Wife beating is now legal in the UAE.

Recommended Videos

Dragunai

New member
Feb 5, 2007
534
0
0
ActivatorX said:
Dragunai said:
ActivatorX said:
Dragunai said:
ActivatorX said:
Dragunai said:
Hmmm...

2010... so thats the... er... 21st centuary...
Right so... the oppression of women... that was prominent up until when?
uk suffragette movement was ... er... late 1800's so that was... 19th centuary.

That would mean, the UK an infidel nation of the demon west... stopped oppressing women 200yrs ago give or take a decade... Islam, a self proclaimed superior nation... Just introduced another law to oppress women. This would mean they are, culturally still behind the 17th centuary english in their thinking...

Pray tell, who said women are an inferior gender? Smaller and sometimes weaker in their physical stature yes, ever seen a man carry a baby for 9 months then push it out his body?
It would be the loudest screaming death by agony known to the species.
I as a man openly admit there is no way in hell I could even consider having a thing in my body which regulates vomiting and stomach cramps to a daily event.

Still, all these countries are dirt farming third world nations who only have an income because of their oil reserves and once they run dry their tourism is going to be what keeps them going... only Al-Qaeda among other Islamic extremists have made it pretty obvious they dont want whitey to be safe in the west, so why would I go to the middle east to get blown up and killed when I can do it in the safety of my brick built house with central heating, electricity and running water?

Sorry UAE / Dubai / desert nations of Islam but Im happier here in the infidel demon west with the above mention - Electricity, running water and freedom to have my hair cut anyway I want.

For reference to that last comment look up the "6 approved hair cuts" law from Saudi ^_^
Thats right! The saudi government has allowed 6 haircuts for the natives to carry on their heads, all others are a criminal offence!

Thats oppression with Pizazz!
1.) Islam is not a nation.
2.) Dubai is not a nation.
3.) "Muslim" countries may have an income "only" due to oil, but is that worse than enslaving half of the world like the UK did? What do you think "western" societies' main source of income was before the 20th century?



As a Muslim, I am completely against resorting to violence. I've said it many times and I'll say it again; I am in favour of equality for everyone, no matter what their religion, skin colour, gender, age or sexual orientation is.

To all of you saying "it's alright to smack a kid to teach him a lesson, but not a full-grown woman", isn't that a bit hypocritical?

Personally, I would almost never hit/beat anyone, especially not a female. However, there are cases where I would hit/beat a person and break all the bones in their body:

- theft
- robbery
- threatening with death
- assault with or without deadly weapons/objects
- etc.
No smacking a child teaches it that when it does something bad it will be punished. Smacking a full grown women is just violence toward someone who is old enough to make their own decisions and act as they want without some "Man" hitting her for wanting her own life and freedoms.

So no its not hypocritical, in fact you calling it hypocritical is probably the stupidest thing you could have said in light of the matter.

Moving on:
How is it that rape, peadophilia and murder didnt pop up on your list of "crimes I'd wreck someone for" in place of the lowest ranking crimes known to civilised society?

I am the least violent human being alive but if I saw some dude touching a child or trying to rape a chick I would go Chuck Norris on his ass (57 round house kicks to the face, naturally) because those crimes ruin the victims life forever.

Robbery and theft? Oh no my shit got stolen TIME TO GO WRECK A DUDE and break every bone in his body! because THATS an appropriate responce to something that your insurance company can fix in 1 phone call.

and why is it in the media its always refered to as the "Nation of Islam" ?
As for Dubai my bad I didnt know it was one of the 7 members of the UAE, so I apologise for my ignorance.

As for the main source of income from the weste you might want to research "Arabic slavers" because most of the slave trade started in the middle east. Should you read Jacob in the bible and the equivilent story in the Qur'an you will see that slaving was being conducted by Arabic people a good few hundred years before it ever arrived in the EU and even then it was mainly the blacks in africa and the Arabs who did most of the slaving, it was just whitey who took the blame as usual.

