On November 02 2011 13:21 hytonight wrote: your father telling you to bend over and whipping you with a belt telling you to submit to him isn't psychologically damaging?
And twisted, in a more than likely sexual manner on the part of the dad?
Honest to god did anyone here get beat like this at 16 and not stand up to their parent? I couldn't possibly imagine someone who is physically and mentally healthy not just saying "this shit stops here" and hulking up on them.
He was twice her size and she's 16, she would probably get beat down twice as bad.
She also has Palsy which makes it even more reprehensible, but it also takes out the "healthy" portion of my question.. Between that and being a girl I'm not entirely shocked she didn't fight back. But as a 16 year old boy that isn't flying. Hell, my sister and me have never gotten along and if I caught my dad doing that to her I'd step in.
Of course if you substituted your confident self right at this moment with her in that position, you'd stand up for yourself. But rather, imagine the position of a person who has endured this from birth and who cannot even conceive of the possibility of standing up to someone who is supposed to look after you. I doubt a 16 year old boy, without other assistance, would stand up for himself.
Except been there done that. I was spanked when young, I got the "switch", spoon, belt, etc. I was beat severely once. When I was a teenager I stood up for myself and not a finger was laid on anyone else after that point.
Make no mistake about it, this dad in the vid is a pussy. You stand up to a pussy and they'll fall apart.
All i'm saying is that not all psychologically traumatised kids will find a moment where they can find it in themselves to stand up to the ones they're supposed to love.
On November 02 2011 13:49 hytonight wrote: stand up to him if you actually can....the dad couldve picked her up and thrown her out her window. standing up to that is just gonna make it worse which is pretty sick considering the only thing she could do was just take it.
Males tend to have these things call testicles. While they won't stop someone for long if targeted, they should stop him temporarily. Under repeated assault he'll wish he was dead.
If nothing else seriously start whaling on his berries over and over and over and over and over till he coughs up blood. Doesn't take much to do that. If he's really going to throw her through a window he's looking at attempted murder at least.
I was punished with the belt as a child growing up. It was never anywhere near as bad as this, but I will say this about it; I grew completely distant from my father over it. To see someone who is supposed to love you get angry and want to cause you pain is just something I could never understand. If it is legal, it shouldn't be. I don't have mental issues over it, but I don't respect my father anymore because of it.
On November 02 2011 13:49 hytonight wrote: stand up to him if you actually can....the dad couldve picked her up and thrown her out her window. standing up to that is just gonna make it worse which is pretty sick considering the only thing she could do was just take it.
Males tend to have these things call testicles. While they won't stop someone for long if targeted, they should stop him temporarily. Under repeated assault he'll wish he was dead.
If nothing else seriously start whaling on his berries over and over and over and over and over till he coughs up blood. Doesn't take much to do that. If he's really going to throw her through a window he's looking at attempted murder at least.
im not sure about you, but if i tried to hit my dad in the balls i would die a slow painful death....and if she made any quick moves im pretty sure he wouldve noticed in time and beat her even more
On November 02 2011 13:53 sigma_x wrote: All i'm saying is that not all psychologically traumatised kids will find a moment where they can find it in themselves to stand up to the ones they're supposed to love.
I know they can't and it's sad. More of them need to. There's a reason people don't do that to their kids in public.
On November 02 2011 13:49 hytonight wrote: stand up to him if you actually can....the dad couldve picked her up and thrown her out her window. standing up to that is just gonna make it worse which is pretty sick considering the only thing she could do was just take it.
Males tend to have these things call testicles. While they won't stop someone for long if targeted, they should stop him temporarily. Under repeated assault he'll wish he was dead.
If nothing else seriously start whaling on his berries over and over and over and over and over till he coughs up blood. Doesn't take much to do that. If he's really going to throw her through a window he's looking at attempted murder at least.
Yes, because that is a typical human reaction when a lifelong authority figure who is clearly stronger than they are starts beating them. I can just see the thought going through the girl's head as she cowers in a corner: "Maybe if I provoke him, I can get myself badly hurt enough so that he will face a stronger legal punishment!"
