Prove there's a god.

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#619883 Apr 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
HA HA !!
"physical violence"
um....
Physical violence is defined as the intentional use of physical force with the potential for causing injury, harm, disability, or death.
Spanking a child is none of those.
I know, I know, you're gonna say "It CAUSES harm, it CAUSES pain".....
But that's not the intention. The intention is discipline.
Hitting a baby is intended to cause pain and possibly injury- if not physical injury, then psychological injury.

You are too ignorant to grasp that you can't discipline one who has no concept of what discipline is.

As far as what the intention is....well, the road to HELL is paved with "good intentions", RR.

And gee- do tell me how one explains to a 6 month old baby that they're not intending to harm the baby, just intending to discipline them.

You LIKE violence, RR- and I told you that long before I knew you liked to hit 6 month old babies.

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#619884 Apr 26, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>I think he meant that the macro world does not follow the same rules as the quantum world. As in, things do not pop in and out of existence and my couch is not a wavefunction, as far as I can tell.


Even in the quantum world, nothing is known to pop in and out of existence. That is how it is occasionally referred to, but what they mean is that these virtual particles become detectable and vice versa. Because by definition, something cannot come from nothing, meaning that something cannot pop into existence from a state of non-existence (nothingness), it must just be changing forms into something detectable. Get it? Or are you gonna tell me that 'something from nothing' makes sense or is a plausible speculation without any evidence to support that speculation?

Your couch may not be a wave function as a whole but it is made up of wave functions.

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#619885 Apr 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
HA HA !!
"physical violence"
um....
Physical violence is defined as the intentional use of physical force with the potential for causing injury, harm, disability, or death.
Spanking a child is none of those.
I know, I know, you're gonna say "It CAUSES harm, it CAUSES pain".....
But that's not the intention. The intention is discipline.
Here ya go, RR......

"It is a fact that the U.S.’s Child Abuse is the worst in First World. From BBC News by Michael Petit,“More than 20,000 American children are believed to have been killed in their own homes by family members in the last 10 years, nearly four times the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. A BBC investigation finds that the United States has the worst child-abuse record of all the industrialized nations. Every week, 66 children under 15 die from physical abuse or neglect in the First World, 27 of them in the U.S. Experts say teen pregnancy, high-school dropout rates, violent crime, imprisonment, and poverty are generally much higher in the United States.”

It is also a fact that the U.S. is the most religious country in the First World. According to several surveys on religion, 83 percent of Americans claim to belong to a religious denomination. How can these two facts simultaneously exist in the same country?

Well here’s a clue: Using violence to raise a child has long-term consequences; a point made in this article “Spanking and the Making of a Violent Society” by Murray A. Straus in the Journal of Pediatrics,“The United States (US) is the most violent of the advanced industrial societies. The current US homicide rate of 8.5 per 100 000 is three times the Canadian rate of 2.3 per 100 000, and about eight times the rate of Western European countries.”

This excerpt on Alternet.org from an article titled “Beating Babies in the Name of Jesus,” illustrates my point.“There is a brutal movement in America that legitimizes child abuse in the name of God. Two stories recently converged to make us pay attention. Last week, a video went viral of a Texas judge brutally whipping his disabled daughter. And on Monday, the New York Times published a story about child deaths in homes that have embraced the teachings of To Train Up a Child, a book by Christian preacher Michael Pearl that advocates using a switch on children as young as six months old.”

http://thebigslice.org/spanking-babies-for-go...

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#619886 Apr 26, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Or marriage counseling from a priest?
Touche!

Well done- KUDOS!

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#619887 Apr 26, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Or marriage counseling from a priest?
RR thinks that being a parent puts him "in the know" and to the exclusion of those who are not parents.

And that is hilarious coming from a "parent" who advocates hitting 6 month old babies and who keeps a loaded gun in the bedroom of his teenage sons.

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#619888 Apr 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
HA HA !!
"physical violence"
um....
Physical violence is defined as the intentional use of physical force with the potential for causing injury, harm, disability, or death.
Spanking a child is none of those.
I know, I know, you're gonna say "It CAUSES harm, it CAUSES pain".....
But that's not the intention. The intention is discipline.
And.....

