Viral video: Judge William Adams beating the h*ll out of his daughter

[georg jetson]

btw, just for perspective, here's what the penal code in my state says

is it somewhat vague, etc? sure. such laws pretty much have to be. ime, it's USUALLY dealt with reasonably by the cops. CPS? ok, they have some issues but overall they do a decent job

obviously, like most other aspects of the law, it's a balancing test

what amuses me is how many kids think mere physical discipline is child abuse

had a teen girl call police a few months ago claiming child abuse

her mom slapped her across the face. why ? because daughter called mom a * - * - * - *

daughter cheek was quite red from the slap

she thought mom should be at least warned not to do it again

instead i told her - "dont' call your mom that word again!"

clearly, that was a REASONABLE form of discipline



: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.100

RCW 9A.16.100
Use of force on children — Policy — Actions presumed unreasonable.


It is the policy of this state to protect children from assault and abuse and to encourage parents, teachers, and their authorized agents to use methods of correction and restraint of children that are not dangerous to the children. However, the physical discipline of a child is not unlawful when it is reasonable and moderate and is inflicted by a parent, teacher, or guardian for purposes of restraining or correcting the child. Any use of force on a child by any other person is unlawful unless it is reasonable and moderate and is authorized in advance by the child's parent or guardian for purposes of restraining or correcting the child.

The following actions are presumed unreasonable when used to correct or restrain a child: (1) Throwing, kicking, burning, or cutting a child; (2) striking a child with a closed fist; (3) shaking a child under age three; (4) interfering with a child's breathing; (5) threatening a child with a deadly weapon; or (6) doing any other act that is likely to cause and which does cause bodily harm greater than transient pain or minor temporary marks. The age, size, and condition of the child and the location of the injury shall be considered when determining whether the bodily harm is reasonable or moderate. This list is illustrative of unreasonable actions and is not intended to be exclusive.

[1986 c 149 § 1.]

Yes... the states have usurped power by attempting to define abuse. All that needs to happen now is to "re-define" which will happen as the attitude of the populace moves further toward government independence.

The most difficult part of this is how the state polices this type of thing. The public schools are the tools being used... children being interrogated(counciled) without the parent's permission or knowledge.

 

[DrakeZ07]

Yes... the states have usurped power by attempting to define abuse. All that needs to happen now is to "re-define" which will happen as the attitude of the populace moves further toward government independence.

The most difficult part of this is how the state polices this type of thing. The public schools are the tools being used... children being interrogated(counciled) without the parent's permission or knowledge.

Right, because the old "rule of thumb" was such a proud thing to keep your spouse in line, and it was the evil government intrusiveness to ban it.

If the states and federal government doesn't define what abuse is, then it is an open definition, and paves the way for some parents to define abuse as the death of a child, and other parents to define abuse as using verbal harsh words. Believe it or not, the government isn't wrong and horrible ALL THE TIME. It has very good uses, and it isn't so much as intruding on how parents raise their children, as it is the government making rules and laws to PROTECT those who are easily susceptible to brainwashing, believing everything said to them, and unable to defend themselves. Should parents be allowed to use a closed hand, in the form of a fist, to strike their children in any fashion, and call it "correction"?; Or how about using a belt to cause whelts to a childs rear, how many strikes is good and how many is bad? is one hard belt whipping every other day good for a child?

Sorry, but I'd rather the government, local/state/federal have rules and guidelines on protecting children from abuse, and bad parents. I'd rather the schools do everything they can to protect a child from a suspected home domestic violence case against a child. Unless, that is, you feel a child who is abused, and punished, and corrected using harsh means, justify itself. Because the ends always justify the means, yes?

 

[georg jetson]

Right, because the old "rule of thumb" was such a proud thing to keep your spouse in line, and it was the evil government intrusiveness to ban it.

If the states and federal government doesn't define what abuse is, then it is an open definition, and paves the way for some parents to define abuse as the death of a child, and other parents to define abuse as using verbal harsh words. Believe it or not, the government isn't wrong and horrible ALL THE TIME. It has very good uses, and it isn't so much as intruding on how parents raise their children, as it is the government making rules and laws to PROTECT those who are easily susceptible to brainwashing, believing everything said to them, and unable to defend themselves. Should parents be allowed to use a closed hand, in the form of a fist, to strike their children in any fashion, and call it "correction"?; Or how about using a belt to cause whelts to a childs rear, how many strikes is good and how many is bad? is one hard belt whipping every other day good for a child?

Maybe "the government isn't wrong and horrible ALL THE TIME", but it is wrong and horrible MOST of the time. Enough not to trust it with family matters. Look at some of the examples of posts claiming that a parent should NEVER hit a child in any manner. Eventually this thought makes its way to statute form and I can no longer raise my children according to my beliefs.

These are decisions the parent has a right to make.

Sorry, but I'd rather the government, local/state/federal have rules and guidelines on protecting children from abuse, and bad parents. I'd rather the schools do everything they can to protect a child from a suspected home domestic violence case against a child. Unless, that is, you feel a child who is abused, and punished, and corrected using harsh means, justify itself. Because the ends always justify the means, yes?

And who protects the parents from bad government? I know I've typed this many times in this thread... The abuse that can(has/will) come from government intervention in the parent/child relationship is far worse than the problem of child abuse.

 

[marshaul]

And who protects the parents from bad government? I know I've typed this many times in this thread... The abuse that can(has/will) come from government intervention in the parent/child relationship is far worse than the problem of child abuse.

This is true of everything the government does, including prosecuting crimes we both agree should be prosecuted.

The conclusion you reach throws out the baby of some government with the bathwater of far too much.

You've still failed to explain why you accept minarchism everywhere else, but anarchism must apply to the family.

