Author Topic: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths  (Read 7983 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7275
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #174 on: November 27, 2011, 08:31:39 PM »

I have just been trying to look at ALL possible angles in the CP debate. Today I started thinking about how I am going to apologize to my daughter in the likely event that I come around.


It was a tough moment for me, but my boys were young when I realized that I should not be hitting them.  I told them that I was very sorry, and that it would never happen again.  That was 15 years ago, or longer?  It's been fantastic for me and my family.  We find all sorts of ways to deal with raising happy, healthy children.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #175 on: November 27, 2011, 09:04:55 PM »
Hi JayB;
Quote
Don't quit me too soon Gnu. I feel I am on the verge of a breakthrough,
I realized. A few minutes after I posted, I read something you said on another thread: I just happen to think that spanking is okay if used properly. Although my stance on the issue is evolving.

Well, OK, glad to hear it.  :)

Quote
Today I started thinking about how I am going to apologize to my daughter in the likely event that I come around.
Gosh. OK, cool. You are moving, aren't you?

I suggest you talk to Jetson about saying sorry, he's been there with his kids.

Quote
I still want to discuss some of the details with you specifically regarding the psychological impact of various types of corrective action and the responsibilities parents have to their children as well as the society they find themselves living in.
Sure, no hurry, JayB.

Quote
I would like to compare the findings of the meta analysis you provided and the one I provided but I still need help reading the actual numbers in her analysis.
Anyone capable of performing a meta-analysis has a grasp of statistics way beyond my ken. So I can't help you there.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2011, 09:14:16 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #176 on: November 28, 2011, 11:57:20 AM »
Anyway, I agree that it was a loving environment in your home that probably helped your nephew do better. Do you think that the belt was entirely necessary? I am only asking because I noticed that increasing time-outs for my son (rather than spanking) usually makes him behave better, it just takes more time, effort and repetition than spanking.

The belt was a helpful ancillary tool to get accomplished what was needed. When the kids came in they were just, directionless, undisciplined, and frankly the boy at times was so stubborn that he had to literally be forced into compliance.
With him, the dictatorship approach was necessary. Had he been older, he would have been a kid that many would have suggested needed to be enlisted in the service so that he would learn dscipline and not become a menace to society.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #177 on: November 29, 2011, 09:10:52 PM »
Hi JayB. How's it going?
 
I thought I'd mention that I did read all of that paper you cited by lawyer Jason Fuller. NoGods has pointed out a major problem wirh his Sweden analysis. I spotted other problems. Page 297 (my bold):
Quote
Calling Spanking “Violent” Is Like Calling Timeout “Imprisonment”.
 
As intended, legislators are beginning to act merely on the slogan “violence begets violence. They are beginning to accept the “human rights” argument that, “if you cannot spank your neighbor, you should ot spank your child. Not only is this argument inconsistent with the sound research, but it makes no sense in light of the fact that parents don’t have the same responsibility for their neighbors as they do their children. We don’t force our neighbor to sit in the timeout chair, the corner, or the closet. .

1. It's fine to call timeout 'imprisonment'. When a child is on the naughty chair, or confined to their room, or kept in detention at school, or grounded, thier freedom to move is being restricted - which is the essence of 'imprisonment'.
 
And this is a rational way to treat children, in that the adult world operates according to the same principle - if you break the law, you may go to prison - the naughty chair for grown-ups.
 
2. We do force our our neighbour to sit in jail, if they deserve it.   
 
Page 282:
Quote
Many spanking studies do not distinguish a mild swat on the rear from, say, a violent beating with a strap. If the violent strapping produces any harm, that’s enough for some researchers to attribute that harm to spanking.
1. This is begging the question; he's assuming that there is a clear distinction beween harmless infliction of pain and harmful infliction of pain. He calls the former "mild swatting", the latter "violent beating", as if they were categorically different instead of points on a continuum.

But our argument is that this distinction is spurious: all deliberate infliction of pain is harmful.

2. The issue of violence is a red herring. I'm not saying that violence is wrong, I'm saying that the deliberate infliction of physical pain is wrong. They're not the same thing.

If you would accept the wiki definition of violence - the use of physical force to apply a state to others contrary to their wishes - it's evident that violence may be good or bad, and that it doesn't necessarily cause pain.

But in Fuller's quote above, it's not clear what he means by violent. He appears to think that a mild swat is not violent. According to the above definition, it is.

As I said before, try laying a hand on a cop while he's giving you a ticket; no matter how mildly you do it, you'll probably be charged with violent assault. 


One more question, JayB. Do you think that adults should be corporally punished?  Should adults receive 50 lashes for certain criminal offences, as happens in some countries, and used to happen in ours?

If not, you need to provide very good reasons to whip children. You need to prove that it's necessary to beat children, but not adults. That it's necessary to deny them rights that adults have.   
« Last Edit: November 29, 2011, 09:24:04 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #178 on: November 30, 2011, 11:28:47 AM »
I'm not saying that violence is wrong, I'm saying that the deliberate infliction of physical pain is wrong.

By what and who's objective standard do you base this claim? Is there no scenario where the deliberate infliction of physical pain merited? Doesn't the level or degree of physical pain inflicted have a bearing of how ethical or acceptable the infliction of that pain is? 

An example would be if 2 individuals were in a physical altercation because 1 broke into the other's home and attempted to get away with some valuables but was caught by the owner, beaten up, and then subdued. If the owner stopped after subduing the thief then I believe most rational folks would conclude that the owner's deliberate infliction of physical pain was both acceptable and mandated. However, if the owner after subduing the thief, continued to assault and inflict pain on the thief, at that point the owner would have crossed a line.

 
Do you think that adults should be corporally punished?  Should adults receive 50 lashes for certain criminal offences, as happens in some countries, and used to happen in ours?

Hell yeah, they should get their asses beat when they break certain laws! If you rape a woman or molest a child, you should get castrated! Bet that would cut down on repeat offenders and make folks think twice about the acts in the 1st place.

CP on adults wouldn't be affective in my mind because adults SHOULD be able to have their behavior affected with rationality and reasonable dialogue. Bigger than that, CP is generally ineffective on rational and mature thinkers in my opinion. Once a person reaches 8, 10, or 12, they understand though a whipping may hurt momentarily, it's quickly over and is therefore not something that will greatly change undesirable behavior. When a person reaches that level of understanding, then CP is ineffective and only possibly satisfies the would be punisher.
In addition, adults are not under the authority and household dominion of a parent or guardian. Unless the adult has violated a law, no one has the authority to force another into compliance.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4719
  • Darwins +531/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #179 on: November 30, 2011, 12:09:34 PM »
Okay, so violence is not necessarily wrong, while the deliberate infliction of physical pain is always wrong.  Is that an accurate assessment of your position, Gnu Ordure?

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #180 on: November 30, 2011, 07:33:02 PM »
TruthOT:
Quote
Quote
I'm not saying that violence is wrong, I'm saying that the deliberate infliction of physical pain is wrong.

By what and who's objective standard do you base this claim?
Sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking here. My claim is based on the plentiful evidence that the deliberate infliction of physical pain on children carries a significant risk of causing long-term harm to the child, and that it is therefore wrong to take that risk. Is that what you mean by 'objective'?

 
Quote
Is there no scenario where the deliberate infliction of physical pain merited?
Obviously there are exceptions, but they don't apply to the deliberate infliction of physical pain on children.

Exceptions might be:
1. in self-defence
2. in war-time
3. in consensual situations e.g. sport (boxing) or sex (S&M games)
4. in some medical treatments

And in these cases, there are still boundaries of legally acceptable behaviour.

Look at the example JayB gave earlier:
Quote
The first time I slapped my oldest daughters hand was when she was about 9 months old. I know that sounds incredibly harsh. The situation was this, I was watching her play and explore her world when she noticed the lamp cord plugged into the wall. She reached out and grabbed the cord and I took her hand and moved it away from the cord and said "no". She looked at me, back at the cord and reached for it again. I took her hand and moved it away from the cord a little more forcefully and said "NO" a little more sternly. She immediately went for the cord again. I grabbed her hand and smacked it while barking sharply "NO! She cried, I cried. But I felt it was necessary.
As I said, none of those exceptions apply there.

But let me ask you, Truth OT, do you agree with JayB's assertion that his behaviour was necessary? To remind you, he justified his actions thus:
Quote
A child needs to understand the word "no" and needs to recognize the parents authority. Two things I know for sure resulted from that action. 1) She never touched another cord. 2) She stopped whatever she was doing whenever we said "no". 
Here's what I think:
1. His actions were completely unnecessary. 9-month-old babies need to be supervised; so if they do something potentially dangerous (which they will, because they're curious and they don't understand what is dangerous and what isn't), the parent simply intervenes and distracts them with something else. It's fairly easy to distract a 9-month-old baby, and it's not necessary to hit them and make them cry if they do something dangerous.

2. It's difficult to see what useful lesson JayB's baby learned from her painful experience:

a. She obviously learned not to touch the particular cord she wanted to play with. But she would have no idea why she couldn't play with it, the concept of electrocution being beyond her. So how could she extrapolate successfully from this "lesson"? How could she deduce that only electric cords are dangerous, but other cords are not, if she doesn't understand the difference?

b. JayB claims that she learned to obey him from this incident, and never disobeyed him again. I'm sceptical of both those claims. 

3. And I wonder, why did JayB cry after he hit his baby?

Quote
Quote
Do you think that adults should be corporally punished?  Should adults receive 50 lashes for certain criminal offences, as happens in some countries, and used to happen in ours?
Hell yeah, they should get their asses beat when they break certain laws! If you rape a woman or molest a child, you should get castrated! Bet that would cut down on repeat offenders and make folks think twice about the acts in the 1st place.
I can't see the point of this sarcasm, or irony, or whatever it is. 

Quote
CP on adults wouldn't be affective [sic] in my mind because adults SHOULD be able to have their behavior affected with rationality and reasonable dialogue. Bigger than that, CP is generally ineffective on rational and mature thinkers in my opinion.
You're missing the fact that punishment has a number of functions, it's not just about behaviour modification. The functions of punishment (according to wiki) are: rehabilitation, incapacitation/societal protection, deterrence, restoration, retribution, education and denunciation/condemnation.

In which case, proponents of CP could justify it in terms of retribution, and ignore its ineffectiveness. Yet the authorities in the US and the UK have decided that CP is no longer a valid form of punishment for adults at all. We could use it for retribution on criminals, but we don't. Because we now consider such behaviour barbaric.

Our contention is that CP on children is equally barbaric. The reasons why CP for adults is barbaric apply to children as well. Why shouldn't they?   
« Last Edit: November 30, 2011, 09:00:08 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #181 on: November 30, 2011, 08:09:00 PM »
Okay, so violence is not necessarily wrong, while the deliberate infliction of physical pain is always wrong.  Is that an accurate assessment of your position, Gnu Ordure?
Basically, yes, and I hope my previous post clarified my position re various exceptions to the rule (there may be others I couldn't think of...).

« Last Edit: November 30, 2011, 09:00:26 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline Traveler

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2056
  • Darwins +142/-2
  • Gender: Female
  • no god required
    • I am a Forum Guide
    • Gryffin Designs
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #182 on: November 30, 2011, 08:55:47 PM »
...b. JayB claims that she learned to obey him from this incident, and never disobeyed him again....

This may be true if she was a highly sensitive child. Listen to Kelly Clarkson's song "Because of You", which still gives me chills when I hear the chorus.

If we ever travel thousands of light years to a planet inhabited by intelligent life, let's just make patterns in their crops and leave.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #183 on: November 30, 2011, 09:28:30 PM »
Quote
This may be true if she was a highly sensitive child
I agree that a sensitive child may be harmed for years by a single assault.

All the more reason to protect children from all assaults.

PS Sad song.

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #184 on: November 30, 2011, 09:32:02 PM »

Quote
Quote
Do you think that adults should be corporally punished?  Should adults receive 50 lashes for certain criminal offences, as happens in some countries, and used to happen in ours?
Hell yeah, they should get their asses beat when they break certain laws! If you rape a woman or molest a child, you should get castrated! Bet that would cut down on repeat offenders and make folks think twice about the acts in the 1st place.
I can't see the point of this sarcasm, or irony, or whatever it is. 

