Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thats fine for you, but don't try and claim people who use spanking are automatically abusive parents. Its insulting.

I'm with GT on this one.


That said however, it's NEVER a good idea to go out in public and basically brag about spanking your children, the way Ted Cruz did. At least from the article's perspective, there seems to be no indication that he was given a question regarding how he punishes his children. This manner of speaking is, to me, yet another reason why this clown should not be anywhere near the oval office.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Because it works? If it doesn't work on your specific child then try something else.

Citation needed. If physical violence actually worked to improve behaviour then it would still be used in prisons and the military as a means of punishment.

They didn't stop using it because it didn't work. They stopped using it because of political pressure from bleeding heart left-wingers.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Spanking is a legitimate form of punishment.

It is illegal in many countries for a good reason. Here is would be child abuse.

Many countries are incorrect and misguided in called it abuse. Like anything, it can be abusive. But the act itself can be done properly and not in an abusive way, and its not difficult to do that either.

If you're such a failure of a parent that the only way you can teach your kids what is right or wrong is through hurting them then I frankly don't care if you think it's insulting that you get called out on the BS.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Spanking is a legitimate form of punishment.

It is illegal in many countries for a good reason. Here is would be child abuse.

Many countries are incorrect and misguided in called it abuse. Like anything, it can be abusive. But the act itself can be done properly and not in an abusive way, and its not difficult to do that either.

If you're such a failure of a parent that the only way you can teach your kids what is right or wrong is through hurting them then I frankly don't care if you think it's insulting that you get called out on the BS.

Again, you are incorrect. I have said repeatedly its not the only way to teach your kids. Its only one part of how you teach your kids. But feel free to ignore that and think I think the only way is to beat them.

So... Maybe the spanking discussion can go to another thread and we can talk about politics here.

On the topic of Obama's veto of ACA repeal, when the justification for passing it becomes "it will help more of us get elected" how is that NOT a waste of time and money? Getting elected is not Congress' job. Serving the nation is. Passing this bill did not serve the nation, hence waste of time and money.

#impeachcongress

 Grey Templar wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Spanking is a legitimate form of punishment.

It is illegal in many countries for a good reason. Here is would be child abuse.

Many countries are incorrect and misguided in called it abuse. Like anything, it can be abusive. But the act itself can be done properly and not in an abusive way, and its not difficult to do that either.

If you're such a failure of a parent that the only way you can teach your kids what is right or wrong is through hurting them then I frankly don't care if you think it's insulting that you get called out on the BS.

Again, you are incorrect. I have said repeatedly its not the only way to teach your kids. Its only one part of how you teach your kids. But feel free to ignore that and think I think the only way is to beat them.

That makes no sense. How can there be a need for physical punishment despite there being other alternatives?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Because it works? If it doesn't work on your specific child then try something else.

Citation needed. If physical violence actually worked to improve behaviour then it would still be used in prisons and the military as a means of punishment.

They didn't stop using it because it didn't work. They stopped using it because of political pressure from bleeding heart left-wingers.

And because it didn't work. And because officers didn't want to have to flog their soldiers as that was the only punishment available and then get fragged whilst they slept.

Would you be okay with a teacher or police officer spanking your child, if they did it "responsibly"?

If not, then why is it okay for you as a parent to inflict physical violence onto your child but not okay for other authority figures?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Spanking is a legitimate form of punishment.

It is illegal in many countries for a good reason. Here is would be child abuse.

Many countries are incorrect and misguided in called it abuse. Like anything, it can be abusive. But the act itself can be done properly and not in an abusive way, and its not difficult to do that either.

If you're such a failure of a parent that the only way you can teach your kids what is right or wrong is through hurting them then I frankly don't care if you think it's insulting that you get called out on the BS.

Again, you are incorrect. I have said repeatedly its not the only way to teach your kids. Its only one part of how you teach your kids. But feel free to ignore that and think I think the only way is to beat them.

That makes no sense. How can there be a need for physical punishment despite there being other alternatives?

You need a different disciplinary tool for different situations. Sometimes spanking will be appropriate, sometimes you'll take away a favorite toy, sometimes they won't get dessert, etc...

But as NinthMusketeer said this has gotten off topic.

 Grey Templar wrote:

You realize you are basically asserting millions of people are child molesters because a minor portion of the population finds spanking a little kinky.

