The Hazards of Belief

PopePalpatine

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Worth listening to later when it goes online (if it goes online) - CRAZY edition of Liveline today with Fr Brian of Alive!!!1!, "Lena" a deraged sounding lady defending whacking kids with sticks, a psychotherapist discussing masturbation, and at the end a mother of a lesbian and "Lena" rowing over "sodomy"

Do you know how far into today's show this discussion started?

Hotblack Desiato

Just before 2pm, so less than 15 mins in

Custardpi

Might have a listen to that if it goes online. It sounds like the sort of show that should have people in the background chanting "Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!"

robindch

Iraq - where islamics dressed up as islamics fight islamics dressed up as christians. Or something like that.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35998716

marienbad

robindch wrote: »

Sounds like a fundamentalist's wet dream - their own violence and other peoples' sex.

Just listened to it , all of it , right up there with 'the wife swapping sodomites'.

Just give these people more air time I say and the RCC will be gone in 10 years

Shrap

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Worth listening to later when it goes online (if it goes online) - CRAZY edition of Liveline today with Fr Brian of Alive!!!1!, "Lena" a deraged sounding lady defending whacking kids with sticks, a psychotherapist discussing masturbation, and at the end a mother of a lesbian and "Lena" rowing over "sodomy"

It's fantastic! Just half way through listening to it now http://www.rte.ie/radio/utils/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=b9%5F20967476%5F53%5F11%2D04%2D2016%5F

With "Do devils have sex?" goodness.

Shrap

marienbad wrote: »

Just listened to it , all of it , right up there with 'the wife swapping sodomites'.

Just give these people more air time I say and the RCC will be gone in 10 years

Totally. More like this please.

marienbad

Shrap wrote: »

Totally. More like this please.

you just can't beat live radio !:)

Shrap

marienbad wrote: »

you just can't beat live radio !:)

Good grief, no, you really can't. Lena is priceless - so appreciative of all the guidance and advice that Alive and the church gave her in order to traumatise her children out of their disordered beliefs (who used to think she was cruel, but have now seen the light....) - "Oftentimes I would go to look for my wooden spoon and it was gone......I would often have a little stick taken off a shrub in the garden and I'd look for that and it would be broken, but many times, it was there and I did use it"



Edit: THAT was the best radio show EVER. I'm clutching my sides/pearls/hand-woven lentil-fiber handbag. Fcuk me sideways, I've never heard a more foot-in-mouth interview in my life :eek:

PopePalpatine

A Hindu spiritual leader has claimed that granting women the right to enter a temple to the god Shani will increase the amount of rapes, because "[its] eyes would fall upon them". It reminds me of Tyrion Lannister's rhetorical question, "Why are gods such vicious c*nts?"

Hotblack Desiato

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It reminds me of Tyrion Lannister's rhetorical question, "Why are gods such vicious c*nts?"

Because gods are made in the image of their creators

cowboyBuilder

Is there an online version of that Alive crap ?

edit - there is : http://www.alive.ie/

and after reading - http://www.alive.ie/dumbag-letter.html

Think I'll go have a **** !!

Timberrrrrrrr

Bat sheet crazy

http://news.sky.com/story/1677146/abortion-clinic-shooter-happy-with-attack

Robert Dear Jr said he had attacked a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs because he was "upset with them performing abortions and the selling of baby parts," according to an arrest warrant.

He also told police he dreamed aborted foetuses would meet him in heaven and thank him for saving unborn babies, the documents show.

cowboyBuilder

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Bat sheet crazy

http://news.sky.com/story/1677146/abortion-clinic-shooter-happy-with-attack

He also told police he dreamed aborted foetuses would meet him in heaven and thank him for saving unborn babies, the documents show.

Gobsmacked.

What about the countless billions of humans that were prevented via contraception ?

Custardpi

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Gobsmacked.

What about the countless billions of humans that were prevented via contraception ?

I seem to recall Pope JP II describing the use of condoms as being akin to murder, though I can't find the exact quote. I think the Church has softened its stance somewhat since then, largely down to how out of control AIDs has gotten in Africa, still relatively fertile ground for them, so long as they're only used within heterosexual marriage. Of course, the gentleman in this story is probably a Protestant, so that point may be less relevant for him.

robindch

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Is there an online version of that Alive crap ?

