Re: Kids should work...

[Stephanie and Tim]

"Ignoramus22857" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Doan
wrote:
> > If this is true as you claimed why is the crime rate so in the 50's?
> > Why is it so low in Singapore?
>
> Do not forget people, US crime rate is to a very large extent a "race
> issue". 53% of the offenders were black and only 45% white in 1996,
> according to the FBI statictics. That's even though blacks are a small
> fraction of the population.
>
> In 1950s, blacks were not liberated as much, did not have easy access
> to weapons, etc. Liberation of them, while it had a lot of desirable
> effects, unfortunately had a great effect on black crime rate.
>
> A lot of crimes, such as forcible rape, was not as well reported in
> 1950s, either.
>

I wonder what percentage of blacks are living at or below the crime rate
compared to whites? I wonder what the conviction rate of blacks is compared
to whites.

> I strongly suspect that if you break crime down well, the difference
> between 1950s and now would not be as huge for, say, white middle
> class people.
>
> I would also be very surprised if trash criminals were grown in
> nonviolent homes. I am too lazy to look for it, but my sense is that
> these criminals grow up amongst drunk, drug abusing, wife beating,
> child beating retards, and not paragons of respectful, attentive
> methods of child rearing.
>
> i

[occupant]

Stephanie and Tim wrote:
>
> "Ignoramus22857" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, Doan
> wrote:
> > > If this is true as you claimed why is the crime rate so in the 50's?
> > > Why is it so low in Singapore?
> >
> > Do not forget people, US crime rate is to a very large extent a "race
> > issue". 53% of the offenders were black and only 45% white in 1996,
> > according to the FBI statictics. That's even though blacks are a small
> > fraction of the population.
> >
> > In 1950s, blacks were not liberated as much, did not have easy access
> > to weapons, etc. Liberation of them, while it had a lot of desirable
> > effects, unfortunately had a great effect on black crime rate.
> >
> > A lot of crimes, such as forcible rape, was not as well reported in
> > 1950s, either.
> >
>
> I wonder what percentage of blacks are living at or below the crime rate
> compared to whites? I wonder what the conviction rate of blacks is compared
> to whites.
>

This whole topic is so huge, but on the point of "conviction"
investigating officers
when they discovery youth or adults committing a crime, they can give
purputrator a warning
depending on circumstances. The prosecutor may exercise discretion
whether to proceed to
prosecute or not, subject to some guidlines. The judge may convict or
find reasonable doubt
depending on whether or not he believes the credability of the accused.
All of the above
may be related to a lot of factors including race and affect the
statistics that follow.
So comparing black and white conviction rates is not an ideal picture.

> > I strongly suspect that if you break crime down well, the difference
> > between 1950s and now would not be as huge for, say, white middle
> > class people.
> >
> > I would also be very surprised if trash criminals were grown in
> > nonviolent homes. I am too lazy to look for it, but my sense is that
> > these criminals grow up amongst drunk, drug abusing, wife beating,
> > child beating retards, and not paragons of respectful, attentive
> > methods of child rearing.
> >
> > i

[Doan]

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, toto wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 22:36:50 GMT, "Stephanie and Tim"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ignoramus22857" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In article >, D=
oan
> >wrote:
> >> > If this is true as you claimed why is the crime rate so in the 50's?
> >> > Why is it so low in Singapore?
> >>
> >> Do not forget people, US crime rate is to a very large extent a "race
> >> issue". 53% of the offenders were black and only 45% white in 1996,
> >> according to the FBI statictics. That's even though blacks are a small
> >> fraction of the population.
> >>
> >> In 1950s, blacks were not liberated as much, did not have easy access
> >> to weapons, etc. Liberation of them, while it had a lot of desirable
> >> effects, unfortunately had a great effect on black crime rate.
> >>
> >> A lot of crimes, such as forcible rape, was not as well reported in
> >> 1950s, either.
> >>
> >
> >I wonder what percentage of blacks are living at or below the crime rate
> >compared to whites? I wonder what the conviction rate of blacks is compa=
red
> >to whites.
> >
> I assume you meant poverty line, not crime line above.
>
> And as to the conviction rate, note that the research into the death
> penalty in Illinois showed that 13 innocent men were on death row.
> Most of them were black.
>
Also note that the 5 teens in the much publicized Central Park jogger
"wild thing" case turned out to be falsely convicted!

> >> I strongly suspect that if you break crime down well, the difference
> >> between 1950s and now would not be as huge for, say, white middle
> >> class people.
> >>
> >> I would also be very surprised if trash criminals were grown in
> >> nonviolent homes. I am too lazy to look for it, but my sense is that
> >> these criminals grow up amongst drunk, drug abusing, wife beating,
> >> child beating retards, and not paragons of respectful, attentive
> >> methods of child rearing.
> >>
> >> i
> >
> Interestingly, if the crime rate is an indicator, it would seem to
> indicate the ineffectiveness of punishments particularly spanking,
> but other punishments as well. This may also explain why more
> men commit crimes than women do also.
>
> http://slate.msn.com/id/2075217/#ContinueArticle
>
Nope! If crime rate is an indicator, it showed that punishments is
very effective. Remember the rising crime rate in the 90's until
the government, with the approval of the people, started to get "tough
on crime". As Chris Dugan pointed out: "lowest level in 33 years"! :-)
Then there is always Singapore with a very low crime-rate!

> racial differences are more pronounced for spanking than
> for allowance denial: In both cases blacks punish the most,
> then whites, then Hispanics, but the gaps between racial
> groups are much bigger for corporal than for financial
> punishment.
>
There were also similar claim about the IQ differences among
races.

> My note: Historically, this is a leftover from slavery when
> black parents felt they had to be very harsh with their
> children so the children would not be harmed by the
> slavemasters. It was a way of teaching the children
> how to get along in a society controlled by white people
> who considered them to be less than human.
>
Nice theory but it doesn't explain why whites spank their kids
also -especially in the South!

> Boys are punished more than girls, with substantially more
> spankings and a bit more in the way of allowance withdrawals.
> Single mothers spank a little less, and withdraw allowances
> quite a bit less, than other parents. Older and better-educated
> parents are a bit less likely to spank and a bit more likely to
> withdraw allowances. Bigger families spank less and
> withdraw allowances more. But Weinberg's study finds
> that the poor spank more even after you've accounted for
> all of these effects. The question is why.
>
Dorothy citing social studies??? Yikes! ;-)
I am interested in this Weinberg's study. Can you provide some
details, Dorothy? How large is the sample? How was the sample
obtained? What confounding factors were accounted for?....

> Here's one good alternative to the economic explanation:
> University of New Hampshire sociologist Murray Straus
> has published multiple studies concluding that children
> who are spanked are less successful as adults.

Then how does he explained the Maurer study in which 98% of
college freshmen were spanked and 95% of professionals were
spanked? Were Ted Turner spanked?

> If the link
> is causal=97that is, if being spanked actually lowers your
> earnings potential =97and if spanking runs in families, then
> we have an alternative explanation for Weinberg's numbers:
> Low-income parents are more likely to spank their children
> because low-income parents are more likely to have been
> spanked themselves. Or maybe it's as simple as this:
> Poverty breeds frustration, and frustrated parents lash
> out at their kids. Does any reader have a better story?
>
Could it be that poor parents just can't afford to give their
kids the advantages in life - like a private education....
There are just too many confound factors here, Dorothy.
Why are you citing studies now?

> My note: the child then learns that lashing out at someone
> smaller and weaker is the way to deal with his frustration
> and anger.
>
Then you are assuming the the child is stupid! ;-)

Doan

[Kane]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 10:42:57 -0800, Doan > wrote:

>
>On 24 Nov 2003, Ignoramus3100 wrote:
>
>> I think that I am being dragged into a debate in which I have
little
>> interest. I came here when I saw a statement that said that less
child
>> beating means more crime. And now somehow I am being dragged into a
>> discussion as to whether illegal immigration is a good thing.
>>
>Then you are mistaken! Nowhere did I ever say that less "beating"
means
>more crime. The issue here is whether spanking (not beating) leads
to
>crime - as the anti-spankings claimed. All I said is there is no
>evidence of it and if you look at the studies they cited, the
>'correlations" is even stronger for non-cp alternatives!

Shall we kindly put aside your Singapore example then. Or is caning
just another form of spanking?

Or might there be some "confounding" factors in the Singapore
experience, eh?

>
>Doan
>
What a child you are Doan.

Kane

[bobb]

"toto" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 22:36:50 GMT, "Stephanie and Tim"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ignoramus22857" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In article >,
Doan
> >wrote:
> >> > If this is true as you claimed why is the crime rate so in the 50's?
> >> > Why is it so low in Singapore?
> >>
> >> Do not forget people, US crime rate is to a very large extent a "race
> >> issue". 53% of the offenders were black and only 45% white in 1996,
> >> according to the FBI statictics. That's even though blacks are a small
> >> fraction of the population.
> >>
> >> In 1950s, blacks were not liberated as much, did not have easy access
> >> to weapons, etc. Liberation of them, while it had a lot of desirable
> >> effects, unfortunately had a great effect on black crime rate.
> >>
> >> A lot of crimes, such as forcible rape, was not as well reported in
> >> 1950s, either.
> >>
> >
> >I wonder what percentage of blacks are living at or below the crime rate
> >compared to whites? I wonder what the conviction rate of blacks is
compared
> >to whites.
> >
> I assume you meant poverty line, not crime line above.
>
> And as to the conviction rate, note that the research into the death
> penalty in Illinois showed that 13 innocent men were on death row.
> Most of them were black.

Apart from the fact that I totally agree that black innocent men are
arrested and are jailed for minor crimes with a higher frequency than white
men there still remains an unexplained racial crime rate.

>
> >> I strongly suspect that if you break crime down well, the difference
> >> between 1950s and now would not be as huge for, say, white middle
> >> class people.
> >>
> >> I would also be very surprised if trash criminals were grown in
> >> nonviolent homes. I am too lazy to look for it, but my sense is that
> >> these criminals grow up amongst drunk, drug abusing, wife beating,
> >> child beating retards, and not paragons of respectful, attentive
> >> methods of child rearing.
> >>
> >> i
> >
> Interestingly, if the crime rate is an indicator, it would seem to
> indicate the ineffectiveness of punishments particularly spanking,
> but other punishments as well. This may also explain why more
> men commit crimes than women do also.

We, as a society, have developed strange and inappropriate punishments for
'crimes'. Our only answer is jail. Men, in all societies, are seen as
law-breakers and women are more conforming . Jail, as a punishment often
serves little purpose. Jail was supposed to protect society from dangereous
people. I've forgotten the percentage of truely dangerous people in jail
but it's quite low.

I wrote about the black kid in jail for 8 years for having sex with a girl 2
years younger than himself. Society is destroying a person with the
potential of living a very productive life. High grades, athletic, good
family, etc. There have indications that it is a race issue but other
examples were given of white being tretated similuarly.



>
> http://slate.msn.com/id/2075217/#ContinueArticle
>
> racial differences are more pronounced for spanking than
> for allowance denial: In both cases blacks punish the most,
> then whites, then Hispanics, but the gaps between racial
> groups are much bigger for corporal than for financial
> punishment.
>
> My note: Historically, this is a leftover from slavery when
> black parents felt they had to be very harsh with their
> children so the children would not be harmed by the
> slavemasters. It was a way of teaching the children
> how to get along in a society controlled by white people
> who considered them to be less than human.

