I left the following comment for Mr. Carter: ""demystify some of the myths that are sometimes spun about Islam"? You mean the myths that it's not a violent ideology, responsible for many, many thousands of deaths worldwide? The ideology that has seen Buddhist monks beheaded, schoolgirls burned to death, schoolgirls having acid thrown in their faces for the crime of getting an education? Or perhaps the'myth' that Beslan (where schoolchildren were raped and burned and blown up, for those with short memories) was an atrocity in no way related to Islam? Or perhaps you were thinking of the 'myth' that islamist militias still gather slaves in the Sudan? Or the churches burned to the ground and their congregations slaughtered for the crime of being Christian? Enjoy the event, Mr. Carter and know that you're an apologist for primitive thuggery."
Not wanting to controversial don't those Islamists believe in the same God as you? A one, it has to be said .. prone to a bit of violence if the OT is to be believed
Is this where you remind us that you also see a smack in discipline is just the same as an angry person violently abusing a child?
You are getting confused, again.
You need to read the New Testament for at least an update. A fair amount of significant stuff happened following the OT.
The other point is that it isn't necessarily God that changes, it's people.
Some people believe in using any justification to advance their personal agenda. That applies to Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler, Islamic Fundamentalists and Sue Bradford for that matter. They are acting for themselves, not for God. They will lie even to themselves, as much as others. More fool you if you believe their lies.
Is this where you remind us that you also see a smack in discipline is just the same as an angry person violently abusing a child? I would never say that cos it plainly not true But confused about the god thing I am. It seems to me that the OT god is some sort of nasty vindictive kinda gal Where the NT one is kinda cool and all touch feely like You know all the vile stuff in the OT don't have to quote it here
But I agree with your last statement apart from lumping Sue with that lot
I have met Sue on a few occasions and I can say with absolute certainty that she is not acting for herself,God or lying to herself She is a very genuine person who is passionate about what she believes. Love her or hate her she is a very hard working and effective MP Parliament would be a much better place if all politicians from whatever party were as hardworking and passionate about their own beliefs . Sue might be a hate figure for the smackers but she did convince most of parliament to support her bill, like her or loath her , that is some pretty mean achievement IMHO
Tom, you simply politely conflate physical discipline with child abuse. Sue Bradford is slightly more obvious. She's in that list because of her authoritarian tendencies. All of those people thought they were doing the right thing - saying she's passionate about being implacable and unable to respect or even properly consider the other POV, by continually calling people like myself something equivalent to child abuser is not actually adding to the debate.
PS: Are you ready to ban rugby for the same reasons? You haven't come up with a consistent, logical rebuttal for accepting violence in sports (being a tackle) on children incapable of providing legal consent.
PS: And non-contact sports are a safe viable alternative to contact sports, in the same way you argue that banning discipline (subsection 2) is fine because there are alternatives.
Has Sue called people like you a child abuser ? I'm sure she hasn't ..I haven't as a aside what is the definition of child abuse? perhaps we could agree on that? As to the sport stuff I am not ignoring it and will get back to you when I can be have re read the posts
Let's put it another way.
I let my kids play sports. I've meet a parent who considers rugby brutal, and given the pain a tough game can inflict, they feel it should be banned.
"Is it normal for a parent to want to see their child continually assaulted?" they ask. Because make no mistake, if smacking is assault, then so is a tackle.
I've seen kids in tears and rolling around on the ground after a bad tackle, even in soccer. I certainly took my knocks growing up. A relative of mine DIED from playing rugby.
I still don't want it banned. I still don't want it illegal. I still don't want the police able to interview parents after each game to decide if the parents are just trying to see their kids "hardened up" against their will.
Do you, in order to reduce these obvious assaults, and to reduce the pain children go through in playing sports, want to see it made illegal? How do you change the rules of the game so that we just play touch rugby? You certainly can't define a gentle tackle I suppose.
Or are you going to make an exception in the case of sports?
