Previous Post
Next Post

Stephanie Hayden mug shot

Sons of Guns stars Stephanie Hayden and Kris Ford were arrested Friday in Louisiana,” tmz.com reports, “for allegedly hitting a 9-year-old boy with a belt so hard he bruised. Parish of Livingston officials tell us Kris abused Stephanie’s son from another relationship last month by striking the kid on his lower buttocks area. Stephanie was also taken into custody because her son told cops she was present in the room. She’s not being accused of hitting her kid.” Another Adrian Peterson-style case of down home corporal punishment taken too far? Time will tell. But if the case(s) of Will Hayden, Stephanie’s father, is any indication, this isn’t the end of this story.

Previous Post
Next Post

197 COMMENTS

    • Show watched by a lot of people… Sons of Guns… like it or not, it comes up in gun and anti-gun conversations. Frankly, if Robert ignored it completely, it would make him look bad.

      And what is up with her? She looks like someone in a “Don’t do meth” photo.

    • The most annoying thing about gun blogs/forums is the douchebags who always complain whenever someone brings up something that’s not quite enough about guns. We all think guns are awesome, but even guns can get boring.

      • I stand by my statement. This is not “not enough about guns,” this is Maury Povich tabloid-TV BS that is (or should be) completely irrelevant to anyone who is not directly involved, either personally or professionally.

        • Relevant or not it’s good theater. Considering that the vast majority of the people of the gun despise the show and everyone in it.

        • Gov is right.

          That said, as much as I despise these people as as much as she looks like a meth head in that pic, I think the charges sound pretty lame.

          I’m not a big fan of corporal punishment in children, but I think every parent should have the right to decide for themselves how their kid is disciplined. Bruising a 9 year old isn’t that difficult.

        • @TheBear said:

          “but I think every parent should have the right to decide for themselves how their kid is disciplined. Bruising a 9 year old isn’t that difficult.”

          So even though a bruise is indicative of bodily damage, it’s okay to bruise a 9 year old because it “isn’t that difficult?”

        • Matt in FL can start his own blog and post what he thinks is relative to subject instead of complaining about what someone else thinks is relative to a subject.

        • @John – Bodily damage? Really?

          When using force to punish a child, the /point/ is to cause pain. Plus, if I grab my girlfriend with any strength at all or smack her on the butt, it leaves bruises. Some people bruise very easily so I think “bruises” used as a sign of child abuse is silly. Bruises on the /face/, hell yes. Bruises on the tush? No.

        • @TheBear said:

          “Bodily damage? Really?”

          Yes. Really. A contusion is bodily damage.

          Contusion
          http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2838

          A bruise, or contusion, is caused when blood vessels are damaged or broken as the result of a blow to the skin (be it bumping against something or hitting yourself with a hammer). The raised area of a bump or bruise results from blood leaking from these injured blood vessels into the tissues as well as from the body’s response to the injury. A purplish, flat bruise that occurs when blood leaks out into the top layers of skin is referred to as an ecchymosis.

          —————–

          @TheBear said:

          “When using force to punish a child, the /point/ is to cause pain.”

          Why is it necessary to inflict physical pain on a child to correct their behavior?

          —————–

          @TheBear said:

          “Plus, if I grab my girlfriend with any strength at all or smack her on the butt, it leaves bruises.”

          So you think it’s okay to grab your girlfriend and leave bruises?

          —————–

          @TheBear said:

          “Some people bruise very easily so I think “bruises” used as a sign of child abuse is silly. Bruises on the /face/, hell yes. Bruises on the tush? No.”

          So no degree of bruising on a child’s bottom would ever rise to abuse?

          • @TheBear said:

            “Plus, if I grab my girlfriend with any strength at all or smack her on the butt, it leaves bruises.”

            So you think it’s okay to grab your girlfriend and leave bruises?

            He didn’t say that. He said it happens. They could be having a tickle fight and she could get bruised.

            @TheBear said:

            “Some people bruise very easily so I think “bruises” used as a sign of child abuse is silly. Bruises on the /face/, hell yes. Bruises on the tush? No.”

            So no degree of bruising on a child’s bottom would ever rise to abuse?

            He didn’t say that.

            Putting words in someone’s mouth to set up a straw man that you can then knock down does not mean you’re winning the argument.

        • @ Matt in FL said:

          “Putting words in someone’s mouth to set up a straw man that you can then knock down does not mean you’re winning the argument.”

          I didn’t put any words in his mouth.

          Based on his own words, it seemed he neither had a problem with bruising his girlfriend nor believing that bruises on a child’s bottom would be signs of abuse.

          I asked questions that gave him the opportunity to clarify his meaning.

        • @ John

          You’re being deliberately obtuse and you have an obvious agenda based on your other comments below.

          Believe it or not, there are a lot of really intelligent posters here (that doesn’t include you). Feel free to ask vacuous, leading questions in response to other people’s comments. I won’t play anymore.

        • @TheBear said:

          “Believe it or not, there are a lot of really intelligent posters here (that doesn’t include you). Feel free to ask vacuous, leading questions in response to other people’s comments. I won’t play anymore.”

          Rather than a debate involving civil back-and-forth, you degenerate into closing out the discussion by hurling insults?

          Lovely.

          I hope you do a better job in winning fence-sitters over to our side of the gun-control debate.