No, I'm not asserting that at all, hence the phrase "could be easily construed". Generally speaking I think striking your kid is unwise, and comparing your striking of a kid to striking an of age woman is doubly so.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

If not, then why is it okay for you as a parent to inflict physical violence onto your child but other authority figures not to?

Because punishment needs to be consistent. The teacher or police officer isn't aware of what my disciplinary standards are so they shouldn't be the ones to enforce them.

And calling it "physical violence" is disingenuous and misrepresenting what it actually is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

You realize you are basically asserting millions of people are child molesters because a minor portion of the population finds spanking a little kinky.

No, I'm not asserting that at all, hence the phrase "could be easily construed". Generally speaking I think striking your kid is unwise, and comparing your striking of a kid to striking an of age woman is doubly so.

So don't make the comparison then if you don't wish to make that assertion.

 Grey Templar wrote:

And calling it "physical violence" is disingenuous and misrepresenting what it actually is.

That's insane. Hitting someone is LITERALLY the definition of "physical violence".

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

And calling it "physical violence" is disingenuous and misrepresenting what it actually is.

That's insane. Hitting someone is LITERALLY the definition of "physical violence".

Its misrepresentation because Physical Violence also covers actually beating or assaulting someone. Spanking is so much more minor in reality.

Spanking also doesn't fit the definition of violence.

Violence: a: exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence

Spanking, when done properly, isn't meant to injure or abuse.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

And calling it "physical violence" is disingenuous and misrepresenting what it actually is.

That's insane. Hitting someone is LITERALLY the definition of "physical violence".

Its misrepresentation because Physical Violence also covers actually beating or assaulting someone. Spanking is so much more minor in reality.

Spanking also doesn't fit the definition of violence.

Violence: a: exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence

Spanking, when done properly, isn't meant to injure or abuse.

Do you even read your own links?

Merriam-Webster wrote:
Full Definition of violence

1
a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house) b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure

2
: injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage

3
a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force <the violence of the storm> b : vehement feeling or expression : fervor; also : an instance of such action or feeling c : a clashing or jarring quality : discordance

4
: undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)

Emphasis mine.

In fact, according to your own link, what you did to the definition of violence was in itself violence.

You can't use the word itself in its own definition.

Anyway, I'm done trying to reason with you.

There's no reasoning to be had if you're honestly arguing that causing someone physical pain isn't to injure them.

 Grey Templar wrote:

So don't make the comparison then if you don't wish to make that assertion.

Why should I avoid stating that an action could be construed as molestation, or sexual abuse, when I am not at all asserting that it must be? You are the only person arguing that I'm making such a claim.

I have alwats found it interesting how people will find it ok to hit a child(Which spanking is) the most defenseless of us all, but not ok to hit an adult. Why cant I spank someone else if I dont like what they are doing.

Probably time to get back on topic in here...

 NinthMusketeer wrote:


On the topic of Obama's veto of ACA repeal, when the justification for passing it becomes "it will help more of us get elected" how is that NOT a waste of time and money? Getting elected is not Congress' job. Serving the nation is. Passing this bill did not serve the nation, hence waste of time and money.

#impeachcongress

Speaking of which, anybody else see this new proposal to get together a new Constitutional Convention to create as many as NINE new amendments?
I mean, do none of these people realize that all of the problems they're thinking these amendments will correct, will actually just shift the same problems down to the state level instead, if it does anything at all (and I'll bet dollars to pesos that every person who loves all these amendments right now will hate every one of them when the other party is in the majority)? The real fix is to elect better people, and not the constant influx of intractable extremist idiots we have now. It's just so sad that for every John McCain we have, we also get three or four Ted Cruzes.

No, actually have an article? That sounds interesting.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:


On the topic of Obama's veto of ACA repeal, when the justification for passing it becomes "it will help more of us get elected" how is that NOT a waste of time and money? Getting elected is not Congress' job. Serving the nation is. Passing this bill did not serve the nation, hence waste of time and money.

#impeachcongress

Speaking of which, anybody else see this new proposal to get together a new Constitutional Convention to create as many as NINE new amendments?
I mean, do none of these people realize that all of the problems they're thinking these amendments will correct, will actually just shift the same problems down to the state level instead, if it does anything at all (and I'll bet dollars to pesos that every person who loves all these amendments right now will hate every one of them when the other party is in the majority)? The real fix is to elect better people, and not the constant influx of intractable extremist idiots we have now. It's just so sad that for every John McCain we have, we also get three or four Ted Cruzes.