Not to mention that if someone is much bigger and stronger than you, they will probably have no trouble deflecting your attacks on their genitals.
Have you ever even been in a situation like this? Seriously, I don't even understand how you came up with this as a plausible solution.
On November 02 2011 13:48 Renent wrote: What I truly don't understand is that if you took away the simple fact that they are related by blood out of the picture, this dude would be seeing some serious jail time.
How is this a simple fact ? This is precisely what complicates the issue, the whole concept of how parenthood is viewed varying across societies and cultures is how the law is lettered in said places.
Is it ok to beat a random kid on the street whose rude to you no ofcourse not but that isnt really a valid thing to point out.
Um, they are blood related or they aren't.... pretty simple...
The fact that this changes things baffles me, which is exactly my point that I don't understand how this complicates things...
Your father's been disciplining you by whooping your butt. Your 16, and you know what happens if you disobey the your father. Gotta be smart and do what your parents say from being discipline. In the words of Dave Chappelle
People say they stood up to their dad and after that the beating stopped. What happened if your dad kicked you out the house? What would you do then?
Damn that girl was spoil had access to a video recorder, computer, and internet when it was about dial up back in 2004. I believe DSL had just been introduced a few years before it was really expensive so people stuck with 56k.
On November 02 2011 12:22 Geosensation wrote: Glad to see a bit more sense here on TL compared to youtube and reddit. Disciplining your children like this may not be considered the right way to parent now, but it is perfectly legal. I snooped around the Texas Attorney General's website on child abuse and found this:
The law specifically excludes “reasonable” discipline by the child’s parent, guardian, or conservator; corporal punishment is not in itself abusive under the law. An act or omission is abusive only if “observable and material impairment” occurs as a result, or if it causes “substantial harm,” or exposes the child to risk of substantial harm.
Doesn't seem to me like it caused substantial harm or material impairment. YES it is hard to watch and pretty cruel, but parents have the discretion to discipline their children as they see fit.
Also it's just a belt, not a bat. It's not like he's going to kill her or break all the bones in her body. It's superficial harm.
He doesn't deserve to get thrown in jail, disbarred, or any other punishment because he has done nothing illegal based on the video alone. Stop freaking out everyone.
If I slap an adult in the face on the street, will he hit me back? Most likely. If a teacher hits a kid with the flat hand in the face to "teach him/her a lesson", will it go all over the place and will the teacher face consequences? Yes, most likely.
If I beat my kid with a belt, multiple times just for the fun of it (HE KEEPS FUCKING COMING BACK IN FOR MORE. THEY USE TWO FUCKING BELTS AT ONE POINT), I can get away with it because "it was reasonable"?
If that's the law, the law has to be changed. Why? Because it's inhumane. Plain and simple.
So you feel like parents should be told by the government how to raise their kids?
Yes?
There are certain things that the defence of "raising my kids" does not protect. That claim has always been absurd to me. "They're my kids and the government should butt out."
This is such a dehumanizing claim. One would make this same argument for how they handle their personal property. "It's my land and I can do what I want with it."
The difference between what you do with and on your private property and how you raise your child is that the latter is a human being. They eventually come of age and enter society. It is public concern.
Obviously, how a child is raised greatly impacts how they conduct themselves when they grow up. It needs to be done "properly."
What's proper in this case? Very debatable, but "humane" is probably one word I'd assume most people would agree upon.
Sticking your genitals together with someone else and making a child does not suddenly deem you to be an authority on what is the best way to raise a child. If beating is okay as a form of punishment, why not sexual abuse? Every time you disobey, daddy sticks it in you? Putting it that way is pretty graphic, yes, but do we not treat assault and sexual abuse as crimes among human beings in any other context?
This isn't a matter of how they turn out; there is an immediate wrong in the assault of a person. Why is it a defence to say, "This is how I raise my kids and the government should butt out!"
The point here is that this is a matter of public concern. Children are both human and citizens of the country they are in. The reason they are deprived of basic rights, such as the security of person, is a matter of cultural customs.
When else is custom a good reason to assault someone?
I've already discussed this, but I can see no reasonable argument in favour of corporal punishment as an effective way to teach children.
If it's not absolutely necessary to raising a child, why do we allow this infringement of rights to persist? Many people are effectively raised without being beaten. I can see no reasonable answer to this question.
Sexual assault on children isn't allowed for parents, obviously. I think cultural custom is a good way to frame laws. That's why parents are given leeway in corporal punishment to their children. It's just the way parenting has traditionally been done. If everyone is doing something you can't make a law against it and turn the entire country into criminals (a good reason why cannabis shouldn't be criminalized) And as the custom moves away from corporal punishment and it is not longer accepted perhaps the law will change accordingly.
I agree with this, and I feel we are at a turning point with respect to the law. If you followed the link in my post, you'll see that my parents raised me with corporal punishment as well. Would I seek damages against my parents? No. Do I think it should be possible? Yes, I think we have come to a point in society where we feel that assault of a person in any form is "wrong."
Of course it isn't a good way to teach children, I absolutely agree with you 100%. Unfortunately, we allow people to make mistakes, and I guess it extends to raising children in the wrong way. I might think that raising a child to believe in creationism and that homosexuals are an affront to the lord, but I shouldn't be able to curtail a parent's right to teach them that. I'm not trying to equate the example I just gave to maliciously beating a child to within an inch of their life. Just that reasonable corporal punishment is a mistake that we allow parents to make.
Right, but the difference between teaching a child to hate homosexuals and hitting a child is that the latter would, in a different context, be a criminal act.
The "raising a child" term here obfuscates the point. When you "raise a child" to believe homosexuals are an abomination, you do so mostly orally. There is nothing society deems overwhelmingly wrong about expressing one's opinions. In fact we hold it dear as a right. Just in the same way we afford someone on the street the same liberty to (hopefully politely) express their viewpoint, whatever it may be, we afford parents the same right to do so to their child.
Consistency in the rule of law is something our society strives for. I simply find it glaringly inconsistent that assault is permitted in this context.
Well I think you could just as easily say that using corporal punishment as a tool in child rearing is an opinion, despite the fact that the internet community may deem it as overwhelmingly wrong. The two viewpoints can't be reconciled it seems, but it is nonetheless an interesting argument. Personally I'm very interested to see what gets made of this in the media and if any legal scholars tackle the issue. Also I might ask my Torts professor next class, we just went over parental immunity so in a way I've been studying and not wasting my time arguing on the internet
I think you've missed the point. It's not just an opinion. It's action. Freedom of speech does not protect you from assault.
In any other context this would fall under the torts of assault and battery (battery because actual contact occurs).
And yeah, heh, I should be writing a memo on this very topic (the tort of battery) right now, but here I am.
Well there's the sticking point. Will the court consider it to be within the scope of parental immunity as far as disciplining children appropriately or is there substantial harm to pull it out from under there and become a tort/crime - I think the test is if there is substantial harm, which is debatable based on the video evidence. Battery - when one acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact and when a harmful or offensive contact results - GL on ur memo, probably didn't need that definition but I gave it anyways
On November 02 2011 13:55 hytonight wrote: im not sure about you, but if i tried to hit my dad in the balls i would die a slow painful death....and if she made any quick moves im pretty sure he wouldve noticed in time and beat her even more
I didn't say try, I said do it over and over and over again. Unless he's a psychopath stonecold killer he's not going to stop trying to curl up in the fetal position and cupping his junk.
At some point there just has to be part of you that snaps and it becomes beyond logic and reason. It's not "if i do this he might do that" it becomes "this stops right now and I don't care what the hell happens because of what I'm about to do". It's more of an instinctual sort of thing.
On November 02 2011 13:49 hytonight wrote: stand up to him if you actually can....the dad couldve picked her up and thrown her out her window. standing up to that is just gonna make it worse which is pretty sick considering the only thing she could do was just take it.
