Anti-Spanking Law/Canadian-Chinese Connection
Alleycat
Today the Canadian Senate passed another disgusting new Bill about
spanking kids. For those who don't know what the Senate is, it's a
group of old fogies. Their purpose is to reject or approve government
Bills passed in parliament so politicians don't have to take the
blame. Half of them are so old they likely no longer know what
they're doing, but that's the idea. Most Canadians want the Senate
abolished because they're considered a useless waste of taxpayer
money. That will NEVER happen because politicians pass so many dumb
Bills they need them.
The Bill they passed today was about spanking your kids. AS OF TODAY
IT"S NOW A CRIMINAL OFFENSE TO SPANK YOUR KIDS. Ladies, from now on,
your part in childraising is to open your legs and spit the things
out. The government will do the rest .
Scary changes have been happening in Canada lately. The PROVINCE will
be making some changes as well. Each day we're becoming more like
China. It wouldn't be bad if it were the NEW China, but it's more
like the old.
Do you know that Canadians in Vancouver are outnumbered by Chinese,
East Indian, and a small number of other cultures? Soon we'll have to
travel to the States to buy Canadian ethnic food.
Did you know they're talking about making another holiday in BC -- in
February, and that some consideration is now being given to name it
after a Chinese festivity or astrological sign? I just know it won't
be a pig or snake. It'll no doubt be something like a lion so they
can attribute it to the Vancouver Lions.
There are other things that make Canadians wonder -- things such as:
Why is it necessary for local C-I-T-Y officials to travel to China
every single year, and for them to come here each year in order to be
able to run a city effectively? There's no way the city can afford it
and people are angry. This twin city idea stinks! It's nothing
other than a corrupt way for city councillors to travel to faraway
places for holidays at taxpayer expense. (They want to adopt a bunch
more of course.) Everybody resents it and resents, as well, the twin
city -- in China..
Why is it necessary for the Premier of BC to travel to China when the
province is so far in debt that we'll likely never get out?
Politicians keep telling us that these Chinese trips are beneficial to
the economy, yet every time they make a trip we find ourselves in more
debt with fewer services.
Why is it necessary for the Prime Minister of Canada to spend so much
time in China to attract more business to the country? It's not
happening. We're becoming increasingly bankrupt.
Why is the government slowly disarming Canadians, yet selling Candu
reactors to China and almost giving them away?
There's some talk now with school officials (discussion ONLY, for the
time being) about making kids sing "Oh Canada" (our anthem) in
schools each morning to promote patriotism. The next step will no
doubt be putting up pictures of Prime Minister Chretien in schools and
have everybody salute him. In fact, that would be more feasible
because it would solve our battles over whether we should sing the
anthem in two languages or one. (It's bad enough Quebec soldiers are
still serving Canada while denying any connection with Canada.)
Why have we got almost 18-hour-a-day programming telling us to buy
Canadian Registered Retirement Savings Plans? It's driving everyone
so crazy we're praying for another OJ. Does the government need
money that BADLY? Are we about to collapse like Albania and sell
our souls to China?
Each day the government takes control of more of our rights. I'm not
talking about frivolous rights like the Americans discuss (such as
being checked for liquor on your breath etc.), but serious rights such
as the rights to control our own kids, the rights to own weapons, in
particular for self-defense.
Sometimes I wish the Americans would seize us before we become part of
China, but then I wake up realizing we have nothing they woud want.
No, I goofed there.... I wonder how badly they want our war
criminals? -- Alleycat
__________________________
Trish
On Wed, 12 Feb 1997 11:32:41 GMT, op...@mail.netshop.net (Alleycat)
wrote:
>Today the Canadian Senate passed another disgusting new Bill about
>spanking kids. For those who don't know what the Senate is, it's a
>group of old fogies.
>
>The Bill they passed today was about spanking your kids. AS OF TODAY
>IT"S NOW A CRIMINAL OFFENSE TO SPANK YOUR KIDS. Ladies, from now on,
>your part in childraising is to open your legs and spit the things
>out. The government will do the rest .
>
Did they mention how they will enforce this? Will they just take
the word of every four year old who runs down the street and tells
officer friendly that he/she had just been spanked? What will the
fine/punishment be for the parent or guardian?
This (I agree) is pretty silly. We have people who literally beat
the crap out of kids and often times kill them who rarely get more
than a slap on the wrist for their actions. Adding one more law to
the books does nothing in reality for the welfare of kids, yet it is a
feel good and fuzzy measure for all the " risk free society" folks and
those who are ready, willing and able to turn their entire lives over
to the govmnt. Isn't there any sort of lobbying you can do up there
to get this taken off the books?
>Do you know that Canadians in Vancouver are outnumbered by Chinese,
>East Indian, and a small number of other cultures? Soon we'll have to
>travel to the States to buy Canadian ethnic food.
>
Well, I like living and working in a culturally diverse area, even
if we locals are just a bunch of corn-pones! ;) We have more Chinese
restaraunts in this area than Burger Kings, but I don't eat out much
so it really does not matter to me.
>There are other things that make Canadians wonder -- things such as:
>Why is it necessary for the Prime Minister of Canada to spend so much
>time in China to attract more business to the country? It's not
>happening. We're becoming increasingly bankrupt.
>
Travel perks of the rich and not so famous. Goes with the territory
I'm afraid, and as long as the big wigs and CEO's have enough cash to
fill the Mercedes with premium they really are not worried about
anyone or anything else.
>Why is the government slowly disarming Canadians, yet selling Candu
>reactors to China and almost giving them away?
>
Well, the Chinese are not anti-nuke and this is a great way to make
some money. I would also imagine that there will be more than one job
created over seas for a Canadian to get the reactors up and on line as
well as running them and keeping them running.
>Each day the government takes control of more of our rights. I'm not
>talking about frivolous rights like the Americans discuss (such as
>being checked for liquor on your breath etc.), but serious rights such
>as the rights to control our own kids, the rights to own weapons, in
>particular for self-defense.
>
While I do not endorse DUI etc.....I certainly don't want to get to
the point where we have "breath police" waiting at our doors or street
corners. Everyone is responsible for the govmnt. they voted in. No
other way to get away from it, short of an uprising.
>Sometimes I wish the Americans would seize us before we become part of
>China, but then I wake up realizing we have nothing they woud want.
>
>No, I goofed there.... I wonder how badly they want our war
>criminals? -- Alleycat
Naw, you were right the first time. ;)
>__________________________
>
robohen
On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Alleycat wrote:
> The Bill they passed today was about spanking your kids. AS OF TODAY
> IT"S NOW A CRIMINAL OFFENSE TO SPANK YOUR KIDS.
I think it should be a criminal offense to let kids misbehave.
> Do you know that Canadians in Vancouver are outnumbered by Chinese,
> East Indian, and a small number of other cultures? Soon we'll have to
> travel to the States to buy Canadian ethnic food.
Oh cool! The amount of edible food in Vancouver is increasing!
> There are other things that make Canadians wonder -- things such as:
> Why is it necessary for local C-I-T-Y officials to travel to China
> every single year, and for them to come here each year in order to be
> able to run a city effectively?
Because Vancouver is Asia's lumber yard, and city officials need to
persuade the Chinese to buy their overpriced lumber. Otherwise they might
as well be Albania-on-the-Pacific.
> There's no way the city can afford it
> and people are angry. This twin city idea stinks! It's nothing
> other than a corrupt way for city councillors to travel to faraway
> places for holidays at taxpayer expense. (They want to adopt a bunch
> more of course.) Everybody resents it and resents, as well, the twin
> city -- in China..
Since Chinese outnumber other Vancouverites as you say, naturally, by the
democratic process they will pick a twin city they like.
> Why is it necessary for the Premier of BC to travel to China when the
> province is so far in debt that we'll likely never get out?
> Politicians keep telling us that these Chinese trips are beneficial to
> the economy, yet every time they make a trip we find ourselves in more
> debt with fewer services.
Maybe you need to get your shit together.
> Why is the government slowly disarming Canadians, yet selling Candu
> reactors to China and almost giving them away?
Because otherwise there would be no jobs for Canadian engineers.
> Why have we got almost 18-hour-a-day programming telling us to buy
> Canadian Registered Retirement Savings Plans? It's driving everyone
> so crazy we're praying for another OJ. Does the government need
> money that BADLY? Are we about to collapse like Albania and sell
> our souls to China?
If so, you better start importing more Chinese who will straighten out
your economy.
> Sometimes I wish the Americans would seize us before we become part of
> China, but then I wake up realizing we have nothing they woud want.
We already own your economy.
Alleycat
Today the Canadian Senate passed another disgusting new Bill about
spanking kids. For those who don't know what the Senate is, it's a
group of old fogies.
The Bill they passed today was about spanking your kids. AS OF TODAY
IT"S NOW A CRIMINAL OFFENSE TO SPANK YOUR KIDS. Ladies, from now on,
your part in childraising is to open your legs and spit the things
out. The government will do the rest .
<SNIP>
Alleycat
__________________
p-cr...@uiuc.edu (Trish) wrote:
Did they mention how they will enforce this? Will they just take
the word of every four year old who runs down the street and tells
officer friendly that he/she had just been spanked? What will the
fine/punishment be for the parent or guardian?
This (I agree) is pretty silly. We have people who literally beat
the crap out of kids and often times kill them who rarely get more
than a slap on the wrist for their actions. Adding one more law to
the books does nothing in reality for the welfare of kids, yet it is a
feel good and fuzzy measure for all the " risk free society" folks and
those who are ready, willing and able to turn their entire lives over
to the govmnt. Isn't there any sort of lobbying you can do up there
to get this taken off the books?
_________________________
Actually I jumped the gun just a stitch there. The Bill is going for
FINAL hearing today, which almost always means it will go through --
unless parents have enough impact. Will have to wait until the end
of today to see what happens. -- Alleycat
_________________________
Blue@pacific.net.sg Bannerman
op...@mail.netshop.net (Alleycat) wrote:
(Crap deleted)
>No, I goofed there.... I wonder how badly they want our war
>criminals? -- Alleycat
Now what's all this racist nonsense about???
Trish
On Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:49:55 -0500, robohen <Rob...@concentric.net>
wrote:
>
>
>On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Alleycat wrote:
>
>> The Bill they passed today was about spanking your kids. AS OF TODAY
>> IT"S NOW A CRIMINAL OFFENSE TO SPANK YOUR KIDS.
>
>I think it should be a criminal offense to let kids misbehave.
>
Just for fun....how do you propose that parents prevent them from
doing so? And, when all else fails, what fines and punishments will
you place against the parent? :)
Gregory Resch
[newsgroups trimmed]
Would you all please drop dc.general from this thread?
Lars Ormberg
Alleycat wrote:
> _________________________
>
> Actually I jumped the gun just a stitch there. The Bill is going for
> FINAL hearing today, which almost always means it will go through --
> unless parents have enough impact. Will have to wait until the end
> of today to see what happens. -- Alleycat
> _________________________
If you think the Senate will refuse to pass a bill based on its
stupidity, then you've been ignoring the decade-old precident.
--
Lars Ormberg
(I don't know where Mr. T lives. Stop phoning my home)
la...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
__
The Commodore's webpage is bigger, badder, and more Java-packed than
ever before! Take a tour at http://www.ualberta.ca/~larso/ and have
an experience only categorizable as Lars On-Line!
* The Borg--our most lethal enemy--have begun an invasion of the
Federation. The assimilation continues...STAR TREK:FIRST CONTACT is
still showing in theatres across the country. (Oh, and some Star Wars
thing is supposedly on as well. Like anybody cares).
Lars Ormberg
Trish wrote:
>
> On Wed, 12 Feb 1997 11:32:41 GMT, op...@mail.netshop.net (Alleycat)
> wrote:
>
> >Today the Canadian Senate passed another disgusting new Bill about
> >spanking kids. For those who don't know what the Senate is, it's a
> >group of old fogies.
Old fogies who've kissed the ass of a Prime Minister along the way so
they have been given the juicy post.
> >The Bill they passed today was about spanking your kids. AS OF TODAY
> >IT"S NOW A CRIMINAL OFFENSE TO SPANK YOUR KIDS. Ladies, from now on,
> >your part in childraising is to open your legs and spit the things
> >out. The government will do the rest .
> >
>
> Did they mention how they will enforce this? Will they just take
> the word of every four year old who runs down the street and tells
> officer friendly that he/she had just been spanked? What will the
> fine/punishment be for the parent or guardian?
>
> This (I agree) is pretty silly. We have people who literally beat
> the crap out of kids and often times kill them who rarely get more
> than a slap on the wrist for their actions. Adding one more law to
> the books does nothing in reality for the welfare of kids, yet it is a
> feel good and fuzzy measure for all the " risk free society" folks and
> those who are ready, willing and able to turn their entire lives over
> to the govmnt. Isn't there any sort of lobbying you can do up there
> to get this taken off the books?
Laws don't leave. The Mathematical Law of Canadian Justice states "laws
are never subtracted, merely added and multiplied".
> Well, I like living and working in a culturally diverse area, even
> if we locals are just a bunch of corn-pones! ;) We have more Chinese
> restaraunts in this area than Burger Kings, but I don't eat out much
> so it really does not matter to me.
As someone who hates Chinese food and loves Burgers, I am rather
disgusted that there is not a Burger King in Edmonton at all, yet enough
Chinese restaurants to make my esophagus ache.
> >Why is the government slowly disarming Canadians, yet selling Candu
> >reactors to China and almost giving them away?
>
> Well, the Chinese are not anti-nuke and this is a great way to make
> some money. I would also imagine that there will be more than one job
> created over seas for a Canadian to get the reactors up and on line as
> well as running them and keeping them running.
Nope. Maybe an engineer or two, but we pretty much send them a nuclear
reactor and an instruction manual.
> corners. Everyone is responsible for the govmnt. they voted in. No
> other way to get away from it, short of an uprising.
There's an old saying that's on a .sig file in either can.politics or
ab.politics which states "It doesn't matter who you elect, the
government gets in."
Lars Ormberg
robohen wrote:
>
> On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Alleycat wrote:
> > There's no way the city can afford it
> > and people are angry. This twin city idea stinks! It's nothing
> > other than a corrupt way for city councillors to travel to faraway
> > places for holidays at taxpayer expense. (They want to adopt a bunch
> > more of course.) Everybody resents it and resents, as well, the twin
> > city -- in China..
>
> Since Chinese outnumber other Vancouverites as you say, naturally, by the
> democratic process they will pick a twin city they like.
The picking of a twin city isn't done by referendum or anything. The
mayor/council picks a city who wants a twin...kind of like the
Alberta&Sask./Quebec pen pals for junior high students.
> > Why is it necessary for the Premier of BC to travel to China when the
> > province is so far in debt that we'll likely never get out?
> > Politicians keep telling us that these Chinese trips are beneficial to
> > the economy, yet every time they make a trip we find ourselves in more
> > debt with fewer services.
>
> Maybe you need to get your shit together.
The premier can't do that from abroad.
He probably takes these trips the same reason Cretien does, to avoid
actual problems at home.
> > Why is the government slowly disarming Canadians, yet selling Candu
> > reactors to China and almost giving them away?
>
> Because otherwise there would be no jobs for Canadian engineers.
We charge extra for labour, so mostly just reactors are shipped over.
> > Sometimes I wish the Americans would seize us before we become part of
> > China, but then I wake up realizing we have nothing they woud want.
>
> We already own your economy.
Yet you can't even run yours. How did Rome collapse again?
Anne Hildrum
Trish <p-cr...@uiuc.edu> wrote in article
<3301de3f....@news.cso.uiuc.edu>...
> On Wed, 12 Feb 1997 11:32:41 GMT, op...@mail.netshop.net (Alleycat)
> wrote:
>
> >Today the Canadian Senate passed another disgusting new Bill about
> >spanking kids. For those who don't know what the Senate is, it's a
> >group of old fogies.
> >
> >The Bill they passed today was about spanking your kids. AS OF TODAY
> >IT"S NOW A CRIMINAL OFFENSE TO SPANK YOUR KIDS. Ladies, from now on,
> >your part in childraising is to open your legs and spit the things
> >out. The government will do the rest .
> >
>
> Did they mention how they will enforce this? Will they just take
> the word of every four year old who runs down the street and tells
> officer friendly that he/she had just been spanked? What will the
> fine/punishment be for the parent or guardian?
>
We have had this law in Norway for several years. If the 4 yeard old
had obvious signs of beeing beaten it wouldn't be that difficult. I doubt
they would prosecute for giving the kids a slap on the behind or in the
face. Though it is illegal as well. I don't remember exactly what was said
about in which cases it might be ok.
They said here that one main reason for the law, was to give the
parents a message that beating your kids is not acceptable. Also may be
parents ought to think a little about what they are doing.
I think here you either get a fine or up to 6 months in prison(mind you we
don't have any distinction between jail and prison). Of course the
injuries may end up under a more severe law, and then prison time will
be longer.
Anne
Anne Hildrum
Alleycat <op...@mail.netshop.net> wrote in article
<5ds9kp$6s0$1...@noc.van.hookup.net>...
>>
> The Bill they passed today was about spanking your kids. AS OF TODAY
> IT"S NOW A CRIMINAL OFFENSE TO SPANK YOUR KIDS. Ladies, from now on,
> your part in childraising is to open your legs and spit the things
> out. The government will do the rest .
This has been a law in Norway for many years. There hasn't been many
court cases though. There was a lot who was against it at the time, but
today I think most think the law is OK. Is spanking your kids the only way
to displine you children? Why should you be able to do to your kids
things you wouldn't be able to do to others?
Anne
Dr. Gordon Kenney
WHAT! You mean BEATING children isn't okay?! Damn... parents may
actually have to RESPECT their children as human beings now instead of
treating them like pets. So much for "easy discipline" -- we're going
to have to THINK and REASON with our kids now. Oh well, at least we
have our dogs to kick around... right?
-- Gordon
klaatu
Lars Ormberg wrote:
> =
> Trish wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 12 Feb 1997 11:32:41 GMT, op...@mail.netshop.net (Alleycat)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Today the Canadian Senate passed another disgusting new Bill about
> > >spanking kids. For those who don't know what the Senate is, it's a
> > >group of old fogies.
> =
> Old fogies who've kissed the ass of a Prime Minister along the way so
> they have been given the juicy post.
I used to think that Canadian government was incomprehensible, but I
guess you are Americans after all. Or maybe just human beings or
something like that.
> =
> > >The Bill they passed today was about spanking your kids. AS OF TODA=
Y
> > >IT"S NOW A CRIMINAL OFFENSE TO SPANK YOUR KIDS. Ladies, from now o=
n,
> > >your part in childraising is to open your legs and spit the things
> > >out. The government will do the rest .
> > >
> >
> > Did they mention how they will enforce this? Will they just take
> > the word of every four year old who runs down the street and tells
> > officer friendly that he/she had just been spanked? What will the
> > fine/punishment be for the parent or guardian?
> >
> > This (I agree) is pretty silly. We have people who literally beat
> > the crap out of kids and often times kill them who rarely get more
> > than a slap on the wrist for their actions. Adding one more law to
> > the books does nothing in reality for the welfare of kids, yet it is =
a
> > feel good and fuzzy measure for all the " risk free society" folks an=
d
> > those who are ready, willing and able to turn their entire lives over=
> > to the govmnt. Isn't there any sort of lobbying you can do up there
> > to get this taken off the books?
> =
> Laws don't leave. The Mathematical Law of Canadian Justice states "law=
s
> are never subtracted, merely added and multiplied".
Actually, in the State of Texas the recently re-wrote the laws after
noticing thing such as the silliness of an old law which read that
carrying a pair of wire-cuting pliers in your pocket on someone else's
property was a hanging offense (cattle rustling).
> =
> > Well, I like living and working in a culturally diverse area, even
> > if we locals are just a bunch of corn-pones! ;) We have more Chinese=
> > restaraunts in this area than Burger Kings, but I don't eat out much
> > so it really does not matter to me.
> =
> As someone who hates Chinese food and loves Burgers, I am rather
> disgusted that there is not a Burger King in Edmonton at all, yet enoug=
h
> Chinese restaurants to make my esophagus ache.
Well, you're better of cooking your own burgers, as near as I can tell
all Burger Kings are run by Pakistanis who just can't seem to get the
secret sauce quite right. Bizarre considering that it's 1000-Islands and
ranch salad dressings in mayonnaise.
> =
> > >Why is the government slowly disarming Canadians, yet selling Candu
> > >reactors to China and almost giving them away?
