CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should a parent who plans on spanking their child be allowed to have foster children?
I saw a video about a recent case on this topic. The video lays out a clear opinion and is centered around religion, which is the argument made by those in the case, but there is no need to include religion in your answer.
I imagine that foster children will require a greater amount of discipline than the average child. Spankings may or may not help idk. All I do know is that I like people who were spanked as a child more than those who weren't. Maybe that is because only neglectful parents don't spank their children here in the South and neglect is the true cause of loathsome persons. Regardless, I am not fundamentally opposed to spankings.
It is only a parent who does NOT love their children that don't spank them. I know many families that don't spank their children and those families because of it are run by the children, they run around and act like they own wherever they go and have absuletely no respect for others. Then there are the families that do spank their children and they are very well behaved and respectful, but when needed can be fun to be around. I fully support spanking.
It is only a parent who does NOT love their children that don't spank them.
So if a parent doesn't beat their child, they don't love them? If they don't resort to physical violence in order to raise their child, they don't love them? I am sorry, but what the fk are you talking about?
I know many families that don't spank their children and those families because of it are run by the children, they run around and act like they own wherever they go and have absuletely no respect for others.
Pointing to a few families who fail at parenting does not prove the efficacy or legitimacy of child abuse.
I don't believe in beating a child, beating like that would be done in anger or frustration. But one or two smacks on the butt isn't violent or abusive. Please tell me when I said that if you beat your children you love your children.
Well, than please do explain why it is all families that don't spank their children that have the kids run the family versus all families that do spank their children have well behaved children.
Well, than please do explain why it is all families that don't spank their children that have the kids run the family versus all families that do spank their children have well behaved children.
That's not true. You need a source. And also I know a lot of people who were not spanked who don't 'run their family' or anything of the sort.
Spanking is a form of beating that is by its nature violent (wouldn't be a point otherwise).
Please tell me when I said that if you beat your children you love your children.
"It is only a parent who does NOT love their children that don't spank them."
Well, than please do explain why it is all families that don't spank their children that have the kids run the family versus all families that do spank their children have well behaved children.
I see your point... But one or two pats on the butt isn't violent nor abusive. When I am spanked I am not spanked to the point of extreme pain but rather an annoying buzz on my cheeks.
However at that time when I said that I did not mean beat nor abuse. I meant one or two pats on the butt.
I meant all of the families I know, not all the families in the world.
I see your point... But one or two pats on the butt isn't violent nor abusive.
But that isn't spanking. Spanking is meant to cause pain and discomfort, otherwise there is no point. That means it is violent and abusive, even if it is believed to be justified.
I meant all of the families I know, not all the families in the world.
Can't expect someone to refer to your anecdotal evidence =/
LOL, what a shock, a Liberal trying to force us all to raise our children the way he wants us to. You controlling fanatics.
Spanking is a wonderful tool for caring parents who love their children enough to teach them right from wrong. My parents spanked me & I'm so glad they did. Guess what, I grew up with a knowledge of right and wrong. I did not grow up to be an abuser of children.
I spanked my child one time when he was 4 years old and guess what? I never had to spank him again! He was a fast learner. He always had love and respect for me and my spouse and our authority. It works wonders!
These mindless Liberals would have a child take time out! LOL you can not make up this kind of stupidity. If time out works, then fine do it. If it does not work, spank the child and teach him respect for his elders.
Why do you think we have lost control in our schools and our homes? Spanking is a wonderful tool to teach our children quick lessons that someday might save their lives.
Spanking on the rear does no harm to the child but sends a very clear message that there are consequences to bad behavior.
Now these Liberal liars will say they are talking about beating a child. LOL, look at the title!
Ah yes, trying to prevent people from physically harming a child. Such control freaks. How funny from the person who decries liberals harming children.
Spanking is a wonderful tool for caring parents who love their children enough to teach them right from wrong.
If you are incapable of teaching a child right from wrong without physically violence, you are clearly not fit to be a parent.
My parents spanked me & I'm so glad they did. Guess what, I grew up with a knowledge of right and wrong. I did not grow up to be an abuser of children.
Actually you did, based on your next line.
My parents spanked me & I'm so glad they did. Guess what, I grew up with a knowledge of right and wrong. I did not grow up to be an abuser of children.
Ah yes, the classic "Let me tell you what people I don't like think so that I can attack it". You really are the best at creating straw men.
Why do you think we have lost control in our schools and our homes? Spanking is a wonderful tool to teach our children quick lessons that someday might save their lives.
Because parents aren't spending as much time actually raising their children.
Spanking on the rear does no harm to the child but sends a very clear message that there are consequences to bad behavior.
Actually it does. Harm is, after all, synonymous with pain. That is the entire point of it.
Now these Liberal liars will say they are talking about beating a child. LOL, look at the title!
Beating: A punishment in which the victim is hit repeatedly. Spanking is simply beating a child on a particular spot.
You really have no authority to decry anyone harming children.
Well, yes I can explain how spanking is different from beatng. The average intellect understands the difference but alas no one ever accused Liberals as being of average intellect.
A spanking is done with an open hand on a cushioned rear. If you actually think that does physical harm then what can I say, you are an extremist Liberal trying to force your hypocritical views on the world.
Does a spanking smart a little bit? Yes it does, thats why we do it. It quickly tells a 5 year old not to run out in front of cars because if he does he will get spanked. Do you think a tme out will send a clear message never ever to run out in the road? A spanking sends the message how serious we are.
You actually have the nerve to talk about the harm of spanking and say nothing while 177 Democrats refused to pass a bill that would protect a healthy late term baby after being born alive because of a botched abortion. They allow the Baby to starve to death! Less than 10 Democrats supported the Bill to save the Baby. It's called infanticide!
Can you extremists be any more out of touch with humanity? You worry about something as small a spanking a child but you vote to elect leaders who would not stop the killing of Babies after birth?
This is why I ban people. It's impossible to believe you are that deranged.
Are you Liberals on this site putting me on? Is this a joke or are you truly that brainwashed by the Left.
Well, yes I can explain how spanking is different from beatng. The average intellect understands the difference but alas no one ever accused Liberals as being of average intellect.
The words and their definitions prove you wrong.
A spanking is done with an open hand on a cushioned rear. If you actually think that does physical harm then what can I say, you are an extremist Liberal trying to force your hypocritical views on the world.
If it didn't do harm, then there wouldn't be any point to it. Spanking is beating a child on the buttocks, that's it.
Does a spanking smart a little bit? Yes it does, thats why we do it.
Harm is synonymous with pain, so thanks for proving my point.
It quickly tells a 5 year old not to run out in front of cars because if he does he will get spanked. Do you think a tme out will send a clear message never ever to run out in the road? A spanking sends the message how serious we are.
And back to my previous point: It is quite scary that you do not know how to raise your child without beating them.
It quickly tells a 5 year old not to run out in front of cars because if he does he will get spanked. Do you think a tme out will send a clear message never ever to run out in the road? A spanking sends the message how serious we are.
And you have the nerve to physically beat children while accusing others of harming kids. And the audacity to call others hypocrites.
an you extremists be any more out of touch with humanity? You worry about something as small a spanking a child but you vote to elect leaders who would not stop the killing of Babies after birth?
Deflection will not district people from you abusing children.
This is why I ban people. It's impossible to believe you are that deranged.
Says the child abuser.
Are you Liberals on this site putting me on? Is this a joke or are you truly that brainwashed by the Left.
I'm guessing you'd beat your child if they started being liberal, right?
Well, you obviously were spanked because you grew up to be a decent person with common sense inteligence. It takes much more than spanking to raise a child. Without love, few children will grow up without some problems in life.
When there is love, a child will understand why he was spanked. Without love, a child only sees discipline and does not understand the core reason for the discipline.
Seriously dude? You have mistakenly posted FromWithins messages on Outlaws account before. You are clearly the same guy. Schooled by the Prodigee. Fool!
Another fool heard from. I am not outlaw you mindless moron! Typical left wing idiot bigots trying to lump and steriotype every conservative or Christian into one group or one person. There are thankfully millions of conservatives out there though you would never know it from our biased liberal media.
Yeah you have said all that already. It has nothing to do what what I said though. It isn't that the two characters have the same views - in fact they differ quite a bit - rather it is the fact they are two characters you have created as proven by the fact that a couple of weeks ago you posted FromWithin's argument under Outlaw.
Ooooo motherfucker is breaking da law. Acting like one person and a different person. That's something people get the SWAT team sent over for :) just no sudden movements when they get to your house or you could be a bit holy by the end of it :D
If you actually swallow one word from the likes of Generic, you are indeed being conditioned. I have but one account. Generic has nother account named IAMSPARTICUS. I have no need to pretend I am someone else just to get into someone's argument. I break no rules and laugh at hypocrites who have no problem with Cuaroc plagiarizing my arguments.
So if someone agrees with me, they are being conditioned? How, exactly?
Generic has nother account named IAMSPARTICUS.
Indeed I do. Made it to dispute some of your claims a while back. Haven't been on it since.
I have no need to pretend I am someone else just to get into someone's argument. I break no rules and laugh at hypocrites who have no problem with Cuaroc plagiarizing my arguments.
You don't seem to know what the word hypocrite means. You use it as a generic insult towards people completely out of any appropriate context. It's rather silly.
What is wrong with plagiarism? LOL, ask the courts! How about I just start copying any argument you make and then when people do not respond to your argument because they opened the plagiared one first, we will see what you say about it being wrong.
That's slightly different. You can't really claim that his plagiarized debates are taking away from yours. People are not avoiding your debates, you are pushing them away. If you plagiarized my arguments I can just respond to the people responding to you.
Oh, and looking at the courts doesn't help because there is nothing tip sue over and that's all the courts care about. The only thing he can really be considered guilty of is pissing you off. If he thought that was the reason you banned him he would be a hypocrite.
I will respond to your arguments if you are not vulgar, not swearing to extreme, not using deception(lies) to prove your point such as calling Baby ORGANS as just tissue. The Democrat party who support their special interest group PP, use words like tissue so the ignorant low end voters can repeat the lie and in their own small minds excuse the inhumanity of electing politicians who support harvesting Baby ORGANS, not tissue.
This is why I ban people who say they don't lie when in fact my example is most definitely LYING by being very deceptive in their wording to condone the inhumanity.
That itself is a lie. You accuse anyone of disagreeing with you of using deception.
You are lying here, for example, because evidence came out that they weren't doing what you are accusing them of. Yet I am sure that when you see this (if you do) you will call it deception.
He believes the only evidence that came out was that the video was edited to cut out the bathroom breaks and that everything they are being accused of is still accurate.
I don't see any difference between organs and tissue. Those organs are used for research that will save lives. I don't know why you think there is a difference between organ and tissue.
