MK, vol. 219483

bluemason3 said: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?🤔

Yeah, that's pretty much it...

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.🧐 🙂

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. 😛

I just want to point out that I was slapped with a 45-point penalty simply because I called Charles Fox10 unintelligent. It’s been 24 hours and he still can't grasp the distinction between general aggression and actual abuse. Meanwhile, Charles Fox10—who actually suggested that slapping children is a valid way to prevent them from developing ADHD—didn't receive a single warning. Why? Because the administrator refuses to issue penalties to moderators who violate the rules, just as she refuses to penalize other users who broke sub-forum guidelines. They managed to dodge accountability by editing their posts instead of just deleting them, effectively hiding the evidence from the admins. Apparently, they weren't aware that moderators aren't supposed to edit posts in the first place. Honestly, am I going to get another penalty if I say it again? 😁

Just scrap the moderator positions at unknown entirely and be done with it. 😁

Oh, please, don't do that. Who else is going to hand out red cards to people actually speaking up against this whole sabotage of Gay Pride? 😁

Megan Ruiz13 said:The whole point was missed. This section is basically just guys messing around. If the OP actually wanted a deep dive into hyperactivity, they would’ve posted in a different sub-forum.

The gist of it is that kids today are incredibly undisciplined. Every bratty kid gets labeled as "hyperactive," whereas back in the day, people handled that kind of energy with a belt or something similar. At least, that's how I read the thread.

It wasn't meant to be a medical or Psychology lecture held in a space where we mostly talk about women and dating.

Then out of nowhere, some people swoop in and fly off. It happens here all the time, usually driven by feminists.🤣 😁

Anyway, the same thing happened again. This time, someone got attacked like they were some massive criminal, when really they were just playing along with the vibe of the forum. They didn't say anything violent at all.

Actually, when things look like that, people love to push back against modern norms and play with those overly sensitive sensibilities.

At the end of the day, this is a men's space. Deal with it.

Based on the opening post, it seems the goal here is to dive into what people call hyperactivity—though I suspect we’re really just testing the concept itself. It feels like this term has become a bit of a trendy buzzword lately, and honestly, for many, it might just end up being a polite synonym for modern-day lack of discipline. As for hyperactivity itself, people tend to link it to... I suppose there’s a bit of a conversation to be had regarding ADHD—it's a topic that seems to come up more frequently these days, I guess. I suppose, in any discussion that purports to examine a certain "phenomenon," there really ought to be a moment where someone—honestly—defines what hyperactivity actually is. It’s easy to get lost in the weeds, I guess, so bringing the conversation back on track or providing a bit of much-needed clarity is vital. Usually, someone steps up to draw those lines, and it’s always quite refreshing when a moderator takes the initiative to do so.

Arguments that mental health disorders can be solved through simple willpower—or just some fresh air, manual labor, or even a good slap—aren't exactly a new phenomenon on Reddit. You see the same skepticism over on various psychology forums too, especially regarding Borderline Personality Disorder, which, interestingly enough, tends to be diagnosed more frequently in women. It’s often the same people who claim they don't need to "parent" their children properly today. Furthermore, women on those psychology boards tend to be much more open about sharing their struggles and writing about their own diagnoses. I often find myself thinking about this whenever I hear people arguing for the necessity of a more "authentic" male perspective on Reddit. Personally, I think that whole push for a specific type of masculine energy is a bit outdated—so I've actually stopped visiting those threads altogether to avoid getting dragged into arguments when I'm trying to be serious.

Basically, things have taken a turn in a similar direction again—but this time, they went straight for the man's throat as if he were some kind of monster. In reality, he was just responding to the tone of that specific corner of the internet; he wasn't even in the wrong, let alone inciting any kind of violence.

I don't necessarily believe that was the intention—though I suppose it’s possible—but based on my own experience, I know just how uncomfortable the phrasing on that subforum can get. Here, I honestly feel like most people are just making harmless jokes about karma, and I doubt the majority actually feels any urge to hit a child. However, there have been threads where that wasn't quite so certain—cases involving real-life backgrounds of aggression toward women or the LGBTQ+ community, or situations where physical and sexual violence, or even just harsh prejudices, are somehow treated as if they're "normal."

Linda Price5 said:I just want to point out that I was slapped with a 45-point penalty simply because I called Charles Fox10 unintelligent. It’s been 24 hours and he still can't grasp the distinction between general aggression and actual abuse. Meanwhile, Charles Fox10—who actually suggested that slapping children is a valid way to prevent them from developing ADHD—didn't receive a single warning. Why? Because the administrator refuses to issue penalties to moderators who violate the rules, just as she refuses to penalize other users who broke sub-forum guidelines. They managed to dodge accountability by editing their posts instead of just deleting them, effectively hiding the evidence from the admins. Apparently, they weren't aware that moderators aren't supposed to edit posts in the first place. Honestly, am I going to get another penalty if I say it again? 😁

Just scrap the moderator positions at unknown entirely and be done with it. 😁

This is getting quite malicious.

