Re: Kids should work...

[Doan]

On 23 Nov 2003, Ignoramus22857 wrote:

> 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.
>
And how what percentage of professional sports are black? The issue is
not a "race issue". You have to look at other social factors. What is
the unemployment rate in black community, how many kids are born to
unwed mothers....

> 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.
>
HUH?

> A lot of crimes, such as forcible rape, was not as well reported in
> 1950s, either.
>
As so did the lynching of blacks!

> 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.
>
You will be surprised on how many while middle class people are in jails
today - mostly because of drugs!

> 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.
>
And what do these have to do with spanking?

Doan

[Kane]

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.

>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.

>> 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.

>"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.

How many times has this been pointed out to you?

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.

>> 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.

>> 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?

>I am a pragmatic person,

Bull****. You are an emotional blind man from your childhood
experience of shame from being whipped by your parents.

>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.

>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.

>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.

However I'll tell you how the stupid such as you managed to do CP
anyway and get away with it.

>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.

THOSE are allowed.

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.

>> 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?

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.

>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.

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.

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


>
>Doan
>

{-]

[Kane]

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:59:10 -0800, Doan > wrote:

>And I why wonder what kind of parents can't tell the difference
between
>spanking and beating!!! ;-)

Those that are unable to define it exactly to the point for THEIR
particular child when it changes from spanking to abuse...a beating.

No, oh Doofus one, all too often spanking already as beating with a
special name to excuse the brutatily, ignorance, and viciousness of
the parent.

And this marks, I think, post number three where I have recently
challenged you to define spanking vs beating so that one can be
distinguished from the other.

I believe I did many months ago as well with similar results..you
ignoring the question.

Diversions of the "if you don't know I'm not going to tell you"
variety, and deflecting the question with questions no longer are
standing you in good stead.

You obviously desparate and thrashing about with all your old
bull****.

And you know that it's you that is the Cargo Cult Mentality dimwit.

Come on. Doan. Should be simple for you to give us a definition or
better, come up with a study that clearly defines.

It is a very important issue now that spanking and it's abusive nature
are becoming more and more the subject of state scrutiny.

Besides, Doan, you have a kindly heart I know, and after all, it's for
the children.

>
>Doan

{-]

[Kane]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 05:28:03 -0600, "Donna Metler"
> wrote:

>
>"ChrisScaife" > wrote in message
...
>> > 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.
>>
>> I don't know of animals that beat their young.
>> Only degenerate humans could be that base.
>> ;-)
>>
>Mama cats swat kittens on the nose for misbehavior, along with a
hiss.

Whose "children" then grow up to be compulsive torturers and
indiscriminate killers.

Sows routinely eat their young when streesed or from having a dietary
imbalance. Yet pigs are supposed to be very bright animals.

Apes and chimpanzees routinely rape their immature young.

Bringing up animals when discussing human behavior is irrelevant. We
have, though I rarely find any evidence here in these ngs, greater
intelligence, hence a greater range of choices than animals.

Kane

[Kane]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:37:07 -0800, Doan > wrote:

>
>On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, ChrisScaife 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.
>>
>> I don't know of animals that beat their young.
>> Only degenerate humans could be that base.
>> ;-)
>>
>I saw the same argument used against abortion! Do you know of any
animal
>that put their youngs in diaper??? ;-)

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.

YOU haven't answered the simple question, "when does a spanking become
a beating."

What is the point of passing over from one to the other.

And none of that usual slime of yours like "if you don't know I'm not
going to tell you," or "anti spankers, etc."

Come on Doan, let's have it. You can't defend that their is a
difference between spanking and beating unless you can make a
definative arguement for what one is and not the other.

Of course you do know that even the legal definitions tend to be
somewhat less than clear, most especially on the questions of
psychological harm.

How low must the intensity be for spanking to not cause psychological
harm?

>Doan

Choking are you?

Kane

[Doan]

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. :-)

> >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! ;-)

> >> 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"?

> >"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? ;-)

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

> 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??? Correlation is not causation! It is not even
evidence of a temporal order! Read the studies and learn to respond
rationally, Kane. ;-)

> >> 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! Just as I expected, you haven't read the study and can't
respond. Chris 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! 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?
At least you are consistent - consistently stupid that is! :-)

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

> >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

> >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?

> >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."

> >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? What is the recidivism rate?

> 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? ;-)

> >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!

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

> 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?

> >> 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? ;-)

> 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. ;-)

> 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. :-)

> 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! ;-)

Doan

>
> >
> >Doan
> >
>
> {-]
>

[Doan]

> 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??? ;-)

Doan

[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 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

[Kane]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 15:45:06 -0800, Doan > wrote:

>On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, ChrisScaife wrote:
>
>>
>> "Doan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, ChrisScaife 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.
>> > >
>> > > I don't know of animals that beat their young.
>> > > Only degenerate humans could be that base.
>> > > ;-)
>> > >
>> > I saw the same argument used against abortion! Do you know of any
animal
>> > that put their youngs in diaper??? ;-)
>>
>> That is because animals are not able to do that,
>> but they are able to injure their offspring.
>> They choose not to.
>>
>Actually, it depends on what kind of animals we are talking about;
some do
>eat their youngs. You are right that most animals are very
protective of
>their youngs. It is ironic then to think that humans are difference
and
>as parents, we don't know how to take care of our youngs.

Until you look at our contemporaries and our ancestors, who both
routinely raped their young, killed them at their pleasure, and beat
and worked them to death from tiem to time....or is this view of yours
protecting, encouraging, and apologizing for parents who us CP in the
same vein...."this is parenting, by Doan the Duplicitious."

>If you've been
>listen to the anti-spanking zealotS,

I have, more intensely.

> we have been doing it wrong since
>the beginning of time!

I've always thought those flatearthers were right and instead of
telephones, and now computers, we should still be hollering from
mountain tops to send messages.

Hell on graphic images though.

>
>> As for abortion... I would rather not start on that one right now.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>It's your choice! :-)

Brilliant!

Well, compared to your gems above. {;-]}

>
>Doan
>

Kane

[Kane]

On 3 Dec 2003 04:02:25 GMT, Ignoramus29143
> wrote:

>In article >, Kane
wrote:
>>>where is that pdf?
>> http://www.nopunish.net/PWP.pdf
>
>thanks.
>
>> 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.
>
>How about the possibility that he wants something and thinks that he
>can get it at the expense of others.

That fits my description of the two states of being. He is either
physiologically dysfunctional in a way that compromises learning and
judgement (autistic children come most easily to mind as a clear
example), or he is psychologically dysfunctional either because the
situation is new to him, or he has poor information to allow for
approriate learning and the psychologically appropriate development to
occur on schedule.
>
>A punishment does not have to be physical.
>

If you buy into the idea that a child is doing "wrong" when they are
doing a behavior you do not approve or and do not with them to do and
you think you can make them do a wanted behavior, even if only to
stop, and punishment is your choice, ask why you chose it?

And what might work better. There are NO non-punitive parenting
tactics that work less well than spanking. Spanking mainly just fast,
and distracts a child from the unwanted activity, but, as is evidenced
time and again, the child STILL has the urge to do what he was trying
to do before he was distracted.

They then grow up with, at the very least, feelings of free floating
anxiety about themselves (since we are always trying to find out how
to do new thing, or old things better...unless of course it is spanked
out of us).

>But children, like adults, respond to incentives and there is nothing
>wrong, ni my ignorant opinion, with constructive a good model
>incentive system.

One of the extraordinary things that happened to me as I homeschooled
my children was that they wanted to learn faster than I could deliver
the goods. Worked me to a frazzle, a joyful one of course.

The became so accustomed to me as their coach that in time for days
and days they would just forge on ahead, but when something new came
up or and old thing wanted to be done in a new way, the had the
feeling of safety that allowed them to try it...and they needed me
even less.

My daughter, by age 11 was more mature than most adults, yet she could
still play, and was joyfilled person. Still is 30 years later. And a
fulltime learner...accounting right now.

>> 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.
>
>I would not make such broad statements as I see no firm basis in
>evidence for them.

I've worked in the prison system. It's what I saw and what penologists
report. Prison psychological testing and observation shows extremely
retared social skill, right down to the inability to cooperatively
play (or work) with others typical of a three year old when they are
tired.

I'm not making broad statements. Do some reading.

>> 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?
>
>That regardless of how much some things are wanted, doing them has
>unpleasant consequences. It is a good lesson in life.

Of course. Why do YOU have to be one delivering the unpleasant
consequences? Can't you figure out how to build that safely into the
environment?

Just pick up the food, trash it, and don't replace it. Which is a mild
punishment model, or...............

Figure out what the learning exercise is the child is
performing...that IS what child behavior is about, and a great deal of
adult behavior. We become, way past being conscious of it, superb
drivers by practice practice practice.

Often that is all the child is doing.

I'll write your next question for you and answer it.

Courtesy quotes:
"What in the world has dropping food on the floor got to do with
learning anything?"

When a early childhood development specialist just hired by the school
district moved in down the road from me ask me that in 1973 or 74,
being the bright introsupective intellectually advance character I was
(R R R R) I piped up with "Social skills...she trying to get me to do
things for her, training me" with a broad slaphappy grin on my face,
I'm sure.

The patient man, a part time college instructor set some boundaries
and restated the question differently... Do not think about food in
the usual way, nor the highchair, but of their physical characterists
and their interaction with the eviroment they are in.

I thought he was out of his mind...but...in time, with his patience, I
got it. The objects..food, had mass and weight. I dropped they would
fall. The highchair had height so one could view the falling object
longer and observe it's behavior in the physical universe...

When I got it my response was an incredulous "Noooo...gravity
experiements?"

He responded by pointing out other things I knew about child learning
behaviors just by simple observation....they repeat things they wish
to study and learn...we even help them with rhymes and songs and
patticake mantras.

My child was dropping things to study gravity, and he also would push
a chair to the wall and climb up and switch the light on and off
endlessly, and poor water back and forth and back and forth and
b..well, you get the picture.

So then, I had to ask myself, are all these behaviors that bother me
BAD behaviors or are they learning behaviors.

>i

Best. Kane

[Kane]

On 2 Dec 2003 22:17:06 -0800, (Greg Hanson) wrote:

>Gerald Alborn wrote
>> In other words, you think "survival of the
>> fittest" plays into the evolution of what
>> many consider to be "societal norms?" If
>> cp survived, it just has to be right, right Doan?
>> -Jerry-
>
>It worked for John Glenn,

That wasn't the question, but no, IT didn't work for John Glenn. His
and other human's extraordinary ability to survive and prosper even
the worst of circumstances "worked." What might he have been, given
his genetic legacy, had he never been spanked?

>Abraham Lincoln and

You know for certain he was spanked do you?

Consider for a moment before you answer. Contrary to the popular
biased reporting on who and what he was, he risked the republic, and
made a choice that killed more per capita than any US war before or
since.

The issue was commerce, and he chose to side with the bully boy
northern industrial crowd. That he picked up on the slavery issue was
not only secondary...he despised "Negros."

He, and others of his time, and right up until recently, would refer
to them with the most hideously brutal but sibulantly sounding quasi
polite "Nigras," usually delivered in a stage whisper so the object of
their taunt could hear them.

If ever there was a term that made my blood boil more than the
brutally frank vicious, "******" "Nigras" would be it. There is a
whole universe of hate and dispicable arrogance in it that delegates
blacks to an even worse place in the social order.

>the founding fathers.

All spanked were they? You have some evidence?

Yah know, your conversations about the grandmother, the grandfather,
the child, and oddly, even the mother..whose name you do not share,
whose activities and presence in her own house remain a mystery
because you speak of her in only the most self centered terms, sound
so much like those racist bigots I refer to above.

Isn't that terribly unfair of me though....

Kane

[Kane]

On 2 Dec 2003 22:50:30 -0800, (Greg Hanson) wrote:

>Don't disagree with LaVonne, she's an ""expert""!
><chuckle>

Like you are an expert at what to do to get children back from CPS?

>The whole thread seems so "academic" as to be
>out there in LaLa Land. Ego stroking and
>people feeling very philosophical and all..

Yes. That academic thing and philosophical discourse kind of puts your
teeth on edge, eh?

Figgers.

>Look, There goes LaVonne, the Pied Piper of Dinkytown!

Look their goes the Whore with his ass prolapsed out of his mouth.

And now to reply to AdotaDad below:

>
>AdoptaDad wrote

Hiyah, guy.

>> Many animals use what amounts to some form of physical
>> discipline when rearing their offspring.
>> It's not uncommmon at all.

Actually it is just that. It is rare that the caregiver animal (often
only the female as boar bears kill the young routinely if she doesn't
protect) resorts to pain infliction to cause aversion.

Sometimes at weaning, but that is more reactive and instinctual than
thoughful

Sometimes in extreme danger, but some animals do nothing at all to
their young aversively, except move away if the cub, calf, fawn, kid,
kitten, pup, is annoying them.

>> In addition, there are several species that actually
>> eat their young.

Pigs more commonly, even the mothers do it. Stress and or a
nutritional imbalance seem to trigger it. It isn't <smile> for
discipline.

>> Given my druthers, I'd rather be
>> beaten than eaten.

