NationStates Jolt Archive

agreed. tho it's never to early to get them to get the concept. like Smunkee's bead thing, it starts them with the concept of saving for favorable things.
True. If we could, I think we'd let them have a bit for helping out in the yard and stuff and make them save some of it. But as it is, I think we have enough discussions about why they can't get some things that they understand pretty well about saving money. Of course that could just be a wishful delusion on my part.

nice... :D

but isn't your bead system for the youngest the same as paying her for doing her chores? she spends the beads for favorable things like computer time, she learns to save... can't that concept also be used for learning, not surplanting the desire to learn but enforcing it as well?

oh, and btw, just playing devil's advocate here. :p
But then there's the idea of a material reward for learning. And children catch on fast, so they'd immediately note that the more they seemed to learn, the more they would benefit. I'd rather have them learn purely for the sake of learning, which is the reward itself.

But then there's the idea of a material reward for learning. And children catch on fast, so they'd immediately note that the more they seemed to learn, the more they would benefit. I'd rather have them learn purely for the sake of learning, which is the reward itself.
and wants wrong with them getting the idea that the more they learn the more they would benefit?

once they hit college and see the wider range of choices for careers, they would already be in the habit of studying and learning.

I was never spanked as a kid. I got smacked on the head a few times – but that was usually for saying the wrong thing to my parents at a time when they where stressed. I never really understood why – the only thing it taught me was to stay the hell away from them when they were in that mood…

I had a real revelation back when I was in college. One of the teachers had a strict no-hit policy. He had been beaten as a child and did not want his children to suffer the same fate. He made it very clear, from the beginning, that a raised right fist meant that he wanted the class to be silent. Otherwise there’d be trouble. And guess what: even with a buch of unruly teenagers in the class, he was quite successful. Twice he had to calmly tell us to respect the raised fist, once he actually had to raise his voiced, and after that there was complete silence in the class – all the time. After the first month or so, he didn’t really have to use the fist anymore – we all knew what he expected of us, and we didn’t want to see that fist being raised.

If I ever have children (unlikely, but you never know), I will do my utmost to copy his ideas. Having to hit your children just means that you have given up on them…


Also, I’m curious about why people can defend hitting their children. How can physical violence ever be linked to discipline? As I said, the only thing it taught me was to avoid my parents as the plague when they were stressed.
Think about it. If your wife does something you don’t like – do you hit her? No, you don’t. Because hitting your wife is wrong. Why then, is it ok to hit your child…?

I think that as long as it is not abuse that leaves wounds the parent has the absolute right to do it. I think it is bad parenting, and a sign that the parent has lost control, but none the less, of course a parent should have the right to do it. There is a huge difference between abuse and punishment. No fine lines involved here.

and wants wrong with them getting the idea that the more they learn the more they would benefit?

once they hit college and see the wider range of choices for careers, they would already be in the habit of studying and learning.
It's not benefit that bothers me. It's the material benefit. I don't want them to feel obligated to learn for that. I want them to enjoy learning. I don't want any pressure to do it, which helps them discover what they like and what they're good at. Also good for college and careers. Makes choosing easier in that they would have a variety of options that suit them, instead of having to suit the options. And they'd be adept at learning on their own time, not on the dictates of their petty desires.

I was never spanked as a kid. I got smacked on the head a few times – but that was usually for saying the wrong thing to my parents at a time when they where stressed. I never really understood why – the only thing it taught me was to stay the hell away from them when they were in that mood…

I had a real revelation back when I was in college. One of the teachers had a strict no-hit policy. He had been beaten as a child and did not want his children to suffer the same fate. He made it very clear, from the beginning, that a raised right fist meant that he wanted the class to be silent. Otherwise there’d be trouble. And guess what: even with a buch of unruly teenagers in the class, he was quite successful. Twice he had to calmly tell us to respect the raised fist, once he actually had to raise his voiced, and after that there was complete silence in the class – all the time. After the first month or so, he didn’t really have to use the fist anymore – we all knew what he expected of us, and we didn’t want to see that fist being raised.

If I ever have children (unlikely, but you never know), I will do my utmost to copy his ideas. Having to hit your children just means that you have given up on them…


Also, I’m curious about why people can defend hitting their children. How can physical violence ever be linked to discipline? As I said, the only thing it taught me was to avoid my parents as the plague when they were stressed.
Think about it. If your wife does something you don’t like – do you hit her? No, you don’t. Because hitting your wife is wrong. Why then, is it ok to hit your child…?
My old Calc I teacher just had to say something like, "O children o' mine," or "Ignore me quietly" and the whole class knew what he expected. Didn't have to use any sort of physical sign at all.

I have often found that as long as a parent is consistant and fair there will be no need for physical punishment. That does not mean that they lack the right to.

I was spanked, and I was a Lil hellraiser. I think spankings did me some good.

of course, there is a fine line between spanking and abuse. Parents need to becareful not to cross that line.

Yep.

Albert Einstein was spanked.

Whenever i have Kids I'll spank the little hellions if they cause trouble.

Because of what was done to me, I'd sooner kill myself than raise my hand to a child, even to lightly swat their backside.

Do children benefit from receiving spankings? Will spanking a child increase the likelihood of them growing into a good adult?
Sometimes it increases the liklihood of them growing into an adult ... period!

Interesting that you should mention this today. Yesterday, I spanked one of my grandchildren for the very first time.

One of my younger son's two little boys was playing on the couch in my oldest daughter's home. The house is two-story and the stairwell, is open, with the sofa he was playing on pushed up against the half-wall around it. He took a wrong bounce on the sofa and almost fell over into the stairwell! I almost had heart-failure!

I took him off the sofa and told him not to bounce on it. ( I didn't explain further because he's only 2 years old.) He screamed "NO!" at me and got back up on the sofa and started bouncing again. So I popped his lil butt. He cried like his heart was broken, probably because that's the very first time his "Poppa" has ever spanked him.

I let him cry for a couple of minutes, then picked him up and held him, telling him why he couldn't bounce on that particular sofa. I don't know how much he understood, but he soon stopped crying.

It still bothers me that I had to spank him, but the only other option was to physically restrain him, which I don't think is a very good thing to do either. Plus, if he decided to do that again when I wasn't there ... !!! :(

They earn a thank you here. We teach them that helping around the house is a natural thing they should be inclined to do. But they get surprise treats now and then. Can't really afford to let them save right now. I wish we could, though.
they have basic chores, and then chores that are above and beyond that they can earn money for.

It's inconvenient for the parent and others involved, but when my children made scenes in stores or restaurants, they got one warning and, if the behavior continued, we left. The screaming child was isolated for the rest of the day and made to understand that his/her behavior displeased, not just mother, but everyone. If the behavior recurred on a subsequent occasion, the unruly brat was taken, with apologies to everyone else, to the rest room and spanked and then we left - rude behaviour was never rewarded. It seldom got to the spanking part, but it was understood that it was the next step - ostracism works with most kids.

Your children probably makes scenes like that because of the calibre of their parents, you. Spanking children in the bathroom of a restaurant?

Your children probably makes scenes like that because of the calibre of their parents, you. Spanking children in the bathroom of a restaurant?

Would you prefer it out in public?

Also, I’m curious about why people can defend hitting their children. How can physical violence ever be linked to discipline? As I said, the only thing it taught me was to avoid my parents as the plague when they were stressed.
Think about it. If your wife does something you don’t like – do you hit her? No, you don’t. Because hitting your wife is wrong. Why then, is it ok to hit your child…?
First a person should never punish when they are stressed. Punishment should be a calculated sober decision.

Second children are not adults. They don't have the sense of time that an adult has, they don't have the experience an adult has, and they don't have the vocabulary to understand that an adult has.

Third children are not friends. A parent is a parent and a child is a child. They are in no way equal. The parent makes the decisions the child obeys. The child doesn't have any knowledge on which to base a decision.

Fourth because a child doesn't have the same sense of time the correction must be immediate. A delay of even a minute doesn't make a connection in a child. By the time you get through the explaination, even at a childs level, too much time has passed to make the cause-effect connection.

Fifth anyone who has worked with preteen and teenage children can pick out those that were trained and those that weren't. As with any animal the training needs to take place as early as possible. If they aren't trained by 6 there will be problems forever. If they are trained they know their limitations and will not cross them. If a time comes where they don't know limitations they will ask before taking action because they know there are limits. It's no different than putting up an electric fence to train animals. The fence doesn't hurt as much as there is an immediate cause-effect relationship. Shortly the animals know the limitations and there is no need for the electricity. The same is true with children.

Sixth A spanking is not a beating. It's a quick shock that gives instant cause-effect. A spanking is NOT violent. It's just a quick sting.

I think the thing that worries me most about this issue is what spanking is replaced with. A spank is a short sharp pain that tends to fade as quickly as it came. If it is backed up with some form of attachment such as a hug then there will be little doubt as to whether the parent still loves and cares for the child. Both these things can be one by someone who has very little idea what they are doing. The alternative to a spank is a psychological option. Usually humiliation or guilt. It usually involves a prolonged act of disapproval. In a lot of cases if not managed right the psychological option can do an awful lot more long term damage to the childs well being, parent/child attachement and relationship with others than a fading red welt on their bum will ever do.
If done perfectly then yes, the psychological option will teach boundries just as well, if done badly it can cause irrevocable psychological damage. If a smack is done well is can also teach boundries very well, if done badly it can amount to physical abuse. The problem is, is that its a lot easier to administer a spank properly under stressed conditions with little or no training than it is to administer the psychological option.
If there was a solid parenting coarse that every parent attended for 3 or 4 years before embarking on the journey and that every parent had to pass with flying colours then yeah ... there would be no need for a physical option, but given that most parents are under enourmous stress, making it up as they go, and not particularly good with social interactions with other adults let alone small children on balance spanking is something that they are more likely to get at least partly right. Its not a good thing. Its not the best way for things to be, but in a practical sense it is probably likely to be the lesser of two evils for most people. So while I would always avoid it, there are circumstances where it is more likely to be the better option. Its not that the smack is justified.. just that the alternative is likely to be much worse in the long run.

I think the thing that worries me most about this issue is what spanking is replaced with. A spank is a short sharp pain that tends to fade as quickly as it came. If it is backed up with some form of attachment such as a hug then there will be little doubt as to whether the parent still loves and cares for the child. Both these things can be one by someone who has very little idea what they are doing.

They can be, but, frankly, they won't be. A great many parents who spank do so while they are angry, and such parents are extremely unlikely to immediately follow a spank with reassurance (because they're still pissed off, at this point).


The alternative to a spank is a psychological option. Usually humiliation or guilt.

?!?! There are a great many alternatives to spanking that have nothing to do with humiliating your child!

"Guilt" might be involved in dicipline to some extent, though it depends on what you mean; certainly one often wants a child to feel guilty when they've done something wrong, because they ARE guilty of doing something wrong. You'd like to hope your kids aren't total sociopaths.

The thing is, guilt and humiliation are a part of spanking, too. Hell, one of my biggest objections to spanking is that it is so humiliating for the kid. I would never want to make anybody I loved feel that way. So you've got all these same "psychological" elements, and you've also got hitting.


It usually involves a prolonged act of disapproval.

There's no reason why a "psychological" form of dicipline needs to take any longer than a spanking. Even when they do, I'd hardly say that a 3-minute time out constitutes "a prolonged act."


In a lot of cases if not managed right the psychological option can do an awful lot more long term damage to the childs well being, parent/child attachement and relationship with others than a fading red welt on their bum will ever do.

It's certainly possible to inflict psychological or emotional abuse upon children. However, you can do this with spanking just as easily as with verbal dicipline techniques, so I don't see how you think spanking will protect a child from enduring psychological trauma.


If done perfectly then yes, the psychological option will teach boundries just as well, if done badly it can cause irrevocable psychological damage. If a smack is done well is can also teach boundries very well, if done badly it can amount to physical abuse. The problem is, is that its a lot easier to administer a spank properly under stressed conditions with little or no training than it is to administer the psychological option.

I'd say the opposite is true. It is much harder to rely on physical methods of dicipline without losing control; it's absolutely POSSIBLE to do so, but it's a hell of a lot harder to make sure you're using only the necessary amount of force. If your kid is acting like a jackass, it can be extremely hard to restrain yourself once you've decided you are going to get physical with the kid. And if your primary mode of dicipline is to hit your child, then you're going to end up in an escalating situation whether you like it or not.

I think far more parents run into trouble with this than with going to far in administering time-outs.

Maybe the problem with spanking is that it's too easy. It's such a simple way to deal with a problem; just hit the problem until it goes away. Well gosh, that's a lot easier than talking out the problem, isn't it? That's a lot faster than having to sort out why the problem happened in the first place. And it's much easier than facing your own fears that the problem came about because YOU fucked up as a parent. Spanking is a quick fix, and parenting should never, EVER, be about finding the quick fix.


If there was a solid parenting coarse that every parent attended for 3 or 4 years before embarking on the journey and that every parent had to pass with flying colours then yeah ... there would be no need for a physical option, but given that most parents are under enourmous stress, making it up as they go, and not particularly good with social interactions with other adults let alone small children on balance spanking is something that they are more likely to get at least partly right.

Again, I'd say the opposite is true. Only the MOST competant parents should be spanking their kids, because only those parents can be trusted to maintain their own control and composure enough in such a situation. Parents who are already under tremendous stress, and who are already struggling with parenting, should NEVER spank, under ANY circumstances. It's far too much of a risk.


Its not a good thing. Its not the best way for things to be, but in a practical sense it is probably likely to be the lesser of two evils for most people. So while I would always avoid it, there are circumstances where it is more likely to be the better option. Its not that the smack is justified.. just that the alternative is likely to be much worse in the long run.
The alternative should be, "Don't have kids until after you've learned a few things about parenting." The alternative should be, "If you can't think of a better way to deal with a kid than hitting them, you're not ready to have a baby. Brainstorm some ideas first." Regardless of whether or not you may need to use spanking sometimes, if spanking/beating is all you've got then you're already a crappy parent. You're going to need a hell of a lot more if you want to have any chance of rearing semi-stable offspring.

As a last mesure ... there are many better ways to do it but I do not think we should remove this sometimes effective tool from a parents inventory

Maybe the problem with spanking is that it's too easy. It's such a simple way to deal with a problem; just hit the problem until it goes away. Well gosh, that's a lot easier than talking out the problem, isn't it? That's a lot faster than having to sort out why the problem happened in the first place. And it's much easier than facing your own fears that the problem came about because YOU fucked up as a parent. Spanking is a quick fix, and parenting should never, EVER, be about finding the quick fix.
amen. ;)

Maybe the problem with spanking is that it's too easy. It's such a simple way to deal with a problem; just hit the problem until it goes away. Well gosh, that's a lot easier than talking out the problem, isn't it? That's a lot faster than having to sort out why the problem happened in the first place. And it's much easier than facing your own fears that the problem came about because YOU fucked up as a parent. Spanking is a quick fix, and parenting should never, EVER, be about finding the quick fix.

Should never be about finding a quick fix.. your right.. should never. But parenting rarely follows a perfect mold. No matter what you might think you would do in a situation you always stuff up at some point. Even parents who are doing a great job with their kids when presented with kids who have been brought up in a different fashion can completely mess things up. I was never saying that spanking was a great solution and certainly not the best.. but in a some circumstances it is better than the alternative most likely response. In an ideal world no one would spank or need to.. but the world isn't ideal. I know far more people who when they think of traumatic parts of their childhood think of some psychological trauma rather than being spanked.

You are right it shouldn't be the primary form of discipline but I haven't seen many people saying it should be. Its a backup. It shouldn't be needed often and can mostly just be used as a threat. No need to actually spank just threaten. It only needs to be carried through on very few occassions. But if its never carried through then its no threat at all. So in situations where no spanking occurs other things are threatened. Withdrawl of love, humiliation, seperation. Are you trying to suggest you set boundries with small children based purely on reason and never on threats? If so thats great, but I think you will find that your experience is not a common one.

The thing is, guilt and humiliation are a part of spanking, too. Hell, one of my biggest objections to spanking is that it is so humiliating for the kid. I would never want to make anybody I loved feel that way. So you've got all these same "psychological" elements, and you've also got hitting.

On the whole parents tend to love their children, and very few want to hurt their kids or see them get hurt. Often the spank is as much of a shock for the parent as it is for the child. It makes them stop and realise what they have just done.. so often you do get a situation where reassurance (both of the parent and the child) follows a spank. So yes humiliation is part of it.. but its not the central focus. I think looking at spanking in isolation is part of the problem. What are the alternatives.. and what makes them better? If you and your child are calm enough to simply talk about the situation then you're right a spank is way out of line, but that isn't really what I am talking about. I am talking about situations where the child is not being responsive to usual forms of communication. What then? Sure spanking is bad, but what alternatives are you likely to come up with on the spot as an average parent. Not one of those mythical super parents who never put a step wrong. One of those average parents that didn't necessarily plan every step along the way before the emarked on the journey.

And is that spur of the moment solution going to really be better for the child than a quick and in the end relatively painless spank. I am not saying spanking is for everyone, but I am sure there are plenty of families where spanking is by far and away the least damaging path. Not your family by the sounds of it.. .. but I am not going to say that what I see other parents do was the wrong response when it seems to have worked and with little ill effect.
The shock of the spank fades quickly, emotional damage sometimes never heals.

Well, I'm late to join the party, but here's what I think:

Very rarely, on extreme occassions, it is ok to spank your kid. But it is not meant to be a tool used regularly.

My dad used to scream and yell at me. And it made me feel like shit. But lots of the time, I knew what he was screaming about, but not why exactly it upset him so much. Finally, he learned, that if he sat me down and told me why not to do something, I generally would not do it.

I always wanted to make my parents proud, so them yelling at me and giving minor punishments was always sufficient.

I was hit a few time, but I deserved it. I cannot imagine how I would've reacted if I had been in my Dad's shoes. Probably in the same way.

I think you can be a perfectly good parent without ever spanking your kid. But I also think you can be a perfectly good parents and spank your child on rare instances

Hush everyone, it's been proven that children are just like animals. This whole conversation is moot. They should simply all be put in obedience training and that will be that.

Cool! Let's go with that for a little while, shall we?

Just as it would do no good to give a puppy "time out" it does no good to give a child "time out".

Actually, time-outs work VERY WELL with puppies. Like human children, they are pack animals who have an instinctive need to be with you; imposing a brief separation is a form of negativ punishment that both dissuades and provides mental space to calm themselves.

