On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 23:18:44 GMT, "Hancock"
wrote:


"Byron Canfield" wrote in message
news:acOib.768006$uu5.134118@sccrnsc04...
"Doan" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:



Ray Drouillard wrote:

"LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message
...


What you have done is pick and choose portions of the Old
Testament
to
justify your behavior, and ignore those portions that you
do not
like
or
agree with.

Actually, it looks like that is what you have done. You are
trying
to
justify your practice of not disciplining your children,

I disciplined my children without resorting to hitting them.

Good for you. But that is not the issue. The issue here is how
is it better? I have been challenging you for years to show me
one "peer-reviewed" study in which, under the same condition,
your
non-cp alternatives are any better. So far, all you could do is
avoid the issue, launch personal attacks against me. How about
it, Dr. LaVonne?

Doan

The burden of proof is on you, Doan, to prove that committing acts
of
physical violence on other people accomplishes the ostensible goal
when it
is already apparent to so many that it is not necessary and is so
obviously
harmful..


--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

Byron, how is the burdon of proof upon him? Spanking has been used
for
centuries without the adverse effects psychologists claim it has upon
children.

You are incorrect. Many families are not historically punishing
families and they tend to be the leaders of society. One might hear of
some beatings here and there or spankings, but by and large the
powerful and wealthy do NOT want to disrupt the early development of
their children...and these days they hire nannies who DO NOT spank or
punish and have highly developed skills to teach without then.

I have observed children from both sides of this question, and
inevitably the unpunished, but well taught and developmentally
supported child is superior in every way including NOT developing
criminal tendencies.

The Embry study is but one of many studies. These are direct
observational studies that show things like number of street entries
for each group, those punished, and those simply told the thing that
is wanted of them..in other words, "the street is for cars, and we
play over here where it is safe."

I would think that those who advocate 'reasoning' with a very
young child to be able to show some evidence or scientific proof that
one
CAN reason without endangering that child's life.

It would be rather silly to look for a scientific study because they
would be few and far between. That that work with toddlers don't
'reason' with them. They are taught in a linear fashion...no
abstractions included...that one thing follows another, but they are
still closely supervised because the wise parent knows that any
variable can upset the child's patterned behavior.

After 6, in the normal child, the sky's the limit. They CAN then
process abstractly and stay on task, but of course what would be the
point of punishing a self managing child? Which they tend to be very
much.

Mine were so much that I spent years watching in fascination how they
learned...it as so different from punished children. And they had
extremely well developed moral senses and empathy (you may call that
conscience if you wish, since it is).

I find it amusing you didn't jump in and challenge any of Michael
Morris's
responses to the psychobabble Kaine was spouting, as he offered many
logical
and reasonable explanations as to how spanking can be an effective
discipline tool and learning experience for the very young child.

And nearly every one wrong. They SEEM logical to an adult. They are
for the most part if the subject is an adult. I don't need to stick my
finger in a beaker of acid more than once, or get slapped or even
yelled at rudely not to do that as it's dangerous.

That isn't how children work, or we would not have a species with such
a long childhood.

Animals, even the higher ones, tend to top out, as compared to humans,
at about a 3 to 5 year olds understanding and reactions. Every animal
trainer knows this and uses it. Roy got bitten, I'd wager, from a
break in the known linear routine that Mandacore,(?) was used to and
the cat reverted to the known...a mother cat protecting her kittens
by taking them away from danger. Even the way the tiger picked him up
shows that.

Our children are not ready really for full understanding until they
are six. Some wonderfully simple experiments have shown that to be
true.

They cannot discriminate the difference (or sameness) in two objects
with the same volume but of different dimensions....even when evidence
is offered. Child that have hit that brain developmental stage where
enough of the neurological pathways have been laid down that are
significant to abstract reasoning CAN tell the difference when shown
the evidence.

And punishing a child for NOT being able to know that before the brain
is sufficiently developed is cruelty.

Don't be cruel.

Kane