3rd try - Gene Answers Lavonne re Criminalizing Home Spanking
CaptainHar
Dear LaVonne & all of you, I am rather frustrated as this is the third time I
have
posted answering LaVonne's question.. my posts have simply disappeared. This
time I am going to save my response. Well I am getting faster at writing it.
Here's her question, snipped where I could snip for brevity:
>>>Gene, you appreciate my heart, yet question my logic. You
recommend abolishing school spanking, calling the practice a
"disgusting indignity." Yet, though you are opposed to
spanking, you oppose legally abolishing spanking in the home,
on the logic that the "state should stay out of our home and
out of our private lives." Does this mean that spanking is only
a "disgusting indignity" when it occurs at school? >>>>
School has some additional indignities besides pain. There is the
fact that the other kids know, in fact it may be done in public. There
is the intimidating atmosphere of the office. Several adults may be
present. Getting a spanking at school can be very scary, or humiliating,
or have sexual elements, or even be very brutal compared to these
"swats" at home. Yeah, I'd say, for some kids, getting a school spanking
is a lot more undignified than getting one at home, but sure, it varies by
the situation.
>>>>>Is abolishing spanking in the schools "bullying?" Or is it okay
to" bully" at school but not at home?>>>>
No, abolishing school spanking is not bullying. Its our school,
we taxpayers are paying for it, we have every right to see our kids
get a quality situation there.. The parent.. heck.. nobody is hiring
the parent!! Its a volunteer job..
>>>Why would you support laws to protect children from
this "disgusting indignity" at school, yet at home,
you recommend only education and awareness?>>>>
Because I am hiring the teachers and principals to
serve my children and me, so I can TELL them how to
perform their job. They are hired. I (taxpayer) pay them.
I (taxpayer) make the rules. (Read my lips) Not so with parenting.
>>>>If this is your example of unquestionable logic, would you
also favor eliminating all laws forbidding assault and rape,
as long as that assault or rape occurs within the home. After
all, as you say..."I do not presume society should regulate
the home......IMO, the state should stay out of our homes and
out of our private lives.">>>>>
Why do you take this into a false analogy, LaVonne?
We should discuss spanking in the home, not rape in the home.
Not assault in the home. Stick to the issue. You can and should
question my logic (and I yours) but we are discussing spanking,
not something else.
>>>>I wait for a logical explanation.>>>
In my next post I will give you my logic. In this post I answered your
questions (I hope) Please ask again if I need to clarify.. but I hope
thats fairly understandable. You may not agree, but hopefully you
can follow my thinking:
We the taxpayers hire education, and we
have every right to specify the standards for that education, is the
basic argument. If we dont want spanking, we forbid it! Period.
We are the boss.
On to the next post, Gene
carl...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
James Kershaw wrote:
>
> CaptainHar wrote:
>
> Sorry Gene, I know what you are trying to say, but I don't agree that
> there should be such a strong boundary at the front door. Maybe if
> you were going to guarentee isolation between the external society
> and internal society (or household) there should be a line there,
> but isolation is impractical in almost every sense. That is
> largely why assault and rape in marriage are recognised (in many
> societies) as crimes.
I have been trying to get Gene to address this issue (if he has, I
have missed it). I'm wondering if Gene's strong feelings about laws
which "interfere" with the family apply to laws regarding marital
assault and rape, or if he only only objects to laws affecting the
family when children are involved.
LaVonne
>
> James.
carl...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
CaptainHar wrote:
>
> >From: James Kershaw <James.Kersha
>
> Then James says:
>
> >I (taxpayer) have a vested (monetary and otherwise)
> >interest in the health and well-being of my societies children, and
> >should therefore have some control over the manner in which my
> >society raises its children. And in actual fact, in my society, parents are
> subsidised by the state to raise their children, and so parents are in a sense
> limited employees of society.>>>>>.
>
> No, James, you are stretching to the stars there. If there are state run and
> funded orphanages, that would be analogous to public schools. Then we'd have
> every right to set the standards for taking care of the orphans.. we taxpayers
> are footing the bill!
So, you only object to laws when you are "footing the bill?" My
husband and I are very gainfully employed -- you do not foot my bill.
Should my husband, therefore, be legally allowed to assault and rape
me? -- should I have no legal recourse? Or does who "foots the bill"
have little to do with your position? Do you think, like so many
others, that children are simply *lesser humans* -- *possessions* --
and the entire discussion about family interference is nothing but a
smoke screen to cover up your real feelings about what children truly
deserve?
LaVonne
James Kershaw
CaptainHar wrote:
> Because I am hiring the teachers and principals to
> serve my children and me, so I can TELL them how to
> perform their job. They are hired. I (taxpayer) pay them.
> I (taxpayer) make the rules. (Read my lips) Not so with parenting.
And _I_ (taxpayer) have to pay for the damage members of my society
do. Therefore, _I_ should have a say as to how members of my
society are raised. I (taxpayer) have a vested (monetary and otherwise)
interest in the health and well-being of my societies children, and
should therefore have some control over the manner in which my
society raises its children. And in actual fact, in my society,
parents are subsidised by the state to raise their children, and
so parents are in a sense limited employees of society.
Sorry Gene, I know what you are trying to say, but I don't agree that
there should be such a strong boundary at the front door. Maybe if
you were going to guarentee isolation between the external society
and internal society (or household) there should be a line there,
but isolation is impractical in almost every sense. That is
largely why assault and rape in marriage are recognised (in many
societies) as crimes.
James.
CaptainHar
>From: James Kershaw <James.Kersha
in response to my statement
>I am hiring the teachers and principals to serve my children and me, so I can
TELL them how to perform their job. They are hired. I (taxpayer) pay them...
James Kershaw wrote:
>And _I_ (taxpayer) have to pay for the damage members of my society
do. Therefore, _I_ should have a say as to how members of my
society are raised.>>>
What damage have they done? Who said anybody did any damage?
This is flimsy, spurious, meaningless! What you can ask is that people not do
damage, by making "damaging" illegal. Or you could ask people who "do
damage" to pay for the damage.
Then James says:
>I (taxpayer) have a vested (monetary and otherwise)
>interest in the health and well-being of my societies children, and
>should therefore have some control over the manner in which my
>society raises its children. And in actual fact, in my society, parents are
subsidised by the state to raise their children, and so parents are in a sense
limited employees of society.>>>>>.
No, James, you are stretching to the stars there. If there are state run and
funded orphanages, that would be analogous to public schools. Then we'd have
every right to set the standards for taking care of the orphans.. we taxpayers
are footing the bill!
