|Re: Ray attempts Biblical justification: was Re: U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking

>
>"Byron Canfield" <barnN...@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote in message
>news:bu4jb.780770$uu5.136098@sccrnsc04...
>> "Ray Drouillard" <cosmic...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:bmh7b7$mk3v3$1...@ID-193109.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> >
>> > "Byron Canfield" <barnN...@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote in message
>> > news:acOib.768006$uu5.134118@sccrnsc04...
>> > > "Doan" <do...@usc.edu> wrote in message
>> > > news:Pine.GSO.4.33.03101...@skat.usc.edu...
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Ray Drouillard wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > "LaVonne Carlson" <carl...@umn.edu> wrote in message
>> > > > > > > > news:3F88BAEE...@umn.edu...
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > What you have done is pick and choose portions of the
Old
>> > Testament
>> > > to
>> > > > > > > justify your behavior, and ignore those portions that
you do
>> > not
>> > > like
>> > > > > > or
>> > > > > > > agree with.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Actually, it looks like that is what you have done. You
are
>> > trying to
>> > > > > > justify your practice of not disciplining your children,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I disciplined my children without resorting to hitting
them.
>> > > >
>> > > > Good for you. But that is not the issue. The issue here is
how
>> > > > is it better? I have been challenging you for years to show
me
>> > > > one "peer-reviewed" study in which, under the same condition,
your
>> > > > non-cp alternatives are any better. So far, all you could do
is
>> > > > avoid the issue, launch personal attacks against me. How
about
>> > > > it, Dr. LaVonne?
>> > > >
>> > > > Doan
>> > > >
>> > > The burden of proof is on you, Doan, to prove that committing
acts of
>> > > physical violence on other people accomplishes the ostensible
goal
>> > when it
>> > > is already apparent to so many that it is not necessary and is
so
>> > obviously
>> > > harmful..
>> >
>> > Since you are proposing an alternative to system that is
time-honored
>> > and proven successful, the burden of proof is upon you.
>>
>> "Time-honored" and "proven successful"? How do you figure? So,
let's see,
>> the fact that we have a massively disproportionate increase in the
number
>of
>> people in prison for violent offenses to the increase in population
makes
>> committing acts of violence upon impressionable youth
"time-honored" and
>> "proven successful" -- is that the proof you mean?
>>
>>
>Byron, and the increase in crime has skyrocketed in recent years,
especially
>since we've been bombarded with psychobabble about how bad it is to
spank a
>child. Many are growing up as spoiled brats, without any form of
discipline
>in their lives and grow to adulthood and add to the problem.

This is a myth proven by the ancient's declarations of the same just
because teens going through their angst and separation preparation are
so silly and weird. I engage them all the time, the more dangerous
looking the better. They invariably turn out to be little sweetie pies
trying to look mature...r r r r.

Those that cast them in the role of evil teen would do well to
remember that people will respond as we protray them.

You need to check out the crime rate for teens...it's been going down
for years, along with teen pregnancies.

The media leads a lot of folks astray.

Did you see CBS lead everyone in the country astray about home
schoolers by broadcasting a story of four families (one of which never
WAS a homeschool family) that had the tragedy of murders happen to
them?

It was a complete crock. One family wasn't known to two states child
protective services with drug convictions for the father, and failure
to protect and abuse as well. The state was after them to clean up
their act just before the alleged murder suicide.

Two other cases were clearly mental illness, and the failure was with
other systems, not homeschooling.

We know, if we homeschool and follow it, that children are safer in
those homes than anywhere else. Just in incidence of child sexual
abuse with school teacher and other child caregivers as the perps
shows that....but no story on that.

>There has always been a situation of 'abuse' and 'spanking', two
completely
>different terms which most of those 'enlightened' among us try to
combine.

We don't "combine" them. You apologists and spankers make that claim
about us when we have carefully explained that even YOU folks can't
define the two as separate and in the end horrible beatings get
portrayed as just justifiable corporal punishment.

Please don't try this old line on us.

>Anyone who does not spank a very young child to teach them discipline
and
>not do somethin dangerous is putting their child's life at risk.

Since the child cannot determine what is dangerous from one incident
to the next unless conditions and the enviroment are exactly the same
you folks completely miss the point. They aren't afraid of the
danger...they are afraid of YOU, the more present and unpredictible
danger.

So they behave when you are around. They don't when you aren't because
they don't know what you want. You take luck as success. Or the
barrier you put up between them and the danger you discount.

>No, the burdon of proof is on those who come up with the new
theories.

Really? Who made that rule?

I recall similar claims about slavery and chattel holding, as in women
and children as property.

>For
>all of those who were simply 'spanked' as young children and went
bad, there
>are millions of others who went on to become great leaders and
members of
>the community, a great deal of them do NOT abuse their children, but
are
>intelligent enough to understand the difference between disciplining
them
>for their own safety and abusing them.

