If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
I think you all are overlooking a very important bit of information in your
posts. I've posted the relevant link below (and, yes, a followup for each thread, so I'm posting this at least thrice). http://tinyurl.com/u6ht Steve ---- See the e-mail version of my resource postings and archives at: http://surge.ods.org/lists/resource.htm See permissions for reposting at http://surge.ods.org/permission.htm |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
In article , Steve Saus
wrote: I think you all are overlooking a very important bit of information in your posts. I've posted the relevant link below (and, yes, a followup for each thread, so I'm posting this at least thrice). http://tinyurl.com/u6ht Steve ---- See the e-mail version of my resource postings and archives at: http://surge.ods.org/lists/resource.htm See permissions for reposting at http://surge.ods.org/permission.htm It was interesting reading the various posts on this subject. However, the sad truth is that many state and federal court judges don't pay any attention to the Constitution or "original intent"--they just make rulings based upon their liberal thinking processes. The best example is Roe vs. Wade--the Supreme Court judges determined that abortion was legal. Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution but the judges made up the "right to privacy" and even that right is not mentioned in the Constitution. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
"Gerald Alborn" wrote in message ... Dennis Hancock wrote: "Gerald Alborn" wrote in message ... Dennis Hancock wrote: The absolute nonsense is in your assertion. You have asserted that Kane's knowledge IS faulty. Well, whether his knowledge really is or isn't faulty, you are unable to take the next step and substantiate your assertion by showing how you have proven that it is faulty or how you know that it is faulty. The only next step you would be able to take is to say "But his knowledge is not consistent with my beliefs!" So instead, you offer nothing to substantiate your statement because you have nothing to offer, except that spanking has been acceptable throughout history, which is not necessarily a true statement. But if it were true, how does that validate it as an acceptable practice? Smoking and drinking have been around for a long time too. Does that somehow mean they are not harmful? Yawn.. Do you have a clue as to any sort of relevance in debating, or do you simply stand up for anyone who makes any sort of claim so long as you believe as they do? You can't simply answer my question, can you? When someone makes what appears to be a false statement, I ask that they back themselves up with some kind of substantiation. If they can't do that and they end up with egg on their face, sorry, that's just the way it goes. So, you can provide no basis for your statement? DUH... Kane's assertions are so lame and weak that they defeat themselves. His 'brain scan' studies were shown to be completely false by Michael Morris, and his psychological studies come straight from non spanking websites which clearly have an agenda and are completely biased. HE made the assertions, and through basic common sense, I have disputed them. He has flip flopped back and forth, and yet you ask ME to disprove what HE has claimed. Sorry guy, THAT is not the way debates work. Only a complete fool or moron would simply accept what someone 'claims' to be fact as truth, and ask those disputing it for 'proof'. Besides, life itself has shown anyone with a bit of common sense that his logic is completely flawed. Second chance: What knowledge of Kane's is faulty? How have you established that it's faulty? Please go back and re-read my first paragraph where I questioned your assertion that Kane's knowledge is faulty, and try again. I predict you'll continue dancing. Dancing? LOL Are you even a parent, or have you ever even HAD a child. Faulty logic #!... one cannot 'talk' to a one or two year old, and even Kane claims that their brains are not developed enough until the age of 6. (where the hell he got that number is unknown, as I've seen many able to formulate concise thought and reasoning at a younger age). Faulty logic #2...That a parent can possibly just sit by and watch as his child climbs a fence where an angry bull is and HOPE that nothing happens, and calmy 'talk to them' afterwards.. LOL.. Faulty logic #3..that one can combine spanking with abuse and treat them the same. That there is no 'difference' or the differences are so subtle that he wants to ignore them. An attempt to gain high moral ground through dishonesty. Faulty logic #4...that one can simply give their very young child a safe place to play.. avoids the issue that most (if not all) children are very inquisitive and many are hyperactive and are surely not going to stay in place.. that one can 'show' their child not to do things which are unsafe when he clearly admits their little brains are not fully developed.. How much more evidence do you want that he is nothing more than a bull****ter? In my eyes, and Im quite sure the majority of parents here, HE is the abuser or at the very least, a very negligent parent based upon HIS o wn stories about his child and the bull. Im sure he would have had second thoughts had the bull charged his daughter.. his lame assed ideas wouldn't have worked now would they? I and many others have shown the faulty logic of Kane, over and over again, and he has flip flopped time and time again. It really appears you are confusing the "faulty logic of others" with knowledge that "runs contrary to your firmly-rooted beliefs," as I was saying before. No, that appears to be exactly what YOU are doing. Any idiot who asks someone to show proof for their claims while blindly accepting the claims of others as truth, even when they have been challenged time and time again by others. I haven't read every post here over the past six months. If you've shown that Kane's knowledge is faulty, and I seriously doubt that you have, it shouldn't be that difficult to post it again. I've known Kane on this ng for several years and I've never glimpsed any faulty logic nor lies nor false information coming from him. Your statement apparently cannot be validated. Is that why you're trying to switch the focus of this discussion? If you haven't read the posts, why should I bother to go back and repost them for your benefit? That's total ****ing nonsense. They are all googled for your browing I am not the one trying to switch the focus of this discussion, it is you. If you are to come in at the end of a discussion and want to join in, isnt it YOUR responsibility to see that you have all the facts to back up your statements? Aren't YOU the one who claimed that Kane has a wealth of 'experience' in this field? YOU, as Kane, also attempt to confuse spanking with abuse.. and by doing so, are trying to put in an argument which has no merit. From reading ahead in your post, I already see why you're confusing spanking with abuse. You're relying on legal definition. That only holds up in a place where spanking is legal and abuse is defined as hurting children to a degree worse than some arbitrary limit, set by the lawmakers of a particular place. It has nothing to do with true abuse: causing damage, either physical or emotional. Are you really content with damage caused to children, as long as the law allows it? No.. again, you want to portray anyone who uses spanking as either a teaching method for toddlers, or a disciplinary method for older children as some kind of monster, just as Kane has unsuccessfully attempted. What it boils down to is that people like you and Kane will hang onto every word by anyone who wants to get published and push it as fact.. in an attempt to take away parental rights to raise their children as they see fit. (and this does NOT include abuse outside of the legal definitions).. See, YOU have done the exact same thing that Kane has attempted.. to refuse to accept the legal definition of abuse as what myself and many many others consider abusive as well. You thought you could squeeze some sort of flip flopping out of me by asking for a definition, but that ploy didn't work. How ****ing stupid do you and Kane think we are in this group? I haven't fully assessed that yet. Apparently, you have since you come into a homeschool newsgroup and try to ursurp parental rights to raise their children in the way they see fit. A 'retired Air Force Colonel', who has also spent his life working with children, who has little or no concept of discipline or how it works. Dennis, you need to be more careful when you post false claims. Some of us can see right through you. DUH.. Jerry, KANE is the one who made those claims, not I.. YOU made the claims that he has so much 'experience'.. and that I was ignoring it. Kane has repeatedly attempted to try to impress people with his credentials, but they have been questioned time and time again only to have him weasle his way around and flip flop back and forth. a retured Air force colonel, who raised a family, raised dogs, trained horses, slummed with the 'rich and powerful' who never spank, and he has used his methods on their children.. LOL.. Grow up and learn to realize when your being bull****ted by a bull****ter kiddo. I've had enough of your nonsense for one day. -Jerry- Then stay the hell out of the discussion if you don't like it. I've had enough of your nonsense as well. You blindly follow a fool who makes wild claims, then ask others to post proof that his claims are not valid.. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
He's too blinded Doan. He wants US to disprove Kane's claims, and is too
lazy to go back and read the nonsense for himself. "Doan" wrote in message ... On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, Gerald Alborn wrote: Dennis Hancock wrote: "Gerald Alborn" wrote in message ... Dennis Hancock wrote: The absolute nonsense is in your assertion. You have asserted that Kane's knowledge IS faulty. Well, whether his knowledge really is or isn't faulty, you are unable to take the next step and substantiate your assertion by showing how you have proven that it is faulty or how you know that it is faulty. The only next step you would be able to take is to say "But his knowledge is not consistent with my beliefs!" So instead, you offer nothing to substantiate your statement because you have nothing to offer, except that spanking has been acceptable throughout history, which is not necessarily a true statement. But if it were true, how does that validate it as an acceptable practice? Smoking and drinking have been around for a long time too. Does that somehow mean they are not harmful? Yawn.. Do you have a clue as to any sort of relevance in debating, or do you simply stand up for anyone who makes any sort of claim so long as you believe as they do? You can't simply answer my question, can you? When someone makes what appears to be a false statement, I ask that they back themselves up with some kind of substantiation. If they can't do that and they end up with egg on their face, sorry, that's just the way it goes. So, you can provide no basis for your statement? Second chance: What knowledge of Kane's is faulty? How have you established that it's faulty? Please go back and re-read my first paragraph where I questioned your assertion that Kane's knowledge is faulty, and try again. I predict you'll continue dancing. Hi, Gerald. You might want to look at some of Kane's posts regarding the Maurer study. He even claimed that spanking is NOT physical punishment! Doan |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
