Catherine Woodgold
Related Topics
rs2 ...@hotmail.com (Robert Shepherd)
You ask for references (Against Spanking) Spare the Child : The Religious Roots of Punishment and the Psychological Impact of Physical Abuse by Philip Greven.
This is a richly researched, acutely unsettling study of corporal punishment in the United States. It focuses on the "Christian" use of Biblical texts to justify corporal punishment and its destructive legacy in our culture.
Shame, Images of God and the Cycle of Violence by Jeanette Anderson Good Beating the Devil out of Them: Corporal Punishment in American Families, by Murray A. Straus. New York: Free Press, 1994. A major cl***ic in this discipline.
Corporal Punishment Handbook, by Adah Maurer. 1977.
For Your Own Good : Hidden Cruelty in Child-Rearing and the Roots of Violence by Alice Miller, Campaigns Against Corporal Punishment by Myra Glenn State Univ of New York Pr; The Untouched Key : Tracing Childhood Trauma in Creativity and Destructiveness by Alice Miller, Hildegarde Hannum, Hunter Hannum History of Corporal Punishment by George Ryley Scott. 1974. (Original title: Flagellation) "A Child is being Beaten: A Contribution to the Study of the Origin of Sexual Perversion" (1919). by Sigmund Freud. Reprinted in the Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud.
****** There is indeed an academic consensus that violence begets violence.
There is a great deal of statistical evidence that bears this out, but look below the surface and the "obvious" is not so obvious after all.
While prisons are filled with adults who were abused as children, most of those in prison are actually either non-violent offenders, or low-level substance abusers. It can well be argued that most of those incarcerated should NOT be imprisoned in the way and with the harshness and violence with which society at present imprisons them.
From what I have heard, extreme (crimes of violence) offenders DO INDEED show high rates of abuse as children. My impression from past reading is that most of the "heinous" variety of violent offenders were SEVERELY abused, sexually, physically .... victimized as children.
So there's the catch ...
Spanking probably or possibly actually deters children from the most violent crime, but makes them a little too cautious about "misbehaving" or "getting caught" and has a high tendency to "socialize" into the rules and expectations of the "immediate" society of the family that is attempting to mold and shape their personalities.
It is the brutal and extreme sexual and physical abuse, violation, molestation that has to be powerfully opposed, exposed, avoided, prevented, stopped.
***** Then, there are the cases of the Harris and Klebald types. Kids who lived in the most privileged, pampered, and permissive environments.
No one either had time for them, or ever said NO. They wind up doing the Columbine m***acre. Never spanked in their life, but cruelly "mistreated" -- rejected, ridiculed, avoided by the cliquish students at the upscale schools they attended.
Where do they fit in?
***** Finally, a disclaimer.
I am not so much pro-spanking as I am pro-child & pro-parent, & pro-family. Kids need their parents, and they need teaching, and rules, and love, and firmness. As a general rule, there is probably much too much violence in the world, and way too much cruelty and injustice.
When Janet Reno sent her commandos in to "rescue" Elian, Or when she ordered her tanks and troops to storm Waco, please explain how that is not violence?
GOVERNMENT CAN GO TOO FAR, TOO. (And in those case, certainly did!
http://robtshepherd.tripod.com/
fern5 ...@aol.com (Fern5827)
Government often goes too far. It seems as if the UK is having problems with pre-teens becomg uncontrollable, according to the current Home Secretary.
When government usurps parental roles, we can only shudder.
Discipline with love and consideration is often needed, yet not applied.
http://www.profane-justice.org (Suzanne Shell Website helping parents challenge CPS unlawful interventions)
observer observer_mem...@newsguy.com
"While prisons are filled with adults who were abused as children, most of those in prison are actually either non-violent offenders, or low-level substance abusers." This seems to be especially true since the failed War on Drugs and Three Strikes legislation.
cddu ...@ouray.cudenver.edu (Chris)
: Then, there are the cases of the Harris and Klebald types. Kids who : lived in the most privileged, pampered, and permissive environments.
: No one either had time for them, or ever said NO. They wind up doing : the Columbine m***acre. Never spanked in their life, but cruelly : "mistreated" -- rejected, ridiculed, avoided by the cliquish students : at the upscale schools they attended.
