A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.parenting » Spanking
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 19th 03, 12:34 AM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:42:01 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
wrote:


"Kane" wrote in message
It isn't dishonest of me to consider the link between abuse and
spanking nor is it dishonest of me to consider the state of the

world
and its societies as possibly being linked to the use of pain and
humiliation in parenting.


One can find a 'link' to just about everything,


Yes, one can. I've noticed the spankers do, just as you will do very
soon in this reply of yours.

Do you believe that pain received in childhood reduces the pain given
by that child when she grows up?

yet there is a vast
difference between 'abuse' and 'spanking'.


A claim frequently made and rarely defended with any rigor at all.
There is a very fine and tenuous line between the two. Many variables
are involved. The child, the parent, the events, the time of day, the
reasons for the abuse or spanking, even the health of the child, and
much more.

To try to qualify the link by
using the state of the world and it's societies, you are ignoring the

ever
growing psychobabble that we have been spoon fed for the past twenty

years
about the evils of spanking.


I'm not ignoring it at all. I tend to view it, as I have written, as
weak compared to my observations for over 40 years, in both
professional mileu and private life.

Perhaps the absence of spanking is the greatest link to the state of

the
world today?


Doubtful given the prevalence.

Since more and more begin to follow that advice almost daily.


All you must do is come up with a lot of children who weren't spanked
or punished in our prisons and mental wards. Should be easy. Give it a
shot.

Caveat: Note that other researches have gone bust trying to find them.
I never had and I've looked.

Or is that beyond your comprehension.


Not in the least. I began at age 19 to consider this issue. Very
shortly it became apparent to me that when the unspanked child still
behaved badly it was more likely a product of other more severe
emotional or psychological punishments.

I suppose you use 'reason' to a small child of one or two to keep him

from
running into the street. Well it doesn't work.


There we go again. I do not "'reason'" with small children. I set up
systems, as humans have had to do since the times when small children
were the favorite prey of pack and predatory animals that preyed on
the edges of the human pack.

Jerry Alborn answered this question most eloquently some time back.
I'll point you to his comment:

http://tinyurl.com/rfzq

or
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%2...igy.com&rnum=1

Not only have I proven to my own satisfaction and written many times
about the method I used to teach children not to run into traffic, I
do know that punishment does not work to keep children from attempting
to make street entries. I've posted this study before, and I'll post
it again just for you, since you appear far more dedicated to
discrediting me than to searching for facts that might confound your
locked in belief....three of which you've already shared with us.

Let's start with the bonifides of one of those you believe is spoon-
feeding you psychobabble, shall we? Then I'll provide you with a
little note about what his observations showed on the very question
you bring up:

http://www.paxis.org/people/DR.%20Em...aphy-1999.html


And here is what he had to say about his study:

In the Summer 1987 issue of _Children_ magazine, Dr. Dennis Embry
writes:
"Since 1977 I have been heading up the only long-term project
designed to counteract pedestrian accidents to preschool-aged
children.
(Surprisingly, getting struck by a car is about the third leading
cause
of death to young children in the United States.)
"Actual observation of parents and children shows that spanking,
scolding, reprimanding and nagging INCREASES the rate of street
entries
by children. Children use going into the street as a near-perfect way
to gain parents' attention.
"Now there is a promising new educational intervention program,
called Safe Playing. The underlying principles of the program are
simple:

1. Define safe boundaries in a POSITIVE way. "Safe
players play on the grass or sidewalk."
2. Give stickers for safe play. That makes it more fun
than playing dangerously.
3. Praise your child for safe play.

"These three principles have an almost instant effect on
increasing safe play. We have observed children who had been spanked
many times a day for going into the street, yet they continued to do
it.
The moment the family began giving stickers and praise for safe play,
the
children stopped going into the street.

Dennis D. Embry, Ph.D.
University of Kansas
Lawrence Kansas"

So you see it's not about reasoning with the child as in cause and
effect or other abstractions (and they are to the toddler), but to
simple management of what abilities they do have...though this does
NOT in any way endorse the idea that the child can be left unattended
by a busy street.

Even before one can learn to reason, they learn what behavior is

harmful. A
child will not touch a hot stove again once burned because of his

curiosity,

They assumption they won't try again is disproven, and waiting for
them to find out when they are too young to be taught with
non-punishing methods my and has resulted in serious lifelong scars
for the child. I'll pass thank you and supervise my child until she is
old enough to teach and even then I'll supervise.

and a swat on the behind which may wind up saving it's life is well
worthwhile in the long run.


