Father charged in son's spanking.

[CDNBear]

thanks for bringing this post up Bear. I went back and clicked the post so I could see it, only to find that the meat of what I'd said was ignored, and just a snippet was cherry picked out of it. Neat.

This is one of joey's favourite tricks. He can blather on about how spanking can lead to 'x' 'y' 'z'. But if you try and spin his brand of stupidity, he dismisses it. As he should, it's a ridiculous strawman. Emotional and psycological punishment, can just as easily lead to more serious things.

UofC is probably a right-wing religious nutcase of a university. lol

8O



Nope!

 

[AnnaG]

thanks for bringing this post up Bear. I went back and clicked the post so I could see it, only to find that the meat of what I'd said was ignored, and just a snippet was cherry picked out of it. Neat.

It's a pompasstic, cherrypicking day for our pet narcissist, I guess. lol

 

[CDNBear]

It's a pompasstic, cherrypicking day for our pet narcissist, I guess. lol

I think I love you!!!

 

[AnnaG]

I think I love you!!!

What I find funny is that he can actually change feet in his mouth without enjoying the taste. Puzzling.

 

[CDNBear]

What I find funny is that he can actually change feet in his mouth without enjoying the taste. Puzzling.

That's nothing, I've seen him do it so fast, Chriss Angel would have been impressed.

 

[gerryh]

Ok..... the reason I brought up the senario, was to reinforce howmuch the "government","social agency's" and "the courts" have stuck their colective noses into parents lives. Basically, in my opinion, driving a wedge between parents and children all the while empowering the children(letting kids know they have rights without also stressing the obligations that go along with those rights) and taking away the power of the parents.


The senario I painted went like this( and no Anna, the boy was not handicapped). Since social services were involved it was decided that the boy needed a "councilor". The boy complained the said councilor that he felt that the grounding was too harsh. Said councilr agreed with the boy and informed the parents that the grounding was excessive and would not be followed...... he did this in front of the boy all the while the boy sat there with a "ha ha" look on his face.( this was less than 2 weeks since the offence had been commited). The Councilor basically took away the parents right to discipline their child, and with the child being 14, he was smart enough to realize it.

as an aside, when the judge was told what the parents had "wanted to do" he informed the boy that he was lucky that it was only for 4 months. He would have grounded him for at least a year.

Another case would be the father who grounded his daughter from attending a school outing because of inapropriate pictures she had posted on the internet. She sued him and the courts agreed with her that the punishment was excessive. (This was a Quebec case, google it).

 

[Cannuck]

....our pet narcissist...

Your pet? Let me guess....a poodle?

 

[TenPenny]

You are grasping at straws here karrie, desperately trying to equate removing of privileges with spanking (and somehow implying that removal of privileges is even worse than spanking.

No, here it is in plain English: you believe that all physical discipline is wrong. All of it. No gray areas. Yet, you use different logic when it comes to psychological discipline, all of a sudden there are degrees of 'removing privileges'.

Why do you allow degrees of psychological abuse (I mean discipline), but not physical?

 

[DaSleeper]

It's a pompasstic, cherrypicking day for our pet narcissist, I guess. lol

You must be on his iggy list by now;-).....pretty soon all he will be able to read are his own posts:lol:...and argue at length with himself:roll:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

No, here it is in plain English: you believe that all physical discipline is wrong. All of it. No gray areas. Yet, you use different logic when it comes to psychological discipline, all of a sudden there are degrees of 'removing privileges'.

Why do you allow degrees of psychological abuse (I mean discipline), but not physical?

There was no talk of degrees of removing privileges, TenPenny, what karrie was talking about (withholding food, water etc.) cannot be considered removing privileges by any stretch of imagination. She was not talking of different degrees of withholding privileges (e.g. no TV for one week as opposed to two weeks), she was talking of something totally different. She essentially was talking of what amounts to torture, or cruelty (withholding food and water amounts to that). Not of withholding of privileges.

 

[gerryh]

speaking of "psychological" abuse.

If you are standing above your child rather than getting down to his/her eye level when you hand out your "punishment" that is consdered a form of psychological abuse. If you raise your voice at all, that is considered verbal abuse.

restrianing your child is considered physical abuse....yet.... one of the "sugestions" given on what to do when an ADD/ADHD child get's physically abusive him or herself is to restrain the child from the back. While sitting you wrap you arms and legs around them so they can't move...they can't hurt you or themselves.

 

[TenPenny]

There was no talk of degrees of removing privileges, TenPenny, what karrie was talking about (withholding food, water etc.) cannot be considered removing privileges by any stretch of imagination. She was not talking of different degrees of withholding privileges (e.g. no TV for one week as opposed to two weeks), she was talking of something totally different. She essentially was talking of what amounts to torture, or cruelty (withholding food and water amounts to that). Not of withholding of privileges.

Well, there you go. Many people would consider witholding TV to be cruelty. You have a complete inability to consider perspectives that differ from your own.

Just because you view the world from one perspective doesn't make you right.

 

[talloola]

[/i]

Oh you just want to play with words.
Sure you did.



Only with guidence. With out that guidence they are hopeless.



