It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


You have every right in the world to whoop ya kid's..PLZ start I am sick of all the punk's

page: 25
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 04:00 PM
reply to post by Death_Kron

Yes, the kid will burn himself but he won't get any burn scars if his pain receptors haven't been numbed down by smacking.
Is it really so difficult to teach your kid not to touch the fire in the first place?

Why do you even bother getting a child then?

posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 07:00 PM

Originally posted by BarryZuckercorn
Originally posted by jfj123
Oh really??? Well then oh wise one, how would you have handled it ? What spectrum of behavior would you use? Please do tell me and in detail.

I don't know, I wasn't there. It's entirely possible that I would have behaved similarly to how you did, but you missed my point. My point is that you had to resist the violent urges at all, most likely because of your conditioning to behave violently when pushed.

We all have violent urges. If you say you don't, you're a liar so don't make me out to be some kind of violent maniac that's going to snap any second.

A better adjusted person wouldn't necessarily feel the urge to turn anyone into a "gooey paste."

I said I could, didn't say I would. And I also noticed that you said, "It's entirely possible that I would have behaved similarly to how you did".

In fact, they might not take it personally at all, since it's never personal. Those kids were following their (apparently lousy) conditioning, and you were following and resisting yours.

I was following a logical course to end the stupidity...which I along with the owner/manager and police did. You fail to understand that I did indeed take the high road and helped an elderly couple. Why did you gloss over that part so quickly? Don't you care about helping the helpless? Would you leave the defenseless elderly couple to the whims of the obnoxious teens? Are you so lacking of compassion you simply would not get involved? I did and you berate me for it. Spin it any way you want but I did the right thing and you know it.

Originally posted by BarryZuckercorn
While I agree that you certainly can make decisions without dissecting yourself, those decisions might not be as conscious as you may think.

Originally posted by jfj123
Yes they are.

Your method of argument seems to be to just say "no" to everything that you disagree with.

YES. It's simple, quick and efficient. There's no reason to follow it up further because you'll just try to pick apart the details of my response and over analyze (emphasis on the ANAL) non-existence psychology of the situation.

Originally posted by BarryZuckercorn
Our perceptions of the world (or our prejudices) are molded by our experiences all the way back to childhood...

Originally posted by jfj123
If you're unaware of reality, yes this is possible. I'm aware of reality.

Originally posted by BarryZuckercorn
That's why "whooping" children is a bad idea; you're imprinting them with the idea that violence is a valid option for solving problems in life.

Originally posted by jfj123
Not really.

Try presenting the reasons why you disagree.

I would but really what's the point? You will just attempt to twist my points into something unrecognizable to anything I've just written.

Originally posted by jfj123
Everyone in the same situation would have the same feelings based on the complete disregard those teens had for everyone including those poor elderly people.

I disagree.

You know what? You're right and I'm wrong regarding this point. Many people are cowards and would not stand up for these people or are so self centered, they wouldn't care about people who aren't them. I stand corrected.

Originally posted by jfj123
No, I'm not bragging at all. I'm explaining the difference between hitting and a swat on the butt.

Yes, and the way that you have chosen to describe that difference is by telling everyone on the board how "EASILY" you could turn people into "gooey paste,"

Look, I'm honestly not bragging. If you really want to know why I could easily over power 4 small punks, I'm a large, strong guy with a background in several martial arts.

and how if you hit me, I'd be unconscious.

You would. Not that I would hit you but you would be unconscience. I can break foundation blocks with a closed fist punch. Again, I want to be clear that I'm not bragging, I'm simply explaining what you keep bringing up. I go out of my way to diffuse volatile situations because I honestly don't want to hurt anyone.

Based on your language choices you seem have constant thoughts of violence.

