Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Mr. Intenseone on January 19, 2007, 09:31:37 AM
-
http://www.nbc11.com/family/10793180/detail.html
-
Lawmaker Proposes No-Spanking Law
Sponsor Says Measure Would Help Young Children
UPDATED: 8:47 am PST January 19, 2007
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- A California legislator introduced a bill Thursday that would make it illegal for parents to spank their young children.
Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, authored the bill, which would make it a misdemeanor for parents to spank a child age 3 years or younger, television station KCRA reported.
The crime would carry a punishment of up to a year in jail or a $1,000 fine.
Lieber said the bill is long overdue.
"This bill is absolutely not big mother government coming in to tell parents what to do," Lieber said. "But it is creating a line in the law that stands on the side of very young children. Children that are 3 years old or younger are really sitting ducks for physical punishment, and they're no match with the speed or size or force of an adult who's beating them."
Opponents said the government shouldn't tell adults how to be parents.
If the bill passes and is signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Lieber said it would make California the first in the nation to have a no-spanking law.
This might be the dumbest piece of legislation I've ever heard of.
-
although i STRONGLY disagree with someone telling me when i can and can't disicpline my child, no parent should spank a child under 3 years old. i don't need a law to tell me that. with the stupidity of some parents these days however, maybe a law is needed.
-
although i STRONGLY disagree with someone telling me when i can and can't disicpline my child, no parent should spank a child under 3 years old. i don't need a law to tell me that. with the stupidity of some parents these days however, maybe a law is needed.
I don't know about that Mighty Mouse. I think it depends on how you define "spank." I used corporal punishment with all four of my kids, starting much younger than 3. It started with "no" and then progressed to a tap on the hand and eventually their little behind. I think it's one of the reasons my kids never threw tantrums in public and were very well behaved (outside of the house). I've seen many a kid around age 3 or younger do the Curly shuffle in public, fall out in the store aisle, scream, etc. Those kids need a swat IMO.
But the government telling parents how to discipline their kids? Absolutely ridiculous.
-
I don't know about that Mighty Mouse. I think it depends on how you define "spank." I used corporal punishment with all four of my kids, starting much younger than 3. It started with "no" and then progressed to a tap on the hand and eventually their little behind. I think it's one of the reasons my kids never threw tantrums in public and were very well behaved (outside of the house). I've seen many a kid around age 3 or younger do the Curly shuffle in public, fall out in the store aisle, scream, etc. Those kids need a swat IMO.
But the government telling parents how to discipline their kids? Absolutely ridiculous.
i'm sorry, let me clarify. a light "swat" on the hand or butt is needed for a small pup. just enough to get the childs attention.
my previous message was in relation to an all out butt whooping. in which no one should do to a small child.
i'm guessing if the bill goes any further, there will be massive debates on the definition of spank.
if Sally Lieber would have ever seen my father whoop me, my pop would still be locked up.
thank God he did.
-
i'm sorry, let me clarify. a light "swat" on the hand or butt is needed for a small pup. just enough to get the childs attention.
my previous message was in relation to an all out butt whooping. in which no one should do to a small child.
i'm guessing if the bill goes any further, there will be massive debates on the definition of spank.
if Sally Lieber would have ever seen my father whoop me, my pop would still be locked up.
thank God he did.
I agree about the "swat." But I wouldn't want the government telling a parent how hard that swat should be, or whether or not a parent should spank their toddler. This is really about differing parental philosophies. The government has no business being involved in those decisions.
And my mother would have been locked up too. ;D I did not use her method. I adopted psychologist John Rosemond's recommendation: only on the butt, only with your hand, no more than three swats. Worked for me.
-
Wooden spoon or the belt, then the child fears the object not your hand. Worked for me or should I say, on me. ;D
-
only on the butt, only with your hand, no more than three swats. Worked for me.
my father's philosophy:
everywhere except the butt, put something in your hand, no less than 3 swings
i made the mistake one time of blocking his swing. :'(
i totally agree with you beach. despite how anyone handles the disicpline of their child, the govt should NOT meddle in that aspect of life.
can you imagine, if it did become a law, how children would use that against their parents. "you can't spank me, i'll call the cops."
boy, times have indeed changed
-
I've seen many a kid around age 3 or younger do the Curly shuffle in public, fall out in the store aisle, scream, etc. Those kids need a swat IMO.
