Great news for willful tots, presumptuous nannystaters, and the majority of Teddy Kennedy’s Hooter’s waitresses; bad news for parents, families, and Teresa Heinz-Kerry.
— Who, I guess, will just have to go back to cutting off Johnny Swiftboat’s allowance when he gets all Brahmany. Which is something of a shame, given that rubber diamond-studded novelty whips don’t just grown on trees, you know…
(h/t STACLU)
It looks like that if they’re 18 and over, you can still swat them on the butt. I’m relieved.
**sigh** If only…
Mass tried to take this on about five years ago (Pablo?) and was decisively rebuked by the electorate. Even in the bluest of bluest and the nanniest of the nanniest, parents still get a little bunched up when the state reaches into their homes.
I was referring to other people’s children. Other people’s female children, to be exact.
I don’t recall a ballot question, but I do recall a raid/series of arrests that didn’t go anywhere. Paddleboro, they called it. This is the same town that banned “tag” a while back.
If Mass passes this, the Patriots are going to have to move.
Michelle Malkin is reporting the restless youths are burning France again. Remember last year the excuse was to commemerate the burning of France the year before [they dragged a young lady of the bus and burned her last year the way i remember it] GO SARKOZY SHOW THEM FRANCE ISN’T LEAD BY JACQUE CHIRAC ANYMORE.
Know what? I have kids. People say that they are polite and well-mannered. They’re not perfect because they’re little people, but on the whole I’m very proud of them.
I also have a nephew whose mother is a full-on lefty goofball college professor. Her kid hits at the slightest frustration, has started spitting when he’s moderately upset (Grandma is excluded from neither behavior), and is a constant discipline problem at school and on his sports team. Plus he says “no!” to his parents at will.
Guess which was/were spanked, and which was/were not. This is not a trick question.
And yes, I’m aware that the plural of anecdote is not “data” and that the occasional spanking does not, on the whole, account for the differences in their behavior. But they are not unrelated.
I’m also not saying that all kids that are spanked are angels, and all that are not are Satan Spawnâ„¢. But I’m also not going to spend all afternoon disclaimer-ing myself. Make of my comments what you will, since that’s what you’ll do anyway.
Returning from my “Fire and Brimestone” church of a Sunday, the kids take a whack each because I know what little sinners they are. Spawn of Satan indeed, I know cause I’m their daddy.
Children shouldn’t be spanking. Won’t they go blind or something?
As I told my #1 son on his 18th birthday; “It’s no longer child abuse. Now it’s just simple assault. I’ve been charged with worse.”
Didn’t have any problems with him after that.
Boston’s banning spanking? Ace moved just in time.
Aw, he already had the joke.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/247728.php
no spanking in Boston? Bellicheat is going to have to take his poor sportsmanship on the road for the rest of the year. And what in the world is pablo to do? I guess no more shaving his palms. ;-)
I cannot bring myself to spank my child, prolly because I am a big athletic guy, and I would likely launch her through a wall. So far, the threat of same has worked. Someday she will figure that out.
Lucky for Dan, he ain’t in Boston.
So close to going an entire thread without seeing Ace’s site referenced.
One day I’ll be a real boy.
Get serious, JD. In Massachusetts, laws only apply to the little people.
Heard a great bit of trivia the other day. The guy who was the prosecutor assigned to investigate Chappaquiddick is now a judge and has been for years.
Pablo – You must be kidding me. Is there nobody involved in that travesty with an ounce of shame in their body? Good Allah. Could someone direct me to where a citizen can file an ethics complaint against a Judge and a sitting US Senator.
It’s still OK if you get paid for it, right? I got a kid who wants to go to BC and I’m not saving any money.
Ace? Ace who? Never hoid o’ da guy.
But anyway…
As I used to tell all my daughter’s dates, “I’m not afraid to go back to prison.”
My daughter’s dating a real loser. Or so it seems, at least in this father’s piercing eyes. But as I understand it, they’re all like that until you
whip them once or twiceget to know them better…Hmmmph. I’ll just need more time to adapt, I suppose…
JD, see Armand Fernandes here and here.
Frankly, this is enough to start a rebellion.
If a law like this were ever enforced, and I could in no way manage to ignore it, I would leave this great country. I would rather live in a cave than cede the authority I need to educate my children.
Unfortunately, I have for a long time suspected that this prohibition would one day be brought up.
No Compulsion in Education.
I have little faith in the future of democracy.
BOSTON — Lawmakers on Beacon Hill are set to consider a proposed ban on spanking childr…
Well, the thing is, I’ve yet to see anything even remotely approaching a valid and supportable explanation as to why physical assaults on children should be specially excused from the normal standard of criminalization, though. I’ve asked, more than once in more than one forum.
