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

[David101]

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.

why attempt to provide a logical argument for you when you can't see the difference between a slap and rape

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: 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.

If your distinction is based on leaving injuries, why do you think causing a 1 or 2 year old's brain to make contact with the cranium is controlled corporal punishment, and not abuse?


And you should keep in mind that what you think you see is not necessarily what is. If you're so convinced, find and provide a study showing that crime has increased as a result of fewer people hitting their toddlers on the head.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Amused
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.

The effect is obvious-- abuse your child, by smacking him in the face or whatever else, get found out and you will be punished. The effect is direct. You may do jail time, your child may be taken away, a counselor may be assigned to watch you like a hawk.

I confuse nothing. The fact that you exert your own version of control has nothing to do with the legal character of your actions. Also, whether emotion is the reason has nothing to do with whether an action is classified is abuse.

I control my 2-year-old just fine, and I've never hit him. Pretty crazy, huh? He is very well-behaved. Your problem is very sad-- you think you need to hit your child, and you think it's acceptable. Both are false. (This is aside from your other sad problems posting here, making asinine statements and using insults to "support" them.)

I guess it's good you're not writing the laws. You've got nothing.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: David101

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.

why attempt to provide a logical argument for you when you can't see the difference between a slap and rape

1) I did not compare a slap and rape. I specifically said hitting a child's face or head.
2) I didn't say there is no difference. Hitting a toddler on the face and raping him should be illegal just like both acts are if you perform them on an adult.
3) You still have not explained why you believe hitting someone's face should be legal for a toddler but not for an adult, yet you believe rape should be illegal for both (I assume you do).

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

3) You still have not explained why you believe hitting someone's face should be legal for a toddler but not for an adult, yet you believe rape should be illegal for both (I assume you do).

I can't believe I'm going to take the time to argue with someone whose shown himself to be a complete and utter moron in thread after thread... but here goes:

If I grab a complete stranger (adult) off the street and tackle him/her, tickle him/her, then plant several kisses on his/her head, then I'd probably end up in jail. By that fucked-up line of "reasoning" you refer to as your own logic, that should also be illegal for me, as a parent, to do to my kids, no?

So now we ban parents from tickling and kissing their kids against their will, because it's illegal to do so to an adult. Nice!

It's also illegal for me force an adult to strip his/her clothes, get into a bathtub, and wash him/her from head to toe. Guess parents should not be allowed to bathe their children, either? Awesome!

I can't force an adult to stay in a particular location for a period of time against their will without incurring kidnapping charges. Well, I guess it's now illegal to ground your kids. Excellent!


Do you perhaps want to rethink your impeccable logic that whatever is illegal for someone to do to an adult should naturally be illegal for a parent to do to a child, or do you want to keep up this pathetic, irrational discourse?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

3) You still have not explained why you believe hitting someone's face should be legal for a toddler but not for an adult, yet you believe rape should be illegal for both (I assume you do).

I can't believe I'm going to take the time to argue with someone whose shown himself to be a complete and utter moron in thread after thread... but here goes:

If I grab a complete stranger (adult) off the street and tackle him/her, tickle him/her, then plant several kisses on his/her head, then I'd probably end up in jail. By that fucked-up line of "reasoning" you refer to as your own logic, that should also be illegal for me, as a parent, to do to my kids, no?

So now we ban parents from tickling and kissing their kids against their will, because it's illegal to do so to an adult. Nice!

It's also illegal for me force an adult to strip his/her clothes, get into a bathtub, and wash him/her from head to toe. Guess parents should not be allowed to bathe their children, either? Awesome!

I can't force an adult to stay in a particular location for a period of time against their will without incurring kidnapping charges. Well, I guess it's now illegal to ground your kids. Excellent!


Do you perhaps want to rethink your impeccable logic that whatever is illegal for someone to do to an adult should naturally be illegal for a parent to do to a child, or do you want to keep up this pathetic, irrational discourse?

Dude, why bother? They imploded when they compaired punishing a child to rape.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

3) You still have not explained why you believe hitting someone's face should be legal for a toddler but not for an adult, yet you believe rape should be illegal for both (I assume you do).

