Dennis was Re: U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking

[Kane]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 23:18:44 GMT, "Hancock" >
wrote:

>
>"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.

You are incorrect. Many families are not historically punishing
families and they tend to be the leaders of society. One might hear of
some beatings here and there or spankings, but by and large the
powerful and wealthy do NOT want to disrupt the early development of
their children...and these days they hire nannies who DO NOT spank or
punish and have highly developed skills to teach without then.

I have observed children from both sides of this question, and
inevitably the unpunished, but well taught and developmentally
supported child is superior in every way including NOT developing
criminal tendencies.

The Embry study is but one of many studies. These are direct
observational studies that show things like number of street entries
for each group, those punished, and those simply told the thing that
is wanted of them..in other words, "the street is for cars, and we
play over here where it is safe."

>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.

It would be rather silly to look for a scientific study because they
would be few and far between. That that work with toddlers don't
'reason' with them. They are taught in a linear fashion...no
abstractions included...that one thing follows another, but they are
still closely supervised because the wise parent knows that any
variable can upset the child's patterned behavior.

After 6, in the normal child, the sky's the limit. They CAN then
process abstractly and stay on task, but of course what would be the
point of punishing a self managing child? Which they tend to be very
much.

Mine were so much that I spent years watching in fascination how they
learned...it as so different from punished children. And they had
extremely well developed moral senses and empathy (you may call that
conscience if you wish, since it is).

>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.

And nearly every one wrong. They SEEM logical to an adult. They are
for the most part if the subject is an adult. I don't need to stick my
finger in a beaker of acid more than once, or get slapped or even
yelled at rudely not to do that as it's dangerous.

That isn't how children work, or we would not have a species with such
a long childhood.

Animals, even the higher ones, tend to top out, as compared to humans,
at about a 3 to 5 year olds understanding and reactions. Every animal
trainer knows this and uses it. Roy got bitten, I'd wager, from a
break in the known linear routine that Mandacore,(?) was used to and
the cat reverted to the known...a mother cat protecting her kittens
by taking them away from danger. Even the way the tiger picked him up
shows that.

Our children are not ready really for full understanding until they
are six. Some wonderfully simple experiments have shown that to be
true.

They cannot discriminate the difference (or sameness) in two objects
with the same volume but of different dimensions....even when evidence
is offered. Child that have hit that brain developmental stage where
enough of the neurological pathways have been laid down that are
significant to abstract reasoning CAN tell the difference when shown
the evidence.

And punishing a child for NOT being able to know that before the brain
is sufficiently developed is cruelty.

Don't be cruel.

Kane

[Dennis Hancock]

Amusing Kane, that you know exactly what age a child's mental development
is, and treat each child exactly the same?

Your last comment about "punishing a child for NOT being able to know that
before the brain is sufficiently developed is cruelty", shows your complete
ignorance on the subject.

One is not 'punishing' a child with a swat on the butt for wrongful behavior
at a very young age, one is reinforcing that it is wrongful behavior.

Again, you assume that a child has absolutely NO comprehension or instincts
at that age, that they cannot learn 'good' from 'bad' from painful
experiences, then you place the human child at below the intelligence level
of the lowliest of animals.

"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 23:18:44 GMT, "Hancock" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"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.
>
> You are incorrect. Many families are not historically punishing
> families and they tend to be the leaders of society. One might hear of
> some beatings here and there or spankings, but by and large the
> powerful and wealthy do NOT want to disrupt the early development of
> their children...and these days they hire nannies who DO NOT spank or
> punish and have highly developed skills to teach without then.
>
> I have observed children from both sides of this question, and
> inevitably the unpunished, but well taught and developmentally
> supported child is superior in every way including NOT developing
> criminal tendencies.
>
> The Embry study is but one of many studies. These are direct
> observational studies that show things like number of street entries
> for each group, those punished, and those simply told the thing that
> is wanted of them..in other words, "the street is for cars, and we
> play over here where it is safe."
>
> >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.
>
> It would be rather silly to look for a scientific study because they
> would be few and far between. That that work with toddlers don't
> 'reason' with them. They are taught in a linear fashion...no
> abstractions included...that one thing follows another, but they are
> still closely supervised because the wise parent knows that any
> variable can upset the child's patterned behavior.
>
> After 6, in the normal child, the sky's the limit. They CAN then
> process abstractly and stay on task, but of course what would be the
> point of punishing a self managing child? Which they tend to be very
> much.
>
> Mine were so much that I spent years watching in fascination how they
> learned...it as so different from punished children. And they had
> extremely well developed moral senses and empathy (you may call that
> conscience if you wish, since it is).
>
> >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.
>
> And nearly every one wrong. They SEEM logical to an adult. They are
> for the most part if the subject is an adult. I don't need to stick my
> finger in a beaker of acid more than once, or get slapped or even
> yelled at rudely not to do that as it's dangerous.
>
> That isn't how children work, or we would not have a species with such
> a long childhood.
>
> Animals, even the higher ones, tend to top out, as compared to humans,
> at about a 3 to 5 year olds understanding and reactions. Every animal
> trainer knows this and uses it. Roy got bitten, I'd wager, from a
> break in the known linear routine that Mandacore,(?) was used to and
> the cat reverted to the known...a mother cat protecting her kittens
> by taking them away from danger. Even the way the tiger picked him up
> shows that.
>
> Our children are not ready really for full understanding until they
> are six. Some wonderfully simple experiments have shown that to be
> true.
>
> They cannot discriminate the difference (or sameness) in two objects
> with the same volume but of different dimensions....even when evidence
> is offered. Child that have hit that brain developmental stage where
> enough of the neurological pathways have been laid down that are
> significant to abstract reasoning CAN tell the difference when shown
> the evidence.
>
> And punishing a child for NOT being able to know that before the brain
> is sufficiently developed is cruelty.
>
> Don't be cruel.
>
> Kane

[Kane]

"Dennis Hancock" > wrote in message news:<ZbCmb.26478$Tr4.54866@attbi_s03>...
> Amusing Kane, that you know exactly what age a child's mental development
> is, and treat each child exactly the same?

I don't recall making a claim the one should treat each child the
same. In fact I find spankers are the ones revertingf, when they are
stumped, to a single solution. I have hundreds, easily, to any problem
with a child you could name.

> Your last comment about "punishing a child for NOT being able to know that
> before the brain is sufficiently developed is cruelty", shows your complete
> ignorance on the subject.

Really. How so? I am discussing the fact that the child to young
developmentally connects the pain of cp with the one serving it up,
not with the activity or object the spanker wishes to have it
associated with.

> One is not 'punishing' a child with a swat on the butt for wrongful behavior
> at a very young age, one is reinforcing that it is wrongful behavior.

Spanking is punishment. The very definition of punishment and spanking
includes the inclusive event of pain.

> Again, you assume that a child has absolutely NO comprehension or instincts
> at that age,

You are projecting meanings into my posts that are not there. I assume
nothing of the sort. I know the limits, the abilities and
comprehension, and especialy the insticts "at that age" though you
went without saying WHAT age.

> that they cannot learn 'good' from 'bad' from painful
> experiences,

The concept of "'good'" and "'bad'" is far beyond the toddler, and is
something that cannot be explored meaningfully, that is with
understanding of the subtleties, until a child reaches the age of
reason. The Catholic church spotted it hundreds of years ago, the age
is 7 to them, and scientists and researchers have shown, both by brain
scans, and impirical testing that it happens for normal children in
the 6th year, and so close to each other in actual age, year, month,
week, and even days, that it can be accurately plotted.

Do some reasearch. You still don't get it.

> then you place the human child at below the intelligence level
> of the lowliest of animals.

No, not the lowliest. Higher order animans, dogs, the primates,
develope intelligence levels at full development between roughly a
human three years old and one about 5 or 6 (dogs to primates).

You are again claiming that I am saying something I am not. I am
saying that the complexities of "good and bad" are not available to
child under 6. At 5 they can fake you out pretty good because they
have had years of data collection and a skill at recognizing when
events follow each other...but they don't really know why.

Any careful testing of children under 6 shows this clearly. Their
language skills are excellent...not because of reason, but because of
memorization. Why do you think that formal education doesn't start
until 5 years old?

I was a very bright, probably precocious child myself. I read at 3
fluently, at about 5th grade level my mother tells me. But I doubt I
could have passed a test for understanding. I could, like all
children, string things together sequentially, but break the sequence
and you'll the child falter and have to be retaught.

