Mother Pleads Guilty to Felony for Spanking Her Child

[Zatch]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcZMgYc2zbQ

[MelissaWV]

The grandmother turned her in.

The line at the bottom of the screen said "Bruised Baby" at some point. This was a two-year-old who had a "red mark" after an open-handed spank.

The judge's response was "You don't spank children today. In the old days, maybe we got spanked, but there was a different quarrel. You don't spank children. You understand?"

All three of those things are mighty disturbing. I know there is a rather large movement in our country that believes spanking for any reason is a form of child abuse, but by this standard anything that leaves even the slightest mark on your child is a felony. Ever grab a hand or arm to keep them from running into the street? Ever have to get something out of a baby's mouth by doing the "press the cheeks" thing and sweeping their mouth with a finger? All potential felonies.

[mport1]

I'm torn on this issue. I think people should be able to raise their children as they see fit, but I also think spanking or any kind of physical use of force is child abuse. Getting the government involved in the issue though is a terrible idea though.

[Johncjackson]

I'm torn on this issue. I think people should be able to raise their children as they see fit, but I also think spanking or any kind of physical use of force is child abuse. Getting the government involved in the issue though is a terrible idea though.

I pretty much agree. However, I think a lot of people opposed to the government protecting children from the use of force aren't exactly anarchists, and welcome the use of government in many ways. I think to the extent government does exist, protecting children from the use of force would be fairly high on the list of priorities ( in a minimal state that protects individuals from the force of other individuals). I would also be curious about the overlap between people who claim to be "pro-life" but also support child abuse. A lot of pro-lifers who support state laws against abortion do so under the claim that all individuals need protection against violence, including the unborn. I think opposing child abuse would be required to be consistent. Otherwise I think a lot of the pro-child abuse folks are taking the stand that parents pretty much own their children. If that's the case, I guess they should have the right to abort them as well.

Personally, I couldn't imagine hitting a 2 year old and leaving marks. Unfortunately, I've known some barbarians who had no problem with it and encounter plenty of pro-violence people on the internet. Another thing to think about- so many "anti-violence" people when it comes to state force who are pro-violence in their personal lives. I understand separating the role of the government from the personal, but for me being "anti-violence" is an all-encompassing value and not just political.

[angelatc]

The judge's response was "You don't spank children today. In the old days, maybe we got spanked, but there was a different quarrel. You don't spank children. You understand?"

So it used to be legal, now it isn't, although no law changed. Judicial activism. Shudder.

[Dr.3D]

It runs against my religion not the discipline my children. I'm calling foul on them for attempting to prohibit me from practicing my religion.
Proverbs 22:15
Proverbs 23:13
Proverbs 29:15

[Southron]

:mad:

What a worthless grandmother and tyrant judge.

No judge will tell me how to raise a child.

[FrankRep]

It runs against my religion not the discipline my children. I'm calling foul on them for attempting to prohibit me from practicing my religion.
Proverbs 22:15
Proverbs 23:13
Proverbs 29:15

Thank you Dr.3D.

[Vessol]

Spanking is child abuse and can permanently damage children, just like any other kind of abuse.

However, government violence, such as in this case, cannot solve the problem.

[Sola_Fide]

Get government out of families!

[teacherone]

not sure how putting a mother in jail benefits a child.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Spanking is child abuse and can permanently damage children, just like any other kind of abuse.

However, government violence, such as in this case, cannot solve the problem.


My thoughts exactly.

[MelissaWV]

Spanking is child abuse and can permanently damage children, just like any other kind of abuse.

However, government violence, such as in this case, cannot solve the problem.

As someone who was spanked and abused by turns, I do see a difference between the two.

Spanking is not automatically abuse, in the same way that killing someone is not automatically murder; one has to examine the situation and the motivation. I have seen people grab a child's arm who was trying to run into the street. This likely left a small mark on the child (grab your arm and see; it usually leaves a pink/red mark for a moment). At that point, I suppose the parent in question might have let their child run into the street, which would have been a far sadder outcome, or grabbed the child and left a mark, risking conviction of a felony.

* * *

As for how this benefits the child, it doesn't. I wonder if she'll be placed with grandma now.

[belian78]

Any physical discipline of a child is abuse? I'm sorry, I have to disagree. I've only physically reprimanded my son twice in his entire life of 12 years, but a swat on the rear end if necessary is in no way abuse.

[Philhelm]

There's a huge difference between a swat on the rear and battering a child. My parents had spanked me a few times, but I had never considered it to be abusive. Granted, they never hit me hard, but my father later told me that I would scowl after being spanked and say in a belligerent voice, "It didn't hurt!" If I didn't see it as abusive, then how exactly does the government or other people have any standing in the issue?

If parents don't wish to ever spank their children, then that is their right, but taking the position that any form of spanking is outright abuse is a bit much.

[Southron]

Morality aside, what kind of lawyer advised her to plead guilty to felony abuse? A government lawyer?

[Dr.3D]

Morality aside, what kind of lawyer advised her to plead guilty to felony abuse? A government lawyer?

Probably a Humanist lawyer, although I would guess that would be the same thing.

[MelissaWV]

Morality aside, what kind of lawyer advised her to plead guilty to felony abuse? A government lawyer?

Probably one grandma paid for :p

Seriously this is a pretty awesome coup by her: Call in the cops, pay for a crappy lawyer, nab the kid yourself.

I would hate to be there for Thanksgiving.

[Brian4Liberty]

Beating Spanking is child abuse and can permanently damage children, just like any other kind of abuse.

However, government violence, such as in this case, cannot solve the problem.

Agreed (with modification). ;)


not sure how putting a mother in jail benefits a child.

Agree.


There's a huge difference between a swat on the rear and battering a child.

Exactly.

When a child is too young to speak, a swat on the hand or bottom is appropriate, especially to teach about "dangerous" situations (i.e. hands on hot stove top). When they can speak, time-outs, toy removal, or other punishments with explanations and rules is sufficient. Beating on the other hand, is not acceptable, and is a sign of flaws in the parent (ignorance, impatience, temper, lack of self-control, frustration, laziness or other issues). Unfortunately there are subjective lines to be drawn, and we know that government solutions are rarely reasonable.

[Sam I am]

She should appeal this. The judge isn't a legislator, he doesn't get to make this decision

[specsaregood]

//

[aGameOfThrones]

The grandmother use to spank her daughter and decided it wasn't right, so now she wants to atone with her grandchild.

[LibertariansUnite]

Spanking is a form of discipline used as a last resort, and mostly used against total defiance.

In life you are supposed to prepare your children for the real world, in the real world you have consequences for actions. If you commit of crime or break a law you are imprisoned. If discipline is not active in a child's life then you subtly teach it that every action does not always have a consequence.

I was spanked when I was a kid, I have spanked and will continue to spank if necessary. The role of a parent is to raise children to be good citizens, and to understand that there is always a consequence to an action.

If children do not understand that, they will find themselves in a lot of trouble, and that to me is failing a child much worse, than a tiny red mark or bruise on a butt.

[FrankRep]

The Government Owns Your Child (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/89949.html)

Lew Rockwell
June 19, 2011

So a judge harshly punishes a mother for spanking (http://www.volunteertv.com/national/headlines/Mom_pleads_guilty_to_spanking_own_child_124072014. html) her daughter. after the traitorous paternal grandmother calls the CPS. Like my parents, I do not believe in spanking or any other violence, but the government—which claims the right to cage and even kill your child—certainly has no standing. Yet the government, Nazi or Soviet-like, has displaced the parent.

[angelatc]

The fact that Lew Rockwell wasn't spanked makes me glad I spanked mine.

[Southron]

The fact that Lew Rockwell wasn't spanked makes me glad I spanked mine.
Roflmao.....

[devil21]

I was charged and convicted of assault for spanking my daughter. She had willfully violated a big house rule two days in a row and was spanked with pants on as discipline. I was charged with assault by a cop and convicted by a judge. I should have exercised the 5th but I didn't know much about my rights back then.

This happens and has been happening for a long time now. It's a concerted effort to allow children to feel untouchable by discipline so the schools can cry for more resources to "control" unruly (undisciplined) children. Typical government story of creating the problem and then offering the solution.

[Danke]

The fact that Lew Rockwell wasn't spanked makes me glad I spanked mine.

lol

[Anti Federalist]

not sure how putting a mother in jail benefits a child.

It doesn't.

This has little to do with children or the law.

It has to do with you being on pins and needles, wondering yet again whether you are violating yet another felony, that's not a felony.

It's about keeping you and me and all of us, hopping from one foot to another trying to comply with that which cannot be complied with and decipher the undecipherable.

And laughing at us while "they" do it.

[Southron]

I was charged and convicted of assault for spanking my daughter. She had willfully violated a big house rule two days in a row and was spanked with pants on as discipline. I was charged with assault by a cop and convicted by a judge. I should have exercised the 5th but I didn't know much about my rights back then.

This happens and has been happening for a long time now. It's a concerted effort to allow children to feel untouchable by discipline so the schools can cry for more resources to "control" unruly (undisciplined) children. Typical government story of creating the problem and then offering the solution.

That's aweful.:(

This serves as a good warning to the rest of us. Stay away from the government schools and watch who you associate with. (Family/friends)

[sailingaway]

You know, I just came on here and read the first two titles in the forum. The first, paraphrased, was "NATO admits civilians were killed in Tripoli bombing raid" The next was this, "Mother gets felony for spanking her child"

I'm sure there's a lesson in there somewhere.

[Echoes]

Spanking is abuse ? ROFL yah, yah another Gov't created fiction. I thank my parents for swatting me when i got out of line, i was brat. IMO, 'tough' love is the best way to raise a child, spoiling/coddling is horrible. In the old days boys became men at 15 or 16, people are so immature nowadays lol

[specsaregood]

That's aweful.:(

This serves as a good warning to the rest of us. Stay away from the government schools and watch who you associate with. (Family/friends)

It must depend on the state and locale. My mother teaches at a public school where with parental consent they still paddle. So I doubt the state is gonna do something from some spanking by the parents.

