Upload
Login or register
Newest
Realtime Comments: On
asd
#114565 - anon id: c3275620
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
#BlackLivesMatter
User avatar #114557 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
Is censorship inherently left or right wing?
User avatar #114653 to #114557 - theplanetearth
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/29/2016) [-]
Censorship in some cases is for the common good. The common man does not have a mind capable of understanding things, and needs to be protected form dangerous knowledge, but dangerous knowledge does not need to be destroyed. It needs to be archived, and kept away from the public. I'm a far right monarchist, and I saw what the gutenburg bible did to Christianity. If the common man knew what was good for him democracy wouldn't be a spectacular failure.
User avatar #114579 to #114557 - unforgivensoul
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
Can we please stop with the 1D political model.

Censorship is NOT left or right wing, its authoritarian-wing (the opposite being libertarian).
User avatar #114600 to #114579 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
That's the answer I'm looking for.
User avatar #114587 to #114579 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
One of the best thing I've read on here in a long time.
#114560 to #114557 - pebar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
ideologically speaking, it's more consistent with far right
but in modern politics, it's almost exclusively the left, because there really aren't any far right parties.

this is one of those many many times when the one dimensional spectrum is really inadequate
Big government authoritarians support censorship. Currently the left is more in favor of bigger government
User avatar #114561 to #114560 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
In the United States it seems to be the right pushing censorship, mostly on family values and what not. I would pin that on how this country is relatively more conservative though. Globally it seems the left is also complicit in a great deal of it though.
User avatar #114609 to #114561 - figatron
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
The right in America generally opposes censorship. It's always the left that supports more regulation on speech
User avatar #114611 to #114609 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
Try to make a movie with any sexual content and get it below an R rating. Try to bash Christianity in mainstream culture. Try to get off the ground with something that insults the military. It's impossible.
User avatar #114612 to #114611 - figatron
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
Some might disagree with it, but I've never seen them try to regulate or ban it. That's the difference. Not in America anyways.
User avatar #114613 to #114612 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
The vast majority of American censorship is "decency" based. It's illegal to broadcast programming with curse words before 11pm.
User avatar #114614 to #114613 - figatron
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
What are you talking about? They curse in half the shows on primetime. That aside, having standards of decency isn't censorship. Every single country has some minimal standards of what's acceptable. That's got nothing to do with right or left. Meanwhile try telling a Democrat that a man should only use a man's bathroom and see how many times you get accused of hate speech
User avatar #114615 to #114614 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
"The FCC defines profanity as "including language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance." Like indecency, profane speech is prohibited on broadcast radio and television between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m."
www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts

It's illegal to broadcast certain profanities on television during daytime. What you're saying here, is it's only censorship when you consider it censorship.
User avatar #114616 to #114615 - figatron
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
South Park is on at 9:30.

Also didn't know the FCC was some right wing stronghold
User avatar #114617 to #114616 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
And they censor the broadcast buddy.

The institution reflects consevative ideology, in this sense.
User avatar #114618 to #114617 - figatron
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
Censorship contradicts conservative values. Conservatism is based around constitutionalism. Which prohibits censorship
User avatar #114619 to #114618 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
Then maybe they should try reading the constitution.
User avatar #114620 to #114619 - figatron
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
Conservatives do. Just not the statists that go on all day about traditional values and Christianity who are not conservative.
User avatar #114621 to #114620 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
In the American sense, they are the conservatives.
User avatar #114623 to #114621 - figatron
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
According to whom?
User avatar #114624 to #114623 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
According to the ideology of American conservatives.
User avatar #114580 to #114561 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
Uhh are you shitting me son, what about universities in general in America. I think its a both side problem in America, because of the ultra-religious right and the regressive left. I'd argue though that the regressive left is a bigger problem in the long run.
#114547 - pebar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
If Trump weren't so pants-on-head retarded when it comes to international trade, I'd may actually consider voting for him
User avatar #114610 to #114547 - figatron
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
His ignorance of basic economics on international trade is the only reason I can't support him. (Our at least one of the main reasons) I don't care at all about his rhetoric or racial stuff people make up against him.
User avatar #114550 to #114547 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
Based on?
User avatar #114551 to #114550 - pebar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
what?
User avatar #114552 to #114551 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
What would make you consider voting for trump?
User avatar #114553 to #114552 - pebar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
the spoiler effect
User avatar #114554 to #114553 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
Who's campaign are you trying to spoil?
User avatar #114555 to #114554 - pebar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
I'd be trying NOT to spoil the opponent of Hillary
User avatar #114556 to #114555 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
I'm confused.
User avatar #114558 to #114556 - pebar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
My current plan is to vote for Gary Johnson, the libertarian candidate.
Libertarians as a general rule are closer to republicans than to democrats.
If a libertarian votes 3rd party instead of republican, it means one less vote that the republican candidate would otherwise have. This gives the democrats an advantage, which is seen as more undesirable than having a republican.
This is the spoiler effect, aka splitting the vote.

