Lawmaker who tried to ban spanking of kids wants now to ban kid slapping.

[Amused]

Originally posted by: astroidea

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: astroidea

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: astroidea

has re-introduced a bill designed to crack down on hitting a child under 3 in the face or head.

I don't understand why she's mocked for this.
If you hit a child under 3 on the face or head, you should have your children taken away.. PERIOD.

Ya know, before this country was pussified beyond belief, we kids got smacked in the face if we sassed or cussed. This started from the time we started talking until we left the house.

Surprisingly enough, there was less crime, people were more polite, there was a sense of personal responsibility and the knowledge that acting rude and socially unacceptable had quick and painful consequences.

Now rude behavior is not only tolerated, it's fashionable.

We're talking about UNDER 3 here.
Do you advocate smacking babies on the face because they cried too loudly at night?

You've obviously never raised a child in the terrible twos, have you? 2-3 years old is not a "baby." It is a child who has just developed motor and speech skills, yet has no idea why he is not allowed to do as he pleases UNLESS he is given discipline. This age is CRITICAL for teaching discipline.

There is a HUGE difference between a baby who cries in the crib, and a toddler who microwaves the kitty, screams out cuss words at inappropriate moments, puts a grilled cheese in the VCR, etc. just because he can and has not been disciplined properly.

There is a HUGE difference between a slap on the butt or hand than to the face. :roll:
You don't seem to realize that I never once argued against disciplining your children, but a slap on the face is traumatizing at such a young age, not a healthy form of discipline.

Nice try with your strawman arguments, but let's see you justify smacking a 2 year old in the face.

A controlled slap in the face shocks the child without causing any damage whatsoever. It's perfect for children who talk back or use foul language.

Note I said controlled. You are being emotional and confusing a controlled slap with a full force blow done in anger.

My mouth was slapped starting from the period I could talk if I talked back or used foul language. If I acted up in public, a quick, but light rap on the top of the head kept me under control without all the drama of being thrown over my father's knee.

The hands off approach is a failure for most children.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: astroidea


Are you that fucking inane?
Have you ever been hit in the face?
Scratch that, have you ever even seen two people fight before?
You'll notice that the number one place they'll want to protect is their face. A blow to the face is far more deadly than to anywhere of the body.
Especially at such a young age, it won't take much force at all to create a concussion to a toddler's developing brain.

Ah, yes, because there was a rash of brain damaged kids before the nanny-state stepped in and declared touching your child to be abuse.

No... wait. There wasn't.

You're prone to over-emtional outbursts, aren't you?

 

[CPA]

In the spirit of this thread and to piss off some of the more liberal members, I have just reached over and smacked my 6 year old son on the back of the head.

 

[legoman666]

Originally posted by: CPA
In the spirit of this thread and to piss off some of the more liberal members, I have just reached over and smacked my 6 year old son on the back of the head.

give him one for me too.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: legoman666

Originally posted by: CPA
In the spirit of this thread and to piss off some of the more liberal members, I have just reached over and smacked my 6 year old son on the back of the head.

give him one for me too.

Done.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: astroidea


Are you that fucking inane?
Have you ever been hit in the face?
Scratch that, have you ever even seen two people fight before?
You'll notice that the number one place they'll want to protect is their face. A blow to the face is far more deadly than to anywhere of the body.
Especially at such a young age, it won't take much force at all to create a concussion to a toddler's developing brain.

Ah, yes, because there was a rash of brain damaged kids before the nanny-state stepped in and declared touching your child to be abuse.

No... wait. There wasn't.

You're prone to over-emtional outbursts, aren't you?

Why would there be any numbers for small amounts of brain damage caused by concussion? Do you think binge drinkers don't sustain brain damage either?

Maybe that's why American kids are so stupid compared to the rest of the developed world.

Have you seen the way low-income mothers treat their kids? Not just smacking them in the head, but also treating them like sh!t, cursing at them, etc. It's no wonder they end up in prison. That is one of the things Bill Cosby complained about.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: astroidea

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
Good god, you fvcking people FAIL at raising children. Discipline does not require a closed fist, an open hand, a belt, a paddle, or any other primitive device. Here's a clue: if you're relegated to using blunt force to teach your child how to become a better person YOU FAIL AT PARENTING.

:thumbsup:

Yes, because common courtesy, manners and society in general is SO much better since parents adopted the hands off approach, right? :roll:

Wow, touche'! Parental laziness take note; it's not you that's to blame, it's the reluctance to beat to children!

fvcking moron

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: pyonir

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Are you saying you think a 3 year old kid should be hit in the head or face? That would be ASSAULT if it were an adult.

