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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
Amusing Kane, that you know exactly what age a child's mental development
is, and treat each child exactly the same? Your last comment about "punishing a child for NOT being able to know that before the brain is sufficiently developed is cruelty", shows your complete ignorance on the subject. One is not 'punishing' a child with a swat on the butt for wrongful behavior at a very young age, one is reinforcing that it is wrongful behavior. Again, you assume that a child has absolutely NO comprehension or instincts at that age, that they cannot learn 'good' from 'bad' from painful experiences, then you place the human child at below the intelligence level of the lowliest of animals. "Kane" wrote in message om... 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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
"Dennis Hancock" wrote in message news:ZbCmb.26478$Tr4.54866@attbi_s03...
Amusing Kane, that you know exactly what age a child's mental development is, and treat each child exactly the same? I don't recall making a claim the one should treat each child the same. In fact I find spankers are the ones revertingf, when they are stumped, to a single solution. I have hundreds, easily, to any problem with a child you could name. Your last comment about "punishing a child for NOT being able to know that before the brain is sufficiently developed is cruelty", shows your complete ignorance on the subject. Really. How so? I am discussing the fact that the child to young developmentally connects the pain of cp with the one serving it up, not with the activity or object the spanker wishes to have it associated with. One is not 'punishing' a child with a swat on the butt for wrongful behavior at a very young age, one is reinforcing that it is wrongful behavior. Spanking is punishment. The very definition of punishment and spanking includes the inclusive event of pain. Again, you assume that a child has absolutely NO comprehension or instincts at that age, You are projecting meanings into my posts that are not there. I assume nothing of the sort. I know the limits, the abilities and comprehension, and especialy the insticts "at that age" though you went without saying WHAT age. that they cannot learn 'good' from 'bad' from painful experiences, The concept of "'good'" and "'bad'" is far beyond the toddler, and is something that cannot be explored meaningfully, that is with understanding of the subtleties, until a child reaches the age of reason. The Catholic church spotted it hundreds of years ago, the age is 7 to them, and scientists and researchers have shown, both by brain scans, and impirical testing that it happens for normal children in the 6th year, and so close to each other in actual age, year, month, week, and even days, that it can be accurately plotted. Do some reasearch. You still don't get it. then you place the human child at below the intelligence level of the lowliest of animals. No, not the lowliest. Higher order animans, dogs, the primates, develope intelligence levels at full development between roughly a human three years old and one about 5 or 6 (dogs to primates). You are again claiming that I am saying something I am not. I am saying that the complexities of "good and bad" are not available to child under 6. At 5 they can fake you out pretty good because they have had years of data collection and a skill at recognizing when events follow each other...but they don't really know why. Any careful testing of children under 6 shows this clearly. Their language skills are excellent...not because of reason, but because of memorization. Why do you think that formal education doesn't start until 5 years old? I was a very bright, probably precocious child myself. I read at 3 fluently, at about 5th grade level my mother tells me. But I doubt I could have passed a test for understanding. I could, like all children, string things together sequentially, but break the sequence and you'll the child falter and have to be retaught. "Kane" wrote in message om... 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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 21:43:23 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
wrote: Again Kane, you are showing your lack of ability to discuss this issue. You may not like what I say but I hardly think that that equates with a lack of ability to discuss the issue on my part. One cannot ignore the fine lines between spanking and abusive behavior in dealing with this issue than they can in refusing to deal with emotional or psychological abuse. Absolutely. I think you are parroting me after missing that I said much the same thing Here, from the post below, is what I said (you might try breaking up the post and replying directly and in proximity to the claim you are attempting to refute): Your problem is to determine what is spanking and what is beating and this has been an area of considerable weakness in the claims made by pro spankers and apologists. I am, of course, referring the difficulty in determining that line. Just an aside: Do you consider spanking as having any emotional or psychological impact, and if so, what do you think that impact might be on the developing mind of a child...not yet an adult? What you might never accept as "spanking" might be so to someone else. I know I have frequently seen those on the pro side describe a thoroughgoing whipping as "a spanking and well deserved" even when they are the victim themselves. When we discuss "spanking" in this ng each spanker seems to be coming at it with their own idea of what spanking is and isn't, and it varies considerably. Those who do not hold with the idea of spanking a child have a much clearer idea of what is and isn't abuse and spanking. I am perfectly willing for spankers to work out together just what is and isn't spanking with more exactitude. I think you'll find it something of a work though. It hasn't happened before. Personally