Dugger vs Dunham

[PsyOps]

And here is another example of how parents will choose to go some legal route when two kids get into it, rather than just take care of it as parents.

Two kids get in a fight on a school bus (something that happened all the time when I was a kid). Rather than the parents just discipline their kids, the parents sue the school system..................... for $10 million. What a fine lesson to teach our children.............. when a scuffle happens............... sue.

Never let a crisis go to waste.

Back in my day both kids would have gotten a good spanking, forced to apologize to each other, then spend some time in their rooms thinking about it.

 

[Midnightrider]

It's not "retarded BS." It's a difference of opinion. Your opinion eventually came around to be "the state has the responsibility to properly discipline and provide help for my child if he feels up another child, so I demonstrate my parental responsibility by turning my child over to the state"; whereas my (and what I perceive Psy's) opinion is "I am responsible for my child so I provide the discipline and counseling for him myself, including making him confess and provide some form of restitution, all while working with the parents of the victims."

I don't understand your incessant need to belittle other people's opinions by calling them retarded and such. You and a certified licensed psychotherapist should really look into that.

The straw man you guys insist on building is retarded BS. That is not what I have said, I have repeated my position numerous times and you both insist on making up some BS to ascribe to me instead of addressing my actual position.

My position has been from the beginning that I would discipline my kid AND I would make sure they faced the legal 'music' if they committed a (or more than one) serious crime.

Hiding your kids misdoings from the authorities, particularly when they are serious crimes against other people, is just wrong. You aren't teaching any great values that way....

And here is another example of how parents will choose to go some legal route when two kids get into it, rather than just take care of it as parents.

Two kids get in a fight on a school bus (something that happened all the time when I was a kid). Rather than the parents just discipline their kids, the parents sue the school system..................... for $10 million. What a fine lesson to teach our children.............. when a scuffle happens............... sue.

Never let a crisis go to waste.

Back in my day both kids would have gotten a good spanking, forced to apologize to each other, then spend some time in their rooms thinking about it.

Seems like this is a little more then a simple fight on the school bus. I don't know hat it deserves a suing, but there is more to it...

The bus driver continued to drive,” McDaniel said. “He did not stop. He did not make sure that Saraia was OK. In essence, he just allowed the attack to take place.”

Tierra Holland, Saraia’s mother, said the bullying was an ongoing issue previously reported to school administrators.

“It’s not about the money for us,” Holland said. “We are not suing for money. We’re worried about Prince George’s County Public Schools acknowledging bullying going on in her school.”

 

[This_person]

The straw man you guys insist on building is retarded BS. That is not what I have said, I have repeated my position numerous times and you both insist on making up some BS to ascribe to me instead of addressing my actual position.

My position has been from the beginning that I would discipline my kid AND I would make sure they faced the legal 'music' if they committed a (or more than one) serious crime.

What "strawman" am I ascribing to you? I said you believe your child is better served by the government, then YOU said you believe your child is best served by the government and not you alone.

I, and I believe Psy, disagree that the child is better served by including the government and all of the tentacles which go with that. You disagree. That is not a strawman, you just said it.

That means we have a different opinion than yours. That is not retarded BS, that's a difference of opinion.

You really should seek professional counsel to determine why you can't face that without hateful malice.

 

[Midnightrider]

What "strawman" am I ascribing to you? I said you believe your child is better served by the government, then YOU said you believe your child is best served by the government and not you alone.

I, and I believe Psy, disagree that the child is better served by including the government and all of the tentacles which go with that. You disagree. That is not a strawman, you just said it.

That means we have a different opinion than yours. That is not retarded BS, that's a difference of opinion.

You really should seek professional counsel to determine why you can't face that without hateful malice.

There is your straw man right there

 

[This_person]

There is your straw man right there

If you do not believe your child would be better served by the government and not you alone, then please explain what this means:

My position has been from the beginning that I would discipline my kid AND I would make sure they faced the legal 'music' if they committed a (or more than one) serious crime.

Hiding your kids misdoings from the authorities, particularly when they are serious crimes against other people, is just wrong. You aren't teaching any great values that way....