        • This should be irrelevant, except that we all know that the antis will trot this story out to demonize the millions and millions of perfectly normal, safe, productive and drama-free American gun owners.

        • From Mr. Galt:

          @TheBear said:

          “Believe it or not, there are a lot of really intelligent posters here (that doesn’t include you). Feel free to ask vacuous, leading questions in response to other people’s comments. I won’t play anymore.”

          Rather than a debate involving civil back-and-forth, you degenerate into closing out the discussion by hurling insults?

          Mr. Galt seems to specialize in “Strawmans.” Every question he poses is a twisted version of an argument the commenter stated which happens to be easily defended by Mr. Galt.

          Lovely.

          I hope you do a better job in winning fence-sitters over to our side of the gun-control debate.

          I’m going to perform an “ad hominem tu quoque” myself by stating that Mr. Galt has performed an “ad hominem tu quoque” above.

          Isn’t this fun Mr. Galt – spending a lot of time talking about little to nothing.

  1. Anyone surprised? Apple=tree…And what’s happening with pops? BTW To ME Peterson is much worse. YMMV.

    • I would be shocked if this went anywhere. You put this in front of a Jury, you’re telling me that they can get 10 out of 12 jurors (Louisiana Law) to agree that this was child abuse?

      It’ll get dropped.

      Also, given the recent family events, would it surprise anyone if drugs were coming into play for Steph?

      • Update: The charges are actually “cruelty to a juvenile”.

        §93. Cruelty to juveniles

        A. Cruelty to juveniles is:

        (1) The intentional or criminally negligent mistreatment or neglect by anyone seventeen years of age or older of any child under the age of seventeen whereby unjustifiable pain or suffering is caused to said child. Lack of knowledge of the child’s age shall not be a defense;


        D. Whoever commits the crime of cruelty to juveniles shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned with or without hard labor for not more than ten years, or both.

        So what did the kid do wrong? Maybe it was “justified” lol

    • Never underestimate the value of a professional make-up team. She looks totally hot by the time they have her camera-ready.

      Now, the real question: does a spanking become abuse merely because it results in bruising?
      I’d say no question if the skin was broken, that would make it a flogging.

      When I was a kid, I showed up at the ER with bruises all over both arms. I’d fallen off my bike and sprained my wrist a couple of days after wrestling with my brother’s dog. I was wearing a jacket and the dog had grabbed my arms in her mouth. It didn’t really hurt, we were just playing, but my arms were bruised the next day.
      ER staff was VERY interested in the bruising. It almost went badly because I didn’t want them to sic animal control on the family dog, but fortunately I told them the truth and they weren’t interested in the dog.

  2. well that’s the end of red jacket!they might as well get into the used car business, will never sell another gun to any American or any law enforcement agency or military contractor ever again they might as well close up shop.and on the alleged child abuse charges, those sound like a bunch of BS I got my butt tore off with a belt many a times when I was younger and turned out perfectly alright.

    • This is just another chapter in the ongoing Progressive war on the family. It’s everywhere if you look for it.

      Another chapter in the ongoing Progressive war on the family is hooking up, shacking up, committing adultery, bearing children out of wedlock, broken families, blended families, etc. Get married and stay married, folks.

        • Yeah, that way the Jihadists don’t have to kill us, they’ll just out-breed us like they’ve been doing.

          By a large margin, a growing population has always meant growing prosperity. In the modern world, poverty and starvation are political creations and have nothing to do with a scarcity.

        • The world isn’t overpopulated. We’re obsessed with city living and have no interest in living in a sustainable/ecp friendly agrarian economy. It never ceases to amaze me that the younger generations have no desire to have children. Usually with the justification/excuse of “I get to do what I want and have more money for me!”

          Darwinism at it’s finest I suppose, the selfish will breed themselves out of existence.

        • @Christian,

          More educated people with higher salaries are more likely to have less kids than the opposite.

          I am choosing not to have kids. That choice has little do do with “selfishness”. I’ve avoiding be more snarky right now with an effort of will.

        • “the world is overpopulated, but we must breed more than the other side because we dont like them”

          Idiotic logic.

          Here’s an idea: get a fvcking handle on the amount of mouths to feed on the planet before we are all driven into extinction. That “logical enough” for ya?

          Some of you prove the very reason why I support abortion…

        • @ LC

          So you complain about idiotic logic by crafting an idiotic statement that no one made in the first place. This is another problem with the left, they don’t understand the issue at hand when making a statement. We don’t have a numbers problem, it’s a logistics problem. The left (don’t know, don’t care about you’re political leanings, but the statement does mirror them) seems to not realize, forget or ignore the advances in farming that has taken place in the last couple of centuries in which farms have been able to sustain or even increase yields (generally) with smaller number of individual farms and less farmers each year. It’s almost meaningless to compare a farmer or farm of today, especially in America, to ones a hundred years or even 50 years ago. It’s as if you ignore the natural progress of technology and modern farming methods.

        • If you weren’t such a ignorant douchebag, you would know the following facts

          1.) Technological advancement is completed through energy transactions. This hasn’t changed.
          2.) Energy and resources are FINITE, meaning, there is a limited number.
          3.) Farming practices are disproportionately reliant on petrochemicals, which are depleting in supply
          4.) The concept of “carrying capacity” is not a liberal or conservative issue. Grow up. Pull your head out of your @ss.
          5.) No animal/creature, to include man, is immune from the laws of carrying capacity.
          6.) Food production, in its current state, is unable to sustain exponential growth of the human population. You know what exponential growth is, right?
          7.) Finally, dont lecture me on real world issues. Having worked in developing nations, I witnessed the consequences of ignorant, wishful thinking like your ilk frequently engages in. Misplaced optimism is putting it nicely.