> "Kane" > wrote in message
> om...
> > On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 23:18:44 GMT, "Hancock" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"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.
> >
> > You are incorrect. Many families are not historically punishing
> > families and they tend to be the leaders of society. One might hear of
> > some beatings here and there or spankings, but by and large the
> > powerful and wealthy do NOT want to disrupt the early development of
> > their children...and these days they hire nannies who DO NOT spank or
> > punish and have highly developed skills to teach without then.
> >
> > I have observed children from both sides of this question, and
> > inevitably the unpunished, but well taught and developmentally
> > supported child is superior in every way including NOT developing
> > criminal tendencies.
> >
> > The Embry study is but one of many studies. These are direct
> > observational studies that show things like number of street entries
> > for each group, those punished, and those simply told the thing that
> > is wanted of them..in other words, "the street is for cars, and we
> > play over here where it is safe."
> >
> > >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.
> >
> > It would be rather silly to look for a scientific study because they
> > would be few and far between. That that work with toddlers don't
> > 'reason' with them. They are taught in a linear fashion...no
> > abstractions included...that one thing follows another, but they are
> > still closely supervised because the wise parent knows that any
> > variable can upset the child's patterned behavior.
> >
> > After 6, in the normal child, the sky's the limit. They CAN then
> > process abstractly and stay on task, but of course what would be the
> > point of punishing a self managing child? Which they tend to be very
> > much.
> >
> > Mine were so much that I spent years watching in fascination how they
> > learned...it as so different from punished children. And they had
> > extremely well developed moral senses and empathy (you may call that
> > conscience if you wish, since it is).
> >
> > >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.
> >
> > And nearly every one wrong. They SEEM logical to an adult. They are
> > for the most part if the subject is an adult. I don't need to stick my
> > finger in a beaker of acid more than once, or get slapped or even
> > yelled at rudely not to do that as it's dangerous.
> >
> > That isn't how children work, or we would not have a species with such
> > a long childhood.
> >
> > Animals, even the higher ones, tend to top out, as compared to humans,
> > at about a 3 to 5 year olds understanding and reactions. Every animal
> > trainer knows this and uses it. Roy got bitten, I'd wager, from a
> > break in the known linear routine that Mandacore,(?) was used to and
> > the cat reverted to the known...a mother cat protecting her kittens
> > by taking them away from danger. Even the way the tiger picked him up
> > shows that.
> >
> > Our children are not ready really for full understanding until they
> > are six. Some wonderfully simple experiments have shown that to be
> > true.
> >
> > They cannot discriminate the difference (or sameness) in two objects
> > with the same volume but of different dimensions....even when evidence
> > is offered. Child that have hit that brain developmental stage where
> > enough of the neurological pathways have been laid down that are
> > significant to abstract reasoning CAN tell the difference when shown
> > the evidence.
> >
> > And punishing a child for NOT being able to know that before the brain
> > is sufficiently developed is cruelty.
> >
> > Don't be cruel.
> >
> > Kane

[Kane]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 21:43:23 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
> wrote:

>Again Kane, you are showing your lack of ability to discuss this
issue.

You may not like what I say but I hardly think that that equates with
a lack of ability to discuss the issue on my part.

>One
>cannot ignore the fine lines between spanking and abusive behavior in
>dealing with this issue than they can in refusing to deal with
emotional or
>psychological abuse.

Absolutely. I think you are parroting me after missing that I said
much the same thing

Here, from the post below, is what I said (you might try breaking up
the post and replying directly and in proximity to the claim you are
attempting to refute):

>> Your problem is to determine what is spanking and what is beating
and
>> this has been an area of considerable weakness in the claims made
by
>> pro spankers and apologists.

I am, of course, referring the difficulty in determining that line.

Just an aside: Do you consider spanking as having any emotional or
psychological impact, and if so, what do you think that impact might
be on the developing mind of a child...not yet an adult?

>>
>> What you might never accept as "spanking" might be so to someone
else.
>> I know I have frequently seen those on the pro side describe a
>> thoroughgoing whipping as "a spanking and well deserved" even when
>> they are the victim themselves.

When we discuss "spanking" in this ng each spanker seems to be coming
at it with their own idea of what spanking is and isn't, and it varies
considerably.

Those who do not hold with the idea of spanking a child have a much
clearer idea of what is and isn't abuse and spanking.

I am perfectly willing for spankers to work out together just what is
and isn't spanking with more exactitude. I think you'll find it
something of a work though. It hasn't happened before.

Personally I consider all spanking abusive, even the lightest tap, if
it is meant to stop an unwanted behavior. The risk of side effects,
and especially the escalation of unwanted behaviors as the child
struggles to explore her enviroment, can be pretty extreme.

In other words, to stop a child exploring and expanding their
knowledge of the environment without providing alternatives that honor
the drive that nature put in them to learn to survive and prosper is
in fact abusive.

>To attempt to do so is simply wasting your time as you continue to
throw out
>utter nonsense and use examples which do not apply to the majority of
>situations that many of us here wish to address.

Well, list those you wish to discuss, or offer them up one at a time.
Each of them I'll suggest some alternatives to the use of spanking,
you can be sure.

If you start with non-punitive (notice I am going beyond just
spanking) parenting methods and develop what really is a very small
repertoire of tactics it is actually very easy. Not rocket science,
and not, especially, all the things you and other spankings think or
claim non-punitive parents actually do.

One of the assumptions that amuses me the most is that they
non-spanking parent is then left with nothing but psychological abuse
through another set of punishments...emotional abuse.

Trust me on this: most parents that give up spanking and use other
forms of punishment, or begin with other forms, are not going to get
anywhere either. In fact they, and the spanking parent, are in the
same dilemma in that each creates a little monster of their own..some
are quite monsters that will break out later, some are monsters now.

The physically hurt child tends, but not always, toward holding it all
in, while the emotionally abused psychologically punished child tends
to fight back with some of the tactics used on her, or him.

I appreciate that you left my post intact, even if you top posted. I
find arguments much more useful if claims are addressed something like
if we were having a conversation. That is why I intersperce, just as
in conversation, my comments throughout that of the other poster.

Feel free to break my posts up in the same way if you wish.

Kane


>
>"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
>> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:43:44 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
>> > 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.
>> >
>> >Again, were they 'spanked' or were they beaten?
>>
>> I believe the researcher, one Fischer out of UOC school of social
work
>> many years ago, was simply looking for spanked.
>>
>> Your problem is to determine what is spanking and what is beating
and
>> this has been an area of considerable weakness in the claims made
by
>> pro spankers and apologists.
>>
>> What you might never accept as "spanking" might be so to someone
else.
>> I know I have frequently seen those on the pro side describe a
>> thoroughgoing whipping as "a spanking and well deserved" even when
>> they are the victim themselves.
>>
>> It is an area fraught with obstacles.
>>
>> I go around the issue, much to the consternation for some, by
stating
>> that deliberate punishment of a child is counterproductive to their
>> learning and their mental health.
>>
>> Learning can be learning to do something, and that can include
>> learning to do the required developmental work to excell and not be
>> dysfunctional.
>>
>> A child spending too much time trying to mind is NOT learning about
>> things like gravity, light, sound, and other physical phenomena,
and
>> they are sometimes leaving critical areas of the brain undeveloped
>> through lack of exercise.
>>
>> I can make a warrior and factory worker by using punishment
methods,
>> but I'd be hard pressed to make a scholar, inventor, or other
>> intellectual exceller.
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> No one couldn't. The greater the chances of greatness the greater
the
>> chances they were spanked less or not at all, and punishment wasn't
>> much of a factor in most of their lives. I have worked with
>> maladjusted children who were punished well who had everything
wrong
>> going on with them from socially malajusted to poor problem
solving,
>> to severe thinking errors, to being murderous homocidal maniacs.
>>
>> They don't come from being NOT punished.
>>
>> >What does that study show?
>>
>> Well, since you said yourself that one "could" do such a study why
>> don't you find one?
>>
>> I'll save you the trouble. None has been done to my knowledge.
There
>> is speculation only.
>>
>> I can offer you my observations in the hope that you too will look
>> above your current knowledge and consider some other possibilities.
>> After all, what harm would it do? You could always return, better
>> armed perhaps, to defend spanking and punishment parenting.
>>
>> Have a good one,
>>
>> Kane
>

[Kane]

Apparently there is more than one Fischer out there doing research. I
am still looking for the one that tried to find prisoners that had not
been subject to cp as children.

But while I'm looking you can check out this one. I haven't read his
stuff but he's researching and writing on the subject I've brought up
here before: brain scans and learning under varying conditions.

http://hugse9.harvard.edu/gsedata/Resource_pkg.profile?vperson_id=335


Gee, the things I turn up. This one's for bobb, who thinks that
childhood sexual abuse isn't damaging:

http://www.darkness2light.org/KnowAbout/news_03_10_02.shtml

Then there is this provocative article in The Natural Child;

http://www.naturalchild.com/research/corporal_punishment.html

The Influence of Corporal Punishment on Crime
by Adah Maurer, Ph.D. and James S. Wallerstein (1987)


The last legal flogging of a convicted felon in the United States
occurred in Delaware in 1952. The barbaric practice was made illegal
in that year, but Delaware waited until 1972 to formally remove the
whipping post from the state penitentiary.
Flogging in the Navy for drunken or disorderly conduct was abolished
in 1853. The Marines finally forbade all forms of physical punishment
in 1957 after a drill sergeant led a disciplinary march into a bog
where six young men were drowned. Military instructors now may not
touch the person or the clothing of a recruit and "Any fracture,
concussion, contusion or welt shall be considered prima facia evidence
of excessive force.'' There are no exceptions made on the grounds that
some young men bruise easily.