Sincerely,
Gene
CaptainHar
Lavonne must have been upset, cause she retorted:
>So, you only object to laws when you are "footing the bill?" My
>husband and I are very gainfully employed -- you do not foot my bill.
>Should my husband, therefore, be legally allowed to assault and rape
Lavonne, yes I object to things I dont want when I am footing the bill, such as
spanking in schools when I a taxpayer am paying for this! yes, I do.. I think
you meant "only object to spanking (not laws) when I am footing the bill".. in
your first statement, but YOU PUT THE WORD ONLY IN there not me! Yes, it makes
me mad when you put your own words in.. Of course I do not ONLY object to
things when I am footing the bill, but if I am footing the bill, it gives me a
very very strong case that I am paying for it and I have a right to demand what
I want for what I am paying for it. Its a strong strong case.
As far as whether your husband should be "legally allowed to assault and rape
you" Lavonne, once again, stick to the point. In 1998, that issue has been
decided by statute. It has nothing much to do with parents spanking their
kids. A child is not a spouse, and though you could construe "assault" to
cover "spanking," rape is just plain not up for discussion re children. Its
also illegal, its been decided. Spanking kids is the only question.. stick to
it, please.
Sincerely, Gene
CaptainHar
LaVonne asks:> I'm wondering if Gene's strong feelings about laws
>assault and rape, or if he only only objects to laws affecting the
>family when children are involved.>>>>
LaVonne,
Marital rape and assault laws are not in question here.
We are debating spanking children.
For the record, I am not in favor of marital rape or
assault, I don't rape or hit anybody much less members of my own
family, and I dont spank my children either. Or other people's children. Or
teens! I try not to scream at people, call names or bully either. I try to
respect differences, and respect all beings.
Sincerely,
Gene
CaptainHar
LaVonne frothing at me again:
>Do you think, like so many others, that children are simply *lesser humans* --
*possessions* -- and the entire discussion about family interference is nothing
but a smoke screen to cover up your real feelings about what children truly
LaVonne, I dont *know* what children "deserve." Most parents give their best,
and in some cases thats not very good.. but we have decided that even poor
parents are better parents than the state. And studies bear this out, that you
do not do a child a service by taking him or her from the parent.. that the
child needs his parent, he has bonded with them. Even an abusive parent. You
know that.
As for your insult, that my discussion about the state interfering in family
matters is a smokescreen for my diabolical plot to
hurt children.. well.. LaVonne, I have a big heart I wont
take that too personally. I recommend two things for you, however, since you
are in academia and I hope have opportunites to
take classes..
1) Take a class in logic, communication or persuasion.
2) Take a class in parenting. You dear Lavonne are bullying
me emotionally insulting me, beating me up verbally, for
having an opinion of my own. Perhaps people not agreeing
with you "sets you off," perhaps that was a pattern with your
own parents, not allowing diversity and contradictions and
opposing beliefs. I think that your second statement up there,
about the smokescreen, is clearly out of line.
But we all make mistakes, we are human. I try not to assume
I know other people better than they know themselves, or that
I know what they should do better than they do. So perhaps
I am wrong and you are right! Maybe I hate children, and just
dont know it. I better ask my kids about it, get a reality check!
Well, hopefully, that was the bottom of the barrel.
Sincerely,
Gene
Deerfly489
>From: capta...@aol.com (CaptainHar)
>Date: Thu, Jan 15, 1998 12:39 EST
>LaVonne asks:> I'm wondering if Gene's strong feelings about >laws which
"interfere" with the family apply to laws regarding >marital assault and rape,
or if he only only objects to laws >affecting the family when children are
involved.
>
Gene replies:
>Marital rape and assault laws are not in question here.
>We are debating spanking children.
This is the point - rape is not the issue nor is assault on wives. I have seen
nothing by any poster in this group supporting rape or assaults on adult women.
Why, LaVonne do you insist on beating this long-dead horse? Is it because
your arguments on the real issues are so indefensible that you must raise other
issues to camouflage your inablity to use logic and rigor in you case?
Rape and assault on wives is illegal - the point is settled. Slavery has been
abolished in almost all the world. These are not issues for this group. Why
don't you start a group called "alt.domestic.rape" of that's what you want to
talk about and stop wasting bandwidth on irreelevencies.
Chris
Deerfly489 (deerf...@aol.com) wrote:
: >From: capta...@aol.com (CaptainHar)
: >Date: Thu, Jan 15, 1998 12:39 EST
: >LaVonne asks:> I'm wondering if Gene's strong feelings about >laws which
: "interfere" with the family apply to laws regarding >marital assault and rape,
: or if he only only objects to laws >affecting the family when children are
: involved.
: >
: Gene replies:
: >Marital rape and assault laws are not in question here.
: >We are debating spanking children.
: This is the point - rape is not the issue nor is assault on wives. I have seen
: nothing by any poster in this group supporting rape or assaults on adult women.
: Why, LaVonne do you insist on beating this long-dead horse?
LaVonne's point is a valid one. Gene is claiming that the privacy
of the home is sacrosanct and that spanking should remain legal on that
basis. Hence, LaVonne is perfectly within her rights to probe Gene's
views on other types of domestic assault to see if his position is truly
consistent or not. And in fact, it isn't. He believes that when children
are being hit in the home, this must be permitted because to do otherwise
would interfere with the privacy of the perpetrator. But when an adult
spouse is being hit in the home, a different standard applies.
: Is it because
: your arguments on the real issues are so indefensible that you must raise other
: issues to camouflage your inablity to use logic and rigor in you case?
I don't seem much evidence of logic and rigor in your case when
you make these sorts of statements. You are just heckling LaVonne from
the sidelines while she pursues a relevant and quite logical line of
argument with Gene.
: Rape and assault on wives is illegal - the point is settled.
The fact that rape and assault on wives is illegal even in the
supposedly sacrosanct privacy of the home makes the issue relevant in the
present context since Gene is invoking such supposedly sacrosanct privacy
as an argument in favor of keeping parental spanking legal.
: Slavery has been
: abolished in almost all the world. These are not issues for this group.
The fact that the same arguments were once used to defend the
morality and legality of slavery as are now used to defend the morality
and legality of spanking makes this a relevant point. Proslavery people
claimed, a) that the Bible proved that God approves of slavery, b) that it
is unreasonable to apply the same standards of treatment to blacks and
whites because black people are "different" and, c) that slavery is for
black people's own good.
Chris
CD...@prodigy.net
Gene, Most of the recent notes on this board confirm what I have already
written in another note. That is the difference between the two groups is
in thei significance of pain they attribute to spanking.
