Hypocrisys Child

Or Iranian babies facing the toll of vindictive American policies? Not just the Trump administration. Every American administration has shown the callous ability to allow the killing of children en masse, either through war or economic siege. Think of Cuba, blockaded continuously by Washington for over five decades, for no other reason than its having a socialist government.

Recently On Kids

In Yemen, thousands of children have been killed over the past three years from air strikes in the US-backed war on that impoverished country. For every one of those deaths, Washington bears responsibility for supplying missiles, bombs, warplanes, mid-air fueling and targeting logistics to the Saudi military. A school bus ferrying children to a summer camp was reportedly hit by a US-backed Saudi warplane, killing up to Shrapnel recovered from scene showed it was a bomb made by the US-based Raytheon company that obliterated the children.

So too were images of young children digging graves for their classmates. British arms companies have, literally, made a killing since the Saudis launched their war in March The UN estimates that some 20 per cent of children in North Korea are suffering from malnutrition. The looming humanitarian crisis is not simply due to policy failings on the part of the North Korean government, or its alleged isolationism, as the Washington Post mendaciously claimed this week.

6 Ways to Help Your Kids Deal with Hypocrisy in the Church

Details have yet to be worked out. But the goodwill shown by North Korea should be reciprocated by the Trump administration in terms of alleviating sanctions. Apparently not, as the worsening humanitarian conditions in the country testifies. Let's not even get started on the whole topic of pre-marital sex. None of my children are in the double-digits yet, so I'm just going to bleach my mind of that thought for the next six years. When you're a parent of young kids, you find yourself saying, "Don't pick your nose" but then you go in the bathroom and pick your own nose Or the whole, "stop touching your privates" but we all know what adults do with their privates, when they are in private.

It's hypocritical, it's a daily occurrence, it's parenting. I've gotten used to the hypocrisy I know I possess as a parent. It's become a necessary evil. I am a normal, albeit flawed human, and "do as I say, not as I do" is always in the back of my mind. We are trying to raise children into competent adults, and with that, comes this amazing grey area of what is acceptable behavior in public. While I, as your mommy, will attempt to deal with your ridiculous, violent temper tantrum at age 3, your boss, when you are 23, might not want to have that around the other employees. If they figure this shit out then I've done my job right.

Top Stories

This suggests that just waiting for attitudes to magically change is unlikely to have the desired effect. This isn't about kowtowing to nanny state interference, but about equal protection under the law. Assault is already illegal, and it's sophistry to argue that assault is not assault as long as the victims are under a certain age. There shouldn't still be a section of the population it is deemed acceptable to hit.

The ugly truth: kids see through our hypocrisy on beauty

That used to be the case when it came to women too. Now, most people accept that husbands should not beat their wives, or wives their husbands - or husbands their husbands, or wives their wives, as we should probably say now - but without changing the law, that may not have happened.

• Little Ed and the Return of Grimehog.
• Mathematischer Einführungskurs für die Physik (German Edition).
• A Passing Storm.
• Fare di Roma un capolavoro: La città come passione (Tempi) (Italian Edition);
• Ocean Ships.
• posted by James T. Harris -.
• Temporal Effects!

Or would have happened more slowly. It's actually worse to give parents permission to smack their children.

Children cannot fight back. Children have no escape. Those who are struck by their spouses may feel psychologically helpless, and may be financially dependent upon their abuser. Even so, at every stage, they have the chance to walk out of the door. It's difficult, but they can do it, and many do. They're trapped in the situation in which they're born. They don't have the size or strength to fight back.

Using violence simply makes them scared and confused. The Renua leader in no way defends smacking children. She just doesn't want to punish loving parents who occasionally fall short of the ideal. It's wrong, however, to give those who misuse their power over children a chance to make excuses by saying "mums and dads in today's world operate under serious time and fiscal pressures. So why not change the law so that they can smack their friends and work colleagues when feeling stressed out as well? Why are adults deemed capable of acting with restraint towards one another when dealing with serious issues in their lives, but given a free pass when it comes to taking out their frustrations on children?

When it comes to physical assault, the contradiction between the law as it applies to adults and children is even more stark. The Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act not only forbids any act which "directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another", it also outlaws any action which "causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact". Children are constantly warned they will be smacked if they do not behave, and have very reasonable grounds for believing it will happen, because it generally has happened before.

Half of all three-year-olds have been smacked by a primary caregiver. Taking away the defence of "reasonable chastisement" from good parents will make no difference to their family life. Nor will it result in them being reclassified as criminals, because most will obey the law and discretion will still be applied against those who, for whatever reason, don't.