Thanks Steve. Now Jerry can see for himself that Kane is a fool, but I
doubt it very seriously. He expects us to continue to repost things for him and hangs on kane's every word. Wouldn't be too surprised if it weren't kane himself using an alter ego. "Steve Saus" wrote in message ... I think you all are overlooking a very important bit of information in your posts. I've posted the relevant link below (and, yes, a followup for each thread, so I'm posting this at least thrice). http://tinyurl.com/u6ht Steve ---- See the e-mail version of my resource postings and archives at: http://surge.ods.org/lists/resource.htm See permissions for reposting at http://surge.ods.org/permission.htm |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
"Kane" wrote in message om... On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:30:28 GMT, "Dennis Hancock" wrote: "Gerald Alborn" wrote in message ... Dennis Hancock wrote: No Gerald, it is KANE who has made a lot of claims. Consider the absolute nonsense of what you propose.. KANE claims that a practice which has been acceptable throughout history is harmful, yet you want ME to substantiate that it is not??? The absolute nonsense is in your assertion. You have asserted that Kane's knowledge IS faulty. Well, whether his knowledge really is or isn't faulty, you are unable to take the next step and substantiate your assertion by showing how you have proven that it is faulty or how you know that it is faulty. The only next step you would be able to take is to say "But his knowledge is not consistent with my beliefs!" So instead, you offer nothing to substantiate your statement because you have nothing to offer, except that spanking has been acceptable throughout history, which is not necessarily a true statement. But if it were true, how does that validate it as an acceptable practice? Smoking and drinking have been around for a long time too. Does that somehow mean they are not harmful? Yawn.. Do you have a clue as to any sort of relevance in debating, or do you simply stand up for anyone who makes any sort of claim so long as you believe as they do? What is it in Alborn's post that suggests his debate lacks relevance? I and many others have shown the faulty logic of Kane, over and over again, and he has flip flopped time and time again. I found no such showing of faulty logic. Nor have I flip flopped. If one could pursuade me I might change my mind, but not otherwise. YOU, as Kane, also attempt to confuse spanking with abuse.. There is no confusion involved. You simply refuse to answer those logical questions I've posed. YOU may not think it abusive but others do. More and more evidence, some of which I've offered, is coming down on the side of unecessary injury being part of "spanking." 150-200 lb adults "spanking" 40 lb children comes to mind, and you haven't responded to that example with anything but hubrus filled nonsense statements. and by doing so, are trying to put in an argument which has no merit. Rather a lot of research and debate has been made here and in other forums to an argument you claim has no merit. KANE claims that he has so damned much 'experience' when it eventually boiled down to his own limited observations. My observations aren't limited. For decades, he's worked in a field where he's gained a wealth of experience associated with this topic. Except for the fact that his experience runs counter to what you want to believe, what do you have that counters the knowledge he has gained from his experience? "But his knowledge is not consistent with my beliefs," doesn't cut it. BULL****.. He's been shown to be a liar time and time again. You can show my lies? So far you simply make the claim. No proof even when it should be readily available in these ngs. I have worked in with children for ages. I find that difficult to believe. But of you say so. That doesn't mean that you have done good or effective work with children. Some teachers and practitioners are the instigators and source for some very abusive attacks on children in the name of discipline. Consider your 'expert' in his field... he's a damned horse trainer.. Was. I haven't trained horses since about 1968. and he's 'worked' with children of the rich and powerful. IF that's true, they must not be so rich and powerful if they allow a horse trainer to tend to the emotional needs of their children. Try to imagine time as a continuum, not all happening at once, and you might figure out that I've done different things at different times. Sometimes overlapping, sometimes not. Interestingly, the rich and powerful entrusted their charges to me when I was a horse trainer and coach. I don't recall any confusion about what my task was at that time with my tasks later in life after different education and a career change. How ****ing stupid do you and Kane think we are in this group? Most don't descend to your level of stupidity. And I'm completely unable to gauge the exact level of yours, but you are providing considerably more data to work with as you continue. A 'retired Air Force Colonel', You were very smart to put that in single inverted commas rather than double quotes. It might be construed, though you are misusing them, to mean that you aren't making a direct quote. As apostrophes they do not apply, and as single quotes they are inaccurate unless used to quote a quote inside a string that is double inverted commas, our common "quotation marks." And: I never claimed to be a colonel in the USAF. Where did you find a rank for me mentioned? Even a corporal can be in command and that is all I mentioned that could be possibly construed as a rank. who has also spent his life working with children, Except for when I was a child myself that is close to true. Either that or teaching others who work with children later in life. who has little or no concept of discipline or how it works. On the contrary. I've spent a good deal of my professional life doing just that. Even when I was a horse trainer and a riding coach I had to give a great deal of consideration to how children learn and how to teach them. I was paid rather well by their parents to do so. Why do I get the impression that you confuse "discipline" to teach, with "punishment" to hurt? Give me a break. Consider yourself broken. KANE claimed that rich or powerful people never spanked their children, I've asked you to point out where I said "never spanked." You have failed to find such a statement by me. It's becoming pretty apparent you have no credibility and will lie for just about any reason that suits you. (based upon his own fraternizing with a few in his lifetime) I've lived a very long time, and I have associated with and been among the wealthy myself. Now I'm just very comfortable. The latter half of my life was spent in service and that's not often as profitable as my earlier business ventures. and wants proof that throughout history of ANY of the great leaders being spanked. Well? So far, nothing from you but blather. From my observations, most people (in the US) have embraced spanking, but the ones who spank the most, the hardest, and are the most abusive and unreasonable with their parenting methods are the uneducated, the poor, the less powerful, etc. Did Kane actually say that rich and powerful people never spank? From real examples, I know that's untrue and I'd be really surprised if you could show me where Kane actually said that. Just google back and you'll see that he has repeatedly How many repeats did I do? made the claim that he's 'known and associated with the rich and powerful for many years and that there is no evidence that they ever embraced spanking or corporal punishment for their children'. Is that a direct quote? If so why the inverted single commas again? I believe you are lying. Misquoting me. Of course, for one who only reads what they want to read, and interprets it as they see fit, you certainly would miss a lot of the nonsense he has put forth. R R R R R R .. goodun' Common sense would tell you that the wealthy and powerful would not stray from acceptable practices of the period, and in fact, most literature points out that many were schooled in private institutions, most of which DID in fact, use corporal punishment for disciplinary actions. Show me where Kane said the rich and powerful never spank. LOL.. are you blind? He has stated it in several recent posts. I doubt Gerald is blind but I am concerned you might be losing your sight. Surely you can, instead of the evasive weaseling, you can come up with a post, point to it, and quote it where I say that the rish and powerful never spank. We are waiting. Then, both you and he avoid the separation between a swat on the behind with the open hand as a means Where is this the only description of spanking? I've seen everything from the minimalist definition you just offered to outright beating with a wooden paddle defined as spanking. On the other hand I've also asked you do show where hitting a child, regardless of what you rename it, does NOT risk unwanted side effects, and I've asked you to explain the Embry study with something other than your perposterious claim that the researcher just said anything he liked to get published. He risked negative peer review, and I'm unable to find any. Often that suggests that his peers couldn't find any problem with methodology or outcome. of teaching a young child to avoid a dangerous situation, and the use of spanking for older children to instill discipline, with outright abuse. It is. And pain to a small child equates only with the most immediate and proximal objects in the enviroment...and when you hit YOU are the closest to the child. They don't learn to fear the street, they learn to fear YOU. The only separation is the degree of abuse. The only dangerous situation you teach a young child about with spanking is that the parent is dangerous and that the child must use caution when the parent is present. If he's going to do behavior that's questionable, he's likely to wait until the perceived danger (the parent) isn't present. No, again you are completely dishonest. Oh? I think Gerald is reflecting both his experience and the study of researchers. Even the behaviorists recognize that pain is not a useful motivator in most circumstances. You want to portray ALL spanking as abuse, The argument could be made, and research is pursuing that direction. The problem with "spanking" is that you are confining yourself to YOUR definition and ignoring that others have quite different ones. Though even your definition might not work for different children. Would you, for instance, use spanking with an autistic child? Some people have tried it. Would you use it with a child who is bi-polar, or suffering from clinical depression? Can you tell, without professional assessment, when a child might suffer from developmental delays or disabilities or mental illness? My point being: why spank even if other methods were only equal to spanking in effectiveness? (And the prove in studies to be superior.) and TRY to portray that there is no difference. That has not been the thrust of my argument. I have said that there are similar characteristics. There is a difference of course. The spankers lie to themselves and the world that there is little no chance of damage. Read yourself in this thread. It was YOU who came up with the complete nonsense that disciplining a child or trying to keep them from dangerous situations is 'imposing the will of a controlling adult' on them... such utter nonsense. It