The stove is a direct logical consequence and may serve to teach the
desired behavior (at the risk of a severe burn of course) one cannot
allow the logical teaching consequence of letting a child be hit by a
care to learn not to go into traffic.

Before the age of reason it is quite confusing to the child to be
running and playing, unaware of any impending danger, and have a giant
swoop one up and lay on with vigor the child's behind.

The words "car," "traffic," "street," and "don't," are very likely not
going to be processed accurately, and we don't usually when we have
sudden pain and fear layed on by someone.

In fact most mothers that pay attention, and most have to, know that
saying "don't" or "no" to a toddler will very likely result in them
doing exactly what they were asked not to do, spank or no spank.

Most spankers, especially those that kid themselves, wind up
supervising just like we non punishers, and finally getting the child
to the age they get it.....but we don't kid ourselves that it was
punishment that did it. As we know it's the passage of time and the
developing brain that much more likely turned the trick.

I pity those who feel they can use 'reason' and 'logic' on a one or

two year
old,


Me to, right along with those that think the child will understand the
logic of being whacked a good'un and had words babbled at him or her.

and just hope they don't realize how flawed and deadly their handling
of a situation can truly be.


On the contrary. The flaw much more likely arrises in the parent that
believes, because the child froze a few times out of fear with the
adult present, that they will do so when danger threatens. The child
under six is going to have a very difficult time connecting the danger
to the freezing because they will not have absorbed with any meaning
what the defined danger actually is.

They will merrily ride their tricycle behind the car backing out of
the driveway and be terrified of going toward the street...not really
knowing why.

The fact of the matter is, lessons learned without fear and pain are
far more powerful than those with.

But I still, in either case, would not leave my child
unsupervised...would you?

Think you can spank them enough, creatively, to trust them to not go
into traffic without you?


You may not LIKE it, my examining and questioning, but there is
nothing dishonest about it.

If you think so I'm sure you can point out what is dishonest on my
part by showing us the truth you think I am not showing.

No?

Kane


It's doubtful the use of brain scans can provide much insight as to

lessons
learned by experience, even painful experience.


Why? The point of the studies is to do just that.

All they can do is measure
the response of the brain to a situation, not the logical analytical

thought
involved pertaining to one's perceptions of the event.


On dear, one of the poor souls that do not know of the extensive
mapping of the brain going on for years now that identifies exactly
such thing. They know precisely, for instance, where conscience
derives in the brain, down to a small area. It can be tested with pics
and other testing while the subject is having their brain scanned.

Even the lowest of creatures react to pain, learn to avoid certain
situations once they've experienced a bad consequence of their

actions.

It often takes a number of lessons in animal and human. Even a
flatworm, famous in psych 202 college classes, will try a couple of
more times to get to food and light at the expense of some pain.
Eventually they will learn, but while MY child is learning she may
well get to die from the lesson.

Are
you saying that humans are less than animals in their ability to deal

with
pain?


Actually there isn't much difference in pain responses.

Our human superiority is that we can, once we pass out of the animal
linear thinking stage of toddler hood, make reasoned choices based on
an analysis of the situation with all kinds of variables (as well
learn by experimentation and later by study of other's work).

Animals never get to our ability of abstraction and cause and effect
reasoning. Some of the apes just skirt it but can be confounded by
things that a grown human would laugh at if we presented them as a
problem.

We know the source and transport of water. Animals cannot figure that
out.

Once we reach the age of reason it is easy, quite, to figure out how
one stays alive by staying out of traffic...I call it "The Flat Possum
Lesson," though all I could ever find for my kids was a flat Racoon on
that particular day.

One was old enough for reason, the other old enough to believe his
elder when she reactied to the lesson.

I assume you know now to research a little, so why not do so next time
out?

The Embry Street Entry study is just one of those that give us more
than a little hint that thousands of years of thumpin' butt may just
not have been entirely in the best interests of our race.

Check out Tom Edison....not only not spanked but pulled by his mother
from school because of the hitting done to him by a teacher. I do not
think Albert Einstein was spanked. At least the info about him from
his teen years showed a remarkably indulgent family that pulled him
from Gymnasium (HS) were he was failing mathematics, and sent him off
to Italy to family friends to wander the sunny roads there and have
what later was identified as his epiphany of E=MC2.

All of our children who are spanked and punished, I estimate, has some
portion, sometimes significant portions, of their development
displaced into survival reactivity.

It's a fascinating study. I hope you'll join in.

