NationStates Jolt Archive

what stereotypes annoy you the most?

which ones do you think are a little true?

do you think some of them are a little true because of people's nature or because of the prevalence of the stereotype itself?



*****
I used to believe the lie that certain stereotypes were true, mostly ones about men and women. I had seen them be true more often than not.......and so I thought that it was the way it was. However after having my second daughter who is nothing "girls are supposed to be" I have decided that most stereotypes that are a "little bit true" are only there because people have been told thats what's acceptable.
*****

stereotypes that bother me today

Men are stupid
Ladies are weak
Old people are dumb
Kids are annoying
White people can't dance
Christians aren't intelligent

stereotypes that bother me today

Men are stupid
Ladies are weak
Old people are dumb
Kids are annoying
White people can't dance
Christians aren't intelligent

I'd have to see some proof that this one is false.

Women are irrational beings that lack a logical thought process. How can you trust a creature that can bleed for a week without dying?

what stereotypes annoy you the most?

which ones do you think are a little true?

do you think some of them are a little true because of people's nature or because of the prevalence of the stereotype itself?



1. All people from Oklahoma are cowboys. That annoys me a little.
2. All Southerners are hillbillies. That annoys me a lot because my wife is from Alabama and I'm a GD Massachusetts Yankee.
3. Southerners and Yankees hate each other. See above, and we have been married to each other for 39 years this July 6th. (The priest wouldn't marry us on the fourth of July. :))

I'd have to see some proof for this one.

you want proof that kids are annoying? or proof that they are not?

kids can be annoying, but they are not annoying by default, it has to be trained into them by piss poor parents.

That Gay men have better fashion sense.

I'm straight, and my plaid flannel shirt and jeans look just fine, thank you.

:p an ex-boyfriend said something similar to that to me once, so I punched him in the face and he said "what the fuck was that for?" and I said "I don't know, I must be irrational"

I used to have an anger problem ;)
Also women fail at shutting up. That's a good one too.

Women are irrational beings that lack a logical thought process. How can you trust a creature that can bleed for a week without dying?

:p an ex-boyfriend said something similar to that to me once, so I punched him in the face and he said "what the fuck was that for?" and I said "I don't know, I must be irrational"

I used to have an anger problem ;)

you want proof that kids are annoying? or proof that they are not?

kids can be annoying, but they are not annoying by default, it has to be trained into them by piss poor parents.

See Edit.

How can you trust a creature that can bleed for a week without dying?

You can't. They're obviously indestructible. I fear they may move on us.

:p an ex-boyfriend said something similar to that to me once, so I punched him in the face and he said "what the fuck was that for?" and I said "I don't know, I must be irrational"

I used to have an anger problem ;)

I don't find anger at that statement problematic at the least.

The stereotype that bugs me lately is that Democrats are wimps, etc.

Stereotypes I hate.

Everyone in Hawaii surfs everyday.
All Asians are great with Math.
Everyone overweight loves to play "Santa".
Men are insensitive.
Republicans are Ebil
Democrats are not Ebil
[group of people] are narrow minded, idiotic, stupid, etc...
Science and Religion cannot exist together.
No one can be "Color blind".
RPG's are only for Geeks.
Grownups don't play with toys.
People who believe in spankings are child abusers.

Stereotypes that annoy me the most:
Atheists are nihilists.
Anyone who follows a religion is an idiot.
All Americans are stupid fat neocons.
Quiet people need other "loud" people butting into their business every 5 seconds because otherwise they will one day cause another Virginia Tech/Columbine like incident.
Girls are supposed to be ditzy little whores who know nothing more than MyStalk and shopping.
Anyone who hasn' had a boyfriend recently must be a lesbian.
Teenagers who are depressed are simply whiny, faking it, or are emo.

Women are irrational beings that lack a logical thought process. How can you trust a creature that can bleed for a week without dying?

I might agree with the first sentence, but then again I'm from Mars. :) I can not agree with the second statement as that "creature" has been a loyal and loving wife for about 39 years and has done an outstanding job of raising our two sons.

Mrs. Oklatex is an awesome and wonderful woman.

Misguided maybe a better word.

Stereotype nonetheless. Christians may consider themselves right and you all misguided.

Terrorists hate our freedom.
Gun owners are crazed cowboys.
College students are all boozers and losers.

The last one just seems to be jacking itself off in some sort of strange eternal 69.

what stereotypes annoy you the most?

which ones do you think are a little true?

do you think some of them are a little true because of people's nature or because of the prevalence of the stereotype itself?



*****
I used to believe the lie that certain stereotypes were true, mostly ones about men and women. I had seen them be true more often than not.......and so I thought that it was the way it was. However after having my second daughter who is nothing "girls are supposed to be" I have decided that most stereotypes that are a "little bit true" are only there because people have been told thats what's acceptable.
*****

stereotypes that bother me today

Men are stupid
Ladies are weak
Old people are dumb
Kids are annoying
White people can't dance
Christians aren't intelligent
Misguided maybe a better word.

Misguided maybe a better word.

(?_?)

Oh yeah, the one that atheists don't have any morals pisses me off to no end also.

Misguided maybe a better word.

source? proof?

oh, wait, you have none, you just like to try to sound intelligent by putting other people down

nice

I totally look up to you now.

Anyway...I simply have an overwhelming dislike for all stereotypes in general, but naturally, I'm most peeved by those that apply to me:

Men are pigs, liberals are weak, Christians are ignorant/misguided, etc.

Of course, I have no patience for stupid stereotypes said against people of other faiths, nationalities, or genders*

* Yes, "genders"

Women are irrational beings that lack a logical thought process. How can you trust a creature that can bleed for a week without dying?
... go watch the Anime series Vandredd. the first sentence... "Women are Monsters!" :p

me too. It's idiotic and counterproductive.

I also hate it when atheists assume that the religious are ignorant, misguided, stupid, extreme, etc.

Not all are. Some, yes. Same can be said about atheists though.

Oh yeah, the one that atheists don't have any morals pisses me off to no end also.

me too. It's idiotic and counterproductive.

I also hate it when atheists assume that the religious are ignorant, misguided, stupid, extreme, etc.

Not all are. Some, yes. Same can be said about atheists though.

yep... which is why I changed mine.
to label someone ignorant, stupid, misguided, etc by the group they belong to is something I hate.

in b4 topic explodes into a pointless debate on the nature of religio-
Oh, wait. Fuck.

Uhm...stereotypes that bother me...

People with glasses are nerds, I guess. Although I am a nerd, I admit, I also take weight training >_>

Stereotypes I think are true...

The majority of NSG'ers are egotistical little gnomes who'll jump at the chance to re-hash a debate they lost last time.

The majority of NSG'ers are egotistical little gnomes who'll jump at the chance to re-hash a debate they lost last time.
With the exact same argument.

the one i hate the most is:

IDF soldiers are murderers/rapists etc.

other annoying ones:

Socialists/communists are obviously terrible ppl

Cubs fan like losing

Here's one from TPH-all niqaabis are crazy fantatics that want to bomb places.


or make it more general- MUSLIMS want to destroy our freedoms OMG!!11One!

others include:

-Christians are wacko nutjob neocons that want the endtimes to come
-Mexicans want to invade the US, take back the southwest and turn this into a spanish speaking country while at the same time, they steal our jobs and rims.
-liberals hate the soldiers, and america
-feminists hate men, families, and burn their bras whilst giving each other abortions.


righto

the one i hate the most is:

IDF soldiers are murderers/rapists etc.

eh, its mostly true



The Cubs like losing


fixed and QFT :p

-feminists hate men, families, and burn their bras whilst giving each other abortions.

That sounds vaguely erotic. Is there a porn of that?

That sounds vaguely erotic. Is there a porn of that?


Rule #34 my boy ;)

Rule #34 my boy ;)

Well ... I post in the hopes that someone might TG me a link ... it's not easy to find them all, you know.

Some untrue ones:

Jolt servers are buggy. Timewarps aren't bugs, they're features.

Everyone on the internet is a guy. There just has to be at least one girl. I mean the odds of it being purely male are just horrible.

Annoying and false stereotypes:
All white people are racist. As the stereotype goes, white people from America's Southeast are in the "klan" (kkk) while all other white people are nazis. Can't tell you how wrong and racist this is.

All black people are poor and oppressed. This does not explain why many black people are either rich or middle-class.

All illegal immigrants are hispanics who just want to support their families. That's right. No drug smugglers. No refugees hoping to escape Cuba. No moochers. No Central or South Americans. No Europeans or Africans.

All Christians are oppressors. I bet many of you know at least ONE that isn't oppressive.

atheist=automatically smart and religious=automatically stupid.

All Americans are fat. I'm American and I'm skinny. According to the BMI, I'm just one or two whole points away from "underweight".

All Americans have guns. Where's my gun? I guess I must have lent it out to Santa.

Communism isn't too idealistic. You're expecting people to live together in harmony without any form of government. No national government. No town government. Nothing. If Somalia or whatever the country is shows us anything, it's that Murphy's Law is best demonstrated in anarchy.

EVERY war has been started by religion. Really? You mean the American Civil War wasn't started because of the South's desire to succeed and the South's attack on fort Sumter? Vietnam and Korea weren't started to contain Communist fascists so that large chunks of the earth wouldn't fall under the hands of psuedo-Communist dictators?

All terrorists are freedom fighters fighting American imperialism. I'm pretty sure the Oklahoma City Bombing proved this wrong.

All Americans have guns. Where's my gun? I guess I must have lent it out to Santa.

Don't worry, I can cover you, myself, and seven other people. :D

Would you prefer the 12 guage shotgun or AK-47?

When I stereotype it's within fine lines.. not broad generalizations.. but it's still stereotyping. I have many.. but I can't explain them, well I could I guess, but choose not to.. since who out there can understand my thinking.. I'm not about to write a freakin book .. and that's what it would take.

what stereotypes annoy you the most?

which ones do you think are a little true?

do you think some of them are a little true because of people's nature or because of the prevalence of the stereotype itself?



*****
I used to believe the lie that certain stereotypes were true, mostly ones about men and women. I had seen them be true more often than not.......and so I thought that it was the way it was. However after having my second daughter who is nothing "girls are supposed to be" I have decided that most stereotypes that are a "little bit true" are only there because people have been told thats what's acceptable.
*****

stereotypes that bother me today

Men are stupid
Ladies are weak
Old people are dumb
Kids are annoying
White people can't dance
Christians aren't intelligent

First of all: white people can NOT dance. Have you ever seen that? it is awful.

Secondly: Smunkee is AMAZINGLY AWESOME! and I <3 her. True story.

what stereotypes annoy you the most?

which ones do you think are a little true?

do you think some of them are a little true because of people's nature or because of the prevalence of the stereotype itself?



*****
I used to believe the lie that certain stereotypes were true, mostly ones about men and women. I had seen them be true more often than not.......and so I thought that it was the way it was. However after having my second daughter who is nothing "girls are supposed to be" I have decided that most stereotypes that are a "little bit true" are only there because people have been told thats what's acceptable.
*****

stereotypes that bother me today

Men are stupid
Ladies are weak
Old people are dumb
Kids are annoying
White people can't dance
Christians aren't intelligent

Men are stupid - The joke in my house is that the presence of large amounts of testosterone lowers the I.Q. by 20 points. Actually, my observation is that while men frequently behave stupidly (I mean, really, how many women do you know who, when attending a football game, strip to their boxers, paint themselves team colors and wear large, styrofoam cheeses on their heads? And yet women can still enjoy the game and cheer for favorite teams), they are less stupid than they are childlike in behavior and clueless about women.

Ladies are weak - I differentiate between ladies and women. And it's really not so much that "ladies" are weak than that they put on a show of weakness for the benefit of clueless men who allow themselves to be fooled by it. Women aren't weak and don't pretend that they are.

Old people are dumb - As an apprentice old person (I just turned 60), I resent that remark. We are frequently treated as if we're dumb, largely because we've learned that there's no hurry - and younger people are too damned impatient.

Kids are annoying - Yeah, and... ?

White people can't dance - I'm white and I can't dance.

Christians aren't intelligent - I could write a dissertation on religion and intelligence. In a nutshell - it's not so much that Christians aren't intelligent, it's that the loudest, most vocal, in your face, extremist (Phelps' followers, for example) Christians aren't too bright and they are too easily lead by authority figures who they allow to do their thinking (such as it is) for them.

The stereotype that annoys me most ...

Mexicans are lazy, stupid, dirty and have violent tempers - In the 23 years that I worked on a farm, I've worked with dozens of Mexican men and women - they displayed none of those traits - all of them were hard-working, ambitious, eager to learn, immaculately clean and good-humored. I had some as neighbors and, while I have little in common with them culturally, I had less reason to complain about them than I did about my Anglo neighbors.

The one I really hate is the misguided beleif that most straightedgers give a fuck about what other people do with their bodies. It is the most annoying thing in the world. The fact of the matter is that most of the straightedgers you know, you don't even know are straight edge, 'cuz they keep it to themselves. I get so pissed when I tell someone that I don't drink or do drugs and they say that I must be some sort of Nazi or something.

As one of my friends put it, "Why is it that if you have any sense of dignity, that people automatically think that you care what they are doing?"

It's almost laughable, because you'll get some angry non-straight edge typ yelling their head off at you because they attribute their own self-hate and/or fear to what you must beleive.

source? proof?

oh, wait, you have none, you just like to try to sound intelligent by putting other people down

nice

I totally look up to you now.

Why is it wrong to believe that religious beliefs are misguided? I don't understand

Why is it wrong to believe that religious beliefs are misguided? I don't understand

I am, for the record, an agnostic. I don't think that religious beliefs, in and of themselves, are necessarily misguided - faith is not a matter of fact or logic. There is a great deal of what a priest friend of mine called "personal revelation" involved. This same priest said that one person could not base their faith on another's revelation. I would say that most believers have not experienced a personal epiphany and are, therefore, basing their beliefs on the personal testimony of others - they are misguided. There is a small number who have experienced some sort of epiphany - I would in no way say they are misguided - they merely have additional information that I don't have. Since I am incapable of basing belief on hearsay - I will need to have my own revelation - hence my agnosticism - I have no proof of my own and the hearsay proof of others is insufficient.

To state that religious belief is misguided is patronizing and indicates lack of information about the true nature of belief.

To state that religious belief is misguided is patronizing and indicates lack of information about the true nature of belief.

Surely atheists inherently think that religious belief is misguided, similar to how people of one political view would view those of another political view to be misguided. Since we all believe ourselves to be right, we have to believe others are wrong, it's points of view rather than stereotyping.

I embrace stereotypes.

Surely atheists inherently think that religious belief is misguided, similar to how people of one political view would view those of another political view to be misguided. Since we all believe ourselves to be right, we have to believe others are wrong, it's points of view rather than stereotyping.

I disagree with you, therefore you must be misguided.

I believe we have the right to disagree with people. I believe we have the right to argue with them when we disagree - as long as we do it in a civilized fashion. But I don't believe we have the right to insult someone just because we disagree - then we become uncivilized and our discussion loses it's impact. To say someone's religious belief (or political belief) is misguided just because it's not the one I subscribe to is patronizing, bordering on insulting, and it isn't an argument, but merely a reaction. And if I can't show that person something better than a knee-jerk reaction to support my stance, then I shouldn't be in the discussion.

To state that religious belief is misguided is patronizing and indicates lack of information about the true nature of belief.

I would have agreed with you but Dawkins and others puts forward some interesting ideas on the matter. Read the first couple of chapters of 'The God Delusion' for example

Woman cannot park a car properly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZKNsBBWSdM:eek::eek::eek::eek:

I disagree with you, therefore you must be misguided.
From your point of view yes.


I believe we have the right to disagree with people. I believe we have the right to argue with them when we disagree - as long as we do it in a civilized fashion. But I don't believe we have the right to insult someone just because we disagree - then we become uncivilized and our discussion loses it's impact. To say someone's religious belief (or political belief) is misguided just because it's not the one I subscribe to is patronizing, bordering on insulting, and it isn't an argument, but merely a reaction. And if I can't show that person something better than a knee-jerk reaction to support my stance, then I shouldn't be in the discussion.
No more than saying you think someone is wrong. If you argue with someone however you dance around it you are in a nutshell saying they're wrong. You can give reasons for it, justify it etc; but you're always elaborating on that basic theme.

I embrace stereotypes.

In Soviet Russia, stereotypes embrace YOU!

Sorry, couldn't resist:)

Anyways, my personal pet hate are gender stereotypes. Absolute tosh.

what stereotypes annoy you the most?

which ones do you think are a little true?

do you think some of them are a little true because of people's nature or because of the prevalence of the stereotype itself?



*****
I used to believe the lie that certain stereotypes were true, mostly ones about men and women. I had seen them be true more often than not.......and so I thought that it was the way it was. However after having my second daughter who is nothing "girls are supposed to be" I have decided that most stereotypes that are a "little bit true" are only there because people have been told thats what's acceptable.
*****

stereotypes that bother me today

Men are stupid
Ladies are weak
Old people are dumb
Kids are annoying
White people can't dance
Christians aren't intelligent

Men are insensitive/stupid
Women are weak
Smart people/non-athletes should be picked on
Indians do not qualify as Asians despite being from India.
Hindus react badly to anything said about cows

Which ones annoy me the most?

