Responding to Arguments Against Corporal Punishment

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

Doan wrote:
>
> On 10 Jan 2006 pohaku.kane@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > instrument. An Associated Press poll is very likely to attract those
> > that will signon with something to say in agreement with question.
>
> So much for all those anti-spanking research! Let's see, 90% of
> parents in Canada are NON-PUNITIVE! Wink

>
> Doan
--------------------------------
Your error, actually that would call into question your insipid
trolling garbage instead.
Steve

Archived from group: misc>kids

Doan · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 1571

Have any looked in the "archives" and found the studies that LaVonne
and Kane0 said they have posted "numerous times"? Could they be LYING?

"Baumrind et al. (2002) cited several studies that have found
corporal punishment to be less associated with negative outcomes
than are other discipline techniques. Although this may be true,
just because other techniques are worse than corporal punishment
does not make corporal punishment any better. Until positive
effects are linked with corporal punishment, it should not be
routinely recommended as a method of controlling children. However,
it is important to note that their argument does point to the
need for similar research on all methods of parental discipline, not
just corporal punishment."

Doan

Pohaku Kane · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 13

Opinions wrote:
> This really cuts to the core of the problem. Few parents are inclined
> to wade through no-spank research, much of it questionable, in search
> of a few gems of truth.

Yes, that's more the purview of those that debate the questions or have
professional interest.

However I've run into a great many parents that felt their children were
worth the trouble of a "wade through no-spank research....in search of a
few gems of truth." Most didn't need that though. They were much too
busy learning more about how to parent, rather than why to parent.

> What parents really want is,

How did you become an expert on "what parents really want?"

You James Dobson are yah?

> if spanking is
> all that bad for kids, something that is at least as effective and easy
> to implement as spanking for those times when nothing else seems to
> work.

Yep, and they find it, more often than not. And more often than not they
are not so locked into the punitive mindset they couldn't shift their
awareness to anything new, and make it work.

In fact nothing is easier than the simple techniques of non-punitive
parenting. One does not have to worry about risk of abuse. One does not
have to worry about one's one state of mind causing "overkill."

And one can be sure the relationship will continue to be one of trust.

They don't fail, like you did. I can see why you came back and are still
here. That must smart knowing that millions of people, highly likely
they themselves spanked as children, could make that shift successfully.

And you, according to your own posting, could not. You couldn't even
take advice on what might have gone astray. You immediately responded as
though you had been attacked, rather than asked.

"What is it," you must wonder, "that they knew that I didn't?"

What they knew, lil 'o' is that the premise of punishment is wrong in
itself. That children are busy learners and not misbehaving but simply
behaving in the way both nature, and their parents have made available
to them. If you treat them like they are misbehaving, you tehn DO have a
hammer, and restrict yourself to it, and you DO think everything is a nail.

> Had no-spanks produced that singular strategy or technique several
> decades ago, the current dog and pony show would no longer be
> necessary.

Why would it have to be "singular?" Aren't you being rather patronizing
of the spanking parent? Just they have just ONE, "singular" way of
responding to a child's unwanted behaviors?

Heck, simple, easy to learn methods have been out there for decades. I
first learned not just a new way to parent, but why, in the mid 70's,
and it had been around naturally for far longer.

That was the strangest part to find out. I immediately, after learning,
began to spot people that were both the product of nonpunitive
parenting, but parents who were not punitive with their children. The
language and behaviors of both parties are different...and not noticed
so much, because a behaving child and a calm in charge parent excite no
interest or attention in the normal course of everyday life.

As we used to say back then, it blew my mind. What could possibly have
blocked me from seeing it before?

Simple. A world view, from a society that taught me, that had not
encompassed both empathy and awareness of the possibility that children
were NOT misbehaving, but were simply developing.

> Much like experienced parents still suggest spanking,

Experience alone does not make an expert. Or even make one knowledgable.
In fact, too much experience of the wrong kind can block one from seeing
anything new. And simply repeating the same mistaken notions and
resultant behaviors until they are concrete, like your poor head.

> and
> almost everyone knows what they're taking about,

You have that on the best of proven fact, do you?

Gee, the more spanking becomes unpopular the better our actual data
about the behavior of youths become. Weird huh? Must be something in the
water. 0:->

> no-spanks could
> suggest *whatever* with the same universal understanding.

