No Spanking Laws

[TheoK]

Why do you think suicide is so high in Sweden? Why do you think so many people are on antidepressants? 

[Al Swearegen]

I think this is the crux of things.

So the next question is: even if they were wrong is saying both are harmful to the child, isn't saving a few children from an unnecessary beating (crossing the line but previously within accepted limits) worth it?

Is it a reasonable question?

I think so. The answer is i do not believe in the type of mindset of "Kill them all, God will know his own". The reason for it is that the superficial answer is "Yes if it spares the kids it is great, children need protecting from beatings". I am not a heartless person so I am encourage to give this answer until i consider it on a deeper level. It protects kids, even if they do not need it, BUT it potentially punishes good and bad parents. Is that also as commendable?" My answer is, "No"
I think the military call this collateral damage.
I think it demands a case by case basis. Kind of innocence til proven guilty.
It also is likely to drive a discourse which tars one with another unfairly and I think this is not beneficial to the parents, the kids, or society. Bad parents deserve bad repercussions and good parents deserve to be praised.

Why is this superficial? Let's say I had a) reputable, peer-reviewed numbers that strongly indicate an outright ban would bring down crime rates in the future and save a couple of kids from outright beating every year, and b) equally strong methods detailing alternative form of parenting, without any smacking necessary, that would produce responsible, well-behaved adults?

I mean, what would it take? When would it stop being a government meddling with its citizens' private lives? A case by case basis would not work. Lots of kids would fall through the cracks and nothing would change.

Because it is lazy and idealistic. It will target good parenting and bad parenting and redefine good parents as bad.
I see this almost as ridiculous a solution as the more evolved version.
Wow if you call spanking hitting, abusive and beating and apply that to all these parents so that you can write up good stats, then imagine if you outlawed alll forms of parenting. The kids complaining that their parents were never abusive but were cold or would take things off them or whatever will no longer be dysfunctional members of society.
Let's call "parents to be" "potential parents of at risk children"
There will be children saved from bad parenting.
I am sorry but majority rebuttals or going too retorts far won't work here. I think it is ridiculous in exactly the same ways

But going overboard with it, there would be children falling through the cracks again, for other reasons, which you know and which I know. I'm not discussing outlawing all forms of parenting and you know fully well I'm not. I presented a hypothetical and would appreciate an answer.

With all else being equal, if I could show that yes, there is a method of parenting that works without any form of smacking, and yes, there is reasonable cause for believing the stats as presented by the Swedish authorities, why not?

Why not? Because it plays hard and loose with definitions.
If you want the all things being equal, and why not I could present it to you this way.
If we put aside the smacking children bit for a moment and consider the same sample population all together without smacking entering the equation. If studies on developing children was made on a new case study into "Children with parents who were drug takers", then from the face of it we probably would not be surprised if this posted some scary results. It would literally scream out for serious attention. Rightly so.
At this point there is nothing wrong with it.
However with the definition, it includes smokers and even social drinkers as drug takers.
So the figures are obviously informed by the heavy drug users not the Dad who has a beer at bbq's with mates on weekends nor the Mum who has a cigarette just before work, with a friend at tea break and one after work and one out the back when kids are asleep.
These people simply do not belong in the same category as the heavy illicit drug users. Nor is there any reason to necessarily think that they contribute in any meaningful way to the statistic born from the drug users are bad parents group.
Now I think it is dishonest if we were to hide behind, too hard to differentiate, stats are stats, what does it matter, or well they are users too just not as bad.

As for

Let's say I had a) reputable, peer-reviewed numbers that strongly indicate an outright ban would bring down crime rates in the future and save a couple of kids from outright beating every year, and b) equally strong methods detailing alternative form of parenting, without any smacking necessary, that would produce responsible, well-behaved adults?

I would likely suspect strongly an agenda and a bias and the what is not represented for some of the same reasons I have stated above.

