Delaware becomes 1st state to officially outlaw spanking

To me, the brat and the abused child are in the same boat. The abused child suffers whether the child behaves or not; the brat doesn't suffer whether he or she behaves or not. So, they are the ones who come out unable to connect their actions and consequences. And I don't know, between the abused and the brat, which is worse off. But neither is doing as well as those whose parents do make the effort to fairly connect the child's actions and the consequences--whether they do it perfectly or not.
 
No one has the right to raise a children by violating their persons. You have all the rights to raise your child so long as you do not likewise violate their liberties and rights.

violate a child's liberties? You mean I can tell a child not to stick a pin in an electrical socket but I can't actually prevent them from doing it because it would take away their liberty to do as they please to themselves?

Sorry, that is just sick.

Additionally:

Parents have the right to avoid teaching their child that they are to be respected and obeyed, particularly when the child's behavior is self-destructive? Sometimes, children see "all talk no action" as weakness and grow to despise it. Much of childhood is a determination of acceptable boundaries and it is a parent's responsibility to place boundaries in front of behaviors that would be - in the parent's opinion - unacceptably dangerous, while maintaining respect of the parent.
 
violate a child's liberties? You mean I can tell a child not to stick a pin in an electrical socket but I can't actually prevent them from doing it because it would take away their liberty to do as they please to themselves?

Sorry, that is just sick.

Additionally:

Parents have the right to avoid teaching their child that they are to be respected and obeyed, particularly when the child's behavior is self-destructive? Sometimes, children see "all talk no action" as weakness and grow to despise it. Much of childhood is a determination of acceptable boundaries and it is a parent's responsibility to place boundaries in front of behaviors that would be - in the parent's opinion - unacceptably dangerous, while maintaining respect of the parent.

I completely agree, which is why teaching them that using violence to get what you want is very dangerous.
 
Suppose your 2 year old wants to go out and play in the blizzard in his spiderman underwear of his own free will and just won't listen to reason.Stopping him and keeping him inside against his will would be kidnapping,hence violence,no?
 
Suppose your 2 year old wants to go out and play in the blizzard in his spiderman underwear of his own free will and just won't listen to reason.Stopping him and keeping him inside against his will would be kidnapping,hence violence,no?

Then be a proactive parent and tell the child you'll go out there with them, and invite them to get dressed to go outside.

Any other false dilemmas you want to try?
 
Last edited:
I completely agree, which is why teaching them that using violence to get what you want is very dangerous.

Sometimes violence is justified, and one must be careful that violence merely to get what you want is not acceptable. For example, if someone has a ball that you want, striking them to gain control of it is not acceptable. A good parent is able to teach their child the differences while a poor parent glosses over them.
 
No kids eh?

None of my own, but I was the oldest child, and I've had 100s, if not 1000s, of hours of experience with young children, both relative and non-relative.

I've never smoked marijuana in my life, but I do know some of the benefits. Same with steroid use.

Experience (or lack thereof) is not a qualification for using aggression to achieve desired outcomes.
 
Last edited:
No kids eh?

This.

I dont care how you raise your kids, just stay out of my way when i am parenting. Using the force of govt, of all things, to prevent me from using force on my offspring is really hypocritical.. Dontcha think?

Abuse and spanking are two very very different things, i can testify. I was spanked as a young'un and learned valuable lessons in life at a young age. I was disiplined and never acted out. Then my mom married my stepdad, who was abusive. I have been kicked, beat, pushed down a small flight of stairs, and have the photos of my injuries to prove it.

So you anti spanking authoritarians have NOTHING that would convince me one way or another. Mind your own stinking business, thats what true libertarianism is really about.
 
Then be a proactive parent and tell the child you'll go out there with them, and invite them to get dressed to go outside.

Any other false dilemmas you want to try?

Well,I could try 'wants to go out swimming in his spongebob squarepants underwear in the hurricane swept waters in the front yard' but what's the point?
 
You know how to rant and rave and foam at the mouth. You also do a good job of ignoring the fact that a two year old is not a six year old. And you know that propaganda requires you ignore a few simple, obvious facts such as even a kitten is capable of logic enough to understand, I do play with an electrical outlet I do get a swat; I don't play with the electrical outlet I don't get a swat.

What if two people were both right, but neither one knew it because they were both shouting propaganda instead of having a rational discussion?
I don't know a lot about this subject other than my subjective personal experience being on the receiving end of corporal punishment. Isn't spanking more pavlovian training than "teaching"? If so, why not find a way to accomplish the same goal without striking the child?
 
This.

I dont care how you raise your kids, just stay out of my way when i am parenting. Using the force of govt, of all things, to prevent me from using force on my offspring is really hypocritical.. Dontcha think?

Abuse and spanking are two very very different things, i can testify. I was spanked as a young'un and learned valuable lessons in life at a young age. I was disiplined and never acted out. Then my mom married my stepdad, who was abusive. I have been kicked, beat, pushed down a small flight of stairs, and have the photos of my injuries to prove it.

So you anti spanking authoritarians have NOTHING that would convince me one way or another. Mind your own stinking business, thats what true libertarianism is really about.

No, you don't understand. True libertarionism is minding your business. (and telling you how to raise your kids )
 
You got chocolate in my peanut butter!

No! You got peanut butter on my chocolate!

(Insert Authoritarian Approach)

Lets outlaw Peanut Butter!

(Alternate Authoritarian Approach)

Lets outlaw Chocolate but not Peanut Butter!

The fallacy here is that what works for one does not work for another. But like acptulsa said, a kitten of ANY age still has the capacity of learning. What differs is the level of teaching being appropriate for the age. If a kitten wants to bite, pull your hand away, but if the kitten is becoming excessively agressive, then there are appropriate courses to teach it that such behavior is not going to be accepted by those it lives with. Hence, a light tap on the nose, which is probably physically equivilant of a spanking to a child.

The problem is both extremism and people not being able to mind their own business. If a child is going to be disciplined by taking six swats upside the skull with a baseball bat at full on major league baseball force, they arent going to survive the very first strike, and definitely wont survive the next. That is the most extreme thing I can think of that I believe everyone would agree is excessive. At the same time, there is that old proverb of "Spare the Rod, Spoil the Child" which also has merit. We've all met these types of children and know full well what they grow up to become. Thus, the opposite end of the extreme of zero discipline is also not a viable solution. There is an acceptable range of what can be done without becoming extreme or abuse. But as we continue to try to use Government as a replacement for parents that are right fucking there, we narrow this window until what is acceptable is outside of the range of what works.

There are already laws on the books for the most extreme cases of child abuse. Forcing a child to live in a closet for weeks and months at a time I think we can all agree is abuse because it is excessive. We dont need to pass new laws for every little fucking thing. When we even think that this type of solution is going to work, we legislate away our morality, our dignity, and our liberty.

Always look to the future.

What is the next thing that is going to be considered abuse? Your kid is five pounds over / under weight? You should spend a year in jail because you are a negligent parent! Is that what we want? It is pretty damn obvious that we do because we keep opening up the doors that leads to your arrest for giving your child toast with butter on it.

The Free Man does not need the intervention of Government to raise a child. And nosy know-it-all neighbors who want to tell everyone else whether they should be "allowed" to eat peanut butter, or to eat chocolate accomplishes nothing but alienates the child from the community, which can be taken to the extremes just as anything else can be, and has the potential to cause much deeper psychological trauma on the child than a simple spanking ever could, and it all results because people wont mind their own fucking business.

This is what happens when you have Zero Privacy. Every busy body on the planet will tell you how to live your life.
 
You got chocolate in my peanut butter!

No! You got peanut butter on my chocolate!

(Insert Authoritarian Approach)

Lets outlaw Peanut Butter!

(Alternate Authoritarian Approach)

Lets outlaw Chocolate but not Peanut Butter!

The fallacy here is that what works for one does not work for another. But like acptulsa said, a kitten of ANY age still has the capacity of learning. What differs is the level of teaching being appropriate for the age. If a kitten wants to bite, pull your hand away, but if the kitten is becoming excessively agressive, then there are appropriate courses to teach it that such behavior is not going to be accepted by those it lives with. Hence, a light tap on the nose, which is probably physically equivilant of a spanking to a child.

The problem is both extremism and people not being able to mind their own business. If a child is going to be disciplined by taking six swats upside the skull with a baseball bat at full on major league baseball force, they arent going to survive the very first strike, and definitely wont survive the next. That is the most extreme thing I can think of that I believe everyone would agree is excessive. At the same time, there is that old proverb of "Spare the Rod, Spoil the Child" which also has merit. We've all met these types of children and know full well what they grow up to become. Thus, the opposite end of the extreme of zero discipline is also not a viable solution. There is an acceptable range of what can be done without becoming extreme or abuse. But as we continue to try to use Government as a replacement for parents that are right fucking there, we narrow this window until what is acceptable is outside of the range of what works.

There are already laws on the books for the most extreme cases of child abuse. Forcing a child to live in a closet for weeks and months at a time I think we can all agree is abuse because it is excessive. We dont need to pass new laws for every little fucking thing. When we even think that this type of solution is going to work, we legislate away our morality, our dignity, and our liberty.

Always look to the future.

What is the next thing that is going to be considered abuse? Your kid is five pounds over / under weight? You should spend a year in jail because you are a negligent parent! Is that what we want? It is pretty damn obvious that we do because we keep opening up the doors that leads to your arrest for giving your child toast with butter on it.

The Free Man does not need the intervention of Government to raise a child. And nosy know-it-all neighbors who want to tell everyone else whether they should be "allowed" to eat peanut butter, or to eat chocolate accomplishes nothing but alienates the child from the community, which can be taken to the extremes just as anything else can be, and has the potential to cause much deeper psychological trauma on the child than a simple spanking ever could, and it all results because people wont mind their own fucking business.

This is what happens when you have Zero Privacy. Every busy body on the planet will tell you how to live your life.

A thousand times THIS. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to DamianTV again.

Dammit!!
 
A degree in child psychology at some uber-liberal college might be in your future...

Once you've obtained said degree and a suitable mate, procreate and care for your progeny for a couple of years.

Chances are your views might be a tad different...

+rep
 
Well at least we agree on that. You really don't see any potential blowback or unintended consequences coming from this law?

He says that he's "not opposed to eviction", which means that the doctor can force a three-month-old to be born, and then leave him on the table to starve to death. The problem with that is that a baby that is still in the womb is not a trespasser, nor a parasite; he is exactly where he is supposed to be. A tapeworm, for example, can live comfortably in one's intestine, obtaining all the nutrients it needs from that organ. The intestine, though, does not exist for the purpose of maintaining the life of a tapeworm. A woman's womb, however, has no other purpose than to create and sustain the life of a fetus until it is ready to be born. "Evictionism" is a violation of the baby's natural rights to remain in its native environs.
 
Back
Top