Argument out of the past, and done then...was... Spanking andnon-cp alternatives compared

Greegor wrote:
Doan wrote:
Comparing Child Outcomes of Physical Punishment and Alternative
Disciplinary Tactics: A Meta-Analysis
Robert E. Larzelere1,2 and Brett R. Kuhn1

Larzelere et all have long been identified as belonging to a right
leaning religious faction that is a propaganda arm for the spanking
proponents. Does the name Families First ring a bell for anyone?

He and they have been seriously punished by researchers who reviewed his
work. Peers.

In an exchange, for instance, between he and Joan E. Durrant, the
researcher that followed the Swedish results of their legal outlawing of
CP on children he takes a considerable shellacking ... especially for
method. And honesty.

She is at this school,
http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/hu..._durrant.shtml

,,, and remarks rebuttal on this: Durrant, J.E. (2005). Law Reform and
Corporal Punishment in Sweden: Response to Robert Larzelere, the
Christian Institute and Families First.

Durrant, J.E. (2005). Law Reform and Corporal Punishment in Sweden:
Response to Robert Larzelere, the Christian Institute and Families
First. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba, Department of Family Social
Sciences.

http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/hu...20First.pdfand

http://tinyurl.com/y3f5fy

I'm fascinated about the two schools, The University of Manitoba, and
the Christian Institute and the organization Families First.

Aren't you?


This meta-analysis investigates differences between the effect sizes of
physical punishment and alternative disciplinary tactics for child
outcomes in 26 qualifying studies. Analyzing differences in effect sizes
reduces systematic biases and emphasizes direct comparisons between
the disciplinary tactics that parents have to select among. The results
indicated that effect sizes significantly favored conditional spanking
over 10 of 13 alternative disciplinary tactics for reducing child
noncompliance or antisocial behavior. Customary physical punishment
yielded effect sizes equal to alternative tactics, except for one
large study favoring physical punishment. Only overly severe or
predominant use of physical punishment compared unfavorably with
alternative disciplinary tactics. The discussion highlights the need for
better discriminations between effective and counterproductive use of
disciplinary punishment in general.

The piece above is jammed with carefully crafted qualifiers, that give
away the paucity of real evidence to back the author's claims.

In fact it reminds me of the meandering babbles of some posters to these
newsgroups that attempt to address this and other subjects.


KEY WORDS: children; parenting; discipline; punishment; spanking.
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review,
Vol. 8, No. 1, March 2005 ( Copyright 2005)

And was there any response to the publishing of this?

Well, I have a response to the same researcher, Robert E. Larzelere,
from another researcher when he attempt to rebut her findings.

It might give you a bit of an idea what Robert E. Larzelere is about.

Maybe Kane already has copy in his "file cabinet". ;-)

No, it's available on line, along with Ms Durrant's rebuttal, at:

http://tinyurl.com/y3f5fy

Enjoy, for the third or fourth time I've posted this. 0:-


From the close of Durrant's article: (notice her pointing out the error
of trying to draw "causal" conclusions from none causal source. 0:-]

It is not difficult to see she is dealing with bigotry and very nicely
exposes it.

"Larzelere’s Main Conclusion
Larzelere concludes his booklet by stating, “at every point, the
evidence contradicts Dr. Durrant’s conclusions” (p. 14). He could only
have arrived at this statement by ignoring all of the information
that I have reiterated here, and more. He goes on to write, “before
other countries follow Sweden’s example of a smacking ban, they need to
explain Sweden’s subsequent increase in child abuse and criminal
assaults, if they hope to avoid those consequences of the Swedish
example” (p. 14-15).

This statement is misleading for the following reasons.

1. Larzelere again presents reporting statistics as true assault
statistics, a serious error to which I have already referred.

2. Second, Larzelere attributes shifts in those reporting statistics
directly to the corporal punishment ban. In fact, he makes a point of
emphasizing this causal conclusion by repeating it: “As one of the least
violent countries in the world, perhaps Sweden can afford a six-fold
increase in criminal assaults by minors against minors. Most countries
cannot risk a six-fold increase in criminal assaults by
minors” (p. 15).

The authors of the booklet’s foreword (Norman Wells of Families First
and Colin Hart of The Christian Institute) repeat it again:
“[Larzelere] concludes that perhaps countries with a historically low
level of violence – like Sweden – may be able to cope with a six-fold
increase in child-on-child assault. Other countries – like the UK –
cannot” (p. 3).

In another publication from Families First (undated), this conclusion
appears again: “The inadvisability of legislating against the use of
physical chastisement by parents is further reinforced by findings which
suggest that such a measure may, in fact, contribute to an increase of
violence and abuse against children rather than reduce it” (p. 29).

