Re: How do you handle Parents that BEAT their kids?

[Ivan Gowch]

[newsgroups trimmed]

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 16:10:12 GMT,
(Ninure Saunders) wrote:

==>In article <1109484274.b763b7caecdf926d54bafd5c0a50de3c@terane ws>, John
> wrote:
==>
==>-Once in SeaWorld of Florida I was walking and to my distance saw a
==>-mother going histerical at her little girl. She was screaming at her,
==>-spanking her, and jerking her violently. This poor little girl was
==>-getting beat in front of others, and nobody stopped or said anything.
==>-But after observing this horrible scene for a few minutes and seeing
==>-nobody stop I took action. So I walked within a few feet of the mother
==>-and stood there staring. The mother saw me and jerked her child away I
==>-guess to be beat somewhere else. So the child was taken near a
==>-bathroom, and spanked, and jerked around a bit. I was not sure what the
==>-child did wrong, but was shocked that nobody ever stopped or said
==>-anything to this mean mother.
==>-
==>-Did I handled the situation coreectly? I thought that I should have
==>-verbally confronted the mother instead of nonverbally.

==>You should have called the police!!

I agree.

Confronting the mother and telling her loudly and in
no uncertain terms to stop hitting her child would
have been better, though, for a couple of reasons:

1. Getting in the assaulter's face, screaming at her
and embarrassing the living **** out of her in public
would have provided her with a powerful disincentive
to repeat the performance in public (although, sadly,
it would have done nothing to prevent her from
continuing or repeating the abuse in private).

2. For the victim, seeing a stranger come to her
defence and verbally attack (punish) her mother
would have made her realize that her mother's
behaviour is not normal, that other people do not
approve and that the trauma she is suffering is her
*mother's* fault, not her own. This insight can be a
crucial factor in saving the child's self-esteem and
her very spirit.

I don't downplay how difficult it is to intervene in a
situation like this in a society where child abuse is
so accepted, personal confrontation is so studiously
avoided and weapons are so ubiquitous.

Sometimes, though, circumstances call for us to
demonstrate our courage, and what more worthwhile
cause than the saving of a child from pain and
possibly death?

Thankfully, many of us now have cell phones, which
make taking action somewhat easier.

My advice, then, is this: If you witness a scene such
as the one described, grab your cell phone, call 911
and report seeing an adult beating a child. Avoid
saying anything that might allow the dispatcher to
presume that what you are describing is a parent
administering "discipline." Just keep repeating, if
necessary, that the child is being injured, and the
police must attend immediately. (If necessary,
scream "she's killing her!" into the phone and hang
up.)

Then (if you have the courage), confront the assaulter
and say, "I've just called the police. You are under
arrest for assaulting a child." This is a citizen's
arrest, which you are perfectly entitled to make
under the circumstances. If the assaulter tries to
leave with the victim, follow them and call the cops
again to report their whereabouts, if necessary.
When the cops come, tell them you've witnessed
an assault and are making a citizen's arrest.

The result is that the police will almost certainly
have to take the assaulter into custody. Obviously,
even if higher authorities decide later not to lay
criminal charges, being hauled to a police station in
handcuffs will certainly discourage the abuser
from repeating her behaviour in public and will show
the victim that society does not approve of her
abuser's violence towards her. The cops may also
be obliged to call child-protection authorities,
even if no criminal charges are laid.

[There is another avenue open to anyone who is
sufficiently committed to saving a child from abuse.
If the police don't come, or you don't have access
to a phone, you can follow the assaulter and child
at a discreet distance and note down the licence
number of the vehicle they get into. If you cannot
obtain the name and address of the vehicle's owner
from your state Dept. of Motor Vehicles (and you
probably can't), take it to a licensed private
investigator (it takes a licensed P.I. one phone call
to get this info, so the fee can't be substantial).
Once you have the information, call your local
child-protection agency and report what you witnessed.
Tell the case worker or whoever you speak to that
you've also sent the details to your state senator,
representative or governor (to discourage the agency
from ignoring your complaint).]

Whatever you choose to do, please don't ever ignore
a child being assaulted. By acting, you may well be
saving a life.

Good luck.

[TM]

Actually, you should have minded your own business. You have no idea what
transpired. You have no idea what the truth was. The parent was instructing
the child. Your descriptions are very telling...beat, jerked, etc.

You are biased against a parent exercising their rights as parents to teach
their children proper behavior.

People have a right to privacy, they have a right to raise their children as
they see fit. This is not an assault, it was a learning encounter.

If the woman slapped you across the face for sticking your nose in where it
did not belong wouldn't have been an assault either. It would have been
poetic justice to a busybody.

[Banty]

In article >, TM says...
>
>Actually, you should have minded your own business. You have no idea what
>transpired. You have no idea what the truth was. The parent was instructing
>the child. Your descriptions are very telling...beat, jerked, etc.
>
>You are biased against a parent exercising their rights as parents to teach
>their children proper behavior.
>
>People have a right to privacy, they have a right to raise their children as
>they see fit. This is not an assault, it was a learning encounter.
>
>If the woman slapped you across the face for sticking your nose in where it
>did not belong wouldn't have been an assault either. It would have been
>poetic justice to a busybody.

Um, no.

It would have been assault and battery.

Banty

[toto]

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 16:10:36 -0500, Ivan Gowch
> wrote:

> 1. Getting in the assaulter's face, screaming at her
> and embarrassing the living **** out of her in public
> would have provided her with a powerful disincentive
> to repeat the performance in public (although, sadly,
> it would have done nothing to prevent her from
> continuing or repeating the abuse in private).

And abused children will be *more* at risk if you confront an abuser
in public and try to punish her.

You might want to ask people on alt.abuse.recovery how they handle
such situations in order to avoid having the child punished even more
once she gets home, Ivan.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

[toto]

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:20:24 GMT, "TM" > wrote:

>People have a right to privacy, they have a right to raise their children as
>they see fit. This is not an assault, it was a learning encounter.

You don't have a right to privacy in a public place when you are
physically hurting anyone including a child.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

[Pastor Dave]

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:20:24 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, "TM" > spake thusly:

>Actually, you should have minded your own business. You have no idea what
>transpired. You have no idea what the truth was. The parent was instructing
>the child. Your descriptions are very telling...beat, jerked, etc.

Has it occurred to you that maybe that is a fitting
description?


>You are biased against a parent exercising their rights as parents to teach
>their children proper behavior.

Teaching and abusing are two different things and since
you were not there, you have ZERO qualifications to
judge the situation.


>People have a right to privacy, they have a right to raise their children as
>they see fit. This is not an assault, it was a learning encounter.

If they want privacy, then they shouldn't do it in
public.


>If the woman slapped you across the face for sticking your nose in where it
>did not belong wouldn't have been an assault either. It would have been
>poetic justice to a busybody.

Or, assault by a person who just finished abusing their
child.


--

Pastor Dave Raymond

"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99

/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\

"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html

[Doan]

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005, toto wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:20:24 GMT, "TM" > wrote:
>
> >People have a right to privacy, they have a right to raise their children as
> >they see fit. This is not an assault, it was a learning encounter.
>
> You don't have a right to privacy in a public place when you are
> physically hurting anyone including a child.
>
Exactly! Just ask Ms. Toogood.

