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

I'm not advocating anyone to break the law! I've made it quite clear that I'm not an anarchist ...

However, I believe that I have every right to debate the subject of 'corporeal punishment', and its appropriate use, and point out that it's backed up by scripture. The fact that many people don't believe in this scripture does not affect my right to free speech, SURELY?

Anybody accusing me of breaking the law, by accusing me of 'child abuse' is defamatory and against the house rules. I'm not aware of telling people that I'm in any way involved in 'beating my children' or causing them mental distress etc, although having 8 children and the associated responsibilties that entails, I cannot say that I'm a perfect person that never sins, slaps, shouts, and I don't really think that ANYBODY is (a perfect person).

I overwhelmingly agree that govt (social services etc.) should monitor children/families they think are at risk of significant abuse, most responsible citizens would.
It's quite obvious to me, that 'we' have to be sensible about this, and not continually make ridiculous 'personal defamatory remarks' about people's parenting because they despise ( or dislike) their religion.
Peace

Well, warner, I think we can agree that suggestions as to the nature of my sexual fantasies are off limits. Agreed?

I've plenty of other places to discuss them. But not here, not with warner.

Warner,
I have been slapped across the face. Twice. Once by my father and once by my teacher, and in both cases they were right. But

>point out that it's backed up by scripture.<

It had the effect of kicking my brain into thinking about what I had done wrong. Are you really as feeble-brained as to need scripture instead of being an example for your children by yourself?

Ed, for what it's worth, so far I've found that section 1 of the children and young persons act 1933 and section 58 of the children act 2004 relate to the question of whacking kids: http://www.uk-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1933/cukpga_19330012_en_2#pt1-pb1-l1g1 and http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2004/ukpga_20040031_en_6#pt5-pb4-l1g58

I've also found a reference to using an implement being illegal, but I've not found such in an Act.

This is a handy bit of information for parents: http://www.childrenslegalcentre.com/OneStopCMS/Core/CrawlerResourceServer.aspx?resource=40A9C9D9-9FA3-465D-A91B-1265C036A2AA&mode=link&guid=2e53fecc8c434067ae167ca08f224db9

Ed
What you said (post 502) ... agreed!
Peace

No. I was not asking for your peace. Merely for your silence. Hands off my sex life...and anyone else's.

>>I'm not advocating anyone to break the law!<<

Okay, perhaps advocating illegal actions is a bit strong, but you've certainly been boasting about them, to demonstrate your piety.

>>The fact that many people don't believe in this scripture does not affect my right to free speech, SURELY?<<

Wrong - you try and quote what the Qu'ran says about doing to folk like me and see how quickly you get whacked with the modding stick.

>>Anybody accusing me of breaking the law, by accusing me of 'child abuse' is defamatory and against the house rules.<<

Except defamation requires the accusations to be baseless or false: in this case you've stated it yourself in this very forum. We're not making stuff up, we're simply reminding you of something you yourself have written.

And it's not even like we saying it simply to be cruel, even though your behaviour hardly invites kindness, we're saying it because you are trying to lecture us on good parenting when frankly, you wouldn't know a good parent if they hit you in the face. Abandon the hypocrisy and the reminders of your manifest inability to raise children will stop.

>>I'm not aware of telling people that I'm in any way involved in 'beating my children' or causing them mental distress etc<<

Well, that's not a problem because there are decent, honest folk on here who do remember you posting such things. It's interesting that your stance changed from the declarative "I definitely didn't" to the equivocal "I don't remember/I'm not aware/why would I say that?" as soon as people start reminding you that you did indeed make such posts. It's almost as if you know that someone who could be bothered could find said posts and you want to give yourself a get-out clause.

>>although having 8 children and the associated responsibilties that entails<<

Part of the responsibility of being a parent is providing for your kids financially: do you do that warner or does the tax-payer? Please desist with the hypocrisy.