"Hitting is wrong. To hit someone is a violent thing to do. Violence is a thing one person does to make another person hurt. With children we do not want to do things that hurt or harm them. We want to be firm and consistent, yet kind and gentle... not harsh. We want to be tender, merciful and compassionate.

There is no situation that changes the act of hitting someone from a wrong thing into a right thing. There is no excuse that magically turns hurting someone on purpose into a kind or merciful thing. This is confusing, though, isn't it? Defending ourselves from physical attack (one of few examples) might be less wrong than the physical attack itself. But the law sets a limit for this rare sort of situation. The law limits a physical defense that involves hitting someone to interrupting only or ending only the attack upon the physical safety of a person.

The laws that also allow the physical punishment of children do not magically make hitting a child a better 'wrong' thing to do or the 'lesser of two bad things'. They only allow it. They state that parental physical aggression is not illegal. But hitting children is not tender or compassionate treatment. Hitting children is not better than treating them in ways that do not hurt. It does not model the way we want our children to act. Some day our society will be kinder, gentler and less violent when we all stop hitting children.

To stop hitting children will mean, by the very extermination of the practice, that we will be less violent.

Of course, most of us do not say to our children, "hitting is right" or "hitting is a good thing to do." We do not really believe that it is a good thing to hit people. Most of us deny that we are 'in favor' of hitting children. However, most of us also behave as if it is a good thing to do. Most of us are in favor of spanking and physical punishment. And the law attempts to make a physical attack on a child's body a thing that is all right to do.

The way a spanking looks and feels must be confusing for children. How can they tell what it means? Parents are their example of what is right and good. Parents' behavior is their example of what love looks and feels like. Hitting a child seems to say that it is all right to hit people... even loved ones. When a person wants to control others, it must be okay to hit them, spanking seems to say.

There is no obligation or duty to hit children. No one of us can show that anything bad happens if we do not hit children. No one can show that children become less well behaved if we do not hit them.

When people think of not hitting children, however, they often feel afraid and uncertain. What do they fear? Are they just uncomfortable with the unknown or the untried? Do they just doubt what they have not yet experienced? They do not really know that anything bad will happen. It is enough for them, it seems, that they believe that something bad will happen. Since people usually do not really think about many of their beliefs, it is hard to use reason to help them to be unafraid."

http://www.neverhitachild.org/

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#619889 Apr 26, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not gonna repeat myself again. You can have the last word. You either don't play fair on purpose or you really are not able to think for yourself. You know, if it's the latter case, then you are doing the same thing as the religious folks do, only in the opposite direction; you are taking someone's else's word for it instead of trying to reason it out on your own. Maybe your background in science is not strong enough for you to think it out yourself. That's not an insult; I'm done with that.
I would hope you know that 'just because you read it on the net, doesn't mean it is true'.

You're full of shit point blank. I'm telling you the view from neuroscience. You have brought garbage and rode a single concept into the ground and cannot even say how this could possibly effect your being, nor describe it. I can see you are exactly what you are saying here. Good riddance go annoy another forum with your complete utter bullshit.

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#619890 Apr 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
HA HA !!
"physical violence"
um....
Physical violence is defined as the intentional use of physical force with the potential for causing injury, harm, disability, or death.
Spanking a child is none of those.
I know, I know, you're gonna say "It CAUSES harm, it CAUSES pain".....
But that's not the intention. The intention is discipline.
And....

"Spanking is a euphemism for hitting.

One is not permitted to hit one's spouse or a stranger; these actions are considered domestic violence and/or assault.

Nor should one be permitted to hit a smaller and even more vulnerable child. Hitting a child elicits precisely the feelings one does not want to generate in a child: distress, anger, fear, shame, and disgust.

Studies show that children who are hit will "identify with the aggressor," and they are more likely to become hitters themselves, i.e., bullies and future abusers of their children and spouses. They tend to learn to use violent behavior as a way to deal with disputes."

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/great-kid...

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#619891 Apr 26, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>Sure- one can beat, hit and spank ANYTHING into submission.
It's just too bad that you can't be beaten, hit or spanked into actually being a decent human being.
Take your expectations and shove 'em up your a@@, RR. The world is not here to live up to YOUR expectations.
And now I expect YOU to STFU.
Stanley says that when anyOne is beaten in a discussion, they resort to foul language...just as you have done.

I believe that when it comess to you 'oBc', there's more brains in a bottle of wadda.

Go Figure.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#619892 Apr 26, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>Touche!
Well done- KUDOS!
Ollie says that your 'sidingUP' with this miscreant 'aeroBathy' confirms that you are a hateful, hypocritical, hAtheistic, schidt-for-brains.

In addition, both of you have been getting a pile of 'negative' judgements, haven't you HUH!!!

Go Figure.

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#619893 Apr 26, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't.
i prefer to be friends!

are you 'diverse' enough to accept my differences and agree to disagree amiably?:) i am, as most all of my family and closest friends don't believe the same as i and therefore they don't understand where i'm coming from:)

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#619894 Apr 26, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Wow. Truer words have never been spoken. I'm quite happy that you had access to a computer with which you could immortalize this little nugget of genius, lest it be overtaken by another transcendent revelation and be lost forever.
well thanks! unless of course you're being sarcastic; then i'd prefer that you point out what you disagree with and why so we could have a constructive debate. that's why i'm here, anyways. how about you?:)

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#619895 Apr 26, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
No dear. I rarely drink.
But thank you for pointing out my typo.
I can't begin to tell you how much I value your posts.
Have a wonderful day.
nano's the whole package; smart, holy and HOT - the frig'n girl's got it all!
Largelanguage

Chester, UK

#619896 Apr 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I have two sons and 9 nieces and nephews.
Safe to say I've discovered it first hand.
You haven't.
Explain how you learnt it first hand. You never spent time with them, you are a liar. Or you really don't have kids.

When a kid screams and cries when you take away his toy, it is because he wants you to play, he is upset, that is why he is crying, he is not crying to manipulate you.

Maybe you are just so insecure you want to even resist babies crying because you are worried they might be taking advantage of you.

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#619897 Apr 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course I do. Just as I expect a 6 week old puppy to understand discipline.
What is it with people nowadays thinking babies are stupid?
true dude! pets and babies are smarter than their new-age parents in that they train them what to do & when to do it by their barking and whinning!:)

Since: Sep 10

United States

#619898 Apr 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course I do. Just as I expect a 6 week old puppy to understand discipline.
What is it with people nowadays thinking babies are stupid?
I don't think babies are stupid.

I think YOU are stupid.

Have you heard of dog years?

Why do I even bother?

Since: Sep 10

United States

#619899 Apr 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Why so early?
I get up at 4:30 every day, but don't check Topix 'til usually after 5:30.
I'm in Baltimore.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#619900 Apr 26, 2013
OCB wrote:
<
You moronically assume that a 6 month old baby is capable of assuming responsibility and accountability for their actions.
I don't assume that at all, I KNOW it.

You're the one doing all the assuming here.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#619901 Apr 26, 2013
OCB wrote:
And sorry, RR- one need not be a parent to know that a 6 month old baby can NOT understand the concept of "right and wrong" or distinguish between that which is good and that which is evil.
As I stated yesterday or the day before: You are a MONSTER.
RR disagrees with you.

So does Yale.

Yale University's Infant Cognition Center which indicate that infants already can sense good behavior from bad.

http://health.howstuffworks.com/pregnancy-and...

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#619902 Apr 26, 2013
OCB wrote:
Hitting children IS negative reinforcement.
I would ONLY agree to that if the child is getting beaten because of anger.
There is nothing positive about inflicting any sort of pain or violence on children and there is EVERYTHING negative about it and all the more when the child being struck is only 6 months old.

You're a bully. You're a lousy parent. You go through your entire life taking the path of least resistance and indulging in actions which do nothing more than allow you to indulge your laziness.
Your ignorance on the matter is gleaming.

"Why would you discipline a 6 month old?" -OCB

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Rajkot gay Topix 40 min chirag parmar 197
sex (May '13) 40 min vapi btm 180
Interracial Dating 58 min white stud 3
Is the problem of groping in India over exagger... (Jan '11) 1 hr vipul 482
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr Mia Copa 599,783
Sleeping with mother (Oct '13) 1 hr Dennis 42
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 1 hr Mia 6,487
The Christian Atheist debate 2 hr Justice League_ 2,009
White Lives MATTER 9 hr Burke Devlin 113
More from around the web