Changing society through social engineering & social work...

[singledad]

would such a vague law also allow the banning of alcohol, of spray propellants, adhesives? the whole banning of substances is a tricky thing. it seems that once we ban one thing, another comes into use that is technically legal.

Yup, that is the difficulty. And that is why I am not currently lobbying for a change in legislation. All I know is that the current laws don't work. Or at least - they don't really help much. What they do accomplish is to stimulate the continuous development of new, more potent and more dangerous designer drugs while failing to curb the use of "traditional" drugs, and that is a huge problem.

I am involved with an organisation, much like an NGO, but its not registered as such (we're working on that, and on our website, but its hard for a group of volunteers to find the time ) who are currently working with some lawyers who are kind enough to volunteer their time and a few politicians to try to come up with something better. Until then - the current laws will have to do, and we will have to spend the bulk of our time and effort on education and awareness.

This is also where this discussion ties in with a spanking ban. IMO, if you ban spanking without parents' buy-in and without first giving parents a feasible alternative, parents will turn to other, technically legal, but possibly much more destructive techniques. The one or two threads we've had on here about parents using military techniques on toddlers, come to mind... <shudder>

But I get what you're getting at. Perhaps a better appraoch would be not banning substances but banning the practice of using them to intoxication while in public or while responsible for the care of another individual. That would end up meaning that it would be legal to use LSD or Opium or cocaine, as long as you don't put anyone else in danger, but it would make the misuse of glue or paint illegal. Are we ready to "laglize all those substances while controlling their use?

This is one of the issues we are currently debating - history has shown that legal substances are easier to control - think alcohol, prescription drugs (before the advent of on-line pharmacies, at least), etc. The difference is that those substances have one property that neither heroin, nor cocaine, nor a number of other drugs have - it is possible to use them in a healthy, non-destructive way. And as sound and logical as the principle of "let the individual take responsibility for his own health but protect those around him" may sound, it does not take into account the the tendency of drug use to escalate out of the user's control...

Anyway, I should get off my soap-box now. This isn't the appropriate forum for this discussion And I think I've made my point about the importance of getting not only the intent, but also the contents of the law right, or you run the risk of doing more harm than good.

 

[IADad]

And I think I've made my point about the importance of getting not only the intent, but also the contents of the law right, or you run the risk of doing more harm than good.

amen, and amen.

 

[parentastic]

I am watching <I>live</I> now as they execute Troy Davis with lethal injection.
Time of death, 11:08.

Shame on you, USA.

 

[mom2many]

Injustice happens everywhere, and the whole USA did not support his execution. Be careful when blaming everyone for the state of Georgia's decision.

 

[parentastic]

Injustice happens everywhere, and the whole USA did not support his execution. Be careful when blaming everyone for the state of Georgia's decision.

I do not blame any one person or persons for the state of Georgia's decision.
I blame the US <I>system</I>.
I blame a system that believe problems can be solved by vengeance.

No, I do not blame anyone.
Yet every single American should feel responsible and ashamed, for letting it happen.

We have been discussing social engineering on this thread. Are we to wait until every single American is against the death penalty before this shameful practice is banned, just like in pretty much any other industrialized country?

 

[singledad]

We have been discussing social engineering on this thread. Are we to wait until every single American is against the death penalty before this shameful practice is banned, just like in pretty much any other industrialized country?

Who on this thread has ever mention getting EVERYONE to agree? Democracy is based on the MAJORITY agreeing. If you want to live in a country where the "democratically elected" government has the power to act against the wishes of their voters, feel free to emigrate to Zimbabwe, Togo, Burkina Faso, Chad, Equatorial Guinea...

Democracy is far from perfect, but until we can come up with something better, our best option is to keep the power of government to a minimum. Even if that means we have to accept certain injustices, because the alternative is far worse than anyone who has lived out his life in the first world can imagine.

 

[IADad]

I do not blame any one person or persons for the state of Georgia's decision.
I blame the US <I>system</I>.
I blame a system that believe problems can be solved by vengeance.

No, I do not blame anyone.
Yet every single American should feel responsible and ashamed, for letting it happen.

We have been discussing social engineering on this thread. Are we to wait until every single American is against the death penalty before this shameful practice is banned, just like in pretty much any other industrialized country?

yeah...but there's a component to american democracy you're missing. This by and large is not a federal issue. Although there is a Federal death penalty, 98% of those on death row, are on state convictions not federal. So, the real fight is at the state level. There are a lot of very personal issues people have who are FOR the death penalty. There are still notions that it provides a deterent effect. There are those who mis-apply old testament scripture as a guiding prinicple. There are those who feel it is the only adequate protection against re-offense. There are those who feel it's an economic solution to warehousing inmates. I don't happen to agree with any of those arguments, but the variety of jurisdictions involved and the variety of rationales sheds some light on why abolishment of death penalty is not likely to happen any time soon. I'm not defending the practice, just saying that the answer isn't as easy or obvious as you might believe.

 

[MomoJA]

I don't support the death penalty for a whole lot of reasons, among the LEAST of which is that it makes victims and martyrs of really horrible people.

