My personal freedom is worth more than the life of the child next door (2041 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: 0.98 on 63 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Rad (View user info) at 2005-01-31 06:46:09 EST
The following assumes the person being investigated for child abuse (you) is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This only needs to be stated to contrast the loophole that is the Child Protective Services.
Not since before Row v. Wade have so many individual's rights been trampled.
Here in the United States, we have governmental agencies called child protective services (CPS). Usually run by individual states, they are established by some very well meaning legislation. This is the website for Nevada Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS). http://www.dcfs.state.nv.us/
Now, this agency has the responsibility of investigating any and every report of abuse and neglect it fields. This sounds all good so far? The agency does not have the responsibility to report anything to law enforcement. The problem with this is you have a bunch of civilians trying to investigate and enforce criminal statutes.
Well Rad, how exactly does a non-law enforcement agency enforce laws? Ahh, good question faithful reader. The CPS investigator has the right to take your child from you at her discretion. Sure, you get the kid back if charges are not filed, but they keep records on you comparable to J. Edgar in the 1950's. These records are not supposed to be public, but they can come back and haunt you down the road of life. Custody hearing? Later unrelated criminal charges? Whether or not the investigation determined anything would not matter when your ex-spouse brings up the time when little Johnny was so mad at you for taking away the Nintendo he called CPS.
This setup could work well with well-trained, objective investigators who have stricter limits on their power. Unfortunately, most people who run the agency, as well as work for the agency have an agenda. Since this agency is outside of law enforcement, they don't exactly follow constitutional guidelines when investigating an allegation of abuse. The agenda they run is thusly imposed on the will of anyone, good or bad, innocent or guilty of any crime.
The agenda these government agencies have can be described as liberal, or progressive. There is nothing wrong with these values as long as you are willing to accept responsibility for the effects of said values on society. Same goes for conservative traditionalists, but since they run law enforcement and not DCFS or CPS, I will leave them alone for now.
Do you use corporal punishment? How many times have you been shopping for dinner and the kid in front of you in line is bugging the shit out of their moms for a candy bar. The mother can only take so much badgering from the kid until she gives in, and you stand aghast that the child controls the parent. If that were your child, you would have done anything from yell at her to spank her. Well, it doesn't conform to the progressive norm, so if you are investigated for spanking the kid in the grocery store, your kid might be placed in alternative care. Ever wonder why there are so many out of control youth? Snobby, bratty, spoiled, mean, criminal, needy kids? They are the result of progressive discipline.
You tell your friend that you have a physical reaction from breastfeeding that includes sexual stimulation and the friend reports you. The caseworker investigating you happens to have been molested by her mother when she was an infant. So what happens? Good-bye, baby.
Don't get me wrong, the agency needs to exist and bad people need to be punished, children need to be protected. The agency needs to be held more accountable for actions it takes, and need to be run to the same professional integrity as law enforcement.
I don't want my rights to be violated by warrantless search and seizure, unlawful stripping of due process, imposition of cruel and unusual punishment.
"That Big Brother is being created solely by the right wing is an illusion. Those on both sides of the aisle are imposing a government with its hands in your pockets, ears on your telephone, and eyes in your bedroom. The face of Big Brother is in the PATRIOT act, but the heart and soul is in every social program created since 1933."
-Rad
User Reviews
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-12-27 02:23:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by lojope (user info) at 2005-01-31 10:12:08 (#)
Ranking: 0
Actually, that's not exactly how it works. Most social workers/psychologists/etc HAVE had the need of a social worker/psychologist/etc in their past, and it was someone who helped them, maybe even saved them, and they see the need for people to have those jobs, they want to make sure there is someone there to save the next generation, so they do it. They do it because they know how vital it is.
=============================
bullshit.
Submitted by enraged_baboon (user info) at 2005-08-23 13:22:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-05-08 12:32:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I would like to thank shandy for providing the inspiration for this post.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-04-25 00:09:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Okay... don't know it obviously.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-04-24 23:50:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
third stone from the sun. Kind of a jazz fusion jam.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-04-24 23:29:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Third stone?