I am considering voting for Trump because I don't like Hillary
But my current plan is to still vote 3rd party, even if it means a less vote for Trump, because I don't like Trump and I'd rather vote 3rd party in protest.
User avatar #114581 to #114558 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
>Hillary supports NAFTA and the TPP
>so do you

Maybe you should vote for Hilary?
#114584 to #114581 - pebar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
Hillary opposes a lot of trade agreements

at least recently... she's been flopping all over the place, like what she does with every issue
just like Trump does

And I'm skeptical of a 10,000 page bill that should be one page
A lot of claims against TPP are bullshit. Copyright arguments may have some validity.
User avatar #114586 to #114584 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
Tell me, what's the ideological difference between a libertarian and a social democrat?
User avatar #114592 to #114586 - pebar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
Social democrats are far more likely to use government to socially engineer society.
---Even on social issues, they are not as liberals as they claim. This is clearly evident in forcing private businesses to serve people against their will. They mandate what foods people can and cannot eat because of health reasons.
---They are often more racist in that they claim blacks are unable to compete with everyone else; it's very condescending. If they say people have biases against black, they take away blacks ability to compete by mandating price floors, which have virtually double black unemployment rates.
---They care more about equality, and are often to sacrifice absolute levels in order to achieve it. For example, some extremists want the government to collectively raise children to avoid the privilege that comes with have good parents (not necessarily rich; you can have poor good parents)
---They often reject the voluntary interactions between consenting adults (unregulated capitalism)
---They are far more likely to use mob rule or "it's the will of the people" to justify their position (ie, "we are the 99%")
---They have far less respect for individual rights, like free speech, self defense, due process
User avatar #114599 to #114592 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
A lot of the ones you stated are just assumptions you have. None of these are inherently present in the social democrat ideology. It's just that some retards interpret it to being that way.
User avatar #114606 to #114599 - pebar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
they are inherently more egalitarian and are willing to sacrifice individuality to attain it; that's the biggest difference
User avatar #114607 to #114606 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
Now that's true.
User avatar #114559 to #114558 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
Hey, if no one votes third party a third party candidate will never win.
User avatar #114562 to #114559 - pebar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained it's quite the pickle, isn't it.
User avatar #114564 to #114562 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
And also the two dominant parties have no incentive to change the voting system, and are basically guaranteed victory by it. Hypothetically, it can't change.
User avatar #114563 to #114562 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
Though if you think in terms of the spoiler effect you'll never get what you want. Spreading the idea is actually extremely useful for the dominant parties.
User avatar #114536 - pebar
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
Does Donald Trump Have The Will Of The People Unforgivensoul, I know you dislike Ben Shapiro

But I don't care
#114542 to #114536 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
/politics/114278#114278

Fuck you too I guess.
User avatar #114537 to #114536 - canyou
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
I hate that he's taking a week off. That's at least 2 hours of streaming I have to replace at work.
#114522 - asotil
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Out of every human being on the planet

Carly fucking Fiorna
User avatar #114530 to #114522 - figatron
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
She's great for VP.

