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.

 kveldulf wrote:
The militia is an essential part of asserting your citizenship. State/Fed authority can become corrupt (which especially most of the administrative branches of fed govt are). Its about time people give the feds the bird. If I didn't have young children, I'd be tempted to go up there too.

That's a load of horsecrap through and through.

I am not disagreeing with you at all Kan, but it would probably be better if you were to go over the reasons why.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:
The militia is an essential part of asserting your citizenship. State/Fed authority can become corrupt (which especially most of the administrative branches of fed govt are). Its about time people give the feds the bird. If I didn't have young children, I'd be tempted to go up there too.

Wait, if you didn't have children you'd go sit in a hut, as an act of solidarity for some child abusers who committed arson?

Child abusers? - for some reason i haven't heard about that with the Hammonds...

Villifying them and essentially me, with gross labels & notions -that ignore any of the context of the situaton - tells me that you are just another person who really hates the seperation of powers, good representation & citizenry.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:
The militia is an essential part of asserting your citizenship. State/Fed authority can become corrupt (which especially most of the administrative branches of fed govt are). Its about time people give the feds the bird. If I didn't have young children, I'd be tempted to go up there too.

That's a load of horsecrap through and through.

Because corruption doesn't happen in govt...?

Let's just hand wave history. We're civilized, that'll never happen. People are basically good eh?

I prefer reality, where we recognize that people are inherently flawed/evil, and govt should remain closer to the people... you know to be more accountable to the people...

 kveldulf wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:
The militia is an essential part of asserting your citizenship. State/Fed authority can become corrupt (which especially most of the administrative branches of fed govt are). Its about time people give the feds the bird. If I didn't have young children, I'd be tempted to go up there too.

Wait, if you didn't have children you'd go sit in a hut, as an act of solidarity for some child abusers who committed arson?

Child abusers? - for some reason i haven't heard about that with the Hammonds...

Villifying them and essentially me, with gross labels & notions -that ignore any of the context of the situaton - tells me that you are just another person who really hates the seperation of powers, good representation & citizenry.

Then you haven't actually read anything about the Hammonds, at all. Part of their trial involved one of their children, who had scars that he inflicted upon himself(carved his initials into his chest with a paper clip or some such silliness) sanded off.

If you look through this very thread, you can find the information.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:
The militia is an essential part of asserting your citizenship. State/Fed authority can become corrupt (which especially most of the administrative branches of fed govt are). Its about time people give the feds the bird. If I didn't have young children, I'd be tempted to go up there too.

That's a load of horsecrap through and through.

Because corruption doesn't happen in govt...?

Pretending that it happens solely at the state/federal level is idiocy. Pretending that it is anything that a militia can affect?

Grandstanding of the highest caliber and a gross misunderstanding of government.

Let's just hand wave history. We're civilized, that'll never happen. People are basically good eh?

Strawman much?

I prefer reality, where we recognize that people are inherently flawed/evil, and govt should remain closer to the people... you know to be more accountable to the people...

Accountability != Guns waved in the air like you just don't care.

You want a government to remain closer to the people? Start voting better.
Want a government that is more accountable to the people? Start voting better.

And for the love of all that's holy, get money out of politics.

 streamdragon wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:
Matters of powerful legislation should be kept closer to the people

Closer to the people, like a Direct Democracy? But I thought:

 kveldulf wrote:
good proper govt isn't a majority rules matter.

Ultimately law cannot be held absolutely subject to a majority and it remain legit, but yes since we are imperfect, it gets to a point where a majority vote must be determined on matters less self -evident (think matters of education, utilities, building codes, welfare, tax colectionary - though i believe private institutions can cover mist of these particular ones). However, it doesn't mean you have to accept, so moving might be an option... or arms

The US govt held that federalism was the best option to keep more and more power at the bottom, and less when you go up - Jackson's view of the pyramid of appropriate government.

 kveldulf wrote:
Child abusers? - for some reason i haven't heard about that with the Hammonds...

Villifying them and essentially me, with gross labels & notions -that ignore any of the context of the situaton - tells me that you are just another person who really hates the seperation of powers, good representation & citizenry.

Well, I don't know about all that stuff at the end there. But, here's the abuse stuff.

 Ouze wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:
Child abusers? - for some reason i haven't heard about that with the Hammonds...

Villifying them and essentially me, with gross labels & notions -that ignore any of the context of the situaton - tells me that you are just another person who really hates the seperation of powers, good representation & citizenry.