[123tim]

In the old days, maybe we got spanked, but there was a different quarrel.

I think that the person writing the subtitles on this video got this wrong...I think that what he actually said was "In the old days, maybe we got spanked, but that was a different world"

Makes a lot more sense.
Wait..... this makes no sense at all.

[Anti Federalist]

It must depend on the state and locale. My mother teaches at a public school where with parental consent they still paddle. So I doubt the state is gonna do something from some spanking by the parents.

The state can stick it's hands into children's pants and feel around.

Parents can't.

[Vessol]

Spanking is abuse ? ROFL yah, yah another Gov't created fiction. I thank my parents for swatting me when i got out of line, i was brat. IMO, 'tough' love is the best way to raise a child, spoiling/coddling is horrible. In the old days boys became men at 15 or 16, people are so immature nowadays lol

My step-father spanked me once, ended up leaving a bruise. My mother divorced him when she found out, it was the last straw of many reasons. I was never spanked afterwords.

I've never been considered immature or spoiled. I never really got out of line when I was a child. I was pretty hyperactive and energetic and did a lot of stupid stuff and broke bones, but I never was a brat.

Why? Because when I did something wrong, I wasn't physically assaulted for it. Instead when disciplined, I was sat down and talked to sternly and explained to why what I did was wrong. Sometimes I had toys taken away, or I lost computer access, or something. But my mother never physically laid a hand on me in punishment.

That isn't to say that I grew up perfectly. There was a lot of emotional abuse and mental abuse. I'd say living with someone who had a gambling addiction and drinking addiction while being homeless multiple times as a child and teenager has some detrimental effects upon my psyche.

The fact is. I get really fucking pissed off when someone says "Well my parents spanked/beat me when I did wrong! And I turned out fine!"

I was not beaten when I did wrong, and I turned out fine. The logic does not flow.

The excuse for using violence against children for discipline I think is for lazy parents. The same goes for buying affection from your children and spoiling them. I got neither, half the time I was lucky to eat once a day, but at least I wasn't beaten.

I'm not saying laying your hand on your child and leaving a mark to stop them from going into the street is abuse. But physically hitting them in order to teach some lesson? No, that is abuse.

Would you spank a senile 80-year old man for doing something wrong? Why should a 3 year old be considered less of a human?

[LibertyEagle]

get government out of families!

win

[low preference guy]

I'm cool with it. I favor zero violence against children. You have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise abusing children will be legal. I draw the line at the least possible amount of violence against children. Any violence should be penalized.

[Vessol]

I'm cool with it. I favor zero violence against children. You have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise abusing children will be legal. I draw the line at the least possible amount of violence against children. Any violence should be penalized.

My issue with involving the State is that you are trying to solve violence..with violence.

It's like gun control. How do you stop people from using guns? With guns. It just doesn't work.

[low preference guy]

My issue with involving the State is that you are trying to solve violence..with violence.

That's like saying that your issue against penalizing people who murder is that you're solving violence with violence. It is not wrong to penalize people who use violence.


It's like gun control. How do you stop people from using guns? With guns. It just doesn't work.

That implies that violence should never be used to stop violence, because you're using violence to stop violence. Your argument couldn't be more ridiculous. When somebody attacks you and is about to kill you, and you hit him before he shoots you, you're using violence to stop violence, which according to your argument you shouldn't do.

[Echoes]

I'm cool with it. I favor zero violence against children. You have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise abusing children will be legal. I draw the line at the least possible amount of violence against children. Any violence should be penalized.

Ugh...

Would you tattle on your neighbor if you saw a spank on the tush ?

[low preference guy]

Ugh...

Would you tattle on your neighbor if you saw a spank on the tush ?

Where do you draw the line? Why is the point where you draw the line better than mine?

[devil21]

Where do you draw the line? Why is the point where you draw the line better than mine?

Because my line isn't your goddamn business, that's why.

[Mach]

So, I should have reported Sister Achille back in grade school?

[Sola_Fide]

I'm cool with it. I favor zero violence against children. You have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise abusing children will be legal. I draw the line at the least possible amount of violence against children. Any violence should be penalized.

The government knows better how to raise your children folks.

(and this is supposed to be the libertarian forum???)

[123tim]

The government knows better how to raise your children folks.

(and this is supposed to be the libertarian forum???)

Thank you.

[Slutter McGee]

you guys sound like a bunch of liberal babies. Give the kid a good SWAT. If the mom gives it and the kid laughs, have dad come home with the belt. And those who believe this is child abuse have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

Slutter McGee

[eduardo89]

The state can stick it's hands into children's pants and feel around.

Parents can't.

Actually the TSA can...but that's for national security reasons so it's ok.

[Vessol]

you guys sound like a bunch of liberal babies. Give the kid a good SWAT. If the mom gives it and the kid laughs, have dad come home with the belt. And those who believe this is child abuse have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

Slutter McGee


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbiq2-ukfhM

[eduardo89]

you guys sound like a bunch of liberal babies. Give the kid a good SWAT. If the mom gives it and the kid laughs, have dad come home with the belt. And those who believe this is child abuse have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

Slutter McGee

A slap on the bottom or even a good whack with a belt is not abuse, it's discipline.

[Pericles]

The government knows better how to raise your children folks.

(and this is supposed to be the libertarian forum???)


See above ^^^

[low preference guy]

Because my line isn't your goddamn business, that's why.

I'm sorry (*) but I'm against child abuse.

(*) not really

[low preference guy]

The government knows better how to raise your children folks.

(and this is supposed to be the libertarian forum???)

Being against child abuse doesn't imply someone is not a libertarian.

[Anti Federalist]

I'm sorry (*) but I'm against child abuse.

(*) not really

What is "child abuse"?

The problem there is it's the same as a progressive saying the "rich" need to pay their "fair share".

It's totally subjective.

And with the state and cops being what they are these days, that's a dangerous amount of wiggle room to give them.

I could turn around and say with equal conviction that people that send their children to the prison training camps (public schools) are guilty of child abuse.

[Meatwasp]

My mother woule have been thrown in jail the way she beat me. With a rug beater. I had broken welts all over my back. The beatings hurt but she screamed at me and called me names that hurt worse. I swore I would never hit or spank my three sons and I never did and they turned out fine.She was from the old country.

[low preference guy]

What is "child abuse"?

The problem there is it's the same as a progressive saying the "rich" need to pay their "fair share".

It's totally subjective.

And with the state and cops being what they are these days, that's a dangerous amount of wiggle room to give them.

I could turn around and say with equal conviction that people that send their children to the prison training camps (public schools) are guilty of child abuse.

So you think if somebody spanks his kid 1000 times and leaves him unable to walk for 3 months, then nothing should happen to the dad? That is crazy.

[Anti Federalist]

So you think if somebody spanks his kid 1000 times and leaves him unable to walk for 3 months, then nothing should happen to the dad? That is crazy.

You didn't say that.

You said "child abuse".

[low preference guy]

You didn't say that.

You said "child abuse".

Exactly. That's an example of child abuse.

[Anti Federalist]

I'm cool with it. I favor zero violence against children. You have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise abusing children will be legal. I draw the line at the least possible amount of violence against children. Any violence should be penalized.

How do reason with a two year old about the dangers of grabbing the hot stove or running out in the road?

Do you let them grab it and burn themselves badly or get run down by a truck?

Or do you swat their hand or rear to enforce "no"?

[low preference guy]

How do reason with a two year old about the dangers of grabbing the hot stove?

Do you let them grab it and burn themselves badly?

Or do you swat their hand or rear to enforce "no"?

If there is a situation of imminent danger where the only possible way of preventing it is doing something that under other circumstances will be violent, then in that case obviously the parent shouldn't be penalized. This is the same situation where my friend is about to be hit by a car and I am able to push him so that nothing happens to him. Pushing him and hurting him in other situations would be wrong and he would be able to sue me. But if he is in imminent danger and my only resource is doing something that in other circumstances will be violent, then there should be no penalty.

[Anti Federalist]

If there is a situation of imminent danger where the only possible way of preventing it is doing something that under other circumstances will be violent, then in that case obviously the parent shouldn't be penalized. This is the same situation where my friend is about to be hit by a car and I am able to push him so that nothing happens to him. Pushing him and hurting him in other situations would be wrong and of course he would be able to sue me. But if he is in imminent danger and my only resource is doing something that in other circumstances will be violent, then there should be no penalty.

OK then, that's what needs to be codified into law, because what this women accused of is not illegal.

Where things stand right now is a subjective nightmare that could literally send a parent to prison for doing what I just described.

[Meatwasp]

Anti Fed.
Just put force in your words when a kid is close to a hot stove. Just say NO HOT. that worked for my boys. No need to spank them.

[Meatwasp]

All their dad had to do was glare at them with his steely blue eyes and they behaved.

[Freedom 4 all]

I personally believe spanking children is harmful and should generally be discouraged, but this is ridiculous. Sweden has the right idea on this. They made spanking illegal but attached no legal sanction. This made it a faux-pas without empowering the state to fine you, imprison you, or steal your kids.

[fade]

Anti Fed.
Just put force in your words when a kid is close to a hot stove. Just say NO HOT. that worked for my boys. No need to spank them.

Oh god I wish my son who is 17 months old would listen when I say "NO HOT" or "NO".. He looks, KNOWS what I am saying... And proceeds to do it anyway. He likes to take the plug out of the wall from the lamp, and try and plug it back in. It's one of his favorite things to do, but it's very dangerous. I tell him "NO" and he hurries and tries to put it back in the wall faster. I slap his hand while he's doing it, and he just goes on trying harder and harder. So I give him a swift spank on his rear and he stops.

Not all children are equal. I come from a VERY stubborn family. I was this way when I was growing up, and as karma has it - my son is this way as well. At 17 months old he yells at me when I take things away from him that would hurt him.