Yeh the English moved and sold them but they were just 1 cog in the machine.

Incedently most of the EUs income in the last 2-3 Centuaries was from the spice trades.
See also for reference the origins of Pepper as a spice and the East India Company.

Devil westerner scores again
1.) You aren't supposed to smack anyone without a valid reason. If a kid breaks something of yours unintentionally one time, is that a good reason to hit him/her? It's different if the child is not willing to listen and keeps on doing horrible stuff for no reason; then, of course, it is appropriate to smack him/her. Kids are human beings too, just like women.

2.) I said "etc." on my list. What makes you think I am not against those things? Just because I didn't specify every possible type of crime, doesn't mean I'm not against all of them.
Robbery and theft ARE a serious crime and deserve serious punishment. Let's say, for example, I'm a poor student who lives in the countryside, 100 kilometers away from college and my only means of transportation is a 10 year old car (no buses, no trains). One day, a guy comes along and snatches my car, because I'm so poor I can't afford a car alarm nor insurance for the car. That person ruined my life. What would you do/say about that? This is just an example, it didn't happen to me.

3.) I've never heard any media refer to it as "the Nation of Islam." For your information, the countries in the Middle East aren't even close to being 100% pure Muslim countries, they are far from it; infact, Indonesia takes the cake with I believe 89% of its inhabitants being Muslim.

4.) You took my statement of the UK enslaving half of the world too literally. I wasn't talking only about slavery - I was talking about the UK's colonies.
Spices? Really? Where do you think those spices and shit came from? Are you sure the spices and such were from the UK? Here's an example - tea. Yeah, I bet England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have perfect conditions for growing tea plants.

5.) I criticise everything and everyone, even certain aspects of my own religion, and I'm willing to admit it. The UK, the UAE, the USA, France, Netherlands and so on, are no exception to it.
I assume you are from the UK. If you are willing to criticise others (other cultures, traditions, countries, etc.) you have to be willing to take a damn good look at your own before opening your mouth. If you just criticise everything but your own (country or whatever), you are a hypocrite and perhaps a few other things.

6.) "Devil westerner" scores again.
I'm sorry but I find this degrading. Not every Muslim is an anti-westerner. Not every Muslim goes on the streets and shouts "Death to America!" or "Western infidels must die!".
Im south african, English descent.
So before you harp on the cheap shot / easy mark of "oh but your a racist" Thats the Afrikaans (Dutch bloodlines) not mine.

Now down to business:


"1.) You aren't supposed to smack anyone without a valid reason. If a kid breaks something of yours unintentionally one time, is that a good reason to hit him/her? It's different if the child is not willing to listen and keeps on doing horrible stuff for no reason; then, of course, it is appropriate to smack him/her. Kids are human beings too, just like women."

Correct you dont run around wailing on people for the slighest thing, that is excessive force and frankly its classed as abuse. However if you catch your 9yr old stealing cigarettes then its a totally legit time to give them a light slap on the ass and a firm "No!"
My mom used to do that to me as a kid and ive grown up not smoking, only started touching booze when I was about 19 out of disinteret and I dont have a criminal record.

However beating on a woman because she doesnt obey you?
That in the west is called spousal abuse.

"2.) I said "etc." on my list. What makes you think I am not against those things? Just because I didn't specify every possible type of crime, doesn't mean I'm not against all of them.
Robbery and theft ARE a serious crime and deserve serious punishment. Let's say, for example, I'm a poor student who lives in the countryside, 100 kilometers away from college and my only means of transportation is a 10 year old car (no buses, no trains). One day, a guy comes along and snatches my car, because I'm so poor I can't afford a car alarm nor insurance for the car. That person ruined my life. What would you do/say about that? This is just an example, it didn't happen to me."

Granted yes the scenario mentioned is harsh, however your car insurance will replace it and tbh the guy prolly did you a favour as you can now buy a nice new one ^^
Jokes aside, I dont deny robbery and theft are bad but I would be more inclined to see a rapist hung than a thief.