I saw and I laughed Hilarious stuff.

Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State. <What does this even mean? I mean, can't we define almost anything as this? Why have Federal law, or government at all?
Require Congress to balance its budget. >< Not even bothering
Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law. <That's already the case, exaggerating "thanks Obama" to ludicrous proportions doesn't change that.
Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law. < Why have Federal law at all?
Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision. ><We get it. Republicans hate Roe and want DOMA back.
Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law. <Why even have a Supreme Court at all?
Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution. <So... What we already have?
Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds. <Why? You've already repealed Federal Government. Need some strawmen eh?
Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation. <Again, why? You've already repealed Federal Government

http://gov.texas.gov/news/press-release/21829>

 LordofHats wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:


On the topic of Obama's veto of ACA repeal, when the justification for passing it becomes "it will help more of us get elected" how is that NOT a waste of time and money? Getting elected is not Congress' job. Serving the nation is. Passing this bill did not serve the nation, hence waste of time and money.

#impeachcongress

Speaking of which, anybody else see this new proposal to get together a new Constitutional Convention to create as many as NINE new amendments?
I mean, do none of these people realize that all of the problems they're thinking these amendments will correct, will actually just shift the same problems down to the state level instead, if it does anything at all (and I'll bet dollars to pesos that every person who loves all these amendments right now will hate every one of them when the other party is in the majority)? The real fix is to elect better people, and not the constant influx of intractable extremist idiots we have now. It's just so sad that for every John McCain we have, we also get three or four Ted Cruzes.

I saw and I laughed Hilarious stuff.

Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State. <What does this even mean? I mean, can't we define almost anything as this? Why have Federal law, or government at all? Essentially reaffirming the 10th amendment and weakening the Commerce Clause.
Require Congress to balance its budget. >< Not even botheringBecause shutdown theater is politically more useful?
Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law. <That's already the case, exaggerating "thanks Obama" to ludicrous proportions doesn't change that. I don't get this either... it's congress' fault if their laws are too ambiguous. Hence the rise of the Chevron deference.
Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law. < Why have Federal law at all?I don't get this either... he want's to get rid of incorporation?
Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision. ><We get it. Republicans hate Roe and want DOMA back.
Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law. <Why even have a Supreme Court at all?Why not? Seems like a decent 'check' on SC.
Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution. <So... What we already have?Reaffirming the 10th amendment I guess...
Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds. <Why? You've already repealed Federal Government. Need some strawmen eh?No... this codifies the states have "standing". Not a bad idea.
Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation. <Again, why? You've already repealed Federal Government I like this. A mechnism to subtract laws or regulations.

http://gov.texas.gov/news/press-release/21829>

Seems mostly redundant... but, I really like the last one.

The SC being required to have a 7 man majority is tantamount to saying "no decisions unless they're virtually unanimous" and law doesn't work that way. It would essentially take away the right of judicial review.

The government should never be allowed to sue the government or decide they don't want to follow a law. We've already seen where the later goes, and the former is just asinine.

In essence, the Governor of Texas thinks that only Congress and State Legislatures should have any real power, and far and above those are the two areas our government is most dysfunctional. Why would we want them to be unchallenged (or anyone for that matter) in power?

 LordofHats wrote:
The SC being required to have a 7 man majority is tantamount to saying "no decisions unless they're virtually unanimous" and law doesn't work that way. It would essentially take away the right of judicial review.

I'm going to walk that back and agree with you. I don't like that idea after thinking on it...

The government should never be allowed to sue the government or decide they don't want to follow a law. We've already seen where the later goes, and the former is just asinine.

The state is a distinct entity from the Federal Government... no? The issue is that you have to prove damage(as in, once it's in effect) before being able to challenge something in court. There are school of thoughts out there that it'd be good to challenge new laws before it's in place.

In essence, the Governor of Texas thinks that only Congress and State Legislatures should have any real power, and far and above those are the two areas our government is most dysfunctional. Why would we want them to be unchallenged (or anyone for that matter) in power?

Plus, what he's advocating for is largely redundent in many ways...

