Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GtoRA2 on November 17, 2003, 11:12:21 AM
-
Is it true the Brits are going to make it against the law to spank your kid?
I heard a snippet about this on the radio but did not catch the whole story? Something about a girl who was abused dying and this law will be the result?
If this is the case, it is incredibly stupid. There is a difference between spanking or other forms of corporal punishment and child abuse. I got spanked as a kid and I think I turned into a pretty good adult. I do not think time outs would have worked for me.
I fail to see how this will prevent kids from getting hurt and killed by child abusers. There must have already been laws on the books about child abuse?
-
More here:
http://society.guardian.co.uk/children/story/0,1074,984439,00.html
Ravs
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Is it true the Brits are going to make it against the law to spank your kid?
I don't know about spanking kids...
But I once had a british lady give me a spanking...after all, I was a bwaad bwaad naughty wittle bwoy! :lol
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
I don't know about spanking kids...
But I once had a british lady give me a spanking...after all, I was a bwaad bwaad naughty wittle bwoy! :lol
Good thing it wasn't an enema or you'd have faded from the earth!!!
JK:rofl ;)
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Good thing it wasn't an enema or you'd have faded from the earth!!!
JK:rofl ;)
Faded? nah... just would have given birth to more of the same kind of right wing conservative pro Bush turds that inhabit this BBS.
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
Faded? nah... just would have given birth to more of the same kind of right wing conservative pro Bush turds that inhabit this BBS.
According to your own post...
Economic Left/Right: 2.00
Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.23
..you're one of them! (minus the bush support)
(And to add insult to injury, you're further right than I!:eek: )
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
(And to add insult to injury, you're further right than I!:eek: )
That's because you're a left wing back seat driving tree-hugging environmental-freaking jew-for-jesus frog-fornicating flower-pressing pansie-prancing limp-wristed tie-dyed in the wool LIBERAL! :p
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Corporal punishment is prohibited in most civilized societies.
Without it, those civilizations become uncivilized. Ironic isn't it? ;)
http://parenthood.library.wisc.edu/Larzelere/Larzelere.html
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Punishment is of course necessary. Corporal punishment is not. It's paradoxical to beat your kid for fighting at school (for instance). There are far better (and harder) forms of punishment available that don't teach your children to use violence to solve their differences.
Great, whatever works for you. Don't presume to tell me how to raise my kids and I won't tell you how to raise yours. Unless of course your's are ill-behaved and trample on the rights of others. When that happens undiminishingly then you have failed and someone else must provide the discipline.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Punishment is of course necessary. Corporal punishment is not. It's paradoxical to beat your kid for fighting at school (for instance). There are far better (and harder) forms of punishment available that don't teach your children to use violence to solve their differences.
We're in total agreement then (I think...do you think its okay to give a kid a swat or two on the rear end?).
I haven't had to physically discipline my kids since they were 3. Just getting in their face is enough to scare even an adult. :D
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I would never presume to tell you how to raise your children, I do not have that authority. My country is not the one trampling on the rights of others, nor do we feel the need or right to "provide" discipline.
Since I feel that you are hinting at Iraq I'll say only that you are also not participating in or supporting the liberation of a people enslaved by tyranny for over 30 years. If that makes you proud well then we'll just never see eye to eye.
-
No prisons in Norway? Those are disciplinary institutions are they not?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I'm hinting at me not feeling to have the right to tell you how to raise your children ... or how to run your country, including "disciplinary" action.
Maybe I missed something but did not your country's representive for the UN vote "Yes" on UN resolution 1441, which had the wording "that "it will face serious consequences" if it continues to violate its obligations as spelled out in the resolution?
If that is the case, then you don't represent your country in that statement of yours.
-
If Mrs. Schicklegruber had swatted little Adolf's behind a few times with some real authority the rest of humanity might have been spared the joys of WWII.
Or maybe not.
A few good swats never did me any physical damage or ruined my psyche. Aheeaheeaheeaheeaheeahee.
Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
If Mrs. Schicklegruber had swatted little Adolf's behind a few times with some real authority the rest of humanity might have been spared the joys of WWII.
Or maybe not.
A few good swats never did me any physical damage or ruined my psyche. Aheeaheeaheeaheeaheeahee.
Shuckins
:rofl :rofl
Personally, I can't remember ever being disciplined, however my parents say they did so quite often! Up to about age 3, then just the fear of Dad in your face was enough to shape you up right quick!~ I'm finding his methods to be excellent! Naturally, positive reinforcement outweighs punishment if used in liberal quantities. The more positive reinforcement when they're behaving well, the less punishment they require. :aok
-
Originally posted by GScholz
That was not my meaning. I don't have the right to initiate a "disiplinary" action against you for not doing what I think is right.
Really? What if I take all your money at gunpoint?
-
Gsholtz, what does "Serious consequences" mean to you? I mean, outside of everything else that had been employed against iraq for failing on numerous other resolutions? Maybe no TV for a week? How about "no dessert!" ;)
Not to worry though, we've still protected your future too by fighting back instead of wimpering in a corner asking the bad guys not to hurt us...
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I'd call the police who do have the right to arrest you, then the judicial system will prosecute you and if found guilty the penal system will punish you. I on the other hand have no right to punish you.
You did initiate it.
However, you've touched on a more interesting point. I believe that my police and my courts are accountable to me. Therefore I am responsible for what they do.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
[B"Fighting back"? Strange phrasing, when did Iraq attack you? When you are attacked you have the right to defend yourself and retribute. Your war against Afghanistan was so justified and you got the support of the UN and NATO. Not so for Iraq.
Bad guys hurting us? No bad guys are hurting us, we don't need to "whimper" in a corner, nor do we need your protection. [/B]
:rolleyes: Alittle behind on the news, are you?
According to a May 2003 debriefing of a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, Iraqi intelligence established a highly secretive relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and later with al Qaeda. The first meeting in 1992 between the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and al Qaeda was brokered by al-Turabi. Former IIS deputy director Faruq Hijazi and senior al Qaeda leader [Ayman al] Zawahiri were at the meeting--the first of several between 1992 and 1995 in Sudan. Additional meetings between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda were held in Pakistan. Members of al Qaeda would sometimes visit Baghdad where they would meet the Iraqi intelligence chief in a safe house. The report claimed that Saddam insisted the relationship with al Qaeda be kept secret. After 9-11, the source said Saddam made a personnel change in the IIS for fear the relationship would come under scrutiny from foreign probes.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
"According to a May 2003 debriefing of a senior Iraqi intelligence officer..." When did you invade Iraq again? Getting a little ahead of yourself there I think. And "debriefing" a single officer (in Quantanamo no doubt) is hardly justification to initiate a war.
That reply made no sense whatsoever.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
No, not unless you're capable of common reasoning. How does the word of a single individual justify an invasion that took place months earlier? It doesn't. When you invaded Iraq you had no evidence of anything, least of all on WMD which is what this invasion was supposedly justified by at the time of invasion. No WMD, no 9/11 link, no Al Quaeda link (except the word of one man), and the Iraqis are fighting you rather than hailing you as liberators. I call BS.
I call BS on your denial of your earlier innuendo.
-
WMD was a reason. Unfortunately, Saddam played the Ace, and fooled not only the US., but took you in as suckers in supporting HIS cause and not ours (which *was/is* for the good of the world, as well as his people) Using said WMD as terrorist weapons and/or selling them to these people was as much of a threat. It would have happened eventually, don't you think?
But no worries, we'll still protect your sorry futuristic butts, even without a "thanks".
-
Originally posted by GScholz
My country is not the one trampling on the rights of others
Tell me this wasn't directed at the US and that you didn't have Iraq in mind.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Which was?