I consider all spanking abusive, even the lightest tap, if it is meant to stop an unwanted behavior. The risk of side effects, and especially the escalation of unwanted behaviors as the child struggles to explore her enviroment, can be pretty extreme. In other words, to stop a child exploring and expanding their knowledge of the environment without providing alternatives that honor the drive that nature put in them to learn to survive and prosper is in fact abusive. To attempt to do so is simply wasting your time as you continue to throw out utter nonsense and use examples which do not apply to the majority of situations that many of us here wish to address. Well, list those you wish to discuss, or offer them up one at a time. Each of them I'll suggest some alternatives to the use of spanking, you can be sure. If you start with non-punitive (notice I am going beyond just spanking) parenting methods and develop what really is a very small repertoire of tactics it is actually very easy. Not rocket science, and not, especially, all the things you and other spankings think or claim non-punitive parents actually do. One of the assumptions that amuses me the most is that they non-spanking parent is then left with nothing but psychological abuse through another set of punishments...emotional abuse. Trust me on this: most parents that give up spanking and use other forms of punishment, or begin with other forms, are not going to get anywhere either. In fact they, and the spanking parent, are in the same dilemma in that each creates a little monster of their own..some are quite monsters that will break out later, some are monsters now. The physically hurt child tends, but not always, toward holding it all in, while the emotionally abused psychologically punished child tends to fight back with some of the tactics used on her, or him. I appreciate that you left my post intact, even if you top posted. I find arguments much more useful if claims are addressed something like if we were having a conversation. That is why I intersperce, just as in conversation, my comments throughout that of the other poster. Feel free to break my posts up in the same way if you wish. Kane "Kane" wrote in message . com... On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:43:44 GMT, "Dennis Hancock" wrote: "Kane" wrote in message . com... On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 13:28:02 -0500, Jon Houts wrote: On 11 Oct 2003, Kane wrote: On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Ray Drouillard wrote: Interesting. All of the prisoners that he interviewed were spanked as children. Again, were they 'spanked' or were they beaten? I believe the researcher, one Fischer out of UOC school of social work many years ago, was simply looking for spanked. Your problem is to determine what is spanking and what is beating and this has been an area of considerable weakness in the claims made by pro spankers and apologists. What you might never accept as "spanking" might be so to someone else. I know I have frequently seen those on the pro side describe a thoroughgoing whipping as "a spanking and well deserved" even when they are the victim themselves. It is an area fraught with obstacles. I go around the issue, much to the consternation for some, by stating that deliberate punishment of a child is counterproductive to their learning and their mental health. Learning can be learning to do something, and that can include learning to do the required developmental work to excell and not be dysfunctional. A child spending too much time trying to mind is NOT learning about things like gravity, light, sound, and other physical phenomena, and they are sometimes leaving critical areas of the brain undeveloped through lack of exercise. I can make a warrior and factory worker by using punishment methods, but I'd be hard pressed to make a scholar, inventor, or other intellectual exceller. One could do a study of most of the greats of our society throughtout the past century or so and find a large number of them had also been spanked as very young children. No one couldn't. The greater the chances of greatness the greater the chances they were spanked less or not at all, and punishment wasn't much of a factor in most of their lives. I have worked with maladjusted children who were punished well who had everything wrong going on with them from socially malajusted to poor problem solving, to severe thinking errors, to being murderous homocidal maniacs. They don't come from being NOT punished. What does that study show? Well, since you said yourself that one "could" do such a study why don't you find one? I'll save you the trouble. None has been done to my knowledge. There is speculation only. I can offer you my observations in the hope that you too will look above your current knowledge and consider some other possibilities. After all, what harm would it do? You could always return, better armed perhaps, to defend spanking and punishment parenting. Have a good one, Kane |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
Apparently there is more than one Fischer out there doing research. I
