Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: I simply enjoy it too much, as Americans do.
Date: Sun, 6 May 2018 09:41:41 -0700
Lines: 130
Message-ID: <fl8pi5Faab4U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <nnpjedt72jhl4l5uavmvfkt3r715b23hul@4ax.com> <szb9037g9a.ghuo@rooftop> <szlid> <fl3ensF4od2U1@mid.individual.netktnsz9b89880ga.guo4@rooftop.invalid> <fl5s5aFktnpU1@mid.individual.net> <zv903ag.ahuo3@rooftop.invalid> <fl67ddFnfgvU1@mid.individual.net> <azb908tag.h3@rooftop.invalid> <fl6h5bFpkh2U2@mid.individual.net> <9b9zsfb83.ahou3@rooftop.invalid> <fl6r0kFrk24U1@mid.individual.net> <szb80380ab.ahu3@rooftop.invalid> <fl70kmFsq8sU2@mid.individual.net> <zkba080g3q.hvu43@rooftop.invalid>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net WNJi+JCh8gpDdwWi3M+tnAhf2OB3YIT5ZGbIjb9hU44fu7hqaT
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9bhqZyaVMJr+InQQEPKReNY0rPk=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
In-Reply-To: <zkba080g3q.hvu43@rooftop.invalid>
Content-Language: en-US
Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.advocacy:450602 sci.physics:683989

On 5/6/18 5:42 AM, owl wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 5/5/18 4:24 PM, owl wrote:
>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/5/18 2:16 PM, owl wrote:
>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/5/18 12:47 PM, owl wrote:
>>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/5/18 8:29 AM, owl wrote:
>>>
>>>>> one of the comments to that article:
>>>>> <quote>
>>>>> Casey Noble
>>>>> actually, I was told by Child Protective Services DIRECTLY that any form of hitting your child is illegal AT LEAST in the state of Indiana
>>>>> </quote>
>>>>
>>>> What law?
>>>
>>> Who knows, but the guy in the case above was convicted of assault.
>>
>> So you do not know the law or what actions happened but you know the
>> results are wrong? That IS a question... but seems to be the case.
>> Please clarify.
> 
> You cannot read, yet you home-school your kids.  The law was "assault."
> The man was convicted of "assault" for spanking his own child.
> The "actions that happened" were that he had to appeal to the state
> Supreme Court in order to get the conviction overturned.
> 
> 
>>>>> Another from the land of libtards:
>>>>> <quote>
>>>>> Massachusetts lawmakers say a proposed measure that would ban parents from
>>>>> spanking their children, even in their own homes, is a way to protect
>>>>> kids from abuse. But many parents believe it's an example of government
>>>>> run amok.
>>>>
>>>> What law?
>>>
>>> Apparently the one Nurse Libtard moved forward to a vote.
>>
>> So you have no idea. Um, OK.
>>
> 
> As stated multiple times, the "law" is the bill that was before
> the state house for a vote.
> 
> 
>>>>> In all 50 states, parents are legally allowed to spank their children. But
>>>>> in 29 states it's illegal for a teacher to practice corporal punishment,
>>>>> including spanking.
>>>>
>>>> OK. A teacher cannot touch my kids. Sure.
>>>
>>> Teachers have to put up with your brats six hours a day.  They should
>>> be allowed to administer the discipline that is not available in the
>>> typical libtard home.
>>
>> Nope. NOBODY has a right to strike my child without my permission. Nobody!
>>
> 
> Who says?  You?  That is the case today (thanks, libtards), but for
> decades schools were allowed to spank kids.  In my junior high, the
> principal had a big wooden paddle that all the kids were afraid of.
> And as a result we didn't have any savages rampaging in the classrooms
> like we do today.
> 
> 
>>>>> A Massachusetts nurse is hoping to change that and make the state the
>>>>> first in the nation to ban corporal punishment at home.
>>>>
>>>> A nurse. One. Um, OK.
>>>
>>> She got the bill moved to a vote.
>>
>> Would love to see the bill.
>>
> 
> So look it up.
> 
>   
>>>>> "I think it's ironic that domestic violence applies to everyone except the most vulnerable — children," said Kathleen Wolf, who wrote the bill.
>>>>>
>>>>> Massachusetts lawmakers will consider the bill today.
>>>>> </quote>
>>>>>
>>>>> That was from 2007.  Don't know how it came out.  But it's easy to see
>>>>> that the agenda is there.  Keep America sane.  Vote conservative.
>>>>
>>>> The agenda of a nurse? One person?
>>>
>>> Do you doubt she is a liberal?  2007 was a little early for the stupid
>>> pink hats, but I'll bet she's got one now.
>>
>> I doubt she is more than one person.
> 
> 
> Let's hope so.
> 
> 
>> What, really, is your complaint
>> here... one person did something (maybe, though you cannot show it)
> 
> 
> What do you mean by "show it"?  Is the article describing it not enough?
> 
> 
>> that
>> you disagree with.
>>
>> So what?
>>
> 
> So, thanks libtards.
>   
> 
Ah, you know nothing of the laws being talked about or proposed, no 
links for anyone to even look at, you want OTHERS to help you find these 
bills or whatever, but you KNOW you are outraged at people.

You have a lot of fear and anger but little knowledge. Fair enough.

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>