Ouch! My Puppy Dog is Biting My Hands and Clothes! (http://ezinearticles.com/?Ouch!-My-Puppy-Dog-is-Biting-My-Hands-and-Clothes&id=244923)

You might shame your child into crying for another child but I can also get a dog to hold it's tail down without teaching it anything.

Oh, to get the dog to tuck its tail between its legs, you have definitely taught it SOMETHING. Probably that you are a threat, and unpredictable . . . maybe even untrustworthy. With positive-punishment trained dogs, we find that they are less adaptable to a new situation because they've been taught right by wrong by somebody waiting for them to do something wrong and then making them uncomfortable; this seems to lead to them being uncomfortable in trying new things.

In the realm of dogs, perhaps Good Lifes would benefit from reading Real Live Werewolf Found! (http://ezinearticles.com/?Real-Live-Werewolf-Found-in-Tasmania,-Australia&id=229277) ; in the mean time, the rest of us puzzling over how to reduce punishment and what to do instead could read Why Punishment Might Be Causing More Dog Behavior Problems Than It Solves (http://ezinearticles.com/?Why-Punishment-Might-Be-Causing-More-Dog-Behavior-Problems-Than-It-Solves&id=207930)

Remembering that children are really just oddly shaped, hairless puppies, I have altered the second through fourth paragraphs to fit better:

[QUOTE=Aidan Bindoff]Imagine you draw a circle or pie-chart of 24 hours of your child's typical day. You fill in pieces with every separate activity or behaviour your child does in a typical day. You've got a large chunk filled up with sleeping, another chunk with drinking, another chunk with eating, another with studying, going to the toilet, hitting siblings, running, playing outside, talking to people, jumping on the bed, reading, playing video games, throwing temper tantrums, etc etc

Then you decide you want to take out all the unwanted stuff. So you take out the hitting siblings, jumping on the bed, and temper tantrums.

You still have 24 hours in a day. So what fills in those missing pieces?{/QUOTE]

they have basic chores, and then chores that are above and beyond that they can earn money for.
Yeah, same here...but without the money part. They know it's appreciated, though.

I think the thing that worries me most about this issue is what spanking is replaced with. A spank is a short sharp pain that tends to fade as quickly as it came. If it is backed up with some form of attachment such as a hug then there will be little doubt as to whether the parent still loves and cares for the child. Both these things can be one by someone who has very little idea what they are doing. The alternative to a spank is a psychological option. Usually humiliation or guilt. It usually involves a prolonged act of disapproval. In a lot of cases if not managed right the psychological option can do an awful lot more long term damage to the childs well being, parent/child attachement and relationship with others than a fading red welt on their bum will ever do.
If done perfectly then yes, the psychological option will teach boundries just as well, if done badly it can cause irrevocable psychological damage. If a smack is done well is can also teach boundries very well, if done badly it can amount to physical abuse. The problem is, is that its a lot easier to administer a spank properly under stressed conditions with little or no training than it is to administer the psychological option.
If there was a solid parenting coarse that every parent attended for 3 or 4 years before embarking on the journey and that every parent had to pass with flying colours then yeah ... there would be no need for a physical option, but given that most parents are under enourmous stress, making it up as they go, and not particularly good with social interactions with other adults let alone small children on balance spanking is something that they are more likely to get at least partly right. Its not a good thing. Its not the best way for things to be, but in a practical sense it is probably likely to be the lesser of two evils for most people. So while I would always avoid it, there are circumstances where it is more likely to be the better option. Its not that the smack is justified.. just that the alternative is likely to be much worse in the long run.
Sounds like someone's making excuses. It's a lot easier to take a spanking too far under stressed conditions and then make excuses for it. And don't you think the fury in a parent's eye combined with swift strikes is going to cause any sort of psychological damage? I can't think of anything worse than a sense of betrayal or pain inflicted by a loved one. The feeling is just aweful, not something that a sensitive child should be consistently exposed to.

They can be, but, frankly, they won't be. A great many parents who spank do so while they are angry, and such parents are extremely unlikely to immediately follow a spank with reassurance (because they're still pissed off, at this point).


?!?! There are a great many alternatives to spanking that have nothing to do with humiliating your child!

"Guilt" might be involved in dicipline to some extent, though it depends on what you mean; certainly one often wants a child to feel guilty when they've done something wrong, because they ARE guilty of doing something wrong. You'd like to hope your kids aren't total sociopaths.

The thing is, guilt and humiliation are a part of spanking, too. Hell, one of my biggest objections to spanking is that it is so humiliating for the kid. I would never want to make anybody I loved feel that way. So you've got all these same "psychological" elements, and you've also got hitting.


There's no reason why a "psychological" form of dicipline needs to take any longer than a spanking. Even when they do, I'd hardly say that a 3-minute time out constitutes "a prolonged act."


It's certainly possible to inflict psychological or emotional abuse upon children. However, you can do this with spanking just as easily as with verbal dicipline techniques, so I don't see how you think spanking will protect a child from enduring psychological trauma.


I'd say the opposite is true. It is much harder to rely on physical methods of dicipline without losing control; it's absolutely POSSIBLE to do so, but it's a hell of a lot harder to make sure you're using only the necessary amount of force. If your kid is acting like a jackass, it can be extremely hard to restrain yourself once you've decided you are going to get physical with the kid. And if your primary mode of dicipline is to hit your child, then you're going to end up in an escalating situation whether you like it or not.

I think far more parents run into trouble with this than with going to far in administering time-outs.

Maybe the problem with spanking is that it's too easy. It's such a simple way to deal with a problem; just hit the problem until it goes away. Well gosh, that's a lot easier than talking out the problem, isn't it? That's a lot faster than having to sort out why the problem happened in the first place. And it's much easier than facing your own fears that the problem came about because YOU fucked up as a parent. Spanking is a quick fix, and parenting should never, EVER, be about finding the quick fix.


Again, I'd say the opposite is true. Only the MOST competant parents should be spanking their kids, because only those parents can be trusted to maintain their own control and composure enough in such a situation. Parents who are already under tremendous stress, and who are already struggling with parenting, should NEVER spank, under ANY circumstances. It's far too much of a risk.


The alternative should be, "Don't have kids until after you've learned a few things about parenting." The alternative should be, "If you can't think of a better way to deal with a kid than hitting them, you're not ready to have a baby. Brainstorm some ideas first." Regardless of whether or not you may need to use spanking sometimes, if spanking/beating is all you've got then you're already a crappy parent. You're going to need a hell of a lot more if you want to have any chance of rearing semi-stable offspring.
Marry me.:fluffle:


























:p

It's quick and more affective then trying to explain a child, who won't understand as they are to young, the consequences of their actions.

If the child is too young to understand that an action is wrong because of its consequences, then the child is too young to be asked to decide upon an action in those circumstances. This is where your other non-punishment option comes in.

Wait, first let's review our options:

Positive Punishment: Add something undesirable in order to reduce a behaviour (e,g, If you run into the street, I will spank you. If you hit your brother with the Lego, I will lecture you.)

Negative Punishment: Remove something desirable in order to reduce a behaviour (e.g. If you run into the street, you will not be allowed to play in front of the house. If you hit your brother with the Lego, the Lego will be put away out of reach.)

Positive Reinforcement: Add something desirable in order to increase a behaviour. (e.g. If you stay on the lawn, I will set up the volleyball net. If you play well with your brother, you may invite a friend over to play.)

Negative Reinforcement: Remove something undesirable in order to increase a behaviour. (e.g. If you stay on the lawn, I will stop hovering over you every moment, embarrassing you in front of your friends. If you play well with your brother, he will stop that ear-piercing squalling. Beatings will continue until morale improves.)

Extinction: Stop reinforcing something that we previously reinforced so that it fades out. This is tricky because the undesirable behaviour usually spikes first, in order to try to break through the resistance on a method that was known to work. (e.g. You decide to ignore your brother's screaming and he starts hitting you for a while before eventually realising that there are other options to get what he wants. This is faster if you also train an incompatible behaviour.)

MANAGEMENT: Recognise that the organism is incapable of controlling the behaviour and prevent it from needing to control itself. (e.g. The baby is in a playpen or Jolly Jumper in the doorway while father works at the hot stove. Sister is not allowed to attend an unsupervised teen party because there might be recreational drug use. "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.")


As an exercise for the reader, identify a problematic behaviour and consider the aforementioned six ways to deal with it. :-)

If your organism is genuinely too young to understand the consequences of an action, reinforcement and punishment are going to be ineffective regardless of what kind you use. Reinforcement and punishment aren't defined by how happy they make one, but by how they affect behaviour. If your reinforcer didn't work, it's an indulgence rather than a reinforcment; if your punisher didn't work, it's an abuse, not a punishment.

So much for learning theory. :-)

The pro-spanking argument seems to be based on Kohlberg's work regarding moral development (http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm); their arguments fit his pre-conventional stage. One might hope that they argue from pre-conventional morality because they believe the subjects in question would use it rather than because it is their own dominant form of moral reasoning. :-)

Should never be about finding a quick fix.. your right.. should never. But parenting rarely follows a perfect mold. No matter what you might think you would do in a situation you always stuff up at some point. Even parents who are doing a great job with their kids when presented with kids who have been brought up in a different fashion can completely mess things up. I was never saying that spanking was a great solution and certainly not the best.. but in a some circumstances it is better than the alternative most likely response. In an ideal world no one would spank or need to.. but the world isn't ideal. I know far more people who when they think of traumatic parts of their childhood think of some psychological trauma rather than being spanked.

You are right it shouldn't be the primary form of discipline but I haven't seen many people saying it should be. Its a backup. It shouldn't be needed often and can mostly just be used as a threat. No need to actually spank just threaten. It only needs to be carried through on very few occassions. But if its never carried through then its no threat at all. So in situations where no spanking occurs other things are threatened. Withdrawl of love, humiliation, seperation. Are you trying to suggest you set boundries with small children based purely on reason and never on threats? If so thats great, but I think you will find that your experience is not a common one.



On the whole parents tend to love their children, and very few want to hurt their kids or see them get hurt. Often the spank is as much of a shock for the parent as it is for the child. It makes them stop and realise what they have just done.. so often you do get a situation where reassurance (both of the parent and the child) follows a spank. So yes humiliation is part of it.. but its not the central focus. I think looking at spanking in isolation is part of the problem. What are the alternatives.. and what makes them better? If you and your child are calm enough to simply talk about the situation then you're right a spank is way out of line, but that isn't really what I am talking about. I am talking about situations where the child is not being responsive to usual forms of communication. What then? Sure spanking is bad, but what alternatives are you likely to come up with on the spot as an average parent. Not one of those mythical super parents who never put a step wrong. One of those average parents that didn't necessarily plan every step along the way before the emarked on the journey.

And is that spur of the moment solution going to really be better for the child than a quick and in the end relatively painless spank. I am not saying spanking is for everyone, but I am sure there are plenty of families where spanking is by far and away the least damaging path. Not your family by the sounds of it.. .. but I am not going to say that what I see other parents do was the wrong response when it seems to have worked and with little ill effect.
The shock of the spank fades quickly, emotional damage sometimes never heals.
Lucky you. You haven't known many people who experienced excessive spanking. This is my area of first-hand experience as a recipient. It isn't any easier to forget one than the other. That one spanking too hard or too far is something I haven't forgotten. After all these years, I'm still bitter and spiteful about them. The only qualms I have with the psychological side of it is regret of my own making, but I've come to terms with that.

Your children probably makes scenes like that because of the calibre of their parents, you. Spanking children in the bathroom of a restaurant?

Did you read my whole post? It certainly appears that you did not, or, if you did, you discarded the portion that didn't suit you.

One of my children attempted to make a scene in a restaurant once. It never happened again, can you guess why?

Did you read my whole post? It certainly appears that you did not, or, if you did, you discarded the portion that didn't suit you.

One of my children attempted to make a scene in a restaurant once. It never happened again, can you guess why?
Oooo, ooo, I know this!....maybe....

It's not benefit that bothers me. It's the material benefit. I don't want them to feel obligated to learn for that. I want them to enjoy learning. I don't want any pressure to do it, which helps them discover what they like and what they're good at. Also good for college and careers. Makes choosing easier in that they would have a variety of options that suit them, instead of having to suit the options. And they'd be adept at learning on their own time, not on the dictates of their petty desires.
FD's right. Plus, Newt's system doesn't reward learning, it rewards grades. And while grades may be an indication of learning, they aren't the same thing.

My highschool was riddled with cheaters. It was a terrible problem. Rewarding grades would have only increased the amount of cheating. Is it good to get good grades? Yes, definately. But if I had to choose between a kid who was very smart and learned a lot, but for some reason or another got poor grades, and a kid who was not intelligent, and did not do the work, but cheated his or her way into As, enabling him or her to get into college, I would choose the smart C student every day.

Besides, for some kids, a B is an accomplishment which takes loads of effort. That should not get less of a reward than an A that the student did not need to do anything to get.

FD's right. Plus, Newt's system doesn't reward learning, it rewards grades. And while grades may be an indication of learning, they aren't the same thing.

My highschool was riddled with cheaters. It was a terrible problem. Rewarding grades would have only increased the amount of cheating. Is it good to get good grades? Yes, definately. But if I had to choose between a kid who was very smart and learned a lot, but for some reason or another got poor grades, and a kid who was not intelligent, and did not do the work, but cheated his or her way into As, enabling him or her to get into college, I would choose the smart C student every day.

Besides, for some kids, a B is an accomplishment which takes loads of effort. That should not get less of a reward than an A that the student did not need to do anything to get.
Feed the Ego at your own peril.

You do know I was the genius who got the lazy A's, right?;):p

You do know I was the genius who got the lazy A's, right?;):p
I was, too. To my mind, that proves one thing: we were in the wrong classes; for us, expectations were too low.

C is supposed to be an "average" grade. Logically, if it does not take moderate effort to get a C, one is not being provided with the opportunity to excel. When I tried to excel in a class where I could easily obtain an A, I was instructed to "stay with the rest of the class." (Why couldn't the rest of the class stay with ME for once? Perhaps, as administrators suggested, they genuinely could not . . . but that's the basis for my saying that I was in the wrong class.)

I don't believe in using reinforcers or punishers for grades; we all have different abilities in each subject. If we're going to reinforce something, let's make it effort, or better yet INTEREST. That simple project that the student poured hours more work than nevessary into . . . whether or not it is better than the one another student did in an hour to precisely meet the specifications. While we're at it, let's reward by displaying the project with pride, rather than with money. Children have their financial needs met already -- they do not have to earn money, like the scientists do, to support their families. (If they DO need to earn money to support their families, of course, their parents won't have the money available to use as a reward.)

Challenge students and reward them for accepting the challenge, not for meeting standards that do not take their selves into account. (This is also why I believe home schooling is the best available option for most children, and especially for those who learn at a significantly different rate than the average students in their districts.)

I was, too. To my mind, that proves one thing: we were in the wrong classes; for us, expectations were too low.

C is supposed to be an "average" grade. Logically, if it does not take moderate effort to get a C, one is not being provided with the opportunity to excel. When I tried to excel in a class where I could easily obtain an A, I was instructed to "stay with the rest of the class." (Why couldn't the rest of the class stay with ME for once? Perhaps, as administrators suggested, they genuinely could not . . . but that's the basis for my saying that I was in the wrong class.)

I don't believe in using reinforcers or punishers for grades; we all have different abilities in each subject. If we're going to reinforce something, let's make it effort, or better yet INTEREST. That simple project that the student poured hours more work than nevessary into . . . whether or not it is better than the one another student did in an hour to precisely meet the specifications. While we're at it, let's reward by displaying the project with pride, rather than with money. Children have their financial needs met already -- they do not have to earn money, like the scientists do, to support their families. (If they DO need to earn money to support their families, of course, their parents won't have the money available to use as a reward.)

Challenge students and reward them for accepting the challenge, not for meeting standards that do not take their selves into account. (This is also why I believe home schooling is the best available option for most children, and especially for those who learn at a significantly different rate than the average students in their districts.)
They don't make classes for people like us. And home schooling's only so good. Can't teach myself everything.

They don't make classes for people like us. And home schooling's only so good. Can't teach myself everything.

They can't make classes for people like us. There aren't enough students within a daily commute to fill them.

My plan, if I ever get to rear children (and I am rather running out of time to have my own; risks go up at 35, and one needs to establish a relationship with a potential father and a household to support them before having children . . . which is potentially more than a five-year feat) my strategy would be to home-school them through the high school level as quickly as comfortable, then fight to enroll them into a local community college before university. For peer-group interaction, there are sports and clubs and possibly even a UU church group. I figure this would have the added bonus of being obvious jail bait when in classes with the most sexually driven ages; not fitting in with classmates could well have its up sides, from a parental perspective. :-)

Of course, that's off topic for this thread.

They can't make classes for people like us. There aren't enough students within a daily commute to fill them.

My plan, if I ever get to rear children (and I am rather running out of time to have my own; risks go up at 35, and one needs to establish a relationship with a potential father and a household to support them before having children . . . which is potentially more than a five-year feat) my strategy would be to home-school them through the high school level as quickly as comfortable, then fight to enroll them into a local community college before university. For peer-group interaction, there are sports and clubs and possibly even a UU church group. I figure this would have the added bonus of being obvious jail bait when in classes with the most sexually driven ages; not fitting in with classmates could well have its up sides, from a parental perspective. :-)

Of course, that's off topic for this thread.
But it's bad for them socially. If I ever have children, which I doubt very much, but not because of age, they'll probably be as reclusive as I am, the poor bastards. They wouldn't have much use for social interaction anyway. Books'd be about all they ever left the house for.

But it's bad for them socially.

Not according to the studies. Not according to common sense:

Child A is in a classroom where the other students keep the pace slower than she would prefer. No matter how little effort she puts in, she gets As. She knows she is different. The other students know she's different. There is little grounds for a social relationship because the main experience they share -- the classroom -- is not a common experience. Child A will never be able to say, "Yeah, that test was SO hard . . . I hope I passed!" or commisserate about the reading level of the textbook.

Child B attends school with students who are past puberty. She has to put in some effort to keep up with them. She knows she is different. The other students know she's different. There is little grounds for a social relationship because the age difference and physical and emotional-developmental stages are so different. Child B will never be able to say, "Yeah, I got so drunk at the bar last night that I totally blew off studying" because Child B would not be served in a bar.

So far we're approximately equivalent. Where's the difference?

Parent A may well believe that because her daughter is in school with children her own age, she is being socialised with her peers. Parent B is not likely to make the mistake. In actuality, as we have seen, these children do not HAVE academic peers. Parent B is more likely to make the effort to be sure that her daughter is also playing little league baseball or figure skating or attending Sunday School with similar aged peers . . . and similarly SKILLED peers. That the child does not have academic peers does not imply that the child does not have any peers -- she's probably not as fast at learning figure skating as she is at calculus, for instance -- and outside-school sports tend to be broken into skill groups regardless.