>>It's quite obvious to me, that 'we' have to be sensible about this, and not continually make ridiculous 'personal defamatory remarks' about people's parenting because they despise ( or dislike) their religion.<<

Now *that* is a defamatory remark, claiming that I'm attacking you because I'm Islamophobic. Given that I work in a school with several hundred Muslim children and dozens of Muslim staff, it is an accusation that could be quite damaging. Make it again and I will you. Am I making myself clear warner?

I have nothing especial against your religion. My dislike for you is because of your actions, thoughts and posts which I think any decent moral person would find reprehensible.

Ed
Please yourself ... you're another one who doesn't like what scripture has to say about sexual conduct, it seems ...
Peace

There's no point in me continuing in this thread, I'm not here to be a troublemaker.

I see the person who started it has unsubbed

Keep making your threats, if that's what pleases you ... I don't like 'calling for the teacher' all the time, but I might just have to ... if certain people keep behaving as they are

Peace

>>Keep making your threats, if that's what pleases you<<

I'm not making a threat, I'm making a promise. Libel me again by calling me Islamophobic and I will yikes you. Is that clear?

>>I don't like 'calling for the teacher' all the time, but I might just have to<<

I'm assuming that means you've yikesed someone. Who? The only post that I can see missing is yours. I do like how you keep on saying you'll yikes folk when you've had more posts removed in your 10 months here than I've had in nearly 7 years.

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

Ignorance of the law is no defence.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/47049/0025077.pdf

RF

Thank you, Nakhanda. I was about to quote.

Mow, Mods...

C'mon. You've had me in the past for music piracy and suggesting that some people actually *enjoy* the odd spliff. I somewhat feel that violence towards children is a more important legal issue than either of these.

And could you please do something about warner mentioning my private life - as he's just done again?

Surely what the scripture has to say about sexual conduct is about as relevant as what Anne Widdecombe has to say about council estates: not very.

"Or move somewhere where their views are common views. Or adapt. Or stop whining."

Lets not consider the last two, as one could then argue just to adapt and stop whining about slavery back when the majority was for it. Move somewhere else is fine, as long as there is somewhere else. Where did the slaves in the early US have to go? And don't say it is a different issue, because the issue is not the point. The point is that none of those three things are viable solutions for fixing the problem of the majority controlling the minority. We should have 50 states with all different beliefs and laws with the federal gov. staying away. And then came the interstate commerse clause, and now they don't even care about that, but just tell states to do whatever they want regardless.

"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."

Actually that has not the slightest to do with what I said, so please don't put words in my ... post. I said

"To protect everyone. Not to protect random things that the majority want in a certain age group."

Basically, to protect everyone equally, they cannot enact random protections that the majority wants if these protections infringe on higher rights to be protected of others. "protecting" these "rights" of the child wpuld be infringing on other rights, like parental rights and property rights. I am not discriminatory with rights.

Warner,The Majority Ruling - that´s democracy. Protecting your right to have a differing opinion and shouting it out loud.

"Sire, I think your opinion objectionable. But I´ll fight to my very death for your right to speak it"(Some Frenchman, they had their revolution about the time you had yours)

>>Actually that has not the slightest to do with what I said, so please don't put words in my ... post. I said<<

My apologies, perhaps I misread. Having to deal with warner can put you in a combative state of mind.

To me, the UNDRC isn't random, it seems fairly systematic to me - each right follows from the next and none of the individual rights seem controversial to me.

Do you agree that there is a hierarchy of rights, with some rights taking precedence over others? Your right not to be stalked trumps my right to freedom of movement, warner's right to free speech is trumped by my right not to be called queer.

I'm not sure how giving rights to kids undermines anyones property rights

>> I'm not sure how giving rights to kids undermines anyones property rights <<

I can see how the "right to housing" could be used to undermine a lender's right to repossess a property following default on a mortgage.

RF

Giving kids (unspecified how long one is a kid) rights (unspecified about, ie what proper schooling is) is just lip service of politicians saying "Now look! We do wonderful things for the stupid money you silly idiots pay us."