Interesting thought...
>
> Boys are punished more than girls, with substantially more
> spankings and a bit more in the way of allowance withdrawals.
> Single mothers spank a little less, and withdraw allowances
> quite a bit less, than other parents. Older and better-educated
> parents are a bit less likely to spank and a bit more likely to
> withdraw allowances. Bigger families spank less and
> withdraw allowances more. But Weinberg's study finds
> that the poor spank more even after you've accounted for
> all of these effects. The question is why.
>
> Here's one good alternative to the economic explanation:
> University of New Hampshire sociologist Murray Straus
> has published multiple studies concluding that children
> who are spanked are less successful as adults. If the link
> is causal-that is, if being spanked actually lowers your
> earnings potential -and if spanking runs in families, then
> we have an alternative explanation for Weinberg's numbers:
> Low-income parents are more likely to spank their children
> because low-income parents are more likely to have been
> spanked themselves. Or maybe it's as simple as this:
> Poverty breeds frustration, and frustrated parents lash
> out at their kids. Does any reader have a better story?

The common thread is lower in-come and poverty which suggests , as a group,
they are not the brightest light bulbs. Spanking occurs at all social
levels so I'm left to beleive it cannot be used as a criteria for bad
behavior in later life. It's all too easy to associate a common behavior
with something we find unacceptable.

For a while there was a cry because too many kids read comic books, then it
was television, now it's playing video games.. and, of course, spanking.

>
> My note: the child then learns that lashing out at someone
> smaller and weaker is the way to deal with his frustration
> and anger.

What about learning respect for both people and property. Of the lower
income people I've known there seems to be a sense of irresponsibility. Walk
into a house cluttered with toys and junk and you'll find kids who are a bit
beyond control. Christmas toys are broken before New Years... and generally
there is a lot of fighing, yelling, and disorder. The one who screams the
loudest gets their way. You know the old adage... but it seems to me to be a
learned behavior. To be denied his way develops into that sense of
frustration and anger you allude to. Everything anyone needs to know can be
learned in the sand box... and it's all about getting along with others and
learning limitations. It would be senseless to attack someone larger and
bigger... which is a learning experience in itself.



bobb

>
>
> --
> Dorothy
>
> There is no sound, no cry in all the world
> that can be heard unless someone listens ..
>
> The Outer Limits

[Kane]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:18:30 GMT, "bobb" > wrote:

>I'm not an advocate of spanking.. and never have.. but I fail to see
how a
>slap on the butt harms any child.

I know you do. Nothing seems to have context or connection for you
unless it serves one of your superstitions.

>I do take exception to those who
>repeatedly slap a child which I view as a way for a mother to vent
her
>frustration and anger. There is a context problem when it comes to
>spanking.

Yeah, there is that all right. The child won't be a bit confused about
the context issue.

>I find it unreal that anyone can associate spanking with later adult
>behaviors.

Of course you do. As I said, you cannot manage even a semblance of
objectivity outside your own locked subjective views.

>The 'experts' take a common behavior and twist it into something
>that fits their mindset.

On the contrary. They are doing what you cannot. YOu just described
yourself to a T.

The are far more objectively (methodology, peer review, scientific
research standard protocols - rules if you will) are not your forte.

>That being said, I did a little search on spanking and found that
many
>parents resort to bare-ass spanking and schools have ordered kids to
drop
>their pants while being spanked with paddles.. both of which I
suppose
>found it's roots in the old woodshed.

I wonder if you've read the PDF file I pointed to the other day, where
an academic who is against CP wrote of his own change of heart.

>It might sound terrible but I've told a few kids if they did
something
>really out-rageous, and using one of their friends as behavior an
example,
>it would be just cause for a bare-assed spanking.

It does sound terrible when you put it in context. Real children, real
dilemas of social learning being handed to you to give them assistance
and your choice was threat.

>It was just my way of
>showing distain for certain certain behaviors I wouldn't approve or
>tolerate.

Yes, it certainly was "your way" all rightie. Ever thought of trying
some others?

>Of all the posts I've seen here none have alluded to bare-ass
>spanking so in that context I see nothing wrong.
>
> I also found there is a sexual content to spanking. Dumb me... I never
>gave a thought about S & M associations. There are adults who get
off on
>spanking their kids.

There are few who don't. The problem is they cycle is so ancient that
an entire ritualistic self excusing routine that blocks the spanker
from directly confronting his or her own feelings is well established.
Nothing like a thousand or two years or so of something to make it
"normal."

>Parents also use bare-ass spanking as a way of imposing further
humilation
>on a child by forcing him/her to undress and not alway in private
but
>rather an example to others.

So, do you approve of humiliated a child sexually, and by intrusions
on privacy?

>What I also didn't give a thought to is there an age appropriate
time not
>to spank. My sense of spanking was usually that of a child younger
than say
>6 as an attention getter.. not a punishment. You don't touch the hot
stove
>or run out into the street.

Ever read the Embry study articles from the popular parenting
magazines? Traffic control was his field mostly. Human behavior
applied social research. His various work in the field for major
government bodies is prett well known.

He did a "toddler street entry" study...and himself believed in
punishment methods...but low and behold he discovered all punishment
methods INCREASED STREET ENTRY ATTEMPTS BY THE CHILD, whereas
non-punitive teaching resulted in FEWER STREET ENTRY ATTEMPTS BY THE
CHILD...the a remarkable degree.

Now I understand to those such as you that can't get out of your own
comfort zone this is blasphemous and makes your guts quake, but could
you for a moment suspend your psychological brain washing and open up
to the possibility YOU could be WRONG and others could be right on
this issue?

>I now understand there there are many contexts of spanking I was not
aware
>of.

One of the failings of the spanking group is there all to ready to go
to the strap and fail to build a repertoire of other effective
parenting methods.

The "other" category has a count in the thousands. Spankers are up to
what, 3 to 5 different contexts for spanking and the way to do it?

Dumbasses.

>bobb

You sure are.

Kane

[Kane]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:29:23 -0800, Doan > wrote:

>
>On 2 Dec 2003, Ignoramus15011 wrote:
>
>> In article >,
Doan wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Ignoramus15011 wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > How would he a better person if I was beating him (the animal
society
>> >> > way) instead of teaching him interaction according to modern
>> >> > principles of human society.
>> >>
>> >> Exactly. How would he be a better person if your were hitting
him in the name of
>> >> discipline? I can't think of one reason, and research has yet
to find a reason
>> >> for disciplinary hitting of children.
>> >>
>> > Straus et al (1997):
>> >
>> > "We are indebted to Larzelere et al for alerting us to the
likelihood that our
>> > no-spanking group includes occasional spankers. To the extent
that this is
>> > the case, the decrease in antisocial behavior that we found for
children in
>> > the "none" group may indicate an improvement in the behavior of
children whose
>> > parents spank, but do so only infrequently."
>> >
>> > Straus & Paschal (1998)
>> > "There is also an important limitation of the CP scale. We cannot
be sure
>> > that the children with a score of zero on the CP scale were never
spanked.
>> > In fact, some are likely to have been spanked in a previous year
or in some
>> > other week of this period. Consequently the claim that CP, when
used only
>> > rarely and as a back up for other disciplinary strategies, is
beneficial
>> > (Larzelere et al., 1998) might apply to children who experienced
no CP in
>> > either of the two sample weeks."
>>
>> ot sounds to me that you are misquoting a thorough researcher. It
>> seems like his research indicated some contamination of the
>> non-spanking group and he was forthright in pointing that out.
>>
>And you would be wrong! First, in Straus et al (1997), they didn't
know
>(or pretended not to know) that their "non-spank" group were actually
>spanked (56% of the sample, how do they missed it?) When this was
pointed
>out by Larzelere, they capitulated, became "indebted" to Larzelere
and
>finally blamed it on Straus' bias:
>
>"Straus, for example, has made explicit the fact that his research is
>motivated by secular humanism. This includes a deeply held belief
that
>good ends should not be sought by bad means; that all forms of
interpersonal
>violence, including spanking, are wrong, even when motivated by love
and
>concern; and that we therefore need to develop nonviolent methods of
>preventing and correcting antisocial behavior. These deeply held
values may
>account for the failure of Straus to perceive the serious limitation
of
>measuring CP using a 1-week reference period."
>(ARCHIVES, In Reply. March 1998)
>
>Second, only after it being "pointed out" to them did they put that
>"limitation" in Straus & Paschal (1998) thus showing a serious hole
>in their theory that any and all spanking are detrimental!
>
>Third, as pointed in Larzelere & Smith (2000), what they don't tell
you
>(or conveniently left out) is that, using the same data set, the
non-cp
>alternatives like: grounding, removing privileges, docking
allowances, or
>sending the child to his or her room (time-out) showed the same
>correlations!
>
>
>> It is sad that you have nothing better than a twisted quote to
justify
>> violence against children.
>>
>It is sad that we can't argue rationally but prefer to use
emotionally
>charged words like "violence" and "beating".

It's sad when we have to argue by using weasel words that minimize and
deny the brutality of spanking and other forms of CP....

In addition it's sad when we try to discount important research by
pointing out that non CP alternative methods surveyed don't
work.......and fail to point out they were ALL punishment
alternatives, rather than developmental-needs-based alternatives that
support the child's learning growth.

Why is it that pro spankers and other child brutalizers fail to
understand that "discipline" doesn't have to be "punishment" and has
another meaning entirely?

Thousands of years of brain washing? Probably.

>Doan

Kane

[Kane]

On 2 Dec 2003 20:13:12 GMT, Ignoramus29143
> wrote:

>In article >, Kane
wrote:
>>
>> I wonder if you've read the PDF file I pointed to the other day,
where
>> an academic who is against CP wrote of his own change of heart.
>
>where is that pdf?

http://www.nopunish.net/PWP.pdf
By Norm Lee, 118 pages so if you are on dial up expect a long
download. I was particularly taken with one of his early few
paragraphs and his introduction to his own ignorance...always a shock,
that I notice some here avoid at all costs...R R R R

Here `tis:
"Waking Up
In 1956 I sat in the back row in a classroom at Syracuse University,
near the door, with my German Shepherd, Rex, at my side. As a veteran,
returned from combat in Korea and occupation of Japan, I had
cultivated a "no-nonsense" attitude.

The graduate student instructor was explaining how, when a child
misbehaves, we should, instead of punishing, seek to understand the
reasons and feelings causing the offending behavior.

"Mr. Jalbert," I smirked, "when Rex misbehaves I just hit him with a
folded newspaper. That straightens him out, and he loves me for it."
He quietly walked to face me, with a concerned expression on his face.
I remember the moment vividly: Then he bent down and said softly, "Mr.
Lee, is it asking too much to distinguish between a dog and a child?""

His thoughts at that you need to real in the PDF document I've posted
above.


Below I am not referring to the same person. This study was by Embry.

>> He did a "toddler street entry" study...and himself believed in
>> punishment methods...but low and behold he discovered all
punishment
>> methods INCREASED STREET ENTRY ATTEMPTS BY THE CHILD, whereas
>> non-punitive teaching resulted in FEWER STREET ENTRY ATTEMPTS BY
THE
>> CHILD...the a remarkable degree.
>
>I am impressed and not surprised.
>
>To me, the only circumstance when punishment is appropriate is when
>the child is oppositional and acts inconsiderate given his
development
>level. And even then, punishment does not need to be violent.

There are only two possible incidences that a child would be
oppositional and inconsiderate given his developmental level.

The first is when he has been given poor information by the world
around but more often by his caregiver. You see, a child acts exactly,
barring my next caveat, as nature intended and is always precisely on
target developmentally. A patient loving parent knows this an parents
accordingly with information, exploration support, and above all,
kindness.

In the only other instance that a child would be oppositional and
inconsiderate given his developmental level, she would likely be
dysfuctional mentally or physcially and unable to perform at
developmental level.

