Customer Discussions > Parenting forum

Spanking your children should be ILLEGAL, Part Two!


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 553 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jun 27, 2012 6:33:46 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 3, 2012 9:22:55 AM PDT
mises says:
What the hell, I made the 10,000th post without realizing it, and it's all over!

I hope I won't be all alone here, in my very own thread. Here's where we left the old one:

http://www.amazon.com/forum/parenting/ref=cm_cd_notf_message?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx20C498EK5JY4S&cdPage=400&cdThread=TxUEJ1NRAOX4XK#Mx1JUQ3SI9Q8P0Y

For any new visitors, I'm carrying over an old title. So far, I don't agree with it, but some others do. (So far.)

[Edit: I'm kidding about it being my forum, if you haven't seen the previous one. You'll soon see that I'm not the expert here! We unexpectedly got locked out of it at 10,000 posts, and most haven't yet found their way to this one.]

Posted on Jun 27, 2012 7:20:05 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 28, 2012 7:05:12 AM PDT]

Posted on Jun 27, 2012 7:23:29 PM PDT
Richard says:
mises,
I'll come back later and challenge your stance on the New Atheists, because you are simply aping standard Christian rhetoric here.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 7:23:50 PM PDT
kiwani says:
you are Not alone...:) ~but we shouldn't only want to go backward to where it all started, either...
--I'd like to see if we can't be more focused for solutions of what can be done to go forward for the future of our children, parents, & families... there is nothing more annoying than to have someone only read the initial post that occurred over two years earlier, & new posters don't go to the end to see the path where the discussion has led us & what we're talking about 'in the now'...new readers, as you come, welcome--& it'd be great if you'd click on "See latest post" (@ top/right) to see where we are & have been (esp. if it's a year or two down the road:) ...

THE PROGRESS OF NATIONS

The day will come when the progress of nations will be judged
~not by their military or economic strength,
~ nor by the splendor of their capital cities and public buildings,
~ but by the well-being of their peoples:

- by their levels of health, nutrition, and education;
- by their opportunities to earn a fair reward for their labours;
- by their ability to participate in the decisions that affect their lives;
- by the respect that is shown for their civil and political liberties;
- by the provision that is made for those who are vulnerable and disadvantaged;
- and by the protection that is afforded to the growing minds and bodies of their children.

~ The United Nation's Children's Fund, 1993

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 7:29:40 PM PDT
mises says:
I'm glad you found this, I hope others will stumble onto it also. I've always enjoyed talking/sparring with you!

If I'd known that post #10,000 would end the last thread, I would have counted down to it and put in a link to here. Now the whole mess can't even be edited.

What I meant about Ingersoll was that he would also focus on the ethics of Christianity, and suggest (as I took it) that had God said this or that, he could have had a better outcome.

The new atheists don't bother with that. It's all bad, because it's all hocus-pocus. Much too harsh a judgment, I think.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 7:31:58 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 27, 2012 11:07:05 PM PDT
mises says:
Welcome to my thread, kiwani, where I make all the rules!

Good point, I changed the link to point to the last post instead.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 7:37:17 PM PDT
mises says:
"I'll come back later and challenge your stance on the New Atheists, because you are simply aping standard Christian rhetoric here. "

What - I'm not aping them, I've seen atheists bat this issue around.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/31/who-says-we-dont-need-bible-sc/

I'm happy to know that I am loved also.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 7:44:45 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 27, 2012 10:35:31 PM PDT
kiwani says:
Ha-Ha!
[don't think it is so:]...

----------------------------
7/28 edit/add for FYI info: >>terrific info resource below >>you can customize it online to get specific data about kids well-being in your state/region/town [and even go to the library area to get free booklets on a variety of subjects/ areas sent directly to your home or business-for free/no shipping chgs]:

The 2012 KIDS COUNT Data Book Now Available [@ webaddress: aecf.org --or-- kidscount.org]

Each year, the Annie E. Casey Foundation's KIDS COUNT Data Book provides information and data trends on the conditions of children and families in the United States. This year's Data Book shows both promising progress and discouraging setbacks for the nation's children. While academic achievement and health outcomes improved in most states, the economic well-being of children continued to decline.

