RHF wrote:
On Sep 15, 6:32 am, wrote:
wrote:

- - It work very well in the ancient Greek city-states. Look what had
- - happened since they have joined the Common Market and EU !

- Libertarian Socialists like City States.
- It is the biggest form of government we tolerate.

.
No State : Are You Really a Libertarian-Anarchist ?
http://www.nostate.com/2917/are-you-...riananarchist/
http://www.nostate.com/about/


All the same. Left Libertarian. Anarchist Socialist. Whatever.

On Sep 15, 8:35*am, Grendel wrote:

First:
For the statement to be even close to accurate, it would have to be
morally reprehensible to spank a child, and it is far from it. *You
may not agree with it, but your narrow viewpoint does not dictate the
morals for everyone. (and before you ask, I have found the need to
spank my children.)

Then you are unethical, and YES I can make that statement, which is
different from dictating it (*Learn* the difference if learning is
within your ability). Tough **** if you don't like it, you brutal
*******.

Second:
The following activities that involve physical contact would have to
be banned on moral grounds, also:
-Football
-Rugby
-Lacrosse
-Water polo
-Wrestling
-Martial Arts
-Taekwondo,
-Jujutsu,
-Karate
-Ice hockey,
-Boxing of all kinds,
-Consensual S&M sex.
-Friendly wrestlling matches
---Just to name a few

Lousy analogy... all of these things are VOLUNTARY, unlike your
child's sad acceptance of his terrible fate at the hand of a person
who *supposedly* loves him. Your lack of not-so-subtle discernment is
noted. Do you bash your wife around that too? Is that yourway of
showing how much you love her?

Third:
The following activities that MIGHT RESULT in physical contact would
have to be banned on moral grounds:
-Baseball
-Basketball
-Field hockey
-Netball
-Squash
-Golf
-Jogging
-Children playing (would have to ban playgrounds also...dangerous
places)
-Any sex, period (which you obviously are not familiar with).
-Walking down the street.
-Going outside your house at any time.
---Just to name a very few.

Again, ALL voluntary. Just how stupid are you?

Might as well outlaw that entire 'Right to Assemble', too, as their's
always the possibility you might accidentally bump into someone.

Idiots.

My God - what planet are your from? You compare voluntarily playing a
game for fun to getting abused by your parents, and you have the balls
to call someone else an idiot? I guess soem coward who is not using
his real name is willing to say anything...

Bruce Jensen

Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.

"I'm not cynical, just brutal and stupid."

On Sep 15, 6:53*am, RHF wrote:
On Sep 15, 6:28*am, dave wrote: RHF wrote:
On Sep 14, 1:30 pm, *wrote:

- He says there's no violence *in schools,
- but also brags that parents hit their children,
- another form of violence.

- - 'Special Dave' was it done in rage and anger . . .
- - or out of love and goodness ?

- It is wrong to strike another,
- except when in fear of immediate threat
- to life and limb.

So... 'Special Dave',
All "Contact" Sports Should Be Banned !
*.

Contact sports are voluntary. The player knows what he/she is in
for. Big difference.

On 09/14/2010 03:30 PM, dave wrote:
f. barnes wrote:
On Sep 13, 4:18 pm, Day wrote:



Then look at the school reports
athttp://normessasweb.uark.edu/schoolperformance/School/School.php
REPEATEDLY, you see ZERO rates of violence. Drop out rates in the single
digits, graduation rates near or over 90%, 95% attendance.

And the liberals call us ignorant, uneducated, rednecks, and they
won't believe a word you've posted.

I totally believe him. Sounds like a delightful place.

He says there's no violence in schools, but also brags that parents hit
their children, another form of violence.
Both primate field studies and neurological lab work reveal that pain
will alter the hormone profile. You can do the same with drugs, but I
dunno of any longitudinal study on the ultimate effect of people who
grew up on Ritalin or whatever.

But history, all the way back to the Roman Stoics, is full of examples
of pain being properly applied to, as we now know, lower the
testosterone level and reduce the impulsivity caused by adrenalin, and
make the boy pay attention. They didnt have ADD problems then, and I
dont see it now among the farm boys who know where the woodshed is.

Robt Kaplan, in his study of the military, "Imperial Grunts" reports
that half the Green Berets grew up on family farms. You'd think the
Brass would notice, but they are too busy with deals for the military
industrial complex.

The fundamental diff I see that is not picked up on is that pain that is
inflicted without self control is abuse, but with it, is a time tested
method of adjusting attitudes. Course, you can adjust attitudes with
meth also.

As for the snide remark about getting a D in gym, it shows ignorance of
what modern farm life is like now. You dont stay in the family business
by being that stupid. Agribusiness and govt policy has driven all but
the most diligent and intelligent family farms out of business. That has
something to do with why these hill towns have grades that are 1/2 year
ahead of the national average.

--
When the Goddess invented sex, She was beside Herself.

On 09/15/2010 08:30 AM, dave wrote:
Day Brown wrote:


Back before agribusiness replaced family farms, it was like this all
over rural America. The land here is too steep for the large contiguous
tracts agribusiness likes.

I sold my farm back in 1986.
I read the average farmer is now 61 years old. Recently, I noted an old
man with two young helpers he was apparently teaching how to string
fence. Afterwards, I noticed its a real professional job.

But sometimes ponder the fact that both young helpers were women. Women
run the forklifts and log skidders at the saw mill. I see them behind
the parts counter, and they know where the hydraulic fluid is, or what a
combination wrench looks like.

--
When the Goddess invented sex, She was beside Herself.

On 09/15/2010 12:42 PM, bpnjensen wrote:
On Sep 15, 8:35 am, wrote:

First:
For the statement to be even close to accurate, it would have to be
morally reprehensible to spank a child, and it is far from it. You
may not agree with it, but your narrow viewpoint does not dictate the
morals for everyone. (and before you ask, I have found the need to
spank my children.)

Then you are unethical, and YES I can make that statement, which is
different from dictating it (*Learn* the difference if learning is
within your ability). Tough **** if you don't like it, you brutal
*******.
Yes you can make the statement, but you dont have any science to back it
up. Nor history. Epictetus:"The boy who learned to control slaves (and
today they are electronic), does not learn to control himself."

I've spanked a toddler to keep him from going in the street and getting
run over. At this age, reasoning with him is not effective.

In the hill town schools, if a boy is disruptive, the teacher calls the
office and enough other people arrive to take him in hand, literally
picking him up. This is primate instinctive behavior at work. Soon as
the boy is up off his feet, he realizes there is power greater than his
will to try to dominate and control others.

The spanking itself is merely the apex of a psychological process which
only takes a few seconds. Without it, such bullies would be physically
abusing smaller kids. Totally avoiding what you say is abuse is not
possible. Controlling it is, and while you may use drugs, I am very
concerned because there are no long term studies of the effect.

You got any kids we can try drugs out on?

Its instructive that you resort to ad hominem. The science is that
properly administered pain adjusts hormone levels, and with that the
behavior which risks abuse of other kids stops. Now, if you have any
other research besides your anal orifice, I'd be glad to see it.

--
When the Goddess invented sex, She was beside Herself.

On Sep 15, 12:32*pm, Day Brown wrote:
On 09/15/2010 12:42 PM, bpnjensen wrote: On Sep 15, 8:35 am, *wrote:

First:
For the statement to be even close to accurate, it would have to be
morally reprehensible to spank a child, and it is far from it. *You
may not agree with it, but your narrow viewpoint does not dictate the
morals for everyone. (and before you ask, I have found the need to
spank my children.)

Then you are unethical, and YES I can make that statement, which is
different from dictating it (*Learn* the difference if learning is
within your ability). *Tough **** if you don't like it, you brutal
*******.

Yes you can make the statement, but you dont have any science to back it
up. Nor history. Epictetus:"The boy who learned to control slaves (and
today they are electronic), does not learn to control himself."

Science? Like basic compassion is scientific?

I've spanked a toddler to keep him from going in the street and getting
run over. At this age, reasoning with him is not effective.

