Piss off time

[BlackShanglan]

Sadly, I must admit I think Columbine had something to do with the attitude change, too. It caused a public dialogue about bullying that I don't recall seeing before. Schools suddenly had to create specific policies that, at least around here, they hadn't had. Previously, ignoring all but the most violent was the norm in the schools I attended. Now the administrators had parents and press wanting details about what they did to prevent bullying. Unfortunately, I get the instinct impression those same parents weren't asking the question of themselves. Baby steps, I suppose.

Always, baby steps. It always seems to take a terrible tragedy to wake people up. Let's just hope that they stay awake.

 

[cantdog]

I don't hear a lot of support for wife beating, just kid beating. Fine. You're welcome to be beaten if you like. But you ain't touchin this man. Or any of mine. There is no right to own people. Even if you're stronger.

 

[Guest]

I don't hear a lot of support for wife beating, just kid beating. Fine. You're welcome to be beaten if you like. But you ain't touchin this man. Or any of mine. There is no right to own people. Even if you're stronger.

I think I love you.

 

[Dar~]

Get in line, I am first to love Cant.

 

[Op_Cit]

This is where the insanity lay...

You can't have it both ways. Either the parent owns the kids and it is legitimate to do anything they want to them or they do not own them and the kids can do anything they want (drink, drive, swim unattended, ...)

Why? Because a law against hitting a kid does nothing to stop abuse, it does not stop kids dying, it does not stop parents from crippling them in a thousand other ways. All it does is lead to other laws: no drinking while you're pregnant, smoking in the home, no guns in the household, no five gallon buckets that they may drown in, no sugar, must psycho-medicate... The list of laws will be an endless stream, and the more laws the less people will think about right and wrong.

You can either round them up and ship all the children off to state run orphanages or let the parents do whatever they want.

The only law that can make this situation better is this: Parents can do anything they want, but they are responsible (criminal/civil) for them, for the entire lifespan of that human they bring into the world. And, by extrapolation, patri/matricide is legal.

 

[cantdog]

This is where the insanity lay...

You can't have it both ways. Either the parent owns the kids and it is legitimate to do anything they want to them or they do not own them and the kids can do anything they want (drink, drive, swim unattended, ...)

nonsense. There is no such either/or. Becoming independent, taking charge of your life, happens at may different ages to people. Some wait until they're forty or so, others, like myself, at twelve. You know when it is time for that because the child does it. My dad had no fuckin doubt about it; he never did that shit again. Raising children does not require ownership. Don't be silly. Casting the argument this way begs your conclusion.

Why? Because a law against hitting a kid does nothing to stop abuse, it does not stop kids dying, it does not stop parents from crippling them in a thousand other ways. All it does is lead to other laws: no drinking while you're pregnant, smoking in the home, no guns in the household, no five gallon buckets that they may drown in, no sugar, must psycho-medicate... The list of laws will be an endless stream, and the more laws the less people will think about right and wrong.

A law against anything very seldom has that effect. The rich ignore laws with near impunity, for instance. The Law, as an institution, does little to maintain itself against the influence of the powerful. As you point out, any actual or effective solutions must come from people's own moral sense. The point of childrearing is to educe that moral sense.

The only law that can make this situation better is this: Parents can do anything they want, but they are responsible (criminal/civil) for them, for the entire lifespan of that human they bring into the world. And, by extrapolation, patri/matricide is legal.

In common law, children are already the chattels of their parents. Ownership is incomplete, in that they may not be sold. There are few other restrictions, and in this country, they vary from state to state. Parents do own all proceeds from their children's labor. A child actor enriches his or her parents, for instance. Civil rights are generally considered only to apply to adults. And so on. Exceptions need to be arranged for in specific legislation.

In general, such legislation specifies that they may not be harmed nor be allowed to come to harm, and the liability for poor care of children is ordinarily on the parents and also on the State, which is deemed to have a responsibility to keep an eye on that sort of thing.

The definitions of "harm" and "poor care" are where the difficulties lie. If you want to discuss the issue, let's discuss it in its actual context.

 

[SeaCat]

Okay, I've opened a can of worms here. This is a good thing
Growing up I got my hide tanned more than once. I can honestly say not only did I earn this, but my parents had tried other methods before resorting to violence. The other methods didn't work with me. That being said do I endorse violence for the raising of kids? Only as a last resort. I would love to see it gone altogether but I fear this isn't going to happen any time soon.

Cant' I am interested in what happened in Europe and I am happy they managed it. I would be interested in seeing what other types of discipline they used and how it was administered. From what you said this sounds more like a grassroots type of change with the government following along behind. Not what we have been having here where the government has mandated what is to be done. (A big difference.) Also to what extent are the parents held responsible for the actions of their kids, to what age?

Here in the United States we have several problems that I can identify. Many if not all of them are caused by our society. Crime:
To many kids, especialy those in the lower economic bracket, this is the easy way for them to make money and get the things they want. By far the easiest, most profitable, not to mention in many cases the most violent way is through the sale of drugs. How can we stop this? How can we keep the kids from seeing this as an easy way to get what they want? They listen to their parents telling them this isn't the way, they listen to the community leaders saying this isn't the way, hell they even listen to the preachers telling them this isn't the way. Then they walk out the door and see that for them it is the way. How do we stop this?
Violence:
In many ways this is connected to everything else. Kids learn through their peers as well as television, music, games, and even books that this is the way to solve their problems. Hell it's easy to point an autoloader out your car window and spray bullets. Why not cure your problems this way when it's so easy, and if you're underage you get a slap on the wrist?

There is no stigma attached to being a criminal here. Not like it was a short while back. Now it's a good thing, you're cool on the streets. How do we cure this? How can we tell the parents of kids they can't discipline their kids, yet hold them responsible? I don't have the answers, which is one of the reasons I don't have kids. (I keep telling people I'm crazy, not stupid.)

Before we can tell parents how to raise their kids we need to change the way our soiety looks at a lot of things here. Unfortunately I don't see this happeneing as fast as it did in Europe. It will take a lot of time here. Until then we're going to se a lot of conflict, we're going to see a lot of kids getting hit, and we're going to see a lot of people getting hurt.

Rambling Mode off.

Cat

 

[rgraham666]

Want to get rid of drugs as a source of crime?

Legalise them. Worked for alcohol.

 

[Dar~]

I think legalizing drugs is a good idea. People will be ale to ge tthem, so the thrill will go ou tof it. They will also be processed through the FDA's requirements. that way no one will get a poisoned stash.

 

[rgraham666]

I think legalizing drugs is a good idea. People will be ale to ge tthem, so the thrill will go ou tof it. They will also be processed through the FDA's requirements. that way no one will get a poisoned stash.

And we'll be able to tax enough to treat the people who get hooked, plus extro for other things.

Just like booze. And smokes.

 

[SeaCat]

Want to get rid of drugs as a source of crime?

Legalise them. Worked for alcohol.

I heartily agree with you on this. (Don't back away from the computer as though it's posessed, I often agree with you.)

Cat

 

[rgraham666]

I heartily agree with you on this. (Don't back away from the computer as though it's posessed, I often agree with you.)

Cat

I know. You're a good man, despite our differences of opinion.

 

[SeaCat]

I know. You're a good man, despite our differences of opinion.

I might have to add this to my sig line.
Thanks my friend.

Cat

 

[Liar]

Okay, I've opened a can of worms here. This is a good thing

Worms are a bit too squiggly for my tastes. Each to his own.

Anyway, good rambling (was that a rambling?), and I think you are right about this - there must be a difference in how children are raised depending on what society they are supposed to live in, on both a grand level and on a street level. That being said, there is a helluva lot of difference between Ukraine and Sweden, and the same legislation is applied. The most sure way of making something difficult is by hanging the label "difficult" on it.

#L

 

[minsue]

Violence:
In many ways this is connected to everything else. Kids learn through their peers as well as television, music, games, and even books that this is the way to solve their problems.

Do you not see a bit of a dark joke in this example, Cat? Or is it just me?

 

[cantdog]

A lot of good people defend child beating, because it characterized someone they still like or love or admire. Otherwise they have to oppose the loved person.

People say it works, but it doesn't, always. Didn't for me, except to instill a disdain for authority which has been quite persistent. Arguments from authority leave me unmoved, every time. That's why religionists can't convince me they have real morality, because they claim they're doing it because of what it says in some book.

Sometimes it does work. You can train a pigeon to ride a red wagon and ring a bell. Skinnerian discipline will work, provided the object of it never develops a good reason to despise the disciplinarian. Enough unjust punishments and even a moron or a puppy will lose interest in pleasing you. Then the only recourse along those lines is to jack up the fear. Great plan for a loving home.

But I don't want to argue it. I think having personal authority is not dependent on fear or on the use of Skinnerian techniques. I do it every day. There is that about me which convinces people I might have some idea what I'm talking about, and they respond by giving me an attentive ear. My child I loved consistently and respected as a person. I tried my very best to mean what I said. We love and respect each other to this day, even though we are aware of most of each other's flaws.

I listened to and watched an incident across the street, yesterday, while feeding the so-called lawn. The car pulled away from the house and made a very decisive turn, then shot away down the street. From the back porch came running a little girl, screaming, "Mommy!" pegging along on stiff legs with both arms held out, tears streaming. She was sorry, she said, standing at the end of the driveway. Don't leave me. This girl is three, I guess. A three-year-old boy, and a five-year-old girl, also in the household but not sibs, had responded to the girl's extreme desolation by becoming mute shadows. They accompanied her to the drive's end and turned when she did.

This mom has no authority whatsoever. Even the puppy ignores her completely, except to make a game of "can't-catch-me" out of it when she calls him and he doesn't come. The kids know she's a nonentity, the puppy knows, I know. She's forever making threats like this. "I'll just go without you if you don't come here!" Well, she decided to do it, according to the fellow who eventually came out, the dad of the three-year-old boy.

The girl continued to scream disconsolately for Mommy and Daddy for minutes. Her shadows followed her down the street a ways, where they all stopped. The screams made a neighbor lady, who was gardening, come over to help. Once this woman was there, the dad I spoke of finally came out, fetched his kids out of the street, and explained to the neighbor what had happened. Our girl was still disconsolate, of course, but the other children persuaded her to come inside with them and have something to eat.

"You Mom will be back in an hour," the fellow told her. Later, one of the other Moms in the house told everyone she'd be back in thirty days, by the way!

Crappy, crappy parenting. The woman has lost all control and respect by the time her child is three, man. At least someone was there, even if it was only this nebbish dad.

People just don't know nothin. They don't even suspect nothin.

cantdog

 

[dr_mabeuse]

If hitting a kid with a belt is good discipline, wouldn't using a bull whip be even better?

If not, why not?