is imposing the will of a controlling adult. So are all forms of discipline. The problem is not the controlling, but the intent. I don't know why anyone even bothers with your OR Kane. Do you think yourself so well regarded in these ngs that your opinion will sway the thoughtful reader from giving our argument consideration? Only a fool would spank his two year old for venturing into the street, and thereafter, believe the child is now safe to leave alone near the street. You can't pass the responsibility for young children's safety to them if they're too young to accept that responsibility. If he's your child, his safety is your responsibility. There's no getting around that. When he's mature enough to accept responsibility for his own safety, he's not going to have to be spanked to accept that. LOL.. You my friend are the fool if you think you can 'talk' to a two year old and keep them from venturing into the street. I have repeatedly (more than once) mentioned that I don't "'talk'" to a child to teach them not to run into the street. I talk to them so they have information stored up for later when they can understand and make connections. It's a respectful courtesy to the child and her develomental progress. But you have repeatedly stated that their brains are not developed enough for reasoned thinking. So, let's see, you are proposing 'brainwashing' techniques on small children? This again, another flip flop. YOU have stated that studies show that nagging a child not to do something encourages them to do it first chance they get. Digging your hole deeper guy. The way I teach a child to not run into the street is the same as the model Embrey offerred, and tested thoroughly. Simple linear instruction with positives. I teach a child to find the place that is safe to play. Or I confine her to that place myself. And you simply stand by when they leave that safe place and put themselves in danger as you did with your daughter? Again, I will repeat, I am happy that your child did not suffer severe injury, but you provided ample evidence that your theories do not always work. You, like Kane seem to think that children don't even have the instictive sense which many animals exhibit to learn from even slight pain and discomfort that something can be injurious to them. I never said any such thing. In fact I pointed out that that is in fact the use of natural consequences in teaching. It can be used up to the point it has too high a risk of injury or death. In fact the child is heavily invested in that exploration as a matter of course. Nature drives the child to it. And your recollections of your daughter's incident shows that your theories can be just as dangerous and deadly. Yet morons like yourself think that Kane did the 'right' thing by sitting back on his sorry ass while his daughter climbed up on a fence, I did not simply sit. If you had read and understood I pointed out that no matter how attentive the parent children will sooner or later get out of their direct supervision. It happens all day long and usually with no consequences of any kind, other than the child got to do a little exploring. But, you were quite quick to point out, when I and others brought up the topic that you give a safe place to play and closely supervise them. The inference was clearly there that if the child wandered off, the parent was somehow negligent, yet you cannot even see that same fact in your own example. in clear cut jepardy of being mauled by a bull an did absolutely nothing .... Nothing? That's odd. I distinctly recall carefully relating how I DID NOT go flying off in a way that would startle or frighten her so that they might lose the concentration and focus she needed to continue to maintain her balance. You were frozen with fear then? You did not state that you did anything to save her, only that you calmly talked to her afterwards. I'm sure you are greatful that nothing happened, but from what little you've given us, we have nothing to show that your 'methods' had anything to do with saving her life. ANY parent worth their salt would have gotten their child out of harms way immediately, even if it meant putting themselves in danger. My danger was not at issue. I was in none, but had she fallen into the pasture I would have gone it, though my guess our Heeler would have been their long before me driving the bulls away from that area. He already had alerted on her and that is what drew my attention. I would certainly hope so. As with my example, my young nephew was running full blast towards a six foot drop onto a concrete slab, looking back and thinking it was fun. I did not have the luxury of standing back and watching for if I had, he would surely have crushed his skull. Did I give him a swat on the butt after I caught him, just as his foot went over the edge.. You bet I did. I have dealt with hundreds and hundreds of children, both abused and non abused, and I can assure you, most of the parents in this group can tell you that each child responds differently and no one single method works for every child, even within the same family. Define what you mean by "works." By works, do you mean "makes parenting and life easier for the parent?" Apparently, you have never been a parent or you wouldn't ask such a lame assed question. Apparently you didn't read his posts prior to this one you respond to. You have a terrible time with remembering, don't you? No, it WAS a lame question. Anyone who thinks that teaching a child is simply imposing a controlling will on them is way out in space somewhere. Or, "makes the child obedient to the parent's will?" Geez.. what a stupid assertion. I suppose YOU let your child make every decision for themselves.. That is complete irresponsibility from any decent parent's viewpoint. What is it about what he said that makes you think or accuse him of letting a child make every decision for themselves? Gee Kane, your comprehensive skills are as lacking as his. Do you even ****ing know what a rhetorical question is? Any attempt at parenting is called imposing one's will on them.. lol.. Children make many decisions without any input from others. Yawn.. again, your attempt at attacking every single sentence in the hopes of obscuring the issues is quite weak indeed. OF COURSE THEY DO.. how the hell is that relevent to this discussion, unless of course you want to abrigate your parental duties and let the child raise himself? He is, if I am not mistaken, referring to teaching and learning situations that might arise that include the parent, by choice, or by request, or by necessity. no, you are mistaken.. again. Or, "makes the child "act" in ways that please the parent?" Or, "allows the parent to break the child's will?" I believe my definition of "works" is probably quite different from yours. What's your definition? YOu sir are a complete and utter ass. The braying seem to be coming out of yours. At least my head's not stuck in it as yours appears to be. Apparently, you are more concerned with YOUR needs than your childs. He is so more concerned about his own needs that he would take the time to learn how to parent without using pain, fear, and humiliation. LOL.. no, he doesn't want to be bothered with the child. YOu sure love those words pain, fear and humiliation don't you.. Any moron who thinks that they can simply tell a child not to go into the street at a very young age is completely irresponsible and dangerous to that child. Any moron who thanks that is all there is to it is not reading and is so locked up in his own world view he is unable to consider any other possibilities. Yep, sounds like you indeed. Close minded and linear thinking. One size fits all. If you recall Gerald opened his first contribution to this thread by discussing his use of spanking and punishment parenting his own children. He did not find it producing the results he wanted or he thought best for his children. And had he found that not spanking didn't work, that would be his choice and his parental rights. But to attempt to portray all spankers as abusers and simply imposing a controlling will on a child, as both you and he have tried to do is completely dishonest and an attempt to shove your concepts on parenting upon others. Expanding his repertoire didn't just give him more tools but made it very apparent to him that the punishment mode was unecessary and very likely detrimental to his children. Others have done and found exactly the same thing. Again, a claim you do not substantiate. "others" attempts to assume that everyone or most follow and agree with your assertions. Just as I can most assuredly state that "Others" have found that non spanking does not produce the results they desire and that some children are much more manipulative than others. You, like Kane have a very limited conception of the reality of children testing the limits to see what they can and cannot get away with. On the contrary. I've seen the child overcontrolled by the parent, especially boys, test more and more the more punishment they received. It's a force of nature. If your own children are cowed by your delivering of pain and humiliation do you consider that a success? LOL.. another flip flop. Now you admit that children test the limits.. yet most psychologists claim that children actually WANT limits to be set, and that by avoiding that, and avoiding the imposition of any consequences is dangerous and makes them feel unloved. When non spanking and positive encourgement do not work, I suppose you just give up and let the child do as they please? And you consider that a success? I found all the children I worked with, and parented personally, highly respectful of me and my opinions. And it was not because they feared me, but because they didn't. The rare exceptions were children who had been punishment raised before I met them, and most of those I turned around with non-pain non-punishment parenting. I was a martial arts instructor for well over 25 years and most of the children and adults I worked with respected me and did not fear me. I imposed phyiscal hardships on them in training for disciplinary purposes, but they soon learned that I was not abusive nor would I purposely injure them. So what is your point? Do you make your child do pushups if they are bad? Or do you pat them on the head and say please don't do it again. Some of us accept that parenting is difficult and that there's no shortcut that's going to make it easier. I personally didn't want my children to be non-thinking robots who responded to me automatically to avoid pain. You assume they do not have the ability to learn that there are consequences associated with their actions. You demean them as less than animals if you think they simply respond to pain and simply learning to fear you. That is again, only dealing with the truly abusive parent and not applicable to this discussion. You attempt continually to portray all spanking as abuse. No, I suppose you would prefer to see them laying dead because you did not do your job as a parent and teach them to avoid dangerous situations. I would prefer not to see them laying dead because they had to, driven by nature, sneak around and try things I had failed to teach them to handle more effectively. A weasle answer if I ever heard one. You've forgotten the outcome of the fence climbing episode, haven't you? In fact my daughter was so concerned for my opinion and feelings I had to encourage her to be a bit more adventerous and trust herself more. A small thing easily dealt with, but it shows, at least to me, that our relationship was far more important