There is no more inhumanity from saving the organs. The fetus was aborted either way. Saving the organs so that research can be done and save lives is the only humane thing about abortion. I apologize if you thought I was being deceptive. I seriously have no problem with taking the organs from a fetus that was aborted.
First of all, organs come from late term Babies so there is an incentive to allow late term abortions for any reason rather than making them rare for cases of life of mother, etc.
Babies can feel pain past 5 months and are even shown to have dreams.
The next problem is the MONEY! When there is money garnered for the sale of human organs, you start getting into what goes on in horror movies.
Lastly, those are human Babies who should have the right to life. Just because Democrats are lacking humanity, does not make it any less gruesome.
First of all, organs come from late term Babies so there is an incentive to allow late term abortions for any reason rather than making them rare for cases of life of mother, etc.
This argument actually makes sense. That very well may be a huge contributing factor.
Babies can feel pain past 5 months and are even shown to have dreams.
Yeah, that's bad. The problem is that neither side is willing to have a normal conversation on the topic.
The next problem is the MONEY! When there is money garnered for the sale of human organs, you start getting into what goes on in horror movies.
And this is exactly my point. You completely derail yourself with this crazy fear mongering. What horror movies are you even talking about? This whole statement is just ridiculous.
Lastly, those are human Babies who should have the right to life. Just because Democrats are lacking humanity, does not make it any less gruesome.
Why do we need to make sure that every fetus is born? We have a massive amount of people on welfare. We have overcrowding in schools. We have unemployment. We have more people than we know what to do with at every stage of life. Do you really think it is less humane to force someone to grow up around Democrats?
When you are ready to give up your life for the sake of so called overpopulation(we don't have enough kids being born and going into the workforce to pay for those on social security), then you can judge all the Babies and tell them they have no right to life.
(we don't have enough kids being born and going into the workforce to pay for those on social security)
This is another example of the overpopulation. That's like saying we don't have enough children to become teachers to spread out the children in the overcrowded classrooms. We have too many retired people to take care of them all. You can't use an example of the overpopulation to demonstrate there is no overpopulation. And, that isn't even true. You can only claim that if unemployment was 0%. We don't have enough jobs in the workforce to cover those on social security.
First of all, organs come from late term Babies so there is an incentive to allow late term abortions for any reason rather than making them rare for cases of life of mother, etc.
I don't mean to sound patronizing at all, but this is actually well stated and a good argument for your point. I question how effective it is in a direct manor, but still.
Babies can feel pain past 5 months and are even shown to have dreams.
Out of curiosity, do you have a source for this? I have heard different points where this becomes the case so I was just curious if you had some evidence I had not seen.
The next problem is the MONEY! When there is money garnered for the sale of human organs, you start getting into what goes on in horror movies.
This argument would be effective if you had evidence that your supposition had turned into real world events. I can understand why you might think that could happen, but without evidence that it is happening, it doesn't do much.
Lastly, those are human Babies who should have the right to life. Just because Democrats are lacking humanity, does not make it any less gruesome.
Just because someone disagrees with you on when a fetus or a zygote becomes a human does not mean they lack humanity. It is behavior like this that prevents a rational conversation on the matter and prevents you from being able to convince others of your opinions.
How about I just start copying any argument you make and then when people do not respond to your argument because they opened the plagiared one first
The only people responding to the other debates are people you have banned from yours. And we are making legitimate responses to the topics.
And you are now being credited in these debates, so those who click on the other debate first will still be able to understand that it is your words and ideas. Literally the only difference is a lack of censorship amidst the discussion.
Hogwash, how would any person know which argument to go to. Typical liberal spin to always make whatever you do to be ok. I can tell you that I will always keep you on ban as long as you keep going to the plagiarized argument to post.
I can tell you that I will always keep you on ban as long as you keep going to the plagiarized argument to post.
Well, if I am not banned from your debate, I won't go to the repost. I wasn't going to the reposts when I wasn't banned unless there was a discussion there that I wished to add to. Since I can no longer contribute to the debates you make but still wish to respond to you, I have no option but to go to the ban-free reposts.
Yes, you have plenty of options of going to other debates. Are you saying my arguments are the only one's that you must debate? I feel flattered.
Let me say that if you banned me from your arguments, I would not waste one second trying to weasle my way into debating you. I would simply go to another argument.
Due to the few number of conservatives creating dates on this site, I really do enjoy reading and responding to your perspective. And when others create debates, I do respond to those, too.
And I am aware you aren't fixating on my arguments. That's why you continue to ignore my questions regarding the debate that you're in right now.
It's nice you admit how few conservatives are on this site. Maybe it's because they are stalked and ridiculed at every turn.
The only thing you get ridiculed for is your constant insults and the fact that you ban the people who are actually responding to you. No one is 'lying.' They just disagree with you on some fundamental issues. Which we would like to talk about with you. Which is why we're on a debate site. if you're not willing to talk to the other members of this site about these issues, then go elsewhere.
If you are not willing to follow the rules, go to another site. We have the ban feature for people who stalk others and become a complete waste of time! Honor those rules! You are not as bad as Generic but getting there very fast.
This is a site designed for debate, discussion, and argument over different topics. In what way is it stalking to respond to you? If you don't want people to respond to you, this is the wrong place to be.
Now let me get this straight ok? According to YOUR understanding of the rules, only people who are obscene or derogatory can get banned.