Males tend to have these things call testicles. While they won't stop someone for long if targeted, they should stop him temporarily. Under repeated assault he'll wish he was dead.
If nothing else seriously start whaling on his berries over and over and over and over and over till he coughs up blood. Doesn't take much to do that. If he's really going to throw her through a window he's looking at attempted murder at least.
im not sure about you, but if i tried to hit my dad in the balls i would die a slow painful death....and if she made any quick moves im pretty sure he wouldve noticed in time and beat her even more
Yeah, old man strength is terrifying.... I am taller, faster, stronger, and in better shape then my old, but I would still not want to go toe to toe with him...(For the record my dad is possibly the nicest dude ever)
On November 02 2011 10:37 Kimaker wrote: While I don't agree with the reason, I see nothing wrong there with the immediate punishment. Yes (having now read the full context of her condition) that was too much. But corporal punishment overall isn't bad.
For me it was the continuation of the conversation that got me riled up. Corporal punishment is fine, I myself was raised with corporal punishment as a possibility, but the fact that he didn't let it go was a bit much for me. Honestly, everyone's going to freak out and say she should be removed from the house, but I think that's ridiculous. She got belted. Woo hoo. Getting belted hurts like a son of a bitch, but it's nothing seriously harmful.
And please don't pull the "mentally scarring" card out. It's not. I promise you.
I am sorry to generalize like this but sometimes you Americans scare me so much it's ridiculous.
On November 02 2011 13:58 BreakerD wrote: Your father's been disciplining you by whooping your butt. Your 16, and you know what happens if you disobey the your father. Gotta be smart and do what your parents say from being discipline. In the words of Dave Chappelle
That has nothing to do with someone with Palsy
On November 02 2011 13:58 BreakerD wrote:People say they stood up to their dad and after that the beating stopped. What happened if your dad kicked you out the house? What would you do then?
If he kicked me out I'd have a ton of people with open arms that would have taken me in. Grandparents, aunts, uncles, friends families and family friends. If you tell someone that your parent beats the hell out of you someone is going to help you out. Not to mention my mom would have left him so fast it'd make his head spin.
On November 02 2011 13:55 hytonight wrote: im not sure about you, but if i tried to hit my dad in the balls i would die a slow painful death....and if she made any quick moves im pretty sure he wouldve noticed in time and beat her even more
I didn't say try, I said do it over and over and over again. Unless he's a psychopath stonecold killer he's not going to stop trying to curl up in the fetal position and cupping his junk.
At some point there just has to be part of you that snaps and it becomes beyond logic and reason. It's not "if i do this he might do that" it becomes "this stops right now and I don't care what the hell happens because of what I'm about to do". It's more of an instinctual sort of thing.
i doubt any man leaves his balls open for someone to repeatedly hit them...especially when hes giving his daughter the assbeating of her life.
On November 02 2011 13:49 hytonight wrote: stand up to him if you actually can....the dad couldve picked her up and thrown her out her window. standing up to that is just gonna make it worse which is pretty sick considering the only thing she could do was just take it.
Males tend to have these things call testicles. While they won't stop someone for long if targeted, they should stop him temporarily. Under repeated assault he'll wish he was dead.
If nothing else seriously start whaling on his berries over and over and over and over and over till he coughs up blood. Doesn't take much to do that. If he's really going to throw her through a window he's looking at attempted murder at least.
Yes, because that is a typical human reaction when a lifelong authority figure who is clearly stronger than they are starts beating them. I can just see the thought going through the girl's head as she cowers in a corner: "Maybe if I provoke him, I can get myself badly hurt enough so that he will face a stronger legal punishment!"
Not to mention that if someone is much bigger and stronger than you, they will probably have no trouble deflecting your attacks on their genitals.
Have you ever even been in a situation like this? Seriously, I don't even understand how you came up with this as a plausible solution.
Reading is fundamental. Read all replies and note how everything you bring up has been addressed in the thread.
you're missing a point, in a household breaking the rules is breaking the rules now i have no idea about what went on before this incident or how it escalated to that point but rules are rules man and sometimes u have to lay them down. whether its for taking a cookie from the shelf or getting expelled from school
im pretty sure you are missing the point here.
he beat the shit out of her.....for playing internet games. thats not "laying down the law," thats beating the shit out of her.
it would be just "beating the shit out of her" if he didn't specify that she was not supposed to play internet games
but how do u know that there was never such a mentioning?
so he has to threaten her before he can beat the shit out of her..then its justified.
good to know
you're missing the point what i said isn't about the father making threats. if by threats u mean rules then i guess that would be true but then are u saying that all rules are threats?
in a sense yes they are - break the law/rules u get punished. but are they necessary? ask society man.
well we have an amendment against cruel and unusual punnishment..id kinda expect a judge to know about that. just because a guy litters a few times doesnt mean you can throw him in prison for life.
doing something as small as playing games shouldnt be punished by beating the crap out of her.
there is nothing "unusual" about getting spanked for breaking the rules
also there is nothing "cruel" about getting spanked for breaking the rules either she didn't suffer any permanent damage and the pain is temporary, also from my knowledge the spanking only lasted a minute or two and she is sixteen years old ffs she should know better at that age.
you could say the same thing about rape....and dont even pretend you can justify that
Stop trolling, punishing your child and raping someone are so different it doesn't deserve an explanation.
On November 02 2011 13:10 r.Evo wrote:
On November 02 2011 13:06 hytonight wrote:
On November 02 2011 13:04 pandaBee wrote:
On November 02 2011 13:03 hytonight wrote:
On November 02 2011 13:01 pandaBee wrote:
On November 02 2011 13:00 hytonight wrote:
On November 02 2011 12:56 pandaBee wrote:
On November 02 2011 12:54 hytonight wrote: [quote] ....he beat the shit out of her for using a computer. how is that getting off easy?
you're missing a point, in a household breaking the rules is breaking the rules now i have no idea about what went on before this incident or how it escalated to that point but rules are rules man and sometimes u have to lay them down. whether its for taking a cookie from the shelf or getting expelled from school
im pretty sure you are missing the point here.
he beat the shit out of her.....for playing internet games. thats not "laying down the law," thats beating the shit out of her.
it would be just "beating the shit out of her" if he didn't specify that she was not supposed to play internet games
but how do u know that there was never such a mentioning?
so he has to threaten her before he can beat the shit out of her..then its justified.
good to know
you're missing the point what i said isn't about the father making threats. if by threats u mean rules then i guess that would be true but then are u saying that all rules are threats?
in a sense yes they are - break the law/rules u get punished. but are they necessary? ask society man.
well we have an amendment against cruel and unusual punnishment..id kinda expect a judge to know about that. just because a guy litters a few times doesnt mean you can throw him in prison for life.
doing something as small as playing games shouldnt be punished by beating the crap out of her.
That's actually another great point. As he says multiple times, this is NOT about the issue of her playing games (or not disobeying a rule of his), it is about disobedience towards him in general which is plain fucked up.
Parenting should be about compliance, not about obedience. Slaves, soldiers and prisoners have to be obedient - the word has nothing to do with raising children.
That's your opinion; your parents shelter, clothe, feed and teach/raise you, so I believe children should be obedient to them, if you don't agree with the rules they set, you can move out.
Parents are two adults who, at one point, had sex. They did this (hopefully) consensual. They are (hopefully) away of how pregnancies work. It's their damn JOB to raise a child to be a decent member of our society.
If a parent fucks up that part, it's not only their or the childs problem. It is your and my problem.
If you can honestly say that being taught to be obedient because you have to be afraid of being beaten otherwise is a great tool to have in our society... then I'll just stfu and hope you never get to the point of raising children with that attitude. Cause they would be a problem my children will have to deal with. (;
PS: "if you don't agree with the rules they set, you can move out." - nope, they can't. You can't quit being a child. You can't reverse being taught fucked up rules about how life, society and being a parent works.