For those who oppose spanking, the pain of which they speak is
primarily the emotional pain--except in cases of real abuse. If physical
pain was the issue in all cases of spanking, then, for consistencies
sake, the same people who object to spanking would also object to most
playground or recreational activities in which there is a real risk of
physical injury.
The problem becomes for some anti-spankers is that they wish to project
their perception of the pain a child experiences in spanking to all
children. This goes way beyond even their research. It is good to
communicate with some anti-spankers here, even if we never come to
agreement because we should pay attention to their sensitivity to
children. That sensitivity, if balanced, can help anyone. Hopefully we
already have that sensitivity too just that we disagree with regards to
spanking. They can learn from us regardless of their view of spanking if
they see the need to be more confrontive when a child misbehaves. We can
help each other even if we never come to an agreement. But others are
here to control which is ironic because that is what they accuse spankers
of doing.
Curt
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
CaptainHar
>From: cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu (Chris)
>Date: Fri, Jan 16, 1998
defended Lavonne's outrageous attack on me, Chris saying
slavery, spousal abuse and rape are relevant to this
discussion of spanking. Well, in all due respect to
Lavonne and Chris, slavery, spousal abuse and rape
issues were settled on their own merits, and I feel they
have no place in the discussion of whether we should
criminalize spanking kids in the home.
I have already made my point, and have nothing further
to say. But what I do want to say, Chris, is that you have
a) misquoted Lavonne's statment to me..
b) attributed me with things someone else said.. I didnt
make the long-dead horse statement and I didnt make
several of the other statements you attribute to me
c) I dont need to be consistent with any other issues
to argue the spanking issue. This is a diverse cutlure,
and I object to your suggestions that it should be monolithic.
Or even consistent. I like a multiplicity of views to be
represented in our world.
Remember it is a hard enough job to protect minority views
when there IS a consensus. When there is NO consensus,
its totally nuts to impose a minority view on the majority.
You and LaVonne might just have a leg to stand on if your
proposed legislation had majority support. But it does not.
More than 50% favor spanking in the home. I know a forked
tongue when I see one.
This would be a bad law IMO even if "the people" strongly
supported it. But given there is weak support for this proposed
law it is indefensible. People who were spanked just trying
to get back at their parents, in my opinion. I feel more passion
than logic in your position. LaVonne.. well.. she needs a reality
check. She should listen to her critics.. she's been called on the
carpet for bullying and "shaming," her dodges, misconstruing
people's words, her emotionalism, she does your cause a
disservice by not being careful with the facts and by not being
respectful of others, and by trying to make this a clear cut case,
when it is not.
Because, yes, certainly there is an argument for criminalizing
spanking in the home. But there is an argument against it as
well. I personally believe that the dangers of giving the boobs
in in our bureaucracies any more power over us is folly. That
is the main reason I dont go along with this. I am in favor of
intelligence, and intelligence is not the operant principle
in a group like Child Protection Services. Read the paper.
sincerely,
Gene
lack of respect.
CaptainHar
: CD...@prodigy.net
Date: Fri, Jan 16, 1998 08:0
Curt says some very intelligent things about understanding a child's pain,
being sensitive to it. Then he says>
We can help each other even if we never come to an agreement. But others are
here to control which is ironic because that is what they accuse spankers of
doing.>Curt
Curt thank you for making some very good points. You said that
last one.. about CONTROL.. so well I want to salute! That hit the nail
on the head. Sincerely, Gene
Deerfly489
>From: CD...@prodigy.net
>Date: Fri, Jan 16, 1998 08:02 EST
> The problem becomes for some anti-spankers is that they wish >to project
their perception of the pain a child experiences in >spanking to all children.
This goes way beyond even their >research.
An excellent point. Pain can be physical or emotional as can abuse.
Punishment can be physical or emotional. When you consider the long-term
effects of punishment you must consider the whole child not just his or her
buttocks. Consider the following scenario:
A child age 11 has violated a parental order, in a defiant manner and done
something that puts her(him)self in physical danger.
The parent determines that punishment is in order as the child has been
repeatedly warned about that behavior.
a. A spanking: The child is struck on the buttocks six times with a
pingpong paddle while lying across a bed in his(her) pajamas.
Only the parents are present and the punishment is not discussed outside the
parents bedroom.
b. Grounding: The child must come directly home from school each day and
cannot participate in any outside activities for a specified period of time.
This subject the child to teasing and humiliation from schoolmates and
playmates.
c. The child is barred from attending a special event which will not be
avaialble again in the forseeable future such as a World Series game, a special
concert, school trip or some other special event. This is something which
child has been looking forward to form many months, saving money for, etc.
Which of the above is likely to be more damaging to the child?
As a footnote to this - my eighth grade class took an weekend trip to New York
City. This was a very big deal for a bunch of rural Maine kids and an annual
tradition at the local junior high. One girl in my class was dropped from the
trip two days before it began by her mother for some fairly routine rule
violation. She was heartbroken and would gladly have accepted even a rather
harsh spanking instead of that punishment. The other kids in that class
talked about that trip all through high school, but not in her presence as she
would start crying again every time the trip was mentioned - even four years
later.
Is this what anti-spankers have in mind?
Chris
CaptainHar (capta...@aol.com) wrote:
: >From: cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu (Chris)
: >Date: Fri, Jan 16, 1998
: defended Lavonne's outrageous attack on me, Chris saying
: slavery, spousal abuse and rape are relevant to this
: discussion of spanking.
I have explained exactly why and in which contexts these issues
relate to the spanking issue, but you deleted that from your reply. I
continue to stand by my original position.
: Well, in all due respect to
: Lavonne and Chris, slavery, spousal abuse and rape
: issues were settled on their own merits, and I feel they
: have no place in the discussion of whether we should
: criminalize spanking kids in the home.
Since you have completely avoided addressing the reasons I gave
for why these issues relate to the spanking debate, there is nothing else
I can say. I intend to continue to raise these same points in the future
for the reasons I've already provided. If you want to actually address
them, feel free.
: I have already made my point, and have nothing further
: to say. But what I do want to say, Chris, is that you have
: a) misquoted Lavonne's statment to me..
I have not changed anyone's words in any attribution, Gene.
Please clarify where you think I misquoted someone.
: b) attributed me with things someone else said.. I didnt
: make the long-dead horse statement and I didnt make
: several of the other statements you attribute to me
Gene, of course you didn't make the "dead horse" statement,
Deerfly did. *He* was the one I was responding to, not you I never
attributed his words to you. Please reread my note and you will see that
this is so. I think you are doing precisely what you accuse others of
doing: not reading carefully.
: c) I dont need to be consistent with any other issues
: to argue the spanking issue.
No, but it certainly helps to be consistent if you expect to *win*
any arguments or convince anyone of the validity of your position. As it
is, you invoke the sacrosanct right of family privacy when arguing that
hitting children in the home must remain legal. But when it comes to
adults being hit in the home, you have a different standard.
: This is a diverse cutlure,
: and I object to your suggestions that it should be monolithic.
: Or even consistent. I like a multiplicity of views to be
: represented in our world.
In other words, you have double standards about protection of
adults from violence in domestic situations and protection of children
from violence in domestic situations. Obviously you are quite comfortable
with the inconsistency in your views. But please don't expect the rest of
the world never to point it out, or to feel as comfortable with it as you
appear to feel.
: Remember it is a hard enough job to protect minority views
: when there IS a consensus. When there is NO consensus,
: its totally nuts to impose a minority view on the majority.
: You and LaVonne might just have a leg to stand on if your
: proposed legislation had majority support. But it does not.
: More than 50% favor spanking in the home. I know a forked
: tongue when I see one.
All I see going on here is a debate. I don't see anyone
"imposing" a view on anyone else. You act as if no one even has the right
to publically advocate a new law unless they already have majority
support. I believe that majority support is necessary before any serious
attempt is made to pass a Sweden-style no-spank law in the USA. That is
why I am posting on the internet rather than lobbying Congress.
: This would be a bad law IMO even if "the people" strongly
: supported it. But given there is weak support for this proposed
: law it is indefensible. People who were spanked just trying
: to get back at their parents, in my opinion.
Your argument would carry more weight if you could demonstrate
with actual evidence that Sweden's law is a "bad law" with harmful
effects, Gene.
: I feel more passion
: than logic in your position.
You have just proudly asserted your right to be inconsistent in
your principles, and now you want to fault others for their lack of logic?
: LaVonne.. well.. she needs a reality
: check. She should listen to her critics.. she's been called on the
: carpet for bullying and "shaming,"
As far as I can see, Gene, the one calling her on the carpet is
you. And it also appears that just when she has argued you into an
untenable position and exposed contradictions in your reasoning you start
accusing her of "bullying," as if winning a debate with you were
indicative of some grievous character flaw on her part.
Chris
CaptainHar
Dear Chris,
I stand corrected of not reading carefully, yes, you attributed the quotes to
deerfly, I just got confused because you start with mine then it somewhat
seamlessly switched to deerfly.
I continue to maintain that spanking children in the home is
a question that can be answered regardless of how our culture
deals with slavery, spousal abuse or rape.. or anything else.
Otherwise you would be in the silly position of saying that
slavery justifies rape.. or spousal abuse justifies spanking in the
home.. or one act being legal means that all sorts of other acts are
permissible also, which I dont think anybody would agree with.
I could just as easily say we spank children in the home, therefore
we should be allowed to hit our spouses! We spank children in
the home, therefore we should be allowed to rape our spouses!
You can say that, all you want but you and lavonne are the only ones who
believe it to be "logical." Take a logic course, you will
see what I mean. (I hope)
>>>>>>: a) misquoted Lavonne's statment to me..
I have not changed anyone's words in any attribution, Gene.
>Please clarify where you think I misquoted someone.
>
What she actually said was that my opinions about the sanctity of
the home were a transparent smokescreen for my desire to brutalize children or
something along those lines. Its not worth it to me to find it, and I have
not been holding my breath waiting for her apology.. I guess she thinks that's
okay behavior. I dont.
Chris says: > it certainly helps to be consistent if you expect to *win* any
arguments or convince anyone of the validity of your position.>>>>>
Chris I dont intend to *win* any arguments or convince anyone
of anything. I intend to explore my own beliefs and understand
aspects of the question not I didnt understand before. Although I
remain opposed to criminalizing spanking in the home, I have
learned a great deal about how other people feel, including pro
spankers, and understand a great deal more about the issue than I
did a year ago. That is my goal. Personally, it doesnt affect me
whether a law is passed or not, I dont spank my kids.
>you have double standards about protection of adults from violence in domestic
situations and protection of children from violence in domestic situations.
Obviously you are quite comfortable with the inconsistency in your views. >>>
I find inconsistencies to be interesting not threatening, and I find much of
life and nature to be complex and contradictory. Fairness is a goal sometimes,
sometimes it isnt!
>Chris adds: >>>>All I see going on here is a debate. I don't see anyone
"imposing" a view on anyone else. You act as if no one even has the right to
publically advocate a new law unless they already have majority support. >>>>>
I support this discussion as an exploration and a discovery process.
I have learned a lot. It would be nice if you and lavonne acted the slightest
bit interested in what other posters contribute. Learning is a two way street
(between two people). I have learned a good deal from you.
>As far as I can see, Gene, the one calling her on the carpet is you. And it
also appears that just when she has argued you into an untenable position and
exposed contradictions in your reasoning you start accusing her of "bullying,"
as if winning a debate with you were>>>>
That is some black and white thinking on your part Chris, win or lose, eh? I
dont think people "lose" if they change their positions or their minds. Do you
feel like you have "beaten" someone if they change their position? Is your
tactic to beat them down, brow beat them, push them back, get them into an
"untenable" position, expose their fallacies, score a point, do them in, show
them up, put them down! Go Chris go!
IMO, contentiousness is not leadership, tho. Oh well its time for dinner!
Sincerely, Gene
then your taste for victory is quite different than mine. My idea of victory
is to .. through discussion and sharing.. come to some new understanding,
approach the truth.
Randy Cox
In article <19980117010...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, 17 Jan 1998,
capta...@aol.com, CaptainHar says...
[cut]
>I continue to maintain that spanking children in the home is
>a question that can be answered regardless of how our culture
There's a flaw here, from my vantage point. Maybe it's not a flaw
from yours. But, for me, the error is initiated when "anything else"
is included along with examples of relationships between human beings
which are circumscribed by moral and ethical values for and opposed to
other people... generally the category of social stati or the
comparative qualities of social rights and privileges among various
representatives or artificial subsets of our social organization.
"Anything else", unless it is within this category, hasn't been offered
and may as well be excluded in the sentence above.
However, I would agree to go part of the way with you, Gene, and
acknowledge that we can exclude consideration and comparison with
past examples of similar social injustices and still make an argument
against parental physical aggression. I do not agree, though, that
there is a rationale for excluding them on the basis of irrelevance
to a part of the argument. As we consider the basic human rights
extended to one subset of our organization that are withheld from or
denied another, then we can not justly make up a special category for
that neglected group in order to obscure the disparity. When we do,
we do no differently than those who isolated African Americans or wives
as separate subsets when defending the existance of separate,
qualitatively different and clearly lesser rights and privileges.
When considering social inequality, other examples are pertinent.