[Meatwasp]

How I solved that problem was to direct their attention to something else. Like, " Hey look at that rock or tree or even a picture on the wall." They forget about the dangerous thing. At least my kids did. Ha!
One that reallt works is when you have company and your kid is acting up just say,I see Johnny wants attention lets all give it to me." The grown ups prceed to stare at him and he usually settles down.

[fade]

How I solved that problem was to direct their attention to something else. Like, " Hey look at that rock or tree or even a picture on the wall." They forget about the dangerous thing. At least my kids did. Ha!
One that reallt works is when you have company and your kid is acting up just say,I see Johnny wants attention lets all give it to me." The grown ups prceed to stare at him and he usually settles down.

When he starts to understand more than about 100 words, that may work. It doesn't teach my son not to play with the outlet while I may have my attention on something else for a split second though.

[Southron]

So you think if somebody spanks his kid 1000 times and leaves him unable to walk for 3 months, then nothing should happen to the dad? That is crazy.

Not directed at me but I want to answer.

Something should happen to the dad. The neighbors should kick his ###.

[Anti Federalist]

Anti Fed.
Just put force in your words when a kid is close to a hot stove. Just say NO HOT. that worked for my boys. No need to spank them.

That worked for some of my kids, not for others.

An interesting and helpful parenting tip, but not really what the problem here is.

Should it be for the state to decide that?

Is that "child abuse"?

How can someone be charged and plead guilty to something that is not a crime?

And, in the interest of protecting the children, should the state now start installing cameras in homes to monitor for possible abuse?

And before anybody scoffs, it's not as far fetched as you might think.

Houston police chief wants cameras on homes, streets

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-02-15-houston-cameras_x.htm

HOUSTON (AP) — Houston's police chief on Wednesday proposed placing surveillance cameras in apartment complexes, downtown streets, shopping malls and even private homes to fight crime during a shortage of police officers.

"I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?" Chief Harold Hurtt told reporters Wednesday at a regular briefing.

[low preference guy]

And, in the interest of protecting the children, should the state now start installing cameras in homes to monitor for possible abuse?

no, but this doesn't have anything to do with this issue. the government shouldn't do fishing expeditions for any crime.

[Sola_Fide]

Not directed at me but I want to answer.

Something should happen to the dad. The neighbor should kick his ###.

Yeah. I grew up in Kentucky and I heard stories from the older generations of this kind of community justice. There wasn't government involvement.

One story I heard is that when a man was suspected of beating his wife, the men in the area would leave a bundle of sticks at his door as a warning. Strange as it may seem, there was a time when government was not involved. There was no CPS. There were concerned neighbors and charities.

[LibertariansUnite]

People seem to think that there is a single discipline system that works for every child.

Sorta like people believe there is a single economic plan that works for every Adult.

Furthermore, children do not reason like Adults, sometimes you have to spank.

There are however children, who respond to alternative methods better, thereby the need for spanking is not necessary.

Let the parents do the parenting.

[Meatwasp]

When he starts to understand more than about 100 words, that may work. It doesn't teach my son not to play with the outlet while I may have my attention on something else for a split second though.

Dont kid yourself. Even kids at a very young age knows how to push Daddy's buttons.

[Southron]

Yeah. I grew up in Kentucky and I heard stories from the older generations of this kind of community justice. There wasn't government involvement.

One story I heard is that when a man was suspected of beating his wife, the men in the area would leave a bundle of sticks at his door as a warning. Strange as it may seem, there was a time when government was not involved. There was no CPS. There were concerned neighbors and charities.

It sounds harsh to our modern ears but I am convinced some people only understand violence and won't respond to much else.

[Anti Federalist]

no, but this doesn't have anything to do with this issue. the government shouldn't do fishing expeditions for any crime.

They shouldn't.

But you and I both know, they will, given the chance.

"Domestic" cases in particular are abused in this manner on a regular basis.

[low preference guy]

They shouldn't.

But you and I both know, they will, given the chance.

i answered your question. you're moving further and further away from the topic.

[fade]

Dont kid yourself. Even kids at a very young age knows how to push Daddy's buttons.

Yep, I'll try to distract him and play it cool while he sticks his fingers on the metal piece going into the outlet. Sounds like a plan, thanks.

[Meatwasp]

Hippie justice.
A few years ago some scum bag raped a little girl in a hippie community. All they ever found of him was pieces of skin.
No I don't believe government should be into every aspect of our life.

[MelissaWV]

Yep, I'll try to distract him and play it cool while he sticks his fingers on the metal piece going into the outlet. Sounds like a plan, thanks.

Well if he gets electrocuted severely enough, you can be 100% sure he'll never do it again...

[Meatwasp]

Yep, I'll try to distract him and play it cool while he sticks his fingers on the metal piece going into the outlet. Sounds like a plan, thanks.
He may be an electrician when he grows up. My son did the same with the radio I had . I unplugged it took it outside and told him he can take it apart. I no longer wanted it. He is all into electronics now. Grant you your son may be different. I just say things that worked for me. Ha!

[fade]

Well if he gets electrocuted severely enough, you can be 100% sure he'll never do it again...

LOL I keep wishing that I could do something that would scare him enough into not touching it anymore...

[Meatwasp]

Well if he gets electrocuted severely enough, you can be 100% sure he'll never do it again...

My dad warned me about getting into his electric shop. I didn't Listen and grabbed some electronic tube testers. They shook the heck out of me. I never went in there again. He really laughed.

[MelissaWV]

My dad warned me about getting into his electric shop. I didn't Listen and grabbed some electronic tube testers. They shook the heck out of me. I never went in there again. He really laughed.

And on the flipside, my sister still routinely manages to electrocute herself. She's done it at least a dozen times, half of which were accomplished before the age of two.

I didn't find it as fascinating.

[Anti Federalist]

i answered your question. you're moving further and further away from the topic.

Yes, you did.

This is a new angle of the conversation.

[bkreigh]

you guys sound like a bunch of liberal babies. Give the kid a good SWAT. If the mom gives it and the kid laughs, have dad come home with the belt. And those who believe this is child abuse have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

Slutter McGee

My thoughts exactly.

Who ever said that spanking leaves permanent damage is full of crap. Its a freakin spanking. I dont have kids but i have had my fair share of spanks out in the garage. My dad still has a paddle with his alma mater on one side and my mom's on the other. Hell it was probably a baby shower gift from my late grandfather.

[Danke]

And on the flipside, my sister still routinely manages to electrocute herself. She's done it at least a dozen times...


Hmmm, really? Let her know I don't charge.

[Mach]

Are you spanking for discipline or just to take your own frustrations out on someone else?

There's a difference.

Personally, the girls were way easier, they were much more mellow and wanted to listen and learn, the boys are definitely more adventurous.... I wonder were they got that from?

Off topic but, it's true.... if the moms not happy, NOBODY IS!

[Kregisen]

I don't like the way my parents raised me however I think there is a time and a place for spanking, depending on the kid....as I don't have kids those are my thoughts and you get into very deep water when you give the government this much control. There's a very fine line here.

[Vessol]

My thoughts exactly.

Who ever said that spanking leaves permanent damage is full of crap. Its a freakin spanking. I dont have kids but i have had my fair share of spanks out in the garage. My dad still has a paddle with his alma mater on one side and my mom's on the other. Hell it was probably a baby shower gift from my late grandfather.

Ron Paul believes that spanking is abuse and never spanked his children.


“Behave yourself and be polite” is how Representative Ron Paul describes his regulatory philosophy about rearing five children. Mr. Paul, a Republican, and his wife of 53 years, Carol, never believed in assigned chores or mandates.

..
He decided to go into politics despite his lineage as much as because of it, family members said. “Ron believes that you are not supposed to initiate force on anyone else,” Mrs. Paul said. Her husband promoted self-reliance in his children, and their choices and views flowed from that, she said.'

..

As a member of Congress, Mr. Paul spent most of his time in Washington and, upon returning to Texas, often crisscrossed his sprawling district to attend political events. At home, his children recall, he prized the solitude of his lawnmower. Mrs. Paul was a stay-at-home mom, longtime Girl Scout troop leader and self-described “busybody” who prided herself on knowing exactly what everyone was doing. If one of the children misbehaved, her husband did not spank or yell. Instead, he sometimes gave them written assignments, Mrs. Paul said, explaining, “He believed in exercising the brain.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/us/politics/06paul.html?_

So according to Slutter McGee and others on this forum:

Ron Paul= liberal baby

[amy31416]

I haven't raised every child who's ever existed, so I don't know if spanking is always wrong or not. But if a parent does it, they ought to understand that they're dishing out a small session of horror on the child, and that they're the ones who are associated with it, and that it **does** leave a lasting psychological impression. I had a teacher in 2nd grade that hit me and I'll never forget it. Since he was the only male teacher I had at a young age, I was terrified of male teachers--and my parents never knew why. (Oh, and he hit me because I whispered during "quiet time," not a good enough reason and I doubt I learned anything else from him.)

I do know that it would have been wrong for my brother and me if my parents had gone that route. I think it has the effect of shutting down a part of your brain and installing massive insecurity, but that's just my opinion from my experience. Maybe there is no other way with certain children.

[Hugo]

If hitting convicted prisoners is illegal, which it should be, then hitting children should be illegal.

[MelissaWV]

I'm sorry, but the quote up there seems a little off-base :p The child in the OP is two. What kind of written assignment do you suggest?

[Yieu]

Spanking is child abuse and can permanently damage children, just like any other kind of abuse.

However, government violence, such as in this case, cannot solve the problem.

+Rep, My thoughts exactly; every word of it. It can scar you for life psychologically, but that does not mean the government should get involved.

For some, spanking only stirs the fire of rebellion against tyrannical violence used to force compliance and causes one to question the legitimacy of any 'authority' that would use violence or pain compliance to achieve their ends. Want your kids to desire to rebel against you even stronger? Try spanking.

For others, it teaches them that when things don't go your way, you can just hurt someone until they comply.

Both effects are unintended, I'm sure, but that doesn't change the fact that spanking affects some people this way.

But for the government to come in and use violence to force compliance for a parent using violence to force compliance cannot solve the problem.


