How science will never end spanking

[0:->]

Have social ills of the past been stopped by a scientific debate?

The debate that matters is the moral one.

What makes it moral to delibertately hit a child to control and teach
him or her, and immoral to do the same to an adult?

And the moral debate will be the deciding factor.

Kane

[Ron]

"0:->" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Have social ills of the past been stopped by a scientific debate?
>
> The debate that matters is the moral one.
>
> What makes it moral to delibertately hit a child to control and teach
> him or her, and immoral to do the same to an adult?
>
> And the moral debate will be the deciding factor.
>
> Kane
>

Now THAT I find to be an interesting topic. One we could discuss in depth,
all three of us, and I believe that it could remain civil if we chose to let
it be.

What say gents? Shall we explore this topic in a civil manner?

Ron

[0:->]

On Feb 2, 6:36 am, "Ron" > wrote:
> "0:->" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> > Have social ills of the past been stopped by a scientific debate?
>
> > The debate that matters is the moral one.
>
> > What makes it moral to delibertately hit a child to control and teach
> > him or her, and immoral to do the same to an adult?
>
> > And the moral debate will be the deciding factor.
>
> > Kane
>
> Now THAT I find to be an interesting topic. One we could discuss in depth,
> all three of us, and I believe that it could remain civil if we chose to let
> it be.
>
> What say gents? Shall we explore this topic in a civil manner?
>
> Ron


Well, I figure you are addressing me, but DOAN?

R R R R R R R R RR R R

His idea of civil is to cherry pick even from his own statements, let
alone his opponent's.

You guys start without me. If he manages to stay "civil," as in
'honest' for a few exchanges I would be tempted to join.

Have you so quickly forgotten his discussion of "truth" and "fact?"

Kane

[Doan]

On 2 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> On Feb 2, 6:36 am, "Ron" > wrote:
> > "0:->" > wrote in message
> >
> > oups.com...
> >
> > > Have social ills of the past been stopped by a scientific debate?
> >
> > > The debate that matters is the moral one.
> >
> > > What makes it moral to delibertately hit a child to control and teach
> > > him or her, and immoral to do the same to an adult?
> >
> > > And the moral debate will be the deciding factor.
> >
> > > Kane
> >
> > Now THAT I find to be an interesting topic. One we could discuss in depth,
> > all three of us, and I believe that it could remain civil if we chose to let
> > it be.
> >
> > What say gents? Shall we explore this topic in a civil manner?
> >
> > Ron
>
>
> Well, I figure you are addressing me, but DOAN?
>
> R R R R R R R R RR R R
>
> His idea of civil is to cherry pick even from his own statements, let
> alone his opponent's.
>
> You guys start without me. If he manages to stay "civil," as in
> 'honest' for a few exchanges I would be tempted to join.
>
> Have you so quickly forgotten his discussion of "truth" and "fact?"
>
> Kane
>
You got your answer, Ron! ;-)

Doan

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On 2 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 2, 6:36 am, "Ron" > wrote:
>>> "0:->" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> oups.com...
>>>
>>>> Have social ills of the past been stopped by a scientific debate?
>>>> The debate that matters is the moral one.
>>>> What makes it moral to delibertately hit a child to control and teach
>>>> him or her, and immoral to do the same to an adult?
>>>> And the moral debate will be the deciding factor.
>>>> Kane
>>> Now THAT I find to be an interesting topic. One we could discuss in depth,
>>> all three of us, and I believe that it could remain civil if we chose to let
>>> it be.
>>>
>>> What say gents? Shall we explore this topic in a civil manner?
>>>
>>> Ron
>>
>> Well, I figure you are addressing me, but DOAN?
>>
>> R R R R R R R R RR R R
>>
>> His idea of civil is to cherry pick even from his own statements, let
>> alone his opponent's.
>>
>> You guys start without me. If he manages to stay "civil," as in
>> 'honest' for a few exchanges I would be tempted to join.
>>
>> Have you so quickly forgotten his discussion of "truth" and "fact?"
>>
>> Kane
>>
> You got your answer, Ron! ;-)

Looks like he got yours as well. 0;]

>
> Doan
>
>

[Ron]

"0:->" > wrote in message
...
> Doan wrote:
>> On 2 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 2, 6:36 am, "Ron" > wrote:
>>>> "0:->" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> oups.com...
>>>>
>>>>> Have social ills of the past been stopped by a scientific debate?
>>>>> The debate that matters is the moral one.
>>>>> What makes it moral to delibertately hit a child to control and teach
>>>>> him or her, and immoral to do the same to an adult?
>>>>> And the moral debate will be the deciding factor.
>>>>> Kane
>>>> Now THAT I find to be an interesting topic. One we could discuss in
>>>> depth,
>>>> all three of us, and I believe that it could remain civil if we chose
>>>> to let
>>>> it be.
>>>>
>>>> What say gents? Shall we explore this topic in a civil manner?
>>>>
>>>> Ron
>>>
>>> Well, I figure you are addressing me, but DOAN?
>>>
>>> R R R R R R R R RR R R
>>>
>>> His idea of civil is to cherry pick even from his own statements, let
>>> alone his opponent's.
>>>
>>> You guys start without me. If he manages to stay "civil," as in
>>> 'honest' for a few exchanges I would be tempted to join.
>>>
>>> Have you so quickly forgotten his discussion of "truth" and "fact?"
>>>
>>> Kane
>>>
>> You got your answer, Ron! ;-)
>
> Looks like he got yours as well. 0;]
>

OK, well at least I got your attention.

Lets start here, shall we? Lets start with the premise that Kane started
with, that scientific debate alone is not the answer to our social ill's.

Moral discussion must be a part of the answer. Along with the scientific.
Leaving scientific aside, since this is the area where the two of you just
cant seem to get together, let us instead focus on the moral belief's that
we believe should have impact on the debate.

Morals are based upon our belief structure and those things that we have
been taught from infancy by our parents, who got it from their parents, etc.
Passed down through time to our current generations (since we are at least 2
different generations, I have no idea of Doans age). Now, both Kane and I
are "secular" individuals, choosing to not support organized religions, but
we are also basically moral individuals. The general basis for morals and
our nations laws come from religious belief's. Decidedly non-secular. Is
this a contradiction?

The secular crowd, for the most part, believe that non-CP methods of child
rearing are best. The non-secular believe, again for the most part, that we
should follow the methods used by the generations before us, CP, as it was
"good for us" and we turned out alright. Correct?

But where do these belief structures come into play, both secular and
non-secular, CP and Non-CP, when discussing racial progress towards the
ultimate goal of civilization? Here in the USA we have the right to hold
our own belief's, AND practice them, as we see fit as long as it does not
harm the body politic. In our homes we practice the religon we choose, or
not as we choose. But what vehicle do we use to teach our children the
morals we want them to value?

Thats all I have time for right this moment, but one of you may feel free to
bring to the table your own ideas on the subject. I only ask one thing,
from BOTH of you. Be nice!

Ron

[Doan]

On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Ron wrote:

>
> "0:->" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Doan wrote:
> >> On 2 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Feb 2, 6:36 am, "Ron" > wrote:
> >>>> "0:->" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>> oups.com...
> >>>>
> >>>>> Have social ills of the past been stopped by a scientific debate?
> >>>>> The debate that matters is the moral one.
> >>>>> What makes it moral to delibertately hit a child to control and teach
> >>>>> him or her, and immoral to do the same to an adult?
> >>>>> And the moral debate will be the deciding factor.
> >>>>> Kane
> >>>> Now THAT I find to be an interesting topic. One we could discuss in
> >>>> depth,
> >>>> all three of us, and I believe that it could remain civil if we chose
> >>>> to let
> >>>> it be.
> >>>>
> >>>> What say gents? Shall we explore this topic in a civil manner?
> >>>>
> >>>> Ron
> >>>
> >>> Well, I figure you are addressing me, but DOAN?
> >>>
> >>> R R R R R R R R RR R R
> >>>
> >>> His idea of civil is to cherry pick even from his own statements, let
> >>> alone his opponent's.
> >>>
> >>> You guys start without me. If he manages to stay "civil," as in
> >>> 'honest' for a few exchanges I would be tempted to join.
> >>>
> >>> Have you so quickly forgotten his discussion of "truth" and "fact?"
> >>>
> >>> Kane
> >>>
> >> You got your answer, Ron! ;-)
> >
> > Looks like he got yours as well. 0;]
> >
>
> OK, well at least I got your attention.
>
> Lets start here, shall we? Lets start with the premise that Kane started
> with, that scientific debate alone is not the answer to our social ill's.
>
> Moral discussion must be a part of the answer. Along with the scientific.
> Leaving scientific aside, since this is the area where the two of you just
> cant seem to get together, let us instead focus on the moral belief's that
> we believe should have impact on the debate.
>
> Morals are based upon our belief structure and those things that we have
> been taught from infancy by our parents, who got it from their parents, etc.
> Passed down through time to our current generations (since we are at least 2
> different generations, I have no idea of Doans age). Now, both Kane and I
> are "secular" individuals, choosing to not support organized religions, but
> we are also basically moral individuals. The general basis for morals and
> our nations laws come from religious belief's. Decidedly non-secular. Is
> this a contradiction?
>
No.

> The secular crowd, for the most part, believe that non-CP methods of child
> rearing are best. The non-secular believe, again for the most part, that we
> should follow the methods used by the generations before us, CP, as it was
> "good for us" and we turned out alright. Correct?
>
I don't think you can differentiated this on secular or non-secular. The
only only thing I tend to agree is that the secular crowd tends to use
religion (e.g. the Bible) as justification, the non-secular like to argue
that they have science behind them (e.g. Straus and his studies). Neither
is able to convince the other; hence, we reached an impasse. I tend to
take the middle ground, using common-sense and personal experience as
my guide.

> But where do these belief structures come into play, both secular and
> non-secular, CP and Non-CP, when discussing racial progress towards the
> ultimate goal of civilization? Here in the USA we have the right to hold
> our own belief's, AND practice them, as we see fit as long as it does not
> harm the body politic. In our homes we practice the religon we choose, or
> not as we choose. But what vehicle do we use to teach our children the
> morals we want them to value?
>
Good question. We see the same argument with the abortion debate. Where
do you draw the line? Is there a sensible middle ground that we can live
with? With spanking, I think the sensible thing to do is to leave it up
to the parents? We already have child abuse laws in place. We don't need
another law to incriminate parents!

> Thats all I have time for right this moment, but one of you may feel free to
> bring to the table your own ideas on the subject. I only ask one thing,
> from BOTH of you. Be nice!
>
Like I said, I am but a mirror! ;-)

Doan

> Ron
>
>
>

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Ron wrote:
>
>> "0:->" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Doan wrote:
>>>> On 2 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 2, 6:36 am, "Ron" > wrote:
>>>>>> "0:->" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>> oups.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have social ills of the past been stopped by a scientific debate?
>>>>>>> The debate that matters is the moral one.
>>>>>>> What makes it moral to delibertately hit a child to control and teach
>>>>>>> him or her, and immoral to do the same to an adult?
>>>>>>> And the moral debate will be the deciding factor.
>>>>>>> Kane
>>>>>> Now THAT I find to be an interesting topic. One we could discuss in
>>>>>> depth,
>>>>>> all three of us, and I believe that it could remain civil if we chose
>>>>>> to let
>>>>>> it be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What say gents? Shall we explore this topic in a civil manner?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron
>>>>> Well, I figure you are addressing me, but DOAN?
>>>>>
>>>>> R R R R R R R R RR R R
>>>>>
>>>>> His idea of civil is to cherry pick even from his own statements, let
>>>>> alone his opponent's.
>>>>>
>>>>> You guys start without me. If he manages to stay "civil," as in
>>>>> 'honest' for a few exchanges I would be tempted to join.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you so quickly forgotten his discussion of "truth" and "fact?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Kane
>>>>>
>>>> You got your answer, Ron! ;-)
>>> Looks like he got yours as well. 0;]
>>>
>> OK, well at least I got your attention.
>>
>> Lets start here, shall we? Lets start with the premise that Kane started
>> with, that scientific debate alone is not the answer to our social ill's.
>>
>> Moral discussion must be a part of the answer. Along with the scientific.
>> Leaving scientific aside, since this is the area where the two of you just
>> cant seem to get together, let us instead focus on the moral belief's that
>> we believe should have impact on the debate.
>>
>> Morals are based upon our belief structure and those things that we have
>> been taught from infancy by our parents, who got it from their parents, etc.
>> Passed down through time to our current generations (since we are at least 2
>> different generations, I have no idea of Doans age). Now, both Kane and I
>> are "secular" individuals, choosing to not support organized religions, but
>> we are also basically moral individuals. The general basis for morals and
>> our nations laws come from religious belief's. Decidedly non-secular. Is
>> this a contradiction?
>>
> No.
>
>> The secular crowd, for the most part, believe that non-CP methods of child
>> rearing are best. The non-secular believe, again for the most part, that we
>> should follow the methods used by the generations before us, CP, as it was
>> "good for us" and we turned out alright. Correct?
>>
> I don't think you can differentiated this on secular or non-secular. The
> only only thing I tend to agree is that the secular crowd tends to use
> religion (e.g. the Bible) as justification,

Doan, I don't know if you caught this and corrected it in later posts,
but "secular" means not of religion.

> the non-secular

Means "religious."

> like to argue
> that they have science behind them (e.g. Straus and his studies). Neither
> is able to convince the other; hence, we reached an impasse. I tend to
> take the middle ground, using common-sense and personal experience as
> my guide.

That would presume you were not influenced by the culture you are from,
or live in.

The middle ground has it's biases as well. And personal experience is
colored by personal history.

No one sees the world precisely or often even anywhere near the way
another does.

Or we wouldn't need to have this discussion at all.

>> But where do these belief structures come into play, both secular and
>> non-secular, CP and Non-CP, when discussing racial progress towards the
>> ultimate goal of civilization? Here in the USA we have the right to hold
>> our own belief's, AND practice them, as we see fit as long as it does not
>> harm the body politic. In our homes we practice the religon we choose, or
>> not as we choose. But what vehicle do we use to teach our children the
>> morals we want them to value?
>>
> Good question. We see the same argument with the abortion debate. Where
> do you draw the line?

Well, one can't have an abortion and change their mind.

> Is there a sensible middle ground that we can live
> with?

Since the argument, as posed by Ron, and by others, isn't how much or
how hard or under what circumstances to spank, we are left with the real
question. Whether to spank, or not spank as a practice.

> With spanking, I think the sensible thing to do is to leave it up
> to the parents?

Well, much as I expect ballistics from you I'll point out again that
there are a very large number of parents that spank that have injured
their children, even NOT accounting for psychological issues
(developmental issue of cognitive and social growth).

Just physical injury.

> We already have child abuse laws in place. We don't need
> another law to incriminate parents!

I agree up to the point that we can determine with some certainty prior
to the use of CP what injury is and isn't.

A pediatrician has a very different view, often, of what is an injury as
compared to say a logger in the Northwest and as applied to his kids.

Our challenge is to find some middle ground that everyone agrees to.

The impossibility of this (take were we are with the end of slavery and
the racist outcome) is apparent, so I moved, last year, from a position
of moral suasion to accepting that just like bank robbery, a law against
something that is does not effect the majority is morally, ethically,
and practically correct.

I can't get people to not rob banks. But I can reduce it with a law.

I can't get people to stop beating their children and calling it
"spanking," so I'm stuck with the ethical dilemma of what will be most
effective in reducing the instances where parents that spank injure.

