[iargue]

pyke, on 09 February 2010 - 02:13 PM, said:

Cultural differences, a lot of the world would probably agree with beating their kids.

I agree with hitting, but not with beating. A small slat to the face, or a spanking gets the job done 100% better then anything else. Children are like animals, they listen to conditioning. Pain is the best conditioner.


This guy too it way to far.

[punkrockbigmouth]

iargue, on 08 February 2010 - 05:35 PM, said:

She called the cops whenever he started breaking windows :|

Oh shit, the windows got hurt? Call the po-po!

[ThisisInsane]

The fuck is wrong with these people?!?

[kbbbb]

iargue, on 08 February 2010 - 09:44 AM, said:

Source


One small point of order. Thats not waterboarding. The press over-hyped. Waterboarding would be where her face whent under wanter.

Anyways.

WTF Discuss.

Wikipedia says waterboarding is

Quote

a torture technique that consists of immobilizing the subject on his back with the head inclined downwards; water is then poured over the face into breathing passages, causing the captive to believe he or she is dying.^[1][2] In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates an almost immediate gag reflex

So the press are stupid/wrong, but what he still did is torture. A face held underwater can still kill. 3 year olds die of drowning in wading pools because of 3" of water- they'll find themselves face down and have no idea how to save themselves. What he did, I think, is torture, but is NOT Waterboarding, which is worse than what he did.

[iargue]

kbbbb, on 09 February 2010 - 10:27 PM, said:

Wikipedia says waterboarding is



So the press are stupid/wrong, but what he still did is torture. A face held underwater can still kill. 3 year olds die of drowning in wading pools because of 3" of water- they'll find themselves face down and have no idea how to save themselves. What he did, I think, is torture, but is NOT Waterboarding, which is worse than what he did.

cool. Thanks for just saying what I said in the first post....

[Shadowized]

Quote

I don't know. But I've gone to state and private adoption agencies. They said I wouldn't pass because of disability.

I have a friend who is disabled, married and well off. Child welfare was there at the birth of her child and was told to either hire a nanny (she didn't want to, she wanted to raise her own child) OR face weekly home inspections for the first year, monthly the second year and quarterly the third year. They were basically saying at the BIRTH she was a bad mother and were chomping at the bit to take the baby. She got a lawyer and went after them. After 10 months of litigation, they backed off BUT after her second child she buckled and got a nanny.

So in America you can be a crack ho and keep your baby but a stable disabled woman gets threatened..

Are you saying that only applies to disabled women? I assume it applies to men as well though..
I'm gonna be really sad if I can't have a kid without all of that bs.
Maybe they wouldn't bother me, since I would have a wife... That's a real letdown, jeez.

[chobitz]

Shadowized, on 09 February 2010 - 11:42 PM, said:

Are you saying that only applies to disabled women? I assume it applies to men as well though..
I'm gonna be really sad if I can't have a kid without all of that bs.
Maybe they wouldn't bother me, since I would have a wife... That's a real letdown, jeez.

Just the women. Its sexist really but the agencies see women as the main caregiver and men as the 'breadwinner'. In other words disabled men with spouses who aren't disabled have it a hell of a lot easier to adopt than disabled women.

If you have a biological child they won't even show up at the birth.

Totally sexist.

[iargue]

This is my topic. If you wanna debate about our adoption agency. Take it in another topic please.