Hey, What Is This Slope In Front Of Me?...AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!

G Fresh · Post by **G Fresh** » Fri Jan 19, 2007 3:11 am

Gotta love the (literally in this case) nanny state.

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Fri Jan 19, 2007 3:19 pm

I think we're nearing the bottom of that slope and picking up intense speed. It won't be long now and it will be illegal to eat anything these nags don't want us to eat. I say we go back to women not being able to vote. - 45% TIC. That'll put an end to most of this happy horse sh*t.

WBOB · Post by **WBOB** » Fri Jan 19, 2007 3:33 pm

My parents would be harden criminals then!

and I'd be a BRAT!

echosauce1 · Post by **echosauce1** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:31 am

I'll preface this by saying I am not a parent so feel free to disagree with me.

I don't believe a kid three or under should get an "ass whoopen" but I also don't have any problem with them getting a little smack to the behind. Hitting a kid to a degree that causes REAL pain is wrong in my opinion, but if you have a two year old and see him/her repeatedly trying to put something in a light socket after constantly being told no or put in timeout, is a smack to the butt so wrong?

A large problem with society today, imho, is that many kids do not see the parents as authority figures. Once a child learns they can walk all over the parents, they will continue to do so. My parents never abused me, but I sure as hell knew when I crossed the line and always thought twice about doing it again. One of my childhood friends I lived next to had a mother who was too afraid to ever spank him. I witnessed him say things to her that were appalling at such a young age. Had I tried to pull the sh*t with my mom, I would have promptly received the dreaded backhand.

Interestingly enough, our adult lives have turned out very very different as well.

G Fresh · Post by **G Fresh** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:09 am

I don't believe a kid three or under should get an "ass whoopen" but I also don't have any problem with them getting a little smack to the behind. Hitting a kid to a degree that causes REAL pain is wrong in my opinion, but if you have a two year old and see him/her repeatedly trying to put something in a light socket after constantly being told no or put in timeout, is a smack to the butt so wrong?

I completely agree with what you said. My problem is that the government is trying to legislate morality and common-freaking-sense. It's a huge waste of the taxpayer's money and time IMHO.

Jambrea · Post by **Jambrea** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 9:52 pm

echosauce1 wrote:I don't believe a kid three or under should get an "ass whoopen" but I also don't have any problem with them getting a little smack to the behind. Hitting a kid to a degree that causes REAL pain is wrong in my opinion, but if you have a two year old and see him/her repeatedly trying to put something in a light socket after constantly being told no or put in timeout, is a smack to the butt so wrong?

A large problem with society today, imho, is that many kids do not see the parents as authority figures. Once a child learns they can walk all over the parents, they will continue to do so. My parents never abused me, but I sure as hell knew when I crossed the line and always thought twice about doing it again. One of my childhood friends I lived next to had a mother who was too afraid to ever spank him. I witnessed him say things to her that were appalling at such a young age. Had I tried to pull the sh*t with my mom, I would have promptly received the dreaded backhand.

I am a parent with a two year old and I totally agree with you! Would I beat my son--no. Does he need spanked sometimes--yes. Putting him in time out would not work when he is running into the street.

=^-..-^= · Post by **=^-..-^=** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:32 pm

So they will quadruple the caseload numbers for California CPS workers, quadruple the number of kids siezed and put in foster homes, and make criminals out of loving parents, who will fill the jails and parenting classes. Meanwhile, kids that are REALLY getting abused will have to stay in that situation four times longer, until an overworked CPS worker can investigate.

Isn't CA running a huge deficit already? Where's money for the enforcement by the spanking gestapo going to come from?

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:51 pm

=^-..-^= wrote:So they will quadruple the caseload numbers for California CPS workers, quadruple the number of kids siezed and put in foster homes, and make criminals out of loving parents, who will fill the jails and parenting classes. Meanwhile, kids that are REALLY getting abused will have to stay in that situation four times longer, until an overworked CPS worker can investigate.

Isn't CA running a huge deficit already? Where's money for the enforcement by the spanking gestapo going to come from?

Having worked in Foster Care, this is 100% on the money. While that awful case made the news last week, I know of at least two other situations where kids that should have been removed 5-7 years ago weren't and now they're in a mess. A 12-year-old busted for possession of crack cocaine, which he was selling for his MOTHER and an uncle. This has been going on for years, but it was mom selling small amounts to pay for her habit and the kid wasn't abused per se, so they left him there. Now he's in a detention center and is likely headed to a life of crime, where he will be shot dead by the time he's 22. Another case I know of involves a 12-year-old who is pregnant by "one of her older brothers". They're not sure which one because she and her twin sister have been having sex with all 3 brothers. Mind you, the brothers are 13, 14 and 15. The school reported expected sexual abuse of the boys and later the girls for years and every time, nothing happened. Now, you've got a pregnant 12-year-old (who was bragging about it and doesn't understand all the fuss), another 12-year-old who has been having sex with her 3 brothers (also bragging and doesn't understand the fuss), 3 young men/boys who are now going to be labeled sexual offenders for the rest of their lives, one child to be who will likely have all sorts of physical and mental problems - she's too far along for an abortion, which I still wouldn't support even if she wasn't. All because their sperm donor and fetus carrier are too selfish to give a damn. It's easier to watch porn with the kids in the room, smoke crack and veg out than actually parent the children. Plus, the caseworkers never had enough evidence to do anything other than offer voluntary counseling services, which were always politely turned down.