Slavery and involuntary servitude had always been maintained with the
help of whips, but that disappeared in the United States with the
Emancipation Proclamation issued by President Lincoln, January 1,
1863.

Spousal abuse used to be termed "reasonable chastisement of wives" and
was presumed necessary to maintain the sanctity and stability of the
family. All states now have laws against such assaults, and law
enforcement and the courts have begun to take seriously, complaints of
spousal battery.

Only Children

Now, in 1987, physical punishment is considered too severe for felons,
murderers, criminals of all kinds and ages, including juvenile
delinquents, too demeaning for soldiers, sailors, servants and
spouses. But it remains legal and acceptable for children who are
innocent of any crime.

The reasoning behind this curious discrepancy has been the belief that
physical punishment will prevent the child from becoming a criminal.
The frequent headlines: "Rising Tide of Juvenile Delinquency" usually
attribute the situation to a decline of the use of corporal punishment
in schools and homes. "Permissiveness," or letting the child do as he
pleases, assumed by some to be the only alternative to hitting, is
pervasively believed to be the primary cause of anti-social behavior.
In the good old days, it is said, "old fashioned discipline" kept
children in line. There was very little crime. Harmony reigned. Or did
it?

The Truth About the "Good Old Days"

There are no reliable statistics on the extent of crime a hundred or a
hundred and fifty years ago. From all reports, however, crime in the
U.S. was extensive, especially violent crime and crimes among the
young. The good citizens of 19th century America were also alarmed.
They looked back to the good old days of simple rural life, before the
growth of the cities. The crowded and crime-ridden Eastern cities were
contrasted unfavorably with the "wide open spaces" of the West -- the
West, that is, of Jesse James and Billy the Kid!

Discipline in the one room schoolhouses was violent. Often the teacher
engaged in a bare knuckle fight with the biggest student as a warning
to the others of what would happen to them if they provoked his wrath.
Horace Mann, the Father of American education, fulminated against the
number of floggings per day, sometimes more than the number of
scholars. Most of our great grandparents were satisfied with a fourth
grade education and eighth grade was the end for all but five percent.
The lawless mountain men of the Old West were recruited from the
14-year olds who high tailed it after one thrashing too many. Bands of
outlaws stole horses, and plagued the defenseless. Public hangings and
Iynchings were commonplace while pickpockets worked the crowds. Only
the militia and the sheriff's posse maintained any semblance of order.

Yet the myth remains that only woodshed discipline in early youth
keeps boys from a life of crime, and that respect for authority is
promoted only by painful procedures that induce fear and resentment of
authority.

What is the truth? Let's take a good hard look at the facts about the
effects of corporal punishment on crime.

After Effects of Physical Punishment

Adrenalin output increases sharply during fear, anger and physical
punishment. When this is prolonged or often repeated, the endocrine
balance fails to return to baseline. The victim becomes easily angered
and prone to poor impulse control and spontaneous violent outbursts.

Educational achievement is affected both directly and indirectly.
Studies of prisoners, delinquents, school drop-outs, college freshmen
and successful professionals are compared in the following composite
report.

Degree of physical punishment
Never Rare Moderate Severe Extreme
Violent inmates
at San Quentin 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Juvenile
Delinquents 0% 2% 3% 31% 64%
High School
drop-outs 0% 7% 23% 69% 0%
College
freshmen 2% 23% 40% 33% 0%
Professionals 5% 40% 36% 17% 0%

Taking part in this survey were: 200 psychologists who filled out
anonymous questionnaires, 372 college students at the University of
California, Davis and California State University at Fresno, 52 slow
track underachievers at Richmond High School. Delinquents were
interviewed by Dr. Ralph Welsh in Bridgeport, Connecticut and by Dr.
Alan Button in Fresno, California. Prisoner information was by
courtesy of Hobart Banks, M.S.W., counselor of difficult prisoners at
San Quentin Penitentiary, San Quentin, California.

Timing

Do delinquents grow from lack of discipline? Or from too much
discipline? Dr. Alan Button reports, "This, it now appears is the
wrong question. We should be asking about sequence. Parents of
delinquents, all of them, report physical beating in the first ten to
twelve years of the child's life, but rarely thereafter. They "wash
their hands" of the kid because "nothing works." Then the judge,
finding that the boy has no supervision, denounces permissiveness.

The Belt Theory

Dr. Ralph Welsh who has given psychological examinations to over 2,000
delinquents, has developed what he calls. "The Belt Theory of Juvenile
Delinquency." Dr. Welsh tells us:

"The recidivist male delinquent who has never been exposed to the
belt, extension cord or fist at some time in his life is virtually
non-existent. As the severity of corporal punishment in the
delinquent's developmental history increases, so does the probability
that he will engage in a violent act."

Driving Under the Influence

Car crashes caused by drunk driving are increased by a hidden factor.
Bottled up anger, when combined with alcohol is the largest cause of
the highway death toll which comes to 25,000 deaths every year, or one
every 20 minutes. An investigation by Donald C. Pelz of the Institute
for Social Research at the University of Michigan in 1973 led to his
finding that: "For the young male, anger toward the adult world is
likely to find vent in dangerous driving ... Hostility tends to
multiply with their attitude toward the educational system ... Those
who had rejected the school system ... are likely to reject the
highway system. " In fact he concluded that abiding anger was even
more dangerous than drinking per se, but that the combination was the
most deadly. The insult to high school boys of an embarrassing
paddling raises the adrenaline level, which if repeated often enough
stays high all the time. They are the timebombs whose battlefield
casualties litter the roads and intersections of our country.

Spanking the Baby

The effect begins early. Babies just over a year were observed with
their mothers at a clinic at the University of Houston. As reported in
Psychology Today interviews about the methods of discipline they used
revealed that the babies who where punished physically were the least
likely to obey instructions not to touch breakables. Even more
importantly, seven months later the punished children lagged behind
the others in developmental tests.

The Real Reason

Why, with all this evidence about the destructive effects of
physically painful punishments, do so many people continue to believe
that the only alternative to hitting children is to negligently allow
them to do as they please? And that what they please is always
delinquent, if not outright criminal?

At the National Center for the Study of Corporal Punishment at Temple
University in Philadelphia a large research project inquired of adults
the reasons for their beliefs, both pro- and anti-paddle. Most thought
they had arrived at their belief logically, but in truth, the real
determinant was their own childhood history. Those who had been
spanked, paddled, switched, whipped etc. tended overwhelmingly to
believed in it. Those who had not been hit, and had attended
non-hitting schools, did not believe hitting did any good or were
shocked and dismayed at the very idea. The action-language of our
childhood overrides logic more often than not. Minds and habits do
change, however, but it takes thoughtful assessment and considerable
motivation even by people of goodwill.

Institutional Abuse

Whether the beatings were at the hands of the natural parents, or
others who stood in for them seems to make little difference except
that institutional punishments lack even intermittent moments of pride
and belonging, that might in some cases mitigate slightly the worst
effects. Charles Manson, the child of a 15 year old single mother had
his first contact with police when he was 7 and spent the rest of his
life in a series of foster homes, reform schools and prisons. He could
have survived the rejection of his mother, he says, if reform school
of officials hadn't been institutionally cruel, whipping, beating and
raping him, and letting other inmates do the same.

A survey of 3,900 people in Houston as to what effect school corporal
punishment had on their lives found that 76 percent of them said the
effects had been negative and that they continued to resent what
happened to them. That leaves about a fourth of them who were able to
shrug it off and a mere handful who felt grateful for the timely
punishment that "saved me from a life of crime." Thus, the one who
testifies that "I was paddled when I was a kid and I turned out okay,"
must be labelled a survivor and congratulated on the strength of
character that enabled him to make a life in spite of early
mistreatment. Phychologist Robert Fathman, has offered this apt
analogy: "Many people grew up in homes that had outhouses and they
turned out okay. But do outhouses get the credit?"

I guess I'll never find the old Fischer professor I was looking for.
He was very old when I ran across his attempt to study prisons back in
the mid 70's and may be deceased by now, and or not active.

If I run across him I'll let you know.

Kane

[Dennis Hancock]

"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 23:18:44 GMT, "Hancock" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"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.

Kane wrote (ignoring the meat of the above text and naturally only
responding to the part he agreed with).

> You are incorrect. Many families are not historically punishing
> families and they tend to be the leaders of society. One might hear of
> some beatings here and there or spankings, but by and large the
> powerful and wealthy do NOT want to disrupt the early development of
> their children...and these days they hire nannies who DO NOT spank or
> punish and have highly developed skills to teach without then.

Where are your studies on this Kane? There have been very few families
which are not "historically punishing famiies" as you put it, and I
certainly don't know that they are published anywhere, or in any studies.
Anyone can make such a claim when the obvious is that it has very little
basis in fact.

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.

>
> I have observed children from both sides of this question, and
> inevitably the unpunished, but well taught and developmentally
> supported child is superior in every way including NOT developing
> criminal tendencies.

Again, YOUR observations.. certainly nothing to substantiate your wild
accusations in general.

>
> The Embry study is but one of many studies. These are direct
> observational studies that show things like number of street entries
> for each group, those punished, and those simply told the thing that
> is wanted of them..in other words, "the street is for cars, and we
> play over here where it is safe."

