Your video, Bible Teachings: Girl spanked to death in the name of god, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Sorry, I assumed "stopped" meant "stopped being legal." So, what about the other forms of equal "abuse..." They are transparently abusive, so would you make them illegal?




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abuse

I just got up and skimmed it and related sites, to me it looks like psychological abuse is treated equally to physical abuse in the USA. I dunno

>> ^acidSpine:

Thought this was going to be a shinnyblurry post but sadly it was only another example of religious bullshit hurting real people. I guess they considered her suffering "worldly" rather than the far more important "godly" suffering Jesus went through or something, christ! I'm not a fucking christian, I don't know how it all works. Long story short, fuck shinnyblurry. He's worried videosift has a left leaning agenda, well good! His dumbshit ideas should be ridiculed. Too bad his posts are so fucking boring I switch off before my thoughs have been regrouped


I'm very confused. shinnyblurry did not post a comment in this section. Slamming someone's character, especially for something s/he did not say in this area isn't what VS is about. I'd say let's keep the unwarranted personal slams to a minimum.

Sorry, I assumed "stopped" meant "stopped being legal." So, what about the other forms of equal "abuse..." They are transparently abusive, so would you make them illegal?

>> ^DerHasisttot:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
We know that kids watching TV is far worse than spanking when one is done in moderation and one is not. And yet TV is abused hours on end as a mean of "babysitting." The argument that spanking needs stopped because there is no clear line is false.
There is no clear line when reckless driving happens. Is a turn without a blinker reckless? (I would say yes.) Is an hour shoved in front of a TV, all so the mom/father don't have to pay attention to the interrupting child abuse? (I would say, "Fuck yes.")
I have cut back on spanking my daughter, not because society says so. I do so because my oldest responds better to love... My second to alternative disciplines and my last, she is too young... However, every child is different.
P.S., In some ways I would have rather died than to have had my mother scream at me until 3 AM (No joke) about what a POS I was... Oh god how I wish she just beat me--then I would be justified for having a fucked mind...
>> ^DerHasisttot:
>> ^MilkmanDan:
I don't think spanking in general is "wrong" in all situations. Parents need to have freedom to decide what they think works best with their children in terms of rewards, punishments, and other systems of encouraging or discouraging specific behaviors.
I'd wager that anyone from the baby boomer generation or older probably grew up experiencing some corporal punishment / spanking along the lines of what the book author was describing. I think that is pretty much the far end of acceptable severity for today, and well beyond what I would do myself, but considering that so many people were exposed to that in previous generations it would be illogical to suggest that it is unacceptable or too extreme.

Spanking needs to remain illegal. There is no clearly defined line otherwise between the moment you're spanking and the moment you are too/even more brutal. Imho, spanking above a light pat is always unnecessary and counterproductive, but I don't have children yet, so disregard my opinion if you guys want.
The 'older generations did it and all worked out' argument is not a good one. Older generations were not scientifically researched, at least my google-searches returned negative. It is not illogical to assume that it is unacceptable or too extreme.


I did not say 'stopped,' I said it should be illegal. So when there is a case of abuse, a parent cannot just fall back on: "It was just a spanking." Under the rule of law, the right to be unharmed should stand above all punishments.

>> ^VoodooV:

I don't think you can say with any credibility that these parents spanked their child.
Spanking is slapping them with the open hand and it's usually done on the buttocks where there is some padding.
They didn't spank her, they BEAT her with a metal rod.
You can't compare the mild spanking a regular parent might do with what these monsters did. And yeah, I'd be VERY curious to see if the white kids and the black kids got equal "training"


Damn strait. I was spanked and after a few seconds it didn't even hurt anymore.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

We know that kids watching TV is far worse than spanking when one is done in moderation and one is not. And yet TV is abused hours on end as a mean of "babysitting." The argument that spanking needs stopped because there is no clear line is false.
There is no clear line when reckless driving happens. Is a turn without a blinker reckless? (I would say yes.) Is an hour shoved in front of a TV, all so the mom/father don't have to pay attention to the interrupting child abuse? (I would say, "Fuck yes.")
I have cut back on spanking my daughter, not because society says so. I do so because my oldest responds better to love... My second to alternative disciplines and my last, she is too young... However, every child is different.
P.S., In some ways I would have rather died than to have had my mother scream at me until 3 AM (No joke) about what a POS I was... Oh god how I wish she just beat me--then I would be justified for having a fucked mind...
>> ^DerHasisttot:
>> ^MilkmanDan:
I don't think spanking in general is "wrong" in all situations. Parents need to have freedom to decide what they think works best with their children in terms of rewards, punishments, and other systems of encouraging or discouraging specific behaviors.
I'd wager that anyone from the baby boomer generation or older probably grew up experiencing some corporal punishment / spanking along the lines of what the book author was describing. I think that is pretty much the far end of acceptable severity for today, and well beyond what I would do myself, but considering that so many people were exposed to that in previous generations it would be illogical to suggest that it is unacceptable or too extreme.