It’s a stupid and bad law, yes, but because it’s massively unenforceable, not because — as things stand, objectively — the special extra-legal privilege of being able to hit the incompetents for whom you are contractually responsible is replicably and extensibly justified in any way.
I’ve yet to see anything even remotely approaching a valid and supportable explanation as to why physical assaults on children should be specially excused from the normal standard of criminalization, though
Taken straight from the Andrew Sullivan School of Overwrought Prose. Good Allah.
Thank you, JD; it’s so nice to be appreciated. I like you too! Let’s be BFF!
Acksiom – I have no beef with you. You could be a great guy or gal for all I know. You see, we do not conflate the person with the idea around here. Except Caric. And timmah. And andy. They are every bit as dumb as their writing has shown.
I just found that sentence to be a bit overwrought, and noted that. I am not sure what BFF means, but it sounds like something Gren Gleenwald would say, so no thanks.
Be careful not to offer proofs as to why spanking your child should not be criminalized. Because once you do, those who wish to ban it will have forced upon you a burden of proof. They will have in one fell swell swoop made a non-issue an issue. Better to just say to them: O.K, you think it should be criminalized, I don’t. Let’s war it out.
naftali – Good assessment.
Acksiom – What say you? Why should it be criminalized? The burden of proof should not be switched to somebody else just because you assert something outlandish.
physical assaults on children
Oh lord, there’s that word inflation thing again.
sweetcheeks, come sit next to me at work for a couple of weeks and I’ll show you what assault really is.
You do realize, don’t you, that when you describe “spanking” as “assault” then you are giving people who actually DO assault children a pass?
argh
Acksi, you may be new here so my last comment may seem cryptic
I work in a DA office…almost 9 years now. My So Cal county has, as of today, entered over 70,000 cases into our tracking system, year to date.
I say that I’m not the one with the inconsistent position, so it’s not ‘forcing’ the onus; it’s placing it appropriately and correctly. I suspect that technically speaking, it already is criminalized. It’s just that the statutes aren’t being enforced in these kinds of situations.
I did say I thought it was a stupid and bad law, if you’ll remember. I have lots of reasons why; one of them is how laws that cannot be meaningfully enforced tend to undermine and reduce respect for even the idea of the basic social contract of egalitarian law in general, which I think most of us would agree is A Bad Thing. I’m a skeptic, not an anarchist (or leftist).
My point is that IME the apparent assumption that certain Citizens are specially privileged to hit certain other Citizens to make them obey simply because the first set have legal responsiblity for the second set is not only unwarranted but conspicuously unsupported. That’s all. I’ve asked about it before, and nobody ever comes up with a valid and supportable explanation. Nobody is doing so here either. Nobody is even trying, AFAICT. And that’s not a criticism; it’s just an observation.
No, Darleen, I don’t realize that I’m “giving people who actually DO assault children a pass,” mainly because it isn’t true. Including the odd special privilege of corporal punishment in the abstract category of “assault” does not by-definition thereby excuse more serious assaults like, oh, cigarette burns, or for that matter deliberate stove burns, or bone fractures from shaking, or whatever, any more than including both just beatings-with-belts-until-there’s-bruised-welts and outright sexualized torturous-rape-to-near-death somehow excuses the latter.
Oh, and I was actually raised in an abusive environment, sugarbuns, up to and including deadly assault, so I pretty much just laugh big horse laughs at attempts to play the fallacy of argument from expertise card in this area. I appreciate the invite, though, and though I’m too busy with incapacitated parental care to take you up on it, I can at least offer you one in return: come on over to the ‘workplace’ linked to in my ID sometime to likely expand your own awareness of just what can be assault.
“I’ve yet to see anything even remotely approaching a valid and supportable explanation as to why physical assaults on children should be specially excused from the normal standard of criminalization, though.”
So I guess waterboarding the little bastards is right out, then?
Well there you go. Acksiom says, “Well I say”. We are most certainly wrong.
I am going to go waterboard myself.
Aksiom, that’s the same forum with the ‘sticky’ topics “The case against circumcision” and “Can we get a foreskin restoration sticky?”…right? Just to be sure…
There’s no evidence that corporal punishment doesn’t work, but if you look at our current crop of spoiled, deranged children (especially in the public school systems, where corporal punishment was mostly ushered out a couple decades ago) there is ample evidence that some corporal punishment is necessary.