"3.) I've never heard any media refer to it as "the Nation of Islam." For your information, the countries in the Middle East aren't even close to being 100% pure Muslim countries, they are far from it; infact, Indonesia takes the cake with I believe 89% of its inhabitants being Muslim."

Its called the nation of Islam alot, maybe we just read different papers or watch different news stations but in the end here in the EU and the USA it is commonly known as the nation of islam, its not so much a reference to the middle east or a physical place as much as it is a reference to the collective of the Muslim people as a whole. For your information.
^_^

"4.) You took my statement of the UK enslaving half of the world too literally. I wasn't talking only about slavery - I was talking about the UK's colonies.
Spices? Really? Where do you think those spices and shit came from? Are you sure the spices and such were from the UK? Here's an example - tea. Yeah, I bet England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have perfect conditions for growing tea plants."

Yes of course you werent "being literal" about the slave trade, now that I completely upstaged your position on it. Still Your right the colonies were wrong but take into consideration that colonies like Cape town were founded on neutral uninhabited land yet still become part of a "Your persecuting the natives" arguement. Most of SA was founded in neutral land and counties like Rhodesia (now called Zimbabwe) had the land bought from the native tribes (the Mashona if I remember) in legal on the level transactions but still had them taken under the "your persecuting us" arguement.

In the end though, all your doing is changing the focus from "Islamic oppression of women" onto "European oppression of non whites" and that isnt really standing for your point as much as is it blame shifting or at least "hey focus on the weeds in your garden rather than mine"

Shame on you!

"5.) I criticise everything and everyone, even certain aspects of my own religion, and I'm willing to admit it. The UK, the UAE, the USA, France, Netherlands and so on, are no exception to it.
I assume you are from the UK. If you are willing to criticise others (other cultures, traditions, countries, etc.) you have to be willing to take a damn good look at your own before opening your mouth. If you just criticise everything but your own (country or whatever), you are a hypocrite and perhaps a few other things."

I dont critise because no one gave me the right to tell others how to do it better. I am imperfect therefore I cannot guide others to perfection. I do however stand up and object when I see people suffering because thats not critism thats humanitarism, 2 very different views.

You want to sit and degrade everyone and everything go for it, all that does is propergate the idea that muslims sit on their high horse thinking everyone else is filth to be washed away or improved in the eyes of yourself or your religion.

But staying on par with this, Yes I critise the British government for its failings that lead to its part in the social / economic climate of the day, yes I critise south africa for not doing more to veto the Aparthied, No I dont sit and tell people this and no I dont try and force MY thoughts on someone else because what works for me may not work for someone else.

"6.) "Devil westerner" scores again.
I'm sorry but I find this degrading. Not every Muslim is an anti-westerner. Not every Muslim goes on the streets and shouts "Death to America!" or "Western infidels must die!"."

It is degrading, especially when the middle eastern natives come to the UK (my home of 18years), build mosques, take what they can from the people and then still have protest marches through the capital saying that our 9/11 is yet to come.

If I went to Saudi, UAE or Iraq and built a church I'd be hung before I got the 2nd brick down.
How is that a balanced and fair trade of cultures?

"Accept ours and be happy when we walk through your capital saying your all going to die but come to our homeland with a bible and be whipped in the street."
1.) I agree.

2.) I agree. Rapists are thieves though - they steal your dignity! If a rapist is proven to be guilty without a shadow of a doubt, I am in favour of extreme punishment.

3.) I live in Slovenia. They don't call it "the Nation of Islam" here.

4.) I didn't want to change the focus, I was merely trying to point out that the UK has some nasty stuff on its conscience as well, since you were comparing the UK and UAE/Islam.

