Hot Sauce Mom...

Off Topic
21

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Convicted.

I’m here to say “I told you so”.

http://news.yahoo.com/woman-convicted-child-abuse-hot-sauce-case-211342641.html[/quote]

Devil’s Advocate.

A woman who squirted hot sauce into the mouth of her adopted Russian son for lying about getting in trouble in school was convicted Tuesday of misdemeanor child abuse in what prosecutors said was a ploy to get on the “Dr. Phil” TV show.

Sounds like they charged her for making a video of it, not the act itself. Further, the courts would also charge someone with the same thing for putting their kid in time-out for “too long.”

So, obvious hot-sauce in the mouth is equal to long time-outs.[/quote]

The Courts would charge you with shooting that pitbull years ago when you damn well knew perfectly well how to break him off. The Courts would similarly charge me for throwing your fat ass over my knee and giving you a prolonged spanking.

So, animal abuse is equal to a spanking.

Now run along and say 5 hail the miraculous virgin marys and a few thou art the threefold fathers or something.

22

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Lame. The family never should have publicized the act of punishing their children, they were asking for negative attention in a big way.

I remember having my mouth washed out with soap, getting spanked and occasionally belted (I would have gladly chosen to eat hot sauce), sent to bed with no dinner and being grounded with no tv, radio, phone privilege or use of the backyard pool.

In fact, I would have chosen hot sauce and a cold shower over almost all of the punishments I received.

My punishments are common and generally accepted forms of correction but they could all be twisted in to abuse.

I could have choked on soap.

Spanking is controversial and the alleged abusive aspect of it is obvious.

No dinner could turn in to a media field day of starvation and neglect

Being grounded could be considered extreme isolation…

It’s all so subjective.

I love my parents, they raised me to be a productive, active member of society and I wasn’t an easy kid. Their intent was always love, they always explained the why behind the what and hoped lessons stuck. It sounds like this was the case for the linked family. It’s not like they were just being sadistic assholes deriving pleasure from the kids pain.

This is a bullshit conviction.[/quote]

You’re pretty late to the “my parents did this and that but I’m okay” brag…that was in the original hot sauce mom thread. There is ample evidence within these very forums that you are not as okay as you proclaim.

Do you have children? If you do, I want to start a serious dialogue, because I’m going thru this right now myself.

23

[quote]SSC wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Written Diarrhea[/quote]

[quote]Franklin told the jury it wasn’t Beagley’s first attempt to get on the “Dr. Phil” show.

After seeing a segment in April 2009 titled “Angry Moms,” she contacted the show but heard nothing for a year and a half, Franklin said.

The show eventually called to find out if Beagley was still angry, she said.

Beagley then submitted audition videos in which she yelled at the boy, but producers said they needed to see her actually punishing her son, the prosecutor said.

That’s when Beagley got the video camera ready, made sure there was enough hot sauce on the shelf in the bathroom and recruited her 10-year-old daughter to shoot the video, Franklin said.[/quote]

It’s weird, for some reason you’re arguing to a bunch of people who think this was an illegal action, as well as against a court sentencing that deemed the same verdict as well.

So basically, your opinion means nothing. Have a nice day![/quote]

Well put. He’s a legal authority of one.

24

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Lame. The family never should have publicized the act of punishing their children, they were asking for negative attention in a big way.

I remember having my mouth washed out with soap, getting spanked and occasionally belted (I would have gladly chosen to eat hot sauce), sent to bed with no dinner and being grounded with no tv, radio, phone privilege or use of the backyard pool.

In fact, I would have chosen hot sauce and a cold shower over almost all of the punishments I received.

My punishments are common and generally accepted forms of correction but they could all be twisted in to abuse.

I could have choked on soap.

Spanking is controversial and the alleged abusive aspect of it is obvious.

No dinner could turn in to a media field day of starvation and neglect

Being grounded could be considered extreme isolation…

It’s all so subjective.

I love my parents, they raised me to be a productive, active member of society and I wasn’t an easy kid. Their intent was always love, they always explained the why behind the what and hoped lessons stuck. It sounds like this was the case for the linked family. It’s not like they were just being sadistic assholes deriving pleasure from the kids pain.

This is a bullshit conviction.[/quote]

You’re pretty late to the “my parents did this and that but I’m okay” brag…that was in the original hot sauce mom thread. There is ample evidence within these very forums that you are not as okay as you proclaim.

Do you have children? If you do, I want to start a serious dialogue, because I’m going thru this right now myself.
[/quote]

No brag. Personal, anecdotal evidence.

If you think I’m so fucked up, why do you want my parenting advice?

But yes, I have a son. I’m not married, I had a gf a few years ago. I love my son and would give my life for him, he was not planned. The girl and I are no longer together but we are on good terms and share the responsibility of our son equally.