TheJournal factchecks McKevitt's claim that being violent towards kids produces more successful adults:

http://www.thejournal.ie/the-journal-factcheck-smacking-children-liveline-joe-duffy-alive-2709852-Apr2016/?utm_source=email

TheJournal wrote:

Based on the preponderance of evidence available, and the way it was presented in this month’s Alive!, the claim is FALSE.

robindch

^^^ Here's a report by the Childrens' Rights Alliance of England in which they interviewed a small sample of kids for their feelings about being "smacked" - it doesn't make for very pleasant reading:

http://www.crae.org.uk/media/26377/it-hurts-inside-summary-report.pdf

JPNelsforearm

robindch wrote: »

^^^ Here's a report by the Childrens' Rights Alliance of England in which they interviewed a small sample of kids for their feelings about being "smacked" - it doesn't make for very pleasant reading:

http://www.crae.org.uk/media/26377/it-hurts-inside-summary-report.pdf

In fairness that is the biggest load of bs I've ever read. Whats the point of it?
"Childrens feelings on being sent to bed"

"Childrens feelings on being fed cod liver oil"

There is a distinction between reasonable chastisement and "It felt like being hit with a hammer". There is no need to even debate that.

As said in that journal article above, "When I got into the data, I couldn’t find any harmful effects for kids who just said ‘Yes I was spanked, but it was only in childhood.’"

Both camps here are off the reservation, one is an appeal to pseudoscience and hand wringing nu-moralism, and the other is an appeal to god bothering another older type of moralism.

Any style of parenting, so long as it produces a well rounded, educated child clearly works, framing the debate as "thumping the head off kids" is a joke. Its akin to the proselyting part of the vegan movement

robindch

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Whats the point of it?

The point is that provides a voice for kids, albeit from a very small group, so that they can say what they feel about "smacking" - or "hitting" as the first item in the summary on page five pointedly notes.

BTW, I find the artificial distinctions between the bland terms "smacking" and "chastising" (etc) and the more specific terms "hitting" or "assaulting" to be jesuitical at best.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Any style of parenting, so long as it produces a well rounded, educated child clearly works [...]

I'm not fully sure that the ends always justify the means.

JPNelsforearm

There is a distinction between assault and battery, a punch and a caress, there are shades of gray, a scale of offensive conduct. I dont think they are artificial distinctions, the artificial distinction is equating a smack that leaves a sting at best and whacking someone that leaves a bruise and any action scaled up in violence thereafter.



Parenting is not a science, no matter what some social "science" goon publishes, if you end up with a success, well, then you obviously it worked, how can you dispute it. There is a lot more to parenting than smacking or a smack, to frame someone as a bad parent because of one tiny aspect is laughable.

marienbad

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

There is a distinction between assault and battery, a punch and a caress, there are shades of gray, a scale of offensive conduct. I dont think they are artificial distinctions, the artificial distinction is equating a smack that leaves a sting at best and whacking someone that leaves a bruise and any action scaled up in violence thereafter.



Parenting is not a science, no matter what some social "science" goon publishes, if you end up with a success, well, then you obviously it worked, how can you dispute it. There is a lot more to parenting than smacking or a smack, to frame someone as a bad parent because of one tiny aspect is laughable.

Same old rubbish , the problem is what is just smack to one is a whack to another - there is no objective measure .

And for the sake of consistency , if it is ok at home should we bring it back at school ?

Smacking like a lot of other things considered ok in the past are past history. Time we all moved on .

robindch

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

There is a lot more to parenting than smacking or a smack, to frame someone as a bad parent because of one tiny aspect is laughable.

I'm not quite sure why you believe I'm "framing someone" since neither the document nor myself has suggested anything about people who are hitting kids beyond the view that the act itself is inappropriate.

You're obviously correct to point out that there's a lot to parenting, but I don't believe that hitting them is a "tiny" aspect. For myself, hitting a kid is wrong on so many levels - from the kid's perspective as well as the parent's - that it represents a complete breakdown in trust and responsibility which, IMHO, are the two more important aspects of any relationship.

