View Single Post
  #10  
Old October 31st 03, 04:50 PM
Dennis Hancock
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking


"Gerald Alborn" wrote in message
...
Dennis Hancock wrote:

"Kane" wrote in message


No Kane, it's apparent that only YOU see direct links which do not
exist.

No, I am not the only person to see such links. Those doing research
in brain scans and behavioral observation research are my sources. As
well as my own long history of observation and treatment of abused
children.


Your knowledge of brain scans has already been proven faulty and you
continue with it?


I must have missed what you thought was proof, Dennis. Care to post it

again?


*I* didn't -post it Gerald, someone else did and Kane effectively backed
down on his claims. Just as his 'wealth' of experience eventually boiled
down to his reading of parenting books and personal observations upon
further questioning by myself and others.



Just as there is a long history of nonsense from people who claim that
spanking is abusive.


Again you're making assertions for which I've seen no proof offered. Care

to
back up your words?


Can you even read? Kane has said all along that he considers spanking as
abusive, in fact at one point, called one 'cruel' for punishing a toddler
who could not comprehend right from wrong.


They are too caught up in their own self righeousness
that they cannot comprehend the damage that they are creating.


Damage, caused by people who advocate against hurting children? So it's

people
who strongly advocate and practice only kind and respectful treatment of
children and NOT those who think nothing of dishing out pain, punishment,
humiliation and disrespect, who are the ones causing damage? Again,

anything to
back up what you insist upon believing?


Take a good hard long look at the public school system, the complete
breakdown in discipline and you can see EXACTLY what damage has been done.

The fact that people like yourself and Kane equate any and all punishment
which may involve some sort of humiliation or pain as 'cruel and unusual'
punishment has led to an utter breakdown of discipline throughout society.

I suppose you, like Kane are going to make the stretch that after centuries
of acceptable spanking, even at the extremes in the past, that THAT is now
responsible for the condition of society today, even considering the fact
that non-spanking has gained a lot of following over the past thirty or
forty years, and the psychobabble that anyone who decides their child may
need some discipline is somehow abusive has attempted to put a stigma on
even the mildest of discipline?


People who were physically abused generally resort to physical abuse
themselves. It's a never ending cycle, yet you still refuse to
differentiate between abuse and spanking,


Did you ever wonder how or why spanking is propogated from one generation

to the
next in spanking families, just as severe physical abuse is propogated
multigenerationally in other families? Do you think spanking somehow

propogates
itself because it's such a good idea, rather than because abuse works that

way?

Yawn.. again, you try to confuse spanking with abuse. Then please explain
how, with the disappearance of corporal punishment in the public schools,
that any and all respect and discipline has vanished along with it.

Yes, everyone knows that abuse propogates from generation to generation, but
any parent worth their salt also knows how their own children react to
outside stimuli. Some children never need to suffer a spanking while others
may well need a physical reinforcement. But of course, to you and Kane, you
can use 'reason' and set guidelines which have absolutely no consequences
for the child.


or show proof that those who spank
for disciplinary reasons or teaching their child correct behavior at a

very
young age


What's wrong with modelling correct behavior, giving an abundance of time

and
loving attention to young children, treating them respectfully, and

catering to
their genuine needs so that they have no pent-up emotional energy

motivating
them to exhibit bad behavior?


WHO said it was wrong? You want to pick apart every statement and try to
put words into my mouth?

In other words the spanked child tends to have reactions that interfer
with them getting what they need and want without a lot of pain
involved. Sometimes for themselves and sometimes for others.


Where does that inference come in? My observations have been that the

non
spanked child has very little awareness of the consequences of his/her
actions and becomes quite manipulative, and that becomes quite

problematic
as they grow older.


Instead of manipulative, don't you really mean "going after their own

needs and
interests instead of caving to the needs of the self-centered

authoritative
adult's?"


NOPE.. not at all. Bull**** plain and simple. If you do not understand
that children learn, at a very young age to manipulate their parents to get
what they want, then I pity your child. It's not always the needs of a
self centered authoritive adult, it's called PROTECTING a child and teaching
them right from wrong. IF spanking on a limited basis achieves this, then
so be it, but you are trying the exact same nonsense that Kane is and it
isn't working. You cannot differentiate between abuse and discipline, and
therefore are just as intellectually dishonest as he is by attempting to put
down any and all efforts by parents to maintain what they feel is best for
their own child.