The very first thing you need to do though is admit that there might
be the slightest possibility that the spankers have erred. I don't
think you can even entertain it as speculation, but I tried.

Step two is easier if you have managed step one. Get a book on the
stages of childhood development and project all the behaviors of
children you know into that list.

In other words, instead of thinking of children in terms of adult
understandings of right and wrong, good and bad, evil, willful, etc.
try thinking in terms of all behavior, before the age of 6, as being
driven by nature...forced compulsive exploration of the environment,
which you are just a part of to the child, once she does that 1.5 to 2
year old definition of self separate from the environment and YOU.

Best of luck..

Kane
  #2  
Old October 25th 03, 10:41 PM
Dennis Hancock
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking


"Kane" wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:42:01 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
wrote:


"Kane" wrote in message
It isn't dishonest of me to consider the link between abuse and
spanking nor is it dishonest of me to consider the state of the

world
and its societies as possibly being linked to the use of pain and
humiliation in parenting.


One can find a 'link' to just about everything,

Kane wrote:
Yes, one can. I've noticed the spankers do, just as you will do very
soon in this reply of yours.


No Kane, it's apparent that only YOU see direct links which do not exist.
Amusing that you now can predict what others will say.

Kane wrote:
Do you believe that pain received in childhood reduces the pain given
by that child when she grows up?


I haven't seen a single person make that claim here, your kind of stretching
a bit aren't you? Pain received in childhood teaches a child at the
simplest most basic level to avoid certain situations BECAUSE they can be
painful. It doesn't 'reduce' adulthood pain, it reinforces against stupid
behavior.



yet there is a vast
difference between 'abuse' and 'spanking'.

Kane wrote:
A claim frequently made and rarely defended with any rigor at all.
There is a very fine and tenuous line between the two. Many variables
are involved. The child, the parent, the events, the time of day, the
reasons for the abuse or spanking, even the health of the child, and
much more.


But it is YOU who seem to equate both equally. There is a hell of a
difference between a swat on the butt with one's open hand and beating them
unconscious with one's fist. Apparently, you cannot defferentiate between
the two in your conclusions that all spanking equals abuse.

I wrote:
To try to qualify the link by
using the state of the world and it's societies, you are ignoring the

ever
growing psychobabble that we have been spoon fed for the past twenty

years
about the evils of spanking.


Kane wrote:
I'm not ignoring it at all. I tend to view it, as I have written, as
weak compared to my observations for over 40 years, in both
professional mileu and private life.


Most of the rest of us have had 'observations' for just as long or longer
Kane. I've observed both spanked and non spanked kids, AND in fact reported
abusive situations to cps myself. One of the things about personal
observation is the ability to distinguish between useful spanking and
outright abuse. We are given minds to make that distinction with.


Perhaps the absence of spanking is the greatest link to the state of

the
world today?


Doubtful given the prevalence.

Since more and more begin to follow that advice almost daily.


Kane wrote:
All you must do is come up with a lot of children who weren't spanked
or punished in our prisons and mental wards. Should be easy. Give it a
shot.


Another straw man here Kane? It was YOU who made the claim that spanking
leads to all these conditions, not I, nor any of the other debaters in here.
Thus far, you've failed to show credibility in providing that proof.


Caveat: Note that other researches have gone bust trying to find them.
I never had and I've looked.

Or is that beyond your comprehension.


Not in the least. I began at age 19 to consider this issue. Very
shortly it became apparent to me that when the unspanked child still
behaved badly it was more likely a product of other more severe
emotional or psychological punishments.


You still haven't considered but the tip of the subject. emotional abuse
can be much worse than physical abuse in many cases. I would much prefer a
spanking than being abused emotionally, just as I would prefer a spanking
over physical abuse. Again, you fail to look beyond a simple glance at the
surface.


I suppose you use 'reason' to a small child of one or two to keep him

from
running into the street. Well it doesn't work.


There we go again. I do not "'reason'" with small children. I set up
systems, as humans have had to do since the times when small children
were the favorite prey of pack and predatory animals that preyed on
the edges of the human pack.


I can tell you have had absolutely no, or very limited contact with small
children. Guess what, many of the grand 'systems' of conduct just don't
work with some children. And the parent who truly understands this, knows
which children need reinforcement and which of their children don't. Any
parent who approached teaching all of their children in exactly the same way
is surely doomed to fail in their teachings of at least one of them.


