corporal punishment

Originally posted by Rank outsider
You can get the survey from the AAP website for the payment of $12.

As your concern is for the welfare of children, this would seem a small price to pay.

There is no evidence that child swatting gives rise to any long term problems. Murray Straus has not said this. Stop trying to imply he has.

If he has, please post the evidence. It's inconvenient, I know, but we won't accept what you have to say until you do.

RO repeatedly has failed to address the germane points of my posts - only to make absurd comment after absurd comment.

One can only surmise that RO is extremely disingenuous and/or extremely dim-witted.

We've seen this act too many times to count from the anti-evolution creationists on this forum.

Evidently RO can do no better than take a page from their playbook.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
RO repeatedly has failed to address the germane points of my posts - only to make absurd comment after absurd comment.

One can only surmise that RO is extremely disingenuous and/or extremely dim-witted.

We've seen this act too many times to count from the anti-evolution creationists on this forum.

Evidently RO can do no better than take a page from their playbook.

Thank you for demonstrating the maturity you ask from others.

Do you have any reasoned arguments against Robert Lazelere's views or not as set out in the link I posted? That is my response to all your comments. When you demostrate these views are not valid you will make progress. Until then, you are merely expressing a personal preference.

One which, ironically, I share.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Yes, seriously.

You ask us to re-read the irrelevant material you have posted. Yet you will not give reasoned arguments as to why you dismiss the work of Robert Larzelere, which is relevant.

Your argument against him amounts to nothing more than 'he doesn't agree with me so clearly his views are not worth considering'. If you need help understan ll try to explain it to you.

One final time : is Robert Larzelere ignorant on this issue?

Yet you will not give reasoned arguments as to why you dismiss the work of Robert Larzelere, which is relevant.

Your argument against him amounts to nothing more than 'he doesn't agree with me so clearly his views are not worth considering'.

I already addressed Larzelere with the following and you know it. If that's all you got out of it, then it would seem that extremely dim-witted applies.

As an example, RO knows full well, I’ve posted it often enough, the stance of the AAP:
[quote] The American Academy of Pediatrics strongly opposes striking a child for any reason.

Yet RO says things such as:

As Robert Larzelere is one of the leaders in the study of this topic, and has done detailed studies over decades, can you explain what it is that you know that he doesn't… However, TOO, with his wealth of pediatric and child psychology expertise…

Now perhaps it is simply lost on RO that the question isn’t what I know, but what the AAP knows that Larzelere doesn’t. But I have no reason believe RO incapable of understanding this. So, it would seem that RO believes that if he doesn’t acknowledge the stance of the AAP and instead pretends that it is a question of Larzelere vs. me, that the AAP stance doesn't exist. Can RO be any more disingenuous?

If Larzelere is in fact “one of the leaders in the study of this topic”, then the AAP should be well aware of his opinions and evidently have found them lacking – otherwise they would have adopted Larzelere’s stance. Clearly Larzelere’s stance is in the minority. That the AAP “STRONGLY opposes striking a child for any reason” would seem to indicate that Larzelere’s is a small minority at that.

Perhaps what is also lost on RO, is that the Larzelere paper RO cites is largely an affirmation of Larzelere’s own past studies and conclusions. There’s a surprise. Someone affirming his own conclusions. [/quote]

The first time I posted this, RO failed to address the germane points of my post. If he remains true to form, he'll do so once again.

The anti-evolution creationists have nothing on RO.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Thank you for demonstrating the maturity you ask from others.

Do you have any reasoned arguments against Robert Lazelere's views or not as set out in the link I posted? That is my response to all your comments. When you demostrate these views are not valid you will make progress. Until then, you are merely expressing a personal preference.

One which, ironically, I share.

You're really something. I thought RC was good at "playing the victim" and either ignoring or pretending not to understand what was posted in order to keep from actually addressing germane points, but you're giving him a run for his money.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]Yet you will not give reasoned arguments as to why you dismiss the work of Robert Larzelere, which is relevant.

Your argument against him amounts to nothing more than 'he doesn't agree with me so clearly his views are not worth considering'.

I already addressed Larzelere with the following and you know it. If that's all you got out of it, to form, he'll do so once again.

The anti-evolution creationists have nothing on RO.[/b]

That is not a reasoned argument. It's a rant. You need to look at what they say and say why it is either wrong or flawed in methodology. I wouldn't recommend the latter, as this will just rebound on you, as the studies people use to support a ban are woefully inadequate.

Dr Baumrind was widely praised for her work, even by Murray Straus. She does not support the use of spanking but concludes that the evidence does not support an outright ban. What is her agenda, do you think?

There is no contradiction in the AAP advocating a complete no smacking policy and accepting that child swatting as defined is not harmful. They have not said it is, and it misrepresents their position to suggest that this is what they believe.

So repeating their policy position parrot like is not helping your position.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You're really something. I thought RC was good at "playing the victim" and either ignoring or pretending not to understand what was posted in order to keep from actually addressing germane points, but you're giving him a run for his money.

LOL you are such a whippin boy! if you harbour the desire to retain even a shred of self
respect simply apologise to the posters that you are insulting, admit you have been
owned again and again and give of the masquerade! Its embarrassing to see you
carry on like this, reduced to the basest level of someone devoid of reason.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
That is not a reasoned argument. It's a rant. You need to look at what they say and say why it is either wrong or flawed in methodology. I wouldn't recommend the latter, as this will just rebound on you, as the studies people use to support a ban are woefully inadequate.

Dr Baumrind was widely praised for her work, even by Murray Straus. She doe ...[text shortened]... they believe.

So repeating their policy position parrot like is not helping your position.

lol. Evidently I'm going to have to break this out into tiny pieces so that you might be able to wrap your mind around it.

Dr Baumrind was widely praised for her work, even by Murray Straus. She does not support the use of spanking but concludes that the evidence does not support an outright ban.

This is what I posted:

As an example, RO knows full well, I’ve posted it often enough, the stance of the AAP:
[quote] The American Academy of Pediatrics strongly opposes striking a child for any reason.

[/quote]

The AAP does believe an outright ban is supported. This is clearly indicated by the fact that they "strongly oppose striking a child for any reason". "True" or "not true"?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
lol. Evidently I'm going to have to break this out into tiny pieces so that you might be able to wrap your mind around it.

[b]Dr Baumrind was widely praised for her work, even by Murray Straus. She does not support the use of spanking but concludes that the evidence does not support an outright ban.

This is what I posted:
[quote]As an example, ...[text shortened]... e fact that they "strongly oppose striking a child for any reason". "True" or "not true"?[/b]

I said:

There is no contradiction in the AAP advocating a complete no smacking policy and accepting that child swatting as defined is not harmful. They have not said it is, and it misrepresents their position to suggest that this is what they believe.

To give you a parallel instance, in the UK the Goverment's official position on drink driving is 'Don't drink and drive'. No caveats, no exceptions.

Do you think the UK Government has evidence that every time someone eats a bit of sherry trifle at lunchtime this makes them a danger on the roads. Of course not.

Actually, they have buckets of evidence that shows that small amounts of alcohol has no appreciable affect on driving safety. This is why they allow drivers to drive with a certain amount of alcohol in their systems (probably too much, but that debate is for another day). There is loads of evidence that, at a certain level of alcohol, the impact on driving safety is non-existent.

They also did once run a 'Stay low' campaign. It was a disaster, as people took this as a signal that it was OK to drink and drive and pushed the limits as a result.

So you have an institution making a blanket statement that provides for no exceptions, even though there is strong evidence showing that there are plenty of instances of the behaviour being addressed which present no risks to society.

So it is perfectly possible for the AAP to legitimately advocate a complete no smacking policy without this meaning that they consider that every instance of child smacking is harmful.

Indeed, the AAP cites the fact that they believe that, if you smack a child at all, it very often leads to more abusive behaviour which is harmful. This may be true in some cases, but the definition of child swatting I provided is violated if the parent goes on to use more extreme forms of discipline.

If you have evidence that the AAP believes that every instance of child swatting is harmful to a child, please post it. It might be difficult, though, as the only time they tried to reach a consensus view on this issue, they concluded it wasn't.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
lol. Evidently I'm going to have to break this out into tiny pieces so that you might be able to wrap your mind around it.

[b]Dr Baumrind was widely praised for her work, even by Murray Straus. She does not support the use of spanking but concludes that the evidence does not support an outright ban.

This is what I posted:
[quote]As an example, ...[text shortened]... e fact that they "strongly oppose striking a child for any reason". "True" or "not true"?[/b]

The question really isn't that difficult. If you really try, I imagine even you can manage an answer. So once again:

The AAP does believe an outright ban is supported. This is clearly indicated by the fact that they "strongly oppose striking a child for any reason". "True" or "not true"?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
The question really isn't that difficult. If you really try, I imagine even you can manage an answer. So once again:

The AAP does believe an outright ban is supported. This is clearly indicated by the fact that they "strongly oppose striking a child for any reason". "True" or "not true"?

Supported by what or whom? Do you mean 'justified'?

If so, then I am happy to accept that the AAP believes that its policy is justified.

As I have said, the question of whether their policy is justified is separate to the question we were actually debating, which is whether child swatting is harmful. I do not believe that the AAP thinks every instance of child swatting is harmful.

I don't think I can be any clearer on my views.

As I have answered your question, now can you return the favour:

Do you have any evidence that child swatting as defined is harmful, or that the AAP has said it is harmful? Yes or no.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Supported by what or whom? Do you mean 'justified'?

If so, then I am happy to accept that the AAP believes that its policy is justified.

As I have said, the question of whether their policy is justified is separate to the question we were actually debating, which is whether child swatting is harmful. I do not believe that the AAP thinks every hat child swatting as defined is harmful, or that the AAP has said it is harmful? Yes or no.

Supported by what or whom?

I figured that if I piecemealed it to you, you might be able to wrap your mind around it. Evidently I need to spell every last thing out to you. Do you think you can manage to put it in context of the post from which the question was taken? Or do you need me to do that for you too?

It's really difficult to imagine that anyone is truly this dim. RO seems to be unable to keep more than a small amount of information in his mind at time. So I've had to try to piecemeal it to him. So far it doesn't seem to be helping him. At this point, it's hard to imagine that even if I manage to walk him through it, that he'll be able to put it all together

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]Supported by what or whom?

I figured that if I piecemealed it to you, you might be able to wrap your mind around it. Evidently I need to spell every last thing out to you. Do you think you can manage to put it in context of the post from which the question was taken? Or do you need me to do that for you too?

It's really difficult to imagin ...[text shortened]... that even if I manage to walk him through it, that he'll be able to put it all together[/b]

Condescension and personal insults do not make a man, manners do!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Condescension and personal insults do not make a man, manners do!

Not that I agree with that cliche, but do you not understand the hypocrisy of it coming from you?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Condescension and personal insults do not make a man, manners do!

ahem!! spalax,

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Not that I agree with that cliche, but do you not understand the hypocrisy of it coming from you?

Sir you have done yourself more damage than anyone of your most ardent enemies
could have dreamed of, your position is now truly pathetic, in the original meaning of
the term.