corporal punishment

Originally posted by stellspalfie
ahem!! spalax,

beat it bozo! 😛

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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.

Does that mean you understand the hypocrisy or don't understand the hypocrisy?

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]

Do you have any evidence or arguments against the position set out in Robert Lazarleres paper?

If not, you are simply resorting to childish insults to try and make up for the complete lack of any evidence to support your view.

If you treat your kids in the same way, you will be doing them a lot more harm than a mild bit of swatting.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Does that mean you understand the hypocrisy or don't understand the hypocrisy?

dig your own holes, God knows this thread has demonstrated your expertise in
uncivil engineering and earth works.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
dig your own holes, God knows this thread has demonstrated your expertise in
uncivil engineering and earth works.

the spalax is good at digging holes.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Do you have any evidence or arguments against the position set out in Robert Lazarleres paper?

If not, you are simply resorting to childish insults to try and make up for the complete lack of any evidence to support your view.

If you treat your kids in the same way, you will be doing them a lot more harm than a mild bit of swatting.

Evidently RO was unable to "manage to put it in context of the post from which the question was taken", so I'll do it here:

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:
[quote]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"?
[/quote]

So RO said, "[Baumrind]...concludes that the evidence does not support an outright ban."

I responded with, "The AAP does believe an outright ban is supported. "

RO responded back with, "Supported by what or whom?"

Seems like any reasonably intelligent person would be able to understand that the AAP believes an outright ban is supported by the evidence vs. Baumrind believing otherwise.

So, either RO is "playing dumb" or isn't "playing" at all. I tend to believe it's the former, but it wouldn't take much to convince me otherwise.

So why is RO continually playing these games? I can easily point to a number of other things as well.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Evidently RO was unable to "manage to put it in context of the post from which the question was taken", so I'll do it here:

[quote]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 ying these games? I can easily point to a number of other things as well.

The AAP does not believe that a complete ban on smacking is supported by evidence that every instance of child swatting is harmful.

Just as the UKs 'Don't drink and drive' policy is not supported by evidence that everyone who drives with a small amount of alcohol in their bodies is at an increased risk of having an accident.

Dr Baumrind can therefore both support the AAP's general policy and yet also not support an outright ban (i.e.legally enforceable) on smacking children.

It's fairly clear and logical if you care to think about it.

And supported by the evidence.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
the spalax is good at digging holes.

oh, i though it was like an expletive , LOL.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh, i though it was like an expletive , LOL.

its an animal. have you come up with a design improvement for it yet. its pretty easy.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
The AAP does not believe that a complete ban on smacking is supported by evidence that every instance of child swatting is harmful.

Just as the UKs 'Don't drink and drive' policy is not supported by evidence that everyone who drives with a small amount of alcohol in their bodies is at an increased risk of having an accident.

Dr Baumrind can there s fairly clear and logical if you care to think about it.

And supported by the evidence.

Let's see if RO can manage to understand and answer the following. Given how much he struggled with the last question, hopes are seriously diminished.

Once again the stance of the AAP - lest RO get confused again:

The American Academy of Pediatrics strongly opposes striking a child for any reason.

The above includes any and all forms of "spanking" including "child swatting". "True" or "Not True"?

Once again the definition of "spanking" from Lazarlere's paper - lest RO get confused again:

definition of...spanking from the only scientific consensus
conference on corporal punishment...
Spanking [called smacking in some countries] was “defined as:
a. physically non-injurious;
b. intended to modify behavior; and
c. administered with an opened hand to the extremities or buttocks.”

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Let's see if RO can manage to understand and answer the following. Given how much he struggled with the last question, hopes are seriously diminished.

Once again the stance of the AAP - lest RO get confused again:

[b]The American Academy of Pediatrics strongly opposes striking a child for any reason.

The above includes any and and
c. administered with an opened hand to the extremities or buttocks.”
[/quote][/b]

You seem to be the one confused.

I accept wholeheartedly and without equivocation that the AAP is strongly opposed to striking as a child in any circumstances and for any reason.

