Basically:
"The California Legislature is about to weigh in on a question that stirs impassioned debate among moms and dads: Should parents spank their children?
If legislation being drafted by a Mountain View lawmaker is approved, California would become the first state in the nation to explicitly ban parents from swatting their toddlers."
Oh, boy. The nanny state is at it again. The article points out that child raising experts are split on whether spanking works or not. Lawmakers point out that the law would be unenforceable. Parent point out that the legislature is "crazy".
But what is great is the logic behind the law:
"Why do we allow parents to hit a little child and not someone their own size?" asked Nazario, a professor at the University of San Francisco Law School. "Everyone in the state is protected from physical violence, so where do you draw the line? To take a child and spank his little butt until he starts crying, some people would define that as physical violence."
Bingo!
Logic : I think => Some think => All people must agree by statue of law.
Add to that: Everyone in the state is protected from physical violence...
Another person sure of their safety and ready to extend their fantasy to you and yours, by rule of law.
So what makes the lawmaker behind the law such a child raising expert?
"For the record, Lieber said, she does not have children and says she was not slapped as a child. But she does have a cat named Snoop, which her veterinarian told her never to hit."
How could I have guessed?
No comments:
Post a Comment