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

[Tawnos]

Hmmm....Forgetting for a minute any advocates of such abuse.....I'm becoming interested in where the line should be drawn with respect to the rights of all involved. What you wrote sounds like a "reasonableness standard".

I can't say I'm enamored of such standards as they seem to shift too much with popular sentiment or judicial activism but is it the only choice here?

I can't think of a better standard, overall. It's by no means perfect, but the "reasonable man" doctrine is the basis of our legal system.

I mean, I would say that it's unreasonable to spank a baby. I'd say that a swat on the rear of a toddler who doesn't understand right from wrong is only useful to scare them away from potential hazards. I'd say that once a child knows right from wrong spanking should be used very sparingly and usually to reinforce another form of punishment that was not headed. Lastly, after a child develops complex reasoning skills, I'd say that spanking is pretty much useless and taking away privileges is much more favorable.

That all seems "reasonable" to me, but therein lies the problem.

I'm hoping that as people get more educated, we move beyond the current view that any form of "swat on the rear" or similar is beneficial, when there are numerous studies, referenced in the links above, that show that corporal punishment is inherently inferior to other forms of discipline. Even so, I would agree that your definition is reasonable, even if I think there are better choices. As I think most people would. That type of near-consensus makes me think such a standard is the most workable, even if it's not perfect.

A way to define what it's acceptable in black and white terms is what I always look for based on my political and moral philosophy. This may be the one that finally gets me.

When are certain rights enabled before the age of majority? As you can see by what I may find reasonable, I'm almost automatically giving more deference to the childs rights as time goes by. As a parent, I also should decide when a child is responsible enough for certain activities such as firing a gun so a parent definitely has some say. Quite a lot of latitude actually. So, where is the line?

I'm beginning to think that I hit the mark closest in my previous post with "intent". That solves most of the issues.

That's a good line of inquiry, and it's not one that can be immediately resolved. "Intent" does solve many issues, but there are others. E.g. if the parent "intended" to merely correct the child in a manner they believed to be in accordance with their (barbaric) system of beliefs, and injures the child in the process, does that mean they are fine to continue beating? When does intent collide with known or expected results, e.g. if I shoot a gun in the air, let's say as an intent to signal the start of a race, and I use real rounds that injure somebody, that intent certainly enters what punishment I'm given, but my foreknowledge of expected consequences also plays a role.

Where do we draw that line? I don't know, but I know from the research I've done that my personal line stops short of physical altercation. I try to convince others it's the best option, as well. However, some cases (such as the one in this video) are so blatantly obvious to me that anyone trying to defend the abusive actions therein become suspect.

 

[kemo]

I agree that wiping a child is not a bad thing, but a ten minute beating and profanity based rant is beyond what is reasonable. If you read some of the articles in the news, this is not an isolated incident. According to the daughter it was get worse and this had happened multiple times. So this is where I think thee line was crossed, because it was getting worse. Imagine what it would be like to be beat like this on a regualr basis. I don't blame the daughter for what she did.

 

[georg jetson]

Alright Georg, since you said it was a case by case basis as to who a child should tell if they are being abused, I will give you a scenario. You tell us what the child should do.

A girl, 8 years old is being sexually abused by her father. The father is also beating the mother who is too afraid to do anything. There is no family in the area and the young girl has no idea how to contact he out-of-state family. The only time the girl gets out of the house is when she goes to public school. Friends are not allowed at the house. Who does she tell?

By the way, I get your argument that the government should stay of o our family lives. But in the above situation who will intervene, if not some form of government authority?

I quote your original question again to make sure my answer is in context...

I don't know what the child "should do". There's too many variables not listed.

I don't know who she tells. Maybe you're asking me who she should tell?? I don't know. Again... too many unlisted details.

 

[georg jetson]

Now you're questioning other folks maturity level? You can't seem to give me a straight-forward answer to my straight-forward question. I think others would also like to see your answer to my question.

In another thread he was moderated for personal attacks against me. I cautioned that some subjects require a certain level of maturity. I simply reminded him.

 

[georg jetson]

This is wrong. If your believe in natural, fundamental, inalienable rights, we're born with them. Children only have certain rights disabled until they reach the age of majority and those are most definitely not basic human rights. Just the very fact that we allow for emancipated minors under law and in tradition proves as much.

The rights that are disabled are only those that they may not be able to exercise responsibly.

What basic human rights? I'll give you the right to life. Name others...

 

[Tawnos]

In another thread he was moderated for personal attacks against me. I cautioned that some subjects require a certain level of maturity. I simply reminded.

