Would you spank in this situation?

Kane wrote
Of course not. We wouldn't, for instance,
resort to the use of physical force, even
if you BROKE the law on spanking that is comming.

Can a law OPENLY throw away the high court
interpretations of the Bill Of Rights?

Kane wrote
We'd proceed legally to fine, and or imprison you and
take your children away only if you continued to
stubbornly lie to yourself and use the delusion
that spanking is not hitting.

You started out POSING as a Family Rights
activist but your deception has become more and
more obvious. You denied your career and
economic connection to them until recently.

Have you now decided to take off your mask
and admit to your STATIST obsession?

Comments like your above really do indicate
you think yourself superior to most citizens
and that you FEAR citizens in general.

Is THAT why you're such a STATIST?
Being INSIDE made you feel POWERFUL and safe?

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
Of course not. We wouldn't, for instance,
resort to the use of physical force, even
if you BROKE the law on spanking that is comming.

Can a law OPENLY throw away the high court
interpretations of the Bill Of Rights?

What has that to do with the quote of my comments above?

If you are referring to a law against spanking can you tell us where the
high court has ruled that spanking is a constitutional issue?

The answer would be "Yes, it can." Then it can be tested, like all laws
can be.

It would stand, just as the amendment against slavery stood, and the one
that gave women the vote.

Kane wrote
We'd proceed legally to fine, and or imprison you and
take your children away only if you continued to
stubbornly lie to yourself and use the delusion
that spanking is not hitting.

You started out POSING as a Family Rights
activist but your deception has become more and
more obvious.

You are incorrect. I've never posed.

There is no conflict between advocating for families, and supporting a
law against spanking.

In fact I am against CPS intervention for spanking...since it is legal,
NOW.

In other words, I support law, and I support the right to make and
change law.

If you don't like that because it's your ox I'm goring, though ****
little liberal fascist.

You denied your career and
economic connection to them until recently.

What are you babbling about now?

Have you now decided to take off your mask
and admit to your STATIST obsession?

That I stand for rule of law? It isn't "STATIST" nor an obsession to
have a particular view point and PRESS IT LEGALLY BY THE PROCESSES
AFFORDED ME BY THE LAWS OF THIS COUNTRY.

Comments like your above really do indicate
you think yourself superior to most citizens
and that you FEAR citizens in general.

One, I do not think myself superior and nothing I've said in any way
supports your claim about me. You are delusional, again.

And I'm certainly not in fear of citizens in general or otherwise.

What would my wanting a law to ban spanking have to do with your silly
claim?

You are just babbling for effect, again.

Is THAT why you're such a STATIST?

I am not a "statist." (Does yelling it make it more believable for you,
little boy?)

Being INSIDE made you feel POWERFUL and safe?

On the contrary I left after my student days on a work study contract to
go into mental health work and education, as well as develop my own
businesses. I'm not terrible impressed with government work, though I
understand and support the need for government services.

You have posted with even less sense than usual. Just babble.

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 (or someone else)

Kane wrote
mental health work and education

Aren't you too OLD for it to help much?

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
mental health work and education

Aren't you too OLD for it to help much?

In reference to ... ?

(In other words you don't want to argue issues, isn't that right, Greg?)

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 (or someone else)

Kane wrote
you don't want to argue issues, isn't that right, Greg?

When you posted gratuitous obscenity for over a year,
did that conform to Roberts rules of order?

On 1 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On 1 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote:

Spanking is not abuse.

Sure it is. It's just legal abuse. Hitting another IS abusive. In fact
in some states hitting a dog or horse or other pet is abuse, which they
label as "cruelty." Even if you call it "spanking."

So when the police "hit" you for not complying, it IS abusive?

Nope. They might have to prove they needed to use force to control me
though. In a court of law.

Hahaha! And who do you think the judge would believe, you or the police
officer?

The child doesn't get this break because the parent is given, by law,
the right to assault the child at the parent's pleasure. All the parent
must do is not cause injury to the point a court would convict.

And now you want the child to have his day in court too? So in your
logic, the police hit you with a baton is not assault but a parent
who spank their kids is?

Doan

Doan wrote to Kane
And now you want the child to have his
day in court too? So in your logic, the
police hit you with a baton is not assault
but a parent who spank their kids is?

That's Kane!
Government as king, parents as perps.
Children all with rights OVER their parents.

"The Lord of the Flies" all over again!

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
you don't want to argue issues, isn't that right, Greg?

When you posted gratuitous obscenity for over a year,
did that conform to Roberts rules of order?

And did I not argue issues with every post, regardless of the
'embellishments' I provided to keep your attention?

So I ask you again, to answer the question, rather than resort to
logical fallacy of Tu quoque.


So, it becomes even more apparent, "you don't want to argue issues,
isn't that right, Greg?"

We WERE discussing spanking in a certain situation. When you could no
longer maintain your side of the debate we found ourselves with "When
you posted gratuitous obscenity for over a year, did that conform to
Roberts rules of order?"

Which was not even to the point for the current placeholder in our
exchange.

A diversion, Greg.

You are unethical.

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 (or someone else)

Greegor wrote:
Doan wrote to Kane
And now you want the child to have his
day in court too? So in your logic, the
police hit you with a baton is not assault
but a parent who spank their kids is?

That's Kane!

If a police officer hits me with a baton and he or she had no legal
right to do so, that's assault.

If I presented a threat to him, her, or others, he or she can chose to
use a baton on me, legally, to control and stop me. To effect arrest, as
it were.

That is the law.

Currently I can find no one in particular in disagreement with this to
the point they feel it necessary to lobby against it. I'll keep watch.

With children there is no similar situation, generally, where the force
of hitting would be needed to stop a child, though I can see how it
might be needed in SOME circumstances, and should not be judged as assault.

Spanking, on the other hand, is not an 'emergency' measure, as use of a
baton is. It's a deliberate act with intent to cause pain for "teaching."

A police officer in a brutality case would surely lose if they were to
say, in court, "I used my baton to teach him not to do that again."

That IS assault, in all jurisdictions, Greg.

You may NOT teach someone by hitting them, IF they are an adult, Greg.

Government as king, parents as perps.

Nope. Government as agent of those that cannot protect themselves.
Abusive parent as perps.

Children all with rights OVER their parents.

Nope. You seem to have this either/or fixation, Greg.

You and I can have conflicting rights, Greg, and I presume you have no
problem accepting that and accepting that sometimes the court system
must be used to sort that out.

Why is it you cannot afford children that same right?

"The Lord of the Flies" all over again!

I see no appropriate analogy, unless I accept your fallacious either/or
reasoning, Greg.

It's both.

Both the child and the parent have rights. Sometimes they are in
conflict. Thus, CPS. Or criminal court.

A child has a right to life, and to not be assaulted. As yet, spanking
has not been seen for what it obviously and factually is. To hit is to
assault, unless you have circumstances you can show warranted the hitting.

What support do you have for spanking as being warranted?

And please, don't give me the old history argument. Historical evidence
has been proven wrong in many instances.

Slavery, women's suffrage, etc.

Once there were well argued supports for such things. No more.

And on less evidence than there currently is for the lacking efficacy of
spanking.

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 (or someone else)

I would punish as you did. I would not spank.