>> Thats all I have time for right this moment, but one of you may feel free to
>> bring to the table your own ideas on the subject. I only ask one thing,
>> from BOTH of you. Be nice!
>>
> Like I said, I am but a mirror! ;-)

Which is not an ethical position. And in fact not true. You frequently
attack when there is no reason, and your statement itself is provocative.

An attempt to create an atmosphere of threat.

Stop it, if you want a reasonable debate.

Stick to the issue under debate, not your definition of yourself
regarding your conduct here.

Thanks.

>
> Doan

Kane

>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>>
>

[Ron]

FYI: So far so good gents. If we can keep this up we can actually have a
reasonable conversation.

As a wise man once said, "Dont start no SH and there wont be no IT".

My replies and questions are directed at both of you BTW, so please dont
assume that since I respond to a single individuals post that the reply is
for that individual only. If I direct something to someone specifically
I'll start it with a name. Thanks again guys for trying!

Comments below:

"0:->" > wrote in message
news:iM2dndFEndbHB17YnZ2dnUVZ_tmknZ2d@scnresearch. com...
> Doan wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Ron wrote:
>>
>>> "0:->" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>> On 2 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 2, 6:36 am, "Ron" > wrote:
>>>>>>> "0:->" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> oups.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Have social ills of the past been stopped by a scientific debate?
>>>>>>>> The debate that matters is the moral one.
>>>>>>>> What makes it moral to delibertately hit a child to control and
>>>>>>>> teach
>>>>>>>> him or her, and immoral to do the same to an adult?
>>>>>>>> And the moral debate will be the deciding factor.
>>>>>>>> Kane
>>>>>>> Now THAT I find to be an interesting topic. One we could discuss in
>>>>>>> depth,
>>>>>>> all three of us, and I believe that it could remain civil if we
>>>>>>> chose
>>>>>>> to let
>>>>>>> it be.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What say gents? Shall we explore this topic in a civil manner?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>> Well, I figure you are addressing me, but DOAN?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> R R R R R R R R RR R R
>>>>>>
>>>>>> His idea of civil is to cherry pick even from his own statements, let
>>>>>> alone his opponent's.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You guys start without me. If he manages to stay "civil," as in
>>>>>> 'honest' for a few exchanges I would be tempted to join.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you so quickly forgotten his discussion of "truth" and "fact?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kane
>>>>>>
>>>>> You got your answer, Ron! ;-)
>>>> Looks like he got yours as well. 0;]
>>>>
>>> OK, well at least I got your attention.
>>>
>>> Lets start here, shall we? Lets start with the premise that Kane
>>> started
>>> with, that scientific debate alone is not the answer to our social
>>> ill's.
>>>
>>> Moral discussion must be a part of the answer. Along with the
>>> scientific.
>>> Leaving scientific aside, since this is the area where the two of you
>>> just
>>> cant seem to get together, let us instead focus on the moral belief's
>>> that
>>> we believe should have impact on the debate.
>>>
>>> Morals are based upon our belief structure and those things that we have
>>> been taught from infancy by our parents, who got it from their parents,
>>> etc.
>>> Passed down through time to our current generations (since we are at
>>> least 2
>>> different generations, I have no idea of Doans age). Now, both Kane and
>>> I
>>> are "secular" individuals, choosing to not support organized religions,
>>> but
>>> we are also basically moral individuals. The general basis for morals
>>> and
>>> our nations laws come from religious belief's. Decidedly non-secular.
>>> Is
>>> this a contradiction?
>>>
>> No.
>>
>>> The secular crowd, for the most part, believe that non-CP methods of
>>> child
>>> rearing are best. The non-secular believe, again for the most part,
>>> that we
>>> should follow the methods used by the generations before us, CP, as it
>>> was
>>> "good for us" and we turned out alright. Correct?
>>>
>> I don't think you can differentiated this on secular or non-secular. The
>> only only thing I tend to agree is that the secular crowd tends to use
>> religion (e.g. the Bible) as justification,
>
> Doan, I don't know if you caught this and corrected it in later posts, but
> "secular" means not of religion.
>
> > the non-secular
>
> Means "religious."

Correct.

In many cases people DO use the bible as justification for spanking, but is
that in keeping with the professed religious objectives of the Christian
norm? Somehow I dont think so. My religous background is significant, but
it no longer affects my life as it once did. So, I can say with some small
authority that Christians who spank are hypocrites. Would you not agree?

>> like to argue
>> that they have science behind them (e.g. Straus and his studies).
>> Neither
>> is able to convince the other; hence, we reached an impasse. I tend to
>> take the middle ground, using common-sense and personal experience as
>> my guide.

Doan: Putting hisorty in this NG aside, it sounds like reason might be just
the ticket. But if thats so then why does it not prevail?

> That would presume you were not influenced by the culture you are from, or
> live in.
>
> The middle ground has it's biases as well. And personal experience is
> colored by personal history.

Kane: Agreed. Personal history, as I alluded to in the beginning of my
portion of this conversation, has significant affect on how one parents. We
learn how to do it by using the same guidelines as observed in our parents,
and to some small portion by things we learn as adults.

> No one sees the world precisely or often even anywhere near the way
> another does.
>
> Or we wouldn't need to have this discussion at all.

Wouldn't that be nice?

>>> But where do these belief structures come into play, both secular and
>>> non-secular, CP and Non-CP, when discussing racial progress towards the
>>> ultimate goal of civilization? Here in the USA we have the right to
>>> hold
>>> our own belief's, AND practice them, as we see fit as long as it does
>>> not
>>> harm the body politic. In our homes we practice the religon we choose,
>>> or
>>> not as we choose. But what vehicle do we use to teach our children the
>>> morals we want them to value?
>>>
>> Good question. We see the same argument with the abortion debate. Where
>> do you draw the line?
>
> Well, one can't have an abortion and change their mind.

Kane: Tell that to the woman in the Roe v. Wade case. She is now a strong
advocate for the anti-abortion crowd. I'd say that she changed her mind,
but of course after the fact.

>> Is there a sensible middle ground that we can live
>> with?

I believe there is. Or that there can be. The problem is that so many
people become impassioned by the debate to the point where "reason" takes a
flying leap out a window. Same with the abortion debate. One of the other
problems is trying to define where that middle ground is. Its quite
difficult to find someone who is truly non-partisan on these issues. But if
someone, or some group of people, were to be found, would we as a nation
take their reccommendations on the subject?

> Since the argument, as posed by Ron, and by others, isn't how much or how
> hard or under what circumstances to spank, we are left with the real
> question. Whether to spank, or not spank as a practice.

Kane: Hmmm, I don't know if the question can be boiled down that far. I
suppose it can if one is totally polarized on the subject one way or the
other, but the issue does not lend itself easily to being coined as a black
and white issue. By definition there is quite a bit of gray area that your
question cannot address. SCOTUS has said that it is a parents right to
conduct corrective discipline as they see fit, within reason. I don't
believe that they actually stuck their necks out far enough to assign a
point where reason is no longer being followed. Hence the reason each state
has different guidelines for its CPS organizations as to what constitutes
abuse and what is parental discipline.

> > With spanking, I think the sensible thing to do is to leave it up
>> to the parents?
>
> Well, much as I expect ballistics from you I'll point out again that there
> are a very large number of parents that spank that have injured their
> children, even NOT accounting for psychological issues (developmental
> issue of cognitive and social growth).
>
> Just physical injury.

Both: True, physical injury does occur. No one can debate that point. But
isn't the point behind parental discipline to teach our children what
conduct is and is not acceptable? Not just acceptable by us the parents,
but by society in general? Assuming that every parents intent is to teach
our children where those lines are, where should society draw the line when
deciding how far we as parents are able to go to not only teach them those
lines but to really make sure that our children do not cross them even when
they become adults or are outside of our control?

> > We already have child abuse laws in place. We don't need
>> another law to incriminate parents!
>
> I agree up to the point that we can determine with some certainty prior to
> the use of CP what injury is and isn't.
>
> A pediatrician has a very different view, often, of what is an injury as
> compared to say a logger in the Northwest and as applied to his kids.
>
> Our challenge is to find some middle ground that everyone agrees to.

Kane: Good points, all. But with the inherent polarization of the
different sides of the issue do you really believe that a middle ground can
be found?

> The impossibility of this (take were we are with the end of slavery and
> the racist outcome) is apparent, so I moved, last year, from a position of
> moral suasion to accepting that just like bank robbery, a law against
> something that is does not effect the majority is morally, ethically, and
> practically correct.
>
> I can't get people to not rob banks. But I can reduce it with a law.
>
> I can't get people to stop beating their children and calling it
> "spanking," so I'm stuck with the ethical dilemma of what will be most
> effective in reducing the instances where parents that spank injure.

So, Hmmmm. So the main thing I see you saying is that all spankings are
beatings. No matter if injury occurs or not. No matter the infraction by
the child or the lesson that we are trying to teach them by spanking.

>>> Thats all I have time for right this moment, but one of you may feel
>>> free to
>>> bring to the table your own ideas on the subject. I only ask one thing,
>>> from BOTH of you. Be nice!

So far so good. A slight slip at the end there, but if I remove it we can
pretend that it never happened and carry on with what promises to be a
fairly interesting conversation.

So I pose a question to you both. Something that has been on my mind for
quite some time.

According to Kane CP causes aggression in children, hence the reason why
most of those in prison for violent crimes say they were spanked.

But on the other hand we have a society in which the urban areas are often
like life at a war front. Children engage in warfare like activities daily.
Its not safe for the average citizen to walk down the street in most areas
of New York city, nor Chicago, or San Francisco. Or any of the other major
cities in our country. Could this not be a bi-product of our increasingly
permissive society, a society where we are no longer being held accountable
for our actions either as children or as adults?

If so then where does the "happy medium" apply in this respect?

Ron

[0:->]

Ron wrote:
> FYI: So far so good gents. If we can keep this up we can actually have a
> reasonable conversation.
>
> As a wise man once said, "Dont start no SH and there wont be no IT".
>
> My replies and questions are directed at both of you BTW, so please dont
> assume that since I respond to a single individuals post that the reply is
> for that individual only. If I direct something to someone specifically
> I'll start it with a name. Thanks again guys for trying!
>
> Comments below:
>
> "0:->" > wrote in message
> news:iM2dndFEndbHB17YnZ2dnUVZ_tmknZ2d@scnresearch. com...
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Ron wrote:
>>>
>>>> "0:->" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 2, 6:36 am, "Ron" > wrote:
>>>>>>>> "0:->" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> oups.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Have social ills of the past been stopped by a scientific debate?
>>>>>>>>> The debate that matters is the moral one.
>>>>>>>>> What makes it moral to delibertately hit a child to control and
>>>>>>>>> teach
>>>>>>>>> him or her, and immoral to do the same to an adult?
>>>>>>>>> And the moral debate will be the deciding factor.
>>>>>>>>> Kane
>>>>>>>> Now THAT I find to be an interesting topic. One we could discuss in
>>>>>>>> depth,
>>>>>>>> all three of us, and I believe that it could remain civil if we
>>>>>>>> chose
>>>>>>>> to let
>>>>>>>> it be.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What say gents? Shall we explore this topic in a civil manner?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>> Well, I figure you are addressing me, but DOAN?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> R R R R R R R R RR R R
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> His idea of civil is to cherry pick even from his own statements, let
>>>>>>> alone his opponent's.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You guys start without me. If he manages to stay "civil," as in
>>>>>>> 'honest' for a few exchanges I would be tempted to join.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have you so quickly forgotten his discussion of "truth" and "fact?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kane
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You got your answer, Ron! ;-)
>>>>> Looks like he got yours as well. 0;]
>>>>>
>>>> OK, well at least I got your attention.
>>>>
>>>> Lets start here, shall we? Lets start with the premise that Kane
>>>> started
>>>> with, that scientific debate alone is not the answer to our social
>>>> ill's.
>>>>
>>>> Moral discussion must be a part of the answer. Along with the
>>>> scientific.
>>>> Leaving scientific aside, since this is the area where the two of you
>>>> just
>>>> cant seem to get together, let us instead focus on the moral belief's
>>>> that
>>>> we believe should have impact on the debate.
>>>>
>>>> Morals are based upon our belief structure and those things that we have
>>>> been taught from infancy by our parents, who got it from their parents,
>>>> etc.
>>>> Passed down through time to our current generations (since we are at
>>>> least 2
>>>> different generations, I have no idea of Doans age). Now, both Kane and
>>>> I
>>>> are "secular" individuals, choosing to not support organized religions,
>>>> but
>>>> we are also basically moral individuals. The general basis for morals
>>>> and
>>>> our nations laws come from religious belief's. Decidedly non-secular.
>>>> Is
>>>> this a contradiction?
>>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>>> The secular crowd, for the most part, believe that non-CP methods of
>>>> child
>>>> rearing are best. The non-secular believe, again for the most part,
>>>> that we
>>>> should follow the methods used by the generations before us, CP, as it
>>>> was
>>>> "good for us" and we turned out alright. Correct?
>>>>
>>> I don't think you can differentiated this on secular or non-secular. The
>>> only only thing I tend to agree is that the secular crowd tends to use
>>> religion (e.g. the Bible) as justification,
>> Doan, I don't know if you caught this and corrected it in later posts, but
>> "secular" means not of religion.
>>
>>> the non-secular
>> Means "religious."
>
> Correct.
>
> In many cases people DO use the bible as justification for spanking, but is
> that in keeping with the professed religious objectives of the Christian
> norm? Somehow I dont think so.

Some agree with you, many do not.

> My religous background is significant, but
> it no longer affects my life as it once did. So, I can say with some small
> authority that Christians who spank are hypocrites. Would you not agree?

No.

Christians are limited, so they tell me, to the NT.

As so often happens, we have a definition of terms problem.

If you asked my personal opinion, rather than the answer I chose, based
on experience with many Christians, and having been one, of course I
claim some Christian hypocrisies. Sadly it's not limited to just this
issue.

>>> like to argue
>>> that they have science behind them (e.g. Straus and his studies).
>>> Neither
>>> is able to convince the other; hence, we reached an impasse. I tend to
>>> take the middle ground, using common-sense and personal experience as
>>> my guide.
>
> Doan: Putting hisorty in this NG aside, it sounds like reason might be just
> the ticket. But if thats so then why does it not prevail?
>
>> That would presume you were not influenced by the culture you are from, or
>> live in.
>>
>> The middle ground has it's biases as well. And personal experience is
>> colored by personal history.
>
> Kane: Agreed. Personal history, as I alluded to in the beginning of my
> portion of this conversation, has significant affect on how one parents. We
> learn how to do it by using the same guidelines as observed in our parents,
> and to some small portion by things we learn as adults.

And if we used that as the sole arbiter of progress you and I would be
grunting and waving our hands at each other for fear we might use
symbolic sounds and "progress" a bit.

My parents used to tell me their expectation was that I'd do better than
they.

>> No one sees the world precisely or often even anywhere near the way
>> another does.
>>
>> Or we wouldn't need to have this discussion at all.
>
> Wouldn't that be nice?

No. I hate boredom.