Given mine, I'd rather be neither. And since I do, as a human being,
have that choice far more than any animal does.
>>
>> And since I'm the male of my species, I'm rather
>> thankful I'm not a black widow spider or preying mantis.

It all comes back to being human doesn't it now?

And that we have choices animals do not.

>> Humans are no more (or less) base than the other
>> species on this planet.

Some humans, but on average we do not do the things that are "base"
that animals do. Besides that's such a value judgement, now isn't it.

Hindo's do things I consider base, but then I suppose they consider my
actions and inactions of their action, pretty base.

Just why is it I don't once a year take abundle of little specil
knives on cords and scourge my back by whiping myself with them?

Darned if I know.

But I do know that hitting a child and excusing it through the
rationale that it's "discipline," or "how to show them you love them,"
is about as "base" as we can be.

And children are not mentally animals.

Neither are thee and me, but sometimes I do wonder about thee.

R R R

No malice, just having fun. Thanks for being candid. If I had to
accept a child being spanked you are one of the very few that I'd bow
my head and close my eyes and accept.

But remember, I do NOT have to accept that.

Kane

[Kane]

On 3 Dec 2003 14:20:08 GMT, Ignoramus11065
> wrote:

>In article >, toto wrote:
>> On 3 Dec 2003 04:02:25 GMT, Ignoramus29143
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>>That regardless of how much some things are wanted, doing them has
>>>unpleasant consequences. It is a good lesson in life.
>>>
>> That's a lesson, but it doesn't seem to me to address the
underlying
>> lesson most parents want the child to learn in these situations and
>> it's one they learn through the natural consequences when they do
>> these things in situations where the parent doesn't have the
control
>> anyway.
>>
>> If s/he hits a playmate, it is likely that the playmate will hit
back.
>> If s/he destroys something that s/he cares about and can't
>> replace it, s/he learns that destruction means that the thing will
not
>> reappear magically, if s/he is noisy and others are upset, s/he
learns
>> that they will probably not come and play.
>>
>> The underlying lesson, I would want my child to learn though is
>> empathy for the other person's feelings and that cannot be taught
>> by punishment at all. Aside from that, I wanted my children to
learn
>> how to make amends for things they did wrong.
>
>Perhaps we just see the term punishment differently.
>
>If I tell my son to stop throwing things or else I won't play with
him
>and take away what he throws, and then he continues throwing things
>and I follow through, to me, it is punishment. But it does fit your
>description of social interaction.
>
>Naturally, the point is that punishment should be a model of social
>interaction, to the extent reasonably possible.

So, tell us, when was the last time you were at a restaurant and
caught your wife "playing" with her food and said, "well young lady if
you aren't hungry then you certainly don't need dessert?"

So much for social interaction derived "punishment."

>> When a child destroys something you care about, the action you
>> take should depend on whether or not the destruction was accidental
>> or purposeful.
>
>absolutely.

What would be the difference?

Is it not possible that, like any physical scientist, the destruction
of something is often the study of that object?

And finally, is the object more important than the child and your
relationship with each other?

Most everyone thinks they "teach" children not be destructive, but
frankly it's more likely the child has become old enough to have some
understanding of the losses involved in destruction of something.
Before then we put things up.

>And in any case, it does not hurt to communicate that you are very
>upset that your valuable thing is broken.

Actually if the child is young enough and you overload them enough it
can hurt by confusing and frightening them about things they do not
understand. There is entirely enough naturally occuring fright in a
child's life. And it's our job to not add to it but to protect the
child until she is old enough developmentally (has the capacity) to
process whatever is frightening effectively...then lessons can be
taught, and not before...not the lessons one thinks they are teaching.

>> After you figure out the motivation, you can deal with
>> the underlying emotions and problems. Still, what I want is for
them
>> to take *my* feelings into consideration and they don't learn that
>> from being punished.
>
>Punishment may be a part of learning. I agree that there is more to
>learning than just punishment and rewards that seem to be unrelated
to
>the action.
>
>Also, a punishment should be seen as fair and reasonable.
>
>Example.
>
>Child throws a cup around after having been told not to. Cup is taken
>away. Is it punishment? Yes, as far as I understand. Is this
>punishment directly related to the offense? Yes. Does it model a
>typical life situation? Sure. Does it seem reasonable and fair to the
>child? Yes.

To broad an application. It very often happens that parents make
demands on the child beyond their capacity to understand...thinking
the child will understand if their's enough discomfort involved.

It seems not to occur to the parent in this scenario that discomfort
may be completely counter productive to learning when the child is too
young to overcome the pain and cut through to the lesson.

If you are trying to figure out how a light fixture is put together
and you haven't unplugged it, just your worrying about getting shocked
is enough to considerably reduce your learning.

If the exploritory child has to spend too much time worrying about
what YOU might do to him or her next they are not focusing on their
learning. If you are seen as the one that keeps them safe AND
patiently assists when the are exploring then learning is at a
maximum.

Why are classrooms set up as they are? To create safe learning
environments...otherwise when we wanted a child to learn his letters
and numbers we'd set up in a building excavation site, during work
hours.

>> When a child is noisy in a place where others need them to be
quiet,
>> again the thing I want them to learn is to consider other people's
>> feelings. We would leave the area and go to a place where the
child
>> *can* be noisy. Or we might find a quiet activity the child likes
>> that can be done. And it would be important to talk about why you
>> wish the child to be quiet in this situation. Punishing the child
>> doesn't accomplish much in terms of a long term solution where
>> the child understands when to be quiet and/or how to take the other
>> people's feelings into account.
>>
>> When a child is dropping food on the floor, the logical result is
that
>> the meal is over and that the child helps clean up the mess. This
can
>> seem like a punishment, I suppose, but it's all in the attitude.
>> Generally toddlers begin dropping food when they are no longer
hungry
>> because it's *fun* to explore what happens when they do so. They
are
>> not doing this to annoy, but because they are not hungry and being
in
>> the chair is boring after a while. So let them go play. It makes
no
>> sense to punish them for exploring, imo.
>
>I find that cleaning after making a mess helps a lot wrt preventing
>messes.

Age, developmental level please.

>If he makes a mess, (like drops food), I say no big deal, now let's
>clean it. It's not even a punishment.

That IS a teaching situation if the child is old enough to help. And
if it is, as it usually is, exploratory behavior (look at the delight
of the child when you put something back on their highchair tray and
babble at them %$$!$#%@#%$&*& - what the child hears when you say,
"don't throw that") then simply giving them something to throw that
isn't messy can be very useful.

This gravity experiment is one of the most intense learning
experiences of the human child. I believe it is so because the effects
of gravity are one of the very few instinctual responses humans have.
Fear of falling is universal from birth with all children.

Does this gravity long term research for the child "take"? Remember
the first time you brought home a helium filled balloon? It defied all
the experimental outcomes the child had been seeing in HIS research.

Naturally it intregued him no end. And for life, something that defies
gravity holds fascination for us.

>i

Kane

[Kane]

On 3 Dec 2003 14:33:17 GMT, Ignoramus11065
> wrote:

>In article >, Kane
wrote:
>> On 3 Dec 2003 04:02:25 GMT, Ignoramus29143
>>>How about the possibility that he wants something and thinks that
he
>>>can get it at the expense of others.
>>
>> That fits my description of the two states of being. He is either
>> physiologically dysfunctional in a way that compromises learning
and
>> judgement (autistic children come most easily to mind as a clear
>> example), or he is psychologically dysfunctional either because the
>> situation is new to him, or he has poor information to allow for
>> approriate learning and the psychologically appropriate development
to
>> occur on schedule.
>
>Okay, so to you it is a matter of definition, a person who wants as
>much as he can get away with is dysfunctional.

No no..you misunderstand. To want the entire universe is healthy,
normal, and good in the child of a certain age. In fact the really
young child, say up to about two years, isn't even aware she is a
separate part of the universe.

The major characteristic developmentally of the 2 -3 year old child is
becoming a separate being. It is terribly stressful, the child doesn't
really understand what is going on, but nature demands she learn
it...hence we get the "terrible twos." All the difficulties for the
parent are nothing compared to the difficulties for the child.

Patience is paramount at that time.

>To me it is just a
>rational economic behavior (I have economics background). Why get
less
>than you can get away with? Why not maximise your utility function?

The job of the parent then is to teach this economy of effort and gain
or loss. Whacking the kid, or even punishing them isn't of much use.
It simply distracts them from learning "economics."

>In any case, however you label it, people do respond to
>incentives. Real life is all about incentives. Therefore, there is
>nothing wrong with contructing an incentive system at home, as it
>would help the child prepare for the incentive system in real life.
A
>good incentive system should be both relevant to the child's
>development level, as well as be somewhat realistic of what he will
>encounter in real life.

An example please.

>The problem with beating children as an incentive system is that
>first, it does not fit modern life (where adults are almost never
>beaten), and second, it does not take child development into account
>at all.

Nor does it take into account basic learning theory based on proven
experiments (including brain scan research) on how learning best takes
place, or is diminished by distraction.

Not to mention a couple of millinium of some of us just seeing by
observation what does and doesn't work with a bit more clarity than
others. My best work has been with talking to grandmas. They may not
have sophisticated academic descriptions, but they a lifetime of
watching children grow up, at two sets of them.

>It is just easy for dumb parents.

Sometimes the most intelligent do not get it because they are unable
to project their thinking into the world as the child experiences it
through taste, touch, sight etc.
>>>A punishment does not have to be physical.
>>>
>>
>> If you buy into the idea that a child is doing "wrong" when they
are
>> doing a behavior you do not approve or and do not with them to do
and
>> you think you can make them do a wanted behavior, even if only to
>> stop, and punishment is your choice, ask why you chose it?
>
>I have to confess that I do not understand what you wanted to say.

One word typo I think.."or" for "of." I rewrite and edit..

If you buy into the idea that a child is doing "wrong" when they are
simply executing a behavior you do not approve of, and you think you
make them do a behavior you want them to, why would you ever use
punishment?

That isn't how we learn very much in life. Look at all the models of
teaching we have at our disposal. If you took up a subject to learn
would you consider that pain was going to be your best learning
incentive?

Usually all it does is cause one to avoid, and aversive response.

>> And what might work better. There are NO non-punitive parenting
>> tactics that work less well than spanking. Spanking mainly just
fast,
>> and distracts a child from the unwanted activity, but, as is
evidenced
>> time and again, the child STILL has the urge to do what he was
trying
>> to do before he was distracted.
>
>sometimes it is helpful to satisfy the urge in a productive
>fashion. For example, if the child likes throwing, give him a ball
and
>do it outdoors.

With a bit of thought that response can be extrapolated for just about
every learning situation a child might be in. And virtually everything
has a lesson in it for the child...even being tired an cranky.

Do I wish to teach that child that we are patient with tired and
cranky people, or do I slap his face for whining?

>>>But children, like adults, respond to incentives and there is
nothing
>>>wrong, ni my ignorant opinion, with constructive a good model
>>>incentive system.
>>
>> One of the extraordinary things that happened to me as I
homeschooled
>> my children was that they wanted to learn faster than I could
deliver
>> the goods. Worked me to a frazzle, a joyful one of course.
>>
>> The became so accustomed to me as their coach that in time for days
>> and days they would just forge on ahead, but when something new
came
>> up or and old thing wanted to be done in a new way, the had the
>> feeling of safety that allowed them to try it...and they needed me
>> even less.
>>
>> My daughter, by age 11 was more mature than most adults, yet she
could
>> still play, and was joyfilled person. Still is 30 years later. And
a
>> fulltime learner...accounting right now.
>
>not sure how it is related.

Ah....outcomes?

>Congrats on having great kids.

More a product of me figuring out when to step back than when to
punish.

>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>I would not make such broad statements as I see no firm basis in
>>>evidence for them.
>>
>> I've worked in the prison system. It's what I saw and what
penologists
>> report. Prison psychological testing and observation shows
extremely
>> retared social skill, right down to the inability to cooperatively
>> play (or work) with others typical of a three year old when they
are
>> tired.
>>
>> I'm not making broad statements. Do some reading.
>
>Can you recommend some specific reading.

If it has to do with parenting I'd recommend, Smart Love, by the
Piepers. Practical but with reasonable clear theory to support their
suggested methods.

Works extremely well with older or even more dysfunctional kids. They
are foster and adoptive, as well as bio parents and family counselors
and college professors. A more interesting read than it might sound
with that description.

http://tinyurl.com/w1uw

for commentary, reviews, and source.

Then there's one for younger children rearing as well...though it
follows through to all ages in childhood:

Dr. Thomas Gordon's Parent Effectiveness Training, or PET.

http://www.thomasgordon.com/store/index.cfm#family

>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>>That regardless of how much some things are wanted, doing them has
>>>unpleasant consequences. It is a good lesson in life.
>>
>> Of course. Why do YOU have to be one delivering the unpleasant
>> consequences? Can't you figure out how to build that safely into
the
>> environment?
>
>Why not me?

Relationship. Are you your child's coach and supporter? Are you
committed to those roles sufficiently to take the time and trouble to
learn what she is ready for developmentally and educationally at any
given point in her progress?

Would you, when you want your wife to be more cooperative and not keep
moving your sock drawer, or if she has asked you to show her how to
start the lawn mower, start thinking "how can I punish her into doing
this right?"

