Kids

[clerick]

Human beings are animals
Children are human beings
Therefore, children are also animals

Since some of you want to equate Humans with animals...  Watch a dog correct her pups, it's usually with a little nip to some non vital part of the body.  Other animals do it as well. Does that mean that I, as an animal, am allowed to carry my kids around by the scruff of their necks? Bite them or shove them to the ground and pin them there when they misbehave?

A swat to the butt is hardly abuse or even damaging, however, is it often over used, misapplied or otherwise used as a mask for real abuse? YES! Is it effective in a limited set of circumstances? Yes! Like so many things in life, there are proper and reasonable acts that can be misused and abused.  Do not make the mistake of lumping responsible parents in with molesters and abusers.  The intent and affects are quite different.

Also, keep in mind that we humans treat other animals better then most animals treat their own kind.  Groups like the ASPCA were not founded by animals to protect themselves, it is a human organization.  It doesn't take a lot of Wild Kingdom episodes to realize that the animal world is a very violent place.  A proper spanking to the hind quarters pales in comparison to what real animals do.

Since animals will often kill sexual competitors and we are animals, I should be able to fight and kill any other male that approaches my wife.  And since many species use truly violent competition even when they are young, should I allow my kids to fight, maim and kill for dinner?

[VonMessa]

Tough call.  I'm proud of my parenting.  Despite that I lost two kids in a car wreck no alcohol involved.  Sometimes stuff just happens.   I don't have any regrets that I didn't do my job, which is small comfort, but I know I didn't shortchange them. 

At 19 I gotta believe you knew right from wrong, despite Dad.

Knowing the differences and fearing the consequences are completely different.

Having fear of consequences (even if you don't know what they may be ala the "Darth Vader voice") adds a whole different dimension to the "should I or shouldn't I" decision making process.

[Plawranc]

This is a farce of technicality, it always has been. It is black and white.

A. Without discipline, there is no control or limits of indecency in a child's behaviour.

B. Without force behind the consequences of their actions, children do not realise their faults or seek to correct them.

C. Without proper parenting and upbringing, ergo the teaching of manners and etiquette applicable to all environments whether it be school, work or in the public domain, Children will not observe rules or regulations of any kind and will repeatedly break them as they do not understand nor care why they are imposed.

and D. Without experiencing the truths of life first hand, and being taught basic chores (cleaning, sowing, washing, rudimentary repair) by their parents, children will not advance properly in life and suffer significant difficulties when entering secondary school or the workforce as they do not have the basic skillset that they are supposed to possess.

These 4 things, must be observed. If they are not, a child will be Undisciplined, Uncaring, Unaware of the realities of courteous and proper conduct and basically useless.

AND I AM A TEENAGER.

[dedalos]

ok. i stand corrected in the other thread then. it is not the kids fault. it is the fault of  laws. the kids are only being human and doing what humans do.....pushing as far as they can.

 

CAP,you are correct.  Not the kids fault.  However, not the laws fault either.  You said it before too.  It is the parents fault.  While blaming the kids for everything, they make sure they do not blame them selves.  They will not spend the time to parent their kids, but they will take the few seconds it takes to hit them and pretend that that is parenting.  BS!  Totally their fault for not bothering to spend the time.  Eventually, there comes a time that spanking is the only temporary solution. 

[dedalos]

Georgia
Physical forms of discipline may be used as long as there is no physical injury to the child.
Secs. 19-7-5/19-15- 1/49-5-180. [Civil Code]

Parent or person in loco parentis reasonably disciplining of a minor has a justification for a criminal prosecution based on that conduct.
§ 16-3-20. [Criminal Code]

Colorado
Parent/guardian/ person with care and supervision of minor can use reasonable and appropriate physical force, if it is reasonably necessary and appropriate to maintain or promote welfare of child.
§ 18-1-703. [Criminal Code]

Arkansas
Parent/teacher/guardian/other with care and supervision of a minor may use reasonable and appropriate physical force when and to the extent reasonably necessary to maintain discipline or promote the welfare of the child.
§ 5-2-605(l). [Criminal Code]

Arizona
A parent or guardian and a teacher or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a minor or incompetent person may use reasonable and appropriate physical force upon the minor or incompetent person when and to the extent reasonably necessary and appropriate to maintain discipline.
§ 13-403. [Criminal Code]

Alaska
When and to the extent reasonably necessary and appropriate to promote the welfare of the child or incompetent person, a parent, guardian, or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a child under 18 years of age or an incompetent person may use reasonable and appropriate non deadly force upon that child or incompetent person.
§ 11.81.430. [Criminal Code]

Kentucky
Parent/guardian/person/teacher with care and supervision of minor can use force if person believes force necessary for welfare of child and force is not designed to cause or known to cause a substantial risk of causing death, serious physical injury, disfigurement, extreme pain, or extreme mental distress.
§ 503.110. [Criminal Code]

Michigan
Parent/guardian/other person permitted by law, parent, or guardian can reasonably discipline a child, including the use of reasonable force.
§ 750.136b.. [Criminal Code]



In all of the 50 states, you can legally spank your child.