With a one or two year old? Give us a break.

>
> >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.
>
> It would be rather silly to look for a scientific study because they
> would be few and far between. That that work with toddlers don't
> 'reason' with them. They are taught in a linear fashion...no
> abstractions included...that one thing follows another, but they are
> still closely supervised because the wise parent knows that any
> variable can upset the child's patterned behavior.

>
> After 6, in the normal child, the sky's the limit. They CAN then
> process abstractly and stay on task, but of course what would be the
> point of punishing a self managing child? Which they tend to be very
> much.
>
> Mine were so much that I spent years watching in fascination how they
> learned...it as so different from punished children. And they had
> extremely well developed moral senses and empathy (you may call that
> conscience if you wish, since it is).

then they were very rare, and you were very lucky. I've personally
witnessed the exact opposite, very inadaquate individuals emotionally who
are unprepared to deal with the real world, or hande any kind of negative
criticism directed towards them.

>
> >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.
>
> And nearly every one wrong. They SEEM logical to an adult. They are
> for the most part if the subject is an adult. I don't need to stick my
> finger in a beaker of acid more than once, or get slapped or even
> yelled at rudely not to do that as it's dangerous.

No.. the point is to swat the butt so the child does NOT touch a beaker of
acid. You assume the child cannot learn and ignore every psychological
study on young children which has precluded your non spanking approach.

>
> That isn't how children work, or we would not have a species with such
> a long childhood.
>
> Animals, even the higher ones, tend to top out, as compared to humans,
> at about a 3 to 5 year olds understanding and reactions. Every animal
> trainer knows this and uses it. Roy got bitten, I'd wager, from a
> break in the known linear routine that Mandacore,(?) was used to and
> the cat reverted to the known...a mother cat protecting her kittens
> by taking them away from danger. Even the way the tiger picked him up
> shows that.
>
> Our children are not ready really for full understanding until they
> are six. Some wonderfully simple experiments have shown that to be
> true.
>
> They cannot discriminate the difference (or sameness) in two objects
> with the same volume but of different dimensions....even when evidence
> is offered. Child that have hit that brain developmental stage where
> enough of the neurological pathways have been laid down that are
> significant to abstract reasoning CAN tell the difference when shown
> the evidence.
>
> And punishing a child for NOT being able to know that before the brain
> is sufficiently developed is cruelty.
>
> Don't be cruel.
>
> Kane

So, your suggestion is LET them touch the hot iron, or LET them learn from
the pain. YOU are the one being cruel. I can rest assured that you let
your wife chase after the little ones because you certainly have no clue as
to how active they can be.

[Kane]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 04:22:02 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
> wrote:

>
>"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
>> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 23:18:44 GMT, "Hancock" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"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.
>
>Kane wrote (ignoring the meat of the above text and naturally only
>responding to the part he agreed with).

What is this directly below...something YOU wrote?

>> You are incorrect. Many families are not historically punishing
>> families and they tend to be the leaders of society. One might hear
of
>> some beatings here and there or spankings, but by and large the
>> powerful and wealthy do NOT want to disrupt the early development
of
>> their children...and these days they hire nannies who DO NOT spank
or
>> punish and have highly developed skills to teach without then.
>
>Where are your studies on this Kane?

Where are yours that show spanked children are common in more affluent
and personally powerful families?

>There have been very few families
>which are not "historically punishing famiies" as you put it,

And you can prove this how?

>and I
>certainly don't know that they are published anywhere, or in any
studies.

Yes, I know. The difference is that I have been around. I have worked
for and with the very wealthy and powerful...did you see the piece I
wrote on the polo pony?

I've trained their children to ride...right up to Olympic competition
levels....and I've been a guest in their houses and homes for long
periods. I ran their stables and horsebreeding farms so I've seen them
at their best and worst. And they seldom resort to spanking and in
fact are much more dedicate to their children learning personal power.
Something very hard to learn when one is spending their time looking
over their shoulder in expectation of a whipping.

>Anyone can make such a claim when the obvious is that it has very
little
>basis in fact.

And you have some proof that spanking is a common child rearing tactic
among the powerful?

>Non spanking is a fairly recent development pushed forth by
psychologists..

I've known nonspanking families all my life and I'm nearly 70.

>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.

You are obviously a poor reader. Where have you found support for this
fear of using negative reinforcement? I can't remember a book on child
rearing that didn't include a section on logical and natural
consequences. Both have to do with negative reinforcement.

By the way, do you actually understand what classical behaviorist
negative reinforcement is?

I think you are mixing things up a bit and mean "extinction" of a
behavior.

Negative reinforcement makes a proximal behavior happen MORE often,
not less. Read up on it.

>They cannot deal with criticism because of
>the spoon fed nonsense,

They deal wonderfully well with criticism from having a solid
foundation of healthy and fact based self esteem...they can DO things,
and when they aren't allowed to they find other more acceptable ways
to reach their goals.

They do not have to go off and pout and climb towers with guns.

>and we wind up with more and more Columbine type
>situations from these disturbed individuals.

If you think the Columbine shooters were not spanked I would like to
see the evidence. Based on YOUR own beliefs it seems unlikely they
were not parenting with punishment methods. The odds of it are very
high.

So tell us, you have proof they weren't spanked? Show it please.

>YOU are doing more damage than
>the occassional spanker who teaches his children hurtful behavior can
have
>consequences.

Nope, every child I've successfully worked with, and I've had very few
failures and those related to organic problems or the child returning
to tortur...opps, punishing parents, has turned out well. They are
free of crime, they are self generating, they work and are well paid.

I raised two myself and my wife another two of hers before we married
by the same methods (were old friends and married after my former wife
passed away).

All four of our children are highly successful. All continue their
educations and are fully employed even in these hard times and they
are aged from 22 to 42. The second youngest is on an executive
training track of a Fortune 500 company, the eldest is studying, back
in school again while she still holds down a good job, to be an
accountant, and the youngest is just getting started and is doing very
well. The second to the oldest is a craftsman of considerable skill,
and a photo hobbiest that wins prizes in competition and also an
accomplished winning rifle competitor. I'm better than him with a
handgun.

>>
>> I have observed children from both sides of this question, and
>> inevitably the unpunished, but well taught and developmentally
>> supported child is superior in every way including NOT developing
>> criminal tendencies.
>
>Again, YOUR observations.. certainly nothing to substantiate your
wild
>accusations in general.

If you think you can find children that are taught without punishment
in jails, be my guest. They don't exist. It will be a fitting use of
your time though.

I once knew a cop that believed like you. I challenged him, because he
claimed that he routinely worked with unspanked unpunished adults in
prison.

He went and started asking...guess what he learned....his perceptions
were being colored by his biases....just like yours. The facts he
found were very different than he believed. I was very pleased because
he was a new father.

>>
>> The Embry study is but one of many studies. These are direct
>> observational studies that show things like number of street
entries
>> for each group, those punished, and those simply told the thing
that
>> is wanted of them..in other words, "the street is for cars, and we
>> play over here where it is safe."
>
>With a one or two year old? Give us a break.

Yes. Take one. It works. If they are too young to respond do you think
spanking works better?

In the Summer 1987 issue of _Children_ magazine, Dr. Dennis Embry
writes:
"Since 1977 I have been heading up the only long-term project
designed to counteract pedestrian accidents to preschool-aged
children.
(Surprisingly, getting struck by a car is about the third leading
cause
of death to young children in the United States.)
"Actual observation of parents and children shows that spanking,
scolding, reprimanding and nagging INCREASES the rate of street
entries
by children. Children use going into the street as a near-perfect way
to gain parents' attention.
"Now there is a promising new educational intervention program,
called Safe Playing. The underlying principles of the program are
simple:

1. Define safe boundaries in a POSITIVE way. "Safe
players play on the grass or sidewalk."
2. Give stickers for safe play. That makes it more fun
than playing dangerously.
3. Praise your child for safe play.

"These three principles have an almost instant effect on
increasing safe play. We have observed children who had been spanked
many times a day for going into the street, yet they continued to do
it.
The moment the family began giving stickers and praise for safe play,
the
children stopped going into the street.

Dennis D. Embry, Ph.D.
University of Kansas
Lawrence Kansas"


Give Dennis a call and tell him he didn't see what he saw.

>>
>> >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.
>>
>> It would be rather silly to look for a scientific study because
they
>> would be few and far between. That that work with toddlers don't
>> 'reason' with them. They are taught in a linear fashion...no
>> abstractions included...that one thing follows another, but they
are
>> still closely supervised because the wise parent knows that any
>> variable can upset the child's patterned behavior.
>
>>
>> After 6, in the normal child, the sky's the limit. They CAN then
>> process abstractly and stay on task, but of course what would be
the
>> point of punishing a self managing child? Which they tend to be
very
>> much.
>>
>> Mine were so much that I spent years watching in fascination how
they
>> learned...it as so different from punished children. And they had
>> extremely well developed moral senses and empathy (you may call
that
>> conscience if you wish, since it is).
>
>then they were very rare, and you were very lucky.