I am not morally opposed to vengence on this level. If someone intentionally harmed my child, I'd be tempted to kill the #%%&amp;^* myself! But for similar reasons that I am frightened by using criminalization to "teach" society how to behave, I find giving any governing body the right to decide who should live and who should die frightening.

 

[IADad]

I don't support the death penalty for a whole lot of reasons, among the LEAST of which is that it makes victims and martyrs of really horrible people.

I am not morally opposed to vengence on this level. If someone intentionally harmed my child, I'd be tempted to kill the #%%&amp;^* myself! But for similar reasons that I am frightened by using criminalization to "teach" society how to behave, I find giving any governing body the right to decide who should live and who should die frightening.

I agree with you. I think there's a difference between what one might do or even feel obliged to do individdually and what we sanction government to do. I think death penalty is wrong mostly because it's teaches that killing is okay for some reasons. the other thing is false conviction....I mean there's not much of a good way to undo an execution....

 

[alter ego]

(My emphasis added)
Spanking, and the use of any technique akin to humiliation, violates article 2, as well as potentially article 6.

agreed. many countries have criminlised violence against children (and i fail to see how striking a person can be done in a nonviolent way) one of which i am proud to have been born in (though raised elsewhere)
in my travels ive found that the countries which allow violence are those with a clear breakdown of the extended family and support network.
if there is always someone to help out a struggling parent, there is no need to ever strike a child.
i see this an a societal issue which can be addressed by government policy.
i think we need to encourage better support services and facilities for parents, even community halls with playgroup facilities so mums can meet and support each other. education is the key to equiping parents with better skills.
parenting classes should be freely available. paid parental leave for at least a year (i am in the fortunate position where i dont need to work and that definitely influences my parenting as i have the time and support to gently guide my children).

 

[anishastrologer]

many countries ban child labour but still children are being employed in several countries for different hazardous works. trafficking is another important issue.

 

[parentastic]

agreed. many countries have criminlised violence against children (and i fail to see how striking a person can be done in a nonviolent way) one of which i am proud to have been born in (though raised elsewhere)

Couldn't agree more.

in my travels ive found that the countries which allow violence are those with a clear breakdown of the extended family and support network.

It's an interesting observation.
I am wondering however which comes first? Which one is the cause and which one is the effect?
Most probably, both - it's a feedback loop.
The more a country degrades their social net, (under fear of "socialism" and pretext of "freedom" and "rights not to pay taxes") and the more they degrade the very fabric of community. Everyone is pushed to live for him/her self only, and egotism is justified, even praised. It's a downward spiral.

if there is always someone to help out a struggling parent, there is no need to ever strike a child.

Although I agree 100% with you, this assumes that parents only strike children because they are emotionally unable to control themselves and they spanking <I>for them</I>, to feel better, rather than for the child.
Even though it's 100% clear now that spanking will <I>not</I> teach a child anything, I think parents still do it also "to teach", convinced that "it works".

i see this an a societal issue which can be addressed by government policy. i think we need to encourage better support services and facilities for parents, even community halls with playgroup facilities so mums can meet and support each other. education is the key to equiping parents with better skills. parenting classes should be freely available. paid parental leave for at least a year (i am in the fortunate position where i dont need to work and that definitely influences my parenting as i have the time and support to gently guide my children).

And I say <I>amen</I> to that.

 

[singledad]

i think we need to encourage better support services and facilities for parents, even community halls with playgroup facilities so mums can meet and support each other. <U>education is the key to equiping parents with better skills.</U>
parenting classes should be freely available. paid parental leave for at least a year (i am in the fortunate position where i dont need to work and that definitely influences my parenting as i have the time and support to gently guide my children).

(Emphasis mine)
I completely agree with this.

Such a system would be much more effective than legislation, IMO, not least because it address problems in context and offers holistic <U>solutions</U>, instead of just banning one specific act.

 

[alter ego]

Although I agree 100% with you, this assumes that parents only strike children because they are emotionally unable to control themselves and they spanking <I>for them</I>, to feel better, rather than for the child.
Even though it's 100% clear now that spanking will <I>not</I> teach a child anything, I think parents still do it also "to teach", convinced that "it works"

I think its more a matter of when a child first starts to be 'naughty' there is someone to divert before there is time for the parent to smack. i find it hard to think about a parent randomly hitting thier child, if it wasnt at the time of the 'naughtiness' to 'teach' them, truly scary concept
in Chinese culture they have a 'confinement lady' who come to your house for a month after the birth od a child, she cooks,cleans and watches any other chidren while the mum 'babymoons' with the newborn. id love a service like hat in the western world.
ill never forget when my eldest was born I had a mummy friend come over to visit. i was exhausted (plus had pnd and ptsd) and she pushed me to have a shower while she watched the babies. i came back to find my kitchen sparkling, dinner cooking in the slow cooker and her mopping my floors. i cried, i was so touched to have such support in my life.

 

[melanie harte]

i think that this is great and completely agree