It is doubly hard to deal with if one moves to a punishment model, bot
for the child, and for the caregiver. Problems with worsen, at the
expense of healing, and outside of possibly gaining some compliance
through fear, the side effects can be threatening to the child and
later society. Prisons bear this out. There is a great deal of mental
illness and psychologically poor developmental progress among inmates.

In either case, why would you punish at all? What IS it you wish the
child to learn, say when she hits a playmate, or destroys something
you care about, or is noise in a place you wish her to be quiet, or if
she keeps dropping her food on the floor?

>i

What is she sufferes from Ausbergers Syndrom, and as many foster or
adoptive children from state custody do, drug and alcohol effects or
syndrom?

Those who do parent these latter children, who are extrememly
difficult and time consuming to parent, with both physiologically
caused and survival trained (they do that, for sure where they came
from) very bad behaviors, learn how to parent without CP and mostly
without punishment where trainers are wise.

Imagine then. If these children can be parented without punishment why
would one need to use punishment on non compromised children to force
them to comply?

Learning to become human is very little based on the need to comply.
Ants would be a better model.

The only time I can think when it, physical punishment, was vital to
survival is when slaves had to teach their children not to cross the
master or overseer as it risked injury and or death.

Preachie, aren't I?

Blame it on bobb. R R R R R

Kane

[Kane]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 12:15:47 -0800, Doan > wrote:

>On 1 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:03:45 -0800, Doan > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >On 22 Nov 2003, Kane wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 07:03:50 -0600, toto
>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 01:18:51 -0800, Doan > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>> Yep. This is exactly so because all punishments are
>> essentially
>> >> the
>> >> >>> same, but positive methods allow for the differences that
>> parents
>> >> see.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>Then it should be easy to prove. Again, just put the
>> alternatives
>> >> to
>> >> >>same statiscal scrutiny as with spanking.
>> >> >
>> >> >Time outs used as punishment are not positive discipline.
>> >> >Nor is lecturing or scolding or any of the *other* methods that
>> >> >were studied.
>> >>
>> >> Doan's only argument, of course, will be asking you to provide
>> >> citations and data from peer reviewed studies that support:
>> lecturing;
>> >> scolding; *other* methods not working.
>> >>
>> >Wrong! I am asking for NON-CP alternatives, any non-cp
alternative!
>>
>> And when offered you lie.
>>
>LOL! And when you openned your mouth you lied. :-)

Since you can't hear me I find that more than little amusing..and in
fact somewhat alarming.

You can hear me then?

>> >If spanking is as bad as you and the anti-spanking zealotS
claimed,
>> why
>> >is it so hard to find an alternative that stood the same
statistical
>> >scrutiny???
>>
>> Because what works does not have to studied. It is far too obvious.
>> The observations of child behavioralists for the past century has
show
>> repeated the how punishment, and most especially CP is a dead end.
>>
>So who need science! ;-)

Apparently you don't. I have been asking you for some time now, and
like other claims you've made when challenged, you have failed to
respond.

I recall Alborn asking to support claims you made long ago that you
simply walked away from.

>> >> He has used the infamous logical fallacy for years here (to the
>> point
>> >> he has bored his opponents to the point of ignoring him) of
>> >> "slanting," that is picking only the evidence that supports his
>> >> argument (the declaration by Straus) and ignoring all mass of
other
>> >> evidence that buries him.
>> >>
>> >Which are????
>>
>> Read below the next comment.
>>
>> >You meant like Straus et al (1997) in which the "no-spank"
>> >group turned out to be a group that were spanked???
>>
>> And then you've gone on, taking his honesty, and lying, and cited
that
>> this SPANKED group in fact showed worse behaviors. You are a liar,
>> Doan, which people are tired of humoring.
>>
>LOL! You are speaking for the "people"?

Anytime there is more than one person it is appropriate to refer to
"people."

Am I the only one that has pointed out your duplicitious nonsense
then?

Did I not just call you a liar recently?

Do you need more proof than your misleading statement above, that I am
NOT speaking for people when say people?

>> >"We are indebted to Larzelere et al for alerting us to the
likelihood
>> that our
>> >no-spanking group includes occasional spankers. To the extent that
>> this is
>> >the case, the decrease in antisocial behavior that we found for
>> children in
>> >the "none" group may indicate an improvement in the behavior of
>> children whose
>> >parents spank, but do so only infrequently."
>> >
>> >Are you so blind? ;-)
>>
>> Not in the least. Are you? In an obviosly punitive parent group,
where
>> ALL actually spanked, as Strauss found, the LEAST SPANKED HAD THE
BEST
>> BEHAVIOR.
>>
>Are you so stupid or you are just too lazy to read the study? ;-)

I've read it from top to bottom. It's you that hasn't...not that you
haven't looked at the words, but you apparently leave some out before
they hit those portions of your brain were reasoning takes place.

If you have trend line of less unwanted behavior the less a child is
hit would that not suggest that even less hitting would result in even
less unwanted behavior?

>
>> How many times has this been pointed out to you?
>>
>How many times do you have to lie? :-)

No, I do not beat my wife, nor have I ever. {-]

>> Is it too hard to understand that if you have a downward trend line
>> correlated to a single constant you have obvious growing evidence
of
>> causality. The less spanking the better behavior.
>>
>Are you so stupid???

No. Not in the least. Are you to claim I am rather than respond with
what you think supports your position? You babble about the study, you
do not post anything but cherrypicked bits that even then fail to
adequeatly support your claims

>Correlation is not causation!

And what did I say above? Did I say there was causality, or did I say
movement toward it by studying the evidence.

>It is not even
>evidence of a temporal order!

Which is a babble, once again, to try and divert from what I actually
said, that you proceeded to lie about...and the evidence lays just a
few paragraphs up from here.

No go hyper and claim I haven't read the studies, now that you've been
caught once again at your nonsense.

>Read the studies and learn to respond
>rationally, Kane. ;-)

Well, Doan, {-], since you seem to think that the study fails to
establish sequence, that is temporal order, how about YOU showing me
something to support that claim.

I didn't claim one way or another on chronological senquence. You are
stupid enough to think it hasn't that, so show us.

Or is this going to be yet another of your crabwalks?

>> >> I've never seen him, for instance, respond to the Embry Street
>> Entry
>> >> study with anything but the usual blind hysteria neurotic
responses
>> of
>> >> all his pro spanking buddies, his phony declarations to
neutrality
>> >> notwithstanding.
>> >>
>> >I have! I have asked Chris when he mentioned this study to post
the
>> >details of this study so we can learn from it. HE REFUSED!!! I
>> wonder
>> >why. I am now asking you. Can you post the relevant information
of
>> >this study so we can all take a look at it? Can you tell us how
many
>> >kids were studied? What the methodology is? What confounding
>> factors
>> >were controlled for? Come on, Kane. Show us who the real
"phony"
>> is?
>> >:-)
>>
>> I invited you before to contact professor Embry. He is available at
>> Dr. Dennis D. Embry
>> P.O. PAXIS Institute, 31475, Tucson, AZ 85751
>> 520-299-6770
>> 520-299-6822
>>
>>
>> I am not challenging his study YOU are. You tell him his study is
not
>> adequate for your purposes.
>>
>What a cop out!

Then you haven't contacted him as I suggested you do to prove his
statements to be incorrect about toddler street entry, or that he in
fact faked the study? Yes, it was certainly a cop out.

It's you avoiding the challenge to your claims....that spanking is an
effective method of teaching. I have posted the articles, and I have
posted the quotes of Dr. Embry. So have others.

I you believe his study, as he declared its finding, is NOT correct
it's up to YOU to prove it by taking his study apart.

I am under no obligation to go beyond pointing to Dr. Embry and his
findings.

>Just as I expected, you haven't read the study and can't
>respond.

I never stated that I had read it. I've only quoted the article on his
study and cited his quotes in that article as to his findings. You
want the study, you are free to get it and challenge his findings, but
until then, you are obviously flapping your arms and pretending you
are flying.

And, just as I expected, you avoid the challenge YOU yourself posed,
to defend your denial of the results of his study as he was quoted. We
await.

>hris Dunga pulled the same trick years ago. He would tell
>people to go to the library instead. He now knows better and avoided
>me at every chance!

How would he "know better?"

His avoidance of you, I suspect, is the wearying nature of your
tiresome twiddle twaddle just as you have run in this post.....the
same old empty head rattling with the same old challenges that have
been met again and again but YOU not meeting the challenges presented
to you.

>You are a few years late and a bunch of brain-cells
>short! ;-) Do you really wanted me to respond to the Embry study or
not?

Did I not ask you to?

I cited the report on the study in a periodical, quoting Dr. Embry.

I was not citing the study itself. YOU screamed for the study. YOU
provide it or tell us why you can't, or think you can't.

Are you not now backing down? All you've done when presented with Dr.
Embry's quoted statements in the past is scream..show me the study.

You seem to fail to understand if I say I believe the moon is a ball
and you scream "No it's not!" Then it's up to you to prove your claim
it isn't, not mine to prove it is.

>At least you are consistent - consistently stupid that is! :-)

Why sure, blatherer, I still want you to respond to the Embry study.
Why have you once again avoided answering the question asked?

Are you trying to tell us there is no Embry study? He faked it? Come
on, boy, hit those keys harder and tell us what you think.

>> >> And all "positive discipline" really is is just teaching to the
>> needs
>> >> of the child, and her actual capacities at developmental level.
>> >>
>> >The devil is in the details.
>>
>> That's right and until you can show us the details, beyond, "It's
>> history" aren't you bit embarrassed to be making such demands?
>>
>Right, Kane. ;-) How aweful of me to be making demands.

Not at all, just inappropriate ones. Someone presents some
information. You scream, "show me the study" when that is not what was
offered.

You apparently can't find it yourself and think no one else can. And
that you can prove it incorrect if you do. Any time now, Doan, any
time.

>I should
>just accept it base on faith, right Kane???

No.

If you don't believe what Dr. Embry related in the article that quoted
him YOU tear the study apart. I only quoted the article and him.

>> >I am a pragmatic person,
>>
>> Bull****. You are an emotional blind man from your childhood
>> experience of shame from being whipped by your parents.
>>
>LOL! And your mouth is spewing "bull****"! ;-0

My, what an outburst. Now if I had done that you'd claim it was
because I was a non-spanked child, now wouldn't you.

Since you only know though if YOU were spanked or not in childhood
this leaves you with a terrible logical dilemna, now doesn't it?

>> >show me how
>> >your theory work in real life situations.
>>
>> You will have to come here and accompany to treatment centers I've
>> worked at. I await your arrival.
>>
>Good. Give me an address and contact number. Better yet, why not
>publish your results?

Give me an address and contact number to mail to and call.

>> >We have a large population
>> >of kids in juvenile halls.
>>
>> Yes, though juvenile crime is somewhat down these days and has been
>> dropping the rising tide of parenting methods that do no rely on CP
as
>> a threat.
>>
>Are you so stupid as to make such claim? Show me a graph of the
>juvenile crime rate from 1960 on, Kane. Try this, Kane:
>http://www.fbi.gov/Cius_97/97crime/97crime5.pdf

>"The violent crime arresst rate for the total juvenile population
>show an increase of 143 percent from 1967 to 1996. Though the
>juvenile male violent crime rate expanded by 124 percent from 1967
>to 1996, the juvenile female arrest rate is nearly triple that
>figure, 345 percent."

I didn't make a claim that violent crime by youth was down, or didn't
you notice.

And I certainly don't believe that arrests are a proper subject for
policy or law related to juveniles. I'd say CONVICTIONS tend to be
more accurate. You got the CONVICTION RATE somewhere, Doan?

"arresst rate" (sic) Funny about that. Did they make the error or did
you as you tried to play with the data?