The reason for exclusion of such reference points in a discussion can
only be based on the potential threat to the defense of an
obvious-yet-denied double standard. It seems to me that there must be
an inability on the part of defenders to justify separate and very
distinct treatment of one of the subsets of our society except by
acknowledging social inequality based on age alone. That people have
justified discrimination with similar prejudice; with distinctions
of skin color or sex in our past (AND present) is especially relevant
to an argument where the discriminators and prejudiced are being
criticized on grounds of their prejudice. Of course, I can see that
it would be advantageous to just dismiss the disparity and exclude
any references to similar, now-abhorant past wrongs.
>Otherwise you would be in the silly position of saying that
>slavery justifies rape.. or spousal abuse justifies spanking in the
>home.. or one act being legal means that all sorts of other acts are
>permissible also, which I dont think anybody would agree with.
No, saying that age justifies spanking or mental and physical
incompetence justifies spanking or legal caregiver responsibility
justifies spanking or that proprietary rights justify treating one
subset of our organization differently and more harshly and include
the protection of privacy and exemption from outside intervention is
the silly position.
>I could just as easily say we spank children in the home, therefore
>we should be allowed to hit our spouses! We spank children in
>the home, therefore we should be allowed to rape our spouses!
It has been very much like what you describe above. We are, in fact,
headed the other way, though. There was a time when it was not at
all silly to include all of those acts within the privilege of
husband, feudal lord, and/or slave owner. We have advanced in the
abolishment of the privileges to spousal rape and spousal corporal
punishment. We are now struggling to abolish the last social
inequality: permitting the physical mistreatment of children by adults.
>You can say that, all you want but you and lavonne are the only ones who
>believe it to be "logical."
There's at least one exception, so please let me add my name.
[cut]
Randy Cox
CaptainHar
>firstin...@cei.net (Randy Cox)
>Date: Sat, Jan 17, 1998
Hi Randy, I missed this somehow, and then someone pointed it out to me that
you had brought up quite a few good points. I am glad I went back on AOL and
found your post even tho AOL makes it virtually impossible to find anything.
It was worth it. I'd like to respond..
I had said: >spanking children in the home is
>>a question that can be answered regardless of how our culture
>>deals with slavery, spousal abuse or rape.. or anything else...>>
Randy responded:
>>>>>It seems to me that there must be an inability on the part of defenders
to justify separate and very distinct treatment of one of the subsets of our
society except by acknowledging social inequality based on age alone.>>>>>
The "defenders" he refers to are those in favor of allowing parental spanking.
If I understand Randy correctly he is saying we have made a special class of
citizens called "Children" based on age alone. Children have different rights
or are discriminated against based on their age, he says. I say yes they are a
special class, but not because of their age!
Randy goes on to say that the whole question of classes of people (not just
Children) is important because prejudices led to discrimination against women
and minorities.
>>>>That people have justified discrimination with similar prejudice; with
distinctions of skin color or sex in our past (AND present) is especially
relevant to an argument where the discriminators and prejudiced are being
criticized on grounds of their prejudice. >>>>>
Randy then shifts gears, *inappropriately*..(parenthesis supplied by me to aid
in clarity, I had trouble following that, but so I hope thats helpful.. if not,
I apologize Randy says that the following is silly:
>saying that age justifies spanking or
>legal caregiver responsibility justifies spanking or
>that (PARENTAL) proprietary rights justify treating one
>subset (CHILDREN) of our organization(SOCIETY) differently and more harshly or
(the PARENTAL) >protection of privacy and exemption from outside intervention
And he adds as though there were some sort of manifest destiny at work here:
> There was a time when it was not at all silly to include all of those acts
within the privilege of husband, feudal lord, and/or slave owner. We have
advanced in the abolishment of the privileges to spousal rape and spousal
corporal punishment. We are now struggling to abolish the last social
inequality: permitting the physical mistreatment of children by adults.
=============
Okay you may ask, just what is wrong with what Randy wrote.
Several things. One is he is saying spanking of children by their parents is
not to be resolved on its own, its part of a grander march
of history restoring rights to "sub" classes of people.. people of color,
women, and now children. Randy says that children are a subclass
simply due to their age, similar to race or gender, and he would like (one
presumes) to restore full rights to all citizens.
Well I think Randy has some serious problems tacking "childrens rights" onto
minority rights and women's rights.
1) Children are not "children" simply because of their age. They are children
because they have not attained normal adult abilities. They would not be able
to cope with the full complement of rights accorded an adult, such as voting
and the right to equal pay. Minority rights or womens rights are completely
irrelevant in deciding what the status of child should be. A child has very
special rights and privileges not due to his age, but due to his inability to
provide for himself.
2) There is no grand march of history granting full status to various groups
in our culture, per se. When I study "gay rights" I see very active
politically savvy people pushing hard and smart against the barriers against
them. Same with women or minorities. Children do not have the capacity for
such battles for self actualization. They will become actualized when they are
adults!
3) The argument Randy is making about prejudice falls flat. There isnt a
shred of evidence that our culture is prejudiced against children similar to
religious prejudice or racism or women. Even 200 years ago, when children
worked in factories, they didnt call it prejudice, they called it exploitation
of cheap labor, and that gets involved in slavery, minority rights, and womens
rights too.
Well Randy took us on a long ramble My position is much simpler.
1) Children are a subclass of society. Their needs for protection from
exploitation and provision of physical care ought to be codified into law (and
is). They have special privileges in our society.
2) Parents produce children from their own bodies, and work hard for 18 years
to raise them. Parents special needs for support and help should be recognized
through financial assistance, tax breaks, day care centers, psychological help,
training and education in parenting, and so forth. Parents do not need "help"
from the police or CPS, they need real practical help.
3) Society's interest in its future citizens is also promoted through an
educational program for the youth. Society should take an avid interest in
providing the best education possible for these young minds. They dont need a
paddle, they need an education.
Thanks for contributing to this thread Randy, I will add your name to Chris
and Lavonne's names as people who think the slavery, spousal abuse or spousal
rape arguments provide logical support to abolishing spanking of children in
the home. You may be right, you three, but I dont think so! So.. what do
the rest of you think?
Sincerely,
Gene
Randy Cox
In article <19980119022...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, 19 Jan 1998,
capta...@aol.com, CaptainHar says...
>>firstin...@cei.net (Randy Cox), Sat, Jan 17, 1998
>I had said:
>>> spanking children in the home is
> a question that can be answered regardless of how our culture
> deals with slavery, spousal abuse or rape.. or anything else...>>
>Randy responded:
>>>>>>It seems to me that there must be an inability on the part of
> defenders to justify separate and very distinct treatment of one
> of the subsets of our society except by acknowledging social
> inequality based on age alone.>>>>>
>... If I understand Randy correctly he is saying we have made a special
>class of citizens called "Children" based on age alone. Children have
>different rights or are discriminated against based on their age, he says.