I’m all for a serious conversation. If you deem your thread the right place I’m fine with it. If you prefer pm that is ok too. My preference is your thread though, I’m open to insight from you and other posters…

25

lol… Aww, he’s so cute :slight_smile:

The cold shower is a bit extreme but hot sauce? It’s like ketchup with a warm tingly feeling.

The kid didn’t even have to swallow it. Clearly he likes hot sauce… why else would he continue to lie and do things he knows have certain consequences.

Look at those women in the audience, so freaking dramatic, it’s not that serious.

26

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]SSC wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Written Diarrhea[/quote]

[quote]Franklin told the jury it wasn’t Beagley’s first attempt to get on the “Dr. Phil” show.

After seeing a segment in April 2009 titled “Angry Moms,” she contacted the show but heard nothing for a year and a half, Franklin said.

The show eventually called to find out if Beagley was still angry, she said.

Beagley then submitted audition videos in which she yelled at the boy, but producers said they needed to see her actually punishing her son, the prosecutor said.

That’s when Beagley got the video camera ready, made sure there was enough hot sauce on the shelf in the bathroom and recruited her 10-year-old daughter to shoot the video, Franklin said.[/quote]

It’s weird, for some reason you’re arguing to a bunch of people who think this was an illegal action, as well as against a court sentencing that deemed the same verdict as well.

So basically, your opinion means nothing. Have a nice day![/quote]

Well put. He’s a legal authority of one. [/quote]

In New Jersey:

You cannot pump your own gas.

It is against the law for a man to knit during fishing season.

You may not slurp your soup…

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/new-jersey

But who am I to disagree with and criticize these laws, right?

Lets not hide from a conversation by posturing with a bunch of self righteous, dismissive comments again BG. Or is this your “serious discussion”?

27

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
No Chris, they convicted her of child abuse because she abused a child. They ploy is that she did it to get on television, but the act is what got her convicted.

The verdict speaks to the equivalence to a long time out. Her attorney couldn’t squeak that one by a jury either.

[/quote]

Well, sorry if I have to pay $10,000 for putting my kid in time out too long, then something is charlie foxtrot.

Now, the article said that what she did is the same thing you’d be charged with for a long timeout…so I suppose the conclusion for the penalty of making your kid stand in time out is the same for hot sauce.

28

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Convicted.

I’m here to say “I told you so”.

http://news.yahoo.com/woman-convicted-child-abuse-hot-sauce-case-211342641.html[/quote]

Devil’s Advocate.

A woman who squirted hot sauce into the mouth of her adopted Russian son for lying about getting in trouble in school was convicted Tuesday of misdemeanor child abuse in what prosecutors said was a ploy to get on the “Dr. Phil” TV show.

Sounds like they charged her for making a video of it, not the act itself. Further, the courts would also charge someone with the same thing for putting their kid in time-out for “too long.”

So, obvious hot-sauce in the mouth is equal to long time-outs.[/quote]

The Courts would charge you with shooting that pitbull years ago when you damn well knew perfectly well how to break him off. The Courts would similarly charge me for throwing your fat ass over my knee and giving you a prolonged spanking.

So, animal abuse is equal to a spanking.

Now run along and say 5 hail the miraculous virgin marys and a few thou art the threefold fathers or something.[/quote]

Is that an ad hominem attack I sense? Talk about fallacious arguments. Didn’t even explain how mine was a fallacious argument

29

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Convicted.

I’m here to say “I told you so”.

http://news.yahoo.com/woman-convicted-child-abuse-hot-sauce-case-211342641.html[/quote]

Devil’s Advocate.

A woman who squirted hot sauce into the mouth of her adopted Russian son for lying about getting in trouble in school was convicted Tuesday of misdemeanor child abuse in what prosecutors said was a ploy to get on the “Dr. Phil” TV show.

Sounds like they charged her for making a video of it, not the act itself. Further, the courts would also charge someone with the same thing for putting their kid in time-out for “too long.”

So, obvious hot-sauce in the mouth is equal to long time-outs.[/quote]

The Courts would charge you with shooting that pitbull years ago when you damn well knew perfectly well how to break him off. The Courts would similarly charge me for throwing your fat ass over my knee and giving you a prolonged spanking.

So, animal abuse is equal to a spanking.

Now run along and say 5 hail the miraculous virgin marys and a few thou art the threefold fathers or something.[/quote]

Is that an ad hominem attack I sense? Talk about fallacious arguments. Didn’t even explain how mine was a fallacious argument[/quote] He can’t.

30

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
No Chris, they convicted her of child abuse because she abused a child. They ploy is that she did it to get on television, but the act is what got her convicted.