Jerry Alborn answered this question most eloquently some time back.
I'll point you to his comment:

http://tinyurl.com/rfzq

or

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%2...igy.com&rnum=1

Not only have I proven to my own satisfaction and written many times
about the method I used to teach children not to run into traffic, I
do know that punishment does not work to keep children from attempting
to make street entries. I've posted this study before, and I'll post
it again just for you, since you appear far more dedicated to
discrediting me than to searching for facts that might confound your
locked in belief....three of which you've already shared with us.


No, Im discrediting your beliefs. I can wager that you never lived in the
inner city, on a heavily populated street whereby small children run into
traffic all the time. As a child I watched a friend of mine get his head
crushed by a truck's tire. Of course I suppose it's easy to simply lock the
small child up all day, but anyone who has had to chase one around for a few
hours surely knows that simply telling them something is bad just simply
doesn't work.



Let's start with the bonifides of one of those you believe is spoon-
feeding you psychobabble, shall we? Then I'll provide you with a
little note about what his observations showed on the very question
you bring up:

http://www.paxis.org/people/DR.%20Em...aphy-1999.html


And here is what he had to say about his study:

In the Summer 1987 issue of _Children_ magazine, Dr. Dennis Embry
writes:
"Since 1977 I have been heading up the only long-term project
designed to counteract pedestrian accidents to preschool-aged
children.
(Surprisingly, getting struck by a car is about the third leading
cause
of death to young children in the United States.)
"Actual observation of parents and children shows that spanking,
scolding, reprimanding and nagging INCREASES the rate of street
entries
by children. Children use going into the street as a near-perfect way
to gain parents' attention.
"Now there is a promising new educational intervention program,
called Safe Playing. The underlying principles of the program are
simple:

1. Define safe boundaries in a POSITIVE way. "Safe
players play on the grass or sidewalk."
2. Give stickers for safe play. That makes it more fun
than playing dangerously.
3. Praise your child for safe play.

"These three principles have an almost instant effect on
increasing safe play. We have observed children who had been spanked
many times a day for going into the street, yet they continued to do
it.
The moment the family began giving stickers and praise for safe play,
the
children stopped going into the street.

Dennis D. Embry, Ph.D.
University of Kansas
Lawrence Kansas"


Is that supposed to 'impress' someone who has lived in this situation? I
say it's total bull****, from another psychologist who simply wants to get
his 'finding's published as some caveat.

First of all, giving a swat on the butt for approaching the street is not
'NAGGING'.. lol. Once you've taught the small child that nearing the street
is painful, it stops, no need for 'nagging'. Sounds more like the 'talk to
your child approach' which has caused more children to run into the streets.

Give them a 'positive' way, play on the grass etc? Again, you ASS U ME that
the child is old enough to understand. Where I lived, we had a small mound
of dirt between apartments, surrounded by concrete. Or in the back,
railroad tracks. Tell me HOW you find a positive play place in that
situation.

LOL.. I can imagine a parent walking up to a child every few minutes and
hand them stickers, or say, 'great job playing'. Get real. That scenario
only assumes that the child already has the ability to comprehend and is
already avoiding dangerous situations.

You've only reinforced the nonsense of the pyschobabble just as I suspected.


So you see it's not about reasoning with the child as in cause and
effect or other abstractions (and they are to the toddler), but to
simple management of what abilities they do have...though this does
NOT in any way endorse the idea that the child can be left unattended
by a busy street.

LOL.. now you've done what I predicted you would, portray that the parent
simply leaves their child unattended on a busy street. For an 'expert' with
much observation, you apparently have not chased a child down who decides
it's fun to 'play' .. example.. I took my sister and her kids camping. My
two year old nephew decided he needed to go to the restroom and started
running towards it. Only problem was, we were behind it and there was a six
foot drop off at the retaining wall.

I nearly dropped from exhaustion as I chased him.. calling him only made him
laugh and run faster.. I managed to catch him JUST as his one foot went
over the edge as he was looking back at me. By applying YOUR tactics, I
would have wound up with a dead nephew instead of a near heart attack.

Even before one can learn to reason, they learn what behavior is

harmful. A
child will not touch a hot stove again once burned because of his

curiosity,

They assumption they won't try again is disproven, and waiting for
them to find out when they are too young to be taught with
non-punishing methods my and has resulted in serious lifelong scars
for the child. I'll pass thank you and supervise my child until she is
old enough to teach and even then I'll supervise.


BULL****.. the fact IS proven, time and time again. Just ask ANYONE who
has touched a hot stove, or hot iron and ask if they ever did it again?
Spanked or not spanked.