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-04-24 11:54:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I never listen to the lyrics anyway.
So, you dig on third stone? That is a deep fuckin tune, man. Ya dig?
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-04-24 11:45:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Yep. It's in a song - "If 6 was 9".
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-04-24 11:33:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Hendrix really said that?
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-04-24 11:25:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"I'm the one who's gotta die when it's time for me to die. So let me live my life the way I want to". - Jimi Hendrix.
Submitted by alfakyle (user info) at 2005-04-24 11:19:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
if taking the child away from an accused abuser -- if even for only a few days of preliminary investigation -- is perfectly okay, why not lock up accused murderers, rapists, drunk drivers, etc immediately upon being accused until their alleged crime can be investigated? are their crimes less detrimental to society? what makes a child's life more important than mine?
Submitted by podium (user info) at 2005-03-23 17:20:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2005-03-04 21:33:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I read it, but just couldn't get into it. I can't stand it when you see kids raising hell and acting like little shits, but hell I don't know what you do about it. My parents didn't believe in beating us, but yet somehow we knew how to act in public. I can't even hazard a guess why, but it just didn't occur to me to pitch a fit when I didn't get my way. On the issue of how these things are investigated, I don't know anything about that either. I guess, if you consider that a child is completely helpless at the hands of its own parents, the agencies feel like its better to err on the side of caution.
Submitted by Circe (user info) at 2005-03-03 06:25:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
C.U.N.T. review
Tricksy, with the use of emotive phrases to get your point across. "Abused by her mother as an infant." Sincerely, what are the odds of that? But like I said, it's an effective technique.
I can't add much, because this is well done, and because I 100% agree. Well, except about the spanking, but we'll debate that some other time.
Submitted by Spam (user info) at 2005-03-03 05:58:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
C.U.N.T. Review
As a piece of informative writing, I thought this was excellent. Not being American, I have absolutely no idea what the CPS is or how they work and you've explained the basics in as much depth as required and succinctly, but without over-simplifyig. Inclusion of some hypothetical examples helps the reader visualise exactly how the system's flaws can affect them and again is done efficently but with the required amount of detail. You have taken a couple of these examples (esp the breastfeeding) to the extereme though and this hurts your case somewhat as certain people are likely to dismiss these as a bit thin.
The one major problem with this piece is the lack of suggestions on a possible solution. While you've identified faults in the system, and explained the root cause of said faults really well, the only suggestion for improvement I could find was here:-
"...The agency needs to be held more accountable for actions it takes, and need to be run to the same professional integrity as law enforcement. "
For page or so of writing, only one sentance?? It's easy enough to pick fault with a system, but unless you provide suggestions for reform it's going to sound a bit whiney.
Overall, very solid, and a great quote at the end.
I haven't read any of the other reviews so apologies if anything has been repeated.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-03-02 03:16:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Don't worry.
I just have a herd on for that quote. Nothing more, nothing less.
It's kinda my olive branch to left leaning idealogues. I rip equally into both parties while remaining in the middle.
That, and it doesn't say we should not have social programs. It's merely a perspective that counters the notion that any point of view is completely correct.
Submitted by Wiggles (user info) at 2005-03-02 03:05:54 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Sorry, but that last paragraph you always throw into reviews and posts just annoys the fuck out of me. There are so many social programs that do so much good for this country. Don't think I'm not understanding what you mean.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-02-28 08:08:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
A little history on my frame of mind while writing this:
This piece was written as a reply to a question Shandy posed about breastfeeding. http://www.ubersite.com/m/58169#1106064
It was indended to be about the basic laws regarding this subject, but the abhorrance of the failure of the state to be responible crept in.
The review was written in 15 minutes, and 20 more was spent editing for submission.
I have found that if I spent more time proofreading and rewriting, and having a focus, I would probably make all my points clearer.
