If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Saddam: Physically Punished in the WOMB!
Kane wrote: On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:12:13 -0500, "Bryan K. Zidek" wrote: Kane, You have a good idea of what due process is. Well, duh! However, like so many others, you fail to grasp its essence. I'll bet you are going to tell me now. The idea of innocent until proven guilty, is generally, conceived to go hand in hand with the idea of due process. This is the "essence" of due process? Could you clarify? The regulations, here in Maryland, do not cite procedures that follow, de facto, due process. No proof needs to be present, to remove a child from a parents custody. Please post the relevent statutes. The right to a jury is not granted in these civil hearings. Mmmm...let me see now. No jury...mmmmhhhhhmmmm. There is also the test for reasonableness. Hokay. Roe v Wade was decided partly on the basis of it is unreasonable for the state to interfere with a woman's right ot abortion in the first trimester. Yes. I follow you so far. Yes we want CPS hearings all to be criminal charges, because they do not hold water otherwise, especially charges of spanking a child. Oh, here we part company. No one has their child taken from them permanently for "spanking." That's a subtrefuge claim by those that "spank" and leave injuries and do OTHER damage they don't talk about because they know confidintiality laws protect them. I am glad to see that you recognize that children do belong to "their" parents. It is not reasonable for the state to interefere in a parent's right to spank his or her child, at least in Maryland. It is morally and ethically reasonable but at this time it is not legally permissable in any state. The issue isn't if a parent "spanks" a child, but if they INJURE a child. You are coming around! Good, now that you agree that spanking is not an issue lets discuss what an injury is. But CPS use the ambiguity of the regulations Please show the Maryland statute defining spanking as abusive and actionable under child welfare law. to produce undue hardship Ah, the "poor me" ploy. I whipped my kid hard enough for the folks at the local school and my neighbors and or the corner grocer to be concerned and whose business is it anyway if I permanently damage my child. I can convince myself I was just disciplining for the child's own good and I "looooove" my child. Congratulations. You are finally getting the point. The neighbors and the corner grocer "hate" CPS. I know every neighbor on my street, 20 houses, each and every one spanks their children, or spanked their children at some time or another, and that is in a liberal minded, middle to upper middle class neighborhood. Only the local school reports suspicion of abuse based on willy nilly observations, but that is due to the legal coercion for them to report, not out of a moral or ethical desire to report it. Any real sign of abuse of a child, not spanking, or the nonsensical extension of injury that CPS uses to disrupt families for their social planning, would be report by all of the neighbors. on parents that do spank in order to force their social programing on them. ABSO****INLOOTALY. It is the desire of this society that parents do NOT injure their children intentionally...or even by negligence and it's damn well a "program" in that a system is set up to slow or stop it when possible. Again, can you define injury. Even the Maryland highest court has supported the right of parents to spank their children, intentionally, and on only when it is an egregious injury, not just any "injury" do they find the the state has a right to intervene, oops, they must know the basis of state intervention, not like you. You do not know what society desires, you are so far out of it in your obtruse ideology to be really in touch with society. Just the usual "Blah blah poor me" from the child abusers. Have you any idea how many times this same bit of nonsense has been posted in these ngs? "Child abusers", this has no meaning, it is just name calling without substance. In CPS hearings the burden is placed on the parent to prove their innocence. Liar. The state has a burden to prove guilt and the plaintif to refute that claim as either false or unsupported by the evidence offered. Of course I am a liar. But the idea of the burden of proof being with the state is a fantasy. It is the burden of the state only to produce evidence, if a parent cannot successfully disprove the evidence then they are found guilty, or indicated, or the "evidence is substantiated". Get real, that is not due process. Now tell me again how this follows the tenets of due process? Okay. I've just done a runthrough of Maryland family and child welfare law. It appears to be consistent with the US Constitution and amendments. It HAS process and it is a DUE process as definded by the USC. If you don't agree stop lollygaggin' and whinin' around here and go to your statehouse and make a stink. Lobby, write letters to the editor, letters to your representatives, bring the feds in (brrrrrr) if you think that would help... Good boy, been there done that, still doing that, and exposing the CPS and overturning their findings has been a great joy for me. But you know, just like rats around a garbage dump, you kill one, or even two or three or four or more, they just keep coming. Hmmm, maybe we should call in the Pied Piper. But, what I think I'm seeing here is yet another neanderthal argument that children are property Yes, we should just leave them on the doorstep of the state, oh they don't belong to the state, hmmmm, the have their own LIBERTY INTEREST, but geez, can they vote to go back to their families, hmmm, no, can they support themselves without help from an adult, you seem to think that failure to thrive is a natural conditon that we should expose our children to because, of course, they don't "belong" to us, hmmmm, and can be treated anyway the parent unit wishes to treat them and society has no investment in the growth of a healthy mentally stable, crime free child. Ain't a gonna happen, bubbah. Move to a thirdworld country where children and women are bought and sold with goats as currency. State gotchyah, didn't it? Wanna tell us your story? You might even convince me, and in fact, if you are still helpable some here would even help YOU. But yah gotta get honest and stop the pretense of debate with me and others. Or backchannel a helper. Try Greegor or Leakin' They have a really hot record of success with CPS and helping families...0 to zero. It's time to pony up. Kane |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Saddam: Physically Punished in the WOMB!
