Ugly Sounds of an Actual Spanking

I didn't say that I wanted that or expected it for "bringing up
children," simply for engaging in parenting methods that have well
known risks attached. It's very hard, for instance, to leave a bruise
or break a bone by redirecting a child's behaviors verbally. Not so
hard to do with swats, smacks, paddlin's, and pops.

Why would anyone resort to CP if "verbal redirection" is 100% effective with
his or her children?
For some parents it's obviously not though.

Breaking bones and/or leaving bruises would clearly show that its not
legitimate CP but parental abuse. Not ALL "swats, smacks, paddlin's and pops"
would constitute abuse though, in fact in most cases I'd venture that they
(spankings) don't.

In many of those others I do not ask for roads signs
that show absolute boundaries. I do in spanking for a very sensible
reason: the injuries to children that have occurred as a result of CP,
especially when it has gotten out of hand and the children have been
taken by state and the parent in in jail for criminal assault.

In that case, the boundary has clearly been passed. Exactly where the
boundary is, that's not always easy to determine and may vary from child to
child and family to family, but the ultra-extreme cases aren't hard to
identify.

I can sit around all day with
just about any issue in parenting and dream up tactic after tactic. I
tend though to go to what I have proven over the years to be not only
the easiest AND most fun, but the most effective in my child learn SELF
control, over seeking out OTHER control.

Since children are immature and need some clearcut external controls en
route to hopefully gradually developing internal self-control, different
parents will use different tactics to modify their children's behavior.
Whatever worked for you and your children, agreeing that "worked" often isn't
completely determined until after the fact, sometimes much later, that's your
personal experience.

What you
may think of as it "works" I might think of as having set the child on
a path of control battles with you appearing to win but they just going
to grow into a teen...and you know what happens then. 0:-

That's one of the judgements that a parent has to make to the best of his or
her ability, for his or her particular child(ren). Just because the eventual
outcome is uncertain doesn't mean that the parent shouldn't do his or her best.
A parent may listen to the perspectives of others, but the ultimate decision
will be his or hers.
Teenagers can usually be expected to push against boundaries and test
limits, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're actually engaging in
"control battles," in many cases they actually want to know that there are
still some restraints on their behavior.

Wrapped up in, possibly without your conscious
awareness, is the insinuation that someone else is going to tell them
how to parent.

I was stating almost the opposite, that ultimately it's a parent's
responsibility to try to determine what works best for his or her individual
children.
No "expert" can tell a parent that, although I certainly don't oppose
parents exposing themselves to general guidelines suggested by others.

But you might consider giving them and the supporting arguments
I make without assume I'm trying to force you. Or did you inheret a
tendency to enter into control battles and power struggles somewhere,
sometime, from someone?

It never occurred to me that you (or anyone) could "force" your will on me
over the internet. A "power struggle" in cyberspace? That's a ridiculous
concept, isn't it?

Well, I would presume, as a motorist would, that should a speed limit,
or spanking limit would be modified by conditions neither would
accelerate and to hard turns.

Using the analogy of speed limits and common sense, unfortunately many
drivers don't use common sense when dealing with posted speed limits.
As for the use of CP, as in numerous other judgement-requiring areas of
child-rearing practices, ideally parents would use good judgemen and common
sense.
(Sadly, some people appear to be short of common sense, many of them
especially when driving.)

Who
knows, I might want to spank my kids one day. 'Course now in their
forties they might think me a bit weird, but hey, if it's so good why
wouldn't it still work to teach them things.

If you can't discuss the subject seriously...

It strikes me that you are thinking yourself too too clever to have
expanded the argument to all parenting issues, and child-rearing
strategies, when I spoke to one, and one only.

Barring your having telepathic abilities, what "strikes you" about my
beliefs on things that I've made no comment on whatsoever is pure speculation
on your part, isn't it?
My point was that a parent's approach to child discipline, including
potentially using CP, is something that depends on the child(ren) and the
family situation, and that there are numerous other apects of child-rearing
that also require individual parental judgement.

I'll give you an example of another though, that I want clear
guidelines about.

On some things there are fairly clear guidelines, some established strictly
by biology and others by societal norms.

but for some reason this area
of whalin' on a kids body and calling it a semi polite trick name,
"spanking," doesn't want to lend itself to the same kind of considered
reasoning and care in choice making.

To me, the expression "whalin' on a kid's body" is quite different from mere
"spanking," I see a clear distinction that's more than a "polite trick name."
However, I would agree 100% that any parent who CAN'T tell the difference
should eschew completely the use of CP as part of their child-rearing approach.

As it is I always feel icky not pasting a spanker in the head,
hard, for what they are doing to children. But then I'm a peaceable
sort.

So am I, but it wouldn't matter if I were Jack the Ripper in a cyberspace
discussion.
Even in RL, I don't "paste" anyone who disagrees with me on societal issues,
including child-rearing approaches. (Especially things like child-rearing
strategy, which in some areas is quite individualized in terms of its
application and effects.)

Thanks for working on this problem with me.

It don't see it lending itself to a simple, objective solution, but I don't
mind discussing it respectfully.
{Hamilton}

Hamilton1794 wrote:
I didn't say that I wanted that or expected it for "bringing up
children," simply for engaging in parenting methods that have well
known risks attached. It's very hard, for instance, to leave a
bruise
or break a bone by redirecting a child's behaviors verbally. Not so
hard to do with swats, smacks, paddlin's, and pops.

Why would anyone resort to CP if "verbal redirection" is 100%
effective with
his or her children?
For some parents it's obviously not though.

Interesting. I'd have thought you would have said, "for some *children*
it's obviously not though." *emphasis mine

It appears you are saying, and please correct me if I'm
misunderstanding, that some parents haven't the will or capacity to
figure out how to not use CP. Is this a correct assumption of your
meaning?

Breaking bones and/or leaving bruises would clearly show that its not
legitimate CP but parental abuse.

I presume stating the obvious is going to create a point from which to
debate your next claim.

Not ALL "swats, smacks, paddlin's and pops"
would constitute abuse though, in fact in most cases I'd venture that
they
(spankings) don't.

Legally speaking in this country, that is absolutely true. An exception
to that is in some school settings. In some anything up to heavy long
lasting bruising with objects is permissable. In others no paddling, or
for that matter, form of CP is legal by BOE and state school
superindendent edict.

In fact in many states if not most it is legal to spank and leave marks
that fade in x amount of time. Now in one state it's legal, apparently,
to leave marks that don't fade at all, or so some would lead us to
believe. The media was unclear in the exact workering of the judicial
finding. I'm not sure they even tried to be exact.

In many of those others I do not ask for roads signs
that show absolute boundaries. I do in spanking for a very sensible
reason: the injuries to children that have occurred as a result of
CP,
especially when it has gotten out of hand and the children have been
taken by state and the parent in in jail for criminal assault.

In that case, the boundary has clearly been passed.

Yes. Would it surprize you that the boundary I'm looking for is not
really a factor -- after it's been passed; that I wish to know where it
is from the side of innocence, and before abuse happens to indicate
I've just broken the law, and in my own mind, assaulted my child?

