Smacking children!

pblakeney

Chris Bass wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

One of my new favorite things to do is look at a title of a thread that manc33 has posted on and is over 2 pages long, skip to the end and see where it ends up!

I know. It's partly my fault because I engage with it...

I bet you have been funding wars as well haven't you!

If you pay taxes then you have. Or do you all avoid tax?

meanredspider

PBlakeney wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

One of my new favorite things to do is look at a title of a thread that manc33 has posted on and is over 2 pages long, skip to the end and see where it ends up!

I know. It's partly my fault because I engage with it...

I bet you have been funding wars as well haven't you!

If you pay taxes then you have. Or do you all avoid tax?

I pay tax in NL - these days they aren't the most aggressive nation.

bondurant

You're just a lackey of one of the elite families that start the wars though aren't you?

bondurant

The Scoggins family from Morecambe I'd hazard a guess. Nasty lot. They started the Vietnam war.

Manc33

Chris Bass wrote:

One of my new favorite things to do is look at a title of a thread that manc33 has posted on and is over 2 pages long, skip to the end and see where it ends up!

It ends up in apathy and ignorance.

Its always easier to laugh at something than to think about it.

meanredspider

Manc33 wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

One of my new favorite things to do is look at a title of a thread that manc33 has posted on and is over 2 pages long, skip to the end and see where it ends up!

It ends up in apathy and ignorance.

Its always easier to laugh at something than to think about it.

Manc33 - how old are you and what are your academic qualifications, if you don't mind me asking?

Manc33

Academic qualifications only ever consist of memorizing stuff, which isn't intelligence. You would still need the intelligence to then look outside of what you've learnt and people that excel in academia tend to focus only on one field of study - at the exclusion of every other subject. That is meant to be clever is it? It appears clever on the surface, but isn't because you're having to ignore every other subject to focus all your efforts on one thing. Seems like a big waste of time to me, unless you love knowing only about one thing in life.

This is why when David Icke talked at the Oxford Union he said it was like trying to get through to a group of five year olds, whereas the man on the street will come up with another idea to add to what Icke said and so on. From the academics, he got nothing. He didn't even get them debating him. Those people are the LAST people that would be able to fix any problems in the world.

The guys setting up the current education system knew this from the start. That it doesn't matter about people learning as long as they only learn one thing. Isn't that the case? If someone goes to a university they tend to be fixated on the same stuff for years - at the exclusion of all other information available in the world! Thats just a religion, its the same setup as a religion - don't question anything.

The most "qualified" economists can't even understand they are part of a system designed to collapse, so why would it matter if they are qualified? Guess what - it doesn't. They got "qualified" reading stuff that totally omits what's really going on in the financial system.

Ask an economist if he knows what "Fractional Reserve Banking" is. Half won't know, but then ask what effect it is having on the economy, they won't know. They might be able to solve some huge equation, but they are still blind to stuff if they haven't looked into it.

If I had qualifications coming out of my ears you'd simply switch to some other way to trash what I am saying because that is all anyone ever does. You lot are predictable if not anything else.

We have had an astronaut telling us the Government is working with aliens, what about his qualifications? Doesn't matter because you'd just laugh at him anyway.

We had a demolitions expert Danny Jowenko (killed in a car crash) telling us 911 was a controlled demolition, what about his qualifications? Doesn't matter because you'd just laugh at him anyway.

So you don't care if someone has qualifications. Do you believe Edgar Mitchell? Do you believe Danny Jowenko?

Remember the story I told about going to a doctor, telling him my appendix is hurting and he told me to go home? Remember the next part of the story where I went to hospital and the nurse told me its a good job I came in when I did because it was about to burst? What about that doctor's qualifications?

What would I have a qualification in to cover the subjects I talk about anyway? Everything I talk about is omitted from school curriculum so your question is ridiculous for that reason alone.

meanredspider

You lost me at the first sentence because it's wrong.

I asked because you suggested that many of us are ignorant and don't think. The thing is, education is the cure for ignorance and education teaches you to think critically.

No, qualifications themselves aren't the answer but they do give an indication of the level of education you've had the opportunity to be exposed to. They aren't a guarantee but they are our society's accepted norm for indicating a level of education and, to some extent, capability.

The higher the level of education, the more able to think critically you are likely to be (again, no guarantees).

I think that you have a good level of curiosity but I have to question your ability to think critically about what you read and take a balanced view of it. Ironically, given what you said about qualifications, you seem to have learned a lot of facts. But you have accepted a lot of stuff that most people (and a lot of people a hell of a lot smarter than me) have rejected.

Manc33

meanredspider wrote:

You lost me at the first sentence because it's wrong.

No, it isn't.

