Posts by bluemason3

Linda Price5 said:Believe me, I am absolutely counting down the days until some LGBTQ+ advocacy group decides that unknown is the perfect target for their legal team to sink their teeth into. 🙂

It’s real nice of you to come out like that.

So, like I said, it’s either shut down unknown (and all its associates) or deal with the fallout. These modern "victim vs. villain" narratives aren't going to work on people who clearly exist just to stir the pot and troll for fun. 😉

Linda Price5 said:My concern isn't regarding the penalty for expressing an opinion; my issue is with a moderator inciting domestic violence. 🙂

Federal law prohibits inciting hatred based on race, gender, or other protected characteristics. If you’re going to go after every single "sexist" or "homophobic" comment on Reddit, you might as well just shut the whole site down right now—it's the exact same logic applied to the people being discussed here. Look, you need to make a choice: either accept Reddit for what its users actually want it to be and apply standards similar to how you'd judge a joke, or keep letting a few frustrated, immature women run the show until everyone else boycotts the platform. ☕

hollowmoose77 said:I have a child. My child has had an ADHD diagnosis since preschool age, so for about 10 years now.
I don't write much, I just don't have the time (a hyperactive child is a handful, seriously, they are truly hyperactive), and I wouldn't have even stepped in if I hadn't ended up crying my eyes out last night. I've been reading this forum for years for the same reason I watch things like *Two and a Half Men*... just to have a laugh when I'm in that kind of mood, and it never occurred to me to get seriously involved in a debate because I knew it would end... well, bitterly, in any case. Because sometimes people overdo it, actually quite often, and then I just go off and read about cosmetics; at least there I'm not thinking about things that make me want to cry. Last night I wasn't even reading about cosmetics, I was just so upset, because my life isn't hard because my kid is hyper, it's hard because people have such "unique ways" of expressing themselves and behaving.
That's why it made me happy today (and believe me, that isn't easy) to come across this topic, because it makes me happy every time I see there are still people who understand that being hyperactive isn't the same as being poorly behaved, that physical punishment didn't just fall from the sky, and that they have the strength to open these topics on the forum (I didn't have that strength yesterday; my child had a really bad day). The problem with this thread, besides the "mild" suggestion of physical punishment, is that you don't actually understand what hyperactivity really is; instead, you grab onto something and frustratingly take it to an absurd extreme. Which is also what happens when you bring feminism into it, but here we are talking about—and I'll be brief just so I can make it somewhat clear to you—a medical condition.
In the last 13 or so years, I have hit my hyperactive child exactly five times... I regret every single one of those five times, and I will never regret it. And if it had worked, I'd probably regret it even more. But it didn't. IT DIDN'T. It was just proof of my complete helplessness in that moment.
When you have a child one day and realize (or others, like doctors, realize) that they are hyperactive, I am available for anything... and I truly mean this, you are going to need every bit of support you can get.

No, that’s not the issue. Your problem is like someone who gets as sensitive about jokes about historical tragedies as a nationalist would be. Overreacting to your own situation distorts your perception of what was clearly meant as a joke—something everyone else understood was just a joke.

Women should be banned from visiting this site. For goodness' sake. 🙄

Linda Price5 said:If a fifteen-year-old destroys a MacBook $2333, or totals a $40,000 vehicle out of pure spite, you aren't looking at a "misunderstood" kid—you're looking at either a psychotic break or a complete failure of parenting up to that point.

I’m sorry, but that isn't entirely accurate either. It’s a mix of upbringing, genetics, and the kind of unsupervised behavior kids get into when parents aren't watching. It’s never that simple or one-sided. There are certain genetic "quirks" that show up at higher rates among criminals compared to the general population, for instance. That’s just a correlation; you can interpret it however you like, but it doesn't always imply direct causation. To my knowledge, I've seen cases where kids were pulling serious stunts before they could even walk, eventually ending up in the criminal justice system, while their siblings stayed perfectly well-behaved.

