Religion general

@SeraphimDawn  
…I have no words.

@Zincy  
Physical abuse is bad. Physical punishment isn’t if it is necessary and not used to vent out anger upon children. If the parents punished their children harshly over trivial matters, then it becomes physical abuse.
 
I’ve been punished by my parents before and I don’t see it as abuse since I know it was for my own good. If the child becomes physically or mentally scarred, then we know the parents is at fault. But if the state deems discipline as abuse and that the children receive no scars or traumatised, then Norway is at fault.
 
A flick at the wrist, a hit at the palm, even mild spanking for worthy faults as a way to take disciplinary action is fine. But if we’re talking about a slap at the face or hit with a belt or the loss of a meal, then we know it’s wrong. Until the parents are proven for any inhumane means of punishment, the government should not have the rights to just take away their child without prior notice.
 
We’re human beings, for fuck’s sake. Not goddamn mindless animals.

@HJSDGCE  
Wait, getting slapped and a whoppin is inhumane? are you talking about physically beating them or just some rounds with a belt on the ass to teach them a lesson?

@HJSDGCE  
you mean the point where they have bruises and welts, or just a spanking in  
general?

@Background Pony #B35C  
Getting slapped is physical at the head, a place we shouldn’t even try as it can be very damaging. A whoppin at the ass is fine but a belt ain’t, as it can really traumatize them. Maybe once or twice, but not too much.
 
You can’t physically beat them. You have to teach them that bad actions have consequences (like that mild shock treatment where when you do wrong, you shock yourself slightly) but not make them scared out of their shits.

@Background Pony #B35C  
Bruises and welts.  
Anything at this point and beyond is just bad. Nothing permanent or seriously damaging.

@HJSDGCE
 
Like Paska pointed out, we’ve seen a lot of “too late” situations where children have been brutalized, abused, or even killed because no one acted soon enough. And every time that happens people bitch and moan about the state not doing enough. Then, when the state jumps at accused abuses or law violations, people bitch and moan about it overstepping its boundires.
 
Should the government have done it the way they did, no. The parents should have been served, and there should have been a deeper investigation. But I wholly support the ability for children to be removed from homes in events of abuse or violations of the law.
 
Right now we don’t know what kind of corporal punishment these parents were doing. I doubt the state seriously removed them because they were Christian, that strikes me as media spin-doctoring at best, deliberate pot stirring at worst. It may have been the state overreacting to overly strict parenting, or they may have been using unlawful methods and force that hurt their children.
 
Unless you’re a demigod and not told us, or have a direct line of communication to the Norwegian child protective service you’ve got about as much info as the rest of us, which is to say jack shit.

@HJSDGCE  
I always thought corporal punishment was fine as long as the parent doesnt go too far. Remember countless times where my dad would just slap me or my bro slighly across the face when we acted up on road trips, or where he’d give us a whoppin with a belt when we misbehaved. Never took it too far, and it never really scared me or mt bro at all. I think as long as you dont take it to an extreme, add mental abuse in with the mix or beat them to an excess, then it shouldnt be that bad. Pretty much, if you leave welts or bruises then you are abusing them, but if you just give them a spanking, with belt switch or paddle, it shouldnt be that traumatizing.

@Zincy  
So basically, both are at fault for now. Until we know the whole truth, we have no idea of which side is the lesser evil or good.
 
Damn, this is just getting confusing.

@HJSDGCE
 
It’s called remaining impartial till the truth comes out and not fall for the bullshit mob-mentality that pervades modern discourse.
 
It’s the same shit the SJW’s like to use, guilty cause we say so. My god, you people need to stop proving that Horseshoe Theory is a physical force of the universe rather than the social curiosity it should remain.
 
It’s one thing to cry foul when something has been stated verbatim, or when a lot of facts have come out. It’s also fine to have an idea, or theory, and to pick a side early in the game based on what you know. But when you go full witchhunt mode and yell about how evil the state is, or how evil the parents are, or how it’s this or that, than you’ve gone full retard.

@Zincy  
Like the red scare during the early cold war era.

@Zincy  
… But I didnt go full witch hunt. I said that the state should have sent prior notice and handle it like civilised people. I also said that the parents are at wrong if they did carry out physical abuse.
 
Both sides are at wrong until proven otherwise. I ain’t taking sides.

@HJSDGCE
 
No, no you didn’t act neutral. Not until I got on you guys at least. Your first post was clearly painting the state as being wholly wrong.
 