Quote
CP on adults wouldn't be affective [sic] in my mind because adults SHOULD be able to have their behavior affected with rationality and reasonable dialogue. Bigger than that, CP is generally ineffective on rational and mature thinkers in my opinion.
You're missing the fact that punishment has a number of functions, it's not just about behaviour modification. The functions of punishment (according to wiki) are: rehabilitation, incapacitation/societal protection, deterrence, restoration, retribution, education and denunciation/condemnation.

In which case, proponents of CP could justify it in terms of retribution, and ignore its ineffectiveness. Yet the authorities in the US and the UK have decided that CP is no longer a valid form of punishment for adults at all. We could use it for retribution on criminals, but we don't. Because we now consider such behaviour barbaric.

Our contention is that CP on children is equally barbaric. The reasons why CP for adults is barbaric apply to children as well. Why shouldn't they?   

Barbaric and wrong are not always synonymous no matter what is accepted by the contemporary majority. I take no issue with corporal punishment on adults, in rare situations it could be effective perhaps. I see but one reason for a double standard for CP as it relates to kids versus adults, and it revolves around authority that parents have over children that peers do not have over each other.

btw, I intended no sarcasm in the above quoted declaration, I was dead serious.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #185 on: November 30, 2011, 10:25:42 PM »
TruthOT, you didn't answer my question:
Quote
But let me ask you, Truth OT, do you agree with JayB's assertion that his behaviour was necessary?


Quote
Barbaric and wrong are not always synonymous no matter what is accepted by the contemporary majority.
What are you talking about? This makes no sense at all.

I was using the word barbaric in the sense of extremely violent and cruel, (Macmillan).

And being extremely violent and cruel to someone is wrong. IMO.

Quote
Quote
Hell yeah, they should get their asses beat when they break certain laws! If you rape a woman or molest a child, you should get castrated!
btw, I intended no sarcasm in the above quoted declaration, I was dead serious.
Really? You think the State should start using CP again?

And you think the State should have the power to remove parts of your body? Testicles, fingers, tongues, breasts, hands, eyes, noses - all legitimate targets in the interests of justice? As they used to be, back in the barbaric Middle Ages?

Gosh. I'm speechless.

Yourr views are extreme.

And your advocacy of of deliberate inflicting physical pain on children is somewhat suspect, in the light of your extremism.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2011, 11:02:53 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6330
  • Darwins +807/-5
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #186 on: December 01, 2011, 05:35:11 PM »
There are countries where they use physical pain on people as punishment for crimes. Saudi Arabia is one such place. They also have public executions of such criminals as gays, adulterers, blasphemers, etc. every Friday in a big arena. Very Roman Empire. Yet, for some reason, there is still crime in Saudi Arabia....

And I am not sure that most of us want to live in a place like that.

Another thought: what does inflicting pain on another person as punishment do psychologically to the person inflicting the pain?
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline albeto

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 689
  • Darwins +70/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #187 on: December 01, 2011, 05:48:47 PM »
There are countries where they use physical pain on people as punishment for crimes. Saudi Arabia is one such place. They also have public executions of such criminals as gays, adulterers, blasphemers, etc. every Friday in a big arena. Very Roman Empire. Yet, for some reason, there is still crime in Saudi Arabia....

And I am not sure that most of us want to live in a place like that.

Another thought: what does inflicting pain on another person as punishment do psychologically to the person inflicting the pain?

The brain perceives experiences as either pleasure or pain/punishing (usually some degree of both with one coming in the clear winner).  The brain naturally seeks to experience pleasure and avoid pain.  The avoiding pain is what makes corporeal punishment effective - children want to avoid it.  The pleasure of the administrator is understood in the form of satisfaction for restoring control since non control provides a feeling of anxiety/punishment and there is a natural desire to avoid that.  One of the problems adults don't see is that avoiding punishment by avoiding physical and emotional pain is only one of many lessons learned by the child.  Might makes right is another, when to approach and when to avoid certain adults is another, parent ultimately can't be trusted is another, interpreting situations against the backdrop of how they make you feel and responding to protect your ego is another.  That's just for starters and all these lessons are simultaneously learned and practiced as the child grows and matures.  Then it's their turn to be responsible for a child and maintain control because not having control causes anxiety / punishment and we must avoid that...

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #188 on: December 01, 2011, 06:40:23 PM »
NoGods:
Quote
Saudi Arabia is one such place. They also have public executions of such criminals as gays, adulterers, blasphemers, etc. every Friday in a big arena.
And as I said, we used to behave like this in Europe, but we've moved on.

TruthOT seems to want to return to such ways, with his beatings and castrations...

Quote
Yet, for some reason, there is still crime in Saudi Arabia....
And even if it could be demonstrated that amputating hands reduced the incidence of theft, I still wouldn't support it. Deterence is not the only issue here, there are other principles involved.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2629
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #189 on: December 01, 2011, 07:04:43 PM »
Well! I had no idea this much conversation had taken place since last I posted on this thread. For some reason I have not been notified of new posts in my email. It's happened before with other threads. But any way.

Gnu,

I had some issues with Jason's findings as well. One being his observation about child abuse claims rising dramatically. I thought "Well of coarse it did...you just outlawed spanking" Did he expect that everybody would just stop doing what they had done their whole lives because it was now illegal? I need to go over it some more but at the time I was wishing he had clarified a little more on that issue.

As to the rest of the comments I will have to get to them later...I am still at work and just wanted to check in real quick. I am about 98% certain that I will never spank any of my kids again. More on that later.
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #190 on: December 01, 2011, 08:16:53 PM »
Hi JayB,
Quote
One being his observation about child abuse claims rising dramatically. I thought "Well of coarse it did...you just outlawed spanking" Did he expect that everybody would just stop doing what they had done their whole lives because it was now illegal?
LOL, I didn't catch that!

And I'm pleased that you're thinking critically about all this.

Quote
I am about 98% certain that I will never spank any of my kids again.
And I'm even more pleased to read that, JayB. And if you make that final step, I will be intensely happy for your children - and for you. It will be a real cause for celebration.