It is important for a child to have peers with whom to form healthy peer relationships. This may not be possible in every sphere -- Olympic gymnasts are still pre-pubescent girls, and almost certainly do not have local peer groups in the field of gymanstics, yet they survive -- so one must put effort into making sure those peer groups exist in at least one sphere.

I believe the greater danger is holding a child back educationally in the name of a peer group relationship that is unlikely to form anyway.

As with any animal the training needs to take place as early as possible. If they aren't trained by 6 there will be problems forever.

You know, all this talk of animals is beginning to scare me…

Do you honestly believe that children are simply animals? That they have no feelings whatsoever?

I agree that the punishment must be imidiate. However, I will never agree that the punishment must be corporal. Tell me please, if a child is to “animalistic” to understand what a time-out is about, then how can you expect said child to understand why he’s being spanked?

Sixth A spanking is not a beating. It's a quick shock that gives instant cause-effect. A spanking is NOT violent. It's just a quick sting.

Sure, and I can walk up to you and punch you in the face. But don’t worry, it’ll only sting for a little while…


Sometimes it increases the liklihood of them growing into an adult ... period!

Interesting that you should mention this today. Yesterday, I spanked one of my grandchildren for the very first time.

One of my younger son's two little boys was playing on the couch in my oldest daughter's home. The house is two-story and the stairwell, is open, with the sofa he was playing on pushed up against the half-wall around it. He took a wrong bounce on the sofa and almost fell over into the stairwell! I almost had heart-failure!

I took him off the sofa and told him not to bounce on it. ( I didn't explain further because he's only 2 years old.) He screamed "NO!" at me and got back up on the sofa and started bouncing again. So I popped his lil butt. He cried like his heart was broken, probably because that's the very first time his "Poppa" has ever spanked him.

I let him cry for a couple of minutes, then picked him up and held him, telling him why he couldn't bounce on that particular sofa. I don't know how much he understood, but he soon stopped crying.

It still bothers me that I had to spank him, but the only other option was to physically restrain him, which I don't think is a very good thing to do either. Plus, if he decided to do that again when I wasn't there ... !!! :(

I can understand that you wanted to punish your grandchild, but I’m wondering whether or not you considered other kinds of punishments?
Also, why did you explain why he should jump on the sofa after you’d hit him? You said that he wouldn’t understand it at first, so you just said “no”. But after you hit him, he’s suddenly able to understand after all…?

You know, all this talk of animals is beginning to scare me…

Do you honestly believe that children are simply animals? That they have no feelings whatsoever?

1) Do you honestly believe that animals have no feelings whatsoever?

2) If we're not animals, then what exactly do you suppose we are?

Children are animals. So are adults. We're not plants, or minerals; we are "multicellular organisms of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure."

Learning theory works for children; it works for dolphins; it works for dogs; it works for goldfish. Reinforcement and punishment leverage the "response to stimuli" that is part of the definition of animal and will work for any thinking creature, though implementing rewards that will be considered reinforcing by organisms free to find their own reinforcers can be more difficult.

Not according to the studies. Not according to common sense:

Child A is in a classroom where the other students keep the pace slower than she would prefer. No matter how little effort she puts in, she gets As. She knows she is different. The other students know she's different. There is little grounds for a social relationship because the main experience they share -- the classroom -- is not a common experience. Child A will never be able to say, "Yeah, that test was SO hard . . . I hope I passed!" or commisserate about the reading level of the textbook.

Child B attends school with students who are past puberty. She has to put in some effort to keep up with them. She knows she is different. The other students know she's different. There is little grounds for a social relationship because the age difference and physical and emotional-developmental stages are so different. Child B will never be able to say, "Yeah, I got so drunk at the bar last night that I totally blew off studying" because Child B would not be served in a bar.

So far we're approximately equivalent. Where's the difference?

Parent A may well believe that because her daughter is in school with children her own age, she is being socialised with her peers. Parent B is not likely to make the mistake. In actuality, as we have seen, these children do not HAVE academic peers. Parent B is more likely to make the effort to be sure that her daughter is also playing little league baseball or figure skating or attending Sunday School with similar aged peers . . . and similarly SKILLED peers. That the child does not have academic peers does not imply that the child does not have any peers -- she's probably not as fast at learning figure skating as she is at calculus, for instance -- and outside-school sports tend to be broken into skill groups regardless.

It is important for a child to have peers with whom to form healthy peer relationships. This may not be possible in every sphere -- Olympic gymnasts are still pre-pubescent girls, and almost certainly do not have local peer groups in the field of gymanstics, yet they survive -- so one must put effort into making sure those peer groups exist in at least one sphere.

I believe the greater danger is holding a child back educationally in the name of a peer group relationship that is unlikely to form anyway.
I don't see it so much as a danger as a detriment. And the real problem with putting them with older students is the difference in psychological development. Intellectually, the child may be able to handle it, but emotionally the child would be at a whole other phase. And I find that a lot of gifted students are happier without feeling more alienated. But then they still have the problem of inadequate classes, which might be solved with a more flexible curriculum for individual students of particular exception. But I doubt that'll happen for sometime, if at all. *grumbleunderstaffed and underbudgetgrumble*

I was not smacked as a kid and I sure won't be smacking my kids either.

1)Do you honestly believe that animals have no feelings whatsoever?

Yes, they do. However, I believe that most of those feelings are driven by instinct.


2) If we're not animals, then what exactly do you suppose we are?
We are animals – that much is true. However, we have the, quite possibly unique, ability to reason and to define “self”. We are, at the same time, both animals and so much more…


Children are animals. So are adults. We're not plants, or minerals; we are "multicellular organisms of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure."

Learning theory works for children; it works for dolphins; it works for dogs; it works for goldfish. Reinforcement and punishment leverage the "response to stimuli" that is part of the definition of animal and will work for any thinking creature, though implementing rewards that will be considered reinforcing by organisms free to find their own reinforcers can be more difficult.


Yes, but you wouldn’t take your child to the doctor so that he could be “put to sleep” if he was sick, would you? Ok, it might be a bit extreme, but it goes to show that there’s a big difference between how you treat animals and how you treat humans.

Besides, hitting your dog is animal cruelty. Hitting your wife is assault. How come then, that you can advocate hitting children…?

But it's bad for them socially. If I ever have children, which I doubt very much, but not because of age, they'll probably be as reclusive as I am, the poor bastards. They wouldn't have much use for social interaction anyway. Books'd be about all they ever left the house for.
okay seriously, the "socialization" arguement?!

we can't hijack this thred, you should start a homeschool thred. I can explain how it's not "bad for them socially" to homeschool.

okay seriously, the "socialization" arguement?!

we can't hijack this thred, you should start a homeschool thred. I can explain how it's not "bad for them socially" to homeschool.
First, I wasn't talking about homeschooling. Second, you're right; back to the topic.

Yeah, same here...but without the money part. They know it's appreciated, though.
how else do they get money?

you don't just give them money do you?

Kids have to have a way to earn money for the things they want to buy, they are too young to get a "real job" they have to be allowed to earn money in legal ways, they don't have any other way to get money.

Did you read my whole post? It certainly appears that you did not, or, if you did, you discarded the portion that didn't suit you.

One of my children attempted to make a scene in a restaurant once. It never happened again, can you guess why?




*raises hand* I know, I know! It's because you smacked the crap out of them, right?

how else do they get money?

you don't just give them money do you?

Kids have to have a way to earn money for the things they want to buy, they are too young to get a "real job" they have to be allowed to earn money in legal ways, they don't have any other way to get money.
We can't really afford to pay them for their extra help, so they don't really get much or very often. But we do what we can as often as we can.

*raises hand* I know, I know! It's because you smacked the crap out of them, right?
Actually, fear causes muscles to contract, so the child's bowels would be constipated, not loose.

You wouldn’t take your child to the doctor so that he could be “put to sleep” if he was sick, would you? Ok, it might be a bit extreme, but it goes to show that there’s a big difference between how you treat animals and how you treat humans.

Actually, were it legal, I would take a child to the doctor for euthanasia as quickly as I would take my dog to the vet for the same service. Euthanasia is probably another thread-hijacking in the making, but in cases of incurable illness causing significant constant distress, the humane option in either case would seem to be the same.

Besides, hitting your dog is animal cruelty. Hitting your wife is assault. How come then, that you can advocate hitting children…?

Calm your outrage, now, and double-check authorship on the posts you found offensive. I did not advocate hitting children; I advocated not-hitting dogs AND not-hitting children.

For the record, though, a certain amount of dog-hitting is generally accepted as not-animal-cruelty. There are still trainers using some rather horrific methos; Ed Frawley (http://www.leerburg.com/corrections.htm) provides an overview, and equipment (http://www.leerburg.com/746.htm) with instructions to "set a dog up by putting a hidden sleeve on. Then I will have a second handler there for back-up and for safety. I will have a line over a tree limb with the line hanging down near the level of my knee. I heel the dog to this location and attach the line to the dominant dog collar. At that point I will do something that causes the dog to attack me. When he does I offer the arm with the hidden sleeve. When the dog is biting the arm the second handler will raise the dogs 4 feet off the ground. I remain totally calm and look the dog in the eye and tell him he will not bite me. The dog stays there until he passes out. Then he is lowered to the ground and lies there until he regains consciousness. Then we start again. Usually these kind of dogs will only have to be hung 2 or 3 times and they quickly learn that you are a big person - the way they look at it is that you have the power to kill them at any time." Whatever we may think, the authorities seem not to consider even this animal cruelty.

Personally, I think that there is no reason to routinely use painful or abusive methods when training children or animals. For me, it comes down to this: is it more important for the organism to learn the behaviour, or to perform is regardless of learning? If pain NOW will prevent potentially serious injury later, go ahead. You might damage the relationship, but if the child runs into the street and is smucked by a car, there is no relationship to damage. Management is still the best way to go, but when I have to haul a small child out of the street, it IS accompanied by an ungentle smack across the posterior . . . because actual logical consequences are both more painful and not a non-abusive option.

Spamity spam spam.

>.>

<.<

o.O

Spamity spam spam.

>.>

<.<

o.O
"Sorry. Sorry, everyone. I just get so carried away sometimes."

You do know I was the genius who got the lazy A's, right?;):p
As long as you didn't cheat your way into A's, I don't care.

I don't believe in using reinforcers or punishers for grades; we all have different abilities in each subject. If we're going to reinforce something, let's make it effort, or better yet INTEREST. That simple project that the student poured hours more work than nevessary into . . . whether or not it is better than the one another student did in an hour to precisely meet the specifications. While we're at it, let's reward by displaying the project with pride, rather than with money. Children have their financial needs met already -- they do not have to earn money, like the scientists do, to support their families. (If they DO need to earn money to support their families, of course, their parents won't have the money available to use as a reward.)

Challenge students and reward them for accepting the challenge, not for meeting standards that do not take their selves into account.
AMEN

I sort of disagree on homeschooling, it depends a lot on the student, the home life, etc. But I understand what you mean.

very innovative. and I am glad to see you are also not fostering any emotional control. (actually, I kinda figgured you wernt with your other threads about your oldest. :D )

but I have this question. Newt Gingrich gave a seminar about an Idea about how to get your children to study harder in school. your bead system sounds very similar to his. his theory was to pay them for each type of grade. for instance, A = $5 B = $3 C = $1 D = -2 F = -4. the reasoning being, that
1) in the real working world, Wages and Bonuses are tied to work effort and work results. do well on your projects, and you get a bonus or pay raise. don't do well and you either don't get a raise or you get fired.

2) Uses a reward system that the child can see and relate to.

3) it can be a starting point in teaching them good financial habits and responsibility

there were other points, it was a looong seminar and it was also a long time ago. but would you agree to this system... (looking at your "beads for good behavior" method.)

of course his plan was only for school... not for everyday things. :p

Do you think this is a good plan?

I certainly don't mind getting money for my straight A's. But I would obviously get straight A's without monetary awards and, frankly, I would probably punish myself on my own if I got anything less than an A.

how else do they get money?

you don't just give them money do you?

Kids have to have a way to earn money for the things they want to buy, they are too young to get a "real job" they have to be allowed to earn money in legal ways, they don't have any other way to get money.
My parents always gave me what I needed and mostly what I wanted. I never got any money or allowance. I did chores because I was a member of the family. I was fed and given clothing and an education because I was a member of the family. Most of the money I had was loose change I found cleaning out the sofa or "tips" I got for doing the laundry. My parents even helped me pay for Christmas gifts, since I didn't have my own money to pay for them. So, I respectfully disagree with you on this point.

As long as you didn't cheat your way into A's, I don't care.
I never cheat. Honor among slackers and all.

I sort of disagree on homeschooling, it depends a lot on the student, the home life, etc. But I understand what you mean.

Of course it depends on the student, home life, et cetera. I did not say that all exceptional children should be home schooled; I said that if I have the rearing of children, they will be home schooled. Not everybody can do it; not everybody wants to do it. I do believe that individualised discipline and other forms of education are a necessity, though. whether the parent does it alone or in conjunction with teachers, therapists, grandparents, et cetera.

Oh really? You assume that all children are alike, I see. Well, that couldn't be any further from the truth.

I understood what was told to me when I was three years old. What confused me was getting slapped in the forehead for spilling water on the carpet, without getting an explanation along with it.

I got spanked, slapped, and kicked in the ass a lot (and I mean a *lot*) before age six, and rarely did I ever realise what I did was really so wrong... Though looking back on what I did, there was no reason for what my dad did to me.


1: Spilling drinks and food on floors counts as an accident. It's not like I ever did it on purpose, and I knew so. But I got slapped hard in the face (not the forehead) anyway. I even got a nasty bloody nose from it once.

2: Saying the word "fuck" because I heard my dad use it is hardly grounds for a swift fist to the ass. He could've told me not to say it, but nope. He also wacked me in the face, knocking me to the floor below my seat at the dinner table for saying "piss", which rhymed with "Chris" (my brother and I were playing a rhyme game)... And like words mean anything in the long run, anyway...


Just two good examples of what my dad used to do on a regular basis for next to nothing. I'll also mention that he'd always get an insane grin of joy on his face just before doing so, especially when chasing me around the dining room table in our old house and finally cornering me in the hall, winding up for a very hard hand across the face.

After he'd do these things, I'd usually go to my room and look at my Matchbox car collection (that, or read). I'd collect my thoughts, wondering why he did what he did, and why he couldn't have just simply said "don't do that".

I guess it required too much effort in the thought department. Fucking bastard.

I can sympathize with you. Even though my male guardian (I refuse to call him a father) never really hit me consistantly, I found that violent actions towards children tend to make the child hate the agressor. In my case, I passionately hate my male guardian, because of all the times he's badmouthed me, kicked/slapped/hit me, falsely accused me. I myself would love to be a father, if only to prove to myself that my kids would love me, rather than the way I hated my own "father." Physical stimulation in the form of pain is not an acceptable way to teach children the difference between right and wrong. If the parent hits the child, the child is likely to have a violent personality reflecting that of the parent's, or the child, like me, would hold everything inside and not say anything, or retaliate in any way. Although I am beginning to change this.

Of course it depends on the student, home life, et cetera. I did not say that all exceptional children should be home schooled; I said that if I have the rearing of children, they will be home schooled. Not everybody can do it; not everybody wants to do it. I do believe that individualised discipline and other forms of education are a necessity, though. whether the parent does it alone or in conjunction with teachers, therapists, grandparents, et cetera.
Oh, sure, pull it back on-topic.:p

Yeah, I think individualization is key to a lot of things, but it just doesn't seem to be happening. The more time goes on, the more people seem to be oriented on the general way of doing things, with no regard for something new.
*shakes fist at the tyranny of the masses*

My parents always gave me what I needed and mostly what I wanted. I never got any money or allowance. I did chores because I was a member of the family. I was fed and given clothing and an education because I was a member of the family. Most of the money I had was loose change I found cleaning out the sofa or "tips" I got for doing the laundry. My parents even helped me pay for Christmas gifts, since I didn't have my own money to pay for them. So, I respectfully disagree with you on this point.
My kids recieve their necessities, food, clothing, shelter, education, health care, and everything else, they either earn, or get for their birthday, or Christmas.

I have no problem with my kids having money when they work for it, or if it's a gift, they do have to save some, but other than that it's their money. Life is not about getting things handed to you, my children are quite aware of that, if I want money I work, if they want money they work.

We all have jobs that we do because we are members of the family, and then on top of that they do other things to get their own money to spend on what they want.

For example, the lady next door pays my daughter to read to her elderly mother while she cleans the house. The money she earns is split between her savings, her tithe, and her spending money. Today we went to the mall and she bought a new pair of jeans and some hair bows. I don't see any problem with it.

I can sympathize with you. Even though my male guardian (I refuse to call him a father) never really hit me consistantly, I found that violent actions towards children tend to make the child hate the agressor. In my case, I passionately hate my male guardian, because of all the times he's badmouthed me, kicked/slapped/hit me, falsely accused me. I myself would love to be a father, if only to prove to myself that my kids would love me, rather than the way I hated my own "father." Physical stimulation in the form of pain is not an acceptable way to teach children the difference between right and wrong. If the parent hits the child, the child is likely to have a violent personality reflecting that of the parent's, or the child, like me, would hold everything inside and not say anything, or retaliate in any way. Although I am beginning to change this.
That's not a good way to raise children either. You should come to peace with your hatred first. Otherwise, it will haunt you and all of your endeavors.

My kids recieve their necessities, food, clothing, shelter, education, health care, and everything else, they either earn, or get for their birthday, or Christmas.

I have no problem with my kids having money when they work for it, or if it's a gift, they do have to save some, but other than that it's their money. Life is not about getting things handed to you, my children are quite aware of that, if I want money I work, if they want money they work.

We all have jobs that we do because we are members of the family, and then on top of that they do other things to get their own money to spend on what they want.

For example, the lady next door pays my daughter to read to her elderly mother while she cleans the house. The money she earns is split between her savings, her tithe, and her spending money. Today we went to the mall and she bought a new pair of jeans and some hair bows. I don't see any problem with it.
That's quite an efficient sca...er, business you have going there.:p

My kids recieve their necessities, food, clothing, shelter, education, health care, and everything else, they either earn, or get for their birthday, or Christmas.

I have no problem with my kids having money when they work for it, or if it's a gift, they do have to save some, but other than that it's their money. Life is not about getting things handed to you, my children are quite aware of that, if I want money I work, if they want money they work.

