h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I said "Of course you should. As long as the government stays the hell out."

you said
"I don't understand this - you agree with it, so why do you have a problem with the government promoting it apart from a knee-jerk opposition to government itself. Except I'm assuming you don't have a problem with the government promoting the idea that murder is wrong or rape should be punished with gaol.

Apologies for the long post, there was just a lot of ground to cover."

I agree with most all of it as guidelines. Yes a child should be educated, live somewhere, have a name, etc.
No, the government should not be involved. You said many times that the government is voted on. This is why its not there place. Many people don't want the same things that the majority do. As long as something doesn't infringe on their rights, they should have the right to do it. These "rights" of the child, are all decent things. But they require the majority to take from the minority in order to enact hem, and also set the stage for the majority determining what the minorities children should do/know and how they should live. Yes, government can, if there must be government, protect against murder and rape. That is their primary and only objective. To protect everyone. Not to protect random things that the majority want in a certain age group.

>Many people don't want the same things that the majority do.<

Right. And in a democracy, they have the right to find out whether they are really a minority, and, if not, do something about who sits "up there in the guvmint". Or move somewhere where their views are common views. Or adapt. Or stop whining.

>>and [I] am now a father of 8<<

8 kids! I thought you only had a couple. To be honest, I'm astonished you can find a woman who'd want to copulate with you 8 times.

It's times like this that I am forced to question my support for the welfare state.

>>As a parent, I'm obviously concerned about the future well-being of my children, and would advise them according to my knowledge/experience.<<

Advising them is fine, it's what a good father would do. However, you're not a good father so, by your own admission, what you do is beat them with weapons. Because a man in his 50s clearly needs weaponry to beat his teenaged children.

And I think you need to ask yourself: do your kids do as asked/instructed because they respect you or because they fear you? If the threat of violence (and threats can be considered abuse, whether or not they are carried out) was removed, would they still be so obedient?

>>There IS an increase in breakdowns of 'the family' these days, especially in western society<<

Except there isn't: marriage rates have gone down, but divorce rates have gone down more. The average length of a marriage has increased in the past few years.

>>There is also an increase in 'disrespect of elders', which can only cause strife & misery, in the long run.<<

What an utterly meaningless assertion - how does one quantify disrespect of elders? And why should elders be automatically respected because of their age? I've got *zero* respect for the 'elders' of the community I grew up in - I'm way smarter than any of them, I've far better educated and employed and I don't beat people for being gay.

They've done nothing to earn my respect - failing to die isn't a praiseworthy accomplishment.

>>The parents also have a right to be 'listened to' and respected<<

No they don't. Respect is earned. Just because a person is too stupid to use contraception doesn't mean they should get respect. If they've had a bigger family than they can support, they deserve the opposite.

>>it might be necessary, however, for the welfare/stabilty of the rest of the family, to 'pay less attention' to a 'runaway yp', as they refused to listen to your advice previously!<<

Again, if a family is so unstable that it can be damaged by someone making their own choices, it deserves to fall and the fault will lie with the parents, not the kid.

This sounded rude, so I apologize. But I mean it.

>>Many people don't want the same things that the majority do.<<

I'm sorry, but that's how a democracy works - if you don't like that, then you need to argue for a non-democratic form of government. Good luck with that.

>>But they require the majority to take from the minority in order to enact them<<

How?! Rights aren't zero-sum: you can give one person rights without taking away from others.

>>Yes, government can, if there must be government, protect against murder and rape. That is their primary and only objective. To protect everyone. Not to protect random things that the majority want in a certain age group.<<

Right, I'm breaking it off here. I thought you were trying to have a reasonably rational argument but this quote shows you aren't. What you've said is that 'government should protect everyone, except it shouldn't.'

Iago,
>>I've got *zero* respect for the 'elders' of the community I grew up in<<
That says it all - ta ta

If you must continue to childishly call me names, be prepared to take as much as you give, within reason ...
"an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth"
and remember, I have as much right to contribute to hootoo as you do ... and the more 'personal remarks' that are made, the more likely it is to cause the mods extra work!