And spanking an adult would be assault too...and could be considered sexual abuse and the spanker could be labeled a sex offender.

We should definitely ban spanking too...

I don't understand how anyone could think hitting a child in the face is EVER okay. I was spanked when I was a kid, but NEVER hit in the face or head, because my parents are not stupid/insane.

my corporal punishment for my kids from a very early age, yes, before 3 yrs of age, was a flick with my middle finger to their foreheads. did it leave red marks, no. was there any kind of damage to their skin? no. but was it enough to get their attention? yes. to this day, when my 11 yr old is being punished, he knows when he is flicked on the forehead, he went way past what is allowed and it still brings tears to his eyes.

so don't tell me how you think i should raise my children or that you think i am guilty of lazy parenting. you don't know anywhere near enough to comment on that. everyone that knows me and my children think i've done a great job of raising them.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: CPA
In the spirit of this thread and to piss off some of the more liberal members, I have just reached over and smacked my 6 year old son on the back of the head.

Being liberal has nothing to do with child abuse. I'm not pissed off, but if you did that and were man enough to admit to your identity, I'd report you.

 

[Baked]

P&N is -----> way.

Originally posted by: Ronstang
Yet people in CA keep electing idiots like this...over and over again. Go figure.

At least we didn't elect idiots to artificially inflate gas prices, devalue the dollar, and send soldiers to die in retarded invasions.

 

[Kirby]

jesus christ, popping your kid in the lip isn't the same as getting a 30 yard running start crowhop closed fist hit to the temple.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: astroidea


Are you that fucking inane?
Have you ever been hit in the face?
Scratch that, have you ever even seen two people fight before?
You'll notice that the number one place they'll want to protect is their face. A blow to the face is far more deadly than to anywhere of the body.
Especially at such a young age, it won't take much force at all to create a concussion to a toddler's developing brain.

Ah, yes, because there was a rash of brain damaged kids before the nanny-state stepped in and declared touching your child to be abuse.

No... wait. There wasn't.

You're prone to over-emtional outbursts, aren't you?

Why would there be any numbers for small amounts of brain damage caused by concussion? Do you think binge drinkers don't sustain brain damage either?

Maybe that's why American kids are so stupid compared to the rest of the developed world.

Have you seen the way low-income mothers treat their kids? Not just smacking them in the head, but also treating them like sh!t, cursing at them, etc. It's no wonder they end up in prison. That is one of the things Bill Cosby complained about.

Again, controlled corporal punishment is NOT abuse. You keep confusing them. Maybe because you cannot control your own emotions? Who knows. Who cares?

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Amused
Again, controlled corporal punishment is NOT abuse. You keep confusing them. Maybe because you cannot control your own emotions? Who knows. Who cares?

Controlled corporal punishment may easily be abuse-- where did you get any other idea? You can't whip your child with a belt or do many other "controlled" things which used to be commonplace and allowed, without breaking state laws left and right these days. What does being in control, and not stepping over your own boundaries of acceptability, have to do with what's acceptable under the law?

You seem to have a major logic disconnect going on as well. There doesn't have to be a "rash" of abuse due to your own cherished child "rearing" tactics for there to be some abuse. Luckily, fewer and fewer people each generation feel like hitting their children is acceptable.

Unfortunately, you're not the one who decides what is abuse and what isn't; the legislature, courts and social workers do that. Or maybe it is fortunate, after all. Who knows? Who cares?

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: astroidea

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
Good god, you fvcking people FAIL at raising children. Discipline does not require a closed fist, an open hand, a belt, a paddle, or any other primitive device. Here's a clue: if you're relegated to using blunt force to teach your child how to become a better person YOU FAIL AT PARENTING.

:thumbsup:

Yes, because common courtesy, manners and society in general is SO much better since parents adopted the hands off approach, right? :roll:

Wow, touche'! Parental laziness take note; it's not you that's to blame, it's the reluctance to beat to children!

fvcking moron

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: pyonir

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Are you saying you think a 3 year old kid should be hit in the head or face? That would be ASSAULT if it were an adult.

And spanking an adult would be assault too...and could be considered sexual abuse and the spanker could be labeled a sex offender.

We should definitely ban spanking too...