Mr. Shepherd, on April 3rd, on the "Re: Abuse or Discipline" thread, you claimed to have "facts and statistics" disproving the suggestion that spanking is linked with long term increased risk of criminal or violent behavior. You have ignored repeated polite requests for a citation of these alleged "statistics" of yours. After disappearing for twelve days rather than reply to requests for a citation you are now back again and appear determined to change the subject without ever answering the question.
Now you are claiming that the Columbine shooters were "never spanked in their life." Once again, you buttress a bold ***ertion of fact with a complete lack of any supporting evidence whatsoever. This is becoming a pattern - a pattern I find altogether tiresome.
Please post your source for your alleged information about the discipline methods used by the parents of the Columbine shooters, or admit that you made up this "fact." This is alt.parenting.spanking, and people who invent "facts" out of thin air without supporting evidence get very little respect around here. Chris
cddu ...@ouray.cudenver.edu (Chris)
I just checked out your webpage at http://RobtShepherd.tripod.com/speak.html, and you certainly sound "prospank" to me.
You write, "The Lord sometimes allows very harsh discipline into our lives; but He does it because He loves us. The same is true for us and our kids." In your "When To Spank" section you say "Persistently" and "On a regular basis." In your "How To Spank" section, you explain that the pain of a spanking should be so intense that "the child will be left thinking about it for a long time." You urge your reader to "Take the time to focus and direct your wrath," and, "make sure they understand what they did wrong and that you have to whip them severely because you love them." You advocate using implements on children, and it doesn't seem to bother you at all if this causes marks on the child's body which take days to fade: "The epidermis quickly heals, but the memory (and the lesson) remains forever. A boy should not resist or brace, but if he does, it is natural that the rod or scourge will affect the flesh a few days." And Mr. Shepherd, before you complain that I have quoted you out of context, yes, I won't deny that you do intersperse all this sort of with statements about doing it to the child with "love" and about how you are totally against "abuse." "Abuse," of course, is obviously supposed to mean something that *other* people do, not the "very harsh discipline" of "severe whippings" with a "rod or scourge," done in "wrath," which "affect the flesh a few days." That, of course, is something else, not "abuse," right Mr.
Shepherd?
Chris, who suspects that only a Sweden-style no-spank law will ever get the attention of people in *this* much denial about their abusive behaviors.
rs2 ...@hotmail.com (Robert Shepherd)
Chris, whoever you are.
I am not going to respond to cr*p with more cr*p.
If you can behave yourself, then I'll play ball, other wise, I will respond to your artifice and animosity, with (so far as possible) all the honesty and decency and truth that I can muster.
You plant the weeds.
I will plant the flowers.
But, I warn you, those weeds you sow ... will be uprooted.
You ***ertions and impudence and innaccuracy will be exposed.
I hope, insofar as possible, to ***ist in exposing the lies, and telling the truth instead.
That has been my agenda the entire time. It is my "agenda" now. It will be my intention as long or as often as I am here.
You imkply that I am dishonest. WHY?
WHY?
It's because of my reliance on literature and myth, isnt it.
I quote from the BIBLE, and you have no answer. It's something you perhaps cannot gainsay nor resist, but you try.
I see a lot of gainsaying, and very little >>>>>>> I won't say that word. I believe you are "intelligent" but I believe your choice to ignore the obvious is a choice, fully and deliberately made, consciously to close your eyes and plug your ears.
You could tell me the sky is purple, and prove it with all your socalled references. it doesnt make you a scholar, or disprove my own knowledge that outside the window I am looking now, the sky happes to be blue, with a few clouds, and I am not going to bother trying to PROVE IT to someone so clever with his word games, and "prove it" ignorance.
You choose that particular genre of ignorance.
an ...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Catherine Woodgold)
You said "But those people who really look at the facts, and look at statistics, say that the 'fact' just aint quite such a fact, after all." What you were referring to was the claim that a 'hard' childhood (meaning someone spanked you) predisposes people to future crime and violence.
You were asked for the "facts" and "statistics" that you had mentioned. You haven't provided any.
Meanwhile Chris has provided numerous references to scientific studies linking spanking with later misbehaviour.
--
Cathy Woodgold TISSATAAFL Ottawa, Ontario, Canada http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~an588/ an...@freenet.carleton.ca Given any two things, they have at least one similarity and at least one difference; therefore an analogy can be drawn between them.
Arkain rwk...@usa.net
Choose your words more carefully Cathy. The studies don't "link" spanking and "later misbehavior," but instead simply correlate them. To "link" them, a definite causal relationship would need to be established. To date, no such relationship has been found.