I accept wholeheartedly and without equivocation that the AAP includes child swatting within the term striking.

I just don't believe that this is because they believe that child swatting as defined is harmful or have any evidence that it is.

Even if you could show that the AAP does believe that child swatting as defined is harmful, which you have conspicuously failed to do, you would then have to show why they are correct in the face of the evidence that suggests that they are not, and others are wrong in the face of evidence that supports that they are correct.

Your arguments over 30 pages have amounted to 'Here is someone who agrees with me, they must be right.'. And yet many serious academics have presented evidence to show that your view is flawed, and you simply ignore it.

That is what being closed-minded is.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
You seem to be the one confused.

I accept wholeheartedly and without equivocation that the AAP is strongly opposed to striking as a child in any circumstances and for any reason.

I accept wholeheartedly and without equivocation that the AAP includes child swatting within the term striking.

I just don't believe that this is [b]because they w that your view is flawed, and you simply ignore it.

That is what being closed-minded is.[/b]

And yet many serious academics have presented evidence to show that your view is flawed, and you simply ignore it.

RO still can't seem to be able to wrap his mind around the fact that the position of American Academy of Pediatrics in that they "strongly oppose striking a child for any reason" clearly indicates that they do not conclude "evidence" presented by RO's "serious academics" is compelling. If they did, they would have adopted the same conclusion as the "serious academics". The fact is that they have not adopted the same conclusion. I don't know how to dumb this down any further, so that RO can understand this.

What's more, I haven't "ignore[d] it" as RO asserts, but have been trying various ways of getting RO to understand the above. It's ridiculously absurd how RO continues to try to "play the victim".

Unfortunately those who have advocated for the "right" for parents to strike defenseless children, such as bbarr and LemonJello, have also made ridiculously absurd claims in desperate attempts to prop up a ridiculous position.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]And yet many serious academics have presented evidence to show that your view is flawed, and you simply ignore it.

RO still can't seem to be able to wrap his mind around the fact that the position of American Academy of Pediatrics in that they "strongly oppose striking a child for any reason" clearly indicates that they do not conclude "evidence lously absurd claims in desperate attempts to prop up a ridiculous position.[/b]

It's pretty clear from the evidence that the AAP do not believe that the striking of children is harmful in all circumstances. They held a conference to determine whether it is, and concluded it isn't. They surveyed their members and only 30% were against it in all circumstances.

Yet shortly after this they issued a complete no smacking policy. It is illogical and irrational to conclude from this that they believe that every instance of child swatting is harmful to a child.

Dr Baumrind advocates a no smacking policy, but agrees that not all smacking is harmful.

It's really not that difficult to get your head around if you just look past your in inate prejudice and biased misrepresentation of the facts.

I realise you won't answer this question, but do you agree that it is possible for someone to both advocate a no smacking policy and also believe that not all child smacking is harmful? If you can't get your head around this, it is no wonder that you are struggling to see the weakness in your position. You don't have to concede whether this is the AAPs position, just say whether you think it is possible for anyone to hold these two positions at the same time.

It's not a difficult question. Or answer for that matter.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
It's pretty clear from the evidence that the AAP do not believe that the striking of children is harmful in all circumstances. They held a conference to determine whether it is, and concluded it isn't. They surveyed their members and only 30% were against it in all circumstances.

Yet shortly after this they issued a complete no smacking policy. I ...[text shortened]... positions at the same time.

It's not a difficult question. Or answer for that matter.

It's really not that difficult to get your head around if you just look past your in inate prejudice and biased misrepresentation of the facts.

Just for grins, why don't you cite a few examples of my "misrepresentation of the facts"?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]It's really not that difficult to get your head around if you just look past your in inate prejudice and biased misrepresentation of the facts.

Just for grins, why don't you cite a few examples of my "misrepresentation of the facts"?[/b]

No I didn't think you would answer the question and would try and steer it somewhere else.

Do you agree that it is possible for someone to both advocate a no smacking policy and also believe that not all child smacking is harmful?