Doan

[Ivan Gowch]

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 18:05:40 -0600, toto >
wrote:

==>On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 16:10:36 -0500, Ivan Gowch
> wrote:
==>> 1. Getting in the assaulter's face, screaming at her
==>> and embarrassing the living **** out of her in public
==>> would have provided her with a powerful disincentive
==>> to repeat the performance in public (although, sadly,
==>> it would have done nothing to prevent her from
==>> continuing or repeating the abuse in private).

==>And abused children will be *more* at risk if you confront an abuser
==>in public and try to punish her.

So, one should ignore an adult beating a child?

You are free to do that, of course, and to try to live
with yourself afterwards.

Decent people, however, do not refuse to alleviate
a child's pain if there's anything they can do about
it. And if one is a Christian, it is your Christian
duty.

I wonder . . . would you offer the same stupid advice
if it were a man beating his wife in public?

"Oh, but if you say anything, he'll only beat her
harder when they get home."

What useless nonsense.

==>You might want to ask people on alt.abuse.recovery how they handle
==>such situations in order to avoid having the child punished even more
==>once she gets home, Ivan.

"Such situations" -- an adult beating a child -- are
best handled either by resolute personal intervention,
or by calling the police and bringing the abuser to
the attention of the authorities.

Anything less is cowardly and unworthy of a caring,
civilized human being.

[Nan]

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:49:35 -0500, Ivan Gowch
> scribbled:

>On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 18:05:40 -0600, toto >
>wrote:
>
>==>On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 16:10:36 -0500, Ivan Gowch
> wrote:
>==>> 1. Getting in the assaulter's face, screaming at her
>==>> and embarrassing the living **** out of her in public
>==>> would have provided her with a powerful disincentive
>==>> to repeat the performance in public (although, sadly,
>==>> it would have done nothing to prevent her from
>==>> continuing or repeating the abuse in private).
>
>==>And abused children will be *more* at risk if you confront an abuser
>==>in public and try to punish her.
>
> So, one should ignore an adult beating a child?

There is a tremendous difference between a "beating" and a "spanking".
Hyperbole to try and make your case threatens your credibility.

> You are free to do that, of course, and to try to live
> with yourself afterwards.
>
> Decent people, however, do not refuse to alleviate
> a child's pain if there's anything they can do about
> it. And if one is a Christian, it is your Christian
> duty.

Again, spanking does not equal beating. There is a very *real* danger
in escalation if you are confrontational in this situation. If you're
so concerned for the child, you should be aware that your confronting
the parent could make it worse. You may try to live with *that*
afterwards.
Dorothy gave some great advice about ways to intervene for the child
without causing escalation.

> I wonder . . . would you offer the same stupid advice
> if it were a man beating his wife in public?
>
> "Oh, but if you say anything, he'll only beat her
> harder when they get home."
>
> What useless nonsense.

You're clearly not understanding. Nobody has said to ignore the
situation.

>==>You might want to ask people on alt.abuse.recovery how they handle
>==>such situations in order to avoid having the child punished even more
>==>once she gets home, Ivan.
>
> "Such situations" -- an adult beating a child -- are
> best handled either by resolute personal intervention,
> or by calling the police and bringing the abuser to
> the attention of the authorities.

Actually you create additional harm to the child this way. Having a
child yanked out of their home and stuck in foster care (where abuse
happens as well) isn't good, either. It's not all black and white,
here. The family needs more help than your screaming at them or
calling the cops can provide.

> Anything less is cowardly and unworthy of a caring,
> civilized human being.

Says the person that would endanger the child further by being
confrontational.

Nan

[dragonlady]

In article >,
Ivan Gowch > wrote:

> ==>And abused children will be *more* at risk if you confront an abuser
> ==>in public and try to punish her.
>
> So, one should ignore an adult beating a child?

She didn't say to do nothing -- only that some actions, while perhaps
making YOU feel sanctimonious and noble, will actually put the child at
more risk for physical injury.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

[Kane]

Nan wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:49:35 -0500, Ivan Gowch
> > scribbled:
>
> >On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 18:05:40 -0600, toto >
> >wrote:
> >
> >==>On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 16:10:36 -0500, Ivan Gowch
> > wrote:
> >==>> 1. Getting in the assaulter's face, screaming at her
> >==>> and embarrassing the living **** out of her in public
> >==>> would have provided her with a powerful disincentive
> >==>> to repeat the performance in public (although, sadly,
> >==>> it would have done nothing to prevent her from
> >==>> continuing or repeating the abuse in private).
> >
> >==>And abused children will be *more* at risk if you confront an
abuser
> >==>in public and try to punish her.
> >
> > So, one should ignore an adult beating a child?
>
> There is a tremendous difference between a "beating" and a
"spanking".
> Hyperbole to try and make your case threatens your credibility.

Of course there is. Where, precisely is the line between the two then?

> > You are free to do that, of course, and to try to live
> > with yourself afterwards.
> >
> > Decent people, however, do not refuse to alleviate
> > a child's pain if there's anything they can do about
> > it. And if one is a Christian, it is your Christian
> > duty.
>
> Again, spanking does not equal beating.

Yep. So please, define the two and then give us a precise boundary
between the two. In this case it was very obviously way over the line,
if you can even identify it.

> There is a very *real* danger
> in escalation if you are confrontational in this situation.

There is a very real danger of the same if you don't. I think the Sea
World example was evident that was true. Was not the mother seen to do
two beatings and yanking arounds?

> If you're
> so concerned for the child, you should be aware that your confronting
> the parent could make it worse. You may try to live with *that*
> afterwards.

That depends on what the intervention was and what it produced. One
isn't limited to just a set of interventions or one. One can ease off
if responses are showing concern for the child and her safety, or
escalate if they are not.

> Dorothy gave some great advice about ways to intervene for the child
> without causing escalation.

Of course she did. She also didn't go as far as I would in defining the
various choices one has. And the simple assumption that intervention
might result in worse harm to the child suggests a very limited
response being the only one possible.

> > I wonder . . . would you offer the same stupid advice
> > if it were a man beating his wife in public?
> >
> > "Oh, but if you say anything, he'll only beat her
> > harder when they get home."
> >
> > What useless nonsense.
>
> You're clearly not understanding. Nobody has said to ignore the
> situation.

That seems implicite in your concern that an intervention would risk
escalation, don't you think? I haven't seen you offer an alternative
yet.

> >==>You might want to ask people on alt.abuse.recovery how they
handle
> >==>such situations in order to avoid having the child punished even
more
> >==>once she gets home, Ivan.
> >
> > "Such situations" -- an adult beating a child -- are
> > best handled either by resolute personal intervention,
> > or by calling the police and bringing the abuser to
> > the attention of the authorities.
>
> Actually you create additional harm to the child this way.

You risk it, you don't "create" it. The action of the parent creates
all that happens here, including the normal responses of people around
the event. If she had not beaten the child no one would have noticed a
conversation or departure which would have been respectful of the
child.

It's the beating that did the deed, not someone's response to it.

> Having a
> child yanked out of their home and stuck in foster care (where abuse
> happens as well) isn't good, either.

