To spank or not to spank?

[0:->]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070125/cm_usatoday/tospankornottospank


Back to Story - Help
Yahoo! News
To spank or not to spank?

Thu Jan 25, 8:22 AM ET

The Biblical injunction "spare the rod and spoil the child" has fallen
out of favor in recent decades.

Fifty years ago, most children were spanked. But the practice has
steadily declined over the years as parents found better ways to punish
bad behavior. Still, about half of American parents sometimes spank
their children. And, as long as it stops short of abuse, that should be
their own business.

California Assemblywoman Sally Lieber thinks otherwise. She says she'll
introduce a bill next week that would make it a misdemeanor for anyone
to use corporal punishment on children three years old and under.
Penalties could include up to a year in jail, a $1,000 fine or a
requirement to attend parenting classes. If approved, California would
become the first state to explicitly ban parents from smacking their
kids. This ordinarily wouldn't merit much attention. Only a tiny
fraction of the tens of thousands of bills state legislators submit
each year even get out of committee. But the passion the topic
generates has made it a conversation piece on network television, talk
radio and elsewhere, which makes it an idea worth killing before it
spreads.

Criminalizing what most people see as a private family matter and part
of normal parenting is wrongheaded and impossible to enforce. It would
impose an absurd level of government meddling in home life.

Let's be clear. Abuse that causes injury is wrong and already illegal.
Physicians, social workers, teachers and others who suspect a child has
been abused are required by law to report it to authorities. The
proposed bill draws no distinction, however, between degrees of
physical punishment, whether 10 lashes with a whip or a quick, mild
slap to focus the attention of a child about to run into oncoming
traffic. Nor could it easily do so.

Opponents of spanking say it's a form of violence that causes
psychological harm. Defenders call it an effective method of discipline
and say there's no evidence that occasional spanking damages a child's
development. The advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics - that
spanking should be used only in selective, infrequent situations, if at
all - seems about right.

The place to ban spanking is not in the home but in public schools,
where it's still allowed in about half of states, inviting trouble.
School spanking can become overzealous; it sends children the message
that physical abuse by authority figures can be acceptable and it can
be applied inconsistently. Education Department statistics show that
African-American students are twice as likely to be spanked as students
of other races.

Abusive violence against children, whether in the home or elsewhere, is
intolerable. But so is an intrusive government that would make
criminals of parents trying to do their best to raise their kids.

Copyright © 2007 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070125/cm_usatoday/tospankornottospank

[Doan]

On 26 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070125/cm_usatoday/tospankornottospank
>
>
> Back to Story - Help
> Yahoo! News
> To spank or not to spank?
>
> Thu Jan 25, 8:22 AM ET
>
> The Biblical injunction "spare the rod and spoil the child" has fallen
> out of favor in recent decades.
>
> Fifty years ago, most children were spanked. But the practice has
> steadily declined over the years as parents found better ways to punish
> bad behavior. Still, about half of American parents sometimes spank
> their children. And, as long as it stops short of abuse, that should be
> their own business.
>
Not according to the research done by anti-spanking guru Straus. His
research, if you were to believe, said it is around 94%.

> California Assemblywoman Sally Lieber thinks otherwise. She says she'll
> introduce a bill next week that would make it a misdemeanor for anyone
> to use corporal punishment on children three years old and under.
> Penalties could include up to a year in jail, a $1,000 fine or a
> requirement to attend parenting classes. If approved, California would
> become the first state to explicitly ban parents from smacking their
> kids. This ordinarily wouldn't merit much attention. Only a tiny
> fraction of the tens of thousands of bills state legislators submit
> each year even get out of committee. But the passion the topic
> generates has made it a conversation piece on network television, talk
> radio and elsewhere, which makes it an idea worth killing before it
> spreads.
>
> Criminalizing what most people see as a private family matter and part
> of normal parenting is wrongheaded and impossible to enforce. It would
> impose an absurd level of government meddling in home life.
>
Governement don't raise kids; parents do!

> Let's be clear. Abuse that causes injury is wrong and already illegal.
> Physicians, social workers, teachers and others who suspect a child has
> been abused are required by law to report it to authorities. The
> proposed bill draws no distinction, however, between degrees of
> physical punishment, whether 10 lashes with a whip or a quick, mild
> slap to focus the attention of a child about to run into oncoming
> traffic. Nor could it easily do so.
>
> Opponents of spanking say it's a form of violence that causes
> psychological harm. Defenders call it an effective method of discipline
> and say there's no evidence that occasional spanking damages a child's
> development. The advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics - that
> spanking should be used only in selective, infrequent situations, if at
> all - seems about right.
>
Seem like a good advise.

> The place to ban spanking is not in the home but in public schools,
> where it's still allowed in about half of states, inviting trouble.
> School spanking can become overzealous; it sends children the message
> that physical abuse by authority figures can be acceptable and it can
> be applied inconsistently. Education Department statistics show that
> African-American students are twice as likely to be spanked as students
> of other races.
>
And studies after studies have shown that spanking, at least for
African-American, do not correlate with bad outcomes.

> Abusive violence against children, whether in the home or elsewhere, is
> intolerable. But so is an intrusive government that would make
> criminals of parents trying to do their best to raise their kids.
>
And more business for CPS.

Doan

> Copyright © 2007 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
> Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
> Questions or Comments
> Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070125/cm_usatoday/tospankornottospank
>
>

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On 26 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070125/cm_usatoday/tospankornottospank
>>
>>
>> Back to Story - Help
>> Yahoo! News
>> To spank or not to spank?
>>
>> Thu Jan 25, 8:22 AM ET
>>
>> The Biblical injunction "spare the rod and spoil the child" has fallen
>> out of favor in recent decades.
>>
>> Fifty years ago, most children were spanked. But the practice has
>> steadily declined over the years as parents found better ways to punish
>> bad behavior. Still, about half of American parents sometimes spank
>> their children. And, as long as it stops short of abuse, that should be
>> their own business.
>>
> Not according to the research done by anti-spanking guru Straus. His
> research, if you were to believe, said it is around 94%.

And when was that Doan?

I've watched the rate fall over the years. It WAS high back then. It is
not now. My point exactly when I posted this, and comments I've been
making for years now.

The author also entertains the failed concept (proven by YOUR inability
to answer my simple question, The Question) that "it stops short of
abuse." predisposes that we have a universal standard, and ways for
parents to know precisely what is going on with their child
environmentally, internal and external, and how to guage the capacity of
the child to take hitting without injury.

Can't be done. And one day this little question of mine is going to be a
major factor in laws being passed.

No research can come up with definitive answers to that, The Question.

>> California Assemblywoman Sally Lieber thinks otherwise. She says she'll
>> introduce a bill next week that would make it a misdemeanor for anyone
>> to use corporal punishment on children three years old and under.
>> Penalties could include up to a year in jail, a $1,000 fine or a
>> requirement to attend parenting classes. If approved, California would
>> become the first state to explicitly ban parents from smacking their
>> kids. This ordinarily wouldn't merit much attention. Only a tiny
>> fraction of the tens of thousands of bills state legislators submit
>> each year even get out of committee. But the passion the topic
>> generates has made it a conversation piece on network television, talk
>> radio and elsewhere, which makes it an idea worth killing before it
>> spreads.
>>
>> Criminalizing what most people see as a private family matter and part
>> of normal parenting is wrongheaded and impossible to enforce. It would
>> impose an absurd level of government meddling in home life.
>>
> Governement don't raise kids; parents do!

You are agreeing with a rant. Normal is not always *good.* You know
that. It was normal to cut off part of a slaves foot if he was caught
after trying to "run." All slave owners were pretty accepting of that as
a practice. Keeping people on the verge of starvation and working them
to death was considered just business as usual.

>> Let's be clear. Abuse that causes injury is wrong and already illegal.

Ah, the problem is spoken even by those that do not really understand it
and attempt to minimize it.
>> Physicians, social workers, teachers and others who suspect a child has
>> been abused are required by law to report it to authorities. The
>> proposed bill draws no distinction, however, between degrees of
>> physical punishment, whether 10 lashes with a whip or a quick, mild
>> slap to focus the attention of a child about to run into oncoming
>> traffic. Nor could it easily do so.

Guess Embry's conclusions need to be more widely circulated.

>> Opponents of spanking say it's a form of violence that causes
>> psychological harm. Defenders call it an effective method of discipline
>> and say there's no evidence that occasional spanking damages a child's
>> development.

Nonsense.

> The advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics - that
>> spanking should be used only in selective, infrequent situations, if at
>> all - seems about right.
>>
> Seem like a good advise.

If all children were dogs, so that you could not be prosecuted for that
hitting, normally. Or all children were exactly the same so you could
have a standard of how hard to hit, how often to hit, and what class of
behaviors to hit for.

>> The place to ban spanking is not in the home but in public schools,
>> where it's still allowed in about half of states, inviting trouble.

As is being done, and conditions improving.

>> School spanking can become overzealous; it sends children the message
>> that physical abuse by authority figures can be acceptable and it can
>> be applied inconsistently.

And it does not improve grades.

>> Education Department statistics show that
>> African-American students are twice as likely to be spanked as students
>> of other races.
>>
> And studies after studies

Citations, please. Plural.

> have shown that spanking, at least for
> African-American, do not correlate with bad outcomes.

Show us these studies.

My understanding is that black men are way over represented in the
prison population. That's often considered a bad outcome. Some African
American people have awakened to this, and understand that the "the
child won't feel loved if I don't," is a rationalization, not a
scientific fact.

And this study shows something a bit different than you claim or those
"studied" you mention.

Notice this is one of those longitudinal studies you have claimed didn't
exist by harping to be show them. Not looking yourself, for fear of what
you'd find, Doan?

And, "Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039
European American children, 550 African American children, and 401
Hispanic children."

That's a fair sized sampling of the population, wouldn't you say, and
roughly in proportion racially to the population?

You just can't seem to help yourself helping others to show what a
stupid man you are, or liar. Or both.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00040.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jomf

Journal of Marriage and Family
Volume 64 Issue 1 Page 40 - February 2002

To cite this article: Vonnie C McLoyd, Julia Smith (2002)
Physical Discipline and Behavior Problems in African American, European
American, and Hispanic Children: Emotional Support as a Moderator
Journal of Marriage and Family 64 (1), 40–53.
doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00040.x

* Vonnie C. McLoyd11Center for Human Growth and Development,
University of Michigan, 300 North Ingalls, Ann Arbor, MI 48109
).
* Julia Smith11Center for Human Growth and Development, University
of Michigan, 300 North Ingalls, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 ).
1Center for Human Growth and Development, University of Michigan,
300 North Ingalls, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 ).

[[[ *** emphasis mine ]]]

Abstract

Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
were 4–5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated with
an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...

What's that last sentence say?

Now what I'm going to do is SHOW you, Doan, that those with an ageda
will go so far as to LIE, publicly about outcomes of research. The same
study is describe by them as follows. And gives you some idea of how
well they CANNOT be trusted, and have an agenda, much like yours, that
they think excuses such lying as this:

Here's how a page of citations from a propaganda rag on the web
describes that study:

http://www.fotf.ca/tfn/family/articles/Parental_Discipline.html
....
8) Physical Discipline and Behavior Problems in African American,
European American, and Hispanic Children: Emotional Support as a Moderator

Vonni C. McLoyd, Julia Smith

This study found that Hispanic, African American, and European American
children have increased behavioral problems if they have low levels of
emotional support from their parents. Behaviour problems increase if
spanking occurs. However, those children who had high levels of support
from their parents and were spanked showed no relationship between
spanking and behavior problems. This article was published in the
Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 64, Number 1, Pages 40-53.
February, 2002. ...


Same researchers cited Doan. Notice the obvious lie by omission?

A bit of your style. Aren't you proud.

No mention whatsoever of what the authors/researchers ACTUALLY CONCLUDED.

The must have, to be generous in describing their interpretation, did a
bit of free association interpretation of this:

....For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an
increase in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for
income-needs ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional
support moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior.
Spanking was associated with an increase in behavior problems over time
in the context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the
context of high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
racial-ethnic groups. ......

Would you claim the spanking advocates are honest?

How can we trust their citations and possibly phony abstracts of the
other studies they list?

I found it fascinating, as well, that while they underlined the title,
as though it was a link to source, like other citations on the page, IT
WAS NOT A LINK.

Reminds me of tactics of certain other pro-spankers I know that post to
these newsgroups.

The tipoff they are phonies, willing to lie for their cause is that the
cited "Dr. Robert E. Larzelere critiques the conclusions of researcher
Joan Durrant on the welfare of children in Sweden since the ban." They
did NOT mention that Durrant came back and steamrollered the hack flat
as a mashed bug.

>> Abusive violence against children, whether in the home or elsewhere, is
>> intolerable. But so is an intrusive government that would make
>> criminals of parents trying to do their best to raise their kids.
>>
> And more business for CPS.

CPS has way too much business now. Caseloads are moving back to toward
their all time high in the late 80s. Mostly because of cutbacks in
staffing.


Let's get you more up to speed, and overcome some of your ignorance,
shall we then?

What we find, Doan, is that many of the claims made from those "many
studies" about black children that make that claim come with a caveat,
and that is related to variables.

Those little things you like to avoid.

Here's a typical one:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/500007

Spanking in Early Childhood and Later Behavior Problems: A Prospective
Study of Infants and Young Toddlers
Slade EP, Wissow LS
Pediatrics. 2004;113(5):1321-1330

Corporal punishment in children is a controversial issue and one that
physicians should take seriously when counseling parents. It is by no
means uncommon. A sample of 991 American parents interviewed in 1995
revealed that 94% used some form of corporal punishment on children. ...

[[[ They footnote that figure as coming from Straus, NINETEEN NINETY
FOUR, Doan. Does that explain what I have been telling you for about 3
years...that it's coming down? To continue. ]]]

.... The authors of the study suggest that spanking may be less of a
marker of family tension in African American communities, meaning that
African American infants who were spanked bear less emotional scars that
produce later behavioral problems in school. However, it should be noted
that race was not the only difference between the different ethnic
groups in this study. In this study cohort, white families had higher
mean incomes, had achieved higher educational levels, and were more
likely to read to their children every day. Parents in these families
were also more likely to be married. Therefore, as in many issues in
which biopsychosocial factors loom large, it is difficult to separate
the cultural from other socioeconomic factors that contribute to the
difference between subgroups.

[[[ Negating the validity of the studies. ]]]

This study had several additional limitations. Only spanking by the
mother was measured, and other types of corporal punishment were not
analyzed. ...

I've always wondered if WHO spanked the child might not have a bearing
on later outcomes.

And here I share with you something you'll love, but is inconclusive and
solely the opinion of the authors, again, scientifically not supportable
by their own admissions.

.... However, given the conflicting results of spanking in different
cultural groups and the lack of data on the relative damage that could
be inflicted by spanking compared with other negative parenting
behaviors such as neglect or emotional abuse, it seems appropriate that
physicians provide a summary of the known facts regarding spanking and
leave the decision for corporal punishment up to the parents. The
emphasis in parental counseling should instead focus on positive things
-- support, affection, attention, and love -- that parents can do for
their children every day. ...

Yet, like so many that are unresolved, as is the best they can be if you
look at their entire conclusions, they still recommend NONE spanking and
support.

Support very like I've described as what I recommend as the more
powerful and effective parenting method over punishment methods.

They didn't EVEN say, "non-spanking discipline."

I've read the study the following comes from many times, and laughed at
you, Doan, when you make claims about it, and when I point out the
obvious, you ignore and go right on citing again as proof that spanking
works as well as non spanking.

Here, see if you can figure out the author of this comment on Straus,
and the infamous non CP alternative disciplines:

"Finally, the strongest causal evidence for detrimental outcomes of
spanking is based on methods that make alternative disciplinary tactics
appear equally detrimental in most cases. Of the 11 studies that
controlled partially for initially excessive misbehavior, only Straus et
al. (1997)6 found uniformly detrimental outcomes. The other 10 studies
either found beneficial outcomes (3 studies), a mixture of beneficial
and detrimental outcomes (2 studies), neutral outcomes (1 study), or a
mixture of detrimental and neutral outcomes (4 studies). But Larzelere
and Smith (2000)7 replicated and extended Straus et al.’s (1997) study,
using the same publicly available data set. In general, they found
similar increases in antisocial behavior two years later for those who
used four alternative disciplinary tactics frequently: grounding,
removing privileges, docking allowances, or sending the child to his or
her room. Further, these apparently detrimental outcomes for spanking
and the four alternatives all disappeared after we did a better job of
taking the initial level of excessive misbehavior into account."

And the last sentence is a laugh riot. What kind of "science" is that?
Silly?

Doan, the author, one of your favorites, AND Straus, PROVE and support,
that NONE PUNITIVE IS THE BETTER WAY TO GO, BECAUSE PUNITIVE METHODS OF
BOTH KINDS HAVE A HIGH RATE OF AGGRESSION, while none punitive have so
little no one has really bother with much research on it. It's simply
understood.

But then, R R R R there IS that Embry study, eh?
>
> Doan
>
Yes, you are certainly that.

Kane
>> Copyright ? 2007 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
>> Copyright ? 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
>> Questions or Comments
>> Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070125/cm_usatoday/tospankornottospank
>>
>>
>

[Doan]

On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On 26 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070125/cm_usatoday/tospankornottospank
> >>
> >>
> >> Back to Story - Help
> >> Yahoo! News
> >> To spank or not to spank?
> >>
> >> Thu Jan 25, 8:22 AM ET
> >>
> >> The Biblical injunction "spare the rod and spoil the child" has fallen
> >> out of favor in recent decades.
> >>
> >> Fifty years ago, most children were spanked. But the practice has
> >> steadily declined over the years as parents found better ways to punish
> >> bad behavior. Still, about half of American parents sometimes spank
> >> their children. And, as long as it stops short of abuse, that should be
> >> their own business.
> >>
> > Not according to the research done by anti-spanking guru Straus. His
> > research, if you were to believe, said it is around 94%.
>
> And when was that Doan?
>
> I've watched the rate fall over the years. It WAS high back then. It is
> not now. My point exactly when I posted this, and comments I've been
> making for years now.
>
> The author also entertains the failed concept (proven by YOUR inability
> to answer my simple question, The Question) that "it stops short of
> abuse." predisposes that we have a universal standard, and ways for
> parents to know precisely what is going on with their child
> environmentally, internal and external, and how to guage the capacity of
> the child to take hitting without injury.
>
> Can't be done. And one day this little question of mine is going to be a
> major factor in laws being passed.
>
> No research can come up with definitive answers to that, The Question.
>
The same can be said about talking to your kids. "it stops short of
VERBAL abuse"

> >> California Assemblywoman Sally Lieber thinks otherwise. She says she'll
> >> introduce a bill next week that would make it a misdemeanor for anyone
> >> to use corporal punishment on children three years old and under.
> >> Penalties could include up to a year in jail, a $1,000 fine or a
> >> requirement to attend parenting classes. If approved, California would
> >> become the first state to explicitly ban parents from smacking their
> >> kids. This ordinarily wouldn't merit much attention. Only a tiny
> >> fraction of the tens of thousands of bills state legislators submit
> >> each year even get out of committee. But the passion the topic
> >> generates has made it a conversation piece on network television, talk
> >> radio and elsewhere, which makes it an idea worth killing before it
> >> spreads.
> >>
> >> Criminalizing what most people see as a private family matter and part
> >> of normal parenting is wrongheaded and impossible to enforce. It would
> >> impose an absurd level of government meddling in home life.
> >>
> > Governement don't raise kids; parents do!
>
> You are agreeing with a rant. Normal is not always *good.* You know
> that. It was normal to cut off part of a slaves foot if he was caught
> after trying to "run." All slave owners were pretty accepting of that as
> a practice. Keeping people on the verge of starvation and working them
> to death was considered just business as usual.
>
Is that what you see as parent/child relationship? Do you treat your
child like a slave?

> >> Let's be clear. Abuse that causes injury is wrong and already illegal.
>
> Ah, the problem is spoken even by those that do not really understand it
> and attempt to minimize it.

Like you minimize Ron spanking his kids? ;-)

> >> Physicians, social workers, teachers and others who suspect a child has
> >> been abused are required by law to report it to authorities. The
> >> proposed bill draws no distinction, however, between degrees of
> >> physical punishment, whether 10 lashes with a whip or a quick, mild
> >> slap to focus the attention of a child about to run into oncoming
> >> traffic. Nor could it easily do so.
>
> Guess Embry's conclusions need to be more widely circulated.
>
Yup! Kane. Please include what he said about the anti-spanking zealotS!
I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU! ;-)

> >> Opponents of spanking say it's a form of violence that causes
> >> psychological harm. Defenders call it an effective method of discipline
> >> and say there's no evidence that occasional spanking damages a child's
> >> development.
>
> Nonsense.
>
To a stupid liar lie you!

