Changing society through social engineering & social work...

[singledad]

Others have posted detailed examples of why social engineering is dangerous. I won't go over it again. Suffice to say that if a government is by the people, of the people and for the people, then by definition that government has no right to subject the people to laws they don't agree with. That is the point of democracy.

IMO, and I've stated this before - the way to change societal norms is through education, NOT legislation.

 

[MomoJA]

So, if I can rephrase my question from the other thread sligtly, can I ask: what makes spanking special, among all the other things that parents do that undermine a child's dignity, that it, alone, should be banned?

I sincerely do not want to make this about spanking, but that was my question as well.

And it's not about spanking. It's about how far we go to change what we believe needs to be changed, and who are "we"? "We" believed, not too long ago that interracial marriage should be illegal, for example. I'm sure some people still do believe it should be illegal.

I'm all for trying to fix what "we" believe needs to be fixed without going so far as to make it a criminal act. That is not to be taken lightly. That should be done after years and years of society trying other ways to change things until practically no one disagrees that it is a criminal act if even then.

 

[singledad]

I sincerely do not want to make this about spanking, but that was my question as well.

And it's not about spanking. It's about how far we go to change what we believe needs to be changed, and who are "we"?

Yes, I wasn't trying to make it about spanking. I am trying to show the fundamental danger of social engineering - everyone have causes that they care about, and that they wish more people supported. I thing it is good that we all speak about and try to get people to think about our causes as much as possible. I also think it is very important that we know the facts on which we base our arguments. All of this, the OP does, and I respect him for it. The problem comes in when we believe that we are right, and everyone who disagrees with us are wrong. We read studies, but discard those we disagree with. We latch onto statistics that prove our points, but dismiss those that don't. And then, because we are so convinced that we are right, we start lobbying for legislation to force everyone to share our views, in the name of the "greater good", human rights, etc.

Because, obviously, MY cause is different, and more important than other causes. And because my cause is so noble and so true, I have the right to use social engineering to force people to agree with me.

But what if your cause is not so different from many others?

Who gets to decide when social engineering is ok, and when it isn't?

Now, I am not accusing the OP of being biased to this extreme, I am merely asking that he accept that it is possible to disagree with him without being "wrong". And even though I believe his cause is noble, it is not so different from my passion for conserving endangered wildlife. I have no right to stop european commercial fisheries from fishing pacific yellow-fin tuna into extinction, and he has no right to stop loving parents from disciplining their children as they see fit. And as you say, legislation should only be considered once the vast majority of those who will be affected agree with it. THAT is what democracy is about.

 

[parentastic]

So, basically, you want to engineer society by banning spanking because in your (educated, yes) opinion it violates a child's dignity and could cause feeling of insecurity?

I think it is a lot more deep and fundamental than that, singledad.
My words might not always be adequate (and keep in mind that I am expressing myself in my 2nd language here), but I think that "causing feeling of insecurity" is a very light language for what I see as much, much deeper.

Hitting someone violates one's physical integrity.
It may be strong or light, it may be very painful or sting only a bit, but it's always forceful, imposed and humiliating. It creates fear and shame. It invades your personal bubble and your sense of self.
It is not tolerated in any way shape or form when it is done by an adult to another adult in any civilized society. It goes against the fundamental rights of a human being (as declared by the charters of universal human rights) and <I>also </I>goes against the charter for children's rights, as signed by 128 countries in the world.

So I think that words such as "it violates a child's dignity" may sound easy to say, but they hide a LOT of things.

So, if I can rephrase my question from the other thread sligtly, can I ask: what makes spanking special, among all the other things that parents do that undermine a child's dignity, that it, alone, should be banned?

I think that the question is interesting and that it points out how difficult it is to set clear boundaries in legal and social questions.
I recognize that.
At the end of the day, however, if your neighbor next door decides to say a derogatory comment to you, and that comment attacks your dignity - even though, technically, it would also violate your human rights to be respected - there is no law that can really prevent this from happening.
But the law protects you - and rightfully so - from being assaulted <I>physically</I>. It prevents your neighbor from going from words to acts, from entering forcefully into your personal bubble and violate your physical integrity.

Why are children not entitled to this basic protection, too?
Why would something unacceptable by law, something clearly deemed a crime in any civilized society, would be acceptable simply because an innocent life who cannot defend itself is entrusted to an adult?

I think the above situation answers your question quite well. If you will bare with me, however, I'd like to return the question to you.
If spanking isn't special, isn't something different from any other way one can attack someone's dignity; then would you be ready to defend people's right to use an equivalent to spanking on their adult neighbor when we want to "teach" them something? Should we fight to remove the law protecting people from hitting each other, provided the hitting, say, does not leave any marks on the skin?
I know it sounds weird, and I am not trying to be a smartass here; I think that the question is truly interesting. I also think that fundamental human rights such as the right to protect your physical integrity should apply as much to children as to anyone else. If you don't agree, IMO, you should be able to defend the opposite view: why are we seeing this right as so fundamental for adults then?

See, that illustartes the danger of social engineering quite well - who gets to decide what goes and what doesn't, and what should be banned or not?

I totally agree with you about the danger of social engineering.
Not only do I think it take studies and science, panels and focus groups, thinking and planning; but I also totally agree that any large scale social change must be done incrementally and its effect measured and the changes re-ajusted as we measure its impacts.
In fact, I believe in this so much that this is <I>precisely</I> the master degree I am currently undergoing: it's called Human System Intervention, and it uses a special type of research called "Action Research", which focuses on a constant re-evaluation and adaptation of any intervention, so that it becomes truly adapted to the reality of your system.

I think that as long as there is any room to argue FOR a certain action, or any possibility that banning it can cause harm in any shape and form, it should not be banned.

First, I'd point out that there <I>really is no room</I> to argue for spanking. At best, it teaches nothing, it's ineffective, and it strains and erodes the parent-child relationship.

But I think I disagree with that general statement as a whole and on a larger sense too.

Slavery was <I>wrong</I>. No doubt, many white "owners" felt and thought that banning slavery was going to cause harm: plantations would no longer be run at very low cost, the economy was going to fail, etc etc.
If we had to wait for every single white person to agree to this change, well, black people would still be slave today.
In the same way, there was a time when married women were "owned" by their husband, who could beat them to "teach them". They would also control all of the finances, take all the decisions, and could vote, while women could not. It was not that far away in our history, too! No doubt, again, that the men did not want that to change.
There is a point where change becomes inevitable, <I>even if it may cause harm</I> on the short term.