B.F. Skinner, and all that.
serr8d – Thanks for bringing up circumcision. Next thing you know, that crazed Brit will show up calling it male genital mutilation, and accuse us of torturing young boys. And then, it will be on, like Donkey Kong.
And, Kyoto.
“My point is that IME the apparent assumption that certain Citizens are specially privileged to hit certain other Citizens to make them obey simply because the first set have legal responsiblity for the second set is not only unwarranted but conspicuously unsupported.”
So a cop should never hit a perp with his nightstick? They’re both citizens. Is this not assault?
Before I take up your challenge, you’re going to half to demonstrate that you can see the difference between physical restraint with intent to produce/protect order and physical abuse with intent to cause pain for pain’s sake.
Because if you can’t see that distinction, then there is no basis for discussion.
Really? Because it seems to me that the state and its agents have all sorts of methods of physical coercion available to them upon deciding that they have domain over and responsibility for an individual, including a good old fashioned beating and going as far as lethal force.
But hey, don’t tase me, bro! I’m only the messenger.
Acksi
No, Darleen, I don’t realize that I’m “giving people who actually DO assault children a pass,â€Â
Then you don’t understand the harm of “word inflation”. Usually the people who use word inflation, especially coupled with calls for “zero tolerance” as you do (“technically speaking, it is already criminalized”) divorced of context, are trying in a “aha!” moment to make people they disagree with morally equivalent to perps of heinous crimes. What they end up doing is lessening the moral outrage AT true perps. Who benefits from the Left’s message that American troops are brutes no different than Islamist jihadists? Certainly not the jihadists because their actions are basically “ho hummed” by the MSM.
When “rape” is so broadly defined as to cause people who first hear the charge to say “uh, yeah. Please give me the details because I’m not sure what you are talking about”, it is the true rapist that is spared proper societal condemnation.
Reaching out and swatting a 3 y/o’s hand away as s/he is reaching for a hot pot on the stove is NOT equivalent to breaking bones or bleeding lacerations.
This sudden “no touch rule” when it comes to children (except when children want to have sex with each other, then we must do everything possible to facilitate it) hasn’t stopped child abuse. What it has done is make a lot of otherwise good parents fearful of their own children, and made little tyrants out of children.
Guess which was/were spanked, and which was/were not.
Now guess which ones will grow up to be liberals, and which will not. Now do you see the “compelling interest of the (blue) state”, here?
From Acksiom’s linked website:
We are not interested, however, in hosting discussions on the merits of crying it out, physical punishment, formula feeding, elective cesarean section, routine infant medical circumcision, or mandatory vaccinations.
Ya gots to love the frame the argument and create an echo chamber concept. This reflects his/her “prove to me that spanking has merit” approach to the debate. My response would be that spanking/mild physical punishment has been an integral and traditional part of parenting for a millenia. You first need to justify the overwhelming evidenc that suggests overturning the practice. That way you don’t come off as a touchy/feely, arrogant, pompous know it all tossing around your personal tragedy like some kind of shining beacon of perfect understanding.
That’s why we debate issues here rather than declare pre-conceived truthiness.
10 hours later, the gauntlet lies on the floor, and he who tossed it has disappearred to parts unknown.
I admit it. I’m disappointed.
…fearful of even a virtual spanking, apparently.
SMACK OUCH! (heh)
Just think how scared he would have been had you skipped the spanking and gone straight to the mushroom bruise.
FWIW – BJ and Darleen just freaking pwn!d you, dude.
I have two girls and I spank them very seldomly. And by spank, I mean a semi-firm slap on the butt (just once) with re-inforcing words. I guess the question is, what is the state’s definition of spanking? But, then again, there’s already laws on the books for child abuse. Defining spanking may be like defining torture for some of those people, so I expect that they will fuck it up as usual.
OI – If you use torture as the model for defining spanking, spanking would include, but not be limited to having the temp set at 70 instead of 72, buying a cellphone in the wrong color, stern words, and using a barette where a scrunchie was the approriate accessory.
Once again: it’s not assault, it’s battery…
Oh and don’t forget letting them cry it out because of the willfull ignoring of your childs need of comfort and a snot rag.
OI; Sorry, man, but you are just a barbarian violence enabler. Turn yourself in.
Acksiom writes:
“My point is that IME the apparent assumption that certain Citizens are specially privileged to hit certain other Citizens to make them obey simply because the first set have legal responsiblity for the second set is not only unwarranted but conspicuously unsupported…”
Why stop there? If you’re going to criminalize routine disciple of children in the case of spanking, then why make a distinction between sending a child to his/her room for a timeout and unlawful imprisonment? Why should any disciplinary measure be permitted against a child if it were not something that would be permitted against an adult? And, if such a standard prevails, then why shouldn’t a ten-year old be able to file for a restraining order against his/her parents for even the most minimal punitive measures? Sorry, but you don’t get to jump just a little bit off a cliff.