Your assumption that it is not proven shows a disdain for human
intelligence, even at the most primitive level.


and a swat on the behind which may wind up saving it's life is well
worthwhile in the long run.


The stove is a direct logical consequence and may serve to teach the
desired behavior (at the risk of a severe burn of course) one cannot
allow the logical teaching consequence of letting a child be hit by a
care to learn not to go into traffic.

Before the age of reason it is quite confusing to the child to be
running and playing, unaware of any impending danger, and have a giant
swoop one up and lay on with vigor the child's behind.



The words "car," "traffic," "street," and "don't," are very likely not
going to be processed accurately, and we don't usually when we have
sudden pain and fear layed on by someone.

Nonsense again. The swat on the butt is clearly associated with the action
itself. Again, you assume that a child has less intelligence than an animal
who learns by association the consequences surrounding the event.

In fact most mothers that pay attention, and most have to, know that
saying "don't" or "no" to a toddler will very likely result in them
doing exactly what they were asked not to do, spank or no spank.

Most spankers, especially those that kid themselves, wind up
supervising just like we non punishers, and finally getting the child
to the age they get it.....but we don't kid ourselves that it was
punishment that did it. As we know it's the passage of time and the
developing brain that much more likely turned the trick.


Right.. that's why so many are self indulgent, spoiled little brats who
generally wind up bribing their way through life because they had so much
success at upsetting the parents and getting exactly what they wanted in
order to follow prescribed behavior.


I pity those who feel they can use 'reason' and 'logic' on a one or

two year
old,


Me to, right along with those that think the child will understand the
logic of being whacked a good'un and had words babbled at him or her.

and just hope they don't realize how flawed and deadly their handling
of a situation can truly be.


On the contrary. The flaw much more likely arrises in the parent that
believes, because the child froze a few times out of fear with the
adult present, that they will do so when danger threatens. The child
under six is going to have a very difficult time connecting the danger
to the freezing because they will not have absorbed with any meaning
what the defined danger actually is.


Your talking in circles again Kane, showing you've truly lost the logic of
your debate. Children are much more intelligent and much more manipulative
than you can even comprehend. They KNOW what they are being spanked for,
it's not 'freezing'.. and they associate that pain with the action.


They will merrily ride their tricycle behind the car backing out of
the driveway and be terrified of going toward the street...not really
knowing why.


Truly stretching there huh Kane? And I haven't come up with a fraction of
the basic logic that some of the others in this debate have thrown towards
you.

Explain your nonsense then... How the hell do you teach a child to avoid
traffic .. cars backing out of a driveway???

If you are too insensitive to teach them to stay out of the street? Geez..
Oh yeah, you'll 'talk' to them. Sorry dude, your methods only wind up
getting more kids killed than most other methods of child rearing.


The fact of the matter is, lessons learned without fear and pain are
far more powerful than those with.


Where's your proof? Most of your studies have been flawed and result only
from your personal observations. And for someone who has done so much
extensive observing of children, one wonders how you had much time for
anything else. Your credibility is truly lacking here.


But I still, in either case, would not leave my child
unsupervised...would you?

No one has ever said they should, that's another straw man and you know it.
The typical mantra of a non spanker, keep your children under lock and key
24 hours a day from birth til adulthood else you are a bad parent should you
resort to spanking.

Think you can spank them enough, creatively, to trust them to not go
into traffic without you?


You may not LIKE it, my examining and questioning, but there is
nothing dishonest about it.

If you think so I'm sure you can point out what is dishonest on my
part by showing us the truth you think I am not showing.

No?

Kane


It's doubtful the use of brain scans can provide much insight as to

lessons
learned by experience, even painful experience.


Why? The point of the studies is to do just that.

All they can do is measure
the response of the brain to a situation, not the logical analytical

thought
involved pertaining to one's perceptions of the event.


On dear, one of the poor souls that do not know of the extensive
mapping of the brain going on for years now that identifies exactly
such thing. They know precisely, for instance, where conscience
derives in the brain, down to a small area. It can be tested with pics
and other testing while the subject is having their brain scanned.

Even the lowest of creatures react to pain, learn to avoid certain
situations once they've experienced a bad consequence of their

actions.

It often takes a number of lessons in animal and human. Even a
flatworm, famous in psych 202 college classes, will try a couple of
more times to get to food and light at the expense of some pain.
Eventually they will learn, but while MY child is learning she may
well get to die from the lesson.