Juvenile "violent crime rate" is not the juvenile "crime rate" or is
that a bit over your head? I said crime rate. Go look up page.

I've noticed you see only that which you wish.

To that problem of yours I offer this:

1967 and the years before and around it were not considered a prime
reporting methodology period. In fact, as the impact of computers and
their proliferation in government increased, much reporting and
tabulation was vastly improved and incidences of all things being
counted tended to show rapid increase.

Would you say that was because there WAS more, or there was MORE
tabulated more rapidly, thus being more accurately reported?

In 1967 it was difficult to find any computer outside a mainframe
connected workstation and at that many card readers and tape punchers
were still in use. That's how primative things were.

I know. I work inside computers back then, standing upright. That's
how large they had to be. A computer was a room.

In 1990 I walked into a government office to discuss how they coud
best use the what we'd now call a primitive database they wanted
developed for their applications...I had been more accustomed to the
business world where it still wasn't all that common for every person
to have a computer on their desk, but I was stunned to see three
floors of employees with 300 workers in that building with only ONE
personal desktop and ONE operator and NO backup for the operator OR
the computer per floor. One to a hundred ratio.

1990...and no, not a typo. That was a state office. I was instrumental
in getting computers on every four workers desks, then every two, and
finally everyone...but it took four years to do that, and they have
not really caught up IT wise to the business world.

You just cannot think outside the box, can you Doan?

Everything you find that disagrees with you you shut down and
ignore...let us say stupidily rather than dishonestly (my first guess
though)... and go for the gusto.

Hell, one still has problems collecting crime data. It was discovered
a few years back that cops were routinely tabulating any beef they
went out on as "firearms" related if someone three floors up being
questioned responded to that first question cops rightly like to ask,
"do you have any weapons on your or in the house, guns, etc.?" with a
"Yes."

Try this:

http://www.education.pitt.edu/ocd/publications/backgrounds/JuvenileCrimeUpdate2.pdf

Notice the difference between Crime and Violent crime reported.

Why did you avoid, or were unable to find, that even the Violent crime
rate had gone up to a 1988 high and dropped since with a peak but a
return in recent years to the 88 level...and that only the Violent
crime while all juvenile crime dropped, with no peaks.

Why, I wonder did you pick 1967 to begin..hmmmm, I just can't figure
it out...why so far back...hmmmm... Oh well one day I shall penetrate
the inscrutable gentleman and his reasoning...won't I?

>> >Let's try your "positivie discipline" there
>> >first and see how it go.
>>
>> About half the mentally ill teens I worked with were adjudicated,
that
>> is assigned to treatment by the court in lieu of encarceration. I
not
>> only got to "see how it go" I made it go myself. Punitive methods
of
>> any kind showed that they were next to useless with hardcore teens
and
>> mentally ill teens.
>>
>> As more and more of the staff adopted my methods (other
practitioners
>> were of course knowledgable so the methods were spreading
everywhere
>> even as I was demonstrating them) the rate of success with moving
>> children back into their homes and our of encarceration with lower
>> ricidivism rates it was enough to convince us that no punishment
>> methods worked, and as you say below, were we were CP was not
allowed.
>>
>LOL! You are not puffering, are you?

Are you?

>What is the recidivism rate?

In 1986 when I left treatment work the adolescent's I worked with had
a 15% recidivism rate. Interestingly the most damanged by psychiatric
evaluation (that's not psychological, but neurological testing by MDs)
showed the best progress of all.

They had been, because of the more extreme behaviors, more extremely
dealt with CP wise before coming to us. Gentle support and training,
re-parenting if you will, had a profound effect on them, though they
held on to their more unpleasant survival behaviors bit more
tenaciously and for a longer period.

>> However I'll tell you how the stupid such as you managed to do CP
>> anyway and get away with it.
>>
>Yup! 98% percent of college freshmen and 95% of professional. But
>you don't want that, right? ;-)

On the contrary. I celebrate the human spirit in that they don't ALL
turn into "Enron Executives."

I just prefer not taking those kind of risks, what with how 95% or so
of humans treat each other. Me, I prefer hanging out with the 5%. Very
peaceful and joyfilled.

>> >BTW, corporal punishments are not allowed in
>> >juvenile halls! ;-)
>>
>> R R R R ... very funny. Pain can be applied, blindman, by many
means
>> outside the usual definition of CP. Being made to wait inordinately
to
>> go to the bathroom. Refusing to allow one to visit with parents.
>> Forcing to stand or sit in painful uncomfortable positions (and no,
>> I'm not giving a laundry list with pigs such as you reading my
post)
>> for long periods of time.
>>
>LOL!

Isn't it nice when we can have a good laugh together? {-]

>> THOSE are allowed.
>>
>Really? And you didn't protest???? ;-)

Absolutely. Not only protested, but put my job and career on the line.

And when I was used, after a 3 month successful demonstration project
with only my own clients, to instruct other treament personnel in how
to deal with what became formerly difficult children some of those
people cried when they got the point. How cruel it had been to hurt
children to force them to comply...and I didn't do anything other than
teach the methods I knew.

Their response was spontaneous.

>> Then there is that infamous "safety holds" issue. Watch some of the
>> cop shows on TV. You'll see demonstrations of how much pain can be
>> applied without striking.
>>
>> In my case what instituted a major change in the agency I worked
with
>> was my refusal to teach holding techniques, especially those that
took
>> the client to the floor, and after a month of rangling with the
board
>> of directors I won the argument. Immediately behaviors improved.
>>
>WOW! They should show that on 20/20! :-) Again, publish it, Kane.
>What is the recidivism rate before and after?

See up page.

>> >> Doan seems to think that because those that spank also use SOME
>> >> rational means of teaching their children then spanking somehow
is
>> a
>> >> positive factor in learning. Talk about Cargo Cult Mentallity.
>> >>
>> >I want to use the same measurements that anti-spanking zealotS
like
>> >Straus used!
>>
>> Then, asshole. DO IT. who's stopping you?
>>
>LOL! How did my "asshole" get to your mouth? ;-)

How did you decide that my calling you a name excused you from
answering the challenge you yourself posed?

We know, but I'm curious if you do.

>> Funding might be a bit hard to come by. There is very little for
the
>> social sciences that can be directed to and funded that address
nice
>> nice issues. Monies come to study harm.
>>
>> You know that, I know that, and I know that you know, so your
>> disengenuous crap of asking for what cannot be produced because it
>> generally is NEEDED RESEARCH in the eyes of the public or the
funding
>> agency officers is an escape hatch when YOU are asked to prove your
>> contention.
>>
>Funny, Straus
>> >If the reduction antisocial behaviors is a benefit than
>> >Straus et al (1997) showed that spanking less than once a week is
a
>> >benefit!
>> >The cargo-cult mentality is not subjecting the non-cp
>> >alternatives to the same statistical scrutiny.
>>
>> No, it is not. What IS cargo cult mentality is claiming the NO
>> spanking is less effective then a little spanking.
>>
>> >> The only reason children turn out as well as they do (and I
notice
>> >> more than a few don't) is that humans are so resiliant and can
>> survive
>> >> a lot of trauma. I don't consider that parenting, of course; for
>> the
>> >> child to just survive.
>> >>
>> >The problem with your "reasoning" is that few of the non-cp
cultures
>> >"survived"! Can you you name a non-cp culture? ;-)
>>
>> Yep. Several. The Senoi, SE Asian culture. The exist peacefully in
a
>> sea of brutality among people that DO use punishment. Not only
don't
>> they but they have custom of reviewing dreams each morning to see
if
>> they will influence the days decisions. The children's dreams are
as
>> important to the process as the adults.
>>
>> I understand they haven't had a murder or suicide in over a hundred
>> years.
>>
>"There are very few Senoi left, and those that are, don't share their
>dreams, or deny that they ever did. But, who can blame them, when you
>look at what happenned to them the last time they told their secret?"
>
>and
>"Although in 'The Dreamkeepers: Saving the Senoi', the author has
taken
>liberties witht the small amount of information available on the
tribe
>and their customs, we encourage you to explore more on the subject
and
>make your own decisions."
>
>Look like you believe in dreams, Kane. ;-)

No, the Senoi did. And you seem to be unaware of the last sentence.
But then you yourself are something of a liberty taker.

That there are few left and or their denial might be product of their
gentleness? Hmmm...you really do stretch, don't you.

>> Now it's your turn. Provide me with a culture that SPANKS and
punishes
>> that is peaceful by nature, has low rates of violent crime and
murder,
>> and low child abuse rates.
>>
>> There's a good boy.
>>
>Try to look at Singapore, Kane. :-)

Sure, no problem.....R R R R R (because I know you DIDN'T or you'd
never have been so stupid as to post such a challenge...wait...I'm
wrong, you've been just this stupid before).

http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/030220af.htm

I know how hard a time you have seeing what you don't want to see so
go to the second paragraph from the bottom of the page, squint real
hard, and read it out loud...no LOUDER, dummy.

Now I have a problem with government self reporting...they did declare
a blip in one part of their article (I won't call it a report), but
had to get honest at the bottom of the page, so let's look further,
shall we.

Ah, here's one...and not that since 1984 they haven't counted children
16 years of age and up as juveniles...yet the juvenile crime rate
trended upward pretty steadily.

Gosh, I thought caning solved that kind of problem in Singapore:
http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/singapore/singapore162.html

Note the following from the article:

"In 1984, few juveniles were charged with committing serious crimes.
Juveniles were involved in no murders, 8 percent of the sexual
assaults, and 10 percent of the armed robberies.
"
And of course we know the draconian inforcement that goes on from then
to the present yet, we have:

"Police solved 18 percent of the almost 23,000 reported cases of
theft, and juveniles were believed to be responsible for 12 percent of
these crimes."

Finally, Doan, are you going to keep citing a country that is a
dictatorship under the same ruler, "Goh Chok Tong, who became the
country's Prime Minister in 1990, succeeded Lee Kwan Yew, creator of a
concept of "Asian values" opposed to "Western democracy." Mr Goh is
also the leader of the People's Action Party-Singapore's ruling party
for the past 43 years-which relies on the infallible support of both
private and state-controlled press groups. "This ultra-sophisticated
dictatorial regime," as one opponent puts it, allows its inhabitants
to access foreign media, but the local press rarely prints news about
the country's situation. Some Internet sites, maintained by the few
remaining independent journalists, are striving to freely inform the
public at the risk of being sued for libel, or imprisonment."

Yes, canning has created a paradise of crime free streets and homes.
Except for the crimes committed by the government.

Did you know it is illegal to chew gum or possess it in Singapore
without a prescription?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22singapore%22+gum

I wonder if they cane for one flavor, and hang you for another.

For such a crime free nation the police department web site sure has
an intersting crime watch page:

http://www.spf.gov.sg/

Have I mentioned you are stupid?

>> And for the edification of those with more reading comprehension
and
>> in the spirit of educational responsibility for the ignorant I
offer
>> this interesting history of child rearing that helps explain some
of
>> the compulsive slavish support of violence on children.
>>
>> Some of that wonderful, "but parents have spanked their children
for
>> centuries and it worked" bull****.
>>
>
>> http://www.nopunish.net/PWP.pdf
>>
>Yup! Who needs science when you can just stop using your brain and
>believe! ;-)

Do you really believe that science is a fact based institution?

It's as much a religion as any other. Grow up.

If it were truly fact based and had been we would find NO scientific
knowledge challengable any more.

Is that the case?

Well, findings on spanking by social scientists would, I think, fall
under that same caveat.

>Doan

So tell us, Doan, what's your scientific opinion on the question you
still haven't answered.

Scientifically, and logically, where is the transition point from non
abusive CP to abusive injury? Not the end points, that you rely on so
heavily to support and apologize for spankers with, but the middle or
whever you wish to claim you place it.