The degree of oversimplification apparent in this conclusion is very
surprising, particularly as Larzelere’s voice has been perhaps the most
ardent in cautioning readers against drawing causal
conclusions regarding the negative outcomes consistently associated with
corporal punishment in the literature (e.g., Baumrind, Larzelere, &
Cowan, 2002).

While studies that have controlled for a wide range of variables have
not been viewed by Larzelere as adequate for attributing negative
outcomes to corporal punishment – even if those outcomes are consistent
across large numbers of studies (Gershoff, 2002) - he is confident in
attributing extremely complex social trends, in a nation of which he has
little knowledge, to one single historical event.

In drawing this simplistic conclusion, he has neglected to consider
potential confounding variables as fundamental as changes in
population size, let alone familiarizing himself with shifts in law
enforcement, changes in methods of statistical record-keeping, or
reforms of criminal and civil legislation over time.
29

3. Larzelere may not be aware that 14 countries already have followed
Sweden’s example by banning physical punishment of children. They are
Finland (1983), Norway (1987), Austria (1989), Denmark (1994/1997),
Cyprus (1994), Latvia (1998), Croatia (1998), Bulgaria (2000), Israel
(2000), Germany (2000), Iceland (2003), Hungary (2004), Ukraine (2004),
and Romania (2005) .

These bans were not passed on the basis of irrefutable evidence of bans’
positive effects. Rather, they were passed on principle – to give
children and adults equal protection from assault. Larzelere’s
suggestion that a law affirming children’s rights to protection must
first be demonstrably successful by some measure misses the point of
these laws.

By Larzelere’s logic, we should not have a law protecting adults from
assault if we find that assaults increase in nations with such laws.
Certainly we would never consider such a thing. Instead, we would
search for the true causes of violence and seek to end them. But we
would never sacrifice our assault laws simply because they have not
eradicated assault.

References 30
Response to Larzelere

Summary
Larzelere’s booklet is based on superficial analysis of complex data. In
it, he misinterprets statistics, draws unfounded conclusions, and
demonstrates a lack of knowledge of Swedish society. His publication
is a polemic that serves no useful purpose in this important debate.
.......

I hope all readers enjoyed this. I know I did.

So, back at'cha Greg.

Got any real argument, logic, facts, data, even an apology for being a
twit would suffice.

I'm happy to debate you, and you alone on this issue. When we are
finished, if we do, I'll be happy to take on the next one, one at a time.

Of course if you can't gang up you cowards run, don't you?

Oh, and for the record, I don't argue or debate liars very many times
without eventually ****baggin' em, just like I've done with a couple of
your buddies. There time with me responding directly with them is done.

Liars bring that on themselves. Others become disgusted and nauseous
over the garbage throw from such ignorant violators of simple debate.

0:-]




Doan

"0:-" wrote in message
news:99adnYsB84fxtC3YnZ2dnUVZ_oGlnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Greegor wrote:
Doan wrote:
Comparing Child Outcomes of Physical Punishment and Alternative
Disciplinary Tactics: A Meta-Analysis
Robert E. Larzelere1,2 and Brett R. Kuhn1

Larzelere et all have long been identified as belonging to a right leaning
religious faction that is a propaganda arm for the spanking proponents.
Does the name Families First ring a bell for anyone?


HEY ****HEAD

Do you know what a META-ANALYSIS is? Huh dip****?

NO!!!!

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:99adnYsB84fxtC3YnZ2dnUVZ_oGlnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Greegor wrote:
Doan wrote:
Comparing Child Outcomes of Physical Punishment and Alternative
Disciplinary Tactics: A Meta-Analysis
Robert E. Larzelere1,2 and Brett R. Kuhn1

Larzelere et all have long been identified as belonging to a right leaning
religious faction that is a propaganda arm for the spanking proponents.
Does the name Families First ring a bell for anyone?


HEY ****HEAD

Aw....such a nice little fellow.

How'd you like my mimicking of you yesterday, Ken?

I wanted people to not miss what they invited an encourages to come
here....a vile, dishonest, bloward fraud such as you.

The only difference being, in my act, I was telling the truth.

Mimicking the style of delivery.

See, you just did it to open your stupid comments in reply to me.

Do you know what a META-ANALYSIS is? Huh dip****?

Sure do.


NO!!!!

Sorry I do.

Do you know what error contaminated conclusions are, Ken?

That "meta analysis" was one. Great example.

Attempting.....RR R R R R .... to draw more from correlations than
actually were there in the originals being examined, and missing what
was.

