Letters to the Editor
blunderdog
Published Letters: 509 Editor's Choice: 10
-
If the Gummit Wants to Get Involved in This...
[Read the article: To spank or not to spank?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...then they'd better be ready to follow up on the concept by providing proper parenting to the kids they want to "protect" from their parents.
It makes no sense at all for the government to use force of law outlawing a time-tested method of discipline without a really good reason. Child abuse is already illegal, and it's one of those "I know it when I see it" issues.
Spanking a child (specifically, slapping a durable and resilient spot with no intention of causing any HARM) is not synonymous with child abuse.
Do people really want to entrust the government to know the best way to raise children?
It's none of the law's (or anyone else's, really) business how people treat their family members UNTIL there is a reason to believe that there are crimes occurring.
Creating new crimes by fiat as an excuse to legislate parental behavior is another incremental step towards state-enforced culture.
Horrible idea, this bill.
All this said, I'm not "pro-spanking" at all. I don't like the idea, had it done to me a few times in my youth, and believe that good parenting doesn't require it. However, I'm not confident in my right to judge every parent who might use spanking as a criminal.
I'm amazed that anyone wants to invite the government into this aspect of their personal lives. As if legislation about sexual behavior between consenting adults isn't bad enough, someone actually believes this would work out for the GOOD?
-
Way back there...
[Read the article: Fantasies in black and white]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]XOXO posted a statement I thought was darn well-conceived and articulated.
I strongly suggest that the moral and intellectual courage to judge others is a lot easier to acquire than the ability to understand others. And that it's not a good shortcut to take.
No doubt.
I recently read a quote something like: "It seems so often that people want to use their religion to justify their own mean-spiritedness." (I wish I could attribute it, but haven't found it again. I read a lot of quotes.)
That's true about so many different intellectual models people use to view the world. Religion, political belief, philosophical thoughts on morality, familial tradition. Makes no difference what the "system" is.
If you want to spend your time rationalizing why life sucks for someone other than you, rather than empathizing with them or trying to help them...
What kind of conversationalist are you at parties?
-
Ugh, So Many People...
[Read the article: To spank or not to spank?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]have no understanding of what legislation is FOR.
It's not a "suggestion." It's not a means of telling people what society believes. It's NOT NOT NOT something that only applies when someone really goes overboard.
Gads.
So many posters here have made comments to the effect of, "Well, make the law, then most people won't be prosecuted, but they'll think before they do something I don't like."
Stupid stupid stupid. If you're one of the people thinking that way, lemme tell ya: you are living in SUCH PRIVILEGE that you have no business at all talking about what the LAW should be.
Here's what law is: it is a THREAT.
It is a THREAT from the state that you will spend years of your life LOCKED IN A CAGE.
Do you guys REALIZE this?
Child abuse is a crime that will land you in prison and separate you from your kids. Child abuse is something that the law should very definitely be all about preventing.
"Spanking" if understood as a physical form of discipline without harming the child, should NOT NOT NOT be equated with child abuse. And the "you wouldn't hit an adult" line of thinking is madness. Nonsense. I've been hit by adults (as an adult) MORE TIMES than I've been hit as a child by my parents. None of these situations were cases where I was threatening someone physically or where "logic" demanded it.
In other words: YES, adults hit adults. All the fuckin' time. What world are you living in if the only "hit" you ever see ends up in court? I mean, really--open your EYES.
That MEANS that we as a society are not prepared to outlaw this. There simply is NOT a common perspective on the use of (let's say) non-lethal violence amongst "the people." If "the people" can't agree on this shit, our government should NOT be stepping in to make these decisions for us.
We should outlaw the things we all AGREE on, and find other means of making the case for the things which are not "obvious to all."
Now I'll be nice and personal here. I don't like spending time with people who hit me. This includes the "friends" who think a punch in the shoulder is good fun. There are MANY males I've known who ENJOY that behavior, and enjoyed it when they were younger too. No, they weren't all psychotic or dealing with emotional baggage from their childhoods. They were people who had a DIFFERENT personal response to "roughhousing" or whatever euphemism may have been invoked at the time.
Ugh. I'm too emotional on this topic--topic being people threatening to cage each other for behaviors which can't be agreed upon.
Listen up: if you are in favor of this legislation, you need to be aware that you are advocating locking people in a cage for spanking their children.
Don't weasel around it. That's what you're saying. And if it's inconceivable that YOU or any of your friends will get locked in a cage because of such a law, then you're effectively an unindicted criminal. The poor guy in the trailer/tenement who gets sent to his repeated rape and beating because you had some idea about how flexible law enforcement is has every right to hate you for your naivete.
And don't think for a moment you won't be "remembered" when these guys get out.