Subject:
|
Re: Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:43:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
383 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
> 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 it was heavy
> handed and presumptuous. And the court's decision was completely unremarkable.
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. AFAIK, she's just 'getting her feet wet',
working at the SUN as an intern whilst attending college. But I like her
writings anyway. She may be done her college by now, but I don't know.
> They were strictly uncontroversial in affirming children as chattel to be
> treated with any degree of disrespect short of injury.
I don't think that's what the article, or the judicial system, stated or even
inferred. I do think that, personally, it's up to the parent the manner in
which to discipline their child to a point. A baseball bat to the head is
beyond the line, but a swat on the heinie, imho, isn't under the right
circumstances. That's what it comes down to--proportional response and all
that. The court decision affirms that. I was spanked when I was a kid. That
didn't make my parents child abusers, nor did it, again, omho, have some sort of
life-altering negative impact on me. Though to be said I woueln't know if I
would be an extraordinarily different person today if I wasn't spanked as a
kid--that's a whole other topic.
>
> So you're happy that violence against children, in this day and age, is
> governmentally supported? When we know that it is, at best, an effective tool
> for ultra-short-term motivation? When we know that violence against children
> harms those people into their adulthood and thus the whole of society?
I strenuously object to your interpretation that a swat on the child's heinie is
equal to "violence against children" (with all ramifications you infer with that
statement)
I also, from personal experience and discussions with every relative of mine
(some 80 cousins and all) and many other friends and their families, know that
this 'harm' into adulthood is a myth. If you were abused it is an entirely
different matter. Let me reiterate--a swat on the heinie under the proper
circumstances does not constitute Violence (capital V) against children.
By your terms, I may infer that giving the child a 'time ot' in the corner can
be construed as 'violence against children'--Maybe these kids who were always
put in the corner will develop a phobia of corners when they grow up.
In this, and many other issues, we have to let common sense and rationality
guide us more than studies--studies where interpretations of figures can be
slanted to suit political or preconceived notions.
> It's interesting to see how differently we see the world.
That much is certain.
>
> And for the record, it's legal for women in the US to go topless anywhere that
> it's legal for men. There are laws in many localles that would make exercising
> the right to toplessnes a serious hassle, but that doesn't make it illegal.
> When it's said and done, the SC of almost every US state would follow in the
> steps of those few who have already done so and affirm the right of women to be
> topless.
I did not know this. But there can be no 'local law hassle' for women in
Ontario.
>
> And further, it has become commonplace across the US for either: local statute
> to provide for token penalties, or a policy of non-enforcement. Obviously, it
> varries from place to place, but these reasonable attitudes toward marijuana are
> (finally!) becoming enshrined in local law and enforcement policy.
>
> I'm not trying to assert one of those dumb US v. Canada (or anywhere) arguments,
> just clearing stuff up. I'd be the first to agree that we have a ways to go on
> gay marriage. But we're getting there...I know a lot of people who are fairly
> moderate in their political outlook who agree that marriage should not be a
> public policy matter at all. And we're certainly at the bottom of the civilized
> world with regard to affording appropriate rights to minors...joined recently by
> Canada!
So some things we agree on, some things we don't. I think the recently passed
laws affords minors in Canada better, clearer rights. These rights, imho, will
lead to better citizens of society. There you are.
>
> Chris
>
> P.S. As usual, I disagree with everything John Neal asserts, openly or through
> implication on this subject.
Dave K
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