We all have jobs that we do because we are members of the family, and then on top of that they do other things to get their own money to spend on what they want.

For example, the lady next door pays my daughter to read to her elderly mother while she cleans the house. The money she earns is split between her savings, her tithe, and her spending money. Today we went to the mall and she bought a new pair of jeans and some hair bows. I don't see any problem with it.

I did not get things handed to me. Well, I did, but they were generally hand-me-downs from my cousins. I can't really remember any instances where I wanted something. I recall always being content with the toys/clothes/etc that I already had. Sometimes my mom would give us icecream from the icrecream truck, sometimes not.

We never had set chores, we just all had to pitch in to get whatever was necessary done.

I did get paid for helping my neighbors, like shoveling snow or helping care for dogs, and of course babysitting. And when I got to highschool, I spent all that money that I earned on makeup, and occassionally jewelry or jeans. But until I was in highschool I never had any real spending money, and never needed it. It helped that the Carrot Cake Man gave out free samples after school ;) (it was a legitimate store, not some creepy guy giving cake to small children).

I'm sure your system works very well for you and your kids. All I'm saying is that my experience was different, and not any less (or necessarily more) happy or healthy for the differences.

I did not get things handed to me. Well, I did, but they were generally hand-me-downs from my cousins. I can't really remember any instances where I wanted something. I recall always being content with the toys/clothes/etc that I already had. Sometimes my mom would give us icecream from the icrecream truck, sometimes not.

We never had set chores, we just all had to pitch in to get whatever was necessary done.

I did get paid for helping my neighbors, like shoveling snow or helping care for dogs, and of course babysitting. And when I got to highschool, I spent all that money that I earned on makeup, and occassionally jewelry or jeans. But until I was in highschool I never had any real spending money, and never needed it. It helped that the Carrot Cake Man gave out free samples after school ;) (it was a legitimate store, not some creepy guy giving cake to small children).

I'm sure your system works very well for you and your kids. All I'm saying is that my experience was different, and not any less (or necessarily more) happy or healthy for the differences.
The way I see it, everything we children earned through extra chores and suchlike went toward our basic needs, with a bit to small luxuries we could share as a family. A rare positive spin on being moderately poor.

You know, all this talk of animals is beginning to scare me…

Do you honestly believe that children are simply animals? That they have no feelings whatsoever?

I agree that the punishment must be imidiate. However, I will never agree that the punishment must be corporal. Tell me please, if a child is to “animalistic” to understand what a time-out is about, then how can you expect said child to understand why he’s being spanked?



Sure, and I can walk up to you and punch you in the face. But don’t worry, it’ll only sting for a little while…

Yes children are animals. Yes they have feelings and so do other animals, at least every mammal I've run into. But as with animals they haven't a sense of good and bad, (Genesis would say the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) they run on a very selfish instinct. Until they have that knowledge, yes everything you can say about an animal you can say about a child. We are talking of children between 1 and 6. I have never had to use either a spanking or "time out" or any other punishment since my children reached 6. They are now 21, 18, and 15. Once they know limits and authority a yes or no is all it takes. Of course the older they are the more explaination I give them because the more knowledge and vocabulary they have. They grow out of the animal stage as they gain a knowledge of good and evil.

Children don't have much reasoning and no experience to base reasoning on, only the instinct to do whatever they want. The difference between "time out" and a swat to the rump is a matter of time. Children and animals don't have the same sense of time. They both live in the moment. So cause-effect has to be in that moment. Even a few seconds is too long.

I never advocating a punch or even a slap to the face. One quick open hand swat to the rump. If you swatted my rump I think I would immediatly make the cause-effect connection.

Yes children are animals. Yes they have feelings and so do other animals, at least every mammal I've run into. But as with animals they haven't a sense of good and bad, (Genesis would say the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) they run on a very selfish instinct. Until they have that knowledge, yes everything you can say about an animal you can say about a child. We are talking of children between 1 and 6. I have never had to use either a spanking or "time out" or any other punishment since my children reached 6. They are now 21, 18, and 15. Once they know limits and authority a yes or no is all it takes. Of course the older they are the more explaination I give them because the more knowledge and vocabulary they have. They grow out of the animal stage as they gain a knowledge of good and evil.

Children don't have much reasoning and no experience to base reasoning on, only the instinct to do whatever they want. The difference between "time out" and a swat to the rump is a matter of time. Children and animals don't have the same sense of time. They both live in the moment. So cause-effect has to be in that moment. Even a few seconds is too long.

I never advocating a punch or even a slap to the face. One quick open hand swat to the rump. If you swatted my rump I think I would immediatly make the cause-effect connection.
Wrong. Children learn reason. And they get experience. It could be argued that good and evil are learned connotations, not absolutes, so that doesn't really apply. And we may be animals, but we certainly have a higher learning curve. Treating children as you would a lower animal inclines them to behave as such, not as the thinkers they should be.

*raises hand* I know, I know! It's because you smacked the crap out of them, right?


You just flunked.

You're going to have to take Reading for Comprehension 101 again.

You just flunked.

You're going to have to take Reading for Comprehension 101 again.
LOL Could you fail that one at archaeology as well? Same 'im the trouble of getting distracted by boobies?

Children learn reason. And they get experience. It could be argued that good and evil are learned connotations, not absolutes, . And we may be animals, but we certainly have a higher learning curve.
I agree 100% with these parts.

I agree 100% with these parts.
o.O

Treating children as you would a lower animal inclines them to behave as such, not as the thinkers they should be.

Children do, except in very exceptional cases, have a higher potential for learning than most other animals. On the other hand, positive-reinforcement/negative-punishment trainers also see a case for thinking dogs (http://www.clickersolutions.com/articles/2001c/thinking.htm). It's not terribly advanced problem solving -- perhaps what we would expect to see in a three-year-old human -- but when we're talking about a two-year-old human, getting her to the skill level of a three-year-old human is a step in the right direction. :-)

There are also some things for which thinking and problem-solving are detrimental. I don't want to teach a child to problem-solve her way around stepping into traffic; I want not stepping into traffic to be trained rather than learned so she problem-solves around the issue of crossing the street without stepping into traffic. (I could wait for all the cars to pass, or go down to the crosswalk, or . . .) The same goes for other safety-related things like touching hot things on a hot stove, playing with guns, or sliding down the slide before the previous person is off it. The body seems to agree that some things should be acted on without pause to evaluate; this is the reflex arc (http://education.vetmed.vt.edu/Curriculum/VM8054/Labs/Lab9/Examples/exsomarc.htm). "Let's say you inadvertently put your hand on a hot stove burner. You will of course immediately remove it, and in doing so you are making use of this type of arc, bypassing conscious thought. In fact, the sensation of uncomfortable heat makes it to the CNS after the motor response to withdraw your hand is initiated. In other words, you move your hand away before you 'know why' you're doing it." In this case, as I think would be true in an ideal safety-trained child, the reflex avoidance can be overcome by giving it prior thought . . . but if one is not thinking about it, the reflex response is to avoid the danger.

Children do, except in very exceptional cases, have a higher potential for learning than most other animals. On the other hand, positive-reinforcement/negative-punishment trainers also see a case for thinking dogs (http://www.clickersolutions.com/articles/2001c/thinking.htm). It's not terribly advanced problem solving -- perhaps what we would expect to see in a three-year-old human -- but when we're talking about a two-year-old human, getting her to the skill level of a three-year-old human is a step in the right direction. :-)

There are also some things for which thinking and problem-solving are detrimental. I don't want to teach a child to problem-solve her way around stepping into traffic; I want not stepping into traffic to be trained rather than learned so she problem-solves around the issue of crossing the street without stepping into traffic. (I could wait for all the cars to pass, or go down to the crosswalk, or . . .) The same goes for other safety-related things like touching hot things on a hot stove, playing with guns, or sliding down the slide before the previous person is off it. The body seems to agree that some things should be acted on without pause to evaluate; this is the reflex arc (http://education.vetmed.vt.edu/Curriculum/VM8054/Labs/Lab9/Examples/exsomarc.htm). "Let's say you inadvertently put your hand on a hot stove burner. You will of course immediately remove it, and in doing so you are making use of this type of arc, bypassing conscious thought. In fact, the sensation of uncomfortable heat makes it to the CNS after the motor response to withdraw your hand is initiated. In other words, you move your hand away before you 'know why' you're doing it." In this case, as I think would be true in an ideal safety-trained child, the reflex avoidance can be overcome by giving it prior thought . . . but if one is not thinking about it, the reflex response is to avoid the danger.
Pfft! Can a dog read? Could it read full-length novels? I could when I was three. And training is a form of learning. A more basic form, but learning nonetheless. And it's all well and good, but humans do more than that, even at a young age, provided, of course, making such connections is encouraged.

Pfft! Can a dog read?
Yes. Testing comprehension of more than single sight-words is difficult, of course, since at best English is not their first language. I don't think I could explain phonics to a dog, though, Rats of NIMH aside.

Could it read full-length novels? I could when I was three.

And you know very well that you are one of those wacky exceptions, and exposed to an enriched environment to boot. :-)

Actually, it would be an interesting experiment to work on teaching a dog to read simple sentences. My feeling at the moment is that they recognise word-shapes rather than learning to recognise letter sounds and left to right progression, but that's just an initial impression.

And training is a form of learning. A more basic form, but learning nonetheless. And it's all well and good, but humans do more than that, even at a young age, provided, of course, making such connections is encouraged.

I can't really disagree with this; my point, however, stands: operant conditioning is not a bad way to train children or other animals. It's quite effective, even if it has to become more subtle as minds grow, and is not opposed to teaching an organism to think.

I studied the development of conscience. There are two competing hypotheses. Neither have to do with using physical violence. I think it has become accepted that you don't need to hit kids in order to teach them right and wrong. Anyway, the first idea is that parents need to be assertive. That is, parents tell their children assertively that what they are doing is wrong. Through this assetive attitude, children learn what is right and wrong -- I suppose the roots for this comes from hitting children (reasons don't need to be given). The other idea, which is more popular, is that kids don't actually learn what is right and wrong from their parents but from their piers. That is, when a child does something wrong within the context of a group of her/his piers, the piers tell her/her that it is wrong. Essentially, the child's piers dictate what is right and wrong behavior (you can use terms like acceptable, non-acceptable if you want). This idea stems from Jean Piaget's work that studied the marble games that children played and how these games evolved over time. It is pretty interesting, so you can probably google Piaget's study.

The other idea, which is more popular, is that kids don't actually learn what is right and wrong from their parents but from their peers.

Is this using the narrow definition of peers, meaning children in the same area of about the same age, or a broader definition that includes the community of other humans? The latter would allow for the influence of parents and Power Rangers and playmates.

I would find it exceptionally hard to believe that young children learn right and wrong exclusively, or even primarily, from their local agemates.

That is, when a child does something wrong within the context of a group of her/his peers, the peers tell her/her that it is wrong. Essentially, the child's peers dictate what is right and wrong behavior (you can use terms like acceptable, non-acceptable if you want).

Which is, of course, why all teenagers whose peers tell them that drug use is cool become drug users and why any girl pressured into sex will engage. This is also, obviously, why it is dangerous to allow your devout child to play with secular neighbours; the peers will fundamentally alter any beliefs that you have modelled for the child.

Nope; this model doesn't quite work for me.

This idea stems from Jean Piaget's work that studied the marble games that children played and how these games evolved over time. It is pretty interesting, so you can probably google Piaget's study.
Here (http://tigger.uic.edu/~lnucci/MoralEd/overview.html#piaget), for instance, is an overview. His book, "The Moral Development of the Child", is still under copyright and seems unavailable.

Yes. Testing comprehension of more than single sight-words is difficult, of course, since at best English is not their first language. I don't think I could explain phonics to a dog, though, Rats of NIMH aside.

And you know very well that you are one of those wacky exceptions, and exposed to an enriched environment to boot. :-)

Actually, it would be an interesting experiment to work on teaching a dog to read simple sentences. My feeling at the moment is that they recognise word-shapes rather than learning to recognise letter sounds and left to right progression, but that's just an initial impression.
If the environement was enriched, it was because I made it so. And wacky exception aside, a dog might be able to connect words to an object or maybe a feeling, but I don't believe a dog could truly make a connection between the words to understand the full context of a sentence, let alone an entire work.



I can't really disagree with this; my point, however, stands: operant conditioning is not a bad way to train children or other animals. It's quite effective, even if it has to become more subtle as minds grow, and is not opposed to teaching an organism to think.
No, not entirely bad, but teaching a child to think, which is really more to the point of the thread, is a lot easier at a young age because they form those strong connections in their very malleable brains. Not running into a busy street is one thing, but actually figuring out how to cross it is another. Conditioning only supplies a limited answer. Critical thinking allows the child to be more autonomous and excercise judgement in unexpected circumstances.

I studied the development of conscience. There are two competing hypotheses. Neither have to do with using physical violence. I think it has become accepted that you don't need to hit kids in order to teach them right and wrong. Anyway, the first idea is that parents need to be assertive. That is, parents tell their children assertively that what they are doing is wrong. Through this assetive attitude, children learn what is right and wrong -- I suppose the roots for this comes from hitting children (reasons don't need to be given). The other idea, which is more popular, is that kids don't actually learn what is right and wrong from their parents but from their piers. That is, when a child does something wrong within the context of a group of her/his piers, the piers tell her/her that it is wrong. Essentially, the child's piers dictate what is right and wrong behavior (you can use terms like acceptable, non-acceptable if you want). This idea stems from Jean Piaget's work that studied the marble games that children played and how these games evolved over time. It is pretty interesting, so you can probably google Piaget's study.
Both of which are wrong. They are by no means exclusive. Both play a significant part which varies by individual.

Wrong. Children learn reason. And they get experience. It could be argued that good and evil are learned connotations, not absolutes, so that doesn't really apply. And we may be animals, but we certainly have a higher learning curve. Treating children as you would a lower animal inclines them to behave as such, not as the thinkers they should be.
Not to mention the fact that if you treat your children like animals...you'll be wrong. If you assume your children function on the same level as your dog...you'll be wrong. Simple as that. Your kids will be smarter than you are assuming. Your kids will be thinking and feeling more than you give them credit for. And they will always...always...remember that.

What sort of adult relationship do you think you will have with your grown children, when they look back and remember being diciplined much the same as the family dog? How do you think you will be able to maintain your authority as a parent, when your teenage children are grown physically bigger than you are, and they discover that now the "dog" can break it's lead? What kind of people do you think you will create, if their first lessons in morality are the same sort you issue to your pets?

Underestimating your children's intelligence is a dangerous mistake to make. When they are young, they're smaller and weaker than you...but they grow. With every parenting decision you make, remember that one day your children will be as big as you, or bigger. Remember that such a day may come while they're still under your roof and your care, and while you are still responsible for dicipline and guidance.

Remember that they will one day go out into the world on their own, and the "bad dog" morality you've instilled will probably hold up for about as long as it takes for somebody to offer them a beer. Your dog will spend its life in your home; your children won't.

Not to mention the fact that if you treat your children like animals...you'll be wrong. If you assume your children function on the same level as your dog...you'll be wrong. Simple as that. Your kids will be smarter than you are assuming. Your kids will be thinking and feeling more than you give them credit for. And they will always...always...remember that.

What sort of adult relationship do you think you will have with your grown children, when they look back and remember being diciplined much the same as the family dog? How do you think you will be able to maintain your authority as a parent, when your teenage children are grown physically bigger than you are, and they discover that now the "dog" can break it's lead? What kind of people do you think you will create, if their first lessons in morality are the same sort you issue to your pets?

Underestimating your children's intelligence is a dangerous mistake to make. When they are young, they're smaller and weaker than you...but they grow. With every parenting decision you make, remember that one day your children will be as big as you, or bigger. Remember that such a day may come while they're still under your roof and your care, and while you are still responsible for dicipline and guidance.

Remember that they will one day go out into the world on their own, and the "bad dog" morality you've instilled will probably hold up for about as long as it takes for somebody to offer them a beer. Your dog will spend its life in your home; your children won't.
That's almost a threat of spanking, more or less.:p It might actually drive them to ask for the beer. Determinism is a big part of that. They'll react in correspondence to their treatment, which is why physical punishment doesn't always work so well.

The way I see it, everything we children earned through extra chores and suchlike went toward our basic needs, with a bit to small luxuries we could share as a family. A rare positive spin on being moderately poor.
I grew up very poor, we didn't have food a lot of the time, I went to my friends' houses to eat, we didn't have electric except when it was too hot or too cold for the company to deny us some even though we couldn't pay. I worked from when I was 6 to buy things for myself like school supplies, and clothes. I paid most of the bills in my family from when I was 10 to when I was 15 and left.

My husband and I can afford to provide for our children now, and probably we could spoil them rotten if we wanted, but we don't. ;)

I grew up very poor, we didn't have food a lot of the time, I went to my friends' houses to eat, we didn't have electric except when it was too hot or too cold for the company to deny us some even though we couldn't pay. I worked from when I was 6 to buy things for myself like school supplies, and clothes. I paid most of the bills in my family from when I was 10 to when I was 15 and left.

My husband and I can afford to provide for our children now, and probably we could spoil them rotten if we wanted, but we don't. ;)
It's better if you don't. Teaches them a lot about the value of hard work.

My husband and I can afford to provide for our children now, and probably we could spoil them rotten if we wanted, but we don't. ;)
See, and this is why I prefer being an aunt to being a mother...I get to spoil other people's children :D.

See, and this is why I prefer being an aunt to being a mother...I get to spoil other people's children :D.
I've got it all planned after college. My little brother and sister will be prime for a little spoiling.:D

If the environement was enriched, it was because I made it so. And wacky exception aside, a dog might be able to connect words to an object or maybe a feeling, but I don't believe a dog could truly make a connection between the words to understand the full context of a sentence, let alone an entire work.

No, probably not . . . and my dog has had a very enriched environment himself. The fact that they do generally have simpler minds is part of what makes them (and pigeons, chickens, rats, dolphins, orcas . . . ) good models for learning theory when one chooses not to consider social (peer) pressures.

Teaching a child to think, which is really more to the point of the thread, is a lot easier at a young age because they form those strong connections in their very malleable brains. Not running into a busy street is one thing, but actually figuring out how to cross it is another. Conditioning only supplies a limited answer. Critical thinking allows the child to be more autonomous and excercise judgement in unexpected circumstances.

I get the feeling that you haven't actually read the links I posted. If you have, please accept my apologies for reiterating, but I do think this observation from A Case for Thinking Dogs ( http://www.clickersolutions.com/articles/2001c/thinking.htm) is important.

