Debate : 23173


Off-Topic / Debate / 23173

Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live... —David Koudys

(URL) within 'common sense' reasons, is legal, according to the Supreme Court of Canada. You can't use a shoe aor a belt, you can't hit the kid in the head, can't spank if they're under the age of 2... THey actually laid out pretty specific (...) (20 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live... —John Neal

(...) I'm curious. What do you think about the concept of "decency"? Freedom without respect and responsibility is meaningless. (...) You obviously don't have kids and are trying to raise them to become decent people. (...) Of course you are an (...) (20 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Pedro Silva

(...) Morality issue, out of bounds for legislators - shouldn't it be so? Larry? (...) Would you be kind enough to ellaborate? I seem to recall you advocating some sort of "absolute freedom" concept earlier in o-t.d, but my memory may be failing. It (...) (20 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Great idea. Teach your children well and all that. Not seeing the connection to drug laws or public nudity laws though. (...) Eh, what? ... (was dozing off for a sec, this all seems familiar to me somehow) Oh! Yes! Morality, inasmuch as it (...) (20 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —John Neal

(...) Laws need to be based on something (...) Of what value is freedom if nobody respects it? We don't have "absolute freedom" in this country (which is anarchy). If people aren't willing to respect others freedoms, the concept is moot. (...) In (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Yes. When they are necessary. You haven't proven the case that this particular law (banning public nudity) is *necessary* yet, though. If a law isn't protecting the rights of citizens from being infringed, it is not necessary. (not every law (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Dave Schuler

(...) Well, they're sexual parts because we've fetishized them to be sexual parts, much like tiny (bound) feet used to be in China. Beyond that, breasts are no more "sexual parts" than the rest of our bodies (and less so than certain other body (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Scott Arthur

(...) Indeed! The last thing the "ruling class" wants is for the "masses" to be kept informed by a good independent public sector broadcaster. Far better that they get their "infotainment" from Fox! Scott A (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —John Neal

(...) Hmmm. I'm thinking of clay Ashtarte fetishes that are 1,000s of years old which are basically a human form with gigantic breasts. Breasts have always been a symbol for sexuality and fertility that is cross-cultural, which leads me to conclude (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Dave Schuler

(...) That piece by Morris has been widely questioned as relying too heavily post-hoc reasoning based on pre-determined gender roles, but I still enjoy a lot of his work. I don't doubt that breasts have been long-time symbols of fertility and (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Dave Schuler

(...) Hmm... Well, even if they were just motherhood totems, (URL) this> piece of sculpture apparently had other connotations. Those naughty, naughty prehistoric Germans! Dave! (19 years ago, 6-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: <snip> (...) Insofar as at one time the female ankle was considered sexual 'cause that was the part that was 'always covered up'. Making laws based on this type of sexual arousing 'finnikyness' seems very (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —John Neal

(...) Correct, the bar will be raised, as it was from ankles to breasts. Next will be the sexualization of our youth (which has already begun). What all of this amounts to is the decay of civility-- an amoral route to anarchy. JOHN (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —David Koudys

(...) So we pass laws to lower the hemline back to ankles? There should be a difference between sex and, well, not sex. And this issue of toplessness falls on the non-sex side, or at least it should, for there are societies today that have no (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Why Dave? Didn't you agree before that if no one was being harmed, the laws should not interfere? How would it harm you to happen upon a couple (or more, gasp!) having leisure sex in a park near your house? Chris (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'll go with RAH's answer "because it scares the horses"... Other than that, no problem. (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote: <snip> (...) We're just touching on every topic now, aren't we? Publically funded television is a wonderful thing. Never *ever* get rid of it. My local PBS station (local even though it's in a differnt (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Orion Pobursky

(...) I agree that most in the US are "modest" by your definition, but what about those who don't fit your definition? Don't they have just as much of a right to be "immodest"? Until someone can tell me exactly why public nudity is harmful, without (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Scott Arthur

(...) You may enjoy this: Naked rambler completes his trek (URL) A (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —John Neal

(...) Please. "Naked"??? He wore shoes and socks! Give me a real Naked Trekker, not this pitiful pretender! JOHN (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Orion Pobursky wrote: <snip> someone can tell me exactly why public nudity is harmful, without (...) Hear! Hear!! (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —John Neal

(...) Okay, here goes. First, WRT to religion, I get my values and morals from my religion and they will be reflected in my answer, but they are mine. It is never my intention to force my religion on somebody else. But because I derive my values (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Joakim Olsson

"John" <John@TCLTC.org> wrote in message news:HsKsoz.1qu3@lugnet.com... snipped religion (...) citizens (...) frequent (...) the (...) for the (...) we just (...) Only (...) around (...) would (...) and (...) guess (...) what (...) be (...) to (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Orion Pobursky