JPNelsforearm

marienbad wrote: »

Same old rubbish , the problem is what is just smack to one is a whack to another - there is no objective measure .

And for the sake of consistency , if it is ok at home should we bring it back at school ?

Smacking like a lot of other things considered ok in the past are past history. Time we all moved on .

Nope, anyone with half a brain can tell the difference between a light smack and a whack/thump/whatever, this is exactly the problem I am talking about. the classifying of all physical chastisement as aggravated assault, its zealotry, Helen Lovejoyism. State interventionism in child rearing because your sensibilities are offended.

Private sphere>Public sphere.

Its 2016. The ultimate progressive trump card. I would say a lot of things that were ok in the past are still ok now, its just the PC virus has changed the public climate, but popular opinion is never a sound barometer, as this thread illustrates as regards religious lunacy.

robindch wrote: »

I'm not quite sure why you believe I'm "framing someone" since neither the document nor myself has suggested anything about people who are hitting kids beyond the view that the act itself is inappropriate.

You're obviously correct to point out that there's a lot to parenting, but I don't believe that hitting them is a "tiny" aspect. For myself, hitting a kid is wrong on so many levels - from the kid's perspective as well as the parent's - that it represents a complete breakdown in trust and responsibility which, IMHO, are the two more important aspects of any relationship.

Im not saying you personally, are "framing" anyone, Im saying the debate, or rather, physical disclipline is being framed as bad parenting, there is no evidence backing that up. "[r]esearch" saying that kids dont like being discliplined, hardly ground breaking stuff. Its an attempt to make an emotional point, nothing more.

marienbad

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Nope, anyone with half a brain can tell the difference between a light smack and a whack/thump/whatever, this is exactly the problem I am talking about. the classifying of all physical chastisement as aggravated assault, its zealotry, Helen Lovejoyism. State interventionism in child rearing because your sensibilities are offended.

Private sphere>Public sphere.

Its 2016. The ultimate progressive trump card. I would say a lot of things that were ok in the past are still ok now, its just the PC virus has changed the public climate, but popular opinion is never a sound barometer, as this thread illustrates as regards religious lunacy.




.

So anyone with half a brain can tell the difference eh ? Then can you explain how for 8o years of the last century 'the best and brightest' battered the
**** out of toddlers and children up and down the country using sticks straps hurleys rulers and anything else that came to hand and it never occurred to them to differentiate between a smack and a brutal beating ?

Get real - it took a change in the law to make it unacceptable . And even still some still hanker for the good old days .

Can you give us some example of things that were ok in the past but no longer are due to the PC virus ?

JPNelsforearm

marienbad wrote: »

So anyone with half a brain can tell the difference eh ? Then can you explain how for 8o years of the last century 'the best and brightest' battered the
**** out of toddlers and children up and down the country using sticks straps hurleys rulers and anything else that came to hand and it never occurred to them to differentiate between a smack and a brutal beating ?

Get real - it took a change in the law to make it unacceptable . And even still some still hanker for the good old days .

Can you give us some example of things that were ok in the past but no longer are due to the PC virus ?

For 80 years our Island was a priest ridden ****hole, whats your point?
Anecdote, not everyone beat the **** out of their kids. My parents weren't, they were smacked, the same as any, their neighbors and friends the same. Some people were thugs, that does not mean you get the state to interfere with everyone because you have an issue with not being able to discern reasonable chastisement and battering someone with a hurl.

Nope, it took a change in the law for some people to realise the difference not everyone. That is their individual issue.

Not off the top of my head, I know it when I see it, this discussion would be an example of political correctness. Any anti masculine campaigns, like the one against rugby a few weeks back, prime example, led by a sociologist, Dr Eric Andrews, google him. There is a concerted campaign to end rugby on PC grounds if one looks at his background. That is one example.

The whole misogyny sexism **** that flares up every few weeks, too numerous to count at this point. Certain types of speech action are deemed un-PC and cost people jobs, aka Tim Hunt

Eugenics, deemed the height of un-PC, humans are subject to the laws of heritability as any animal is, yet as a field its been decimated by the bosom buddies, right wing christians and left wing PC zealots.

