Could children be hit by teachers in the 70's?

R. Steve Walz · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 1906

Doan wrote:
>
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, dragonlady wrote:
>
> > In article ,
> > Doan wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Carlson LaVonne wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > > Parents may legally spank their children in every state. Parents
> > > > spanking children is not illegal in Oregon nor is California soon to ban
> > > > parental disciplinary spanking of children. I don't know where you get
> > > > your misinformation, but it needs to stop.
> > > >
> > > > LaVonne
> > > > >
> > > And spanking is assault but a police striking you with a baton is not?
> > >
> > > Doan
> > >
> > >
> > Don't be stupid.
> >
> > Anyone striking you with a baton *for no reason* is an assault.
> > --
> > Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care
> >
> The police *always* have a *reason*. They even used a taser on a SIX-YEAR
> OLD!
>
> Doan
--------------------
If your tale is not a lie, then it describes a punishable crime by
police, and thus it has no relevance here.
Steve

Archived from group: alt>parenting>solutions

R. Steve Walz · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 1906

kane_pohaku@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Carlson LaVonne wrote:
> > R Steve Walz,
> >
> > Your information is completely wrong. You can say whatever you want,
> > but that doesn't make what you believe factual.
> >
> > Disciplinary hitting in schools remains legal in nearly half of the US
> > states. There was no time when, as you claim "most states banned it."
> > Most states have never states banned the practice of disciplinary
> > hitting in schools.
>
> I think about 27 or so so far? I'll check and see if I'm close.
>
> > I can't understand why someone would post such
> > misinformation on a website, unless the purpose is somewhat underhanded.
>
> Hmmm..I've never found Steve to be "underhanded." Overwrought at times,
> in his chioce of adjectives, but not sneaky in any way. Quite the
> opposite.
>
> > I'm not even going to comment on your last paragraph. This is too
> > ridiculous for words.
>
> Well, at times Steves enthusiasm might get a bit ahead of the facts. I
> am guessing he'd like it if kids killed their parents more for hitting
> them, but it's not happening and it's not likely to.
>
> They are, after all, the beloved parent...regardless, and everyone gets
> just one of each, biologically.
>
> This would both support Steve in his reasoning as to why a child would
> kill a parent (though I doubt spanking alone would be causal to any
> degree...given the stockholm syndrom...but along with emotional
> abuse....oh me oh my):
>
> http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2248/is_n109_v28/ai_13885856
>
> "Parricide, the killing of one's mother or father, is an especially
> neglected topic (Ewing, 1990). Perhaps this is due to its relative
> infrequency; it accounts for less than 2% of all homicides in the
> United States (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1988). Patricide, the
> killing of one's father, accounts for less than 1% of all homicides,
> while matricide, the killing of one's mother, accounts for a slightly
> lower percentage. Most of the research on parricide is based on
> clinical case studies, and tends to emphasize a common theme: parricide
> is often a response to long-standing child abuse (Ewing, 1990). Sadoff
> (1971), for example, has concluded that, in most cases of parricide, "a
> bizarre neurotic relationship exists between the victim and his
> assassin in which the parent-victim mistreats the child excessively and
> pushes him to the point of explosive violence".Parricide, the killing
> of one's mother or father, is an especially neglected topic (Ewing,
> 1990). Perhaps this is due to its relative infrequency; it accounts for
> less than 2% of all homicides in the United States (Federal Bureau of
> Investigation, 1988). Patricide, the killing of one's father, accounts
> for less than 1% of all homicides, while matricide, the killing of
> one's mother, accounts for a slightly lower percentage. Most of the
> research on parricide is based on clinical case studies, and tends to
> emphasize a common theme: parricide is often a response to
> long-standing child abuse (Ewing, 1990). Sadoff (1971), for example,
> has concluded that, in most cases of parricide, "a bizarre neurotic
> relationship exists between the victim and his assassin in which the
> parent-victim mistreats the child excessively and pushes him to the
> point of explosive violence".
>
> > LaVonne
> >
> >
> >
> > R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > Carlson LaVonne wrote:
> > >
> > > ----------------------------
> > > Nonsense, the firestorm of lawsuits in the late sixties and early
> > > severnties has virtually ended it everywhere.
>
> I'm surprised. Usually you have the facts on your side, but this is
> kind of silly.
-----------------------
It is puzzling that you don't know this. Are you assigning the term:
"virtually everywhere" more powerful meaning than its dictionary
meaning? ALL schools used to physically abuse, now fewer than 10%
do so.

> Not only is it going on now, and certainly in the 80's and 90's but in
> fact one of your claims below stands as proof...the teen
> criminality...especially the attacks with by students with guns on
> other students and on teachers.
----------------------------
Some places, of course. I see no problem. While every school had
previous physically abused students, fewer than one in a dozen can
be found that does today.

> As I recall Columbine HS has a paddling policy and used it. As did the
> school in Pearl Mississippi where the two boys took down so many
> students.
----------------------------
I see that as cause and effect. What is your point here?

> Both NOT in the 60's and early 70s, and I don't recall more than a very
> few school burnings.
-------------------------------
In the 60's fires were hardly ever considered vengeance, instead they
were seen as the result of vandalism or accident. People were simply
in denial about teen anger back then. Only now do we even report them
nationally, thirty years ago fires in schools were considered strictly
local abberance, and no one had gathered the info to suspect a trend.
You won't find this in the newspapers of the time. You'll have to
dig a bit deeper.