Of course not. And easily avoided by not beating the child.

> It's not all black and white,
> here.

It never is, but this case at Sea World wasn't questioned as to action.
It was plainly a beating.

> The family needs more help than your screaming at them or
> calling the cops can provide.

I think more alternatives were offered. Getting in their face was one.
It sometimes is obvious that that is exactly what must happen or the
child will sustain more injury. I've seen that happen, and had to
intervene myself. The mother sure DID escalate, but what she didn't
know is that sitting nearby watching were to police detectives...who
took late dinner the same time I did every evening in that restaurant.
She actually hit the child harder when I asked her to consider what
might happen bouncing his head off the plate glass window, and could
she find another way to discipline.

She left in cuffs. The child in the other cop's arms.

Now I could have just hoped the first hit would not be followed by
another...but even before I intervened, it was. Both times banging the
three or four year old's head off the plate glass window behind the
booth.

> > Anything less is cowardly and unworthy of a caring,
> > civilized human being.
>
> Says the person that would endanger the child further by being
> confrontational.

And I say the same. Anything less than what ever level of intervention
is called for to stop the beating, and help keep it from happening
again is in fact uncivilized, an uncaring behavior.

> Nan

Children are not animals to be beaten and disposed of. Anyone that does
such things to a child damn well does need "help" as you say, but
extremely few would seek it out without someone intervening.

So, tell us. What intervention would you use to better the odds the
person would respond well and would consider other alternatives in the
future?

Kane

[Doan]

> Nan wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:49:35 -0500, Ivan Gowch
> > > scribbled:
> >
> > >On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 18:05:40 -0600, toto >
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >==>On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 16:10:36 -0500, Ivan Gowch
> > > wrote:
> > >==>> 1. Getting in the assaulter's face, screaming at her
> > >==>> and embarrassing the living **** out of her in public
> > >==>> would have provided her with a powerful disincentive
> > >==>> to repeat the performance in public (although, sadly,
> > >==>> it would have done nothing to prevent her from
> > >==>> continuing or repeating the abuse in private).
> > >
> > >==>And abused children will be *more* at risk if you confront an
> abuser
> > >==>in public and try to punish her.
> > >
> > > So, one should ignore an adult beating a child?
> >
> > There is a tremendous difference between a "beating" and a
> "spanking".
> > Hyperbole to try and make your case threatens your credibility.
>
> Of course there is. Where, precisely is the line between the two then?
>
LOL! One more time, Kane. You have publicly admitted that you "hit"
your kid. How did you know where "the line" is? Where is the line
between talking to your kid and verbal abuse? Do you understand what
a "reasonable" standard is?

Come on, Kane! So what a "never-spanked" boy like is made up. Are you
man enough to answer the question or just being a coward and run?

Doan

[Doan]

Nan, you can't talk common-sense with these people, they are "blind
because they wish to be blind." :-)

Doan


On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Nan wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:49:35 -0500, Ivan Gowch
> > scribbled:
>
> >On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 18:05:40 -0600, toto >
> >wrote:
> >
> >==>On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 16:10:36 -0500, Ivan Gowch
> > wrote:
> >==>> 1. Getting in the assaulter's face, screaming at her
> >==>> and embarrassing the living **** out of her in public
> >==>> would have provided her with a powerful disincentive
> >==>> to repeat the performance in public (although, sadly,
> >==>> it would have done nothing to prevent her from
> >==>> continuing or repeating the abuse in private).
> >
> >==>And abused children will be *more* at risk if you confront an abuser
> >==>in public and try to punish her.
> >
> > So, one should ignore an adult beating a child?
>
> There is a tremendous difference between a "beating" and a "spanking".
> Hyperbole to try and make your case threatens your credibility.
>
> > You are free to do that, of course, and to try to live
> > with yourself afterwards.
> >
> > Decent people, however, do not refuse to alleviate
> > a child's pain if there's anything they can do about
> > it. And if one is a Christian, it is your Christian
> > duty.
>
> Again, spanking does not equal beating. There is a very *real* danger
> in escalation if you are confrontational in this situation. If you're
> so concerned for the child, you should be aware that your confronting
> the parent could make it worse. You may try to live with *that*
> afterwards.
> Dorothy gave some great advice about ways to intervene for the child
> without causing escalation.
>
> > I wonder . . . would you offer the same stupid advice
> > if it were a man beating his wife in public?
> >
> > "Oh, but if you say anything, he'll only beat her
> > harder when they get home."
> >
> > What useless nonsense.
>
> You're clearly not understanding. Nobody has said to ignore the
> situation.
>
> >==>You might want to ask people on alt.abuse.recovery how they handle
> >==>such situations in order to avoid having the child punished even more
> >==>once she gets home, Ivan.
> >
> > "Such situations" -- an adult beating a child -- are
> > best handled either by resolute personal intervention,
> > or by calling the police and bringing the abuser to
> > the attention of the authorities.
>
> Actually you create additional harm to the child this way. Having a
> child yanked out of their home and stuck in foster care (where abuse
> happens as well) isn't good, either. It's not all black and white,
> here. The family needs more help than your screaming at them or
> calling the cops can provide.
>
> > Anything less is cowardly and unworthy of a caring,
> > civilized human being.
>
> Says the person that would endanger the child further by being
> confrontational.
>
> Nan
>
>

[Nan]

On 28 Feb 2005 15:54:18 -0800, "Kane" >
scribbled:

>It was plainly a beating.

Actually, the OP used the word "beat" and "jerk" to describe what
happened. For all we know it was a very non-violent display.
Using these words are an attempt to inflame the issue, and are not
credible. YOU cannot say it was plainly a beating...YOU did not
witness it.

Nan

[toto]

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:49:35 -0500, Ivan Gowch
> wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 18:05:40 -0600, toto >
>wrote:
>
>==>On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 16:10:36 -0500, Ivan Gowch
> wrote:
>==>> 1. Getting in the assaulter's face, screaming at her
>==>> and embarrassing the living **** out of her in public
>==>> would have provided her with a powerful disincentive
>==>> to repeat the performance in public (although, sadly,
>==>> it would have done nothing to prevent her from
>==>> continuing or repeating the abuse in private).
>
>==>And abused children will be *more* at risk if you confront an abuser
>==>in public and try to punish her.
>
> So, one should ignore an adult beating a child?
>
No, where did I say you should ignore this?

> You are free to do that, of course, and to try to live
> with yourself afterwards.
>
> Decent people, however, do not refuse to alleviate
> a child's pain if there's anything they can do about
> it. And if one is a Christian, it is your Christian
> duty.
>
I am not a Christian so I cannot consider it a Christian duty.

I do consider that it is a human duty to help in this situation.
I just do not consider confrontation or calling the police necessarily
the best option to actually help either the child or the parent.

> I wonder . . . would you offer the same stupid advice
> if it were a man beating his wife in public?
>
> "Oh, but if you say anything, he'll only beat her
> harder when they get home."
>
You obviously did not read my post about how I would handle this.
I do NOT think that being confrontation, especially in the case of
a child is going to be helpful.

