probably too young a child for that.

So do I. I happen to associate any age under six as being too young to
meaningfully take a command. I will not punish a child for not obeying
me if they cannot understand the meaning of the commmand, but then I
don't punish at any age, not need to to discipline a child.

>But, no, the betrayal is in not punishing them for misbehaviour
>that you have told they shall not do. *That* is betrayal.

Bull****. The betrayal is in using any punishment at all. And not
using other painless means instead.

>Of your
>responsibility as a parent.

Odd. I didn't punish in any sense, and hardly before, from the time my
children were very little. The outcome is marvelous. What did I do
wrong?

My kids, outside of being the fine folks I know then to be, are
otherwise pretty ordinary. No jail, no violence. Just nice people. Pay
their taxes, work extraordiarily hard, pay their bills, have hobbies
that are pretty innocent of harm to the environment or others,
photography, long range target shooting, and a whole lot of ongoing
college education...still.

What evidence do you have that I didn't meet my responsibilities as a
parent by not giving them commands and then hurting them if they
didn't obey?

I explained to them that if I ever gave a command it would be only the
direst of dangerous situations and to respond instantly to the
directions in the command. We played practice a few times and that was
that. I never had occasion to test it as my kids, after their very
early learning with a kind and gentle father, 6' 1" and 250 lbs of
axeswinging fencepost driving martial arts practitioner father, just
didn't get themselves into dangerous situations on their own.

And it was pretty hard for others to lure them into trouble as well.
It could be done, but on the rare occasions it happened they elegantly
solved the problem with no harm to them or others.

Do you think I was just lucky?

>To show them the rules that invisibly
>surround them, Spanking is one method of that punisment.

You can't show them the rules without punishment? You can't teach them
the rules without pain?

Hell your kids learned all they needed to know about gravity to be
safe when they first learned to walk and laid the groundwork during
that time they ran you or your wife after things they threw out of the
crib, playpen, and highchair.

A child development specialist tipped me to that. He called little
kids practicing experimental physicists. He also taught me that like
all of us lessons have to be repeated, and for a newbie on the planet,
many many times, to accept and learn basic physical principles.

My eyes opened when I got it the kid wasn't running me at all. She
thought I was helping her learn about gravity. We did similar
exercises in sound and light. What fun and painless too. Well, except
for my sometime tired back r r r r


>Often
>it is the best method available.

Naw. It's a lazy thoughtless and dangerous practice. One slip is all
it takes.

And the sexual organs are too close to the seat of the spankings and
become excited by the impact. Risky I tells yah!

>But I certainly would not insist
>that it is the only method.

Well, I wouldn't ask you to. And there is not method I use that is the
only method. Mine just happen to be based in child development reality
and no pain or punishment involved. I only use pain based and pain
free parenting like a shorthand symbol.

While I only used a few at a time, my repertoire of ways to teach a
child without punishment grew huge by the time my kids were old
enought to be on their own. I went back to school and into work with
children.

Even there I ran circles around the other staff who were not free of
the pain models. They gave me the toughest problems. Everything from
violent attacking little animals, to sloths that barely would move.
What ever it was I had them reacting to me positively sometimes in as
littel as two minutes. Some would take a couple of weaks. The only two
I felt I never reached and just had to manage, were a boy that had
watched his grandmother shot his father/grandfather. Think about that
title for a second and you'll figure out why grandma might have been a
bit upset with grandpa.

When asked on the stand why she shot him she said "he wouldn't quit
****in' off the front porch." I got to sit by her whenever she came to
visit the boy in treatment, (she did short time and was out quickly).

He had a great moral gap in him, that boy. Shock or something I guess.
Dangerous lad in a sneaky but attractive way. By 13 he had probably
bedded five or six girls in his neighborhood. He ran from us and did
another one in a local motel room he broke into.

The other boy....brrrr....that was one I hope I never see again. He
was handsome too in a billybob sort of way, but with perversions I
wont't describe her. He was the mother ****er...not I'm not calling
him a name, I'm calling him a 13 or 14 year old rapist of his own
mother.

All spanked kids, Mike. All spanked. All "disciplined" and it failed.

>Kane:
> Do you KNOW why little children throw things
> out of their playpen or off their highchair tray,
> again and again and again...ad neauseum?
>
>Give me a break, Kane. I have not spanked my children
>for being toddlers and throwing food off their high chairs.
>Once again, you miss the point with a straw-man-style
>argument.

Did I say you spanked them? You have decided now that I cannot use
examples unless they are strictly limited to an age and an event. Tsk.

I guess you wouldn't mind if I did the same to you then? Naw, I'm not
like you, a manipulative scumbag of a coward who hits children.

>
>[...]
>
>Kane:
> Children are compelled to be practical physicists.
> They MUST experiment, and it has to be replicated
> to be believed. And they must do it for themselves.
> Hitting inhibits that learning.
>
>And so on. Look, perhaps we could skip over the
>pop psych book and get to the scientific study which
>backs up, well, really, anything you say? I mean, it's
>cute that you want to write "children are compelled to
>be practical physicists" and you are caught up in their
>"natural creativity" and this sort of Rousseauian
>picture of childhood as innocence

Children are not either in the sense you claim. They are innocent of
knowing good or evil. They just know being.

>and the evil
>hand of civilization and conservative tradition of
>corporal punishment as the thing that crushes the
>natural good out of them

That is a pretty good, though hyperbolic, rendition of what I found
treating the ones that couldn't survive their "discipline" with the
good stimulated, yes.

>and turns them all into ax
>murderers (which begs the question why more of 'em
>weren't ax murderers 50 years ago when spanking was
>more universally accepted).

Are you kidding me. Lizzie Borden. All kinds of slicers and dicers at
the World's Fair of 1900. England, that paragon of corporal punishment
based "discipline" awash in street and kidnapping killings by sickos
we still speculate about the identities of.

How many more do you need to make a connection with the then highly
popular birchings and switchings and strapping and whoopins' and other
accepted, as you accept now, "disciplines" the day?

>But, sooner or later we
>need a fact or two (maybe like a cite to a study?) to
>bolster the rhetorical expansiveness, don't you think?

I will if you will. I have, come to think of it, you just haven't had
time to read them yet.


>I said:
> He is probably also at odds with any and
> every evolutionary biological explanation
> for pain that I've ever run across.
>Kane:
> No, only with the ones based on ignorance of
> learning theory. I'm not against learning from pain.
>
>Oh, I thought you said distraction inhibits learning and
>that pain is a distraction.

Yes I did. And I still say so. I also know that things can be learned
from pain. Incidentaly they may be things we want to learn, like an
unbrushed rotting tooth best be taken care of.

Moral principles don't lend themselves well to pain based instruction.
Not be laying it on and not by witnessing thereof. Even the threat of
death, while death itself will stop a behavior, won't teach people not
to do crime. And death is a very poor teacher to the dead.

>Must've been my mistake about that.

Not at all. Fundy thinkers tend to see what they want, even when their
noses are rubbed in the truth, like spanking is not hitting. Is that
one of those you believe in?

I'm going to patiently wait for that study where you are going to show
us how spanking and abuse are different and the clear demarcation
between the two. You may include switching, strapping, and any other
of the cowardly avoidance terms you wish.

>So, you now think pain doesn't necessarily inhibit learning?

Yes I think it inhibits learning. I said, you silly ass ****in' twit
that it inhibits certain kinds of learning. It works extremely well in
low dosage for warning of problems, like I'm waaaaay to close to this
fire for safety. And this pain in my side is getting more
uncomfortable.

It is a very poor teacher of morality as it uses an essentially
immoral method, the striking of a child to cause pain, to try and
teach the child not to inflict pain on others.

And it's also damned hard to figure out what the stupid giant wants
now when he hurts me for not obeying his command and picking up this
glass doodad. I only wanted to see how the light shown through it at
this angle, and he seems to think I'm evil incarnate and in defiance
of him...who does he think he is, gawd almighty himself then?"

>So, what was the point about those scientific brain scan studies
>anyway?

That pain inhibits learning disrupting the task usually required to
learn. They came out of a percieved need from people who had trouble
with learning because of cronic pain. One would think, if I understand
you, they would learn more easily, pain focusing the attention and
all.

>Or do you now agree with my original point that science does
>not and cannot address the question of the goodness of the practice
>of spanking?

No, don't agree. You are a pompous twit to claim it can't. I can and
does address pain and spanking involves pain in what should be a
learning situation.

You can word play it to death and that's not going to change.

The fact a supposedly loving parent who used to show concern and
patience and was gentle in all things has suddenly turned into a
hitting monster who barks commands and then hits before I can
understand what he wants is the problem.

Did you know that it's common knowledge among mommies that care to
notice that when you tell a toddler (and sometimes older kids) not to
do something they can't process the "not" in the message well, and
tend to respond by doing. Do not eat the dog food, get turned around
in the kids head (I wonder if they are spanked kids) and they hear, Do
eat the dog food. Don't jump on the bed is jump on the bed.

This isn't pop psi, it's just known by mommies that spend days on end
with chidlren. They learn pretty damn quickly to say things like, jump
only on the trampoline Billy. Eat your cereal and let Fido eat his dog
food Billy.

>Kane:
> I'm against the deliberate application of pain by
> (from his point of view) a child's protector.
>
>I'm sure you are. It probably seems icky to you.

No, the thinking that goes along with justifying it digusts me, if you
wish to label it "icky."

The doing of it is entirely another matter. It's cowardly and sick
when justified by the bogus claims that it protects the child. They
used to tell women they'd just be jostled and mistreated in the
polling places and having the vote would confuse them.

That myth fell, this one will.

>I can't help you there. Don't spank your kids, I
>guess.

Thanks, I didn't an no one else's either and my methods were copied by
other professionals for treatment modalities that worked extremely
well.
>
>Kane:
> Children get more than enough naturally
> consequential pain to learn about what
> does and doesn't cause pain.
>
>Sometimes they learn, sometimes they are killed in
>those kind of lessons. I am willing to spank in order
>to better the odds that my kids will learn more quickly
>how to keep themselves safe.

Then children that are spanked should be dying from accidental causes
at a far lower rate than unspanked children. Have you a citation we
could examine, from scientific literature or contracted surveys from
the CDC mortality archives.

I'll gamble on Embry. I'll tell Dennis, if you wish, that his work was
just pop psi. He'll probably lose tenure when his school finds out.

>Kane:
> Why would you want to create an artificial application
> of pain that to the child is so often impossible to connect
> to the exploritory behavior they were performing?
>
>Connection to what they were doing is absolutely irrelevant.

Spoken in fascist tones if ever I've seen them.

>The connection of spanking is to a commandment I gave them and
>they then transgressed.

Then the must attend to YOU instead of their environment. That kind of
ties yah down just a bit doesn't it. Or do you and our wife tagteam
them?

>That is all that is needed. And the artificial
>is simply on a whole different scale to the natural pain,
>which might injure them or kill them, that they could
>encounter.

My kids lived around livestock, some of which could be very dangerous.
Are hired hands sometime were injured in their work because of the
dangers. They rode on tractors, around bailers, combines on
neighboring places, falling very large timber with myself and crew,
driving dump trucks, tractors, operating silage chopppers (now there's
a finger shortener) and other task and activities too numerous to
mention.

Not a scratch, well except for that little evergreen my daughter ran
down so viciously as she was trying to turn the tractor on her maiden
voyage. Damn thing steered like a, well, like a tractor.

I'm trying to remember if my kids ever got burned on the wood stove. I
don't think so, and at 8 or 9 I taught them the trick of picking up
and arranging burning logs in the stove without getting burnt. It's
kind of a firewalking sort of thing.

My mom taught me when I was a kid.

And I never punished my kids once for anything.

Fancy that.

>Kane:
> Are you so insistent on them developing a sense of
> guilt, shame, fear, about their environment and insistent
> on them being challenged with the thought that
> they may in fact be evil creatures deserving torture?
>
>You are simply clueless about this. My children
>have snorkeled with sharks in the wild (while Martha
>and I were scuba diving on the reef 25 feet below them).
>Helen got to touch a shark (which the divemaster brought
>up to her to do). I am certainly not insistent on developing
>guilt, shame, or fear about their environment. Helen also
>now does equestrian eventing, which includes the quite
>dangerous activities of stadium- and cross-country-jumping.

I taught those to olympic contenders. Dressage as well. If you were
west coast in the 60s' you would know me. Naw, I see it was too long
ago.

>She is 11 years old. The issue is certainly not eliminating
>danger from their environment, but in teaching them to have
>self-discipline, so that they may be as free as is possible
>for them to be when they reach the age of adulthood. And
>in keeping them as safe as is possible up until the age
>of reason when they can start beginning to make
>judgments for themselves.

My kids rode, a lot. No injuries.

Oh, I forgot. They had a friend visit one time a little girl whose
parents where pain parenters. The first and only female firesetter
I've ever run into.

Her first adventure with firesetting was in my back pasture. Damn near
killed us fighting that fire until the fire deparement got their. We
were 15 miles away from the firehouse.

My kids were great too. Sacks and shovels, with the women mostly
running sack soaking to us.

I know how "disciplined" kids are.

My diving was in Hawaii, before my kids were born. Sharks never
bothered me I swam and dove for turtle (legal back then) with Kane's
and Wahine's that claimed to have shark gods in their ancestory.

>
>Kane:
> A child believes the parenting they get is the
> parenting they deserve.
>
>More pop psychology?

Nope.

Peipers. Tenured professors as I recall. Family counseling practices.
Authors. Developers of some interesting new treatment modalities.

And parents of their own children, some natural, some adopted, some
fostered. Very tough crowd those last two. Spanked kids to a man,
every one.

The popular edition of their work and theories of parenting methods is
called "Smart Love." I used to give it to families trying to work with
our kids and those that adopted or were fostering them. Made a huge
difference in their success rate.

I still get calls from then from time to time thanking me for turning
them on to the book.

>Did you get that from a book?

Yes and more from my own hands on experience.

>From
>five or six books?

Mmmmm........I'd guess many more than that.

Is there something inherently wrong or incorrect in information found
in books? How did you get through college?

>Do you think it a truism? Do you figure
>there is scientific evidence to prove that "a child"
>believes this? Do all children believe this? 90% of
>them? 20% of them? One child?

It's one hundred percent because it is a truism. Read their book. They
explain it rather well and it fits in with how children can come to
good and poor ends according to how they are parented.

>
>Kane:
> The parent is all powerful to the child, even in
> defining who the child is.
>
>Says you. Ho hum.

So then. How does a child view and experience the parenting methods
used on them? Or does that not matter, do you think?

Ho hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

>
>Kane:
> Consider: A child treated with respect, even when
> they make mistakes, then would believe they
> deserve what?
>
>A child treated with respect is a child punished for
>disobedience to a parental command.

Sicko.

>Punishment
>presumes that the child had the power to choose otherwise.

What book did you get that out of, Dobson the dog torturer?

>*That* respects the child as a person.

No it doesn't.

>Failure to punish
>disobedience to a command exactly treats the child without
>respect as a person.

Kant.

>It teaches the child he cannot be expected
>to choose for himself.

Then it trains him for extremist and exploiters to use.

Have you ever followed the story of victims of the cults. It mostly is
a story of parent how declare, "I cannot understand what they could
hae done to lure her...she was an A student, had a scholarship,
popular had a nice part time job and was a devoted and responsible
daughter."

Little did they know what weaknesses they build into her by an over
reliance on obedience to the parent.

>It too readily interprets his
>willful choice as a "mistake"---as something beyond his
>control.

So mistakes are not ever beyond the control of the child? Each is a
will full choice he could have controled had he not willfully
disobeyed the parent.

I think you have mislabeled your philosophical title. You aren't a
liberal. Classic or otherwise.

>
>Kane:
> Now substitute "pain" for "respect."
>
>Been there, done that, and I'm already looking back
>up at you from the inside.

If I am respectful of the child, mindful of his capacities and
understanding, and that he is an individual that may be different than
others, I will have no trouble teaching him to respond to my requests.
And conducting himself safely.

>
>Kane:
> And either is, for the child, what they will
> grow to seek for themselves, as it honors the
> beloved parent. They will do it until they die
> of old age. A life of self induced pain, or one
> of self respect. Your choice.
>
>Then punish disobedience swiftly and consistently.

For maximumizing a life based on pain, the escape from it (our
consumer society is a symptom) or to wallow in it, in the more bizzare
or pointless pursuits of it.

Some folks just keep picking people that beat them up. There's likely
a 90% probability they were spanked.

>And you will respect your children as human beings,
>and not as though they were particles, planets, or
>billiard balls, subject to the external forces of
>physics.

You fail to see that is exactly what you are doing, but the sophistry
of labeling punishement as respectful.

Your language is replete with references that would better suit
objects than people.
>
>Kane:
> The power that parents have awes me, still.
>
>Again, the rhetorical pose right from out of
>a pop pysch book. Oh well, why not?
>
> This Be the Verse
>
> They **** you up, your mum and dad.
> They may not mean to, but they do.
> They fill you with the faults they had.
> And add some extra, just for you.
>
> But they were ****ed up in their turn
> By fools in old-style hats and coats,
> Who half the time were soppy-stern
> And half at one another's throats.
>
> Man hands on misery to man.
> It deepens like a coastal shelf.
> Get out as early as you can.
> And don't have any kids yourself.
>
> Philip Larkin
>
>Just for you, and for that party trick, Kane.

Never read it before. It's not relevant to my experience. There does
seem to be bits of truth in it though.

>
>
>I wrote:
> Also, think about it for a moment: Whence brain
> scans "proving" that pain blocks learning?
>Kane:
> That is not what I said. I said it blocks the learning
> of the desired task.
>
>Then we'd have to see those "brain scan" studies in some
>detail, wouldn't we? I mean pain is teaches something, just not
>the desired task. I don't recall ever talking about a desired task.
>Certainly not using spanking to teach mathematics, as in
>your example.

Not to the point. You rarely are.

>Kane:
> One can still learn....it just becomes exceedingly
> difficult
>
>You sound like you can put a number on how difficult
>learning becomes.

I have a difficult time putting a measure to that assumption of
yours...that I "sound like" something. I write I don't speak to you.

And my writing doesn't indicate I can put a number to something or
not.

No more than you can split out abuse from spanking with any scientific
measure. But you WRITE as though you are perfectly sure they are
different.

You will afford me the same license you demand for yourself, or I'll
kick your butt up and down mainstreet USENET.

>And that that number supports
>your adverb "exceedingly". I mean the distraction
>studies show 99% of what is taught isn't learned in
>the presence of distraction? What do you mean by
>"exceedingly"? Cites to those studies, please...

I have pointed to them. Read them. Reproducing them wastes my time and
satisfies your desire to "exercise" me rather than debate honestly.

I'm not here to please you.

I'm here, apparently to show you for the arrogant nasty little fool
your are, and seem to be doing quite well, with a great deal of help
from you.

>
>Kane:
> and other things,
> not intended, are learned as well.
>
>Yeah, the Freudian subconscious, right?

No, just memory tracks laid down. Sometimes recoverable at the most
inopertune moments.

I recall a coworker when I was a young strong lad. ABout 22 as I
recall. We worked on a feed lot.

He was a brute of a guy, even bigger and probably stronger than me. He
had two odd habits. He raised rabbits and every now and then, out of
the blue he would have an urge, so he would go out and wring one or
two necks. Not for eating. He'd hold them for a long time feeling the
life drain away. Then he'd toss them aside. He like to tell me about
it and he would linger on the life draining away part.

I'd just snort at him and tell him to get back to his end of the
board. Which brings me to the other odd thing about him.

Nice looking chap. Big and strong as I said but give him a job to do
that required one to share a load and use his strength and right in
the middle, often at most dangerous point in hoisting or carrying,
he'd start to tremble (never did carrying alone) and abruptly he would
lose hold.

If you were on the other end and didn't catch it that he was about to
cave it could nail you. He took me down that way one day. We had a
whole section of a feed silo segement Have, tapered, awkward. I took
the wider heavy end not trusting him to not crush me as we went up a
scaffolding.

Damn if half way up just as I looked to get better footing, he let go.
Caught me off balance, my end went, took a huge chunk off my inner
calf. Laid me up for almost a week.

Spanked as a kid he was. Very obedient to his father. Still lived in
the same house with him, wife, kids and all. "Discipline" gone awry.

>What if those things are in fact intended.
>And just what things did you mean, anyway.
>
>See, the issue here is those pop psych books
>you've been reading say my way is the
>fascist, but I think *their* way is the real
>fascism.

I don't recall any such claims in the texts I've studied, or lecturs
I've attended. I think you are a facsist but hey, I have some bigotry
in my. Mind now, it could pop out at any second. I think it's
activated when I think of a full grown man hitting a little child and
conning his cowardly self, and those around him that it's just loving
responsible "discipline" to keep the child safe. Must obey, must obey.

You're just another common control freak. You happend to have an
education but you're not a whit different then Jeff Foxworthy's
neighbors that are a gonna whop some sense into that boy. He'll learn
to sass me....

>
>Kane:
> How good are your math skills?
>
>Oh, fair to middlin', I suppose.

Well.

>
>Kane:
> Or writing.
>
>Some would say pretty poor.

So.

>
>Kane:
> What subjects were hard for you in
> school? Were they taught by your favorite
> teacher? Did you parent "assist" in
> your learning with punishments involved
> with your attempts to learn?
> Did you feel stupid when they "helped" you?
>
>What utter nonsense you speak. My mother taught me to
>read on her lap ay age three or four using some stupid
>phonics books bought from the grocery store.

Mine did it with me with James Fenimore Cooper, Doctor Doolittle, and
other childrens classics. Same age. I haunted the school library from
the time I entered first grade. I still have too many books.

>By the time
>I reached kindergarten, the teacher could hand me a storybook
>and have me read aloud to keep the entire class entertained.
>I was a straight A student in everything but gym. No punishment
>was involved in my mother teaching me to read. Why do you keep
>imagining punishment used as pedagogy, like some nightmare
>vision out of a Dickens novel?

Because it transfers to the "obeymeorelse" scenario quite nicely.

>The whole punishment-to-teach-subjects
>thing seems to be your own personal bugbear, brought into
>this argument for no relevance or reason I can think.

You are unable to transfer from one premise to another? How do you
earn money at your profession,

You still can't get that the methods used to teach subjects can teach
a child safety and compliance MORE surely than hitting them?

>I was
>spanked for doing what I had been not to do. Hand in the cookie
>jar, running in the house, hitting my kid brother, breaking
>his toys, that sort of thing.

Ah, now I get it. Always the pain for something they wanted you to
stop doing. Of course I'm teasing as I've known that all along and
even addressed it. I'll bet you slide right by. It's not a pleasant
place in memory.

So after being spanked you did not take a cookie unbidden, or some
other goodie, did not run in the house when your parents weren't
there, didn't hit your brother out of their knowledge, and never broke
another of his toys.

If not what did you do instead? You see you learned form, not context.

Laws based on form alone are the ban of mankind. Laws based on context
are life savers and savers of resources.

Those that dictate things like drug use and sexual behaviors and
costing us a lot. And they have failed utterly.

Law about traffic though, are notorious for success in lowering
deaths. Coupled with good traffic flow basedengineering and we have a
winnner. All context laws, traffic laws. The only ones that fail are
the ones that can't pass the context test. Either because there isn't
any or because we can't varify them.......yet.

>
>Kane:
> One of the toughest teachers I had was extremely
> respectful, but still, insisted quietly and respectfully,
> that one applied themselves. I had flunked algebra twice
> until him. Both prior teachers were insulting martinets.
>
> I aced his class. And he graded hard, very. I learned
> about learning from him. I picked my teachers with care
> in college. Aced it too, all of it. And I was barely a
> C student in highschool. Lousy teachers until the algebra
> teacher.
>
>I'm glad you learned to get proactive in your search for good
>teachers. Wonderful. What does this have to do with anything
>before us?

That not doing a behavior can be taught by teaching the child an
alternative. It's very hard to teach the alternative is the kids butt
is smarting.

You have immediatly stopped the unwanted behavior but not taught the
desired behavior, and not doing something in this context is not a
behavior.

It's a walk don't run kinda thing, not a don't run kind of thing.

We used to have fun at the pool with signs that said Do Not Run in the
Pool Area. We'd skip very fast under the disgusted lifeguard on his or
her tower, screaming, "we are skipping we are skipping".

See what the invitation to follow an out of context command to not do
something results in? And that silly prank is very much what goes on
in larger context in the adult world.

"I didn't steal it. I borrowed it."

"I was was going to replace it after the race and I won....only I
lost."

"She was wearing provocative clothing and asking for it."


My responses instead of "don't break the law:"

Work for your own car.

Use your own money for your gambling.

Use your damned hand or get a girl willing girl friend or pay for it.

But I know whenever I try to commond someone to not do something I'm
going, more especially if they were pain parented, to get one of those
resistent, "I'm hearing 'do it.'" responses.

>
>I said:
> I mean, I've read Milgram's summary of his
> psychological experiments in _Obedience to Authority_.
> Those experiments *simulated* pain in a "victim" in
> order to observe a subject's reaction to it.
>Kane:
> That is something of a departure from my position...
>
>No, the issue is you can't set up an experiment nowadays
>which would test your learn-calculus-with-a-paddle,
>since it wouldn't pass ethical guidelines. The Milgram
>experiment had the "learner" undergoing electroshock
>for missed answers to a "rote learning" memorization
>test. The learner was a paid actor, who screamed and
>pleaded with the "teacher" to stop the lesson. The real
>subject of the experiment was the "teacher" and to see
>how far the teacher would go in administering what he
>believed were electric shocks to the "learner". The
>famous/infamous findings of this experiment were that most
>people would go all the way to killing the learner in
>obedience to the authority of a fellow in a white lab
>coat who was only allowed to say "The experiment must go on."

A pointless aside. I am more than casually aware of the experiments
before and after ethical standards and the various work arounds.

>
>I.e., that people are very happy to yield up their
>sense of ethical responsibility to anyone in a
>position of authority---to anyone who can defraud them
>into believing he can relieve them of their ethical
>responsibility for what they do.

Actually they are not. There is a small handfull of people that do not
welcome such to others. I've been tested in extreme circumstances, and
refuse the easy way out, more than once.