Well, I don't know about all that stuff at the end there. But, here's the abuse stuff.

Hmmm... if roughing up a 6'2 200 lbs 'kid' who isn't minding his parents... who later ends up carving on himself... and you use sand paper to remove the initials on his chest.... is abuse, well, I don't know. I don't know the whole situation. That sounds like a pretty extreme thing all around, not just a parental one.

That's an awful big kid though.... and frankly if my large kid of 16 was doing that to himself.... I'd take some extreme measures too. My dad has a story of him experiencing some extreme correction after saying no in a cavalier way - when he was a teen. His face was planted on the wall. Was it the greatest solution, probably not.

Ultimately what they did, and what they did with backfire are two different things. Everyone is going to have ghosts in their closet... including everyone in this thread.

The feds encroaching on stuff is a reality, and one I'm more than happy to take a stand, support and have a chance to-face to-face network on.

 kveldulf wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:
Child abusers? - for some reason i haven't heard about that with the Hammonds...

Villifying them and essentially me, with gross labels & notions -that ignore any of the context of the situaton - tells me that you are just another person who really hates the seperation of powers, good representation & citizenry.

Well, I don't know about all that stuff at the end there. But, here's the abuse stuff.

Hmmm... if roughing up a 6'2 200 lbs 'kid' who isn't minding his parents... who later ends up carving on himself... and you use sand paper to remove the initials on his chest.... is abuse, well, I don't know. I don't know the whole situation. That sounds like a pretty extreme thing all around, not just a parental one.

That's an awful big kid though.... and frankly if my large kid of 16 was doing that to himself.... I'd take some extreme measures too. My dad has a story of him experiencing some extreme correction after saying no in a cavalier way - when he was a teen. His face was planted on the wall.

Ultimately what they did, and what they did with backfire are two different things. Everyone is going to have ghosts in their closet... including everyone in this thread.

The feds encroaching on stuff is a reality, and one I'm more than happy to take a stand, support and have a chance to-face to-face network on.

So you are saying you would actually hold down a kid and sandpaper his skin off? Wow

 kveldulf wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:
Child abusers? - for some reason i haven't heard about that with the Hammonds...

Villifying them and essentially me, with gross labels & notions -that ignore any of the context of the situaton - tells me that you are just another person who really hates the seperation of powers, good representation & citizenry.

Well, I don't know about all that stuff at the end there. But, here's the abuse stuff.

Hmmm... if roughing up a 6'2 200 lbs 'kid' who isn't minding his parents... who later ends up carving on himself... and you use sand paper to remove the initials on his chest.... is abuse, well, I don't know. I don't know the whole situation. That sounds like a pretty extreme thing all around, not just a parental one.

There is no if. That is abuse. Period. The size of a child has absolutely no bearing on the matter.

That's an awful big kid though.... and frankly if my large kid of 16 was doing that to himself.... I'd take some extreme measures too. My dad has a story of him experiencing some extreme correction after saying no in a cavalier way - when he was a teen. His face was planted on the wall.

If a kid is self harming then the very last thing they need is their family inflicting more harm to them. If your "extreme measures" to "correct" your self harming child involve any form of physical violence then you should not have custody of that child or any other child as you are unfit to be a parent.

Ultimately what they did, and what they did with backfire are two different things. Everyone is going to have ghosts in their closet... including everyone in this thread.

I have never physically assaulted children or committed arson to cover up illegal poaching.

Dude..... if my kid was carving crap into his skin.... yea, it might just be an option. That would seriously piss me off. Save the psych BS, I don't think something like that is fixed with brain shrinking and drugs.

 kveldulf wrote:
Dude..... if my kid was carving crap into his skin.... yea, it might just be an option. That would seriously piss me off. Save the psych BS, I don't think something like that is fixed with brain shrinking and drugs.

I fear for your children or future children because you will be a terrible parent

 kveldulf wrote:
Dude..... if my kid was carving crap into his skin.... yea, it might just be an option. That would seriously piss me off. Save the psych BS, I don't think something like that is fixed with brain shrinking and drugs.

And onto ignore you go. You should probably see a psychiatrist as you apparently have severe anger issues which will probably get you into serious trouble some day.

 kveldulf wrote:
Hmmm... if roughing up a 6'2 200 lbs 'kid' who isn't minding his parents... who later ends up carving on himself... and you use sand paper to remove the initials on his chest.... is abuse, well, I don't know.

You don't know? In what twisted, fethed up world is taking sandpaper to your child's chest *not* abuse?