So if someone threatens you, or is repeatedly deceptive to you, or stalks your every word, or plagiars your argument, or copies and pastes the same words over and over to ruin the argument, or for a hundred other reasons, they can not be banned in all YOUR definition of the rules?
I don't necessarily agree with those rules, was just pointing out what the site said.
And to your situations:
So if someone threatens you
Ban them, maybe report them. If you feel unsafe, then take action.
or is repeatedly deceptive to you
Um, what? Who is being 'deceptive' to you? Are you referring to people who go off-topic? You do that all the time.
or stalks your every word
You're posting to an online, public, forum. How can this possible merit censorship?
or copies and pastes the same words over and over to ruin the argument
By 'ruin the argument' do you mean, counter it? Respond to it?
or for a hundred other reasons, they can not be banned in all YOUR definition of the rules
In my mind, you should ban someone if they are being offensive, derogatory, or are spamming with unrelated topics. A majority of people you ban don't do that.
If someone isn't agreeing with you're points, they aren't denying the obvious. They just disagree with what you think is obvious. And you being unable to convince them is not a reason to ban them.
Cuaroc is not plagiarizing you when he credits you at the bottom of his debates. Plagiarism is taking someone else's words/ideas and presenting them as your own. Cuaroc is no longer doing that. And his reasons for doing as are perfectly justified.
Thanks for not responding to any of those points. Anyways, it is well within your right to ban those you want. But that doesn't make it justified. And if those people whose voices you want to silence want to respond to you, it is well within their right to find another avenue. Plagiarism is not happening, since Cuaroc is not trying to use your words as his own.
I don't excuse it when he doesn't credit you. When he identifies you as the original poster, it is not plagiarism, and as such, I have nothing to excuse.
Keep supporting people who copy other's arguments when told not to do so. If someone tells a person NOT to copy his arguments and then the person keeps doing so anyways? I will never stop banning you for that very reason.
If someone tells a person NOT to copy his arguments and then the person keeps doing so anyways?
That's not plagiarism, while it is morally wrong. However, I would equally argue that constantly insulting, accusing of being liars, and censoring voices is also morally wrong. The copying is merely a response to such actions.
.
Here are some things you have called/said to those you disagree with on this site:
"DILERIOUS"
"What is wrong with you?"
"rude teens and childish posters"
"only deaths caused by guns bother Democrats"
"you probably drink as do most Politicians."
"hypocrisy and total lunacy"
"fanatics"
"a complete waste of time"
"lacking humanity"
"radical extremists with the morals of Communists"
"bigot"
"too young to even know what you are talking about"
"This shows your true passions and it is not caring for the discriminated."
"no one ever accused Liberals as being of average intellect."
"extremist"
"controlling fanatic"
"racists"
"phonies"
You got upset that those who banned still found ways to "ruin my arguments" ... read that back to yourself.
I could go on, as you've said plenty worse.
.
In trying to explain why there are so few conservatives on this site, you said "Maybe it's because they are stalked and ridiculed at every turn."
You are ridiculing others far more than anyone else here.
If anyone said anything remotely like what you say to them, how would you respond? You say you ban people for being vulgar. Well, you should probably ban yourself from all of your debates.
.
Do you know what the definition of 'bigot' is? It's a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions. Merriam-Webster. Do you not see how that perfectly describes your behavior on this site?
I stand by most every word I have written and if you don't like them then ban me. That should be your right to do so!
I guess my words are not too insulting since you stalk my every argument. I insult those who insult me and guess what? I'm not perfect and never claimed to be so. I get angry as do you and sometimes I make insults as do you.
I've made my decision how to deal with people who stalk me and deceive me and refuse to ever admit if they are wrong. I ban them when they start wasting my time, or are vulgar or childish, etc. and I suggest you do the same.
I debated you on many issues and when it became very apparent we would never agree and you would just keep posting over and over on the same things, hogging the argument, there was nothing else to do but ban. Live with it!
I'm capable of creating a debate (not copying it) if I want to continue debating the topic.
I've made my decision how to deal with people who stalk me and deceive me
You've been using the language long before you started accusing others of stalking and lying. And I have no problem with you insulting, that's what you expect when you go on an online forum. But you then claim you ban people for being vulgar.
Can you honestly say that if I said any of the things I quoted earlier that you wouldn't ban me? That's I think a pretty clear example of hypocrisy.
HOW MANY TIMES HAVE I TOLD YOU TO BAN ME IF I DO SOMETHING YOU DON'T LIKE? That is how you can keep people from doing things you object to. If I have offended you in the past and you baned me for it, just maybe i would not do the same thing in the future. That's the old tried and true accountbility for one's actions. It works.
No, I actually don't have any problem with vulgarity, as long as no one is in danger. I think it is morally wrong, but as I am against censorship, I see no reason to ban anyone unless they are spamming with unrelated material.
We have the ban feature for people who stalk others and become a complete waste of time!
That is absolutely not the case.
In the site's FAQ, Andy writes that if you were banned: "You must have posted an obscene or derogatory comment on the debate (shame on you)." That is the only reason the site presents for banning.
Can you please explain to people why responding to your comments on a website designed for the discussion and arguing of differing opinions is stalking?
Look up the recent occurrences that have happened to people who act under another identity on the Internet. There have been people who have been shot and killed (Heck though he made to many sudden movements but it is very much illegal)...
Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (c) of this section—
(1) knowingly and without lawful authority produces an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document;
(2) knowingly transfers an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document knowing that such document or feature was stolen or produced without lawful authority;
(3) knowingly possesses with intent to use unlawfully or transfer unlawfully five or more identification documents (other than those issued lawfully for the use of the possessor), authentication features, or false identification documents;
(4) knowingly possesses an identification document (other than one issued lawfully for the use of the possessor), authentication feature, or a false identification document, with the intent such document or feature be used to defraud the United States;
(5) knowingly produces, transfers, or possesses a document-making implement or authentication feature with the intent such document-making implement or authentication feature will be used in the production of a false identification document or another document-making implement or authentication feature which will be so used;
(6) knowingly possesses an identification document or authentication feature that is or appears to be an identification document or authentication feature of the United States or a sponsoring entity of an event designated as a special event of national significance which is stolen or produced without lawful authority knowing that such document or feature was stolen or produced without such authority;
(7) knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or in connection with, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law; or
(8) knowingly traffics in false or actual authentication features for use in false identification documents, document-making implements, or means of identification;
shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) of this section is—
(1) except as provided in paragraphs (3) and (4), a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 15 years, or both, if the offense is—
(A) the production or transfer of an identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document that is or appears to be—
(i) an identification document or authentication feature issued by or under the authority of the United States; or
(ii) a birth certificate, or a driver’s license or personal identification card;
(B) the production or transfer of more than five identification documents, authentication features, or false identification documents;
(C) an offense under paragraph (5) of such subsection; or
(D) an offense under paragraph (7) of such subsection that involves the transfer, possession, or use of 1 or more means of identification if, as a result of the offense, any individual committing the offense obtains anything of value aggregating $1,000 or more during any 1-year period;
(2) except as provided in paragraphs (3) and (4), a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, if the offense is—
(A) any other production, transfer, or use of a means of identification, an identification document,,[1] authentication feature, or a false identification document; or
(B) an offense under paragraph (3) or (7) of such subsection;
(3) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, if the offense is committed—
(A) to facilitate a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 929(a)(2));
(B) in connection with a crime of violence (as defined in section 924(c)(3)); or
(C) after a prior conviction under this section becomes final;
(4) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 30 years, or both, if the offense is committed to facilitate an act of domestic terrorism (as defined under section 2331(5) of this title) or an act of international terrorism (as defined in section 2331(1) of this title);
(5) in the case of any offense under subsection (a), forfeiture to the United States of any personal property used or intended to be used to commit the offense; and
(6) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.
(c) The circumstance referred to in subsection (a) of this section is that—
(1) the identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document is or appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States or a sponsoring entity of an event designated as a special event of national significance or the document-making implement is designed or suited for making such an identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document;
(2) the offense is an offense under subsection (a)(4) of this section; or
(3) either—
(A) the production, transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this section is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce, including the transfer of a document by electronic means; or
(B) the means of identification, identification document, false identification document, or document-making implement is transported in the mail in the course of the production, transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this section.
(d) In this section and section 1028A—
(1) the term “authentication feature” means any hologram, watermark, certification, symbol, code, image, sequence of numbers or letters, or other feature that either individually or in combination with another feature is used by the issuing authority on an identification document, document-making implement, or means of identification to determine if the document is counterfeit, altered, or otherwise falsified;
(2) the term “document-making implement” means any implement, impression, template, computer file, computer disc, electronic device, or computer hardware or software, that is specifically configured or primarily used for making an identification document, a false identification document, or another document-making implement;
(3) the term “identification document” means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, political subdivision of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event designated as a special event of national significance, a foreign government, political subdivision of a foreign government, an international governmental or an international quasi-governmental organization which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals;
(4) the term “false identification document” means a document of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purposes of identification of individuals that—
(A) is not issued by or under the authority of a governmental entity or was issued under the authority of a governmental entity but was subsequently altered for purposes of deceit; and
(B) appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, a political subdivision of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event designated by the President as a special event of national significance, a foreign government, a political subdivision of a foreign government, or an international governmental or quasi-governmental organization;
(5) the term “false authentication feature” means an authentication feature that—
(A) is genuine in origin, but, without the authorization of the issuing authority, has been tampered with or altered for purposes of deceit;
(B) is genuine, but has been distributed, or is intended for distribution, without the authorization of the issuing authority and not in connection with a lawfully made identification document, document-making implement, or means of identification to which such authentication feature is intended to be affixed or embedded by the respective issuing authority; or
(C) appears to be genuine, but is not;
(6) the term “issuing authority”—
(A) means any governmental entity or agency that is authorized to issue identification documents, means of identification, or authentication features; and
(B) includes the United States Government, a State, a political subdivision of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event designated by the President as a special event of national significance, a foreign government, a political subdivision of a foreign government, or an international government or quasi-governmental organization;
(7) the term “means of identification” means any name or number that may be used, alone or in conjunction with any other information, to identify a specific individual, including any—
(A) name, social security number, date of birth, official State or government issued driver’s license or identification number, alien registration number, government passport number, employer or taxpayer identification number;
(B) unique biometric data, such as fingerprint, voice print, retina or iris image, or other unique physical representation;
(C) unique electronic identification number, address, or routing code; or
(D) telecommunication identifying information or access device (as defined in section 1029(e));
(8) the term “personal identification card” means an identification document issued by a State or local government solely for the purpose of identification;
(9) the term “produce” includes alter, authenticate, or assemble;
(10) the term “transfer” includes selecting an identification document, false identification document, or document-making implement and placing or directing the placement of such identification document, false identification document, or document-making implement on an online location where it is available to others;
(11) the term “State” includes any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any other commonwealth, possession, or territory of the United States; and
(12) the term “traffic” means—
(A) to transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of, to another, as consideration for anything of value; or
(B) to make or obtain control of with intent to so transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of.
