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

[dbackjon]

No - there is a difference between causing permanent harm, and discipline.

I will agree that the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of over-protection - but I would rather that than have children abused.

You cannot have it both ways.

I would rather err on the side of caution. I would also like our courts to be a little more clear on what constitutes abuse.

[grizzaholic]

You cannot have it both ways.

I would rather err on the side of caution. I would also like our courts to be a little more clear on what constitutes abuse.

So every time a parent or gaurdian spanks, slaps, etc... a child in public others should dial 911 immediatly to ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION in case the child is/was getting abused?

[youngterrier]

this But I don't approve of all the methods used to protect the unprotected

Which methods?

Parents should be allowed to discipline their children as they see fit, as long as it does not cause permanent harm. Spanking does not cause permanent harm. Burning with a cigarette does. Torturing to the point of causing REAL anguish is abuse.

methods of our government used to protect us (I'm being more broad then just child abuse)

[grizzaholic]

Which methods?

Parents should be allowed to discipline their children as they see fit, as long as it does not cause permanent harm. Spanking does not cause permanent harm. Burning with a cigarette does. Torturing to the point of causing REAL anguish is abuse.

methods of our government used to protect us (I'm being more broad then just child abuse)

The government knows what is better for me than I do. Where have I heard that before?

[BlueHen86]

methods of our government used to protect us (I'm being more broad then just child abuse)

The government knows what is better for me than I do. Where have I heard that before?

Do you post on any other message boards?

[JohnStOnge]

Guys, the bottom line is that as soon at you say government has any say at all about how children are socialized...including the aspect of discipline...you are adopting the premise that government supercedes parents with respect to responsibility for and/or authority over children. I think that is a very dangerous principle in the long run. And I think the potential adverse long term consequences of accepting that premise outweigh any of the adverse consequences of rejecting it.

[BlueHen86]

Guys, the bottom line is that as soon at you say government has any say at all about how children are socialized...including the aspect of discipline...you are adopting the premise that government supercedes parents with respect to responsibility for and/or authority over children. I think that is a very dangerous principle in the long run. And I think the potential adverse long term consequences of accepting that premise outweigh any of the adverse consequences of rejecting it.

You aren't trying to suggest that a parent has the right to torture a child are you?

There are limits as to how a parent can discipline a child. Who, other than the government, is going enforce those limits?

[JohnStOnge]

You aren't trying to suggest that a parent has the right to torture a child are you?

There are limits as to how a parent can discipline a child. Who, other than the government, is going enforce those limits?

Who defines "torture?" Why should government be empowered to determine what the limits for what happens within a family are? Once you say that government is empowered to define those limits, you have proceeded down the proverbial "slippery slope."

[BlueHen86]

You aren't trying to suggest that a parent has the right to torture a child are you?

There are limits as to how a parent can discipline a child. Who, other than the government, is going enforce those limits?

Who defines "torture?" Why should government be empowered to determine what the limits for what happens within a family are? Once you say that government is empowered to define those limits, you have proceeded down the proverbial "slippery slope."

So what is your alternative? If a child misbehaves is the rack a suitable punishment? A bed of nails?

Like it or not, someone has to define torture. I think we started down the slippery slope centuries ago, perhaps when the Greeks and Romans began to codify laws.

Sounds like you prefer anarchy.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Dude was trying to get information out of her and she wasn't dropping dime on that alphabet shit.

This incident proves that people won't just give up the goat to stop the torture.

[youngterrier]

Dude was trying to get information out of her and she wasn't dropping dime on that alphabet shit.

This incident proves that people won't just give up the goat to stop the torture.

...AND torture doesn't work

[Wedgebuster]

Dude was trying to get information out of her and she wasn't dropping dime on that alphabet shit.

This incident proves that people won't just give up the goat to stop the torture.

...AND torture doesn't work

Dude learned it from Cheney who used it on his daughters to see if they were gay, one rolled over, the other just got real pissed off.

End of story.

[JohnStOnge]

So what is your alternative? If a child misbehaves is the rack a suitable punishment? A bed of nails?

Like it or not, someone has to define torture. I think we started down the slippery slope centuries ago, perhaps when the Greeks and Romans began to codify laws.

Sounds like you prefer anarchy.

I do not prefer anarchy. I prefer clear and distinct limits on government. And one of the clear and distinct limits I would like to see is one saying that government stays completely out of what happens within the family unit in terms of discipline and socialization. It's very easy to make an impression by using extreme examples like a bed of nails. But once you say government is empowered to define the limit the borderline inevitably moves. Terms like "abuse" and "torture" can come to be many things.

On balance, I think it is more important to draw a clear line and keep government out than it is to prevent people from making their kids lie on beds fo nails.

[BlueHen86]

So what is your alternative? If a child misbehaves is the rack a suitable punishment? A bed of nails?

Like it or not, someone has to define torture. I think we started down the slippery slope centuries ago, perhaps when the Greeks and Romans began to codify laws.

Sounds like you prefer anarchy.

I do not prefer anarchy. I prefer clear and distinct limits on government. And one of the clear and distinct limits I would like to see is one saying that government stays completely out of what happens within the family unit in terms of discipline and socialization. It's very easy to make an impression by using extreme examples like a bed of nails. But once you say government is empowered to define the limit the borderline inevitably moves. Terms like "abuse" and "torture" can come to be many things.

On balance, I think it is more important to draw a clear line and keep government out than it is to prevent people from making their kids lie on beds fo nails.

So in addition to being pro-child abuse, you also think that a husband should be able to beat the crap out of his wife?