You know, that old spanking vs beating question, like "if you anti
spanking zealots can't tell the difference", and "logic, the anti
spanking zeolots...etc.," as YOU CAN answer for us?

Cough it up, dummy.

Kane

[Kane]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:20:03 -0800, Doan > wrote:

>
>
>> In article >, Kane
wrote:
>> >
>> > I see you have been going anywhere but to my question in response
to
>> > your defense of spanking and OUR confusion about spanking being
>> > beating.
>>
>> spanking is a subset of beating.
>>
>Actually, they are both subsets of hitting. But a subset is not the
>equivalence of the whole set! Just as oranges, lemons and
grapefruits
>are subsets of citrus.
>
>> You can beat someone with a stick, a metal chain, a hammer, or an
open
>> palm. Beating children with an open palm is spanking.
>>
>And immunizing children is to inject them with germs???? Cutting
children
>nails is to cut off parts of their bodies????
>
>> Spanking is violence directed at children with the purpose to
>> intimidate them into compliance.
>
>And I thought I can have a rational discourse! What next? Abortion
>is murder??? ;-)

Hey, Doan, let me help you out here. I guess you haven't noticed my
flurry of recent prior posts asking you to tell us the cutoff point
for spanking, when it goes into beating.

I know you are busy formulating the intensely scientific and logical
reponses you just did in this post, but you could really flatten our
debating opponents and all us anti-spanking zealots if you'd just come
up with the answer to what you say we can't tell the
difference...spanking vs beating.

Help us understand, Sensei.

Do you need more time? {;-]}

>
>Doan
>

Kane

[Doan]

On 2 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:

> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 12:15:47 -0800, Doan > wrote:
>
> >On 1 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:03:45 -0800, Doan > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >On 22 Nov 2003, Kane wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 07:03:50 -0600, toto
> >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 01:18:51 -0800, Doan > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> Yep. This is exactly so because all punishments are
> >> essentially
> >> >> the
> >> >> >>> same, but positive methods allow for the differences that
> >> parents
> >> >> see.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>Then it should be easy to prove. Again, just put the
> >> alternatives
> >> >> to
> >> >> >>same statiscal scrutiny as with spanking.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Time outs used as punishment are not positive discipline.
> >> >> >Nor is lecturing or scolding or any of the *other* methods that
> >> >> >were studied.
> >> >>
> >> >> Doan's only argument, of course, will be asking you to provide
> >> >> citations and data from peer reviewed studies that support:
> >> lecturing;
> >> >> scolding; *other* methods not working.
> >> >>
> >> >Wrong! I am asking for NON-CP alternatives, any non-cp
> alternative!
> >>
> >> And when offered you lie.
> >>
> >LOL! And when you openned your mouth you lied. :-)
>
> Since you can't hear me I find that more than little amusing..and in
> fact somewhat alarming.
>
> You can hear me then?
>
LOL! You do understand the difference between "literal" and "figure of
speech"???

> >> >If spanking is as bad as you and the anti-spanking zealotS
> claimed,
> >> why
> >> >is it so hard to find an alternative that stood the same
> statistical
> >> >scrutiny???
> >>
> >> Because what works does not have to studied. It is far too obvious.
> >> The observations of child behavioralists for the past century has
> show
> >> repeated the how punishment, and most especially CP is a dead end.
> >>
> >So who need science! ;-)
>
> Apparently you don't. I have been asking you for some time now, and
> like other claims you've made when challenged, you have failed to
> respond.
>
I asked you for proof, you said you don't need studies. You said it
is "obvious". IS THAT SCIENCE???

> I recall Alborn asking to support claims you made long ago that you
> simply walked away from.
>
I've have never walked away from a debate. On the contrary, it is Alborn
who walked away FOR MONTHS! The same with LaVonne. Why are they so
afraid of me? ;-)

> >> >> He has used the infamous logical fallacy for years here (to the
> >> point
> >> >> he has bored his opponents to the point of ignoring him) of
> >> >> "slanting," that is picking only the evidence that supports his
> >> >> argument (the declaration by Straus) and ignoring all mass of
> other
> >> >> evidence that buries him.
> >> >>
> >> >Which are????
> >>
> >> Read below the next comment.
> >>
> >> >You meant like Straus et al (1997) in which the "no-spank"
> >> >group turned out to be a group that were spanked???
> >>
> >> And then you've gone on, taking his honesty, and lying, and cited
> that
> >> this SPANKED group in fact showed worse behaviors. You are a liar,
> >> Doan, which people are tired of humoring.
> >>
> >LOL! You are speaking for the "people"?
>
> Anytime there is more than one person it is appropriate to refer to
> "people."
>
LOL! So you are now speaking for more than one person???

> Am I the only one that has pointed out your duplicitious nonsense
> then?
>
You are pointing out your won duplicitious nonsense.

> Did I not just call you a liar recently?
>
Yes. And in doing so, you proved yourself to be not only a liar, but also
a fool! ;-)

> Do you need more proof than your misleading statement above, that I am
> NOT speaking for people when say people?
>
Let the "people" who you spoke for speak up! :-)

> >> >"We are indebted to Larzelere et al for alerting us to the
> likelihood
> >> that our
> >> >no-spanking group includes occasional spankers. To the extent that
> >> this is
> >> >the case, the decrease in antisocial behavior that we found for
> >> children in
> >> >the "none" group may indicate an improvement in the behavior of
> >> children whose
> >> >parents spank, but do so only infrequently."
> >> >
> >> >Are you so blind? ;-)
> >>
> >> Not in the least. Are you? In an obviosly punitive parent group,
> where
> >> ALL actually spanked, as Strauss found, the LEAST SPANKED HAD THE
> BEST
> >> BEHAVIOR.
> >>
> >Are you so stupid or you are just too lazy to read the study? ;-)
>
> I've read it from top to bottom. It's you that hasn't...not that you
> haven't looked at the words, but you apparently leave some out before
> they hit those portions of your brain were reasoning takes place.
>
Then prove it. Where in the Straus et al (1997) did it say that the
"LEAST SPANKED HAD THE BEST BEHAVIOR"???

> If you have trend line of less unwanted behavior the less a child is
> hit would that not suggest that even less hitting would result in even
> less unwanted behavior?
>
Nope! You are showing your stupidity again. :-) First and foremost,
CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION! If you have a trend line of the less
dependent on insulin injection the less diabetic a child is, would that
suggest no insulin would result in no diabete??? Would any parents
spanked their children for good behavior???? You are making the same
mistake that Straus admitted to in 1998. Learn from him, will you?

"Perhaps the most difficult methodological problem in research on the
effects of CP is posed by the the fact that child behavior problems lead
parents to spank. Thus the repeated finding that the more CP parents use,
the worse the behavior problems of the child does not necessarily show
that CP has harmful effects, or even that CP is not effective in reducing
misbehavior (as I erroneously argued in the past)."

Second, the Straus et al (1997) measured CHANGES IN BEHAVIOR from t1 to
t2, not absolute ASB score as in Straus & Mouradian (1998)! Thus, if you
believe the study, the REDUCTION in ASB for the "non-spanked" (56% of
the sample) is a benefit. As Straus et al said:

"We are indebted to Larzelere et al for alerting us to the likelihood that our
no-spanking group includes occasional spankers. To the extent that this is
the case, the decrease in antisocial behavior that we found for children in
the "none" group may indicate an improvement in the behavior of children whose
parents spank, but do so only infrequently."

Now either Straus is stupid or you are. Which one is it, Kane?

> >
> >> How many times has this been pointed out to you?
> >>
> >How many times do you have to lie? :-)
>
> No, I do not beat my wife, nor have I ever. {-]
>
Avoiding the question - a sure sign that you lied. ;-)

> >> Is it too hard to understand that if you have a downward trend line
> >> correlated to a single constant you have obvious growing evidence
> of
> >> causality. The less spanking the better behavior.
> >>
> >Are you so stupid???
>
> No. Not in the least. Are you to claim I am rather than respond with
> what you think supports your position? You babble about the study, you
> do not post anything but cherrypicked bits that even then fail to
> adequeatly support your claims
>
I gave you a chance to defend your position. All you can muster is "it is
obvious" and "don't need study"!

> >Correlation is not causation!
>
> And what did I say above? Did I say there was causality, or did I say
> movement toward it by studying the evidence.
>
And you are lying again. You just said above that less spanking would
"result" in even less misbehavior! You lied and puff about yourself
too much that you can't even keep track?

> >It is not even
> >evidence of a temporal order!
>
> Which is a babble, once again, to try and divert from what I actually
> said, that you proceeded to lie about...and the evidence lays just a
> few paragraphs up from here.
>
> No go hyper and claim I haven't read the studies, now that you've been
> caught once again at your nonsense.
>
I just proved who the real liar is - its you! :-0

> >Read the studies and learn to respond
> >rationally, Kane. ;-)
>
> Well, Doan, {-], since you seem to think that the study fails to
> establish sequence, that is temporal order, how about YOU showing me
> something to support that claim.
>
Here you go:

[begin include]
The Pediatric Forum - March 1998

Drawing Conclusions About Temporal Order

Two recent articles published in the ARCHIVES[1,2] argue
that they have found evidence for "causal" relationships
between spanking and antisocial behavior in children,
such that increased spanking causes antisocial behavior.
Unfortunately, their methods do not allow for such
conclusions. In fact, their methods do not allow for any
conclusions at all. I believe it is particularly
important to point out these mistakes because they have
become commonplace in the social sciences[3] and it is
important that these mistakes do not become commonplace
in medical research.
One initial mistake made by both authors is the claim
that they are testing for causality with longitudinal
data.[1] Causal inferences can only be drawn from
experiments.[4] What can be tested for with longitudinal
data is temporal order.[5] Temporal order is frequently
cited as an important aspect of causality.[4]

In longitudinal research, the temporal order between
variables can be known or unknown. For example, the
temporal order between sex and risk of heart disease is
clear: sex is most often assigned at birth and heart
disease usually develops in middle or old age. In
contrast, the temporal order between spanking and
antisocial behavior is unknown.

In cases where temporal order is known, standard
statistical methods such as regression models or the
analysis of variance (ANOVA) approach chosen by Straus et
al[1] can be used. Structural equation modeling, as used
by Gunnoe and Mariner,[2] was originally thought to be a
technique that can be used for ascertaining temporal
order.[6,7] Unfortunately, Rogosa[3] demonstrated that
this was not the case and that the coefficients produced
by structural models were essentially meaningless. He
showed that the coefficients produced by structural
analysis are more related to the length of time between
testing than to the actual data and demonstrated in a
simulation study that some predictive correlations
changed from 0.5 to -0.5 depending on the length of time
between waves of testing. The problems associated with
structural analysis also apply to the ANOVA approach used
by Straus et al. Miller and colleagues[8-10] demonstrated
the same problem hypothesized by Rogosa with actual data.
They found in 3 studies that actual temporal order was
the reverse of what was concluded by regression
equations. The primary problem with regression and
structural equation models is that they do not control or
test for concurrent change. Thus, it is possible that
spanking and antisocial behavior change together over
time and that shorter time intervals are required to
assess any temporal order.[10] Any variation that could
be ascribed to concurrent change is simply not taken into
account by the statistical models used by Straus et al
and Gunnoe and Mariner.

Dywer and Feinleib[5] and Miller[10] have suggested
appropriate statistical methods that can be used for
determining temporal order with longitudinal data. For
these methods, both spanking and antisocial behavior must
be assessed at 3 or more time points. As Rogosa[3]
pointed out, it takes 3 time points to correctly assess
the trajectory of a single subject. Therefore, at least 3
time points are required to assess intraindividual
change.

