Considering the amount of backlash you've received for those opinions that you failed to justify with anything beyond a bandwagon argument, you really wouldn't consider those things controversial?

Talk about high horses.

Maybe it's more about different generations?

And being against circumcision or spanking is just as much a bandwagon thing. You younger guys just have a bigger bandwagon around here.

I think its more your reasoning for your opinions than your opinions themselves, since its pretty clear that you're working backwards from your conclusion to reach your backing points instead of the other way around, which would be more logical. It's human nature though and it's near impossible to shake--still worth being conscious of and trying to avoid it though.

The difference is that we don't use the popularity of our opinions to justify them.

These two issues have come up in the past over on The Gear Page many times through the years. The majority of that place is a virtual nursing home. The opinions are just as lopsided over there but 180 degrees apart.



Way to paint with a broad brush. I provide plenty of substance. It just gets tiring being reffered as a "bad parent" a "lazy parent" a "barbaric parent" a "cruel parent", etc. for my views.

:laughing: I will agree that you probably actually believe this.

Give me one instance where someone referred to you specifically as this and I will give you 100 dollars.

When you're done with that snipe hunt, I wonder how you feel about this statement: well meaning parents can use bad parenting techniques.

chula's a bad barbaric parent

If you make a post proclaiming how awesome Beefheart is and how much an influence he's been on you, and then in the very next post I say that people who like Beefheart are stupid and have zero musical taste - I've just insulted you.

Well meaning parents can use bad parenting techniques.

Well, who says they are bad? And remember, my two kids were raised before there was a widespread internet. There wasn't 10 million opposing opinions for every 10 million opinions back then.

I'll send you your $50 after Frowny pays up. :laughing:

One day I hope your kids forgive you.

Then denouncing bad parenting techniques that you have used is not calling you a bad parent. That's setting aside the fact that when people are discussing concepts on an abstract level, they don't give a single **** about you, your kids, your life, or your experiences, so the conversation isn't even about you at that point.

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

WTF did you just say about me? I will impale you on a post, punk.

BS. Me: I spanked my kid. Elf: Parents who spank are lazy.

Look up inference.

Who made the proclamation that mild spanking is bad parenting?

What else are you if you use lazy parenting techniques?

Still, try to remove yourself from these statements at look at the actual logic of what's being said instead of blubbering about how super mean everyone is to you.

Lmao I think you mean implication so look it up yourself.

I guess it depends on whether or not you think unnecessary and ineffective forms of physicaloty are bad.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2987237/

Spanking Not So Bad, Study Says - latimes

Spanking Can Be an Appropriate Form of Child Discipline | Time.com

08.24.2001 - UC Berkeley study finds no lasting harm among adolescents from moderate spanking earlier in childhood

Evidence Favoring the Use of Disciplinary Spanking « GoodParent.org

Tired of playing on the see saw for now. Later.

Zero meta analysis. 100 percent secondary sources. I win. Just because you read it in the internet doesn't mean that it's true. JK I know you didn't read them.

lol

Spanking gets the ass ripe and ready. Good for you Chula!

:laughing:

It's fine so long as it's consensual.

Thanks for the collection of guides on how to effectively spank your kids lol. What are your thoughts on ACPEDS' stance on gay couples adopting?

Chula I legit don't have faith in your ability to discern good research from bad, but keep trying anyways.

My safeword was "No, mommy!"

^ftfy

Mine was Uncle because I always felt more comfortable getting spanked when he was watching.

.

Safewords are for wimps.

Ahhh, a bunch of people who have never had kid telling a parent how to parent. An older one at that.



Not to beat a dead horse, but I'm going to do it anyways, I thought about how uncomfortable I would be doing feminine things as a male. Then I thought about what if I woke up and I all of a sudden had female genitals rather than my male genitals. I would feel extremely uncomfortable in that identity despite my physical form. Though, I have been born and raised as a male with a male body and can't quite get why somebody who was born and raised as one gender could feel like a different gender, I think I understand maybe a little more about gender identity through that.

Now, on the topic of redefining words to fit an agenda, how do people feel about some college campuses telling students that racism is defined as systematic oppression towards a race rather than bigotry towards a race thus pushing the idea that bigotry towards white people is more tolerated because it isn't racism because white people aren't systematically oppressed?

The intelligent people in the class fight critical race theory with critical theory and tell the professor about how that concept of race is an unnecessary social construct of academia when we have modifying words like systematic racism and interpersonal racism to catch all forms of the word.

Not enough intelligent people in those classes I guess.

Edit: What they seem to be doing is trying to say that racism towards whites is justifiable. I had one of the stereotypical liberals from my main forum tell me that racism towards whites doesn't count as racism because of it. Then another person informed me that even though they disagree, it's what is being taught on college campuses.

How racism is defined academically differs from field to field and from professor to professor. I was confused by the idea that "you can't be racist towards white people" until I probed deep enough into the issue to learn that under some working definitions, "racism" refers not to prejudice or discrimination alone, but to participation in or benefit from a societal or institutionalized system that racism is a product of.

The idea being that because white people are always in some way benefiting from such a system whereas people of colour have less equal, more mixed (usually worse) experiences in the same system, it's not possible to be racist towards white people--because that involves setting up a society and institution in which their whiteness results in their oppression, which describes probably no society currently in existence.

Not an expert by any means, but this is my understanding of what people mean when they say you can't be racist to whites. It's not because those people are libtards, it's just that they have a different working understanding of the term "racism" that is much more nuanced than the word the common public knows and engages with.

.

You can be prejudice against whites but not racist in the same way as having systems set up against you. Yeah Ped explained it well though.

.

Race is an evolutionary reality not a social construct.

If racism is impossible against whites try being the only white kid in an all black school. Then tell me about ****ing power structures.

College is supposed to be about learning about the way things really are not making up moronic fairy tales to pretend the world is how you want it to be. 2+2=4 people.

How about a household? Or a neighborhood?

.

See this is why it is a good idea to use different words to mean different things and not to change definitions to suit our whims, because it's confusing. This is why evolution is "just a theory".

Yes you experience prejudice and bigotry there in the same way a poc would also living there but I have a feeling that your experience there and a poc's experience living there would be different.