Hahaha I saw that yesterday, the kid had on a spiderman shirt, it was hilarious. He was going in circles on the ground, I thought he was break dancing. But I've seen some parents beat the living hell out of their kids in public. I doubt this bill would have much affect, only when someone beat their kid in public, or actually left some pretty bad marks, which is abuse.
-
Hahaha I saw that yesterday, the kid had on a spiderman shirt, it was hilarious. He was going in circles on the ground, I thought he was break dancing.
lol. ;D Send that kid to my house. ;D
-
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
-
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
In my view, the main argument against the government prohibiting things like spanking is it is none of the government's business. The government has no place at the dinner table or in the home telling parents how to discipline their children. I know parents who spank and parents who do not. They all make their decisions without big brother's help. It isn't the government's role at all. I find it highly intrusive.
-
We spank our kids cause we were raised like that. it works.
Hedge doesn't spank his kids (real or hypothetical) because he was raised like that (or because he lives in a place where the majority of people were raised like that. it also works.
A consistent discipline policy with clear expectations and enforced punishments, whether it be time-out or spanking, is the key.
-
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
-
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
i would hardly call it violence.
it's teaching your children to be held accountable for their actions.
they do something wrong- they must be punished.
in my opinion, that's what's wrong with society. a majority of people in todays world don't want to accept the things they do as wrong. they think they can do anything they wish- rob, kill, rape- call a lawyer, walk away and do it again.
i firmly believe there is a direct relation between those people and how they were raised.
-
i would hardly call it violence.
it's teaching your children to be held accountable for their actions.
they do something wrong- they must be punished.
in my opinion, that's what's wrong with society. a majority of people in todays world don't want to accept the things they do as wrong. they think they can do anything they wish- rob, kill, rape- call a lawyer, walk away and do it again.
i firmly believe there is a direct relation between those people and how they were raised.
Ding! :) I agree.
-
I can count on one hand the amount of times i spanked my children in the course of their lifetime (15 & 18).
My kids were very well behaved when they were young.
I can also tell you how annoying and pathetic some kids are whose parents never spank their kids but instead try an appease them.
You must communicate with your kids the motivations for your direction. Get them to understand. Communication is a 2 way street. You may have listen longer. But when they feel they are heard they will almost always do as you ask.
But for the government to make spaking your kids illegal is plain stupid.
Just make the punishment for abusing your kids stronger.
-
I can count on one hand the amount of times i spanked my children in the course of their lifetime (15 & 18).
completely unrelated but i just noticed...
you know what's weird? I can almost predict the age of getbig members by their stance on the issue of 9/11. most in their 40s want to hear nothing of it. most in their 30s are skeptical. most in their 20s are open to the idea. Those in their teens have no ingrained emotional involvement with the parties who would have been involved, and look at things completely objectively for the most part.
back to the beating topic...
-
completely unrelated but i just noticed...
you know what's weird? I can almost predict the age of getbig members by their stance on the issue of 9/11. most in their 40s want to hear nothing of it. most in their 30s are skeptical. most in their 20s are open to the idea. Those in their teens have no ingrained emotional involvement with the parties who would have been involved, and look at things completely objectively for the most part.
back to the beating topic...
Almost... ;D
A lack of corporal punishment is the reason why today's youth has no respect for anyone, especially their elders. If kids got smacked more they wouldn't act like little assholes.
-
i would hardly call it violence.
it's teaching your children to be held accountable for their actions.
they do something wrong- they must be punished.
in my opinion, that's what's wrong with society. a majority of people in todays world don't want to accept the things they do as wrong. they think they can do anything they wish- rob, kill, rape- call a lawyer, walk away and do it again.
i firmly believe there is a direct relation between those people and how they were raised.
Then Sweden, where any physical punishment is illegal, would be a very fcuked up country.
But it's not. Not according to the stats, anyway.