      • I’m only here to LOL all over your face. Seriously? Lol. Dude. get out of the 1940’s already. We won WW2. You’re ok.

    • Then why the aversion to using capital letters? We are talking about corporal punishment, not capital punishment. Are the two related?

    • So, because you turned out “alright” it makes it okay to hit a 9 year old until they have welt and bruises, gotchcha.

      • Well, before I answer that, I’d like to know if he killed the family dog, broke his baby sister’s arm, spilled his cheerios, or what. Your post sounds like you’d say no it’s not OK, even if he set the neighbors’ house on fire.

        • If the State administered the same punishment to an adult convicted of a crime, it would be considered cruel.

          Why is it not cruel when a child is involved?

          I suspect a good number of people who say “well I turned out okay” have a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome.

        • @TheBear said:

          “Singapore. Caning. Low crime rates. Boo hoo.”

          Okay. Let’s play that game.

          Singapore. No gun for you. Low crime rates. Boo hoo.

          In Singapore: Stiff penalties for unlawful possession
          http://www.stasiareport.com/the-big-story/asia-report/singapore/story/singapore-stiff-penalties-unlawful-possession-20130808

          Gun control laws in Singapore are among the strictest in the world.

          The two main statutes governing firearms are the Arms Offences Act and the Arms and Explosives Act.

          They spell out tough penalties for both illegal possession and unlawful use of guns.

          For instance, anyone caught unlawfully possessing a gun or ammunition can be jailed for between five and 10 years, and given at least six strokes of the cane, according to the Arms Offences Act.

          Anyone caught using an illegal firearm faces the death penalty. Arms traffickers also face the death penalty, or they can be jailed for life and given at least six strokes of the cane

          A licence is required for legal gun ownership in Singapore, for which the applicant must fulfil a series of strict requirements.

          Some of these requirements include a genuine reason for possessing a gun, and the ability to prove that there is a “serious threat to his life and no other way of overcoming/removing the threat”.

          Applicants must pass stringent background checks that would look into their criminal, medical and mental health records. They are also required to pass a shooting proficiency test.

          As a result of the tough laws and regulations, private gun ownership in Singapore is among the lowest in the world.

          According to a 2007 study by Small Arms Survey, an independent research outfit in Geneva, the rate of private gun ownership in Singapore is about one gun per 200 people.

          This is compared with 88.8 privately held guns per 100 people in the United States, which topped the list of 178 countries that were surveyed.

        • @ Mr. Galt:

          If the State administered the same punishment to an adult convicted of a crime, it would be considered cruel.

          Why is it not cruel when a child is involved?

          Why would it be considered cruel if the same punishment was administered by the state to an adult convicted of a crime? Why is cruel when a child is involved? What is cruel and who determines what cruel is?

          I suspect a good number of people who say “well I turned out okay” have a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome.

          Since you added it with your argument above – This is an “abusive ad hominem.” Furthermore, since you state that if someone simply states a particular argument they have stockholm syndrome it is also a fallacy. As they could have stockholm syndrome if they stated it or did not state it or they could state it or not state it and not have stockholm syndrome.

      • You’re probably a shelter spoonfed individual born with a silver spoon in your mouth. Mommy and daddy never punished you because you always got what you wanted. My parents worked my ass with a belt anytime I did anything wrong I’m United States Marine I have my own home my own family I turned out fine. It’s not a matter of being beat with a belt because your parents are mad at you it’s a matter of you learning right from wrong. Mom’s favorite was the wooden spoon dads was the belt. If a kid throws a ball through a window on purpose and you tell them not to do that because it’s not right might not get the message through his head you tell a kid with a belt that that’s not right and you whoop that ass probably not gonna happen again now will it. My kids know the rules. You break them you pay the price. I bet you’re that person at Walmart that has the two terrible kids and scream and cry whenever they don’t get whatever they want.

        • @Ben said:

          “You’re probably a shelter spoonfed individual born with a silver spoon in your mouth. Mommy and daddy never punished you because you always got what you wanted.”

          Unable to control his seething anger, Ben begins the debate with an ad hominem attack based on his own fantasies of who I am.

          ———————

          @Ben said:

          “My parents worked my ass with a belt anytime I did anything wrong I’m United States Marine I have my own home my own family I turned out fine.”

          So Ben is essentially saying that because he “turned out fine” that it was okay that his parents beat him with a belt (or spoon). That means it was okay to inflict violence upon him “anytime [he] did anything wrong?”

          ———————

          @Ben said:

          “It’s not a matter of being beat with a belt because your parents are mad at you it’s a matter of you learning right from wrong. Mom’s favorite was the wooden spoon dads was the belt.”

          Here Ben is saying that his parents’ good intentions are what counts. Any fear, pain, humiliation, rejection etc. that Ben might have experienced while he was being beaten doesn’t count. Their intention was pure, so the violence was okay?

          ———————

          @Ben said:

          “If a kid throws a ball through a window on purpose and you tell them not to do that because it’s not right might not get the message through his head you tell a kid with a belt that that’s not right and you whoop that ass probably not gonna happen again now will it.”