The authors of the analysis are a pack of obvious right wing parent's
right to beat their children drum bangers.

Nothing new.

Or wonderful.

Up against real scientists such as Ms Durrant.

Pretty funny, really. I laugh at them all the time, and at Doan when he
referres to the main author as a scienific source. He doesn't even meet
Doan's requirement for cause based science.

You are showing increasingly how very stupid you are.

You can't shove your nonsense down people's throat, Ken, because no one
is as stupid as you project them to be by your own lack of
intelligence.

Like so many clowns that can wallow in their delusions in this medium,
you make a spectacle of yourself and don't have to answer for it, as
you do in the real world.

0:-]

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, krp wrote:


"0:-" wrote in message
news:99adnYsB84fxtC3YnZ2dnUVZ_oGlnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Greegor wrote:
Doan wrote:
Comparing Child Outcomes of Physical Punishment and Alternative
Disciplinary Tactics: A Meta-Analysis
Robert E. Larzelere1,2 and Brett R. Kuhn1

Larzelere et all have long been identified as belonging to a right leaning
religious faction that is a propaganda arm for the spanking proponents.
Does the name Families First ring a bell for anyone?


HEY ****HEAD

Do you know what a META-ANALYSIS is? Huh dip****?

NO!!!!

Kane claimed he is a "published researcher". He even claimed that he is
on a secret mailing list (listserv) with Dr. Straus! I am impressed! ;-)
Maybe he can tell Dr. Straus that using dummies in car crash studies
makes those studies correlational! Dr. Straus could learn a thing or
two from him. What a STUPID idiot this Kane is!

Doan

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, krp wrote:

"0:-" wrote in message
news:99adnYsB84fxtC3YnZ2dnUVZ_oGlnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Greegor wrote:
Doan wrote:
Comparing Child Outcomes of Physical Punishment and Alternative
Disciplinary Tactics: A Meta-Analysis
Robert E. Larzelere1,2 and Brett R. Kuhn1
Larzelere et all have long been identified as belonging to a right leaning
religious faction that is a propaganda arm for the spanking proponents.
Does the name Families First ring a bell for anyone?

HEY ****HEAD

Do you know what a META-ANALYSIS is? Huh dip****?

NO!!!!

Kane claimed he is a "published researcher".

Nope. You are lying. I've said I was a researcher. I am.

In another conversation I said I was published.

I am.

YOU claimed the link between them, not I.

And I've refused to say what name I publish under.

Try to sort things out a bit and you might not be so easily caught lying.

He even claimed that he is
on a secret mailing list (listserv) with Dr. Straus! I am impressed! ;-)

Hell, I openly posted that I'd connect any here that wished to connect
with that list any time they asked.

So, Doan, as usual you lie.

And it's hardly secret or I wouldn't know about it.

Maybe he can tell Dr. Straus that using dummies in car crash studies
makes those studies correlational!

Nope. It makes it correlation as applied to humans, dimwit.

Until you put humans in the seats of autos and do the same to them, the
outcome is a correlation.

Dr. Straus could learn a thing or
two from him.

Mmmm...maybe, but more likely not. He's a more experienced researcher
with far more resources at his command than I. I work alone. He has a
bevy of under and grad students to fetch and carry.

What a STUPID idiot this Kane is!

Not so stupid as to claim crash dummy use in place of humans is a causal
model research paradigm.

So, if we used dummies, dummy, and spanking them with varying degrees of
intensity, frequency, interval, different objects, including our hands,
would that be a research method based on causal relationships?

It would be to the dummies, but applying the conclusions to live
children would be highly risky.

Don't you think, bright boy?

Now watch Doan run by changing the subject.

Always happens. He is of course the stupid idiot here.

Kane



Doan

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, krp wrote:

"0:-" wrote in message
news:99adnYsB84fxtC3YnZ2dnUVZ_oGlnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Greegor wrote:
Doan wrote:
Comparing Child Outcomes of Physical Punishment and Alternative
Disciplinary Tactics: A Meta-Analysis
Robert E. Larzelere1,2 and Brett R. Kuhn1
Larzelere et all have long been identified as belonging to a right leaning
religious faction that is a propaganda arm for the spanking proponents.
Does the name Families First ring a bell for anyone?

HEY ****HEAD

Do you know what a META-ANALYSIS is? Huh dip****?

NO!!!!

Kane claimed he is a "published researcher".

Nope. You are lying. I've said I was a researcher. I am.

In another conversation I said I was published.


This is from our exchange yesterday, Kane:

Doan:
And you are a published researcher

Kane:
Yes.

Doan:
with shelves full of research studies
right, Kane? ;-)

Kane:
Yes.

When are you going to stop this STUPID LYING habit of yours, Kane? Like I
said, Kane I don't accuse other people of lying without proof! I have
proven you are a STUPID liar REPEATEDLY!

Doan

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, krp wrote:

"0:-" wrote in message
news:99adnYsB84fxtC3YnZ2dnUVZ_oGlnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Greegor wrote:
Doan wrote:
Comparing Child Outcomes of Physical Punishment and Alternative
Disciplinary Tactics: A Meta-Analysis
Robert E. Larzelere1,2 and Brett R. Kuhn1
Larzelere et all have long been identified as belonging to a right leaning
religious faction that is a propaganda arm for the spanking proponents.
Does the name Families First ring a bell for anyone?
HEY ****HEAD

Do you know what a META-ANALYSIS is? Huh dip****?

NO!!!!

Kane claimed he is a "published researcher".
Nope. You are lying. I've said I was a researcher. I am.

In another conversation I said I was published.


This is from our exchange yesterday, Kane:

Doan:
And you are a published researcher

Kane:
Yes.

Doan:
with shelves full of research studies
right, Kane? ;-)

Kane:
Yes.

When are you going to stop this STUPID LYING habit of yours, Kane? Like I
said, Kane I don't accuse other people of lying without proof! I have
proven you are a STUPID liar REPEATEDLY!

I am a published gardener.

I have not published ON gardening.

I am a published researcher.

I have not published on research, though I have researched TO publish.

It' s called 'fact finding.'

And that's common knowledge.


Doan


No only are you a liar, you are stupid as well.

This particular one didn't fall squarely in the category of lie, just
your stupidity.

And I've posted to you before that I have not published research, but
that I have done research, and....long pause here....I have published as
well.

Learn to read, dummy.

Stay tuned. We are going to have yet another, in a long series, of
classic Doan lies coming right up.

Another thread. You'll see it.

0:-

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, krp wrote:

"0:-" wrote in message
news:99adnYsB84fxtC3YnZ2dnUVZ_oGlnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Greegor wrote:
Doan wrote:
Comparing Child Outcomes of Physical Punishment and Alternative
Disciplinary Tactics: A Meta-Analysis
Robert E. Larzelere1,2 and Brett R. Kuhn1
Larzelere et all have long been identified as belonging to a right leaning
religious faction that is a propaganda arm for the spanking proponents.
Does the name Families First ring a bell for anyone?
HEY ****HEAD

Do you know what a META-ANALYSIS is? Huh dip****?

NO!!!!

Kane claimed he is a "published researcher".
Nope. You are lying. I've said I was a researcher. I am.

In another conversation I said I was published.


This is from our exchange yesterday, Kane:

Doan:
And you are a published researcher

Kane:
Yes.

Doan:
with shelves full of research studies
right, Kane? ;-)

Kane:
Yes.

When are you going to stop this STUPID LYING habit of yours, Kane? Like I
said, Kane I don't accuse other people of lying without proof! I have
proven you are a STUPID liar REPEATEDLY!

No actually we are agreement so if I lied, you lied.

I am a published researcher.

I have not claimed to have published research. That is your lie, Doan.

Your attempt to claim that was my meaning.

Doan

Learn to read, dummy.

0:-

I had posted a report on the Consequences of child abuse allegations
against foster families.

The debate from ascps that had inspired me had been my claim that foster
families are more often reported than bio families simply because they
are so very much available to be observed by so very many more people
than bio parents in the general population.

And of course the denial of that by various dumb **** posters to the
newsgroup, pretending to knowledge and erudition they most certainly
lacked.

Doan came back with a response immediately after my initial post to the
thread.

He did so with a quote from the article that in fact has very little if
anything to do with the actual premise I outlined above.

http://www.fosterparentnet.org/PDF/rcwebpg1.pdf

"We cannot be certain enough of population estimates and abuse report
data to know if foster families are, indeed, reported more often than
other families. We do know that a noticeable percentage of Wisconsin
foster families - in 1985, one in 20; more recently, one in ten -
experiences abuse report."

This leaves out, just as Ron said, when Doan did one of his "who here
believe Kane," silly requests for help (where were you, anyway, Greg?
Isn't he your posting buddy, mentor, and coach in the fallacious
argument for lying in debate study you've been doing?) certain
contextual matters from the whole of the symposium's findings.

Later in the thread we see this response by Ron to precisely that in
this exchange between Doan and I:

" Who is the liar here, Kane? ;-)

You. The charge is contextual-removal to mislead, Doan. 0:-

You are a liar.

Hahaha! And who here believe you?

