Posts by Alex Barnes8

brightpuma said:How can you use the whole toolbox if they're only allowed one parenting method—the one based on positive reinforcement? You're forgetting that no type of punishment is actually permitted under that law... meaning, nothing like a time-out, or taking away an iPhone, or banning TV/computers/etc...

Excessive punishment isn't allowed, since anyone could easily cross the line into extreme or improper manipulation.
It’s not the same thing to ban a kid from going outside for one day versus locking them in the house for three months (or banning them from leaving entirely, which has happened in those pathological cases), using the same excuse.

I don't think the law prohibits occasionally banning cartoons or video games.

And besides, parenting isn't just about punishment. 🤷

brightpuma said:Under Family Law, all of that is considered child abuse. People forget how broad Family Law actually is. ☕

Among other things, yes. Physical abuse falls under Family Law. So does psychological abuse and all sorts of other stuff. You might not believe it, but almost all the ways kids are disciplined today fall under violating that "wonderful" Family Law.

What most people don't get—including the ones who wrote the law and the ones who follow it to the letter—is that the law itself doesn't make much sense.
Raising a child is, to put it bluntly, a lot like putting together furniture, say an IKEA cabinet. When a kid is born, just like a cabinet you bring home from the store, they have all the components needed to reach their full potential. To help them get there (both the kid and the cabinet), you need tools. For a cabinet, that means screwdrivers, hammers, pliers, levels, and so on. With a kid, the tools aren't as obvious, but they exist and vary.
People who build furniture know you use a screwdriver way more than a hammer. In fact, it's in your best interest—if nothing else to keep the neighbors happy—to use the hammer as little as possible. It's exactly the same with a child. It's in your interest to use positive reinforcement as much as possible, and in those extreme cases, use punishment as sparingly as possible.

The point of the comparison is this: just as it's incredibly hard to build a cabinet using only a screwdriver, and totally destructive to use only a hammer, it's incredibly difficult to raise a child using only positive reinforcement without any discipline, just as it's counterproductive to use only punishment as a method of upbringing.

Not long ago, a parent had a whole "toolbox" of parenting methods—rewards, consequences, all sorts of ways to get results. Today, thanks to this butchered version of Family Law, that same parent is lucky if they’re even allowed to hold a screwdriver. Sometimes, being left with nothing at all feels like an upgrade.

No, I think it’s actually the exact opposite.
With today's Family Law, parents are forced to use the entire "toolbox" rather than just whatever is fastest or easiest.

Lisa Rodriguez84 said:Why are you so hell-bent on getting moderators punished? They have rights, too.
Look, I’d appreciate it if you just started a thread to actually educate the mods on what they can and can't do, instead of trying to solve every single little issue by calling for someone's head.

Besides, since laws are always open to interpretation—and given that this specific law protects against anything humiliating—a parent who forces a kid to wear a blue jacket when the kid absolutely hates blue and feels humiliated by it is technically violating Article 88 of the Family Law.

By that same logic, if a neighbor—someone who isn't family—slaps a kid, they aren't violating Article 88.

Makes sense?

If a neighbor hits a child, you call the police.
That means the law was broken and it's punishable.

So, I guess your example is pretty stupid.☕

P.S. Not surprised if I get a strike just for using the word 'stupid.'🙂

Aaron Collins25 said:I’m completely on board with this and fully support the idea, though I have to say I’m firmly against deleting anything at all.
How are we supposed to figure out what went wrong if everything has been deleted?

I’m honestly not quite sure what your issue is with Charles Fox10. From where I’m sitting, he seems like one of the better moderators we have on here, and I don't even know him personally.

Please, let’s be reasonable here—I would really advise against throwing out such silly ideas. If we aren't careful, some wannabe intellectuals might actually take them seriously, thinking they've found a golden opportunity to jump in and try to act smarter than everyone else.