>
>>>> But where do these belief structures come into play, both secular and
>>>> non-secular, CP and Non-CP, when discussing racial progress towards the
>>>> ultimate goal of civilization? Here in the USA we have the right to
>>>> hold
>>>> our own belief's, AND practice them, as we see fit as long as it does
>>>> not
>>>> harm the body politic. In our homes we practice the religon we choose,
>>>> or
>>>> not as we choose. But what vehicle do we use to teach our children the
>>>> morals we want them to value?
>>>>
>>> Good question. We see the same argument with the abortion debate. Where
>>> do you draw the line?
>> Well, one can't have an abortion and change their mind.
>
> Kane: Tell that to the woman in the Roe v. Wade case. She is now a strong
> advocate for the anti-abortion crowd. I'd say that she changed her mind,
> but of course after the fact.

Guilt, whatever it's source, can produce self protecting accommodations
of many kinds. One way is to "change one's mind." Many former
institutional (Like KKK) bigots become human rights advocates.

>
>>> Is there a sensible middle ground that we can live
>>> with?
>
> I believe there is. Or that there can be. The problem is that so many
> people become impassioned by the debate to the point where "reason" takes a
> flying leap out a window. Same with the abortion debate. One of the other
> problems is trying to define where that middle ground is. Its quite
> difficult to find someone who is truly non-partisan on these issues.

Less difficult to find those that claim they are.

> But if
> someone, or some group of people, were to be found, would we as a nation
> take their reccommendations on the subject?

Unlikely. Each side, if they are extremists, tend to see people who
don't lean their way, as being on the other side, and resistance occurs.

>> Since the argument, as posed by Ron, and by others, isn't how much or how
>> hard or under what circumstances to spank, we are left with the real
>> question. Whether to spank, or not spank as a practice.
>
> Kane: Hmmm, I don't know if the question can be boiled down that far. I
> suppose it can if one is totally polarized on the subject one way or the
> other, but the issue does not lend itself easily to being coined as a black
> and white issue.

I don't feel polarized, nor a "little bit pregnant," "or partially dead."

> By definition there is quite a bit of gray area that your
> question cannot address. SCOTUS has said that it is a parents right to
> conduct corrective discipline as they see fit, within reason. I don't
> believe that they actually stuck their necks out far enough to assign a
> point where reason is no longer being followed. Hence the reason each state
> has different guidelines for its CPS organizations as to what constitutes
> abuse and what is parental discipline.

We do much better on traffic control laws.

>>> With spanking, I think the sensible thing to do is to leave it up
>>> to the parents?
>> Well, much as I expect ballistics from you I'll point out again that there
>> are a very large number of parents that spank that have injured their
>> children, even NOT accounting for psychological issues (developmental
>> issue of cognitive and social growth).
>>
>> Just physical injury.
>
> Both: True, physical injury does occur. No one can debate that point. But
> isn't the point behind parental discipline to teach our children what
> conduct is and is not acceptable?

Non sequitur. Pain is not required as a learning tool. Especially in
this area. It's to critical to humans, their progress as well as their
survival.

"Conduct" should be a matter of study like cooking. Do it wrong and you
can get sick. Do it seriously incorrect and you get to die.

Presuming you are consuming your own prepared meals of course.

> Not just acceptable by us the parents,
> but by society in general?

My position doesn't change. Disruption of the social learning process
(What you are describing) gets badly disrupted by pain as a teaching
device.

If a child is lucky they have the temperament that they can survive the
pain distraction and get by. Some less than others. The more pain and
humiliation, as you know from being an ex cop, the worse the behavior of
the adult.

> Assuming that every parents intent is to teach
> our children where those lines are, where should society draw the line when
> deciding how far we as parents are able to go to not only teach them those
> lines but to really make sure that our children do not cross them even when
> they become adults or are outside of our control?

Well, this cuts to the chase. And takes us out of the realm of the moral
back to the realm of science.

Which is the better teacher of good conduct, when it comes to outcomes,
pain based, or instruction, modeling, etc?

Or is it better to combine them?

>>> We already have child abuse laws in place. We don't need
>>> another law to incriminate parents!
>> I agree up to the point that we can determine with some certainty prior to
>> the use of CP what injury is and isn't.
>>
>> A pediatrician has a very different view, often, of what is an injury as
>> compared to say a logger in the Northwest and as applied to his kids.
>>
>> Our challenge is to find some middle ground that everyone agrees to.
>
> Kane: Good points, all. But with the inherent polarization of the
> different sides of the issue do you really believe that a middle ground can
> be found?

No. I did for most of my adult life. In fact, until last year.

This newsgroup put the cap to my hopefulness for reason and morals to
prevail.

It's as tough a problem as deciding how to predict where the line is
between non injurious CP and abuse. And it's another social issue, like
the rest, and has been settled by law.

If you asked me if I like it, my answer would be "no." I have strong
libertarian leanings and would prefer everyone conducted themselves with
self control.

So far I haven't seen a whole lot of that, and I have seen, as you have,
a great deal of failure to learn self control. And experiences, somewhat
different from Doan's, I think, were with those without adequate self
control and they had all been 'socialize' with corporal punishment.

Sometime consistent, and sometimes not, but as the researchers claim,
both have similar outcomes. Not good.

I actually, given only own of two choices both including spanking, would
prefer a child have consistency of application. While they may turn out
dangerous to society, that usually results in their actions bringing
them under closer control of society (prison) but the self indulgent
narcissistic ones, equally as dangerous in their own way, often do not
break any law that would get them lock up.

It's not fun to make such a choice, but I'm confident of it.

I worked a lot with just those two populations.

The passive aggressive that so often was sneaky, sometimes put on a very
attractive face, but you would not want to let them out of your sight
for long if you valued our silverware and your child's virginity.

The sullen passives come from the same mold. Inconsistent parenting.

The ones that were violently aggressive (though they could be very
sneaky and sullen too) came invariably from lots of harsh punishment
families.

>> The impossibility of this (take were we are with the end of slavery and
>> the racist outcome) is apparent, so I moved, last year, from a position of
>> moral suasion to accepting that just like bank robbery, a law against
>> something that is does not effect the majority is morally, ethically, and
>> practically correct.
>>
>> I can't get people to not rob banks. But I can reduce it with a law.
>>
>> I can't get people to stop beating their children and calling it
>> "spanking," so I'm stuck with the ethical dilemma of what will be most
>> effective in reducing the instances where parents that spank injure.
>
> So, Hmmmm. So the main thing I see you saying is that all spankings are
> beatings.

No. No, the furtherest I've gone in that directly is to claim that all
spanking has the risk of injury. And I do consider all spanking
harmful. And as harmful as the intensity, circumstances, and especially
the child's perception makes it.

If you look more closely, and forgive me for not making it clearer,
notice the last half of that sentence. My "ethical dilemma" makes clear
that I classify injuries as beatings. Harmful doesn't always equate with
"beating."

> No matter if injury occurs or not.

No, I think I was, or thought I was, clear that I classify beatings with
injury. Harm has far more gradations to it in my mind. YMMD.

I didn't say spankers are beating. I said beaters call it spanking. I'd
hoped I was clearer.

Certainly not all spanking is beating. It's a false claim that those
advocating for non-spanking call all spanking beating. They just don't
like spanking.

The "non-spankers call all spanking beating" claim is charged so often
though it derives from a very instances when that's been claimed by
non-spank advocates that those that accuse have convinced each other
that "everybody" claims that when only a very tiny number actually do.

The rhetoric of extremism is a door that swings both ways.

Some "researchers" should be ashamed of themselves when they perpetrate
that as a general belief of non-spanking advocates.

> No matter the infraction by
> the child or the lesson that we are trying to teach them by spanking.

Well, given your premise of what I said didn't match what I thought I
said, or I was not clear enough, I've known too many people who chose
not to spank that raised sometimes very difficult children (as all will
be from time to time) without resorting to spanking that I find it hard
to believe the lessons cannot be taught without spanking.

I worked with some extremely disturbed and resistant children without
resorting to spanking them, and had considerable success.

As for the children of non-spankers:

I know their grown up "kids" today. Hundreds of them literally. I'd know
if they had criminal records. The few that do have them are minor
issues, often where they got pushed into something and fought back. They
aren't wimps just because they weren't spanked.

I know a few that are in the Middle East in fact, volunteer military.

>>>> Thats all I have time for right this moment, but one of you may feel
>>>> free to
>>>> bring to the table your own ideas on the subject. I only ask one thing,
>>>> from BOTH of you. Be nice!
>
> So far so good. A slight slip at the end there, but if I remove it we can
> pretend that it never happened and carry on with what promises to be a
> fairly interesting conversation.
>
> So I pose a question to you both. Something that has been on my mind for
> quite some time.
>
> According to Kane CP causes aggression in children, hence the reason why
> most of those in prison for violent crimes say they were spanked.

CP is associated with aggression and bad outcomes as adults. "Caused" by
is not something I use regularly unless I am quoting a researcher. My
opposition, while not acquiring all the attributes of those they quote
insist that I do of those I quote. Nonsense and not debate.

Actually the violent imprisoned would fall under the more general
category of being corporally punished. Few were 'spanked' in the more
traditional since. Most were severely punished.

A Chicago School of Social work researcher many years back once tried to
find 'unspanked' prisoners in large prison systems. Had to dump his
research. Nothing to compare. He found not ONE unspanked prisoner among
those arrested for violent crimes..his area of interest.

That was long ago enough he's retired by now, or moved on to another
school. I see his name in both Texas and Hawaii, "Fischer" but I can't
recall his first name.
>
> But on the other hand we have a society in which the urban areas are often
> like life at a war front.

I hate to bring this up until I've heard you out, but these are
precisely the places where families are prone to CP and harsher CP at that.

> Children engage in warfare like activities daily.
> Its not safe for the average citizen to walk down the street in most areas
> of New York city, nor Chicago, or San Francisco. Or any of the other major
> cities in our country. Could this not be a bi-product of our increasingly
> permissive society, a society where we are no longer being held accountable
> for our actions either as children or as adults?

Well given that parents in areas of the country, and cities, where crime
is lower there you will find more 'permissiveness' if you mean
non-spanking. I don't consider non-spankers permissive. I've know very
few. In fact the most permissive parents I've known I referred to as
doormat to volcano parents. They'd go along for weeks or months setting
few if any boundaries, mostly leaving the child to fend for himself in
terms of self control.

And the parent in those households was usually a poor model as
well..self indulgent, little self control, little capacity to put off
immediate pleasure for longer term goals that require limits.

Then that parent would explode at the kid. Not that's how to make a nut.

> If so then where does the "happy medium" apply in this respect?

It's not really a happy medium. I'd bet that for the kids you care for
there is no "happy medium," but in fact that you run a pretty tight ship
without using CP.

I posted a piece today to this ng about the 6 principles of
authoritative parenting, out of a New Zealand study of the research.

That 6 point model pretty well fits all the non-spanking parents I've
known because non-spanking is not the only thing they do to parent.

If there is a "happy" medium, that is it.

I said in that post on the six points what I'm happy to repeat, and I'll
add a bit: If we have these (six points) what do we need spanking for?

If one has a child that doesn't respond to the kind of parenting those
points express, then one of two thinks is going on..the parent is
misapplying (often I saw child development ignorance as the
problem...too little or too much expected of the child for his age) or a
child that needed more than parenting.

And spanking won't cure either.

Though it will cover them up sometimes. Not a good thing in my mind.

Thanks for the forum.
>
> Ron

Kane

[Ron]

Doan?


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> FYI: So far so good gents. If we can keep this up we can actually have a
> reasonable conversation.
>
> As a wise man once said, "Dont start no SH and there wont be no IT".
>
> My replies and questions are directed at both of you BTW, so please dont
> assume that since I respond to a single individuals post that the reply is
> for that individual only. If I direct something to someone specifically
> I'll start it with a name. Thanks again guys for trying!
>
> Comments below:
>
> "0:->" > wrote in message
> news:iM2dndFEndbHB17YnZ2dnUVZ_tmknZ2d@scnresearch. com...
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Ron wrote:
>>>
>>>> "0:->" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 2, 6:36 am, "Ron" > wrote:
>>>>>>>> "0:->" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> oups.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Have social ills of the past been stopped by a scientific debate?
>>>>>>>>> The debate that matters is the moral one.
>>>>>>>>> What makes it moral to delibertately hit a child to control and
>>>>>>>>> teach
>>>>>>>>> him or her, and immoral to do the same to an adult?
>>>>>>>>> And the moral debate will be the deciding factor.
>>>>>>>>> Kane
>>>>>>>> Now THAT I find to be an interesting topic. One we could discuss
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> depth,
>>>>>>>> all three of us, and I believe that it could remain civil if we
>>>>>>>> chose
>>>>>>>> to let
>>>>>>>> it be.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What say gents? Shall we explore this topic in a civil manner?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>> Well, I figure you are addressing me, but DOAN?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> R R R R R R R R RR R R
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> His idea of civil is to cherry pick even from his own statements,
>>>>>>> let
>>>>>>> alone his opponent's.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You guys start without me. If he manages to stay "civil," as in
>>>>>>> 'honest' for a few exchanges I would be tempted to join.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have you so quickly forgotten his discussion of "truth" and "fact?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kane
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You got your answer, Ron! ;-)
>>>>> Looks like he got yours as well. 0;]
>>>>>
>>>> OK, well at least I got your attention.
>>>>
>>>> Lets start here, shall we? Lets start with the premise that Kane
>>>> started
>>>> with, that scientific debate alone is not the answer to our social
>>>> ill's.
>>>>
>>>> Moral discussion must be a part of the answer. Along with the
>>>> scientific.
>>>> Leaving scientific aside, since this is the area where the two of you
>>>> just
>>>> cant seem to get together, let us instead focus on the moral belief's
>>>> that
>>>> we believe should have impact on the debate.
>>>>
>>>> Morals are based upon our belief structure and those things that we
>>>> have
>>>> been taught from infancy by our parents, who got it from their parents,
>>>> etc.
>>>> Passed down through time to our current generations (since we are at
>>>> least 2
>>>> different generations, I have no idea of Doans age). Now, both Kane
>>>> and I
>>>> are "secular" individuals, choosing to not support organized religions,
>>>> but
>>>> we are also basically moral individuals. The general basis for morals
>>>> and
>>>> our nations laws come from religious belief's. Decidedly non-secular.
>>>> Is
>>>> this a contradiction?
>>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>>> The secular crowd, for the most part, believe that non-CP methods of
>>>> child
>>>> rearing are best. The non-secular believe, again for the most part,
>>>> that we
>>>> should follow the methods used by the generations before us, CP, as it
>>>> was
>>>> "good for us" and we turned out alright. Correct?
>>>>
>>> I don't think you can differentiated this on secular or non-secular. The
>>> only only thing I tend to agree is that the secular crowd tends to use
>>> religion (e.g. the Bible) as justification,
>>
>> Doan, I don't know if you caught this and corrected it in later posts,
>> but "secular" means not of religion.
>>
>> > the non-secular
>>
>> Means "religious."
>
> Correct.
>
> In many cases people DO use the bible as justification for spanking, but
> is that in keeping with the professed religious objectives of the
> Christian norm? Somehow I dont think so. My religous background is
> significant, but it no longer affects my life as it once did. So, I can
> say with some small authority that Christians who spank are hypocrites.
> Would you not agree?
>
>>> like to argue
>>> that they have science behind them (e.g. Straus and his studies).
>>> Neither
>>> is able to convince the other; hence, we reached an impasse. I tend to
>>> take the middle ground, using common-sense and personal experience as
>>> my guide.
>
> Doan: Putting hisorty in this NG aside, it sounds like reason might be
> just the ticket. But if thats so then why does it not prevail?
>
>> That would presume you were not influenced by the culture you are from,
>> or live in.
>>
>> The middle ground has it's biases as well. And personal experience is
>> colored by personal history.
>
> Kane: Agreed. Personal history, as I alluded to in the beginning of my
> portion of this conversation, has significant affect on how one parents.
> We learn how to do it by using the same guidelines as observed in our
> parents, and to some small portion by things we learn as adults.
>
>> No one sees the world precisely or often even anywhere near the way
>> another does.
>>
>> Or we wouldn't need to have this discussion at all.
>
> Wouldn't that be nice?
>
>>>> But where do these belief structures come into play, both secular and
>>>> non-secular, CP and Non-CP, when discussing racial progress towards the
>>>> ultimate goal of civilization? Here in the USA we have the right to
>>>> hold
>>>> our own belief's, AND practice them, as we see fit as long as it does
>>>> not
>>>> harm the body politic. In our homes we practice the religon we choose,
>>>> or
>>>> not as we choose. But what vehicle do we use to teach our children the
>>>> morals we want them to value?
>>>>
>>> Good question. We see the same argument with the abortion debate.
>>> Where
>>> do you draw the line?
>>
>> Well, one can't have an abortion and change their mind.
>
> Kane: Tell that to the woman in the Roe v. Wade case. She is now a
> strong advocate for the anti-abortion crowd. I'd say that she changed her
> mind, but of course after the fact.
>
>>> Is there a sensible middle ground that we can live
>>> with?
>
> I believe there is. Or that there can be. The problem is that so many
> people become impassioned by the debate to the point where "reason" takes
> a flying leap out a window. Same with the abortion debate. One of the
> other problems is trying to define where that middle ground is. Its quite
> difficult to find someone who is truly non-partisan on these issues. But
> if someone, or some group of people, were to be found, would we as a
> nation take their reccommendations on the subject?
>
>> Since the argument, as posed by Ron, and by others, isn't how much or how
>> hard or under what circumstances to spank, we are left with the real
>> question. Whether to spank, or not spank as a practice.
>
> Kane: Hmmm, I don't know if the question can be boiled down that far. I
> suppose it can if one is totally polarized on the subject one way or the
> other, but the issue does not lend itself easily to being coined as a
> black and white issue. By definition there is quite a bit of gray area
> that your question cannot address. SCOTUS has said that it is a parents
> right to conduct corrective discipline as they see fit, within reason. I
> don't believe that they actually stuck their necks out far enough to
> assign a point where reason is no longer being followed. Hence the reason
> each state has different guidelines for its CPS organizations as to what
> constitutes abuse and what is parental discipline.
>
>> > With spanking, I think the sensible thing to do is to leave it up
>>> to the parents?
>>
>> Well, much as I expect ballistics from you I'll point out again that
>> there are a very large number of parents that spank that have injured
>> their children, even NOT accounting for psychological issues
>> (developmental issue of cognitive and social growth).
>>
>> Just physical injury.
>
> Both: True, physical injury does occur. No one can debate that point.
> But isn't the point behind parental discipline to teach our children what
> conduct is and is not acceptable? Not just acceptable by us the parents,
> but by society in general? Assuming that every parents intent is to teach
> our children where those lines are, where should society draw the line
> when deciding how far we as parents are able to go to not only teach them
> those lines but to really make sure that our children do not cross them
> even when they become adults or are outside of our control?
>
>> > We already have child abuse laws in place. We don't need
>>> another law to incriminate parents!
>>
>> I agree up to the point that we can determine with some certainty prior
>> to the use of CP what injury is and isn't.
>>
>> A pediatrician has a very different view, often, of what is an injury as
>> compared to say a logger in the Northwest and as applied to his kids.
>>
>> Our challenge is to find some middle ground that everyone agrees to.
>
> Kane: Good points, all. But with the inherent polarization of the
> different sides of the issue do you really believe that a middle ground
> can be found?
>
>> The impossibility of this (take were we are with the end of slavery and
>> the racist outcome) is apparent, so I moved, last year, from a position
>> of moral suasion to accepting that just like bank robbery, a law against
>> something that is does not effect the majority is morally, ethically, and
>> practically correct.
>>
>> I can't get people to not rob banks. But I can reduce it with a law.
>>
>> I can't get people to stop beating their children and calling it
>> "spanking," so I'm stuck with the ethical dilemma of what will be most
>> effective in reducing the instances where parents that spank injure.
>
> So, Hmmmm. So the main thing I see you saying is that all spankings are
> beatings. No matter if injury occurs or not. No matter the infraction by
> the child or the lesson that we are trying to teach them by spanking.
>
>>>> Thats all I have time for right this moment, but one of you may feel
>>>> free to
>>>> bring to the table your own ideas on the subject. I only ask one
>>>> thing,
>>>> from BOTH of you. Be nice!
>
> So far so good. A slight slip at the end there, but if I remove it we can
> pretend that it never happened and carry on with what promises to be a
> fairly interesting conversation.
>
> So I pose a question to you both. Something that has been on my mind for
> quite some time.
>
> According to Kane CP causes aggression in children, hence the reason why
> most of those in prison for violent crimes say they were spanked.
>
> But on the other hand we have a society in which the urban areas are often
> like life at a war front. Children engage in warfare like activities
> daily. Its not safe for the average citizen to walk down the street in
> most areas of New York city, nor Chicago, or San Francisco. Or any of the
> other major cities in our country. Could this not be a bi-product of our
> increasingly permissive society, a society where we are no longer being
> held accountable for our actions either as children or as adults?
>
> If so then where does the "happy medium" apply in this respect?
>
> Ron
>
>

[0:->]

Major error corrected.

I wrote, regarding Christians as regards the New and Old Testament

">
> Christians are limited, so they tell me, to the NT.
"

That should have read: 'Christians are NOT limited, so they tell me,
to the NT.'

Thank you for you attention to this correction.

Kane



On Feb 2, 8:13 pm, "0:->" > wrote:
> Ron wrote:
> > FYI: So far so good gents. If we can keep this up we can actually have a
> > reasonable conversation.
>
> > As a wise man once said, "Dont start no SH and there wont be no IT".
>
> > My replies and questions are directed at both of you BTW, so please dont
> > assume that since I respond to a single individuals post that the reply is
> > for that individual only. If I direct something to someone specifically
> > I'll start it with a name. Thanks again guys for trying!
>
> > Comments below:
>
> > "0:->" > wrote in message
> >news:iM2dndFEndbHB17YnZ2dnUVZ_tmknZ2d@scnresearch. com...
> >> Doan wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Ron wrote:
>
> >>>> "0:->" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>> Doan wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Feb 2, 6:36 am, "Ron" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "0:->" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> >>>>>>>>> Have social ills of the past been stopped by a scientific debate?
> >>>>>>>>> The debate that matters is the moral one.
> >>>>>>>>> What makes it moral to delibertately hit a child to control and
> >>>>>>>>> teach
> >>>>>>>>> him or her, and immoral to do the same to an adult?
> >>>>>>>>> And the moral debate will be the deciding factor.
> >>>>>>>>> Kane
> >>>>>>>> Now THAT I find to be an interesting topic. One we could discuss in
> >>>>>>>> depth,
> >>>>>>>> all three of us, and I believe that it could remain civil if we
> >>>>>>>> chose
> >>>>>>>> to let
> >>>>>>>> it be.
>
> >>>>>>>> What say gents? Shall we explore this topic in a civil manner?
>
> >>>>>>>> Ron
> >>>>>>> Well, I figure you are addressing me, but DOAN?
>
> >>>>>>> R R R R R R R R RR R R
>
> >>>>>>> His idea of civil is to cherry pick even from his own statements, let
> >>>>>>> alone his opponent's.
>
> >>>>>>> You guys start without me. If he manages to stay "civil," as in
> >>>>>>> 'honest' for a few exchanges I would be tempted to join.
>
> >>>>>>> Have you so quickly forgotten his discussion of "truth" and "fact?"
>
> >>>>>>> Kane
>
> >>>>>> You got your answer, Ron! ;-)
> >>>>> Looks like he got yours as well. 0;]
>
> >>>> OK, well at least I got your attention.
>
> >>>> Lets start here, shall we? Lets start with the premise that Kane
> >>>> started
> >>>> with, that scientific debate alone is not the answer to our social
> >>>> ill's.
>
> >>>> Moral discussion must be a part of the answer. Along with the
> >>>> scientific.
> >>>> Leaving scientific aside, since this is the area where the two of you
> >>>> just
> >>>> cant seem to get together, let us instead focus on the moral belief's
> >>>> that
> >>>> we believe should have impact on the debate.
>
> >>>> Morals are based upon our belief structure and those things that we have
> >>>> been taught from infancy by our parents, who got it from their parents,
> >>>> etc.
> >>>> Passed down through time to our current generations (since we are at
> >>>> least 2
> >>>> different generations, I have no idea of Doans age). Now, both Kane and
> >>>> I
> >>>> are "secular" individuals, choosing to not support organized religions,
> >>>> but
> >>>> we are also basically moral individuals. The general basis for morals
> >>>> and
> >>>> our nations laws come from religious belief's. Decidedly non-secular.
> >>>> Is
> >>>> this a contradiction?
>
> >>> No.
>
> >>>> The secular crowd, for the most part, believe that non-CP methods of
> >>>> child
> >>>> rearing are best. The non-secular believe, again for the most part,
> >>>> that we
> >>>> should follow the methods used by the generations before us, CP, as it
> >>>> was
> >>>> "good for us" and we turned out alright. Correct?
>
> >>> I don't think you can differentiated this on secular or non-secular. The
> >>> only only thing I tend to agree is that the secular crowd tends to use
> >>> religion (e.g. the Bible) as justification,
> >> Doan, I don't know if you caught this and corrected it in later posts, but
> >> "secular" means not of religion.
>
> >>> the non-secular
> >> Means "religious."
>
> > Correct.
>
> > In many cases people DO use the bible as justification for spanking, but is
> > that in keeping with the professed religious objectives of the Christian
> > norm? Somehow I dont think so.
>
> Some agree with you, many do not.
>
> > My religous background is significant, but
> > it no longer affects my life as it once did. So, I can say with some small
> > authority that Christians who spank are hypocrites. Would you not agree?
>
> No.
>
> Christians are limited, so they tell me, to the NT.
>
> As so often happens, we have a definition of terms problem.
>
> If you asked my personal opinion, rather than the answer I chose, based
> on experience with many Christians, and having been one, of course I
> claim some Christian hypocrisies. Sadly it's not limited to just this
> issue.
>
>
>
> >>> like to argue
> >>> that they have science behind them (e.g. Straus and his studies).
> >>> Neither
> >>> is able to convince the other; hence, we reached an impasse. I tend to
> >>> take the middle ground, using common-sense and personal experience as
> >>> my guide.
>
> > Doan: Putting hisorty in this NG aside, it sounds like reason might be just
> > the ticket. But if thats so then why does it not prevail?
>
> >> That would presume you were not influenced by the culture you are from, or
> >> live in.
>
> >> The middle ground has it's biases as well. And personal experience is
> >> colored by personal history.
>
> > Kane: Agreed. Personal history, as I alluded to in the beginning of my
> > portion of this conversation, has significant affect on how one parents.. We
> > learn how to do it by using the same guidelines as observed in our parents,
> > and to some small portion by things we learn as adults.
>
> And if we used that as the sole arbiter of progress you and I would be
> grunting and waving our hands at each other for fear we might use
> symbolic sounds and "progress" a bit.
>
> My parents used to tell me their expectation was that I'd do better than
> they.
>
> >> No one sees the world precisely or often even anywhere near the way
> >> another does.
>
> >> Or we wouldn't need to have this discussion at all.
>
> > Wouldn't that be nice?
>
> No. I hate boredom.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> But where do these belief structures come into play, both secular and
> >>>> non-secular, CP and Non-CP, when discussing racial progress towards the
> >>>> ultimate goal of civilization? Here in the USA we have the right to
> >>>> hold
> >>>> our own belief's, AND practice them, as we see fit as long as it does
> >>>> not
> >>>> harm the body politic. In our homes we practice the religon we choose,
> >>>> or
> >>>> not as we choose. But what vehicle do we use to teach our children the
> >>>> morals we want them to value?
>
> >>> Good question. We see the same argument with the abortion debate. Where
> >>> do you draw the line?
> >> Well, one can't have an abortion and change their mind.
>
> > Kane: Tell that to the woman in the Roe v. Wade case. She is now a strong
> > advocate for the anti-abortion crowd. I'd say that she changed her mind,
> > but of course after the fact.
>
> Guilt, whatever it's source, can produce self protecting accommodations
> of many kinds. One way is to "change one's mind." Many former
> institutional (Like KKK) bigots become human rights advocates.
>
>
>
> >>> Is there a sensible middle ground that we can live
> >>> with?
>
> > I believe there is. Or that there can be. The problem is that so many
> > people become impassioned by the debate to the point where "reason" takes a
> > flying leap out a window. Same with the abortion debate. One of the other
> > problems is trying to define where that middle ground is. Its quite
> > difficult to find someone who is truly non-partisan on these issues.
>
> Less difficult to find those that claim they are.
>
> > But if
>
> > someone, or some group of people, were to be found, would we as a nation
> > take their reccommendations on the subject?
>
> Unlikely. Each side, if they are extremists, tend to see people who
> don't lean their way, as being on the other side, and resistance occurs.
>
> >> Since the argument, as posed by Ron, and by others, isn't how much or how
> >> hard or under what circumstances to spank, we are left with the real
> >> question. Whether to spank, or not spank as a practice.
>
> > Kane: Hmmm, I don't know if the question can be boiled down that far. I
> > suppose it can if one is totally polarized on the subject one way or the
> > other, but the issue does not lend itself easily to being coined as a black
> > and white issue.
>
> I don't feel polarized, nor a "little bit pregnant," "or partially dead."
>
> > By definition there is quite a bit of gray area that your
> > question cannot address. SCOTUS has said that it is a parents right to
> > conduct corrective discipline as they see fit, within reason. I don't
> > believe that they actually stuck their necks out far enough to assign a
> > point where reason is no longer being followed. Hence the reason each state
> > has different guidelines for its CPS organizations as to what constitutes
> > abuse and what is parental discipline.
>
> We do much better on traffic control laws.
>
> >>> With spanking, I think the sensible thing to do is to leave it up
> >>> to the parents?
> >> Well, much as I expect ballistics from you I'll point out again that there
> >> are a very large number of parents that spank that have injured their
> >> children, even NOT accounting for psychological issues (developmental
> >> issue of cognitive and social growth).
>
> >> Just physical injury.
>
> > Both: True, physical injury does occur. No one can debate that point. But
> > isn't the point behind parental discipline to teach our children what
> > conduct is and is not acceptable?
>
> Non sequitur. Pain is not required as a learning tool. Especially in
> this area. It's to critical to humans, their progress as well as their
> survival.
>
> "Conduct" should be a matter of ...
>
> read more »

[Doan]

On Sat, 3 Feb 2007, Ron wrote:

> Doan?
>

I stand corrected. I should have written that secular = non-religous!