For instance, my service dog sometimes has to perform tasks which we have never practiced, and he has to figure out how to solve the problem and get the task done. If I am in danger, or if I am stranded, I need him to continue offering behaviors until he finds the right one. If he has only followed the carrot and stick, then he's not coming from a thinking, problem solving base. He's waiting for you to give him the cue before he responds.

So what happens when my wheelchair rolls away and the dog tries to bring it back, only to get a wheel lodged firmly against a chair? If he had not been taught to problem solve, he would realize he could not perform the task as directed, give up.

BUT--the problem solving dog will try every way possible to get the job done, because he has been incrementally shaped to do this: problem solve. In my service dog's case, he tried every way to jiggle the chair out of confinement, tried pulling from different angles, and when that didn't work, he finally took a running leap and landed in the wheelchair seat, effectively dislodging the wheel, and allowing him to bring the chair the rest of the way to me.

A friend of mine, who lives with paraplegia, uses a clicker trained lab as a service dog. She fell out of the car and realized she had left her cell phone in her backpack, in the trunk of the car. Her dog was clicker trained, though had never been taught to go into a truck, open a backpack by activating the zipper and pulling out the phone. But that's exactly what the dog did. She cued "phone" and the dog went to find it, then went to work figuring out how to get it out of the bag. Yes, it took the dog a while, but he did it. He brought the phone to her, she got help, and he got a steak dinner.

These dogs were taught to think using the semi-mystical process of shaping (http://www.clickersolutions.com/articles/index.htm#shaping). The key component here is that they were not told what to do, but were encouraged in things that looked like they were heading toward the desirable behaviour. Rather than fearing correction, they were trained that if something doesn't work, you try something else.

Doesn't that pretty much describe critical thinking? Experiment, evaluate, revise, experiment . . .

You may be confusing classical and operant conditioning. Smacking a kid as I hauled her out of the street was classical conditioning, which avoids thinking. Smunkeeville's youngest, with her beads, is being operantly conditioned. Presumably, Smunkeeville's eldest has been weaned from the 'markers' and is a middle result of operant conditioning; a final result may be a child who does the chores and can flexibly accept that there is no time for e-mail after breakfast. Even these are probably trained behaviour chains, though; Smunkeeville most likely told her children what was required. Shaping would involve things like catching a child making the bed, and rewarding with a bead on the spot. Better yet, it would involve catching and rewarding a behaviour that the parent had not thought of before; starting with an end goal in mind can indeed blunt the learner's ability to find solutions, but that's a trainer problem, not a training-method problem.

We saw conditioning also mentioned, earlier, regarding children who become 'sneaky' in a positive punishment scenario. Because they are rewarded for not-being-caught, they develop methods of not-being-caught that can be quite innovative. Not desirable, from a parent's perspective, but effective in meeting the actual criteria reinforced. :-)

Not to mention the fact that if you treat your children like animals...you'll be wrong. If you assume your children function on the same level as your dog...you'll be wrong. Simple as that. Your kids will be smarter than you are assuming. Your kids will be thinking and feeling more than you give them credit for. And they will always...always...remember that.
We're talking 1-6 years. As the child gets older you move from basic training to in depth thought. Basic training they are little animals.

What sort of adult relationship do you think you will have with your grown children, when they look back and remember being diciplined much the same as the family dog? How do you think you will be able to maintain your authority as a parent, when your teenage children are grown physically bigger than you are, and they discover that now the "dog" can break it's lead? What kind of people do you think you will create, if their first lessons in morality are the same sort you issue to your pets?

I have a great relationship with my children, 21, 18, 15. Have never had to discipline them since they were 6. They understand authority. My son is a lot bigger than me and a head over my wife. Sure he could take me physically but understands that I'm not his friend, I'm his father and as such have authority over him. It's like my bull that I raise from a calf, he's over 1500 lbs but still knows who's head of the heard. I taught him when I could handle him. Teach a child (or small animal) the way to go and they won't stray from it.


Underestimating your children's intelligence is a dangerous mistake to make. When they are young, they're smaller and weaker than you...but they grow. With every parenting decision you make, remember that one day your children will be as big as you, or bigger. Remember that such a day may come while they're still under your roof and your care, and while you are still responsible for dicipline and guidance.

Remember that they will one day go out into the world on their own, and the "bad dog" morality you've instilled will probably hold up for about as long as it takes for somebody to offer them a beer. Your dog will spend its life in your home; your children won't.

I have never told my children they were bad. I have never told them they were stupid. I have never put them down in any way. (that's the relm of the "time out") One quick swat and a "don't do that", or "you're too good or smart to do that". It's all over with and they get the message. It's all positive except the attention getter.

We're talking 1-6 years. As the child gets older you move from basic training to in depth thought. Basic training they are little animals.

Meh. If you want to underestimate small children, it's your funeral. :D


I have a great relationship with my children, 21, 18, 15. Have never had to discipline them since they were 6. They understand authority. My son is a lot bigger than me and a head over my wife. Sure he could take me physically but understands that I'm not his friend, I'm his father and as such have authority over him. It's like my bull that I raise from a calf, he's over 1500 lbs but still knows who's head of the heard. I taught him when I could handle him. Teach a child (or small animal) the way to go and they won't stray from it.

If you want to rear children to be obedient pets, then that's between you and them. Personally, if I wanted a pet I wouldn't make a baby.

Um...how about non-physical consequencing? Like time-outs, revoking certain priviliges, and clearly outlining acceptable behaviour?

Sorry...is that rocket science?
Naturally, any punishment would have to be accompanied by clearly outlined unacceptable behaviour (otherwise the kids would never learn anything and the punishment would lose deterrent force).

Generally, I'm against spanking. In the majority of cases, I see no need for it, and see it as a very unhealthy and harmful approach to things.

However, I know I was spanked (just one quick, shocking but non-lasting hit on the behind) on rare occasions, I think at times when I was gonna put myself in danger - for example, when having a tantrum when at the edge of a busy road, and struggling away from parents, it would shock me into stopping and them being able to make sure I was safe. Something had to be done immediatly and effectively - there was no time for any other method.
I can't see any problem with that, and it never scarred me in any way (can't remember it at all and only know from being told) and never made an unhealthy relationship between me and my parents.

So, in situations such as the above, I see no problem with it, however in the vast majority of cases I agree with all the arguements against that have already been mentioned.

Getting spanked just teaches you that hitting people is the best way to get what you want. I see that the poll results support that conclusion. Put more tools in your toolbox, people!

Getting spanked just teaches you that hitting people is the best way to get what you want. I see that the poll results support that conclusion. Put more tools in your toolbox, people!

How would tools know the difference anyway?

How would tools know the difference anyway?

Haha! Good question!

No, probably not . . . and my dog has had a very enriched environment himself. The fact that they do generally have simpler minds is part of what makes them (and pigeons, chickens, rats, dolphins, orcas . . . ) good models for learning theory when one chooses not to consider social (peer) pressures.



I get the feeling that you haven't actually read the links I posted. If you have, please accept my apologies for reiterating, but I do think this observation from A Case for Thinking Dogs ( http://www.clickersolutions.com/articles/2001c/thinking.htm) is important.



These dogs were taught to think using the semi-mystical process of shaping (http://www.clickersolutions.com/articles/index.htm#shaping). The key component here is that they were not told what to do, but were encouraged in things that looked like they were heading toward the desirable behaviour. Rather than fearing correction, they were trained that if something doesn't work, you try something else.

Doesn't that pretty much describe critical thinking? Experiment, evaluate, revise, experiment . . .

You may be confusing classical and operant conditioning. Smacking a kid as I hauled her out of the street was classical conditioning, which avoids thinking. Smunkeeville's youngest, with her beads, is being operantly conditioned. Presumably, Smunkeeville's eldest has been weaned from the 'markers' and is a middle result of operant conditioning; a final result may be a child who does the chores and can flexibly accept that there is no time for e-mail after breakfast. Even these are probably trained behaviour chains, though; Smunkeeville most likely told her children what was required. Shaping would involve things like catching a child making the bed, and rewarding with a bead on the spot. Better yet, it would involve catching and rewarding a behaviour that the parent had not thought of before; starting with an end goal in mind can indeed blunt the learner's ability to find solutions, but that's a trainer problem, not a training-method problem.

We saw conditioning also mentioned, earlier, regarding children who become 'sneaky' in a positive punishment scenario. Because they are rewarded for not-being-caught, they develop methods of not-being-caught that can be quite innovative. Not desirable, from a parent's perspective, but effective in meeting the actual criteria reinforced. :-)
You seem to be missing one vital piece: children are not dogs. There is a social structure. There are more factors than the "trainer." There are complex, developing emotions involved that all play a part. You cannot simply dismiss those because children also qualify as "animals." The physical needs may be very similar, but the psychological ones differ greatly in magnitude and complexity.

Meh. If you want to underestimate small children, it's your funeral. :D.
I'd show up to laugh at his corpse and dance on his grave.:D

Haha! Good question!
The answer: they're programmed to.

You seem to be missing one vital piece: children are not dogs. There is a social structure. There are more factors than the "trainer." There are complex, developing emotions involved that all play a part. You cannot simply dismiss those because children also qualify as "animals." The physical needs may be very similar, but the psychological ones differ greatly in magnitude and complexity.

I am reminded of a quote


At each stage [of the hierarchical structure of reality] entirely new laws,
concepts and generalizations are necessary, requiring inspiration and
creativity to just as great a degree as in the previous one. ... Psychology
is not applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry.


I suppose that to a lesser degree child rearing is also a stage above animal care and training.

I am reminded of a quote




I suppose that to a lesser degree child rearing is also a stage above animal care and training.
I think I would concur with your statement. But I'm fickle, so that may change.

You seem to be missing one vital piece: children are not dogs.

Cats are not dogs.

Hamsters are not dogs.

Dolphins are not dogs.

Parrots are not dogs.

Rhinoceros are not dogs.

Chimpanzees are not dogs.

Elephants are not dogs.

Horses are not dogs

Raptors are not dogs.

Nonetheless, operant conditioning is effective in working with all of these creatures, with all their varying brain powers and instincts. Some evolutionists refer to a 'reinforcement architecture' upon which we were all built, which is very hard to escape.

What social interactions do to this mix is make controlling reinforcers more difficult. It is quite possible that the adulation of agemates might be more reinforcing for a child than the censure of teachers is punishing; evolutionarily, forming social groups was highly reinforced, so if it is not actually a primary reinforcer, it is close.

In terms of children learning morality, I agree with Kohlberg that they go through stages, though the ages he assigns to each stage don't ring true for me; his assertion that they can only really understand one level above where they routinely operate seems logical. Kohlberg suggests that the way to increase a child's level of moral reasoning is to expose the child to moral dilemmas and to discuss what shoud be done and why. The purpose of teaching morality is to get beyond the pre-conventional and conventional stages; operant conditioning can drive behaviour more easily in the lower levels, but in higher levels sticking to what believes for onself to be right is more reinforcing than the punishers society will apply.

When I was a little kid my parents would say "if you do that, no TV for a week" and I would think 'a week... Yeah, I can handle that' and do it any way. I just learned how to not care about the punishments. If they had explained to me why I shouldn't do that, then I think I might have thought twice, provided I agreed with their reason.

I would never spank my cats to try to let them know that they've done something wrong. In addition to it being cruel, they would only begin to fear me, or at best only not do whatever it is that's wrong when I'm not around. If children truly cannot understand that they need to correct certain behavior through non-violent means of punishment, then I see no reason why spanking them would give a different result.

After seeing the crap job my parents are doing with my little sister, I say yes.

It's been a while since we've had a thread on this (I don't fancy grave-digging), and the subject has been threatening to de-rail at least one other thread. So here we go:

Do children benefit from receiving spankings? Will spanking a child increase the likelihood of them growing into a good adult?

It will increase the likelihood of them screaming "Spank me!" to their partner.

I would never spank my cats to try to let them know that they've done something wrong. In addition to it being cruel, they would only begin to fear me, or at best only not do whatever it is that's wrong when I'm not around.

Of course, people who want to use positive punishment and get around that problem use devices like double-backed tape on the furniture and electric "scat mats (http://www.scatmat.com/products/scatmat/)".

I still don't like positive punishment much, but these options are still better than drastic measures like de-clawing.

I have to say that there is nothing wrong with spankings. There is very clear line between spanking a child and beating a child. My children do get spanked. I have three boys. One is going to be seven and he does know better most of the time, but there are certain things he knows he will get a spanking for. I am also an avid user of the corner too. Both were used on me and I am fine. My husband got spanked a whole hell of a lot more than I did and I think he may be a better stronger person than me. I think his past better prepaired him for being in the Military.

I have to say that there is nothing wrong with spankings. There is very clear line between spanking a child and beating a child. My children do get spanked. I have three boys. One is going to be seven and he does know better most of the time, but there are certain things he knows he will get a spanking for. I am also an avid user of the corner too. Both were used on me and I am fine. My husband got spanked a whole hell of a lot more than I did and I think he may be a better stronger person than me. I think his past better prepaired him for being in the Military.

I have to say that there is nothing wrong with spankings. There is very clear line between spanking a child and beating a child. My children do get spanked. I have three boys. One is going to be seven and he does know better most of the time, but there are certain things he knows he will get a spanking for. I am also an avid user of the corner too. Both were used on me and I am fine. My husband got spanked a whole hell of a lot more than I did and I think he may be a better stronger person than me. I think his past better prepaired him for being in the Military.

I have to say that there is nothing wrong with spankings. There is very clear line between spanking a child and beating a child. My children do get spanked. I have three boys. One is going to be seven and he does know better most of the time, but there are certain things he knows he will get a spanking for. I am also an avid user of the corner too. Both were used on me and I am fine. My husband got spanked a whole hell of a lot more than I did and I think he may be a better stronger person than me. I think his past better prepaired him for being in the Military.
Ha! Triple post!:p
*takes notes*
Enforce....compulsory....military service...for all....children....Got it. *nods*

When I was a little kid my parents would say "if you do that, no TV for a week" and I would think 'a week... Yeah, I can handle that' and do it any way. I just learned how to not care about the punishments. If they had explained to me why I shouldn't do that, then I think I might have thought twice, provided I agreed with their reason.
But that's how punishment works. That's how it should work. It's a set of preset consequences for specific actions. You can choose to accept the consequence.

It teaches cost-benefit analysis.

But that's how punishment works. That's how it should work. It's a set of preset consequences for specific actions. You can choose to accept the consequence.

It teaches cost-benefit analysis.
Even if the cost is much higher than the benefit, it wouldn't serve as a proper deterent. The child would become more inclined to skirt the consequences.

Well, I hadnt had a family, but I always thought of combining corporal punishment with Full Metal Jacket lines for good measure.

Well, I hadnt had a family, but I always thought of combining corporal punishment with Full Metal Jacket lines for good measure.

If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training, you will be a weapon. You will be a minister of death praying for war. But until that day you are pukes. You are the lowest form of life on Earth. You are not even human, fucking beings. You are nothing but unorganized grabastic pieces of amphibian shit. Because I am hard you will not like me. But the more you hate me the more you will learn. I am hard but I am fair. There is no racial bigotry here. I do not look down on niggers, kikes, wops or greasers. Here you are all equally worthless. And my orders are to weed out all non-hackers who do not pack the gear to serve in my beloved Corps. Do you maggots understand that?

I feel sorry for the kids already. :D

Well dont be, instead of being killing machines they will learn to obey every order, every command, every request the authorative figures. Let it be their employer, their teachers, their superiors and their parents. I demand respect, suborbination and a readyness to perform the wishes of the authority.

I have a great relationship with my children, 21, 18, 15. Have never had to discipline them since they were 6. They understand authority. What happens when the authority is wrong?

Well, I hadnt had a family, but I always thought of combining corporal punishment with Full Metal Jacket lines for good measure.That movie was good for like, 5 seconds, when Pyle shot the Sarge.

What happens when the authority is wrong?
They will be its tools, extensions of the authority, and therefore wrong as well. And all because the parents didn't want to bother teaching the children to think.

They will be its tools, extensions of the authority, and therefore wrong as well. And all because the parents didn't want to bother teaching the children to think.

As Peter Brougham noted, critical thinking skills make a people easy to lead, but difficult to drive:
easy to govern, but impossible to enslave. And vice versa.

The problem is that it is EASIER to drive children than to lead them. Leading independent thinkers requires intelligence and thought; this means laying a lot of groundwork and having them perfectly able to decide you're wrong and ignore you, in the end. Moreover, to get the independent thinkers you usually have to go through an oppositional stage as a transition between believing whatever you say and evaluating things completely independent of your position. For a results-oriented thinker, this is not the ideal situation.

In a very real way, I don't believe that children exist as an independent entity. Children are, obviously, the juvenile stage of humans. You cannot raise children -- within a few dozen years, you have teenagers, or even adults. Biddable children may be more favoured than freethinking children, but biddable adults are vulnerable to exploitation that I would not wish on a person. Being exploited, they may subsequently learn the skills they were denied in childhood, but childhood is really the only safe time to explore.

As Peter Brougham noted, critical thinking skills make a people easy to lead, but difficult to drive:
easy to govern, but impossible to enslave. And vice versa.

The problem is that it is EASIER to drive children than to lead them. Leading independent thinkers requires intelligence and thought; this means laying a lot of groundwork and having them perfectly able to decide you're wrong and ignore you, in the end. Moreover, to get the independent thinkers you usually have to go through an oppositional stage as a transition between believing whatever you say and evaluating things completely independent of your position. For a results-oriented thinker, this is not the ideal situation.

In a very real way, I don't believe that children exist as an independent entity. Children are, obviously, the juvenile stage of humans. You cannot raise children -- within a few dozen years, you have teenagers, or even adults. Biddable children may be more favoured than freethinking children, but biddable adults are vulnerable to exploitation that I would not wish on a person. Being exploited, they may subsequently learn the skills they were denied in childhood, but childhood is really the only safe time to explore.
It's good that they learn to question. There would be no progress without questioning. No one is beyond error, and it's important for everyone to accept that they might be wrong on occasion. And it isn't about what's best for the parent. It's about what's best for the child. The parent isn't the dependent party and can act autonomously. Children aren't independent, but they must learn to be so as they mature into adults.

The parent isn't the dependent party and can act autonomously.

I would argue, however, that it is immoral for a custodial parent to act autonomously. When I was young and my brothers younger, my mother moved us in with a new man . . . who did not like children, unless they were "good". Subsequently, I observed much violence against my brothers and learned that the only safe way to interact with adult males is to stay out of their way.

