Re: Kids should work.

[LaVonne Carlson]

Ignoramus15011 wrote:

> How would he a better person if I was beating him (the animal society
> way) instead of teaching him interaction according to modern
> principles of human society.

Exactly. How would he be a better person if your were hitting him in the name of
discipline? I can't think of one reason, and research has yet to find a reason
for disciplinary hitting of children.

> I just do not understand why an intelligent parent should be a
> childbeater.

I do not understand why any parent "should be a "childbeater." And I'm not sure
this parenting behavior has all that much to do with intelligence. I've met
professors who hit their children, and individuals who have not completed high
school who do not hit their children . I suspect there are many variables that
lead a parent to this behavior -- how the parents were parented and the level or
respect parents have for their children.

Thanks for posting to alt.parenting.spanking.

LaVonne

[Doan]

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:

>
>
> Ignoramus15011 wrote:
>
> > How would he a better person if I was beating him (the animal society
> > way) instead of teaching him interaction according to modern
> > principles of human society.
>
> Exactly. How would he be a better person if your were hitting him in the name of
> discipline? I can't think of one reason, and research has yet to find a reason
> for disciplinary hitting of children.
>
Straus et al (1997):

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

Straus & Paschal (1998)
"There is also an important limitation of the CP scale. We cannot be sure
that the children with a score of zero on the CP scale were never spanked.
In fact, some are likely to have been spanked in a previous year or in some
other week of this period. Consequently the claim that CP, when used only
rarely and as a back up for other disciplinary strategies, is beneficial
(Larzelere et al., 1998) might apply to children who experienced no CP in
either of the two sample weeks."

> > I just do not understand why an intelligent parent should be a
> > childbeater.
>
> I do not understand why any parent "should be a "childbeater." And I'm not sure
> this parenting behavior has all that much to do with intelligence. I've met
> professors who hit their children, and individuals who have not completed high
> school who do not hit their children . I suspect there are many variables that
> lead a parent to this behavior -- how the parents were parented and the level or
> respect parents have for their children.
>
Do you know the difference between spanking and beating, LaVonne?

> Thanks for posting to alt.parenting.spanking.
>
Or is it alt.parenting.beating???? ;-)

Doan

[Doan]

On 2 Dec 2003, Ignoramus15011 wrote:

> In article >, Doan wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Ignoramus15011 wrote:
> >>
> >> > How would he a better person if I was beating him (the animal society
> >> > way) instead of teaching him interaction according to modern
> >> > principles of human society.
> >>
> >> Exactly. How would he be a better person if your were hitting him in the name of
> >> discipline? I can't think of one reason, and research has yet to find a reason
> >> for disciplinary hitting of children.
> >>
> > Straus et al (1997):
> >
> > "We are indebted to Larzelere et al for alerting us to the likelihood that our
> > no-spanking group includes occasional spankers. To the extent that this is
> > the case, the decrease in antisocial behavior that we found for children in
> > the "none" group may indicate an improvement in the behavior of children whose
> > parents spank, but do so only infrequently."
> >
> > Straus & Paschal (1998)
> > "There is also an important limitation of the CP scale. We cannot be sure
> > that the children with a score of zero on the CP scale were never spanked.
> > In fact, some are likely to have been spanked in a previous year or in some
> > other week of this period. Consequently the claim that CP, when used only
> > rarely and as a back up for other disciplinary strategies, is beneficial
> > (Larzelere et al., 1998) might apply to children who experienced no CP in
> > either of the two sample weeks."
>
> ot sounds to me that you are misquoting a thorough researcher. It
> seems like his research indicated some contamination of the
> non-spanking group and he was forthright in pointing that out.
>
And you would be wrong! First, in Straus et al (1997), they didn't know
(or pretended not to know) that their "non-spank" group were actually
spanked (56% of the sample, how do they missed it?) When this was pointed
out by Larzelere, they capitulated, became "indebted" to Larzelere and
finally blamed it on Straus' bias:

"Straus, for example, has made explicit the fact that his research is
motivated by secular humanism. This includes a deeply held belief that
good ends should not be sought by bad means; that all forms of interpersonal
violence, including spanking, are wrong, even when motivated by love and
concern; and that we therefore need to develop nonviolent methods of
preventing and correcting antisocial behavior. These deeply held values may
account for the failure of Straus to perceive the serious limitation of
measuring CP using a 1-week reference period."
(ARCHIVES, In Reply. March 1998)

Second, only after it being "pointed out" to them did they put that
"limitation" in Straus & Paschal (1998) thus showing a serious hole
in their theory that any and all spanking are detrimental!