Spanking needs to remain illegal. There is no clearly defined line otherwise between the moment you're spanking and the moment you are too/even more brutal. Imho, spanking above a light pat is always unnecessary and counterproductive, but I don't have children yet, so disregard my opinion if you guys want.
The 'older generations did it and all worked out' argument is not a good one. Older generations were not scientifically researched, at least my google-searches returned negative. It is not illogical to assume that it is unacceptable or too extreme.



I did not say 'stopped,' I said it should be illegal. So when there is a case of abuse, a parent cannot just fall back on: "It was just a spanking." Under the rule of law, the right to be unharmed should stand above all punishments.

We know that kids watching TV is far worse than spanking when one is done in moderation and one is not. And yet TV is abused hours on end as a mean of "babysitting." The argument that spanking needs stopped because there is no clear line is false.

There is no clear line when reckless driving happens. Is a turn without a blinker reckless? (I would say yes.) Is an hour shoved in front of a TV, all so the mom/father don't have to pay attention to the interrupting child abuse? (I would say, "Fuck yes.")

I have cut back on spanking my daughter, not because society says so. I do so because my oldest responds better to love... My second to alternative disciplines and my last, she is too young... However, every child is different.

P.S., In some ways I would have rather died than to have had my mother scream at me until 3 AM (No joke) about what a POS I was... Oh god how I wish she just beat me--then I would be justified for having a fucked mind...

>> ^DerHasisttot:

>> ^MilkmanDan:
I don't think spanking in general is "wrong" in all situations. Parents need to have freedom to decide what they think works best with their children in terms of rewards, punishments, and other systems of encouraging or discouraging specific behaviors.
I'd wager that anyone from the baby boomer generation or older probably grew up experiencing some corporal punishment / spanking along the lines of what the book author was describing. I think that is pretty much the far end of acceptable severity for today, and well beyond what I would do myself, but considering that so many people were exposed to that in previous generations it would be illogical to suggest that it is unacceptable or too extreme.

Spanking needs to remain illegal. There is no clearly defined line otherwise between the moment you're spanking and the moment you are too/even more brutal. Imho, spanking above a light pat is always unnecessary and counterproductive, but I don't have children yet, so disregard my opinion if you guys want.
The 'older generations did it and all worked out' argument is not a good one. Older generations were not scientifically researched, at least my google-searches returned negative. It is not illogical to assume that it is unacceptable or too extreme.

>> ^MilkmanDan:

I don't think spanking in general is "wrong" in all situations. Parents need to have freedom to decide what they think works best with their children in terms of rewards, punishments, and other systems of encouraging or discouraging specific behaviors.
I'd wager that anyone from the baby boomer generation or older probably grew up experiencing some corporal punishment / spanking along the lines of what the book author was describing. I think that is pretty much the far end of acceptable severity for today, and well beyond what I would do myself, but considering that so many people were exposed to that in previous generations it would be illogical to suggest that it is unacceptable or too extreme.


Spanking needs to remain illegal. There is no clearly defined line otherwise between the moment you're spanking and the moment you are too/even more brutal. Imho, spanking above a light pat is always unnecessary and counterproductive, but I don't have children yet, so disregard my opinion if you guys want.

The 'older generations did it and all worked out' argument is not a good one. Older generations were not scientifically researched, at least my google-searches returned negative. It is not illogical to assume that it is unacceptable or too extreme.

this is pretty brutal.the raw footage makes it even more visceral.
this is technically snuff but with redeeming value in the sense of staring horror in the face.
and this IS horror.
the horror of fundamentalism.
the horror that a group-think mentality fueled by religious dogma could so easily persuade a human being to take a bat to another human beings head while the onlookers cheer.
the horror that these very same people believe with all their hearts they are doing "gods work" and are justified in their brutality perpetrated on another human being.
the horror that maybe another fundamentalist from another religion may watch this and feel a sense of duty to pick up a gun or some other weapon and stand as a "holy warrior" to enact a justice demanded by "their god" against the muslim zealot.
the horror of the cycle of the fundamentalists justifications and rationalizations to perpetrate atrocities against their fellow man all in the name of "god".
this is not holy.
this is not sacred.
there is no justification.
there can be no rationalization.
this is murder.
this is horror.
so look in to face of religious zealotry and know horror.

or maybe you would prefer a pretty face reading from a teleprompter?
and you can gasp in shock at the atrocity while never actually having to LOOK at it.
never having to come too close...
or see too much...
and while you may be aware there is evil in the world,
it is far away and no where near your tiny,safe and small little world.
if that is the case well then go back to sleep little one.
everything is ok in your little bubble of existence and the boogeyman resides far away from your shores.
go back to the mind numbing game shows and american idol.
go back to your 9 to 5 while your soul slowly bleeds out.
repost your favorite cat video on facebook and comment on some arbitrary and pointless poll and pat yourself on the back for your "contributions to society".
go back to sleep.

sudan, egypt, indonesia

muslims killing natives and christians in the name of god....need links? just ask.