I haven’t been pwned; they’re just exhibiting insufficient patience. I do have a life apart from the internet; right now I have to take the Goat to his (routine) echocardiogram appt. I’ll be back later.
In the meantime, perhaps somebody could actually try providing what I asked for, instead of just counter-query challenges to my request. Again, not a criticism, just an observation about how the longstanding observed pattern of behavior is continuing to hold true.
Acksiom writes:
“In the meantime, perhaps somebody could actually try providing what I asked for, instead of just counter-query challenges to my request.”
If you’re confident that your request was on a solid foundation, then why not address the counter-query challenges?
Wrong, Acksiom. It is your position that wishes to make a radical change from the status quo. As such, it is on you to show that there is a valid reason to do so.
Acksiom
Obviously you’re the smartest one here, and can’t see so far beneath you to understand the query presented. You must aim low around this bunch. Allow me to attempt an answer properly rebutting the ignorant regulars who persist in their childish and persistent questions about revealing your justification for demanding an answer to a question you don’t think is fair to ask.
“Spare the rod, spoil the Child” is in the Bible!
Separation of Church and State!
Duh!
Now, on top of Acksioms perfectly reasonable demand for a un-returned answer to a question, I have another.
What proof, slackers, do you have that a system of reward/punishment is an effective and acceptable way of learning.
HUH!!!1!
I gotta say though Achsiom, I believe you may have overplayed your hand a tad with that spanking=burning with cigarette thing.
Even I, your biggest fan and supporter(here), had some trouble keeping the taste of vomit from the back of my throat at that statement.
Even at that though, I hope you will continue to educate us here, with your ingenious and foolproof method.
“If you use torture as the model for defining spanking, spanking would include, but not be limited to having the temp set at 70 instead of 72”
This time of year, setting the temp at 72 rapes Gaia and drowns the polar bears. Looks like you’re screwed either way.
Ah, another fan. Why must we answer anything, lee? Acksiom is the one that supporters a dramatic change in the standards, and other than a compelling anecdote, we have not been provided anything to support his contention that a centuries old practice must be changed. So far, there is nothing to refute, nothing to argue, except Acksiom dropping in and claiming moral authority to make a proclomation that spanking should be considered a crime against another person.
JD,
Touching, no doubt. But that does not automatically lead to spanking being criminalized. Argument by anecdote only works for Dem politicians.
” . Argument by anecdote only works for
Dem politiciansnannystaters. ”There, fixed it for you…
Thanks, Lee. I was trying to be nice.
I was going for satire…it’s hard to go too far these days.
For satire, wouldn’t they have to be similar groups? Near as I can tell, Dem politicians and nanny-staters are pretty much the same set of people.
JD
IMHO this:
smacks of satire aimed at Acksi
making me wonder if this is really the “lee” we all came to know and loath.
I guess I was going for the idea that that particular group is compromised by more that Dems.
There are more than enough starry-eyed Republicans and Independent populists pulling with the nannystaters to make it a mistake to discount them.
What the group shares, in my opinion, is the belief that they escape any judgment at death. Their moral compasses have become magnetized, if you will. The plumlime of right and wrong has lost it’s weight, and the loose string of polls is blowing in the wind, if I may.
Sorry, my naturally sarcastic repartee is clashing with a fit of whimsy.
forget it Darleen…no house for you!
Now, GOOD DAY!
Well, Bloomberg’s renounced his R.
Touché
Okay, if you’d stopped at “independent,” we could’ve kept the Bloomberg thing, but…
[…] Where’s Boston on this? But my Christmas shopping may include a Kenwood… Posted by Serr8d @ 2:05 pm | […]
Heh! My prediction is that Acksi will continue to ride his/her high horse and ask his/her closed ended question because he/she already knows the right answer. What could we possibly bring to the debate?
Acksi; Implied in these statements are the answers you seek:
#35 “There’s no evidence that corporal punishment doesn’t work, but if you look at our current crop of spoiled, deranged children (especially in the public school systems, where corporal punishment was mostly ushered out a couple decades ago) there is ample evidence that some corporal punishment is necessary.”
#37: “So a cop should never hit a perp with his nightstick? They’re both citizens. Is this not assault?
Before I take up your challenge, you’re going to half to demonstrate that you can see the difference between physical restraint with intent to produce/protect order and physical abuse with intent to cause pain for pain’s sake.