> > > Even where it is legal
> > > the state and local school boards have standing policies against it
> > > because it insitgated such a huge rise in teen criminality, teacher
> > > assaults, and school vandalisms, they were burning down about one
> > > school a day in 1971 when most states banned it.
>
> Three hundred and 60 or so schools a year? I think we'd remember that.
> As for the lack of paddling in actuality....not so, Steve.
-------------------------
No, it's quite true, there were several books written on it in the
mid-seventies.

> Mmmm...catch the last line here:
>
> "Daily Ardmoreite, Ardmore, Oklahoma, 13 October 2003
> State ranks fifth nationally in corporal punishment
--------------------------
Oklahoma is especially backward in numerous issues.

> OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) -- Oklahoma ranks fifth nationwide in the use of
---------------------
The AP is not known for statistical accuracy, and peddles an approved
brand of truth to authoritarians. The states which have not banned
school child-abuse by law have in most cases still discouraged it
from above by superintendency. Also, schools which have regressed
into it are frought with trouble, lawsuits, extreme school vandalism,
fires, and school personnel being targetted for assault and their
homes vanadalized.
Steve

the.hylander05 · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 33

Wow... That is hard to believe...the 70s weren't that long ago...

Doan · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 1571

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> >
> > "Swedish parents now discipline their children; and in doing so, they rely
> > on a variety of alternatives to physical punishment. The method most
> > commonly used is _verbal_conflict_resolution_, which invites parents as
> > well as children to express their anger in words. Parents insist that
> > discussions involve constant eye contact, even if this means taking firm
> > hold of young children to engage their attention. Parents and
> > professionals agree that discussions may escalate into yelling, or that
> > yelling may be a necessary trigger for discussion. Still, many point out
> > that while yelling may be humiliating, it is better than ignoring the
> > problem or containing the anger, and it is usually less humiliating than
> > physical punishment."
> >
> > It is better to yell at your kid - just call it "verbal conflict
> > resolution"! Wink

> >
> > Doan
> ----------------------------
> No, it's not. All that does is promote the same ignorance that used
> to indulge in hitting, it is merely dragging out the insult verbally.
> The entire way of thinking about children and the respect they deserve
> must be corrected.
> Steve
>
That is what the anti-spanking zealotS are promiting. Here is the link
for you, STUPID: Wink

http://www.nospank.net/haeuser.htm

Doan

Doan · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 1571

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Carlson LaVonne wrote:
> >
> > And spanking is assault but a police striking you with a baton is not?
> >
> > Doan
> ----------------------------
> Children are NOT criminals, they are merely being autonomous as
> adults are.
>
And yet we have juvenile halls! BTW, no one is a criminal until proven
beyond a reasonable doubt, STUPID! Wink

Doan

> Thus your comparison is defective.
> Steve
>

Doan · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 1571

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, dragonlady wrote:
> >
> > > In article ,
> > > Doan wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Carlson LaVonne wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > > > Parents may legally spank their children in every state. Parents
> > > > > spanking children is not illegal in Oregon nor is California soon to ban
> > > > > parental disciplinary spanking of children. I don't know where you get
> > > > > your misinformation, but it needs to stop.
> > > > >
> > > > > LaVonne
> > > > > >
> > > > And spanking is assault but a police striking you with a baton is not?
> > > >
> > > > Doan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Don't be stupid.
> > >
> > > Anyone striking you with a baton *for no reason* is an assault.
> > > --
> > > Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care
> > >
> > The police *always* have a *reason*. They even used a taser on a SIX-YEAR
> > OLD!
> >
> > Doan
> --------------------
> If your tale is not a lie, then it describes a punishable crime by
> police, and thus it has no relevance here.
> Steve
>
It's not a lie. Look it up! It's even defended by some anti-spanking
zealots (like Kane0) as SAFE!

Doan

kane_pohaku · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 333

R. Steve Walz wrote:
> kane_pohaku@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > Carlson LaVonne wrote:
> > > R Steve Walz,
> > >
> > > Your information is completely wrong. You can say whatever you want,
> > > but that doesn't make what you believe factual.
> > >
> > > Disciplinary hitting in schools remains legal in nearly half of the US
> > > states. There was no time when, as you claim "most states banned it."
> > > Most states have never states banned the practice of disciplinary
> > > hitting in schools.
> >
> > I think about 27 or so so far? I'll check and see if I'm close.
> >
> > > I can't understand why someone would post such
> > > misinformation on a website, unless the purpose is somewhat underhanded.
> >
> > Hmmm..I've never found Steve to be "underhanded." Overwrought at times,
> > in his chioce of adjectives, but not sneaky in any way. Quite the
> > opposite.
> >
> > > I'm not even going to comment on your last paragraph. This is too
> > > ridiculous for words.
> >
> > Well, at times Steves enthusiasm might get a bit ahead of the facts. I
> > am guessing he'd like it if kids killed their parents more for hitting
> > them, but it's not happening and it's not likely to.
> >
> > They are, after all, the beloved parent...regardless, and everyone gets
> > just one of each, biologically.
> >
> > This would both support Steve in his reasoning as to why a child would
> > kill a parent (though I doubt spanking alone would be causal to any
> > degree...given the stockholm syndrom...but along with emotional
> > abuse....oh me oh my):
> >
> > http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2248/is_n109_v28/ai_13885856
> >
> > "Parricide, the killing of one's mother or father, is an especially
> > neglected topic (Ewing, 1990). Perhaps this is due to its relative
> > infrequency; it accounts for less than 2% of all homicides in the
> > United States (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1988). Patricide, the
> > killing of one's father, accounts for less than 1% of all homicides,
> > while matricide, the killing of one's mother, accounts for a slightly
> > lower percentage. Most of the research on parricide is based on
> > clinical case studies, and tends to emphasize a common theme: parricide
> > is often a response to long-standing child abuse (Ewing, 1990). Sadoff
> > (1971), for example, has concluded that, in most cases of parricide, "a
> > bizarre neurotic relationship exists between the victim and his
> > assassin in which the parent-victim mistreats the child excessively and
> > pushes him to the point of explosive violence".Parricide, the killing
> > of one's mother or father, is an especially neglected topic (Ewing,
> > 1990). Perhaps this is due to its relative infrequency; it accounts for
> > less than 2% of all homicides in the United States (Federal Bureau of
> > Investigation, 1988). Patricide, the killing of one's father, accounts
> > for less than 1% of all homicides, while matricide, the killing of
> > one's mother, accounts for a slightly lower percentage. Most of the
> > research on parricide is based on clinical case studies, and tends to
> > emphasize a common theme: parricide is often a response to
> > long-standing child abuse (Ewing, 1990). Sadoff (1971), for example,
> > has concluded that, in most cases of parricide, "a bizarre neurotic
> > relationship exists between the victim and his assassin in which the
> > parent-victim mistreats the child excessively and pushes him to the
> > point of explosive violence".
> >
> > > LaVonne
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > Carlson LaVonne wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ----------------------------
> > > > Nonsense, the firestorm of lawsuits in the late sixties and early
> > > > severnties has virtually ended it everywhere.
> >
> > I'm surprised. Usually you have the facts on your side, but this is
> > kind of silly.
> -----------------------
> It is puzzling that you don't know this. Are you assigning the term:
> "virtually everywhere" more powerful meaning than its dictionary
> meaning? ALL schools used to physically abuse, now fewer than 10%
> do so.

No, I'm not assigning any more than the term would suggest.

I posted, I believe, the current data on paddling incidents in public
schools still. It certainly does not support "virtually everywhere," or
"every" when.

>
>
> > Not only is it going on now, and certainly in the 80's and 90's but in
> > fact one of your claims below stands as proof...the teen
> > criminality...especially the attacks with by students with guns on
> > other students and on teachers.
> ----------------------------
> Some places, of course. I see no problem. While every school had
> previous physically abused students, fewer than one in a dozen can
> be found that does today.
>
>
> > As I recall Columbine HS has a paddling policy and used it. As did the
> > school in Pearl Mississippi where the two boys took down so many
> > students.
> ----------------------------
> I see that as cause and effect. What is your point here?

It's agreement with you as to some children becoming vengeful and
acting out.
>
> > Both NOT in the 60's and early 70s, and I don't recall more than a very
> > few school burnings.
> -------------------------------
> In the 60's fires were hardly ever considered vengeance, instead they
> were seen as the result of vandalism or accident. People were simply
> in denial about teen anger back then. Only now do we even report them
> nationally, thirty years ago fires in schools were considered strictly
> local abberance, and no one had gathered the info to suspect a trend.
> You won't find this in the newspapers of the time. You'll have to
> dig a bit deeper.

Where? I lived in an area with about 100 schools in all, grade and hs
(we didn't have "junior high" in those days. I do not recall a single
fire at a school in the entire time I attended or in the many years
after I lived in the area. Those were extremely rare, and no, I
disagree that they would be considered "vandalism." Then as now, they
were called and were arson. And

But I'd be interested in the data. I could certainly use the argument
in my own fight to end this barbaric practice of ass-saulting children
and reassigning it a polite name.

> > > > Even where it is legal
> > > > the state and local school boards have standing policies against it
> > > > because it insitgated such a huge rise in teen criminality, teacher
> > > > assaults, and school vandalisms, they were burning down about one
> > > > school a day in 1971 when most states banned it.
> >
> > Three hundred and 60 or so schools a year? I think we'd remember that.
> > As for the lack of paddling in actuality....not so, Steve.
> -------------------------
> No, it's quite true, there were several books written on it in the
> mid-seventies.

Could you refer me to at least one of those?

I can't find any that fit the bill here.

> > Mmmm...catch the last line here:
> >
> > "Daily Ardmoreite, Ardmore, Oklahoma, 13 October 2003
> > State ranks fifth nationally in corporal punishment
> --------------------------
> Oklahoma is especially backward in numerous issues.
>
>
> > OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) -- Oklahoma ranks fifth nationwide in the use of
> ---------------------
> The AP is not known for statistical accuracy, and peddles an approved
> brand of truth to authoritarians. The states which have not banned
> school child-abuse by law have in most cases still discouraged it
> from above by superintendency. Also, schools which have regressed
> into it are frought with trouble, lawsuits, extreme school vandalism,
> fires, and school personnel being targetted for assault and their
> homes vanadalized.
> Steve

I'm not finding much of this.

Some, yes, but not many instances. In fact parents in those states tend
to approve of paddling. And do it themselves. So the kids, even if not
paddled in school still are abused by their parents with similar
results.

I'd like to see more schools ban it legally and that's why I have
changed my position from a moral one to a social reponsibility one. The
Law is the answer, since we have such idiots about like the dancing
monkey and those that have fallen by the wayside from this ng.

To me it's sad that we have to resort to the use of controlling
authority with them, but they were subverted and defiled by their own
overcontrolling punishing parents.

Nice talkin' witchah and if you can shoot me those references I'd
appreciate it. I live where there is still a lot of belief in the
paddling custom in schools and it's most definately done, and I'll be
having more arguements with the authorities here.

Feel free to post privately.

Thanks, Kane

kane_pohaku · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 333

R. Steve Walz wrote:
> kane_pohaku@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > kane_pohaku@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Carlson LaVonne wrote:
> > > > > R Steve Walz,
> > > > >
> > > > > Your information is completely wrong. You can say whatever you want,
> > > > > but that doesn't make what you believe factual.
> > > > >
> > > > > Disciplinary hitting in schools remains legal in nearly half of the US
> > > > > states. There was no time when, as you claim "most states banned it."
> > > > > Most states have never states banned the practice of disciplinary
> > > > > hitting in schools.
> > > >
> > > > I think about 27 or so so far? I'll check and see if I'm close.
> > > >
> > > > > I can't understand why someone would post such
> > > > > misinformation on a website, unless the purpose is somewhat underhanded.
> > > >
> > > > Hmmm..I've never found Steve to be "underhanded." Overwrought at times,
> > > > in his chioce of adjectives, but not sneaky in any way. Quite the
> > > > opposite.
> > > >
> > > > > I'm not even going to comment on your last paragraph. This is too
> > > > > ridiculous for words.
> > > >
> > > > Well, at times Steves enthusiasm might get a bit ahead of the facts. I
> > > > am guessing he'd like it if kids killed their parents more for hitting
> > > > them, but it's not happening and it's not likely to.
> > > >
> > > > They are, after all, the beloved parent...regardless, and everyone gets
> > > > just one of each, biologically.
> > > >
> > > > This would both support Steve in his reasoning as to why a child would
> > > > kill a parent (though I doubt spanking alone would be causal to any
> > > > degree...given the stockholm syndrom...but along with emotional
> > > > abuse....oh me oh my):
> > > >
> > > > http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2248/is_n109_v28/ai_13885856
> > > >
> > > > "Parricide, the killing of one's mother or father, is an especially
> > > > neglected topic (Ewing, 1990). Perhaps this is due to its relative
> > > > infrequency; it accounts for less than 2% of all homicides in the
> > > > United States (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1988). Patricide, the
> > > > killing of one's father, accounts for less than 1% of all homicides,
> > > > while matricide, the killing of one's mother, accounts for a slightly
> > > > lower percentage. Most of the research on parricide is based on
> > > > clinical case studies, and tends to emphasize a common theme: parricide
> > > > is often a response to long-standing child abuse (Ewing, 1990). Sadoff
> > > > (1971), for example, has concluded that, in most cases of parricide, "a
> > > > bizarre neurotic relationship exists between the victim and his
> > > > assassin in which the parent-victim mistreats the child excessively and
> > > > pushes him to the point of explosive violence".Parricide, the killing
> > > > of one's mother or father, is an especially neglected topic (Ewing,
> > > > 1990). Perhaps this is due to its relative infrequency; it accounts for
> > > > less than 2% of all homicides in the United States (Federal Bureau of
> > > > Investigation, 1988). Patricide, the killing of one's father, accounts
> > > > for less than 1% of all homicides, while matricide, the killing of
> > > > one's mother, accounts for a slightly lower percentage. Most of the
> > > > research on parricide is based on clinical case studies, and tends to
> > > > emphasize a common theme: parricide is often a response to
> > > > long-standing child abuse (Ewing, 1990). Sadoff (1971), for example,
> > > > has concluded that, in most cases of parricide, "a bizarre neurotic
> > > > relationship exists between the victim and his assassin in which the
> > > > parent-victim mistreats the child excessively and pushes him to the
> > > > point of explosive violence".
> > > >
> > > > > LaVonne
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > > > Carlson LaVonne wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----------------------------
> > > > > > Nonsense, the firestorm of lawsuits in the late sixties and early
> > > > > > severnties has virtually ended it everywhere.
> > > >
> > > > I'm surprised. Usually you have the facts on your side, but this is
> > > > kind of silly.
> > > -----------------------
> > > It is puzzling that you don't know this. Are you assigning the term:
> > > "virtually everywhere" more powerful meaning than its dictionary
> > > meaning? ALL schools used to physically abuse, now fewer than 10%
> > > do so.
> >
> > No, I'm not assigning any more than the term would suggest.
> >
> > I posted, I believe, the current data on paddling incidents in public
> > schools still. It certainly does not support "virtually everywhere," or
> > "every" when.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Not only is it going on now, and certainly in the 80's and 90's but in
> > > > fact one of your claims below stands as proof...the teen
> > > > criminality...especially the attacks with by students with guns on
> > > > other students and on teachers.
> > > ----------------------------
> > > Some places, of course. I see no problem. While every school had
> > > previous physically abused students, fewer than one in a dozen can
> > > be found that does today.
> > >
> > >
> > > > As I recall Columbine HS has a paddling policy and used it. As did the
> > > > school in Pearl Mississippi where the two boys took down so many
> > > > students.
> > > ----------------------------
> > > I see that as cause and effect. What is your point here?
> >
> > It's agreement with you as to some children becoming vengeful and
> > acting out.
> > >
> > > > Both NOT in the 60's and early 70s, and I don't recall more than a very
> > > > few school burnings.
> > > -------------------------------
> > > In the 60's fires were hardly ever considered vengeance, instead they
> > > were seen as the result of vandalism or accident. People were simply
> > > in denial about teen anger back then. Only now do we even report them
> > > nationally, thirty years ago fires in schools were considered strictly
> > > local abberance, and no one had gathered the info to suspect a trend.
> > > You won't find this in the newspapers of the time. You'll have to
> > > dig a bit deeper.
> >
> > Where? I lived in an area with about 100 schools in all, grade and hs
> > (we didn't have "junior high" in those days. I do not recall a single
> > fire at a school in the entire time I attended or in the many years
> > after I lived in the area. Those were extremely rare, and no, I
> > disagree that they would be considered "vandalism." Then as now, they
> > were called and were arson. And
> >
> > But I'd be interested in the data. I could certainly use the argument
> > in my own fight to end this barbaric practice of ass-saulting children
> > and reassigning it a polite name.
> ------------------------
> I don't do cites, I just remember what I read.

