Dems want to control how we disicpline our children

[Cap]

Slightly off-topic...

As far as parenting, I believe there are quite a lot of bad parents around.

Parents who are quick to use bribes to get their kids to do stuff, ie offer the kid a little snack before bed.

Or parents who buy their kids fave cereal instead of the healthy ones.

What will happen? The kid will leave the breakfast with an empty stomach once. Then he/she will realize that they will have to eat what is served.

Too much panic and too little trust in kids these days.

I remember back when I was 9, I wasn't a dumb, I could figure out a lot. Kills me when I see buffoons talking to their 9 year olds like they're babies or shit.


It's all about keeping strict and firm rules, letting the kid dealing with consequenses, that's the best lesson.

-Hedge

Best post I have read from you so far in my time here.

[Mr. Intenseone]

Use of any violence in parenting is illegal in Sweden.

I don't see Sweden having a higher crime rate or bigger social problems than USA.

I'd like to see a good argument for allowing use of violence.

I have one argument against it - it goes against how the rest of the society functions.

We teach our kids not to fight, and violance is outlawed. Then to introduce violence in some form seems illogical.

Since it works fine in Sweden, not allowing physical punishment, then I don't buy the argument that it is a necessary part of parenting.

-Hedge

This is the United States, they are telling us we cannot spank (not beat) our kids and if you do you go to jail.....on the other hand, if you have a 2-3 year old that lets say goes for a pot of boiling water, and it comes down on them, this is what will happen......you take the child to the hospital, the doctors ask questions (how did it happen,etc) they make a judgement call on whether it was intentional...soon after, here comes the police, the social worker and the attornys and the possibility of losing your child........on the otherhand, if a quick swat on the butt or hand teaches them, you might have saved yourself alot of problems, here...they ask questions LATER!

[Camel Jockey]

Beat your fucking children.

[headhuntersix]

No matter what Uncle Sam needs to stay out of the parenting business. Liberal Bs needs to be left at the door. They try to ban everything. I think its the difference between libs and conservatives. We're dealing with high minded strategic goals. We base laws on that...IE the Patriot Act. That law has not affected anybody here, but this law would or could. We have enough government. God knows Bush grew it enough.

[240 is Back]

IE the Patriot Act. That law has not affected anybody here

I thought the Patriot Act has been used domestically with great success, stopping many attacks, etc? (Isn't that what we've been told?)

[headhuntersix]

I ment negatively. Its only been intrusive if ur a bad guy....If u beat ur kids or even reprimand them, then u could get arrested and that could happen to anybody on this board. In any event, its a bad idea to start passing laws like this. Plus its waste of money.

[Dos Equis]

I meant liberal.

It's a genuine liberal perspective.

Of course, the liberal perspective would also take into account the rights of the children, which make it really interesting.

-Hedge

Maybe I misunderstood.  I was referring to this:  "I can understand the liberal viewpoint that the government shouldn't interfer with parenting."  I think that would probably be more of a conservative viewpoint. 

[Hedgehog]

Maybe I misunderstood.  I was referring to this:  "I can understand the liberal viewpoint that the government shouldn't interfer with parenting."  I think that would probably be more of a conservative viewpoint. 

I think it's a liberal viewpoint.

Liberalism is essentially about less goverment control, more individual freedom.

-Hedge

[gtbro1]

This is the United States, they are telling us we cannot spank (not beat) our kids and if you do you go to jail.....on the other hand, if you have a 2-3 year old that lets say goes for a pot of boiling water, and it comes down on them, this is what will happen......you take the child to the hospital, the doctors ask questions (how did it happen,etc) they make a judgement call on whether it was intentional...soon after, here comes the police, the social worker and the attornys and the possibility of losing your child........on the otherhand, if a quick swat on the butt or hand teaches them, you might have saved yourself alot of problems, here...they ask questions LATER!

 Intensone is 100% correct,in my opinion.

[Hugo Chavez]

I agree, with Intensone on this too...  It's a no brainier, most people left and right are going to find this thing extremely overstepping...  This is an extremist in the right place at the right political time... A year ago this would have been ignored as silly and overreaching.  Now it's just the right thing to frame the political thinking of Californian Dems Target: Pelosi... Some people no doubt jumped on this and said, OH YEA.... Will it ever be signed into law, hell no... Arnold knows a bill like that would be political suicide... So why the national attention on a bill dead before arrival?  Uh huh... And I can't blame them, someone near this stupid bitch should have advised her that this would do more damage to dems across the country and to back off.  One might even question her loyalties... I would.

[Cap]

I think it's a liberal viewpoint.

Liberalism is essentially about less goverment control, more individual freedom.

-Hedge

Classical liberal current conservative for the most part.

[240 is Back]

misleading subject by the way.

A very small group of a very big party (the dems) want to control how you discipline your children.

Until a majority of them back this bill, it's not "the Dems" behind it, it's a local politician.



Of course, using your logic, I can say "The Repubs enjoy jacking off while asking teenage male pages about soccer practice". 

After all, it was a republican who yanked his wad while talking to a youth.