We do. Frequently. LaVonne certainly has pointed to it. Other posters
certainly have. One ex spanker made it plain here how he turned the corner.

I've also done so even more times both with specifics names, and sources
pointed to. You even tried one yourself and couldn't make it work.

Likely one of two conditions existed that didn't allow you that tiny but
significant, one should say monumental, breakthrough that must be part
of changing a pattern of behavior.

Either you did not take training, (or it was very poor...I've seen some
given by people that had not given up punishment as a model and the
belief that the child is 'misbehaving' as a reason for punishing) or you
simply had been so betrayed as a child, and had so bought into the
message your parents were giving you, (read Pieper and Pieper, "Smart
Love") that you could not break out.

Go back and dig out that old copy of Tom Gordon's book PET, read it over
again, then read the Piepers as referenced above. The two together will
explain it to you, if you can get it.

By the way, raising my own two children resulted in my going back to
college, driven solely by the desire to learn more about child
development, aberrations, and methods for non-punitive child rearing
methods. And I don't consider myself an exception.

You one note babbling, lil 'o' is a dead giveaway to your sad view of
children, parenting, and the world.

Imagine thinking that a parent's children aren't important enough to
them to work hard to gain more knowledge. Just imagine that.

0:->

Doan · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 1571

So where are the studies? Wink

Doan

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Pohaku Kane wrote:

>
> Opinions wrote:
> > This really cuts to the core of the problem. Few parents are inclined
> > to wade through no-spank research, much of it questionable, in search
> > of a few gems of truth.
>
> Yes, that's more the purview of those that debate the questions or have
> professional interest.
>
> However I've run into a great many parents that felt their children were
> worth the trouble of a "wade through no-spank research....in search of a
> few gems of truth." Most didn't need that though. They were much too
> busy learning more about how to parent, rather than why to parent.
>
> > What parents really want is,
>
> How did you become an expert on "what parents really want?"
>
> You James Dobson are yah?
>
> > if spanking is
> > all that bad for kids, something that is at least as effective and easy
> > to implement as spanking for those times when nothing else seems to
> > work.
>
> Yep, and they find it, more often than not. And more often than not they
> are not so locked into the punitive mindset they couldn't shift their
> awareness to anything new, and make it work.
>
> In fact nothing is easier than the simple techniques of non-punitive
> parenting. One does not have to worry about risk of abuse. One does not
> have to worry about one's one state of mind causing "overkill."
>
> And one can be sure the relationship will continue to be one of trust.
>
> They don't fail, like you did. I can see why you came back and are still
> here. That must smart knowing that millions of people, highly likely
> they themselves spanked as children, could make that shift successfully.
>
> And you, according to your own posting, could not. You couldn't even
> take advice on what might have gone astray. You immediately responded as
> though you had been attacked, rather than asked.
>
> "What is it," you must wonder, "that they knew that I didn't?"
>
> What they knew, lil 'o' is that the premise of punishment is wrong in
> itself. That children are busy learners and not misbehaving but simply
> behaving in the way both nature, and their parents have made available
> to them. If you treat them like they are misbehaving, you tehn DO have a
> hammer, and restrict yourself to it, and you DO think everything is a nail.
>
> > Had no-spanks produced that singular strategy or technique several
> > decades ago, the current dog and pony show would no longer be
> > necessary.
>
> Why would it have to be "singular?" Aren't you being rather patronizing
> of the spanking parent? Just they have just ONE, "singular" way of
> responding to a child's unwanted behaviors?
>
> Heck, simple, easy to learn methods have been out there for decades. I
> first learned not just a new way to parent, but why, in the mid 70's,
> and it had been around naturally for far longer.
>
> That was the strangest part to find out. I immediately, after learning,
> began to spot people that were both the product of nonpunitive
> parenting, but parents who were not punitive with their children. The
> language and behaviors of both parties are different...and not noticed
> so much, because a behaving child and a calm in charge parent excite no
> interest or attention in the normal course of everyday life.
>
> As we used to say back then, it blew my mind. What could possibly have
> blocked me from seeing it before?
>
> Simple. A world view, from a society that taught me, that had not
> encompassed both empathy and awareness of the possibility that children
> were NOT misbehaving, but were simply developing.
>
> > Much like experienced parents still suggest spanking,
>
> Experience alone does not make an expert. Or even make one knowledgable.
> In fact, too much experience of the wrong kind can block one from seeing
> anything new. And simply repeating the same mistaken notions and
> resultant behaviors until they are concrete, like your poor head.
>
> > and
> > almost everyone knows what they're taking about,
>
> You have that on the best of proven fact, do you?
>
> Gee, the more spanking becomes unpopular the better our actual data
> about the behavior of youths become. Weird huh? Must be something in the
> water. 0:->
>
> > no-spanks could
> > suggest *whatever* with the same universal understanding.
>
> We do. Frequently. LaVonne certainly has pointed to it. Other posters
> certainly have. One ex spanker made it plain here how he turned the corner.
>
> I've also done so even more times both with specifics names, and sources
> pointed to. You even tried one yourself and couldn't make it work.
>
> Likely one of two conditions existed that didn't allow you that tiny but
> significant, one should say monumental, breakthrough that must be part
> of changing a pattern of behavior.
>
> Either you did not take training, (or it was very poor...I've seen some
> given by people that had not given up punishment as a model and the
> belief that the child is 'misbehaving' as a reason for punishing) or you
> simply had been so betrayed as a child, and had so bought into the
> message your parents were giving you, (read Pieper and Pieper, "Smart
> Love") that you could not break out.
>
> Go back and dig out that old copy of Tom Gordon's book PET, read it over
> again, then read the Piepers as referenced above. The two together will
> explain it to you, if you can get it.
>
> By the way, raising my own two children resulted in my going back to
> college, driven solely by the desire to learn more about child
> development, aberrations, and methods for non-punitive child rearing
> methods. And I don't consider myself an exception.
>
> You one note babbling, lil 'o' is a dead giveaway to your sad view of
> children, parenting, and the world.
>
> Imagine thinking that a parent's children aren't important enough to
> them to work hard to gain more knowledge. Just imagine that.
>
> 0:->
>