Exactly where the
boundary is, that's not always easy to determine and may vary from
child to
child and family to family, but the ultra-extreme cases aren't hard
to
identify.

Precisely. And you won't find me fruitlessly debating the ultra, or
even plain old vanilla extreme cases. That's a subject for another
newsgroup or thread. One strictly on "abuse" as defined by law, not
"abuse" as I consider it rendered in our CP debating context.

As for that difficult to define boundary (I think it impossible -- as
you might have guessed), if it's that hard to find, and if so many very
likely loving and well meaning parents have crossed over it, and some
strange fools, such as the Pearls whip 4 month old babies, and that no
non pc parenting method has broken bones or rended flesh directly, and
that some seem to think no CP methods very powerful indeedy, wouldn't
it make sense to examine the non CP parenting more closely and even
give it a try?

Personally I'm a purest. The more I practiced non CP parenting, the
more obvious it became to me that the powerstruggles of PUNISHMENT
parenting, punishment of any kind, was pointless, confusing for the
child, an a blow to my self esteem as a man...I refuse to control
children in a cowardly way.

I prefer more respectful methods that are in tune with their
developmental needs of the moment.

I can sit around all day with
just about any issue in parenting and dream up tactic after tactic.
I
tend though to go to what I have proven over the years to be not
only
the easiest AND most fun, but the most effective in my child learn
SELF
control, over seeking out OTHER control.

Since children are immature and need some clearcut external
controls en
route to hopefully gradually developing internal self-control,
different
parents will use different tactics to modify their children's
behavior.

I should hope. There are so many variables to consider.

Whatever worked for you and your children, agreeing that "worked"
often isn't
completely determined until after the fact, sometimes much later,
that's your
personal experience.

Inrestingly I've found that not to be true. So many of the things I did
when tried by others proved to be almost totally universal. No matter
the disposition of the child, they all responded with compliance, from
willing to eager.

I even generalized it for about 5 years to a population of emotionally
disturbed adolescent boys...ages 12 to 16, roughly. About every 18
months a boy would graduate from the program to be replaced. We worked
with 8 at a time.

While of course I had to speak and act using different modalities, more
gentle with some, boisterous and playful with others, the principles
held true. Learning how to actually listen to validate the others
communication was key. But followed very closely by a sense of humor
and a complete surrender to the idea that everything that boy did was
for him to learn. That nature drove him to steal from the local store,
as surely as it would make his teeth ache so as to teach him to keep up
good dental hygiene.

One of course was acceptable behavior...failing to brush his teeth. It
didn't effect society...and with these boyd how they effected society
was a biggy.

So the other, the stealing, need a bit more respect on my part. And I
respected the hell out of his need to steal. So I had him do some more
stealing. Of course with the shop keeper in on it. I had that boy steal
until he was so pukin' tired of the fun of stealing he started looking
for other ways to have fun.

And not once was I mean or cruel, or putting any shame on him. I didn't
even power struggle. I would ask him politely to do the theft exercise.
I would plead if he refused. I'd beg. I'd offer to bribe him.

His stealing behavior, and that of other boys extinguished completely
in approximately 6 weeks. At that point he was ready for a sit down and
a discussion of what he thought was going on for him during his
stealing phase..what in nature and his life experience did he think was
motivating the stealing.

As he explored it he would come upon good social lessons HE pulled out
of the whole experience. HE would bring up the damage his behavior
could cause and did in the past. Sometimes I had to provide a shoulder
to cry on.

Do you see where I'm going here? It's not rocket science, it's just
looking at the issue of parenting concerning unwanted or wanted
behaviors in a very new way than we are accustomed to.

I have seen families that do this naturally though. They are highly
learning focused. They love learning so they see everything the child
does as a "teachable moment" even if it try to put the kitty in the
microwave.

What you
may think of as it "works" I might think of as having set the child
on
a path of control battles with you appearing to win but they just
going
to grow into a teen...and you know what happens then. 0:-

That's one of the judgements that a parent has to make to the best
of his or
her ability, for his or her particular child(ren). Just because the
eventual
outcome is uncertain doesn't mean that the parent shouldn't do his or
her best.

Boy, I'd be the last person to say they shouldn't. I know for a fact
that at first learning to parent without pain and punishment can be
hard work. It's not so much they can't see what to do, but they FEEL so
funny doing it..that they think it won't work. Are they ever stunned
when it does.

Sitting down your kid that just slammed his little sister one with a
book, putting our arm around him and opening with, "Honey, now I know
you must have something upsetting you. I want to hear what you think,"
sends the control freaks over the edge when they see or hear me say
that.

They are usually completely misunderstanding behaviorism and the insist
I'm just rewarding the kid for hitting his sister and when he wants my
attention again he'll hit her again....and I say YES, IN A HOUSEHOLD
THAT IS POWERSTRUGGLE AND PAIN BASED PARENTING CONTROLLED.

And absolutely not in one that is based on relationship quality and
trust.

I got thrown into the lioness den once. A child care worker in the teen
female unit came down ill over the weekend. I lived closest so they
asked me to step in until they could locate some worker staff to come
in.

Those girs...wow what reputations. The boys were all the pussies,
compared to them. They were mean.

Well, 30 minutes into attending to them, bingo a hassle broke out in
the rec room. I know a test when I see one. They all were watching me
like the little predators they had been taught to be. Even the girls
fighting were peekin' at me more than lookin' at each other.

I gathered the girls up as I went to the rec room and they all stood
around as I addressed the two that had been fighting. All I said was,
honest, 'I'm so disappointed," and in about three seconds the place was
flooding with tears, and girls were sobbing in each other's arms, and I
was looking for kleenex.

Do I know my kids? Boys or girls, they want to BE who they think they
are. I played at "how to be a tough man" with the boys, and with the
girls, how to be vulerable sensitive women. If I'd gotten in their
faces they would have likely cut me up. There's no way to completely
remove weapons from folks that want them. I'm still here. No scars.

And I didn't spank or punish anyone.

A parent may listen to the perspectives of others, but the ultimate
decision
will be his or hers.

Gotta be.

Teenagers can usually be expected to push against boundaries and test
limits, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're actually
engaging in
"control battles," in many cases they actually want to know that
there are
still some restraints on their behavior.

That is a full bore paradox. You just described a control battle to a
tee. Of course they want to know the boundaries and they'll fight you
to make you show them. See...a control battle. YOU'D rather, I hope, at
15 or so, be having them know and respect the boundaries. Their brains
are too friend by hormones.

All 15 year olds are divisible by five. Trust me on this. They wish to
be lead around a little, but just like a three year old, they will pout
and stomp and say "no!" quite emphatically. I just ignore the behavior
just as I did with them at 3.

And I say that classic line all school teachers know, "Nevertheless,
etc. "

I don't have to punish, just be compliant when mother nature gives the
kid, and by proxy, ME a slap upside the haid. Usually I woke up in time
with thoughts like, "oh! oh! oh yeah, it's time for demanding indepence
stage 7, now where did I put he car keys and my wallet, and the bucket
and gear to wash the car?"

Yer not going to tell me you can't figure out what's comin' in that
inner rumination, are yah? R R R R R ...

