Church abducts youths to show 'religious persecution'.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Right, so, the first thing a teen thinks when they see masked men storm into their room, their pastor come out bloody, and being forced to the floor, blindfolded, and thrown in a van is "My religious freedom is in jeopardy!"?

I'm all for teaching kids to enjoy their religious freedom, but how about they do it in a way that doesn't traumatize them... Or at least inform them of the act ahead of time. It's like throwing a fire drill without telling anyone and making all the teachers run from the room screaming "We're gonna die! We're gonna die!"

You've gotta wonder what was going through their heads when they decided psychological and emotional scarring were the best methods to teach children about religious persecution. "Maybe a video about religious persecution? Nah... How about talking about it in class? Nah... Oh, I know! Lets stage an abduction scarring the children for life! Brilliant!!!"

With the exception of the blinfolding and binding, it reminds me of what the Catholic Church did to the Hopi children with the consent of the US government to force us into their school. In our circumstance, it was no "act", it was real.

It would be nice if this pastor is sent to jail, but usually in places where these things occur the community will not allow it to happen.

EDIT: just in case no one knows what I am talking about:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3427/is_4_31/ai_n29151390/

Elcarsh:

Seanchaidh:
Uh... no. If there is (specific enough) parental consent, such an activity is within their rights.

No, that is not how it works at all. You can't just do anything you want to a kid as long as you have parental consent. You can't physically abuse and intimidate a kid, then get away with it just because you have parental content. Parents can't authorize anyone to actually commit crimes against their children. You can sign all the permission slips you want, but you still can't waiver your children's legal rights.

To a certain extent you absolutely can. And in this case, it doesn't seem that any harm done rises to the level of criminal. If parents have the authority to detain their children indefinitely-- which is not even controversial-- then they seem to have the authority to do this.

Oh and just in case you didn't know... Some of these schools are still open. Including the one I was forcefully taken to, thanks to the United States Government.

I seriously had to click the article link to make sure it wasn't an April Fools thing.

Just nuts I tell you. Nuts.

Seanchaidh:
To a certain extent you absolutely can. And in this case, it doesn't seem that any harm done rises to the level of criminal. If parents have the authority to detain their children indefinitely-- which is not even controversial-- then they seem to have the authority to do this.

What country do you live in, where physical abuse, intimidation and abduction are entirely legal? How the flying fish can anyone ever look at that and go "Well, if they had permission from the parents...".

If you are indeed so fond of parental consent, I've got one word for you: Fritzl.

Volf:

Mine? Never. But if you go to mainland China and say that your are a Tibetan monk/nun or that you practice Falun Gong, see what happens. Heck just look up how the last Dali Lama was abducted by the CCP and how they refuse to tell anybody where he or his family is.

Because non-theists = Marxists.

Istvan:

Because non-theists = Marxists.

Strawman argument. I didn't say that every country that was "non-theists" was Marxist, just that the PRC is an example of a "non-theist" country.

If they didn't get permission from the child or parent, I think they should be arrested on kidnapping charges.

Volf:

Istvan:

Because non-theists = Marxists.

Strawman argument. I didn't say that every country that was "non-theists" was Marxist, just that the PRC is an example of a "non-theist" country.

Well, even though official policy was "no religion," the government had a VERY hard time quelling it, and their best attempt was the disaster of the "culture wars."

Socialist (I hesitate to use the word "communist," but same idea) had to tolerate some religion, often very controlled and became a form of state properganda. Stalin actually reformed the Russian Orthodox Church to get support for WW2.

Not G. Ivingname:
If they didn't get permission from the child or parent, I think they should be arrested on kidnapping charges.

What do you mean get permission from the parent? Children also have rights and if any parent agrees to such a thing they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

I'm not sure If I posted this already but...Here's my solution.

Let's say there were X kids kidnapped.
Find out how many had their parent's permission for this kidnapping (let's say variable N)
Next, you charge the pastor and everyone involved in the kidnapping with X-N charges of kidnapping.
And finally, find all the parents of N, and have Child Protective services talk to them and make sure they understand that this is unacceptable, and take away any kids who have parents deemed to be dangerous (as in, they would keep doing/permitting this kind of thing to happen to their kid).

That seems fair enough, I think.