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:45:54 -0500, "Bryan K. Zidek"
wrote: Notice what claims are made by you, Bryan, that you do NOT answer when I ask for clarification or justification. Kane wrote: On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:12:13 -0500, "Bryan K. Zidek" wrote: Kane, You have a good idea of what due process is. Well, duh! However, like so many others, you fail to grasp its essence. I'll bet you are going to tell me now. The idea of innocent until proven guilty, is generally, conceived to go hand in hand with the idea of due process. This is the "essence" of due process? Could you clarify? Nothing. Just as I suspected. The regulations, here in Maryland, do not cite procedures that follow, de facto, due process. No proof needs to be present, to remove a child from a parents custody. Please post the relevent statutes. Nothing. We have no debate if you will not respond to the requests for support of your claims. I suspect you are lying, rather a lot. The right to a jury is not granted in these civil hearings. Mmmm...let me see now. No jury...mmmmhhhhhmmmm. There is also the test for reasonableness. Hokay. Roe v Wade was decided partly on the basis of it is unreasonable for the state to interfere with a woman's right ot abortion in the first trimester. Yes. I follow you so far. Yes we want CPS hearings all to be criminal charges, because they do not hold water otherwise, especially charges of spanking a child. Oh, here we part company. No one has their child taken from them permanently for "spanking." That's a subtrefuge claim by those that "spank" and leave injuries and do OTHER damage they don't talk about because they know confidintiality laws protect them. I am glad to see that you recognize that children do belong to "their" parents. What in that statement of mine establishes that I believe parents "own" their children and may do what they wish with them? It is not reasonable for the state to interefere in a parent's right to spank his or her child, at least in Maryland. It is morally and ethically reasonable but at this time it is not legally permissable in any state. The issue isn't if a parent "spanks" a child, but if they INJURE a child. You are coming around! Good, now that you agree that spanking is not an issue lets discuss what an injury is. I did not say "I" agree to anything. I am describing the situation, not my position. And spanking IS an issue since it so often DOES escalate to or is applied so stupidly to the point of injury. The problem, smart ass, is that you can't define none injurious spanking. No one can, as have been amply proven. The impact, both physical and psychological, on the child, is unknowable at this time. And what little IS known, objectively, through scientific study, is not looking good for even the mildest of hitting or other pain applied by the caregiver. But CPS use the ambiguity of the regulations Please show the Maryland statute defining spanking as abusive and actionable under child welfare law. Nothing. Just as I suspected. to produce undue hardship Ah, the "poor me" ploy. I whipped my kid hard enough for the folks at the local school and my neighbors and or the corner grocer to be concerned and whose business is it anyway if I permanently damage my child. I can convince myself I was just disciplining for the child's own good and I "looooove" my child. Congratulations. You are finally getting the point. No, that was a statement of what vicious ****s like you think. I don't whip children, and never have. The neighbors and the corner grocer "hate" CPS. Gosh, I guess it's the family pet calling the authorities. I know every neighbor on my street, 20 houses, each and every one spanks their children, or spanked their children at some time or another, and that is in a liberal minded, middle to upper middle class neighborhood. 90% of the population does spank their child. 100% of the population used to accept as "natural" that women were possessions and had no right to vote, contract, own property either. We grew up. We have further to go. Only the local school reports suspicion of abuse based on willy nilly observations, but that is due to the legal coercion for them to report, not out of a moral or ethical desire to report it. You are lying. Relatives, often grandparents, are among the top reporters, as are doctors. So your "only" claim is a crock of **** just as the rest of your nonsense and viciousness toward children. Any real sign of abuse of a child, not spanking, or the nonsensical extension of injury that CPS uses to disrupt families for their social planning, would be report by all of the neighbors. Liar. Minimizing "spanking" and it's injuries to children is a common occurance and covered up often by family and friends. You are savages attempting to rationalize and excuse your brutality. on parents that do spank in order to force their social programing on them. ABSO****INLOOTALY. It is the desire of this society that parents do NOT injure their children intentionally...or even by negligence and it's damn well a "program" in that a system is set up to slow or stop it when possible. What you also seem to miss is that SPANKING is an attempt by a social institution (parents) to "force their social programing" on children. Good for the goose, good for the gander. You spank, you get spanked. Again, can you define injury. Yep. It's done all the time. The levels of agreement on injury are extremely high. It's a function of medicine. A decent doctor with training and reference sources can define it and what it is NOT quite well. Can you define spanking? Show me the references and expertise on this. Even the Maryland highest court has supported the right of parents to spank their children, intentionally, and on only when it is an egregious injury, not just any "injury" do they find the