>> Just pick up the food, trash it, and don't replace it. Which is a
mild
>> punishment model, or...............
>
>it is a punishment model.

Yes, I know...that's what the "............" designated...that there
was more to come...............

>
>I kind of agree with the general message that punishment is not a
total
>answer to developing the child into a successful and balanced
>adult. However, life is all about consequences and punishments and
>therefore letting a child learn this is helpful.

I beg your pardon? Could it be that you have become convinced of
something that isn't true?

Life is most definately NOT "all about consequences and punishments."

Think a bit about what you said and start asking yourself if life
could possibly be about other than those.

>Example: you eat too much, you become obese. It's a
>punishment.

Cultural imposed viewpoint. Not in some cultures...just ours.

>Example: you cheat on your spouse, and ruin your
>marriage. It's a punishment.

Clue, some people, so pain based in their upbringing, seek things for
gratification and are willing to take the risk no matter how much pain
to themselves and others might ensue.

>Example: you lie on your resume, lose the
>job. Etc etc.

And if you live in a reward/punishment belief system then you are very
tempted to simply get better at cheating and lying. Whereas if you
have developed conscience you tend to seek an inner sense of self
worth that includes a moral component.

>So, if a child learns that actions have consequences, that would help
>him think forward a little bit as they grow up.

If that were in fact how humans work many political models, including
socialism and communism would have taken over the world by now.

Both could work, of course, if people were more universally moral.

They cannot be if they are reward/punishment oriented over the
empathic conscience based model. And you don't teach or learn that by
pain reliant based methods.

>i

Kane

[Speedy Jim]

Ignoramus11065 wrote:
>
> I have a kind of related question... Related to child
> safety. Sometimes, they say, it is important to scare a child enough
> so that he does not do dangerous things such as playing with
> electrical outlets. Other people would say that no, we should
> chidproof outlets and not be too coercive. Yet others would respond
> that you canno tprotect all outlets in all homes where the child would
> be.
>
> The thing is, since about 1.5 year old, my son has been pretty good at
> removing the childproof caps on outlets. So I figure, we have wooden
> floors anyway, so the floor is not grounded, I will let him plug and
> unplug things.
>
> My question is, just how really dangerous 125v is. I have been jolted
> with 125 volts a few times and it is not even very painful. 220v is
> painful but survivable. On the other hand, children may react to it
> differently. Our floor is insulated, again.
>
> Any thought on chidren and electric power outlets.
>
> i

I have very clear memories of inserting things like paper clips
so as to bridge the 2 slots of the receptacles! Quite a brilliant
display as a result! (About age 4) Wonder I wasn't blinded by
the molten metal...
Jim

[Kane]

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 04:49:05 -0600, "Donna Metler"
> wrote:

>
>"LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
...
>> Donna,
>>
>> Animals cannot speak. Animals communicate through body language
and
>> vocalizations. This is why mana cats swat their kittens on the
nose.
>Mama
>> cat is raising her babies to survive in their world.
>>
>> I can speak, and so can you. I didn't need to raise my children
with
>> hitting. I taught my children to survive and prosper as humans.
Mama cat
>> is teaching her children to survive as cats.
>>
>> See the difference, Donna?
>>
>> LaVonne
>>
>>
>I'm not pro-spanking.

Your arguments are those of an apologist.

>However,

See?

>the claim was that NO animals use physical
>punishment-and it only takes one counterexample to disprove such a
claim.

Okay, split hairs. But hairsplitters are usually ignoring relevant
portions of the issue.

>I'd also argue that most child development theorists who advocate
spanking
>do so only with quite young children,

As long as you qualify with the word "most" then you don't have to
face, by that deflection..you think..the argument of others.

>who aren't exactly capable of higher
>level reasoned discourse,

So pain is the best response?

>and usually only in situations where an immediate
>adversive response is necessary.

Name a few.

>Which is exactly the mama cat's response.

Yes.

I am not a cat. I am a human. Cat's have zero capacity (despite
Disneyfication) to understand the effects of an action performed now
into the future. The are limited to a very short span of time, most of
it the reactions of a predator, and great for cats..usually.

Though I do notice rather a lot of them flat in the road.

Humans, on the other hand, can contemplate cause and effect subtleties
that NO animal can. They are linear to a great degree...we are more
dimensional in our thinking and experiencing.

The cat mother cannot know if the kitten will have later problems with
being an adult cat, and doesn't care. Cats respond very much as
predators to their experiences. A swat to a kitten teaches by example,
to swat. Hence they do so with their littermates, building the skill
to kill.

In fact, outside of tongue self washing, eating and sleeping,
predatory behavior is about all cats do, and hence the learn it.

I think I had more plans for my children than that.

But there are societies that DO teach children, by example, to be
violent and even homocidal as a valuable human trait. I understand
some Afghan tribesmen (but of course their women as well) skin their
captives for entertainment....live. Recently too, as reported by
journalists following the war with Al Queda and the Taliban. Some of
their own fell to tribesman.

There's an old Kipling, I think it was, poem about the fallen wounded
cradling their rifle to their in anticipation of the women of the
tribe they were fighting coming onto the field to deal, using their
little knives, with the wounded british soldiers.

Ah yes, here it is:

"
Rudyard Kipling

The Army

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle an' blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.

I wonder if they were referring to a no-spank culture the women
peopled.

Kane

[Kane]

On 3 Dec 2003 15:57:27 GMT, Ignoramus11065
> wrote:

>In article >, Kane
wrote:
>> On 3 Dec 2003 14:20:08 GMT, Ignoramus11065
> wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, toto
wrote:
>>>> On 3 Dec 2003 04:02:25 GMT, Ignoramus29143
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>>That regardless of how much some things are wanted, doing them
has
>>>>>unpleasant consequences. It is a good lesson in life.
>>>>>
>>>> That's a lesson, but it doesn't seem to me to address the
>> underlying
>>>> lesson most parents want the child to learn in these situations
and
>>>> it's one they learn through the natural consequences when they do
>>>> these things in situations where the parent doesn't have the
>> control
>>>> anyway.
>>>>
>>>> If s/he hits a playmate, it is likely that the playmate will hit
>> back.
>>>> If s/he destroys something that s/he cares about and can't
>>>> replace it, s/he learns that destruction means that the thing
will
>> not
>>>> reappear magically, if s/he is noisy and others are upset, s/he
>> learns
>>>> that they will probably not come and play.
>>>>
>>>> The underlying lesson, I would want my child to learn though is
>>>> empathy for the other person's feelings and that cannot be taught
>>>> by punishment at all. Aside from that, I wanted my children to
>> learn
>>>> how to make amends for things they did wrong.
>>>
>>>Perhaps we just see the term punishment differently.
>>>
>>>If I tell my son to stop throwing things or else I won't play with
>> him
>>>and take away what he throws, and then he continues throwing things
>>>and I follow through, to me, it is punishment. But it does fit your
>>>description of social interaction.
>>>
>>>Naturally, the point is that punishment should be a model of social
>>>interaction, to the extent reasonably possible.
>>
>> So, tell us, when was the last time you were at a restaurant and
>> caught your wife "playing" with her food and said, "well young lady
if
>> you aren't hungry then you certainly don't need dessert?"
>
>my wife does not play with her food.

Metaphor dysfunctional are yah?

>But at times, I do punish her. Meaning I do things that are
unpleasant
>to her and are meant to deter her from doing what she did, in
response
>to acts that I do not like.

Got a prenup?

>> So much for social interaction derived "punishment."
>
>???

Yes, it's obvious.

>>>> When a child destroys something you care about, the action you
>>>> take should depend on whether or not the destruction was
accidental
>>>> or purposeful.
>>>
>>>absolutely.
>>
>> What would be the difference?
>>
>> Is it not possible that, like any physical scientist, the
destruction
>> of something is often the study of that object?
>
>The question is what was the purpose.

Yes, that is the question.

>TO study something or just to
>annoy me.

No, that is decidedly NOT the question.

>Was it something that he was told not to touch. etc etc.

How old is he?

What is his capacity?

What do kids normally explore at this age and how do they normally go
about doing so?

But the most important question and the one that should be asked
instead of the indictment question you proposed (rhetorically
accusator) is this: "How can I help my child?"

>> And finally, is the object more important than the child and your
>> relationship with each other?
>
>I do not destroy the child... just tell him not to turn off my
>computer, etc.

That isn't a punishment. It's a social interaction. If he won't turn
it off on request that is a teaching opportunity. If you are too lazy
to engage in one turn of the computer, and remove the child
physically. Do not pose it as a punishment, but just a demonstration
that you have more power. Then be prepared to pay the consequences
when the child is no longer powerless...a teen.

Want to know where difficult teens come from? Use your
methods...punish.

>>>And in any case, it does not hurt to communicate that you are very
>>>upset that your valuable thing is broken.
>>
>> Actually if the child is young enough and you overload them enough
>> it can hurt by confusing and frightening them about things they do
>> not understand. There is entirely enough naturally occuring fright
>> in a child's life. And it's our job to not add to it but to protect
>> the child until she is old enough developmentally (has the
capacity)
>> to process whatever is frightening effectively...then lessons can
be
>> taught, and not before...not the lessons one thinks they are
>> teaching.
>
>Fair enough.
>
>>>> After you figure out the motivation, you can deal with
>>>> the underlying emotions and problems. Still, what I want is for
>> them
>>>> to take *my* feelings into consideration and they don't learn
that
>>>> from being punished.
>>>
>>>Punishment may be a part of learning. I agree that there is more to
>>>learning than just punishment and rewards that seem to be unrelated
>> to
>>>the action.
>>>
>>>Also, a punishment should be seen as fair and reasonable.
>>>
>>>Example.
>>>
>>>Child throws a cup around after having been told not to. Cup is
taken
>>>away. Is it punishment? Yes, as far as I understand. Is this
>>>punishment directly related to the offense? Yes. Does it model a
>>>typical life situation? Sure. Does it seem reasonable and fair to
the
>>>child? Yes.
>>
>> To broad an application. It very often happens that parents make
>> demands on the child beyond their capacity to understand...thinking
>> the child will understand if their's enough discomfort involved.
>>
>> It seems not to occur to the parent in this scenario that
discomfort
>> may be completely counter productive to learning when the child is
too
>> young to overcome the pain and cut through to the lesson.
>
>sure. like potty training a 1 month old. But there is a point when
>they can understand and avoid doing certain things if properly
>motivated.

I find a lot of folks don't have a very good grasp of those times. And
not only a poor grasp but a very poor capacity to apply what they
thinkk they no very well, as in:

"My child is 4, so he better play cooperatively (as the marker shows)
or I'm going to punish him."

Some children, perfectly healthy developmentally, just aren't ready
for that particular marker. They want their truck and they aren't
going to share.

Same goes for the idiocy of public school that shows in age grouping
isolation rather then easily demonstratable development capacity.

Reading, for instance. Some children, as I was, are roaring along at
three and four. Some aren't really ready until ten or so. My brother
was a lousy reader until he was seven...maybe he never caught up with
me. He is a millionaire retired industrialist, major company VP,
today...from the R&D side. A scientist. Still holds NO college
degree...not even a bachelor's. He is an administrative scientist
these days.

He is having a lousy retirement, to my mind, but to him - heaven. They
keep paying him to come back and solve yet more problems for them.

He was never spanked. And for that matter I can't remember mom or dad
punishing him for anything. Admonishions of course, but no
punishments. He was waaaaaay too busy with his science experiments.

>> If you are trying to figure out how a light fixture is put together
>> and you haven't unplugged it, just your worrying about getting
shocked
>> is enough to considerably reduce your learning.
>>
>> If the exploritory child has to spend too much time worrying about
>> what YOU might do to him or her next they are not focusing on their
>> learning. If you are seen as the one that keeps them safe AND
>> patiently assists when the are exploring then learning is at a
>> maximum.
>
>It is a question of degree and not absolutes.

Could you be a bit more obtuse?

It is a question of optimizing for better odds of desired outcomes.

Game, set, match.....R R R I think I won the obtusenous round.

>> Why are classrooms set up as they are? To create safe learning
>> environments...otherwise when we wanted a child to learn his
letters
>> and numbers we'd set up in a building excavation site, during work
>> hours.
>
>I loved playing at building sites...

Yes. While contruction was underway? In the path of danger? What did
you learn, besides you are lucky?

>>>I find that cleaning after making a mess helps a lot wrt preventing
>>>messes.
>>
>> Age, developmental level please.
>
>2.5 yo

Just barely for some children. It is easy to assume they are learning
something they are not. You think they are learning cooperation. They
think they are learning more physics and you are their teacher.

They are right, you aren't, if you think cooperation and compliance is
being learned. 4, 4.5 age maybe..but easily recognized at 5 to 6, and
then the critical thinking capacity makes them somewhat less compliant
again....you, the parent, now has feet of clay.

There IS no tooth fairy or easter bunny.

>i

Kane

[Kane]

On 3 Dec 2003 16:41:38 GMT, Ignoramus11065
> wrote:

>In article >, Kane
wrote:
>>>
>>>Okay, so to you it is a matter of definition, a person who wants as
>>>much as he can get away with is dysfunctional.
>>
>> No no..you misunderstand. To want the entire universe is healthy,
>> normal, and good in the child of a certain age.
>
>why is it not normal for any adult?

