Does that explain all those Republican scandals over the past few years? Maybe, just maybe....

what a load of BS.

what a load of BS.

'A meta-analysis of spanking studies conducted by Gershoff found 93 percent agreement among studies that spanking can lead to such problems as delinquent and anti-social behavior in childhood along with aggression, criminal and anti-social behavior and spousal or child abuse as an adult.'

yes i can see how you would disbelieve results like those

coknur,

From your quick summation of this body of work, I can only conclude that you are a scientist or a trained psychologist that has thoroughly read and perhaps peer-reviewed the literature on this subject. If you have time, perhaps you can expound of your concise point.

Dr. Spock says, don't beat yer offspring.

Bible says, beat them or they're doomed.

nocal says, beat me, beat me!

bigdickee- shut your fucking piehole, dumbass.

I grew up in an extremely strict house, I got spankings from the time I can remember and I don't fuck sheep or like candle wax on the nipples... What other factors did the people in the study experience besides getting spanked? Are we talking about getting swats on their ass after a talk to let them know what they did wrong and why it was wrong and why they were receiving punishment? or did they just get beat? Did their parents love them and let them know that they were loved or were they mentally abused? Just saying that spanking is the cause of sexual deviance is silly, what other factors were present in their childhoods? Did the test subjects have idyllic childhoods but they were spanked or were the people that were spanked more likely to have abusive parents?

it just makes it more likely you doof.

if you read the article, people who were spanked as children are more likely to be sexual deviants than people who were not spanked.

the study actually does have a rather large flaw: there are no controls. they can't assign a random group to spank and another to not spank, they just study people who grew up that way. that is to say: maybe those who were spanked had parents who were sexual deviants, thereby making it probable that this is a simple cause of genetics and not causation (ie, parents who spank are deviants, they have children who are deviants whether or not they spank them). also, like you imply, maybe there is something in common to nearly all parents who spank. while this is not likely, maybe 100% of children who were spanked and insulted at the same time become deviants (although this is not likely).

however, the fact that it correlates so strongly is a pretty good suggestion that they're on the right track.

it just makes it more likely you doof.

if you read the article, people who were spanked as children are more likely to be sexual deviants than people who were not spanked.

how do they isolate spanking to be the determining factor in sexual deviancy? They don't...

everyone dies...everyone breathes oxygen... omg! oxygen kills you! stop breathing now!

bottom line, in my personal experience, the conclusion to this study is BS.

how do they isolate spanking to be the determining factor in sexual deviancy? They don't...

if you read the story, they do. there is a correlation and it's very strong. in this case, they are saying that it implies causation.

everyone dies...everyone breathes oxygen... omg! oxygen kills you! stop breathing now!

if everyone who breathes water dies by drowning, you might also suppose that we ought to keep doing it because it's an inevitability that we die, i guess.

bottom line, in my personal experience, the conclusion to this study is BS.

oh neat in your one case you aren't a sexual deviant. that isn't the point at all!

more likely means what to you, exactly? does it mean 100% of people would be deviant?

take 10 people who were spanked and 10 who weren't, and more people who were spanked are going to be deviant. it does not mean that all 10 will be deviant.

here, better example:

people who eat lots of fucking candy are more likely to be fat.

100% of people who eat candy will not be fat. but compare candy eaters to non-candy eaters, and candy eaters will likely be fatter.

i doubt anyone would argue a point like that.

mmmmmmmmm candy

if you read the story, they do. there is a correlation and it's very strong. in this case, they are saying that it implies causation.

hmm, I did read the fucking story 4 times already and what i got was that 1 guy named strauss did 4 studies himself... The self proclaimed 'spanking expert'

'Murray Straus, a spanking expert who was expected to present the findings of four studies....

'Straus, who was the author of all four studies...'

That's objective... So according to strauss spanking causes problems, did they outline what OTHER factors the test subjects might have experienced in childhood to cause deviant behavior? NO... Was this a controlled study? NO...

'My hope is to convince my colleagues that they ought to put this in their textbooks,' said Straus

Sounds like no one else is buying his BS either.

A meta-analysis of spanking studies conducted by Gershoff

what is a 'meta-analysis'? 2 studies? 4 studies by the same guy? links to these other studies? none.

'There's probably nothing else in child development that has 93 percent agreement in results,' Straus said.

hahah!! I can guess at a few... I hypothesize that kids shit their pants a lot... I think i could get 100% agreement in that.. lol.

All I see is an article citing 2 peoples opinions. If you want to read more into then great for you, I'm not buying it.

what is a 'meta-analysis'? 2 studies? 4 studies by the same guy? links to these other studies? none.

i sit in judgment of a study and i dont' know what a meta analysis is, weeee

Oh look, an argument on the internet! Cooooool!

i sit in judgment of a study and i dont' know what a meta analysis is, weeee

I know what it is jackass, was just trying to point out the lack of any links to any actual scientific studies.

OK, your turn nocal. Kick his ass!!!!

cokbreath exhibits his ignorance and concludes that because it wasn't affected by spanking, therefore the whole study is baloney.

Perhaps the US could save billions of research dollars in all pursuits by just coming to cock and asking their conclusion?

Cock, you stated that your financial picture has improved the last two quarters... therefore the US isn't entering a recession.

Cock, you think sub-atomic particles are baloney.... they don't exist, then... disassemble that particle accelerator.

Cock sir, you think that gays choose their sexual orientation... round 'em all up for re-education. We'll make them straight.

You will be very busy with this skill.

in my oppinion, kids should be disciplined according to their behaviour, and spanking should not be off the table.

now, if they start liking it, then the study might be right... but chances are slim

i think this study was written withthe desired results in mind, and all interpretaions are skewed to favor the point of view of the author.

besides, light or no discipline can only produce conceited, self centered assholes.

funny to see how this debate (as opinions against 'cruelty to children')si much stronger in the US than any other place I've heard about... coincidence?