|
Post by riotgrrl on Feb 22, 2010 10:37:10 GMT
Of course, if we all have guns, men lose their advantage in terms of just being physically stronger. Yeah. And if our cars break down we'll just shoot the buggers until they start going again! Yeah!
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Feb 22, 2010 10:42:13 GMT
Of course, if we all have guns, men lose their advantage in terms of just being physically stronger. Why don't you just learn Brazilian Jiu jitsu?
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 22, 2010 11:36:41 GMT
Of course, if we all have guns, men lose their advantage in terms of just being physically stronger. Yes, but they'd be those dinky little guns, nice and light
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 22, 2010 12:26:46 GMT
well..i have to say i have never had the slightest desire to push a car...so i say VIVA LA DIFFERENCE between men and women... unfortunately hon, if your car needs pushed, it's not likely due to your desires. there really IS a separate but equal and i have celebrated the sperateness let men be men and women be women..with equality in law..oportunity..education etc but dont lets kid our selves that men and women are the same in every aspect of living because we are not..
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Feb 22, 2010 12:57:24 GMT
unfortunately hon, if your car needs pushed, it's not likely due to your desires. there really IS a separate but equal and i have celebrated the sperateness let men be men and women be women..with equality in law..oportunity..education etc but dont lets kid our selves that men and women are the same in every aspect of living because we are not.. This is very true! Children, especially boys, who are crossed dressed by screwy parents as girls can suffer serious psychological problems with their gender identity! Equality with civil rights fine, but uniquely different otherwise!
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 22, 2010 13:55:12 GMT
[Equality with civil rights fine, but uniquely different otherwise! [/color][/size][/quote]i cannot see a problem with what you say....and why anyone in their right mind would want to cross dress their children i really dont know...my kids had a dressing up box with a range of wear init both femme and masculine...got a photo some where of youngest son in my wedding dress and a top hat...and one of the grandson apeared one day at the dinner table with one of his mothers bra.s on his head....but that is kids being kids .........but to deliberately cross dress them is beyond me
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 22, 2010 14:52:35 GMT
unfortunately hon, if your car needs pushed, it's not likely due to your desires. there really IS a separate but equal and i have celebrated the sperateness let men be men and women be women..with equality in law..oportunity..education etc but dont lets kid our selves that men and women are the same in every aspect of living because we are not.. it's just pathetic that so many won't comprehend such a simple reality
|
|
|
Post by beth on Feb 22, 2010 15:24:41 GMT
Jim, the bed punishment WAS abusive. Better you'd have taken away candy for a month. and If you do not mean to advocate putting a child into a coma - as your post suggested - do not say things like that.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 22, 2010 17:21:31 GMT
Jim, the bed punishment WAS abusive. Better you'd have taken away candy for a month. and If you do not mean to advocate putting a child into a coma - as your post suggested - do not say things like that. i don't agree. he was not harmed in any way, and as i said, it made a lasting impression, and only had to be done once. that is just simple discipline, and instruction. taking away candy for a month would have been forgotten in six months. with the coma, i was pretty much talking about a teenager. after a kid has been properly instructed, by the time it gets to be a teenager, there's no excuse, and some of them just insist on getting their azz whupped. hazel's daughter is one of them. i've had the misfortune to know more than a few just like it. if a kid is too stupid to comprehend that he exists to do what he's told, he needs to be taught in whatever manner is necessary for him to comprehend
|
|
|
Post by beth on Feb 22, 2010 20:53:40 GMT
Quote: with the coma, i was pretty much talking about a teenager. after a kid has been properly instructed, by the time it gets to be a teenager, there's no excuse, and some of them just insist on getting their azz whupped. hazel's daughter is one of them. i've had the misfortune to know more than a few just like it. if a kid is too stupid to comprehend that he exists to do what he's told, he needs to be taught in whatever manner is necessary for him to comprehend We'll have to agree to disagree about the bed punishment. There are ways beyond physical to inflict damage on children.
On the above - " ... by the time it gets to ba a teenager . . ." it? I believe that says it all in re your POV. Since this is straying pretty far from the topic of the thread and (as usual) I find your attitude toward children totally off the rails, I'll move along.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 22, 2010 21:55:55 GMT
Quote: with the coma, i was pretty much talking about a teenager. after a kid has been properly instructed, by the time it gets to be a teenager, there's no excuse, and some of them just insist on getting their azz whupped. hazel's daughter is one of them. i've had the misfortune to know more than a few just like it. if a kid is too stupid to comprehend that he exists to do what he's told, he needs to be taught in whatever manner is necessary for him to comprehend We'll have to agree to disagree about the bed punishment. There are ways beyond physical to inflict damage on children. On the above - " ... by the time it gets to ba a teenager . . ." it? I believe that says it all in re your POV. Since this is straying pretty far from the topic of the thread and (as usual) I find your attitude toward children totally off the rails, I'll move along. the whole thing is that doing it your way is precisely why we have the problem that we have. when i was a kid, you didn't backtalk an adult, for any reason. if you backtalked the neighbor five doors down, he blistered your azz, and took you home so your dad could blister it again. it didn't take many azz blisterings to get the message. kids acted like people forty years ago. today, they act like trash. in ronnie's case, the two weeks in bed made him a real person, and he grew up to be a fine upstanding citizen. it didn't harm him a bit. as i said, kids exist for the SOLE purpose of learning to be responsible adults.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Feb 23, 2010 3:34:51 GMT
Quote: I'd like to ask some of the Americans on the board about these child beauty pagents that seem to be very popular over there. I find these quite gross . . very young girls caked in make-up, encouraged to present themselves to be judged on looks. Riot, I think the pageants for children are rather strange, but I do not think most of the parents who encourage and support participation see it the same way. I do not believe they understand the exploitation factor and just want to give their little girls the advantage of trophies and flattery. Likewise, they do not seem to see the creeps that hang around these events. Just not in their vision of reality - which, admittedly is pretty skewed.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2010 7:07:17 GMT
The silly thing is that JonBenet Ramsay without make-up or artificial hair looked absolutely lovely.
I am reminded of the rather silly film of the family racing to get their unsophisticated small daughter to a beauty pageant, and the unexpected twist at the end. Unfortunately I can't remember the name but you may know the one I mean.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Feb 23, 2010 11:15:58 GMT
Quote: I'd like to ask some of the Americans on the board about these child beauty pagents that seem to be very popular over there. I find these quite gross . . very young girls caked in make-up, encouraged to present themselves to be judged on looks. Riot, I think the pageants for children are rather strange, but I do not think most of the parents who encourage and support participation see it the same way. I do not believe they understand the exploitation factor and just want to give their little girls the advantage of trophies and flattery. Likewise, they do not seem to see the creeps that hang around these events. Just not in their vision of reality - which, admittedly is pretty skewed. Beth, can you explain something to me. Are these pagents considered an uncontroversial part of US culture, or are there individuals and organisations speaking out against them in the mainstream?
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Feb 23, 2010 11:20:03 GMT
Quote: with the coma, i was pretty much talking about a teenager. after a kid has been properly instructed, by the time it gets to be a teenager, there's no excuse, and some of them just insist on getting their azz whupped. hazel's daughter is one of them. i've had the misfortune to know more than a few just like it. if a kid is too stupid to comprehend that he exists to do what he's told, he needs to be taught in whatever manner is necessary for him to comprehend We'll have to agree to disagree about the bed punishment. There are ways beyond physical to inflict damage on children. On the above - " ... by the time it gets to ba a teenager . . ." it? I believe that says it all in re your POV. Since this is straying pretty far from the topic of the thread and (as usual) I find your attitude toward children totally off the rails, I'll move along. the whole thing is that doing it your way is precisely why we have the problem that we have. when i was a kid, you didn't backtalk an adult, for any reason. if you backtalked the neighbor five doors down, he blistered your azz, and took you home so your dad could blister it again. it didn't take many azz blisterings to get the message. kids acted like people forty years ago. today, they act like trash. in ronnie's case, the two weeks in bed made him a real person, and he grew up to be a fine upstanding citizen. it didn't harm him a bit. as i said, kids exist for the SOLE purpose of learning to be responsible adults. Any parent using physical violence to discipline and correct a child has failed. Only a failed parent needs to use violence. (I make an exception for the tap on the backside of a 2 year old about to run into traffic and that kind of situation.) I'm not sure what the bed punishment would do. Except cause a deterioration in the child's health due to his lack of exercise. It's not exactly constructive. The idea of putting teenagers 'into a coma' for bad behaviour is not only silly, it's also criminal. If you want your child to learn that using violence against weaker people is the way to command respect in later life, then beating them is a very good way to do it. Many on this board have a special interest in crime, and we all know how often a violent criminal turns out to have been physically abused as a child.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 23, 2010 12:10:02 GMT
the whole thing is that doing it your way is precisely why we have the problem that we have. when i was a kid, you didn't backtalk an adult, for any reason. if you backtalked the neighbor five doors down, he blistered your azz, and took you home so your dad could blister it again. it didn't take many azz blisterings to get the message. kids acted like people forty years ago. today, they act like trash. in ronnie's case, the two weeks in bed made him a real person, and he grew up to be a fine upstanding citizen. it didn't harm him a bit. as i said, kids exist for the SOLE purpose of learning to be responsible adults. Any parent using physical violence to discipline and correct a child has failed. Only a failed parent needs to use violence. (I make an exception for the tap on the backside of a 2 year old about to run into traffic and that kind of situation.) I'm not sure what the bed punishment would do. Except cause a deterioration in the child's health due to his lack of exercise. It's not exactly constructive. The idea of putting teenagers 'into a coma' for bad behaviour is not only silly, it's also criminal. If you want your child to learn that using violence against weaker people is the way to command respect in later life, then beating them is a very good way to do it. Many on this board have a special interest in crime, and we all know how often a violent criminal turns out to have been physically abused as a child. as i said, the proof is in the pudding. the evidence is clearly presented EVERYWHERE. there have always been juvenile delinquents, but they were a minute percentage of teenagers. that was when kids were properly chastized when the refused to behave. since the advent of the imbecillic "timeout" lunacy, and allowing kids to do whatever they pleased, we now have a large percentage of them using drugs, committing robberies and murders, along with the general refusing to act like human beings. as i said, the proof is there. there is none so blind as he who will not see
|
|
|
Post by beth on Feb 23, 2010 13:07:48 GMT
Chastized? OMG I need to pass this one by. We've gone too many rounds over this particular subject. I'll just say that - as usual - you are advocating child abuse. You are making broad assumptions that problem kids are the result of no "tough love" discipline. I've ifound that in many cases it's the opposite. Just put it this way - in my, admittedly, limited field of personal knowledge, I know NO ONE who uses corporal punishment on their children and - sit down and strap in - all these children are good kids - some of them grown now, and those are responsible, law abiding adults. I do know of a couple of kids whose father was an abusive drunk, and they had it pretty rough, but are improving. I think your sphere of personal knowledge is much, much smaller than mine, Jim. Your assumptions don't fit the facts. And, this, truly is, all.
|
|
|
Post by chefmate on Feb 23, 2010 14:27:59 GMT
I have to agree with Jim on some points; our generation was much better disciplined and as far as I'm concerned, most baby boomers should have been sterilized rather than allow them to reproduce the crap we have running around today.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Feb 23, 2010 14:33:02 GMT
Child abuse is never acceptable. I have two young kids and though I don't deny that I might rant and rave at them sometimes, nor that on very rare occasions I've slapped their legs or even their bottoms, I am far too aware that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
For what it's worth, children who are habitually subjected to violence at the hands of their parents are MORE likely to turn into criminals, child abusers, paedophiles and other types of undesirable.
I'm not soft (though of course I can be like most of us can) with my kids but I think they've turned out OK so far and that they will in the future.
Mike is much softer with the kids than I am (probably because he was a victim of child abuse himself) but even he sometimes lost his temper and shouted. On one occasion he did slap Lou round the legs. That's about it.
Most parents who feel the need to constantly slap their kids are out of control themselves and can't do the job of parenting properly.
I'm not at all keen on raising kids without discipline but there's more than one way of instilling values and good behaviour into your children.
I'm reminded of a couple of lines from a satirical poem by a friend of ours:
'Spare the rod and spoil the child: Gentle Jesus, meek and mild.'
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Feb 23, 2010 15:14:31 GMT
I'm with Beth and Lin.
The idea that you have to use violence in order to discipline children is just silly.
If there is a general lack of discipline today - IF - then that's one thing. The idea that the way round it is to use more violence makes me shudder. Violence breeds violence. Violent parents teach their children to use violence.
Those who behave well only because they are afraid of violence if they don't have no inner morality at all.
|
|