Being part of a Religious institution should NOT exempt you from the law. I don't care if you're Christian, Muslim, or freakin Pastafarian. This was kidnapping, and the kidnappers need to be charged accordingly.

PercyBoleyn:

Not G. Ivingname:
If they didn't get permission from the child or parent, I think they should be arrested on kidnapping charges.

What do you mean get permission from the parent? Children also have rights and if any parent agrees to such a thing they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

I guess... although how many rights is debatable.

However, since both the child and the parents appear to never give permission, we can both agree that the church in question should be punished.

Elcarsh:

Seanchaidh:
To a certain extent you absolutely can. And in this case, it doesn't seem that any harm done rises to the level of criminal. If parents have the authority to detain their children indefinitely-- which is not even controversial-- then they seem to have the authority to do this.

What country do you live in, where physical abuse, intimidation and abduction are entirely legal?

The "physical abuse" appears to be accidental; the injuries are a civil matter if any. "Intimidation" has long been an accepted parenting technique and, while frowned upon by some segments of the population more recently, is yet legal. Abduction: are you serious? What qualifies as a parent 'abducting' a child? You can hardly distinguish 'abduction' by parents (or their agents) from taking a child home from school. Are we going to start arresting parents who force their kindergartner to get in the car at the end of the day?

The meddling which some people want the government to perform seems quite ridiculous. Or is it only a matter of this being a message that you don't like, and want to crack down on it for that reason? I think I'd be more comfortable with that.

/facepalm

as someone who suffers from posttraumatic stress i hope someone sues the shit out them.

Not G. Ivingname:

I guess... although how many rights is debatable.

What do you mean debatable? You honestly believe the church's actions would have been justified if the parents gave permission?

On top of everything else, what are they supposedly being taught? That people will try to abduct them from their church?

Ok, that could be a "tell people not to vote Obama" thing or a "don't move to the Middle East" thing or a "be glad you live today" thing. Would like to know which of those, if any, it was supposed to be.

thaluikhain:
On top of everything else, what are they supposedly being taught? That people will try to abduct them from their church?

Ok, that could be a "tell people not to vote Obama" thing or a "don't move to the Middle East" thing or a "be glad you live today" thing. Would like to know which of those, if any, it was supposed to be.

It was probably a "here's what religious persecution is like in other countries" kind of thing, and acted out because middle schoolers suck at empathy.

Of course, they royally fucked it up

Elcarsh:

Seanchaidh:
Uh... no. If there is (specific enough) parental consent, such an activity is within their rights.

No, that is not how it works at all. You can't just do anything you want to a kid as long as you have parental consent. You can't physically abuse and intimidate a kid, then get away with it just because you have parental content. Parents can't authorize anyone to actually commit crimes against their children. You can sign all the permission slips you want, but you still can't waiver your children's legal rights.

I disagree partially. In today's society alot of parents who beleive that scaring or hurting their children in any way either is morally wrong or will land them into heavy repercussions. The result of this is that many of today's young people openly dispute their parent's authority from a very early age. This is a bad thing because children being children, they are highly vulnerable to making extremely poor decisions as well as being manipulated by individuals who have terrible, terrible intentions.

Physically abusing children sounds extreme but having someone scare the living hell out of your child, within reason, is not entirely wrong in itself. So long as it's done in a safe environment in which the child cannot get seriously hurt.

The issue here isn't what they did or how they did it, it's about how they went ahead and did it without the parent's consent for what I personally consider to be, by far, the worse reasons ever.

Bouncer:
I disagree partially. In today's society alot of parents who beleive that scaring or hurting their children in any way either is morally wrong or will land them into heavy repercussions. The result of this is that many of today's young people openly dispute their parent's authority from a very early age. This is a bad thing because children being children, they are highly vulnerable to making extremely poor decisions as well as being manipulated by individuals who have terrible, terrible intentions.

I kind of fail to see the link between that supposedly happening (it does not) and parents not being able to excersize rigid authority by force. And "individuals who have terrible, terrible intentions", aren't you being a bit paranoid there?

In fact I grew up seeing the opposite: The more authoritarian parents were, the sillier the things they kids secretly did became.

I've taken the time to re-read myself and find that I might have gotten a little ahead of myself.