MMMhhhhmmmm.....funny I can't find any such books. Must be my lack of
skill at research.

Though my memory is extraodinarily good, and I have a hunch I'd
remember the books, if I'd heard of them, and for sure, school fires.
And I lived in a round area of working class hardhats that routinely
beat their kids, and the schools all paddled.

But not doing cites is darned convenient. I wish I could justify it for
myself.
I'd sure win a lot of debates, at least in my own mind.

> > > > > > Even where it is legal
> > > > > > the state and local school boards have standing policies against it
> > > > > > because it insitgated such a huge rise in teen criminality, teacher
> > > > > > assaults, and school vandalisms, they were burning down about one
> > > > > > school a day in 1971 when most states banned it.
> > > >
> > > > Three hundred and 60 or so schools a year? I think we'd remember that.
> > > > As for the lack of paddling in actuality....not so, Steve.
> > > -------------------------
> > > No, it's quite true, there were several books written on it in the
> > > mid-seventies.
> >
> > Could you refer me to at least one of those?
> >
> > I can't find any that fit the bill here.
> -----------------------
> I don't do cites, I consider them irrelevant and obfuscatory on Usenet.

Proof is not relevant and obscures the issue?

My world is certainly upside down then.

> > > > Mmmm...catch the last line here:
> > > >
> > > > "Daily Ardmoreite, Ardmore, Oklahoma, 13 October 2003
> > > > State ranks fifth nationally in corporal punishment
> > > --------------------------
> > > Oklahoma is especially backward in numerous issues.
> > >
> > >
> > > > OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) -- Oklahoma ranks fifth nationwide in the use of
> > > ---------------------
> > > The AP is not known for statistical accuracy, and peddles an approved
> > > brand of truth to authoritarians. The states which have not banned
> > > school child-abuse by law have in most cases still discouraged it
> > > from above by superintendency. Also, schools which have regressed
> > > into it are frought with trouble, lawsuits, extreme school vandalism,
> > > fires, and school personnel being targetted for assault and their
> > > homes vanadalized.
> > > Steve
> >
> > I'm not finding much of this.
> -------------------
> I don't see you looking. Much has been lost prior to the Net.

Oh, I see. I wonder if things are still lurking about the libraries of
this country though. My take is they are, for researchers. And I've
done a lot of it, and I'm sure LaVonne has.

Yet we seem to disagree with you. I wonder why?

And no, Steve, THIS information would not have been "lost prior to the
Net."

I cannot agree with a claim I've not seen for myself.

Books on this subject would be, in this age of interest in such things
being so high, available somewhere. Not out of print.

Let's try Amazon...they seem to have just about everything on the
planet. Or don't you think so?

Well, I'm back. And I find a few references, very few, to school arson.
Oddly, centered mostly in the same school district that Kip Kinkle, the
shooter in Springfield HS. He was very obviously a developmentally
disabled person, with lots of being pushed to come up to the standards
of normal kids. Frankly he looked to me in his pics, like a FAS kid.

Nevertheless, I agree with your view of being punished as creating a
backlash...and he did kill both parents, and kids at his school. I have
no idea if his parents were spankers. But the climate in those schools
is not supportive to children ... or wasn't.

Still, I can't find this rash of schoolhouse burnings you mentioned.

I've worked with fire setters. They tend to be boys, usually in the
early teens to pre adolescent so called "latency age" kids. And the do
show some similirities in one aspect; a fascination with hero action
figures. Interesting eh? And their real reason for setting fires? TO
PUT THEM OUT heroically. Probably gives them a sense of control and
power they do not have at home.

I have no proof, but parenting methods in this country, and around the
world, leave a great deal to be desired. Nothing like creating thugs
and war mongers...but we do it.