>I say yes they are a special class, but not because of their age!
Before the above excerpt, I wrote: "we can exclude consideration and
comparison with past examples of similar social injustices and still
make an argument against parental physical aggression." You might
have accepted that as a point of departure from what you are clearly
uncomfortable with. Uninterested in that, are you??? But you still
have not offered any rationale for excluding them on the basis of
irrelevance to a part of the argument. As we consider the basic human
rights extended to one subset of our organization that are withheld
from or denied another (protection from physical aggression), then we
can not justly make up a special category for that neglected group in
order to obscure the disparity. When we do, we do no differently than
those who isolated African Americans or wives as separate subsets when
defending the existance of separate, qualitatively different and clearly
lesser rights and privileges. When considering social inequality,
the other examples are pertinent, Gene. To continue to deny so,
further supports my suspicion that the reason for exclusion of such
reference points in a discussion can only be based on the potential
threat to the defense of an obvious-yet-denied double standard. The
more you press this, the more you sound like what I compare you to.
I prefer the way I wrote my words to yours; children are treated
differently for no other reason than their age. That one adult is the
same as any child in every respect but chronological age would
demonstrate my point. An adult, though like a child in size and
cognitive, emotive and physical facility, can not be legally hit for
purposes of correction and control. Even though such an adult may not
ever demonstrate potential for growth, as some children do not, hitting
her or the child has not demonstrated any effectiveness in enhancing
growth, development, memory, learning, and/or moral development (etc.!).
Any myth that spanking benefits a child or anyone else, in the long-
term has not been used successfully to exempt caregivers of adults
from the protection against being hit. It is their age that
distinguishes them. A child, though possibly superior to the adult
parent in every respect except age, may still be legally hit by that
adult parent. And, though exposure to life may be unequal in years,
mere length of exposure does not mean that the quality and quantity
are equal or that the quality is necessarily directly and subsequently
related to time. Ignoring all the variations and inequalities among
both subsets, we regularly base entitlements and denials,
discriminately, according to age alone. There are few exceptions.
[cut]
> Randy says that children are a subclass
>simply due to their age, similar to race or gender, and he would like
>(one presumes) to restore full rights to all citizens.
What would make age less a characteristic of a person than skin color
or sex? Who doubts that we do indeed notice and, regretably, relate
differently (discriminately) with people based on our perception of what
their age is, skin color is, or sex is. And age is inarguably a
transient characteristic, but so can be skin color and sex. At birth,
African American infants often have "white" skin color, though it may
darken considerably in time. At birth, sex is sometimes ambiguous.
Both skin color and sex can be altered to appear different from the
original. And though a person, advancing in chronological age, may
not change in any respect except age, eventually the law will prohibit
that person being hit. Denying the relevance of these irrational
conditions does not make them, as a result, less irrational nor make
considering them for comparison, irrelevant
>Well I think Randy has some serious problems tacking "childrens rights"
>onto minority rights and women's rights.
>1) Children are not "children" simply because of their age. They are
>children because they have not attained normal adult abilities. [cut]
Adults who do not attain "normal adult abilities" are not called children
and their caregivers are not permitted the 'right' to hit them.
>2) There is no grand march of history granting full status to various
>groups in our culture, per se. [cut]
History doesn't grant status. History is the record (somebody's record)
of a march (not as grand as I'd like) from little status for the
majority of peoples to *nearly* equal status for the adults. That
status is granted by the authorities who, in our society, happen to
be most of the adult citizens. *They* have not granted equal protection
from physical punishment to people under 18 years of age... yet.
>, I will add your name to Chris
>and Lavonne's names as people who think the slavery, spousal abuse or
>spousal rape arguments provide logical support to abolishing spanking
>of children in the home. You may be right, you three, but I dont
>think so! So.. what do the rest of you think?
Let me edit what we're adding my name to. Most of us abhor slavery,
spousal abuse and spousal rape... I think. One point I have tried to
make with regard to refering to these other phenomena is that very
similar arguments have been made in support of past discrimination
that are advanced now, here, in support of hitting children. Yet,
we have abolished those social ills despite the so-called arguments.
If you want to move on to other reasons for spanking children and not
be reminded how similar your rhetoric is to that of supporters of
slavery and perpetrators of spouse abuse of all kinds, you'll need to
give up some of your rationale. Until then, I won't ignore what you
sound like. I think that the similarity between arguments in support
of slavery and spousal abuse of all sorts with the arguments in support
of spanking children in the home makes any dissociation with the former
an automatic dissociation with the latter. That realization on your
part, I suspect, fuels your resistance to a point that I am more
willing to let go than you.
Randy Cox
>Gene
Chris
CaptainHar (capta...@aol.com) wrote:
[snip]
: If I understand Randy correctly he is saying we have made a special class of
: citizens called "Children" based on age alone. Children have different rights
: or are discriminated against based on their age, he says. I say yes they are
: a special class, but not because of their age!
To the contrary, Gene, chronological age is the *only* factor
which renders children legally hittable in western culture.
: 1) Children are not "children" simply because of their age. They are
: children because they have not attained normal adult abilities.
Mentally retarded adults and physically handicapped adults do not
possess normal adult abilities. Yet it is illegal to hit them. Clearly a
lack of normal adult abilities is not the deciding factor in the legality
of hitting children.
Note also that some extremely gifted children attain "normal adult
abilities" to read, write, calculate, converse, and comprehend the world
around them at quite young ages, and attain abilities beyond the capacity
of most adults well before they reach the age of majority. Yet it is
still legal for their parents or legal guardians to hit them because of
their chronological age
Your argument is, of course, identical to arguments once used for
denying women the vote and in defense of slavery for black people: they
are 'different' because they lack the mental abilities of men/whites and
therefore must be kept in-the-home / on-the-plantation-in-chains.
: They would not be able to cope with the full complement of rights
: accorded an adult, such as voting
Persons convicted of felonies and adults who are not legal
citizens are also not permitted to vote. Yet it is illegal to hit them.
Clearly, not being allowed to vote is not the deciding factor in the
legality of hitting children.
: and the right to equal pay.
You are saying that children cannot "cope" with "equal pay?" I
know I would have "coped" with the money just fine as a child. ;-)
Or are you saying that people who don't get equal pay are
therefore legally hittable? Adult women do not earn as much in the
workforce as men do, yet it illegal to hit them. Clearly, not receiving
equal pay is not the deciding factor in the legality of hitting children.