Dr. Schmuck E'nema · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 5

R. Steve Walz wrote:
> Bible John wrote:
>
>>2. Responding to Arguments Against Corporal Punishment
>>
>>Those who oppose corporal punishment do not normally do so on the basis
>>of a single argument.
>
> ---------------------
> Here's only one, and it comprises all the others inherently:
> We have a 14th Amendment right to due process of law and equal
> protection. That process can procede well into the future
> in any criminal case, and require longer than the life of the
> original defendant if new evidence is discovered or new or
> altered witness is discovered.
>
> Execution deprives the defendant of the opportunity to benefit
> from reversals of verdict possible in any system which continues
> to investigate crime and process new evidence after penalty,
> as well as the opportunity to participate in his ongoing defense.
>
> Thus no capital penalty can legally be imposed and still
> preserve the defendant's alienable right of due process and
> equal protection under the Constitition of the United States.
>
> Capital punishment's days are numbered upon a calendar that
> contains the date upon which a man is put to death and then
> prominently and publically found to later be innocent. It
> may already have occurred. On that day the hue and cry against
> it will excede all previous efforts, and it will collapse of
> its own ponderous unconstitutional weight.
>
> The Supreme Courts of the various States will one by one
> declare capital punishment a violation of due process and
> equal protection under the 14th, and that will be it.
>
> The SCotUS will then agree, or more likely for their cowardly
> ilk, they will decline to hear the case, and it will stand
> as new Constitutional principle without their imprimatur.
>
>
>
>>Usually they muster a battery of reasons to
>>support their view. They do not root their arguments in particular
>>theories of punishment -- theories that justify the institution of
>>punishment -- and say why corporal punishment fails to meet the
>>theoretical requirements.
>
> -----------------
> The requirement of any punishment is that it deter, and it obviously
> does not deter, as murder rates go UP in every state and nation where
> execution has been increased. Some people see being killed as
> attractive especially to have the state do it. A variation of suicide
> by cop.
>
>
>
>>In many cases, this may be because they lack a
>>theory of punishment. However, it should be said in their favor that
>>having a theory of punishment is little help, by itself, in determining
>>whether corporal punishment is ever morally acceptable.
>
> ------------------
> The morality of killing people was decided long ago by Moses et alia.
> Argue that one on friday night or on sunday if you wish.
>
> And, as an exigency in a pinch when naught else is available, most
> affirm it utility.
>
> But the morality of killing is not the question, but whether it is
> consistent with the Constitution, and since "due process" has an
> ongoing capacity to reverse convictions and right the wrong of
> unjust penalties, execution deprives the INNOCENT of that right.
>
> Nobody, including me, cares what you do with the GUILTY, but you
> see, in our system of laws, nobody is finally proved guilty beyond
> a shadow of a doubt, but only beyond a REASONABLE doubt, and new
> evidence or new witness can change that!
>
> So it is for the Innocent that we seek Constitutional protection,
> and not for the guilty, however, those are always ONLY PROVISIONALLY
> DETERMINED, and ARE LEGALLY REVERSIBLE!!
>
> Now unless you wish to enshrine a system of laws where even a person
> who is convicted and later found to be innocent must still suffer
> the penalty, some "too late" principle in law, then you will need
> to accede to the 14th Amendment to our Constitution, which you
> obviously need to re-read, and with the many commentaries on it.
>
> The basic inherent principle behind that Amendment bars such final
> punishments such as amputations, torture, and execution, and it
> is because we might later find we have erred and need to offer a
> reversal and compensation.
>
> --
> I've always wondered why we kill off all that good flesh anyway,
> we should either enslave them surgically and electronically, if we
> don't care about them, or at least eat them to avoid such waste.
> Steve

Corporal is NOT the same as capital punishment.

Stephanie · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 358

"Opinions" wrote in message @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Sure the books are out there. A few may actually be read by those with
> spare time and disposable income. A primary problem is that in a world
> where lone parenting is rapidly becoming the norm, time and income
> often come at the expense of other things such as food and sleep. Lack
> of sleep is already being compared to being as dangerous as drinking!
> No matter how many books they may have read, sleepy and irritable
> adults usually make lousy parents.
>
> A secondary problem is that there is no consistent message that can be
> encapsulated in a single word or phrase other than "don't spank."

I am not sure what you are saying? Is this supposed to be some decent
argument for the appropriateness of spanking or other punitive "discipline"
methods? Or an expression of exasperation that people will spank because
they are too stupid or tired to gain understanding for the best interest of
their children? If it is the latter, I wish I were hopeful enough to
disagree with you.

> That
> is the message that no-spanks tried to deliver in the media and it fell
> flat on its face. Parents are going to use what they know and are
> comfortable using. That will not change. It is up to no-spanks to
> accommodate parents rather than the other way around. Otherwise,
> no-spanks will continue to spin its wheels without getting much
> traction with most parents over time.
>

Well by the theory of Darwin and the survival of the fittest, over time
those with the better upbringing through the generations may well prevail
socially, economically and thus make change in the system somehow. It's a
damned shame. It's the kids of the parents whose brains are locked in the
off position who are thinking only of their own convenience that suffer.

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

Doan wrote:
>
> Have any looked in the "archives" and found the studies that LaVonne
> and Kane0 said they have posted "numerous times"? Could they be LYING?
---------
No. You're the liar. It's obvious.
Steve

Stephanie · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 358

"Opinions" wrote in message @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I need not make *a decent argument* for or against spanking when the
> fact remains that, until no-spanks come up with an effective and easy
> to use alternative to spanking, the status quo will prevail. "Don't
> spank" is not a solution and bad mouthing parents that spank is
> counterproductive.
>

*Sigh* and to think that parents might be motivated to actually think in the
name of the well being of their children. If it is true that parents really
*are* actually motivated only by their convenience, then what you say is
true. What a sad, sad commentary.

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

Opinions wrote:
>
> This really cuts to the core of the problem. Few parents are inclined
> to wade through no-spank research, much of it questionable,
-----------------------
Only to you who are desperate for it to seem so to you.

> What parents really want is, if spanking is
> all that bad for kids, something that is at least as effective and easy
> to implement as spanking for those times when nothing else seems to
> work.
-------------------------
But control of others is dishonest and does not work in the longest
run. "Something" that is "as effective" is NOT what genuinely loving
intelligent people SHOULD want, because it's WRONG, the entire notion
of controlling others is WRONG, and EVIL! You will never wind up with
people who do good from good motives that way, people who will do Good
when you're not there or after you're long dead, that will NEVER HAPPEN
AS A RESULT OF YOUR COERCIVE CONTROL STRATEGIES!!