Thank you all for the CUNT reviews. They prove to be very helpful.
Submitted by Naery (user info) at 2005-02-28 08:02:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
C.U.N.T. Review:
Wow. It's not the first time I've heard this argument, and it's not the first time I've heard some one point out the causal relationship between "progressive discipline" and shitty kids. However, this is the first time I've seen it all laid out, black and white, short and long, with no excess fat. I don't think I can add anything constructive to this.
To contradict my previous statement: In debate, you make arguments based on appeals to 1) Logos, 2) Ethos or 3) Pathos. There is definitely Logos in this argument, and a little Ethos, but Pathos is somewhat lacking. That may be what makes it so strong, but done well I think it could also strengthen this piece even more. Yes, other than *that* I have nothing beneficial or constructive to add.
Submitted by urbaneruralite (user info) at 2005-02-28 00:11:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
No Comment
Submitted by boneface (user info) at 2005-02-27 23:59:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I think this is good overall. The "progressive discipline" paragraph about the shifting values/ideas in parenting and how that will be viewed by an outside, regulating force is your strongest point.
I think you strayed from your original idea though. You say in the beginning that not since Wade vs. Rowe have so many citizens rights been trampled, but then make no specific references in the body, and only a few vague references at best.
Now to see what other people have said...
Submitted by wijormiclat (user info) at 2005-02-27 19:11:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Oops, was I supposed to critique the mechanics?
Submitted by wijormiclat (user info) at 2005-02-27 19:09:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
CUNT review:
Interesting post, I agree with the fact that we need to revert back to old values and not be afraid to give a misbehaving kid a whack every now and then. PHYSICAL PUNISHMENTS SHOULD NOT BE EXCESSIVE of course, I'm talking about maybe one or two light swats to let the kid know you mean business. There should still be protection for children that are victims of excessive physical and in some cases emotional abuse, but parents shouldn't have their children frivolously taken from them.
Submitted by FelizJbirth (user info) at 2005-02-27 18:27:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Ok, here's my C.U.N.T. review (I was told to put 0)
First of all, you are obviously very good at writing. I thought the whole thing flowed well and at no point did I wonder to myself what the hell you were talking about.
I think you did a good job of taking a specific topic and expressing your opinion. I happen to agree with you on most of your points. I think it's just another door they're opening.
I sort of got the impression that you think one of the main reasons children are out of control is because of a lack of physical discipline. I don't completely agree with that but you argued your point well and I might be misinterpreting you anyway.
Overall, I enjoyed it, it was well written, what more can I say? Hope this suffices, I can't be as insightful as Shandy.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2005-02-27 18:19:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't think this is particularly persuasive. There's enough here for someone that already agrees with you to grasp on to, and the point about civilians taking on the responsibilites of law enforcement is thought-provoking, but it feels to me as though you let go of my hand too early in the argument. It doesn't matter how logical your argument is if it doesn't stick in the reader's head - find something catchy and use it to hammer that shit home.
It starts going wrong in the sixth paragraph I think. The start is good, but the Roe vs Wade thing could benefit from a little clarification - remember you're speaking to a global audience here, don't assume everyone comes to the post with the same knowledge as you. The quote at the end is superfluous, I think, and just served to piss me off.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-02-27 18:13:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I will take that into account. If I can un-muddle the subject in my head, I will attempt to compartmentalize the points into more pithy points.
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2005-02-27 18:00:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I thought this was a really interesting topic, with good use of examples and evidence. I found some of the arguments hard to follow, and some of the ideas seemed muddled. The rhetorical (?) question in the middle, that you go on to answer was a bit clumsy.
I think you have the basis of maybe 2 or 3 further posts here.
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2005-02-27 18:00:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
now, if cunt goes according to plan, which is highly unlikely, you should get thirty or so honest reviews.
of course, we can't expect them to be as comprehensive an insightful as Master Shandy's, but hopefully sometign useful.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-02-27 17:52:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
duly noted.
