The other point to make here, is that google/facebook/twitter/whatever do no make LAWS that punishes people. They are private companies that are free to choose what not to publish/allow on their servers/channels. That is THEIR right. Being banned from youtube is not the same as being put in jail.
>> ^hpqp:

I imagine you're referencing those instances in which he speaks out against blasphemy laws, which have absolutely nothing to do with hate speech. Blasphemy laws make it illegal to criticise someone's beliefs, hate speech laws make it illegal to incite hatred and violence against people because of their nature (gender/ethnicity/sexual orientation).
I am all against blasphemy laws, but I support legislation against hate speech. It is not hate speech to say, for example, that the Qur'an (and the Bible/Torah for that matter) is full of violence, hate and intolerance, and that Mohammad was a warmongerer and a pedophile. It is hate speech to say that men and women deserve death and eternal torture for loving someone of the same sex, and I would go further: teaching that ignorant belief to children is not only spiteful and irresponsible, but is a form of child abuse.
>> ^marinara:
So hpqp, when Pat Condell complains about free speech being impinged by hate speech legislation, you're all against it. But when Christians say the exact same thing, you have to switch sides? Rhetorical question OFC.

I imagine you're referencing those instances in which he speaks out against blasphemy laws, which have absolutely nothing to do with hate speech. Blasphemy laws make it illegal to criticise someone's beliefs, hate speech laws make it illegal to incite hatred and violence against people because of their nature (gender/ethnicity/sexual orientation).

I am all against blasphemy laws, but I support legislation against hate speech. It is not hate speech to say, for example, that the Qur'an (and the Bible/Torah for that matter) is full of violence, hate and intolerance, and that Mohammad was a warmongerer and a pedophile. It is hate speech to say that men and women deserve death and eternal torture for loving someone of the same sex, and I would go further: teaching that ignorant belief to children is not only spiteful and irresponsible, but is a form of child abuse.

>> ^marinara:

So hpqp, when Pat Condell complains about free speech being impinged by hate speech legislation, you're all against it. But when Christians say the exact same thing, you have to switch sides? Rhetorical question OFC.

>> ^A10anis:

You only have to look at his followers to see the type of desperate person who needs this nonsense. Regarding the children? ALL cults, and i include all faiths, who brain wash kids are guilty of child abuse. As an adult believe what you want, but keep the children separate and free from your warped, crazy, dangerous delusions until they are old enough to make up their OWN minds.


brain washing kids is fine , you just have to make sure you are brain washing them with critical thinking and an understanding of science.

You only have to look at his followers to see the type of desperate person who needs this nonsense. Regarding the children? ALL cults, and i include all faiths, who brain wash kids are guilty of child abuse. As an adult believe what you want, but keep the children separate and free from your warped, crazy, dangerous delusions until they are old enough to make up their OWN minds.

This makes me, and should make every right minded individual, nauseous. Bad enough that we are subjected to adult, money grabbing, manipulative, evangelical nut jobs; now we have to witness the brainwashed children being used for the same purpose. Why are the religious allowed to get away with what, in any other context than religion, would be rightly classified as child abuse???

Awww. Child abuse.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Mom Blows, Marijuana, Smoke, Infant, Face, Calm Her Down' to 'jessica callaway, pot, Marijuana, Smoke, Infant, crying, child abuse' - edited by xxovercastxx

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/This-woman-wins-WORST-PARENT-award

Thanks for pointing out that this is actually, legally determined to be child-abuse though.

I wish Dub actually worked like this against child abusers.

Umm, that's not really true at all...in America there is a book on how to be a pedophile that was/is sold... Of course it teaches how to do it "gently" and be "reciprocal," but you get my point... This book was not written in any religious manner...

It has nothing to do with tolerance of anything besides the dark side of humanity. It has to do with the fact that there are 650,000 sick fucks out there. Just like there are pedo-people...

>> ^hpqp:

And yet these psychopaths can sell over 650'000 copies of their child abuse manual and get away with it, because of the sick tolerance towards religion.
>> ^laura:
"Let's say a 7 year old slugs his sister?"
"He would get...a 7 year old would get ten or fifteen licks, and it would be a formal setting, in other words, you maintain your patient air, you explain to him that what he's done was VIOLENT, and that that's not acceptable in society, and that's not acceptable in our home...and I would take him somewhere like into his bedroom and I would tell him I'm gonna give him fifteen licks, ..."
"With what?"
"With probably a belt, with a kid that big, a boy...I'd probably use, a belt would be handy...I might use a wooden spoon, or um, a piece of um, uh like plumbing supply line a quarter inch in diameter, flexible enough to roll up."
That should be admissible in court. Beat them in their bedrooms because violence is not acceptable in your home? Fuck you.

And yet these psychopaths can sell over 650'000 copies of their child abuse manual and get away with it, because of the sick tolerance towards religion.

>> ^laura:

"Let's say a 7 year old slugs his sister?"
"He would get...a 7 year old would get ten or fifteen licks, and it would be a formal setting, in other words, you maintain your patient air, you explain to him that what he's done was VIOLENT, and that that's not acceptable in society, and that's not acceptable in our home...and I would take him somewhere like into his bedroom and I would tell him I'm gonna give him fifteen licks, ..."
"With what?"
"With probably a belt, with a kid that big, a boy...I'd probably use, a belt would be handy...I might use a wooden spoon, or um, a piece of um, uh like plumbing supply line a quarter inch in diameter, flexible enough to roll up."
That should be admissible in court. Beat them in their bedrooms because violence is not acceptable in your home? Fuck you.

@Lawdeedaw said: "And I like how you named this post, "Spare the rod...or spoil the child." The "or" is what notes the tolerance you are developing towards religion--as though religion is not particularly responsible for this child's death..."

I didn't think I'd have to spell this out, but...
You clearly misread the title, which is: ""Spare the rod"... or murder your daughter in God's name"

It is a play on the Bible verses that Samuel Butler condenses in his epigram, which suggests that if you don't discipline (with beatings) your kid it will grow up spoiled. My title argues that it is preferable to "spare the rod", i.e. go against the Bible's teachings.

Speaking of the Bible, doesn't it also say parents should kill their kids if they diss them (Lev.20:9/Deut.21:18-21)? And doesn't even el Jeebs himself recall this commandment when accusing the Pharisees of not following the law (Mt.15:4/Mk.7:9-13)?

edit: and yes, I do think religion is responsible for this child's death. It is religion that gave birth to Psycho Joy Ministries, and which let their child-abuse manual become popular instead of shut down.

edit 2: for more examples of widescale, institutionalised, Christian-run abuse of children, with the help of the gvt: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/08/17/tough-love-thuggery-under-jesus-loving-hands/


I have no tolerance for the indoctrination and perpetuation of lies, fear and superstition. I have no tolerance for religion( =/= religious people).

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.