I don't understand how anyone could think hitting a child in the face is EVER okay. I was spanked when I was a kid, but NEVER hit in the face or head, because my parents are not stupid/insane.

my corporal punishment for my kids from a very early age, yes, before 3 yrs of age, was a flick with my middle finger to their foreheads. did it leave red marks, no. was there any kind of damage to their skin? no. but was it enough to get their attention? yes. to this day, when my 11 yr old is being punished, he knows when he is flicked on the forehead, he went way past what is allowed and it still brings tears to his eyes.

so don't tell me how you think i should raise my children or that you think i am guilty of lazy parenting. you don't know anywhere near enough to comment on that. everyone that knows me and my children think i've done a great job of raising them.

Someone dumb enough to equate flicking on the forehead with hitting in the face isn't fit to raise children. How hard is it to understand that you can cause HARM to a toddler by actually hitting him on the head? Of course, half of all parents have below average intelligence, so for a lot of people it probably IS difficult to understand.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Amused
Again, controlled corporal punishment is NOT abuse. You keep confusing them. Maybe because you cannot control your own emotions? Who knows. Who cares?

Controlled corporal punishment may easily be abuse-- where did you get any other idea? You can't whip your child with a belt or do many other "controlled" things which used to be commonplace and allowed, without breaking state laws left and right these days. What does being in control, and not stepping over your own boundaries of acceptability, have to do with what's acceptable under the law?

You seem to have a major logic disconnect going on as well. There doesn't have to be a "rash" of abuse due to your own cherished child "rearing" tactics for there to be some abuse. Luckily, fewer and fewer people each generation feel like hitting their children is acceptable.

Unfortunately, you're not the one who decides what is abuse and what isn't; the legislature, courts and social workers do that. Or maybe it is fortunate, after all. Who knows? Who cares?

Nothing I have mentioned here is listed as abuse in any state law.

Again, fewer and fewer people may be taking the hands off approach, yet is society REALLY any better for it? Are manners and common courtesy among kids and teens any better now than it was 30 years ago? Is violence among teens down? Is crime among teens down?

Nope, in fact the opposite is true.

Yes, it is so fortunate I have over-emotional twits like yourself to decide for me how to best raise my child. Maybe next you can legislate how I wipe my ass for me.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton


Someone dumb enough to equate flicking on the forehead with hitting in the face isn't fit to raise children.

And there you have it folks. We have the liberal elitist who feels the right to decide who can, and cannot raise kids. These are the same folks who would, if given half a chance, legislate away all your freedoms and dictate everything you do down to blowing your nose.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Throckmorton


Someone dumb enough to equate flicking on the forehead with hitting in the face isn't fit to raise children.

And there you have it folks. We have the liberal elitist who feels the right to decide who can, and cannot raise kids. These are the same folks who would, if given half a chance, legislate away all your freedoms and dictate everything you do down to blowing your nose.

Apparently you didn't read my post. Hitting someone on the head and face can obviously cause brain damage, while flicking with a finger won't. I'm a liberal elitist because I'm smart enough to realize that?

This is ridiculous.
Do you think a father should be able to rape his daughter? If not, please explain how that is different from assault. Are you a liberal elitist if you believe sexual abuse of your own kids should be illegal? After all, what right do I have to tell Dale Barlow how to raise his kids?

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Amused
Again, controlled corporal punishment is NOT abuse. You keep confusing them. Maybe because you cannot control your own emotions? Who knows. Who cares?

Controlled corporal punishment may easily be abuse-- where did you get any other idea? You can't whip your child with a belt or do many other "controlled" things which used to be commonplace and allowed, without breaking state laws left and right these days. What does being in control, and not stepping over your own boundaries of acceptability, have to do with what's acceptable under the law?

You seem to have a major logic disconnect going on as well. There doesn't have to be a "rash" of abuse due to your own cherished child "rearing" tactics for there to be some abuse. Luckily, fewer and fewer people each generation feel like hitting their children is acceptable.

Unfortunately, you're not the one who decides what is abuse and what isn't; the legislature, courts and social workers do that. Or maybe it is fortunate, after all. Who knows? Who cares?

Nothing I have mentioned here is listed as abuse in any state law.

Again, fewer and fewer people may be taking the hands off approach, yet is society REALLY any better for it? Are manners and common courtesy among kids and teens any better now than it was 30 years ago? Is violence among teens down? Is crime among teens down?

Nope, in fact the opposite is true.

Yes, it is so fortunate I have over-emotional twits like yourself to decide for me how to best raise my child. Maybe next you can legislate how I wipe my ass for me.