> > The advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics - that
> >> spanking should be used only in selective, infrequent situations, if at
> >> all - seems about right.
> >>
> > Seem like a good advise.
>
> If all children were dogs, so that you could not be prosecuted for that
> hitting, normally. Or all children were exactly the same so you could
> have a standard of how hard to hit, how often to hit, and what class of
> behaviors to hit for.
>
How hard did you hit you own children, Kane? Do you know where "the line"
is? ;-)

> >> The place to ban spanking is not in the home but in public schools,
> >> where it's still allowed in about half of states, inviting trouble.
>
> As is being done, and conditions improving.
>
> >> School spanking can become overzealous; it sends children the message
> >> that physical abuse by authority figures can be acceptable and it can
> >> be applied inconsistently.
>
> And it does not improve grades.
>
> >> Education Department statistics show that
> >> African-American students are twice as likely to be spanked as students
> >> of other races.
> >>
> > And studies after studies
>
> Citations, please. Plural.
>
Already did, it's in the "archives"!

> > have shown that spanking, at least for
> > African-American, do not correlate with bad outcomes.
>
> Show us these studies.
>
Already did!

> My understanding is that black men are way over represented in the
> prison population. That's often considered a bad outcome. Some African
> American people have awakened to this, and understand that the "the
> child won't feel loved if I don't," is a rationalization, not a
> scientific fact.
>
They are over represented in the NFL, NBA, Olympics medal winners....
also.

> And this study shows something a bit different than you claim or those
> "studied" you mention.
>
Prove it!

> Notice this is one of those longitudinal studies you have claimed didn't
> exist by harping to be show them. Not looking yourself, for fear of what
> you'd find, Doan?
>
> And, "Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039
> European American children, 550 African American children, and 401
> Hispanic children."
>
> That's a fair sized sampling of the population, wouldn't you say, and
> roughly in proportion racially to the population?
>
> You just can't seem to help yourself helping others to show what a
> stupid man you are, or liar. Or both.
>
> http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00040.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jomf
>
> Journal of Marriage and Family
> Volume 64 Issue 1 Page 40 - February 2002
>
> To cite this article: Vonnie C McLoyd, Julia Smith (2002)
> Physical Discipline and Behavior Problems in African American, European
> American, and Hispanic Children: Emotional Support as a Moderator
> Journal of Marriage and Family 64 (1), 40–53.
> doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00040.x
>
> * Vonnie C. McLoyd11Center for Human Growth and Development,
> University of Michigan, 300 North Ingalls, Ann Arbor, MI 48109
> ).
> * Julia Smith11Center for Human Growth and Development, University
> of Michigan, 300 North Ingalls, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 ).
> 1Center for Human Growth and Development, University of Michigan,
> 300 North Ingalls, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 ).
>
> [[[ *** emphasis mine ]]]
>
> Abstract
>
> Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
> American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
> children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
> this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
> moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
> were 4–5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
> 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
> rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
> the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
> Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
> 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
> problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
> maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
> link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated with
> an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
> of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
> support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>
> What's that last sentence say?
>
What the sentence before it says, Kane?

> Now what I'm going to do is SHOW you, Doan, that those with an ageda
> will go so far as to LIE, publicly about outcomes of research. The same
> study is describe by them as follows. And gives you some idea of how
> well they CANNOT be trusted, and have an agenda, much like yours, that
> they think excuses such lying as this:
>
And those that are STUPID, like you, seem not to understand what they
read. ;-)

> Here's how a page of citations from a propaganda rag on the web
> describes that study:
>
> http://www.fotf.ca/tfn/family/articles/Parental_Discipline.html
> ...
> 8) Physical Discipline and Behavior Problems in African American,
> European American, and Hispanic Children: Emotional Support as a Moderator
>
> Vonni C. McLoyd, Julia Smith
>
> This study found that Hispanic, African American, and European American
> children have increased behavioral problems if they have low levels of
> emotional support from their parents. Behaviour problems increase if
> spanking occurs. However, those children who had high levels of support
> from their parents and were spanked showed no relationship between
> spanking and behavior problems. This article was published in the
> Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 64, Number 1, Pages 40-53.
> February, 2002. ...
>
Did you miss the part about emotional support? "...no relationship
between spanking and behavior problems." Thanks, Kane. You have
just proved that it's not the spanking perse but how the spanking
is carried out.

>
> Same researchers cited Doan. Notice the obvious lie by omission?
>
Notice your STUPIDITY!

> A bit of your style. Aren't you proud.
>
Yup! Just like you proved yourself to be a STUPID LIAR!

> No mention whatsoever of what the authors/researchers ACTUALLY CONCLUDED.
>
> The must have, to be generous in describing their interpretation, did a
> bit of free association interpretation of this:
>
> ...For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an
> increase in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for
> income-needs ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional
> support moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior.
> Spanking was associated with an increase in behavior problems over time
> in the context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the
> context of high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
> racial-ethnic groups. ......
>
Yup! Even for white people too - emotional support!

> Would you claim the spanking advocates are honest?
>
> How can we trust their citations and possibly phony abstracts of the
> other studies they list?
>
> I found it fascinating, as well, that while they underlined the title,
> as though it was a link to source, like other citations on the page, IT
> WAS NOT A LINK.
>
It's in your file cabinet! ;-)

> Reminds me of tactics of certain other pro-spankers I know that post to
> these newsgroups.
>
> The tipoff they are phonies, willing to lie for their cause is that the
> cited "Dr. Robert E. Larzelere critiques the conclusions of researcher
> Joan Durrant on the welfare of children in Sweden since the ban." They
> did NOT mention that Durrant came back and steamrollered the hack flat
> as a mashed bug.
>
Read his research ina "peer-reviewed" journal, Kane? ;-)

> >> Abusive violence against children, whether in the home or elsewhere, is
> >> intolerable. But so is an intrusive government that would make
> >> criminals of parents trying to do their best to raise their kids.
> >>
> > And more business for CPS.
>
> CPS has way too much business now. Caseloads are moving back to toward
> their all time high in the late 80s. Mostly because of cutbacks in
> staffing.
>
So they will more or less business of spanking is outlawed, Kane?

>
> Let's get you more up to speed, and overcome some of your ignorance,
> shall we then?
>
Sure give me a breakdown of the funds they get over the years, Kane?
I like to know where the money went.

> What we find, Doan, is that many of the claims made from those "many
> studies" about black children that make that claim come with a caveat,
> and that is related to variables.
>
You meant like the International study you claim to support a "x leads to
y" relationship, Kane. Did you read the caveat in that one? Wanna share
them with us? I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU! Hihihi!

> Those little things you like to avoid.
>
And things that I like to expose, like you and your stupidity! ;-)

> Here's a typical one:
>
> http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/500007
>
> Spanking in Early Childhood and Later Behavior Problems: A Prospective
> Study of Infants and Young Toddlers
> Slade EP, Wissow LS
> Pediatrics. 2004;113(5):1321-1330
>
Do you have a PDF file of the actual study, Kane? Can I have a copy?
Or will you send it to Mexico again? ;-)

> Corporal punishment in children is a controversial issue and one that
> physicians should take seriously when counseling parents. It is by no
> means uncommon. A sample of 991 American parents interviewed in 1995
> revealed that 94% used some form of corporal punishment on children. ...
>
Damn that 94% percent again. So much for the claim that it has reduced
to about half! You didn't make that claim, did you Kane? ;-)

> [[[ They footnote that figure as coming from Straus, NINETEEN NINETY
> FOUR, Doan. Does that explain what I have been telling you for about 3
> years...that it's coming down? To continue. ]]]
>
Hihihi! Sound like your claim that crime were down during these same
period right, Kane?

> ... The authors of the study suggest that spanking may be less of a
> marker of family tension in African American communities, meaning that
> African American infants who were spanked bear less emotional scars that
> produce later behavioral problems in school. However, it should be noted
> that race was not the only difference between the different ethnic
> groups in this study. In this study cohort, white families had higher
> mean incomes, had achieved higher educational levels, and were more
> likely to read to their children every day. Parents in these families
> were also more likely to be married. Therefore, as in many issues in
> which biopsychosocial factors loom large, it is difficult to separate
> the cultural from other socioeconomic factors that contribute to the
> difference between subgroups.
>
> [[[ Negating the validity of the studies. ]]]
>
> This study had several additional limitations. Only spanking by the
> mother was measured, and other types of corporal punishment were not
> analyzed. ...
>
Hihihi! limitations, Kane? Did they analyze non-cp alternatives too,
Kane?

> I've always wondered if WHO spanked the child might not have a bearing
> on later outcomes.
>
> And here I share with you something you'll love, but is inconclusive and
> solely the opinion of the authors, again, scientifically not supportable
> by their own admissions.
>
> ... However, given the conflicting results of spanking in different
> cultural groups and the lack of data on the relative damage that could
> be inflicted by spanking compared with other negative parenting
> behaviors such as neglect or emotional abuse, it seems appropriate that
> physicians provide a summary of the known facts regarding spanking and
> leave the decision for corporal punishment up to the parents. The
> emphasis in parental counseling should instead focus on positive things
> -- support, affection, attention, and love -- that parents can do for
> their children every day. ...
>
> Yet, like so many that are unresolved, as is the best they can be if you
> look at their entire conclusions, they still recommend NONE spanking and
> support.
>
Opinion. Opinion.

> Support very like I've described as what I recommend as the more
> powerful and effective parenting method over punishment methods.
>
> They didn't EVEN say, "non-spanking discipline."
>
> I've read the study the following comes from many times, and laughed at
> you, Doan, when you make claims about it, and when I point out the
> obvious, you ignore and go right on citing again as proof that spanking
> works as well as non spanking.
>
Hihihi! I laugh at the way you try to fit that square anti-spanking
peg into the round hole!

> Here, see if you can figure out the author of this comment on Straus,
> and the infamous non CP alternative disciplines:
>
> "Finally, the strongest causal evidence for detrimental outcomes of
> spanking is based on methods that make alternative disciplinary tactics
> appear equally detrimental in most cases. Of the 11 studies that
> controlled partially for initially excessive misbehavior, only Straus et
> al. (1997)6 found uniformly detrimental outcomes. The other 10 studies
> either found beneficial outcomes (3 studies), a mixture of beneficial
> and detrimental outcomes (2 studies), neutral outcomes (1 study), or a
> mixture of detrimental and neutral outcomes (4 studies). But Larzelere
> and Smith (2000)7 replicated and extended Straus et al.’s (1997) study,
> using the same publicly available data set. In general, they found
> similar increases in antisocial behavior two years later for those who
> used four alternative disciplinary tactics frequently: grounding,
> removing privileges, docking allowances, or sending the child to his or
> her room. Further, these apparently detrimental outcomes for spanking
> and the four alternatives all disappeared after we did a better job of
> taking the initial level of excessive misbehavior into account."
>
> And the last sentence is a laugh riot. What kind of "science" is that?
> Silly?
>
Hihihi! You too STUPID to understand what you read right, Kane.

> Doan, the author, one of your favorites, AND Straus, PROVE and support,
> that NONE PUNITIVE IS THE BETTER WAY TO GO, BECAUSE PUNITIVE METHODS OF
> BOTH KINDS HAVE A HIGH RATE OF AGGRESSION, while none punitive have so
> little no one has really bother with much research on it. It's simply
> understood.
>
So we should not punish children right, Kane? Are you calling for a
ban on all punishment? Get rid of the "jay-vee"?

> But then, R R R R there IS that Embry study, eh?

The one that has NO PUNISHMENT, right? ;-) Remember what Embry said
about the "extremes"?

> >
> > Doan
> >
> Yes, you are certainly that.
>
> Kane

Yes, you are certainly STUPID!

Doan

> >> Copyright ? 2007 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
> >> Copyright ? 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
> >> Questions or Comments
> >> Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback
> >>
> >> http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070125/cm_usatoday/tospankornottospank
> >>
> >>
> >
>

[Doan]

On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> And it does not improve grades.
>
> >> Education Department statistics show that
> >> African-American students are twice as likely to be spanked as students
> >> of other races.
> >>
> > And studies after studies
>
> Citations, please. Plural.
>
http://www.blackwomenshealth.com/Being%20A%20Good%20Parent.htm

"What must be said about spanking is that it exists in cultural contexts.
For example, scientific studies show that many White middle and upper
class children who receive physical punishment regularly become aggressive
as adolescents and as adults. The data for Black children, regardless of
economic background, suggests the opposite- that not using physical
punishment is associated with behavior problems. Further, some suggests
that White middle class physical discipline suggests an out-of control
authoritarian home while the lack of physical discipline among African
American parents implies neglectful parenting (see Deater-Deckard, Bates,
Dodge, & Pettit, 1996). Clearly culture is an important factor in how
physical discipline is understood.

An important factor in the debate on different forms of punishment is the
perception that Black children have regarding their punishment. When
parents are viewed as caring and not simply angry, children tend to
internalize the message that there is a consequence, good and bad, for
their behaviors. This is where showing warmth while being controlling is
absolutely necessary. Regardless, spanking is a decision that parents
must make individually. The most important factor is balancing warmth and
firmness."

Doan

[Greegor]

Doan, You proved him wrong, but Kane will never admit it.

[Doan]

On 27 Jan 2007, Greegor wrote:

> Doan, You proved him wrong, but Kane will never admit it.
>
"The truth will set you free." Kane is still a slave - it is legal,
according to him. ;-)

Doan

[Greegor]

You could say that Kane is a slave to rhetoric also.

[krp]

"0:->" > wrote in message
oups.com...

AGAIN Kane goes to his "SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS"!! :-)))))))))

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070125/cm_usatoday/tospankornottospank


Back to Story - Help
Yahoo! News
To spank or not to spank?

Thu Jan 25, 8:22 AM ET

The Biblical injunction "spare the rod and spoil the child" has fallen
out of favor in recent decades.

Fifty years ago, most children were spanked. But the practice has
steadily declined over the years as parents found better ways to punish
bad behavior. Still, about half of American parents sometimes spank
their children. And, as long as it stops short of abuse, that should be
their own business.

California Assemblywoman Sally Lieber thinks otherwise. She says she'll
introduce a bill next week that would make it a misdemeanor for anyone
to use corporal punishment on children three years old and under.
Penalties could include up to a year in jail, a $1,000 fine or a
requirement to attend parenting classes. If approved, California would
become the first state to explicitly ban parents from smacking their
kids. This ordinarily wouldn't merit much attention. Only a tiny
fraction of the tens of thousands of bills state legislators submit
each year even get out of committee. But the passion the topic
generates has made it a conversation piece on network television, talk
radio and elsewhere, which makes it an idea worth killing before it
spreads.

Criminalizing what most people see as a private family matter and part
of normal parenting is wrongheaded and impossible to enforce. It would
impose an absurd level of government meddling in home life.

Let's be clear. Abuse that causes injury is wrong and already illegal.
Physicians, social workers, teachers and others who suspect a child has
been abused are required by law to report it to authorities. The
proposed bill draws no distinction, however, between degrees of
physical punishment, whether 10 lashes with a whip or a quick, mild
slap to focus the attention of a child about to run into oncoming
traffic. Nor could it easily do so.

Opponents of spanking say it's a form of violence that causes
psychological harm. Defenders call it an effective method of discipline
and say there's no evidence that occasional spanking damages a child's
development. The advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics - that
spanking should be used only in selective, infrequent situations, if at
all - seems about right.

The place to ban spanking is not in the home but in public schools,
where it's still allowed in about half of states, inviting trouble.
School spanking can become overzealous; it sends children the message
that physical abuse by authority figures can be acceptable and it can
be applied inconsistently. Education Department statistics show that
African-American students are twice as likely to be spanked as students
of other races.

Abusive violence against children, whether in the home or elsewhere, is
intolerable. But so is an intrusive government that would make
criminals of parents trying to do their best to raise their kids.

Copyright © 2007 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070125/cm_usatoday/tospankornottospank

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On 26 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070125/cm_usatoday/tospankornottospank
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Back to Story - Help
>>>> Yahoo! News
>>>> To spank or not to spank?
>>>>
>>>> Thu Jan 25, 8:22 AM ET
>>>>
>>>> The Biblical injunction "spare the rod and spoil the child" has fallen
>>>> out of favor in recent decades.
>>>>
>>>> Fifty years ago, most children were spanked. But the practice has
>>>> steadily declined over the years as parents found better ways to punish
>>>> bad behavior. Still, about half of American parents sometimes spank
>>>> their children. And, as long as it stops short of abuse, that should be
>>>> their own business.
>>>>
>>> Not according to the research done by anti-spanking guru Straus. His
>>> research, if you were to believe, said it is around 94%.
>> And when was that Doan?
>>
>> I've watched the rate fall over the years. It WAS high back then. It is
>> not now. My point exactly when I posted this, and comments I've been
>> making for years now.
>>
>> The author also entertains the failed concept (proven by YOUR inability
>> to answer my simple question, The Question) that "it stops short of
>> abuse." predisposes that we have a universal standard, and ways for
>> parents to know precisely what is going on with their child
>> environmentally, internal and external, and how to guage the capacity of
>> the child to take hitting without injury.
>>
>> Can't be done. And one day this little question of mine is going to be a
>> major factor in laws being passed.
>>
>> No research can come up with definitive answers to that, The Question.
>>
> The same can be said about talking to your kids. "it stops short of
> VERBAL abuse"

There are so many contusions, broken bones, from verbals, right?

>>>> California Assemblywoman Sally Lieber thinks otherwise. She says she'll
>>>> introduce a bill next week that would make it a misdemeanor for anyone
>>>> to use corporal punishment on children three years old and under.
>>>> Penalties could include up to a year in jail, a $1,000 fine or a
>>>> requirement to attend parenting classes. If approved, California would
>>>> become the first state to explicitly ban parents from smacking their
>>>> kids. This ordinarily wouldn't merit much attention. Only a tiny
>>>> fraction of the tens of thousands of bills state legislators submit
>>>> each year even get out of committee. But the passion the topic
>>>> generates has made it a conversation piece on network television, talk
>>>> radio and elsewhere, which makes it an idea worth killing before it
>>>> spreads.
>>>>
>>>> Criminalizing what most people see as a private family matter and part
>>>> of normal parenting is wrongheaded and impossible to enforce. It would
>>>> impose an absurd level of government meddling in home life.
>>>>
>>> Governement don't raise kids; parents do!
>> You are agreeing with a rant. Normal is not always *good.* You know
>> that. It was normal to cut off part of a slaves foot if he was caught
>> after trying to "run." All slave owners were pretty accepting of that as
>> a practice. Keeping people on the verge of starvation and working them
>> to death was considered just business as usual.
>>
> Is that what you see as parent/child relationship? Do you treat your
> child like a slave?

Metaphor. Those children that are hit are being treated just as slaves
were.

Your attempt to turn it into a personal attack is duly noted.

>>>> Let's be clear. Abuse that causes injury is wrong and already illegal.
>> Ah, the problem is spoken even by those that do not really understand it
>> and attempt to minimize it.
>
> Like you minimize Ron spanking his kids? ;-)

Can't argue the issue, eh?

You don't know what I've said to Ron one way or the other.

This is a lie you foist by attempting to mislead from assumption.

Your attempt to triangulate is duly noted. Your parent's taught you well.

>>>> Physicians, social workers, teachers and others who suspect a child has
>>>> been abused are required by law to report it to authorities. The
>>>> proposed bill draws no distinction, however, between degrees of
>>>> physical punishment, whether 10 lashes with a whip or a quick, mild
>>>> slap to focus the attention of a child about to run into oncoming
>>>> traffic. Nor could it easily do so.
>> Guess Embry's conclusions need to be more widely circulated.
>>
> Yup! Kane. Please include what he said about the anti-spanking zealotS!
> I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU! ;-)

You can't?

And he didn't mention zealots.

>>>> Opponents of spanking say it's a form of violence that causes
>>>> psychological harm. Defenders call it an effective method of discipline
>>>> and say there's no evidence that occasional spanking damages a child's
>>>> development.
>> Nonsense.
>>
> To a stupid liar lie you!

You begin with a personal attack and continue it. I thought you only
gave as good as you got plus one.

Were you lying?

>>> The advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics - that
>>>> spanking should be used only in selective, infrequent situations, if at
>>>> all - seems about right.
>>>>
>>> Seem like a good advise.
>> If all children were dogs, so that you could not be prosecuted for that
>> hitting, normally. Or all children were exactly the same so you could
>> have a standard of how hard to hit, how often to hit, and what class of
>> behaviors to hit for.
>>
> How hard did you hit you own children, Kane? Do you know where "the line"
> is? ;-)

Can't argue the point can you Doan?

How does whether or not I could have any bearing on my challenge?

I can't jump flat footed six feet straight up either. That I cannot has
no bearing on whether others can or not.

They can't.