Hmm...

- All Muslims are baddies
- The working class are stupid
- There are no nice white South Africans

There you go.

As far as I'm concerned, I hate everyone acting like men are stupid/evil/mean/adulterous/etc. It's sexist, and many people refuse to acknowledge that it's sexist. It's just as bigoted as thinking allow gays to marry will destroy marriages, or that blacks are inherently inferior to whites.

The worst part about it is that it's reiterated so often that some decent men (Which are far, far, far in the majority) actually think the vast majority of men are stupid or mean.

Stereotypes that annoy me;

Anything intellectual/artistic/ contrary to British macho culture is "gay"
A desire for something more than a quick fuck is equally gay.
Children are a blessing; they're not, all I find is a drain upon one's disposable income and time.
Anybody who dislikes New Labour style unrestricted multiculturalism is a raving racist; we're not.

Stereotypes that do have certain merits;

The working class are stupid. Sorry Yootopia, but I find nothing to commend them to me, and, given their prediliction for reality television, getting pissed for inebriation's own sake, and voting for whatever benefits them in an immediate sense, I fail to see any intelligence therein.
White people can't dance; nobody I know can dance whilst retaining any dignity.
Gangsta culture is evil; it is. I might note "gay" emo kids and their ilk tend not to stab people, mug them, hurl generally unintelligable abuse at undeserving passers by, or converse in an esoteric diction that is little more than an excuse for grammatical sloppiness.

All stereotypes annoy the hell out of me, simply because they are what they are, stereotypes.

a stereotype is defined by age, ethnicity, gender, nationality, disability, profession, sexual orientation, race, religious belief, size, physical appearance, and social class (lifted from Wiki) and i believe that stereotyping people is a gnats nut away from being racist, ageist etc etc

its much nicer to approach every person/culture you come across as a new experience, and to judge them on their own relative merits compared to yourself, and if you become disappointed by the outcome of your experience, move on and meet someone/something else that better flatters your world view.

probably not much sense making there i am, for i slightly drunk be, but hey, it's my day off!

People who believe in spankings are child abusers.

People who "believe in spankings" are child abusers. And republicans from the USA are evil.

Stereotypes that do have certain merits;

The working class are stupid. Sorry Yootopia, but I find nothing to commend them to me, and, given their prediliction for reality television, getting pissed for inebriation's own sake, and voting for whatever benefits them in an immediate sense, I fail to see any intelligence therein.
They express their intelligence in a different way. They're not interested in high art, hard-hitting dramas, politics or suchlike.

Instead, they choose to have their own culture.

Nor are they really interested in intellectual debate, simply because trying to be each others' intellectual superior isn't the way that they gain respect within their culture.

So they focus on tangible skills, such as learning how to be a mechanic / plumber / builder etc. and doing that with their lives, skills which have real, immediate results, and are a damned sight more actually useful than being able to debate why the Roman Empire collapsed, or writing reviews of Bullet For My Valentine for The Times' reviews section, no?
White people can't dance; nobody I know can dance whilst retaining any dignity.
Clearly you have never seen me dancing :p
Gangsta culture is evil; it is. I might note "gay" emo kids and their ilk tend not to stab people, mug them, hurl generally unintelligable abuse at undeserving passers by, or converse in an esoteric diction that is little more than an excuse for grammatical sloppiness.
Indeed, instead they choose to stab, mug and insult themselves and talk like pretentious wankers for the sake of it.

No more than saying you think someone is wrong. If you argue with someone however you dance around it you are in a nutshell saying they're wrong. You can give reasons for it, justify it etc; but you're always elaborating on that basic theme.
but the "religionists are idiots" people never have anything to argue other than "you are stupid" and "this other guy said something mean, so you are stupid"

faith isn't something that can be debated, there is no evidence in one direction or another.

People who "believe in spankings" are child abusers. And republicans from the USA are evil.

I still can't believe some people think it's a good thing to hit their child.
:(

I still can't believe some people think it's a good thing to hit their child.
:(

I think that's yet another example of "Things in the Bible we can ignore".

What I hate : reverse stereotypes.

1. White people say black people are uncivilized savages.
leads to 2. Black people say white people are opressors and racists.
leads to 3. White people say black people are whiners and wankers.
etc...

If you're from Brighton you're gay.

If you're Jewish you love money too much.

But the one that annoys me the most:

If you're Jewish (as in from a Jewish family), you havn't got over the holocaust and use it to push some sort of agenda:rolleyes: What bullshit.

I think that's yet another example of "Things in the Bible we can ignore".

"He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes."

"Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying."

"Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die."

"Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell."

So much for "inerrancy" of the Bible... but English isn't my native language - perhaps "inerrant" means "a smörgåsbord for me to pick things I like from and leave the things I can't stomach", eh, Smunkee?

They express their intelligence in a different way. They're not interested in high art, hard-hitting dramas, politics or suchlike.

Instead, they choose to have their own culture.

Nor are they really interested in intellectual debate, simply because trying to be each others' intellectual superior isn't the way that they gain respect within their culture.

So they focus on tangible skills, such as learning how to be a mechanic / plumber / builder etc. and doing that with their lives, skills which have real, immediate results, and are a damned sight more actually useful than being able to debate why the Roman Empire collapsed, or writing reviews of Bullet For My Valentine for The Times' reviews section, no?

The working classes do not consciously choose to focus upon the physical over the intellectual; they simply never even consider the merits of the intellectual, and are thus unintelligent for not even making an informed decision.

Equally, frankly, I don't care how "useful" they are. I still have nothing but contempt for the majority of them.

Lastly, I call attention to the following; "They're not interested in ...politics". I quite agree, and would hence impose an examination in politics requisite to voting. An uninformed voter, upon the scale of working class, is nothing if not a threat to Britain.

Clearly you have never seen me dancing :p

Perhaps not...

Indeed, instead they choose to stab, mug and insult themselves and talk like pretentious wankers for the sake of it.

However, none of this necessitates police intervention, or sees teenagers regularly dying in gang warfare. Frankly, I would rather be pretentious than be a member of the most singularly loathed youth culture ever to afflict the UK.

Secondly, please do not make light of self-harm. It is a serious issue, irrespective of its appropriation by certain trend following sheep.

"He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes."

"Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying."

"Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die."

"Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell."

So much for "inerrancy" of the Bible... but English isn't my native language - perhaps "inerrant" means "a smörgåsbord for me to pick things I like from and leave the things I can't stomach", eh, Smunkee?

I think they should probably dump the whole stoning homosexual men thing. Probably those drugged-out hallucinations at the end, too.

I think they should probably dump the whole stoning homosexual men thing. Probably those drugged-out hallucinations at the end, too.

But Smunkee says the Bible is "inerrant". How can they then drop anything? *waits for the stoning*

But Smunkee says the Bible is "inerrant". How can they then drop anything? *waits for the stoning*

Well, it only counts if it's IN the bible! We can just tear out the offending pages!

I Believe the stereotype of irish people being Drunk, Stupid AND Religious. and that people think we are all 4 feet tall with red hair and wear little green hats. and for the last time leprcauns do not exist.:sniper:

Well, it only counts if it's IN the bible! We can just tear out the offending pages!

I don't know - while destroying books is very Christian indeed, I'm not a Christian.

I don't know - while destroying books is very Christian indeed, I'm not a Christian.

Hmm...

Maybe you can temporarily convert, rip the pages out, and then convert back.

Hmm...

Maybe you can temporarily convert, rip the pages out, and then convert back.

If fass became a christian, even temporarily, the universe would implode.

If fass became a christian, even temporarily, the universe would implode.

Maybe he could become a Mormon...That way the other Christians would say he wasn't a "real" Christian, thus saving the universe.

Hmm...

Maybe you can temporarily convert, rip the pages out, and then convert back.

Gee, would you imagine, I'm all out of pieces of flesh and sacred water, so no being a revisionist Christian pour moi. I guess I'll just have to continue waiting on my divine retribution for my filthy "lifestyle" as usual... there's no stopping you, though. You're sort of shrewd, and I just bet you have all sorts of cannibalistic accoutrements - symbolic or not - just littering around.

faith isn't something that can be debated, there is no evidence in one direction or another.

There is probability however.

Maybe he could become a Mormon...That way the other Christians would say he wasn't a "real" Christian, thus saving the universe.

I'd hit a snag with the magical underwear, seeing as I don't wear underwear all too often...

Gee, would you imagine, I'm all out of pieces of flesh and sacred water, so no being a revisionist Christian pour moi. I guess I'll just have to continue waiting on my divine retribution for my filthy "lifestyle" as usual... there's no stopping you, though. You're sort of shrewd, and I just bet you have all sorts of cannibalistic accoutrements - symbolic or not - just littering around.

Nah, I'm not religious, and communion varies from icky to insane (Insane if you believe in that whole transubstantiation thing)

Wow, I can't believe I spelled "transubstantiation" right on the first try without looking it up.

Stereotypes that annoy me;

Anything intellectual/artistic/ contrary to British macho culture is "gay"

A desire for something more than a quick fuck is equally gay.
I've agreed with you twice today. Amazing.

Children are a blessing; they're not, all I find is a drain upon one's disposable income and time.
You aren't a blessing, then?:p

Anybody who dislikes New Labour style unrestricted multiculturalism is a raving racist; we're not.
Multiculturalism is just another word like "political correctness", "community", "human rights" and "eco-tax". It just so vague, loaded and used by interest groups that it's lost any kind of meaning and definition. It's just another populist political slogan.

Stereotypes that do have certain merits;

The working class are stupid. Sorry Yootopia, but I find nothing to commend them to me, and, given their prediliction for reality television, getting pissed for inebriation's own sake, and voting for whatever benefits them in an immediate sense, I fail to see any intelligence therein.
Still, nothing like a good dose of class snobbery in 'meritocratic' 21st century Britain, eh? Have you ever considered that - shock bloody horror - that not every working class Briton watches reality TV and gets hammered every night? And even so, does watching I'm a Celebrity once a week if there's nothing else to do as a distraction make me stupid? Does getting pissed at a friends' 18th last night make me stupid? Are my grandparents, who all are intelligent people, who grew up in working class inner cities in England or Scotland stupid simply for being working class?

If it does, then your definition of stupidity is very poor indeed. I may well not be in a middle England private school, but that doesn't make me - or anyone else who doesn't fit the stereotypical 19th century view of middle class Britain and love of the fine arts - stupid.

White people can't dance; nobody I know can dance whilst retaining any dignity.
I don't know anyone who can dance. Does ballet count as dance?

Gangsta culture is evil; it is. I might note "gay" emo kids and their ilk tend not to stab people, mug them, hurl generally unintelligable abuse at undeserving passers by, or converse in an esoteric diction that is little more than an excuse for grammatical sloppiness.
*Sigh*

It must be lonely up there on your pedestal, Chris.

Nah, I'm not religious, and communion varies from icky to insane (Insane if you believe in that whole transubstantiation thing)

Wow, I can't believe I spelled "transubstantiation" right on the first try without looking it up.

Must have been the RO/Deep Kimchi thread where he lied about it and we had to write that word over and over... well, "we". I don't recall if you were there.

Must have been the RO/Deep Kimchi thread where he lied about it and we had to write that word over and over... well, "we". I don't recall if you were there.

I was. I think I might've been the one that brought it up in the first place, leading him to lie about it.

Stereotypes that do have certain merits;

The working class are stupid. Sorry Yootopia, but I find nothing to commend them to me, and, given their prediliction for reality television, getting pissed for inebriation's own sake, and voting for whatever benefits them in an immediate sense, I fail to see any intelligence therein.


Really? What makes you think working-class people watch reality TV, get drunk, and vote for their personal benefits? I think that's another stereotype.

My working class mother can't stand reality TV, drinks in moderation, and is reasonably well informed politically.

I do know some working-class people who ARE idiots, but lots of middle-class people are too.

"He's American."

:rolleyes:

Stereotypes that do have certain merits;

The working class are stupid. Sorry Yootopia, but I find nothing to commend them to me, and, given their prediliction for reality television, getting pissed for inebriation's own sake, and voting for whatever benefits them in an immediate sense, I fail to see any intelligence therein.


Yes, because rich people don't vote (or, more correctly, lobby) for policies that benefit them. That NEVER happens. Nor are their any rich people with drinking problems. Just ask Paris Hilton!

And I love how some people like to sneer at the working class... as they live in the house built for them, drive the car made by them, and call them frequently to do the things that such self-important boobs cannot manage. Like fix a leaky pipe or keep their car running.

But I guess some people's delicate little egos just need to feel superior to others. Some choose to be racist. Some classist.

Small things for small minds.

That men are all sex obsessed and women are all as pure as freshly driven snow.

Women are frail and need to be protected.


RPG's are only for Geeks.


... go watch the Anime series Vandredd.
What about RPGs plus anime? Surely that is a ticket to geekdom.


Anything intellectual/artistic/ contrary to British macho culture is "gay"
Curious how the latest fashion the chavs sport, walking around with their buttocks half-exposed, does not qualify as gay. :confused:

Children are a blessing; they're not, all I find is a drain upon one's disposable income and time.
I concur, I cannot think of anything more parasitical.

Anybody who dislikes New Labour style unrestricted multiculturalism is a raving racist; we're not.
Indeed.

"He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes."

"Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying."

"Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die."

"Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell."

So much for "inerrancy" of the Bible... but English isn't my native language - perhaps "inerrant" means "a smörgåsbord for me to pick things I like from and leave the things I can't stomach", eh, Smunkee?

infallible, not inerrant.

Many who believe in the Inspiration of scripture teach that it is infallible. Those who subscribe to infallibility believe that what the scriptures say regarding matters of faith and Christian practice are wholly useful and true. Some denominations that teach infallibility hold that the historical or scientific details, which may be irrelevant to matters of faith and Christian practice, may contain errors. Those who believe in inerrancy hold that the scientific, geographic, and historic details and of the scriptural texts in their original manuscripts are completely true and without error.

as with anything it's important to ask who, what, when, where, and why.

I think the general feeling is that you should discipline your children so that they learn how to behave responsibly. It's not a commandment from God to smack them, only to chasten them (which means to correct or purify)

Yes, because rich people don't vote (or, more correctly, lobby) for policies that benefit them. That NEVER happens. Nor are their any rich people with drinking problems. Just ask Paris Hilton!

And I love how some people like to sneer at the working class... as they live in the house built for them, drive the car made by them, and call them frequently to do the things that such self-important boobs cannot manage. Like fix a leaky pipe or keep their car running.

But I guess some people's delicate little egos just need to feel superior to others. Some choose to be racist. Some classist.

Small things for small minds.

Taking from that the sole point worth debating, I make the following point; the policies of the "rich", insofar as they exist, tend to focus upon economic and industrial prosperity, and self-responsibility, both of which are notions I would hold to be of more long-term benefit to a state than of immediate benefit to the rich. By contrast, the politics endorsed by the British working classes, namely, New Labour, mediocre, short-term fix economics, sacrifice much at the altar of immediate prosperity.

infallible, not inerrant.

Many who believe in the Inspiration of scripture teach that it is infallible. Those who subscribe to infallibility believe that what the scriptures say regarding matters of faith and Christian practice are wholly useful and true. Some denominations that teach infallibility hold that the historical or scientific details, which may be irrelevant to matters of faith and Christian practice, may contain errors. Those who believe in inerrancy hold that the scientific, geographic, and historic details and of the scriptural texts in their original manuscripts are completely true and without error.

as with anything it's important to ask who, what, when, where, and why.

I think the general feeling is that you should discipline your children so that they learn how to behave responsibly. It's not a commandment from God to smack them, only to chasten them (which means to correct or purify)

Up to interpretation, yes.

I also hate it when people say that Christians must follow everything out of the Bible, when they are not Christians themselves. :confused: I for one, being an atheist, wouldn't tell you "oh, you're not following Levitcus correctly! You're a bad Christian!"

It's stupid when people of other faiths try to tell people on one faith how they should follow that one faith.

Up to interpretation, yes.

I also hate it when people say that Christians must follow everything out of the Bible, when they are not Christians themselves. :confused: I for one, being an atheist, wouldn't tell you "oh, you're not following Levitcus correctly! You're a bad Christian!"

It's stupid when people of other faiths try to tell people on one faith how they should follow that one faith.

As an Atheist, I take "Christians" to mean "the set of people who call themselves Christian". Similarly, for other religions.

So I disagree when people say "oh, but X wasn't a real Y", where Y is a type of religious person and X is someone who did something terrible.

Stereotypes that annoy me;

Anything intellectual/artistic/ contrary to British macho culture is "gay"
A desire for something more than a quick fuck is equally gay.
Children are a blessing; they're not, all I find is a drain upon one's disposable income and time.
Anybody who dislikes New Labour style unrestricted multiculturalism is a raving racist; we're not.

