Doan wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On 20 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:

On 19 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


The topic - particularly the question of when physical punishment
becomes abuse - lay at the heart of a Hamilton County Municipal Court
case in Cincinnati that involved former City Councilman Sam Malone.

He was found not guilty of domestic violence on Friday. He had been
accused of beating his 14-year-old son with a belt for disrespecting a
teacher.

The teenager suffered welts on his arms, legs, chest and buttocks.


So did he crossed "the line", ignoranus kane0? ;-)

So do you think he did?


It doesn't matter what I think, it is what the judge thinks that matter.
So what did the judge think?


Once upon a time you made the argument, when CPS followed a judges
orders (as they are required to do, by law), that "just following
orders" is not a defense for immoral acts by people in authority.

Do you believe the court was correct in aquiting someone that left
welts on a child's arms, legs, chest and buttocks using a belt?


I don't have all the fact of the case. If you have access to the
transcript of the case, I will be glad to look at it.

You are dodging. You have as much information as anyone reading, and you
are willing to make comments on it given just this amount of
information, until you are asked a question. That is dodging.

One more time, I don't comment on this case unless I have all the
information.

You seem quite willing to do in other instances where you lack "all the
information." Why so reluctant in this one? And you make demands that
others make such judgements without them having all the
information...some of which it's found later YOU deliberately withheld.


Why do you do those things I wonder?

I am not going to second-guess the judge in this case.

Sure you do. You all ready have.

Give me the court transcript; point out to me where he erred.

Are you unwilling to look for the court transcript yourself, or do you
think it not available?
You want to make a comment on something, which you did in this case,
and when called on it you suddenly become shy. Why is that I wonder?

Here's what the judge said, and it indicates even HE does not believe
the law is correct, though he is forced to follow it:

"Still, the judge criticized Malone's reasoning. The former councilman
had testified he hit his son to teach him respect and integrity in an
environment in which the city saw 79 homicides last year, most of them
black-on-black crimes.

"Have you ever stopped to think about, instead of instilling discipline
that you testified to, that you might be instilling violence by taking
those actions, sir?" said Mock. "If we are ever going to stop the
circle of violence in our community, I would suggest that you might
want to take a long, hard thought about that.""

In that you'll find arguments that those opposed to your support for CP
have posted here before.

Do you believe that following the law is always moral and correct? You
did not when it was a CPS case, apparently, invoking the "good german"
argument.

Given that you can in one circumstance, claim the authorities could be
wrong and following them is tantamount to using the "I was just
following orders" invalid defense, do you believe that in THIS case the
judge WAS right and his finding used as a guide for parents?

The burden of proof is on you. You are saying that the judge is wrong
then prove it!

I did. The judge said so himself. He followed the law. He did not agree
with it.

And no, the burden of proof isn't on me just because you declare it to
be. YOU have a responsibility to back up YOUR claims, something you
rarely do when cornered and the outcome is NOT going to go your way and
you know it. Just like now.

So, as long as the law says it's okay to injure the child, as was the
case here, physically most certainly as the hospital noted, and likely
psychologically, you are good with that as being where your "line" is
at the moment?

Is this what they call selective morality?


Where is your line, Doan?


It's where "reasonable" people say it is?

I didn't ask you t use such a dodge. They say a wide different of
things. Some will say that it's okay to strike little babies with
switches, while others say it's okay to leave marks with a belt. Some
will say it's okay to slap a child's face, other restrict only to the
child's buttocks. Each thinks they are reasonable. You can't agree with
all of them when some of these "reasonable" people are in direct
conflict with each other.

Exactly! In some places, the speed limit is 15mph, in others it's 55mph!
Got it?

Sure. Do you "got it?"

So you are saying that as long as the law says it's okay, then it's
okay?

This morning, as I went for my paper to the local store I was in a 35
mile an hour zone. I slowed to almost 25. It would have been legal for
me to pass that jogger at 35 and splash her with icy slush. Would it
have been moral? Suppose I had lost control, at 35 mph and slide into
her? Legal? NO, it would NOT be.

As the judge in the case made clear, the man should NOT have beaten his
son.

"The photographs show welts on the boy's buttocks, back, stomach, arms
and legs, including at least one mark that appeared to be from a belt
buckle.

The boy testified that Malone continued to hit him after he fell to the
floor in pain. Malone, a former boxer and wrestler, testified that he
subdued his son with a wrestling maneuver and hit him after the boy
tried to grab the belt."

You see, even the father didn't call it a "spanking." He admitted he
"hit" his son. At least HE'S honest.

You'll go along with '"reasonable"' 'people?' Even though you know they
don't all agree?

Yes! We can be "reasonable" without agreeing.

Nope. Not in a matter such as this. Either it is reasonable to cause
pain, in the name of teaching, to a child or it isn't. There's really
no such thing as middle ground here, any more than one can be a little
big pregnant, or a little bit dead.

You have a lot of maturing to do, young man. And I think your parents
either needed to spank you more, under your belief system, or not at
all under mine.

Whichever is reasonable. Which do you think is?

Why are you changing the subject below?

I though beccafromlalaland
already told you that! ;-)

What would that have to do with you? 0;-


Doan


What is your line. Not theirs, not the judges. What do you personally
believe is reasonable.

What I PERSONALLY BELIEVE is my business!

Why are you yelling? Of course it's your business. Precisely why I
asked.

Where or not you admit to it is also your business, and ours to observe
and contemplate.
We see how willing you are to share some things, and not others about
your beliefs.

Isn't it nice to make up the rules as you go along? We notice that with
spanked children a lot. They tend to be sneaky and sly, and
manipulative, and have poor personal as well as social
boundaries...just...like...that.

Why do you always want to stick
your nose into other people' asses?

Their "belief" is not their ass.

Though if you wish to claim yours is, at it seems by that question you
are doing, then go right ahead. I just consider it your opinion, your
belief, not your ass, and I asked for your belief, not your ass.

So that you can tell them that it
stinks? ;-)

Now isn't that odd? You appear to be equating your belief with your ass
that stinks.

YOU, of all people, who demands that others answer your personal
questions.

You who make it a practice to bring up their personal business and use
it to harass.

Daring them to do this or that. Screaming at Chris about his claims of
being an instructor and demanding he prove it.

Demanding I tell posters, such as becca, what my credentials are.

Tsk Doan. Tsk.

One rule for you and another for others?

How childish.

Especially since you DID in fact share your personal business quite
willingly when you admitted your parents spanked you. When, I suppose,
it suited your purpose.

Why so reluctant to share now?

No cogent answer? Or one that might compromise your claim to
neutrality?

You are lacking in conviction and willing to take the next change of
position, as long as it somehow supports your posting here as an
advocate of spanking.

Your postings are full of this same wishy washy waffling on this issue.


You cannot say what is abusive and what isn't, even now with a judge
saying it was wrong but "within the law." That's not an answer, Doan.
Not at all. Unless you wish to agree with us, the folks opposed to CP,
that it's dangerous physically and socially. Do you?

That's what a "reasonable" judge said.

It's 35 mph, unless conditions warrant otherwise, Doan. You seem so
unable to grasp such concepts.

Doan

Kane

References:
http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs....WS01/602180374

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.d...55/1077/news01

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.d...EWS01/50516006

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.d...IT01/505170309