Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2008 5:16:39 GMT -5
Edgar's quote - "My wife is a professional working with juvenile crime, and points to statistics that a major part of all the serious juvenile violent crime comes from homes where the parents are also violent offenders."
That's true. But how many offenders come out of traditional religious homes which practice corporate punishment?
quote - "... in 2001 we had 59 people per 100 000 in our jail system --- The US had 682!!"
The issue here shouldn't be a comparison with another country but with the previous values of your own country.
quote - "Sweden has zero tolerance on nearly all forms of violence"
But the amount of violence in popular culture rises in popularity?
quote - Bert, regarding your last sentence --- Do you think that reliqions should be an authority in our society?"
Yes, but not by imposition.
quote from the website, "Sweden has a relatively low crime rate with rare, but increasing, instances of violent crime."
What is your own theory about this increase?
|
|
|
Post by no i on Apr 6, 2008 8:29:02 GMT -5
We americans have always been impressed with Sweden! ))) my kind of sarcasm ((( Yep, if we had all followed Swedens lead we'd be speaking German now. And if you want start following their lead now, I'd better start learning Arabic or Chinese.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2008 10:02:01 GMT -5
it all depends on howwe react to the media , and the modern language . 40 lashes with a wet noodle could be interpreted two ways!
One: arguing that the language is highly brutal and using the phrase ''40 lashes'' sounds very abusive!!!
then two: from ''my'' personal experience with wet noodles, I find that it would be almost impossible to adminster any amount of unusual pain and suffering, by using it as a 'lashing tool' ?
I really think people should think twice before using this threat, within 'earshot' of the CPA. !!
|
|
|
Post by aileen on Apr 6, 2008 10:02:06 GMT -5
Some countries have outlawed corporal punishment, and in nearly every case violence as a crime has increased.
But that doesn't solve the dilemma about those that don't know the difference between punishment and abuse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2008 11:30:26 GMT -5
quote from the website, "Sweden has a relatively low crime rate with rare, but increasing, instances of violent crime." What is your own theory about this increase?There are many different theories -- although in Sweden no one suggests going back to permitting physical violence as a tool in child discipline. I have never heard of a country (most western European countries) that implements this law, of any credible movement in wanting to repeal it. One theory as to Sweden's rising violent crime statistics, is that of recent years there has been an enormous influx of immigrants from cultures where violence is an accepted solution to dealing with conflict. 20% of our countries population has foreign roots within 2 generations. -- and most immigrants come from cultures where war is nationally approved (and regarded as a sign of morally superiority). Violent crime is always highest in countries where the horror of war is nationally sanctioned as an acceptable method of settling difference. We haven't been at war for over 200 years, and many feel that this is reason for the non-violence aspect of our culture, moral structure and judicial system. Also a quirk of mathematics will indicate that an increase of 10 (from 50 to 60) imprisoned per 100 000 citizens is nearly a 20% increase, whereas adding a 100 imprisoned per 100 000 in the US indicates only a 15% increase. Which indicates less or more violence? Edgar Just for the record, 99% of the parents that are imprisoned for child abuse, will claim that they did it in the best interests of their children.
|
|
|
Post by stats on Apr 6, 2008 11:51:15 GMT -5
Just for the record, 99% of the parents that are imprisoned for child abuse, will claim that they did it in the best interests of their children. If we can split off 'spanking' from child abuse from the stats .. And how many in prision are there because they the spanked their children vs those that left their children 'black and blue.' (And 99% of those in prison for other reasons claim they are inocent of the charges, no suprise there.)
|
|
|
Post by IMO on Apr 6, 2008 11:54:01 GMT -5
"Lies, damn lies and statistics"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2008 11:57:01 GMT -5
Just for the record, 99% of the parents that are imprisoned for child abuse, will claim that they did it in the best interests of their children. If we can split off 'spanking' from child abuse from the stats .. And how many in prision are there because they the spanked their children vs those that left their children 'black and blue.' (And 99% of those in prison for other reasons claim they are inocent of the charges, no suprise there.) The interesting question is how 'black' and how 'blue' should be regarded as OK? Or as it is in some criminal circles, is it OK as long as it doesn't leave a mark?
|
|
|
Post by Random Acts 0f Kindness on Apr 6, 2008 13:19:21 GMT -5
Having been through this in the past it is important to get the terms down first. There is a site that admittedly is probably a bit biased but is a starting place. There are not a lot of pro-spanking sites to point to. www.stophitting.com/disathome/factsAndFiction.phpAs a first definition: Spanking: Hitting with the flat of the hand usually on the buttocks for punishment or for stopping a behavior.
