Child rearing.

[Kim]

Actually because the law says so it makes it true.

That's... That's not how that works. It used to be okay to beat your children with a belt or worse. Just because it was okay legally doesn't mean it was right.

[Seil]

My mum spanked my brothers and I when we were kids and we turned out okay.

[Kim]

Originally Posted by Seil

My mum spanked my brothers and I when we were kids and we turned out okay.

Originally Posted by Krylo

An anecdote isn't proof, nor is the plural of anecdote data.

That one person failed to raise their child without spanking them, or two, or three, does not mean that there were no ways to raise those children adequately without using physical force.

.

[krogothwolf]

Originally Posted by NonCon

That's... That's not how that works.

Pretty sure it does. Pretty sure the laws of society are how we go about things. Can't call someone a child abuser when the law says they aren't.

Here is the supreme court of Canada's decision on that in a case.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/.../2004scc4.html

you can read it if you want, it's long and boring. But yeah, it's not child abuse so you shouldn't toss that around just because you feel it is.

[Kim]

Originally Posted by krogothwolf

Pretty sure it does. Pretty sure the laws of society are how we go about things. Can't call someone a child abuser when the law says they aren't.

Here is the supreme court of Canada's decision on that in a case.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/.../2004scc4.html

you can read it if you want, it's long and boring. But yeah, it's not child abuse so you shouldn't toss that around just because you feel it is.

Originally Posted by Me

It used to be okay to beat your children with a belt or worse. Just because it was okay legally doesn't mean it was right.

We change the laws to match what is right; not change what is right to match the laws. Just because the law says you aren't [insert pretty much anything] doesn't mean much.

[Azisien]

We gon' need some mods in here to do some spanking soon!

[krogothwolf]

Originally Posted by NonCon

We change the laws to match what is right; not change what is right to match the laws.

Yeah, right now what is right is that, not only that, some studies show that it's not trauma if it's done correctly. So yeah, it's not a bad thing. You can't call someone a child abuser just because you feel like it. The law right now says someone who does that isn't. right now, that is what is right in the society I live in, till it changes you can argue till the cows come home but you have no right to call someone a child abuser for spanking if done correctly with how it is seen right now. It's ignorant, mean spirited and bullshit and it speaks of an assholic way to argue when you seem to have nothing else to say but to start throwing terms like that around.

[Kim]

I didn't call anyone a child abuser at any point in this conversation. I said that I considered spankings to be a form of child abuse. If you are going to continue that line of thought and make it personal, that's your deal, not mine.

Also, are you seriously arguing that what is considered right by the law is right until it's changed? That's... I don't have words for that... Can I borrow a thesaurus? I mean, I could follow that to its natural conclusion, showing that by your logic you're saying tons of terrible things that are legal are right, but do I really need to?

[bluestarultor]

Hey, Non, buddy? Krogo's pretty much right. Maybe you disagree with the law, but until it gets changed, no, it's not child abuse in that jurisdiction and performed by those means.

I suggest you toss in your hat on that one, because the argument "but it should be because I say so" is a really weak one.

[Premmy]

You're making the exact same argument, the only difference is you're on the side with the money and the old white men.