As a lasting lesson, this is really rather unhelpful. Hiding in a closet and listening to the rage blow outside, however, did make rather an impression on me.

Luckily, online I can interact with people regardless of gender because when they get mad for no clear reason, I'm not going to be the nearest target. :-)

Anyway, I'm nearly 30 and I still believe that it was immoral of my mother to place her three young children into that situation. She could and did act autonomously, but when she had children and chose to retain custody of them, she bound herself ethically to put their health (including mental health) and safety ahead of her pleasure.

I would argue, however, that it is immoral for a custodial parent to act autonomously. When I was young and my brothers younger, my mother moved us in with a new man . . . who did not like children, unless they were "good". Subsequently, I observed much violence against my brothers and learned that the only safe way to interact with adult males is to stay out of their way.

As a lasting lesson, this is really rather unhelpful. Hiding in a closet and listening to the rage blow outside, however, did make rather an impression on me.

Luckily, online I can interact with people regardless of gender because when they get mad for no clear reason, I'm not going to be the nearest target. :-)

Anyway, I'm nearly 30 and I still believe that it was immoral of my mother to place her three young children into that situation. She could and did act autonomously, but when she had children and chose to retain custody of them, she bound herself ethically to put their health (including mental health) and safety ahead of her pleasure.
*absent-mindedly paints a bull's-eye on your forehead*
I didn't say "should" by any means. Of course they shouldn't. My own mother made a mistake like that. We nearly burned alive for that once. And there's nothing quite like being chased by your knife-weilding "social father." I suppose we were fortunate he didn't have his rifle at the time. That was after I had had to learn to interact with people. I didn't do it, but I knew how...kind of.

I didn't say "should" by any means. Of course they shouldn't.

Well, this -is- a conversation about distinguishing right from wrong. :-)

There are situations when a good slapping is needed. I don;t agree with beating a child black and blue. But some children just need to know when enough is enough and if they can;t comprehend that then slap away.

I would argue, however, that it is immoral for a custodial parent to act autonomously. When I was young and my brothers younger, my mother moved us in with a new man . . . who did not like children, unless they were "good". Subsequently, I observed much violence against my brothers and learned that the only safe way to interact with adult males is to stay out of their way.

As a lasting lesson, this is really rather unhelpful. Hiding in a closet and listening to the rage blow outside, however, did make rather an impression on me.

Luckily, online I can interact with people regardless of gender because when they get mad for no clear reason, I'm not going to be the nearest target. :-)

Anyway, I'm nearly 30 and I still believe that it was immoral of my mother to place her three young children into that situation. She could and did act autonomously, but when she had children and chose to retain custody of them, she bound herself ethically to put their health (including mental health) and safety ahead of her pleasure.

I am continually depressed by the irresponsibilities of some mothers.

It simply is not fair. :(

There are situations when a good slapping is needed. I don;t agree with beating a child black and blue. But some children just need to know when enough is enough and if they can;t comprehend that then slap away.
If they can't comprehend it, how will slapping them make them suddenly understand?

Well, this -is- a conversation about distinguishing right from wrong. :-)
I think I ultimately addressed that as well.;)

If they can't comprehend it, how will slapping them make them suddenly understand?
They'll learn that "right" is "that which does not get me slapped" and "wrong" is "that which gets me slapped."

Which should be a ton of help for them in the adult world, since right and wrong are always clearly indicated via slappings.

They'll learn that "right" is "that which does not get me slapped" and "wrong" is "that which gets me slapped."

Which should be a ton of help for them in the adult world, since right and wrong are always clearly indicated via slappings.
o0o0o, thanks for clearing that up for me!

You know, I really might need to rethink this now. Before I thought slapping was a terrible idea. But you raise valid points to its usefulness!;)

They'll learn that "right" is "that which does not get me slapped" and "wrong" is "that which gets me slapped."

Which should be a ton of help for them in the adult world, since right and wrong are always clearly indicated via slappings.
*slaps you with a dueling gauntlet*:p

o0o0o, thanks for clearing that up for me!

You know, I really might need to rethink this now. Before I thought slapping was a terrible idea. But you raise valid points to its usefulness!;)
No one ever demonstrated to you the value of a good spanking? :confused: [/mischievous]
*spanks you*

*slaps you with a dueling gauntlet*:p
Oh, so it's to be pistols at dawn, is it? Very well then! I shall defend my honor, to the death!

Or to the wounding, at any rate, after which we can square things up over a glass of port, yes?

Oh, so it's to be pistols at dawn, is it? Very well then! I shall defend my honor, to the death!

Or to the wounding, at any rate, after which we can square things up over a glass of port, yes?
Does it have to be dawn? We'd have to wait until tomorrow....How about dusk?

Does it have to be dawn? We'd have to wait until tomorrow....How about dusk?
Oh, gee, I have this thing tonight...you know, why don't we just TELL everybody that we had a duel?

Oh, gee, I have this thing tonight...you know, why don't we just TELL everybody that we had a duel?
Fine, but could we still do the reconciliation with a glass of port some evening?

Fine, but could we still do the reconciliation with a glass of port some evening?
Baby, we can have the reconciliation with a glass of port EVERY evening. :D

Hell yes to spanking! Nice girl in PVC laid across your lap and...oh, spanking children...yeah, not good...

...I'll be over there.

Well dont be, instead of being killing machines they will learn to obey every order, every command, every request the authorative figures. Let it be their employer, their teachers, their superiors and their parents. I demand respect, suborbination and a readyness to perform the wishes of the authority.
That doesn't bother you? that they would blindly follow someone without question?

It bothers me, I would be ashamed to raise children like that. My goal is not to raise robots, but to raise children with a spirit of discernment, being able to think critically, question authority and submit out of love not out of misplaced obligation.

Obedience out of fear, or habit is dangerous and wrong.

I think it's a very poor method of discipline, by and large. I don't say that it's always abusive. Sometimes it may be effective, but it's not the sort of "effective" discipline I ever want to use on my kids.

I work in a nursery and some of the kids are little hell-raisers they test every boundry you set and if you don't give them a time out for crossing those boundries (for the third time) they'll just go farther and farther. However, other kids will back off if you give them a hard look. What I'm saying is some children are tough to disapline and I can see why a parent would use spankings, but most of the time it isn't necissary. (sp?)

No one ever demonstrated to you the value of a good spanking? :confused: [/mischievous]
*spanks you*
:eek: Hey! What are you doing? Your gonna pay for that! *spanks you back*

See, thats why spanking is bad. Violence begets violence. *nods*

Baby, we can have the reconciliation with a glass of port EVERY evening. :D
I knew there was some reason I told Ruffy I liked you.:D

It was really your stunning insight, but this works, too.;)

I knew there was some reason I told Ruffy I liked you.:D

It was really your stunning insight, but this works, too.;)
Yes, I am a likeable, insightful, drunken oaf.

:eek: Hey! What are you doing? Your gonna pay for that! *spanks you back*

See, thats why spanking is bad. Violence begets violence. *nods*
I think you misunderstood the intent of spanking you, but this is kinky, nonetheless.;):p

Yes, I am a likeable, insightful, drunken oaf.
All of which are endearing qualities. *nods*

I think you misunderstood the intent of spanking you, but this is kinky, nonetheless.;):p
You think i missed innuendo that was further indicated by a wink?! Not a chance. I was just responding in such a way so as to maintain my veneer of innocence and avoid the wrath of mod.

spanking was the ultimate sanction for when we had been very, very naughty but for a sanction to work you do have to understand what it is and the link between action and consequence.

You think i missed innuendo that was further indicated by a wink?! Not a chance. I was just responding in such a way so as to maintain my veneer of innocence and avoid the wrath of mod.
Ha! That's mild compared to what people get away with.

Ha! That's mild compared to what people get away with.
I dont know what people get away with, and I've never been one for testing boundries too much. I am the girl who always gets caught :(

As In a very real way, I don't believe that children exist as an independent entity. Children are, obviously, the juvenile stage of humans. You cannot raise children -- within a few dozen years, you have teenagers, or even adults. Biddable children may be more favoured than freethinking children, but biddable adults are vulnerable to exploitation that I would not wish on a person. Being exploited, they may subsequently learn the skills they were denied in childhood, but childhood is really the only safe time to explore.

Why are biddable adults so bad, all I am going to do is make them obey every superior's order to a T.

, question authority and submit out of love not out of misplaced obligation.

Obedience out of fear, or habit is dangerous and wrong.
A little of this is ok but too many students and employees spend so much time questioning authority and avoiding obedience that they make a poor contribution. There needs to be a balance and too few young people today understand authority. They think they are equal to the authority, then wonder why they are out the door.

Why are biddable adults so bad, all I am going to do is make them obey every superior's order to a T.
Hey, if you want to make your kids drones, that works out great for the rest of us. Your kids will willingly submit to our kids' authority. :)

Why are biddable adults so bad, all I am going to do is make them obey every superior's order to a T.
Your kids might have superiors. Mine don't.

Your kids might have superiors. Mine don't.
Shh, don't tell him that! He's training his children to be servants for YOUR children!

Shh, don't tell him that! He's training his children to be servants for YOUR children!
Well then.

Carry on.

Too many students and employees spend so much time questioning authority and avoiding obedience that they make a poor contribution. There needs to be a balance and too few young people today understand authority. They think they are equal to the authority, then wonder why they are out the door.

It's a growth process, though. The next stage from blind obedience is often blind rebellion; it takes experience and maturity to settle into a balanced approach. I would consider, "obey only when there's a demonstrably good reason to obey" as an earlier stage to the ideal "obey except when there's a good reason to disobey." The latter allows for things like civil disobedience and accepting the consequences of it: not so much, "I was morally right, so I should be exempt from the laws," as "I was morally right, so I will accept the sanction of the laws."

Of course, I -am- the person whose nursery school report card noted that I was very compliant with rules as long as I understood the purpose of them. I hope that I have matured a bit since then. :-)

A little of this is ok but too many students and employees spend so much time questioning authority and avoiding obedience that they make a poor contribution. There needs to be a balance and too few young people today understand authority. They think they are equal to the authority, then wonder why they are out the door.
There is a difference between choosing to be obedient to your boss, and blindly following anyone who claims authority.

I go to work, I do what my boss says, if my boss told me to break the law would I do it? no, even though she is an authority figure I would have the discernment to stay on the good side of the law.

Spankings fine, just don't go too far... like beating up the child...

"obey only when there's a demonstrably good reason to obey"
I would deem this the only rationally defensible position regarding authority.

There is a difference between choosing to be obedient to your boss, and blindly following anyone who claims authority.

I go to work, I do what my boss says, if my boss told me to break the law would I do it? no, even though she is an authority figure I would have the discernment to stay on the good side of the law.
Great--but that is not the way many young people operate today. They recognize no authority at all. They have been raised to believe that they have the right to do what they want when they want. They will look a teacher or boss in the eye and say "you can't tell me what to do, no one can tell me what to do." I've actually had students tell me I couldn't give them a C because they had determined that they deserved an A and I didn't have the right to give them less. In my business employees are allowed to give sugestions (I figure I hire a brain as well as muscle) but they will tell me that I have no right to tell them how or when to do a job.

Nearly every time these are young people that have been raised as a friend rather than a parent-child basis. Nearly every time they haven't been spanked (I doubt if some of them have even had "time out"--just a "Please don't do that". They simply are not civilized into the norms of the way society exists. They were raised as equals to adults and consider themselves equal to all. Equality is great in civil rights but that's not the way the world works. Children need to learn early that there is someone who's word is law and they have no say or argument with that word, and they deserve no explaination. As the child gets older they deserve and receive more control and a greater say but a 1-6 year old deserves no conversation and is required to follow orders.

Great--but that is not the way many young people operate today. They recognize no authority at all. They have been raised to believe that they have the right to do what they want when they want. They will look a teacher or boss in the eye and say "you can't tell me what to do, no one can tell me what to do." I've actually had students tell me I couldn't give them a C because they had determined that they deserved an A and I didn't have the right to give them less. In my business employees are allowed to give sugestions (I figure I hire a brain as well as muscle) but they will tell me that I have no right to tell them how or when to do a job.
they do have a right to do whatever they want, as long as they realize it may have unfavorable outcomes.

eg. I could tell my boss to fuck off, but I might get fired.

I would deem this the only rationally defensible position regarding authority.

So, of course, we must teach our kids to reason, and perhaps teach the parents to reason as well. Suprisingly few do.

I dont know what people get away with, and I've never been one for testing boundries too much. I am the girl who always gets caught :(
That's not really a test of boudaries, but eh. Doesn't really matter. I find that the people who usually get caught are the ones who worry about being caught...that or they do something blatantly against the rules, which that was not.

A little of this is ok but too many students and employees spend so much time questioning authority and avoiding obedience that they make a poor contribution. There needs to be a balance and too few young people today understand authority. They think they are equal to the authority, then wonder why they are out the door.
Then they're going to have to use those thinking skills to learn the hard way. Very little good comes of the easy path, anyway.

Shh, don't tell him that! He's training his children to be servants for YOUR children!
I don't plan to have children. Can I get two of those servants anyway?

they do have a right to do whatever they want, as long as they realize it may have unfavorable outcomes.

eg. I could tell my boss to fuck off, but I might get fired.
In the mean time your employer has spent many dollars doing the book work to get you started and spent money training you. Multiply that by the hundreds of thousands of workers without a concept of authority and you drop an anchor on the economy plus raise the cost of goods and services. Everyone's actions effect everyone else.

In the mean time your employer has spent many dollars doing the book work to get you started and spent money training you. Multiply that by the hundreds of thousands of workers without a concept of authority and you drop an anchor on the economy plus raise the cost of goods and services. Everyone's actions effect everyone else.
so, don't hire disrespectful and lazy people

I would rather have a child who can think, rather than blindly give in to whomever decides they are her authority.

so, don't hire disrespectful and lazy people

I would rather have a child who can think, rather than blindly give in to whomever decides they are her authority.
Ah, but sadly, society doesn't really place much value in thinking. It expects blind obedience to unqestioned authority. Most people can't appreciate the beauty of truly free thought.

Ah, but sadly, society doesn't really place much value in thinking. It expects blind obedience to unqestioned authority. Most people can't appreciate the beauty of truly free thought.

Most people in positions of authority can't explain themselves when they're questioned.

Most people in positions of authority can't explain themselves when they're questioned.
Which is reason enough for me not to follow their dictates without my own judgement.

That's not really a test of boudaries, but eh. Doesn't really matter. I find that the people who usually get caught are the ones who worry about being caught...that or they do something blatantly against the rules, which that was not.
I don't know the rules. Too lazy to look them up. So I use my own sense of propriety as a guideline. I don't worry about getting caught, I worry about breaking the rules. Probably because I was well disciplined as a child, and taught that it is not avoid consequences that is important so much as doing the right thing.

At any rate, *spanks you* thats for getting off-topic!

I would deem "obey only when there's a demonstrably good reason to obey" the only rationally defensible position regarding authority.

As I see it, requiring an explanation of the reason behind a morally neutral rule is a waste of time -- both yours and others'.

As an example, take formatting an essay. APA rules demand 1" margins and page numbering 1/2" from the top of the page and flush with the right margin.

I cannot see any moral or practical benefit to having margins uniformly 1" rather than 1/2" or 3/4" or half again as wide on the left so one can punch it for a binder. Nobody will be hurt by the fact that your margins are non-standard. There is no demonstrably good reason to obey, if one disregards punishments for disobeying.

I would say, however, that one should do it anyway . . . simply because doing so will harm nobody. The rule is a codified convention; it exists just so that all papers submitted to institutions that expect MLA style will be comparable. I am sure that any reasonably intelligent person could manage to read a paper with an inch-and-a-half left margin, or even locate a page number that it at the bottom centre, but it would be jarring.

You could argue that having left margins half again as wide as the rest is a better solution, since the document will end up in a binder. You might even be correct. However, taking the time to argue spends your time and the time of the person to whom you are making the argument on something that is just as pointless as the original rule!

Thus I claim that the better guideline is to only oppose rules when they actually matter. For example, if an employee or manager insists that I must remove my dog from a store or restaurant, I will stand my ground; denying access to a service animal accompanying somebody with a disability is something that I consider morally wrong. I will quite patiently wait, INSIDE THEIR BUSINESS, while they call somebody higher up, or the police, or their legal department. It would be easier to leave and not deal with the idiotic access challenges, but I see that as a rule that needs to be defied. (Luckily, the law is on my side . . . so whether the store owner likes it or not, their rules will fall. And AFTER I have won, I will refuse to patronize the abusive environment again. :))

so, don't hire disrespectful and lazy people

I would rather have a child who can think, rather than blindly give in to whomever decides they are her authority.
Romans 13

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God

Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.

Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing...............

(Snip)
There is no demonstrably good reason to obey, if one disregards punishments for disobeying.
(Snip)
The rule is a codified convention; it exists just so that all papers submitted to institutions that expect MLA style will be comparable.
(Snip)

You have given two demonstrably good reasons to obey in your post already.
Considering these two combined override any convenience gained by disobeying, I'd say that your example is kaput.

Romans 13

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God

Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.

Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing...............
Nice quote.
Too bad it's just a quote and nothing more, and so has no argumentive weight.

I don't think the manner of punishment is all that important, as long as the parents are consistent in administering them. Inconsistency is what hurts kids' development, not pats on their hineys.

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God

This is exactly why I feel that religion, improperly handled, may deter the development of morality. When everything can be phrased as, "If you don't, you will be punished in the afterlife", there is no encouragement to move past Kohlberg's first stage of pre-conventional morality!

I would argue that a person who gives alms because they expect a god to pay them back after they die is not, in fact, being charitable; charity is defined as giving without expectation of recompense. A person who gives alms because they feel that it is important to help the needy is being more charitable than one who gives a larger sum with the expectation that it will mitigate their punishment for being a fallible human (since Christians know that it is not by works they are saved, but faith alone) or build their place in the world to come.

You have given two demonstrably good reasons to obey in your post already.
Considering these two combined override any convenience gained by disobeying, I'd say that your example is kaput.
Well, no; they are really lousy reasons rather than demonstrably good ones.

Punishments for disobeying.

Punishments do not make a rule good or useful or even moral. Rosa Parks was evicted from buses -- a punishment -- but that did not give the rule that she must sit at the back of the bus and give up a seat to a white person any more right.

The rule is a codified convention; it exists just so that all papers submitted to institutions that expect MLA style will be comparable.

Also not a good reason. Any fool who cannot read a composition printed with a different sized margin or page numbers positioned differently is not competent to evaluate the content of the composition.

