CardPlay3r Posted February 5, 2007 Posted February 5, 2007 Look think basically you're saying the laws regarding child protection are wrongly applied and I wouldn't know about that, but this was a debate on a particular law itself. And for that I think it'd be good for parents to not be allowed to spank their children as this is taken often way too far with bad consequences for the children. It isn't right to dismiss a law because it isn't applied right, you can take steps to ensure it is applied right but not just cancel it...
tinktronik Posted February 5, 2007 Posted February 5, 2007 Look think basically you're saying the laws regarding child protection are wrongly applied and I wouldn't know about that, but this was a debate on a particular law itself. And for that I think it'd be good for parents to not be allowed to spank their children as this is taken often way too far with bad consequences for the children. It isn't right to dismiss a law because it isn't applied right, you can take steps to ensure it is applied right but not just cancel it... I think my point is why stretch the laws even further if the system is broken? My other point is that it is important a part of our basis of the country in wich we live to allow certain "freedom in the persuit of happiness" falls into the catagory of raising your kids without interference as long as you have not broken any criminal laws . It is up to us as citizens of this country to know our laws and the way the system is in place to keep it going in a way that meets the basis of our rights. If you allow laws to pass without even knowing the situation you are allowing , whats the point of living in this society with your eyes closed as to the reality of what you are allowing . I am on topic here , I do not think we should condone a no spank law because it over steps our ability to live our lives as we see fit , and because it allow invasivity by the state to reach too far into our lives as citizens.
CardPlay3r Posted February 5, 2007 Posted February 5, 2007 First of all, the term "our country" doesn't apply to me. As to raising your kids without interference...I'm sorry, but I think if a child's life is made miserable by abusive parents, then I think the state should most definitely intervene, don't you? At what point should the sate intervene in your opinion....only when the kids end up dead?
RecordProducer Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 Look think basically you're saying the laws regarding child protection are wrongly applied and I wouldn't know about that, but this was a debate on a particular law itself. And for that I think it'd be good for parents to not be allowed to spank their children as this is taken often way too far with bad consequences for the children. It isn't right to dismiss a law because it isn't applied right, you can take steps to ensure it is applied right but not just cancel it...I was going to say the same thing, but Card said it already very eloquently. Thats interesting to assume , as you don't know me or what I take for granted .I was talking about Americans and I referred to the rhetorical "you" as in - Americans. Of course you take the things you've always had for granted! Of course, I explore new social circumstances with delight. I didn't assume anything about you. I don't even know if you're in the US or Canada or the UK. Also, I was talking about the law and disagreed with you. Why the insults on personal level such as But it is a tactic to invalidate whatever I have to say ... very republican approach there RP Why would I invalidate whatever YOU have to say? Frankly, I don't know the Republican approach and I don't care to know. I hate politicians.
tinktronik Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 First of all, the term "our country" doesn't apply to me. As to raising your kids without interference...I'm sorry, but I think if a child's life is made miserable by abusive parents, then I think the state should most definitely intervene, don't you? At what point should the sate intervene in your opinion....only when the kids end up dead? We already have laws here in place to remove a child in the event that their are any marks left on the child from spanking . I think that is enough . But I think that if the stste is going to pull the lids they should have to charge the parents with criminal abuse . Have a trial, if the courts find the parent guilty of a crime they don't get their kids back , but their should have to be evidence of abuse that would actually be provable in court.
tinktronik Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 I was going to say the same thing, but Card said it already very eloquently. I was talking about Americans and I referred to the rhetorical "you" as in - Americans. Of course you take the things you've always had for granted! Of course, I explore new social circumstances with delight. I didn't assume anything about you. I don't even know if you're in the US or Canada or the UK. Also, I was talking about the law and disagreed with you. Why the insults on personal level such as Why would I invalidate whatever YOU have to say? Frankly, I don't know the Republican approach and I don't care to know. I hate politicians. Ha , you quoted me and said that I take what I have for granted . How would I take it any othe way? Anyway the Republican point was a joke . Its not that I don't know my laws or take them for granted , its that I do know them more well than many people , I don't think they work how they are in place , I don't think this system has enough checks and balances , so why heap the load of a horse up on a donkey? As I stated before , I don't agree with spanking , I don't spank at all , but should it be illegal??? No , I think that if you make it illegal , it will simply be used as part of a civil matter to remove children and not as a criminal standard . Why is it that I cannot hold a view that I dissagree with something personally , but do not think it should be inforced as "illegal" simply because I am educated as to how our system here works ( sometimes for good but sometimes no) and think it would make problems worse instead of better, but not because I want to spank my own kids? Does that make my stance any less valid . I don't think so , its only a different point of view on the situation. As to making spanking illegal in order to stop people from going overboard and actually beating their kids . Parents that do that are not concerned about what the law is anyway , its like telling everyone its illegal to look at a pretty girl too long , because someone minght go overboard and rape her .