5.) Without criticism, the world would collapse. I am, too, imperfect, but not stupid. As a human being, I feel the need to try and improve or upgrade things, if you will.
For starters, I criticise the whole aspect of everyone being inferior to Muslim men. I think it is stupid to think of a person being less worth for not choosing the same path as you.
Most of my friends are Orthodox-Christians (Serbs) and Roman-Catholics (Croats and Slovenes), I may have only a handful of Muslim friends. What I'm getting at is that, even though there was war here and crap (I'm not going into detail about it), we all respect eachother and deem ourselves equal. I was born and raised more of a logical thinking - passive Muslim.

6.) I don't know how it is over there with Muslims, so I am pretty much in no position to speak.
There are christian churches throughout the "Islamic" countries though, just not in all of them, IIRC. I too, hope the day comes when everyone will have the rights they deserve, and to choose their own path.

By the way, for everyone who hates Islam - you should come to Slovenia. It's one of the few countries (if not actually THE only one) in Europe, that hasn't got even a single Mosque.
I dont hate Islam, forgive me if I gave that impression.
I have an islamic friend, granted hes an Englishman, he converted once he left the army because of the peaceful teachings of Islam and the most tragic part of the worlds focus on Islam is that this is hardly ever recognised as truth.

I read my friends Qur'an once, much to my interest it wasnt that different from the bible. A few names different here and there but ultimately the same scriptures teaching the same principles. Its that one line that says "it is better to die a martyr than to live under oppression" that completely distorted the younger generations perception of their own religion and gave the global media such a firm hand hold with which to exaggerate the whole situation.

Still, women live oppressed in the middle east as a result of an overly strict doctrine built on an antiquated system of beliefs. Religion and the state should be two seperate entities, Religion should exist to give hope and and help deal with life when it gets too hard, it should not be in control of the day to day running of a country.

Look at europe during the transition from the multitude of polythestic religions into a single catholic system. The blood shed was horrendus and the final result? kings obeyed the Pope, the pope controlled all the royalty of Europe, this resulted in numerous crusades to crush the "heathen" Arabs and more blood was shed.

All because the Church and the State were not seperate.
This is also largely why im Athest. Religion causes more problems than it solves as far as Im concerned.

Also worth mentioning:

The islamic situation here is pretty bad. The protests and constant threats and insults to the host nation are causing a lot of anger amongst the natives.

And Critism doesn't change the world, Accepting other peoples views and finding a comprimise half way changes the world. Critism results in hostilities and people clashing.
 

MagicMouse

New member
Dec 31, 2009
815
0
0
spartan231490 said:
good luck dishing out an effective beating without leaving a mark.
This is a good point. Regardless I can't see this doing any good for the already shaky image of Muslim people in the eyes of the world.
 

Dragunai

New member
Feb 5, 2007
534
0
0
Gorumgol said:
Dragunai said:
And Critism doesn't change the world, Accepting other peoples views and finding a comprimise half way changes the world. Critism results in hostilities and people clashing.
Sure, let's find some common ground with fucking wife beaters. Why the hell not.
I never said that, Wife beaters manifest in the forms of whites, asians, blacks as well as the arabic and in all honesty the Catholics are the same if not worse for abuse towards children and women.

My point was, find common ground between religions to lose all the friction as I am now bored of reading about Palestine being pissed at Isreal, Iraq being pissed at the USA, the IRA Catholics blew up the Protestants AGAIN because the 3.5 double deluxe version of the bible said Mary wore green panties while the super Jesus saver edition said she wore yellow panties.

Its so boring now. But returning to the main topical post no I do not wish to find common ground with any spineless coward who considers it a perfectly acceptable practise to hit a woman or child for any reason. Giving a kid a slap on the ass is different from out rightly beating on them.
 

Bruin

New member
Aug 16, 2010
340
0
0
1. Taken out of context.
2. Reported on by an (I assume) American "news" company.
3. The wording is almost certainly warped and distorted in some way or another to turn a word like "punishing" into "beating".
4. It's still semi-acceptable to hit your kids and it wasn't long ago that it was acceptable to hit your wife in America.
5. Starkly different cultures.