I was moderated for speaking my mind in a manner that the moderators didn't agree with. I still don't think you have the mental acuity required to meaningfully further engage in present discourse, and you have repeatedly shown me that is the case. However, moving forward from that censorship I shall refrain from phrasing those thoughts with a term from Binet and Simon's system of classification for the 51-70 range.

 

[thebigsd]

I quote your original question again to make sure my answer is in context...

I don't know what the child "should do". There's too many variables not listed.

I don't know who she tells. Maybe you're asking me who she should tell?? I don't know. Again... too many unlisted details.

Now you're playing semantics. You know exactly what I meant.

Same scenario. Who SHOULD the little girl tell? Answer the question.

 

[georg jetson]

Badger, the fundamental problem is still rights vs. intrusion but GJ seems to have jumped the shark very early on in the thought process here. See my post above.

Yes, there are 2 issues here.

What constitutes proper discipline vs abuse?

and

Should the state have the power to define discipline and prosecute discipline it has defined as abuse?

The first question is difficult to discuss because it is largely based on people's belief system and opinion's can run the gambit.

The second is easier to discuss because it is related to the number one topic here at OCDO, which is the dangers of too much government authority and the erosion of 2A "rights". It is the second question I wish to discuss. Parent's RIGHT of authority over their children is being eroded by the same intrusive government in the name of helping "the children".

 

[georg jetson]

Now you're playing semantics. You know exactly what I meant.

Same scenario. Who SHOULD the little girl tell? Answer the question.

Dude... I don't know. Is that clear?

 

[thebigsd]

Dude... I don't know. Is that clear?

I'll take it. All I am saying is that sometimes some form of government might be all that is available. Rare situation? Yes, but plausible.

 

[georg jetson]

I'll take it. All I am saying is that sometimes some form of government might be all that is available. Rare situation? Yes, but plausible.

Just to see how this relates to the government issue, my answer is...

She should tell someone at school.

Sorry.. I had to edit... I'm still not sure this is a "should".

 

[thebigsd]

Just to see how this relates to the government issue, my answer is...

She should tell someone at school.

Sorry.. I had to edit... I'm still not sure this is a "should".

It's a public school. The employees are agents of the government. If she tells another student and then that student tells their parents, then what? What I am driving at is this: Who will stop the abuse if some form of government is not there?

 

[georg jetson]

I think this is a pertinent question. Would someone advocating such abuse be willing to do it on the street in front of others, or would they fear those others would defend the person they were attacking?

I would be willing to discipline my child in front of others if necessary... and if someone interfered with my family business, they do so at their own peril.

 

[georg jetson]

Tee hee, maybe Santa Claus will come along after he's done snogging the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy in a fairy tale threesome, and he can tell you why your "creator" standard is piss-poor.

But since neither the mythical creatures I've mentioned nor the one you claim grants authority exist, how about we start with the basics:

Of course it is impossible for you to prove the negative, that he doesn't exist, but the lack of a creator flies in the face of everything observable, it flies in the face of science. The alternative, no creator, is simply silly and is the sand for the ostrich.

human rights don't magically appear at age 18. They don't come into being because the invisible sky wizard you were told as a kid punished the wicked likes them. They aren't magic, found in a book of fairy tales.

Correct, they are given to us by our creator... whomever it may be...

They are an interpretation of what is fundamentally right or wrong in the treatment of humans. When a person acts to fundamentally disrupt life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness/property in the manner shown, it is incumbent upon those of us with the will to act to take a stand against such actions. In such a case, it is often those not directly related to the person involved to step in and be their advocate, and yes, this may be a government agent such as a teacher or police officer.

What happens to one's right to due process until the age of majority?

SNIP>

Try to twist the argument from "spankings are bad" to "the government shouldn't be involved" if you'd like, but it shows how dishonest you are: when you can't actually address a point made with citations and studies, you resort to emotional rhetoric. Rather than showing why what I posted was pseudoscience, you shifted the goalposts. I don't even know what county they are in, anymore.

They are two different issues... You pick and choose what part of my post you'd like to address and then say I shift a goal post? Pot and Kettle?

...and it's apparent I'm one of the few here that maintains a focus on the point at hand without getting hurt feelings.

 

[09jisaac]

I have only had slight dealings with CPS on two occasions:

One, my friends and I had a late night at GGW so we just crash at his place. What woke us up in the morning was a 4 year old coming through the unlocked door and claim that we were in HIS house. He was there with no shirt and no shoes. And we could not convince him that we were not at his house and to tell us where he lives. So I get my shoes on and walk him outside (surely his parents are looking for him by now). Long story short he lived acrossed the busy road (winding road at that) and his parents weren't even looking for him. Their neighbor was. He told me that his parents let the boys run wild (4yr and 3yr according to him) and that he has to look out for them. I went in to my local sheriffs office and they told me that they cannot intervene if its not abuse but CPS can if its neglect. I called them and they told me they couldn't even talk to the parents unless I came to their office in boyd county and swore a statement. So I talked to the neighbor who said that he would keep an eye on the boy.