But not yet - we need that 2%, JayB. NoGods has got the champagne, CG frosted the glasses, Traveler blew up the balloons, Albeto made the pineapple-cheesy nibbles, Jetson's got his fingers round the cork, and various others are hovering around wearing silly hats and silly grins... we're all ready to go, and waiting expectantly - we just need the word from you, the guest of honour.

But no hurry.  ;D

Take your time. We're patient folk.

(Though personally, I'm gonna have a couple of beers while I wait. Champagne sucks anyway).
« Last Edit: December 01, 2011, 08:19:37 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6330
  • Darwins +807/-5
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #191 on: December 02, 2011, 11:39:18 AM »
Nogods does not do mind-altering beverages. She will bring sparkling juice and some old bottles of wine that she won years ago. If a contest has booze as a prize, she is sure to win. :P
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #192 on: December 02, 2011, 04:26:18 PM »
TruthOT, you didn't answer my question:
Quote
But let me ask you, Truth OT, do you agree with JayB's assertion that his behaviour was necessary?

It was neither necessary or unethical. Could he have employed some other means; perhaps. In the end based on how things turned out and seeing as the the fact that the child was not harmed or endangered, it appears that his method was affective and acceptable.

And being extremely violent and cruel to someone is wrong. IMO.

Agreed. It appears my understanding and assumption about what you initially meant by barbaric was incorrect. My bad. It looked at Barbarian as if it was an ethnic distinction as opposed to an adjective describing a behavior.

Really? You think the State should start using CP again?

And you think the State should have the power to remove parts of your body? Testicles, fingers, tongues, breasts, hands, eyes, noses - all legitimate targets in the interests of justice? As they used to be, back in the barbaric Middle Ages?

Gosh. I'm speechless.

Yourr views are extreme.

And your advocacy of of deliberate inflicting physical pain on children is somewhat suspect, in the light of your extremism.

I personally think CP would be ineffective on most adult offenders at curtailing criminal behavior, so implementing it would only be effective on the crazy, less irrational offenders. The threat of a fine or imprisonment is far more frightening than the threat of CP.
I do think that the punishment that would be most effective in reducing rape, child molestation, and the like is castration. It is not nearly as cruel and excessive as the act of rape, so yes I believe it should be an option in punishing the above mentioned offenders. Removing an arm for stealing is in fact excessive, some the whole removal of other body parts comparison is an a way a strawman argument. The bottom line is that the state has the power to carry out whatever punishments our elected representatives deem as reasonable and fair for crimes convicted of. How is my suggestion in regards to the punishment of these specific sex offenders not reasonable or fair?

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6330
  • Darwins +807/-5
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #193 on: December 02, 2011, 04:47:47 PM »
^^^Warning: graphic violent imagery below...

Castration for sex offenders does not remove the desire to hurt and denigrate women or to dominate children. Rape is not motivated primarily by sex urges. Most convicted rapists have other sexual outlets-- sometimes wives or partners are shocked to find out what their man has been up to. Many serial rapists are far from the stereotypical ugly loser who can't get a date, so he jumps out of the bushes and drags women into alleys. If sex offenders all looked and acted like the stereotype, nobody would go near them.

Real serial rapists can be friendly and charming. Remember the Boston Strangler? They are patient enough to size up their victims and gain their trust--that is how they get close to kids and convince unsuspecting women to go on romantic (read isolated) dates with them.

If you want to punish a rapist, sure, cutting off a body part is certainly punishment-- ask the people in Afghanistan who had limbs cut off by the Taliban for stealing if they felt punished. Yeah, sure. However, if the woman who stole bread for her child still has no bread, she will risk the other hand and steal again. You have punished but in no way solved the problem of why the lady was stealing. And you will not stop a man with a deadly hatred of women from hurting another if given the opportunity.

So castrate away! But don't think it will stop the guy from attacking another woman and assaulting her with a broken coke bottle or a broom handle if he does not have his own equipment. That is the reality. No easy answers, and more violence almost never works.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #194 on: December 02, 2011, 05:47:46 PM »
^^^Warning: graphic violent imagery below...

Castration for sex offenders does not remove the desire to hurt and denigrate women or to dominate children. Rape is not motivated primarily by sex urges. Most convicted rapists have other sexual outlets-- sometimes wives or partners are shocked to find out what their man has been up to. Many serial rapists are far from the stereotypical ugly loser who can't get a date, so he jumps out of the bushes and drags women into alleys. If sex offenders all looked and acted like the stereotype, nobody would go near them.

Real serial rapists can be friendly and charming. Remember the Boston Strangler? They are patient enough to size up their victims and gain their trust--that is how they get close to kids and convince unsuspecting women to go on romantic (read isolated) dates with them.

If you want to punish a rapist, sure, cutting off a body part is certainly punishment-- ask the people in Afghanistan who had limbs cut off by the Taliban for stealing if they felt punished. Yeah, sure. However, if the woman who stole bread for her child still has no bread, she will risk the other hand and steal again. You have punished but in no way solved the problem of why the lady was stealing. And you will not stop a man with a deadly hatred of women from hurting another if given the opportunity.

So castrate away! But don't think it will stop the guy from attacking another woman and assaulting her with a broken coke bottle or a broom handle if he does not have his own equipment. That is the reality. No easy answers, and more violence almost never works.

NG, I will grant that rape is not all penises in vaginas and rape, unlike normal consentual sex, is almost always about power and not about mere sexual desire and release though a sexual undertone is often one of the acts major driving forces. I'll even agree that stereotyping what a rapist looks like is foolish. But despite that, the fact is that castrations after the onset of puberty will typically reduce the sex drive considerably or eliminate it altogether, thus removing a major driving force behind sexual abuse. Additionally, the data we have available shows that physical castration appears to be highly effective in reducing re-offense. Bottom line, castration reduces aggression. Plus, castration can be chemical and thus, non-violent if that suits one's sensibilities better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castration#Preventive_measure
http://www.crimetimes.org/95d/w95dp6.htm

Just to be clear, let me restate that I in no way advocated eye for an eye or hand amputation for thieves.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #195 on: December 02, 2011, 09:01:18 PM »
TruthOT:
Quote
Quote
But let me ask you, Truth OT, do you agree with JayB's assertion that his behaviour was necessary?
It was neither necessary...
Hear that, JayB? Not even TruthOT agrees with you on that one. Think about that.