Doan

>
> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > FYI: So far so good gents. If we can keep this up we can actually have a
> > reasonable conversation.
> >
> > As a wise man once said, "Dont start no SH and there wont be no IT".
> >
> > My replies and questions are directed at both of you BTW, so please dont
> > assume that since I respond to a single individuals post that the reply is
> > for that individual only. If I direct something to someone specifically
> > I'll start it with a name. Thanks again guys for trying!
> >
> > Comments below:
> >
> > "0:->" > wrote in message
> > news:iM2dndFEndbHB17YnZ2dnUVZ_tmknZ2d@scnresearch. com...
> >> Doan wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Ron wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "0:->" > wrote in message
> >>>> ...
> >>>>> Doan wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Feb 2, 6:36 am, "Ron" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "0:->" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> oups.com...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Have social ills of the past been stopped by a scientific debate?
> >>>>>>>>> The debate that matters is the moral one.
> >>>>>>>>> What makes it moral to delibertately hit a child to control and
> >>>>>>>>> teach
> >>>>>>>>> him or her, and immoral to do the same to an adult?
> >>>>>>>>> And the moral debate will be the deciding factor.
> >>>>>>>>> Kane
> >>>>>>>> Now THAT I find to be an interesting topic. One we could discuss
> >>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>> depth,
> >>>>>>>> all three of us, and I believe that it could remain civil if we
> >>>>>>>> chose
> >>>>>>>> to let
> >>>>>>>> it be.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What say gents? Shall we explore this topic in a civil manner?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ron
> >>>>>>> Well, I figure you are addressing me, but DOAN?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> R R R R R R R R RR R R
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> His idea of civil is to cherry pick even from his own statements,
> >>>>>>> let
> >>>>>>> alone his opponent's.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You guys start without me. If he manages to stay "civil," as in
> >>>>>>> 'honest' for a few exchanges I would be tempted to join.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Have you so quickly forgotten his discussion of "truth" and "fact?"
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Kane
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> You got your answer, Ron! ;-)
> >>>>> Looks like he got yours as well. 0;]
> >>>>>
> >>>> OK, well at least I got your attention.
> >>>>
> >>>> Lets start here, shall we? Lets start with the premise that Kane
> >>>> started
> >>>> with, that scientific debate alone is not the answer to our social
> >>>> ill's.
> >>>>
> >>>> Moral discussion must be a part of the answer. Along with the
> >>>> scientific.
> >>>> Leaving scientific aside, since this is the area where the two of you
> >>>> just
> >>>> cant seem to get together, let us instead focus on the moral belief's
> >>>> that
> >>>> we believe should have impact on the debate.
> >>>>
> >>>> Morals are based upon our belief structure and those things that we
> >>>> have
> >>>> been taught from infancy by our parents, who got it from their parents,
> >>>> etc.
> >>>> Passed down through time to our current generations (since we are at
> >>>> least 2
> >>>> different generations, I have no idea of Doans age). Now, both Kane
> >>>> and I
> >>>> are "secular" individuals, choosing to not support organized religions,
> >>>> but
> >>>> we are also basically moral individuals. The general basis for morals
> >>>> and
> >>>> our nations laws come from religious belief's. Decidedly non-secular.
> >>>> Is
> >>>> this a contradiction?
> >>>>
> >>> No.
> >>>
> >>>> The secular crowd, for the most part, believe that non-CP methods of
> >>>> child
> >>>> rearing are best. The non-secular believe, again for the most part,
> >>>> that we
> >>>> should follow the methods used by the generations before us, CP, as it
> >>>> was
> >>>> "good for us" and we turned out alright. Correct?
> >>>>
> >>> I don't think you can differentiated this on secular or non-secular. The
> >>> only only thing I tend to agree is that the secular crowd tends to use
> >>> religion (e.g. the Bible) as justification,
> >>
> >> Doan, I don't know if you caught this and corrected it in later posts,
> >> but "secular" means not of religion.
> >>
> >> > the non-secular
> >>
> >> Means "religious."
> >
> > Correct.
> >
> > In many cases people DO use the bible as justification for spanking, but
> > is that in keeping with the professed religious objectives of the
> > Christian norm? Somehow I dont think so. My religous background is
> > significant, but it no longer affects my life as it once did. So, I can
> > say with some small authority that Christians who spank are hypocrites.
> > Would you not agree?
> >
> >>> like to argue
> >>> that they have science behind them (e.g. Straus and his studies).
> >>> Neither
> >>> is able to convince the other; hence, we reached an impasse. I tend to
> >>> take the middle ground, using common-sense and personal experience as
> >>> my guide.
> >
> > Doan: Putting hisorty in this NG aside, it sounds like reason might be
> > just the ticket. But if thats so then why does it not prevail?
> >
> >> That would presume you were not influenced by the culture you are from,
> >> or live in.
> >>
> >> The middle ground has it's biases as well. And personal experience is
> >> colored by personal history.
> >
> > Kane: Agreed. Personal history, as I alluded to in the beginning of my
> > portion of this conversation, has significant affect on how one parents.
> > We learn how to do it by using the same guidelines as observed in our
> > parents, and to some small portion by things we learn as adults.
> >
> >> No one sees the world precisely or often even anywhere near the way
> >> another does.
> >>
> >> Or we wouldn't need to have this discussion at all.
> >
> > Wouldn't that be nice?
> >
> >>>> But where do these belief structures come into play, both secular and
> >>>> non-secular, CP and Non-CP, when discussing racial progress towards the
> >>>> ultimate goal of civilization? Here in the USA we have the right to
> >>>> hold
> >>>> our own belief's, AND practice them, as we see fit as long as it does
> >>>> not
> >>>> harm the body politic. In our homes we practice the religon we choose,
> >>>> or
> >>>> not as we choose. But what vehicle do we use to teach our children the
> >>>> morals we want them to value?
> >>>>
> >>> Good question. We see the same argument with the abortion debate.
> >>> Where
> >>> do you draw the line?
> >>
> >> Well, one can't have an abortion and change their mind.
> >
> > Kane: Tell that to the woman in the Roe v. Wade case. She is now a
> > strong advocate for the anti-abortion crowd. I'd say that she changed her
> > mind, but of course after the fact.
> >
> >>> Is there a sensible middle ground that we can live
> >>> with?
> >
> > I believe there is. Or that there can be. The problem is that so many
> > people become impassioned by the debate to the point where "reason" takes
> > a flying leap out a window. Same with the abortion debate. One of the
> > other problems is trying to define where that middle ground is. Its quite
> > difficult to find someone who is truly non-partisan on these issues. But
> > if someone, or some group of people, were to be found, would we as a
> > nation take their reccommendations on the subject?
> >
> >> Since the argument, as posed by Ron, and by others, isn't how much or how
> >> hard or under what circumstances to spank, we are left with the real
> >> question. Whether to spank, or not spank as a practice.
> >
> > Kane: Hmmm, I don't know if the question can be boiled down that far. I
> > suppose it can if one is totally polarized on the subject one way or the
> > other, but the issue does not lend itself easily to being coined as a
> > black and white issue. By definition there is quite a bit of gray area
> > that your question cannot address. SCOTUS has said that it is a parents
> > right to conduct corrective discipline as they see fit, within reason. I
> > don't believe that they actually stuck their necks out far enough to
> > assign a point where reason is no longer being followed. Hence the reason
> > each state has different guidelines for its CPS organizations as to what
> > constitutes abuse and what is parental discipline.
> >
> >> > With spanking, I think the sensible thing to do is to leave it up
> >>> to the parents?
> >>
> >> Well, much as I expect ballistics from you I'll point out again that
> >> there are a very large number of parents that spank that have injured
> >> their children, even NOT accounting for psychological issues
> >> (developmental issue of cognitive and social growth).
> >>
> >> Just physical injury.
> >
> > Both: True, physical injury does occur. No one can debate that point.
> > But isn't the point behind parental discipline to teach our children what
> > conduct is and is not acceptable? Not just acceptable by us the parents,
> > but by society in general? Assuming that every parents intent is to teach
> > our children where those lines are, where should society draw the line
> > when deciding how far we as parents are able to go to not only teach them
> > those lines but to really make sure that our children do not cross them
> > even when they become adults or are outside of our control?
> >
> >> > We already have child abuse laws in place. We don't need
> >>> another law to incriminate parents!
> >>
> >> I agree up to the point that we can determine with some certainty prior
> >> to the use of CP what injury is and isn't.
> >>
> >> A pediatrician has a very different view, often, of what is an injury as
> >> compared to say a logger in the Northwest and as applied to his kids.
> >>
> >> Our challenge is to find some middle ground that everyone agrees to.
> >
> > Kane: Good points, all. But with the inherent polarization of the
> > different sides of the issue do you really believe that a middle ground
> > can be found?
> >
> >> The impossibility of this (take were we are with the end of slavery and
> >> the racist outcome) is apparent, so I moved, last year, from a position
> >> of moral suasion to accepting that just like bank robbery, a law against
> >> something that is does not effect the majority is morally, ethically, and
> >> practically correct.
> >>
> >> I can't get people to not rob banks. But I can reduce it with a law.
> >>
> >> I can't get people to stop beating their children and calling it
> >> "spanking," so I'm stuck with the ethical dilemma of what will be most
> >> effective in reducing the instances where parents that spank injure.
> >
> > So, Hmmmm. So the main thing I see you saying is that all spankings are
> > beatings. No matter if injury occurs or not. No matter the infraction by
> > the child or the lesson that we are trying to teach them by spanking.
> >
> >>>> Thats all I have time for right this moment, but one of you may feel
> >>>> free to
> >>>> bring to the table your own ideas on the subject. I only ask one
> >>>> thing,
> >>>> from BOTH of you. Be nice!
> >
> > So far so good. A slight slip at the end there, but if I remove it we can
> > pretend that it never happened and carry on with what promises to be a
> > fairly interesting conversation.
> >
> > So I pose a question to you both. Something that has been on my mind for
> > quite some time.
> >
> > According to Kane CP causes aggression in children, hence the reason why
> > most of those in prison for violent crimes say they were spanked.
> >
> > But on the other hand we have a society in which the urban areas are often
> > like life at a war front. Children engage in warfare like activities
> > daily. Its not safe for the average citizen to walk down the street in
> > most areas of New York city, nor Chicago, or San Francisco. Or any of the
> > other major cities in our country. Could this not be a bi-product of our
> > increasingly permissive society, a society where we are no longer being
> > held accountable for our actions either as children or as adults?
> >
> > If so then where does the "happy medium" apply in this respect?
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >
>
>
>

[Ron]

"Doan" > wrote in message
...
>
> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007, Ron wrote:
>
>> Doan?
>>
>
> I stand corrected. I should have written that secular = non-religous!
>
> Doan

Is that your only comment?