And two, a 13yr told his teacher his dad abused him and his 8yr(?) brother and he was afraid of him. She called CPS and they investigated doing weekly visits for a couple of months until he finally told CPS that him and his dad got into an argument and he was just wanting to get back at his dad (His dad has a temper but does not discipline his kids). After that CPS got off and left them alone but the Dad couldn't even punish his kid in fear of being arrested for abuse.

So government agencies have their flaws but in the case of child abuse/neglect they are a necessary evil.

One last thing, we are all adults (or should be) here. So, even if you disagree with someone, stop with the personal attacks and name calling, please.

 

[georg jetson]

It's a public school. The employees are agents of the government. If she tells another student and then that student tells their parents, then what? What I am driving at is this: Who will stop the abuse if some form of government is not there?

You could have just asked me THAT question.

Family, friends, church or sometimes... no one. Even if she tells an agent of the state, the state should have NO power to act LEGALLY.

Consider the additional abuse that is heaped upon us by an intrusive government that has the power to define proper discipline. Who will stop that?

Your question has a parallel to this question...
What will happen to all the people that can't afford to feed themselves without some form of government assistance? The answer of course is to steal money from me and you through taxation to give it to the poor(and cunning). We see how much WORSE this is for a free country.

 

[09jisaac]

Jetson, If you must believe in a god it would be silly to think that It would give us rights exactly when we reach 18yrs of age. That is only a number (and a unit of measurement) set by humans.

So even a religious person like yourself can see that rights are ours just because we live. Not because we are 18, or because we're americans, or because the color or our skin.

 

[georg jetson]

Jetson, If you must believe in a god it would be silly to think that It would give us rights exactly when we reach 18yrs of age. That is only a number (and a unit of measurement) set by humans.

LOL!!!! I see what you mean. That's not the case of course. The rights belong to the parents and the parents decide when to relinquish. The way our society deals with this is by setting an age when all parents have agreed to relinquish. In certain cases, they can relinquish sooner.

So even a religious person like yourself can see that rights are ours just because we live. Not because we are 18, or because we're americans, or because the color or our skin.

I'm not religious. It is your misconception that I am. Realizing the silliness of believing everything came from nothing forces to me to the acknowledgement of a creator.

 

[09jisaac]

LOL!!!! I see what you mean. That's not the case of course. The rights belong to the parents and the parents decide when to relinquish. The way our society deals with this is by setting an age when all parents have agreed to relinquish. In certain cases, they can relinquish sooner.

I'm not religious. It is your misconception that I am. Realizing the silliness of believing everything came from nothing forces to me to the acknowledgement of a creator.

So until the parents give their child a right the parents have free rein over them?

If a parent does not relinquish the child's right to to life, it is the parents right to kill them? Or have them killed?

 

[Tawnos]

Of course it is impossible for you to prove the negative, that he doesn't exist, but the lack of a creator flies in the face of everything observable, it flies in the face of science. The alternative, no creator, is simply silly and is the sand for the ostrich.

But one can show a being to be a logical impossibility. A trait of omnipotence, for example, is logically impossible. You can redefine the trait until it's meaningless to the initial claim, but that doesn't change the nature of the ability to evaluate a possibility based on logical construction. You think no creator is silly, yet there are many people, including those of us here, who find the entire notion and necessity of such a being unnecessary and often illogical.

What happens to one's right to due process until the age of majority?

Could you rephrase this so I understand what point is trying to be made by this question prior to my answer?

They are two different issues... You pick and choose what part of my post you'd like to address and then say I shift a goal post? Pot and Kettle?

...and it's apparent I'm one of the few here that maintains a focus on the point at hand without getting hurt feelings.

You are the one who conflated the wrongness of the act with the response from the get go. In other words, this should be immediately "WRONG" in any sane person's view, yet your immediate response was a defense based on the notion that the government shouldn't go after someone committing battery, because the battery was on a family member?! I mean, what the f' dude? A parent murders a kid, is that okay? Why should the courts, a government institution, be allowed input? I mean, by your standard it's a "family" matter and the government should stay out of it.

Can you see where I have a problem with this? Why I'm shocked I'd have to explain why it's wrong to spank?

I used to be on the pro-open-hand-no-instruments-spanking (to correct immediate issues) side. Someone challenged that view, and when looking for evidence in support of open-hand spanking, I found overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I'm just broken enough that rather than try to handwave it away as pseudoscientific brainwashing I looked more into it, and found my previous view to be wrong. Worse than being non-effective, spanking is harmful.