That's what they said about Jesus too..He said:

But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons."

Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.

If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand?

And if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges.

But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.



>> ^KnivesOut:
Hmm, maybe you're the demon!>> ^shinyblurry:
It's hard to say..they may or may not be saved. I believe the spirit of God dwells in all Christians but Catholics do a lot of things antithetical to the bible. Anyone calling upon the name of God has a good chance against a demon, but it could just be a denomic deception as well..making it seem like they have power over Satan when they are in fact impotent.

Hmm, maybe you're the demon!>> ^shinyblurry:

It's hard to say..they may or may not be saved. I believe the spirit of God dwells in all Christians but Catholics do a lot of things antithetical to the bible. Anyone calling upon the name of God has a good chance against a demon, but it could just be a denomic deception as well..making it seem like they have power over Satan when they are in fact impotent.

It's hard to say..they may or may not be saved. I believe the spirit of God dwells in all Christians but Catholics do a lot of things antithetical to the bible. Anyone calling upon the name of God has a good chance against a demon, but it could just be a denomic deception as well..making it seem like they have power over Satan when they are in fact impotent.

When I speak of "God" to Christians, I usually speak to them in terms of a colloquial personal god, and sometimes I use the Einsteinian meaning of creation or nature. I find it bizarre, and frankly a bit misleading, to use it to mean their fundamental teachings and their effects. That's very bizarre indeed.

Quick point of information: it's not volunteerist society; it's voluntaryist society. I don't want you thinking I'm talking about people volunteering out of the goodness of their hearts to run some form of public works projects.

Just like your bizarre and revisionist definition of God, you're also following a bad trend of modern society to change the definitions of free markets to suit a political end; in your case, conflating free markets with the negative impacts of corporatists. When I point out the differences, you loudly profess that you don't care if you're painting the two with the same broad brush. That's where ignorance begins, dft. And ignorance isn't a moral high ground.

Free markets are as idealistic and utopian as freedom itself. There's no more an invisible deity that guides free people to make free choices than there's an invisible hand guiding their free exchanges.

1. Wait, wait, wait. I never said selfishness was a virtue while empathy and compassion was evil. Please don't put words in my mouth. That said, what assertions in favor of free markets require evidence? That they've helped humanity? I think you mean capitalism. There are loads of examples, dft. The entire industrialized revolution which lifted poorer generations out of poverty is a good place to start. Today live longer, healthier lives which is the result of capitalism. Even Karl Marx understood the necessity of capitalism in the betterment of human lives and saw it as an evolution.

2. Corporations are fair-weather. They enjoy regulated markets as long as they're regulated in a way that benefits them. Corporations hate competition, which is the cornerstone of free markets. There's absolutely zero connection between corporations and free markets (i.e., the free and voluntary exchange of people without coercion).

3. My view isn't "utopic"; it's the real definition. You speak here again about capitalism, which is dangerous, I agree. Corporations collude with government to use unilateral aggression in areas of the world that have plentiful natural resources. It's robbery. It's greed. And it's horrendous. And I stand in open opposition to it. But to me this is ultimately the failing of government and the centralized bank system, but that's a whole other conversation.

4. Meh.

5. Doesn't matter. If we have to change the definition of free markets, then so be it. We had to change the definition of liberal from it's original meaning to now embody anti-liberals like yourself.

6. Surely. But go back and read what you initially wrote. Comes off as alarmist and paranoid.

7. No. This was about government "implementing" reforms as being part of the free market. You're changing the criteria now. I would NOT agree that "taking power away from labor" is a principle of the free markets. Remember, free markets are voluntary exchanges between people without coercion.

8. I have no idea what you're getting at. This started with a comment about chaos where there's no taxation. Still irrelevant.

9. Hahaha. Talk about utopian! That's what we have today.

Nah, you don't need to purchase the book for me. I can do that myself. And, to be honest, I don't want to give you a reading assignment, because I doubt that will benefit our differences in world beliefs.

