Lawrence Wilson35 said:To me, an ideal world—or any world at all—is one filled with conflict, precisely because no two people are identical. And that is exactly where the beauty lies: in our differences. I don't believe conflict is inherently a problem. The fact that I am different from you doesn't hurt either of us. You will have your convictions, and I will have mine, and that is perfectly fine. The issue is the MANNER in which the conflict unfolds. If I defend my beliefs by stripping someone else of their dignity (for example, through physical violence), then my methods are the problem. The end does not justify the means.
I find myself nodding along here, especially regarding how things *ought* to function. Unfortunately, reality doesn't quite work that way (and I really shouldn't have to list every single recent war currently tearing the world apart, right?) 🙂 Even if we could achieve that level of civility, let's be honest: that standard applies to adults, and we simply cannot expect children to behave with that kind of maturity. Kids are kids; they have their own process of growing up, learning, and stumbling through life, and that's exactly how it should be. It is fundamentally their right to have that space, and it's our responsibility to facilitate it as best we can. That includes making room for mistakes, just as we all make them constantly, regardless of what we're doing—especially when we're just starting out or still figuring things out.
Let’s get one thing straight here: I actually caught a beating once because my mom fell hook, line, and sinker for something that turned out to be a total lie. She felt terrible about it afterward, so she gave me an apology, and we moved past it just fine. On the flip side, I’ve been in situations where I was dead wrong, but I didn't feel even the slightest bit of pressure to apologize or admit I messed up. What I’m getting at is that when physical discipline is actually earned, there’s no point in playing the "I'm sorry" card or pretending you didn't screw up. By the way, I totally agree that in some perfect utopia, nobody should ever end up in a confrontation unless it's just a clash of ideas. But look, we don't live in a textbook utopia—unless, I suppose, you consider the world perfect if you just approach it the right way, appreciate every single option handed to you, and take full ownership of your own actions. As for anything else, please, just read what I wrote one more time—with a little bit of good faith, you really shouldn't have any trouble grasping my point. 🙂
Lawrence Wilson35 said:I basically agree with the rest of your take; just look back at my last post. As for this part: Personally, I find it hypocritical to try and teach a child non-violence by using force myself. And to circle back to my previous point: It's entirely possible that my kid might damage something or someone, leading me to snap and react physically. But I know that isn't right. Once I've cooled down, I'll likely tell them: "Look, when I hit you earlier, I thought it was okay in the moment, but I don't think it's right, and I still don't. It wasn't okay, and that's on me, not you." Then we'll deal with whatever the actual problem was. Because there is no way I am going to let my child go around hurting people or breaking things.🙂
Of course, talking it out, explaining things, and reaching an agreement comes before everything else; nobody even remotely sane would argue with that. however, if I actually have to resort to physical punishment, I’m certainly not going to turn around and tell the kid—or anyone else for that matter—that I made a mistake, because I don't believe I did. That’s a completely different issue: when a parent hits a kid simply because they’re exhausted or cranky, which happens all the time, or because they hit them once and it worked, so they fall into the trap of using hitting as the easiest path forward. THAT IS NOT PARENTING!! if I end up having to use punishment, it's only because nothing else has worked, which is already a failure in itself, and that’s exactly what needs to be explained to the child—that punishment is fundamentally a bad thing. once it reaches the point where punishment is necessary, the most important thing is to make sure it's appropriate and kept to a minimum so the message actually lands. if a firm tone helps—not yelling, because I don't believe in shouting—then great. if I have to raise my voice a bit, fine, I'll do it. if I have to make a threat, well, alright then (though that means I better follow through on what I said). and if absolutely nothing else works, and the situation is such that you can't just sit there and explain it in detail, well—damn it—sometimes the lesson has to be learned the hard way when they refuse to listen to reason.
Lawrence Wilson35 said:Putting outlet covers in might not be considered "parenting" by some, but let's call it what it actually is: common sense. Is it about discipline? No. It’s about basic care. Why should we debate whether it counts as active upbringing when it clearly falls under looking out for your kid's safety? Tell me, if your partner kept touching something they know is strictly off-limits, would you just sit there? Would you actually let them get away with it, or would you give them a sharp smack on the hand? Of course, you can sit an adult partner down and explain why certain things are off-limits. A two-year-old might not grasp the nuance of your reasoning, sure. But there isn't a second option involving hitting.😉 Since you brought up the two-year-old: I know from both theory—backed by extensive research—and firsthand experience that a two-year-old:
He just doesn't get it. He fails to grasp that being an influencer—along with a dozen other reckless behaviors like darting across traffic—is inherently dangerous. It’s as if he can't wrap his head around the fact that the human body is a terrible conductor for electricity. He seems to think that current flowing through insulated wires is harmless, yet he completely ignores the reality of what happens when you make direct contact. Does he truly believe he's invincible?🙂😱😁 Personally, I didn't even grasp how electricity worked until seventh grade.🤣 What’s the point in trying to explain it over and over? It’s incredibly difficult for a child to grasp something like that. Kids at that age are naturally curious, which is perfectly legitimate. They’re just exploring. At the end of the day, you can't predict how a kid is going to react. One child will actually listen when you tell them something is off-limits, while another will ignore you entirely and touch it anyway—for all the reasons we've already discussed. What exactly do we expect from them? The likelihood of a child actually listening increases if they trust their parents—and let’s be clear, trust isn't built through physical discipline. Of course, you can't just paint everyone with the same brush here. You have kids who trust their parents completely but still push back because they're naturally curious, which is perfectly fine. Then you have kids who don't trust them at all yet follow instructions anyway. There are a hundred different variations to every situation; after all, every individual is a unique case. Let’s be real: if your kid doesn't trust you, they aren't going to listen to a word you say. It’s that simple. Why bother barking orders if the foundation isn't there?😉
Probability is just probability. In this situation, we should be talking about certainty.😉 The only way you'll ever be truly safe is if you put outlet covers in every socket and keep a constant eye on your two-year-old. Is that really too much to ask? And let's be honest—you can't take your eyes off a two-year-old for even a single second. Constant supervision isn't just a suggestion; it's a necessity. If you can't see eye to eye on this, are you even ready to be a parent? When I look at myself, I realize that I want to be with my child constantly. It isn't just about ensuring their safety—though that matters—it’s more fundamental than that. I simply want to be by their side at all times. Is that really such a radical thing to want?😉
So, you see your kid heading straight for an outlet, and you react by swatting their hand away. What happens then? All you're doing is teaching them to fear punishment. They won't have any clue why they got hit in the first place. What's the point? And once he loses sight of you—once he realizes there’s no authority around to hold him accountable—I wonder what happens next. Is it even possible that he’ll just shove a metal rod into an outlet? Just a thought. The real issue here isn't the incident itself; it's the underlying message you've sent your child. You've essentially taught them that violence is an acceptable way to settle scores, provided they have the physical advantage. Is that really the lesson you want them to carry? Keep this in mind: children aren't born with prejudices. They understand perfectly well that hitting them on the hand is still physical abuse.😉 Why? Because no one has conditioned them yet. They see the world for what it actually is—without forced opinions or a manipulated mindset. They know it’s not about how hard you hit—it’s about the fact that you hit them at all. Whether the strike is heavy or light, it strips away human dignity and damages the integrity of everyone involved—both the aggressor and the victim. When we are out in public or traveling far from home, we need to be especially vigilant with our kids. A new environment means new risks.😉
It is perfectly normal for children to learn; let's not humiliate them or strip them of their dignity in the process.
The flawed premise here is this image of a parent hovering over a kid with a belt, just waiting for them to slip up. you have parents who act like terrorists, and then you have parents who act like pieces of furniture. both extremes are bad, and both are examples of poor parenting. there's also this underlying assumption that someone will resort to punishment simply because a child is being defiant or expressing their own opinion. if a parent falls into that category, it almost doesn't matter what kind of punishment they use; at that point, they're doing something wrong to their child regardless. I feel for people, really, but if I have to weigh a child's safety and their long-term well-being against the need for them to learn—to ensure they don't grow up thinking they can get whatever they want through force or manipulation—then once explanations and talks fail, I’ll resort to a quick, "explained" swat on the backside without a shred of guilt. Not too much, not too little, just enough so the message actually lands. 😉 I’ve never viewed so-called "difficult" kids as a problem, provided they were just energetic, playful, or a bit unruly. on the contrary, I actually enjoyed being around them; we’d run around and goof off until they either hit a wall or just fell asleep. but I have run into cases where kids had this streak of being genuinely "malicious" or vindictive—likely because they realized that shocking people was the fastest way to get their way. for instance, if a kid tries to smash the TV because they can't go to the park or get ice cream, that is unacceptable behavior, and I certainly won't tolerate it just to protect the precious little ego of some spoiled brat. you want to use force? fine, here's some force. you like that? no? you agree that talking is better? okay, then we'll stick to talking next time.
Scott Miller7, I think you can probably picture some of those scenarios in your head yourself 🙂 Look, folks, the world isn't going to suddenly turn into some utopia just because we decide to romanticize it, and unfortunately, there’s always going to be some mess or situation popping up that refuses to fit neatly into our little idealized boxes Then you have the people who are simply impossible to reason with, and you have children who just can't grasp certain concepts—or kids you can't quite nudge away from doing something dangerous to themselves or everyone else using any standard approach There are certain behaviors out there that just aren't acceptable, things that need to be nipped in the bud immediately, primarily for the sake of what's actually good for the child It pains me a bit to say things that might be unpopular or that you’d rather I just kept to myself, but frankly, that doesn't change the reality of the situation
I’ve never been a fan of this whole "us versus them" mentality where everyone is just digging their heels in on both sides people love to act like they’re holding the moral high ground by using these tired old cliches, you know, talking about how someone is "always beating" a kid or "never laying a hand" on them to prove they’re right personally, I think both of those extremes miss the mark entirely if you want my take, in maybe 95% of situations, physical discipline isn't necessary, but there’s that remaining 5% where it actually becomes relevant, simply because sometimes it’s the only way to make the rules stick it’s perfectly fine for a child to understand they have some freedom, that they can ask questions or even try to negotiate, but they also need to realize there comes a moment where the bargaining ends and they just have to listen plus, let’s be real, some kids actually respond well to being told "no," while others just get more defiant and start acting out specifically because they were restricted kids aren't carbon copies of one another, and parents aren't always the sole reason behind a child's behavior—it's not always 100% on them look, I’m not advocating for hitting kids for fun, but I am leaving the door open to the idea that physical discipline might be needed, and in those specific instances, I truly believe it serves as an extension of parental authority rather than falling into the category of violence or terror
So, what else is on the menu besides the blue-eyed crowd? Look, at the end of the day, the owner has every right to call the shots in their own establishment, even if those calls end up being a total disaster for their bottom line.
Did anyone else get that nagging impression that those users were actually operating on some kind of higher level? It’s funny how you can be sitting there, scrolling through the threads, and just suddenly realize that their grasp on things was significantly more advanced than the average person drifting through the forums. I mean, it wasn't even subtle, really—just this persistent, underlying sense that they were playing a completely different game while everyone else was still trying to figure out the rules.
gentlesurfer21 said:So you're saying there hasn't been any quality or professionalism until now, and money is just going to fix that...? It’s not about some pocket change, but the point is that with all the ads we have and the sponsored posts—thank God for those—this place can stay afloat just fine... What's the catch then? Who gets all that cash from this future (hopefully non-existent) idea of charging people to hang out here? Do the moderators need a raise...? Does someone need a new Tesla Model S...? If everything has been "working fine" up until now, why is someone suddenly deciding it's totally okay to reach into everyone's pockets and grab a few dollars...
Up until now, we haven't really had dedicated moderators on duty, and since they were chosen from the regular user base and weren't being paid, it was impossible to enforce standards or strictly apply the rules. The whole talk about advertising is fine, I guess, provided someone shows up with actual, hard numbers regarding what these ad slots cost versus what it costs to keep the servers running; until then, it's all just endless chatter. 🙂 We even had a PDF of complaints and grievances recently where a huge number of users voiced their concerns, and the most common ones were about the lack of moderators, the lack of professionalism, and how they get too involved in discussions just to defend their own side of things. There were even some opinions suggesting it wouldn't be an issue to pay something in exchange for better quality. But what exactly has changed in the meantime?
It’s honestly hilarious how many people on here have been whining about the moderators and those damn bot accounts lately. Look, I'm not saying it's a crime to ask for a little extra cash if it actually meant we'd get some real professionalism and actual quality around this forum, because let's be honest, we could all use a bit more substance.
There is this incredibly common trend where you just see a total lack of basic decency in how people talk to one another, it usually manifests in the way people engage in a debate, specifically when they start viewing their conversation partner as some sort of combatant rather than a person, once you have that mindset—this desperate need to simply crush an opponent—you run straight into those all-too-familiar situations where things turn ad hominem, and people just start belittling and insulting each other left and right, which, on one hand, says a whole lot about the person doing the talking, but on the other, it basically rolls out a red carpet for trolls, who love nothing more than jumping into that chaos to throw out provocations while they sit back and watch the bans roll in, when I run into that kind of mess, I don't really have much of a choice but to start handing out warnings and bans left and right, though obviously, nobody ends up feeling particularly happy about it,
It’s nice to see someone starting things off on a positive note here but now the real question is just how much of that optimism actually holds water in the real world if I’m being honest, one of the biggest headaches regarding appeals and internal disciplinary stuff has always been those users who are basically just playing the system—people who think they can game the rules if they play their cards right we’re talking about folks who file complaints solely because there's some perceived benefit to them, even though they aren't taking any actual risk by doing so for instance, you have someone call another user an idiot and then act completely shocked when they get slapped with a warning for verbal abuse I mean, what is there even to explain in a situation like that?? another classic case involves people who simply cannot wrap their heads around the fact that they aren't the center of the universe and that everything they type isn't written in gold then you have the ones who jump into a debate, immediately pivot to ad hominem attacks, start hurling insults, and then act bewildered when they get a strike or a ban, ready to fight tooth and nail to prove they were somehow in the right all along to these types, no moderator will ever be good enough, and they all assume everyone else is just too dim-witted to grasp their profound intellectual depth, constantly demanding "one more opinion" to validate their nonsense 🙂 On the flip side, I do agree that it might help to have one specific admin dedicated to handling FBI matters and providing the final word on disputes but honestly, what would that actually change in the grand scheme of things?? would anyone actually accept a decision from that admin? I think we’ve seen plenty of examples lately suggesting the answer is a resounding no 🙂 up until now, the standard practice has been for moderators to flag anything they deem borderline or suspicious to the admins, while also reaching out to them whenever we need a bit of clarification I’d go as far as to say that over 90% of warnings have been clearly explained from the jump, a decent chunk is settled through direct dialogue, and the actual number of incorrectly issued strikes or bans is probably the smallest issue of them all I’ll be the first to admit I’ve been one of those people who messed up and handed out a wrong strike, so I’ve either had to retract it myself or wait for an admin to step in and fix it People make mistakes—it's part of the job—and we should all have enough grace to allow for that, but we also need to have the backbone to admit when we're wrong and stand our ground when a strike or a ban was absolutely justified
I honestly can't give you a straight answer on that one arguments were basically flying back and forth between the mods and the admins, and it looks like the admins eventually decided—or maybe they even pushed for it—that this was the better way to go to be perfectly clear, I haven't had any skin in this game whatsoever 🙂 my entire role in all of this boils down to making sure this PDF stays readable
Look, if you’re actually telling me that’s the case, then go ahead and file a formal complaint and prove you weren't the one behind the wheel 😉 It’s really not that complicated, honestly; you just show them the notarized power of attorney you handed over to your brother for those specific dates
Why wouldn't I?? The car was parked illegally, not the owner. Just imagine if someone actually died—would you even be able to prove you weren't the one behind the wheel?
Roger Foster95 said:He doesn't even know how to quote properly. Instead, he just drops a brand new post in response to yours... and does it on an entirely different page, too. Typical. 🤷
Yeah, because apparently, mastering the art of quoting is just too much intellectual heavy lifting for some people.