It is good and normal, as it is good and normal to curtail the urge to
the legal and morally defensible.

The child learns this one way or another. Pain parenting disrupts the
learning of adult responsibility and results in little problems such
as Enron and degradation of the environment.

>And whether it is "normal" according to some definition is beside the
>point,

Then you have the problem. YOU are one defining by social standards. A
definition.

>at least it is "frequent".

Yes, I would worry greatly about a 99 percent non-aquisative
individual. I think they need to be watched for signs of dementia.
Even the most altruistic has something they want more of. Mother
Teresa was a bear for going after support for her cause.

>> The major characteristic developmentally of the 2 -3 year old child
is
>> becoming a separate being. It is terribly stressful, the child
doesn't
>> really understand what is going on, but nature demands she learn
>> it...hence we get the "terrible twos." All the difficulties for the
>> parent are nothing compared to the difficulties for the child.
>
>I frankly do not see much difficulties so far.

If you aren't a punishing controller then I wouldn't expect you to.
You either know or have life experience from your own childhood that
doesn't set off any alarm bells to "correct" on the scale many parents
do.

>>>To me it is just a
>>>rational economic behavior (I have economics background). Why get
>> less
>>>than you can get away with? Why not maximise your utility function?
>>
>> The job of the parent then is to teach this economy of effort and
gain
>> or loss. Whacking the kid, or even punishing them isn't of much
use.
>> It simply distracts them from learning "economics."
>
>we started to repeat ourselves.

Why yes "we" did.

>>>In any case, however you label it, people do respond to
>>>incentives. Real life is all about incentives. Therefore, there is
>>>nothing wrong with contructing an incentive system at home, as it
>>>would help the child prepare for the incentive system in real life.
>> A
>>>good incentive system should be both relevant to the child's
>>>development level, as well as be somewhat realistic of what he will
>>>encounter in real life.
>>
>> An example please.
>
>taking away a toy that is being abused.

Whose toy is it? You may have just suppressed a world class physicist
in the making.

>not playing with the child.

A child's play is a child's work, her educational work. Not helping
her is tantamount to someone disrupting your work and education.
Bedtime, child working alone, and other such times are the "not
playing" time for a parent. And parents instinctively even if unaware,
will set things up to keep the child's environment enriched if
possible, so "Grandpa and grandma, here we come."

>if he destroys something that he was told not to destroy,

He may not have understood. HIS imperative is to explore. Yours, quite
frankly as far as nature is concerned, is seconday or less. A great
deal of the potential of human beings is lost by subversion enforcing
our wishes on children.

Those who do more sitting back and watching and managing the
enviroment for maximum interaction with minimum safety risks see
little miracles. Have you read Magical Child, Joseph Chilton Pearce?

At four his son could play complex classical piano with gusto and
confidence. A few months in public school and it disappeared, while
the child was busyily doing what children are doing in a good part of
public school life, learning to comply and please the teacher.

>not to fetch
>him a second item.

Or to get items less destructable or that can be cheaply sacrificed.
You don't want him to do his juggling practice with your little glass
unicorn collection...should you belt him, or give him some bean bags?

We are so stuck on compliance being learning.

>>>
>>>sometimes it is helpful to satisfy the urge in a productive
>>>fashion. For example, if the child likes throwing, give him a ball
>> and
>>>do it outdoors.
>>
>> With a bit of thought that response can be extrapolated for just
about
>> every learning situation a child might be in. And virtually
everything
>> has a lesson in it for the child...even being tired an cranky.
>
>sure.
>
>> Do I wish to teach that child that we are patient with tired and
>> cranky people, or do I slap his face for whining?
>
>you are making absolute statements

You ask absolute questions.

>instead of looking at specific
>situations.

You give to spare examples. I even had to ask for the age of the
child.

And I did not ask you to critique my question, only to answer it. If
you are unable to because of the wording then explain the parameters
you WILL respond to.

You are beginning to appear suspiciously like a troll or like the more
obtuse and ethically challenged denizens of these ngs.

>Sometimes I do not reward whining. Sometimes I do. It depends on the
>specific circumstances. In general I do not reward unreasonable
>whining.

A whine is a sob unanswered. Children don't whine because they like to
whine, they whine because they feel some need.

I knew that my son had picked up whining from other children, and
interesting, even moreso from adults he was in contact with. Adults
are inveterate whiners, we just give it polite names. Check out
Greegor.

I got it that he wanted something and that I was feeling resistence
instead of figuring out what he wanted and helping him get it, or
giving it to him if I could.

I fixed it. And I fixed it by fixing him...because I knew there was
something that he wanted more than the momentary need....he wanted to
have a more effective means of getting what he needed or wanted than
whining was proving to be.

Whining kids whose parents simple cut them off teach some very
interesting escalations, including stealing what they want, or finding
others more easily whined at (I've known a few women that went from
man to man with that strategy). In our circle they are a verb. "Oh,
please don't try to Jane me."

No, I fixed him by asking if he'd like to learn how to ask so people
will listen and comply more. He said yes.

I said, lowering my voice deeply, "ASK LIKE THIS."

He had been wanting an icecream.

What came out of him was a bass foghorn sounding, "DAAAADDDDYYYY,
CAAAAAN IIIII HAAAAVE AAAAN IIIIIICECREEEEEAM?" People nearby listen
were nearly ROTLFTAO.

But it worked. And he and I improved our relationship.

I find most requests children have that are expresed by whining, if
you look past the whine for a moment, are perfectly acceptable
requests poorly stated. I want my child to know how to make poweful,
but reasonably stated, requests of the world around him or her.

>>>Can you recommend some specific reading.
>>
>> If it has to do with parenting I'd recommend, Smart Love, by the
>> Piepers. Practical but with reasonable clear theory to support
their
>> suggested methods.
>
>thanks, I bought it... $1.73.

I'm unaware that it's out anywhere at that price. Where did you find
it? Last I heard it was in hard back only and ran about $20.

>> Dr. Thomas Gordon's Parent Effectiveness Training, or PET.
>
>I read that one...

Did you understand it, and did you find anyone to practice the skills
with...not a child, an adult partner?

>>>> Of course. Why do YOU have to be one delivering the unpleasant
>>>> consequences? Can't you figure out how to build that safely into
>> the
>>>> environment?
>>>
>>>Why not me?
>>
>> Relationship. Are you your child's coach and supporter? Are you
>> committed to those roles sufficiently to take the time and trouble
to
>> learn what she is ready for developmentally and educationally at
any
>> given point in her progress?
>
>I do not think that taking away a cup which he was using to spill
>water everywhere, is going to ruin our relationship.

Then why did you go on, keeping the relationship, with......

>He wants to spill
>water, fine, do it in the sink. You want to spill it on the floor,
you
>get your cup taken away. Is this going to ruin our relationship? I do
>not think so.

Not if you respond to his spilling activity with more acceptable
spilling activity for learning. If you take it away and ignore the
need to experiment with the physical environment you are not getting a
better relationship and you are in fact risking it.

Ever wonder why so many blame their parents for their own failings.
Could be they are on to something, but I notice that if the person
came from a punishment household they still do the same things to
their kids.

>>>Example: you eat too much, you become obese. It's a
>>>punishment.
>>
>> Cultural imposed viewpoint. Not in some cultures...just ours.
>
>try carrying around a 50 lbs sack of sand for one day, all day, and
>come back and tell me if that was not punishment.

If that sack was empty when I began and it took five years to get to
50lbs in roughly equal installments, I am merely strong now. I'm not
very discomfited by it at all.

If what you say is true when we hit fifty pounds as a child we should
be in great discomfort.

I am about 30lbs over what I would prefer right now. Still others
might envy me as I carry it on a 6.2 frame with considerable muscle
mass under it. I hardly notice it. Pants tightness is probably the
only discomfort.

The same would be true in other cultures where 50lbs more weight than
I would like is common and admired.

>>>Example: you cheat on your spouse, and ruin your
>>>marriage. It's a punishment.
>>
>> Clue, some people, so pain based in their upbringing, seek things
for
>> gratification and are willing to take the risk no matter how much
pain
>> to themselves and others might ensue.
>
>and they get punished

Really?

I notice you forgot to put in that they got caught. There is a part of
you that knows the truth, even with you execute your sophistry.

Only the caught get punished. And the pain oriented household tends to
spit out children upon the world that are highly skilled at cheating
of all kinds and at getting away with it. When they do get caught they
tend to just improve their cheating skills, not stop them.

The serial marriage cheater, for instance. It's classic. He cheats
with someone. Get's caught and divorced. You think he's punished.

He thinks he's just learning how to cheat better, and the lady he
cheated with gets to be his next victim..that he learns from.
>
>>>Example: you lie on your resume, lose the
>>>job. Etc etc.
>>
>> And if you live in a reward/punishment belief system then you are
very
>> tempted to simply get better at cheating and lying. Whereas if you
>> have developed conscience you tend to seek an inner sense of self
>> worth that includes a moral component.
>
>Concepts such as conscience etc, are very difficult to detect based
on
>solid evidence.

Really. I find them extraordinarily easy to detect on extremely small
bits of evidence. I have seen children, very young, go to take
something not theirs, and not knowing anyone is looking, decide to put
it back. These were unspanked children, with little punishment in
their lives....just developing conscience too.

>E.g. if you give people an opportunity to cheat,

I find that concepts such as "cheat" actually a bit harder to detect,
and sometimes very difficult to find any solid evidence on. I think
law enforcement has a similar experience to mine.

>and
>they know they won't suffer consequences, in aggregate they do
>cheat.

On the contrary. I and many of the children in famlies that use
non-punitive methods of child rearing do NOT cheat just because we can
get away with it. We have well developed consciences NOT based on fear
of consequences.

It's not that we don't fear the consequences, it's that this isn't the
motivator that is the strongest for us. It is a comfort with ourselves
motivation that is the sure thing.

>Some do not, but most do.

Yes, most do, and it has been widely claimed in these ngs and studies
cited that 90+% of people are spanked as children...in other words
punished.

Does that tell you anything?

You aren't examining a properly mixed sample. By their scarcity in the
population and environment those that have morality as a result of
conscience development by empathy rather than by fear, are difficult
to study.

I have been fortunate enough for the past 30 years to come into a
great deal of contact with people that do not spank and rarely use
punishment with their children and I saw the results.

It's very intersting to watch a child of 10 or so struggle with a
moral question who has NOT been punishment parented, and one who has
been. The latter has no struggle to speak of. Just a go or no go
response.

The former, on questioning, reports considerably memory recall going
on when the challenge arose. "Shall I try a puff on that joint being
offered?" and then strong memories of their trusted parent came up.
And they couldn't.

Not that the punished child doesn't remember mom or dad, for split
second before they internalize, "**** you dad" and externally, "Yeah,
pass it over."

>I do not remember specific studies
>etc, nor do I have any desire to spend time finding it out, but I
>remember that I have seen several of them when I was studying
>economics.

The researchers would very likely have a thorough mix, given the 90 vs
10 percent ration, out of any demographic they drew their sample from.
Highly unlikely they were looking at ANY adults that experienced non
pain parenting.

As time passes we may see some results, but for now there isn't much
but anecdotal observations.

>>>So, if a child learns that actions have consequences, that would
help
>>>him think forward a little bit as they grow up.
>>
>> If that were in fact how humans work many political models,
including
>> socialism and communism would have taken over the world by now.
>>
>> Both could work, of course, if people were more universally moral.
>
>I do not want to digress into a million philosophical distractions
>here...

I wasn't proferring a million. I was offering the thought that the
model chosen or thrust upon one doesn't matter as much as the
character of the individuals.

>i

Kane


>
>> They cannot be if they are reward/punishment oriented over the
>> empathic conscience based model. And you don't teach or learn that
by
>> pain reliant based methods.
>>
>>>i
>>
>> Kane

[Kane]

On 3 Dec 2003 17:25:22 GMT, Ignoramus11065
> wrote:

>In article >, Kane
wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 04:49:05 -0600, "Donna Metler"

snip.............


>> Rudyard Kipling
>>
>> The Army
>>
>> When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
>> And the women come out to cut up what remains,
>> Jest roll to your rifle an' blow out your brains
>> An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
>>
>> I wonder if they were referring to a no-spank culture the women
>> peopled.
>>
>> Kane
>
>Kane, those Afghan muslims do not consider infidels to be people at
>all.
>
>Hence skinning, throat slitting, etc. They dispose of infidels as
some
>of us would dispose of pigs.

Very possibly.

Good example, eh?

If I want my child to regard other humans as less I need only bear
down on the punishment.

>
>i

Kane

[Kane]

On 3 Dec 2003 17:25:22 GMT, Ignoramus11065
> wrote:

>In article >, Kane
wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 04:49:05 -0600, "Donna Metler"

snip.............


>> Rudyard Kipling
>>
>> The Army
>>
>> When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
>> And the women come out to cut up what remains,
>> Jest roll to your rifle an' blow out your brains
>> An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
>>
>> I wonder if they were referring to a no-spank culture the women
>> peopled.
>>
>> Kane
>
>Kane, those Afghan muslims do not consider infidels to be people at
>all.
>
>Hence skinning, throat slitting, etc. They dispose of infidels as
some
>of us would dispose of pigs.