I honestly find it hard to believe that the thread was locked on the grounds of supposedly inciting violence. If you ask me, it was shut down because of this massive uproar and the whole "witch hunt" vibe—it felt more like an Inquisition being carried out by a few self-righteous forum members.

There are definitely households where one parent refuses to discipline, which usually results in the other parent becoming the "designated enforcer" to balance things out.
In my case, my child received a punishment because they were being abusive toward me, even though I was never treated that way myself.

I first discovered this forum about a year ago and have read through a massive amount of threads. To be honest, I couldn't make heads or tails of most of the debates, mostly because the long-time users with hundreds of posts tend to act like they belong to some elite club, often "jumping" on any newcomer who tries to join in.
Because of that, I've set aside most of the pdf-ov, but my favorite topics remain the occasional TV jokes, health discussions, and MK.
For me, this forum is a place to relax, have some fun, and pick up interesting tidbits, and MK really is a standout favorite.
I actually managed to convince my son last night that the crew over at MK is fantastic and that the debates move as fast as a halftime show during an NFL game; now here I am reading and wondering just how far "human stupidity" can go (there's that saying, "the universe and human stupidity are infinite, but I'm not quite sure about the universe"—that quote by AE makes perfect sense to me right now).

I don't get this.😕
And I doubt I'm the only one. 🤷
Care to explain?

If a child is abusive toward their parents, I find it hard to believe there wasn't some abuse involved somewhere.

Lisa Rodriguez84 said:Maybe try reading her posts more often; then you'd actually get why she's trolling.
And no, I don't hold my breath expecting a rational debate from everyone on this forum.
I wish it worked that way, but some people just twist every single thing you say just to start a fight.

Why are you stalking me? 🙄

No, I'm not trolling. You'll have to find another way to explain your inability to hold a conversation.
To yourself, or anyone else, for that matter.☕

Lisa Rodriguez84 said:No, actual abuse is when kids are being mistreated at home—like an alcoholic mother, or a father who blows the entire paycheck on drugs and booze and then comes home out of nowhere to beat his wife and kid. That’s abuse. And in those situations, kids go... anywhere, as long as it's far away from them.

If a kid is smart enough—and let's face it, kids are getting sharper by the day—they can ask someone to take them away, whether it's foster care or whoever else, because that is their right!

But look, we already know what we're dealing with here, and none of us have high expectations for your input in a debate anyway. 🙂

No, a child who is forced to "choose" between living with parents who "occasionally" hit them or going into a group home or foster care... that's just a coerced, abused child.

And I suppose it’s just a pathetic way for a parent to try and "discipline" their kid while washing their own conscience.

Lisa Rodriguez84 said:Look, going out isn't the issue—socializing is great. But when you look at the legal side of things, there’s a line parents just can't cross regarding their kids' freedom. Sure, a minor under 18 isn't legally allowed to buy alcohol or cigarettes—even if they're probably doing it anyway—but that's secondary. The real issue here is parents trying to lock their kids away and forbid them from leaving the house entirely.

Honestly, kids should just head straight into vocational schools and get some hands-on internship experience. At least that way, they’re actually earning some money while they learn a trade instead of just racking up debt.

That’s a whole different story. But look, if we’re really talking about violence, let’s talk about what happens when you don't buy a kid every single thing they demand at Target. You know exactly how they act in the middle of the aisle when you say no to the candy. Now *that* is true violence!
You shell out a few thousand bucks to get him an iPhone, then you’re stuck footing the bill for the monthly data plan, too. $83Honestly, if a kid messes up, you take away their iPhone and suddenly everyone starts screaming about violence. Give me a break. 😉

Look, I'm fully aware that most of what I post is total nonsense, but my point is this: laws can be twisted to mean just about whatever you want them to. So, let's have some fun with it, folks! 🙂

I guess some parents just can't see eye to eye on going out, so they end up banning their kids from leaving the house altogether. Maybe.
Denying a child their basic needs is essentially abuse. It should be illegal, I guess. Maybe it’s just common sense that this needs to be banned.