How nice of you. You would have been better off to actually watch the
toddler to begin with. I see too many parents who let their kids out
of their restraint and then blame the kid. Same with pets. The
parents need the spanking for being reckless.

In the hill town schools, if a boy is disruptive, the teacher calls the
office and enough other people arrive to take him in hand, literally
picking him up. This is primate instinctive behavior at work. Soon as
the boy is up off his feet, he realizes there is power greater than his
will to try to dominate and control others.

As long as it isn't violent, I'm OK with it.

The spanking itself is merely the apex of a psychological process which
only takes a few seconds. Without it, such bullies would be physically
abusing smaller kids. Totally avoiding what you say is abuse is not
possible. Controlling it is, and while you may use drugs, I am very
concerned because there are no long term studies of the effect.

Parents create bullies...parents can stop them. If they do not, then
you expel the kid until the parents figure it out.

I would NEVER use drugs on kids and I have no idea why you insist on
this even more irresponsible alternative.

Where's YOUR science?

You got any kids we can try drugs out on?

Blah blah blah.

Its instructive that you resort to ad hominem.

I responded with EXACTLY the kind of ad-hominem that the prior poster
used.

The science is that properly administered pain adjusts hormone levels, and with that the behavior which risks abuse of other kids stops. Now, if you have any
other research besides your anal orifice, I'd be glad to see it.

Link, please? Meanwhile -

My Dad swatted me a few times. It taught me that my Dad had a limited
imagination and a strong hand. To this day, I do not believe I did
anything to earn those swats, and I have never used corporal
punishment on my child, who:

~ Does not run in the street
~ Does not bully others
~ Neither needs nor used drugs, legal or otherwise
~ Does good work in school
~ Works very well in a team or independently
~ Is basically respectful to others
~ Knows he can trust me
~ Has no black and blue marks like I did.

It was never, ever, necessary. There are other ways besides violence.

Bruce Jensen

On Sep 15, 12:42*pm, bpnjensen wrote:
On Sep 15, 8:35*am, Grendel wrote:

First:
For the statement to be even close to accurate, it would have to be
morally reprehensible to spank a child, and it is far from it. *You
may not agree with it, but your narrow viewpoint does not dictate the
morals for everyone. (and before you ask, I have found the need to
spank my children.)

Then you are unethical,

That is not for you to say. (and I left out the work 'not', as I have
never spanked my children.)

and YES I can make that statement, which is
different from dictating it (*Learn* the difference if learning is
within your ability). *

You can make any statement you like, that does not make it resemble
anything near to reality.

Tough **** if you don't like it, you brutal
*******.

Brutal? Just to idiots on the usenet. *******? Not likely...

Second:
The following activities that involve physical contact would have to
be banned on moral grounds, also:
-Football
-Rugby
-Lacrosse
-Water polo
-Wrestling
-Martial Arts
-Taekwondo,
-Jujutsu,
-Karate
-Ice hockey,
-Boxing of all kinds,
-Consensual S&M sex.
-Friendly wrestlling matches
---Just to name a few

Lousy analogy... all of these things are VOLUNTARY,

Ah, but YOU DID NOT SPECIFY that in your original statement. Let me
remind you that your statement was "It is wrong to strike another,
except when in fear of immediate threat to life and limb." You didn't
leave any room for any 'voluntary' or 'incindentals' in it.

Thus, making it a bull**** statement.

unlike your
child's sad acceptance of his terrible fate at the hand of a person
who *supposedly* loves him. *Your lack of not-so-subtle discernment is
noted. *Do you bash your wife around that too? *Is that yourway of
showing how much you love her?

I dont' bash anyone (except for occasionally bashing some idiot over
the head with his own 'logic'). My wife's first marriage was abusive,
so she is understandably parnoid about such. She would have never
married me if I had been abusive in any form (rightly so). Any man
who hits his wife in anger is a low-life who should be put to death.
The same with as with any parent to hits a child in anger or abuses
them in any way.

A spanking to get a child's attention is not abuse.