> What useless nonsense.
>
>==>You might want to ask people on alt.abuse.recovery how they handle
>==>such situations in order to avoid having the child punished even more
>==>once she gets home, Ivan.
>
> "Such situations" -- an adult beating a child -- are
> best handled either by resolute personal intervention,
> or by calling the police and bringing the abuser to
> the attention of the authorities.
>
> Anything less is cowardly and unworthy of a caring,
> civilized human being.
>
As I said in an earlier post, I would
despite the horrendousness of the *crime,* approach this with
sympathy for both mother and child.

I would attempt to stop the mother from beating the child by
calmly asking her if I could help her. Saying something that
acknowledges that she is very angry and might want some
help to calm down is not doing *nothing.*



--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

[Ivan Gowch]

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:08:46 GMT, Nan > wrote:

[snip]

==>>==>And abused children will be *more* at risk if you confront an abuser
==>>==>in public and try to punish her.

IG:
==>> So, one should ignore an adult beating a child?

==>There is a tremendous difference between a "beating" and a "spanking".

Your use of a cutesy euphemism to try to minimize
the trauma caused a child is noted. A child who is
being repeatedly struck by an adult is being beaten.

==>Hyperbole to try and make your case threatens your credibility.

Obfuscation to try to defend a practice that is
clearly indefensible threatens more than your
credibility -- it marks you as pathetically
dishonest and dangerously hostile to children.

[snip]

==>Again, spanking does not equal beating.

Again, yes it does.

==>There is a very *real* danger
==>in escalation if you are confrontational in this situation.

Any confrontation carries a risk. But doing
nothing in this circumstance is the worst of
all options.

==> If you're
==>so concerned for the child, you should be aware that your confronting
==>the parent could make it worse.

You are apparently saying that being "confronted"
will prompt the abusive parent to become even
more abusive. If so, that's all the more reason to
bring in the authorities ASAP and get child-protection
officials involved. That child is obviously in great
danger.

==>Dorothy gave some great advice about ways to intervene for the child
==>without causing escalation.

No, she didn't. She offered a tepid suggestion that
would do absolutely nothing to bring the current
abuse to a halt, nor to protect the child from
future trauma.

People who assault children should know that much
of society does not approve, and will take action
to prevent such behaviour.

It should also be remembered that any parent who
would whale on a child *in public* can be counted
on to do far, far worse when out of other people's
sight.

[snip]

==>You're clearly not understanding. Nobody has said to ignore the
==>situation.

No . . . someone suggested asking the abusive
mother whether she "needs help." (Mother:
"yes, please hold her hands while I beat her
some more.")

I asked whether the same advice would be given
if the assaulter was a man beating his wife.

I got no response to that question. Wonder why?

IG:
==>> "Such situations" -- an adult beating a child -- are
==>> best handled either by resolute personal intervention,
==>> or by calling the police and bringing the abuser to
==>> the attention of the authorities.

==>Actually you create additional harm to the child this way.

Only in cloud cuckoo land can an action that
stops someone from beating a child be regarded
as creating "additional harm to the child."

What a cowardly, self-serving and dishonorable excuse.

==> Having a
==>child yanked out of their home and stuck in foster care (where abuse
==>happens as well) isn't good, either.

Alerting child-protection authorities that a child
is bieng abused does not necessarily mean that
the child will be removed from her home -- that's
an option that's exercised only in situations where
the child is deemed to be at continuing risk.

More dishonesty on your part, I'm afraid.

==> It's not all black and white,
==>here. The family needs more help than your screaming at them or
==>calling the cops can provide.

True enough, but unfortunately, when one
witnesses a child being assaulted, one's
possible responses are somewhat limited.

I agree that perhaps a more useful tactic would
be to compel the assaulter to attend parenting
classes. If you can offer a means to accomplish
that, you will have done a real service here today.

Sadly, however, all you seem to be able to offer is
child-abuser propaganda ("spanking is not beating,
blah, blah blah") and worthless fear-mongering about
making things worse.

When seeing a child being deliberately hurt, the worst
thing one can do is nothing.

[Doan]

Still can't answer my question about the *PROOF*?
Anti-spanking zealotS and logic, are they mutually exclusive? ;-)

Doan


On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Ivan Gowch wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:08:46 GMT, Nan > wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> ==>>==>And abused children will be *more* at risk if you confront an abuser
> ==>>==>in public and try to punish her.
>
> IG:
> ==>> So, one should ignore an adult beating a child?
>
> ==>There is a tremendous difference between a "beating" and a "spanking".
>
> Your use of a cutesy euphemism to try to minimize
> the trauma caused a child is noted. A child who is
> being repeatedly struck by an adult is being beaten.
>
> ==>Hyperbole to try and make your case threatens your credibility.
>
> Obfuscation to try to defend a practice that is
> clearly indefensible threatens more than your
> credibility -- it marks you as pathetically
> dishonest and dangerously hostile to children.
>
> [snip]
>
> ==>Again, spanking does not equal beating.
>
> Again, yes it does.
>
> ==>There is a very *real* danger
> ==>in escalation if you are confrontational in this situation.
>
> Any confrontation carries a risk. But doing
> nothing in this circumstance is the worst of
> all options.
>
> ==> If you're
> ==>so concerned for the child, you should be aware that your confronting
> ==>the parent could make it worse.
>
> You are apparently saying that being "confronted"
> will prompt the abusive parent to become even
> more abusive. If so, that's all the more reason to
> bring in the authorities ASAP and get child-protection
> officials involved. That child is obviously in great
> danger.
>
> ==>Dorothy gave some great advice about ways to intervene for the child
> ==>without causing escalation.
>
> No, she didn't. She offered a tepid suggestion that
> would do absolutely nothing to bring the current
> abuse to a halt, nor to protect the child from
> future trauma.
>
> People who assault children should know that much
> of society does not approve, and will take action
> to prevent such behaviour.
>
> It should also be remembered that any parent who
> would whale on a child *in public* can be counted
> on to do far, far worse when out of other people's
> sight.
>
> [snip]
>
> ==>You're clearly not understanding. Nobody has said to ignore the
> ==>situation.
>
> No . . . someone suggested asking the abusive
> mother whether she "needs help." (Mother:
> "yes, please hold her hands while I beat her
> some more.")
>
> I asked whether the same advice would be given
> if the assaulter was a man beating his wife.
>
> I got no response to that question. Wonder why?
>
> IG:
> ==>> "Such situations" -- an adult beating a child -- are
> ==>> best handled either by resolute personal intervention,
> ==>> or by calling the police and bringing the abuser to
> ==>> the attention of the authorities.
>
> ==>Actually you create additional harm to the child this way.
>
> Only in cloud cuckoo land can an action that
> stops someone from beating a child be regarded
> as creating "additional harm to the child."
>
> What a cowardly, self-serving and dishonorable excuse.
>
> ==> Having a
> ==>child yanked out of their home and stuck in foster care (where abuse
> ==>happens as well) isn't good, either.
>
> Alerting child-protection authorities that a child
> is bieng abused does not necessarily mean that
> the child will be removed from her home -- that's
> an option that's exercised only in situations where
> the child is deemed to be at continuing risk.
>
> More dishonesty on your part, I'm afraid.
>
> ==> It's not all black and white,
> ==>here. The family needs more help than your screaming at them or
> ==>calling the cops can provide.
>
> True enough, but unfortunately, when one
> witnesses a child being assaulted, one's
> possible responses are somewhat limited.
>
> I agree that perhaps a more useful tactic would
> be to compel the assaulter to attend parenting
> classes. If you can offer a means to accomplish
> that, you will have done a real service here today.
>
> Sadly, however, all you seem to be able to offer is
> child-abuser propaganda ("spanking is not beating,
> blah, blah blah") and worthless fear-mongering about
> making things worse.
>
> When seeing a child being deliberately hurt, the worst
> thing one can do is nothing.
>
>
>

[R. Steve Walz]

TM wrote:
>
> Actually, you should have minded your own business. You have no idea what
> transpired. You have no idea what the truth was. The parent was instructing
> the child. Your descriptions are very telling...beat, jerked, etc.
-------------------------
The abuses were obvious, you delusional piece of ****, Greegor.