That’s a different story entirely. But look, I guess violence is when you don't buy a kid everything they want—everything. Because we all know how a toddler reacts in a Target if they don't get their candy. Pure violence.
You buy him an iPhone for a few hundred bucks, then you end up footing the bill for the monthly service plan too. I guess. $83I guess if a kid messes up, taking away his iPhone counts as violence now. Maybe. 😉

I realize most of what I say is probably nonsense, but I just want to demonstrate how easily the law can be twisted. So, let's have some fun with it, shall we? 🙂

Where exactly does it say that? I guess.
You're exaggerating. I guess. 😛

brightpuma said:It’s a bit of both. Under Family Law, a parent can technically bar a kid under 16 from being out late at night—say, between 10 PM and 5 AM, if I recall correctly—but they can't really stop them from going out entirely.

A phone, a laptop, or anything like that isn't exactly a basic right for a kid. It’s not like freedom or food, you know? Those are different. Also, does it say anything here about property earned through one's own work? 🤔
Kids earning their own money? 😲

The law generally applies to everyone in the household. It covers both the adults bringing home the paycheck and the kids. It doesn't make a distinction between the two. Based on what’s written here, withholding things like the TV, a computer, or a phone counts as violence too. Isn't that right?

So what's the issue? 🤷

The law generally applies to all family members, whether they're working adults or kids. It doesn't really make a distinction there. Based on what's been said, withholding things like the TV, a computer, or a phone would also count as violence.

So be it.
If it's excessive and lacks any real reason, then that kind of punishment is basically just mistreating the child.
☕

Lisa Rodriguez84 said:So, let me get this straight: banning someone from going out—you know, actually hitting the bars, grabbing a smoke, dancing, or just hanging with the crew until 5 AM—is considered breaking the law now? Are we really at the point where a parent has to let their kid go wherever they want, whenever they feel like it, just to stay legal?
It’s the same story every single time: if a kid can't even step foot out the door without cash in their pocket, then the parent is basically on the hook to fund it. They just have to cough up the money.

🍿

Blocking someone from using their own property—or even just trying to pull that stunt—is a massive red flag. It’s a blatant attempt to strip away someone's autonomy and control over what they rightfully own. Taking away someone's right to control their own paycheck or the property they earned through hard work or inheritance—that’s abuse. Forcing someone into economic dependency by blocking them from working or withholding the money needed to run a household and take care of the kids? That's just another way to exert control. It's all part of the same pattern.

Look, a smartphone, a laptop, or any other gadget isn't exactly a fundamental right for a kid—not like freedom, food, or basic necessities. And while we're on the subject, does anyone know if there's anything written here regarding property earned through one's own labor? 🤔
Kids earning their own money? Is that even a thing anymore? 😲

You think what we've been doing for over 20 years is suddenly wrong?
People have been staying out until 5 AM forever. 🤷

I don't really get why every generation acts so shocked and starts acting like everything is brand new. 🙄

A phone or a laptop isn't something a kid is entitled to, unlike basic freedom, food, or things like that. And there's some mention here about property earned through one's own work? 🤔 What about kids who earn their own money?
😲

Some kids go to trade schools and do internships. They actually make some cash there.

brightpuma said:Violence Against Women Act

Domestic violence includes any form of physical, psychological, sexual, or economic abuse, specifically:

– physical violence, meaning any application of physical force regardless of whether an injury occurred,

– corporal punishment and other ways of treating children in a degrading manner under the guise of discipline,

– psychological violence, meaning the use of mental coercion that causes fear, vulnerability, anxiety, or loss of dignity; this includes verbal abuse, verbal attacks, insults, swearing, name-calling, or any other form of harsh verbal harassment, stalking, or harassment through any communication means, electronic or print media, or by communicating with third parties, unlawful isolation or restricting freedom of movement (referred to hereafter as stalking and harassment),

– sexual violence, meaning sexual harassment,

– economic violence, which involves damaging or destroying personal or joint property, or preventing or attempting to prevent the use of personal or joint property, as well as withholding rights or preventing access to personal income or assets earned through work or inheritance, obstructing employment or work, forcing economic dependency, or withholding funds necessary for household maintenance or care for children and other dependents within the household.