Alright, my apologies. Charles Fox10 stated that parents need to slap their kids, period.

There, is that better?

Charles Fox10 said:Decide for yourselves if this much noise is actually necessary or just a distraction. I’m bringing up the discussion from Psychology here.

If you have a moment, skim the last three pages. It should give you plenty to chew on. If you're feeling particularly curious, check out the Survey—it shows 33% of users support some form of disciplinary action for kids. Since the survey is public, we even know who's who.

The thread is over 30 pages long, about a year and a half old, and still going.

Did some people miss it? Even those participating here who had something to say, yet were pointed toward the original thread right now.

Given the interest, I expect similarly spirited comments on both the MK thread and the one on Psychology.

Charles Fox10, I actually linked that thread for you back on a previous page of this discussion. I agree that the issue isn't specific to unknown, and theoretically speaking, one could certainly have a debate about corporal punishment for children. Though, personally, I don't even think this is the core issue facing unknown.

Charles Fox10 said:This is getting quite malicious.

I'm not entirely sure what she was getting at there, but hyperactivity and ADHD usually go hand in hand, I guess.

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:And what happens when a fifteen-year-old smashes a MacBook $2333 just for the hell of it?
Should we just sit them down and explain why that's wrong? 👏
What if they wreck a $40,000 car?

You can't even pull them aside by the ear anymore without risking a trip to jail.

But sure, let's just completely ignore the existence of kids who don't act out and never need discipline.

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.

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.☕

Megan Ruiz13 said:Do you actually have kids? I'm curious if any of you people making such a huge deal about "patience" and "intelligence" in parenting actually have children of your own, or if you're just calling everyone else violent maniacs from the sidelines.

Kids go through certain phases where they can drive you absolutely insane. You can listen, plead, or spend all 24 hours of the day right next to them, but once they decide to be difficult, they are difficult as hell. They'll use everything—tantrums, breaking stuff, throwing themselves on the floor—just to get their way.

There really are those rare moments where you have to show some real firmness. It doesn't mean you have to slap them; a slap hurts. But raising your voice is necessary. Any parent knows there are times you might give them a swat on the butt—it’s not even about hitting, it’s more about that sudden correction that makes them jump.

But people are so quick to scream "abuse" at the first sign of discipline...

And I think a lot of people on the MK forums were just trying to express that same sentiment in their own way.🙂

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.

Daniel White9 said:Hey rustydrifter10,

Alex Barnes8 was constantly being subjected to things like this—and those are just the mild versions—yet the conclusion drawn (by others, including you) was that she was just trolling. 🤷

I never once claimed that other people here weren't trolling or being disrespectful, too.

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.

Linda Price5 said:Thanks.

The forum rules state: It is prohibited on this forum to incite or justify any illegal acts.


By that logic, inciting or justifying physical discipline for children is against the rules here.

So, what are the consequences for violating this specific rule? How have users been penalized for such infractions in the past, and what was the disciplinary action taken against the moderator?

I'm still looking for clarity on this. 🍿

If the extent of the "punishment" is nothing more than revisionist editing of posts, then we should probably just limit moderators to an edit-only permission. Most of those banned posts aren't even due to calls for breaking the Penal Code; they're usually triggered by much more trivial matters.

Linda Price5 said:I'm still looking for clarity on this. 🍿

If the extent of the "punishment" is nothing more than revisionist editing of posts, then we should probably just limit moderators to an edit-only permission. Most of those banned posts aren't even due to calls for breaking the Penal Code; they're usually triggered by much more trivial matters.

Look, people are allowed to have opinions. If the guys in the corner decide all feminists are just hairy old ladies who don't shave their legs... well, that doesn't make it a fact. It just means that's what the MK crowd thinks, believes, or claims.

The other thing is, whether that's actually true or just a coincidence is a whole different story. ☕

We’ve had freedom of speech for a long time now, and it took centuries of struggle to get where we are. We only lost it during fascist regimes and things like that.

Lisa Rodriguez84 said:Look, people are allowed to have opinions. If the guys in the corner decide all feminists are just hairy old ladies who don't shave their legs... well, that doesn't make it a fact. It just means that's what the MK crowd thinks, believes, or claims.

The other thing is, whether that's actually true or just a coincidence is a whole different story. ☕

We’ve had freedom of speech for a long time now, and it took centuries of struggle to get where we are. We only lost it during fascist regimes and things like that.

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

Linda Price5 said:Thanks.

The forum rules state: It is prohibited on this forum to incite or justify any illegal acts.


By that logic, inciting or justifying physical discipline for children is against the rules here.

So, what are the consequences for violating this specific rule? How have users been penalized for such infractions in the past, and what was the disciplinary action taken against the moderator?

Nobody actually got banned from that thread.