Dunsparce (17961)
Joined 2015-12-30
I'll show you a thing or two about dank
Submissions: 62 (53 featured - 85%)
Creations: 170
Comments: 258

Submissions See All


Thanks for the riots, parents
With ultimatums as serious as spankings. The verse itself says "He who withholds his rod hates his son." If this is a figure of speech, then what else in the Bible is? Was stone the gays a figure of speech? Was thou shalt not kill a figure of speech? Considering the context of the time period surrounding the Bible, I wouldn't be surprised if real abuse was common, if not encouraged. If not wanting people to be physically hurt if we can avoid it is an appeal to emotion, then it's a pretty good one if you ask me. Most people have a sense of "do unto others," but I suppose apathy regarding others' perspectives has few, if any, drawbacks. Enjoy your buzzwords, I suppose. I hope we've learned a lesson in splodey heads today, as a single line of banter somehow evoked...this
Thanks for the riots, parents
With the Bible, everything is mislabeled. In fact, nothing in the Bible is labeled to begin with. Considering it's "all up to interpretation," anyone can and will pin any meaning on it that they want. That's why terrorists exist. Of course we need corporal punishment. That was never part of the question. I would go as far as to say that there is no right way to spank a child. In fact, if you told your child, "I'm going to hit you and it will hurt because you did something frowned upon," then they probably won't do that again, but what would stop that child from constantly thinking, "I'd better be good so that I don't get hurt again"? Brute force should be used against people with weapons or that are a harm to others and themselves (technically including antifa), not because your kid broke a vase. More specifically, I don't think being physical with a child can lead to any good, because humans, like all living things, are intrinsically built to avoid physical pain, and as such, to be so powerful over a child yet to stoop so low as to hurt them physically seems cruel. Obviously children can't go running around doing whatever they want. We have a police force for a very good reason. I just think it's not healthy to have an approach
I see it every year!
I can assure you, literally every single non-right leaning person does this and as such they are alienated from our orthodox clique. Since no one ever taught me anything other than American conservativism, that is all I know how to do. Also I'm technically not racist.
Thanks for the riots, parents
A picture of antifa shouldn't be a warning sign to parents that if they are physically abrasive towards their children, then those children will not end up contributing to society. Oftentimes, a child can end up being more aggressive due to spanking, and be more fearful or even hateful of the parent. This is understandable, because the parent decided to stoop to that level by using violence rather than reason; it is also the parent's fault for having children before they are mature enough to handle taking care of another person. The context of this verse is not in simply discipline, but rather that which is physical. In that case, especially given our modern and communicative way of life, the verse is outdated and needs better context. I am appealing to new-fashion methods of wisely waiting on expanded world views and maturity in order to make a parenting decision.
And they're easily triggered!
Excuse me, my good sir, do you indeed tell me that people who have a socially libertarian stance tend to have an increased sensitivity to the feelings of others and, as a stereotype, react hyperbolically when someone lacks the same care for others' feelings, or on the off chance that they mispercieve an innocuous statement to be harmful? This is the first I'm hearing of this. No other socially authoritarian person has made this distinction. Thank you for informing me.