Exactly what I said.
Obviously, you aren't allowed to unlawfully isolate a child or restrict their freedom of movement. I guess that goes without saying.

I guess I'm just wondering what exactly you find so strange about this.

If that weren't explicitly stated, I guess some parents would probably just keep their kids locked up at home for a hundred years.
Some people probably shouldn't be allowed out in public at all. I guess.
We all knew people who were never allowed to go anywhere. It was pure abuse, really, and I guess it just stunted their social and personal growth.

Every single detail needs to be documented. I guess if things get misused, there should at least be a paper trail for reporting.

Lisa Rodriguez84 said:I was reading some news reports about various foster care facilities and group homes for kids under 18. Honestly, if a 12-year-old genuinely thinks they're being abused, they should just head straight to one of those institutions.
I have a feeling they’d be begging to go back home pretty fast. A little occasional spanking or getting a firm earful isn't nearly as bad as the reality of what kids actually face in those state-run homes.

This also feels like blackmail, or just exploiting a child's position.

But I guess you don't even see that. ☕

Lisa Rodriguez84 said:I’ve only skimmed part of this thread, so I might have missed it, but here’s my take: stripping a kid of their phone, computer, and TV access—it’s way more brutal and painful than any slap they could ever get.
If you lay a hand on a child, you’re an abuser. Period. There’s no middle ground between being an abuser and just letting them run wild when they act up; those are the only two options.

Is there some magical law out there that stops a parent from taking away things they actually paid for? What do we call a parent who does that? A thief? No, because let's be real, they bought the stuff... 🤔
Besides, kids under 13 aren't even allowed on Facebook without parental permission, yet there are tons of them doing it anyway. 😉>

Anyway, MK can get pretty flooded with trolls who hide behind "reasonable" posts just to derail good discussions. Sometimes they're hard to spot because they all act like they're smarter than everyone else.

No, you can discipline a child by setting boundaries or taking things away for a while.
And I guess you should ask why everyone in this thread seems so obsessed with hitting kids. ☕

rustydrifter10 said:Oh, yes they have; there are honestly so many posts floating around here that promote corporal punishment for kids.

Alex Barnes8 just came in to troll and provoke the thread. She was being insulted, so she insulted them back, and she only ended up getting a card after she ignored a warning from the mods. It's the same old story, and that's really not what we're talking about here.

Before the moderators stepped in, the topic we're discussing was nowhere near that state.

Feminism and pie—that's just their own little internal joke, and honestly, that's perfectly fine by me.

Nicole wasn't trolling or being provocative.
If staying on topic counts as trolling, I guess we have a new definition for it.
As for provocation...
In those pdf-ov where people just mess around constantly—talking about 'making pies' or 'feminism'—anything beyond that is considered a provocation.
But in a thread where people have been messing around for five pages straight, maybe provocation is actually a good thing. ☕

Feminism and pies are just their internal jokes, which is fine.

No, it isn't. 🙄

Megan Ruiz13 said:There was no regret expressed, just an observation. I said that kids used to respect their parents and elders more, and weren't 5% as insolent as they are now. Then I said I don't know what the smart move is; hitting isn't okay, but raising your voice or giving them a smack once in a while probably is.

No nostalgia for the past, no calling for child abuse or domestic violence... just talking sense. That's why we're here. 🙄

Nice burn. You try so hard to explain things from your feminist perspective, and then some guy, a total MK-ovac, just tells you to shove it. 😁

Then the rest of us just sit back and imagine you dealing with that, and suddenly we're not so stressed anymore...🤣 😛

Anyway, it wasn't an insult... it's just part of the fight against feminists trying to wipe out the few men left. 😳

They completely miss the point of this guys' corner. 😉

They didn't respect them anymore; they were just afraid of them. I guess those aren't really the same thing.