Third, as pointed in Larzelere & Smith (2000), what they don't tell you
(or conveniently left out) is that, using the same data set, the non-cp
alternatives like: grounding, removing privileges, docking allowances, or
sending the child to his or her room (time-out) showed the same
correlations!


> It is sad that you have nothing better than a twisted quote to justify
> violence against children.
>
It is sad that we can't argue rationally but prefer to use emotionally
charged words like "violence" and "beating".

Doan

> i
>
> >> > I just do not understand why an intelligent parent should be a
> >> > childbeater.
> >>
> >> I do not understand why any parent "should be a "childbeater." And I'm not sure
> >> this parenting behavior has all that much to do with intelligence. I've met
> >> professors who hit their children, and individuals who have not completed high
> >> school who do not hit their children . I suspect there are many variables that
> >> lead a parent to this behavior -- how the parents were parented and the level or
> >> respect parents have for their children.
> >>
> > Do you know the difference between spanking and beating, LaVonne?
> >
> >> Thanks for posting to alt.parenting.spanking.
> >>
> > Or is it alt.parenting.beating???? ;-)
> >
> > Doan
> >
> >
>

[Doan]

On 2 Dec 2003, Ignoramus29143 wrote:

> In article >, Doan wrote:
> >
> > On 2 Dec 2003, Ignoramus15011 wrote:
> >
> >> In article >, Doan wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Ignoramus15011 wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > How would he a better person if I was beating him (the animal society
> >> >> > way) instead of teaching him interaction according to modern
> >> >> > principles of human society.
> >> >>
> >> >> Exactly. How would he be a better person if your were hitting him in the name of
> >> >> discipline? I can't think of one reason, and research has yet to find a reason
> >> >> for disciplinary hitting of children.
> >> >>
> >> > Straus et al (1997):
> >> >
> >> > "We are indebted to Larzelere et al for alerting us to the likelihood that our
> >> > no-spanking group includes occasional spankers. To the extent that this is
> >> > the case, the decrease in antisocial behavior that we found for children in
> >> > the "none" group may indicate an improvement in the behavior of children whose
> >> > parents spank, but do so only infrequently."
> >> >
> >> > Straus & Paschal (1998)
> >> > "There is also an important limitation of the CP scale. We cannot be sure
> >> > that the children with a score of zero on the CP scale were never spanked.
> >> > In fact, some are likely to have been spanked in a previous year or in some
> >> > other week of this period. Consequently the claim that CP, when used only
> >> > rarely and as a back up for other disciplinary strategies, is beneficial
> >> > (Larzelere et al., 1998) might apply to children who experienced no CP in
> >> > either of the two sample weeks."
> >>
> >> ot sounds to me that you are misquoting a thorough researcher. It
> >> seems like his research indicated some contamination of the
> >> non-spanking group and he was forthright in pointing that out.
> >>
> > And you would be wrong! First, in Straus et al (1997), they didn't know
> > (or pretended not to know) that their "non-spank" group were actually
> > spanked (56% of the sample, how do they missed it?) When this was pointed
> > out by Larzelere, they capitulated, became "indebted" to Larzelere and
> > finally blamed it on Straus' bias:
> >
> > "Straus, for example, has made explicit the fact that his research is
> > motivated by secular humanism. This includes a deeply held belief that
> > good ends should not be sought by bad means; that all forms of interpersonal
> > violence, including spanking, are wrong, even when motivated by love and
> > concern; and that we therefore need to develop nonviolent methods of
> > preventing and correcting antisocial behavior. These deeply held values may
> > account for the failure of Straus to perceive the serious limitation of
> > measuring CP using a 1-week reference period."
> > (ARCHIVES, In Reply. March 1998)
> >
> > Second, only after it being "pointed out" to them did they put that
> > "limitation" in Straus & Paschal (1998) thus showing a serious hole
> > in their theory that any and all spanking are detrimental!
> >
> > Third, as pointed in Larzelere & Smith (2000), what they don't tell you
> > (or conveniently left out) is that, using the same data set, the non-cp
> > alternatives like: grounding, removing privileges, docking allowances, or
> > sending the child to his or her room (time-out) showed the same
> > correlations!
>
> you just confirmed exactly what I said. The researcher's sample was
> contaminated and he, being a thorough researcher, pointed out that
> possible effects of that contamination make it difficult to establish
> any conclusions.
>
What??? Straus, himself, admitted his "failure to perceive the serious
limitation" only after it was "pointed out" to him! He already made
his conclusion!

Doan