It's no fun, and no fame either, but I have strong ethical standards
It would take threats to the safety of my loved ones to cause me to
choose to break.

>The amazingly small
>number of people who resisted either were very well
>educated to the point where they felt *themselves* to have
>more authority than the guy in the white lab coat, or
>the very religious (i.e. who felt themselves to be under
>a much higher authority than the guy in the white lab
>coat).

Because the religious outnumber the athiest so much it is easy to come
up with this supposition. How many athiests were so tested?

>The point is, in aftermath, Milgram himself was
>roundly criticized for subjecting his subjects to
>emotional stress in their administering of what they
>thought were electric shocks. So, we aren't talking about
>administering direct pain here, we are talking about even
>emotional stress for the sake of the experiment. Every
>subject had volunteered to do it.

Yes. You don't have to drone on. I was around for that one.

>
>Kane:
> but let's see if it is worthy of the frightened
> child that forced that to the surface of your
> consciousness to avoid my point.
>
>Would you please cut this kind of amateur
>pop-psych diagnostic stuff out?

No. I like your responses too much. I'm weak that way.

>I've already long since dealt with your point,
>and we are well beyond it. The issue is what science
>there might be out there which can tell us outlawing
>spanking is a good thing. So far, all that has been
>offered by you is uncited "brain scan studies" which
>you say show that distraction inhibits learning. But,
>so what? That's utterly irrelevant to the question of
>the efficacy or wrongness of spanking, though you tried
>to claim otherwise. So, the question becomes: What
>scientific studies could there be which might address
>the real question we want to know? Real studies which
>show spanking is bad.

All you have really done is spout and pontificate and allude. You've
not come up with even those things to support your position you demand
I come up with.

You are a pompous windbag.

>(By the way, there was a big
>study that hit all the newspapers some while ago---
>maybe Straus, M. A., Sugarman, D. B., & Giles-Sims, J.
>(1997). Spanking by parents and subsequent antisocial behavior
>of children. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine,
>151, 761-767
> <http://www.unh.edu/frl/cp24.htm>
>---which did try to claim something along these
>lines. But also see critiques of this paper and of
>its methodology at:
> <http://people.biola.edu/faculty/paulp/>
>
>Note these three points of criticism therein:
> A Comparison of Two Recent Reviews of Scientific Studies
> of Physical Punishment by Parents by Larzelere, June 2002.
> In a more comprehensive review of Gershoff's article, Larzelere
> shows that "child outcomes associated with ordinary physical
> punishment are also associated with alternative disciplinary
> tactics when similar research methods are used. Detrimental
> child outcomes are associated with the frequency of any
> disciplinary tactic, not just physical punishment. Therefore,
> it is the excessive misbehavior that is the actual cause of
> detrimental outcomes in children."
>
> "Not one of the 17 causally relevant studies found
> predominantly detrimental outcomes if they did anything
> to rule out parents who used physical punishment too
> severely." p. 209 This is Larzelere's conclusion in a
> recent review of outcomes associated with nonabusive
> physical punishment in Child Outcomes of Nonabusive and
> Customary Physical Punishment by Parents: An Updated
> Literature Review in Clinical Child and Family
> Psychology Review 2000, 3(4):199-221 (the December
> 2000 issue).
>
> Larzelere/Straus Debate (June, 1999) A summary of
> Dr. Larzelere's presentation in a debate with Straus
> about spanking. In this summary, Larzelere reports
> that the small detrimental child outcomes reported by
> Straus, Sugarman & Giles-Sims (1997) for 6- to 9-year-olds
> is not unique to spanking. A further analysis of the
> Straus, et al. data revealed that identical small
> detrimental child outcomes were also found for all four
> alternative disciplinary responses for 6- to 9-year-olds
> (grounding, sending the child to a room, removing
> privileges, and taking away an allowance). The debate
> was held at a conference of the National Foundation
> for Family Research and Education at Banff in Alberta,
> Canada.

Every alternative was a punishment. You've moved outside my claims and
premise.

>
>Notice the second point of criticism would suggest a completely
>objective measurement by which one would distinguish between
>corporal punishment and the violent abuse of children.)

Noticed that non of these studies separated out non punitive
parenting. In any where non cp and cp were used it is admitted or not
denied that other punitive parenting was used to replace cp.

The studies have very little meaning to me. I've picked them apart
since they came out. They are as useful as toilet paper. I never use
them to try and argue against pain parenting be cause the alternatives
are always pain based, just not physical pain.

>
>I said:
> And that kind of experimental procedure has long since
> been declared unethical.
>Kane:
> Okay. Let's see where this goes.
>
>OK.
>
>I said:
> So, I'd say it's pretty obvious that no
> one in recent history has run experiments
> subjecting people to pain
>Kane:
> Wrong. It's common still. All it takes is consent of
> the subject. Go to your nearest college or university
> psych department and ask. Or try neurological
> departments of medical schools.
>
>Maybe I'm wrong. I don't think so, given the Milgram
>study, and given the banning of studies like that.
>But, my psych colleagues are a little ways down the
>hall from my office at Butler University, so I guess
>I can go ask one of them and report back about the ethical
>restrictions on psych experimental design.

I'll wait.

>
>Kane:
> Besides, the question isn't "pain" alone. It's any
> distraction up to and including pain.
>
>True, but insofar as distractions which were not painful
>were tested and ones which were painful were not tested,
>the experiment you spoke of doesn't say anything about learning
>inhibition from spanking. As I said, you'd have to extrapolate
>(you'd have to assume that what was true of learning inhibition
>about a non-painful distraction would then also be true of a
>painful one, and, surely, that would be a matter of evolutionary
>biological contention, which should be tested directly before
>any claim were made about it).

Either you haven't read yet the studies I cited, or you didn't
understand, or I failed to make the point.

In brain scan studies on pain it was shown that reduction of pain
increased the capacity for learning. Nothing mysterious. It as
certainly expected because pain is one of the most common of
experiences on the planet. Very few people suffer from an inability to
feel physical pain, though there are few and experiments with them
have produced interesting results.

It used to be in a text book but that is many years ago.

When I've rested maybe I'll look for it.

In a nutshell, two sets of boys from similar families that used
spanking as a discipline tool.

One of the sets were normal, the other had an genetically originated
incapacity to feel physical pain. Burning, breaking bones, cutting
tearing, nothing go to their brain that we would call pain. They
sensed touch just fine, but all "touch" no matter painful to use would
just be simple touch to them.

These kids had to be trained to stop showing off their their friends
that they could hammer their fingers and toes into powder without any
reaction.

Guess where this is going?

In tracking compliance with the use of spanking discipline, when used,
and remember both used it (and isn't it weird the pain free boy's
parents used it...I liken it to your senseless use of it) the end
result was they could find no statistical differencne in compliance
and non compliance between the groups.

The boys that felt no pain complied as often, and I think it was near
100%, as the other boys.

Conclusion...? Well you'll I'll speculate even if you go off into
another of you disengenuous claims of pop psych, and say that a
variable hadn't been considered.

And my best guess is the love and trust and need for the approval of
their parents, and spanking does seem to express some disapproval.

So tell me, what's our best guess, and innate need to follow
"commmands" for their own sake?

>
>I said:
> in order to test whether or not people (and certainly not kids)
> can learn under the influence of pain.
>Kane:
> And I was working, as I pointed out clearly,
> backward from pain to any distraction.
>
>Which, as I trust you understand scientifically, you can't do.
>It is an assumption, an extrapolation, which is precisely in
>contention.

I don't ****ing' care. For practicial purposes of deciding whether I
believe spanking is superior to my methods, it sufficient to influence
me to eschew spanking.

>
>Kane:
> Any distraction changes learning from more
> easily done to more difficultly done and
> has unwanted side effects, such as the learning
> of things that might even interfer with performance
> of the desired skill.
>
>Well, I doubt that any scientific study is available
>which could bolster such a sweeping claim, but,
>I think in the case of a child reaching out to touch a
>pretty red burner on a stove, a spank to the hand
>(assuming the child has been previously instructed
>not to touch the stovetop) definitely interferes with
>the child's thought processes and curiosity,
>let's say with what the pretty red object might feel
>like, and focuses the child's attention on something
>entirely different---namely that the child should have
>been nixing that particular line of investigation
>because of the parental command not to put thy hand
>on the stovetop.

What's up with not putting up a barrier?

>
>Kane:
> Dr. Thomas Gordon, when a young man, was a military
> flight instructor. He observed that a lot of young
> student pilots were flying their aircraft into the
> ground and dying. He noted also that the instructor's,
> an a misguided by sincere attempt to save lives, were
> screaming at the students more and more and calling them
> more names and insults.
>
> Gordon turned that around and developed a supportive approach.
> His students lived. The others continued to die.
>
> Later he counseled parents and eventually wrote a book that is a
> standard for supportive parenting...that is supportive of the
> child learning, not being tortured.
>
>Would _Parent Effectiveness Training_ be the source of
>your "brain scan" studies?

Not that I remember. That as too long ago. I don't think they were
underway. Have you read any I googled up for you?

>Would that be your cite? And
>do you figure spanking occurs in a parental panic of
>screaming at the kid?

Sometimes. Do you figure it doesn't?

>I figure if a parent is screaming
>at the kid, he is out of control himself

I can scream at the top of my lungs and be perfectly in control. I
used it in marial arts many times.

>and probably
>should have spanked much, much earlier rather than letting
>the disobedience get to the point of emotional stress
>and panic at near-disaster.

You are mushing the factor all around. Nice ploy. But you haven't
dealt with it being a first time offense. No "earlier" to spank to.

>
>I said:
> So, any "brain scan" claims
> there could be would have to be just wild
> extrapolation,
>Kane:
> Nice try.
>
>No, in fact wild extrapolation is quite likely the
>case here.

Still haven't gone and read them. They are studies on the relieving of
chronic pain.

>Maybe there were some distraction
>studies. That seems likely. And it seems plausible
>something or the other was in measured in them that
>could be interpreted as distraction-inhibits-learning.

Do you really believe, science aside, that pain delevered on a child
by their parent to stop a behavior teaches anything? It's simple
Pavlovian conditioning. Nothing more, except some things that are
better not taught. That might makes right, that bigger can hit
smaller, that pain might even get be sought after as an approval
vehicle...etc.

>Probably there was not anything remotely like the
>learn-calculus-under-the-paddle experment, however.
>So, any claim about the latter is quite likely
>a wild extrapolation from the former.

Wild extraplolation has sometimes serendipodous outcomes.

>
>Kane:
> No cigar. As I said. Consent allows for the use of
> distraction up to and including pain.
>
>Then I don't understand why Milgram's experiments
>would be now forbidden. They certainly didn't cause any
>physical pain to anybody, and all the subjects consented.

Who knows where the politically correct may wander.

>
>Kane:
> But distraction alone is sufficient to support my
> position.
>
>Or the counterexample I gave of learning by means of
>pain is enough to show that not all distractions inhibit
>all learnings.

Did I say that? Naughty me, or careless me. I'll retract it if you can
locate it for me, or if I run across it.

>There's huge range of what might
>constitute learning and one is tempted to recall
>"That which does not destroy me, makes me stronger."

Which works if you are Conan the Barbarian. There is a limit.
Children's break point is lower than adults and variable and very hard
to track and respond to until too late. Some child deaths are probably
attributable to that.

Certainly the shocking number of highschool sports, mostly football,
deaths is an example.

>I've learned to bench press 200 lbs over the last

>two years of effort working out.

Pussy. I bench pressed that at 19, still a spindly lad of 210.

I hit 378 in my 24th year. That topped me out. Yes, I know about
consentual pain. It's why I don't hold with hitting children. They
cannot consent.

>I've had to go through
>some pain to get there. Etc..

Yes, I remember. I'm too old for that any more, I have to contend with
getting my workouts by cutting down 2 foot diameter trees, sectioning
them up and throwing the rounds in the truck and splitting them
through the fall and winter. Ever see a man split two foot oak rounds,
14 to 16 inches long one handed with a six pound maul?

I got my left shoulder messed up in a wreck...drunk asshole on a cell
phone just drove into my wife's Volvo like we weren't even there.
Never touched his brakes. I was driving alone fortunately. My wife is
nowhere near as stout as I am.

>
>Kane:
> Unless you would care to label pain as not being a
> distraction.
>
>I would certainly think that a "brain scan" sudy of
>the effect of non-painful distraction on academic-style
>learning would have zero to say about whether spanking
>can be used to teach children anything to the good.

I don't recall mentioning a non-painful distraction study. Are we once
again going to treated to "I get to bring up anything I want in the
arguement but you are constrained thus and so"?

Figgers.

>I
>would be embarassed in fact intellectually for even
>bringing up such brain-scan studies in this context if
>that were all they had to say. "Let's outlaw behaviour X
>because we have some studies which indicate behaviour Y
>has weak correlation with outcome Z, which outcome Z
>happens all the time and sometimes might not
>be desired, and because in some twists of language
>behaviour X is a subset of behaviours Y and besides,
>I think X is real icky." I mean, if those studies
>really show enough to outlaw spanking, why don't
>they also show enough to outlaw distraction?
>
>I said:
> making all kinds of assumptions about what
> causes what and what activity here or there
> in the brain might mean in terms of learning
> or not learning something.
>Kane:
> Well, that usually IS the point of experimenting.
>
>cf. Richard Feynman, "Cargo-Cult Science".

No connection whatsoever to the spanking or brain scan studies. Those
were simply observations of the responses to ignorance and
motivational power of wanting "cargo."

Comparisons to discredit to various studies unrelated to goods and
aquisition are pointless unless that is what one is studying.

The native methodology was not experimental. They were trying to find
out if their behavior would produce "cargo" they simply
superstitiously ( to use ) acted out on the belief in similies.

Hey, what if a plane had lost power and had to land there in their
clearing?

>
>Kane:
> Just as children do it. They are trying, no matter
> what you think they are doing, to find out about the
> world and how it works. They are, by our adult view,
> terribly ignorant and clumsy, even doing things we've
> come to label as "bad," or "evil," "perverse," and
> even "sinful" but to them, in their ignorance and
> nature driven compulsion to learn, those actions are not
> labeled as yet.
>
>Then it is for us to keep them from doing evil things
>until they have been able to learn that those things
>are, in point of fact and not label, evil.

Evil here maybe good over there. Shooting someone here is evil,
shooting someone trying to kills us is good.

Labeling shooting as evil is pointless to a child.

One can wait until they are able to understand an action or inaction
in context. It's not dangerous though you seem to be paniced about it.

>
>I said:
> Again, all one has to do is talk to an older
> teacher who remembers the days in public school
> when he had a wooden paddle and the authority
> to use it if students misbehaved. Guess what?
> Those were days when the shooting at Columbine,
> not to mention metal detectors at the
> entrances to schools, and armed policemen to
> patrol the halls, were unthinkable.
>Kane:
> My very favorite. I've seen this come up
> so many times on the talk.politics.guns website
> I grow weary of it.
>
>Right.
>
>Kane:
> You do know that children that were spanked
> were the ones doing the shooting, did you not?
> Check out all the school shootings in recent years.
> These weren't "unspanked" children.
>
>You said 90% are spanked. I've seen claims going from
>99% in the 1950's down to 50% in the 1990's. But, given
>your number, the lack of correlation between spanking and
>going postal that that observation immediately
>demonstrates (i.e. millions of spanked children do not
>go shoot up their classmates, so the effect
>of a kid going postal is on the order of few out of millions---
>it is easy to do the calculation and to be more precise,
>but there is no need here, since the idea is simple:
>same cause leading to different effect means there are
>other causes), I would assume they probably were spanked. So,
>all that means that spanking alone isn't enough. Then again,
>I never said it was enough. The rules you lay down for your kids
>also have to be good rules---not ones that "we label as good"
>but actual rules that coincide with goodness as the
>universe dictates goodness to us.

There you go again off on your tangent. And how many unspanked
children were shooting up schools....eh?

Your claim the we none punishers have undiciplined acting out children
fails on lack of proof. The same kind you just offered.

Only thing is I don't believe you can find even ONE unspanked child
that shot up a school. If you can, be my guest.
>
>Kane:
> Do you know how far back kids were walking
> into classrooms and shooting people? Try the 30's.
>
>Show me the cites to this.
>
>I was aware of newspapers and schools since
>the 60's and unless the media were just covering up
>school shootings back then, they didn't happen anything
>like the way they have happened in the last 10 years.

Ghetto schools have had unreported by the press shootings for decades.
Locale equated with: whitey don't care and don't wanna know, until
white kids started.

Teachers on ghetto schools, where the paddle was king, were routinely
beaten by students, and sometimes by students parents. There is no
lack of violence around paddle happy school houses.

They just create a highly productive violent mileiu.

And you can pretty well count on kids in the ghetto and country
schoools being well "disciplined" in your sense of pain punished.

And what they lacked in firepower they easily made up with blades,
chains, and car antennas, boards with nails and socks full of rocks.

Have a gander, turkey:

http://tinyurl.com/qpr1

Dates clear back to the late 1927's...don't you just love those
traditions though? e e e e e

You of course will go on a hair splitting binge. While a gun was used
to detonate dynamite it was a "shooting" rampage so doesn't qualifty
with you anal retentive perspectives, and the person doing the
shooting surely wouldn't have been disciplined by the school with
paddling (that late in his life but I'll betcha he grew up being
paddled in such places or in fear of it).

He was just a school board member.

And here's a google on "school shooting" paddling.

http://tinyurl.com/qpss

Very sad stuff about how pain parenting can work.

But you of course know how to do it effectively. You won't ever make a
mistake...yah sure, you betcha.
>
>Kane:
> The shooting at Columbine was not caused by the
> failure to spank.
>
>Yeah, it probably was. The discipline once upon a
>time in schools (and reinforced in the homes) meant
>that kids did not act up in the ways they do now.

Check the URL above.

>Heck, I remember a time back in the 1970's in junior
>high school when the Principal interrupted class and
>lectured the whole school for an hour over the intercom
>about "behaviour your parents wouldn't approve of", and
>how the offending students needed to turn themselves
>voluntarily in. He was so vague about just what had
>happened, I hadn't a clue what it was all about until
>the grapevine got to me afterwards. Turns out, someone
>had written "****" in the snow outside the school.
>Compare that disciplinary line with the one today found
>at Northwest High School in Indianapolis---mother gets
>call at work to come to the hospital because her son
>happened to be wearing glasses in the hallway when
>some drug-pusher type came wandering through wanting
>to smash some resistance-less victim's head
>repeatedly against the floor. Same town, same school
>system, historically different standards of discipline.

And that does not prove in any way that pain parenting was a proven
reducer of violence in those days. Only in the schools possibly, but
even there you are wrong wrong wrong.

Male and female teachers alike in those charming old traditional warm
and cozy one room school houses were beaten bloody by the big boys and
sent running.

The kids got beaten when they got home, as usual, but thought it funny
still.

You are a victim of myth.

>Kane:
> It was caused by the failure to
> inculcate a conscience.
>
>And you figure gentle cajoling when Junior hits his
>sister is the way to do that?
>
>Kane:
> That is the product of pain based parenting,
>
>Nope. What it is the product of is psychological
>beliefs like you have been touting. The widespread
>infection of Freud in this society, the widespread
>idea that we are trapped by society, by our own
>subconscious, by our genes and by victimizations of
>ourselves as children beyond our control or our choice.
>The basic problem is CS Lewis's The Abolition of Man,
>the conception of man as incapable of ethical
>choice and not responsible for what he does.
>
>Kane:
> whether it is physically based, or psychologically
> based. My take on the boys that did the shooting
> was more of the psychologically based, but I doubt
> anyone is going to get out of the families of the
> boys how they were parented. I've certainly seen
> more than enough mental illness in teens whose
> histories I did have access to to tell you that
> pain based parenting...even when done with cold
> precision....results in less conscience and morals,
> not more.
>
>Then consider this pivotal moment from Peter Shaffer's _Equus_:
> Dysart: Sit down, Mrs Strang.
> Dora [ignoring him: more and more urgently]: Look, Doctor: you
> don't have to live with this. Alan is one patient to
> you: one out of many. He's my son. I lie awake every
> night thinking about it. Frank lies there beside me.
> I can here him. Neither of us sleeps all night. You come
> to us and say, who forbids television? who does what
> behind whose back?---as if we're criminals. Let me tell
> you something. We're not criminals. We've done nothing
> wrong. We loved Alan. We gave him the best love we
> could. All right, we quarrel sometimes---all
> parents quarrel---we always make it up. My husband
> is a good man. He's an upright man, religion or
> no religion. He cares for his home, for the world,
> and for his boy. Alan had love and care and treats,
> and as much fun as any boy in the world. I know
> about loveless homes: I was a teacher.
> Our home wasn't loveless. I know about privacy too---
> not invading a child's privacy. All right, Frank may be
> at fault there---he digs into him too much---but nothing
> in excess. He's not a bully...[Gravely.] No, doctor.
> Whatever's happened has happened *because of Alan*.
> Alan is himself. Every soul is itself. If you added
> up everything we ever did to him, from his first day on
> earth to this, you wouldn't find why he did this
> terrible thing---because that's *him*; not just all
> of our things added up. Do you understand what
> I'm saying? I want you to understand, because I
> lie awake thinking it out, and I want you to know
> that I deny it absolutely what he's
> doing now, staring at me, attacking me for what *he's*
> done, for what *he* is! [Pause: calmer.] You've got your
> words, and I've got mine. You call it a complex, I
> suppose. But if you knew God, Doctor, you would
> know about the Devil. You'd know the Devil isn't
> made by what mummy says and daddy
> says. The Devil's *there*. It's an old-fashioned word,
> but a true thing...I'll go. What I did in there was
> inexcusable. I only know he was my little Alan and
> then the Devil came.
> [She leaves...]
>
>Kane:
> You are spouting like a Scientologist.
>
>Uh-huh.
>
>[snipped]
>
>Kane:
> The lack of the paddle hasn't increased the school shootings.
> In fact school shootings are down, and have been for years.
>
>Umm, please back that one up with a cite. I don't believe you.
>
>Kane:
> Even the year of the Columbine
> shootings school was still the safest
> place for children.
>
>An entirely unexceptionable statement,

Oh blow your arrogant head out your ass.

>given that
>most kids were in school.

More kids were killed by their parents than were killed in school by
anyone.

>Obviously
>Columbine was a small event, effecting only a very
>fraction of the total population of kids in school.

No, the rate for violence against students in schools were down lower
than in previous years. And shootings were at a low against previous
years.

>
>Kane:
> And I say that with my teeth gritted as I am a
> dedicated homeschooling champion.
>
> Except for the wonder of incongruence, California,
> it is consistently the states WITH school house
> paddling that has the most child perps of shootings.
> I'm damned if can explain California, but then who
> can? <smile>
>
> You don't have your facts Mike. You come up with
> speculations you haven't researched adequately to
> use them as support for the position you have
> staked out. Keep trying.
>
>Well, so far my speculations are looking pretty good to me
>in the absence of any supporting data for your position.

Then you haven't been going where I sent you, and I notice I'm not
seeing any sign of a study on the cutoff point between spanking and
abuse, and I'm not seeing a definative piece on just what spanking is
as opposed to abuse.

>
>Kane:
> It's been fun Mike.
>
> And no, I'm not a troll. If you haven't figured
> that out by now, well, tough ****.
>
>I don't believe I ever called you a troll, Kane.

Why thanks.


>
>(end part 2 of 2)
>
> Mike Morris
> )


Kane

[Bruce D. Ray]

In article >, LaVonne Carlson >
wrote:

> Ray Drouillard wrote:
>
> >
> > Kids who are raised without proper discipline end up being rotten
> > adults. One must only look around to see examples.
>
> Yes, children both need and deserve proper discipline. What they do not
> need is physical assault in the name of discipline.
>
> > Of course, the real answer can be found in the "user's manual" that our
> > maker gave to us:
> >
> > Pro 13:24 One who spares the rod hates his son, But one who loves him is
> > careful to discipline him.
> >
> > Pro 22:15 Folly is bound up in the heart of a child: The rod of
> > discipline drives it far from him.
>
> And Deuteronomy recommends stoning children to death for rebellious
> behavior. Do you recommend killing children who do not obey, or do you
> prefer selective Biblical interpretation and application? By the way,
> nothing in the NT suggests that Jesus would recommend hitting and hurting a
> little child with rods or anything else.

The words used in Dt. 21:18-20 appear to be terms that refer
to adults and not to minors. Furthermore, the more specific
accusations in that passage are accusations of conduct which
{particularly in the context of tribal village life in the
eastern Mediterranean basin regardless of nationality} would
seem to require that one be an adult.

In the Hebrew of this passage, the word used for stubborn is
*not* a particularly commonly used word in Scripture. I am
only able to find it used three other times in the entire Old
Testament. The root transliterates as _carar_ and means to be
refractory, to turn away, to be in open revolt. In Ps. 78:8,
it refers to the stubbornness of the generation that originally
heard God's Law given at Sinai {and one must remember that God
condemned that generation from age 20 up less than a year later
at Kadesh [Num. 14:26-30]}. Furthermore, the subsequent verse,
Ps. 78:9 begins a military description, suggesting in context
that _carar_ is a term applicable to those of age for military
service so that those termed _carar_ would typically be over
age 18. In Prov. 7:11, _carar_ is used to describe the married
{Prov. 7:19, 20} prostitute {of necessity, this is an adult}.
This word, _carar_, doesn't appear to be applied to other than
adults. To be _carar_, one must be adult enough to engage in
prostitution or in military service. {N.B., The word sometimes
translated "stubborn" in 1 Sam. 15:23 is _petsar_ which means
to peck at, to stun, to dull and is not related to _carar_.}

In Hebrew, different words are used for rebellious in
different places. Here, the root of the Hebrew word for
rebellious transliterates as _marah_. It comes from a
primitive root meaning bitter and means to make bitter, to
contend or fight with. In addition to this passage, _marah_
is only used in Num. 20:10, 24; 27:14; Dt. 1:26, 43; 9:7,
23, 24; 31:27; Josh. 1:18; 1 Sam. 12:14, 15; Ps. 5:10; 78:8;
105:28; 107:11; Is. 1:20; 50:5; 63:10; Jer. 4:17; 5:23;
Lam. 1:18, 20; 3:42; Ezk. 20:8, 13, 21; and Hos. 13:16.
A derivative of _marah_, _meriy_, is used in Samuel's rebuke
of the adult Saul {1 Sam. 15:23} for the rebellion that is
like witchcraft. In Num 20:24, _marah_ is applied to the
aged Aaron just as it was applied to the complaining adults
in Num. 20:10. Likewise, _marah_ is applied to the aged
Moses in Num. 27:14. In Dt. 1:26 and 9:23, _marah_ is cited
as the sin of the people who refused to take the land after
the spies report at Kadesh. In Dt. 1:46, _marah_ is the sin
of these same people when they formed up military ranks in
a vain attack on the land they had just rejected {all of these
so termed must be of military age since they are so described
as they are formed into ranks for military service}. The
accusations of _marah_ in Dt. 9:7 and 24 bracket a summation
of actions of the Israelite adults during the Exodous. In
Josh. 1:18, _marah_ is used in a military context by the
troops from Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh. In
1 Sam. 12:14, 15, _marah_ is used in Samuel's farewell speech
given to "all Israel" which in this context must be the army
Saul had gathered to defeat the Ammonites threatening Jabesh
who went to Gilgal after the victory. Thus, _marah_ is used
in passages contemporaneous to this one {up to >400 years
afterward} with reference to adults. Furthermore, the other
references listed above simply do not give any contextual
indication of any other age than adults.