Go into the left wing vegan cookie thread, full of examples.

marienbad

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

For 80 years our Island was a priest ridden ****hole, whats your point?
Anecdote, not everyone beat the **** out of their kids. My parents weren't, they were smacked, the same as any, their neighbors and friends the same. Some people were thugs, that does not mean you get the state to interfere with everyone because you have an issue with not being able to discern reasonable chastisement and battering someone with a hurl.

Nope, it took a change in the law for some people to realise the difference not everyone. That is their individual issue.

Not off the top of my head, I know it when I see it, this discussion would be an example of political correctness. Any anti masculine campaigns, like the one against rugby a few weeks back, prime example, led by a sociologist, Dr Eric Andrews, google him. There is a concerted campaign to end rugby on PC grounds if one looks at his background. That is one example.

The whole misogyny sexism **** that flares up every few weeks, too numerous to count at this point. Certain types of speech action are deemed un-PC and cost people jobs, aka Tim Hunt

Eugenics, deemed the height of un-PC, humans are subject to the laws of heritability as any animal is, yet as a field its been decimated by the bosom buddies, right wing christians and left wing PC zealots.

Go into the left wing vegan cookie thread, full of examples.

You dismiss the wide spread corporal punishment regime in Ireland as anecdote when it fact it was the norm ! What planet are you living on ?

It took a change in the law for some people you say ?? That logic can apply to any thing - robbery ,tax evasion anything . Corporal Punishment was the norm - the law changed that . Get over it - who the fcuk wants to smack a child anyway !

You can't give any examples but Oh you know it when you see - just like great art and music and literature - gimme a break /

I have news for you -if there is any discrimination in the room the chances are it isn't against the white guy .

I agree with you completely the PC thought policing has gone way too far , but I'm sorry Tim Hunt had to go. You could have picked a better example than that one - for instance https://youtu.be/7QqgNcktbSA

oscarBravo

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Nope, anyone with half a brain can tell the difference between a light smack and a whack/thump/whatever...

Where's the line? What's the unit of measure for violence? What's the threshold for acceptable violence in those units?

If you can't answer those questions, how can you be confident that everyone who administers what they believe to be a "light smack" isn't, in fact, delivering a whack/thump/whatever?

robindch

oscarBravo wrote: »

Where's the line? What's the unit of measure for violence? What's the threshold for acceptable violence in those units?

MrP might like to jump in, but so far as I'm aware, legally, the limit is zero - unwanted contact constitutes "assault" of one kind or another. It's a limit that's hard to argue with.

JPNelsforearm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Where's the line? What's the unit of measure for violence? What's the threshold for acceptable violence in those units?

If you can't answer those questions, how can you be confident that everyone who administers what they believe to be a "light smack" isn't, in fact, delivering a whack/thump/whatever?

The aftermath would solely consist of, at maximum, a red mark, a temporary sting, what is generally accepted to constitute a slap. Its more the shock the action elicits then the physical action itself imo, at least that was the way it was with me..

Just because it suits people to blur the distinction between a thump and a slap does not mean there isnt one.

JPNelsforearm

marienbad wrote: »

You dismiss the wide spread corporal punishment regime in Ireland as anecdote when it fact it was the norm ! What planet are you living on ?

It took a change in the law for some people you say ?? That logic can apply to any thing - robbery ,tax evasion anything . Corporal Punishment was the norm - the law changed that . Get over it - who the fcuk wants to smack a child anyway !

You can't give any examples but Oh you know it when you see - just like great art and music and literature - gimme a break /

I have news for you -if there is any discrimination in the room the chances are it isn't against the white guy .

I agree with you completely the PC thought policing has gone way too far , but I'm sorry Tim Hunt had to go. You could have picked a better example than that one - for instance https://youtu.be/7QqgNcktbSA

Who wants to discipline or argue with a child at all? Not me. Does that mean I oppose it? No, I have a nuanced view, you look after your kid, I'll look after mine.

:rolleyes: yeah, "muh discrimination", give me a break, the only real acceptable discrimination is against white people, specifically white males, the only group who are fair game to be legislated against.

What did Tim Hunt do wrong besides pissing off some wilting daisy who cant handle a joke.