0

>It's fine.. there's nothing wrong with people just hanging out here.. It's fun.. Hell, most of my posts are from the Geek's lounge.. Yours too, Sturm

a lot of them are also in the c++, tech lounge (doesn't count. All people do in the tech lounge is ask support questions), linux forums, etc. Im not saying posting the geek lounge is wrong, I just think that you should post in places besides the geek lounge.

0

And what if you can't? What if you know very little about computing? What if you are browsing the internet and come by a (for the most part) friendly community and dive in? What then? What I see from your logic is we should tell these people to beat it... and that's just right-out mean.

0

>And what if you can't? What if you know very little about computing?
What better chance to start learning?

>What if you are browsing the internet and come by a (for the most part) friendly community and dive in?
How often do you stumble on forums that are completely beyond your skill set and/or interests, but you choose to stay nonetheless? I find your "what if" situation rather unlikely. More likely is someone looking for a solution to some problem. Once he finds the solution, he decides to hang around but only feels comfortable in the less techie areas.

0

Some people never register.. They just read these forums, and take the advice, and contribute absolutely nothing to this IT community at all.. And thats okay, because the purpose of this website is to provide IT help for all.. At least Christina registered, and is enjoying Daniweb somewhat..

0

>And what if you can't? What if you know very little about computing? What if you are browsing the internet and come by a (for the most part) friendly community and dive in? What then? What I see from your logic is we should tell these people to beat it... and that's just right-out mean.

Than you better get some skills. I stumbled across daniweb because I needed some c++ help.... How would you stumble on to daniweb if you are technically ignorant? Presumably you would not be searching for programming information if you are technically illiterate?

In short: Having dead weight posters degrades the quality of daniweb and its general integrity.

[edit] wow narue said the samething I said... (darn real time posting! ;-) [/edit]

0

>[edit] wow narue said the samething I said... (darn real time posting! ;-) [/edit]
You can just leave me out of that association. Calling Geek's Lounge posters dead weight that degrade the quality and integrity of Daniweb is a little much even for me.

1

How often do you stumble on forums that are completely beyond your skill set and/or interests, but you choose to stay nonetheless? I find your "what if" situation rather unlikely.

Not really, what if someone joins the community simply because a friend or boyfriend/girlfriend does.

In short: Having dead weight posters degrades the quality of daniweb and its general integrity.

Not if that person is posting in the off-topic section of the website.. The Geek's lounge is just a fun place where you don't have to be technologically oriented to hang out..

[edit] wow narue said the samething I said... (darn real time posting! ;-) [/edit]

Bleh, Narue doesn't know what shes talking about ;)

Votes + Comments
I know someone like that!! ;)
0

>Not really, what if someone joins the community simply because a friend or boyfriend/girlfriend does.
Generally, if you have to prefix your situation with "what if", it's unlikely.

3

i think the geeks lounge is intended for people who are bored... whether they're technically litterate or not.

>Not really, what if someone joins the community simply because a friend or boyfriend/girlfriend does.
Generally, if you have to prefix your situation with "what if", it's unlikely.

christina is my gf and i invited her to the site... :D
so the what if scenario proposed by josh isn't very unlikely...


on a side note: why do so many threads get off topic so fast?

Votes + Comments
1-4-3
0

Generally, if you have to prefix your situation with "what if", it's unlikely.

Unlikely, but not impossible ;)

0

>i think the geeks lounge is intended for people who are bored... whether they're technically litterate or not.

well apparently some people are always bored.

0

>i think the geeks lounge is intended for people who are bored... whether
>they're technically litterate or not.
That's certainly the only time I post here.

p.s. Nice edit. ;)

0

>p.s. Nice edit. ;)

yeah, realized i didn't read your response correctly :(

I edited it again btw

0

>i think the geeks lounge is intended for people who are bored... whether they're technically litterate or not.

well apparently some people are always bored.

or maybe boredom to some is fun to others.

0

>christina is my gf and i invited her to the site...
>so the what if scenario proposed by josh isn't very unlikely...
Just because you can cite it happening once doesn't mean it isn't unlikely. We have over 173,000 members after all.

>on a side note: why do so many threads get off topic so fast?
It depends on the topic. Usually someone says something that's more interesting than the original topic.

0

...And what's wrong with that?

It is bordering on child abuse.

I hate it when kids get wrapped up in religion and wearing funny hats before they even have a chance to question it, and by the time they do they're so brainwashed most never see the light.

I don't hate Christians, or religious people at all; what I do hate though is people who read religious texts literally (evangelicals, if you will).

0

> I don't hate Christians, or religious people at all; what I do hate though is people who read religious texts literally (evangelicals, if you will).

Why do you hate?

0

I don't hate Christians, or religious people at all; what I do hate though is people who read religious texts literally (evangelicals, if you will).

Or in other words, as far as you're concerned it's only valid if it isn't treated as being valid?

0

>>I don't hate Christians, or religious people at all; what I do hate though is people who read religious texts literally (evangelicals, if you will).

>Or in other words, as far as you're concerned it's only valid if it isn't treated as being valid?

Im pretty sure he did not mean that. I think Rashakil Fol is trying to say that he respects or at least doesn't hate people that are not too illogical and dogmatic in their beliefs. That is not saying that they are not illogical but at least they have more intelligence than evangelicals.

0

>Are you being serious? Child abuse??
If one can successfully argue that forcing your beliefs on your children may be damaging, it's easy to associate that action with child abuse.

Let's look at an example. Say your religion preaches self mutilation as a way to become closer to your god. If you teach that to your children and force them to follow the belief, you're the primary cause of physical harm being caused to them, and that's child abuse.

Of course, that's an extreme example. But abuse can be emotional as well as physical. It's all about perspective.

0

>Let's look at an example. Say your religion preaches self mutilation as a way to become closer to your god. If you teach that to your children and force them to follow the belief, you're the primary cause of physical harm being caused to them, and that's child abuse.

Perhaps a tad extreme, but nothing extremely outstanding!

0

>Are you being serious? Child abuse??
If one can successfully argue that forcing your beliefs on your children may be damaging, it's easy to associate that action with child abuse.

Let's look at an example. Say your religion preaches self mutilation as a way to become closer to your god. If you teach that to your children and force them to follow the belief, you're the primary cause of physical harm being caused to them, and that's child abuse.

Of course, that's an extreme example. But abuse can be emotional as well as physical. It's all about perspective.

Eh, child abuse laws are too strict these days.. kids need to be beaten more in order to develop better disciplinary skills.. Of course, I don't mean flat out abuse for no reason.. But, used more as negative reinforcement.. I've noticed so many spoiled rotten kids who are never disciplined (my 8 year-old cousin), and the parents do more harm by not beating them. However, religion and psychological abuse also causes much more long-term damage to the kids.

0

>Eh, child abuse laws are too strict these days.. kids need to be beaten
>more in order to develop better disciplinary skills..
I don't see how that applies. You can discipline your children without abusing them. Though I do agree that people are going overboard with the abuse label.

0

Whats the best way to discipline a child? Obviously, I don't have much experience.. your the mother ;)

However, there is no substitute for pain.. Sending a kid to timeout or grounding him is indeed a punishment for the kid.. but, a quick whack with a belt gets your point across much quicker. It's similar to how they train animals.. electric shocks or a hit to the nose will provide negative reinforcement, and eventually the animal will not follow its same behavior. And yes, I'm comparing animals to little kids.. As kids grow older and smarter, this doesn't work quite as well..

0

>Whats the best way to discipline a child?
You make it sound like a good spanking counts as abuse. It doesn't, except in the minds of loony conservatives.

0

Exactly.. today is much different than how its been in the past.. if you so much as lay a hand on your kid the CPS will arrive at your door.. or so, thats what many parents are scared into believing.

0

>Eh, child abuse laws are too strict these days.. kids need to be beaten more in order to develop better disciplinary skills.. Of course, I don't mean flat out abuse for no reason.. But, used more as negative reinforcement.. I've noticed so many spoiled rotten kids who are never disciplined (my 8 year-old cousin), and the parents do more harm by not beating them. However, religion and psychological abuse also causes much more long-term damage to the kids.

Sorry but I will have to disagree with you. I have never been beaten and I really don't consider myself spoiled, stupid, and rotten. (In fact, I consider myself quite the opposite) Beating the child may (in fact it might have just the opposite effect) improve discipline but it will definetely not improve respect or appreciation for the parents. Instead of beating your children (which I consider highly unintelligent and hallmarks of a uneducated parent), wouldn't it be better to explain to the child what they did wrong, why it was wrong, and leave the question on whether it was wrong debatably? Respect and appreciation cannot be bought or demanded, it must be earned. For one day, they will decide what nursing home you will be sent to.

0

haha.. talk to the kid? Are you mad? I'm talking about little kids.. you can't talk to them.. beating them is the best thing to do.. they're stupid anyways..

0

>haha.. talk to the kid? Are you mad? I'm talking about little kids.. you can't talk to them.. beating them is the best thing to do.. they're stupid anyways..

Why cannot you talk to them? When I was 2 years old, I was capable of carrying out a conversation.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.