Straus et al had 3 waves of data, so they may have been
able to conduct an analysis that could determine temporal
order between these variables. The study by Gunnoe and
Mariner had only 2 waves of data, so their design does
not allow determinations of temporal order. Straus et al
did not report whether spanking behavior was assessed at
the last data collection point. To test for temporal
order, each variable would have to be assessed at all 3
points. Therefore, it is unclear whether Straus et al
could have conducted an analysis to determine temporal
order.

In sum, no causal or temporal inferences can be drawn
from either Straus et al or Gunnoe and Mariner because
causal inferences cannot be drawn from longitudinal data
and inappropriate statistical methods were used to
determine temporal order.

Todd Q. Miller, PhD
Preventive Medicine and Community Health, K53
University of Texas Medical Branch
Galveston, TX 77598-1153

References

1. Straus MA, Sugarman DB, Giles-Sims J. Spanking by
parents and subsequent antisocial behavior of children.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1997;151:761-767.

2. Gunnoe ML, Mariner CL. Toward a
developmental-contextual model of the effects of parental
spanking on children's aggression. Arch Pediatr Adolesc
Med. 1997;151:768-786.

3. Rogosa D. Myths about longitudinal research. In:
Schaie KW, Campbell RT, Meredith W, Rawlings SC, eds.
Methodological Issues in Aging Research. New York, NY:
Springer Publishing Co Inc; 1988.

4. Holland PW. Statistics and causal inference. J Am Stat
Assoc. 1986;81:945-960.

5. Dwyer J, Feinleib M. Introduction to statistical
models for longitudinal observation. In: Dwyer J,
Feinleib M, Lippert P, Hoffmeister H, eds. Statistical
Models for Longitudinal Studies of Health. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press; 1992.

6. Kenny DA. Cross-lagged panel correlations: a test for
spuriousness. Psychol Bull. 1975;82:887-903.

7. Newcomb MD, Bentler PM. Frequency and sequence of drug
use: a longitudinal study from early adolescence to young
adulthood. J Drug Educ. 1986;16:101-120.

8. Miller T, Flay BR. Using log-linear models for
longitudinal data to test alternative explanations for
stage-like phenomena: an example from research on
adolescent substance use. Multivar Behav Res.
1996;31:169-196.

9. Miller T, Volk R. The relationship between weekly
marijuana use and cocaine use: a discrete-time survival
analysis. J Child Adolesc Subst Abuse. 1996;5:55-78.

10. Miller T. Statistical methods for describing temporal
order in longitudinal research. J Clin Epidemiol. In
press.

(Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1998;152:305-306)



[end include]

> I didn't claim one way or another on chronological senquence. You are
> stupid enough to think it hasn't that, so show us.
>
> Or is this going to be yet another of your crabwalks?
>
Nope! Just proving your stupidity, again! :-)

> >> >> I've never seen him, for instance, respond to the Embry Street
> >> Entry
> >> >> study with anything but the usual blind hysteria neurotic
> responses
> >> of
> >> >> all his pro spanking buddies, his phony declarations to
> neutrality
> >> >> notwithstanding.
> >> >>
> >> >I have! I have asked Chris when he mentioned this study to post
> the
> >> >details of this study so we can learn from it. HE REFUSED!!! I
> >> wonder
> >> >why. I am now asking you. Can you post the relevant information
> of
> >> >this study so we can all take a look at it? Can you tell us how
> many
> >> >kids were studied? What the methodology is? What confounding
> >> factors
> >> >were controlled for? Come on, Kane. Show us who the real
> "phony"
> >> is?
> >> >:-)
> >>
> >> I invited you before to contact professor Embry. He is available at
> >> Dr. Dennis D. Embry
> >> P.O. PAXIS Institute, 31475, Tucson, AZ 85751
> >> 520-299-6770
> >> 520-299-6822
> >>
> >>
> >> I am not challenging his study YOU are. You tell him his study is
> not
> >> adequate for your purposes.
> >>
> >What a cop out!
>
> Then you haven't contacted him as I suggested you do to prove his
> statements to be incorrect about toddler street entry, or that he in
> fact faked the study? Yes, it was certainly a cop out.
>
You are the one who brought up the study. Why run from it now, Kane?

> It's you avoiding the challenge to your claims....that spanking is an
> effective method of teaching. I have posted the articles, and I have
> posted the quotes of Dr. Embry. So have others.
>
LOL! You said you have read the study but won't share the details???
Come on, Kane! ;-)

> I you believe his study, as he declared its finding, is NOT correct
> it's up to YOU to prove it by taking his study apart.
>
But I can't if I don't have the details. I am asking you for the
details since you said you have read it! Why are you avoiding it?

> I am under no obligation to go beyond pointing to Dr. Embry and his
> findings.
>
IOW, either you lied that you have read it and just parroting what
you read from a www.nospanking.net or it doesn't support your agenda
and you chose to hide it, which is it?

> >Just as I expected, you haven't read the study and can't
> >respond.
>
> I never stated that I had read it. I've only quoted the article on his
> study and cited his quotes in that article as to his findings. You
> want the study, you are free to get it and challenge his findings, but
> until then, you are obviously flapping your arms and pretending you
> are flying.
>
So you are admitting that you haven't read it???

> And, just as I expected, you avoid the challenge YOU yourself posed,
> to defend your denial of the results of his study as he was quoted. We
> await.
>
LOL!

> >hris Dunga pulled the same trick years ago. He would tell
> >people to go to the library instead. He now knows better and avoided
> >me at every chance!
>
> How would he "know better?"
>
> His avoidance of you, I suspect, is the wearying nature of your
> tiresome twiddle twaddle just as you have run in this post.....the
> same old empty head rattling with the same old challenges that have
> been met again and again but YOU not meeting the challenges presented
> to you.
>
I did to him what I am doing to you now. ;-) Proving what a fool he is.
I READ the studies he cited; showing him why it is not so when he LIED!
For example, he claimed that the mothers in Straus et al (1997) are not
teenage mothers. I proved to him, with simple math, that they were!
What make him looked foolish is he also claimed to "teach mathematics
at the college level"! :-)

> >You are a few years late and a bunch of brain-cells
> >short! ;-) Do you really wanted me to respond to the Embry study or
> not?
>
> Did I not ask you to?
>
Are you really this stupid??? You haven't read the study and challenged
me to respond??? That is not a fair fight! I can say anything about
the study and you, not having read it, wouldn't know how to respond!

> I cited the report on the study in a periodical, quoting Dr. Embry.
>
> I was not citing the study itself. YOU screamed for the study. YOU
> provide it or tell us why you can't, or think you can't.
>
LOL! Don't you want to read from the source and make up your ow mind
or you just prefer to have others do the thinking for you?

> Are you not now backing down? All you've done when presented with Dr.
> Embry's quoted statements in the past is scream..show me the study.
>
I haven't back down! As asked for details so that we can discuss it
openly. I just don't see how you can challenge anybody on a study
that you haven't read - stupid! ;-)

> You seem to fail to understand if I say I believe the moon is a ball
> and you scream "No it's not!" Then it's up to you to prove your claim
> it isn't, not mine to prove it is.
>
Oops! Logical flaw again. :-) Actually, the way logic work is that
if you claim that the moon is a ball, the burden of proof is on you.

> >At least you are consistent - consistently stupid that is! :-)
>
> Why sure, blatherer, I still want you to respond to the Embry study.
> Why have you once again avoided answering the question asked?
>
I am still waiting for the details of the Embry Study. Can anyone provide
the details of this study???

> Are you trying to tell us there is no Embry study? He faked it? Come
> on, boy, hit those keys harder and tell us what you think.
>
I am asking for details so that it can be discussed openly. Do you or
anyone who cited it, have it?

> >> >> And all "positive discipline" really is is just teaching to the
> >> needs
> >> >> of the child, and her actual capacities at developmental level.
> >> >>
> >> >The devil is in the details.
> >>
> >> That's right and until you can show us the details, beyond, "It's
> >> history" aren't you bit embarrassed to be making such demands?
> >>
> >Right, Kane. ;-) How aweful of me to be making demands.
>
> Not at all, just inappropriate ones. Someone presents some
> information. You scream, "show me the study" when that is not what was
> offered.
>
So I should just believe????

> You apparently can't find it yourself and think no one else can. And
> that you can prove it incorrect if you do. Any time now, Doan, any
> time.
>
I can't find it yet that is why I kept on asking for its source for years!
Can anyone provide it? Chris, LaVonne??? ;-)

> >I should
> >just accept it base on faith, right Kane???
>
> No.
>
> If you don't believe what Dr. Embry related in the article that quoted
> him YOU tear the study apart. I only quoted the article and him.
>
I can't make an informed decision if there is nothing there! How do you
know if the article is true?

> >> >I am a pragmatic person,
> >>
> >> Bull****. You are an emotional blind man from your childhood
> >> experience of shame from being whipped by your parents.
> >>
> >LOL! And your mouth is spewing "bull****"! ;-0
>
> My, what an outburst. Now if I had done that you'd claim it was
> because I was a non-spanked child, now wouldn't you.
>
I am just a mirror; what you see is your own reflection! ;-)

> Since you only know though if YOU were spanked or not in childhood
> this leaves you with a terrible logical dilemna, now doesn't it?
>
Nope! The only "dilemna" is for the anti-spanking zealotS since over
90% of the US populations has experienced spanking personally, they
see right through the "bull****" that the anti-spanking zealotS spewed.

> >> >show me how
> >> >your theory work in real life situations.
> >>
> >> You will have to come here and accompany to treatment centers I've
> >> worked at. I await your arrival.
> >>
> >Good. Give me an address and contact number. Better yet, why not
> >publish your results?
>
> Give me an address and contact number to mail to and call.
>
I used my real email address and contact infor. You have already digged
it up yourself! ;-)

> >> >We have a large population
> >> >of kids in juvenile halls.
> >>
> >> Yes, though juvenile crime is somewhat down these days and has been
> >> dropping the rising tide of parenting methods that do no rely on CP
> as
> >> a threat.
> >>
> >Are you so stupid as to make such claim? Show me a graph of the
> >juvenile crime rate from 1960 on, Kane. Try this, Kane:
> >http://www.fbi.gov/Cius_97/97crime/97crime5.pdf
>
> >"The violent crime arresst rate for the total juvenile population
> >show an increase of 143 percent from 1967 to 1996. Though the
> >juvenile male violent crime rate expanded by 124 percent from 1967
> >to 1996, the juvenile female arrest rate is nearly triple that
> >figure, 345 percent."
>
> I didn't make a claim that violent crime by youth was down, or didn't
> you notice.
>
HAH! HAH! HAH! I guess violent crime is not crime, right?

> And I certainly don't believe that arrests are a proper subject for
> policy or law related to juveniles. I'd say CONVICTIONS tend to be
> more accurate. You got the CONVICTION RATE somewhere, Doan?
>
Why don't you provide that data to support your claim, Kane? It is on
the same website!

> "arresst rate" (sic) Funny about that. Did they make the error or did
> you as you tried to play with the data?
>
The typo is mine. How does that affect the data?

> Juvenile "violent crime rate" is not the juvenile "crime rate" or is
> that a bit over your head? I said crime rate. Go look up page.
>
Why don't you look it up, Kane. It is on the same website. It is time
for you to back up your claim.

> I've noticed you see only that which you wish.
>
I provided you with concrete data that contradicted your claim. You, on
the other hand, offered NOTHING to support your claim.

> To that problem of yours I offer this:
>
> 1967 and the years before and around it were not considered a prime
> reporting methodology period. In fact, as the impact of computers and
> their proliferation in government increased, much reporting and
> tabulation was vastly improved and incidences of all things being
> counted tended to show rapid increase.
>
And your souce is???

