Childless Slag Dem wants spanking ban

nathanbforrest45 · #21 (**permalink**) 01-22-2007, 09:23 AM

As I see it a problem with liberals is they always see the "worst case senario" and want to inact laws and rules from that position. There is a major difference between spanking for discipline and beating the hell out of your kid for what ever reason. I would on occassion spank my children but never when I was mad and always with an explanation why. Sometimes smacking a 3 year old on the butt to get their attention is the only way to keep them from running in the street etc. After that first smack you probably won't need to do it again. How many of us have been in public with an unruly child and wished the parent would take the kid into the bathroom and remedy the situation? Liberals see any action as the worst action. Swat your kid on the rump and before you know it EVERY parent will be putting their children in the Iron Maiden according to them. They see this in every action they want to control. "Give someone an inch and before you know it they will think they are rulers of their own lives". Yes there are bad parents,but you cannot or should not attempt to control everyone based on the worst among us.

And yes, I think its just like a childless liberal to try to tell parents they know more about parenting than they do because they read a book

Deadshot · #22 (**permalink**) 01-22-2007, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathanbforrest45

As I see it a problem with liberals is they always see the "worst case senario" and want to inact laws and rules from that position. There is a major difference between spanking for discipline and beating the hell out of your kid for what ever reason.

What is the major difference? Please use my example. Not being able to sit down for two days and having welts on my butt. Was that abuse or discipline? In 1982 it was discipline in 2007 I think the case could be argued for abuse. In fact, as a police officer, I KNOW in 2007 the case could be prosecuted as abuse. Nat, the problem is what people see as abuse and what they see as discipline.

I would on occassion spank my children but never when I was mad and always with an explanation why. Sometimes smacking a 3 year old on the butt to get their attention is the only way to keep them from running in the street etc. After that first smack you probably won't need to do it again.

But you're angry at the Libs for saying much the same thing. "After that first smack you probably won't need to do it again", well how do you know that? You know it because with YOUR child that was YOUR experience. So for YOU and I any laws about spanking would not come close to changing the way we discipline our kids. But what about that parent that sees the need to beyond the "first smack"?

How many of us have been in public with an unruly child and wished the parent would take the kid into the bathroom and remedy the situation? Liberals see any action as the worst action.

I disagree. I know the situation you speak of and you're right. But I've also seen the situation where a mother who weighed 200lbs reared her hand back to "swat" a 4 year old weighing 40lbs. It lifted the kid off of her feet the mom hit so hard.

You state that the Libs see only the worst action. Does that mean the Cons only see the best action? If so then your side, nat, sees my example as fine behavior with nothing wrong with it. There's a middle ground that most people, Lib and Con, realize that there's a difference in a swat and in a beatin.

Swat your kid on the rump and before you know it EVERY parent will be putting their children in the Iron Maiden according to them. They see this in every action they want to control. "Give someone an inch and before you know it they will think they are rulers of their own lives". Yes there are bad parents,but you cannot or should not attempt to control everyone based on the worst among us.

Really?!? I think if you look at the legal system and our laws that we do have plenty of laws that look at the worst in society and make that law for them. Malpractice law comes to mind, the majority of Doctors are great, gifted and fine people - but a few bad apples and now we do things differently. How 'bout laws against speeding? Many people rarely or never get speeding tickets. Don't believe that one, how 'bout laws against running a stop sign? That is a true rarity. How 'bout laws against prostitution? What do you think the percentage of women who are hookers versus the population of women in the USA is 2% 5%?

C'mon, nat, wake up, most laws are written to control the FEW who are screwing up and to keep the Many in line.

And yes, I think its just like a childless liberal to try to tell parents they know more about parenting than they do because they read a book

Being Catholic I really think this last comment is funny. I went to Catholic Grade School where we had nuns in 4 grades and a Catholic High School where 10 nuns taught. Those nuns and the priests of my parish consistently told parent how to raise their kids...and they we're all conservative (I still can't look at a ruler without shuddering

). So c'mon see that there are two sides to this coin.

nathanbforrest45 · #23 (**permalink**) 01-22-2007, 11:59 AM

I stand by my original posting. I acknowledged that there were bad parents. My position is that you cannot penalize the 98% because of the 2%.

Deadshot, I assume you are also in favor of gun control laws because some people use them illegally. The fact that 68 million owners don't misuse them is meaningless correct?

Deadshot · #24 (**permalink**) 01-22-2007, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathanbforrest45

I stand by my original posting. I acknowledged that there were bad parents. My position is that you cannot penalize the 98% because of the 2%.

But in my explanation that's just what laws against prostitution, murder, rape and a host of other laws do. Spanking is not that bad, but abuse is. A law isn't going to stop the abuser, but it will allow for punishment.

