Author Topic: No Spanking Laws  (Read 11723 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

TheoK

  • Guest
Re: No Spanking Laws
« Reply #240 on: May 08, 2013, 04:48:59 PM »
I think that is correct.

Offline Al Swearegen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 18721
  • Karma: 2240
  • Always front on and in your face
Re: No Spanking Laws
« Reply #241 on: May 08, 2013, 10:34:31 PM »
Yes and the obvious flaw. Does smacking a childs backside for being naughty have the slightest correlation to child being beaten to deat?

You are missing the point. They aren't talking about that kid being beaten to death, they are talking about indirectly preventing violent crimes later in life.

Replying to my own reply, here, but... I am talking about the overall statistics. The changed laws and their effects were big news, once, but the real benefit as advocated had less to do with the number of kids surviving childhood and more with the number of violent crimes later on. Lit, correct me if I remember this wrong.

I dunno whether there is a causal relationship with this either. Are we saying that parents who smack their children if they are naughty also teach bad values and so forth to children or conversely that the parents who don't smack their children teach their kids good values?
One does not seem in my mind to lend the other.
I2 today is not i2 of yesteryear. It is a knitting circle. Those that participate be they nice or asshats know their place and the price to be there. Odeon is the overlord

.Benevolent if you toe the line.

Think it is I2 of old? Even Odeon is not so delusional as to think otherwise. He may on occasionally pretend otherwise but his base is that knitting circle.

Censoring/banning/restricting/moderating myself, Calanadale & Scrapheap were all not his finest moments.

How to apologise to Scrap

TheoK

  • Guest
Re: No Spanking Laws
« Reply #242 on: May 09, 2013, 01:11:43 AM »
He means that if children are beaten they will be more prone to use violence themselves.

Offline bodie

  • Reflective Katoptronaphiliac of the Aspie Elite
  • News Box Slave
  • Maniacal Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 14394
  • Karma: 2113
  • Gender: Female
  • busy re arranging deck chairs on board the Titanic
Re: No Spanking Laws
« Reply #243 on: May 09, 2013, 01:26:13 AM »
Less tolerated violence leads to less violence in general.
blah blah blah

TheoK

  • Guest
Re: No Spanking Laws
« Reply #244 on: May 09, 2013, 01:27:56 AM »
I also think so.

Offline Al Swearegen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 18721
  • Karma: 2240
  • Always front on and in your face
Re: No Spanking Laws
« Reply #245 on: May 09, 2013, 03:05:54 AM »
Sure.
So of those statistical figures how many were beaten and how many were smacked on the bottom, solely, and as punishment? No division? Then the figures do not really lend much to the spanking debate do they?
They are as relevant as lumping all those people having sex in with rapists because they too have sex and trying to make figures statistics based around those that do not and will not rape. It is probably not even worth defending imho.
I2 today is not i2 of yesteryear. It is a knitting circle. Those that participate be they nice or asshats know their place and the price to be there. Odeon is the overlord

.Benevolent if you toe the line.

Think it is I2 of old? Even Odeon is not so delusional as to think otherwise. He may on occasionally pretend otherwise but his base is that knitting circle.

Censoring/banning/restricting/moderating myself, Calanadale & Scrapheap were all not his finest moments.

How to apologise to Scrap

Offline odeon

  • Witchlet of the Aspie Elite
  • Webmaster
  • Postwhore Beyond Repair
  • *****
  • Posts: 108879
  • Karma: 4482
  • Gender: Male
  • Replacement Despot
Re: No Spanking Laws
« Reply #246 on: May 09, 2013, 04:03:36 AM »
But that's exactly why they are relevant. Their argument is that spanking, including smacking on the bottom, is a problem, and their statistics show that the actions taken to remove that problem are effective.

They are also, in effect, saying that they'd rather protect kids from severe beatings than argue the semantics. Not all of the kids in the statistics are being beaten (they are only "smacked") but by banning it all instead of getting caught in an argument about what is considered spanking, they do ascertain that there is no grey zone and thus will be able to protect the kids.

Me, I think it's a good thing to give the kids the same rights as the grown-ups.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

- Albert Einstein

Offline bodie

  • Reflective Katoptronaphiliac of the Aspie Elite
  • News Box Slave
  • Maniacal Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 14394
  • Karma: 2113
  • Gender: Female
  • busy re arranging deck chairs on board the Titanic
Re: No Spanking Laws
« Reply #247 on: May 09, 2013, 06:11:55 AM »
Children are the last members of society to be granted the human rights we enjoy as adults.


Striking a child with an open hand is still a violent act.  Granted it can be done with minimum force but the idea  to cause pain is still there.

When kids do it to each other it is called bullying.  When adults do it then it's called assault.