(e) This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States, or any activity authorized under chapter 224 of this title.
(f)Attempt and Conspiracy.—
Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.
(g)Forfeiture Procedures.—
The forfeiture of property under this section, including any seizure and disposition of the property and any related judicial or administrative proceeding, shall be governed by the provisions of section 413 (other than subsection (d) of that section) of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853).
(h)Forfeiture; Disposition.—
In the circumstance in which any person is convicted of a violation of subsection (a), the court shall order, in addition to the penalty prescribed, the forfeiture and destruction or other disposition of all illicit authentication features, identification documents, document-making implements, or means of identification.
(i)Rule of Construction.—
For purpose of subsection (a)(7), a single identification document or false identification document that contains 1 or more means of identification shall be construed to be 1 means of identification.
I added the whole thing because I didn't want to be called out for hiding bits of the document... But yes he is very much committing a crime as stated in the first and second part of it... It says that false documents are illegal... Definition of document=A piece of written, printed, or electronic matter... Does it need to be anymore clearer then that?
This paragraph defines what an identity document is:
the term “false identification document” means a document of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purposes of identification of individuals that—
(A) is not issued by or under the authority of a governmental entity or was issued under the authority of a governmental entity but was subsequently altered for purposes of deceit; and
(B) appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, a political subdivision of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event designated by the President as a special event of national significance, a foreign government, a political subdivision of a foreign government, or an international governmental or quasi-governmental organization;
The act you quoted is about producing falsw documents. You might be right that it is technically illegal but what you have quoted is about producing fake ID.
So is killing their child out of love justified? That's abortion you FOOL!
Please. If you think all abortions are done out of love for the child, then you know nothing of the circumstances and reasons women get abortions.
And you never answered my question, which is the point of this argument (not abortion.) If someone beats a child out of love, is that ok? You said that you think spanking is ok for that reason, so does it expand to beating?
No, does it expand to killing the Baby? I wll not answer another lame question until you answer is it ok to kill unborn Babies for any reason at any stage and then is it ok to allow a baby born alive from a bothced abortion to die with no prevention to save it's lfe.
How immature. You refuse to respond to what people say and expect everyone to respond your nonsensical insinuations which, as has already been explained to you, people don't support.
I wll not answer another lame question until you answer is it ok to kill unborn Babies for any reason at any stage and then is it ok to allow a baby born alive from a bothced abortion to die with no prevention to save it's lfe.
If you wanted to talk about abortion, you should have gone to an abortion debate. I will answer your question because I want an answer to mine, but please try and stay on topic. Contrary to the debates you create, more than one issue exists.
is it ok to kill unborn Babies for any reason at any stage
Those on the pro-choice side in general believe that a fetus is not equivalent to a living human. As such, your premise is not an appropriate way to approach this discussion.
.
Now will you please answer the question of the debate? You said that spanking is ok because it is done out of love. In your mind, how does that differ from other crimes done out of love? Such as beating, murder, stealing, etc.? If it's done out of love, by your logic, it should be ok.
If that is not your logic, please clarify why you think spanking is ok.
And if you didn't want to talk about spanking, you shouldn't have come to this debate. However, it seems to me like you don't have an argument here, which would signify that you have lost this debate. Which is about spanking. Would you like to address the difference between spanking and beating, which should have been why you came to this debate?
I don't understand how saying that the pro choice movement thinking something answers his question that you quoted. He is asking about what you believe and your answer didn't even really answer it for pro choice people. How did you answer the question?
Abortion relates directly to your question because it is killing a baby and you have the hypocritical nerve to judge people who would spank their child? I CAN NOT DEBATE THAT KIND OF DENIAL!
Abortion relates directly to your question because it is killing a baby and you have the hypocritical nerve to judge people who would spank their child?
Ok, so do what I'm doing. Talk about both abortion and spanking.
Life and death for innocent human beings is for some reason important to me.... go figure.
That's how it is with most Conservtives. They have a simple common sense ability to see through all the rhetoric and grasp humanity and the things that are truy important such as an 18 trillion debt.
If that is unhealthy, I hate to think what the status of your obsessions are.
What Liberals hate so much about me is that I constantly point out their hypocrisy and phony compassions for the helpless. They wish the abortion issue would just go away because it truly shows their true colors.
They have a simple common sense ability to see through all the rhetoric and grasp humanity and the things that are truy important such as an 18 trillion debt.
Ok, let me sit you down here and have a talk with ya. I fully understand the reasons of some circumstances for abortions (Rape), because who would want to raise a child that was conceived from rape? It's just common sense that one wouldn't want to be reminded of the terrifying time when a woman (Men can. Very much be raped too but they don't give birth to children... Yet) is sexually assaulted and abused.
See, you are aready being influenced by the Liberal media. So tell me if you were coneived by rape, would you want to be killed right now or do you want to keep living and enjoying life.
That Baby could care less how he is conceived, he has every right to life and if the Mother does not want the child, she can adopt it out.
We are talking about human lives hear so please quit excusing the killing of innocent babies FOR WHATEVER REASON. Unless there has to be a choice to save the Mother's life (which with modern medicine is almost non existent) then that Baby has every right to life.