: Minority rights or womens rights are completely
: irrelevant in deciding what the status of child should be.
Chronological age is the only factor.
: A child has very
: special rights and privileges not due to his age,
Being subjected to domestic violence in the home and having no
legal recourse is not a "special right and privilege," Gene. It is the
lack of rights and privileges, due entirely to chronological age.
: but due to his inability to provide for himself.
Adults who are mentally ill or severely disabled or elderly/infirm
may not be capable of providing for themselves. Yet it is illegal to hit
them. Clearly, the inability of provide for oneself is not the deciding
factor in the legality of hitting children.
Note also that in some families a child is the primary or sole
breadwinner. (I understand MacCulay Culkin's net worth is about $15
million). Yet it is still legal for the parents or legal guardians of
such children to hit them, even though they are economic dependents living
off of the income of the child they are hitting. It is only the
chronological age of the child which makes them legally hittable, not
their earning potential or lack thereof.
Gene, in advancing this particular argument, you are betting on a
proven loser. In the numerous previous incarnations of this particular
debate, no one has ever managed to think up a single factor, other
than chronological age, which confers the legal (USA) right to inflict
corporal punishment. I predict you will be no exception. Prove me wrong
if you can.
Chris
CaptainHar
Chris, this is age discrimination argument is nuts. Backing up Randy, you
claim:
To the contrary, Gene, chronological age is the *only* factor
>which renders children legally hittable in western culture.>>>
Actually, we are both forgetting the most important step in
why children are legally hittable and by whom.
Children, yes, are people in age groups 1-18. Children
have a special status in our society. They do not have
the normal responsibilities or privileges of adults. The
reasoning behind giving them special status is that they
are not deemed to have acquired all the faculties of an adult person.
Children have parents.
Parents have special responsibilities to care for and protect
and educate their own children. Parents hit their own
children ("spank").
Non-parents may hit children if acting in place of the parent,
such as teachers, babysitters, aunts, uncles..
===========
Note, hitting or spanking is permitted only in the context of
the parental relationship. You or I as adults are not legally
permitted to hit children unless acting "in loco parentis."
Chris, you have outdone yourself on this one! I cant believe
your logic is this circuituous. Hopefully you are having a better day today.
I cant believe you'd be this dense, but here are your own words..:
>Or are you saying that people who don't get equal pay are therefore legally
hittable? Adult women do not earn as much in the workforce as men do, yet it
illegal to hit them. Clearly, not receiving equal pay is not the deciding
factor in the legality of hitting children.>>>
Or this one:
>Being subjected to domestic violence in the home and having no
>legal recourse is not a "special right and privilege," Gene. It is the
>lack of rights and privileges, due entirely to chronological age>>>
Chris, the child gets spanked by his parents because its a special relationship
where spanking is allowed to occur, called a parent child relationship. It has
nothing to do with retarded adults, or
lack of equal pay or other rights of other special groups whatever.
Spanking is something rather unique, occuring nowadays only
in (our society) in the parent child relationship, or in loco parentis.
Chris, its a non issue, anyway. You want to make spanking illegal.
What does whether its based on the parent child relationship.. or whether its
based on age (WHICH IT ISNT)... have to do with
making spanking illegal? Chris, you are just making up something
to argue about. Very tedious, totally irrelevant, and annoying.
Tiresome. Like much of the stuff you are arguing about with Curt.
Are you argumentative? Do you just need attention? Something seems off here,
to me, when you want to spend reams of paper and hours discussion whether the
child spanking is age based or whether its based on the child's dependency
relationship with its parent.
I vote the dependency relationship, and I vote to end the discussion.
All agreed? Yes! Discussion ended. Thank you for listening.
Sincerely,
Gene
(who really has more important things to do
than write about the obvious more than once or
twice.. if they dont "get it" in one or two tries, then
.. heck.. let them "not get it!")
CaptainHar
Chris says:>In the numerous previous incarnations of this particular
>debate, no one has ever managed to think up a single factor, other
>than chronological age, which confers the legal (USA) right to inflict
corporal punishment. I predict you will be no exception. Prove me wrong if
you can. Chris
>
What confers the legal (USA) right to inflict corporal punishment
is not ONLY the age of the spankee (0 - 18) but the spanker MUST be a parent,
or in loco parentis. An adult may NOT legally spank a child. Only his
children..
Surely there have been many people who could have pointed that out to you..
surely I am not the only one who knows that adults are not legally permitted to
hit children in the USA.
Sincerely,
Gene
Randy Cox
In article <19980120033...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, on 20 Jan 1998 03:37:16 GMT, capta...@aol.com, CaptainHar says
>Chris, this is age discrimination argument is nuts. [cut]
>Children, yes, are people in age groups 1-18. Children
>have a special status in our society. They do not have
>the normal responsibilities or privileges of adults. The
>reasoning behind giving them special status is that they
>are not deemed to have acquired all the faculties of an adult person.
That is the same status we extend to adults whose faculties are
judged, medically or legally, to be insufficient for independence.
Those adults are not legally hit. Children who, by any standard
other than chronological age, have acquired all the faculties of
an adult person, may still be legally hit by a parent, even if the
parent is less 'facultied' than the child. "Faculties" is a very
general criterion. Differences abound in either group. The specific
criterion that distinguishes children from adults in determining if
the spanking parent has violated assault and battery prohibitions
is the age of the child person.
>Children have parents.
Everyone has parents. Is this going to be long?
>Parents have special responsibilities to care for and protect
>and educate their own children. Parents hit their own
>children ("spank").
People have special responsibilities to care for and protect and
educate other adults... sometimes, their children. Parents can
only hit their children, legally, when the children are minors.
>Non-parents may hit children if acting in place of the parent,
>such as teachers, babysitters, aunts, uncles..
That is only because they are acting in place of the parent and
parents are permitted to hit minor children.
>Note, hitting or spanking is permitted only in the context of
>the parental relationship. You or I as adults are not legally
>permitted to hit children unless acting "in loco parentis."
In my state, the permission is limited only to parents and only
if the child is a minor.
[cut]
Randy Cox
James Kershaw
Chris wrote:
>
> CaptainHar (capta...@aol.com) wrote:
> To the contrary, Gene, chronological age is the *only* factor
> which renders children legally hittable in western culture.
> : A child has very
> : special rights and privileges not due to his age,
> : but due to his inability to provide for himself.
<re-ordering the interjection to clarrify the initial point>
> Being subjected to domestic violence in the home and having no
> legal recourse is not a "special right and privilege," Gene. It is the
> lack of rights and privileges, due entirely to chronological age.