in her development than strick adherence to my control of her. That would have done a hell of a lot of good had she been gored by the bull while you sat back and watched. Perhaps had you given her a swat on the butt, she may not have climbed that fence to begin with. I preferred them to grow up to be fully capable of thinking for themselves. You mean being manipulative little *******s who know they can get their way and not have any consequences from daddy because he doesn't care enough to discipline them or set limits for them. Neither of my children, now in the late 30's and mid 40's turned out that way. Both are quite responsible, capable, and pleasant to be around. Well, we have to accept your word on that now don't we? What's the real point, other that blind selfishness, in having them put on behavioral "acts" in your presence and for your benefit? Bull****. If you believe that, then you are truly beyond any sense of rationality. If you believe parenting responsibly without hurt and humiliation of the child produces manipulative adults then you "are beyond any sense of rationality." There comes the hurt and humiliation bull**** again. Sound like a broken record. People get humilitated throughout their lives. Its when they dont learn to handle it, we have explosive situations occur. Poor *******s like yourself cannot understand the harm you are doing, and want to portray yourself as some kind of hero to the child and everyone else is an abusive ass.. You are pathetic. No one is proposing abusive treatment of children, as you and Kane seem to try to portray and you cannot capture the high moral ground by avoiding the distinction between abuse and spanking. Sure you are. Tell me what you think the dividing line is between abuse and spanking? DUH.. dumbass.. the laws are quite clear and concise on what constitutes abuse and corporal punishment. Excuse me? Please point us to the laws so we can read them for ourselves. And we will point out to you the inconsistency of their application from place to place and time to time. Any striking of the child with anything other than the palm of the open hand, ANYWHERE other than the behind is abusive. There are about 24 states that make it perfectly legal for school personnel to use a paddle on children. And there are plenty that do NOT rule out the use of objects. Name them please, or show me a link which states they exist. The criteria is damage caused, not objects used. Thanks for showing everyone that you are doing EXACTLY what I said you and Kane were doing, attempting to gain high moral ground by dishonestly accusing others of promoting violence and abuse, when I have repeatedly stated that I am not in favor of abuse, You may repeatedly state anything you wish, but you promote abuse by failing to define spanking as it is used in this society. In fact you mis-define it, and thus, you are either terribly ignorant or a liar or neurotic. AHH.. there it is folks.. I am promoting abuse.. another lie by Kane which shows his true nature. He asks for a definition then refuses to accept it. It doesn't fit with his mentality that any kind of discipline is not necessarily abuse. but by attempting to lump the two together, you think it will make your position more viable. Given that spanking is NOT defined in your narrow way, nor can you prove that your way of spanking doesn't not produce injury in some children, and studies such as Embry's show you to be dead wrong, I'd say you are the one straining at your stool. ahh. but it IS defined in my narrow way. It is defined LEGALLY. Again I repeat since your tiny brain cannot assimilate the information, anyone who exceeds the legal definition of corporal punishment is criminally negligent and should be brought to task. Kinda blows you off your moral high horse don't it? You are too obvious. I should hope so. That is my objective, though I can't speak for Alborn. I want it to be so obious that I have my opinion on this issue and that I have gone to considerable effort to examine it for a very long time. Maybe you should stop examining and take a look at real life. I argue vehemently because it is precisely this nonsense that people like yourself and Kane try to imply that all spanking is abusive by avoiding the separation of such and attempt to put yourselves upon high moral ground. Again, I want to know what you think the dividing line is between abuse and spanking. How do you define abuse? I already have.. Time and time again. And your definition doesn't stand up. It stands up in any court of law throughout the nation. Again, you prove time and time again that you are a liar and an agenda here. You continue to show your complete lack of reading comprehension. On the contrary, both Alborn and myself comprehend your posts very well. You fail again and again to make any sense. You lie. You miscontrue. You fail to provide anything relevant but that this is an ancient practice that should stand on that alone. I fail to make sense? LOL. You've twisted, turned and backpeddled on every issue. You think taking every sentence and attacking it, or trying to use the same wording to somehow give validity as your stance is going to sway anyone. So was chattel slavery. So was the notion the earth is flat. So was the idea that objects have spirits inside them. Yawn, more nonsense. And I DO take a long hard look at the truth and how people like you have created a generation of children who lack respect or discipline in their lives simply because you've coddled them to the point of not being able to deal with reality. But what do you actually see through your blindfold of deeply rooted, misconceived beliefs that have no basis in reality? You're certainly not looking at truth. Try taking the blindfold off by asking yourself why you must maintain a tight grip on your beliefs. I'm blinded? lol Nope, it is you and your lil friend Kane who continue to misconstrue everything that is said, Please show what you have said that I have miscontrued. flip flop back and forth And my flips and flops. I tire of your nonsense.. I think most here have recognized them as i've pointed them out time and time again. and try to put up straw men by trying to get others to 'back up' or substantiate your bull**** claims, which you and he have made. I don't have to try to bet others to. Embry and others, and my own experience, do so. yeah, funny YOU claimed you had so much 'experience'. If you have read this group for any length of time, you would know I have changed my position on several major issues when others have shown a logical and reasonable reason for their beliefs. No. I haven't found that. I'd be pleased to see where you have, but I don't think it terribly relevant to THIS discussion. On this discussion you are very badly stuck. If you have gone from non-spanking to spanking you might have a more cogent argument, but you've offerred only the same tired old failed arguments of the rabid pro spanking faction. Yawn.. then you prove yourself to be a liar as well as you've claimed to be 'lurking' here for a long time now. But people like you and Kane What are we like? continue to lie Point out the lie please. and attempt to portray any and all discipline of children as abusive.. Now there is a beauty of a strawman. No, we have done no such thing. We point out that our parenting is also discipline. You have yet to show that in any way. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
"Kane" wrote in message om... "Dennis Hancock" wrote in message news:aYtqb.129813$Tr4.335985@attbi_s03... "Kane" wrote in message om... "Dennis Hancock" wrote in message news:jbwpb.73763$ao4.201937@attbi_s51... Putting a heavy backpack and forced twenty mile hikes is not a 'pysical punishment'.. lol As I mentioned in the post, Jonesie, an adult has recourse a child doesn't. I didn't claim anything in particular WASN'T physical punishment, only that adults have choices children do not. Kane said: So why didn't you answer my response? You claimed I said that such things as your example was not "'pysical'" (sic) punishment. Are you prepared to back that up with a direct quote of me, with reference to the post where I said it? Again, you show what a LIAR you truly are. I never made that statement and you cannot show it. First, I responded to another post whereby the poster claimed that physical punishment is not used in the services.. I stated that it was. It was YOU who stated that one cannot "strike" an enlisted man in a weak attempt to dispute my claim that physical punishment does indeed exist as a discipline in the armed services. I answered your post by asking if you did not consider forced 20 mile hikes with full gear and forced calesthentics were not painful. You show how much of a weasel you can be. Who in the hell is Jonsie.. I don't hide behind an anonymous name. What you see is what you get fella. Kane stated: Interesting. You have all the earmarks. Jonesie always tried to bluff it out for a few posts before even he had to admit who he was, or rather what he was. A troll. Amusing.. now you want to try to portray me as some imagined 'nemesis' you encountered in the past as if that somehow validates your own position. I've made a hell of a lot more than a few posts and certainly not shown or admitted to being a troll. In fact, your posting in a homeschool newsgroup an attempt to ursurp parental rights pretty much puts you in that category quite clearly. You might try googling on your own name in USENET groups and see how many posts you come up with. Less than 200. You are either a very new poster, which I doubt, or you recently changed your name. Jonesie has had many names. Again, you attempt to associate me with this Jonsie character.. Lol.. what a lame assed attempt. Funny thng is, I've seen others in here accuse YOU of switching names and posting the same bull**** across the ng's.. I seldom come in here and only for laughs when I see idiots like yourself posting nonsense. If you aren't him you are a good enough clone of him. I am myself but from what I've seen so far, you apparently have a few clones yourself. By the way, I was on to your troll about 18 of your posts back. Your style hasn't changed in all these years. Amazing, you were 'on' to me.. lol.. I haven't even been in these newsgroups 'all these years'.. shows what a ****ing moron you truly are. Not under your current name you haven't. As of today you have only 171 posts to your credit. Jonesie was known to post hundreds upon hundreds before giving himself up. He once had, if I recollect, the record for number of posts to a trolling thread he created or joined. It was in talk.politics.guns as I recall. Do you realize what a total ****ing idiot you are making of yourself? DUH.. IF I were this ****ing Jonesie character, who tried to set a record for posts, why the hell would I only have 171 posts under this name? LOL.. I only post in two newsgroups to date, and then only on occassion. I DO however read them and respond. If you have some paranoia about some nemesis, who probably made an utter ass of you as well, then that's your ****ing problem guy. Until about five years ago, I limited myself to local bulletin boards and since then, mainly chat rooms. And this is the first time I've ever engaged you in a debate so apparently, you are having even more delusions to try to uphold your convictions. Sure. The problem for you is your name not showing up. My name shows up on every ng I post in, what's your excuse? Paranoia running rampant? It was the blatant attempts to do exactly what you accused me of, an old iJones number from years ago. Nope.. you sir, are a ****ing liar... AGAIN. Sounds just like Jonesie. Then he musta been onto you just as I am. What would I be lying about? I merely speculated. My name on here is my real name, Even if it's the name on your birth certificate it's not real in electronic media. You can be anyone you want here. In fact you can't portray what you are really like in this mode. People have written autobiographies and failed utterly at portraying who they really are. No ****. I've been around computer bulletin boards long enough and met enough of the people Ive debated in real life to better understand that than most. What does this have to do with your false accusations that I am somehow your old nemesis? Falling short on debating tactics? I have nothing to hide, and I have never engaged you in debate prior to this one. Period. That's nice. I don't believe you. Beleive what you want.. I've already stated that I think you are a liar and a **** poor parent based upon what nonsense you've posted. But it was fun while it lasted. Who trolled who..r r r r Kane Apparently, you.. dumbass. Kinda losing it, eh? I trolled you, or I was trolled by you. Which is it? Kane You blew it completely Kane. Your paranoia threw you for a loop. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