am still looking for the one that tried to find prisoners that had not been subject to cp as children. But while I'm looking you can check out this one. I haven't read his stuff but he's researching and writing on the subject I've brought up here befo brain scans and learning under varying conditions. http://hugse9.harvard.edu/gsedata/Re...vperson_id=335 Gee, the things I turn up. This one's for bobb, who thinks that childhood sexual abuse isn't damaging: http://www.darkness2light.org/KnowAb...03_10_02.shtml Then there is this provocative article in The Natural Child; http://www.naturalchild.com/research...unishment.html The Influence of Corporal Punishment on Crime by Adah Maurer, Ph.D. and James S. Wallerstein (1987) The last legal flogging of a convicted felon in the United States occurred in Delaware in 1952. The barbaric practice was made illegal in that year, but Delaware waited until 1972 to formally remove the whipping post from the state penitentiary. Flogging in the Navy for drunken or disorderly conduct was abolished in 1853. The Marines finally forbade all forms of physical punishment in 1957 after a drill sergeant led a disciplinary march into a bog where six young men were drowned. Military instructors now may not touch the person or the clothing of a recruit and "Any fracture, concussion, contusion or welt shall be considered prima facia evidence of excessive force.'' There are no exceptions made on the grounds that some young men bruise easily. Slavery and involuntary servitude had always been maintained with the help of whips, but that disappeared in the United States with the Emancipation Proclamation issued by President Lincoln, January 1, 1863. Spousal abuse used to be termed "reasonable chastisement of wives" and was presumed necessary to maintain the sanctity and stability of the family. All states now have laws against such assaults, and law enforcement and the courts have begun to take seriously, complaints of spousal battery. Only Children Now, in 1987, physical punishment is considered too severe for felons, murderers, criminals of all kinds and ages, including juvenile delinquents, too demeaning for soldiers, sailors, servants and spouses. But it remains legal and acceptable for children who are innocent of any crime. The reasoning behind this curious discrepancy has been the belief that physical punishment will prevent the child from becoming a criminal. The frequent headlines: "Rising Tide of Juvenile Delinquency" usually attribute the situation to a decline of the use of corporal punishment in schools and homes. "Permissiveness," or letting the child do as he pleases, assumed by some to be the only alternative to hitting, is pervasively believed to be the primary cause of anti-social behavior. In the good old days, it is said, "old fashioned discipline" kept children in line. There was very little crime. Harmony reigned. Or did it? The Truth About the "Good Old Days" There are no reliable statistics on the extent of crime a hundred or a hundred and fifty years ago. From all reports, however, crime in the U.S. was extensive, especially violent crime and crimes among the young. The good citizens of 19th century America were also alarmed. They looked back to the good old days of simple rural life, before the growth of the cities. The crowded and crime-ridden Eastern cities were contrasted unfavorably with the "wide open spaces" of the West -- the West, that is, of Jesse James and Billy the Kid! Discipline in the one room schoolhouses was violent. Often the teacher engaged in a bare knuckle fight with the biggest student as a warning to the others of what would happen to them if they provoked his wrath. Horace Mann, the Father of American education, fulminated against the number of floggings per day, sometimes more than the number of scholars. Most of our great grandparents were satisfied with a fourth grade education and eighth grade was the end for all but five percent. The lawless mountain men of the Old West were recruited from the 14-year olds who high tailed it after one thrashing too many. Bands of outlaws stole horses, and plagued the defenseless. Public hangings and Iynchings were commonplace while pickpockets worked the crowds. Only the militia and the sheriff's posse maintained any semblance of order. Yet the myth remains that only woodshed discipline in early youth keeps boys from a life of crime, and that respect for authority is promoted only by painful procedures that induce fear and resentment of authority. What is the truth? Let's take a good hard look at the facts about the effects of corporal punishment on crime. After Effects of Physical Punishment Adrenalin output increases sharply during fear, anger and physical punishment. When this is prolonged or often repeated, the endocrine balance fails to return to baseline. The victim becomes easily angered and prone to poor impulse control and spontaneous violent outbursts. Educational achievement is affected both directly and indirectly. Studies of prisoners, delinquents, school drop-outs, college freshmen and successful professionals are compared in the following composite report. Degree of physical punishment Never Rare Moderate Severe Extreme Violent inmates at San Quentin 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Juvenile Delinquents 0% 2% 3% 31% 64% High School drop-outs 0% 7% 23% 69% 0% College freshmen 2% 23% 40% 33% 0% Professionals 5% 40% 36% 17% 0% Taking part in this survey we 200 psychologists who filled out anonymous questionnaires, 372 college students at the University of California, Davis and California State University at Fresno, 52 slow track underachievers at Richmond High School. Delinquents were interviewed by Dr. Ralph Welsh in Bridgeport, Connecticut and by Dr. Alan Button in Fresno, California. Prisoner information was by courtesy of Hobart Banks, M.S.W., counselor of difficult prisoners at San Quentin Penitentiary, San Quentin, California. Timing Do delinquents grow from lack of discipline? Or from too much discipline? Dr. Alan Button reports, "This, it now appears is the wrong question. We should be asking about sequence. Parents of delinquents, all of them, report physical beating in the first ten to twelve years of the child's life, but rarely thereafter. They "wash their hands" of the kid because "nothing works." Then the judge, finding that the boy has no supervision, denounces permissiveness. The Belt Theory Dr. Ralph Welsh who has given psychological examinations to over 2,000 delinquents, has developed what he calls. "The Belt Theory of Juvenile Delinquency." Dr. Welsh tells us: "The recidivist male delinquent who has never been exposed to the belt, extension cord or fist at some time in his life is virtually non-existent. As the severity of corporal punishment in the delinquent's developmental history increases, so does the probability that he will engage in a violent act." Driving Under the