You can't label a party by what one small group/individual in it does.

[Hugo Chavez]

misleading subject by the way.

A very small group of a very big party (the dems) want to control how you discipline your children.

Until a majority of them back this bill, it's not "the Dems" behind it, it's a local politician.



Of course, using your logic, I can say "The Repubs enjoy jacking off while asking teenage male pages about soccer practice". 

After all, it was a republican who yanked his wad while talking to a youth.


You can't label a party by what one small group/individual in it does.

ahahhahahahhahhaha!!!!  Good point!!!

[Dos Equis]

I think it's a liberal viewpoint.

Liberalism is essentially about less goverment control, more individual freedom.

-Hedge

Not in this country.  Liberalism is about expansive bloated government that reaches as deep as possible into the pockets of the American people.  It is also entrenched in the redistribution of wealth, which is why they never saw a tax increase they didn't like.  They are a hair away from socialism.   

[240 is Back]

Not in this country.  Liberalism is about expansive bloated government that reaches as deep as possible into the pockets of the American people.  It is also entrenched in the redistribution of wealth, which is why they never saw a tax increase they didn't like.  They are a hair away from socialism.   

LMAO...

You say this while turning a blind eye to Bush admin which has borrowed $400 billion to solve another country's problems.

Both sides of the aisle do it, don't be blind.

[Dos Equis]

LMAO...

You say this while turning a blind eye to Bush admin which has borrowed $400 billion to solve another country's problems.

Both sides of the aisle do it, don't be blind.

O.K. tax man.   

[240 is Back]

O.K. tax man.  

So you don't disagree then?

[militarymuscle69]

If parenting can be done just as effectively without the use of violence, why then, should it be allowed?

The ban of violence arguably enhances children's right and protects them.

I am interested in any arguments.

-Hedge

When my 7 year old starts working and bringing home money to my house then he can have "rights." I would never "beat" my son but he knows that if he wants to act like a shithead he will get spanked. "He who spares the rod hates the son, do not withhold correcting your son because if you hit him with the rod he will not die, but if you do correct him you will lead him in the right path" (paraphrase from proverbs 23 13-24) I know you cringe at the meer mention of religion but deal with it

[Dos Equis]

When my 7 year old starts working and bringing home money to my house then he can have "rights." I would never "beat" my son but he knows that if he wants to act like a shithead he will get spanked. "He who spares the rod hates the son, do not withhold correcting your son because if you hit him with the rod he will not die, but if you do correct him you will lead him in the right path" (paraphrase from proverbs 23 13-24) I know you cringe at the meer mention of religion but deal with it

Bravo!  Dude you should post here more often.   

[Hedgehog]

When my 7 year old starts working and bringing home money to my house then he can have "rights." I would never "beat" my son but he knows that if he wants to act like a shithead he will get spanked. "He who spares the rod hates the son, do not withhold correcting your son because if you hit him with the rod he will not die, but if you do correct him you will lead him in the right path" (paraphrase from proverbs 23 13-24) I know you cringe at the meer mention of religion but deal with it

If violence has no positive effects on child fostering, then why allow it?

-Hedge

[240 is Back]

misleading subject by the way.

A very small group of a very big party (the dems) want to control how you discipline your children.

Until a majority of them back this bill, it's not "the Dems" behind it, it's a local politician.



Of course, using your logic, I can say "The Repubs enjoy jacking off while asking teenage male pages about soccer practice". 

After all, it was a republican who yanked his wad while talking to a youth.


You can't label a party by what one small group/individual in it does.

I was hoping some of the people who blamed "the dems" for this would have looked at this point and addressed it.  I guess the silence means they agree?

[Dos Equis]

If violence has no positive effects on child fostering, then why allow it?

-Hedge

Well, "violence" as you call it, or discipline, as I call it, does have positive effects on children.  It has allowed me to use lesser forms of punishment to affect my kids' behavior and help develop their character.  I rarely spank these days, but they know they face the supreme sanction if they don't comply with the lesser forms of punishment.  In addition, all punishment, including corporal punishment helps kids understand the link between choices, actions, and consequences. 

[240 is Back]

Well, "violence" as you call it, or discipline, as I call it, does have positive effects on children. 

How odd that you support the "discipline" of all these nations and you're a big Bush supporter.

hedge is against spanking, and (from what I can tell) is against the US imperialism we're seeing.
You support both.

I wonder if this connection is constant - those who support these wars also employ corporal punishment at home.

[Dos Equis]

How odd that you support the "discipline" of all these nations and you're a big Bush supporter.

hedge is against spanking, and (from what I can tell) is against the US imperialism we're seeing.
You support both.

I wonder if this connection is constant - those who support these wars also employ corporal punishment at home.

   This is a discussion about corporal punishment.  What the heck are you talking about?  Bizarre. 

[240 is Back]

  This is a discussion about corporal punishment.  What the heck are you talking about?  Bizarre. 

Lawmaker Proposes No-Spanking Law
Sponsor Says Measure Would Help Young Children

I thought corporal punishment and spanking were the same thing?