I still fail to see the distinction. If we accept some government, I see no reason for it to fail to prosecute parents who, at the very least, rape, murder, and permanently physically disfigure their children.

That there is too much intervention in family affairs is no different from government excess in every other arena, including those in which its presence is rightful and justified.

 

[georg jetson]

This is true of everything the government does, including prosecuting crimes we both agree should be prosecuted.

The conclusion you reach throws out the baby of some government with the bathwater of far too much.

You've still failed to explain why you accept minarchism everywhere else, but anarchism must apply to the family.

I still fail to see the distinction. If we accept some government, I see no reason for it to fail to prosecute parents who, at the very least, rape, murder, and permanently physically disfigure their children.

That there is too much intervention in family affairs is no different from government excess in every other arena, including those in which its presence is rightful and justified.

I've explained it already to you. You didn't agree with my explanation.

 

[marshaul]

I've explained it already to you. You didn't agree with my explanation.

I know. That's why I was avoiding this discussion; it's been going in circles for a while now.

But, you must realize, I'm genuinely receptive towards your arguments. Unlike apologist-shills in disguise (e.g. PALO), I never pass on an opportunity to rationalize away the existence of any aspect of government -- when possible. I even consider myself, in certain moods and contexts, an anarchist, although it's a philosophy I rarely espouse, and does not preclude my espousal of libertarian minarchism first and foremost. (It's worth noting that in the context of anarchism I have no argument with your position.)

But, if you've failed to convince me, I'm afraid you're not going to convince many others, except for those who might be persuaded by the appeals to religion (not criticizing such appeals; they simply have no weight with me). I'm pretty radical, even by libertarian standards.

You must realize that your explanation of the difference consists of A: pointing out the slippery slope, which I've rebutted with the observation that this applies equally to appropriate and inappropriate arenas for government intervention, and therefore says nothing about the propriety of intervention in a given arena, and B: claiming that there is a history of proprietorship by the pater familias going back to biblical times, which does nothing to convince the nonreligious, and anyway reveals nothing in consideration of the fact that the same applies to slavery. Did I miss anything?

(Interesting use, on my part, of the derivatives of the Latin proprietas, incidentally. Propriety and proprietary. Never even thought about that before.)

 

[PALO]

I know. That's why I was avoiding this discussion; it's been going in circles for a while now.

But, you must realize, I'm genuinely receptive towards your arguments. Unlike apologist-shills in disguise (e.g. PALO), I never pass on an opportunity to rationalize away the existence of any aspect of government -- when possible. I even consider myself, in certain moods and contexts, an anarchist, although it's a philosophy I rarely espouse, and does not preclude my espousal of libertarian minarchism first and foremost. (It's worth noting that in the context of anarchism I have no argument with your position.)

But, if you've failed to convince me, I'm afraid you're not going to convince many others, except for those who might be persuaded by the appeals to religion (not criticizing such appeals; they simply have no weight with me). I'm pretty radical, even by libertarian standards.

You must realize that your explanation of the difference consists of A: pointing out the slippery slope, which I've rebutted with the observation that this applies equally to appropriate and inappropriate arenas for government intervention, and therefore says nothing about the propriety of intervention in a given arena, and B: claiming that there is a history of proprietorship by the pater familias going back to biblical times, which does nothing to convince the nonreligious, and anyway reveals nothing in consideration of the fact that the same applies to slavery. Did I miss anything?

(Interesting use, on my part, of the derivatives of the Latin proprietas, incidentally. Propriety and proprietary. Never even thought about that before.)

lol,. apologist-shills in disguise

christ, the hubris and idiocy knows no bounds

it was difficult to hear your post over the incessant whirring of the black helicopters, but i did my best

 

[PALO]

Yes... the states have usurped power by attempting to define abuse. All that needs to happen now is to "re-define" which will happen as the attitude of the populace moves further toward government independence.

The most difficult part of this is how the state polices this type of thing. The public schools are the tools being used... children being interrogated(counciled) without the parent's permission or knowledge.

laws vary state to state.

in a system where "kids" can seek an abortion without parental KNOWLEDGE even, let alone consent, it would be pretty absurd to say that cops can't question or interrogate similarly aged kids w/o parental consent

kids aren't property and 16 yr olds are not helpless children.

i do agree that many lib teachers in schools do teach kids that parental discipline is abuse

thats contra our state law where parents DO have the RIGHT to physically discipline

and in the case i mentioned if the daughter thinks that mom can't slap her when she calls mom the "c" word, she got another thing coming

 

[marshaul]

it was difficult to hear your post over the incessant whirring of the black helicopters, but i did my best

Nice try. Too bad your little ad hominem non sequitur misses the mark.

I'm more of the "government is inept, incapable, and nearly always counterproductive" school of thought. You're thinking of paranoid types who are actually believe government is capable of successfully pulling off all kinds of conspiratorial stuff.

Government is the headless blunder, dangerous like a stumbling drunkard randomly shooting his revolver.

I find certain actions of "people of your ilk" contemptible, but that doesn't mean I place you on a pillar of efficacy.

 

[PALO]

Nice try. Too bad your little ad hominem non sequitur misses the mark.

I'm more of the "government is inept, incapable, and nearly always counterproductive" school of thought. You're thinking of paranoid types who are actually believe government is capable of successfully pulling off all kinds of conspiratorial stuff.

Government is the headless blunder, dangerous like a stumbling drunkard randomly shooting his revolver.

I find certain actions of "people of your ilk" contemptible, but that doesn't mean I place you on a pillar of efficacy.

unlike you, i'm not a bigot

i won't talk of your "ilk". just your ignorance

 

[marshaul]

i won't talk of your "ilk".

Yes, that was Raven. It's easy to get y'all confused -- the same exact crap spewed out of his mouth as out of yours. Only, I guess he was "bigoted". :lol: