Foster Parents FAQ » Foster Child » THE QUESTION

THE QUESTION

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Greg Hanson wrote: > > > > The Question: > > > > How do those who decide to use striking > > > > a child or other forms of CP to control > > > > and teach that child determine the limits > > > > of striking for safety. > > > Is your Engligh teacher proud of your idea of a question? > > > Interpretation of interrogatory logic: > > > How do those who decide to use striking determine > > > the limits of striking for safety? > > > The limit is determined by law. > > > This varies from state to state, and many states > > > Child Protection agencies don’t want to tell parents > > > the actual legal rules, because they want to create > > > a false impression that spanking is illegal. > > ————– > > Because of what it produces, monsters. > Then our country, our history and heritage is > completely a bunch of monsters.

—————- History shows this quite clearly. > Presidents, Astronauts, heros and villains.. > EVEN MORE SO, since spanking used to involve > vastly more pain and damage than most spankers > would ever sanction today.

———————————- All true, these folk were quite twisted. > You are apparently sweeping under the rug > the unfair, unethical and illegal aspects > of this statement as if YOUR ENDS justify > these bad means.  

——————————– You’re blathering uselessly. > Put another way: > Greg wrote > > Child Protection agencies don’t want to tell parents > > the actual legal rules, because they want to create > > a false impression that spanking is illegal. > Those are BAD MEANS, to any end.

——————————– Those are Good ends, as ANY prevention of assault and battery upon children is obviously Good. Thus they are Good means as well. > One could even say "terroristic" in effect.

——————————- So are ALL laws against criminal assaults. > Unethical and abusive of for caseworkers to do this.

—————————— Not at all, by No means. > > > Generally open palm is all that is allowed. > > ————- > > Abuse. > You call EVERYTHING abuse.

————————— No, I call abuse to be abuse, don’t be stupid. > Strauss is into "Psychological Aggression" research now.

—————————– It’s also important, once we get physical abuse stopped, to also stop emoional abuse, because the sickness of abuse will try another avenue. > By the way, my answer was in regard to law, > and I had stated so in the post.

———————— Irrelevant, the law is an ass. > Your personal label or classification > was NOT the ""QUESTION"".  You wanted > to know the boundary, and since the LAW > delineates the boundary, I stated it.

—————————— Irrlevant. The Law is a fiction, the Evil of Abuse is Real! > Greg wrote > > > Generally no use of objects or closed fists are allowed. > > > Hitting must be on butt and not other places. > > > Marks must not last longer than 1 or two days. > > ———— > Steve wrote > > LIE, ALL marks are regarded as abuse. > BZZZT!   Nope!

—————— Of course it is, tell it to Jesus, upon your death! You know better, or you deserve hellfire! > How LONG marks last is a deciding factor for > most state codes delineating spanking vs abuse. > See what you miss when you whitewash everything you don’t like?

———————— The Law is that of Good, and Love, and Reality, and NOT of the contrived fiction of excuses for abuse. Steve

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > > > > The Question: > > > > > How do those who decide to use striking > > > > > a child or other forms of CP to control > > > > > and teach that child determine the limits > > > > > of striking for safety. > > > > Is your Engligh teacher proud of your idea of a question? > > > > Interpretation of interrogatory logic: > > > > How do those who decide to use striking determine > > > > the limits of striking for safety? > > > > The limit is determined by law. > > > > This varies from state to state, and many states > > > > Child Protection agencies don’t want to tell parents > > > > the actual legal rules, because they want to create > > > > a false impression that spanking is illegal. > > > ————– > > > Because of what it produces, monsters. > > Then our country, our history and heritage is > > completely a bunch of monsters. > —————- > History shows this quite clearly.

Are you in an anti-America mood there, Steve? > > Presidents, Astronauts, heros and villains.. > > EVEN MORE SO, since spanking used to involve > > vastly more pain and damage than most spankers > > would ever sanction today. > ———————————- > All true, these folk were quite twisted.

Are you from a new species of Man? Or is it just your apparent Communist streak? > > You are apparently sweeping under the rug > > the unfair, unethical and illegal aspects > > of this statement as if YOUR ENDS justify > > these bad means.   > ——————————– > You’re blathering uselessly.

Despite the way you snipped it to death in order to call it "blathering" the statement STILL holds up. > > Put another way: > > Greg wrote > > > Child Protection agencies don’t want to tell parents > > > the actual legal rules, because they want to create > > > a false impression that spanking is illegal. > > Those are BAD MEANS, to any end. > ——————————– > Those are Good ends, as ANY prevention > of assault and battery

You mean spanking, right Steve? > upon children is obviously Good.

You haven’t proven objectively to that extent that non-spanking parenting is in any way superior. > Thus they are Good means as well.

In other words, you ARE saying that the ends justify the means, therefore bad means become good means. And you see no logical problems with that? > > One could even say "terroristic" in effect. > So are ALL laws against criminal assaults.

The terroristic comment stemmed from the capricious situation of caseworkers pretending there is a law against something when in fact there is NOT. Spanking is legal, but caseworkers wish to create the FALSE impression that it is illegal. That is deceptive and terrorism. Your statement about laws against criminal assaults is a complete non sequitur.  It doesn’t follow. > > Unethical and abusive of for caseworkers to do this. > —————————— > Not at all, by No means.

You think dishonesty is ethical and great as long as it carries your political agenda? The good ends justify dishonest means eh? > > > > Generally open palm is all that is allowed. > > > ————- > > > Abuse. > > You call EVERYTHING abuse. > ————————— > No, I call abuse to be abuse, don’t be stupid.

You define spanking as "beating". > > Strauss is into "Psychological Aggression" research now. > —————————– > It’s also important, once we get physical abuse stopped, to also > stop emoional abuse, because the sickness of abuse will try > another avenue.

Yes, here comes the "5 year plan". And then what kind of abuse? It’s called the "disease of the week" effect. > > By the way, my answer was in regard to law, > > and I had stated so in the post. > ———————— > Irrelevant, the law is an ass.

Sociopath. > > Your personal label or classification > > was NOT the ""QUESTION"".  You wanted > > to know the boundary, and since the LAW > > delineates the boundary, I stated it. > —————————— > Irrlevant. The Law is a fiction, > the Evil of Abuse is Real!

That sorta brings this all full circle. You use the law when you can, but the second it gets in your way you go Sociopathic. > > Greg wrote > > > > Generally no use of objects or closed fists are allowed. > > > > Hitting must be on butt and not other places. > > > > Marks must not last longer than 1 or two days. > > > ———— >  Steve wrote > > > LIE, ALL marks are regarded as abuse. > > BZZZT!   Nope! > —————— > Of course it is, tell it to Jesus, upon your death! > You know better, or you deserve hellfire!

Hellfire from an Atheist?   ROFL Law defines abuse. That was my answer to "THE QUESTION".   Remember?? Your Berkeleyesque kookery matters to nobody. You wanted an answer to THE QUESTION, and then when you are given an answer, which is the law, you reject the law and go rogue trying to assert your la la land dreamed up answer. > > How LONG marks last is a deciding factor for > > most state codes delineating spanking vs abuse. > > See what you miss when you whitewash everything you don’t like? > ———————— > The Law is that of Good, and Love, and Reality, and > NOT of the contrived fiction of excuses for abuse.

Didn’t you just say that the contrived fiction (law) that you don’t like is an excuse for abuse? Were you running thin on whitewash Steve? You’re flipping man. Look at the title of this thread. THE QUESTION You asked.   I answered.  Now you want to change the question?   Or you’ll just EXPLODE because an answer was posted?  You’re sick dude. Get help.

Response:

Kane, your citations are anecdotal. Where are the stats?