Of course and this is the case where your blanket statments fall. Some people are inteligent enough to know when a blanket statement is going to fail and when it's not. You don't have that ability.



Fighting is part of hockey. It's the idiots who attempt to remove an aspect of the game without adjusting all the other parts that are affected by that removal that cause problems in the game.

[/i]

That's fine, you're allowed to have an opinion. That doesn't change anything for anyone else though.



You own your words.



I am controling my behaviour. It's just fine by the way. No priviledge has been removed. Nor has it ever been here.



It wouldn't matter if you did. I would quickly and easily take control of the situation though. Obviously there is nothing you could or would do about it.

Other than sitting there gasping as a witness, you are helpless when something terrible happens. People like me step up. Hence your own tepid courage while being safely out of range. Like sir dumberth, you only talk a good game.

You can sure throw the names around, but you don't have much else going
for you, you constantly tell me and others about themselves, you can't seem
to stick to the issue, you have to throw personal insults.
"you only talk a good game", intelligence conversation and ideas, lead to
positive results, intelligence, calmness, listening, eye contact, love, all give
good results, children respond to those signals, not violence, you are obviously
a violent person, your insults show it over and over, you must be red in the
face, with veins sticking out of your neck, and just itching to get your hands
on whomever disagrees with you. Are there many who have the injuries and
bruises to show, after you have finished with them? Are there many who are
afraid of you? I couldn't discuss anything with you 'live', it would be scary, and
I think you like that, the power you think you have over others with name
calling, and the stories you 'make up' about me, have no connection to me
at all, 'it's just about you', everything that comes out of your mouth shows all
of us, it's all 'about you'.
It's OK for others to disagree with others, and have a intelligent conversation
re: the opposite positions, without hurling insults.
Try it sometime, you might not get so riled up.

 

[DaSleeper]

I just love the way some people have such a condescending and patronizing attitude when their arguments are based solely on personal opinion when even the experts disagree on a subject.....

 

[gerryh]

I just love the way some people have such a condescending and patronizing attitude when their arguments are based solely on personal opinion when even the experts disagree on a subject.....

That would be "so called" experts.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Well, there you go. Many people would consider witholding TV to be cruelty. You have a complete inability to consider perspectives that differ from your own.

Just because you view the world from one perspective doesn't make you right.

Hey, if you think that withholding TV is cruel, by all means bring up your kids by that philosophy; let them watch television to your heart’s content, I have no problem with that. What we are considering here is spanking, whether spanking is good for the children or not. I don’t think it is.

Incidentally, if you think that withholding TV is cruel, you may try to get Conservatives pass a law making it punishable by prison time. Conservatives just love to get involved in people's bedrooms (banning abortion, restricting contraception etc.), i am sure they would be equally wiling to regulate the living room as well.

 

[AnnaG]

Ok..... the reason I brought up the senario, was to reinforce howmuch the "government","social agency's" and "the courts" have stuck their colective noses into parents lives. Basically, in my opinion, driving a wedge between parents and children all the while empowering the children(letting kids know they have rights without also stressing the obligations that go along with those rights) and taking away the power of the parents.

The way you put it was that the parents had involved the authorities. So it didn't seem that the authorities stuck their nose into anything. The parents called the cops, right?

The senario I painted went like this( and no Anna, the boy was not handicapped). Since social services were involved it was decided that the boy needed a "councilor". The boy complained the said councilor that he felt that the grounding was too harsh. Said councilr agreed with the boy and informed the parents that the grounding was excessive and would not be followed...... he did this in front of the boy all the while the boy sat there with a "ha ha" look on his face.( this was less than 2 weeks since the offence had been commited). The Councilor basically took away the parents right to discipline their child, and with the child being 14, he was smart enough to realize it.

as an aside, when the judge was told what the parents had "wanted to do" he informed the boy that he was lucky that it was only for 4 months. He would have grounded him for at least a year.

Another case would be the father who grounded his daughter from attending a school outing because of inapropriate pictures she had posted on the internet. She sued him and the courts agreed with her that the punishment was excessive. (This was a Quebec case, google it).

Yup. Sometimes the authorities do overextend their reach.

 

[AnnaG]

Your pet? Let me guess....a poodle?

lmao Not my pet narcissist, he's a collective issue.

 

[AnnaG]

You must be on his iggy list by now;-).....pretty soon all he will be able to read are his own posts:lol:...and argue at length with himself:roll:

roflmao That's ok, he can't find any sources of data anymore because he says they are all by right-wing nuts. Then I posted an article that throws doubt upon even articles from scientific journals. Not that the poor little sod ever posted much to support his wacky ideas anyway.

 

[AnnaG]

There was no talk of degrees of removing privileges, TenPenny, what karrie was talking about (withholding food, water etc.) cannot be considered removing privileges by any stretch of imagination. She was not talking of different degrees of withholding privileges (e.g. no TV for one week as opposed to two weeks), she was talking of something totally different. She essentially was talking of what amounts to torture, or cruelty (withholding food and water amounts to that). Not of withholding of privileges.

Spin, Spin, Spin, Spin, Spin, baked beans, Spin, Spin, Spin, Spin, Egg, Spin, Bacon, Spin, Tomatoes, and Spin. Perhaps you should reread what Karrie actually said.