> > Some, yes, but not many instances. In fact parents in those states tend
> > to approve of paddling. And do it themselves. So the kids, even if not
> > paddled in school still are abused by their parents with similar
> > results.
> -----------------------
> Approval is posturing, and most DON'T do much of it, as they find it
> makes everything worse, unless they are violently neurotic and find
> it "fun".

Yes, I'd agree with the "posturing" but such posturing builds
"approval" in the community..the gang mentality. Likely in a spanked
population. Lack of capacity to think and act independently

Actually the do NOT find it makes everything worse, for two reasons.
One, they see the immediate cessation of the unwanted activity
(misleading of course, for reasons you mentioned so many times in the
past) and two, because the silly sad shits can't "find" their ass with
both hands. They are, as you say, neurotic, and subject to the
blindness that accompanies that condition.

As for the pervs. Yes, there's some of those. I have no sense of
numbers, but I suspect it's plenty, if that can be a number.

Trouble is, they will sublimate their "fun" into "satisfaction at how
well it worked to make the child comply." Which to them is
"discipline," a horrible misue of a good and needed skill for all of
us....self discipline..the capacity to learn and control ourselves.

> > I'd like to see more schools ban it legally and that's why I have
> > changed my position from a moral one to a social reponsibility one. The
> > Law is the answer, since we have such idiots about like the dancing
> > monkey and those that have fallen by the wayside from this ng.
> >
> > To me it's sad that we have to resort to the use of controlling
> > authority with them, but they were subverted and defiled by their own
> > overcontrolling punishing parents.
> -------------------
> Sometimes all you can do is shoot 'em.

Nope. Only in direct self defense. Or direct defense of another. In
fact, acting on the urgent need to control others by force is
indicative of spanking issues. I don't believe you ever were, so I
wonder what other things you might have experienced that made you feel
powerless.

We have lots of ways to stop people from unwanted behavior. I believe
in using them. Sometimes moral suation is sufficient, and sometimes
more is needed...such as a group sanction against the violator. Law,
it's called.

Plenty of time for "shootin" if society falls that low. In fact it will
simly evolve.

> > Nice talkin' witchah and if you can shoot me those references I'd
> > appreciate it. I live where there is still a lot of belief in the
> > paddling custom in schools and it's most definately done, and I'll be
> > having more arguements with the authorities here.
> >
> > Feel free to post privately.
> >
> > Thanks, Kane
> --------------------------
> The books I read in about 1975-78 were new at the time, paperback,
> and I don't recall the titles and have never seen other copies.
> It was not a popular topic then.

Can you recall some content and title approximations. I'm a library and
old book store creeper. I'd like to find them. And hopefuly see the
connection, as I do believe there is one. My only difference with you
is the claim of volume of evidence. And that's actually of little
interest to me. As you don't hold with citations, I don't with hair
splitting, though I'll play the game a bit if someone dangles the bait
sufficently temptingly to me.

But I won't end an argument on "I win because you are 10% off,"
bullshit.

We agree on cause. That's good enough for me, if you cannot remember
those books. Lots I've read I'm damned if I can remember titles and
authors, etc, but can remember the content somewhat.

> Steve

Best, Kane

R. Steve Walz · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 1906

the.hylander05@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Wow... That is hard to believe...the 70s weren't that long ago...
-------------
Oh yes they were. Socially.
Steve

R. Steve Walz · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 1906

Doan wrote:
>
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
>
> > Doan wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > >
> > > "Swedish parents now discipline their children; and in doing so, they rely
> > > on a variety of alternatives to physical punishment. The method most
> > > commonly used is _verbal_conflict_resolution_, which invites parents as
> > > well as children to express their anger in words. Parents insist that
> > > discussions involve constant eye contact, even if this means taking firm
> > > hold of young children to engage their attention. Parents and
> > > professionals agree that discussions may escalate into yelling, or that
> > > yelling may be a necessary trigger for discussion. Still, many point out
> > > that while yelling may be humiliating, it is better than ignoring the
> > > problem or containing the anger, and it is usually less humiliating than
> > > physical punishment."
> > >
> > > It is better to yell at your kid - just call it "verbal conflict
> > > resolution"! Wink

> > >
> > > Doan
> > ----------------------------
> > No, it's not. All that does is promote the same ignorance that used
> > to indulge in hitting, it is merely dragging out the insult verbally.
> > The entire way of thinking about children and the respect they deserve
> > must be corrected.
> > Steve
> >
> That is what the anti-spanking zealotS are promiting. Here is the link
> for you, STUPID: Wink

>
> http://www.nospank.net/haeuser.htm
>
> Doan
-----------------------------------
I don't see a problem, you shithead.
Steve

R. Steve Walz · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 1906

Doan wrote:
>
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
>
> > Doan wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Carlson LaVonne wrote:
> > >
> > > And spanking is assault but a police striking you with a baton is not?
> > >
> > > Doan
> > ----------------------------
> > Children are NOT criminals, they are merely being autonomous as
> > adults are.
> >
> And yet we have juvenile halls!
--------------------------
YEs, for criminals, not because they're children.

