Spanking Laws

[guido911]

IP: "Yes, on this issue, you're a kook if you believe that the government has a right to tell me I can't discipline my child by spanking them. Do what you want in your own home, but stay out of my business."

You know darn well government can prohibit/criminalize certain conduct or get in your "business" in your home.  

My kookie opinions regarding corporal punishment are not only from being a parent but also as a foster parent. I have seen up close the results of other parents' beatings of their children and the effect it has on those kids.  It does not work, in many cases it is hypocritical, and absolutely sends the wrong message. Incidentally, who decides where the line is separating spanking from child abuse?

Last, what I consider kookie is anyone who believes beating children with cut tree limbs is proper discipline.  

[mdunn]

lol at "TIME OUT"!!!..Yes we had that as kids,it was time out in the corner for a few hours.to let our butts cool down!

[iplaw]

quote:If that s$*t works for you and yours have at it.

That's the only thing you've said all day that makes some sense!

quote:
I saw in your post anecdotal remarks (your wife, your cousins, homes without spanking having poor behaved children).

What's good for the goose...I happened to notice the last half of this email is stuffed with nothing but anecdotal crap.

quote:
I saw inconsistencies (hitting vs. corporal punishment; behavior corrective punishment...Clinton could have used your spin to describe blow job).

None of the above can be categorized as a "logical inconsistency", maybe you should take some time to refresh yourself as to what one actually is.  Start with reading your own posts, they're full of them.

quote:
And I saw educated naivete (non-sequitor: politics not involved) but by god, keep the gub'mnt out of my home. Yeah, where have I heard that.

I think you just made this one up for good measure.

quote:
Of course your group doesn't mind the idea of govt. allowing corporal punishment (hitting) in schools. Thats not political.

Schools are only allowed to do so if parental permission is obtained so that point's down the crapper.

quote:
I spent a couple hours yesterday with a school psychologist friend of mine with direct experience in testing and counseling in South Tulsa schools. Surprisingly she had very little to say that you would agree with. She sees the result of the extremes in child disciplin from laissez faire to "smackem" and they are both similar. She did make the same remark your wife did about judging the kids at an early age as to their possible home environments. Common practice I suppose but just as helpful as horoscopes or psychics.

We discussed the many different methods we had employed, successfully, in correcting our kids (without hitting). Time out was one. What we all agreed on was that the reason we knew these other methods (besides hitting) was through education. Developmental pscyh classes, reading different sources from Piaget to Dobson and sharing with other parents. All prospective parents should receive such education.

Good luck with your plan for raising kids. You only get one chance and you have to learn fast. It ain't as easy as carving up others plans.

Hey, I'm all for you not spanking your kids, just leave me alone when it comes to raising mine.

[iplaw]

quote:
Yeah, everything eventually comes back to abortion. Sorry, not biting.

If I were about to adopt a position that resembled logical Swiss Cheese I'd decline to debate the issue as well, that's a good call on your part.

As far as the Supreme Court, it isn't a group of saintly, infallible, divinely inspired leaders of men. They are politically chosen, usually focused more on law than humanity and struggle to reconcile those viewpoints. They upheld separate but equal too as  well as protection for baseball from the anti-trust. When the public has as much education as they do, child abuse will subside.

Nice job conflating child abuse and corporal punishment again.  Saying it over and over again won't make it true...

Fortunately for us, the grown-ups who do make the decisions understand and appreciate the difference.

[iplaw]

quote:
You know darn well government can prohibit/criminalize certain conduct or get in your "business" in your home.  

Sure.  What happens when they decide that religion is harmful or what you feed your kids is harmful to them...when does the regulation stop?  Because I can assure you there are people who would love to regulate both of those.

quote:
My kookie opinions regarding corporal punishment are not only from being a parent but also as a foster parent. I have seen up close the results of other parents' beatings of their children and the effect it has on those kids.

Again, more conflation of child abuse and corporal punishment...

quote:
It does not work, in many cases it is hypocritical, and absolutely sends the wrong message. Incidentally, who decides where the line is separating spanking from child abuse?

Not the government for damn sure. I can give you opinions from many experts who would vehimently disagree with you.  

[guido911]

First, the slippery slope argument does not work. There is no linkage between prohibiting corporal punishment and the government telling you what religion your children can be.  

Second, contrary to your belief, butgovernment absolutely decides when corporal punishment amounts to child abuse. That's one of the functions of DHS. If the agency determines the bruises on your child's rear or anywhere else is from abuse, they can initiate deprived child actions. You can then explain to the juvenile court that the bruises were from a spanking.

I guess I will not get an answer on the subject of switching kids, which is a protected form of punishment in Oklahoma.

[waterboy]

Simple question IP. You have kids?

Simple observation: sometimes you can win the battle and lose the war. You can argue like you do in court and take our remarks apart piece by piece but you still lose the argument. Until you see, experience or have to deal with the aftermath of what some call "spanking", your arguments are landing on fallow ground. The fact that OK law allows a switch as acceptable corporal punishment method says alot about the state and its values.

No one wants the fed in our bedrooms, (unless its to stop gay behavior, or flag burning or something important like that) but when you use that as a weapon to blunt the education of the masses its a bad thing. And thats where strengthening child abuse laws could make a difference. Educating people that there are better ways to correct behavior. No way that it could be an invitation to the fed to come in and observe your child rearing skills. Simply a nudge towards enlightening masses. As long as hitting with a switch is legal, its considered efficacious.