R.
cddu ...@ouray.cudenver.edu (Chris)
: You said "But those people who really look at : the facts, and look at statistics, say that the : 'fact' just aint quite such a fact, after all." Thank you for reposting this, Cathy. Those were indeed Robert Shepherd's exact words. He claimed to have "facts" and "statistics" but did not cite a single one. And now, weeks later after repeated requests for a citation of his alleged "statistics," Robert Shepherd has done nothing but post evasive answers and attempt to change the subject.
Chris
cddu ...@ouray.cudenver.edu (Chris)
First of all, a "link" is a correlation. Two variables do not need to have a causal relationship in order to be linked to one another.
Second of all, longitudinal studies (Gunnoe & Mariner, 1997; MacMillan et al., 1999; Straus et al., 1997) have indeed found evidence strongly suggestive of a causal relationship between spanking and later antisocial behavior and mental illness in children.
Chris REFERENCES Gunnoe, M.L. & Mariner, C.L. 1997. "Toward a Developmental-Contextual Model of the effects of Parental Spanking on Children's Aggression." _Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine_ 151:768-775.
MacMillan, H.L.; Boyle, M.H.; Wong, M.Y.Y.; Duku, E.K.; Fleming, J.E. and Walsh, C.A. 1999. "Slapping and spanking in childhood and its ***ociation with lifetime prevalence of psychiatric disorders in a general population sample." _Canadian Medical ***ociation Journal_ 161(7):805-809.
Straus, M.A.; Sugarman, D.B. and Giles-Sims, J. 1997. "Corporal Punishment by Parents and Subsequent Anti-Social Behavior of Children" _Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine_ 151(8):761-767.
observer observer_mem...@newsguy.com
" . . . a 'link' is a correlation." However, especially in the social sciences, it is a "link" that leaves you wondering how much other stuff there is between the so-called "cause" and the supposed "result."
go ...@SPAMMENOThotmail.com (Ivan Gowch)
==>cddu...@ouray.cudenver.edu (Chris) wrote to RS: ==>> Now you are claiming that the Columbine ==>>shooters were "never spanked in their life." Once ==>>again, you buttress a bold ***ertion of fact with a ==>>complete lack of any supporting evidence whatsoever.
==>>This is becoming a pattern - a pattern I find altogether ==>>tiresome.
==>>Please post your source for your alleged information ==>>about the discipline methods used by the parents of the ==>>Columbine shooters, or admit that you made up this "fact." ==>Chris, whoever you are.
==>I am not going to respond to cr*p with more cr*p.
TRANSLATION: Oops! You caught me telling a whopper, but I'll boil my gonads in oil and have them for lunch before I admit that I invent "facts" as I go along.
I may be a scripture-spouting, chest-thumping, holier-than-thou professional Christian, but that doesn't stop me from lying like a rug whenever it suits me.
rs2 ...@hotmail.com (Robert Shepherd)
Sure. I know what you mean. It's recreation and amusement, which is fine. I endorse it. But I was actually answering in kind, I thought.
Taking your remarks as sincere. But recreation and "kidding" is fine , too.
THAT, after all, is exactly what I was referring to.
You must either read my posts extremely cursorily, or else you are playing dumb. I apologize for the last, but the point is, where do you think I have said anything different?
rs2 ...@hotmail.com (Robert Shepherd)
A correlation, if linked statistically to a high enough level (significance) STILL does not establish causality. Which even causes which? Or perhaps there is a third something (a tertium quid) which you haven't noticed yet. Or a fourth, or fifth, or a combination. Or perhaps the results you got were flukes. We learn by paying atttention, by not giving up, by staying alert, by keeping our eyes and ears open.
AND THEN ....
Remember the "oat bran" correlation to lower cholesterol?
That one broke down over faulty investigation, and over-haste. There was apparently an over-eagerness among the researchers to PROVE what they actually never proved, and somehow no one caught it till two years later. It was "known" science that jsut wasn't so.
THEN ...
there was the cold fusion proofs at the University of Utah (sorry UOU). Another case of something KNOWN .... that was not even repeatable (any more than the oat bran case) AND THEN ...
going back a little. Everyone "knew" for hundreds of years that a heavy metal falls faster than a light metal (of the same size). Ask your average non-scientist on the street (Jay Leno did). Ask a grade school child. Even "the Church" stated it it was so. Aristotle himselef had stated it was so. A heavy metal (like gold) falls faster than a light metal (like tin).