the state has a right to intervene, oops, they must know the basis of state intervention, not like you. You've proven yourself a liar so far. Why should we believe you now. Provide tracable citations for your claims of the Maryland courts findings. By the way, you are a pompous self opinionated nearly illiterate boob. You do not know what society desires, I don't have to "know." I only have to read the media and look at the laws. you are so far out of it in your obtruse ideology to be really in touch with society. "obtruse" is not a word, and it's obtuse of you to use it. As is your other attempts at intellect that mark you as a phony. Just the usual "Blah blah poor me" from the child abusers. Have you any idea how many times this same bit of nonsense has been posted in these ngs? "Child abusers", this has no meaning, it is just name calling without substance. Child abuse is definable. It is common also for them to deny and or minimize their injuries of children and attempt to weasel out of paying for it. YOU are babbling the usual babble of child abusers. You WISH it had no meaning, but unfortunately for you, "child abusers" does have meaning and fits you to a tee. In CPS hearings the burden is placed on the parent to prove their innocence. Liar. The state has a burden to prove guilt and the plaintif to refute that claim as either false or unsupported by the evidence offered. Of course I am a liar. Yep. Now you are catching on. But the idea of the burden of proof being with the state is a fantasy. It is the burden of the state only to produce evidence, if a parent cannot successfully disprove the evidence then they are found guilty, or indicated, or the "evidence is substantiated". Get real, that is not due process. Sophist nonsense. Of course if the plaintiff can't refute the evidence of the state they are found guilty. The evidence is a proof of guilt or should not be presented. What an asshole. Now tell me again how this follows the tenets of due process? Okay. I've just done a runthrough of Maryland family and child welfare law. It appears to be consistent with the US Constitution and amendments. It HAS process and it is a DUE process as definded by the USC. If you don't agree stop lollygaggin' and whinin' around here and go to your statehouse and make a stink. Lobby, write letters to the editor, letters to your representatives, bring the feds in (brrrrrr) if you think that would help... Good boy, been there done that, still doing that, and exposing the CPS and overturning their findings has been a great joy for me. Show us your letters. You are nothing but yet another lying thug hanging about in these ngs because you have zero credibility elsewhere. But you know, just like rats around a garbage dump, you kill one, or even two or three or four or more, they just keep coming. Hmmm, maybe we should call in the Pied Piper. But, what I think I'm seeing here is yet another neanderthal argument that children are property Yes, we should just leave them on the doorstep of the state, oh they don't belong to the state, hmmmm, the have their own LIBERTY INTEREST, Yes they do. And parents are charged with protecting those interests. Are you saying children don't have civil rights? If so speak right up. We can't heeeeeer you. but geez, can they vote to go back to their families, hmmm, no, Stating the obvious is a strawman. can they support themselves without help from an adult, Straw. you seem to think that failure to thrive is a natural conditon Please point out where I say anything that supports your claim. that we should expose our children to because, of course, You are fantasizing about what I think or mean. It would be nice if you could base something, anything, on real statements of mine. they don't "belong" to us, hmmmm, No, they don't "belong" to you, stupid. That's the point of this discussion. YOU DON'T OWN THEM, THEY OWN YOU! YOU belong to them until they can care for themselves. YOU are their servant and supporter or the state will see to it that you don't keep them. If you starve or injure them you don't deserve to have them in your care. Parents aren't referred to as "caregivers" by any accident of language. It's the failure to care for the children that abrogates the child's civil rights. And when the parent does that they forfeit the right to be that child's parent. and can be treated anyway the parent unit wishes to treat them and society has no investment in the growth of a healthy mentally stable, crime free child. It's very telling what you won't respond to, isn't it. Do you believe that society has an investment in and right to expect certain outcome in the child? Ain't a gonna happen, bubbah. Move to a thirdworld country where children and women are bought and sold with goats as currency. No response? Hmmmm...I can see where you would like this country to go then. State gotchyah, didn't it? Gee, no response. I wonder why. Wanna tell us your story? You might even convince me, and in fact, if you are still helpable some here would even help YOU. But yah gotta get honest and stop the pretense of debate with me and others. Or backchannel a helper. Of course. No comment. Try Greegor or Leakin' They have a really hot record of success with CPS and helping families...0 to zero. It's time to pony up. We are waiting...............phony balogna, the major ingredient for a sock puppet. Kane |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
womb names that stick | Zen Cohen | Pregnancy | 12 | May 10th 04 12:05 AM |
Saddam: Physically Punished in the WOMB! | Chris | General | 15 | February 3rd 04 12:54 AM |
FYI: Physically fit kids stay physically healthy | JG | Kids Health | 0 | December 31st 03 07:37 PM |
Saddam Hussein | Gregory | Kids Health | 0 | December 14th 03 05:03 PM |
No connection, eh? BULLSHIT! | Lord Valve | General | 7 | July 28th 03 03:19 PM |