Curmudgeon Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 Why do you believe that just because we're against this piece of legislation it necessarily means we're for spanking? This is nanny government and nothing less. If the government wants to completely dictate how I raise, feed, transport, clothe, discipline, innoculate, supervise and educate my child that same government had better start paying me child support. Oh! Wait a minute! I have already raised five adult children who all survived and are all independent, successful and doing very well. How did that happen when they all came to age before everything was totally dictated to me as a parent?
lindya Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 I dunno... There was a time, 40, 50, 60 years ago when a parent would spank an unruly child. A spanking, and be done with it. The kid learned his/her lesson, and that's that. The last 30 or so years, because of all the crap "child psychology" books (Hey Dr. Spock, what happened to YOUR kid?), it's "wrong" to spank a child. You are supposed to use "psycho babble" and "time outs" and crap like that. What else have we had in the last 30 years? Teen gang violence Teen drug use on the rise Teen alchoholism Teen abortions (well, to the point where it's looked upon as "not a big deal") I don't think the streets are teeming with gun wielding, wheat-grass-eating 15 year olds called Tarquin who are harbouring resentful rage as a result of too many time-outs, groundings or restricted use of the computer as a form of discipline. The type of adolescents who end up having to be taken into care or held in secure units generally have problems that relate to social deprivation and parents who are too stressed out/doped up/riddled with dysfunction to promote a safe feeling home environment. Their parents generally aren't interest in "pseudo-psychology" or the use of alternative forms of discipline - and tend more towards the "this society is too soft, hitting them is the only sensible way" approach. Ignoring the fact that no amount of hitting on their part has prevented their children from turning into substance abusing delinquents. It's as though they have to work themselves into a state of fury in order to impose discipline - and they lose their kids' respect as a result of that. It's a vicious circle. Those who do work with professionals to apply a calm, consistent and non-abusive pattern of discipline will generally start to see improvements if they can sustain it over a period of several months. It's sustaining it that's the difficult part - especially for immature and dysfunctional parents who can't master their own tempers and emotions, and therefore find it practically impossible to deal with a furious child in a firm, consistent and unperturbed manner. Where you have parents who lack the maturity and character to take personal responsibility, and prefer to blame a "politically correct" or "too soft" society for their difficulties, you have that negative no-need-to-take-responsibility-for-your-own-appalling-behaviour message being passed down to children. That in itself promotes a lack of respect for authority that exacerbates the kind of problems you described.
magichands Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 Why do you believe that just because we're against this piece of legislation it necessarily means we're for spanking? This is nanny government and nothing less. If the government wants to completely dictate how I raise, feed, transport, clothe, discipline, innoculate, supervise and educate my child that same government had better start paying me child support. Oh! Wait a minute! I have already raised five adult children who all survived and are all independent, successful and doing very well. How did that happen when they all came to age before everything was totally dictated to me as a parent? I agree! This is just another example of the rampant "do-gooder" mentality that's straitjacketing society with their generalisations.
tinktronik Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 Why do you believe that just because we're against this piece of legislation it necessarily means we're for spanking? This is nanny government and nothing less. If the government wants to completely dictate how I raise, feed, transport, clothe, discipline, innoculate, supervise and educate my child that same government had better start paying me child support. Oh! Wait a minute! I have already raised five adult children who all survived and are all independent, successful and doing very well. How did that happen when they all came to age before everything was totally dictated to me as a parent? Thank you C I think this was a point that I was getting at.
ocset Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 I was smacked as a child by my parents and I dont have a desire to go round beating the hell out of people. I short sharp smack on the bum. I went to run across a road and I got a smack and I didnt do it - the smack was alot less destructive than a car hitting me would have been. The punishment has got to suit the 'crime' - you dont smack a child for everything whcih they do wrong. But only for the most serious things - what else you going to do - send them to their room - that'd be hell for them - like they dont spend most of their time there with playstations or x-box's anyway!! You have to be sensible in what you do and use restraint and common sense - things which seem to be lacking in this day and age.
Blue Phoenix Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 --"I do not think we should condone a no spank law because it over steps our ability to live our lives as we see fit , and because it allow invasivity by the state to reach too far into our lives as citizens"-- I do I totaly agree with the law I wish they had it back when I was getting threatned and beeten with the belt and it was seen as normal. The only time the abuse slowed down was when my parents realised that they could have child services on there @ss for it. Then it switched to mentil abuse much harder to prove I guess look theres right and theres wrong in this world and hitting your kids is wrong sorry. Oh but its just a swat on the butt sure in public it is but who knows what goes on behind closed doors you realy dont. If some ones willing to give there kid a swat on the butt whos to say they wont hit harder in the privacey of there own home. Sociaty as a hole has to get the backwards retarted idea that its ok to hit your kids out of its head compleatly. Its like a abused women saying oh its ok he just gave me a little shove or a little slap no harm done think about that one. But maybe its ok for him to do it long as it was just a little one and he was teaching her a lession..
CardPlay3r Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 Agree completely Phoenix. There has to be a limit on how you're allowed to raise your kids
tinktronik Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 Agree completely Phoenix. There has to be a limit on how you're allowed to raise your kids Those things are already illegal . You aren't to beat your kids , not to leave marks on them , not to injure them , not to use objects for spanking .