Are
you saying that humans are less than animals in their ability to deal

with
pain?


Actually there isn't much difference in pain responses.

Our human superiority is that we can, once we pass out of the animal
linear thinking stage of toddler hood, make reasoned choices based on
an analysis of the situation with all kinds of variables (as well
learn by experimentation and later by study of other's work).

Animals never get to our ability of abstraction and cause and effect
reasoning. Some of the apes just skirt it but can be confounded by
things that a grown human would laugh at if we presented them as a
problem.


Of course they don't.. that's why your 'logic' is flawed in believing that
you can set limits on a child before the age of reason, and expect them to
follow them without reinforcement, both negative and positive. A completely
positive approach does absolutely nothing, just as a completely negative
approach. You are hung up on only a single aspect on the topic, and ignore
the rest. Which shows your failure to comprehend and apply that
abstraction.


We know the source and transport of water. Animals cannot figure that
out.


What does that have to do with this subject Kane? Animals DO know
instinctively that they must drink the water, they don't have to know where
it's coming from. And animals DO learn from painful experience to avoid
certain things, only proving that short term pain can be a learning
experience.

Once we reach the age of reason it is easy, quite, to figure out how
one stays alive by staying out of traffic...I call it "The Flat Possum
Lesson," though all I could ever find for my kids was a flat Racoon on
that particular day.

One was old enough for reason, the other old enough to believe his
elder when she reactied to the lesson.


Not true at all. Once a child has been spoiled, it becomes difficult to
change the pattern of behavior developed very young. A child used to
getting his/her way for throwing tantrums is not going to simply 'believe'
his/her elder .. they expect something in return, because this is the system
you've already established in them.

I assume you know now to research a little, so why not do so next time
out?


I have researched Kane.. much more than you and it appears much less
believing in psychobabble which has been shown to be nothing more than
nonesense.

I come from a large family, and being the oldest, have 'observed' many more
issues among young children than you seem to be portraying in your vast
'experiences'.


The Embry Street Entry study is just one of those that give us more
than a little hint that thousands of years of thumpin' butt may just
not have been entirely in the best interests of our race.

Check out Tom Edison....not only not spanked but pulled by his mother
from school because of the hitting done to him by a teacher. I do not
think Albert Einstein was spanked. At least the info about him from
his teen years showed a remarkably indulgent family that pulled him
from Gymnasium (HS) were he was failing mathematics, and sent him off
to Italy to family friends to wander the sunny roads there and have
what later was identified as his epiphany of E=MC2.

All of our children who are spanked and punished, I estimate, has some
portion, sometimes significant portions, of their development
displaced into survival reactivity.

It's a fascinating study. I hope you'll join in.

The very first thing you need to do though is admit that there might
be the slightest possibility that the spankers have erred. I don't
think you can even entertain it as speculation, but I tried.


No Kane, your nonsense is complete and utter bull****, and you want to
believe it so badly, that you tend to put down everyone else. It is YOU who
want to try to discredit others, simply because you've run out of logic, and
been shown to be a complete fraud time and time again on this newsgroup.



Step two is easier if you have managed step one. Get a book on the
stages of childhood development and project all the behaviors of
children you know into that list.


Kane, guess what? There were NO books on childhood development in the
earlier stages of our history, and people fared quite well. You want a list
of names to try to 'impress" people with, well, just open a history book and
Im quite sure that you will find that 90 percent or better of our greatest
leaders had been spanked as children.

Understand something before it's too late, or with you, it probably is.
There are NO manuals on being a parent, and anyone who thinks they can read
bull**** from psychologists who most likely never had children are kidding
themselves.


In other words, instead of thinking of children in terms of adult
understandings of right and wrong, good and bad, evil, willful, etc.
try thinking in terms of all behavior, before the age of 6, as being
driven by nature...forced compulsive exploration of the environment,
which you are just a part of to the child, once she does that 1.5 to 2
year old definition of self separate from the environment and YOU.

Best of luck..

Kane


LOL.. Kane, you truly amuse me. It is YOU who tend to treat children as
adults with reasoning power.. I think you've completely lost it here.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Debate on spanking Doan General 0 June 12th 04 08:30 PM
A great article on spanking Doan General 0 February 28th 04 12:27 PM
| | Kids should work... Kane General 13 December 10th 03 03:30 AM
Kids should work. LaVonne Carlson General 22 December 7th 03 05:27 AM
|| U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking Kane Spanking 0 October 9th 03 08:35 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.