Because if you can’t see that distinction, then there is no basis for discussion.”
#38 “Really? Because it seems to me that the state and its agents have all sorts of methods of physical coercion available to them upon deciding that they have domain over and responsibility for an individual, including a good old fashioned beating and going as far as lethal force.
But hey, don’t tase me, bro! I’m only the messenger.”
#39: “This sudden “no touch rule†when it comes to children (except when children want to have sex with each other, then we must do everything possible to facilitate it) hasn’t stopped child abuse. What it has done is make a lot of otherwise good parents fearful of their own children, and made little tyrants out of children.”
#41: “My response would be that spanking/mild physical punishment has been an integral and traditional part of parenting for a millenia. You first need to justify the overwhelming evidenc that suggests overturning the practice. That way you don’t come off as a touchy/feely, arrogant, pompous know it all tossing around your personal tragedy like some kind of shining beacon of perfect understanding.
That’s why we debate issues here rather than declare pre-conceived truthiness.”
#51: “Why stop there? If you’re going to criminalize routine disciple of children in the case of spanking, then why make a distinction between sending a child to his/her room for a timeout and unlawful imprisonment? Why should any disciplinary measure be permitted against a child if it were not something that would be permitted against an adult? And, if such a standard prevails, then why shouldn’t a ten-year old be able to file for a restraining order against his/her parents for even the most minimal punitive measures? Sorry, but you don’t get to jump just a little bit off a cliff.”
In addition, I find deliciously ironic that you promote a discussion page that limits the topics that can be discussed (settled science, I guess,) thus creating your own little echo chamber (NTTAWWT) and yet choose to come to a discussion in which there are no restricted points of view and insist that everyone answer your question within the exact, self serving frame in which it was placed. Perhaps youy might consider that you have no control over the rules of debate here and the rest of us prefer to answer the question in our own way while challenging you to defend your implied position that spanking is cruel, evil and quite possibly criminal.
not to mention the fact that the discussion was really about a legislature’s willingness to pass a law criminalizing the practice. You hijacked the thread to place where the evil, thuggish parents have to defend their practice of hammering their children.
These are the sorts of things you have to deal with when you leave the echo chamber. You know, actually debate opposing views and defend your sainted positions. Tough, I know, when you have the moral superiority of victimhood to act as your snorting steed. It’s very difficult not to give in to the temptation to sermonize.
Nice summation, BJTexs. A further observation is that Acksi doesn’t get a pass for criticizing the proposed Boston legislation. To engage in such criticism while simultaneously attempting a philosophical defense for equating corporal punishment with assault is really a disingenuous attempt to disassociate herself from that aspect of the proposed legislation that is most threatening to the public, namely, criminal action against noncompliant parents. Her position is roughly comparable to a Marxist professor who expounds in great detail on the problems of “late capitalism”, but, who becomes vague with regard to how a new post capitalist state should deal with those pesky individuals who persist in attempting to accumulate property under the inevitable new, enlightened order…because, like, conjuring up the image of the department head being sent to a reeducation camp for the crime of indulging himself with a midlife crisis Lexis doesn’t really go over too well during a tenure review meeting.
Sorry for the delay in responding, inflamed molar, waiting for the vico-tech to kick in yo.
I’m still in a nontrivial amount of pain here so this is going to be short and terse in places; no commentary on character or behavior is intended, and please infer none.
B Moe: That would depend on whether there’s a sufficient likelihood that they are in possession of significant intelligenc (or whatever the criterion is these days). Perhaps Bert really is behind it all, http://www.snopes.com/rumors/bert.htm .
serr8d: Yes, same forum; no, as correlation =/= causation.
Andrew: No; please note the emphasized: “. . .the apparent assumption that certain Citizens are specially privileged to hit certain other Citizens to make them obey simply because the first set have legal responsiblity for the second set. . . .” Before I take up your challenge, in turn, you’re going to have to provide a stamdard of evidence for me to meet.
Pablo: No; please note the emphasized: “. . .the apparent assumption that certain Citizens are specially privileged to hit certain other Citizens to make them obey simply because the first set have legal responsiblity for the second set. . . .” — the legal relationship between State agents and criminally convicted Citizens encompasses much more than just mere guardianship.