> BTW, no one is a criminal until proven
> beyond a reasonable doubt, STUPID! Wink

> Doan
-----------------------------
Nonsense.
You are, you just haven't been caught yet!
Steve

R. Steve Walz · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 1906

Doan wrote:
>
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, R. Steve Walz wrote:
>
> > Doan wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, dragonlady wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article ,
> > > > Doan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Carlson LaVonne wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Parents may legally spank their children in every state. Parents
> > > > > > spanking children is not illegal in Oregon nor is California soon to ban
> > > > > > parental disciplinary spanking of children. I don't know where you get
> > > > > > your misinformation, but it needs to stop.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > LaVonne
> > > > > > >
> > > > > And spanking is assault but a police striking you with a baton is not?
> > > > >
> > > > > Doan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Don't be stupid.
> > > >
> > > > Anyone striking you with a baton *for no reason* is an assault.
> > > > --
> > > > Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care
> > > >
> > > The police *always* have a *reason*. They even used a taser on a SIX-YEAR
> > > OLD!
> > >
> > > Doan
> > --------------------
> > If your tale is not a lie, then it describes a punishable crime by
> > police, and thus it has no relevance here.
> > Steve
> >
> It's not a lie. Look it up! It's even defended by some anti-spanking
> zealots (like Kane0) as SAFE!
> Doan
-------------------------------------
Nonsense. You're a shithead.
Steve

R. Steve Walz · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 1906

kane_pohaku@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > kane_pohaku@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Carlson LaVonne wrote:
> > > > R Steve Walz,
> > > >
> > > > Your information is completely wrong. You can say whatever you want,
> > > > but that doesn't make what you believe factual.
> > > >
> > > > Disciplinary hitting in schools remains legal in nearly half of the US
> > > > states. There was no time when, as you claim "most states banned it."
> > > > Most states have never states banned the practice of disciplinary
> > > > hitting in schools.
> > >
> > > I think about 27 or so so far? I'll check and see if I'm close.
> > >
> > > > I can't understand why someone would post such
> > > > misinformation on a website, unless the purpose is somewhat underhanded.
> > >
> > > Hmmm..I've never found Steve to be "underhanded." Overwrought at times,
> > > in his chioce of adjectives, but not sneaky in any way. Quite the
> > > opposite.
> > >
> > > > I'm not even going to comment on your last paragraph. This is too
> > > > ridiculous for words.
> > >
> > > Well, at times Steves enthusiasm might get a bit ahead of the facts. I
> > > am guessing he'd like it if kids killed their parents more for hitting
> > > them, but it's not happening and it's not likely to.
> > >
> > > They are, after all, the beloved parent...regardless, and everyone gets
> > > just one of each, biologically.
> > >
> > > This would both support Steve in his reasoning as to why a child would
> > > kill a parent (though I doubt spanking alone would be causal to any
> > > degree...given the stockholm syndrom...but along with emotional
> > > abuse....oh me oh my):
> > >
> > > http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2248/is_n109_v28/ai_13885856
> > >
> > > "Parricide, the killing of one's mother or father, is an especially
> > > neglected topic (Ewing, 1990). Perhaps this is due to its relative
> > > infrequency; it accounts for less than 2% of all homicides in the
> > > United States (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1988). Patricide, the
> > > killing of one's father, accounts for less than 1% of all homicides,
> > > while matricide, the killing of one's mother, accounts for a slightly
> > > lower percentage. Most of the research on parricide is based on
> > > clinical case studies, and tends to emphasize a common theme: parricide
> > > is often a response to long-standing child abuse (Ewing, 1990). Sadoff
> > > (1971), for example, has concluded that, in most cases of parricide, "a
> > > bizarre neurotic relationship exists between the victim and his
> > > assassin in which the parent-victim mistreats the child excessively and
> > > pushes him to the point of explosive violence".Parricide, the killing
> > > of one's mother or father, is an especially neglected topic (Ewing,
> > > 1990). Perhaps this is due to its relative infrequency; it accounts for
> > > less than 2% of all homicides in the United States (Federal Bureau of
> > > Investigation, 1988). Patricide, the killing of one's father, accounts
> > > for less than 1% of all homicides, while matricide, the killing of
> > > one's mother, accounts for a slightly lower percentage. Most of the
> > > research on parricide is based on clinical case studies, and tends to
> > > emphasize a common theme: parricide is often a response to
> > > long-standing child abuse (Ewing, 1990). Sadoff (1971), for example,
> > > has concluded that, in most cases of parricide, "a bizarre neurotic
> > > relationship exists between the victim and his assassin in which the
> > > parent-victim mistreats the child excessively and pushes him to the
> > > point of explosive violence".
> > >
> > > > LaVonne
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > > > > Carlson LaVonne wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > ----------------------------
> > > > > Nonsense, the firestorm of lawsuits in the late sixties and early
> > > > > severnties has virtually ended it everywhere.
> > >
> > > I'm surprised. Usually you have the facts on your side, but this is
> > > kind of silly.
> > -----------------------
> > It is puzzling that you don't know this. Are you assigning the term:
> > "virtually everywhere" more powerful meaning than its dictionary
> > meaning? ALL schools used to physically abuse, now fewer than 10%
> > do so.
>
> No, I'm not assigning any more than the term would suggest.
>
> I posted, I believe, the current data on paddling incidents in public
> schools still. It certainly does not support "virtually everywhere," or
> "every" when.
>
> >
> >
> > > Not only is it going on now, and certainly in the 80's and 90's but in
> > > fact one of your claims below stands as proof...the teen
> > > criminality...especially the attacks with by students with guns on
> > > other students and on teachers.
> > ----------------------------
> > Some places, of course. I see no problem. While every school had
> > previous physically abused students, fewer than one in a dozen can
> > be found that does today.
> >
> >
> > > As I recall Columbine HS has a paddling policy and used it. As did the
> > > school in Pearl Mississippi where the two boys took down so many
> > > students.
> > ----------------------------
> > I see that as cause and effect. What is your point here?
>
> It's agreement with you as to some children becoming vengeful and
> acting out.
> >
> > > Both NOT in the 60's and early 70s, and I don't recall more than a very
> > > few school burnings.
> > -------------------------------
> > In the 60's fires were hardly ever considered vengeance, instead they
> > were seen as the result of vandalism or accident. People were simply
> > in denial about teen anger back then. Only now do we even report them
> > nationally, thirty years ago fires in schools were considered strictly
> > local abberance, and no one had gathered the info to suspect a trend.
> > You won't find this in the newspapers of the time. You'll have to
> > dig a bit deeper.
>
> Where? I lived in an area with about 100 schools in all, grade and hs
> (we didn't have "junior high" in those days. I do not recall a single
> fire at a school in the entire time I attended or in the many years
> after I lived in the area. Those were extremely rare, and no, I
> disagree that they would be considered "vandalism." Then as now, they
> were called and were arson. And
>
> But I'd be interested in the data. I could certainly use the argument
> in my own fight to end this barbaric practice of ass-saulting children
> and reassigning it a polite name.
------------------------
I don't do cites, I just remember what I read.