The verdict speaks to the equivalence to a long time out. Her attorney couldn’t squeak that one by a jury either.

[/quote]

Well, sorry if I have to pay $10,000 for putting my kid in time out too long, then something is charlie foxtrot.

Now, the article said that what she did is the same thing you’d be charged with for a long timeout…so I suppose the conclusion for the penalty of making your kid stand in time out is the same for hot sauce.[/quote]

No, the article quoted her attorney as saying that, which as addressed previously, didn’t stand up to the smell test of a jury, and doesn’t to most normal people either.

To his credit it was probably a last ditch attempt to ameliorate the effect that the video had. To his undoing, he took the trial to a jury, which is a big risk in a slam dunk case for the prosecution.
If I was a defense attorney, I would have stuck to a non jury trial or plea bargained. He’d have had a better chance of convincing his client that he did his best to get her a light sentence and reduced charges than of arguing against a video tape created by his own client to highlight to a pop psychologist t.v. show how completely out of control she is.

31

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Devil’s Advocate.

A woman who squirted hot sauce into the mouth of her adopted Russian son for lying about getting in trouble in school was convicted Tuesday of misdemeanor child abuse in what prosecutors said was a ploy to get on the “Dr. Phil” TV show.

Sounds like they charged her for making a video of it, not the act itself. Further, the courts would also charge someone with the same thing for putting their kid in time-out for “too long.”

So, obvious hot-sauce in the mouth is equal to long time-outs.[/quote]

That is just silly. The reason she recorded herself was to prove that she was an ‘Angry Mom’ in order to get on the Dr. Phil show.

I’m no expert, but this sounds like a motive. She was not charged with a motive.

I don’t believe that it is necessary to prove motive; however, it helps to have a motive when attempting to convict.

32

And, while I am also not an expert at fallacies (I just know silly arguments when I hear them), I believe that the whole ‘too long time-out’ defense argument would possibly be known as a converse error or maybe even a red-herring.

Although I think for a red-herring to be true, both statements must be true. There is no proof that a ‘too long time-out’ would result in the same consequence as the incident for which the mother was convicted.

33

STRAWMEN EVERYWHERE!

34

[quote]Christine wrote:
And, while I am also not an expert at fallacies (I just know silly arguments when I hear them), I believe that the whole ‘too long time-out’ defense argument would possibly be known as a converse error or maybe even a red-herring.

Although I think for a red-herring to be true, both statements must be true. There is no proof that a ‘too long time-out’ would result in the same consequence as the incident for which the mother was convicted.[/quote]

Came in the article that he posted.

35

[quote]byukid wrote:
STRAWMEN EVERYWHERE![/quote]

SPARE THE ROD SPOIL THE CHILD! I MEAN SPARE THE HOT SAUCE, SPOIL THE CHILD!!!

36

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:
And, while I am also not an expert at fallacies (I just know silly arguments when I hear them), I believe that the whole ‘too long time-out’ defense argument would possibly be known as a converse error or maybe even a red-herring.

Although I think for a red-herring to be true, both statements must be true. There is no proof that a ‘too long time-out’ would result in the same consequence as the incident for which the mother was convicted.[/quote]

Came in the article that he posted.[/quote]

A fallacy which you chose to repeat.

He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else.

37

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Lame. The family never should have publicized the act of punishing their children, they were asking for negative attention in a big way.

I remember having my mouth washed out with soap, getting spanked and occasionally belted (I would have gladly chosen to eat hot sauce), sent to bed with no dinner and being grounded with no tv, radio, phone privilege or use of the backyard pool.

In fact, I would have chosen hot sauce and a cold shower over almost all of the punishments I received.

My punishments are common and generally accepted forms of correction but they could all be twisted in to abuse.

I could have choked on soap.

Spanking is controversial and the alleged abusive aspect of it is obvious.

No dinner could turn in to a media field day of starvation and neglect

Being grounded could be considered extreme isolation…

It’s all so subjective.

I love my parents, they raised me to be a productive, active member of society and I wasn’t an easy kid. Their intent was always love, they always explained the why behind the what and hoped lessons stuck. It sounds like this was the case for the linked family. It’s not like they were just being sadistic assholes deriving pleasure from the kids pain.

This is a bullshit conviction.[/quote]

You’re pretty late to the “my parents did this and that but I’m okay” brag…that was in the original hot sauce mom thread. There is ample evidence within these very forums that you are not as okay as you proclaim.

Do you have children? If you do, I want to start a serious dialogue, because I’m going thru this right now myself.
[/quote]

No brag. Personal, anecdotal evidence.

If you think I’m so fucked up, why do you want my parenting advice?

But yes, I have a son. I’m not married, I had a gf a few years ago. I love my son and would give my life for him, he was not planned. The girl and I are no longer together but we are on good terms and share the responsibility of our son equally.