(...) The example you gave above regarding woman being cover is flawed. The woman in that society choose to cover up. We might not see it as choice since Islamic law dictates it, but think of it from their perspective. They were brought up in a (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Don Heyse

(...) We're catering to the sensibilities of the local culture and the laws they enact. If enough people in one society decide public sex acts should be illegal then they should be free to create laws to that effect. If you can convince enough (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Orion Pobursky

(...) What if I convince enough people that slavery is wonderful? Should we encat a law authorizing slavery? Or, a little less extreme than the above example, what if I convince enough people that men wearing skirts is wonderful? The point I'm (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Don Heyse

(...) Who said anything about the majority? I just said "enough people". The problem with your argument is that it implies all laws are bad so long as one person disagrees. Well, if that one person likes to kill people, you've got a problem. Without (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Orion Pobursky

(...) Isn't that a majority? (...) I'm saying that laws that infringe on one's personal freedom's are wrong. The Principle of Life Ownership states: "I own my own life. I can do whatever I want to with it. This is a right that I take for myself. No (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Don Heyse

(...) No. Check out what "Pure Democracy is Evil" has to say about majority rule. I love the silly quotes at the bottom. (URL) The problem with your argument is that it implies all laws are bad (...) Agreed. Except for one small detail. You don't (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Orion Pobursky

(...) I agree in the sense the government recognized marriage is useless. Marriage in the sense of 2 people deciding to spend the rest of their lives together and possibly raise offspring is fine. -Orion (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) With adoption, artificial insemination, host mothers, etc, it's hard to make the argument that "gay marriages can't produce progeny" a meaningful argument any more, in my view. Where I think we still have work to do is on the number... why (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Scott Arthur

(...) I agree. Orion is almost implying that infertile individuals should not marry. ;) (...) You've not met my wife. ;) Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Don Heyse

(...) I read your post after I posted my reply to Orion, but I think we're almost on the same page here. I guess the difference is that I see the ongoing hacks to the marriage laws as doing more harm than good. However, we are rapidly approaching (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Orion Pobursky

(...) My contention I that we should do away with marriage laws all together. Government has no business dictating what does or does not constitute a marriage. This dicision is up to the individuals concerned and the life choice they decide to make. (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Don Heyse

(...) Ok. But what do you propose to replace the dependent support systems tied into those marriage laws you'd like to obliterate? Take your time because there's a lot of details that need to be worked out. Don (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I, at least, would like you to enumerate a handful of these problems. I am now getting the feeling that I misinterpretted your concern (though I just posted a note based on my potential misunderstanding). Chris (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Orion Pobursky

(...) Your misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that I should wake up tomorrow and all the laws regarding marriage will be stricken from the books. Just as cutting off one's arm to stem a minor infection would be bad, so to would instantainiously (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) OK. I think you're right... hacking isn't the right approach for the "final answer". however, as a hacker myself, there's value in hacking. If a few states go through various permutations on this (Ohio, I hear is about to do a very restrictive (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Don Heyse

(...) Why do you draw the line at 2 people? And for that matter, why not allow 6 year olds to marry if they decide to. Like I said, the law is never going to be perfect. I just don't see how the proposed modifications to current marriage laws make (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Dave Schuler

(...) Marriage is also a formal statement of interpersonal committment, and the legal recognition of marriage entitles the spouse to benefits and responsibilities not available to non-spouses. (...) No need for that; many same-sex couples already (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) So I agree that unfettered democracy is evil. I think what Orion is asking you is for a definition of "enough people." I'm curious too. (...) I think there is a degree of behavior that could be called impinging on your freedom, but simply (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Don Heyse

(...) I don't think any one definition fits all situations. Look at the peanuts on airplanes issue. Apparently these peanuts cause an extreme amount of suffering for a rather small number of people. The relativly light pain caused to others by (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) But you're making a ridiculous comparison. An action by a person that produces a substantially unhealthy state for others is very different than one who does not. The occurrances of people reacting to the sight of a naked body, even a (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Don Heyse

(...) You're almost right here, but you're doing things in the wrong order. Heal the sick people of their neuroses first. Then strike down the no longer needed laws designed to protect them from the consequences of these neuorses. (...) How can you (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Christopher L. Weeks

Out of curiosity, why do you think we haven't passed compulsory nudity laws for those neurotics who are afraid of clothing? Chris (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Don Heyse

(...) The answer is obvious. There are not enough of them around in these parts. I suspect they tend to live in warmer climates. Don (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Peanuts on Airplanes (was Re:Skin) —Frank Filz

