POS Alert - US Soldier "waterboards" 4-year old daughter

[ASUMountaineer]

Fine, you don't make the rules. Like I said, who? You can't just say "the government." Which government? I am not saying there shouldn't be rules, but I'm not sure the "government" is capable of being effective. The "government" couldn't keep it's own employees from abusing prisoners...

I don't know any place that doesn't have "rules" regarding child abuse, and mostly it's done on a local level. Which, I think, is the best way to approach it. Local law enforcement, and local social services. Laws already exist to protect children from abusive parents.

I think the biggest "argument" here is over the government (local, state, etc) defining what forms of discipline can be used--not, the fact that the government punishes child abusers. Most feel you can spank a child and it falls short of abuse (myself included), others don't. Should the "government" pass a law stating that any striking of a child would constitute abuse (as some advocate) then that's an encroachment on the free ability of a parent to raise their child as they see fit, IMO, and I would have a problem with that.

Yes I can. If you can find a preferable alternative I'd be open to learning about it. I don't care if it's local, state or federal government, somebody has to make and enforce the rules. There are limits as to what a parent can do to his/her kids. If you are going to say that the government shouldn't interfere with what happens within a family (as JSO did), you need to explain how you will protect the children.

I see, that's a great stance. What laws and rules don't exist to protect children, that you think need to be created (should I even ask)? For our purposes on a message board, you can't just do that, you're arguing for something without substantiating it, yet asking others to substantiate their points. All you've said is: 1) there should be laws and rules (limits), but you don't know what they should be; and 2) there should be enforcement, but you don't know by whom.

You completely disregarded the whole second part of my post. That's fine, except that it explains that limits do exist and local police, local social services, and local schools all work together to notify local law enforcement when they suspect abuse has happened.

As to my "preferable alternative," why should I present one when you can't? BTW, I've already given my alternative, it's stated above...and again below:

I don't know any place that doesn't have "rules" regarding child abuse, and mostly it's done on a local level. Which, I think, is the best way to approach it. Local law enforcement, and local social services. Laws already exist to protect children from abusive parents.

I think the appropriate amount of limits already exist, and the systems in place to combat child abuse are sufficient. That doesn't mean children aren't/ won't be abused, but it's a trade off (as is the case with every law/ crime/ statute/ limit/ rule in existence--because that's the way it is). What is the maximum individual liberty to be provided, while still keeping social order? It's a balance that we, as a country, strive for--sometimes successfully, sometimes not. I don't think there's any amount of "limits" that would have prevented this particular situation from happening, unfortunately.

[BlueHen86]

Yes I can. If you can find a preferable alternative I'd be open to learning about it. I don't care if it's local, state or federal government, somebody has to make and enforce the rules. There are limits as to what a parent can do to his/her kids. If you are going to say that the government shouldn't interfere with what happens within a family (as JSO did), you need to explain how you will protect the children.

I see, that's a great stance. What laws and rules don't exist to protect children, that you think need to be created (should I even ask)? For our purposes on a message board, you can't just do that, you're arguing for something without substantiating it, yet asking others to substantiate their points. All you've said is: 1) there should be laws and rules (limits), but you don't know what they should be; and 2) there should be enforcement, but you don't know by whom.

You completely disregarded the whole second part of my post. That's fine, except that it explains that limits do exist and local police, local social services, and local schools all work together to notify local law enforcement when they suspect abuse has happened.

As to my "preferable alternative," why should I present one when you can't? BTW, I've already given my alternative, it's stated above...and again below:

I don't know any place that doesn't have "rules" regarding child abuse, and mostly it's done on a local level. Which, I think, is the best way to approach it. Local law enforcement, and local social services. Laws already exist to protect children from abusive parents.

I think the appropriate amount of limits already exist, and the systems in place to combat child abuse are sufficient. That doesn't mean children aren't/ won't be abused, but it's a trade off (as is the case with every law/ crime/ statute/ limit/ rule in existence--because that's the way it is). What is the maximum individual liberty to be provided, while still keeping social order? It's a balance that we, as a country, strive for--sometimes successfully, sometimes not. I don't think there's any amount of "limits" that would have prevented this particular situation from happening, unfortunately.

