|
Post by faune on Sept 13, 2013 12:57:29 GMT -5
Hello to all:::: I thought I would add my 2cents worth on this thread at this point........ I was extremely fortunate over the years, to be able to "intellectualize" my issues... Seems that I was able to deal with my issues in my intellectual being.. BUT the counselor ( counselor was NOT in the 2x2"s) mentioned that I might need to deal with those issues on an "emotional level"..... I was perfectly clear that "intellectualizing" ... was NOT the best. BUT it seems over the years, since the death of my dad and mother, I have been very fortunate to be able to totally "let go" of all the issues that were hiding in the background. My emotional being is NOT always up front... I do have to spend some time to force my emotion into the fray....... Because it is best for my emotional being....it is best for my emotions to be taken to task related to the REAL TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND IT IS BEST FOR ME!! My "emotional self" was finally able to investigate and to totally forgive BOTH of my parents. I totally believed that each of them did the "best that they could"..... Neither of them fully understood the impact of physical abuse.They did not fully realize the impact that physical abuse would make on their young lives, and on their psych. One or the other of them believed that "sparing the rod and spoiling the child" was what was expected of both of them...AND believe it or not, I have come to realize that my parents desperately wanted me to be a true Child of God..... Both of them had come to believe that the "2x2"s" were the total example of what was needed for me...According to them, I was a "difficult" child..... Which ended up being just fine with me...My personality really did LOVE being difficult!!!!!!! I NOW fully understand that the Creator WANTED ME TO BE DIFFICULT"!!!!!!!!!! HE wanted me to use my brain, and to use, HIS GOD given talents of searching for the truth, investigating the issues, looking and looking for TRUE information...HE wanted me to be fully OPEN and accepting of suggestions. My sibling brother had been MUCH easier to handle than I was, and my parents made that clear over the years. AND FOR YEARS and years I worshiped him, INSTEAD OF WORSHIPING GOD............(not a good idea.) AND now, I fully understand my mistakes and my failure to really worship the SAVIOR, and not a human being. I spent an entire convention in Boring Oregon, in 2006 crying, crying and crying some more, when I realized that the LORD loved me, just as much as HE loved my responsible, caring, and honorary sibling brother. THAT realization FREED me from the group... It forced me to think and to pray about my situation and to THANK THE LORD for HIS intervention into my life. It required me to think CLEARLY and independently about our LORD and his SON JESUS. AND how that this independence would help me truly SEEK HIM and HIS SON!!!!! ANY kind of abuse, is so wrong,,and it forces suffering on to individuals that may or may not have the ability to deal with it... THOSE of us that might be watching, or viewing, or investigating their abuse, DESPERATELY may need to intercede in their situation....THOSE of us that fully KNOW the difference and the need that others may have, REALLY must intervene IF WE CAN. WE really all need to pray and pray long and hard, in order to help those folks.... WE can not guess that they need us to pray for them, THEY DO NEED US TO PRAY for them..... I have found that it is the best for those of us, physically, emotionally, and religiously abused. to CLOSELY investigate what "works" for each of us... NOT all plans, or processes, or interventions work for each of us... The abuse that we suffered requires each of us to evaluate, and closely inspect JUST what is necessary for ourselves to do. IT requires a lot of praying and investigations into our lives, to help us to REALLY come to LOVE our LORD and our Savior. Theolegranni ~ Thanks for sharing your story and your recovery from such a difficult childhood. I also applaud Ckirkham for his courage in exposing his own " childhood nightmare" of growing up within such an abusive environment. I agree with your conclusion above that we definitely have to find out by investigation what works best for each of us who have suffered from any form of abuse ~ whether it be physical, emotional, sexual, or spiritual in our environment. This morning I saw this news story that went viral about an abusive mother and I found it shocking, to say the least. What a legacy to leave your own children when you die! abcnews.go.com/US/video/kids-shame-abusive-mom-scathing-obituary-20247566 search.yahoo.com/search?cs=bz&p=Scathing%20obituary&fr=fp-tts-600&fr2=ps&woeid=2495232
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2013 13:01:37 GMT -5
The definition of "violent" or "violence." Violent: intensely forcible, impetuous and unrestrained in action: overmateringly vehement: due to violence, wrested; expressing violence. Violence: the state or quality of being violent, excessive, unrestrained, or unjustifiable force; outrage, profanation, injury, rape. The above clearly demonstrates that it is inappropriate to use the word "violent" or "violence" with regards to legally acceptable levels of child physical chastisement and can only be properly used in the realms of child physical abuse. People need to be educated to know there is a difference! Anyone wanting to sensibly discuss matters of child physical chastisement and child physical abuse should learn to use appropriate terminology in each case. Using inappropriate terminology, especially in an attempt to lift the former into the realms of the latter only confuses the issue and as a result common sense becomes one of the first casualties. Completely wrong. You need to study the meaning of violence so that you can understand what is the appropriate use of the word, especially when it comes to child abuse. It is completely appropriate, for instance, to use the word violence in describing emotional abuse. Intimidation is violence. It is also appropriate to use the word violence to describe legal physical punishment, which is effectively "legally allowed abuse". Never use the law as your minimum moral standard. Laws tend to reflect the consensus of the majority of the society, and that often is a watered down result.....that's how politicians work..... compromise more than principle. When I use the word violent, it includes these established dictionary definitions: Abusive or unjust exercise of power. Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor An unjust, unwarranted, or unlawful display of force, esp such as tends to overawe or intimidate To use "legally allowed physical force" as a standard is far too limited and extremely unhelpful when discussing child abuse. For instance, to yell obscenities and put downs at your child is an act of violence and abuse. Only when we begin to understand the full meaning of violence can we properly discuss child abuse. So like it or not, you will hear the word violence used by me according to its full meaning. If you don't agree with it, at least you will understand what I mean by it. I understand where you are coming from though, I used to think of violence similar to your view of it but have changed my understanding of it over the years. It started years ago with the oft repeated statement with "rape is not an act of sex, it is an act of violence". It took me years to understand that because I knew that many rapes did not include beatings or bruising, yet always constituted violence. Once I got my head around that, then understanding violence properly opened up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2013 13:09:20 GMT -5
The definition of "violent" or "violence." Violent: intensely forcible, impetuous and unrestrained in action: overmateringly vehement: due to violence, wrested; expressing violence. Violence: the state or quality of being violent, excessive, unrestrained, or unjustifiable force; outrage, profanation, injury, rape. The above clearly demonstrates that it is inappropriate to use the word "violent" or "violence" with regards to legally acceptable levels of child physical chastisement and can only be properly used in the realms of child physical abuse. People need to be educated to know there is a difference! Anyone wanting to sensibly discuss matters of child physical chastisement and child physical abuse should learn to use appropriate terminology in each case. Using inappropriate terminology, especially in an attempt to lift the former into the realms of the latter only confuses the issue and as a result common sense becomes one of the first casualties. Completely wrong. You need to study the meaning of violence so that you can understand what is the appropriate use of the word, especially when it comes to child abuse. It is completely appropriate, for instance, to use the word violence in describing emotional abuse. It is also appropriate to use the word violence to describe legal physical punishment, which is effectively "legally allowed abuse". Never use the law as your minimum moral standard. Laws tend to reflect the consensus of the majority of the society, and that often is a watered down result.....that's how politicians work..... compromise more than principle. When I use the word violent, it includes these dictionary definitions: Abusive or unjust exercise of power. Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor. To use "legally allowed physical force" as a standard is far too limited and extremely unhelpful when discussing child abuse. For instance, to yell obscenities and put downs at your child is an act of violence and abuse. Only when we begin to understand the full meaning of violence can we properly discuss child abuse. So like it or not, you will hear the word violence used by me according to its full meaning. If you don't agree with it, at least you will understand what I mean by it. Please quote "verbatim" from any dictionary the definition of violent or violence! This will show whether or not I am "completely wrong!" All three definitions you quoted above do not fit into my understanding of child physical chastisement. Far from it. Try and fit any of these into my post on the matter. Yes I agree that yelling obscenities and put downs at your child is certainly abusive and verbally violent which fits in with the definitions that I provided. Surely you didn't think that I was saying these were acceptable forms of "child physical or other form of child chastisement?" Once more, read the post I made. Don't extract things that aren't there or aren't meant. Would you describe the West's desire to sling some Tommahawk missiles into Syria, likely killing and maiming many children, as violent intent or desire? Do you support this type of chastisement?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 13, 2013 13:16:39 GMT -5
Just look at how much common sense was applied to help ckirkham. None. No one helped him even though I expect many people saw it or suspected it. Zero hitting is something literally everyone can understand, no common sense needed. Since there were no allegations made, it was not posted to a www site, and there were no convictions it your past evaluations of physical abuse among the F&W this wasn't an incident. You and fixit have been demanding convictions or allegations of physical abuse before you will consider that it is taking place today at a rate that is higher than sexual abuse. No one helped because they didn't believe it was happening. After all, there were no convictions, no allegations, no visible scars, etc. The bottom line is that physical abuse is not negligible among the F&W or any other group.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 13, 2013 14:06:58 GMT -5
Stormie O'Martian, one of my favorite authors, had quite an abusive childhood. She grew up in the same generation that I did where child abuse often took place within homes with little to curtail its behavior. Here's an excerpt from her biography: www.stormieomartian.com/stormiesstory.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2013 14:12:40 GMT -5
Completely wrong. You need to study the meaning of violence so that you can understand what is the appropriate use of the word, especially when it comes to child abuse. It is completely appropriate, for instance, to use the word violence in describing emotional abuse. It is also appropriate to use the word violence to describe legal physical punishment, which is effectively "legally allowed abuse". Never use the law as your minimum moral standard. Laws tend to reflect the consensus of the majority of the society, and that often is a watered down result.....that's how politicians work..... compromise more than principle. When I use the word violent, it includes these dictionary definitions: Abusive or unjust exercise of power. Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor. To use "legally allowed physical force" as a standard is far too limited and extremely unhelpful when discussing child abuse. For instance, to yell obscenities and put downs at your child is an act of violence and abuse. Only when we begin to understand the full meaning of violence can we properly discuss child abuse. So like it or not, you will hear the word violence used by me according to its full meaning. If you don't agree with it, at least you will understand what I mean by it. Please quote "verbatim" from any dictionary the definition of violent or violence! This will show whether or not I am "completely wrong!" All three definitions you quoted above do not fit into my understanding of child physical chastisement. Far from it. Try and fit any of these into my post on the matter. Yes I agree that yelling obscenities and put downs at your child is certainly abusive and verbally violent which fits in with the definitions that I provided. Surely you didn't think that I was saying these were acceptable forms of "child physical or other form of child chastisement?" Once more, read the post I made. Don't extract things that aren't there or aren't meant. All four of the above statements are "verbatim" from the dictionary. My post had no reference to your views on abuse, but was in response strictly to your understanding of violence and its meaning. Absolutely, it is a violent desire, it can't be seen any other way. It's not a peaceful desire! I am not sure what this has to do with child physical abuse but I do not support any violence from anyone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2013 14:47:25 GMT -5
Just look at how much common sense was applied to help ckirkham. None. No one helped him even though I expect many people saw it or suspected it. Zero hitting is something literally everyone can understand, no common sense needed. Since there were no allegations made, it was not posted to a www site, and there were no convictions it your past evaluations of physical abuse among the F&W this wasn't an incident. You and fixit have been demanding convictions or allegations of physical abuse before you will consider that it is taking place today at a rate that is higher than sexual abuse. No one helped because they didn't believe it was happening. After all, there were no convictions, no allegations, no visible scars, etc. The bottom line is that physical abuse is not negligible among the F&W or any other group. Now that you have made a definitive statement that physical abuse is not negligible among F&Ws, it would be a good time to make the case that it is a significant problem. Let's have some facts of the numbers of documented cases and the % of children of F&Ws who are physically abused beyond generally accepted corporal punishment. The numbers I have indicate a negligible level child physical abuse but perhaps you know something I do not know so we would all appreciate your sharing your facts here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2013 11:33:48 GMT -5
Please quote "verbatim" from any dictionary the definition of violent or violence! This will show whether or not I am "completely wrong!" All three definitions you quoted above do not fit into my understanding of child physical chastisement. Far from it. Try and fit any of these into my post on the matter. Yes I agree that yelling obscenities and put downs at your child is certainly abusive and verbally violent which fits in with the definitions that I provided. Surely you didn't think that I was saying these were acceptable forms of "child physical or other form of child chastisement?" Once more, read the post I made. Don't extract things that aren't there or aren't meant. All four of the above statements are "verbatim" from the dictionary. My post had no reference to your views on abuse, but was in response strictly to your understanding of violence and its meaning. That's great because ALL four references you quoted from your dictionary actually fit in with my post on the matter and also the dictionary definitions that I quoted. Therefore, far from being "completely wrong" it looks as though I am "completely right," so far!
Absolutely, it is a violent desire, it can't be seen any other way. It's not a peaceful desire! I am not sure what this has to do with child physical abuse but I do not support any violence from anyone. My apologies. I understood you were all for Obama's "military strike" in Syria. I was finding it difficult to reconcile support for such an action from someone who sees lightly smacking a child as a violent act, especially since the former will kill and maim innocent children. Don't get me wrong, yet again I am not against the principle of military intervention, but based on recent history I have no confidence that it will make things better, therefore I do not support it. However, I can see things getting much worse anyway, irrespective of the success or otherwise of the ongoing talks, so perhaps the whole thing becomes a moot point?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2013 13:27:23 GMT -5
All four of the above statements are "verbatim" from the dictionary. My post had no reference to your views on abuse, but was in response strictly to your understanding of violence and its meaning. That's great because ALL four references you quoted from your dictionary actually fit in with my post on the matter and also the dictionary definitions that I quoted. Therefore, far from being "completely wrong" it looks as though I am "completely right," so far!
Absolutely, it is a violent desire, it can't be seen any other way. It's not a peaceful desire! I am not sure what this has to do with child physical abuse but I do not support any violence from anyone. My apologies. I understood you were all for Obama's "military strike" in Syria. I was finding it difficult to reconcile support for such an action from someone who sees lightly smacking a child as a violent act, especially since the former will kill and maim innocent children. Don't get me wrong, yet again I am not against the principle of military intervention, but based on recent history I have no confidence that it will make things better, therefore I do not support it. However, I can see things getting much worse anyway, irrespective of the success or otherwise of the ongoing talks, so perhaps the whole thing becomes a moot point?
I have stated my views on what should have been done in Syria. Obama's pea shooter ballistic missiles was not included.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2017 16:58:44 GMT -5
Bump. This is a great thread.
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Jan 14, 2017 17:04:52 GMT -5
HI Simpleton,I bring some of these forward to allow interested authorities, parties or individuals to assess the dangers that children have faced for decades and are facing lurking amongst the supposed God's only "TRUE" way.
|
|