Does today's society need to bring back the good old days of spanking our children when they misbehave?
I've read in a not too recent TIME magazine (Canadian edition) that violent behaviours in kids today have since been increasing (however slowly). Statistics show that amongst the factors that contribute to the uprising of violent behaviour in children include: viewing violent tv programmes, an increased rate of bullying (both inside and outside of school), and the forbidding of parents to "spank" their children as means of disciplinary action. In todays world, "Parents are often too afraid to go to such measures (i.e. spanking) for fear of accquiring a minor charge / criminal offence." I want to know what parents think about this? Should society take back the good old spanking days? Will this even slightly reduce or prevent the increasing rate of violent behaviours in kids? Do you firmly believe that there is a direct correlation between the prohibition / banning of punishing by "spanking" and the increased violent behaviours in kids & adolescents today?
Can you get in trouble for cheating in the Military? Is divorce pretty high?
Yes, you can get in trouble for cheating in the military. But it usually comes in the form of a complaint. In my experience, more often than not the wife (I was combat arms and we had few women in my unit) would complain and make stink out of it. At that point the persons commander had to get involved. Punishment varied. I think the worst I ever saw was an Article 15 for the soldier in question. We did try to stay out of soldiers personal lives as much as possible. We usually left any situation that did not affect the soldiers duties alone. But when they crossed that line, or something was discovered that could put it over that line (for example cheating with another soldiers wife) then command took a dim view on the subject. As far as support went, there were many agencies available to help soldiers and their spouses. And the usual form of "punishment" was to require the soldier in question to attend the counseling sessions. I have no statistics on how successful those were. But no allowances were made for married folks per se. The were required to perform the same duties as anyone else of their rank and MOS. It was up to the soldier in question to manage those affairs. And I also know that there were multiple wives groups; usually officer, NCO and enlisted was the breakdown for that. And that was a source of information on possible cheaters. Word got around and when it got to the CO's wife, she would tell him, he would tell the appropriate commander and that commander would talk to (or confront if necessary) the soldier in question.
Am I at fault if I hit a car in front of me because he slammed on his brakes very suddenly?
My wife used to work in the car insurance department as a claims consultant. She was trained over the period of 1 month on how to validate a claim. She was the deciding person who puts the claim into the system, marks you down in the system as requiring investigation by the insurance company and whether or not you are at fault or the other part(ies) were.In your described situation, you are 100% to blame. You failed to keep a safe distance of at least 2 seconds from the car in-front of you. There is no point disputing this if you find yourself in the situation as described.The general rule is if you hit someone from behind, you are assumed by default to be at fault. However, there are exceptions to this rule.The car in front pulled an illegal manoeuvre and you have a witness to verify this is the case.The car infront reversed into you. Once again, you need a witness or this is hard to prove.The car in-front of you had no brake lights or any lights whatsoever, thus driving an unroadworthy vehicle.Someone hits you from behind and you were stationary, pushing you via the impact into the car in-front. If you were moving at the time and were hit, then you are partly to blame.The car in-front encounters an emergency situation like; engine dies, tire is punctured or loss of control of the vehicle and they do not use their hazard lights (if operable).The driver in-front was distracted via the use of a mobile phone or another handheld device and you can prove it (very difficult).There are some other niche situations where hitting someone from behind would not be your fault. However, in most situations the case is clean cut and who is to blame is immediately evident.Always keep a safe distance, follow the rules and just be a decent human being on the road.
Which is more intense/sucks more: A man getting a vasectomy or a woman getting her tubes tied?
It depends on perspective and relative value of one's reproductive organs. In terms of the procedures themselves, others have already stated that tubal ligations have more risks, as they are often performed under general anasthaesia, which is riskier than local (though local anaesthesia is available, if requested &/or required by the circumstances). Tubal ligation is more involved (both in procedure and estimated recovery) and more costly. Wikipedia mentions side effects like disruption of hormones, loss of libido, and changes in the menstrual cycle, in addition to other side effects. I have no infromation about the likelihood of damage to other internal organs during tubal ligation. Even though this might be reversible, I wouldn't count on it. Me! mentioned similar concerns for men undergoing vasectomy, such as developing antibodies to sperm which could cause testicular damage. On the testosterone replacement group I belong to, diminished testosterone production is sometimes a result of vasectomy. A more frequent problem for which one may find varying statistics is orchialgia, or testicular pain. Sometimes this may not be resolved unless one gets an orchiectomy (removal). As above, vasectomy is theoretically reversible, but I wouldn't bank on it. I wouldn't go so far as to say which sex has "holier" or more valuable reproductive organs, but certain facts bear consideration. Men are more "genital oriented" both in respect to sex and sexual identity. In light of this, it might be that men would feel a greater loss, especially if the procedure led to significant complications. (Not to diminish the sense of loss a woman might feel after undergoing a sterilization procedure). The biological fact remains that women are programmed to undergo gonadal failure (menopause); men are not (though hormone production can decline with age). And it's much harder for a man to qualify for hormone replacement therapy (you have to test within a certain range) than it is for a woman (can get hormones without demonstrating "hypogonadal" result) should the procedure result in diminished hormone production. Both sterilization procedures have significant risks, but there are issues that transcend medical concerns of pain, recovery, and safety. These are worth evaluating.