Ron


>>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > FYI: So far so good gents. If we can keep this up we can actually
>> > have a
>> > reasonable conversation.
>> >
>> > As a wise man once said, "Dont start no SH and there wont be no IT".
>> >
>> > My replies and questions are directed at both of you BTW, so please
>> > dont
>> > assume that since I respond to a single individuals post that the reply
>> > is
>> > for that individual only. If I direct something to someone
>> > specifically
>> > I'll start it with a name. Thanks again guys for trying!
>> >
>> > Comments below:
>> >
>> > "0:->" > wrote in message
>> > news:iM2dndFEndbHB17YnZ2dnUVZ_tmknZ2d@scnresearch. com...
>> >> Doan wrote:
>> >>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Ron wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> "0:->" > wrote in message
>> >>>> ...
>> >>>>> Doan wrote:
>> >>>>>> On 2 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On Feb 2, 6:36 am, "Ron" > wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> "0:->" > wrote in message
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> oups.com...
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Have social ills of the past been stopped by a scientific
>> >>>>>>>>> debate?
>> >>>>>>>>> The debate that matters is the moral one.
>> >>>>>>>>> What makes it moral to delibertately hit a child to control and
>> >>>>>>>>> teach
>> >>>>>>>>> him or her, and immoral to do the same to an adult?
>> >>>>>>>>> And the moral debate will be the deciding factor.
>> >>>>>>>>> Kane
>> >>>>>>>> Now THAT I find to be an interesting topic. One we could
>> >>>>>>>> discuss
>> >>>>>>>> in
>> >>>>>>>> depth,
>> >>>>>>>> all three of us, and I believe that it could remain civil if we
>> >>>>>>>> chose
>> >>>>>>>> to let
>> >>>>>>>> it be.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> What say gents? Shall we explore this topic in a civil manner?
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Ron
>> >>>>>>> Well, I figure you are addressing me, but DOAN?
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> R R R R R R R R RR R R
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> His idea of civil is to cherry pick even from his own statements,
>> >>>>>>> let
>> >>>>>>> alone his opponent's.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> You guys start without me. If he manages to stay "civil," as in
>> >>>>>>> 'honest' for a few exchanges I would be tempted to join.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Have you so quickly forgotten his discussion of "truth" and
>> >>>>>>> "fact?"
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Kane
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>> You got your answer, Ron! ;-)
>> >>>>> Looks like he got yours as well. 0;]
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> OK, well at least I got your attention.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Lets start here, shall we? Lets start with the premise that Kane
>> >>>> started
>> >>>> with, that scientific debate alone is not the answer to our social
>> >>>> ill's.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Moral discussion must be a part of the answer. Along with the
>> >>>> scientific.
>> >>>> Leaving scientific aside, since this is the area where the two of
>> >>>> you
>> >>>> just
>> >>>> cant seem to get together, let us instead focus on the moral
>> >>>> belief's
>> >>>> that
>> >>>> we believe should have impact on the debate.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Morals are based upon our belief structure and those things that we
>> >>>> have
>> >>>> been taught from infancy by our parents, who got it from their
>> >>>> parents,
>> >>>> etc.
>> >>>> Passed down through time to our current generations (since we are at
>> >>>> least 2
>> >>>> different generations, I have no idea of Doans age). Now, both Kane
>> >>>> and I
>> >>>> are "secular" individuals, choosing to not support organized
>> >>>> religions,
>> >>>> but
>> >>>> we are also basically moral individuals. The general basis for
>> >>>> morals
>> >>>> and
>> >>>> our nations laws come from religious belief's. Decidedly
>> >>>> non-secular.
>> >>>> Is
>> >>>> this a contradiction?
>> >>>>
>> >>> No.
>> >>>
>> >>>> The secular crowd, for the most part, believe that non-CP methods of
>> >>>> child
>> >>>> rearing are best. The non-secular believe, again for the most part,
>> >>>> that we
>> >>>> should follow the methods used by the generations before us, CP, as
>> >>>> it
>> >>>> was
>> >>>> "good for us" and we turned out alright. Correct?
>> >>>>
>> >>> I don't think you can differentiated this on secular or non-secular.
>> >>> The
>> >>> only only thing I tend to agree is that the secular crowd tends to
>> >>> use
>> >>> religion (e.g. the Bible) as justification,
>> >>
>> >> Doan, I don't know if you caught this and corrected it in later posts,
>> >> but "secular" means not of religion.
>> >>
>> >> > the non-secular
>> >>
>> >> Means "religious."
>> >
>> > Correct.
>> >
>> > In many cases people DO use the bible as justification for spanking,
>> > but
>> > is that in keeping with the professed religious objectives of the
>> > Christian norm? Somehow I dont think so. My religous background is
>> > significant, but it no longer affects my life as it once did. So, I
>> > can
>> > say with some small authority that Christians who spank are hypocrites.
>> > Would you not agree?
>> >
>> >>> like to argue
>> >>> that they have science behind them (e.g. Straus and his studies).
>> >>> Neither
>> >>> is able to convince the other; hence, we reached an impasse. I tend
>> >>> to
>> >>> take the middle ground, using common-sense and personal experience as
>> >>> my guide.
>> >
>> > Doan: Putting hisorty in this NG aside, it sounds like reason might be
>> > just the ticket. But if thats so then why does it not prevail?
>> >
>> >> That would presume you were not influenced by the culture you are
>> >> from,
>> >> or live in.
>> >>
>> >> The middle ground has it's biases as well. And personal experience is
>> >> colored by personal history.
>> >
>> > Kane: Agreed. Personal history, as I alluded to in the beginning of
>> > my
>> > portion of this conversation, has significant affect on how one
>> > parents.
>> > We learn how to do it by using the same guidelines as observed in our
>> > parents, and to some small portion by things we learn as adults.
>> >
>> >> No one sees the world precisely or often even anywhere near the way
>> >> another does.
>> >>
>> >> Or we wouldn't need to have this discussion at all.
>> >
>> > Wouldn't that be nice?
>> >
>> >>>> But where do these belief structures come into play, both secular
>> >>>> and
>> >>>> non-secular, CP and Non-CP, when discussing racial progress towards
>> >>>> the
>> >>>> ultimate goal of civilization? Here in the USA we have the right to
>> >>>> hold
>> >>>> our own belief's, AND practice them, as we see fit as long as it
>> >>>> does
>> >>>> not
>> >>>> harm the body politic. In our homes we practice the religon we
>> >>>> choose,
>> >>>> or
>> >>>> not as we choose. But what vehicle do we use to teach our children
>> >>>> the
>> >>>> morals we want them to value?
>> >>>>
>> >>> Good question. We see the same argument with the abortion debate.
>> >>> Where
>> >>> do you draw the line?
>> >>
>> >> Well, one can't have an abortion and change their mind.
>> >
>> > Kane: Tell that to the woman in the Roe v. Wade case. She is now a
>> > strong advocate for the anti-abortion crowd. I'd say that she changed
>> > her
>> > mind, but of course after the fact.
>> >
>> >>> Is there a sensible middle ground that we can live
>> >>> with?
>> >
>> > I believe there is. Or that there can be. The problem is that so many
>> > people become impassioned by the debate to the point where "reason"
>> > takes
>> > a flying leap out a window. Same with the abortion debate. One of the
>> > other problems is trying to define where that middle ground is. Its
>> > quite
>> > difficult to find someone who is truly non-partisan on these issues.
>> > But
>> > if someone, or some group of people, were to be found, would we as a
>> > nation take their reccommendations on the subject?
>> >
>> >> Since the argument, as posed by Ron, and by others, isn't how much or
>> >> how
>> >> hard or under what circumstances to spank, we are left with the real
>> >> question. Whether to spank, or not spank as a practice.
>> >
>> > Kane: Hmmm, I don't know if the question can be boiled down that far.
>> > I
>> > suppose it can if one is totally polarized on the subject one way or
>> > the
>> > other, but the issue does not lend itself easily to being coined as a
>> > black and white issue. By definition there is quite a bit of gray area
>> > that your question cannot address. SCOTUS has said that it is a
>> > parents
>> > right to conduct corrective discipline as they see fit, within reason.
>> > I
>> > don't believe that they actually stuck their necks out far enough to
>> > assign a point where reason is no longer being followed. Hence the
>> > reason
>> > each state has different guidelines for its CPS organizations as to
>> > what
>> > constitutes abuse and what is parental discipline.
>> >
>> >> > With spanking, I think the sensible thing to do is to leave it up
>> >>> to the parents?
>> >>
>> >> Well, much as I expect ballistics from you I'll point out again that
>> >> there are a very large number of parents that spank that have injured
>> >> their children, even NOT accounting for psychological issues
>> >> (developmental issue of cognitive and social growth).
>> >>
>> >> Just physical injury.
>> >
>> > Both: True, physical injury does occur. No one can debate that point.
>> > But isn't the point behind parental discipline to teach our children
>> > what
>> > conduct is and is not acceptable? Not just acceptable by us the
>> > parents,
>> > but by society in general? Assuming that every parents intent is to
>> > teach
>> > our children where those lines are, where should society draw the line
>> > when deciding how far we as parents are able to go to not only teach
>> > them
>> > those lines but to really make sure that our children do not cross them
>> > even when they become adults or are outside of our control?
>> >
>> >> > We already have child abuse laws in place. We don't need
>> >>> another law to incriminate parents!
>> >>
>> >> I agree up to the point that we can determine with some certainty
>> >> prior
>> >> to the use of CP what injury is and isn't.
>> >>
>> >> A pediatrician has a very different view, often, of what is an injury
>> >> as
>> >> compared to say a logger in the Northwest and as applied to his kids.
>> >>
>> >> Our challenge is to find some middle ground that everyone agrees to.
>> >
>> > Kane: Good points, all. But with the inherent polarization of the
>> > different sides of the issue do you really believe that a middle ground
>> > can be found?
>> >
>> >> The impossibility of this (take were we are with the end of slavery
>> >> and
>> >> the racist outcome) is apparent, so I moved, last year, from a
>> >> position
>> >> of moral suasion to accepting that just like bank robbery, a law
>> >> against
>> >> something that is does not effect the majority is morally, ethically,
>> >> and
>> >> practically correct.
>> >>
>> >> I can't get people to not rob banks. But I can reduce it with a law.
>> >>
>> >> I can't get people to stop beating their children and calling it
>> >> "spanking," so I'm stuck with the ethical dilemma of what will be most
>> >> effective in reducing the instances where parents that spank injure.
>> >
>> > So, Hmmmm. So the main thing I see you saying is that all spankings
>> > are
>> > beatings. No matter if injury occurs or not. No matter the infraction
>> > by
>> > the child or the lesson that we are trying to teach them by spanking.
>> >
>> >>>> Thats all I have time for right this moment, but one of you may feel
>> >>>> free to
>> >>>> bring to the table your own ideas on the subject. I only ask one
>> >>>> thing,
>> >>>> from BOTH of you. Be nice!
>> >
>> > So far so good. A slight slip at the end there, but if I remove it we
>> > can
>> > pretend that it never happened and carry on with what promises to be a
>> > fairly interesting conversation.
>> >
>> > So I pose a question to you both. Something that has been on my mind
>> > for
>> > quite some time.
>> >
>> > According to Kane CP causes aggression in children, hence the reason
>> > why
>> > most of those in prison for violent crimes say they were spanked.
>> >
>> > But on the other hand we have a society in which the urban areas are
>> > often
>> > like life at a war front. Children engage in warfare like activities
>> > daily. Its not safe for the average citizen to walk down the street in
>> > most areas of New York city, nor Chicago, or San Francisco. Or any of
>> > the
>> > other major cities in our country. Could this not be a bi-product of
>> > our
>> > increasingly permissive society, a society where we are no longer being
>> > held accountable for our actions either as children or as adults?
>> >
>> > If so then where does the "happy medium" apply in this respect?
>> >
>> > Ron
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>

[Ron]

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Doan" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007, Ron wrote:
>>
>>> Doan?
>>>
>>
>> I stand corrected. I should have written that secular = non-religous!
>>
>> Doan
>
> Is that your only comment?
>
> Ron
>

Come on Doan, you HAVE to have more to say than that!

Ron


>>>
>>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > FYI: So far so good gents. If we can keep this up we can actually
>>> > have a
>>> > reasonable conversation.
>>> >
>>> > As a wise man once said, "Dont start no SH and there wont be no IT".
>>> >
>>> > My replies and questions are directed at both of you BTW, so please
>>> > dont
>>> > assume that since I respond to a single individuals post that the
>>> > reply is
>>> > for that individual only. If I direct something to someone
>>> > specifically
>>> > I'll start it with a name. Thanks again guys for trying!
>>> >
>>> > Comments below:
>>> >
>>> > "0:->" > wrote in message
>>> > news:iM2dndFEndbHB17YnZ2dnUVZ_tmknZ2d@scnresearch. com...
>>> >> Doan wrote:
>>> >>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Ron wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> "0:->" > wrote in message
>>> >>>> ...
>>> >>>>> Doan wrote:
>>> >>>>>> On 2 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 2, 6:36 am, "Ron" > wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>> "0:->" > wrote in message
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> oups.com...
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> Have social ills of the past been stopped by a scientific
>>> >>>>>>>>> debate?
>>> >>>>>>>>> The debate that matters is the moral one.
>>> >>>>>>>>> What makes it moral to delibertately hit a child to control
>>> >>>>>>>>> and
>>> >>>>>>>>> teach
>>> >>>>>>>>> him or her, and immoral to do the same to an adult?
>>> >>>>>>>>> And the moral debate will be the deciding factor.
>>> >>>>>>>>> Kane
>>> >>>>>>>> Now THAT I find to be an interesting topic. One we could
>>> >>>>>>>> discuss
>>> >>>>>>>> in
>>> >>>>>>>> depth,
>>> >>>>>>>> all three of us, and I believe that it could remain civil if we
>>> >>>>>>>> chose
>>> >>>>>>>> to let
>>> >>>>>>>> it be.
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> What say gents? Shall we explore this topic in a civil manner?
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> Ron
>>> >>>>>>> Well, I figure you are addressing me, but DOAN?
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> R R R R R R R R RR R R
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> His idea of civil is to cherry pick even from his own
>>> >>>>>>> statements,
>>> >>>>>>> let
>>> >>>>>>> alone his opponent's.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> You guys start without me. If he manages to stay "civil," as in
>>> >>>>>>> 'honest' for a few exchanges I would be tempted to join.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Have you so quickly forgotten his discussion of "truth" and
>>> >>>>>>> "fact?"
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Kane
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> You got your answer, Ron! ;-)
>>> >>>>> Looks like he got yours as well. 0;]
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>> OK, well at least I got your attention.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Lets start here, shall we? Lets start with the premise that Kane
>>> >>>> started
>>> >>>> with, that scientific debate alone is not the answer to our social
>>> >>>> ill's.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Moral discussion must be a part of the answer. Along with the
>>> >>>> scientific.
>>> >>>> Leaving scientific aside, since this is the area where the two of
>>> >>>> you
>>> >>>> just
>>> >>>> cant seem to get together, let us instead focus on the moral
>>> >>>> belief's
>>> >>>> that
>>> >>>> we believe should have impact on the debate.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Morals are based upon our belief structure and those things that we
>>> >>>> have
>>> >>>> been taught from infancy by our parents, who got it from their
>>> >>>> parents,
>>> >>>> etc.
>>> >>>> Passed down through time to our current generations (since we are
>>> >>>> at
>>> >>>> least 2
>>> >>>> different generations, I have no idea of Doans age). Now, both
>>> >>>> Kane
>>> >>>> and I
>>> >>>> are "secular" individuals, choosing to not support organized
>>> >>>> religions,
>>> >>>> but
>>> >>>> we are also basically moral individuals. The general basis for
>>> >>>> morals
>>> >>>> and
>>> >>>> our nations laws come from religious belief's. Decidedly
>>> >>>> non-secular.
>>> >>>> Is
>>> >>>> this a contradiction?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>> No.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> The secular crowd, for the most part, believe that non-CP methods
>>> >>>> of
>>> >>>> child
>>> >>>> rearing are best. The non-secular believe, again for the most
>>> >>>> part,
>>> >>>> that we
>>> >>>> should follow the methods used by the generations before us, CP, as
>>> >>>> it
>>> >>>> was
>>> >>>> "good for us" and we turned out alright. Correct?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>> I don't think you can differentiated this on secular or non-secular.
>>> >>> The
>>> >>> only only thing I tend to agree is that the secular crowd tends to
>>> >>> use
>>> >>> religion (e.g. the Bible) as justification,
>>> >>
>>> >> Doan, I don't know if you caught this and corrected it in later
>>> >> posts,
>>> >> but "secular" means not of religion.
>>> >>
>>> >> > the non-secular
>>> >>
>>> >> Means "religious."
>>> >
>>> > Correct.
>>> >
>>> > In many cases people DO use the bible as justification for spanking,
>>> > but
>>> > is that in keeping with the professed religious objectives of the
>>> > Christian norm? Somehow I dont think so. My religous background is
>>> > significant, but it no longer affects my life as it once did. So, I
>>> > can
>>> > say with some small authority that Christians who spank are
>>> > hypocrites.
>>> > Would you not agree?
>>> >
>>> >>> like to argue
>>> >>> that they have science behind them (e.g. Straus and his studies).
>>> >>> Neither
>>> >>> is able to convince the other; hence, we reached an impasse. I tend
>>> >>> to
>>> >>> take the middle ground, using common-sense and personal experience
>>> >>> as
>>> >>> my guide.
>>> >
>>> > Doan: Putting hisorty in this NG aside, it sounds like reason might
>>> > be
>>> > just the ticket. But if thats so then why does it not prevail?
>>> >
>>> >> That would presume you were not influenced by the culture you are
>>> >> from,
>>> >> or live in.
>>> >>
>>> >> The middle ground has it's biases as well. And personal experience is
>>> >> colored by personal history.
>>> >
>>> > Kane: Agreed. Personal history, as I alluded to in the beginning of
>>> > my
>>> > portion of this conversation, has significant affect on how one
>>> > parents.
>>> > We learn how to do it by using the same guidelines as observed in our
>>> > parents, and to some small portion by things we learn as adults.
>>> >
>>> >> No one sees the world precisely or often even anywhere near the way
>>> >> another does.
>>> >>
>>> >> Or we wouldn't need to have this discussion at all.
>>> >
>>> > Wouldn't that be nice?
>>> >
>>> >>>> But where do these belief structures come into play, both secular
>>> >>>> and
>>> >>>> non-secular, CP and Non-CP, when discussing racial progress towards
>>> >>>> the
>>> >>>> ultimate goal of civilization? Here in the USA we have the right
>>> >>>> to
>>> >>>> hold
>>> >>>> our own belief's, AND practice them, as we see fit as long as it
>>> >>>> does
>>> >>>> not
>>> >>>> harm the body politic. In our homes we practice the religon we
>>> >>>> choose,
>>> >>>> or
>>> >>>> not as we choose. But what vehicle do we use to teach our children
>>> >>>> the
>>> >>>> morals we want them to value?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>> Good question. We see the same argument with the abortion debate.
>>> >>> Where
>>> >>> do you draw the line?
>>> >>
>>> >> Well, one can't have an abortion and change their mind.
>>> >
>>> > Kane: Tell that to the woman in the Roe v. Wade case. She is now a
>>> > strong advocate for the anti-abortion crowd. I'd say that she changed
>>> > her
>>> > mind, but of course after the fact.
>>> >
>>> >>> Is there a sensible middle ground that we can live
>>> >>> with?
>>> >
>>> > I believe there is. Or that there can be. The problem is that so
>>> > many
>>> > people become impassioned by the debate to the point where "reason"
>>> > takes
>>> > a flying leap out a window. Same with the abortion debate. One of
>>> > the
>>> > other problems is trying to define where that middle ground is. Its
>>> > quite
>>> > difficult to find someone who is truly non-partisan on these issues.
>>> > But
>>> > if someone, or some group of people, were to be found, would we as a
>>> > nation take their reccommendations on the subject?
>>> >
>>> >> Since the argument, as posed by Ron, and by others, isn't how much or
>>> >> how
>>> >> hard or under what circumstances to spank, we are left with the real
>>> >> question. Whether to spank, or not spank as a practice.
>>> >
>>> > Kane: Hmmm, I don't know if the question can be boiled down that far.
>>> > I
>>> > suppose it can if one is totally polarized on the subject one way or
>>> > the
>>> > other, but the issue does not lend itself easily to being coined as a
>>> > black and white issue. By definition there is quite a bit of gray
>>> > area
>>> > that your question cannot address. SCOTUS has said that it is a
>>> > parents
>>> > right to conduct corrective discipline as they see fit, within reason.
>>> > I
>>> > don't believe that they actually stuck their necks out far enough to
>>> > assign a point where reason is no longer being followed. Hence the
>>> > reason
>>> > each state has different guidelines for its CPS organizations as to
>>> > what
>>> > constitutes abuse and what is parental discipline.
>>> >
>>> >> > With spanking, I think the sensible thing to do is to leave it up
>>> >>> to the parents?
>>> >>
>>> >> Well, much as I expect ballistics from you I'll point out again that
>>> >> there are a very large number of parents that spank that have injured
>>> >> their children, even NOT accounting for psychological issues
>>> >> (developmental issue of cognitive and social growth).
>>> >>
>>> >> Just physical injury.
>>> >
>>> > Both: True, physical injury does occur. No one can debate that
>>> > point.
>>> > But isn't the point behind parental discipline to teach our children
>>> > what
>>> > conduct is and is not acceptable? Not just acceptable by us the
>>> > parents,
>>> > but by society in general? Assuming that every parents intent is to
>>> > teach
>>> > our children where those lines are, where should society draw the line
>>> > when deciding how far we as parents are able to go to not only teach
>>> > them
>>> > those lines but to really make sure that our children do not cross
>>> > them
>>> > even when they become adults or are outside of our control?
>>> >
>>> >> > We already have child abuse laws in place. We don't need
>>> >>> another law to incriminate parents!
>>> >>
>>> >> I agree up to the point that we can determine with some certainty
>>> >> prior
>>> >> to the use of CP what injury is and isn't.
>>> >>
>>> >> A pediatrician has a very different view, often, of what is an injury
>>> >> as
>>> >> compared to say a logger in the Northwest and as applied to his kids.
>>> >>
>>> >> Our challenge is to find some middle ground that everyone agrees to.
>>> >
>>> > Kane: Good points, all. But with the inherent polarization of the
>>> > different sides of the issue do you really believe that a middle
>>> > ground
>>> > can be found?
>>> >
>>> >> The impossibility of this (take were we are with the end of slavery
>>> >> and
>>> >> the racist outcome) is apparent, so I moved, last year, from a
>>> >> position
>>> >> of moral suasion to accepting that just like bank robbery, a law
>>> >> against
>>> >> something that is does not effect the majority is morally, ethically,
>>> >> and
>>> >> practically correct.
>>> >>
>>> >> I can't get people to not rob banks. But I can reduce it with a law.
>>> >>
>>> >> I can't get people to stop beating their children and calling it
>>> >> "spanking," so I'm stuck with the ethical dilemma of what will be
>>> >> most
>>> >> effective in reducing the instances where parents that spank injure.
>>> >
>>> > So, Hmmmm. So the main thing I see you saying is that all spankings
>>> > are
>>> > beatings. No matter if injury occurs or not. No matter the
>>> > infraction by
>>> > the child or the lesson that we are trying to teach them by spanking.
>>> >
>>> >>>> Thats all I have time for right this moment, but one of you may
>>> >>>> feel
>>> >>>> free to
>>> >>>> bring to the table your own ideas on the subject. I only ask one
>>> >>>> thing,
>>> >>>> from BOTH of you. Be nice!
>>> >
>>> > So far so good. A slight slip at the end there, but if I remove it we
>>> > can
>>> > pretend that it never happened and carry on with what promises to be a
>>> > fairly interesting conversation.
>>> >
>>> > So I pose a question to you both. Something that has been on my mind
>>> > for
>>> > quite some time.
>>> >
>>> > According to Kane CP causes aggression in children, hence the reason
>>> > why
>>> > most of those in prison for violent crimes say they were spanked.
>>> >
>>> > But on the other hand we have a society in which the urban areas are
>>> > often
>>> > like life at a war front. Children engage in warfare like activities
>>> > daily. Its not safe for the average citizen to walk down the street in
>>> > most areas of New York city, nor Chicago, or San Francisco. Or any of
>>> > the
>>> > other major cities in our country. Could this not be a bi-product of
>>> > our
>>> > increasingly permissive society, a society where we are no longer
>>> > being
>>> > held accountable for our actions either as children or as adults?
>>> >
>>> > If so then where does the "happy medium" apply in this respect?
>>> >
>>> > Ron
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