What great values are you teaching by turning him over to the government that you can't do alone? If it is not better for your child to turn him over to the government than to handle it yourself, then why would you do that?

 

[Midnightrider]

If you do not believe your child would be better served by the government and not you alone, then please explain what this means:

​

What great values are you teaching by turning him over to the government that you can't do alone? If it is not better for your child to turn him over to the government than to handle it yourself, then why would you do that?

Its called being responsible for your actions. My statement explains itself.

You just keep building your strawman

 

[This_person]

Its called being responsible for your actions. My statement explains itself.

You just keep building your strawman

You either believe your child is better off in the hands of the state for being a kid feeling up another kid, or you don't. Which one is it?

 

[Midnightrider]

You either believe your child is better off in the hands of the state for being a kid feeling up another kid, or you don't. Which one is it?

Like I said, keep building your strawman

 

[This_person]

Like I said, keep building your strawman

Well, you clearly said that you would turn your child over to the police. That says you either believe your child is best served by the governmental system that would come from that turnover, or you believe it is more important to serve the government that way than to serve your child.

You can't answer this basic question. If there is a third option - if my logic is somehow faulty - provide your reasoning that would show your belief in how your child is best served by turning them over to the government.

 

[Midnightrider]

Well, you clearly said that you would turn your child over to the police. That says you either believe your child is best served by the governmental system that would come from that turnover, or you believe it is more important to serve the government that way than to serve your child.

You can't answer this basic question. If there is a third option - if my logic is somehow faulty - provide your reasoning that would show your belief in how your child is best served by turning them over to the government.

Its called taking responsibility for your actions. You either believe in it or you dont.

 

[This_person]

Its called taking responsibility for your actions. You either believe in it or you dont.

I believe in it. That's why I would handle my child myself. I would teach him to take responsibility for his actions as well.

You clearly and unambiguously said you would turn your child over to the government. That implies that you believe the government is there to teach you (or your child) responsibility.

Or, do you believe that it is possible to take responsibility for your child, and have your child take responsibility for his actions, without involving the government?

 

[Midnightrider]

I believe in it. That's why I would handle my child myself. I would teach him to take responsibility for his actions as well.

You clearly and unambiguously said you would turn your child over to the government. That implies that you believe the government is there to teach you (or your child) responsibility.

Or, do you believe that it is possible to take responsibility for your child, and have your child take responsibility for his actions, without involving the government?

What you infer is on you. That is not what I implied. Try reading in context.

Funny that you think taking responsibility means hiding a serious crime. That's pretty much the opposite of taking responsibility for your actions.

 

[This_person]

What you infer is on you. That is not what I implied. Try reading in context.

I read in context. In context, you said you would turn your child over to the government if he did something wrong, like feel up another kid. Is that or is that not your stance?

Funny that you think taking responsibility means hiding a serious crime. That's pretty much the opposite of taking responsibility for your actions.

I never said I'd hide it. I said I would take responsibility for it, discipline and provide psychological help for my child. I said I would deal with the victim and the parents of the victim.

What I said I would not do is involve the government.

You said the you would provide some form of discipline to your child AND involve the government.

The only difference between our positions is involvement of the government. Then, you state that not involving the government is "pretty much the opposite of taking responsibility for your actions."

I do not believe the government is the arbiter of taking responsibility for actions. I believe a person does or does not take responsibility for their actions, whether the government is involved or not. I further believe that one of my responsibilities is to teach my child, and look out for my children's well-being. I believe that involving the government in a child's act of feeling up another child is likely to be more harmful than helpful to both my child and the victim, so I would choose to not involve the government in that action. Now, if my child raped another child, or killed another child, or something similar beyond the ability for me to help him or get him help, I would probably involve the government at that time. Feeling up another child (to the point that the other child didn't even wake up) doesn't rise to that level.

You have stated unambiguously that in this case you would turn your child over to the government. You further stated that not doing so is "pretty much the opposite of taking responsibility for your actions". There are only two things that means: (1) you believe turning the child over to the government for this case is better for the child, or, (2) you accept that turning your child over to the government is not better for your child, but you don't care what's better, you simply believe the government needs to be involved for some reason. Either way, I disagree. If there is a third option, please provide it.

