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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 17:22:31 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
wrote: Kane, if all you can do is spout insults, then you have truly lost your argument. "Kane" wrote in message . com... On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:50:17 GMT, "Dennis Hancock" wrote: "Gerald Alborn" wrote in message ... Dennis Hancock wrote: "Kane" wrote in message No Kane, it's apparent that only YOU see direct links which do not exist. No, I am not the only person to see such links. Those doing research in brain scans and behavioral observation research are my sources. As well as my own long history of observation and treatment of abused children. Your knowledge of brain scans has already been proven faulty and you continue with it? I must have missed what you thought was proof, Dennis. Care to post it again? *I* didn't -post it Gerald, someone else did and Kane effectively backed down on his claims. "Effectively backdown?" Is that weaselspeak for "I couldn't debate him fairly" EXACTLY. You've attempted to twist at every turn, you've attempted to put words into the mouths of others, and in fact backpeddled on many issues. Just as his 'wealth' of experience eventually boiled down to his reading of parenting books and personal observations upon further questioning by myself and others. Apparently you missed the many citations of researchers, but that's okay. It's common for the victims of intergenerational cp to be neurotically selective and hysterically blind to anything that brings into question their carefully built artifice that preserves their world view. Your research was shown to be nothing but nonsense, brain scans cannot measure emotions or other factors. And it's blindness not to see the generation of misfits your thinking has brought into being. Just as there is a long history of nonsense from people who claim that spanking is abusive. Again you're making assertions for which I've seen no proof offered. Care to back up your words? Can you even read? Kane has said all along that he considers spanking as abusive, in fact at one point, called one 'cruel' for punishing a toddler who could not comprehend right from wrong. You are correct. I do not think Alborn was asking you to give proof of what I said. Obviously you have some crawfish DNA grafted into yours. Bull**** Kane, he WAS asking ME to give proof, which has already been posted here by others. As for crawfish, you'll note that I haven't backed down a bit in my position, nor have I weaseled around and contradicted myself as many times as you have in this debate. They are too caught up in their own self righeousness that they cannot comprehend the damage that they are creating. Damage, caused by people who advocate against hurting children? So it's people who strongly advocate and practice only kind and respectful treatment of children and NOT those who think nothing of dishing out pain, punishment, humiliation and disrespect, who are the ones causing damage? Again, anything to back up what you insist upon believing? Take a good hard long look at the public school system, the complete breakdown in discipline and you can see EXACTLY what damage has been done. A good long hard look will show you that there is NO such thing at all. Children are safer in school than they are at home. There are more injuries and deaths that take place at the hands of their parents and caregivers than by school personnel or fellow students. Again, your ignorance of the facts are showing Kane. Children are NOT safer in school, not even with the narcs on campus, or the metal detectors at the entrance ways. This is the typical liberal bull**** that is attempting to take away ALL parental rights by the bogus claims that children are injured more at home by 'caregivers' and parents than at school. How about the schools which cover up incidents of abuse? I personally know of several cases involving lawsuits where children have been abused in the schools. We've had several incidents recently where a teacher taped children's mouths shut with duct tape. And then you tend to forget the emotional abuse which occurs.. No Kane, some parents DO abuse their children and injure them, but you cannot possibly show any true statistics to back up those claims that they are 'safer' in the public schools. Nor even in the private schools, given the history of abuse by priests in the Catholic church in this country. You are a media casualty. Don't feel bad we all fall for it from time to time. *I* am a media casualty?? LOL.. YOU my friend are a casualty of nonsensical doublespeak by psychologists who think they can analyze children and apply a single rule to all. Anyone who thinks they can learn parenting from a book is bound to eventually realize that they can throw the book away once they realize their children are not exactly alike. Perhaps you lack some bit of common sense in your background because apparently, you failed to learn that lesson. Any search of relevant data on the safety of children, mortality tables, etc. especially from the CDC and the DOJ will show you to be miles from the truth. Post your facts then if you have them. It is YOU who are making the claim. Now just like Alborn I'm going to ask you to support your contention that there is a "complete breakdown in discipline" vis a vis the schools with some proof. How many metal detectors did you see when you were in school? How many 'narcs' and school police were routinely placed on campus as a matter of common nature? How many riots took place on campus in our day? How many shootings by students occurred. I can tell you, EXACTLY NONE. Nationwide. And you need more proof? You make the claim, you accept responsibility for proof or show yourself as ignorant or a liar. Your choice. NO, you are showing yourself as a complete ass who cannot face reality. The fact that people like yourself