(...) So this is an interesting example, because the negative effects are pretty well understood, and the costs of an alternative are pretty well understood. Of course what may not be so understood is how many other substances can cause fatal (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Pedro Silva

(...) Then why not my morality? What makes yours so much better? That's my point. (...) Exactly *which* freedom of yours was abused by Janet Jackson's bare breast? (...) I find ponytails sexy. Is hair a sexual part? Every body part is as sexual as (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Ugh! Can we please keep the conversation to humans? Chris ;-) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Frank Filz

(...) We tend (...) Hmm, always? Does that mean that breastfeeding is sex? Hmm, I guess there are some prudes in the world that would like to prevent kids from breastfeeding. Certainly there are those who think it's wrong to do so in public. Of (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Christopher L. Weeks

I have read some real nutters along these lines. (...) Yeah, some people think that this sexualization of children bunk starts here. (...) Sadly, some do. It makes light of respectful modesty or somesuch. My wife got into a conversation once with (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live... —David Koudys

(...) Well, before we get into what I personally consider decent, the Ontario courts ruled a while back that the exposure of breasts in certain public areas (basically any public area where, say, a man can legally go topless) is decent, and is now (...) (20 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live... —John Neal

(...) So you would be okay with a law that permitted, say, fornication or masterbation in public places? (...) I'm fine with the stuff people do in private-- we are talking about public behavior here. (...) Ah, so a brother and sister, or two (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live... —David Koudys

(...) Well then that's a differnet kettle of fish, isn't it? Sex, in mono-or partner form, is different than, well, what we're talking about here. There are laws about being 'sexual' in public, which falls outside the purview of the laws we're (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live... —Christopher L. Weeks

Ack...I'm being seized by old, bad habits. (...) There shouldn't need to be a law permitting it...such permission is granted by nature. Only the restriction of such default freedom requires laws. (...) Really? (...) Ayup! (...) It's funny that I (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live... —Thomas Stangl

(...) FYI, while I didn't see the show, I saw a page on the Drudge Report on it (my only exposure to it). It wasn't a pastie. Pasties cover. It was a nipple-sunburst jewelry piece. Matt's page was incorrect - the nipple was NOT covered, it was (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live... —John Neal

(...) ...with laughter. Whatever it was, this is certain: JJ is a pathetic, over-the-hill rock star trying to grasp at one last moment in the spotlight by exposing her middle-aged boob. Move on, JJ. The youth-worshipping culture of Rock'N Roll is (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

jj: only in america? —Scott Arthur

(...) You mean you don't eat dinner in front of the TV! What kind of parent are you? Next you'll be saying you eat around the same table and talk to each another! You degenerate! ;-) The JJ incident you mention was reported with astonishment on the (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: jj: only in america? —John Neal

(...) And not only that, but it was home-cooked and not McDonald's! (the shame) (...) Touche;-) (...) I'm sure it won't be for the lack of trying;-) JOHN (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: jj: only in america? —Scott Arthur

(...) Yes, I've heard all about microwave cookbooks. Scott A (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Once again etc etc etc —Richard Parsons

Without quoting Dave, with whose sentiment I agree, even if my experience seems to be less in relation to public nudity in Europe, John's response made me chuckle. (...) Heinously over-rated. "conformity to standards of taste, propriety, or quality" (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live... —Scott Arthur

(...) In the UK we are allowed "(URL) chastisement>", but it is not something I condone. I have 4 kids, and I've never even thought about it; although I have been bitten and nipped by them at times. (...) Not in my part of Europe! Like you, in the (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live... —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote: <snip> (...) *cough* Page 3 *cough* (1) Dave K -not that it's a poster, but I bet it sells newspapers, so any 8 year old in a coffee shop paging thru a legally purchased at any age paper can catch a (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live... —Scott Arthur

(...) Indeed. (...) 8 Year old Canadians can even see it online: (URL) A (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live... —David Koudys

(...) Ahh, the loverly internet... (not that Page 3 is a bookmark in my browser... ;) ) That said, newspapers in Canada are not legally allowed to show topless models, even in adverts, if these newspapers are sold to the general populace. So there (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live... —Christopher L. Weeks

Hi all, it's been a while! The subject of this post seems curious to me. Canada is a great place...why? Dave, are you reacting to the court's decision or to this journalist's gushing? The way I see it, the writing in that piece was sub par in that (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live... —David Koudys

(...) What makes the court decision remarkable is that they actually made a decision that's rational, instead of politically expedient. You may have found the writing sub-par, but then you may not know the actual author of the article, Rachel Sa. (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada! —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Careful there, Chris... he's been seen going around asserting that the sun rises in the east again. (...) er, oops. Nevermind. :-) Now, a bit more on track, we're not much on hitting our kids, and we didn't, much, especially now that both of (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada! —Scott Arthur

