What would you do if.....

On 20 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
reasonable:
(rz-n-bl)
adj.

1. Capable of reasoning; rational: a reasonable person.
2. Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking: a reasonable solution to the problem.
3. Being within the bounds of common sense: arrive home at a reasonable hour.
4. Not excessive or extreme; fair: reasonable prices.

So I take it that it is not "reasonable" to spank you kids, according to
you?

YOU take it? ("So I take it that...")

Why not avoid trying to influence and let HER make up her own mind?

I thought only we non-spank zealots resorted to attempting to influence
others by support of their non-spanking decisions?

You wouldn't be trying to suggest to her that spanking is a reasonable
decision, would you?

It's not??? ;-)

AFfromDreamLand

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

Doan wrote:
reasonable:
(rz-n-bl)
adj.

1. Capable of reasoning; rational: a reasonable person.
2. Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking: a reasonable solution to the problem.
3. Being within the bounds of common sense: arrive home at a reasonable hour.
4. Not excessive or extreme; fair: reasonable prices.

So I take it that it is not "reasonable" to spank you kids, according to
you?
YOU take it? ("So I take it that...")

Why not avoid trying to influence and let HER make up her own mind?

I thought only we non-spank zealots resorted to attempting to influence
others by support of their non-spanking decisions?

You wouldn't be trying to suggest to her that spanking is a reasonable
decision, would you?

It's not??? ;-)

It is if you can answer The Question definitively with precision,
instead of weasel dodging answers.

Otherwise, no. It has risks, and "spanking" itself is so poorly defined
as to how, with what, how often, how much force, for what actions, etc.

That's what makes it unreasonable as a choice: risks.

0:-


AFfromDreamLand



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

It is if you can answer The Question definitively with precision,
instead of weasel dodging answers.

Otherwise, no. It has risks, and "spanking" itself is so poorly defined
as to how, with what, how often, how much force, for what actions, etc.


That's what makes it unreasonable as a choice: risks.

It's not what the courts had decided! Are you saying that 90%+ of
parents
are "unreasonable"?

AFfromDreamLand


0:-

wrote:
It is if you can answer The Question definitively with precision,
instead of weasel dodging answers.

Otherwise, no. It has risks, and "spanking" itself is so poorly defined
as to how, with what, how often, how much force, for what actions, etc.


That's what makes it unreasonable as a choice: risks.

It's not what the courts had decided!

And that is exactly how LaVonne changed my mind. Her arguments kept
prompting me to recognize that just like slavery, and the suppression of
women, and the neglect and exploitation of children, a law must be passed.

Are you saying that 90%+ of
parents
are "unreasonable"?

Only if they chose to spank. So, if that is the group you refer to, yes.

I'm not terribly happy with parents that don't spank but are into brutal
psychological punishments, but they are so rare as to be negligible.
Nothing like those 90%+ "spankers," who one day may find themselves
facing assault charges as some do NOW that went over that line I keep
referring to...the one no one can define and I refer to in terms like
"risk."

AFfromDreamLand


You have so little argument.


0:-



0:-


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

Are you saying that 90%+ of
parents
are "unreasonable"?

Only if they chose to spank. So, if that is the group you refer to, yes.

Hahaha! The WHOLE world is "unreasonable" until the anti-spanking
zealotS came along!
Logic of the anti-spanking zealotS!

AFfromDreamLand

Originally Posted by Doan

reasonable:
(rz-n-bl)
adj.

1. Capable of reasoning; rational: a reasonable person.
2. Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking: a reasonable solution to the problem.
3. Being within the bounds of common sense: arrive home at a reasonable hour.
4. Not excessive or extreme; fair: reasonable prices.

So I take it that it is not "reasonable" to spank you kids, according to
you?

Doan

Very good Doan. It is Unreasonable to spank any child, for any reason. Children are precious, Parents are supposed to love them care for them teach them guide them into productive adulthood.

Children do not reason like adults do. Spankers have it in their head that by spanking a child for doing something "wrong" they are teaching the child a lesson, that the child will be able to look back when they are tempted to misbehave again and remember the whoopin' they got last time and not do it. But they don't think like that, Kids are experts in flying by the seat of their pants, very rarely do they think "hmm perhaps I shouldn't jump off the sofa because last time I did that I got spanked" Kids don't think like that, they don't even know why they misbehave it's a lack of Impulse control, not outright defiance. So Doan...WHY do spankers believe that it is reasonable to spank a child who probably doesn't even know why they misbehaved, and probably will do the same misbehavior again?