I suspect what Gene was refering to was the legal ability to force
maintenance from their parents. As far as I am aware, no adult in
the US is able to sue another adult for maintenance simply due to
some accidental relationship.
Sure, this is an age based societal expectation (that children should
not be forced into supporting themselves), but it is a special right
and priveledge that is not enjoyed by others in society.
> Gene, in advancing this particular argument, you are betting on a
> proven loser. In the numerous previous incarnations of this particular
> debate, no one has ever managed to think up a single factor, other
> than chronological age, which confers the legal (USA) right to inflict
> corporal punishment. I predict you will be no exception. Prove me wrong
> if you can.
This is a furphy... you can relate everything back to age since age is
the only discriminator to describe the social group in question.
James.
Chris
CaptainHar (capta...@aol.com) wrote:
: Chris, this is age discrimination argument is nuts.
As we shall see below, labeling my argument "nuts" is the best you
can do, Gene. I stand by my position.
: Backing up Randy, you claim:
: >To the contrary, Gene, chronological age is the *only* factor
: >which renders children legally hittable in western culture.>>>
: Actually, we are both forgetting the most important step in
: why children are legally hittable and by whom.
: Children, yes, are people in age groups 1-18. Children
: have a special status in our society. They do not have
: the normal responsibilities or privileges of adults. The
: reasoning behind giving them special status is that they
: are not deemed to have acquired all the faculties of an adult person.
You have completely failed to address my actual argument, Gene,
which was that whatever "faculties" the average child may lack, one can
always find a subset of the adult population who also lacks such faculties
yet remains legally non-hittable. You removed all of the examples from
your attributions. I am not surprised. In the 2 1/2 years of
alt.parenting.spanking's existence, not one person has ever successfully
pursued the line of argument you are now using. And it is clear that you
are destined to be no exception.
: Children have parents.
Yes, just as wives have husbands, slaves formerly had owners, etc.
: Parents have special responsibilities to care for and protect
: and educate their own children. Parents hit their own
: children ("spank").
This parental perogative *is* what is at issue here. Prospankers
want to defend it. Antispankers want to abolish it. Simply describing
the status quo adds nothing to the discussion.
: Non-parents may hit children if acting in place of the parent,
: such as teachers, babysitters, aunts, uncles..
Again, you belabor the obvious.
: ===========
: Note, hitting or spanking is permitted only in the context of
: the parental relationship. You or I as adults are not legally
: permitted to hit children unless acting "in loco parentis."
True. But since the issue we were discussing is why children and
only children constitute a class of persons in USA society who are legally
hittable *at all* by *anyone*, the above is irrelevant. No adults may be
physically punished for any reason, even if they are serial murderers, no
matter who is holding the whip handle.
: Chris, you have outdone yourself on this one! I cant believe
: your logic is this circuituous. Hopefully you are having a better day today.
: I cant believe you'd be this dense, but here are your own words..:
Earlier, I said that the best refutation you could muster was to
call my argument "nuts." I was mistaken. You also call me "dense." I
stand corrected. (Note that I always manage to make *my* points without
impugning your intelligence or sanity, Gene.)
: >Or are you saying that people who don't get equal pay are therefore legally
: hittable? Adult women do not earn as much in the workforce as men do, yet it
: illegal to hit them. Clearly, not receiving equal pay is not the deciding
: factor in the legality of hitting children.>>>
*You*, Gene, cited unequal pay as one of your arguments for
children being "different" and therefore hittable. I merely responded to
*your* argument (which you have snipped). As such, I stand by my rebuttal
of your original invalid point.
: Or this one:
: >Being subjected to domestic violence in the home and having no
: >legal recourse is not a "special right and privilege," Gene. It is the
: >lack of rights and privileges, due entirely to chronological age>>>
: Chris, the child gets spanked by his parents because its a special relationship
: where spanking is allowed to occur, called a parent child relationship.
The fact remains, minor children are the only class of persons
who are legally hittable. The "special relationship" between a parent and
dependent child may continue long after the child legally becomes an adult
if the child is retarded or otherwise permanently dependent due to special
needs. But only when the child is of the chronological age of legal
childhood is it legal to hit him or her. Like every other factor you have
introduced, this "special relationship" fails to account for the legality
of hitting children since adult children who are still dependent upon and
cared for by parents cannot be legally hit. Your argument fails.
: It has
: nothing to do with retarded adults, or
: lack of equal pay or other rights of other special groups whatever.
: Spanking is something rather unique, occuring nowadays only
: in (our society) in the parent child relationship, or in loco parentis.
Who hits the child is not the point. The fact that *anyone* can
legally hit children *is* the point. No other class of persons can be
legally hit no matter how "special" their "relationship" with their
assailant.
: Chris, its a non issue, anyway. You want to make spanking illegal.
: What does whether its based on the parent child relationship.. or
: whether its
: based on age (WHICH IT ISNT)... have to do with
: making spanking illegal?
In past centuries, physical punishment was widely used at various
levels of society. But all of these uses of physical punishment have been
abolished one by one until only one variety remains - physical punishment
of children. The fact that children, who are the weakest most emotionally
vulnerable members of society, are now the only ones *not* legally
protected from all forms of punitive violence, constitutes an argument in
favor of abolishing the practice. Ridicule this argument if you like,
but I have actually won people over to the antispanking side at least
twice in the past by use of it.
: Chris, you are just making up something to argue about.
I have won people over to the antispanking side with this
particular argument and have no intention of abandoning it. On the other
hand, no one has ever gotten anywhere with the line of argument *you* are
pursuing.
: Very tedious, totally irrelevant, and annoying. Tiresome.
You are the one who keeps claiming that some other factor besides
chronological age makes children legally hittable, Gene. No one has been
forcing you to pursue this dead end course of yours.
: Like much of the stuff you are arguing about with Curt.
: Are you argumentative? Do you just need attention? Something seems off here,
: to me, when you want to spend reams of paper and hours discussion whether the
: child spanking is age based or whether its based on the child's dependency
: relationship with its parent.
At the moment, Gene, the only reason any of us are discussing this
issue at all is that you keep arguing with us. Of course, I continue to
refute your arguments, so I am also partially responsible for continuing
the debate. But I am not the one complaining about how "tiresome" it all
is - you are.
: I vote the dependency relationship, and I vote to end the discussion.
Since I have already shown that legal hitting by parents of
offspring does not exist when the child is above a certain arbitrary age,
even if they remain totally dependent on their parents due to disability,
your "vote" fails to withstand critical scrutiny. As with every other
factor besides chronological age which you or anyone else has invoked as a
rationale for the legal hittability of children and only children, this
one collapses.
Chris