Jump to content

Hicksey

Member
  • Posts

    1,393
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hicksey

  1. Here's an idea. We'll all surrender our children to the government and let them raise them, since they know so much better how to raise them than we do. Its simple. Unless the government is with them every day, they don't know the personality of the child, what is or is not an effective means of punishment of the child and ability of each child to comprehend the consequence. To restrict the rest of us because a few people have done it wrong is ridiculous. We need every tool available to us to make this happen. Raising a child is hard enough with all the crap society throws at them and us, taking disciplinary options away from us doesn't make sense. I was beaten as a child. I have direct knowledge of what it is like to be on the wrong end of that. That's also why I do what I do today. I have learned from the mistakes of my father. When I became a father I knew two things: (1) I would never beat my children as my father did me, and (2) that the talking-tos that my mother gave didn't work either because I viewed it as a joke. So I did a little research on it and came to where I am. I still do the talking because though it was not effective immediately, later on I have come to remember and benefit from many of those lessons.
  2. And yet... Is there an inconsistency here? How so? The 5 year old has seen what happens when things escalate to that level and the response from his brother and knows that he doesn't want that fate to befall him as well. Done right, corporal punishment is about fear and respect. Parents do get out of hand, we all know that. And we have laws to take care of them. There is no need to outlaw spanking.
  3. I really hope you don't mean that the way it was typed. That idea is just disgusting. I can count the number of times I have had to spank my 7 year old on one hand. Its not designed to be a repetitive punishment. If I have to spank my 7 year old he knows he's screwed up -- and he usually doesn't repeat the behavior. He has a couple of times and all I have to do is remind him of what I did to him the last time and he stops the behavior. I've never so much as left a mark on him. When I do spank him its to let him know who's boss and to provide a negative stimulus for him to associate with the bad behavior. Like I said before ... done properly, corporal punishment works. When you get out of hand it is no longer corporal punishment, instead child abuse. The whole point is to produce a slap that will sting them for about 30 seconds and then go back to talking. If no inroad is made then you produce a second slap and then back to talking. It has to be clear the punishment is for the behavior in question. I have never had to go beyond a second slap. I NEVER do it when I am angry. My father used to do that and he always got out of hand. So I always take a short breather and let him stew before I go back to see him. That is usually enough to produce results because he knows if I have to come back and he doesn't acquiece, he'll get spanked. Each kid is different. My 5 year old has only ever been spanked once. He's been conditioned to seeing his brother get it. He usually cops to whatever he did wrong and takes his punishment. In fact, he tries not to let me put him in the room to stew before he starts talking. This may not work for other kids. Each is different -- for some it will be like a miracle elixir, for others nothing more than a bother. But to make it illegal and throw out the irresponsible statements about it not working is just ignorant. IMO that decision should lie with the primary care-giver. Its amazing that an 8 month old fetus can effectively be murdered, but a 8 year old child cannot so much as be spanked. I know abortion is a whole different issue, but isn't it interesting that the more helpless of the two gets no protection and the one that can at least do something by telling someone gets blanket protection?
  4. Done properly, corporal punishment is not overly painful. Its about power, not pain. The objective is to make them fear the consequences of the action they are being punished for. Only when parents do it improperly do we ever hear about corporal punishment. BM: You are mistaking a conservative for a libertarian. Conservatives, though to a much lesser point than Liberals and NDP, also advocate letting the government into our everyday lives on issues we hold dear to us. Your beef, marijuana use, is against the law. The last I checked, though we are able to do just about any kinky thing the worst pervert can imagine, we did not have the right to break the law in our homes. Whether you believe marijuana use is right or wrong is another issue altogether which you are more than welcome to start a thread to discuss.
  5. HERE is a link to an article about a bill in the California State Legislature about banning spanking and making it punishable by fines and prison time. My question to you is: Unless said punishment injures a child (done properly, corporal punishment does not), does the government belong in our homes like this? I say no. You?
  6. I never said anything about where I live, not did I make a claim about it. I am a truck driver. I have been about everywhere in Toronto, have friends there, experienced the place personally as well as professionally when I lived in Oakville, ON. I have friends that grew up in Brampton and know it first hand. That is why I used it as a basis for comparison. All I said was that I'd be as offended at the white guy who did the same thing as our Korean exemplar in another circumstance. How does "Talk about begging to have zero creibility........" ??
  7. People are turned off politics because they are sick of being lied to and their wallets being looted. In this country it doesn't seem to matter who is in office. Most of the self-serving tripe that politicians serve us they have no intention of performing. Even Harper has conveniently forgotten about his promise to reduce wait times. The worst of them, Premier McGuinty, has proceeded to break almost every promise he made. Why should people have any confidence in a bunch of spinners and liars? At this point I am happy in any tenure if there are no new social programs, government spending slows down or I actually get something tangible for what I give every week. Usually we see one of those at best.