Remember the only thing she has to do as VP is smile and wait for the president to die. She's got no office and isn't extraordinary in any way so she's easily replaceable. And she's a woman so pandering points. (Though the only other times a woman was a running mate in history they lost in historic landslides)
User avatar #114538 to #114530 - canyou
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
Palin's an idiot though.
User avatar #114539 to #114538 - figatron
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
There's Geraldine Ferrarro too
User avatar #114540 to #114539 - canyou
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
I'm not gonna lie, I had no idea any woman other than Palin ever ran for VP. I have so much to learn.
User avatar #114541 to #114540 - figatron
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
She was on one of the tickets that ran against Reagan or HW. So I imagine it's not really well known by a lot of young people
User avatar #114543 to #114541 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
That sounds like more of a correlation problem.
User avatar #114545 to #114543 - figatron
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
Probably true, but the devil's advocate in me wants to consider it
User avatar #114546 to #114545 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
It is a data point, although there were significant mitigating circumstances. E.g. running against Reagan and being Sarah Palin. Still it could be smart, given they could use it against Clinton.
User avatar #114532 to #114530 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
She eats kids on her spare time.
User avatar #114533 to #114532 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
pair that with the zodiac killer and youve got trouble
User avatar #114525 to #114522 - seniorawesomesauce
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
She's a woman from California. Sounds like a tactical plan.
User avatar #114527 to #114525 - canyou
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Oh shit, I didn't even think about her being from Cali.

100% tactical
User avatar #114528 to #114527 - seniorawesomesauce
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
She was also an adviser for John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign and the republican nominee for California senator (she lost) in 2010. Also, I've heard that nearly all of Silicon Valley hates he, for whatever that's worth.
User avatar #114524 to #114522 - canyou
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Tactical vagina
#114519 - pebar
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Cruz announces Fiorina as his running mate
User avatar #114523 to #114519 - canyou
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Well Stephen Crowder will be happy.
User avatar #114526 to #114523 - pebar
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
my thoughts exactly
#114517 - canyou
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#114514 - Zaxplab
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
You had a good run, Cruzy Boy
User avatar #114516 to #114514 - canyou
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Did he drop?
User avatar #114520 to #114516 - Zaxplab
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
He might as well
User avatar #114521 to #114520 - canyou
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
I saw he can only win it by taking it to the convention. It's not lookin too good for him.
User avatar #114504 - canyou
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Cruz to make "big" announcement at 4pm according to newsmax.
User avatar #114507 to #114504 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Hopefully he drops out




















of a skyscraper
#114492 - drastronomy
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Trump foreign policy thread

Anyone else watch the speech?
The based alpha annihalates the concept of globalism
User avatar #114531 to #114492 - figatron
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
The last time protectionism was this popular the Great Depression happened.
#114529 to #114492 - pebar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
User avatar #114499 to #114492 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
No better than the other neocons.
#114480 - anon id: 200a1450
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36139169

The Turkish military has a history of staging coups when the civilian government becomes too Theocratic. I really hope that they act soon.
User avatar #114485 to #114480 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
User avatar #114482 to #114480 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
I wonder what a potential coup would mean for their NATO membership.
#114455 - lotengo
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
theism on suicidewatch
#114489 to #114455 - unforgivensoul
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Judging by his life, I'd say he's always on suicide watch.
User avatar #114483 to #114455 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
just put on hide all
User avatar #114476 to #114455 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
No, Europe is just garbage.
User avatar #114477 to #114476 - lotengo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
not an argument
User avatar #114478 to #114477 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
You have never made a single argument.
User avatar #114479 to #114478 - lotengo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
look at my comps
User avatar #114456 to #114455 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
National IQ hits record low. Chinese to colonize America by 2020.
User avatar #114457 to #114456 - lotengo
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
>National IQ hits record low.
Did Commiefornia import mulsim ¨¨¨¨¨¨refurgies¨¨¨¨¨?
User avatar #114458 to #114457 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Nah, there's rumors you might be immigrating.
User avatar #114459 to #114458 - lotengo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Aiming for Utah.