> Would you say that was because there WAS more, or there was MORE
> tabulated more rapidly, thus being more accurately reported?
>
Nope! Computers only help them tabulate faster not more accurate.
Stop your "bull****"!

> In 1967 it was difficult to find any computer outside a mainframe
> connected workstation and at that many card readers and tape punchers
> were still in use. That's how primative things were.
>
> I know. I work inside computers back then, standing upright. That's
> how large they had to be. A computer was a room.
>
> In 1990 I walked into a government office to discuss how they could
> best use the what we'd now call a primitive database they wanted
> developed for their applications...I had been more accustomed to the
> business world where it still wasn't all that common for every person
> to have a computer on their desk, but I was stunned to see three
> floors of employees with 300 workers in that building with only ONE
> personal desktop and ONE operator and NO backup for the operator OR
> the computer per floor. One to a hundred ratio.
>
> 1990...and no, not a typo. That was a state office. I was instrumental
> in getting computers on every four workers desks, then every two, and
> finally everyone...but it took four years to do that, and they have
> not really caught up IT wise to the business world.
>
> You just cannot think outside the box, can you Doan?
>
> Everything you find that disagrees with you you shut down and
> ignore...let us say stupidily rather than dishonestly (my first guess
> though)... and go for the gusto.
>
> Hell, one still has problems collecting crime data. It was discovered
> a few years back that cops were routinely tabulating any beef they
> went out on as "firearms" related if someone three floors up being
> questioned responded to that first question cops rightly like to ask,
> "do you have any weapons on your or in the house, guns, etc.?" with a
> "Yes."
>
> Try this:
>
> http://www.education.pitt.edu/ocd/publications/backgrounds/JuvenileCrimeUpdate2.pdf
>
> Notice the difference between Crime and Violent crime reported.
>
> Why did you avoid, or were unable to find, that even the Violent crime
> rate had gone up to a 1988 high and dropped since with a peak but a
> return in recent years to the 88 level...and that only the Violent
> crime while all juvenile crime dropped, with no peaks.
>
Show me the data!

> Why, I wonder did you pick 1967 to begin..hmmmm, I just can't figure
> it out...why so far back...hmmmm... Oh well one day I shall penetrate
> the inscrutable gentleman and his reasoning...won't I?
>
Why can't you provide any data to support your claim?

> >> >Let's try your "positivie discipline" there
> >> >first and see how it go.
> >>
> >> About half the mentally ill teens I worked with were adjudicated,
> that
> >> is assigned to treatment by the court in lieu of encarceration. I
> not
> >> only got to "see how it go" I made it go myself. Punitive methods
> of
> >> any kind showed that they were next to useless with hardcore teens
> and
> >> mentally ill teens.
> >>
> >> As more and more of the staff adopted my methods (other
> practitioners
> >> were of course knowledgable so the methods were spreading
> everywhere
> >> even as I was demonstrating them) the rate of success with moving
> >> children back into their homes and our of encarceration with lower
> >> ricidivism rates it was enough to convince us that no punishment
> >> methods worked, and as you say below, were we were CP was not
> allowed.
> >>
> >LOL! You are not puffering, are you?
>
> Are you?
>
Of course, not! I don't claim to have a Ph.D., teach math at college
level, member of MENSA.... ;-)

> >What is the recidivism rate?
>
> In 1986 when I left treatment work the adolescent's I worked with had
> a 15% recidivism rate. Interestingly the most damanged by psychiatric
> evaluation (that's not psychological, but neurological testing by MDs)
> showed the best progress of all.
>
> They had been, because of the more extreme behaviors, more extremely
> dealt with CP wise before coming to us. Gentle support and training,
> re-parenting if you will, had a profound effect on them, though they
> held on to their more unpleasant survival behaviors bit more
> tenaciously and for a longer period.
>
> >> However I'll tell you how the stupid such as you managed to do CP
> >> anyway and get away with it.
> >>
> >Yup! 98% percent of college freshmen and 95% of professional. But
> >you don't want that, right? ;-)
>
> On the contrary. I celebrate the human spirit in that they don't ALL
> turn into "Enron Executives."
>
> I just prefer not taking those kind of risks, what with how 95% or so
> of humans treat each other. Me, I prefer hanging out with the 5%. Very
> peaceful and joyfilled.
>
> >> >BTW, corporal punishments are not allowed in
> >> >juvenile halls! ;-)
> >>
> >> R R R R ... very funny. Pain can be applied, blindman, by many
> means
> >> outside the usual definition of CP. Being made to wait inordinately
> to
> >> go to the bathroom. Refusing to allow one to visit with parents.
> >> Forcing to stand or sit in painful uncomfortable positions (and no,
> >> I'm not giving a laundry list with pigs such as you reading my
> post)
> >> for long periods of time.
> >>
> >LOL!
>
> Isn't it nice when we can have a good laugh together? {-]
>
> >> THOSE are allowed.
> >>
> >Really? And you didn't protest???? ;-)
>
> Absolutely. Not only protested, but put my job and career on the line.
>
> And when I was used, after a 3 month successful demonstration project
> with only my own clients, to instruct other treament personnel in how
> to deal with what became formerly difficult children some of those
> people cried when they got the point. How cruel it had been to hurt
> children to force them to comply...and I didn't do anything other than
> teach the methods I knew.
>
And your proof is?

> Their response was spontaneous.
>
> >> Then there is that infamous "safety holds" issue. Watch some of the
> >> cop shows on TV. You'll see demonstrations of how much pain can be
> >> applied without striking.
> >>
> >> In my case what instituted a major change in the agency I worked
> with
> >> was my refusal to teach holding techniques, especially those that
> took
> >> the client to the floor, and after a month of rangling with the
> board
> >> of directors I won the argument. Immediately behaviors improved.
> >>
> >WOW! They should show that on 20/20! :-) Again, publish it, Kane.
> >What is the recidivism rate before and after?
>
> See up page.
>
You said fifteen - before and after?

> >> >> Doan seems to think that because those that spank also use SOME
> >> >> rational means of teaching their children then spanking somehow
> is
> >> a
> >> >> positive factor in learning. Talk about Cargo Cult Mentallity.
> >> >>
> >> >I want to use the same measurements that anti-spanking zealotS
> like
> >> >Straus used!
> >>
> >> Then, asshole. DO IT. who's stopping you?
> >>
> >LOL! How did my "asshole" get to your mouth? ;-)
>
> How did you decide that my calling you a name excused you from
> answering the challenge you yourself posed?
>
Because you just lost all credibility! Because it showed your true
character! Besides, what challenge???

> We know, but I'm curious if you do.
>
> >> Funding might be a bit hard to come by. There is very little for
> the
> >> social sciences that can be directed to and funded that address
> nice
> >> nice issues. Monies come to study harm.
> >>
> >> You know that, I know that, and I know that you know, so your
> >> disengenuous crap of asking for what cannot be produced because it
> >> generally is NEEDED RESEARCH in the eyes of the public or the
> funding
> >> agency officers is an escape hatch when YOU are asked to prove your
> >> contention.
> >>
> >Funny, Straus
> >> >If the reduction antisocial behaviors is a benefit than
> >> >Straus et al (1997) showed that spanking less than once a week is
> a
> >> >benefit!
> >> >The cargo-cult mentality is not subjecting the non-cp
> >> >alternatives to the same statistical scrutiny.
> >>
> >> No, it is not. What IS cargo cult mentality is claiming the NO
> >> spanking is less effective then a little spanking.
> >>
> >> >> The only reason children turn out as well as they do (and I
> notice
> >> >> more than a few don't) is that humans are so resiliant and can
> >> survive
> >> >> a lot of trauma. I don't consider that parenting, of course; for
> >> the
> >> >> child to just survive.
> >> >>
> >> >The problem with your "reasoning" is that few of the non-cp
> cultures
> >> >"survived"! Can you you name a non-cp culture? ;-)
> >>
> >> Yep. Several. The Senoi, SE Asian culture. The exist peacefully in
> a
> >> sea of brutality among people that DO use punishment. Not only
> don't
> >> they but they have custom of reviewing dreams each morning to see
> if
> >> they will influence the days decisions. The children's dreams are
> as
> >> important to the process as the adults.
> >>
> >> I understand they haven't had a murder or suicide in over a hundred
> >> years.
> >>
> >"There are very few Senoi left, and those that are, don't share their
> >dreams, or deny that they ever did. But, who can blame them, when you
> >look at what happenned to them the last time they told their secret?"
> >
> >and
> >"Although in 'The Dreamkeepers: Saving the Senoi', the author has
> taken
> >liberties witht the small amount of information available on the
> tribe
> >and their customs, we encourage you to explore more on the subject
> and
> >make your own decisions."
> >
> >Look like you believe in dreams, Kane. ;-)
>
> No, the Senoi did. And you seem to be unaware of the last sentence.
> But then you yourself are something of a liberty taker.
>
> That there are few left and or their denial might be product of their
> gentleness? Hmmm...you really do stretch, don't you.
>
You did say they "survived"???

> >> Now it's your turn. Provide me with a culture that SPANKS and
> punishes
> >> that is peaceful by nature, has low rates of violent crime and
> murder,
> >> and low child abuse rates.
> >>
> >> There's a good boy.
> >>
> >Try to look at Singapore, Kane. :-)
>
> Sure, no problem.....R R R R R (because I know you DIDN'T or you'd
> never have been so stupid as to post such a challenge...wait...I'm
> wrong, you've been just this stupid before).
>
> http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/030220af.htm
>
> I know how hard a time you have seeing what you don't want to see so
> go to the second paragraph from the bottom of the page, squint real
> hard, and read it out loud...no LOUDER, dummy.
>
> Now I have a problem with government self reporting...they did declare
> a blip in one part of their article (I won't call it a report), but
> had to get honest at the bottom of the page, so let's look further,
> shall we.
>
> Ah, here's one...and not that since 1984 they haven't counted children
> 16 years of age and up as juveniles...yet the juvenile crime rate
> trended upward pretty steadily.
>
> Gosh, I thought caning solved that kind of problem in Singapore:
> http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/singapore/singapore162.html
>
> Note the following from the article:
>
> "In 1984, few juveniles were charged with committing serious crimes.
> Juveniles were involved in no murders, 8 percent of the sexual
> assaults, and 10 percent of the armed robberies.
> "
> And of course we know the draconian inforcement that goes on from then
> to the present yet, we have:
>
> "Police solved 18 percent of the almost 23,000 reported cases of
> theft, and juveniles were believed to be responsible for 12 percent of
> these crimes."
>
> Finally, Doan, are you going to keep citing a country that is a
> dictatorship under the same ruler, "Goh Chok Tong, who became the
> country's Prime Minister in 1990, succeeded Lee Kwan Yew, creator of a
> concept of "Asian values" opposed to "Western democracy." Mr Goh is
> also the leader of the People's Action Party-Singapore's ruling party
> for the past 43 years-which relies on the infallible support of both
> private and state-controlled press groups. "This ultra-sophisticated
> dictatorial regime," as one opponent puts it, allows its inhabitants
> to access foreign media, but the local press rarely prints news about
> the country's situation. Some Internet sites, maintained by the few
> remaining independent journalists, are striving to freely inform the
> public at the risk of being sued for libel, or imprisonment."
>
> Yes, canning has created a paradise of crime free streets and homes.
> Except for the crimes committed by the government.
>
Tell that to the Singaporeans! ;-)

> Did you know it is illegal to chew gum or possess it in Singapore
> without a prescription?
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22singapore%22+gum
>
Sure I do. Didn't they just allowed chewing gum now?

