posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 08:06 PM
a reply to:
Xcalibur254
I wouldn't say that vast numbers of parents should not have children simply because they spank them, although there are large numbers of people who
should not have children for reasons ranging from physical abuse, to mental and emotional abuse, to neglect, to inability to meet the financial
demands of raising a family.
I think that practically speaking, given the wide range of capabilities of individuals as parents, their intellectual and emotional resources, etc.,
to criminalize spanking would create
other problems with worse effects than the unpleasant experience of receiving the occasional spanking.
In fact, I would go further and give this thread more of a conspiratorial ATS style twist and say that it would not surprise me in the least to learn
that
"BIG PHARMA", purveyor of ammunition to the exponents of modern pharmachiatry, were behind this push to ban spanking, under the rubric
"You can't spank'em anymore, but you can still drug'em."
When Liberals lost the previous federal election, Justin Trudeau said that one of the reasons was, that Liberal bag men were outperformed by their
Conservative colleagues and that something had to be done about that.
Banning spanking is definitely going to put more money into the hands of the pharmaceutical companies.
Did they find a way of putting more money
into the hands of the Liberals to get that ban put in place?
Whenever "gubmint" starts fixing things that don't need to be fixed, you can bet there is some financial consideration behind it.
edit on
23-12-2015 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)