and Kane equate any and all punishment which may involve some sort of humiliation or pain as 'cruel and unusual' punishment has led to an utter breakdown of discipline throughout society. I do not recall using the "cruel and unusual" punishment argument. I will say it is cruel. It isn't hard to see that it is when you take a 150 to 200 pound adult whalin' on a 30 to 40, or less, child. It's bullying. Bull**** Kane.. You are again confusing spanking and abuse. Quite a difference. You are dishonest and your ONLY reason for posting your nonsense is to attempt to take away parental rights. I consider it abusive NOT to instill discipline in a child or to give a small child a swat to keep them out of harms way. As for "unusual" I don't think spanking is unusual. I think it is far too usual. I suppose you, like Kane are going to make the stretch that after centuries of acceptable spanking, even at the extremes in the past, that THAT is now responsible for the condition of society today, even considering the fact that non-spanking has gained a lot of following over the past thirty or forty years, and the psychobabble that anyone who decides their child may need some discipline is somehow abusive has attempted to put a stigma on even the mildest of discipline? I have seen postings again and again that even in the US, a supposedly enlightened nation, over 90 percent, sometimes even 98 percent of parents spank or adults say they were spanked. With numbers like that how can you possibly defend that non-spanking is the culprit for yoru imagined breakdown in discipline? Where are those statistics Kane? Apparently, you are backpeddling again since YOU personally have claimed that the rich and powerful do not spank, and doubt they ever spanked throughout history. You've been around non spanking parents for most of your nearly 70 years.. YOUR OWN WORDS. Now then, you either admit you are a damned liar, or your 'experience' and 'observations' were very limited indeed. In fact teens, a good indicator, have shown a steady decline in criminal behavior over the past decade and before...all the while as non-spanking grows and teachers and others, including parents, strive to develop skills at non-punitive parenting. Actually, the stats I recall from memory is that crime has declined steadily overall, but teen crime has risen slightly. People who were physically abused generally resort to physical abuse themselves. It's a never ending cycle, yet you still refuse to differentiate between abuse and spanking, Did you ever wonder how or why spanking is propogated from one generation to the next in spanking families, just as severe physical abuse is propogated multigenerationally in other families? Do you think spanking somehow propogates itself because it's such a good idea, rather than because abuse works that way? Yawn.. again, you try to confuse spanking with abuse. Non of us are confused except you spanking freaks in denial. You and other just like you continually claim that pain teachs, yet deny that spanking is painful. Or you seem to when you claim it isn't "abuse." Pain inflicted to get your way is nothing BUT abuse. More especially non-pain, non-punitive methods have been shown to be superior repeatedly. Bull**** and your use of the word 'freaks' shows how truly biased and bull headed you are. Your losing it dude. Your denial of Embry's work is a perfect example of your frantic scramble to protect your sick model of parenting. LOL.. your denial of Pavlov's work shows that you consider young children not as intelligent as a dog. Then please explain how, with the disappearance of corporal punishment in the public schools, that any and all respect and discipline has vanished along with it. Do you not think it odd that exactly where cp in the schools prevail they have the worst records of behavior and the lowest academic scores? Take a look at Texas, one of the hot for paddling state, for instance. Or try Alabama, Arkansas, or Oklahoma. Sorry, again another outright lie. CP has been banned in ALL states of the union. Nice try but it aint working. And before your lil buddy jumps in wanting my proof, again, it is YOU who made the outlandish claim, not I. Yes, everyone knows that abuse propogates from generation to generation, but any parent worth their salt also knows how their own children react to outside stimuli. Some children never need to suffer a spanking while others may well need a physical reinforcement. But of course, to you and Kane, you can use 'reason' and set guidelines which have absolutely no consequences for the child. You neglected, in the beginning of this article to acknowledge my claims to have worked with children who had been spanked and punished. I noticed that. And you neglected all along to ignore my claims that I too have worked with children from both sides of the fence.. also with abused children as well. And I WAS in a position where I had complete control and had to instill discipline in a class setting and learned quite readily which ones been spanked, which ones had been abused, and which ones were adapt at dealing with control and discipline. I worked with children so screwed up by parenting NOT fit or allowed to be used on animals that they had become dangerous to themselves and others. I turned them around with gentle and non-punitive methods. Ahh, there's the kicker Kane, and you are too stupid to see it. I have a nephew who was physically abused by his father. He did not respond to spanking, even light spanking it only made him angrier, so yes, your approach did work quite well with him. That is where you are screwed up, you cannot differentiate between children and their needs. You seem to think that the exact same treatment can be used on all.. believe me, it cannot. You have never worked with hyperactive children have you, well I have. They were so screwed up it took longer for them to get that I wasn't punishing them than it did for them