Spanking is a form of discipline used as a last resort, and mostly used against total defiance.

Yet, it can cause an even stronger defiance. What a paradox.


As someone who was spanked and abused by turns, I do see a difference between the two.

Spanking is not automatically abuse, in the same way that killing someone is not automatically murder; one has to examine the situation and the motivation. I have seen people grab a child's arm who was trying to run into the street. This likely left a small mark on the child (grab your arm and see; it usually leaves a pink/red mark for a moment). At that point, I suppose the parent in question might have let their child run into the street, which would have been a far sadder outcome, or grabbed the child and left a mark, risking conviction of a felony.

I see what you mean. But in your scenario of a child running into the street, some people would grab their child's arm and proceed to beat (or "spank") the child even though the addition of the beating does not benefit the child in any way and does not "teach the child a lesson" other than that they might get randomly hit by their parents at any time for reasons unknown and that their parents are to be feared (not respected, but feared, in a dangerous way). Others might just grab the child's arm and explain the dangers of running into the street. No reason to do to the kid what the car might have done even though you saved the child from the car.

I get the feeling I might get a lot of flack for this post. That tempts me to delete it. To explain myself a little better before I get angry replies, I take the non-aggression principle to heart in every aspect of life. To me, the non-aggression principle is a religious principle (ahimsa, in Sanskrit), and one of the highest of religious principles at that.

[bkreigh]

Ron Paul believes that spanking is abuse and never spanked his children.



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/us/politics/06paul.html?_

So according to Slutter McGee and others on this forum:

Ron Paul= liberal baby

Good for RP then. I disagree with him.

[Yieu]

Anti Fed.
Just put force in your words when a kid is close to a hot stove. Just say NO HOT. that worked for my boys. No need to spank them.

All their dad had to do was glare at them with his steely blue eyes and they behaved.

How I solved that problem was to direct their attention to something else. Like, " Hey look at that rock or tree or even a picture on the wall." They forget about the dangerous thing. At least my kids did. Ha!
One that reallt works is when you have company and your kid is acting up just say,I see Johnny wants attention lets all give it to me." The grown ups prceed to stare at him and he usually settles down.

This man is a genious! I've considered these ideas, and it turns out they work great.

There are creative alternatives to spanking, and there is never a situation where the only answer is to spank.

For those who would misread this post, again I will state that I do not think the government getting involved is the answer either.


But if a parent does it, they ought to understand that they're dishing out a small session of horror on the child, and that they're the ones who are associated with it, and that it **does** leave a lasting psychological impression.

I think it has the effect of shutting down a part of your brain and installing massive insecurity, but that's just my opinion from my experience.

Choice quotes. The psychological torture it can dish out tends to be neglected as if it were non-existant. To a child, who do not see a parent "teaching them a lesson," but rather see someone they are supposed to trust harming them for reasons unknown, at random, it can be like a horror film. This should not be underestimated or overlooked.

[bkreigh]

How I solved that problem was to direct their attention to something else. Like, " Hey look at that rock or tree or even a picture on the wall." They forget about the dangerous thing. At least my kids did. Ha!
One that reallt works is when you have company and your kid is acting up just say,I see Johnny wants attention lets all give it to me." The grown ups prceed to stare at him and he usually settles down.

What does that teach them? What if the tree is cut down or that rock was thrown away from the dangerous situation? Better yet what if you were not there and your kids ADHD did not kick in?

Dont get me wrong im not spanking a kid right off the bat but if nothing else is working then by all means.

[Philhelm]

For some, spanking only stirs the fire of rebellion against tyrannical violence used to force compliance and causes one to question the legitimacy of any 'authority' that would use violence or pain compliance to achieve their ends.

I'm confused. Isn't that a good thing?

[jmdrake]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcZMgYc2zbQ

Let's see, the Texas Youth Commission gets away with systematically raping child prisoners in their care (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=40775) and yet this woman was charged with a felony for spanking her child? Oh that's right. It's only abuse if the parents do it. Meanwhile with discipline taken out of the home and out of the school, more and more schools are resorting to doing this....and there's nothing parents can do about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgNjZcFcnHg

And don't give me that crap about "two wrongs don't make a right". This is being done by design! The statists want children to act out because they want to really abuse them. So they trump of fake charges of child abuse to prevent parents from being parents. It's true that spanking isn't the only way to discipline and I'm convinced that it is not the best way to discipline, but it's light years ahead of the alternative that the state has ready and waiting for these little kiddies that group up without correction at home.

[jmdrake]

Ron Paul believes that spanking is abuse and never spanked his children.

Ummm...in the quote you provided Ron Paul never said spanking is abuse. He merely said that he never spanked or yelled at his children. Well good for him. Parents have to be free to decide what works best for them. But unless you think Ron Paul would approve of making raising your voice at a child a felony, then you haven't really proven anything by your post. If Ron Paul said "I never made my children finish eating their vegetables because I thought they should be left to choose what to eat" would that be the same as Ron Paul saying making your children eat their vegetables is child abuse? If Ron Paul said "I never taught my children that there was a Santa" then does telling your kids there is a Santa = child abuse and should that be punishable by a felony?

[jmdrake]

Good for RP then. I disagree with him.

Ron Paul didn't say what Vessol claimed he did (that spanking was abuse). He merely said that he never spanked his children. Some parents never use "time out" either. That doesn't mean they believe it is abuse.

[Vessol]

Ummm...in the quote you provided Ron Paul never said spanking is abuse. He merely said that he never spanked or yelled at his children. Well good for him. Parents have to be free to decide what works best for them. But unless you think Ron Paul would approve of making raising your voice at a child a felony, then you haven't really proven anything by your post. If Ron Paul said "I never made my children finish eating their vegetables because I thought they should be left to choose what to eat" would that be the same as Ron Paul saying making your children eat their vegetables is child abuse? If Ron Paul said "I never taught my children that there was a Santa" then does telling your kids there is a Santa = child abuse and should that be punishable by a felony?

Holy mother of strawmen.

I'm sorry that I dared to question your penchant for physically assaulting children.

[bkreigh]

Ron Paul didn't say what Vessol claimed he did (that spanking was abuse). He merely said that he never spanked his children. Some parents never use "time out" either. That doesn't mean they believe it is abuse.

Maybe I should have worded my comment better, "I dont care how RP raised his children."

[Vessol]

Maybe I should have worded my comment better, "I dont care how RP raised his children."

Maybe you forgot that this is a philosophical movement more than a political movement. Our philosophy of non-aggression is what sets us apart from every other politician and political group. It is the core of Ron Paul's and the liberty movements philosophy.

Unless of course to many here who just want to beat their children because they're lazy and don't want to try using reason and logic with children.

[jmdrake]

Holy mother of strawmen.

:rolleyes: What I said was not a strawman. I'll tell you what a strawman is...



I'm sorry that I dared to question your penchant for physically assaulting children.

^That, my dear Vessol, is a strawman. A strawman argument is when you argue against something your opponent did not say. You said Ron Paul believed spanking was abuse. Your quote didn't support that assertion. Now because I've called you out on your mistake and/or falsehood, you want to shift the discussion to how I discipline. Sorry, but that's just dishonest debating tactics. Just go ahead and admit you were wrong and move on. Ron Paul never called spanking abuse. Or at least he didn't do so based on the quote you gave. And realize that we are in a campaign gunning for votes from a lot of people who still believe the biblical position of "Spare the rod, spoil the child". Promote your own positions all you want. Just please don't attribute them to Dr. Paul if the evidence doesn't back that up. In this case it doesn't. Sorry (really I am) that my pointing that out offends you.

[low preference guy]

:rolleyes: What I said was not a strawman. I'll tell you what a strawman is...



^That, my dear Vessol, is a strawman. A strawman argument is when you argue against something your opponent did not say. You said Ron Paul believed spanking was abuse. Your quote didn't support that assertion. Now because I've called you out on your mistake and/or falsehood, you want to shift the discussion to how I discipline. Sorry, but that's just dishonest debating tactics. Just go ahead and admit you were wrong and move on. Ron Paul never called spanking abuse. Or at least he didn't do so based on the quote you gave. And realize that we are in a campaign gunning for votes from a lot of people who still believe the biblical position of "Spare the rod, spoil the child". Promote your own positions all you want. Just please don't attribute them to Dr. Paul if the evidence doesn't back that up. In this case it doesn't. Sorry (really I am) that my pointing that out offends you.

lol at thermate experiments guy talking about how to attract voters. can't. stop. laughing.

[jmdrake]

Maybe you forgot that this is a philosophical movement more than a political movement. Our philosophy of non-aggression is what sets us apart from every other politician and political group. It is the core of Ron Paul's and the liberty movements philosophy.

Unless of course to many here who just want to beat their children because they're lazy and don't want to try using reason and logic with children.

And so part of the philosophy of this movement is to have the government telling parents how to raise their children? If so then screw the philosophy of this movement. Seriously. Here I was mistakenly thinking that the philosophy of the movement was about smaller government and making decisions as locally as possible. And the smallest unit of government is the family. The irony is that some here endorse logic and reason with children, and then government force for adults who don't use their version of discipline for children. The really lazy parents don't discipline their children at all. I know this from experience. I'm no fan of spanking (despite your straw man attack), but I knew a woman from the projects who would have been better off spanking her child. Her child was totally out of control to the point where I watched this child kick another adult in the butt for no apparent reason. (Both families were at our house for dinner). This dysfunctional mother did nothing. And she was sooo against spanking that she got into a fight with another parent because that other parent was spanking her own child. This mother's indolence was the worst kind of child abuse imaginable. And no, that doesn't mean that every non spanking parent is like that. But certainly enough of them are for that to be a bigger priority.

[jmdrake]

lol at thermate experiments guy talking about how to attract voters. can't. stop. laughing.

LOL at "low preference guy" who hasn't yet noticed that I never claim that Ron Paul endorses the thermate experiments. LOL @ you not knowing the difference between having a different opinion from Ron Paul on an issue and falsely claiming that Ron Paul has that same opinion. Can't stop laughing right back at you. ;)

P.S. During all of my canvasing for Ron Paul in 2007/2008 I never heard anyone say "I won't vote for Ron Paul because he believes 9/11 was an inside job or that his supporters do". By contrast I did here someone say that they wouldn't vote for Ron Paul because he believed in gay marriage (no proof that he does). The irony is that during the 2007/2008 election it was "Paulitcally" correct (in some quarters) to claim Ron Paul supported gay marriage. But everyone was united on the "Let's don't say Ron Paul thinks 9/11 was an inside job" position. While I haven't heard the "I won't vote for Paul because he supports a spanking ban" argument yet...give it time. ;)

[MelissaWV]

So reasoning with two-year-olds is the right way to do things... for every single two-year-old in every single situation.

Got it.

Good luck with that.

[fade]

So reasoning with two-year-olds is the right way to do things... for every single two-year-old in every single situation.

Got it.

Good luck with that.

Lol exactly my thoughts.. My son (16 months) was just here at my store and started grabbing things off the desk. My keyboard, my phone, my keys, etc.. I say "No" and he continues... I keep trying to get his attention and he just ignores me and keeps going...

Obviously trying to reason with him works so well..

So I said "NO" and flicked his hand when he grabbed for my keyboard. It deterred him more than trying to reason with him.

[Kylie]

So reasoning with two-year-olds is the right way to do things... for every single two-year-old in every single situation.

Got it.

Good luck with that.



Exactly. I would love to send my niece to spend a few days with any one of them. I'll bet money none of these guys could handle one day with her, let alone without spanking her. She is an emotional succubus, and will wind you up and then suck you dry. I watched her do it over and over to my sister while they were here. I was stern but fair with her in our house. There was only one time when she got spanked, and that was when she balled up her fist and punched my sister in the face. That will get your ass whooped in my house, I don't care how old you are. It's not acceptable behavior.

My poor sister can't even go to the bathroom without the kid screaming like someone is killing her on the other side of the door. It's crazy. I've never dealt with a child this behaviorally inept. I've been working with her very hard to get her communicating better, so we can start using logic and reasoning with her, but she's stubborn as a mule. Two and a half years old, doesn't want to talk, doesn't want to play with others, doesn't want to listen to you. She will throw herself on the floor at the drop of a hat and have a screaming hissy fit.

Now, would anyone like to psychoanalize how to deal non violently with a child like this? Because I see ass whoopings galore in her future as it is.

[bkreigh]

Maybe you forgot that this is a philosophical movement more than a political movement. Our philosophy of non-aggression is what sets us apart from every other politician and political group. It is the core of Ron Paul's and the liberty movements philosophy.

Unless of course to many here who just want to beat their children because they're lazy and don't want to try using reason and logic with children.

You are starting to sound like MSM.

You call it spanking aggression and i call it tough "evol". Deal with it.

[Meatwasp]

I happen to notice boy kids without fathers are the wild ones. I can always tell. Some of you guys must have bad genes to have such unruly kids

[MelissaWV]

On the flipside, I notice that parents who think no one should ever spank their own children are often kind of rude. ;)


Some of you guys must have bad genes to have such unruly kids

[Meatwasp]

On the flipside, I notice that parents who think no one should ever spank their own children are often kind of rude. ;)

You're too funny

[Meatwasp]

On the flipside, I notice that parents who think no one should ever spank their own children are often kind of rude. ;)

Mellissa I am curious. How many children did you raise?

[MelissaWV]

Only a few less than you. That leaves billions that neither of us have had experience with.

[Dr.3D]

Well, all of them are out of step but my Johnny.

[Meatwasp]

It depends on the meaning of few . doesn't it?

[specsaregood]

Spanking is so low-tech; I favor the use of shock-collars and here is why:
1. They cause no longterm physical damage.
2. They leave no marks! so you won't have any nosy busybodies turning you in later and if they do they won't have any hard proof!
3. You can find them at any decent pet supply store.
4. If you buy a luggage lock you can put them on and the kid can't take them off not matter what.
5. They are remote controlled. Watching nascar and the kid is misbehaving in the backyard? No worries, no need to put down your beer they usually have a radius around 100ft. Just keep it near your tv remote!
6. You can adjust the level of intensity, instead of having to mentally adjust your spanking strength just click the +/- negative buttons.
7. Obfuscate who did the punishment! No more mom is nice and dad is always the spanker. With 2 remotes you can convincingly hide who pushed the button at any given time. And better yet, you can easily BOTH give em a zap!
8. They worked for my parents!

[fade]

I happen to notice boy kids without fathers are the wild ones. I can always tell. Some of you guys must have bad genes to have such unruly kids

OR you just have a beta-male for a husband.

[Meatwasp]

I am a widow. He was Mensa. He never got inpatient with the boys and he never yanked tools away from them. They learned a lot of good things from him.
I know I know I am bragging but geeze they are great. Hee.

[Echoes]

I wonder how many of the no-spanking advocates here are pro-abortion. I notice this alot with liberals, they are totally Ok with killing a child in a womb but have a heart-attack if a kid gets a little shpankin'. Brilliant. Stuff like this really turns me off with the lefty libertarian types.

[specsaregood]

I wonder how many of the no-spanking advocates here are pro-abortion. I notice this alot with liberals, they are totally Ok with killing a child in a womb but have a heart-attack if a kid gets a little shpankin'. Brilliant. Stuff like this really turns me off with the lefty libertarian types.

it is the same with circumcision. you are correct the only real moral justifiable stand would be to be: pro-life, anti-circumcision and anti-spanking. thanks for bringing that up.

[R3volutionJedi]

I wish my parents spanked me more.

[Brian4Liberty]

Exactly. I would love to send my niece to spend a few days with any one of them. I'll bet money none of these guys could handle one day with her, let alone without spanking her. She is an emotional succubus, and will wind you up and then suck you dry. I watched her do it over and over to my sister while they were here. I was stern but fair with her in our house. There was only one time when she got spanked, and that was when she balled up her fist and punched my sister in the face. That will get your ass whooped in my house, I don't care how old you are. It's not acceptable behavior.

My poor sister can't even go to the bathroom without the kid screaming like someone is killing her on the other side of the door. It's crazy. I've never dealt with a child this behaviorally inept. I've been working with her very hard to get her communicating better, so we can start using logic and reasoning with her, but she's stubborn as a mule. Two and a half years old, doesn't want to talk, doesn't want to play with others, doesn't want to listen to you. She will throw herself on the floor at the drop of a hat and have a screaming hissy fit.

Now, would anyone like to psychoanalize how to deal non violently with a child like this? Because I see ass whoopings galore in her future as it is.

Not that "reality TV" is really reality, but they have those types of situations on those Nanny shows where they can usually fix those kind of problems. Come to think of it, they do it with dogs and cats too on other shows.

[Meatwasp]

I wonder how many of the no-spanking advocates here are pro-abortion. I notice this alot with liberals, they are totally Ok with killing a child in a womb but have a heart-attack if a kid gets a little shpankin'. Brilliant. Stuff like this really turns me off with the lefty libertarian types.
I am passionately against abortion.

[Brian4Liberty]

Spanking is so low-tech; I favor the use of shock-collars and here is why:
1. They cause no longterm physical damage.
2. They leave no marks! so you won't have any nosy busybodies turning you in later and if they do they won't have any hard proof!
3. You can find them at any decent pet supply store.
4. If you buy a luggage lock you can put them on and the kid can't take them off not matter what.
5. They are remote controlled. Watching nascar and the kid is misbehaving in the backyard? No worries, no need to put down your beer they usually have a radius around 100ft. Just keep it near your tv remote!
6. You can adjust the level of intensity, instead of having to mentally adjust your spanking strength just click the +/- negative buttons.
7. Obfuscate who did the punishment! No more mom is nice and dad is always the spanker. With 2 remotes you can convincingly hide who pushed the button at any given time. And better yet, you can easily BOTH give em a zap!
8. They worked for my parents!

Good ole mom and dad:

http://www.comicsbeat.com/wp-content/2007/12/2078178430_e47fda468a.jpg
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110424164522/memoryalpha/en/images/thumb/d/db/Collars_activated.jpg/180px-Collars_activated.jpg

[Meatwasp]

I am not standing by myself , since I read Ron Paul never spanked his kids.

[Deborah K]

I always gave my kids a choice: listen with your ears - or listen with your behind!

[Kylie]

Not that "reality TV" is really reality, but they have those types of situations on those Nanny shows where they can usually fix those kind of problems. Come to think of it, they do it with dogs and cats too on other shows.



Yeah, she needs to bring them up here more. One week with me and she had made improvements, but I'm actually a pretty mellow person when it comes to the kids. I train dogs and cats too(my family calls me Cesar:)) but this little girl is a handful. I've never had a child that wouldn't let their mother out of their site to even take a shit, before. And you wouldn't think that a two year old would have such a shitty attitude most of the time. She needs her mothers constant attention, and will get violent if my sister tries to spend time with her other child, my nephew. Little girl tries to beat up her brother all the time. She's just not a good little girl like you would expect a two year old to be.

I learned that when she started her hissy fitting shit, I would calmly walk over and pick her up and hold her at eye level with me and tell her to calm down. That worked most of the time, but only for me....it didn't work with my sister doing it. But my sister is so emotionally drained from two years with this kid that she is at her breaking point at any given time. Her husband is military, so she is left with dealing with the kids 24/7 sometimes. And when he is home, he is just as hissy fitted as his daughter, so my sister gets no reprieve from the draining. They should be coming back up in a couple of weeks, any ideas?



I told my sister to start smoking weed. May not help the kid, but it will sure help her nerves! :D

[Dr.3D]

I always gave my kids a choice: listen with your ears - or listen with your behind!

That's sort of what my parents did. When we were at the store and I was pointing at something I wanted and started crying because they told me I couldn't have it, my dad would say, "Stop crying or I will give you something to cry about." That worked for me. I only called his bluff once.

[osan]

It runs against my religion not the discipline my children. I'm calling foul on them for attempting to prohibit me from practicing my religion.
Proverbs 22:15
Proverbs 23:13
Proverbs 29:15

Oy. This line of reasoning is hopelessly flawed. If my religion decrees killing my first born, is it a violation of my religious rights to be stopped from fulfilling that mandate?

[specsaregood]

I'd like to share what I think is a relevent excerpt from a book I've been reading:



One of the most useful moral development frameworks for parents is Lawrence Kohlberg's six-stage model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development).
Fear of punishment is the first stage, followed by hope for reward. Children younger than age 2 are rarely able to apply moral reasoning beyond these incentives.

Most children soon move into the third stage: seeking social approval and avoiding disapproval, especially from their parents. That's why the typical kindergartener is so devastated when Mom's upset about something he did.

[ed: the rest is less relevent to this discussion but I'm gonna finish up the quote anyways]

The fourth stage is recognition of the value of laws or rules. The tattling second grader and the finger pointing fourth grader are deep in the stage where rules are followed because they are rules. Many adults never get past this level to stage five, the "social contract" level, in which laws or rules are still seen as desirable, but it is understood that they have been created by consensus, and that they may change as the consensus changes.

The sixth level of moral development is reached when a person thinks in terms of universal ethical principles -- that is, ethical principles that transcend a single social or cultural framework -- and is sometimes even willing to defend such principles at the risk of punishment, disapproval, or even death.
From: Raising Freethinkers pg. 36

[Brian4Liberty]

They should be coming back up in a couple of weeks, any ideas?


Make her watch a bunch of episodes of those Nanny shows! ;)

Usually it's about being consistent and being calm. Too often parents send mixed signals. Children are rewarded for their bad behavior by getting attention when they throw the tantrum. Sometimes that is the only way a child can get attention. Other times, "bad" behavior is rewarded by adults laughing and thinking it's funny. Consistent, predictable reward and punishment is key. Training animals is good practice! :D

[fade]

I took a class back in college called "Applied Behavioral Science." It was essentially about positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, extinction, punishment, etc.. It used a lot of training of animals and then of using the methods on autistic children as well. If only I paid more attention in the class, it would be quite useful now.

[Kylie]

Make her watch a bunch of episodes of those Nanny shows! ;)

Usually it's about being consistent and being calm. Too often parents send mixed signals. Children are rewarded for their bad behavior by getting attention when they throw the tantrum. Sometimes that is the only way a child can get attention. Other times, "bad" behavior is rewarded by adults laughing and thinking it's funny. Consistent, predictable reward and punishment is key. Training animals is good practice! :D




I got on my sister about this. I actually made her cry when I told her that I could see how she was mean to her kids(she was really trying to play with them, but she went to the make them cry stage...on purpose) and that was just perpetuating the situation. Not only does my sister send mixed singles, but her husband is not there sometimes, and when he is he is the good guy. Override mom, we gonna have fun type of guy. It undermines her authority, and she really doesn't seem to have the coping skills to put her frustration in a box and then deal with the children. But I can't say I blame her. After all, I've dealt with her daughter. And my sister has some serious issues that she is still dealing with from childhood. It's actually a totally fucked up mess as to how she became my sister(she is adopted), and for her, it was all bad.

[Humanae Libertas]

Government keeping us safe!

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/8711/policestatep.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/194/policestatep.jpg/)

[Yieu]

For some, spanking only stirs the fire of rebellion against tyrannical violence used to force compliance and causes one to question the legitimacy of any 'authority' that would use violence or pain compliance to achieve their ends.

I'm confused. Isn't that a good thing?

Not if you're the parent, and spanking is making your child question your authority, which is likely not the desired effect. And it's not worth psychological torture even if that is a desired effect. The sentences directly after what you quoted is relevant. ;)


Want your kids to desire to rebel against you even stronger? Try spanking.

Also,


So reasoning with two-year-olds is the right way to do things... for every single two-year-old in every single situation.

Got it.

Good luck with that.

I don't think the best meaning in this instance of "use logic and reasoning" is to "use reasoning with two year olds". I think a better application of the phrase is to use logic and reasoning in your own head to think of alternatives to spanking/harming to use on the child. User Meatwasp provided some really good examples that work, but some shrugged the examples off without thinking about their effectiveness.

If you want your kids to have a deep psychological fear of you in the same way someone would fear an oppressive government, use pain compliance. If you want them to respect you instead, there are other methods to think up. I never learned anything positive from pain compliance -- only that I desired to resist the person applying it even more.


I wonder how many of the no-spanking advocates here are pro-abortion. I notice this alot with liberals, they are totally Ok with killing a child in a womb but have a heart-attack if a kid gets a little shpankin'. Brilliant. Stuff like this really turns me off with the lefty libertarian types.

it is the same with circumcision. you are correct the only real moral justifiable stand would be to be: pro-life, anti-circumcision and anti-spanking. thanks for bringing that up.

I am pro-life, anti-routine infant circumcision, and against spanking. To be consistent in holding any of these positions, to me, means holding all three, as they are all based in the religious principle of non-aggression (ahimsa). It's also important to note that I don't think the government getting involved is the best answer in any of these situations, although my positions are a bit more nuanced than that. For example, a parent has no right to give consent on behalf of the individual to have their foreskin removed (only the individual can rightfully make that decision), and to do so would be a violation of the individual's rights. I don't wish to force my views on anyone either, but I know the difference between parental rights and individual rights. Parents do not have a right to circumcise their child, but they do have the right to spank, even if I disagree with spanking, and even if I believe it harms the child more than it could possibly help.

[fade]

Yieu - Do you have any children?

[nicoleeann]

some children need to be spanked at times, and some children don't ever. just like some dogs need harsher discipline than others. a terrier will need a swat now and then and more intimidation by the owner than lets say a sheltie. boys need harsher discipline than girls. and most children respond better to being disciplined by their father rather than their mother, especially boys. it is difficult for a single mother to raise a boy. i believe that a spanking should never leave a permanent scar and rarely even a bruise. it should be momentary pain and they shouldn't have to physically heal from it. that is why the butt is best. the spanking shouldn't be felt after the punishment (bruising)
i personally was mostly spanked by my mother. She did it i believe in an innapropriate manner. i got them for fairly innocuous reasons and they were too harsh. she rather seemed to use it to let out her anger. even though this happened i still believe in spanking in the right manner. they should never give them when too young or too old (which i believe is no older than 8 years old.) the father should always give it instead of the mother (at least when they are school age). i believe that a mother spanking her son is emmasculating. the parent should always be sure to have his emotions in check and has thought about the punishment properly before doing it. You should try simpler punishments in the past before the spanking is needed. if used correctly a child should only need a spanking around 6 times a year or less.

[Vessol]

I'm glad that there are so many people here who love to physically assault children and have to rationalize it and try to make excuses for it. I'm glad that there are people here that somehow equate raising a child, like raising a fucking dog.

Imagine if I was at the mall with my senile grandfather and he whined or did something improper. Now imagine, to punish him, I threw him on my lap and started smacking him. People would freak the fuck out.

Yet if it was a 3 year old kid? No one would blink an eye. That's culturally accepted violence.

I think anyone who uses violence against their children, including spanking, are pathetic excuses of human beings. How low can you go by physically assaulting someone whom has no way to defend themselves? Then you have to make bullshit excuses of it being discipline.

[MelissaWV]

Again, it's also refreshing that you know precisely what works with every child at every time.

I don't think anyone here is talking about bending a child over their knee and smacking them if they whine; that's your own invention.

I do think that many people have pointed out that a two-year-old is not particularly that rational, and that there are situations where one might need to swat them on the bottom, not leaving a long-lasting mark (or usually any mark at all). That line you're talking about continues to move, if you think about it. I am sure (from your posts in this thread) that you are also against a parent raising their voice, yet it's instinct when something awful is going on. I can't think of a single parent who would, in a monotone, go "Oh my gosh. Look. Little Jamie has gone and broken her arm, maybe. It seems that Jacob has cracked his skull open. No, children; you should not have been running around like that. Mommy is going to dial 9-1-1. There there there."

If someone's kid was just whining, and the parent started smacking them, I would hope that some people would freak the fuck out, yeah. I would also wonder why you had your senile grandfather at the mall, considering he's likely to become disoriented, confused, and possibly worsen with all the stress and sensory overload. There's more to abuse than a swat on the behind.

[Meatwasp]

I'm glad that there are so many people here who love to physically assault children and have to rationalize it and try to make excuses for it. I'm glad that there are people here that somehow equate raising a child, like raising a fucking dog.

Imagine if I was at the mall with my senile grandfather and he whined or did something improper. Now imagine, to punish him, I threw him on my lap and started smacking him. People would freak the fuck out.

Yet if it was a 3 year old kid? No one would blink an eye. That's culturally accepted violence.

I think anyone who uses violence against their children, including spanking, are pathetic excuses of human beings. How low can you go by physically assaulting someone whom has no way to defend themselves? Then you have to make bullshit excuses of it being discipline.

Thank you vessol

[Meatwasp]

Mellisa for someone who never had children or loved them you make me feel like you are a knowing professor. Please!!!.,

[MelissaWV]

For someone who hasn't raised the billions of children that aren't your own (or finished raising yours), you seem likewise.

The difference is that I'm not telling you *to* swat your kids on the butt when they misbehave. I don't know yours. You guys are the ones determining what's best for the children of others. Luckily, the State's on your side :D

And this "or loved them" crap is stupid ad hom nonsense. I suppose you are vastly inferior on this front to Bachmann, who continues to talk about her dozens of children. If she told you about child rearing, I would guess you would listen about that, given her vastly superior experience on the subject.

I will take it to heart, though; you can't talk about a subject unless you have had firsthand experience with it. This should include, then, 9/11 (most of the forums were not there in person), Presidential elections (most of the forums have never run, and only a teeny portion were even delegates), rape, murder, any kind of gossip and discussion of the personal lives of others (even our opponents... hell maybe ESPECIALLY our opponents), God (none of us seems to know for certain, so that is obviously off-limits), death (to my knowledge no one here has been dead and come back), fundraising (unless you've donated, of course, during that fundraiser), drugs (some of us don't indulge; this obviously means we cannot have an opinion as to whether or not they should be legal)...

That list could continue on and on, but it seems ridiculous to me. Likewise, assuming that because someone didn't actually birth a child they have never had to help raise one, they have never loved one, and they have zero experience with children... it's an argument of last resort to make.

If anything, the adult that only has experience with their own children might project that onto other relationships. Your children responded well to distractions and reasoning. Others do not. For this, you've decided to needle at me with the "well you don't have kids so your opinion doesn't count" type of argument.

I haven't called either of you "pathetic" or said something rude related to your fertility and family planning. It's you and Vessol that resorted to that.

Kind of abusive, if you think about it.

[Yieu]

Yieu - Do you have any children?

I find it funny that this is always asked, as if people who do not have children have no credibility to speak.

I am speaking from my experience of having been a child, as well as my wife's experience of having been a child. That is experience that taught me a lot, and it does mean something. In fact, how the child views it probably has a bit more relevance, because someone could have a kid and still not learn the things I wrote about. So, I am speaking from experience that definitely does matter.

[fade]

I find it funny that this is always asked, as if people who do not have children have no credibility to speak.

I am speaking from my experience of having been a child, as well as my wife's experience of having been a child. That is experience that taught me a lot, and it does mean something. In fact, how the child views it probably has a bit more relevance, because someone could have a kid and still not learn the things I wrote about.

No, it actually means nothing. Until you actually have to discipline your own child you really cannot say what will or won't work with *your own child*. That is like watching a football game and criticizing everything the quarterback does.. Until you get out there and do it, you realistically couldn't tell him how to do his job.

[madfoot]

No, it actually means nothing. Until you actually have to discipline your own child you really cannot say what will or won't work with *your own child*. That is like watching a football game and criticizing everything the quarterback does.. Until you get out there and do it, you realistically couldn't tell him how to do his job.

So can we not criticize the president because most of us aren't public policy experts?

[Yieu]

No, it actually means nothing. Until you actually have to discipline your own child you really cannot say what will or won't work with *your own child*. That is like watching a football game and criticizing everything the quarterback does.. Until you get out there and do it, you realistically couldn't tell him how to do his job.

So in other words, everything I said went over your head. What I said may mean nothing to you, but that does not mean it means nothing. I am speaking from experience which matters. The experience of having been a kid has taught me more than being a parent ever would. So for you to just write it off because I haven't had kids yet is just willful ignorance -- but that's your choice, which you are free to make. It does not make sense to just ignore the valid psychological effects that I explained merely because I haven't had a kid... uh... I experienced this myself, so what I am saying is credible. You just wanted an excuse to let it go over your head because you disagreed with it.


So can we not criticize the president because most of us aren't public policy experts?

Yep, if you haven't been president yet you have no credibility to speak on presidential matters!! So we might as well just shut up and do as the "authorities" say.

The whole "have you had kids yet?" argument has no basis and is just a cheap attack so as to feel fine with letting words go over one's head.

[specsaregood]

//

[nicoleeann]

If we don't tolerate spankings why tolerate taking away a childs own toys as a punishment-wouldnt that be stealing? Or making a child do chores for punishment could be considered slavery. If i forced an adult to stay in there room on time-out that would be illegal-why is it alright to make a child do it?
Parents should be allowed to treat there kids in a different manner than they treat another adult. There is of course a line that when crossed is considered abuse.

[MelissaWV]

So yeah... if you'll notice, Yieu, we were asked about having kids (since if you haven't contributed DNA to one you are not considered worthy of this conversation)... but Vessol, who agrees with the folks asking whether we have kids, has not been asked.

If Vessol doesn't have kids, will you ridiculous his didactic tone as well, folks?


... I won't hold my breath on that one.

[Cutlerzzz]

I am pro-life, anti-routine infant circumcision, and against spanking. To be consistent in holding any of these positions, to me, means holding all three, as they are all based in the religious principle of non-aggression (ahimsa). It's also important to note that I don't think the government getting involved is the best answer in any of these situations, although my positions are a bit more nuanced than that. For example, a parent has no right to give consent on behalf of the individual to have their foreskin removed (only the individual can rightfully make that decision), and to do so would be a violation of the individual's rights. I don't wish to force my views on anyone either, but I know the difference between parental rights and individual rights. Parents do not have a right to circumcise their child, but they do have the right to spank, even if I disagree with spanking, and even if I believe it harms the child more than it could possibly help.

Are you claiming that babies need to make medical decisions for themselves?

[fade]

So can we not criticize the president because most of us aren't public policy experts?

Is public policy a split second decision based on a reaction from one person to another? Not the same type of scenario.


So in other words, everything I said went over your head. What I said may mean nothing to you, but that does not mean it means nothing. I am speaking from experience which matters. The experience of having been a kid has taught me more than being a parent ever would. So for you to just write it off because I haven't had kids yet is just willful ignorance -- but that's your choice, which you are free to make. It does not make sense to just ignore the valid psychological effects that I explained merely because I haven't had a kid... uh... I experienced this myself, so what I am saying is credible. You just wanted an excuse to let it go over your head because you disagreed with it.



Yep, if you haven't been president yet you have no credibility to speak on presidential matters!! So we might as well just shut up and do as the "authorities" say.

The whole "have you had kids yet?" argument has no basis and is just a cheap attack so as to feel fine with letting words go over one's head.

OK so based off of your own experiences, you have 1/2 of the experience.. Being in the situation. You do not have the experience that your parents had with you, being the other half of the experience. Once you are on the other side and can actually see the situation from a parents perspective, you may have a different opinion of things.


I learned about discipline from my parents in how they treated me AND even more so from having to help discipline much younger siblings and family friends. No one goes into parenting with a completely fresh start you take into it what you learned from previous experiences.

See above.

[Yieu]

Are you claiming that babies need to make medical decisions for themselves?

I'm claiming that the individual must make decisions for themselves if they involve the removal of tissue he very well may want to keep. My parents had no right to steal that valuable tissue from me, which I would have loved to have kept, but they violated my right to my body by stealing it from me. There is an age at which the child can give consent for such things, and that is the age he can rightfully make that decision.

[nicoleeann]

it is up to the parent to make most medical decisions for the child. I really don't believe that cutting off a perfectly natural and healthy body part is a decision that the parents have a right to make though. That foreskin certainly isn't threatening the babies life. circumsision should be for 18 and olders only.

[Yieu]

OK so based off of your own experiences, you have 1/2 of the experience.. Being in the situation. You do not have the experience that your parents had with you, being the other half of the experience. Once you are on the other side and can actually see the situation from a parents perspective, you may have a different opinion of things.

Seeing as how I am not going to spank, I don't think I will get the perspective of a spanking parent once I have children (which is the perspective my parents had).

So, your claim has no basis, and my words do have credibility. If you ignore my words, then you are ignoring the psychological factors that the child might go through from it -- which is an experience that being the spanking parent can never give you. So, my words of experience will never be learned by you, even though they provide a valuable and factual analysis of some of the effects it can have on the developing psyche. That's not my problem, though.

[Yieu]

it is up to the parent to make most medical decisions for the child. I really don't believe that cutting off a perfectly natural and healthy body part is a decision that the parents have a right to make though. That foreskin certainly isn't threatening the babies life. circumsision should be for 18 and olders only.

Thank you! +rep! :D!

[Cutlerzzz]

I'm claiming that the individual must make decisions for themselves if they involve the removal of tissue he very well may want to keep. My parents had no right to steal that valuable tissue from me, which I would have loved to have kept, but they violated my right to my body by stealing it from me. There is an age at which the child can give consent for such things, and that is the age he can rightfully make that decision.

So babies have to give their consent to any medication, surgery, or medical procedures? Or just getting skin cut off their penis(I've seen enough porn to be glad my parents made that decision for me)?

[Meatwasp]

I had my say . I am out of here. What's the use?

[Yieu]

So babies have to give their consent to any medication, surgery, or medical procedures? Or just getting skin cut off their penis(I've seen enough porn to be glad my parents made that decision for me)?

Not babies -- the individual. If there is a medically necessary surgery the parents have full rights to give consent on behalf of the child. But for cutting off healthy, functioning, and important skin such as the foreskin? No -- only the individual, at the age of consent, can rightfully and justly give that authorization. If you want it done, then get it done when you are old enough to consent to it. But no parent has the right to just start cutting at their child at their whim like that. If it is acceptable for the parents to give consent for that, then the same logic can be used for the parents to cut off any healthy functioning part of the child's body -- the logic does not follow to allow parents to give that consent, and it violates the individual's rights to his life and body to not be allowed to make that decision when he is old enough to fully understand it.

[nicoleeann]

cutting off a penis part is like giving your girl a nose job. that's her decision to make as an adult. i don't believe we would be born with something if it was meant to be cut off like that. if the foreskin was causing the child pain and it was deemed the best choice well then sure. i've read a lot of interesting stories about men who have had the procedure when adults and almost always regretted it.

[Yieu]

I had my say . I am out of here. What's the use?

Good point... at this point, what we meant to say was said. I thank you greatly for your contribution, what you said could really open up some eyes, for those who are willing to open their mind to alternatives. You've inspired me by your posts in this thread, and given me some tools to use when I have children. I am glad you left your valuable advice here.

[specsaregood]

//

[Yieu]

cutting off a penis part is like giving your girl a nose job. that's her decision to make as an adult. i don't believe we would be born with something if it was meant to be cut off like that. if the foreskin was causing the child pain and it was deemed the best choice well then sure. i've read a lot of interesting stories about men who have had the procedure when adults and almost always regretted it.

Yep, I agree with everything you've said on the topic. God would not have made us with a foreskin if he didn't want us to have it. It is a part of the natural, God-designed human body, and barring some rare and strange disease, it belongs there.

[fade]

As I mentioned there are other roles that can give you similar experience. For me it was being a major caretaker for younger siblings. Another might be somebody working a a teacher, nanny or babysitter. To rule out the opinions of others based solely on whether they are a parent is a very limited view.

fwiw: I am a parent.

I can agree with this. Any time you're in a disciplinarian role you are shaping how you will act as a parent.

[fade]

Yep, I agree with everything you've said on the topic. God would not have made us with a foreskin if he didn't want us to have it. It is a part of the natural, God-designed human body, and barring some rare and strange disease, it belongs there.

Why do we have wisdom teeth then?

[Yieu]

To rule out the opinions of others based solely on whether they are a parent is a very limited view.

Yeah... if someone says something you disagree with, to dismiss it based solely on whether they are a parent is really depriving yourself of the knowledge they are trying to share, and is a cheap trick to ignore someone's very real experiences.

[Yieu]

Why do we have wisdom teeth then?

Wisdom teeth is a completely different subject, and 100% not comparable to the foreskin. Wisdom teeth are for the most part not used much anymore -- the foreskin still has very much use to it, being the part of the organ where most pleasure would be felt. So, to compare the most pleasurable part of the body to crooked teeth... is not comparable at all.

[fade]

Wisdom teeth is a completely different subject, and 100% not comparable to the foreskin. Wisdom teeth are for the most part not used much anymore -- the foreskin still has very much use to it, being the part of the organ where most pleasure would be felt. So, to compare the most pleasurable part of the body to crooked teeth... is not comparable at all.

God gave me wisdom teeth for a reason, right? Why are they not used anymore if God gave them to me? Surely there was a reason behind them.

[Yieu]

God gave me wisdom teeth for a reason, right? Why are they not used anymore if God gave them to me? Surely there was a reason behind them.

I'm starting to get the feeling that you're not going to try to understand a word I say and instead argue against anything I say without taking what I say into account.

Removing wisdom teeth (which is usually done around the age of consent, by the way) has nothing to do with removing the most sensitive part of your body. But are you going to think about what that means or keep arguing past me without taking what I say into account?

[fade]

I'm starting to get the feeling that you're not going to try to understand a word I say and instead argue against anything I say without taking what I say into account.

Removing wisdom teeth (which is usually done around the age of consent, by the way) has nothing to do with removing the most sensitive part of your body.

LOL I was only arguing the fact that you said God put it there for a reason. I tend to agree with you on the foreskin, but not completely.. yet.

[MelissaWV]

God gave me wisdom teeth for a reason, right? Why are they not used anymore if God gave them to me? Surely there was a reason behind them.

Or male nipples, of course :p

But your example does hold a lot of weight. Wisdom teeth aren't just yanked out, in fact. I still have mine and they do not bother me. It would appear I'm going to have enough room for them. Wouldn't it be silly for me to go in, have a pretty painful procedure done, and extract those teeth? If I did so, I might be thinking I was doing something good for my health, but it wouldn't be true.

Likewise, a lot of people were duped into thinking circumcision was to combat uncleanliness, and that their sons would benefit from it. It did not matter that the medical procedure in question was not fixing an existing problem. So even though we have a variety of body parts we don't/hardly use, it would still be good policy to leave your child's parts alone unless you believe it to be of dire medical import (a decision arrived with a trust doctor's advice, I hope) to remove something.

(I should not have commented, though, being female and having no experience on this issue of male circumcision...)

[Yieu]

LOL I was only arguing the fact that you said God put it there for a reason. I tend to agree with you on the foreskin, but not completely.. yet.

Ah, I see. Well, being a religious individual, I like to make religious-based arguments. :)

[fade]

Or male nipples, of course :p

But your example does hold a lot of weight. Wisdom teeth aren't just yanked out, in fact. I still have mine and they do not bother me. It would appear I'm going to have enough room for them. Wouldn't it be silly for me to go in, have a pretty painful procedure done, and extract those teeth? If I did so, I might be thinking I was doing something good for my health, but it wouldn't be true.

Likewise, a lot of people were duped into thinking circumcision was to combat uncleanliness, and that their sons would benefit from it. It did not matter that the medical procedure in question was not fixing an existing problem. So even though we have a variety of body parts we don't/hardly use, it would still be good policy to leave your child's parts alone unless you believe it to be of dire medical import (a decision arrived with a trust doctor's advice, I hope) to remove something.

(I should not have commented, though, being female and having no experience on this issue of male circumcision...)

When I had my son circumcised, I did it simply because that is the norm. To be honest I really didn't know much of a difference as to why they did it.. Just that it looked weird when it wasn't done.

Going back in time, I would probably do more research.

[Yieu]

Or male nipples, of course :p

But your example does hold a lot of weight. Wisdom teeth aren't just yanked out, in fact. I still have mine and they do not bother me. It would appear I'm going to have enough room for them. Wouldn't it be silly for me to go in, have a pretty painful procedure done, and extract those teeth? If I did so, I might be thinking I was doing something good for my health, but it wouldn't be true.

Likewise, a lot of people were duped into thinking circumcision was to combat uncleanliness, and that their sons would benefit from it. It did not matter that the medical procedure in question was not fixing an existing problem. So even though we have a variety of body parts we don't/hardly use, it would still be good policy to leave your child's parts alone unless you believe it to be of dire medical import (a decision arrived with a trust doctor's advice, I hope) to remove something.

(I should not have commented, though, being female and having no experience on this issue of male circumcision...)

I always enjoy seeing a female's anti-circ opinion, it can help the pro-cut-your-kids-genitals-off crowd see that it's not only males making the argument. Gave you a rep for it, because it was well-stated. :)

[Vessol]

Again, it's also refreshing that you know precisely what works with every child at every time.

I don't think anyone here is talking about bending a child over their knee and smacking them if they whine; that's your own invention.

I do think that many people have pointed out that a two-year-old is not particularly that rational, and that there are situations where one might need to swat them on the bottom, not leaving a long-lasting mark (or usually any mark at all). That line you're talking about continues to move, if you think about it. I am sure (from your posts in this thread) that you are also against a parent raising their voice, yet it's instinct when something awful is going on. I can't think of a single parent who would, in a monotone, go "Oh my gosh. Look. Little Jamie has gone and broken her arm, maybe. It seems that Jacob has cracked his skull open. No, children; you should not have been running around like that. Mommy is going to dial 9-1-1. There there there."

If someone's kid was just whining, and the parent started smacking them, I would hope that some people would freak the fuck out, yeah. I would also wonder why you had your senile grandfather at the mall, considering he's likely to become disoriented, confused, and possibly worsen with all the stress and sensory overload. There's more to abuse than a swat on the behind.

Most people here are talking about using violence as a means of punishment. I have said nothing against raising a voice in warning or grabbing a child to pull them out of the way. I was talking about initiating force.

I apologize for the harshness of my statement, but it is my true thoughts and feelings. So I guess that's not really an apology, eh? I guess I could have toned it down, but I was pretty fired up about someone saying that you need to raise a child like a goddamned dog.

I don't know what the best way to raise a child is, but I do know that using violence on children in punishment is immoral and will not work.

[specsaregood]

Most people here are talking about using violence as a means of punishment. I have said nothing against raising a voice in warning or grabbing a child to pull them out of the way. I was talking about initiating force.

I apologize for the harshness of my statement, but it is my true thoughts and feelings. So I guess that's not really an apology, eh? I guess I could have toned it down, but I was pretty fired up about someone saying that you need to raise a child like a goddamned dog.

I don't know what the best way to raise a child is, but I do know that using violence on children in punishment is immoral and will not work.

I have no real problem with a quick, corrective spank/swat. I think the problem is when emotions get involved, when it is done out of anger or frustration. I think this is how it can be related to "raise a child like a goddamned dog." When it is used as a method of training rather than for punishment and retribution.

[jmdrake]

You're entitled to your opinion about what is immoral and what "will not work". You're just not entitled to force that opinion on others. ;) Again this thread isn't about what is or is not the best way to raise children. It's about whether the government should be able to put someone in prison for spanking her child. I emphatically say no. In the name of protecting children from violence the anti-spanking crowd (maybe not you, but in general) is inviting real violence against parents and children. Again:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgNjZcFcnHg

And before you or anyone else gives a "two wrongs don't make a right" quip, this is the natural result of government involvement in child discipline decisions. Government took away options from teachers and now police come into schools and abuse students. If government takes away discipline options from parents then government will go into homes (more often than they already do) and abuse children. Recognizing this doesn't mean someone wants violence against children or even thinks spanking is the best way to go.


Most people here are talking about using violence as a means of punishment. I have said nothing against raising a voice in warning or grabbing a child to pull them out of the way. I was talking about initiating force.

I apologize for the harshness of my statement, but it is my true thoughts and feelings. So I guess that's not really an apology, eh? I guess I could have toned it down, but I was pretty fired up about someone saying that you need to raise a child like a goddamned dog.

I don't know what the best way to raise a child is, but I do know that using violence on children in punishment is immoral and will not work.

[brushfire]

Bad things happen in this world - I dont believe we need government to "save" us from all evil.

I believe that nearly all parents have an instinct to be loving to their children. Spankings are not abuse, IMO, and can be carried out in a constructive manner. That said, there are some, as with anything, that probably go too far.

I have read some comments that suggest the government should control how we raise our children, and that the least common denominator should dictate methods of parenting. This is the same short sighted thinking that we see with the 2nd amendment and the so called "gun rights". Because society yields a small percentage of whack-jobs, nobody should be able to do xyz... That might apply to government, but I dont believe it should apply to the governed.

So to remark directly to the topic - is this child better off living life without its mother? Will this incident stop one's like this from happening in the future? Probably not:
h xx p://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-06-20/news/29704439_1_cops-fatal-blows-murder

Also, an interesting article on a study about spanking (not so much neglect/sensory deprivation/timeouts ):
hxx p://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,581882,00.html
---please forgive me for the source...

[Kylie]

The lowest common denominator has worked so great for teaching children in government ran schools, wouldn't it be the natural next-step to move that lowest denom. thinking into the homes?

:rolleyes: