Solution to Meth problem

Greg wrote
What makes you think I began this thread?
Google shows me that Kane top posted
this actual thread.

LaVonne wrote
He may have. My newsreader
showed your posts as the first in the thread.

What newsreader is so crappy as to mislead you like that?
Are you trying for the "dog ate my homework" defense or what?

Greg wrote
Not satisfied with the attention he was
getting in other existing threads about Meth,
like the Meth Prisons thread and before that,
Kane TOP POSTED May 25th.

LaVonne wrote
I have no idea, but I'm sure Kane can address your concern.

Greg wrote
You asserted that I started this thread, when in fact it
is one of many that Kane started gratuitously and
for no good purpose other than his desire for
attention. Your faulty assertion is YOUR problem
and not Kane's. Kane can not help you because
his own information proves you wrong.

Kane can not help you with news readers
since the one he uses is similarly crappy.

The next time you wish to assert something
about a posting misdeed or who brought
up a subject, please have something better
than "I have no idea" and Kane the insane to back it up.

Greg wrote
Are you lost?

LaVonne wrote
I don't think so.

Then why did you use the "I have no idea" defense?

I seem to be sitting in my office at home,

SEEM to be? Can't you tell for sure?

after spending 10 hours in my office at work, putting
the finishing touches on a major project.

Finger painting again?

Greegor wrote:
Greg wrote
What makes you think I began this thread?
Google shows me that Kane top posted
this actual thread.

LaVonne wrote
He may have. My newsreader
showed your posts as the first in the thread.

What newsreader is so crappy as to mislead you like that?
Are you trying for the "dog ate my homework" defense or what?

You posted the FIRST MENTION OF EXECUTION in this thread. I've already
pointed that out to you with a link to your posted message.

Greg wrote
Not satisfied with the attention he was
getting in other existing threads about Meth,
like the Meth Prisons thread and before that,
Kane TOP POSTED May 25th.

LaVonne wrote
I have no idea, but I'm sure Kane can address your concern.

Greg wrote
You asserted that I started this thread, when in fact it
is one of many that Kane started gratuitously and
for no good purpose other than his desire for
attention. Your faulty assertion is YOUR problem
and not Kane's. Kane can not help you because
his own information proves you wrong.

Kane can not help you with news readers
since the one he uses is similarly crappy.

The next time you wish to assert something
about a posting misdeed or who brought
up a subject, please have something better
than "I have no idea" and Kane the insane to back it up.

Greg wrote
Are you lost?

LaVonne wrote
I don't think so.

Then why did you use the "I have no idea" defense?

I seem to be sitting in my office at home,

SEEM to be? Can't you tell for sure?

after spending 10 hours in my office at work, putting
the finishing touches on a major project.

Finger painting again?

Oh, I see. You weren't trying to sort out facts.

Thanks for clarifying.

0:-





--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

If I may presume lav, Greegor is making a comparison on solutions, as
you well know. Changing laws that will put families & practitioners in
greater legal despair is not a good solution to the use of reasonable
force (which is what is being argued here and has been for years). Your
cohort continues to obfiscate the facts to advance your agenda.
Educating parents is what this is all about to better ways of raising
their kids non-violently, but removing current legal statutes that also
protect children from themselves (i.e. NVCPI therapeutic restraint) and
allow parents and those that supervise them to engage in something as
common as breaking up a fight (i.e. reasonable force) or other
non-punitive physical prompting will do more harm IMO to a legal system
that is all to easy to manipulate.

Non-spanker by choice,
Chris C.
TX



0:- wrote:
Greegor wrote:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/news/ap/..._executed.html

I've considered this, until I looked at the data on it's success.

Notice what the piece you cite concluded with?

"Vietnam has some of the world's toughest drug laws.

About 100 people were executed in Vietnam each year for drug-related
offenses."


Apparently even these draconian measures are not stopping the heroin trade.

Why would you wish to use a failed method as a solution to deal with the
meth problem?

Because you are stupid?

Yes, I think that's why.

Because you are stupid.

Now, the question remains on the table. What would be YOUR solution to
the meth problem, the killing of all involved, or ...?

If you go with killing you have the Vietnamese Solution. A failure.

Is this how you've run your life?

Oh wait, I should ask such a naive question.

0:-


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

wrote:
If I may presume lav, Greegor is making a comparison on solutions, as
you well know.

Presuming you mean LaVonne, you have not attributed any of her narrative.

Presuming you mean Greegor CAN make valid comparisons, R R R R R R R R

Changing laws that will put families & practitioners in
greater legal despair is not a good solution to the use of reasonable
force (which is what is being argued here and has been for years).

Why would such laws have to put "families & ..........in greater legal
despair?"

I scored out "practitioners" because I can see no logical application
for the term. Or they are something I don't understand your definition
for at this time. Enlighten me, please. What is a "practitioner" as you
use the term above?

Your
cohort continues to obfiscate the facts to advance your agenda.

That's funny, given that we are the ones that most often cite authority
and work to clarify what spanking IS and is not.

You and YOUR cohorts haven't even admitted to the simple fact that the
line between spanking and abuse is undefinable, hence laws based on this
line are traps for parents in and of themselves. The parent does not
know until they HAVE crossed the line. And injury has occurred, and now
they are about to lose their children.

A law that made all corporal punishment illegal would PROTECT parents
from making mistakes in judgment about how hard to strike, how often,
what parts of the body...as these things are ALL left out of the laws now.

The only exception I have seen is the law that is most obviously the one
that is being used to transition citizens from CP to non CP with the
least political fallout; Canada's law that does finally draw some lines
in the use of CP. Age limit lines...not under three, not over 14.
Objects not allowed. Portions of the body off limits.

You can see how this is just the stepping stone to their law that will
outlaw all CP, no?

Educating parents is what this is all about to better ways of raising
their kids non-violently,

Yep. That is one of the objectives of those of us, with me a recent
joiner last year, that wish a law to prohibit the use of CP altogether.

Another is simply to stop the injury and harm to children; Physical,
emotional, psychological, and to believers, spiritual.

but

Yes I knew somehow there would be a "but" to your little preparatory
statement of seeming rationality.

removing current legal statutes that also
protect children from themselves (i.e. NVCPI therapeutic restraint) and
allow parents and those that supervise them to engage in something as
common as breaking up a fight (i.e. reasonable force) or other
non-punitive physical prompting will do more harm IMO to a legal system
that is all to easy to manipulate.

What proposed bill are you referring to that could result in a law that
did all that?

Hitting and touching ARE definable limits to boundaries.

This issue is tried in law all the time. If need be it could be tried in
a few cases and that would settle that.

Either children are protected, like adults, from assault or they are not.

Difficulties in applying law are a matter of course concern. So what?

Should we drop assault laws that concern adults because they go to court
on occasion with cases contesting what was or wasn't assaultive?

Non-spanker by choice,

Who has no children to make that choice about.

Chris C.
TX

So tell me, child, are you back to actually debate, or are you going to
run again, like you have for a couple of years, declaring you won't
trouble yourself to debate with me?

It's curious that you went off the topic, but not surprising. Any
thoughts to share on the meth issue and punishment with death as it
might apply to CP with children?

0:-




0:- wrote:
Greegor wrote:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/news/ap/..._executed.html
I've considered this, until I looked at the data on it's success.

Notice what the piece you cite concluded with?

"Vietnam has some of the world's toughest drug laws.

About 100 people were executed in Vietnam each year for drug-related
offenses."


Apparently even these draconian measures are not stopping the heroin trade.

Why would you wish to use a failed method as a solution to deal with the
meth problem?

Because you are stupid?

Yes, I think that's why.

Because you are stupid.

Now, the question remains on the table. What would be YOUR solution to
the meth problem, the killing of all involved, or ...?

If you go with killing you have the Vietnamese Solution. A failure.

Is this how you've run your life?

Oh wait, I should ask such a naive question.

0:-


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Kane and LaVonne:
Did I mistakenly cause you to think I respect you?

Greegor wrote:
Kane and LaVonne:
Did I mistakenly cause you to think I respect you?

Now that would be stupid of us.


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)