>>>> The place to ban spanking is not in the home but in public schools,
>>>> where it's still allowed in about half of states, inviting trouble.
>> As is being done, and conditions improving.
>>
>>>> School spanking can become overzealous; it sends children the message
>>>> that physical abuse by authority figures can be acceptable and it can
>>>> be applied inconsistently.
>> And it does not improve grades.
>>
>> >> Education Department statistics show that
>>>> African-American students are twice as likely to be spanked as students
>>>> of other races.
>>>>
>>> And studies after studies
>> Citations, please. Plural.
>>
> Already did, it's in the "archives"!

R R RR..... sure, Doan. I posted citations for my claim.

You special are you?

>>> have shown that spanking, at least for
>>> African-American, do not correlate with bad outcomes.
>> Show us these studies.
>>
> Already did!

Then I should not have posted this and just said find it yourself, and
made an unsupported claim.

That's what you are doing.

>> My understanding is that black men are way over represented in the
>> prison population. That's often considered a bad outcome. Some African
>> American people have awakened to this, and understand that the "the
>> child won't feel loved if I don't," is a rationalization, not a
>> scientific fact.
>>
> They are over represented in the NFL, NBA, Olympics medal winners....
> also.

And this effects the prison population issue how?

>> And this study shows something a bit different than you claim or those
>> "studied" you mention.
>>
> Prove it!

Not unless you post the studies you claim.

I'm not going to argue against missing data with data I've presented.

And that leads us to assume there isn't what you claimed.


>> Notice this is one of those longitudinal studies you have claimed didn't
>> exist by harping to be show them. Not looking yourself, for fear of what
>> you'd find, Doan?
>>
>> And, "Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039
>> European American children, 550 African American children, and 401
>> Hispanic children."
>>
>> That's a fair sized sampling of the population, wouldn't you say, and
>> roughly in proportion racially to the population?
>>
>> You just can't seem to help yourself helping others to show what a
>> stupid man you are, or liar. Or both.
>>
>> http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00040.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jomf
>>
>> Journal of Marriage and Family
>> Volume 64 Issue 1 Page 40 - February 2002
>>
>> To cite this article: Vonnie C McLoyd, Julia Smith (2002)
>> Physical Discipline and Behavior Problems in African American, European
>> American, and Hispanic Children: Emotional Support as a Moderator
>> Journal of Marriage and Family 64 (1), 40?53.
>> doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00040.x
>>
>> * Vonnie C. McLoyd11Center for Human Growth and Development,
>> University of Michigan, 300 North Ingalls, Ann Arbor, MI 48109
>> ).
>> * Julia Smith11Center for Human Growth and Development, University
>> of Michigan, 300 North Ingalls, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 ).
>> 1Center for Human Growth and Development, University of Michigan,
>> 300 North Ingalls, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 ).
>>
>> [[[ *** emphasis mine ]]]
>>
>> Abstract
>>
>> Using data collected over a 6-year period on a sample of 1,039 European
>> American children, 550 African American children, and 401 Hispanic
>> children from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
>> this study assessed whether maternal emotional support of the child
>> moderates the relation between spanking and behavior problems. Children
>> were 4?5 years of age in the first of 4 waves of data used (1988, 1990,
>> 1992, 1994). At each wave, mothers reported their use of spanking and
>> rated their children's behavior problems. Maternal emotional support of
>> the child was based on interviewer observations conducted as part of the
>> Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. *** For each of the
>> 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase in the level of
>> problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs ratio and
>> maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support moderated the
>> link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was associated with
>> an increase in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels
>> of emotional support, but not in the context of high levels of emotional
>> support. This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups. ...
>>
>> What's that last sentence say?
>>
> What the sentence before it says, Kane?
>
>> Now what I'm going to do is SHOW you, Doan, that those with an ageda
>> will go so far as to LIE, publicly about outcomes of research. The same
>> study is describe by them as follows. And gives you some idea of how
>> well they CANNOT be trusted, and have an agenda, much like yours, that
>> they think excuses such lying as this:
>>
> And those that are STUPID, like you, seem not to understand what they
> read. ;-)
>
>> Here's how a page of citations from a propaganda rag on the web
>> describes that study:
>>
>> http://www.fotf.ca/tfn/family/articles/Parental_Discipline.html
>> ...
>> 8) Physical Discipline and Behavior Problems in African American,
>> European American, and Hispanic Children: Emotional Support as a Moderator
>>
>> Vonni C. McLoyd, Julia Smith
>>
>> This study found that Hispanic, African American, and European American
>> children have increased behavioral problems if they have low levels of
>> emotional support from their parents. Behaviour problems increase if
>> spanking occurs. However, those children who had high levels of support
>> from their parents and were spanked showed no relationship between
>> spanking and behavior problems. This article was published in the
>> Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 64, Number 1, Pages 40-53.
>> February, 2002. ...
>>
> Did you miss the part about emotional support? "...no relationship
> between spanking and behavior problems." Thanks, Kane. You have
> just proved that it's not the spanking perse but how the spanking
> is carried out.

Not in the least. And did you miss that otherwise they flat out lied?

>> Same researchers cited Doan. Notice the obvious lie by omission?
>>
> Notice your STUPIDITY!

Notice "This study found that Hispanic, African American, and European
American children have increased behavioral problems if they have low
levels of emotional support from their parents. Behaviour problems
increase if spanking occurs," concealed by the pro spank people in
citation, mind you.

Notice that many black families do provide strong emotional support and
that could be what's also effecting athletes? And that it's one of the
avenues more open to Black people to compete in. Naturally what's open
is where they will go.

You aren't very bright are you, Doan?

>> A bit of your style. Aren't you proud.
>>
> Yup! Just like you proved yourself to be a STUPID LIAR!

Well, so far in this post, you've attempted to claim I minimize Ron's
spanking of his children. You do not know what I may or may not have
said to him about that.

Thus, Doan, you fabricated that to mislead. A lie.

You have claimed studies that you just refused to supply. And unless you
do, you carry the burden of being thought a liar, possibly.
>
>> No mention whatsoever of what the authors/researchers ACTUALLY CONCLUDED.

No response, Doan? The key issue, lying by prospankers, and you don't
want to address it?

That's dishonest, Doan.

>> The must have, to be generous in describing their interpretation, did a
>> bit of free association interpretation of this:
>>
>> ...For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an
>> increase in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for
>> income-needs ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional
>> support moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior.
>> Spanking was associated with an increase in behavior problems over time
>> in the context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the
>> context of high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
>> racial-ethnic groups. ......
>>
> Yup! Even for white people too - emotional support!

Yep, and for all three

"This study found that Hispanic, African American, and European American
children have increased behavioral problems if they have low levels of
emotional support from their parents. Behaviour problems increase if
spanking occurs."

"Behaviour problems increase if
spanking occurs.""

>> Would you claim the spanking advocates are honest?

No answer, Doan?

Only argue the points you think you can win by misdirection and other
dishonest methods of debate?

Can't deal with the main issue?

Can't debate the main issue?

You are very predictable. Same dodges and we all knew you would do it
again.
>>
>> How can we trust their citations and possibly phony abstracts of the
>> other studies they list?
>>
>> I found it fascinating, as well, that while they underlined the title,
>> as though it was a link to source, like other citations on the page, IT
>> WAS NOT A LINK.
>>
> It's in your file cabinet! ;-)

Can't debate the issues, Doan?

>> Reminds me of tactics of certain other pro-spankers I know that post to
>> these newsgroups.
>>
>> The tipoff they are phonies, willing to lie for their cause is that the
>> cited "Dr. Robert E. Larzelere critiques the conclusions of researcher
>> Joan Durrant on the welfare of children in Sweden since the ban." They
>> did NOT mention that Durrant came back and steamrollered the hack flat
>> as a mashed bug.
>>
> Read his research ina "peer-reviewed" journal, Kane? ;-)

What peer reviewed journal, Doan?

Did you wish to make a claim?

>>>> Abusive violence against children, whether in the home or elsewhere, is
>>>> intolerable. But so is an intrusive government that would make
>>>> criminals of parents trying to do their best to raise their kids.
>>>>
>>> And more business for CPS.
>> CPS has way too much business now. Caseloads are moving back to toward
>> their all time high in the late 80s. Mostly because of cutbacks in
>> staffing.
>>
> So they will more or less business of spanking is outlawed, Kane?

?

>> Let's get you more up to speed, and overcome some of your ignorance,
>> shall we then?
>>
> Sure give me a breakdown of the funds they get over the years, Kane?
> I like to know where the money went.

Not until you start debating by offering facts to support your claims,
Doan.

Don't ask for what you aren't willing to provide.

>> What we find, Doan, is that many of the claims made from those "many
>> studies" about black children that make that claim come with a caveat,
>> and that is related to variables.
>>
> You meant like the International study you claim to support a "x leads to
> y" relationship, Kane. Did you read the caveat in that one? Wanna share
> them with us? I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU! Hihihi!

It's a rare piece of research that does not come with a somewhat
standard caveat about not drawing conclusions the authors of the report
did not.

>> Those little things you like to avoid.
>>
> And things that I like to expose, like you and your stupidity! ;-)

Your score? = 0
>
>> Here's a typical one:
>>
>> http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/500007
>>
>> Spanking in Early Childhood and Later Behavior Problems: A Prospective
>> Study of Infants and Young Toddlers
>> Slade EP, Wissow LS
>> Pediatrics. 2004;113(5):1321-1330
>>
> Do you have a PDF file of the actual study, Kane? Can I have a copy?
> Or will you send it to Mexico again? ;-)

Nice to see you so obviously confess you can't debate the issues as
presented.

>> Corporal punishment in children is a controversial issue and one that
>> physicians should take seriously when counseling parents. It is by no
>> means uncommon. A sample of 991 American parents interviewed in 1995
>> revealed that 94% used some form of corporal punishment on children. ...
>>
> Damn that 94% percent again. So much for the claim that it has reduced
> to about half! You didn't make that claim, did you Kane? ;-)

1995.

And yes, recently I mentioned it was nearing 50%.

It appears the message is getting through.

.... Most parents said they use bare hands if they spank a child, though
roughly one-third of parents in a 1995 Gallup poll said they had used
''a belt, hairbrush, stick, or some other hard object" to strike their
child's bottom. ...

(see another post, on "The Rod, redux" for the entire article that was
taken from).

>
>> [[[ They footnote that figure as coming from Straus, NINETEEN NINETY
>> FOUR, Doan. Does that explain what I have been telling you for about 3
>> years...that it's coming down? To continue. ]]]
>>
> Hihihi! Sound like your claim that crime were down during these same
> period right, Kane?

That's not the issue you brought up, Doan. Why would you want to
suddenly change the subject 0;-}

>> ... The authors of the study suggest that spanking may be less of a
>> marker of family tension in African American communities, meaning that
>> African American infants who were spanked bear less emotional scars that
>> produce later behavioral problems in school. However, it should be noted
>> that race was not the only difference between the different ethnic
>> groups in this study. In this study cohort, white families had higher
>> mean incomes, had achieved higher educational levels, and were more
>> likely to read to their children every day. Parents in these families
>> were also more likely to be married. Therefore, as in many issues in
>> which biopsychosocial factors loom large, it is difficult to separate
>> the cultural from other socioeconomic factors that contribute to the
>> difference between subgroups.
>>
>> [[[ Negating the validity of the studies. ]]]
>>
>> This study had several additional limitations. Only spanking by the
>> mother was measured, and other types of corporal punishment were not
>> analyzed. ...
>>
> Hihihi! limitations, Kane? Did they analyze non-cp alternatives too,
> Kane?

It does not say. Can you counter the study's comment?

>> I've always wondered if WHO spanked the child might not have a bearing
>> on later outcomes.
>>
>> And here I share with you something you'll love, but is inconclusive and
>> solely the opinion of the authors, again, scientifically not supportable
>> by their own admissions.
>>
>> ... However, given the conflicting results of spanking in different
>> cultural groups and the lack of data on the relative damage that could
>> be inflicted by spanking compared with other negative parenting
>> behaviors such as neglect or emotional abuse, it seems appropriate that
>> physicians provide a summary of the known facts regarding spanking and
>> leave the decision for corporal punishment up to the parents. The
>> emphasis in parental counseling should instead focus on positive things
>> -- support, affection, attention, and love -- that parents can do for
>> their children every day. ...
>>
>> Yet, like so many that are unresolved, as is the best they can be if you
>> look at their entire conclusions, they still recommend NONE spanking and
>> support.
>>
> Opinion. Opinion.

From the authors of the study?

Yes.

I note that every spanking proponent that professes to be a scientist
also expresses their opinion.

>> Support very like I've described as what I recommend as the more
>> powerful and effective parenting method over punishment methods.
>>
>> They didn't EVEN say, "non-spanking discipline."
>>
>> I've read the study the following comes from many times, and laughed at
>> you, Doan, when you make claims about it, and when I point out the
>> obvious, you ignore and go right on citing again as proof that spanking
>> works as well as non spanking.
>>
> Hihihi! I laugh at the way you try to fit that square anti-spanking
> peg into the round hole!

No such attempt was made. If a study comes up with two kinds of
punishment for discipline and neither appears to be working to lower
outcomes of aggression in children it would appear to me neither is as
good as non-punitive methods.

Read Embry's study fully?

>> Here, see if you can figure out the author of this comment on Straus,
>> and the infamous non CP alternative disciplines:
>>
>> "Finally, the strongest causal evidence for detrimental outcomes of
>> spanking is based on methods that make alternative disciplinary tactics
>> appear equally detrimental in most cases. Of the 11 studies that
>> controlled partially for initially excessive misbehavior, only Straus et
>> al. (1997)6 found uniformly detrimental outcomes. The other 10 studies
>> either found beneficial outcomes (3 studies), a mixture of beneficial
>> and detrimental outcomes (2 studies), neutral outcomes (1 study), or a
>> mixture of detrimental and neutral outcomes (4 studies). But Larzelere
>> and Smith (2000)7 replicated and extended Straus et al.?s (1997) study,
>> using the same publicly available data set. In general, they found
>> similar increases in antisocial behavior two years later for those who
>> used four alternative disciplinary tactics frequently: grounding,
>> removing privileges, docking allowances, or sending the child to his or
>> her room. Further, these apparently detrimental outcomes for spanking
>> and the four alternatives all disappeared after we did a better job of
>> taking the initial level of excessive misbehavior into account."
>>
>> And the last sentence is a laugh riot. What kind of "science" is that?
>> Silly?
>>
> Hihihi! You too STUPID to understand what you read right, Kane.

Then you can explain to us what they did to take the "initial level of
excessive misbehavior into account," right?

Please share.

>> Doan, the author, one of your favorites, AND Straus, PROVE and support,
>> that NONE PUNITIVE IS THE BETTER WAY TO GO, BECAUSE PUNITIVE METHODS OF
>> BOTH KINDS HAVE A HIGH RATE OF AGGRESSION, while none punitive have so
>> little no one has really bother with much research on it. It's simply
>> understood.
>>
> So we should not punish children right, Kane?

If we can avoid it, yes. Most of what children learn can be done without
aversive conditioning. The few things that cannot punish the child from
nature. Until a child is old enough to profit by that kind of learn we
should be protecting them. And not causing them pain for things they
cannot understand.

> Are you calling for a
> ban on all punishment?

Nope. I'm a fan of natural consequences at the right level of
development for the circumstances.

> Get rid of the "jay-vee"?

What's a '"jay-vee"?'

>> But then, R R R R there IS that Embry study, eh?
>
> The one that has NO PUNISHMENT, right? ;-) Remember what Embry said
> about the "extremes"?

I don't recall it having no punishment. I do recall disagreeing with the
idea that the method of "sit and watch" was more effective as
punishment, or as a time for the parent to be with the child and doing
observation of other children providing the correct model the parent
wished the child to follow...playing in safe areas away from the street.

My old college Psych 101 text book claimed that 80% of all learning by
humans is done by the process of modeling.

Embry's discussion of 'sit and watch' was a bit ambiguous if you read
both descriptions in the narrative, and the description in the
instructions to the observers coding the behaviors.
>
>>> Doan
>>>
>> Yes, you are certainly that.
>>
>> Kane
>
> Yes, you are certainly STUPID!

For you to continually dodge issues, bring up issues yourself, then
dodge challenges to those issues, is not "smart," Doan, despite that you
appear to think it is.

>
> Doan
>

The folks knew the answer, Doan, to the question you've answered mainly
by claim we should let the parents decide on the use of CP: The Question
was answered by them.

" 2001-NOV-14: IL: Parents allegedly whipped 12 year old daughter to
death: Larry and Constance Slack allegedly were displeased at their
daughter Lauree. They felt that she was being "uncooperative" after they
ordered their children to find a smock with credit cards inside. In an
attempt to teach their daughter responsibility, they allegedly tied
their daughter Laree to a futon, and whipped her with a 5-foot length of
electrical cable. The cable is 1 inch (2.5 cm) in diameter and was
composed of strands of copper wire and insulation. The parents allegedly
told the police that they were meting out the biblical punishment of "40
lashes minus one, three times." This totals 117 blows. They allegedly
stuffed a towel in her mouth at one point to silence her screams. She
died a few hours later in hospital from internal bleeding as a result of
the torture. Her father attempted to commit suicide while in custody.
Demetra Soter, coordinator of pediatric trauma at Cook County Hospital
said that she knew of only two comparable cases in recent years in the
Chicago area. The parents were each charged with first-degree murder.
They were also charged with aggravated battery in the alleged beating of
their 8-yer old son."

Yes, there is a law against assault.

The problem is that people will hit children without regard for those
laws and claim it as a right.

The challenge from some quarters, like Bill O'Reilly, is that government
should not be telling parents how to raise their children.

That argument went out the window centuries ago.

Government (Society) has always had some effect on how other folks
children were raised.

And the argument fails on already passed laws regarding "how to raise
children."

Society has been doing that for a long time.

Whether it should or not is not arguable in any real sense.

0:-]

>>>> Copyright ? 2007 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
>>>> Copyright ? 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
>>>> Questions or Comments
>>>> Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback
>>>>
>>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070125/cm_usatoday/tospankornottospank
>>>>
>>>>
>

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> And it does not improve grades.
>>
>> >> Education Department statistics show that
>>>> African-American students are twice as likely to be spanked as students
>>>> of other races.
>>>>
>>> And studies after studies
>> Citations, please. Plural.
>>
> http://www.blackwomenshealth.com/Being%20A%20Good%20Parent.htm
>
> "What must be said about spanking is that it exists in cultural contexts.
> For example, scientific studies show that many White middle and upper
> class children who receive physical punishment regularly become aggressive
> as adolescents and as adults.

What studies, Doan?

> The data for Black children, regardless of
> economic background, suggests the opposite- that not using physical
> punishment is associated with behavior problems.

"Suggests?"

Is that an X leads to Y, "causal" claim?

> Further, some suggests
> that White middle class physical discipline suggests an out-of control
> authoritarian home while the lack of physical discipline among African
> American parents implies neglectful parenting (see Deater-Deckard, Bates,
> Dodge, & Pettit, 1996). Clearly culture is an important factor in how
> physical discipline is understood.

Yes it is. And I cited a study that counters this one.

The presence of hedge words prevails in this commentary. "implies?"
"suggests?"

I think in your prior post you mentioned, "opinion. opinion?"

> An important factor in the debate on different forms of punishment is the
> perception that Black children have regarding their punishment. When
> parents are viewed as caring and not simply angry, children tend to
> internalize the message that there is a consequence, good and bad, for
> their behaviors. This is where showing warmth while being controlling is
> absolutely necessary. Regardless, spanking is a decision that parents
> must make individually. The most important factor is balancing warmth and
> firmness."

That is certainly opinion, and very much expressing the rationalization
that spanking doesn't result in misbehavior.

The study I pointed to said flat out, that it did, across three racial
demographics, Hispanic, caucasion, and African American.


As to your citation, you chose, not a scientific journal, or even a
scientific periodical, but an obviously biased source that strongly
support CP including from a religious perspective.

http://www.blackwomenshealth.com/2006/articles.php?id=29

Here are a few comments that make this clear. One a bald statement that
is of course false on it's face but does clearly express the publisher's
bias:

"Physical Punishment

Disciplining children requires punishment."
[[[ The erroneous assumption that "discipline IS punishment." ]]]

In addition they cite Deater-Deckard, Bates, Dodge, & Pettit, 1996, as
support for the author's argument they make concerning how discipline
equates with good parenting.

And if you check the abstract of their research you will see they make
no such definitive affirmation this article you posted attempts:

http://www.indiana.edu/~batessdl/cdp_abstracts.html#961

"Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K.A., Bates, J.E., & Pettit, G.S. (1996).
Physical discipline among African-American and European-American
mothers: Links to children's externalizing behaviors. Developmental
Psychology, 32, 1065-1072.