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2005-02-27 17:45:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Interesting choice for CUNT ACTION. I'm going to comment on the medium rather than the message.
I like the (you) in the first line - makes it more direct and engaging, but you don't really follow up on this. After that, I sort of expected the artilce to be phrased like "you answer the door. It is two officials from the cpsa. You invite them in. They tell you a comlaint has been made about your child Tommie... "etc.
I don't know what Row v. Wade is.
"The agenda they run is thusly imposed on the will of anyone, good or bad, innocent or guilty of any crime." Reads awkwardly
Generally, I think there are quite a few different points raised here, and maybe you need to be a bit clearer about what your main point is.
To me, the strongest point seemed to be that improperly trained civilians have legal powers they are not equiped for. I think some of the other stuff - about smacking kids, about the agendas of cpsa people - has been tossed in in a rather inflamatory way and could distract from that simple, factual point. The smacking and the agendas is relevant and interesting, but for my taste I would have preferred them mentioned in a more measured way.
Then there is the point about the well-meaning left also being big brotherish, which is also a strong one.
Actually, this post seems to be sort of a cross between a structured essay and a spontaneous rant, and maybe you need to go further in one direction or the other. Ie, make it a real raving rant full of inflamatory stuff, or structure your points more clearly and adopt a more measured, reasonable tone.
As for the content, I think all the issues are well worth discussing, and the civilians with legal powers stuff was something I hadn't really consciously realised, so that was enlightening.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-02-27 17:30:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Fine. Will do next time. What would you expect from a cunt, if not a cunt action?
My apologies.
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2005-02-27 17:16:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
next time i mean, leave it as is now
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2005-02-27 17:12:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
you stupid cunt!
can i suggest rather than posting a link, just posting it again? ie cutting and pasting the content itno a new post?
now i will get to cuntish work
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-02-27 17:06:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
All reviews above this are for C.U.N.T. ACTION PLEASE
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-02-11 02:41:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
No Comment
Submitted by phuzzygish (user info) at 2005-02-02 05:42:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
It's actually ridiculous when your social structures dictate the fact that instead of using your initiative and disciplining/raising/feeding etc. in the way you feel right, you have to be on your toes looking out for people with massive personal agendas.
Luckily in S.A. we don't have organisations like the CPS (Well, we do, but they don't act like that) to almost make us fear publicly-parenting our child. Yes, S.A. has it's cock-ups and policy issues, but it's quite scary hearing about this sort of thing. Well said Rad.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2005-02-01 05:07:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
CPS must die.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2005-02-01 04:04:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
they are all whinging cunts.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-02-01 03:58:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Wiggles (user info) at 2005-01-31 20:59:37 (#)
Ranking: 0
Perhaps reform is needed in programs like these, but I've always believed that the government should have a significant role in the lives of children whose parents can't or won't give them the nurturing they need.
============================================================================================
Should the government be able to use oppressive techiniques in their investigations in these cases? Should a good parent be subject to facist laws disguised as "fighting child abuse"?
Submitted by Black-Mamba (user info) at 2005-01-31 23:17:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I live in Nevada myself, and I remember when the headline in the review journal said "OK TO SPANK CHILDREN IN PUBLIC" or something close to it... The artical was about a case that was won and per the court it was ok to spank children (open handedly, and certin areas such a the bum) in public. My mother was never so happy as when she heard that. I am a firm beliver in a good smack when needed.I personaly belive lack of such tool for dicaplining is the main cause for such disrespect children have.
I remember my mother telling me when she was younger "children were to be seen and not heard." my mother has told me why these such laws are in place. Her mother had decided she wanted a vaction and left all 9 kids (all 10 and under) at an abandoned farm for 3 weeks in the middle of winter. There was no food the house had burned down at some point and the only luxury they had was a large matress lieing on what was left of the porch. All 9 kids had to share. They ate what was available including a cat that had happened upon them. To this day my mom only eats one meal and not very much.
