Jump to content

The Fecking Naany State


shull

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Mainstream society thought using a belt at school to assault children on a daily basis was a good thing. They were all wrong,

You think you are giving yourself credibility by standing behind them in an argument. Why?

The belt is not the same debate as smacking, much like burning people alive is not the same debate as smacking. 

There is many aspects of human history from the past that are wrong, much like there are many aspects in modern day that are still wrong. Capital punishment for homosexual activity, religious organisations condemning people for using birth control, institutionalised racism and sexism.

Smacking children is not in the bracket of something that happens today that is  universally wrong under any and all circumstances.  People can disagree with it but it's a matter of opinion, it's not the case of people that think it's wrong are right and people that think it can be justified in context are wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


3 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

The belt is not the same debate as smacking, much like burning people alive is not the same debate as smacking. 

There is many aspects of human history from the past that are wrong, much like there are many aspects in modern day that are still wrong. Capital punishment for homosexual activity, religious organisations condemning people for using birth control, institutionalised racism and sexism.

Smacking children is not in the bracket of something that happens today that is  universally wrong under any and all circumstances.  People can disagree with it but it's a matter of opinion, it's not the case of people that think it's wrong are right and people that think it can be justified in context are wrong. 

Using the belt on children and having millions support it is not the same argument as having millions supporting smacking children?

You are absolutely at it with this line of argument.

You have repeatedly brought up the idea that having millions agree with you meant you had credibility but you dismiss reasonable attempts to show this logic is flawed. I will leave you to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

The belt is not the same debate as smacking, much like burning people alive is not the same debate as smacking. 

There is many aspects of human history from the past that are wrong, much like there are many aspects in modern day that are still wrong. Capital punishment for homosexual activity, religious organisations condemning people for using birth control, institutionalised racism and sexism.

Smacking children is not in the bracket of something that happens today that is  universally wrong under any and all circumstances.  People can disagree with it but it's a matter of opinion, it's not the case of people that think it's wrong are right and people that think it can be justified in context are wrong. 

Get where you are coming from regarding belt/ smack. Don't agree a child needs to be smacked there is a vast difference between the two. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Using the belt on children and having millions support it is not the same argument as having millions supporting smacking children?

You are absolutely at it with this line of argument.

You have repeatedly brought up the idea that having millions agree with you meant you had credibility but you dismiss reasonable attempts to show this logic is flawed. I will leave you to it.

Yes, it's not the same. An education giver hitting children with an object designed to inflict pain and often cause humiliation is not the same as a parent, smacking a kids a*se as a deterrent. I feel like you're implying I feel smacking is justified in 100% of occasions which I have never said. 

I'm not at it at all. Surely you can very easily see the various differences between the belt and smacking? If not I'll start you off... One uses a hand, the other uses a feckin belt! 

Millions agreeing with me is not the evidence that backs credibility, it's a statement of fact.  The credibility is in relation to the  use of smacking as a deterrent and that it is not universally linked with injuring or causing excessive pain to children. Both of which are completely wrong.  I felt I made this view abundantly clear.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Aye OK. "State sponsored drugging". :lol:

More Reds under the bed guff.

How often do you top up your tin foil collection? Do you pick the cheapest foil or use brand name products? :lol:

As we already ascertained, you are incapable of doing your own research. 

Your cheap swipes at least make you laugh, a sign of immaturity on your part or has fanny man actually hacked your account? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
Yes, it's not the same. An education giver hitting children with an object designed to inflict pain and often cause humiliation is not the same as a parent, smacking a kids a*se as a deterrent. I feel like you're implying I feel smacking is justified in 100% of occasions which I have never said. 
I'm not at it at all. Surely you can very easily see the various differences between the belt and smacking? If not I'll start you off... One uses a hand, the other uses a feckin belt! 
Millions agreeing with me is not the evidence that backs credibility, it's a statement of fact.  The credibility is in relation to the  use of smacking as a deterrent and that it is not universally linked with injuring or causing excessive pain to children. Both of which are completely wrong.  I felt I made this view abundantly clear.  
OK one last try bazil.
I've previously shown you the definition of assault under Scots law.
You rejected it as you disagree with it.
I've explained that this definition shows that it's wrong to hit an adult and asked why it should be different with a child.
You argue that it's a deterrent with a child.
I point out that a deterrent works on the basis of fear of consequence. You reckon it's not fear of pain that is the deterrent with smacking, its fear of upsetting their parents.

