It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by fallow the light
children use to be adults at the age of 13. they use to start their own families, pay their own bills and hunt their own food. now 13 year olds are fragile little puppies who know absolutely nothing about the world and can not decide for them self's.
[edit on 13-5-2010 by fallow the light]
Originally posted by semperfortis
It is the violation of trust that sickens me..
Just like any other child abuse, the children trust their parents and are confused on a base level when that trust is violated...
Trust me, I deal with this all the time...
Originally posted by Blaine91555
If I'm hiring an executive level person, I'm going to skip over people covered in bad tattoos
Originally posted by CDippa
If a parent can give consent for a tattoo, why can't they give consent for a branding?
To me, it comes down to whether or not the children wanted and accepted the branding. If the parent forcibly branded them against their will, I think he should be prosecuted, obviously. But, if the children wanted to be branded for whatever reason, how is that any different than a parent consenting to a tattoo?
Some people see a difference, but I don't.
Originally posted by janon
So would this have been a non-issue if he had tattoos done? I'm failing to see the difference.
26.28.085. Applying tattoo to a minor--Penalty Every person who applies a tattoo to any minor under the age of eighteen is guilty of a misdemeanor. It is not a defense to a violation of this section that the person applying the tattoo did not know the minor's age unless the person applying the tattoo establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she made a reasonable, bona fide attempt to ascertain the true age of the minor by requiring production of a driver's license or other picture identification card or paper and did not rely solely on the oral allegations or apparent age of the minor. For the purposes of this section, "tattoo" includes any permanent marking or coloring of the skin with any pigment, ink, or dye, or any procedure that leaves a visible scar on the skin. Medical procedures performed by a licensed physician are exempted from this section.
Originally posted by RestingInPieces
According to the story, all of the kids - 15, 17, and 18 agreed to it and are still standing by the father and by their branding.
Even so, the younger two obviously don't know what they are saying because you don't make any sense until you turn 18. Everyone knows that.
I say, this is about as bad as those african tribes who burn themselves to make tribal keloidal scars on their children.
Originally posted by Dock9
The father's an inadequate loser. Probably suffering impotency
The sons don't have much brain or courage
Should be a law that sterilises all members of families like that
[edit on 13-5-2010 by Dock9]