          So if a parent can’t effectively communicate with their child, then the parent should beat the child to improve communication?

          ———————

          @Ben said:

          “My kids know the rules. You break them you pay the price.”

          Ben is saying that he is the ultimate authority and shall not be questioned. Violate his rules, and the cycle of abuse and violence will continue into the next generation. He will show them who is boss.

          ———————

          @Ben said:

          “I bet you’re that person at Walmart that has the two terrible kids and scream and cry whenever they don’t get whatever they want.”

          Ben bookends his rage-filled argument with yet another ad hominem attack. Knowing nothing about me, he conjures up a picture from his imagination.

          ———————

          I’m truly sorry your parents beat you the way they did.

          I pray you can refrain from doing the same to your own children.

        • I agree, Ben spare the rod spoil the child, this is why kids now a days are so *ucked up they are never told no or taught right from wrong I am the 6th of 7 children my parents set the rules and if you broke them you knew the consequences, Even though we used time outs with my kids and groundings, (believe it or not kids would rather get the belt than be grounded to thier room for a week) Especially if you took all thier tech toys away!!!! JMO

        • I strongly agree with spanking children. You see the end results of the “no spanking” generation when you hear about the next mass shooting, murderer, or, less publicly damaging in some aspects, spoiled little sociopath that runs a financial company.

          Parents are breeding self entitled little fvcking monsters.

        • @ Mr. Galt:

          @Ben said:

          “You’re probably a shelter spoonfed individual born with a silver spoon in your mouth. Mommy and daddy never punished you because you always got what you wanted.”

          Unable to control his seething anger, Ben begins the debate with an ad hominem attack based on his own fantasies of who I am.

          This is an ad hominem for an ad hominem.

          @Ben said:

          “My parents worked my ass with a belt anytime I did anything wrong I’m United States Marine I have my own home my own family I turned out fine.”

          So Ben is essentially saying that because he “turned out fine” that it was okay that his parents beat him with a belt (or spoon). That means it was okay to inflict violence upon him “anytime [he] did anything wrong?”

          When is violence ok and when is it not ok? Why is it not ok to inflict violence on him, Mr. Galt? Why do you not seek to refute the central argument?

          @Ben said:

          “It’s not a matter of being beat with a belt because your parents are mad at you it’s a matter of you learning right from wrong. Mom’s favorite was the wooden spoon dads was the belt.”

          Here Ben is saying that his parents’ good intentions are what counts. Any fear, pain, humiliation, rejection etc. that Ben might have experienced while he was being beaten doesn’t count. Their intention was pure, so the violence was okay?

          You are seeking clarifications to questions based on statements Ben didn’t actually make. Ben made no statements regarding the purity or intentions of his parents, therefore your questions above are based on speculation.

          @Ben said:

          “If a kid throws a ball through a window on purpose and you tell them not to do that because it’s not right might not get the message through his head you tell a kid with a belt that that’s not right and you whoop that ass probably not gonna happen again now will it.”

          So if a parent can’t effectively communicate with their child, then the parent should beat the child to improve communication?

          Asking for clarification on communication is understandable. Questioning that “the parent should beat the child to improve communication” is a straw man. You have purposely twisted his statement into one you can easily defend, in lieu of attempting to refute the central argument.

          @Ben said:

          “My kids know the rules. You break them you pay the price.”

          Ben is saying that he is the ultimate authority and shall not be questioned. Violate his rules, and the cycle of abuse and violence will continue into the next generation. He will show them who is boss.

          I partially agree with you in that “Ben is saying that he is the ultimate authority and shall not be questioned.” However, Ben did not say “Violate his rules, and the cycle of abuse and violence will continue into the next generation.” This is a strawman in that you misrepresented his argument and made an unsubstantiated assertion on the basis of your opinion.

      • of course I don’t think it’s alright to hit a 1 year old. We’re not talking about a one year old we were talking about a 7 or a 9 year old little boy. And when I was seven and nine years old I did some things that I deserve to get my butt or awful by my father. It made me a better person and made me realize right and wrong which is the problem with kids today they don’t have any understanding of what’s right and wrong because parents spoil them rotten.

        • @david said:

          “kids today they don’t have any understanding of what’s right and wrong because parents spoil them rotten.”

          So the only way to raise kids so they aren’t spoiled rotten is to hit them?

          Really?

          Violence – a family tradition: Robbyn Peters Bennett at TEDxBellingham

        • John Galt, STFU with the strawman arguments.This “you spank them? that is abuse!” logic of yours is idiotic

          I hope you haven’t raised any fvcking kids because we dont need any more irresponsible adults filling our prisons and social services.

        • @david said:

          “kids today they don’t have any understanding of what’s right and wrong because parents spoil them rotten.”

          So the only way to raise kids so they aren’t spoiled rotten is to hit them?

          Really?

          This is a strawman Mr. Galt. David never stated that the only way to raise kids so they aren’t spoiled rotten is to hit them – you did. You seem to have purposely misrepresented his statements into a form you think you can easily defend. Also, you have refocused the argument to this posed question.

