Maker Pro
Maker Pro

OT: Cartoon

T

Tim Wescott

Jan 1, 1970
0
Robert said:
Thanks. They appear to be talking about sexual abuse, not physical abuse
such as spanking.
Corporal punishment, applied in a consistent and loving manner, is not
IMO physical abuse. _Any_ discipline that's applied in a way that a
child can't predict, that's too severe, or that doesn't give the kid
room to grow, will screw the kid up -- possibly for life (but I'm not so
ready to believe that it'll pop out as psychosis).

So unless the spanking that you're referring to leaves permanent flat
spots on their behinds its just discipline, not abuse.
 
S

Spehro Pefhany

Jan 1, 1970
0
Corporal punishment, applied in a consistent and loving manner, is not
IMO physical abuse. _Any_ discipline that's applied in a way that a
child can't predict, that's too severe, or that doesn't give the kid
room to grow, will screw the kid up -- possibly for life (but I'm not so
ready to believe that it'll pop out as psychosis).

So unless the spanking that you're referring to leaves permanent flat
spots on their behinds its just discipline, not abuse.

Cultures where spanking is rare produce kids that are no less screwed
up, IMHO.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
 
T

Terry Given

Jan 1, 1970
0
Agreed. I think raising kids should involve a minimal number of
meaningful rules (aka boundaries), that are consistently and fairly
enforced.

And I think judicial systems should work in much the same way - ban only
that which causes real harm, but enforce that which is banned
consistently. IMO courts should determine the facts in a case, and a
(state-)nation-wide sentencing tribunal (made up of say n of m high
court judges on rotation) should determine the sentence - thereby
ensuring that similar crimes receive similar sentences, and that
sentences are appropriate.
Cultures where spanking is rare produce kids that are no less screwed
up, IMHO.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

Agreed.

Cheers
Terry
 
R

R. Steve Walz

Jan 1, 1970
0
Rich said:
I was responding to "Everyone has to work to eat."

That is not true, unless you consider begging or dumpster-diving to
be "work."
----------------------------
In a decent society there are no "dumpsters" because everything is
owned, not cast-off, and diving is trespass/theft, and begging is
illegal because it is harrasment/intimidation/theft and because
it is seeking to live without working, which is a crime.

-Steve
 
R

R. Steve Walz

Jan 1, 1970
0
Rich said:
Rich Grise wrote: []
again, too literal. First DMO'C implies Dems are socialists because they
promote mandatory service, and forced servitude is common in socialist
countries.

Re-posted because you deleted it:
-------------
That's merely fuzzy thinking. "Involuntary Servitude" is slavery
without pay. Everyone has to work to eat, and to do one's equal
share of the work. If you're paid, it doesn't matter if you HAVE
to or not, you have to work to afford to live, even in the simplest
human society or situation, the earth extracts that, and we merely
decide socially how the burden is divided! The Rich want the rest
of us to do THEIR work FOR them so THEY don't HAVE to,

So who gives a **** what they want? Are they holding you at
gunpoint?
-----------------
Yes. The police as armed threat are the final barrier to ending
the society in which some magically have a right to throw you out
of your houseif you don't pay them monthly tribute. If you are
evicted from YOUR home and combatively act against it you will
be shot. If you pretend it is someone else's home, just follow
the labor and see if they ever worked for it, or if they were
born just as naked and ignorant as YOU were.

Slavery depends on the consent of the slave.

Thanks,
Rich
----------------------------
If that were so there could never have been slavery.

Actually, it takes a LOT of slaves deciding to refuse to
consent before they can survive the attempt to refuse.
The first step in the refusal of servitude is Democracy
to begin to check the abuses of Thief-"Nobility".
The ultimate refusal of servitude is Communism.

-Steve
 
R

R. Steve Walz

Jan 1, 1970
0
Tom said:
If I was the father of any of these children, I'd have beaten the tar
out of any of these monsters, or would have at least attempted to. If
it's okay in a society to beat up children, I'd suspect a lawyer could
argue that I'd have that right with the ass, er, teachers as well.