If you look at crime rate, poverty, average level of education and compares it to countries where physical punishment is allowed, such as the USA eg, Sweden doesn't lag behind.
On the contrary.
I can understand the liberal viewpoint that the government shouldn't interfer with parenting.
The argument against that, is usually that banning violence in parenting, is to further protect the childs status.
The argument against this usually is, that it limits the power or the control of the parent, it will make the kids unruly.
The argument against this is to point to Sweden, where a ban of violence in parenting hasn't resulted in any negative effects.
The only argument I can see is the liberal argument, that it should be allowed because it's the parents call.
Then again, why allow it when it's been proven to not be necessary?
-Hedge
-
completely unrelated but i just noticed...
you know what's weird? I can almost predict the age of getbig members by their stance on the issue of 9/11. most in their 40s want to hear nothing of it. most in their 30s are skeptical. most in their 20s are open to the idea. Those in their teens have no ingrained emotional involvement with the parties who would have been involved, and look at things completely objectively for the most part.
back to the beating topic...
I was just trying to make the point that even though i'm against spanking kids that I'm also against this proposed law.
Not to accidentlly hijack this thread..... perhaps you should start a topic that focuses on the openness to CT theories based on age ranges. It will be hard to stay on topic and not get in another debate on the whole CT possiblity though.
I'm 41 BTW. Becuase of you and Beserker a few months back, i was oopen to the possibllity and through the course of all the discussions and research have 90% made up my mind about it. But i am still open to any new evidence or issues that come up.
-
Almost... ;D
A lack of corporal punishment is the reason why today's youth has no respect for anyone, especially their elders. If kids got smacked more they wouldn't act like little assholes.
Yes and no. It's hard and unrealistic to pin point anyone one thing that determines how kids turn out.
-
Noooo. . . . the 911 post whore is back. :-\
Hedge I think you mean "conservative," not "liberal"?
-
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
-
Noooo. . . . the 911 post whore is back. :-\
Hedge I think you mean "conservative," not "liberal"?
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. 8)
-Hedge
-
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.
-
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!
-
Beat your fucking children.
-
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.
-
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?)
-
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.
-
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. 8)
-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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!!!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. ::)
-
O.K. tax man. ::)
So you don't disagree then?
-
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
-
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. :)
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
??? 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?
-
???
I thought corporal punishment and spanking were the same thing?
It is. You're injecting some link between George Bush and corporal punishment/spanking. That's bizarre.
-
Beach, I noticed that in you and hedge's case, your stance on US aggression matched your stance on the use of corp. punishment on children.
I wondered if the stance was constant on home violence and global violence. Do people who abhor spanking also tend to be anti-war? Do those same folks who want to invade iran also tend to spank their kids more?
i think I stumbled upon an interesting tangent of this topic - the application of corporal punishment in global terms (IE: We needed to punish sadaam).
I see you don't understand the potential correlation.
-
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.
I am a firm believer in discipline, and teaching kids that they will have to face consequenses of their action.
Parents these days are generally too insecure. Just check out the average kid, he/she will have 200-300 toys by the age of 5.
The parents think they give their kids good opportunities when they by them expensive gear and new clothes, tons of toys.
All they do is spoil them.
And these are usually the same idiots (I'm not referring to you now, Beach) who complain that they'll have no control of their kid unless they use force.
It's about teaching values.
And one of these values, is that violence leads to no good.
You've heard the saying "Kids do as you do, not as you say", I suppose. I believe it to be true to some degree.
Putting your kid in some expensive sport camp...
Chances are that kid will never learn to appreciate or learn how to work hard for something of their own.
This ain't a rant directed at you Beach, just trying to explain my point of view.
I really don't consider myself "soft" when it comes to this issue, I really don't.
I believe that it's better to avoid using force, violence, call it what you want, because that is something you cannot do in adulthood, the biggest reason though, it has been proven that it's not necessary.
-Hedge
-
Beach, I noticed that in you and hedge's case, your stance on US aggression matched your stance on the use of corp. punishment on children.