Response:

"Greg Hanson" <Gree…@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:35120b16.0312130457.5639659c@posting.google.com… > Kane, your citations are anecdotal. > Where are the stats?

This from the guy who when asked for the Iowa standard of child abuse posted www.DHS.state.ia.us. ——————– From: Greg Hanson (Gree…@hotmail.com) Subject: Re: "False accusation" is the wrong argument, Greg. Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services Date: 2003-12-02 23:52:38 PST > > The stuff you keep whining about doesn’t meet the standard. > Post the Iowa "standard" of child abuse, Greg.

www.DHS.state.ia.us ——————— .

Response:

On 13 Dec 2003 04:57:00 -0800, Gree…@hotmail.com (Greg Hanson) wrote: >Kane, your citations are anecdotal.

Asking for stats are pointless babble. It’s it how those that have lost the argument try to weasel out. >Where are the stats?

Are you saying that the commentary of state medical examiners from their notes are not sufficient proof of the events? Funny, the judge and DA seem to think medical examiners are fit to give testimony. How is it you believe a higher level is necessary to support my comment that it’s COMMON knowledge? No research has been done on this issue in terms of experiments or data collection and compilation. Apparently you can’t handle the facts and just dove onto a bolt hole. When we are talking about issues that lend themselves to studies you can be sure if such are available I’ll have no trouble accessing. Now tell us, slimeball, are you prepared to back up your apparent contention that parents that injure and kill their children DON’T make excuses…they simply confess in full on the spot, hence we don’t have to worry about spankers losing control and injuring and killing their children? Lay it out for us. Inquiring minds want to know. Take your Stupid Pill. It will raise YOUR IQ. Kane

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Greg Hanson wrote: > > The Question: > > How do those who decide to use striking a child or other forms of CP > > to control and teach that child determine the limits of striking for > > safety. > Is your Engligh teacher proud of your idea of a question? > Interpretation of interrogatory logic: > How do those who decide to use striking determine > the limits of striking for safety? > The limit is determined by law. > This varies from state to state, and many states > Child Protection agencies don’t want to tell parents > the actual legal rules, because they want to create > a false impression that spanking is illegal.

————– Because of what it produces, monsters. > Generally open palm is all that is allowed.

————- Abuse. > Generally no use of objects or closed fists are allowed. > Hitting must be on butt and not other places. > Marks must not last longer than 1 or two days.

———— LIE, ALL marks are regarded as abuse. Steve

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > > The Question: > > > How do those who decide to use striking > > > a child or other forms of CP to control > > > and teach that child determine the limits > > > of striking for safety. > > Is your Engligh teacher proud of your idea of a question? > > Interpretation of interrogatory logic: > > How do those who decide to use striking determine > > the limits of striking for safety? > > The limit is determined by law. > > This varies from state to state, and many states > > Child Protection agencies don’t want to tell parents > > the actual legal rules, because they want to create > > a false impression that spanking is illegal. > ————– > Because of what it produces, monsters.

Then our country, our history and heritage is completely a bunch of monsters. Presidents, Astronauts, heros and villains.. EVEN MORE SO, since spanking used to involve vastly more pain and damage than most spankers would ever sanction today. You are apparently sweeping under the rug the unfair, unethical and illegal aspects of this statement as if YOUR ENDS justify these bad means.  Put another way: Greg wrote > Child Protection agencies don’t want to tell parents > the actual legal rules, because they want to create > a false impression that spanking is illegal.

Those are BAD MEANS, to any end. One could even say "terroristic" in effect. Unethical and abusive of for caseworkers to do this. > > Generally open palm is all that is allowed. > ————- > Abuse.

You call EVERYTHING abuse. Strauss is into "Psychological Aggression" research now. By the way, my answer was in regard to law, and I had stated so in the post. Your personal label or classification was NOT the ""QUESTION"".  You wanted to know the boundary, and since the LAW delineates the boundary, I stated it. Greg wrote > > Generally no use of objects or closed fists are allowed. > > Hitting must be on butt and not other places. > > Marks must not last longer than 1 or two days. > ———— Steve wrote > LIE, ALL marks are regarded as abuse.

BZZZT!   Nope! How LONG marks last is a deciding factor for most state codes delineating spanking vs abuse. See what you miss when you whitewash everything you don’t like?

Response:

On 14 Dec 2003 21:58:23 -0800, Gree…@hotmail.com (Greg Hanson) wrote: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> > > The Question: >> > > How do those who decide to use striking >> > > a child or other forms of CP to control >> > > and teach that child determine the limits >> > > of striking for safety. >> > Is your Engligh teacher proud of your idea of a question? >> > Interpretation of interrogatory logic: >> > How do those who decide to use striking determine >> > the limits of striking for safety? >> > The limit is determined by law. >> > This varies from state to state, and many states >> > Child Protection agencies don’t want to tell parents >> > the actual legal rules, because they want to create >> > a false impression that spanking is illegal. >> ————– >> Because of what it produces, monsters. >Then our country, our history and heritage is >completely a bunch of monsters.

Hyperbole. Yet we certainly have had a few now haven’t we. >Presidents, Astronauts, heros and villains..

The fact you would even include "villians" should reveal the truth to you. And "heros?"  Please define. >EVEN MORE SO, since spanking used to involve >vastly more pain and damage than most spankers >would ever sanction today.

I see. Beaten into excellence. >You are apparently sweeping under the rug >the unfair, unethical and illegal aspects >of this statement as if YOUR ENDS justify >these bad means.  

You apparently aren’t telling us what you mean. >Put another way: >Greg wrote >> Child Protection agencies don’t want to tell parents >> the actual legal rules, because they want to create >> a false impression that spanking is illegal. >Those are BAD MEANS, to any end.

Outside of the claim which is a crock of bull, CPS can’t tell the parents any such thing. Do you know why? I’ve stated it repeatedly in this thread and subject. >One could even say "terroristic" in effect. >Unethical and abusive of for caseworkers to do this.

To do what they cannot do? I’ve seen the impossible demanded of caseworkers, but this takes the cake. >> > Generally open palm is all that is allowed. >> ————- >> Abuse. >You call EVERYTHING abuse.

Hyperbole. He does no such thing. >Strauss is into "Psychological Aggression" research now.

Yes. And it ranks right up there with CP for damage. In fact much of the damage in CP is a result of the psychological aspects of it. It is a betrayal of the child and her true human nature. It is a denial of what children are compelled to do in life. Hence a denial of the child himeself. >By the way, my answer was in regard to law, >and I had stated so in the post.

That’s nice. Then you were departing from The Question. >Your personal label or classification >was NOT the ""QUESTION"".  You wanted >to know the boundary, and since the LAW >delineates the boundary, I stated it.

It doesn’t. You didn’t. One look at the law and you’d know that. I’ve looked at a lot of statute. I’ve never found any such boundary delineated. Laws on child abuse tell you when you have broken them. Basically their are no laws on spanking, only on abuse. If one goes to the law for a "limit" in some states both the statute and caselaw allow a great deal of harm to be done to a child. The Question specifically asks that the answer meet the parent’s criteria of not injuring their child. The law fails on that criteria. You haven’t answered The Question. >Greg wrote >> > Generally no use of objects or closed fists are allowed. >> > Hitting must be on butt and not other places. >> > Marks must not last longer than 1 or two days. >> ———— >Steve wrote >> LIE, ALL marks are regarded as abuse. >BZZZT!   Nope! >How LONG marks last is a deciding factor for >most state codes delineating spanking vs abuse.