> You are biased against a parent exercising their rights as parents to teach
> their children proper behavior.
-------------------------
There is no such "right". The child is a person with rights of their
own which are NOT subordinate to their parent!
Steve

[R. Steve Walz]

TM wrote:
>
> People have a right to privacy, they have a right to raise their children as
> they see fit.
---------------------------
Nope, they don't, they are ONLY allowed to raise their children
within the bounds of the behaviors sanctioned under law!
Steve

[R. Steve Walz]

Doan wrote:
>
> > Nan wrote:
> > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:49:35 -0500, Ivan Gowch
> > > > scribbled:
> > >
> > > >On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 18:05:40 -0600, toto >
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > >==>On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 16:10:36 -0500, Ivan Gowch
> > > > wrote:
> > > >==>> 1. Getting in the assaulter's face, screaming at her
> > > >==>> and embarrassing the living **** out of her in public
> > > >==>> would have provided her with a powerful disincentive
> > > >==>> to repeat the performance in public (although, sadly,
> > > >==>> it would have done nothing to prevent her from
> > > >==>> continuing or repeating the abuse in private).
> > > >
> > > >==>And abused children will be *more* at risk if you confront an
> > abuser
> > > >==>in public and try to punish her.
> > > >
> > > > So, one should ignore an adult beating a child?
> > >
> > > There is a tremendous difference between a "beating" and a
> > "spanking".
> > > Hyperbole to try and make your case threatens your credibility.
> >
> > Of course there is. Where, precisely is the line between the two then?
> >
> LOL! One more time, Kane. You have publicly admitted that you "hit"
> your kid. How did you know where "the line" is? Where is the line
> between talking to your kid and verbal abuse? Do you understand what
> a "reasonable" standard is?
>
> Come on, Kane! So what a "never-spanked" boy like is made up. Are you
> man enough to answer the question or just being a coward and run?
>
> Doan
-----------------------
You know you're nothing but a ****ty little liar, we all know it.
Steve

[Doan]

> -----------------------
> You know you're nothing but a ****ty little liar, we all know it.
> Steve
>
More "****" coming out of your mouth, Steve. Could it be my ****? :-)
That is what you get for sticking your nose into other people asses!

Doan

[Doan]

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:

> The abuses were obvious, you delusional piece of ****, Greegor.

More "****" from Steve's mouth!

Doan

[R. Steve Walz]

Doan wrote:
>
> > -----------------------
> > You know you're nothing but a ****ty little liar, we all know it.
> > Steve
> >
> More "****" coming out of your mouth, Steve. Could it be my ****? :-)
> That is what you get for sticking your nose into other people asses!
>
> Doan
---------------
You're the only **** here, ****-mind.
Steve

[R. Steve Walz]

Doan wrote:
>
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
>
> > The abuses were obvious, you delusional piece of ****, Greegor.
>
> More "****" from Steve's mouth!
>
> Doan
------------------
You're the only **** here, ****-mind.
Steve

[Doan]

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> >
> > > -----------------------
> > > You know you're nothing but a ****ty little liar, we all know it.
> > > Steve
> > >
> > More "****" coming out of your mouth, Steve. Could it be my ****? :-)
> > That is what you get for sticking your nose into other people asses!
> >
> > Doan
> ---------------
> You're the only **** here, ****-mind.
> Steve
>
LOL! More "****" coming from your mouth. This time you ADMITTED it's
mine. I hope you like the taste. ;-)

Doan

[Doan]

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> >
> > > The abuses were obvious, you delusional piece of ****, Greegor.
> >
> > More "****" from Steve's mouth!
> >
> > Doan
> ------------------
> You're the only **** here, ****-mind.
> Steve
>
And you want more from me? Are you that hungry? ;-)

Doan

[R. Steve Walz]

Doan wrote:
>
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
>
> > Doan wrote:
> > >
> > > > -----------------------
> > > > You know you're nothing but a ****ty little liar, we all know it.
> > > > Steve
> > > >
> > > More "****" coming out of your mouth, Steve. Could it be my ****? :-)
> > > That is what you get for sticking your nose into other people asses!
> > >
> > > Doan
> > ---------------
> > You're the only **** here, ****-mind.
> > Steve
> >
> LOL! More "****" coming from your mouth. This time you ADMITTED it's
> mine. I hope you like the taste. ;-)
>
> Doan
---------------------------
You're the only **** here, Doan, all we're discussing is the **** you
mouth which is the **** in your head.
Steve

[R. Steve Walz]

Doan wrote:
>
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
>
> > Doan wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > >
> > > > The abuses were obvious, you delusional piece of ****, Greegor.
> > >
> > > More "****" from Steve's mouth!
> > >
> > > Doan
> > ------------------
> > You're the only **** here, ****-mind.
> > Steve
> >
> And you want more from me? Are you that hungry? ;-)
>
> Doan
------------------------
The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
Steve

[Doan]

On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> >
> > > Doan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The abuses were obvious, you delusional piece of ****, Greegor.
> > > >
> > > > More "****" from Steve's mouth!
> > > >
> > > > Doan
> > > ------------------
> > > You're the only **** here, ****-mind.
> > > Steve
> > >
> > And you want more from me? Are you that hungry? ;-)
> >
> > Doan
> ------------------------
> The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
> Steve
>
Nope! The only **** from me is from my ass-hole. How did it got
to your mouth?

Doan

[Doan]

On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> >
> > > Doan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > -----------------------
> > > > > You know you're nothing but a ****ty little liar, we all know it.
> > > > > Steve
> > > > >
> > > > More "****" coming out of your mouth, Steve. Could it be my ****? :-)
> > > > That is what you get for sticking your nose into other people asses!
> > > >
> > > > Doan
> > > ---------------
> > > You're the only **** here, ****-mind.
> > > Steve
> > >
> > LOL! More "****" coming from your mouth. This time you ADMITTED it's
> > mine. I hope you like the taste. ;-)
> >
> > Doan
> ---------------------------
> You're the only **** here, Doan, all we're discussing is the **** you
> mouth which is the **** in your head.
> Steve
>
It sounds like you like to eat ****!