The black slave could revolt. The women could unite and fight. When the groups who were not in power revolted against the group in power, they <I>forced</I> a social change, even if the group in power didn't want it.
For children, however, if we simply wait until every single parent agrees to it, we may wait for quite long before this happens. Who is going to fight for them?

 

[parentastic]

And it's not about spanking. It's about how far we go to change what we believe needs to be changed, and who are "we"? "We" believed, not too long ago that interracial marriage should be illegal, for example. I'm sure some people still do believe it should be illegal.

I think that this example is an <I>excellent </I>example.
Interracial marriage was declared illegal, way back, by white people trying to protect their power and trying to keep their slave under control.
Even after slavery was banned, many people still believed it was, and should stay illegal.

But that law was <I>wrong</I>. It was violating basic human rights, it was discriminating. As such, it required social engineering to make illegal any attempt to stop people from marrying each other, for <I>whatever reasons. </I>In the same way, laws needed to be changed to allow for same sex marriage - again, because it is discriminatory not to do so.


Social engineering isn't only about creating a new law or banning some act. Sometimes, it's banning a taboo, or banning the act of banning.
No one can stop 2 consenting adults from marrying, based on religion, gender, color or any discriminatory reasons. And it takes a law to enforce this, otherwise some racist people will continue to pretend it "harms" them to "allow" this to happen.

I'm all for trying to fix what "we" believe needs to be fixed without going so far as to make it a criminal act. That is not to be taken lightly. That should be done after years and years of society trying other ways to change things until practically no one disagrees that it is a criminal act if even then.

I really do agree about the need to take time and take it slowly, and trying to change things different ways. For most social changes, this is how it works, too.

What makes it different, I think, is when it touches <I>power differences.
</I>when a group is in a minority. When their rights are violated. When the group in inferiority cannot defend, because the group in superiority has all the power, the leverage. <I>that</I> is when "waiting" is useless - because nobody who holds power is ready to relinquish it easily without a solid push.

 

[singledad]

I think it is a lot more deep and fundamental than that, singledad.

That is your opinion, based on the research you have read. I accept that, and I will not try to make you change your mind. I happen to disagree with it, based on the experiences of most people I know. I'm sorry, but I find it difficult to go along with the process when academics try to convince millions of happy, well adjusted people who love and respect their parents that they were, in fact, traumatized as children.

I also find it interesting that the vast majority of those who are so very vocal against spanking, were not spanked as children, and thus have only research, and no personal experience on which to base their opinions. I don't know if you were spanked, you might be the exception to that rule, but just about everyone else fits into it.

But I am more that willing to agree to disagree on that. I just wish you would extend the same courtesy to me

If spanking isn't special, isn't something different from any other way one can attack someone's dignity; then would you be ready to defend people's right to use an equivalent to spanking on their adult neighbor when we want to "teach" them something? Should we fight to remove the law protecting people from hitting each other, provided the hitting, say, does not leave any marks on the skin?

The answer to that question was given my momoJA in one of the previous threads, several times over. I have neither the time nor the inclination to repeat the answer to a question that I find rather ridiculous.

btw: I've stated before that I find people who run to the police after being pushed or slapped rather pathetic. They are within their rights, but unless there are extenuating circumstances, I would still say that they should be able to fight their own battles, like adults. But perhaps it is because we are creating a society in which we expect to be protected by law at all times that we loose the ability to fend for ourselves...

Slavery was <I>wrong</I>. No doubt, many white "owners" felt and thought that banning slavery was going to cause harm: plantations would no longer be run at very low cost, the economy was going to fail, etc etc.
If we had to wait for every single white person to agree to this change, well, black people would still be slave today.

Not every single white person - the vast majority of PEOPLE, including slaves. I think that simply by including slaves, you might have already got there. My statement was based on Democracy. Slavery did not happen in a democracy. Same goes for women's suffrage - The true majority was always for it, it was just that half the people had no voice.

Still, with a little bit more negotiations, perhaps an agreement could have been reached that would have prevented a full-scale war, with all the killing and destruction that comes with it. I don't think there is any real justification for war - in a war there are no winners, only losers.

because nobody who holds power is ready to relinquish it easily without a solid push.

As a member of the overwhelming majority of WHITE voters who voted "YES" in 1992 to give blacks the right to vote, knowing full well that we would henceforth not only loose power and privilege, but also become a political minority, I beg to differ. Apartheid wasn't ended by an armed struggle. There was no military victory. Apartheid was ended by a whites-only referendum, in which the vast majority of the group who was in power before, voted to hand over that power to a democratic government. It is true that there was an armed struggle going on, but having suppressed it for more that two decades, we could have carried on suppressing it for much longer, had we wanted to. But we didn't want to.

It can happen. Have a little more faith in people!

 

[IADad]

I think there's a difference between the relationship a person has with their child and with every other adult person.

I think hitting is tolerated amongst adults, it's not like the police bring battery charges the moment someone shoves another. There is a degree of intention involved, especially when the consideration for what charge is made. But many people feel that they have a responsibility to teach their children using the same method that was used on them. We see animals in nature, correcting their young, with certain force, to teach them what not to do, to survive. So, for some if spanking gets the desired results of teaching a kid not to do the things they ought not, then are we to say they're wrong? i'd contend (and I'm not advocating spanking, I was never much for it, and have only used it sparingly and have become a believer that it's not a good example or an effective tool) that very few children have been harmed by the prudent application of spanking over the last several generations. So, why legislate it's ban on the notion that someone has been hurt. There are laws to handle abuse and judges to apply the law, let them do so.

i find the same logive with other misguided laws. There is now a law here against texting while driviing. Utter stupidity. There are aleardy laws against doing things that impair your ability to drive. This level of specificity does nothing other than make legislators feel good that they saved a life, could the money spent on passing legislation been spent on education and saved more lives? If so, passave of this law was not only irresponsible it was immoral.

Sure we need laws, but we've given over too much to the experts and we, as a voting public have stopped thinking about whether a new law is a good thing or not.