  3. I don’t want to downplay child abuse, but this particular incident doesn’t count in my book. Hit with a belt on the ass until bruised? So was I. And I deserved it, and it taught me a lesson that things like ‘timeouts’ didn’t. That being said, I have no idea the extent or frequency with which this happened. If it was an everyday occurrence, that’s a bit much. If the kid got punched or hit with hard objects or had bruised ribs, a bloody lip, etc, that’s too much.
    But if you can get far more injured by falling off your bike than getting a spanking, I’d hardly call that ‘abuse.’
    And please don’t lump hitting a kid with a belt in with sexually abusing them (re: the accusations against Will). Sexually abusing a child might be the one crime where cruel and unusual punishment is warranted.

    • Hit with a belt on the ass until bruised? So was I.

      If someone did the same to a complete stranger, they’d be charged with assault and battery.

      Why is assault and battery okay when the person is your child?

      • And if someone had sex with your wife it would be either rape or adultery. Words have meanings, spanking and assault are two distinctly different things. Although leaving welts or bruises is a good sign you took it too far.

        • Assault:
          noun
          1. a sudden, violent attack; onslaught:an assault on tradition.
          2. Law. an unlawful physical attack upon another; an attempt or offer to do violence to another, with or without battery, as by holding a stone or club in a threatening manner.
          3. Military. the stage of close combat in an attack.
          http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assault?s=ts

          Spank:
          verb (used with object)
          1. to strike (a person, usually a child) with the open hand, a slipper, etc., especially on the buttocks, as in punishment.
          noun
          2. a blow given in spanking; a smart or resounding slap.
          http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spank?s=t

        • And how is it that spanking is not a “sudden, violent attack” on a child?

          Are children lesser beings than adults?

          What philosophical underpinnings support your contention that it’s okay to hit a child?

        • A spanking is not violent or an attack. This is the same nonsense the left is always pushing. They water down the meaning of words like racism and torture and in the process those words lose their meaning because people start ignoring them. A slap is not an assault, it’s a slap. A spanking is intended to discipline a child, an assault is intended to do injury. You’re conflating a slap with a punch. They are not the same thing and you know it.

          Are children lesser beings than adults? Yes. They are smaller in stature and are lacking the life experiences necessary to make wise decisions.

          What philosophical underpinnings support your contention that it’s okay to hit a child? How about several thousands of years of tradition? How about the Bible? Spare the rod spoil the child? Ever heard that one? It’s the philosophy that you shouldn’t spank your children that is new.

        • @Gov. William J. Le Petomane said:

          “A slap is not an assault, it’s a slap. A spanking is intended to discipline a child, an assault is intended to do injury.”

          Try slapping your wife the next time she needs discipline.

          How about slapping the person who cuts in front of you in the checkout line.

          Better yet, try slapping somebody else’s child when they need discipline.

          Oh wait, how about slapping a cop who’s abusing his authority.

          ———————

          @Gov. William J. Le Petomane said:

          “Are children lesser beings than adults? Yes. They are smaller in stature and are lacking the life experiences necessary to make wise decisions.”

          So because they are small in stature and lacking life experience, we should take a belt to them in order to inflict pain and scare them? That helps them become wiser how?

          ———————

          @Gov. William J. Le Petomane said:

          “What philosophical underpinnings support your contention that it’s okay to hit a child? How about several thousands of years of tradition? How about the Bible? Spare the rod spoil the child?”

          You haven’t provided a reason. You’ve simply used the logical fallacy of appealing to tradition.

          Appeal to Tradition
          http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/43-appeal-to-tradition

          There are many (barbaric) traditions that are still accepted in the world:

          The barbaric tradition of ritual baby tossing: Priests hurl children 30ft from temple balcony for ‘good luck’
          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2126845/Baby-tossing-ritual-Karnataka-India-Priests-hurl-children-30ft-good-luck.html

        • Would someone please give Mr. Galt a participation trophy so we can get on with our lives.

        • Ah, so it finally comes to this…the ad hominem attack.

          Personal attack only refuge of too many angry but misguided critics
          http://www.seattlepi.com/local/opinion/article/Personal-attack-only-refuge-of-too-many-angry-but-1148971.php

          In politics, schools, religious institutions and in the media the ad hominem argument and personal attack has become the first and last refuge and tool for many angry but misguided critics. Unable or unwilling to identify and discuss the issues or to marshal evidence or convincing arguments, the personal attack has become the stock in trade in our society. So, rather than debate, for example, the policies and record of a mayor, school superintendent, principal, university president or pastor, critics go for the jugular with personal attacks and character assassination.

        • No ad hominem attacks here. I’ve just grown tired of your bloviating. You’re not going to change my opinion and I’m not going to change yours. So congratulations, you have officially participated in an inane on line argument. There are no winners and there are no losers, so here’s your participation trophy. Have a nice day.

        • @Gov. William J. Le Petomane said:

          “No ad hominem attacks here. I’ve just grown tired of your bloviating.”

          So rather than close out the thread as a gentleman, Gov has to close out by hurling an insult.

          “So congratulations, you have officially participated in an inane on line argument.”

          Inane? Really? So discussion of the merits of spanking and beating children is inane (lacking sense, significance, or ideas; silly)?

          “so here’s your participation trophy. Have a nice day.”

          Sarcasm doesn’t do much in winning people over to one’s point of view. I hope you use a different tactic in promoting the 2nd Amendment.

        • ” slapping your wife the next time she needs discipline.”

          Strawman argument. Your wife should have the mental capacity to ascertain right and wrong, if not, then she is mentally disabled and your marriage is illegal.

          “How about slapping the person who cuts in front of you in the checkout line.”