Dennis Hancock wrote:
"Gerald Alborn" wrote in message ... Dennis Hancock wrote: You can't simply answer my question, can you? When someone makes what appears to be a false statement, I ask that they back themselves up with some kind of substantiation. If they can't do that and they end up with egg on their face, sorry, that's just the way it goes. So, you can provide no basis for your statement? DUH... Kane's assertions are so lame and weak that they defeat themselves. Thank you for further demonstrating that you can provide no basis for what you've asserted. If you haven't read the posts, why should I bother to go back and repost them for your benefit? Well you shouldn't, actually. Aside from the fact that you can't repost what isn't there, it helps to show everyone what your level of integrity is. Let's just leave it at that. That's total ****ing nonsense. They are all googled for your browing FYI, I searched google for Kane's words stating that he was a retired Air Force Colonel, as you claimed. Google shows no record of him ever saying such a thing. It's quite clear why you don't want to pull up googled posts to substantiate your statements. Grow up and learn to realize when your being bull****ted by a bull****ter kiddo. I seem to be doing that quite well, thank you. -Jerry- |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 01:05:03 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
wrote: "Kane" wrote in message . com... snip......... I have repeatedly (more than once) mentioned that I don't "'talk'" to a child to teach them not to run into the street. I talk to them so they have information stored up for later when they can understand and make connections. It's a respectful courtesy to the child and her develomental progress. But you have repeatedly stated that their brains are not developed enough for reasoned thinking. Apparently you use terms you do not understand. The only "reasoning" that children below six do is linear and to please the parent, especially if the parent wants to think their child has the cognitive ability to reason abstractly. So, let's see, you are proposing 'brainwashing' techniques on small children? I don't see anything in my statement that suggests "'brainwashing'" specifically or in general. Do you consider it "brain washing" to provide your child with new information? This again, another flip flop. Please explain. YOU have stated that studies show that nagging a child not to do something encourages them to do it first chance they get. Digging your hole deeper guy. I do not believe, since I don't know of any such studies, I said that. I believe I mentioned that parents, and when I say this I usually say "mothers," observe that young children tend to do what they are asked NOT to do. How would I be digging myself a deeper hole when I havent' said what you claim? Simple observation shows that toddlers tend to not hear the instruction just the linear referrences. "Don't jump on the bed" seems to be heard as "jump on the bed," etc. The way I teach a child to not run into the street is the same as the model Embrey offerred, and tested thoroughly. Simple linear instruction with positives. I teach a child to find the place that is safe to play. Or I confine her to that place myself. And you simply stand by when they leave that safe place and put themselves in danger as you did with your daughter? Why would I just stand by? What in my post suggests that I would do such a thing other than your ardent wish that I would and my child be killed so you could be proved correct? My child is alive. I probably would have been accused of being a hovering parent in that I supervised very well. I pointed out to you, and you apparently can't see certain words in my posts, that even the most attentive of parents will occasionally have a child get away from them. Again, I will repeat, I am happy that your child did not suffer severe injury, but you provided ample evidence that your theories do not always work. Nothing is 100%. I don't believe your concern for my child. My theories are not theories. They are proven practices not only by me but others. It is an extreme rarity to find a child raised without punishment and with support and respect of their developmental needs in jail. It is rare one can find an unspanked child in prison. You, like Kane seem to think that children don't even have the instictive sense which many animals exhibit to learn from even slight pain and discomfort that something can be injurious to them. I never said any such thing. In fact I pointed out that that is in fact the use of natural consequences in teaching. It can be used up to the point it has too high a risk of injury or death. In fact the child is heavily invested in that exploration as a matter of course. Nature drives the child to it. And your recollections of your daughter's incident shows that your theories can be just as dangerous and deadly. You do not understand what you read apparently. They are proof. ALL children, even and sometimes more, the most punished, will get into potentially risky situations. My child was able, after that incident, to more carefully assess events and outcomes. Did you see me say that I supervised her LESS afterward? Not so, since I knew perfectly well that children of that age (three) do NOT understand WHY, but only how to put events in a sequence they know. In other words I taught her a sequence that could result in danger again and taught her a sequence that would be safer should she want to climb again, or look at the bulls again. You, who would have spanked, I presume, would have made her afraid of YOU, thus more likely ending her natural exploration while YOU were around. Yet morons like yourself think that Kane did the 'right' thing by sitting back on his sorry ass while his daughter climbed up on a fence, I did not simply sit. If you had read and understood I pointed out that no matter how attentive the parent children will sooner or later get out of their direct supervision. It happens all day long and usually with no consequences of any kind, other than the child got to do a little exploring. But, you were quite quick to point out, when I and others brought up the topic that you give a safe place to play and closely supervise them. That's correct. The inference was clearly there that if the child wandered off, the parent was somehow negligent, yet you cannot even see that same fact in your own example. How would I be calling the parent negligent if it was something that happens in the normal course of every day? It sounds to me as though you are proposing locking the child up either physically or psychologically, for safety sake. in clear cut jepardy of being mauled by a bull an did absolutely nothing .... Nothing? That's odd. I distinctly recall carefully relating how I DID NOT go flying off in a way that would startle or frighten her so that they might lose the concentration and focus she needed to continue to maintain her balance. You were frozen with fear then? Hardly. What an odd supposition. You did not state that you did anything to save her, only that you calmly talked to her afterwards. On the contrary. NOT running toward her screaming or otherwise distracting her left her for a few more seconds relying on her own good balance. You seem terribly ignorant of human reactions. I'm sure you are greatful that nothing happened, I don't believe that for a second. but from what little you've given us, we have nothing to show that your 'methods' had anything to do with saving her life. Nothing I could have done at the time, other than not startle or distract her, could have saved her life. In fact any untoward action on my part would more likely have endangered her further by distraction. What my "'methods'" did do was drastically lower the odds of her putting herself in such danger again. Spanking her might have well made her afraid enough of me so that next time she chose to explore...anything risky (which of course she can't really judge) she might do so furtively...something spanked children are very accustomed to doing. ANY parent worth their salt would have gotten their child out of harms way immediately, even if it meant putting themselves in danger. My danger was not at issue. I was in none, but had she fallen into the pasture I would have gone it, though my guess our Heeler would have been their long before me driving the bulls away from that area. He already had alerted on her and that is what drew my attention. I would certainly hope so. As with my example, my young nephew was running full blast towards a six foot drop onto a concrete slab, looking back and thinking it was fun. I did not have the luxury of standing back and watching for if I had, he would surely have crushed his skull. Did I give him a swat on the butt after I caught him, just as his foot went over the edge.. You bet I did. Of course you did, thus distracting him from the lessons you should have been teaching. Now he has, from you, yet another reason not to trust adults. He'll show you when he's in his teens if you and his parents keep disrupting the instruction he needs. Your example is perfect. Fear of heights is one of the few naturally instinctive fears humans are born with. Just taking him to the edge and showing him and expressing your concern would have been more than enough. Now he has the confusion of pain from you. When he is a teen he'll again be tempted to run toward dangerous things, and in resistance to the pain he felt as a child, and because he's had one of likely many interferences with thinking things through and collecting data, the odds will be against him thinking through the use of drugs, engaging in unprotected sex, driving recklessly, etc. My children were taught to think. Yours to try and figure out how to get around you pain applications. I have dealt with hundreds and hundreds of children, both abused and non abused, and I can assure you, most of the parents in this group can tell you that each child responds differently and no one single method works for every child, even within the same family. Define what you mean by "works." By works, do you mean "makes parenting and life easier for the parent?" Apparently, you have never been a parent or you wouldn't ask such a lame assed question. Apparently you didn't read his posts prior to this