# Thought provoking



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

https://srsg.violenceagainstchildren.org/page/children_world_map

Most of South America and the old Warsaw Pact more civilized towards children than North America, the UK and Ireland!!!

Shame on us all!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Shame on those that beat children.

Leave the rest of "us all" out of it!!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

An action can be reprehensible whether it is legislated against or not! Are you claiming a law must be passed for a society to be able to differentiate between right and wrong/good and evil? :icon_scratch:


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> An action can be reprehensible whether it is legislated against or not! Are you claiming a law must be passed for a society to be able to differentiate between right and wrong/good and evil? :icon_scratch:


I would claim such. That would include all laws that have been passed throughout history, both religious and governmental.

Go raise your kids in the woods and you can raise them to be whatever you desire. Otherwise society cuts in.

You have firearms "just in case", why?

Do the recent riots not show the base nature of mankind?

Of course laws aren't perfect or a solve all but many are there to remind us that we are trying to be better than others in the animal kingdom


----------



## ChrisRS (Sep 22, 2014)

eagle2250 said:


> An action can be reprehensible whether it is legislated against or not! Are you claiming a law must be passed for a society to be able to differentiate between right and wrong/good and evil? :icon_scratch:


Agreed! I don't know that I have met a law / regulation that rises to a certification of excellence. By definition, law abiding citizens are meeting minimum requirements.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

justonemore said:


> I would claim such. That would include all laws that have been passed throughout history, both religious and governmental.
> 
> Go raise your kids in the woods and you can raise them to be whatever you desire. Otherwise society cuts in.
> 
> ...


As the infamous Professor Gruber has stated (in so many words) the average citizen is both too lazy and too stupid to effectively participate the management of their own lives. Big brother, or more specifically, big government knows what is best for us all! I disagree with the loose lipped professor/Obamacare consultant. Reduce all this BS back to it's most basic form...Biblical law...the Ten Commandments..."an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" and we have all the guidance that is needed. Yes I am prepared to stand in the face of a surprising litany of contingencies...I will defend my family, my home and myself and do so without reservation. And yes, I do read my Bible every day to refresh my understanding of any essential guidance. I don't need or desire some elected or appointed hack to tell me what is right or wrong, good or evil or what needs doing or should not be done!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Funny you mention "eye for an eye" but not "turn the other cheek". :devil:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^LOL. It's not my nature and I'm too honest to claim it is!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

So. Therefore a law preventing vigilante justice might give you cause to second guess your nature. Should you ignore the law, according to many American politicians, your punishment would serve as a warning to others. Are you not a prime example as to how laws might just sometimes work? Who better to follow the law than a former cop that served in the military and has great faith in "the system" and the country itself. Your nature says one thing, your society another. What will your answer most likely be in the long run? Given your background, and as you seem to enjoy retirement/your family, I'm guessing you probably wouldn't to spend your golden years behind bars and would therefore allow society and its rules to over-ride your nature.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

justonemore said:


> Funny you mention "eye for an eye" but not "turn the other cheek". :devil:


One is Old Testament (God) the other New (Jesus).

God and Jesus represent fundamentally different, diametrically opposed even, approaches to morality. :teacha:

Fun fact - just prior to setting the 'eye for an eye' ruling God threatens to expose people's private parts if they approach his altar via steps.

.
.
.

..


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

justonemore said:


> Funny you mention "eye for an eye" but not "turn the other cheek". :devil:


When the going gets tough, the tough get Old Testament on yer azz!!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

(Responding to post #9) I know of no law that prevents a man from defending his family and their home from external attack. Our home is secure. If an intruder moves within, they do so by initially breaking in and consequently they present a grave and present threat to myself and my family...their proverbial a** is mine at that point! Given my background, I am comfortably aware of where to draw the line.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

I'n'I nah come to fight flesh and blood,
But spiritual wickedness in 'igh and low places.
So while they fight you down,
Stand firm and give Jah thanks and praises.
'Cos I'n'I no expect to be justified
by the laws of men - by the laws of men.
Oh, true they have found me guilty,
But through - through Jah proved my innocency.

Bob Marley


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> (Responding to post #9) I know of no law that prevents a man from defending his family and their home from external attack. Our home is secure. If an intruder moves within, they do so by initially breaking in and consequently they present a grave and present threat to myself and my family...their proverbial a** is mine at that point! Given my background, I am comfortably aware of where to draw the line.