          Again, another strawman. The person in front of you has the cognitive ability to understand right and wrong, and to make logical decisions. Ill count these two strawmen as strike 1.

          “Better yet, try slapping somebody else’s child when they need discipline.”

          You dont have custody of their kids, so why would this be acceptable? Strike 2.

          “Oh wait, how about slapping a cop who’s abusing his authority.”

          As desirable as that may be, that cop is another adult perfectly able to understand right from wrong, and make logical decisions to provide a amicable solution to problems. Strike 3. GTFO.

          So thats 3 for 3. You struck out.

          Unlike other more kind people here, I dont give participation trophies, I tell you to GTFO and you end up with nothing. Fortunately for you, I dont give spankings. Unfortunately for you, particularly if you are out of shape, I smoke the dogshit out of you until you start to gain some IQ points from the lactic acid buildup in your muscles.

          (schmuck)

        • @ Mr. Galt:

          And how is it that spanking is not a “sudden, violent attack” on a child?

          Are children lesser beings than adults?

          What philosophical underpinnings support your contention that it’s okay to hit a child?

          What philosophical underpinnings support your contention that it is not okay to hit a child?

        • @ Mr. Galt:

          @Gov. William J. Le Petomane said:

          “A slap is not an assault, it’s a slap. A spanking is intended to discipline a child, an assault is intended to do injury.”

          Try slapping your wife the next time she needs discipline.

          How about slapping the person who cuts in front of you in the checkout line.

          Better yet, try slapping somebody else’s child when they need discipline.

          Oh wait, how about slapping a cop who’s abusing his authority.

          This discussion, Mr. Galt, is about a father disciplining his son by means of physical force to induce pain. Not between a wife and a husband, people at the store, someone else’s child, or a cop. All of your statements above are faulty comparisons.

          @Gov. William J. Le Petomane said:

          “Are children lesser beings than adults? Yes. They are smaller in stature and are lacking the life experiences necessary to make wise decisions.”

          So because they are small in stature and lacking life experience, we should take a belt to them in order to inflict pain and scare them? That helps them become wiser how?

          Strawman. Mr. Petomane did not make any statement suggesting that pain or fear changes a degree of wisdom in an individual. He merely stated children lack the life experiences to make wise decisions. Your questioning redirects the topic to a question you feel is likely more easily defendable while misrepresenting Mr. Petomane’s argument.

          @Gov. William J. Le Petomane said:

          “What philosophical underpinnings support your contention that it’s okay to hit a child? How about several thousands of years of tradition? How about the Bible? Spare the rod spoil the child?”

          You haven’t provided a reason. You’ve simply used the logical fallacy of appealing to tradition.

          That is correct. Mr. Petomane did present a fallacy, however you did not refute his argument.

        • @ Mr. Galt:

          @Gov. William J. Le Petomane said:

          “No ad hominem attacks here. I’ve just grown tired of your bloviating.”

          So rather than close out the thread as a gentleman, Gov has to close out by hurling an insult.

          Mr. Petomane did not perform an hominem attack because he did not use the statement to support his argument. Furthermore, just because he makes a statement that could be construed as an insult doesn’t mean his statement is false.

          “So congratulations, you have officially participated in an inane on line argument.”

          Inane? Really? So discussion of the merits of spanking and beating children is inane (lacking sense, significance, or ideas; silly)?

          The discussion of the merits of spanking children is not inane (at least to me). But I see you continually attack his statements (even by misrepresentation) but not directly and concisely volunteering your own for debate or directly refuting his. I do see this as inane, as it is just a endless venting argument that goes nowhere.

          “so here’s your participation trophy. Have a nice day.”

          Sarcasm doesn’t do much in winning people over to one’s point of view. I hope you use a different tactic in promoting the 2nd Amendment.

          Why are you talking about the second amendment? The discussion was the merits and philosophical underpinnings of spanking children. Instead of endlessly arguing by means of attempting to have Mr. Petomane disprove you, why didn’t you attempt to disprove him? An endless dialogue of Mr. Petomane making a statement which you attack but provide no refutation, in my opinion, is indeed inane.

        • I hate to jump back in this but I will clarify one thing. Mr. Galt said,

          ‘“What philosophical underpinnings support your contention that it’s okay to hit a child? How about several thousands of years of tradition? How about the Bible? Spare the rod spoil the child?”

          You haven’t provided a reason. You’ve simply used the logical fallacy of appealing to tradition.’

          Mr. Galt asked for philosophical underpinnings, as in ‘what philosophy do you base your contention on?’ Christianity is a philosophy (not to be confused with a religion, that would be the Catholic Church for example) that not only has billions of followers but is the whole foundation of western civilization. Furthermore, the philosophies of the Old Testament are the foundation of both Judaism and Islam. Roughly 3/4 of the population of the world has a philosophical foundation based on all or parts of the Bible.

          Yet when I cite that as a philosophical underpinning he comes back with ‘You haven’t provided a reason. You’ve simply used the logical fallacy of appealing to tradition.’ I was never asked for a ‘reason’ and in actually, asking for a philosophy is no different than asking what traditions I base my beliefs on. So when I give a clear and concise answer that he doesn’t agree with he dismisses my answer as though I didn’t answer his question. This is a clear sign that you are arguing with an unreasonable person, which is totally pointless.

      • Stop being silly. You likely never raised a child.