I do believe terrorists will use WMD at some point in time, however your reasoning that Iraq was the biggest threat for supplying WMD to terrorists is flawed in the extreme. Iraq had nothing to win by doing this and everything to lose. Iraq was under UN inspections and had dismantled its WMD programs to practically inactive status. Other nations on the other hand like Iran and Syria has proved they have WMD (Iran used them in the Iran-Iraq war), and are also historically major supporters of terrorism. Why Iraq, when they are the least threat?
Countries like Syria are DEFINATLEY gonna think twice before supporting terrorists, don't you think? Why NOT IRaq? We know the country well! (1991) Now the Middle east KNOWS we're not gonna take chit...and we'll dish it out as well.
Iraq was an EXCELLENT decision to base operations out of for routing out these guys. Brings the fight to THEM, rather than they to us.
-
You didn't deny it outright but your implication did when you said this.
"I'm hinting at me not feeling to have the right to tell you how to raise your children ... or how to run your country, including "disciplinary" action."
Oh well, those that are taking action won't be swayed by you and those looking for support from you no longer have the influence they so sorely miss. Moot point.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Right now it's the Iraqis that are "bringing the fight" to you. The same Iraqis that didn't seem willing to fight the much less formidable Iraqi army under Hussein. Why do you think that is?
No, insurgents from Syria, Iran, and Saddams leftovers are attacking us. Clean up is in progress. Stay tuned.
Christ, we got the terrorists so bent out of shape, Saudi Arabia has 2 min. radio messages every hour on the hour on our local radio stations saying "We are your friends, don't confuse us for terrorists, we are fighting them too!"
One thing a terrorist org understands is firepower. Bring it.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
No, I didn't specify Iraq, I was commenting on the broader perspective of the (perhaps only perceived) rising sentiments in the US that they have the right to police other nations.
Damned if we do, damned if we don't. Guess we'll just hafta look after our own interest and to hell with those that don't like it.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
No, I think they are supporting terrorism now more than ever ... terrorism in Iraq that is.
I think this may prove to be the biggest political blunder in modern times. Time will show.
That depends whether you view having the battle on your home soil or bringing the fight to them. I prefer on THEIR turf.
-
The thread went from a rumor about making spanking illegal to terrorists in Syria.... :eek:
-
Well corporal punishment may never have done you any harm but I bet you learned the power of violence. Saddam Hussein was beaten and humiliated as a child. He learned fast, violence works and he got away with for years until some bigger boys came along and took away his toys.
-
several times during my life violence has been the perfect solution to the problem... mostly tho it is best to avoid violence if possible.
lazs
-
ROFL.
Inappropriately applied corporal punishment correlates with a few historical monsters, therefore all corporal punishment is bad.
Whatever.
All I know are that the brattiest kids I come across are the kids whose parents continually "threaten" but never follow through.
BB
-
Many years ago, when I was still young, stupid, and possessed all of my hair, my family traveled to a small town on the Mississippi River levee to visit some friends. Their home was located at the foot of the levee, with a bayou across the road from the front of the house, and borrow pits on the opposite side of the levee.
My parents repaired inside the house to visit while my younger brother and I played in the yard and on the side of the levee.
After a while, I sat down to catch my breath, and my brother sat down beside me. At that point, a stray thought from some far-away, mad place, alit whining on my shoulder, begging admittance to the largely empty halls of my thought processes. My adolescent mind snatched it up with idiotic glee.
Wouldn't it be great, it whimpered, to play a trick on your parents?! What a nice, warm, cuddley little idea!
"Hey Chuck," I said, "How bout running down and telling Mom and Dad I fell in the bayou?"
He also thought this was a tremendous idea.
And the FOOL went and DID IT!
OOOOOoooooWEEEEE! What MY DAD did to ME! Cold bathroom linoleum can certainly provide relief to a fiery red, bare bottom.
It proved to be an educational experience, cause this little southern boy NEVAH did that Again.
Regards, Shuckins