Stereotypes that do have certain merits;

The working class are stupid. Sorry Yootopia, but I find nothing to commend them to me, and, given their prediliction for reality television, getting pissed for inebriation's own sake, and voting for whatever benefits them in an immediate sense, I fail to see any intelligence therein.
White people can't dance; nobody I know can dance whilst retaining any dignity.
Gangsta culture is evil; it is. I might note "gay" emo kids and their ilk tend not to stab people, mug them, hurl generally unintelligable abuse at undeserving passers by, or converse in an esoteric diction that is little more than an excuse for grammatical sloppiness.


you are sooo up your own bottom - I wish you a long and educational life :)

:p an ex-boyfriend said something similar to that to me once, so I punched him in the face and he said "what the fuck was that for?" and I said "I don't know, I must be irrational"

I used to have an anger problem ;)


I like that, it sounds like something my daughter or I would say and / or do.

I still can't believe some people think it's a good thing to hit their child.
:(

gee Smunkee... I thought you of all people would know the difference between spanking and hitting.

"He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes."

"Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying."

"Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die."

"Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell."

So much for "inerrancy" of the Bible... but English isn't my native language - perhaps "inerrant" means "a smörgåsbord for me to pick things I like from and leave the things I can't stomach", eh, Smunkee?
actually Fass... it's a problem with translation

it's been said before by bible scholars who studied the ORIGINAL TEXT that the rod you so valiently flount does not mean a beating. nor does Chastising, or correcting/correction mean physical abuse. do you want me to post the studies AGAIN?

gee Smunkee... I thought you of all people would know the difference between spanking and hitting.

tell me the difference again between striking your child and striking your child?

tell me the difference again between striking your child and striking your child?

One of them ends in a question mark.

tell me the difference again between striking your child and striking your child?

I assume you mean SPANKING your child and striking your child.

Spank (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spank)

to strike (a person, usually a child) with the open hand, a slipper, etc., esp. on the buttocks, as in punishment.
To slap on the buttocks with a flat object or with the open hand, as for punishment.
n. A slap on the buttocks.

noun
1. a slap with the flat of the hand


Now, let's look at strike (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/strike).

to deal a blow or stroke to (a person or thing), as with the fist, a weapon, or a hammer; hit.

to inflict, deliver, or deal (a blow, stroke, attack, etc.).
to come into forcible contact or collision with; hit into or against

—Synonyms 1. Strike, hit, knock imply suddenly bringing one body in contact with another. Strike suggests such an action in a general way: to strike a child. Hit is less formal than strike, and often implies giving a single blow, but usually a strong one and definitely aimed: to hit a baseball. To knock is to strike, often with a tendency to displace the object struck; it also means to strike repeatedly: to knock someone down; to knock at a door. See also beat.


Funny Spank has no synonym listed at Dictionary.com.

so Strike and hit are implying a STRONG blow. a spank is defined as an open palm on one part of the body.

so... see the difference?

Spank is defined in one location. so a spank that occures on the legs/feet/hands/back/chest/stomach/head are not spanks and would be hitting and thus abuse.

Spank is defined also as an open palm or flat object (something I object to btw... nothing should be used other than your hand.) not a fist, not the side of the hand, not a switch, belt, strap or bat. Anything that is NOT an open hand of flesh and bone, or flat is not a spank.

now, to me personally, Spank is only the flat, open palm, starting from no MORE than one ft away from buttocks, used with the control to stop your hand no more than a millimeter past the point of contact (in other words, no follow through) and no more than two spanks at any given time.

"Politicians are liars."
"Australians are nice."
"Government represents taxpayers."

Can't honestly say that others' stereotypes both me that much. If they can't live in a world with real people, and can't think except in slogans ... well that's their problem.

Annoying and false stereotypes:
All white people are racist. As the stereotype goes, white people from America's Southeast are in the "klan" (kkk) while all other white people are nazis. Can't tell you how wrong and racist this is.

All black people are poor and oppressed. This does not explain why many black people are either rich or middle-class.

All illegal immigrants are hispanics who just want to support their families. That's right. No drug smugglers. No refugees hoping to escape Cuba. No moochers. No Central or South Americans. No Europeans or Africans.

All Christians are oppressors. I bet many of you know at least ONE that isn't oppressive.

atheist=automatically smart and religious=automatically stupid.

All Americans are fat. I'm American and I'm skinny. According to the BMI, I'm just one or two whole points away from "underweight".

All Americans have guns. Where's my gun? I guess I must have lent it out to Santa.

Communism isn't too idealistic. You're expecting people to live together in harmony without any form of government. No national government. No town government. Nothing. If Somalia or whatever the country is shows us anything, it's that Murphy's Law is best demonstrated in anarchy.

EVERY war has been started by religion. Really? You mean the American Civil War wasn't started because of the South's desire to succeed and the South's attack on fort Sumter? Vietnam and Korea weren't started to contain Communist fascists so that large chunks of the earth wouldn't fall under the hands of psuedo-Communist dictators?

All terrorists are freedom fighters fighting American imperialism. I'm pretty sure the Oklahoma City Bombing proved this wrong.

I fart in your general direction!
:p

but the "religionists are idiots" people never have anything to argue other than "you are stupid" and "this other guy said something mean, so you are stupid"

faith isn't something that can be debated, there is no evidence in one direction or another.

Perhaps not, but to be pedantic stupid wasn't what I was talking about. Do I believe all Christians are stupid, no. Do I believe all Christians are wrong/misguided, as an atheist I do think that. If I didn't then I wouldn't be an atheist, just as Christians would believe I was wrong. By virtue of having different views we consider each other wrong/misguided in their opinions and that's inescapable.

I assume you mean SPANKING your child and striking your child.

*snip references*

so Strike and hit are implying a STRONG blow. a spank is defined as an open palm on one part of the body.

so... see the difference?

Spank is defined in one location. so a spank that occures on the legs/feet/hands/back/chest/stomach/head are not spanks and would be hitting and thus abuse.

Spank is defined also as an open palm or flat object (something I object to btw... nothing should be used other than your hand.) not a fist, not the side of the hand, not a switch, belt, strap or bat. Anything that is NOT an open hand of flesh and bone, or flat is not a spank.

now, to me personally, Spank is only the flat, open palm, starting from no MORE than one ft away from buttocks, used with the control to stop your hand no more than a millimeter past the point of contact (in other words, no follow through) and no more than two spanks at any given time.

Well, that's a very long explanation, and it's really for Smunkee to reply to, but haven't you missed the essential difference between "spanking" and "striking" ?

It's right there in the definitions you gave!

Striking is an act which is presumed to do harm. Spanking is a far more limited (ritualistic even) activity which is intended to do good, by punishing. The "rules" of spanking are clearly meant to limit physical harm.

I disagree with spanking, btw. I'm just saying you could make your case more effectively by arguing that the motivation matters.

EDIT: Your reply was very good, and I mean no disrespect by not pursuing this subject. If Smunkee has more to say, I'm listening.

Mostly women suffer from depression.


I really hate that stereotype.

Oh and that if a woman is mad at something, or a man, she must be PMSing.

Well, that's a very long explanation, and it's really for Smunkee to reply to, but haven't you missed the essential difference between "spanking" and "striking" ?

It's right there in the definitions you gave!

Striking is an act which is presumed to do harm. Spanking is a far more limited (ritualistic even) activity which is intended to do good, by punishing. The "rules" of spanking are clearly meant to limit physical harm.

I disagree with spanking, btw. I'm just saying you could make your case more effectively by arguing that the motivation matters.
I agree. but the argument is that Spanking = physical abuse. however, what is not listed in those definitions is the personal limitation to how many spanks are used. One or Two to get an unruly child's attention (and these are not HARD spanks, but more stern taps on the buttocks) when that child won't listen or obey in any other form may be acceptable, but as a non-parent, I really cannot speak from any sort of experience except that I know I won't be as good a parent as Smunkee (a compliment to smunkee btw.) ;)

yes, it's tightly defined to minimize potental physcial harm to the child, and never used alone to minimize the potental mental/emotional harm to the child. a parent slapping the child on the face is not spanking. a parent taking a belt to the back of a child is not spanking, and using a switch?

I've stated in other threads that I've considered spanking as always the last resort, never the first, second, or whenever the parent is 'exhasperated' and NEVER used alone.

however, IF properly used, Spanking is also not abuse.

Perhaps not, but to be pedantic stupid wasn't what I was talking about. Do I believe all Christians are stupid, no. Do I believe all Christians are wrong/misguided, as an atheist I do think that. If I didn't then I wouldn't be an atheist, just as Christians would believe I was wrong. By virtue of having different views we consider each other wrong/misguided in their opinions and that's inescapable.

It is not.

I don't know how many arguments you have lost, really and by your own admission lost ... but it shouldn't take more than one or two instances of an opponent introducing facts you were unaware of, or integrating their own position with other beliefs you have revealed, or (in a word) persuading you ... before you should enter a debate without the firm conviction that the other is wrong or misguided.

I'm primarily atheist. I look first for rational, provable explanations to all of the questions of existence. But I don't call myself an atheist (I prefer 'agnostic' in the sense of 'not having a god') because although I have some beliefs, no doubt based in faith, I am not that certain of them that I can say "anyone who disagrees is wrong or misguided."

Perhaps it would be useful to distinguish atheists according to whether they go crusading, or not.

I guess it comes down to whether your beliefs are a personal searching after truth, or just an opportunity to prove yourself better than others in some way ... eg debating skill, or integrity or self-consistency. Or being a good loser ....

I speak heresy. Against NSG. I will do fifty Ave Violets.

Oh and that if a woman is mad at something, or a man, she must be PMSing.

How about all women want to talk about your and her feelings? That they all need some kind of gift on a constant basis to prove the feelings of the man are genuine? Wow, this is fun. :p

Oh how about women know nothing about cars and sports only cooking and cleaning? ;)

The working classes do not consciously choose to focus upon the physical over the intellectual
That makes no real odds.

The middle classes do not consciously choose to focus on intellectual pursuits, nor do the ruling class consciously choose to focus on learning the skills necessary to lead an organisation.

Such things are based in our culture, and our upbringing, and that's how it is.
they simply never even consider the merits of the intellectual, and are thus unintelligent for not even making an informed decision.
Since the merits of having a population entirely made up of intellectuals is extremely low (nothing would ever get done, there would be continual strikes about the pettiest of issues etc.) then it's probably for the best that they're not galavanting around making informed decisions, no?
Equally, frankly, I don't care how "useful" they are. I still have nothing but contempt for the majority of them.
Right.

Remind yourself to try and find a nice, white, well-educated, middle-class man when you next need an extention on your house, or your water mains fixing up. Oh and best of luck with that particular endeavour.
Lastly, I call attention to the following; "They're not interested in ...politics". I quite agree, and would hence impose an examination in politics requisite to voting. An uninformed voter, upon the scale of working class, is nothing if not a threat to Britain.
If the politicians are doing such a crap job of making education appealing to the working classes, then perhaps it's for the best that we have a string of extremely poor governments, so that they get their act together.

At this point in time, however, the working class is so disaffected with politics that the impact of such testing would be minimal
However, none of this necessitates police intervention, or sees teenagers regularly dying in gang warfare. Frankly, I would rather be pretentious than be a member of the most singularly loathed youth culture ever to afflict the UK.
Ah, but the 'emo' culture is loathed by large groups of people, too. It just depends on who you ask as to which they find more offensive.

As to the police intervention issue, it's mainly prejudice from the force that leads to numerous arrests essentially because people were wearing baseball caps at a bus-stop past 10pm.

And on the 'regularly dying' front, who are you trying to kid here?
Secondly, please do not make light of self-harm. It is a serious issue, irrespective of its appropriation by certain trend following sheep.
You have to laugh about the issue, or cry about it. That's how it is with such things.

I have friends who self harm, and it's really quite distressing, especially since such people are almost completely impossible to try and rectify their situation with.

But such is life, really.

These bother me...

Liberals are traitors

Having a physical disability automatically means you're also retarded

If you suffer from depression, you're either faking it or you're weak.

Poor people are lazy

:p

:rolleyes:

Oh boy, aren't you clever.

actually Fass... it's a problem with translation

it's been said before by bible scholars who studied the ORIGINAL TEXT that the rod you so valiently flount does not mean a beating. nor does Chastising, or correcting/correction mean physical abuse. do you want me to post the studies AGAIN?

Oh, what does rod mean then? I can't think of anything good it could mean...

clueless about women.
Funny, as women tend to be quite clueless about men. I think it is a mutual thing.
Ladies are weakI differentiate between ladies and women. And it's really not so much that "ladies" are weak than that they put on a show of weakness for the benefit of clueless men who allow themselves to be fooled by it. Women aren't weak and don't pretend that they are.
They are weak, because they choose not to workout as much as men, and have to work out more due to lower testosterone levels.

Cross-dressing = transgender.

We should all wear kilts. White, lacy kilts with nice underwear inside!

The Scots are Cheap. I'm Scottish, and Generous.

The Irish are Drunks. I'm also Irish, and Sober.

The English are Evil. I'm also English, and I consider myself Good, but that is debatable.

The Welsh are Useless. I'm also Welsh, and Productive.

The Polish are Mindless. I'm also Polish, and I'm in Mensa.

The Germans are Fascists. I'm also German, and I support Democratic Republicanism.

The Native Americans are sneaky Casino Owners. I'm also Native American (very small amount, but verifiable) and I get barred from casinos for counting cards (completely and entirely legal).

Certain people with many talents and cosmically unfair amounts of good luck have a way of swapping out stereotypical traits to not only be successful, but also annoy the hell out of other people. I'm, uh, oh crap. I actually fulfill that one.

Cross-dressing = transgender.

We should all wear kilts. White, lacy kilts with nice underwear inside!

I wear a kilt on occasion. And you'd be surprised at how easily it is to get boxers to match your clan's plaid pattern.

Funny, as women tend to be quite clueless about men. I think it is a mutual thing.

I wred a book once called "Men are from Mars, women are from Venus."
Now I understand the misunderstanding between the sexes. Just from reading that one book.
Men are from Mars! And women are from Venus!
Quite simple really.

They are weak, because they choose not to workout as much as men, and have to work out more due to lower testosterone levels.

Not only am I not touching that, this isn't even my bargepole!

That's because it's mostly true

Have you been to Israel? Do you know anything outside of Palestinian propoganda about the IDF? ANYTHING?!

The IDF is one of the most morally right armies in the world they do a lot of things that other armies don't do just to save lives. Example: During the Lebanon war last year they dropped warning everybody including terrorists that they would be bombing certain cities so that civilians could escape.

They have tanks that have escape hatches, the only army in the world like that, some of them try to help Palestinians. They have allow a year off for the draft to do volunteer work so that people's lives can improve.

While yes the IDF has done some wrong it's not true that everybody there is going to kill you.

--------------

Oh and how about them Cubs two out of three from (I'm assuming) you're beloved Sox. Good to see the superior side of Chicago finally have the better baseball team.

I wear a kilt on occasion. And you'd be surprised at how easily it is to get boxers to match your clan's plaid pattern.

I don't think I have a clan, I'm just looking for some excuse to wear dresses.
And quite seriously, I am NOT a 'woman in a mans body.'

But on the "how easy it is to get boxers" thing ... the clans really should have copyrighted their plaids years ago. Back in the forties, when 3M started branding "Scotch tape" with a plaid pattern.

Have you been to Israel? Do you know anything outside of Palestinian propoganda about the IDF? ANYTHING?!

The IDF is one of the most morally right armies in the world they do a lot of things that other armies don't do just to save lives. Example: During the Lebanon war last year they dropped warning everybody including terrorists that they would be bombing certain cities so that civilians could escape.
And then they proceded to smother the cities of Lebanon with artillery shells, eventually destroying 400 miles of roads, 73 bridges, and 31 other targets such as Beirut's Rafic Hariri International Airport, ports, water and sewage treatment plants, electrical facilities, 25 fuel stations, 900 commercial structures, up to 350 schools and two hospitals, and 15,000 homes. An additional 130,000 homes were damaged.

Yeah, regular saints they are.

They have tanks that have escape hatches, the only army in the world like that,

That's not because of altruism, it's because manpower is the most important and costly thing in any army, and it's in very short supply for Israel. The escape hatches are so that they don't waste valuable resources training tank crews, only to have them die in a fire.

British tanks are also centered around crew survivability, because they have a very small, very professional army.

some of them try to help Palestinians.
Some Germans tried to help Jews/Gypsys/etc. during the Holocaust.

They have allow a year off for the draft to do volunteer work so that people's lives can improve.

Most affluent nations allow their citizens their entire lives off to do volunteer work.

While yes the IDF has done some wrong it's not true that everybody there is going to kill you.

Well, yeah, that's obviously true. Why would the IDF kill someone in America?

The working class are stupid. Sorry Yootopia, but I find nothing to commend them to me, and, given their prediliction for reality television, getting pissed for inebriation's own sake, and voting for whatever benefits them in an immediate sense, I fail to see any intelligence therein.

As has been said before this is not true of all of them. Many enjoy the trades and so pursued them while they could have done something better. That does not mean thay they cannot have an informed decision on politics or anythng else. One man I know did not have to go to university and so decided to work on cars for the rest of his life. He loves what he does, has rasied 4 intelligent children and is one of the most knowledgable people I know. He is very intune with politics and literature. He drinks, sure, but not irresponsibly. In addition my Uncle was an idiot when he was young and ended up working as a janitor, he gives so much to his community. He is always volunteering and, while he loves sports and beer knows so much, just random knowledge and whatnot.
So yes, to an extent some of the working class are stupid but many of them are not. You display even less intelligence then them with such an ill informed opinion.