Not at all. I'm a very non-violent person. I'm the kind of guy that stops his car in the middle of the road to pick up a turtle or frog/toad so they don't get squished. I'm the type of person that has spent entire days trying to help a lost dog finds his way home. I even helped a lost HORSE find his way home one time. I've helped people load up their cars at the grocery store or at Home Depot for no reason but to be nice. I've given homeless people jobs when noone else would. Does that sound like someone who has "constant thoughts of violence" ????? I would like an answer since you made the accusation.

If not, why do you decide to present yourself that way?

I don't, you just think I do because you're not a very good judge of character. What you see in my posts is frustration toward ignorant parents who are literally ruining their children's lives. Those poor kids won't have a normal, functional life but you don't seem to care about that, only how "violent" I AM.

You and a large portion of the other people here who are arguing from a pro-spanking position seem to have a more violence-oriented semantic approach.
[edit on 30/7/2009 by BarryZuckercorn]

People like you who think they can read people, simply don't have a clue.

Hopefully one or two words have sunk in but I'm not holding out much hope.

[edit on 30-7-2009 by jfj123]

posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 07:22 PM
No, you shouldn't have a right to hit your kids. They are a person so they should be completely = to you. They have just as much right to get out a paddle and start beating your ass as you do to get out a paddle and start beating their ass when they don't do something you want.

posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 07:35 PM

Originally posted by BarryZuckercorn
Originally posted by jfj123
Do you attempt to put people down who stand up for themselves because you couldn't/didn't as a child and were thus abused?

I'm not putting you down, I'm arguing with you. You're taking it personally. And why do you choose to say "couldn't/didn't?" (Emphasis mine, obviously.)

Are you seriously suggesting that there is something that I could have done to "stand up for myself" when I was being abused as a young child?

No I'm suggesting that you're taking it out on me because you couldn't. It's pretty obvious and sad (seriously) that you were abused.

You seem to think that I'm advocating this as part of EVERY punishment. I AM NOT nor have I EVER, at any point, suggested it.

I don't think that you're advocating violence as a punishment for every situation. I think that you're advocating light corporal punishment in some instances. I also think that this is child abuse, since every blow, no matter how light, caries with it the implied possibility of further violence.

I think that you're over exaggerating what is abuse because of your unfortunate childhood.

Once you hit a child as punishment you are making that child aware of the possibility that worse might happen if they do not co-operate.

Not really. I was spanked as a child, a few times but I never thought it would go from a swat to a downright beating.

[edit on 30-7-2009 by jfj123]

posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 08:10 PM
....and never the twain shall meet.
It appears to me that we have two disparate views and no matter how much we discuss them these views will remain.

"I'm right"

"No, I'm right"

To and fro.

I've said what I've had to say. I read a reread but I cannot bring myself to agree with physical abuse, no matter how you want to dress it.

It's not 'oversimplifying', it's 'undersimplifying'.

I don't need a martial arts background to stand up against violent, disrespectful or angry people. I'm not bragging (lol) but I've broken up many fights without resorting to violence, as well as stood up to rude, intolerant people. If something is serious then I will call the police.
There are other options and I choose to use them rather than resort to the kneejerk inbreeding of violent responses.

[edit on 30-7-2009 by aorAki]

posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 09:04 PM
reply to post by RogerT

Thank you for that brief snippet of information, but it is still not what I am looking for. Something substantive is usually nicer to provide than just an out of context quote; I want where I can find the studies.

I am a busy person, but if I am provided information to support YOUR ARGUMENT (Meaning that those arguing it are obliged to pony up their data), I'll gladly read the information.

Now my turn.

Study finds less effect in cultures where Spanking is common

And Strauss/Holden, whom I believe were cited in the study summary from before (I believe they were in the bibliography) are unconvincing when mentioned here...

Study gives support to Spanking

From most of the things I read, they are grouping in abuse with spanking, which is NOT a proper way to conduct studies of spanking. While YOU may view it as abuse, a scientist has an obligation to examine the situation free from factors that would compromise their conclusions... by grouping serious abuse in with Spanking, you TAINT the study by concluding that the effects from abuse are coming from the spanking!

