There is nothing ridiculous about my position and I've never advocated punching the kid.

Maybe you just don't understand what words mean?

Understandable and acceptable, are two totally different things. Saying something is acceptable doesn't mean you are advocating for something.

If you understand this, then maybe you just need to read posts more carefully?

Lol, just went back to the post in question.

Wil were you one of the parents agreeing that punching the kid in the face was the 'best course of action'?

Sure as **** sounds like you've changed your tune on this example since you now say it's unacceptable.

Yet another classic lol wil

We'll add satire to the list of things you don't understand.

When did you acknowledge how dangerous it is?

How does "obviously don't advocate that" fit in with two pages of you arguing that it was fine for him to do?

It's ****ing disgusting and he could've landed the kid in hospital or worse.

Here is Wil describing punching a child as the "best course of action".

Edit: Slow pony

Your pony is so slow that it needs to be punched in the face to speed it up.

I just responded to the latest Wil posts before I read the updates to the thread.

I bet if someone punched you in the face you'd learn to read to the end of the ****ing thread before posting. Wouldn't you?

Sort of the viewpoint you would expect from the guy who advocates roughing up the inner city citizenry because "hey, otherwise they wont respect cops" and has stated that "a cop punching a suspect in the face a few times isn't abuse"

I'd never spank my child and think the practice is old, outdated, and in fact detrimental to healthy development of a child.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You are putting words in my mouth. I've never said they were the best choices or the best course of action. You are welcome to quote. Your previous example of quoting didn't prove your point at all.

No one said you said it was the "best choice." Everyone heard you say it was fine to punch a kid in the face. Everyone heard you then start walking back from it while saying you weren't walking back from it. It says more about you than perhaps you realize.

Please quote where I said it was "fine".

Wil, can you explain what your original point was?

Lol Wil. You clearly posted that you thought Punching the kid in the face was the best course of action. You can try to semantike it into you were just saying a bunch of other parents thought that but NOT you, but that makes no sense given the context.

Now I suspect you don't actually think it is the best course of action and you just didn't actually think before posting. But lol at trying to pretend like you didn't say you supported it.

I'm equating "justified" with "fine" are you now saying that all along you don't think it is fine for parents to punch children in the face?

What's more laughable-people who stake out a position and never concede an inch no matter what the evidence is, or people who habitually say laughable things and then walk it back while pretending they never made the orginal statement?

No, I did NOT say that, but it's clear that's what you want me to have said.

This game is just silly. You really really want me to come out and say "yeah dude beating kids up is totally cool". I've never held that view, ever. The word "justified" could have probably been replaced with "understandable" but whatever. I didn't realize I was under such a microscope that every single word and thought must be 100% consistent over 16,000 posts.

I don't speak in absolutes and I don't think reasonable people do. Some responses are harsher than other depending on the circumstances.

Planting your fist in a kid's face is not understandable

LOL Wil, spent a day arguing for punching a kid in the face not being abuse and now arguing the only MOST of the time is punching a kid in the face abuse, but other times it isn't and can be totally justified. What a maroon*


*I know that actual word is supposed to be moron, this is a meme Wil not ignorance.

Here's the context: Wil, you quoted this JJ post, and told him he was a fool for not thinking there were appropriate uses of force that could have been avoided.

You said you had countless examples of such use of force and that they were "the best course of action".

You then listed the punching story as one.

You then spent the last 100 posts defending that it wasn't child abuse, even though it's really ****ing dangerous and harmful to punch a child (which I'm pretty sure you didn't acknowledge and then claimed you had).

If you feel this doesn't appropriately represent your view, then you need to stop mashing your keyboard like an idiot and post what you actually think instead of some despicable caricature of yourself.

So here is a compilation of Wil responses to me trying to explain how absolutely ****ing disgusting it is.

Highlights include:

"explain to me what a better option would be". And now Wil has pretended that his incredulity as to knowing what's better is not an indication he thinks it's best...

It was discussed in a "large group of men" and they (he uses "we" to include himself) all agreed it was the best way. Of course, Wil, didn't say it was "best" here. That's semantics.

Calling punching a child "abuse" is a strange word game.

Sometimes, punching a child may be necessary. Nothing is absolute. I don't even want to ask what other forms of abuse Wil considers "not absolute" wrongs.

And, my favourite for its more subtle nastiness, the real issue is not the safety of a child who could've been landed in hospital by his Dad, it's me for speaking against it in this corner of the internet.

Lol, Wil.

My favorite was the idea that something that only happens once isn't abuse. What could go wrong with that mindset?

Ok, why don't you explain what you said in that post?

Or we could do this the fun way. Let's bet on if people think your post (in context) is more likely to mean that you supported punching a kid or that you don't support it but just think it's understandable.