Edit: I moved out of my home when I was 14 btw because of entirely different reasons (no hitting/beating etc.). Was it awesome? No. Did I turn out allright concerning my role in our society? I'd like to assume so. Would it have been better if my home would have worked differently? Most likely.
No, a child should not be obedient because they're afraid of being beaten, they should be obedient because they have respect for their parents. Obviously if someone is raised to be a problem, they are then a problem for society, but the notion that spanking is an inherent cause of this holds no water. People become a problem to society for a number of reasons.
Sorry to hear that you had to move out of your parent's home, but I'm sure you'll agree that it is indeed possible. Is it not fun? I'll take your word for it. Can it affect your development as a member of society? I'm sure it's possible, but you believe you turned out fine.
Does it beat being in an abusive home, or a home who's rules you don't agree with?
On November 02 2011 10:37 Kimaker wrote: While I don't agree with the reason, I see nothing wrong there with the immediate punishment. Yes (having now read the full context of her condition) that was too much. But corporal punishment overall isn't bad.
For me it was the continuation of the conversation that got me riled up. Corporal punishment is fine, I myself was raised with corporal punishment as a possibility, but the fact that he didn't let it go was a bit much for me. Honestly, everyone's going to freak out and say she should be removed from the house, but I think that's ridiculous. She got belted. Woo hoo. Getting belted hurts like a son of a bitch, but it's nothing seriously harmful.
And please don't pull the "mentally scarring" card out. It's not. I promise you.
If you had grown up with the idea that being beaten is not OK, then you would not think this. To me, it is unimaginable, and I would have exacted revenge - physically - on anyone who did so to me... Dont care who.
Yeah, you grew up with it and turned out OK, doesnt make it right -_-
The fact that he now openly condones the use of violence against individuals indicates clearly that he did not turn out okay, at least if you understand okay to mean 'of acceptable standard'.
On November 02 2011 12:22 Geosensation wrote: Glad to see a bit more sense here on TL compared to youtube and reddit. Disciplining your children like this may not be considered the right way to parent now, but it is perfectly legal. I snooped around the Texas Attorney General's website on child abuse and found this:
The law specifically excludes “reasonable” discipline by the child’s parent, guardian, or conservator; corporal punishment is not in itself abusive under the law. An act or omission is abusive only if “observable and material impairment” occurs as a result, or if it causes “substantial harm,” or exposes the child to risk of substantial harm.
Doesn't seem to me like it caused substantial harm or material impairment. YES it is hard to watch and pretty cruel, but parents have the discretion to discipline their children as they see fit.
Also it's just a belt, not a bat. It's not like he's going to kill her or break all the bones in her body. It's superficial harm.
He doesn't deserve to get thrown in jail, disbarred, or any other punishment because he has done nothing illegal based on the video alone. Stop freaking out everyone.
If I slap an adult in the face on the street, will he hit me back? Most likely. If a teacher hits a kid with the flat hand in the face to "teach him/her a lesson", will it go all over the place and will the teacher face consequences? Yes, most likely.
If I beat my kid with a belt, multiple times just for the fun of it (HE KEEPS FUCKING COMING BACK IN FOR MORE. THEY USE TWO FUCKING BELTS AT ONE POINT), I can get away with it because "it was reasonable"?
If that's the law, the law has to be changed. Why? Because it's inhumane. Plain and simple.
So you feel like parents should be told by the government how to raise their kids?
I'm sorry I just don't agree with that. The parent/child relationship is a special one and is treated as such by the law. If the government starts telling parents they can't discipline their children reasonably then the next thing you know children are suing their parents when they don't let them go to a concert they wanted or because they grounded them for a weekend for breaking some rule they set down.
Sorry if it seems harsh to you but that's the way it is.
On November 02 2011 12:22 Geosensation wrote: Glad to see a bit more sense here on TL compared to youtube and reddit. Disciplining your children like this may not be considered the right way to parent now, but it is perfectly legal. I snooped around the Texas Attorney General's website on child abuse and found this:
The law specifically excludes “reasonable” discipline by the child’s parent, guardian, or conservator; corporal punishment is not in itself abusive under the law. An act or omission is abusive only if “observable and material impairment” occurs as a result, or if it causes “substantial harm,” or exposes the child to risk of substantial harm.