Whilst you may find yourself in the hypothetical situation of being accused of being a drug taking parent (as i and many others would fit the defined criteria of), you would likely shrug your shoulders after a while and say "Meh, well I don't and won't agree with you or your stupid stats and think relating me to drug addled meth head parents may mean something to you, I think you are wrong" i am inclined for exactly the same reasons to dismiss the non-hypothetical parents who spank their kids bottoms are akin to people that beat their children.

[McGiver]

I think laws are written to best serve the needs of those who write them.

However, laws that protect individuals against harm from other individuals are necessary.  Odeon brought up murder.  Yes, it is common sense that one should not end the life of another.  How many times have you been so filled with rage, that if there was no consequence, you would murder another? So horny that you would rape another.  So lazy that you would opt to hit your child and train them through fear of pain?
Common sense is not a good argument to use when protecting one persons liberties against another's actions.  Common sense would apply to seat belt laws, helmet laws, drug laws, etc...

[Al Swearegen]

I think laws are written to best serve the needs of those who write them.

However, laws that protect individuals against harm from other individuals are necessary.  Odeon brought up murder.  Yes, it is common sense that one should not end the life of another.  How many times have you been so filled with rage, that if there was no consequence, you would murder another? So horny that you would rape another.  So lazy that you would opt to hit your child and train them through fear of pain?
Common sense is not a good argument to use when protecting one persons liberties against another's actions.  Common sense would apply to seat belt laws, helmet laws, drug laws, etc...

That is the thing entirely. You can lead a horse to water but you can not make it drink. stupid people will do stupid things for stupid reasons. Immoral people will dop immoral things for immoral reasons and crazy people will do crazy things for crazy reasons.
Instead of taking away rights and freedoms and making decisions for society because some of the afore mentioned people can not make decent or respectable choices, how about making some laws which do not take away from the decent people in hope to manage the wackos. Instead re-educating the ignorant and getting tough on immoral and managing the crazy.
I can not see a great case for ostracising good elements of society in a netdrag attempt to round up some baddies. I do not believe in the appeal of collateral damage.

[Al Swearegen]

Actually i am rather interested if after asking twice already, whether Bodie will discuss the accusation of me supposedly being bitchy in respect to her urchin. Not sure i know where she is coming from and genuinely interested in her rational.
More actually than teh spanking debate.

[bodie]

Why would you be interested in arguing with me instead of debating this topic?   I got no intention of spending any more time talking to you, better stuff to do.

[Al Swearegen]

Why would you be interested in arguing with me instead of debating this topic?   I got no intention of spending any more time talking to you, better stuff to do.

I get a sense of closure on the spanking debate. I feel that there is a sense that the debate is winding down. All views shared and considered and clarified and disputed or agreed with. Maybe not quite but close enough. It is winding down.

That comment/claim/accusation of yours seems to me a little unresolved, unwarranted, illogical, insensible and begging for an explanation. I really have no idea why you said what you did and your initial explanation made bugger all sense.

So that is my "interest". I prefer to call it a curiosity. I am pedantic over these things. I tend too to think that things ought to be backed, when you make the claim and then refuse to explain it, it makes me think you are not interested in backing yourself.

[bodie]

Too bad.  I thought similar about when you suggested i think anyone smacking a kid is a child abuser.

[Al Swearegen]

Too bad.  I thought similar about when you suggested i think anyone smacking a kid is a child abuser.

Unlike that though, I both back my rationale as to why it looked that way to me ( which you ignored and did not counter) and said I would post the quotes of yours specifically, but did contest that I would after you had explained the whole"bitchy" thing.

So I again can not see your position. Why would you feel that same way? Its totally different.

[odeon]

Why do you think suicide is so high in Sweden? Why do you think so many people are on antidepressants? 

The suicide rate in Sweden is not particularly high. It's about the same as in the US. You want high? Have a look at Finland or Russia.

I couldn't find any prescription rate comparisons per country but I believe Sweden consumes less per capita than France or the US. What's your point?