I've noticed that it's often problematic to neurotic adults when they see

people
(kids and adults) who don't share in their neurosis. Like those who find

it
problematic when kids openly express their real feelings instead of

covering
them up, for the benefit of the neurotic adult [who couldn't express his

real
feelings as a child and, hence, now can't stand it when other children do
express their feelings (displeasure, etc.) appropriately].


Oh, so now anyone who disagree's with your position is neurotic? LOL.
Quite a stretch. No, I followed this thread for a long time before I
stepped in, watching Kane attempt to impress others with questionable
credentials and contradict himself time and time again in order to somehow
put himself on moral high ground.

To attempt to portray any and all spanking as abuse is simply not being
honest and to attempt to being condescending as Kane has tried to be does
indeed cause one to respond in kind.


I've done a great deal of animal training, and some of my most
interesting work was undoing the bad training of others. I did a great
deal of it.

Animals do not have the reasoning ability that humans do.


Does this mean you don't believe in spanking children whose minds are

still
developing and are too young to reason very well - like those who are ~3

and
younger?


Since all the above quotes were by Kane, why don't you ask him that
question. If you've followed the thread closely, you'll note that he even
allowed his young daughter to be in direct danger (didn't supervise her
close enough) and did nothing but talk to her afterwards.

I think this makes my point that his continual 'close supervision'
statements which attempt to portray any parent whose child receives any kind
of pain (such as touching something hot) is somehow negligent is quite
incorrect on his part.


By 'stupid'
behavior, in the very young, it's behavior that causes pain to them.
EXACTLY as many animals react by avoiding that situation. As a child

grows
older, he learns that there are consequences to his actions. Something
many of your thinking cannot comprehend because you have taken away all

the
consequences.


Are you speaking of consequences for not gracefully caving to an adult's

needs?

What adult's needs? You act as if you personally have been the victim of a
brutal adult. MOST adult's don't have a 'need' to punish their child, but
anyone who cannot understand setting limits and teaching the child there are
consequences for exceeding those limits is fooling themselves. I have yet
to see ANY child who does not test the limits. It's called being a parent
and teaching your child right from wrong.

You seem to be speaking of imposing consequences rather than allowing

natural
consequences to occur. What do imposed consequences teach, other than that
larger, stronger and more powerful beings get to have their way over the
smaller, weaker and less powerful? Like the toddler who gets a sore butt

for
complaining that he has to miss out on the last half of Sesame Street (so

that
the mother could bend him to her needs and get him to the sitter in time

to make
her bridge game).


Or the child who is so used to getting their way that they dart out into a
busy street, or the natural consequences of letting them go ahead and put
their finger in a light socket and see if it hurts them?

Get real... the world is fraught with dangers, and to attempt to make it
somehow an adult's 'need' to punish for the hell of it is ignoring the issue
and attempting to do the same thing that Kane is doing. IF you let your
child follow 'natural consequences' then you most assuredly are negligent in
your duties as a parent in teaching them to avoid many things which are
harmful.


some snippage

It has only been in recent history where 'spanking' or any type of

corporal
punsihment has been looked down upon. YOU want to blame the condition

of
society upon the 'spankers' of the past, but if you take note, we've
actually come to the point where the lack of spanking has been much more
prevalent over the past 30 years or so than at any time in past history.

In ancient times, whipping, and caning were quite prevalent.. Now, for

the
most part in most societies, they are considered barbaric.


Haven't you ever wondered why humankind hasn't yet gotten to the point

where the
majority sees the painful treatment of children the same way - barbaric?

Nope, not at all. I am quite willing to distinguish the difference between
'spanking' as a teaching method and later as a disciplinary tool, and
outright abuse.

OF COURSE 'painful' treatment of children is barbaric, but for the most
part, a reasonable parent's disciplinary action of swatting a child's butt
usually results more in a mild reinforcement than outright pain. Again,
keep on trying to use the words to portray any and all spanking as abuse and
you continue to ignore the real issues.

When I went to
public schools, one would expect to be punished by a swat with a wooden
paddle on the rear end if you misbehaved. Take a good hard long look at

the
condition of the public schools since corporal punishment has been

banned.

What do you think the percentage of non-spanked kids (non-spanked at home)

is in
an average public school?


Doesn't matter what the percentage is. The plain fact is they can tell you
to go to hell, and there are no consequences at school. You have reinforced
a complete breakdown in discipline, and it shows.