I might have interpreted Elcarsh's statement as advocating the "Children should never be punished, ever in any way" opinion. I apologise. This does not stand to say that I don't stand by my opinion. I will spare you my radical view of parenting. I've tried to type this out twice now and erased it because I'm starting to view myself as some sort of totalitarian.

I digress however...

Blablahb:
I kind of fail to see the link between that supposedly happening (it does not)

It kind of does, parents who fail to dicipline their kids at all usually don't have very well behaved children especially if you let television and today's society educate them rather than doing it yourself.

Blablahb:

and parents not being able to excersize rigid authority by force.

I'm talking about parents who refuse to do it, not those who are unable to... but that's probably the same thing.

Blablahb:

And "individuals who have terrible, terrible intentions", aren't you being a bit paranoid there?

I know what you're thinking, I don't mean child molesters. I'm simply referring to those individuals who, as a rational adult, you know they would be a terrible influence to a child but may be convincing enough to convince them to do something stupid.

Blablahb:

In fact I grew up seeing the opposite: The more authoritarian parents were, the sillier the things they kids secretly did became.

Silly, yes. We've all done silly things. There's a wide gap between something silly and something that'll land you in Juvy. There's also a difference between laid back parenting and exerting no authority on children at all as much as there's a difference between authorative and "You better get straight As or I'll beat you with this stick"

The original point I was trying to make is that sometimes some fear is necessary to educate a child. It shouldn't be your first resort but it certainly doesn't hurt to using a little bit of tough love when the child openly defies you.

Seanchaidh:

Elcarsh:

Seanchaidh:
To a certain extent you absolutely can. And in this case, it doesn't seem that any harm done rises to the level of criminal. If parents have the authority to detain their children indefinitely-- which is not even controversial-- then they seem to have the authority to do this.

What country do you live in, where physical abuse, intimidation and abduction are entirely legal?

The "physical abuse" appears to be accidental; the injuries are a civil matter if any. "Intimidation" has long been an accepted parenting technique and, while frowned upon by some segments of the population more recently, is yet legal. Abduction: are you serious? What qualifies as a parent 'abducting' a child? You can hardly distinguish 'abduction' by parents (or their agents) from taking a child home from school. Are we going to start arresting parents who force their kindergartner to get in the car at the end of the day?

The meddling which some people want the government to perform seems quite ridiculous. Or is it only a matter of this being a message that you don't like, and want to crack down on it for that reason? I think I'd be more comfortable with that.

Are you playing devil's advocate here? I really hope so, or else that's one more knife in the back of my faith in humanity.

Engaging in a mock abduction without giving the children prior warning and without asking specific permission from the parents would make them guilty of abduction, endangerment, and assault.

Doing so with parental permission would make those parents liable for child abuse charges, at least in the UK, and hopefully the removal of those children to a home which doesn't consider psychological abuse to be good parenting. And don't pull any "waaaaaaaah, nanny state! nanny state!" bullshit, this affair is in no way equivalent to sending your troublesome toddler to the fucking naughty step, and you're either well aware of that or I hope to fuck you don't have any access to or authority over children.

Magichead:
Are you playing devil's advocate here? I really hope so, or else that's one more knife in the back of my faith in humanity.

Engaging in a mock abduction without giving the children prior warning and without asking specific permission from the parents would make them guilty of abduction, endangerment, and assault.

Doing so with parental permission would make those parents liable for child abuse charges, at least in the UK, and hopefully the removal of those children to a home which doesn't consider psychological abuse to be good parenting. And don't pull any "waaaaaaaah, nanny state! nanny state!" bullshit, this affair is in no way equivalent to sending your troublesome toddler to the fucking naughty step, and you're either well aware of that or I hope to fuck you don't have any access to or authority over children.

Thank you for addressing that post. I simply couldn't, because the notions expressed therein were far too bizarre. It's beyond me how anyone can hold such views.

EClaris:

thaluikhain:
On top of everything else, what are they supposedly being taught? That people will try to abduct them from their church?

Ok, that could be a "tell people not to vote Obama" thing or a "don't move to the Middle East" thing or a "be glad you live today" thing. Would like to know which of those, if any, it was supposed to be.