        Obviously you would want to use words to teach a child that they did wrong, but that doesn’t always work. At a very young age words/yelling tends to work fine with most children. When kids get older that isn’t always the case. In some situations a light spanking or slap on the hand is warranted for some children to understand they did wrong and they shouldn’t do it again.

        Spanking isn’t supposed to be a serious strike. Spanking at a moderate power can leave a bruise. Just because there is a bruise doesn’t mean you hit the child like a grown man. Some people bruise very easily. For instance, a 3 year old girl pinched me, I ended up with a noticeable bruise. Does that mean a 3 year old girl heavily abused me, therefore must be arrested? Once that 3 year old girl punched my leg, leaving a serious looking bruise. Who is going to actually think that 3 year old girl seriously beat/abused me?

        What you are arguing is semantics and philosophy. In reality you are being unreasonable. Spanking some stranger (who is a functional adult) is obviously different than spanking your own child for the sake of teaching them acceptable behavior, responsibility and that there’s consequences for their actions. Can you seriously have the same level of conversation that you have with an adult with every child? From my experience, no you cannot always teach a child through words, they don’t comprehend, sometimes they need a light slap on the hand to realize they did wrong. There is a difference…

        Assault and battery are different things. Assault can be simply placing your hand on someone that doesn’t want you to. Battery would be striking a person. The legal definitions are important. Not every statute has the same definitions. There is a reason why we have different words in English.

        Are you going to seriously argue that a parent “assaulted” their child because they grabbed the child when the child didn’t want to be touched? If that is the case you are either lacking cognitively or you’re a government totalitarian trying to take over the role of parents.

      • Hit with a belt on the ass until bruised? So was I.

        If someone did the same to a complete stranger, they’d be charged with assault and battery.

        Why is assault and battery okay when the person is your child?

        The statement “Why is assault and battery okay when the person is your child” – is a strawman. Making the comparison to a stranger and assault and battery is a valid (despite not being equivalent), however redirecting the focus of the topic of assault and battery of an adult to a child when Nigil never implied such is a misrepresentation of Nigil’s statement. Furthermore, The above is not a fair comparison. A father disciplining his child by means of spanking is not comparable to a stranger performing “assault and battery” on another stranger with a belt.

    • I agree.

      I remember when I was in public schools in the late 90s the principal hit me in the butt with a giant solid oak paddle (forget leather belt).

      I’m not really into hitting anyone (my kids included) as there are better ways to punish. But I honestly don’t see any child abuse. Everyone has their own methods that work. I see people here talking about spanking making emotional scars or what not. That is the point right? So they are punished for their mistakes and don’t repeat them. Prison leaves emotional scars as well. Should we stop sending people to prison? I was spanked when I was little, my wife was spanked when she was little. Honestly, I feel we are better for it. Children have to have boundaries and parents have to keep them within those boundaries.

      • Aside from the most violent offenses, there are better ways of rehabilitating people than locking them in a cage for a specified period of time. Why are we locking people up for victimless crimes?

        The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Just as we have a military-industrial complex, we have a prison-industrial complex.

        Our prisons are for the most part nothing more than crime factories, churning through “inventory” without any appreciable improvement in society. Instead they learn to be better criminals.

        More “punishment” should be focused on restitution. Give the perpetrator responsibility for making the victim whole.

        Future generations will look back and be appalled.

        Much the same way we look at the following and consider them appalling and barbaric (even though they are or were accepted forms of punishment by “civilized” societies).

        * crucifixion
        * beheading
        * cutting off hands, feet, tongues
        * drawing and quartering
        * tarring and feathering
        * castration
        * burning at the stake
        * crushing by elephant
        * breaking wheel
        * flaying
        * stoning
        * keelhauling
        * garrotting

      • As I have always argued, spanking should be reserved for only the most egregious violation where life and limb of another person or themselves are put at risk. Such as, playing with firearms, throwing rocks at traffic, playing with matches, taking dad’s hunting knife to school, playing inside a parent’s car without their permission, etc. No different than when adults do stupid shit with guns, and a rangemaster grabs their gun, strongly emphasizing that it should remain pointed down range (have any of you fvcktwits dealt with privates?)

        I can think of less than a handful of times I swatted my kids on the ass, and it was for TWO of the list of offenses I mentioned above (taking dad’s knife to school and playing with matches). Mind you, this was after verbally emphasizing the importance previously of not doing those things. And they never did it again (and, gee, the one is in pre-med and the other is a engineering major…and they both have the same viewpoint as I do and are considered “model citizens” ((and then some)). Problem solved. Not even remotely in the same universe as Dave Pelzer levels of sheer abuse.

        If my version of last resort discipline is “child abuse”, then defending your life when all options are exhausted is “murder”. Isn’t absolutism fun?

        and i agree. just because prison is a altering experience, doesn’t mean it should be disregarded (and american gladiator prisons ARE abuse). I agree with Norway’s perspective on dealing with criminality issues and it yields much mroe desirable results (im personally opposed to the death penalty). Imprisoning somebody for smoking pot or owning a certain type of gun is not acceptable. Imprisoning a rapist, murderer, or robber is perfectly acceptable.

        You dont hold children accountable, then society, through tax money, eventually holds them accountable when they inevitably do stupid shit that harms or takes away other people.