Another case and point is a petition I was asked to sign yesterday, calling for the forgivenss of all outstanding student loan debt as a means of eonomic stimulus. thousands of people have signed it, but I wonder how many have researched that this means writing off $830 billion dollars of money that is due the governemt. What's going to pay for that loss? More taxes? I bet if you ask all those signers if they were inn favor of more federal taxes they'd scream "no." But I wonder how many have connected the dots.

My point is just because something looks like a ggod thing on the service, and even if experts have endorsed it, we, in a dmeocracy have the obligation to question it. question it to death, or question it to life, which is what should happen if it's truly good and neccesary.


Your marriage example, I don't find quite correct either. One does not need government to guarantee one's rights to get married. You need government's sanction to receive the benefits accorded by law (joint tax filing, joint ownership of property, access to benefits and rights of succession, all civil matters, not marital ones.) So we don't rely on governemnt to marry people we need governemnt's approval to gain acces to the rights government controls.

 

[MomoJA]

But that law was <I>wrong</I>. It was violating basic human rights, it was discriminating. As such, it required social engineering to make illegal any attempt to stop people from marrying each other, for <I>whatever reasons. </I>

The point is that when interracial marriage was made illegal, the people who made it so thought they were in the right. A large part of society, the majority, agreed that interracial marriage was wrong. History proved that opinion to be wrong, but I'm sure there were voices out there at the time saying we don't need to go so far as to make this illegal, and I'm sure they were silenced with "scientific proof" and other arguments.

But there are other means of social engineering that I'm thankful for, even when I disagree with their goals. One of the things that I love about the history of my country is that we were founded on a healthy distrust of power, and yet at the same time, we often resist these sorts of movements. It's this constant pushing back and forth or revolving pattern of status quo to status quo to status quo that gives hope that any "group think" we passively accept today will become "obviously wrong" tomorrow. But when we go so far as to establish law, particularly criminal law, to cement an agenda, I fear we have lost that healthy distrust.

 

[parentastic]

One of the things that I love about the history of my country is that we were founded on a healthy distrust of power, and yet at the same time, we often resist these sorts of movements. It's this constant pushing back and forth or revolving pattern of status quo to status quo to status quo that gives hope that any "group think" we passively accept today will become "obviously wrong" tomorrow. But when we go so far as to establish law, particularly criminal law, to cement an agenda, I fear we have lost that healthy distrust.

Yeah, I would tend to agree with you about the establishment of criminal laws, speaking in general here.
I am afraid that today, the social engineering is messed up by politics. Politician pass laws and push for laws based on how it makes them look to the voting crowd (and even more so, to the high-paying corporate lobbies and corruption) rather than on the merits of research or what would be best for society.
It's a constant battle for any social worker to get things moving in the right direction on its own merits, rather than as a ploy in a political agenda.

 

[parentastic]

I think there's a difference between the relationship a person has with their child and with every other adult person.

I think this point is very clear. Parents are responsible both for how their kids act in society and for teaching them all they need to become responsible and happy, well balanced adults. None of these responsibilities fall on people for another adult.
Still, I do not think this can constitute in any way a defense for tolerating acts of humiliation and violation to the physical integrity of children; their rights as human being should not be reduced because of their age or dependency status, IMO.

I think hitting is tolerated amongst adults, it's not like the police bring battery charges the moment someone shoves another. There is a degree of intention involved, especially when the consideration for what charge is made.

I believe you have a point here: whether it is an adult shoving an adult, or an adult spanking a child, there is a <I>level</I> of tolerance that all depends on a very delicate and fuzzy line. I don't deny this; I am merely pointing out that from a legal stand point, shoving another adult <I>IS </I>an assault, and should someone press charges, it is against the law. Many adults may chose not to press charges, and may in fact solve this by other ways; just as, I believe, some parents might have continued to use milder forms of spanking in countries where spanking was made illegal, and got away with it.

But many people feel that they have a responsibility to teach their children using the same method that was used on them.

Oh yes, definitely!
This is, I think, at the very crux of the problem.
If it was good enough for me, how could it be wrong?
I'll say more about this as I respond to singledad's previous post.

We see animals in nature, correcting their young, with certain force, to teach them what not to do, to survive.

I am always wary when people use etiological arguments to prove a point. It is tempting to use "nature" and animals to define what is supposed to be "normal" - but did you notice how human being tend to pick selectively whatever animal suits their needs when they want to compare? Would you chose to compare how human beings teach their children by comparing it to, say, how a fish handles their offspring? Or bees? Or butterflies? Animals are different races - they do not have the ability to reason and think, they have very different brains, and as far as I am concerned, comparing our specie to <I>any</I> animal is meaningless.
Behaviorism, the very first branch of psychology that first researched and invented the rules of operand conditioning (and on which so much of the reasoning behind punishment and rewards lay upon) was researched with pigeons and rats... which is precisely why it failed so completely to address root causes and communication: you can only control and change the behavior of rats and pigeons through behavior conditioning, because they can't speak or understand you...

So, for some if spanking gets the desired results of teaching a kid not to do the things they ought not, then are we to say they're wrong? i'd contend (and I'm not advocating spanking, I was never much for it, and have only used it sparingly and have become a believer that it's not a good example or an effective tool) that very few children have been harmed by the prudent application of spanking over the last several generations.

It's an opinion that you are entitled to have.
I beg to have a completely different opinion, based on my studies.
At some point, I might post something more complete about this, but I fear it's never very welcomed in a parenting site: nobody likes to hear that what they may have done or what they have lived might have had serious negative long term consequences.

i find the same logic with other misguided laws. There is now a law here against texting while driving. Utter stupidity.

...and yet it is proven now, backed by research that outlawing texting and driving has indeed reduced the number of people doing this.
The reason is simple: for <I>some</I> people, not everyone, something is okay to do until it's officially not okay to do. When it becomes illegal, then they stop doing it. It's really that simple.

Another case and point is a petition I was asked to sign yesterday, calling for the forgivenss of all outstanding student loan debt as a means of eonomic stimulus. thousands of people have signed it, but I wonder how many have researched that this means writing off $830 billion dollars of money that is due the governemt. What's going to pay for that loss? More taxes? I bet if you ask all those signers if they were inn favor of more federal taxes they'd scream "no." But I wonder how many have connected the dots.