I don't know the rules. Too lazy to look them up. So I use my own sense of propriety as a guideline. I don't worry about getting caught, I worry about breaking the rules. Probably because I was well disciplined as a child, and taught that it is not avoid consequences that is important so much as doing the right thing.

At any rate, *spanks you* thats for getting off-topic!
It really isn't against the rules. It's not that gratuitous, but it's better suited to the realms of IM. For the sake of the topic....and escalation. Which is also a property of physical reinforcement. *coughon-topiccough*

Romans 13

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God

Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.

Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing...............
Should we question the validity of the Bible now? Is that what you wanted? I've got a few pretty good arguments against you using that. The first of which is it's RELIGIOUS BIAS. I serve no god, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't imply that that was my duty through obedience to a government.

I serve no god.
Besides which, the sort of god who would demand unthinking obedience and discourage independent thought would not be worth serving, anyway.

Unless, of course, you're doing it for hope-of-reward/fear-of-punishment . . . but I think I've been pretty clear on my feelings regarding THAT as a distinction between right and wrong. :-)

A friend of mine presented a speech at school today. It was a persuasive speech, in which he argued that smacking was good.

He was so funny and made several very good points. Some time I'll write out more of what he said. Too tired to remember right now.

Should we question the validity of the Bible now?

AGAIN?! How many fucking times do we have to question that book?


Is that what you wanted? I've got a few pretty good arguments against you using that. The first of which is it's RELIGIOUS BIAS.
And the second of which is, if you're going to arbitrarily pick out a single book to use as your instruction manual for parenting, you probably shouldn't pick a book that says it's okay to sell your children into slavery, get drunk and rape your daughters (and then blame them for "seducing" you), murder your children if they curse, or use your children as human sacrifices.

Besides which, the sort of god who would demand unthinking obedience and discourage independent thought would not be worth serving, anyway.

Unless, of course, you're doing it for hope-of-reward/fear-of-punishment . . . but I think I've been pretty clear on my feelings regarding THAT as a distinction between right and wrong. :-)
Indeed. There certainly is a difference.

AGAIN?! How many fucking times do we have to question that book?
Until someone gets the idea that it isn't a valid source in a non-/multi-religious discussion.

And the second of which is, if you're going to arbitrarily pick out a single book to use as your instruction manual for parenting, you probably shouldn't pick a book that says it's okay to sell your children into slavery, get drunk and rape your daughters (and then blame them for "seducing" you), murder your children if they curse, or use your children as human sacrifices.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that's the next part. Didn't know if I really need to go that far or not.

Don't forget our arrangement: one glass of port some evening.

Romans 13

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God

Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.

Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing...............
I have no problem submiting to authority, I submit to my husband, my children submit to us, and we all submit to God. I do have a problem with blindly submiting to authority, in a few chapters before your quote, Paul talks about using discernment, not putting yourself in a bad situation, and goes on to talk about that for the whole freakin new testament.

I never said that submiting to authority is a bad thing, but submiting to everyone you see as authority because you have been trained like a dog to do so, it dangerous.

I never said that submiting to authority is a bad thing, but submiting to everyone you see as authority because you have been trained like a dog to do so, it dangerous.
As I understand it, Satan can be very authoritative when he wants to be. I'm guessing that's why the Bible doesn't say, "Submit, without thinking, to any authority."

And the second of which is, if you're going to arbitrarily pick out a single book to use as your instruction manual for parenting, you probably shouldn't pick a book that says it's okay to sell your children into slavery, get drunk and rape your daughters (and then blame them for "seducing" you), murder your children if they curse, or use your children as human sacrifices.

But....but....what book should I use, then?!?!?! Are you telling me that a book thats thousands of years old might be outdated or have misinformation? And how would you expect me to know that?

I dunno, Bottle. It looks like your asking me to do some pretty strange, revolutionary things. For instance, are you suggesting some thought go into how I raise my children???? Such a bizarre, crazy idea!!!
*mutterexpecting me to think! hah!*

As I understand it, Satan can be very authoritative when he wants to be. I'm guessing that's why the Bible doesn't say, "Submit, without thinking, to any authority."
I would suppose so. ;)

But....but....what book should I use, then?!?!?! Are you telling me that a book thats thousands of years old might be outdated or have misinformation? And how would you expect me to know that?

Never fear! For I have a DIFFERENT book, written centuries ago by the members of a DIFFERENT superstitious cult, which will tell you the REAL secrets to being a perfect parent!


I dunno, Bottle. It looks like your asking me to do some pretty strange, revolutionary things. For instance, are you suggesting some thought go into how I raise my children???? Such a bizarre, crazy idea!!!
*mutterexpecting me to think! hah!*
Gosh, no! I mean, what kind of a crazy person would I have to be, to think that people who choose to rear children should actually rear their children?

Never fear! For I have a DIFFERENT book, written centuries ago by the members of a DIFFERENT superstitious cult, which will tell you the REAL secrets to being a perfect parent!
Oh praise.....who am I praising?


Gosh, no! I mean, what kind of a crazy person would I have to be, to think that people who choose to rear children should actually rear their children?
I think you just described EXACTLY the kind of crazy person you'd have to be to entertain such absurd ideas.

:p

Oh praise.....who am I praising?
Your Diety Of The Day today is...

*drum roll*

...CHUKU!

Worshipped by the Ibo people of Africa, Chuku the Creator is a male diety who created (among other things) the human race.

Chuku was so delighted with his human creations that he decided to grant them immortality; he decreed that when a human dies, they should be put to rest on Mother Earth and covered with ashes, and he would then restore them to life. Unfortunately, Chuku chose a sheep to relay this message to humanity, and the sheep garbled the message to say that dead humans should be burned to ashes and covered with Mother Earth. As a result, the dead must stay dead.

[For more on Chuku, see http://www.godchecker.com/pantheon/african-mythology.php?deity=CHUKU]

Chuku wants you to punish your children by pelting them with jelly beans. He told me so.

Never fear! For I have a DIFFERENT book, written centuries ago by the members of a DIFFERENT superstitious cult, which will tell you the REAL secrets to being a perfect parent!
Oooo, oooo, I'll take ten!

I have no problem submiting to authority, I submit to my husband, my children submit to us, and we all submit to God. I do have a problem with blindly submiting to authority, in a few chapters before your quote, Paul talks about using discernment, not putting yourself in a bad situation, and goes on to talk about that for the whole freakin new testament.

I never said that submiting to authority is a bad thing, but submiting to everyone you see as authority because you have been trained like a dog to do so, it dangerous.
Agreed-----BUT the point is children are being raised to be equals to adults and everyone else. They submit to NO ONE. Not even their teachers or their boss. It's not a matter of following illegal orders. It's a matter of totally NO organization. When everyone is a chief there are no Indians to do the work. That is the problem. A person that is good at taking orders is eventually good at giving orders---that is the basis of military training. I'm not asking an adult or older child to blindly follow an illegal order. I am saying that between 1 and 6 a child has no basis other than animal "grab and growl" greed (grab what you can and growl loud enough to keep the others from it) to make a decision or understand an explaination. Children are natural bullys. It's a dawinian survival of the fittest time. It is up to those in authority to civilize the child. When that is not done as it isn't so often today, the person stays in the greed, survival, bully, animal mode. They simply never get to the civil expectations level. They look for openings to defy anyone and everyone. They see themselves as the ONLY authority. They can decide if they want to do a paper or go to work today. They can decide if they want to take drugs or have sex. They can decide which laws to follow and which not to. After all there is no authority anywhere in society or civilization.

That is the problem with raising a child without dicipline.

Agreed-----BUT the point is children are being raised to be equals to adults and everyone else. They submit to NO ONE.
submission is not about being below someone, I am not less than my husband, we are equals, I submit to him.


Not even their teachers or their boss. It's not a matter of following illegal orders. It's a matter of totally NO organization. When everyone is a chief there are no Indians to do the work. That is the problem. A person that is good at taking orders is eventually good at giving orders---that is the basis of military training.
again there is a difference between choosing to submit and being forced to, I don't wish my children be forced to do anything.

I'm not asking an adult or older child to blindly follow an illegal order. I am saying that between 1 and 6 a child has no basis other than animal "grab and growl" greed (grab what you can and growl loud enough to keep the others from it) to make a decision or understand an explaination. Children are natural bullys. It's a dawinian survival of the fittest time. It is up to those in authority to civilize the child. When that is not done as it isn't so often today, the person stays in the greed, survival, bully, animal mode. They simply never get to the civil expectations level. They look for openings to defy anyone and everyone. They see themselves as the ONLY authority. They can decide if they want to do a paper or go to work today. They can decide if they want to take drugs or have sex. They can decide which laws to follow and which not to. After all there is no authority anywhere in society or civilization.
children can understand, hitting a child and giving no explaination other than "I said so" serves to further confuse them and it doesn't "teach" them anything.

That is the problem with raising a child without dicipline.
I am not raising children without discipline, I am raising them without violent punishment, there is a difference.

submission is not about being below someone, I am not less than my husband, we are equals, I submit to him. submit or respect? both can seem similar, but Respect sounds more like what you're describing to me.

again there is a difference between choosing to submit and being forced to, I don't wish my children be forced to do anything. there will be times when one has to be forced to follow someone else. usually during emergencies and crisis of any magnitude, there will be situations where questioning authority will get many people killed. the thing to do is teach people when it's time to allow yourself to be led and when it's time to do your own thinking.

children can understand, hitting a child and giving no explaination other than "I said so" serves to further confuse them and it doesn't "teach" them anything.

I am not raising children without discipline, I am raising them without violent punishment, there is a difference. Agreed! :fluffle:

submit or respect? both can seem similar, but Respect sounds more like what you're describing to me.
submit. I submit to my husband, I also respect him. There is only one form of loving submission and most people can't quite wrap their minds around it because they have always been forced to submit against their will.

there will be times when one has to be forced to follow someone else. usually during emergencies and crisis of any magnitude, there will be situations where questioning authority will get many people killed. the thing to do is teach people when it's time to allow yourself to be led and when it's time to do your own thinking.
agreed.

So, of course, we must teach our kids to reason, and perhaps teach the parents to reason as well. Suprisingly few do.
And those who can't learn = slave race

And those who can't learn = slave raceoohh, that sounds harsh... perhaps, Model Employee would be a better term. ;)

submit. I submit to my husband, I also respect him. There is only one form of loving submission and most people can't quite wrap their minds around it because they have always been forced to submit against their will.
Does he submit to you?

submission is not about being below someone, I am not less than my husband, we are equals, I submit to him.



again there is a difference between choosing to submit and being forced to, I don't wish my children be forced to do anything.

A child is not a tiny adult. Time, space, knowledge, are all different. What adults do among each other is irrelevent to what the relationship is between an adult and a child.

I hope your children live such a sheltered life that they can survive without being forced to do anything. May God bless and keep their teachers.

submit. I submit to my husband, I also respect him. There is only one form of loving submission and most people can't quite wrap their minds around it because they have always been forced to submit against their will. yep... the same way that everyone equates Spankings with Beatings... ;)

Does he submit to you?
he loves me, and submits to God, he does not submit to me in the sense that I am not in authority over him, but many times he does submit to my wishes and desires.

A child is not a tiny adult. Time, space, knowledge, are all different. What adults do among each other is irrelevent to what the relationship is between an adult and a child.
if a child is too young to understand the effects of their actions they aren't going to learn that from a spanking, they are too young to understand period.

I hope your children live such a sheltered life that they can survive without being forced to do anything. May God bless and keep their teachers.
I hope my children are never forced to do anything either.

I hope my children are never forced to do anything either.
and I hope they will reconize when it's time to submit to another's knowledge/authority/experience/ability and when to stand on their own knowledge/authority/experience/ability.

and I hope they will reconize when it's time to submit to another's knowledge/authority/experience/ability and when to stand on their own knowledge/authority/experience/ability.
I have no problem with them making an intelligent choice to submit to another's knowledge /authority/experience/ability.

I hope to teach them to think and realize when it's benificial to submit to authority.

he loves me, and submits to God, he does not submit to me in the sense that I am not in authority over him, but many times he does submit to my wishes and desires.
Why is your husband in authority over you?

Why is your husband in authority over you?
because I recognize him as an authority over me and willingly submit.

because I recognize him as an authority over me and willingly submit.
Yes, but why? And why does he not recognize you as an authority over him?

Yes, but why? And why does he not recognize you as an authority over him?
yeah, you already know though... it's not Biblical.

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.Eph 5:22-33

yeah, you already know though... it's not Biblical.
Oh. I wasn't aware you followed that. Fair enough.

22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Isn't a vitally important part of this, though, that you and he have agreed that this is the basis for your relationship? I'm guessing, for instance, that you wouldn't expect a couple consisting of a feminist and a milquetoast to be required to follow the same rules, since their relationship is based on a different understanding?

Oh. I wasn't aware you followed that. Fair enough.
wow. that was a lot easier than I thought.....:eek:

Isn't a vitally important part of this, though, that you and he have agreed that this is the basis for your relationship? I'm guessing, for instance, that you wouldn't expect a couple consisting of a feminist and a milquetoast to be required to follow the same rules, since their relationship is based on a different understanding?
I feel as a Christian that this is what God had in mind for my marriage, I would not expect non-Christians to follow it, nor would I expect them to understand.

wow. that was a lot easier than I thought.....:eek:
Heh. I'm sure you can guess at many of the feelings I have about such a family structure, but you're not trying to force anybody else to adopt it (as far as I know). Hence, I don't particularly care.

If I ever manage to get my romantic life completely and perfectly in order, then maybe I will consider trying to start running other people's romantic lives. But that gives the rest of the world a pretty safe head start. :D

Heh. I'm sure you can guess at many of the feelings I have about such a family structure, but you're not trying to force anybody else to adopt it (as far as I know). Hence, I don't particularly care.

If I ever manage to get my romantic life completely and perfectly in order, then maybe I will consider trying to start running other people's romantic lives. But that gives the rest of the world a pretty safe head start. :D
I have been thinking of starting a thred on it, but don't know how to approach it without making it an "ask a" thred, because I know it creeps some people out that I am a submissive wife, esp. since it doesn't compute for them that I could be who I am and still submit.

I have had some luck explaining it to some people as an "alternative lifestyle" since it's against their own morals to question that LOL

Your Diety Of The Day today is...

*drum roll*

...CHUKU!

Worshipped by the Ibo people of Africa, Chuku the Creator is a male diety who created (among other things) the human race.

Chuku was so delighted with his human creations that he decided to grant them immortality; he decreed that when a human dies, they should be put to rest on Mother Earth and covered with ashes, and he would then restore them to life. Unfortunately, Chuku chose a sheep to relay this message to humanity, and the sheep garbled the message to say that dead humans should be burned to ashes and covered with Mother Earth. As a result, the dead must stay dead.

[For more on Chuku, see http://www.godchecker.com/pantheon/african-mythology.php?deity=CHUKU]
Hey, thanks for the brief lesson in African mythology! Praise be to Chuku!

Chuku wants you to punish your children by pelting them with jelly beans. He told me so.
LOL!:p Methinks that would be more of a reward than a punishment.

there was a teacher in my grade school who would tell misbehaving students that she would beat them a hundred times with a wet noodle. She got a call once from a mother who was laughing because her son came home concerned he'd be whipped with a wet noodle :p She was one of those rare, really cool nuns.

Agreed-----BUT the point is children are being raised to be equals to adults and everyone else. They submit to NO ONE. Not even their teachers or their boss. It's not a matter of following illegal orders. It's a matter of totally NO organization. When everyone is a chief there are no Indians to do the work. That is the problem. A person that is good at taking orders is eventually good at giving orders---that is the basis of military training. I'm not asking an adult or older child to blindly follow an illegal order. I am saying that between 1 and 6 a child has no basis other than animal "grab and growl" greed (grab what you can and growl loud enough to keep the others from it) to make a decision or understand an explaination. Children are natural bullys. It's a dawinian survival of the fittest time. It is up to those in authority to civilize the child. When that is not done as it isn't so often today, the person stays in the greed, survival, bully, animal mode. They simply never get to the civil expectations level. They look for openings to defy anyone and everyone. They see themselves as the ONLY authority. They can decide if they want to do a paper or go to work today. They can decide if they want to take drugs or have sex. They can decide which laws to follow and which not to. After all there is no authority anywhere in society or civilization.

That is the problem with raising a child without dicipline.

You need to read Maddox's thoughts on beating children on The Best Page in the Universe. You'd agree with him, methinks.

I have been thinking of starting a thred on it, but don't know how to approach it without making it an "ask a" thred, because I know it creeps some people out that I am a submissive wife, esp. since it doesn't compute for them that I could be who I am and still submit.

I have had some luck explaining it to some people as an "alternative lifestyle" since it's against their own morals to question that LOL
It doesn't creep me out, but it confuses me. Of course, its your marriage, your decision. But I would like to understand it better, especially since thats one passage of the Bible that I've always had difficulty resolving between my Catholic upbringing and feminist upbringing. But it probably is a topic for a whole other thread.

It doesn't creep me out, but it confuses me. Of course, its your marriage, your decision. But I would like to understand it better, especially since thats one passage of the Bible that I've always had difficulty resolving between my Catholic upbringing and feminist upbringing. But it probably is a topic for a whole other thread.
I will probably start one tomorrow, tonight is date night so I won't have time to tend to it, and I hate to start a thred and leave it unattended.

I will probably start one tomorrow, tonight is date night so I won't have time to tend to it, and I hate to start a thred and leave it unattended.
Of course. Enjoy your date! And thanks, Smunkee.

I have been thinking of starting a thred on it, but don't know how to approach it without making it an "ask a" thred, because I know it creeps some people out that I am a submissive wife, esp. since it doesn't compute for them that I could be who I am and still submit.

I have had some luck explaining it to some people as an "alternative lifestyle" since it's against their own morals to question that LOL
I don't know why people find it so creepy. I think it's just how you live. Nothing creepy about that. In fact, I think it's kind of cute in a silly way. No offence. Submission is something I'd take as a game of give and take. It's important to realize that the other has desires and needs as well.

I don't know why people find it so creepy.

It probably has to do with the fact that they cannot imagine submission without force, unless their will was completely shattered. Completely shattered wills are creepy, as is forceful domination.

But sure, compare yourself to the BDSM lifestylers and the most liberal folks will bless it and most of the rest will be scared away from asking any more questions. :-)

I don't know why people find it so creepy. I think it's just how you live. Nothing creepy about that. In fact, I think it's kind of cute in a silly way. No offence. Submission is something I'd take as a game of give and take. It's important to realize that the other has desires and needs as well.
it's funny how people assume that he doesn't take my desires and needs into account when making decisions.