Even if they weren't at least 5% as blatant as they are now, I guess things still wouldn't be much better.

It seems like every generation just repeats the same old patterns. I guess.

Then I mentioned that I wasn't quite sure what the smart move was. I guess hitting a kid isn't okay, but maybe raising your voice or giving them a little smack on the backside is probably necessary sometimes.

Neither this nor that seems right, I guess.
In the past, that supposed obedience and "respect" was often just the result of actual physical discipline. I guess.
Just call things by their actual names. Maybe then MK won't have such a hard time with those precious PDFs.☕

I'm not looking to reminisce about the good old days, nor am I suggesting anyone should go back to hitting kids or any kind of domestic violence. I just feel like I need to vent, which is why I'm posting this now. 🙄

I guess it was just some nostalgia for the old days, when you didn't actually need patience or any brainpower to raise kids—you could just hit them and call it a day.
It's just sad. You really can't go on like that... I guess. 🙄

bluemason3 said:Fanaticism and dictatorship can sprout from just about any moral value if you let them.☕

The hallmarks are pretty clear: an absolute, unwavering belief in one's own truth, a total lack of humor or irony, zero sense of life's nuances, and a certain childish self-importance.☕

Luckily, they're usually not smart enough to push things too far before a crisis hits—one big enough to make people trade their common sense for pure instinct.😳

Not really about moral values, I guess. More about stupid beliefs. ☕

the hallmarks are absolute certainty in everything, zero sense of humor, no irony, no grasp on life's nuances, and just childish posturing ☕

Sounds like you're describing your dear Chuck. 😛

Laura Chavez93 said:The entire MK really ought to be abolished ☕

That would be such a massive waste, I guess. 🤣

bluemason3 said:Look, a child is a different story. By definition, they're immature and haven't fully developed the cognitive tools to recognize certain things yet.

On the flip side, how do we describe an adult who still fails to recognize those same things? 😳

By the way, dictators almost always share one trait: they can't tell the difference between actual humor and making fun of their own "values."☕

And I guess that's precisely why you have to be more careful with them, not less than you would with adults.

Dictators also tend to be completely incapable of humor or joking when it comes to their own "values."☕

Dictators usually suffer from distorted moral values, which means they almost never actually say the word 'violence.'
They just rely on a long list of euphemisms that they pull out whenever it suits them. ☕

mazgov said:The topic is hyperactive kids, but you've twisted it into child abuse and attacking the people participating in the discussion.

The subject is 'hyperactive children,' yet you all have turned it into an argument about child abuse and glorifying violent methods.
It’s particularly dangerous to claim: 'No one was advocating hitting as violence, just as a disciplinary method.' 🙄
I suppose no one ever promotes violence by simply saying, 'be violent!'
It's always wrapped up in something more palatable. In this case, violence is being wrapped in the phrase 'disciplinary method.'
So, I guess—yes, that is essentially inciting and glorifying violence. 🙂

Megan Ruiz13 said:I've read all the posts—I even shared my own take—and I've gone through Charles Fox10's comments too. I don't see anyone calling for violence here. He's talking about disciplinary measures...

There’s a massive difference between an abuser who beats their kids or spouse to vent frustration because they can't handle parenting, and someone who just raises their voice or gives a naughty kid a quick swat on the backside.

Like I said, nobody wrote anything suggesting anyone should be abused or attacked. 🤷

You guys are ganging up on him for nothing.

Charles Fox10 was essentially advocating for violence by labeling it as a disciplinary measure.😁

I find it a bit nonsensical to present Science and the Economy as alternatives.🤷

It doesn't really make sense to me, I guess.😕