I'll tell you why. Parents put unreasonalbe expectations on their children. A parent will think "little Johnny is 10yrs old he's old enough to know that he shouldn't jump off the Sofa" But when we ask Little Johnny Why he jumped off the sofa when he knew better chance are he's going to say "I don't know" and you know what He really doesn't know why, it just seemed like a good idea at the time, or He didn't even think about it before doing it because...HE'S A KID, He lacks impulse control. So what is the Solution?? Spank him for not reaching a developmental milestone, within the Parent's preconcieved Idea of WHEN he should be able to Control his impulses?? Or telling him again, "Johnny Don't jump off the Sofa, it's dangerous you could hit something or someone, or break a limb . Please try to remember next time."

Which seems more Reasonable to you?

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:


Why don't you look up the word Reasonable Doan...and then you may be
able to figure out what I mean.

alternatives to spanking...non punitive means of child discipline.
There are a lot of alternative to CP. And not all means of discipline
are "reasonable" with any specific child...what works for one might
backfire on another. So you Have to change what is a "resonable
expectation" in your mind (a pre-concieved notion, or societal pressure
to conform) to fit your child.

Doan Wrote:
But replacing spanking with non-cp alternatives is no difference! What
do
you mean by "reasonable"?

Doan

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:


Ron Wrote:

The difference here is that the child has a reasonable expectancy of
learning from the experience and understanding the concepts
involved.
A
"Down's Syndrom" sufferer does not, child or not.

Ron

People with Down's can and DO learn Don't sell them short.

The problem with your argument is that most spankers don't take into
consideration what the word Reasonable means. Nor do they take into
consideration basic child development. Nor do they look at their
child
in the eyes of WHERE they are developmentaly. Some 10yr olds are
responsible, upright individuals who know right from wrong and can be
trusted to act accourdingly. OTHERS (like myself) run willy nilly
through life being a kid!! Is that Reasonable absolutly!!

I was around 13yrs old before I had the "sense" so to speak that my
actions had consequences...I remember when it dawned on me that if I
did *A* I could be assured that *B* would follow.

I guess the bottom line is you have to mold your "reasonable
expectations" to fit your child, not mold your child to fit your
expectations. That means letting them BE kids. Loving them and
Respecting them enough to ALLOW them to grow and learn at their own
speed. No Child should be spanked because they don't fit the mold
their parents have made for them.


--
beccafromlalaland



--
beccafromlalaland
[/quote]

Where does this 90% number come from? There are Many Cultures who don't spank their children. There are many individuals within spanking cultures who choose not to spank. I'm very curious where this 90% came from.

Originally Posted by

Are you saying that 90%+ of
parents
are "unreasonable"?

Only if they chose to spank. So, if that is the group you refer to, yes.

Hahaha! The WHOLE world is "unreasonable" until the anti-spanking
zealotS came along!
Logic of the anti-spanking zealotS!

AFfromDreamLand

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:


Doan Wrote:
reasonable:
(rz-n-bl)
adj.

1. Capable of reasoning; rational: a reasonable person.
2. Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking: a
reasonable solution to the problem.
3. Being within the bounds of common sense: arrive home at a reasonable
hour.
4. Not excessive or extreme; fair: reasonable prices.

So I take it that it is not "reasonable" to spank you kids, according
to
you?

Doan

Very good Doan. It is Unreasonable to spank any child, for any
reason. Children are precious, Parents are supposed to love them care
for them teach them guide them into productive adulthood.

Spanking has been upheld by the courts (even the Supreme Court) as
"reasonable". It might be "unreasonable" to you but to most parents
in the U.S., it is "reasonable". To say that parents are unreasonable
because they chose to spank is itself "unreasonable".

Even in Canada, their Supreme Court upheld Section 43 when challenged
by anti-spanking group:

"The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld Section 43 in January 2002. The court
ruled that parents and teachers are free to spank children for
disciplinary purposes if they limit themselves to "reasonable force." The
court also said the law strikes a fair balance between the state and the
interests of children."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/spanking/

Are you saying that Canadians are also "unreasonable"? ;-)

Doan

Got Straus? ;-)

AFfromDreamLand

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:


Where does this 90% number come from? There are Many Cultures who
don't spank their children. There are many individuals within spanking
cultures who choose not to spank. I'm very curious where this 90% came
from.

Wrote:
Are you saying that 90%+ of
parents
are "unreasonable"?

Only if they chose to spank. So, if that is the group you refer to,
yes.

Hahaha! The WHOLE world is "unreasonable" until the anti-spanking
zealotS came along!
Logic of the anti-spanking zealotS!

AFfromDreamLand


--
beccafromlalaland

Correction ***


Doan wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:


Doan Wrote:
reasonable:
(rz-n-bl)
adj.

1. Capable of reasoning; rational: a reasonable person.
2. Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking: a
reasonable solution to the problem.
3. Being within the bounds of common sense: arrive home at a reasonable
hour.
4. Not excessive or extreme; fair: reasonable prices.

So I take it that it is not "reasonable" to spank you kids, according
to
you?

Doan

Very good Doan. It is Unreasonable to spank any child, for any
reason. Children are precious, Parents are supposed to love them care
for them teach them guide them into productive adulthood.

Spanking has been upheld by the courts (even the Supreme Court) as
"reasonable". It might be "unreasonable" to you but to most parents
in the U.S., it is "reasonable".

We are not a majority rules society. You can relax that argument now,
or retire it. *** Laws are NOT made by majority rule.

And when have "most" of any group been a valid argument for ANY cause?

It's not how many agree. It's how valid their claims.

To say that parents are unreasonable
because they chose to spank is itself "unreasonable".

The argument of the slavery proponents, and opponents of women's
suffrage.

Not to mention those that thought it just fine to work children in the
mills and mines of a century ago.

May we see that US Supreme Court decision please?

Even in Canada, their Supreme Court upheld Section 43 when challenged
by anti-spanking group:

"The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld Section 43 in January 2002. The court
ruled that parents and teachers are free to spank children for
disciplinary purposes if they limit themselves to "reasonable force." The
court also said the law strikes a fair balance between the state and the
interests of children."

I notice you did not go on to list the extreme changes in application
of the law in Canada that so limits how and at what ages a child may be
spanked and upon which portions of their body that it's quite obviously
a politically clever way to ease people toward more and more
restrictions until it's a complete ban. Can't say the courts are not
political. 0:-

In fact, the Canadian spanking law is going to come up in not too many
months with a challenge. It's going to be based on discrimination. That
one group of children may be assaulted and another not.

And no, I won't tell you or anyone my source. It's still in the works
and I don't want it interfered with.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/spanking/

Afraid to post all the components of the changes to the law, were you?
Why is that, Doan? R R R R

"INDEPTH: SPANKING
To spank or not to spank?
CBC News Online | Updated February 2, 2004

The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld a century-old law that allows
parents, teachers and caregivers to spank children, but ruled the use
of corporal punishment be confined to children between the ages of two
and 12.

The top court had been asked to rule on whether spanking constitutes
"reasonable force" for disciplining children, or whether it is a form
of abuse. The court has heard arguments pro and con the efficacy of
Section 43 of the Criminal Code, which allows parents, teachers and
caregivers - including babysitters and foster parents - to use corporal
punishment as "reasonable force" to discipline children.

The section was enacted in 1892.

Some changes were recommended. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin,
writing for the majority, ruled out the use of corporal punishment for
children under age two or for teenagers. She also came out against
using instruments such as rulers and belts, or to strike a child on the
face or head.

The court revised legal doctrine that had lumped parents and teachers
together. Expressing the view of the majority in the 6-3 decision,
McLachlin wrote that "corporal punishment by teachers is unacceptable."

Those against corporal punishment - at home or at school - argued that
the old law should be thrown out because it is an affront to human
dignity. When he argued his case before the Supreme Court in 2003,
lawyer Paul Schabas said, "This case is about the right of children not
to be hit, a right that in a modern, 21st-century democracy should be
unquestioned."

The Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law, a children's
advocacy group, said Section 43 of the Criminal Code is a violation of
the Charter of Rights. Speaking on behalf of the foundation, Schabas
said, "Section 43 has the effect of making children second-class
citizens."

The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld Section 43 in January 2002. The
court ruled that parents and teachers are free to spank children for
disciplinary purposes if they limit themselves to "reasonable force."
The court also said the law strikes a fair balance between the state
and the interests of children.

This led a group known as the Coalition to Repeal Section 43 of the
Criminal Code of Canada to champion the cause of abolishing the
century-old law. The coalition applauded the decision to appeal to the
Supreme Court of Canada.

Matthew Geigen-Miller, director of education and communications for the
Ottawa-based National Youth In Care Network, said a law that allows
caregivers to use corporal punishment on children is a major concern
for his association, which describes itself as "an advocacy group for
the more than 62,000 children and youth in care in Canada."

Geigen-Miller said in an essay in The Globe and Mail that upholding
Section 43 encourages the use of corporal punishment and "is known to
be a gateway to abuse." He said the section "obscures child-abuse
investigations, making it difficult for police and child-protection
workers to make a legal distinction between abuse and discipline."

It was never a sure thing that the top court would recommend abolishing
Section 43. During the argument stage at the Supreme Court, several of
the judges took issue with Schabas's argument. A lawyer for the federal
government said parents should be free to use "mild to moderate" forms
of corporal punishment to discipline their children.

Justice Charles Gonthier said striking down Section 43 could make
parents liable to criminal charges each time they spank their children.
Two other justices, Ian Binnie and Frank Iacobucci, questioned any need
to change the law, saying it guarantees immunity for reasonable
discipline, not for child abuse. "This is a defence to assault,"
Iacobucci said. "It doesn't mean it's a value to be promoted."

"Most, if not all school boards already have rules against physical
discipline," says Paul Whitehead, sociology professor at the University
of Western Ontario. "The lessons taught by the use of such measures by
parents, teachers or other persons in authority are contrary to what we
want young persons to learn; that is, bigger people may hit smaller
people, older people may hit younger people, stronger people may hit
weaker people and higher status people may hit lower status people."

The Canadian Paediatric Society advises doctors talking to parents to
"strongly discourage" spanking children as a disciplinary tool. "The
days of spanking children were not the 'good old days,' and it is
wrong, in my opinion, to think that some of the changes we see in our
broader society come down to whether you spank or whether you don't
spank," Dr. Sarah Shea says in a paper she co-authored on the subject
of corporal punishment. "I think we've had a lot of growth in our
understanding of spanking as an act of violence - or of potential
violence - and to also know that there are lots of other choices."

There are teachers and education officials who defended keeping Section
43 as it is. In a letter to the editor of The Globe and Mail in 2003,
Canadian Teachers Federation president Doug Willard said the
elimination of the section would prevent teachers from dealing with
potentially dangerous or disruptive situations.

"Why should teachers risk criminal prosecution for assault for
returning a student to line, restraining a cognitively challenged
student during a physical outburst, or removing a disruptive child from
the classroom?" Willard asked. "

Notice, Doan? No attempt was made to define spanking other than to use
the non-specific term,"reasonable."

How many traffic control signs say things like, "come to a reasonable
stop," or "Speed Limit in School Zone, REASONABLE?"

"Left turn allowed against uncomming traffic when reasonable?"

The language is vague for a perfectly "reasonable" reason, Doan. It's
because everyone KNOWS that holding children out as a special class of
people to be assualted is totally UNREASONABLE.

It's the spanking compulsives like you that have held sway and frankly
show how very dangerous they can be (as you are) to child safety and
the public that has held back a law against assaulting children to
include banning spanking or other CP acts.

Are you saying that Canadians are also "unreasonable"? ;-)

Some. Yes. Some not. Guess which.

Assault is assault. To put a class of people, and THE ONLY ONE in
existence in our society, outside the protection of laws prohibiting
assault is as logical as slavery and the exploitation of women and
children was in centuries past.

It's not only unreasonable, it's barbaric and stupid.

Humans have been known to be both in the past, then correct their
barbarity and stupidity. We will on this issue as well.

The only other class of people that can be assaulted legally, are those
put to death under death penalty laws. Or that are attacking someone
and being restrained by physical force for protetion.

What is it about teaching or controlling a child that requires
assaulting them?

Doan

0:-