Influence Car crashes caused by drunk driving are increased by a hidden factor. Bottled up anger, when combined with alcohol is the largest cause of the highway death toll which comes to 25,000 deaths every year, or one every 20 minutes. An investigation by Donald C. Pelz of the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan in 1973 led to his finding that: "For the young male, anger toward the adult world is likely to find vent in dangerous driving ... Hostility tends to multiply with their attitude toward the educational system ... Those who had rejected the school system ... are likely to reject the highway system. " In fact he concluded that abiding anger was even more dangerous than drinking per se, but that the combination was the most deadly. The insult to high school boys of an embarrassing paddling raises the adrenaline level, which if repeated often enough stays high all the time. They are the timebombs whose battlefield casualties litter the roads and intersections of our country. Spanking the Baby The effect begins early. Babies just over a year were observed with their mothers at a clinic at the University of Houston. As reported in Psychology Today interviews about the methods of discipline they used revealed that the babies who where punished physically were the least likely to obey instructions not to touch breakables. Even more importantly, seven months later the punished children lagged behind the others in developmental tests. The Real Reason Why, with all this evidence about the destructive effects of physically painful punishments, do so many people continue to believe that the only alternative to hitting children is to negligently allow them to do as they please? And that what they please is always delinquent, if not outright criminal? At the National Center for the Study of Corporal Punishment at Temple University in Philadelphia a large research project inquired of adults the reasons for their beliefs, both pro- and anti-paddle. Most thought they had arrived at their belief logically, but in truth, the real determinant was their own childhood history. Those who had been spanked, paddled, switched, whipped etc. tended overwhelmingly to believed in it. Those who had not been hit, and had attended non-hitting schools, did not believe hitting did any good or were shocked and dismayed at the very idea. The action-language of our childhood overrides logic more often than not. Minds and habits do change, however, but it takes thoughtful assessment and considerable motivation even by people of goodwill. Institutional Abuse Whether the beatings were at the hands of the natural parents, or others who stood in for them seems to make little difference except that institutional punishments lack even intermittent moments of pride and belonging, that might in some cases mitigate slightly the worst effects. Charles Manson, the child of a 15 year old single mother had his first contact with police when he was 7 and spent the rest of his life in a series of foster homes, reform schools and prisons. He could have survived the rejection of his mother, he says, if reform school of officials hadn't been institutionally cruel, whipping, beating and raping him, and letting other inmates do the same. A survey of 3,900 people in Houston as to what effect school corporal punishment had on their lives found that 76 percent of them said the effects had been negative and that they continued to resent what happened to them. That leaves about a fourth of them who were able to shrug it off and a mere handful who felt grateful for the timely punishment that "saved me from a life of crime." Thus, the one who testifies that "I was paddled when I was a kid and I turned out okay," must be labelled a survivor and congratulated on the strength of character that enabled him to make a life in spite of early mistreatment. Phychologist Robert Fathman, has offered this apt analogy: "Many people grew up in homes that had outhouses and they turned out okay. But do outhouses get the credit?" I guess I'll never find the old Fischer professor I was looking for. He was very old when I ran across his attempt to study prisons back in the mid 70's and may be deceased by now, and or not active. If I run across him I'll let you know. Kane |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
"Kane" wrote in message om... 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. Kane wrote (ignoring the meat of the above text and naturally only responding to the part he agreed with). 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. Where are your studies on this Kane? There have been very few families which are not "historically punishing famiies" as you put it, and I certainly don't know that they are published anywhere, or in any studies. Anyone can make such a claim when the obvious is that it has very little basis in fact. Non spanking is a fairly recent development pushed forth by psychologists.. The recent phenomena of never using negative reinforcement out of fear of damaging the poor child's psyche has resulted in more emotionally damaged children than ever in history. They cannot deal with criticism because of the spoon fed nonsense, and we wind up with more and more Columbine type situations from these disturbed individuals. YOU are doing more damage than the occassional spanker who teaches his children hurtful behavior can have consequences. 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. Again, YOUR observations.. certainly nothing to substantiate your wild accusations in general. 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." With a one or two year old? Give us a break. 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). then they were very rare, and you were very lucky. I've personally witnessed the exact opposite, very inadaquate individuals emotionally who are unprepared to deal with the real world, or hande any kind of negative criticism directed towards them. 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. No.. the point is to swat the butt so the child does NOT touch a beaker of acid. You assume the child cannot learn and ignore every psychological study on young children which has precluded your non spanking approach. 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 So, your suggestion is LET them touch the hot iron, or LET them learn from the pain. YOU are the one being cruel. I can rest assured that you let your wife chase after the little ones because you certainly have no clue as to how active they can be. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 04:22:02 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