I suppose you don't like seat belt laws, helmet laws stuff like that? They served as an eduction tool to let people know the dangers involved with non use.

Btw, I never used the term "logical inconsistencies". You keep adding to my vocab.[8D] I'm not that current. Just plain old inconsistencies.

[iplaw]

quote:First, the slippery slope argument does not work. There is no linkage between prohibiting corporal punishment and the government telling you what religion your children can be.  

It isn't a slippery slope in terms of one leading to another.  It is a gradual degredation of our right to bring up our children as we see fit.  The government will take as much power from you as your willing to give it.

quote:
Second, contrary to your belief, butgovernment absolutely decides when corporal punishment amounts to child abuse. That's one of the functions of DHS. If the agency determines the bruises on your child's rear or anywhere else is from abuse, they can initiate deprived child actions. You can then explain to the juvenile court that the bruises were from a spanking.

Yes. That system is already established and working well...which begs the question of why we need to abolish corporal punishment.  Do you honestly think more laws will prevent people from beating their kids.  Not a chance in hell.  It's only going to prevent average joe from swatting his kid on the butt after he's run out in the street three times...  

quote:
I guess I will not get an answer on the subject of switching kids, which is a protected form of punishment in Oklahoma.

No.  Because it's a red herring not worth discussion.  I still haven't had either one of you addressed even half of my points yet, so join the club.

[iplaw]

quote:Simple question IP. You have kids?

Why, do you want to come over and show me the ways of the force and enlighten me?

quote:
Simple observation: sometimes you can win the battle and lose the war. You can argue like you do in court and take our remarks apart piece by piece but you still lose the argument.

Unfortunately the sum of the parts is greater than the whole when it comes to dealing with issues like this, and there is far too much gray area to create a law that would encompass the issue.  Thankfully for America my sentiments are shared by most of the country and this issue is only important to the relative fringe...even San Franciscans get it.

quote:
No one wants the fed in our bedrooms, (unless its to stop gay behavior, or flag burning or something important like that) but when you use that as a weapon to blunt the education of the masses its a bad thing.

And outlawing corporal punishment educates how...

quote:
And thats where strengthening child abuse laws could make a difference.

Again, conflating child abuse and corporal punishment.

quote:
Simply a nudge towards enlightening masses.

I suppose "reasoning" with a two year old would be considered enlightened.  I could think of a few more adjective to describe the practice as well.  

quote:
As long as hitting with a switch is legal, its considered efficacious.

Huh?

quote:
I suppose you don't like seat belt laws, helmet laws stuff like that? They served as an eduction tool to let people know the dangers involved with non use.

Nope.  I don't think it's the government's job to protect every aspect of our human existence.  I also give the average American a whole hell of a lot more credit than you do to make their own choices.  We know alcohol is dangerous in any quantity when you are behind the wheel...why not outlaw its sale in restaurants, that would be the SAFE thing to do wouldn't it?

[iplaw]

It's funny how we don't want anyone legislating their morality for us until some practice we don't agree with offends our sense of morality, and then all of a sudden...something MUST be done about this!

[guido911]

IP: What points of yours should I have addressed?

The "switching" point is not a red herring. It's a term in a criminal statute. Under this statute, a person cannot be criminally prosecuted for using an object to cause injury to a child.

As for the morality argument, I do not think I ever claimed that corporal punishment was morally objectionable. My points are that using violence as a means to correct behavior is hypocritical and ineffective.  

In any case, we are at an impasse, You clearly are the one in favor of brutalizing children and I am clearly the one who cares for children. /guilt trip off.

[waterboy]

efficacious- effective.

conflation- to fuse into one entity (like they did with the laws regarding child abuse)

I give up. You are solidly entrenched within the dark side and quite happy there.

[tim huntzinger]

Is it okay to drive drunk? No, what about driving .07?  Is it ok for the underage to drink alkeehaul? No, what about a dad giving his son a beer on his 18th?  Is it ok to shoot an unarmed man with a shotgun at close range, what if he has just kicked in your door?

Gotta draw a line somewhere.  MLK said that laws may not change the heart of man but can change his habits.  If someone wants to hit their child in their home, as long as there are no marks and no objecting witnesses no foul, I suppose.

Anti-spanking measures would give us one more tool to help at-risk parents to not even come close to that line.

[iplaw]

quote:
You clearly are the one in favor of brutalizing children and I am clearly the one who cares for children. /guilt trip off.

Yes waterboy, you hit the nail right on the head, I love to BRUTALIZE children and love it when others do it.  Thanks for winning the debate for me without me even having to respond.

I don't know whether you're just frustrated with debating at this point, or you actually believe that spanking is BRUTALIZING children, but either way I think you've clearly exposed yourself as an extremist on the subject.  

[iplaw]

quote:
efficacious- effective.

Waterboy.  Soory if you thought I was critcizing your word choice.  I really didn't understand the point you were making...

quote:
Is it okay to drive drunk? No, what about driving .07? Is it ok for the underage to drink alkeehaul? No, what about a dad giving his son a beer on his 18th...

Gotta draw a line somewhere.

Yes, and as any good OHP officer will tell you, even ONE drink will impair you, so shouldn't we BAN alcohol completely so that "at-risk" drunks won't be tempted to drink?