Deadshot, I assume you are also in favor of gun control laws because some people use them illegally. The fact that 68 million owners don't misuse them is meaningless correct?

I'm in favor of banning "cop killer" bullets, automatic weapons and silenced weapons. I'm a hunter and have quite a few weapons. I see no need to shoot through a tree, shoot more then twice at prey or shoot quietly at prey. But we have laws on the books because out of those 68 million, fewer then 100K decide to try and kill somebody. It's the way it works in America.

This might be a good time to point out that only a small number of people, relative to population, do drugs - kill people - prostitute themselves or hurt others. Those laws against said acts are there to control the few and serve as a warning to the many.

oceanbreeze · #25 (**permalink**) 01-22-2007, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob

The whole point is that goverment shouldn't be telling parents how to discpline their children. Children should be taught that there are limits and that they are loved. If you love a child, you will discpline and teach the child how to live in society.

Excellent post, Rob.

Deadshot; some people shouldn't be allowed to be reproduce, but our gov't allows it buy paying them WELFARE.

Deadshot · #26 (**permalink**) 01-22-2007, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladyofmts

Excellent post, Rob.

Deadshot; some people shouldn't be allowed to be reproduce, but our gov't allows it buy paying them WELFARE.

Lady sometimes you confuse me. Do you really think about that statement? You don't like WELFARE, I get it. But you realize that you can't apply for welfare until you have a child, ergo the program is there for the kids. You are right that some people turn their vagina into a clown car and pump out kids for the check, but many do not.

As to not being allowed to reproduce your welfare examples can go right next to the pictures of Paris Hilton and Lindsey Lohan and those kids from MTV's "My Sweet Sixteen". There are FUBAR parents in all social strata, and you know that.

oceanbreeze · #27 (**permalink**) 01-22-2007, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadshot

Lady sometimes you confuse me. Do you really think about that statement? You don't like WELFARE, I get it. But you realize that you can't apply for welfare until you have a child, ergo the program is there for the kids. You are right that some people turn their vagina into a clown car and pump out kids for the check, but many do not.

As to not being allowed to reproduce your welfare examples can go right next to the pictures of Paris Hilton and Lindsey Lohan and those kids from MTV's "My Sweet Sixteen". There are FUBAR parents in all social strata, and you know that.

I understand why welfare is in place, its for people who aren't responsible enough to raise children. The spanking laws are in place for the same people who are on welfare. These damn people repeat their cycle generation after generation and I AM FED UP WITH PAYING FOR IT. I am fed up hearing I didn't have the parenting skills. At least the elite have nannies to raise the rich and not depend on society to raise them . The poor keep their babies AND keep having more babies to collect more money from the state, go ahead and prove me WRONG.

nathanbforrest45 · #28 (**permalink**) 01-22-2007, 01:19 PM

Cop killer bullets? That myth went out with "Saturday Nite Specials" and "back alley abortions". We all know Saturday Nite Specials are merely inexpensive handguns. By eliminating inexpensive handguns we have told those who may need personal protection the most they cannot have weapons they can afford. There is absolutely no statistics regarding "back alley abortions", that was merely another of those sound bites created to instill support for nationally legalized abortions.

Deadshot, you are aware I am sure the 2nd Amendment is not for hunters. It has nothing to do with owning guns in order to shoot turkeys or deer. How has anyone who claims to be intelligent so horribly misconstrued the second amendment to have the first thing to do with hunting????

Spitty · #29 (**permalink**) 01-22-2007, 03:05 PM

I respect parents who discipline their children. When I am at a movie or a resturant or somewhere out in public and a child is acting unruly, I will go after the parents and demand they silence their loud child. If they refuse to comply, then they have to deal with Spitty until they remove the child. I refuse to suffer because some parents cannot control their child. Since I don't have kids of my own, no I don't understand.

For those parents who do take care of their kids, I salute you and if you need to handle them in public, I will be the most "Head turned the other way guy ever"

oceanbreeze · #30 (**permalink**) 01-22-2007, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spitty

I respect parents who discipline their children. When I am at a movie or a resturant or somewhere out in public and a child is acting unruly, I will go after the parents and demand they silence their loud child. If they refuse to comply, then they have to deal with Spitty until they remove the child. I refuse to suffer because some parents cannot control their child. Since I don't have kids of my own, no I don't understand.

For those parents who do take care of their kids, I salute you and if you need to handle them in public, I will be the most "Head turned the other way guy ever"

Spitty; I think you understand perfectly well how a child should behave in public and if it's in the cards for you, I think you'll have well behaved kids.