LOL at Alaska for having to specify "Non deadly force" 

The word "force" could mean pull some one, force them to sit down, grabing their arm and taking them to the principals office etc.  it DOES NOT mean "kick ass, knuckle sandwiches, getting knocked out, etc" (although I can see why think that).  Assault and battery is elegal in all 50 states. 

It is sad and scary really that you think force always means beatings.  Sad that you see spanking and bellybutton kicking or knuckle sandwiches as teh same thing.

[FireDrgn]

     The thread "Kids these Days" has been overrun by a flamewar.  I won't name names but it isn't pretty.  I'm here to carry on the legacy of the once great thread, and give it new life with this piece of logic.

     Human beings are animals
     Children are human beings
     Therefore, children are also animals

     The ASPCA will put you in jail/ fine you for hitting animals
     Why then, are adults allowed to hit children without punishment? (Not by the ASPCA specifically...)

Discussion Rules:

• No dark humor about child beating
• The argument "a good spanking builds character" has been refuted, if violence is the only way to control children, either you or they are past hope
• For all those abused by their elders, your battle isn't here (feel free to post your stories though, the debaters need to know what happens when this stuff goes too far)
• Arguments about "changing times" have also been refuted.  If children have been getting worse, we would have never gotten past homo habilis

-Penguin

You are arguing logically from two differant world views.            I am going to claim that is not rational.           

To be rational you have to argue from one world view at a time.

[moot]

You can not imagine on any world both premiss's true and the conclusion as false.

Not due to syllogism

Moot has the structure of...
..
You can imagine a world were premiss's are true and the conclusion is false.

Retrospective crutch. Like pig finding acorn and then saying "see, I knew where to look"
You can't prove unknowns/unprovens with syllogisms.

And syllogism isn't what you want to use for this topic.  Children aren't just animals, neither as far as education nor as far as human rights go.
I normally wouldn't mention it but in this case where people are seriously arguing topic, Penguin's a troll.  So his arguments are null.

[dedalos]

So I went back and read it again.  Something about Alaska bothered me.
"Alaska
When and to the extent reasonably necessary and appropriate to promote the welfare of the child or incompetent person, a parent, guardian, or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a child under 18 years of age or an incompetent person may use reasonable and appropriate non deadly force upon that child or incompetent person.
§ 11.81.430. [Criminal Code]"

To promote the welfare of the child or  incompetent person? 
Why are those in the same category?

use reasonable and appropriate non deadly force upon that child or incompetent person
non deadly force?  I mean it does say reasonably and then have to specify that deadly force would not be reasonable?  Don;t they know that in Alaska?

Wow, lets forget the kids for a second.  Is this how we are dealing with an incompetent person?  What exactly is an incompetent person?

Does anyone see anything wrong with this or is it just me?  Kind makes me feel lucky I did not have to grow up under these laws.

[FireDrgn]

Not due to syllogism
Retrospective crutch. Like pig finding acorn and then saying "see, I knew where to look"
You can't prove unknowns/unprovens with syllogisms.

And syllogism isn't what you want to use for this topic.  Children aren't just animals, neither as far as education nor as far as human rights go.
I normally wouldn't mention it but in this case where people are seriously arguing topic, Penguin's a troll.  So his arguments are null.

LOL  I agree with you. It is deductively valid  IF the premiss is true.  Your example is not valid penguins is .. I have not got to the soundness of the argument yet.   All i did was test the validity of the arguemnet. I made no claims in that specific repsonse other than your example is not valid penguins is valid.   Penguins argument is unsound.


I have to ask. What specifically is unproven?

If penguins premmis is not true  then it is unsound.   His argument is valid, but it is unsound.  Two differant things.   For his argument to be true  It has to be valid and sound.   

Is not a sound argument because?????