one you respond to. You have a terrible time with remembering, don't you? No, it WAS a lame question. Anyone who thinks that teaching a child is simply imposing a controlling will on them is way out in space somewhere. As I said. You didn't read or understand apparently. I doubt he would ever assume that you were claiming that teaching is simply impossing on another. He's very knowledgable. You spend a good deal of time misunderstanding. Why is that? Spanked much as a child? I've heard it claimed it can interfere with thinking capacity later in life. Or, "makes the child obedient to the parent's will?" Geez.. what a stupid assertion. I suppose YOU let your child make every decision for themselves.. That is complete irresponsibility from any decent parent's viewpoint. What is it about what he said that makes you think or accuse him of letting a child make every decision for themselves? Gee Kane, your comprehensive skills are as lacking as his. Do you even ****ing know what a rhetorical question is? Sure. That wasn't one. It was an attempt that failed. It was a fair shot at sarcasm though. Amateurish, but a shot. Any attempt at parenting is called imposing one's will on them.. lol.. Nope. Attempts at parenting by force, fear, pain, humiliation, those are imposing one's will. Alborn parented, so did I. We deliberately chose NOT to use those methods you appear to champion. He was pointing out the difference in different parenting methods. Children make many decisions without any input from others. Yawn.. again, your attempt at attacking every single sentence in the hopes of obscuring the issues is quite weak indeed. OF COURSE THEY DO.. how the hell is that relevent to this discussion, unless of course you want to abrigate your parental duties and let the child raise himself? "abrogate." To abolish, do away with, or annul, especially by authority. A bit strong for the usage you attempted. What makes you think that a parent that doesn't spank or otherwise hurt or humiliate his or her child is expecting the child to raise him or herself? In fact I've found on average a much higher level of interaction between child and parent among those that don't use punishment parenting methods. And thankfully, less with parents that do. He is, if I am not mistaken, referring to teaching and learning situations that might arise that include the parent, by choice, or by request, or by necessity. no, you are mistaken.. again. About what? Or, "makes the child "act" in ways that please the parent?" Or, "allows the parent to break the child's will?" I believe my definition of "works" is probably quite different from yours. What's your definition? YOu sir are a complete and utter ass. The braying seem to be coming out of yours. At least my head's not stuck in it as yours appears to be. You began that ad hom. Did you expect me to just smile and agree? Apparently, you are more concerned with YOUR needs than your childs. He is so more concerned about his own needs that he would take the time to learn how to parent without using pain, fear, and humiliation. LOL.. no, he doesn't want to be bothered with the child. YOu sure love those words pain, fear and humiliation don't you.. So a parent that goes to the trouble to use methods other than pain and humiliation parenting "doesn't want to be bothered with the child?" How would that work? Are you, like so many of the spanking crowd, assuming less involvement by parents that don't spank? Any moron who thinks that they can simply tell a child not to go into the street at a very young age is completely irresponsible and dangerous to that child. Any moron who thanks that is all there is to it is not reading and is so locked up in his own world view he is unable to consider any other possibilities. Yep, sounds like you indeed. Close minded and linear thinking. One size fits all. The use of pain parenting has far more close mindedness and linear thinking involved. If you recall Gerald opened his first contribution to this thread by discussing his use of spanking and punishment parenting his own children. He did not find it producing the results he wanted or he thought best for his children. And had he found that not spanking didn't work, that would be his choice and his parental rights. But he found the opposite. Throwing in maybe's and possibilities against what he did learn seems a very weak argument. But to attempt to portray all spankers as abusers and simply imposing a controlling will on a child, He and I would assume that it isn't 24/7, but then injury doesn't have to happen 24/7 for it to have a 24/7 impact. I'm trying to find a way for you to defend the notion that spanking a child is NOT imposing one's will on them. So far no luck. Help me out please. as both you and he have tried to do is completely dishonest Since neither of us tried to do that you apparently misunderstand or we fail in our attempts to get you to understand. and an attempt to shove your concepts on parenting upon others. Neither of us have any authority over your browser, computer, or this ng. No one here is forced to read what I say, or what anyone else says. One of the characteristics of the spanked seems to be a inordinate sense of being manipulated by others....in fact of having the others will forced on them. You must have been spanked a lot. Or it effected you immensely. Expanding his repertoire didn't just give him more tools but made it very apparent to him that the punishment mode was unecessary and very likely detrimental to his children. Others have done and found exactly the same thing. Again, a claim you do not substantiate. "others" attempts to assume that everyone or most follow and agree with your assertions. Why would that be. "Others" has never meant "everyone" in my lexicon. Does it to you? Just as I can most assuredly state that "Others" have found that non spanking does not produce the results they desire and that some children are much more manipulative than others. I am aware that "others" would include some who got different results from different methods. Perfectly logical. Did you think I wouldn't know that? You, like Kane have a very limited conception of the reality of children testing the limits to see what they can and cannot get away with. On the contrary. I've seen the child overcontrolled by the parent, especially boys, test more and more the more punishment they received. It's a force of nature. If your own children are cowed by your delivering of pain and humiliation do you consider that a success? LOL.. another flip flop. I guess I don't understand what you mean by flip flop. Now you admit that children test the limits.. Can you find a single instance where I would have suggested they didn't? Of course they do. It's I that keep referring to nature and the force of developmental exploration. yet most psychologists claim that children actually WANT limits to be set, I've always laughed at that. The immediate response so often is that "limits" means restraint. It means "show me how to do this so I can learn it." In other words, movable and flexible boundaries. and that by avoiding that, and avoiding the imposition of any consequences is dangerous and makes them feel unloved. Why do the boundaries and limits have to be pain related? I set boundaries and limits with my children without the use of humiliation and pain. Apparently they worked extremely well. When non spanking and positive encourgement do not work, I suppose you just give up and let the child do as they please? Why would I do that? On the other hand it's so rare as to be negligible. A pattern was begun early in my children's lives of cooperation and support in learning and developing. My children could trust me NOT to hurt or humiliate them intentionally. Hence they knew that they could expect assistance and guidance and would come for it willingly. And you consider that a success? Not if it failed. It didn't. And it grew more and more effective the more I used non-punitive methods. Rapidly. I found all the children I worked with, and parented personally, highly respectful of me and my opinions. And it was not because they feared me, but because they didn't. The rare exceptions were children who had been punishment raised before I met them, and most of those I turned around with non-pain non-punishment parenting. I was a martial arts instructor for well over 25 years and most of the children and adults I worked with respected me and did not fear me. I imposed phyiscal hardships on them in training for disciplinary purposes, but they soon learned that I was not abusive nor would I purposely injure them. Yes, thus proving my point. What makes you think I didn't impose stringent and sometimes physically hard instruction on my children? I simply didn't humilate or hurt them. They sought out challenges themselves. So what is your point? Do you make your child do pushups if they are bad? No. I asked them if pushups would be relevant and if so why not do them? But that rarely came up since I was never that out of touch with reality and logic. I would much more likely point out the possible consequences of their less than useful behavior, like climbing where it was dangerous instead of where it was safer. I often included talking about the actual consequences as well, such as my fear they would be hurt. They were respectful of my feelings because I was of theirs, and of their need to explore somehow. Or do you pat them on the head and say please don't do it again. I might include that if it was relevant. My children tended to care a great deal about my requests. Some of us accept that parenting is difficult and that there's no shortcut that's going to make it easier. I personally didn't want my children to be non-thinking robots who responded to me automatically to avoid pain. You assume they do not have the ability to learn that there are consequences associated with their actions. That would be impossible for me to do. The real world doesn't work like that. My children lived with consequences all the time just like other children. You are apparently assuming that pain and humiliation are the only useful consequences. Humans have much more going on than that. You demean them as less than animals if you think they simply respond to pain and simply learning to fear you. So when YOU hit them or otherwise cause pain it's soooooo special that it doesn't demean them? That is again, only dealing with the truly abusive parent and not applicable to this discussion. Nice try. No cigar. You attempt continually to portray all spanking as abuse. Yes. It is. Possibly in play it wouldn't be, but when used for teaching it is abusive. It interfers with the learning underway and more especially with learning later in life. It sets up a pattern I did not want my children trapped in. No, I suppose you would prefer to see them laying dead because you did not do your job as a parent and teach them to avoid dangerous situations. I would prefer not to see them laying dead because they had to, driven by nature, sneak around and try things I had failed to teach them to handle more effectively. A weasle answer if I ever heard one. Are you suggesting they are more likely to live if they are spanked? What would be weasely about my opinion? You've forgotten the outcome of the fence climbing episode, haven't you? In fact my daughter was so concerned for my opinion and feelings I had to encourage her to be a bit more adventerous and trust herself more. A small thing easily dealt with, but it shows, at least to me, that our relationship was far more important in her development than strick