The aim of this study was to test whether the relation between physical
discipline and child aggression was moderated by ethnic-group status. A
sample of 466 European American and 100 African American children from a
broad range of socioeconomic levels were followed from kindergarten
through 3rd grade. Mothers reported their use of physical discipline in
interviews and questionnaires, and mothers, teachers, and peers rated
children's externalizing problems annually. The interaction between
ethnic status and discipline was significant for teacher- and peer-rated
externalizing scores; physical discipline was associated with higher
externalizing scores, but only among European American children. These
findings provide evidence that the link between physical punishment and
child aggression may be culturally specific. "

In fact, what it says clearly is "may be" specific to culture. They did
not establish that it was or the abstract would say so.

The research I provided says specifically that regardless of culture all
spanked children where a loving supportive environment was not present
did in fact experience increases in misbehavior. NO claim was made, by
the way, that the presence of support changed that in any way.

This is how it was stated in the study I first cited:

"Maternal emotional support moderated the link between spanking and
problem behavior. Spanking was associated with an increase in behavior
problems over time in the context of low levels of emotional support,
but not in the context of high levels of emotional support. This pattern
held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups."

The pattern held, high or low emotional support, for all 3, Doan.

Kane

>
> Doan
>
>
>
>

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Doan, You proved him wrong, but Kane will never admit it.

He did not. I posted a report from researchers that when the source was
accessed, showed that the source he would point to, had lied.

Blatantly.

My source said that in fact misbehavior rose for all three groups of
children, while his lied and said not for Black children.

He later posts "proof" from an article, rather than from the source,
where the article fails to not the researchers used "may be" linked to
cultural issues.

That's a big hedge.

Doan claims his "Black children don't" based on "And studies after studies."

You see him citing any?

One article from a source so obviously biased they start with the need
for religious sanctions for CP, and flatly state that "discipline" means
punishment?

Discipline means "to teach."

Punishment means to hurt.

Doan has proved nothing but that he's poor propagandist that makes
claims he refuses to support, and when asked questions in challenge of
his claims, simply changes the subject...usually to some ad hom question.

I point out that The Question of The Line between safe CP and abuse is
unknowable...and it is...and he, rather than try to support his claim
that it IS, asks me if I knew the line with my own children.

YOU may not wish to face the truth of such evasion, but I doubt anyone
else does.

What I do or do not do or know is irrelevant to the argument that The
Line is unknowable, and precisely the problem with people chosing to hit
their children and minimize what it is and so easily becomes.

The question of what is acceptable CP has never been resolved.

Even legally you cannot find a single law that defines with any
reasonable chance of not injuring a child, precisely the conditions that
constitute 'legal physical discipline.'

The best the law can do is discuss the unwanted outcomes. IN other
words, after the line is passed and the child injured, then they'll tell
you if you broke the law or not.

This should, were you consistent, enrage you and cause you to have one
of your usual ****fits about violations of civil rights, but because
it's a matter where YOU come down on the side of CP, you are perfectly
happy the law is as sloppy as it is.

Kane

[Doan]

> This is how it was stated in the study I first cited:
>
> "Maternal emotional support moderated the link between spanking and
> problem behavior. Spanking was associated with an increase in behavior
> problems over time in the context of low levels of emotional support,
> but not in the context of high levels of emotional support. This pattern
> held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups."
>
> The pattern held, high or low emotional support, for all 3, Doan.
>
> Kane
>
"but not in the the context of high levels of emotional support." YOU
ARE STUPID!

Doan

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On 27 Jan 2007, Greegor wrote:
>
>> Doan, You proved him wrong, but Kane will never admit it.
>>
> "The truth will set you free." Kane is still a slave - it is legal,
> according to him. ;-)

Show where it is
'illegal" to BE a slave, Doan.

Seen anyone arrested and charged for being a slave yet, Doan.

That's what I claimed.

Thus you are memory impaired, from too much childhood spanking, likely,
or you are lying.

Which goes to Greg's claim that you proved me wrong being a crock.

You cited a bias loaded rag, I cited a scientific study.

When the rag cited to support their claim and I checked the source it
turns out the issue of culture was described by the researchers as "may be."

In other words, they are not going to claim they have conclusively shown.
>
> Doan
>
Thus Greg's claim "Doan, You proved him wrong," is false, thus making
his next comment that "he won't admit it," patently false on logic.

I am not going to admit to being wrong, when I am not.

You were.

And you failed to defend the other source that lied by omission that I
pointed out to you...pro-spankers that deliberately falsely citing a
source that said something entirely different than claimed.

The claim left out the parent that said the misbehavior in fact was seen
in the children from all three cultures.

That would not be MY mistake, Doan, but yours for not admitting the
fact, and claiming you have all the studies that prove your claim, but
will not cite them. Or provide links to them.

I see why you two invited and enjoy the presence of Ken here.

A two legged stool needs another leg to keep from over.

Kane

[Doan]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On 27 Jan 2007, Greegor wrote:
> >
> >> Doan, You proved him wrong, but Kane will never admit it.
> >>
> > "The truth will set you free." Kane is still a slave - it is legal,
> > according to him. ;-)
>
> Show where it is
> 'illegal" to BE a slave, Doan.
>
You claimed that it is LEGAL, the burden of proof is on you. Show me
statue in a state, or anywhere for that matter, where it said it is
LEGAL to be a slave. I cannot prove a negative, Kane. You made
the affirmative claim. Prove it!

Doan

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Doan, You proved him wrong, but Kane will never admit it.

Doan cited a biased prospanking source that cited research from the
following group. They did not clearly represent the actual conclusions
of the researchers.

Here is yet another related study of theirs.

* Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K.A., Bates, J.E., & Pettit, G.S.
(1998). Multiple-risk factors in the development of externalizing
behavior problems: Group and individual differences. Development and
Psychopathology, 10, 469-493.

The aim of this study was to test whether individual risk factors
as well as the number of risk factors (cumulative risk) predicted
children's externalizing behaviors over middle childhood. A sample of
466 European American and 100 African American boys and girls from a
broad range of socioeconomic levels was followed from age 5 to 10 years.
Twenty risk variables from four domains (child, sociocultural,
parenting, and peer-related) were measured using in-home interviews at
the beginning of the study, and annual assessments of externalizing
behaviors were conducted. Consistent with past research, individual
differences in externalizing behavior problems were stable over time and
were related to individual risk factors as well as the number of risk
factors present. Particular risks accounted for 36% to 45% of the
variance, and the number of risks present (cumulative risk status)
accounted for 19% to 32% of the variance, in externalizing outcomes.
Cumulative risk was related to subsequent externalizing even after
initial levels of externalizing had been statistically controlled. All
four domains of risk variables made significant unique contributions to
this statistical prediction, and there were multiple clusters of risks
that led to similar outcomes. There was also evidence that this
prediction was moderated by ethnic group status, most of the prediction
of externalizing being found for European American children. However,
this moderation effect varied depending on the predictor and outcome
variables included in the model.

In other words, just as they said about their earlier research, "may be."

In this case, outcomes for race were changable based on the OTHER
variables.

No really connection that could stand on its own, concerning better or
worse outcomes for Black children was established.

The study I cited earlier from another more recent source of research
states clearly that NO such cultural differences effect outcomes. All
children spanked present with more misbehavior as a result.

But then you don't read anything, or when you do, like Doan, you either
don't see what is there, and lie, or do see what is there and...of
course...still lie.

Kane

[Doan]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> Greegor wrote:
> > Doan, You proved him wrong, but Kane will never admit it.
>
> Doan cited a biased prospanking source that cited research from the
> following group. They did not clearly represent the actual conclusions
> of the researchers.
>
> Here is yet another related study of theirs.
>
> * Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K.A., Bates, J.E., & Pettit, G.S.
> (1998). Multiple-risk factors in the development of externalizing
> behavior problems: Group and individual differences. Development and
> Psychopathology, 10, 469-493.
>
> The aim of this study was to test whether individual risk factors
> as well as the number of risk factors (cumulative risk) predicted
> children's externalizing behaviors over middle childhood. A sample of
> 466 European American and 100 African American boys and girls from a
> broad range of socioeconomic levels was followed from age 5 to 10 years.
> Twenty risk variables from four domains (child, sociocultural,
> parenting, and peer-related) were measured using in-home interviews at
> the beginning of the study, and annual assessments of externalizing
> behaviors were conducted. Consistent with past research, individual
> differences in externalizing behavior problems were stable over time and
> were related to individual risk factors as well as the number of risk
> factors present. Particular risks accounted for 36% to 45% of the
> variance, and the number of risks present (cumulative risk status)
> accounted for 19% to 32% of the variance, in externalizing outcomes.
> Cumulative risk was related to subsequent externalizing even after
> initial levels of externalizing had been statistically controlled. All
> four domains of risk variables made significant unique contributions to
> this statistical prediction, and there were multiple clusters of risks
> that led to similar outcomes. There was also evidence that this
> prediction was moderated by ethnic group status, most of the prediction
> of externalizing being found for European American children. However,
> this moderation effect varied depending on the predictor and outcome
> variables included in the model.
>
> In other words, just as they said about their earlier research, "may be."
>
> In this case, outcomes for race were changable based on the OTHER
> variables.
>
> No really connection that could stand on its own, concerning better or
> worse outcomes for Black children was established.
>
> The study I cited earlier from another more recent source of research
> states clearly that NO such cultural differences effect outcomes. All
> children spanked present with more misbehavior as a result.
>
> But then you don't read anything, or when you do, like Doan, you either
> don't see what is there, and lie, or do see what is there and...of
> course...still lie.
>
> Kane
>

Kane said:
"The pattern held, high or low emotional support, for all 3, Doan."

From your own source, Kane:
"but not in the the context of high levels of emotional support."

Now either YOU ARE STUPID and don't understand what you read or YOU ARE
A LIAR! Which is it, Kane?

Doan

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> You could say that Kane is a slave to rhetoric also.

Yes, you could say it.

But would it be true?

>

[0:->]

krp wrote:
> "0:->" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> AGAIN Kane goes to his "SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS"!! :-)))))))))

I didn't claim this was a scientific journal, did I? Shame on me if I
did so.

In fact you might guess I don't agree with all the sentiments of the lay
person that wrote this.

Did he claim it was scientific.

Apparently you are confuse on this as you are on the claim that there is
much research proving that children who are not spanked are at risk of
developing behaviors of "sociopathy."

But thanks for your comments.

Now the evidence you claimed, please.

>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070125/cm_usatoday/tospankornottospank
>
>
> Back to Story - Help
> Yahoo! News
> To spank or not to spank?
>
> Thu Jan 25, 8:22 AM ET
>
> The Biblical injunction "spare the rod and spoil the child" has fallen
> out of favor in recent decades.
>
> Fifty years ago, most children were spanked. But the practice has
> steadily declined over the years as parents found better ways to punish
> bad behavior. Still, about half of American parents sometimes spank
> their children. And, as long as it stops short of abuse, that should be
> their own business.
>
> California Assemblywoman Sally Lieber thinks otherwise. She says she'll
> introduce a bill next week that would make it a misdemeanor for anyone
> to use corporal punishment on children three years old and under.
> Penalties could include up to a year in jail, a $1,000 fine or a
> requirement to attend parenting classes. If approved, California would
> become the first state to explicitly ban parents from smacking their
> kids. This ordinarily wouldn't merit much attention. Only a tiny
> fraction of the tens of thousands of bills state legislators submit
> each year even get out of committee. But the passion the topic
> generates has made it a conversation piece on network television, talk
> radio and elsewhere, which makes it an idea worth killing before it
> spreads.
>
> Criminalizing what most people see as a private family matter and part
> of normal parenting is wrongheaded and impossible to enforce. It would
> impose an absurd level of government meddling in home life.
>
> Let's be clear. Abuse that causes injury is wrong and already illegal.
> Physicians, social workers, teachers and others who suspect a child has
> been abused are required by law to report it to authorities. The
> proposed bill draws no distinction, however, between degrees of
> physical punishment, whether 10 lashes with a whip or a quick, mild
> slap to focus the attention of a child about to run into oncoming
> traffic. Nor could it easily do so.
>
> Opponents of spanking say it's a form of violence that causes
> psychological harm. Defenders call it an effective method of discipline
> and say there's no evidence that occasional spanking damages a child's
> development. The advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics - that
> spanking should be used only in selective, infrequent situations, if at
> all - seems about right.
>
> The place to ban spanking is not in the home but in public schools,
> where it's still allowed in about half of states, inviting trouble.
> School spanking can become overzealous; it sends children the message
> that physical abuse by authority figures can be acceptable and it can
> be applied inconsistently. Education Department statistics show that
> African-American students are twice as likely to be spanked as students
> of other races.
>
> Abusive violence against children, whether in the home or elsewhere, is
> intolerable. But so is an intrusive government that would make
> criminals of parents trying to do their best to raise their kids.
>
> Copyright © 2007 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
> Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
> Questions or Comments
> Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070125/cm_usatoday/tospankornottospank
>
>

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On 27 Jan 2007, Greegor wrote:
>>>
>>>> Doan, You proved him wrong, but Kane will never admit it.
>>>>
>>> "The truth will set you free." Kane is still a slave - it is legal,
>>> according to him. ;-)
>> Show where it is
>> 'illegal" to BE a slave, Doan.
>>
> You claimed that it is LEGAL, the burden of proof is on you.

That's too easy. If it's not illegal then it is legal.

If you have no law on campus requiring you to spit in the trash
containers, then you can spit somewhere else. It's legal.

> Show me
> statue in a state, or anywhere for that matter, where it said it is
> LEGAL to be a slave.

Anything NOT in statute is legal, Doan.

In fact recently that popped up in the news as a problem. Something very
wrong couldn't be prosecuted because there was not statute specifically
addressing it.

> I cannot prove a negative, Kane.

That's right. Of course you can't. So you can't prove that being a slave
is illegal either.

You tried this before and ducked out the same way. I see you are back.

No law exists. That is my claim and my proof.

Now where is your proof that being a slave is illegal.

> You made
> the affirmative claim. Prove it!

No problem. If it's not in statute it's not illegal.

You do not have to make a law to establish what IS legal, only what is
not. You can, but you do not have to.

Slavery is illegal most everywhere.

Being a slave is not addressed, so it can't be illegal.

QED.

> Doan
>
You sure are dedicated to proving your stupidity and ignorance.

But no one misses that you have now carefully departed from the debate
that opened this thread.

Coward.

R R R R R R R

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Greegor wrote:
>>> Doan, You proved him wrong, but Kane will never admit it.
>> Doan cited a biased prospanking source that cited research from the
>> following group. They did not clearly represent the actual conclusions
>> of the researchers.
>>
>> Here is yet another related study of theirs.
>>
>> * Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K.A., Bates, J.E., & Pettit, G.S.
>> (1998). Multiple-risk factors in the development of externalizing
>> behavior problems: Group and individual differences. Development and
>> Psychopathology, 10, 469-493.
>>
>> The aim of this study was to test whether individual risk factors
>> as well as the number of risk factors (cumulative risk) predicted
>> children's externalizing behaviors over middle childhood. A sample of
>> 466 European American and 100 African American boys and girls from a
>> broad range of socioeconomic levels was followed from age 5 to 10 years.
>> Twenty risk variables from four domains (child, sociocultural,
>> parenting, and peer-related) were measured using in-home interviews at
>> the beginning of the study, and annual assessments of externalizing
>> behaviors were conducted. Consistent with past research, individual
>> differences in externalizing behavior problems were stable over time and
>> were related to individual risk factors as well as the number of risk
>> factors present. Particular risks accounted for 36% to 45% of the
>> variance, and the number of risks present (cumulative risk status)
>> accounted for 19% to 32% of the variance, in externalizing outcomes.
>> Cumulative risk was related to subsequent externalizing even after
>> initial levels of externalizing had been statistically controlled. All
>> four domains of risk variables made significant unique contributions to
>> this statistical prediction, and there were multiple clusters of risks
>> that led to similar outcomes. There was also evidence that this
>> prediction was moderated by ethnic group status, most of the prediction
>> of externalizing being found for European American children. However,
>> this moderation effect varied depending on the predictor and outcome
>> variables included in the model.
>>
>> In other words, just as they said about their earlier research, "may be."
>>
>> In this case, outcomes for race were changable based on the OTHER
>> variables.
>>
>> No really connection that could stand on its own, concerning better or
>> worse outcomes for Black children was established.
>>
>> The study I cited earlier from another more recent source of research
>> states clearly that NO such cultural differences effect outcomes. All
>> children spanked present with more misbehavior as a result.
>>
>> But then you don't read anything, or when you do, like Doan, you either
>> don't see what is there, and lie, or do see what is there and...of
>> course...still lie.
>>
>> Kane
>>
>
> Kane said:
> "The pattern held, high or low emotional support, for all 3, Doan."
>
> From your own source, Kane:
> "but not in the the context of high levels of emotional support."

And what followed that, Doan? That you have conveniently cherry pick it
from?

> Now either YOU ARE STUPID and don't understand what you read or YOU ARE
> A LIAR! Which is it, Kane?

I understand it and so do you, which makes you the liar.

You are busted.

.... of externalizing being found for European American children.
However, this moderation effect varied depending on the predictor and
outcome variables included in the model. ...

And a prior admission of "may be."

If they found proof, it would not read, "may be." It would read at least
that they found a correlation.

You seem overcome by the word, in this report I posted, by the word,
"However." You do know that it hedges the preceding comment, right?

R R R R R R R

Maybe there is a statute somewhere that says a slave is illegal by
virtue of being a slave, but I doubt it.

And most assuredly there is not that says he or she is legal.

And where there is no specific law that an act or even an act of 'being'
is legal.

It is legal to be a slave sans a statute saying it is illegal to be one.

It is legal to spit on the street, if there is no statute against it.

You are attempting the same misrepresentation of logic and in defiance
of facts presented by the researchers, Doan.

>
> Doan
>

Show were a positive correlation is defended for there BEING a proven
outcome of spanking NOT creating misbehavior in Black children, or less
than in other children, other factors being accounted for.

"may be" and "this moderation effect varied depending on the predictor
and outcome variables included in the model," doesn't cut it in research
as positive correlation to the claims made.

And you have not responded to:

"Spanking was associated with an increase in behavior problems over time
in the context of low levels of emotional support, but not in the
context of high levels of emotional support. This pattern held for all 3
racial-ethnic groups."

For all three groups, the responses were the same, and the same
regarding low levels of emotional support.

The outcomes for spanking were not the same (behavior problems) in low
levels of support as they were in high levels of support. This held true
for all 3 groups.

How difficult is that to understand, Doan?

You have not responded to this question before, that post grows cold to
most readers of the thread, and assuredly to those that may drop in
along the way.

Is that your goal?

You did not let it cool enough. I have no trouble remembering it and
quoting it.

Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 09:52:28 -0800
From: "0:->" >
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking,alt.support.child-protective-services
Subject: Re: To spank or not to spank?
Doan wrote:

And that's the post I quoted from.

There was one other question by me in that post. And I'm still waiting.

So far you have posted ONE item from a highly biased source, Doan, that
misquoted researchers to make a point the researchers said about, "may be."

Here is what you have yet have dodged from, your claim, and my challenge:

">>> And studies after studies
>> Citations, please. Plural.
>>
> Already did, it's in the "archives"!

R R RR..... sure, Doan. I posted citations for my claim.

You special are you?

>>> have shown that spanking, at least for
>>> African-American, do not correlate with bad outcomes.
>> Show us these studies.
>>
> Already did!"

No, Doan, you already did no such thing. Or you would post with
citations of your posts were you provided these 'studies after studies..'

I can't prove a negative, but you can prove a positive.

Let's see those studies and your prior citations of them concerning
Black children.

Valid science please, not more dodges like the one ARTICLE, not a study,
or study report, but a citation of a report that did NOT provide what
the article claimed it did.

The report authors said, "may be."

Respond cogently ( R R R R like that is likely) or show us more of your
entertaining dodges that in fact constitute lies.

Kane

[krp]

"0:->" > wrote in message
news:W4mdnYcE2IVzOybYnZ2dnUVZ_orinZ2d@scnresearch. com...
> Greegor wrote:
>> You could say that Kane is a slave to rhetoric also.
>
> Yes, you could say it.
>
> But would it be true?

It would be true enough to form a new religion based on it Kane. You
BEAT THE **** out of every BUZZ WORD you can find to make it seem like you
have a clue as to what you are talking about.

[krp]

"0:->" > wrote in message
news:G5OdnR5Ng79jfCbYnZ2dnUVZ_qfinZ2d@scnresearch. com...

>> AGAIN Kane goes to his "SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS"!! :-)))))))))

> I didn't claim this was a scientific journal, did I? Shame on me if I did
> so.

> In fact you might guess I don't agree with all the sentiments of the lay
> person that wrote this.

IN cvan understand how a PROMINENT "professional" like YOU would take
issue.

> Did he claim it was scientific.

Tell me, WHY do you keep posting BULL**** then?

> Apparently you are confuse on this as you are on the claim that there is
> much research proving that children who are not spanked are at risk of
> developing behaviors of "sociopathy."