Wrapped up in, possibly without your conscious
awareness, is the insinuation that someone else is going to tell
them
how to parent.

I was stating almost the opposite, that ultimately it's a parent's
responsibility to try to determine what works best for his or her
individual
children.

Yep. And this is the telling point, below.

No "expert" can tell a parent that, although I certainly don't
oppose
parents exposing themselves to general guidelines suggested by
others.

Actually there are times when nothing less than an expert suffices.
Children ar all born different. Some are wired so that they will not
slide into gear...their development will be weirded out. They are
either overractive to all stimuli, or placid like a little doorknob.
All efforts of the parent fail to break them out of the stuckness in
their "mis" behavior.

I know half a dozen experts that not only know whats going on but how
to move the kid out of it in a few weeks with some different ( not
genius or terribly special ) therapies for the parent to use. They are
actually things parents do with kids .. but in these cases applied
differently.

On regular parenting and "experts" I have this to say. If I want to
learn to drive a car the farm boy mehthod worked great for me. I got in
out in the pasture, and struggled along as my dad verbally told me what
to do. I got to be a pretty darn good driver eventually.

Trouble is, I wanted to be more. I bought my own car...a different
story. Then I got to rebuilding. Then I got to building race cars of
various kinds. Now I had a need for driving skills one hell of a lot
more demanding than my pasture learned skills.

Now we seem to be willing to take lessons and read books to learn to
cook, sew, fix things around the house, play a mean game of pinochle,
knock a little white ball farther and straighter with a stick, and by
golly even to learn to do better health and nutritional care of
ourselves and our children.

Why we'll even go an bribe the local community college to hire someone
to come in and teach us all kinds of things and we look for that
teacher that knows how to do it better than use, with no embarassment
or shame over asking an "expert."

See where we are headed here? 0:-

What IS it about "discipline" which really shouldn't be seen as
anything but the original meaning of the word, that makes us go all
stiff and hostile when someone says it might be a good idea to ask an
expert?

Do you really think there are any parents that can't benefit by the
teaching of another parent, or someone that's mastered the elements of
parenting, all parts, not just discipline, who know more than they do?

Or do all auto drivers have equal knowledge and skill?

It's this spanking thing that gets people all uptight, now isn't it.
Come on, confess, eheheheh...you know it's true. Something in us makes
us cling to this practice as our last resort, and too often our first
resort, like it was the holy grail.

Doesn't that seem just a tad silly given how we learn everything else
by study and asking 'experts' one way or the other. You did when you
were little. Your expert was your dad, adn your mother, or uncle.
Someone that knew more than you. Did you fight against asking and get
all huffy?

But you might consider giving them and the supporting arguments
I make without assume I'm trying to force you. Or did you inheret a
tendency to enter into control battles and power struggles
somewhere,
sometime, from someone?

It never occurred to me that you (or anyone) could "force" your
will on me
over the internet. A "power struggle" in cyberspace? That's a
ridiculous
concept, isn't it?

You do not recognize verbal power struggles? What is a political tract,
if it is not an attempt to gain power? What is any debate or argument,
whether written or spoken? They all have high potential to become a
power struggle.

There's nothing ridiculous about that is there? Or do you have a
defintion of power struggle I'm unfamiliar with? Would you define the
term please?

If I am correct then this quote, from you would indicate where I
thought I say you struggling for a position of power:
"
So why would a person with "traumatic issues about corporal
punishment in
childhood" possibly be on a newsgroup with this name?
Why intentionally read about something if it traumatizes you?
{Hamilton}
"

Even the most simply examination would uncover an attempt to take
control in a way that defied reality. The reality is that people react
differently to what they read, what they hear, and what they witness.
We are usually far more emotionally reponsive to what we hear than what
we read, and far more to what we witness. No?

When someone comes at me with illogic and a bending of facts..such
obvious ones, I presume some attempt to disempower my words with his
attack. And I feel justified in using that term based on the unfairness
of pretending reading is as traumatic as hearing.

I can read this ng all day, and any strong emotion evoked I can easily
set aside. I do NOT listen to Chris' tape. I heard a few seconds of it,
got the point and closed my browser window. I do not like children to
be hit. It causes me to tence up, to have some empathetic responses,
and an the experience some of the terror they feel at this giant who
was sent to protect them coming to hurt them.

Well, I would presume, as a motorist would, that should a speed
limit,
or spanking limit would be modified by conditions neither would
accelerate and to hard turns.

Using the analogy of speed limits and common sense, unfortunately
many
drivers don't use common sense when dealing with posted speed limits.

How very much my point exactly. If we know that driving is harmful and
risky and we don't have to do it, we have a choice of walking, riding
transit, biking, rollerskating, or mounting up on a Segway.

As for the use of CP, as in numerous other judgement-requiring areas
of
child-rearing practices, ideally parents would use good judgemen and
common
sense.
(Sadly, some people appear to be short of common sense, many of
them
especially when driving.)

Yep. I haven't a thing to debate there.

Who
knows, I might want to spank my kids one day. 'Course now in their
forties they might think me a bit weird, but hey, if it's so good
why
wouldn't it still work to teach them things.

If you can't discuss the subject seriously...

No, I can't. Spanking, like death, is so serious that I joke about the
former like others do about the latter.

Do you, by the way, see any possibility that your little sentence, "If
you can't discuss the subject seriously..." could be taken as humor,
OR, a bid to take control of the debate? A ...ahhhmmm power struggle?


It strikes me that you are thinking yourself too too clever to have
expanded the argument to all parenting issues, and child-rearing
strategies, when I spoke to one, and one only.

Barring your having telepathic abilities, what "strikes you" about
my
beliefs on things that I've made no comment on whatsoever is pure
speculation
on your part, isn't it?

No. I was looking directly at your posted words.

My point was that a parent's approach to child discipline,
including
potentially using CP, is something that depends on the child(ren) and
the
family situation, and that there are numerous other apects of
child-rearing
that also require individual parental judgement.

Yep, and we are talking about one of them, hopefully. The use of
various discipline methods, spanking being the central point.

And in those some have risks as well, and we consult experts, and we
avoid doing things that might harm. I ask that spanking and CP, and
even "punishment"
be given no more or less than the attention and concern, and ethical
considerations, other areas of parenting are given.

I'll give you an example of another though, that I want clear
guidelines about.

On some things there are fairly clear guidelines, some established
strictly
by biology and others by societal norms.

Yep. One doesn't change much without a lot of time or a genetic sport
popping into the gene pool. The other can change in a flash with just a
law passed. I prefer that social norms change by the force of moral
suasion. It's so much less painful.

I do, however, recognize that sweeping social changes were preceeded by
activism and in time, laws. Women's sufferage, slavery, children's
rights. Working conditions. None of these are fixed in place. They
could change even more.

but for some reason this area
of whalin' on a kids body and calling it a semi polite trick name,
"spanking," doesn't want to lend itself to the same kind of
considered
reasoning and care in choice making.

To me, the expression "whalin' on a kid's body" is quite different
from mere
"spanking,"

Not to me. I didn't make that connection up. Those that spank use terms
like that. And if you ask them if they are beating their child to
injure them do the not say the same thing that someone "spanking" says?