I guess incest with a minor is also okay with you.

[youngterrier]

you know what, let's get rid of Birth certificates...after all the government has no right knowing how many children I have and if I keep them locked up at home where no one knows them I can commit murder and ultimately get away with it because, after all, the government has no right to know how I run my family and that could be my tactic to have all my children obey me....
(not serious)

should government intrude on people's parenting tactics...not really, is there a point where government NEEDS to intervene....You Betcha.

[BlueHen86]

you know what, let's get rid of Birth certificates...after all the government has no right knowing how many children I have and if I keep them locked up at home where no one knows them I can commit murder and ultimately get away with it because, after all, the government has no right to know how I run my family and that could be my tactic to have all my children obey me....
(not serious)

should government intrude on people's parenting tactics...not really, is there a point where government NEEDS to intervene....You Betcha.

I think that most people would agree with that statement.

[CID1990]

you know what, let's get rid of Birth certificates...after all the government has no right knowing how many children I have and if I keep them locked up at home where no one knows them I can commit murder and ultimately get away with it because, after all, the government has no right to know how I run my family and that could be my tactic to have all my children obey me....
(not serious)

should government intrude on people's parenting tactics...not really, is there a point where government NEEDS to intervene....You Betcha.

I think that most people would agree with that statement.

I think most people would agree that I like pie.

[BlueHen86]

I think that most people would agree with that statement.

I think most people would agree that I like pie.

How would they know?

[youngterrier]

I think that most people would agree with that statement.

I think most people would agree that I like pie.

I disagree with that assertion

[CID1990]

Because I have professed such for years here and on AGS.

I DO like pie.

I have professed it so much that it has become truth. Like Al Gore and global warming.

[ASUMountaineer]

I do not prefer anarchy. I prefer clear and distinct limits on government. And one of the clear and distinct limits I would like to see is one saying that government stays completely out of what happens within the family unit in terms of discipline and socialization. It's very easy to make an impression by using extreme examples like a bed of nails. But once you say government is empowered to define the limit the borderline inevitably moves. Terms like "abuse" and "torture" can come to be many things.

On balance, I think it is more important to draw a clear line and keep government out than it is to prevent people from making their kids lie on beds fo nails.

So in addition to being pro-child abuse, you also think that a husband should be able to beat the crap out of his wife?

I guess incest with a minor is also okay with you.

Well, that's not a baited, "fool's choice" question is it?

Talk about being extreme. So, BH...I would like to know (so I can know what the rules are), who determines what is "child abuse?" You? Obama? Pelosi? Our idiot governor here, Bev Perdue, each county has their own rules based on the local social services dept.? My parents used switches, wooden paddles, leather belts, their hands, "time out," groundings, and smacks across the face. We're they child abusers? I'm assuming you would know what the rules should be.

[BlueHen86]

So in addition to being pro-child abuse, you also think that a husband should be able to beat the crap out of his wife?

I guess incest with a minor is also okay with you.

Well, that's not a baited, "fool's choice" question is it?

Talk about being extreme. So, BH...I would like to know (so I can know what the rules are), who determines what is "child abuse?" You? Obama? Pelosi? Our idiot governor here, Bev Perdue, each county has their own rules based on the local social services dept.? My parents used switches, wooden paddles, leather belts, their hands, "time out," groundings, and smacks across the face. We're they child abusers? I'm assuming you would know what the rules should be.

I never said that, and you shouldn't make that assumption. I never said that I knew what the rules should be, I said that there should be rules.

As I said earler, there are limits to what a parent can do to a child. Somebody has to judge when the line has been crossed. If not the government then who? Who is going to protect children from abusive parents?

I choose extreme examples because JSO stated that the government should have no right to interfere with what happens within a family. I am curious to read his response to my examples. In JSO's world who is going to stop a father from have incestual relations with his daughter?

[kalm]

You aren't trying to suggest that a parent has the right to torture a child are you?

There are limits as to how a parent can discipline a child. Who, other than the government, is going enforce those limits?

Who defines "torture?" Why should government be empowered to determine what the limits for what happens within a family are? Once you say that government is empowered to define those limits, you have proceeded down the proverbial "slippery slope."

"We the People."

[ASUMountaineer]

Well, that's not a baited, "fool's choice" question is it?

Talk about being extreme. So, BH...I would like to know (so I can know what the rules are), who determines what is "child abuse?" You? Obama? Pelosi? Our idiot governor here, Bev Perdue, each county has their own rules based on the local social services dept.? My parents used switches, wooden paddles, leather belts, their hands, "time out," groundings, and smacks across the face. We're they child abusers? I'm assuming you would know what the rules should be.

I never said that, and you shouldn't make that assumption. I never said that I knew what the rules should be, I said that there should be rules.

As I said earler, there are limits to what a parent can do to a child. Somebody has to judge when the line has been crossed. If not the government then who? Who is going to protect children from abusive parents?

I choose extreme examples because JSO stated that the government should have no right to interfere with what happens within a family. I am curious to read his response to my examples. In JSO's world who is going to stop a father from have incestual relations with his daughter?

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.

[BlueHen86]

I never said that, and you shouldn't make that assumption. I never said that I knew what the rules should be, I said that there should be rules.

As I said earler, there are limits to what a parent can do to a child. Somebody has to judge when the line has been crossed. If not the government then who? Who is going to protect children from abusive parents?

I choose extreme examples because JSO stated that the government should have no right to interfere with what happens within a family. I am curious to read his response to my examples. In JSO's world who is going to stop a father from have incestual relations with his daughter?

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.