Glutton, in this passage is not the usual word for overindulgence
in food, but is _zalal_ which means to shake, to blow down, to
be riotous and vile, to be morally loose and prodigal. This
same word is used in Prov. 23:21. At the very least, it
indicates habitual participation in classic 12 squad car, paddy
wagon, and a SWAT team to quell type partying. The specific
accusation here is of riot, an adult action, not mere over
eating.

Finally, drunkard in this passage is not any of the usual 6
Hebrew words for drunkard, but is the unusual word _cobe_
which means carousal and is supposedly derived from _caba_
meaning to quaff to satiety {figuratively, of violence}.

Thus word study indicates that the charges are of violent and
riotous conduct by an adult. Therefore, based on study of the
words *actually* used in the passage, I am forced to the conclusion
that the person accused in Dt. 21:18-21 is accused of riotous
conduct in the company of others {i.e., carousing}, open revolt,
and violence, and that the person is an adult albeit the child
of the adults bringing the accusation.

In view of this, it would appear that there is an interpretation
of Dt. 21:18-20 that does not support your claim about Deuteronomy.

[Michael S. Morris]

Monday, the 13th of October, 2003

Kane, any response from me will have to wait
something like two weeks. I have every night of
this week through Saturday taken up with choral
rehearsals or performances. And then my daughter
has a Pony Club rating on Sunday.

I am impressed with the quickness of your response
to mine. I am also pleased in my sense that you have
more or less abandoned trying to reduce my arguments
to psychologization. Of course, that tactic has been
replaced by more insult and bluster, but I do consider
it progress, in any event.

Mike Morris
)

[LaVonne Carlson]

Ray Drouillard wrote:

> > > "LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> >
> >
> > What you have done is pick and choose portions of the Old Testament to
> > justify your behavior, and ignore those portions that you do not like
> or
> > agree with.
>
> Actually, it looks like that is what you have done. You are trying to
> justify your practice of not disciplining your children,

I disciplined my children without resorting to hitting them.
Unfortunately, it appears that you have few other resources available, thus
you need to attempt to Biblically justify your behavior. So many
individuals who post to alt.parenting.spanking seem to believe that without
spanking there is no discipline. It's sad

> Proverbs 19:18 Discipline your son, for there is hope; Don't be a
> willing party to his death.

Discipline doesn't equal hitting. can apply either to city limits or citiy
government

> Still, that law is for a specific people at a specific time.

As was stoning children, as was killing women who were not virgins, as was
death for all adulters. This is old Testament Law.

> > So why did Jesus so openly defy the Old Testament?
>
> He is God. He can do what he considers to be best.

Exactly. And Jesus gave a new set of guidelines to live under, and that is
what is called the New Testament. He did what he considered best. And
since he is "God" I prefer to live by his example.

Watch the remainder of this post, and look for examples of Jesus'
recommendations and behavior.

LaVonne

>
>
> > I see nothing in His
> > words that recommend hitting children with rods as a parenting
> strategy.
>
> Correct. Unlike the laws for divorce, he did not change the counsel
> regarding child rearing.
>
> > In fact, he recommends a millstone around the neck and being cast into
> the
> > depths of the sea for anyone who offends a child.
>
> Right. And raising a child without discipline is pretty offensive.
>
> > And when his disciplines
> > want to stone a woman for wanton behavior )as the OT recommends), he
> stops
> > them, forgives the woman, and tells her to "go and sin no more."
>
> Right again. What does stoning have to do with spanking?
>
> >
> > I think Jesus had a bit more understanding of the Bible than you do,
> and a
> > lot more respect for little children.
>
> Of course he is understanding. I'm certain that he understands that
> disciplining children is crucial to their development.
>
> Ray Drouillard

[Fern5827]

Mike wrote:

>Of course, that tactic has been
>replaced by more insult and bluster, but I do consider
>it progress, in any event.

Kane is known for his "insults and bluster" on ascps.

Gosh, can you imagine his verbalizations to a child?

I think I'd take his spankings, were I a child. He's an emotional abuser.


Mike sent in fwd from another NG:

>Subject: Re: |Re: U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
>From: (Michael S. Morris)
>Date: 10/13/2003 2:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Monday, the 13th of October, 2003
>
>Kane, any response from me will have to wait
>something like two weeks. I have every night of
>this week through Saturday taken up with choral
>rehearsals or performances. And then my daughter
>has a Pony Club rating on Sunday.
>
>I am impressed with the quickness of your response
>to mine. I am also pleased in my sense that you have
>more or less abandoned trying to reduce my arguments
>to psychologization. Of course, that tactic has been
>replaced by more insult and bluster, but I do consider
>it progress, in any event.
>
> Mike Morris
> )
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Ray Drouillard]

You are mistaken.

I have lots of tools. Spanking is just one of them. It is prescribed
by the Bible.

I don't use the Bible to 'justify' my actions. I use the Bible as a
source of wisdom and instruction.

I often discipline my children without spanking them. I don't limit
myself to a subset of the tools available, however. I use the best tool
available for a particular application.

What is truly sad is that there are so many people out there that are so
blind that they can't see the difference between loving discipline and
child abuse. As such, they probably are lacking in other areas, and
have left big holes in their children's upbringing.

Because people have changed, God has changed some of the guidelines in
the New Testament. Divorce laws, for instance, have changed. There is
no mention of spanking.

If you think that the lack of mention about spanking indicates that it
is now proscribed, you have a difficult task ahead of you if you plan on
proving that assertion.

By the way, I am top-posting because this is my final rebuttal. You can
reply if you like, but it is unlikely that I will see it. You are
unlikely to change your mind, so I am therefore wasting my time even
writing this. I can't force you to use proper discipline on your
children. Even if I could., I wouldn't. Chew on that one for a while.



Ray Drouillard



"LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Ray Drouillard wrote:
>
> > > > "LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > What you have done is pick and choose portions of the Old
Testament to
> > > justify your behavior, and ignore those portions that you do not
like
> > or
> > > agree with.
> >
> > Actually, it looks like that is what you have done. You are trying
to
> > justify your practice of not disciplining your children,
>
> I disciplined my children without resorting to hitting them.
> Unfortunately, it appears that you have few other resources available,
thus
> you need to attempt to Biblically justify your behavior. So many
> individuals who post to alt.parenting.spanking seem to believe that
without
> spanking there is no discipline. It's sad
>
> > Proverbs 19:18 Discipline your son, for there is hope; Don't be a
> > willing party to his death.
>
> Discipline doesn't equal hitting. can apply either to city limits or
citiy
> government
>
> > Still, that law is for a specific people at a specific time.
>
> As was stoning children, as was killing women who were not virgins, as
was
> death for all adulters. This is old Testament Law.
>
> > > So why did Jesus so openly defy the Old Testament?
> >
> > He is God. He can do what he considers to be best.
>
> Exactly. And Jesus gave a new set of guidelines to live under, and
that is
> what is called the New Testament. He did what he considered best.
And
> since he is "God" I prefer to live by his example.
>
> Watch the remainder of this post, and look for examples of Jesus'
> recommendations and behavior.
>
> LaVonne
>
> >
> >
> > > I see nothing in His
> > > words that recommend hitting children with rods as a parenting
> > strategy.
> >
> > Correct. Unlike the laws for divorce, he did not change the counsel
> > regarding child rearing.
> >
> > > In fact, he recommends a millstone around the neck and being cast
into
> > the
> > > depths of the sea for anyone who offends a child.
> >
> > Right. And raising a child without discipline is pretty offensive.
> >
> > > And when his disciplines
> > > want to stone a woman for wanton behavior )as the OT recommends),
he
> > stops
> > > them, forgives the woman, and tells her to "go and sin no more."
> >
> > Right again. What does stoning have to do with spanking?
> >
> > >
> > > I think Jesus had a bit more understanding of the Bible than you
do,
> > and a
> > > lot more respect for little children.
> >
> > Of course he is understanding. I'm certain that he understands that
> > disciplining children is crucial to their development.
> >
> > Ray Drouillard
>

[Doan]

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:

>
>
> Ray Drouillard wrote:
>
> > > > "LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > What you have done is pick and choose portions of the Old Testament to
> > > justify your behavior, and ignore those portions that you do not like
> > or
> > > agree with.
> >
> > Actually, it looks like that is what you have done. You are trying to
> > justify your practice of not disciplining your children,
>
> I disciplined my children without resorting to hitting them.

Good for you. But that is not the issue. The issue here is how
is it better? I have been challenging you for years to show me
one "peer-reviewed" study in which, under the same condition, your
non-cp alternatives are any better. So far, all you could do is
avoid the issue, launch personal attacks against me. How about
it, Dr. LaVonne?

Doan

[Byron Canfield]

"Doan" > wrote in message
...
>
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Ray Drouillard wrote:
> >
> > > > > "LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What you have done is pick and choose portions of the Old Testament
to
> > > > justify your behavior, and ignore those portions that you do not
like
> > > or
> > > > agree with.
> > >
> > > Actually, it looks like that is what you have done. You are trying to
> > > justify your practice of not disciplining your children,
> >
> > I disciplined my children without resorting to hitting them.
>
> Good for you. But that is not the issue. The issue here is how
> is it better? I have been challenging you for years to show me
> one "peer-reviewed" study in which, under the same condition, your
> non-cp alternatives are any better. So far, all you could do is
> avoid the issue, launch personal attacks against me. How about
> it, Dr. LaVonne?
>
> Doan
>
The burden of proof is on you, Doan, to prove that committing acts of
physical violence on other people accomplishes the ostensible goal when it
is already apparent to so many that it is not necessary and is so obviously
harmful..


--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

[Greg Hanson]

LaVonne said
> I disciplined my children without resorting to hitting them.

That's VERY interesting, LaVonne.
The former Child Protection caseworker who killed Logan Marr
by duct taping her to a high chair in her basement and taping
over her mouth?

She said almost the identical thing when asked about spanking.
She was quite an ""expert"".

[Ray Drouillard]

"Byron Canfield" > wrote in message
news:acOib.768006$uu5.134118@sccrnsc04...
> "Doan" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ray Drouillard wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > "LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What you have done is pick and choose portions of the Old
Testament
> to
> > > > > justify your behavior, and ignore those portions that you do
not
> like
> > > > or
> > > > > agree with.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, it looks like that is what you have done. You are
trying to
> > > > justify your practice of not disciplining your children,
> > >
> > > I disciplined my children without resorting to hitting them.
> >
> > Good for you. But that is not the issue. The issue here is how
> > is it better? I have been challenging you for years to show me
> > one "peer-reviewed" study in which, under the same condition, your
> > non-cp alternatives are any better. So far, all you could do is
> > avoid the issue, launch personal attacks against me. How about
> > it, Dr. LaVonne?
> >
> > Doan
> >
> The burden of proof is on you, Doan, to prove that committing acts of
> physical violence on other people accomplishes the ostensible goal
when it
> is already apparent to so many that it is not necessary and is so
obviously
> harmful..

Since you are proposing an alternative to system that is time-honored
and proven successful, the burden of proof is upon you.


Ray

[Doan]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Byron Canfield wrote:

> > Good for you. But that is not the issue. The issue here is how
> > is it better? I have been challenging you for years to show me
> > one "peer-reviewed" study in which, under the same condition, your
> > non-cp alternatives are any better. So far, all you could do is
> > avoid the issue, launch personal attacks against me. How about
> > it, Dr. LaVonne?
> >
> > Doan
> >
> The burden of proof is on you, Doan, to prove that committing acts of
> physical violence on other people accomplishes the ostensible goal when it
> is already apparent to so many that it is not necessary and is so obviously
> harmful..
>
Let me see if I got this straight: 1) Spanking is legal; 2) I am not here
to jam my agenda down other people's throat. I have always said that is
up to the parents to decide what is appropriate for their children as long
as they are not breaking any laws . And you said that the burden of proof
is on me??? Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS, are they mutually
exclusive? ;-)

Doan

[Byron Canfield]

"Ray Drouillard" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Byron Canfield" > wrote in message
> news:acOib.768006$uu5.134118@sccrnsc04...
> > "Doan" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ray Drouillard wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > > "LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What you have done is pick and choose portions of the Old
> Testament
> > to
> > > > > > justify your behavior, and ignore those portions that you do
> not
> > like
> > > > > or
> > > > > > agree with.
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, it looks like that is what you have done. You are
> trying to
> > > > > justify your practice of not disciplining your children,
> > > >
> > > > I disciplined my children without resorting to hitting them.
> > >
> > > Good for you. But that is not the issue. The issue here is how
> > > is it better? I have been challenging you for years to show me
> > > one "peer-reviewed" study in which, under the same condition, your
> > > non-cp alternatives are any better. So far, all you could do is
> > > avoid the issue, launch personal attacks against me. How about
> > > it, Dr. LaVonne?
> > >
> > > Doan
> > >
> > The burden of proof is on you, Doan, to prove that committing acts of
> > physical violence on other people accomplishes the ostensible goal
> when it
> > is already apparent to so many that it is not necessary and is so
> obviously
> > harmful..
>
> Since you are proposing an alternative to system that is time-honored
> and proven successful, the burden of proof is upon you.

"Time-honored" and "proven successful"? How do you figure? So, let's see,
the fact that we have a massively disproportionate increase in the number of
people in prison for violent offenses to the increase in population makes
committing acts of violence upon impressionable youth "time-honored" and
"proven successful" -- is that the proof you mean?


--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

[Byron Canfield]

"Doan" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Byron Canfield wrote:
>
> > > Good for you. But that is not the issue. The issue here is how
> > > is it better? I have been challenging you for years to show me
> > > one "peer-reviewed" study in which, under the same condition, your
> > > non-cp alternatives are any better. So far, all you could do is
> > > avoid the issue, launch personal attacks against me. How about
> > > it, Dr. LaVonne?
> > >
> > > Doan
> > >
> > The burden of proof is on you, Doan, to prove that committing acts of
> > physical violence on other people accomplishes the ostensible goal when
it
> > is already apparent to so many that it is not necessary and is so
obviously
> > harmful..
> >
> Let me see if I got this straight: 1) Spanking is legal; 2) I am not here
> to jam my agenda down other people's throat. I have always said that is
> up to the parents to decide what is appropriate for their children as long
> as they are not breaking any laws . And you said that the burden of proof
> is on me??? Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS, are they mutually
> exclusive? ;-)
>
> Doan
>
You said: "But that is not the issue. The issue here is how
is it better? I have been challenging you for years to show me
one "peer-reviewed" study in which, under the same condition, your
non-cp alternatives are any better."

I was addressing that issue -- not the law. It is also legal in some states
for a man to walk up behind his wife, in public, and rip all the clothes off
of her. Personally, I don't condone that kind of activity either.


--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

[Greg Hanson]

>> Doan wrote
>> "But that is not the issue. The issue here
>> is how is it better? I have been challenging you for
>> years to show me one "peer-reviewed" study in which,
>> under the same condition, your non-cp alternatives
>> are any better."

Byron wrote
> I was addressing that issue

No you were NOT addressing the stated issue.
Doan's request for a peer-reviewed study was not about law either.
But you pretended he was talking about law.

Byron wrote
> -- not the law. It is also legal in some states for a
> man to walk up behind his wife, in public, and rip all
> the clothes off of her.

In what state is that legal? Please cite legal codes.
I think it was just methane, but if such a law is on the books
in any state I will JOIN you in ridiculing it till that law changes.

Byron said
> Personally, I don't condone that kind of activity either.

Duh?

Ray was right in pointing out that people using the old method
should not have the burden of proof, since it is time proven.
The anti-spank zealots should prove that their new ways are
better before attempting to foist them on others.

For years anti-spank zealots talked it up about no-spank Sweden.
Then we found out that in Sweden it might be illegal, but there
is no law enforcement of that law, and spanking continues to
this day in Sweden, the place anti spankers used to PROVE how
great their untried theories work. SWEDEN's success was a LIE.

Ray, if you DO read this, this agnostic asks you NOT to abandon
this forum to the bloodless godless atheists. No, you probably
would not change their Berkleyesque minds. I am not against
all of secular humanism, by the way, but a large portion of it
is like these guys, void of ethical constraints about trying
to tell others how to parent. This "busy body" aspect is
exactly what parents are up against in any dealings with
Child Protection Services agencies in every state.
Unlicensed unqualified caseworkers improperly coopt the job
title when they call themselves Social Worker II on paperwork.
Most of them do carry the anti-spank agenda and attempt to
enforce it in illegal an unethical ways, marking the family
for OTHER things so that they can then LORD OVER the parents
and dictate everything they wish.

Doan and Ray, I would like to ask you what you think is behind
these rabid no-spank types. Some of them seem to be people
heavily indoctrinated into ultraleft or socialist views. Some
others seem to be reacting out of catharsis with a view that
when they were spanked it was wrong. (Some may have actually
been spanked wrong or excessively, but others seem to have
been spoiled brats mentally unable to accept spanking as
appropriate or perhaps conflicted by anti-spank propaganda.)
(Imagine a bratty kid in a spanking family hearing anti-spank
propaganda.. That would motivate them to EMBRACE the cause!)
Some others were rebels without a cause and would protest that
the sky is blue to fill their need to belong. They tend
to be young, but a few older ones play catcher in the rye.
That rabid atheism is common among them is no surprise.

The anti-spank zealots DO keep propagandizing spanking as
beating. They don't seem to realize that this makes their
whole "cause" look stupid to neutral or ambivalent people.
The fact that they continue to equate spanking to beating
is the most obvious sign of them being out of touch and
unreasonable fanatics.

[Julie Pascal]

"Byron Canfield" > wrote in message
news:bu4jb.780770$uu5.136098@sccrnsc04...
(...)
>
> "Time-honored" and "proven successful"? How do you figure? So, let's see,
> the fact that we have a massively disproportionate increase in the number
of
> people in prison for violent offenses to the increase in population makes
> committing acts of violence upon impressionable youth "time-honored" and
> "proven successful" -- is that the proof you mean?

Please substitute any social custom and try to use
this logic. An increase is a change. The cause
of a change is likely to also be something that has
changed.

Supposing that violence crime per-capita has actually gone up,
(I'm not going to assume that. It seems like life has been
pretty darn violent since time began.) the logical thing to do
is to look at what is different now than before.

To claim some single thing like spanking as causative
and ignoring pervasive things such as the economic
marginalization of those with less education, simply
shows that we're dealing with an *agenda* and not
with trying to really understand why people fail as
members of the community.

It would be just as *logical* to claim that we have
more violent offenders in prison now because in
past generations they were killed by gun toting
law abiders before they ever got that far.

--Julie

[Greg Hanson]

Is anybody else seeing 2, 3 or even 5 repetitious
copies of Kane's messages in their newsreader?
Kane, Why are you duplicating messages so much?

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...
> Is anybody else seeing 2, 3 or even 5 repetitious
> copies of Kane's messages in their newsreader?
> Kane, Why are you duplicating messages so much?

You can tell them apart? <g>

Jayne

[Michael S. Morris]

Saturday, the 18th of October, 2003

I would like to make a side comment here that gives a
few links to some web resources I think are pretty
cool.

The general problem is argument by "social scientists"
from out of empirical studies resulting in weak
correlations.

For example, one of the most widely touted anti-spanking
studies is the one by Murray Straus, David Sugarman, and
Jean Giles-Sims, "Spanking by Parents and Subsequent Antisocial
Behavior of Children", 1997 (Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent
Medicine). (NB: Kane has not touted this particular study, so this
is not immediately relevant to any argument with him.)
The text of their article can be found at
<http://www.unh.edu/frl/cp24.htm>,
although links to figures and tables seem sadly to be broken.

It's not too difficult to read. Basically what they did is
looked at a "longitudinal study" (a study over years of time)
of mothers with children where data were available for such
things as frequency of spanking at ages 6-9 and anti-social
behaviour two years later. Call the spanking CP (for "corporal
punishment") and the anti-social behaviour later, ASB. Then a
naive advocate of spanking might expect that the greater the
CP, the lower the ASB (i.e. spanking reduces bad behaviour).
The authors begin with this data set of 7725 women with 8513 children
studied between 1979 and 1988. They then pare the data set down
to study only those women with chidren between the ages of 6 and 9
in 1988 (only 1239 children), and then, of those, the ones
for whom all data they wanted to control for (such as SES "social
economic status") were available (910 children). This amounted to
807 mothers. And, what they found is a positive correlation
between CP and ASB. The authors are clearly anti-spanking and
they see this finding as evidence that spanking *causes* the
ASB.

Anyway, some of the details of their analysis are contained
in the paper, and one can certainly argue extensively with
their interpretation, the meanings they attach to various
"scores" that are used for the purposes of analysis, etc., but,
what I wanted to point to is the 2nd paragraph under the
tile Results and subtitle Correlation Analysis. Notice that the
correlation coefficients being reported are numbers in the
range r=0.20-0.29.

What I want to point to is what that means. If you've had
any course in laboratory science, you'll know that even data points
which are expected to follow some known linear relationship
in physics often don't. There will be error in measurements
from various cources, and there will be random scatter of the
data about the expected relation. What these authors are doing
is linear regression, essentially plotting data points of (CP, ASB)
as (x,y) in what is called a "scatter plot", and then getting
their computer (although graphing calculators now do this easily) to
draw a best-fit line through the data (a line which technically
minimizes the sum of the squared distances to the line from the
data points). A rather encyclopaedic resource on linear regression
can be found at
<http://www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/index.html>.
But, basically, what is important here are two things: The slope found
for
the line, and the correlation coefficient. (If the slope
is positive, then you tend to get more ASB later for more CP
now. If it were negative, then you'd get less ASB
later for more CP now.) But, also, there is the question of how
good does a line model what's going on, and that is what
the correlation coefficient is (partly) telling you. For a
data set with r=+1.0, that means the data points all line up
perfectly on a line of positive slope (we'd call that a
correlation). For a data set with r=-1.0, that means the
data points all line up on a line with negative slope (we'd
call that an anti-correlation). If r=0.0, then the data are
uncorrelated. So, what does a correlation coefficient of
r=0.29 mean?

Well, that's what I wanted to give what I think is a really
cool link for:
<http://www.stat.uiuc.edu/~stat100/java/guess/PPApplet.html>

This is a little applet that allows you to click the mouse
and put down data points, and it will calculate and show you the
best fit line (by linear regression) to your data, and calculate
the correlation coefficient. It is fun to play with. Try to
put down lines of data and see what you get. Then put down
lines of data where the data points are "off" the line. Then try to put
down data sets that are uncorrelated (circles of data, or
"shotgun"-style clusters of data points). Try making a cluster of
data points with a weak correlation and then add a few points far
outside the cluster and watch what happens to that correlation.
Then, explore using the random points button. For instance,
I stuck in 807 points with a correlation coefficient of r=0.29
(note that this would be fewer than the study above used for any
given correlation, since they are taking subsets of the 807 possible
points in order to control for other factors such as age and
SES). Anyway, notice how uncorrelated it looks?

I think by playing around with this lovely little toy you
can convince yourself a correlation coefficient of r<0.30
means the data aren't very correlated at all. Also, you
should be able to see that data which, say, were mostly
uncorrelated could have a correlated component superposed
on it, which would increase the r.

Mike Morris
)

[Kane]

"Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote in message >...
> "Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Is anybody else seeing 2, 3 or even 5 repetitious
> > copies of Kane's messages in their newsreader?
> > Kane, Why are you duplicating messages so much?
>
> You can tell them apart? <g>
>
> Jayne

Thank you for helping us sort the sheep from the goats. One-liners
seem to be the rebuttal of choice for those who lack one.