States delineate abuse, not spanking. Show us the statute the defines spanking. Those "define" by saying not what it is, but what it isn’t. That makes it a definition of abuse and assault. It’s useless until a child IS injured. And a child can be badly injured long before it becomes assault or abuse. Parents get a great deal of slack in this. In those statutes that discuss spanking at all it still fails to set a limit. It might tell you what you cannot use to spank, it may describe waht cannot appear as injury on the child, but that isn’t alimit. It’s GOING OVER THE LIMIT. >See what you miss when you whitewash everything you don’t like?

See what you miss when you decide NOT to answer The Question. Be honest. Why can you not answer The Question? You won’t be faulted for being honest. I’ve given the answer away in the open and implied throughout this entire discussion. You brutes just can’t bring yourself to admit what you are and what you’ve done and what you congratulate and encourage each other to do. Grow up. Become a human being, if you can. Right now you are a small bully boy bragging about punishing a little girl by enforced nudity, a cold shower, and the sight of you watching her. Kane

Response:

pohakuyakok…@subdimension.com (Kane) wrote in message <news:7ed8d1be.0312131123.6976a327@posting.google.com>… > On 13 Dec 2003 04:57:00 -0800, Gree…@hotmail.com (Greg Hanson) > wrote: > >Kane, your citations are anecdotal.

Medical examiners reports are anecdotal. "Anecdotal" doesn’t mean invalid you duplicitious shit. Their findings are legal testimony. Just recently, attempting to answer The Question you claimed that the answer was, *the law determined spanking.* Suddenly the law isn’t good enough when it comes to the impirical findings of medical examiners and reports in the media. YOU like to post media sources…and don’t even understand what you are reading….I see no reason to assume you’d understand the media in this instance. Duplicitious Dumbass. You can’t have it both ways.   Do some research and show us that parents who lethally abuse their children DON’T LIE AND MAKE EXCUSES. What a stupid asshole you are. > Asking for stats are pointless babble. It’s it how those that have > lost the argument try to weasel out. > >Where are the stats? > Are you saying that the commentary of state medical examiners from > their notes are not sufficient proof of the events?

Gee, any reason you haven’t answered yet? > Funny, the judge and DA seem to think medical examiners are fit to > give testimony. How is it you believe a higher level is necessary to > support my comment that it’s COMMON knowledge? > No research has been done on this issue in terms of experiments or > data collection and compilation.

No response, Greegor the Greavously Dumb? So…I’ll add to my last comment: Other than the reports of medical examiners saying dead children’s parents made excuses. Sorry I can’t oblige the brain damaged but those reports are sufficient to show you are an ignorant self serving child abusing twit who CPS saved a child from. > Apparently you can’t handle the facts and just dove onto a bolt hole. > When we are talking about issues that lend themselves to studies you > can be sure if such are available I’ll have no trouble accessing. > Now tell us, slimeball, are you prepared to back up your apparent > contention that parents that injure and kill their children DON’T make > excuses…they simply confess in full on the spot, hence we don’t have > to worry about spankers losing control and injuring and killing their > children?

Trot out YOUR proof. I’ve given you mine. And you can’t refute the state medical examiners….or can you? Well? Well? Hop to it, boy. > Lay it out for us. Inquiring minds want to know. > Take your Stupid Pill. It will raise YOUR IQ. > Kane

So much for lying child abusing twits. Let us know when you’ve moved out. Kane

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Greg Hanson wrote: > > > > > > The Question: > > > > > > How do those who decide to use striking > > > > > > a child or other forms of CP to control > > > > > > and teach that child determine the limits > > > > > > of striking for safety. > > > > > Is your Engligh teacher proud of your idea of a question? > > > > > Interpretation of interrogatory logic: > > > > > How do those who decide to use striking determine > > > > > the limits of striking for safety? > > > > > The limit is determined by law. > > > > > This varies from state to state, and many states > > > > > Child Protection agencies don’t want to tell parents > > > > > the actual legal rules, because they want to create > > > > > a false impression that spanking is illegal. > > > > ————– > > > > Because of what it produces, monsters. > > > Then our country, our history and heritage is > > > completely a bunch of monsters. > > —————- > > History shows this quite clearly. > Are you in an anti-America mood there, Steve?

——————————– "America" is a fiction. > > > Presidents, Astronauts, heros and villains.. > > > EVEN MORE SO, since spanking used to involve > > > vastly more pain and damage than most spankers > > > would ever sanction today. > > ———————————- > > All true, these folk were quite twisted. > Are you from a new species of Man?

—————————- No, you’re just a deformed specimen. > Or is it just your apparent Communist streak?

————————- I’m a Communist, the streak is in your briefs. > > > You are apparently sweeping under the rug > > > the unfair, unethical and illegal aspects > > > of this statement as if YOUR ENDS justify > > > these bad means. > > ——————————– > > You’re blathering uselessly. > Despite the way you snipped it to death in > order to call it "blathering" the > statement STILL holds up.

———————– Real Ends DO justify their means! > > > Put another way: > > > Greg wrote > > > > Child Protection agencies don’t want to tell parents > > > > the actual legal rules, because they want to create > > > > a false impression that spanking is illegal. > > > Those are BAD MEANS, to any end. > > ——————————– > > Those are Good ends, as ANY prevention > > of assault and battery > You mean spanking, right Steve?

—————————- Spanking YOU, yeah. Public caning would be good for you. It isn’t appropriate for children because they aren’t criminals. > > upon children is obviously Good. > You haven’t proven objectively to that extent that > non-spanking parenting is in any way superior.

—————————— You must have missed the last century of social science. It’s proven now. > > Thus they are Good means as well. > In other words, you ARE saying that the > ends justify the means, therefore bad means > become good means. > And you see no logical problems with that?

————————— There are no bad means except that they serve bad ends. There are no good means except that they serve good ends. Good and Bad follows From the Ends. > > > One could even say "terroristic" in effect. > > So are ALL laws against criminal assaults. > The terroristic comment stemmed from the capricious > situation of caseworkers pretending there is a law > against something when in fact there is NOT.

——————— Assaulting children is crime, whether currently by statute or not. ANY person punishing someone for such a crime is doing Good. > Spanking is legal, but caseworkers wish to create > the FALSE impression that it is illegal. > That is deceptive and terrorism.

———————– No, that is a Good Deed. > Your statement about laws against criminal assaults > is a complete non sequitur.  It doesn’t follow.

————————- The law as it stands is what doesn’t follow the Truth. That makes it irrelevant. > > > Unethical and abusive of for caseworkers to do this. > > —————————— > > Not at all, by No means. > You think dishonesty is ethical and great as long > as it carries your political agenda?

————————— Yes. > The good ends justify dishonest means eh?

—————————– Good Ends makes ANY means to achieve it ALSO Good! > > > > > Generally open palm is all that is allowed. > > > > ————- > > > > Abuse. > > > You call EVERYTHING abuse. > > ————————— > > No, I call abuse to be abuse, don’t be stupid. > You define spanking as "beating".

——————- All spanking is beating. > > > Strauss is into "Psychological Aggression" research now. > > —————————– > > It’s also important, once we get physical abuse stopped, to also > > stop emoional abuse, because the sickness of abuse will try > > another avenue. > Yes, here comes the "5 year plan". > And then what kind of abuse? > It’s called the "disease of the week" effect.

———————————- We will prevent parents from oppressing or controlling children outside parents’ proper role. Get used to it. It WILL be made a crime, and be punishable. > > > By the way, my answer was in regard to law, > > > and I had stated so in the post. > > ———————— > > Irrelevant, the law is an ass. > Sociopath.

—————————- No, the RIGHT Society is just fine with me. The WRONG society is not a society, and cannot be offended anyway. > > > Your personal label or classification > > > was NOT the ""QUESTION"".  You wanted > > > to know the boundary, and since the LAW > > > delineates the boundary, I stated it. > > —————————— > > Irrlevant. The Law is a fiction, > > the Evil of Abuse is Real! > That sorta brings this all full circle. > You use the law when you can, but the > second it gets in your way you go Sociopathic.