My bold:
Quote
...or unethical. Could he have employed some other means; perhaps. In the end based on how things turned out and seeing as the the fact that the child was not harmed or endangered, it appears that his method was affective [sic] and acceptable.
You claim that as a fact, but you simply don't know.

In the short-term, the baby definitely was harmed. She was hit so hard that she cried. 

And in the long-term it's possible, according to statistical evidence, that she suffered psychological harm.  We don't know, and we'll never know. But you claiming that she definitely didn't seems to be wishful-thinking.

Quote
It appears my understanding and assumption about what you initially meant by barbaric was incorrect. My bad.
No worries, misunderstandings happen.

Quote
I personally think CP would be ineffective on most adult offenders at curtailing criminal behavior,
TruthOT, I re-read this whole thread this evening, and I noticed that you haven't cited a single source to support your position. You cite your childhood experiences, and your parental experiences, and you've freely expressed your opinions, as you did just there.

Whereas plenty of evidence has been presented to support our point of view. Have you read any of it? Do you have any counter-evidence?

Quote
It is not nearly as cruel and excessive as the act of rape,
Involuntary castration is cruel, and that's sufficient to disallow it.

Quote
The bottom line is that the state has the power to carry out whatever punishments our elected representatives deem as reasonable and fair for crimes convicted of. How is my suggestion in regards to the punishment of these specific sex offenders not reasonable or fair?
Cutting off parts of people's bodies is cruel, barbaric and uncivilized. (It would also be highly unfair on the men wrongly convicted of rape).

As is your suggestion that we go back to beating criminals.

But you can't see this, can you?

You can't see that you're abusing your children (and nieces and nephews) because you can't see that you were abused as a child yourself. But you were.

Your parents neglected you. Serious neglect.   

Let's put it like this; if you as a seven-year-old had been sent to talk to a school-counsellor for some reason, and you told her what was going on in your life: that older boys in your circle were forcing younger boys to fight for their own amusement, and that you were terrified of being picked on yourself, and you felt guilty about supporting the bullies...

... and if you told the counsellor that these older boys were setting stray dogs on fire, and that you were frightened they might hurt you as well... (as you described in this post).

... then that counsellor would have done something about it. They would be legally obliged to do something about it. They would have helped you, and started to provide you with the protection which you and the other children were evidently lacking, by informing the appropriate authorities - social services, parents, teachers, animal welfare- what was going on.

Any adult who came across a gang of 9-year-olds forcing a pair of 5-year-olds to fight would intervene and stop it.

Yet for you TruthOT, sadly the intervention never came. You were left to your own devices, and so you had to find your own survival strategy to a series of traumatic situations. And one way to do that is to deny the trauma. To deny that you were abused at all. Which is what you appear to be doing.

And there's another question, TruthtOT. Why didn't you ask for help? Why didn't you tell your father what was going on? (Why didn't any of you blow the whistle?)

Wild guess: you didn't tell your father because you were afraid of him. 
« Last Edit: December 02, 2011, 11:02:45 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #196 on: December 03, 2011, 01:11:56 AM »
Quote
Yet for you TruthOT, sadly the intervention never came. You were left to your own devices, and so you had to find your own survival strategy to a series of traumatic situations. And one way to do that is to deny the trauma. To deny that you were abused at all. Which is what you appear to be doing.

And there's another question, TruthtOT. Why didn't you ask for help? Why didn't you tell your father what was going on? (Why didn't any of you blow the whistle?)

Wild guess: you didn't tell your father because you were afraid of him.

Maybe I was jaded or perhaps just arrogantly overconfident, but truthfully, I never told because I didn't feel telling was necessary and I fully believed I could handle almost any situation on my own. I liked being left to my own devices and would never have snitched because if my folks knew all we did and saw then  I wouldn't have been able to go with the kids I hung out with and my summer vacations in Louisiana may not have continued as I would have preferred.

As far as having a survival strategy goes, I never felt it necessary. I always felt safe, loved, cared for, encouraged, supported, and trusted; sometimes too much so. I can be comfortable on easy street and I can handle adversity. My upbringing helped mold me into a well-rounded, adaptable person.

For you to assume that I ever feared my father is an incorrect and flat out wrong assumption. Reel that in homegirl. I was always confident that I could bring any worries or concerns to my moms, who happened to be the disciplinarian of my home.

BTW, who likes tattletales and whistle blowing snitches? Any little boy with those characteristics is likely to be friendless, ostracized by his peers, and not attractive to the girls he finds attractive. I never wanted to be that dude as it comes across as whiny and incapable of handling one's own affairs.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #197 on: December 04, 2011, 06:58:27 PM »
TruthOT, I notice that you didn't respond to the bulk of my post, just the bit at the end.

Do you have any response to my other points and questions:
Quote
1. in the long-term it's possible, according to statistical evidence, that she suffered psychological harm.  We don't know, and we'll never know. But you claiming that she definitely didn't seems to be wishful-thinking.

2. you haven't cited a single source to support your position. You cite your childhood experiences, and your parental experiences, and you've freely expressed your opinions, as you did just there. Whereas plenty of evidence has been presented to support our point of view. Have you read any of it? Do you have any counter-evidence?

3. if you as a seven-year-old had been sent to talk to a school-counsellor for some reason, and you told her what was going on in your life... ... then that counsellor would have done something about it. They would be legally obliged to do something about it.

The whole situation was abusive in a number of ways; the older children were abusing the youngest by forcing them to fight; the middle kids were abused by being intimidated into collusion; animals were being abused by torture. And everyone involved was being abused by neglect, by being allowed to run wild.

Do you agree, Truth OT? Do you agree that this was a situation that parents and other authorities would have wanted to know about, so that they could do something about it?

If your little nephew was involved in such a situation right now, would you want him to ask you for help? And would you help him if he did ask you? And would you whip him?

Those aren't rhetorical questions.

