A 90%r, or a 10%r?

Well, according to the article the court claims the parents didn't
"discipline" their child.

Odds are the court is mistaken (It's claimed 90% of all people are
spanked as children) and this was yet another spanked child....he just
got too big and dangerous to spank anymore. A not uncommon outcome in
familes that use assault on small children to try and control, rather
than take time to non-violently teach.

So what do you think, would YOU have been spanking your 17, nearly 18
year old, that liked to carry a knife?

Jury: Parents Share Blame in Son's Attack
Aug 21, 6:56 AM EDT

CINCINNATI (AP) -- The parents of a teenager who stabbed a 13-year-old
girl must bear most of the responsibility, jurors decided as they
awarded $10 million to the injured victim and her family.

Lance and Diane White share 70 percent of the blame for the 2003 attack
on Casey Hilmer, the Hamilton County jury found Friday. Their son
Benjamin, who was 17 at the time, bears the rest.

"It sends a message to parents that even if the child is 11 days shy of
18 years old, a parent is liable for the supervision and control of
their children and what they entrust them with," said attorney Stanley
Chesley, who represented the Hilmer family. ...
http://www.columbian.com/news/newsst...08-21-06-56-07

A little personal story. Though my parents were routinely NOT punitive
parents they seem to think it worked, and obviously didn't feel
imperiled by me.

Often on birthdays and other gift giving I was the happy recipient of
guns and knives, as I was an avid shotgunner, both upland game and
waterfowl, and a deer and small game hunter, as well as an dedicated
fisherman. By the time I was 18 I probably owned 7 or 8 rifles and
shotguns, as well as handguns. Can't count the number of knives for
different hunting and fishing purposes I had laying about along with
hatchets, axes, and saws.

Can't remember ever going out and dragging a girl into the bushes and
stabbing her though. Yet I recall that kids who were routinely
physically punished by their parents back then did indeed have a higher
incidence of criminal behavior. JUST LIKE NOW.

And interestingly as school paddling has diminished in the past couple
of decades, and CP has fallen more and more out of favor, the rate of
violent crime for youths has steadily declined.

Of course one could claim it's because they drink milk, but that would
be stretching the correlation does not equal causation argument just a
tad, don't you think?

R R R R R R

0:-

If only he was 18! ;-)

"It sends a message to parents that even if the child is 11 days shy of
18 years old, a parent is liable for the supervision and control of
their children and what they entrust them with," said attorney Stanley
Chesley, who represented the Hilmer family. ...


Doan


On 21 Aug 2005 wrote:

Well, according to the article the court claims the parents didn't
"discipline" their child.

Odds are the court is mistaken (It's claimed 90% of all people are
spanked as children) and this was yet another spanked child....he just
got too big and dangerous to spank anymore. A not uncommon outcome in
familes that use assault on small children to try and control, rather
than take time to non-violently teach.

So what do you think, would YOU have been spanking your 17, nearly 18
year old, that liked to carry a knife?

Jury: Parents Share Blame in Son's Attack
Aug 21, 6:56 AM EDT

CINCINNATI (AP) -- The parents of a teenager who stabbed a 13-year-old
girl must bear most of the responsibility, jurors decided as they
awarded $10 million to the injured victim and her family.

Lance and Diane White share 70 percent of the blame for the 2003 attack
on Casey Hilmer, the Hamilton County jury found Friday. Their son
Benjamin, who was 17 at the time, bears the rest.

"It sends a message to parents that even if the child is 11 days shy of
18 years old, a parent is liable for the supervision and control of
their children and what they entrust them with," said attorney Stanley
Chesley, who represented the Hilmer family. ...
http://www.columbian.com/news/newsst...08-21-06-56-07

A little personal story. Though my parents were routinely NOT punitive
parents they seem to think it worked, and obviously didn't feel
imperiled by me.

Often on birthdays and other gift giving I was the happy recipient of
guns and knives, as I was an avid shotgunner, both upland game and
waterfowl, and a deer and small game hunter, as well as an dedicated
fisherman. By the time I was 18 I probably owned 7 or 8 rifles and
shotguns, as well as handguns. Can't count the number of knives for
different hunting and fishing purposes I had laying about along with
hatchets, axes, and saws.

Can't remember ever going out and dragging a girl into the bushes and
stabbing her though. Yet I recall that kids who were routinely
physically punished by their parents back then did indeed have a higher
incidence of criminal behavior. JUST LIKE NOW.

And interestingly as school paddling has diminished in the past couple
of decades, and CP has fallen more and more out of favor, the rate of
violent crime for youths has steadily declined.

Of course one could claim it's because they drink milk, but that would
be stretching the correlation does not equal causation argument just a
tad, don't you think?

R R R R R R

0:-

well, I don't know about courts really "sending messages". They surely
aren't clear messages. Many people would see this as a jury led by a
good lawyer, I suppose.

But as far as your own children...yes up until you die you should try
to keep good relations with them and try to keep them partly socialized
in the family unit, if its a healthy family that is.