 LordofHats wrote:
The SC being required to have a 7 man majority is tantamount to saying "no decisions unless they're virtually unanimous" and law doesn't work that way. It would essentially take away the right of judicial review.

Exactly. Demanding a 7-2 majority effectively shuts down the supreme court and removes a whole branch of government. And what's hilarious is that it's so self-destructive no matter what part of the political spectrum you're on. It's blatantly "don't let the federal government take away our right to ban gay marriage", and yet the same rule would also apply to things like recent supreme court decisions against gun control laws. It's just short-sighted and stupid all around.

Well I mean, it's blatantly obvious pandering so I doubt he thinks any of that will ever happen.

The state is a distinct entity from the Federal Government... no?

Insofar as they are separately elected and can enact their own laws, but they are not allowed to violate Constitutionally assured rights or override Federal law just because they feel like it. I'm fond of the former, and as to the later I don't think there's any way for Federal government to function if that isn't the case.

I think a case can be made that the States have no real say in Federal politics, and that the Fed has no real obligation to listen to the states. I kind of like that at times, but I'd rather kill the more annoying bird. Congress needs people who aren't constantly running for reelection. Repeal that section of the 17th Amendment.

The issue is that you have to prove damage(as in, once it's in effect) before being able to challenge something in court. There are school of thoughts out there that it'd be good to challenge new laws before it's in place.

I think that's a different issue, and while I think there's merit to the idea of "it's too late to stop it once the damage is done" I don't think any legal system can function when you can bring suit over any and all hypothetical problems that will come up maybe but maybe not. Nothing would ever be done and the government would be little more than a giant lawsuit of hypotheticals where nothing real ever happens.

The time to stop passage of a bill is when it's on the debating floor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
The SC being required to have a 7 man majority is tantamount to saying "no decisions unless they're virtually unanimous" and law doesn't work that way. It would essentially take away the right of judicial review.

Exactly. Demanding a 7-2 majority effectively shuts down the supreme court and removes a whole branch of government. And what's hilarious is that it's so self-destructive no matter what part of the political spectrum you're on. It's blatantly "don't let the federal government take away our right to ban gay marriage", and yet the same rule would also apply to things like recent supreme court decisions against gun control laws. It's just short-sighted and stupid all around.

Exactly. There's a reason SCOTUS isn't a 1 person body.

As an outsider, I thought the entire purpose of having three branches of government was that they were supposed to balance each other?

Surely requiring a 7-2 majority in the Supreme Court is effectively the Legislative Branch declaring that it doesn't want to have to listen to the Judicial?

The thing about the Supreme Court is that people like to complain about activist judges or legislating from the bench and so. Strangely enough, though, you only ever hear these complaints when people disagree with the court's rulings, and not when they agree with them.

I always thought this was a good brief article on the subject.

The Intro;

The term “legislating from the bench” is frequently used but rarely explained. In the 2008 presidential debates Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) promised he would not appoint judges who legislate from the bench. But as Bruce Peabody, author of Legislating from the Bench, a Definition and a Defense, told the HPR, “I don’t think we can know what he means … it’s hard to get much intellectual traction from the way politicians use the term.” “Legislating from the bench” implies a justice system comprised of two types of judges: those who merely interpret law and those with political agendas who create law.

This distinction, however, covers up the fact that vague language and political and societal change necessitate that law be created through legal interpretation. A.E. Dick Howard, professor of Constitutional law at the University of Virginia, told the HPR that ambiguous phrases found in the Constitution such as “due process of law, equal protection of law, and cruel and unusual punishment” require interpretation to be applied. The interpretations of these phrases must change as unforeseeable circumstances arise, making the courts an avenue for interpretation to substantially affect law. Accordingly, the phrase “legislating from the bench” is at best misleading, and analysis of its historical application reveals its necessity.

The sheer fact that it took over 200 years for the court to actually affirm a decision on whether or not one had to be in a militia to have any right to bear arms, should be clear indication that legal interpretation is a complicated thing and a necessary one (for conservatives at the very least).

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
The thing about the Supreme Court is that people like to complain about activist judges or legislating from the bench and so. Strangely enough, though, you only ever hear these complaints when people disagree with the court's rulings, and not when they agree with them.

It is true that the Supreme Court, and courts in general, have way too much power. They need some actual checks on their powers. I don't think requiring a 7-2 majority is the answer, but they need to be accountable.