'Spanking Your Child' About To Become A Crime By Imprisonment In Delaware

Well, you're very lucky that your mother's alcoholism didn't leave the devastating effect on you that millions of other kids of alcoholics had to live with and apparently she wasn't a violent drunk, which was also a blessing for you..... remembering some of the horror stories I'd heard working at the treatment center, including some friends who had an alcoholic parent or 2. One of my closest friend's whole childhood was nothing but chaos and violence b/c of a drunken, violent father and who's mother was to terrified of him to do anything..........

Violent drunks are dangerous b/c they're very unpredictable. You don't know what they're going to do next - in fact, they don't know what they're going to do next. I know if I ever had to face a violent drunk, I'd want a gun in my hand...

And I wouldn't say that drugs is 'much more' devastating than booze - they both destroy lives at a pretty rapid rate. They're both mind-altering drugs. Only difference is one is legal to buy and the other isn't.... and some idiots wants street drugs legalized also.....amazing.

Not sure what you mean about a 'majority of people who claim to be alkies, but aren't'. ? But how would you know they're not?

Alcoholics live in denial - "Hey, I can quit anytime I want" - but they can't. And they will find every excuse int he book to go out and have a drink and after that 1st drink, they can't stop until they're smashed. They can't understand that if booze gives them a problem w/their job, marriage, family & friends, driving while drunk, losing time - can't remember how they got home .... they have a problem! But they continue to deny it until they're finally forced to face the truth about themselves......

 

The government is putting its nose where it doesn't belong...as usual.

 

...England, where it's ok to have a child prostitution ring but not kill a fox...


Kabuki Joe

 

...the only rights they have are the ones you want to give them, amirite?...


Kabuki Joe

 

Lol! Very well said. That reminded me of a friend's grandson who would throw a temper tantrum if he didn't get his way and hold his breath until he passed out. One day she's at her daughter's place when the grandson did this again (he was around 7-8 yrs old)

That day the step-dad was home when the kid threw his tantrum and while he was laying there passed out from holding his breath, the step-dad said "I'm so sick of this (*)(*)(*)(*)" and picked the kid up, took him in the bathroom and held him under a cold shower.....

The boy never again threw a temper tantrum.......

 

whatever dude, what works for me works for me, its as simple and clear cut as that. dont like it,dont do it. i dont need a scientist, a liberal, conservative,or some absolute voluntarist to tell me whats best for my kids and my family. i work and care for mine and im gonna do what i see fit, do your own thing and ill do mine.

now go worry anout someone who truly abuses their kids because mine are nowhere near such a thing.

why is it so hard for people to mind their own business???? why do certain people crave to control others lives and try to prove wrong when there is nothing to prove wrong? are ya bored, do you even have kids, do you think you know better than anybody else???? well in reality what works for you may not work for me and vice versa.

and cry about it, we gona play santa clause, tooth fairy, we gonna play tea time without tea, we gonna have fun with make believe like every child does in their lives. dont like it, dont do it.

my kids are fine and i dont give a (*)(*)(*)(*) what arguent you have or what study you looked up because i can find equal and opposing studies that ultimately mean (*)(*)(*)(*) because studies are usually always skewed to fit the agenda of whoever makes it. so simply once again, do your own thing and stop worrying about what im doing because you are not gonna change me or tell me whats best for my kids.

 

What makes you think they're "lib" studies? What makes them useless, while your assertions are useful? Apparently, I'm just supposed to accept the unbacked opinions of a random Internet commentator instead.

 

here ya go, straight out of UC -Berkley, the liberal mecca college


No Lasting Harm Among Adolescents From Moderate Spanking in Childhood
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/3518

Study sees no harm in some spanking
http://www.nospank.net/cnn.htm



there ya happy???? or are they somehow not gonna be good enough or not fit your qualifications somehow????

 

We are talking about whether the adult would likely consent to his childhood self being spanked. Most adults, for instance, would consent to their childhood selves receiving necessary medical intervention, even if the childhood self resisted it. In that light, we can accept that intervention as consensual since the person, when fully in possession of their mental faculties, would consent.

Most people in prison shouldn't be there. They are there for victimless crimes or crimes that would better be punished by financial compensation to the victim. They should only be "punished" through violence if its necessary for the defense or safety of others.

 

It should undermine their trust in you. That would be the logical reaction to discovering the someone has been going out of her way to deliberately deceive you for years. If someone did that to you as an adult, you would be sensible to never trust them again.

This is why I specified that the standard is whether it's "reasonably sure" that the adult would approve. It is reasonably sure that an adult would approve of necessary medical treatment, even if its not absolutely certain. This is why it's acceptable to treat an unconscious car accident victim, even if its remotely possible that person may have opposed it if they were awake. It's possible, but it's remote. On the other hand, there is a significantly strong possibility a spanked child will grow up to be an adult who disapproves of spanking.

 

Yes, but those consequences only exist in the artificial reality constructed by the parent. They don't exist in the real world outside the parent's purview and, therefore, are not instructive of anything in the real world. You can't apply such "lessons" to anything else. The only lesson to beware Mom's discipline. Period. Having a messy room is bad not because it makes life more inconvenient for you and will make people less likely to befriend if you practice such slovenly habits in public, but only because it makes Mom angry. Well, if that's the case, then when Mom dies, who cares?

It doesn't make any sense you think that's necessary. I was never spanked for that reason, yet somehow I learned not to touch hot stoves because they're hot. Meanwhile, if you spank them, they don't learn to not touch stoves because their hot. They learn to not touch stoves because it makes Mom angry. If Mom's asleep, there's no reason to not touch the stove.