CardPlay3r Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 Well a whole lot of people disobey that law then.
tinktronik Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 Well a whole lot of people disobey that law then. True , so making another law will what , just allow invasiveness into everyones lives . The people who already disobey the law are going to continue on as they are.
Asafan Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 Well a whole lot of people disobey that law then. That's because you can't enforce laws like that unless you put a camera into everyone's home. If I feel that my child needs a smack on the ass because he is being stubborn and not listening there ain't no way, no how anyone is gonna tell me I can't.
CardPlay3r Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 True , so making another law will what , just allow invasiveness into everyones lives . The people who already disobey the law are going to continue on as they are. Well with this new law it will be easier to know which parents spank, and most of them probably go well beyond what the existing laws allow and they'll be much more easier to catch That's because you can't enforce laws like that unless you put a camera into everyone's home. If I feel that my child needs a smack on the ass because he is being stubborn and not listening there ain't no way, no how anyone is gonna tell me I can't. The people that beat their children like hell have the same philosophy of "my kid is my property"
tinktronik Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 Well with this new law it will be easier to know which parents spank, How exactly is that?
Austanne Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 I don't think that spanking is right at all. I don't care what cute name you put on it, you are hitting your child to teach them a lesson. I don't understand at what age the distinction is drawn between a spanking and assault. A man cannot smack his wife for doing something wrong, so why should he smack his child? This is just common sense to me.. Just my opinion, though. I'm very passionate about this.
Blue Phoenix Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 --"True , so making another law will what , just allow invasiveness into everyones lives . The people who already disobey the law are going to continue on as they are"-- Perhaps you dident see the part of my post that went something like this --"The only time the abuse slowed down was when my parents realised that they could have child services on there @ss for it"-- So the basic idea that this type of behaviour can get them in seruios trouble WILL deture some if not all abusive parents from doing it. To me even if that fear keeps one child from being bashed then its worth it!!!
Austanne Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 --"True , so making another law will what , just allow invasiveness into everyones lives . The people who already disobey the law are going to continue on as they are"-- Perhaps you dident see the part of my post that went something like this --"The only time the abuse slowed down was when my parents realised that they could have child services on there @ss for it"-- So the basic idea that this type of behaviour can get them in seruios trouble WILL deture some if not all abusive parents from doing it. To me even if that fear keeps one child from being bashed then its worth it!!! I agree completely. It will also help protect the children who have no protection currently.
Asafan Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 --"True , so making another law will what , just allow invasiveness into everyones lives . The people who already disobey the law are going to continue on as they are"-- Perhaps you dident see the part of my post that went something like this --"The only time the abuse slowed down was when my parents realised that they could have child services on there @ss for it"-- So the basic idea that this type of behaviour can get them in seruios trouble WILL deture some if not all abusive parents from doing it. To me even if that fear keeps one child from being bashed then its worth it!!! There is a HUGE distinction between beating the living hell out of a kid and an attention getting smack on the fanny. Government should NEVER be allowed into people's personal lives to the degree that they tell people how to raise their children. The risk is just too great to personal liberty. If you allow laws like this then where does it end? I know a guy whose 16 year old daughters were completely out of control to the degree that they were literally being pimped out of a mall (in a very nice area). He obviously got so mad that he hit one of them and they called CPS and HE got in trouble. I once worked with a woman whose eight year old boy was also out of control. Her and her husband never ever once hit the kid because they were so against it. They tried all the "nice" things that were suggested and it did nothing. Finally they brought him to a psychiatrist and he said, "Do you ever hit him?" When the responded that they didn't. He actually said they should. The next time he got out of line they did it, and the kid was walkin around proudly stating, "I got a beatin" and was much better from then on. True story! Every situation is different and no one law or set of laws can possibly regulate ever situation. It doesn't take a friggin village, it takes a family!
tinktronik Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 There is a HUGE distinction between beating the living hell out of a kid and an attention getting smack on the fanny. Government should NEVER be allowed into people's personal lives to the degree that they tell people how to raise their children. The risk is just too great to personal liberty. If you allow laws like this then where does it end? Every situation is different and no one law or set of laws can possibly regulate ever situation. It doesn't take a friggin village, it takes a family! Sanity .... Thankyou .
lindya Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 My concern would be that certain elements in the protective agencies sometimes seem to prefer focusing their attentions on "soft" targets. Perhaps dealing with generally reasonable people who've fallen foul of the law is a lot less scary than venturing into the most deprived areas to knock on the most notorious families' doors and interview them about their parenting practices. I'm very much a supporter of protecting children from abuse, and I think condoning spanking can encourage some parents to adopt an "I don't want to spend much time thinking about how to deal with this and it's easier to just smack him/her" approach to discipline. More worryingly, in some families "spanking" is code for something more a bit more serious and abusive than a mere smack on the bottom. On the other hand, introducing anti-spanking laws seems highly likely to divert resources away from those families who really do need close monitoring - not to mention attaching the stigmatising criminal or "involved with the social work department" labels to more and more parents. Professional/official intervention in dealing with familial discipline problems should always (where feasible) focus on working with parents in planning effective and fair methods of managing difficult behaviour...rather than simply providing children with "if you don't give me what I want I'll report you to social services" ammunition.
Recommended Posts