> I wonder if they cane for one flavor, and hang you for another.
>
> For such a crime free nation the police department web site sure has
> an intersting crime watch page:
>
> http://www.spf.gov.sg/
>
> Have I mentioned you are stupid?
>
And you have been wrong! ;-)

> >> And for the edification of those with more reading comprehension
> and
> >> in the spirit of educational responsibility for the ignorant I
> offer
> >> this interesting history of child rearing that helps explain some
> of
> >> the compulsive slavish support of violence on children.
> >>
> >> Some of that wonderful, "but parents have spanked their children
> for
> >> centuries and it worked" bull****.
> >>
> >
> >> http://www.nopunish.net/PWP.pdf
> >>
> >Yup! Who needs science when you can just stop using your brain and
> >believe! ;-)
>
> Do you really believe that science is a fact based institution?
>
I think so!

> It's as much a religion as any other. Grow up.
>
I believe! I believe! ;-)

> If it were truly fact based and had been we would find NO scientific
> knowledge challengable any more.
>
Huh?

> Is that the case?
>
> Well, findings on spanking by social scientists would, I think, fall
> under that same caveat.
>
You are free to believe what you want; just don't jam it down our throats!

> >Doan
>
> So tell us, Doan, what's your scientific opinion on the question you
> still haven't answered.
>
> Scientifically, and logically, where is the transition point from non
> abusive CP to abusive injury? Not the end points, that you rely on so
> heavily to support and apologize for spankers with, but the middle or
> whever you wish to claim you place it.
>
It falls under the "reasonable standard"!

> You know, that old spanking vs beating question, like "if you anti
> spanking zealots can't tell the difference", and "logic, the anti
> spanking zeolots...etc.," as YOU CAN answer for us?
>
> Cough it up, dummy.
>
It already has been answered, stupid! ;-)

Doan

> Kane
>

[Doan]

>
> So Doan, you think that spanking is not a form of beating. I think
> that you have been asked a valid question:
>
> Just what is the difference between spanking and beating?
>
It is based on the "reasonable person" standard.

> Just where does the boundary lie?
>
It is where a "reasonable" person said it is. The is the same question
in the 80's with regard to pornography. Where do draw the line?

Doan

[Kane]

On 4 Dec 2003 13:49:41 GMT, Ignoramus24587
> wrote:

>I consider myself a reasonable person.
>
>As a reasonable person, I think that more or less any form of
violence
>against children and child beating, is not reasonable and is child
>abuse, at the very least when it is applied to toddlers.

Ah, a reasonable person. I knew we'd find one here.

Tell us, "Reasonable," in the interest of scientific inquiry, is there
a point at which spanking becomes beating?

You may use any criteria you wish, from psychological, through
durations, throug intensity of impact, the use of various striking
devices, etc.

Where and how does "spanking" become abusive?

We anti spanking zealots have been accused by The Genius Doan of being
logic impaired to the point we cannot tell a spanking from a beating.

Doan seems to be holding back on this information himself, toying with
us, taunting from the comfort of his scientific perch, but out of the
kindness of his heart he's given us a clue, a quest as it were.

I'm sure we'll have to return in utter defeat, humilitated, to beg him
to give us the final answer.....exactly what would a "reasonable
standard" be if we can determine of course, what "reasonable" and
"what "standard" a reasonable person would set.

The answer to the great spanking v beating debate will finally be
settled.

Thank you for your interest.

And stay tuned folks, for yet another win by Doan.

Kane

>
>i
>
>> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 14:19:18 -0800, Doan > wrote:
>>>> So Doan, you think that spanking is not a form of beating. I
think
>>>> that you have been asked a valid question:
>>>>
>>>> Just what is the difference between spanking and beating?
>>>>
>>>It is based on the "reasonable person" standard.
>>>
>>>> Just where does the boundary lie?
>>>>
>>
>>>It is where a "reasonable" person said it is. The is the same
>> question
>>>in the 80's with regard to pornography. Where do draw the line?

[Kane]

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:01:59 -0600, toto > wrote:

>On 3 Dec 2003 23:25:02 -0800, (Kane)
>wrote:
>
>>Toto, the impact I get from that statement isn't a pleasant one. I
>>feel like you think you have license to emotionally batter (what I
>>mean by overload) because it's a child and they can't protect
>>themselves. You would check it out before you did the same to an
>>adult. Or if you haven't learned that you must have trouble keeping
>>friends <smile> and I don't believe that.
>
>I think it involves HOW you express the emotions to a child, but that
>doesn't mean that a child cannot handle the fact that you are angry
>or hurt.

I just love a good paraphrase with reframing. It helps clarify the issue.

You did a great job there of saying what I said, with great economy.

Kane

[Doan]

On 4 Dec 2003, Ignoramus24587 wrote:

> In article >, Kane wrote:
> > On 4 Dec 2003 13:49:41 GMT, Ignoramus24587
> > wrote:
> >
> >>I consider myself a reasonable person.
> >>
> >>As a reasonable person, I think that more or less any form of
> > violence
> >>against children and child beating, is not reasonable and is child
> >>abuse, at the very least when it is applied to toddlers.
> >
> > Ah, a reasonable person. I knew we'd find one here.
> >
> > Tell us, "Reasonable," in the interest of scientific inquiry, is there
> > a point at which spanking becomes beating?
>
> all spanking is beating.
>
> all beating is violence.
>
> Spanking is violence against children.
>
> Just simple logic, man!
>
> i
>
LOL! And abortion is murder!

Doan

[Kane]

Doan > wrote in message >...
> >
> > So Doan, you think that spanking is not a form of beating. I think
> > that you have been asked a valid question:
> >
> > Just what is the difference between spanking and beating?
> >
> It is based on the "reasonable person" standard.
>
> > Just where does the boundary lie?
> >
> It is where a "reasonable" person said it is. The is the same question
> in the 80's with regard to pornography. Where do draw the line?

How about somewhere not so completely LAME!?

>
> Doan

Kane

[Kane]

On 4 Dec 2003 17:10:04 GMT, Ignoramus24587
> wrote:

>In article >, Kane
wrote:
>> On 4 Dec 2003 13:49:41 GMT, Ignoramus24587
> wrote:
>>
>>>I consider myself a reasonable person.
>>>
>>>As a reasonable person, I think that more or less any form of
>> violence
>>>against children and child beating, is not reasonable and is child
>>>abuse, at the very least when it is applied to toddlers.
>>
>> Ah, a reasonable person. I knew we'd find one here.
>>
>> Tell us, "Reasonable," in the interest of scientific inquiry, is
there
>> a point at which spanking becomes beating?
>
>all spanking is beating.

No no no...not according to the spanking officianados in these ngs.
Watch them come crawling out of the woodwork to tell you so.

>
>all beating is violence.

"But what about a non-violent spanking?" I've seen them ask.

>
>Spanking is violence against children.
>

No, it's just to "get their attention," "because I love them and want
to have an aversion to danger," "they'll turn out spoiled rotten no
goods if I don't teach them now."

I could go on, but you get the idea.

>Just simple logic, man!

Well, I don't think that's going to fly with the other "reasonable
persons" that you are going to be confronting you in this ng.

>i

Kane

[Kane]

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 10:37:00 -0800, Doan > wrote:

>On 4 Dec 2003, Ignoramus24587 wrote:
>
>> In article >, Kane
wrote:
>> > On 4 Dec 2003 13:49:41 GMT, Ignoramus24587
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>I consider myself a reasonable person.
>> >>
>> >>As a reasonable person, I think that more or less any form of
>> > violence
>> >>against children and child beating, is not reasonable and is
child
>> >>abuse, at the very least when it is applied to toddlers.
>> >
>> > Ah, a reasonable person. I knew we'd find one here.
>> >
>> > Tell us, "Reasonable," in the interest of scientific inquiry, is
there
>> > a point at which spanking becomes beating?
>>
>> all spanking is beating.
>>
>> all beating is violence.
>>
>> Spanking is violence against children.
>>
>> Just simple logic, man!
>>
>> i
>>
>LOL! And abortion is murder!

And the line between abortion and murder is at what point in fetal
development?

Could it be a "reasonable standard" point?

>Doan

When you make the big claims, Doan, you are then saddled with the big
proofs. Don't you think?

No, you don't.

Kane

[Kane]

Doan > wrote in message >...
> >
> > So Doan, you think that spanking is not a form of beating. I think
> > that you have been asked a valid question:
> >
> > Just what is the difference between spanking and beating?
> >
> It is based on the "reasonable person" standard.
>
> > Just where does the boundary lie?
> >
> It is where a "reasonable" person said it is. The is the same question
> in the 80's with regard to pornography. Where do draw the line?

At the same logical place the anti spanking zealots might draw theirs
at spanking.....we don't do it at all so it never becomes an issue of
risk.

You were saying about ASZ logic again?

> Doan ....... the doofi (editoral comments mine)

Kane

[Doan]

On 4 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:

> Doan > wrote in message >...
> > >
> > > So Doan, you think that spanking is not a form of beating. I think
> > > that you have been asked a valid question:
> > >
> > > Just what is the difference between spanking and beating?
> > >
> > It is based on the "reasonable person" standard.
> >
> > > Just where does the boundary lie?
> > >
> > It is where a "reasonable" person said it is. The is the same question
> > in the 80's with regard to pornography. Where do draw the line?
>
> At the same logical place the anti spanking zealots might draw theirs
> at spanking.....we don't do it at all so it never becomes an issue of
> risk.
>
They tried it with Prohibition! No risk there? They tried it with
"zero-tolerant" in schools! They tried it Sweden, where parents
now use "verbal conflict resolution"!!! Hey, it's better than spanking!
;-)

> You were saying about ASZ logic again?
>
They are mutually exclusive! ;-)

> > Doan ....... the doofi (editoral comments mine)
>
Kane - the "smelly-****" caller. :-0 (no editorial needed)

Doan

[Kane]

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:15:58 -0800, Doan > wrote:

>On 4 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:
>
>> Doan > wrote in message >...
>> > >
>> > > So Doan, you think that spanking is not a form of beating. I
think
>> > > that you have been asked a valid question:
>> > >
>> > > Just what is the difference between spanking and beating?
>> > >
>> > It is based on the "reasonable person" standard.
>> >
>> > > Just where does the boundary lie?
>> > >
>> > It is where a "reasonable" person said it is. The is the same
question
>> > in the 80's with regard to pornography. Where do draw the line?
>>
>> At the same logical place the anti spanking zealots might draw
theirs
>> at spanking.....we don't do it at all so it never becomes an issue
of
>> risk.
>>
>They tried it with Prohibition! No risk there?

Spanking risk is to Prohibition risk how?

>They tried it with
>"zero-tolerant" in schools!

Spanking risk is to "zero tolerant in schools" risk how?

>They tried it Sweden, where parents
>now use "verbal conflict resolution"!!! Hey, it's better than
spanking!

And you are going to invite us to go the "It failed in Sweden"
nonsense exposure again, eh? {:-]}

>;-)
>
>> You were saying about ASZ logic again?
>>
>They are mutually exclusive! ;-)

Sorry.

Declarations of "defeat of the opponent" are nothing more than
exposure of the weasel escape attempt ploy.

>
>> > Doan ....... the doofi (editoral comments mine)
>>
>Kane - the "smelly-****" caller. :-0 (no editorial needed)

When in trouble go as far from the subject as possible and look for
the maximum shock value.

Hey! Nice going, Doan. {;]}

Now work up a really good comeback...lots of diversion, high intensity
appeal to emotions, and enjoy yourself for a few hours. I'm going to
take a break.

My sides are just getting too sore at your lame attempts to wiggle out
of the trap YOU created for yourself.

>
>Doan
>

See yah! {;]}

Kane