The working classes do not consciously choose to focus upon the physical over the intellectual; they simply never even consider the merits of the intellectual, and are thus unintelligent for not even making an informed decision.

What? Complete BS! There are definitly some who can't afford to go to university and so work in the trades, they definitly considered "the intellectual"! Some considered it and *gasp* decided to do what they enjoy over what makes more money. That is an "informed" decision. They choice to be happy.
[/QUOTE]

JuNii:

I assume you mean SPANKING your child and striking your child.

Spank:
to strike (a person, usually a child) with the open hand, a slipper, etc., esp. on the buttocks, as in punishment.


So... "to spank" is "to strike"? Hmmmm......

I assume you mean SPANKING your child and striking your child.

Spank (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spank)







Now, let's look at strike (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/strike).









Funny Spank has no synonym listed at Dictionary.com.

so Strike and hit are implying a STRONG blow. a spank is defined as an open palm on one part of the body.

so... see the difference?

Spank is defined in one location. so a spank that occures on the legs/feet/hands/back/chest/stomach/head are not spanks and would be hitting and thus abuse.

Spank is defined also as an open palm or flat object (something I object to btw... nothing should be used other than your hand.) not a fist, not the side of the hand, not a switch, belt, strap or bat. Anything that is NOT an open hand of flesh and bone, or flat is not a spank.

now, to me personally, Spank is only the flat, open palm, starting from no MORE than one ft away from buttocks, used with the control to stop your hand no more than a millimeter past the point of contact (in other words, no follow through) and no more than two spanks at any given time.


Nouns:

4. n. a blow or application of physical force against something

Verbs:

2. to hit

So how is a spank not an "application of physical force" from a person's open palm to another's buttocks?

The definition of a "hit" in this context is "To give a blow." And a "blow" is the "act of striking or hitting" which brings us back to the application of physical force against something.

So, again, how is a spank not a strike?

So how is a spank not an "application of physical force" from a person's open palm to another's buttocks?

The definition of a "hit" in this context is "To give a blow." And a "blow" is the "act of striking or hitting" which brings us back to the application of physical force against something.

So, again, how is a spank not a strike?

While your previous post really lifted my spirits, and in this case you are quite correct, I would like to direct your attention to the origin of this point.

It's really between Junii and Smunkee. Yes, a spank is a variety of strike. I was hoping for more than bickering over definitions.

*...*
Most affluent nations allow their citizens their entire lives off to do volunteer work.*...*

Your whole post was good, but this was a gem. In Australia you can live your whole life on welfare if you do 30 hours a week of unpaid work for a registered charity. How it should be.

actually Fass... it's a problem with translation

No, Junii, it's a problem with picking and choosing, and thus with denial. "Thou shalt beat him with a rod" means "thou shalt beat him with a rod" no matter how much people like you would like to imagine it means something else.

it's been said before by bible scholars who studied the ORIGINAL TEXT that the rod you so valiently flount does not mean a beating. nor does Chastising, or correcting/correction mean physical abuse. do you want me to post the studies AGAIN?

I shall quote Bottle on this:

"I'm sure they'll come in with all the standard salad-bar Christianity crap, about how it's okay to worship their rapist-God because, um, His Son came down and died for us and threw out all the old rules and whatever."

And of course do my own version on it:

I'm sure they'll come in with all the standard all of a sudden oh, so linguistically knowledgeable Christianity crap, about how everything bad with the Bible is a 'mistranslation' and how it really means something fluffy and good because they just pulled it out of their ass or whatever.

gee Smunkee... I thought you of all people would know the difference between spanking and hitting.

One is hitting, the other is hitting. Again, no matter how much you'd like to delude yourself that your version of abuse and violence against a child is somehow better, it isn't, and no matter what you say you will remain a sad individual who thinks it's OK to be violent with children, and already are or will probably become a child abuser because of that.

That bondes dont use nation states.
Actually... Im the first bolnde girl that I know of on here...

No, Junii, it's a problem with picking and choosing, and thus with denial. "Thou shalt beat him with a rod" means "thou shalt beat him with a rod" no matter how much people like you would like to imagine it means something else.



I shall quote Bottle on this:

"I'm sure they'll come in with all the standard salad-bar Christianity crap, about how it's okay to worship their rapist-God because, um, His Son came down and died for us and threw out all the old rules and whatever."

And of course do my own version on it:

I'm sure they'll come in with all the standard all of a sudden oh, so linguistically knowledgeable Christianity crap, about how everything bad with the Bible is a 'mistranslation' and how it really means something fluffy and good because they just pulled it out of their ass or whatever.

A lot of what's in the bible is a mistranslation. After all, it's not like the original bible was written in modern English.

------------------------
Anyway, here are some more:

All Mexican immigrants are illegal immigrants.

If you dislike illegal immigration, you hate Mexicans.

All white people are poor. Last time I checked, a considerable chunk of people in poverty were white.

One is hitting, the other is hitting. Again, no matter how much you'd like to delude yourself that your version of abuse and violence against a child is somehow better, it isn't, and no matter what you say you will remain a sad individual who thinks it's OK to be violent with children, and already are or will probably become a child abuser because of that.

You know, I was really hoping we could all hold off on this until Smunkee comes back and answers Junii.

For now, I'll content myself with saying "fuck off, Fassigen."

A lot of what's in the bible is a mistranslation. After all, it's not like the original bible was written in modern English.

Funny then that the most current Swedish translation (only a few years old) translates it as:

"Undanhåll inte pojken fostran, agar du honom slipper han dö. Det är du som skall ge honom aga och rädda honom från dödsriket." ("Do not withhold the boy rearing, if you beat him he will not have to die. You are the one who shall administer corporal punishment on him and save him from the kingdom of death.")

"Aga" can be both a noun as well as a verb and is used as a verb in the first sentence and as a noun in the second one. As a noun it means: "corporal punishment"; as a verb it means: "beat, administer corporal punishment, flog".

But, as I said, Junii will just come back and claim that all translations that make the Bible look bad are "mistranslations".

You know, I was really hoping we could all hold off on this until Smunkee comes back and answers Junii. For now, I'll content myself with saying "fuck off, Fassigen."

This is not your thread - you do not have any say whatsoever in which posts anyone chooses to respond to, so butt out you little busybody, because even as a busybody you fail, since it was I who responded to Junii before Smunkee did, and it was Smunkee's response to me that Junii responded to and started this whole tangent. No matter then that I was involved in this from the get go, I will respond to whatever the fuck post I want, and there is nothing you can do about it. So, you heed your own admonishment.

This is not your thread - you do not have any say whatsoever in which posts anyone chooses to respond to, so butt out you little busybody, because even as a busybody you fail, since it was I who responded to Junii before Smunkee did, and it was Smunkee's response to me that Junii responded to and started this whole tangent. No matter then that I was involved in this from the get go, I will respond to whatever the fuck post I want, and there is nothing you can do about it. So, you head your own admonishment.

I head my own admonishment, indeed.
Or heed it, if that's what you meant.

You called Junii a child abuser. I told you to fuck off.

I'll do it again. You cannot express an opinion without being offensive. So fuck off.

I head my own admonishment, indeed.
Or heed it, if that's what you meant.

Heed is what I wrote. Perhaps you should read the post again? And notice that there is no "edit" marking on it?

You called Junii a child abuser. I told you to fuck off.

He is a "child abuser" if he spanks children, and not just according to me, but according also to Swedish law. Yes, I mention Swedish law because I judge people under the standards I live by, and people who are violent against children do abuse them, and deserve nothing but scorn. No matter how much people who are violent with children like to deny it, they are abusing them... and Junii's own original post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12802760&postcount=12) was the one that used the expression "child abuser". So, before you feign your puerile little indignation before me, you really should start improving your busybodying skills, because it seems that you're not even in the loop you're trying to get entangled in.

I'll do it again. You cannot express an opinion without being offensive. So fuck off.

Of course I won't, so I guess you'll have nothing left to do but to lament your impotence when it comes to dictating what others can and cannot respond to.

Funny, as women tend to be quite clueless about men. I think it is a mutual thing.

They are weak, because they choose not to workout as much as men, and have to work out more due to lower testosterone levels.

I was thinking about moral and emotional weakness as well as physical weakness - you know the "fainting flower" type that makes a cult of helplessness.

Perhaps not, but to be pedantic stupid wasn't what I was talking about. Do I believe all Christians are stupid, no. Do I believe all Christians are wrong/misguided, as an atheist I do think that. If I didn't then I wouldn't be an atheist, just as Christians would believe I was wrong. By virtue of having different views we consider each other wrong/misguided in their opinions and that's inescapable.

As an agnostic I could say that both religious believers and atheists are misguided. You both believe strongly - atheists believe there is no deity, even though there is as little proof as to his/her/their non-existence as there is supporting his/her/their existence. Both stances are acts of faith, not of reason.

I look at the evidence presented and realize that there isn't enough evidence to justify either stance and, since I'm not constitutionally able to make the leap of faith required to believe one or the other, I have to say that I'll withhold judgement until presented with conclusive evidence. Since both believers and atheists act with what I consider to be insufficient evidence, I could say they are both misguided. But I won't, because I don't know what personal experiences have lead you to your belief.

Stereotypes that annoy me the most:
Atheists are nihilists.


Whoever said that is retarded. I'm sorry , I have no sympathy for someone with that much ignorance.

And duh, all Christians AREN't intelligent.(@ first post)

Oh and that if a woman is mad at something, or a man, she must be PMSing.

Once upon a time a man I worked with did something to irritate me. I told him about it and asked him not to do it again. He patronizingly put his arm around me and said. "Aw, you're angry, you must be on the rag." (more or less direct quote). I said (again a more or less direct quote), "If that's the only reason women can be angry, what's your excuse."

He went away mad.

For now, I'll content myself with saying "fuck off, Fassigen."

You know, I want to say to people who get riled up with Fassigen, just imagine what he's saying in a Stewie Griffin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewie_Griffin) voice. :) Then you'll be free to focus on his actual arguments, warts and all.

The Scots are Cheap. I'm Scottish, and Generous.

The Irish are Drunks. I'm also Irish, and Sober.

The English are Evil. I'm also English, and I consider myself Good, but that is debatable.

The Welsh are Useless. I'm also Welsh, and Productive.

The Polish are Mindless. I'm also Polish, and I'm in Mensa.

The Germans are Fascists. I'm also German, and I support Democratic Republicanism.

The Native Americans are sneaky Casino Owners. I'm also Native American (very small amount, but verifiable) and I get barred from casinos for counting cards (completely and entirely legal).

Certain people with many talents and cosmically unfair amounts of good luck have a way of swapping out stereotypical traits to not only be successful, but also annoy the hell out of other people. I'm, uh, oh crap. I actually fulfill that one.

Ok I can just about handle people claiming a couple of different nationalities based on where their parents were born but 7 is just reaching way way too far

OINK! OINK!

Ok I can just about handle people claiming a couple of different nationalities based on where their parents were born but 7 is just reaching way way too far
He has seven parents?

christians are smart?! since when?

That bondes dont use nation states.
Actually... Im the first bolnde girl that I know of on here...
bondes? bolnde? Is that Norweigan? ;)

:headbang:LES FRANÇAIS SONT LES LÂCHES SALES

Sauf aux Etats-Unis d’Amérique où l'ignorance historique est répandue, ce stéréotype-là n'est pas si courant du tout.

so... see the difference?
nope. One says to hit, the other one says to hit, both seem like you are hitting.

Spank is defined in one location. so a spank that occures on the legs/feet/hands/back/chest/stomach/head are not spanks and would be hitting and thus abuse.
a kick to the groin is in one location, is it okay then? is there something special about a child's rear end that makes it okay to hit, but not anyone else anywhere else?

Spank is defined also as an open palm or flat object (something I object to btw... nothing should be used other than your hand.) not a fist, not the side of the hand, not a switch, belt, strap or bat. Anything that is NOT an open hand of flesh and bone, or flat is not a spank.
so you think it's okay to hit a child if you do it a specific way then?

now, to me personally, Spank is only the flat, open palm, starting from no MORE than one ft away from buttocks, used with the control to stop your hand no more than a millimeter past the point of contact (in other words, no follow through) and no more than two spanks at any given time.
I remember in rehab, they told me that you can tell when you are begining to have trouble with drugs/alcohol when you begin making rules for their use "I will only use it after work", "I will only get drunk on weekends" etc. I think about that when I read this......having to make up rules for violence.

Well, that's a very long explanation, and it's really for Smunkee to reply to, but haven't you missed the essential difference between "spanking" and "striking" ?

It's right there in the definitions you gave!

Striking is an act which is presumed to do harm. Spanking is a far more limited (ritualistic even) activity which is intended to do good, by punishing. The "rules" of spanking are clearly meant to limit physical harm.

I disagree with spanking, btw. I'm just saying you could make your case more effectively by arguing that the motivation matters.
Intent is more important than actions now? When I was pregnant with one of my children, all sorts of police and ambulances appeared down the street from me, so I went out on my porch to watch (curious redneck that I am) and I heard from the police that the baby down the street was dead, I went back inside feeling terrible, and turned on the news, apparently the mom had gone to the store and left the baby with her boyfriend, who wasn't used to being around a colicky child, and "wanted the brat to stop crying" so he put the 3 week baby in a pillow case and tied a knot in the top, and bashed it against the wall until it quit crying. It's a rather extreme example of how a seemingly innocent intent (I want the baby to stop crying), has a very wrong solution. The baby quit crying, but she's dead. There are more healthy ways to get a baby to stop crying, none of them are as easy as killing it though.

It's really between Junii and Smunkee. Yes, a spank is a variety of strike. I was hoping for more than bickering over definitions.
why? if they are going to claim that spanking isn't hitting. Spanking is most obviously hitting. I want to know what in their minds makes it acceptable, still haven't heard anything. Why is it okay to do something to a child that you are not allowed to do to an adult? Is it because a child isn't a person? because you own their body? why?

And duh, all Christians AREN't intelligent.(@ first post)

some Christians are not intelligent, some are. Anyone who speaks in absolutes is always wrong. ;)

Sauf aux Etats-Unis d’Amérique où l'ignorance historique est répandue, ce stéréotype-là n'est pas si courant du tout.

vraiment? Je n'ai pas su. :p

i can't think of a stereotype that riles me more than any other. well apart from gender stereotypes.

i'll just go with the ginger stereotype. i'm not hot tempered and i'm not stupid, just a little daydreamy. and i don't claim my gingerness as an ethnicity or race. i don't need to, it's obvious gingers are superior to everyone else with their bland mousey tones :p

why? if they are going to claim that spanking isn't hitting. Spanking is most obviously hitting. I want to know what in their minds makes it acceptable, still haven't heard anything. Why is it okay to do something to a child that you are not allowed to do to an adult? Is it because a child isn't a person? because you own their body? why?

I punch my friend Alex all the time. It's clearly deeper than "it's hitting, lolchildabuser"

Taking from that the sole point worth debating, I make the following point; the policies of the "rich", insofar as they exist, tend to focus upon economic and industrial prosperity, and self-responsibility, both of which are notions I would hold to be of more long-term benefit to a state than of immediate benefit to the rich. By contrast, the politics endorsed by the British working classes, namely, New Labour, mediocre, short-term fix economics, sacrifice much at the altar of immediate prosperity.

Which reminds me of the stereotype I get most annoyed with: That the working classes all vote Labour. Bollocks do we.

Which reminds me of the stereotype I get most annoyed with: That the working classes all vote Labour. Bollocks do we.

yeh, some are like the proverbial turkeys voting for christmas. well, to be fair voting for labour would count as that too these days.

I punch my friend Alex all the time. It's clearly deeper than "it's hitting, lolchildabuser"

you punch your friend? why? you have some sort of deep purpose to inflicting pain on your friend? explain.

yeh, some are like the proverbial turkeys voting for christmas. well, to be fair voting for labour would count as that too these days.

And some are bright enough to see that most policies supposedly aimed at helping the poor are provided at the expense of the (working) poor and always have been.

you punch your friend? why? you have some sort of deep purpose to inflicting pain on your friend? explain.

No reason, really. It's fun. It's taken as fun. No one is about to go to jail for assualt because of it. And It's not like I don't get punched back. :p

christians are smart?! since when?


Christians intelligence varies from one individual to another just as any other group of people do. So claiming that all christians are not smart just because they are christian actually opens you up for questions concering your intelligence.

so you think it's okay to hit a child if you do it a specific way then?


I prefer threats of violence than following through with them. Just need to make sure to maintain the balance so they don't realise i'm not willing to act on my threats

I prefer threats of violence than following through with them. Just need to make sure to maintain the balance so they don't realise i'm not willing to act on my threats

*gasp*Empty threats? That's like, corporate fraud or something!

No reason, really. It's fun. It's taken as fun. No one is about to go to jail for assualt because of it. And It's not like I don't get punched back. :p

are you intending to cause pain?

are you intending to cause pain?

I had quite a few friends who would hit eachother and me to cause pain. It was always done in a way which meant no-one got angry about it. It was just taken as being funny

vraiment? Je n'ai pas su. :p

Je ne suis ici que pour vous faire apprendre des choses pareilles. :p

I head my own admonishment, indeed.
Or heed it, if that's what you meant.
Oh no!

Minor, yet easily understandable error from someone for whom English is not their first language!

Oh the horror!

Oh the piss-easy argument to save yourself from any kind of intellectual effort!
You called Junii a child abuser. I told you to fuck off.
Right, ok.

That's like me saying "you said that Big Ben is in London - fuck off!".

It's just true.
I'll do it again. You cannot express an opinion without being offensive. So fuck off.
Same to you. Shove such posts right back up your arse and keep them there.

Hey Hey Hey There you said white people can dance... i've been doing it for 8 yrs now and i've been told that i'm a good one if that..!!:)

The one I hate most is that I am stupid, lasy, and a druggy because I live in a trailor court.

But I can name several of my neighbors that really ARE.

The one I hate most is that I am stupid, lasy, and a druggy because I live in a trailor court.

Well, I'd be much more inclined to think you were those things not because you're trailer trash, but because you can't spell trailer.

Well, I'd be much more inclined to think you were those things not because you're trailer trash, but because you can't spell trailer.

It stems from the fact that I really don't care about my spelling on a web forum most of the time.

It stems from the fact that I really don't care about my spelling on a web forum most of the time.

The don't hate the stereotype you willingly live up to.

so you think it's okay to hit a child if you do it a specific way then?


Yes exactly!!!

The don't hate the stereotype you willingly live up to.

Never claimed I wasn't lasy, its the druggy part that bothers me.

The don't hate the stereotype you willingly live up to.

*ahem*

Mr. Spelling Policeman?

You might want to check the first word in your response....

:p

Oh, and the steriotype that I hate the most? It's one that is foisted upon me by almost every sitcom, and about half the women that I've ever met:

"The man of the house is the incompetent schmuck who does no housework and is only vaguely aware of the childrens existance while the wife is invariably the smart, indespensible, capable parent who takes care of everything."

Oh, and the steriotype that I hate the most? It's one that is foisted upon me by almost every sitcom, and about half the women that I've ever met:

"The man of the house is the incompetent schmuck who does no housework and is only vaguely aware of the childrens existance while the wife is invariably the smart, indespensible, capable parent who takes care of everything."

Someone must like them. Otherwise shows like King of Queens and Everybody Loves Raymond wouldn't be successes. :p

*ahem*
Mr. Spelling Policeman?
You might want to check the first word in your response....

Keyboard malfunction != misspelling. "Trailor" instead of "trailer" is a misspelling. Nice try by you, though.

They express their intelligence in a different way. They're not interested in high art, hard-hitting dramas, politics or suchlike.

Instead, they choose to have their own culture.

Nor are they really interested in intellectual debate, simply because trying to be each others' intellectual superior isn't the way that they gain respect within their culture.



Hmmm... I come from a working-class family, why doesn't this sound like an accurate description of my and my family's life and "culture"?

Oh wait, because it's not. It's a stereotype, which for some reason you have attempted to use to denounce another stereotype :confused:

Keyboard malfunction != misspelling. "Trailor" instead of "trailer" is a misspelling. Nice try by you, though.

...Your 'n' key seems to be fine. It's less a malfunction and more you not pressing the button hard enough. And not proofreading, I suppose.

Hey Hey Hey There you said white people can dance... i've been doing it for 8 yrs now and i've been told that i'm a good one if that..!!:)
By other white people? ;)

Heed is what I wrote. Perhaps you should read the post again? And notice that there is no "edit" marking on it?
IIRC, the first post edit is not registered.

IIRC, the first post edit is not registered.

Not so, because I edited another post in another thread and that edit was displayed immediately.

Edit: See.

Not so, because I edited another post in another thread and that edit was displayed immediately.
If you provide a reason for the edit, it will. I edited my post above to test it as well, and it does not show.

If you provide a reason for the edit, it will. I edited my post above to test it as well, and it does not show.

Alrighty then. I won't give a reason.

Edit: Now, if Jolt didn't log me out before letting me edit...

Which reminds me of the stereotype I get most annoyed with: That the working classes all vote Labour. Bollocks do we.

No. Naturally, a good proportion don't vote at all.

I'm British and don't have bad teeth! Although I have been using the word "spiffing" recently.
And I've seen a not-fat American, too!

Sauf aux Etats-Unis d’Amérique où l'ignorance historique est répandue, ce stéréotype-là n'est pas si courant du tout.

If I were to judge all Swedes by Fassigen, I would say they are narrow-minded, inflexible, judgemental jerks and incapable of looking at one person without seeing a stereotype. I, however, can look at him and see a narrow-minded, inflexible, judgemental jerk who is incapable of seeing past the American stereotype without applying that judgement to his fellow countrymen.

If I were to judge all Swedes by Fassigen, I would say they are narrow-minded, inflexible, judgemental jerks and incapable of looking at one person without seeing a stereotype. I, however, can look at him and see a narrow-minded, inflexible, judgemental jerk who is incapable of seeing past the American stereotype without applying that judgement to his fellow countrymen.

It's funny how you probably think those things coming from you would be insulting instead of bolstering. Not "strange funny", but "haha funny".

The only women who have abortions are those that vote democrat. I have noticed this to be very true.

Oh, what does rod mean then? I can't think of anything good it could mean...
Here is the study that was passed to me...
I am a grandmother with two children of my own and am now helping to rear three granddaughters so from my own experience I can give you my answer to these questions. I have never been an advocate of child abuse but this needs to be defined in this society where bad is called good and good is called bad, clean is called unclean and unclean is called clean as the prophet Ezekiel and others have clearly predicted. Lev 10:10 "that you may distinguish between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean,...Ezek 44:23 "And they shall teach My people the difference between the holy and the unholy, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean.

I also do not adhere to the idea that discipline is somehow going to traumatize a fragile child's mind. The opposite is true from my experience. They need limits and will test the resolve of the parent to stick to those limits. This is the way man is or what human nature is. So with this in mind let us go over these verses you have provided and see just what the author intended to tell us.

Proverbs 10:13. In the lips of him that hath understanding wisdom is found: but a rod is for the back of him that is void of understanding. The word here used for rod is the following and was more in kind to a shepherd's staff with a hook on the top end used to control sheep in an open field. 07626 jbv shebet shay’- bet from an unused root probably meaning to branch off; n m; {See TWOT on 2314 @@ ‘2314a’} AV-tribe 140, rod 34, sceptre 10, staff 2, misc 4; 190 1) rod, staff, branch, offshoot, club, sceptre, tribe 1a) rod, staff 1b) shaft (of spear, art) 1c) club (of shepherd’s implement) 1d) truncheon, sceptre (mark of authority) 1e) clan, tribe

In another booklet I was given a few years ago with the ancient Hebrew script and their definitions because the ancient Hebrew was written in Word Pictures not just letters similar to Egyptian hieroglyphs. This script was used when Moses lived and we can decipher the specific meaning of a word with several different English renderings by looking to it. The letters used above are yood or J or Y and Beth or B and V or vav. This is interpreted as "makes or creates a house(hold) secure." If we understand the author of this Proverb correctly we see that he shows that understanding and wisdom comes from someone who has been disciplined or taught in order to gain it.

A rod or staff was used to separate lambs from their mothers for a time or to retrieve a stranded sheep from danger. The rod had a hook at the end to hook around the little legs of a lamb or sheep in trouble and then ever so gently this animal could be brought to where the shepherd needed him to be. The phrase "for the back of him" is where I would see some who would think that a beating is needed but if you have raised sheep or read of how they behave you would see that a beating them only causes them to become more confused and they scatter making it more difficult to get them to where you want them. We must look at this proverb in the light of what the author was really trying to convey, remembering these were collected by several different authors from their oral tradition.

A light tap on the back of an adult sheep might guide them into the pen or place where the shepherd needed them to go. Jesus is our Good Shepherd and if we look to him for guidance, he promised to deliver us from troubles of our own making which get us into trouble. Deut 28:15 "But it shall come to pass, if you do not obey the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all His commandments and His statutes which I command you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you: ...Does God really thunder down a severe punishment which he can not reverse when we are the ones who stubbornly refuse to follow his voice? Even in Chapter 16 of Revelation Jesus reveals to John what God's anger will cause him to do to those who are left after total deception has overcome us here on earth. God's punishment was designed to bring about pain not necessarily death in order to bring as many as possible to repentance. It is Satan who causes the Tribulation of the seven trumpet plagues when God turns his back as he said he would if we refuse to hear him. Deut 23:14 "For the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and give your enemies over to you; therefore your camp shall be holy, that He may see no unclean thing among you, and turn away from you. Isa 1:4 Alas, sinful nation, A people laden with iniquity, A brood of evildoers, Children who are corrupters! They have forsaken the LORD, They have provoked to anger The Holy One of Israel, They have turned away backward. But the outcome will still be that they would not repent. So what does it take for a child or a sheep going in the wrong direction to see the light? Sometimes a severe bit of discipline clears the air and at the very least makes everyone understand what the expectation is. My practice is to use the palm of my hand and if more is needed then something else needs to be tried that is more productive in achieving compliance with the rules of the house like limiting activities that they like.

One of my children would hide the paddle, or place a book in his seat but soon I Iearned that the best way to deal with him was a lecture of what is right and what I expected of him rather than using physical punishment. He later told me that those lectures were worse than a paddling any day which brought him to repentance and was more productive than physical punishment. The other one was a temper tantrum displayer and she often times was put into her room alone until she could come to her own senses because this kind of a display is a cry for attention but it is negative. When she settled down a good dose of loving and hugging was in order but often times this was when a gentle instruction was helpful as well. After the age of 7 I found less useful the physical punishment or even the slap of a hand and when you think about it we tell them not to hit their brothers and sisters so why should we need to hit them especially after the age of reason around age 7.

The gist of all of these is the application of discipline which is likened to a rod or correcting staff of a shepherd. My American Heritage Dictionary, 1989 paperback, defines discipline in 5 points. Point 1. a. training intended to produce a specific character or pattern of behavior. b. Controlled behavior resulting from such training. Point 2. A state of order based on submission to rules and authority. Point 3. Punishment intended to correct or train. Point 4. A set of rules or methods. Point 5. A branch of knowledge or teaching.

If a child is undisciplined he or she is a danger to himself and to society at large. If you truly love your children you can not allow them to become so reprobate that they are a destructive force to themselves and others and this leads us to the second Proverb in your list. Proverbs 13:24. He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes. We should just substitute the word discipline for the word rod and we should see the concept that is being conveyed.

In the New Testament we are often told that the Father will prune or dig around his garden meaning us, his children, and that we are not to hate the correction or chastening of the Father because of what it will produce in us. Hebrews 12:11: Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. This is how we know that God loves us and this is the example we should show our children as well. They need limits set on their behavior because another of your listed Proverbs tells us that children are foolish. Proverbs 22:15: Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of correction will drive it far from him. Hebrews 12:8: But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons.

This then begs the question how does God chastise us? Many times it is under controlled conditions where we learn from our own mistakes that being a sinner does not pay out huge dividends to us or those around us. It brings death and destruction always. Prov 10:29 The way of the LORD is strength for the upright, But destruction will come to the workers of iniquity.Prov 19:18 Chasten your son while there is hope, And do not set your heart on his destruction. Prov 16:2 All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes, But the LORD weighs the spirits.Prov 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, But he who heeds counsel is wise. This is something we are all learning yet and will until we die this first death.

The second way God deals with us is to intervene in the affairs of man to prevent us from total destruction throughout history. The tower of Babel incident stopped the progress of iniquity or we would have invented the A-bomb then and be completely gone and that was not God's will for us. Those of us living today would not be here to enjoy the fruits of our labor and prepare to become sons and daughters of the Eternal God. God's mercy never fails as David sang in his Psalms over and over. Ps 106:1 Praise the LORD! Oh, give thanks to the LORD, for He is good! For His mercy endures forever.Ps 107:1 Oh, give thanks to the LORD, for He is good! For His mercy endures forever. Ps 118:1 Oh, give thanks to the LORD, for He is good! For His mercy endures forever. Will our children be able to say this about our discipline and correction?

Proverbs 23:13-14. Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell. If we look at the original word in Hebrew for "beatest" we find the following: 08686 Stem - Hiphil See 08818 Mood - Imperfect See 08811Count-4043 05221 hkn nakah naw-kaw’ a primitive root; v; {See TWOT on 1364} AV-smite 348, slay 92, kill 20, beat 9, slaughter 5, stricken 3, given 3, wounded 3, strike 2, stripes 2, misc 13; 500 1) to strike, smite, hit, beat, slay, kill 1a) (Niphal) to be stricken or smitten 1b) (Pual) to be stricken or smitten 1c) (Hiphil) 1c1) to smite, strike, beat, scourge, clap, applaud, give a thrust 1c2) to smite, kill, slay (man or beast) 1c3) to smite, attack, attack and destroy, conquer, subjugate, ravage 1c4) to smite, chastise, send judgment upon, punish, destroy 1d) (Hophal) to be smitten 1d1) to receive a blow 1d2) to be wounded 1d3) to be beaten 1d4) to be (fatally) smitten, be killed, be slain 1d5) to be attacked and captured 1d6) to be smitten (with disease) 1d7) to be blighted (of plants) To understand this we need to understand the way it was intended. It is in the imperfect mood and the underlined and bolded emphasis is mine to indicate that this is the definition that the author intended. This is how to differentiate the meaning by knowing the difference between the perfect and the imperfect mood. The perfect expresses the "fact," the imperfect adds colour and movement by suggesting the "process" preliminary to its completion. This shows me that the idea of beating as we know it in child abuse cases is not the intended meaning. To punish, to slap with the hand or even to applaud with the clap of a hand might be closer to the correct idea here. The idea is not to abuse or traumatize the child but to get their attention to show them this is not acceptable behavior and mom or dad is not happy with it. As I said this slap of the hand is usually reserved for the very very young who are just learning what "No, No!" means and if you allow them to play in traffic or touch something dangerous you would not be showing your love at all. As they grow up and are able to understand the spoken and written word then they are becoming ready to be taught and corrected by example and discussion of why it is necessary not to go in a certain direction. At first like the training of animals they need to know certain words will bring an instant painful slap to the hand and it does not take long for them to understand and bypass that particular behavior to avoid the pain. It is this pain that will bring repentance or change of behavior even if they do not know why.

Proverbs 26:3. A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool's back. As you can see there is a difference in tools to train different animals but for a foolish child God suggests correction that comes from a gentle direction change as the rod was used on sheep. Is this not similar to the sheep which he likens us to in the whole Bible to use a rod to hook the legs or to tap the back and correct in love or to beat or slay someone to the point of death or losing blood. i.e. bruising? Even in training horses the whip is not used to bring blood but to scare them into the proper direction. They are more sensitive to the crack of a whip next to their ears than humans are. I found that even gentle conditioning works on the more sensitive animals than does brute force. I have worked with very skittish horses as well and know what worked best for me to get the behavior I wanted from them.

29:15. The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame. Another passage shows this same thing but the father is grieved.
Prov 17:25 A foolish son is a grief to his father, And bitterness to her who bore him. Undisciplined and unruly children were stoned before the congregation under the Mosaic law so it behooved parents to bring them up in fear and admonition (friendly reproof and guidance) of God's way of life. Deuteronomy 20:18-21: "If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them,then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, to the gate of his city.And they shall say to the elders of his city, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.'Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear. The idea was not as cruel as it seems but it was a deterrent against bad behavior in the youth of the tribe.

20:30. The blueness of a wound cleanseth away evil: so do stripes the inward parts of the belly. This was difficult for me to understand in the KJV but when we use the translation called the Septuagint in English we see another entirely different meaning. 30 ¶ Bruises and contusions befall bad men; and plagues shall come in the inward parts of their belly. If this is the more correct thinking of the author then we might be able to see that it has nothing to do with child rearing at all. This word in English"stripes" translated from the Greek is the same word that is the root for plague and this is the meaning in another passage in the New Testament which was originally written in Greek. 2Cor 11:23 Are they ministers of Christ? I speak as a fool, am more: in labors more abundant, in stripes (plagues) above measure, in prisons more frequently, in deaths often. Each of these proverbs was a topic of themselves without context and in that condition we can only guess at what was meant from our more modern ethnocentric thinking. I tend to agree with the Septuagint to translate this passage's meaning.

The Septuagint was a translation from the ancient Hebrew by seventy elders assigned this task by Philadelphius Ptolemy in the period of Greek and Roman history just before the birth of Christ in circa 285 BCE. It is of great importance because the Christ read from this version in his synagogue appearances and the whole New Testament quotes frequently from this version because their people spoke a Koine type of Greek and were socially more akin to the Greek social order than the Hebrew. They were called Hellenized Jews and a large colony of them lived in Alexandria, Egypt where Ptolemy ruled. It clarifies the more modern versions like the KJV and this is probably what is needed to interpret this verse as well.

All of these versions can be downloaded with the OnlineBible.net modules for free use for those who want to understand the original meaning of the Scriptures and are open minded enough to see that we could be mistaken if we use just the KJV alone without verification. These tools you can have as well.

I do not feel it is necessary to beat or strike a kid with the full force of an adult arm to get the point across that they are behaving unacceptably. We are also told that the more important matters of the law require justice or the punishment must fit the crime, mercy or compassion for those smaller and weaker than we, and faith that our Father is teaching us in the right way so we might follow his lead in many of our decisions on how to deal with stubborn stiff necked humanity. Mt 23:23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. I have denied my son a place to call home for his unacceptable behavior as a teen and young adult due to drinking and carousing but beating him at that age would be quite inappropriate. Life is teaching him and his sister that we do not always get what we want and what we want is not always good for us. I will allow you the discretion to discipline your children in love so that you might be blessed with good citizens at least. My son is a hard working well trained young man who has Multiple Sclerosis since he was thirty. He no longer lives the party going life style he did as a youngster partly due to my own will to correct him. My daughter is working at her profession to do great things for the children's hospital here and both of them have returned great dividends to me. I still pray for their repentance to live fully the way God has shown me is the correct way to live to produce happiness. Review the blessings and cursings in Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26 to see that most of our trouble is brought on by our own rebellion against God's more genteel way to live. If we insist on getting the results of our own behavior in curses then we are not long for living on this planet as a people. God has a way to resolve that problem too but that is for another question or topic to discuss. May God show you the right way to correct your children in love.

these include other scriptures that may indicate that it supported child abuse, including the one about stripes on the belly. so it may be confusing.

So how is a spank not an "application of physical force" from a person's open palm to another's buttocks?

The definition of a "hit" in this context is "To give a blow." And a "blow" is the "act of striking or hitting" which brings us back to the application of physical force against something.

So, again, how is a spank not a strike? I did not say a spank was not a strike, I said a spank is specifically defined within parameters. I also said Spanking is not abuse unless the act of spanking is abused and taken to the extreme. the same that drinking alcohol does not make a person an Alcoholic.

No, Junii, it's a problem with picking and choosing, and thus with denial. "Thou shalt beat him with a rod" means "thou shalt beat him with a rod" no matter how much people like you would like to imagine it means something else.

I shall quote Bottle on this:

"I'm sure they'll come in with all the standard salad-bar Christianity crap, about how it's okay to worship their rapist-God because, um, His Son came down and died for us and threw out all the old rules and whatever."

And of course do my own version on it:

I'm sure they'll come in with all the standard all of a sudden oh, so linguistically knowledgeable Christianity crap, about how everything bad with the Bible is a 'mistranslation' and how it really means something fluffy and good because they just pulled it out of their ass or whatever.go look up the original text then. and tell me what it says. or do you believe that your Swedish bible is the ORIGINAL bible.

again... lost in translation.

One is hitting, the other is hitting. Again, no matter how much you'd like to delude yourself that your version of abuse and violence against a child is somehow better, it isn't, and no matter what you say you will remain a sad individual who thinks it's OK to be violent with children, and already are or will probably become a child abuser because of that.
He is a "child abuser" if he spanks children, and not just according to me, but according also to Swedish law. Yes, I mention Swedish law because I judge people under the standards I live by, and people who are violent against children do abuse them, and deserve nothing but scorn. No matter how much people who are violent with children like to deny it, they are abusing them... and Junii's
nope. One says to hit, the other one says to hit, both seem like you are hitting.

so do you, Fass and Smunkee agree with this?
a Hit is a Hit, no matter what. any form of hitting a child is abuse, no matter the reason, motivation, force, number of times, location of that hit? any act of hitting/striking a child is abuse.

Do you and smunkee agree wholeheartily with this?

a kick to the groin is in one location, is it okay then?please show me where I said a Kick to the Groin is ok?
is there something special about a child's rear end that makes it okay to hit, but not anyone else anywhere else?it's a specific location. it tends to be the most padded area of the child (diapers, pants/underwear, muscle and fat content.)

so you think it's okay to hit a child if you do it a specific way then?no, it's not ok to HIT a child, but a Spank is specifically different.

just like the water in the ocean is water, but it's still different than water from the ocean

I remember in rehab, they told me that you can tell when you are begining to have trouble with drugs/alcohol when you begin making rules for their use "I will only use it after work", "I will only get drunk on weekends" etc. I think about that when I read this......having to make up rules for violence. yet has anyone been arrested for child abuse when they only spanked their child infrequently?

but then I guess to you, anyone who drinks alcohol is an alcoholic, bouncing one check means they're a deadbeat, tells one lie can never be trusted, has sex once must be a sex addict... after all, wouldn't the rule be "I did it [only once/rarely]"

gee smunkee... didn't think the one bottle a year of beer I drink made me an alcoholic. nevermind the last drop I touched was 4 years ago...

and yes, there are laws that define and set up the rules for violence.
(Self Defense, Defense of others, premeditated, etc...)

Intent is more important than actions now? When I was pregnant with one of my children, all sorts of police and ambulances appeared down the street from me, so I went out on my porch to watch (curious redneck that I am) and I heard from the police that the baby down the street was dead, I went back inside feeling terrible, and turned on the news, apparently the mom had gone to the store and left the baby with her boyfriend, who wasn't used to being around a colicky child, and "wanted the brat to stop crying" so he put the 3 week baby in a pillow case and tied a knot in the top, and bashed it against the wall until it quit crying. It's a rather extreme example of how a seemingly innocent intent (I want the baby to stop crying), has a very wrong solution. The baby quit crying, but she's dead. There are more healthy ways to get a baby to stop crying, none of them are as easy as killing it though. so your argument against spanking (again, not hitting) is an example of someone bashing a child against the wall. please show me where what he did, putting the child in a pillowcase and bashing that child against the wall falls under the defined terms of Spanking?

why? if they are going to claim that spanking isn't hitting. Spanking is most obviously hitting. I want to know what in their minds makes it acceptable, still haven't heard anything. Why is it okay to do something to a child that you are not allowed to do to an adult? Is it because a child isn't a person? because you own their body? why?so Smunkee, ever bush dirt or grass off of your children when they played outside? that's hitting you know. you gotta stop that, for that's obviously child abuse according to you.

or are you now saying "that's different..." (making a rule for what you did?) funny, you struck your child. "Does the reason or intent behind that action" make it different? the amount of force? you Brushed the dirt off, yet you still came in physical contact with your child using force. that's hitting according to your mind, thus that is abuse according to you.

and lord help you if you smacked a mosquito that was on her arm... :rolleyes:

or does that fall into another rule or another point where intent justifies the action... which according to you is a sign that you are having problems abusing your children.

add to that clapping them on the back/shoulders for a job well done or any other times when you're proud of them can also be called hitting them.

some Christians are not intelligent, some are. Anyone who speaks in absolutes is always wrong. ;) you mean like your stance against spanking?

For the point Smunkee... I never said Spanking cannot be abused to the point of becoming child abuse.

Like everything else, it has to be used responsibly. There are bad parents out there, yet the sterotype of one action does not label everyone who either believes in it but doesn't use it, or those who use it responsibly does not lable them child abusers.

One is hitting, the other is hitting. Again, no matter how much you'd like to delude yourself that your version of abuse and violence against a child is somehow better, it isn't, and no matter what you say you will remain a sad individual who thinks it's OK to be violent with children, and already are or will probably become a child abuser because of that.
Please show me fass, where a person was successfully convicted as a child abuser for only spanking their child on the rare occasion.

oh and for the record. I never spanked a child. believing it can be used responsibly doesn't mean useing it. ;)

so do you, Fass and Smunkee agree with this?
a Hit is a Hit, no matter what. any form of hitting a child is abuse, no matter the reason, motivation, force, number of times, location of that hit? any act of hitting/striking a child is abuse.
I think that hitting a child is a form of physical assault. Just like if my husband were to hit me, or I was to punch my neighbor, it's unacceptable.



please show me where I said a Kick to the Groin is ok?
I was asking if a specific location makes things okay
it's a specific location. it tends to be the most padded area of the child (diapers, pants/underwear, muscle and fat content.)
someone who would hit a child still in diapers is borderline evil, and probably should go to jail.

no, it's not ok to HIT a child, but a Spank is specifically different.

just like the water in the ocean is water, but it's still different than water from the ocean
you haven't demonstrated how it is different or even how it is okay.

yet has anyone been arrested for child abuse when they only spanked their child infrequently?
men didn't used to get arrested for raping their wives, or owning slaves, or beating the crap out of their children. Just because something isn't currently illegal doesn't make it right.

but then I guess to you, anyone who drinks alcohol is an alcoholic, bouncing one check means they're a deadbeat, tells one lie can never be trusted, has sex once must be a sex addict... after all, wouldn't the rule be "I did it [only once/rarely]"

gee smunkee... didn't think the one bottle a year of beer I drink made me an alcoholic. nevermind the last drop I touched was 4 years ago...
strawman. Anyone who hits their child is someone who physically assualts their child. If you were to do the same thing to a child that was not yours, or an adult, you would go to jail. What makes your own child so unimportant that they don't have the right not to be hit?

and yes, there are laws that define and set up the rules for violence.
(Self Defense, Defense of others, premeditated, etc...)
are you saying spanking is some sort of self defense? is the kid going to kill you if you don't smack him?

so your argument against spanking (again, not hitting) is an example of someone bashing a child against the wall. please show me where what he did, putting the child in a pillowcase and bashing that child against the wall falls under the defined terms of Spanking?
no, my point being that intent does not always make an action okay.




and lord help you if you smacked a mosquito that was on her arm... :rolleyes:
she could smack it herself. I wouldn't smack a mosquito off a stranger because it's rude, why would I do that to my kid?



you mean like your stance against spanking?
yep, and my stance against beating gay people and dragging them behind trucks, and my stance against rape, and my stance against slavery.......I guess I am just a really extreme person.


Like everything else, it has to be used responsibly. There are bad parents out there, yet the sterotype of one action does not label everyone who either believes in it but doesn't use it, or those who use it responsibly does not lable them child abusers.
hey if you want to spank, whatever, it's legal here, for now, but don't make the mistake of thinking you are doing anything other than hitting your child for your own convenience.

I think that hitting a child is a form of physical assault. Just like if my husband were to hit me, or I was to punch my neighbor, it's unacceptable. so you've never patted anyone on the back (that's hitting.)

and I'm marvelling how you call everything a hit, yet you specifically used punch when you say you...

I was asking if a specific location makes things okayno you asked if HITTING someone in a specific location makes things okay. I said no, hitting someone is wrong. but spanking is different than hitting.

someone who would hit a child still in diapers is borderline evil, and probably should go to jail. I mentioned diapers because "not being potty trained" is not the only reason people wear diapers. Incontinence for one and that condition is not limited to "old people."

you haven't demonstrated how it is different or even how it is okay. yes I have. more so than how you demonstrated how spanking=hitting someone in the face=bashing them against the wall.

men didn't used to get arrested for raping their wives, or owning slaves, or beating the crap out of their children. Just because something isn't currently illegal doesn't make it right. yet you say Spanking is abuse like it's fact. Hitting a child is hitting a child is what you say, and child abuse is against the law. Thus someone had to have been arrested for ONLY spanking a child on the rare occasion... unless the occasional spank isn't child abuse.

strawman. Anyone who hits their child is someone who physically assualts their child. If you were to do the same thing to a child that was not yours, or an adult, you would go to jail. What makes your own child so unimportant that they don't have the right not to be hit? yet you offered someone who bashed an infant against a wall as proof that spanking is abuse and wrong for children. so...

are you saying spanking is some sort of self defense? is the kid going to kill you if you don't smack him?The point was the law already has rules for violence. so making rules to govern your own actions is not a sign of a problem. Making excuses to justify your actions are.

"I'll only drink during social events"... that's an excuse to drink with others (unless that person is trying to cut back on drinking on their own. not everyone can quit cold turkey...)
"I'll only spank after I've exhausted every other form of dicipline and I will never spank without talking to my child about why I had to spank him" isn't a excuse to spank but a rule limiting the use of spanking and how it's used.
now a person who says "well, I've tried everything..." better have, else they just make an excuse as to why they had to spank. so in your example... had the child been older (3 years old at least) and spanking was all he did. "just to shut him/her up" is not a reason, but an excuse.

and for everyone who thinks that I've changed my stance on spanking, go look up any of the past threads about spanking. I've always asserted these rules for spanking.

no, my point being that intent does not always make an action okay. ahh... NO ALWAYS. so that implies that there are situations where Intent does make an action ok in your mind.

she could smack it herself. I wouldn't smack a mosquito off a stranger because it's rude, why would I do that to my kid?so you consider your child a stranger? and if that mosquito is on her back where she can't reach, what, you'll just sit back and do nothing?

yep, and my stance against beating gay people and dragging them behind trucks, and my stance against rape, and my stance against slavery.......I guess I am just a really extreme person. and against officers or any bystanders using force to get those gay bashers off their poor victim...

or are you admitting that intent and situation can now define when an action, which is normally wrong, is ok to do.

hey if you want to spank, whatever, it's legal here, for now, but don't make the mistake of thinking you are doing anything other than hitting your child for your own convenience.my own convenience. :rolleyes: see, the thing is Smunkee I never spanked anyone... ever! child or adult. yes, I was in situations where other people would spank, but I didn't and it would've been very convenient for me to do so. yet, because I say I believe that there is a time and place for spanking, you have me pegged as some "Mad Spanker" at best or "Child Abuser" at worse. You equate spanking as bashing someone against a wall, or punching or hitting or even kicking someone in the groin when I have shown that there are guidlines for spanking.

There are rules that define what spanking is, and there are rules that I, personally, have for me that further narrows what spanking is.
Do people abuse spanking? yes.
Are they wrong to do so? yes.
Does believing in the use of spanks automatically mean the person is a child abuser? no.
Does controlled use of spanking mean that person is a child abuser? no.

That's what stereotyping does smunkee. it's a generalization that includes innocent as well as guilty and paints them with one brush.

I kinda support spanking. Unlike a certain user, I can spot the difference between administering a swift, firm "hit" to a butt, possibly the most padded part of the human body, and bashing someone's head into a wall. One causes virtually no permanent, or at least no life threatening/altering, damage and the other will likely either kill a kid or fuck that kid's brain up for life.

Intent is important. Intent doesn't always justify everything, but it does justify some things. Chopping down a door to save someone from a burning house is more justifiable than chopping down a door to rob someone. It's a factor in determining how good or bad an action is, just like severity and result are. Spanking isn't a synonym of hitting. It's a type of hitting. Just like a type is a form of bird. Spanking is hitting, just like a robin is a bird, yet hitting isn't always spanking just like a bird isn't always a robin. Could be an eagle for all you know.

Anyway:
Jesus was a conservative because Christianity is considered conservative. Anyone who read the bible would know that Jesus was a hippy. He went against the corrupted establishment and started a peace movement aimed at promoting actual justice over hypocritical "justice". The bible says he saved a prostitute from being stoned to death with his famous saying: Thou who is without sin shall cast the first stone. Kinda amazing how a simple humanitarian group or idea, such as Christianity or Communism, possibly Capitalism, could become perverted, as demonstrated by the Inquisition, Stalin's Soviet Union, and, well, Capitalism.

Anyone who plays video games is a crazed serial killer. You can thank Jack "Jackass" Thompson for this one. His more recent and infamous example of political ambulance chasing? Saying that the Virginia Tech shooter killed because he played Counter Strike. He made this statement before he even knew WHO did it. Could have been someone who played nothing but Scrabble for all he knew. He more recently threatened a judge because the judge disagreed with him.

Hippy Jesus… anyone have a pic for that? Surely you must…

OINK! OINK!


He has seven parents?

No. 1/4 Scottish, 3/16 Welsh, 1/8 Irish, English, German, and Polish, and 1/16 Native American. Would you like the immigration records of my great-great-grandparents. I have them.

Please show me fass, where a person was successfully convicted as a child abuser for only spanking their child on the rare occasion.

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=145&a=411369

A case where a father was convicted of assault for one singular slap (he had never slapped the girl before or since) and push of his daughter.

http://hd.se/bjuv/2007/06/19/pappa-faelld-foer-misshandel/

A case where a father was seen slapping his son. While there were allusions to other kinds of maltreatment (a witness says that he had seen him subsequently using a twig, although he could not attest to it having made contact with the child's person), the man admitted to having spanked the child on a couple of occasions and the court ruled that that was sufficient to convict.

Hippy Jesus… anyone have a pic for that? Surely you must…

Found this:
http://www.loupiote.com/rainbow/images/8133-hippy-jesus.jpg

Oddly, when I googled for hippy Jesus pics, few had anything to do with Jesus or hippies. That's why I hate having to use google.

:p an ex-boyfriend said something similar to that to me once, so I punched him in the face and he said "what the fuck was that for?" and I said "I don't know, I must be irrational"

Yeah, I had a guy say that sort of thing to me once while we were out at dinner.

I pointed out that it's not exactly "rational" to provoke somebody who is weilding a steak knife, so he might want to check his pants to make sure he's really a rational he-man.

No. 1/4 Scottish, 3/16 Welsh, 1/8 Irish, English, German, and Polish, and 1/16 Native American. Would you like the immigration records of my great-great-grandparents. I have them.

You've missed the point. If you think any of those have any impact on who you are today i'd be amazed

I remember in rehab, they told me that you can tell when you are begining to have trouble with drugs/alcohol when you begin making rules for their use "I will only use it after work", "I will only get drunk on weekends" etc. I think about that when I read this......having to make up rules for violence.

They also have rules for how you drive. Do we all have a driving problem, too? They also have rules for how you pay taxes? Do we all have a taxes problem? "Hi, my name is Eric and I'm a tax addict."


Intent is more important than actions now? When I was pregnant with one of my children, all sorts of police and ambulances appeared down the street from me, so I went out on my porch to watch (curious redneck that I am) and I heard from the police that the baby down the street was dead, I went back inside feeling terrible, and turned on the news, apparently the mom had gone to the store and left the baby with her boyfriend, who wasn't used to being around a colicky child, and "wanted the brat to stop crying" so he put the 3 week baby in a pillow case and tied a knot in the top, and bashed it against the wall until it quit crying. It's a rather extreme example of how a seemingly innocent intent (I want the baby to stop crying), has a very wrong solution. The baby quit crying, but she's dead. There are more healthy ways to get a baby to stop crying, none of them are as easy as killing it though.

Intent matters in matters of law. I'll say that again, intent matters in matters of law. It's the difference between manslaughter and murder. It can make the difference between whether or not you're guilty of theft. You're trying to pull all these ideas apart, but since your issue with spanking has nothing to do with these issues it doesn't make sense to handle your argument this way.

why? if they are going to claim that spanking isn't hitting. Spanking is most obviously hitting. I want to know what in their minds makes it acceptable, still haven't heard anything. Why is it okay to do something to a child that you are not allowed to do to an adult? Is it because a child isn't a person? because you own their body? why?

You're equivocating. They are defining their terms here and in this context, it's not hitting. There are lots of things I can do to a child that I cannot do to an adult. For one thing I can physically restrict the liberty of a child. I cannot do that to an adult. I can act on behalf of a child that is completely alert and capable. I can't do that with an adult. Again, do you really want to push this argument into areas where you cannot win?

~snip~

yeah, okay, you are right.

new re-stating of old arguement

I don't feel like violence is a good lesson for children to learn, I feel like they take their cues from adults and if adults can't figure out how to solve a problem without violence, how is a child supposed to learn anything?

yeah, okay, you are right.

new re-stating of old arguement

I don't feel like violence is a good lesson for children to learn, I feel like they take their cues from adults and if adults can't figure out how to solve a problem without violence, how is a child supposed to learn anything?

I think spanking is ALMOST never necessary. Unfortunately, small children's level of understanding is necessarily different from adults. Prior to 3 children are not even self-aware. Simple minds occasionally require different solutions than adult minds.

Children do learn things through pain, when they are not developed enough to understand in other ways. If I touch a hot stove, the pain of being burned will certainly teach me not to touch it again without any "violence". Of I can learn because my mother smacks my hand away before I'm maimed and later learn about the pain associated with heat at a time when I won't be injured. I don't agree with the majority of situations where people would use spanking, but I do think that there are situations where it is the lesser evil, so to speak.

That bondes dont use nation states.
Actually... Im the first bolnde girl that I know of on here...tout ca me fait bonder (bander)

:D

The only women who have abortions are those that vote democrat. I have noticed this to be very true.interesting..
And do republican mothers spank?
or is it more the Democrats?

yeah, okay, you are right.

new re-stating of old arguement

I don't feel like violence is a good lesson for children to learn, I feel like they take their cues from adults and if adults can't figure out how to solve a problem without violence, how is a child supposed to learn anything?

Hey Smunkee,

Thee and me have gone over this one befroe, but while I see the nobilty of your stance I think it very naive.

Violance is an aspect of life on earth, not just for us, but for all living cretures. Mankind will never be free of it, it is there in our genes, we have been doing it since we first became, and we will carry on until our death.

I think we do our children a disservice if we do not teach them how to react against those that want to visit violence upon them, as will certianly happen more than once or twice throughout their lifes.

Please show me fass, where a person was successfully convicted as a child abuser for only spanking their child on the rare occasion.Dont do that..

Fass (or others) could be able to find some country with retarded laws.. a Country willing to Jail someone for spanking (tapping the behinds) once his kid.

Hey Smunkee,

Thee and me have gone over this one befroe, but while I see the nobilty of your stance I think it very naive.

Violance is an aspect of life on earth, not just for us, but for all living cretures. Mankind will never be free of it, it is there in our genes, we have been doing it since we first became, and we will carry on until our death.

I think we do our children a disservice if we do not teach them how to react against those that want to visit violence upon them, as will certianly happen more than once or twice throughout their lifes.

yes, violence happens, it's not a good thing.

however, I find it interesting that you say you should teach your children how to react to violence by spanking them

when most people spank a child, they do so to exert their power over the child

so it becomes hit->submit.

is that a lesson you want to teach your child? that if someone hits them, that they are now in charge? that hitting makes a person "the boss" and that if someone hits you, you should just do whatever they say?

I think we do our children a disservice if we do not teach them how to react against those that want to visit violence upon them, as will certianly happen more than once or twice throughout their lifes.

So you want to teach them self defence by hitting them as punishment? Is your intention for them to fight back or something?

Edit: Damn beaten to it

yes, violence happens, it's not a good thing.

however, I find it interesting that you say you should teach your children how to react to violence by spanking them

when most people spank a child, they do so to exert their power over the child

so it becomes hit->submit.

is that a lesson you want to teach your child? that if someone hits them, that they are now in charge? that hitting makes a person "the boss" and that if someone hits you, you should just do whatever they say?

Again, you're abusing your terms here. What it teaches them is there are escalating consequences for your actions.

Your statement would mean that if I ground my child or in some way confine them that I am teaching that if someone kidnaps you they are in charge.

Again, you're abusing your terms here. What it teaches them is there are escalating consequences for your actions.
I have found what it teaches most children is that what people say doesn't matter, and that mom and dad can say "stop" as much as they want, but until they get that spanking, just about anything they do is fair game, "no" doesn't mean "no" until the parent is so frustrated that they feel they have to spank.


Your statement would mean that if I ground my child or in some way confine them that I am teaching that if someone kidnaps you they are in charge.
I fail to see how "teaching children to react to violence by spanking" is of any use at all. My intent when grounding my child is not to teach her about being grounded. Peepleonia's intent when spanking seems to be to "teach them how to react to violence" which we can assume is submit to it.

I have found what it teaches most children is that what people say doesn't matter, and that mom and dad can say "stop" as much as they want, but until they get that spanking, just about anything they do is fair game, "no" doesn't mean "no" until the parent is so frustrated that they feel they have to spank.

A parent who spanks out of frustration is wrong. Spanking like everything else should be done for the child not in response to emotional reactions from the parent. And you're wrong. You're speaking in absolutes. Some children would react that way. Some children would react to spanking because they don't understand other forms of punishment because they are not immediate enough.


I fail to see how "teaching children to react to violence by spanking" is of any use at all. My intent when grounding my child is not to teach her about being grounded. Peepleonia's intent when spanking seems to be to "teach them how to react to violence" which we can assume is submit to it.

I fail to see how "teaching children to react through kidnapping" is of any use at all. See, I can do that too.

Peep is wrong. Spanking is not to teach children about violence.

I fail to see how "teaching children to react to violence by spanking" is of any use at all. My intent when grounding my child is not to teach her about being grounded. Peepleonia's intent when spanking seems to be to "teach them how to react to violence" which we can assume is submit to it.
Or indeed perpetuate the inane cycle of violence>retribution>violence>retribution ad nauseam.

If the history of the twentieth century, or the current mess in the Middle East, has shown us anything, it is that we must teach the next generations to break the cycle.

A parent who spanks out of frustration is wrong. Spanking like everything else should be done for the child not in response to emotional reactions from the parent. And you're wrong. You're speaking in absolutes. Some children would react that way. Some children would react to spanking because they don't understand other forms of punishment because they are not immediate enough.
if a child is to young to reason with, they are too young to understand any form of punishment. You are right though, not every child will react in the way that I have seen nearly every child react. That doesn't change my view that physical punishment is unacceptable.


I fail to see how "teaching children to react through kidnapping" is of any use at all. See, I can do that too.

Peep is wrong. Spanking is not to teach children about violence.
and I was replying originally to peep.

yes, violence happens, it's not a good thing.

however, I find it interesting that you say you should teach your children how to react to violence by spanking them

when most people spank a child, they do so to exert their power over the child

so it becomes hit->submit.

is that a lesson you want to teach your child? that if someone hits them, that they are now in charge? that hitting makes a person "the boss" and that if someone hits you, you should just do whatever they say?

Heh now your putting words in my mouth. I didn't actuly make any suggestions on how to prepare your children for the violenc of the world.

I find it interesting though that you say violence is not a good thing. bearing inmind that good and bad are subjective, is it good or bad when a lioness kills to provide food for her cubs?

To my mind violence is inherently neither good nor bad, just an aspect of life. rather like the seasons, or the waxing and waning of the moon.

So you want to teach them self defence by hitting them as punishment? Is your intention for them to fight back or something?

Edit: Damn beaten to it

Show me exactly where I said that?

Show me exactly where I said that?

I think we do our children a disservice if we do not teach them how to react against those that want to visit violence upon them

You use that sentence in the context of an argument about the merits of spanking

I find it interesting though that you say violence is not a good thing. bearing inmind that good and bad are subjective, is it good or bad when a lioness kills to provide food for her cubs?

To my mind violence is inherently neither good nor bad, just an aspect of life. rather like the seasons, or the waxing and waning of the moon.
*stabs Peepe*

Sorry mate, just waxing and waning. :p

Subjective morality is a whole other argument (and, IMO, wrong).

*stabs Peepe*

Sorry mate, just waxing and waning. :p

Subjective morality is a whole other argument.

I totally love you. I was just about to do that, but now I don't have to look like a bitch.

http://elouai.com/images/yahoo/60.gif *hugs*

if a child is to young to reason with, they are too young to understand any form of punishment. You are right though, not every child will react in the way that I have seen nearly every child react. That doesn't change my view that physical punishment is unacceptable.

This is patently false. Children learn to associate very basic results with things they do at a very young age. Their level of understanding is very much like a dog's. Yes, I have no rational problem with comparing a very small child with a pet since their intellect is similar. They learn that crying gets them fed. Or changed. Or various other things. As they grow they learn to deal with more complex results or more complex ways of communicating. One of the ways they learn is that certain actions bring pain and thus they don't want to perform said actions. It's what makes them attempt to not hit their head on things or, if you've seen a child fall backwards they will attempt to catch their head before it strikes the floor. Children learn from pain. Pretending they don't or can't is just absurd.

As a responsible parent, you should certainly attempt to limit the pain your child experiences, but I would only do so to the point where that pain does not injure them and my limiting of said pain doesn't retard their development or expose them to more grievious harm.

You use that sentence in the context of an argument about the merits of spanking

Nope I'm afraid I didn't, if you go back to my original post on this subject to Smunkee(194 or so I believe?) and re-read you find the sentance to which I made my reply and thus the context was this one:

'I don't feel like violence is a good lesson for children to learn'

I said that although I think it a noble stance of smunkee to take(and I do, for I also abhour violence) I find it quite niave, and the reason I gave was that violence is inherent to all life on this planet, I do not belive that we will ever get rid of it.

So I feel that violence is a good lesson for our children to learn, if only to prepare them for those that would do violence against them.

Nope I'm afraid I didn't, if you go back to my original post on this subject to Smunkee(194 or so I believe?) and re-read you find the sentance to which I made my reply and thus the context was this one:

'I don't feel like violence is a good lesson for children to learn'



Apologies :)

*stabs Peepe*

Sorry mate, just waxing and waning. :p

Subjective morality is a whole other argument (and, IMO, wrong).

Heh ooohhh really? Then can you answer why we don't put children up chimneys any more, but we did 100 years ago?

Or why only last centuray we had in another part of the world canabalistic tribes who saw nothing wrong with eating the body parts of their slain enermys?

Accepted:)

I totally love you. I was just about to do that, but now I don't have to look like a bitch.

http://elouai.com/images/yahoo/60.gif *hugs*
Aww thanks.

Subjective morality is a bit of a philosophical peeve of mine.

Aww thanks.

Subjective morality is a bit of a philosophical peeve of mine.

mine too!

*starts a club*

*hands you your membership card*


also.......I think the thread has gotten off topic......mostly my fault I think, sorry guys.

we agree to disagree?

Heh ooohhh really? Then can you answer why we don't put children up chimneys any more, but we did 100 years ago?

Or why only last centuray we had in another part of the world canabalistic tribes who saw nothing wrong with eating the body parts of their slain enermys?
Yes I can.

An evolved, objective, biologically based morality, combined with the passions and prejudices of culture/parents/environment/religion/whatever.

IMO, we have a basic moral core that is shared by every human bean, that is influenced by certain factors, but never strays from the core.

The Callatians ate their dead, the Ancient Greeks burnt them, Native Americans (used to?) let the vultures pick the bones of their dead clean, and we in the West, usually, bury our dead. But we all do something with our dead. It's just environmental/political/religious factors that cloud our core morality.

We have a basic moral core that tells us that our offspring should be protected, but politics/environmental factors, etc, change our attitudes towards, say, child chimney-sweepers.

But I'd say you couldn't find true subjective morality.

We have a basic moral core that tells us that our offspring should be protected,

Surely that, at the least, is biological?

Yes I can.

An evolved, objective, biologically based morality, combined with the passions and prejudices of culture/parents/environment/religion/whatever.

IMO, we have a basic moral core that is shared by every human bean

I've never really liked human beans. They make me fart like something died in my colon.

Surely that, at the least, is biological?
Yup. I'm not disagreeing.

I've never really liked human beans. They make me fart like something died in my colon.
Had to get a BFG reference in there somewhere.

Hey Smunkee,

Thee and me have gone over this one befroe, but while I see the nobilty of your stance I think it very naive.

Violance is an aspect of life on earth, not just for us, but for all living cretures. Mankind will never be free of it, it is there in our genes, we have been doing it since we first became, and we will carry on until our death.

Never say never. Humans are animals, but all animals are not human. Because we distinguish ourselves as human, we are not bound only by the what we observe in animals.

Perhaps we will never be free of what all animals have in common. But we can try, and I believe we should use the gifts of language and politics, and the vast flexibility of the individual human to be formed by their society, to pursue something more than being animals.

Never say never. As human society, we have a lot of growing up to do yet.

I think we do our children a disservice if we do not teach them how to react against those that want to visit violence upon them, as will certianly happen more than once or twice throughout their lifes.

We do our children a disservice by teaching them that the response to violence is obedience.

I chalk your post up as a point to Smunkee.

EDIT: Oh crap, this thread has the afterburners on!

Yes I can.

An evolved, objective, biologically based morality, combined with the passions and prejudices of culture/parents/environment/religion/whatever.

IMO, we have a basic moral core that is shared by every human bean, that is influenced by certain factors, but never strays from the core.

The Callatians ate their dead, the Ancient Greeks burnt them, Native Americans (used to?) let the vultures pick the bones of their dead clean, and we in the West, usually, bury our dead. But we all do something with our dead. It's just environmental/political/religious factors that cloud our core morality.

We have a basic moral core that tells us that our offspring should be protected, but politics/environmental factors, etc, change our attitudes towards, say, child chimney-sweepers.

But I'd say you couldn't find true subjective morality.

I would have called the protection of our young an evolutionary biological imperitive, rather than a moral choice. If political and enviromental factors can change our moral stance on the work that children can do does this not indicate the subjectivity of such morality? Also factor in the differances in differant parts of the world.

Unless you can show me an unbroken moral attiude that is true for all people in all places, over the whole of time, then I can't see how objective morlity exists.

Ohhh and I applogise for the thread napping.

Never say never. Humans are animals, but all animals are not human. Because we distinguish ourselves as human, we are not bound only by the what we observe in animals.

Perhaps we will never be free of what all animals have in common. But we can try, and I believe we should use the gifts of language and politics, and the vast flexibility of the individual human to be formed by their society, to pursue something more than being animals.

Never say never. As human society, we have a lot of growing up to do yet.



We do our children a disservice by teaching them that the response to violence is obedience.

I chalk your post up as a point to Smunkee.


Please go back a few post and see that I never said, nor idicated, nor even agree that teaching children the response to violence is obediance. I wipe away your chalk mark, and give it to my lil boy to play with.;)

heterosexual men aren't pigs, they are apes. And for the most part, I make no attempt to talk to them, because my expectations of them are quite low. (this comes from a gay man, not some deranged feminist).

Blast away. :rolleyes:

Surely that, at the least, is biological?
Given that there are a good number of humans who do not seek to protect their offspring, I'd say no.

It's quite possible to be human and not feel any desire to protect your offspring. Therefore, "desire to protect offspring" cannot be an inherent biological trait of all humans.

We do our children a disservice by teaching them that the response to violence is obedience.

This is a really stupid point. It completely denies that this would, of course, mean that we teach our children that the response to kidnapping is obedience as well. Unless you never physically restrict your children in any way.

heterosexual men aren't pigs, they are apes. And for the most part, I make no attempt to talk to them, because my expectations of them are quite low. (this comes from a gay man, not some deranged feminist).

Blast away. :rolleyes:

What, when you will make no attempt to talk to me?

*does ape ass-showing thing*

heterosexual men aren't pigs, they are apes. And for the most part, I make no attempt to talk to them, because my expectations of them are quite low. (this comes from a gay man, not some deranged feminist).

Blast away. :rolleyes:

Ahhh your a fag, what do you know!:eek:

Blastish enough for ya?;)

Given that there are a good number of humans who do not seek to protect their offspring, I'd say no.

It's quite possible to be human and not feel any desire to protect your offspring. Therefore, "desire to protect offspring" cannot be an inherent biological trait of all humans.

Did I say all? There's lots of traits that some humans don't have, that should be obvious.

I would have called the protection of our young an evolutionary biological imperitive, rather than a moral choice. If political and enviromental factors can change our moral stance on the work that children can do does this not indicate the subjectivity of such morality? Also factor in the differances in differant parts of the world.
Something isn't fully subjective if it is controlled by an objective core. I'm not arguing that every human moral belief is completely objective; I think it's quite apparent (indeed, it's what you identified) that people differ in their moral beliefs. But I'd argue that it's also quite apparent we all share some core beliefs.

Yes, environmental, cultural, political, etc., factors influence our morality, but they do just that - influence our beliefs, not determine them.

Unless you can show me an unbroken moral attiude that is true for all people in all places, over the whole of time, then I can't see how objective morlity exists.
I'd counter by saying say show me a truly subjective morality; one devoid of any objective basis. I bet you can't.

I believe in Nature and Nurture. I believe in an objective core of morals (gained through the evolutionary process) with a subjective topping.

Ohhh and I applogise for the thread napping.
Ditto.

holy molten lava batman! an on topic post!

stereotype: "real women" like to cook.

holy molten lava batman! an on topic post!

stereotype: "real women" like to cook.

Yeah I think my girlfriend completely destroys that one

Given that there are a good number of humans who do not seek to protect their offspring, I'd say no.

It's quite possible to be human and not feel any desire to protect your offspring. Therefore, "desire to protect offspring" cannot be an inherent biological trait of all humans.

Sorry Bottle I disagree with your surmising of this one. Breathing is a biological imperitive, we do it because our body just takes care of doing it, it requires no thought from us to do it. Yet if we want to we can override this and stop breathing.

Yes some people do not protect their children, not because it is not in their genes to do so but because they ignore this imperitive. Like sex, it is a function of biology, it is 'natural' to have sex, yet we can overide even this need.

The brain is an emensly complex thing(as I'm sure you'll be the first to say) and we can effect all sorts of things using the power of our will.

This is a really stupid point. It completely denies that this would, of course, mean that we teach our children that the response to kidnapping is obedience as well. Unless you never physically restrict your children in any way.

And the point has been dealt with by Peepelonia. It was apparently a misunderstanding ...

I haven't worked out how yet. Surely by spanking a child, causing them pain as punishment, one intends to prevent them doing the wrong thing next time.

So, isn't that what "giving them experience of violence" is going to teach? "You will obey those who order you around, because otherwise you will suffer violence"?

If there is any lesson to be taught about responding to violence, it is this: "keep talking, keep a cool head, remember exactly what happened so you can testify credibly in court, and give the aggressor no more satisfaction than necessary to stay safe."

This thread is moving a bit too quick for me, so please could we avoid red herrings like "parenthood is kidnap, so what's a bit of violence?" or whatever that was.

EDIT: OK, I've wred the thread which I failed to refresh properly. I now understand the "kidnapping" reference and grant that it is valid, unless we can find some way to dispense with punishment altogether.

*...*
Peep is wrong. Spanking is not to teach children about violence.

Hopefully this is now a consensus. Peep got that one wrong.

My point was not stupid, only ignorant. I apologize for reraising a point which was done; it looked like the last post to me.

Something isn't fully subjective if it is controlled by an objective core. I'm not arguing that every human moral belief is completely objective; I think it's quite apparent (indeed, it's what you identified) that people differ in their moral beliefs. But I'd argue that it's also quite apparent we all share some core beliefs.

Can you give an example of one of these?

Yes, environmental, cultural, political, etc., factors influence our morality, but they do just that - influence our beliefs, not determine them.

So you would disagree that we are products of our enviroment?


I'd counter by saying say show me a truly subjective morality; one devoid of any objective basis. I bet you can't.

Heh challenge taken up.

Racism. Even with people from the same culture, you will find some bigots and some more liberal minded. With politics you find the same thing. Politics is nothing more than what the morality of the people demand. Why then don't we have only one politcal stance, why do we have consevative, and socialism, and liberal, and fascist minded indiviuals and people?

I believe in Nature and Nurture. I believe in an objective core of morals (gained through the evolutionary process) with a subjective topping.

I too belive much the same as you, except that I do not belive in such an objective morality. Perhaps the nearest that I could concede would be along biolgical grounds, but I place morality as a congnative function, not as a purley biological one.

And the point has been dealt with by Peepelonia. It was apparently a misunderstanding ...

I haven't worked out how yet. Surely by spanking a child, causing them pain as punishment, one intends to prevent them doing the wrong thing next time.

So, isn't that what "giving them experience of violence" is going to teach? "You will obey those who order you around, because otherwise you will suffer violence"?

If there is any lesson to be taught about responding to violence, it is this: "keep talking, keep a cool head, remember exactly what happened so you can testify credibly in court, and give the aggressor no more satisfaction than necessary to stay safe."

This thread is moving a bit too quick for me, so please could we avoid red herrings like "parenthood is kidnap, so what's a bit of violence?" or whatever that was.

Peep was responding to the general point. Not the point you guys are claiming. As such, I was reacting to what he actually said rather than adding context that wasn't there.

Meanwhile, I'll avoid that red herring if you avoid the "spanking teaches that whenever someone is violent they should obey." Your claim is no different than mine. The only difference being that I realize that extending grounding to kidnapping is idiotic, but no one seems to realize that comparing spanking to punching a stranger in the face is also idiotic.

Actually, Racism is deeply rooted in biological imperatives. Humans are pack/herd animals, kind of a blend between them, and 'compete' with groups they are not a part of. Just like if one wolf pack runs into another, they'll try and rip each other's throats out. Racism is just an excuse to thin the competition, which is COMPLETELY biological.

As a group becomes larger, it splits, due to the fact that herds and packs can't get too big, or they eat all the food. While it doesn't make much sense in modern times, this continues into civilization, and so any group larger than around thirty people will have multiple mini-groups inside of it. They might not even consider each other as being from the same group.

Onto stereotypes though...

Atheists are all elitist: I hate this one. I'm either atheist or agnostic, depending on what you think. I don't CARE if there is a god or not. I can't remember the exact quote, but it went something like "Organized religion is the worst thing that has happened to humanity. Bad people will do bad things, and good people will do good things, completely without religion. But to have good people to bad things, you need religion." Now, I also recognize that it has bad people do good things, but... I would prefer everyone would just act good or bad. Evil is evil, and good is good, I would prefer to not have to guess. Read Silence of the Lambs sometime if you have not, I happen to enjoy a lot of Lecter's philosophy. Not the eating people's part, though. I could get all KINDS of diseases from that...

Nerds don't have a social life: Yes we do! We SO do! We just happen to have a social life with other NERDS. You have a social life with other people who are like you... And so do we. There just happens to be less of us.

Introverts don't have a social life: Not as much as extroverts, sure. But we LIKE it that way.

Kids are annoying: I don't think I'm annoying. I do think 99% of kids are annoying, but a lot of the ones I like are not.

Elitist people are bastards: Yes, I'm elitist. But we NEED the majority of the population to have no idea what they're talking about, or we WILL end up with anarchy. The best kind of government would be a well meaning oligarchy, that had all kinds of self-cleansing laws. Really, a bit like the government the U.S.A. has today, only more powerful. Read Brave New World. Near perfect, IMO. WARNING, SPOILER AHEAD. The guy main character should have been allowed to go to an island, keeping him with the majority was just cruel...

NO MORE SPOILER.
Emo people are suicidal: No, not really. I have quite a few Emo friends, and while they DO get depressed quite a bit, it's how they cope with the world. I cope by not giving a damn, they cope by being depressed. Just because you contemplate killing yourself does not mean you are Emo, as well. Plenty of people every day kill themselves that are not Emo. Now, mind, it does get a bit annoying after the 30th time going "No, really, cutting off all your hair will NOT make you feel any better," but we all do odd things.

Goth people are freaky: Depends on what you think is freaky. My god-sister is quite Goth, and she graduated from Harvard. She's also quite fun to hang around.

People who don't care about clothing are freaks: Well, yes, I suppose we are. Freak being defined as someone differing from the norm, we're ALL freaks. Some of us care about clothing so little we'll all just walk around the house naked, and would walk outside naked too, if it didn't bother our neighbors. It's just a material to keep you warm and show off, people... Modesty is WEIRD. Well, no, it's normal, but I consider normal things weird.

Pagans are into sacrificing goats: Uh... No? Goats are TASTY, but... No religious stuff, at least for me. Satanists, possibly. Don't know too much about them. Pagans, not really..

Stereotypes are uncommon: No, not really. Every single person has stereotypes and biases, most people just don't know what they are.

Well, I could keep going on for forever like this, but I have to go work on the backyard. Cutting down small trees is WORK...

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=145&a=411369

A case where a father was convicted of assault for one singular slap (he had never slapped the girl before or since) and push of his daughter.

http://hd.se/bjuv/2007/06/19/pappa-faelld-foer-misshandel/

A case where a father was seen slapping his son. While there were allusions to other kinds of maltreatment (a witness says that he had seen him subsequently using a twig, although he could not attest to it having made contact with the child's person), the man admitted to having spanked the child on a couple of occasions and the court ruled that that was sufficient to convict.
thanks fass.

what language is that so I can translate and read it.

Peep was responding to the general point. Not the point you guys are claiming. As such, I was reacting to what he actually said rather than adding context that wasn't there.

Meanwhile, I'll avoid that red herring if you avoid the "spanking teaches that whenever someone is violent they should obey." Your claim is no different than mine. The only difference being that I realize that extending grounding to kidnapping is idiotic, but no one seems to realize that comparing spanking to punching a stranger in the face is also idiotic.

"You guys"? If there are teams here, how come we can't be in team colors and have our own crude team songs? "You want to read my post, you have to listen to the Bottle Hymn of the Republic played by a mariachi band, whenever it's on your screen" :p

Now to your post. All actions "send a message" in some way, but it is rarely the primary function of the action. Perhaps a celebrity doing something for charity is primarily a message, or a preacher doing their thing. Usually the action is done for a good reason, and the independent actions that others might take in emulation or opposition are offsets, for good or bad, to the achievement the action aims for.

"Be the change you want to see in the world" is a fine dictum ... for Gandhi, whose power came from his words and who advocated a kind of inaction as a means to change. For most of us, the action must come first and the message second.

But the message is always there. We need to consider both (the action as investment/return and the message as inspiration/corruption) and I imagine that parenthood must be very difficult because the "message" is more important there. Kids learn far quicker than us adults. But also parenthood demands a lot of practical actions, so maybe parenthood done properly is just plain hard in both respects. :confused:

I've just thought of a counter example, a case where action has effects but the message is non-existent: a succesful conspiracy.

Also women fail at shutting up. That's a good one too.

You're still talking...

You're still talking...

*Ahem*.. Typing... :p

*...*

Strong points, but frankly few will read it all without a bigger postcount to your name.

Oh, bang on topic too. Noob! :p

*Ahem*.. Typing... :p

In any case, the point stands that she fails at shutting up... ;)

In any case, the point stands that she fails at shutting up... ;)

I like listening to the women of NSG speak... err... type. they are intelligent and have their own views and opinions.

and they have such beautiful... err... fonts... :D

oh and that touches on another stereotype... "Men Never Listen."

I like listening to the women of NSG speak... err... type. they are intelligent and have their own views and opinions.

oh and that touches on another stereotype... "Men Never Listen."

Eh? What?

An issue of TIME (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1549322,00.html) had articles about American demographics, which went against several common stereotypes and one or two misconceptions I had about them (yes, when I make generalizations about large groups, they are "misconceptions").

As to stereotypes that annoy me the most, I would say the belief that people of a certain "demographic" can be expected to act the same, and that statistics should affect the way we think about people. It may be useful for the police to know people of a certain age are more likely to commit violent crime, but to apply that fact to dealing with people in every day life is fallacious.

"You guys"? If there are teams here, how come we can't be in team colors and have our own crude team songs? "You want to read my post, you have to listen to the Bottle Hymn of the Republic played by a mariachi band, whenever it's on your screen" :p

Now to your post. All actions "send a message" in some way, but it is rarely the primary function of the action. Perhaps a celebrity doing something for charity is primarily a message, or a preacher doing their thing. Usually the action is done for a good reason, and the independent actions that others might take in emulation or opposition are offsets, for good or bad, to the achievement the action aims for.

"Be the change you want to see in the world" is a fine dictum ... for Gandhi, whose power came from his words and who advocated a kind of inaction as a means to change. For most of us, the action must come first and the message second.

But the message is always there. We need to consider both (the action as investment/return and the message as inspiration/corruption) and I imagine that parenthood must be very difficult because the "message" is more important there. Kids learn far quicker than us adults. But also parenthood demands a lot of practical actions, so maybe parenthood done properly is just plain hard in both respects. :confused:

I've just thought of a counter example, a case where action has effects but the message is non-existent: a succesful conspiracy.

You do speak a lot of sense, but I can see problems with this. One such problem is subjectivity. What for example is parenthood done properly? If my ideas on this thing differ from yours then first of all how do we decide whos ideas are better, and then while we decide that how should I be peranting in the interim?

Also to do as you suggest takes up an awfull lot of brain power, and then to be aware of every word and gesture at all times a lot of willpower.

Heh tell me are you a Sikh?

Sorry Bottle I disagree with your surmising of this one. Breathing is a biological imperitive, we do it because our body just takes care of doing it, it requires no thought from us to do it. Yet if we want to we can override this and stop breathing.

Breathing is a requirement for life. A human cannot survive without respiration, though we now have the ability to artificially provide respiration to humans whose natural bodily systems have failed for various reasons.

It is not remotely necessary even to produce children in the first place. A great many people have lived quite long and quite well without producing any children, let alone protecting any children. It's also quite possible (and often quite beneficial to the individual) to produce children and then not protect them.


Yes some people do not protect their children, not because it is not in their genes to do so but because they ignore this imperitive. Like sex, it is a function of biology, it is 'natural' to have sex, yet we can overide even this need.

Lots of people don't feel any imperative to protect children. I'd wager you'll have trouble finding a person who lacks the need to breath.


The brain is an emensly complex thing(as I'm sure you'll be the first to say) and we can effect all sorts of things using the power of our will.
Yes, we certainly can.

However, there is no 'biological' requirement to protect one's young. Many humans do not experience any drive to protect their young, and thus it does not require any 'will' for them to suppress such a drive.

"You want to read my post, you have to listen to the Bottle Hymn of the Republic played by a mariachi band, whenever it's on your screen" :p

I approve this message.

Eh? What?

uhh terocota?

Well... I´m in Spain now and I have to say that the stereotype that Spanish people are really noisy is very true. Also, the stereotype that they all have really good manners is really really really not true. Oh and everyone of them that rides the metro looks depressed.

Oh and everyone of them that rides the metro looks depressed.
That's not really unique among the Spanish, if you're commuting on a Metro it's unlikely you will be too cheery.
Coupled with the fact the Metro was what terrorists attacked, I can see why it would cause melancholy.

"You guys"? If there are teams here, how come we can't be in team colors and have our own crude team songs? "You want to read my post, you have to listen to the Bottle Hymn of the Republic played by a mariachi band, whenever it's on your screen" :p

You guys being a reference to the couple of individuals who all mistook Peep's point. If you're among them, then it applies to you. If not, then not. No team colors required.


Now to your post. All actions "send a message" in some way, but it is rarely the primary function of the action. Perhaps a celebrity doing something for charity is primarily a message, or a preacher doing their thing. Usually the action is done for a good reason, and the independent actions that others might take in emulation or opposition are offsets, for good or bad, to the achievement the action aims for.

Nice non-reply. Hopefully your post improves by addressing the point in the second half.


"Be the change you want to see in the world" is a fine dictum ... for Gandhi, whose power came from his words and who advocated a kind of inaction as a means to change. For most of us, the action must come first and the message second.

So far, no good. Still doesn't address the point.


But the message is always there. We need to consider both (the action as investment/return and the message as inspiration/corruption) and I imagine that parenthood must be very difficult because the "message" is more important there. Kids learn far quicker than us adults. But also parenthood demands a lot of practical actions, so maybe parenthood done properly is just plain hard in both respects. :confused:

I've just thought of a counter example, a case where action has effects but the message is non-existent: a succesful conspiracy.
Yep, I held out hope, but nothing in your post actually addresses what I said. How unfortunate.