There is also the humiliation associated with it.  Probably not an issue for some, but i'm sure plenty of kids get smacked in front of their siblings which is a double whammy - pain and humiliation.
blah blah blah

Offline Al Swearegen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 18721
  • Karma: 2240
  • Always front on and in your face
Re: No Spanking Laws
« Reply #248 on: May 09, 2013, 07:00:16 AM »
But that's exactly why they are relevant. Their argument is that spanking, including smacking on the bottom, is a problem, and their statistics show that the actions taken to remove that problem are effective.

They are also, in effect, saying that they'd rather protect kids from severe beatings than argue the semantics. Not all of the kids in the statistics are being beaten (they are only "smacked") but by banning it all instead of getting caught in an argument about what is considered spanking, they do ascertain that there is no grey zone and thus will be able to protect the kids.

Me, I think it's a good thing to give the kids the same rights as the grown-ups.

I could possibly make a similar argument for sexual abstinence saying that sexual gratification leads to rape. Some people seeking sexual gratification will be rapists and rape is a form of sexual gratification, therefore let's not argue the semantics of rape being an assault rather than a sexual act nor the intent nor the type of sexual gratification. Call sexual gratification on everything and be done with it.

I think that type of argument doesn't deserve a serious defense. I think if anyone were to commission a statistician and drive this kind of ideology....then they could possibly make some kind of a case for dropping any form of sexual gratification and pointing to non-rapists in the larger group of people who do indulge in sexual gratification, as tarred with the same brush as rapists who do.


Children are the last members of society to be granted the human rights we enjoy as adults.


Striking a child with an open hand is still a violent act.  Granted it can be done with minimum force but the idea  to cause pain is still there.

When kids do it to each other it is called bullying.  When adults do it then it's called assault.

There is also the humiliation associated with it.  Probably not an issue for some, but i'm sure plenty of kids get smacked in front of their siblings which is a double whammy - pain and humiliation.

I see things differently. I see you lumping in again, and hey that is OK Bodie, you don't have to believe what I believe. You want to believe that Smacking a bottom is a violent act and its idea is to cause pain and humiliate then you are wrong. That is ok. You do not have to be right.

I could say similar that a man smacking a lady's bottom is violent (especially with an open hand) the idea is to cause pain and further it is equivalent to slapping the face (which also uses an open hand) and is a mere hop step and a jump to beating a spouse to death.....

Except of course for a minor point that I have it completely wrong.

If I was to hold on tightly to this opinion, that would be ok. I would still have a right to believe what i want to believe.
I2 today is not i2 of yesteryear. It is a knitting circle. Those that participate be they nice or asshats know their place and the price to be there. Odeon is the overlord

.Benevolent if you toe the line.

Think it is I2 of old? Even Odeon is not so delusional as to think otherwise. He may on occasionally pretend otherwise but his base is that knitting circle.

Censoring/banning/restricting/moderating myself, Calanadale & Scrapheap were all not his finest moments.

How to apologise to Scrap

Offline odeon

  • Witchlet of the Aspie Elite
  • Webmaster
  • Postwhore Beyond Repair
  • *****
  • Posts: 108879
  • Karma: 4482
  • Gender: Male
  • Replacement Despot
Re: No Spanking Laws
« Reply #249 on: May 09, 2013, 07:39:38 AM »
It is an argument they have made, though, Al, and one they have made well in that the statistics do show a provable decline in violent crime as a result. I, for one, think it is a commendable result.

I have yet to smack my kids for any purpose, but they have turned out all right, in my opinion. To me, that suggests that it is possible to foster children without smacking them. They do me proud every day.

Is it the only way? No idea. It is the only way I know of, and my kids are not worse off than kids that were smacked. They know the difference between right and wrong, and they listen to their parents. How does one measure such things?

And yes, by all means, make that argument about sexual abstinence. Provide the statistics and see if you can make a difference. See if there is legislation to be made, see if it leads somewhere. Me, I don't really believe in it because to me, it is you being a devil's advocate, but anything is possible. Although I remain so unconvinced that I don't think it really warrants a serious response.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

- Albert Einstein

Offline bodie

  • Reflective Katoptronaphiliac of the Aspie Elite
  • News Box Slave
  • Maniacal Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 14394
  • Karma: 2113
  • Gender: Female
  • busy re arranging deck chairs on board the Titanic
Re: No Spanking Laws
« Reply #250 on: May 09, 2013, 09:00:27 AM »

Quote
I see things differently. I see you lumping in again, and hey that is OK Bodie, you don't have to believe what I believe. You want to believe that Smacking a bottom is a violent act and its idea is to cause pain and humiliate then you are wrong. That is ok. You do not have to be right.

I could say similar that a man smacking a lady's bottom is violent (especially with an open hand) the idea is to cause pain and further it is equivalent to slapping the face (which also uses an open hand) and is a mere hop step and a jump to beating a spouse to death.....

Except of course for a minor point that I have it completely wrong.

If I was to hold on tightly to this opinion, that would be ok. I would still have a right to believe what i want to believe.

I don't know why people smack childrens bottoms.  Never done it.  I can only imagine it is to cause a certain amount of pain otherwise what would be the point?   The word 'smack' means to strike with an open hand or flat object.  Are you saying there is another purpose to it? if so, what?

As far as humiliation goes then i guess it depends on if there are witnesses or not.  Not really sure if it is often used to humiliate, only that it could be very humiliating if done in front of others.

Lumping together, yes.  Only because creating grey areas is unworkable.  How do you measure a smack? I can't think of a way where a smack can be seperated into acceptable and unacceptable force.   I do know the difference but for the purpose of the law it makes sense to lump it together if it means children suffer less abuse.

I am not obsessed with being right.  I can't make you believe the stats and the research that shows a marked reduction in abuse to children.  You can chose to dismiss it.  You can remain suspicious of it.  I happen to believe this is a move in the right direction.  That feels 'right' to me.



blah blah blah

Offline Al Swearegen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 18721
  • Karma: 2240
  • Always front on and in your face
Re: No Spanking Laws
« Reply #251 on: May 09, 2013, 09:02:48 AM »
It is an argument they have made, though, Al, and one they have made well in that the statistics do show a provable decline in violent crime as a result. I, for one, think it is a commendable result.

I have yet to smack my kids for any purpose, but they have turned out all right, in my opinion. To me, that suggests that it is possible to foster children without smacking them. They do me proud every day.

Is it the only way? No idea. It is the only way I know of, and my kids are not worse off than kids that were smacked. They know the difference between right and wrong, and they listen to their parents. How does one measure such things?

And yes, by all means, make that argument about sexual abstinence. Provide the statistics and see if you can make a difference. See if there is legislation to be made, see if it leads somewhere. Me, I don't really believe in it because to me, it is you being a devil's advocate, but anything is possible. Although I remain so unconvinced that I don't think it really warrants a serious response.

My kids are not worse than kids who were never smacked and do me proud. They too know the difference of right and wrong. My style of parenting has seemed to pay off well too.

But then I have not once objected to parents NOT smacking their children or pointed this as a failing.

The problem with the argument is simply that it tries to draw parallels that I do not believe exist.
That is OK. Basically to me the statistics are always questionable and should be examined. When I hear things like smacking is hitting, Smacking alluded to being a violent act used to cause pain, Smacking and beating as being put in the same box as it were, then, I look at stats like this and think "I wonder, the person or group writing this statistical report, were they doing the same? What did they consider smacking? Were they showing kids who were smacked for being naughty, or kids who were smacked and beaten? Were they showing kids who were smacked on the bottom as a form of parenting (teaching aversion to wrong behaviours) or kids who were "smacked around" for sadistic thrill, nastiness, spite, due to anything else? If this is right, then what pool of kids are we working with and what percentage of the kids that were ONLY smacked on the bottom (as a parenting style of teaching aversion to bad behaviours) made up that portion of violent kids? How did that compare overall?

I am betting that this was kind of not bothered with or examined or even bought up because it did not matter in the big scheme of things. It was easier to lump them in. That is OK too. I do not agree with this, but I don't have to.

But in respect to the hypothetical. Yes this is not something I am remotely invested in. People get sexual gratification, great. Non-issue.
EXCEPT....it makes a point. If we say that rapists try to gratify themselves sexually, and that makes sexual gratification as a whole wrong , then we can say "Whoah wait up, not all sexuality is bad or wrong. Rapists are wrong. Being sexually active does not predispose you to be a rapist nor does it predispose the people you are sexually involved with becoming rape victims. Rapists do not deserve to be smearing this group and whatever claims you make against this group (people who get sexual gratification) ought not ride shotgun with rapists. It is unfair. One is not the other. It is agenda and value spinning and to an extent possibly more than a little biased if not dishonest"

Statistics? It would make no difference what stats I attached to this, even were I to research it enough to place relevant figures on. The point of course has nothing to do with Sexual Abstinence or its merits but rather making key assumptions and working from there is key. By working from the position of people seeking sexual gratification, who are we talking about? The rapist, the person having a wank, the porn actor/actress, the prostitute, the pedophile, the loving couple? all of them but none of them are the same, motives, methods, intent, types of sex, everything is up for grabs and inclusive. No excluding the couple away from the rapist because that would not further the ills of sexual gratification.

I question the stats and the general mindset that tries to say no smacking = good, smacking = bad, Smacking = Hitting = Beating = Assault = whatever. I have seen that here in the thread, i disagree with it. But then I tend to disagree with such cut n dried argument especially where it looks like their is an ideological position involved. I think it generally shows oversimplification and a skewing or bias of information to back a claim.
I2 today is not i2 of yesteryear. It is a knitting circle. Those that participate be they nice or asshats know their place and the price to be there. Odeon is the overlord

.Benevolent if you toe the line.

Think it is I2 of old? Even Odeon is not so delusional as to think otherwise. He may on occasionally pretend otherwise but his base is that knitting circle.

Censoring/banning/restricting/moderating myself, Calanadale & Scrapheap were all not his finest moments.

How to apologise to Scrap

Offline Al Swearegen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 18721
  • Karma: 2240
  • Always front on and in your face
Re: No Spanking Laws
« Reply #252 on: May 09, 2013, 09:12:07 AM »

Quote
I see things differently. I see you lumping in again, and hey that is OK Bodie, you don't have to believe what I believe. You want to believe that Smacking a bottom is a violent act and its idea is to cause pain and humiliate then you are wrong. That is ok. You do not have to be right.

I could say similar that a man smacking a lady's bottom is violent (especially with an open hand) the idea is to cause pain and further it is equivalent to slapping the face (which also uses an open hand) and is a mere hop step and a jump to beating a spouse to death.....

Except of course for a minor point that I have it completely wrong.

If I was to hold on tightly to this opinion, that would be ok. I would still have a right to believe what i want to believe.

I don't know why people smack childrens bottoms.  Never done it.  I can only imagine it is to cause a certain amount of pain otherwise what would be the point?   The word 'smack' means to strike with an open hand or flat object.  Are you saying there is another purpose to it? if so, what?

As far as humiliation goes then i guess it depends on if there are witnesses or not.  Not really sure if it is often used to humiliate, only that it could be very humiliating if done in front of others.

Lumping together, yes.  Only because creating grey areas is unworkable.  How do you measure a smack? I can't think of a way where a smack can be seperated into acceptable and unacceptable force.   I do know the difference but for the purpose of the law it makes sense to lump it together if it means children suffer less abuse.

I am not obsessed with being right.  I can't make you believe the stats and the research that shows a marked reduction in abuse to children.  You can chose to dismiss it.  You can remain suspicious of it.  I happen to believe this is a move in the right direction.  That feels 'right' to me.

What is your purpose for the parenting methods you have? Not to humiliate or cause your child pain? You know I have possibly not used the exact methods you have either but I would not for a second jump in and say that the way you parent is used to hurt/humiliate/scar your child mentally for life. Why do you think that is? No, honestly Bodie. I have no knowledge of what methods you use. It could be massive psychological mind fucking, just not smacking. I don't know and I do not guess.

So I would not for a second jump in and say that the way you parent is used to hurt/humiliate/scar your child mentally for life. Why do you think that is?

You do what feels right for you and i presume you to be a responsible parent who loves your boy and parents him best you know how and are rewarded for your efforts in getting the results you want. Like me.

Lumping in together creates grey areas? I don't think so. Unworkable? No I again disagree.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 09:19:49 AM by Al Swearengen »
I2 today is not i2 of yesteryear. It is a knitting circle. Those that participate be they nice or asshats know their place and the price to be there. Odeon is the overlord

.Benevolent if you toe the line.

Think it is I2 of old? Even Odeon is not so delusional as to think otherwise. He may on occasionally pretend otherwise but his base is that knitting circle.

Censoring/banning/restricting/moderating myself, Calanadale & Scrapheap were all not his finest moments.

How to apologise to Scrap

Offline bodie

  • Reflective Katoptronaphiliac of the Aspie Elite
  • News Box Slave
  • Maniacal Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 14394
  • Karma: 2113
  • Gender: Female
  • busy re arranging deck chairs on board the Titanic
Re: No Spanking Laws
« Reply #253 on: May 09, 2013, 10:40:43 AM »
Quote
You know I have possibly not used the exact methods you have either but I would not for a second jump in and say that the way you parent is used to hurt/humiliate/scar your child mentally for life. Why do you think that is?

Did  i imply this about you?  You say you have used smacking as a parenting method, but you seem to take offence at the words i use to describe it -  corporal punishment, spanking, smacking, hitting?  What word is it that describes what you mean?  I ask you if the reason behind hitting is to hurt because it's the only reason i know.  Show me where i implied you were using humiliation and scarring children mentally for life?  It was a  genuine question with no implications intended.

No worries,  i lose interest in discussions when people put words in my mouth.

blah blah blah

Offline BadgerTom

  • DEPRAVED ASSHAT
  • Elder
  • Dedicated Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Karma: 168
  • Gender: Male
  • NSFW - Not Safe for Woke
Re: No Spanking Laws
« Reply #254 on: May 09, 2013, 11:35:36 AM »
There seems to be a lot of people here that confuse themselves bodie!

although they are the same people over and over!

You make a general statement and then everyone and their  dog are accusing you of targetting them!

It almost makes me laugh out loud... almost!