——————————— No, when the law is wrong the society is wrong, when the Law is Right, the Society is Right. You’re pretending that Good and Evil are matters of law. You’re simply being deceptive and attempting to confuse. You can’t confuse me, I know the Truth. > > > Greg wrote > > > > > Generally no use of objects or closed fists are allowed. > > > > > Hitting must be on butt and not other places. > > > > > Marks must not last longer than 1 or two days. > > > > ———— > >  Steve wrote > > > > LIE, ALL marks are regarded as abuse. > > > BZZZT!   Nope! > > —————— > > Of course it is, tell it to Jesus, upon your death! > > You know better, or you deserve hellfire! > Hellfire from an Atheist?   ROFL

——————– Whatever works, we can make that here on earth, if we choose. > Law defines abuse.

——————— No, conscience defines abuse, per Nuremberg. > That was my answer to "THE QUESTION".   Remember??

———————– Nuremberg, REMEMBER! > Your Berkeleyesque kookery matters to nobody.

———————– Don’t know much about Berkeley, do you? > You wanted an answer to THE QUESTION, and then > when you are given an answer, which is the law, > you reject the law and go rogue trying to assert > your la la land dreamed up answer.

——————————– The existing "law" isn’t an "answer" to anything. Don’t be stupid. You’re blathering. You don’t even seem to know HOW to argue structurally, all you’re able to manage is weak play with semantics, and not even any decent conundrums. > > > How LONG marks last is a deciding factor for > > > most state codes delineating spanking vs abuse. > > > See what you miss when you whitewash everything you don’t like? > > ———————— > > The Law is that of Good, and Love, and Reality, and > > NOT of the contrived fiction of excuses for abuse. > Didn’t you just say that the contrived fiction (law) > that you don’t like is an excuse for abuse?

—————————— It’s YOUR excuse for YOUR desire to abuse. Steve

Response:

On 18 Dec 2003 04:57:05 -0800, Gree…@hotmail.com (Greg Hanson) wrote: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> > > > > The Question: >> > > > > How do those who decide to use striking >> > > > > a child or other forms of CP to control >> > > > > and teach that child determine the limits >> > > > > of striking for safety. >> > > > Is your Engligh teacher proud of your idea of a question? >> > > > Interpretation of interrogatory logic: >> > > > How do those who decide to use striking determine >> > > > the limits of striking for safety? >> > > > The limit is determined by law. >> > > > This varies from state to state, and many states >> > > > Child Protection agencies don’t want to tell parents >> > > > the actual legal rules, because they want to create >> > > > a false impression that spanking is illegal. >> > > ————– >> > > Because of what it produces, monsters. >> > Then our country, our history and heritage is >> > completely a bunch of monsters. >> —————- >> History shows this quite clearly. >Are you in an anti-America mood there, Steve?

I had NO idea that the US was the only country in the world that abuses it’s children. Did Steve claim that? >> > Presidents, Astronauts, heros and villains.. >> > EVEN MORE SO, since spanking used to involve >> > vastly more pain and damage than most spankers >> > would ever sanction today. >> ———————————- >> All true, these folk were quite twisted. >Are you from a new species of Man?

It might be about time. Imagine, a new race of children growing up that cannot be exploited and coerced. Unwilling to be slaves to industry and cannon fodder. But perfectly willing to fight for what they personally know is moral. Must terrify the shit out you twits. You sure show the signs of it here. >Or is it just your apparent Communist streak?

Apparent? Boy you really are dumb. He’s a communist (last I remember), not a Communist. He knows that the latter has little to do with the former. Tell yah what. Try doing some research on the early Christians. They were probably about as close as one can come to folks living in the common community sharing the common goods, and labor with each other. Almost pure communism. >> > You are apparently sweeping under the rug >> > the unfair, unethical and illegal aspects >> > of this statement as if YOUR ENDS justify >> > these bad means.   >> ——————————– >> You’re blathering uselessly. >Despite the way you snipped it to death

What’s missing? >in >order to call it "blathering" the >statement STILL holds up.

No it doesn’t. It’s the blathering of criminals. >> > Put another way: >> > Greg wrote >> > > Child Protection agencies don’t want to tell parents >> > > the actual legal rules, because they want to create >> > > a false impression that spanking is illegal. >> > Those are BAD MEANS, to any end. >> ——————————– >> Those are Good ends, as ANY prevention >> of assault and battery >You mean spanking, right Steve?

Yes, assault and battery. All that remains is for you monsters to continue in your stubborn refusal to recognize it to protect your fragile egos from the tragedy of your lives and that of the children who have been spanked and are not adults. The law will come. I’d like to save your sorry asses, but I doubt I can. The sickness is terribly deep and shared by far too many. When you have 20 mentally ill people together they tend to create the norm, and the one sane seems to be wrong. >> upon children is obviously Good. >You haven’t proven objectively to that extent that >non-spanking parenting is in any way superior.

In the end, what’s to prove? Striking someone isn’t the road to cooperation, and it defies our nature to cooperate with each other. And you twits haven’t proven objectively it has no harm in it, have yah? >> Thus they are Good means as well. >In other words, you ARE saying that the >ends justify the means, therefore bad means >become good means.

Bad means? It’s bad to NOT strike a child? We are guilty of some kind of abuse for raising our children gently? I’ll have to tell all four of our very successful children you said that. They might need a laugh. >And you see no logical problems with that?

I see you lying and claiming "bad" means when there is no such thing in what he said or what you claim. The more parents that abuse their children that loose them the better for society, and for the child. And who knows, maybe even for the parent…who may finally get it they have had their heads up their asses and it’s time to grow up and be humans instead of monsters. >> > One could even say "terroristic" in effect. >> So are ALL laws against criminal assaults. >The terroristic comment stemmed from the capricious >situation of caseworkers pretending there is a law >against something when in fact there is NOT.

Crock o’shit time. >Spanking is legal, but caseworkers wish to create >the FALSE impression that it is illegal. >That is deceptive and terrorism.

Prove it. Show us the data, the citations. I’ve gone up against a huge nubmer of workers, and their supervisors and I’ve never, not once since 1976, heard of a worker doing that. I sure have heard them say more or less what I’ve said by asking The Question though…why use it if its that hard to tell spanking from abuse. >Your statement about laws against criminal assaults >is a complete non sequitur.  It doesn’t follow.

Oh, be sure and tell Steve what non sequitur means. But you are full of shit as usual. The only thing that stands between "spanking" and "criminal assault" is the insane people such as you. This is a very sick world because of you people. I’m out to change that, and in time I TOO could come to the conclusion that laws are the only way and start pushing for them. Right now I’m still doggedly, 30+ years actually, working to convince you to get your heads schrunk and find out what is actually going on from your life experience and stop passing it down to the helpless children. If you did to a dog what people do to children that passes for "discipline" the state would be on your ass like a chicken on a junebug. In fact your neighbors would turn your ass in quicker over animal mistreatment than they do the mistreatment of children. I think Steve is right on the money with the question of a nation of malicious monsters. … but as I said, the monsters aren’t away of it. And they maintain their inability to see in the mirror so they will NOT have to face what they are. >> > Unethical and abusive of for caseworkers to do this. >> —————————— >> Not at all, by No means. >You think dishonesty is ethical and great as long >as it carries your political agenda? >The good ends justify dishonest means eh?

What a stupid thing to say. He said YOU are trying to minimize your evil behavior and fithly self with your dishonesty. There isn’t an honest word in your who sentence. Back to the hookah boy. Rest. >> > > > Generally open palm is all that is allowed. >> > > ————- >> > > Abuse. >> > You call EVERYTHING abuse. >> ————————— >> No, I call abuse to be abuse, don’t be stupid. >You define spanking as "beating".

Can’t speak for him but the definition of a spanking IS that one is struck and except for fetishists "spanking" is a word confinded to doing it to children, or in sports reporting. YOU are locked into childhood all of you. >> > Strauss is into "Psychological Aggression" research now. >> —————————– >> It’s also important, once we get physical abuse stopped, to also >> stop emoional abuse, because the sickness of abuse will try >> another avenue. >Yes, here comes the "5 year plan".

Consider yourself lucky if it takes that long. >And then what kind of abuse? >It’s called the "disease of the week" effect.

Much of the mental illness preciptated by brutal pain based parenting, spanking and other forms, will go away. There won’t be a disease of the week because the cause will be gone. Substance abuse will drop (you poor things have to self medicate or spend your time here trying to justify your flacid egos), all crime will drop, war will be rare, small, and surgical, and you and your kind will spend some time being rehabilitated. >> > By the way, my answer was in regard to law, >> > and I had stated so in the post. >> ———————— >> Irrelevant, the law is an ass. >Sociopath.

I’m afraid you don’t understand the term. You, of course, wouldn’t. >> > Your personal label or classification >> > was NOT the ""QUESTION"".  You wanted >> > to know the boundary, and since the LAW >> > delineates the boundary, I stated it. >> —————————— >> Irrlevant. The Law is a fiction, >> the Evil of Abuse is Real! >That sorta brings this all full circle. >You use the law when you can, but the >second it gets in your way you go Sociopathic.

Notice The Caps? Current law that fails to adequately respond to the rights of the child is a fiction as law. The real law should provide that. There’s nothing, for instance in the constitution that makes a child less than an adult when it comes to personal safety. What has happened is that at the state level there has been a failure, by SPANKED authorities, to protect, through the law, children from their SPANKED parents. >> > Greg wrote >> > > > Generally no use of objects or closed fists are allowed. >> > > > Hitting must be on butt and not other places. >> > > > Marks must not last longer than 1 or two days. >> > > ———— >>  Steve wrote >> > > LIE, ALL marks are regarded as abuse. >> > BZZZT!   Nope! >> —————— >> Of course it is, tell it to Jesus, upon your death! >> You know better, or you deserve hellfire! >Hellfire from an Atheist?   ROFL

I think Steve pointed out, or you should be able to figure it out, he’s likely a Christian. I’m the atheist..over here, … read more »

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -pohakuyakok…@subdimension.com (Kane) wrote in message <news:7ed8d1be.0312121123.3830ccac@posting.google.com>… > On 12 Dec 2003 04:23:08 -0800, Greg Hanson wrote: Kane wrote > >> All well and good of course, but given > >> the number of children killed > >> and injured by parents, Greg wrote > >Are you quoting AFCARS data? > >And just where are deaths in any way correlated > >with miscalculation during a spanking? > Nowhere that I know of. AFCARS doesn’t list the excuses used by > parents that kill. It is pretty common knowledge though that the > number one excuse is accident, followed by someone else did it, and > then by I didn’t mean to I was only disciplining. > If you think otherwise you may offer what YOU think the more common > excuses are. I’d be happy to hear what and excuse expert such as > yourself has to contribute.

I see lots of happy double talk. Where are your citations?  What’s your proof? Or are you just gas bagging it again? > >> and that we can assume, because so > >> many tell us so,

Which "US" is this now Kane? > >> they were disciplining..that > >> is stopping an unwanted behavior or teaching > >> the child. Yet they killed or injured. > >Sally Schofield killed Logan Marr by duct taping > >the FOSTER child to a high chair in her basement. > >She duct taped right over the childs mouth. > >Sally Schofield was a former Child Protection caseworker. > >Sally did not believe in spanking. > She was a murderer.

She was a Child Protection caseworker who was quite a know-it-all pushing the anti-spanking agenda. > Are we to assume that because she was a murderer > parents who kill their children are NOT murderers? > As for her being a former CPS caseworker, shall we point at plumbers, > lawyers, ministers or other categories that kill children and presume > anything special about their profession having to do with the killing?

Only if they are Child Protection caseworkers or otherwise second guess parents. > >> If even one parent injures or kills a child > >> by miscalculation > >Or a CASEWORKER? > Absolutely. Hang her up high.

You switched conclusions.  Illogically also. If caseworkers cause harm, does it have to reach the level of muder before it’s a disgrace and something happens to end the abuse perpetrated by caseworkers? > Your continual attempt, by lying and innuendo, > to cast me as a CPS apologist is pretty limp, > boy. You have never seen me excuse a PROVEN > CASE OF CHILD ABUSE BY A WORKER.

Every removal of a child causes harm. That was proven long ago. > I have suggested strongly, right along with > noncps worker cases in the media, we might > best wait for a judicial finding.

That is, up until you said that I should be arrested and executed.  How limp is that? > You and your cronies are full of crap. > I point it out. That stings, doesn’t it?

Coming from you?    ROFL Boring. > Hence I just HAVE to be the enemy in > support of what you love to hate, being > little self defined victims.

Don’t flatter yourself. You’re just a pissant. > >CHILD REMOVAL HARMS CHILDREN MORE THAN SPANKING > [e.d.], on the grounds that SPANKING IS > NOT ADEQUATELY DEFINED and can be anything > from a tap to a blistering with broken bones.

Odd, It seems to be well defined in the LEGAL code! It looks like you just LIED. > >Child Protection agencies harm children to > >prevent bad things that ""might"" happen. > CPS is often blamed here because they > failed to do just that.

Removal is not to prevent CPS from being ""blamed"". People have civil rights, agencies do not. > >The "Chicken Little" school of child abuse > >prevention prevails. > And CPS is called uncaring when they > return a child or don’t remove > and that child is injured.

Actually, they get in more trouble for not interceding when there is a really bad case and they LIE and say they didn’t know, when in fact they DID know. Returning kids is done through the court, and involves proof. > If you are going to blame in one instance > then you have to accept NOT blaming in the > other…but here, the jackoffs

Caseworkers? > in the circle have to have it both ways.

Again it sounds like caseworkers. > It get’s pretty obvious what’s up with you jackinapes. > >High courts say that Imminent Danger must > >exist to remove children, so caseworkers > >try to call everything Imminent Danger. > They go to policy. They do NOT call > "everything Imminent Danger."

See Wallis v. Escondido. Where was the "imminent danger"? Caseworkers LIE all the time. RILYA’s caseworker did it over and over again. Caseworkers and supervisors in the New Jersey Foster Adopter case of starved kids LIED a whole lot also. > There are extensive lists. Judges > they must appear before within 24 > workday hours insist they include > the circumstances…not just labels… > in their argument to remove or > reunite the child with the family.

Yeah, Yeah.  So where’s the 29C form? > >They can’t just say they’re irked at spankers > Because they, unlike you, don’t lie about it.

Right. See RILYA, Schofield, Marr, Dupuy, WALLIS and many many other cases for examples where caseworkers LIED. > They look for injury. If they cannot > find it…they do NOTHING AT ALL.

Preventive removal?   Never heard of that eh? AKA Chicken Little BS removal excuses case. > >so they LIE about other things to obtain removal. > I think I hear a paroxysm of "removal for clutter" coming on.

It is after all, the "catch all" label used by CPS when they think there is something wrong but they won’t admit they have NOTHING. > Do you EVER consider the child? > Do you EVER talk about her loss?

The child suffered no loss until removal. > little pissant bully? > Now go post another whine about how you are > under siege in this ng by us bad ol’ boys > that pick on you unfairly.

Why not?  You did.   It was hilarious.

Response:

On 12 Dec 2003 04:23:08 -0800, Gree…@hotmail.com (Greg Hanson) wrote: >> All well and good of course, but given >> the number of children killed >> and injured by parents, >Are you quoting AFCARS data? >And just where are deaths in any way correlated >with miscalculation during a spanking?

Nowhere that I know of. AFCARS doesn’t list the excuses used by parents that kill. It is pretty common knowledge though that the number one excuse is accident, followed by someone else did it, and then by I didn’t mean to I was only disciplining. If you think otherwise you may offer what YOU think the more common excuses are. I’d be happy to hear what and excuse expert such as yourself has to contribute. >> and that we can assume, because so >> many tell us so, they were disciplining..that >> is stopping an unwanted behavior or teaching >> the child. Yet they killed or injured. >Sally Schofield killed Logan Marr by duct taping >the FOSTER child to a high chair in her basement. >She duct taped right over the childs mouth. >Sally Schofield was a former Child Protection caseworker. >Sally did not believe in spanking.

She was a murderer. Are we to assume that because she was a murderer parents who kill their children are NOT murderers? As for her being a former CPS caseworker, shall we point at plumbers, lawyers, ministers or other categories that kill children and presume anything special about their profession having to do with the killing? >> If even one parent injures or kills a child >> by miscalculation >Or a CASEWORKER?

Absolutely. Hang her up high. Your continual attempt, by lying and innuendo, to cast me as a CPS apologist is pretty limp, boy. You have never seen me excuse a PROVEN CASE OF CHILD ABUSE BY A WORKER. I have suggested strongly, right along with noncps worker cases in the media, we might best wait for a judicial finding. And even if it turns out the perp was guilty that changes MY veiw to wait for the find into what? Your were right and I was wrong? I didn’t defend the perp and claim they were innocent…only argued the KNOWN elements and asked for the finding before final decision. You and your cronies are full of crap. I point it out. That stings, doesn’t it? Hence I just HAVE to be the enemy in support of what you love to hate, being little self defined victims. >> then they were unable to measure and adhere >> to the limits of striking that would be safe. >> It would be logical then to believe and >> would support the encouragement the so called >> Anti-Spanking Zealots propose that would >> do no harm: don’t strike, hit, spank, or [use] >> CP. Use something else. >CHILD REMOVAL HARMS CHILDREN MORE THAN SPANKING

Bullshit, on the grounds that SPANKING IS NOT ADEQUATELY DEFINED and can be anything from a tap to a blistering with broken bones. >Child Protection agencies harm children to >prevent bad things that ""might"" happen.

CPS is often blamed here because they failed to do just that. >The "Chicken Little" school of child abuse >prevention prevails.

And CPS is called uncaring when they return a child or don’t remove and that child is injured. If you are going to blame in one instance then you have to accept NOT blaming in the other…but here, the jackoffs in the circle have to have it both ways. It get’s pretty obvious what’s up with you jackinapes. >High courts say that Imminent Danger must >exist to remove children, so caseworkers >try to call everything Imminent Danger.

They go to policy. They do NOT call "everything Imminent Danger." There are extensive lists. Judges they must appear before within 24 workday hours insist they include the circumstances…not just labels…in their argument to remove or reunite the child with the family. >They can’t just say they’re irked at spankers

Because they, unlike you, don’t lie about it. They know perfectly well the 90% figure…it would mean the majority of them ARE SPANKERS THEMSELVES. They also know their state laws that protect the parent spanking their child LEGITIMATELY. They look for injury. If they cannot find it…they do NOTHING AT ALL. >so they LIE about other things to obtain removal.

I think I hear a paroxysm of "removal for clutter" coming on. One look at you, Greegor, and "clutter" would be the furtherist thing from a caseworkers mind. "Shower?" "You gave this little girl cold showers for wetting herself?" "You bring her the towel, a six year old?" "You pusher her head under the shower yourself?" "What is your relationship to this child?" Yeah, all the "clutter" questions they must have pelted you and your "SO" with. So unfair. Do you EVER consider the child? Do you EVER talk about her loss? Do you EVER consider that you TOOK HER ROOM AWAY FROM HER, THEN SHOWERED HER, THEN TOOK HER MOTHER AWAY FROM HER by being a little pissant bully? Now go post another whine about how you are under siege in this ng by us bad ol’ boys that pick on you unfairly. Dream bad dreams tonight. Dream you are running and we are behind you, and the little girl is screaming from the shower, "gettem, gettem, geeeeteeeeeeem" Kane

Response:

On 12 Dec 2003 22:06:21 -0800, Gree…@hotmail.com (Greg Hanson) wrote: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->pohakuyakok…@subdimension.com (Kane) wrote in message <news:7ed8d1be.0312121123.3830ccac@posting.google.com>… >> On 12 Dec 2003 04:23:08 -0800, Greg Hanson wrote: >Kane wrote >> >> All well and good of course, but given >> >> the number of children killed >> >> and injured by parents, >Greg wrote >> >Are you quoting AFCARS data? >> >And just where are deaths in any way correlated >> >with miscalculation during a spanking? >> Nowhere that I know of. AFCARS doesn’t list the excuses used by >> parents that kill. It is pretty common knowledge though that the >> number one excuse is accident, followed by someone else did it, and >> then by I didn’t mean to I was only disciplining. >> If you think otherwise you may offer what YOU think the more common >> excuses are. I’d be happy to hear what and excuse expert such as >> yourself has to contribute. >I see lots of happy double talk.

Nope. The exuses and events around abuse are common knowledge. You can read the papers or watch the media and see plenty of excuses. >Where are your citations?  What’s your proof? >Or are you just gas bagging it again?

http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/7139939.htm The above took 15 years but they got the perp. Look at the progression from an accident, through something possed me, to I threw him against the wall. Like I said, excuses. And the "state" sure as hell knows and is trying to deal with the issue: http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/House/1425-1449/1427_hbr_0… Court transcript: The corpus delicti doctrine doesn’t come into play in very many cases, but it results in terrible injustice in the contexts of infant homicide and child sexual abuse where there is usually no physical evidence of the crime.  After the state Supreme Court decision in {+ Aten +}, the corpus delicti rule does a lot of harm, because that case requires that the independent evidence must be solely consistent with a crime.  This makes infant homicide cases impossible to prosecute, even when the perpetrator has freely confessed, because it is not medically possible to tell whether a baby died from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome or from suffocation.  Criminals know to go after vulnerable victims who cannot speak out in order to get away with the crime.  The guilty people who go free have victims associated with them and their suffering stays with them forever.  It is very difficult to make the public understand why we can’t prosecute people who are coming forward and taking responsibility for their crimes. http://www.nospank.net/lewis2.htm Driven by money, insurance on child…"child had seizure" You want to argue with the cook county medical examiner? Suspicious Explanations Medical experts say doctors sometimes accept as fact clearly unrealistic explanations of how a child was injured or killed. Robert Kirschner, former deputy medical examiner for Cook County, Ill., compiled a list of 12 common suspicious stories used by adults. Child fell from a low height (less than four feet), such as a couch, crib, bed or chair. Child fell and struck head on floor or furniture, or hard object fell on child. Child unexpectantly found dead (when age and/or circumstances were not appropriate for sudden infant death syndrome). Child choked while eating and was therefore shaken or struck on chest or back. Child suddenly turned blue or stopped breathing and then was shaken. Sudden seizure activity occurred. Aggressive or inexperienced resuscitation efforts were used on a child who suddenly stopped breathing. Alleged traumatic event happened one day or more before death. Caretaker tripped or slipped while carrying child. Injury inflicted by sibling. Child left alone in dangerous situation (e.g. a bathtub) for just a few minutes. Child fell down stairs. SOURCE: Robert Kirschner, former Cook County (Ill.) deputy medical examiner ————————————————————————— —– How many times have I told you that Kane doesn’t lie, Greegor, and you never learn. Doan the Dodger is much better at obfustication. Take some lessons. >> >> and that we can assume, because so >> >> many tell us so, >Which "US" is this now Kane?

