Petition to Ban GoodK If He Doesn't Cut This crap.

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_marg

Re: Petition to Ban GoodK If He Doesn't Cut This s***.

Post by _marg »

rcrocket wrote:
liz3564 wrote:
Let's see if Bob actually has the guts to address your points. It's doubtful because I don't think it's an argument he will be able to effectively win.


What points?

She's evading my points, not wanting to be backed into a corner. So I'll ask you. You've been applauding this attack on Boy's ranch for months. If you were in charge, would you shut it down today?


I've not been evading your points, though I don't recall you making any points. Yes I would shut it down, the way it currently operates.
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Petition to Ban GoodK If He Doesn't Cut This s***.

Post by _Chap »

rcrocket wrote:
She's evading my points, not wanting to be backed into a corner


What points? It would be helpful if this poster could repeat briefly the relevant points that marg is, in his contention, evading.

So far as I can see rcrocket is just giving us a dose of court-talk 101. You say something apparently damaging ("she's evading my points!") with great conviction, and even if it later turns out not to have any particular substance it will may still make a damaging impression on someone in the jury who isn't listening very critically.

So what precise points was marg evading?
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Yoda

Re: Petition to Ban GoodK If He Doesn't Cut This s***.

Post by _Yoda »

rcrocket wrote:
liz3564 wrote:
Let's see if Bob actually has the guts to address your points. It's doubtful because I don't think it's an argument he will be able to effectively win.


What points?

She's evading my points, not wanting to be backed into a corner. So I'll ask you. You've been applauding this attack on Boy's ranch for months. If you were in charge, would you shut it down today?


You're damned right I would. I don't agree with the concept of any of these "behavioral camps". I think it's complete BS. And I deplore the idea of a child being "kidnapped" from his family by strangers and taken to a different state. How's that for direct, Bob?

Ask me anything you like. As far as Marg's other points, I will be happy to address them. I have a meeting this morning, but I will address this thread later today.
_rcrocket

Re: Petition to Ban GoodK If He Doesn't Cut This s***.

Post by _rcrocket »

I need to sign off again. Wasting too much time on this board and now we aren't talking about the scriptures or history any more, but about posters.
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

Re: Petition to Ban GoodK If He Doesn't Cut This s***.

Post by _Dr. Shades »

rcrocket wrote:I need to sign off again. Wasting too much time on this board and now we aren't talking about the scriptures or history any more, but about posters.

Is that what you've been doing this whole time? Talking about the scriptures and history, but not posters?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"

--Louis Midgley
_rcrocket

Re: Petition to Ban GoodK If He Doesn't Cut This s***.

Post by _rcrocket »

Dr. Shades wrote:
rcrocket wrote:I need to sign off again. Wasting too much time on this board and now we aren't talking about the scriptures or history any more, but about posters.

Is that what you've been doing this whole time? Talking about the scriptures and history, but not posters?


Your observation is correct. I'm not guiltless.
_marg

Re: Petition to Ban GoodK If He Doesn't Cut This s***.

Post by _marg »

rcrocket wrote:I need to sign off again. Wasting too much time on this board and now we aren't talking about the scriptures or history any more, but about posters.


Bob, rather than accuse Eric of lying and writing posts on here in an attempt to malign his character, do a bit of research. I wish I had a list of all the web sites I visited to offer you, however this one would be a good start and give you some history of behavior modification teen programs which are abusive.

Here's a link and below an excerpt. http://www.reason.com/news/show/117088.html

Meanwhile, other organizations found they could profit from tough love with legal impunity. As negative publicity finally began to hurt Straight and skepticism about the drug war itself grew, other groups began to use similar tactics, all converging on a combination of rigid rules, total isolation of participants from both family and the outside world, constant emotional attacks, and physical punishments. These programs were sold as responses not just to drug use but to teenage “defiance,” “disobedience,” “inattention,” and other real or imagined misbehavior.

Military-style “boot camps” came into vogue in the early ’90s as an alternative to juvenile prison. The media spread fears of a new generation of violent teenaged “super-predators,” and this solution gained political appeal across the spectrum. Liberals liked that it wasn’t prison and usually meant a shorter sentence than conventional detention; conservatives liked the lower costs, military style, and tough discipline. Soon “hoods in the woods” programs, which took kids into the wilderness and used the harsh environment, isolation, and spare rations to similar ends, also rose in popularity, as did “emotional growth” schools, which used isolation and Synanon-style confrontational groups.

Again, little evidence ever supported these programs. When the U.S. Department of Justice began studying the boot camps, it found that they were no more effective than juvenile prison. For a 1997 report to Congress, the department funded a review of the research, which found that the boot camps were ineffective and that there was little empirical support for wilderness programs. In late 2004 the National Institutes of Health released a state-of-the-science consensus statement on dealing with juvenile violence and delinquency. It said that programs that seek to change behavior through “fear and tough treatment appear ineffective.”
_Yoda

Re: Petition to Ban GoodK If He Doesn't Cut This s***.

Post by _Yoda »

The truth of the matter is, Bob is bailing because he is in an argument he can't win and deep down, as a parent who I very much doubt would put HIS child in one of these places, he knows it.

I am still planning on addressing Marg's well-thought-out points, which Bob claims don't exist, later tonight.
_rcrocket

Re: Petition to Ban GoodK If He Doesn't Cut This s***.

Post by _rcrocket »

liz3564 wrote:The truth of the matter is, Bob is bailing because he is in an argument he can't win and deep down, as a parent who I very much doubt would put HIS child in one of these places, he knows it.

I am still planning on addressing Marg's well-thought-out points, which Bob claims don't exist, later tonight.


She has raised no point to which I have not responded.

I neither support nor defend these boot camps. I have repeatedly said I don't and wouldn't send my kids there. I don't care one way or the other about "behavioral modification" stuff; I am not here to defend it. My only interest in this subject area is to express amazement that you -- and you in particular -- just lap up everything this 24-year-old kid says about a very complicated sociological matter.
_rcrocket

Re: Petition to Ban GoodK If He Doesn't Cut This s***.

Post by _rcrocket »

liz3564 wrote:The truth of the matter is, Bob is bailing because he is in an argument he can't win and deep down, as a parent who I very much doubt would put HIS child in one of these places, he knows it.

I am still planning on addressing Marg's well-thought-out points, which Bob claims don't exist, later tonight.


She has raised no point to which I have not responded.

I neither support nor defend these boot camps. I have repeatedly said I don't and wouldn't send my kids there. I don't care one way or the other about "behavioral modification" stuff; I am not here to defend it. My only interest in this subject area is to express amazement that you -- and you in particular -- just lap up everything this 24-year-old kid says about a very complicated sociological matter.
Post Reply