Third:
The following activities that MIGHT RESULT in physical contact would
have to be banned on moral grounds:
-Baseball
-Basketball
-Field hockey
-Netball
-Squash
-Golf
-Jogging
-Children playing (would have to ban playgrounds also...dangerous
places)
-Any sex, period (which you obviously are not familiar with).
-Walking down the street.
-Going outside your house at any time.
---Just to name a very few.

Again, ALL voluntary. *Just how stupid are you?

Again, you did not have any such qualifications in your original
statement. Go back and read what you wrote. You did not state that
itis wrong to strike another, expecp when in fear of immediate life
and limb OR if they are okay with it OR can reasonably see the
possibility. You stated that it is wrong to strike another, except
when in fear of immediate threat to life and limb. Well, I'm sure that
some golfer does not think that getting beaned with a club when he
gets too close to a swing as 'being in fear of immediate threat to
life and limb', so using your 'logic' it should be banned.

Might as well outlaw that entire 'Right to Assemble', too, as their's
always the possibility you might accidentally bump into someone.

Idiots.

My God - what planet are your from? *You compare voluntarily playing a
game for fun to getting abused by your parents,

We're not talking about 'getting abused by your parents'. We're
talking about spanking, or corporal punishment, if you will. I
suggest you look up the definition of 'corporal punishment' before you
start throwing around words such as 'abuse' (and no, they are not
synonymous).

I'm sure you find some parent who allowed his or her child to become
horribly burned by tipping over a boiling pot of water morally
superior that the parent who smacked the childs hand and said "NO"
when he/she reached for the pot. That'll learn the little *******.

and you have the balls
to call someone else an idiot? *

Now, don't sell yourself short. You're not just "someone". You're
speical. You're a TOTAL idiot.

Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.

"I'm not cynical, just experienced."

On 09/15/2010 11:06 AM, dave wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Sep 15, 6:28 am, wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Sep 14, 1:30 pm, wrote:

- He says there's no violence in schools,
- but also brags that parents hit their children,
- another form of violence.

- - 'Special Dave' was it done in rage and anger . . .
- - or out of love and goodness ?

- It is wrong to strike another,
- except when in fear of immediate threat
- to life and limb.

So... 'Special Dave',
All "Contact" Sports Should Be Banned !
.

Only the one's where you intentionally strike people.
Contact sports offer the EXCUSE for violence. Bull riding exists cause
people hope to watch a man die. Bulls, quite literally, get away with
murder. Course, there's those who are repelled by the whole idea of
violence. With some kids, taking "time out" or making them stand in the
corner actually works. We expect adults to have good judgment and not
rely on politically correct thinking.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0605123237.htm
discusses DNA markers. Which we know are more common in some gene pools
and we see higher levels of violence in them. We also know there is a
generally higher level of testosterone, which increases at an earlier
age, higher adrenalin, and lower seratonin and dopamine.

The latter are statistically linked to substance abuse. Alcohol is
metabolized differently in those who become alcoholics. We need to warn
the kids with these DNA markers, and warn women about the men who have
behavior that is indicative of the problem.

These problems are handed down on the Y chromosome, and are seen in all
races, altho some moreso than others. The Nordic seem to have the lowest
rates which is why they can run socialism so well.
--
When the Goddess invented sex, She was beside Herself.

On Sep 14, 4:30*pm, dave wrote:
f. barnes wrote:
On Sep 13, 4:18 pm, Day *wrote:

Then look at the school reports athttp://normessasweb.uark.edu/schoolperformance/School/School.php
REPEATEDLY, you see ZERO rates of violence. Drop out rates in the single
digits, graduation rates near or over 90%, 95% attendance.

And the liberals call us ignorant, uneducated, rednecks, and they
won't believe a word you've posted.

I totally believe him. Sounds like a delightful place.

He says there's no violence *in schools, but also brags that parents
hit their children, another form of violence.

Spare the rod and spoil the child.

On average...Who would know better how to raise your kids?
The parents of the kids... or some 'family services' cops dragging
your kids away at the behest of some naturalized mexican case worker?