Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Ehm...so...what is thet show's point? The trailer pretty much is the show in a nutshell...it raises a conflict and that's about it. To me, it looks like a "Look at me, I am edgy!" show with little plot.

pretty much, its a show about a controversial topic to make it water cooler talk.

That sounds about right. It's enough, just on face value alone, to get people all fired up and aggressive (see this thread) but in terms of substance, it's hard to see them doing much with it. Now, it is possible they COULD by showing how complex the situation is, and how there is no room for a 100% clear black-and-white standing and all that, but this is network TV, that ain't gonna happen.

 curran12 wrote:
That sounds about right. It's enough, just on face value alone, to get people all fired up and aggressive (see this thread) but in terms of substance, it's hard to see them doing much with it. Now, it is possible they COULD by showing how complex the situation is, and how there is no room for a 100% clear black-and-white standing and all that, but this is network TV, that ain't gonna happen.

No, the meat of it is you find out a bunch of horrible things about the people all because of the legal action taken.



A lot of issues about domestic abuse, cheating, airing dirty laundry in court and so on so seeing all the different 'sides' to this shows no one is good or bad. Pretty much everyone is awful.

Not sure if the series is good or not, the book was boring and kinda dumb. I basically didn't care about anyone, thought they were all monsters and just needed to finish it to see everyone was a POS.

Asterios wrote:
problem is when even spanking your child for doing wrong, is breaking the law, I'm not advocating beating a child, but a firm hand must be taken when raising children, when you have 12 and 13 year olds killing people now a days, you have to wonder if a hands off approach is worth it, and yes several instances of 13 year olds killing people, and these kids were raised in a enlightenment way too (no spankings or slappings), and that's just in my town

And yet violence in general and violent crime in specific has been declining for generations. Murders, robberies, assaults, you name it, there's a lot less of it now. If you look at that compared to the fact corporal punishment has been similarly going out of favor, it's hard to reconcile the idea that "hitting your kids is an effective means of deterring crime" with what the reality has shown.

I'm in the camp that hitting your kids doesn't teach them discipline, it only teaches them to fear you; and that violence is an acceptable solution.

Just when I thought it couldn't get worse, it just did! I'll pass.

 Frazzled wrote:
Just when I thought it couldn't get worse, it just did! I'll pass.

It is a soap opera crossed with law and Order.

If you enjoy trashy soaps or law and order, you might like it. Otherwise, you are better off watching Simpsons reruns on FFX.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Slapping get your kid is a traumatic experience for a child, and anyone that does it should not be allowed to parent.
I thought we moved past this babarism.

I was slapped a couple times when I was out of line by both my parents. I turned out just fine because it was explained why I was slapped by my parents afterwards.

Ouze wrote:

Asterios wrote:
problem is when even spanking your child for doing wrong, is breaking the law, I'm not advocating beating a child, but a firm hand must be taken when raising children, when you have 12 and 13 year olds killing people now a days, you have to wonder if a hands off approach is worth it, and yes several instances of 13 year olds killing people, and these kids were raised in a enlightenment way too (no spankings or slappings), and that's just in my town

And yet violence in general and violent crime in specific has been declining for generations. Murders, robberies, assaults, you name it, there's a lot less of it now. If you look at that compared to the fact corporal punishment has been similarly going out of favor, it's hard to reconcile the idea that "hitting your kids is an effective means of deterring crime" with what the reality has shown.

I'm in the camp that hitting your kids doesn't teach them discipline, it only teaches them to fear you; and that violence is an acceptable solution.

I think in some situations yes it does teach fear but as I said above, when it was explained after the fact that it wasn’t just fear that was instilled in me but respect for my parents as well. With that being said I only was ever slapped once or twice becasue I learned very quickly not to act that way again.

 Ouze wrote:
it only teaches them to fear you;

My mother never needed to hit anyone for us to be terrified of her.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
The book touched on the problems of raising a kid in an multicultural and varied enviroments

So you've read the book?

Care to share with us how it approaches the topics and the multiple points of view?

Look. There is nothing wrong with slapping your children. Beating and slapping are two very different things.

