Putting a heavy backpack and forced twenty mile hikes is not a 'pysical
punishment'.. lol


"Kane" wrote in message
om...
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:53:34 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
wrote:


"LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message
...

Dennis Hancock wrote:

Again Kane, you are showing your lack of ability to discuss this
issue.
One
cannot ignore the fine lines between spanking and abusive
behavior in
dealing with this issue than they can in refusing to deal with
emotional
or
psychological abuse.

In the US, corporal punishment is considered cruel and unusual
punmishment
for
any individual over the age of 18. Why? Corporal punishment is
considered
physically abusive, emotionally abusive, and psychololgically
abusive.
For
some strange and bizarre reason, anyone under the age of 18 is
exempt from
this
protection.

What does this mean, Dennis? It means that the US allows little
children
to be
victimized by the exact same behavior that is considered
physically,
emotionally, and psychologically abusive once that little child
turns 18.

This is weird logic, Dennis.

LaVonne

LaVonne.. not true at all.

Corporal punishment is considered cruel and unusual punishment by
anyone
outside the family, at ANY age. Our judicial system does not use
corporal
punishment as a punishment for crimes, nor does our juvenile system.

LaVonne, in all her posts, and I've read most, has never claimed that
it does. Her point is that it DOESN'T and that is one of the things
that makes the use of pain on children so barbaric.

But take a closer look. Pain and suffering IS an acceptable method
of
discipline in the armed forces and guess what, the majority are at
the adult
stages of their lives.

One: no superior, officer or non-com or trainer may even touch the
clothing of a recruit, let alone hit or otherwise inflict unjury, no
matter how slight.

Two: until there is conscription all such are volunteers.

Three: Since they are adults they have recourse. Children do not.


So, to be honest, your assertions simply are not well founded here.


So be honest, your assertions are simply more bs.

Kane