Here's an interesting article that rebuts and cites various studies, again, there's a bibliography from the bottom. I'll see if I can dig up more data from those studies.

Spare the Rod?

posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 09:09 PM
Personally I believe that their are other methods that can be used to discipline a child that do not involve the infliction of pain and suffering.

posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 09:14 PM

Originally posted by astrij
Personally I believe that their are other methods that can be used to discipline a child that do not involve the infliction of pain and suffering.

I don't think that anyone who has commented in this thread disagrees with you on that matter. Where the disagreement stems is that Physical discipline is NOT an option and cannot be an acceptable option.

I haven't seen anyone in this thread argue that there are no other behavioral adjustment solutions.

posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 03:27 AM
reply to post by BarryZuckercorn

The demeanour, class and grace apparent in your posting should be all the pro-spankers need to 'see the light'.

Reason over reaction, compassion over belligerence.

Very nice work.

posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 03:39 AM
reply to post by TheColdDragon

Sorry, not my road.

Awareness trumps scientific study every time.

No conscious parent could possibly strike their child. The act requires unconsciousness.

To get the above statement, you actually have to become conscious, even if just for a moment.

To become conscious, you have to suspend thought ... I've a feeling you will find that rather challenging, but it's more than worth the effort if you're willing.

posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 10:12 AM
reply to post by RogerT

I've never had someone equate Spiritual Awareness to being an unthinking being.

Though that might explain a lot of the flibberty jibbet being said in this thread.

Most people aren't so open and vocal about ignoring facts provided to them... but it does effectively demonstrate that you care little about this argument as much as you want to force your views on everyone who disagrees and have no good reason to do so.

If you did actually care, you wouldn't be so dismissive of my citing of links and resources. Effectively your response demonstrates that no amount of any reason will convince you of anything, which is an irrational stance that I do not SHARE with you.

So really, if you and others do not want to be reasonable whatsoever about the topic, you really shouldn't continue participating.

posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 10:26 AM
reply to post by aorAki

Your failure is to imagine people that utilize one particular tool in a cadre of disciplinary measures are violent and resort to violence at first opportunity.

Your comments have lead me to believe that you perceive people that spank their children as violent individuals who are prone to violence in all aspects of their life, that you believe that spanking a child is lazy in all situations and that it is never acceptable in any sense no matter what the situation may be.

In essence, you are unreasonable. You refuse reason, because you are so devoutly certain of your righteous self-induced opinion that you reject any or all arguments that may be reasonable in favor of your own viewpoint.

You have not had a conversation in this thread. You have yelled at people, and heard nothing the other side has said. You have purposefully and ignorantly denied any rebuttals that had validity and criticized your world view, and equally as much responded only to parts of responses which didn't jeapordize your stance but helped paint the person you're responding to in an unreasonable light.

I generally respond line to line to people. I do it out of politeness and consideration for the words they choose to put into a topic. I do it because, whether I agree or not, their entire post deserves a rebuttal and an examination of their reasoning and facts.

Essentially, this whole thread has been about a causal factor; Individuals are not punished in society, so they become disrespectful and degenerate. That is the original premise. I have not seen in this thread any particular studies or evidence to support the idea that corporal punishment other than a summary of other studies, which were never produced to examine.

Having conducted my own bit of research into the matter, the largest criticism for many of the studies cited in the paper quoted was that they lump physical abuse in with spanking children. I know why they do this; because they believe spanking is physical abuse and they are incapable of differentiating the two.

What this does is destroys the validity of their study. Naturally you will find conclusionary evidence that spanking causes alcoholism, psychological damage, sexual dysfuntion, etc. when the people being spanked are also having contusions, lascerations and broken bones induced upon them. Oh what, it can't be the physically obvious violence that is visually apparent that contributed to their mental and psychological illnesses? It MUST be the spanking, mustn't it?

Ignorance is tolerable only when people are willing to entertain they may be incorrect and accept opposing viewpoints.

I don't respect you, aorAki, and I don't respect RogerT. Neither of you have demonstrated a significantly reasonable amount of discourse, and have been rather accusatory in this thread.

Counterpoint to Amaterasu, who disagrees quite a bit with the viewpoint of spanking, but throughout was quite respectful to the posters she disagreed with; largely in that her beliefs were not stated outright to be beliefs she wanted to force on every other individual. She clearly made it known what she believed, but did not overtly demean, belittle or ridicule the other posters.

Take a lesson.

posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 10:47 AM

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
reply to post by RogerT

I've never had someone equate Spiritual Awareness to being an unthinking being.

Oops, and I thought that was spirituality 101 ?!?!

Never mind, you'll get it sooner or later - perhaps in the moment of death if not before

Given your apparent total identification with your borrowed thoughts as being real and true, I'm not surprised you're having a difficult time here.

You're much funnier than the other pro-violence posters in this thread though. Now you're suggesting others leave the thread because you can't understand the value in their contributions

Keep up the good work

posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 08:23 PM
reply to post by RogerT

You haven't contributed anything except condemnation and ridicule, equating people who pop the butts of their children to child abusers.

Your arguments are founded only upon your beliefs, and when asked for information to support your positions, both of you are too lazy to be bothered to put in the effort. You are not contributing to the conversation, so stop wasting space with your words until you do.

You want me to change my beliefs? Convince me. It isn't impossible, just difficult.

posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 08:27 PM
reply to post by TheAmused

my dad never spank his kids 'cause he knew what it was like to grow up with a father that abuse 'em. and all his kids grew up to be lovin' adults. now kids i've seen get spank come up to be mean as hell and not lovin' if they are lucky to break the cycle.

ppl who spank their kids are weak as hell

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 02:47 AM

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
reply to post by RogerT

You haven't contributed anything except condemnation and ridicule, equating people who pop the butts of their children to child abusers.

Since you don't seem to comprehend the majority of my posts I don't see how you are qualified to make that assertion.

Your arguments are founded only upon your beliefs, and when asked for information to support your positions, both of you are too lazy to be bothered to put in the effort.

For someone that admonishes people for claiming their version of reality to be absolute, you sure like to do the same thing. I'd call hypocrisy, but I have a feeling it's simply your lack of consciousness combined with your idolatry of intellectual information.

You are not contributing to the conversation, so stop wasting space with your words until you do.

Should I sit in the corner with the D hat on, or are you going to spank me if I insist on continuing to express my ideas?

You want me to change my beliefs? Convince me. It isn't impossible, just difficult.

Not my road again, sorry.
Your beliefs are irrelevant and will continue to flip flop around for the rest of your life as different information comes into your focus.

If you manage to gain a moment of awareness, all your current beliefs will dissolve anyway. The insanity of violence towards children will then not be a belief but just plain obvious.

I was attempting to point towards awareness, not re-arrange your false sense of self (i.e. your mental constructs)

Now if you are interested in any of that, you may find some value in re-reading my posts.

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 04:18 AM
reply to post by RogerT

Anyone familiar with philosophy would know that if an arguement cannot withstand the most extreme example than it cannot withstand a lesser one either.

[edit on 1-8-2009 by [davinci]]

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 04:34 AM
I have absolutely no idea what that comment refers to in the discussion, could you please elucidate.


posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 05:58 AM
I like you RogerT. You are truely conscious. As i have also found just lately, there really is no way the concious can communicate with the unconscious.

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 06:14 AM
reply to post by TheColdDragon

Right now in NZ we are voting on whether a gentle slap in the name of good parenting is OK - I said yes, because I believe that children need to be directed - but GENTLE remember.

We have one of the highest rates of child abuse in the world. I am not proud of that, and I am not racist, but I am quoting stats here - it is because of our Maori and Pacific Island population.

top topics

<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in