Very possibly.

Good example, eh?

If I want my child to regard other humans as less I need only bear
down on the punishment.

>
>i

Kane

Oh, and a point of clarification: not all Muslims use pain based
parenting methods. Want to guess which do?

http://tinyurl.com/xl2v

I do not consider Muslims a monolithic block any more than I would
claim that all Christians eat fish on Fridays.

We have the ignorant, or misled, represented pretty uniformly in all
faiths, races, etc. when it comes to parenting.

Kane

[Kane]

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:24:05 -0800, Doan > wrote:

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

snip..... count and counter point....the meat is below. .

>> >>
>> >> 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"???

I take it you find it humorous when someone else takes up your hobby
of playing with others words?

>> >> >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???
Let's settle this "science" question. I know you won't remember, but
just for old times sake:

When science finds the ultimate answer, and the facts are all in, and
nothing changes, no new discoveries in a field, you'll let us know,
right?

So, to move on: I said, as you place in quotes, "obvious?'

That couldn't be taken out of context could it now? YOU, our
scientific maven slip up like that?
Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaww...couldn't happen. {:-]}


Here's what I actually said:.
>> >> 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.

I take it you won't take observations as relevant? Okay, suit
yourself, but I won't take science as the final answer on human
behavior, though I have noticed your avoidance in the discussions on
brain scan findings and learning. Why is that I wonder...I mean, it's
really scientific and all.

>> 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.

R R R R R

> On the contrary, it is Alborn
>who walked away FOR MONTHS! The same with LaVonne. Why are they so
>afraid of me? ;-)

I skipped ahead, looking for an answer to my challenge to you,
regarding your claim that we the anti-spanking zealots can't tell the
difference between spanking and beating. Of course that's never really
been the question...the question has always been and will always be,
where is the line crossed when a spanking becomes ABUSE.

And what did I find...............Your little bushy tail disappearing
down the hole you usually keep your head up.

Don't skip ahead folks. It's more fun to watch him, as usually, go as
far afield as possible (to long timers, Yes, it the same **** he
always spews when cornered) to divert from the essential question he
was asked.

It's called fogging, as in smoke and mirrors...and one of the lamest
attempts at an appeal to authority by a "researcher" that pretty
clearly has an agenda Doan is in love with. This "peer" review was so
good it's never been published by anyone but Xerox.

>
>> >> >> 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?

You. Pretty simple huh?

Do you really think anyone fell for it the first time you tried that
nonsense?

Now I have to give you an English lesson as well as lesson in ethical
posting? <sigh> I am getting tired. I think I better understand Chris'
choice to sit back and relax and watch you chase your tail up your own
silly asshole, but shucks, I got a minute or two to waste.

"no-spanking group includes occasional spankers"

Let me explain this to you vis a vis my use of the word "least." If
you have a group, say of children, and you have a frequency and
interval of an action upon them, those at the top of the measurement
are the most acted upon, and those at the bottom, as in "but do so
only infrequently" then you have some, even if only one, that is the
least acted upon.

Or do you see this differently and insist that I only quote and not
discuss with my own choice of words, or do wish me to use other words
to mean the same thing the study says, or is it that you are
desperately grasping at anything that will keep others, and possibly
yourself, from seeing what a bogus little twit you are?

My vote? "Twit."

>> >
>> >> 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. ;-)

Your question was, "How many times do you have to lie? :-)"

Answering your question as posed requires me to first presume I am
lying. Since I am not then your question is itself a lie by
presumption.

Never had anyone respond to the old wife beating ploy, have you,
nummy?

So if you insist, stupid little monkey, on an answer:

I do not lie, hence I don't need to calculate the times I have.

Now what did that get you but a masturbatory flush of excitement of
making someone respond to the stupidest thing you could think up to
avoid the issues being presented.

Care to announce a win yet? You usually do about along here.

>> >> 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"!

You did not offer a chance to defend. You questioned something you
think there is no study on.
You also posed, along with your dip**** authority an accusation that
cannot be answered because an "experiment" cannot be conducted
legally, or ethically, on living humans in CP research. It must be
impirical.

On the other hand that leave YOU up **** creek because YOU cannot
produce a study that refutes the use of non cp methods as well.

Hence we have to rely on the impirical, and the logical. Mine tells
me, given the mountains of impirical material I have read, and done my
own first hand observations in prisons and youth mental health
settings, as well as more limited observations in adult mental health
settings (out patient with CMI folks), that the risk of using CP is
too great....and will be until you can give us the definitive data on
what is and what isn't an abusive CP.

Or, when does spanking become beating. I loved our answer by the way.
I predicted it nicely back channel to a couple of folks that need to
know about you.


>
>> >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.

Oh, by stating a trend line suggests closer odds of there being
causality?

How would that be a lie? Or you are referring to something else?

>You just said above that less spanking would
>"result" in even less misbehavior!

I did? Well the only place I used the word "result," I did not say "in
less misbehavior."

I said, and I quote from the message with my attributes intact:

>> 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?

I didn't that it would result, only asked the question of you if the
trend line did not indicate that. Once again you have avoided
answering, so tedious of you, the question posed.

But I'm a patient Sensei, and I'll ask you again, but in a form we can
all <sigh> hope will discourage yet another weasel answer:

Is there a trend mentioned in the Strauss quote you provided?

Is it down toward less us of CP as stated?

Is there less ASB mentioned of that group of less spanked?

And finally, if the answer to any of these of "NO!" by you, then
please explain.

If all your answers are yes, then would that not suggest that even
less hitting would result in even
less unwanted behavior?

The question, Doan, answer the question. Or I'll have to "run away"
like others finally had to do, in exhaustion and disgust at your
debate by immense cartloads of **** posting.

> You lied and puff about yourself
>too much that you can't even keep track?

What would be my lie in asking a question?

Questions aren't lies unless you can show them to be rhetorical. While
I might agree with the trend of both and the possible outcomes, I am
asking YOU a genuine question I want and answer to.

What I figure at this point is you've amply proven you can't or won't
answer questions as asked, or you think the answer you gave to my
spanking vs abuse question is actually an answer at all.

>> >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

Prove your proof, given that I didn't make a claim about Strauss, nor
say you said anything you didn't, I simply asked a question.

It is lying to take words out of context ("result") and claim a lie
thereby when I'd didn't claim a result, only asked a question with the
word result in the string of words.

Now who is trying to deceive here, Doan? The answer to that classic
truth or lie question is the one you cannot answer truthfully.

Nor have you for years in this ng.

>> >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.

Now watch him smile and spring what he thinks was his well concealed
semantic trap.
>>
>Here you go:
>
>[begin include]

I shall comment throughout. And note before we start that they author
makes a claim that the study failed to answer questions......NOT EVEN
ASKED. That is the same common tactic of you, Doan. Hardly what I
was call an objective peer review.

> The Pediatric Forum - March 1998
>
> Drawing Conclusions About Temporal Order

Now watch the bull**** pile up.

> 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.

I have had a lot of trouble finding references anywhere to Strauss
claiming he had found Causal relationships. You, Doan can find them
for me. Can't you? Or did he, like I, being honest, point to the ODDS
of such occurring?

> Unfortunately, their methods do not allow for such
> conclusions. In fact, their methods do not allow for any
> conclusions at all.

Allow for no conclusions at all? Wouldn't you say that is just a tad
hyperbolic?
Could this academic have an..................agenda?

> I believe it is particularly
> important to point out these mistakes because they have
> become commonplace in the social sciences[3]

Well they would be if social science did a lot of research on the
under his criteria, which of course is ethically impossible to do with
living humans, and probably animals.
> and it is
> important that these mistakes do not become commonplace
> in medical research.

Notice, just like Doan, a segue into a diversion. The issue isn't
"medical research." It's social science research...which has to be by
survey and empirical observation. Hence it would be foolish to even
claim causality, except to account for it and negate the effects in
the study subjects...which I do believe Strauss did, or those that
honestly reviewed his work did.

> 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]

Look at the twisting. Every researcher hopes to find causality and it
would be stupid to NOT so design the study, (expect more, accept less
is the concept) but in social science (and in many others) it's
obviously not very likely to occur. How many scientists have seen the
nucleus
of an atom? The presence of atomic particles is still inferred by
their effect on their environment.

They leave tracks.

It is just so with social science. Actions upon the individual do or
don't leave tracks and assumptions can be drawn.

> 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.

In other words, he is suggesting, since the criteria cannot be met in
the real world, that research cease until it is the same as the
medical research model. That's nice.

> 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.

So, a researcher, Strauss, does his observations, and makes his
methodology available and the reviewer decides that someone else's
model should have been followed. But we don't even know if it's a
tested model, or just something Rogosa is pointing out.

> 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.

Whoa...what did I just read. The premise of the title then does not
apply to Strauss et al, but it does to Gunnoe and Mariner, so because
they had some similar results Strauss is now out of the running for
credibility of his study, or do I misunderstand?

Does this kind of babbling strike anyone as familiar?

> 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.

Excuse me. If they said there was a collection point, what were they
doing at it, picking Daisies?
What a crock of Doan familiar ****.

> 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.

Oh, now it's suddenly not a real problem, but just "unclear"

> In sum, no causal

That's right. And in medicine that is often the bottom line. In social
science it's a goal rarely attained but often strived for.

I have notice that green apples are not red, so green apples are not
apples, more than once myself.

To continue: from above: "no causal

> or temporal inferences can be drawn
> from either Straus et al

That is not what the writer said earlier. This is a classic Doan Self
Sabotage:

> so they may have been
> able to conduct an analysis that could determine temporal
> order between these variables.

Oh, then it's none but may have been. I see.

> or Gunnoe and Mariner because
> causal inferences cannot be drawn from longitudinal data

And causal relationship was pointedly shown not to be the outcome of
the Strauss study

> and inappropriate statistical methods were used to
> determine temporal order.

According to someone that "pointed" claiming HE had the only
methodology for this kind of study...but this is a medical researcher
talking.

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

I write these folks often. Many of the folks I contact I ask if I can
quote. When they see what kind of pondscum hang out here with their
logic and thinking errors they ask me not to. I wonder why?

Let's see if this one will. We'll have a little discussion in another
discipline that is very important for researcher and any academic:
Semantics.

In the mean time let me direct you to a much more thorough and
thoughtful treatment by academics of at least the stature of the good
Dr. above...possibly even more:

Some academics that understand what they are reading and tell the
truth about it...they did a survey of the study in question. The only
mention of "causality" is to control for it not to claim Strauss
claimed it existed:

(And no, it's too long to post here, but not too long for a leisurely
pleasant, but to you agonizing, read.)

http://csde.washington.edu/pubs/wps/99-6.pdf

snip...just the references from the wonderful doctor that claimed
Strauss didn't stick to the medical standards
methodology....apparently forgetting social science isn't medicine.
Strauss couldn't beat his subjects to an experimental standard.

You people...geez.

>> 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!

What does "Nope!" mean to you? It is the sound of claws on sand to me.
Your proof is crap. Tones of it, not by the content as much as by the
inference of something being in the study under consideration that was
never part of the study.

> Just proving your stupidity, again! :-)

Ah, you are late with your usual declaration of "I win" again.

Slowing down, Doan, at your age?

>> >> >> 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?

You are the one that brought up a challenge of the "study." I brought
up the article quoting Dr. Embry and citing the study. If you wish to
refute the article you may do so. You may even aske me to defend the
article. But on the study, just produce it and take it apart.

If you can't that's okay. We won't laugh, out loud.

>> 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 not avoiding, you are. I quoted the article. A google will turn
up that article in about three different places and other mention of
it in as many more.

>> I am under no obligation to go beyond pointing to Dr. Embry and his
>> findings.
>>
>IOW, either you lied that you have read it

I didn't say I had read the study. I said I had read the article, and
I have, as everyone here, has access to the posted copy of it.

You attacked it back when Chris posted and demanded he produce the
study itself. He asked you to if you wished to attack it.

It's a debating given, that if you attack something you must either
attack what is available, or you must produce more. Chris wasn't
attacking YOUR attack, just asking you to go ahead and do what you
wanted to do, have at the study.

> 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?

People frequently post the commentary and opinions of others to
support their agenda here, or did you miss your own above?

You have the strangest logic, Doan. I almost think I can hear, "The
Buddha Would Understand," just like that South Vietnamese police
captain answered the photographer right after he was pictured blowing
the brains out of bound captive in the streets of Saigon.

I studied Buddhism for a very long time, and I found no support for
that statement, and I've been posting and following net protocols for
a long time and nowhere does it say, "you must defend our claim
against my attack by presenting the details."

It's up to YOU to provide the details you wish to attack, or attack
what was offered...the conclusions that Dr. Embry shared in his quotes
in the magazine articles.

>> >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???

The study? Of course. I had no idea that you wanted me to read the
encylopedia Brittanica if I see it quoted and list it my quote for you
to read here. If you want to attack Dr. Embry's study, be my guest.

I even did your work for you in looking him up. Write, email, walk
over. What ever suits you.