I see a clear distinction that's more than a "polite trick name."

I don't see that kind of distinction at all. The definition of spanking
and beating, in this population, is exremely flexible. I've seen
children dripping blood that the parent claimed they were such
disciplining with a "spanking."

And, more humorously, (forgive me) I've seen mothers go after a kid
running away yelling, "you are going to get a shellackin' when I catch
you young man,": only to barely pat the kid when he's caught.

However, I would agree 100% that any parent who CAN'T tell the
difference
should eschew completely the use of CP as part of their child-rearing

approach.

I'm suggesting much more. I'm suggesting the entire issue of "spanking"
end, and soon, from the total lack of it as a "parenting" tool or
methods or raising a child.

If there are other tools that work with all children that can be
reached, and spanking most definately will NOT work on children that
are mentally disabled in some way, then why are we spanking at all?

The only thing we have to do is learn those other ways of responding.
It's not really all that hard. In fact those that have done it, for the
most part, find a really joyful experience. I watched a tough ol' boy
that was a body and fender man, and an excon. When he got through part
of a class, he went home and came back, and in the middle of describing
it said, "and I never have to hit my little girl again." and we all
needed, as did he, our hankies. His love for her had made him so
determind to 'raise her righ' that he had been using pain on her.

What was the "trick" he learned? Why something a hick like him would
know about....he ducktaped the phone button down so the little girl
could pick up the reciever and "talk to grammah." From that one little
thing his brain lite up and he was waaay ahead of some college educated
folks in the class.

How to teach just flowed out of him, once he got it.

As it is I always feel icky not pasting a spanker in the head,
hard, for what they are doing to children. But then I'm a peaceable
sort.

So am I, but it wouldn't matter if I were Jack the Ripper in a
cyberspace
discussion.
Even in RL, I don't "paste" anyone who disagrees with me on
societal issues,
including child-rearing approaches. (Especially things like
child-rearing
strategy, which in some areas is quite individualized in terms of its
application and effects.)

Thanks for working on this problem with me.

It don't see it lending itself to a simple, objective solution,
but I don't
mind discussing it respectfully.
{Hamilton}

I do see a simple objective solution to spanking, but as yet I do not
want it. Like other countries have done we could pass a law. With us
it's not going to be a passive moral appeal like Sweden or other
countries though. With we Americans it would have to have some serious
teeth in it, probably offense graduated.

We are that stubborn and individualistic. I like us for that. And I
like us for so often in the past being close to the frontiers on social
issues.

I'd like us to get back that place....by addressing this issue without
laws having to be made.

In some societies it is so unusual to see someone even admonish a child
that doing so can send a crowd into stunned shamefilled silence. They
are ashamed for the person that would hurt a little child.

I've known them. Their children are lovely and grow to be lovely
people.

Kane

Kane (pohakuyakokane) on child-rearing:

Why would anyone resort to CP if "verbal redirection" is 100%
effective with
his or her children?
For some parents it's obviously not though.

Interesting. I'd have thought you would have said, "for some *children*
it's obviously not though."

Either way would have the same meaning, but "For some parents dealing with
some children it's obviously not enough" would be putting it completely, if
that's important to you.

It appears you are saying, and please correct me if I'm
misunderstanding, that some parents haven't the will or capacity to
figure out how to not use CP. Is this a correct assumption of your
meaning?

I'm saying that some parents find the use of legitimate CP as one effective
part of their child-rearing behavior modification methodology, and that it's
their perogative to use it if they so desire.
It's a parent's job to determine what child-rearing tactics work best for
his or her particular child(ren).

Breaking bones and/or leaving bruises would clearly show that its not
legitimate CP but parental abuse.

I presume stating the obvious is going to create a point from which to
debate your next claim.

I've been reading some of the posted debate here, and it seems that "stating
the obvious" (like this) is often necessary to try to avoid being labeled as a
"child abuser."

Yes. Would it surprize you that the boundary I'm looking for is not
really a factor -- after it's been passed; that I wish to know where it
is from the side of innocence, and before abuse happens to indicate
I've just broken the law, and in my own mind, assaulted my child?

I'm not sure that there's a clearcut legal boundary, and as a matter of
pragmatic practice I'd venture that a loving, caring parent who elects to use
CP for behavior modification purposes must be able to rely on using his or her
own good judgement in relation to his or her child(ren).
I would opine that spanking should not be done while the parent is in a
state of anger, and also that a parent who doesn't trust his or her own
judgement on the matter shouldn't be engaging in CP of his or her child(ren).

As for that difficult to define boundary (I think it impossible -- as
you might have guessed), if it's that hard to find, and if so many very
likely loving and well meaning parents have crossed over it,

I don't know how many actually have "crossed over it," it seems like it's
the exceptions, the abusers, that get the public notice.

some
strange fools, such as the Pearls whip 4 month old babies,

I agree that this is pathetic parenting practice, those people are bizarre
(if not outrightly sadistic) in using CP on near-newborn infants.

no
non pc parenting method has broken bones or rended flesh directly, and
that some seem to think no CP methods very powerful indeedy, wouldn't
it make sense to examine the non CP parenting more closely and even
give it a try?

No legitimate CP parenting method has done those things either, they're
obviously "over the line."
Parents should use whatever nonabusive child-rearing methods they find
appropriate and effective for their children, using their best judgement. I'd
certainly agree that "non-CP methods" should be used, with or without
legitimate CP accompanying them, based on the parents' discretion.

Inrestingly I've found that not to be true. So many of the things I did
when tried by others proved to be almost totally universal. No matter
the disposition of the child, they all responded with compliance, from
willing to eager.

I've heard some people make that claim for spanking as well, and I'm not in
a position to dispute your claims or theirs, but I do believe that there's
considerable variance among different children and in different situations.

It's this spanking thing that gets people all uptight, now isn't it.
Come on, confess, eheheheh...you know it's true. Something in us makes
us cling to this practice as our last resort, and too often our first
resort, like it was the holy grail.

Most people I know who spank (or spanked) their children don't (or didn't)
appear to be "uptight" about it, they just consider(ed) it part of being a
loving, caring parent even though they generally don't (or didn't) find it
enjoyable.
They do (or did) find it effective as a behavior-modification tactic,
however. In the vast majority of cases, it is (or was) considered only one
method and they employ(ed) others as well, when they feel (or felt) that those
methods would be more effective or appropriate.

You do not recognize verbal power struggles? What is a political tract,
if it is not an attempt to gain power? What is any debate or argument,
whether written or spoken? They all have high potential to become a
power struggle.

I have no interest in "power struggles" on internet newsgroups, and I don't
consider this kind of a discussion (or even a spirited debate) as a "power
struggle," to me it's just an exchange of ideas and information.

When someone comes at me with illogic and a bending of facts..such
obvious ones, I presume some attempt to disempower my words with his
attack. And I feel justified in using that term based on the unfairness
of pretending reading is as traumatic as hearing.

Maybe some people use the internet to help them resolve traumatic
experiences from earlier in their lives, but I have no interest in doing that.
Words can only have the power that one gives to them, so I really don't have to
"disempower" anyone's cyber-words on the internet as I haven't empwered them in
the first place. (Merely reading them with an open albeit skeptical mind isn't
my concept of empowering them.)