It was probably a "here's what religious persecution is like in other countries" kind of thing, and acted out because middle schoolers suck at empathy.

Of course, they royally fucked it up

You do realize that this is a Dominionist Church, right?

Yeah. Great. That'll get the point across. Punish them to the full extent of the law, please.

In other news, a small incendiary device was detonated to damage a Planned Parenthood building, adding another count of arson to Christian terrorism. The only positive thing I can say is that the perpetrator perhaps only wanted to cause damage and fear rather than bodily harm, considering the attack took place on a sunday evening.

http://www.nbc26.com/news/local/145745235.html

Not worth its own thread, I feel, but this thread might be an okay place to post it.

Stagnant:

EClaris:

thaluikhain:
On top of everything else, what are they supposedly being taught? That people will try to abduct them from their church?

Ok, that could be a "tell people not to vote Obama" thing or a "don't move to the Middle East" thing or a "be glad you live today" thing. Would like to know which of those, if any, it was supposed to be.

It was probably a "here's what religious persecution is like in other countries" kind of thing, and acted out because middle schoolers suck at empathy.

Of course, they royally fucked it up

You do realize that this is a Dominionist Church, right?

No sorry, I didn't see it pointed out in the article and just saw Polarity's post when you pointed it out. Well, that explains a lot. Thanks for correcting me

I can see where their coming from.... but in the end, this was just a terrible idea.

Bouncer:

I disagree partially. In today's society alot of parents who beleive that scaring or hurting their children in any way either is morally wrong or will land them into heavy repercussions. The result of this is that many of today's young people openly dispute their parent's authority from a very early age. This is a bad thing because children being children, they are highly vulnerable to making extremely poor decisions as well as being manipulated by individuals who have terrible, terrible intentions.

Alright, and how did you determine this was the cause and that today's young people are any different from young people of the past?

Mortai Gravesend:

Bouncer:

I disagree partially. In today's society alot of parents who beleive that scaring or hurting their children in any way either is morally wrong or will land them into heavy repercussions. The result of this is that many of today's young people openly dispute their parent's authority from a very early age. This is a bad thing because children being children, they are highly vulnerable to making extremely poor decisions as well as being manipulated by individuals who have terrible, terrible intentions.

Alright, and how did you determine this was the cause and that today's young people are any different from young people of the past?

Very obviously, observation and comparison. I've -seen- this happen and find it very difficult to beleive that it isn't the case.

I'm not saying that all parents who do not physically punish their kids will end up with misbehaving children. Some are lucky enough not to have encountered the wrong kind of influence. However there are many children who's parents openly claim to "Not know what to do with them" because of their horrendously unreasonable behaviour. I have found that in many of these cases, the parents fail to find suitable punishment for the child.

For example: If your parents punish you by sending you to your room... but you have an Xbox in your room, is that really going to teach you not to misbehave?

Physical punishment is an easy way to conduct authority, fear and intimidation are a valid substitute. If the child -Thinks- you might hurt them if they do something wrong, they are likely not to do it (Or do it in relative secrecy rather than openly IMO, is not as bad)

And children of the past weren't like this simply because there were no child protection programs back then, therefore it wouldn't take very long for children to learn not to defy beings that were several times larger than they were.

Mind you I'm not talking about misbehaving per-se, everyone misbehaves at one point or other, it's a natural thing. I'm talking about open defiance such as misbehaving right in front of your parents knowing that they are watching but aren't gonna do anything about it. For example: when your parents tell you to eat your vegetables but instead you toss them on the floor.

Edit: This is getting extremely off topic, but you had to ask.

Bouncer:

Mortai Gravesend:

Bouncer:

I disagree partially. In today's society alot of parents who beleive that scaring or hurting their children in any way either is morally wrong or will land them into heavy repercussions. The result of this is that many of today's young people openly dispute their parent's authority from a very early age. This is a bad thing because children being children, they are highly vulnerable to making extremely poor decisions as well as being manipulated by individuals who have terrible, terrible intentions.

Alright, and how did you determine this was the cause and that today's young people are any different from young people of the past?

Very obviously, observation and comparison. I've -seen- this happen and find it very difficult to beleive that it isn't the case.