Darleen: Yes, I do understand it; the problem with your line of argument remains the same, however: I’m not doing it ITFP. Nor am I calling for ‘zero tolerance’ since not only is that =/= ‘technically speaking, it is already criminalized’, but I’d stated twice already that IMO it’s a bad and stupid law, which directly invalidates your therefore false accusation. As to your accusation of lessening moral outrage against perpetrators, could you please first establish exactly when and how I became by-default so responsible for the emotional states of other people in general? As far as I was aware, as fellow adults that was primarily their own responsibility, and each of us entitled to decide for ourselves what amount and degree of that we wished to assign to others, rather than having it decided for us by you. In short, it would be better if you stopped misrepresenting me as drawing any kind of non-abstract equivalency between spanking and creating one’s own personal Omelas Child. Also, your example is remarkably ill-formed, not least of which in how such a request for details is not only reasonable but in fact estimable, since the resulting persons actually spared are everyone, and what they are resultingly spared is improper social condemnation, cf. Duke Lacrosse, and to say nothing of how, y’see, I’ve been falsely accused of stalking and harassment myself, and, yes, to the local police, so, you know, again with the big horse laughs at your behavior. Finally, swatting a child’s hand away from a dangerous surface is certainly justifiable under emergency rules, so please stop with these strawman misrepresentations of my views already, such as “this sudden ‘no touch rule'”, as I’ve neither cited nor argued anything even remotely of the kind.
BJTexas: Except that I don’t have a ‘prove to me that spanking has merits’ approach ITFP. I have an “I’ve yet to see a valid and supportable explanation for X” approach”, in no small part because just the mere existence of benefits hardly provides such. That said, thank you for being the first to finally try to provide one. Unfortunately, your argument from tradition is an invalid fallacy as well; antiquity justifies nothing. We’ve been doing all sorts of objectionable things to children for millenia, and I doubt you’re so deranged as to argue that tradition can possibly justify many of those. Also, compared to the vast sweep of human history, the lag time of criminalization between many of them is so miniscule as to be practically nonexistent, so it might very well be the case that spanking is just yet another objectionable practice which the continuing advance of our comprehension of morals, ethics, and so on has not yet reached. As to your request for ‘overwhelming evidence’, again: I’m not the one with the inconsistent position; whoomp, there it is, since the evidence against the acceptability as a default standard of behavior of the practice of assaulting people in order to make them obey is, in fact, pretty much overwhelming already.
The tooth is starting to act up again and I’m sure the Goat is hungry by now so I’ll pause here, after giving y’all something else to think about in the meantime: where do you stand on the idea of random complete strangers, without your consent, treating your children similarly, for reasons similar to your own?
Acksiom, you seem to be under the impression that kids are just miniture adults. They are not.
Again, acksiom, you are the ones wishing to change the law. Despite your saying it is a silly law, you again argue in favor of the practice of implementation of this law. In order to change the accepted standards, you must show that your way is a better way. So far, you have claimed your authority based on your personal experience, and the fact that traditions change over time. Wow. Water is wet too. You have done nothing but assert your morally superior attitude as basis for overturning centuries of parenting, coaching, training, etc … And, you have yet to provide any backing for doing so other than your personal story, and the claimed moral superiority you draw from that.
Stay at your little circle-jerk. Lecture us about male genital mutilation. Give us something interesting. So far, there are many words, but you have yet to actually discuss anything other than why us meanies haven’t answered your question, which so far, has been shown to be presented in bad faith.
Acksiom,
I invited you to apply your reasoning re: spanking of children to other forms of discipline. That is, if we should not spank our children because to do so is directly comparable to criminal assault, then, shouldn’t we also avoid sending them to their rooms because to do so would amount to unlawful imprisonment? Should we conclude that you have avoided addressing this question because you think that giving a child a timeout is indeed comparable to unlawful imprisonment? If not, then please explain why. Careful how you anwswer because “the evidence against the acceptability…the practice of…” forcing people into a room against their will “..in order to make them obey is, in fact, pretty much overwhelming already.” I know how much you would hate to be in an “inconsistent position”.
J. Brenner – It is fairly clear that all we can expect from acksiom is moral authority, assertion based on opinion disguised as accepted fact, and raw emotion, followed by demanding that we defend a position that we do not hold.
Not to dignify this with an answer, but as Ack seems to draw back from zero tolerance, viz., one may swat a child’s hand reaching for a hot stove, Ack seems to have already conceded the case that some use of force is beneficial, or instructive, or for the child’s own good.
I think it is now up to Ack to define where the line should be drawn. Ack seems to be full of opinions and should have no trouble telling us all exactly how much is enough. I don’t think the debate can usefully proceed till Ack defines some terms.
Meanwhile, let me try an argument from utilitarianism.
