OOps, I also forgot to add that most states have a provision and definition of “false accusations” or “false reporting”
Rilchiam: Simmer down. Reasonable people don’t tell other parents how to raise their kids unless it clearly violates the law, so if you were to call anyone, based on this information, the only criminal they would catch would be you, for false accusations.
Simmer down yourself. I already said I don’t have JD’s personal info.
Actually, I made my statements based more on cases I am familiar with and news stories I’ve seen over the years. But I see that Sublight has provided links to more than enough cites to satisfy your request. I did a quick search myself and came up with this description of the Social Services scene in Florida that is along the lines of what I’ve seen. Of course, if you happen to be, say, married to a social worker, you might have a different perspective. So be it.
Well, since you said that everyone regarded their children as property, it must be, don’t’cha think?
Nice go at trying to have it both ways, though. :rolleyes:
It was brought up by you, yesterday, in this thread.
Well, duh. But you sure picked a bizarre and unrecognizable way of expressing that idea. So don’t jump all over me for misinterpreting you, when your wording begged to be misinterpreted.
Just because you clearly said X while you now claim you meant Y (and got pissed at being misread), doesn’t mean you have to make a fiction of my words, too.
Kindly go soak your head in a bucket of horseshit, Izzy, because that’s all that’s coming out of your mouth.
-
Doesn’t listen? That gets a spanking? Yikes. She’s five? Not listening is par for the course. And your first reaction is a spanking? Good god.
-
Once again, both Joe_Cool and Jersey Diamond dance carefully away from the fact that a lot of us said an open hand spank on the ass is ok.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW JERSEY, IS THIS:
When your child ‘doesn’t listen’ or does something wrong what will you do when Mr. Joe_Cool takes off his belt and whips her until she can’t sit down?
NOT SPANKING.
NOT SPANKING.
NOT SPANKING.
WHIPPING A CHILD UNTIL THEY CAN’T SIT DOWN. That is the issue.
What you’re ignoring, Jarbabyj is that a couple of folks went apeshit, yes, even over even a simple smack with the hand on the ass. They even threatened to call Child Protection Services – completely fucking insane. What was it, like four posts ago?
In the face of that insanity, you now want the J’s to clarify their position so that Rilchiam can improve the aim of his shotgun accusations?
If you want anybody to clarify anything, they have a GD thread where you can ask if they horsewhip their kids on a daily basis, or whatever straw colossus you want to build, and they even have gasp e-mail, if you actually want answers instead of a podium on which to flay past demons.
This thread started ugly and shrill, and it’s going fucking further downhill. I strongly recommend we all take a deep breath, and let the thread die before the moderators do it for us, because ain’t nobody looking good here.
Guess what, Ace, if she clarifies that she thinks belt beating is ok for a five year old child with a short attention span who isn’t listening; I’ll get in line right behind Rilicham.
Funny that ugly and shrill should be something that bothers YOU Ace ol’ pal.
J
This shit about kids running wild if they’re not physically disciplined is utter bull.
I was hit as a child, not abuse but spanked. Sometimes hard. I was caned in school and hit with a leather strap by Christians Brothers. I had one fuck of a teacher that pulled you out of the desk by the hair and kicked the shit out of you in a corner. One time he broke the nose of a kid in my class(The kid told his mother he was in a fight, strange the way we never told on him thinking back on it). Ah Ireland the land of welcomes and Catholic twisted bastards with power over children.
It didn’t taint my live or fuck me up. All it did was teach me not to get caught the next time.
BTW a whole class of 17-18 year old rugby players met that teacher one day after class. He transferred to another school the next day and by all accounts was in a pretty bad way when the class was finished with him. … Good.
Then stop posting your fucking business on a public message board. :rolleyes:
Another Waco in the making. Charming.
Again, perhaps posting on public message boards isn’t the right venue for you, since you seem to take offense at people actually responding to things you write on a - this is the important part here - public message board.
Whiner.
Esprix
There’s no debate here anymore people.
Joe_Cool and Jersey Diamond see nothing wrong with beating a defenceless child with a belt.
There is a statement all parties can agree with. Take your own conclusions from that.
