0

The numbers are available. The internet makes them incredibly easy to access. Even the "mob" and "thugs" had more integrity and morals than Gansta's. 30 years ago, even a drug lord would consider you human waste if you whacked a grandma or kid that you had no "business" with.

It's certainly true that one cannot easily support data to prove one way or the other that things are really worse than they used to be insofar as crime (and general bad attitude) is concerned... but it sure feels that way.

And yes, media hype makes it seem much worse than it really is. I really do not want to hear about rape and murder (etc.) on the other coast, and all places between. If all I heard about was what was in my town, (like in the old days) it might not feel so bad.

News should be something that is "important" to the people it is being delivered to. What happens on an inter-personal social level 3000 miles away does not matter to me. But for some God-Awful reason, it "sells".

What's that all about, anyway? (I probably know, but I can't put my finger on it right now.)

0

By the way bobwahler, I never said you were being absurd. I said someone else was making an absurd claim (maybe you should re-read that before you start sending me private messages).

I was actually on your side...

0

By your charts, things are getting better; crime has been on the decline since '91.

But by your provided chart, I quote: "There may be some under-reporting in the earlier part of the table and graphs below. Although the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program began in 1930, not all law enforcement agences contributed reports from the beginning. So there may be an artificial ramp-up effect going on here. Conversely, a drop in crime is definitely real, and bigger than these figures would indicate. "

... which is my point about the fact that it isn't easily supported. Anyone can make a graph, draw a chart...

But there are always errors, there is always bias, there is always the fact that the means of gathering information changes, social views on whether it should even be reported.

For example, rape shows an almost 4 fold increase between now and the sixties. Yet I'll wager that in the sixties, 75% of what is NOW reported as rape may well have been happening in the 60s... few reported it, few thought it was a "crime", there was no means of dealing with it.

Of course, we cannot say the same for all crime, but ... todays' technology allows us to find murder in what yesterday might have appeared to be suicide, or accident, and the like. We simply could not detect it, thus it was not compiled.

Then there is violent crime in general. In the past, without reporting, and without government intervention, people "took care of business" themselves ... many crimes that are now reported simply never made it to the authorities, matters were taken care of by those involved. So that wasn't reported.

If there is more crime, perhaps it has nothing to do with a lack of spanking, but simply with the fact that the government has taken this power (to settle matters in thier own way) away from the people.

Maybe all that your charts show is that we got better and better at finding and reporting, crime for 30 years. Then, in the '90s, crime started going down because we were doing something about it.

Don't put too much stock in your charts and figures. The internet is full of bias and misreporting, simply by the nature of the process..

I say again... "It's certainly true that one cannot easily support data to prove one way or the other that things are really worse than they used to be insofar as crime (and general bad attitude) is concerned... but it sure feels that way."

And you have proven nothing with your chart.

Note, I did not say that crime has not risen, only that it's difficult to prove that it has(maybe I should have included "to a reasoning mind").

There is (always) a bigger picture that is not shown by looking at fragments.

For the record, I think it's reprehensible that the right to spank a child is even under scrutiny. I think there are bad people and good people, and good people should never be forced to live in accord with societies view that by limiting all people you can control the bad. Bad is bad, and will be bad. Punishing or limiting the good ones in the hopes of controlling the bad ones cannot ever work.

A flawed principle can never yield good results. Society does not "get" that simple fact. In general, we invariably limit the many in hopes of controlling the few.

This goes way beyond the question of whether the ends justifies the means, it's a basic human principle.. whether we have the right to live free or in slavery to the whims of the mob mentality.

The problem is that the mob (society) invaribly sinks lower and lower if it allows concensus (rather than principles) to rule.

The numbers are available. The internet makes them incredibly easy to access. Even the "mob" and "thugs" had more integrity and morals than Gansta's. 30 years ago, even a drug lord would consider you human waste if you whacked a grandma or kid that you had no "business" with.

0

Now just how much control should the government have over how the parents discipline kids?

0

None sounds like a great starting point. When did it become your job, or mine, to protect others? Pain and suffering is, to a sensitive person, always lamentable, and it's a knee-jerk reaction to want to protect others from it, particularly children. But jsut because we have a knee jerk reaction does not mean we should act on it as a mob.