  4. No surprise there. A victim of child abuse gets involved in a relationship with a child abuser. The sad thing is, people like Kris can spot a victim, such as Stephanie, very easily. And because of what she has experienced, she ends up being attracted to the abusive type. Some job Will did on her, he basically set her up for this when he abused her.

    But I’m not sure what you mean by “a case of down home punishment taken too far?” Are you saying that spanking that leaves no bruises is OK? Because I have news for you. Any spanking or physical violence towards a child will set him/her up to be just another victim and they will end up in an abusive relationship or be the abuser. I mean, would you say it’s OK to hit your spouse or partner? That’s called assault or battery. But when people do it to little defenseless kids they just put a nice fuzzy word on it like ‘discipline’ and all is well…Give me a break. You punish a kid by taking away their toys or forbid them from doing something they like, or ground them, and at the same time you explain why they’re being punished. Hitting a child creates nothing but problems down the road. And for all of you who want to say ‘well I was spanked and I turned out ok,’ I’m almost certain you hit=abuse your kids as well and call it discipline. That’s just effin peachy.

    • Well, that’s your opinion, and the opinion of many others over the past 50 years. The concept has been growing in approval curiously coincident with the slide down the tubes our society has been taking. Kids are much more inclined to be drug dependent aimless losers than 50 years ago. All is fine, except when somebody claims to know, for sure, just what causes what. Because that is BS, nobody knows just what a particular attitude or action will cause in 30 years from now.

      • If you think that’s just my opinion, you’re very much mistaken. And victims of sexual or physical abuse are at a higher risk of substance abuse. Combine that with today’s prevalence and ease of access to all the illicit substances and you’ll have your explanation. Although this isn’t anything new.

      • Hitting children is not necessary to instill discipline.

        There are myriad ways to discipline a child without resorting to violence.

        Hitting children is no different than hitting one’s spouse.

        It’s assault and battery.

        • Hitting children is not necessary to instill discipline.

          There are myriad ways to discipline a child without resorting to violence.

          Hitting children may not be necessary, however is hitting children to instill discipline morally wrong? Why is hitting children to instill discipline morally wrong but those myriad of other ways not? Is violence morally wrong if is saves lives now or later?

          Hitting children is no different than hitting one’s spouse.

          It’s assault and battery.

          A father disciplining his son by inducing physical pain (which is what we were talking about) is different than hitting one’s spouse. The context matters in this statement. The determination of “Assault and battery” is up to the opinion of the responding officer. To many, spanking a child instills obedience. To others, it is assault and battery.

    • Huge difference between discipline and child abuse….and as someone else noted there is a very interesting trend towards our out of control society and “spare the rod” mentality.

    • Are you saying that physical punishment is bad because it causes your child to physically punish your grandchildren, which is bad because physical punishment is bad?

      I believe that’s called circular reasoning.

      • “Physical punishment” as you call it is assault and battery by another name.

        It’s a violation of another person.

        Nobody has a “right” to commit battery on another person except in self defense.

        • “Physical punishment” as you call it is assault and battery by another name.

          It’s a violation of another person.

          Nobody has a “right” to commit battery on another person except in self defense.

          That is a black and white fallacy. What about when disciplining a child, violence, in specific instances, helps them or others? If a mentally ill patient refuses to leave a burning building, when is violence appropriate as a mentally ill patient cannot be reasoned with. If a small child is performing a dangerous act and repeatedly does so, and cannot be reasoned with, when is violence appropriate?

          You speak of rights, but great thinkers of rights (such as John Locke) supported the use of physical pain on children to discipline them (as a last resort).

      • Where did I say that? How about abuse by any other name is still abuse. And yes, abuse breeds abuse. Just like talking to your kid, explaining what they did wrong and punishing them in any reasonable way other than physical force will cause your kid to reason with their peers and their children later on. This is not circular reasoning, it’s logical deduction.

        It’s beyond me why so many folks here are fine with using physical force to correct a person’s behavior. What if somebody did that to you? If they beat you, whether you bruise or not, can they claim they’ve just disciplined you? Or are you going to defend yourself and get them arrested?

  5. I knew from the day this show aired this family was trouble. Never liked the show, never like the family. Glad this garbage is off the air as it did nothing to promote and strengthen positive pro gun culture.

  6. A belt? A bruise? When I was 10 I had to go out into the pear orchard adjacent my grandparents property and pick my own switch off of the ground (not off of the tree because I wasn’t allowed to damage the neighbors property, but the switch still had to be green. Which meant a long time searching to think about what I’d done.) After that one incident I was on my best behavior when visiting relatives. I’m 23 now, to put that into a time frame.

    Spanking is appropriate when the child is of a certain age and commits acts warranting that punishment. Should you put out cigarettes on their arm for back talking? No. But spanking a kid with a belt for an infraction of a certain severity is fine, I think.

    • Spanking is entirely inappropriate.

      It wreaks emotional havoc on the child and teaches that those with authority have the right to abuse those who are powerless to stop them.

      • I was spanked occasionally as a child. I am not generally in favor of it, but I since I am not a career felon/drug addict/street prostitute I have a hard time believing it is as damaging as you insist.

        I believe there are better ways to teach children but it is not the end of the world either. Violence happens. People deal.

        • You’re saying:

          * I was spanked as a child.
          * I am not a career felon/drug addict/street prostitute.
          * Therefore, spanking children is okay since I’m not a career felon/drug addict/street prostitute.

          One could just as easily say:

          * I