How very much my point exactly. If we know that driving is harmful and
risky and we don't have to do it, we have a choice of walking, riding
transit, biking, rollerskating, or mounting up on a Segway.

Sometimes driving is the best, most effective way of reaching a destination,
and under certain conditions it might be safer than some of the alternatives
you've mentioned.

Do you, by the way, see any possibility that your little sentence, "If
you can't discuss the subject seriously..." could be taken as humor,
OR, a bid to take control of the debate? A ...ahhhmmm power struggle?

You should take it at face value, that I perceived that you had no real
intention of spanking your adult daughter, which is the ONLY meaning that I
intended.

It strikes me that you are thinking yourself too too clever to have
expanded the argument to all parenting issues, and child-rearing
strategies, when I spoke to one, and one only.
Barring your having telepathic abilities, what "strikes you" about
my
beliefs on things that I've made no comment on whatsoever is pure
speculation
on your part, isn't it?

No. I was looking directly at your posted words.

Then you'll have to "directly" quote my "posted words" wherein I claimed to
be "clever."

To me, the expression "whalin' on a kid's body" is quite different
from mere
"spanking,"

Not to me. I didn't make that connection up. Those that spank use terms
like that. And if you ask them if they are beating their child to
injure them do the not say the same thing that someone "spanking" says?

They might say "whalin' on a (kid's) butt," I suppose, but "body" creates an
entirely different meaning for me.
Obviously, the nomenclature isn't critically important, it's what is
actually done that draws the distinction between child abuse and legitimate CP.

If there are other tools that work with all children that can be
reached, and spanking most definately will NOT work on children that
are mentally disabled in some way, then why are we spanking at all?

I'd suppose that it's a question of what "works best" or "works most
effectively" in certain varying situations, that parents are responsible for
deciding using their own best judgement.

In some societies it is so unusual to see someone even admonish a child
that doing so can send a crowd into stunned shamefilled silence. They
are ashamed for the person that would hurt a little child.

Well, I've admonished children for misbehaving on occasion and I never felt
either guilty or abusive about doing so. I can't say that the children appeared
to be emotionally traumatized or damaged either.

I gathered the girls up as I went to the rec room and they all stood
around as I addressed the two that had been fighting. All I said was,
honest, 'I'm so disappointed," and in about three seconds the place was
flooding with tears, and girls were sobbing in each other's arms, and I
was looking for kleenex.

Sometimes it was like that, an expression of disappointment in their
misbehavior (and an implication that it shouldn't be repeated), but I've never
felt "ashamed" of doing it.
(Hamilton)

Hamilton:
See alt.support.child-protective-services
Several threads in here are cross posted there as well.

Kane thinks he has me wrapped up in a giant
ad hominem that he drags out in EVERY
other issue, as you noticed.

To him and his cronies, it matters NOT that
a CPS caseworker TOLD A HUGE LIE in
order to MAKE A CASE and tear up my family.

The lie was used to cast sickly innuendo over
otherwise innocent family activities.

Child Protection agencies nationwide, and even
in several other countries, have had a growing
rash of tragic incidents that even the friendly
(to them) news media cannot ignore. Even
the US Congress itself held some emergency
investigations after a New Jersey discovery.

Kane was or IS a beneficiary of the Child
Protection INDUSTRY and so is intellectually
prostitute to them.

Like most CPS caseworkers he is against
any and ALL forms of spanking, and they
will stop at nothing to enforce this opinion
on families, despite the fact that spanking
is legal in all 50 states, and a large Federal
Court (huge district out west) ruled that
even if MARKS are left, SPANKING is not
what Child Protection agencies are about.

Kane has claimed expertise in psychology
several times, but only recently denied this.

It was laughable, really, since he swore
openly for over a YEAR on the newsgroups.

Kane and Dan pretend to be after reform
of Child Protection agencies, but they
seem to want to give Child Protection
yet another twenty years to correct their
corruption and abuses from the INSIDE.
This is certainly a MINORITY opinion.
Congress, caseworkers themselves,
Social Work and Child Protection experts
mostly all concur that reform from within
has had it's chance for 20 years now and
it has failed miserably.

Nobody but a complete stooge who somehow
benefits financially, thinks CPS should be
given more time to change from within.
They have had 20 years, numerous court
orders, Federal Consent Decrees, many
many disasters that cost lives or destroyed
families over false accusations.

The Child Protection INDUSTRY has evolved
into a threat to families and Americans
as monolithic as the Industrial Military Complex
that Eisenhower warned us about as he
left office.

The concept of guilt, innocence or truly
protecting kids has taken a back seat
to the need for AGENCY scores, in terms
of numbers of kids in the system BECAUSE
the Federal Grant Money that funds these
agencies is based on the numbers
of kids in the system.

There are severe problems with an agency
culture that is so jaded and presumes guilt
even in families where they know full well
it's a lie.

The Constitutional checks and balances do
not apply in Juvenile (family) court.

They can remove your child forever over
what they KNOW is flimsy or false, and you
have fewer rights than some person
accused of stealing a candy bar.

Rather than looking at child removal as
a VERY SERIOUS THING, comparable
to a murder charge, Constitutional Rights
are avoided because nobody is
CRIMINALLY CHARGED. The Liberty Interest
of a family in being a family is not considered
to be as compelling as a person losing the
Liberty Interest of walking around outside
of a prison.

That's how families are cheated out of their
Liberty Interests and their Constitutional
Rights, every day in Juvenile Courts.

Kane will SWEAR, insult, use innuendo,
lie, distort, mislead or anything else he can
think of in the hope to smear me and kill my message.

As one person put it, they "blow the same bone"
at me on every single topic, issue, subtopic,
and they hope their childish antics will win out.

What they really do is reveal what complete
STOOGES they are with the same insults
brought up in regard to EVERY topic.

It's an attempt to shout me down, basically.
That's why Kane did it here, as everywhere else.

Greegor wrote:
Hamilton:
See alt.support.child-protective-services
Several threads in here are cross posted there as well.

Kane thinks he has me wrapped up in a giant
ad hominem that he drags out in EVERY
other issue, as you noticed.

It's you that keeps spewing about your "case" which of course isn't
even yours, but that of a child and her mother.

To him and his cronies, it matters NOT that
a CPS caseworker TOLD A HUGE LIE in
order to MAKE A CASE and tear up my family.

greegor, we are shocked, absolutely schocked that a CPS worker would
lie about you. Now as for the truth.................

R R R R R ....

How many convictions for Domestic Abuse were there again?

Like you couldn't walk after the first one?

The lie was used to cast sickly innuendo over
otherwise innocent family activities.

Like getting in that bathroom every chance you had while the little
girl was in the shower? Towel boy, shampoo girl, and cold showers for
punishment routines.

MMMmmmhhhhhmmmmmm.....innocent familiy activities.

How DID you convince Lisa to let you stay home ildly sitting around
dreaming up yet other ways to abuse the child?

Child Protection agencies nationwide, and even
in several other countries, have had a growing
rash of tragic incidents that even the friendly
(to them) news media cannot ignore. Even
the US Congress itself held some emergency
investigations after a New Jersey discovery.