Then somebody tried it. His name was Galileo.
(The tower of Pisa, it leaned even then). Guess what. The intelligentsia were wrong. The Church, the Curia, the Popes, they were all wrong. Aristotle was wrong. All these experts had opinions that they were ***serting to be FACTS. But nobody bothered to test the facts to see whether or not they were so.
Guess what -- gravity at the surface of the earth follows the SAME principle as it does between objects anywhere in space. The attractional force is the same, and the heaviness of the metal (or other elements) is not relevant -- except where atmospheres create drag --
Objects are drawn to each other with the force of 32 feet per second per second. That is, 32 feet per second squared, as Newton showed.
rs2 ...@hotmail.com (Robert Shepherd)
Chris, you are mistaken.
Re-read my posts.
My view is that there is too much violence in the world. I would like to see a world that is both KINDER and GENTLER.
See my tentative discussion (on my web page). Do you think I say I have all the answers? You are wrong. Don't play that game. Read what I actually do allege.
i allege that there is too much violence in the world. I allege that the world would be better if it is both KINDER and GENTLER.
http://robtshepherd.tripod.com/speak.html I thought we were all here to learn, to adjust and improve to a better position, to listen and consider and study. Instead, you have something else, apparently.
My claim was not to have some unique "statistics" that no one else has. The statistics I referred to "proving" that violence causes violence are statistics that seem logical to me. There's noting counter-intuitive about it. History shows it and LIFE shows it. And governments certainly have "force" at their disposal, sometimes for evil. (Consdier janet Reno, consider Waco.) But, the other side is this. The safety of the many sometimes requires a government which verges on the Leviathan at times. I don't expect you to have read, or even heard of Thomas Hobbes. These are not statistics. These are opinions and views.
I want a government with FORCE strong enough to protect the sheep from the wolves.
I know you can disprove that a thousand times just by claiming "yo no sabe" "yo no sabe" Lincoln, in his day, would have nothing to do with the "know nothing" party.
I at one point thought you were sincere in your efforts to seriously discuss. But if you read my most recent post to you, you will see I have little patience with the game you seem to want to play.
You yourself have laid out the statistics I referred to. Do you want me to play the game of copy-pasting those posts of yours?
No thanks.
Make the argument for yourself.
Government operates on the basis of force. That does not mean they have a carte blache to opress and bully and abuse. To the contrary, they MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
The first law of nature, the philosophe's dictum went -- is SELF DEFENSE.
But that sword is a two-edged one.
If you make an argument, try it on the OTHER way - too ....
rs2 ...@hotmail.com (Robert Shepherd)
I'll play with you, too.
I offered opinions, and referred to facts which Chris himself has posted, and only pointed out that some of those statistics have a deper side to them.
Also, I have spouted wtitings from several sources, even spouting, see above paragraph, reposts of your own views. We all come here, spout whatever we spout, and hopefully give others the chance to respond (or spout).
I am not a professional Chrsitian, what is that?
By my lying, I ***ume you are referring to the short stories I have written.
Or maybe it's a lie when I said I considered some of you as serious discussants, gentlemen with cigars and brandy (or other) gathered round after dinner for serious give-and-take.
If I lied in calling you a gentleman, shame on both of us. Me for believing you, and you for making me a liar by your less than gentlemanly style.
observer observer_mem...@newsguy.com
" . . . Chris has provided numerous references to scientific studies linking spanking with later misbehaviour." As antispanking researchers have demonstrated, it is fairly easy to demonstrate that spanking is ineffective since all the researcher has to do is include older children, whose may be more resistant, less pliable, and who ingrained behaviors may take time to resolve in the sample and shorten the timeframe to avoid any resolution.
The graph below illustrates the relation between timeframe and age. The more older children included and the shorter the timeframe, the more likely adverse results may be found.
The goal is to keep as much database as possible in the lower right-hand quadrant.
TIMEFRAME | Longer | | | | Younger | Older -----------------|-----------------
AGE | | most likely to | prove spanking | doesn't work | | Shorter Proving that spanking does not work is likewise ***isted by the following strategies.
Focus only on spanking rather than more time-consuming alternatives. After all: * Parents experiencing difficulty with their children are more likely to spank and * Adults with difficulties are, especially if they are younger, likely to be looking for something or someone to blame from their childhood.
Lump nonspanking techniques such as slapping, punching, or just plain old-fashioned beating as "spanking." After including abuse as "spanking," discredit anyone attempting to separate the two.