Quote
Maybe I was jaded or perhaps just arrogantly overconfident, but truthfully, I never told because I didn't feel telling was necessary
Hard to believe, Truth OT. You just said:
Quote
I was always confident that I could bring any worries or concerns to my moms, 
Are you telling us that you had no concerns or worries about what you were all doing? Are you telling us you didn't know it was all very wrong?

Of course you knew it was wrong; that's why you concealed it from your parents. That's why you all concealed it.

Please understand that I am not intending to criticize your actions; you were a little boy out of his depth, doing his best to survive an awful situation. What I'm exploring is the dynamics which allowed that abusive situation to persist. And part of that dynamic is that none of you asked for help from an adult.   

Quote
BTW, who likes tattletales and whistle blowing snitches?
And this nonsense is part of the dynamic. Obviously children shouldn't appeal for help in every incidence of wrong-doing - sometimes they can work it out for themselves. But in the case of serious wrong-doing, such as setting dogs on fire, talking to an adult is the right thing to do. And any child that does should be praised for it.

Quote
I never wanted to be that dude as it comes across as whiny and incapable of handling one's own affairs.
You didn't 'handle' that situation, Truth OT. 'Handling' it would have meant stopping it, which is what responsible adults would have done. But you were helpless to stop it, so you colluded with it in order to survive. You pretended that torturing animals to death was 'fun', even though it was nauseating. You joined in the bullying of your younger bothers and cousins - (the same siblings that later spent significant time in prison, I wonder?) - and felt guilty inside, because you knew it was wrong.

The correct way to 'handle' it would have been to ask for help. Yet you rejected that option, in spite of your assertion that you could always share your worries with your mom.
 
Quote
For you to assume that I ever feared my father is an incorrect and flat out wrong assumption. Reel that in homegirl.
Why so indignant? You've said several times in this thread that fear is an essential  component of the parent-child relationship e.g. CG, I expect my kids to have a healthy fear of me..

So it seems reasonable to assume that you feared your parents - particularly as you admitted that in your childhood whipping was sometimes "overused and administered unnecessarily".

And to go back to the central argument, you admitted there that on at least some occasions in your childhood, your parents deliberately inflicted pain on you unnecessarily. How is that not physical abuse?

Quote
My upbringing helped mold me into a well-rounded, adaptable person.
I'm sorry, but I disagree.  :)

1. You have rigid views on gender roles; in one thread you admitted being 'bothered' by men who don't act like real men, and described yourself as homophobic.
2. You think that the state-inflicted torture is permissible in some circumstances, e.g. in war-time
3. You think that the state should be able whip/beat criminals.
4. You think that the state should be able to castrate convicted paedophiles and rapists..
5. You think that appropriate authorities should be able to whip/beat children.

I don't call that well-rounded. I call it a worrying authoritarian fixation on the deliberate infliction of physical pain, and some rather conflicted feelings about sexuality.

Which is also odd, because in another part of your mind you also profess to be a libertarian who dislikes authority on principle:
But on a more serious note, why is it that libertarian ideas are considered as "chaotic evil?" The way I see it is kinda like this: 1. I don't want some authority dictating to me what I can and cannot do. In other words, I am a rational, capable, able-bodied adult that means my neighbor no harm, so leave me the hell alone.
So you want the State to leave people the hell alone, but you want the State to castrate people in certain circumstances?

I said it before, Truth OT, your views are extreme.

And somewhat contradictory.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2011, 07:19:15 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #198 on: December 05, 2011, 11:41:16 AM »
My bold:
Quote
...or unethical. Could he have employed some other means; perhaps. In the end based on how things turned out and seeing as the the fact that the child was not harmed or endangered, it appears that his method was affective [sic] and acceptable.
You claim that as a fact, but you simply don't know.

I claimed no fact Gnu, read what I said again. 'It appears" and 'it is' are not the same sentiments...

In the short-term, the baby definitely was harmed. She was hit so hard that she cried.

The fact that the child was popped and that pop lead to tears though it may offend your sensibilities may in fact be benign to the child's physical and mental wellbeing and in addition may help yield the desired results the parent has in mind for the child's behavior. In situations where that is the reality; what is the problem?

And in the long-term it's possible, according to statistical evidence, that she suffered psychological harm.  We don't know, and we'll never know. But you claiming that she definitely didn't seems to be wishful-thinking.

I won’t argue that she did not suffer psychologically because I honestly do not know whether that was the case or not. But in determining whether or not the pop on the wrist had any real damage for her long term, I’d want to know the answers to some additional questions.

-   How is psychological harm defined, measured, and evaluated?
-   How does the CP received as a child affect how one functions as an adult in society?
-   What other outside factors in addition to CP are considered when analyzing results (race, gender, socio-economic status, other life events, etc.)
-   To what extent would the statistical evidence say that the child was harmed?
-   Any specifics or are we dealing in conjecture and what might happen or result indirectly when CP is partnered with the wrong additional set of circumstances?

TruthOT, I re-read this whole thread this evening, and I noticed that you haven't cited a single source to support your position. You cite your childhood experiences, and your parental experiences, and you've freely expressed your opinions, as you did just there.

Whereas plenty of evidence has been presented to support our point of view. Have you read any of it? Do you have any counter-evidence?

Let's put it like this; if you as a seven-year-old had been sent to talk to a school-counsellor for some reason, and you told her what was going on in your life: that older boys in your circle were forcing younger boys to fight for their own amusement, and that you were terrified of being picked on yourself, and you felt guilty about supporting the bullies...

... and if you told the counsellor that these older boys were setting stray dogs on fire, and that you were frightened they might hurt you as well... (as you described in this post).

... then that counsellor would have done something about it. They would be legally obliged to do something about it. They would have helped you, and started to provide you with the protection which you and the other children were evidently lacking, by informing the appropriate authorities - social services, parents, teachers, animal welfare- what was going on.

Any adult who came across a gang of 9-year-olds forcing a pair of 5-year-olds to fight would intervene and stop it.