Kane

[Kane]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:18:11 -0500, "Michael S. Morris"
> wrote:

>
>
> Saturday, the 18th of October, 2003
>
>I would like to make a side comment here that gives a
>few links to some web resources I think are pretty
>cool.
>
>The general problem is argument by "social scientists"
>from out of empirical studies resulting in weak
>correlations.
>
>For example, one of the most widely touted anti-spanking
>studies is the one by Murray Straus, David Sugarman, and
>Jean Giles-Sims, "Spanking by Parents and Subsequent Antisocial
>Behavior of Children", 1997 (Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent
>Medicine). (NB: Kane has not touted this particular study, so this
>is not immediately relevant to any argument with him.)
>The text of their article can be found at
> <http://www.unh.edu/frl/cp24.htm>,
>although links to figures and tables seem sadly to be broken.
>
>It's not too difficult to read. Basically what they did is
>looked at a "longitudinal study" (a study over years of time)
>of mothers with children where data were available for such
>things as frequency of spanking at ages 6-9 and anti-social
>behaviour two years later. Call the spanking CP (for "corporal
>punishment") and the anti-social behaviour later, ASB. Then a
>naive advocate of spanking might expect that the greater the
>CP, the lower the ASB (i.e. spanking reduces bad behaviour).
>The authors begin with this data set of 7725 women with 8513 children
>studied between 1979 and 1988. They then pare the data set down
>to study only those women with chidren between the ages of 6 and 9
>in 1988 (only 1239 children), and then, of those, the ones
>for whom all data they wanted to control for (such as SES "social
>economic status") were available (910 children). This amounted to
>807 mothers. And, what they found is a positive correlation
>between CP and ASB. The authors are clearly anti-spanking and
>they see this finding as evidence that spanking *causes* the
>ASB.
>
>Anyway, some of the details of their analysis are contained
>in the paper, and one can certainly argue extensively with
>their interpretation, the meanings they attach to various
>"scores" that are used for the purposes of analysis, etc., but,
>what I wanted to point to is the 2nd paragraph under the
>tile Results and subtitle Correlation Analysis. Notice that the
>correlation coefficients being reported are numbers in the
>range r=0.20-0.29.
>
>What I want to point to is what that means. If you've had
>any course in laboratory science, you'll know that even data points
>which are expected to follow some known linear relationship
>in physics often don't. There will be error in measurements
>from various cources, and there will be random scatter of the
>data about the expected relation. What these authors are doing
>is linear regression, essentially plotting data points of (CP, ASB)
>as (x,y) in what is called a "scatter plot", and then getting
>their computer (although graphing calculators now do this easily) to
>draw a best-fit line through the data (a line which technically
>minimizes the sum of the squared distances to the line from the
>data points). A rather encyclopaedic resource on linear regression
>can be found at
> <http://www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/index.html>.
>But, basically, what is important here are two things: The slope
found
>for
>the line, and the correlation coefficient. (If the slope
>is positive, then you tend to get more ASB later for more CP
>now. If it were negative, then you'd get less ASB
>later for more CP now.) But, also, there is the question of how
>good does a line model what's going on, and that is what
>the correlation coefficient is (partly) telling you. For a
>data set with r=+1.0, that means the data points all line up
>perfectly on a line of positive slope (we'd call that a
>correlation). For a data set with r=-1.0, that means the
>data points all line up on a line with negative slope (we'd
>call that an anti-correlation). If r=0.0, then the data are
>uncorrelated. So, what does a correlation coefficient of
>r=0.29 mean?
>
>Well, that's what I wanted to give what I think is a really
>cool link for:
> <http://www.stat.uiuc.edu/~stat100/java/guess/PPApplet.html>
>
>This is a little applet that allows you to click the mouse
>and put down data points, and it will calculate and show you the
>best fit line (by linear regression) to your data, and calculate
>the correlation coefficient. It is fun to play with. Try to
>put down lines of data and see what you get. Then put down
>lines of data where the data points are "off" the line. Then try to
put
>down data sets that are uncorrelated (circles of data, or
>"shotgun"-style clusters of data points). Try making a cluster of
>data points with a weak correlation and then add a few points far
>outside the cluster and watch what happens to that correlation.
>Then, explore using the random points button. For instance,
>I stuck in 807 points with a correlation coefficient of r=0.29
>(note that this would be fewer than the study above used for any
>given correlation, since they are taking subsets of the 807 possible
>points in order to control for other factors such as age and
>SES). Anyway, notice how uncorrelated it looks?
>
>I think by playing around with this lovely little toy you
>can convince yourself a correlation coefficient of r<0.30
>means the data aren't very correlated at all. Also, you
>should be able to see that data which, say, were mostly
>uncorrelated could have a correlated component superposed
>on it, which would increase the r.
>
> Mike Morris
> )

Excellent Mike, and all I have is observing mentally ill spanked
children for 6 years, and extremely well adjusted children, hundreds
if not thousands of them (lost count...sorry) from 1976 to the
present...meaning I got to see extremely long term subjects, and I'm
here to state that I'll take unspanked, in fact the least punished,
over punished and spanked children for best outcomes anytime.

I have never been able to find, nor have formal researchers, in prison
and mentally ill populations, any significant number of those
unspanked as children...and the few I have found were punished in
other highly creative ways.

I have rarely found a criminal in unspanked populations and usually
they were status offenders or trusting dupes of THE SPANKED who were
criminals.

I have found over the years that scientific studies have the
weaknesses you point out in data calculations and further in analysis
by those with biases....you should see the prospank studies if you
want some garbage. The last best known one had a sample population
stripped of the "extreme spankers" and was so small a remaining sample
the researcher couldn't and wouldn't present it for peer review but
didn't mind presenting it publically at a large professional forum at
UC Berkeley.

So, I tend to fall back on my long life...I'm in my late 60's...and an
avid interest in observing children and adults with a mind to
punishment types and intensities since I was 19. I was interested even
before but only occasionally.

From 19 on I hardly had a week go by when it wasn't a consideration.
My 4 year military experience was especially telling. The weirdest
troops I knew, some very dangerous or at least perverse in the
telling, were spanked folks.

The only puzzle left for me, after having satisifed my search for
outcomes of punishment, is why some continue it. Now there's the great
mystery.

40 or 50 years ago we simply didn't have the tools to avoid
punishment. Now we do, clearly. So the mystery.

Enjoy yourself Mike. But know that I consider those that spank and
apologize for punishment of children as morally bereft. Ignorance is
no longer a plausible rationale.

Kane

[Michael S. Morris]

Saturday, the 18th of October, 2003

I wrote:
For instance,
I stuck in 807 points with a correlation coefficient of r=0.29
(note that this would be fewer than the study above used for any
^^^^^
given correlation, since they are taking subsets of the 807 possible
points in order to control for other factors such as age and
SES).

Of course that should be "larger".



Mike Morris
)

[Doan]

On 18 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:18:11 -0500, "Michael S. Morris"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Saturday, the 18th of October, 2003
> >
> >I would like to make a side comment here that gives a
> >few links to some web resources I think are pretty
> >cool.
> >
> >The general problem is argument by "social scientists"
> >from out of empirical studies resulting in weak
> >correlations.
> >
> >For example, one of the most widely touted anti-spanking
> >studies is the one by Murray Straus, David Sugarman, and
> >Jean Giles-Sims, "Spanking by Parents and Subsequent Antisocial
> >Behavior of Children", 1997 (Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent
> >Medicine). (NB: Kane has not touted this particular study, so this
> >is not immediately relevant to any argument with him.)
> >The text of their article can be found at
> > <http://www.unh.edu/frl/cp24.htm>,
> >although links to figures and tables seem sadly to be broken.
> >
> >It's not too difficult to read. Basically what they did is
> >looked at a "longitudinal study" (a study over years of time)
> >of mothers with children where data were available for such
> >things as frequency of spanking at ages 6-9 and anti-social
> >behaviour two years later. Call the spanking CP (for "corporal
> >punishment") and the anti-social behaviour later, ASB. Then a
> >naive advocate of spanking might expect that the greater the
> >CP, the lower the ASB (i.e. spanking reduces bad behaviour).
> >The authors begin with this data set of 7725 women with 8513 children
> >studied between 1979 and 1988. They then pare the data set down
> >to study only those women with chidren between the ages of 6 and 9
> >in 1988 (only 1239 children), and then, of those, the ones
> >for whom all data they wanted to control for (such as SES "social
> >economic status") were available (910 children). This amounted to
> >807 mothers. And, what they found is a positive correlation
> >between CP and ASB. The authors are clearly anti-spanking and
> >they see this finding as evidence that spanking *causes* the
> >ASB.
> >
> >Anyway, some of the details of their analysis are contained
> >in the paper, and one can certainly argue extensively with
> >their interpretation, the meanings they attach to various
> >"scores" that are used for the purposes of analysis, etc., but,
> >what I wanted to point to is the 2nd paragraph under the
> >tile Results and subtitle Correlation Analysis. Notice that the
> >correlation coefficients being reported are numbers in the
> >range r=0.20-0.29.
> >
> >What I want to point to is what that means. If you've had
> >any course in laboratory science, you'll know that even data points
> >which are expected to follow some known linear relationship
> >in physics often don't. There will be error in measurements
> >from various cources, and there will be random scatter of the
> >data about the expected relation. What these authors are doing
> >is linear regression, essentially plotting data points of (CP, ASB)
> >as (x,y) in what is called a "scatter plot", and then getting
> >their computer (although graphing calculators now do this easily) to
> >draw a best-fit line through the data (a line which technically
> >minimizes the sum of the squared distances to the line from the
> >data points). A rather encyclopaedic resource on linear regression
> >can be found at
> > <http://www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/index.html>.
> >But, basically, what is important here are two things: The slope
> found
> >for
> >the line, and the correlation coefficient. (If the slope
> >is positive, then you tend to get more ASB later for more CP
> >now. If it were negative, then you'd get less ASB
> >later for more CP now.) But, also, there is the question of how
> >good does a line model what's going on, and that is what
> >the correlation coefficient is (partly) telling you. For a
> >data set with r=+1.0, that means the data points all line up
> >perfectly on a line of positive slope (we'd call that a
> >correlation). For a data set with r=-1.0, that means the
> >data points all line up on a line with negative slope (we'd
> >call that an anti-correlation). If r=0.0, then the data are
> >uncorrelated. So, what does a correlation coefficient of
> >r=0.29 mean?
> >
> >Well, that's what I wanted to give what I think is a really
> >cool link for:
> > <http://www.stat.uiuc.edu/~stat100/java/guess/PPApplet.html>
> >
> >This is a little applet that allows you to click the mouse
> >and put down data points, and it will calculate and show you the
> >best fit line (by linear regression) to your data, and calculate
> >the correlation coefficient. It is fun to play with. Try to
> >put down lines of data and see what you get. Then put down
> >lines of data where the data points are "off" the line. Then try to
> put
> >down data sets that are uncorrelated (circles of data, or
> >"shotgun"-style clusters of data points). Try making a cluster of
> >data points with a weak correlation and then add a few points far
> >outside the cluster and watch what happens to that correlation.
> >Then, explore using the random points button. For instance,
> >I stuck in 807 points with a correlation coefficient of r=0.29
> >(note that this would be fewer than the study above used for any
> >given correlation, since they are taking subsets of the 807 possible
> >points in order to control for other factors such as age and
> >SES). Anyway, notice how uncorrelated it looks?
> >
> >I think by playing around with this lovely little toy you
> >can convince yourself a correlation coefficient of r<0.30
> >means the data aren't very correlated at all. Also, you
> >should be able to see that data which, say, were mostly
> >uncorrelated could have a correlated component superposed
> >on it, which would increase the r.
> >
> > Mike Morris
> > )
>
> Excellent Mike, and all I have is observing mentally ill spanked
> children for 6 years, and extremely well adjusted children, hundreds
> if not thousands of them (lost count...sorry) from 1976 to the
> present...meaning I got to see extremely long term subjects, and I'm
> here to state that I'll take unspanked, in fact the least punished,
> over punished and spanked children for best outcomes anytime.
>
And that is your personal opinion. You called this science???

> I have never been able to find, nor have formal researchers, in prison
> and mentally ill populations, any significant number of those
> unspanked as children...and the few I have found were punished in
> other highly creative ways.
>
Again, personal opinion. Not very scientific neither. It is like saying
I have not seen a president who is a woman or black in the USA. Unless
you look at the confounding factors, such observation is pretty much
meaningless.

> I have rarely found a criminal in unspanked populations and usually
> they were status offenders or trusting dupes of THE SPANKED who were
> criminals.
>
Personal opinion again!

> I have found over the years that scientific studies have the
> weaknesses you point out in data calculations and further in analysis
> by those with biases....you should see the prospank studies if you
> want some garbage. The last best known one had a sample population
> stripped of the "extreme spankers" and was so small a remaining sample
> the researcher couldn't and wouldn't present it for peer review but
> didn't mind presenting it publically at a large professional forum at
> UC Berkeley.
>
LOL! This is the study by Baumrind & Owens (2000) which even stout
anti-spanking zealotS like Dr. Straus had to admit that it is one
of the best one out there. This study not only looked at spanking
but also at non-cp alternative. They found, just like in Straus &
Mouradian (1998), the non-cp alternatives are no better!

> So, I tend to fall back on my long life...I'm in my late 60's...and an
> avid interest in observing children and adults with a mind to
> punishment types and intensities since I was 19. I was interested even
> before but only occasionally.
>
And all I have to look at is this newsgroup. Guess who is the most
obnoxious, using terms like "****", "smelly-****", "whore"? They are
the two self-proclaimed "never-spanked" persons: Steve and Kane!

> From 19 on I hardly had a week go by when it wasn't a consideration.
> My 4 year military experience was especially telling. The weirdest
> troops I knew, some very dangerous or at least perverse in the
> telling, were spanked folks.
>
LOL! Personal opinion again!

> The only puzzle left for me, after having satisifed my search for
> outcomes of punishment, is why some continue it. Now there's the great
> mystery.
>
Hey, Kane. Is it time to get rid of juvenile hall? Let's start in your
neck of the wood! ;-)

> 40 or 50 years ago we simply didn't have the tools to avoid
> punishment. Now we do, clearly. So the mystery.
>
40 or 50 years ago, we have lower rate of crime! ;-)

> Enjoy yourself Mike. But know that I consider those that spank and
> apologize for punishment of children as morally bereft. Ignorance is
> no longer a plausible rationale.
>
I believed! I believed! ;-) Who need science when we have Kane, the
"never-spanked" boy! ;-)

Doan

[Dennis Hancock]

"Kane" > wrote in message >
> It isn't dishonest of me to consider the link between abuse and
> spanking nor is it dishonest of me to consider the state of the world
> and its societies as possibly being linked to the use of pain and
> humiliation in parenting.

One can find a 'link' to just about everything, yet there is a vast
difference between 'abuse' and 'spanking'. To try to qualify the link by
using the state of the world and it's societies, you are ignoring the ever
growing psychobabble that we have been spoon fed for the past twenty years
about the evils of spanking.

Perhaps the absence of spanking is the greatest link to the state of the
world today? Since more and more begin to follow that advice almost daily.
Or is that beyond your comprehension.

I suppose you use 'reason' to a small child of one or two to keep him from
running into the street. Well it doesn't work.

Even before one can learn to reason, they learn what behavior is harmful. A
child will not touch a hot stove again once burned because of his curiosity,
and a swat on the behind which may wind up saving it's life is well
worthwhile in the long run.

I pity those who feel they can use 'reason' and 'logic' on a one or two year
old, and just hope they don't realize how flawed and deadly their handling
of a situation can truly be.


> You may not LIKE it, my examining and questioning, but there is
> nothing dishonest about it.
>
> If you think so I'm sure you can point out what is dishonest on my
> part by showing us the truth you think I am not showing.
>
> No?
>
> Kane

It's doubtful the use of brain scans can provide much insight as to lessons
learned by experience, even painful experience. All they can do is measure
the response of the brain to a situation, not the logical analytical thought
involved pertaining to one's perceptions of the event.

Even the lowest of creatures react to pain, learn to avoid certain
situations once they've experienced a bad consequence of their actions. Are
you saying that humans are less than animals in their ability to deal with
pain?

[Dennis Hancock]

"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 13:28:02 -0500, Jon Houts >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >On 11 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Ray Drouillard wrote:
> >>
> >> > Interesting. All of the prisoners that
> >> > he interviewed were spanked as children.

Again, were they 'spanked' or were they beaten? One could do a study of
most of the greats of our society throughtout the past century or so and
find a large number of them had also been spanked as very young children.
What does that study show?

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
> "Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Is anybody else seeing 2, 3 or even 5 repetitious
> > > copies of Kane's messages in their newsreader?
> > > Kane, Why are you duplicating messages so much?
> >
> > You can tell them apart? <g>
> >
> > Jayne
>
> Thank you for helping us sort the sheep from the goats. One-liners
> seem to be the rebuttal of choice for those who lack one.

Lack what - a sheep or a goat? <g>

Jayne

[Dennis Hancock]

"Byron Canfield" > wrote in message
news:acOib.768006$uu5.134118@sccrnsc04...
> "Doan" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ray Drouillard wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > "LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What you have done is pick and choose portions of the Old
Testament
> to
> > > > > justify your behavior, and ignore those portions that you do not
> like
> > > > or
> > > > > agree with.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, it looks like that is what you have done. You are trying
to
> > > > justify your practice of not disciplining your children,
> > >
> > > I disciplined my children without resorting to hitting them.
> >
> > Good for you. But that is not the issue. The issue here is how
> > is it better? I have been challenging you for years to show me
> > one "peer-reviewed" study in which, under the same condition, your
> > non-cp alternatives are any better. So far, all you could do is
> > avoid the issue, launch personal attacks against me. How about
> > it, Dr. LaVonne?
> >
> > Doan
> >
> The burden of proof is on you, Doan, to prove that committing acts of
> physical violence on other people accomplishes the ostensible goal when it
> is already apparent to so many that it is not necessary and is so
obviously
> harmful..
>
>
> --
> "There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
> those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
> -----------------------------
> Byron "Barn" Canfield

Byron, how is the burdon of proof upon him? Spanking has been used for
centuries without the adverse effects psychologists claim it has upon
children. I would think that those who advocate 'reasoning' with a very
young child to be able to show some evidence or scientific proof that one
CAN reason without endangering that child's life.

I find it amusing you didn't jump in and challenge any of Michael Morris's
responses to the psychobabble Kaine was spouting, as he offered many logical
and reasonable explanations as to how spanking can be an effective
discipline tool and learning experience for the very young child.

[Dennis Hancock]

"Byron Canfield" > wrote in message
news:bu4jb.780770$uu5.136098@sccrnsc04...
> "Ray Drouillard" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Byron Canfield" > wrote in message
> > news:acOib.768006$uu5.134118@sccrnsc04...
> > > "Doan" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ray Drouillard wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > "LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What you have done is pick and choose portions of the Old
> > Testament
> > > to
> > > > > > > justify your behavior, and ignore those portions that you do
> > not
> > > like
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > agree with.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Actually, it looks like that is what you have done. You are
> > trying to
> > > > > > justify your practice of not disciplining your children,
> > > > >
> > > > > I disciplined my children without resorting to hitting them.
> > > >
> > > > Good for you. But that is not the issue. The issue here is how
> > > > is it better? I have been challenging you for years to show me
> > > > one "peer-reviewed" study in which, under the same condition, your
> > > > non-cp alternatives are any better. So far, all you could do is
> > > > avoid the issue, launch personal attacks against me. How about
> > > > it, Dr. LaVonne?
> > > >
> > > > Doan
> > > >
> > > The burden of proof is on you, Doan, to prove that committing acts of
> > > physical violence on other people accomplishes the ostensible goal
> > when it
> > > is already apparent to so many that it is not necessary and is so
> > obviously
> > > harmful..
> >
> > Since you are proposing an alternative to system that is time-honored
> > and proven successful, the burden of proof is upon you.
>
> "Time-honored" and "proven successful"? How do you figure? So, let's see,
> the fact that we have a massively disproportionate increase in the number
of
> people in prison for violent offenses to the increase in population makes
> committing acts of violence upon impressionable youth "time-honored" and
> "proven successful" -- is that the proof you mean?
>
>
Byron, and the increase in crime has skyrocketed in recent years, especially
since we've been bombarded with psychobabble about how bad it is to spank a
child. Many are growing up as spoiled brats, without any form of discipline
in their lives and grow to adulthood and add to the problem.

There has always been a situation of 'abuse' and 'spanking', two completely
different terms which most of those 'enlightened' among us try to combine.
Anyone who does not spank a very young child to teach them discipline and
not do somethin dangerous is putting their child's life at risk.

No, the burdon of proof is on those who come up with the new theories. For
all of those who were simply 'spanked' as young children and went bad, there
are millions of others who went on to become great leaders and members of
the community, a great deal of them do NOT abuse their children, but are
intelligent enough to understand the difference between disciplining them
for their own safety and abusing them.

[Doan]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Byron Canfield wrote:

> "Ray Drouillard" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Byron Canfield" > wrote in message
> > news:acOib.768006$uu5.134118@sccrnsc04...
> > > "Doan" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ray Drouillard wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > "LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What you have done is pick and choose portions of the Old
> > Testament
> > > to
> > > > > > > justify your behavior, and ignore those portions that you do
> > not
> > > like
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > agree with.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Actually, it looks like that is what you have done. You are
> > trying to
> > > > > > justify your practice of not disciplining your children,
> > > > >
> > > > > I disciplined my children without resorting to hitting them.
> > > >
> > > > Good for you. But that is not the issue. The issue here is how
> > > > is it better? I have been challenging you for years to show me
> > > > one "peer-reviewed" study in which, under the same condition, your
> > > > non-cp alternatives are any better. So far, all you could do is
> > > > avoid the issue, launch personal attacks against me. How about
> > > > it, Dr. LaVonne?
> > > >
> > > > Doan
> > > >
> > > The burden of proof is on you, Doan, to prove that committing acts of
> > > physical violence on other people accomplishes the ostensible goal
> > when it
> > > is already apparent to so many that it is not necessary and is so
> > obviously
> > > harmful..
> >
> > Since you are proposing an alternative to system that is time-honored
> > and proven successful, the burden of proof is upon you.
>
> "Time-honored" and "proven successful"? How do you figure? So, let's see,
> the fact that we have a massively disproportionate increase in the number of
> people in prison for violent offenses to the increase in population makes
> committing acts of violence upon impressionable youth "time-honored" and
> "proven successful" -- is that the proof you mean?
>
No, Byron. It's the experience of billions of parents world-wide, accross
religions, nations, races and cultures! In fact, the cultures that
survived and prospered are all spanking cultures!

Doan

[Doan]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Byron Canfield wrote:

> "Doan" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Byron Canfield wrote:
> >
> > > > Good for you. But that is not the issue. The issue here is how
> > > > is it better? I have been challenging you for years to show me
> > > > one "peer-reviewed" study in which, under the same condition, your
> > > > non-cp alternatives are any better. So far, all you could do is
> > > > avoid the issue, launch personal attacks against me. How about
> > > > it, Dr. LaVonne?
> > > >
> > > > Doan
> > > >
> > > The burden of proof is on you, Doan, to prove that committing acts of
> > > physical violence on other people accomplishes the ostensible goal when
> it
> > > is already apparent to so many that it is not necessary and is so
> obviously
> > > harmful..
> > >
> > Let me see if I got this straight: 1) Spanking is legal; 2) I am not here
> > to jam my agenda down other people's throat. I have always said that is
> > up to the parents to decide what is appropriate for their children as long
> > as they are not breaking any laws . And you said that the burden of proof
> > is on me??? Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS, are they mutually
> > exclusive? ;-)
> >
> > Doan
> >
> You said: "But that is not the issue. The issue here is how
> is it better? I have been challenging you for years to show me
> one "peer-reviewed" study in which, under the same condition, your
> non-cp alternatives are any better."
>
> I was addressing that issue -- not the law. It is also legal in some states
> for a man to walk up behind his wife, in public, and rip all the clothes off
> of her. Personally, I don't condone that kind of activity either.
>
Then address the issue! How is it better? Can you tell me a state where
it is legal to rip off the clothes of your wife in public? Logic and the
anti-spanking zealotS!

Doan

[Doan]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003, Michael S. Morris wrote:

>
>
> Saturday, the 18th of October, 2003
>
> I would like to make a side comment here that gives a
> few links to some web resources I think are pretty
> cool.
>
> The general problem is argument by "social scientists"
> from out of empirical studies resulting in weak
> correlations.
>
> For example, one of the most widely touted anti-spanking
> studies is the one by Murray Straus, David Sugarman, and
> Jean Giles-Sims, "Spanking by Parents and Subsequent Antisocial
> Behavior of Children", 1997 (Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent
> Medicine). (NB: Kane has not touted this particular study, so this
> is not immediately relevant to any argument with him.)
> The text of their article can be found at
> <http://www.unh.edu/frl/cp24.htm>,
> although links to figures and tables seem sadly to be broken.
>
> It's not too difficult to read. Basically what they did is
> looked at a "longitudinal study" (a study over years of time)
> of mothers with children where data were available for such
> things as frequency of spanking at ages 6-9 and anti-social
> behaviour two years later. Call the spanking CP (for "corporal
> punishment") and the anti-social behaviour later, ASB. Then a
> naive advocate of spanking might expect that the greater the
> CP, the lower the ASB (i.e. spanking reduces bad behaviour).
> The authors begin with this data set of 7725 women with 8513 children
> studied between 1979 and 1988. They then pare the data set down
> to study only those women with chidren between the ages of 6 and 9
> in 1988 (only 1239 children), and then, of those, the ones
> for whom all data they wanted to control for (such as SES "social
> economic status") were available (910 children). This amounted to
> 807 mothers. And, what they found is a positive correlation
> between CP and ASB. The authors are clearly anti-spanking and
> they see this finding as evidence that spanking *causes* the
> ASB.
>
The problem with this study is that the "zero-group" is actually group
that spanked less than once a week. This group actually show a DECREASE
in ASB - a benefit!

"We are indebted to Larzelere et al for alerting us to the likelihood that our
no-spanking group includes occasional spankers. To the extent that this is
the case, the decrease in antisocial behavior that we found for children in
the "none" group may indicate an improvement in the behavior of children whose
parents spank, but do so only infrequently. Although that is a plausible
interpretation, data from another study enable us to investigate
this issue by classifying spanking as "never" or "not in the past 6 months,"
or the frequency of corporal punishment (CP) in the previous 6 months.[1] "

[1] -This is the Straus & Mouradian (1998) study, which we now know
that the correlation between ASB and non-cp alternatives are even
stronger than spanking.

