Hicksey

Here's an idea. We'll all surrender our children to the government and let them raise them, since they know so much better how to raise them than we do. Its simple. Unless the government is with them every day, they don't know the personality of the child, what is or is not an effective means of punishment of the child and ability of each child to comprehend the consequence. To restrict the rest of us because a few people have done it wrong is ridiculous. We need every tool available to us to make this happen. Raising a child is hard enough with all the crap society throws at them and us, taking disciplinary options away from us doesn't make sense. I was beaten as a child. I have direct knowledge of what it is like to be on the wrong end of that. That's also why I do what I do today. I have learned from the mistakes of my father. When I became a father I knew two things: (1) I would never beat my children as my father did me, and (2) that the talking-tos that my mother gave didn't work either because I viewed it as a joke. So I did a little research on it and came to where I am. I still do the talking because though it was not effective immediately, later on I have come to remember and benefit from many of those lessons.

And yet... Is there an inconsistency here? How so? The 5 year old has seen what happens when things escalate to that level and the response from his brother and knows that he doesn't want that fate to befall him as well. Done right, corporal punishment is about fear and respect. Parents do get out of hand, we all know that. And we have laws to take care of them. There is no need to outlaw spanking.

I really hope you don't mean that the way it was typed. That idea is just disgusting. I can count the number of times I have had to spank my 7 year old on one hand. Its not designed to be a repetitive punishment. If I have to spank my 7 year old he knows he's screwed up -- and he usually doesn't repeat the behavior. He has a couple of times and all I have to do is remind him of what I did to him the last time and he stops the behavior. I've never so much as left a mark on him. When I do spank him its to let him know who's boss and to provide a negative stimulus for him to associate with the bad behavior. Like I said before ... done properly, corporal punishment works. When you get out of hand it is no longer corporal punishment, instead child abuse. The whole point is to produce a slap that will sting them for about 30 seconds and then go back to talking. If no inroad is made then you produce a second slap and then back to talking. It has to be clear the punishment is for the behavior in question. I have never had to go beyond a second slap. I NEVER do it when I am angry. My father used to do that and he always got out of hand. So I always take a short breather and let him stew before I go back to see him. That is usually enough to produce results because he knows if I have to come back and he doesn't acquiece, he'll get spanked. Each kid is different. My 5 year old has only ever been spanked once. He's been conditioned to seeing his brother get it. He usually cops to whatever he did wrong and takes his punishment. In fact, he tries not to let me put him in the room to stew before he starts talking. This may not work for other kids. Each is different -- for some it will be like a miracle elixir, for others nothing more than a bother. But to make it illegal and throw out the irresponsible statements about it not working is just ignorant. IMO that decision should lie with the primary care-giver. Its amazing that an 8 month old fetus can effectively be murdered, but a 8 year old child cannot so much as be spanked. I know abortion is a whole different issue, but isn't it interesting that the more helpless of the two gets no protection and the one that can at least do something by telling someone gets blanket protection?

Done properly, corporal punishment is not overly painful. Its about power, not pain. The objective is to make them fear the consequences of the action they are being punished for. Only when parents do it improperly do we ever hear about corporal punishment. BM: You are mistaking a conservative for a libertarian. Conservatives, though to a much lesser point than Liberals and NDP, also advocate letting the government into our everyday lives on issues we hold dear to us. Your beef, marijuana use, is against the law. The last I checked, though we are able to do just about any kinky thing the worst pervert can imagine, we did not have the right to break the law in our homes. Whether you believe marijuana use is right or wrong is another issue altogether which you are more than welcome to start a thread to discuss.

HERE is a link to an article about a bill in the California State Legislature about banning spanking and making it punishable by fines and prison time. My question to you is: Unless said punishment injures a child (done properly, corporal punishment does not), does the government belong in our homes like this? I say no. You?

I never said anything about where I live, not did I make a claim about it. I am a truck driver. I have been about everywhere in Toronto, have friends there, experienced the place personally as well as professionally when I lived in Oakville, ON. I have friends that grew up in Brampton and know it first hand. That is why I used it as a basis for comparison. All I said was that I'd be as offended at the white guy who did the same thing as our Korean exemplar in another circumstance. How does "Talk about begging to have zero creibility........" ??