Cook county med examiner and most likely all medical examiners across the country who get to find out the excuses from the interogations? Will that do yah, dummy? >> >> they were disciplining..that >> >> is stopping an unwanted behavior or teaching >> >> the child. Yet they killed or injured. >> >Sally Schofield killed Logan Marr by duct taping >> >the FOSTER child to a high chair in her basement. >> >She duct taped right over the childs mouth. >> >Sally Schofield was a former Child Protection caseworker. >> >Sally did not believe in spanking. >> She was a murderer. >She was a Child Protection caseworker who was quite >a know-it-all pushing the anti-spanking agenda.

No profession is bereft of murders. Even nuns and priests have murdered, dummy. Even anti spankers could have murderers among them. No group is immune from the sick getting involved. >> Are we to assume that because she was a murderer >> parents who kill their children are NOT murderers?

No answer, eh? >> As for her being a former CPS caseworker, shall we point at plumbers, >> lawyers, ministers or other categories that kill children and presume >> anything special about their profession having to do with the killing? >Only if they are Child Protection caseworkers or otherwise >second guess parents.

Wny "only" child protection workers? Are you saying that child protection workers are a class that murders? >> >> If even one parent injures or kills a child >> >> by miscalculation >> >Or a CASEWORKER? >> Absolutely. Hang her up high. >You switched conclusions.  Illogically also.

Show my switch and the logic. If she is convicted of murdering a child then I have a strong preferance for the death penalty. That’s an intire long life wiped out. >If caseworkers cause harm, does it have to reach >the level of muder before it’s a disgrace and >something happens to end the abuse perpetrated by >caseworkers?

What an interesting question. Nothing rhetorical in it at all…R R R R No, it doesn’t have to reach the level of murder to be a disgrace. But tell us, oh wise victim, where is the demarcation line? >> Your continual attempt, by lying and innuendo, >> to cast me as a CPS apologist is pretty limp, >> boy. You have never seen me excuse a PROVEN >> CASE OF CHILD ABUSE BY A WORKER. >Every removal of a child causes harm. >That was proven long ago.

And CPS was the discoverer of it, the declarer of it, and to this day they would rather not be in the business at all. The removal is to take a totally vulnerable child out of harms way. I consider abuse and neglect and murder, a bit less harmful than temporary removal. >> I have suggested strongly, right along with >> noncps worker cases in the media, we might >> best wait for a judicial finding. >That is, up until you said that I should be >arrested and executed.  How limp is that?

Not. I did ask for an arrest, and would you not presume there should be a trial and THEN WE HANG YOU? >> You and your cronies are full of crap. >> I point it out. That stings, doesn’t it? >Coming from you?    ROFL >Boring.

Three years of the came crap, "I’m a victim." No remorse. No understanding of the abuse you perpetrated on the child. No recognition that decent people don’t do what you did, from moving and taking the child’s space for your own, intruding on the love of mother and child, spanking and punishing, and the state taking the child, and still no remorse. You are a bore, Greeg, and I wish it were a hole in your head. >> Hence I just HAVE to be the enemy in >> support of what you love to hate, being >> little self defined victims. >Don’t flatter yourself.

You may not consider me your enemy, Greegor but count on it, I am. >You’re just a pissant.

Stolen. My common expression. Got it from my father and he from his and I don’t know how far back it goes. Now you are theif..well we kind of knew that from what you write. >> >CHILD REMOVAL HARMS CHILDREN MORE THAN SPANKING >> [e.d.], on the grounds that SPANKING IS >> NOT ADEQUATELY DEFINED and can be anything >> from a tap to a blistering with broken bones. >Odd, It seems to be well defined in the LEGAL code! >It looks like you just LIED.

I didn’t say not "well defined," I said not adequately defined. Or haven’t you noticed those cases where Dan nailed CPS over exactly that…failure to adequately define as in brittle bone and new information? Don’t be a bigger fool than usual. Changing a word in my claim to make it appear I meant something different is a constant with you clowns. >> >Child Protection agencies harm children to >> >prevent bad things that ""might"" happen. >> CPS is often blamed here because they >> failed to do just that. >Removal is not to prevent CPS from being ""blamed"".

Nor did I claim that. So tell me, if CPS leaves the child and the child is killed who do YOU blame, Greegor? Who do your cronies blame with virtually zero evidence…even with evidence of events and circumstances CPS cannot by law control? >People have civil rights, agencies do not.

Yes, children do have civil rights. Something you constantly ignore. As for the "people" you refer to, parents do not have the right to torture and kill their children. Doesn’t say that in our constitution or caselaw. The problem is the line in statutes that is so blurred. Hey, a guy just kicked his daughter in Canada. Got off of an abuse charege. YOu assholes celebrated. He should have been tied down and his daughter outfitted with the heavies Doc Martins to be found, hobnailed too, and let her kick his leg for about 10 minutes. You are sick, the lot of you. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> >The "Chicken Little" school of

… read more »

Response:

> The Question: > How do those who decide to use striking a child or other forms of CP > to control and teach that child determine the limits of striking for > safety.

Is your Engligh teacher proud of your idea of a question? Interpretation of interrogatory logic: How do those who decide to use striking determine the limits of striking for safety? The limit is determined by law. This varies from state to state, and many states Child Protection agencies don’t want to tell parents the actual legal rules, because they want to create a false impression that spanking is illegal. Generally open palm is all that is allowed. Generally no use of objects or closed fists are allowed. Hitting must be on butt and not other places. Marks must not last longer than 1 or two days. Anything below that limit is completely at the parents descretion unless they are terrorized by Child Protection projected prohibition that overrides state law because caseworkers are anti-spanking zealots and willing to LIE to Juvenile Court to punish parents who spank.

Response:

> All well and good of course, but given > the number of children killed > and injured by parents,

Are you quoting AFCARS data? And just where are deaths in any way correlated with miscalculation during a spanking? > and that we can assume, because so > many tell us so, they were disciplining..that > is stopping an unwanted behavior or teaching > the child. Yet they killed or injured.

Sally Schofield killed Logan Marr by duct taping the FOSTER child to a high chair in her basement. She duct taped right over the childs mouth. Sally Schofield was a former Child Protection caseworker. Sally did not believe in spanking. > If even one parent injures or kills a child > by miscalculation

Or a CASEWORKER? > then they were unable to measure and adhere > to the limits of striking that would be safe. > It would be logical then to believe and > would support the encouragement the so called > Anti-Spanking Zealots propose that would > do no harm: don’t strike, hit, spank, or [use] > CP. Use something else.

CHILD REMOVAL HARMS CHILDREN MORE THAN SPANKING Child Protection agencies harm children to prevent bad things that ""might"" happen. The "Chicken Little" school of child abuse prevention prevails. High courts say that Imminent Danger must exist to remove children, so caseworkers try to call everything Imminent Danger. They can’t just say they’re irked at spankers so they LIE about other things to obtain removal.

Response:

On 12 Dec 2003 04:00:05 -0800, Gree…@hotmail.com (Greg Hanson) wrote: >> The Question: >> How do those who decide to use striking a child or other forms of CP >> to control and teach that child determine the limits of striking for >> safety. >Is your Engligh teacher proud of your idea of a question?