If you do kill yourself, plz do it there so i can see it live
User avatar #114460 to #114459 - theism
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
I'm going to blow up your windmill and shit on your tulips.
User avatar #114461 to #114460 - lotengo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Im so scared of your feel the burn flower power.
Imma get myself a glock with a high capacity magazine.
And something bigger, but I'd have to look into it a tad more.
User avatar #114462 to #114461 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
I'm gonna kick over your dyke and your shitty valley country's going to flood.
User avatar #114463 to #114462 - lotengo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
im gonna put bacon in your quran and make drawings of muhamad
User avatar #114464 to #114463 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
I heard in Europe that gets you killed. Bet you wish you had proper freedoms.
#114465 to #114464 - lotengo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Dont worry lad, we are growing stronger.
You'll wake up in your pedo-sandpit soon enough
User avatar #114466 to #114465 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
So you're going to bring your inability to assimilate foreigners here?
User avatar #114467 to #114466 - lotengo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
wut?
User avatar #114468 to #114467 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
The US has been assimilating foreigners for 2 and a half centuries. The past few years proves that you Eurotrash suck cock at it.
User avatar #114469 to #114468 - lotengo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
You have been assimilating people, we got subhuman garbage
User avatar #114470 to #114469 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Lotta muslims in the US. You're just mad cuz your bad.
User avatar #114471 to #114470 - lotengo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
you know the percentage game
2% is fine
5% things start to look bad
10% they want special privlileges
.....
User avatar #114472 to #114471 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Deal with it. Just because you're country's a few brownies away from being a failed state doesn't make it anyone else's problem.
User avatar #114473 to #114472 - lotengo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
we gonna deal with it, just gotta wait till Trump kicks out Obongo
User avatar #114474 to #114473 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Trump isn't gonna be there to fix your problems. Sort your own shit Eurotrash.
User avatar #114475 to #114474 - lotengo
0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Hold up,

are you that Chunck Yoghurt from the young turkadurka's?
Because you are acting like Chunck Yoghurt from the young turkadurka's
#114451 - woozuh
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
SWEEPING VICTORY
#114449 - shekelnator
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
User avatar #114394 - canyou
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Fuck
User avatar #114419 to #114394 - seniorawesomesauce
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Naughty By Nature  Here Comes The Money
#114402 to #114394 - pebar
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
I know
#114396 to #114394 - unforgivensoul
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #114395 to #114394 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
you
User avatar #114397 to #114395 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
retard
User avatar #114481 to #114397 - canyou
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
#114349 - Elk
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Thank God for Cruz and Kasich's deal. That might have gotten super ugly without it.
User avatar #114384 to #114349 - canyou
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
The deal starts with Indiana and Oregon I believe. Probably too little too late. I never enthusiastically liked either one anyways. I just disliked Trump.
User avatar #114348 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
www.redorbit.com/news/health/1113413810/spanking-defiance-health-discipline-042616/

I wonder, what's people's opinion on corporal punishment? The science seems to link physical punishment to negative behavioral outcomes and I have yet to see studies in favor of it. So why do people insist it's necessary?
User avatar #114454 to #114348 - figatron
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
A lot of people get really into this, but I don't think it really matters one way or the other. There are way more important factors in a child's upbringing that affect their outcomes. Not enough to merit national policy. Best to just let families and schools decide what they want to do with it.
User avatar #114400 to #114348 - marinepenguin
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
I believe that physical punishment has its place, but that it can be easily abused and misused.

Personally I was spanked and smacked at times as a child, and I very quickly learned what was acceptable and unacceptable. It was never anything to truly hurt me, but to get my attention and shock me a little bit. I was only ever paddled once, and I learned very quickly not to act out in that same manner ever again.

That being said, my youngest brother is the exact opposite, my parents have learned that those sorts of punishments don't work on him, he's far more stubborn, rebellious, and tough probably because of him having 3 older brothers . Instead they resort to taking objects and privileges away, where that same punishment wouldn't have worked with me, since I could entertain myself with just about anything.

So I'd say that in my opinion physical punishment is something that should be used sparingly, and definitely not abused, and that the degree of the punishments really depends on the child's personality.
User avatar #114401 to #114400 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
How would you respond to a universal, undeniable conclusion by medicine that it was the wrong choice (not asserting that this study qualifies)?
User avatar #114403 to #114401 - marinepenguin
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
There are a lot of times that I will refer to my personal experience over scientific evidence, raising my child would be one of those things. Obviously I'd take it into account, but if I felt as though spanking my child was warranted, no scientific study would change my mind.
#114411 to #114403 - pebar
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
User avatar #114444 to #114411 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Is that a Dilbert cartoon?
#114445 to #114444 - pebar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
hell yea it is
User avatar #114446 to #114445 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Awesome.
#114442 to #114411 - theism
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #114404 to #114403 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Why do you value your own conclusions over scientific ones?
User avatar #114408 to #114404 - marinepenguin
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
I Thought it was a yes/no question, my bad.
User avatar #114407 to #114404 - marinepenguin
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
At times, yes. On more personal matters like child rearing especially. I also believe that there are far more contributing factors to a child mental health than whether they were spanked or not. Out of all the children in that study, the likelihood that they had a similar upbringing even if they were of the same race, ethnicity, class, and culture is slim to none.
User avatar #114409 to #114407 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Yeah, I'd assume the issue is more complicated than any one study can nail down. I think the important thing is to establish that the old understanding that you must heat your kids, or as unforgivensoul puts it they must fear you, isn't necessarily true.
User avatar #114413 to #114409 - marinepenguin
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Yeah I completely disagree that they should fear you.
User avatar #114414 to #114413 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Personally I think that's the worse stance to take on leadership. Respect should be predicated on understanding. They should listen to you because you should know what's right. Not that you should never punish them, but when they're afraid they don't get better, they just lie more.
User avatar #114364 to #114348 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
The son should fear his father.