This last theory of yours goes against the accepted models and theories of child behaviour, psychology and educational professions and academics.

So it's not about being right or wrong by opinion, it's not about saying your view is valid just because,

it's about accepting legal, scientific and academic practice as being more valid unless you can prove otherwise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

Yes, it's not the same. An education giver hitting children with an object designed to inflict pain and often cause humiliation is not the same as a parent, smacking a kids a*se as a deterrent. I feel like you're implying I feel smacking is justified in 100% of occasions which I have never said. 

I'm not at it at all. Surely you can very easily see the various differences between the belt and smacking? If not I'll start you off... One uses a hand, the other uses a feckin belt! 

Millions agreeing with me is not the evidence that backs credibility, it's a statement of fact.  The credibility is in relation to the  use of smacking as a deterrent and that it is not universally linked with injuring or causing excessive pain to children. Both of which are completely wrong.  I felt I made this view abundantly clear.  

So now you are arguing from my side of the table regarding using the belt.

Millions agreed with it but now you are saying they were all wrong?

You've just spent 8 pages criticising me for doing the same thing with smacking children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Isle Of Bute Saint said:

Get where you are coming from regarding belt/ smack. Don't agree a child needs to be smacked there is a vast difference between the two. 

Both are a disgraceful assault on children. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, saintnextlifetime said:

It's fantastic that kids are now receiving proper medication for their previously undiagnosed conditions.

You cannot have a single kid with ADHD being allowed to ruin the life chances of 30 other kids in the class as so often happens.

It's not really clear what your problem is. Just posting random links ( one of which is 17 years old) and shrieking "Duuuuuh. Dae yer resserch" like a mad f**ker howling at the moon doesn't help people follow your argument.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

It's fantastic that kids are now receiving proper medication for their previously undiagnosed conditions.

You cannot have a single kid with ADHD being allowed to ruin the life chances of 30 other kids in the class as so often happens.

It's not really clear what your problem is. Just posting random links ( one of which is 17 years old) and shrieking "Duuuuuh. Dae yer resserch" like a mad f**ker howling at the moon doesn't help people follow your argument.

Do you speak English.  .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

OK one last try bazil.
I've previously shown you the definition of assault under Scots law.
You rejected it as you disagree with it.
I've explained that this definition shows that it's wrong to hit an adult and asked why it should be different with a child.
You argue that it's a deterrent with a child.
I point out that a deterrent works on the basis of fear of consequence. You reckon it's not fear of pain that is the deterrent with smacking, its fear of upsetting their parents.

This last theory of yours goes against the accepted models and theories of child behaviour, psychology and educational professions and academics.

So it's not about being right or wrong by opinion, it's not about saying your view is valid just because,

it's about accepting legal, scientific and academic practice as being more valid unless you can prove otherwise.

I did not reject it, like I say I am NOT denying what the law in this country is. I am disagreeing that it should be illegal to smack children in any country. As for the definition of assault, I don't believe smacking ALWAYS equals the aim of delivering physical pain or inflicting injury. 

There is a categorical difference between physically assaulting an adult and disciplining a child (as I've said smacking does not need to universally be linked to the pain, I've said I believe it to be linked to discipline and correcting unruly behaviour. )

I'm not and never said smacking is NEVER fear of pain, there are different levels, my point is and always has been that smacking should not be a criminal offence and that can be justified on circumstance. 

My last theory does not go against child behavioural psychology, I assure you.  

All you've done with this post is show very clearly you haven't understood my argument and debate and introduced yet more subjectivity to back up my point, that having the opinion smacking should not be illegal is not automatically wrong. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, oaksoft said:

So now you are arguing from my side of the table regarding using the belt.

Millions agreed with it but now you are saying they were all wrong?

You've just spent 8 pages criticising me for doing the same thing with smacking children.

I am saying it is a completely different subject matter to smacking. Me agreeing with you that the built was wrong has zero reference on the debate about smacking. 

Yes I'm saying using the belt in school was wrong.  

Again, it's a different debate. Belt is a right or wrong point. Just like burning people alive, or the actions against Jewish people during WW2. They're all just wrong. You can't apply logic for one point against another. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, shull said:

Image may contain: text and food

 

As Trump would say FAKE NEWS

 

Read below . When asked about this  here was explanation

 

 However, JL Bean boss Paul Lewis denied it was anything to do with political correctness.