RTFirefly,
The term “regard like possessions” does not clearly mean that they are possessions that can be used or exploited. Something can certainly be like a possession in that you have rights and connections to as one has with regards to a possession. It could refer to something that you can exploit. But there’s no excuse for not following the thread. What I said was in response to a post by jarbaby. I meant my words in the context of her post, and made this additionally clear in my own.
Now I understood this last sentence to be a reference to the rest of the post, to Joe Cool’s outrage at her calling child services and “breaking up a family”. Not a reference to exploiting, which has not been an issue here or in related threads, as mentioned. And my response made this clear. It went, in total.
Clearly, what was being addressed was the feelings someone would have at the breaking up of a family. (Of course, you cleverly left off the second paragraph, to help you in your apparent purpose of twisting the context and giving you the opportunity for a nasty response.)
I think anyone following the discussion should be clear as to what I meant. It is certainly not clear that I said the opposite, as you claim.
I can’t say for sure that your distortion was deliberate. Still, if you are going to go out and be a jerk about it, a bit more caution might be warranted.
Sublight’s cite is a fucking joke. It links to a bunch of pro-spanking sites which contain largely anecdotal and unsupported stories about “out-of-control” social workers. Some of the links don’t even work. Some of them link to tepid new stories about false accusations of abuse, not by social workers, but by others. The SW’s investigate and find nothing. Whoop-de-fucking-do. One of the links actually tries to make a martyr out of Madyline Toogood. That should show you what kind of agenda Sublight’s site is pushing.
IzzyR’s link is about the laws in Florida. It states that most investigations by CPS do not find abuse, but so what? If anything, this shows that they are NOT overzealous. Izzy’s cite discusses reforming some of the laws about what should trigger an investigation but it does not provide evidence of “overzealous social workers destroying lives.”
I AM married to a social worker, but she is not involved with investigating child abuse allegations. I had a little experience with CPS as a mandated reporter working with children, and it was actually pretty difficult to get them to investigate a case. I once had a grandmother come to pick up a seven year old boy from my day camp. When he started mouthing off to her, she picked up a stick from the ground and began chasing him down the street with it. He ran away and she dropped the stick. The rest of the staff and I were concerned about it so we called CPS. They said they could not investigate unless we actually saw the grandmother connect with the stick. (she was swinging it at his head) There is actually a pretty stringent set of conditions which must be in place to trigger an investigation (at least in Minnesota)
Well then, Jarbabyj, you’ve basically admitted to running a kangaroo court, haven’t you? And apparently, you’re quite excellent at multitasking: you get to be both prosecutor, judge – and Rilchiam gets to be the hangman.
That’s pretty goddamn ugly and shrill, and yes, witch hunts do bothers me, as it should all of us.
Maybe I’m a bit unclear as to what you want in the way of cites for this “fucking bullshit”. What is it that you want beyond “anecdotal and unsupported stories”? All I’m claiming is that there are such social workers, not that all social workers are evil. (Also, what does “unsubstantiated” mean, beyond the fact that you personally don’t believe it?)
As for my cite, here’s an example of the description I am talking about:
See also, from the same source (mostly concerning sexual abuse): Identifying and Dealing with "Child Savers, and Assessing the Costs of False Allegations of Child Abuse: A Prescriptive (BTW, I can’t vouch for who this outfit is - never heard of them until I started looking around for some cites. But, as mentioned, they confirm the sense I get from following the news and RL developments). Here’s another article, admittedly from an advocacy group.
And, of specific reference to this thread, see: Child Abuse or Discipline?
In general, possessions are things that you can use any way you please. While there are exceptions (which generally bugs the hell out of property-rights conservatives, which is to say almost all conservatives), a possession is something that exists for and at your pleasure. If I want to throw my big-screen TV off the balcony, it’s nobody’s business but my own.
So I don’t think I was out of line in interpreting ‘regard like possessions’ as along those lines.
I’ve been following the thread, and exploitability is normative of possessions.
This may surprise you, but I read that post too. I don’t see how that changes anything. jarbaby said she’d call child services if she were presented with evidence of child beating, and meantioned that Joe_Cool equated that with ‘breaking up a family’, a false equation.