You have a University library handy. I don't. Yet you think I should
go an climb the stacks for you.

You are a bum, Doan, and not a very complex one at that.

>> 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!

So, if you can find something in his study that refutes his statements
in the article, be my guest. I didn't post those statements for
anything but your education. Now continue it and stop weaseling.

Deal with the article, or deal with the study. I didn't not present
the study, YOU challenged it.

Go for it, weasel.

>> >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?"

Odd, you didn't answer this question of mine. I thought you'd be
slavering over it. You do want to answer it don't you?

>>
>> 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. ;-)

Tiring me on a dual channel, laughter, and load carrying your bull****
for you?

> Proving what a fool he is.
>I READ the studies he cited; showing him why it is not so when he
LIED!

Ah, gosh, we were talking about the Embry study. You claimed you
bested him about it. Now suddenly we are over to Straus again, with
you citing nonsense claims that aren't supported by the evidence you
provide. And I can't produce what doesn't exist to refute what doesn't
exist...well aren't you the master debater?

>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"! :-)

Did he accept your claim when you proved it? Did he attempt to still
claim they weren't teenagers when they gave birth? Were they still
teenagers during the study period?

Did he try to refute that?

No, Doan, you have amply demonstrated that if you can find a single
error you will milk it for years, more especially everytime YOU are
cornered and can't answer challenges to your stupid claims.

>> >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???

No. But you are, still.

> You haven't read the study and challenged
>me to respond???

I did not quote the study. I quoted the article that quoted Embry's
comments and conclusions.

> 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!

Really? Do you think I'm reading impaired? Are you afraid that you I
might think you are lying? All you have to do, since YOU are
rightfully the one that has to produce the study is point me to it
whenever you wish to support your claims against it or for it.

>> 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 own mind
>or you just prefer to have others do the thinking for you?

I did not ask for anyone to do my thinking. I asked for you to respond
to your challenge of the report by citing it, quoting it, and
generally conducting yourself like a sane, and honorable person. I
can's say about the first, but the latter is obvious. You dishonor
yourself and your ancestors.

>> 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.

And you aren't able to look up the study? If you aren't you may say
so, then we can get back to the issue. I quoted Embry's conclusions. I
think we can discuss them without his study, but if you wish the study
to be part of our discussion you are free to quote it.

How is it you found the Strauss study and reference frequently but you
want to challenge the Embry study but cannot bring yourself to find
it?

> I just don't see how you can challenge anybody on a study
>that you haven't read - stupid! ;-)

I'm not.

Where did you see me challenge you on the Embry study that you haven't
produced. I merely quoted the article. YOU CHALLENGED THE STUDY,
DUMMY.

>> 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.

Opps! No it isn't. It's just a statement. I can chose to defend it or
I can choose not to. The instant you challenge me.

At that point, if I don't respond, you can give up and ignore me or
you can look for and present evidence of your claim it isn't round.

Notice, I just looked into the night sky, said it round. Take it or
leave it. When you ask me to prove it, my response is, why? I'm not
planning a moon trip.

>> >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???

If you are going to challenge it, can you not?

If not why not?

>> 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?

I do not have it. I had he article and quoted it. I will happily
debate you on the content of the article. YOU brought up the study as
a challenge, dummy. I brought up the article as a challenge.

Stop playing at being stupid.

>> >> >> 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????

No. Go study the study if you wish, or remain ignorant. Deny the
article if you like.
But don't challenge the study I have not directly quoted. Or call Dr.
Embry and challenge HIM. He made the claims. I merely repeated, and
CITED HIM CORRECTLY. If you think I cited him inaccurately we have a
debate.

If you claim his study is not correct, we have a debate when you
produce it. And that will not then be on the magazine article.

>> 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??? ;-)

Let me see now. You haven't been able to find it but you cry out for
others to, yet there is Dr. Embry's address in the post I sent.

I think you are a coward, and YOU won't call or write, and you won't
challenge him.

But just to show you I care:

>> >> 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 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?

Well the article is easily available on the web. I just googled it
again. Is it too much to ask of you that YOU google it this time? Read
it, tell us what you think, and if you want to find out if the claims
of Dr. Embry are supported by his study, call and ask him, or write.

>> >> >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! ;-)

Alert, Alert!!!! School yard chant ploy.

"I'm rubber, you're glue, What every you say bounces off me and sticks
to YOU YOU YOU"

Now wasn't that a cute little Doanish ploy?

>> 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.

I presume, though you present little evidence, that you have some
capacity for cause and effect reasoning.

If you think this country and the world is in great shape, raise your
hand and slam yourself in the head with it, you need to wake up.

If you think spanking for a couple of thousand years has produced the
wonders we experience, consider: there is much we could do without.

Science isn't produced by punishment to motivate...though I think your
mileage may differ...and our postings reflects that amply.

But there just might be a tiny connection between the horrors we visit
on each other daily and the thousands of years we have done so, and
using pain to raise children.

Now please, ask me to provide scientific proof. We haven't had a good
laugh since a few paragraphs up.

>> >> >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! ;-)

Why would I "already digged it yourself" if you use your addy here?

Are you smokin' anything boy?

You just want mine so you can play games with it, hacker. Don't kid
me.

>> >> >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?

So, you wish to separate violent crime out, but you don't honestly say
so, you simply lie about what I said.

Do you EVER post honestly? Geezz I hope your mother doesn't have web
access.


Why would you separate out violent crime from other crimes when we are
discussing crime? The question is, does CP increase the incidence of
all juvenile crime. Not just violent crime alone.

And the answer is?

>> 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!

If you have a claim to make why don't you make it? The same website is
available to you or anyone. If you think there is data to support you
and refute me, quote it.

I posted the URL as I always do, so that people WILL go and look for
themselves. There is rather a lot there that shoots our monkey ass
down, Doan.

The URL is right up there bubba. You too lazy to go and read?

>> "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?

If you keyed in the data rather than cut and paste, the odds of there
being an error increase strongly. You do make a lot of typos, we all
do.

So, is the data correct or not, and if so point me to the source. The
specific spot so I can point out that you once again took it out of
context.

Or, stop asking me to chase YOUR tail. I won't go where you go for it.

>> 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.

Aaaah, what was this?

>> >"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."

The charts on the page show the rises and dips and they shoot you
down, and graphic charts are not allowed here, they are binaries.

That is another reason I gave the URL...so people could look at the
charts. Can you read charts boy?

I know you've seen them, that's why you are playing about with your
devious weasel ****.

You are pretending there might not be anything there to refute you so
the readers might not go look.

You are in trouble in two ways with that ploy. One is that folks are
accustomed to you lying, not me, hence they are more likely, even
without looking (which annoys me, but what the hell) to believe me and
not you.

So I strongly urge them to be fair to you and go check it out and see
if your claim that crime is down in Singapore, as I presume you wish
us to believe, because of their draconian CP enforcement, or were you
just referring us on for the commercial opportunities?
>
>> 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.

Ah, what was this?
>> >"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."

You pointed to Singapore as an example, and I presume you weren't
suddenly changing sides and offering them up as a horrible example of
spanking gone wild (caning), but rather than you felt crime was down
there.

What did we find, then. The more violent the punishment the higher
the crime rate went, did it not?

This post is where we started as I recall, you are exchanging with
Toto:

Toto:
Children learn what they live. If you treat a child with >> >>
punishment and harsh discipline as a toddler, expect to have this >>
>> returned 7 fold when he is a teenager. >> >> >> >

Doan:
>>If this is true as you claimed why is the crime rate so in the 50's?
>>Why is it so low in Singapore?

And a later challenge to me in another post:

>The best country in the world. God bless the USA! ;-)
>BTW, how high is the crime rate in Singapore, Kane9. See, how stupid
>your claim is! ;-)
Which "claim," that CP does not equate with lower crime rates?

My response is, it's not low in Singapore.
And I've posted both the evidence and the citation to the cite.

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

If you have evidence other wise, please post it. A drop along a line
from 67 to 99 does not constitute low crime rates today. Only that
there was a dip. Hey! For all you know the Rattan crop was bad that
year and there's a correlation with less Rattan, less crime.

>> 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???

I don't have a "souce"

Are you pretending that what I said above isn't common knowledge?

If that's so, then we have apparently gone into the IT age with no
reason whatsoever.

Hand in your ID, take you little lunch bucket and go home.

Just how stupid are you, Doan.

Is it possible that you think you've won something by asking me to
prove what doesn't exist. If I say there are few tabulations then than
now I would have to go a back and visit every source and collect them.

Or does the logic that having more speed and greater storage now then
we did not compute for you with we have MORE now than we could
possibly collect then, no matter how much existed?.
>
>> 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****"!

Dear me, then all things being equal, nor more accuracy then as there
is now, the volume would be the key now wouldn't it?

Or are you willing to notice and accept that you just said the data is
not relevant.

If you are going to accept the BULL**** YOU OFFER to me by way of
numbers about Singapore crime rates among juveniles, then why then
would my numbers be less acceptable to YOU?

In fact you are so full of **** when you open your mouth and hit the
keys the word "Bull****" falls with great validity.

>> 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!

Go look. I'm not your servant.

What is this, a "stupidity exhaustion" ploy. Are you going to post
this idiocy forever?

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

And what do you think I was showing you in the paragraph above your
demand?

What a stupid little boy.

>> 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?
I do not jump to your command any longer because just as Chris found,
and LaVonne has found, and Alborn has found, infact anyone you pretend
to debate with has found, the instant the DO provide you with data
that refutes our nonsense YOU RUN "bawk bawk bawk bawk."

And either start playing, "let's split hairs over word meanings like
‘least' instead of admitting I made myself an ass yet again," or "I
won, I won, I won" declarations that are in fact lies.

As you can see the URL I cited is to a PDF file. The PDF file I
referenced I am not going to reproduce in full. The sources they use
are cited properly and can be referenced. YOUR challenge YOU go read
them.

And figure from now on YOU are doing your own research. I'm not
playing "jump through the hoops" with you any longer you asinine
little prick.

>> >> >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.... ;-)

That's nice. Who has? And what has that to do with my question? I only
asked if you are puffering. A simple yes or no would suffice.

>> >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?

And yours that I didn't is?

When you are going to refute someone, Doan, do so on the evidence
offered. Point by point.

You and I both know no one can reproduce the events I listed. They are
not recorded. In fact if they were I could not show them by law.

You are disgusting.

>> 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?

After. Before it as closer to 80% back into juvenile lock up and about
35 % for more mental health treatment from relapse.

Believe it or shove it. You never provide actual supporting evidence
when asked to, and rarely even any evidence at all...you avoid the
question continually. The little you do provide is NOT even supporting
you. And you deny it, with words right in front of you telling you you
are full of ****. .

>> >> >> 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!

Losing credibility with a known public liar is a blessing from above.

> Because it showed your true
>character!

So, what is the character of someone that calls a liar an asshole? I
notice you had no trouble insulting me with the same word.

So, tell me again about character and credibility?

> Besides, what challenge???

"I want to use the same measurements that anti-spanking zealotS like
Straus used!"

To which I replied:

"Then, asshole. DO IT. who's stopping you?"

You want every one else in the world to do the work you are too
stupid, lazy, and dishonest to do, and I just challenged you to do
what you said you wanted.

Another language lesson for the terminally stupid, or the clever
monkey that thinks he can, when he has nothing else, defeat the
opponent by exhaustion with an overload of Doan stupidity.

>> 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"???

Of there are more than two, then "they" survived. I understand there
are many more than two. We do not know if disease took the others,
neighboring wars, or the mountain blew up. Their number isn't relevant
to their quality of life, the subject of spanking or not.

>> >> 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

Now how is it that you asked the very question earlier, yet you had to
have read this...as it is attributed as existing when you asked the
question, a post back. Notice you are single attributed in this post,
that is a double attribution of my answer..BEFORE YOU ASKED THE
QUESTION.

And yet, with it in the post, and getting to this point in the reading
AFTER you asked, you now pass it by like it doesn't exist. No
response.

Would you care to explain how you can ask a question, have it answered
then fail to respond to it?

Could it be the source shows our are full of **** on the Singapore
issue....?


>>
>> 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! ;-)

You challenged with a claim that Singapore has lower crime rate based
on the use of CP (or did you not?) And that is all you have to say,
when I show you the quality of life there, and the actual crime that
goes on their reported by Singapore?

By the way, I have visited Singapore and I have had business
associates who trade there with me, in two different fields, and they
have a comment on that. ..... they hate it and the dictatorship, but
they have family there and are invested in the country and just can't
leave. Check out the amount money a Singaporan can take out of the
country without government approval.

As usual, you ran. You can't handle being defeated. 1

>> 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?

No, not without a prescription from the last I heard. That was about a
year ago I spoke by phone with friends there. The Tsien family.
Course you wouldn't know them, as that is one of the biggest family
names in China.

>> 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 you are stupid to think you aren't stupid. You make mistakes that
are so obvious that your attempts at deviousness have a huge sign
pointing to them.

Do you think you invented logical fallacy debating?

>> >> 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!

Sure you do. Because they say so....then a few years go by.

Then what happens, Gallileo?

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

Yes, blindly, and ignorantly. Unable to fathom that science changes
things, and it's changing the issue of CP.