That's an awful big kid though.... and frankly if my large kid of 16 was doing that to himself.... I'd take some extreme measures too.

Extreme Measures =/= Sanding down a 16 year old's chest.

My dad has a story of him experiencing some extreme correction after saying no in a cavalier way - when he was a teen. His face was planted on the wall.

Oh, well if your dad got thrown into a wall when he was younger then it's all fine and dandy. Break out the 32 grit I say, let's make it a party.

 kveldulf wrote:
Dude..... if my kid was carving crap into his skin.... yea, it might just be an option. That would seriously piss me off. Save the psych BS, I don't think something like that is fixed with brain shrinking and drugs.

Wow. Just. Wow.

It's not often you see someone openly declare their use of physical abuse on their children. You need some help.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:
Child abusers? - for some reason i haven't heard about that with the Hammonds...

Villifying them and essentially me, with gross labels & notions -that ignore any of the context of the situaton - tells me that you are just another person who really hates the seperation of powers, good representation & citizenry.

Well, I don't know about all that stuff at the end there. But, here's the abuse stuff.

Hmmm... if roughing up a 6'2 200 lbs 'kid' who isn't minding his parents... who later ends up carving on himself... and you use sand paper to remove the initials on his chest.... is abuse, well, I don't know. I don't know the whole situation. That sounds like a pretty extreme thing all around, not just a parental one.

There is no if. That is abuse. Period. The size of a child has absolutely no bearing on the matter.

That's an awful big kid though.... and frankly if my large kid of 16 was doing that to himself.... I'd take some extreme measures too. My dad has a story of him experiencing some extreme correction after saying no in a cavalier way - when he was a teen. His face was planted on the wall.

If a kid is self harming then the very last thing they need is their family inflicting more harm to them. If your "extreme measures" to correct your child from committing self harm involve any form of physical violence then you should not have custody of that child or any other child as you are unfit to be a parent.

Ultimately what they did, and what they did with backfire are two different things. Everyone is going to have ghosts in their closet... including everyone in this thread.

I have never physically assaulted children or committed arson to cover up illegal poaching.

BS when you are standing near as tall as me, almost old enough to die in war then holding hands is the last thing a boy needs. Hopefully he's already got a good handle of respecting authority by 16, but if he hasnt figured it out by then, then a paddle or belt is in order at the very least.

The covering up of poaching... or just sitting on their character to justify stupid minimum sentences of 'terrorism' is slowed.

 curran12 wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:
Dude..... if my kid was carving crap into his skin.... yea, it might just be an option. That would seriously piss me off. Save the psych BS, I don't think something like that is fixed with brain shrinking and drugs.

Wow. Just. Wow.

It's not often you see someone openly declare their use of physical abuse on their children. You need some help.

Not to mention the complete disregard of science involved in thinking that he knows better how to fix mental health problems than trained mental health doctors.

 curran12 wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:
Dude..... if my kid was carving crap into his skin.... yea, it might just be an option. That would seriously piss me off. Save the psych BS, I don't think something like that is fixed with brain shrinking and drugs.

Wow. Just. Wow.

It's not often you see someone openly declare their use of physical abuse on their children. You need some help.

I spank my children. If you don't think it's an option, ok. I think not spanking them is child abuse - unless they're perfect or do little to merit it.

 kveldulf wrote:
Hopefully he's already got a good handle of respecting authority by 16, but if he hasnt figured it out by then, then a paddle or belt is in order at the very least.

I don't know... You seem to be pretty disrespectful of the authority of the federal government. Has your father taken sandpaper to your chest to correct this yet?

 kveldulf wrote:

 curran12 wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:
Dude..... if my kid was carving crap into his skin.... yea, it might just be an option. That would seriously piss me off. Save the psych BS, I don't think something like that is fixed with brain shrinking and drugs.

Wow. Just. Wow.

It's not often you see someone openly declare their use of physical abuse on their children. You need some help.

I spank my children. If you don't think it's an option, ok. I think not spanking them is child abuse - unless they're perfect.

Not surprised in the least that hitting your children is part of your system.

And you've also declared you'd be willing to take sandpaper to a child as well.

I fear for your children.

 kveldulf wrote:
I think not spanking them is child abuse

Wut.

 kveldulf wrote:


I spank my children. If you don't think it's an option, ok. I think not spanking them is child abuse - unless they're perfect.

 kveldulf wrote:
BS when you are standing near as tall as me, almost old enough to die in war then holding hands is the last thing a boy needs. Hopefully he's already got a good handle of respecting authority by 16, but if he hasnt figured it out by then, then a paddle or belt is in order at the very least.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely why all forms of corporal punishment should be illegal.