to turn around when they finally accepted I wasn't. Of course it will work with some. Especially those who were abused. But try it with a child who has merely been swatted on the butt with the open hand as punishement and it seldom works. They learn they can 'get away' with something. You seem confused Kane. You don't realize that children learn at a very young age how to play parents against each other. If one is of your ilk, and the other a spanker, they would drive you crazy. No, I seriously doubt you've had very much 'experience' in dealing with children, perhaps a few, but not the 'wealth' of experience you try to lead us to believe. The hardest part was getting them over thugs like you. LOL.. there you go, losing it again guy. For a supposed retired Air Force Colonel, I suppose you kissed the guys asses to get em to do their work. or show proof that those who spank for disciplinary reasons or teaching their child correct behavior at a very young age What's wrong with modelling correct behavior, giving an abundance of time and loving attention to young children, treating them respectfully, and catering to their genuine needs so that they have no pent-up emotional energy motivating them to exhibit bad behavior? LOL.. what a moron you are proving to be. Treat them respectfully and they will have no pent up energy? LOL You truly keep digging yourself deeper into a hole here. WHO said it was wrong? You want to pick apart every statement and try to put words into my mouth? He isn't suggesting it's wrong or not. He's suggesting using it, and if you missed that you are truly in sad shape. Apparently, you cannot read well,OR comprehend. Although I think I can see how you just managed to weasel out of answering the meat of his question. Why spank if you have all those other things going for you? Sounds like he expects you to be a good parent that DOES use those things. Me, I'm not so sure about you at this point. You are too wedded to abuse for my taste, and trying to deny it by calling it something else. LOL.. you are a moron Kane. You still confuse spanking with abuse. You are so dead in your mindset that you cannot possibly see reality. They used to say that slavery was good for the darkies too. And that women, by their natures, just couldn't think for themselves. There you go again, wild, outlandish claims attempting to claim the high moral ground by being dishonest. I wondered when the race issue would enter the picture. We seem to have gotten over that, but it took a damn war. I'd like you assholes to wake up before the there has to be laws to do it for you. LOL.. DUH.. there should be a law against assholes like yourself who haven't got enough sense to deal with the real world. You do more damage than good and are too stupid to relaize it. There ARE laws against abuse Kane. But YOU apparently seem to want to control everyone's ability to rear their children as they see fit and consider anything other than what you consider acceptable as unacceptable. You are a closed minded asshole who deserves no further responses. **rest snipped and unread as being the irrelevent rantings of a luncatic** I am not a "lunicatic." Have a nice day asshole. It is certainly fun to watch you jump up and down and froth at the mouth. By the way, you posted a series of lies about me, but hey, we expect that from the spanking freak folks. They don't have anything else going for them, and they know it. By the way, I think I recall that you opened this blathering tirade with the snappy homily: "Kane, if all you can do is spout insults, then you have truly lost your argument." Can we count on your promise: "You are a closed minded asshole who deserves no further responses." R R R R R R Bingo bango bongo Stoneman |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
"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. By the way, I was on to your troll about 18 of your posts back. Your style hasn't changed in all these years. It was the blatant attempts to do exactly what you accused me of, an old iJones number from years ago. But it was fun while it lasted. Who trolled who..r r r r Kane |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
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? KANE claims that he has so damned much 'experience' when it eventually boiled down to his own limited observations. 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. KANE claimed that rich or powerful people never spanked their children, (based upon his own fraternizing with a few in his lifetime) and wants proof that throughout history of ANY of the great leaders being spanked. 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. 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. Then, both you and he avoid the separation between a swat on the behind with the open hand as a means of teaching a young child to avoid a dangerous situation, and the use of spanking for older children to instill discipline, with outright abuse. 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. 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. 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?" Or, "makes the child obedient to the parent's will?" 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? 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. I preferred them to grow up to be fully capable of thinking for themselves. What's the real point, other that blind selfishness, in having them put on behavioral "acts" in your presence and for your benefit? 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? 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? 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. Start by going for patience and understanding. Parenting is pure science, as much as physics and chemistry are science. There are reasons for a child's behavior, reasons for motivation, reasons for expression of feelings, including anger and resentment, reasons why we turn out the way we do. Your beliefs about the use of pain in parenting were most likely because of how YOU were raised as a young child. Children raised without abuse do not grow up motivated to pass it on to the next generation. It's up to you to break the cycle. -Jerry- |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