wrote: "Kane" wrote in message . com... 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. Kane wrote (ignoring the meat of the above text and naturally only responding to the part he agreed with). What is this directly below...something YOU wrote? 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. Where are your studies on this Kane? Where are yours that show spanked children are common in more affluent and personally powerful families? There have been very few families which are not "historically punishing famiies" as you put it, And you can prove this how? and I certainly don't know that they are published anywhere, or in any studies. Yes, I know. The difference is that I have been around. I have worked for and with the very wealthy and powerful...did you see the piece I wrote on the polo pony? I've trained their children to ride...right up to Olympic competition levels....and I've been a guest in their houses and homes for long periods. I ran their stables and horsebreeding farms so I've seen them at their best and worst. And they seldom resort to spanking and in fact are much more dedicate to their children learning personal power. Something very hard to learn when one is spending their time looking over their shoulder in expectation of a whipping. Anyone can make such a claim when the obvious is that it has very little basis in fact. And you have some proof that spanking is a common child rearing tactic among the powerful? Non spanking is a fairly recent development pushed forth by psychologists.. I've known nonspanking families all my life and I'm nearly 70. The recent phenomena of never using negative reinforcement out of fear of damaging the poor child's psyche has resulted in more emotionally damaged children than ever in history. You are obviously a poor reader. Where have you found support for this fear of using negative reinforcement? I can't remember a book on child rearing that didn't include a section on logical and natural consequences. Both have to do with negative reinforcement. By the way, do you actually understand what classical behaviorist negative reinforcement is? I think you are mixing things up a bit and mean "extinction" of a behavior. Negative reinforcement makes a proximal behavior happen MORE often, not less. Read up on it. They cannot deal with criticism because of the spoon fed nonsense, They deal wonderfully well with criticism from having a solid foundation of healthy and fact based self esteem...they can DO things, and when they aren't allowed to they find other more acceptable ways to reach their goals. They do not have to go off and pout and climb towers with guns. and we wind up with more and more Columbine type situations from these disturbed individuals. If you think the Columbine shooters were not spanked I would like to see the evidence. Based on YOUR own beliefs it seems unlikely they were not parenting with punishment methods. The odds of it are very high. So tell us, you have proof they weren't spanked? Show it please. YOU are doing more damage than the occassional spanker who teaches his children hurtful behavior can have consequences. Nope, every child I've successfully worked with, and I've had very few failures and those related to organic problems or the child returning to tortur...opps, punishing parents, has turned out well. They are free of crime, they are self generating, they work and are well paid. I raised two myself and my wife another two of hers before we married by the same methods (were old friends and married after my former wife passed away). All four of our children are highly successful. All continue their educations and are fully employed even in these hard times and they are aged from 22 to 42. The second youngest is on an executive training track of a Fortune 500 company, the eldest is studying, back in school again while she still holds down a good job, to be an accountant, and the youngest is just getting started and is doing very well. The second to the oldest is a craftsman of considerable skill, and a photo hobbiest that wins prizes in competition and also an accomplished winning rifle competitor. I'm better than him with a handgun. 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. Again, YOUR observations.. certainly nothing to substantiate your wild accusations in general. If you think you can find children that are taught without punishment in jails, be my guest. They don't exist. It will be a fitting use of your time though. I once knew a cop that believed like you. I challenged him, because he claimed that he routinely worked with unspanked unpunished adults in prison. He went and started asking...guess what he learned....his perceptions were being colored by his biases....just like yours. The facts he found were very different than he believed. I was very pleased because he was a new father. 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." With a one or two year old? Give us a break. Yes. Take one. It works. If they are too young to respond do you think spanking works better? 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" Give Dennis a call and tell him he didn't see what he saw. 