I understood it to refer to Joe’s and Jersey’s general attitude on the subject. Since the first couple times I heard the claim that parents ‘own’ their children, it was from the Exalted Grand Wizard, Jerry Falwell, this was the sort of thing I was taking as the context of jar’s remark.
What we’re talking about here is a difference in fundamental attitudes about children, between the religious-right types and normal human beings, that has existed for a long time. If you view children as property, as owned by the parents, you’re going to see issues of child abuse and child protection in very different ways than if you view children as a trust, rather than as property.
I read that paragraph as a separate comment, returning to the initial quote rather than continuing your response to the second quote. Why? Because it didn’t seem to relate in any way to the question of regarding one’s children as property. The notion that a representative of the state should have the power to break up a family over a disagreement in parenting decisions is in no way a logical consequence of failing to believe that children are property.
I’m glad you’ve cleared up what you did mean, but objecting to a habit of whipping children with a belt goes a bit beyond a mere disagreement in parenting decisions.
If you can’t say what you mean, I can’t be responsible for mindreading.
Well, I think this was pretty jerky, as it was in no way implied by what I said:
I guess you think that because I don’t believe children should be exploited, I do believe they should be moved in and out of families the way utility infielders get shuttled between baseball teams.
Yeah, I can see the logic in that. :rolleyes:
I would say it depends on the possession. But in general, when you say “regard like X” it does not necessarily imply that it is like X in every manner - sometimes it might be referring to one particular aspect. This can sometimes be made clear by the context of the discussion, as indeed it was here.
I introduced this to show the context of the possession remark - whether you happen to agree with one or another is irrelevant here.
So essentially you are saying that despite no actual evidence on the subject, and no direct discussion in these threads, you extrapolated, based on your contemptuous and hateful opinion of religious conservatives, what their “general attitude” would be about matters not being discussed, and interpreted the remarks of others along the same lines. Oh. Glad you could clear that up.
Why the constant need for distortions? Did I advocate moving children in and out of families like utility infielders? I hypothesized a particular circumstance in which one move might be beneficial for a child. This in an effort to demonstrate my point that a normal parent would be pained by this even in such circumstances. This, in turn, demonstrating that normal parents do feel that they have a right to some bond that goes beyond the pure altruism suggested in your post.
That’s a idiotic comment there Ace. Neither jarbaby nor Rilchaim claim to be able to prosecute. What they do say is that JD and J_C’s self-described treatment of their daughter is, in their opinion, worthy of investigation by CPS. And, they indicate they are willing to contact CPS. It is then up to CPS to determine if there is, indeed, abuse.
If noone is willing to report suspected abuse, then how in the hell is CPS supposed to actually protect children?
It might indeed. But you’ve got to make that clear.
Making things clear to yourself doesn’t count.
I would suggest that you don’t have the foggiest idea of the complexities of my attitudes toward conservative Christians, with whom I’ve been rubbing elbows for much of the past three decades - mostly as an adult, and completely voluntary in nature.
So I’ll add your remark about my “contemptuous and hateful opinion of religious conservatives” to your list of extrapolative distortions.
But I do have some passing familiarity with the culture that J&J swim in, for what that’s worth, and I think applying that understanding to a discussion of their mores makes a good deal more sense than leaving it behind.
Well, let’s roll tape - here’s what you said I was saying:
Better show me where, in my words, that came from.
The belief that children are not property in no way implies that there is either no parent-child bond, or that that bond is of no import, one of which was what you were strongly implying that I believed. You suggest that my stance implies that I would gladly give up a child of mine if it could be shown that some other set of parents - call them Couple B - could give that child a marginally better life.
And then, of course, they’d have to give the child up up when Couple C showed that they could parent the child slightly better than Couple B, and so forth. Hence the utility-infielder analogy. I think the induction step is implicit in your words.
Homebrew:
Their opinion is thus far, unfounded, unreasonable, and does not match the legal necessities. That they are willing (which is way more important than able) to harass posters with CPS calls based on an agglomeration of tendentious parsing, pure distortion and their own emotional issues is an indication that they are not to be trusted with anything more dangerous than a rusty can opener.
That they may be, as per your assertation, an impotent Kangaroo court is irrelevant. In either case, the threatened harassment is still outrageously offensive.
-Ace