Right after YOU prove your point first.

[Doan]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> Greegor wrote:
> >>> Doan, You proved him wrong, but Kane will never admit it.
> >> Doan cited a biased prospanking source that cited research from the
> >> following group. They did not clearly represent the actual conclusions
> >> of the researchers.
> >>
> >> Here is yet another related study of theirs.
> >>
> >> * Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K.A., Bates, J.E., & Pettit, G.S.
> >> (1998). Multiple-risk factors in the development of externalizing
> >> behavior problems: Group and individual differences. Development and
> >> Psychopathology, 10, 469-493.
> >>
> >> The aim of this study was to test whether individual risk factors
> >> as well as the number of risk factors (cumulative risk) predicted
> >> children's externalizing behaviors over middle childhood. A sample of
> >> 466 European American and 100 African American boys and girls from a
> >> broad range of socioeconomic levels was followed from age 5 to 10 years.
> >> Twenty risk variables from four domains (child, sociocultural,
> >> parenting, and peer-related) were measured using in-home interviews at
> >> the beginning of the study, and annual assessments of externalizing
> >> behaviors were conducted. Consistent with past research, individual
> >> differences in externalizing behavior problems were stable over time and
> >> were related to individual risk factors as well as the number of risk
> >> factors present. Particular risks accounted for 36% to 45% of the
> >> variance, and the number of risks present (cumulative risk status)
> >> accounted for 19% to 32% of the variance, in externalizing outcomes.
> >> Cumulative risk was related to subsequent externalizing even after
> >> initial levels of externalizing had been statistically controlled. All
> >> four domains of risk variables made significant unique contributions to
> >> this statistical prediction, and there were multiple clusters of risks
> >> that led to similar outcomes. There was also evidence that this
> >> prediction was moderated by ethnic group status, most of the prediction
> >> of externalizing being found for European American children. However,
> >> this moderation effect varied depending on the predictor and outcome
> >> variables included in the model.
> >>
> >> In other words, just as they said about their earlier research, "may be."
> >>
> >> In this case, outcomes for race were changable based on the OTHER
> >> variables.
> >>
> >> No really connection that could stand on its own, concerning better or
> >> worse outcomes for Black children was established.
> >>
> >> The study I cited earlier from another more recent source of research
> >> states clearly that NO such cultural differences effect outcomes. All
> >> children spanked present with more misbehavior as a result.
> >>
> >> But then you don't read anything, or when you do, like Doan, you either
> >> don't see what is there, and lie, or do see what is there and...of
> >> course...still lie.
> >>
> >> Kane
> >>
> >
> > Kane said:
> > "The pattern held, high or low emotional support, for all 3, Doan."
> >
> > From your own source, Kane:
> > "but not in the the context of high levels of emotional support."
>
> And what followed that, Doan? That you have conveniently cherry pick it
> from?
>
Exposing your LIES is not cherry picking!

> > Now either YOU ARE STUPID and don't understand what you read or YOU ARE
> > A LIAR! Which is it, Kane?
>
> I understand it and so do you, which makes you the liar.
>
> You are busted.
>
No, Kane. The one that got busted is YOU! You said "The pattern held,
high or low emotional support". I just highlighted the part where it
it said NOT "in the context of high levels of emotional support."
Either you didn't understand it or you are the liar, which is it? ;-)

Doan

[0:->]

krp wrote:
> "0:->" > wrote in message
> news:W4mdnYcE2IVzOybYnZ2dnUVZ_orinZ2d@scnresearch. com...
>> Greegor wrote:
>>> You could say that Kane is a slave to rhetoric also.
>> Yes, you could say it.
>>
>> But would it be true?
>
> It would be true enough to form a new religion based on it Kane. You
> BEAT THE **** out of every BUZZ WORD you can find to make it seem like you
> have a clue as to what you are talking about.

You just used "BUZZ WORD," as a buzz word.

Did you pick up on that?

So what buzz words have I used so far?

Want a list of the one's you've used?

I'm losing to you on that score, Ken.

It's just frustrating the hell out of me. Can't you tell?

0\-[

[0:->]

krp wrote:
> "0:->" > wrote in message
> news:G5OdnR5Ng79jfCbYnZ2dnUVZ_qfinZ2d@scnresearch. com...
>
>>> AGAIN Kane goes to his "SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS"!! :-)))))))))
>
>> I didn't claim this was a scientific journal, did I? Shame on me if I did
>> so.
>
>> In fact you might guess I don't agree with all the sentiments of the lay
>> person that wrote this.
>
> IN cvan understand how a PROMINENT "professional" like YOU would take
> issue.

Nowhere near as prominent as you, Ken.
>
>> Did he claim it was scientific.
>
> Tell me, WHY do you keep posting BULL**** then?

Tell me, why do you keep dodging by posting bull****, Ken?

I notice you aren't addressing the issue, but simply running around it
to sling some mud. Why is that I wonder?

Can't debate the issue?

Think anyone has forgotten the claim you made in the thread I titled:
"Spanking Leads To Child Aggression And Anxiety, Regardless Of Cultural
Norm?"

"There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
spanking can produce sociopathy in children."

Well, I've posted the evidence you claim doesn't exist, and did so while
being diverted to an issue brought up by your fellow liar, that Black
children that are spanked don't aggress at the rate white children who
are spanked do. Seems that research, from a very credible source, peer
reviewed and all, shows that to not be true. They do.

Doan couldn't find a way to dispute that so is reduced to ad hom and
other dodges.

You obviously can't because you won't address it.

And then there is that last bit you have been ducking since you claimed
it, "... There is considerable evidence that a lack of
spanking can produce sociopathy in children."

May we see that evidence please?

>> Apparently you are confuse on this as you are on the claim that there is
>> much research proving that children who are not spanked are at risk of
>> developing behaviors of "sociopathy."
>
> Right after YOU prove your point first.

I offered my proof and you and Doan copped out.

Of course you can rush back and try to take up the argument again, but
there is none to the research offered. That conversation is now split
from this one. And it was two sentences you wrote. And two separate
claims: "... There is considerable evidence that a lack of
spanking can produce sociopathy in children."

Any refusal of any kind by you will be considered a cop out, Ken. That
you turned tail and ran.

Now it's your turn.

Your proof please.

By the way, you still afraid to have alt.dads-rights.unmoderated see
your posts?

Kane

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Greegor wrote:
>>>>> Doan, You proved him wrong, but Kane will never admit it.
>>>> Doan cited a biased prospanking source that cited research from the
>>>> following group. They did not clearly represent the actual conclusions
>>>> of the researchers.
>>>>
>>>> Here is yet another related study of theirs.
>>>>
>>>> * Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K.A., Bates, J.E., & Pettit, G.S.
>>>> (1998). Multiple-risk factors in the development of externalizing
>>>> behavior problems: Group and individual differences. Development and
>>>> Psychopathology, 10, 469-493.
>>>>
>>>> The aim of this study was to test whether individual risk factors
>>>> as well as the number of risk factors (cumulative risk) predicted
>>>> children's externalizing behaviors over middle childhood. A sample of
>>>> 466 European American and 100 African American boys and girls from a
>>>> broad range of socioeconomic levels was followed from age 5 to 10 years.
>>>> Twenty risk variables from four domains (child, sociocultural,
>>>> parenting, and peer-related) were measured using in-home interviews at
>>>> the beginning of the study, and annual assessments of externalizing
>>>> behaviors were conducted. Consistent with past research, individual
>>>> differences in externalizing behavior problems were stable over time and
>>>> were related to individual risk factors as well as the number of risk
>>>> factors present. Particular risks accounted for 36% to 45% of the
>>>> variance, and the number of risks present (cumulative risk status)
>>>> accounted for 19% to 32% of the variance, in externalizing outcomes.
>>>> Cumulative risk was related to subsequent externalizing even after
>>>> initial levels of externalizing had been statistically controlled. All
>>>> four domains of risk variables made significant unique contributions to
>>>> this statistical prediction, and there were multiple clusters of risks
>>>> that led to similar outcomes. There was also evidence that this
>>>> prediction was moderated by ethnic group status, most of the prediction
>>>> of externalizing being found for European American children. However,
>>>> this moderation effect varied depending on the predictor and outcome
>>>> variables included in the model.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, just as they said about their earlier research, "may be."
>>>>
>>>> In this case, outcomes for race were changable based on the OTHER
>>>> variables.
>>>>
>>>> No really connection that could stand on its own, concerning better or
>>>> worse outcomes for Black children was established.
>>>>
>>>> The study I cited earlier from another more recent source of research
>>>> states clearly that NO such cultural differences effect outcomes. All
>>>> children spanked present with more misbehavior as a result.
>>>>
>>>> But then you don't read anything, or when you do, like Doan, you either
>>>> don't see what is there, and lie, or do see what is there and...of
>>>> course...still lie.
>>>>
>>>> Kane
>>>>
>>> Kane said:
>>> "The pattern held, high or low emotional support, for all 3, Doan."
>>>
>>> From your own source, Kane:
>>> "but not in the the context of high levels of emotional support."
>> And what followed that, Doan? That you have conveniently cherry pick it
>> from?
>>
> Exposing your LIES is not cherry picking!

You are, of course, now lying.

You isolated a sentence to hide what came right after.

I'll mark your quote, in it's isolation with * *:

"For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
context of low levels of emotional support, *but not in the context of
high levels of emotional support.* This pattern held for all 3
racial-ethnic groups."

Notice it does not say that any of the three are being pointed to with
the piece you quote.

That would mean it applies to all three.

So you have proven nothing, but that you are stupid, or lie. Or both.

Even if you include not more than the entire sentence, from which you
cherrypick a phrase, Doan, it's obvious what the actual meaning is.

"...Spanking was associated with an increase in behavior problems over
time in the context of low levels of emotional support, *but not in the
context of high levels of emotional support.* This pattern held for all
3 racial-ethnic groups."

"held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups," Doan.

Having a bit of trouble with your reading comprehension again, are you?
>
>>> Now either YOU ARE STUPID and don't understand what you read or YOU ARE
>>> A LIAR! Which is it, Kane?
>> I understand it and so do you, which makes you the liar.
>>
>> You are busted.
>>
> No, Kane. The one that got busted is YOU! You said "The pattern held,
> high or low emotional support". I just highlighted the part where it
> it said NOT "in the context of high levels of emotional support."
> Either you didn't understand it or you are the liar, which is it? ;-)

Neither. You are the liar, if you are smart as you pretend to be. You
know what it said, and you know what it meant.

You didn't highlight. You cherry picked to lie.

If you read the paragraph, even the full sentence it is simple to see
they are NOT isolating any of the groups from the other. All conditions
held constant for all groups, even the fact that it said, 'NOT "in the
context of high levels of emotional support."'

Or they could NOT add that last sentence to the paragraph.

"This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups."

What pattern held, Doan?

>
> Doan
>
Please don't display your propensity to lie so blatantly.

We all know you are bright enough to read and understand that simple
paragraph, which does not separate out any one of the three groups, and
the end sentence.

You cherry picked to lie. You aren't stupid.

You are just busted.

Kane

[Doan]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> Doan wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Greegor wrote:
> >>>>> Doan, You proved him wrong, but Kane will never admit it.
> >>>> Doan cited a biased prospanking source that cited research from the
> >>>> following group. They did not clearly represent the actual conclusions
> >>>> of the researchers.
> >>>>
> >>>> Here is yet another related study of theirs.
> >>>>
> >>>> * Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K.A., Bates, J.E., & Pettit, G.S.
> >>>> (1998). Multiple-risk factors in the development of externalizing
> >>>> behavior problems: Group and individual differences. Development and
> >>>> Psychopathology, 10, 469-493.
> >>>>
> >>>> The aim of this study was to test whether individual risk factors
> >>>> as well as the number of risk factors (cumulative risk) predicted
> >>>> children's externalizing behaviors over middle childhood. A sample of
> >>>> 466 European American and 100 African American boys and girls from a
> >>>> broad range of socioeconomic levels was followed from age 5 to 10 years.
> >>>> Twenty risk variables from four domains (child, sociocultural,
> >>>> parenting, and peer-related) were measured using in-home interviews at
> >>>> the beginning of the study, and annual assessments of externalizing
> >>>> behaviors were conducted. Consistent with past research, individual
> >>>> differences in externalizing behavior problems were stable over time and
> >>>> were related to individual risk factors as well as the number of risk
> >>>> factors present. Particular risks accounted for 36% to 45% of the
> >>>> variance, and the number of risks present (cumulative risk status)
> >>>> accounted for 19% to 32% of the variance, in externalizing outcomes.
> >>>> Cumulative risk was related to subsequent externalizing even after
> >>>> initial levels of externalizing had been statistically controlled. All
> >>>> four domains of risk variables made significant unique contributions to
> >>>> this statistical prediction, and there were multiple clusters of risks
> >>>> that led to similar outcomes. There was also evidence that this
> >>>> prediction was moderated by ethnic group status, most of the prediction
> >>>> of externalizing being found for European American children. However,
> >>>> this moderation effect varied depending on the predictor and outcome
> >>>> variables included in the model.
> >>>>
> >>>> In other words, just as they said about their earlier research, "may be."
> >>>>
> >>>> In this case, outcomes for race were changable based on the OTHER
> >>>> variables.
> >>>>
> >>>> No really connection that could stand on its own, concerning better or
> >>>> worse outcomes for Black children was established.
> >>>>
> >>>> The study I cited earlier from another more recent source of research
> >>>> states clearly that NO such cultural differences effect outcomes. All
> >>>> children spanked present with more misbehavior as a result.
> >>>>
> >>>> But then you don't read anything, or when you do, like Doan, you either
> >>>> don't see what is there, and lie, or do see what is there and...of
> >>>> course...still lie.
> >>>>
> >>>> Kane
> >>>>
> >>> Kane said:
> >>> "The pattern held, high or low emotional support, for all 3, Doan."
> >>>
> >>> From your own source, Kane:
> >>> "but not in the the context of high levels of emotional support."
> >> And what followed that, Doan? That you have conveniently cherry pick it
> >> from?
> >>
> > Exposing your LIES is not cherry picking!
>
> You are, of course, now lying.
>
> You isolated a sentence to hide what came right after.
>
> I'll mark your quote, in it's isolation with * *:
>
> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
> context of low levels of emotional support, *but not in the context of
> high levels of emotional support.* This pattern held for all 3
> racial-ethnic groups."
>
> Notice it does not say that any of the three are being pointed to with
> the piece you quote.
>
> That would mean it applies to all three.
>
Yup! "associated with an increase in behavior problems in the context
of low levels of emotional support"

> So you have proven nothing, but that you are stupid, or lie. Or both.
>
I have proven that you are, at the least, STUPID!

> Even if you include not more than the entire sentence, from which you
> cherrypick a phrase, Doan, it's obvious what the actual meaning is.
>
> "...Spanking was associated with an increase in behavior problems over
> time in the context of low levels of emotional support, *but not in the
> context of high levels of emotional support.* This pattern held for all
> 3 racial-ethnic groups."
>
> "held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups," Doan.
>
*but not in the context of high levels of emotional support.*

> Having a bit of trouble with your reading comprehension again, are you?

Hihihi! Look in the mirror, STUPID!

> >
> >>> Now either YOU ARE STUPID and don't understand what you read or YOU ARE
> >>> A LIAR! Which is it, Kane?
> >> I understand it and so do you, which makes you the liar.
> >>
> >> You are busted.
> >>
> > No, Kane. The one that got busted is YOU! You said "The pattern held,
> > high or low emotional support". I just highlighted the part where it
> > it said NOT "in the context of high levels of emotional support."
> > Either you didn't understand it or you are the liar, which is it? ;-)
>
> Neither. You are the liar, if you are smart as you pretend to be. You
> know what it said, and you know what it meant.
>
Hihihi! The proven STUPID LIAR is YOU!

> You didn't highlight. You cherry picked to lie.
>
To expose your STUPIDITY, yes!

> If you read the paragraph, even the full sentence it is simple to see
> they are NOT isolating any of the groups from the other. All conditions
> held constant for all groups, even the fact that it said, 'NOT "in the
> context of high levels of emotional support."'
>

> Or they could NOT add that last sentence to the paragraph.
>
> "This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups."
>
> What pattern held, Doan?

Spanking associated with an increase in behavior problems! What do you
think they say, Kane? ;-) Are you SO STUPID?

Doan

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Greegor wrote:
>>>>>>> Doan, You proved him wrong, but Kane will never admit it.
>>>>>> Doan cited a biased prospanking source that cited research from the
>>>>>> following group. They did not clearly represent the actual conclusions
>>>>>> of the researchers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is yet another related study of theirs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K.A., Bates, J.E., & Pettit, G.S.
>>>>>> (1998). Multiple-risk factors in the development of externalizing
>>>>>> behavior problems: Group and individual differences. Development and
>>>>>> Psychopathology, 10, 469-493.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The aim of this study was to test whether individual risk factors
>>>>>> as well as the number of risk factors (cumulative risk) predicted
>>>>>> children's externalizing behaviors over middle childhood. A sample of
>>>>>> 466 European American and 100 African American boys and girls from a
>>>>>> broad range of socioeconomic levels was followed from age 5 to 10 years.
>>>>>> Twenty risk variables from four domains (child, sociocultural,
>>>>>> parenting, and peer-related) were measured using in-home interviews at
>>>>>> the beginning of the study, and annual assessments of externalizing
>>>>>> behaviors were conducted. Consistent with past research, individual
>>>>>> differences in externalizing behavior problems were stable over time and
>>>>>> were related to individual risk factors as well as the number of risk
>>>>>> factors present. Particular risks accounted for 36% to 45% of the
>>>>>> variance, and the number of risks present (cumulative risk status)
>>>>>> accounted for 19% to 32% of the variance, in externalizing outcomes.
>>>>>> Cumulative risk was related to subsequent externalizing even after
>>>>>> initial levels of externalizing had been statistically controlled. All
>>>>>> four domains of risk variables made significant unique contributions to
>>>>>> this statistical prediction, and there were multiple clusters of risks
>>>>>> that led to similar outcomes. There was also evidence that this
>>>>>> prediction was moderated by ethnic group status, most of the prediction
>>>>>> of externalizing being found for European American children. However,
>>>>>> this moderation effect varied depending on the predictor and outcome
>>>>>> variables included in the model.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words, just as they said about their earlier research, "may be."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In this case, outcomes for race were changable based on the OTHER
>>>>>> variables.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No really connection that could stand on its own, concerning better or
>>>>>> worse outcomes for Black children was established.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The study I cited earlier from another more recent source of research
>>>>>> states clearly that NO such cultural differences effect outcomes. All
>>>>>> children spanked present with more misbehavior as a result.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But then you don't read anything, or when you do, like Doan, you either
>>>>>> don't see what is there, and lie, or do see what is there and...of
>>>>>> course...still lie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kane
>>>>>>
>>>>> Kane said:
>>>>> "The pattern held, high or low emotional support, for all 3, Doan."
>>>>>
>>>>> From your own source, Kane:
>>>>> "but not in the the context of high levels of emotional support."
>>>> And what followed that, Doan? That you have conveniently cherry pick it
>>>> from?
>>>>
>>> Exposing your LIES is not cherry picking!
>> You are, of course, now lying.
>>
>> You isolated a sentence to hide what came right after.
>>
>> I'll mark your quote, in it's isolation with * *:
>>
>> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
>> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
>> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
>> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>> context of low levels of emotional support, *but not in the context of
>> high levels of emotional support.* This pattern held for all 3
>> racial-ethnic groups."
>>
>> Notice it does not say that any of the three are being pointed to with
>> the piece you quote.
>>
>> That would mean it applies to all three.
>>
> Yup! "associated with an increase in behavior problems in the context
> of low levels of emotional support"
>
>> So you have proven nothing, but that you are stupid, or lie. Or both.
>>
> I have proven that you are, at the least, STUPID!
>
>> Even if you include not more than the entire sentence, from which you
>> cherrypick a phrase, Doan, it's obvious what the actual meaning is.
>>
>> "...Spanking was associated with an increase in behavior problems over
>> time in the context of low levels of emotional support, *but not in the
>> context of high levels of emotional support.* This pattern held for all
>> 3 racial-ethnic groups."
>>
>> "held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups," Doan.
>>
> *but not in the context of high levels of emotional support.*
>
>> Having a bit of trouble with your reading comprehension again, are you?
>
> Hihihi! Look in the mirror, STUPID!
>
>>>>> Now either YOU ARE STUPID and don't understand what you read or YOU ARE
>>>>> A LIAR! Which is it, Kane?
>>>> I understand it and so do you, which makes you the liar.
>>>>
>>>> You are busted.
>>>>
>>> No, Kane. The one that got busted is YOU! You said "The pattern held,
>>> high or low emotional support". I just highlighted the part where it
>>> it said NOT "in the context of high levels of emotional support."
>>> Either you didn't understand it or you are the liar, which is it? ;-)
>> Neither. You are the liar, if you are smart as you pretend to be. You
>> know what it said, and you know what it meant.
>>
> Hihihi! The proven STUPID LIAR is YOU!
>
>> You didn't highlight. You cherry picked to lie.
>>
> To expose your STUPIDITY, yes!