adherence to my control of her. That would have done a hell of a lot of good had she been gored by the bull while you sat back and watched. Why are you attempting to make people think I would have simply sat back and watched? I didn't nor did I describe the events as though I had. You are terribly dishonest. Perhaps had you given her a swat on the butt, she may not have climbed that fence to begin with. For what would I have given her a swat on the butt that would have told her that climbing that fence was verboten? She was three. She might have well been drawn, as three year olds often are, to the very thing forbidden. And been shakey and frightened while following nature's plan for her to explore and learn to control her environment. No, my children were bold and adventurous, yet highly skilled in their exlorations, then and now. Still haven't been gored. And they have developed very well indeed. I preferred them to grow up to be fully capable of thinking for themselves. You mean being manipulative little *******s who know they can get their way and not have any consequences from daddy because he doesn't care enough to discipline them or set limits for them. Neither of my children, now in the late 30's and mid 40's turned out that way. Both are quite responsible, capable, and pleasant to be around. Well, we have to accept your word on that now don't we? Isn't that the case for both of us? What's the real point, other that blind selfishness, in having them put on behavioral "acts" in your presence and for your benefit? Bull****. If you believe that, then you are truly beyond any sense of rationality. If you believe parenting responsibly without hurt and humiliation of the child produces manipulative adults then you "are beyond any sense of rationality." There comes the hurt and humiliation bull**** again. Sound like a broken record. That little tirade doesn't answer my statement. So, do you believe that children raised without deliberate hurt and humiliation by their parent...their primary teacher...produces manipulative adults? People get humilitated throughout their lives. No question about it, though I notice children raised without a diet of it from their most trusted parent/teacher tend to not be easy to humiliate. They seem to think attempts to do so rather silly and a failing of the one making the attempt, not of themselves. Its when they dont learn to handle it, we have explosive situations occur. And spanking teaches them to handle humiliation how? And avoids a build up to an explosive situation how? Poor *******s like yourself cannot understand the harm you are doing, and want to portray yourself as some kind of hero to the child and everyone else is an abusive ass.. You are pathetic. What a sad commentary. It flies in the face of reality but you are unable to see it. This is a near perfect example of the harm spanking can do to people's capacity to think clearly and factually. No one is proposing abusive treatment of children, as you and Kane seem to try to portray and you cannot capture the high moral ground by avoiding the distinction between abuse and spanking. Sure you are. Tell me what you think the dividing line is between abuse and spanking? DUH.. dumbass.. the laws are quite clear and concise on what constitutes abuse and corporal punishment. Excuse me? Please point us to the laws so we can read them for ourselves. And we will point out to you the inconsistency of their application from place to place and time to time. Any striking of the child with anything other than the palm of the open hand, ANYWHERE other than the behind is abusive. There are about 24 states that make it perfectly legal for school personnel to use a paddle on children. And there are plenty that do NOT rule out the use of objects. Name them please, or show me a link which states they exist. Actually the article below is a pretty good read on what is what in this nation about spanking stats. http://www.yrfire.com/story/2002/11/8/233317/208 Poll: Most Americans approve of spanking kids By brian, Section News Posted on Thu Nov 14th, 2002 at 09:26:32 PM PST .......... "The U.S. Department of Education has reported that school-sanctioned spanking is most prevalent in Southern states - Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, Tennessee, Oklahoma and Louisiana. There are no state laws against spanking, although 27 states have policies against the practice and this year Pennsylvania is debating becoming the 28th. Spanking in schools is currently allowed in 23 states (although in many districts parents who object can withhold permission for school personnel to spank their kids)." There are dozens more links with this information. I was off by one state, but then I did say "about." Here, have a look for yourself: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...of+Educat ion Know of course that a few sex oriented sites will pop up in the list since spanking is a sexual fetish to some. Ever wonder where that comes from? The criteria is damage caused, not objects used. Thanks for showing everyone that you are doing EXACTLY what I said you and Kane were doing, attempting to gain high moral ground by dishonestly accusing others of promoting violence and abuse, when I have repeatedly stated that I am not in favor of abuse, You may repeatedly state anything you wish, but you promote abuse by failing to define spanking as it is used in this society. In fact you mis-define it, and thus, you are either terribly ignorant or a liar or neurotic. AHH.. there it is folks.. I am promoting abuse.. another lie by Kane which shows his true nature. Of course you promote abuse. That you might be ignorant of your promoting is what is up for question now. He asks for a definition then refuses to accept it. Refuses to accept what? I haven't seen your post where you defined spanking as yet. I've seen you say a little tap on the butt, as I recall, or words to that effect, but that isn't everyone's definition of spanking, now is it? The great problem with spanking is that what YOU might call spanking, might not be what others do. That's the problem with "spanking." And supporting the practice, without a far too complex caveat defining YOUR meaning most carefully, can easily result in someone ELSE following your thinking and spanking according to their definition, which might be highly abusive. Thus, you promote abuse. I am not lying. It doesn't fit with his mentality that any kind of discipline is not necessarily abuse. Since I used discipline with my children all the time, but did not hurt or humiliate them deliberately (and very rarely indeed unintentionally) it kind of follows that my mentality would not fit your claim above. but by attempting to lump the two together, you think it will make your position more viable. Given that spanking is NOT defined in your narrow way, nor can you prove that your way of spanking doesn't not produce injury in some children, and studies such as Embry's show you to be dead wrong, I'd say you are the one straining at your stool. ahh. but it IS defined in my narrow way. Show me. It is defined LEGALLY. Show me. You asked for my citations. You go them. I don't believe I've ever gotten one from you when I asked for proof. Just more babbling. Again I repeat since your tiny brain cannot assimilate the information, anyone who exceeds the legal definition of corporal punishment is criminally negligent and should be brought to task. Interesting that even the law is inconsistent, isn't it? One one state you cannot leave a mark that lasts over x number of hours. In another you can leave marks that will last for life. So there is no single definition, now is there? Kinda blows you off your moral high horse don't it? Not in the least. But then I don't mount up. You appear to be backwards on your mule though. You are too obvious. I should hope so. That is my objective, though I can't speak for Alborn. I want it to be so obious that I have my opinion on this issue and that I have gone to considerable effort to examine it for a very long time. Maybe you should stop examining and take a look at real life. I am examining real life. The data is out there. The prisons are full of the results of your kind of parenting. We are still fighting wars based on the same kind of thinking. Injuries to children have been and are being done by people that are sure they are not abusing their children when later examination proves they have and did. I argue vehemently because it is precisely this nonsense that people like yourself and Kane try to imply that all spanking is abusive by avoiding the separation of such and attempt to put yourselves upon high moral ground. Again, I want to know what you think the dividing line is between abuse and spanking. How do you define abuse? I already have.. Time and time again. And your definition doesn't stand up. It stands up in any court of law throughout the nation. You haven't cited a single law yet. Just babbled. Show us some. I'll show you dozens I've collected that show that the law doesn't really know what they hell spanking is or isn't. If you google on "spanking in schools" you'll see what I mean. You haven't really researched this have you? Just got your own opinion and that's all that matters, right? Again, you prove time and time again that you are a liar and an agenda here. Point out my lies please. And yes, I certainly do have an agenda. What are YOU doing here? You continue to show your complete lack of reading comprehension. On the contrary, both Alborn and myself comprehend your posts very well. You fail again and again to make any sense. You lie. You miscontrue. You fail to provide anything relevant but that this is an ancient practice that should stand on that alone. I fail to make sense? LOL. Yes, you do. LOL. You've twisted, turned and backpeddled on every issue. Please point out specific instances. You think taking every sentence and attacking it, I have not taken every sentence and attacked it. Please show where I have. There are large tracts of characters in our posts I haven't responded to. or trying to use the same wording to somehow give validity as your stance is going to sway anyone. I guess I have to leave the success or failure of my arguments up to the reader, now don't I? I can see that YOU are not swayed. I expected that. Though I always have hope. Even dedicated spankers, as Alborn was once, can and do learn better. So was chattel slavery. So was the notion the earth is flat. So was the idea that objects have spirits inside them. Yawn, more nonsense. I don't think so. It is nonsense to claim that something is validated as true and correct just because it has been done for a long time by a lot of people. Yawn. And I DO take a long hard look at the truth and how people like you have created a generation of children who lack respect or discipline in their lives simply because you've coddled them to the point of not being able to deal with reality. But what do you actually see through your blindfold of deeply rooted, misconceived beliefs that have no basis in reality? You're certainly not looking at truth. Try taking the blindfold off by asking yourself why you must maintain a tight grip on your beliefs. I'm blinded? lol 'Fraid so. Nope, it is you and your lil friend Kane who continue to misconstrue everything that is said, Please show what you have said that I have miscontrued. flip flop back and forth And my flips and flops. I tire of your nonsense.. I think most here have recognized them as i've pointed them out time and time again. I don't know. Ask them. I'm sure you can muster at least a