What’s the cause, and what’s the fix? Honestly, even the brightest minds haven't landed on a definitive answer yet. It isn't some controlled chemical reaction in a lab where you can dial in the parameters and run experiments at will.

Alex Barnes8 said: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. 😛

Moral value is subjective nonsense—it isn't an exact science. It really just comes down to being rigid or not...

Well, obviously. 😉

Nicholas King said:Every single child has significantly more developed mechanisms and a much better capacity for recognizing things than some senile old woman—does that mean it’s perfectly fine to slap Grandma Hedwig when her own mechanisms and recognition skills fail her?

BTW, you are grossly underestimating both children and their actual ability to process things. On the contrary—and I am repeating this to counter the absolute nonsense that physical punishment from parents is actually a sign of neglect or a lack of care—a slap or a kick in the rear is nothing more than a disgusting shortcut. It's used because people want to follow the principle of "one kick in the butt speaks louder than a thousand words" just so they can get back to staring at math equations, sipping a beer, and engaging in typical male banter in peace.

You know that saying, "you can't teach an old dog new tricks"?😉
While there are behavioral similarities between the elderly and children, their brains are worlds apart—one is still developing while the other is essentially breaking down. One absorbs everything like a sponge; the other leaks like a cracked pot.

Positive reinforcement (rewards) and negative reinforcement (punishment) are both tools used to shape behavior. You don't use them on the elderly. With kids, it's your job to use them; otherwise, parents wouldn't be raising functional adults capable of living on their own.

Using something to vent personal frustration is one thing (that's just abuse), but using it as a method of conditioning is something else entirely.

We can debate whether certain conditioning methods are good or bad, but comparing them to the elderly is a non-starter.

I agree with the bottom half of the post. I haven't kept up with this deeply, but if my college developmental psychology classes taught me anything, it's that while violent upbringing is the worst, being overly permissive is arguably worse than being "firm." The issue seems to be inconsistency and motivation rather than the specific method itself. Given how fickle the subject is, I can't say for sure what my professor's exact stance was, but I haven't seen any evidence from other sources suggesting a smack on the rear is inherently harmful regardless of the context.

So, tell me, where did you get such expert knowledge on kids and their brain functions? Is this your profession, or have you just raised a lot of children?

brightpuma said:Yeah, that's pretty much it...

Actually, no. It’s not just about whether a parent *chooses* not to let them go; it's more like they aren't *allowed* to. Their opinion still doesn't carry much weight in the equation.😬

So, by that logic, after we pass the unknown and the local youth codes, we might as well just lock up all teenagers. I'm sure there's plenty of encouragement for kids under 16 to sneak out illegally.🧐 🙂

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?

I'm not an expert on the law, but I have this nagging feeling that it actually prohibits kids from being out unsupervised during those hours without parental permission.🤔

Or am I just getting things mixed up?🤔

Alex Barnes8 said: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. ☕

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.😳

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

the entire forum ☕

would be better for everyone if we all just stepped outside for some fresh air and went for a walk. 🧐

Linda Price5 said:Honestly, the moderation at MK isn't nearly liberal enough. We need a real discussion where advice about beating a wife without leaving bruises doesn't just get wiped away. MK acts like a kid who keeps making a mess while the parents refuse to say, "Enough is enough, you can't do that," opting instead to claim he's special 😍.

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."☕

Timothy Robinson2 said:You can keep going until Linda Price5 decides she likes it. 😁

Someone told me that when they were kids, they used to listen to classical music by pressing their ear right against the speaker of a record player. I guess that’s how things work here—you can only discuss certain topics if you stay within the lines, because undercover cops are basically patrolling the sub-forums.

So, discussions about race, sexual orientation, parenting... they're fine, as long as you don't cross the line set by the agents on duty, since apparently someone told them some article somewhere says a certain thing is harmful.