[TheoK]

Methinks Sweden is depressing 

[bodie]

Too bad.  I thought similar about when you suggested i think anyone smacking a kid is a child abuser.

Unlike that though, I both back my rationale as to why it looked that way to me ( which you ignored and did not counter) and said I would post the quotes of yours specifically, but did contest that I would after you had explained the whole"bitchy" thing.

So I again can not see your position. Why would you feel that same way? Its totally different.

When did i say i felt the same?  Oh my God this is boring.   I am not going over any of it again,  and no, i don't feel like i need to back myself up.   I am amused by how pedantic you are.

[bodie]

Methinks Sweden is depressing 

Have you never been to England?

[TheoK]

No 

[Al Swearegen]

Too bad.  I thought similar about when you suggested i think anyone smacking a kid is a child abuser.

Unlike that though, I both back my rationale as to why it looked that way to me ( which you ignored and did not counter) and said I would post the quotes of yours specifically, but did contest that I would after you had explained the whole"bitchy" thing.

So I again can not see your position. Why would you feel that same way? Its totally different.

When did i say i felt the same?  Oh my God this is boring.   I am not going over any of it again,  and no, i don't feel like i need to back myself up.   I am amused by how pedantic you are.

Too bad.  I thought similar about when you suggested i think anyone smacking a kid is a child abuser.

We stand for freedom of expression, combative debate, and the generation of ideas. There are no boundaries here over what may be said, save for one rule - be prepared to back up your words. Or face the wrath of the community.

This is how this goes. It is as I say not that you specifically said "spanking (smacking bottoms) is child abuse"

What you DID say is that spanking and hitting (or was it beating children) is all just varying degrees.
You did say that. You did talk about a kid who was beaten at home with implements in his teens, by his Father, and framed it in terms of spanking.
You do support a ban on spankings as you believe it leads to violent crimes in children later in life.
You do also say what it apparently teaches them (though it interestingly is not anything my kids have learned)
You even say that a parent spanking a child is motivated to do this to hurt or humiliate their child.

When trying to throw it in with people that beat their children and supposing that any decent parent would spank their child to hurt or humiliating them, then YES I give you bloody good grounds to believe that you are implying that.

Though I am a Father and though I love my kids and though I did use to smack their bottoms when they were little if they were naughty. I have been trying very hard not to take this all personally. I have been trying to argue against positions i think are unwarranted and where possible and without criticising other's parenting styles,  saying "Well i disagree. I will agree to disagree.' Look up in this thread of me doing this.

So with the above drive of discourse from you of what parents are like who spank their kids (knowing too I smacked my kids) on one of these exchanges I once again said that the way you parent is fine and suits you and your urchin. The way i did suits mine and we have great kids for it.

You went off on an  interesting tangent about me being bitchy because "everyone knew your urchin was up to shit at school". (Interesting and amusing in the same way my being pedantic is amusing no doubt.) Why? Who knew he was up to shit at school? Well not me. I know that a loooooonnnngggg time ago you had some issue with him at school and were asking for advice. From all of this, if memory serves you had a reward system with stickers for when he was good and that it had some effect. I also remember that you said that he liked being a good boy and that it was having an effect.
I kind of take the fact as that was last I saw on the matter as problem solved? Well no, being everyone knows he is up to shit at school, so how does everyone know this? The answer is pretty obvious isn't it Bodie? "Everyone" didn't. That is just insecurities talking.

The fact is you are quite happy to castigate parenting sty;es that differ from yours but therein is the problem. You actually have insecurities about your own parenting style and no doubt your worth as a parent. I did not hint nor did I try to be subtle. I am shit at either. There was no bitchy behaviour to which i was party to. There was a bit of hypocrisy from you and an inability to back yourself though.

Not that it matters but I think you sound like a fine mother and your urchin from the few photos i have seen looks happy and healthy. I think you do love and take an interest in him and regardless of your parenting style, I think he is lucky to have that from his Mum. Many of us did not get that much.

Still does not mean that you should not back yourself, you sign on to do that every day you log in.