He said: "My wife just put this little 'gingerbread persons' label on them as a whim, and that was last year.

"It was never anything to do with political correctness and we've not really had any comeback until now.

 

Mind you at least you didnt start a thread - Baby Steps :thumbsup

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
I did not reject it, like I say I am NOT denying what the law in this country is. I am disagreeing that it should be illegal to smack children in any country. As for the definition of assault, I don't believe smacking ALWAYS equals the aim of delivering physical pain or inflicting injury. 
There is a categorical difference between physically assaulting an adult and disciplining a child (as I've said smacking does not need to universally be linked to the pain, I've said I believe it to be linked to discipline and correcting unruly behaviour. )
I'm not and never said smacking is NEVER fear of pain, there are different levels, my point is and always has been that smacking should not be a criminal offence and that can be justified on circumstance. 
My last theory does not go against child behavioural psychology, I assure you.  
All you've done with this post is show very clearly you haven't understood my argument and debate and introduced yet more subjectivity to back up my point, that having the opinion smacking should not be illegal is not automatically wrong. 
 
You can't evidence any of this to anything other than your opinion and refuse to acknowledge decades if not centuries of accepted theory on learned behaviour and psychology.

I said previously you were trump like - your dogmatic ignorance reminds me of his pearls of wisdom on climate change.

I'm done, life's too short. I'm away to watch some paint dry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bazil85 said:

I am saying it is a completely different subject matter to smacking. Me agreeing with you that the built was wrong has zero reference on the debate about smacking. 

Yes I'm saying using the belt in school was wrong.  

Again, it's a different debate. Belt is a right or wrong point. Just like burning people alive, or the actions against Jewish people during WW2. They're all just wrong. You can't apply logic for one point against another. 

So you agree that using the belt was wrong despite the widespread support of government and millions of parents. I agree but I think we are all confused at your repeated use of "are you saying millions of people are wrong on this" argument for smacking.

Why bring up the issue of how many people support smacking as your argument? You are bringing it up when it suits your argument and ignoring it when it doesn't. That is Stuart Dickson behaviour. Please cut it out, it just annoys the f**k out of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

You can't evidence any of this to anything other than your opinion and refuse to acknowledge decades if not centuries of accepted theory on learned behaviour and psychology.

I said previously you were trump like - your dogmatic ignorance reminds me of his pearls of wisdom on climate change.

I'm done, life's too short. I'm away to watch some paint dry.

Are you trying to say psychological studies have ONLY ever shown that smacking children have a negative behavioural and disciplinary impact? Is that the point you're making here because it's not correct. 

So parental discipline is now the same as measurable clear evidence of climate change? Again you can't compare other issues and relate them specifically to this one.

You can bang on as much as you want, you are providing no new information to me to change my mind that smacking children is NOT a right or wrong issue. I disagree it is and I disagree it's universally wrong, you'll just have to accept my opinion is different from yours as I've accepted yours is different from mine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

So you agree that using the belt was wrong despite the widespread support of government and millions of parents. I agree but I think we are all confused at your repeated use of "are you saying millions of people are wrong on this" argument for smacking.

Why bring up the issue of how many people support smacking as your argument? You are bringing it up when it suits your argument and ignoring it when it doesn't. That is Stuart Dickson behaviour. Please cut it out, it just annoys the f**k out of people.

I have explained this at least twice, I'll try again.

  • The belt and smacking are not the same issue. I believe the belt on children by education givers is wrong, universally and always was. As was burning people accused of witch craft and a whole host of other stuff throughout human history, some that still happens today
  • Saying millions of people agree with me on smacking is NOT me providing evidence that it's an emotive issue. It was simply a statement of fact. You are saying millions of people that share my conclusion are wrong, that's fact, you've now said it for days. 
  • The proof it is an emotive issue (again IMO nothing more) is I don't believe it is ALWAYS abuse, assault, aimed to physically hurt children. I've put it in capitals but to further highlight, I've used the word ALWAYS, as in I'm not talking about ALWAYS the case

I'm sorry it annoys you having people disagreeing with you. Mr Dickson is a classic case of someone that gets annoyed with anyone not sharing his views. I appreciate your view, I simply disagree. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's just part of evolution, casual racism has been acceptable as has homophobia and sexism, sadistic adults assaulting children with leather straps, all are no longer accepted in society, smacking will simply go the same way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...