Another incident her step father came home from the bar drunk and after molesting her two yonger sisters (including her twin) he came after her. Thankfully he past out. between the 3 of them they beat the hell out of him and when he woke up belived he was in a bar fight.
so yes, they are there for a reason but at the same time it is used to instill respect.
Submitted by Wiggles (user info) at 2005-01-31 20:59:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Perhaps reform is needed in programs like these, but I've always believed that the government should have a significant role in the lives of children whose parents can't or won't give them the nurturing they need.
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2005-01-31 20:48:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Don't get me wrong, the agency needs to exist and bad people need to be punished, children need to be protected. The agency needs to be held more accountable for actions it takes, and need to be run to the same professional integrity as law enforcement"
i think that is the key point here, and a good one.
(although whether law enforcement has adequate integrity is another question.)
also, i don't think all the blame for bratty kids can be layed on the lack of smacking etc. there are probably many other social influences contributing. that said, i remember reading about a westerner visiting some african tribe or other and being suprised that the kids never whinged and whined and were so well behaved. the african adult explained that if a child started behavnig like a little cunt they were immediately hit with a stick.
Submitted by Sassmasterr (user info) at 2005-01-31 11:41:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
No Comment
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-01-31 10:55:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
There is another aspect to the whole thing that worries me. Heres the thing, all parents can, in some way, be regarded as abusers. All of them. Bear in mind that physchological damage is regarded as child abuse. Think about the ramifications of that for a second. Luckily the chances of their being some form of Orwelian system of all children being raised by the state are negligable. Rather the whole system will get horribly bogged down with administration and fail, but not before it's tarred a lot of peoples lives with accusations based upon technicalities. This will affect all parents, be they abusers or no. Unless you disagree, though I cannot see any other possible outcome to the current scenario.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-01-31 10:23:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
And self validation to a certain extent.
I give them the helping people thing, and the make society better thing, but the things you choose to do in life is because you are seeking self-actualization. It's not such a bad thing, really. We all are human, we all are selfish creatures.
The point was that social workers are a dime a dozen, the good ones are the ones who have already dealt with the issues that brought them to the field in the first place.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2005-01-31 10:16:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Agreed. Self-diagnosis is the main motivation for anybody to get into a psych. related field of study/work.
Submitted by lojope (user info) at 2005-01-31 10:12:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Actually, that's not exactly how it works. Most social workers/psychologists/etc HAVE had the need of a social worker/psychologist/etc in their past, and it was someone who helped them, maybe even saved them, and they see the need for people to have those jobs, they want to make sure there is someone there to save the next generation, so they do it. They do it because they know how vital it is.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-01-31 10:11:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ParlorTrick (user info) at 2005-01-31 10:03:03 (#)
Ranking: 1
Well written -- but you lost my support with...
"Not since before Row v. Wade have so many individual's rights been trampled."
I have had the unfortunate exposure to many real child abuse cases and therefore appreciate the "progressive" program which attempts to protect children (versus you)- however flawed.
=========================================================================================
Slow down there, Turbo.
1. Can you tell me exactly what I meant by the Roe v. Wade comment?
2. I state very clearly that there is a need for the agency, it just needs reforms. It is unfair to every parent raising an unruly monster to be afraid to enforce discipline because of the dreaded call to CPS. Do not think for a second I am anti-protecting children.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-01-31 10:06:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Speaking of social workers:
I was having a conversation with a collegue at my place of employment (see above link). He postulates that psychologists/social workers all got into the field because they all have some form of dysfunction they could not deal with, and wanted validate themselves by helping others with their own problems (himself included). The key was that the only good ones were the ones that have worked through their own issues already. Only then would they be of any good to patients/clients/inmates.
Submitted by ParlorTrick (user info) at 2005-01-31 10:03:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Well written -- but you lost my support with...
"Not since before Row v. Wade have so many individual's rights been trampled."