Tell me, what if time was a factor? What if the tip was the kids were in immediate danger? What if they had credible threat? Norway isn’t able to release info as to why the took it, or details as to what the tip/threat was. For all we know there was something big that needed a big action.
 
You instantly assumed the state was at fault.

@Zincy  
I said that what the state did was wrong. I said that the state should’ve acted better. There are legal actions to this and taking children away without parents’ notice is not in any way legal. I did not say that the state was at fault.
 
I probably didn’t word it out correctly but like I said, both parties are at fault until proven otherwise.
 
As for time being a factor, I apologise for not including this. This is my own fault but time is not a simple factor like the rest. We can’t know when time is relevant which is why we act early, but the state should have done better, even if time was a factor.

@Zincy  
Citizens are to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
 
Applying that to State action implies that the citizen is guilty until proven innocent (if the state is in the right until proved otherwise).

@HJSDGCE
 
Work for a child protective service, or do social work, then get back to me and see if you still feel that way.
 
 
When you get a tip, a call, or a warning about a child that could be in imminent danger and you might have the power to stop it, time most certianlly is a factor.
 
It’s real damn easy for us to sit here and debate this, being several factors removed from the action. It’s another matter if you are those parents, or you’re that agent that had to make that call.

@Zincy  
Look, it was late at night. And I didn’t read to that part due to time constraints and being gid awfully tired. In this case, the state had it justified. Nothing justifies child abuse.

@Zincy  
There’s still due process and assuming the citizens are innocent until proven guilty. I didn’t see much of that mentioned in the article.

@Cirrus Light
 
Innocent until proven guilty only applies to the end punishment/due process not during the initial circumstance.
 
If that were the case than a cop wouldn’t be able to arrest you without an issued warrant first, even if you were caught committing a crime. You can be arrested, or have property seized, and then be aquited in court. You aren’t considered “guilty”, but measures can still be taken.
 
If they had credible information that there was an immediate threat, then they’re within the law to act on that. Just like a cop can kick your door in if there is an immediate and credible threat.

@Zincy  
I know that, but trial is supposed to take place swiftly afterwards. Maybe it’s just media spin-doctoring, but I didn’t see much indication of an upcoming trial at all.

@Cirrus Light
 
They’re petitioning the state, and there’s an investigation going. Can’t have a trial till the investigation is complete.

Yea. You people really do overreact.
 
Whether it’s Trump or anti-christian bigotry in Norway (which is currently ruled by the centre and far right parties).
 
Bu you guys overlook the very obvious threats that I can see and DO require immediate and decisive action :P
 
|| In all seriousness do as I say. ||

@Whatevs  
*holds arms infront of self  
Yes Mastah….
 
 
:p

@Zincy  

 
Besides, can’t try anyone until you got evidence either way and having a trial without evidence procured during an investigation is bad game. It’d be like a congressional hearing: a lot of verbal abuse without substance because X doesn’t like what Y does. And even after you need to let the prosecution and defense work out what will be admitted to court or not on the case. So though we’re promised a swift trial and this digresses from any original point: we’re also owed an accurate trial.
 
Digressing further from the point: even if the judge saying X is inadmissible to the court mid-trial and the jury should forget it is the biggest piece of bullshit ever.

@Zincy
 
“It’s real damn easy for us to sit here and debate this, being several factors removed from the action.”
 
…and the people who are closest to it are the most qualified? If I listened to a debate between God and the devil, and then listened to a debate between a couple of guys who know as much about God and the devil as I do, I’m gonna put more stock in the latter debate.
 
…not that that’s saying much, as I’ve been questioning the value of debate. At this point, a debate just looks like a game of chess to me, where the pieces are the facts, the moves are the arguments, and the player’s errors are logical fallacies; every time one player makes a fallacy, the other player can make a counter-argument that takes one of the facts off the board, and when a player declares checkmate, people treat his word as law, as if he didn’t make any fallacies and all of the facts are still on the table.
 
…an open discussion, on the other hand, seems to benefit everyone involved.
 
That said, I’ve been wanting to steer the discussion back to qualia ever since I found this. I mean, it’s not as simple as saying that magenta is an illusion: we’re able to see something that isn’t even physically possible. Oh, and apparently there’s this theory floating around about time itself being an “illusion” in the same vein as magenta, but I’m not exactly the most qualified person in this open discussion to elaborate upon it.