Doan

[R. Steve Walz]

Doan wrote:
>
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
>
> > Doan wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > >
> > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The abuses were obvious, you delusional piece of ****, Greegor.
> > > > >
> > > > > More "****" from Steve's mouth!
> > > > >
> > > > > Doan
> > > > ------------------
> > > > You're the only **** here, ****-mind.
> > > > Steve
> > > >
> > > And you want more from me? Are you that hungry? ;-)
> > >
> > > Doan
> > ------------------------
> > The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
> > Steve
> >
> Nope! The only **** from me is from my ass-hole. How did it got
> to your mouth?
>
> Doan
------------------------
You've got a ****-fetish.
The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
Steve

[R. Steve Walz]

Doan wrote:
>
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
>
> > Doan wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > >
> > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----------------------
> > > > > > You know you're nothing but a ****ty little liar, we all know it.
> > > > > > Steve
> > > > > >
> > > > > More "****" coming out of your mouth, Steve. Could it be my ****? :-)
> > > > > That is what you get for sticking your nose into other people asses!
> > > > >
> > > > > Doan
> > > > ---------------
> > > > You're the only **** here, ****-mind.
> > > > Steve
> > > >
> > > LOL! More "****" coming from your mouth. This time you ADMITTED it's
> > > mine. I hope you like the taste. ;-)
> > >
> > > Doan
> > ---------------------------
> > You're the only **** here, Doan, all we're discussing is the **** you
> > mouth which is the **** in your head.
> > Steve
> >
> It sounds like you like to eat ****!
>
> Doan
--------------------------------
You have a ****-fetish.
You're the only **** here, Doan, all we're discussing is the **** you
mouth which is the **** in your head.
Steve

[Doan]

On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> >
> > > Doan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The abuses were obvious, you delusional piece of ****, Greegor.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > More "****" from Steve's mouth!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Doan
> > > > > ------------------
> > > > > You're the only **** here, ****-mind.
> > > > > Steve
> > > > >
> > > > And you want more from me? Are you that hungry? ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Doan
> > > ------------------------
> > > The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
> > > Steve
> > >
> > Nope! The only **** from me is from my ass-hole. How did it got
> > to your mouth?
> >
> > Doan
> ------------------------
> You've got a ****-fetish.
> The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
> Steve
>
LOL! You like the taste of my **** in your mouth, Steve. You kept
coming back for more!

Doan

[Doan]

On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> >
> > > Doan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----------------------
> > > > > > > You know you're nothing but a ****ty little liar, we all know it.
> > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > More "****" coming out of your mouth, Steve. Could it be my ****? :-)
> > > > > > That is what you get for sticking your nose into other people asses!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Doan
> > > > > ---------------
> > > > > You're the only **** here, ****-mind.
> > > > > Steve
> > > > >
> > > > LOL! More "****" coming from your mouth. This time you ADMITTED it's
> > > > mine. I hope you like the taste. ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Doan
> > > ---------------------------
> > > You're the only **** here, Doan, all we're discussing is the **** you
> > > mouth which is the **** in your head.
> > > Steve
> > >
> > It sounds like you like to eat ****!
> >
> > Doan
> --------------------------------
> You have a ****-fetish.
> You're the only **** here, Doan, all we're discussing is the **** you
> mouth which is the **** in your head.
> Steve
>
Like I said, you kept coming back for more! :-)

Doan

[Mister]

"toto" > wrote in message
...

>
> And abused children will be *more* at risk if you confront an abuser
> in public and try to punish her.
>
> You might want to ask people on alt.abuse.recovery how they handle
> such situations in order to avoid having the child punished even more
> once she gets home, Ivan.
>

Having been smacked on the back of the legs a couple of times
when I was a kid some onlooker though they would decide to intervene
and tell my Dad off.

He was *fuming*.
When we got back home I was properly thrashed.
I know people want to help but sometimes for the kid involved, it just
isn't the right option.

[[email protected]]

Mister wrote:
> "toto" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > And abused children will be *more* at risk if you confront an
abuser
> > in public and try to punish her.
> >
> > You might want to ask people on alt.abuse.recovery how they handle
> > such situations in order to avoid having the child punished even
more
> > once she gets home, Ivan.
> >
>
> Having been smacked on the back of the legs a couple of times
> when I was a kid some onlooker though they would decide to intervene
> and tell my Dad off.
>
> He was *fuming*.
> When we got back home I was properly thrashed.
> I know people want to help but sometimes for the kid involved, it
just
> isn't the right option.

Unless one is willing to allow without personal intervention the abuse
of a child then that leaves only one really moral choice.

I'll call it The Gowtch Imperative, since he's suggested it.

And I second his suggestion.

We seem to have come to that. People will abuse their children if you
DON'T intervene, and may do so even more energitically if you do, so
the police are the only logical, humane, and honorable response.

I am sorry for what happened to you as a child. No child deserves such
cruelty.

Kane

[toto]

On 6 Mar 2005 13:11:20 -0800, wrote:

>We seem to have come to that. People will abuse their children if you
>DON'T intervene, and may do so even more energitically if you do, so
>the police are the only logical, humane, and honorable response.

Not at all. It's the manner in which intervention occurs that often
makes a difference. If we intend to be a humane and civilized
society, we need to find alternatives that don't harm children more
than they help.

I believe in personal intervention. I don't know why we believe that
we must punish the parent when we know punishment doesn't work
to reform people. I also contend that we need to find ways to help
*both* the parents and the children. In some cases, that does mean
that the child must be removed at least temporarily, but in most cases
I think we can work better on this in ways that don't require removal
of the child from the parent they love and have bonded with despite
any abuse that is happening.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

[R. Steve Walz]

Doan wrote:
>
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
>
> > Doan wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > >
> > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The abuses were obvious, you delusional piece of ****, Greegor.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > More "****" from Steve's mouth!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Doan
> > > > > > ------------------
> > > > > > You're the only **** here, ****-mind.
> > > > > > Steve
> > > > > >
> > > > > And you want more from me? Are you that hungry? ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Doan
> > > > ------------------------
> > > > The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
> > > > Steve
> > > >
> > > Nope! The only **** from me is from my ass-hole. How did it got
> > > to your mouth?
> > >
> > > Doan
> > ------------------------
> > You've got a ****-fetish.
> > The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
> > Steve
> >
> LOL! You like the taste of my **** in your mouth, Steve. You kept
> coming back for more!
>
> Doan
---------------------------
You've got a ****-fetish.
The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
Steve

[[email protected]]

toto wrote:
> On 6 Mar 2005 13:11:20 -0800, wrote:
>
> >We seem to have come to that. People will abuse their children if
you
> >DON'T intervene, and may do so even more energitically if you do, so
> >the police are the only logical, humane, and honorable response.
>
> Not at all. It's the manner in which intervention occurs that often
> makes a difference. If we intend to be a humane and civilized
> society, we need to find alternatives that don't harm children more
> than they help.

Toto, I was speaking to the scenario proffered by the poster. When you
snip such as you did, the point is lost. Naughty, naughty.

> I believe in personal intervention. I don't know why we believe
that
> we must punish the parent when we know punishment doesn't work
> to reform people.

Well, you can call it "punishment" or you can call it "protecting the
child and subsequently, society from what the child so often becomes."