|
|
|
Post by stats on Apr 6, 2008 14:19:14 GMT -5
If we can split off 'spanking' from child abuse from the stats .. And how many in prision are there because they the spanked their children vs those that left their children 'black and blue.' (And 99% of those in prison for other reasons claim they are inocent of the charges, no suprise there.) The interesting question is how 'black' and how 'blue' should be regarded as OK? Or as it is in some criminal circles, is it OK as long as it doesn't leave a mark? 1) Which every shades you can find stats for. 2) If we are limiting this to spanking, yes. In some some criminal AND LEGAL circles, it is OK as long as it doesn't leave a mark.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 6, 2008 18:22:34 GMT -5
There is a piece written about the situation in Sweden: Myprevious conclusions therefore remain appropriate. Although I do not question the good intentions of Dr. Durrant, “there is no objective evidence that the overall situation has improved for children in countries that have adopted smacking bans” (p. 15). Second, “the most appropriate conclusion seems to be that how parents use any disciplinary tactic (including smacking) is more important for its effect on children than whether they use it or not” (p. 15). Finally, “Policy makers need more clear-cut, unbiased evidence that smacking is invariably detrimental before they impose the view of anti-smacking advocates in the face of generations of disciplinary practices by parents in most cultures” (p. 16).
www.nkmr.org/english/differentiating_evidence_from_advocacy.htm
|
|
|
Post by hey dip shiit on Apr 6, 2008 19:56:48 GMT -5
Just on the news this very night there was a couple who are now in jail in Evansville Indiana for killing there 3 yr old. They removed 3 other siblings and placed them in protective custody. The judge had sent these children back to the parents against the will of child protective services. They had tried to tell him it would be dangerous but he didnt listen and now 3 months down the road back with his parents the little guy is dead. Read the story on www.wsiltv.comThis has nothing to do with spanking any more than it has to do with living in a covered shelter.
|
|
|
Post by LOOK AGAIN on Apr 6, 2008 20:05:56 GMT -5
Really? Which of these definitions of hurt do you find acceptable for a parent to inflict on a child: 1. To cause physical damage or pain to; injure. 2. To cause mental or emotional suffering to; distress. 3. To cause physical damage to; harm. 4. To be detrimental to; hinder or impair. YOU, DEAR SIR, ARE A MORONIC HACK AND A WORD-GAME-PLAYING IDIOT. YOUR DICTIONARY SUCKS (ACTUALLY, YOU PICKED THAT ON PURPOSE). TRY A DICTIONARY WITH MORE THAN FOUR DEFINITIONS. hurt Audio Help /hɜrt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hurt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, hurt, hurt·ing, noun, adjective –verb (used with object) 1. to cause bodily injury to; injure: He was badly hurt in the accident. 2. to cause bodily pain to or in: The wound still hurts him. 3. to damage or decrease the efficiency of (a material object) by striking, rough use, improper care, etc.: Moths can't hurt this suit because it's mothproof. Dirty oil can hurt a car's engine. 4. to affect adversely; harm: to hurt one's reputation; It wouldn't hurt the lawn if you watered it more often. 5. to cause mental pain to; offend or grieve: She hurt his feelings by not asking him to the party. –verb (used without object) 6. to feel or suffer bodily or mental pain or distress: My back still hurts. 7. to cause bodily or mental pain or distress: The blow to his pride hurt most. 8. to cause injury, damage, or harm. 9. to suffer want or need. –noun 10. a blow that inflicts a wound; bodily injury or the cause of such injury. 11. injury, damage, or harm. 12. the cause of mental pain or offense, as an insult. 13. Heraldry. a rounded azure. –adjective 14. physically injured: The hurt child was taken to the hospital. 15. offended; unfavorably affected: hurt pride. 16. suggesting that one has been offended or is suffering in mind: Take that hurt look off your face! 17. damaged: hurt merchandise. WHO? JUST SAY NO TO CRACK COCAINE IT'S WARPING YOUR BRAIN. NOT A POINT AT ALL. LIKE CHOOSING TO IGNORE MOST DEFINITIONS OF A WORD TO PUSH YOUR DUMB ASS AGENDA? MORE THAN YOU OBVIOUSLY. YOU CHANGE POINTS OF REFERENCE WITH EVERY TOXIC BREATH YOU TAKE.