It probably has to do with the fact that they cannot imagine submission without force, unless their will was completely shattered. Completely shattered wills are creepy, as is forceful domination.

But sure, compare yourself to the BDSM lifestylers and the most liberal folks will bless it and most of the rest will be scared away from asking any more questions. :-)
I suppose. *grumblepatheticnarro-mindedfoolsgrumble*:p

it's funny how people assume that he doesn't take my desires and needs into account when making decisions.
I know. That's what I find so cute about it. I know you wouldn't submit to him unless you had full faith in his capacities.

It probably has to do with the fact that they cannot imagine submission without force, unless their will was completely shattered. Completely shattered wills are creepy, as is forceful domination.

But sure, compare yourself to the BDSM lifestylers and the most liberal folks will bless it and most of the rest will be scared away from asking any more questions. :-)
I think people tend to be more comfortable with BDSM than with more generalized "submission" because BDSM is understood to be a sexual matter. There are plenty of people who enjoy being submissive in the bedroom, but who are dominant in the rest of their relationship. People who understand the BDSM "lifestyle" may still be squigged out by the idea of a woman saying, "I submit to my husband by virtue of him being male and me being female, because God told us that men are supposed to be in charge of women."

I think people tend to be more comfortable with BDSM than with more generalized "submission" because BDSM is understood to be a sexual matter. There are plenty of people who enjoy being submissive in the bedroom, but who are dominant in the rest of their relationship. People who understand the BDSM "lifestyle" may still be squigged out by the idea of a woman saying, "I submit to my husband by virtue of him being male and me being female, because God told us that men are supposed to be in charge of women."
I might find the notions silly, but it doesn't really bother me. It's an issue of tolerance, then. People don't understand that "It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a notion without accepting it."(Aristotle)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=493894

the thred is started......

sorry Smunkee.. but your children would understand the lecture of a College Level Physics Proffessor. most adults arn't at that comprehension level of your children :D

Hey, when I was a little shmuck, I was reading books like 'Exploring the Titanic' and 'Exploring the Lusitania' and I STILL got spankings; personally, I think I needed them too. Y'see, it doesn't matter if your kids are geniuses or dimwits; they're all little hellraisers. For me, I UNDERSTOOD what I did was wrong; I just didn't give a shit.

For those religious people:

Prov 13:24

He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.

For those religious people:

Prov 13:24

He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.
the rod is a shepards tool, it's not used to beat the sheep, it's used to guide them.

besides I have pointed out like a million times, discipline and punishment are two different things.

Hey, when I was a little shmuck, I was reading books like 'Exploring the Titanic' and 'Exploring the Lusitania' and I STILL got spankings; personally, I think I needed them too. Y'see, it doesn't matter if your kids are geniuses or dimwits; they're all little hellraisers. For me, I UNDERSTOOD what I did was wrong; I just didn't give a shit.
Wrong. I was never a hellraiser. I usually didn't get in trouble. Too busy reading. It's hard to get in trouble when you don't do much else.

I might find the notions silly, but it doesn't really bother me. It's an issue of tolerance, then. People don't understand that "It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a notion without accepting it."(Aristotle)
I'd go so far as to say that such notions (all females are meant to submit to males) do bother me. In fact, they bother me a lot, just as I am very bothered by people who say that all black people are meant to submit to white people.

However, I believe that my bothered-ness is totally beside the point when it comes to a consentual relationship between two other adults. If a black man feels that he should submit to his white wife because black people are meant to submit to whites, then that's between him and her (so long as nobody's trying to force anybody else to live that way). If a woman wants to submit to her man because men are supposed to be masters of the household, then that's between the two of them. Yes, I am personally bothered by it, but no, I don't think there is any particular reason why they should care what I think.

I'd go so far as to say that such notions (all females are meant to submit to males) do bother me. In fact, they bother me a lot, just as I am very bothered by people who say that all black people are meant to submit to white people.

However, I believe that my bothered-ness is totally beside the point when it comes to a consentual relationship between two other adults. If a black man feels that he should submit to his white wife because black people are meant to submit to whites, then that's between him and her (so long as nobody's trying to force anybody else to live that way). If a woman wants to submit to her man because men are supposed to be masters of the household, then that's between the two of them. Yes, I am personally bothered by it, but no, I don't think there is any particular reason why they should care what I think.
Of course the idea of forced submission bothers me, but if they submit willingly, I can only hope they really have good cause to do so. It doesn't concern me then. And some submission is natural, I think. But complete submission is another matter altogether. Everyone has needs and desires that much occasionally take precedence over a significant other.

Of course the idea of forced submission bothers me, but if they submit willingly, I can only hope they really have good cause to do so. It doesn't concern me then. And some submission is natural, I think. But complete submission is another matter altogether. Everyone has needs and desires that much occasionally take precedence over a significant other.
For me it's not as much about the submission itself, as it is about the reasoning behind it.

I have a big problem with the assertion that maleness or femaleness is the criterion that should be used to decide who submits to whom. Just like I have a problem with the idea that skin color should determine who is in authority over whom.

I don't see anything inherently wrong with a black person who is submitting to a white person's authority. Maybe the black person is a student, and the white person is her mentor, and the black person is respecting her mentor's greater experience. Similarly, there are plenty of cases in which it is reasonable for a woman to submit to a man's authority. Maybe he's her boss, and she is aware that it is for him to decide whether or not they buy the more expensive kind of toner.

However, I don't think it is ever reasonable to say that a black person should submit to a white person BECAUSE the white person is white. I also think it is deeply fucked up for a woman to say that she should submit to her husband because he's the man and she's the woman. Maleness, like white skin, does not have the least thing to do with how worthy a person is to be an authority. I have a problem with anybody who uses such reckless criterion for deciding who they respect and when they will submit.

For me it's not as much about the submission itself, as it is about the reasoning behind it.

I have a big problem with the assertion that maleness or femaleness is the criterion that should be used to decide who submits to whom. Just like I have a problem with the idea that skin color should determine who is in authority over whom.

I don't see anything inherently wrong with a black person who is submitting to a white person's authority. Maybe the black person is a student, and the white person is her mentor, and the black person is respecting her mentor's greater experience. Similarly, there are plenty of cases in which it is reasonable for a woman to submit to a man's authority. Maybe he's her boss, and she is aware that it is for him to decide whether or not they buy the more expensive kind of toner.

However, I don't think it is ever reasonable to say that a black person should submit to a white person BECAUSE the white person is white. I also think it is deeply fucked up for a woman to say that she should submit to her husband because he's the man and she's the woman. Maleness, like white skin, does not have the least thing to do with how worthy a person is to be an authority. I have a problem with anybody who uses such reckless criterion for deciding who they respect and when they will submit.
I find that troublesome as well, but I was speaking rather specifically of Smunkee. I don't believe she adequately expressed that she submits because she has found cause to trust his judgement. Or maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part.*shrugs*

I find that troublesome as well, but I was speaking rather specifically of Smunkee. I don't believe she adequately expressed that she submits because she has found cause to trust his judgement. Or maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part.*shrugs*
Honestly, I think it is wishful thinking, given the religious passages she cited. It is clear that neither she nor her husband gave equal consideration to the possibility that she should be the head of their household, and it is also clear that the reason is because she is female and her husband is male. Gender alone is what was used to decide who would be in charge in their home. I find that very bothersome, even though I (obviously) respect their absolute right to make that choice for themselves.

Honestly, I think it is wishful thinking, given the religious passages she cited. It is clear that neither she nor her husband gave equal consideration to the possibility that she should be the head of their household, and it is also clear that the reason is because she is female and her husband is male. Gender alone is what was used to decide who would be in charge in their home. I find that very bothersome, even though I (obviously) respect their absolute right to make that choice for themselves.
Then leave me to my delusions. Reality is too depressing. Have any port? Let's get started early. This could take awhile. *sigh*

I have a big problem with the assertion that maleness or femaleness is the criterion that should be used to decide who submits to whom. Just like I have a problem with the idea that skin color should determine who is in authority over whom.

Sure, maleness and paleness are arbitrary. So is a coin flip. Is it unfair to determines who plays first in a game by flipping a coin?

However, I don't think it is ever reasonable to say that a black person should submit to a white person BECAUSE the white person is white. I also think it is deeply fucked up for a woman to say that she should submit to her husband because he's the man and she's the woman.

Examine your articles carefully. Certain A black person should not need to submit to A white person. The pronoun "a/an" refers to an arbitrary example of the class. If the woman should submit to an arbitrary man, Smunkeeville could as easily find herself submitting to Saddam Hussein as her husband. This would be an abomination; I strongly suspect that Smunkeeville and Mr. Hussein have different values.

For a woman to submit to her husband because he is THE man and she is THE woman is altogether different. The pronoun "the/this/that" refers to a specific example of a class. Smunkeeville's husband is THE -specific- man to whom she should submit because he is her husband and their conception of a good marriage involves a woman submitting to her husband.

Husbands are not generally picked out of hats; women tend to be rather involved in the selection process. Before choosing to bind oneself to a man, a woman who expects to submit to her husband has the responsibility to make sure that she picks a man who is competent to lead.

Smunkeeville, am I right in guessing that this 'submit to your husband' thing only exists after the marriage ceremony? I.e. during the audition process (dating) there was no expectation that you would submit to a man (boyfriend)?

Then leave me to my delusions. Reality is too depressing. Have any port? Let's get started early. This could take awhile. *sigh*
*pours out a snifter*

Have a slug, good buddy, and let us drown our many woes.

Goddam kids today. Grumble grumble.

Examine your articles carefully. Certain A black person should not need to submit to A white person. The pronoun "a/an" refers to an arbitrary example of the class. If the woman should submit to an arbitrary man, Smunkeeville could as easily find herself submitting to Saddam Hussein as her husband. This would be an abomination; I strongly suspect that Smunkeeville and Mr. Hussein have different values.

For a woman to submit to her husband because he is THE man and she is THE woman is altogether different. The pronoun "the/this/that" refers to a specific example of a class. Smunkeeville's husband is THE -specific- man to whom she should submit because he is her husband and their conception of a good marriage involves a woman submitting to her husband.

I am aware of that. But, again, she is submitting to him (and not vice versa) because he is the male in their relationship and she is the female. The single reason why the opposite situation is not considered is BECAUSE he is the male spouse and she is the female spouse.

If Smunkee described how she and her husband considered both alternatives equally, and they decided that her husband was better qualified or better suited to "headship" over the household, I would probably feel very differently about it. However, they didn't. They decided who would have the "headship" based on a quality that has absolutely no bearing on an individual's ability to lead.


Husbands are not generally picked out of hats; women tend to be rather involved in the selection process. Before choosing to bind oneself to a man, a woman who expects to submit to her husband has the responsibility to make sure that she picks a man who is competent to lead.

But she has already assumed that she will be submitting to her partner BECAUSE HE IS MALE AND SHE IS FEMALE. She has already concluded that, because she is female, she is not going to be qualified to lead in any relationship that she has. That is what I have a problem with.

If Smunkee said, "I am a submissive person by nature. I don't think I want to be a leader in any relationship I get into," then that would be about HER as an individual. I'd still have some worries about that, but at least she would be basing her evaluation on something that is remotely relevant. Saying, "I'm going to be the helpmeat in any relationship because I was born female," is totally goofball (to me).

Sure, maleness and paleness are arbitrary. So is a coin flip. Is it unfair to determines who plays first in a game by flipping a coin?



Examine your articles carefully. Certain A black person should not need to submit to A white person. The pronoun "a/an" refers to an arbitrary example of the class. If the woman should submit to an arbitrary man, Smunkeeville could as easily find herself submitting to Saddam Hussein as her husband. This would be an abomination; I strongly suspect that Smunkeeville and Mr. Hussein have different values.

For a woman to submit to her husband because he is THE man and she is THE woman is altogether different. The pronoun "the/this/that" refers to a specific example of a class. Smunkeeville's husband is THE -specific- man to whom she should submit because he is her husband and their conception of a good marriage involves a woman submitting to her husband.

Husbands are not generally picked out of hats; women tend to be rather involved in the selection process. Before choosing to bind oneself to a man, a woman who expects to submit to her husband has the responsibility to make sure that she picks a man who is competent to lead.

Smunkeeville, am I right in guessing that this 'submit to your husband' thing only exists after the marriage ceremony? I.e. during the audition process (dating) there was no expectation that you would submit to a man (boyfriend)?

you are 100% correct.

*pours out a snifter*

Have a slug, good buddy, and let us drown our many woes.

Goddam kids today. Grumble grumble.
Thanks. *tosses head back and swallows it in one gulp*

I am aware of that. But, again, she is submitting to him (and not vice versa) because he is the male in their relationship and she is the female. The single reason why the opposite situation is not considered is BECAUSE he is the male spouse and she is the female spouse.

If Smunkee described how she and her husband considered both alternatives equally, and they decided that her husband was better qualified or better suited to "headship" over the household, I would probably feel very differently about it. However, they didn't. They decided who would have the "headship" based on a quality that has absolutely no bearing on an individual's ability to lead.


But she has already assumed that she will be submitting to her partner BECAUSE HE IS MALE AND SHE IS FEMALE. She has already concluded that, because she is female, she is not going to be qualified to lead in any relationship that she has. That is what I have a problem with.

If Smunkee said, "I am a submissive person by nature. I don't think I want to be a leader in any relationship I get into," then that would be about HER as an individual. I'd still have some worries about that, but at least she would be basing her evaluation on something that is remotely relevant. Saying, "I'm going to be the helpmeat in any relationship because I was born female," is totally goofball (to me).
*coughreligiouscontextcough*
I think you may have forgotten something....

If Smunkee said, "I am a submissive person by nature. I don't think I want to be a leader in any relationship I get into," then that would be about HER as an individual. I'd still have some worries about that, but at least she would be basing her evaluation on something that is remotely relevant. Saying, "I'm going to be the helpmeat in any relationship because I was born female," is totally goofball (to me).
But saying, "I am a dominant person by nature, and I believe this to be a moral failing. In order to serve my god, I will submit to that god and his representatives, including the man I chose for my husband," is not okay?

This topic is about discipline. This seems a valid form of self-discipline to me.

But saying, "I am a dominant person by nature, and I believe this to be a moral failing. In order to serve my god, I will submit to that god and his representatives, including the man I chose for my husband," is not okay?

This topic is about discipline. This seems a valid form of self-discipline to me.
I think it's a betrayal of one's nature. I don't think anyone should be anything but who they are. I can't imagine any benevolent god wanting anything else, and a malevolent one isn't worth submission anyway. But then things like love can alter one's nature.

I think it's a betrayal of one's nature. I don't think anyone should be anything but who they are. I can't imagine any benevolent god wanting anything else, and a malevolent one isn't worth submission anyway. But then things like love can alter one's nature.
human nature is to be self centered, jealous, ect. surely these are not qualities you aspire to.

human nature is to be self centered, jealous, ect. surely these are not qualities you aspire to.
I didn't say human nature. Personal nature and human nature aren't the same thing. I've attained jealousy and loathing. I'd rather not again. Don't much like the feel of them.

I didn't say human nature. Personal nature and human nature aren't the same thing. I've attained jealousy and loathing. I'd rather not again. Don't much like the feel of them.
what is the difference between human nature and personal nature? if I see a flaw in my nature is it not my responsiblity to remedy it?

what is the difference between human nature and personal nature? if I see a flaw in my nature is it not my responsiblity to remedy it?
The difference is that human nature is the same set of qualities in people, though nurturing alters how much they surface. Personal nature is the set of qualities of an individual, not applicable to any other in the same respects.

Flaws are part of who you are. They cannot be truly remedied. But accepting you have them is being who you are.

Habits, ways of thinking, behaviour you've got used to.... you can break them, or at least fight against them, and if they're damaging, then I believe you should.

You can still accept yourself as a person who is worthy and valuable, and like yourself, and be happy to be who you are, while still working to bring out the best in yourself, and fight against the worst.

Flaws are part of who you are. They cannot be truly remedied. But accepting you have them is being who you are.

So if getting angry and pushing down your baby brother when he takes one of your blocks is something you do frequently -- part of who you are -- that nature cannot be remedied and your parents should accept it rather than trying to guide you towards more acceptable, pro-social behaviour?

I don't think so. I think that you might still have a tendency to -feel- angry when your baby brother takes your blocks, but that you have the option to respond in different ways. You could attempt to engage the baby in your play; you could appeal to higher authority; you could wait until he gets bored and THEN reclaim the block; you could go pummel a hapless pillow; you could listen to angry music and do an angry dance. . .

The fact that there is no snap-of-the-fingers remedy is why one must put ongoing effort into submitting to societal expectations. A flaw is something around which one works, if one cannot overcome it. Saying, "I tend to be too dominant, and will work on being submissive to this, that, and the other source of authority," seems to me as reasonable as saying, "I tend to anger easily, so I will redirect that angry energy into a safe outlet."

Habits, ways of thinking, behaviour you've got used to.... you can break them, or at least fight against them, and if they're damaging, then I believe you should.

You can still accept yourself as a person who is worthy and valuable, and like yourself, and be happy to be who you are, while still working to bring out the best in yourself, and fight against the worst.
Whether they're broken/fought or not, they're irrevocably a part of the fabric of the person.

So if getting angry and pushing down your baby brother when he takes one of your blocks is something you do frequently -- part of who you are -- that nature cannot be remedied and your parents should accept it rather than trying to guide you towards more acceptable, pro-social behaviour?

I don't think so. I think that you might still have a tendency to -feel- angry when your baby brother takes your blocks, but that you have the option to respond in different ways. You could attempt to engage the baby in your play; you could appeal to higher authority; you could wait until he gets bored and THEN reclaim the block; you could go pummel a hapless pillow; you could listen to angry music and do an angry dance. . .

The fact that there is no snap-of-the-fingers remedy is why one must put ongoing effort into submitting to societal expectations. A flaw is something around which one works, if one cannot overcome it. Saying, "I tend to be too dominant, and will work on being submissive to this, that, and the other source of authority," seems to me as reasonable as saying, "I tend to anger easily, so I will redirect that angry energy into a safe outlet."
I'm not saying it's beyond all help, just that it won't ever completely go away, and that that should be accepted. And submitting to someone simply for the sake of reducing dominance is foolish at best. It's really more like saying, "I have three layers of skin, so I think I'll remove one."

I'm not saying it's beyond all help, just that it won't ever completely go away, and that that should be accepted. And submitting to someone simply for the sake of reducing dominance is foolish at best. It's really more like saying, "I have three layers of skin, so I think I'll remove one."

Well, I suppose it'd be a little difficult, but if you really wanted to remove the epidermis....