I’m all for a serious conversation. If you deem your thread the right place I’m fine with it. If you prefer pm that is ok too. My preference is your thread though, I’m open to insight from you and other posters…[/quote]

LOL I’m not looking for your parenting advice, trust me. A spirited debate, yes. Advice no.

First, it’s fallacious to think that b/c your parents, or a generation did one thing, that it’s the “best” way to do it or that it’s okay. We pretty much come to be conditioned to think or believe something is normal if we’re exposed to it long enough. Hell, prisoners and the abused even learn to love their imprisoners/abusers, to give you an extreme example. So, to say “my parents did this” or, “this generation did that” followed by “and we’re okay” is a non-starter. There is no evidence “we’re okay” or, that you wouldn’t be better off with a different approach or, that you’re merely just conditioned to repeat a cycle (common) as your parents were.

As for me, I’m struggling with what I deem to be appropriate punishment. You have a son. I assume from your post you’re not against corporal punishment. I have an honest question; have you ever struck your son when you’re angry? I’m willing to bet you have. I too have spanked my son and I’ve usually been at the end of my wits or angry when I’ve done so. I’m not comfortable with this and if you love your son, you shouldn’t be either. If spanking is truly “corrective” and is not merely a release valve for your anger (it’s a slippery slope), then why so many parents do it as a last resort and usually with anger? I’m not saying a spanking cannot be given dispassionately - I know it can. But it’s rare from what I’ve seen…extremely rare. A spanking is usually the default position of a loss of control by the parent, frustration or anger. I’m pretty sure that I’m personally finished with the spanking thing (which was very infrequent for me anyway). I think intelligent parents (you might want to call them pussies right?) can think of better corrective measures.

And as far as an argument by anectdote, for every alleged person you can cite that got spankings “or worse”, I know one that received the same and is fucked up.

Anyway, it’s just a subject I’ve been thinking about earnestly as my 5 year son challenges my patience like 5 years olds are want to do. I have NEVER struck him hard, never left a mark, never more than a swat or two on the butt and it’s something that has occurred very infrequently yet every single time I’ve done it, I’m very troubled by it…b/c of the EMOTION I felt when doing so. Think about it…and be honest.

And what are we teaching children when we strike them? That violence is the means to get what you want? What exactly is the lesson there? Personally, I think taking away my son’s Xbox (for example) or any other privilege will carry far greater consequences than the temporary sting of my hand across his backside.

38

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Convicted.

I’m here to say “I told you so”.

http://news.yahoo.com/woman-convicted-child-abuse-hot-sauce-case-211342641.html[/quote]

Devil’s Advocate.

A woman who squirted hot sauce into the mouth of her adopted Russian son for lying about getting in trouble in school was convicted Tuesday of misdemeanor child abuse in what prosecutors said was a ploy to get on the “Dr. Phil” TV show.

Sounds like they charged her for making a video of it, not the act itself. Further, the courts would also charge someone with the same thing for putting their kid in time-out for “too long.”

So, obvious hot-sauce in the mouth is equal to long time-outs.[/quote]

The Courts would charge you with shooting that pitbull years ago when you damn well knew perfectly well how to break him off. The Courts would similarly charge me for throwing your fat ass over my knee and giving you a prolonged spanking.

So, animal abuse is equal to a spanking.

Now run along and say 5 hail the miraculous virgin marys and a few thou art the threefold fathers or something.[/quote]

Is that an ad hominem attack I sense? Talk about fallacious arguments. Didn’t even explain how mine was a fallacious argument[/quote]

I didn’t have to explain your fallacious argument. The fallacy of it was Res Ipsa for anyone with an IQ above 115. Those under the cut will have to be spoon fed by someone else.

39

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:
And, while I am also not an expert at fallacies (I just know silly arguments when I hear them), I believe that the whole ‘too long time-out’ defense argument would possibly be known as a converse error or maybe even a red-herring.

Although I think for a red-herring to be true, both statements must be true. There is no proof that a ‘too long time-out’ would result in the same consequence as the incident for which the mother was convicted.[/quote]

Came in the article that he posted.[/quote]

A fallacy which you chose to repeat.

He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else. [/quote]

LOL she’s got your number…and the stamina to argue with you. I vote she follows you to PWI.

40

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
…And what are we teaching children when we strike them? That violence is the means to get what you want? What exactly is the lesson there? Personally, I think taking away my son’s Xbox (for example) or any other privilege will carry far greater consequences than the temporary sting of my hand across his backside.
[/quote]

EXACTLY!

My wife and I NEVER hit or physically harmed our son. But we were relentlessly consistent with our discipline, “reward and remove” system, and the art of distraction. Being a smart parent means respect is taught through respect.