Instead you have to enlist them in the army of Goodness and Love and
Respect by using YOUR Goodness and Love and Respect, and ASKING their
participation in that way, and giving them reasons why it works when
they ask, because nothing else does that!! And trying to MAKE them
do Good WILL NEVER WORK, they will hate you, and that sort of
effort is in fact the incarnate hatred and dishonoring of them!!

Evil IS the warped backward mirror image of Good!!

> Had no-spanks produced that singular strategy or technique several
> decades ago, the current dog and pony show would no longer be
> necessary.
-----------------
The methods of Goodness are universally known and understood, but
the Evil prefer to imagine that Goodness is "unworkable", when in
fact the Truth is really that they simply wish to continue to do Evil!

> Much like experienced parents still suggest spanking,
--------------------
Long-failed parents pretend their failure was "all they could do",
instead of accepting the blame for their stupid Evil weakness and
cruel venality.
Steve

Stephanie · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 358

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message @armory.com...
> Opinions wrote:
>>
>> This really cuts to the core of the problem. Few parents are inclined
>> to wade through no-spank research, much of it questionable,
> -----------------------
> Only to you who are desperate for it to seem so to you.
>
>
>> What parents really want is, if spanking is
>> all that bad for kids, something that is at least as effective and easy
>> to implement as spanking for those times when nothing else seems to
>> work.
> -------------------------
> But control of others is dishonest and does not work in the longest
> run. "Something" that is "as effective"

Well I guess it depends on what you want to be effective AT. If you want to
be effective at raising healthy, responsible, mentally stable, loving,
wonderful grown ups, then being effective is nice. If you want to be
effective at getting your kid into submission, then I would say one would
have a screwed up goal.

> is NOT what genuinely loving
> intelligent people SHOULD want, because it's WRONG, the entire notion
> of controlling others is WRONG,

Agreed.

> and EVIL! You will never wind up with
> people who do good from good motives that way, people who will do Good
> when you're not there or after you're long dead, that will NEVER HAPPEN
> AS A RESULT OF YOUR COERCIVE CONTROL STRATEGIES!!
>
> Instead you have to enlist them in the army of Goodness and Love and
> Respect by using YOUR Goodness and Love and Respect, and ASKING their
> participation in that way, and giving them reasons why it works when
> they ask, because nothing else does that!! And trying to MAKE them
> do Good WILL NEVER WORK, they will hate you, and that sort of
> effort is in fact the incarnate hatred and dishonoring of them!!
>
> Evil IS the warped backward mirror image of Good!!
>
>
>> Had no-spanks produced that singular strategy or technique several
>> decades ago, the current dog and pony show would no longer be
>> necessary.
> -----------------
> The methods of Goodness are universally known and understood,

I don't think this is so. I think that we cling to what we know from our own
childhood, and transitioning to a new way of thinking can bend the brain a
bit. It is worth the effort, but it is not any more universally known than
any other thing I think. I think we have moved, as a society, far enough
away from it that it looks funny to us.

> but
> the Evil prefer to imagine that Goodness is "unworkable", when in
> fact the Truth is really that they simply wish to continue to do Evil!
>
>
>> Much like experienced parents still suggest spanking,
> --------------------
> Long-failed parents pretend their failure was "all they could do",
> instead of accepting the blame for their stupid Evil weakness and
> cruel venality.
> Steve

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

Stephanie wrote:
>
> "R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
> @armory.com...
> > Opinions wrote:
> >>
> >> This really cuts to the core of the problem. Few parents are inclined
> >> to wade through no-spank research, much of it questionable,
> > -----------------------
> > Only to you who are desperate for it to seem so to you.
> >
> >
> >> What parents really want is, if spanking is
> >> all that bad for kids, something that is at least as effective and easy
> >> to implement as spanking for those times when nothing else seems to
> >> work.
> > -------------------------
> > But control of others is dishonest and does not work in the longest
> > run. "Something" that is "as effective"
>
> Well I guess it depends on what you want to be effective AT. If you want to
> be effective at raising healthy, responsible, mentally stable, loving,
> wonderful grown ups, then being effective is nice. If you want to be
> effective at getting your kid into submission, then I would say one would
> have a screwed up goal.
--------------------------
Yes.

> > is NOT what genuinely loving
> > intelligent people SHOULD want, because it's WRONG, the entire notion
> > of controlling others is WRONG,
>
> Agreed.
>
> > and EVIL! You will never wind up with
> > people who do good from good motives that way, people who will do Good
> > when you're not there or after you're long dead, that will NEVER HAPPEN
> > AS A RESULT OF YOUR COERCIVE CONTROL STRATEGIES!!
> >
> > Instead you have to enlist them in the army of Goodness and Love and
> > Respect by using YOUR Goodness and Love and Respect, and ASKING their
> > participation in that way, and giving them reasons why it works when
> > they ask, because nothing else does that!! And trying to MAKE them
> > do Good WILL NEVER WORK, they will hate you, and that sort of
> > effort is in fact the incarnate hatred and dishonoring of them!!
> >
> > Evil IS the warped backward mirror image of Good!!
> >
> >
> >> Had no-spanks produced that singular strategy or technique several
> >> decades ago, the current dog and pony show would no longer be
> >> necessary.
> > -----------------
> > The methods of Goodness are universally known and understood,
>
> I don't think this is so. I think that we cling to what we know from our own
> childhood, and transitioning to a new way of thinking can bend the brain a
> bit. It is worth the effort, but it is not any more universally known than
> any other thing I think. I think we have moved, as a society, far enough
> away from it that it looks funny to us.
-------------------------
I mean it in this way: Even the worst psychopath loves themself and
wishes good things for themself. Everyone knows what Goodness is,
they just can't get it right regarding others.

So yes, you're right it is hard to get it right, but everyone knows
Good when they see it done to them!
Steve

> > but
> > the Evil prefer to imagine that Goodness is "unworkable", when in
> > fact the Truth is really that they simply wish to continue to do Evil!
> >
> >
> >> Much like experienced parents still suggest spanking,
> > --------------------
> > Long-failed parents pretend their failure was "all they could do",
> > instead of accepting the blame for their stupid Evil weakness and
> > cruel venality.
> > Steve

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

Dr. Schmuck E'nema wrote:
>
> R. Steve Walz wrote:
> > Bible John wrote:
> >
> >>2. Responding to Arguments Against Corporal Punishment
> >>
> >>Those who oppose corporal punishment do not normally do so on the basis
> >>of a single argument.
> >
> > ---------------------
> > Here's only one, and it comprises all the others inherently:
> > We have a 14th Amendment right to due process of law and equal
> > protection. That process can procede well into the future
> > in any criminal case, and require longer than the life of the
> > original defendant if new evidence is discovered or new or
> > altered witness is discovered.
> >
> > Execution deprives the defendant of the opportunity to benefit
> > from reversals of verdict possible in any system which continues
> > to investigate crime and process new evidence after penalty,
> > as well as the opportunity to participate in his ongoing defense.
> >
> > Thus no capital penalty can legally be imposed and still
> > preserve the defendant's alienable right of due process and
> > equal protection under the Constitition of the United States.
> >
> > Capital punishment's days are numbered upon a calendar that
> > contains the date upon which a man is put to death and then
> > prominently and publically found to later be innocent. It
> > may already have occurred. On that day the hue and cry against
> > it will excede all previous efforts, and it will collapse of
> > its own ponderous unconstitutional weight.
> >
> > The Supreme Courts of the various States will one by one
> > declare capital punishment a violation of due process and
> > equal protection under the 14th, and that will be it.
> >
> > The SCotUS will then agree, or more likely for their cowardly
> > ilk, they will decline to hear the case, and it will stand
> > as new Constitutional principle without their imprimatur.
> >
> >
> >
> >>Usually they muster a battery of reasons to
> >>support their view. They do not root their arguments in particular
> >>theories of punishment -- theories that justify the institution of
> >>punishment -- and say why corporal punishment fails to meet the
> >>theoretical requirements.
> >
> > -----------------
> > The requirement of any punishment is that it deter, and it obviously
> > does not deter, as murder rates go UP in every state and nation where
> > execution has been increased. Some people see being killed as
> > attractive especially to have the state do it. A variation of suicide
> > by cop.
> >
> >
> >
> >>In many cases, this may be because they lack a
> >>theory of punishment. However, it should be said in their favor that
> >>having a theory of punishment is little help, by itself, in determining
> >>whether corporal punishment is ever morally acceptable.
> >
> > ------------------
> > The morality of killing people was decided long ago by Moses et alia.
> > Argue that one on friday night or on sunday if you wish.
> >
> > And, as an exigency in a pinch when naught else is available, most
> > affirm it utility.
> >
> > But the morality of killing is not the question, but whether it is
> > consistent with the Constitution, and since "due process" has an
> > ongoing capacity to reverse convictions and right the wrong of
> > unjust penalties, execution deprives the INNOCENT of that right.
> >
> > Nobody, including me, cares what you do with the GUILTY, but you
> > see, in our system of laws, nobody is finally proved guilty beyond
> > a shadow of a doubt, but only beyond a REASONABLE doubt, and new
> > evidence or new witness can change that!
> >
> > So it is for the Innocent that we seek Constitutional protection,
> > and not for the guilty, however, those are always ONLY PROVISIONALLY
> > DETERMINED, and ARE LEGALLY REVERSIBLE!!
> >
> > Now unless you wish to enshrine a system of laws where even a person
> > who is convicted and later found to be innocent must still suffer
> > the penalty, some "too late" principle in law, then you will need
> > to accede to the 14th Amendment to our Constitution, which you
> > obviously need to re-read, and with the many commentaries on it.
> >
> > The basic inherent principle behind that Amendment bars such final
> > punishments such as amputations, torture, and execution, and it
> > is because we might later find we have erred and need to offer a
> > reversal and compensation.
> >
> > --
> > I've always wondered why we kill off all that good flesh anyway,
> > we should either enslave them surgically and electronically, if we
> > don't care about them, or at least eat them to avoid such waste.
> > Steve
>
> Corporal is NOT the same as capital punishment.
---------------------------------
Irrelevant. The Evil who abuse children corporally deserve death.
Steve