Now you know why Dr. LaVonne won't dare to debate me on these studies. :-)

> Anyway, some of the details of their analysis are contained
> in the paper, and one can certainly argue extensively with
> their interpretation, the meanings they attach to various
> "scores" that are used for the purposes of analysis, etc., but,
> what I wanted to point to is the 2nd paragraph under the
> tile Results and subtitle Correlation Analysis. Notice that the
> correlation coefficients being reported are numbers in the
> range r=0.20-0.29.
>
> What I want to point to is what that means. If you've had
> any course in laboratory science, you'll know that even data points
> which are expected to follow some known linear relationship
> in physics often don't. There will be error in measurements
> from various cources, and there will be random scatter of the
> data about the expected relation. What these authors are doing
> is linear regression, essentially plotting data points of (CP, ASB)
> as (x,y) in what is called a "scatter plot", and then getting
> their computer (although graphing calculators now do this easily) to
> draw a best-fit line through the data (a line which technically
> minimizes the sum of the squared distances to the line from the
> data points). A rather encyclopaedic resource on linear regression
> can be found at
> <http://www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/index.html>.
> But, basically, what is important here are two things: The slope found
> for
> the line, and the correlation coefficient. (If the slope
> is positive, then you tend to get more ASB later for more CP
> now. If it were negative, then you'd get less ASB
> later for more CP now.) But, also, there is the question of how
> good does a line model what's going on, and that is what
> the correlation coefficient is (partly) telling you. For a
> data set with r=+1.0, that means the data points all line up
> perfectly on a line of positive slope (we'd call that a
> correlation). For a data set with r=-1.0, that means the
> data points all line up on a line with negative slope (we'd
> call that an anti-correlation). If r=0.0, then the data are
> uncorrelated. So, what does a correlation coefficient of
> r=0.29 mean?
>
> Well, that's what I wanted to give what I think is a really
> cool link for:
> <http://www.stat.uiuc.edu/~stat100/java/guess/PPApplet.html>
>
> This is a little applet that allows you to click the mouse
> and put down data points, and it will calculate and show you the
> best fit line (by linear regression) to your data, and calculate
> the correlation coefficient. It is fun to play with. Try to
> put down lines of data and see what you get. Then put down
> lines of data where the data points are "off" the line. Then try to put
> down data sets that are uncorrelated (circles of data, or
> "shotgun"-style clusters of data points). Try making a cluster of
> data points with a weak correlation and then add a few points far
> outside the cluster and watch what happens to that correlation.
> Then, explore using the random points button. For instance,
> I stuck in 807 points with a correlation coefficient of r=0.29
> (note that this would be fewer than the study above used for any
> given correlation, since they are taking subsets of the 807 possible
> points in order to control for other factors such as age and
> SES). Anyway, notice how uncorrelated it looks?
>
> I think by playing around with this lovely little toy you
> can convince yourself a correlation coefficient of r<0.30
> means the data aren't very correlated at all. Also, you
> should be able to see that data which, say, were mostly
> uncorrelated could have a correlated component superposed
> on it, which would increase the r.
>
> Mike Morris
> )
>
Actually, this methodology is very weak, as pointed out by Dr. Miller


[begin include]
The Pediatric Forum - March 1998

Drawing Conclusions About Temporal Order

Two recent articles published in the ARCHIVES[1,2] argue
that they have found evidence for "causal" relationships
between spanking and antisocial behavior in children,
such that increased spanking causes antisocial behavior.
Unfortunately, their methods do not allow for such
conclusions. In fact, their methods do not allow for any
conclusions at all. I believe it is particularly
important to point out these mistakes because they have
become commonplace in the social sciences[3] and it is
important that these mistakes do not become commonplace
in medical research.
One initial mistake made by both authors is the claim
that they are testing for causality with longitudinal
data.[1] Causal inferences can only be drawn from
experiments.[4] What can be tested for with longitudinal
data is temporal order.[5] Temporal order is frequently
cited as an important aspect of causality.[4]

In longitudinal research, the temporal order between
variables can be known or unknown. For example, the
temporal order between sex and risk of heart disease is
clear: sex is most often assigned at birth and heart
disease usually develops in middle or old age. In
contrast, the temporal order between spanking and
antisocial behavior is unknown.

In cases where temporal order is known, standard
statistical methods such as regression models or the
analysis of variance (ANOVA) approach chosen by Straus et
al[1] can be used. Structural equation modeling, as used
by Gunnoe and Mariner,[2] was originally thought to be a
technique that can be used for ascertaining temporal
order.[6,7] Unfortunately, Rogosa[3] demonstrated that
this was not the case and that the coefficients produced
by structural models were essentially meaningless. He
showed that the coefficients produced by structural
analysis are more related to the length of time between
testing than to the actual data and demonstrated in a
simulation study that some predictive correlations
changed from 0.5 to -0.5 depending on the length of time
between waves of testing. The problems associated with
structural analysis also apply to the ANOVA approach used
by Straus et al. Miller and colleagues[8-10] demonstrated
the same problem hypothesized by Rogosa with actual data.
They found in 3 studies that actual temporal order was
the reverse of what was concluded by regression
equations. The primary problem with regression and
structural equation models is that they do not control or
test for concurrent change. Thus, it is possible that
spanking and antisocial behavior change together over
time and that shorter time intervals are required to
assess any temporal order.[10] Any variation that could
be ascribed to concurrent change is simply not taken into
account by the statistical models used by Straus et al
and Gunnoe and Mariner.

Dywer and Feinleib[5] and Miller[10] have suggested
appropriate statistical methods that can be used for
determining temporal order with longitudinal data. For
these methods, both spanking and antisocial behavior must
be assessed at 3 or more time points. As Rogosa[3]
pointed out, it takes 3 time points to correctly assess
the trajectory of a single subject. Therefore, at least 3
time points are required to assess intraindividual
change.

Straus et al had 3 waves of data, so they may have been
able to conduct an analysis that could determine temporal
order between these variables. The study by Gunnoe and
Mariner had only 2 waves of data, so their design does
not allow determinations of temporal order. Straus et al
did not report whether spanking behavior was assessed at
the last data collection point. To test for temporal
order, each variable would have to be assessed at all 3
points. Therefore, it is unclear whether Straus et al
could have conducted an analysis to determine temporal
order.

In sum, no causal or temporal inferences can be drawn
from either Straus et al or Gunnoe and Mariner because
causal inferences cannot be drawn from longitudinal data
and inappropriate statistical methods were used to
determine temporal order.

Todd Q. Miller, PhD
Preventive Medicine and Community Health, K53
University of Texas Medical Branch
Galveston, TX 77598-1153

References

1. Straus MA, Sugarman DB, Giles-Sims J. Spanking by
parents and subsequent antisocial behavior of children.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1997;151:761-767.

2. Gunnoe ML, Mariner CL. Toward a
developmental-contextual model of the effects of parental
spanking on children's aggression. Arch Pediatr Adolesc
Med. 1997;151:768-786.

3. Rogosa D. Myths about longitudinal research. In:
Schaie KW, Campbell RT, Meredith W, Rawlings SC, eds.
Methodological Issues in Aging Research. New York, NY:
Springer Publishing Co Inc; 1988.

4. Holland PW. Statistics and causal inference. J Am Stat
Assoc. 1986;81:945-960.

5. Dwyer J, Feinleib M. Introduction to statistical
models for longitudinal observation. In: Dwyer J,
Feinleib M, Lippert P, Hoffmeister H, eds. Statistical
Models for Longitudinal Studies of Health. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press; 1992.

6. Kenny DA. Cross-lagged panel correlations: a test for
spuriousness. Psychol Bull. 1975;82:887-903.

7. Newcomb MD, Bentler PM. Frequency and sequence of drug
use: a longitudinal study from early adolescence to young
adulthood. J Drug Educ. 1986;16:101-120.

8. Miller T, Flay BR. Using log-linear models for
longitudinal data to test alternative explanations for
stage-like phenomena: an example from research on
adolescent substance use. Multivar Behav Res.
1996;31:169-196.

9. Miller T, Volk R. The relationship between weekly
marijuana use and cocaine use: a discrete-time survival
analysis. J Child Adolesc Subst Abuse. 1996;5:55-78.

10. Miller T. Statistical methods for describing temporal
order in longitudinal research. J Clin Epidemiol. In
press.

(Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1998;152:305-306)

[end include]

Doan

[Raymond E. Griffith]

in article , Michael S. Morris at
wrote on 10/18/03 12:18 PM:

>
>
> Saturday, the 18th of October, 2003
>
> I would like to make a side comment here that gives a
> few links to some web resources I think are pretty
> cool.
>
> The general problem is argument by "social scientists"
> from out of empirical studies resulting in weak
> correlations.
>
> For example, one of the most widely touted anti-spanking
> studies is the one by Murray Straus, David Sugarman, and
> Jean Giles-Sims, "Spanking by Parents and Subsequent Antisocial
> Behavior of Children", 1997 (Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent
> Medicine). (NB: Kane has not touted this particular study, so this
> is not immediately relevant to any argument with him.)
> The text of their article can be found at
> <http://www.unh.edu/frl/cp24.htm>,
> although links to figures and tables seem sadly to be broken.
>
> It's not too difficult to read. Basically what they did is
> looked at a "longitudinal study" (a study over years of time)
> of mothers with children where data were available for such
> things as frequency of spanking at ages 6-9 and anti-social
> behaviour two years later. Call the spanking CP (for "corporal
> punishment") and the anti-social behaviour later, ASB. Then a
> naive advocate of spanking might expect that the greater the
> CP, the lower the ASB (i.e. spanking reduces bad behaviour).
> The authors begin with this data set of 7725 women with 8513 children
> studied between 1979 and 1988. They then pare the data set down
> to study only those women with chidren between the ages of 6 and 9
> in 1988 (only 1239 children), and then, of those, the ones
> for whom all data they wanted to control for (such as SES "social
> economic status") were available (910 children). This amounted to
> 807 mothers. And, what they found is a positive correlation
> between CP and ASB. The authors are clearly anti-spanking and
> they see this finding as evidence that spanking *causes* the
> ASB.
>
> Anyway, some of the details of their analysis are contained
> in the paper, and one can certainly argue extensively with
> their interpretation, the meanings they attach to various
> "scores" that are used for the purposes of analysis, etc., but,
> what I wanted to point to is the 2nd paragraph under the
> tile Results and subtitle Correlation Analysis. Notice that the
> correlation coefficients being reported are numbers in the
> range r=0.20-0.29.
>
> What I want to point to is what that means. If you've had
> any course in laboratory science, you'll know that even data points
> which are expected to follow some known linear relationship
> in physics often don't. There will be error in measurements
> from various cources, and there will be random scatter of the
> data about the expected relation. What these authors are doing
> is linear regression, essentially plotting data points of (CP, ASB)
> as (x,y) in what is called a "scatter plot", and then getting
> their computer (although graphing calculators now do this easily) to
> draw a best-fit line through the data (a line which technically
> minimizes the sum of the squared distances to the line from the
> data points). A rather encyclopaedic resource on linear regression
> can be found at
> <http://www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/index.html>.
> But, basically, what is important here are two things: The slope found
> for
> the line, and the correlation coefficient. (If the slope
> is positive, then you tend to get more ASB later for more CP
> now. If it were negative, then you'd get less ASB
> later for more CP now.) But, also, there is the question of how
> good does a line model what's going on, and that is what
> the correlation coefficient is (partly) telling you. For a
> data set with r=+1.0, that means the data points all line up
> perfectly on a line of positive slope (we'd call that a
> correlation). For a data set with r=-1.0, that means the
> data points all line up on a line with negative slope (we'd
> call that an anti-correlation). If r=0.0, then the data are
> uncorrelated. So, what does a correlation coefficient of
> r=0.29 mean?

What is often unnoticed in these studies is a little figure called the
variance. The correlation coefficient is the square root of the variance.
The variance is the fraction of the variation of the dependent variable
which is attributable to a linear relationship between the independent and
dependent variables.

Yes, this is technical, but here is how it works.

An r of 0.29 means the variance r^2 = 0.0841. In other words, slightly more
than 8% of the difference in measured antisocial behavior in this study can
be attributed to a linear relationship with corporal punishment.

In other words, an r of 0.29 doesn't prove anything.

At Clemson University, we in the math department regularly had good laughs
at the Psych department's expense over their use (or abuse) of stats.

>
> Well, that's what I wanted to give what I think is a really
> cool link for:
> <http://www.stat.uiuc.edu/~stat100/java/guess/PPApplet.html>
>
> This is a little applet that allows you to click the mouse
> and put down data points, and it will calculate and show you the
> best fit line (by linear regression) to your data, and calculate
> the correlation coefficient. It is fun to play with. Try to
> put down lines of data and see what you get. Then put down
> lines of data where the data points are "off" the line. Then try to put
> down data sets that are uncorrelated (circles of data, or
> "shotgun"-style clusters of data points). Try making a cluster of
> data points with a weak correlation and then add a few points far
> outside the cluster and watch what happens to that correlation.
> Then, explore using the random points button. For instance,
> I stuck in 807 points with a correlation coefficient of r=0.29
> (note that this would be fewer than the study above used for any
> given correlation, since they are taking subsets of the 807 possible
> points in order to control for other factors such as age and
> SES). Anyway, notice how uncorrelated it looks?
>
> I think by playing around with this lovely little toy you
> can convince yourself a correlation coefficient of r<0.30
> means the data aren't very correlated at all. Also, you
> should be able to see that data which, say, were mostly
> uncorrelated could have a correlated component superposed
> on it, which would increase the r.
>
> Mike Morris
> )

[Julie Pascal]

"Doan" > wrote in message
...
> On 18 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:
(...)
> > From 19 on I hardly had a week go by when it wasn't a consideration.
> > My 4 year military experience was especially telling. The weirdest
> > troops I knew, some very dangerous or at least perverse in the
> > telling, were spanked folks.
> >
> LOL! Personal opinion again!
(...)

For some amazing reason, I never had a single data point
on spanked/non-spanked provided to me by the people
I served with in the military. Somehow, it *never* came
up. Young men responding to a question "where you spanked
as a child" I would expect to be answer with bravado and
exaggerated bragging...because that's what young men in the
military *do*.

Imagine this picture... 18 to 20 year old young men sitting
in the barracks BSing. One of them says..."let's discuss
comparative parenting styles, eh?"

Now who is weird?

Imagine 18 to 20 year old young men sitting in the barracks BSing
and someone talks about the fights he'd get in with his dad and the
first time he came out on top. Oh, yeah? sez the next guy. You
should 'a seen *my* old man... the next next guy...not to be outdone...
explains that his old lady could take any of the other guy's dads,
why one time she took after me and my sister and...

Perverse in the telling?

This is the military we're talking about, right?

Perverse in the telling is a military ART.

--Julie

[Greg Hanson]

> Oh, yeah? sez the next guy. You should 'a seen *my* old man...

Julie: Good point.
For GI's it's a braggadocio thing.
A tough guys version of keeping up with the Joneses.
It seems like CPS caseworkers probably brag up the horror cases.

There is another effect where cops and caseworkers
report on a case and later objects and situations
are twice as big or ten times worse than it was
on their reports. It's called progressive elaboration.
Each time the story is told even by the same person
more and more exaggeration takes place.

This effect takes place even worse as these people
pass the story between each other, as in the old
game of "telephone". Also known as gossip.

Kane and pro-CPS people like to use what is known
as demogoguery, where they pretend that every one of
thousands of child removals is because of horrible
blood, broken bones and sexual abuse.
The reality is just not so ""exciting"" for people
living out a rescue fantasy.

The GI's want to best each other at being tough.

The cops need validation as ""heros"" getting the bad guys.

The caseworkers need to conceal the fact that
95+ percent of their cases are boring as hell and
don't involve ""saving"" any child.

Isn't it all "keeping up with the Joneses" sorta?

[Kane]

"Julie Pascal" > wrote in message
>...
> "Doan" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 18 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:
> (...)
> > > From 19 on I hardly had a week go by when it wasn't a consideration.
> > > My 4 year military experience was especially telling. The weirdest
> > > troops I knew, some very dangerous or at least perverse in the
> > > telling, were spanked folks.
> > >
> > LOL! Personal opinion again!
> (...)
>
> For some amazing reason, I never had a single data point
> on spanked/non-spanked provided to me by the people
> I served with in the military.

Then you didn't serve in the same profession I did.

> Somehow, it *never* came
> up.

Don't tell me. You were a cook.

> Young men responding to a question "where you spanked
> as a child" I would expect to be answer with bravado and
> exaggerated bragging...because that's what young men in the
> military *do*.

Not in the setting I asked such questions.

> Imagine this picture... 18 to 20 year old young men sitting
> in the barracks BSing. One of them says..."let's discuss
> comparative parenting styles, eh?"
>
> Now who is weird?

You for thinking I was just sitting around the barracks chatting up
the
troops.

> Imagine 18 to 20 year old young men sitting in the barracks BSing
> and someone talks about the fights he'd get in with his dad and the
> first time he came out on top. Oh, yeah? sez the next guy. You
> should 'a seen *my* old man... the next next guy...not to be outdone...
> explains that his old lady could take any of the other guy's dads,
> why one time she took after me and my sister and...

Sounds like you did a lot of sitting around the barracks goldbrickin'

> Perverse in the telling?

You'd be even more amazed at some of the responses I got to my list of
questions.

> This is the military we're talking about, right?

Yep.

> Perverse in the telling is a military ART.

Well, if you say so, dearie.

Where I asked the questions misleading me could result in a courts
martial or
at least an Article 15. kapeesh?

The USAF didn't just let anyone do the job I was interviewing them to
send them off to school to learn.

Ever been in a strategic missile silo?

Ever wondered about the stability of those that send those merry
giants on their way?

Want some spanked kiddies to grow up and get into that line of work?

We asked the question and others to determine the fitness just for the
training...let alone for the work. Much more psych evals were being
done during and after training...and periodically on duty.

And spanked boys and girls were rejected. Routinely. They do NOT hold
up well under the kind of stress involved in a missile silo.

Guess why.

> --Julie

<yawn>

[Ray Drouillard]

"Kane" > wrote in message
om...

> You for thinking I was just sitting around the barracks chatting up
> the
> troops.

Actually, considering your history of spouting unsupported 'facts', I
haven't ruled out the possibility that you are exaggerating,
fabricating, or downright lying.

[Kane]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 23:20:54 -0400, "Ray Drouillard"
> wrote:

>
>"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
>
>> You for thinking I was just sitting around the barracks chatting up
>> the
>> troops.
>
>Actually, considering your history of spouting unsupported 'facts', I
>haven't ruled out the possibility that you are exaggerating,
>fabricating, or downright lying.

Funny, I had the same thought about you. I find that those that can't
figure out that being hit and being spanked are mutually inclusive are
having some major thinking errors and lying to perpetuate that is rife
among the bull**** crowd.

USAF, honorable discharge, January 1960. At least that is what my
DD214 says.

My service was in military intelligence. I taught pilots, in TAC,
(Tactical Air Command) enemy aircraft identification and created the
first handheld flashcards for pilot inflight use. I hear they were
still around twenty years later, no longer in my primative 3 by 5
color coded cards with a stationary screw post through the corner for
ease of browsing one handed format though.

I hear they went slick with a nice non-reflective waterproof coating
and they fastened to a holder that let one just push a button to fan
through them. Course that was about five years ago I heard that, and
my best guess is now it's all on a LCD readout and much more
sophisticated than my simple tool. I suspect it's now voice activated
and includes sound with a heads up projection on the canopy forward.

Instant comparison of the virtual to the live craft right outside the
cockpit.

My other later jobs were much more interesting. E&E pilot trainer for
SAC and later preliminary testing I performed on candidates for
missile control.

I was assigned to Strategic Air Command when General
Curtis E. LeMay commanded. He had a habit of lighting up his
ubiquitious cigar on the flight line and would occasionally bust any
enlisted man down one rank that would ask him to put it out if they
pushed it too hard. Officers knew better. Pity the poor Airman Basic.

Aviation fuel do burn bright, it do, but so far as I know he never lit
up a SAC bomber.

I didn't last long in the air command portion as my considerable
talents sent me into training settings.

Modesty has never been a problem for me. Any more you want to know
about my long and interesting life.

Ask me about working with horses. Or try classical guitar. I cook in
three languages, Guandong (Cantonese) being my favorite.

I'm one of those annoying renaissance men. I actually have built a
house (more than one), delivered a baby (more than one), commanded and
been commanded, planned and executed a military excursion (E&E, it's
sorta like Lazertag and a Dungeons and Dragons combined...only you get
to really die of you don't do it well.)

I've rebuilt car engines, grown and harvested crops, raised and
butchered livestock, hunted and fished from northern border to
southern, and have a sloppy command of three languages besides my
native one. Enough to survive as my words here attest to.

You callin' me a liar?

You spanking apologists are congenital liars, so practiced and so
immersed that you can't even tell it yourselves. Sad cases really.

Bullies. Plain and simple. Moral bankrupts. And sanctimonious about it
too.

In fact that was the thing that made me at 19 determine I'd never hit
a child for any reason. I was brought up not to be a bully. It also
turned me into an athiest, among other fine pieces of intellectualy
empty rhetoric from fundies.

Kane

[Julie Pascal]

"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
> "Julie Pascal" > wrote in message
> > > On 18 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:
> > (...)
> > > > From 19 on I hardly had a week go by when it wasn't a consideration.
> > > > My 4 year military experience was especially telling. The weirdest
> > > > troops I knew, some very dangerous or at least perverse in the
> > > > telling, were spanked folks.
(...)

> > Somehow, it *never* came
> > up.
>
> Don't tell me. You were a cook.

No. But I have far more respect for support troops than
you obviously do. As a former military person, verteran,
etc. I find your attitude offensive. But then, I was stationed
in a place where people were being shot and killed. I suppose
that makes a difference in attitude concerning respect for people
who wear the uniform.

Even the cook.

> > Young men responding to a question "where you spanked
> > as a child" I would expect to be answer with bravado and
> > exaggerated bragging...because that's what young men in the
> > military *do*.
>
> Not in the setting I asked such questions.
(...)
> Where I asked the questions misleading me could result in a courts
> martial or
> at least an Article 15. kapeesh?
>
> The USAF didn't just let anyone do the job I was interviewing them to
> send them off to school to learn.

Really. The only truely *selective* enlisted jobs I know of in
the Air Force are special ops. Other jobs do take psych evaluations.
Many other jobs take security clearances and back ground investigations.

Wow... you know. I never got *asked* if I was spanked
either. Not in psych evaluations or in security background
investigations. And I did have to have both.

Amazing! And they gave me an SBI clearance. I am *stunned*.

> Ever been in a strategic missile silo?

I've been in a demo only. My FIL worked in silos for years and years.
Are you trying to impress someone?

> Ever wondered about the stability of those that send those merry
> giants on their way?

Okay... so you were doing psych evaluations for ROTC and
Academy Cadets. Wow!! You never cease to amaze
me, Kane. Or was it the bootstrap program or OTS that
you interviewed for?

> Want some spanked kiddies to grow up and get into that line of work?

I'm sure they do. And they work in Cheyenne Mountain. And they
fly aircraft with nuclear payloads. And they work OED. And they
fly medical evac. Some of them parachute in behind enemy lines and
use laser targeting to direct air strikes.

Shall we talk about Nuclear Submarines? I don't know anything about
Nuclear Submarines.

> We asked the question and others to determine the fitness just for the
> training...let alone for the work. Much more psych evals were being
> done during and after training...and periodically on duty.
>
> And spanked boys and girls were rejected. Routinely. They do NOT hold
> up well under the kind of stress involved in a missile silo.
>
> Guess why.

You have *so* blown your credibility. Ooops... I guess that
assumes you had some. Girls? In missile silos? Surely only in
empty silos that need a new coat of paint or wiring and then you get
to go home and the *stress* isn't any more than any other maintenance
job. Locked in a silo for a week at a time is *not* girls. You are
such a liar.

Silos have either 2 or 4 person crews. Officers. Males. Which
is just no fair at all, but that's the way it is. The guys with the keys.

I'm told it's a very good opportunity to get advanced degrees
through correspondence.

--Julie

[LaVonne Carlson]

Dennis Hancock wrote:

> Byron, how is the burdon of proof upon him? Spanking has been used for
> centuries without the adverse effects psychologists claim it has upon
> children. I would think that those who advocate 'reasoning' with a very
> young child to be able to show some evidence or scientific proof that one
> CAN reason without endangering that child's life.

Actually, Dennis, the proof is not upon you. What is your evidence that
spanking has been used for centuries with the adverse effects psychologists
claim it has upon children? Empirical evidence please, Dennis -- not your
opinion. You state this as fact, base your claim with data supporting your
factual statement.

There are a multitude of parenting strategies for very young children that do
not rely on reasoning or spanking. The first is to understand where this
little child is developmentally and have appropriate expectations. Then try
avoiding the issue if the expectation is developmentally inappropriate. Use
redirection, substitution, extinction, meeting child's immediate needs, and a
multitude of other parenting strategies. If you want more information, please
ask. I've posted this many times on alt.parenting.spanking. Parenting is
about teaching. Parenting is about helping children develop internal control
and moral reasoning -- it's not about hitting for compliance.

And a multitude of studies spanning several decades exist showing that spanking
is linked to long and short term risk factors and no studies that show spanking
to be preferrable to alternative forms of discipline that do not involve
hitting, hurting, shaming, or demeaning a child. Of course, if you have
studies that support your position, I'd love to read them. Please post your
sources.

LaVonne

[LaVonne Carlson]

Dennis Hancock wrote:

> Byron, and the increase in crime has skyrocketed in recent years, especially
> since we've been bombarded with psychobabble about how bad it is to spank a
> child. Many are growing up as spoiled brats, without any form of discipline
> in their lives and grow to adulthood and add to the problem.

Do you have evidence that links lack of spanking to an increase in crime. If
you do, please post your sources.

I've read multiple studies that have identified correlations between corporal
punishement and juvenile crime. Perhaps you have different sources that I
have. I'm anxious to see your references and read the studies that led you to
the conclusion that lack of spanking is correlated with an increase in crime.

Thanks, Dennis. I'll look forward to seeing your references.

LaVonne

[Greg Hanson]

"Julie Pascal" > wrote
> Shall we talk about Nuclear Submarines?
> I don't know anything about Nuclear Submarines.

Remember the Underdog cartoons about Commander McBragg?
Give Kane time and I'm sure he'll come up with
Nuclear Submarine credentials.
He served in the Boar War also.

> I'm told it's a very good opportunity to get
> advanced degrees through correspondence.

Between alerts perhaps the ultimate quiet place to read? <g>

[Jon Houts]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:

> Actually, Dennis, the proof is not upon you.
> What is your evidence that spanking has been
> used for centuries with the adverse effects
> psychologists claim it has upon children?
> Empirical evidence please, Dennis -- not your
> opinion. You state this as fact, base your
> claim with data supporting your factual statement.

So, you're requiring him to post his "cites"?

> And a multitude of studies spanning several
> decades exist showing that spanking is linked
> to long and short term risk factors and no
> studies that show spanking to be preferrable
> to alternative forms of discipline that do not
> involve hitting, hurting, shaming, or
> demeaning a child.