Yep..the power of the media is not to be triffled with. If you are
small time tin pot propagandist your first best hope is the media. If
it bleeds it leads.

Kane was or IS a beneficiary of the Child
Protection INDUSTRY and so is intellectually
prostitute to them.

If I am or was why would that make me intellectually prostitute to
them?

Surely you don't think Doug, the MSW state child protection worker is
intellectually prostitute to them, do you?

Like most CPS caseworkers

Not a caseworker, never been a caseworker, and you couldn't make me be
one with gun to my head.

he is against
any and ALL forms of spanking,

Yes I am. I've even argued with caseworkers that themselves were
spankers about this very thing...but not to convince them to remove
children for parental spanking. I just was stunned they would be
personally in favor of spanking as a child rearing practice.
Interestingly the more education they had the less inclinded toward
spanking they were.

and they
will stop at nothing to enforce this opinion
on families,

Sure they'll stop. They know what you are going to write below. They
and I went over it many times, as many of the relatives I helped were
believers in spanking. I kind of had to mediate the issue.

despite the fact that spanking
is legal in all 50 states, and a large Federal
Court (huge district out west) ruled that
even if MARKS are left, SPANKING is not
what Child Protection agencies are about.

Yep. Signs o' the times, greegor. Aren't you glad your opinion appears
to be prevailing? But then we've seen bigger issues change in the past.
0:-

Kane has claimed expertise in psychology
several times, but only recently denied this.

First I claimed, then I denied? No, I claimed, then I denied having
ever said I had any particular credentials. That's not denying my
expertise.

It was laughable, really, since he swore
openly for over a YEAR on the newsgroups.

You see to be ****in' wed to the swearing issue, greegor. Something put
a bug up your butt about that? What is it about swearing that bothers
you? Say compared to whipping a child?

Kane and Dan pretend to be after reform
of Child Protection agencies,

Yep, and we are years ahead of you and your cronies.

but they
seem

Lots of things "seem" to be one way or the other to you, but you are
nearly 100% wrong 100% of the time. In fact you are amazing. Tell me
what stocks would you buy if you had any money. I'll avoid them.

to want to give Child Protection
yet another twenty years to correct their
corruption and abuses from the INSIDE.

Nope, we both work on their failings on a day to day basis. In addition
I go after them directly at all levels and by lobbying. Dan and I each
do what we do best, rather than waste time doing your screeching
spastic monkey act.

This is certainly a MINORITY opinion.

No, actually there is a minority opinion that would make child
protection an exceedingly dangerous NATIONAL issue, with our everlovin'
feds setting all the standards. And trust me, once they have all the
power to define abuse taken away from the states, DON'T GET BACK IN
THAT BATHROOM.

Because if you think Iowa was mean to you, you ain't seen nothin' until
you've seen how federal laws can screw up society.

Balance in all things, greegor...and issues of family, child rearing,
and showering our girlfriends little daughter's best stay local...where
it was intended to be.

You see, if it's your neighbor trying to pass insane laws you can get
right in his face usually with a short drive to the state capitol. But
if it's the feds passing laws and setting up FEDERAL AGENCIES TO
ENFORCE THEM,...well, check out recent history.

If bobber the swift though affirmative action was bad, trust me, he
ain't seen nothin' yet...when it will come down to defining and
controlling families.

Congress, caseworkers themselves,
Social Work and Child Protection experts
mostly all concur that reform from within
has had it's chance for 20 years now and
it has failed miserably.

Some do, many don't. The ones that don't, are not asshole academics,
but are in the trenches too damn busy trying to stop twits like you,
and worse.

Nobody but a complete stooge who somehow
benefits financially,

Dan...oh Dan......? Can I borrow a fiver for a latte?

thinks CPS should be
given more time to change from within.
They have had 20 years, numerous court
orders, Federal Consent Decrees, many
many disasters that cost lives or destroyed
families over false accusations.

False accusations are rare. Look up the figures. Less than 10% of the
unsubstantiated allegation calls are found to be deliberately false.

The Child Protection INDUSTRY has evolved
into a threat to families and Americans
as monolithic as the Industrial Military Complex
that Eisenhower warned us about as he
left office.

Wow! I'm impressed. You are upgrading your analogies.

So would you say that the industry "jacklegs" are equivalent to
Halliburton?

The concept of guilt, innocence or truly
protecting kids has taken a back seat
to the need for AGENCY scores, in terms
of numbers of kids in the system BECAUSE
the Federal Grant Money that funds these
agencies is based on the numbers
of kids in the system.

What would you base it on?

There are severe problems with an agency
culture that is so jaded and presumes guilt
even in families where they know full well
it's a lie.

Your case does not equate. YOU were guilty as hell and have admitted it
here. CPS asked Lisa to be rid of a known convicted Domestic Abuser,
given that he had taken up extracurricular shower activities with a 7
year old.

The Constitutional checks and balances do
not apply in Juvenile (family) court.

Yes they do. They just are different than in criminal court.

They can remove your child forever over
what they KNOW is flimsy or false,

Nonsense. Dan's advice has even gotten people's children back that were
guilty as hell and said so.

and you
have fewer rights than some person
accused of stealing a candy bar.

They lose their children for that?

Rather than looking at child removal as
a VERY SERIOUS THING, comparable
to a murder charge,

It's not.

Constitutional Rights
are avoided because nobody is
CRIMINALLY CHARGED.

Don't be silly. Plenty of child abuse and neglect cases end up in
criminal court. They are cited in the ascps on practically a daily
basis.

The Liberty Interest
of a family in being a family is not considered
to be as compelling as a person losing the
Liberty Interest of walking around outside
of a prison.

Too garbled to respond to.

That's how families are cheated out of their
Liberty Interests and their Constitutional
Rights, every day in Juvenile Courts.

Could be. Then again maybe not. Every day you say? That go for
Saturday, Sunday and all legal holidays?

Kane will SWEAR,

Yep.

insult,

With gusto.

use innuendo,

Nope. I call you a child abuser, low rent gigolo, whore, low life
scumsucker. Unless of course that constitutes "innuendo" in your book.

lie,

I never lie on matters of family and child safety. Never.

Show citations.

distort,

In the eye of the beholder. You of course, with your shorteyes, would
distort anything that suggested you had no business in that bathroom
with that little girl.

mislead

I find myself overburdened with leading you and our cronies back to the
subjects and issues of the debate thread. By the way::::

What DO you think about the recording Chris Dugan located and posted
for a sample of CP?

or anything else he can
think of in the hope to smear me and kill my message.

"kill" your "message?" R R R R R R .....and that being?

As one person put it, they "blow the same bone"
at me on every single topic, issue, subtopic,
and they hope their childish antics will win out.

We seem to be offended or otherwise disturbed by your lack of concern
for a child and great deal of concern for your own selfish lazy
interests. Tsk.

What they really do is reveal what complete
STOOGES they are with the same insults
brought up in regard to EVERY topic.

I can't speak for others who might be differently inspired than I, but
I do what I do with you when YOU bring up things that are off
topic..usually by you dragging the conversation to YOUR situation, when
we are discussing some child's or parent's problems that have nothing
to do with you.