[BowHTR]

LOL at Alaska for having to specify "Non deadly force" 

The word "force" could mean pull some one, force them to sit down, grabing their arm and taking them to the principals office etc.  it DOES NOT mean "kick ass, knuckle sandwiches, getting knocked out, etc" (although I can see why think that).  Assault and battery is elegal in all 50 states. 

It is sad and scary really that you think force always means beatings.  Sad that you see spanking and bellybutton kicking or knuckle sandwiches as teh same thing.

That would also go as Kidnapping.

Article 3

Kidnapping, False Imprisonment, and Related Offenses

16-5-40 Kidnapping
(a) A person commits the offense of kidnapping when such person abducts or steals away another person without lawful authority or warrant and holds such other person against his or her will.
(b)(1) For the offense of kidnapping to occur, slight movement shall be sufficient; provided, however, that any such slight movement of another person which occurs while in the commission of any other offense shall not constitute the offense of kidnapping if such movement is merely incidental to such other offense.
    (2) Movement shall not be considered merely incidental to another offense if it:
          (A) Conceals or isolates the victim;
          (B) Makes the commission of the other offense substantially easier;
          (C) Lessens the risk of detection;
          (D) Is for the purpose of avoiding apprehension.
(c) The offense of kidnapping shall be considered a separate offense and shall not merge with any other offense.
(d) A person convicted of the offense of kidnapping shall be punished by:
     (1) Imprisonment for not less than ten nor more than 20 years if the kidnapping involved a victim who was 14 years of age or older;
     (2) Imprisonment for life or by a split sentence that is a term of imprisonment for not less than 25 years and not exceeding life imprisonment, followed by probation for life, if the kidnapping involved a victim who is less than 14 years of age;
     (3) Life imprisonment or death if the kidnapping was for ransom; or
     (4) Life imprisonment or death if the kidnapped received bodily injury
(e) Any person convicted under this Code section shall, in addition, be subject to the sentencing and punishment provisions of Code Sections 17-10-6.1 and 17-10-7

17-10-6.1 Sentencing of persons convicted of serious violent felonies.
17-10-7 Repeat Offenders

[CAP1]

CAP,you are correct.  Not the kids fault.  However, not the laws fault either.  You said it before too.  It is the parents fault.  While blaming the kids for everything, they make sure they do not blame them selves.  They will not spend the time to parent their kids, but they will take the few seconds it takes to hit them and pretend that that is parenting.  BS!  Totally their fault for not bothering to spend the time.  Eventually, there comes a time that spanking is the only temporary solution. 

I DO agree with you on the parents. i see that a lot. they find every excuse in the world to not spend time with their kids.

 not to keep propping my family up(even though i am), my mother working 2 jobs ALWAYS made whatever time she could for my brother and i. my grand parents ALWAYS were there.

 if i could go back to my child hood, and change only one thing.......i'd try my best to not be the bellybutton that i now realize i was back then. i woudn't want a single thing different about anyone in my family.

[dedalos]

That would also go as Kidnapping.

You are so confused, it is not even funny.  The laws you described above (and I have to take your word for it that they are accurate) are talking about a parent or legal guardian.  What does kidnapping have to do with a parent or legal guardian taking a kid to the principals office? 

I was just making a point that force does not ALWAYS mean beating.  Remember we are talking about kids, not criminals.

[moot]

FireDrgn
Not a sound argument because evidently (or I thought so anyway) the valid/sound criteria's not what I was getting at.
Where is the evidence that penguin syllogism was meant as you point out rather than as quick and dirty syllogism proof?  There isn't and that's why using a syllogism as he did isn't credible

[BowHTR]

You are so confused, it is not even funny.  The laws you described above (and I have to take your word for it that they are accurate) are talking about a parent or legal guardian.  What does kidnapping have to do with a parent or legal guardian taking a kid to the principals office? 

I was just making a point that force does not ALWAYS mean beating.  Remember we are talking about kids, not criminals.

no, im not confused. You said force, you can force anyone to do anything, child or not. If you force someone out of a car or house or anything, that can be considered kidnapping.

[dedalos]

no, im not confused. You said force, you can force anyone to do anything, child or not. If you force someone out of a car or house or anything, that can be considered kidnapping.

  

Forcing my kid out of my car is not kidnapping.  A teacher taking a kid to the principals office is not kidnapping.  I can force my kid to do something by threatening to take away internet rights for a week.  Is that kidnapping?  You only understand force to mean one thing.  Once again, we are talking about kids.  You know the little people that you can use reasonable but not deadly force on?