If you have studies that support your position, I'd love to read them.
Please post your sources.

> Of course, if you have studies that support
> your position, I'd love to read them. Please
> post your sources.

Hey, for all I know, you've posted your sources before, but this little
crossposted thread is all I've ever seen of you, and you've posted no such
sources that I've seen.

[LaVonne Carlson]

Jon Houts wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:

> > And a multitude of studies spanning several
> > decades exist showing that spanking is linked
> > to long and short term risk factors and no
> > studies that show spanking to be preferrable
> > to alternative forms of discipline that do not
> > involve hitting, hurting, shaming, or
> > demeaning a child.
>
> If you have studies that support your position, I'd love to read them.
> Please post your sources.

I have posted these sources, and updated them since 1996. You can find them
in the archives.

Find them, read them, and lets discuss them.

LaVonne

>

[Doan]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:

>
>
> Jon Houts wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:
>
> > > And a multitude of studies spanning several
> > > decades exist showing that spanking is linked
> > > to long and short term risk factors and no
> > > studies that show spanking to be preferrable
> > > to alternative forms of discipline that do not
> > > involve hitting, hurting, shaming, or
> > > demeaning a child.
> >
> > If you have studies that support your position, I'd love to read them.
> > Please post your sources.
>
> I have posted these sources, and updated them since 1996. You can find them
> in the archives.
>
> Find them, read them, and lets discuss them.
>
> LaVonne

LOL! Is this the same LaVonne that has been running away
from debating me for over 16 WEEKS! ;-)

Doan

[Greg Hanson]

Kane AKA AKA Frank Andrews
AKA Commander McBrag said he worked at SAC under LeMay.

There was a Frank M Andrews who worked with LeMay and
did great things for what would become the Air Force.
But he died in 1943.
Andrews Air Force Base was named after him.

And our Frank says that he worked under
LeMay in the 1950's?

Was Kane a Frank Junior, working for his deceased
father's old boss? At an air base named for
Frank's Dad?

And yes, is him because he posted
in some homeschooling newsgroups with his personal
fears about Christian Reconstructionism. It's him.

This is what tipped his hand:

From: )
Subject: Not sufficiently spanked........
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
Date: 2003-10-06 17:32:47 PST

Football Players In Sodomy Case May Be Tried As Adults
Team's Season Canceled

http://www.wftv.com/news/2534849/detail.html

POSTED: 1:14 p.m. EDT October 6, 2003
UPDATED: 2:08 p.m. EDT October 6, 2003

HONESDALE, Pa. -- A prosecutor says he will seek to have three high
school football players from Long Island, N.Y., tried as adults on
charges that they sodomized and hazed younger teammates at a preseason
training camp in northeast Pennsylvania.

Wayne County District Attorney Mark Zimmer held a news conference
Monday, describing the crimes as "horrific."

Three N.Y. high school football players who are accused of sodomizing
younger teammates at a training camp may be tried as adults. They
allegedly sodomized a 13-year-old and two 14-year-olds with a
broomstick, pine cones and golf balls.

Two of the players who are accused are 16 and one is 17. They
allegedly sodomized a 13-year-old and two 14-year-old boys with a
broomstick, pine cones and golf balls.

snip.......click the URL above for the complete story...........

The alleged perps must have come from the 10% or so minority of
children that are "never spanked."

It's obvious that these boys weren't sufficiently spanked by their
parents or they'd have developed consciences and been unable to do
such foul things to others.

Right, Spankers?

Kane

[Greg Hanson]

Julie: When you were in a homeschool newsgroup,
did you supect that Frank Andrews
was being such a charmer under the name Kane?

Think of his SAC and LeMay claims and you might
find it interesting that a Frank M Andrews did
serve with LeMay, died in 1943 and Andrews AFB
was named after him.

Is Kane a Frank Jr. claiming to BE their father?
Or some other variety of psycho?
The TEXT BELOW is easily recognizable to readers
of alt.support.child-protective-services as Kane.

wrote in message >...
Newsgroups: misc.education.home-school.misc, ott.education.homeschooling
Date: 2003-10-20 19:44:30 PST

<snip>
> Exactly!
>
> That's so in tune with our experience. We are long removed from direct
> homeschooling - our 4 children are aged 22 to 43 - but the same
> principles still apply.
>
> We often got the feeling we so often had to just jump back and give
> them room with an occasional foray into doing some rigorous learning
> ourselves right along with them. I didn't learn calculus until my
> children did.
>
> We are still active in homeschooling politically though, and I try to
> read each new book that comes out.
>
> I recently came across a treasure in a book by Ann Larson-Fischer,
> Fundamentals of Homeschooling. The title made me think it was going to
> be a bore, but she told the truth from my view point...she wrote this
> book that can make it possible for anyone looking for a system of
> homeschooling to find what they and their family can best apply to
> their situation.
>
> This is a gem and going to be one of the great classics of
> homeschooling writing. Though it's been out since January I think the
> title has kept it from being discovered.
>
> But the libraries are starting to stock more copies of it and renewing
> interest in her last book, Homeschooling In Oregon: The Handbook...and
> that book had some of the same qualities and it wasn't really all the
> limited to Oregon homeschooing issues.
>
> I'm going out and buying some copies for my children for Christmas
> presents.
>
> I did a google on the title and author and came up with:
>
> http://nettlepatch.net/homeschool/
>
> The reviews cannot adequately describe the quality of writing and easy
> to read style that I found. I wish we'd had this when we started
> homeschooling in the 60's.
>
> Frank

[Kane]

(Greg Hanson) wrote in message
>...
> Julie: When you were in a homeschool newsgroup,
> did you supect that Frank Andrews
> was being such a charmer under the name Kane?
>
> Think of his SAC and LeMay claims and you might
> find it interesting that a Frank M Andrews did
> serve with LeMay, died in 1943 and Andrews AFB
> was named after him.
>
> Is Kane a Frank Jr. claiming to BE their father?
> Or some other variety of psycho?
> The TEXT BELOW is easily recognizable to readers
> of alt.support.child-protective-services as Kane.

Really? What is the "tipoff?"

"Frank" has tried to fake me but not done much of a job of it. In one post he
simply hijacked a post of mine and cancelled out the original in USENET and
google.

> wrote in message
>...
> Newsgroups: misc.education.home-school.misc, ott.education.homeschooling
> Date: 2003-10-20 19:44:30 PST
>
> <snip>
> > Exactly!
> >
> > That's so in tune with our experience. We are long removed from direct
> > homeschooling - our 4 children are aged 22 to 43 - but the same
> > principles still apply.
> >
> > We often got the feeling we so often had to just jump back and give
> > them room with an occasional foray into doing some rigorous learning
> > ourselves right along with them. I didn't learn calculus until my
> > children did.
> >
> > We are still active in homeschooling politically though, and I try to
> > read each new book that comes out.
> >
> > I recently came across a treasure in a book by Ann Larson-Fischer,
> > Fundamentals of Homeschooling. The title made me think it was going to
> > be a bore, but she told the truth from my view point...she wrote this
> > book that can make it possible for anyone looking for a system of
> > homeschooling to find what they and their family can best apply to
> > their situation.
> >
> > This is a gem and going to be one of the great classics of
> > homeschooling writing. Though it's been out since January I think the
> > title has kept it from being discovered.
> >
> > But the libraries are starting to stock more copies of it and renewing
> > interest in her last book, Homeschooling In Oregon: The Handbook...and
> > that book had some of the same qualities and it wasn't really all the
> > limited to Oregon homeschooing issues.
> >
> > I'm going out and buying some copies for my children for Christmas
> > presents.
> >
> > I did a google on the title and author and came up with:
> >
> > http://nettlepatch.net/homeschool/
> >
> > The reviews cannot adequately describe the quality of writing and easy
> > to read style that I found. I wish we'd had this when we started
> > homeschooling in the 60's.
> >
> > Frank

I'm looking for signs of "Kane" in "Frank"'s post and am unable to find any.
Point them out to me.

Kane

[Jon Houts]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:

> Ray Drouillard wrote:
>
> > Pro 23:13 Don't withhold correction
> > from a child. If you punish him with
> > the rod, he will not die.
>
> If you advocate everything in the Old
> Testament, you advocate capital punishment
> for rebellious children, for adulterers,
> for women who are not virgins when they
> marry. Jesus' disciples tried this
> thinking when they desired to stone the
> woman at the well. Jesus intervened.
> Funny about that, isn't it.

I didn't realize that "Why do You speak with her?" meant "Let's kill her!"
Or, are you somewhere other than John 4?

[Jon Houts]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:

> Ray Drouillard wrote:
>
> > Proverbs is not a book of law, but a book of wise counsel. We are free
> > to disregard it -- at our own risk, of course. God's wisdom does not
> > pass away. He may change the rules as the situation merits, but the
> > wise advice in Proverbs still stands.
>
> So why did Jesus so openly defy the Old Testament? I see nothing in His
> words that recommend hitting children with rods as a parenting strategy.
> In fact, he recommends a millstone around the neck and being cast into the
> depths of the sea for anyone who offends a child.

Most translations say "causes to sin" or "causes to stumble" rather than
"offend."

> And when his disciplines
> want to stone a woman for wanton behavior )as the OT recommends), he stops
> them, forgives the woman, and tells her to "go and sin no more."

That was the scribes and Pharisees, not His disciplines(sic), and they
weren't exactly following the OT law were they, bringing only the woman
like that?

[Jon Houts]

On 12 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:

> "Ray Drouillard" wrote
>
> >"LaVonne Carlson" wrote

> >> I see nothing in His words that recommend
> >> hitting children with rods as a parenting
> >> strategy.
> >
> > Correct. Unlike the laws for divorce, he
> > did not change the counsel regarding child rearing.
>
> Odd, he spoke directely to them and you have have disregarded the
> meaning below.

No, Ray's rightly disregarding your (and LaVonne's) misinterpretation of
the passage in question.

> >> In fact, he recommends a millstone around
> >> the neck and being cast into the depths of
> >> the sea for anyone who offends a child.

This would be another great opportunity for Brandon or Kanga to explain to
us how the archaic (Webster's lists the meaning of "offend" above as being
"obsolete") language of the KJV isn't misleading to a modern reader.

[Jon Houts]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:

> Jon Houts wrote:
>
> > If you have studies that support your position, I'd love to read them.
> > Please post your sources.
>
> I have posted these sources, and updated them since 1996. You can find them
> in the archives.
>
> Find them, read them, and lets discuss them.

If you're going to be a good anti-spanking advocate, you should keep these
to give to anyone who asks. I shouldn't have to slog through 7 years of
your posts to find them.

[Doan]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Jon Houts wrote:

>
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:
>
> > Jon Houts wrote:
> >
> > > If you have studies that support your position, I'd love to read them.
> > > Please post your sources.
> >
> > I have posted these sources, and updated them since 1996. You can find them
> > in the archives.
> >
> > Find them, read them, and lets discuss them.
>
> If you're going to be a good anti-spanking advocate, you should keep these
> to give to anyone who asks. I shouldn't have to slog through 7 years of
> your posts to find them.
>
My thought exactly! Maybe, like used car salesmen, they don't want you
to look under the hood! ;-) Maybe because when non-cp alternatives are
compared under the same statistical scrutiny as with spanking, they came
out even worse. LaVonne has been dodging me ever since I challenged her
to produce a single "peer-reviewed" study where non-cp alternatives are
better when compared to spanking under the same condition. I have pointed
out to her that Straus & Mouradian (1998) found that the correlation
between anti-social behaviour (ASB) and non-cp alternatives are even
stronger than spanking. This was a surprise to stout anti-spanking
advocate like Straus the he had to admit:

"Perhaps the most difficult methodological problem in research on the
effects of CP is posed by the the fact that child behavior problems lead
parents to spank. Thus the repeated finding that the more CP parents use,
the worse the behavior problems of the child does not necessarily show
that CP has harmful effects, or even that CP is not effective in reducing
misbehavior (as I erroneously argued in the past)."

It is funny than for someone who claimed to have a Ph. D. and have read
all the studies, like LaVonne, to continously make the same ERRONEOUS
argument!

Doan

[Brandon]

"Jon Houts" > wrote in message
...
>
> > >> In fact, he recommends a millstone around
> > >> the neck and being cast into the depths of
> > >> the sea for anyone who offends a child.
>
> This would be another great opportunity for Brandon or Kanga to explain to
> us how the archaic (Webster's lists the meaning of "offend" above as being
> "obsolete") language of the KJV isn't misleading to a modern reader.
>

{sarcastic mode on}

Hmm... reading this in the NASB would seem to indicate that because I
accidentally tripped my son once I should be drowned. Or maybe I am just
being lazy and not actually reading but just looking at the words. At any
rate, clearly the up-to-date NASB is not up-to-date enough since there is an
iota of study required to understand the meaning of the word in its context.

{sarcastic mode off}

--
Brandon Staggs
http://www.brandonstaggs.com

[Jon Houts]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Brandon wrote:

> "Jon Houts" > wrote

LaVonne Carlson wrote:
> > > >> In fact, he recommends a millstone around
> > > >> the neck and being cast into the depths of
> > > >> the sea for anyone who offends a child.
> >
> > This would be another great opportunity for Brandon or Kanga to explain to
> > us how the archaic (Webster's lists the meaning of "offend" above as being
> > "obsolete") language of the KJV isn't misleading to a modern reader.
> >
>
> Hmm... reading this in the NASB would seem to indicate that because I
> accidentally tripped my son once I should be drowned. Or maybe I am just
> being lazy and not actually reading but just looking at the words. At any
> rate, clearly the up-to-date NASB is not up-to-date enough since there is an
> iota of study required to understand the meaning of the word in its context.

Funny. First definition of "stumble" in Webster's? "1 a : to fall into sin
or waywardness" Do you really think that a word that has two definitions
in common usage *today* is the same thing as a word that had one meaning 4
hundred years ago (which is now considered "obsolete") and a different
usage *today*?

but,but...
Jon

[Brandon]

"Jon Houts" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Brandon wrote:
>
>> "Jon Houts" > wrote
>
> LaVonne Carlson wrote:
>>>>>> In fact, he recommends a millstone around
>>>>>> the neck and being cast into the depths of
>>>>>> the sea for anyone who offends a child.
>>>
>>> This would be another great opportunity for Brandon or Kanga to
>>> explain to us how the archaic (Webster's lists the meaning of
>>> "offend" above as being "obsolete") language of the KJV isn't
>>> misleading to a modern reader.
>>>
>>
>> Hmm... reading this in the NASB would seem to indicate that because I
>> accidentally tripped my son once I should be drowned. Or maybe I am
>> just being lazy and not actually reading but just looking at the
>> words. At any rate, clearly the up-to-date NASB is not up-to-date
>> enough since there is an iota of study required to understand the
>> meaning of the word in its context.
>
> Funny. First definition of "stumble" in Webster's? "1 a : to fall
> into sin or waywardness" Do you really think that a word that has
> two definitions in common usage *today* is the same thing as a word
> that had one meaning 4 hundred years ago (which is now considered
> "obsolete") and a different usage *today*?

Clearly you missed my point, Jon.

First of all, that depends on your dictionary. My Random House Webster's
Unabridged Dictionary (on CD, 1999) has these for the first two definitions
for _stumble_:

1. to strike the foot against something, as in walking or running, so as
to stagger or fall; trip.

2. to walk or go unsteadily: to stumble down a dark passage.

So my analogy is certainly valid.

Secondly, the same dictionary says of _offend_:

5. (in Biblical use) to cause to fall into sinful ways.

It does not label it an archaic/obsolete definition, and in fact clearly
marks it as Biblical English. Now, you may fret over the fact that this is
the fifth definition, but I had to go down three definitions in the same
dictionary to find the NASB's usage of 'stumble' in this verse.

Besides, I never said that the language of the KJV was never misleading to a
modern reader. There are a lot of modern readers and many of them have a
hard time reading. In fact, Kanga (whom you also tried to bait) and I have
bemoaned this very fact before.


Now, the bottom line, as it applies to Bible versions, is that this is not
even the main issue. Your objection to the word 'offend' being used here is
not enough to argue *for* a modern version unless the modern version's
primary goal is to simply update the language so that the meanings of the
words it uses are found in the third definition instead of the fifth
definition of a dictionary. Find me a modern popular version that does this
without removing verses or changing "begotten Son" to "begotten God" (NASB)
and we'll talk a little more.


PS: Get your NASB out and read Job 34:31, Jer 23:13, Ro 5:14, 1Pe 2:8 and a
few other verses. Then get your word processor handy and write a letter to
the Lochman Foundation complaining that they are using obsolete English and
need to update their version more often. You might then consider doing a
simple search in your own version for the word you are claiming the KJV has
that is archaic and just make sure your new and improved version doesn't use
the exact same word in the exact same context, too.

--
Brandon Staggs
http://www.brandonstaggs.com

[Greg Hanson]

Does ""Frank"" like or dislike you, Kane?
Is he a friend or foe? Neither makes any sense.

Why would he repost your exact isues/opinions for many weeks?

Under the name fandrews?
How is that an attempt to impersonate you?

[Kane]

On 2 Nov 2003 15:17:52 -0800, (Greg Hanson) wrote:

>Does ""Frank"" like or dislike you, Kane?

He is a troll I have canned a number of times. I'd presume he doesn't
like me. His last post was a taunting one.

>Is he a friend or foe? Neither makes any sense.

I have no way of knowing but I wonder if the real Frank Andrews is the
same as the FAndrews we are discussing.
>
>Why would he repost your exact isues/opinions for many weeks?

To harrass?

He has posted under fandrews 8 times in less than three weeks. Unless
he continues I'm not going to worry about him. He'll just pop up under
another name if I bother to go after him.

>
>Under the name fandrews?

That was the addy.

>How is that an attempt to impersonate you?

As I have already pointed out to you asshole, he pasted his addy over
a post I made to Usenet that was highjacked and removed from Usenet.

His prime motivation wasn't to impersonate me as far as I can tell,
just to harrass. Or he wouldn't have given it up and then gloated.
Looks kinda like one of your friends.

If he is who I think he is this has gone on since about 1981 or 82
when I first kicked his butt on Fidonet.

Kane

[Jon Houts]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Brandon wrote:

> "Jon Houts" > wrote
> > On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Brandon wrote:
> >
> >> "Jon Houts" > wrote
> >
> > LaVonne Carlson wrote:
> >>>>>> In fact, he recommends a millstone around
> >>>>>> the neck and being cast into the depths of
> >>>>>> the sea for anyone who offends a child.
> >>>
> >>> This would be another great opportunity for Brandon or Kanga to
> >>> explain to us how the archaic (Webster's lists the meaning of
> >>> "offend" above as being "obsolete") language of the KJV isn't
> >>> misleading to a modern reader.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hmm... reading this in the NASB would seem to indicate that because I
> >> accidentally tripped my son once I should be drowned. Or maybe I am
> >> just being lazy and not actually reading but just looking at the
> >> words. At any rate, clearly the up-to-date NASB is not up-to-date
> >> enough since there is an iota of study required to understand the
> >> meaning of the word in its context.
> >
> > Funny. First definition of "stumble" in Webster's? "1 a : to fall
> > into sin or waywardness" Do you really think that a word that has
> > two definitions in common usage *today* is the same thing as a word
> > that had one meaning 4 hundred years ago (which is now considered
> > "obsolete") and a different usage *today*?
>
> Clearly you missed my point, Jon.
>
> First of all, that depends on your dictionary. My Random House Webster's
> Unabridged Dictionary (on CD, 1999) has these for the first two definitions
> for _stumble_:

Of course, someone like LaVonne isn't going to look in any dictionary
because she *knows* what the word means (at least in today's terms,
anywhere other than the KJV Bible).

> 1. to strike the foot against something, as in walking or running, so as
> to stagger or fall; trip.
>
> 2. to walk or go unsteadily: to stumble down a dark passage.
>
> So my analogy is certainly valid.

Not really.

> Secondly, the same dictionary says of _offend_:
>
> 5. (in Biblical use) to cause to fall into sinful ways.

However low :to cause to sin" falls in the list of definitions, it's still
in use today other than in the NASB. "Offend" still only mean that "in
Biblical use."

> It does not label it an archaic/obsolete definition, and in fact clearly
> marks it as Biblical English. Now, you may fret over the fact that this is
> the fifth definition, but I had to go down three definitions in the same
> dictionary to find the NASB's usage of 'stumble' in this verse.

I'm not fretting over number, but over the fact that that definition of
"offend" isn't likely to be found by a modern reader *except* in the KJV.

> Besides, I never said that the language of the KJV was never misleading to a
> modern reader. There are a lot of modern readers and many of them have a
> hard time reading. In fact, Kanga (whom you also tried to bait) and I have
> bemoaned this very fact before.

It was my recollection that either you or Kanga had poo-poo-ed the idea
that such misunderstandings could occur. I thought that one or both of
you had bemoaned the fact that people didn't know certain words in the KJV
that aren't in use today.

> Now, the bottom line, as it applies to Bible versions, is that this is not
> even the main issue. Your objection to the word 'offend' being used here is
> not enough to argue *for* a modern version unless the modern version's
> primary goal is to simply update the language so that the meanings of the
> words it uses are found in the third definition instead of the fifth
> definition of a dictionary. Find me a modern popular version that does this
> without removing verses or changing "begotten Son" to "begotten God" (NASB)
> and we'll talk a little more.
>
>
> PS: Get your NASB out

....ain't got one, but I looked up the verses you posted below in the NIV,
and I'm guessing that the NASB is similar.

> and read Job 34:31, Jer 23:13, Ro 5:14, 1Pe 2:8 and a
> few other verses. Then get your word processor handy and write a letter to
> the Lochman Foundation complaining that they are using obsolete English and
> need to update their version more often.

Let's see...the for "offend" or "offensive" appears in these in the NIV,
BUT IN THE SAME CONTEXT AS IT'S USED TODAY. Cute, but I refuse to believe
you're so stupid as to think that my problem is with the word rather than
the definition as used in Matthew 18 in the KJV.

> You might then consider doing a
> simple search in your own version for the word you are claiming the KJV has
> that is archaic and just make sure your new and improved version doesn't use
> the exact same word in the exact same context, too.

Surely you can see that it's not the same.


but,but...
Jon

[Brandon]

If it bothers you to have archaic or hard-to-understand words in a Bible,
then I think you should have a look at the NIV. You may have heard of it,
but it is already over 20 years old and is need of some serious updating.
Honestly, I can't understand how anyone can possibly read through it. I
mean, check this out:

The NIV uses the word "abutted" in Eze 40:18. The more modern KJV uses the
word "against."

The NIV uses the word "alcove" in Eze 40:13. The easier to understand KJV
uses the words "little chamber."

The NIV uses "annotations" in 2Chr 13:22. The simpler KJV uses "stories."

The NIV uses "breakers" in Ps 93:4. The up-to-date KJV uses "waves."

The NIV uses "brood" in Isa 57:4. The obviously more accessible KJV uses
"children."

The archaic NIV uses "colonnade" in Re 1Ki 7:6. The KJV uses "porch."

The overly complex NIV uses "disheartened" in Eze 13:22. The KJV makes this
simpler with "sad."

Do you know what enrollment is? The NIV doesn't. It uses "enrollment" in
2Chr 17:14. I mean, how is a modern reader supposed to understand that they
didn't actually enroll in a class?

The NIV has "haunt" in Ps 44:19. Since we all know that "haunt" is
something ghosts do, the KJV updated this to "place."

Since "magi" in the NIV at Mt 2:1 could easily conjur up visions of wizards,
the KJV has the more clear "wise men."

What the heck does "ravening" mean (NIV, Jer 2:30)? Don't worry, the KJV
has "destroying."


Now please: when you think of a THONG, do you *really* envision something
Jesus would wear? You see, the old NIV was written before the modern
popular "Thong Song."
(http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~harel/cgi/page/htmlit?Thong_Song.html ) They
wouldn't understand that TODAY, when we talk about thongs, we are talking
about what in THOSE days (when the NIV was translated) was called a
"G-string." Don't worry about what the dictionary says because face it, when
kids think about thongs, they aren't thinking about shoelaces. So it is
obviously a BAD THING to have John messing with the Lord's thong in Luke
3:16. So the more modern KJV translators, not wanting a raunchy R&B song to
be brought to mind when reading the Bible, change "thong" to "latchet."
Sure, "latchet" has two syllables, and that may leave some people behind,
but we think you'll agree that it's a worthwhile trade-off.


Tongue planted firmly in cheek...

--
Brandon Staggs
http://www.brandonstaggs.com

[Ray Drouillard]

"Jon Houts" > wrote in message
...
>
> On 12 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:
>
> > "Ray Drouillard" wrote
> >
> > >"LaVonne Carlson" wrote
>
> > >> I see nothing in His words that recommend
> > >> hitting children with rods as a parenting
> > >> strategy.
> > >
> > > Correct. Unlike the laws for divorce, he
> > > did not change the counsel regarding child rearing.
> >
> > Odd, he spoke directely to them and you have have disregarded the
> > meaning below.
>
> No, Ray's rightly disregarding your (and LaVonne's) misinterpretation
of
> the passage in question.
>
> > >> In fact, he recommends a millstone around
> > >> the neck and being cast into the depths of
> > >> the sea for anyone who offends a child.
>
> This would be another great opportunity for Brandon or Kanga to
explain to
> us how the archaic (Webster's lists the meaning of "offend" above as
being
> "obsolete") language of the KJV isn't misleading to a modern reader.


shame shame shame... you *knew* that you would automatically get his
goat by pushing that button. It isn't even a free will or freedom of
choice issue. It's more in the stimulus/response paradigm. Stimulus:
hint that the KJV isn't the bestest and mostest wonderfulest
translation. Response: Brandon posts well-worded intellectual rebuttal.

Come on, Jon... you knew it was going to happen. It's so predictable.
Admit it; you did it on purpose.


Ray Drouillard
(who isn't going to get into this one)

[Jon Houts]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Ray Drouillard wrote:

> "Jon Houts" > wrote

> > This would be another great opportunity
> > for Brandon or Kanga to explain to us
> > how the archaic (Webster's lists the
> > meaning of "offend" above as being
> > "obsolete") language of the KJV isn't
> > misleading to a modern reader.
>
> shame shame shame... you *knew* that you
> would automatically get his goat by
> pushing that button.