However, I think you are either blind again to what you don't want to
see, or you are lying. I vote for the latter.

You are the doofus that tries to defend CP on the grounds that it's a
long tradition that has proven it self, yet you wish to argue using
science. Both ways? Hmmmm....

Science, those experiments and observations you so desperately try not
to see, is proving you wrong...that there IS harm in CP, is gonna
getcha child. .

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

I see. You believe facts are mutable. I thought so. Or you think that
we have to believe because a scientist said so, more than we can
believe by other evidence, like our own empirical observations.

Please clarify, I could be wrong.

>> 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!

That does not answer the question I posed about science, which you
left up a couple of sentences, unanswered, as usual.

And debating it isn't jamming it down your throat, oh little
threatened one. You do not have to believe. We won't put a curse on
you. And honest, we can't reach through the monitor.

But...

LAW will jam it down your throats eventually as it has in 24 states,
and 11 or so countries, those few of you too savage to overcome your
hysterical blindness and your apologetic defense of your own sad
experience being parented with pain.

It's all right I tell you. Your parents did the best they knew how and
their culture told them. They loved you Doan, honest.

>
>> >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"!

I'm sorry. That is a weasel answer. You ARE the weakest link.

But then, you can always let go of your reliance on weasel words and
define a "reasonable standard," adhering of course to your criteria of
"scientific." After all, we anti-spanking zealots are obviously less
scientific that you....R R R

We can't tell spanking from beating, right?

The "standard" please, in detail you say we can't provide, and we
assume you mean YOU can.

So far you aren't going to cost me a dime for dinner. I bet my wife,
she didn't know of course, that if you had a reasonable answer to "the
question" I'd take her out for a dinner where the chef is E'cole
trained.

The question, if you have forgotten is very important. We, the anti
spanking zealots do not want children deliberately damaged physically,
emotionally, or psychologically by their caregivers. So it is very
very very important, assuming you do not either, you nice little man
you, hence we have two alternatives:

Ours, which is to not use CP and as little punishment as possible
(something we zealots find out goes with no using CP, and;

Yours, which is to determine what is and isn't abuse in the spanking
to abuse spectrum.

So you'll have to be a tad more specific....R R R R (you are getting
cuter by the day)...than "reasonable standard" as an answer.

Can you see just how utterly foolish you look?

>> 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! ;-)

"Reasonable standard" is the answer?

I'M stupid? R R R R

I have been so stupid that I've known all along there IS no rational
answer, nor has there ever been on nor will their be one, to the
question, "what is spanking and what is abuse and were is the line" so
I chose NOT to take a risk by spanking or even using punishment
deliberately in parenting.

You can make vague statements, that few agree one from the spanking
side, about what is and isn't spanking vis a vis abuse, but you cannot
show where one passes into the other.

Hence it becomes obvious to rational people that the risk of injury is
extremely high if one uses CP at all. In fact charges are frequently
brought of abuse against parents that claim they were only "spanking"
that resulted in physical and certainly psychological injure to the
victim.

No one knows where the line is. I just loved watching you squirm on
your own petard though. Thanks...or do you think you can answer the
question? R R R R

The best of all reasons not to spank?...the risk is simply too great.

I'M stupid?...sure, Doan

I'm also about to go tell my wife she has to buy me dinner, and if she
argues I'll just show her your post.

>Doan

Kane

[Kane]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:14:09 -0600, toto >
wrote:

>On 3 Dec 2003 07:37:43 -0800, (Kane)
>wrote:
>
>>>And in any case, it does not hurt to communicate that you are very
>>>upset that your valuable thing is broken.
>>
>>Actually if the child is young enough and you overload them enough
it
>>can hurt by confusing and frightening them about things they do not
>>understand. There is entirely enough naturally occuring fright in a
>>child's life. And it's our job to not add to it but to protect the
>>child until she is old enough developmentally (has the capacity) to
>>process whatever is frightening effectively...then lessons can be
>>taught, and not before...not the lessons one thinks they are
teaching.
>
>I don't think it is frightening to a child to learn that his parents
>have feelings, Kane.

Neither do I. I also don't hand them an overheated cup of cocoa and
expect them to know how to tell if it's too hot, as we adults and
older children learn to do....let your lips feel the radiation and
decide.

I said, "and you overload them."

And it IS frightening if the parent does not mediate their feelings
for the level of the child's perception.

You have posted such wonderful ways to parent with out using pain.
Blaring emotions can be painful. Even overdoing joy, can at times be
overload for the child. I'm merely suggesting, as you have about other
issues in parenting, thoughful management.

After all, isn't that the object...to show a child how to self manage,
and weren't the psych 101 texts correct in their claim that 80% of all
learning is by example?

>As long as the parent is not trying to make
>the child feel guilty or ashamed,

"shame" is a normal human response. It is modesty based, which came to
us out of our need to have a survival trait connected to our
helplessness during some squating elimination, and sexual coupling.

But you are correct, and that is why I'm suggesting moderation in
expressing feelings based on the child's capacity to manage their
reactions.

We are supposed to react to each other...it's in our genetic pack
animal makeup. We have to. So kids can't moderate their reactions at
first.

>the child should know that the
>parent has feelings

Yes. I agree with the prior caveats.

I also think that we need to think about what we want them to learn
about handling our feelings. We often overwhelm our children with our
emotional expressions and they either become anxious about us, or
themselves. A common reaction to emotional overload is to shut down.

I want my child to stay connected so I'm going to do what I often do
with adults (instead of indulging myself at my child's developmental
expense) I'm going to start by talking about my feelings and
reactions.

My friends can handle it if I lose it, but still I take the time to
build a proper social framework for the emotion I wish to express.
That may have to be very limited with the child. Both in intensity and
duration.

>that can be hurt and that there are some things
>the parent values that need to be respected.

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.

There is a tendancy in us, I guess some ancient history we pass on
intergenerationally, to both over estimate the child's capacity and
under estimate it.

The drive and capacity to explore often gets underestimated and the
child is seen as "misbehaving." Do you have any compulsions you kind
of have to manage? Mine is chocolate. I have to stay away and treat it
like an addiction. Silly huh?

Well a child is driven compulsively to expore at about 5 times that
intensity. It can't be stopped, only subverted.

That's the underestimation example.

Here the over:

We think our kids can stand more stimuli than they can. We forget
ourselves how horribly coarse and painful that washcloth was on our
tender little faces at four or five. We take children to noise,
smokey, brightly lite places and being involved don't notice the
building tension in them, until it explodes with runing and yelling
and ... lots of lung expulsion, lots of blocking out the noise with
their own, lots of waving of arms and hands against the invading
light.

And so we spank them for misbehavior, or we say they are just tired,
adn insist they sleep...and sometimes they do drop with the
exhaustion, but more often they lay there in a twitching mess of
jangled nerves, and we get them evaluated as ADHD or some other thing
from the laundry list.

We forget that only a couple of generations ago there were much longer
periods of quiet in the child's life. Less or no TV, more room, more
parks and forests closer by.

And back then when parents blew out in the presence of or at children
there was always grandmas house down the block aways. Quite, peaceful,
no loud music, soft touches, cuddles, and naps in the quiet.

Where does grandma live today?

YOU have to be their refuge, even from yourself when need be.

Of hire a nanny I guess. <grin>

Kane

[Kane]

On 3 Dec 2003 20:29:19 GMT, Ignoramus11065
> wrote:

>In article >, Kane
wrote:
>> On 3 Dec 2003 16:41:38 GMT, Ignoramus11065
> wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, Kane
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Okay, so to you it is a matter of definition, a person who wants
as
>>>>>much as he can get away with is dysfunctional.
>>>>
>>>> No no..you misunderstand. To want the entire universe is healthy,
>>>> normal, and good in the child of a certain age.
>>>
>>>why is it not normal for any adult?
>>
>> It is good and normal, as it is good and normal to curtail the urge
to
>> the legal and morally defensible.
>>
>> The child learns this one way or another. Pain parenting disrupts
the
>> learning of adult responsibility and results in little problems
such
>> as Enron and degradation of the environment.
>
>it is not obvious to me that Enron was a resul tof pain parenting.

Really?

>Enron was a result of reckless investing where investors wanted to be
>lied to rather than informed. Someone was found who was willing to
>lie.

Let me see now. I've contended that children raised respectfully
without pain parenting have a better quality of conscience based on an
inner sense of worth by deed...honesty.

Would it not then follow that the Enron example is a good one for my
claim to this development of conscience?

I'm not telling anyone to just believe it, only to consider the
elements.

>>>> really understand what is going on, but nature demands she learn
>>>> it...hence we get the "terrible twos." All the difficulties for
the
>>>> parent are nothing compared to the difficulties for the child.
>>>
>>>I frankly do not see much difficulties so far.
>>
>> If you aren't a punishing controller then I wouldn't expect you to.
>> You either know or have life experience from your own childhood
that
>> doesn't set off any alarm bells to "correct" on the scale many
>> parents do.
>
>Exactly.
>
>When I say that punishment may be necessary etc, bear in mind that I
>punish my son only very inrequently and mildly (as in taking the
>offending thing away).

You've made that clear.

>>>not playing with the child.
>>
>> A child's play is a child's work, her educational work. Not helping
>> her is tantamount to someone disrupting your work and education.
>
>so let it be disrupted for 10 minutes. big deal.

Actually it is. The more study of the child's brain and development,
the more they recognise the critical nature of certain tasks, event
explored if you will, within a certain window of time.

Two women studied this some years back and wrote a book on it but I
cannot recall the name. I'll see if I can google something up. In any
case there was something on the order of a foundation for a math sense
or such (that's not it, just a metaphor) and very important for humans
to possess, and it had a total of a two week window, or would not be
learned, and seemed not to be one of those things another part of the
brain could take over.

I think we often miss how terribly intense a child is and deeply
absorbed in their study - their work. We see their happy smile and
think that reflects their inner mental state, when it might just
reflect gas, or that the pile of **** their are sitting in hasn't
gotten uncomfortable yet.

They are on alert and focused on THIER jobs, not our guesses. Ten
minutes could be a very big deal indeed.

When you are learning something very very new to you and concentrating
while trying to hold a number of things in your mind at once or in
rapid sequence, and also keep the outside world at bay, how do you
respond if someone interupts?

Hey, just writing these silly post I get focused and if my wife
interupts I have to notice my annoyance and switch it off. But I
hardly can expect a baby to have learned that for a few years....NOR
do I want them too.

We have incipient geniuses to raise, and we manage to screw that up
quite a bit.

Ever read JC Pearce's bood, Magical Child? He is one windy soul, worse
than me and esoteric, but there is a piece in the first part of the
book where his four year old son learns classical piano...remarkable
well. It's a seminal read for parents of small children. Shouldn't be
missed, and it ALL about what happens when a child's learning is
interrupted.

I won't spoil the punchline.

>>>if he destroys something that he was told not to destroy,
>>
>> He may not have understood. HIS imperative is to explore. Yours,
>> quite frankly as far as nature is concerned, is seconday or less. A
>> great deal of the potential of human beings is lost by subversion
>> enforcing our wishes on children.
>>
>> Those who do more sitting back and watching and managing the
>> enviroment for maximum interaction with minimum safety risks see
>> little miracles. Have you read Magical Child, Joseph Chilton
Pearce?
>
>no I have not, what is it about?

As I said above. And it's generally about child development. How we do
it and other cultures do it, and how it is so often not what we
project from our own beliefs upon the child.

I have watched children intently for years. The most common projection
of parents is the one where they say, "he's doing it to annoy me."

Bull. That is a sophisticated adult behavior. Kids in their teens are
just learning it as a talent. Younger kids are expressing their need,
and often it is to get just a bit of attention. Then the parent goes
all, "he's just doing that to get my attention, I'll show him
attention all right."

My response is "yes, so? would you smack your wife or husband because
they wanted your attention but couldn't figure out why themselves?

Well I estimate that as much as 80% of a child's attention getting
behavior is a plea to help them sort out those strange longings and
feelings they haven't sorted out with enough practicie yet.

Hell, half the time kids can't tell when they are hungry, they just
whine, tipping off the alert mommy that someone needs some juice and
cookies.

Why is it we can get it on the food, or overload, signals but not on
the simple "tell me what I want or need" signals?

A question or two usually is all it takes. Like in "Oh honey you are
just bored, go pull out the game box or just explore the playroom, or
etc..."

>>>not to fetch
>>>him a second item.
>>
>> Or to get items less destructable or that can be cheaply
sacrificed.
>> You don't want him to do his juggling practice with your little
glass
>> unicorn collection...should you belt him, or give him some bean
bags?
>
>what if he wants to do jumping with unicorns and not with available
>bean bags.

Juggling.

Get him his own glass unicorn and let him try it. Hell, he may be up
to running chainsaws before you know it...or he will see what happens
when they fall. How hard is it to divert a child from one thing to
another? Different tactics at different ages, but still the basic tool
of diversion.

And why is it that before you've tried it you "yes but" me?

We could do this for years. Is that your intent?