Corporal punishment for my child is MY right, and MY decision, not
that of anyone else.

Tom
---------------------
No, it's your child's. That teacher should have been beaten to death
by the children. And if you did the same you should have been killed
as well. Who you are is irrelevant. If a child is beaten to control
him, instead of for an actual brutal crime of bullying or harming
others, then he will turn his life to righteous revenge, and his
creativity and original interests are a completely lost cause at
that point. He will seek out you or people like you and harm you or
them, and you will all deserve it richly!!

-Steve
 
R

R. Steve Walz

Jan 1, 1970
0
Tom said:
You just admitted that you used corporal punishment on your
step-father (actually, depending on the circumstances, you may have
assaulted him). The only difference is you used a part of your own
body, and you seem to have had a good reason.
-------------------------
He defended himself. The Evil parents do comes of trying to control
or manipulate a child with violence, fear or threat. No child should
ever be hit unless he has hit or intended injury to another unjustly.

It's only one of several options, and always the final one. A light
tap or two on the ass with an open hand is not likely to hurt anyone;
---------------------------
Had my father hit me even once, I'd have turned from everything and
become a criminal set lifelong on revenge against anyone who got in
my way. Know ye that you are blessed with a world in which my father
was a sensible man, or I'd have killed or maimed several of you and
yours by now! Seriously!

I am not taliking about drawing blood and/or inflicting pain, it's
about sending a message. Numerous courts are on my side in this in
North America. Broomsticks, paint stirring sticks, army belts, the
"strap", caning...the weapons of cowards. Thankfully times have
changed.
------------------
That the courts are as stupid as you does not recommend it, you, or
them. No person should be assaulted lest they have given assault on
another who did nonesuch to them! This is the essential inborn sense
of human fairness at work. If a child is hit arbitrarily to try to
make them obey you like a wind-up ponce, then whoever hits them should
be taken out and be beaten to death at the curb and be left for the
garbage pick-up!

-Steve
 
R

R. Steve Walz

Jan 1, 1970
0
Terry said:
blanket statements are easy to make but inevitably fail the real-world
test. Just what do you do with the child who insists on running across
the road in front of cars?
------------------
You prevent him, you do not hit him. You prevent him till he is old
enough to know better. Being hit does NOT convey your analysis to his
mind, it merely makes him hate your fucking guts.

Such bullshit excuses for child abuse are the hiding place of sick
drunkards and sadists with mental problems.

I ask that because we had an interesting case
publicised in NZ a few years back - a parent was walloping their kids
arse in public, and a neighbour called the police (it is still legal to
smack your kids here). Turns out the kid runs across roads. They fenced
& locked their property, and in this case had locked him inside his
room, but he smashed the window, escaped and was playing chicken with
cars when his mum found him and gave him a hiding. Their defence (apart
from the fact it wasnt illegal) - what the hell else can they do? they
dont want him to die.....
-------------------
The State should kill his parents immediately, as they have raised a
baby that breaks windows and plays in traffic just to get away from
them! Nobody in their right mind believes your tale or their stupid
lies.

I have yet to hit my (9.5yr old) daughter. I doubt the need will arise,
but should it I will not hesitate. I hardly even need to punish her -
when she misbehaves, I explain to her what will happen if she continues,
and that the outcome is entirely her choice. Because I am very
consistent (with a minimal set of rules too) Kate knows I will do
exactly what I say, and almost always chooses to end the bad behaviour.
 
R

R. Steve Walz

Jan 1, 1970
0
Terry said:
I didnt justify anything, I merely posed a real scenario and asked a
question. YOU suggested beating & chaining in a basement.


and yet you are. Hmm.


OK then Clarence, seeing as you are so rational - how would you prevent
this particular kid (IIRC he was 4 and therefore not amenable to
discussion) from playing chicken in traffic.