  8. I agree whole-heartedly. A racist is a racist is a racist. I, personally, would avoid the place and tell everyone I know about it so they could too. I would go as far as drive 5-10 miles out of my way to avoid the place. I don't care who is the benefactor or the victim. A racist is not worthy of my business. I wonder how legal it would be to take out an ad in the local newspaper backed up with quotes urging others to do the same? An easy position to take as long as you personally are not the victim of racism. I got one for you. Brampton, ON has almost exclusively become a Muslim community. The same type of racism whites were the perpetrators of in generations past goes on there against them. If a white guy bought a strip mall, refuse to renew the leases of the Muslim operators within it so they can provide a haven for people of his own race to operate in that municipality, and proceeded only to lease to whites, there would be outrage like nothing else. It would likely make the front page of just about every newspaper in the country and we all know it. I would drive out of my way to avoid that place also. In this day and age there should be NO preferential treatment based on race. Everyone should be treated equally. There should be no policy to hold back nor to prop up anyone based on race.
  9. I agree whole-heartedly. A racist is a racist is a racist. I, personally, would avoid the place and tell everyone I know about it so they could too. I would go as far as drive 5-10 miles out of my way to avoid the place. I don't care who is the benefactor or the victim. A racist is not worthy of my business. I wonder how legal it would be to take out an ad in the local newspaper backed up with quotes urging others to do the same?
  10. Because some mental conditions make it very hard for some people. Passing a law like this completely ignores hardcore OCD cases, some schizophrenia cases, and many other conditions affecting one's judgement of certain situations. It doesn't make them any less responsible for their actions. It does require that the system get better at diagnosing the proper punishment the first two times and recognize when punishment alone is not enough and a combination of punitive/treatment is the best course of action.
  11. You don't trust the wealthy to hold wealth, but you trust the government? Neither are entirely trustworthy. And people get wealth as they deserve it. Our system is designed that way. The problem is getting by the barriers that are the lower/middle class layers. Once you get by that if you are smart with your money, riches are not all that hard to get. The left has built so many devices into our society to make those middle/lower class people dependent fools that and with each new generation it gets seemingly harder to achieve it. Socialism keeps the rich rich and the poor poor and at the same time it puts up a barrier to the poor it creates a safety net for the rich by restricting the ability of the poor to take advantage of their mistakes. So what happens is rich people basically get and lose their riches from each other while Joe Citizen toils his entire life long dreaming of it.
  12. Um, not at all, actually. A previous course of action does not thus guarantee a repeat of said action. You are right! That's why we give them two chances to change their ways before this takes effect. We don't assume a repeat of said action, we let the criminal determine whether there will be a pattern. Why is it so hard for people get through a day and not commit a crime? How is it that criminals are regarded as more of a victim than their real victims and as a result deserve more protection?
  13. If you remove yourself from religion and look at it on a higher level, you see that there are a lot of different ones all looking to rationalize the same concept of a higher power that presides over us. They were trying to put words that the average man could understand to an abstract concept that best explains what they believe to be. Conspriracy theorists basically create their own religion to create a way to explain what they believe to be true. Like ancient religions they come from people trying to put rational thought and explanations to abstract concepts. Their conclusions are usually considered radical for their time, but they aren't radical as far as the thought process they use to get there.
  14. Indeed. Perhaps this suggestion should be limited to physical offences? Hell no! If you have committed 3 indictable offenses, is that not proof positive that you are pathlogical and likely to keep it up? If anything these are the poster children for people that we need to send a more severe message to. The only exception I would make is to allow the lawyers of non-violent criminals to have the designation removed after 15 years if they display a real effort to rehabilitate, have been model prisoners, have taken advantage of a program to get a skill they can use to get gainful employment once they exit the penal system, and agree to lifetime long parole.
  15. I think it's popular with a lot of people because it's certainly not the type of politically correct, officially multicultural sop we're typically fed by Canadian TV, and it's not the sanitized, Christian values, one-liner sit-com garbage we mostly get out of the States. It's daring, satirical, self-mocking, yet poignant all at the same time. I can't even force myself to sit through an entire episode. I've tried 3 or 4 times. I'm a fan of comedies and I just see nothing beyond a melding of Jerry Springer, Cops, and a bunch of people on crack. Sure there are a few laughs, but how long are you willing to wait around and watch paint dry to hear a second one? Its like pot humor. Most people on pot get it, the rest of us just think those who laughed have already smoked too much drugs and damaged enough brain cells to realize its not nearly as funny as they think it is.
  16. After you have a shit on me over my question on abortion/death penalty you come here and basically give us a choice between equating our religious beliefs to a fashion accessory and determining them altogether meaningless? Just because you do not have a use for religion we're all idiots for believing? What a loaded question this one is. Gee, where have I heard that one before?
  17. I can't believe they ever made that series, let alone a movie of that garbage. Who would have ever dreamt a society would so be interested in the assorted delinquencies of a couple of trailer park bums?
  18. The idea is to pay nearly all (in Bell's case I think I read 85% in there) of their income to the shareholders directly through the trust. So yes, the later is done. It's not really a dividend though, that has different tax implications and wouldn't require a mutual fund trust situation like income trusts do. There is nothing preventing a corporation from declaring all their realised income as dividends, just the tax situation isn't as attractive as using the income trust method. I don't know why everyone is fretting about people paying less tax, that is a good thing, celebrate. That's what I meant. All they have done is to restructure for tax purposes. Until people realize that the taxes that they paid before that they will no longer pay were paid by you and me and not Bell, they will continue to whine every time something like this happens.
  19. Considering that corporations do not pay tax all this will achieve is to make the bottom line look better than it really is. Most smart corporations consider taxation as a cost and can pretty accurately predict what the taxes will be. When they cost out their products and services and come up with the end pricing -- with the cost of paying the associated taxes included -- the person that ultimately pays the taxes that are levied against Corporation X is Joe Citizen. So unless they lower prices to Joe Citizen or start paying bigger dividends to Corporation X Shareholders, all that happens is a balance sheet magic trick.
  20. It's all relative, I guess. I am 39, and I now view anyone under 30 as 'young', 30-50 as 'my age', and (most) over 50 as 'wise'. I hear you there! I'll turn 31 in November and 40 just got deleted from my list of ages considered old. Considering how fast my 20's disappeared I figure 40 will come pretty quickly. I am the oldet of my friends and as they all turned 30 along with me a welcomed them to geyserdom.
  21. How can you support the military but not supporting them doing their job? What Rovik has said is not how you dishonestly portrayed it. You can support the military AND support them doing their job, and still not support the mission. You need to seperate the soldiers and their capabilities and the job they do from the civilian policy they're tasked with doing. Show them some respect by not playing word games with them and using them for the political benifit of your party. As much as it pains me to admit it, Gerry is 100% right here. We should always seperate the troops from their missions. They merely perform the will of their first in command. They would perform those duties no matter which political party that gave the orders. Though many of its members are conservative, the armed forces themselves are one of the few truly non-partisan arms of government left. And Gerry, don't think that the Liberals and NDP would not continue to use them as armed social workers to pander to the special interests of their base if they were still in power. All parties use them. The conservatives aren't any less guilty of than the Liberals have been. The only discernable difference between the use of the military of the Liberals and CPC, is that the conservatives are actually asking them to function as a military -- and apparently you don't like that. I suspect your motives are of the knee-jerking anti-american variety. So I ask this. The Liberals usually send our troops around the world to save the downtrodden. Considering the atrocities that were routinely committed against both Afghans and Iraqis, why are they not as worthy of our help as the citizens of Darfur? Or are we not willing to bear the considerable risk of helping the people whose safety will be more difficult to procure? What risks are we prepared to send our troops into?
  22. I like it. Why should we be forced to pay for something we're not using? Its the very reason I was so against the NDP/Liberal Child Care plan. That plan is worse in that they want us to pay for everyone's child care and then if the care they provide doesn't suit your needs you have to go out and pay again for your own.
  23. Yeah. Ignoring those people, I have a question. What has caused the change? Could it be Iggy bring the clear front-runner in the Liberal leadership race? A positive benefit of a general belief that Harper is doing a good job? The overall ineffectiveness of the opposition parties? That the Canadian people do actually support the mission? Its too hard to tell. While a snapshot of things today would present the scenario you posted, just two weeks ago it wasn't the case -- but we were still hearing 'right wing conspiracy' then. I mentioned it because my point was that they refuse to admit they ever do anything wrong (or anyone else ever does something right as PM) out of their belief of entitlement to the position of PM. How could anyone else ever get it right? If they don't look like the righteous ones the obvious choice is that someone must be cheating to make it so because they are entitled to lead this country.
  24. You've got to understand that the poster you are responding to sees himself as the supreme aribter of how real Canadians should act politically and judge things. Canadians are now supporting the mission. The *only* way for that to happen is some sort of unethical behaviour by Prime Minister Harper and his Government. Some people just don't tire and love to believe that anything that doesn't happen in harmony with their view of the world must be the result of a vast right wing conspiracy to make it so. The rest of us live in the real world.
×
×
  • Create New...