On the contrary. They were common in the societies I studied. Punished
children learn that if you do not like someone's behavior you hit
them. Nonpunishment raised children learn early on to negotiate.

>I've personally
>witnessed the exact opposite, very inadaquate individuals emotionally
who
>are unprepared to deal with the real world, or hande any kind of
negative
>criticism directed towards them.

And you are prepared to say and believe these were individuals that
were not raised with punishment-discipline?

I'd think you'd be hard pressed to find them unless you did some
extensive travel.

>>
>> >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.
>>
>> And nearly every one wrong. They SEEM logical to an adult. They are
>> for the most part if the subject is an adult. I don't need to stick
my
>> finger in a beaker of acid more than once, or get slapped or even
>> yelled at rudely not to do that as it's dangerous.
>
>No.. the point is to swat the butt so the child does NOT touch a
beaker of
>acid.

No, the point is to not leave a beaker of acid out for a child to
young to follow directions to find. Spanking tends to negatively
reinforce. Embry showed that.

The spanked children were the ones that ran toward traffic MORE.

>You assume the child cannot learn

I do? On the contrary you assume that the only way they can learn to
NOT do something is to be spanked.

>and ignore every psychological
>study

I don't ignore any studies I know about. Clue me in.

> on young children which has precluded your non spanking approach.

Run'em out here. I gave you Embry...what are you going to give
ME...Dobson!? R R R R R

>>
>> That isn't how children work, or we would not have a species with
such
>> a long childhood.
>>
>> Animals, even the higher ones, tend to top out, as compared to
humans,
>> at about a 3 to 5 year olds understanding and reactions. Every
animal
>> trainer knows this and uses it. Roy got bitten, I'd wager, from a
>> break in the known linear routine that Mandacore,(?) was used to
and
>> the cat reverted to the known...a mother cat protecting her
kittens
>> by taking them away from danger. Even the way the tiger picked him
up
>> shows that.
>>
>> Our children are not ready really for full understanding until they
>> are six. Some wonderfully simple experiments have shown that to be
>> true.
>>
>> They cannot discriminate the difference (or sameness) in two
objects
>> with the same volume but of different dimensions....even when
evidence
>> is offered. Child that have hit that brain developmental stage
where
>> enough of the neurological pathways have been laid down that are
>> significant to abstract reasoning CAN tell the difference when
shown
>> the evidence.
>>
>> And punishing a child for NOT being able to know that before the
brain
>> is sufficiently developed is cruelty.
>>
>> Don't be cruel.
>>
>> Kane
>
>So, your suggestion is LET them touch the hot iron, or LET them learn
from
>the pain.

Why would I tell you and others, as I have here and elsewhere in this
thread, that the job of the parent is to protect the child and support
their learning if that were true?

You are assigning me beliefs and claims I do not have or make.

You are doing so based, if I am correct, on your bias that spanking is
the one sure way to teach a child to not do something. It's been
disproven in testing and in my observation.

>YOU are the one being cruel.

On the contrary. Not only are you risking the young child now...by
using a method that has proven to INCREASE the unwanted behavior, but
the long term effects are well documented.

>I can rest assured that you let
>your wife chase after the little ones

I was the primary parent for my two natural children while my wife
pursued her profession. I worked and went back to college and all the
while cared for my children as the primary caregiver. Very
enlightening. And it teaches patience.

So tell me, did YOU do the 24/7 with your children?

>because you certainly have no clue as
>to how active they can be.

On the contrary. I had very active kids, that also trusted me. From
time to time, like all children...and like the one you mentioned
running toward a dropoff, my children got into danger. It's just part
of parenting.

My daughter used to go to work with me until she was about 3. A lively
energetic exploring kid, but very trusting of me and new activities
she'd check out with me before she did them.

I missed her cue one day. And she wandered over the pasture fence. I
was working with a particularly difficult Appaloosa stallion and was a
tiny bit distracted. I'd sent her outside the work area but where I
could see her. The corner post on the pasture was right at the edge of
a 50 foot steep dropoff. In that paster were about 15 3 year old Santa
Gertrudis bulls waiting for shippment to the sales barn for auction.

I heard her call out to me, "Look at me daddy." and when I looked
there she was. She had climbed up the angled brace post to the top of
the corner post, about 6x8 inches on the top. Barbed wire below her, a
50 ft cliff to one side, and about 5 or 6 young bulls coming toward
her curious and a bit agitated.

Did I run? Did I send my Australian Shepard cattle dog to drive off
the bulls? Naw, I don't think so.

I just smiled and said, "Yes, honey you are a good climber, now can
you climb down without falling?" Which of course she promptly did.

We talked about it. I didn't spank her but she, trusting me, and
feeling safe to ask me questions wanted to know why I looked so scared
now that she was down.

I explained the dangers. I didn't talk, of course, in cause and effect
terms. I just described sequentially what might have happened. I
reminder her of how we had to take Jake, the Blue Heeler (aus shepard)
to the vet when one of the young bulls trampled him. I reminded her
how it hurt when she fell a little way off things she climbed.

Now I'd love to think my child was waaaaaaay more developed than most,
but the truth is all children are on the same development time table.
She was an easy 3 to 4 years away from really understanding, but she
DID know pain, she knew oweez, and she could process sequential
events, the forte of the toddler and up to 5.

So she didn't climb that post any more, alone. I would go out, when
she wanted, and I'd hold her hand as she went up the brace and stood
on top.

Talk about a rush. She had one because her daddy not only trusted her
but HELPED her learn the balance and climbing skills she wanted to
learn, but he protected her from falling off the cliff or into the
bull pasture. I had my own rush for many of the same reasons. A child
that trusted me to protect and teach her, and the pleasure of seeing
her do something difficult for a three year old, very well indeed.
She's still like that. Just talked to her on the phone about her plans
for graduate school and the clusters of classes she must take to
prepare. Felt like I was holding her little hand again.

This climbing the fence was one of many things I taught her by gentle
means. She is alive and unscratched today.

She might read this some time so I won't tell you how I taught her not
to strip her clothes off an warm summer days and go down the lane to
play with the neighbor kids...r r r r

But trust me, no pain or humiliation was involved.

Have a nice day.

Kane

[Doan]

On 26 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:

> Degree of physical punishment
> College
> freshmen 2% 23% 40% 33% 0%
> Professionals 5% 40% 36% 17% 0%
>
Let's see 98% of college freshmen are spanked and 95% of
professionals are spanked. IS KANE arguing for spanking
or against??? ;-)

Doan

[Kane]

Doan > wrote in message >...
> On 26 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:
>
> > Degree of physical punishment
> > College
> > freshmen 2% 23% 40% 33% 0%
> > Professionals 5% 40% 36% 17% 0%
> >
> Let's see 98% of college freshmen are spanked and 95% of
> professionals are spanked.


Artful snipparage there old boy. Why did you remove the column
headers?

> IS KANE arguing for spanking
> or against??? ;-)

Those who are spanked often suffer from a similar lack of mental
acuity. Do you really think anyone else has a problem with
understanding my argument?

These two categories experience the mildest of physical
punishments....and if you pay close attention you'll notice the word
spanking isn't in the title or columns...just physical punishment.

On the other hand are you then assuming that professionals and college
freshman are some advanced form of life? R R R R

What with all the bashing of professionals in these ngs it appears
obvious why YOU can't figure out my argument.

> Doan

Too bad about you being spanked.

bingo bango bongo

Stoneman

[Doan]

On 29 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:

> Doan > wrote in message >...
> > On 26 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:
> >
> > > Degree of physical punishment
> > > College
> > > freshmen 2% 23% 40% 33% 0%
> > > Professionals 5% 40% 36% 17% 0%
> > >
> > Let's see 98% of college freshmen are spanked and 95% of
> > professionals are spanked.
>
>
> Artful snipparage there old boy. Why did you remove the column
> headers?
>
Because it is self-explanatory. These propaganda that you copied from
those anti-spanking sites are nothing new, Kane. These are the same
one that were posted A LONG TIME ago by Chris, LaVonne et al! They
have been discredited as nothing but propaganda. You are a FEW YEARS
LATE and a bundle of dollars short! :-{)

> > IS KANE arguing for spanking
> > or against??? ;-)
>
> Those who are spanked often suffer from a similar lack of mental
> acuity. Do you really think anyone else has a problem with
> understanding my argument?
>
Nope. Many, just like me, have pointed out the STUPIDITY of such
an argument. LOOK IT UP IN THE ARCHIVE!!!

> These two categories experience the mildest of physical
> punishments...
>
WHAT??? ARE YOU THIS STUPID??? Maybe I should have left the headers
in for idiot like you. Here they are:
>
> D E G R E E O F P H Y S I C A L P U N I S H M E N T
>
> Never Rare Moderate Severe Extreme
> Violent inmates
> at San Quentin 0 0 0 0 100%
>
> Juvenile
> Delinquents 0 2% 3% 31% 64%
>
> High School
> drop-outs 0 7% 23% 69% 0
>
> College
> freshmen 2% 23% 40% 33% 0
>
> Professionals 5% 40% 36% 17% 0
>
> [The Influence of Corporal Punishment on Crime by Adah Maurer, Ph.D. and
> James S. Wallerstein (1987)]

As you can see, the categories are: NEVER, RARE, MODERATE, SEVERE and
EXTREME. What you claimed above is just utter NONSENSE!