You think you are somehow capable of telling the cause and effect of such things simply by the brief encounters you have with it? You think you're privy to all factors in the child's life that might affect their behavior or are you oversimplifying this?

I'm not saying that all parents who do not physically punish their kids will end up with misbehaving children. Some are lucky enough not to have encountered the wrong kind of influence. However there are many children who's parents openly claim to "Not know what to do with them" because of their horrendously unreasonable behaviour. I have found that in many of these cases, the parents fail to find suitable punishment for the child.

For example: If your parents punish you by sending you to your room... but you have an Xbox in your room, is that really going to teach you not to misbehave?

Physical punishment is an easy way to conduct authority, fear and intimidation are a valid substitute. If the child -Thinks- you might hurt them if they do something wrong, they are likely not to do it (Or do it in relative secrecy rather than openly IMO, is not as bad)

You're merely claiming they are a valid substitute. You have given me nothing to think it is particularly valid. Sure it might give immediate compliance. I do not see how that is a good lesson to teach. "I'll hurt you if you don't do what I like." I don't see why that should be instilled in children.

Your example doesn't even prove a point really. It'd be like saying "Oh I use physical punishment but it doesn't work. I throw an eclair at my child, but he just eats it!"

And children of the past weren't like this simply because there were no child protection programs back then, therefore it wouldn't take very long for children to learn not to defy beings that were several times larger than they were.

Circular logic. Sloppy thinking. I asked you to show it's the cause. You're using assuming your conclusion to prove it.

Mind you I'm not talking about misbehaving per-se, everyone misbehaves at one point or other, it's a natural thing. I'm talking about open defiance such as misbehaving right in front of your parents knowing that they are watching but aren't gonna do anything about it. For example: when your parents tell you to eat your vegetables but instead you toss them on the floor.

Alright, but doesn't validate a particular form of punishment, nor does it prove a cause and effect relationship.

Magichead:

Seanchaidh:

Elcarsh:

What country do you live in, where physical abuse, intimidation and abduction are entirely legal?

The "physical abuse" appears to be accidental; the injuries are a civil matter if any. "Intimidation" has long been an accepted parenting technique and, while frowned upon by some segments of the population more recently, is yet legal. Abduction: are you serious? What qualifies as a parent 'abducting' a child? You can hardly distinguish 'abduction' by parents (or their agents) from taking a child home from school. Are we going to start arresting parents who force their kindergartner to get in the car at the end of the day?

The meddling which some people want the government to perform seems quite ridiculous. Or is it only a matter of this being a message that you don't like, and want to crack down on it for that reason? I think I'd be more comfortable with that.

Are you playing devil's advocate here? I really hope so, or else that's one more knife in the back of my faith in humanity.

Engaging in a mock abduction without giving the children prior warning and without asking specific permission from the parents would make them guilty of abduction, endangerment, and assault.

I can't really blame you for not following the conversation, I suppose.

Seanchaidh:

And if they can prove parental consent, throw them and the parents in jail.

Uh... no. If there is (specific enough) parental consent, such an activity is within their rights. Besides, scaring the shit out of your children helps build their character. ;)

Magichead:
Doing so with parental permission would make those parents liable for child abuse charges, at least in the UK, and hopefully the removal of those children to a home which doesn't consider psychological abuse to be good parenting. And don't pull any "waaaaaaaah, nanny state! nanny state!" bullshit, this affair is in no way equivalent to sending your troublesome toddler to the fucking naughty step, and you're either well aware of that or I hope to fuck you don't have any access to or authority over children.

That is quite meddlesome. "Psychological abuse" is incredibly overwrought language to describe this. It's as if people hear a bit of reporting sensationalism and assume the description is completely accurate.

Also, one has to wonder exactly how much good throwing children into foster homes for one event in isolation in which no serious harm was done would actually do. Seems it would be quite counterproductive if you consider the welfare of the child.

Heh, this whole side-discussion reminds me of a nice quote.

The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.

Apparently misattributed to Socrates. Still a funny quote, though, and one I do not doubt has true content. "Today's youth" is always awful, regardless of what "today" actually means.

Mortai Gravesend:

Your example doesn't even prove a point really. It'd be like saying "Oh I use physical punishment but it doesn't work. I throw an eclair at my child, but he just eats it!"