 

Oh really? They don't care about the children. They just want to lock up as many people as they can for committing "crimes". In modern day America, it's a crime to decline police of groping your testicles at an airport.

 

...I read this and realized that you just don't get it...


Kabuki Joe

 

Well, the problem with that appeal is it ignores the fact that you're talking about what you do with the absolute power you have over another human being. It's not like you're talking about your freedom to live your own life as you choose. You're talking about your power over someone else's life. A parent is a person in power over others. A parent can no more say "I'll raise my kids however I like." than a king can say "I'll govern my subjects however I like."

You're not being oppressed and put upon by me criticizing parenting practices you support. You are the one in power. You are the one in control over the lives of others, not me.

This study says only that there is no noticeable difference between parents who spanked occasionally and those who spanked not at all: "'There were no significant differences between children of parents who spanked seldom (green zone) and those who spanked moderately (yellow zone)'....The children of parents in the green zone who never spanked were not better adjusted than those, also in the green zone, who were spanked very seldomly...."

Thus, spanking even seldomly does not noticeably harm children. But it also does not noticeably benefit them. If that's the case, spanking still can't be justified as helpful or necessary for raising children. It simply causes them needless pain. Remember, you pro-spankers have been arguing that spanking helps children, not simply that it doesn't harm them.

Furthermore, the study notes that more severe corporal punishment does have detectable harmful results: "A small minority of parents...used physical punishment often and with some intensity....This group of parents, identified in the "red zone" for "stop" was removed from the sample at the first stage of analysis. With them went most of the correlations initially found between spanking and long-term harm to children."

So what we're left with is that corporal punishment has zero benefit but can indeed cause harm if overused. It simply requires a certain level intensity before symptoms start to show. It is like poison, which has no benefit but which requires a certain dose before negative effects become discernible. That hardly justifies using it.

 

Why would even waste your time writing a response like this? Either refute my argument or ignore it.

 

...ok, reread what I wrote, understand it, and reply to it, not just write a bunch of stuff that didn't even relate to what I said...


Kabuki Joe

 

You claimed that no one consents to being punished, so it's not sensible to use that standard that a child's punishment is justified if we can assume the child's adult self would approve of it. But that's not true at all. An adult would be likely to approve of discipline of his childhood self if he thought it had beneficial effects. But there are many, many adults who disapprove of corporal punishment.

 

...close but no cigar...what I said was no one wants to be punished whether they are a child or an adult...the stuff you added is kind of goofy, if someone didn't want to get punished as a child what the hell makes to think they would change their mind as an adult?...some people just don't like to suffer the consequences of their actions...


Kabuki Joe

 

And he managed to do it without hitting him! Good job!

 

I don't spank my kid, just because it would do no good. He's the same hard headed little prick that I was at his age. So I have to be more creative. I take his time away from him, which to him is way worse than the belt. We have a nice little pile of rocks in our back yard, and I can't count how many times that kid has had to move them from one location to another, only to move them back to their original spot.

 

Hitting a kid seems pretty chicken (*)(*)(*)(*) to me. It is actually embarrassing to be an adult and not be able to control your kids without hitting them. Why would someone pat themselves on the back for being a lazy parent?

 

Her not being a violent drunk, and my bio father not being around was my saving grace.
. Interestingly enough, drunks cause so much damage, if they are violent, mentally or physically, because they are so inconsistent. This ties into spanking. If the spanking is done consistently for the same reason, the kids understand what its for.
. On the other hand, drunks are not consistent. One day mom comes home and is pissed off cuz little ronny didnt do the dishes, although he actually did, and the next day, mom laughs it off, even though he didnt do them that day. This leads to "no cause and effect", the kids are taught that it doesnt matter what they do, the results dont have anything to do with their actions.

. drugs are faster and sometimes much more damaging to those who survive. but the thing is, I see lots of peope from NA and even though not using, they mostly dont seem to happy, life is a struggle, but in AA, we. insist on having fun. And, the recitivism rate for drug usage is much higher than alcoholism, plus,,,alcoholism doesnt become really destructive at first, it usually takes quite a few years and you get thru . your teens and young adult hood rather unscathed, Drugs however, usually start young and its damaging very quickly, the kids never have a happy "growing up" time.

ya listen to their story, "oh, I couldnt come home and not have at least one drink before going to bed", those of us who know better, we just wink at each other and let it go on.
. When I share, the sheer horrificness of it causes many to come talk to me later cuz if they are drinking like that, and they see my recovery, it gives them hope. Drinking one drink a night isnt threatening to hardly anybodys live style.

YUPP, but dont forget, if they can quit on their own, then by definition, they arent alkies.

 

children dont posses the wisdom, knowledge, intelligence or life experience to make good decisions in many cases. THATS WHY PARENT ARE THERE. My kids dont want to go to sleep at 8pm, they want to eat ice cream for breakfast, should I give in to their consent on those?

 

. 100% completely wrong. I often stop and think why I am instructing my kids in something. Sometimes I realize, "yea, no harm in them dooing that", I often ask my wife who tells them "dont do that...", WHY cant they? I spank because my kids directly disobey me, like, dont eat ice cream for breakfast and they do anyways. So the choice is, spanking, or allow them to do the destructive act of poor eating habits, we all know what that leads to, pain and suffering. If a kids action was not going to lead to pain and suffering, I could care less if they do it.

.

 

what do you do if he refuses to move them.? Thats another thing, ultimately, any behavior has to be controlled by physical force if the person refuses to comply no matter what. They have a guy in mass top max security prison, every time they have to enter his cell, aoubt 5 guards, with plexiglass shields have to bum rush him and subdue him.