(...) You can't reason with a horse. (...) You can't reason with a cat. (...) You can reason with a child. Parenthood can be very difficult. However, I can't see how resorting to violence will give a parent anything other than short-term gain and (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada! —David Koudys

(...) You can, however, teach a horse. (...) You can, however, teach a cat (...) A 5 year old, as Larry mentioned, throwing a tantrum, as far as my personal experience goes, is pretty much unreasonable, and will either stop the tantrum when a) (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada! —Scott Arthur

(...) One can produce a conditioned response if that is what you mean. I'm not sure the horse (or cat) has understood much else? (...) I, and many others, manage by doing neither. How do you explain that? My kids understand they will not benefit (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada! —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) There are two basic thrusts that I'll take with this. First, and what I expect to me more convincing/interesting to the "pro-spank" or "parents' rights" crowd, is that it produces long-term deleterious motivational effects. It seems that (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada! —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote: <snip lots of weel thgouht out and implemented stuff> (...) Wow Chris, that's a whole different slant that I hadn't considered. Nicely done. To continue the discussion with maybe a specific (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada! —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Honestly considering tantrums is a somewhat humbling experience for parents. You can pretty explicitly track the cause of the tantrum to failure to act on the part of the parents. I've been there and done that. It's been my fault. It might be (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada! —Dave Schuler

(...) With respect, it is seldom the case that "simply asking" will result in getting one's way. Why don't you ask your boss to double your salary and increase your benefits? Will you get your way? I grant you, throwing a tantrum probably won't (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada! —Christopher L. Weeks

Dave, I'm thinking that you are nit-picking by way of purposely failing to read between the lines. If I'm wrong, then I must have communicated rather poorly. If you take a minute to evaluate my notes and your response, and then think that your (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada! —Dave Schuler

(...) Hey, don't get all reasonable on me now! I can cut through my verbosity and sum it up this way: 1. I dispute the assertion that verbal instruction is generally sufficient to steer a recalcitrant child away from ultimately self-damaging (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada! —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote: <snip> (...) You leave my Canadian teets alone! <snip> (...) Dave K (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada! —Frank Filz

(...) sufficient to (...) behavior is (...) I don't think Chris has ever said that. Now I may be shortcutting Chris's recent posts, but I know in the past that Chris has said that if a kid was about to run in front of a car, he would grab the kid. (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada! —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Agreed. Once the child has become recalcitrant, simple, calm reason is often a waste. I like to look at the child's recalcitrance the same way I look at crime, though, and try to prevent it rather than merely responding. A healthy dose of Good (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada! —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I went to bed thinking about this last night. I think I've overstated my agreement. Do you think the notion of personal responsibility (as a valuable more) is "at its essence arbitrary?" I am led to my parent/child debt structure by the twin (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada! —Dave Schuler

(...) Nuts to that. I have you on record agreeing with me, so that's the end of it! 8^P (...) Not personal responsibility, but the particular framing of the parent/child contract. Larry gave a better alternative breakdown than I provided, so I'll (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada! —Larry Pieniazek

What follows is not my best writing... I used a lot of that up today working on deliverables for my client and for BrickFest PDX. But it's a great topic and I wanted to take one more swing before I went to bed... (...) I know Chris didn't completely (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada! —Scott Arthur

(...) It is improbable, but not impossible. Surely, the key must then be that you should have the respect of your kids before you encounter your extreme life-or-death scenario? We don’t share the same culture or kids, but for me beating children is (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada! —Christopher L. Weeks

Larry, I did think that Nik was a courteous young man. And I don't mean to suggest that you can not get acceptable, even good, results in turning a child into an adult with corporal punishment as a tool. I was spanked. I'm OK. But I do question how (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada! —Frank Filz

> But it's not neccessary. The last time I advocated something like this here, (...) desire (...) not (...) behavior (we (...) our (...) I was there also. I was impressed with the visible results of your parenting. I had one eye opening experience (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada! —Christopher L. Weeks

Must have been a big couch! How did your nephew lead into the fit without reminding you of what he was seeking? I think I'm not getting part of the situation. Also, what would have been his alternative sleeping arangements? Was it eye-opening only (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada! —Frank Filz

(...) Yes, though I remember things being a bit crowded, but obviously the only way I was remotely going to get any sleep was to share the couch... (...) have (...) I don't remember many details. I was trying to put him to bed in his room. I'm (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)