Because otherwise you get idiots who can't tell the difference between giving a child a little smack and flogging them until they bleed or sanding their skin off and they think it is acceptable behaviour and not against the law.

 Goliath wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:
I think not spanking them is child abuse

Wut.

If you don't they might learn conflict resolution skills other than violence. You don't want kids turning out to be pussies do you?

As far govt goes I believe in good govt. I don't believe in unlimited submission to civil govt though, as delineation is important or else the state may turn into a God.

As far as, conflict resolution. I teach my kids prior to the spanking what they did wrong, and after, I hold them. I want them to remember what they did. I offer ample warning before I resort to it.

I might be a socialist, but at least I don't advocate the sand-papering of children. Even evil has standards.

FWIW whether you'd be pissed at your child if something similar to that described above happened should have absolutely fething NO bearing on the punishment; you're not supposed to be punishing because you feel annoyed.

People certainly are flawed though, you've proven that beyond a doubt.

Man this thread is going to places...

EDIT... not worth it.

Well, this took... a turn.

 kveldulf wrote:
Its about time people give the feds the bird. If I didn't have young children, I'd be tempted to go up there too.

I feel like you'd fit in well from what I've read.

Today, I learned that sandpapering a child's chest is the same as spanking him, and thus it's totally okay if you don't like what they did. Who knew, right?

Of course, that really doesn't have much to do with the topic - since the Hammonds have stated Bundy's group don't represent them - but the more you know...

I'm waiting for a third group to show up to help the people Bundy's militia don't want helping them, followed by a statement from said second group that the newcomers aren't welcome, and so on and so forth until everyone gets bored and gives up.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:


I spank my children. If you don't think it's an option, ok. I think not spanking them is child abuse - unless they're perfect.

 kveldulf wrote:
BS when you are standing near as tall as me, almost old enough to die in war then holding hands is the last thing a boy needs. Hopefully he's already got a good handle of respecting authority by 16, but if he hasnt figured it out by then, then a paddle or belt is in order at the very least.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely why all forms of corporal punishment should be illegal.

Because otherwise you get idiots who can't tell the difference between giving a child a little smack and flogging them until they bleed or sanding their skin off and they think it is acceptable behaviour and not against the law.

And putting them on anti depressant / antI psychotics is any better? Especially when they increas suicidal tendencies and mass shootings?

Please.... your moral justification is purely from a collective viewpoint. Mine is at least referencing some manner of natural law.

 kveldulf wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:


I spank my children. If you don't think it's an option, ok. I think not spanking them is child abuse - unless they're perfect.

 kveldulf wrote:
BS when you are standing near as tall as me, almost old enough to die in war then holding hands is the last thing a boy needs. Hopefully he's already got a good handle of respecting authority by 16, but if he hasnt figured it out by then, then a paddle or belt is in order at the very least.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely why all forms of corporal punishment should be illegal.

Because otherwise you get idiots who can't tell the difference between giving a child a little smack and flogging them until they bleed or sanding their skin off and they think it is acceptable behaviour and not against the law.

And putting them on anti depressant / antI psychotics is any better? Especially when they increas suicidal tendencies and mass shootings?

Please.... your moral justification is purely from a collective viewpoint. Mine is at least referencing some manner of natural law.

...define 'natural law', please? I'm curious.

 kveldulf wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:


I spank my children. If you don't think it's an option, ok. I think not spanking them is child abuse - unless they're perfect.

 kveldulf wrote:
BS when you are standing near as tall as me, almost old enough to die in war then holding hands is the last thing a boy needs. Hopefully he's already got a good handle of respecting authority by 16, but if he hasnt figured it out by then, then a paddle or belt is in order at the very least.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely why all forms of corporal punishment should be illegal.

Because otherwise you get idiots who can't tell the difference between giving a child a little smack and flogging them until they bleed or sanding their skin off and they think it is acceptable behaviour and not against the law.

And putting them on anti depressant / antI psychotics is any better? Especially when they increas suicidal tendencies and mass shootings?

Please.... your moral justification is purely from a collective viewpoint. Mine is at least referencing some manner of natural law.

Giving them medicine, which has no correlation to mass shootings but try again, or physically hurting them with sandpaper because you can't be asked to be a good parent. Hmm I wonder whats better