|
|
|
Post by what a maroon on Apr 6, 2008 20:10:12 GMT -5
If we can split off 'spanking' from child abuse from the stats .. And how many in prision are there because they the spanked their children vs those that left their children 'black and blue.' (And 99% of those in prison for other reasons claim they are inocent of the charges, no suprise there.) The interesting question is how 'black' and how 'blue' should be regarded as OK? Or as it is in some criminal circles, is it OK as long as it doesn't leave a mark? Edgar, must you prove your idiocy on every topic on which you post?
|
|
|
Post by hey eddie boy on Apr 6, 2008 20:15:02 GMT -5
Or as it is in some criminal circles, is it OK as long as it doesn't leave a mark? Hey Eddie boy, it's not criminal everywhere, just where morons have made it so. Some people think their part of the world is the only part of the world that exists.
|
|
|
Post by Question on Apr 6, 2008 20:16:50 GMT -5
The interesting question is how 'black' and how 'blue' should be regarded as OK? Or as it is in some criminal circles, is it OK as long as it doesn't leave a mark? Edgar, must you prove your idiocy on every topic on which you post? Does everyone here answer questions with questions? How about some answers?
|
|
|
Post by 2 eddie boy on Apr 6, 2008 20:18:57 GMT -5
Just for the record, 99% of the parents that are imprisoned for child abuse, will claim that they did it in the best interests of their children. HEY EDGAR DON'T BE A DUMBASS. QUIT IGNORING THIS POINT. No one defines their income as ill-gotten yet some people clearly steal for "a living".
there is a difference between spanking and abuse EVEN IF abusers want to blur the line
JUST AS
there is a difference between earned income and stolen income EVEN IF theives want to blur the line
Sorry edgar, but your point is... well... pointless.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2008 20:20:07 GMT -5
Edgar, must you prove your idiocy on every topic on which you post? Does everyone here answer questions with questions? How about some answers? why?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2008 1:19:19 GMT -5
Edgar, must you prove your idiocy on every topic on which you post? Does everyone here answer questions with questions? How about some answers? Thanks for keeping the question alive Mr/Ms question. I came with the reminder that all abusers will ALWAYS find a well sounding justification for their right to abuse -- and it will never be described by themselves as anything else than positive interest in the well being of those they abuse. Similarily hypocrites NEVER regard their own behavior as hypocritical, but rather as an expression of their own superior righteousness. Also similar, is that cult membership will NEVER regard themselves as cult members. They will imply that this description is just an effort of outsiders to discredit their superior (but odd) life style. Supporters of exclusive doctrines will NEVER describe their doctrine as exclusive ... but rather just that everyone else in the world is unwilling for truth!! Talk about blurring the truth!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2008 1:31:20 GMT -5
quote - "... all abusers will ALWAYS find a well sounding justification for their right to abuse -- and it will never be described by themselves as anything else than positive interest in the well being of those they abuse."
The only people I would abuse are on the TMB
quote - "Similarily hypocrites NEVER regard their own behavior as hypocritical, but rather as an expression of their own superior righteousness.
I agree!
quote - "Also similar, is that cult membership will NEVER regard themselves as cult members. They will imply that this description is just an effort of outsiders to discredit their superior (but odd) life style."
Hey! I belong to a cult. So too did those Galileans who followed Jesus.
quote - "Supporters of exclusive doctrines will NEVER describe their doctrine as exclusive ... but rather just that everyone else in the world is unwilling for truth!!"
I am not exclusive. This means to "exclude." Why would I wish anyone to be excluded from what I believe?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2017 21:07:12 GMT -5
quote - " Why do so many "religious"people smack their children?" Religion and conservative thinking go hand in hand. Spanking is punishment. We can "explain" but sometimes when the explanation was ignored we resort to punishment.Doesn't child beating and smacking teach children violence? No. I don't believe that. We understand that when our parents are forced to smack us it is different to the school yard bully taking pleasure in hurting us.Can anyone justify child beating in any form? Yes. I have my own theory that smacking is a form of emotional correction. We can be told not to put our money into risky investments - but if we suffered the pain of losing that money we would take that caution entirely different.I feel physically ill when I see a child on the receiving end of abuse. Smacking a child and "abuse" are terms lumped together. People will split things when they should be joined, and join them when they are different - for ideological ends.Even verbal abuse causes long term damage that is unmeasurable. IMO So we don't smack, we don't give "verbal abuse" (whatever that is) and next, we don't send a child to his bedroom. Did you read last week's news about the youth in England?Agree or Disagree? Strongly disagree. If we can have these social movements can we also have ways to measure their social benefit?Bert, If you still hold these views, then in my eyes you are a horribly abusive person.
|
|