Massachusettes to try to ban spanking

[IDrinkaRum]

http://www.parentdish.com/2007/11/28...wing-spanking/

Why do elected officials think the people of the United States are stupid? I'm not saying there isn't child abuse, but outlawing spanking isn't going to stop it. Plus, it forces those parents who don't abuse their children, but do use an occassional swat on their children's bottoms to stop or they'll be arrested.

I'm sorry, but the Nanny State is something I'm not wanting in my country.

[Greenday]

Um, you can just read my signature on here, and that should be a pretty good clue on where I'm at with this topic.

[Seshat]

Are they going to outlaw swatting a kid's hand when they try to touch the stove or a sharp knife, next? There is a huge, huge gap between discipline and abuse!


I see the warning signs of child abuse as being a collection of signs. Yes, spanking is one of them, but spanking alone is insufficient to signify abuse. You need a cluster of them before I am willing to call 'abuse', or one of the strong ones.

Holding a child's hand close to a candle that you've previously tested, so you can demonstrate 'hot! Don't touch!' in a way they'll understand, is fine. Holding a child's hand ON the flame, or on a stove, is abuse. Swatting a child's hand away from a dangerous object is fine. Swatting a child's face so hard you black their eye or break their cheekbone is abuse.

And so on, and so forth.

[Boozy]

Um, you can just read my signature on here, and that should be a pretty good clue on where I'm at with this topic.

I thought that Starship Troopers was a satirical movie about the inherent dangers of militarism and violence. I saw the whole thing as being quite tongue-in-cheek, especially because the dialogue and character stereotypes were so over the top.

I don't think violence solves much of anything, personally. It may appear to do so, but that is a very short-sighted viewpoint.

I disagree with outlawing spanking, though. There are already laws against child physical abuse. If a court determines that spanking crosses that line, then parents can be charged under those existing laws. If the spanking incident doesn't hold up as abuse under those laws, then I fail to see what the crime would be.

[Greenday]

I don't personally think violence is always needed to prove a point. But I can't deny that it sure as hell does work effectively most of the time.

In this case, once kids are old enough for a spanking, they learn pretty quickly from a spanking. Like, "Crap, I shouldn't do this because it's bad and I'll get a spanking for being bad." Pain is a great way to learn things. Such as, we know stoves are hot, but just how hot are they? Touch the stove once, burn yourself, and you'll never purposely touch it again.

[AFPheonix]

Starship Troopers WAS tongue-in-cheek. And as for violence solving problems, I present exhibit A, the entire Middle East at this point.

However, this is still an absolutely retarded piece of legislation they're considering. One, it's an invasion of the home. Two, it is entirely too vague, and could be rife with abuse by people with an ax to grind against someone else. Three, it's not particularly enforceable.

If they want a conversation, fine, have a public forum with legislators and child health and wellness professionals, day care workers, etc, but this is a complete piece of ca-ca and I envision it being used in political attack ads next year.

[rahmota]

drinkrum:

I'm sorry, but the Nanny State is something I'm not wanting in my country.

Neither am I. Wow. What next nobody is allowed to have sharp pointy thigns in their home. All hard surfaces must be covered in soft foam? Bahhh.

AFP:

Starship Troopers WAS tongue-in-cheek.

Starship Troopers the MOVIE was a tongue in cheek wierdness that makes me wonder if the writers even read the book they based the movie off of or just looked at the dust jacket..

Starship Troopers the BOOK was an interesting look at and commentary on a military based enfranchising system for citizenship set against an interstellar warstory with more intelligent and capable enemies.

As for violence solving problems. If used properly violence can solve certain problems. But like most tools it has to be used properly, effectively and intelligently. The biggest problem in the middle east isnt the violence it is the religious zealotry and bigotry that causes the violence that is the problem.

Violence could solve the middle east problems if there was a country willing to use sufficient types and levels of violence. Drop several thermonuclear bombs or kill everyone in the area and there would be no more violence. (This is of course an over the top Thomas Hobbes style comment and not an actual indication of what I think should be done with the middle east. )

[Seshat]

Violence solves problems of resource shortages on a temporary basis: it eventually reduces the population to the point where there is no more shortage.

I firmly believe that if population > available resources, there will be chronic problems until population <= available resources. The middle east is high on population, low on arable land.

Back on the thread topic: excessive legislation is a problem because it reduces the clarity of the body of law. If there are already perfectly adequate laws on the book to handle a problem, don't add more.

[NightAngel]

You can't make enough laws to stop the actual abusers from abusing.

You CAN, however, make enough laws so that the non-abusive parents refuse to discipline their children out of fear.

The result of the second will most certainly end in catastophy.

[rahmota]

seshat:

I firmly believe that if population > available resources, there will be chronic problems until population <= available resources. The middle east is high on population, low on arable land.

Exactly low resources, high religion the two most common reasons for conflict throughout history. All in one easy convenient economy sized region.

As for the laws. I'll agree when you wind up with too many laws you can sometimes find yourself breakign a law so you do nothing not wanting to become a criminal. And with the labarynth the legal system has become one law can contradict another or say one thing and be comviering something then another law comes along and covers the same thing and then you have to figure out which one is the one that applies in the situation and bahhh.....

If we could get the state and federal laws pruned down of stupid, redundent and religious based laws we could probably have the laws fit in a paperback pocketbook.

[Seshat]

A wise computer-protocol expert once said that 'a protocol is not complete when there is nothing more that can be added, but when there is nothing more that can be taken away'.

Sometimes I think legal systems are like protocols in that regard.

[Lace Neil Singer]

What, so parents can't spank their kids but they can allow them to smoke, as per one law still in the book?

For the rest; go here: http://www.ahajokes.com/laws021.html

This law can only end in a witch hunt of massive proportions. Want to get back at your boss for firing you? Report him for spanking his kids. Hate your neighbour? Report him and say he spanks his kids. That woman turned you down for a date, so what do you do? Easy; you report her and say she spanks her kids. -.-

[Dark-Star]

This law can only end in a witch hunt of massive proportions. Want to get back at your boss for firing you? Report him for spanking his kids. Hate your neighbour? Report him and say he spanks his kids. That woman turned you down for a date, so what do you do? Easy; you report her and say she spanks her kids. -.-

Nail. Head. Some groups of people would be especially targeted for that kind of abuse under this law - namely religious ones and unpopular political groups. All someone would have to do would be to tie up their leaders with fighting off 'abuse' cases, and the opposition falls like a house of cards.