[Ron]

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Doan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007, Ron wrote:
>>>
>>>> Doan?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I stand corrected. I should have written that secular = non-religous!
>>>
>>> Doan
>>
>> Is that your only comment?
>>
>> Ron
>>
>
> Come on Doan, you HAVE to have more to say than that!
>
> Ron

I guess not.

No interest in having a reasonable conversation Doan?

Ron

>
>>>>
>>>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> > FYI: So far so good gents. If we can keep this up we can actually
>>>> > have a
>>>> > reasonable conversation.
>>>> >
>>>> > As a wise man once said, "Dont start no SH and there wont be no IT".
>>>> >
>>>> > My replies and questions are directed at both of you BTW, so please
>>>> > dont
>>>> > assume that since I respond to a single individuals post that the
>>>> > reply is
>>>> > for that individual only. If I direct something to someone
>>>> > specifically
>>>> > I'll start it with a name. Thanks again guys for trying!
>>>> >
>>>> > Comments below:
>>>> >
>>>> > "0:->" > wrote in message
>>>> > news:iM2dndFEndbHB17YnZ2dnUVZ_tmknZ2d@scnresearch. com...
>>>> >> Doan wrote:
>>>> >>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Ron wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> "0:->" > wrote in message
>>>> >>>> ...
>>>> >>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>> >>>>>> On 2 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 2, 6:36 am, "Ron" > wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>> "0:->" > wrote in message
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> oups.com...
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> Have social ills of the past been stopped by a scientific
>>>> >>>>>>>>> debate?
>>>> >>>>>>>>> The debate that matters is the moral one.
>>>> >>>>>>>>> What makes it moral to delibertately hit a child to control
>>>> >>>>>>>>> and
>>>> >>>>>>>>> teach
>>>> >>>>>>>>> him or her, and immoral to do the same to an adult?
>>>> >>>>>>>>> And the moral debate will be the deciding factor.
>>>> >>>>>>>>> Kane
>>>> >>>>>>>> Now THAT I find to be an interesting topic. One we could
>>>> >>>>>>>> discuss
>>>> >>>>>>>> in
>>>> >>>>>>>> depth,
>>>> >>>>>>>> all three of us, and I believe that it could remain civil if
>>>> >>>>>>>> we
>>>> >>>>>>>> chose
>>>> >>>>>>>> to let
>>>> >>>>>>>> it be.
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> What say gents? Shall we explore this topic in a civil
>>>> >>>>>>>> manner?
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> Ron
>>>> >>>>>>> Well, I figure you are addressing me, but DOAN?
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> R R R R R R R R RR R R
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> His idea of civil is to cherry pick even from his own
>>>> >>>>>>> statements,
>>>> >>>>>>> let
>>>> >>>>>>> alone his opponent's.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> You guys start without me. If he manages to stay "civil," as in
>>>> >>>>>>> 'honest' for a few exchanges I would be tempted to join.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Have you so quickly forgotten his discussion of "truth" and
>>>> >>>>>>> "fact?"
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Kane
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> You got your answer, Ron! ;-)
>>>> >>>>> Looks like he got yours as well. 0;]
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>> OK, well at least I got your attention.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Lets start here, shall we? Lets start with the premise that Kane
>>>> >>>> started
>>>> >>>> with, that scientific debate alone is not the answer to our social
>>>> >>>> ill's.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Moral discussion must be a part of the answer. Along with the
>>>> >>>> scientific.
>>>> >>>> Leaving scientific aside, since this is the area where the two of
>>>> >>>> you
>>>> >>>> just
>>>> >>>> cant seem to get together, let us instead focus on the moral
>>>> >>>> belief's
>>>> >>>> that
>>>> >>>> we believe should have impact on the debate.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Morals are based upon our belief structure and those things that
>>>> >>>> we
>>>> >>>> have
>>>> >>>> been taught from infancy by our parents, who got it from their
>>>> >>>> parents,
>>>> >>>> etc.
>>>> >>>> Passed down through time to our current generations (since we are
>>>> >>>> at
>>>> >>>> least 2
>>>> >>>> different generations, I have no idea of Doans age). Now, both
>>>> >>>> Kane
>>>> >>>> and I
>>>> >>>> are "secular" individuals, choosing to not support organized
>>>> >>>> religions,
>>>> >>>> but
>>>> >>>> we are also basically moral individuals. The general basis for
>>>> >>>> morals
>>>> >>>> and
>>>> >>>> our nations laws come from religious belief's. Decidedly
>>>> >>>> non-secular.
>>>> >>>> Is
>>>> >>>> this a contradiction?
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>> No.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> The secular crowd, for the most part, believe that non-CP methods
>>>> >>>> of
>>>> >>>> child
>>>> >>>> rearing are best. The non-secular believe, again for the most
>>>> >>>> part,
>>>> >>>> that we
>>>> >>>> should follow the methods used by the generations before us, CP,
>>>> >>>> as it
>>>> >>>> was
>>>> >>>> "good for us" and we turned out alright. Correct?
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>> I don't think you can differentiated this on secular or
>>>> >>> non-secular. The
>>>> >>> only only thing I tend to agree is that the secular crowd tends to
>>>> >>> use
>>>> >>> religion (e.g. the Bible) as justification,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Doan, I don't know if you caught this and corrected it in later
>>>> >> posts,
>>>> >> but "secular" means not of religion.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > the non-secular
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Means "religious."
>>>> >
>>>> > Correct.
>>>> >
>>>> > In many cases people DO use the bible as justification for spanking,
>>>> > but
>>>> > is that in keeping with the professed religious objectives of the
>>>> > Christian norm? Somehow I dont think so. My religous background is
>>>> > significant, but it no longer affects my life as it once did. So, I
>>>> > can
>>>> > say with some small authority that Christians who spank are
>>>> > hypocrites.
>>>> > Would you not agree?
>>>> >
>>>> >>> like to argue
>>>> >>> that they have science behind them (e.g. Straus and his studies).
>>>> >>> Neither
>>>> >>> is able to convince the other; hence, we reached an impasse. I
>>>> >>> tend to
>>>> >>> take the middle ground, using common-sense and personal experience
>>>> >>> as
>>>> >>> my guide.
>>>> >
>>>> > Doan: Putting hisorty in this NG aside, it sounds like reason might
>>>> > be
>>>> > just the ticket. But if thats so then why does it not prevail?
>>>> >
>>>> >> That would presume you were not influenced by the culture you are
>>>> >> from,
>>>> >> or live in.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The middle ground has it's biases as well. And personal experience
>>>> >> is
>>>> >> colored by personal history.
>>>> >
>>>> > Kane: Agreed. Personal history, as I alluded to in the beginning of
>>>> > my
>>>> > portion of this conversation, has significant affect on how one
>>>> > parents.
>>>> > We learn how to do it by using the same guidelines as observed in our
>>>> > parents, and to some small portion by things we learn as adults.
>>>> >
>>>> >> No one sees the world precisely or often even anywhere near the way
>>>> >> another does.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Or we wouldn't need to have this discussion at all.
>>>> >
>>>> > Wouldn't that be nice?
>>>> >
>>>> >>>> But where do these belief structures come into play, both secular
>>>> >>>> and
>>>> >>>> non-secular, CP and Non-CP, when discussing racial progress
>>>> >>>> towards the
>>>> >>>> ultimate goal of civilization? Here in the USA we have the right
>>>> >>>> to
>>>> >>>> hold
>>>> >>>> our own belief's, AND practice them, as we see fit as long as it
>>>> >>>> does
>>>> >>>> not
>>>> >>>> harm the body politic. In our homes we practice the religon we
>>>> >>>> choose,
>>>> >>>> or
>>>> >>>> not as we choose. But what vehicle do we use to teach our
>>>> >>>> children the
>>>> >>>> morals we want them to value?
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>> Good question. We see the same argument with the abortion debate.
>>>> >>> Where
>>>> >>> do you draw the line?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Well, one can't have an abortion and change their mind.
>>>> >
>>>> > Kane: Tell that to the woman in the Roe v. Wade case. She is now a
>>>> > strong advocate for the anti-abortion crowd. I'd say that she
>>>> > changed her
>>>> > mind, but of course after the fact.
>>>> >
>>>> >>> Is there a sensible middle ground that we can live
>>>> >>> with?
>>>> >
>>>> > I believe there is. Or that there can be. The problem is that so
>>>> > many
>>>> > people become impassioned by the debate to the point where "reason"
>>>> > takes
>>>> > a flying leap out a window. Same with the abortion debate. One of
>>>> > the
>>>> > other problems is trying to define where that middle ground is. Its
>>>> > quite
>>>> > difficult to find someone who is truly non-partisan on these issues.
>>>> > But
>>>> > if someone, or some group of people, were to be found, would we as a
>>>> > nation take their reccommendations on the subject?
>>>> >
>>>> >> Since the argument, as posed by Ron, and by others, isn't how much
>>>> >> or how
>>>> >> hard or under what circumstances to spank, we are left with the real
>>>> >> question. Whether to spank, or not spank as a practice.
>>>> >
>>>> > Kane: Hmmm, I don't know if the question can be boiled down that
>>>> > far. I
>>>> > suppose it can if one is totally polarized on the subject one way or
>>>> > the
>>>> > other, but the issue does not lend itself easily to being coined as a
>>>> > black and white issue. By definition there is quite a bit of gray
>>>> > area
>>>> > that your question cannot address. SCOTUS has said that it is a
>>>> > parents
>>>> > right to conduct corrective discipline as they see fit, within
>>>> > reason. I
>>>> > don't believe that they actually stuck their necks out far enough to
>>>> > assign a point where reason is no longer being followed. Hence the
>>>> > reason
>>>> > each state has different guidelines for its CPS organizations as to
>>>> > what
>>>> > constitutes abuse and what is parental discipline.
>>>> >
>>>> >> > With spanking, I think the sensible thing to do is to leave it up
>>>> >>> to the parents?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Well, much as I expect ballistics from you I'll point out again that
>>>> >> there are a very large number of parents that spank that have
>>>> >> injured
>>>> >> their children, even NOT accounting for psychological issues
>>>> >> (developmental issue of cognitive and social growth).
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Just physical injury.
>>>> >
>>>> > Both: True, physical injury does occur. No one can debate that
>>>> > point.
>>>> > But isn't the point behind parental discipline to teach our children
>>>> > what
>>>> > conduct is and is not acceptable? Not just acceptable by us the
>>>> > parents,
>>>> > but by society in general? Assuming that every parents intent is to
>>>> > teach
>>>> > our children where those lines are, where should society draw the
>>>> > line
>>>> > when deciding how far we as parents are able to go to not only teach
>>>> > them
>>>> > those lines but to really make sure that our children do not cross
>>>> > them
>>>> > even when they become adults or are outside of our control?
>>>> >
>>>> >> > We already have child abuse laws in place. We don't need
>>>> >>> another law to incriminate parents!
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I agree up to the point that we can determine with some certainty
>>>> >> prior
>>>> >> to the use of CP what injury is and isn't.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> A pediatrician has a very different view, often, of what is an
>>>> >> injury as
>>>> >> compared to say a logger in the Northwest and as applied to his
>>>> >> kids.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Our challenge is to find some middle ground that everyone agrees to.
>>>> >
>>>> > Kane: Good points, all. But with the inherent polarization of the
>>>> > different sides of the issue do you really believe that a middle
>>>> > ground
>>>> > can be found?
>>>> >
>>>> >> The impossibility of this (take were we are with the end of slavery
>>>> >> and
>>>> >> the racist outcome) is apparent, so I moved, last year, from a
>>>> >> position
>>>> >> of moral suasion to accepting that just like bank robbery, a law
>>>> >> against
>>>> >> something that is does not effect the majority is morally,
>>>> >> ethically, and
>>>> >> practically correct.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I can't get people to not rob banks. But I can reduce it with a law.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I can't get people to stop beating their children and calling it
>>>> >> "spanking," so I'm stuck with the ethical dilemma of what will be
>>>> >> most
>>>> >> effective in reducing the instances where parents that spank injure.
>>>> >
>>>> > So, Hmmmm. So the main thing I see you saying is that all spankings
>>>> > are
>>>> > beatings. No matter if injury occurs or not. No matter the
>>>> > infraction by
>>>> > the child or the lesson that we are trying to teach them by spanking.
>>>> >
>>>> >>>> Thats all I have time for right this moment, but one of you may
>>>> >>>> feel
>>>> >>>> free to
>>>> >>>> bring to the table your own ideas on the subject. I only ask one
>>>> >>>> thing,
>>>> >>>> from BOTH of you. Be nice!
>>>> >
>>>> > So far so good. A slight slip at the end there, but if I remove it
>>>> > we can
>>>> > pretend that it never happened and carry on with what promises to be
>>>> > a
>>>> > fairly interesting conversation.
>>>> >
>>>> > So I pose a question to you both. Something that has been on my mind
>>>> > for
>>>> > quite some time.
>>>> >
>>>> > According to Kane CP causes aggression in children, hence the reason
>>>> > why
>>>> > most of those in prison for violent crimes say they were spanked.
>>>> >
>>>> > But on the other hand we have a society in which the urban areas are
>>>> > often
>>>> > like life at a war front. Children engage in warfare like activities
>>>> > daily. Its not safe for the average citizen to walk down the street
>>>> > in
>>>> > most areas of New York city, nor Chicago, or San Francisco. Or any
>>>> > of the
>>>> > other major cities in our country. Could this not be a bi-product of
>>>> > our
>>>> > increasingly permissive society, a society where we are no longer
>>>> > being
>>>> > held accountable for our actions either as children or as adults?
>>>> >
>>>> > If so then where does the "happy medium" apply in this respect?
>>>> >
>>>> > Ron
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[0:->]