And I know you're more of a Social Democrat than a Docialist. Funny thing, the social democrat is disliked by both the Libertarians and the Marxists equally. Marxists tend to think Social Democrats perverted the socialist movement. Marxists and Libertarians (don't think the party) have a lot in common in terms of how they view human interactions and the evolution of human society. Tangent.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
When I argue with Christians, I sometimes use the word God, which is occasionally confusing to them considering the fact that I don't believe in God. When I refer to God, I'm not really talking about God, but rather Biblical doctrine, it's real world effects and the words and attitudes of its adherents. Abstractly I don't object to an all knowing, all loving God that answers prayers and reunites you with your loved ones after death, but I do object to all the real world suffering and strife that seems to be done in the name of God. If you were to say, "it's not God's fault", you would be correct.

Similarly, when I speak of "free markets", I am not talking about your idealized utopic vision of a volunteerist sociecty, I am actually referring to market doctrine, it's real world effects and the words and attitudes of it's adherents. Abstractly I don't object to a volunteerist utopia. Abstractly I don't object to any utopia. The problem is that I don't believe in utopia - be it one with invisible hands or one with invisible deities. I do object to all the real world suffering and strife that seems to be done in the name of unfettered markets.

It's not the Free Market's fault.

1. Concepts do not have the capacity for thought or emotion, nor the ability to speak, so I agree with you that free markets do not state anything, however, it's adherents - Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand and yourself - in defense of free markets assert their affection for greed and selfishness, while cursing the evils of empathy, compassion and dogooderism. They never provide any evidence to support these assertions, and real world evidence seems to contradict these assertions.

2. I understand that corporatism has no place in your utopic vision of a free market, but that doesn't seem to stop corporations from bankrolling the free market movement. I'm not sure if corporations think they exist within the spirit of the free market or if they are just using the free market as a tool to manipulate people into supporting plutocracy. Either way, corporatism and the free market are in completely solidarity on subjects of taxes, deregulation, privatization and organized labor.

3. Again, I understand that violence and coercion have no place in your utopic vision, but in the real world, as illustrated in great detail in The Shock Doctrine, coercion and force seem to be the only reliable methods of forcing market principles of austerity on an unwilling public.

4. Again, I understand that concepts are not capable of promoting ideals, but adherents to free market ideology use anti-scientific arguments against climate change regulation. I would respect their arguments more if they were based on the principle that regulations should not be used, even in the face of environmental disaster. It wouldn't be a very persuasive argument, but at least it would have some integrity.

5. Write off corporatists and Republicans all you like, but they outnumber you by the billions. If you are all fighting for 'free markets', whose vision of the free market do you think will win the day? Probably not yours.

6. Keeping people from joining together is a time honored totalitarian tactic. I can cite you examples if you need them.

7. Would you agree that deregulation, privatization, taking power away from labor and lowering taxes are free market principals? Is there some reason why these principles should not function as you intend them to if they are implemented by force? Milton Friedman has lavished much praise on the free market reforms put in place by authoritarian regimes. Only one of you can be correct, and I'm siding with you on this one.

8. An unregulated market is an unregulated market is an unregulated market.

9. A better system: A balance of 'pro employee' socialism with 'pro employer' capitalism where free enterprise is allowed to thrive, but abuse of labor, the economy, the political system or the environment is not.

10. This is pretty much the same as 5, but I wanted to make it an even 10, so....

11. Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?


I know you said you didn't want to be spoonfed by a liberal, which I took to mean you don't want to read about "The Shock Doctrine" from the person who wrote "The Shock Doctrine". How's about a bargain, if you read the book, I'll promise to read something you care about of similar length. Freidman? Adam Smith? Selma Von Heyak? Whatever you want me to read, so long as it is a legit, important mainstream book. Also, I'd send you the book in the mail so you don't have to give your money to some pinko commie bitch, and I'll use my own cash to buy 'Road to Serfdom' or whatever it is you want me to read. It's only appropriate for the socialist* to give his book away, while purchasing the capitalist book.

Fair?

In all honesty, I think you'd get a lot out of the book. All of the dirty deeds are carried out by governments, corporations and Chicago based economists. None of it lives up to your ideal of a free market and all of it could be correctly defined as statism. It really makes sense of our foreign policy; which nations are chosen and why; why every president seems to have to have his own conflict... I'm officially anti-Libya now (I'm sure your happy to hear this) because the CIA is a recurring theme in all of these tales and they are usually the ones that teach strategic foreign allies how to torture, kill and disappear anyone who stands up to the despotic puppet of choice. The only negative you might get out of the book is seeing how closely Friedman works with the government, the right wing and despotic dictators. It's all cited and footnoted. If Chomsky were into some nasty shit, I wouldn't be happy about it, but I'd want to know.

Have a bitchen summer. - dft

*dft is not really a socialist. He wants a system that balances the rights of the worker with the rights of the boss.