Doesn't seem to me like it caused substantial harm or material impairment. YES it is hard to watch and pretty cruel, but parents have the discretion to discipline their children as they see fit.
Also it's just a belt, not a bat. It's not like he's going to kill her or break all the bones in her body. It's superficial harm.
He doesn't deserve to get thrown in jail, disbarred, or any other punishment because he has done nothing illegal based on the video alone. Stop freaking out everyone.
If I slap an adult in the face on the street, will he hit me back? Most likely. If a teacher hits a kid with the flat hand in the face to "teach him/her a lesson", will it go all over the place and will the teacher face consequences? Yes, most likely.
If I beat my kid with a belt, multiple times just for the fun of it (HE KEEPS FUCKING COMING BACK IN FOR MORE. THEY USE TWO FUCKING BELTS AT ONE POINT), I can get away with it because "it was reasonable"?
If that's the law, the law has to be changed. Why? Because it's inhumane. Plain and simple.
So you feel like parents should be told by the government how to raise their kids?
I'm sorry I just don't agree with that. The parent/child relationship is a special one and is treated as such by the law. If the government starts telling parents they can't discipline their children reasonably then the next thing you know children are suing their parents when they don't let them go to a concert they wanted or because they grounded them for a weekend for breaking some rule they set down.
Sorry if it seems harsh to you but that's the way it is.
How do we go from "Cant beat child with belt" to "Cant tell children what to do"? There's a fucking enormous middle ground that we just magically teleported across to get to where you think we would be.
It's a slippery slope example. The point is to show how the enormous middle ground will be eroded if what seems wrong, but is not unreasonable, is forbidden. I don't agree with parents using corporal punishment on their children but it's about as natural as any other form of parenting. I don't think the government should be getting involved in parenting when it isn't clear abuse which could result in actual harm to a child.
On November 02 2011 12:22 Geosensation wrote: Glad to see a bit more sense here on TL compared to youtube and reddit. Disciplining your children like this may not be considered the right way to parent now, but it is perfectly legal. I snooped around the Texas Attorney General's website on child abuse and found this:
The law specifically excludes “reasonable” discipline by the child’s parent, guardian, or conservator; corporal punishment is not in itself abusive under the law. An act or omission is abusive only if “observable and material impairment” occurs as a result, or if it causes “substantial harm,” or exposes the child to risk of substantial harm.
Doesn't seem to me like it caused substantial harm or material impairment. YES it is hard to watch and pretty cruel, but parents have the discretion to discipline their children as they see fit.
Also it's just a belt, not a bat. It's not like he's going to kill her or break all the bones in her body. It's superficial harm.
He doesn't deserve to get thrown in jail, disbarred, or any other punishment because he has done nothing illegal based on the video alone. Stop freaking out everyone.
If I slap an adult in the face on the street, will he hit me back? Most likely. If a teacher hits a kid with the flat hand in the face to "teach him/her a lesson", will it go all over the place and will the teacher face consequences? Yes, most likely.
If I beat my kid with a belt, multiple times just for the fun of it (HE KEEPS FUCKING COMING BACK IN FOR MORE. THEY USE TWO FUCKING BELTS AT ONE POINT), I can get away with it because "it was reasonable"?
If that's the law, the law has to be changed. Why? Because it's inhumane. Plain and simple.
So you feel like parents should be told by the government how to raise their kids?
I'm sorry I just don't agree with that. The parent/child relationship is a special one and is treated as such by the law. If the government starts telling parents they can't discipline their children reasonably then the next thing you know children are suing their parents when they don't let them go to a concert they wanted or because they grounded them for a weekend for breaking some rule they set down.
Sorry if it seems harsh to you but that's the way it is.
Stop making random arguments up.
The government has to step in when someone gets physically abused. That's common sense. Whether it's a random person on the street or a 16 year old. Or a 10 year old. There is a thing called "excessive force".
