feather wrote:
Making up for a santaless childhood no doubt.

oioioi wrote: It's bound to leave marx

So what physical violence was recommended in that quote, Reptired? Do you think a smack on the leg is abuse for example? (I already know the answer to that ). What are you going to do when junior refuses point blank to be reasoned with? Let them do as they please, because it's wrong to impose your will?

Your comment about dementia sufferers further demonstrates your stupidity. Who on earth would view seniors with mental difficulties in the same light as kids who need to be taught right from wrong, and what is and isn't acceptable? Oh yeah - you.

Which of your links brought you that particular pearl of wisdom?

Gilly wrote:
Do I think an adult attacking a child is abuse?
Are you serious?
If I smacked you on the leg that would be assault.
How does this not constitute abuse?
Gilly wrote:
How are you teaching them right from wrong?
Would you recommend your son punch his wife is she was being "wilful?
Is this the "right" thing to do?

Reptired wrote:
You're not responsible for teaching me right from wrong. If I refuse to stop shoving my toys in your electric sockets when you're not looking, it's my own problem when I get 240 vaults up my arm, innit.

If I scream & stamp my feet and rag the table cloth to the floor when I'm in a restaurant, because everybody won't succumb to my selfish will, it's down to me.

Gilly wrote:
Would you have the decency to attempt to answer the questions though?

How are you teaching them right from wrong?
Would you recommend your son punch his wife is she was being "wilful?
Is this the "right" thing to do?"

Reptired wrote:
I have answered your questions.

You're teaching them that if they don't behave reasonably, there are consequences.

Do you actually think that your son punching his wife is on a par with giving your kid a tap, and telling them off?

The spoilt little bastards whose parents let them get away with whatever they want, probably later think it's fine to punch their wives. It's their will, which mustn't be restricted, right?

Only the consequences by that stage will be prosecution, hopefully. All because you couldn't be arsed risking damaging your relationship with them by putting them straight when they wanted to behave badly & they didn't feel like being reasoned with. Probably because they were over-tired, but you wouldn't make them stay in bed, coz that'd be imposing your will and obviously the kid's desire to faff about all night was more important, eh!

oioioi wrote: Such a shame.
If mater and pater had only allowed them to attend a prison playgroup they may have acclimatised to social groups easier.


So sad to see a child neglected in a such a way.

Gilly wrote:
No, you're teaching them that if they don't do what you wish there will be consequences, which is very different from teaching them right from wrong.
Gilly wrote:
No, it's clearly far worse, a partner can generally leave an abusive relationship whereas a child cannot, a partner has generally chosen the relationship whereas a child has not, there is also the difference in physical size which is orders of magnitude greater in a parent/child situation than a partner/partner situation.

I wonder if sb expected this when he hit submit on the op...

It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas...

Like I said, always a touchy subject.

Reptired wrote:
"I wish you wouldn't electrocute yourself sweetie but you're a free spirit and have to learn right from wrong in your own way"

Reptired wrote:
You're rather missing the point that what we're talking about is the parent's wish is for them to conduct themselves in a manner that ensures safety to themselves and others, and the ability to socialise, civilly, in order for them to not be destructive, self-centred brats. So no, you're mistaken.
Reptired wrote:
So you're saying that giving your kid a tap on the leg & telling them off for unruliness is far worse than punching your wife!

I rest my case.

Sorry. I dunno what your parents did to you, but it's clearly futile to try to have a rational discussion with you Rep.

Gilly wrote: You claimed you hitting children was teaching them right from wrong, when I pointed out the stupidity of this excuse you changed your story, now you claim abusing them is for their own safety, you want to control their behaviour to make your life easier and you don't give a fuck what you have to do to achieve that, I get that.
Gilly wrote:
They're both pretty despicable acts but I stick by what I said and for the reasons I stated.


Do you think it's ok for a man to punch his wife for the same reasons you think it's good for an adult to "smack" their children?

feather wrote:
Did I miss something? I often do...

The lie thing is put to bed.
There are more than enough practical exmples in this thread to ahow even the most hardcore lie denier that they are weaving yoghurt

As for child/spouse abuse. Here, have a literal what the fuck?
Did you think youd landed on the lost prophets forum rep ffs?
Ofc no-one here is pro abuse. Nothing written by anyone here even hints at that. You are bashing your bishop and spewing mutant cobwebby spaff all over other people. Other people who have actual experience of what they are talking about, unlike yourself.
You have taught us and anyone reading this, precisely zero...
So kindly do fuck off. You yourself are being abusive here in this thread...

See you in another thread.

knobmeup wrote:
Gilly is defending smacking children for starters, perhaps you didn't read the thread, perhaps you don't think that is abuse.

Ab Origine wrote:
You could look at the topic of child abuse as a sub section of the larger sociological environment.
We're effectively discussing ownership of individuals, do children own themselves?
Should parents claim ownership over children and modify their behaviour to justify cultural norm, for the common good?
Marxism being a sect of Authoritarian Collectivism claims that the group claims ownership over the individual and the suffering of the individual is something to be celebrated.

But some say Santa looks like Karl Marx, I'd guess that was the depth of feathers assessment.

Smacking=abuse automatically in your head.
Similar to yours and iaaia's views on lying.

Similarly, smacking is not an absolute. It entirely depends on the variables as to whether it is abuse...
That isn't to say that smacking is desirable. It is something that i would discourage in nearly all circumstances but if i were told that a person had smacked the bum of a kid who was ditzily wandering in front of a car, i'd say the kid got off lightly and the parent did the right thing by shocking them into alertness. So long as that shock and alertness were then used by the parent to drive the point home that walking un front of cars fucking hurts.