The government makes the rules. I've said that all along. You're the one who doesn't think that should be the case. What is your alternative?

[ASUMountaineer]

I see, that's a great stance. What laws and rules don't exist to protect children, that you think need to be created (should I even ask)? For our purposes on a message board, you can't just do that, you're arguing for something without substantiating it, yet asking others to substantiate their points. All you've said is: 1) there should be laws and rules (limits), but you don't know what they should be; and 2) there should be enforcement, but you don't know by whom.

You completely disregarded the whole second part of my post. That's fine, except that it explains that limits do exist and local police, local social services, and local schools all work together to notify local law enforcement when they suspect abuse has happened.

As to my "preferable alternative," why should I present one when you can't? BTW, I've already given my alternative, it's stated above...and again below:



I think the appropriate amount of limits already exist, and the systems in place to combat child abuse are sufficient. That doesn't mean children aren't/ won't be abused, but it's a trade off (as is the case with every law/ crime/ statute/ limit/ rule in existence--because that's the way it is). What is the maximum individual liberty to be provided, while still keeping social order? It's a balance that we, as a country, strive for--sometimes successfully, sometimes not. I don't think there's any amount of "limits" that would have prevented this particular situation from happening, unfortunately.

The government makes the rules. I've said that all along. You're the one who doesn't think that should be the case. What is your alternative?

Are you serious? Let me try this again...read it carefully.

I don't know any place that doesn't have "rules" regarding child abuse, and mostly it's done on a local level. Which, I think, is the best way to approach it. Local law enforcement, and local social services. Laws already exist to protect children from abusive parents.

I think the appropriate amount of limits already exist, and the systems in place to combat child abuse are sufficient. That doesn't mean children aren't/ won't be abused, but it's a trade off (as is the case with every law/ crime/ statute/ limit/ rule in existence--because that's the way it is). What is the maximum individual liberty to be provided, while still keeping social order? It's a balance that we, as a country, strive for--sometimes successfully, sometimes not. I don't think there's any amount of "limits" that would have prevented this particular situation from happening, unfortunately.

The rules already exist, your posts lead to thinking that something needs to change.

[BlueHen86]

The government makes the rules. I've said that all along. You're the one who doesn't think that should be the case. What is your alternative?

Are you serious? Let me try this again...read it carefully.

I don't know any place that doesn't have "rules" regarding child abuse, and mostly it's done on a local level. Which, I think, is the best way to approach it. Local law enforcement, and local social services. Laws already exist to protect children from abusive parents.

I think the appropriate amount of limits already exist, and the systems in place to combat child abuse are sufficient. That doesn't mean children aren't/ won't be abused, but it's a trade off (as is the case with every law/ crime/ statute/ limit/ rule in existence--because that's the way it is). What is the maximum individual liberty to be provided, while still keeping social order? It's a balance that we, as a country, strive for--sometimes successfully, sometimes not. I don't think there's any amount of "limits" that would have prevented this particular situation from happening, unfortunately.

The rules already exist, your posts lead to thinking that something needs to change.

My posts are in response to JSO's post on the subject. He is the one who is thinks that things need to change (unless I misunderstood his post). I was asking him why (he hasn't answered and now I'm arguing with you ). I'm okay with the way things are right now.

[ASUMountaineer]

Are you serious? Let me try this again...read it carefully.



The rules already exist, your posts lead to thinking that something needs to change.

My posts are in response to JSO's post on the subject. He is the one who is thinks that things need to change (unless I misunderstood his post). I was asking him why (he hasn't answered and now I'm arguing with you ). I'm okay with the way things are right now.

Word. I say JSO needs to change.

[blueballs]

You also think that a husband should be able to beat the crap out of his wife?

Sometimes they deserve it, like if the dishes and laundry aren't done and they backtalk...

[BlueHen86]

You also think that a husband should be able to beat the crap out of his wife?

Sometimes they deserve it, like if the dishes and laundry aren't done and they backtalk...

Or the time there wasn't enough mustard on my sammich...