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). then they were very rare, and you were very lucky. On the contrary. They were common in the societies I studied. Punished children learn that if you do not like someone's behavior you hit them. Nonpunishment raised children learn early on to negotiate. I've personally witnessed the exact opposite, very inadaquate individuals emotionally who are unprepared to deal with the real world, or hande any kind of negative criticism directed towards them. And you are prepared to say and believe these were individuals that were not raised with punishment-discipline? I'd think you'd be hard pressed to find them unless you did some extensive travel. 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. No.. the point is to swat the butt so the child does NOT touch a beaker of acid. No, the point is to not leave a beaker of acid out for a child to young to follow directions to find. Spanking tends to negatively reinforce. Embry showed that. The spanked children were the ones that ran toward traffic MORE. You assume the child cannot learn I do? On the contrary you assume that the only way they can learn to NOT do something is to be spanked. and ignore every psychological study I don't ignore any studies I know about. Clue me in. on young children which has precluded your non spanking approach. Run'em out here. I gave you Embry...what are you going to give ME...Dobson!? R R R R R 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 So, your suggestion is LET them touch the hot iron, or LET them learn from the pain. Why would I tell you and others, as I have here and elsewhere in this thread, that the job of the parent is to protect the child and support their learning if that were true? You are assigning me beliefs and claims I do not have or make. You are doing so based, if I am correct, on your bias that spanking is the one sure way to teach a child to not do something. It's been disproven in testing and in my observation. YOU are the one being cruel. On the contrary. Not only are you risking the young child now...by using a method that has proven to INCREASE the unwanted behavior, but the long term effects are well documented. I can rest assured that you let your wife chase after the little ones I was the primary parent for my two natural children while my wife pursued her profession. I worked and went back to college and all the while cared for my children as the primary caregiver. Very enlightening. And it teaches patience. So tell me, did YOU do the 24/7 with your children? because you certainly have no clue as to how active they can be. On the contrary. I had very active kids, that also trusted me. From time to time, like all children...and like the one you mentioned running toward a dropoff, my children got into danger. It's just part of parenting. My daughter used to go to work with me until she was about 3. A lively energetic exploring kid, but very trusting of me and new activities she'd check out with me before she did them. I missed her cue one day. And she wandered over the pasture fence. I was working with a particularly difficult Appaloosa stallion and was a tiny bit distracted. I'd sent her outside the work area but where I could see her. The corner post on the pasture was right at the edge of a 50 foot steep dropoff. In that paster were about 15 3 year old Santa Gertrudis bulls waiting for shippment to the sales barn for auction. I heard her call out to me, "Look at me daddy." and when I looked there she was. She had climbed up the angled brace post to the top of the corner post, about 6x8 inches on the top. Barbed wire below her, a 50 ft cliff to one side, and about 5 or 6 young bulls coming toward her curious and a bit agitated. Did I run? Did I send my Australian Shepard cattle dog to drive off the bulls? Naw, I don't think so. I just smiled and said, "Yes, honey you are a good climber, now can you climb down without falling?" Which of course she promptly did. We talked about it. I didn't spank her but she, trusting me, and feeling safe to ask me questions wanted to know why I looked so scared now that she was down. I explained the dangers. I didn't talk, of course, in cause and effect terms. I just described sequentially what might have happened. I reminder her of how we had to take Jake, the Blue Heeler (aus shepard) to the vet when one of the young bulls trampled him. I reminded her how it hurt when she fell a little way off things she climbed. Now I'd love to think my child was waaaaaaay more developed than most, but the truth is all children are on the same development time table. She was an easy 3 to 4 years away from really understanding, but she DID know pain, she knew oweez, and she could process sequential events, the forte of the toddler and up to 5. So she didn't climb that post any more, alone. I would go out, when she wanted, and I'd hold her hand as she went up the brace and stood on top. Talk about a rush. She had one because her daddy not only trusted her but HELPED her learn the balance and climbing skills she wanted to learn, but he protected her from falling off the cliff or into the bull pasture. I had my own rush for many of the same reasons. A child that trusted me to protect and teach her, and the pleasure of seeing her do something difficult for a three year old, very well indeed. She's still like that. Just talked to her on the phone about her plans for graduate school and the clusters of classes she must take to prepare. Felt like I was holding her little hand again. This climbing the fence was one of many things I taught her by gentle means. She is alive and unscratched today. She might read this some time so I won't tell you how I taught her not to strip her clothes off an warm summer days and go down the lane to play with the neighbor kids...r r r r But trust me, no pain or humiliation was involved. Have a nice day. Kane |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
On 26 Oct 2003, Kane wrote: Degree of physical punishment College freshmen 2% 23% 40% 33% 0% Professionals 5% 40% 36% 17% 0% Let's see 98% of college freshmen are spanked and 95% of professionals are spanked. IS KANE arguing for spanking or against??? ;-) Doan |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
Doan wrote in message ...