"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? I and many others have shown the faulty logic of Kane, over and over again, and he has flip flopped time and time again. 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. KANE claims that he has so damned much 'experience' when it eventually boiled down to his own limited observations. 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. I have worked in with children for ages. Consider your 'expert' in his field... he's a damned horse trainer.. 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. How ****ing stupid do you and Kane think we are in this group? 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. Give me a break. KANE claimed that rich or powerful people never spanked their children, (based upon his own fraternizing with a few in his lifetime) and wants proof that throughout history of ANY of the great leaders being spanked. 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 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'. 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. 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. Then, both you and he avoid the separation between a swat on the behind with the open hand as a means of teaching a young child to avoid a dangerous situation, and the use of spanking for older children to instill discipline, with outright abuse. 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. You want to portray ALL spanking as abuse, and TRY to portray that there is no difference. 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. I don't know why anyone even bothers with your OR Kane. 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. 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. 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, in clear cut jepardy of being mauled by a bull an did absolutely nothing .... ANY parent worth their salt would have gotten their child out of harms way immediately, even if it meant putting themselves in danger. 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. 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. 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. Apparently, you are more concerned with YOUR needs than your childs. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. Any striking of the child with anything other than the palm of the open hand, ANYWHERE other than the behind is abusive. 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, but by attempting to lump the two together, you think it will make your position more viable. You are too obvious. 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. You continue to show your complete lack of reading comprehension. 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. Nope, it is you and your lil friend Kane who continue to misconstrue everything that is said, flip flop back and forth 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. 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. But people like you and Kane continue to lie and attempt to portray any and all discipline of children as abusive.. it is not.. NOT to discipline a child or set limits is the truly abusive thing, you are living in a fairy tale world. Keep on believing it because I doubt you are swaying anyone to your nonsense. Start by going for patience and understanding. Parenting is pure science, as much as physics and chemistry are science. There are reasons for a child's behavior, reasons for motivation, reasons for expression of feelings, including anger and resentment, reasons why we turn out the way we do. Yawn.. what the hell makes you think anyone gets 'angry' simply because they discipline their child? Oh yeah, right.. just sit back calmly while your child dashes into the street, or sits on a fence and is approached by an angry bull and your a 'good parent'. Your beliefs about the use of pain in parenting were most likely because of how YOU were raised as a young child. Children raised without abuse do not grow up motivated to pass it on to the next generation. It's up to you to break the cycle. -Jerry- Bull**** Jerry. *I* was never abused as a child. I was spanked, there is a huge difference that only a fool or a liar can ignore. You have no moral high ground to stand on.. you only show your complete and utter ignorance of children and their differences. Keep on reading all the psychobabble and learn parenting from Dr. Ruth and pretend you have all the answers. You don't. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
"Kane" wrote in message Can we count on your promise: "You are a closed minded asshole who deserves no further responses." YES.. so long as you stop throwing the lame insults my way and stop attempting to justify your bull**** by attacking every sentence I write with more flip flops and babble. I will respond in kind to lame attacks and am not completely unschooled in 'flame wars' if the nonsense continues. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