> >
> > Well, the Chinese are not anti-nuke and this is a great way to make=
> > some money. I would also imagine that there will be more than one jo=
b
> > created over seas for a Canadian to get the reactors up and on line a=
s
> > well as running them and keeping them running.
> =
> Nope. Maybe an engineer or two, but we pretty much send them a nuclear=
> reactor and an instruction manual.
Um, so how much are those again?
> =
> > corners. Everyone is responsible for the govmnt. they voted in. No
> > other way to get away from it, short of an uprising.
> =
> There's an old saying that's on a .sig file in either can.politics or
> ab.politics which states "It doesn't matter who you elect, the
> government gets in."
I guess that border might as well not exist, it's the same damned thing
down in the States. Hey, I got an idea! Let's all revolt and eliminate
the border, and create a new Nation running roughly from the Rockies to
the Appalachians, leave an abandoned corridor down the middle for the
Hispanic Latins from Central America to migrate up into and also the
Qeubecers can migrate south and they can meet up at Saint Louis and duke
it out over the flood-plain of the Mississippi. Canada can sell nuclear
reactors (that actually work and pretty safely) and the remnants of the
US can sell them agricultural produce. =
> =
> --
> Lars Ormberg
> la...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
-- =
Be kind to your | When the going gets weird the weird turn pro.
neighbors even though | http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/
they be transgenic | Now. chock full of uninteresting links.
chimerae. |-- Genesis 19:1-13 - Hebrews 13:2 -- =
------ =A9 copr 1997 TJH Internet SP all rights reserved ------------
"No. No. I am NOT allright." "Sarah Connor?"
klaatu
Anne Hildrum wrote:
> =
> Trish <p-cr...@uiuc.edu> wrote in article
> <3301de3f....@news.cso.uiuc.edu>...
> > On Wed, 12 Feb 1997 11:32:41 GMT, op...@mail.netshop.net (Alleycat)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Today the Canadian Senate passed another disgusting new Bill about
> > >spanking kids. For those who don't know what the Senate is, it's a
> > >group of old fogies.
> > >
> > >The Bill they passed today was about spanking your kids. AS OF TODA=
Y
> > >IT"S NOW A CRIMINAL OFFENSE TO SPANK YOUR KIDS. Ladies, from now o=
n,
> > >your part in childraising is to open your legs and spit the things
> > >out. The government will do the rest .
> > >
> >
> > Did they mention how they will enforce this? Will they just take
> > the word of every four year old who runs down the street and tells
> > officer friendly that he/she had just been spanked? What will the
> > fine/punishment be for the parent or guardian?
> >
> =
> We have had this law in Norway for several years. If the 4 yeard old
> had obvious signs of beeing beaten it wouldn't be that difficult. I dou=
bt
> they would prosecute for giving the kids a slap on the behind or in the=
> face. Though it is illegal as well. I don't remember exactly what was s=
aid
> about in which cases it might be ok.
> They said here that one main reason for the law, was to give the
> parents a message that beating your kids is not acceptable. Also may be=
> parents ought to think a little about what they are doing.
> I think here you either get a fine or up to 6 months in prison(mind yo=
u we
> =
> don't have any distinction between jail and prison). Of course the
> injuries may end up under a more severe law, and then prison time will
> be longer.
Actual child abuse is in my opinion not punished as severely as it
should be - however, some discipline is necessary. Spare the rod and
spoil the child is the old saying. Here in the States sociologists have
long noted two trends, one is that in the absence of parental authority
children get way out of hand and most often become youthful criminals;
the other trend is that child abuse creates monsters. There must of
course be some middle path whereby one imparts a respect for proper and
correct authority, but this almost requires saints for parents. A
supportive but mercy-driven social and legal system would be a great
help in this. The way I heard it was that sometimes your kids just have
to be spanked, but it just can't be done in anger, and not by the
offended adult. Otherwise all you teach is that might makes right, and
retribution/revenge appear to the child to be okay.
> =
> Anne
> =
> =
Trish
On Thu, 13 Feb 1997 19:46:34 -0500, klaatu <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
<huge snip>
> Canada can sell nuclear
>reactors (that actually work and pretty safely) and the remnants of the
>US can sell them agricultural produce. =
>
If Canada COULD get the US to purchase a few reactors, it would have
happened long ago. Guaranteed, it isn't going to happen in the
future. To much "NIMBY" yelling going on.
Trish
On 13 Feb 1997 21:57:49 GMT, "Dr. Gordon Kenney" <gke...@memphis.edu>
wrote:
Since you snipped the majority of the post, (not complaining, we
must save the bandwidth) I can not guess if you are replying to any
one person , or just in general.
I do not condone beating anyone. If you or anyone else who
disagrees with me feels that a few well placed fist prints will make
me "see your light", you would be mistaken. MY argument is against
the govt., be it US or Canadian, setting out to parent the worlds
children by adding more and more totally rediculous laws to the books.
The govt. can't take care of the hungry (who can't/won't take care
of themselves) and they certainly are not doing much in the way of
fixing our ntl. debt etc....so what on earth makes anyone think "they"
can better care for a kid? Just for the sake of asking, when was the
last time you tried to reason with an 18 month old? ;)
Trish
On Thu, 13 Feb 1997 19:56:58 -0500, klaatu <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
>Actual child abuse is in my opinion not punished as severely as it
>should be - however, some discipline is necessary. Spare the rod and
>spoil the child is the old saying. Here in the States sociologists have
>long noted two trends, one is that in the absence of parental authority
>children get way out of hand and most often become youthful criminals;
>the other trend is that child abuse creates monsters. There must of
>course be some middle path whereby one imparts a respect for proper and
>correct authority, but this almost requires saints for parents. A
>supportive but mercy-driven social and legal system would be a great
>help in this. The way I heard it was that sometimes your kids just have
>to be spanked, but it just can't be done in anger, and not by the
>offended adult. Otherwise all you teach is that might makes right, and
>retribution/revenge appear to the child to be okay.
>
I agree with this 100%. A well placed swat is IMO not abuse. A
well placed lecture for wrong doing is also, IMO, not
"emotinal/mental" abuse either. I find it more abusive to be a
lackadaisical parent who doen't give two shits about what their kids
are doing. "Ahh, he'll figure it out". Yeah, after how many,
arrests, rapes, etc.....
klaatu
Trish wrote:
> =
> On Thu, 13 Feb 1997 19:46:34 -0500, klaatu <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
> =
> <huge snip>
> =
> > Canada can sell nuclear
> >reactors (that actually work and pretty safely) and the remnants of th=
e
> >US can sell them agricultural produce. =3D
> >
> =
> If Canada COULD get the US to purchase a few reactors, it would have
> happened long ago. Guaranteed, it isn't going to happen in the
> future. To much "NIMBY" yelling going on.
Yeah, besides I gather that the CANDU reactors are essentially the same
thing as the US Naval SSBN (nuke subs) reactors, very safe, very
reliable and fairly low-maintenance, but they don't put out enough power
to be really usable in power generation in areas with loads of
customers. Correct me if I am wrong please, but I got the impresson that
a CANDU reactor would be idea of maybe a university or a factory but you
wouldn't try to run, say, New York City with one.
Alleycat
ERROR -- PLEASE NOTE CORRECTION
Just want to point out again that a few hours after I posted the
original message I called back to post that I had been wrong about
this law being before the Senate -- yet. Either there was
misunderstanding on my part or erroneous information from the source
(possibly a combination of both).
At any rate, here are some quotes from other newsgroups:
(I can remember the case of the American man discussed below. His
daughter had deliberately slammed the baby's fingers in the car door
and he spanked her bottom. Someone on the street saw him.)
Sorry for the misrepresentation. The messages below should
clarify where this matter stands in Parliament.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
_________________________________________________________
New Canadian Proposed Law wrt to Corporal Punishment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From "T. Carr" <t...@IAV.coastnet.com>
Organization EagleQuest, Inc.
Date 13 Feb 1997 02:52:30 GMT
Newsgroups alt.education.disabled
Message-ID <5dtvlf$imf$1...@marge.eaglequest.com>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From time to time the topic of discipline has come up in this
group. I found the article below to be both interesting, and
controversial.
Tim Carr
Reuters 2/11/97
Ottawa
Canada's Parliment opened its first debate on a bill that would make
it a crime for parents to use corporal punishment against their
children. The bill, opposed by the government would repeal Section 43
of the criminal code, which specifically exempts parents, teachers,
and guardians from being charged with assualt if they use "reasonable"
force in disciplining a child. That provision protected a US toutist
charged with assualt in Ontario in 1994 after spanking his daughter
for slamming a door on her sister's fingers.
"Research has shown that corporal punishment of children is harmful in
numerous ways", said the bill's Liberal party sponsor, Sharon
Carstairs. "It leads to the injury and death of children; it
contributes to the level of violence and aggression in society; and it
normalizes violence as a way of resolving conflict"
The opposition Reform Party in the House of Commons asserted that the
public would be heavily opposed to the change. "Every time the
government indicates a desire to violate the rights of responsible
parents to raise their children, the public outcry is incredible"
said Reform Member of Parliment Sharon Hayes.
The conserative Focus on the Family group said the bill would "lead to
unnecessary state interference in family life and... undermine parents
efforts to direct their children's upbringing"
But a coalition, led by the Repeal 43 Committee, is supporting Ms
Carstairs efforts and said six western Western countries, mostly
Scandinavian, ban spanking. "At the present time, Section 43 is a
hitting license" said committee official Corinne Robertshaw
Ms Carstairs said that "it is not my intention to criminalize parents
for spanking their children," but a Justice Department legal expert
told Reuters that a repeal of the law could lead to just that.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Re: New Canadian Proposed Law wrt to Corporal Punishment
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From mag...@BIX.com (magi.d on BIX)
Organization Delphi Internet Services Corporation
Date 13 Feb 97 11:59:47 GMT
Newsgroups alt.education.disabled
Message-ID <magi.d.8...@BIX.com>
References 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shame that it does all this, and now when the governments are trying
to remove the right of parents to discipline their children that the
crime rate has grown. Oh, wait... that is the fault of *parents*
though, isn't it? isn't, rather. Its the fault of the schools because
we don't teach the kids proper discipline. :P
(Sorry, I just got chapter and verse on this one. I don't hit the
kids, I'd never do it, evne though the parents tell me to do it...
But the principal says I can't verbally chastise the child either!)
Magi
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hope that puts things in a clearer light. (Please don't respond to
ORIGINAL message that states it is N-O-W law, and is before the
SENATE. ( It's OK to respond to this one.). The more respondents
there are to the original message, the more my message will mislead
people. Thanks. -- Alleycat
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Anne Hildrum
klaatu <kla...@clark.net> wrote in article <3303B85A...@clark.net>...
Anne Hildrum wrote:
>snipped<
>
> We have had this law in Norway for several years. If the 4 yeard old
> had obvious signs of beeing beaten it wouldn't be that difficult. I doubt
> they would prosecute for giving the kids a slap on the behind or in the
> face. Though it is illegal as well. I don't remember exactly what was
said
> about in which cases it might be ok.
> They said here that one main reason for the law, was to give the
> parents a message that beating your kids is not acceptable. Also may be
> parents ought to think a little about what they are doing.
> I think here you either get a fine or up to 6 months in prison(mind you
we
>
> don't have any distinction between jail and prison). Of course the
> injuries may end up under a more severe law, and then prison time will
> be longer.
>Actual child abuse is in my opinion not punished as severely as it
>should be - however, some discipline is necessary. Spare the rod and
>spoil the child is the old saying. Here in the States sociologists have
>long noted two trends, one is that in the absence of parental authority
>children get way out of hand and most often become youthful criminals;
>the other trend is that child abuse creates monsters. There must of
>course be some middle path whereby one imparts a respect for proper and
>correct authority, but this almost requires saints for parents. A
>supportive but mercy-driven social and legal system would be a great
>help in this. The way I heard it was that sometimes your kids just have
>to be spanked, but it just can't be done in anger, and not by the
>offended adult. Otherwise all you teach is that might makes right, and
>retribution/revenge appear to the child to be okay.
But isn't that just what people do. You spank them in anger and
generally it is the offended adult who does it. You wouldn't like
the old days back with " just wait till your daddy gets home, he will
deal with you" I trust. The question is; is spanking the only way
of asserting parental authority? Mind you I have given both my kids a
occasional slap on their behinds and on their hands..
But I can't say I am proad of it. With a little more thougt I might I
have found better way to deal with it. If a law can get some parents
to think twice about what they are doing, fine by me.
But then they say that psychological abuse is just as bad and
that is hard to catch.
Anne
>
> Anne
>
>
--
Be kind to your | When the going gets weird the weird turn pro.
neighbors even though | http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/
they be transgenic | Now. chock full of uninteresting links.
chimerae. |-- Genesis 19:1-13 - Hebrews 13:2 --
------ © copr 1997 TJH Internet SP all rights reserved ------------
"No. No. I am NOT allright." "Sarah Connor?"
----------
Anne Hildrum
Trish <p-cr...@uiuc.edu> wrote in article
<330486df....@news.cso.uiuc.edu>...
> On 13 Feb 1997 21:57:49 GMT, "Dr. Gordon Kenney" <gke...@memphis.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >WHAT! You mean BEATING children isn't okay?! Damn... parents may
> >actually have to RESPECT their children as human beings now instead of
> >treating them like pets. So much for "easy discipline" -- we're going
> >to have to THINK and REASON with our kids now. Oh well, at least we
> >have our dogs to kick around... right?
> >
>snipped <
>
> The govt. can't take care of the hungry (who can't/won't take care
> of themselves) and they certainly are not doing much in the way of
> fixing our ntl. debt etc....so what on earth makes anyone think "they"
> can better care for a kid? Just for the sake of asking, when was the
> last time you tried to reason with an 18 month old? ;)
>
And what would the 18 month old do, that would deserve beeing beaten?
Just a question.
Anne
Anne Hildrum
Trish <p-cr...@uiuc.edu> wrote in article
<33048881....@news.cso.uiuc.edu>...
> On Thu, 13 Feb 1997 19:56:58 -0500, klaatu <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
>
>
> >Actual child abuse is in my opinion not punished as severely as it
> >should be - however, some discipline is necessary. Spare the rod and
> >spoil the child is the old saying. Here in the States sociologists have
> >long noted two trends, one is that in the absence of parental authority
> >children get way out of hand and most often become youthful criminals;
> >the other trend is that child abuse creates monsters. There must of
> >course be some middle path whereby one imparts a respect for proper and
> >correct authority, but this almost requires saints for parents. A
> >supportive but mercy-driven social and legal system would be a great
> >help in this. The way I heard it was that sometimes your kids just have
> >to be spanked, but it just can't be done in anger, and not by the
> >offended adult. Otherwise all you teach is that might makes right, and
> >retribution/revenge appear to the child to be okay.
> >
>
>
> I agree with this 100%. A well placed swat is IMO not abuse. A
> well placed lecture for wrong doing is also, IMO, not
> "emotinal/mental" abuse either. I find it more abusive to be a
> lackadaisical parent who doen't give two shits about what their kids
> are doing. "Ahh, he'll figure it out". Yeah, after how many,
> arrests, rapes, etc.....
But do you think it is the well placed swat they are getting at with
this law. I doubt that. I would think it is more the real spanking.
The law when it came here created a lot of discussion and made
at least some parents think about what options they have. In some
cases there may be better ways to assert parental authority
than to spank your kids. Not spanking your kids doesn't
nessesarily mean you don't give two shits about what your
kids are doing. You aren't saying that all the convicts were
kids that never got spanked. I would guess more of them
were spanked than not.
Finding the right combination isn't all that easy.
Anne
But do
>
klaatu
Anne Hildrum wrote:
> =
> klaatu <kla...@clark.net> wrote in article <3303B85A...@clark.net=
>...
> Anne Hildrum wrote:
> =
> >snipped<
> =
> >
> > We have had this law in Norway for several years. If the 4 yeard old=
> > had obvious signs of beeing beaten it wouldn't be that difficult. I d=
oubt
> > they would prosecute for giving the kids a slap on the behind or in t=
he
> > face. Though it is illegal as well. I don't remember exactly what was=
> said
> > about in which cases it might be ok.
> > They said here that one main reason for the law, was to give the
> > parents a message that beating your kids is not acceptable. Also may =
be
> > parents ought to think a little about what they are doing.
> > I think here you either get a fine or up to 6 months in prison(mind =
you
> we
> >
> > don't have any distinction between jail and prison). Of course the
> > injuries may end up under a more severe law, and then prison time wil=
l
> > be longer.
> =
> >Actual child abuse is in my opinion not punished as severely as it
> >should be - however, some discipline is necessary. Spare the rod and
> >spoil the child is the old saying. Here in the States sociologists hav=
e
> >long noted two trends, one is that in the absence of parental authorit=
y
> >children get way out of hand and most often become youthful criminals;=
> >the other trend is that child abuse creates monsters. There must of
> >course be some middle path whereby one imparts a respect for proper an=
d
> >correct authority, but this almost requires saints for parents. A
> >supportive but mercy-driven social and legal system would be a great
> >help in this. The way I heard it was that sometimes your kids just hav=
e
> >to be spanked, but it just can't be done in anger, and not by the
> >offended adult. Otherwise all you teach is that might makes right, and=
> >retribution/revenge appear to the child to be okay.
> =
> But isn't that just what people do. You spank them in anger and
> generally it is the offended adult who does it. You wouldn't like
> the old days back with " just wait till your daddy gets home, he will
> deal with you" I trust.
Actually, that's _exactly_ how I was raised. And the dread of the
probable butt-whipping was considerably worse than anything my mom or
sisters might have done. Whatever else might be wrong with me, I never
did learn that simple unthinking reactive violence was the preferred
solution to failure-to-comply. =
> The question is; is spanking the only way
> of asserting parental authority? Mind you I have given both my kids a
> occasional slap on their behinds and on their hands..
> But I can't say I am proad of it. With a little more thougt I might I
> have found better way to deal with it. If a law can get some parents
> to think twice about what they are doing, fine by me.
> =
> But then they say that psychological abuse is just as bad and
> that is hard to catch.
Um, point well taken. There's a difference between "I'm too mad at you
now to spank you now, wait til daddy gets home and you two will have a
little talk" and "when your daddy gets home I am gonna tell him what you
did and he'll beat you within an inch of your life".
But I can tell you what's _not_ good for kids. I think that the only
time I've ever struck someone out of anger was when a woman I knew
caught her baby playing with matches and decided that the proper thing
to do to prevent a recurrence was to light up a match pack and start
burning his hand.
_That_ is the sort of thing that needs to be flat-out outlawed.
> =
> Anne
> =
> >
> > Anne
> >
> >
> =
> --
> Be kind to your | When the going gets weird the weird turn pro.
> neighbors even though | http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/
> they be transgenic | Now. chock full of uninteresting links.
> chimerae. |-- Genesis 19:1-13 - Hebrews 13:2 --
> ------ =A9 copr 1997 TJH Internet SP all rights reserved ------------
> "No. No. I am NOT allright." "Sarah Connor?"
> =
> ----------
-- =
Be kind to your | When the going gets weird the weird turn pro.
neighbors even though | http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/
they be transgenic | Now. chock full of uninteresting links.
chimerae. |-- Genesis 19:1-13 - Hebrews 13:2 -- =
------ =A9 copr 1997 TJH Internet SP all rights reserved ------------
Debra A. Dempsey
Anne Hildrum wrote:
>
> Trish <p-cr...@uiuc.edu> wrote in article
> <33048881....@news.cso.uiuc.edu>...
> > On Thu, 13 Feb 1997 19:56:58 -0500, klaatu <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >should be - however, some discipline is necessary. Spare the rod and
> > >long noted two trends, one is that in the absence of parental authority
> > >children get way out of hand and most often become youthful criminals;
> > >correct authority, but this almost requires saints for parents. A
> > >supportive but mercy-driven social and legal system would be a great
> > >to be spanked, but it just can't be done in anger, and not by the
> > >offended adult. Otherwise all you teach is that might makes right, and
> > >
> >
> >
> > well placed lecture for wrong doing is also, IMO, not
> > "emotinal/mental" abuse either. I find it more abusive to be a
> > lackadaisical parent who doen't give two shits about what their kids
> > are doing. "Ahh, he'll figure it out". Yeah, after how many,
> > arrests, rapes, etc.....
>
> But do you think it is the well placed swat they are getting at with
> this law. I doubt that. I would think it is more the real spanking.