>> Whining kids whose parents simple cut them off teach some very
>> interesting escalations, including stealing what they want, or
finding
>> others more easily whined at (I've known a few women that went from
>> man to man with that strategy). In our circle they are a verb. "Oh,
>> please don't try to Jane me."
>>
>> No, I fixed him by asking if he'd like to learn how to ask so
people
>> will listen and comply more. He said yes.
>>
>> I said, lowering my voice deeply, "ASK LIKE THIS."
>>
>> He had been wanting an icecream.
>>
>> What came out of him was a bass foghorn sounding, "DAAAADDDDYYYY,
>> CAAAAAN IIIII HAAAAVE AAAAN IIIIIICECREEEEEAM?" People nearby
listen
>> were nearly ROTLFTAO.
>>
>> But it worked. And he and I improved our relationship.
>
>I do that all the time also.

Okay.

>
>>>thanks, I bought it... $1.73.
>>
>> I'm unaware that it's out anywhere at that price. Where did you
find
>> it? Last I heard it was in hard back only and ran about $20.
>
>used at amazon.

Hmmm. I'll send people there.

>>>> Dr. Thomas Gordon's Parent Effectiveness Training, or PET.
>>>
>>>I read that one...
>>
>> Did you understand it, and did you find anyone to practice the
skills
>> with...not a child, an adult partner?
>
>I practice it on my son and sometimes wife. It is kind of
interesting.

You must have had exposure to empathy from your own family. A great
many people in this empathy deficient society are stunned at the
discovery of active listening...or you are a master at understatement.

Do you let them practice with YOU as the subject? If you don't they
may weary of being "practiced upon" pretty soon.

>> Not if you respond to his spilling activity with more acceptable
>> spilling activity for learning. If you take it away and ignore the
>> need to experiment with the physical environment you are not
getting a
>> better relationship and you are in fact risking it.
>
>sure.
>
>> Ever wonder why so many blame their parents for their own failings.
>> Could be they are on to something, but I notice that if the person
>> came from a punishment household they still do the same things to
>> their kids.
>
>what is learned in childhood is extremely powerful.
>>>try carrying around a 50 lbs sack of sand for one day, all day, and
>>>come back and tell me if that was not punishment.
>>
>> If that sack was empty when I began and it took five years to get
to
>> 50lbs in roughly equal installments, I am merely strong now. I'm
not
>> very discomfited by it at all.
>>
>> If what you say is true when we hit fifty pounds as a child we
should
>> be in great discomfort.
>>
>> I am about 30lbs over what I would prefer right now. Still others
>> might envy me as I carry it on a 6.2 frame with considerable muscle
>> mass under it. I hardly notice it. Pants tightness is probably the
>> only discomfort.
>>
>> The same would be true in other cultures where 50lbs more weight
than
>> I would like is common and admired.
>
>even in such cultures you would feel better without extra fat... fat
>does not know kn which culture it is. it just hangs on you!

You may not understand the power of culture. Culture is a set of
beliefs, not a bunch of behaviors. The behaviors are just the external
manifestation...and the reason we say culture, is that is agreed upon
beliefs, a group construct.

It is so powerful that people will give up their lives for it if that
is the belief...that one can and must do that under particular
circumstance.

It changes how our brains process information. How many kinds of snow
can you name? Eskimos can name up to 52 distinct to them kinds, their
schema if you will.

I've heard that their is a New Guinea tribe, very isolated and that is
a dark and dreary place in some mountain valleys, that do not see red.

There is nothign wrong with their eyes. If pressed to tell the color
when you old up a red object they have they have other names to call
it but the actually do no see red. Their brain turns it to some color
they are familiar with, but no shade of read.

No word for red, either as you can imagine.

In the negative sense of "fat" some cultures don't have such a word.
They do have some that are synonymous with beautiful that refer to
more corpulance.

To say someone was "fat in old chinese culture was to say they were
fortunate and wealthy...and it referred to body size.

I'm not arguing the comfort question...but there are those that would.
Sumo's in training feel very very good emotionally and physically at a
gain in weight.

It's all in the perception.

>>>>>Example: you cheat on your spouse, and ruin your
>>>>>marriage. It's a punishment.
>>>>
>>>> Clue, some people, so pain based in their upbringing, seek things
>> for
>>>> gratification and are willing to take the risk no matter how much
>> pain
>>>> to themselves and others might ensue.
>>>
>>>and they get punished
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> I notice you forgot to put in that they got caught. There is a part
of
>> you that knows the truth, even with you execute your sophistry.
>
>so, they get caught and punished.

They do not experience punishment as you and I might, I hope you
anyway, and it's just an inconvenience and in fact they could be very
addicted to the downside of life to better savor the up.

It's not aversive. It attracts them. Masochism. There is a lot of it
around, and minimized.

>>>I do not remember specific studies
>>>etc, nor do I have any desire to spend time finding it out, but I
>>>remember that I have seen several of them when I was studying
>>>economics.
>>
>> The researchers would very likely have a thorough mix, given the 90
vs
>> 10 percent ration, out of any demographic they drew their sample
from.
>> Highly unlikely they were looking at ANY adults that experienced
non
>> pain parenting.
>
>correct.
>
>i

Your responses are passive.

Kane

[Kane]

On 4 Dec 2003 14:13:55 -0800, (Greg Hanson) wrote:

>Doan: It's not the first time that I've seen
>these ultraliberal types makes grunting noises
>about how terrible human beings are.
>
>I agree when it comes to needless slaughter of
>dolphins or higher primates, but these types
>generally apply these comments in stupid ways.
>
>The neurotic ultraliberals actually think that
>by chattering a whole bunch, and patting each
>other on the back, their BS is "the truth"!
>
>The truth is that this sort of debate is
>more typical of a few petulent 17 year olds
>who think they have it all figured out.
>
>I would suggest to you, Doan, to let them
>prattle on about their gibberish and let
>them delude each other rather than lend them
>credence by even debating with them on
>such an incredibly stupid premise/whine.
>
>Just LET THEM go walking out over the edge
>of the cliff with their raging cultic views.

Ah yes, another "reasonable standards" spanker,
towelboyshowergirlpunishforwettingthemselves expert.

Don't you find it the least odd that Doan demands scientific proof for
everything, down to splitting of hairs into the millionths, but he
comes up with the fuzzy logic response to a simple question such as
mine.

We have an object, the child, we have the objective of teaching them
something, and hopefully without psychological or physical damage. We
have a hand or other striking object that can be measure and the force
that can be applied with testing equipment...not even any expensive
lab equipment would have to be constructed.

We can of course, according to the medical researcher Doan cited that
peer reviewed Strauss, use as methodology the same potentionally
destructive experimental model medine does in its research, on human
children, that is if we are to get a valid statistical model out of it
all.

I mean this is all sooooo simple to work out, and faaaar beyond we
stupid illogical ASZs. But Doan can do it. Ask him. He says he knows.

Instead of us ASZs solving this question we just stick our heads in
the sand and don't spank. What cowards; and stupid and illogical too.

How's tricks, Whore?

Kane

[Sherman]

"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
> On 4 Dec 2003 14:13:55 -0800, (Greg Hanson) wrote:
>
> >Doan: It's not the first time that I've seen
> >these ultraliberal types makes grunting noises
> >about how terrible human beings are.
> >
> >I agree when it comes to needless slaughter of
> >dolphins or higher primates, but these types
> >generally apply these comments in stupid ways.
> >
> >The neurotic ultraliberals actually think that
> >by chattering a whole bunch, and patting each
> >other on the back, their BS is "the truth"!
> >
> >The truth is that this sort of debate is
> >more typical of a few petulent 17 year olds
> >who think they have it all figured out.
> >
> >I would suggest to you, Doan, to let them
> >prattle on about their gibberish and let
> >them delude each other rather than lend them
> >credence by even debating with them on
> >such an incredibly stupid premise/whine.
> >
> >Just LET THEM go walking out over the edge
> >of the cliff with their raging cultic views.
>
> Ah yes, another "reasonable standards" spanker,
> towelboyshowergirlpunishforwettingthemselves expert.
>
> Don't you find it the least odd that Doan demands scientific proof for
> everything, down to splitting of hairs into the millionths, but he
> comes up with the fuzzy logic response to a simple question such as
> mine.
>
> We have an object, the child, we have the objective of teaching them
> something, and hopefully without psychological or physical damage. We
> have a hand or other striking object that can be measure and the force
> that can be applied with testing equipment...not even any expensive
> lab equipment would have to be constructed.
>
> We can of course, according to the medical researcher Doan cited that
> peer reviewed Strauss, use as methodology the same potentionally
> destructive experimental model medine does in its research, on human
> children, that is if we are to get a valid statistical model out of it
> all.
>
> I mean this is all sooooo simple to work out, and faaaar beyond we
> stupid illogical ASZs. But Doan can do it. Ask him. He says he knows.
>
> Instead of us ASZs solving this question we just stick our heads in
> the sand and don't spank. What cowards; and stupid and illogical too.
>
> How's tricks, Whore?
>
> Kane

When the panty regards "the child" as an "object", that about says it all.
Her grandparents don't consider her such at all. She is a wonderful
individual, deserving of respect and nurturance. NOT from an unrelated
third party who moved into her trailer and displaced her after abusing her.
May she have a wondrous holiday season among those who know who (as opposed
to what) she is.

Sherman

[Gerald Alborn]

Doan said:

> On the contrary, it is Alborn
> who walked away FOR MONTHS! The same with LaVonne. Why are they so
> afraid of me? ;-)

Well, I'm sure most on the non-spank side just shake in their boots with fear over the
thought of dealing with you and your sterling logic, Doan. :-)

Got news for you. I'm still away (from wasting my time with you). If you want to think
it's fear, you're certainly welcome to think that. That idea fits right in with everything
else you maintain in that storehouse of confusion and misperceptions of yours.

W

[Doan]

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Gerald Alborn wrote:

> Doan said:
>
> > On the contrary, it is Alborn
> > who walked away FOR MONTHS! The same with LaVonne. Why are they so
> > afraid of me? ;-)
>
> Well, I'm sure most on the non-spank side just shake in their boots with fear over the
> thought of dealing with you and your sterling logic, Doan. :-)
>
And I could care less! ;-)

> Got news for you. I'm still away (from wasting my time with you). If you want to think
> it's fear, you're certainly welcome to think that. That idea fits right in with everything
> else you maintain in that storehouse of confusion and misperceptions of yours.
>
Fine! But DON'T LIE AND ACCUSE ME OF RUNNING AWAY FROM A DEBATE!!!

Doan

[ChrisScaife]

"Ignoramus29143" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

IMHO beating starts when the victim shows lasting injury:
bruises, broken bones, brain damage, death...

[Dan Sullivan]

"ChrisScaife" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ignoramus29143" > wrote in message
> ...
> > 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.
>
> IMHO beating starts when the victim shows lasting injury:
> bruises, broken bones, brain damage, death...

How about if the victim is too young to understand that the pain they're
feeling is supposed to be good for them?

How about if the victim doesn't show a lasting physical injury but the
frequency of the spankings is enough to cause emotional damage?

Doesn't emotional damage count for anything?

When I was growing up I knew a kid who was spanked to sleep almost every
night of his adolescence.

He wet his bed almost every night well into his teens.

No physical injuries.

But he treats his children no better than he was treated.

Is that lasting injury long enough for ya?

[Sherman]

"Dan Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ChrisScaife" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Ignoramus29143" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > 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.
> >
> > IMHO beating starts when the victim shows lasting injury:
> > bruises, broken bones, brain damage, death...
>
> How about if the victim is too young to understand that the pain they're
> feeling is supposed to be good for them?
>
> How about if the victim doesn't show a lasting physical injury but the
> frequency of the spankings is enough to cause emotional damage?
>
> Doesn't emotional damage count for anything?
>
> When I was growing up I knew a kid who was spanked to sleep almost every
> night of his adolescence.
>
> He wet his bed almost every night well into his teens.
>
> No physical injuries.
>
> But he treats his children no better than he was treated.
>
> Is that lasting injury long enough for ya?

Yep. That's the longest lasting damage of all. It goes on for generations.

Most parents spank a child because of their own anger. It is rarely in
relationship to whatever transgression that the child has performed. Thanks
for pointing this out, Dan.

Sherman.

[ChrisScaife]

"Dan Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ChrisScaife" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Ignoramus29143" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > 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.
> >
> > IMHO beating starts when the victim shows lasting injury:
> > bruises, broken bones, brain damage, death...
>
> How about if the victim is too young to understand that the pain they're
> feeling is supposed to be good for them?
>...

Good point.... although I would tend to think of it as emotional or
psychological abuse then.

Just so there is no doubt: I do not support any form of CP.
I didn't need it to train my dog.
I don't need it for a child either!

[Dan Sullivan]

"ChrisScaife" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dan Sullivan" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "ChrisScaife" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Ignoramus29143" > wrote in
message
> > > ...
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > IMHO beating starts when the victim shows lasting injury:
> > > bruises, broken bones, brain damage, death...
> >
> > How about if the victim is too young to understand that the pain they're
> > feeling is supposed to be good for them?
> >...
>
> Good point.... although I would tend to think of it as emotional or
> psychological abuse then.

And the difference is?

> Just so there is no doubt: I do not support any form of CP.
> I didn't need it to train my dog.
> I don't need it for a child either!

Good for you... and your children.