I presume she’s long dead. She was elderly when I was little. >Interpretation of interrogatory logic: >How do those who decide to use striking determine >the limits of striking for safety?

What has going out on a protest strike got to do with hitting a child? Your understanding of the language leaves a bit to be desired. >The limit is determined by law.

I’ll go with that if the parent has legal counsel on hand for the striking, or at least has studied the law on it in …. >This varies from state to state, and many states

….. their own state. Think many have? >Child Protection agencies don’t want to tell parents >the actual legal rules, because they want to create >a false impression that spanking is illegal.

CPS is not a public education agency for the entire population. They can only educate if they come into contact with one legally…just like you resisted. However….since it is legal to give out information….. CPS will give anyone that walks in the door, or any client that requests, the policy on spanking for their state. All one has to do is ask. But that isn’t practical for the hypothetical parent in my question. You seem to have conveniently reframed the question so you could refute YOUR reframing, instead of my question. It’s called a Strawman, Greegor. Hope you aren’t a smoker. Your suggestion? Going to CPS for instructions on how to spank isn’t all that practical, now is it? How about if parents pondering the question of spanking take a few sessions of "Greegor the Whore’s Watersports and Proper Spanking?" Might that suffice? >Generally open palm is all that is allowed.

That is included..it is NOT generally what is "allowed." The creteria relates to injury. One can hit a child with a brick if they wish, as long as it is lightly enough that there is no injury. >Generally no use of objects or closed fists are allowed.

Yep…because the state knows that most people do NOT know how to control themselves very well in such instances. Disciplining Spankers have been the prime perps in injurious and even fatal abuse. Or so the spankers would claim: "Just trying to make her mind." >Hitting must be on butt and not other places.

Pick the spot with a high incidence of nerve endings in proximity to the genitals. Yeah, Greegor, we know what you are up to. >Marks must not last longer than 1 or two days.

Hematoma’s are injuries. Even if they go away, tissue damage has taken place, and the effects can be cumulative, and deeper unseen damage can take place. It’s poorly written law because it’s a poorly conceived and risky behavior. >Anything below that limit is completely at the >parents descretion

Actually you are dead wrong as usual. If the child’s developmental state, or mental condition, or other circumstances are such that they are terrorized by the parent’s "descretion" then it can be abusive even if no marks are left on the skin or NO physical injury has taken place. It’s called "emotional abuse." More correctly and in more policies it’s referred to as "psychological abuse" as it has higher risks of developmental interference for the child. >unless they are terrorized >by Child Protection projected prohibition

Like YOU were? >that >overrides state law because caseworkers are >anti-spanking zealots and willing to LIE to >Juvenile Court to punish parents who spank.

Liar. I have been repeately frustrated that CPS workers are poorly informed on this matter of injury through the use of CP. Most approve of spanking and punishment models…BUT where they draw the line is using such things on PREVIOUSLY INJURED AND TRAUMATIZED CHILDREN, BY ABUSE AND NEGLECT OF THE PARENT. So they are NOT overriding state law. Any child that has had to live with you as pseudoparent for even a week would fall into this latter category. Physically and psychologically abused. You are a vicious bully looking to justify punishing a child for a function of nature the six year old child cannot fully manage…bladder control. Even your description indicts you as a bully. The child in your story wet herself because she was having so much fun in an activity, and was so focused on it (nature’s number one developmental tool) that she over estmated her bladder control ability. Something small children can easily do, and often do. Do you force elderly ladies with bladder control problems, who might leak a bit while laughing, to take cold showers for punishment? Is it any wonder we think you are a perverted freak? You are sick and stupid Greeg. And the most you should expect in your self imposed victimhood should be pity with a dollop of disgust. Kane

Response:

Premise: The Problem With Spanking as a Choice for Disciplineing Children. Aside from the fact we are supposed to be preparing our children to manage their world well, we often miss the major point. Hitting always has some potential for injury, and even death, no matter how small that potential might be. It always has it. Not hitting, while it may not solve the problem of the moment, has no such potential of harm. This simple point alone should be enough for rational, mentally healthy, and socially responsible people to get the point, but somehow they miss it. The first sign that you are talking with those that miss the point: the claim that spanking is not hitting. A major thinking error in that all degrees of hitting, from the lightest tap to the closed fist punch involve the physical act of striking. And one must strike to spank. As a public service I will from this time on, and I encourage others to follow suit, refer to spanking as striking. Possibly that will clear up some of the confusion in their minds, move them further toward sanity, and thoughtfulness, and save  more than a few children. And still, we, the ASZs, can retain our sanity because of course, whether called spanking or striking, we know that it is a subset of hitting. CP would be the catchall for all forms of physical punishment including but not limited to striking. It would include things such as pinching, squeezing, sitting upon, forcing the child to do painfully physical activities to punish, etc. Cold showers, forced exposure to extremes of hot and cold, would fall into the CP category. The fallacy of giving any credibility to striking a child by these efforts above does not in any way validate their use as reasonable, or a standard of treatment of children that can be supported by any research so far. No credible peer reviewed study, or even anecdotal survey can, on rules of logic and close examination , show that spanking has any more than simple immediate shock to the child hence the appearance they have learned something. And any bully big enough can stop someone else from doing something. .. As long as they are around to enforce it. Given all that, we now have a problem. The Question: How do those who decide to use striking a child or other forms of CP to control and teach that child determine the limits of striking for safety. I do not believe they do not "love" their children, at the least an attachment is formed in most cases, if by nothing else but proximity and nature. If they love them, as they claim, and they do not wish to injure them psychologically or physically, then knowing that limit is important. Or they must admit to themselves, if not to us, they are willing to risk injury and even death, but the use of striking and CP. After all for thousands of years folks have taken that risk and lived with the occasional injury and death. Assuming they do not want to injure: Now what is that limit, and will that limit serve to teach and stop unwanted behaviors before there is risk of injury or risk of death. One offer of an answer to this, The Question, as we have come to call it, was "a reasonable standard" or, in an effort to further clarify, as the poster said, "what a reasonable person would decide."  I paraphrase on the hope the poster will correct me if I am inaccurate in what he said. That is, of course, that classic old saw from debating logical fallacies, Circular Reasoning. We don’t know what a "reasonable" person is, though that very poster found someone to label HIM as reasonable. <barely contained smile> I asked for a further clarification. He offered that it was the same as used by the courts in judges instruction to the jury, and by police in the pursuit of their public safety work. I pointed out that this did NOT, as circular reasoning, constitute a real explanation of what "reasonable" or "reasonable standard" or "reasonable person" is, precisely. It isn’t a measure at all. It is a description of a state of mind that covers a broad spectrum of possibilities as to opinion on something such as the use of force to a certain limit. It has a high potential of risk, as anyone that follows executive and judicial outcomes knows. It is so tenuous that judges must instruct and preside, juries must ponder and argue, police must be trained extensively and still, all of these experts or assigned persons make mistakes, sometimes serious ones that include injury and loss of life…and a parent should not only not be this unprepared to decide and to strike, but should not even be asked to or encouraged to. The poster said, "they should make up their own minds." All well and good of course, but given the number of children killed and injured by parents, and that we can assume, because so many tell us so, they were disciplining..that is stopping an unwanted behavior or teaching the child. Yet they killed or injured. If even one parent injures or kills a child by miscalculation then they were unable to measure and adhere to the limits of striking that would be safe. It would be logical then to believe and would support the encouragement the so called Anti-Spanking Zealots propose that would do no harm: don’t strike, hit, spank, or us CP. Use something else. Thank you for your attention. Over to you, Doan and Clowns. Kane

Response:

Related Posts

Leave a Reply