It's an attempt to shout me down, basically.

No no...speak up, greegor. The last thing any of us, and I freely speak
for others here....RR R R R R ....without a concern for them correcting
me,. WE WANT YOU TO CONTINUE YOUR BABBLE. It makes clear what kind of
nutso's are involved in the anti Government, anti CPS organizations.

That's why Kane did it here, as everywhere else.

You mistake my pointing for an attempt to supress you. No no no...I
would be going against my ethics and my capacity for exposing creeps if
I were to shut you down.

PLEASE, don't leave us greegor. We would be lost without you.
.....

but what was it you were saying again?

Kane

Hamilton1794 wrote:
Kane (pohakuyakokane) on child-rearing:

Why would anyone resort to CP if "verbal redirection" is 100%
effective with
his or her children?
For some parents it's obviously not though.

Interesting. I'd have thought you would have said, "for some
*children*
it's obviously not though."

Either way would have the same meaning, but "For some parents
dealing with
some children it's obviously not enough" would be putting it
completely, if
that's important to you.

It appears you are saying, and please correct me if I'm
misunderstanding, that some parents haven't the will or capacity to
figure out how to not use CP. Is this a correct assumption of your
meaning?

I'm saying that some parents find the use of legitimate CP as one
effective
part of their child-rearing behavior modification methodology, and
that it's
their perogative to use it if they so desire.
It's a parent's job to determine what child-rearing tactics work
best for
his or her particular child(ren).

Breaking bones and/or leaving bruises would clearly show that its
not
legitimate CP but parental abuse.

I presume stating the obvious is going to create a point from which
to
debate your next claim.

I've been reading some of the posted debate here, and it seems
that "stating
the obvious" (like this) is often necessary to try to avoid being
labeled as a
"child abuser."

Yes. Would it surprize you that the boundary I'm looking for is not
really a factor -- after it's been passed; that I wish to know where
it
is from the side of innocence, and before abuse happens to indicate
I've just broken the law, and in my own mind, assaulted my child?

I'm not sure that there's a clearcut legal boundary,

I've done a lot of research. There is none I can find. The law speaks
to the issue of having passed the boundary, not where it was. Very
foggy thinking. Very related to my point. This is a high risk behavior.


and as a matter of
pragmatic practice I'd venture that a loving, caring parent who
elects to use
CP for behavior modification purposes must be able to rely on using
his or her
own good judgement in relation to his or her child(ren).

Sadly the line in The Question is passed far too often. The level of
abuse in this country is extreme. There are many who think CP if fine,
even to the point of switching children as young as 4 months old, and
advocating others do it as a duty.

I would opine that spanking should not be done while the parent is
in a
state of anger, and also that a parent who doesn't trust his or her
own
judgement on the matter shouldn't be engaging in CP of his or her
child(ren).

Well, that is my point. If you cannot know, as apparently one cannot
given this question being unanswered so far, then can one trust one's
judgement?

What we see is far too many instances where one spanking has failed to
produce the desired outcome, and the parent escalates.

Remember, I'm asking The Question related to all forms of injury. Can
you honestly say you could judge with any accuracy the psychological
capacity of your child at any given moment to suffer a spanking without
harm?

Do you know, for instance, what thoughts and feelings they were having
that lead to them doing what they did?

Let me put it this way. If you use the more common non CP methods to
work through a problem with a child you will have some better
understanding, not exact, but better, of what they were thinking and
feeling at the time of the misbehavior. Would that be a good time to
make the judgement of whether or not the behavior warranted a spanking
and if so deliver it then?

As for that difficult to define boundary (I think it impossible --
as
you might have guessed), if it's that hard to find, and if so many
very
likely loving and well meaning parents have crossed over it,

I don't know how many actually have "crossed over it," it seems like
it's
the exceptions, the abusers, that get the public notice.

Why yes, my point. And no, they aren't exceptions. Around three million
abuse and neglect calls come into CPS abuse hotlines every year. About
a million are substantiated. I daresay most cases would include the use
of CP.

That seems something more than just exceptional.

some
strange fools, such as the Pearls whip 4 month old babies,

I agree that this is pathetic parenting practice, those people are
bizarre
(if not outrightly sadistic) in using CP on near-newborn infants.

What is it about the older child that makes him or her more switchable?


no
non pc parenting method has broken bones or rended flesh directly,
and
that some seem to think no CP methods very powerful indeedy,
wouldn't
it make sense to examine the non CP parenting more closely and even
give it a try?

No legitimate CP parenting method has done those things either,
they're
obviously "over the line."

I'm sorry to say you are wrong. Take school paddling. The right of the
school in loco parentis to apply a board to a child's posterior. They
have, well within the law, done serious long lasting harm to a
children's bodies. I would say likely to their minds as well, given the
propensity for violence and crime in those states that still or did
paddle.

And many parents consider severe injury as CP and their right to use.
They celebrate now that a court has found in favor of parental us of CP
that leaves marks on the child.

That would be actual tissue damage. If you or I were hurt that much by
another we would have grounds for making criminal and civil charges
against the perp.

Parents should use whatever nonabusive child-rearing methods they
find
appropriate and effective for their children, using their best
judgement.

Their best judgement often results in injury to the child. Deliberate
injury. About a million a year.

There's something very misunderstood about many child abusers. We seem
to think they are all fanged monsters who from the get go decide to and
act out to injure their children. That simply isn't so. Using their
"best judgement" they escalate from nonabuse to abuse, most often.

I'd
certainly agree that "non-CP methods" should be used, with or without
legitimate CP accompanying them, based on the parents' discretion.

My position is that that is truly the only moral and ethical way to
treat children, sans CP. My hope is that an appeal will wake people up
so that lawmakers will not be inspired to make the issue a federal law.
I'm not happy with federal laws governing parenting. A thing that seems
as isolated as CP, about which a single subject law might be made, can
go quickly to runious overkill, when enforced.

Inrestingly I've found that not to be true. So many of the things I
did
when tried by others proved to be almost totally universal. No
matter
the disposition of the child, they all responded with compliance,
from
willing to eager.

I've heard some people make that claim for spanking as well, and I'm
not in
a position to dispute your claims or theirs, but I do believe that
there's
considerable variance among different children and in different
situations.

Of course. But gentle parenting tends to bring out the best, while CP
parenting does not gentle children. It brings out the worst...though
sometimes it is well hidden and won't surface for many years.

It's this spanking thing that gets people all uptight, now isn't it.
Come on, confess, eheheheh...you know it's true. Something in us
makes
us cling to this practice as our last resort, and too often our
first
resort, like it was the holy grail.

Most people I know who spank (or spanked) their children don't (or
didn't)
appear to be "uptight" about it, they just consider(ed) it part of
being a
loving, caring parent even though they generally don't (or didn't)
find it
enjoyable.

Odd, there isn't a scintilla of difference between what I said, and you
said. Not really. Imagine considering hitting another human being a
loving caring thing to do. Have you any idea how incongruous that
reads?

I believe that it was once the fashion for women to brag that they knew
their men loved them because they beat them regularly. How very sick
that is.

All it meant really was that they felt truly "owned." We've stopped
beating our livestock, our women, and it's time to stop beating our
children and calling it "spanking."

They do (or did) find it effective as a behavior-modification tactic,
however. In the vast majority of cases, it is (or was) considered
only one
method and they employ(ed) others as well, when they feel (or felt)
that those methods would be more effective
or appropriate.

The only problem we have here is the numbers of folks that refused to
us CP as a behavior modification tactic and decided that there were
other methods that worked better.

I find the claim, now and then in this very ng, that the lack of the
use of CP is the cause of all the rising youth crime rate. Of course
when one goes to the DOJ/FBI data on youth they find that quite the
opposite is true. It's been dropping for years. In fact so many of the
other indicators for youth "misbehavior" are dropping, as the practice
of CP is being outlawed more and more, there is a suspicious
correlation arrising.

Then there are those that claim that surveys show 90% of us are
spanked.

Seems the two groups, those that claim we don't use it enough and those
that proudly point to the 90% figure, are just a tad confused.

And one has to remember, that out of the 100% of us, a certain
percentage do turn out to be rotten adults. I've lived long and I've
seen non-spanked children grow up and take their place in the adult
world.

It may be the single most pursuasive motivator I have for promoting a
non CP parenting ethic. I've seen what non-punitive methods can
do...yes, I said "non-punitive," not just non CP.

Many parents that either start off without CP, or come to drop it,
become exposed to and sensitized to leaving off punishment altogether.
And they see the benefits rather quickly. I've seen it in weeks in some
badly abused children that I worked with in a mental health treatment
setting. And I never saw an unspanked child there. From first to last
child I ever worked with there they had all been spanked in varying
degrees.

You do not recognize verbal power struggles? What is a political
tract,
if it is not an attempt to gain power? What is any debate or
argument,
whether written or spoken? They all have high potential to become a
power struggle.

I have no interest in "power struggles" on internet newsgroups,
and I don't
consider this kind of a discussion (or even a spirited debate) as a
"power
struggle," to me it's just an exchange of ideas and information.

When someone comes at me with illogic and a bending of facts..such
obvious ones, I presume some attempt to disempower my words with his
attack. And I feel justified in using that term based on the
unfairness
of pretending reading is as traumatic as hearing.

Maybe some people use the internet to help them resolve traumatic
experiences from earlier in their lives, but I have no interest in
doing that.
Words can only have the power that one gives to them, so I really
don't have to
"disempower" anyone's cyber-words on the internet as I haven't
empwered them in
the first place. (Merely reading them with an open albeit skeptical
mind isn't
my concept of empowering them.)

How very much my point exactly. If we know that driving is harmful
and
risky and we don't have to do it, we have a choice of walking,
riding
transit, biking, rollerskating, or mounting up on a Segway.

Sometimes driving is the best, most effective way of reaching a
destination,
and under certain conditions it might be safer than some of the
alternatives
you've mentioned.

Mmm...I doubt that is true. The accident rate is not as high for the
alternatives.

I happen to consider non-punitive parenting methods absolute racecars
though. Or better, jet aircraft.

Do you, by the way, see any possibility that your little sentence,
"If
you can't discuss the subject seriously..." could be taken as humor,
OR, a bid to take control of the debate? A ...ahhhmmm power
struggle?

You should take it at face value, that I perceived that you had no
real
intention of spanking your adult daughter, which is the ONLY meaning
that I
intended.

It strikes me that you are thinking yourself too too clever to
have
expanded the argument to all parenting issues, and child-rearing
strategies, when I spoke to one, and one only.
Barring your having telepathic abilities, what "strikes you"
about
my
beliefs on things that I've made no comment on whatsoever is pure
speculation
on your part, isn't it?

No. I was looking directly at your posted words.

Then you'll have to "directly" quote my "posted words" wherein I
claimed to
be "clever."

Then you didn't expand the issue to one not related to the one I was
discussing? I see.

To me, the expression "whalin' on a kid's body" is quite
different
from mere
"spanking,"

Not to me. I didn't make that connection up. Those that spank use
terms
like that. And if you ask them if they are beating their child to
injure them do the not say the same thing that someone "spanking"
says?

They might say "whalin' on a (kid's) butt," I suppose, but "body"
creates an
entirely different meaning for me.
Obviously, the nomenclature isn't critically important, it's what
is
actually done that draws the distinction between child abuse and
legitimate CP.

Yes. And the lack of a definitative model that can be called CP and not
abuse.

That IS why I ask The Question. There is no agreement universally of
what is and isn't safe in the way of CP. We find much more care taken
in equally risky behaviors, such as driving, or target shooting, or
plumbing.

We know precisely how fast we can go at the maximum limit of speed. We
know precisely why we cannot hook up water feedlines in a way that
would allow a siphon to occur.

We know precisely the set rountine for range safety in shooting.

We do not know these more exact limits in spanking. We can't even agree
on them. It's in the nature of hitting each other that the problem
arises.

If there are other tools that work with all children that can be
reached, and spanking most definately will NOT work on children that
are mentally disabled in some way, then why are we spanking at all?

I'd suppose that it's a question of what "works best" or "works
most
effectively" in certain varying situations, that parents are
responsible for
deciding using their own best judgement.

The best judgement argument is why I ask The Question. How good is our
best judgement in a situation where we strike the flesh of a child.
Just how much skill of what kind does it take to judge correctly and
not do harm to mind and body? Or, is it okay to do harm? If so, how
much? Of what kind?

In some societies it is so unusual to see someone even admonish a
child
that doing so can send a crowd into stunned shamefilled silence.
They
are ashamed for the person that would hurt a little child.

Well, I've admonished children for misbehaving on occasion and I
never felt
either guilty or abusive about doing so. I can't say that the
children appeared
to be emotionally traumatized or damaged either.

It's all in the meaning of "admonish." If you screamed loudly for five
minutes, and emballished with name calling, and threating body posture,
that would be one thing. If you pointed out the risks or discomfort to
self and others, that is something else.

I gathered the girls up as I went to the rec room and they all stood
around as I addressed the two that had been fighting. All I said
was,
honest, 'I'm so disappointed," and in about three seconds the place
was
flooding with tears, and girls were sobbing in each other's arms,
and I
was looking for kleenex.

Sometimes it was like that, an expression of disappointment in
their
misbehavior (and an implication that it shouldn't be repeated), but
I've never
felt "ashamed" of doing it.

The metaphore had nothing to do with you, but with a society that
accepts the physical assualt of a child as being perfectly okay, if it
doesn't break their body.
(Hamilton)

Kane

Yes, Non Punitive, whatsis, ... Zzzz...

http://www.geocities.com/cddugan/ReportCard.htm

Those who have traumatic issues about corporal punishment in childhood
should use discretion. This sound file can be extremely upsetting.

Chris

http://www.geocities.com/cddugan/ReportCard.htm

Those who have traumatic issues about corporal punishment in childhood
should use discretion. This sound file can be extremely upsetting.

Chris

http://www.geocities.com/cddugan/ReportCard.htm

Those who have traumatic issues about corporal punishment in childhood
should use discretion. This sound file can be extremely upsetting.

Chris