I mean, after all, if you look, and if you think about it, and you have
a sense of history, the world isn't in such fantastic shape it can't
improve.

And it has, toto, over the centuries, and by more and constraints on
caregivers of children. Fewer and fewer atrocities allowed as
culturally acceptable.

And if you check out countries where things are much worse, guess what?
Mistreated children, as a matter of course, culturally.

> I also contend that we need to find ways to help
> *both* the parents and the children.

Okay. Give us some samples that haven't been tried already, and were
discarded as hopelessly ineffective, or are still in place and part of
the reason for children being somewhat better off than they were in say
1840.

> In some cases, that does mean
> that the child must be removed at least temporarily, but in most
cases
> I think we can work better on this in ways that don't require removal
> of the child from the parent they love and have bonded with despite
> any abuse that is happening.

Toto, if you hadn't snipped my post so that you could respond to only
part of it to question my thinking and criticize it you would see I
took that into account.

Take this line from my post you snipped. I opened with it, in fact:

"Unless one is willing to allow without personal intervention the abuse
of a child then that leaves only one really moral choice. "

Normally one would conclude that I was in fact in favor of OTHER
methods than calling the police. I pointed out that only if people
prove unwilling to intervene personally, there this is only one humane
alternative.

You are pretending I didn't say "intervene."

You are in fact, pretending, or making it appear as though I am against
interventions other than police, and I plainly pointed out THE LACK OF
PERSONAL INTERVENTION, left only the law as an humane, honorable, more
choice.

Why did you do that?

Do you dislike me and what I say, and so are willing to play, as some
do here, at twisting my words, snipping in ways that change my meaning
by leaving out critical information that clarifies my claims and
positions?

In other words, you just shot someone that AGREES WITH YOU, all for
what?

> --
> Dorothy

Please don't do that. You know who and what it makes you look like
here.

> There is no sound, no cry in all the world
> that can be heard unless someone listens ..

Well, I made a claim, and suggestion, and you stopped at the point you
had formulated a response to PART OF MY POST, and not only ignored the
rest and it's meaning, but made it appear in your reply that I had NOT
said what I said.

Are you following me?

> The Outer Limits

I'd prefer, over fantasy...which is what you quote...reality, which is
what I said.

Thanks for your attention to this matter.

And for those that think I might be creatively selecting portions of
post, let me provide you with my actual post, which includes the
attributed remarks to which I responded.

See below my sig.

Kane

Mar 6, 1:11 pm show options
Newsgroups: misc.kids, alt.parenting.spanking, alt.parenting.solutions,
alt.bible
From: - Find messages by this author
Date: 6 Mar 2005 13:11:20 -0800
Local: Sun, Mar 6 2005 1:11 pm
Subject: Re: How do you handle Parents that BEAT their kids?
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Remove | Report Abuse

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Mister wrote:
> "toto" > wrote in message
> ...

> > And abused children will be *more* at risk if you confront an
abuser
> > in public and try to punish her.

> > You might want to ask people on alt.abuse.recovery how they handle
> > such situations in order to avoid having the child punished even
more
> > once she gets home, Ivan.

> Having been smacked on the back of the legs a couple of times
> when I was a kid some onlooker though they would decide to intervene
> and tell my Dad off.

> He was *fuming*.
> When we got back home I was properly thrashed.
> I know people want to help but sometimes for the kid involved, it
just
> isn't the right option.

Unless one is willing to allow without personal intervention the abuse
of a child then that leaves only one really moral choice.

I'll call it The Gowtch Imperative, since he's suggested it.

And I second his suggestion.

We seem to have come to that. People will abuse their children if you
DON'T intervene, and may do so even more energitically if you do, so
the police are the only logical, humane, and honorable response.

I am sorry for what happened to you as a child. No child deserves such
cruelty.

Kane
"

[R. Steve Walz]

toto wrote:
>
> I believe in personal intervention. I don't know why we believe that
> we must punish the parent when we know punishment doesn't work
> to reform people.
> Dorothy
-------------------------------------
Nonsense, we know that when we punish criminality that people are
much more reluctant to try it.

We should not beat children because they are young and abuse in
youth is formative and destructive of their inner mind, creativity,
and self-esteem, and these virtues are the hope of all humanity!

But this is NOT so with adults, we need NOT change the inner nature
of adults, nor CAN we do so!! We need to TERRIFY adults, and we
do NOT care if we traumatize these adult criminals out of pursuing
their perversion!! Whether these ruined adults are still less creative
and have ****ty self-esteem after we BEAT them PUBLICALLY is of NO
****ing concern to us, as long as we scare the MOTHER ****ING ****
OUT OF THEM JUST SO THEY ARE TERRIFIED TO EVER *TOUCH* their children
EVER AGAIN!!

We do THAT by teaching their kids to turn them in even for past evil
acts and instituting severe and diabolical punishments for ANY form
of child abuse, past, OR future!!!!! We make them pee their pants
at the mere prospect of child protective police to arrest them!!

And we institute regular interviews of their children to detect fear
and injury and cameras in the homes of suspected criminals to catch
them. And when we do we subject them to the same abuse as child
molestors in prison!!

We don't give a **** if THEY are "transformed", Dorothy, just so
they are totally terrified out of ever touching their kids in anger!!!

These parents are a lost cause, but we CAN protect their kids from
them using abject terror!!
Steve

[Doan]

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> >
> > > Doan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The abuses were obvious, you delusional piece of ****, Greegor.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > More "****" from Steve's mouth!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Doan
> > > > > > > ------------------
> > > > > > > You're the only **** here, ****-mind.
> > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > And you want more from me? Are you that hungry? ;-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Doan
> > > > > ------------------------
> > > > > The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
> > > > > Steve
> > > > >
> > > > Nope! The only **** from me is from my ass-hole. How did it got
> > > > to your mouth?
> > > >
> > > > Doan
> > > ------------------------
> > > You've got a ****-fetish.
> > > The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
> > > Steve
> > >
> > LOL! You like the taste of my **** in your mouth, Steve. You kept
> > coming back for more!
> >
> > Doan
> ---------------------------
> You've got a ****-fetish.
> The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
> Steve
>
And Steve came back for more ****. He must have like the taste! :-)

Doan

[R. Steve Walz]

Doan wrote:
>
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
>
> > Doan wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > >
> > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The abuses were obvious, you delusional piece of ****, Greegor.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > More "****" from Steve's mouth!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Doan
> > > > > > > > ------------------
> > > > > > > > You're the only **** here, ****-mind.
> > > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And you want more from me? Are you that hungry? ;-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Doan
> > > > > > ------------------------
> > > > > > The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
> > > > > > Steve
> > > > > >
> > > > > Nope! The only **** from me is from my ass-hole. How did it got
> > > > > to your mouth?
> > > > >
> > > > > Doan
> > > > ------------------------
> > > > You've got a ****-fetish.
> > > > The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
> > > > Steve
> > > >
> > > LOL! You like the taste of my **** in your mouth, Steve. You kept
> > > coming back for more!
> > >
> > > Doan
> > ---------------------------
> > You've got a ****-fetish.
> > The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
> > Steve
> >
> And Steve came back for more ****. He must have like the taste! :-)
>
> Doan
----------------------------------
You've got a ****-fetish.
The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
Steve