Do you think school kids who enjoy freedom from cp in school are

unaffected by
the pain and punishment they grew up with at home.


Has no bearing. Children who are abused at home will still bear that
stigma. Those who have been taught discipline, either thru spankings or non
spankings will show that same discipline at school. But many will bow to
peer pressure, and those that don't have just been as abused by the system
because they have been subjected to complete chaos, brought on by those who
cannot distinguish between discipline and abuse who have set the standards.


Do you think non-cp at school is either supposed to be a cure-all that

will fix
the problems the child brings from home, or should be again replaced with

cp?

What about the child who brings NO problems from home??? Isn't he or she
allowed to get an education, or are they to simply sit back and watch the
complete breakdown of discipline ruin their chances at an education?


Only a fool could refuse to see the obvious. That we have created a
generation which has absolutely no respect for authority and no fear of
retribution. There are no consequences. Try your approach with teenagers

and
they'll tell you to go to hell just as quickly as not. For why not, all

it
will do is get them out of school for a day. No punishment, no

discipline.

And I suppose you'll assert that such kids were raised in a non-spank,
non-punitive environment in their earliest years when their attitudes and

values
were being firmly established?


Many were indeed. I wasn't raised in a vacuum. Again, you seem to be
following the same logic as Kane and beleive that somehow each and every
child can be treated in the exact same manner. Sorry, this is the real
world. Just ask anyone who has dealt with hyperactive children or children
who have truly been abused. Even those who weren't, be it spanked or non
spanked children, they all need an individual approach. Your one size fits
all approach doesn't work, and the attempt to portray anyone who disciplines
their child as abusive doesn't work well either.


We've listened to the psychobabble that we must never say anything

negative
to a child as it might hurt their psyche.


What do you mean by negative? Care to give a couple examples?


Never criticize a child.. always use positive reinforcement. It is quite
true that one's self esteem can be greatly damaged by continual put down's,
but it's come to the point that if you do not use some kind of positive
reinforcment or praise for every thing a child does, then one is some kind
of abusive creature.

Kane has pointed that out quite well in his ramblings.. note he has stated
that he never tells his children what to do or where to play, or that
something is wrong, but always tries to 'give them a safe place to play, a
grassy playground' etc.. or tells them how good they were (even when his
child was in a very dangerous situation).. how many 'examples' do you
need?


but what we have created is a
generation of children who are emotional cripples who cannot deal with

even
the slightest bit of criticism without going off on tantrums.


I'm not sure what children you think you're talking about. FYI, to the

best of
my knowledge, the majorityof children in the US are still spanked in early
childhood.


How far does that knowledge extend? If you listen to Kane, he's been
around many non spanking parents for all his 70 years. Over the past twenty
or thirty years, we've been bombarded with 'parenting' books and 'studies'
which attempt to portray spanking as completely abusive. The numbers of
those who use absolutely no spanking has been growing steadily.


Did you ever wonder why criticism is painful to some people and not to

others?

Criticism when done constructively should never be painful. When one has
never experienced criticism in their entire life, then they don't know how
to deal with it.

The only way criticism is painful is when one has been so abused mentally
that their self esteem is at an all time low. Hardly what we are talking
about here, taking things to the extreme as Kane has attempted throughout
this entire thread.


While
positive reinforcement is always preferable, one also has to learn to

deal
with reality and that there are negatives which arise. Those who are

denied
that, are emotionally crippled for life.


Again, care to back up your belief with some kind of substantiation?

-Jerry-


Not a belief but a fact of life which should be apparent to anyone with a
bit of common sense. How many more school shootings, or attempted school
shootings will convince you?

The kids at Columbine, and the growing numbers of those who attempt to wreck
havoc on classmates because of being ridiculed or outcast by their peers has
been growing by leaps and bounds in the past few years. Do you think this
is a new concept? Have we only recently had cliques in schools, or kids
who have been ridiculed or outcast by others?

Or could it be that we are creating a generation of emotional cripples as I
suggest. No, of course not. Let's ignore the fact that in times past, we
had the exact same conditions and kids learned to deal with it. Why do you
suppose that is?

Maybe they didn't have everything sugarcoated and spoon fed to them that the
world was such a great place, and they were such good people and that the
world revolves around them.

Maybe they realized that there would be consequences for their actions if
they decided to act upon their egotistical delights.

Again, learn to distinguish between abuse and discipline and teaching a
child right from wrong and we can have a meaningful discourse.