* Download or order the 2012 KIDS COUNT Data Book [It's FREE]
* View state rankings on key indicators of child well-being
* View rankings by state and region with a new interactive data wheel
*Download printer-friendly profiles of the United States and individual states on key indicators of child well-being
*Learn about the methodology used to develop the new KIDS COUNT index

Posted on Jun 27, 2012 8:45:09 PM PDT
Richard says:
mises,
Religious zealots do not deserve the slightest respect. They are enemies of the democratic state. The Republican party in Texas is worthy of nothing more than contempt.

https://www.facebook.com/EvidenceofHarmbyReligion

They officially seek to disenfranchise minorities, and want to turn children into little mindless robots. They want no challenge to the control by the masters.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 8:59:17 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 27, 2012 9:13:17 PM PDT
mises says:
Now I'm confused. I thought you were taking the position that it's merely "Christian rhetoric" that atheists don't try to understand the merits/drawbacks of the various belief systems of the religious, and now you're almost saying it's not worth the effort yourself.

Maybe you're replying to something I wrote from the last thread:

http://www.amazon.com/forum/parenting/ref=cm_cd_notf_message?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx20C498EK5JY4S&cdPage=400&cdThread=TxUEJ1NRAOX4XK#Mx21MLABG7SIW4F

But it's simply not true that there's nothing good at all among the religious - even if you believe that it's something that they would be doing anyway, were they atheists. I'll post Edhi's story here again, because I want people to see his example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiMv95Z-bow

Don't forget that the guys who interviewed him are probably not religious, judging by some of their other videos.

And who were the good guys and bad guys here, again?

http://www.globalmuseumoncommunism.org/features/war_on_religion?page=2

"The crosses were placed on the floor and hundreds of prisoners had to fulfill their bodily necessities over the faces and bodies of the crucified ones. Then the crosses were erected again and the communists jeered and mocked: "Look at your Christ! How beautiful he is! What fragrance he brings from heaven!"... [A]fter being driven nearly insane with tortures, a priest was forced to consecrate human excrement and urine and give Holy Communion to Christians in this form. This happened in the Romanian prison of Pitesti. I asked the priest afterward why he did not prefer to die rather than participate in this mockery. He answered, "Don't judge me, please! I have suffered more than Christ!" All the biblical descriptions of hell and the pains of Dante's Inferno are nothing in comparison with the tortures in communist prisons."

It's too bad that people can't just click to display previous pages from here. A lot is going to get overlooked because of this.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 6:54:00 AM PDT
Richard says:
mises
It's all bad, because it's all hocus-pocus. Much too harsh a judgment, I think.
+++++

We have millions of wealthy politically powerful religious extremists backed by unconscionable plutocrats who are deliberately attempting to destroy our schools and our democracy. If you cannot see that you are hopelessly blind. The new atheists are warning us about a terrible danger to our open society that is posed by institutional religion.

There can be no compromising or quarter given to these people. Religion is not benign any longer, if it ever was.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 6:57:09 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 27, 2012 10:07:03 PM PDT
Richard says:
mises
I think you totally misunderstood this discussion. The fact PZ Meyers and others with his viewpoint are discussing the Courtiers Reply (and the like) is to buttress the folly of debating theists when the central point of their argument is not at all settled and probably never will be. Believers have to show empirical proof that God, Jesus, and Mohammad exist before it makes any sense at all to talk about their theology.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/31/who-says-we-dont-need-bible-sc/

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 1:00:32 PM PDT
Richard says:
mises
I'll post Edhi's story here again, because I want people to see his example:
++++++

What makes you believe Edhi is doing what he is doing out of religious conviction? He is simply a humanitarian. He even comments on how religion pits people against one another.

You do not have to believe in god to be good. In fact theism is more of a hindrance than a help because it destroys a person's ability to think rationally about moral behavior. If a believer thinks that only a connection to god will keep him acting morally, what happens to such a person who loses their faith? They have no way of working out a personal morality because that idea has been ruthlessly stamped out of their conscience.

Posted on Jun 28, 2012 1:33:05 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 28, 2012 4:18:39 PM PDT
Richard says:
mises,
I don't know how to perform the math to calculate the good vs the bad religion is responsible for. Do you?

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=What_about_all_the_good_things_religion_has_given_us%3F

[quote]
Is religion, on balance, a good thing?

Religious institutions also often do bad things, such as opposing the teaching of evolution in schools or promoting the spread of AIDS by denigrating the use of condoms. Therefore, we must ask ourselves whether, on balance, religion is a good thing or not.

Ray Comfort openly admits that his style of Christianity makes followers less happy in this world, below is just one of many times he has said that.

But there is no Biblical precedent for a message of life improvement upon conversion. None. In fact the Bible says you will have trials, tribulations temptation, persecution. [1]

Other Christian apologists are less willing to admit that they reduce happiness. Many social problems are worse in the United States Bible belt than in other parts of the United States and religious fundamentalism is strong there. Statistics are less easy to find in other parts of the world where fundamentalists are not collected together in the same place but similar problems are likely to be associated with fundamentalism elsewhere.

One should not assume without evidence that religion, particularly fundamentalist religion makes people happy.

Is religious charity selfless?

One must remember that when a religious person does charity, they may be doing this for a reward, such as heaven, if applicable to the religion in question. Many people act out on the word of God, to impress God. Many are not doing these good deeds out of the kindness of their heart, but for eternity in heaven. American Christian fundamentalists of the Religious right give small amounts of money to charity, they feel good about this and imagine it will help them get to heaven. At the same time they vote and campaign against political parties that promote tax funded initiatives with potential to help poor people far more than voluntary charity can do. Small scale charitable giving is a smokescreen that seeks to prevent the religious right and the public at large seeing how far the Republican religious style of politics is actually harming poor Americans.

Dodging the issue

If brought up with reference to Atheism, this response may be a dodge. Atheists may just as well do good, so as an argument against atheism it misses relevancy.

This is part of the common misconception that: Atheism has bearings on topics other than the lack of belief in deities. And at the same time the misconception that: without religion, there can be no moral standards. Thus, the apologist who responds with this dodge probably believes that the Atheist cannot have moral standards as he/she has no religion.

Furthermore Atheism is not equivalent to lack of morality. Although religion may promote morality, it is fallible to say that therefore Atheism promotes lack of morality. Morality is an issue of the individual not of an institution, thus Atheists and Theists have the same capacity of being moral or immoral as they both choose which morals to include in their lives.

The idea that morality is originally based on religion is frequently heard from apologists in debates and conversations. Some of the reasons for this belief can be that,

one cannot imagine a world without religion
one imagines the world to be barbaric without his/hers religion (Indians, Vikings, etc. Essentially societies that one believes were barbaric)
the scripture speaks a lot of morals and laws, and one assumes that the world must have been without morals and laws before the scripture
animals cannot read, and they act like animals

The reality is that morality is intrinsic to animals. Charles Darwin refers to this as altruism. Morality is basically a product of natural selection, and homo sapiens is far from the only species to exhibit this behaviour that we have labelled as "goodness".

It's also important to note the difference between ethics (more universal views of what is right or wrong - developed namely through cultural evolution) and morality (culturally-based views of what is right or wrong). Morals are not always ethical, and it is quite arguable that many religious morals are anything but ethical.

[/quote]

It is not ethical to threaten children and it is not ethical to take advantage of them to force religion on them before they have developed the intellectual ability to evaluate what they are being forced to believe. If you try to convince an 18 year old that has not had their mind systematically tampered with for years that the stories in the bible are true, they will laugh at you.

Posted on Jun 28, 2012 4:12:09 PM PDT
Richard says:
Religious circumcision of kids a crime - German court http://bit.ly/LTR5sk

A German court has ruled that parents can't have their sons circumcised on religious grounds in a move which has angered Muslim and Jewish groups in the country.
+++++

This will be interesting to see how it plays out. Ritual circumcision is barbaric and abusive.

Posted on Jun 28, 2012 9:34:23 PM PDT
Richard says:
Overview -Roads to Dominion
Product Details

* Pub. Date: September 1995
* Publisher: Guilford Publications, Inc.

* Series: Critical Perspectives
* ISBN-13: 9780898628647
* ISBN: 0898628644
* Edition Description: New Edition

Synopsis
How did the American right wing, which began as a small clique of post-World War II conservative intellectuals, transform into well-heeled, grassroots movements representing millions of ordinary citizens? Providing insight into today's headlines, Roads to Dominion answers this question with a compelling and thorough look at the broad range of right-wing movements in this country. Based on research that draws extensively from primary source literature, Sara Diamond traces the development of four types of right-wing movements over the past 50 years-the anticommunist conservative movement, the racist Right, the Christian Right, and the neoconservatives-and provides an astute historical analysis of each. Maintaining a nonjudgmental tone throughout the book, she explores these movements' roles within the political process and examines their relationships with administrations in power.

The book opens with the immediate aftermath of World War II and the onset of the Cold War, when the anticommunist policies of the United States government encouraged the growth of right-wing movements. Continuing through the 1960s and beyond, chapters examine the influence of right-wing groups within the Republican Party and the rise of white supremacist groups in response to the gains of the civil rights movement. We see the transformation of the neoconservatives, from a small band of Cold War liberal intellectuals into a bastion of support for Reagan era foreign policy. The book traces the development of the Christian Right, from its early activity during the Cold War period straight through to its heyday as a powerful grassroots movement during the 1980s and 1990s. Throughout the book, Diamond explains the Right's fifty-year quest for power. She shows how we can understand and even predict the Right's influence on day-to-day policymaking in the United States by observing some consistent patterns in the Right's relationships with political elites and government agencies. In some predictable ways, the Right engages in both conflict and collaboration with state institutions

More here:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Roads-to-Dominion/Sara-Diamond/e/9780898628647

Posted on Jun 28, 2012 11:54:12 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 29, 2012 12:03:52 AM PDT
mises says:
I will probably be gone for a few days. I have an idea one of you might want to pursue, before I probably will try it myself when I get back.

Maybe you can call Amazon and ask if it would reopen the previous forum if it deleted one of your recent posts, which you could first repost here.

Then you could write a new post #10,000, linking every follower (who would then see it in their emails) to the new one. This would of course also show up in people's readers, who "followed" the old discussion in this way.

Or is there a better idea?

Posted on Jun 30, 2012 9:51:13 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 30, 2012 9:52:15 AM PDT
Richard says:
"Texas Republicans are saying that their 2012 platform's opposition to "critical thinking skills" was a mistake-but that mistake is now the formal policy of the Republican Party of Texas until 2014. " Whoops.

The mistake was publicizing how backward the Texas Republicans on the platform committee really are. The mistake is advocating a principle of inflexible thinking. Each day brings a changing set of challenges. Old ideas and ways of thinking no longer apply and must give way. Rigid, dogmatic thinking is stupid. If everyone had adhered to this principle we would still be sitting on our haunches licking termites off a stick.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 7:05:29 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 30, 2012 7:06:32 PM PDT
kiwani says:
lol-- and freezing our butts off in a cave;)

I heard a discussion of this on the morning talk-show today [msnbc/UP with Chris Hayes/Sats & Suns 8am-10am/Eastern time]..was a good discussion...

Posted on Jul 1, 2012 1:48:56 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 1, 2012 1:52:36 PM PDT
Richard says:
kiwani,
We thought Rick Perry was an aberration. Nope, just a backward Texan. I was absolutely stunned to think the people who compiled that party platform could be that backward.

Posted on Jul 1, 2012 2:03:16 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 1, 2012 3:35:33 PM PDT
Richard says:
I am encountering the term "parental sovereignty", which is another way of asserting that parents can do as they please with their children. I've added it to my terms to research. Apparently it goes back to the Puritans belief in the Natural Law, or Natures Law, derived through their religion.

Parents must have a lot of control because they are responsible for their children. As long as parents are sane and do reasonable things who are we to quibble? The problem the parental sovereignty people dodge is what to do about parents who do unreasonable and harmful things to their kids.

Posted on Jul 2, 2012 3:10:41 AM PDT
Mises,

Back to the original question (of whether children should be spanked or not), please forgive that I'm piping in rather late here. Your forum came up on my screen only this morning -- and shortly after I'd posted my latest publication.

The folly of "Spare the rod and spoil the child" has been amply demonstrated over the years. As long as we perpetuate this bit of bad advice, we'll continue to produce sociopaths, psychopaths and serial killers -- at the very least, next generations that continue to spank (or otherwise abuse) their children.

Russell

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 9:25:33 AM PDT
kiwani says:
If the Prez could somehow work that into his messaging, it would be very helpful to the campaign because it could be linked to a whole range of RW-thinking/philosophy, & where the want to take [or prevent] our country going forward [including family issues such as positive parenting]...

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 9:28:49 AM PDT
kiwani says:
It is similar to their argument on State's sovereignty as related to the immigration issue...but I've not heard it linked to parent's rights before....funny how they are so up on State's rights, & Parent's rights, but what about Children's Rights...?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 11:51:45 AM PDT
Deeone says:
gee, I do hope Richard gets to see this one:

Published: June 6, 2012 at 8:10 PM
SAN FRANCISCO, June 6 (UPI) -- The jury in the case of a San Francisco man who spanked his 11-year-old son with a belt has acquitted the man on child abuse charges.
The jury Tuesday found 32-year-old Allan Rivera not guilty of misdemeanor child abuse and battery after less than 3 hours of deliberation, said Tamara Barak Aparton, spokeswoman for Public Defender Jeff Adachi.
"The law states that a parent may use physical discipline as a form of correction as long as it does not cause lasting injury or seriously endanger the child's health," Aparton told the San Francisco Examiner.
Police arrested Rivera March 15 when his ex-wife called to report bruising on the boy's body. The boy told police he was spanked with the belt for misbehaving in church, the newspaper reported.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/06/06/Spanking-dad-acquitted-of-abuse-charges/UPI-54011339027841/#ixzz1zUbKjpri
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 23 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Parenting forum
Participants:  17
Total posts:  553
Initial post:  Jun 27, 2012
Latest post:  Jun 16, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 6 customers

Search Customer Discussions