An eye for an eye has nothing to do with defense (and you know it). It is more a regulation when seeking revenge. Take an eye for an eye..not a life for an eye.


----------



## Veblen (Aug 18, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Fun fact - just prior to setting the 'eye for an eye' ruling God threatens to expose people's private parts if they approach his altar via steps.


I had to look that up. It's Ex20:26: "Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon."
However I'm more inclined to think that this is not God threatening an action, but rather a caution: "Hey, if you put my altar someplace where you have to ascend steps, the people behind you might get a peek under your tunic. So don't do that." However I can't claim to be an expert on biblical history.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

justonemore said:


> An eye for an eye has nothing to do with defense (and you know it). It is more a regulation when seeking revenge. Take an eye for an eye..not a life for an eye.


God forbid, but if an intruder broke into your home and was in the process of moving throughout the house, his/her presence an immediate threat to both you and your family, how would you neutralize the threat? Would you politely invite them to leave or would you introduce them to the business end of a shotgun? Personally I suspect the shotgun would prove most persuasive!  In either event I don't need the government to come save my a** and I certainly do not need them telling me what is right and/or wrong.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> God forbid, but if an intruder broke into your home and was in the process of moving throughout the house, his/her presence an immediate threat to both you and your family, how would you neutralize the threat? Would you politely invite them to leave or would you introduce them to the business end of a shotgun? Personally I suspect the shotgun would prove most persuasive!  In either event I don't need the government to come save my a** and I certainly do not need them telling me what is right and/or wrong.


I agree but my point was that defending your home & family has nothing to do with revenge/vigilante justice & therefore isn't applicable under "an eye for an eye". Now if someone robbed your home & you went over later & robbed them, well that's "an eye for an eye" isn't it? Same with killing someone that has harmed a family member. The events happened in the past but you are taking action later. It's not in the present & preventative (shotgun in the house), it's in the future & punitive(hanging a presumed criminal without trial).


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Point taken and I agree with what you say.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

I'm curious how those of us who were spanked or paddled as children regard the experience; was it one of "violence" levied against us?

Once again a matter of degree. I think a quick swat on the backside falls a great deal short of qualifying as child abuse, but apparently there are legislators in 40+ nations who disagree. Are the prisons in Argentina filled with parents who dared to rap their kids' knuckles when said youngsters tried to scarf cookies from the jar?


----------



## Joseph Peter (Mar 26, 2012)

As a product of the catholic grammar and high school educational system, and a child of parents off the boat from Italy, I was spanked/chastised by teachers and my parents. I did not regard it as violence or abuse then and not as such now. I regarded it then as what I deserved and the same holds true now. I didnt like it and in some instances, it hardened my response. Having said that, neither I nor my wife have ever touched our child who in my estimation has grown into a wonderful 17 year old daughter. I think there's a difference in how to discipline a female and a male. Likewise, I would like to think that my wife and I take our responsibility as parents very seriously and, hopefully, have enough brains to figure a more effective way to keep her on the proper and correct side of things. 

Different times from when I grew up - I'm 51 - than when our daughter has grown up. We have done the best we can by her as my parents did by me.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

(In response to post # 19) Ironically and unfortunately I've seen/experienced both sides of this coin. My parents were divorced. My brother, sister and I were raised by our mother, as loving a parent as ever walked the face of this planet, but she did occasionally give us a spank or two with a switch...never any more that I can recall...to get our attention, as necessary. She passed away thirty years ago and I still live my life, mindful of how she might see how well and think of how I am living my life! 

On the other hand, my old man was a mean drunk, seen primarily on visitation weekends. One of my earliest memories (I think I was five) was of him beating on my mom and when I presumed to grab his pant leg and shout at him not to hurt my mother, his response was to punch me in the chest, knocking me across the room and knocking the wind out of me...I couldn't inhale and literally thought I was going to die. His preferred tool for disciplining me (when he was drunk) was a leather razor strop, taken from his barber's chair and applied rather vigorously to my backside, after which sitting was impossible and walking was difficult. The last time I saw my old man alive was as a sixteen year old. He was drunk and standing in the middle of the dirt lane that passed in front of our house, with a loaded pistol in his hand and he was shouting to me that I thought I was a "bad a**" (we had had an earlier physical confrontation) and challenging me to come on out and show him how tough I really was. I spent much of a lifetime volunteering for every special mission and dirty job, trying to prove him wrong and to prove to that bastard that I could be more than he was or could ever have hoped to be! Subsequent to his passing, the only reason I would ever visit his grave would be to piss on it!