..and if you pay close attention you'll notice the word
> spanking isn't in the title or columns...just physical punishment.

LOL! I just love the anti-spanking zealotS. They claimed that spanking
is a beating and now... spanking is not physical punishment!!! Logic
and the anti-spanking zealotS, are they mutually exclusive? ;-)

> On the other hand are you then assuming that professionals and college
> freshman are some advanced form of life? R R R R
>
Where did I claim that, Kane? :-)

> What with all the bashing of professionals in these ngs it appears
> obvious why YOU can't figure out my argument.
>
Let's see! Spanking will improve you kids' chances of going to college
and becoming professionals, so don't spank your kids??? Logic and the
anti-spanking zealotS.... enough said. :-)
>
> Too bad about you being spanked.
>
Yup! And anti-spanking zealotS are proud of the fact that a
"never-spanked" boy turned out like you! :-)

Doan

[Greg Hanson]

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.

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. What's funny is that they seem to take the position
that it's all harmful. Apparently they are taking the idea of
changing the world a bit far. If they get verbal and
psychological aggression outlawed, then even non-spankers can
have their kids removed to state care for this ""abuse"".
Even though it is found in 100% of all cases, they seem
dead set on proving that it is harmful.

Could you imagine a kid raised in a situation where nothing
is ever said to them that they don't want to hear?

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. The absolute power of course made
him a little demon. 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!" ?

Since there is a division between people who choose
not to spank but don't wish to IMPOSE that on other
parents, 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%) :)

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, like when info was posted that
CPS agencies in all 50 states failed compliance audits.
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.
She also accused me of computer crime, breaking
into her e-mail. 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.)

Her pig-headedness, even when one of her allies
Kane, tells her she's wrong on something, is obvious.
It will be her undoing on this libel/slander thing.

Don't let these people push you to swear in public.
You really don't want to in any way match Kane's swearing.
He is his own worst enemy.

I think I agree with you that emotional abuse can
be very harmful, 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.
CPS incompetence in this area would cause great harm.
On the bright side, though, the American Gulag side
of this might cause their complete downfall.
I just wouldn't want to pay that price to get rid of them.

If CPS agencies continue to progress into accusing
parents of emotional abuse, they might indeed
regret the precident this might open up regarding
emotional abuse of removals, STATE CARE, or
caseworker lies, etc. It might not happen right
away, but I would expect the emotional abuse
gambit would eventually backfire on them terribly.

In my families' case 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.

To turn them loose playing amateur psychology with
kids en masse would very likely lead to more HARM
than good. I question how many caseworkers could
qualify as sane enough to judge others psyche, even
if they DID have credentials, which they don't.

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.

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

[Kane]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 05:09:12 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
> wrote:

>
>"Gerald Alborn" > wrote in message
...
>> Dennis Hancock wrote:
>>
>> > "Gerald Alborn" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > > Dennis Hancock wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > DUH... Kane's assertions are so lame and weak that they
defeat
>> > themselves.
>> > >
>> > > Thank you for further demonstrating that you can provide no
basis for
>what
>> > > you've asserted.
>> > >
>> >
>> > And thank you for showing that you accept Kane's nonsense with
>absolutely no
>> > question.
>>
>> Tell me Dennis, what words of Kane's do you regard as nonsense? Ah,
don't
>tell
>> me. You can't post them but would like me to go into google and try
to
>find them
>> myself. :-) :-) :-) :-)
>>
>> You make a whole lot of statements without ever clarifying what it
is
>you're
>> talking about. I guess even you know that you're in a position
where
>that's your
>> only option.
>>
>
>Damn Gerald, how many times must I QUOTE his post and post DIRECTLY
under
>the EXACT words I consider nonsense.

On the contrary, Dennis the Liar, you rarely actually quoted me, and
you made claims about things I never said. Most of your claims of my
words you claim were nonsense were nothing but your empty
declarations.

>What pleasure do you get from attempting to keep asking the same lame
>questions, and keep believing every word Kane posts as the absolute
truth?

You are lying right there. You have NO way to know if someone believes
every word I post...that would be impossible in any case. And there is
no such thing as the "absolute truth."

Your posts are nothing but blabbering hyperbole because you cannot
morally defend hitting children and calling it spanking and you know
it.

>Are you that truly that stupid and gullible, or are you just a parrot
for
>Kane,

Since Alborn was in the ng long before I, making the claims about
spanking that he does, how could he be parroting me?

>attempting to somehow try to discredit any opposing viewpoint by
>asking repeatedly the same things over and over again (interestingly
enough,
>the same thing kane keeps doing as well).

What is he asking you repeatedly over and over? And why shouldn't he
given that you haven't actually answered anything he's asked but
rather gone off trying to distract by discrediting him by discrediting
me?

Try actually answering the questions asked, Dennis.

>> > > > If you haven't read the posts, why should I bother to go back
and
>repost
>> > > > them for your benefit?
>> > >
>> > > Well you shouldn't, actually. Aside from the fact that you
can't
>repost
>> > what
>> > > isn't there, it helps to show everyone what your level of
integrity
>is.
>> > Let's
>> > > just leave it at that.
>
>DUH.. I can't repost what isn't there.. apparently you cannot read,
or have
>some lack of comprhension since I have used quoting his posts
directly as a
>means of posting my rebuttal to his lame nonsense.

Excuse me. You are saying in the same sentence that something isn't
there that you have quoted directly. How can that be?

You haven't quoted me directly except rarely.

>> > >
>> >
>> > For someone who hasn't bothered to go back and read the posts..
YOU can
>> > claim they aren't there? LOL.. You sure your not Kane in drag?
>>
>> Specifically what posts are you referring to? You've already
demonstrated
>that
>> you can't generally post more than two sentences without either
stretching
>the
>> truth way out of whack or outright lying.
>
>*I* can't post more than two sentences without stretching the truth
or
>outright lying?

Well, I suppose if you work at it you can get to a third sentence
before lying. For instance, below you have, after just one sentence
above this, began lying.

>WHERE ARE MY LIES?

Sentence two above could be construed as the truth, but it's a stupid
sentence as the lie is right below her. YOUR NEXT sentence.

>Kane has posted nothing but lies,

I have done no such thing. You are lying. In fact by simple rules of
logic you are a liar by that statement. It's nearly impossible to post
nothing but lies in posts as long as mine to you.

>and
>stretch truth

For instance, what "truth" have I stretched? I have posted referrences
to others work, I have posted results that I have obtained, and you
have NO WAY IN HELL to know whether I'm telling the truth or not about
my own experiences, and posting something others learned can't be
lying, by definition. It's simply posting information I've found.

You haven't challenged the findings, for instance, with anything, in
the case of the Embry study, but trying to discredit the researcher, a
man with a history of academic research that stretches for years and
has been used by industry (traffic control) to great results.

No, Dennis, the truth is YOU are the liar.

>and flip flopped back and forth,

Give us one example of my flip flopping back and forth. You claimed it
based on my stating (and I have many years of others work backing me
up) that a child below a certain age cannot understand abstractions of
cause and effect in statements adult caregiver make to the child BUT I
SPEAK TO THE CHILD ABOUT WHAT I AM DOING AND INTEND SO THAT THEY
LATTER WILL HAVE THE INFORMATION IN MEMORY WHEN THEY CAN USE IT.

That isn't flip flopping. It's what parents naturally do all the time.
I just do it with deliberation, rather than willy nilly, because I
understand it.

>and my calling him a liar is
>stretching the truth or outright lies?

Absolutely. You have lied repeatedly about me by posting that I have
made claims I have not.

>Grow up asshole and smell the coffee
>brewing.

He did long ago I believe. He went from being a admitted child abuser
(though of course he had not intended to do so) to a gentle
non-punitive father with great success. It appears you hate that and
you hate him for it, or you wouldn't curse and call him filthy names.

>YOu want some asshole like Kane TELLING you how to raise your
>kids,

Alborn didn't even know me when he made that change for himself. Are
you stupid or lying again? Don't you read and remember? He already
told you he had been in this ng longer than me.

>and accusing people of being abusers because they don't follow his
>lame assed ideology, fine, go for it.

The problem, Dennis, isn't that he calls you an abuser. It's that you
are unaware of your impact on your children and an abuser by default
not intent. The issue is how does one go about waking up someone that
abuses and now so badly needs to rationalize it by defending it as
something other than abuse.

>But shut the **** up and keep it to yourself as you, like kane are
now on
>ignore for nonsensical bull****.

You can't shut us up, Dennis, and you know it.

What we have going for us, and it infuriates folks like you that were
indoctrinated against your will into the spanking mindset, is the deep
down lies the carefully hidden memory of the the shock and often rage
you felt when you were first hit by your completely trusted parent.

When we talk about spanking as we do it starts to activate that memory
and you are forced to either visit that horrendous betrayal and pain
(and if you were a spanker...to visit what you have done to your own
children) and that is very hard to do.