On Feb 8, 4:34 am, "Ron" > wrote:
> "Ron" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> "Doan" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >>> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007, Ron wrote:
>
> >>>> Doan?
>
> >>> I stand corrected. I should have written that secular = non-religous!
>
> >>> Doan
>
> >> Is that your only comment?
>
> >> Ron
>
> > Come on Doan, you HAVE to have more to say than that!
>
> > Ron
>
> I guess not.
>
> No interest in having a reasonable conversation Doan?

"Reasonable?" R RRRR R R RR R R

>
> Ron
>
>
>
> >>>> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>> > FYI: So far so good gents. If we can keep this up we can actually
> >>>> > have a
> >>>> > reasonable conversation.
>
> >>>> > As a wise man once said, "Dont start no SH and there wont be no IT".
>
> >>>> > My replies and questions are directed at both of you BTW, so please
> >>>> > dont
> >>>> > assume that since I respond to a single individuals post that the
> >>>> > reply is
> >>>> > for that individual only. If I direct something to someone
> >>>> > specifically
> >>>> > I'll start it with a name. Thanks again guys for trying!
>
> >>>> > Comments below:
>
> >>>> > "0:->" > wrote in message
> >>>> >news:iM2dndFEndbHB17YnZ2dnUVZ_tmknZ2d@scnresearch. com...
> >>>> >> Doan wrote:
> >>>> >>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Ron wrote:
>
> >>>> >>>> "0:->" > wrote in message
> >>>> ...
> >>>> >>>>> Doan wrote:
> >>>> >>>>>> On 2 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
> >>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 2, 6:36 am, "Ron" > wrote:
> >>>> >>>>>>>> "0:->" > wrote in message
>
> >>>> oups.com...
>
> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Have social ills of the past been stopped by a scientific
> >>>> >>>>>>>>> debate?
> >>>> >>>>>>>>> The debate that matters is the moral one.
> >>>> >>>>>>>>> What makes it moral to delibertately hit a child to control
> >>>> >>>>>>>>> and
> >>>> >>>>>>>>> teach
> >>>> >>>>>>>>> him or her, and immoral to do the same to an adult?
> >>>> >>>>>>>>> And the moral debate will be the deciding factor.
> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Kane
> >>>> >>>>>>>> Now THAT I find to be an interesting topic. One we could
> >>>> >>>>>>>> discuss
> >>>> >>>>>>>> in
> >>>> >>>>>>>> depth,
> >>>> >>>>>>>> all three of us, and I believe that it could remain civil if
> >>>> >>>>>>>> we
> >>>> >>>>>>>> chose
> >>>> >>>>>>>> to let
> >>>> >>>>>>>> it be.
>
> >>>> >>>>>>>> What say gents? Shall we explore this topic in a civil
> >>>> >>>>>>>> manner?
>
> >>>> >>>>>>>> Ron
> >>>> >>>>>>> Well, I figure you are addressing me, but DOAN?
>
> >>>> >>>>>>> R R R R R R R R RR R R
>
> >>>> >>>>>>> His idea of civil is to cherry pick even from his own
> >>>> >>>>>>> statements,
> >>>> >>>>>>> let
> >>>> >>>>>>> alone his opponent's.
>
> >>>> >>>>>>> You guys start without me. If he manages to stay "civil," as in
> >>>> >>>>>>> 'honest' for a few exchanges I would be tempted to join.
>
> >>>> >>>>>>> Have you so quickly forgotten his discussion of "truth" and
> >>>> >>>>>>> "fact?"
>
> >>>> >>>>>>> Kane
>
> >>>> >>>>>> You got your answer, Ron! ;-)
> >>>> >>>>> Looks like he got yours as well. 0;]
>
> >>>> >>>> OK, well at least I got your attention.
>
> >>>> >>>> Lets start here, shall we? Lets start with the premise that Kane
> >>>> >>>> started
> >>>> >>>> with, that scientific debate alone is not the answer to our social
> >>>> >>>> ill's.
>
> >>>> >>>> Moral discussion must be a part of the answer. Along with the
> >>>> >>>> scientific.
> >>>> >>>> Leaving scientific aside, since this is the area where the two of
> >>>> >>>> you
> >>>> >>>> just
> >>>> >>>> cant seem to get together, let us instead focus on the moral
> >>>> >>>> belief's
> >>>> >>>> that
> >>>> >>>> we believe should have impact on the debate.
>
> >>>> >>>> Morals are based upon our belief structure and those things that
> >>>> >>>> we
> >>>> >>>> have
> >>>> >>>> been taught from infancy by our parents, who got it from their
> >>>> >>>> parents,
> >>>> >>>> etc.
> >>>> >>>> Passed down through time to our current generations (since we are
> >>>> >>>> at
> >>>> >>>> least 2
> >>>> >>>> different generations, I have no idea of Doans age). Now, both
> >>>> >>>> Kane
> >>>> >>>> and I
> >>>> >>>> are "secular" individuals, choosing to not support organized
> >>>> >>>> religions,
> >>>> >>>> but
> >>>> >>>> we are also basically moral individuals. The general basis for
> >>>> >>>> morals
> >>>> >>>> and
> >>>> >>>> our nations laws come from religious belief's. Decidedly
> >>>> >>>> non-secular.
> >>>> >>>> Is
> >>>> >>>> this a contradiction?
>
> >>>> >>> No.
>
> >>>> >>>> The secular crowd, for the most part, believe that non-CP methods
> >>>> >>>> of
> >>>> >>>> child
> >>>> >>>> rearing are best. The non-secular believe, again for the most
> >>>> >>>> part,
> >>>> >>>> that we
> >>>> >>>> should follow the methods used by the generations before us, CP,
> >>>> >>>> as it
> >>>> >>>> was
> >>>> >>>> "good for us" and we turned out alright. Correct?
>
> >>>> >>> I don't think you can differentiated this on secular or
> >>>> >>> non-secular. The
> >>>> >>> only only thing I tend to agree is that the secular crowd tends to
> >>>> >>> use
> >>>> >>> religion (e.g. the Bible) as justification,
>
> >>>> >> Doan, I don't know if you caught this and corrected it in later
> >>>> >> posts,
> >>>> >> but "secular" means not of religion.
>
> >>>> >> > the non-secular
>
> >>>> >> Means "religious."
>
> >>>> > Correct.
>
> >>>> > In many cases people DO use the bible as justification for spanking,
> >>>> > but
> >>>> > is that in keeping with the professed religious objectives of the
> >>>> > Christian norm? Somehow I dont think so. My religous background is
> >>>> > significant, but it no longer affects my life as it once did. So, I
> >>>> > can
> >>>> > say with some small authority that Christians who spank are
> >>>> > hypocrites.
> >>>> > Would you not agree?
>
> >>>> >>> like to argue
> >>>> >>> that they have science behind them (e.g. Straus and his studies).
> >>>> >>> Neither
> >>>> >>> is able to convince the other; hence, we reached an impasse. I
> >>>> >>> tend to
> >>>> >>> take the middle ground, using common-sense and personal experience
> >>>> >>> as
> >>>> >>> my guide.
>
> >>>> > Doan: Putting hisorty in this NG aside, it sounds like reason might
> >>>> > be
> >>>> > just the ticket. But if thats so then why does it not prevail?
>
> >>>> >> That would presume you were not influenced by the culture you are
> >>>> >> from,
> >>>> >> or live in.
>
> >>>> >> The middle ground has it's biases as well. And personal experience
> >>>> >> is
> >>>> >> colored by personal history.
>
> >>>> > Kane: Agreed. Personal history, as I alluded to in the beginning of
> >>>> > my
> >>>> > portion of this conversation, has significant affect on how one
> >>>> > parents.
> >>>> > We learn how to do it by using the same guidelines as observed in our
> >>>> > parents, and to some small portion by things we learn as adults.
>
> >>>> >> No one sees the world precisely or often even anywhere near the way
> >>>> >> another does.
>
> >>>> >> Or we wouldn't need to have this discussion at all.
>
> >>>> > Wouldn't that be nice?
>
> >>>> >>>> But where do these belief structures come into play, both secular
> >>>> >>>> and
> >>>> >>>> non-secular, CP and Non-CP, when discussing racial progress
> >>>> >>>> towards the
> >>>> >>>> ultimate goal of civilization? Here in the USA we have the right
> >>>> >>>> to
> >>>> >>>> hold
> >>>> >>>> our own belief's, AND practice them, as we see fit as long as it
> >>>> >>>> does
> >>>> >>>> not
> >>>> >>>> harm the body politic. In our homes we practice the religon we
> >>>> >>>> choose,
> >>>> >>>> or
> >>>> >>>> not as we choose. But what vehicle do we use to teach our
> >>>> >>>> children the
> >>>> >>>> morals we want them to value?
>
> >>>> >>> Good question. We see the same argument with the abortion debate.
> >>>> >>> Where
> >>>> >>> do you draw the line?
>
> >>>> >> Well, one can't have an abortion and change their mind.
>
> >>>> > Kane: Tell that to the woman in the Roe v. Wade case. She is now a
> >>>> > strong advocate for the anti-abortion crowd. I'd say that she
> >>>> > changed her
> >>>> > mind, but of course after the fact.
>
> >>>> >>> Is there a sensible middle ground that we can live
> >>>> >>> with?
>
> >>>> > I believe there is. Or that there can be. The problem is that so
> >>>> > many
> >>>> > people become impassioned by the debate to the point where "reason"
> >>>> > takes
> >>>> > a flying leap out a window. Same with the abortion debate. One of
> >>>> > the
> >>>> > other problems is trying to define where that middle ground is. Its
> >>>> > quite
> >>>> > difficult to find someone who is truly non-partisan on these issues.
> >>>> > But
> >>>> > if someone, or some group of people, were to be found, would we as a
> >>>> > nation take their reccommendations on the subject?
>
> >>>> >> Since the argument, as posed by Ron, and by others, isn't how much
> >>>> >> or how
> >>>> >> hard or under what circumstances to spank, we are left with the real
> >>>> >> question. Whether to spank, or not spank as a practice.
>
> >>>> > Kane: Hmmm, I don't know if the question can be boiled down that
> >>>> > far. I
> >>>> > suppose it can if one is totally polarized on the subject one way or
> >>>> > the
> >>>> > other, but the issue does not lend itself easily to being coined as a
> >>>> > black and white issue. By definition there is quite a bit of gray
> >>>> > area
> >>>> > that your question cannot address. SCOTUS has said that it is a
> >>>> > parents
> >>>> > right to conduct corrective discipline as they see fit, within
>
> ...
>
> read more »

[Doan]

On 8 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> On Feb 8, 4:34 am, "Ron" > wrote:
> > "Ron" > wrote in message
> >
> > ...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > "Ron" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > >> "Doan" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > >>> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007, Ron wrote:
> >
> > >>>> Doan?
> >
> > >>> I stand corrected. I should have written that secular = non-religous!
> >
> > >>> Doan
> >
> > >> Is that your only comment?
> >
> > >> Ron
> >
> > > Come on Doan, you HAVE to have more to say than that!
> >
> > > Ron
> >
> > I guess not.
> >
> > No interest in having a reasonable conversation Doan?
>
> "Reasonable?" R RRRR R R RR R R
>
Doan:
You got your answer, Ron! ;-)

Kane:
Looks like he got yours as well. 0;]

Doan

[Ron]

"Doan" > wrote in message
...
>
> On 8 Feb 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 8, 4:34 am, "Ron" > wrote:
>> > "Ron" > wrote in message
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > "Ron" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> > >> "Doan" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> > >>> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007, Ron wrote:
>> >
>> > >>>> Doan?
>> >
>> > >>> I stand corrected. I should have written that secular =
>> > >>> non-religous!
>> >
>> > >>> Doan
>> >
>> > >> Is that your only comment?
>> >
>> > >> Ron
>> >
>> > > Come on Doan, you HAVE to have more to say than that!
>> >
>> > > Ron
>> >
>> > I guess not.
>> >
>> > No interest in having a reasonable conversation Doan?
>>
>> "Reasonable?" R RRRR R R RR R R
>>
> Doan:
> You got your answer, Ron! ;-)
>
> Kane:
> Looks like he got yours as well. 0;]
>
> Doan

How depressing. I had assumed from your earlier posts that you were open to
reasonable discussion on topics in this forum. Sadly this seems to not be
true. I offered to foster a discussion on the stated topic of the thread,
and you opt out.

Being curious and all, I wonder why? Do you prefer the regular style of
conversation that you have here, one full of hate and innuendo, unproductive
and without any real merit?

IOW, is Kane right about you and that all you are interested in is flaming?
I'm no longer interested in the topic itself, but in why you are avoiding a
chance to engage with Kane and myself in a reasonable and hopefully
productive conversation.

Ron

[[email protected]]

???????????????????????????????
??????????? ???????????

WHAT?!