"Automatically"? I tried on Sept 13, 2002 (when someone posted a bunch of
"pro-gay" KJV prooftexts) and he didn't respond.

[Brandon]

"Jon Houts" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Ray Drouillard wrote:
>
>> "Jon Houts" > wrote
>
>>> This would be another great opportunity
>>> for Brandon or Kanga to explain to us
>>> how the archaic (Webster's lists the
>>> meaning of "offend" above as being
>>> "obsolete") language of the KJV isn't
>>> misleading to a modern reader.
>>
>> shame shame shame... you *knew* that you
>> would automatically get his goat by
>> pushing that button.
>
> "Automatically"? I tried on Sept 13, 2002 (when someone posted a
> bunch of "pro-gay" KJV prooftexts) and he didn't respond.

Guess I missed that one. Must have my reflexes checked.

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/twohomosexuals.htm

--
Brandon Staggs
http://www.brandonstaggs.com

[Jon Houts]

On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Brandon wrote:

> If it bothers you to have archaic or hard-
> to-understand words in a Bible,

What was that you said about misrepresentation again? My problem is with
words that meant one thing at one point in time, and something else today.
If a word isn't used today (archaic) or is "hard to understand," one can
look it up, right? If you wrongly think you know what a word mean (as
LaVonne did), you have no reason to look it up.

> The NIV uses the word "abutted" in Eze 40:18. The more modern KJV uses the
> word "against."
>
> The NIV uses the word "alcove" in Eze 40:13. The easier to understand KJV
> uses the words "little chamber."
>
> The NIV uses "annotations" in 2Chr 13:22. The simpler KJV uses "stories."
>
> The NIV uses "breakers" in Ps 93:4. The up-to-date KJV uses "waves."
>
> The NIV uses "brood" in Isa 57:4. The obviously more accessible KJV uses
> "children."

....and you thought those words meant something else?

> The archaic NIV uses "colonnade" in Re 1Ki 7:6. The KJV uses "porch."

I have one neighbor who has what I think of as a "colonnade," and lots of
neighbors with "porches." From the description, does it sound anything
like what you see called a "porch" today?

> The overly complex NIV uses "disheartened" in Eze 13:22. The KJV makes this
> simpler with "sad."
>
> Do you know what enrollment is? The NIV doesn't. It uses "enrollment" in
> 2Chr 17:14. I mean, how is a modern reader supposed to understand that they
> didn't actually enroll in a class?

Neither of the dictionaries I have here listed "register for a class" (or
similar wording as a definition for "enrollment."

> The NIV has "haunt" in Ps 44:19. Since we all know that "haunt" is
> something ghosts do, the KJV updated this to "place."
>
> Since "magi" in the NIV at Mt 2:1 could easily conjur up visions of wizards,
> the KJV has the more clear "wise men."

Since they were more like astrologers, visions of wizards doesn't seem
like a bad image to conjure up. "Wise men" seems a little vague.

> Now please: when you think of a THONG, do you *really* envision something
> Jesus would wear? You see, the old NIV was written before the modern
> popular "Thong Song."
> (http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~harel/cgi/page/htmlit?Thong_Song.html ) They
> wouldn't understand that TODAY, when we talk about thongs, we are talking
> about what in THOSE days (when the NIV was translated) was called a
> "G-string." Don't worry about what the dictionary says because face it, when
> kids think about thongs, they aren't thinking about shoelaces. So it is
> obviously a BAD THING to have John messing with the Lord's thong in Luke
> 3:16. So the more modern KJV translators, not wanting a raunchy R&B song to
> be brought to mind when reading the Bible, change "thong" to "latchet."
> Sure, "latchet" has two syllables, and that may leave some people behind,
> but we think you'll agree that it's a worthwhile trade-off.

Well, some of us *do* think footwear when we see "thong." But, I think
that whole discussion was before your time in the ng.

but,but...
Jon

[Jon Houts]

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Brandon wrote:

> "Jon Houts" wrote
> >
> > "Automatically"? I tried on Sept 13, 2002 (when someone posted a
> > bunch of "pro-gay" KJV prooftexts) and he didn't respond.
>
> Guess I missed that one. Must have my reflexes checked.

I was less inclined to believe that that was an honest misunderstanding.
I thought maybe that was why you didn't answer that one. Then again, I
don't think you were posting much then.

but,but...
Jon

[Rebekah Staggs]

"Jon Houts" > wrote in message
...

> > The archaic NIV uses "colonnade" in Re 1Ki 7:6. The KJV uses "porch."
>
> I have one neighbor who has what I think of as a "colonnade," and lots of
> neighbors with "porches." From the description, does it sound anything
> like what you see called a "porch" today?

Actually we call it a "Lanai" in Hawaii.

--
- Rebekah Staggs
http://www.staggs.pair.com/jaenest

[Greg Hanson]

Why would ""Frank"" post your opinions under his own name?
That kind of defeats the purpose of forging doesn't it?
Is he your friend or your foe?

Didn't you used to use a name starting with k9, Kane?

[Greg Hanson]

Doan, That was Strauss that reversed himself, right?
Since he was pretty much the Guru of the anti-spankers,
I wonder how many of LaVonne's textbooks are incorrect?

LaVonne: Do you have a syllabus online?

[Greg Hanson]

Kane: What about the messages that ""Frank"" posted
under his own name that sounded like your issues?
Even paranoia about Christian reconstructionism?

Why would ""Frank"" post your stuff under his name?

Defeats purpose of message header forgery doesn't it?

[Kane]

(Greg Hanson) wrote in message >...
> Kane: What about the messages that ""Frank"" posted
> under his own name that sounded like your issues?
> Even paranoia about Christian reconstructionism?

What about them?

>
> Why would ""Frank"" post your stuff under his name?
>

I find one post he did that. As I've pointed out he and I have a long
history of harrassment of me and my nailing his ass for it. He
probably still smarts years later for my successfully running him down
and have 3 ISPs in a month close his accounts with them.

> Defeats purpose of message header forgery doesn't it?

What makes you think forgery was his goal?

So what's your point, Whore?

Stoneman

[Greg Hanson]

So why did ""Frank"" post your issues under his name for weeks?
Wouldn't that undermind his ""forgery""?

[Greg Hanson]

If ""Frank Andrews"" is not you, and is forging your name,
why would he post your issues under his own name for weeks?

[Greg Hanson]

Why would ""Frank"" post your opinions for weeks
under his own e-mail address?

[Greg Hanson]

Why would ""Frank"" post your opinions under
his name for weeks before this discovery?
Doesn't that defeat the intent of ""forgery""?

[Greg Hanson]

Why did ""Frank"" post your personal issues under his name?
Defeats purpose of forging you doesn't it?

[Greg Hanson]

Kane: Why would ""Frank"" post your pet issues for weeks
under his name before forging your header?
Doesn't that undo the forgery?

[Dan Sullivan]

"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Kane: Why would ""Frank"" post your pet issues for weeks
> under his name before forging your header?

Shouldn't you be asking Frank that question?

> Doesn't that undo the forgery?

Like unringing a bell?

Dan

[Steve Saus]

I think you all are overlooking a very important bit of information in your
posts. I've posted the relevant link below (and, yes, a followup for each
thread, so I'm posting this at least thrice).

http://tinyurl.com/u6ht

Steve
----
See the e-mail version of my resource postings and archives at:
http://surge.ods.org/lists/resource.htm
See permissions for reposting at
http://surge.ods.org/permission.htm

[Steve Saus]

I think you all are overlooking a very important bit of information in your
posts. I've posted the relevant link below (and, yes, a followup for each
thread, so I'm posting this at least thrice).

http://tinyurl.com/u6ht

Steve
----
See the e-mail version of my resource postings and archives at:
http://surge.ods.org/lists/resource.htm
See permissions for reposting at
http://surge.ods.org/permission.htm

[Dennis Hancock]

He's paranoid Greg. He's accused me of being a troll who he apparently
bucked heads with a long time ago.

His arguments are lame and weak, so he has to use some kind of smokescreen
to cover up.

"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...
> Kane: Why would ""Frank"" post your pet issues for weeks
> under his name before forging your header?
> Doesn't that undo the forgery?

[Greg Hanson]

Dennis H:
Greetings from flyover country!
Any news on whether the Governator (I like it!)
will do anything to clean up Child protection?
It seems like after all of the recent public
humiliations, politicians are more willing to
speak out and change CPS agencies.

Re: Kane
Did you ever see "Commander McBrag" cartoons with Underdog?
An old guy puffing on his pipe telling tall tales,
bragging about how he served in the Boer War..
And his exaggerations always become outrageous.
Kane says he invented flash cards for flight
crews to use for identifying aircraft.
(And I copyrighted the letter K, so he owes me royalties.)

As for the paranoia, I think he is just afraid
somebody will do onto him what he does to them.
Being devious himself, he doesn't trust anybody.

Greg in Iowa

> He's paranoid Greg. He's accused me of
> being a troll who he apparently
> bucked heads with a long time ago.
>
> His arguments are lame and weak, so he
> has to use some kind of smokescreen
> to cover up.
>
> Greg Hanson wrote
> > Kane: Why would ""Frank"" post your pet issues for weeks
> > under his name before forging your header?
> > Doesn't that undo the forgery?

[Dan Sullivan]

"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...

<<<snip>>>

> Re: Kane
> Did you ever see "Commander McBrag" cartoons with Underdog?
> An old guy puffing on his pipe telling tall tales,
> bragging about how he served in the Boer War..
> And his exaggerations always become outrageous.
> Kane says he invented flash cards for flight
> crews to use for identifying aircraft.

What's that URL, Greg?

> (And I copyrighted the letter K, so he owes me royalties.)
>
> As for the paranoia, I think he is just afraid
> somebody will do onto him what he does to them.

As I've said before, Kane has helped in every case I've worked on since I
met him.

> Being devious himself, he doesn't trust anybody.

Maybe working IN the system Kane doesn't want anyone there to know what he
does?

Might cost him his job.

You do remember what a "job" is, don't you, Greg?

Dan

[Greg Hanson]

> "Greg Hanson" > wrote
> om...
> > Re: Kane
> > Did you ever see "Commander McBrag" cartoons with Underdog?
> > An old guy puffing on his pipe telling tall tales,
> > bragging about how he served in the Boer War..
> > And his exaggerations always become outrageous.
> > Kane says he invented flash cards for flight
> > crews to use for identifying aircraft.

Dan wrote
> What's that URL, Greg?

HERE IT IS! Did you MISS this the first time, Dan?

Kane wrote
>...
> My service was in military intelligence. I taught
> pilots, in TAC, (Tactical Air Command) enemy
> aircraft identification and created the first
> handheld flashcards for pilot inflight use. I hear
> they were still around twenty years later, no
> longer in my primative 3 by 5 color coded cards
> with a stationary screw post through the corner
> for ease of browsing one handed format though.

> Maybe working IN the system Kane doesn't
> want anyone there to know what he does?
> Might cost him his job.

Yeah, Yeah. I've heard the "secret agent"
excuse before. Maybe he's the tooth fairy.

Kane has changed his story about his connection
from denial, to a relative who is a caseworker,
to serving on a supervisory board over CPS.

Whatever suits his arguing and insults at the time.

[Dan Sullivan]

"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...
> > "Greg Hanson" > wrote
> > om...
> > > Re: Kane
> > > Did you ever see "Commander McBrag" cartoons with Underdog?
> > > An old guy puffing on his pipe telling tall tales,
> > > bragging about how he served in the Boer War..
> > > And his exaggerations always become outrageous.
> > > Kane says he invented flash cards for flight
> > > crews to use for identifying aircraft.
>
> Dan wrote
> > What's that URL, Greg?
>
> HERE IT IS! Did you MISS this the first time, Dan?

Did you miss this the first time around, Greg?

As I've said before, Kane has helped in every case I've worked on since I
met him.

Couldn't deal with it so you snipped it?

Dan

[Kane]

On 9 Nov 2003 17:00:34 -0800, (Greg Hanson) wrote:

>> "Greg Hanson" > wrote
>> om...
>> > Re: Kane
>> > Did you ever see "Commander McBrag" cartoons with Underdog?
>> > An old guy puffing on his pipe telling tall tales,
>> > bragging about how he served in the Boer War..
>> > And his exaggerations always become outrageous.
>> > Kane says he invented flash cards for flight
>> > crews to use for identifying aircraft.
>
>Dan wrote
>> What's that URL, Greg?
>
>HERE IT IS! Did you MISS this the first time, Dan?
>
>Kane wrote
>...
>> My service was in military intelligence. I taught
>> pilots, in TAC, (Tactical Air Command) enemy
>> aircraft identification and created the first
>> handheld flashcards for pilot inflight use.

Unless someone can come up with an earlier use of those cards I was
the one that created them. I got the idea, since I was studying art at
the time, from paint chip samples fastened at the corner. I used to do
really big art...whole sides of buildings, or complete walls inside,
and used high quality housepaint.

There's just no end to the adventures I've had, Greegor, and all of
them working, working, working and being paid. Unlike you.

>> I hear
>> they were still around twenty years later, no
>> longer in my primative 3 by 5 color coded cards
>> with a stationary screw post through the corner
>> for ease of browsing one handed format though.
>
>> Maybe working IN the system Kane doesn't
>> want anyone there to know what he does?
>> Might cost him his job.
>
>Yeah, Yeah. I've heard the "secret agent"
>excuse before. Maybe he's the tooth fairy.

While Dan is close to the truth it's just a tad off. I don't work for
the state. I've never been a caseworker. Wouldn't be. Can't stand the
idea, though I do admire those that do it and do it well, just as in
any other profession.

>Kane has changed his story about his connection
>from denial,

No, I've not done that. I've nothing to "deny." I don't work for the
state.

>to a relative who is a caseworker,

I'm still trying to resolve where that came from. I've had relatives
that were foster parents (my sister, for over 150 kids) and relatives
that worked for the Feds in the AG's office. I've had relatives that
were state police. I had relatives that were nurses and doctors, and
dry goods store owners (now that was waaaaaay back of course).

But I can't recall having or saying I had a relative that was a
caseworker. I know someone else said I said that, but not me. Can you
find that for me Greegor?

It might be yet another phony post under my name.

>to serving on a supervisory board over CPS.

Yes. A county commission that was expressly created to oversee human
services, including child welfare. I served about 3 or 4 years (long
time ago...and who knows, maybe my memory is slipping) and the final
year or two as chair.

That gave me an awful lot of exposure to both county child welfare
issues, and it was during that time the state went to a central system
of child welfare, so I also got a lot of knowledge, and know
historical information, about how counties and states ran their child
welfare business.

I explained at some length that I got involved from the beginning by
defending and supporting a single mother who came under investigation
of the county child welfare people. I was offered the position on the
commission as a result. They were trying to preempt me because I was
already pretty well known as a businessman in the community.

I had the ear of the editor of the only local paper. Little things
like that.

In other words, Greegor the Whore, I was a responsible citizen. They
do tend to get tapped for things like commission seats.

>Whatever suits his arguing and insults at the time.

Yes. Very true. It has to do with credibility.

Your problem is that you are such a sit on your ass do nothing
freeloader that you can't believe that someone would have as active
and exciting a life as I have had.

So you make up things. You assume I sit around all day doing nothing.
You speculate on who and what I am because you can't stand it that I
am really who and what I say I am and was.

You should be so lucky to have had as interesting a life as I, and it
still goes on. I don't know what adventure will come next, but I'm
thinking seriously of windsurfing. I've surfed in Hawaii, board and
body, but never windsurfed.

Watched some paragliders yesterday. Now there is temptation.

My wife forbids me to snowboard with her daughters and their friends,
though I used to ski, but she actually is interested in the
paragliding herself it seems. R R R R.

She'll let me rebuild our decks and porches climbing all over the
place using powertools etc, but not snowboarding...now how fair is
that I ask yah...?

r r r

Don't you wish you were me?

Kane

[Ozed]

(Kane) wrote in message >...
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 22:29:21 -0400, "Ray Drouillard"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Ray Drouillard wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Kids who are raised without proper discipline end up being rotten
> >> > adults. One must only look around to see examples.
> >>
> >> Yes, children both need and deserve proper discipline. What they
> do
> not
> >> need is physical assault in the name of discipline.
> >>
> >> > Of course, the real answer can be found in the "user's manual"
> that
> our
> >> > maker gave to us:
> >> >
> >> > Pro 13:24 One who spares the rod hates his son, But one who loves
> him is
> >> > careful to discipline him.
> >> >
> >> > Pro 22:15 Folly is bound up in the heart of a child: The rod of
> >> > discipline drives it far from him.
> >>
> >> And Deuteronomy recommends stoning children to death for rebellious
> >> behavior. Do you recommend killing children who do not obey, or do
> you
> >> prefer selective Biblical interpretation and application? By the
> way,
> >> nothing in the NT suggests that Jesus would recommend hitting and
> hurting a
> >> little child with rods or anything else.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Pro 23:13 Don't withhold correction from a child. If you punish
> him
> with
> >> > the rod, he will not die.
> >> > Pro 23:14 Punish him with the rod, And save his soul from Sheol.
> >>
> >> And Deuteronomy recommends killing rebellious children. Since you
> >> literally apply Proverbs, I'm sure you advocate killing as a form
> of
> >> discipline.
> >>
> >> > Pro 29:15 The rod of correction gives wisdom, But a child left
> tto
> >> > himself causes shame to his mother.
> >>
> >> And Deuteronomy recommends killing children. I must assume that if
> you use
> >> Proverbs to justify hitting children with rods, you also recommend
> stoning
> >> those children to death who remain rebellious.
> >>
> >> > Pro 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is
> old he
> >> > will not depart from it.
> >>
> >> And one can discipline and one can train without hitting and
> hurting a
> >> child. And one can certainly parent without stoning children to
> death.
> >> Read the New Testament, Ray. And read the Old Testament. If you
> advocate
> >> everything in the Old Testament, you advocate capital punishment
> for
> >> rebellious children, for adulterers, for women who are not virgins
> when
> >> they marry. Jesus' disciples tried this thinking when they desired
> to
> >> stone the woman at the well. Jesus intervened. Funny about that,
> isn't
> >> it.
> >>
> >> LaVonne
> >
> >
> >Again, the term "justify" is used.
>
> Yes. Logical to use it.
>
> >Do you have to justify eating?
>
> No, unless the eating has become gluttony.
>
> >Do you have to justify sleeping?
>
> No, unless the sleeping has become narcolepsy or due to a mental
> disorder like clinical depression.
>
> >You
> >justify bad things, not good things.
>
> I justify, quite eloquently I think, my belief in not spanking. I
> consider that a good thing.
>
> Your attempt to label all things that YOU call good and deny others
> the right to justify what THEY call good, suggests that you wish to be
> the arbiter of what are good things and bad things.
>
> The point of the debate is to determine that, not arrogantly declare
> it an accomplished fact....one of the more ugly characteristics of the
> Theosophists.
>
>
> >Discipline is a good thing.
>
> Absolutely. I am completely in agreement.
>
> Do you know the aetiology of that word? What the latin, "discere" or
> "discere" means?
>
> Here's an example of use in latin:
>
> ediscendis -- ablative plural feminine of gerund(ive) of <e¯disco¯,
> e¯discere, e¯didici, -> learn, memorize -- in learning
>
> I see nothing about punishment to facilitate learning.
>
> And yet another:
>
> didicit -- verb; 3rd person singular perfect of <disco¯, discere,
> didici¯, -> learn -- knew
>
> And another:
>
> discenda -- verbal adjective; ablative singular feminine of <disco¯,
> discere, didici¯, -> learn -- learning
>
> Still no pain mentioned.
>
> Yes, children do need discipline and I would be the first to defend
> and support your obligation to give learning through discipline.
>
> And yes, it is possible to use punishment to teach, but why would one
> of another non punitive method had more lasting results with less
> chance of side effects?
>
> There is ample "punishment" in the world without the teacher using it
> too.
>
> Each day we let the parental protective boundaries out just a tad more
> so the child can explore the consequencs of their behavior. We limit
> it for their safety. Why would we want to ad pain to it when the child
> is already experiencing pain from his environment?
>
> I've asked many mothers (as they are more often the one that does it)
> what happened the first time they slapped or spanked their child? It's
> been pretty standard for them to answer that the baby expressed
> surprised disbelief, in reverse order of course.
>
> First they are stunned at the source of the pain, then they do not
> believe it...they ignore the mother. She has to hit again, and the
> cycle starts.
>
> The child accepts, in only a few swats, the source, and that source is
> the beloved mother, who has up to that point given the baby everything
> he or she needs to survive, to feel good, to be charged up with the
> energy to explore. That is a clear messgae to the baby.
>
> She deserves, totally, what the mother delivers in the way of
> parenting.
>
> And if it's pain, she deserves pain. And her exploritory behavior
> deserves pain. Forever she will be influenced as she explores the
> world later with that first discovery of what she deserved, and her
> life will be intertwined with pain.
>
> As any adult. Is life painful?
>
> When you find one that says, emphatically, "no!" you very likely only
> found an unspanked person but one that has not been punished by their
> parents. They learned from the world what was painfully dangerous, and
> they learned from their parents what was expected of them in the way
> of social and personal responsibility.
>
> Discovering one is enough to make anyone that never encountered
> someone like that before break down and cry.
>
> I met my first one on a train. A young women that seemed uncommonly
> quiet, but gently assertive, and above all very empathetic.
>
> I was so curious I moved over by her in the club car and began to
> probe into her past. I'd never met and unspanked person before,
> outside of my own child, my first born at that time, and only months
> old.
>
> The young lady smiled at my questions and told where she thought I was
> going, and answered for me. "No, I wasn't spanked or punished as a
> child. All I recall are my parents coming to my aid when I did
> something that they didn't want me too and teaching me."
>
> She knew that others were spanked and punished and humiliated, but it
> just didn't compute for her. I do hope she married and had some
> children.
>
> She certainly didn't seem to be a criminal or menace to society.
>
> >Also, we see the old trick of picking some part of the Law
>
> What Law are you referring to here?
>
> >out and using
> >that to discredit the Old Testament.
>
> No, in fact that is a lie. She not only didn't pick out some "part,"
> she mentioned yours and others. And she did not even attempt to
> discredit the Old Testament, just to question it's appropriateness in
> modern times, and more especially with the advent of the NT.
>
> Are you jewish?
>
> >The answer to that can be quite complex, but I'll make it simple and
> >leave out a whole lot of details.
>
> You will, if I am not mistaken, go to quoting your own carefully
> picked biblical citations, skirting any that might be construed by
intelligent people as refuting your claims.
>
> >
> >Galatians 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under
> the
> >law.
>
> So being a believer in the Spirit gives you license to use punishment
> on little children. Hmmm. Interesting. And you believe that the Old
> Testament holds dominion over the NT?
>
> >There is a whole lot more to it, of course. The Law was for the
> Jews,
> >not the Gentiles.
>
> You are a jew?
>
> >Sacrifice no longer needs to be practiced because
> >Jesus was the perfect sacrifice.
>
> Interesting. I consider children who are punished to teach them as a
> sacrifice, by Christians, to the Old Testament, as surely as Solomon
> would have had the child cleaved in two had the real mother not
> sacrificed.
>
> I am not happy with OT Christians. Christ is not in it.
>
> >In the NT, God mad all food clean.
> >The list goes on.
>
> Yes. But by avoiding the fact she brought up, that Jesus never
> sanctioned the use of pain to parent you have shown what...that you
> are devious?
>
> >So, that bit about stoning defiant children doesn't hold water.
>
> I see. So you are going to only admit to those parts of the OT being
> valid that fit your agenda. Is that because you are now speaking
> directly with god and she has told you what she meant to be retained
> and what discarded?
>
> >Even if
> >it was still in effect, it couldn't be practiced because there are no
> >city gates
>
> Sure there are. On that freeway coming in one end of the city and
> going out the other.
>
> > and no group of city officials hanging out there.
>
> Well, you might have to go to city hall, but that's no biggy.
>
> You wish to be a literalist when it suits our purpose, but an
> apologist when the other person's argument defeats you. I see.
>
> >Trying to use that argument is simply silly.
>
> Trying to wriggle out from under the weight of that argument by
> denying parts of the OT and cleaving to others is a great deal worse
> than being simply silly. It's a lie. It is weaseling of the worst
> sort. How can you claim you are a Christian? Well without blushing.
>
> >Now, moving on to the second part of my project at disassembling the
> >above argument:
>
> Your "project"...oh, that's really goood.
>
> >Proverbs is not a book of law, but a book of wise counsel.
>
> From a despot and brute? Okay, if you say so.
>
> >We are free
> >to disregard it -- at our own risk, of course.
>
> We are free to disregard the OT and NT, and the OT if we are a
> Christian.
>
> And of course there is a risk. All life is a risk. I have disregarded
> the OT for the better part of 40 years, and I've come to no harm, my
> children and the children I've worked with turned out wonderfully with
> few acceptions, and those were the ones that were pain and humiliation
> parented beyond my small capacity to recover and heal them from.
>
> >God's wisdom does not
> >pass away.
>
> There is no god. Nor gods. There are no spirits in the sky or ground.
> There is no devil or heaven or hell. It's all a set of fairy tales
> generated by folks trying very hard to understand and explain (a
> function of the human brain...it's called rationalizing) the poorly
> understood physical universe.
>
> The true mystery of our existence and that of the universe is much
> larger than books of fairytale sayings.
>
> >He may change the rules as the situation merits, but the
> >wise advice in Proverbs still stands.
>
> There is no bearded old man called Yehwah or Allah or any other name.
> That image is the symbol of our once allpowerful father that protected
> us and awed us with his great booming voice, his large powerful hands,
> his quickness and his knowing what we did not.
>
> As he, our real father aged we replace him with the image of him we
> had as tiny babies. We wish to be cared for as we were then, and we
> built and still build, legends and mysteries around that hungered for
> image.
>
> In materlinial societies is done with a goddess mother image and it is
> just as much a fairy tale to comfort us.
>
> As you die you will see the truth. Your brain will work overtime to
> bring that image to you and bits and pieces of the great fairy tale of
> the major religions and philosophies, but you will know it's all false
> at that moment of death, and that you are going to cease to exist,
> totally.
>
> You get to die mad. I'll die quite at peace with endless nothingness.
>
> >
> >Ray Drouillard
> >
>
> You can't defend spanking by calling on the authority of nonexistant
> beings, Ray. They have no proof to give you, just your childish faith
> and the need for it to shelter you from the reality that you are
> entirely on your own in the universe, completely in charge of what you
> do and what happens to you.
>
> If you wish to call on God and His Word, Ray, I'll have to ask you to
> introduce me, personally. Let me know if it's okay to shake hands, or
> maybe hug.
>
> I don't accept the authority of people that I cannot meet. And I can
> meet anyone alive if I have the time and money to travel.
>
> No "god" is guiding you or protecting you, Ray.
>
> You are, like us all, just potentially a flat possum, roadkill, on the
> universal highway of life. And that is far more awe inspiring to me
> than some old outmoded fairytail. The NOT knowing is the same
> delicious thrill children feel when their father makes loud growling
> noises and chases them about playfully.
>
> This universe is going to grab me up one day, and I'll get to see if
> nonthingness is true, or if there is something after death. But I'm
> pretty convinced that it isn't going to be some old bearded ancient
> sitting on a cloud borne throne weighing my "sins" or my belief in his
> "son."
>
> If I have to do that then I'm just as happy giving up eternal life. I
> wouldn't want to spend it with a lot of Christians I know.
>
> Kane

Reading this forum is one of the most informative, entertaining and
frustrating events of my week!