Ha ha. I loled hard at that.

Mortai Gravesend:

Bouncer:

Mortai Gravesend:

Alright, and how did you determine this was the cause and that today's young people are any different from young people of the past?

Very obviously, observation and comparison. I've -seen- this happen and find it very difficult to beleive that it isn't the case.

You think you are somehow capable of telling the cause and effect of such things simply by the brief encounters you have with it? You think you're privy to all factors in the child's life that might affect their behavior or are you oversimplifying this?

Obviously you're simply trying to taunt me with this statement. My statement doesn't somehow claim that this is a universal constant that cannot be changed, I'm merely stating that this is my observation.

Mortai Gravesend:

I'm not saying that all parents who do not physically punish their kids will end up with misbehaving children. Some are lucky enough not to have encountered the wrong kind of influence. However there are many children who's parents openly claim to "Not know what to do with them" because of their horrendously unreasonable behaviour. I have found that in many of these cases, the parents fail to find suitable punishment for the child.

For example: If your parents punish you by sending you to your room... but you have an Xbox in your room, is that really going to teach you not to misbehave?

Physical punishment is an easy way to conduct authority, fear and intimidation are a valid substitute. If the child -Thinks- you might hurt them if they do something wrong, they are likely not to do it (Or do it in relative secrecy rather than openly IMO, is not as bad)

You're merely claiming they are a valid substitute. You have given me nothing to think it is particularly valid.

Obviously you're not taking the time to read what I wrote before responding. Clearly, a valid substitute to actually hurting the child is letting him beleive that they would be hurt should they misbehave. This is valid in the sense that it prevents the parent from actually having to hurt the child. IMO, this is a good thing.

Mortai Gravesend:

Sure it might give immediate compliance. I do not see how that is a good lesson to teach. "I'll hurt you if you don't do what I like." I don't see why that should be instilled in children.

If the parent is simply educating the child to do things "That they like" Then the parent is clearly not in a position to be educating the child, whatsoever way they choose to do it. Sometimes the lesson is to protect the child himself or others. While this isn't necessarily effective as a long-term method of education, it would at least buy you the time to show them why what they are doing, or wanted to do, is wrong without them sticking a fork into the electrical outlet.

Mortai Gravesend:

Your example doesn't even prove a point really. It'd be like saying "Oh I use physical punishment but it doesn't work. I throw an eclair at my child, but he just eats it!"

You are simply oversimplifying the education of a human being which is a highly complex thing. You cannot educate a child simply by punishing them neither can you educate them by simply rewarding them. There is a balance somewhere in the middle that is necessary to the development of any young mind.

Mortai Gravesend:

And children of the past weren't like this simply because there were no child protection programs back then, therefore it wouldn't take very long for children to learn not to defy beings that were several times larger than they were.

Circular logic. Sloppy thinking. I asked you to show it's the cause. You're using assuming your conclusion to prove it.

There is no other way to conduct a logical statement without some amount of assumption. The physical punishment of children isn't something new to this day and age but child protection services are. The rest simply seems logical to me.

Mortai Gravesend:

Mind you I'm not talking about misbehaving per-se, everyone misbehaves at one point or other, it's a natural thing. I'm talking about open defiance such as misbehaving right in front of your parents knowing that they are watching but aren't gonna do anything about it. For example: when your parents tell you to eat your vegetables but instead you toss them on the floor.

Alright, but doesn't validate a particular form of punishment, nor does it prove a cause and effect relationship.

I don't remember claiming to support any particular form of punishment, I am simply advocating punishment as a whole and associating physical punishment to any other kind of punishment.

And to prove a cause an effect relationship I would have to conduct a study of a large amount of children who are, aren't and are partially punished physicall, non-physically, psycologically and non-psycologically. This is an endeavour that I do not have the time or ressources to conduct.

Asking me to prove this is simply an attempt to stump me, you and I both know that this is a discussion not a scientific study.

Skeleon:
Heh, this whole side-discussion reminds me of a nice quote.

The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.

Apparently misattributed to Socrates. Still a funny quote, though, and one I do not doubt has true content. "Today's youth" is always awful, regardless of what "today" actually means.

Derives a little bit from my point but undoubtedly more true than anything I've said.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked