If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
What would you do if.....
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
What would you do if.....
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:- |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
What would you do if.....
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
What would you do if.....
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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]
__________________
Becca Momma to two boys Big Guy 3/02 and Wuvy-Buv 8/05 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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.
Quote:
__________________
Becca Momma to two boys Big Guy 3/02 and Wuvy-Buv 8/05 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
What would you do if.....
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
What would you do if.....
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
What would you do if.....
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:- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|