I guess we should gather up the foster kids and tell them their lives are not worth much since their parents did not want them.
Please think about the meaning of life and how NO ONE has the right to take an innocent life regardless the circumstances.
Did you know that a woman who is raped can go down to the hospital and prevent conception? These pro bortion extremists want people like you to never hear the reality of what can be done to prevent pregnancy from rapes. They want to tug on your emotions and use rape as an excuse to condone abortions.
Yes that totally is true. FromWithin is delusional to the fact that liberals don't love abortion, they just want it to be legal. But I would want it to be legal simply because it's gonna happen illegally or legally. If it happens illegally it could be done wrong or be able to cause serious injury to the mother.
See, you are aready being influenced by the Liberal media. So tell me if you were coneived by rape, would you want to be killed right now or do you want to keep living and enjoying life.
I never said I supported abortion. I just said I do get the reason why a raped woman who conceived a child would want him/her aborted. If a member of my family or friend was raped I would attempt to have her keep the child instead of aborting it, or put it to adoption. Also just because I'm a centrist does not mean I'm influenced by Conservative nor Liberal media. Same goes with Capitalism and Socialism. I believe what I believed years ago (besides religion now, I'm now agnostic after some recent occurrences).
That Baby could care less how he is conceived, he has every right to life and if the Mother does not want the child, she can adopt it out.
Fully agree.
We are talking about human lives hear so please quit excusing the killing of innocent babies FOR WHATEVER REASON. Unless there has to be a choice to save the Mother's life (which with modern medicine is almost non existent) then that Baby has every right to life.
Also agree with that.
I guess we should gather up the foster kids and tell them their lives are not worth much since their parents did not want them.
As far as I know (my gramps used to own a juvenile detention center so he got fosters, delinquents, etc) fosters become, well fosters if their parents commit a crime that gives the parents jail time.
Please think about the meaning of life and how NO ONE has the right to take an innocent life regardless the circumstances.
Did you know that a woman who is raped can go down to the hospital and prevent conception? These pro bortion extremists want people like you to never hear the reality of what can be done to prevent pregnancy from rapes. They want to tug on your emotions and use rape as an excuse to condone abortions.
Prevent and Stop are two different things. Prevent only makes the chance lesser while Stop brings the chance to zero.
A child needs a spank every now and then when they've done wrong. It's how they learn the proper way. Britain was basically born from mothers spanking their devilish children and look at us. We've got a bit of a knob as prime minister, a knob as every other member of parliament (except a few, of course), yet we've got everyone trying to get in to our country for something. We must've done something right.
Let me qualify that. If s/he "plans" to do it, probably not, but if s/he feels, "I will if it's necessary." Then s/he - they - should be considered over those who wouldn't! I got it with whatever was handy, belt, razor strop, switch, 2x4, hammer handle, etc. I don't recommend, nor have I followed that example, but, DAMN, I've seen a few who sorely (no pun intended), needed a "reasonable" facsimile thereof!
How old are you? You can't be that stupid can you? A parent who does not plan on spanking their children is a simple minded tool who allows these PC Liberal extremists to tell them how to raise their children. We have been spanking our kids for thousands of years with great results and all of a sudden after fools start swallowing Liberal indoctrination, our kids are all messed up, joning gangs, sexually active, taking drugs, dropping out of schools, horrible test scores compared to the world. Would you have done your homework if the punishment was time out? LOL,can Liberals be any more stupid.
How old are you? You can't be that stupid can you?
Being against child abuse is not stupid.
A parent who does not plan on spanking their children is a simple minded tool who allows these PC Liberal extremists to tell them how to raise their children.
Nope, they are just a parent who doesn't have to resort to beating their child in order to raise them. It's called good parenting.
We have been spanking our kids for thousands of years with great results and all of a sudden after fools start swallowing Liberal indoctrination,
Not only is that an appeal to history logical fallacy, but it is a bad one at that. We have been beating our children far worse than spanking for thousands of years, so do you want to bring that back? We have been selling our daughters as little more than slaves for thousands of years, do you want to bring that back?
our kids are all messed up, joning gangs, sexually active, taking drugs, dropping out of schools, horrible test scores compared to the world.
Not only have you been provided with real statistics disputing this trend you have touted before, but you have not once provided any evidence to back up this claim.
Would you have done your homework if the punishment was time out? LOL,can Liberals be any more stupid.
If you do not know how to discipline a child without beating them, you should not be questioning the intelligence of others.
A parent who does not plan on spanking their children is a simple minded tool who allows these PC Liberal extremists to tell them how to raise their children.
Um, isn't that you telling others how to raise children?
If it's wrong to tell someone to not spank their child, is it wrong to tell them not to beat their child? (Assuming you don't count spanking as beating.) Is it wrong to tell them not to starve their child?
I'm glad you used the term liberal "extremists". Extremists on either side are dangerous. I'm a "liberal" (used to be an independent until the "extremists" got so thick on one side), and I recommend a "Pat on the Popo", with some intensity, when needed! Grouping everyone together is a mistake made far too often today!
The analogy you just gave pretty much sums up Liberal thought. To compare spanking with starving or beating, takes the same lack of intellect as saying breaking laws such as killing someone or Jay walking are similar.
Yes, most of us do possess the intellect to discern the difference between spanking and beating. We know the difference between tellng others to stay out of parents right to spank their children versus getting involved to protect kids from STARVING OR BEATINGS. You obviously lack that common sense wisdom.