I can't believe I'm going to take the time to argue with someone whose shown himself to be a complete and utter moron in thread after thread... but here goes:

If I grab a complete stranger (adult) off the street and tackle him/her, tickle him/her, then plant several kisses on his/her head, then I'd probably end up in jail. By that fucked-up line of "reasoning" you refer to as your own logic, that should also be illegal for me, as a parent, to do to my kids, no?

So now we ban parents from tickling and kissing their kids against their will, because it's illegal to do so to an adult. Nice!

It's also illegal for me force an adult to strip his/her clothes, get into a bathtub, and wash him/her from head to toe. Guess parents should not be allowed to bathe their children, either? Awesome!

I can't force an adult to stay in a particular location for a period of time against their will without incurring kidnapping charges. Well, I guess it's now illegal to ground your kids. Excellent!


Do you perhaps want to rethink your impeccable logic that whatever is illegal for someone to do to an adult should naturally be illegal for a parent to do to a child, or do you want to keep up this pathetic, irrational discourse?

Kissing a kid, making him take off his clothes for a bath, and grounding do not harm a kid.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Amused


Dude, why bother? They imploded when they compaired punishing a child to rape.

You are very persistent in ignoring that I compared HITTING A TODDLER'S HEAD to rape, and you insist that hitting a toddler's head is a valid form of punishment. I'm amazed that you refuse to present your logic for one being illegal but not the other.

 

[IEC]

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.

Amused for President!

 

[ScottyB]

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner

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.

Amused for President!

I'm sure the trains will be on time...

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner

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.

Amused for President!

Hmm...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/incrimus.gif

http://abcnews.go.com/sections...anking_poll021108.html

Funny how 62% of Southerners spank their kids, vs 41% in the rest of the country, yet crime rates are highest in the south!!

Of course, I can't find any statistics on how many parents hit their 1-3 year old toddlers in the head.

 

[Throckmorton]

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/cv2.htm

What's this? Violent crime has declined since the 1970s when Amused was a child.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/house2.htm

Property crime too?? It cannot be!


In case we forgot...

Originally posted by: Amused
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.

 

[David101]

i think you have good intentions but no one here arguing with you is hitting their child so that it causes permanent damage. there really shouldn't be anything to argue against if no one is getting hurt emotionally/physically/whatever. not all kids react the same way to the same form of discipline, some need different methods to help them remmeber what to do/not do what is good/bad.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: David101
i think you have good intentions but no one here arguing with you is hitting their child so that it causes permanent damage. there really shouldn't be anything to argue against if no one is getting hurt emotionally/physically/whatever. not all kids react the same way to the same form of discipline, some need different methods to help them remmeber what to do/not do what is good/bad.

If no one is defending harming a child emotionally or physically, why would they defend hitting a toddler's head? Why should that be a legal alternative to a slap on the arm or butt?

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: David101
i think you have good intentions but no one here arguing with you is hitting their child so that it causes permanent damage. there really shouldn't be anything to argue against if no one is getting hurt emotionally/physically/whatever. not all kids react the same way to the same form of discipline, some need different methods to help them remmeber what to do/not do what is good/bad.

Part of the problem with hitters like Amused is that they often don't realize when they're hitting their child too hard. In addition hitting is often done by people with violent tendencies anyway, who may suddenly flare into a rage and hit much harder than normal. The only thing that keeps kids safe is avoiding hitting by parents-- not depending on parents to know when they've crossed the line, which will sometimes be done only after the fact and sometimes not at all. See all of Amused's posts.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ScottyB

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner

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.

Amused for President!

I'm sure the trains will be on time...

So now a libertarian minded person is equated with a fascist?

The delusions are high in this thread. This was the easiest debate I have ever had here. You all committed debate suicide and I barely had to fire a first round.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Amused
The delusions are high in this thread. This was the easiest debate I have ever had here. You all committed debate suicide and I barely had to fire a first round.

Holey moley. So you think you were debating, eh? And you think you won?

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/cv2.htm

What's this? Violent crime has declined since the 1970s when Amused was a child.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/house2.htm

Property crime too?? It cannot be!


In case we forgot...

Originally posted by: Amused
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.

Whoopsie-doopsie, Amused! I guess you've got a few loose ends to tie up. pwned.

 

[Nitemare]

I want to ban lawmakers. How do I do this?

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
I want to ban lawmakers. How do I do this?

You can't really ban them. You can start a revolution and shoot them, however.

 

[legoman666]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Nitemare
I want to ban lawmakers. How do I do this?

You can't really ban them. You can start a revolution and shoot them, however.

Nitemare for dictator!

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: legoman666

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Nitemare
I want to ban lawmakers. How do I do this?

You can't really ban them. You can start a revolution and shoot them, however.

Nitemare for dictator!

Vive la Nitemare!

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Amused
The delusions are high in this thread. This was the easiest debate I have ever had here. You all committed debate suicide and I barely had to fire a first round.

Holey moley. So you think you were debating, eh? And you think you won?

Didn't need to win. You and your buddy crashed and burned all by yourselves.

Hell, all I had to do was let you talk.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/cv2.htm

What's this? Violent crime has declined since the 1970s when Amused was a child.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/house2.htm

Property crime too?? It cannot be!


In case we forgot...

Originally posted by: Amused
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.

Whoopsie-doopsie, Amused! I guess you've got a few loose ends to tie up. pwned.

I dunno why I bother, but:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/n...-juveniles-cover_x.htm

Violent and non-violent crime among juveniles is up. WAY up and the trend only has become worse since this two year old article (it was just the first one to pop up on google... which was still too much effort for this). So much so nanny-state panty waists like yourself were offering up the same old tired excuses: Not enough money and too many evil, bad, nasty guns. No mention whatsoever of the lack of parenting and discipline... of course.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/n...05-15-crime-rate_N.htm

The trend in crime is younger offenders and more violent crimes.

Whoopsie doopsie indeed. Maybe you should do your own research instead of relying on the submission of a man who equates controlled corporal punishment to child rape.

Pay no mind, though. I'm an evil "hitter" who probably worships Hitler and rapes children and small goats too.

 

[Jschmuck2]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/cv2.htm

What's this? Violent crime has declined since the 1970s when Amused was a child.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/house2.htm

Property crime too?? It cannot be!


In case we forgot...

Originally posted by: Amused
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.

Whoopsie-doopsie, Amused! I guess you've got a few loose ends to tie up. pwned.

I dunno why I bother, but:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/n...-juveniles-cover_x.htm

Violent and non-violent crime among juveniles is up. WAY up and the trend only has become worse since this two year old article (it was just the first one to pop up on google... which was still too much effort for this). So much so nanny-state panty waists like yourself were offering up the same old tired excuses: Not enough money and too many evil, bad, nasty guns. No mention whatsoever of the lack of parenting and discipline... of course.

Whoopsie doopsie indeed. Maybe you should do your own research instead of relying on the submission of a man who equates controlled corporal punishment to child rape.

Pay no mind, though. I'm an evil "hitter" who probably worships Hitler and rapes children and small goats too.

1.) This thread is full of the typical overly macho, ATOT douchebags that permeate this place like a heinous fart. I hope you all break a bone.

2.) Please keep hitting your kids. In fact, I advocate that you hit them harder then you do now. They won't fuck with you again! That's for sure! Nothing compensates for your own sense of futility and lack of compassion in child rearing like smacking your kid!

3.) Seriously - find something around the house to hit them with. I hear a plastic spoon works wonders. If you can't find a plastic spoon, just Google instructions on how to make a 2x4 with a nail in it. The next time your kid puts on that Bob the Builder DVD when you said that he couldn't, I can guaran-fuck-tee you that he won't do it again next time. Not if he wants to keep the sight in his other eye!

4.) YEEEEEEEEEEEHAWWWWWWWWWWWWW <gunshots> GIT R DONE!

5.) Live you life blissfully for the next 50 years, never realizing that your children harbor a secret hatred of you, buried deep within their psyche's, festering all of those years like so much pus. Don't worry, you'll get yours in step six.

6.) When you're too infirm to take care of yourself, your children will dump this responsibility on someone else, leaving you to live out your remaining days in a rest home with sub-standard living conditions, drooling constantly and hoping that the duty nurse is administering the proper medication. You'd check it yourself if you hadn't been hit in the eyes with the old "board and nail" as kid for talking out of turn.

7.) Die quietly while the world forgets about you - your children will make the exact same parenting mistakes you have and the cycle will continue.

Could those of you who smack your kids around post where you live? I'd like to avoid all of the malls and schools in those areas.

Thanks.