Well, pardon me for saying, but I don't think it's that stupid, IADad - depending of course on how such a measure could be implemented.
If these students get to a point where they cannot finish their studies because they are bankrupts, then they will never get that high paying job and their bankruptcy will mean the government won't get paid back anyway.
There is one thing we know for sure: any money injected into a family under a certain level of poverty is money directly injected at 100% back into the economy, because it goes immediately into food and lodging, and basic use.
And even if the government of US would decide to raise takes to collect those 830 Billions of dollars, it would have to spread these amongst the whole population, ideally proportionally to each person's revenue; so even in that case, it would be better than having all these students interrupt their studies and go back to work at burger king.
I am saying perhaps there are larger dots to connect there on the long run.

In US you pay around 25000$ a year for studies. In Canada you pay around 2500$ a year and the rest is payed by the government - which means by our taxes.
The consequence of having to pay 25K a year for studies is profound in a society. No wonder only the rich families end up in high influential or high paying jobs and positions!

My point is just because something looks like a good thing on the service, and even if experts have endorsed it, we, in a dmeocracy have the obligation to question it. question it to death, or question it to life, which is what should happen if it's truly good and necessary.

Yes we do. As citizen of a democracy, it is our duty.
But how can we do this when the population isn't even educated properly? When the vast majority simply cannot afford studies in the first place?
And how can the population question it to death if the medias and the journalists no longer do their job properly - if they are now but a network of manipulative political agendas? (see fox news, and the Murdoch scandals for news of the world, for instance).
And say that the population <I>has</I> questioned it to death. Since a 100% endorsement is impossible, at which point do you actually <I>do something?

</I>In Switzerland, they have population referendums for every single important discussion. I would love for this kind of mechanism to be implanted in north America, so that the population would actually be heard before any large decision is taken. But to do this would require to change the political rules.<I> We can't even seem to be able to pass a proportional voting system in north America. </I>How can we do this, then?

Your marriage example, I don't find quite correct either. One does not need government to guarantee one's rights to get married. You need government's sanction to receive the benefits accorded by law (joint tax filing, joint ownership of property, access to benefits and rights of succession, all civil matters, not marital ones.) So we don't rely on governemnt to marry people we need governemnt's approval to gain acces to the rights government controls.

I am confused.
How can two gay people get married in a state that outlaws gay marriage right now in US, IADad?

 

[parentastic]

That is your opinion, based on the research you have read. I accept that, and I will not try to make you change your mind. I happen to disagree with it, based on the experiences of most people I know. I'm sorry, but I find it difficult to go along with the process when academics try to convince millions of happy, well adjusted people who love and respect their parents that they were, in fact, traumatized as children.

My opinion is that spanking touches into deep, meaningful and long lasting effects in children. However, I did not say that children would necessarily end up "traumatized".
My studies leads me to believe that spanking is a traumatizing act.
It does not mean children will necessarily end-up being traumatized.
There is a significant difference between a particular parenting act and the accumulated result of thousands of different parenting acts in the life of a child.

I don't think academics are trying to say to anyone: "You were traumatized in your youth, even if you don't think you have been!"
I think however, that they can say that the act of spanking is a traumatizing act - and there are many reasons they can say that, even if I have never explained precisely these reasons here yet. How it affected you or any specific child, now, this is an entirely different story.

We can agree to disagree, or we can debate together to refine this; just please don't put words into me that I haven't said.

I also find it interesting that the vast majority of those who are so very vocal against spanking, were not spanked as children, and thus have only research, and no personal experience on which to base their opinions. I don't know if you were spanked, you might be the exception to that rule, but just about everyone else fits into it.

I have been spanked a few times in my youth by my dad, before he learned better ways. My younger brother was never spanked - I think that my parents learned as they had their 2nd child.
I know it didn't happen many times. Yet I do remember one time; I remember the fear, the despair, the screams from my mom as she was scared my dad would not control himself (in the end he did not hurt me much, but I'll always remember all my life the terrible emotions). I remember running away in fear from my dad, I remember his face, red from anger, and the face of my mom as she was scared.
Interestingly enough, I do not remember <I>why</I> this happened, or what I had done - and probably my parents do not either. It did not teach me anything, but it did change something in me. With the knowledge I have today from my studies, I cannot but wonder if all the terrible bullying I lived in school was not in direct relation with the few spanking I got. If it taught me about fear, about hiding, about not standing to my ground from stronger people than me. If I might have endured a few days of bullying instead of months and months, If I might have had more self confidence today if not for these spanking I received. I cannot but wonder if I would have not trusted my parents sooner with the tale of my bullying, had I never been spanked. I cannot but wonder if this is why, even though my brother and I are so alike people think we are twin, he has always had a lot more self confidence than I, always had much more success with women, always had more guts and more charisma.

The ramifications are potentially profound.
Yes, singledad - I have been spanked.

This being said, I want to add something here; some food for thoughts.
I do not know if it is true or not that the majority of people advocating against spanking have not been spanked themselves, but I'd like to point out that this would make perfect sense.

If someone have been spanked, but not "abused" (or so they think, in their own logic), then admitting that spanking is wrong becomes VERY difficult. It's a perfectly normal defense mechanism to really strongly want to believe that spanking is okay, that it's not abuse, and that they turned out just fine with it. Because to admit the contrary is to admit that they might have lived something difficult, that their parents they love and respect might have hurt them.
It's difficult stuff. There is bound to be resistance.

Worst! If these people happen to be parents, and they have used spanking with their children, then the denial is even stronger. To admit that spanking can be wrong - that is also to admit that <I>they</I> may have done something hurtful to their own child! No one wants to admit this.

So I am asking: is it possible that the majority of people who advocate against spanking have never been spanked, precisely because they know for a fact that it works quite well to be raised without this, and do not have the denial spankers and ex-spanked might have?

But I am more that willing to agree to disagree on that. I just wish you would extend the same courtesy to me

I am not sure why you say this.
I wasn't trying to bring up spanking specifically in this thread.
But you asked me for a specific question, and I answered specifically.
I perfectly respect your right to disagree, singledad. I don't know why you do not feel I am extending the same courtesy to you. I am.
If that's what you want, then we can just stop this discussion here and now, and I would be fine with that.

btw: I've stated before that I find people who run to the police after being pushed or slapped rather pathetic. They are within their rights, but unless there are extenuating circumstances, I would still say that they should be able to fight their own battles, like adults. But perhaps it is because we are creating a society in which we expect to be protected by law at all times that we loose the ability to fend for ourselves...