And lastly; it's disgusting that so many people responded with things like "Figures, it's an Islamic society".
 

vanthebaron

New member
Sep 16, 2010
660
0
0
and this is my shocked face -_-

I thought it was always legal their maybe Prym should move their (+20 cool points if your got the reference)
 

FolkLikePanda

New member
Apr 15, 2009
1,710
0
0
Ahhh, those crazy Arabs, what will they do next thats completely different to what us in the Western World think... I best not think of that...
 

Nikolaz72

This place still alive?
Apr 23, 2009
2,125
0
0
Can we please leave the muslimhating out of this chat? We are discussing UAE's legalising of violence. Not Islam.

That being said. This law has not changed ANYTHING. Actually i believe its probably just saying that instead of being able to beat up someone. You can now only give them a slap on the wrist.

(Also, Islam aint known to hide and protect pedo(bears) or move against science)
 

LongAndShort

I'm pretty good. Yourself?
May 11, 2009
2,376
0
0
AndyFromMonday said:
deadman91 said:
I will however make mention that from a political, legal and cultural point of view children are indeed within their own particular area and as such are subject to a different set of rights to the adult (and even adolescent) population.
I disagree. Children should not be subjected to violence just because they're just that, children.


deadman91 said:
Ultimately it is a matter of personal opinion whether you feel violence is an acceptable disciplinary tool.
Actually, it's not. Violence is abuse, no matter what. You can't use a little violence and say you were disciplining the child. If beating your child is accepted as a disciplining tool then why isn't cutting him accepted as well? The cuts would be small, they would heal fast and would get the point across. No different than spanking.

deadman91 said:
Have there been no screaming 8-12 year olds on Xbox live or PSN or whatever you play on whose parents you wished gave them a good hiding more often?
Of course I did. However, I acted on anger. Humans tend to be irrational when they're angry.
I see your point, but find that an important part of your argument is based around a bit of a 'slippery slope' theme. Slippery slopes are an oft used and perfectly acceptable argument. I just think that humans have the morality and rationality to be able to put a stake in the ground and say "no further." What's the difference between someone spanking their kid for doing something wrong and cutting them? I'd say quite a bit, such as the level of pain and the resulting scars. I was smacked as a child, most of my friends were smacked as children, and I'll probably end up smacking my children. I don't think any of us have ended up emotionally crippled.
Hell, even reversing the slippery slope argument, if we remove spanking as an acceptable form of discipline because it harms the child what can we use? Grounding children may cause harm because it reduces their social interaction, yelling at a child may be causing emotional harm.
Discipline is the controlled use of harm to teach someone a lesson. Children are in the care of their parents to be taught how to act and function within greater society. I'd argue that teaching a child not to cause harm to others by instilling a fear that it will cause harm to themselves is acceptable.
 

NeutralDrow

New member
Mar 23, 2009
9,097
0
0
Nikolaz72 said:
Can we please leave the muslimhating out of this chat? We are discussing UAE's legalising of violence. Not Islam.

That being said. This law has not changed ANYTHING. Actually i believe its probably just saying that instead of being able to beat up someone. You can now only give them a slap on the wrist.

(Also, Islam aint known to hide and protect pedo(bears) or move against science)
Technically, this does change something (it's also not a law, it's a judicial ruling). It's an explicit limitation on a religious law that can be and far too often has been interpreted to give carte blanche to corporal punishment. Surah 4:34 has existed for a while, and it's unfortunately been in the hands of hypertraditionalist men in oppressive cultures to interpret most of that time (I kinda want to know how much effect the rest of the passage has; technically, admonishment and withholding of sex are the "recommended" methods).

It doesn't settle on the most ideal interpretation (gave a few of those a page ago), but it's at least a comparatively less objectionable one, and therefore a small step forward.
 

Talshere

New member
Jan 27, 2010
1,063
0
0
Pirate Kitty said:
That's taken way out of context.