If he does not and continuously shows that by challenging the man, then I think it warrants physical punishment to keep the son in line. Can't speak for women, but I think its very healthy for a boy growing up to fear his father.
#114410 to #114364 - pebar
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
No child should ever be afraid of their parents
User avatar #114421 to #114410 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
...lolwut
User avatar #114422 to #114421 - pebar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
can you hear yourself?
User avatar #114423 to #114422 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Are you retarded?
User avatar #114428 to #114423 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
It seems like no one agrees with you. Maybe what's obvious to you isn't obvious to anyone else.
User avatar #114429 to #114428 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
argumento de populorum
#114447 to #114429 - pebar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
so NOW you disagree with appeals to populism?
User avatar #114430 to #114429 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
You have presented zero argument, as such I can dismiss you.
User avatar #114431 to #114430 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Please do.
User avatar #114432 to #114431 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
So you admit your beliefs are retarded?
User avatar #114433 to #114432 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
I'm not willing to argue such a basic, fundamental concept on this board. If we can't even agree on that, there is no point of debating. Sometimes stuff like that happens.
User avatar #114434 to #114433 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
It's not a basic fundamental concept if no one but you believes it.
User avatar #114435 to #114434 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
: )
User avatar #114436 to #114435 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Also if it's so basic, it would be really easy to explain why. The fact you won't, implies it's not so easy.
User avatar #114437 to #114436 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
I don't want to play morality debate. Calm down, you're not getting it this night.
User avatar #114438 to #114437 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Then maybe don't make assertions and call people retarded for not accepting them.
#114439 to #114438 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
>why should children fear their parents
>their parents
I'm not going to bother, sorry. Stay mad.
User avatar #114448 to #114439 - pebar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
>fear
>their parents

there's a world of difference between fear and respect
User avatar #114488 to #114448 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Completely irrelevant. Most children fear their parents, fact.
User avatar #114440 to #114439 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Yeah, it's obvious to any sane person why that's wrong. Are you saying you aren't sane? You don't get to assertion bullshit, act superior and refuse to back it up.
#114441 to #114440 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
User avatar #114443 to #114441 - theism
0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Did you grow up fearing your parents? I'm legitimately sorry if that's the case.
User avatar #114366 to #114364 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Can you back this claim up?
User avatar #114367 to #114366 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
What claim?
User avatar #114369 to #114367 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
"The son should fear his father.

If he does not and continuously shows that by challenging the man, then I think it warrants physical punishment to keep the son in line. Can't speak for women, but I think its very healthy for a boy growing up to fear his father."
User avatar #114370 to #114369 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
What claim?
User avatar #114371 to #114370 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
That the son should fear his father.
User avatar #114378 to #114371 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
I'm not even going to bother honestly. If you don't know why that is obvious, then I'm not even delving into this discussion.
User avatar #114388 to #114378 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
youre trying to earn respect in the end

theres other ways to achieve that than through fear
User avatar #114390 to #114388 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
That's just wrong. Fathers aren't trying to earn respect much more so than obedience. I don't even agree with your premise.

Obedience is now, respect is a long-term wish.
User avatar #114392 to #114390 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
well its clear that kids get less obedient through this method

User avatar #114385 to #114378 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
If it's obvious it should be easy to explain. If you can't explain it, it's not obvious. People who say that come off like they can't back up their beliefs and are trying to avoid that fact.
#114387 to #114385 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
k
User avatar #114389 to #114387 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
You call it bait because you know your full of shit.
User avatar #114379 to #114378 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
how do you get a kid to respect you without fearing you
User avatar #114386 to #114379 - canyou
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Money
User avatar #114382 to #114379 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Respect and fear are two different things.
User avatar #114381 to #114379 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
I think you meant to ask the other guy.
User avatar #114383 to #114381 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
i was asking as a general question

and your comment was most recent
#114353 to #114348 - Elk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
**Elk used "*roll picture*"**
**Elk rolled image** Because the studies are totally nonsensical, in my opinion.

Yeah, if you abuse your kid, he'll probably be more violent than he normally was. The problem I have with these studies is that it makes no sense to me. I'm assuming that they picked parents who said that they spank their children and compared those to children who don't get spanked. Has it ever occurred to anybody that their behavior is probably why they keep getting spanked?

My parents almost always gave me an option. Did I want to be spanked, or did I want to be grounded? I think that I picked being grounded once, and then I quickly changed my mind. I didn't end up with any damage from it. I think that pebar hit the nail on the head.
User avatar #114355 to #114353 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
The study demonstrated that regular application of physical punishment, distinct from abuse, caused behavior problems to get worse. It wasn't a matter of the worse children got spanked.
User avatar #114356 to #114355 - Elk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
So, they pick parents with kids before they start "raising" them?
User avatar #114357 to #114356 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
They ran 50 years of research documenting the behavior of kids over time. However bad the kid was before spanking, they got worse after.
#114358 to #114357 - Elk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
**Elk used "*roll picture*"****Elk rolled image** Oh, I think that I misunderstood. If they have behavioral problems, like being a bully or something, yeah, things definitely will get worse, but I think that that's different than spanking a child because he or she did something wrong.
**Elk used "*roll picture*"**
**Elk rolled image** Oh, I think that I misunderstood. If they have behavioral problems, like being a bully or something, yeah, things definitely will get worse, but I think that that's different than spanking a child because he or she did something wrong.
User avatar #114362 to #114358 - theism
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
You still don't get it. The data shows, spanking as a form of punishment makes the problem worse, similar to physical abuse. Now what needs to be seen is if this data is reliably reproducible. Although with 160k subjects and fifty years of research, it's pretty damning.
#114375 to #114362 - Elk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
**Elk used "*roll picture*"****Elk rolled image** No, I get it just fine. It just sounds like a load of crap.   
   
Of all the people I know that have been spanked as children, very few of them turned out to be bad or have gotten worse. However, I see people who didn't get spanked as children who have turned out worse, but they some how found the right people that they have concrete evidence that spanking is 100% damaging?   
   
It sounds like they cherry-picked data or test subjects, lied about the information or picked children with disorders of some kind in the first place.   
   
No, you can't rely on just spanking, but I can not disagree more about it being as damaging as these people make it out to be. It just sounds like anti-disciplinary propaganda.
**Elk used "*roll picture*"**
**Elk rolled image** No, I get it just fine. It just sounds like a load of crap.

Of all the people I know that have been spanked as children, very few of them turned out to be bad or have gotten worse. However, I see people who didn't get spanked as children who have turned out worse, but they some how found the right people that they have concrete evidence that spanking is 100% damaging?

It sounds like they cherry-picked data or test subjects, lied about the information or picked children with disorders of some kind in the first place.

No, you can't rely on just spanking, but I can not disagree more about it being as damaging as these people make it out to be. It just sounds like anti-disciplinary propaganda.
User avatar #114380 to #114375 - theism
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Your anecdotal experience < scientific research. If you think it's really false, surely an analysis that supports your views exists. You're not challenging the research, just rejecting it.
#114393 to #114380 - Elk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
**Elk used "*roll picture*"**
**Elk rolled image**
goodparent.org/corporal-punishment/research-on-corporal-punishment/evidence-favoring-the-use-of-disciplinary-spanking/

"Authoritative Parents employed a combination of firm control and positive encouragement of a child’s independence. They affirmed the child’s qualities and, yet, set a standard for future conduct. They made reasonable demands of their children and promoted respect for authority. They were more consistent with the discipline. To discipline they used reasoning, power, reinforcement to achieve objectives, and some corporal punishment."

"The Authoritative parents favored corporal punishment over other negative sanctions."

"The Authoritative parents who balanced firm control with encouragement reared the most socially responsible and assertive children, i.e. achievement orientation, friendliness toward peers, cooperativeness with adults, social dominance, nonconforming behavior and purposiveness."

www.thenewamerican.com/culture/family/item/548-new-study-finds-spanking-is-good-for-kids

"That is to say, to such parents, discipline is often a dirty word. They tend to be overly permissive, set poor examples, be inconsistent in moral guidance and not teach responsibility. They are unlikely to view themselves as absolute authority figures but, rather, will treat the family as a democracy (without a constitution). They are more apt to want to be buddies than parents to their children."

Also, my experience and knowing the experience of those around me is also research in itself. It's what I know and what I can see around me, and it's basically the same thing that these people doing "scientific research" are doing.
User avatar #114399 to #114393 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
The first study contains conflicting variables. It doesn't directly compare corporal and non corporal punishment, it compares parenting styles. The behavior difference could be due to the permissiveness of the parents.

The second article focuses very little on the study so it's essentially impossible to evaluate it. A direct link to the abstract would make that easier but I understand if you don't have one.

And no, your anecdotes don't meet the same level of rigor as academic research. You're dealing with microscopic samples, a dozen or so people. You can't really draw meaningful conclusions there. You're also prone to cognitive bias. You accuse the study I linked of cherry picking, but the thing about peer review is that that gets caught. It's evident in the methodology. You have no methodology.
#114417 to #114399 - Elk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
**Elk used "*roll picture*"****Elk rolled image** Yes, it compares parenting styles. I literally stated that you can't rely only on spanking. It said that a combination works very well, and that's what I've been saying.   
   
Eh, it talks about the psychology, and I think that that's very important. As I said earlier, if your kid is a bully or something, spanking probably isn't going to work. If he was throwing a ball in the house and broke something, a spanking could be fine.   
   
&quot;Basically&quot;. I'm not cherry-picking. There are some people who haven't gotten spanked and are wonderful people. There are some people who get spanked and are awful people. The only bias of mine is that I don't have access to hundreds of thousands of people and that I can't put them in controlled environments, but it is amazing to me that the only people that support their evidence are out of my reach. Maybe it's not the punishments that are so bad. Maybe it's the surroundings.
**Elk used "*roll picture*"**
**Elk rolled image** Yes, it compares parenting styles. I literally stated that you can't rely only on spanking. It said that a combination works very well, and that's what I've been saying.

Eh, it talks about the psychology, and I think that that's very important. As I said earlier, if your kid is a bully or something, spanking probably isn't going to work. If he was throwing a ball in the house and broke something, a spanking could be fine.

"Basically". I'm not cherry-picking. There are some people who haven't gotten spanked and are wonderful people. There are some people who get spanked and are awful people. The only bias of mine is that I don't have access to hundreds of thousands of people and that I can't put them in controlled environments, but it is amazing to me that the only people that support their evidence are out of my reach. Maybe it's not the punishments that are so bad. Maybe it's the surroundings.
User avatar #114418 to #114417 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
What I'm saying is that the study isn't on corporal punishment. It doesn't compare corporal punishment with non corporal punishment. It doesn't raise any conclusions.

It's not a psych paper, it's a news article. It's not scientific and it doesn't help support a conclusion.

You have no way of knowing your own biases. I also have no way of knowing them. Additionally, you don't have the knowledge to analyze your data to draw conclusions.
#114420 to #114418 - Elk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
**Elk used "*roll picture*"**
**Elk rolled image** It compares parenting styles, and corporal punishment is one of the main focuses on it. To say that it doesn't even explore the subject is just wrong.

"Punishment is an effective means of controlling childhood behavior, and is not intrinsically harmful to the child."

They're pretty unbiased. They didn't say that it can't hurt children. They also said that the ones that rarely hit their children did well, too. It certainly raises conclusions.

You're right. Because they're not scientists, they can't possibly be right. How silly of me to think that there are other intelligent people besides scientists who have never been wrong in the history of science.

Uh, dude, I've been around these people my whole life. I can see how they are. That is clear analysis and drawing conclusion. If you have no way of knowing my biases, you really shouldn't be commenting on this.
User avatar #114427 to #114420 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
First of all punishment besides corporal punishment exists. Second of all, there are too many confounding variables are present. If they grouped them corporal authoritative, non corporal authoritative etc. that would be an excellent study, they did not do this so the paper doesn't reach any conclusions on the comparison.