If I see someone beating up someone else I may step in if I think it appropriate. That is my right, as a person, to confront another. Something will happen, and if my instincts are right, it will probably be toward the good.

But the moment I am (just) one of a mob, and acting on the rule of that mob (society acting upon government mandate), it's more likely that less good than harm will come of our actions if we are operating on false principles.

The key here is sound principles. It is NOT a sound principle to dictate how the many will live because of the acts of the few. Because that is not a sound principle, once it is in place, it will not yield the right results.

I posit that living by sound principles will yield better results in the aggregate, no matter the goodness of the intent behind "bad" law.

1

Yes, they should but only for the right reasons. I would rather spank my child now while he is young rather than to have the police spank him (beat him) when he gets older. And I would rather spank him now than to have him lose his life or get seriously hurt by playing with his ball near the street when I distinctly told him not to and consequently running out into the street and getting hit by a car (for example). I spank out of love and because I care and don't want to see him messed up in the long run, that to me is the right reason.

0

Yes, they should but only for the right reasons. I would rather spank my child now while he is young rather than to have the police spank him (beat him) when he gets older. And I would rather spank him now than to have him lose his life or get seriously hurt by playing with his ball near the street when I distinctly told him not to and consequently running out into the street and getting hit by a car (for example). I spank out of love and because I care and don't want to see him messed up in the long run, that to me is the right reason.

I agree, you have a wonderful way to explain it! I think this nonspanking fad all started with Dr. Benjamin Spock's book on child care (not sure about the spelling of this dude).

0

And anyone who wants to claim that I am being "absurd" better do THEIR homework.

None of your data shows any causal relationship to spanking though, so despite all the caps-lock words you want to sprinkle about, it still remains unsupported speculation.

0

None of your data shows any causal relationship to spanking though, so despite all the caps-lock words you want to sprinkle about, it still remains unsupported speculation.

Should somebody be spanked here for behaving like a child?

0

None of your data shows any causal relationship to spanking though, so despite all the caps-lock words you want to sprinkle about, it still remains unsupported speculation.

This brings us round again to what I'm saying, that this is a much more complex issue than the question being asked.

But, if you take the question "Should kids be spanked?' as a stand-alone issue, then it would seem that most of us agree that spanking is indeed better than not spanking.. The assumption being made that the spanker is doing it out of love.

Perhaps it doesn't matter if the spanking results in more or less crime, or in more or less trauma to the child. I don't think we can accurately determine the effect of spanking, so, in a perfect world, we should "go" with what "feels right"

There is nothing quite so impressive to a child as immediate pain upon the doing of a harmful thing. Talking to the child is, in a word, (often) stupid. That's because Words imply the ability to reason, and a connection between the reasoning and the desire of the child. A child may not desire what the words impart... (to do the "right" thing) ... the young mind does not necessarily place "doing right" above "immediate desire". (It does not take a PHD to realize this.) But pain is a very real obstacle in the childs mind. This works best for children with a low pain threshold. (I was one.) But some kids don't care at all about the pain, and will continue to follow their desires. They have a high pain threshold. With them, spanking does not work, and can easily escalate into pointless beatings.

Best, of course, is not "just" spanking, but a quick whack on the bottom followed by a reasoned explanation of why it happened.

Again, it does not take a PHD to see this. But of course, some parents don't get it, and so the spanking escalates.

In my opinion, the kids that have a high pain threshold, and who also will not curb their desires, are going to be the troublemakers, spanking or no. I've associated with my share of the criminal element. I never heard one of them say that thier behavior was the result of them being spanked as a child, they did not make excuses. They simply see others as prey; it's fair game to take what they want if they can get away with it.

Spanking is an attention getting device. It's an issue of immediacy. When my 3 year old darted out into a busy street, I grabbed him and whacked him. He needed an immediate "heads up" and reasoning would not curb his impulses. But he never got whacked for dropping a dish or such; for things that did not pose a danger or require urgency.

0

Bobwahler should be spanked for sending me PMs, but I'm not gunna do it. That's gay

I didn't realize there was anything homosexual, or happy, about sending someone PM's.

0

Bobwahler should be spanked for sending me PMs, but I'm not gunna do it.
That's gay
~~~
but there is about spanking other men.

Football players do it all the time!

0

You're talking about the American football? Cause I never see that in real football.

Regardless, the proximity/touching/fondling/groping rules etc. don't apply when it comes to some sports

0

Since ignorance and subjective fiat and declaration are the rule here, I'll leave the discussion. I am the ONLY one who bothered with facts and data, plus I am old enough to know why doors were left unlocked (hint: because we COULD). I am obviously wasting all our time anyway; mine verifying truth, yours disputing it.

If you had any clue how much "nicer" the world was when it was inhabited by a better model of human beings, you'd cry.

As for scru, I apologize publicly. I did check and I did miss those 2 operative words. I am honestly sorry for my sloppy reading and again, apologize. When I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

Have fun making up your own truth.

0

Since ignorance and subjective fiat and declaration are the rule here, I'll leave the discussion. Since I am the ONLY one who bothered with facts and data, plus I am old enough to know WHY doors were left unlocked, I am only wasting all out time anyway.

As for scru, you quoted ME when you made the "absurd" comment.

Have fun making up your own truth.

You will be roundly missed.

0

You will be roundly missed.

Perhaps your "facts" were not impressive. You certainly did not stand behind them when I pounded on them.

0

It doesn't matter what science says about spanking.

Both spanking, and the desire to abolish spanking, are religious beliefs. Both are protected by the Constitution, and neither should become part of the law.

0

Spanking? Absolutely -- beat the living hell out of the little crumb snatchers :) But if you do that your kids will hate you for the rest of your life.

I was spanked as a kid. i only ever got a smack on the bum - never anything that left a bruise.

dont know i would do it to my kids though.

0

Yeh wth is that about? I don't hate my parents. I'm grateful; the spanking kept me in line. And its not like I was spanked and I didn't know wth it was about. Everytime I was spanked they explained why.

0

bob, facts that would support less crime and violence in some previous generations may be entirely valid (though debatable due to data collection means and usage differing from those today), but it still does not directly support as assertion that spanking had anything to do with those figures. Perhaps they did, but your data certain can't prove it. It remains a speculative relationship.

That doesn't mean it's an invalid speculation, but to get your back up over dispute with your "facts" is merely ignoring that those facts are not directly relevant. Huff and puff all you like, objectively it still boils down to mere assumptions that heavier-handed discipline instilled more civil and moral behavior. Perhaps it did, who knows, but chances are it was also influenced by other cultural changes beyond mere spanking.

0

Yeh wth is that about? I don't hate my parents. I'm grateful; the spanking kept me in line. And its not like I was spanked and I didn't know wth it was about. Everytime I was spanked they explained why.

same for me

0

Yeh wth is that about? I don't hate my parents. I'm grateful; the spanking kept me in line. And its not like I was spanked and I didn't know wth it was about. Everytime I was spanked they explained why.

Same. I don't resent my parents at all for the spankings I received. It was used under specific circumstances that were clearly understood.

0

I myself received spanking...even in the school...there are some high school that still do caining...i think somehow that parents now aren't given the same control over their kids as in times gone by. The spanking I received kept me in shape.

1

It doesn't matter what science says about spanking.

Both spanking, and the desire to abolish spanking, are religious beliefs. Both are protected by the Constitution, and neither should become part of the law.

Religious beliefs, eh? While I might be getting your drift, I don't know what you mean.

Your statement depends on what you mean by "religious". I do agree that religious beliefs should not become part of law.

I'm don't know how you see spanking as a religious belief. Unless you call whatever anyone holds to be true, or reality, or important, religion. I could go with that if it's what you mean. Certainly not everyone who spanks or is against spanking thinks of their attitude as a religious belief as they think of religion in general.

Please elaborate

Votes + Comments
Proverbs 13:24, although I recommend reading the whole chapter, if not more.
0

I agree that neither should be legislated. However, religious belief is only ONE motivation. To say it is THE motivation is simplistic and false.
Unless, of course, atheist have absolutely no opinion on the subject.
Any atheists flipping through the channels?

0

Regarding personal experience.
My parents used reasoning to keep me from doing stupid stuff. But the used fear to keep me from doing REALLY stupid stuff. And on one occasion the term, beating, would not be an overstatement; but it was for something REALLY stupid.

0

My "attitude" was influenced by my misreading a challenge; and an exaggerated reflex to the challenge and it's (perceived) tone.
If you or anyone else wishes, I will leave.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.