Well, that answer has the merit to be consistent with yourself and to make sense.
For me, a society puts in place a law to protect people from being assaulted as a way to insure equality. It no longer matter if you are tall or short, big or small, old or young, male or female, black or white, part of the group in power or in the minority. It's easy to "fight for your own battles" when you are on the big side of the stick, IMO.

 

[MomoJA]

My opinion is that spanking touches into I think however, that they can say that the act of spanking is a traumatizing act .

I think the point several of us have been trying to make that you still have not addressed is that there are lots of things parents do that can be traumatizing to a child. Some of these parenting acts are currently advocated by child rearing "experts" and some are expressly not but are more common even than spanking. Among the latter, and I'd say much more traumatizing than spanking (not abuse) can ever be, is yelling/screaming. Even in your description of the one or two times you were spanked, you seemed to have been traumatized less by the spanking than by the screaming and fear of your mother and the red face and anger of your father. Why, then, wouldn't we advocate to jail screaming parents? What makes spanking more special than other ways parents "traumatize" their children. You've never addressed that question.

I know that I would much rather have just been spanked than preached to and questioned rhetorically about my behavior when I was a kid. That was the part I dreaded most. Should we make that a criminal act?

If someone have been spanked, but not "abused" (<I><U>or so they think, in their own logic</U></I>), then admitting that spanking is wrong becomes VERY difficult. It's a perfectly normal defense mechanism to really strongly want to believe that spanking is okay, that it's not abuse, and that they turned out just fine with it. Because to admit the contrary is to admit that they might have lived something difficult, that their parents they love and respect might have hurt them.
It's difficult stuff. There is bound to be resistance..

This is your assumption. It is very clear. It comes across in everything you say on this subject. It's your flypaper. It conveniently and superciliously dismisses every counter argument. And the emphasis is mine because I think that sort of summarizes everything though the entire quote is what I'm refering to.

And, no offense meant, but this is the sort of attitude people who have advocated "social engineering" in the past that we can see is so obviously wrong now had. I'm an English teacher, so I can't help finding analogies to literature in everyday life, but I see the <I>Crucible</I> all over this attitude.

Worst! If these people happen to be parents, and they have used spanking with their children, then the denial is even stronger. To admit that spanking can be wrong - that is also to admit that <I>they</I> may have done something hurtful to their own child! No one wants to admit this. .

More of the above.

I perfectly respect your right to disagree, singledad. I don't know why you do not feel I am extending the same courtesy to you. I am. .

I think he is saying this because you advocate to jail parents who disagree with you by spanking their children. And, again, it's not about spanking. People who advocate legislation about a whole host of things are not allowing for disagreement.

But also, you make the sorts of statements you've made above which basically are that "I've never said that you were traumatized if you were spanked but really, actually you were but it is very difficult for you to admit it either because you are in denial and your logic is skewed as a result, or you are a spanker and don't want to accept that you are traumatizing your own child, so I really do not give any credit to your disagreement with my perspective." Whether you understand that is what you are saying or not, whether you mean it or not, when you cast those sorts of aspersions, (as above) that is what you are communicating.

It no longer matter if you are tall or short, big or small, old or young, male or female, black or white, part of the group in power or in the minority..

And I think that's the point. We have laws in place that do not spell out every possible situation of discrimination. By trying to spell them out we would in fact take the effectiveness away. If a particular method or incidence of discrimination were not spelled out specifically in the law, then it would not be prosecutable. So by keeping the laws relatively broadly written, we have a greater chance of stopping discrimination.

 

[bssage]

Yes, I wasn't trying to make it about spanking. I am trying to show the fundamental danger of social engineering - everyone have causes that they care about, and that they wish more people supported. I thing it is good that we all speak about and try to get people to think about our causes as much as possible. I also think it is very important that we know the facts on which we base our arguments. All of this, the OP does, and I respect him for it. The problem comes in when we believe that we are right, and everyone who disagrees with us are wrong. We read studies, but discard those we disagree with. We latch onto statistics that prove our points, but dismiss those that don't. And then, because we are so convinced that we are right, we start lobbying for legislation to force everyone to share our views, in the name of the "greater good", human rights, etc.

Because, obviously, MY cause is different, and more important than other causes. And because my cause is so noble and so true, I have the right to use social engineering to force people to agree with me.

But what if your cause is not so different from many others?

Who gets to decide when social engineering is ok, and when it isn't?

Now, I am not accusing the OP of being biased to this extreme, I am merely asking that he accept that it is possible to disagree with him without being "wrong". And even though I believe his cause is noble, it is not so different from my passion for conserving endangered wildlife. I have no right to stop european commercial fisheries from fishing pacific yellow-fin tuna into extinction, and he has no right to stop loving parents from disciplining their children as they see fit. And as you say, legislation should only be considered once the vast majority of those who will be affected agree with it. THAT is what democracy is about.

my vote for post of the year:award::award:

And I apologize if this has been answered but parentastic, do you have kids. I didn't see it in you profile.

 

[parentastic]

And I apologize if this has been answered but parentastic, do you have kids. I didn't see it in you profile.

Hello Bssage, I have wrote a bit about my background here.

 

[bssage]

thanks. I looked in the intro's and somehow missed that. I hope i didn't offend.

The reason i ask is only to qualify your assumptions.

I had many assumptions when I became a parent. I am sure you will learn parenting is a dynamic job. while many things i have learned though education have shown some success. frequently many have been modified or abandon completely.

I am a spanker. I spanked my son Cole once when he had hit a kid in the face in preschool. I have never spanked him since. But he knows the concept of escalating consequences. My dad spanked me once or twice. I also new escalating consequences. Not understanding that is BAD.

My point is two fold. 1# spanking does not always equal abuse. #2 what is successful for one or even most, may not be successful for all.

As far as social engineering. WoW, how many bad examples of the popular vs the right thing does anyone need. Prohibition, antisemitism,ect... carfull what you wish for.

I think its great that you believe in things and feel strongly about them. I only caution you to keep an open mind.

