Adrian Peterson indicted after giving his son a 'whooping'

[moostraks]

They think children only have some rights, while parents possess some kind of collective right to do things no one else in society can do.

When I was 3 or 4 I wanted to marry the guy who installed the carpet in my parents house. He was a convict on a work release program but sure was nice to me. Wish I would have been granted all the rights an adult is entitled to so then I might have been able to have fulfilled my plans.

 

[TheCount]

When I was 3 or 4 I wanted to marry the guy who installed the carpet in my parents house. He was a convict on a work release program but sure was nice to me. Wish I would have been granted all the rights an adult is entitled to so then I might have been able to have fulfilled my plans.

Straw man again, this one even easier to dismantle.

Children lack the mental capacity to consent, which is why they cannot enter into contracts.

Next?

 

[otherone]

Condemning murder is a moral judgment, is it not?

What Peterson did, and what millions of parents do - spanking - is violence. Murder is merely violence to a greater degree. What is the separation that makes one form of violence acceptable and barricaded from criticism, while the other is completely condemnable and open to criticism?

This thread is about where discipline becomes child abuse. Equate spanking to murder in a different thread.

 

[asurfaholic]

Not getting involved in this thread. We are pro spanking parents.

But just stopped in to say that if AP had've just put on a costume with a little tin badge and tased his kid he wouldn't be facing the trouble he is facing.

Just sayin

 

[tod evans]

This thread is about where discipline becomes child abuse.

I'm not qualified to make that determination, government and her minions damn sure aren't!

 

[Christian Liberty]

Your view is that if someone commits rape, assault, and murder then they should be arrested by the state, but beating children bloody is outside the states jurisdiction. You refuse to answer a simple 'yes or no' question on the subject because of how ludicrous your view is, as you say that laws against child abuse are statist, while laws against child rape handled by the state are legit.

You also have such a poor grasp of the opposing views in this thread that you believe that people see parenthood as a "state granted privilege", rather than a reflection of the fact that children are also individuals with individual rights. Rights that include "not being beat in the balls by a stick until they start bleeding for a week", "not being raped", and "not getting your head cut off".

You also strawman people as believing that the state is a friend of children, as if anyone has suggested that. It's like saying "oh, you think Dahmer should have been tried by the state in a sense of a private court system? Statist!", or "you think Obama should go to jail? You most LOVE Romney!"

You keep getting asked about murder and rape of children because that is where the logical conclusion of your argument takes someone. If stripping a 4 year old naked and hitting him in the balls until he bleeds should be legal, so should sexual assault.

I actually do agree that AP crossed the line here. I'm not exactly sure how to deal with it and what would be best for the child. I don't think this is as serious as child rape. I also don't think this is as trivial as spanking per say. And I don't see how you could possibly derive from this that parents have no rights.

 

[William Tell]

They think children only have some rights, while parents possess some kind of collective right to do things no one else in society can do.

Yes, they do. For example, trapping someone down in a car against his will is wrong, unless it is your putting your child in your car seat. How radical!

 

[Christian Liberty]

Yes, they do. For example, trapping someone down in a car against his will is wrong, unless it is your putting your child in your car seat. How radical!

I agree.

 

[TheCount]

Yes, they do. For example, trapping someone down in a car against his will is wrong, unless it is your putting your child in your car seat. How radical!

Can you force other people's children to come in your car?

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

This thread is about where discipline becomes child abuse. Equate spanking to murder in a different thread.

All violence directed towards children is child abuse. The line between what is abuse and what is not abuse becomes strikingly clear when proper definitions are used.

Further, I'm not equating murder with spanking. In the post you quoted, even, I stated murder is a greater degree of violence than spanking.

 

[William Tell]

Can you put other people's children in your car seat?

No, unless the parents give you permission. They are THEIR children, not yours, mine, or Hillary's.

 

[TheCount]

No, unless the parents give you permission.

Then children are property, and it's not 'parental rights.'

 

[moostraks]

Straw man again, this one even easier to dismantle.

Children lack the mental capacity to consent, which is why they cannot enter into contracts.

Next?

Well then since you seem to grasp the fact that children lack the "mental capacity" to consent then maybe you can grasp the concept that someone must be responsible for the child and is entrusted with the right to raise their progeny as they see fit imbuing them with the values of the family they are a part of until found guilty of a crime which causes them to surrender such parental rights. Even in the world you are arguing for children lack the right to consent to contracts and are thus only have some rights due to their "mental capacity".

 

[otherone]

Further, I'm not equating murder with spanking. In the post you quoted, even, I stated murder is a greater degree of violence than spanking.

Then why even mention murder?

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Then why even mention murder?

You called people who condemn violence the following:

A bunch of know-it-all, self-righteous, judgmental busy-bodies?

Why does condemnation of one form of violence designate the condemner as self-righteous and judgmental, and why does this not apply to those who oppose murder or other forms of violence that are nearly universally viewed as objectionable?

 

[otherone]

Yes, they do. For example, trapping someone down in a car against his will is wrong, unless it is your putting your child in your car seat. How radical!

omg!
Not letting your child leave the house...IMPRISONMENT!
Making them do chores...SLAVERY!
Spanking...CHILD ABUSE!
Making them go to church...BRAINWASHING!

 

[William Tell]

omg!
Not letting your child leave the house...IMPRISONMENT!
Making them do chores...SLAVERY!
Spanking...CHILD ABUSE!
Making them go to church...BRAINWASHING!

Yeah, funny how making them go to school is NOT child abuse though, according to the gods of political correctness.

 

[otherone]

Why does condemnation of one form of violence designate the condemner as self-righteous and judgmental, and why does this not apply to those who oppose murder or other forms of violence that are nearly universally viewed as objectionable?

Do you want your neighbor to decide what constitutes abuse?

 

[moostraks]

You also strawman people as believing that the state is a friend of children, as if anyone has suggested that. It's like saying "oh, you think Dahmer should have been tried by the state in a sense of a private court system? Statist!", or "you think Obama should go to jail? You most LOVE Romney!"

You keep getting asked about murder and rape of children because that is where the logical conclusion of your argument takes someone. If stripping a 4 year old naked and hitting him in the balls until he bleeds should be legal, so should sexual assault.

I see you edited...It is NOT the logical conclusion but a dramatic argument for effect and if AP is guilty of assault then he would be then in jeopardy of losing his parental rights not before the fact such as you suggest for ALL parents. As for strawmaning re: the state is a friend of children whom do you think will be in charge of these parental privileges you are giving when you strip parental rights and make it a privilege? I said the state is no friend of children in regards to child rape because I have been the child that the state knew was being abused and they did nothing and these are the very people you will be granting the control over parental privileges. The foster care system is a perfect example of what happens when the state is in charge of childrens' welfare.You get a special group who can molest and abuse while stripping natural parents of their children.

 

[Snew]

Yeah, funny how making them go to school is NOT child abuse though, according to the gods of political correctness.

I don't see anyone here arguing that.