> The law when it came here created a lot of discussion and made
> at least some parents think about what options they have. In some
> cases there may be better ways to assert parental authority
> than to spank your kids. Not spanking your kids doesn't
> nessesarily mean you don't give two shits about what your
> kids are doing. You aren't saying that all the convicts were
> kids that never got spanked. I would guess more of them
> were spanked than not.
> Finding the right combination isn't all that easy.
>
> Anne
>
>
>
> But do
> >
including the teenaged years!) would be a good start. And yes, that
will, on occasion, include immediate punishment for rules infractions
(including, when appropriate, spanking).
I know it can be difficult, but the rewards are long-term. In other
words, get involved. Be inquisitive. Tell your kids you want to meet
their friends. Occasionally, invite one or two over for dinner and a
good sit-down chat about what is expected from both your child and the
friend.
Find out from the teachers what your child is doing in school. Make
unscheduled visits to the school.
Set clear-cut, enforceable house rules. Know what is going on inside
your house (yes that includes checking your child's room).
Maybe by doing this, the incidence of physical punishment will be
reduced.
And never let a day pass without telling your children that you love
them.
Debbie
J.D. Baldwin
In article <01bc1b09$4b9bf960$LocalHost@anne-hildrum>, Anne Hildrum
<an...@sn.no> wrote:
>But do you think it is the well placed swat they are getting at with
>this law. I doubt that. I would think it is more the real spanking.
One would have thought that it wasn't the one-inch toy plastic
accessory to a G.I. Joe doll that they were "getting at" with the
zero-tolerance-for-weapons-in-school laws, too. One would have
thought that Midol and Tylenol weren't intended to be banned by
anti-drugs-in-school measures. And one would have been wrong. I see
you are posting from Norway, but you could at least learn a lesson
from the U.S. in this respect--the element of human nature that causes
this phenomenon is quite universal.
Never underestimate the power of small-minded government officials
to abuse the intent of a law, whenever the letter of it permits (and
sometimes even when the letter of it *doesn't* permit). Proposed
laws should *always* be judged in terms of the worst-case scenario.
Granting new powers to the state and creating new crimes is very
easy; revoking powers and disestablishing categories of "criminal"
activity is extremely difficult. If you don't think anyone will go
to jail or lose their children over a light "attention-getting" swat
on the behind, once you've granted that power to the state, you are
being extremely naive.
Norway may not suffer from the incredible levels of government
corruption, misconduct and lack of accountability that the U.S. does,
but that's no reason to throw caution entirely to the winds.
--
From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
_,_ Finger bal...@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
_|70|___:::)=}- for PGP public |+| retract it, but also to deny under
\ / key information. |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alleycat
p-cr...@uiuc.edu (Trish) wrote:
Actual child abuse is in my opinion not punished as severely as it
should be - however, some discipline is necessary. Spare the rod and
spoil the child is the old saying. Here in the States sociologists
have long noted two trends, one is that in the absence of parental
authority children get way out of hand and most often become youthful
criminals; the other trend is that child abuse creates monsters.
There must of course be some middle path whereby one imparts a respect
for proper and correct authority, but this almost requires saints for
parents. A supportive but mercy-driven social and legal system would
be a great help in this. The way I heard it was that sometimes your
kids just have to be spanked, but it just can't be done in anger, and
not by the offended adult. Otherwise all you teach is that might makes
right, and retribution/revenge appear to the child to be okay.
On Thu, 13 Feb 1997 19:56:58 -0500, klaatu <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
I agree with this 100%. A well placed swat is IMO not abuse. A
well placed lecture for wrong doing is also, IMO, not
"emotinal/mental" abuse either. I find it more abusive to be a
lackadaisical parent who doen't give two shits about what their kids
are doing. "Ahh, he'll figure it out". Yeah, after how many,
arrests, rapes, etc.....
_________________________
So do I! If spanking is abuse, so is yelling. I know of several
people who refuse to discipline their children because, just as
spanking has come to be wrongly connected with abuse, so has
discipline. I currently know of one lady who has a four year old who
constantly has bowel movements on the dresser or the table. This boy
slaps his baby sister in the face and the mother always says "Now,
now, sweety, you musn't do that." She sits down to have another one
of her million psychological chats with him. Anytime her husband
tries to spank him they get into a fierce argument. The child will
obviously grow up hating his father and disrespecting his mother.
The mother has been taking the child to a psychologist for a year now
so hopefully he'll stop his bowel movements soon. (I doubt they will.
Either the psychologist hasn't identified the problem or the mother
doesn't have the ability to "catch on.")
Many parents are unable to communicate with their kids and vice versa.
They simply don't know how or the child doesn't understand, and
often people don't have the ability or the money to LEARN how.
Spanking can't be that bad. The majority of us have been spanked and
the majority have turned out OK. Spanking has been done since the
world started. Surely people must have noticed by now, that the more
lenient society is becoming, the more evil the kids are turning out
-- I'm not saying there are MORE, but the ones that ARE bad are
without doubt much more violent..
The more the government takes control over families, the more lazy
people become. If the government will feed your child breakfast in
school, why should you bother? Let the school do it, for heaven's
sakes! Save 1/3 of your food bill and let the neighbours pay for it!.
In Canada, (at least in this province) for a mere hundred dollars a
month parents can turn their kids over to the government to be fed,
clothed, have their medical and dental bills looked after and have
their spending money taken care of. What a grand saving!!
Teenagers can be expensive to raise yourself! Of course you and I
pay for that, while we're told that our taxes will have to be raised
(even though our services are constantly cut) so that there will be
enough money for the medical and pension plans after all of this
foolishness. For $100 a month I'm frankly surpised more parents
don't do it. Besides the fact that they would no longer have to put
up with the nagging and uncontrollable problems caused by some teens,
they could go out and party and holiday wiithout having to wait until
their kids grow up.
Increasingly in Canada, parents are happily turning their teens over
to the welfare system. I know of one case in which one 14-year old
girl WANTED to go there badly because she was angry that her parents
expected her to come home at night. She eventually staged a disupte
that caused her father to hit the spoiled brat for the first time in
her life, and she was then able to proudly sport her red arm to
welfare authorities to get her way. By then the parent was so fed up
with her antics that he willingly passed her over. By the time she
was 15 she was living with a guy and had a child. Today, at
approximately 18, she still hangs around with the other girls in her
former class who quit school. Her boyfriend has long left her and
she's had a few since. She smokes pot regularly and plops her baby
off in the care of anyone who will look after him. She has no
intention of working because welfare provides for her, and if anyone
tries to make her work, she conveniently gets herself fired.
Again I want to say that the more governments try to take control of
people's kids, the less they'll feel it's their responsibility, and
the less attachment they'll have toward their kids. -- Alleycat
_________________
Dr. Gordon Kenney
I DO agree that government control over child-rearing is frightening.
I suppose (I my own mind) spanking is much like abortion (for me). I
wouldn't want my girlfriend/wife (not that I have BOTH, mind you) to
have an abortion, but for others it may be the best choice (as long as
the minimum necessary corporal punishment is complemented with
consistency, follow-through, explanations of correct behavior
(coaching/modeling), affirmation, and love. Without these, corporal
punishment tends to be, at best, ineffective and, at worst,
counterproductive.
-- Gordon
Trish
On Fri, 14 Feb 1997 17:10:34 -0500, klaatu <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
>Trish wrote:
>> =
>
>> On Thu, 13 Feb 1997 19:46:34 -0500, klaatu <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
>> =
>
>> <huge snip>
>> =
>
>> > Canada can sell nuclear
>> >reactors (that actually work and pretty safely) and the remnants of th=
>e
>> >US can sell them agricultural produce. =3D
>> >
>> =
>
>> If Canada COULD get the US to purchase a few reactors, it would have
>> happened long ago. Guaranteed, it isn't going to happen in the
>> future. To much "NIMBY" yelling going on.
>
>Yeah, besides I gather that the CANDU reactors are essentially the same
>thing as the US Naval SSBN (nuke subs) reactors, very safe, very
>reliable and fairly low-maintenance, but they don't put out enough power
>to be really usable in power generation in areas with loads of
>customers. Correct me if I am wrong please, but I got the impresson that
>a CANDU reactor would be idea of maybe a university or a factory but you
>wouldn't try to run, say, New York City with one.
>
>
>-- =
As I understand it, and that's not all that well, you are correct.
They are about half the size of the typical US reactor and their
generation capabilites are at 1/2 or less than ours.
Trish
On 15 Feb 1997 09:59:50 GMT, "Anne Hildrum" <an...@sn.no> wrote:
>
>
>Trish <p-cr...@uiuc.edu> wrote in article
Funny, I can't find anything that states or insinuates that I think
18 month olds or anyone for that matter "deserve to be beaten".
Actually, the part you snipped quotes me as stating that I don't
believe in anyone being beaten into submission. I asked the question
simply for the sake of asking. An 18 month old with little
communcation/comprehension skills can indeed be a true challenge to
communicate with.
To answer your question, if it were worded diffrently such as, "what
would cause me to apply a swat to the diapered end of an 18 month
old"? My answer would be, biting. I won't tolerate this in any form.
Sorry. Not much else comes to mind.:)
So back to the thread.....why do you feel more laws are needed to
attempt (poorly) in regulating parents and how they raise their kids?
Just a question.
Trish
On 15 Feb 1997 09:59:53 GMT, "Anne Hildrum" <an...@sn.no> wrote:
>
>
<SNIP SNIP>
....
>
>But do you think it is the well placed swat they are getting at with
>this law. I doubt that. I would think it is more the real spanking.
This could be. I only know what was posted and it was not the law as
it was written and submitted for vote. Even if it is for "the real
spanking", what's next? Another law that says if I chose to ground my
kid for breaking a rule, and tell him he has to spend the next five
days reading in his room, that I will be found guilty of some form of
abuse? We have laws on the books about abuse. If you look back I
originally asked how it would be enforced and I think it was you
(maybe not) who replied that some sort of proof (ie: marks, bruises)
would have to be present to bring someone in. Well, isn't that what's
already required?
>The law when it came here created a lot of discussion and made
>at least some parents think about what options they have.
In a pretend scenario, where everyone follows every law, you have
very few real options.
> In some
>cases there may be better ways to assert parental authority
>than to spank your kids. Not spanking your kids doesn't
>nessesarily mean you don't give two shits about what your
>kids are doing.
I agree and have stated many times that I am not one who feels that
spanking is the only answer. I am just saying an attention getting
swat can on occasion work wonders where volumes of words, time outs
etc...fail. Call it the "Parental Continuum of Force" just for fun.
And it is a discretionary practice....I make the decision as the
situation arises.
> You aren't saying that all the convicts were
>kids that never got spanked.
Right. I am not saying that.
> I would guess more of them
>were spanked than not.
Don't know and really don't care. Sorry, that is a pretty gruff
statement, but I just don't. Same as I don't care if someone had the
bejeezuz whipped out of them as a child and then blame the rest of
their pathetic lives on something that happened twenty years prior.
I would feel compasion for someone who went through hard times, but I
won't and don't see that as an excuse for anything they do wrong as
adults.
>Finding the right combination isn't all that easy.
>
>Anne
Yep, it's just one of the many tough things people go through. I
have personally agonized over choices made and later found to be not
as good as I had first hoped. But, it's MY choice and I live with it.
I think overall, if you were to get totals from history, for all the
kids ever born, how many ended up with a rap sheet? The ratio
probably isn't all that high.
Trish
On Mon, 17 Feb 1997 00:24:16 GMT, op...@mail.netshop.net (Alleycat)
wrote:
>p-cr...@uiuc.edu (Trish) wrote:
<SNIP> actually, that was Klaatu's paragraph.
>_____________________
>On Thu, 13 Feb 1997 19:56:58 -0500, klaatu <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
>
<SNIP> This one was my response. I know, these things get hard to
keep straight some times. :)
> I agree with this 100%. A well placed swat is IMO not abuse. A
>well placed lecture for wrong doing is also, IMO, not
>"emotinal/mental" abuse either.
<SNIP AGAIN>
>_________________________
>
>So do I! If spanking is abuse, so is yelling.
Anything in excess is not good for you. Be it discipline, water,
drugs, etc......There is a very fine line between a rut and a groove,
so is there a similarly fine line (or so it would appear) between
proper discipline and abuse. Once again, this has to be left to the
parents to decide. We don't need more govt. and laws.
> I know of several
>people who refuse to discipline their children because, just as
>spanking has come to be wrongly connected with abuse, so has
>discipline.
Yes, Spock had a lot of ideas didn't he? ;)
> I currently know of one lady who has a four year old who
>constantly has bowel movements on the dresser or the table. This boy
>slaps his baby sister in the face and the mother always says "Now,
>now, sweety, you musn't do that." She sits down to have another one
>of her million psychological chats with him. Anytime her husband
>tries to spank him they get into a fierce argument. The child will
>obviously grow up hating his father and disrespecting his mother.
>
Only time will tell. I hope the couple gets marriage counseling to
help them become a parenting "team" as opposed to being inconsistent
which confuses the hell outta kids.
>The mother has been taking the child to a psychologist for a year now
>so hopefully he'll stop his bowel movements soon.
Well, I hope the kid doesn't totally stop ! ;)
>The more the government takes control over families, the more lazy
>people become. If the government will feed your child breakfast in
>school, why should you bother?
While I agree with your first statement, I don't agree with the school
breakfast one. I have friends who are at the poverty level. They
both work full time and do the best they can, and are pretty happy for
what, they have. They did use and truely need the breakfast program
for their daughter, prior to it being shut off. I hope they don't
lose the hot lunch program. It is barely hanging on.
<SNIP welfare thingy>
>Again I want to say that the more governments try to take control of
>people's kids, the less they'll feel it's their responsibility, and
>the less attachment they'll have toward their kids. -- Alleycat
>_________________
>
Well, some may feel that way, but I don't and won't.
Trish
On 17 Feb 1997 05:21:33 GMT, "Dr. Gordon Kenney" <gke...@memphis.edu>
wrote:
>I DO agree that government control over child-rearing is frightening.
>I suppose (I my own mind) spanking is much like abortion (for me). I
>wouldn't want my girlfriend/wife (not that I have BOTH, mind you)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Chicken! ;)
> to
>have an abortion, but for others it may be the best choice (as long as
>the minimum necessary corporal punishment is complemented with
>consistency, follow-through, explanations of correct behavior
>(coaching/modeling), affirmation, and love. Without these, corporal
>punishment tends to be, at best, ineffective and, at worst,
>counterproductive.
>
>-- Gordon
>
>
For a lot of folks at or below the poverty line, who have no means
of supporting or caring for a child, I think it is the best choice.
It should (IMHO) be followed by free birth control or voluntary
sterilization should that be a request. I have a friend who would
gladly sign up for a tubal ligation if she could get some help paying
for it or a deferred payment but isn't qualified for medical
assistance of that nature.
Anne Hildrum
Trish <p-cr...@uiuc.edu> wrote in article
<33086f16....@news.cso.uiuc.edu>...
> On 15 Feb 1997 09:59:53 GMT, "Anne Hildrum" <an...@sn.no> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> <SNIP SNIP>
> ....
> >
> >But do you think it is the well placed swat they are getting at with
> >this law. I doubt that. I would think it is more the real spanking.
>
> This could be. I only know what was posted and it was not the law as
> it was written and submitted for vote. Even if it is for "the real
> spanking", what's next? Another law that says if I chose to ground my
> kid for breaking a rule, and tell him he has to spend the next five
> days reading in his room, that I will be found guilty of some form of
> abuse? We have laws on the books about abuse. If you look back I
> originally asked how it would be enforced and I think it was you
> (maybe not) who replied that some sort of proof (ie: marks, bruises)
> would have to be present to bring someone in. Well, isn't that what's
> already required?
Actually your 5 days of grounding your child might be considered
child abuse here. I didn't say it would, but it might. I think prior to
the law most people accepted that you spanked you children. Today that
is not accepted here. Earlier if you slapped your child, most would not
think too much about it, today most people would look at you and
consider you a lousy parent who had to take to physical violence
with your child.
Some will say ok you give him /her a swat or a slap, but a lot will
react to that as well.
I guess after the law it would be easier for someone to report it than
it was earlier. As far as I know there has been less than 10 cases
that points directly to that law.
I am not sure what the rap sheet has to do with this.
Anne
Anne Hildrum
Trish <p-cr...@uiuc.edu> wrote in article
<33086d31....@news.cso.uiuc.edu>...
> On 15 Feb 1997 09:59:50 GMT, "Anne Hildrum" <an...@sn.no> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Trish <p-cr...@uiuc.edu> wrote in article
> ><330486df....@news.cso.uiuc.edu>...
> >> On 13 Feb 1997 21:57:49 GMT, "Dr. Gordon Kenney" <gke...@memphis.edu>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> Funny, I can't find anything that states or insinuates that I think
> 18 month olds or anyone for that matter "deserve to be beaten".
> Actually, the part you snipped quotes me as stating that I don't
> believe in anyone being beaten into submission. I asked the question
> simply for the sake of asking. An 18 month old with little
> communcation/comprehension skills can indeed be a true challenge to
> communicate with.
My question was just related to your point about trying to reasoning with
a 18 year month old. There is also quite a difference between giving
the diapered end of the 18 year old a swat and beating the child.
BTW I didn't get the idea you were for beating the poor child. :)
You are against a law forbidding it. I was also very sceptical at first,
but have seen a great change in peoples attitude towards spanking/
beating their children here after the law.
>
> To answer your question, if it were worded diffrently such as, "what
> would cause me to apply a swat to the diapered end of an 18 month
> old"? My answer would be, biting. I won't tolerate this in any form.
> Sorry. Not much else comes to mind.:)
>
> So back to the thread.....why do you feel more laws are needed to
> attempt (poorly) in regulating parents and how they raise their kids?
> Just a question.
I guess we have more than enough laws here, that regulates
the duties parents have towards their children, and children
towards their parents.
I don't know very much about those laws in the USA to compare, but
I'll guess we have a lot more on this subject as we have on a lot others.
The law made parents think. Sure they ought to think without the law,
but the opinion really changed after that law.
Otherwise I think there are a whole lot of laws that needn't be there.
Anne
>
Lars Ormberg
Trish wrote:
> This could be. I only know what was posted and it was not the law as
> it was written and submitted for vote. Even if it is for "the real
> spanking", what's next? Another law that says if I chose to ground my
> kid for breaking a rule, and tell him he has to spend the next five
> days reading in his room, that I will be found guilty of some form of
> abuse? We have laws on the books about abuse. If you look back I
> originally asked how it would be enforced and I think it was you
> (maybe not) who replied that some sort of proof (ie: marks, bruises)
> would have to be present to bring someone in. Well, isn't that what's
> already required?
Actually, they could try to get you on wrongful imprisonment. If you
ground your son and he storms out of his room, you cannot hold him back
from leaving your house because it's classified as wrongful
imprisonment.
> I agree and have stated many times that I am not one who feels that
> spanking is the only answer. I am just saying an attention getting
> swat can on occasion work wonders where volumes of words, time outs
> etc...fail. Call it the "Parental Continuum of Force" just for fun.
> And it is a discretionary practice....I make the decision as the
> situation arises.
Spanking isn't the only answer, but that doesn't mean its not AN answer.
--
Lars Ormberg
(I don't know where Mr. T lives. Stop phoning my home)
la...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
__
The Commodore's webpage is bigger, badder, and more Java-packed than
ever before! Take a tour at http://www.ualberta.ca/~larso/ and have
an experience only categorizable as Lars On-Line!
* The Borg--our most lethal enemy--have begun an invasion of the
Federation. The assimilation continues...STAR TREK:FIRST CONTACT is
still showing in theatres across the country. (Oh, and some Star Wars
thing is supposedly on as well. Like anybody cares).
Keith Rose
Trish <p-cr...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
[snip-KR]
> As I understand it, and that's not all that well, you are correct.
> They are about half the size of the typical US reactor and their
> generation capabilites are at 1/2 or less than ours.
>
But of course one could build two of them. And they would both be safer
than the US-style reactor they replaced. And the US reactor would be
safer than a Russian style reactor. And I don't know where the British
and French designs fit into this picture.
(And I'm still waiting for _someone_ to explain the Chinese connection.
to spanking laws...)
KR
--
Keith Rose
kr...@cyberus.ca (home)
K.R...@telesat.ca (work)
Matt Walcoff
You know, spanking is already illegal in six European countries. And
good thing too. The researchers say spanked kids grow up to be bitter
teens and angry adults more often than others. They ought to ban the
practice everywhere.
Matt
Trish
On 17 Feb 1997 22:42:59 GMT, "Anne Hildrum" <an...@sn.no> wrote:
>
>
>Trish <p-cr...@uiuc.edu> wrote in article
><33086d31....@news.cso.uiuc.edu>...
>> On 15 Feb 1997 09:59:50 GMT, "Anne Hildrum" <an...@sn.no> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Trish <p-cr...@uiuc.edu> wrote in article
>> ><330486df....@news.cso.uiuc.edu>...
>> >> On 13 Feb 1997 21:57:49 GMT, "Dr. Gordon Kenney" <gke...@memphis.edu>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> Funny, I can't find anything that states or insinuates that I think
>> 18 month olds or anyone for that matter "deserve to be beaten".
>> Actually, the part you snipped quotes me as stating that I don't
>> believe in anyone being beaten into submission. I asked the question
>> simply for the sake of asking. An 18 month old with little
>> communcation/comprehension skills can indeed be a true challenge to
>> communicate with.
>
>My question was just related to your point about trying to reasoning with
>a 18 year month old. There is also quite a difference between giving
>the diapered end of the 18 year old a swat and beating the child.
>BTW I didn't get the idea you were for beating the poor child. :)
>You are against a law forbidding it. I was also very sceptical at first,
>but have seen a great change in peoples attitude towards spanking/
>beating their children here after the law.
>>
Well, then I guess we can agree that I am not stating my position very
clearly. I am against an "additional" law regarding corporal
punishment when there are existing laws already on the books regarding
such behavior. I guess my literal thinking is what the seems to cause
problems when discussing this. Literally, spanking is to strike with
something flat, such as the palm of the hand on the buttocks, where as
beating is to punish by striking repeatedly and hard; whip etc.....
>> To answer your question, if it were worded diffrently such as, "what
>> would cause me to apply a swat to the diapered end of an 18 month
>> old"? My answer would be, biting. I won't tolerate this in any form.
>> Sorry. Not much else comes to mind.:)
>>
>> So back to the thread.....why do you feel more laws are needed to
>> attempt (poorly) in regulating parents and how they raise their kids?
>> Just a question.
>
>I guess we have more than enough laws here, that regulates
>the duties parents have towards their children, and children
>towards their parents.
>I don't know very much about those laws in the USA to compare, but
>I'll guess we have a lot more on this subject as we have on a lot others.
>The law made parents think. Sure they ought to think without the law,
>but the opinion really changed after that law.
>Otherwise I think there are a whole lot of laws that needn't be there.
>
>Anne
>>
I agree, it will most likely (atleast should) make people stop and
think. Instead of being charged with one count of "blah" by adding a
second law to the books, the same act could now result in two counts
of "blah" thereby adding a few more teeth to said law. I still
maintain that it will make little or no difference (IMHO, YMMV) to the
actual numbers of those who choose to spank their kids. We have seen
this same type of thing here in the states. They keep adding more and
more "laws" regarding drive by shootings, as if the first five laws
broken during this particular act were not enough. I don't have any
facts or figures to back up my opinion on the matter, but being the
average Jane Citizen, it does not appear to have changed the number of
news reports regarding drive by's.
Education, I would think, should cost less than incarceration. Just
my .02! :)
Trish
On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 03:49:32 GMT, mwal...@wam.umd.edu (Matt Walcoff)
wrote:
Well, that's why we are having this discussion.:) Of course, there
will not be a general agreement on the topic, but it is nice to hear
other peoples view points. Law or no law, humans are emotional
animals and even the ones with the best of intent, can screw up. Some
who parent out of fear, ie: those that barely if ever disciplin their
kids, even with verbal warnings (and I know way to many of these) end
up with kids who are out of control, obnoxious, tend to have lower
grades in school, and tend to be outcast by the majority of their
peers. Some end up as loners because they have never been taught to
control themselves, as well as the fact that for every action there is
a reaction. Sometimes, a negative one.
Your mention of "researchers saying" brought to mind a news snippet
I heard about two weeks ago. It was regarding this topic (spanking)
and that according to "researchers" of late, they found in afro
american families, it is a common practice and that those that were
not punished in a corporal fashion, did worse and ended up with
delinquency problems. I am still waiting for them to come up with
another study for those of us with Irish temperaments. ;)
Trish
On Mon, 17 Feb 1997 23:31:52 -0500, kr...@cyberus.ca (Keith Rose)
wrote:
>Trish <p-cr...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>[snip-KR]
>> As I understand it, and that's not all that well, you are correct.
>> They are about half the size of the typical US reactor and their
>> generation capabilites are at 1/2 or less than ours.
>>
>But of course one could build two of them. And they would both be safer
>than the US-style reactor they replaced. And the US reactor would be
>safer than a Russian style reactor. And I don't know where the British
>and French designs fit into this picture.
>
Well, they won't be buying or building any in the states until the
coal plants become so costly there is no other option, (which won't be
all that much longer most likely). And even then it wouldn't surprise
me if they opted for windmills! :) It's really too bad that there is
such a paranoia about nukes....our business gets as bad or worse media
coverage than LE.
>(And I'm still waiting for _someone_ to explain the Chinese connection.
>to spanking laws...)
>
>KR
>--
>Keith Rose
I'm pretty sure there isn't a connection......:)
>kr...@cyberus.ca (home)
>K.R...@telesat.ca (work)
Alleycat
WAS: ANTI-SPANKING LAW
opdi@netshop(Alleycat) wrote
The more the government takes control over families, the more lazy
people become. If the government will feed your child breakfast in
school, why should you bother?
______________________
p-cr...@uiuc.edu (Trish) wrote:
While I agree with your first statement, I don't agree with the school
breakfast one. I have friends who are at the poverty level. They
both work full time and do the best they can, and are pretty happy for
what, they have. They did use and truely need the breakfast program
for their daughter, prior to it being shut off. I hope they don't
lose the hot lunch program. It is barely hanging on.
_______________________
You say they both work full time. What kind of income would the
couple be pulling in with two full-time jobs? I gather that they're
either paid exceptionally low or they have a large family. I'm going
to talk about something here but I'm not referring to your friends in
the first few paragraphs, obviously.
Some parents are paid welfare, and they go out and spend it on foolish
things instead of breakfast for their kids. If parents are
supported by welfare and are still unable to provide for their kids,
the welfare should be questioning why. Are they spending it wisely?
Such parents should be forced to submit a tally of their spending to
the welfare for study for several months..
If they're not spending wisely, they should be required to take
regular financial instruction until the problem can be cleared up. If
they refuse to take such courses or aren't smart enough, the kids
should be taken from the parents because the parent's aren't able to
do a proper job and are seriously abusing their kids.
If the welfare parents ARE spending wisely and still can't feed
their kids, there's obviously a serious flaw in the system and they
should boost the welfare payments for that particular family, rather
than formi a hundred NEW ways to tax people, because the more plans
and proposals governments come up with, the harder it becomes to track
government spending.
We're already paying school taxes and much of our money is going
toward welfare so I don't want to see new taxes for people who aren't
feeding their kids and new taxes for people who aren't dressing them,
etc. What happens if they can't give their kids lunch either -- or
buy them boots and mitts in winter? Will we have more taxes for
those? I really think the parents of such children should be looked
at carefully -- especially if they have money to spend the night out
on the town, or if they have money for liquor, cigarettes, bingo
games, nice cars, or video machines.
Another consideration could be birth control. You spoke earlier about
tubal ligation. I have to agree that it should be provided "free of
charge" by the government for those who can prove they are truly on
the poverty line. It's FAR, FAR cheaper than having to pay for the
kids parents can't afford and I find it really is astounding that
they don't. . The future will be interesting. I suspect that very
shortly there will be timed-release birth control pills that will last
for several years. That day can't come too soon. In the meantime, I
think governments should be doing everything possible to encourage
people NOT to have large families. Oh, that reminds me -- Do you
know what the original purpose of a baby bonus was? It was to
encourage people to give birth! -- Alleycat
_____________________
Trish
On 17 Feb 1997 22:24:38 GMT, "Anne Hildrum" <an...@sn.no> wrote:
>>Trish <p-cr...@uiuc.edu> wrote;
>
>Actually your 5 days of grounding your child might be considered
>child abuse here. I didn't say it would, but it might. I think prior to
>the law most people accepted that you spanked you children. Today that
>is not accepted here. Earlier if you slapped your child, most would not
>think too much about it, today most people would look at you and
>consider you a lousy parent who had to take to physical violence
>with your child.
>Some will say ok you give him /her a swat or a slap, but a lot will
>react to that as well.
>I guess after the law it would be easier for someone to report it than
>it was earlier. As far as I know there has been less than 10 cases
>that points directly to that law.
>
>>
>>
>> >The law when it came here created a lot of discussion and made
>> >at least some parents think about what options they have.
>>
>> In a pretend scenario, where everyone follows every law, you have
>> very few real options.
>>
>> > In some
>> >cases there may be better ways to assert parental authority
>> >than to spank your kids. Not spanking your kids doesn't
>> >nessesarily mean you don't give two shits about what your
>> >kids are doing.
>>
>> I agree and have stated many times that I am not one who feels that
>> spanking is the only answer. I am just saying an attention getting
>> swat can on occasion work wonders where volumes of words, time outs
>> etc...fail. Call it the "Parental Continuum of Force" just for fun.
>> And it is a discretionary practice....I make the decision as the
>> situation arises.
>>
>> > You aren't saying that all the convicts were
>> >kids that never got spanked.
>>
>> Right. I am not saying that.
>>
>> > I would guess more of them
>> >were spanked than not.
>>
>> Don't know and really don't care. Sorry, that is a pretty gruff
>> statement, but I just don't. Same as I don't care if someone had the
>> bejeezuz whipped out of them as a child and then blame the rest of
>> their pathetic lives on something that happened twenty years prior.
>> I would feel compasion for someone who went through hard times, but I
>> won't and don't see that as an excuse for anything they do wrong as
>> adults.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Finding the right combination isn't all that easy.
>> >
>> >Anne
>>
>>
>> Yep, it's just one of the many tough things people go through. I
>> have personally agonized over choices made and later found to be not
>> as good as I had first hoped. But, it's MY choice and I live with it.
>> I think overall, if you were to get totals from history, for all the
>> kids ever born, how many ended up with a rap sheet? The ratio
>> probably isn't all that high.
>
>I am not sure what the rap sheet has to do with this.
>
>Anne
Re: your mentioning inmates/convicts who may or may not have been
spanked. This leads me to believe that someone, somewhere would be
insinuating that spanking causes such trauma that when the kids grow
up, they end up on the wrong side of the law. My statement after that
is pointing to an overall total. If you take the total number of kids
born from the beginning of record keeping time to today, find out how
many were spanked and compare those numbers to how many ended up
convicts, I don't *think* the ratio wil be all that high. Of course,
I may be totally full of it, but hey.....it would be the first time I
was wrong. :) (today anyway....)
I guess my bottom line on this matter (no pun intended) is that
society's penchant for overloading law books is just a warm and fuzzy
way of quieting those who are searching for as near to a zero risk
society as possible. (which of course is impossible) Raising kids is
a crap shoot, and there are no guarantees in this or anything else
life has to offer. I just wish people would stop acting on things
because they want to believe (falsly) that in some fashion they can
actually get a guaranteed outcome if they only follow certain
established rules and laws.
Trish
>Trish wrote:
>
>> This could be. I only know what was posted and it was not the law as
>> it was written and submitted for vote. Even if it is for "the real
>> spanking", what's next? Another law that says if I chose to ground my
>> kid for breaking a rule, and tell him he has to spend the next five
>> days reading in his room, that I will be found guilty of some form of
>> abuse? We have laws on the books about abuse. If you look back I
>> originally asked how it would be enforced and I think it was you
>> (maybe not) who replied that some sort of proof (ie: marks, bruises)
>> would have to be present to bring someone in. Well, isn't that what's
>> already required?
>
>Actually, they could try to get you on wrongful imprisonment. If you
>ground your son and he storms out of his room, you cannot hold him back
>from leaving your house because it's classified as wrongful
>imprisonment.
>
>
Hmmmmm, I guess this could mean a trip to the library. I would be
intersted in knowing just what, archaic laws are on the books
regarding issues such as this. *note: I meant but failed to state
that a five day ban to the room would be an after school kind of thing
losing ones Nintendo and TV capabilties etc....Not locked into a room
for five days and only squishing some white bread through the key
hole. ;)
>> I agree and have stated many times that I am not one who feels that
>> spanking is the only answer. I am just saying an attention getting
>> swat can on occasion work wonders where volumes of words, time outs
>> etc...fail. Call it the "Parental Continuum of Force" just for fun.
>> And it is a discretionary practice....I make the decision as the
>> situation arises.
>
>Spanking isn't the only answer, but that doesn't mean its not AN answer.
>
>--
Agreed.:)
mm
p-cr...@uiuc.edu (Trish) wrote:
>On 17 Feb 1997 05:21:33 GMT, "Dr. Gordon Kenney" <gke...@memphis.edu>
>wrote:
>
>>I DO agree that government control over child-rearing is frightening.
>>I suppose (I my own mind) spanking is much like abortion (for me). I
>>wouldn't want my girlfriend/wife (not that I have BOTH, mind you)
>
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Chicken! ;)
>
>
>> to
>>have an abortion, but for others it may be the best choice (as long as
>>the minimum necessary corporal punishment is complemented with
>>consistency, follow-through, explanations of correct behavior
>>(coaching/modeling), affirmation, and love. Without these, corporal
>>punishment tends to be, at best, ineffective and, at worst,
>>counterproductive.
>>
>>-- Gordon
>>
>>
> For a lot of folks at or below the poverty line, who have no means
>of supporting or caring for a child, I think it is the best choice.
Ahhhh! So what's the next step. If you're salary is below a certain
line you have an abortion? Maybe this should be government mandated
to keep the welfare roles down?
Or are your saying that we should make abortion illegal for those with
a salary above a certain range?
>It should (IMHO) be followed by free birth control or voluntary
>sterilization should that be a request.
What exactly should be followed by voluntary sterilization? When you
bought your sociology textbook I think you went to the wrong shelf and
got something from Orwell instead.
I have a friend who would
>gladly sign up for a tubal ligation if she could get some help paying
>for it or a deferred payment but isn't qualified for medical
>assistance of that nature.
She wants tubal ligation because she's poor and can't afford kids but
can't afford ligation as well.
Well, if she gets the money for the ligation then she may be able to
afford kids and not want it. Unfortunately, if it is government
provided she may be getting the money a bit too late.
Well, perhaps we should look into how we can get money better
distributed in our society rather than classifying people as
chronically poor and good candidates for sterilization.
You'll next want to start up a market selling their organs.
Andy Katz
op...@mail.netshop.net (Alleycat) wrote:
>You say they both work full time. What kind of income would the
>couple be pulling in with two full-time jobs? I gather that they're
>either paid exceptionally low or they have a large family. I'm going
>to talk about something here but I'm not referring to your friends in
>the first few paragraphs, obviously.
Many 'jobs' today are really independent contractor or straight
commission positions, particularly as the service economy expands. To
take one example, in mid '92 I drove an airport shuttle for the second
largest such provider in SoCal. We drivers, though employed, were not
paid; rather *we* paid to lease the vans for a 12 hour shift, in
addition to kicking in 23% of our scheduled business earnings. In
order to get a van, I arrived at work 1 1/2 hours early and usually
didn't leave until after paying my gate fees and lease. I worked on
the average 14 hours per day, and earned, in the three months I drove
the shuttle, an average of $20.00 per shift. While a handful of
longtime drivers appeared to earn a living wage, my earnings were more
typical. In the short time I was with the company, my driver number,
assigned on the basis of when hired, became surprisingly senior.
During the recession of the early 90s, I learned that jobs like that
are not uncommon. While they do not permit one to put food on the
table, they do allow the government to claim that unemployment is
reduced.
>Some parents are paid welfare, and they go out and spend it on foolish
>things instead of breakfast for their kids. If parents are
>supported by welfare and are still unable to provide for their kids,
>the welfare should be questioning why. Are they spending it wisely?
Welfare payments vary from state to state and from family to family,
depending on eligibility and other factors. Furthermore, inability to
provide is a somewhat subjective judgement--are children getting
enough to eat? If so, is the food healthy or junky? Are they receiving
decent medical care? If the payer is Medicaid, they may be getting
second rate care because many providers don't wish to accept Medicaid.
>Such parents should be forced to submit a tally of their spending to
>the welfare for study for several months..
To be evaluated by a whole new bureaucrat ... the micro-economic
social worker?
>If they're not spending wisely, they should be required to take
>regular financial instruction until the problem can be cleared up. If
>they refuse to take such courses or aren't smart enough, the kids
>should be taken from the parents because the parent's aren't able to
>do a proper job and are seriously abusing their kids.
Taken away and placed where? With whom? Breaking up families because
some people do not have good financial sense is both inhumane and
very, very expensive. It places welfare into a primarily punitive,
Pavlovian mode. Particularly as the judgement of whether one is
spending wisely is subjective. It demands that middle class social
workers judge the financial habits of the poor, which they are ill
equiped to do.
>If the welfare parents ARE spending wisely and still can't feed
>their kids, there's obviously a serious flaw in the system and they
>should boost the welfare payments for that particular family, rather
>than formi a hundred NEW ways to tax people, because the more plans
>and proposals governments come up with, the harder it becomes to track
>government spending.
Taking children away, forcing poor people to submit financial plans to
the government, evaluating those plans, raising some benefits and not
others ... all cost money and are NEW ways to spend people's tax
dollars. Why is it that tax dollars spent to feed children arouse such
ire, such a feeling of lose and waste among the middle and pseudo
middle class, when ten of those same dollars used to punish the poor
in some way--taking their children away, imprisoning them--is
considered money well spent?
In other words:
$1.00 to feed a child = 'throwing money'
$10.00 to a man/woman with a gun = not 'throwing money'
>We're already paying school taxes and much of our money is going
>toward welfare so I don't want to see new taxes for people who aren't
>feeding their kids and new taxes for people who aren't dressing them,
>etc. What happens if they can't give their kids lunch either -- or
>buy them boots and mitts in winter? Will we have more taxes for
>those? I really think the parents of such children should be looked
>at carefully -- especially if they have money to spend the night out
>on the town, or if they have money for liquor, cigarettes, bingo
>games, nice cars, or video machines.
Some parents are like that. But is it right to punish their children
because they don't share our priorities? I don't like the idea of
paying taxes so parents who are drug addicted or fashion addicted, or
just plain lame can get off the hook ... but I like the idea of their
children going hungry or being cold or dying prematurely because they
do not have access to decent health care even less.
>Another consideration could be birth control. You spoke earlier about
>tubal ligation. I have to agree that it should be provided "free of
>charge" by the government for those who can prove they are truly on
>the poverty line. It's FAR, FAR cheaper than having to pay for the
>kids parents can't afford and I find it really is astounding that
>they don't. . The future will be interesting. I suspect that very
>shortly there will be timed-release birth control pills that will last
>for several years. That day can't come too soon. In the meantime, I
Well, Norplant is already available and is probably the closest thing
to a year+ timed release birth control 'pill'. As you know, however,
the advocacy, or even discussion of, birth control and its
alternatives in high school (where many of these welfare families have
their geneses) remains highly controversial and problemmatic in the
United States. Don't know how it is in Canada.
>think governments should be doing everything possible to encourage
>people NOT to have large families. Oh, that reminds me -- Do you
Well, the Chinese are doing just that ... with the unfortunate side
effect, however, of abandoned baby girls and infanticide.
Andy Katz
________________________________________
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Juvenal
Anne Hildrum
Trish <p-cr...@uiuc.edu> wrote in article
<3309be58....@news.cso.uiuc.edu>...
> On 17 Feb 1997 22:24:38 GMT, "Anne Hildrum" <an...@sn.no> wrote:
>
> >>Trish <p-cr...@uiuc.edu> wrote;
>
> >
>
> >Actually your 5 days of grounding your child might be considered
> >child abuse here. I didn't say it would, but it might. I think prior to
> >the law most people accepted that you spanked you children. Today that
> >is not accepted here. Earlier if you slapped your child, most would not
> >think too much about it, today most people would look at you and
> >consider you a lousy parent who had to take to physical violence
> >with your child.
> >Some will say ok you give him /her a swat or a slap, but a lot will
> >react to that as well.
> >I guess after the law it would be easier for someone to report it than
> >it was earlier. As far as I know there has been less than 10 cases
> >that points directly to that law.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >The law when it came here created a lot of discussion and made
> >> >at least some parents think about what options they have.
> >>
> >> In a pretend scenario, where everyone follows every law, you have
> >> very few real options.
> >>
> >> > In some
> >> >cases there may be better ways to assert parental authority
> >> >than to spank your kids. Not spanking your kids doesn't
> >> >nessesarily mean you don't give two shits about what your
> >> >kids are doing.
> >>
> >> I agree and have stated many times that I am not one who feels that
> >> spanking is the only answer. I am just saying an attention getting
> >> swat can on occasion work wonders where volumes of words, time outs
> >> etc...fail. Call it the "Parental Continuum of Force" just for fun.
> >> And it is a discretionary practice....I make the decision as the
> >> situation arises.
> >>
OK. I made the comment related to another comment in the posting.
I don't disagree with you about this. I have heard abusers often have
been abused themselves, but thats besides this point..
>
> I guess my bottom line on this matter (no pun intended) is that
> society's penchant for overloading law books is just a warm and fuzzy
> way of quieting those who are searching for as near to a zero risk
> society as possible. (which of course is impossible) Raising kids is
> a crap shoot, and there are no guarantees in this or anything else
> life has to offer. I just wish people would stop acting on things
> because they want to believe (falsly) that in some fashion they can
> actually get a guaranteed outcome if they only follow certain
> established rules and laws.
Unfortuneately, I guess you are right.
Anne
>
Anne Hildrum
Alleycat <op...@mail.netshop.net> wrote in article
<5ecqf5$c18$3...@noc.van.hookup.net>...
> WAS: ANTI-SPANKING LAW
>
> opdi@netshop(Alleycat) wrote
> The more the government takes control over families, the more lazy
> people become. If the government will feed your child breakfast in
> school, why should you bother?
> ______________________
> p-cr...@uiuc.edu (Trish) wrote:
> While I agree with your first statement, I don't agree with the school
> breakfast one. I have friends who are at the poverty level. They
> both work full time and do the best they can, and are pretty happy for
> what, they have. They did use and truely need the breakfast program
> for their daughter, prior to it being shut off. I hope they don't
> lose the hot lunch program. It is barely hanging on.
> _______________________
>
> You say they both work full time. What kind of income would the
> couple be pulling in with two full-time jobs? I gather that they're
> either paid exceptionally low or they have a large family. I'm going
> to talk about something here but I'm not referring to your friends in
> the first few paragraphs, obviously.
>
> Some parents are paid welfare, and they go out and spend it on foolish
> things instead of breakfast for their kids. If parents are
> supported by welfare and are still unable to provide for their kids,
> the welfare should be questioning why. Are they spending it wisely?
>
> Such parents should be forced to submit a tally of their spending to
> the welfare for study for several months..
>
> If they're not spending wisely, they should be required to take
> regular financial instruction until the problem can be cleared up. If
> they refuse to take such courses or aren't smart enough, the kids
> should be taken from the parents because the parent's aren't able to
> do a proper job and are seriously abusing their kids.
>
> If the welfare parents ARE spending wisely and still can't feed
> their kids, there's obviously a serious flaw in the system and they
> should boost the welfare payments for that particular family, rather
> than formi a hundred NEW ways to tax people, because the more plans
> and proposals governments come up with, the harder it becomes to track
> government spending.
I happened to live on welfare(luckily only for 6 months). If it hadn't been
for the fact that I had a very reasonable rent on my appartment and parents
who were willing to help out, I would have had trouble survivng on what I
got. I don't know about Canada, but here welfare is not very much.
Spending visely would depend on the eyes who looked. Here if you
were on welfare a telephone was considered unvisely. I think they
granted you the right to include a newspaper as part of what you needed,
also the radio license, but not the TV license. So what if the teachers
used the Tv in the education, it was a luxury. You could get an old Tv, but
you couldn't pay the license.
Now again it might depend on the welfare officer you got. I was allowed
to have a telephone and got it counted into what I needed.
From the time I got welfare till today it is getting even tougher.
I'll agree taking the kids if the parents spends all their moneey on booze
and partying, but what if they didn't pay the rent this month, because
they got their kids skiis or skates for the school sports day. Unvisely,
yes maybe but very understandable.
>
> We're already paying school taxes and much of our money is going
> toward welfare so I don't want to see new taxes for people who aren't
> feeding their kids and new taxes for people who aren't dressing them,
> etc. What happens if they can't give their kids lunch either -- or
> buy them boots and mitts in winter? Will we have more taxes for
> those? I really think the parents of such children should be looked
> at carefully -- especially if they have money to spend the night out
> on the town, or if they have money for liquor, cigarettes, bingo
> games, nice cars, or video machines.
This part I agree with. If I understund you right. You would like them
to have enough to be able to pay for what they and their children need
from what they get, and not have a lot of extra things they get free and
less
money. I think that basically would give both parents and children an
easier time. Ok they are on welfare, but everybody would not as easily
know as when you get free this and that on this and that program.
>
> Another consideration could be birth control. You spoke earlier about
> tubal ligation. I have to agree that it should be provided "free of
> charge" by the government for those who can prove they are truly on
> the poverty line. It's FAR, FAR cheaper than having to pay for the
> kids parents can't afford and I find it really is astounding that
> they don't. . The future will be interesting. I suspect that very
> shortly there will be timed-release birth control pills that will last
> for several years. That day can't come too soon. In the meantime, I
> think governments should be doing everything possible to encourage
> people NOT to have large families. Oh, that reminds me -- Do you
> know what the original purpose of a baby bonus was? It was to
> encourage people to give birth! -- Alleycat
> _____________________
>
There we are luckier than you. here it is free both for the man and
the woman. Yes I know it is not tubal litigation for the man, but whatever
it is called.
Anne
>
>
>
>
Trish
On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:58:05 GMT, op...@mail.netshop.net (Alleycat)
wrote:
>WAS: ANTI-SPANKING LAW
>
>opdi@netshop(Alleycat) wrote
>The more the government takes control over families, the more lazy
>people become. If the government will feed your child breakfast in
>school, why should you bother?
>______________________
>p-cr...@uiuc.edu (Trish) wrote:
>While I agree with your first statement, I don't agree with the school
>breakfast one. I have friends who are at the poverty level. They
>both work full time and do the best they can, and are pretty happy for
>what, they have. They did use and truely need the breakfast program
>for their daughter, prior to it being shut off. I hope they don't
>lose the hot lunch program. It is barely hanging on.
>_______________________
>
>You say they both work full time. What kind of income would the
>couple be pulling in with two full-time jobs? I gather that they're
>either paid exceptionally low or they have a large family.
He makes $5.25 p/hr working for a car dealer. He does the detail work
on new cars and also ones that come in for repair etc. He usually
gets 40 hrs. p/week, but it can vary. Last week they didn't have much
work, so even though he is technically a full time employee, he only
had 26 hrs. on his pay check. Not squat after taxes etc.....
She recently had her hours cut back to 28 hrs. p/week. Same deal,
makes roughly $5.50 p/hr. They have one child. They get no welfare
or food stamps. She could go and sign up, but she always tells me she
won't go to that unless things get "really tight". In the mean time,
they are trying to replace the things they lost in the fire which
totally destroyed their home two years ago. Real life expenses of
insurance, monthly payments for their mobile home, electricity,
etc...etc...are just as high for them as it is for everyone else. I
tell her I just don't see how she keeps food on the table. In all
honesty, she and her husband usually only eat once p/day so their
daughter can have three squares. A morning cup of coffee is a luxury
do to the price so they only have it on Sunday mornings.
I recently gave her my old living room furniture that was in good
shape. They are just crazy about having something that isn't 75 yrs.
old and actually has 10 yrs. of good use left in it. This is how they
get by. I don't how other people do it , but I'm willing to bet it's
pretty much the same no matter where you look.
> I'm going
>to talk about something here but I'm not referring to your friends in
>the first few paragraphs, obviously.
>
>Some parents are paid welfare, and they go out and spend it on foolish
>things instead of breakfast for their kids. If parents are
>supported by welfare and are still unable to provide for their kids,
>the welfare should be questioning why. Are they spending it wisely?
>
Your right. A lot of people who are on the gvt. dime do not spend
wisely. While I see the point your trying to make (really I do) you
might want to ask about people who do make a fair wage and spend it in
foolish ways. Rich or poor, people don't always spend their money in
ways you or I find wise. Now, let me just add.......just because
someone is well to do or just plain old rich, it does not mean that
their bad spending habits do not effect others. (I anticipate this
issue being brought around, thus I mentioned it.) People with
beaucoup bucks can get so far in debt they file bankrupcy wich effects
us all etc...
>Such parents should be forced to submit a tally of their spending to
>the welfare for study for several months..
>
The amount received on welfare is already low. I don't see how you
can say, "here is some cash to help with your living expenses, but you
must follow this list of approved expenses". They already, in a
sense, do this with the food stamps. You know, they can't be used to
purchase alcohol, tobacco, diapers, candy etc....So, what happens?
They sell the food stamps at a discounted price to someone so they can
get cash and buy what they want.
>If they're not spending wisely, they should be required to take
>regular financial instruction until the problem can be cleared up.
Well, I guess you could make it a requirement that to get their check
each month they have to sit through some sort of lecture, but who is
going to pay for their transportaion costs to and from the lecture
hall, hire a sitter if they need one, supply the course materials
(should there be any) and pay the instructor? Me, and all the other
tax payers. I doubt this would fly. The idea/sentiment is in the
right place, but the cash isn't.
> If
>they refuse to take such courses or aren't smart enough, the kids
>should be taken from the parents because the parent's aren't able to
>do a proper job and are seriously abusing their kids.
>
Again, no one is going to take a persons child because their parent
chose to spend a welfare buck on a baby ruth instead of a loaf of
bread. Once again, we don't want the gvt. telling us when to brush
our teeth etc....Also, atleast around here, you would be sentencing
the kid to a situation worse than their own home life. There isn't
jack around here for taking in kids, much less (again) the expense of
doing so.
>If the welfare parents ARE spending wisely and still can't feed
>their kids, there's obviously a serious flaw in the system and they
>should boost the welfare payments for that particular family, rather
>than formi a hundred NEW ways to tax people, because the more plans
>and proposals governments come up with, the harder it becomes to track
>government spending.
>
Well, there is no chance of the welfare checks getting bigger, only
smaller until they no longer exist. That's the plan that has been put
into action. Welfare checks are small. There isn't a whole lot of
chance to go out and even pretend to live high on the hog with the
chump change these families get. I know, there are a lot of folks who
have ten names and ten address' and ten checks coming in who are doing
quite well. Sooner or later they get busted. All in all though, the
average family who gets this money, is not out partying and buying new
cars etc...
>We're already paying school taxes and much of our money is going
>toward welfare so I don't want to see new taxes for people who aren't
>feeding their kids and new taxes for people who aren't dressing them,
>etc. What happens if they can't give their kids lunch either -- or
>buy them boots and mitts in winter?
They can do like my friend and her family. Go to goodwill and the
salvation army etc....As far as not getting lunch, I guess you just
hope you can whip up some weenie-water soup and get by until next pay
day.
<SNIP>
>Another consideration could be birth control. You spoke earlier about
>tubal ligation. I have to agree that it should be provided "free of
>charge" by the government for those who can prove they are truly on
>the poverty line. It's FAR, FAR cheaper than having to pay for the
>kids parents can't afford and I find it really is astounding that
>they don't. .
It's also cheaper than providing abortions for those who end up
pregnant anyway. Yep, you can get a state funded abortion but they
won't pay for a tubal even if requested. Go figure.
>The future will be interesting. I suspect that very
>shortly there will be timed-release birth control pills that will last
>for several years.
Well, Depoprovera is a pretty good first choice. Unfortunately, any
birth control method short of sterilization is not 100% effective.
Also, if they offer drugs as BC, you must also be willing to offer the
annual check ups for the people on the meds. as well as be willing to
treat any disorder that presents itself as a side effect.
>That day can't come too soon. In the meantime, I
>think governments should be doing everything possible to encourage
>people NOT to have large families. Oh, that reminds me -- Do you
>know what the original purpose of a baby bonus was? It was to
>encourage people to give birth! -- Alleycat
>_____________________
>
>
I can't recall ever hearing the term "baby bonus" . Is this a
Canadian thing? I do know that when my cousin spent two years working
in a Baptist hospital on the Ivory Coast, the gvt. encouraged
pregnancy as long as they produced male children. The farmers were
given an extra stipend for boys. Females were either abandoned or
killed after birth so they could try again.
>
Trish
On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:17:06 GMT, a...@vir.com (mm) wrote:
>p-cr...@uiuc.edu (Trish) wrote:
>
>>On 17 Feb 1997 05:21:33 GMT, "Dr. Gordon Kenney" <gke...@memphis.edu>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I DO agree that government control over child-rearing is frightening.
>>>I suppose (I my own mind) spanking is much like abortion (for me). I
>>>wouldn't want my girlfriend/wife (not that I have BOTH, mind you)
>>
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Chicken! ;)
>>
>>
>>> to
>>>have an abortion, but for others it may be the best choice (as long as
>>>the minimum necessary corporal punishment is complemented with
>>>consistency, follow-through, explanations of correct behavior
>>>(coaching/modeling), affirmation, and love. Without these, corporal
>>>punishment tends to be, at best, ineffective and, at worst,
>>>counterproductive.
>>>
>>>-- Gordon
>>>
>>>
>> For a lot of folks at or below the poverty line, who have no means
>>of supporting or caring for a child, I think it is the best choice.
>
>Ahhhh! So what's the next step. If you're salary is below a certain
>line you have an abortion? Maybe this should be government mandated
>to keep the welfare roles down?
>
>Or are your saying that we should make abortion illegal for those with
>a salary above a certain range?
>
Nice try, but your not going to twist this around on me. Please look
at YOUR statement above which says, and I quote, "I wouldn't want my
girlfriend/wife to have an abortion (not that I have both mind you)
but for others it might be the best choice (etc..)". Maybe you were
just being snide and I missed it. Wouldn't be the first time. The
reality of the situation is, a lot of people can not afford kids, and
they do chose to abort, and in many places the state/local gvt. will
pay for an abortion before it will help pay for a pregnancy/live
birth.
I am pro-choice. I don't care what your salary range is, if you want
an abortion it is still possible to get one. I you don't like
abortion, don't have one.
>
>>It should (IMHO) be followed by free birth control or voluntary
>>sterilization should that be a request.
>
>What exactly should be followed by voluntary sterilization? When you
>bought your sociology textbook I think you went to the wrong shelf and
>got something from Orwell instead.
>
My aren't you funny. Read the original post again, fully. I
mentioned to AlleyCat that if an abortion was chosen for someone who
had it because they could not afford to have the kid, then why not
offer them free birth control or voluntary sterilization if it is
requested. Quit trying to make this into an abortion rights argument.
You'll certainly need a mirror for it because I won't play that game.
>I have a friend who would
>>gladly sign up for a tubal ligation if she could get some help paying
>>for it or a deferred payment but isn't qualified for medical
>>assistance of that nature.
>
>She wants tubal ligation because she's poor and can't afford kids but
>can't afford ligation as well.
>
She would like a ligation because her family is complete with one
child and her husband. They are having a hard enough time making ends
meet as it is. BC is quite expensive when you have to pay full price
for it (as opposed to those who may have medical insurance to help pay
the cost). So I suppose your response would be to just tell them not
to f*c* anymore and there wouldn't be any chance of an unplanned
pregnancy right? Get a grip. Ligation around here costs about
$4500.00 and that's not talking about any meds for pain or prevention
of infection ie:antibiotics etc...nor the follow up exam, or lost time
from work.
Besides, even if your statement above was true as written, what would
you care? One less potential person on the government tit, right?
Which do you honestly think is more expensive?
>Well, if she gets the money for the ligation then she may be able to
>afford kids and not want it. Unfortunately, if it is government
>provided she may be getting the money a bit too late.
>
(I believe this statement was made either by AC or Anne, I'm not
sure which- I didn't respond to it the first time and won't now
because I find it silly)
>Well, perhaps we should look into how we can get money better
>distributed in our society rather than classifying people as
>chronically poor and good candidates for sterilization.
>
Again, I don't know who's statement this is. I also didn't know
until reading this that there are still areas that classify people as
"good candidates for sterilization". I'm glad I don't live in one of
those particular areas.
>You'll next want to start up a market selling their organs.
You have a comprehension problem almost rivaling Kips. Go to the
library, I'm sure they have something there to help you.
klaatu
mm wrote:
> =
> p-cr...@uiuc.edu (Trish) wrote:
> =
> >On 17 Feb 1997 05:21:33 GMT, "Dr. Gordon Kenney" <gke...@memphis.edu>=
> >wrote:
> >
> >>I DO agree that government control over child-rearing is frightening.=
> >>I suppose (I my own mind) spanking is much like abortion (for me). I=
> >>wouldn't want my girlfriend/wife (not that I have BOTH, mind you)
> >
> >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > Chicken! ;)
> >
> >
> >> to
> >>have an abortion, but for others it may be the best choice (as long a=
s
> >>the minimum necessary corporal punishment is complemented with
> >>consistency, follow-through, explanations of correct behavior
> >>(coaching/modeling), affirmation, and love. Without these, corporal
> >>punishment tends to be, at best, ineffective and, at worst,
> >>counterproductive.
> >>
> >>-- Gordon
> >>
> >>
> > For a lot of folks at or below the poverty line, who have no means
> >of supporting or caring for a child, I think it is the best choice.
> =
> Ahhhh! So what's the next step. If you're salary is below a certain
> line you have an abortion? Maybe this should be government mandated
> to keep the welfare roles down?
> =
> Or are your saying that we should make abortion illegal for those with
> a salary above a certain range?
> =
> >It should (IMHO) be followed by free birth control or voluntary
> >sterilization should that be a request.
> =
> What exactly should be followed by voluntary sterilization? When you
> bought your sociology textbook I think you went to the wrong shelf and
> got something from Orwell instead.
> =
> I have a friend who would
> >gladly sign up for a tubal ligation if she could get some help paying
> >for it or a deferred payment but isn't qualified for medical
> >assistance of that nature.
> =
> She wants tubal ligation because she's poor and can't afford kids but
> can't afford ligation as well.
> =
> Well, if she gets the money for the ligation then she may be able to
> afford kids and not want it. Unfortunately, if it is government
> provided she may be getting the money a bit too late.
> =
> Well, perhaps we should look into how we can get money better
> distributed in our society rather than classifying people as
> chronically poor and good candidates for sterilization.
> =
> You'll next want to start up a market selling their organs.
And here's another example of why some seemingly silly traditions should
still be followed.
At one time, it was English tradition that one simply didn't marry until
one had bought a house. Thus, while you might not be able to feed your
kids, at least you could house them.
Now there is some merit to the argument that selectively forcing forcing
contraceptives on persons on Welfare would be genocidal, until you look
at the fact that despite "common knowledge", most Welfare recipients are
caucasian. But it's still extremely "classist". This is actually one of
the arguments against Federal funding of abortions or indeed other birth
control for the neediest people on the dole, permission to fund might
become pressure to comply with a "managed care" approach to population
reduction. But if you wanted to help prevent unwanted pregnancies
forcing people onto Welfare, one might definitely want to schedule
contraceptive handouts or at least contraceptive counseling for Working
Poor recipients of public assistance.
-- =
Lars Ormberg
Keith Rose wrote:
>
> Trish <p-cr...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:11:28 -0700, Lars Ormberg
> > <la...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>
> > >Actually, they could try to get you on wrongful imprisonment. If you
> > >ground your son and he storms out of his room, you cannot hold him back
> > >from leaving your house because it's classified as wrongful
> > >imprisonment.
> Allow me to save you the trip. [I'm reading this in can.politics, so
> I'm going to refer to Canadian law here. Readers in other jurisdictions
> may well want to move on to the next post now...] The Canandian
> Criminal Code contains, to the best of my knowledge, no such offence as
> "wrongful imprisonment". The closest things I could find are section
> 247, "Hostage Taking"
Wrongful imprisonment is the name of the charge. It can happen when
police arrest you and detain you without following procedure. You
cannot hold a person and restrict their movement against their will.
Your status as parent/guardian means crap as far as the law is
concerned. If you prevent your child from leaving his room by locking
the door or pushing him back in once he tries to leave, then you are
technically detaining him without legal authority and could be tried if
your lefto neighbour reports it and presses charges.
> KR
> --
> Keith Rose
> kr...@cyberus.ca (home)
> K.R...@telesat.ca (work)
--
Lars Ormberg
(I don't know where Mr. T lives. Stop phoning my home)
la...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
____
It's been done! The awesome website of The Commodore has been given
an upgrade! More animations! More Java! More Klingons! Take another
look at http://www.ualberta.ca/~larso/ and then you will finally have
an experience that can truly be declared Lars On-Line!
* The Borg--our most lethal enemy--have begun an invasion of the
Federation. The assimilation continues...STAR TREK:FIRST CONTACT is
still showing in theatres across the country, resistance is still not
futile! Paramount Pictures brings the treachery of a Queen, the
courage of a captain, and the destiny of a planet. (Oh, and some Star
Wars special edition thing is supposedly on as well. I hear it doesn't
entirely suck).
Keith Rose
Trish <p-cr...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:11:28 -0700, Lars Ormberg
> <la...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>
[snip -KR]
> >Actually, they could try to get you on wrongful imprisonment. If you
> >ground your son and he storms out of his room, you cannot hold him back
> >from leaving your house because it's classified as wrongful
> >imprisonment.
> >
> >
>
> Hmmmmm, I guess this could mean a trip to the library. I would be
> intersted in knowing just what, archaic laws are on the books
> regarding issues such as this. *note: I meant but failed to state
> that a five day ban to the room would be an after school kind of thing
> losing ones Nintendo and TV capabilties etc....Not locked into a room
> for five days and only squishing some white bread through the key
> hole. ;)
>
Allow me to save you the trip. [I'm reading this in can.politics, so
I'm going to refer to Canadian law here. Readers in other jurisdictions
may well want to move on to the next post now...] The Canandian
Criminal Code contains, to the best of my knowledge, no such offence as
"wrongful imprisonment". The closest things I could find are section
247, "Hostage Taking", which includes a specific requirement that the
act be committed with the intent of compelling someone other than the
hostage takee to do something and sections 249 and 250, both of which
concern abduction of children. Section 249 is only applicable to people
other than the parents/guardians of the child and section 250 contains a
specific provision that one cannot be found guilty of the offence if the
detention was done with the consent of the parents/guardians of the
child. If I've missed something, please let me know.
On the other hand, there is section 9 of the Constitution Act, which
states without clarification or qualification: "Everyone has the right
not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned." However even if the
courts were to decide that grounding was "arbitrary", a citizen cannot
be "charged" with violating the Constitution Act. It is not a document
that is directly applicable to individuals, and as such provides no
mechanism by which individuals can be held accountable to it.
"Wrongful imprisonment" might possibly fall under the mandates of the
various human rights commissions. Unfortunately I have no reference in
which to check this. Does anyone else know more?
op...@mail.netshop.net
(And I'm still waiting for _someone_ to explain the Chinese
connection. to spanking laws...)
Keith Rose
I'm pretty sure there isn't a connection......:)
kr...@cyberus.ca (home)
K.R...@telesat.ca (work)
_______________________
There is no great connection. The message started out as a concern
about a tendency toward a loss of rights. One subject led to
another. Rather than explain it again, it's best to go to Deja News
and read the first article in the thread. -- Alleycat
_______________________
op...@mail.netshop.net
Was going to type this answer on the middle of ten different spots on
the previous message but it was already too choppy so I decided to
start out fresh.
Accidentally wiped out the last one anyway, but I remember a couple of
questions. Re the question about baby bonuses: Although I called
them that, they're now called something else. Parents get paid so
much for each child, but I can't tell you how much because it's varied
according to income (think roughly from $3 to $25 a month per child,
but don't quote me because Ithe goverment office can't give accurate
stats.) We don't give food stamps. People on welfare get cash - $500
for a single mother and $811 for a mother with a baby. Medical and
dental care for welfare recipients is paid for. Medicare (but not
dental) is free for non-welfare people as well, as long as they
maintain their monthly medical payments which are about $40 a month.
If they haven't maintained their insurance for a long time, they can
still get on to the system by paying back the last couple of months,
but there's a waiting period. -- Alleycat
________________________
Trish
I just want to clerify that I have never used the term "locking
someone in their room". Maybe this has just accidentally been tossed
into various pieces of the thread, without actually meaning to. I
said grounding and sending them to their rooms for five days worth of
reading etc...
Thanks.
On Wed, 19 Feb 1997 23:06:20 -0700, Lars Ormberg
<la...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>Keith Rose wrote:
>>
>> Trish <p-cr...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:11:28 -0700, Lars Ormberg
>> > <la...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>> > >Actually, they could try to get you on wrongful imprisonment. If you
>> > >ground your son and he storms out of his room, you cannot hold him back
>> > >from leaving your house because it's classified as wrongful
>> > >imprisonment.
>
>> Allow me to save you the trip. [I'm reading this in can.politics, so
>> I'm going to refer to Canadian law here. Readers in other jurisdictions
>> may well want to move on to the next post now...] The Canandian
>> Criminal Code contains, to the best of my knowledge, no such offence as
>> "wrongful imprisonment". The closest things I could find are section
>> 247, "Hostage Taking"
>
>Wrongful imprisonment is the name of the charge. It can happen when
>police arrest you and detain you without following procedure. You
>cannot hold a person and restrict their movement against their will.
>Your status as parent/guardian means crap as far as the law is
>concerned. If you prevent your child from leaving his room by locking
>the door or pushing him back in once he tries to leave, then you are
>technically detaining him without legal authority and could be tried if
>your lefto neighbour reports it and presses charges.
>
>> KR
>> --
>> Keith Rose
>> kr...@cyberus.ca (home)
>> K.R...@telesat.ca (work)
>
klaatu
Keith Rose wrote:
> =
> Trish <p-cr...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
> =
> [snip-KR]
> > As I understand it, and that's not all that well, you are correct.
> > They are about half the size of the typical US reactor and their
> > generation capabilites are at 1/2 or less than ours.
> >
> But of course one could build two of them. And they would both be safe=
r
> than the US-style reactor they replaced. And the US reactor would be
> safer than a Russian style reactor. And I don't know where the British=
> and French designs fit into this picture.
> =
> (And I'm still waiting for _someone_ to explain the Chinese connection.=
> to spanking laws...)
Um... "there are mysteries man was not meant to know".
SO, do I have to be a country to get a CANDU reactor, or would being a
leading international research outfit suffice? <snicker>
> =
> KR
> --
> Keith Rose
> kr...@cyberus.ca (home)
> K.R...@telesat.ca (work)=7F=7F
Michael Mell
'Contraceptives'!!!. We're talking about sterilization!! Not
condoms!!
>until you look
>at the fact that despite "common knowledge", most Welfare recipients are
>caucasian.
And so's most of Canada. You could use this one to describe any
social trend you want. "Most blah blah blah are caucasian". You're
proving nothing.
>But it's still extremely "classist".
So are cliches, but that doesn't make them wrong.
>This is actually one of
>the arguments against Federal funding of abortions or indeed other birth
>control for the neediest people on the dole, permission to fund might
>become pressure to comply with a "managed care" approach to population
>reduction.
Abortion funding and contraception (true contraception, not you
ripping out a womens tubes) are two different things. In fact, the
emphasis from the left has always been on abortion, not on
contraception. Look at the recent case in a Montreal area high
school. Although they voted to refuse admission of a condom machine,
they are now providing morning after pills on demand to 14 year old
girls.
Heavy emphasis on contraception and refusal of abortion-on-demand may
make people a little less irresponsible.
>But if you wanted to help prevent unwanted pregnancies
>forcing people onto Welfare, one might definitely want to schedule
>contraceptive handouts or at least contraceptive counseling for Working
>Poor recipients of public assistance.
>
I agree. But unfortunately you seem to be saying 'contraception'
when you mean 'sterilization'.
Lars Ormberg
Trish wrote:
>
> I just want to clerify that I have never used the term "locking
> someone in their room". Maybe this has just accidentally been tossed
> into various pieces of the thread, without actually meaning to. I
> said grounding and sending them to their rooms for five days worth of
> reading etc...
>
> Thanks.
I didn't mean to imply that you did that, I think it was tossed into the
thread by error.
[note:do not let children read the rest of this post]
The concern is that if you send them to their rooms, and then decide
they're going to disobey and leave to go downtown, you have limited
methods at your disposal to prevent this.
--
Lars Ormberg
(I don't know where Mr. T lives. Stop phoning my home)
- I'm a genuine, certified, dixie fried, full of pride, 'til I die
pure bred redneck!
Alleycat
p-cr...@uiuc.edu (Trish) wrote:
I just want to clerify that I have never used the term "locking
someone in their room". Maybe this has just accidentally been tossed
into various pieces of the thread, without actually meaning to. I
said grounding and sending them to their rooms for five days worth of
reading etc...
Thanks.
__________________
He probably also read some of the message concerning isolation rooms
in schools. This is quite an issue in my area lately. -- Alleycat
___________________
Trish
On Thu, 20 Feb 1997 17:07:15 -0500, klaatu <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
>
>Um... "there are mysteries man was not meant to know".
>
>
>SO, do I have to be a country to get a CANDU reactor, or would being a
>leading international research outfit suffice? <snicker>
>
Well, if your over the age of, oh say 20, you had better get started
on the paper work. That part alone could run you into retirement. :)
Trish
On Thu, 20 Feb 1997 17:35:46 -0700, Lars Ormberg
<la...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>Trish wrote:
>>
>> I just want to clerify that I have never used the term "locking
>> someone in their room". Maybe this has just accidentally been tossed
>> into various pieces of the thread, without actually meaning to. I
>> said grounding and sending them to their rooms for five days worth of
>> reading etc...
>>
>> Thanks.
>
>I didn't mean to imply that you did that, I think it was tossed into the
>thread by error.
>
Thanks. Just wanted it to be cleared up before it mutated a few
thousand times. :)
>[note:do not let children read the rest of this post]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>The concern is that if you send them to their rooms, and then decide
>they're going to disobey and leave to go downtown, you have limited
>methods at your disposal to prevent this.
>
>
Well, I guess this would depend on the age of the kid. (ie: being
left alone while the parent head out for a shopping trip). Usually,
by the time they are old enough to stay home alone, you should be
looking at other methods of getting their attention. (IMHO)
Alleycat
Alleycat wrote previously:
Such parents should be forced to submit a tally of their spending to
wisely, they should be required to take regular financial instruction
until the problem can be cleared up. If they refuse to take such
courses or aren't smart enough, the kids should be taken from the
parents because the parent's aren't able to do a proper job and are
seriously abusing their kids.
a...@interport.net (Andy Katz) wrote:
To be evaluated by a whole new bureaucrat ... the micro-economic
social worker?
some people do not have good financial sense is both inhumane and
very, very expensive. It places welfare into a primarily punitive,
Pavlovian mode. Particularly as the judgement of whether one is
spending wisely is subjective. It demands that middle class social
workers judge the financial habits of the poor, which they are ill
equiped to do.
Alleycat wrote previously:
If the welfare parents ARE spending wisely and still can't feed
their kids, there's obviously a serious flaw in the system and they
should boost the welfare payments for that particular family, rather
than formi a hundred NEW ways to tax people, because the more plans
and proposals governments come up with, the harder it becomes to track
government spending.
Andy wrote:
Taking children away, forcing poor people to submit financial plans to
the government, evaluating those plans, raising some benefits and not
others ... all cost money and are NEW ways to spend people's tax
dollars. Why is it that tax dollars spent to feed children arouse such
ire, such a feeling of lose and waste among the middle and pseudo
middle class, when ten of those same dollars used to punish the poor
in some way--taking their children away, imprisoning them--is
considered money well spent?
In other words:
$1.00 to feed a child = 'throwing money'
$10.00 to a man/woman with a gun = not 'throwing money'
_____________________
Alleycat wrote previously:
We're already paying school taxes and much of our money is going
toward welfare so I don't want to see new taxes for people who aren't
feeding their kids and new taxes for people who aren't dressing them,
etc. What happens if they can't give their kids lunch either -- or
buy them boots and mitts in winter? Will we have more taxes for
those? I really think the parents of such children should be looked
at carefully -- especially if they have money to spend the night out
on the town, or if they have money for liquor, cigarettes, bingo
games, nice cars, or video machines.
____________________
Andy wrote:
Some parents are like that. But is it right to punish their children
because they don't share our priorities? I don't like the idea of
paying taxes so parents who are drug addicted or fashion addicted, or
just plain lame can get off the hook ... but I like the idea of their
children going hungry or being cold or dying prematurely because they
do not have access to decent health care even less.
______________
Alleycat wrote previously:
Another consideration could be birth control. You spoke earlier about
tubal ligation. I have to agree that it should be provided "free of
charge" by the government for those who can prove they are truly on
the poverty line. It's FAR, FAR cheaper than having to pay for the
kids parents can't afford and I find it really is astounding that
they don't. . The future will be interesting. I suspect that very
shortly there will be timed-release birth control pills that will last
for several years. That day can't come too soon. In the meantime, I
think governments should be doing everything possible to encourage
people NOT to have large families. Oh, that reminds me -- Do you
___________________
Andy wrote:
Well, Norplant is already available and is probably the closest thing
to a year+ timed release birth control 'pill'. As you know, however,
the advocacy, or even discussion of, birth control and its
alternatives in high school (where many of these welfare families have
their geneses) remains highly controversial and problemmatic in the
United States. Don't know how it is in Canada.
Andy Katz
__________________________________
Alleycat wrote:
Gads, Andy, some of your points are good, but I sure wish you (and
others) wouldn't interject in messages in a million places --
especially in the middle of sentences. That makes it next to
impossible for me to reply without making the message unduly
confusing, and letting people know what was said the first time and
what was said the second. Had to rejoin some of your replies and some
of my words so the message wouldn't be so confusing.
I agree with you that there would have to be consideration before kids
are taken from parents as this could cause worse problems for the
child than he encountered before, in the instances where there are
worse things than missing meals; however I don't think that the fact
that kids are NOT being fed meals should be overlooked. I still
think all such homes should be investigated.
Re the financial study. I don't look at that as punishment. In fact
it could benefit both the welfare family and the public forever. It
should be given by financial counsellors though -- not social workers
who may not be able to control their own personal finances.
Re giving food to those who need it, the reason this raises so much
ire is because rights groups protest the idea that poor people should
have to let others KNOW they're poor. As a result, taxpayers have to
feed the kids of the well off as well, to ensure nobody knows who's
poor and who's rich. That means that for every taxpaying dollar that
feeds a poor child, probably about 7 are wasted, feeding those who
don't need the service. That doesn't seem to be the best use of a
taxpayer's money. Rights are one thing, but when people have to blow
money left and right to do the poor a favour because they don't want
anyone to know, I think the poor should be given the option of either
admitting their status or denying their child the breakfast.
(Chances are that pretty well everyone will know their status
anyway.) Re your comments about Norplant, that was particularly
interesting. Just out of curiousity I checked to see if it was
available in Canada, and was surprised to see that it was! Melatonin
is still illegal though. Yes, birth control is still a controversial
issue here too, and always will be. The most upsetting thing to
parents in BC is that public health nurses have the authority to
override the decisions fo the parents. If they want to give your
child a shot, and you oppose, for example, there's not much you can
do. -- Alleycat
___________________
Keith Rose
Lars Ormberg <la...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
[snip-KR]
> Wrongful imprisonment is the name of the charge. It can happen when
> police arrest you and detain you without following procedure. You
> cannot hold a person and restrict their movement against their will.
> Your status as parent/guardian means crap as far as the law is
> concerned. If you prevent your child from leaving his room by locking
> the door or pushing him back in once he tries to leave, then you are
> technically detaining him without legal authority and could be tried if
> your lefto neighbour reports it and presses charges.
>
Well now I'm really confused. I checked again, and I still can't find
this charge in the Criminal Code. And section 250.3 of the Code
distinctly states that it isn't an offence to detain a child with the
consent of that child's parent or guardian. Are you talking about civil
law? I'll admit I don't know too much about that. Could you refer me
to some specific cases I could look up?
You are posting from a Canadian accout, so I'm assuming we are talking
about the same legal system. My appologies if this is just a confusion
over jurisdictions.
Marc Thibault
Lars Ormberg <la...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> writes:
> The concern is that if you send them to their rooms, and then decide
> they're going to disobey and leave to go downtown, you have limited
> methods at your disposal to prevent this.
You have lots of options, but you have to think your kid is worth
it. I once put my son under full-time adult supervision for a
month. It was a pain in the butt, but it had the desired effect.
David Nixon
On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 03:49:32 GMT, mwal...@wam.umd.edu (Matt Walcoff)
wrote:
>You know, spanking is already illegal in six European countries. And
>good thing too. The researchers say spanked kids grow up to be bitter
>teens and angry adults more often than others. They ought to ban the
>practice everywhere.
>
>Matt
>
That's interesting. I recall, not long ago an American boy and a
little vandalism incident in Singapore. I would bet money that youth
will never commit an act of vandalism again in his life. You see, the
American judicial system likes to punish people where it really hurts,
the pocket book. The problem it that children are dirt poor, taking
money from them is like taking money from my right pocket and sticking
it in my left pocket. I have personally witnessed two different
families, one that doesn't use spanking in the repertoire of
punishment and one that does. I'll tell you, as you knew I would,
that the parents that have used spanking have well behaved respectful
children and a cohesive family unit. The other parents are dealing
with children that display no respect for others, (enclose pictures of
them launching water balloons from a three person sling shot at moving
cars, damaging one, and hitting a small (under the age of 5) child in
another). Guess what the parents did? Sat them down, told them that
what they did was wrong, and confiscated the sling shot for a week.
When the sling shot was returned (one week later) they were told that
the only proper place that it should be use is in a large open field,
not aimed at people or cars. Guess what they did as soon as their
parents left? Back out there launching water balloons at cars and
people. To further scare you, the leader of this group is a fifteen
year old child going on sixteen and will be one of the out of control
motor vehicle driving populace in the DC regional area. You think
that his parents won't let him drive? Think again. There just
happens to be an equally out of control older 20 something sibling who
is driving without insurance, on a suspended license because he owes
the state of Va large sums of money from criminal convictions, and has
caused three know accidents with in the last year, one while driving
another (third) person's car. You think his parents reign him in and
keep him from driving? Not only that, but they won't (can't) keep him
for driving the family cars when his is out of commission.
So to those of you that stipulate that spanking causes children to
become criminals, I have here three kids on their way to becoming your
worst nightmare and three (older siblings) that already have criminal
histories, two of which have felony convictions. None of which have
been spanked, but maybe they should have been.
David Nixon
DC -
_(*)
__o __o `\-o _\/ \/
`\<, _ `\<, _ (*)/ <, (*)` _\ _
(*)/ (*) (*)/ (*) (*)n ' o `
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David Nixon
On Mon, 17 Feb 1997 23:31:52 -0500, kr...@cyberus.ca (Keith Rose)
wrote:
>Trish <p-cr...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>[snip-KR]
>> As I understand it, and that's not all that well, you are correct.
>> They are about half the size of the typical US reactor and their
>> generation capabilites are at 1/2 or less than ours.
>>
>But of course one could build two of them. And they would both be safer
>than the US-style reactor they replaced. And the US reactor would be
>safer than a Russian style reactor. And I don't know where the British
>and French designs fit into this picture.
>
>(And I'm still waiting for _someone_ to explain the Chinese connection.
>to spanking laws...)
I believe it is becasue there are aproximatly 1 billion Chinese who
don't care. Have to include them some how.
David Nixon
DC - Lazlo's Chinese Relativity Axiom:
No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your
defeats---approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
David Nixon
On 13 Feb 1997 21:57:49 GMT, "Dr. Gordon Kenney" <gke...@memphis.edu>
wrote:
>WHAT! You mean BEATING children isn't okay?! Damn... parents may
>actually have to RESPECT their children as human beings now instead of
>treating them like pets. So much for "easy discipline" -- we're going
>to have to THINK and REASON with our kids now. Oh well, at least we
>have our dogs to kick around... right?
>
>-- Gordon
Please base your diatribe on current legal decisions.
A real court case not that long ago. The parents of a teen physically
chained the youth to his bed to keep him from leaving the house and
roaming the streets with his confirmed gang member friends. This
actually went to court and the judge found no wrong doing on the part
of the parents. In fact, he stated the parents where acting with in
their parental responsibility to keep their child away from criminal
elements, and they are exercising their rights as parents by
physically "grounding" the child.
I personally know a parent who slapped her young teen for calling her
a bitch. The teen decided that he would get back at her by telling
his teacher that he was hit by this parent. In Virginia it is
procedure, maybe law, that the teacher report this to Child Well Fare,
Social Services. The teacher knew that this teen was a "problem"
child, and requested the mother come in before this was reported.
Apparently the teen never heard the story of the "Boy That Cried
Wolf." Nothing happened to the parent by rest assured, another months
of grounding was added to the punishment along with revocation of
phone privileges for the duration of that time also. Even if Social
Services took the child, the teen would have ended up in Foster Care
or Juvenile Detention. That in it self would have been a greater
punishment than a slap across the face and a month of grounding.
Maybe when you realize that parents are the ones providing food,
clothing, shelter, money, and a means of transportation then you might
realize exactly who is in control and treating those individuals with
respect and placating to their whims might actually benefit you. When
you as a individual start providing for your own maintenance and
upkeep they you are entitled to more responsibility and freedom.
David Nixon
DC - "I quite agree with you," said the Duchess; "and the moral of
that is -- `Be what you would seem to be' -- or, if you'd like
it put more simply -- `Never imagine yourself not to be
otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were
or might have been was no otherwise than what you had been would
have appeared to them to be otherwise.'"
-- Lewis Carrol, "Alice in Wonderland"
David Nixon
On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:55:08 GMT, p-cr...@uiuc.edu (Trish) wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:11:28 -0700, Lars Ormberg
><la...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>
>>Trish wrote:
>>
>>> This could be. I only know what was posted and it was not the law as
>>> it was written and submitted for vote. Even if it is for "the real
>>> spanking", what's next? Another law that says if I chose to ground my
>>> kid for breaking a rule, and tell him he has to spend the next five
>>> days reading in his room, that I will be found guilty of some form of
>>> abuse? We have laws on the books about abuse. If you look back I
>>> originally asked how it would be enforced and I think it was you
>>> (maybe not) who replied that some sort of proof (ie: marks, bruises)
>>> would have to be present to bring someone in. Well, isn't that what's
>>> already required?
>>
>>Actually, they could try to get you on wrongful imprisonment. If you
>>ground your son and he storms out of his room, you cannot hold him back
>>from leaving your house because it's classified as wrongful
>>imprisonment.
>>
>>
>
>Hmmmmm, I guess this could mean a trip to the library. I would be
>intersted in knowing just what, archaic laws are on the books
>regarding issues such as this. *note: I meant but failed to state
>that a five day ban to the room would be an after school kind of thing
>losing ones Nintendo and TV capabilties etc....Not locked into a room
>for five days and only squishing some white bread through the key
>hole. ;)
A little tid bit for you. Not long ago there was a report of a court
case where a teens parents physically chained the male teen to his bed
to prevent him from leaving the house and roaming the streets with his
friends. I am not sure if it was stated or inferred that these
"friends" were gang members. The out come was that the parents were
found just in their attempt to prevent their son from becoming
involved with a criminal (gang) element. And it was as if the boy was
chained spread eagle to the bed, more like tethered. As in ball and
chain. He was feed and had access to the facilities.
David Nixon
DC - as free as my mind can be.
Alleycat
Lars Ormberg <la...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> writes:
The concern is that if you send them to their rooms, and then decide
they're going to disobey and leave to go downtown, you have limited
methods at your disposal to prevent this.
ma...@tanda.on.ca (Marc Thibault) wrote:
You have lots of options, but you have to think your kid is worth
it. I once put my son under full-time adult supervision for a
month. It was a pain in the butt, but it had the desired effect.
_________________
How did you do that? What would you have done if he just took off
without the supervision? Surely the adult couldn't have watched him
24 hours a day. The young girl I spoke about earlier (on the
law-enforcement board, was totally uncontrollable. There was no way
of stopping her from going out, no way of making her come home at
night, and no way to stop her from running phone $200 a month phone
bills. She just refused to cooperate in any way and told her parents
that if they didn't allow her to do whatever she wanted, she would get
them charged by the welfare department in some way. What would you
do if you had a kid like that? I can hardly wait until I see the
answers. This kid's game was to defeat every single solution, and
that she did. I wonder if anyone on here could think of a solution.
Try it. You be the parent and I'll be the girl. -- Alleycat
__________________
Anne Hildrum
I am sure someone could come up with equally stories of
exactly the opposites. The big question is what have you done
to disipline your child. Is spanking your kid your first option?
For some parents it is. They get furious for some action and
bam. Sometimes you do have other options. I have slapped
my kids, and there are times I can say I feel quite justified
by what I did, and others where I realised afterwords I should
have taken an other action.
We don't have the difference between spanking and beating,
so would someone enlighten me to the difference?
Anne
David Nixon <Hellb...@DeathsDoor.Com> wrote in article
<5elh46$4kf$2...@news.accessus.net>...
Anne Hildrum
Alleycat <op...@mail.netshop.net> wrote in article
<5emuvn$h5i$1...@noc.van.hookup.net>...
Some kids will be totally uncontrollable as the one you mentioned.
I have grounded my kids on several occasions. My friends choose
other methods, as they considered that as a punishment on themselves.
I liked having the kids at home so that was the best choice for me.
I can remember only twice when my son tried to get out. I locked the
door(I live on the fourth floor). He tried to get out by the veranda and
climbing
over the roof, but I stopped him(he was nearly 16 at the time and
no match for me yet). I told my friend and she said had she done that to
her
son, he would have smashed the door.
I remember one time my daughter told me that it was illegal
to ground kids, because that had one of the outside welfare officers
said. I just told her that in this case it isn't and I'll take the chance.
She stayed home.
I guess it has a lot to do with the kids own temperament, and also
with how much they respect their parents.
Anne
>
>
>
Marc Thibault
op...@mail.netshop.net (Alleycat) writes:
> How did you do that? What would you have done if he just took off
> without the supervision? Surely the adult couldn't have watched him
> 24 hours a day. The young girl I spoke about earlier (on the
I said it was a pain in the butt:
1. The subject not to move out of reach of an adult - physical
restraint to be used if necessary.
2. More than one adult. It takes about five.
3. One particular adult at any given time is "designated".
4. A formal handover ritual.
5. Exponential penalty escalation.
Marc Thibault
Hellb...@DeathsDoor.Com (David Nixon) writes:
> On 13 Feb 1997 21:57:49 GMT, "Dr. Gordon Kenney" <gke...@memphis.edu>
> wrote:
> >WHAT! You mean BEATING children isn't okay?! Damn... parents may
> >actually have to RESPECT their children as human beings now instead of
> Please base your diatribe on current legal decisions.
He's trying to be sarcastic. - one of those idiots who thinks that
kids are small adults.
Alleycat
______________________
We had the dickens spanked out of us and many times the wrong one
got spanked in error (but apologies followed.) None of us ended up
as criminals. We never even thought of the spankings as abusive,
until years later when the government and psychologists did everything
in their power to try to convince kids like us that our parents were
inhuman monsters. We then rebelled slightly, feeling sorry for
ourselves, just as these so-called experts had planned. (This type
of teaching creates more employment in the shrink business.) As we
grew up and witnessed the shocking behaviour of kids who were NEVER
spanked , we thanked God our parents were so strict! Yes, kids who
were spanked will most likely spank their kids for two reasons: (1)
they know it works (2) they know it never hurt or harmed them!
Again, I say to each his own. The government has no right to mingle.
Each parent should raise his kids the way he sees fit and it's no one
else's business unless there are signs of obvious abuse. -- Alleycat
___________________________________
Alleycat
op...@mail.netshop.net (Alleycat) writes:
How did you do that? What would you have done if he just took off
without the supervision? Surely the adult couldn't have watched him
24 hours a day. The young girl I spoke about earlier (on the
ma...@tanda.on.ca (Marc Thibault) wrote:
I said it was a pain in the butt:
1. The subject not to move out of reach of an adult - physical
restraint to be used if necessary.
2. More than one adult. It takes about five.
3. One particular adult at any given time is "designated".
4. A formal handover ritual.
5. Exponential penalty escalation.
___________________________
No details -- in my eyes not too indicative of enthusiasm, success, or
the desire to encourage these things. -- Alleycat
___________________________
David Nixon
On 22 Feb 1997 15:58:30 GMT, "Anne Hildrum" <an...@sn.no> wrote:
>I am sure someone could come up with equally stories of
>exactly the opposites. The big question is what have you done
>to disipline your child. Is spanking your kid your first option?
No, the real big question is why would a government would bind the
hands of parents and not let then discipline their children as then
see fit?
As was the case with my parents, and with me, spanking is not always
the first option nor the only option. I remember being the precocious
age of five and pitching a fit in a store, my parents told me to stop,
them weren't going to buy the toy I dearly wanted. One slap to the
rear settled that very quickly and immediately told me of what I might
be in store for if I kept it up. I also vividly remember many a time
being sat in a chair and given lectures on what I did wrong and why it
was wrong. I even wrote these lectures done in a notebook and could
recite them from memory. You see, my parents didn't just give a
spanking and that was it. Every time they explained why in the hopes
that I would be smart enough to learn not to do it again. Being the
smart kid that I was, I found out early what acts would result in a
spanking and what would just me a lecture. Although the lectures were
torturous to sit through, it was better than also having a red butt to
go with it.
>For some parents it is. They get furious for some action and
>bam. Sometimes you do have other options. I have slapped
>my kids, and there are times I can say I feel quite justified
>by what I did, and others where I realised afterwords I should
>have taken an other action.
The correct thing to do, even if afterwards you feel guilty for
spanking or slapping you child, is to explain why you did it.
Otherwise the child might feel that you don't love them and might be
confused as to why they were punished. If you don't explain why then
how do you expect your child to learn from the experience? Life is a
learning experience, and punishment is part of it. Call it cause and
effect. The point is to clue your child in to the fact that they will
be held responsible for their actions, and their actions might result
in punishment. Too bad many adults haven't learned this.
>We don't have the difference between spanking and beating,
>so would someone enlighten me to the difference?
Spanking is done in love to teach the child that what they have done
is wrong. A beating is done with out compassion, with out the goal to
teach the child, and is usually done to alleviate aggression, stress,
and anger. Typically, the child has no idea why they are being
beaten.
>Anne
David Nixon
Taco
Hellb...@DeathsDoor.Com (David Nixon) wrote:
>>We don't have the difference between spanking and beating,
>>so would someone enlighten me to the difference?
>Spanking is done in love to teach the child that what they have done
>is wrong. A beating is done with out compassion, with out the goal to
>teach the child, and is usually done to alleviate aggression, stress,
>and anger. Typically, the child has no idea why they are being
>beaten.
>>Anne
>David Nixon
-----------------------------
Excellently stated. Let me add- "Discipline is a form of love, not to
be confused with punishment." Taco
David Nixon
On Sat, 22 Feb 97 19:22:05 EST, ma...@tanda.on.ca (Marc Thibault)
wrote:
I figured as much, but it is always nice to bring them back to reality
with recent legal decisions.
David Nixon
DC - Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it.
-- Philip K. Dick
klaatu
David Nixon wrote:
> =
> On 22 Feb 1997 15:58:30 GMT, "Anne Hildrum" <an...@sn.no> wrote:
> =
> >I am sure someone could come up with equally stories of
> >exactly the opposites. The big question is what have you done
> >to disipline your child. Is spanking your kid your first option?
> =
> No, the real big question is why would a government would bind the
> hands of parents and not let then discipline their children as then
> see fit?
> =
Um, remember how in Orwell's _1984_ there were the Junior Anti-Sex
League, or whoever, where the children were encouraged by the State to
narc on their parents for Thoughtcrime, wherever possible? It seemed to
me that the whole point of this was that the only viable opponent that
the State had in that book would have been the Family. No better way to
break up a family than to give children power over their parents.
But of course there's something to be said for not allowing parents to
thrash their kids within inches of their lives without repercussions.
> =
> >Anne
> =
> David Nixon
-- =
Big Jim
Alleycat wrote:
>
> That's interesting. I recall, not long ago an American boy and a
> little vandalism incident in Singapore. I would bet money that youth
> will never commit an act of vandalism again in his life.
I thought I read that Michael Fay got into trouble while drunk
after he got back to the US of A. DWI or something. Am I correct?
Trish
Just curious, how old was this kid? If they are sixteen, and it
comes down to them refusing to cooperate or be chained, I'll say
"don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, and remember, I
will NEVER post bail".
Trish
On Sun, 23 Feb 1997 19:47:31 GMT, op...@mail.netshop.net (Alleycat)
wrote:
>That's interesting. I recall, not long ago an American boy and a
>little vandalism incident in Singapore. I would bet money that youth
>will never commit an act of vandalism again in his life.
Don't hold me to this, but I am pretty sure it wasn't long after he
returned to the states that he did indeed get into trouble with the
law.
> You see, the
>American judicial system likes to punish people where it really hurts,
>the pocket book. The problem it that children are dirt poor, taking
>money from them is like taking money from my right pocket and sticking
>it in my left pocket.
That's why they go after mom and dad's money.
> I have personally witnessed two different
>families, one that doesn't use spanking in the repertoire of
>punishment and one that does. I'll tell you, as you knew I would,
>that the parents that have used spanking have well behaved respectful
>children and a cohesive family unit. The other parents are dealing
>with children that display no respect for others, (enclose pictures of
>them launching water balloons from a three person sling shot at moving
>cars, damaging one, and hitting a small (under the age of 5) child in
>another). Guess what the parents did? Sat them down, told them that
> what they did was wrong, and confiscated the sling shot for a week.
Well, this is just one of the many points I was trying to make about
it being silly to make it illegal to spank. Does not change the
outcome as we see below......
>When the sling shot was returned (one week later) they were told that
> the only proper place that it should be use is in a large open field,
> not aimed at people or cars. Guess what they did as soon as their
>parents left? Back out there launching water balloons at cars and
>people. To further scare you, the leader of this group is a fifteen
>year old child going on sixteen and will be one of the out of control
>motor vehicle driving populace in the DC regional area.
I wouldn't even think of trying to spank a teenager. IMO, this is for
the younger set as a possible method of discipline. At sixteen,
you're more likely to end up in a fist fight with a kid.
> You think
>that his parents won't let him drive? Think again. There just
>happens to be an equally out of control older 20 something sibling who
>is driving without insurance, on a suspended license because he owes
> the state of Va large sums of money from criminal convictions, and
>has caused three know accidents with in the last year, one while
>driving another (third) person's car.
Then it's time to let the little curtain climber do some jail time, or
loads of community service work.
> You think his parents reign him
>in and keep him from driving? Not only that, but they won't (can't)
>keep him for driving the family cars when his is out of commission.
>
Why? Just don't leave any keys. Take a plug wire or two, hell, there
has to be ways to keep him from taking the car.
Trish
On Mon, 24 Feb 1997 09:47:36 -0800, Big Jim
<BigJ...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Alleycat wrote:
>>
>> That's interesting. I recall, not long ago an American boy and a
>> little vandalism incident in Singapore. I would bet money that youth
>> will never commit an act of vandalism again in his life.
>
>I thought I read that Michael Fay got into trouble while drunk
>after he got back to the US of A. DWI or something. Am I correct?
I just responded to AC that I also was pretty sure that within days
of his return to the states, he did indeed get into trouble with the
law. I can't recall exactly what it was he did though.
David Nixon
Fourteen I believe. The point is that the State and Nation of USA is
not the one who is responsible for your child, you are. If you let
your child run loose and perpetrate crimes against humanity then you
can be held delinquent in your parental responsibilities. Luckily,
there happen to be departments that will relinquish you of your child.
The troubling thing is that your line above express the sentiment
"(S)he is 16, no long my problem, let the State handle it." Are you
somehow exempt from paying taxes? Do you feel no responsibility for
rearing a problem child? How can parents be SO uncaring? Maybe it
was a lack of love that is causing the child to be that way. And to
tie this in with spanking, sometimes love hurts.
David Nixon
Anne Hildrum
Trish <p-cr...@uiuc.edu> wrote in article
<3311c47f....@news.cso.uiuc.edu>...
> On Sat, 22 Feb 1997 00:12:19 GMT, Hellb...@DeathsDoor.Com (David
> Nixon) wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:55:08 GMT, p-cr...@uiuc.edu (Trish) wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:11:28 -0700, Lars Ormberg
> >><la...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >
> >A little tid bit for you. Not long ago there was a report of a court
> >case where a teens parents physically chained the male teen to his bed
> >to prevent him from leaving the house and roaming the streets with his
> >friends. I am not sure if it was stated or inferred that these
> >"friends" were gang members. The out come was that the parents were
> >found just in their attempt to prevent their son from becoming
> >involved with a criminal (gang) element. And it was as if the boy was
> >chained spread eagle to the bed, more like tethered. As in ball and
> >chain. He was feed and had access to the facilities.
> >
> >
> >David Nixon
> >
> >DC - as free as my mind can be.
> >
>
>
> Just curious, how old was this kid? If they are sixteen, and it
> comes down to them refusing to cooperate or be chained, I'll say
> "don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, and remember, I
> will NEVER post bail".
Why 16? Here you are responsible for your children till they are
18. Of course you can always go to the child welfare office
and tell them he/she is hopeless and get them to take over,
but they may make you pay for it.
Anne
>
Anne Hildrum
Alleycat <op...@mail.netshop.net> wrote in article
<5eq6o8$ukn$1...@noc.van.hookup.net>...
>
>
> We had the dickens spanked out of us and many times the wrong one
> got spanked in error (but apologies followed.) None of us ended up
> as criminals. We never even thought of the spankings as abusive,
> until years later when the government and psychologists did everything
> in their power to try to convince kids like us that our parents were
> inhuman monsters. We then rebelled slightly, feeling sorry for
> ourselves, just as these so-called experts had planned. (This type
> of teaching creates more employment in the shrink business.) As we
> grew up and witnessed the shocking behaviour of kids who were NEVER
> spanked , we thanked God our parents were so strict! Yes, kids who
> were spanked will most likely spank their kids for two reasons: (1)
> they know it works (2) they know it never hurt or harmed them!
> Again, I say to each his own. The government has no right to mingle.
> Each parent should raise his kids the way he sees fit and it's no one
> else's business unless there are signs of obvious abuse. -- Alleycat
> ___________________________________
>
I thank my parents for having taught me and my two brothers to
behave, and would you believe it we were never spanked.
I guess either we are angels or our parents just had the magic
touch.
Anne
>
Anne Hildrum
David Nixon <Hellb...@DeathsDoor.Com> wrote in article
<5eqihr$304$2...@news.accessus.net>...
> On 22 Feb 1997 15:58:30 GMT, "Anne Hildrum" <an...@sn.no> wrote:
> >We don't have the difference between spanking and beating,
> >so would someone enlighten me to the difference?
>
> Spanking is done in love to teach the child that what they have done
> is wrong. A beating is done with out compassion, with out the goal to
> teach the child, and is usually done to alleviate aggression, stress,
> and anger. Typically, the child has no idea why they are being
> beaten.
This doesn't give me a clue to the difference. There are people who
said they beat their child because they loved them and wanted to
teach them what they did was wrong. Everybody else said it was
physical abuse. From what you say both spanking and beating is
in effect the same and can be physical abuse and a crime(of course
here it is a crime anyway).
Anne
>
> >Anne
>
>
> David Nixon
>
>
Trish
On Mon, 24 Feb 1997 23:37:58 GMT, Hellb...@DeathsDoor.Com (David
Nixon) wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Feb 1997 16:41:55 GMT, p-cr...@uiuc.edu (Trish) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 22 Feb 1997 00:12:19 GMT, Hellb...@DeathsDoor.Com (David
>>Nixon) wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>A little tid bit for you. Not long ago there was a report of a court
>>>case where a teens parents physically chained the male teen to his bed
>>>to prevent him from leaving the house and roaming the streets with his
>>>friends. I am not sure if it was stated or inferred that these
>>>"friends" were gang members. The out come was that the parents were
>>>found just in their attempt to prevent their son from becoming
>>>involved with a criminal (gang) element. And it was as if the boy was
>>>chained spread eagle to the bed, more like tethered. As in ball and
>>>chain. He was feed and had access to the facilities.
>>>
>>>
>>>David Nixon
>>>
>>>DC - as free as my mind can be.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Just curious, how old was this kid? If they are sixteen, and it
>>comes down to them refusing to cooperate or be chained, I'll say
>>"don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, and remember, I
>>will NEVER post bail".
>
>Fourteen I believe. The point is that the State and Nation of USA is
>not the one who is responsible for your child, you are.
Correct. And I agree with this 100%.
> If you let
>your child run loose and perpetrate crimes against humanity then you
>can be held delinquent in your parental responsibilities.
Understood, and again I agree with the responsibility part. But, this
is not about "letting" someone run loose to commit crimes against
anyone or anything. To "let" them would (IMO) mean I am either giving
permission, or not participating in the decision making process at
all.
> Luckily,
>there happen to be departments that will relinquish you of your child.
Yep, on occasion these authorities will intervene for atleast a temp.
amount of time.
>The troubling thing is that your line above express the sentiment
>"(S)he is 16, no long my problem, let the State handle it."
Nope. Read it in it's entirety. It says if it comes down to
detention via restraining methods, I will opt for them to take their
chances out there in the real world. Kids are not dogs that can be
chained even if you or I swear it's for "their own good".
> Are you
>somehow exempt from paying taxes?
I wish!
> Do you feel no responsibility for
>rearing a problem child?
I think if you have read any of my previous posts concerning this
topic, you would find the answer to that question, and it would be a
hearty "of course I do." This thread is straying way out in the field
from wich it started. It's about spanking being another illegal act.
Not about how anyone feels about "problem children". Just for the
record, I find that label silly as hell. No person regardless of age
is without problems. Kids are not either problematic or NOT
problematic, they are developing pre-adults who require our guidance.
> How can parents be SO uncaring?
I don't know how some parents can be uncaring, but I am not one of
them so I'll let someone else try and answer this for you.
> Maybe it
>was a lack of love that is causing the child to be that way. And to
>tie this in with spanking, sometimes love hurts.
>
>
>David Nixon
>
Well, we have almost come full circle here. "Lack of love, money,
time etc...." why must you find a lack of anything in any parenting
method? I would like to meet just one or two parents who are
"perfect" and have raised "perfect" kids into adulthood. Let's stop
picking on individual "style" here and get back to the topic of "do we
need another LAW to tell us how to go about parenting?" Yes, love
hurts, and my favorite adendum to that is "guilt-the ties that truely
bind". ;) If anyone ever feels a shortage of guilt, then they don't
have kids.
Trish
On 25 Feb 1997 06:31:25 GMT, "Anne Hildrum" <an...@sn.no> wrote:
>
>
>Trish <p-cr...@uiuc.edu> wrote in article
><3311c47f....@news.cso.uiuc.edu>...
>> On Sat, 22 Feb 1997 00:12:19 GMT, Hellb...@DeathsDoor.Com (David
>> Nixon) wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:55:08 GMT, p-cr...@uiuc.edu (Trish) wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:11:28 -0700, Lars Ormberg
>> >><la...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>> >>
>> >
>> >A little tid bit for you. Not long ago there was a report of a court
>> >case where a teens parents physically chained the male teen to his bed
>> >to prevent him from leaving the house and roaming the streets with his
>> >friends. I am not sure if it was stated or inferred that these
>> >"friends" were gang members. The out come was that the parents were
>> >found just in their attempt to prevent their son from becoming
>> >involved with a criminal (gang) element. And it was as if the boy was
>> >chained spread eagle to the bed, more like tethered. As in ball and
>> >chain. He was feed and had access to the facilities.
>> >
>> >
>> >David Nixon
>> >
>> >DC - as free as my mind can be.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Just curious, how old was this kid? If they are sixteen, and it
>> comes down to them refusing to cooperate or be chained, I'll say
>> "don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, and remember, I
>> will NEVER post bail".
>
>Why 16? Here you are responsible for your children till they are
>18. Of course you can always go to the child welfare office
>and tell them he/she is hopeless and get them to take over,
>but they may make you pay for it.
>
>Anne
By the time a kid reaches sixteen, they are old enough to drive, get
full time jobs, date etc....Are you insinuating that a parent should
continue to attempt to "spank" a child until they no longer live under
the parents roof, regardless of age?
Sure, if the kid is such a problem that the parents have reached a
point of impasse, then you just may have to get a child welfare agency
involved, and you sure as hell should be held responsible for costs.
Not once did I say that I or any parent was no longer responsible for
a child just because they have reached the age of sixteen. Please,
there is nothing "inbetween" the lines of my posts. My statement was
and still is, if it ever comes to a point of getting no cooperation
from a child and tying them down, they can start pounding the pavement
and we'll just have to take it from there.
Alleycat
Ann wrote:
We don't have the difference between spanking and beating,
_______________
>Hellb...@DeathsDoor.Com (David Nixon) wrote:
Spanking is done in love to teach the child that what they have done
is wrong. A beating is done with out compassion, with out the goal to
teach the child, and is usually done to alleviate aggression, stress,
and anger. Typically, the child has no idea why they are being
beaten.
-----------------------------
Ta...@TruckCity.com (Taco) wrote:e:
Excellently stated. Let me add- "Discipline is a form of love, not to
be confused with punishment." Taco
Those things are really well said. Like David's parents, mine too
warned me once, AND ONLY ONCE, so we basically had a CHOICE.
Guess that's what life's about. -- Alleycat
_____________________
Alleycat
David Nixon wrote:
That's interesting. I recall, not long ago an American boy and a
little vandalism incident in Singapore. I would bet money that youth
will never commit an act of vandalism again in his life.
BigJ...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
I thought I read that Michael Fay got into trouble while drunk after
he got back to the US of A. DWI or something. Am I correct?
p-cr...@uiuc.edu (Trish) wrote:
I just responded to AC that I also was pretty sure that within days
of his return to the states, he did indeed get into trouble with the
law. I can't recall exactly what it was he did though.
The Singapore comment was David's. Someone accidentally switched the
names some time ago. At any rate, I too remembered that, and felt it
would do more good than harm. If the guy did end up in jail
afterward, chances are that his damage was done long ago. Had he been
disciplined when he was young instead of having to wait until he was
older, things MAY have turned out. Since he threw paint on cars, he
obviously had serious problems already. Looks like this conversation
won't get much further if we focus it on whether or not spanking lands
people in jail. Both the spanked and the unspanked end up in jail.
I'd like to hear more about ways in which parents managed to get bad
kids under control (or didn't manage). What do they figure they did
wrong or right? In the case I mentioned earlier about the
uncontrollable 14-year old girl, everyone but the parents could see
what was happening. The parents couldn't and wouldn't.
In their case, the girl had problems with the teacher, (not once but
several times) and the parents screamed at the teacher. Then the
parents got so disgusted that they put her in another school. Sure
enough the girl had the same problems, and the parents went around the
neighbourhood telling everyone how bad the schools and the teachers
were. Then the police started bringing the girl home. Well, the
nerve!! How dare the pigs treat their daughter like thaty? This
girl was told, all through her life, that anytime she was in trouble
it was the fault of those in authority.
One day the girl woke up and realized something. "Her parents were
authority figures too". Can you blame her for suddenly seeing them as
the jerks they were?
Now here's something funny! Guess how the parents explained their
daughter's behaviour. When she was small, they told people she was
hyperactive, sensitive to sugar, etc. When she got older they told
people she had raging hormones!!! (Heck, we had raging hormones
too, just like ALL of my friends, but my parents would only let them
rage so far before showing us the power of THEIR raging hormones.)
Have you ever noticed that the kids who are disciplined have less
active hormones? Wonder why. -- Alleycat
________________________
Anne Hildrum
Trish <p-cr...@uiuc.edu> wrote in article
<3312ed3f....@news.cso.uiuc.edu>...
> On 25 Feb 1997 06:31:25 GMT, "Anne Hildrum" <an...@sn.no> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Trish <p-cr...@uiuc.edu> wrote in article
> ><3311c47f....@news.cso.uiuc.edu>...
> >> On Sat, 22 Feb 1997 00:12:19 GMT, Hellb...@DeathsDoor.Com (David
> >> Nixon) wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:55:08 GMT, p-cr...@uiuc.edu (Trish) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>On Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:11:28 -0700, Lars Ormberg
> >> >><la...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>SNIP <
> >> > >> Just curious, how old was this kid? If they are sixteen, and
it
> >> comes down to them refusing to cooperate or be chained, I'll say
> >> "don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, and remember, I
> >> will NEVER post bail".
> >
> >Why 16? Here you are responsible for your children till they are
> >18. Of course you can always go to the child welfare office
> >and tell them he/she is hopeless and get them to take over,
> >but they may make you pay for it.
> >
> >Anne
>
>
>
> By the time a kid reaches sixteen, they are old enough to drive, get
> full time jobs, date etc....Are you insinuating that a parent should
> continue to attempt to "spank" a child until they no longer live under
> the parents roof, regardless of age?
How can I insinuate that. It is a law againts spanking your child here,
whether
your child is 5 or 15. By the way kids are not allowed to drive here till
they are 18. They are still restricted to as what job thay can take.
My comments was just to the comment that if they were a problem at
16 they could just leave. I was just wondering if that meant you had a
lower agelimit than we have. The kids cannot do what they want untill they
are 18, and untill they are 18 you are responsible for them. Even if you
turn them over to the child welfare you might still be held financially
responsible for them. I am not sure if you have the option her of letting
them start pounding the pavement.
Anne
Anne Hildrum
Alleycat <op...@mail.netshop.net> wrote in article
<5ev80l$mpj$3...@noc.van.hookup.net>...
> David Nixon wrote:
> That's interesting. I recall, not long ago an American boy and a
> little vandalism incident in Singapore. I would bet money that youth
> will never commit an act of vandalism again in his life.
> ____________
> BigJ...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I thought I read that Michael Fay got into trouble while drunk after
> he got back to the US of A. DWI or something. Am I correct?
> ______________
> p-cr...@uiuc.edu (Trish) wrote:
> I just responded to AC that I also was pretty sure that within days
> of his return to the states, he did indeed get into trouble with the
> law. I can't recall exactly what it was he did though.
> _________________________
> The Singapore comment was David's. Someone accidentally switched the
> names some time ago. At any rate, I too remembered that, and felt it
> would do more good than harm. If the guy did end up in jail
> afterward, chances are that his damage was done long ago. Had he been
> disciplined when he was young instead of having to wait until he was
> older, things MAY have turned out. Since he threw paint on cars, he
> obviously had serious problems already. Looks like this conversation
> won't get much further if we focus it on whether or not spanking lands
> people in jail. Both the spanked and the unspanked end up in jail.
-----------------------------------------------
I guess you are bringing up a very important point here. Disipline
has to start from the beginning. You can't think to start suddenly setting
rules when the kid reach the teens. If they haven't had any before, they
sure aren't going to isten to you then. Displine however obviously means
different things to different people. My friend was great on talking to
and explaing everything and discussing with her kids. I was big on
teaching my kids that when I said NO, I meant no and not maybe.
We both noticed when there was a dsicussion on when our kids
were supposed to be home, hers always managed after a long time
of discussion to increase the set time by 1/2 - 1 hour longer. Mine
extreemely rarely managed that. Several times we would comment to each
other(after the kids had left of coursee) that *hey that situation did you
handle badly or really smart*.
On the other hand managing ti disipline your children want always
keep them out of trouble or jail. You just have a better likelyhood.
I have seen children growing up in loving,caring homes with disipline,
children who has been pretty well behaved end up in jail. I have
also seen children who by all counts have a much higher percentages
of ending up in jail, by the family situation they live under, who has
done extreemely well, against all odds.
There are no certainties, but as a parent at least we can increase the odds
for our children to do well and not end up in trouble. I don't think
however that is related to spanking or no spanking.
>
> I'd like to hear more about ways in which parents managed to get bad
> kids under control (or didn't manage). What do they figure they did
> wrong or right? In the case I mentioned earlier about the
> uncontrollable 14-year old girl, everyone but the parents could see
> what was happening. The parents couldn't and wouldn't.
>
> In their case, the girl had problems with the teacher, (not once but
> several times) and the parents screamed at the teacher. Then the
> parents got so disgusted that they put her in another school. Sure
> enough the girl had the same problems, and the parents went around the
> neighbourhood telling everyone how bad the schools and the teachers
> were. Then the police started bringing the girl home. Well, the
> nerve!! How dare the pigs treat their daughter like thaty? This
> girl was told, all through her life, that anytime she was in trouble
> it was the fault of those in authority.
>
> One day the girl woke up and realized something. "Her parents were
> authority figures too". Can you blame her for suddenly seeing them as
> the jerks they were?
Obviously here there was the parents who initially had the problems.
>
> Now here's something funny! Guess how the parents explained their
> daughter's behaviour. When she was small, they told people she was
> hyperactive, sensitive to sugar, etc. When she got older they told
> people she had raging hormones!!! (Heck, we had raging hormones
> too, just like ALL of my friends, but my parents would only let them
> rage so far before showing us the power of THEIR raging hormones.)
> Have you ever noticed that the kids who are disciplined have less
> active hormones? Wonder why. -- Alleycat
> ________________________
>
I don't think disiplined kids have less active hormones :)
it is just that all kids with raging hormones doesn't end up bad, they
may just focus them on something positive.
My grandmother used to say *kids are a gift from God and a curse
from hell*. We enjoy them and we fight with them.
Ever heard you are the strictest mom in the whole valley.
EVERYBODY else is allowed to do that. Then it proves so
useful to know a lot of the other parents and tell your poor child
that Alleycat and Trish and David aren't allowed to that either. :)
I guess we are straying way beyond the charter of Alt.law.enforcement.
It is interresting though.
Anne
>
klaatu
Trish wrote:
> =
> On Thu, 20 Feb 1997 17:07:15 -0500, klaatu <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
> =
> >
> >Um... "there are mysteries man was not meant to know".
> >
> >
> >SO, do I have to be a country to get a CANDU reactor, or would being a=
> >leading international research outfit suffice? <snicker>
> >
> =
> Well, if your over the age of, oh say 20, you had better get started
> on the paper work. That part alone could run you into retirement. :)
that's okay, at least I'd have a guaranteed income source, selling
electricity.
> =
> >
> >Be kind to your | When the going gets weird the weird turn pro.
> >neighbors even though | http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/
> >they be transgenic | Now. chock full of uninteresting links.
> >chimerae. |-- Genesis 19:1-13 - Hebrews 13:2 -- =3D
> >
> >------ =3DA9 copr 1997 TJH Internet SP all rights reserved ----------=
Trish
On 25 Feb 1997 22:35:30 GMT, "Anne Hildrum" <an...@sn.no> wrote:
>
>
>Trish <p-cr...@uiuc.edu> wrote in article
><3312ed3f....@news.cso.uiuc.edu>...
>> On 25 Feb 1997 06:31:25 GMT, "Anne Hildrum" <an...@sn.no> wrote:
>>
>> >Why 16? Here you are responsible for your children till they are
>> >18. Of course you can always go to the child welfare office
>> >and tell them he/she is hopeless and get them to take over,
>> >but they may make you pay for it.
>> >
>> >Anne
>>
>>
>>
>> By the time a kid reaches sixteen, they are old enough to drive, get
>> full time jobs, date etc....Are you insinuating that a parent should
>> continue to attempt to "spank" a child until they no longer live under
>> the parents roof, regardless of age?
>
>
>How can I insinuate that. It is a law againts spanking your child here,
>whether
>your child is 5 or 15. By the way kids are not allowed to drive here till
>they are 18.
I am all for letting them wait a couple of extra years here before
they can drive. As I understand it, here in Illinois anyway, if you
don't graduate high school, your not eligible to get a drivers license
until 18.
>They are still restricted to as what job thay can take.
>My comments was just to the comment that if they were a problem at
>16 they could just leave. I was just wondering if that meant you had a
>lower agelimit than we have. The kids cannot do what they want untill they
>are 18, and untill they are 18 you are responsible for them. Even if you
>turn them over to the child welfare you might still be held financially
>responsible for them. I am not sure if you have the option her of letting
>them start pounding the pavement.
>
Then there isn't all that much of a diffrence between the age laws.
My point is and will remain that I'm not going to resort to tying
someone to anything to force cooperation. That story posted by
(Lars?) mentioning an episode of a teen being tethered or whatever and
the parents not being found guilty of illegal restraint (or whatever
the charge was) is what prompted me to add my opinions on
uncooperative teens.
Alleycat
I thank my parents for having taught me and my two brothers to
behave, and would you believe it we were never spanked.
I guess either we are angels or our parents just had the magic
touch.
Anne
Alleycat wrote:
Probably a combination of both. When I think back to the number of
teachers I had in school, only two of the entire lot had the ability
to control a classroom with psychology. Let's take a survey here and
ask others how many teachers THEY felt had that kind of ability. ( I
think it's a rare gift and the number of teachers with that ability
will probably equal or better the number of parents.) There will no
doubt be many parents who BELIEVE they have that ability, but those on
the receiving end often believe differently. -- Alleycat
__________________
Trish? wrote in a previous article:
Luckily, there happen to be departments that will relinquish you of
your child.
David Nixon wrote:
Yep, on occasion these authorities will intervene for atleast a temp.
amount of time.
Alleycat wrote:
Re: The 14-year old girl story again..... This girl stayed in a
social services home after she and her parents turned her into
authorities. but they were no more able to control her than her
parents were. She continued to run wild in the streets at all hours,
the same as she did at home. She wasn't going to let ANYONE control
her. She liked staying at the welfare places better tthan at home
because they didn't argue with her -- they just gave up and let her do
whatever she wanted, and after awhile they'd send her to another one.
What did they care, as long as the government paid their wages to look
after these kids? Such homes OFTEN have no more control of the wild
kids than parents do. What taxpayers are paying for, therefore, is
not better children, but the freedom of arguments between a particular
child and the parents. This girl's parents were quite well off and
all they had to pay was $100 for her upkeep, which was a real bonus
and far cheaper than they could raise her at home. Not only that,
but they had the freedom to enjoy themselves. The best bonus of all
was that if anything happened to the girl while she was in the care of
social services, such parents could sue to the hilt and profit even
more at our expense! -- Alleycat!
`______________________
Trish
On Wed, 26 Feb 1997 19:25:28 GMT, op...@mail.netshop.net (Alleycat)
wrote:
>Alleycat wrote:
>Probably a combination of both. When I think back to the number of
>teachers I had in school, only two of the entire lot had the ability
>to control a classroom with psychology.
We had a principal like that..she was a big hulk of a woman, and we
called her, "The Arm". She would walk the halls with the whipping
board. Really "psyched" us into behaving. ;)
Alleycat
p-cr...@uiuc.edu (Trish) wrote:
_____________________________
The best teacher I had never raised her voice. She had a fantastic
sense of humour and could control the class with her eyes. When we
got too noisy she'd just shut up and wait until we shut up. She could
control us really well. The fact that we really liked her helped.
The other great teacher I was talking about was Dutch guy. He once
kicked us out of class to play ball because we were too rowdy. We
thought that was great! We all went outside, played ball for 10
minutes, and then came in again, feeling guilty. He resumed his
classes as if nothing had ever happened. We really liked him after
that. We thought his psychlogy was so clever.
__________________________
Alleycat
"Anne Hildrum" <an...@sn.no> wrote:
Anne wrote:
My grandmother used to say *kids are a gift from God and a curse
from hell*. We enjoy them and we fight with them.
Ever heard you are the strictest mom in the whole valley.
EVERYBODY else is allowed to do that. Then it proves so
useful to know a lot of the other parents and tell your poor child
that Alleycat and Trish and David aren't allowed to that either. :)
I guess we are straying way beyond the charter of Alt.law.enforcement.
It is interresting though.
_____________________________
I don't think this is at all straying from the alt.law-enforcement
topic. As far as I'm concerned, anything that could be connected in
ANY WAY, with law is appropriate. What could have more to do with law
than teens that can't be controlled?
About being told that you're the strictest mom in the valley, yes, we
tried that one too. (That usually means you're doing a good job.)
My parents never paid any heed. They just told us that they didn't
care how they rated in comparison to other parents. They said they
were raising us the way they saw fit and they weren't going to get
into child-raising competitions with other parents.
Another typical teen favorite, and one of ours also, was that "so and
so's mother lets them do it. Why can't you?" That one always fetched
a response we really hated: "Well so and so's parents make their
child study for 3 hours a night -- I could too." They always had a
counter of some sort. and never fell for any of our
tricks. -- Alleycat
>Anne
>>