[Doan]

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> >
> > > Doan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The abuses were obvious, you delusional piece of ****, Greegor.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > More "****" from Steve's mouth!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Doan
> > > > > > > > > ------------------
> > > > > > > > > You're the only **** here, ****-mind.
> > > > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And you want more from me? Are you that hungry? ;-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Doan
> > > > > > > ------------------------
> > > > > > > The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
> > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Nope! The only **** from me is from my ass-hole. How did it got
> > > > > > to your mouth?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Doan
> > > > > ------------------------
> > > > > You've got a ****-fetish.
> > > > > The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
> > > > > Steve
> > > > >
> > > > LOL! You like the taste of my **** in your mouth, Steve. You kept
> > > > coming back for more!
> > > >
> > > > Doan
> > > ---------------------------
> > > You've got a ****-fetish.
> > > The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
> > > Steve
> > >
> > And Steve came back for more ****. He must have like the taste! :-)
> >
> > Doan
> ----------------------------------
> You've got a ****-fetish.
> The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
> Steve
>
And you apparent like the taste of my **** in your mouth! ;-)

Doan

[R. Steve Walz]

Doan wrote:
>
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
>
> > Doan wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > >
> > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The abuses were obvious, you delusional piece of ****, Greegor.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > More "****" from Steve's mouth!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Doan
> > > > > > > > > > ------------------
> > > > > > > > > > You're the only **** here, ****-mind.
> > > > > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And you want more from me? Are you that hungry? ;-)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Doan
> > > > > > > > ------------------------
> > > > > > > > The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
> > > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nope! The only **** from me is from my ass-hole. How did it got
> > > > > > > to your mouth?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Doan
> > > > > > ------------------------
> > > > > > You've got a ****-fetish.
> > > > > > The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
> > > > > > Steve
> > > > > >
> > > > > LOL! You like the taste of my **** in your mouth, Steve. You kept
> > > > > coming back for more!
> > > > >
> > > > > Doan
> > > > ---------------------------
> > > > You've got a ****-fetish.
> > > > The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
> > > > Steve
> > > >
> > > And Steve came back for more ****. He must have like the taste! :-)
> > >
> > > Doan
> > ----------------------------------
> > You've got a ****-fetish.
> > The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
> > Steve
> >
> And you apparent like the taste of my **** in your mouth! ;-)
>
> Doan
--------------------------
You've got a ****-fetish.
The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
Steve

[Doan]

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> >
> > > Doan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The abuses were obvious, you delusional piece of ****, Greegor.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > More "****" from Steve's mouth!
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Doan
> > > > > > > > > > > ------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > You're the only **** here, ****-mind.
> > > > > > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And you want more from me? Are you that hungry? ;-)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Doan
> > > > > > > > > ------------------------
> > > > > > > > > The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
> > > > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nope! The only **** from me is from my ass-hole. How did it got
> > > > > > > > to your mouth?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Doan
> > > > > > > ------------------------
> > > > > > > You've got a ****-fetish.
> > > > > > > The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
> > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > LOL! You like the taste of my **** in your mouth, Steve. You kept
> > > > > > coming back for more!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Doan
> > > > > ---------------------------
> > > > > You've got a ****-fetish.
> > > > > The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
> > > > > Steve
> > > > >
> > > > And Steve came back for more ****. He must have like the taste! :-)
> > > >
> > > > Doan
> > > ----------------------------------
> > > You've got a ****-fetish.
> > > The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
> > > Steve
> > >
> > And you apparent like the taste of my **** in your mouth! ;-)
> >
> > Doan
> --------------------------
> You've got a ****-fetish.
> The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
> Steve
>
And you apparently like the taste of my **** in your mouth! ;-)

Doan

[Sue Rodgers]

Doan > wrote:

> And you apparently like the taste of my **** in your mouth! ;-)

You're a very clever fellow.

--
Rivers belong where they can ramble, eagles belong where they can fly...

[R. Steve Walz]

Doan wrote:
>
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
>
> > Doan wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > >
> > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The abuses were obvious, you delusional piece of ****, Greegor.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > More "****" from Steve's mouth!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Doan
> > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > You're the only **** here, ****-mind.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > And you want more from me? Are you that hungry? ;-)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Doan
> > > > > > > > > > ------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
> > > > > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Nope! The only **** from me is from my ass-hole. How did it got
> > > > > > > > > to your mouth?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Doan
> > > > > > > > ------------------------
> > > > > > > > You've got a ****-fetish.
> > > > > > > > The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
> > > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > LOL! You like the taste of my **** in your mouth, Steve. You kept
> > > > > > > coming back for more!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Doan
> > > > > > ---------------------------
> > > > > > You've got a ****-fetish.
> > > > > > The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
> > > > > > Steve
> > > > > >
> > > > > And Steve came back for more ****. He must have like the taste! :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Doan
> > > > ----------------------------------
> > > > You've got a ****-fetish.
> > > > The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
> > > > Steve
> > > >
> > > And you apparent like the taste of my **** in your mouth! ;-)
> > >
> > > Doan
> > --------------------------
> > You've got a ****-fetish.
> > The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
> > Steve
> >
> And you apparently like the taste of my **** in your mouth! ;-)
>
> Doan
-----------------------------
You've got a ****-fetish.
The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
Steve

[Doan]

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> >
> > > Doan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The abuses were obvious, you delusional piece of ****, Greegor.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > More "****" from Steve's mouth!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Doan
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You're the only **** here, ****-mind.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > And you want more from me? Are you that hungry? ;-)
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Doan
> > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
> > > > > > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Nope! The only **** from me is from my ass-hole. How did it got
> > > > > > > > > > to your mouth?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Doan
> > > > > > > > > ------------------------
> > > > > > > > > You've got a ****-fetish.
> > > > > > > > > The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
> > > > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > LOL! You like the taste of my **** in your mouth, Steve. You kept
> > > > > > > > coming back for more!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Doan
> > > > > > > ---------------------------
> > > > > > > You've got a ****-fetish.
> > > > > > > The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
> > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > And Steve came back for more ****. He must have like the taste! :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Doan
> > > > > ----------------------------------
> > > > > You've got a ****-fetish.
> > > > > The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
> > > > > Steve
> > > > >
> > > > And you apparent like the taste of my **** in your mouth! ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Doan
> > > --------------------------
> > > You've got a ****-fetish.
> > > The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
> > > Steve
> > >
> > And you apparently like the taste of my **** in your mouth! ;-)
> >
> > Doan
> -----------------------------
> You've got a ****-fetish.
> The only **** under discussion here is the **** in your head.
> Steve
>
And you keep on coming back for more. Yummy, right? ;-)

Doan

[Wes Groleau]

Doan wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
[snip instead of shovel]

The FAQ says killfiles serve only to perpetuate ignorance.
I say watching these guys exchange feces is anything but
perpetuating knowledge!

--
Wes Groleau

After the christening of his baby brother in church, Jason sobbed
all the way home in the back seat of the car. His father asked him
three times what was wrong. Finally, the boy replied, "That preacher
said he wanted us brought up in a Christian home, and I wanted to
stay with you guys."