In all fairness I have read very little of what has been put up to support your position and my OPINIONS, which is all they are admittedly, has been gleaned not from studies, but rather real life/real world experiences, observations, and practical applications where the results appear to be evident.
Tell me, what make these sources credible. Are the "experts" parents that have raised a multitude of children that have turned out demonstratively better than children reared differently? Just wondering.....
I can grant that the studies may in fact be somewhat credible, so I will try to lay aside my preconceptions and prejudices and better educate myself on them.

--
   Quite possibly the counselor would have done something as would my mother, grandmother, etc., but the point that you seem to be missing is this. I DID NOT WANT ANYONE TO INTERVENE and in most instances I PREFERRED HAVING THOSE IN AUTHORITY OVER ME OBLIVIOUS TO some of the goings on in my life as a young boy that overwhelmingly greatly enjoyed my childhood! Please understand that I felt that there was nothing that needed to be told. If I would have told my mother that we fought our puppies, then she likely would not have allowed me to have a dog and if she did let me have one, then she wouldn’t have let me hang out with the others kids that I hung out with. If my mom knew how rough we were when the fellaz in the neighnorhood got together, then she woulda restricted me from playing with my friends that for the most part, I loved playing and hanging out with. Believe it or not, kids tend to want to keep certain things a secret from their parents as revealing all the details to parents often results in more rules, less freedom, and punishment.

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #199 on: December 05, 2011, 01:17:27 PM »
The whole situation was abusive in a number of ways; the older children were abusing the youngest by forcing them to fight; the middle kids were abused by being intimidated into collusion; animals were being abused by torture. And everyone involved was being abused by neglect, by being allowed to run wild.

Do you agree, Truth OT? Do you agree that this was a situation that parents and other authorities would have wanted to know about, so that they could do something about it?

If your little nephew was involved in such a situation right now, would you want him to ask you for help? And would you help him if he did ask you? And would you whip him?

Those aren't rhetorical questions.

Oh most definately most (I say most because some did know, but didn't care anymore than us kids as they viewed their kids as means to a gov't check, but that's a whole other story) parents would have wanted to be made mindful of these situations and would have intervened had they known.
And yep, we were picked on and abused at times by the older kids, but we dealt with it. It was a right of passage as little boys, no way were we gonna risk ratting out the group and risk being looked at and treated as outsiders that no one wanted to play with and as good targets for continual and ongoing mistreatment.
I guess my parents could have kept me from associating with the other kids in the neighborhood, made me stay in the house at all times, moved to a better neighborhood, or not worked and watched every move when I went outside, but that would have been torturous and unbearable for me. And in addition, would growing up friendless, isolated, and anti-social be a good thing?

Speaking as a guy that knows that little boys will do some very questionable things I am definately mindful of staying on my nephew. I know that boys will fight from time to time and be best of friends a day later, so I won't overreact at the idea that my son or nephew were in some way involved in that normal boy behavior. As far as torturing animals and the like, I wouldn't tolerate it as I now as an adult, unlike when I was a child visiting the country and seeing it all the time thinking it was normal behavior, find it cruel and not normal (other than perhaps shooting squirrels with the BB gun).
If either my son or nephew was in similar situations as I found myself in I would hope that they would be confident enough to step up and be leaders and say NO to their peers moreso than I did. If they asked for my help of course they would get it, and if I found out they were torturing animals, picking on other kids, and the like, they would definately be dealt with and one possible recourse would be a whipping.

Quote
Maybe I was jaded or perhaps just arrogantly overconfident, but truthfully, I never told because I didn't feel telling was necessary
Hard to believe, Truth OT. You just said:
Quote
I was always confident that I could bring any worries or concerns to my moms, 
Are you telling us that you had no concerns or worries about what you were all doing? Are you telling us you didn't know it was all very wrong?

Of course you knew it was wrong; that's why you concealed it from your parents. That's why you all concealed it.

I really had no serious concerns, though I knew some of what I saw and did was wrong. As I stated, much, other than the animal fires, was considered normal. I will admit that the extreme animal abuse did bother me and I had my reservations about telling because I felt the the end result would be that I would no longer be able to play with and hang with the guys. Admittedly I put my desire to be free and have fun above the wellfare of the creatures that were tortured. Plus, the fellaz that di those acts woulda done them with me free or without me being free, so in my little mind, being a snitch would have done little more than get me ostricized by my peers and restricted by my folks and neither option was pleasurable for me at that time.

Quote
BTW, who likes tattletales and whistle blowing snitches?
And this nonsense is part of the dynamic. Obviously children shouldn't appeal for help in every incidence of wrong-doing - sometimes they can work it out for themselves. But in the case of serious wrong-doing, such as setting dogs on fire, talking to an adult is the right thing to do. And any child that does should be praised for it.

Yep, but again, the risk/reward in the mind of most 8 year old boys will have him weight the pros and cons and likely decide that his vested interests outweight taking the highest moral approach.
Plus keep in mind that I ain't exactly grow up in suburbia next to Wally and the Beev, many of the guys I grow up around were raised by the streets or raised themselves. 

Quote
I never wanted to be that dude as it comes across as whiny and incapable of handling one's own affairs.
You didn't 'handle' that situation, Truth OT. 'Handling' it would have meant stopping it, which is what responsible adults would have done. But you were helpless to stop it, so you colluded with it in order to survive. You pretended that torturing animals to death was 'fun', even though it was nauseating. You joined in the bullying of your younger bothers and cousins - (the same siblings that later spent significant time in prison, I wonder?) - and felt guilty inside, because you knew it was wrong.

The correct way to 'handle' it would have been to ask for help. Yet you rejected that option, in spite of your assertion that you could always share your worries with your mom.

Gnu, do you miss the fact that no responsibly adults were involved or even made aware of what was going on? 'Handling it' to a child that enjoys playing with the other boys is a lot different than "handling it" by an adult would be. Remember that to a child, less adult involvement often is equated with more fun. My greater worry was not what was going on amongst my friends (BTW, though I pointed out the bad stuff, that was far from all that us kids did), instead it was the possibility of being banned from playing with them when I wanted to. I always liked being in control and don't particularly like being told what I can and cannot do, always been that way......
 
Quote
For you to assume that I ever feared my father is an incorrect and flat out wrong assumption. Reel that in homegirl.
Why so indignant? You've said several times in this thread that fear is an essential  component of the parent-child relationship e.g. CG, I expect my kids to have a healthy fear of me..

So it seems reasonable to assume that you feared your parents - particularly as you admitted that in your childhood whipping was sometimes "overused and administered unnecessarily".

And to go back to the central argument, you admitted there that on at least some occasions in your childhood, your parents deliberately inflicted pain on you unnecessarily. How is that not physical abuse?

I do believe that having a healthy fear of authorities is a good thing. I had what I consider a healthy fear of my parents, particularly my mom because she was the disciplinarian while my daddy was the more easy going type. My daddy whipped me once while my momma whipped me more times than I counted throughout the years (maybe between 4 to 8 times in 18 years I guess). That said, I respected and feared my daddy cause hewas daddy, while I feared my momma because I knew that she wasn't gonna let me get away with unacceptable behavior. I never felt threatened and to be real, by the time I was 9 or 10, I was bigger than my moms, so her whipping didn't exactly put the fear of God in me.

Quote
My upbringing helped mold me into a well-rounded, adaptable person.
I'm sorry, but I disagree.  :)

1. You have rigid views on gender roles; in one thread you admitted being 'bothered' by men who don't act like real men, and described yourself as homophobic.

And that is a bad thing because?

2. You think that the state-inflicted torture is permissible in some circumstances, e.g. in war-time

Willing to change my mind if it can be proven that this method yields no additional benefit.

3. You think that the state should be able whip/beat criminals.

I think that such punishment alternatives should be considered. The state can already incarcerate and execute, neither of which is actually good for the psychy of an individual.

4. You think that the state should be able to castrate convicted paedophiles and rapists..

Hell yeah!


5. You think that appropriate authorities should be able to whip/beat children.

I think parents should be able to whip their kids and give their consent to other authorities to do so when a situation calls for it.


I don't call that well-rounded. I call it a worrying authoritarian fixation on the deliberate infliction of physical pain, and some rather conflicted feelings about sexuality.

Which is also odd, because in another part of your mind you also profess to be a libertarian who dislikes authority on principle:
But on a more serious note, why is it that libertarian ideas are considered as "chaotic evil?" The way I see it is kinda like this: 1. I don't want some authority dictating to me what I can and cannot do. In other words, I am a rational, capable, able-bodied adult that means my neighbor no harm, so leave me the hell alone.
So you want the State to leave people the hell alone, but you want the State to castrate people in certain circumstances?

I said it before, Truth OT, your views are extreme.

And somewhat contradictory.

Conflicted feelings about sexuality, how so? If you read all my posts you will see that the issue is not sexuality, but rather masculinity and the lack thereof as perceived by me in many men today. A better description would be to say I have an old-school macho take on manhood. I'll be that.

I don't dislike authority, I respect and feel it's needed, I just don't want authority to be too far reaching or too broad in scope. I want the state to leave people that go about their business without harming others and being menaces to society as free as possible. For those that have chosen to be criminal threats to society, I believe forfeit the rights that free law-abiding citizens should have. Simply put, I am an advocate for less laws and stiffer punishments for law-breakers. Nothing contradictory or extreme there my friend.


Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6330
  • Darwins +807/-5
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #200 on: December 05, 2011, 03:56:45 PM »
I wonder if you could address the poor guy who was convicted of rape by mistake (it does happen) and was then castrated as punishment. After the ACLU appeal and the DNA evidence exonerates the man, what then? Sorry we had to surgically remove your junk by mistake. Sucks to be you.

As you are probably aware, the justice system treats you a lot better if you are educated, have money, have good community connections, etc. If you are mentally handicapped, low-income, black or latino and have a public defender, you will more likely end up castrated, even if you did not do the crime.

I wonder how many well-off, highly placed white executives would end up castrated. Probably as many as wealthy white guys get the death penalty for murder today. :(
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #201 on: December 05, 2011, 04:51:28 PM »
I wonder if you could address the poor guy who was convicted of rape by mistake (it does happen) and was then castrated as punishment. After the ACLU appeal and the DNA evidence exonerates the man, what then? Sorry we had to surgically remove your junk by mistake. Sucks to be you.

To this day I do not believe that Mike Tyson raped Desiree Washington, but based on what I suggested, the poor champ wouldn't be able to further spread his seed. In the instances where someone is wrongly convicted, then I'd feel horribly, just as I currently do for those who are wrongly convicted and get hard time. No system that has yet been thought of is perfect or fool proof, but I do think stiffer penalties (no pun intended) ofter more benefits to society and potential victims than concerns for the convicted. BTW, castration is not necessarily a "chop it off" procedure as it can be done chemically.

As you are probably aware, the justice system treats you a lot better if you are educated, have money, have good community connections, etc. If you are mentally handicapped, low-income, black or latino and have a public defender, you will more likely end up castrated, even if you did not do the crime.

I wonder how many well-off, highly placed white executives would end up castrated. Probably as many as wealthy white guys get the death penalty for murder today. :(

The judicial system definately has some issues that are in need of being addressed. Any ideas on how to level the playing field?


Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6330
  • Darwins +807/-5
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #202 on: December 05, 2011, 05:42:18 PM »
I still wonder about a libertarian who wants the government to stay out of our lives when it comes to helping people with stuff like health care,  but be able to punish someone by injecting them with dangerous hormone drugs. You can't get more into someone's life health-wise than that.....

As for leveling the field justice-wise, police and the courts could do a much better job of catching and locking up or otherwise dealing with criminals if there were fewer criminals. That is, decriminalize drugs, gambling and prostitution, regulate them and then let the police get on with the business of protecting the public from rapists and murderers. Prosecute crimes of personal violence strictly with jail time but make people pay fines or work off property crime. 

We need to stop responding to antisocial behavior like we are living in the middle ages where we need to beat the sin or scare the demons out of people. Lots of people end up in jails because it is the social service of last resort in the US. Mental health treatment, drug and alcohol counseling, better sex ed, and vocational job training would reduce the crime rate more than harsher punishments, and be way cheaper.

We could learn from how they deal with crime in other countries like Denmark, Norway and Japan, where they don't lock up so many, hardly ever execute anyone and have much lower crime rates.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.