Not all of academia involves only memorizing stuff, there could be rare instances where someone is asked to use their imagination, but I don't know of anything where that would be the case and it seems to be wall-to-wall using your memory, with very little else going on.

People like that just don't impress me, because you only have to mention another subject to them and they are totally lost.

meanredspider wrote:

I asked because you suggested that many of us are ignorant and don't think. The thing is, education is the cure for ignorance and education teaches you to think critically.

Education doesn't teach that at all. You're taught to think a certain way and only that way. Deviate from that and you're then just classed as an idiot, out of his depth.

For example Stephen E Jones a professor of 35 years finds thermite fingerprint on the 9/11 rubble, he gets fired. Thats because he used his brain and that's not allowed.

meanredspider wrote:

No, qualifications themselves aren't the answer but they do give an indication of the level of education you've had the opportunity to be exposed to. They aren't a guarantee but they are our society's accepted norm for indicating a level of education and, to some extent, capability.

I agree.

meanredspider wrote:

The higher the level of education, the more able to think critically you are likely to be (again, no guarantees).

I agree again but it wasn't the education system that caused them to have that ability, they had it all along.

meanredspider wrote:

I think that you have a good level of curiosity but I have to question your ability to think critically about what you read and take a balanced view of it. Ironically, given what you said about qualifications, you seem to have learned a lot of facts. But you have accepted a lot of stuff that most people (and a lot of people a hell of a lot smarter than me) have rejected.

My main problem is I never make it clear whether I am speculating or stating something as a fact and yes I throw it all together in one post. :oops: But then I also think splitting everything up into divided subjects is what stops you being able to connect one to the other, if it does somehow link into it.

There are things I don't believe, like ancient cultures depicting people with thunderbolts coming from their hands or flying around on magic carpets, some say that is all a code for super advanced technology, because that's the only way they could explain it, but I call BS. The same people that talk about that will also throw in verifiable facts.

Maybe it is true that ancient people (or aliens coming to visit) did have advanced tech, but I don't pretend to claim its true, I just have it in the back of my mind that if it ever did all come out to be true, I wouldn't be surprised.

No I wouldn't call people "ignorant" just not used to this sort of talk.

You know what first got me started on all this stuff? Watching "Human Traffic" around 1999 where Bill Hicks does his drug bit on a TV. That is the very first time in my life I realized hold on, this guy is 100% unique, I have never heard anyone talking like this guy does in my entire lifetime. The rest is history. :P

Of course Bill Hicks died at aged 34 (they say from pancreatic cancer). He was talking about Waco and the tank shooting flames into the building (it did, its on video), so its no wonder he isn't alive when you look at what's happened since Waco and how he would have a platform pointing out stuff to people.

Same pattern with all these guys that tell millions of people the truth, they just end up dead, not a single one ever hasn't that I can think of. The incredible thing is even Bill Hicks himself said "Ever notice how we allow all the good guys to get killed, but we let the demons run amok?"

Being a comedian though there was a joke attached to it - "John Lennon is dead and yet Barry Manilow cooooooooooontinues to put out hits"

meanredspider

With respect, if you've not been through all of the education system (I'm surmising), how can you really comment on what's involved? I'm interested watching my son get his place at Cambridge - he reads a lot around the subject and loves to debate subjects. At 17 he's already learned to think critically.

I did an engineering degree. Much of that was figuring stuff out for myself - quite a lot of creativity. Mrs MRS did an Arts degree - lots of thinking for yourself: writing critical essays and interpreting historic works. If you go on to do a second degree, you're then expected to generate some completely original thinking.

This stuff taught me to learn for myself: to read from lots of sources and figure out what was correct. Experience (hence me asking your age) then goes on to fill the gaps and correct things where they are wrong. That's my other main qualification: Chartered Engineer and Fellow of the Institution of Engineering. To get chartered, you need a degree and a few years of experience. You're then interviewed. To become a fellow you need significant experience at a senior level. The point is that we are learning all of the time: figuring out who to listen to, what questions to ask, and who to ignore.

It's good that you are curious about stuff but you have to recognise that everybody has an agenda. Ask yourself why people are taking the positions that they are. And ask yourself, if most people don't believe this, "why do I believe it?" There are some lazy and ignorant people out there but there are some very smart people too. Some of these things would have surfaced sooner or later. The fact that they almost never do, suggests that they're just conspiracy theories.

bondurant

Hat tip to MRS

metronome

There's definitely a smell of weed in here.

Manc33

I agree with most of that last post by meanredspider though.

The conspiracy comes in if you were to ask the head of an institution how they get their funding, or what it gets spent on. The higher up you go, the more corrupt people are creaming off the top, everywhere. Try finding out how the US government lost 2.3 Trillion dollars, they just say the computers "can't communicate with each other" lol. They literally just said that and everyone forgets about it. Plus that announcement was made on September 10th 2001 so its hardly any surprise people have forgotten it considering what happened the next day.

I probably differ in that I would even go so far as to say there has to be more crime to justify more funding for the Police, ergo the top cops actually want crime, they have to otherwise they wouldn't get more and more funding. The cop on the street doesn't want more crime, but he won't know he is part of a system that only gets more funding the more crime there is - so then what do you think the guys at the top of the Police are going to do to get more funding?

It might sound crazy to look at it that way to you, I know that. Than scale that up to "Iran is doing this" or "North Korea say it will do this" pfffffffff, give me a break. No, these countries are not threatening us, Iraq never was. The bottom line is nothing ever gets put right. Tony Blair should be in jail on war crime charges, but somehow magically isn't.

Frank the tank

Errrrrrr, smacking children, gone a bit OT 'an't we!!!!

Manc33

You can't have a debate on smacking children, too many variables (each child, each parent).

Every child has a different level of disrespect for other people and each parent has their own stresses in life (which would be at times what caused them to smack their child, they are already annoyed etc).

You probably don't see many lottery winners smacking their children.

That means sometimes some kids are smacked, so OK then you "should" smack them, but I'm not sure when it would be appropriate, if ever. If they smack you first, or throw something at you, or hit you with something, then yeah. Smacking a child every other day is ridiculous, only a worm, a coward, would do that. Either that or they have one real dumb child that doesn't even care about being smacked. These are the kids that should be joining the Army when they get older.

Call me sexist but I think women hit kids more than men do I honestly do. I mean for the same thing. :oops:

I saw next door's kid walking along the wall and heard his mother say (in a really soft voice) "Don't walk on there its dangerous" and I thought 'That's exactly why he walks on the wall'. Kids will do anything they think they won't get told off for and some parents aren't living in the real world. This kid was like 2 foot tall walking along a 5 foot wall.

veronese68

Manc33 wrote:

You can't have a debate on smacking children, too many variables (each child, each parent).

We were until you derailed the thread.

Manc33 wrote:

You probably don't see many lottery winners smacking their children.

That makes no sense at all, why is a lottery winner any less likely to smack a child? Unless you mean because you don't see many lottery winners so are less likely to see one hit a child.

Manc33 wrote:

That means sometimes some kids are smacked, so OK then you "should" smack them, but I'm not sure when it would be appropriate, if ever. If they smack you first, or throw something at you, or hit you with something, then yeah. Smacking a child every other day is ridiculous, only a worm, a coward, would do that. Either that or they have one real dumb child that doesn't even care about being smacked. These are the kids that should be joining the Army when they get older.

Call me sexist but I think women hit kids more than men do I honestly do. I mean for the same thing. :oops:

I saw next door's kid walking along the wall and heard his mother say (in a really soft voice) "Don't walk on there its dangerous" and I thought 'That's exactly why he walks on the wall'. Kids will do anything they think they won't get told off for and some parents aren't living in the real world. This kid was like 2 foot tall walking along a 5 foot wall.

I can't be bothered, read the first few pages of this thread. If you ever find a girl 'special' enough to sleep with you please use some sort of contraception.

Manc33

Poverty causes stress and stress causes anger. Now do you understand the lottery comment?

Probably not when you just choose to play dumb all the time because I said it.

bondurant

Poverty is not the only thing that causes stress. Having money does not relieve you of things that make you angry.

Manc33

Bondurant wrote:

Poverty is not the only thing that causes stress.

I never implied it was.

Bondurant wrote:

Having money does not relieve you of things that make you angry.

I never implied it did.

bondurant

Sure you did. Read what you wrote.

team47b

He did imply many things, some of which he was not aware of, but it is up to the reader to infer its correct meaning.

I read the word 'probably' and inferred he meant that he had no idea or proof that the only people with lots of money must be lottery winners because if he had used the idea that a lot of wealthy people are well educated and this is the main reason they don't smack their children the argument would be a very different one

veronese68

Manc33 wrote:

Poverty causes stress and stress causes anger. Now do you understand the lottery comment?

Probably not when you just choose to play dumb all the time because I said it.

Poverty is one of the many things that can cause stress. I still don't believe winning the lottery will make anyone less likely to beat a child. Research shows that money has no effect on overall happiness and that if a person wins big after a temporary spike in their happiness they quickly revert to their normal level. But you probably won't believe this as the research was done by people with qualifications, not some quack.
I don't play dumb because you said something. I will quite happily tell anyone that they are wrong, you are just wrong far more often than most other people on here.