If, for the sake of argument, we define 1-3 swats on the fanny, bent over the lap, as Assault (Illicit Spanking),
1st degree: with a belt, a weapon or something with sharp edges, or something otherwise excessive to be used as a spanking device;
2nd degree: with a paddle or some implement designed for safe spanking;
3rd degree: with the bare hand;
(Aggravated = spanking bareass)
we can now decide a hierarchy of punishments and all that. The above are just arguendo, feel free to modify. But my point is:
Case 1: You are being ‘deadly assault’-ed by some bogeyman out of your past. Tonight’s the night. This is the time the baby gets dropped in the boiling water, or stuffed in the microwave, or has pieces snipped off, because he cried too much and too loud. Or the time you get slammed THROUGH the wall instead of INTO the wall. Or lose your cherry. Or just a few teeth. Whatever. Assault in progress, a 211 or whatever.
Case 2: Junior poked Sally’s dog Rex in the eye again. 3rd degree assault (IS) in progress. A 211? Or a 211-IS?
Over the radio to the squad car come two dispatch calls. 211, Grove Street. 211[IS], Jefferson Heights.
Should the squad car be allowed to know which is which?
Should the squad car be allowed to prioritize which is which?
Or should there just be infinite police resources so that the fall of every sparrow can be logged into evidence? Oh, and infinite child services resources so that foster homes, for instance, can be even remotely considered as acceptable alternatives to living at home, and so that non-overworked, non-underpaid, elitely selected social workers can make perfect judgments?
If you are the ‘real’ 211ee, don’t you think it is wrong to suggest that deliverance for you, and justice for your 211er, should be delayed by the processing of nuisance 211-IS calls?
Or even by what are essentially false alarms, 211IS calls?
How many layers of skin off your epidermis is this overreaction of yours really worth to you, or to other 211ees who are going to REALLY suffer, and suffer all the more because the system is overloaded with 211IS calls?
I think you lack proportion.
Again, I apologize for the delay in responding. Rammed my thumb into the doorjamb a couple of nights ago, and really, I’m busy enough in orgspace that I should have known better than to have taken this on, but, oh well, too late now.
BJTexas: You’re improperly substituting PW for Darleen’s workplace, to which I was invited in the supposed furtherance of my edumacation, and to which I responded likewise — not to debate.
mojo: One, I can’t find an authoritative determination, and Two, by the distinction I believe you’re applying, assault counts here anyways.
J. Brenner: That’s why I said “incompetents” originally. I actually do have some serious thought behind all this, including proper grounds for why parents should be allowed to run their children’s lives (and ultimately, initiate force against them) — it’s because children are, as a rule, flatly incompetent to run their own lives. Thus, the control over and exertion of some of their rights — such as, yes, freedom of movement — are assigned to their legal guardians. As to addressing the counter-query challenges. . .dude, I’ve been doing it. I haven’t drawn that line; I’m not through with you. The harder the better, ’til we’re black and blue.
JD: Actually, the supporting reason for the change remains the same as it has been along — consistency. That’s a standard too, and so is the prohibition against hitting people to make them obey. That’s what — among other aspects — there is to refute and argue. Also, no, I’m not arguing from anecdote on the larger issue; the personal anecdotes were only factual counterpoint invalidations of Darleen’s negatively characterizing fallacies.
BJTexas: Re #35, see #72 in response to serr8d; Re #38, see #72 in response to Andrew; Re #39, see #72 in response to Darleen; Re #41, see #72 in response to you, and this post above; Re #61, see this post above.
J. Brenner: Again, I’m not equating corporal punishment with assault; I’ve made that explicitly clear. Please stop misrepresenting my position; your false accusations are directly contradicted by my actual statements. I’m not in favor of this law. Come on, folks; about the only thing I can be justifiably charged with is mildly and politely suggesting a behavioral change purely in terms of individual self-examination. Stop exaggerating for the purposes of melodramatic effect and straw men, willya?
JD: Again, no, I am not in favor of changing the law. I can’t make that any more explicit than I already have. Nor have I ever claimed authority through personal experience; see above. Now, if you’re done with the false accusations, perhaps you would like to take an actual swing at the actual point as actually presented? Look — even Lenny thinks you should:
Its time to face it
Come on in and
Join the party
Life has been waiting
For you to care
Don’t try to fake it
Jump on in and
Get it started
There’s so much lovin’
For you to share
There is nowhere to run
There is no way to hide
Don’t let it beat you
Say nice to meet you
And bye
Once you dig in
You’ll find it coming
Out the other side
And once you dig in
You’ll find
You’ll have yourself
A good time
Wake up and shake it
You didn’t make
Your contribution
There ain’t no time
For you to spare
If you ain’t part
Of the game
Then how can you
Find a solution?