You cherry picked to show my stupidity?

How interesting.

You were, however, unable to do so based on the full paragraph.

It does not isolate black children from the set of racial-ethnic groups
and comment on it alone for any purpose whatsoever.

It would have to if you are holding to your claim that black children
have a different reaction than white children.

If it did I'm sure you would point it out.

Such claims are missing and in fact the researches say flat out that
there WAS not difference, and that collectively the levels of emotional
support were the same as to outcomes. Spanked when up, spanked went
down. All according to the entire block of children, not one race or the
other.

>> If you read the paragraph, even the full sentence it is simple to see
>> they are NOT isolating any of the groups from the other. All conditions
>> held constant for all groups, even the fact that it said, 'NOT "in the
>> context of high levels of emotional support."'
>>
>
>> Or they could NOT add that last sentence to the paragraph.
>>
>> "This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups."
>>
>> What pattern held, Doan?
>
> Spanking associated with an increase in behavior problems!

Yep. And for all the children, of all races.

> What do you
> think they say, Kane? ;-) Are you SO STUPID?

It's not stupid to be accurate, Doan, honest.

So, it showed that black children responded differently (YOUR CLAIM)
where, Doan?

Be specific and complete in proving your claim. You tried yet again to
cherry picking dodge.

>
> Doan
>
Kane

[Doan]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> Doan wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Doan wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Greegor wrote:
> >>>>>>> Doan, You proved him wrong, but Kane will never admit it.
> >>>>>> Doan cited a biased prospanking source that cited research from the
> >>>>>> following group. They did not clearly represent the actual conclusions
> >>>>>> of the researchers.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Here is yet another related study of theirs.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> * Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K.A., Bates, J.E., & Pettit, G.S.
> >>>>>> (1998). Multiple-risk factors in the development of externalizing
> >>>>>> behavior problems: Group and individual differences. Development and
> >>>>>> Psychopathology, 10, 469-493.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The aim of this study was to test whether individual risk factors
> >>>>>> as well as the number of risk factors (cumulative risk) predicted
> >>>>>> children's externalizing behaviors over middle childhood. A sample of
> >>>>>> 466 European American and 100 African American boys and girls from a
> >>>>>> broad range of socioeconomic levels was followed from age 5 to 10 years.
> >>>>>> Twenty risk variables from four domains (child, sociocultural,
> >>>>>> parenting, and peer-related) were measured using in-home interviews at
> >>>>>> the beginning of the study, and annual assessments of externalizing
> >>>>>> behaviors were conducted. Consistent with past research, individual
> >>>>>> differences in externalizing behavior problems were stable over time and
> >>>>>> were related to individual risk factors as well as the number of risk
> >>>>>> factors present. Particular risks accounted for 36% to 45% of the
> >>>>>> variance, and the number of risks present (cumulative risk status)
> >>>>>> accounted for 19% to 32% of the variance, in externalizing outcomes.
> >>>>>> Cumulative risk was related to subsequent externalizing even after
> >>>>>> initial levels of externalizing had been statistically controlled. All
> >>>>>> four domains of risk variables made significant unique contributions to
> >>>>>> this statistical prediction, and there were multiple clusters of risks
> >>>>>> that led to similar outcomes. There was also evidence that this
> >>>>>> prediction was moderated by ethnic group status, most of the prediction
> >>>>>> of externalizing being found for European American children. However,
> >>>>>> this moderation effect varied depending on the predictor and outcome
> >>>>>> variables included in the model.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In other words, just as they said about their earlier research, "may be."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In this case, outcomes for race were changable based on the OTHER
> >>>>>> variables.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No really connection that could stand on its own, concerning better or
> >>>>>> worse outcomes for Black children was established.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The study I cited earlier from another more recent source of research
> >>>>>> states clearly that NO such cultural differences effect outcomes. All
> >>>>>> children spanked present with more misbehavior as a result.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But then you don't read anything, or when you do, like Doan, you either
> >>>>>> don't see what is there, and lie, or do see what is there and...of
> >>>>>> course...still lie.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Kane
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Kane said:
> >>>>> "The pattern held, high or low emotional support, for all 3, Doan."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From your own source, Kane:
> >>>>> "but not in the the context of high levels of emotional support."
> >>>> And what followed that, Doan? That you have conveniently cherry pick it
> >>>> from?
> >>>>
> >>> Exposing your LIES is not cherry picking!
> >> You are, of course, now lying.
> >>
> >> You isolated a sentence to hide what came right after.
> >>
> >> I'll mark your quote, in it's isolation with * *:
> >>
> >> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
> >> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
> >> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
> >> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
> >> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
> >> context of low levels of emotional support, *but not in the context of
> >> high levels of emotional support.* This pattern held for all 3
> >> racial-ethnic groups."
> >>
> >> Notice it does not say that any of the three are being pointed to with
> >> the piece you quote.
> >>
> >> That would mean it applies to all three.
> >>
> > Yup! "associated with an increase in behavior problems in the context
> > of low levels of emotional support"
> >
> >> So you have proven nothing, but that you are stupid, or lie. Or both.
> >>
> > I have proven that you are, at the least, STUPID!
> >
> >> Even if you include not more than the entire sentence, from which you
> >> cherrypick a phrase, Doan, it's obvious what the actual meaning is.
> >>
> >> "...Spanking was associated with an increase in behavior problems over
> >> time in the context of low levels of emotional support, *but not in the
> >> context of high levels of emotional support.* This pattern held for all
> >> 3 racial-ethnic groups."
> >>
> >> "held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups," Doan.
> >>
> > *but not in the context of high levels of emotional support.*
> >
> >> Having a bit of trouble with your reading comprehension again, are you?
> >
> > Hihihi! Look in the mirror, STUPID!
> >
> >>>>> Now either YOU ARE STUPID and don't understand what you read or YOU ARE
> >>>>> A LIAR! Which is it, Kane?
> >>>> I understand it and so do you, which makes you the liar.
> >>>>
> >>>> You are busted.
> >>>>
> >>> No, Kane. The one that got busted is YOU! You said "The pattern held,
> >>> high or low emotional support". I just highlighted the part where it
> >>> it said NOT "in the context of high levels of emotional support."
> >>> Either you didn't understand it or you are the liar, which is it? ;-)
> >> Neither. You are the liar, if you are smart as you pretend to be. You
> >> know what it said, and you know what it meant.
> >>
> > Hihihi! The proven STUPID LIAR is YOU!
> >
> >> You didn't highlight. You cherry picked to lie.
> >>
> > To expose your STUPIDITY, yes!
>
> You cherry picked to show my stupidity?
>
> How interesting.
>
> You were, however, unable to do so based on the full paragraph.
>
I did - Which part of "NOT" don't you understand, STUPID!

> It does not isolate black children from the set of racial-ethnic groups
> and comment on it alone for any purpose whatsoever.
>
> It would have to if you are holding to your claim that black children
> have a different reaction than white children.
>
Read the studies I've cited, e.g. Gunnoe & Mariner (1997).

> If it did I'm sure you would point it out.
>
> Such claims are missing and in fact the researches say flat out that
> there WAS not difference, and that collectively the levels of emotional
> support were the same as to outcomes. Spanked when up, spanked went
> down. All according to the entire block of children, not one race or the
> other.
>
Where does it says that spanking is associated with increase in behavior
problems in the context of high levels of emotional support, Kane? That
was you claim and I pointed out was that claim is either STUPID or a LIE.
Which is it, Kane?

> >> If you read the paragraph, even the full sentence it is simple to see
> >> they are NOT isolating any of the groups from the other. All conditions
> >> held constant for all groups, even the fact that it said, 'NOT "in the
> >> context of high levels of emotional support."'
> >>
> >
> >> Or they could NOT add that last sentence to the paragraph.
> >>
> >> "This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups."
> >>
> >> What pattern held, Doan?
> >
> > Spanking associated with an increase in behavior problems!
>
> Yep. And for all the children, of all races.
>
NOT in the context of high levels of emotional support! Do you
understand that, STUPID?

> > What do you
> > think they say, Kane? ;-) Are you SO STUPID?
>
> It's not stupid to be accurate, Doan, honest.
>
So are you saying that the claim by you that the pattern held for both
high and low emotional support is ACCURATE? DON'T BE STUPID, Kane?

> So, it showed that black children responded differently (YOUR CLAIM)
> where, Doan?
>
In the many studies I cited.

> Be specific and complete in proving your claim. You tried yet again to
> cherry picking dodge.
>
Already did. Now are you going to answer my question of whether your
claim that the pattern held for both high and low emotional support?
I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU! ;-0

Doan

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Greegor wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Doan, You proved him wrong, but Kane will never admit it.
>>>>>>>> Doan cited a biased prospanking source that cited research from the
>>>>>>>> following group. They did not clearly represent the actual conclusions
>>>>>>>> of the researchers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here is yet another related study of theirs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K.A., Bates, J.E., & Pettit, G.S.
>>>>>>>> (1998). Multiple-risk factors in the development of externalizing
>>>>>>>> behavior problems: Group and individual differences. Development and
>>>>>>>> Psychopathology, 10, 469-493.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The aim of this study was to test whether individual risk factors
>>>>>>>> as well as the number of risk factors (cumulative risk) predicted
>>>>>>>> children's externalizing behaviors over middle childhood. A sample of
>>>>>>>> 466 European American and 100 African American boys and girls from a
>>>>>>>> broad range of socioeconomic levels was followed from age 5 to 10 years.
>>>>>>>> Twenty risk variables from four domains (child, sociocultural,
>>>>>>>> parenting, and peer-related) were measured using in-home interviews at
>>>>>>>> the beginning of the study, and annual assessments of externalizing
>>>>>>>> behaviors were conducted. Consistent with past research, individual
>>>>>>>> differences in externalizing behavior problems were stable over time and
>>>>>>>> were related to individual risk factors as well as the number of risk
>>>>>>>> factors present. Particular risks accounted for 36% to 45% of the
>>>>>>>> variance, and the number of risks present (cumulative risk status)
>>>>>>>> accounted for 19% to 32% of the variance, in externalizing outcomes.
>>>>>>>> Cumulative risk was related to subsequent externalizing even after
>>>>>>>> initial levels of externalizing had been statistically controlled. All
>>>>>>>> four domains of risk variables made significant unique contributions to
>>>>>>>> this statistical prediction, and there were multiple clusters of risks
>>>>>>>> that led to similar outcomes. There was also evidence that this
>>>>>>>> prediction was moderated by ethnic group status, most of the prediction
>>>>>>>> of externalizing being found for European American children. However,
>>>>>>>> this moderation effect varied depending on the predictor and outcome
>>>>>>>> variables included in the model.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words, just as they said about their earlier research, "may be."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In this case, outcomes for race were changable based on the OTHER
>>>>>>>> variables.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No really connection that could stand on its own, concerning better or
>>>>>>>> worse outcomes for Black children was established.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The study I cited earlier from another more recent source of research
>>>>>>>> states clearly that NO such cultural differences effect outcomes. All
>>>>>>>> children spanked present with more misbehavior as a result.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But then you don't read anything, or when you do, like Doan, you either
>>>>>>>> don't see what is there, and lie, or do see what is there and...of
>>>>>>>> course...still lie.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kane
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kane said:
>>>>>>> "The pattern held, high or low emotional support, for all 3, Doan."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From your own source, Kane:
>>>>>>> "but not in the the context of high levels of emotional support."
>>>>>> And what followed that, Doan? That you have conveniently cherry pick it
>>>>>> from?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Exposing your LIES is not cherry picking!
>>>> You are, of course, now lying.
>>>>
>>>> You isolated a sentence to hide what came right after.
>>>>
>>>> I'll mark your quote, in it's isolation with * *:
>>>>
>>>> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
>>>> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
>>>> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>>>> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
>>>> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>>>> context of low levels of emotional support, *but not in the context of
>>>> high levels of emotional support.* This pattern held for all 3
>>>> racial-ethnic groups."
>>>>
>>>> Notice it does not say that any of the three are being pointed to with
>>>> the piece you quote.
>>>>
>>>> That would mean it applies to all three.
>>>>
>>> Yup! "associated with an increase in behavior problems in the context
>>> of low levels of emotional support"
>>>
>>>> So you have proven nothing, but that you are stupid, or lie. Or both.
>>>>
>>> I have proven that you are, at the least, STUPID!
>>>
>>>> Even if you include not more than the entire sentence, from which you
>>>> cherrypick a phrase, Doan, it's obvious what the actual meaning is.
>>>>
>>>> "...Spanking was associated with an increase in behavior problems over
>>>> time in the context of low levels of emotional support, *but not in the
>>>> context of high levels of emotional support.* This pattern held for all
>>>> 3 racial-ethnic groups."
>>>>
>>>> "held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups," Doan.
>>>>
>>> *but not in the context of high levels of emotional support.*
>>>
>>>> Having a bit of trouble with your reading comprehension again, are you?
>>> Hihihi! Look in the mirror, STUPID!
>>>
>>>>>>> Now either YOU ARE STUPID and don't understand what you read or YOU ARE
>>>>>>> A LIAR! Which is it, Kane?
>>>>>> I understand it and so do you, which makes you the liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are busted.
>>>>>>
>>>>> No, Kane. The one that got busted is YOU! You said "The pattern held,
>>>>> high or low emotional support". I just highlighted the part where it
>>>>> it said NOT "in the context of high levels of emotional support."
>>>>> Either you didn't understand it or you are the liar, which is it? ;-)
>>>> Neither. You are the liar, if you are smart as you pretend to be. You
>>>> know what it said, and you know what it meant.
>>>>
>>> Hihihi! The proven STUPID LIAR is YOU!
>>>
>>>> You didn't highlight. You cherry picked to lie.
>>>>
>>> To expose your STUPIDITY, yes!
>> You cherry picked to show my stupidity?
>>
>> How interesting.
>>
>> You were, however, unable to do so based on the full paragraph.
>>
> I did - Which part of "NOT" don't you understand, STUPID!

I understand all of it.

"This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups.""

>> It does not isolate black children from the set of racial-ethnic groups
>> and comment on it alone for any purpose whatsoever.
>>
>> It would have to if you are holding to your claim that black children
>> have a different reaction than white children.
>>
> Read the studies I've cited, e.g. Gunnoe & Mariner (1997).

We are not talking about them at present.

>> If it did I'm sure you would point it out.
>>
>> Such claims are missing and in fact the researches say flat out that
>> there WAS not difference, and that collectively the levels of emotional
>> support were the same as to outcomes. Spanked when up, spanked went
>> down. All according to the entire block of children, not one race or the
>> other.
>>
> Where does it says that spanking is associated with increase in behavior
> problems in the context of high levels of emotional support, Kane? That
> was you claim and I pointed out was that claim is either STUPID or a LIE.
> Which is it, Kane?

"This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups."


"For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
context of low levels of emotional support, *but not in the context of
high levels of emotional support.* This pattern held for all 3
racial-ethnic groups."

If you read closely, it says, "moderated the link" with Maternal
emotional support. It says spanking as associated with an increase in
behavior problems, longitudinally. And it says that that was in the
context of low levels of emotional support.

So far we have NOT established that the authors are speaking of any one
group, but the entire group together.

To make that clear, it closes with "This pattern held for all 3
racial-ethnic groups."

That means that the pattern, with or without emotional support was the
same. Try reading it again.

This is the same bull**** you tried to shovel back years ago in debate.

Someone would point out the facts, and you would continue to point to
our cherrypicked bit and insist that that made the rest of the content
conform to your agenda.

It doesn't.

Show, Doan, where THIS supports your contention that black children with
the same emotional support or lack of thereof have a lower rate of
behavior problems. That IS your claim, is it not?

Other studies are not up for debate with me at this time. I will ignore
references to them until you have completed your argument to this study.

You have not carried your point. It still doesn't say black children
responded differently than the others. In fact, it says, but discussing
ONLY the combined group, the very opposite.


>>>> If you read the paragraph, even the full sentence it is simple to see
>>>> they are NOT isolating any of the groups from the other. All conditions
>>>> held constant for all groups, even the fact that it said, 'NOT "in the
>>>> context of high levels of emotional support."'
>>>>
>>>> Or they could NOT add that last sentence to the paragraph.
>>>>
>>>> "This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups."
>>>>
>>>> What pattern held, Doan?
>>> Spanking associated with an increase in behavior problems!
>> Yep. And for all the children, of all races.
>>
> NOT in the context of high levels of emotional support! Do you
> understand that, STUPID?

I understand you are stupid, or wish to appear so. I believe you know
you have been disproved in your claim and can't let go of it and admit it.

The statement, 'NOT "in the context of high levels of emotional
support,"' does not apply to a single group. It applies to all, equally.

Please stop repeating yourself and show where this would apply to one of
the three, or two of the three, more than the remaining racial-ethnic
group.

More specifically your claimed group, Black children.

>> > What do you
>>> think they say, Kane? ;-) Are you SO STUPID?
>> It's not stupid to be accurate, Doan, honest.
>>
> So are you saying that the claim by you that the pattern held for both
> high and low emotional support is ACCURATE?

Yes. Show where it says other wise, as in "This pattern held for all 3
racial-ethnic groups."

> DON'T BE STUPID, Kane?

Now let me see. YOU can't seem to understand that Black children were
not singled out here in any way, Doan.

That the findings were applied to all groups equally.

Regardless of the variables. The pattern held for all three.

>> So, it showed that black children responded differently (YOUR CLAIM)
>> where, Doan?
>>
> In the many studies I cited.

We are discussing this one, and so far, out of those you have offered
since I asked you to cite them here and now, you have cited ONE, and it
- an article by a known spanking championing group, cited, inaccurately
as it were, someone else.

And the material they drew from, by the way they described it was cherry
picked from, leaving out the closing statement in the researcher's
conclusion: "may be."

Do you wish to pin your claim on a cited study that was incorrectly
cited, that in fact closed with "may be?"

>> Be specific and complete in proving your claim. You tried yet again to
>> cherry picking dodge.
>>
> Already did.

No, Doan, you have not. You have shown, as usual, that persistent
propensity to lie when you have been proven wrong.

Black children were not mentioned separately. All three groups were
discusses as having the same outcome to the same circumstance. High
emotional support, lower behavior problems, Low emotional support,
higher rate of behavior problems. The end of the paragraph said plainly,
that all three groups followed the same pattern.

> Now are you going to answer my question of whether your
> claim that the pattern held for both high and low emotional support?

Yes, that is exactly what it did say.

"For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
context of low levels of emotional support, *but not in the context of
high levels of emotional support.* This pattern held for all 3
racial-ethnic groups."

> I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU! ;-0

Of course you do, because you have nothing left but to attempt to engage
me further in hopes I'll say something that will let you dive
out...possibly I'll misspell something, or call you a stupid asshole.


Here, let me break it down for you:

....For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an
increase in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for
income-needs ratio and maternal emotional support. ...

Are the authors not talking about all three?

Or do you want to argue that "each" in context means "spanking
predicted" a different outcome for one group over the others?

.... Maternal emotional support
moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. ...

Have they mentioned any departure from their opening statement of "each
of the 3 racial-ethnic groups?"

Still the entire combined three, Doan.

.... Spanking was associated with an increase in behavior problems over
time in the context of low levels of emotional support, ...

Any mention of different ethnic groups yet, Doan?

It, the statement, would continue the prior commentary and be for all
three, and that is verified by the closing sentence.

.... but not in the context of
high levels of emotional support. ...

So emotional support is the variable. And it does not say it's linked to
one race or the other. Just a variable that when changed for any group
results in: "This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups"

Show where anything mentioned would say that for ONE group the pattern
didn't hold based on the variable of "emotional support."

And this time, don't simply lie. Calling someone stupid when YOU can't
support your argument isn't smart. It's ... what ... kiddies?

Maybe if you yell louder, and dare more.

>
> Doan
>

Kane

[Doan]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> Doan wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Doan wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Doan wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Greegor wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Doan, You proved him wrong, but Kane will never admit it.
> >>>>>>>> Doan cited a biased prospanking source that cited research from the
> >>>>>>>> following group. They did not clearly represent the actual conclusions
> >>>>>>>> of the researchers.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Here is yet another related study of theirs.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> * Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K.A., Bates, J.E., & Pettit, G.S.
> >>>>>>>> (1998). Multiple-risk factors in the development of externalizing
> >>>>>>>> behavior problems: Group and individual differences. Development and
> >>>>>>>> Psychopathology, 10, 469-493.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The aim of this study was to test whether individual risk factors
> >>>>>>>> as well as the number of risk factors (cumulative risk) predicted
> >>>>>>>> children's externalizing behaviors over middle childhood. A sample of
> >>>>>>>> 466 European American and 100 African American boys and girls from a
> >>>>>>>> broad range of socioeconomic levels was followed from age 5 to 10 years.
> >>>>>>>> Twenty risk variables from four domains (child, sociocultural,
> >>>>>>>> parenting, and peer-related) were measured using in-home interviews at
> >>>>>>>> the beginning of the study, and annual assessments of externalizing
> >>>>>>>> behaviors were conducted. Consistent with past research, individual
> >>>>>>>> differences in externalizing behavior problems were stable over time and
> >>>>>>>> were related to individual risk factors as well as the number of risk
> >>>>>>>> factors present. Particular risks accounted for 36% to 45% of the
> >>>>>>>> variance, and the number of risks present (cumulative risk status)
> >>>>>>>> accounted for 19% to 32% of the variance, in externalizing outcomes.
> >>>>>>>> Cumulative risk was related to subsequent externalizing even after
> >>>>>>>> initial levels of externalizing had been statistically controlled. All
> >>>>>>>> four domains of risk variables made significant unique contributions to
> >>>>>>>> this statistical prediction, and there were multiple clusters of risks
> >>>>>>>> that led to similar outcomes. There was also evidence that this
> >>>>>>>> prediction was moderated by ethnic group status, most of the prediction
> >>>>>>>> of externalizing being found for European American children. However,
> >>>>>>>> this moderation effect varied depending on the predictor and outcome
> >>>>>>>> variables included in the model.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In other words, just as they said about their earlier research, "may be."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In this case, outcomes for race were changable based on the OTHER
> >>>>>>>> variables.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> No really connection that could stand on its own, concerning better or
> >>>>>>>> worse outcomes for Black children was established.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The study I cited earlier from another more recent source of research
> >>>>>>>> states clearly that NO such cultural differences effect outcomes. All
> >>>>>>>> children spanked present with more misbehavior as a result.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> But then you don't read anything, or when you do, like Doan, you either
> >>>>>>>> don't see what is there, and lie, or do see what is there and...of
> >>>>>>>> course...still lie.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Kane
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Kane said:
> >>>>>>> "The pattern held, high or low emotional support, for all 3, Doan."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> From your own source, Kane:
> >>>>>>> "but not in the the context of high levels of emotional support."
> >>>>>> And what followed that, Doan? That you have conveniently cherry pick it
> >>>>>> from?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Exposing your LIES is not cherry picking!
> >>>> You are, of course, now lying.
> >>>>
> >>>> You isolated a sentence to hide what came right after.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'll mark your quote, in it's isolation with * *:
> >>>>
> >>>> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
> >>>> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
> >>>> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
> >>>> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
> >>>> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
> >>>> context of low levels of emotional support, *but not in the context of
> >>>> high levels of emotional support.* This pattern held for all 3
> >>>> racial-ethnic groups."
> >>>>
> >>>> Notice it does not say that any of the three are being pointed to with
> >>>> the piece you quote.
> >>>>
> >>>> That would mean it applies to all three.
> >>>>
> >>> Yup! "associated with an increase in behavior problems in the context
> >>> of low levels of emotional support"
> >>>
> >>>> So you have proven nothing, but that you are stupid, or lie. Or both.
> >>>>
> >>> I have proven that you are, at the least, STUPID!
> >>>
> >>>> Even if you include not more than the entire sentence, from which you
> >>>> cherrypick a phrase, Doan, it's obvious what the actual meaning is.
> >>>>
> >>>> "...Spanking was associated with an increase in behavior problems over
> >>>> time in the context of low levels of emotional support, *but not in the
> >>>> context of high levels of emotional support.* This pattern held for all
> >>>> 3 racial-ethnic groups."
> >>>>
> >>>> "held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups," Doan.
> >>>>
> >>> *but not in the context of high levels of emotional support.*
> >>>
> >>>> Having a bit of trouble with your reading comprehension again, are you?
> >>> Hihihi! Look in the mirror, STUPID!
> >>>
> >>>>>>> Now either YOU ARE STUPID and don't understand what you read or YOU ARE
> >>>>>>> A LIAR! Which is it, Kane?
> >>>>>> I understand it and so do you, which makes you the liar.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You are busted.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> No, Kane. The one that got busted is YOU! You said "The pattern held,
> >>>>> high or low emotional support". I just highlighted the part where it
> >>>>> it said NOT "in the context of high levels of emotional support."
> >>>>> Either you didn't understand it or you are the liar, which is it? ;-)
> >>>> Neither. You are the liar, if you are smart as you pretend to be. You
> >>>> know what it said, and you know what it meant.
> >>>>
> >>> Hihihi! The proven STUPID LIAR is YOU!
> >>>
> >>>> You didn't highlight. You cherry picked to lie.
> >>>>
> >>> To expose your STUPIDITY, yes!
> >> You cherry picked to show my stupidity?
> >>
> >> How interesting.
> >>
> >> You were, however, unable to do so based on the full paragraph.
> >>
> > I did - Which part of "NOT" don't you understand, STUPID!
>
> I understand all of it.
>
> "This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups.""
>
What pattern and does this pattern held in the context of high levels of
emotional support?

> >> It does not isolate black children from the set of racial-ethnic groups
> >> and comment on it alone for any purpose whatsoever.
> >>
> >> It would have to if you are holding to your claim that black children
> >> have a different reaction than white children.
> >>
> > Read the studies I've cited, e.g. Gunnoe & Mariner (1997).
>
> We are not talking about them at present.
>
A dodge! Hihihi!

> >> If it did I'm sure you would point it out.
> >>
> >> Such claims are missing and in fact the researches say flat out that
> >> there WAS not difference, and that collectively the levels of emotional
> >> support were the same as to outcomes. Spanked when up, spanked went
> >> down. All according to the entire block of children, not one race or the
> >> other.
> >>
> > Where does it says that spanking is associated with increase in behavior
> > problems in the context of high levels of emotional support, Kane? That
> > was you claim and I pointed out was that claim is either STUPID or a LIE.
> > Which is it, Kane?
>
> "This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups."
>
NOT "in the context of high levels of emotional suportt"

>
> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
> context of low levels of emotional support, *but not in the context of
> high levels of emotional support.* This pattern held for all 3
> racial-ethnic groups."
>
> If you read closely, it says, "moderated the link" with Maternal
> emotional support. It says spanking as associated with an increase in
> behavior problems, longitudinally. And it says that that was in the
> context of low levels of emotional support.
>
You left out the part about "high levels of emotional support"! That
was you claim, WAS IT NOT?

> So far we have NOT established that the authors are speaking of any one
> group, but the entire group together.
>
> To make that clear, it closes with "This pattern held for all 3
> racial-ethnic groups."
>
NOT in the context of high levels of emotional support - which was your
claim. I pointed it out to you that you were LYING or STUPID to say
that! Do you disagree?

> That means that the pattern, with or without emotional support was the
> same. Try reading it again.
>
What pattern? What do they meant when they said "NOT in the context of
high levels of emotional support.?

> This is the same bull**** you tried to shovel back years ago in debate.
>
> Someone would point out the facts, and you would continue to point to
> our cherrypicked bit and insist that that made the rest of the content
> conform to your agenda.
>
I haven't comment anything that your claim is FALSE! You claimed that
the pattern held for both low and high emotional support. I pointed
it out to you that it ain't so. They specificly said "not in the
context of high levels of emotional support." You can dance all you want;
you can squirm all you want. It won't change the fact that your claim
is either STUPID or a LIE. Which is it, Kane?

> It doesn't.
>
> Show, Doan, where THIS supports your contention that black children with
> the same emotional support or lack of thereof have a lower rate of
> behavior problems. That IS your claim, is it not?
>
> Other studies are not up for debate with me at this time. I will ignore
> references to them until you have completed your argument to this study.
>
Hihihi! Did I cited this study, Kane?

> You have not carried your point. It still doesn't say black children
> responded differently than the others. In fact, it says, but discussing
> ONLY the combined group, the very opposite.
>
Did it say the pattern held in the context of high emotional support?
It did NOT! So you claim that it does is FALSE - either because of
your STUPIDITY or LIE? Which is it, Kane?

>
> >>>> If you read the paragraph, even the full sentence it is simple to see
> >>>> they are NOT isolating any of the groups from the other. All conditions
> >>>> held constant for all groups, even the fact that it said, 'NOT "in the
> >>>> context of high levels of emotional support."'
> >>>>
> >>>> Or they could NOT add that last sentence to the paragraph.
> >>>>
> >>>> "This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups."
> >>>>
> >>>> What pattern held, Doan?
> >>> Spanking associated with an increase in behavior problems!
> >> Yep. And for all the children, of all races.
> >>
> > NOT in the context of high levels of emotional support! Do you
> > understand that, STUPID?
>
> I understand you are stupid, or wish to appear so. I believe you know
> you have been disproved in your claim and can't let go of it and admit it.
>
You didn't answer my question, Kane. Did it say "not in the context of
high levels of emotional support"?

> The statement, 'NOT "in the context of high levels of emotional
> support,"' does not apply to a single group. It applies to all, equally.
>
Yes! So your claim that spanking associated with higher behavior
problems, FOR BOTH HIGH AND LOW EMOTIONAL SUPPORT, is FALSE! Are you
still claiming that your statement is ACCURATE, Kane?

> Please stop repeating yourself and show where this would apply to one of
> the three, or two of the three, more than the remaining racial-ethnic
> group.
>
> More specifically your claimed group, Black children.
>
Hihihi! NOT in the context of high emotional support!

> >> > What do you
> >>> think they say, Kane? ;-) Are you SO STUPID?
> >> It's not stupid to be accurate, Doan, honest.
> >>
> > So are you saying that the claim by you that the pattern held for both
> > high and low emotional support is ACCURATE?
>
> Yes. Show where it says other wise, as in "This pattern held for all 3
> racial-ethnic groups."
>
"NOT in the context of high level of emotional support"!!! Are YOU SO
STUPID!

> > DON'T BE STUPID, Kane?
>
> Now let me see. YOU can't seem to understand that Black children were
> not singled out here in any way, Doan.
>
I didn't it did. I said that pattern (spanking associated with behavior
problems) did NOT held in the context of high emotional support. That was
your claim. That claim is a LIE, if you understood the study, or a STUPID
one, if you don't understand the study. Now which one applied to YOU,
Kane?

> That the findings were applied to all groups equally.
>
> Regardless of the variables. The pattern held for all three.
>
Not in the context of high levels of emotional support!

> >> So, it showed that black children responded differently (YOUR CLAIM)
> >> where, Doan?
> >>
> > In the many studies I cited.
>
> We are discussing this one, and so far, out of those you have offered
> since I asked you to cite them here and now, you have cited ONE, and it
> - an article by a known spanking championing group, cited, inaccurately
> as it were, someone else.
>
I have cited more than one, Kane. I said STUDIES!

> And the material they drew from, by the way they described it was cherry
> picked from, leaving out the closing statement in the researcher's
> conclusion: "may be."
>
Hihihi! And which studies said they ABSOLUTELY sure, Kane? You are
exposing your STUPIDITY again.

> Do you wish to pin your claim on a cited study that was incorrectly
> cited, that in fact closed with "may be?"
>
Are you keep going one exposing your STUPIDITY?

> >> Be specific and complete in proving your claim. You tried yet again to
> >> cherry picking dodge.
> >>
> > Already did.
>
> No, Doan, you have not. You have shown, as usual, that persistent
> propensity to lie when you have been proven wrong.
>
The proven LIAR IS YOU!

> Black children were not mentioned separately. All three groups were
> discusses as having the same outcome to the same circumstance. High
> emotional support, lower behavior problems, Low emotional support,
> higher rate of behavior problems. The end of the paragraph said plainly,
> that all three groups followed the same pattern.
>
But you claimed the pattern (spanking associated with higher behavior
problems) held for BOTH high and low emotional support! That claim
is a FALSE as I pointed out!

> > Now are you going to answer my question of whether your
> > claim that the pattern held for both high and low emotional support?
>
> Yes, that is exactly what it did say.
>
Then you are STUPID!

> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
> context of low levels of emotional support, *but not in the context of
> high levels of emotional support.* This pattern held for all 3
> racial-ethnic groups."
>
> > I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU! ;-0
>
> Of course you do, because you have nothing left but to attempt to engage
> me further in hopes I'll say something that will let you dive
> out...possibly I'll misspell something, or call you a stupid asshole.
>
Hihihi! The STUPID asshole is YOU!

>
> Here, let me break it down for you:
>
> ...For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an
> increase in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for
> income-needs ratio and maternal emotional support. ...
>
You left out the NOT part!

> Are the authors not talking about all three?
>
Yup! TOGETHER, STUPID! But you claimed for both high and low emotional
support. The authors said specifically it is NOT so, STUPID!

> Or do you want to argue that "each" in context means "spanking
> predicted" a different outcome for one group over the others?
>
> ... Maternal emotional support
> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. ...
>
Did you understand that?

> Have they mentioned any departure from their opening statement of "each
> of the 3 racial-ethnic groups?"
>
> Still the entire combined three, Doan.
>
> ... Spanking was associated with an increase in behavior problems over
> time in the context of low levels of emotional support, ...
>
But NOT in the contex of high levels of emotioanl support.

> Any mention of different ethnic groups yet, Doan?
>
Did they mention both high and low emotional support, Kane?

> It, the statement, would continue the prior commentary and be for all
> three, and that is verified by the closing sentence.
>
> ... but not in the context of
> high levels of emotional support. ...
>
Hihihi! But you said for high levels of emotional support too, did you
not?

> So emotional support is the variable. And it does not say it's linked to
> one race or the other. Just a variable that when changed for any group
> results in: "This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups"
>
NOT in the context of high levels of emotionsal support!

> Show where anything mentioned would say that for ONE group the pattern
> didn't hold based on the variable of "emotional support."
>
When the emotional support is high, that pattern (spanking associated with
behavior problems) did not HELD!

> And this time, don't simply lie. Calling someone stupid when YOU can't
> support your argument isn't smart. It's ... what ... kiddies?
>
And maybe this time, you be so STUPID!

> Maybe if you yell louder, and dare more.
>
Hihihi! I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU!

Doan

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Greegor wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Doan, You proved him wrong, but Kane will never admit it.
>>>>>>>>>> Doan cited a biased prospanking source that cited research from the
>>>>>>>>>> following group. They did not clearly represent the actual conclusions
>>>>>>>>>> of the researchers.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here is yet another related study of theirs.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> * Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K.A., Bates, J.E., & Pettit, G.S.
>>>>>>>>>> (1998). Multiple-risk factors in the development of externalizing
>>>>>>>>>> behavior problems: Group and individual differences. Development and
>>>>>>>>>> Psychopathology, 10, 469-493.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The aim of this study was to test whether individual risk factors
>>>>>>>>>> as well as the number of risk factors (cumulative risk) predicted
>>>>>>>>>> children's externalizing behaviors over middle childhood. A sample of
>>>>>>>>>> 466 European American and 100 African American boys and girls from a
>>>>>>>>>> broad range of socioeconomic levels was followed from age 5 to 10 years.
>>>>>>>>>> Twenty risk variables from four domains (child, sociocultural,
>>>>>>>>>> parenting, and peer-related) were measured using in-home interviews at
>>>>>>>>>> the beginning of the study, and annual assessments of externalizing
>>>>>>>>>> behaviors were conducted. Consistent with past research, individual
>>>>>>>>>> differences in externalizing behavior problems were stable over time and
>>>>>>>>>> were related to individual risk factors as well as the number of risk
>>>>>>>>>> factors present. Particular risks accounted for 36% to 45% of the
>>>>>>>>>> variance, and the number of risks present (cumulative risk status)
>>>>>>>>>> accounted for 19% to 32% of the variance, in externalizing outcomes.
>>>>>>>>>> Cumulative risk was related to subsequent externalizing even after
>>>>>>>>>> initial levels of externalizing had been statistically controlled. All
>>>>>>>>>> four domains of risk variables made significant unique contributions to
>>>>>>>>>> this statistical prediction, and there were multiple clusters of risks
>>>>>>>>>> that led to similar outcomes. There was also evidence that this
>>>>>>>>>> prediction was moderated by ethnic group status, most of the prediction
>>>>>>>>>> of externalizing being found for European American children. However,
>>>>>>>>>> this moderation effect varied depending on the predictor and outcome
>>>>>>>>>> variables included in the model.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In other words, just as they said about their earlier research, "may be."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In this case, outcomes for race were changable based on the OTHER
>>>>>>>>>> variables.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No really connection that could stand on its own, concerning better or
>>>>>>>>>> worse outcomes for Black children was established.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The study I cited earlier from another more recent source of research
>>>>>>>>>> states clearly that NO such cultural differences effect outcomes. All
>>>>>>>>>> children spanked present with more misbehavior as a result.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But then you don't read anything, or when you do, like Doan, you either
>>>>>>>>>> don't see what is there, and lie, or do see what is there and...of
>>>>>>>>>> course...still lie.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Kane
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Kane said:
>>>>>>>>> "The pattern held, high or low emotional support, for all 3, Doan."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From your own source, Kane:
>>>>>>>>> "but not in the the context of high levels of emotional support."
>>>>>>>> And what followed that, Doan? That you have conveniently cherry pick it
>>>>>>>> from?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Exposing your LIES is not cherry picking!
>>>>>> You are, of course, now lying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You isolated a sentence to hide what came right after.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll mark your quote, in it's isolation with * *:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
>>>>>> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
>>>>>> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>>>>>> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
>>>>>> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>>>>>> context of low levels of emotional support, *but not in the context of
>>>>>> high levels of emotional support.* This pattern held for all 3
>>>>>> racial-ethnic groups."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Notice it does not say that any of the three are being pointed to with
>>>>>> the piece you quote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That would mean it applies to all three.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yup! "associated with an increase in behavior problems in the context
>>>>> of low levels of emotional support"
>>>>>
>>>>>> So you have proven nothing, but that you are stupid, or lie. Or both.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I have proven that you are, at the least, STUPID!
>>>>>
>>>>>> Even if you include not more than the entire sentence, from which you
>>>>>> cherrypick a phrase, Doan, it's obvious what the actual meaning is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "...Spanking was associated with an increase in behavior problems over
>>>>>> time in the context of low levels of emotional support, *but not in the
>>>>>> context of high levels of emotional support.* This pattern held for all
>>>>>> 3 racial-ethnic groups."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups," Doan.
>>>>>>
>>>>> *but not in the context of high levels of emotional support.*
>>>>>
>>>>>> Having a bit of trouble with your reading comprehension again, are you?
>>>>> Hihihi! Look in the mirror, STUPID!
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now either YOU ARE STUPID and don't understand what you read or YOU ARE
>>>>>>>>> A LIAR! Which is it, Kane?
>>>>>>>> I understand it and so do you, which makes you the liar.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are busted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, Kane. The one that got busted is YOU! You said "The pattern held,
>>>>>>> high or low emotional support". I just highlighted the part where it
>>>>>>> it said NOT "in the context of high levels of emotional support."
>>>>>>> Either you didn't understand it or you are the liar, which is it? ;-)
>>>>>> Neither. You are the liar, if you are smart as you pretend to be. You
>>>>>> know what it said, and you know what it meant.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hihihi! The proven STUPID LIAR is YOU!
>>>>>
>>>>>> You didn't highlight. You cherry picked to lie.
>>>>>>
>>>>> To expose your STUPIDITY, yes!
>>>> You cherry picked to show my stupidity?
>>>>
>>>> How interesting.
>>>>
>>>> You were, however, unable to do so based on the full paragraph.
>>>>
>>> I did - Which part of "NOT" don't you understand, STUPID!
>> I understand all of it.
>>
>> "This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups.""
>>
> What pattern and does this pattern held in the context of high levels of
> emotional support?

The pattern of misbehavior for all three groups.

Yes. For all three groups.

Show where it says otherwise.

"This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups.""

High or low levels, "This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups."

>>>> It does not isolate black children from the set of racial-ethnic groups
>>>> and comment on it alone for any purpose whatsoever.
>>>>
>>>> It would have to if you are holding to your claim that black children
>>>> have a different reaction than white children.
>>>>
>>> Read the studies I've cited, e.g. Gunnoe & Mariner (1997).
>> We are not talking about them at present.
>>
> A dodge! Hihihi!

Nope. I am not willing to debate other studies while debating this one.

We did not start with comparative studies, and I won't change now.

You may wish to debate other studies, but I suspect, only to duck out of
this one. Which you fail either to understand, or lie about.

>>>> If it did I'm sure you would point it out.
>>>>
>>>> Such claims are missing and in fact the researches say flat out that
>>>> there WAS not difference, and that collectively the levels of emotional
>>>> support were the same as to outcomes. Spanked when up, spanked went
>>>> down. All according to the entire block of children, not one race or the
>>>> other.
>>>>
>>> Where does it says that spanking is associated with increase in behavior
>>> problems in the context of high levels of emotional support, Kane? That
>>> was you claim and I pointed out was that claim is either STUPID or a LIE.
>>> Which is it, Kane?
>> "This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups."
>>
> NOT "in the context of high levels of emotional suportt"

Yes, that is exactly what it said.