I admire Alborn, and I admire parents I've worked with since 1976,
that have made that hard, painful decision to face both what happened
to them and what they might have done to others.
>>
>> > > > That's total ****ing nonsense. They are all googled
>> > > > for your browing
>>
>> And you have a bridge for sale too, right?
>
>and you would surely buy it from your hero kane, simple because he
'tells'
>you how great it is.

Isn't it interesting that Alborn, as he has told you very clearly and
concisely, that he freely, with no influence from me, someone he had
not met, made the decision to "buy" non-punitive parenting himself.

Now just who is either neurotically suppressing that information
himself or is a liar, Dennis, Alborn, I, or YOU?

>>
>> > > FYI, I searched google for Kane's words stating that he was a
retired
>Air
>> > Force
>> > > Colonel, as you claimed. Google shows no record of him ever
saying
>such a
>> > thing.
>> > > It's quite clear why you don't want to pull up googled posts to
>> > substantiate
>> > > your statements.
>>
>bull****, again you show a lack of comprehsion as I clearly stated
that
>others in here have accused him of being that person,

Which proves I said I was a retired Air Force colonel how again?

You are taking a claim from a known child abuser and gigolo, and
artful bender of the truth...admitted by himself in other ngs.....and
using that to claim I said something I didn't.

And though I am not Frank Andrews I googled him and HE never said he
was an Air Force colonel either...not even mentioned the USAF in any
post of his.

So were do YOU get off claim I said any such thing?

>whom he claims is
>someone else (sound familiar), who is posting under his name the same
>bull**** trying to discredit him.

Frank Andrews took a post of mine, pasted it into a message and resent
it after cancelling it out of USENET...if you know how to messages can
be deleted from the archives...even another person's message...to
harrass me.

If you'd have bothered to check, instead of blindly rushing off to
believe anything you could possibly find to discredit me instead of
actually dealing with the spanking issue, you'd have found a two post
exchange between Frank and I (that's not his real name by the way, if
he is who I believe he is...and old opponent of mine) that clarified
our relationship.

And his posting my post as his to discredit me.

>UNbelievable how stupid and lame some people can be.

Yes, you ARE something of a wonder, now aren't you.

>And how attacking they
>can be

You aren't attacking?

If you simply go back and read your posts...or better, have someone
else read them and report to you, you'll find you are the most vicious
of attackers yourself.

>simply because you disagree with someone they seem to have a huge
>admiration for.

I do not know if Alborn has any admiration for me at all. I haven't
seen anything in his posts that would suggest it except calling you on
your lies about me and happening to have a similar belief about
spanking to my belief.

I do though especially admire him as I did not come to my belief as a
spanker changing his mind. I had less to overcome than Alborn, hence I
admire him greatly. It is not easy to face the truth about spanking,
as relates to one's own parents and more especially if one has used
spanking on one's own children.

No THAT is courage.

>> > You apparently didn't google the challenges to Kane's background
by
>several
>> > others who seemed quite convinced he was this same person using
another
>> > name, who had made that claim. OR his nonsensical denials that
someone
>was
>> > reposting under his name in other newsgroups to attempt to
discredit
>him.
>>
>> Brilliant Dennis. When caught in an outright lie, try to change the
focus
>in
>> another direction in the hopes that everyone will forget. Surely no
one
>will
>> notice...
>>
>
>LOL... I aint the asshole trying to change the focus dude..

And that, Dennis, is a bald faced lie that anyone can see simply by
reading the few lines attributed to you and Alborn above.

Or you really are neurotic as hell.

>> > > > Grow up and learn to realize
>> > > > when your being bull****ted by a bull****ter kiddo.
>> > >
>> > > I seem to be doing that quite well, thank you.
>> > >
>> > > -Jerry-
>
>Not very well, Wonder how many bridges kane has sold you in the
past?

We do not know each other except as I have met him in this ng he was
in long before me. In fact we didn't exchange any posts for some time
as we watched each other deal with bullying child abusers in this ng.

>Enjoy your blinded life dude..

Let me see now. He woke up and changed for what he reports as the
better for himself and his children, and you continue to defend pain
and humiliation parenting, and HE is blind?

Interesting take on things.

>> >
>> > Apparently not.
>>
>> Then where's the post where Kane claimed to be a retired Air Force
>Colonel, as
>> you insisted he did? Why should we move to other falsehoods you've
>created. One
>> is enough to demonstrate the real Dennis...
>>
>>
>> -Jerry-
>>
>>

I think Jerry has called it pretty well.

So your task, unless you wish to be known in these ngs for the strange
ranting babbler you appear to be, is to show where I claimed, or Frank
Andrews, who you say I am by the claims of others, claimed to be a
retired USAF retired colonel.

Oh and by the way, if you have a spare minute and wish to prove your
discrediting of me you might want to post a few samples of my lies and
flip flops.

So far you have crabwalked everytime I or Jerry Alborn have asked you
to do so. That old, "google it yourself" works great when there IS
something to google, but is a dead giveaway the author is lying when
there ISN'T....so YOU google it bubba, YOU prove Jerry or I wrong.

Neither we or you, as you said, can't google on what is not there.
Seems you've already admitted that you are a liar.

Thanks bunches,

Kane

[Kane]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 05:10:56 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
> wrote:

>Don't bother doan, Jerry, like his alter ego kane has been thrown
into the
>iggy bin for now.

The escape hatch for liars and the stupid that are caught at their
nonsense.

>He apparently wants ME to prove kane's allegations wrong,

That would be the point of debate on an issue, now wouldn't it?

>which many have
>done continually,

Nonsense. Post some of the proof my allegations are wrong? I have
thousands of points of information that prove I am right.

>and wants me to repost what I dispute,

And you refused in the classic crabwalk way, by insisting HE could
find it, when we know of course he couldn't because you didn't.

>even after using
>direct quotes of Kane's posts when I post.

You did no such thing. You refused to answer my questions and claims
with anything but blathering denial and hyperbolic name calling. You
rarely quoted me, and in fact lied about me by quoting lies and
speculations of OTHER people about me.

>Amazing how blind and stupid some people are.

I'm not amazed at all by the neurotic defense mechanisisms of those
that cannot face the truth of the brutality visited on them that they
turn and visit upon their own children, and then have to defend.

That is exactly how blind and stupid some people are.

>Truly unbelievable that they
>manage to survive in this world.

I wonder how that is.

I notice many fewer of us are in jails, many fewer are mentally ill.

I would say it has something to do with either being raised so that we
do NOT have the neurotic self protective needs you do, or that we
struggled through the brutality of being hit by our parents and
bravely chose another path so our own children would not have to have
the same thing happen to them.

>
>"Doan" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Gerald Alborn wrote:
>>
>> > Dennis Hancock wrote:
>> >
>> > > "Gerald Alborn" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> > > > Dennis Hancock wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > DUH... Kane's assertions are so lame and weak that they
defeat
>> > > themselves.
>> > > >
>> > > > Thank you for further demonstrating that you can provide no
basis
>for what
>> > > > you've asserted.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > And thank you for showing that you accept Kane's nonsense with
>absolutely no
>> > > question.
>> >
>> > Tell me Dennis, what words of Kane's do you regard as nonsense?
Ah,
>don't tell
>> > me. You can't post them but would like me to go into google and
try to
>find them
>> > myself. :-) :-) :-) :-)
>> >
>> I will be glad to google them for you, Gerald. Just say the word.
:-)
>>
>> Doan

Go for it, Doan.

Kane

[Kane]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 05:13:27 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
> wrote:

>More nonsense from Gerald.... he considers a parent's RESPONSIBILITY
to
>teach, control and discipline their child as forcing their will upon
>someone.. LOL..

You are laughing so loudly you cannot hear your own brain rattling,
but it's more than apparent you choose to lie about, or creatively
misunderstand and ignore what he did say.

He didn't say what you claim, only that he chose a different method to
execute that very responsibility you babble about, and know so little
of.

He reports that he found out how to teach, control and discipline his
children. All without force, pain, and humiliation. And then he did
it.

>Amazing that a person can even begin to argue that EVERYONE who
attempts to
>discipline their own children is an abusive jerk who is imposing
their will
>on them.

That is NOT what he said, and you know it, Dennis. He made if very
clear he was discussing force. I can't recall if he used the words
"abusive jerk," and unable to find them in googling. Possibly you can
bring them up for us.

Though I will readily admit that you are sounding very much like an
abusive jerk yourself.

>Not worth the bother

Then what do you go on to say.........
"
>as he is either a liar, a teenager who has
>never had kids, or a complete idiot.
?"

You seem to be very bothered. I notice that after you claimed to have
filtered us you then went on, in your cowardly fashion, to excorate
both Alborn and myself.

You effectively created a forum you would not have to be held
accountable by your opponent in. Hardly very original, very clever,
and thus, very cowardly.

>Almost turned my stomach to read the nonsense below

Now that you do not have to read his replies, by filtering him out,
you can say anything you wish, can you not?

On the other hand, I think it's worth another read so I'll leave it
unsnipped and attributed. It's rather insightful.