On 26 Oct 2003, Kane wrote: Degree of physical punishment College freshmen 2% 23% 40% 33% 0% Professionals 5% 40% 36% 17% 0% Let's see 98% of college freshmen are spanked and 95% of professionals are spanked. Artful snipparage there old boy. Why did you remove the column headers? IS KANE arguing for spanking or against??? ;-) Those who are spanked often suffer from a similar lack of mental acuity. Do you really think anyone else has a problem with understanding my argument? These two categories experience the mildest of physical punishments....and if you pay close attention you'll notice the word spanking isn't in the title or columns...just physical punishment. On the other hand are you then assuming that professionals and college freshman are some advanced form of life? R R R R What with all the bashing of professionals in these ngs it appears obvious why YOU can't figure out my argument. Doan Too bad about you being spanked. bingo bango bongo Stoneman |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
On 29 Oct 2003, Kane wrote: Doan wrote in message ... On 26 Oct 2003, Kane wrote: Degree of physical punishment College freshmen 2% 23% 40% 33% 0% Professionals 5% 40% 36% 17% 0% Let's see 98% of college freshmen are spanked and 95% of professionals are spanked. Artful snipparage there old boy. Why did you remove the column headers? Because it is self-explanatory. These propaganda that you copied from those anti-spanking sites are nothing new, Kane. These are the same one that were posted A LONG TIME ago by Chris, LaVonne et al! They have been discredited as nothing but propaganda. You are a FEW YEARS LATE and a bundle of dollars short! :-{) IS KANE arguing for spanking or against??? ;-) Those who are spanked often suffer from a similar lack of mental acuity. Do you really think anyone else has a problem with understanding my argument? Nope. Many, just like me, have pointed out the STUPIDITY of such an argument. LOOK IT UP IN THE ARCHIVE!!! These two categories experience the mildest of physical punishments... WHAT??? ARE YOU THIS STUPID??? Maybe I should have left the headers in for idiot like you. Here they a D E G R E E O F P H Y S I C A L P U N I S H M E N T Never Rare Moderate Severe Extreme Violent inmates at San Quentin 0 0 0 0 100% Juvenile Delinquents 0 2% 3% 31% 64% High School drop-outs 0 7% 23% 69% 0 College freshmen 2% 23% 40% 33% 0 Professionals 5% 40% 36% 17% 0 [The Influence of Corporal Punishment on Crime by Adah Maurer, Ph.D. and James S. Wallerstein (1987)] As you can see, the categories a NEVER, RARE, MODERATE, SEVERE and EXTREME. What you claimed above is just utter NONSENSE! ..and if you pay close attention you'll notice the word spanking isn't in the title or columns...just physical punishment. LOL! I just love the anti-spanking zealotS. They claimed that spanking is a beating and now... spanking is not physical punishment!!! Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS, are they mutually exclusive? ;-) On the other hand are you then assuming that professionals and college freshman are some advanced form of life? R R R R Where did I claim that, Kane? :-) What with all the bashing of professionals in these ngs it appears obvious why YOU can't figure out my argument. Let's see! Spanking will improve you kids' chances of going to college and becoming professionals, so don't spank your kids??? Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS.... enough said. :-) Too bad about you being spanked. Yup! And anti-spanking zealotS are proud of the fact that a "never-spanked" boy turned out like you! :-) Doan |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Debate on spanking | Doan | General | 0 | June 12th 04 08:30 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 |
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking | Kane | Spanking | 1 | October 25th 03 10:41 PM |
|| U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking | Kane | Spanking | 0 | October 9th 03 08:35 PM |