 

[Midnightrider]

I read in context. In context, you said you would turn your child over to the government if he did something wrong, like feel up another kid. Is that or is that not your stance?I never said I'd hide it. I said I would take responsibility for it, discipline and provide psychological help for my child. I said I would deal with the victim and the parents of the victim.

What I said I would not do is involve the government.

You said the you would provide some form of discipline to your child AND involve the government.

The only difference between our positions is involvement of the government. Then, you state that not involving the government is "pretty much the opposite of taking responsibility for your actions."

I do not believe the government is the arbiter of taking responsibility for actions. I believe a person does or does not take responsibility for their actions, whether the government is involved or not. I further believe that one of my responsibilities is to teach my child, and look out for my children's well-being. I believe that involving the government in a child's act of feeling up another child is likely to be more harmful than helpful to both my child and the victim, so I would choose to not involve the government in that action. Now, if my child raped another child, or killed another child, or something similar beyond the ability for me to help him or get him help, I would probably involve the government at that time. Feeling up another child (to the point that the other child didn't even wake up) doesn't rise to that level.

You have stated unambiguously that in this case you would turn your child over to the government. You further stated that not doing so is "pretty much the opposite of taking responsibility for your actions". There are only two things that means: (1) you believe turning the child over to the government for this case is better for the child, or, (2) you accept that turning your child over to the government is not better for your child, but you don't care what's better, you simply believe the government needs to be involved for some reason. Either way, I disagree. If there is a third option, please provide it.

It is a serious crime. What part of that do you not understand? If you do not turn yourself in when you commit a serious crime you are hiding it and avoiding taking responsibility for it.


I can tell you this much, the one time one of my kids got into any trouble he stood up and answered for it to the proper authority, but the punishment he got at home was much more severe.

You keep on building strawmen and hiding from taking responsibility.

 

[This_person]

It is a serious crime. What part of that do you not understand? If you do not turn yourself in when you commit a serious crime you are hiding it and avoiding taking responsibility for it.


I can tell you this much, the one time one of my kids got into any trouble he stood up and answered for it to the proper authority, but the punishment he got at home was much more severe.

You keep on building strawmen and hiding from taking responsibility.

So you believe that (1) or (2) was more accurate?

I do not find the government "proper authority" for a kid feeling up another kid. You do. That's a difference of opinion. I fully and firmly believe that people can take responsibility for their children and their actions without involving the government. You are stating, again here, that you do not believe that. These are simply differences of opinion. :shrug:

 

[Midnightrider]

So you believe that (1) or (2) was more accurate?

I do not find the government "proper authority" for a kid feeling up another kid. You do. That's a difference of opinion. I fully and firmly believe that people can take responsibility for their children and their actions without involving the government. You are stating, again here, that you do not believe that. These are simply differences of opinion. :shrug:

This was molestation of 5 of his sisters and one person not related to him. You can try to minimize that by calling it 'feeling up another kid', but violating a young girl is a serious crime to me and to the proper authorities.

 

[This_person]

This was molestation of 5 of his sisters and one person not related to him. You can try to minimize that by calling it 'feeling up another kid', but violating a young girl is a serious crime to me and to the proper authorities.

So, was (1) or (2) more accurate?

 

[Midnightrider]

So, was (1) or (2) more accurate?

This was molestation of 5 of his sisters and one person not related to him. You can try to minimize that by calling it 'feeling up another kid', but violating a young girl is a serious crime to me and to the proper authorities.

 

[This_person]

This was molestation of 5 of his sisters and one person not related to him. You can try to minimize that by calling it 'feeling up another kid', but violating a young girl is a serious crime to me and to the proper authorities.

I got your opinion on that previously. It doesn't answer the question.

 

[This_person]

This was molestation of 5 of his sisters and one person not related to him. You can try to minimize that by calling it 'feeling up another kid', but violating a young girl is a serious crime to me and to the proper authorities.

Does that mean you think there is a third option, or that your answer is option (2)? Or option (1)? You seem incapable of answering a really direct question.