Oh, and of course you are reading this...after filtering me...R R R

So you of course can't help but embarrass yourself and show yourself
to be the morally weak little cretin you apparently are if you DO
answer me.

That's the problem with taking the cowardly liar's way out, Dennis.

While you don't have to answer anything you don't want to after
claiming you filtered the other person you can't answer anything they
say either...RRRRR.

What a maroon.

Kane

>"Gerald Alborn" > wrote in message
...
>> Dennis Hancock wrote:
>>
>> > I don't even have a problem with your decision to use other
methods on
>your
>> > children, and in fact have stated many times that most parents do
>attempt
>> > many different methods and find what works for THEIR child.
>>
>> Works for their child? You mean what "works for them."
>>
>> I seem to recall asking you what you mean by "works." I never did
see an
>answer.
>>
>> Lot's of things may "work" if compliance to your every demand, or
blind
>> obedience is your only objective. Is that your only concern? Now
that
>you're the
>> adult, do you mean by "works," "finally getting your way with
others -
>namely
>> children?" I have greater concern for children's healthy emotional
>development
>> than what "works" to make life easier for parents. Why is this so
far
>beyond
>> your grasp?
>>
>> > and quite
>> > often, use different methods for different siblins.
>>
>> Why do so many, like you, decide that abuse works, and convince
yourself
>that it
>> isn't really abuse?
>>
>> > My whole problem with Kane is that he is attempting to portray
ANYONE
>who
>> > uses any sort of physical discipline on their children as a
monster who
>> > abuses children,
>>
>> How are you able to accept that physical discipline is >>not<<
abuse? What
>logic
>> do you use to convince yourself that it's okay to hurt children in
ways
>that are
>> illegal to use on adults? Do you honestly believe there is no
affect from
>> punitively inflicted pain on children, upon their young developing
>emotions?
>>
>> > and without that, his logic falls apart, which is why he
>> > refuses to accept any definitions given to him.
>>
>> You mean definitions you create to give yourself the illusion that
hurting
>young
>> children is somehow good and has no damaging effects?
>>
>> > He cannot understand that many parents use different levels of
both
>positive
>> > and negative reinforcement on their children until they hopefully
come
>up
>> > with what works. I tire of his nonsense and after reading this
group of
>> > posts, will most assuredly filter his name out of my reading list
and
>let
>> > him continue his rantings and ravings.
>>
>> You may get that way with me, too. There are real reasons (rooted
in your
>own
>> painful childhood) why you want to deny the truth about the
harmfulness of
>> hurting children in the name of disciple. It's simply too painful
to bear.
>> Having people point your head at the truth and make you see it must
simply
>be
>> too much of an overload.
>>
>> -Jerry-
>>
>

[Kane]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 05:17:37 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
> wrote:

>Doan you can't reach him. He, like Kane is stuck in their own self
>righeousness hell which they made for themselves.

Sounds like ol` Dennis is desparate for some validation Doan. Yours,
of course, would be so welcome now. Well, until Dennis figures out
what a self righteous little creep YOU are...wait, that may be just
what he is looking for, a soul mate. R R R R

>The ONLY way their 'truth' has any validity is by villifying every
other
>opinion and portraying anyone who disagrees with them as evil or
abusive.

Odd, there was no vilifying from this side of the issue until after
your refused the debate and started namecalling and attacking the
poster...and even now we are just pointing out what a low life scum
you've proven yourself to be.

>They are too stupid to understand that their methods are MUCH MORE
abusive

Ask my kids if they were.

>than what most consider discipline and teaching

You are assuming that others want to humilate and hurt children as
much as you do and will find a way, even if they have to leave out cp,
aren't you?

>because it can cause more
>emotional distress on a child because they feel the parent' doesn't
care
>enough to set limits and teach their children.

What makes you think that Alborn, or myself, or other parents that
chose not to use CP do not set and teach limits? We have far more
powerful long lasting tools than pain and humiliation.

>Oh yeah, they TRY to say
>they set limits,

No, we say it. Because it's true. And it works. Wonderfully. Embry
found it out. Did you know that Embry believed in punitive methods for
keeping children from running toward traffic until he saw with his own
eyes that it didn't work as well as simple nonpainful,
(psychologically or physically) methods worked far better?

>but limits without any logical reinforcement are as good as
>none at all.

You seem to not know what you are talking about...that is you do not
know what a range of logical reinforcement exists outside of pain and
punishment.

Now that is the question for us. How do we get through to those that
were raised in such a way as they believe in, and deny other means,
pain and punishment as a proper and more effective teaching tool than
things like talking, redirecting, substituting, deliberate conscience
building by empathy, mutual problem solving, questioning, and
modifying the environment?

It's quite some puzzle.

And here's one for you: What if we are right and you are wrong?

Now folks, watch the smoke rise from Dennis' scalp and spout out of
his ears.

>"Doan" > wrote in message
...

snip........

>> The problem is people like you who think that that they have the
"truth".
>> But when pressed, it is nothing more than opinion. Tell me, Jerry,
is
>> your childhood that "painful"???
>>
>> Doan

It may have been, Doan. If so, he apparently over came that, while you
haven't and still defend parent's rights to abuse their children.

Thing about it.

Kane

[Dennis Hancock]

"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...
> 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.
>
> 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. What's funny is that they seem to take the position
> that it's all harmful. Apparently they are taking the idea of
> changing the world a bit far. If they get verbal and
> psychological aggression outlawed, then even non-spankers can
> have their kids removed to state care for this ""abuse"".
> Even though it is found in 100% of all cases, they seem
> dead set on proving that it is harmful.

Very true Greg, and the problem is that these people don't realize that
their 'non-violent' approach can sometimes do more harm than good. They
take a one size fits all approach, yet they fail to recognize the dangers of
cps using emotional abuse against them.

Children want and need guidelines, and while they say they set limits,
limits without enforcement tend to come across as no limit at all, and leads
the child to feel that they are not loved. They want to cite new 'studies'
and ignore age old and time proven studies, that most conscionable parents
find out thru trial and error with their own children.


> Could you imagine a kid raised in a situation where nothing
> is ever said to them that they don't want to hear?
>
> 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. The absolute power of course made
> him a little demon. 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!" ?
>
Actually, I've seen the results of few children raised in this manner,
which is why I could not sit idly by, and watch people attempt to push
nonsense upon us and attempt lame justification by villifying those who
actually CARE enough about their children to teach them right from wrong,
and to teach them about consequences of their own actions.

> Since there is a division between people who choose
> not to spank but don't wish to IMPOSE that on other
> parents, 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%) :)

Ahh.. and it's coming quite soon believe me. In California recently, they
attempted to push legislation through whereby ANY attempt at 'isolating' a
child would be classified as 'child abuse'. Amazing huh? Simply sending a
child to his room or putting them on time out would cause even some of the
most ardent non spankers to be classified as child abusers under the law.

While they try to push THEIR agenda on us, they fail to realize that they
too are going to be classified under the same false labels they attempt to
put everyone else under who disagrees with them.

>
> 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, like when info was posted that
> CPS agencies in all 50 states failed compliance audits.
> 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.
> She also accused me of computer crime, breaking
> into her e-mail. 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.)

Ahh, the old 'computer crime' gambit. Works well in scaring someone away
who isn't familiar enough with how difficult it is to get something like
that prosecuted, even if they could prove it. Unless of course, you are a
multinational corporation that can command such respect as to be able to
show huge damages.



>
> Her pig-headedness, even when one of her allies
> Kane, tells her she's wrong on something, is obvious.
> It will be her undoing on this libel/slander thing.
>
> Don't let these people push you to swear in public.
> You really don't want to in any way match Kane's swearing.
> He is his own worst enemy.

Well, I swear in public anyway <grin>.. and I am not dissuaded to stooping
to someone's level when they attempt blatant character assassination simply
because one refuses to accept their nonsense as truth.

>
> I think I agree with you that emotional abuse can
> be very harmful, 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.
> CPS incompetence in this area would cause great harm.
> On the bright side, though, the American Gulag side
> of this might cause their complete downfall.
> I just wouldn't want to pay that price to get rid of them.
>
> If CPS agencies continue to progress into accusing
> parents of emotional abuse, they might indeed
> regret the precident this might open up regarding
> emotional abuse of removals, STATE CARE, or
> caseworker lies, etc. It might not happen right
> away, but I would expect the emotional abuse
> gambit would eventually backfire on them terribly.

Yes, it's quite a difficult situation. I have had experience with children,
my own nephew for one of several, who have suffered severe emotional abuse,
yet it is almost impossible to prove. Making it easier for cps to use it,
and they always tend to overdo things, is not the answer.
>
> In my families' case 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.
>
> To turn them loose playing amateur psychology with
> kids en masse would very likely lead to more HARM
> than good. I question how many caseworkers could
> qualify as sane enough to judge others psyche, even
> if they DID have credentials, which they don't.

Kinda like the couple of amateur psychologists we have in here attempting to
take the high moral ground for being non physical with their children, by
attempting to portray anyone and everyone who uses any possible physical
means as a monster or buser.

>
> 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.
>
> 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