People are turned off politics because they are sick of being lied to and their wallets being looted. In this country it doesn't seem to matter who is in office. Most of the self-serving tripe that politicians serve us they have no intention of performing. Even Harper has conveniently forgotten about his promise to reduce wait times. The worst of them, Premier McGuinty, has proceeded to break almost every promise he made. Why should people have any confidence in a bunch of spinners and liars? At this point I am happy in any tenure if there are no new social programs, government spending slows down or I actually get something tangible for what I give every week. Usually we see one of those at best.

I agree whole-heartedly. A racist is a racist is a racist. I, personally, would avoid the place and tell everyone I know about it so they could too. I would go as far as drive 5-10 miles out of my way to avoid the place. I don't care who is the benefactor or the victim. A racist is not worthy of my business. I wonder how legal it would be to take out an ad in the local newspaper backed up with quotes urging others to do the same? An easy position to take as long as you personally are not the victim of racism. I got one for you. Brampton, ON has almost exclusively become a Muslim community. The same type of racism whites were the perpetrators of in generations past goes on there against them. If a white guy bought a strip mall, refuse to renew the leases of the Muslim operators within it so they can provide a haven for people of his own race to operate in that municipality, and proceeded only to lease to whites, there would be outrage like nothing else. It would likely make the front page of just about every newspaper in the country and we all know it. I would drive out of my way to avoid that place also. In this day and age there should be NO preferential treatment based on race. Everyone should be treated equally. There should be no policy to hold back nor to prop up anyone based on race.

Absolutely legal. I wonder who would be outraged by that?

I agree whole-heartedly. A racist is a racist is a racist. I, personally, would avoid the place and tell everyone I know about it so they could too. I would go as far as drive 5-10 miles out of my way to avoid the place. I don't care who is the benefactor or the victim. A racist is not worthy of my business. I wonder how legal it would be to take out an ad in the local newspaper backed up with quotes urging others to do the same?

Because some mental conditions make it very hard for some people. Passing a law like this completely ignores hardcore OCD cases, some schizophrenia cases, and many other conditions affecting one's judgement of certain situations. It doesn't make them any less responsible for their actions. It does require that the system get better at diagnosing the proper punishment the first two times and recognize when punishment alone is not enough and a combination of punitive/treatment is the best course of action.

You don't trust the wealthy to hold wealth, but you trust the government? Neither are entirely trustworthy. And people get wealth as they deserve it. Our system is designed that way. The problem is getting by the barriers that are the lower/middle class layers. Once you get by that if you are smart with your money, riches are not all that hard to get. The left has built so many devices into our society to make those middle/lower class people dependent fools that and with each new generation it gets seemingly harder to achieve it. Socialism keeps the rich rich and the poor poor and at the same time it puts up a barrier to the poor it creates a safety net for the rich by restricting the ability of the poor to take advantage of their mistakes. So what happens is rich people basically get and lose their riches from each other while Joe Citizen toils his entire life long dreaming of it.

Um, not at all, actually. A previous course of action does not thus guarantee a repeat of said action. You are right! That's why we give them two chances to change their ways before this takes effect. We don't assume a repeat of said action, we let the criminal determine whether there will be a pattern. Why is it so hard for people get through a day and not commit a crime? How is it that criminals are regarded as more of a victim than their real victims and as a result deserve more protection?

If you remove yourself from religion and look at it on a higher level, you see that there are a lot of different ones all looking to rationalize the same concept of a higher power that presides over us. They were trying to put words that the average man could understand to an abstract concept that best explains what they believe to be. Conspriracy theorists basically create their own religion to create a way to explain what they believe to be true. Like ancient religions they come from people trying to put rational thought and explanations to abstract concepts. Their conclusions are usually considered radical for their time, but they aren't radical as far as the thought process they use to get there.

Indeed. Perhaps this suggestion should be limited to physical offences? Hell no! If you have committed 3 indictable offenses, is that not proof positive that you are pathlogical and likely to keep it up? If anything these are the poster children for people that we need to send a more severe message to. The only exception I would make is to allow the lawyers of non-violent criminals to have the designation removed after 15 years if they display a real effort to rehabilitate, have been model prisoners, have taken advantage of a program to get a skill they can use to get gainful employment once they exit the penal system, and agree to lifetime long parole.