knobmeup wrote:
Yes, an adult "smacking" a child is abuse.
If I "smacked" a woman who walked out in front of a car I would be guilty of assault, how alert she became is irrelevant.

I suppose my dressing as santa and spanking mrs oioioi meets with Reptired's approval as her parents never took her to see santa as they are/were Stalinists and I represent him as a typically abusive adult thereby not skewing her world view.

I've experienced the fairly extreme image you're trying to conjour up, Rep. I used to get my arse whupped with an inch diameter walking stick for things like giving lip as a young teen.

You'll notice (or not ) that that's not the type of thing I'm advocating, and it's definitely not the same thing as delivering a light slap when your small kid's deliberately resisting persuasion over some important issue. The former's abuse - the latter's occasionally appropriate.

Reptired wrote: i am glad you weren't my dad.
And he were a right cunt. Never let me get run over though so kudos to him for that

Gilly wrote:
I'm very sorry to hear that happened to you. That's terrible.

You understand that what happened to you was wrong, I assume...
Could you explain what you see as the difference between the two are, there is an obvious difference in scale, but aside from that?
What is it that is different?

Edit

What was wrong about what happened to you?

Reptired wrote:
No, because there are several differences, all of which are blatantly obvious.

Ab Origine wrote:
Nobody?

I don't really understand why rep's posts have riled you all...but then, I don't have children.

I'd like to think I'd make a good parent though, but I suppose everyone does before they actually have children. It does seem though that Rep has received a bit of a hard ride in here.

I actually found many of his posts quite interesting in relation to the op. I also found some of the jibes at his expense (unless it's just a joke that you're all in on?) a bit unnecessary. Again, I may not be privy to all info but it didn't make for pleasant reading, you know, just so you know.

Re. the op, I can't think of anything simpler than explaining to a child why you will/won't be celebrating something, if they are old enough to comprehend the concept of celebration in the first place? Surely, if an annual even such as Christmas, and whatever traditions that may entail in your own household, can so easily be normalised and accepted, the opposite could also be true? Granted, it may get difficult at school-age but of the children I know, and there aren't many, they appear to respond much better to truth and facts than fear, intimidation, or lies which I gather was the gist of rep's posts for the most part.

It would appear that the general consensus is that those without children can't reasonably be expected to have an opinion on the subject (even if the subject were discipline and children). I think this unfortunate, and very un'SZ like, if I may say so.

I also humbly suggest, perhaps the thread be split as although similar, there appear to be some quite strong views about Xmas and discipline which may be better served with their own threads.

For the 1st time ever, I strongly disagree with you, Abs. Reptide's accused people here, including myself, of being child abusers. He shouldn't expect to get away with that. He's well earned any flack he's copped.

Gilly wrote:
Fair dos...I'll shut me gob.

I have read back through the thread quite carefully though and although I can understand why you might be offended, I didn't read it that way.

And apologies to anyone I may have inadvertantly offended with the above post. As stated, I don't have kids and may well have interpreted some of the posts here differently if I did have.

Gilly wrote:
Honestly, they are not obvious to me.

.... or feather may have been suggesting that another poster used to use a similar technique of trolling employing Karl Marx as a vehicle to imply a degree of gravitas to their pseudo-controversial views.

The same technique usually involves 'supporting evidence' gleaned for a variety of academic and woo woo sources. Knowing full well that you will never read through all that to discredit them.

If folks are up for being dragged around by the nose then have at it.
I had more confidence in your abilities to deduce. No wonder Icke can grow a following.

Ab Origine wrote:
From the posts of yours that I have read here Ab, you seem exceptionally emotionally mature, which I think has to be the basis for good parenting. I'd like to think I'll make a good parent one day, I have a lot of work to do on myself first.

I do understand why people are reacting so strongly to my arguments, when I came across them first I reacted in much the same way, when you claim that something so central to the society people have been raised in is wrong and they see some truth in that, it's very threatening, I didn't think it would be quite so skewed here though for some reason.

feather wrote:
I see, well I wasn't aware of your points of reference so I had no grounds to deduce.

feather wrote:
Again - I obviously missed that.

And again, not really necessary, but fair enough.

In all honesty, this sock nonsense utterly bores the tits off me. If I read a post, I really don't give a shit if it's someone who used to be here or may or may not have another account here.

If I find what they are saying interesting, all and well and good. If they are being offensive, more often than not I'll say so. Otherwise, I have slightly more pressing matters in the real world to worry about.

As I said, I did ask - actually in the thread and nobody could be bothered to mention if they had any suspicions....you know what, even as I type this I can't believe I actually am.

It's your forum. "Have at it".

Reptired wrote: Uhuh

Ab Origine wrote:
The sock shit caused my tits to fall off ages ago.
This place is a magnet for it though and it's dull as fuck.

Methinks a wee sabbatical may be the order of the day for Mr Feather.

Oi, I'll continue doing the site back-ups but I'm taking a few weeks out for now mate.
to all

Ab Origine wrote:
You see this being used on other forums when people don't want to comment on the content but rather just want to convince themselves they can ignore it, here the scapegoat is "sock", in other places it's generally "shill". It equates to the same thing.
To insinuate that a person is trying to trick people by giving references to support their claims is so off the wall.

Mrs oioioi wants to know if we can proceed or not!

And Abs, any more of your petulance and you'll be going over my knee young lad!

guys, you are all missing the point.. if we figure out the perfect way to raise kids we'll make billions. its only page 9.

oioioi wrote:
You should ask her.