"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. Who in the hell is Jonsie.. I don't hide behind an anonymous name. What you see is what you get fella. 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. 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. 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. My name on here is my real name, I have nothing to hide, and I have never engaged you in debate prior to this one. Period. But it was fun while it lasted. Who trolled who..r r r r Kane Apparently, you.. dumbass. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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? 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? Children make many decisions without any input from others. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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." 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. So was chattel slavery. So was the notion the earth is flat. So was the idea that objects have spirits inside them. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. If you wish to claim that we portray punishment as questionable you might start a real argument, but you fail on your weaseling. it is not.. NOT to discipline a child or set limits is the truly abusive thing, It would be if that were what we were suggesting. I am not. I do not believe Alborn is doing so either. Teaching is by definition discipline. Do you think we do not teach, or have not taught, our children? you are living in a fairy tale world. The idea that children are manipulative evil little self serving creatures by nature is the real fairy tale. Been reading Dobson, have you? Keep on believing it because I doubt you are swaying anyone to your nonsense. We can only put out what we know. It's up to them to decide for themselves. On the other hand, I've swayed at the very least, hundreds, more likely thousands, to a non-punitive parenting model, and there seems to be no followup of children dying under the wheels of traffic on streets they run into. Wonder why that is? Start by going for patience and understanding. Parenting is pure science, as much as physics and chemistry are science. There are reasons for a child's behavior, reasons for motivation, reasons for expression of feelings, including anger and resentment, reasons why we turn out the way we do. Yawn.. what the hell makes you think anyone gets 'angry' simply because they discipline their child? What makes you think they don't? Oh yeah, right.. just sit back calmly while your child dashes into the street, or sits on a fence and is approached by an angry bull and your a 'good parent'. Gettin' kind of frothy around the mount there, aren't we, Dennis? Even the casual reader wouldn't fall for those examples. Or do you have data that shows that most of the children that die in street entry accidents weren't spanked? Your beliefs about the use of pain in parenting were most likely because of how YOU were raised as a young child. Children raised without abuse do not grow up motivated to pass it on to the next generation. It's up to you to break the cycle. -Jerry- Bull**** Jerry. *I* was never abused as a child. We have your word on that? I was spanked, Obviously. there is a huge difference that only a fool or a liar can ignore. My bet is that Jerry was spanked as well. And likely not "abused" as you mean it. Interesting that he could come to a different conclusion than you though, eh? Something to do with intelligence and good mental health maybe? For him, not you. You have no moral high ground to stand on.. He figured out how to successfully parent his children by switching from switching and you haven't and you claim he doesn't have the high moral ground? Interesting take on the issue. you only show your complete and utter ignorance of children and their differences. Interesting that he would expand his parenting repertoire and find spanking and punishment methods lacking but you claim he is ignorant. What is it about using all the methods (and there are many) for parenting without pain and humiliation that would lead you to believe that he, or I, would not notice or respect the differences between children? Keep on reading all the psychobabble and learn parenting from Dr. Ruth I don't recall a Dr. Ruth in the pantheon of child development researchers. Can you referrence please? and pretend you have all the answers. You don't. Since he found more than punitive parenting as an answer to how he wished to and parented his children it would be pretty obvious that he knows he doesn't have all the answers. Neither do I, but I do know what I've found so far works. Now maybe you can point us to some other things that work, that have such a low risk to the child as non-punitive parenting. I for one and open to learning still. For instance, it would be impossible for me to damage a mentally ill child, or a developmentally disabled or delayed child by spanking...and surely you would agree spanking would be contraindicated for such. Those who spank take a terrible risk their child could be undiagnosed with these or other problems. It used to believed that deaf children were stupid. Many a deaf child ended up in an institution for mentally ill or developmentally disabled children when all they needed was the modern testing methods to show they had only hearing as a problem. Should we have spanked them into hearing? Many tried. We await your response. Jonesie, you are getting even better with age. Kane |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
"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. 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? Who in the hell is Jonsie.. I don't hide behind an anonymous name. What you see is what you get fella. 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. 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. If you aren't him you are a good enough clone of him. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
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. 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. 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? 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? How ****ing stupid do you and Kane think we are in this group? I haven't fully assessed that yet. 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. I've had enough of your nonsense for one day. -Jerry- |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
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 |
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 |