The original ruling was that a man is allowed to discipline his family members, so long as he doesn't actually harm them.
I was going to say I'm not exactly sure how you would go about beating someone without leaving physical marks.

While I approve of smacking children (within reason before someone takes my head of for child beating), I'm not sure disciplining your wife is really something you should be doing in an equal society. Which is when I remember sexual equality has been slow getting to the Middle East...
 

AndyFromMonday

New member
Feb 5, 2009
3,921
0
0
deadman91 said:
I'd say quite a bit, such as the level of pain and the resulting scars.
Actually, the level of pain would be the same as spanking if done right. And the scars? They would remind the child of what would happen if he does things I don't want him to do. It's even more effective than spanking as there's a permanent reminder as opposed to just a temporary one(spanking also leaves "scars", just in another form). It's really the greatest disciplining tool there is.


deadman91 said:
Hell, even reversing the slippery slope argument, if we remove spanking as an acceptable form of discipline because it harms the child what can we use?
This is just another argument of "I can't think of anything better so I'll just do what I want". I don't know what you should use. Visit a counselor, call a shrink. It's really not hard to get help in case you don't know how to control your child.

My parents are divorced, but as a young child I used to spend some of my summer vacations with my dad. He never yelled at me and only once did he raise his hand at me(but didn't hit) for which he also apologized. How did he control me? He talked to me and treated me like an equal of sorts. This ended up in me respecting him. I wasn't told "you can't do that". It was more like "Can you please not do that?". This respect for him ended up in forcing me not to go against his wishes. Whenever I'd try I was always worried that I'd disappoint someone I love dearly.

On the contrast, my grandparents spanked and yelled at me. If I didn't eat my dinner, if I didn't study, if I didn't want to take a shower, if I stayed a bit late. It was the "you do what I want or I'll beat you" approach to "discipline". Did that in any way stop me as a teenager to engage in "high risk situations"? No. What did stop me was my dad. And my grandparents? I haven't spoken to them in quite a few years.

This is just an example. Like I've said before, there are people out there who can help you. There is no reason to resort to violence.

deadman91 said:
Discipline is the controlled use of harm to teach someone a lesson. Children are in the care of their parents to be taught how to act and function within greater society. I'd argue that teaching a child not to cause harm to others by instilling a fear that it will cause harm to themselves is acceptable.
Sure it is, but not through violence of any kind.
 

Vuljatar

New member
Sep 7, 2008
1,002
0
0
My first thought: "It wasn't already?"

Bruin said:
And lastly; it's disgusting that so many people responded with things like "Figures, it's an Islamic society".
Oh, relax. The assumption is hardly baseless.
 

LongAndShort

I'm pretty good. Yourself?
May 11, 2009
2,376
0
0
AndyFromMonday said:
deadman91 said:
I'd say quite a bit, such as the level of pain and the resulting scars.
Actually, the level of pain would be the same as spanking if done right. And the scars? They would remind the child of what would happen if he does things I don't want him to do. It's even more effective than spanking as there's a permanent reminder as opposed to just a temporary one(spanking also leaves "scars", just in another form). It's really the greatest disciplining tool there is.


deadman91 said:
Hell, even reversing the slippery slope argument, if we remove spanking as an acceptable form of discipline because it harms the child what can we use?
This is just another argument of "I can't think of anything better so I'll just do what I want". I don't know what you should use. Visit a counselor, call a shrink. It's really not hard to get help in case you don't know how to control your child.

My parents are divorced, but as a young child I used to spend some of my summer vacations with my dad. He never yelled at me and only once did he raise his hand at me(but didn't hit) for which he also apologized. How did he control me? He talked to me and treated me like an equal of sorts. This ended up in me respecting him. I wasn't told "you can't do that". It was more like "Can you please not do that?". This respect for him ended up in forcing me not to go against his wishes. Whenever I'd try I was always worried that I'd disappoint someone I love dearly.