Nobody said that
It would be fair
When the mountain is high
Just look up to the sky
Ask God to teach you
Then persevere with a smile
Yeah, yeah, yeah
Once you dig in
You’ll find it coming
Out the other side
And once you dig in
You’ll find
You’ll have yourself
A good time
Once you dig in
You’ll find it coming
Out the other side
And once you dig in
You’ll find
You’ll have yourself
A good time
Once you dig in
You’ll find it coming
Out the other side
And once you dig in
You’ll find
You’ll have yourself
A good time
Once you dig in
You’ll find it coming
Out the other side
And once you dig in
You’ll find
You’ll have yourself
A good time
Once you dig in
Yeah, yeah, yeah
And once you dig in
You’ll have yourself
A good time
Once you dig in
You’ll find it coming
Out the other side
And once you dig in
Also, JD — and I am only saying this because I care — there’s a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing.
nichevo: I can’t have drawn back from zero tolerance because I was never anywhere near it in the first place. If I knew where the line should be drawn, I’d be asserting it. I don’t; all I’ve done is point out that I’ve never seen anyone, anywhere, at anytime, provide a valid and supportable explanation for the inconsistency in question. So far here, out of all this noise and light, we’ve only had “thousands of years of tradition!” proposed, and which I’ve already invalidated, so the longstanding observed pattern of behavior is still continuing to hold true. As to your thought experiment, again, it’s not applicable because it’s not at all representative of my position, which is in turn because I don’t think spanking warrants emergency calls ITFP. I can’t make that any plainer or more explicit than I have already. I’m opposed to the law in question.
Whew. Been a while since I had to take on a whole forum by myself. Which reminds me — y’know, folks, if I’d been acting in such bad faith as I’ve been accused, I’d have called in a bunch of anti-spank MDCers to back me up days ago. Well, anyways, before I go do some needed housework, here’s a reminder of my other outstanding point:
Where do you stand on the idea of random complete strangers, without your consent, treating your children similarly, for reasons similar to your own?
Acksiom writes:
“J. Brenner: Again, I’m not equating corporal punishment with assault; I’ve made that explicitly clear. Please stop misrepresenting my position; your false accusations are directly contradicted by my actual statements.”
Apparently I misunderstood her opening assertion:
“Well, the thing is, I’ve yet to see anything even remotely approaching a valid and supportable explanation as to why physical assaults on children should be specially excused from the normal standard of criminalization, though.”
I now understand that she intended to say that corporal punishment is completely different from assault – despite the fact there is no valid or supportable explanation for why this is the case. Or, perhaps, Acksiom has confirmed the existence of string theory, in which case, the original post above was from a universe in which Acksiom actually does believe that spanking is comparable to assault, and her following posts from a physical reality where she thinks that’s crazy talk. Whatever the case, I will now spend several hours meditating and contemplating my false statements and misrepresentations. I’ve just got to stop doing things like that.
If your looking for even more information on PC security then I would head over here as they have plenty of stuff on identity theft, antivirus software etc.
I love this site, there is so much information to be found. Thank you.
[Acksiom] Again, I’m not equating corporal punishment with assault; I’ve made that explicitly clear. Please stop misrepresenting my position; your false accusations are directly contradicted by my actual statements.
“Apparently I misunderstood her opening assertion:”
It’s ‘his’, actually. And yes, you did. By now, this does not exactly come as a surprise.
[Acksiom] Well, the thing is, I’ve yet to see anything even remotely approaching a valid and supportable explanation as to why physical assaults on children should be specially excused from the normal standard of criminalization, though.
“I now understand that she intended to say that corporal punishment is completely different from assault – despite the fact there is no valid or supportable explanation for why this is the case.”
No, you don’t understand that, because it’s not true. “Completely different from” =/= “not equating with”. There’s a whopping middle ground in there, which you’ve fallaciously excluded, which means shock! horror! dismayed bemusement! you’re yet again grossly misrepresenting my position. Color me Macauley slapping on the after shave.
“Whatever the case, I will now spend several hours meditating and contemplating my false statements and misrepresentations. I’ve just got to stop doing things like that.”
Yes, and start actually addressing this: where do you stand on the idea of random complete strangers, without your consent, treating your children similarly, for reasons similar to your own?
But we all know why none of you were willing to touch that with even the eleven-foot pole you use to touch things you wouldn’t touch with a ten-foot pole, now don’t we?
Oh yes, I think I we do.
Vindication. . .
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/02/georgia.tot.slapped/index.html?iref=topnews
. . .sweet, sweeeeet, vindication.