Or would you refrain from smacking him, then be surprised when he gets
killed?

Cheers
Terry (who has yet to smack his 9-year old daughter)
-----------------------
Simple, you bloody fucking idiot, you disabuse yourself of the notion
that a 4 year old is not amenable to discussion! Being
their child he was probably so physically abused by age 4 that
his reaction was due to disordered emotional functioning. But
even so, the ONLY hope he has of recovering from their abuse is
to be treated properly by DECENT care-givers, so you will need
to spend time with him, watch him, talk to him, and make him know
that you care what he wants, and that he can and should communicate
it. No child does anything merely to be annoying, that is something
only adult-level humans do!

-Steve
 
R

R. Steve Walz

Jan 1, 1970
0
Terry said:
Clarence wrote:
[]
OK then Clarence, seeing as you are so rational - how would you prevent
this particular kid (IIRC he was 4 and therefore not amenable to discussion)
from playing chicken in traffic.
Or would you refrain from smacking him, then be surprised when he gets killed?

Terry
 
R

R. Steve Walz

Jan 1, 1970
0
Rich said:
I'd get him inside before smacking him, if I was going to smack him
at all, but all that would teach him is that he lets himself get
captured and dragged inside, he's going to get smacked.
----------------------------------
Hitting teaches only to hate and to hit.

The day your son knocks your ass out on the floor shouldn't surprise
you then. Just hope that he doesn't decide to light the place while
you're unconscious.
 
R

R. Steve Walz

Jan 1, 1970
0
Tom said:
Collateral damage?

Tom
--------------
What's your point? We're talking about nuking Islam out of existence
here. If you want we can drop leaflets and ask
who wants to live in the American southwest and become
"Injuns"?

-Steve
 
R

R. Steve Walz

Jan 1, 1970
0
Rich said:
That's not what's stopping them. What is stopping them is that they
wouldn't be able to get the oil for many years.

Notwithstanding the evil of mass murder on such an incomprehensible
scale.

Thanks,
Rich
 
T

Terry Given

Jan 1, 1970
0
R. Steve Walz said:
Terry said:
Clarence wrote:

[]
OK then Clarence, seeing as you are so rational - how would you prevent
this particular kid (IIRC he was 4 and therefore not amenable to discussion)
from playing chicken in traffic.

Or would you refrain from smacking him, then be surprised when he gets killed?

Terry

Hi Steve,

I am not a "bloody fucking moron" as you so eloquently put it. The key
aspect of the paragraph is "how would YOU prevent..."

In other words:
"OK mister, so you want to stop the parent from smacking in this
instance. what do you suggest they do instead"

and no suggestion has been forthcoming. This leads me to conclude
Clarence is a member of the (m)Oral Minority - the naysayers who would
forcibly rule out a course of action (in this case smacking) without
concerning themselves what might replace it.

Cheers
Terry
 
T

Terry Given

Jan 1, 1970
0
R. Steve Walz said:
-----------------------
Simple, you bloody fucking idiot, you disabuse yourself of the notion
that a 4 year old is not amenable to discussion! Being
their child he was probably so physically abused by age 4 that
his reaction was due to disordered emotional functioning. But
even so, the ONLY hope he has of recovering from their abuse is
to be treated properly by DECENT care-givers, so you will need
to spend time with him, watch him, talk to him, and make him know
that you care what he wants, and that he can and should communicate
it. No child does anything merely to be annoying, that is something
only adult-level humans do!

-Steve

Hi **** Face, (you may have gathered I'm not that keen on your random
insults, but if you think its OK, I guess I might as well join in the fun)

this is (however) a lot better than clarence's blinding silence :)

Although the glimpse I got into this kids family life wasnt exactly
comprehensive, we can make a binary assumption: that the parents either
did, or did not, regularly hit their kid.

According to them they did not - this was apparently the last straw, mum
was at her wits end, the little shit just smashed a window to escape
after being locked in his room (they had put an external lock on his
door). IIRC apparently he had been busted playing chicken half a dozen
times or so in the last few days, and the punishment comprised
ever-escalating levels of restraint, not walloping, which apparently
they did not believe in. Their plaintive response was simply "what else
can we do" (clearly bars on the window would be a good start. best not
to think about fires :). After the article, a plague of social workers,
psychologits (typo intentional) etc. descended on the household.

Actually, you've got me thinking, and if this (non-violent) scenario
really was the case, then the likelihood is that the problem arose due
to their poor implementation of (albeit non-physical) discipline. Its
something you see ALL THE TIME with parents:
- the kid does something,
- the adult says dont to that, the kid ignores them
- the adult says dont to that, the kid ignores them
- the adult says dont to that, the kid ignores them
:
:
:
- the adult says dont to that, the kid ignores them
(often here the adult has a screaming fit)
- the adult gives up, and lets the kid continue.

Voila, you just taught your kid to ignore what you say.

Alternatively, take the pessimists route and assume they did hit him
regularly - in which case the problem is probably entirely
self-inflicted as per your thoughts, and your proposed suggestion would
probably work.

actually that reminded me of a pommie documentary I saw on really
naughty kids, and without exception the problem was piss-weak parents.
The resident psychologit basically equipped the parents with some balls,
and 6 months later the problems had all but disappeared. I recall one
kid that just wouldnt go to be (and I mean not get in the bed) so mum &
dad tag-teamed and stayed up for about 3 hours reading and playing with
the kid, all the while pleading and cajoling. Parents shouldnt ask kids,
they should tell them (but only when its meaningful)

On the whole I dont think it is necessary to hit kids - certainly not on
a regular basis. Nevertheless I can think of occasions when it may be
necessary. I have never hit my daughter (shes 9.5) nor do I think I will
ever need to. Instead I have always explained to her the consequences
her actions will bring (and then followed through, which is IMO the hard
part) and given her the choice - alter the behaviour or take the
punishment. Without fail now she alters the behaviour.

Come to think of it though, when Kate was about 12 months old I burned
her hand to teach her "hot" - I placed her hand on the oven door (after
measuring it at about 60C) for about 2 seconds whilst saying "HOT" (60C
is unpleasantly hot but thats all). Incredibly effective - Kate never
touched the stove, the fireplace or any hot drink. Within a couple of
months her vocabulary had advanced to the point where she would warn us
of the hot things (stove, fireplace, coffee etc).

Reminds me of the time I taught her about caffeine, she was 5 and wanted
a glass of coke at night-time. When I said no she asked why not, so I
explained about caffeine keeping you awake. And pretty much ever since
have been told off for drinking coke (or coffee) at night time -
"daaaad, you shouldnt drink that, it'll keep you awake"

I was beaten fairly regularly as a kid (I had a smart mouth, stupid
parents and a stubborn streak a mile wide), and all it really achieved
was to piss me off, and make me more determined to piss them off in
return - **** you I wont do what you tell me. As an adult I think it has
made me a bit paranoid, in that I am constantly aware of who and what is
around me at all times, always looking for the attack (thats come in
handy a couple of times :). Mind you I approach driving the same way (Im
a motorcyclist) and thats been REALLY helpful.

Cheers
Terry
 
T

Terry Given

Jan 1, 1970
0
R. Steve Walz said:
------------------
You prevent him, you do not hit him. You prevent him till he is old
enough to know better. Being hit does NOT convey your analysis to his
mind, it merely makes him hate your fucking guts.

Such bullshit excuses for child abuse are the hiding place of sick
drunkards and sadists with mental problems.




-------------------
The State should kill his parents immediately, as they have raised a
baby that breaks windows and plays in traffic just to get away from
them! Nobody in their right mind believes your tale or their stupid
lies.

Where do you get "I beat my daughter" out of that paragraph, idiot!

I will spell it out very clearly, as you seem to have a rudimentary
grasp of english:

"I have yet to hit my daughter" means, quite simply, that I HAVE NOT HIT
MY DAUGHTER. I didnt think american was that far removed from english....
------------------------
I hope she leaves and keeps her children safely away from shit like
you!




----------------------
You're a sick abused and abusive piece of shit.
What was done to you damaged your mind and heart permanently!

-Steve

Steve, you seem to have a wide variety of problems, not least of which
is your reading comprehension.

I guess this is why everyone ends up telling you to **** off, and stops
reading your posts.

Terry
 
T

Terry Given

Jan 1, 1970
0
R. Steve Walz said:
-------------------------
He defended himself. The Evil parents do comes of trying to control
or manipulate a child with violence, fear or threat. No child should
ever be hit unless he has hit or intended injury to another unjustly.




---------------------------
Had my father hit me even once, I'd have turned from everything and
become a criminal set lifelong on revenge against anyone who got in
my way. Know ye that you are blessed with a world in which my father
was a sensible man, or I'd have killed or maimed several of you and
yours by now! Seriously!

So the only reason you are not a homicidal axe-wielding maniac is
because your father never once smacked you, but a single spank would
drive you over the edge.

Having read your posts on this thread, I am inclined to agree with your
own character assessment - you are dangerously unstable.
 
R

R. Steve Walz

Jan 1, 1970
0
Terry said:
So the only reason you are not a homicidal axe-wielding maniac is
because your father never once smacked you, but a single spank would
drive you over the edge.
-------------------------------
Violence is well-know to alter people for the worse.
Clearly it has driven YOU over the edge, you disingenuous clown.

Having read your posts on this thread, I am inclined to agree with your
own character assessment - you are dangerously unstable.
----------------------------------
So by your estimation anyone who demands fair and just treatment
is surely dangerously insane. Classic attitude for an abusive
criminal liar like you!

 
R

R. Steve Walz

Jan 1, 1970
0
Terry said:
Hi **** Face, (you may have gathered I'm not that keen on your random
insults, but if you think its OK, I guess I might as well join in the fun)
this is (however) a lot better than clarence's blinding silence :)
-----------------
Not very apt, but whatever.
Better than abyssmal politeness.

Although the glimpse I got into this kids family life wasnt exactly
comprehensive, we can make a binary assumption: that the parents either
did, or did not, regularly hit their kid.

According to them they did not - this was apparently the last straw, mum
was at her wits end, the little shit just smashed a window to escape
after being locked in his room (they had put an external lock on his
door). IIRC apparently he had been busted playing chicken half a dozen
times or so in the last few days, and the punishment comprised
ever-escalating levels of restraint, not walloping, which apparently
they did not believe in. Their plaintive response was simply "what else
can we do" (clearly bars on the window would be a good start. best not
to think about fires :). After the article, a plague of social workers,
psychologits (typo intentional) etc. descended on the household.

Actually, you've got me thinking, and if this (non-violent) scenario
really was the case, then the likelihood is that the problem arose due
to their poor implementation of (albeit non-physical) discipline. Its
something you see ALL THE TIME with parents:
- the kid does something,
- the adult says dont to that, the kid ignores them
- the adult says dont to that, the kid ignores them
- the adult says dont to that, the kid ignores them
---------------------------
Ordering people around makes them ignore you for an ass.
Not surprising. It does NOT, however, reach the level
of parenting.

- the adult says dont to that, the kid ignores them
(often here the adult has a screaming fit)
- the adult gives up, and lets the kid continue.

Voila, you just taught your kid to ignore what you say.
----------------------
So if it took all that work to teach them to ignore you,
then why did they ignore you so well the first time, idiot!??
You see, such lines of reasoning actually aren't!

This means that the alternatives are NOT 1) hitting, and 2) ignoring.
This means that those are NEITHER ONE any good.

Alternatively, take the pessimists route and assume they did hit him
regularly - in which case the problem is probably entirely
self-inflicted as per your thoughts, and your proposed suggestion would
probably work.
-------------------------------
Kill them anyway, just for being so bloody stupid.

actually that reminded me of a pommie documentary I saw on really
naughty kids, and without exception the problem was piss-weak parents.
-----------------------
That's what is always alleged, but in reality upon close examination
that never turns out to be true. In most cases where parents have kids
who misbehave in public, it was found that this was because in private
the parents were beating the shit out of them, pinching, thunking them
in the head, twisting their ears, and generally torturing them, and
it was ACTUALLY that in PUBLIC was the ONLY place the kids felt safe
from their parents ongoing severely dishonoring abuse, which the kids
figured out the parents were sensible enough to be afraid to do in
public!! This is proving to explain this so well that evaluation of
parental behavior that is clandestined is gaining favor.

The resident psychologit basically equipped the parents with some balls,
and 6 months later the problems had all but disappeared.
--------------------
Beware of what you see on TV, it is usually driven by the writers
and the fringe loonie X-spurts they hunted up to match their script,
and not on science. TV is driven by current pop agendas.

I recall one
kid that just wouldnt go to be (and I mean not get in the bed) so mum &
dad tag-teamed and stayed up for about 3 hours reading and playing with
the kid, all the while pleading and cajoling. Parents shouldnt ask kids,
they should tell them (but only when its meaningful)
---------------------------------
We had no trouble with our kids at bedtime, we simply never forced
them to go to bed, and they became entirely self-regulating at age
two or three. They fell asleep and learned that it was more comfortable
to do that in bed. Parents who force bedtimes have teens that
pathologically want to stay up all night every night their first
year of college and then wonder why they flunked/dropped out!!

On the whole I dont think it is necessary to hit kids - certainly not on
a regular basis. Nevertheless I can think of occasions when it may be
necessary. I have never hit my daughter (shes 9.5) nor do I think I will
ever need to. Instead I have always explained to her the consequences
her actions will bring (and then followed through, which is IMO the hard
part) and given her the choice - alter the behaviour or take the
punishment. Without fail now she alters the behaviour.
----------------------
In other words you threaten to get your way. Children hate their
parents who do that. They spend far less time around them in later
life and rank their relationships as distant.

Come to think of it though, when Kate was about 12 months old I burned
her hand to teach her "hot" - I placed her hand on the oven door (after
measuring it at about 60C) for about 2 seconds whilst saying "HOT" (60C
is unpleasantly hot but thats all). Incredibly effective - Kate never
touched the stove, the fireplace or any hot drink. Within a couple of
months her vocabulary had advanced to the point where she would warn us
of the hot things (stove, fireplace, coffee etc).
 
R

R. Steve Walz

Jan 1, 1970
0
Terry said:
R. Steve Walz said:
Terry said:
Clarence wrote:

[]

OK then Clarence, seeing as you are so rational - how would you prevent
this particular kid (IIRC he was 4 and therefore not amenable to discussion)

from playing chicken in traffic.


Or would you refrain from smacking him, then be surprised when he gets killed?

Terry

Hi Steve,

I am not a "bloody fucking moron" as you so eloquently put it. The key
aspect of the paragraph is "how would YOU prevent..."

In other words:
"OK mister, so you want to stop the parent from smacking in this
instance. what do you suggest they do instead"
------------------
First, don't hit. Don't try to be so fucking lazy as that.

Listen, get down there and make their ideas as important to you as
yours are. If you don't want that job, don't have kids, because
that's the job!

and no suggestion has been forthcoming. This leads me to conclude
Clarence is a member of the (m)Oral Minority - the naysayers who would
forcibly rule out a course of action (in this case smacking) without
concerning themselves what might replace it.

Cheers
Terry
---------------------
I think you simply grossed him out. Some courses of action should
simply be prohibited on penalty of death, they need nothing to
replace them that you won't automatically discover once you're
terrified to do the WRONG thing.

-Steve
 
Top