On the contrast, my grandparents spanked and yelled at me. If I didn't eat my dinner, if I didn't study, if I didn't want to take a shower, if I stayed a bit late. It was the "you do what I want or I'll beat you" approach to "discipline". Did that in any way stop me as a teenager to engage in "high risk situations"? No. What did stop me was my dad. And my grandparents? I haven't spoken to them in quite a few years.

This is just an example. Like I've said before, there are people out there who can help you. There is no reason to resort to violence.

deadman91 said:
Discipline is the controlled use of harm to teach someone a lesson. Children are in the care of their parents to be taught how to act and function within greater society. I'd argue that teaching a child not to cause harm to others by instilling a fear that it will cause harm to themselves is acceptable.
Sure it is, but not through violence of any kind.
Do I really sound like that much of a sadist that you're recommending me help? I was just trying to enjoy a little argument about a subject that I honestly don't feel that strongly about. I'm okay with spanking kids, so are a lot of other people. You aren't, so aren't a lot of people. By the looks of it you had a different personal experience than I have. I was just trying to present an alternative view point to someone who presented me with an interesting argument, as respectfully as I could. I guess I did a shitty job of it, but was questioning my mental statement really necessary? Did I piss you off or bring up some bad memories or something? Well then sorry.
 

AndyFromMonday

New member
Feb 5, 2009
3,921
0
0
deadman91 said:
Do I really sound like that much of a sadist that you're recommending me help? I was just trying to enjoy a little argument about a subject that I honestly don't feel that strongly about.
I'm sorry if I came off like that. You were saying that you can't think of anything other than spanking to discipline your child. I then said that there are people who can help you with that(disciplining your children)without the use of force. I never wanted to imply that so I'm sorry.

deadman91 said:
I'm okay with spanking kids, so are a lot of other people. You aren't, so aren't a lot of people. By the looks of it you had a different personal experience than I have. I was just trying to present an alternative view point to someone who presented me with an interesting argument, as respectfully as I could.
You did OK actually. I just really hate the use of violence when attempting to educate ones children.


deadman91 said:
but was questioning my mental statement really necessary? Did I piss you off or bring up some bad memories or something? Well then sorry.
I didn't mean it like that and again, sorry. I said that counselors can help with children if you can't think of any other way to control them apart from violence. They can provide ideas or maybe even talk to the child itself. I never questioned your mental health and if I came off like that then, yet again, sorry.
 

twasdfzxcv

New member
Mar 30, 2010
310
0
0
Not endorsing wife beating or anything, but beating without physical mark is hard to prove anyway. Without physical evidence all you have is he says/she says argument. Unless you're in US family court I don't think these accusation holds much water anywhere with a competent judicial system.
 

LongAndShort

I'm pretty good. Yourself?
May 11, 2009
2,376
0
0
AndyFromMonday said:
deadman91 said:
Do I really sound like that much of a sadist that you're recommending me help? I was just trying to enjoy a little argument about a subject that I honestly don't feel that strongly about.
I'm sorry if I came off like that. You were saying that you can't think of anything other than spanking to discipline your child. I then said that there are people who can help you with that(disciplining your children)without the use of force. I never wanted to imply that so I'm sorry.

deadman91 said:
I'm okay with spanking kids, so are a lot of other people. You aren't, so aren't a lot of people. By the looks of it you had a different personal experience than I have. I was just trying to present an alternative view point to someone who presented me with an interesting argument, as respectfully as I could.
You did OK actually. I just really hate the use of violence when attempting to educate ones children.


deadman91 said:
but was questioning my mental statement really necessary? Did I piss you off or bring up some bad memories or something? Well then sorry.
I didn't mean it like that and again, sorry. I said that counselors can help with children if you can't think of any other way to control them apart from violence. They can provide ideas or maybe even talk to the child itself. I never questioned your mental health and if I came off like that then, yet again, sorry.
Fair enough, I misunderstood (I do that far to often), no harm done. Let's forget about this and start a conversation on something easier. How about abortion?