"For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
context of low levels of emotional support, *but not in the context of
high levels of emotional support.* This pattern held for all 3
racial-ethnic groups."

Notice the "but not" statement comes before the "pattern" statement.

That means the "pattern" statement refers to the "but not" refers to
what precedes it.

Not the "but" statement referring to what follows it.

All items above the last sentence are supported by the last sentences
claims: "This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups."

Including that "Spanking was associated with an increase in behavior
problems over time in the context of low levels of emotional support,
*but not in the context of high levels of emotional support.*

All three groups had all responses. Including 'not in the context of..."

>
>> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
>> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
>> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
>> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>> context of low levels of emotional support, *but not in the context of
>> high levels of emotional support.* This pattern held for all 3
>> racial-ethnic groups."
>>
>> If you read closely, it says, "moderated the link" with Maternal
>> emotional support. It says spanking as associated with an increase in
>> behavior problems, longitudinally. And it says that that was in the
>> context of low levels of emotional support.
>>
> You left out the part about "high levels of emotional support"! That
> was you claim, WAS IT NOT?

Left it out? It's right up there between quotes in the full paragraph,
and it's inclusion changes nothing about all three groups holding the
same pattern.

High levels of emotional support or low levels, all three groups
responded the same.

That is what the last sentence means.

>> So far we have NOT established that the authors are speaking of any one
>> group, but the entire group together.
>>
>> To make that clear, it closes with "This pattern held for all 3
>> racial-ethnic groups."
>>
> NOT in the context of high levels of emotional support - which was your
> claim.

Yes, that is my claim and it is correct. That statement is the ending
statement. I holds for all circumstances, including "NOT in the context"
high levels or in the context of low levels.


> I pointed it out to you that you were LYING or STUPID to say
> that! Do you disagree?

Absolutely.

Claiming that the statement "Spanking was associated with an increase in
behavior problems over time in the context of low levels of emotional
support, *but not in the context of high levels of emotional support...*
means that black children had a different response to the same
circumstances as the other two groups is not supported.

Show where it is. That is our claim.

>> That means that the pattern, with or without emotional support was the
>> same. Try reading it again.
>>
> What pattern? What do they meant when they said "NOT in the context of
> high levels of emotional support.?

That it is one of the variables that make up the pattern, just as the
responses, misbehavior or less, make up the total of the responses.

>> This is the same bull**** you tried to shovel back years ago in debate.
>>
>> Someone would point out the facts, and you would continue to point to
>> our cherrypicked bit and insist that that made the rest of the content
>> conform to your agenda.
>>
> I haven't comment anything that your claim is FALSE!

Of course you have.

> You claimed that
> the pattern held for both low and high emotional support.

Yes. That is correct. And it does. Or it would not say so at the end of
the paragraph.

> I pointed
> it out to you that it ain't so.

You are incorrect. The pattern of behavior in both cases of emotional
support, and the levels of behavior, in both case of misbehavior rates ,
in all three racial-ethic groups, was claimed by the authors to have,
"held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups."

> They specificly said "not in the
> context of high levels of emotional support."

That is the pattern element, the variable that in fact did hold for all
three groups. Or they would not have said so.

> You can dance all you want;
> you can squirm all you want. It won't change the fact that your claim
> is either STUPID or a LIE. Which is it, Kane?

Neither.

All items above the last statement that the pattern held for all three
groups is consistent with the claim. No ethnic group had any different
response than another. ALL showed, as the paragraph clearly states, the
same response to the same circumstances.

Here is the entire paragraph parsed and explained to you:


"For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
ratio and maternal emotional support. ...

[[[ all three groups are controlled for income-needs ratio and maternal
emotional support. ]]]

.... Maternal emotional support
moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. ...

[[[ In all three groups, unless you have information the authors are
saying otherwise. ]]]

.... Spanking was associated with an increase in behavior problems over
time in the context of low levels of emotional support, ...

[[[ All three groups. ]]]

.... but not in the context of
high levels of emotional support. ...

[[[ All three groups... no group has been extracted as different. ]]]

.... This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups."

Unless you can show otherwise, the last statement is consistent for the
entire prior paragraph, including the part of the pattern where the
groups, and the behavior, and spanking, changed and were they changed to
"not."

>> It doesn't.
>>
>> Show, Doan, where THIS supports your contention that black children with
>> the same emotional support or lack of thereof have a lower rate of
>> behavior problems. That IS your claim, is it not?
>>
>> Other studies are not up for debate with me at this time. I will ignore
>> references to them until you have completed your argument to this study.
>>
> Hihihi! Did I cited this study, Kane?

No, I did. And you are responding to it.

It is in direct conflict with the study you cited.

I will not entertain other studies until these two are resolved.

Then we can move to another study.

Or you can go on without me, not having resolved this one.

I resolved the one YOU cited rather easily... the authors had said,
"may be." And mentioned that study in the report you cited.

Here is the last sentence in your quoted citation:

"However, this moderation effect varied depending on the predictor and
outcome variables included in the model."

"However," Doan?

"Varied?"

"Depended on the "predictor?"

In other words, if the "predictor" changed the results changed.

That's like saying "my foot will stay dry unless I predict it will get
wet," when we know that I will not depend on your prediction, but on
your action.

They cut their research off at the knees with that statement.

Various predictors of outcomes are rampant on this issue of black
children's reaction to spanking and the emotional support level.

In fact, this "emotional support" claim isn't even a variable. It cannot
really be measured.

A quiet low interactive household may have warm relations by their
standards that an observer cannot see.

A highly active family that is outwardly expressive can be very cold in
what it actually is giving or accepting from each other.

It's not measurable. When ever I see that used as a measure I want to
see behavior they actually coded for.

I know some indicators myself, and I know that they can be easily missed
or faked.

A warm loving gaze to one observer that is hip to the community may well
be "the eye," to the child receiving it.

Ask a black family.

"I knew what it meant when momma gave me The Eye."

And in fact with an observer watching that "eye" would very likely be
accompanied by a smile the child KNEW was not loving warmth.

>> You have not carried your point. It still doesn't say black children
>> responded differently than the others. In fact, it says, but discussing
>> ONLY the combined group, the very opposite.
>>
> Did it say the pattern held in the context of high emotional support?

Yes, that's exactly what it said. "Pattern" includes all.

> It did NOT!

You are now reduced to the most blatant of lies coming from behind a
cloud of smoke and mirrors flashing.

It did. It said, ... but not in the context of
high levels of emotional support. ..."

And it was not speaking of "that pattern" but in the context of the
behavior for ALL CHILDREN...thus, how one ethnicity responded, all did,
or they would not have said so.

The report claimed that all circumstances held for all children.

That would include the premise of the study, and mine...that black
children responded to spanking and rates of emotional support the same
as other children.

So where it says they do not.

> So you claim that it does is FALSE -
> either because of
> your STUPIDITY or LIE? Which is it, Kane?

Which? The part where you try to separate one statement from it's context.

And claim it's addressing the "pattern" statement, which it was not. It
was referring to specific behavior responses on specific conditions,
which it said was consistent for all children, and they consistently had
the same responses.

But it did say that the pattern held in the context of high emotional
support. For all. The part of the pattern that held?

When there was high emotional response to the child all children had the
same response....that the

The pattern includes ALL the behaviors or ALL parties, mother, and
children, all races. It plainly say so.

.... Spanking was associated with an increase in behavior problems over
time in the context of low levels of emotional support, ...

The statement you keep trying to say modified the pattern, was addressed
to the above, following it.

What was said was that spanking was not associated with an increase in
behavior problems when there was a high level of emotional support.

And which group is it saying that about, Doan?

All...so there goes your claim about black children.

>>>>>> If you read the paragraph, even the full sentence it is simple to see
>>>>>> they are NOT isolating any of the groups from the other. All conditions
>>>>>> held constant for all groups, even the fact that it said, 'NOT "in the
>>>>>> context of high levels of emotional support."'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or they could NOT add that last sentence to the paragraph.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What pattern held, Doan?
>>>>> Spanking associated with an increase in behavior problems!
>>>> Yep. And for all the children, of all races.
>>>>
>>> NOT in the context of high levels of emotional support! Do you
>>> understand that, STUPID?
>> I understand you are stupid, or wish to appear so. I believe you know
>> you have been disproved in your claim and can't let go of it and admit it.
>>
> You didn't answer my question, Kane. Did it say "not in the context of
> high levels of emotional support"?

I did answer, Doan. About ... Spanking was associated with an increase
in behavior problems over time in the context of low levels of emotional
support, ...

And the claim "not in the context of high emotional support," addresses
chance, not a change in one group..but in all.

Nothing more than that.

All children responded the same, to high or low emotional support.

Your statements do not go to the issue of your claim...that black
children respond differently.

Please show were it does if that is your argument.

If you are simply bringing up another subject to avoid addressing your
original claim, then you are being stupid. Because no one can miss what
you are doing.
>
>> The statement, 'NOT "in the context of high levels of emotional
>> support,"' does not apply to a single group. It applies to all, equally.
>>
> Yes! So your claim that spanking associated with higher behavior
> problems, FOR BOTH HIGH AND LOW EMOTIONAL SUPPORT, is FALSE!

I made no such statement. I claimed that spanking has the same effect on
all populations studied. More behavior problems where there is low
emotional support, but NOT when there is high emotional support. For all
three groups. As the authors say at the end of the paragraph.

> Are you
> still claiming that your statement is ACCURATE, Kane?

Accurate?

Show were I made a statement that there were higher behavior problems
with high emotional support.

In fact, I've quoted the report repeatedly where is says the opposite.
That misbehavior does not follow with high emotional support.

>> Please stop repeating yourself and show where this would apply to one of
>> the three, or two of the three, more than the remaining racial-ethnic
>> group.
>>
>> More specifically your claimed group, Black children.
>>
> Hihihi! NOT in the context of high emotional support!

Not in the context of all children, which is what it says, and I claimed.

Are you claiming it singled out black children as having different
responses to the same circumstances as the other children?

Please show the support in the report for that claim, if you are making it.

>>>> > What do you
>>>>> think they say, Kane? ;-) Are you SO STUPID?
>>>> It's not stupid to be accurate, Doan, honest.
>>>>
>>> So are you saying that the claim by you that the pattern held for both
>>> high and low emotional support is ACCURATE?
>> Yes. Show where it says other wise, as in "This pattern held for all 3
>> racial-ethnic groups."
>>
> "NOT in the context of high level of emotional support"!!! Are YOU SO
> STUPID!

Yes, that is precisely what it says. Your quote refers to what came
before, not after itself, and what can after it and everything else was
that "the pattern" obviously enumerated above held for all three groups.

>> > DON'T BE STUPID, Kane?
>>
>> Now let me see. YOU can't seem to understand that Black children were
>> not singled out here in any way, Doan.
>>
> I didn't it did.

Where did it say "black children" and not the other two groups?

> I said that pattern (spanking associated with behavior
> problems) did NOT held in the context of high emotional support.

No it didn't. Pattern refers to all factors listed in the paragraph,
race, mother's rate of emotional support, behavior variations in
response to spanking and to emotional support.

According to the last sentence, the "pattern held" for all three groups.

The pattern was not one thing, but all.

It's not like we can't read it for ourselves:

"For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
context of low levels of emotional support, *but not in the context of
high levels of emotional support.* This pattern held for all 3
racial-ethnic groups."

The word pattern is not used anywhere, as you attempt to use it, to
describe "spanking associated with behavior problems".

Spanking associated with behavior problems, is ameliorated, as it says,
but the levels of emotional support.

> That was
> your claim.

"I said that pattern (spanking associated with behavior
problems) did NOT held in the context of high emotional support."

That is YOUR statement, and claim.

I did not say the pattern said anything about this, except as it would
be inclusive with all factors involved.

YOU used "pattern" to try and define ONE piece of the pattern.

And that one piece DID change based on other variables changing.

> That claim is a LIE, if you understood the study, or a STUPID
> one, if you don't understand the study. Now which one applied to YOU,
> Kane?

It would be incorrect if I made that claim, but I did not. YOU reworded
the content yourself, and attempted to tie MY statement..that was simply
quoting the end sentence of the article and try to make it apply to only
one part of the pattern.

The pattern isn't it's parts, but all its parts in the whole of it.

That is why it is so significant.

The children were observed to have the same responses cross culturally
base on outcomes from the same variables.

>> That the findings were applied to all groups equally.
>>
>> Regardless of the variables. The pattern held for all three.
>>
> Not in the context of high levels of emotional support!

Yes, I'm afraid that IS what the last sentence means.

You have attempted to label a behavior as a "pattern." It is not.
>
>>>> So, it showed that black children responded differently (YOUR CLAIM)
>>>> where, Doan?
>>>>
>>> In the many studies I cited.
>> We are discussing this one, and so far, out of those you have offered
>> since I asked you to cite them here and now, you have cited ONE, and it
>> - an article by a known spanking championing group, cited, inaccurately
>> as it were, someone else.
>>
> I have cited more than one, Kane. I said STUDIES!

You only cited one.

It was easily refuted as to your claim. They admit to not being
conclusive. They go entirely foggy with their language at the end of
your quote of them, and from prior study they self cite, comes the end
comment of, "may be" connected to race.

>> And the material they drew from, by the way they described it was cherry
>> picked from, leaving out the closing statement in the researcher's
>> conclusion: "may be."
>>
> Hihihi! And which studies said they ABSOLUTELY sure, Kane? You are
> exposing your STUPIDITY again.

None say absolutely. All that have value tend to have caveats. But more
rarely do they use 'may be.'
>
>> Do you wish to pin your claim on a cited study that was incorrectly
>> cited, that in fact closed with "may be?"
>>
> Are you keep going one exposing your STUPIDITY?

Are you going to answer the actual question?

>>>> Be specific and complete in proving your claim. You tried yet again to
>>>> cherry picking dodge.
>>>>
>>> Already did.
>> No, Doan, you have not. You have shown, as usual, that persistent
>> propensity to lie when you have been proven wrong.
>>
> The proven LIAR IS YOU!

I'm afraid not. Either you missed that "pattern" does not apply to a
behavior, but to a set of behaviors and circumstances as used in the
report under consideration.

>> Black children were not mentioned separately. All three groups were
>> discusses as having the same outcome to the same circumstance. High
>> emotional support, lower behavior problems, Low emotional support,
>> higher rate of behavior problems. The end of the paragraph said plainly,
>> that all three groups followed the same pattern.
>>
> But you claimed the pattern (spanking associated with higher behavior
> problems) held for BOTH high and low emotional support!

No I didn't.

> That claim
> is a FALSE as I pointed out!

It would be had I made it. It is false that you claim I made it.

You pointed out words I did not use. YOU substituted yours for mine.

And continue to remove from context.

>> > Now are you going to answer my question of whether your
>>> claim that the pattern held for both high and low emotional support?
>> Yes, that is exactly what it did say.
>>
> Then you are STUPID!

No, when you get to the first and only mention of "pattern" that IS what
it says, that the pattern held for all groups.

The pattern was the total outcomes under the total circumstances.

>> "For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an increase
>> in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for income-needs
>> ratio and maternal emotional support. Maternal emotional support
>> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. Spanking was
>> associated with an increase in behavior problems over time in the
>> context of low levels of emotional support, *but not in the context of
>> high levels of emotional support.* This pattern held for all 3
>> racial-ethnic groups."
>>
>>> I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU! ;-0
>> Of course you do, because you have nothing left but to attempt to engage
>> me further in hopes I'll say something that will let you dive
>> out...possibly I'll misspell something, or call you a stupid asshole.
>>
> Hihihi! The STUPID asshole is YOU!

I just knew somehow you could not resist the bolthole, Doan.

And it's very obvious you took it because you are cornered.

You have even gone so far as to put words in my mouth about "pattern"
and where I applied it in context.

>
>> Here, let me break it down for you:
>>
>> ...For each of the 3 racial-ethnic groups, spanking predicted an
>> increase in the level of problem behavior over time, controlling for
>> income-needs ratio and maternal emotional support. ...
>>
> You left out the NOT part!

Not relevant at this point.

Thats why the ellipsis.

>> Are the authors not talking about all three?
>>
> Yup! TOGETHER, STUPID! But you claimed for both high and low emotional
> support. The authors said specifically it is NOT so, STUPID!

No, the authors did not say that. All the authors said was that a factor
that changed change the outcome.

If there was high emotional support the misbehavior no longer was driven
by spanking. I've not contested that. YOU have claimed I have.

I made that very point myself.

And the point that this applied to children from all groups, just as
they said.

>> Or do you want to argue that "each" in context means "spanking
>> predicted" a different outcome for one group over the others?
>>
>> ... Maternal emotional support
>> moderated the link between spanking and problem behavior. ...
>>
> Did you understand that?

Yes. It explains your misunderstanding. I made no claim otherwise.

The point is made below.

What ever happened, and what ever the outcomes, the pattern held for all
children from all groups.

>> Have they mentioned any departure from their opening statement of "each
>> of the 3 racial-ethnic groups?"
>>
>> Still the entire combined three, Doan.
>>
>> ... Spanking was associated with an increase in behavior problems over
>> time in the context of low levels of emotional support, ...
>>
> But NOT in the contex of high levels of emotioanl support.

Yes, consistently for all groups. You seem to be understanding without
admitting you understand.

>
>> Any mention of different ethnic groups yet, Doan?
>>
> Did they mention both high and low emotional support, Kane?

Yes. Did they mention outcomes were consistent for all groups?

That is the meaning of the last sentence.
>
>> It, the statement, would continue the prior commentary and be for all
>> three, and that is verified by the closing sentence.
>>
>> ... but not in the context of
>> high levels of emotional support. ...
>>
> Hihihi! But you said for high levels of emotional support too, did you
> not?

No, I made no such claim. I did not claim that the outcomes from
spanking was the same with either high or low levels of support.

That is a blatant lie you built out of referring to one part of the
paragraph as though IT was the item that was "a pattern."
>
>> So emotional support is the variable. And it does not say it's linked to
>> one race or the other. Just a variable that when changed for any group
>> results in: "This pattern held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups"
>>
> NOT in the context of high levels of emotionsal support!

Yes, for all three.

What changed changed for all.

>> Show where anything mentioned would say that for ONE group the pattern
>> didn't hold based on the variable of "emotional support."
>>
> When the emotional support is high, that pattern (spanking associated with
> behavior problems) did not HELD!

Yes. That is correct, except for the use of the word "pattern."

You are associating it with the last sentence. It does not connect in
that fashion.

All your statement means, Doan, is that when emotional support was high,
spanking no longer had higher misbehavior outcomes. ... for all groups.

And it means nothing more.

>> And this time, don't simply lie. Calling someone stupid when YOU can't
>> support your argument isn't smart. It's ... what ... kiddies?
>>
> And maybe this time, you be so STUPID!

No, it is you that is stupid. And more so to be so stupid as to think
others can't sort through how you put a lie together.
>
>> Maybe if you yell louder, and dare more.
>>
> Hihihi! I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU!

That's no louder than the last time.

You have not shown how black children have a different response to the
same variables as other children.
>
> Doan
>
No cigar, Doan.

[krp]

"0:->" > wrote in message
...

>>>> AGAIN Kane goes to his "SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS"!! :-)))))))))

>>> I didn't claim this was a scientific journal, did I? Shame on me if I
>>> did so.

>>> In fact you might guess I don't agree with all the sentiments of the lay
>>> person that wrote this.

>> I can understand how a PROMINENT "professional" like YOU would take
>> issue.

> Nowhere near as prominent as you, Ken.

So YOU say Kane.

>>> Did he claim it was scientific.

>> Tell me, WHY do you keep posting BULL**** then?

> Tell me, why do you keep dodging by posting bull****, Ken?

Posting what bull****? Like needling you on your stupid sources?

[0:->]

krp wrote:
> "0:->" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>>> AGAIN Kane goes to his "SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS"!! :-)))))))))
>
>>>> I didn't claim this was a scientific journal, did I? Shame on me if I
>>>> did so.
>
>>>> In fact you might guess I don't agree with all the sentiments of the lay
>>>> person that wrote this.
>
>>> I can understand how a PROMINENT "professional" like YOU would take
>>> issue.
>
>> Nowhere near as prominent as you, Ken.
>
> So YOU say Kane.
>
>>>> Did he claim it was scientific.
>
>>> Tell me, WHY do you keep posting BULL**** then?
>
>> Tell me, why do you keep dodging by posting bull****, Ken?
>
> Posting what bull****? Like needling you on your stupid sources?

I would like you to contact those sources, and explain to them why you
think they are stupid.

0.-]

>
>