What immediately springs to mind is that kids who play contact sports do so because they want to. they have provided consent Don't fiddle with the remote Mary or I will make you play rugger on Saturday, might be a different matter entirely I fail to see what you are trying to get at Two or three years olds getting smacked because they cannot articulate what is causing them to "misbehave" have not consented to being hit They are just being hit..though mostly lightly on the hand or on the bottom it would seem
What immediately springs to mind is that kids who play contact sports do so because they want to, they have provided consent
Kids cannot legally give consent. There are various arguments to issues that come up that this is pointed out most stridently, so lets stick with that argument.
Using "consent" as a justification is also anti-family. You are relying on a legal device for adjudicating between parent and child as if they can give consent to being disciplined, and deciding, no, that a child would not be likely to give consent, or even if they could, you would not accept it.
If they can consent to being assaulted in rugby, they can consent to being raised under the rules of the house, simple. If they cannot be deemed to grant consent, then they cannot play rugby until they are 18, or they are being assaulted.
To clarify, do you think girls of age 12 freely consenting to a sexual relationship with a 30 year old adult able to give consent?
So why can they give consent to being assaulted in sport?
The end result is that there is a very real reason to recognise a special relationship between child and parent, one where the parent is responsible for the child's well being, and that includes the right to discipline a child within reasonable bounds, as well as permit them to play sports and ensure they eat healthy food and so on.
Banning physical discipline is an infringement on the family structure.
I fail to see what you are trying to get at
I'm actually making several points. One obvious one is around the pain level. I think you claim a smack is damaging and excessively painful. Is this the case?
If not, why ban it?
If so, then a smack is probably less painful than a rugby tackle.
Yet, if the child wants to accept a greater degree of occasional pain playing rugby that is alright with you. So it cannot really be the pain aspect can it?
Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.
I left the following comment for Mr. Carter:
ReplyDelete""demystify some of the myths that are sometimes spun about Islam"?
You mean the myths that it's not a violent ideology, responsible for many, many thousands of deaths worldwide? The ideology that has seen Buddhist monks beheaded, schoolgirls burned to death, schoolgirls having acid thrown in their faces for the crime of getting an education? Or perhaps the'myth' that Beslan (where schoolchildren were raped and burned and blown up, for those with short memories) was an atrocity in no way related to Islam?
Or perhaps you were thinking of the 'myth' that islamist militias still gather slaves in the Sudan? Or the churches burned to the ground and their congregations slaughtered for the crime of being Christian?
Enjoy the event, Mr. Carter and know that you're an apologist for primitive thuggery."
Thanks for this, and it all shows what a silly bugger Carter is!
ReplyDeleteYou may have left a comment but I guess it never made it through moderation.
ReplyDeleteNever mind most of those that did have been deleted as HOMOPHOBIC
lol! Why am I not surprised, Andrei?
ReplyDeletedoes Islam awareness mean to take note of potential terrorists?.
ReplyDeleteNot wanting to controversial don't those Islamists believe in the same God as you?
ReplyDeleteA one, it has to be said .. prone to a bit of violence if the OT is to be believed
Is this where you remind us that you also see a smack in discipline is just the same as an angry person violently abusing a child?
ReplyDeleteYou are getting confused, again.
You need to read the New Testament for at least an update. A fair amount of significant stuff happened following the OT.
The other point is that it isn't necessarily God that changes, it's people.
Some people believe in using any justification to advance their personal agenda. That applies to Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler, Islamic Fundamentalists and Sue Bradford for that matter. They are acting for themselves, not for God. They will lie even to themselves, as much as others. More fool you if you believe their lies.
Is this where you remind us that you also see a smack in discipline is just the same as an angry person violently abusing a child?
ReplyDeleteI would never say that cos it plainly not true
But confused about the
god thing I am.
It seems to me that the OT god is some sort of nasty vindictive kinda gal
Where the NT one is kinda cool and all touch feely like
You know all the vile stuff in the OT don't have to quote it here
But I agree with your last statement
apart from lumping Sue with that lot
I have met Sue on a few occasions and I can say with absolute certainty that she is not acting for herself,God or lying to herself She is a very genuine person who is passionate about what she believes.
Love her or hate her she is a very hard working and effective MP Parliament would be a much better place if all politicians from whatever party were as hardworking and passionate about their own beliefs .
Sue might be a hate figure for the smackers but she did convince most of parliament to support her bill, like her or loath her , that is some pretty mean achievement IMHO
IMHO, you need new glasses, those rose lenses do you no favours.