Logic not found (again). You've failed to show any evidence that the decline in manners is due to the lack of your style of "controlled" punishment. So sorry. You've also failed to show that manners are more important than preventing child abuse. Whoopsie!

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Throckmorton


Someone dumb enough to equate flicking on the forehead with hitting in the face isn't fit to raise children.

And there you have it folks. We have the liberal elitist who feels the right to decide who can, and cannot raise kids. These are the same folks who would, if given half a chance, legislate away all your freedoms and dictate everything you do down to blowing your nose.

Apparently you didn't read my post. Hitting someone on the head and face can obviously cause brain damage, while flicking with a finger won't. I'm a liberal elitist because I'm smart enough to realize that?

This is ridiculous.
Do you think a father should be able to rape his daughter? If not, please explain how that is different from assault. Are you a liberal elitist if you believe sexual abuse of your own kids should be illegal? After all, what right do I have to tell Dale Barlow how to raise his kids?

So now controlled corporal punishment is akin to child rape?

Wow...

Is there any reach you people won't make? Is there any over-emotional knee jerk reaction you don't think is going too far?

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Throckmorton


Someone dumb enough to equate flicking on the forehead with hitting in the face isn't fit to raise children.

And there you have it folks. We have the liberal elitist who feels the right to decide who can, and cannot raise kids. These are the same folks who would, if given half a chance, legislate away all your freedoms and dictate everything you do down to blowing your nose.

Apparently you didn't read my post. Hitting someone on the head and face can obviously cause brain damage, while flicking with a finger won't. I'm a liberal elitist because I'm smart enough to realize that?

This is ridiculous.
Do you think a father should be able to rape his daughter? If not, please explain how that is different from assault. Are you a liberal elitist if you believe sexual abuse of your own kids should be illegal? After all, what right do I have to tell Dale Barlow how to raise his kids?

So now controlled corporal punishment is akin to child rape?

Wow...

Is there any reach you people won't make? Is there any over-emotional knee jerk reaction you don't think is going too far?

I don't understand why this bizarre distinction about "controlled corporal punishment" came from. What is your logic for allowing hitting a child's face vs rape? Why can't rape be controlled corporal punishment?
Your parroting of "thatz emotionalz" is argument is getting old. Emotion is making you think that smacking a kid's face or hitting the toddler's head is somehow okay because it's not an adult.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Throckmorton


Someone dumb enough to equate flicking on the forehead with hitting in the face isn't fit to raise children.

And there you have it folks. We have the liberal elitist who feels the right to decide who can, and cannot raise kids. These are the same folks who would, if given half a chance, legislate away all your freedoms and dictate everything you do down to blowing your nose.

Apparently you didn't read my post. Hitting someone on the head and face can obviously cause brain damage, while flicking with a finger won't. I'm a liberal elitist because I'm smart enough to realize that?

This is ridiculous.
Do you think a father should be able to rape his daughter? If not, please explain how that is different from assault. Are you a liberal elitist if you believe sexual abuse of your own kids should be illegal? After all, what right do I have to tell Dale Barlow how to raise his kids?

So now controlled corporal punishment is akin to child rape?

Wow...

Is there any reach you people won't make? Is there any over-emotional knee jerk reaction you don't think is going too far?

I don't understand why this bizarre distinction about "controlled corporal punishment" came from. What is your logic for allowing hitting a child's face vs rape? Why can't rape be controlled corporal punishment?

Again... wow...

 

[David101]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Throckmorton


Someone dumb enough to equate flicking on the forehead with hitting in the face isn't fit to raise children.

And there you have it folks. We have the liberal elitist who feels the right to decide who can, and cannot raise kids. These are the same folks who would, if given half a chance, legislate away all your freedoms and dictate everything you do down to blowing your nose.

Apparently you didn't read my post. Hitting someone on the head and face can obviously cause brain damage, while flicking with a finger won't. I'm a liberal elitist because I'm smart enough to realize that?

This is ridiculous.
Do you think a father should be able to rape his daughter? If not, please explain how that is different from assault. Are you a liberal elitist if you believe sexual abuse of your own kids should be illegal? After all, what right do I have to tell Dale Barlow how to raise his kids?

you think too highly of yourself

 

[Kerouactivist]

Originally posted by: mcmilljb

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Place your bets now - she'll turn out to be a pedophile.

I would bet you she does pot, but the odds would be too much in my favor. :beer:

HAHA "She Does Pot" who talks like that...

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Throckmorton


Someone dumb enough to equate flicking on the forehead with hitting in the face isn't fit to raise children.