Discipline is one thing and abuse is quite another and it doesn't take the act of some self-serving legislators to explain it to me or to any other reasonable individual. Loving discipline and drunken abuse can render drastically different results. At least it appears so from my life experience.

I apologize if this post offends anyone.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> (In response to post # 19) Ironically and unfortunately I've seen/experienced both sides of this coin. My parents were divorced. My brother, sister and I were raised by our mother, as loving a parent as ever walked the face of this planet, but she did occasionally give us a spank or two with a switch...never any more that I can recall...to get our attention, as necessary. She passed away thirty years ago and I still live my life, mindful of how she might see how well and think of how I am living my life!
> 
> On the other hand, my old man was a mean drunk, seen primarily on visitation weekends. One of my earliest memories (I think I was five) was of him beating on my mom and when I presumed to grab his pant leg and shout at him not to hurt my mother, his response was to punch me in the chest, knocking me across the room and knocking the wind out of me...I couldn't inhale and literally thought I was going to die. His preferred tool for disciplining me (when he was drunk) was a leather razor strop, taken from his barber's chair and applied rather vigorously to my backside, after which sitting was impossible and walking was difficult. The last time I saw my old man alive was as a sixteen year old. He was drunk and standing in the middle of the dirt lane that passed in front of our house, with a loaded pistol in his hand and he was shouting to me that I thought I was a "bad a**" (we had had an earlier physical confrontation) and challenging me to come on out and show him how tough I really was. I spent much of a lifetime volunteering for every special mission and dirty job, trying to prove him wrong and to prove to that bastard that I could be more than he was or could ever have hoped to be! Subsequent to his passing, the only reason I would ever visit his grave would be to piss on it!
> 
> ...


It took some courage to write that. Well done for doing so.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> Are you claiming a law must be passed for a society to be able to differentiate between right and wrong/good and evil? :icon_scratch:


eerrr...yes....that's why we have to create so many laws...that's what all laws do....that's what they're for.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Shame on those that beat children.
> 
> Leave the rest of "us all" out of it!!


The "US" is countries, this is all about countries showing commitment and signing not about individuals.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Chouan said:


> It took some courage to write that. Well done for doing so.


Agreed.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> The "US" is countries, this is all about countries showing commitment and signing not about individuals.


In the USA it's always about the individual. (At least it should be)

Our rights are not granted by our betters or by Government but by our Creator.

This International "commitment" is as foolish as taking a vote on who loves beer or cookies.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> In the USA it's always about the individual. (At least it should be)
> 
> Our rights are not granted by our betters or by Government but by our Creator.


Fair enough! If that is the considered truth for the USA.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Fair enough! If that is the considered truth for the USA.


Good thing someone wrote it down....



> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


Ignore at your own peril.

Sic Semper Tyrannis!!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

*"...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter .....it...."

*That I would say would be grounds for something to be done about a govt that doesn't take child abuse and the corporal punishment of children seriously as part of the rights to *Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.....

*Just sayin.....


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Child abusers should be jailed.

Government that tells parents how to discipline children is intrusive and over reaching. 

THAT"s the American Way!!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Ok, lets take that further along the line of logic, and suggest a fair and logical govt intitiative, while not confusing child abuse and the discipline (i.e assaulting) of children.

Child abusers should be jailed. Agreed, as should many parents who systematically assualt their children under the guise of "discipline"

Shouldn't that then lead on to: 

The Government should be telling parents that child absue and assualting children is wrong?

How can that possibly be considered intrusive or over reaching?

The govt makes laws and spreads info on legislation in all sorts of fields. 

Why not make the commitment and sign up to this?

I really just don't get it.

But you see I live in a country in which parents hitting (physically disciplining) children has been a serious crime since the 1970s.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> The Government should be telling parents that child absue and assualting children is wrong?


WOW!!

People need to be told that??

You know they don't.

But I know about 3,700 unionized public employees that would love to fill the position of child rearing nanny cops!!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

I agree, with you. BUT we don't need to be told it is wrong to drink drive or buy drugs, but we have laws against them and infomericals about them all the time.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

We call then Public Service Announcements here.

The Nannys love to tell us to stop smoking tobacco, not to drink and drive or not beat women and children.

They never tell us not to **** and breed like monkeys however, that's too judgmental!!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)




----------