Well, that's a beautiful declaration, but based on nonsense. Those who
suffered spankings of a low enough order and frequency had a much
better chance of surviving it so that the effects weren't all that
apparent, but they are there, nontheless.

Their native capacity to survive helped them out. But many that got no
more than that really didn't do too well. Look around the world. Tell
me you like the way we treat each other.

Now just how low in spanking intensity and frequency must we go to
improve things?

I'd say give a shot to looking at non-punitive
parenting...developmental support and enhancement, with appropriate
redirection. I've posted recently on this.

And we that don't punish are a bit annoyed that you'd assume because
we don't spank we aren't teaching our children and helping them
survive.

Care to explain the Embry study?

It has applications in other areas as well. There is nothing about the
unwanted behavior of street entry that wouldn't cross over to the
unwanted behavior of touching hot stoves, or not handling our cutlery,
or leaving daddy's sharp tools alone.

All without punishing.

I have to assume, though you may wish to deny it, and of course I
could be wrong, after 45 years or so of observation and analysis, that
you believe as you do as a result of being spanked and the certain
effect on your thinking....as in thinking errors.

It's so apparent in that "spanking is not abuse" claim that I can't
respond any other way but to chuckle. <chuckle>

Kane

[]

Well, Kane, you've convinced me. I have never spanked my children in the
past, but you have done such a horrible job of arguing against it, that I
have decided to try it.

Jayne

ROFL Rolling On Floor Laughing hysterically!

Jane: I supported you in your choice before,
and if you change that now.

Kane represents the rabid side of anti-spanking.

To me, only half of the issue regarding spanking
is the scientific merits. (Weak or inconclusive)

The other half is rooted in concern about people
(like Kane) militantly pushing their views and
deceiving lawmakers into passing laws removing
parents CHOICE.

As a pro-spanker I respect your choice not to,
but I am very leery of people like Kane who
are anti-spanking and zealots about it.

Until there is irrefutable and convincing
evidence, (No more Sweden or UN garbage)
it all comes down to the parent making their
OWN choice.

Personally I think being against spanking is
fine, but that no parent should ever be told
they must never under any circumstances spank.
In other words, "never say never".

Kane and LaVonne represent a sort of
socialist totalitarianism that would remove
perogative and choice, replacing it with
bureaucratic absolutism.

This is like saying "As a slave-owner I respect your choice not to own
slaves, but I am very leery of people like Kant who are anti-slavery and
zealots about it."

Until there is irrefutable and convincing evidence (No more non-slave
states and government garbage) it all comes down to landowners making
their OWN choice.

Personally I think being against slavery is fine, that that no landowner
should every be told that under any circumstances should they ever be
able to own a slave. In other words, never say never.

Kane and I, and many others, abhor the idea that children may be
physically assaulted in the name of discipline, while every member of US
society over the age of 18 enjoy protection from physical assault for
any reason.

There was a time in US history when the arguments you use against
legally banning spanking was used to support slavery, to support spousal
abuse, and to support the position that women could not own property or
vote. These positions were challenged in court, and wars were fought
over these positions. Guess what, Greg? Slavery is now illegal,
spousal abuse is now llegal (including spousal rape) and women can vote.

There will come a time in the US that children are also protected.

LaVonne

And the police still carry batons! ;-)

Doan

Is it? Yet even a zealot should have logic and fact on their side.

Without logic or fact why should it *not* be left up to individuals?

I'm a (mostly) libertarian. Historically slavery and "employment" and
the distinctions between them become somewhat blurred. US style
slavery is an extreme...almost an aberration. Almost every culture had
some kind of involuntary servitude in its history. At present we work,
if we work, a certain amount of our lives...quite apart from our choice
to do so...for some one else. All of what we produce *belongs* to
someone else. (Radical libertarians are not wrong about forced
taxation being slavery...but might be wrong in the assumption that the
slavery is necessarily wrong.)

But "slavery" is one of those things that can never never be
defended...it is always evil...always wrong...and anyone opposing your
argument can be dismissed by reversing the logical flow to pretend
that slavery is being argued *for*.

Slavery is simply not even *slightly* similar... in application, in
attribute, in...anything to spanking children. A slave might
experience *no* physical discomfort at all! The reason slavery
is wrong has nothing to do with the fact that slaves often were
treated very badly. It has to do with liberty and the human
spirit in bondage.

A child can be oppressed and bound, manipulated and abused,
without ever once in his or her life experiencing physical
discomfort.

(...)

Yeah, whatever. I didn't notice anyone saying that the *reason*
that spanking was an acceptable choice was that parents have a
right to abuse the children in their care. In fact, (oh yes, a fact!)
children are just as protected as women (or men) from domestic
violence. And yes...it was a legal struggle to get it that way. IIRC
the first child abuse case was tried in court under laws applying to
the humane treatment of animals because no laws existed to protect
human beings within a household.