I wondered if the stance was constant on home violence and global violence. Do people who abhor spanking also tend to be anti-war? Do those same folks who want to invade iran also tend to spank their kids more?
i think I stumbled upon an interesting tangent of this topic - the application of corporal punishment in global terms (IE: We needed to punish sadaam).
I see you don't understand the potential correlation.
That's because it's a stupid "potential correlation." HTH.
-
I am a firm believer in discipline, and teaching kids that they will have to face consequenses of their action.
Parents these days are generally too insecure. Just check out the average kid, he/she will have 200-300 toys by the age of 5.
The parents think they give their kids good opportunities when they by them expensive gear and new clothes, tons of toys.
All they do is spoil them.
And these are usually the same idiots (I'm not referring to you now, Beach) who complain that they'll have no control of their kid unless they use force.
It's about teaching values.
And one of these values, is that violence leads to no good.
You've heard the saying "Kids do as you do, not as you say", I suppose. I believe it to be true to some degree.
Putting your kid in some expensive sport camp...
Chances are that kid will never learn to appreciate or learn how to work hard for something of their own.
This ain't a rant directed at you Beach, just trying to explain my point of view.
I really don't consider myself "soft" when it comes to this issue, I really don't.
I believe that it's better to avoid using force, violence, call it what you want, because that is something you cannot do in adulthood, the biggest reason though, it has been proven that it's not necessary.
-Hedge
Hedge I respect your opinion and agree with some of what you say. I know parents who don't spank their kids. I have no problem with them or their methods at all. It's just about different parental philosophies. There is more than one way to properly raise a child.
You make some excellent points about values and parents spoiling their kids. A very good friend of mine just bought her eight-year-old son a cell phone. The kid's grandmother said to me, "what do you buy for him when he turns 16, a space ship?" ;D
I think the vast majority of people in the criminal justice system were not properly raised by their parents. I believe plethora of dishonest people in the business community were not properly raised by their parents. Much of that stems from the lack of discipline (whether that is spanking or some other form of punishment). Some relates to the parents setting the right example, the presence of a strong father in the home, etc.
I think we pretty much agree on most of this topic (except for the spanking part).
-
I am a firm believer in discipline, and teaching kids that they will have to face consequenses of their action.
Parents these days are generally too insecure. Just check out the average kid, he/she will have 200-300 toys by the age of 5.
The parents think they give their kids good opportunities when they by them expensive gear and new clothes, tons of toys.
All they do is spoil them.
And these are usually the same idiots (I'm not referring to you now, Beach) who complain that they'll have no control of their kid unless they use force.
It's about teaching values.
And one of these values, is that violence leads to no good.
You've heard the saying "Kids do as you do, not as you say", I suppose. I believe it to be true to some degree.
Putting your kid in some expensive sport camp...
Chances are that kid will never learn to appreciate or learn how to work hard for something of their own.
This ain't a rant directed at you Beach, just trying to explain my point of view.
I really don't consider myself "soft" when it comes to this issue, I really don't.
I believe that it's better to avoid using force, violence, call it what you want, because that is something you cannot do in adulthood, the biggest reason though, it has been proven that it's not necessary.
-Hedge
It isn't hard to understand. If I color on the kitchen wall with a crayon...my parents spank my butt....I think "OUCH! I didn't like that,it hurt"....I do it again a few days later...SWAT! and another "OUCH!" Sooner or later I am going to put 2 and 2 together
Draw on the wall = swat on the bottom.
My father whipped my ass when I was little and it never hurt me any. I do feel that as the child gets older you can get better results by putting them in the corner or taking something away that they really like;However,if the kid acts like a brat and throws a fit in WalMart they need their ass spanked(not beaten).
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=beat
-
Lawmaker Proposes No-Spanking Law
Sponsor Says Measure Would Help Young Children
UPDATED: 8:47 am PST January 19, 2007
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- A California legislator introduced a bill Thursday that would make it illegal for parents to spank their young children.
Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, authored the bill, which would make it a misdemeanor for parents to spank a child age 3 years or younger, television station KCRA reported.
The crime would carry a punishment of up to a year in jail or a $1,000 fine.
Lieber said the bill is long overdue.