Finding a dataset in which parents use spanking as nagging or who may use it ineffectively is also useful in proving that spanking does not work. Excluding father is useful in this regard.
Since spanking may or may not be a magic bullet for curing undesirable behavior on the first application, make sure the timeframe is sufficiently short to exclude any positive outcomes the may require time to achieve.
Focus only on children in the short-run and avoid lifelong follow-up studies.
Spin the research by using appeals to emotion and continue to name well-known organizations who may have provided initial seed money, but long ago realized that the research was a dead end, as if currently supporting the agenda.
rs2 ...@hotmail.com (Robert Shepherd)
Those are the views I said I do not necessarily agree with, as are those below.
Those are not my words, any more than by reposting your words I claim them as mine. You are too hasty. I rebuttal is that I do NOT necessarily endorse all spankinmg, and certainly I advise parents to use good judgement. My web page generally is more opposed to spanking, on the whole, than in favor of it. But I can also tell you I think government blows it by ripping apart families in a great many cases. Probably the large majority.
I don't interpserse. The page is carefully divided into three sections.
(1) a "pro" spanking section by biblical advocvates of it (and one feminist writer, who while not expressly advocating it, certainly implies that in one certain case, something , perhaps spanking, should have been done) (2) an alternative to spanking section, written by myself, in which I lay out a rebuttal to section one, or at least another side of the story , from biblical sources. Thus I am answering section one, in kind, from the same religious sources.
(3) a humorous "literary" section, which burlesques section (1) from the style of erotica and fantasy.
doan d...@spica.usc.edu
Also, do not forget that the same "link" were found for non-cp alternatives. In fact, some of the correlations were stronger for non-cp than for spankings.
Doan
doan d...@spica.usc.edu
On 21 Apr 2002, Chris wrote: McMillan at al (1999) is not a longitudinal study, Chris. Even longitudinal studies like Gunnoe & Mariner (1997) and Straus et al (1997) cannot establish a "causal relationship:!
[begin include] The Pediatric Forum - March 1998 Drawing Conclusions About Temporal Order Two recent articles published in the ARCHIVES[1,2] argue that they have found evidence for "causal" relationships between spanking and antisocial behavior in children, such that increased spanking causes antisocial behavior.
Unfortunately, their methods do not allow for such conclusions. In fact, their methods do not allow for any conclusions at all. I believe it is particularly important to point out these mistakes because they have become commonplace in the social sciences[3] and it is important that these mistakes do not become commonplace in medical research.
One initial mistake made by both authors is the claim that they are testing for causality with longitudinal data.[1] Causal inferences can only be drawn from experiments.[4] What can be tested for with longitudinal data is temporal order.[5] Temporal order is frequently cited as an important aspect of causality.[4] In longitudinal research, the temporal order between variables can be known or unknown. For example, the temporal order between sex and risk of heart disease is clear: sex is most often ***igned at birth and heart disease usually develops in middle or old age. In contrast, the temporal order between spanking and antisocial behavior is unknown.
In cases where temporal order is known, standard statistical methods such as regression models or the analysis of variance (ANOVA) approach chosen by Straus et al[1] can be used. Structural equation modeling, as used by Gunnoe and Mariner,[2] was originally thought to be a technique that can be used for ascertaining temporal order.[6,7] Unfortunately, Rogosa[3] demonstrated that this was not the case and that the coefficients produced by structural models were essentially meaningless. He showed that the coefficients produced by structural analysis are more related to the length of time between testing than to the actual data and demonstrated in a simulation study that some predictive correlations changed from 0.5 to -0.5 depending on the length of time between waves of testing. The problems ***ociated with structural analysis also apply to the ANOVA approach used by Straus et al. Miller and colleagues[8-10] demonstrated the same problem hypothesized by Rogosa with actual data.
They found in 3 studies that actual temporal order was the reverse of what was concluded by regression equations. The primary problem with regression and structural equation models is that they do not control or test for concurrent change. Thus, it is possible that spanking and antisocial behavior change together over time and that shorter time intervals are required to ***ess any temporal order.[10] Any variation that could be ascribed to concurrent change is simply not taken into account by the statistical models used by Straus et al and Gunnoe and Mariner.
Dywer and Feinleib[5] and Miller[10] have suggested appropriate statistical methods that can be used for determining temporal order with longitudinal data. For these methods, both spanking and antisocial behavior must be ***essed at 3 or more time points. As Rogosa[3] pointed out, it takes 3 time points to correctly ***ess the trajectory of a single subject. Therefore, at least 3 time points are required to ***ess intraindividual change.
Straus et al had 3 waves of data, so they may have been able to conduct an analysis that could determine temporal order between these variables. The study by Gunnoe and Mariner had only 2 waves of data, so their design does not allow determinations of temporal order. Straus et al did not report whether spanking behavior was ***essed at the last data collection point. To test for temporal order, each variable would have to be ***essed at all 3 points. Therefore, it is unclear whether Straus et al could have conducted an analysis to determine temporal order.
In sum, no causal or temporal inferences can be drawn from either Straus et al or Gunnoe and Mariner because causal inferences cannot be drawn from longitudinal data and inappropriate statistical methods were used to determine temporal order.
Todd Q. Miller, PhD Preventive Medicine and Community Health, K53 University of Texas Medical Branch Galveston, TX 77598-1153 References 1. Straus MA, Sugarman DB, Giles-Sims J. Spanking by parents and subsequent antisocial behavior of children.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1997;151:761-767.
2. Gunnoe ML, Mariner CL. Toward a developmental-contextual model of the effects of parental spanking on children's aggression. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1997;151:768-786.
3. Rogosa D. Myths about longitudinal research. In: Schaie KW, Campbell RT, Meredith W, Rawlings SC, eds.
Methodological Issues in Aging Research. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Co Inc; 1988.
4. Holland PW. Statistics and causal inference. J Am Stat ***oc. 1986;81:945-960.
5. Dwyer J, Feinleib M. Introduction to statistical models for longitudinal observation. In: Dwyer J, Feinleib M, Lippert P, Hoffmeister H, eds. Statistical Models for Longitudinal Studies of Health. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1992.
6. Kenny DA. Cross-lagged panel correlations: a test for spuriousness. Psychol Bull. 1975;82:887-903.
7. Newcomb MD, Bentler PM. Frequency and sequence of drug use: a longitudinal study from early adolescence to young adulthood. J Drug Educ. 1986;16:101-120.
8. Miller T, Flay BR. Using log-linear models for longitudinal data to test alternative explanations for stage-like phenomena: an example from research on adolescent substance use. Multivar Behav Res.
1996;31:169-196.
9. Miller T, Volk R. The relationship between weekly marijuana use and cocaine use: a discrete-time survival analysis. J Child Adolesc Subst Abuse. 1996;5:55-78.
10. Miller T. Statistical methods for describing temporal order in longitudinal research. J Clin Epidemiol. In press.
(Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1998;152:305-306) [end include] Doan
doan d...@spica.usc.edu
On 21 Apr 2002, observer wrote: But this "link" is also found with other non-cp alternatives.
Anti-spanking zealotS still cannot answer the question what alternatives have p***ed the same statistical scrutiny as with spanking?
Doan
observer observer_mem...@newsguy.com
" no causal or temporal inferences can be drawn from either Straus et al or Gunnoe and Mariner because causal inferences cannot be drawn from longitudinal data and inappropriate statistical methods were used to determine temporal order." Then, taking the trouble to separate cart from horse and get them in the right order would, most likely, not have been beneficial for the all-important antispanking agenda. Thus, flawed agenda-driven research was used to support the house of cards.
observer observer_mem...@newsguy.com
" . . . this [correlation] 'link' is also found with other non-cp alternatives.
Anti-spanking zealotS still cannot answer the question what alternatives have p***ed the same statistical scrutiny as with spanking?" Nor, are they likely to do so.
doan d...@skat.usc.edu
On 23 Apr 2002, observer wrote: It's that deafenning silence!
Doan
Greg Lubianetzky luberNOS...@rogers.com
|> On 23 Apr 2002, observer wrote: |> |> > " . . . this [correlation] 'link' is also found with other non-cp |> > alternatives.
|> > Anti-spanking zealotS still cannot answer the question what alternatives |> > have |> > p***ed the same statistical scrutiny as with spanking?" |> > |> > Nor, are they likely to do so.
|> > |> It's that deafenning silence!
|> |> Doan |> Your turn of phrase is unfortunate. Spanking has not "p***ed" any statistical scrutiny. If you are keen enough to grasp the full weight of the body of studies on this matter, it's easy to see that spanking "failed" the statistical scrutiny with flying colours.
Greg.
| To Top |