few, and they will be part of the 90% or so that already say they spank in this country. So you'll have to come up with 9 or every one I come up with to offset that statistical advantage, now won't you? and try to put up straw men by trying to get others to 'back up' or substantiate your bull**** claims, which you and he have made. I don't have to try to bet others to. Embry and others, and my own experience, do so. yeah, funny YOU claimed you had so much 'experience'. I do and did. I said I don't have to get others to "try," as others already "do" back me up. If you have read this group for any length of time, you would know I have changed my position on several major issues when others have shown a logical and reasonable reason for their beliefs. No. I haven't found that. I'd be pleased to see where you have, but I don't think it terribly relevant to THIS discussion. On this discussion you are very badly stuck. If you have gone from non-spanking to spanking you might have a more cogent argument, but you've offerred only the same tired old failed arguments of the rabid pro spanking faction. Yawn.. Oxygen deprived? Thought so. then you prove yourself to be a liar as well as you've claimed to be 'lurking' here for a long time now. You claimed you have been able to change when presented with valid argument. I challenged that claim. You haven't produced any evidence that you do as you claimed. Case close? Or will you pull a rabbit out of a hat and prove me wrong with posts of yours and others showing your willingness to change when presented with a good argument? I doubt it. But people like you and Kane What are we like? continue to lie Point out the lie please. and attempt to portray any and all discipline of children as abusive.. Now there is a beauty of a strawman. No, we have done no such thing. We point out that our parenting is also discipline. You have yet to show that in any way. Is "discipline" teaching? If it is NOT then you are correct. If it is then I am correct and have offered you many examples of discipline. Kane |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 01:20:00 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
wrote: "Kane" wrote in message . com... "Dennis Hancock" wrote in message news:aYtqb.129813$Tr4.335985@attbi_s03... "Kane" wrote in message om... "Dennis Hancock" wrote in message news:jbwpb.73763$ao4.201937@attbi_s51... Putting a heavy backpack and forced twenty mile hikes is not a 'pysical punishment'.. lol As I mentioned in the post, Jonesie, an adult has recourse a child doesn't. I didn't claim anything in particular WASN'T physical punishment, only that adults have choices children do not. Kane said: So why didn't you answer my response? You claimed I said that such things as your example was not "'pysical'" (sic) punishment. Are you prepared to back that up with a direct quote of me, with reference to the post where I said it? Again, you show what a LIAR you truly are. I never made that statement and you cannot show it. First, I responded to another post whereby the poster claimed that physical punishment is not used in the services.. I stated that it was. It was YOU who stated that one cannot "strike" an enlisted man in a weak attempt to dispute my claim that physical punishment does indeed exist as a discipline in the armed services. This isn't your statement that opens this post: "Putting a heavy backpack and forced twenty mile hikes is not a 'pysical punishment'.. lol" Obviously you were responding to something I said about physical punishment, were you not? Are you not accusing me of claiming such things aren't physical punishment? I answered your post by asking if you did not consider forced 20 mile hikes with full gear and forced calesthentics were not painful. You show how much of a weasel you can be. No, this is precisely what you said (and it's even attributed correctly to you in this very post above): "Putting a heavy backpack and forced twenty mile hikes is not a 'pysical punishment'.. lol" In other words it sounds very like you are claiming that I am claiming something, no? And I know precisely what the discussion was about. It was that punishment is not required to teach someone something. And by the way, having participated in many forced marches in both training and combat I know precisely what it is meant to do. It is meant to physically harden the troop. It is meant to familiarize him with hardship. And my statement still stands. If a troop is either voluntarily or by law required to undergo such training he or she STILL has recourse a child does not. If there is an injury most adults will know it and make it known. Children often do NOT know when they have been injured or assume that is correct because the parent did it to them. Who in the hell is Jonsie.. I don't hide behind an anonymous name. What you see is what you get fella. Kane stated: Interesting. You have all the earmarks. Jonesie always tried to bluff it out for a few posts before even he had to admit who he was, or rather what he was. A troll. Amusing.. now you want to try to portray me as some imagined 'nemesis' you encountered in the past as if that somehow validates your own position. This is a particulary Jonseish response. I've made a hell of a lot more than a few posts and certainly not shown or admitted to being a troll. In fact, your posting in a homeschool newsgroup an attempt to ursurp parental rights pretty much puts you in that category quite clearly. Less than 200 though I think recently you have raised your number to close to that just in this tread, though it appears you posted a couple of times elsewhere. That still is very few posts for someone that claims he can has changed his position on an issue here by admitting someone had a superior argument. You still haven't, after my second request, managed to show that claim of yours. I'm waiting. You might try googling on your own name in USENET groups and see how many posts you come up with. Less than 200. You are either a very new poster, which I doubt, or you recently changed your name. Jonesie has had many names. Again, you attempt to associate me with this Jonsie character.. Lol.. what a lame assed attempt. And I notice you still haven't managed to explain why you have only 200 or less posts in just a few weeks yet you claim to have a history long enough that you engaged in argument and had your mind changed by facts. I'm waiting. Funny thng is, I've seen others in here accuse YOU of switching names and posting the same bull**** across the ng's.. I don't recall accusing you of posting under another name. Only that you could be Jonesie. He posted under many names. If you think I'm posting as someone else and it's relevant to your argument that spanking is superior for parenting then non-painful parenting please show the connection. I seldom come in here and only for laughs when I see idiots like yourself posting nonsense. You seldom come anywhere in Usenet. Unless you are using a new name. If you aren't him you are a good enough clone of him. I am myself but from what I've seen so far, you apparently have a few clones yourself. Nope. And we have each other's word on it. R R R R By the way, I was on to your troll about 18 of your posts back. Your style hasn't changed in all these years. Amazing, you were 'on' to me.. lol.. I haven't even been in these newsgroups 'all these years'.. shows what a ****ing moron you truly are. Not under your current name you haven't. As of today you have only 171 posts to your credit. Jonesie was known to post hundreds upon hundreds before giving himself up. He once had, if I recollect, the record for number of posts to a trolling thread he created or joined. It was in talk.politics.guns as I recall. Do you realize what a total ****ing idiot you are making of yourself? DUH.. IF I were this ****ing Jonesie character, who tried to set a record for posts, why the hell would I only have 171 posts under this name? LOL.. Everyone has to start somewhere. The point of his record wasn't that HE posted, but that OTHERS posted, even after he declared, very late in the game, that he was a troll. I only post in two newsgroups to date, and then only on occassion. I DO however read them and respond. If you have some paranoia about some nemesis, who probably made an utter ass of you as well, then that's your ****ing problem guy. Actually you have posted in 5 groups that I've found. And your earliest post is " Search Result 178 From: Dennis Hancock ) Subject: Home Schooling Done Wrong??? View: Complete Thread (33 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: misc.education.home-school.misc Date: 2003-07-03 07:14:07 PST " Now possibly google is not working properly, but I've always found it doing its job. July 3 this year is only a bit over 4 months. And 178 posts are hardly supportive of your claims. Frankly I don't particularly care who you are, only that you are a stupid little man who abused or abuses his children. And is busy trying to justify it. Until about five years ago, I limited myself to local bulletin boards and since then, mainly chat rooms. And this is the first time I've ever engaged you in a debate so apparently, you are having even more delusions to try to uphold your convictions. Sure. The problem for you is your name not showing up. My name shows up on every ng I post in, what's your excuse? Paranoia running rampant? It's not showing up before July this year. What makes you think my name is not pokahuyakokane? It is. It was the blatant attempts to do exactly what you accused me of, an old iJones number from years ago. Nope.. you sir, are a ****ing liar... AGAIN. Sounds just like Jonesie. Then he musta been onto you just as I am. You onto me? r r r r What would I be lying about? I merely speculated. My name on here is my real name, Even if it's the name on your birth certificate it's not real in electronic media. You can be anyone you want here. In fact you can't portray what you are really like in this mode. People have written autobiographies and failed utterly at portraying who they really are. No ****. I've been around computer bulletin boards long enough and met enough of the people Ive debated in real life to better understand that than most. Yes. That's good. What does this have to do with your false accusations that I am somehow your old nemesis? Falling short on debating tactics? In order: very little to do with it really. No, I'm not. I have nothing to hide, and I have never engaged you in debate prior to this one. Period. That's nice. I don't believe you. Beleive what you want.. I've already stated that I think you are a liar and a **** poor parent based upon what nonsense you've posted. You may think what you wish. I think you are a dangerous parent and a dangerous human being. Those that fool themselves into thinking that spanking isn't harmful tend to be. But it was fun while it lasted. Who trolled who..r r r r Kane Apparently, you.. dumbass. Kinda losing it, eh? I trolled you, or I was trolled by you. Which is it? Kane You blew it completely Kane. Your paranoia threw you for a loop. Blew what? You are still posting in reply, and you are still making a fool of yourself. And there's very little I'm afraid of. Neither you, nor Jonesie. Kane |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Debate on spanking | Doan | General | 0 | June 12th 04 08:30 PM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | General | 13 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
Kids should work. | LaVonne Carlson | General | 22 | December 7th 03 04:27 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 |