They have a clear role in it and the article focuses heavily on unsubstantiated societal conclusions. It's not valid evidence.

They don't base the article on anything tangible, you're trying to draw a scientific conclusion from an unsubstantiated report, so you can fuck off with the sarcasm.

Interesting, you earlier accused the article of being biased and cherry picking because it didn't support your conclusions. Maybe you shouldn't be commenting on that? Anyway, I have no way of knowing who these people are or how they behave. You could be lying, you could be dead wrong. Your anecdotal evidence doesn't mean dick in an argument. It can only contextualize proper evidence.
User avatar #114486 to #114427 - Elk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Okay, you're obviously trying hard not to understand what I'm talking about, and I don't know ho to make it any clearer, so I give up.
User avatar #114491 to #114486 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
I understand exactly what you're talking about. You're just wrong.
#114493 to #114491 - Elk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
**Elk used "*roll picture*"**
**Elk rolled image** You clearly don't, but okay. It's also funny how you say this when everybody else disagrees with you.
User avatar #114495 to #114493 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Fallacious reasoning.
User avatar #114570 to #114495 - Elk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
Everyone has made points, but you don't listen, you dolt.

You keep going, "But muh scientific data!!!!" I'm not responding anymore. If you have any questions, read literally any section of the thread. It doesn't even have to be from our conversation.
User avatar #114571 to #114570 - theism
-1 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
If that's really how you saw it you obviously don't get it. I'm appealing to data because it's quantifiable evidence that can be understood regardless of perspective. You're not appealing to evidence, your following from a foregone conclusion. You made up your mind on the issue a long time ago.
#114568 to #114495 - Elk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
It's not being wrong or smug. I'm just tired of debating because I feel like I'm arguing with a wall that has down syndrome.
User avatar #114569 to #114568 - theism
0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
See, this would make sense if I wasn't engaging your points. I'm giving you reasoning to argue with. Even if you disagree you can still demonstrate why. You're not trying to do that though, which implies to me you don't want to, or cant, back up your points.
User avatar #114566 to #114495 - Elk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
Okay, buddy.
User avatar #114567 to #114566 - theism
0 123456789123345869
(04/28/2016) [-]
Being smug doesn't work when we both know your wrong.
User avatar #114377 to #114375 - Elk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
somehow*
User avatar #114350 to #114348 - pebar
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
good parenting is good parenting
bad parenting is bad parenting

I don't think it's necessarily bad, but it can easily be misused and it should never be relied upon as your only tool of discipline
User avatar #114352 to #114350 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Though it seems the scientific evidence has decided it's a universally bad tool. Not psychologist seems to support it. Dog behaviorist have even removed it from their techniques. It seems like parents should use other methods.
#114343 - unforgivensoul
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
TRUMP WINS

PENNSYLVANIA
MARYLAND
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
RHODE ISLAND



#114351 to #114343 - pebar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
#114391 to #114351 - unforgivensoul
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
#114398 to #114391 - pebar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
#114424 to #114398 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
User avatar #114347 to #114343 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Don't you want Ted Cruz to win?
#114360 to #114347 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
>sees a dozen Trump posts before
>only asks me now
Nice try.
User avatar #114363 to #114360 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
You distinctly said Cruz was your preferred candidate.
#114365 to #114363 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
User avatar #114368 to #114365 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
It was a few months ago. Aren't you a national socialist though? I can see how Trump appeals to that.
#114372 to #114368 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
oh man you're desperate
User avatar #114373 to #114372 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
You aren't a national socialist?
#114374 to #114373 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
I'm gonna keep ignoring you.
User avatar #114376 to #114374 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
I thought you said you were. I guess I was mistaken.
#114354 to #114347 - Elk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
No, he wants Bernie to win.
User avatar #114359 to #114354 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
No I want Trump to win, Bernie has no chance.

Also why must you post such an ugly creature on here, ew
User avatar #114344 to #114343 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
ESTIMATED SPREAD BETWEEN LION AND SHEEP:

RI - 38 POINTS
CONN - 31 POINTS
PENN - 12 POINTS
DEL - 42 POINTS
User avatar #114345 to #114344 - canyou
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
As in 1st vs 2nd?
User avatar #114346 to #114345 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
yes
User avatar #114361 to #114346 - canyou
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/27/2016) [-]
Damn...