Given what I have seen of this thread so far, I believe him and not you.
He is correct, you seem to have quoted something out of context. Do
you have an explanation?

Ron "

Apparently Ron did look at the article. And here is what he found.

Before you read it note that the comments Doan quoted were limited to a
conclusion drawn about one state. In fact you'll find from the opening
introduction by Ed Baxton and on into the body of the document that many
of the issues I've debated in ascps this document supports my argument.

This goes to others lacking factual information, like this document
presents, and making it up as they go, while I argue from facts and
collected information and direct observations.

Here is a sample of the contextual lie of Doan, a classic ploy of his
long recorded in these newsgroups. The next quote comes immediately
AFTER the short bit he quoted, which was nothing but an introductory
thought to this:

"Why are Foster Families at Risk to
Be Reported for Abuse/Neglect?
We have the riddle of a family with a stable income,
often a married couple, who are community-connected,
are often homeowners, experienced as parents and who
have not been reported for abuse/neglect of their own
children, with a license to parent, at high risk to be
reported for abuse. The riddle can be "solved" by
looking at factors beyond individual and family
functioning.

• Foster families are held to different, higher,
standards for what will be considered abuse in their
homes.

• Foster family life is a "fish bowl"--the family is
highly visible in the community and held up to public
scrutiny.

• Consumers of social services--foster children and
their biological relatives--are familiar with child
abuse report procedures and effects.

• Agencies are concerned about their legal liability
regarding placed children.

• Foster children are often “high risk” both in terms of
the responses they may elicit from others and in
terms of the abuse risk they pose for other children.

I believe that it is not possible to prevent abuse reports
by training foster parents (though training and support
are desirable for reducing abuse) since factors beyond
family functioning may influence why a report is made.
Further, though we are not focusing here on abuse in
foster care, I believe that it will not be possible to
“screen out” “abusers” in foster care through the intake
"

As you can see, Doan calling ME a liar for posting the link to this
document (and I made NO comment beyond the title, before he quoted OUT
OF CONTEXT, from the document, is a simple, rather than complex, lie of
his own.

The opening post to the thread is titled, "Recommended reading, unless
of course .... ... ... you prefer to be lied to."

NO other comment.

Doan came back with his out of context quote, and a claim I was lying.

Interesting eh?

And YOU know the arguments on this issue that have roiled both ascps and
asfp, right?

Seems other's agree with what I know to be true.

They attended the symposium and were there to report their own experiences.

If you go and read more of the symposium report you will find much the
same kind of information.

The proportion of abuse founded, has to be directly related to the rate
of reports Reports are far higher for foster parents, just as I've
claimed, than for bio parents given the list of items you see above in
my quote.

The denial in these newsgroups is topped ONLY by the willingness of Doan
to creatively contextually lie.

He should be ashamed of himself, but he's not. He thinks it clever to lie.

I believe his family is shamed by him. Ask him if they would support
argument through lying by contextual abortion, just as you so frequently
do attribution abortion to change the poster's meaning.

His is done for the same purpose. To cherry pick what agrees with what
he wished to lie about, and create a lie by omission of a part that is
vital to understanding the whole.

0:-

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, krp wrote:

"0:-" wrote in message
news:99adnYsB84fxtC3YnZ2dnUVZ_oGlnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Greegor wrote:
Doan wrote:
Comparing Child Outcomes of Physical Punishment and Alternative
Disciplinary Tactics: A Meta-Analysis
Robert E. Larzelere1,2 and Brett R. Kuhn1
Larzelere et all have long been identified as belonging to a right leaning
religious faction that is a propaganda arm for the spanking proponents.
Does the name Families First ring a bell for anyone?
HEY ****HEAD

Do you know what a META-ANALYSIS is? Huh dip****?

NO!!!!

Kane claimed he is a "published researcher".
Nope. You are lying. I've said I was a researcher. I am.

In another conversation I said I was published.


This is from our exchange yesterday, Kane:

Doan:
And you are a published researcher

Kane:
Yes.

Doan:
with shelves full of research studies
right, Kane? ;-)

Kane:
Yes.

When are you going to stop this STUPID LYING habit of yours, Kane? Like I
said, Kane I don't accuse other people of lying without proof! I have
proven you are a STUPID liar REPEATEDLY!

I am a published gardener.

I have not published ON gardening.

I am a published researcher.

I have not published on research, though I have researched TO publish.

It' s called 'fact finding.'

And that's common knowledge.

Hahaha. HOw STUPID can you be, KANE? Did you not claimed you are
a "published researcher"? If you did then I can not be lying when
I said you claimed so. You OWE me a public apology for FALSELY
accusing me so. Are you man enough to do so? ;-)

Doan