Gianantonio wrote:
Who did I call a stalker!?  I think you are misinterpreting again...

You got out of that one by the skin of your teeth because I did wonder.
And after you stalked me in the Team GB thread with TOTALLY off topic subject matter and spent five days brigged for trolling I would think it clear who the stalker is if any!!

Now. I joined the first thread out of mild interest in the topic; and because I could see you had someone brigged by being totally out of order imnplying they had abused their children.
You had a bollcoking from others too after implying the same.

So you start another thread and attempt a more simple and umemotional question; which is fair enough.

So we have only mainly seen APA evidence on this. You cited it, I cited it; and ya mate cited it.

So if that is all we are going to rely on; let us see whether what you actually asked is answered.

It is. I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself on this but once more.

Children between ages 2-6 respond more effectively to a controlled smack (described as two smacks to the buttocks) than any other form of reason or discipline. So you asked why would you use it IF even if there was no psychological damage right? (implying why would you beat a kid if reasoning with it got the same result). Well the answer is there. The smack IS more effective.
Now if you want to go with the APA and say well yes but it could escalate so we can't condone it blah blah fine that is another argument. BUT your question IS answered.

Now. Kindly admit your question was answered even though there may still be misgivings about the use of such.
Then; have a fucking laugh now and again ...it is good for well being

Erlinda wrote:

It's a mean opinion. And to be rude and mean to people because they are raised and believe differently then you do is just childish.

A mean opinion?  How so?  I offer it as a possibility.  Being introduced to a new possibility is a good thing.  Much of what we do is driven by unconscious impulses and drives.  To the extent we don't know about what really motivates our behavior, we are driven by events and perceptions we are unaware of.  Seeing possible motivators like those I listed can get a person to become conscious of a previously unconscious drive and once in consciousness, decide if they really want to continue the practice driven by this newly acknowledged emotional drive.

Eliza C wrote:

Look its very simple Gianatonio.

You asked a question.

It was answered with your own citation.

It doesn't get any less fuzzy than that.

You are the one who semes to be in a fuzz with it.

Aw my hat from the nice fwuffy animals upset you?


Well yes if I read that back what you are saying it says:

"sorry Eliza I can't cope with what you are saying  I have a narrow focussed mind"




Or did you miss the bit on behavioural geography? It isn't me that can't apply myself to what the studies are saying it is you. It isn't rocket science

NOTHING emotionally driven; I am having fun while you evade the issue and asnwered Anna with my knowledge of child rearing in other cultures respectfully. It may not be that extensive but it is clearly more extensive than yours

I am not that interested in child rearing but can see the lack of evidence for what you suggested in your op a mile off and so can everyone else.
Limit it to what the APA are actually saying; realise they err on the side of caution and acknowledge the studies are lacking, and agree that 2-6 age group two smack rule is effective and we can close the thread.

If it's so simple, why are your posts so scattered and off the topic of the thread?

No--I like your hat.  It suits you... 

Gianantonio wrote:
If it's so simple, why are your posts so scattered and off the topic of the thread?

No--I like your hat.  It suits you... 

because I am getting bored with you ignoring the answer you asked for so I thought I'd try and light heartedly have a bit of fun at pyschology's expense to show the problems with it.

Now. How did you feel when you found out your mummy didn't have a willy? Did she wear a fur hat?
Come on...can't you see why psychology is losing credibility?

Gianantonio wrote:

Who did I call a stalker!?  I think you are misinterpreting again...

Playing word games.

Gianantonio wrote:
How is what I wrote putting anyone down for how their parents raised them?  If it doesn't apply, it doesn't apply; if it does apply, it's something that could help them in the future.

-Nicole- wrote:
Us poor individuals who just can't bare the thought our parents didn't treat us right and therefore is the reason we are pro-spank?

Wait--I thought you said this didn't apply to you...? 

-Nicole- wrote:
You've came right out and correlated spanking with abuse. Don't even bother asking me to quote it. Going through your replies is like riding a fucking merry-go-round.

I don't take kindly to people saying my parents didn't treat me right and that I was abused.

Where did I say your parents didn't treat you right...?!

Oh--did you interpret my list as Spanker are always motivated by all these things?  If so, you've misinterpreted...

First off, it's not an exhaustive list--there are likely additional motivators I haven't listed yet (it's a work in progress).  Second, I offered the list as POTENTIAL motivators.  Any given spanker might spank for one or all or none of the reasons listed.

Feel better?

-Nicole- wrote:

Us poor individuals who just can't bare the thought our parents didn't treat us right and therefore is the reason we are pro-spank?

You've came right out and correlated spanking with abuse. Don't even bother asking me to quote it. Going through your replies is like riding a fucking merry-go-round.

I don't take kindly to people saying my parents didn't treat me right and that I was abused.

And it wouldn't take a psychologist to work out why he has upset so many people with such an allegation....or maybe a psychologist couldn't see it....

Gianantonio wrote:

A mean opinion?  How so?  I offer it as a possibility.  Being introduced to a new possibility is a good thing.  Much of what we do is driven by unconscious impulses and drives.  To the extent we don't know about what really motivates our behavior, we are driven by events and perceptions we are unaware of.  Seeing possible motivators like those I listed can get a person to become conscious of a previously unconscious drive and once in consciousness, decide if they really want to continue the practice driven by this newly acknowledged emotional drive.

This is what you said * They can't deal with the thought that their parents didn't treat them right--so the continue the practice to show themselves what their parents did to them was the right thing to do.*

Telling someone that their parents didn't treat them right is rude. It's like saying your parents dropped you on your head. It's uncalled for. Stick to facts, proof not meaningless ridicule.

RKD Photographic wrote:
I'm back - my being brigged doesn't mean he won the argument, just that I got too angry to control myself or walk away from the keyboard - IMO, he's still wrong.

...and that's me out of this thread too before I get roped-in again...

LOL I love it! xox

Erlinda wrote:

This is what you said * They can't deal with the thought that their parents didn't treat them right--so the continue the practice to show themselves what their parents did to them was the right thing to do.*

Telling someone that their parents didn't treat them right is rude. It's like saying your parents dropped you on your head. It's uncalled for. Stick to facts, proof not meaningless ridicule.

It was offered as a possibility--not an accusation to anyone in particular or to all spankers in general.

RKD Photographic wrote:
I'm back - my being brigged doesn't mean he won the argument, just that I got too angry to control myself or walk away from the keyboard - IMO, he's still wrong.

...and that's me out of this thread too before I get roped-in again...

No worries.  For me it's not about winning or loosing; it's about learning and informing.

Cheers!

RKD Photographic wrote:
I'm back - my being brigged doesn't mean he won the argument, just that I got too angry to control myself or walk away from the keyboard - IMO, he's still wrong.

...and that's me out of this thread too before I get roped-in again...

I'm glad to see that you are back.

Gianantonio wrote:

No worries.  For me it's not about winning or loosing; it's about learning and informing.

Cheers!

There has been preaching not informing from you.

Gianantonio wrote:

No worries.  For me it's not about winning or loosing; it's about learning and informing.

Cheers!

Why do you feel the need to inform?

Jerry Nemeth wrote:

There has been preaching not informing from you.

+1

Jerry Nemeth wrote:

There has been preaching not informing from you.

Now you are playing word games... 

Erlinda wrote:

Why do you feel the need to inform?

I like to share.

Gianantonio wrote:

Now you are playing word games... 

I am stating a fact.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:

I am stating a fact.

I guess that it is your opinion is a fact... 

Gianantonio wrote:

I guess that it is your opinion is a fact... 

Others in this thread also believe that you are preaching.

Gianantonio wrote:

I like to share.

But that's the problem. You are sharing your opinion. Not actual facts.

That's not informing that's preaching

-Nicole- wrote:
I'm done before this fucker gets me brigged. And he's not worth it.

Spank on everyone!

He is trying to do that because he had five days for being a bad boy himself recently.
So now he wants to get others brigged by winding them up.

Personally; I think this demonstrates that 'time out' has not worked. I therefore respectfully request in future mods consider an alternative form of discipline which has proved effective in 2-6 year olds.

Gianantonio wrote:

It was offered as a possibility--not an accusation to anyone in particular or to all spankers in general.

Word it as such then.

"Perhaps they can't deal with the..." = a possibility.
You worded your statement as fact.