That's the trouble withh Liberals, they love censoring or banning freedoms if the one is offended. They don't like guns so they want to take them from everyone, not just the criminal. They don't believe in spanking so they want to force everyone to bow to their beliefs of discipline. You are as I always say, control fanatics.
Ok, so when does spanking become beating? If a child needs to be given a clear message that something is wrong, at what point does the physical pain from spanking become something you claim to be obviously bad, beating?
I don't have answers for this in my mind, amazingly, I'm actually trying to analyze the topic, not ridicule one side or the other. Do you have the ability to discuss things without insulting the other side?
So not only have you established that you do not care about the definitions of words, but you also want to accuse anyone who does not adhere to your personal definitions (which again are different than those in English dictionaries) of not having common sense.
By its most literal definition, you should be accusing them of not having uncommon sense.
Our kids are all messed up, joning gangs, sexually active (ahem ?), taking drugs, dropping out of schools (universities), horrible test scores compared to the world.
That sounds just like many adults are doing too... why don't we beat them also?
I do speak to irresponsible adults as well! I speak to the irresponsibility of so many living off the tax payer with welfare and social programs, after getting pregnant numerous times with no means of supporting a child and choosing to have sex with men who would never support that child. That is irresponsible and Democrats never say a thing about it because those living off the tax payers are the Democrat's voting block.
You mean like torturing an unborn Baby with a late term abortion? Babies can feel pain after 5 months and Democrats support aborting healthy babies at any stage.
So yes, I would agree that torturing through abortions has shown great efficiency in ending that Baby's life. Oh, wait a minute, that would be killing. Is killing a form of torture?
Look, if you want to direct the conversation to another issues, go for another person, because it won't work for me. You are doing what is called a fallacy, I don't know if on purpose or not. Anyway, it is an invalid argument.
What you just did was side step the issue when you relaized you were being a hypocrite. Do you have any idea how many times a Democrat who supports late term abortions with their vote, does not want to talk about the abortion issue because it is a losing argument for them.
Everyone knows that an unborn baby is a living growing human life and people who vote Democrat or Green party or any other pro abortion party, knows in their heart what they support and of course do not want to talk about it.
So I will repeat the lunacy of those on the Left who try to tell others that they should not be spanking their children. TOTAL HYPOCRITES to even dare mention spanking when they support killing.
Except he didn't, at all. He made a sarcastic comment, then you changed the topic and later insulted him based on an incorrect understanding of the circumstances.
Everyone knows that an unborn baby is a living growing human life
No, they don't. That's the point.
people who vote Democrat or Green party or any other pro abortion party, knows in their heart what they support and of course do not want to talk about it.
You have no authority to tell people what they know. It is incredibly arrogant.
So I will repeat the lunacy of those on the Left who try to tell others that they should not be spanking their children. TOTAL HYPOCRITES to even dare mention spanking when they support killing.
Again, if them supporting one and opposing the other is hypocritical, that makes you a hypocrite as well because you support one and oppose the other.
Maybe you lack the intellect to see the big picture when someone is telling others how they should raise their children. To get to the heart of any issue, one must look at the people telling others how to raise our children, and see where these people are coming from. What do they stand for? Are they compassionate loving people who deserve respect for having heart felt caring for our children?
To truly understand a person's core values or if they have ulterior motives, etc., they must see where they stand on other issues. Abortion is an issue that truly gets to the core of a person's humanity. What credible person could ever lay claim to truly caring for a child's welfare when in fact they support the right to end his life.
Spare us all your crocodile tears for our children and stay away from parent's right's to discipline their children. Parents love their children more than any person in this world and will choose for themselves how they discipline, as long as there is no abuse. To call spanking abuse and then support killing an unborn Baby? TOTAL LUNACY!
This is why we laugh at those on the Left who further such hypocrisy and lunacy.
Maybe you lack the intellect to see the big picture when someone is telling others how they should raise their children.
A quote from you: "A parent who does not plan on spanking their children is a simple minded tool ". You are telling people how to raise their children.
To truly understand a person's core values or if they have ulterior motives, etc., they must see where they stand on other issues. Abortion is an issue that truly gets to the core of a person's humanity. What credible person could ever lay claim to truly caring for a child's welfare when in fact they support the right to end his life.
What credible person could ever lay claim to truly caring for a child's welfare when in fact they can't raise a child without beating them?
Parents love their children more than any person in this world and will choose for themselves how they discipline, as long as there is no abuse. To call spanking abuse and then support killing an unborn Baby? TOTAL LUNACY!
And vice versa.
This is why we laugh at those on the Left who further such hypocrisy and lunacy.
Again, to call it hypocrisy indicates you believe both are wrong. By supporting one and opposing the other, you are just as hypocritical as those you are decrying.
You don't see a thing because YOU STILL DON'T GET IT!
Have you ever heard this verse in the Bible?
Matthew 7:5
"You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
I should not have to explain this common sense verse, but it seems many on this site lack the simple wisdom of God. Go figure.
You supporting abortion(that would be the plank) while jduging those who spank their kids(that would be the speck). God says to discipline our children so spanking is not even a speck according to God. You don't have to be a Christian to understand the concept of this wonderful verse.
I'm all done wasting my time if you still can't get it.
You mean like torturing an unborn Baby with a late term abortion? Babies can feel pain after 5 months and Democrats support aborting healthy babies at any stage.
That isn't accurate. SOME support that, others support regulations for abortion and some don't support it at all.
And killing isn't a form of torture, to answer your last question.