Discipline is a necessary part of raising a child. And if verbal warnings don't work, then slap will suffice.

When I lived in Lebanon, an entire school of over a thousand pupils was kept in line by one man with a cane. Did it help? Damn straight, no bullying, no truancy, no misbehaving of any kind.

 cincydooley wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
The book touched on the problems of raising a kid in an multicultural and varied enviroments

So you've read the book?

Care to share with us how it approaches the topics and the multiple points of view?

No, I read up on reviews of the book, from what I read, it is very Australian. And touched Aussie problems so IM guessing things got lost in translation.

Anytime hitting kids come up, I always bring up these 2 videos.

I don't hit my kid. And no one else better hit my kid. Things would get very ugly very quickly, without question. And i'm not talking about getting physical (as that will just get me arrested). I'm talking making that persons life fething miserable with the full extent of the law humanly possible. Pressing charges. Restraining order. Possible civil suit if necessary. Calls to local news agencies.

Let me handle my kid, thanks.

That said, i am the first person to react when my kid shows even a glimmer of a hint of acting up ; to the point where most often i just have to look at my kid, and he calms right down. I get compliments on how well behaved he is. I have on a couple of occasions of dire need brought him to work, sat him at a desk in my office, and he's been content to quietly draw when I can't show him what i do for work, etc., never making a peep.


Parent your kids, people. You can do it without slapping the gak out of them.



And before anyone gets all asshurt about my stance on this, in my state, even slapping a kid on the face or the butt is technically child abuse. The laws are very clear. If that's not something you like, don't live in this state.

 reds8n wrote:
So it's a Rashomon effect style drama then yes ?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon_effect

Now that is a subject I would rather talk about, Akira Kurosawa is the gak.

Watching the trailer, I have a question, at one point, an adult says he deserved it.
Does that mean that if I think some adult needs to get hit I should do it free of consequences? Why are kids the only ones it is OK to hit if they misbehave?

 Ouze wrote:

Asterios wrote:
problem is when even spanking your child for doing wrong, is breaking the law, I'm not advocating beating a child, but a firm hand must be taken when raising children, when you have 12 and 13 year olds killing people now a days, you have to wonder if a hands off approach is worth it, and yes several instances of 13 year olds killing people, and these kids were raised in a enlightenment way too (no spankings or slappings), and that's just in my town

And yet violence in general and violent crime in specific has been declining for generations. Murders, robberies, assaults, you name it, there's a lot less of it now. If you look at that compared to the fact corporal punishment has been similarly going out of favor, it's hard to reconcile the idea that "hitting your kids is an effective means of deterring crime" with what the reality has shown.

I'm in the camp that hitting your kids doesn't teach them discipline, it only teaches them to fear you; and that violence is an acceptable solution.

May I ask in what fantasy world you live in? seriously, when I'm seeing more and more kids well under 18 killing others, and this is documented as increasing, furthermore murders have been increasing, so I repeat in what country do you live that what you said is true?

The U.S. the only reason you are thinking that is true is because we are more exposed to it now, Violent crime has gone down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/17/upshot/perceptions-havent-caught-up-to-decline-in-crime.html?referrer=

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
The U.S. the only reason you are thinking that is true is because we are more exposed to it now, Violent crime has gone down.

actually according to the FBI underage violent crime has increased steadily over the years.

Also I live in Stockton California so don't tell me violent crime is dropping cause I will call BS on that.

Mabye it is because people hitting their kids are teaching that violence is the answer


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
The U.S. the only reason you are thinking that is true is because we are more exposed to it now, Violent crime has gone down.

actually according to the FBI underage violent crime has increased steadily over the years.

Also I live in Stockton California so don't tell me violent crime is dropping cause I will call BS on that.

oh yes, because one small area is indicative of the country. Take a research class one of these days

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Mabye it is because people hitting their kids are teaching that violence is the answer


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
The U.S. the only reason you are thinking that is true is because we are more exposed to it now, Violent crime has gone down.

actually according to the FBI underage violent crime has increased steadily over the years.

Also I live in Stockton California so don't tell me violent crime is dropping cause I will call BS on that.

oh yes, because one small area is indicative of the country. Take a research class one of these days

its not just here either, but go ahead and believe the NYtimes all you want, I had to laugh when I saw that one.

but as it goes I've lived here for over 40 years and I've seen crime expand and violent crime increase, are you saying I'm in a unique vortex which defies logic? or that the surrounding cities are in that same vortex? are we in the twilight zone? or shall we talk about columbine and other school massacres? seeing as how they were all the fad 30 years or so ago. and school shootings have been reducing.

So you are saying stockton, an entire city known for crime is more indicative of the nation's woes then the official FBE crime statistics?
Someone needs to learn to think critically.

Asterios wrote:
Also I live in Stockton California so don't tell me violent crime is dropping cause I will call BS on that.

Ok, so obviously with that bold statement, I am clearly undertaking a fools errand, but the fact remains that violent crime has declined to the lowest level in 40 years in the US, and juvenile crime in particular has not been somehow exempt.

Asterios wrote:
but as it goes I've lived here for over 40 years and I've seen crime expand and violent crime increase, are you saying I'm in a unique vortex which defies logic?

I'm saying your local anecdotal evidence doesn't translate to the rest of the country at large, an idea that isn't especially complex. "I just ate a sandwich, so we solved world hunger" would be the shorthand.

Asterios wrote:
or shall we talk about columbine and other school massacres? seeing as how they were all the fad 30 years or so ago

Funny you should say that. Are you truly ignorant of the fact that the deadliest school shooting in this country was up until recently in 1966? And in fact, to circle back to the thought that corporal punishment somehow reduces criminality, that shooter was physically disciplined by his father? This would be in the 40s, mind you.

 Ouze wrote:

Asterios wrote:
Also I live in Stockton California so don't tell me violent crime is dropping cause I will call BS on that.

Ok, so obviously with that bold statement, I am clearly undertaking a fools errand, but the fact remains that violent crime has declined to the lowest level in 40 years in the US, and juvenile crime in particular has not been somehow exempt.

Asterios wrote:
but as it goes I've lived here for over 40 years and I've seen crime expand and violent crime increase, are you saying I'm in a unique vortex which defies logic?

I'm saying your local anecdotal evidence doesn't translate to the rest of the country at large, an idea that isn't especially complex. "I just ate a sandwich, so we solved world hunger" would be the shorthand.

oh i'm not saying the arrest rate is not lower (you do realize that's the link you gave was for arrest rate?) but also for crime committed by children 16 and under has increased furthermore, some of the most horrendous murders, did not lead to an arrest. tell me how many multiple shootings in schools occurred in the 60's? 70's? 80's? 90's? 2000's? 2010's? you'll notice that number drastically increased. also in all those school shootings how many of those kids were arrested?

One little anecdotal evidence like school shootings do it mean we have become more violent

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
One little anecdotal evidence like school shootings do it mean we have become more violent

All facts I've read seem to indicate that we've been getting less violent overall since about the time lead gas got banned.

I agree, I'm saying the school shootings are no indicator.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
One little anecdotal evidence like school shootings do it mean we have become more violent

considering 20 - 30 years ago they were unheard of but now are going off too much as of late, yes it does mean we are becoming more violent, because kids are no longer learning that each action comes with an equal or greater reaction, and I've seen the effects of both types of raising children as of lately and what happens, I've seen a child raised with punishments doing good and a child raised with a its not your fault attitude grow up to be a rapist and such, so yes, I can also speak from experience and knowledge on that, can you?

Here is a very fun list to read, America has a traditions of school shootins. All the way back to 1700s it seems
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

Asterios wrote:
considering 20 - 30 years ago they were unheard of

Seriously, you have no idea what you are talking about and you need to google a little before you post. There were an average of like 2 school shootings a year between 1900 and 1920. 20 years ago was 1995, a year that saw 3 school shootings. 30 years ago was 1985, a year that saw 6.

quick, move the goalposts somewhere else!

It sounds stupid I don't approve. Don't beat your kids punish them by making do choirs or work on a farm. Nothing is worse then shoveling cow gak for a couple hours. Gives you time to think and learn from you mistakes.


Then victory will be yours.


I guarantee it.