"This bill is absolutely not big mother government coming in to tell parents what to do," Lieber said. "But it is creating a line in the law that stands on the side of very young children. Children that are 3 years old or younger are really sitting ducks for physical punishment, and they're no match with the speed or size or force of an adult who's beating them."
Opponents said the government shouldn't tell adults how to be parents.
If the bill passes and is signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Lieber said it would make California the first in the nation to have a no-spanking law.
This might be the dumbest piece of legislation I've ever heard of.
No doubt trying to police a parents right to spank his child is ridiculous it's also rather amusing that you would call this dumb considering you think anyone under the age of 30 that isn't married should abstain from having sex.
That is what you said you believe isn't it? Didn't you say you agree that anyone under 30 that isn't married shouldn't have sex?
-
No doubt trying to police a parents right to spank his child is ridiculous it's also rather amusing that you would call this dumb considering you think anyone under the age of 30 that isn't married should abstain from having sex.
That is what you said you believe isn't it? Didn't you say you agree that anyone under 30 that isn't married shouldn't have sex?
Go away son. This discussion is too complicated for you. You might hurt yourself.
-
Go away son. This discussion is too complicated for you. You might hurt yourself.
LOL, notice how you didn't answer the question. LOL
So you're saying you didn't post that you thought anyone under 30 that isn't married shouldn't be having sex?
-
LOL, notice how you didn't answer the question. LOL
So you're saying you didn't post that you thought anyone under 30 that isn't married shouldn't be having sex?
LOL. These kinds of psychological ploys don't even work with my little ones (who are in elementary school). Give me a break. ::)
I'm saying you're not smart enough to discuss this topic and you should leave before you wind up with a headache. ::) Better keep your Midol handy.
Now scram.
-
LOL. These kinds of psychological ploys don't even work with my little ones (who are in elementary school). Give me a break. ::)
I'm saying you're not smart enough to discuss this topic and you should leave before you wind up with a headache. ::) Better keep your Midol handy.
Now scram.
I'll ask again, are you saying that you didn't post that you agree that anyone under the age of 30 that isn't married should not have sex?
I realize owning up to what you've posted is difficult especially when the post in question is asinine but at least be honest enough to at least acknowledge what you have posted. ::)
-
I'll ask again, are you saying that you didn't post that you agree that anyone under the age of 30 that isn't married should not have sex?
I realize owning up to what you've posted is difficult especially when the post in question is asinine but at least be honest enough to at least acknowledge what you have posted. ::)
Remember we have had exchanges before. You've proved to be dishonest, intellectually dishonest, and just a plain terd. Oh, and not very bright. That means I don't dignify your dumb questions by answering them. I just slap you around a little. From what I recall, that really bothers you. But it's okay. You'll get over it. Maybe when you grow up and get better educated you will learn to discuss and debate like a man, like many of the posters on this board. You're not there yet. But you keep trying son. Don't give up.
You’re starting to bore me again.
-
Remember we have had exchanges before. You've proved to be dishonest, intellectually dishonest, and just a plain terd. Oh, and not very bright. That means I don't dignify your dumb questions by answering them. I just slap you around a little. From what I recall, that really bothers you. But it's okay. You'll get over it. Maybe when you grow up and get better educated you will learn to discuss and debate like a man, like many of the posters on this board. You're not there yet. But you keep trying son. Don't give up.
You’re starting to bore me again.
Wow, that's the worst attempt at deflecting attention away from your own moronic point of view that I've ever seen. Did you really think that would work? That's just sad. Clearly you give yourself way too much credit.
So you're saying that you didn't agree that anyone under the age of 30 that isn't married should NOT have sex?
By the way, the whole ignore thing works better when you don't actually post anything directed to me. I realize that's a tough concept to understand but someone of your vast intelligence should probably be able to grasp it. If I remember correctly you used to say that all you did was ignore me while posting responses to my posts. ::)
-
LOL. These kinds of psychological ploys don't even work with my little ones (who are in elementary school). Give me a break. ::)
I'm saying you're not smart enough to discuss this topic and you should leave before you wind up with a headache. ::) Better keep your Midol handy.
Now scram.
"scram " :D hahahaha