> > > > > Even where it is legal
> > > > > the state and local school boards have standing policies against it
> > > > > because it insitgated such a huge rise in teen criminality, teacher
> > > > > assaults, and school vandalisms, they were burning down about one
> > > > > school a day in 1971 when most states banned it.
> > >
> > > Three hundred and 60 or so schools a year? I think we'd remember that.
> > > As for the lack of paddling in actuality....not so, Steve.
> > -------------------------
> > No, it's quite true, there were several books written on it in the
> > mid-seventies.
>
> Could you refer me to at least one of those?
>
> I can't find any that fit the bill here.
-----------------------
I don't do cites, I consider them irrelevant and obfuscatory on Usenet.

> > > Mmmm...catch the last line here:
> > >
> > > "Daily Ardmoreite, Ardmore, Oklahoma, 13 October 2003
> > > State ranks fifth nationally in corporal punishment
> > --------------------------
> > Oklahoma is especially backward in numerous issues.
> >
> >
> > > OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) -- Oklahoma ranks fifth nationwide in the use of
> > ---------------------
> > The AP is not known for statistical accuracy, and peddles an approved
> > brand of truth to authoritarians. The states which have not banned
> > school child-abuse by law have in most cases still discouraged it
> > from above by superintendency. Also, schools which have regressed
> > into it are frought with trouble, lawsuits, extreme school vandalism,
> > fires, and school personnel being targetted for assault and their
> > homes vanadalized.
> > Steve
>
> I'm not finding much of this.
-------------------
I don't see you looking. Much has been lost prior to the Net.

> Some, yes, but not many instances. In fact parents in those states tend
> to approve of paddling. And do it themselves. So the kids, even if not
> paddled in school still are abused by their parents with similar
> results.
-----------------------
Approval is posturing, and most DON'T do much of it, as they find it
makes everything worse, unless they are violently neurotic and find
it "fun".

> I'd like to see more schools ban it legally and that's why I have
> changed my position from a moral one to a social reponsibility one. The
> Law is the answer, since we have such idiots about like the dancing
> monkey and those that have fallen by the wayside from this ng.
>
> To me it's sad that we have to resort to the use of controlling
> authority with them, but they were subverted and defiled by their own
> overcontrolling punishing parents.
-------------------
Sometimes all you can do is shoot 'em.

> Nice talkin' witchah and if you can shoot me those references I'd
> appreciate it. I live where there is still a lot of belief in the
> paddling custom in schools and it's most definately done, and I'll be
> having more arguements with the authorities here.
>
> Feel free to post privately.
>
> Thanks, Kane
--------------------------
The books I read in about 1975-78 were new at the time, paperback,
and I don't recall the titles and have never seen other copies.
It was not a popular topic then.
Steve

kane_pohaku · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 333

Leave me alone. I don't debate with evil, dangerous, self important
pathological nutcases.

It's a waste of my valuable time.

Kane

kane_pohaku · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 333

R. Steve Walz wrote:
> kane_pohaku@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > Leave me alone. I don't debate with evil, dangerous, self important
> > pathological nutcases.
> >
> > It's a waste of my valuable time.
> >
> > Kane
> -------------------
> You mean your molly-coddling and smarmy smoothing things over
> with Evil people.
> Steve

No, I don't molly-coddle you, or your kind. Evil people such as you
need reeducation in confinement where they cannot harm others or peddle
their schizophrenic babbling and con people into thinking they know
what they are talking about.

I said, leave me alone. There's nothing to debate with a madman like
you.
This world has had it's "master race" mad men and we don't want any
more. Kill yourself now.

0:->