I have had the unfortunate exposure to many real child abuse cases and therefore appreciate the "progressive" program which attempts to protect children (versus you)- however flawed.
Submitted by Boxtop (user info) at 2005-01-31 09:40:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Every social worker I know used to have a social worker themselves.
They are disfunctional
Submitted by Feijuada (user info) at 2005-01-31 09:37:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2005-01-31 09:13:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
...oh yeah.
Oh yeah.
oh oh.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2005-01-31 08:48:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Beat on the brat
Beat on the brat
Beat on the brat
With a baseball bat...
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2005-01-31 08:37:49 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
If you get in trouble for abusing your child, you have some serious problems. If you discipline your child properly, and raise him/her correctly, no one will bother you. There is far more child abuse stories than reported.
And, it's not nearly as bad as the Right-wing Propaganda machine that's been turning since the first world war.
Submitted by lojope (user info) at 2005-01-31 08:18:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I am +2ing this because it was a well-written arguement.
However, I, disagree with you completely.
As a parent myself, I have to say, that having my son taken away from me for a few dauys and then returned is a far lesser evil, than having millions of children being abused and left in their abuser's care while all of the legal red-tape is sorted through.
Child abuse is a situation where you need to be sure the child is safe IMMEDIATELY. Does that mean that sometimes a child is taken into protective custody when they're not being abused? Yes, unfortunately, it does sometimes. But when the truth comes out, the child is returned without a scratch on them, and life can continue as usual.
But what if that wasn't the case? What would the flipside look like?
A child is being abused. The childs tells a teacher or something, and someone reports it. CPS comes in and makes an assesment. The abuser now knows that their child told someone about what was going on at home. CPS leaves and goes to file a report, work on an arrest order, get a warrent, work out the paperwork to get the child removed from the home, and has to LEAVE THE CHILD WITH ONE VERY PISSED OFF ABUSER.
What do you think is going to happen to that kid? If I were to list some of the things that the abuse survivors I work with have told me... You would be physically ill for weeks.
In cases like this, I think it's far better to be safe than sorry, even though occassionally someone gets wrongfully accused and has troubles because of it.
And if the situation enrages you, take it out where it belongs: On the assholes who beat and abuse their own children. If they weren't sick bastards, this problem wouldn't exist.
Submitted by TimeCop (user info) at 2005-01-31 08:16:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Guilty until innocent sucks ass. Major ass.
The other day, my girlfriend was in a store. This little girl is being a bitch to her mom. The mom tells the little girl that's she's gonna get a spanking. And the little girl, in the bitchiest, most horrible voice, screeches out "You won't do that to me in PUBLIC!" I just wanted to spank the shit out of that little brat. I hope she got hers at home.
Submitted by funk_boy (user info) at 2005-01-31 08:13:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-01-31 08:13:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Good stuff.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-01-31 08:12:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Obligatory linkwhoring to the inspiration.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/58169 (Thanks Shandy)
+2 to anyone who looked at that link and thought "pr0n".
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2005-01-31 07:56:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
LOOK AT ME!!!!
I'M A LIBERTARIAN!!!
Submitted by mikethescottish (user info) at 2005-01-31 07:43:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Your argument seems solid and well-expressed to me, i'm interested to see what others make of it.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-01-31 07:18:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
This is very true. Particularly in areas such as this the law is becoming more a reflection of 'Guilty untill proven innocent' after all it's very hard to prove guilt and lock offenders away. Evidence is hard to find, unless you have a small, burned up body in a bag with it's arsehole ripped open, all you have to go on are shreds and circumstancial stuff thats almost impossible to prosecute with. When the mere accusation is virtually a punishment in and of itself and can even be enforced by 'civil' authorites, thus side-stepping all sorts of difficult legal and responsibility based issues.
one of the big problems in arguing against such policies is their morrally unassailable nature. After all how can you argue with a law to protect children in any kind of public forum? Especially hard in a society where being branded a liberal is tantamount to an accusation of treason.