ReplyDelete"She is a very genuine person who is passionate about what she believes."
ReplyDeleteMost useful Marxist idiots fit that profile.
KG
ReplyDelete"She is a very genuine person who is passionate about what she believes."
And I believe that most people feel the same way here about smacking debate
And therefore in know way would I call you xtian idiots, simply because I disagree with your POV
That would add nothing to debate
Tom, you simply politely conflate physical discipline with child abuse. Sue Bradford is slightly more obvious. She's in that list because of her authoritarian tendencies. All of those people thought they were doing the right thing - saying she's passionate about being implacable and unable to respect or even properly consider the other POV, by continually calling people like myself something equivalent to child abuser is not actually adding to the debate.
ReplyDeletePS: Are you ready to ban rugby for the same reasons? You haven't come up with a consistent, logical rebuttal for accepting violence in sports (being a tackle) on children incapable of providing legal consent.
PS: And non-contact sports are a safe viable alternative to contact sports, in the same way you argue that banning discipline (subsection 2) is fine because there are alternatives.
ReplyDeleteHas Sue called people like you a child abuser ?
ReplyDeleteI'm sure she hasn't ..I haven't
as a aside what is the definition of child abuse? perhaps we could agree on that?
As to the sport stuff I am not ignoring it
and will get back to you when I can be have re read the posts
Let's put it another way.
I let my kids play sports. I've meet a parent who considers rugby brutal, and given the pain a tough game can inflict, they feel it should be banned.
"Is it normal for a parent to want to see their child continually assaulted?" they ask. Because make no mistake, if smacking is assault, then so is a tackle.
I've seen kids in tears and rolling around on the ground after a bad tackle, even in soccer. I certainly took my knocks growing up. A relative of mine DIED from playing rugby.
I still don't want it banned. I still don't want it illegal. I still don't want the police able to interview parents after each game to decide if the parents are just trying to see their kids "hardened up" against their will.
Do you, in order to reduce these obvious assaults, and to reduce the pain children go through in playing sports, want to see it made illegal? How do you change the rules of the game so that we just play touch rugby? You certainly can't define a gentle tackle I suppose.
Or are you going to make an exception in the case of sports?
What immediately springs to mind is that
kids who play contact sports do so because they want to. they have provided consent
Don't fiddle with the remote Mary or I will make you play rugger on Saturday, might be a different matter entirely
I fail to see what you are trying to get at
Two or three years olds getting smacked because they cannot articulate what is causing them to "misbehave" have not consented to being hit
They are just being hit..though mostly lightly on the hand or on the bottom it would seem
Has Sue called people like you a child abuser ?
ReplyDeleteYes.
What immediately springs to mind is that kids who play contact sports do so because they want to, they have provided consent
Kids cannot legally give consent. There are various arguments to issues that come up that this is pointed out most stridently, so lets stick with that argument.
Using "consent" as a justification is also anti-family. You are relying on a legal device for adjudicating between parent and child as if they can give consent to being disciplined, and deciding, no, that a child would not be likely to give consent, or even if they could, you would not accept it.
If they can consent to being assaulted in rugby, they can consent to being raised under the rules of the house, simple. If they cannot be deemed to grant consent, then they cannot play rugby until they are 18, or they are being assaulted.
To clarify, do you think girls of age 12 freely consenting to a sexual relationship with a 30 year old adult able to give consent?
So why can they give consent to being assaulted in sport?
The end result is that there is a very real reason to recognise a special relationship between child and parent, one where the parent is responsible for the child's well being, and that includes the right to discipline a child within reasonable bounds, as well as permit them to play sports and ensure they eat healthy food and so on.
Banning physical discipline is an infringement on the family structure.
I fail to see what you are trying to get at
I'm actually making several points. One obvious one is around the pain level. I think you claim a smack is damaging and excessively painful. Is this the case?
If not, why ban it?
If so, then a smack is probably less painful than a rugby tackle.
Yet, if the child wants to accept a greater degree of occasional pain playing rugby that is alright with you. So it cannot really be the pain aspect can it?
Oops, sorry, posting on the wrong thread. I'll get around to starting a new thread on the smacking debate.
ReplyDelete