A family that tries to solve problems without yelling and hitting is a
healthy family because they realize they must work together. If that
sounds foolish, well....

As far as laws to protect children? Yeah, it would be a nice
revengeful site to see some smug parents who thought hitting was their
only choice, their right, and the most sensible thing to do ( given
their problem of not having a submissive b***h for a child ) getting in
trouble with the law. Children who were hit and their parents never
apologized would finally feel some relief that society didn't think
they deserved the sexual problems, insecurities, the pain, lonliness,
isolation, anti-social activities isolation brings, etc. etc... that
hitting brings. Thats some of the great stuff a law would do. It
would also empower bystanders or family that knows hitting is going on
to no longer look like a "non of my business situation" and acknowledge
that it is illegal to hit and to put the burden on parents who hit, not
those that are preventing violence from occuring.

That said, I think I would rather parents just get some smarts, take
parenting seriously, stop teaching half, empty truths , accept more
kinds of behavior into their lives but try to guide the best behaviors.
That would be better than a law...but by pure reason, yes children
deserve protection from being hit and it would surely seem the law
should be that protection since we rely on it to protect women from
being hit in the home, too....even if it doesn't have much effect. ( I
mean, as a man, the last thing I want is some person with a clipboard
making sure I'm a good husband and that I'm not hitting my wife.
)(joke)

Life surely won't be perfect from a law protecting children from being
hit. But the law IS way overdue. Whether or not you are for a law on
criminilizing physical punishment of children...I wish people would
make it clear to seperate their parenting beliefs from their law of the
land beliefs. If you seriously think hitting a kid is good ( yes in
the domino effect and randomness of life it may work out to be "good",
but its not good ) then that is what I have problem with. If you
accidentally hit your kid and don't do something ( for the next couple
of years ) to right that wrong, then I have a problem.

And let me also encourage people to eat properly and to exercise. Its
hard to find the time, but if you eat properly you might find you do
have the energy.
It relieves stress, helps your brain out, gives you confidence so you
don't feel like such a victim all the time...blah blah blah.
People don't listen to that advice either, except zealous people who
watched too much Care Bears and actually want to have the extra energy
and emotional capacity to try and help others. Yes its a religion that
I made up trying to help others. Its a religion I made up thinking
that life isn't just about today, but tomorrow. Its a religion I made
up that laws matter. Its a religion I made up that pro-spankers are
evil demons, or that they are silly little rebellious elves. Its a
religion I made up that life isn't totally about domination and
submission and that the Free Masons aren't the ultimate dominators of
us all. Its a religion I made up that guilt isn't the only factor in a
marriage that keeps it together without domination and
submission...love is the centerfold of that crazy religion.

I'm so creative. Oh and my church is named "USSR". I'm a communist
oppressed by the evil individualistic mindsets that claim a mountian of
icecream should be eaten by the first that see it instead of preserved
for the asthetic beauty to resonate to all that choose to patronage to
it.

I was serious about not hitting children though...and about eating
healthy. low fat protein at every meal with lots of fruits and
vegetables. breakfast, lunch,snack, dinner. That is how you eat. You
don't have the time for good for you food? You don't have the money
for good for you food? well fine, but be aware that anything other than
what I talked about is glorified alpo or table sugar. you won't starve
to death, but I thought we were hoping for better than that.
Healthy eating has been branded a religion by some too, go figure. If
I puff some corn into a cheeto and add some vitamins to it, its still a
cheeto...yet thats what most breakfast cereals are. If I use flour to
make bread, then I use it to make....cake. hmmmm. Oh, but its Pita
Bread. Oh he's just anti-carb. You anti-carb zealot. I don't care
if you know anything about chemistry or the body or the history of food
or populations with low rates of heart attacks, depression, or non of
that stuff. My grandpappy ate buiscuts and gravy every.... OH and
smoking is good for you too. My uncle, he smoked a pack a day until he
was 500 and lived till he was 800. Aint nobody gonna tell me
otherwise. Your not the boss of me now...your not the boss of me
now...your not the boss of me now...and your not so big.

See, I can laugh, I'm not so anal retentive. And all that matters
completely when we talk about whether its bad to hit children or not.
My saintliness has everything to do with whether hitting even works
well at creating the perfect next generation yet backwards compatible
child.

Why? because people think this is all about comparing notes on
utopias and idealologies ( spelling? ). Thats why. Who wants to live
in a world where everyone is so serious? These anti-spankers are so
darn serious, its like its wrong to even look at a butt.
Or who wants to live in a world with pro-spankers, they are so darn
serious and they'll hit you at every slip of the tongue.
Who wants to live in a world where its not every
man/woman/child/animal/tree/ for itself? I mean who are the pussies
wanting a stop to the violence that will insure that what is rightfully
mine comes to me? Or that proper justice that I make up or gain a
concensus on, is meated out?

Or maybe its because people are in desperate need of a leader, not just
lots of evidence supporting this thing or the other which does nothing
to satisfy the need for a nipple.

Peace, you guys.. Seriously. Everyone's had a hard time in life...we
all deserve some rest.