And there you have it folks. We have the liberal elitist who feels the right to decide who can, and cannot raise kids. These are the same folks who would, if given half a chance, legislate away all your freedoms and dictate everything you do down to blowing your nose.

Apparently you didn't read my post. Hitting someone on the head and face can obviously cause brain damage, while flicking with a finger won't. I'm a liberal elitist because I'm smart enough to realize that?

This is ridiculous.
Do you think a father should be able to rape his daughter? If not, please explain how that is different from assault. Are you a liberal elitist if you believe sexual abuse of your own kids should be illegal? After all, what right do I have to tell Dale Barlow how to raise his kids?

So now controlled corporal punishment is akin to child rape?

Wow...

Is there any reach you people won't make? Is there any over-emotional knee jerk reaction you don't think is going too far?

I don't understand why this bizarre distinction about "controlled corporal punishment" came from. What is your logic for allowing hitting a child's face vs rape? Why can't rape be controlled corporal punishment?

Again... wow...

Again... you fail to provide a logical argument. You can't provide a substantial reason that hitting a 2 year old's face is okay, while raping a kid isn't, but both should be illegal for an adult.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Amused
Again, controlled corporal punishment is NOT abuse. You keep confusing them. Maybe because you cannot control your own emotions? Who knows. Who cares?

Controlled corporal punishment may easily be abuse-- where did you get any other idea? You can't whip your child with a belt or do many other "controlled" things which used to be commonplace and allowed, without breaking state laws left and right these days. What does being in control, and not stepping over your own boundaries of acceptability, have to do with what's acceptable under the law?

You seem to have a major logic disconnect going on as well. There doesn't have to be a "rash" of abuse due to your own cherished child "rearing" tactics for there to be some abuse. Luckily, fewer and fewer people each generation feel like hitting their children is acceptable.

Unfortunately, you're not the one who decides what is abuse and what isn't; the legislature, courts and social workers do that. Or maybe it is fortunate, after all. Who knows? Who cares?

Nothing I have mentioned here is listed as abuse in any state law.

Again, fewer and fewer people may be taking the hands off approach, yet is society REALLY any better for it? Are manners and common courtesy among kids and teens any better now than it was 30 years ago? Is violence among teens down? Is crime among teens down?

Nope, in fact the opposite is true.

Yes, it is so fortunate I have over-emotional twits like yourself to decide for me how to best raise my child. Maybe next you can legislate how I wipe my ass for me.

Logic not found (again). You've failed to show any evidence that the decline in manners is due to the lack of your style of "controlled" punishment. So sorry. You've also failed to show that manners are more important than preventing child abuse. Whoopsie!

I'm 40. I know what I see.

And yet, you have failed to show anti-corporal punishment laws having ANY effect on real child abuse.

You also still confuse abuse with controlled punishment. One leaves injuries, the other does not. One is done in anger by over-emotional boobs like yourself, the other is not.

The only whoopsie here is your inability to understand the difference. Just because you cannot control yourself (or your kids for that matter) does not mean others share the same sad problem.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Throckmorton


Someone dumb enough to equate flicking on the forehead with hitting in the face isn't fit to raise children.

And there you have it folks. We have the liberal elitist who feels the right to decide who can, and cannot raise kids. These are the same folks who would, if given half a chance, legislate away all your freedoms and dictate everything you do down to blowing your nose.

Apparently you didn't read my post. Hitting someone on the head and face can obviously cause brain damage, while flicking with a finger won't. I'm a liberal elitist because I'm smart enough to realize that?

This is ridiculous.
Do you think a father should be able to rape his daughter? If not, please explain how that is different from assault. Are you a liberal elitist if you believe sexual abuse of your own kids should be illegal? After all, what right do I have to tell Dale Barlow how to raise his kids?

So now controlled corporal punishment is akin to child rape?

Wow...

Is there any reach you people won't make? Is there any over-emotional knee jerk reaction you don't think is going too far?

I don't understand why this bizarre distinction about "controlled corporal punishment" came from. What is your logic for allowing hitting a child's face vs rape? Why can't rape be controlled corporal punishment?

Again... wow...

Again... you fail to provide a logical argument. You can't provide a substantial reason that hitting a 2 year old's face is okay, while raping a kid isn't, but both should be illegal for an adult.

The illogic in your own reasoning and desperate reaches is all I need. You just destroyed your own position and don't even know it.

Why should I bother? It would be like shooting you after you commit suicide.