This 16 year old girl got hit by a full grown man as hard as he could. On top of that he forces all the guilt on her, comes back multiple times AFTER clearly establishing his point.
As you said, REASONABLE discipline, sure, fine by me (even though I'm personally someone who believes that punishment is only neccessary if the parents fucked up somewhere else in the first place, but that's a different discussion).
Hitting someone with a belt to prove your point is surely a great way to teach your children how to act as grown ups. Oh, wait.. How on earth can you call that reasonable?
Random sidenote: I'd like to add that she seems to have a little sister (you can see her at 0:49 in that video). I sure hope that girl is fine. =/
lol it's not a random argument. I'm just basing it off the law not emotion. A grown man didn't just abuse some random 16 y/o off the street. It's his own daughter so he has significant authority to discipline her as he sees fit. What this guy did is morally reprehensible and he seems like bad father and person based off of the video, but it's simply not illegal, parents are allowed to punish their children this way. Although I have been thinking about it and maybe he is venturing into unreasonable territory, but it's far from clear.
Here's the thing: Law does not establish what is right and morally correct, it only establishes what is legal. It has no place in any discussion of morality or fact, because no argument derived from law is directly relevant to the core of the topic.
Second, children are human individuals, too. They have the exact same basic human rights as everybody else. The relationship between child and parent is a special one, but not in the way you think. It's special in that the parents are mainly responsible for their children's upbringing - parenting - but that does not excuse them from respecting the human rights of their children. The duty of parenting does not (morally) give them the right to use violence to get their point across any more than they have the right to do so with grown-ups. But it is special in a different way, too: Children are not only especially vulnerable to abuse because they are physically weak, mentally weak (personality development often continues into the 20s), but their brains are wired in a way that makes them more susceptible to authority and they absorb information differently and at a faster rate than adults. It is therefore vital that this authority is not abused and that we lead by example, because they learn by example more than adults do.
Third, and this goes to r.Evo, use of violence is acceptable as a last resort, but only as a means of self-defense. If violence is used against an individual for any other means than that, the entire concept of self-ownership and freedom breaks down. (Children are not slaves!)
So of course governments should be able to tell parents what to do and disallow them from parenting in certain ways. Being parents does not somehow give them an excuse to break the law or abuse human rights of individuals. And the status of an individual as 'child of parent' does not suddenly make them any less human, and so does not suddenly make their human rights disappear. Parents have the duty of parenting, not the right, and they have the duty and right to represent their children (be their legal guardian) where they cannot do so themselves, which does not come with the right to inflict harm upon them.
Please, think for a second before you post. There might be further reaching consequences of what you want to advocate for than you first realize.
It is him and the mother who brought the girl on the earth, and if he gives the girl rules to follow, she should listen to whatever he says until she reaches the age of 18 imo. Do I think it's the way to go about it? No - But if you made the child, you should be allowed to have the power to influence them in the way you please.
On November 02 2011 13:55 hytonight wrote: im not sure about you, but if i tried to hit my dad in the balls i would die a slow painful death....and if she made any quick moves im pretty sure he wouldve noticed in time and beat her even more
I didn't say try, I said do it over and over and over again. Unless he's a psychopath stonecold killer he's not going to stop trying to curl up in the fetal position and cupping his junk.
At some point there just has to be part of you that snaps and it becomes beyond logic and reason. It's not "if i do this he might do that" it becomes "this stops right now and I don't care what the hell happens because of what I'm about to do". It's more of an instinctual sort of thing.
i doubt any man leaves his balls open for someone to repeatedly hit them...especially when hes giving his daughter the assbeating of her life.
You normally protect your balls when you're executing a child abuse session? I guess that wouldn't be S.O.P. for me.
Even assuming you covered up like a turtle your face is wide open for a stomping. You can only defend so many things at once and feet hurt like hell.
At some point people have to stand up for themselves. They shouldn't have to because people shouldn't be assholes but the level of abuse people will put up with, whether its your dad beating you, your boyfriend cheating on you or anything in between is staggering.
EPT