Anyway, I read those articles. The idea that spanking a kid on the butt or fingers is harmful is about as proven as saying using a cell phone is harmful. It’s just not recommended, so people try to avoid it, but it doesn't exactly show any massive, devastating effects.

People can check that out for themselves in their own neighborhoods. In mine, I'm pretty sure almost everyone got swatted at once or another, and not one of them turned out to be a criminal or an abuser. You've got all sorts of people—doctors, lawyers, engineers... a smack on the butt didn't influence their life choices one bit. Honestly, I'd say non-verbal, non-physical communication—just the way their parents acted—had a much bigger impact than those hits. At this rate, I expect Family Law will soon make it illegal for a parent to even come home tired from work or something. 😁

Long story short... topics where activists have hijacked both science and practice...

I watched a recorded behavioral psychology lecture from an American university recently. The professor was struggling a bit when he got to negative reinforcement because, honestly, most of the pushback is ethical rather than strictly scientific... basically, he concluded that the objections are mostly moral, and that any conditioning tends to be limited to specific situations or people, making it hard to generalize compared to positive reinforcement... blah blah blah... pretty thin stuff, really. He noted it was clearly driven by current social norms rather than pure logic. Personally, I’m not much of a fan of punishment (okay, except in the bedroom 😍 🤣), but I'm not sure if there's objective proof of actual harm. It seems to me the biggest issue is inconsistency, which is classic for unstable environments. One day a guy gets drunk and hits everything in sight for no reason, then the next day he's sober and coddling everyone for no reason either...

Anyway, that's not the topic 😁

Nicholas King said:Really? Everything? Even advocating for illegal activities (or whatever the legal jargon calls it these days) within those topics?

I’m not just talking about physical punishment for children here; I mean other actions that are strictly prohibited by law.

And if someone mentions something similar in a joke, will they be sanctioned too? MK is closer to making jokes than to Psychology, let alone being approachable or setting a decent tone...

But putting that aside—if laws were never debated or challenged, we’d still have slavery, women wouldn't have the right to vote, and fathers would essentially own their children's lives. Do you honestly think this specific moment in history is the perfect peak where nothing ever needs to change? How does anything evolve without constant questioning?

Honestly, mods, I expected better from you guys... 😁

Let's be honest, psychotherapy isn't exactly an exact science. We're dealing with a massive collection of theoretical models that often end up contradicting one another. Since we aren't working with matter that can be physically measured, it’s pretty tough to claim any single model is definitively proven 🤷

Therapy is fine, but things get messy when people present it as absolute fact or hard proof for anything. It’s especially problematic when there's too much orchestration involved—all those indirect suggestions nudging you toward a specific conclusion.

From a therapeutic standpoint, though, I think it gets more interesting when you look at direct regression to a cause. Even without any intention of exploring past lives, if someone experiences something that feels like a previous existence, my guess is the subconscious can just wrap its own narrative around any framework provided. It uses those details to work through issues. After all, we already use stories, metaphors, and various visualizations in sessions, so this could easily be perceived the same way.🤷

Is this meant to be an alternative topic? 😬

Look, being a realist isn't necessarily a bad thing, though I suppose some might see it that way 😁

I honestly think it’s all just Masons and some messy walls at this point 🧐 😬

I seriously doubt that such a bombastic scenario is actually realistic.🙂

CNN, how does the government even make money off "insurance premiums" when private health insurance in America is practically non-existent? Most people are covered through Medicare, which is state-run. That means the government is essentially paying itself, so it’s actually in their best interest to cut costs rather than increase them. You can see this trend everywhere lately—shorter hospital stays, rushed post-op recoveries, and a massive push toward home care instead of actual clinical treatment...

hiddenpuma75 has definitely had a few more run-ins than I have, though my own decade on this forum has been pretty steady. That said, I’m not voting to lift the ban. If we do, that specific brand of personality will just inevitably drag us right back to where we started. 😁