My 2 cents worth on the subject of biblical justification for CP:

The vast consensus of theologians from the subset of theologians that
believe the Christian scriptures to be rational and non contradictory
(lets call them orthodox), agree that the Christian scriptures condone
the use of CP in the exercise of the particular duties and authority
of a parent and contingently assert its effectiveness in modifying the
behaviour of children.

It seems there is some misunderstanding regarding the scriptural
context of Israelite law. Deuteronomy is Israelite law; only covenant
Jews need attempt compliance. Proverbs however is a book of general
wisdom, yet as all Christian Scripture it is "God Breathed" and
profitable for reproof and instruction in righteousness. So too is
Deuteronomy. Its harsh laws were meant to convict the Jews of their
inability to attain perfection and compel them to anticipate and
follow a messiah who would ultimately pay the penalty for their
imperfections. (The meta-lesson we Christians are instructed to teach
our children.)

So the Bible demands CP from the wise parent. That is the consensus of
orthodox theological debate. For a period of time a child's will is
subject to that of its parents. However this is simply the tip of the
Christian parental iceberg. Christian parents must furnish an array of
proscribed nurture if scripture is taken as a whole. In contrast to
the captive will, we fathers are instructed to subjugate our desires
for the benefit of our families. To lay down our lives as it were. In
this I see balance.

I obviously feel I can write authoritively about these interpretations
and about the orthodox Church's consensus regarding their scriptural
contexts but I would be keen to discuss any divergent views or to
provide interested parties with the presuppositions and historical
details of orthodox theological reasoning.

I don't really want to debate in anything other than a scriptural
context. As a Christian I believe the word of God gives us the only
objective truth we have.

[Dennis Hancock]

"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...
> Dennis H:
> Greetings from flyover country!
> Any news on whether the Governator (I like it!)
> will do anything to clean up Child protection?
> It seems like after all of the recent public
> humiliations, politicians are more willing to
> speak out and change CPS agencies.
>

Not sure about how the Governator will fare yet but he's certainly taken on
a huge task. It will be interesting to see how things develop. I didnt'
sign the recall petitions, but once the scene played out, I felt he was the
only possible electable choice. Guess only time will tell if it was a good
thing or a bad thing.

I do think the entire recall process as it exists needs some overhaul. They
make it far too easy to qualify for the ballot, as our 150 plus candidates,
many of whom were merely jokes proved, but I do think that it sends a
message that an incompetent politician can be recalled given enough outrage.


> Re: Kane
> Did you ever see "Commander McBrag" cartoons with Underdog?
> An old guy puffing on his pipe telling tall tales,
> bragging about how he served in the Boer War..
> And his exaggerations always become outrageous.
> Kane says he invented flash cards for flight
> crews to use for identifying aircraft.
> (And I copyrighted the letter K, so he owes me royalties.)
>
> As for the paranoia, I think he is just afraid
> somebody will do onto him what he does to them.
> Being devious himself, he doesn't trust anybody.
>
> Greg in Iowa

I think it was just an attempt to gain some sort of high moral
ground......... again. Don't know what he thought it would accomplish as I
don't know of many people who would come out publicly and admit they are a
troll.. but I tire of the same accusations over and over again, and being
asked the same questions, only not to accept them because they do not
coincide with his concept of reality.

>
> > He's paranoid Greg. He's accused me of
> > being a troll who he apparently
> > bucked heads with a long time ago.
> >
> > His arguments are lame and weak, so he
> > has to use some kind of smokescreen
> > to cover up.
> >
> > Greg Hanson wrote
> > > Kane: Why would ""Frank"" post your pet issues for weeks
> > > under his name before forging your header?
> > > Doesn't that undo the forgery?

[Dennis Hancock]

"Dan Sullivan" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> <<<snip>>>
>
> > Re: Kane
> > Did you ever see "Commander McBrag" cartoons with Underdog?
> > An old guy puffing on his pipe telling tall tales,
> > bragging about how he served in the Boer War..
> > And his exaggerations always become outrageous.
> > Kane says he invented flash cards for flight
> > crews to use for identifying aircraft.
>
> What's that URL, Greg?
>
> > (And I copyrighted the letter K, so he owes me royalties.)
> >
> > As for the paranoia, I think he is just afraid
> > somebody will do onto him what he does to them.
>
> As I've said before, Kane has helped in every case I've worked on since I
> met him.
>
Dan, no one has disputed that his methods do indeed work in many cases. In
fact, this may come as a surprise to him (or he will refuse to accept it)
that many parents who use physical discipline also use positive
reinforcement and love and that not all who may resort to spanking are
abusers.


> > Being devious himself, he doesn't trust anybody.
>
> Maybe working IN the system Kane doesn't want anyone there to know what he
> does?
>
> Might cost him his job.


>
> You do remember what a "job" is, don't you, Greg?
>
> Dan

Can't understand why a person would be afraid of losing their job for
promoting non spanking and other alternative methods for teaching children.
>
>

[Greg Hanson]

Dennis H:
> Not sure about how the Governator will fare yet
> but he's certainly taken on a huge task.
> It will be interesting to see how things develop.

Maybe he can just TERMINATE the caseworkers and
send all the kids home! :)

He might do a better job than most status quo politicians
Much of America is jealous of the successful recall.


> but I tire of the same accusations over and over again,

Golly, I haven't seen any repetitious accusations. <grin>
( alt.support.child-protective-services ) <grin>

[Dennis Hancock]

> wrote in message
...
> "Dennis Hancock" > wrote:
> > but I tire of the same accusations over and over again,
> and being asked the same questions, only not to accept them because they
> do not coincide with his concept of reality.<
>
> Can't blame you there. You are human, Kane is an animal, a weak animal
> caught in a trap he contrived. He has reason to be afraid, to
> be ~paranoid. Everyone hates him. His Mother, Father, grand-parents, the
> lady down the street, the people next door, his barber, sane children,
> insane children, chickens, dogs, Libarians, Victor, Jay Leno, cats, dogs,
> Dave, Oprah, Regis, Republicans, Libertarians, even the demo's, you name
> it. Yes, we ALL hate him, he is paranoid for a good reason.
> :-LYNX-:

No Kane isn't an animal, he is the product of abuse, but he simply cannot
comprehend that discipline and abuse are two different things altogether.
He never learned either.

[Dennis Hancock]

"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...
> Dennis H:
> > Not sure about how the Governator will fare yet
> > but he's certainly taken on a huge task.
> > It will be interesting to see how things develop.
>
> Maybe he can just TERMINATE the caseworkers and
> send all the kids home! :)
>
> He might do a better job than most status quo politicians
> Much of America is jealous of the successful recall.

Yeah, I've noticed the same thing. They consider it a joke, and it truly
was with the ease one could qualify for the ballot, but it DID indeed send a
message to most of the political community that there just might be a limit
to what people will accept from their politicians.
>
>
> > but I tire of the same accusations over and over again,
>
> Golly, I haven't seen any repetitious accusations. <grin>
> ( alt.support.child-protective-services ) <grin>

CPS is a joke in my book. While they serve a much needed purpose, seems
like in most cases it's just a feel good solution which often makes the
situation much worse for the kids who truly need some help.

[Greg Hanson]

Dennis H:
I agree with you but I would go much farther.

Perhaps having caseworkers make up huge LIES about
me in order to try to tear up our family has given
me the perspective you'd expect from someone
with their gonads in a vice.

While I concede that there was a problem that
they were intended to cure, I absolutely believe
that the ""cure"" is worse than the disease.

CPS has reached the point of abusing more
than the real child abusers they target.
Keep in mind that MOST child removals would
never qualify for criminal charges.

Sheer numbers of unnecessary removals,
Deaths due to abuse (2x avg in FC)
Squalid conditions (Yes, amazing but FC trouble)
Sexual Abuse ( 8x avg in FC)

Parental alienation efforts

Lies, Crooked procedures, vindictive behavior,
arrogance, hypocrisy, etc.

Well intentioned originally perhaps, the old expression
"God save me from people who MEAN well" no longer applies.
They can't mean well when they carry the level of ill will
that my family has seen. The deliberateness is no mistake.

How could RICO apply to a Garbage Truck contract deal
but not Child Protective Services contractor FRAUD?

The cure is worse than the disease.

[Kane]

On 16 Nov 2003 03:03:57 -0800, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

>Dennis H,
>I can't resist mentioning some recent developments in other threads.
>
>In one thread Chris has repeatedly posted a link to a sound file
>where a mother is spanking her daughter for bad grades. When
>asked for background information on that, he just reposts the
>same old thing. Heck I've talked to cult members more willing
>to answer questions than that.

You are either misinformed or a liar, Whore. He has posted how he came
to have the file. He makes a very clear disclaimer on the source. He
also does the same, gives a disclaimer, on what exactly is taking
place on the sound file. You are, as usual, full of ****, Whore.

>Fern has posted results of a study by STRAUSS with Field and
>supervised by somebody named Fox. The study reveals that even
>the non-spankers use "psychological aggression" as do 100% of all
>parents.

Yes, and I've posted many times that that alone nullifies the attempts
of others to dispute the studies. The researcher does NOT account
adequately for this substitution of one kind of abusive punishment for
another.

I DO so discriminate and debate those that continue to use yet other
kinds of punishment.

Such is not needed to raise children successfully. I do not have to
deliberately humiliate or cause a child pain in ANY way.

>What's funny is that they seem to take the position
>that it's all harmful.

Yes. Some of us do that. I do. Humiliation..your speciality..is
harmful. If you keep it low enough in intensity and or frequency
sometimes you'll never know how it harmed, but the victim
will...though they may have a lot of trouble identifying the source,
since the punishers pretty universally sell the victim on being the
cause of the abusive punishment.

Cowards, the lot of you.

I'm counting on the brightness and the fortuitous escape of the little
girl you humiliated to allow her to access her memories accurately and
identify her abuser later in life and come hunting you.

>Apparently they are taking the idea of
>changing the world a bit far.

Nope. Many children have been raised by similar completely
non-punitive methods. I was visiting in my own home last evening with
two. Now young women in their early twenties, and very successful in
their lives. And very pleasant to be with. They are my step-daughters.
Their mother may have been even more dedicated to non-punitive methods
than I. But they are much like the two children I raised.

No crime, deeply committed to learning (all college attendees), moral
in their dealings with others, and some of the best company you could
imagine.

>If they get verbal and
>psychological aggression outlawed,

It's a thought. But I've never found laws to be not much use in that
area. By the way, it's already illegal. Just how stupid and ignorant
are you anyway?

>then even non-spankers can
>have their kids removed to state care for this ""abuse"".

Not likely to happen, as non-spankers tend very much to be
non-punishers as well, as in not using psychological punishments. The
current research that claims that 100% of children are psychologically
abused by their parents is nonsense. It isn't science.

100% of human beings experience pain in their lives, both physical and
emotional, and they will instinctively attach the source to those
nearest to them. Survey's would be impossible to accurately take using
self reporting.

>Even though it is found in 100% of all cases, they seem
>dead set on proving that it is harmful.

I have seen the harm both physical and emotional abuse results in. And
there are some laws NOW against both. Psychological abuse is pretty
plainly defined in statute and child protection policy in a number of
states.

The outcome is measured by the clearly testable developmental markers
children are missing as they grow. And by the substitute survival
behaviors the child learns and exhibits (think, criminal behavior if
they reach adulthood) instead of what they should be learning, were
they not abused and neglected.

>Could you imagine a kid raised in a situation where nothing
>is ever said to them that they don't want to hear?

There is not such thing. And there is no such belief in, or movement
that bases its premise on such. We know that children hear things all
the time that they find unpleasant. We give them power to change
themselves and the circumstances they find themselves in in positive
ways, instead of destructive ways.

>Bill Mumy played a character like that in an old
>Twilight Zone episode where the kid had godlike mental
>power to make, destroy, eliminate or fabricate anything
>his mind desired.

Since no one has that power then there is no sense to your story.

>The absolute power of course made
>him a little demon.

Do you really think that children raised without pain and humiliation
have anything like absolute power and lack of conscience that would
allow them to be destructive to others?

The contrary is true. In fact I found them inordinately moral and
conscience bound...almost to the point of less assertive self caring
and self interest focused. With a few I had to teach them the moral
reasons for being selfish to a degree.

You are full of ****, old boy.

>Absent the telekinetic ability,
>how much imagination does it take to see what kind
>of a brat could result if a child is never told what
>they don't want to hear? Never taught "No!" ?

What makes you think a child can't be taught "NO!" without pain and
humiliation?

You see, Greegor the Whore, YOU can't conceive of it because YOU can't
conceive of it, meaning that you were brought up to believe in pain
and humiliation as a valid and useful parenting, and control, tool.

Some folks either weren't brought up that way or had the good fortune,
or moral rectitude and determination, to learn otherwise.

When I tell you I have watched hundreds of children thrive on
non-punitive parenting methods you think I am lying. The truth is, I
am not. I have literally watched not only normal children trive, but I
have personally helped badly abused, mentally ill, children heal and
thrive by removing punitive methods from their lives and replacing
those with non-punitive methods.

And it's not a passive let-the-kid-do-anything method, but in fact
highly active and purposeful. It is so powerful I've seen parents that
learned how to do it cry over the results, from shock and joy that
they never had to do to their child again what had been done to them
as children by their parents.

>Since there is a division between people who choose
>not to spank but don't wish to IMPOSE that on other
>parents,

That is a cop-out. Once a person learns to use truly non-punitive (not
just non-cp) methods it strikes them how badly the world and their own
society is being served by allowing anyone to hurt a child again
deliberately.

>and since some anti-spankers might
>have problems with the notion that even THEY might
>someday be considered Child Abusers if STRAUSS has
>his way, I am waiting to see what people from the
>non-spanking and anti-spanking camps say about the
>possibility of new "social crimes" they might be
>guilty of. (Unless they are outside of the 100%) :)

Smile your silly stupid smile, Whore. It's not even a problem.

I've watched, with some amusement myself, the Swedish experience, and
I knew...because I was watching back in the mid to late 70's, what was
going to happen.

I knew that most families that didn't get (and the Swedes did offer)
parent training in non-punitive methods would resort to either CP
behind closed doors, or more elaborate and manipulative psychological
abuse.

You see, Whore, I know about people such as you and the desparate
situation you are caught in. Your ignorance, and what you have been
taught, blocks you off from the aha experience that somes with
actually trying non-punitive methods.

That is what happend in Sweden. Yet something else happened there as
well. What the state offered was subsidized classes. And those parents
that took those classes (not very much like the silly classes being
taught today that are still punishment based) gave the parents that
new awareness.

Now interestingly, the awareness was something a small minority of
folks already had a handle on. There have been many people
historically that didn't use punitive parenting. Usually they had the
leisure and wealth to explore more, and did.

>I haven't had much interaction with LaVonne until
>the last few months, but it seems like she keeps
>using this tactic of going silent on issues when she
>gets proven wrong,

I think she goes silent either out of complete astonishment at the
assinine responses and claims she reads here, or out of pity. I think
she knows much of what I know on this subject, though I think I have
seen her slip in a little punishment based stuff as advice from time
to time.

Most normal families probably won't have the children harmed by such
low level negatives, so I tolerate it. But what I've seen is that the
purer the non-punitive methods are the more powerfully they work.

In learning it myself more than once with the children I worked with I
had to stop myself after saying something that was punitive, and back
up, apologize, establish with the child I was starting over, and stick
to the refined form of non-punitive methods.

I got immediate results. Sometimes I was tempted (and I did with the
very very sick children) to make a deliberate error, stop, apologize,
and start over for the profound impact it had on the child...by the
surprize of an adult doing that with them.

The first time I apologized to a child (and they were clearly doing
unwanted behavior) I was stunned at this child, who would hit other
workers with a chair, or kick them, when he came of to me and wrapped
his arms around me and held on like I was his long lost teddy bear.

Finally, someone had treated him humanely and respectfully. His
treatment progressed...after being stuck for about 6 months. And t
progressed rapidly as I was asked to train others in the methods I was
using.

And trust me, that wasn't easy. Mental health treatment for adults and
children had been on a punishment model for a very long time.
Retraining staff was no little feat. I'm very proud of the work I did.

>like when info was posted that
>CPS agencies in all 50 states failed compliance audits.

What in hell would LaVonne care about that for? She doesn't post to
CPS ngs. She doesn't discuss CPS except to attempt to steer The Plant
Back to the on topic ngs instead of the Sap The Plant splashed about
here.

>She had challenged it but after proof was posted,
>she never acknowledged it in any way whatsoever.
>That seems like a kind of cult like behavior to me.

On the contrary, the posting of out of context quoted claims, from
highly convoluted and author caveat notated data is what I find highly
cult like behavior.

As an academic that has won her Phd I would assume that when someone
makes such outrageous claims she would either not think it worth her
time (knowing by now what a pack of rapid nitwits you folks are) to
research, or she would research and likely come to same conclusion as
I: your claims can't be considred valid on the weakness of them being
quoted out of context and often from data that isn't even primarily on
the CLAIM issue you are making.

All the states have NOT completed the federal assessments (the word
"audit" is being ignorantly or viciously thrown around after biased
reporters used it). Those that have have not failed in all seven
sections of the assessments.

Your attempts by claim they failed the "audits" thereby to discredit
state CPS's is akin to someone claiming that a triathelete is a
failure as an athlete because he won only two of his competitive legs.

>She also accused me of computer crime, breaking
>into her e-mail.

Bull****. She speculated if you might be the culprit. I've made the
same speculation. Well, have you?

When the accused immediately jumps to the claim the questioner is
lying it doesn't do much for his creditiblity. "Methinks thou dost
protest too much."

>The University of Minnesota
>Board of Regents may have to ""discipline""
>LaVonne soon for that. She used her U e-mail
>to libel/slander me saying she wouldn't
>"let me off the hook" for what is computer crime.
>(When in fact my e-mail was getting flooded
> with anonymous filler e-mails as well.)

Show us the post. At the very most she said "IF you were the perp."

>Her pig-headedness, even when one of her allies
>Kane, tells her she's wrong on something, is obvious.

Please point out an instance for us. She and I may disagree but I've
not seen her behave in any but a polite manner...now as for
MESELF....R R R R R

>It will be her undoing on this libel/slander thing.

Still looking for someone to sue, eh? Well, I'll tell you what, if you
are just dyin' to get yourself involved in a law suit, why don't you
call up the regents at her university and tell them what you think
about her, and while you are at it see if you can post to a campus
resource students and faculty and access and see....little stupid
asshole....who sues how and wins?

And trust me, I'll take up a collection to help fund any suit against
you, and I'll find some way to expose ALL OF YOUR POSTS to these ngs
in discovery.

>Don't let these people push you to swear in public.

You are a walking talking posting obscenity, you asshole.

>You really don't want to in any way match Kane's swearing.
>He is his own worst enemy.

Really? So far I've been very good to myself.

>I think I agree with you that emotional abuse can
>be very harmful,

Bull****. What would you call making a little girl not related to you
strip naked and shower in front of you for wetting herself, a reward?

>however, I truly believe that CPS
>agencies are utterly and completely unable to muster
>any competency in this area over a population other
>then the select few they seek to vilify.

This was a totally spanking oriented thread, until you drug it once
again off topic to YOUR little ****ant concerns.

You sit there on your dead ass, picking up cans and bottles for refund
as your total financial contribution to your keep in the home of your
"fiance" here daughter removed because YOU are there for over two plus
years now, and pretend that you are the defender of moral issues
concerning CPS.

What a prick.

>CPS incompetence in this area would cause great harm.

What area? More babble?

>On the bright side, though, the American Gulag side
>of this might cause their complete downfall.

Suckin' that bong water again, Whore?

>I just wouldn't want to pay that price to get rid of them.

Not an ounce of sense in a carload of ****.

>If CPS agencies continue to progress into accusing
>parents of emotional abuse,

They rarely do that. The term they use is psychological abuse. And
that means measurable deficits in child development caused by actions
or inactions of the parent or other caregivers: intellectual,
physical, psychological, and social deficites.

These deficits are the ones that cost society dearly. They are the
foundation for criminality. Prisons are full of the children that have
been abused and neglected into criminality by their parents.

>they might indeed
>regret the precident this might open up regarding
>emotional abuse of removals, STATE CARE, or
>caseworker lies, etc.

"Babble babble babble," as per usual.

>It might not happen right
>away, but I would expect the emotional abuse
>gambit would eventually backfire on them terribly.

In what way? Parents that don't use punitive parenting, and for that
matter those that do, rarely ever cross paths with child protective
agencies. There simply aren't enough investigators, or disclosure of
abuse, for it to be a problem for families.

>In my families' case

What "families' case" is that? That isn't your family. You intruded on
a needy single mother, proceeded to behave in a rude and dangerous
manner toward the little girl, and the state caught up with you before
too much happened (though we can't really be sure of the extent of
your showering the girl given it's all your story).

>they tried to claim certain
>things were traumatic for the child, but they
>have never taken the child to a psychologist.
>It's just not logical.

How do YOU know if they did or not? You think the mother tells you
everything? Hell, she may really want to get her child back and she
knows or senses what a danger you are to that process....given the
court's response to your stupid offensive ranting "Motion" to the
court.

Yah gottah read this folks to get what you are communicating with in
these ngs when you read Greegor:

http://tinyurl.com/v8h0

THIS was how he attempted to "help" his "fiance" get her daugher back.

>To turn them loose playing amateur psychology with
>kids en masse would very likely lead to more HARM
>than good.

That's why children are taken to trained psychologists for
assessments. My bet is CPS in your case did so and your "fiance" was
proscribed from telling you.

And seeing how you go off she was well advised to follow the order of
the court on that issue. The court has probably directed CPS to order
her NOT to discuss a damn thing with you. She must be living in hell,
having lost her daughter, but so needy she can't just dump your sorry
ass and the **** you filled up her house with out on the sidewalk.

>I question how many caseworkers could
>qualify as sane enough to judge others psyche, even
>if they DID have credentials, which they don't.

We know that in some states as many as 30% have college degrees in
social work, and very likely the remaining 70% have college degrees in
other likely related disciplines. The recent claim, from a garbage
piece of biased no-by-line signed ap article, that only 20% or so had
degrees failed to mention that they were including ALL child welfare
employees...clerical and other support staff...while NOT isolating
caseworkers as a groups and seeing how many of them had degrees.

>If the government spent 200 billion dollars a year,
>put a caseworker on every corner, and removed
>a million kids on anything vaguely suspicious,
>Child Abuse would persist, even if you DON'T
>count the excessive removals as Child Abuse
>and if you don't count abuses in State Care.

So that is an argument for what....doing away with child protection by
the state?

>Dennis H wrote
>> Non spanking is a fairly recent development pushed forth
>> by psychologists.. The recent phenomena of never using
>> negative reinforcement out of fear of damaging the poor
>> child's psyche has resulted in more emotionally damaged
>> children than ever in history. They cannot deal with
>> criticism because of the spoon fed nonsense, and we wind
>> up with more and more Columbine type situations from
>> these disturbed individuals. YOU are doing more damage
>> than the occassional spanker who teaches his children
>> hurtful behavior can have consequences.
>
>This was very well put. - Greg in Iowa

No, actually it's neurotic defensive tripe. Non-spanking has been
around for centuries. This isn't the only country on the planet, and
even here in the good ol' US of A there are families that never
spanked. It's so out of tune for them they don't even notice they
don't...seriously.

I've met a few and questioned family members and been universally
greeted with statements like, "what are you talking about?" "Gosh, I
never really thought about it...we were just too busy in our family
learning and enjoying and living life," and "Spanking! You've got to
be kidding...only the most insane abusive parent would do that."

And I notice you are congratulating someone that thinks that
"Columbine type situations" are the outcome of NOT spanking and
punishing in a country that reports 90% plus of the population having
been spanked.

Would you say that has even the least bit of logic in it, Dummy?

But then you people never are too long on logic.

Kane

[Kane]

On 16 Nov 2003 03:03:57 -0800, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

>Dennis H,
>I can't resist mentioning some recent developments in other threads.
>
>In one thread Chris has repeatedly posted a link to a sound file
>where a mother is spanking her daughter for bad grades. When
>asked for background information on that, he just reposts the
>same old thing. Heck I've talked to cult members more willing
>to answer questions than that.

I notice something else.

He has repeatedly, when challenged on this sound file, politely asked
anyone that is a spanker and feels it acceptable, to send him a sound
file, with all the details, why, age, what instrument was used, any
other details they wish to share, so that he can post that.

Surely those of you that believe that spanking is an acceptable form
of child rearing practice will be happy to take such a sound file the
next time they spank and proudly present it for public display.

Hey, I'll bet in the interests of fairness he'll even agree to accept
your anonymity so you don't have to worry about CPS.

So how about it spankers, you brave parents?

I'm sure Chris is waiting for another sound file.

I know I am.

You ****ing lowlife stupid ignorant cowards.

Kane