Peace

>an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth<

Warner, it´s not often that I agree with you - but if done on a friendly basis, instead of the flame war this thread is developing into...I´m with you, that´s hootoo.

In some cases, a tooth for an eye:

http://www.squidoo.com/MOOKP

Ed

You said:
>>Am I saying that all teachers who cane enjoy it? Why...yes I am. The ones who don't have never done it.<<
*post 437*

You still haven't answered my question ...
Why do you believe that *all* teachers enjoy caning?
(which I understand as administering physical punishment)

Don't you think that that remark is extremely unlikely to be true and is insulting and unreasonable?
Peace

>>If you must continue to childishly call me names, be prepared to take as much as you give, within reason ...<<

Threats are against the House Rules warner and you can't afford to be modded again. Luckily for you, I consider you threats to be utterly laughable and invite you to bring it on.

I will point out that I have not called you any names: I merely repeated something you yourself have said and drew an inference from that - namely someone who uses weapons to beat their children (as you've proudly boasted) cannot call themselves a good parent.

As for the rest of the post: I was displaying a general garment. If you're claiming it was cut to fit you, I think that says more about you than me. How interesting.

With the respecting elders bit, I will add this point: with the possible exception of Iluvatar and Pit, whose ages I do not know, I'm the youngest person in this conversation. I respect most of my fellow contributors but not because they are older than me, but because their posts are witty, insightful, well-researched and a pleasure to read.

Respect is earned. They have earned my respect. You - emphatically - have not.

Unfair, unfair - using science to make the lame see, or whatever! I can understand how and why it works, but have the Vatican/Mullahs/Shamans ratified ir yet?

warner said: 'You still haven't answered my question'


How ironic.

warner, for the fourth time: do you agree with the scholars who claim the reward for a martyr is 72 virgins or with those who claim the word actually means 'raisins' rather than 'virgins'?

anhaga
virgins ... raisins?
I swear by God, the Most High that I don't know what you're talking about!

The reward for a martyr, hmm ... you must be referring to hadith, I suppose. Is it a strong or weak hadith? ... can't you do your own research?

I'm happy that ANY sincere, rightfully-guided martyr will be 'well taken care of' ... they will have their heart's desire.
Peace

'I swear by God, the Most High that I don't know what you're talking about!'


warner. Thanks for acknowledging my question finally. Carry on with your scripture study.

Hmmm, OK, I see >ANY sincere, rightfully-guided martyr .<
Now, who decides who is rightful, and therefore allowed to guide a self styled martyr? I won´t mention 9/11, but I think Hitler believed in being guided, too.

Warner:
Please do not address any further remarks towards ,e.

Mods:
I am somewhat concerned that you have not yet acted on warners a) libel of me and b) his advocacy of illegal activities.

Do I really have to call a lawyer? As some here already know, I *do* have a prominent QC (and advocate of Human Rights) in my phone's address book...

Ed, look up, the post has been pulled because it broke the House Rules. Emails are taking a while at the moment because it's just Sam on his own and he's got a ton of MOT stuff to do.

The libellous post has been removed, there's no need to worry about it.

As for the advocacy of illegal activities: no-one has yikesed him about it. The s can't act until we yikes him.

My post 446 which Ed (and possibly others) considered potentially libelous, has been removed.

I don't think Ed has anything to worry about, as his comments are often made in a light-hearted manner

I'm not aware that smacking of children in an appropriate manner is illegal in the UK (yet!) ...

Peace

>>I'm not aware that smacking of children in an appropriate manner is illegal in the UK<<

How many times do we have to say it warner? What you do isn't smacking your children in an appropriate manner - it is akin to child abuse.

That said, I think it might be the case that using a weapon to 'discipline' a child, is illegal now - I'd have to look it up though to be certain. In which case you have made posts advocating illegal actions.