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, 01:03 AM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 25th 03, 10:47 PM
Dennis Hancock
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 26th 03, 01:49 AM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 26th 03, 02:18 AM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 26th 03, 08:45 AM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 27th 03, 05:22 AM
Dennis Hancock
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 27th 03, 08:14 AM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 28th 03, 07:14 AM
Doan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 29th 03, 02:18 PM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 29th 03, 06:57 PM
Doan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

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
| | 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:11 AM.


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.