The rhetoric against spanking is not at all about getting children
protected from domestic violence because those laws already exist.

It is about re-defining any and all physical discomfort as abuse.

--Julie

Your facitiousness aside; what would be a more convincing argument
than
I've made so far? I had nearly 40 years study, 31 of those
professionally
involved with mentally ill youth, incarcertated men, ordinary
families, a huge
number of homeschooling families.

Since you aren't a spanker then you might be willing to help me by
pointing out how I might improve my argument.

Possibly you could convince me that spanking is better. Could you
share with
me your reasons for believing that?

And if you really didn't spank your children why not? And what did or
could I
say to a non-spanking parent that would convince them to spank?

Thank you,

Kane

>news:3F945F06...@umn.edu...

The same could be said for using electricity. Yet the vast majority of
people that use it do so with little understanding of it, only that
"it works."

And from time to time they manage to burn down houses, business, and
electricute themselves and others. Yet if you ask someone to tell you
to predict everything to the last bit of knowledge about electricity
an electrical engineer would laugh her ass off at your stupidity.

Did you read that just in the past few months an entirely NEW way
never used before has been activated to create electric current out of
nothing more than water and some pinholes?

There is no need to know everything about something to determine how
to use it or not to use it.

And while all the facts may not be in on spanking, there are more than
enough to cast great doubt on it efficacy. And NONE prove spanking
effective and useful and not dangerous but the same kind of "facts"
that someone that switches on a light would claim.

That same kind of slavery was even more horrendous in South America
against both the natives and imported Africans. You don't know much
factually about the subject apparently.

And except for some isolated areas notice that it's gone and more
especially gone in the developed countries. If you want to spank kids
take them where kids are regular beaten. You'll be seen as too kind to
the evil resistent noncompliant child.

Ho hum....

As long as you cut that fine line between what would happen if you hit
me just as you do when you spank a child and with your child nothing
will happen to you and with me, after I beat you to a bloody pulp as
you richly deserve, you'll get a fine and most likely a bit of jail
time.

Translation: "Watch me fart."

Baloney. If a spouse hits another spouse in ANY WAY, let alone with
the force of a spanking they have just broken the law. If they "spank"
the child they have not.

Your fact is a fart. Left side of your brain blew out.

Yep, and I'd like it to be completely unecessary to go through that to
put and end to CP of children...but apparently you folks have
yourselves so completely convinced that you'll risk anything to
continue the practice.

So be it. It's going to go to the law then. It's already banned in
many countries and in many states schools may no longer spank or
paddle children.

If you wait to long to get behind the effort to end this savagry then
you'll be facing the law, and given the extent of the problem I have a
hunch it's going to be a great deal more harsh than in some countries.

That's a bogus myth. You really should research it.

I don't believe your poster said that.

She said "spousal abuse" and the two are not mutually duplicates. One
can abuse without domestic violence. Though not act out domestic
violence without it being abuse. And you are dead wrong on children
being protected.

You just snuck it in because you know you and your cronies are bereft
of any real support, factual or otherwise, morally for this viscious
practice.

Do I hear the lonesome cry of the flying weasel once again..."spanking
isn't hitting, spanking isn't hitting."

Spanking isn't well defined by the weasel term "physical discomfort."

Having someone scratch your back too hard is "physical discomfort."

Have a two hundred pound man whale away on a 120 lb woman is not. It's
abuse.

And having a 120 woman whale on a 50 lb child is abuse, let alone a
200 lb man doing it.

>
>--Julie
>

Yet another apologist bites the dust.

Thanks for the challenge, but I have a hunch I've been doing this a
whole lot longer than you, and nose to nose with abusive "spankers" as
well.

Hope that you don't spank your child in front of me. I know exactly
how to turn it into a criminal offense when I grab YOU by the scruff
of the neck and hold you to be arrested and charged.

I guess you hardshell nincompoops just aren't going to ever develop
any empathy for others. Apparently the only way to stop you is to pose
a threat to your safety and freedom.

Some of you are going to have to meet and greet Butch, the cellblock
Big Momma, before you get the point. Bully.

Kane

I wasn't being facetious. This thread really has convinced me to try
spanking.

Your content is lost in your style. You write in an abusive and bullying
style about how spanking is abusive bullying. You lose all moral authority.

I do not have a good method of discipline for children before the age of
reason. This is probably the greatest weakness in my parenting skills and
makes the toddler years extremely stressful for our whole family. Our
toddler is a danger to himself and others, not to mention property, because
I have no way to control him. I am so stressed by trying to watch him every
instant that I can not enjoy being around my family. I am burnt out and
shortchanging everyone. I desperately need a way to put some limits on this
child.

I have struggled with the fault of being short-tempered ever since I can
remember. I have been afraid that I would lose control of myself if I used
corporal punishment and might really hurt my children. But Mike impressed
me with his point that leaving it as a last resort is what is likely to lead
to losing control. Everything he said made sense, while your points were
lost in nastiness and insults.

Jayne

If you aren't smart enough to see through my style then I doubt you
are smart enough to figure out ways to parent without pain and
humiliation. But I could be wrong.

That could be because you are thinking of "discipline" as punishment
and control, rather than redirection, engagement and support for
exploration.

A child that isn't well engaged with his or her environment (adults
are constantly taking things away and "no" saying, instead of
enriching the environment and saying a lot of "yes")tends to drive
eveyone crazy because are being so driven.

To much TV will produce similar results. Mind rot.

What would be your expectations of a "good discipline method?"

Jayne, lots of folks have tried pulling my chain only to discover I
have hooked my end to a 220 volt line with a switch. Don't play with
me.

Then you obviously have a maladjusted mentally ill child...or you are
among the most hapless of parents. And just to show you that I know
you are pulling my chain again, like I just warned you about:

YOU are a liar.

By toddler age if you had a child that difficult you'd have resorted
to spanking in lieu of learning how to parent without it successfully.

Awww....sure, Jayne.

>I desperately

You don't carry off "desterately" very well, Jayne. You are lousy at
lying.

Anyone that can't figure out the easy task of how to engage a toddler
to keep him busy to the point of HIS exhaustion deserves what they
get.

So had I. It's not like your temper has to run you, is it? If so, that
is if you aren't trying another piece of lying bullshit, then you are
in more serious trouble than I can help with.

R R R R...

You really think you can carry of this bull?

I'm sure he did. Suckers fall for such lines all the time. "Time
tested and majority approved." I see it all the time. We used to see
it a great deal in treatment centers for mentally ill teens. Their
parents always blamed the problems that resulted on the child, or her
peers, or the disintegration of the family...one of MY all time
favorites.

Naw. It just made sense to the hapless or the little twits that
believe in it and want to help promote it.

You don't lie well at all.

Nice try, Jayne. Won't wash. Go piss up a rope.

Just another fundie attempt to play at being clever. You folks are
lousy at it.

You've been spanking your child since you first were annoyed with him.
Hope he grows up to bludgeon you to death in your sleep with a copy of
one of James Dobson's books. That shit is heavy.

Can't kid an old kidder, Jayne. You are waaaaaay too obvious.

>
>Jayne
>
r r r r
bingo bango bongo

Stoneman

"Making Children Mind... Without Losing Yours," by Dr. Kevin Leman.

An excellent book.

Just what you need.

Spanking IS a last resort.

Two or three swats with an open hand on the child's behind NOT while you're
angry.

Best, Dan

Tuesday, the 21st of October, 2003

Kane:

Kane, you are so full of it. You are so thoroughly warped
into some sort of myopic crusade by your own pseudo experiences
with the pathological that you see the same pathology everywhere.
And that feedback should have taught you something---namely that
you are simply bigtime wrong about it. Instead, you assume yourself
capable of pronouncing judgment on a whole culture, even to 90% of
its members (by your own count), and all we have to do is wait
a week or two, and your bullshit claimed "conservatism" turns
out predictably to be Bush-hatred and anti-fundie ranting (no,
make that *paranoic* Bush-hatred---never ceases to amaze me
since I make it that Bush is basically a 1980-1990 Democrat in
sheep's closing, and, no, I did not vote for the man).

You got me so wrong it isn't even close to funny, and Jayne is
a very liberal---left even---Canadian Christian, and I'll
bet money she is utterly sincere about parental frustration
with a misbehaving toddler, and you pull this macho act on her.
You demonstrate thereby only that you are incapable of reading
---words, people, books, or any of the culture you live in. And yet
you have dared to try and lecture us about empathy.

Look, you want to try and get it out of your system, my
name is Michael S. Morris, I live at 2731 Little Hurricane
Rd., Martinsville, IN, 46151 (765)349-2359. My place of
business is Morris Machine Co., Inc., 6480 S. Belmont St.,
Indianapolis, IN, 46217 (317)788-0371, and I have an office
at Butler: Department of Physics and Astronomy, Butler University,
4600 Sunset Ave., Indianapolis, IN 46208 (317)940-8318.

I do not hide behind an online pseudonym.

Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)

[]

[further abuse snipped]

You appear unable to converse with me without insults and ridicule. Aren't
you trying to cause me pain and humiliation? I find it hard to believe that
preventing these things is really very important to you. I have told you
about my difficulties with my youngest child and rather than giving me an
alternative to spanking you have called me a liar and a bad parent. You
have proven to me just how dedicated you really are to preventing spanking.
Whatever your words claim, your actions show that this is not a high
priority for you at all.

Jayne

[]

[]

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll look for it.

Jayne

Perhaps we disagree about the meaning of 'last resort.'

In the families I know where spanking is a 'last resort,' I see
elastic boundaries, boundaries that change depending on circumstances
outside the child's control or cognizance. The point of last resort
may be reached with startling speed before Mom has her coffee, if Dad
is having a bad day, if the parents are stressed by some situation
totally unrelated to the child's behavior.

The same behavior that caused a spanking yesterday morning may be
repeated for hours on another day if the parents are not stressed by
external factors.

If what I want to teach my child is to obey me for his own protection
and safety, leaving a spanking until some nebulous 'last resort'
doesn't seem the best method to help children learn what the
boundaries are.

In fact, I think this 'last resort' thinking teaches the children that
the goal is not to respect the boundaries that are set up for their
protection and well-being, but that the goal is to figure out how not
to make the parent angry- and since this alters from day to day
through circumstances outside the child's control or understanding,
leaving spanking as a last resort seems the worst way to teach a child
anything, except perhaps to gamble on the chance that they may or not
get a spanking for the exact same act of disobedience. The last
resort method truly is random.

I also have seen cases in 'last resort' families where the same
behavior merits a spanking if that behavior ends up in accidental
breakage, but if no such breakage occurs, no spanking results. This
seems to teach the children that what they have no control in whether
or not they receive a spanking, as they are really getting spanked for
the accident, which they could not control, not the disobedience,
which they can.

For us, when we say spanking is not a last resort, that also means
that spanking is the consistent result of certain behaviors. People
like to say that we should never spank a child when we are angry. I
disagree wtih that. I think rather, that we should never spank
_because_ we are angry.

For example, if it is a rule in your house that children do not jump
on the bed, then a young child who jumps on the bed should be spanked,
not as a last result, but as a predictable consequence of that
disobedience. If spanking is to be effective, this means that a
child receives a spanking _every_ time he jumps on the bed- whether he
is doing something cute and funny while jumping on the bed and has
made you laugh, or whether in jumping on the bed he accidentally
knocks over a lamp and breaks it, making you angry.

Your anger can have nothing to do with whether or not you spank. It
should certainly never be the reason you spank, but neither should it
be a reason _not_ to spank (more on this below). The spanking is
determined only by the actual behavior of disobedience in violating a
well-known rule.

I think it's a good idea to determine well before you ever spank that
you will _never_ spank beyond a set limitation. Whether or not you
are angry, how angry you are, the side effects of a child's behavior-
none of these things should be permitted to influence how many swats
on the backside a child receives. The only question is 'did the child
disobey?' If so, then the child must receive the predetermined
consequence within the predetermined limits. That limit was
determined long ago, in a moment of calm, thoughtful reason, and you
simply don't permit yourself to go beyond those limitations.

So I would say, two or three swats with the open hand on the child's
backside *regardless* of whether or not you are angry- only because a
child has disobeyed a safety rule, and always when he disobeys a
safety rule. Your level of anger, which is subjective, should have
nothing to do with it.

Kanga

You'll have to kill me first.

--

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes
ch...@txbarnes.com Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes

Be prepared to learn and to laugh out loud (it's pretty funny).

This book helped me tremendously with my kids.

We never went thru the terrible two's with any of them.

And my 14 YO daughter still hold my hand when we walk together.

Best, Dan

Kane, you ARE your own worst enemy.

Then you have made a judgement by limiting yourself to as little
knowledge about me as possible. I do hope that wasn't so that you
could preserve your mindset. Just open in google and hit that old name
and see what comes up. You'll find I can post many ways.

Oh, you have been paying attention then. Doesn't a parent try to cause
pain and humiliation when they spank-hit a child?

That isn't about me. That's about your attachment to the idea of
spanking.

There are so many alternatives I cannot believe, unless you are
already a spanking that you have't explored any. What have you been
doing all this time your child was misbehaving? Gritting you teeth?

I don't recall calling you a bad parent. Ignorant possibly. No crime
in that...unless you continue to hold on to it and grab the first
quick fix that comes along.

Thank you. I knew eventually I would get through to you.

You are about as accurate about that as you are about how to raise a
child without having to resort to hitting.

> Jayne

So tell me, Jayne. How does it feel to have someone try to cause you
pain and humiliate you?

Get my drift here?

And you and I are adults...presumably. We can communicate with a
considerable level of understanding and nuance totally beyond the
capacity of a small child.

You even thought I was telling you you were a bad parent...that takes
some abstraction (even if wrong) to come to some conclusion.

Chilren do not have the capacity. Plain and simple. And those that
would claim they do are victims of the fantastic memory capacity and
desire to please that child DO have. But that does not equate with
understanding.

The day you presume the Innocence of the child and start to work from
there your troubles with your son will be over. All you have to do is
figure out what they need and give it to them, repeatedly. It's the
repetition that lodges the desired message in the child's brain for
later use when they can apply their understanding, over six years of
age.

Most successful parenting methods you'll run across, even if they miss
this fact, work because of it. They de-escalate the punishment
routines and increase the support routines. Even the sloppy ones work
to some degree because they are more reactive the the reality of the
child.

There is a drive in every child to learn. And nature gives not a whit
whether YOU know it or not, or act on it. The child WILL do it, either
with your help, or lacking that some other way...the other ways tend
to lead toward criminality or mental illness.

I don't just want to stop spanking. Frankly if you did everything else
right I doubt you could do much harm using no more spanking than the
suggested three swats on the bottom with the open hand.

What is missing, and why spanking and other forms of punishment go
astray is that they do not give the child a chance to learn WHAT to
do, only what not to do.

Were you or any child you know spanked for not learning how to ride
their bikes? No, of course not. Even the ignorant of parent knows
better than that.

What amazes me is that they cannot extrapolate that simple fact of
learning to other areas of life.

A common example. Street entry into traffic. I've been hearing about
this seriously from folks since 1976. My answer then is the same as
now...two answers actually: If the child is too young to learn,
without being pounded on, not to run in traffic then you are not
supervising adequately and that includes not letting them play near
the street.

The second answer is in the Embry study. Children told what to do have
an out from the behavior you want stopped.

"Don't jump on the bed" pretty well insures that they will. "The
trampoline is for jumping so that is where you can jump."

Don't have a trampoline? Well.........get.........one.

Most abuse of children begins with high minded ideas about punishment
them into compliance. Nature isn't the least interested in compliance.
It WILL make that child explore their environment.

If you really want a hardcore book on child rearing one of the best
I've run across in a long time is Tom Gordon's Parent Effectiveness
Training. But for do it right now without having to learn any special
skills (Tom's book is a skills acquisition book..sadly) try Smart Love
by Pieper and Pieper.

Have a nice day. In fact, have a nice life. I've done all I can do
here.

The fools have exposed themselves. The ones that have any capacity for
empathy have also revealed that. Tell Mike thanks.

Kane

[various snips]

I don't know how she takes it. I've been a fan of Jayne
for years now, so I suspect/wish/hope she probably is unaffected
by your attempts to do that. I know your attempts to do the
same in my direction have been laughable.

Kane:
Get my drift here?

Yeah, but you've never gotten mine, which is: We have the human
power to choose our reaction to speech/text, and therefore the
attempt by a speaker or writer "to cause us pain or humiliation"
is *always* laughable unless we choose pain or humiliation for
ourselves.

Kane:

As I saw it, Jayne merely pointed out you tried to cause her
pain and humiliation. Which is true. As I saw it also, however,
Jayne didn't say you caused her pain and humiliation.

[]

Kane:

What is amazes me is that you can claim the validity
of extrapolation here, but deny it in the other direction.

Kane:

This is simple nonsense. We aren't talking "letting the child
play near the street", we are talking the 1000 times a week the
child of a necessity in modern life ends up in a situation where he
can run out into traffic---unless you can hire a babysitter for
every drive to the grocery store, you are going have to demand the
child takes your hand and marches obediently with you in
all kinds of situations in public where it will be in the way,
disruptive, and inconsiderate of other people for the child to
do what the child wants to do.

Kane:

The Embry study is so much bullshit. My children were trained by
spanking not to run out in the street. My children habitually reached
(and reach in the younger instance) for my, or an adult's hand, when
in a parking lot. They stop at the edge of the street when walking
along a sidewalk, and wait for the adult hand to hold in crossing.
That permits them freedom from the adul hand hold while walking along
the
sidewalk, etc.. The discipline they have learned has become
self-discipline,
and opens the door for them to greater freedoms than they would have if
supervise them in the way you are suggesting.

Kane:

This is the most appalling child-rearing advice I have ever
seen. A trampoline is just as dangerous as a bed to a child who
is small and is jumping on a bed. My daughter Helen injured herself
quite early jumping on the bed. She flipped off by misstep and went down
face first on the corner of a hardwood dresser, jamming her top front
teeth
all the way up into her jaw. She was screaming and her face was a bloody
mess. Luckily, they were baby teeth, and the doctor at the emergency
room
and the dentist later said they'd grow back out, and they did.

You can break a neck on a trampoline.
And I think permitting children to jump on one before
those children have demonstrated they have the self-discipline to
keep things in control and follow the safety rules is
taking a big risk. Life is not risk-free, but the idea is
to bring them to the point where they know the risks,
act so as to minimize them within reason (that is, take
them intelligently), and choose the risks for themselves.

And that is the problem with jumping on the bed---the child is
certainly not choosing the risks, the child isn't cognizant of
the risks.

Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)

This is a guy who clearly has no impulse control
telling other people to resist impulses.
He preaches against humiliation but practices the opposite.

Next he'll probably have sex to preach virginity. :)

Hi, Jayne!

Professionals using a family-systems approach may have an explanation for
Kane's choice of the moral low road. Kane has shared with us that he
perceived himself a victim of bullying during his childhood. He said that
he was a small kid and other children picked on him. Kane set upon a
mission to physically assault the children.

He says that, today, he cannot count the number of children's noses he
broke.

Later, Kane said he grew taller and children were afraid of him.

In another post, Kane tells us the age at which he decided not to hit
children. But prior to that time it appears he experienced a rather
violent, abusive childhood. Family-system theorists may hold that he
bullies today because he continues to perceive himself as a victim.

The abusive language he chooses -- especially to describe pseudo-events
involving children -- is troublesome. Family-systems folks would lay the
blame on his parents or foster caregiver. Others would say he is a
self-made man. But few readers, if any, internalize his bullying as
reflective of them.

He speaks volumes about himself.

Thanks, Julie. I think you have eloquently hit the nail on the head.

Doan

I can see how you do. I'm waiting for her answer. I presume she has
some capacity for empathy and could transfer the reaction she had to
me on to children that receive pain and humiliation from their trusted
caregiver, their parent.

Apparently you aren't ready to think about that.

I'm not interested your adoration situation.

Your "suspect/wish/hope" has a great deal more to do, I would suspect,
with your desire to preserve your particular sick world view.

You are inconsistent. Your defense of Jayne and your responses to me
show clearly that for you I and my views on parenting are no laughing
matter. Do you always lie to yourself when you don't like what you see
presented to you about yourself?

Now you've made me laugh. You just demonstrated to me you GOT my point
at some level even as you pathetically flop about trying to avoid the
knowledge.

Adults, and especially at the remove of this virtual medium, can pick
and choose. You or Jayne or anyone else here can reject me and any
abuse you think you are suffering at my hands or my attempts to abuse
you.

I haven't laid a hand on either of you. And according to you Jayne is
unlikely ("I suspect") to and you have not been effected by my
attempts..(of course...r r r r). But what choice does a child have
when a parent choses humiliation and pain?

Even if they could leave, as they tend to in their teen years...more
and more progressively until they are out the door for good, the loss
is often to much for them to bare so they stay and develop masking
behaviors so both you and they will not know the pain you are causing
them. Or the systemic injuries to their development.

Well, I guess. I did so state, did I not? It's not like I'm trying to
fool anyone. I'm pointed out the similarity, though miniscule by
comparision, what YOU do to children when you use cp or other
punishments.

My real purpose isn't to cause her pain and humiliation but to take
into account what a child feels. In other words I was appealing to her
capacity, if she has any, for empathy. That cannot be an intellectual
exercies. There has to be actual experience. I graciously offered it
to her. She can do with it what she wants or is capable of.

Who says I deny it in the other direction. I have not said children
don't learn from being spanked. I have said that pain interfers with
the desired lesson and can have serious unwanted other effects.

Please write Dennis Embry and tell him that. This study was a very
small one not even about "spanking" when it began. He is a traffic
engineering investigator, not a child development specialist. He was a
stunned by his results as you are resistent to the outcomes he found.

I can teach a child to stay out of traffic by the use of pain. I was a
treatment specialist in adolescent mental health facilities. They
relied heavily on just such methods. Penalties, punishments, etc. and
I was one of those that discovered the power of relationship over dog
trainer pain applications..

Hell, in recent years the dog and other animal trainers are using the
methods, highly successfully, that I helped develope. They probably
never heard of me because I didn't do much writing during that time.
Kindness, gentleness, redirection to desired behaviors and recognition
of the child's wanted behaviors pay off big time, have no unwanted
side effedts.

And you called the Embry study "nonsense."

First of all there are no 1,000 times a week such things happen. If so
then you are unecessarily exposing the child to danger .. for what
purpose I can't imagine. I can't imagine that a mother or father take
children out shopping or on other trips more than 10 or 15 times tops
per week. It's really more like four or five.

And your description of the child strongly suggests you have had to
overcome some very bad side effects from the very things I warn about.
If a child is that willing to struggle against you holding their hand
there is something very wrong going on.

I've pointed out the need for children to experience their
environment. Toddlers should either be carried, carted, or hooked up
for safety. When you cannot because of their size then they are likely
getting old enough to teach more.

A discussion of traffic and safety is never out of line.

So, you've read the Embry study and you can show that it was nonsense
how?

I'll write Dennis and ask how he managed to, in the middle of a long
busy research profession working with traffic engineering, how he
managed to slip up and produce "bullshit."

Your children were trained by their complete dependence on you to be
terrified of you, and one day you will pay for it. Or rather they will
and if you have a conscience you'll suffer at what you see happening
to them.

Terror can cause them to make errors that could be injurious or fatal.
Change the circumstances just a tad and they can easily become
confused. If my child has my trust he or she will be far less likely
to screw up under pressure.

How can a child not have greater freedoms if they learned from the
beginning the desired behavior without pain and humiliation? In this
case they do it because they want to, not because someone threatens
them. A spanked child isn't more safe, just more locked into a
response. It's easy to distract someone that has learned a behavior
from fear than it is someone that learned eagerly and willingly.

It's most appalling that you would resort to this ignorant response.
It's a metaphore if the child is too small to use a trampoline, silly
boy. Put some cusions on the floor for the child to jump on.

This is so typical of "spank freeks." The small amount of modification
of the environment to allow the child to do what child are driven by
nature to do, jump, run, exercise, and the instant reversion to
"spanking works" with little or no concern for it's side effect is
what is appalling.

If the child is too small to use one safely. Does that then reclude
the child jumping somewhere ELSE? Or are children to be spanked into
non-jumping behavior while developing a hardy terror of the parent?

Failure to supervise adequately...not that that is a crime...it's
happened to every parent. Do you think you'd have kept her from
jumping somewhere she might have hurt herself if you had spanked her
for jumping?

You'd have had a busy life...let me see, the chair !SPANK!, the edge
of the porch !SPANK!, the the back porch, the front porch, grandmas
porch, the couch, the loveseat, the doghouse roof....are you getting
my drift here?

You can break your neck leaning too far out a window. That's why we
don't let small children have physical access to unbarred open windows
if we are a good parent. And spanking a small child for going by one
window seldom works for all windows, or other openings they can fall
through. They simply do not connect the spanking with the opening the
same way you do, but rather with the treacherous vicious untrustworthy
adult that has to be watched like a hawk to keep from being hurt and
humiliated.

All the while they are busy with THAT little survival requirement they
are neglecting other developmental tasks. Children with hitting
parents, even when they play, tend not to play with the freedom of
unhit children. The former lack the capacity to concentrate as similar
levels, as they are distracted by the always dangerous possibility
their parent will flip out again (that's how the child sees it).

Now you are going to lecture me by parroting me. How neat.

And the only alternantive that you think is going to work is spanking
before that magic age of reason?

I love to see the very thing I've said and been preaching reframed and
fed back to me as the wisdom of the poster.

Can you really not see any alternatives you could trust but spanking?

Listening to Public Radio this morning I heard a interview with a guy
talking about learning from a dog training coach and all the trouble
he had with using punishment on his dog until the coach helped him
learn to not yell, not hit, not throw things, not to use shock collars
(a common dog training paradigm until recent years).

He turned his dog around in time.

Then he said a few weeks back a brand new puppy came into the
household and starting with the new training he'd learned, the gentle
directive approach this puppy learned in a couple of weeks to come,
laydown, stay, and was housebroken, and was loving and trusting in a
way his pain taught dog was not.

Made me think of you Mike. I almost forgot to stop for my morning
paper just contemplating if this would make any sense at all to you
and the millions just like you that are stuck in your bias.

> Mike Morris
> (msmo...@netdirect.net)

I've used the methods I'm telling you with severely disturbed violent
socially malajusted youth. It's a tougher go, but I could do it so
remarkably fast observers (and those were specialists of various
kinds...special ed teachers, child psychologists, early childhood
development people) that at first they thought it was a fluke.

So they started calling me to come to their venues, where I couldn't
possibly know the children, and they threw everything at me, from the
most agressive children (one hit me in the crotch with a chair the
first time he met me...three hours later when it was time for me to
leave he cried and held on to me wanting me to stay) to the most
passive child that wouldn't even react to their name...and a gentle
approach based on child development needs worked.

The only ones I ever failed on ... those weren't really complete
failures, I simply could not continue working with them.. not my
clients.. and once again subjected to punative methods.

As you may have noticed I didn't come here to win a popularity
contest, and you are going to see major attempts to attack me.

That tell you anything? Or are you just going to be another stuck with
yourself ninny?

Kane

But you wouldn't try a little amateur psychologizing now would you
Doug...r r r r.

"Perceived"? R R R You call some fat kid half again as big as me
sitting on my chest pounding my face a perception?

Your ethics are hangin' out again, Dung.

I'm sure I'm the only child that ever happened to. I did have other
things going on my life as well.

I did? And what were those things I did to do that, oh word twister?

I love the reframing. Do you really think people are so dim as to not
notice that.

Defend myself, becomes a mission to assault children...oh, very good.

You kind of left out my age, apparent from my referances to
highschool.

Try quoting in context.

Bullies have now become "children." How interesting. A 15 year old 180
pound adversary who still outweighed me by 30 lbs or so and attacked
ME thinking I was still a little kid is hardly a "children."

It's nice to see you are true to form with your creative misleading of
the readers. You never seem to tire of it.

Other than defending myself I didn't before then either. And my age
was 19.