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

Tommy Richardson wrote:
>
> R. Steve Walz wrote:
>
> > Irrelevant. The Evil who abuse children corporally deserve death.
> > Steve
>
> Yet, you support abortion. Your logic is absurd.
-----------------
Fetuses are not children.
Nor are they even human beings.
You're confusing yourself again.

> Strange thing about you liberals. You stand in protest against the execution
> of a murderer like Stanley 'Dookie' Williams - Yet support abortion on
> demand.
-------------------
Abortion is not murder because fetuses are not children, not people.
No human recalls being a fetus, BECAUSE WE WEREN'T THERE YET!!
Steve

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

Tommy Richardson wrote:
>
> R. Steve Walz wrote:
>
> > Tommy Richardson wrote:
> >>
> >> R. Steve Walz wrote:
> >>
> >> > Irrelevant. The Evil who abuse children corporally deserve death.
> >> > Steve
> >>
> >> Yet, you support abortion. Your logic is absurd.
> > -----------------
> > Fetuses are not children.
> > Nor are they even human beings.
> > You're confusing yourself again.
>
> Stop diluting yourself Steve.
---------------------
Nobody even knows what the hell you just said, even you.

> >> Strange thing about you liberals. You stand in protest against the
> >> execution of a murderer like Stanley 'Dookie' Williams - Yet support
> >> abortion on demand.
> > -------------------
> > Abortion is not murder because fetuses are not children, not people.
> > No human recalls being a fetus, BECAUSE WE WEREN'T THERE YET!!
> > Steve
>
> Do you recall the first birthday party your parents had for 'you' when you
> were 365-days old? If not, does that mean you weren't human at the age of
> 1?
---------------------------
Hell, I don't recall my last birthday that well, but I REMEMBER that
I USED to remember it, and that's the Personal Story that is remembered
as our Life, our Self. Until you have one of those, you ain't anybody!
Steve

Stephanie · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 358

"Doan" wrote in message @skat.usc.edu...
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Stephanie wrote:
>
>>
>> "Doan" wrote in message
>> @skat.usc.edu...
>> >
>> > You can also buy into the anti-spanking agenda and learn what Swedish
>> > parents has learned.
>> >
>> > "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

>> >
>>
>> That's why I specifically refer to non-punitive discipline rather than
>> highlighting specifically spanking.
>>
> The problem is how you define "non-punitive".

Every time I have ever tried to engage you in dialog, you rant about other
posters who are lying. I don't know the studies to which you refer. ANd I
doubt very much I am going to see anything other than ranting out of you.

> Kane posted a study where
> 90% of the parents are "non-punitive"! Do an analysis of your
> "non-punitive" discipline and see how they compare to spanking. Gee!
> Let's me look in the "archives". They are there somewhere or could
> LaVonne and Kane0 be lying? Wink

>
> Doan
>
>