 

[singledad]

I picked up on a reference you made to spanking because to me, it seems that even though you admit the dangers of social engineering, you believe that spanking is different than so many other terrible yet legal things, and that this difference warrants a forced ban on an unwilling population, regardless of how this violates the principles of democracy. I was trying to determine how you reached this conclution.

I am against social engineering through legislation because, besides all the inherent dangers of social engineering, it also goes against everything that defines democracy. I am not opposed to social engineering through education, and would definitely not oppose a drive to teach parents about alternative techniques that can be used instead of spanking, (to go back to the old example). I might even support such a drive!

My studies leads me to believe that spanking is a traumatizing act.
It does not mean children will necessarily end-up being traumatized.

Ok, Now you've lost me. I'm sorry if I appeared to put words in your mouth, but to me (and according to my understanding of what I read in the dictionary), something that is Traumatizing, is something that causes trauma. Being Traumatized is the result of experiencing something traumatic, or otherwise put, something that causes trauma. How can experiencing something that is traumatizing not result in someone being traumatized? Isn't that like saying something that is painful does not necessarily hurt? Surely, if the person wasn't traumatized, the experience can't be called traumatizing for that person?

I think spanking is, at worst, POTENTIALLY traumatic.

I have been spanked a few times in my youth by my dad, ....

I am sorry you had to experience something that was clearly traumatic to you. I am very sorry that your father did not have the maturity and self-control to wait until he was more in command of himself, and that your mother chose to compound the situation rather than to stay calm herself and restore some order. I am, however, very glad that you shared this story with us. Against this backdrop, I can better understand why you hold many of your beliefs.

Well, that answer has the merit to be consistent with yourself

As an aside - what do you mean with this?

you make the sorts of statements you've made above which basically are that "I've never said that you were traumatized if you were spanked but really, actually you were but it is very difficult for you to admit it either because you are in denial and your logic is skewed as a result, or you are a spanker and don't want to accept that you are traumatizing your own child, so I really do not give any credit to your disagreement with my perspective."

Yup, that's how I read it.

And I think that's the point. We have laws in place that do not spell out every possible situation of discrimination. By trying to spell them out we would in fact take the effectiveness away. If a particular method or incidence of discrimination were not spelled out specifically in the law, then it would not be prosecutable. So by keeping the laws relatively broadly written, we have a greater chance of stopping discrimination.

That is the other point I've been trying to make all along, and that is why it is important for someone who is lobbying for legislation to understand at least something of the workings of the law.

<LIST>

• 
  <LI>
• Laws are made more specific when there is a need to prevent malicious prosecution, or to stop governments and/or law enforcement from abusing said laws for their own personal gain.</LI>
  <LI>
• Laws need to be more vague when there is a need to empower law enforcers to apply said laws to now and unforeseen cases.</LI>
  <LI>
• When the law describes the cases where it may be applied in detail, it prevents law enforcement agencies form applying it to cases that aren't explicitly described.</LI>

</LIST>

An excellent example of laws that are far too specific, is the drug laws in most countries, which contains of very precise lists of illegal substances. This leaves the door wide open for new "designer" drugs, and governments are left scrambling to amend laws to include new substances while the cops are powerless to stop the spread of these drugs until the lengthy process of outlawing them has been completed. And so, "Bath Salts", still sold legally in most US states, have already caused incredible havoc in far too many lives, and even killed several people. Thank goodness, I haven't yet found any reference to it outside the US, so I'm hoping that means it hasn't spread internationally yet.

But why, oh why, could drug laws not have been phrased in such a way that the manufacturers and sellers of "Bath Salts" could be prosecuted without it having to be explicitly banned first? :arghh: (Sorry, drug abuse is another one of my "pet causes" )

 

[TabascoNatalie]

But why, oh why, could drug laws not have been phrased in such a way that the manufacturers and sellers of "Bath Salts" could be prosecuted without it having to be explicitly banned first? :arghh: (Sorry, drug abuse is another one of my "pet causes" )

I guess, because laws come afterwards the results. In UK people constantly die from stuff they use for intoxication, which is not meant for human consumtion. Like ketamine (horse tranquilizer) or mephedrone (plant food). Simply it is not possible to predict in advance to what extent human insanity can go.

With spanking it is like that as well. A law can ban spanking, but can't make people to be good parents.

 

[Ari]

&lt;r&gt;&lt;I&gt;&lt;s&gt;<I>&lt;/s&gt;&lt;FONT font="Times New Roman"&gt;&lt;s&gt;&lt;/s&gt;I once carefully constructed a beautiful house for my friend to live in. The walls were made of stones, meticulously placed on top of one another, the crevices filled with sand to block out wind and cold air. The roof was tough birch bark and hand picked soft moss. A pebble path led my friend, whose leaf dress I had carefully placed over her wooden head, up to the open door. Once inside, my friend rested on a moss bed and ate her dinner from a granite table. &lt;e&gt;</SIZE>&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/SIZE&gt;&lt;e&gt;[/FONT]&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;e&gt;</I>&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/I&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;SIZE size="3"&gt;&lt;s&gt;<SIZE size="125">&lt;/s&gt;&lt;FONT font="Times New Roman"&gt;&lt;s&gt;&lt;/s&gt;Nature is a powerful force, surrounding us in ways we don’t even think about. Yet there are fewer and fewer today who are actually reaping the benefits that nature provides. Our children are being born into a culture where education emphasizes technology and material goods. The natural world is constantly disrespected through pollution and industrialization, which sustains the ever increasing population. Health problems are becoming ever more common in children, which, as noted by author Richard Louv in his book &lt;I&gt;&lt;s&gt;<I>&lt;/s&gt;Last Child in the Woods, &lt;e&gt;</I>&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/I&gt;includes Attention Deficit Disorder, Other issues are asthma and obesity. The problem that is at the center of these health concerns can be related to a disorder newly identified by Louv: Nature Deficit Disorder, which, just as it sounds, is the negative impact today’s lack of nature has on children. &lt;e&gt;&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;e&gt;</SIZE>&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/SIZE&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;SIZE size="3"&gt;&lt;s&gt;<SIZE size="125">&lt;/s&gt;&lt;FONT font="Times New Roman"&gt;&lt;s&gt;&lt;/s&gt;It is time to bring our children back into the outdoors, to allow them to play creatively in the woods, learn from nature, and experience an active lifestyle. The health and mental benefits will make the difference for future generations. &lt;e&gt;&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;e&gt;</SIZE>&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/SIZE&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;B&gt;&lt;s&gt;&lt;/s&gt;&lt;FONT font="Times New Roman"&gt;&lt;s&gt;&lt;/s&gt;Appreciate and Employ Sustainable Practices&lt;e&gt;</SIZE>&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/SIZE&gt;&lt;e&gt;[/FONT]&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;e&gt;&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/B&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;SIZE size="3"&gt;&lt;s&gt;<SIZE size="125">&lt;/s&gt;&lt;FONT font="Times New Roman"&gt;&lt;s&gt;&lt;/s&gt;It has become easy in our world of modern conveniences and technology to forget the world we live in and take advantage of all that nature provides us with. The facts surrounding global climate change and the other negative impacts we as humans are having on the environment should hold us accountable to practicing sustainability. However, it is difficult for people, especially children, to realize the impact they are having on the environment unless they are able to get out and really view it and appreciate it for what it is worth. Those who enjoy hiking in natural parks, skiing in the mountains, and making forts in the woods will be more likely to advocate sustainability and respect for nature, which in turn will protect our planet and make for a better future for all.&lt;e&gt;&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;e&gt;</SIZE>&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/SIZE&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;B&gt;&lt;s&gt;&lt;/s&gt;&lt;FONT font="Times New Roman"&gt;&lt;s&gt;&lt;/s&gt;Invoke Creativity&lt;e&gt;</SIZE>&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/SIZE&gt;&lt;e&gt;[/FONT]&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;e&gt;&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/B&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;FONT font="Times New Roman"&gt;&lt;s&gt;&lt;/s&gt;Today’s children are surrounded by innumerable toys and computer games, as well as television and the internet, which supply a constant stream of artificial entertainment. While many of these claim to help children think outside the box, there is actually little room for creativity. It is like we are putting pacifiers in children’s mouths instead of providing them with substantial food that will benefit their minds and bodies. Children should have the ability to create games and activities to do for themselves, instead of constantly being entertained by games and toys that have been created to keep them quiet and stimulated. Once children reach the ability to creatively think for themselves, the world will really be at their fingertips.&lt;e&gt;</SIZE>&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/SIZE&gt;&lt;e&gt;[/FONT]&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;B&gt;&lt;s&gt;&lt;/s&gt;&lt;FONT font="Times New Roman"&gt;&lt;s&gt;&lt;/s&gt;Emotional Health&lt;e&gt;</SIZE>&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/SIZE&gt;&lt;e&gt;[/FONT]&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;e&gt;&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/B&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;FONT font="Times New Roman"&gt;&lt;s&gt;&lt;/s&gt;One of the most common themes of poetry is nature. Many artists display nature in their work. People from all ages have looked to it for inspiration and peace. There is an indefinable quality emanating from nature which people have recognized cannot be received from anywhere else. Children growing up stressed in our busy world must be encouraged to take advantage of the peace that only a wander in the woods can provide. According to Louv there have been recent studies that have shown the healing process for the ill or imprisoned is faster for those who are able to see the wonders of nature.&lt;e&gt;</SIZE>&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/SIZE&gt;&lt;e&gt;[/FONT]&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;B&gt;&lt;s&gt;&lt;/s&gt;&lt;SIZE size="3"&gt;&lt;s&gt;<SIZE size="125">&lt;/s&gt;&lt;FONT font="Times New Roman"&gt;&lt;s&gt;&lt;/s&gt;How Can We Bring Kids Back to Nature?&lt;e&gt;&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;e&gt;</SIZE>&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/SIZE&gt;&lt;e&gt;&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/B&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;FONT font="Times New Roman"&gt;&lt;s&gt;&lt;/s&gt;The solution for bringing children back to nature relies largely on the parents. They must be able to recognize the value the outdoors brings to their children, and allow them to experience it at any opportunity. This may seem difficult, but Louv points out that even the smallest bit of nature can be beneficial to children.&lt;e&gt;</SIZE>&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/SIZE&gt;&lt;e&gt;[/FONT]&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;SIZE size="3"&gt;&lt;s&gt;<SIZE size="125">&lt;/s&gt;&lt;FONT font="Times New Roman"&gt;&lt;s&gt;&lt;/s&gt;School programs can also help children realize the wonders of nature. Instead of focusing solely on technology, schools should create programs that take kids to parks, teach them about sustainability, and allow them to explore nature in the classroom.&lt;e&gt;&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;e&gt;</SIZE>&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/SIZE&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;FONT font="Times New Roman"&gt;&lt;s&gt;&lt;/s&gt;The lack of nature in the lives of children today is too large of a problem to be ignored. It is time for parents and teachers to act now, and bring our children back to nature.&lt;e&gt;</SIZE>&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/SIZE&gt;&lt;e&gt;[/FONT]&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;B&gt;&lt;s&gt;&lt;/s&gt;&lt;SIZE size="3"&gt;&lt;s&gt;<SIZE size="125">&lt;/s&gt;&lt;FONT font="Times New Roman"&gt;&lt;s&gt;&lt;/s&gt;Works Cited:&lt;e&gt;&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;e&gt;</SIZE>&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/SIZE&gt;&lt;e&gt;&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/B&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;SIZE size="3"&gt;&lt;s&gt;<SIZE size="125">&lt;/s&gt;&lt;FONT font="Times New Roman"&gt;&lt;s&gt;&lt;/s&gt;Louv, Richard. Interview with David Roberts. &lt;U&gt;&lt;s&gt;<U>&lt;/s&gt;An interview with Richard Louv about the &lt;e&gt;</U>&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/U&gt;&lt;e&gt;&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;e&gt;</SIZE>&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/SIZE&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;SIZE size="3"&gt;&lt;s&gt;<SIZE size="125">&lt;/s&gt;&lt;FONT font="Times New Roman"&gt;&lt;s&gt;&lt;/s&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;s&gt;<U>&lt;/s&gt;need to get kids out into nature&lt;e&gt;</U>&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/U&gt;. 30 Mar. 2006. Accessed 14 Sept. 2011&lt;e&gt;&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;e&gt;</SIZE>&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/SIZE&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;COLOR color="black"&gt;&lt;s&gt;&lt;/s&gt;grist.org&lt;e&gt;</SIZE>&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/SIZE&gt;&lt;e&gt;[/FONT]&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;e&gt;[/COLOR]&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/COLOR&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;SIZE size="3"&gt;&lt;s&gt;<SIZE size="125">&lt;/s&gt;&lt;FONT font="Times New Roman"&gt;&lt;s&gt;&lt;/s&gt;Sullivan, Virginia. Rev. of &lt;U&gt;&lt;s&gt;<U>&lt;/s&gt;Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-&lt;e&gt;</U>&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/U&gt;&lt;e&gt;&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;e&gt;</SIZE>&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/SIZE&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;SIZE size="3"&gt;&lt;s&gt;<SIZE size="125">&lt;/s&gt;&lt;FONT font="Times New Roman"&gt;&lt;s&gt;&lt;/s&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;s&gt;<U>&lt;/s&gt;Deficit Disorder&lt;e&gt;</U>&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/U&gt;, by Richard Louv. &lt;U&gt;&lt;s&gt;<U>&lt;/s&gt;Children, Youth and Environments&lt;e&gt;</U>&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/U&gt;, Vol.16, &lt;e&gt;&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;e&gt;</SIZE>&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/SIZE&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;FONT font="Times New Roman"&gt;&lt;s&gt;&lt;/s&gt;No1. (2006). Accessed 14 Sept. 2011,&lt;e&gt;</SIZE>&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/SIZE&gt;&lt;e&gt;[/FONT]&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;SIZE size="3"&gt;&lt;s&gt;<SIZE size="125">&lt;/s&gt;&lt;FONT font="Times New Roman"&gt;&lt;s&gt;&lt;/s&gt;cye.colorado.edu&lt;e&gt;&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;e&gt;</SIZE>&lt;/e&gt;&lt;/SIZE&gt;&lt;/r&gt;

 

[IADad]

Oh yes, definitely!
This is, I think, at the very crux of the problem.
If it was good enough for me, how could it be wrong?
I'll say more about this as I respond to singledad's previous post.

I agree to an extent, that's the rationalization that some people use to defen beating thier children, but just because some people beat their children doesn't mean that all spanking is abuse.

I am always wary when people use etiological arguments to prove a point.

and I am wary when people want to turn to science to explain everything, and discount everything that cannot be scientifically proven. The point was not to ignore science and simply act as our animal instincts drive us. The point was to balance our knowledge with the intuition that we as reasoning being have. Our intution is the sum of our life experience, our instincts and our logical conclusions. the brain is hugely powerful and I think in recent decades we've tended to discount intution as being illogical when in fact it is the supreme application of logic, we just don't always understand it. So, use science, temper it with common sence (or vice versa)

It's an opinion that you are entitled to have.
I beg to have a completely different opinion, based on my studies.
At some point, I might post something more complete about this, but I fear it's never very welcomed in a parenting site: nobody likes to hear that what they may have done or what they have lived might have had serious negative long term consequences.

and we don't know what the long term results are for any other approaches as well. It could be long reaching and devastating scocietally, to be overly permissive, not fail to give adequate guidance, to not set limits for kids to rebel against, we just don't know. And again, my point is not to discount the science, but to temper it. Thalidomide, DDT, nuclear, fision, plastic, asbestos, were all great scientific achievements in their time. We've learned to recognize and stop some unintended consequences and control others.

...and yet it is proven now, backed by research that outlawing texting and driving has indeed reduced the number of people doing this.
The reason is simple: for <I>some</I> people, not everyone, something is okay to do until it's officially not okay to do. When it becomes illegal, then they stop doing it. It's really that simple.

I find that to be a rather spurious conlusion, much like the notion that we could decrease auto accidents by banning cars. And the "some people" are EXACTLY what I'm talking about, their attitudes, their notion that "it must be okay unless it's been made illegal,' is precisely the danger we've created by abdicating personal responsibility to government. People aren't by nature wreckless, but when we keep them from experiencing the consequences to their actions, their fail to learn to avoid them

Well, pardon me for saying, but I don't think it's that stupid, IADad - depending of course on how such a measure could be implemented.
If these students get to a point where they cannot finish their studies because they are bankrupts, then they will never get that high paying job and their bankruptcy will mean the government won't get paid back anyway.

the stupidity I was speaking of was not the idea itself, but the blind, "oh that's a great idea, where do I sign" mentality. The stupidity is that far too many people will jump on a good idea without doing even cursory research. I would have expected you to support the idea of thoroughly researching an issue before forming an opinion on it.

When the vast majority simply cannot afford studies in the first place?

If we're talking about post-secondary education, then I'm going to take extreme exception to the notion that there aren't enough kids in college. I encounter college students daily, who cannot follow simple instructions to operate a very simple website, who cannot form an english sentence, who don't have the rhetorical skills to carry on a simple business conversation, who cannot understand the simple concept that one should not get a tax credit for an expense they have not paid. I will agree that maybe we aren't getting some of the right kids into college, but we are pushing far too many kids into cookie cutter college environments they have no business and aren't prepared to enter. Making college more affordable is not the answer to our education crisis.

I am confused.
How can two gay people get married in a state that outlaws gay marriage right now in US, IADad?

i see I was unclear. I was separating our historica/ traditional (religious) practice of marriage from the governmental scationing which unfortunately is also called marriage, which is the crux of the whole battle over the subject. I personally advvocate separating the concept of religious marriage from civil union, so all of us would get a civil union and some would also be married in the eyes of a church, so I'm saying let's re-define government's role in the whole marriage process, make it solely so they can provide the recognition of a union that desrves the benefits any committet relationship should have, and leave "marriage" to whoever wants to practice it in whatever method they see fit. Not to side track the discussion, but it was another example of the role of government and how we've allowed it to get confusing when there are clearer simpler solutions.

Now, I've responded to a lot of your response, but I don't want it to appear that I'm disagreeing with you. I do agree that science has a role, a valuable one, I just think we need to personally temper both our absoutely loyalty to science as well as take control, as a citizenry, of our governments nad to step up our personal responsibility and teach that to our children, for the long-term health of society.

 

[IADad]

But why, oh why, could drug laws not have been phrased in such a way that the manufacturers and sellers of "Bath Salts" could be prosecuted without it having to be explicitly banned first? :arghh: (Sorry, drug abuse is another one of my "pet causes" )

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. 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?