NationStates Jolt Archive

If we turn the tables and take the example of time outs and reduction of benefits for the child, to the extreme example that the anti-spanking crowd pretends that spanking is, then when discussing the time out methodology would be talking about those parents that keep their kids locked in a dog kennel or boarded up room and feed them scraps through the holes in the box/wall until they 'learn their lesson' apparently, and are essentially prisoners in their own parents home, uneducated and abandoned... I would suggest that this too would be a bad lesson to teach our society and children. Time outs and deprivation of material goods can be abused, it is ineffective and wrong....

That is one of the most ridiculous ways to justify violence on a child taht I've ever heard of. And we're not "the anti-spanking crowd", we're simply people who actually care about the welfare of children - the fact you have decided to start giving us labels to try to annoy us just shows how childish you are.

If we turn the tables and take the example of time outs and reduction of benefits for the child, to the extreme example that the anti-spanking crowd pretends that spanking is, then when discussing the time out methodology would be talking about those parents that keep their kids locked in a dog kennel or boarded up room and feed them scraps through the holes in the box/wall until they 'learn their lesson' apparently, and are essentially prisoners in their own parents home, uneducated and abandoned... I would suggest that this too would be a bad lesson to teach our society and children. Time outs and deprivation of material goods can be abused, it is ineffective and wrong....

geez the question isnt "which form of punishment is most abusive if you do it the worst way possible?"

its "what is the best way to guide your child into becoming a good adult?"

since its not necessary to EVER strike your child and the alternative to striking your child is not emotional abuse, why would anyone choose it as a part of their parenting?

i really dont understand why anyone would choose to hurt a child when its not necessary.

That is one of the most ridiculous ways to justify violence on a child taht I've ever heard of. And we're not "the anti-spanking crowd", we're simply people who actually care about the welfare of children - the fact you have decided to start giving us labels to try to annoy us just shows how childish you are.

Deprivation of freedom of movement is violence, It's physically enforced involuntary incarceration. It’s violent.

You choose to make an impression on the child’s mind via imprisonment and the loss of liberties, I don’t actually have a problem with that. You control your child with your discipline methodology that takes 5 minutes, 5 hours, and 5 days (as the child grows progressively older), I’ll argue that a different parent that can relay the same message to their child’s mind that you are trying to relay over long incarceration periods (the message being, I messed up bad and Mom and Dad are really pissed) in less than ten seconds is a better and quicker method of learning the message so that the family can move on to the next day and events with a clear conscience.

If there is one thing I have learnt from dealing with kids its that no two are alike. Its why class size is so important to a childs learning potential. All kids learn differently and if a teacher can spend more time with each individual student then they are able to provide more tailored learning experiences for each child.

Discipline is no different. Each child responds differently to each form of discipline. There is no right or wrong way.. just a best way for that particular child. I dislike the idea that because a loving caring parent has found a method to discipline their child that works best for their particular child (and them) that anyone else would come in and tell them that they are treating them poorly.

Advice is always helpful, there is no manual attached with each child. Suggesting additional methods of discipline is great. Many parents only use a particular method because they haven't thought of any others.

I am guessing that is why a show like supernanny is so effective (though I have to admit I don't watch TV so I haven't really got much to go on here).

I think that something like a slap, if used in a controlled manner, at appropriate times, with appropriate force can be a valid method of discipline for some children. It may even be the preferred method.

As for teaching the child that violence solves all problems. I really think that is a stretch. Children are much smarter than most people give them credit for. Yes you might initially run that risk.. but it doesn't take long for a child to work out the subtlties. I know people who were spanked that would never ever ever use violence to solve a problem... not even to spank their own kids. So what lesson did they learn?

The most important thing to do is spend time with children. Not just being around them but actually spending the time WITH them. If you take the time to get to know your child then you are more likely to have some idea what works best for them. If you have taken that time and found that they respond best to a spank then I just don't see how that can be the wrong thing to do??

I feel it's ineffective and wrong. I also feel it's a method that gets abused a lot of the time and the results of that abuse are bad for the child.

Whilst I feel that it is very evective and quite right and natural. Smacking of children is not amethoed that can be abused either. The people that beat their kids up would do so with or without smacking.

That's funny, since I remember several episodes where Jo Frost (aka Supernanny) discourages being physically forceful with the child. Methinks you are lying.

Peepelonia, even IF smacking didn't cause long-term damage to the child, it causes long-term damage to society by suggesting that violence is the correct or best way to solve problems.


Violence and the human species goes way back int time to when we first evolved. by outlawing smacking we will not get rid of violence.

Wishy washy we must stop the violence thinking does more harm than good. We well never be rid of it. Where ever two people disagree their is capactiy for violence, it is inhernet to humanty, and it will never go away.

in this respect I say it is better to teach your kids to be better at it then others who may want to use it against them.

That is one of the most ridiculous ways to justify violence on a child taht I've ever heard of. And we're not "the anti-spanking crowd", we're simply people who actually care about the welfare of children - the fact you have decided to start giving us labels to try to annoy us just shows how childish you are.

Heh and it's when you use such langaue as '..justify violence on a child' that makes us call you the anti smacking crowd.

Smacking a child for being naughty, is in the old fasioned way a short sharp shock, it does not do the child mental or phyiscal harm and is very effective as a punishment, and a way to teach your children bounderies.

In fact I no longer have to smack my kids, they fully know their bounderies, and what they can and can't do. In fact I have not had to use smacking sine they where about 6-7.

If we turn the tables and take the example of time outs and reduction of benefits for the child, to the extreme example that the anti-spanking crowd pretends that spanking is, then when discussing the time out methodology would be talking about those parents that keep their kids locked in a dog kennel or boarded up room and feed them scraps through the holes in the box/wall until they 'learn their lesson' apparently, and are essentially prisoners in their own parents home, uneducated and abandoned... I would suggest that this too would be a bad lesson to teach our society and children. Time outs and deprivation of material goods can be abused, it is ineffective and wrong....
I actually don't use a punishment system at all, so it's not really an issue with me. Time out does get abused, that's true, but smacking a child is never needed, you may need to seperate a child from the group until they are calm, but you never need to hit them.



Whilst I feel that it is very evective and quite right and natural. Smacking of children is not amethoed that can be abused either. The people that beat their kids up would do so with or without smacking.
I still haven't heard a coherent reason to smack a child. I hear things people think are good reasons but when you really look at them none of them are reasons, they are all excuses.




Violence and the human species goes way back int time to when we first evolved. by outlawing smacking we will not get rid of violence.

Wishy washy we must stop the violence thinking does more harm than good. We well never be rid of it. Where ever two people disagree their is capactiy for violence, it is inhernet to humanty, and it will never go away.

in this respect I say it is better to teach your kids to be better at it then others who may want to use it against them.

wow. violence is natural so we should teach our kids "how to do it", I thought you guys said that smacking a kid wasn't about violence, and that it doesn't teach them lessons about being violent? isn't that one of the main defenses for smacking a child?

oh, wait, though if violence is natural and we should all learn because it's what humanity is about, I am sure it would be fine if my neighbor killed his wife for not having dinner on the table? he is just being human. what about if my husband came home and punched me in the face? that would teach my children about violence, about how my husband is just human, I mean women have been abused from the begining of time, it's natural, it's normal, and we should make sure husbands keep doing it.....do you see the women around who don't get hit? they aren't afraid of men, they think for themselves, they even *gasp* have opinions and work outside the home. :eek:

That's funny, since I remember several episodes where Jo Frost (aka Supernanny) discourages being physically forceful with the child. Methinks you are lying.

I have only seen two episodes. In both of these the child refused to stay on the naughty spot. In both of these the mother (in front of the supernanny and with no words about restraint or gentleness) used increasing force to control the child, eventually picking the child up by one arm and carrying/dragging them across the floor and dumping them on the naughty spot. The first clip I thought "how is that less force than a smack", then they repeated this about 10 times on screen with the voiceover saying that after 50something and 98 times respectively the child stayed on the naughty spot. In both times the child only stayed there once they had been completely and utterley physically dominated for up to an hour and were totally mentally broken, sitting on the naughty square/in the bed curled up, withdrawn and sobbing into their hands.

Single slap in the face if the parents are REALLY pissed. That always threw me off... (the 2 times it happened)

It's okay but only very seldom... else it'll become a "normal" punishment and the really harsh punishment will shift to something more severe

It seems to me that what we are really talking about is disciplining children. What we need to always remember is that we find the word disciple in the word discipline. Disciple is a follower of Christ. I wonder what Christ would have to say about hitting children in the name of discipline?

Also, I am unsure as to what violence teaches children. (Well...actually I think I have a pretty good idea.)

Hitting kids is a little like suspending them from school when they are truant...when the only tool you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.

I actually don't use a punishment system at all, so it's not really an issue with me. Time out does get abused, that's true, but smacking a child is never needed, you may need to seperate a child from the group until they are calm, but you never need to hit them.

What do you mean you don't use a punishment system at all, but then say time outs do get used? Isn't the time out system a punishment system? Or do you mean you don't have a predetermined punishment for different types of offenses?

oh, wait, though if violence is natural and we should all learn because it's what humanity is about, I am sure it would be fine if my neighbor killed his wife for not having dinner on the table? he is just being human. what about if my husband came home and punched me in the face? that would teach my children about violence, about how my husband is just human, I mean women have been abused from the begining of time, it's natural, it's normal, and we should make sure husbands keep doing it.....do you see the women around who don't get hit? they aren't afraid of men, they think for themselves, they even *gasp* have opinions and work outside the home. :eek:

Cute. But in the same vein then, do we allow our neighbors to come over and incarcerat our spouses or children against their will for a 'time out' for some infraction or percieved misbehavior? No we do not. And neither do we teach our kids to attempt to incarcerate each other because we give them time outs.

IF we don't teach them to imprison others when we utilize the time out system on them (which maybe you think we do, but I don’t, I don’t see children growing up trying to give strangers, neighbors and society at large, forced time outs), then how do you make the argument that they learn violence against others because we utilize the corporal punishment system on them? If children learn one to use at large, then they must learn both to use at large, if your premise holds true. I argue that it does not hold true. Children can differentiate between self identification, family identification and social identification and they know that there are different expectations for different situations.

As to your commentary about it being like allowing spousal abuse again, that looks like sour grapes to me. Associating a regulated and moderated systematic corporal punishment system for children against violent criminals out of control and enraged and beating their spouses, is like comparing a corner time out session to ten year sentence of hard labor in a Turkish prison. Not at all the same thing and the comparison is silly.

I'm all for corperal punishment (and capital for some kids ;) )

As a young child I had a regualy slapped bottom and I has done me no harm at all.

My families punishments started with a slapped bottom at a young age and then as the we got older the meare thought of a slap was enough for us to do as we were told, the last time I was physical punished was when I was 15 I had just thrown a full supersoaker cartage (from the reloadable ones) at my brothers head from 10 meters away, I deserved it (it was a good shot mind you :D ). Now a days the silence, or the disappointmet gulit trip is enough and I'm 19!

no. shows that it is easier to use violence, other explain why what you did was wrong.

My parents spanked me, but it was so rare that I always more shocked about actually getting spanked than hurt. Basically, it was the option reserved for when I really crossed the line, but only when I had gone past the line. For lesser offenses, I lost privileges like books, games, time with the dog, or my favorite food and desert.

I'll try to emulate that style of discipline if I ever have kids. Hitting my kids as a matter of course would make physical punishment too routine to be effective, not to mention make them either too afraid of me or teach them the wrong things about how to prove a point. Besides, I'm too wimpy to make constant physical punishment anything scary; it needs to shock the kids to get the point across.

no. shows that it is easier to use violence, other explain why what you did was wrong.

That's a false dichotomy. It's not an "either this or that," question. A parent can use corporal punishment AND explanations of what the child did wrong.

A parent does not lose the ability to talk to their child simply because they utilized a spanking. Talking to the child extensively before, and/or after, the spanking, is not someone banned because the parent uses a spanking punishment. Neither time outs nor corporal punishment methods is exclusive of the other for talking and explaining things to a child.

Some kids are so out of control a little pain is all that's gonna get through to them. I certainly don't agree with that "Very serious" category, but I do believe in certain situations spanking is allowed. It should never be a first resort and should only be saved until after other lesser punishments have failed though.

wow. violence is natural so we should teach our kids "how to do it", I thought you guys said that smacking a kid wasn't about violence, and that it doesn't teach them lessons about being violent? isn't that one of the main defenses for smacking a child?

oh, wait, though if violence is natural and we should all learn because it's what humanity is about, I am sure it would be fine if my neighbor killed his wife for not having dinner on the table? he is just being human. what about if my husband came home and punched me in the face? that would teach my children about violence, about how my husband is just human, I mean women have been abused from the begining of time, it's natural, it's normal, and we should make sure husbands keep doing it.....do you see the women around who don't get hit? they aren't afraid of men, they think for themselves, they even *gasp* have opinions and work outside the home. :eek:

Naaaa thats not what I said and you know it isn't.

Do you really think that the children of people who have never smacked them will grow up never to do violence?

That's a false dichotomy. It's not an "either this or that," question. A parent can use corporal punishment AND explanations of what the child did wrong.

A parent does not lose the ability to talk to their child simply because they utilized a spanking. Talking to the child extensively before, and/or after, the spanking, is not someone banned because the parent uses a spanking punishment. Neither time outs nor corporal punishment methods is exclusive of the other for talking and explaining things to a child.

In fact this is the only way to use spanking. Warn, tell them the punishment, then when they transgrese give them the promised punishment, make sure that they understand why they are getting it, both before and after. Works a bloody treat.

There are two kinds of child abuse. The first is hitting your child too hard. The second is not hitting your child hard enough (or at all). One is called abuse the other is called neglect. I think using a open hand on the butt is the perfect approach.

Whilst I feel that it is very evective and quite right and natural. Smacking of children is not amethoed that can be abused either. The people that beat their kids up would do so with or without smacking.

Just so you know, personal experience leads me to believe that that's not entirely true. My parents were abusive, and a great many of their attacks on me started out as slaps or spanks. When being hit did not magically make me repent of all my actions and do exactly what they wanted, they'd hit again, harder. And again, and again, and again. Had they never considered slapping me in the first place, it is not illogical to believe that they wouldn't have been nearly so quick to resort to trying to really hurt me. That's not to say that they would never have been abusive, but I strongly suspect that at least the physical abuse wouldn't have been nearly so frequent or severe.

What do you mean you don't use a punishment system at all, but then say time outs do get used? Isn't the time out system a punishment system? Or do you mean you don't have a predetermined punishment for different types of offenses?
my kids hardly misbehave, when they do they just don't earn the things they want. I use time out but it's not a punishment, I use it to calm them down so I can talk to them, if a kid is screaming and throwing a fit I seperate them from the group until they are calm enough to listen.



Cute. But in the same vein then, do we allow our neighbors to come over and incarcerat our spouses or children against their will for a 'time out' for some infraction or percieved misbehavior? No we do not. And neither do we teach our kids to attempt to incarcerate each other because we give them time outs.
I was told that violence was normal and happened since the dawn of humanity and so it's good to smack your kids to prepare them for it, so I would assume that the person who told me that would agree that since violence is normal and acceptable that it should always be.

IF we don't teach them to imprison others when we utilize the time out system on them (which maybe you think we do, but I don’t, I don’t see children growing up trying to give strangers, neighbors and society at large, forced time outs), then how do you make the argument that they learn violence against others because we utilize the corporal punishment system on them? If children learn one to use at large, then they must learn both to use at large, if your premise holds true. I argue that it does not hold true. Children can differentiate between self identification, family identification and social identification and they know that there are different expectations for different situations.
I don't use time out as a punishment, I am not teaching them anything by it than to learn to control themselves, I don't talk to a screaming kid, I won't be yelled at, they need to learn to control their emotions before we sit down to talk, it's a good thing I think for adults to learn as well.

As to your commentary about it being like allowing spousal abuse again, that looks like sour grapes to me. Associating a regulated and moderated systematic corporal punishment system for children against violent criminals out of control and enraged and beating their spouses, is like comparing a corner time out session to ten year sentence of hard labor in a Turkish prison. Not at all the same thing and the comparison is silly.

again I was told that violence was normal and that we should hit our children to prepare them for life.

I was told that violence was normal and happened since the dawn of humanity and so it's good to smack your kids to prepare them for it, so I would assume that the person who told me that would agree that since violence is normal and acceptable that it should always be.
W... T... F... !?!?

someone got smacked upside the head to hard in their childhood...

Violence and the human species goes way back int time to when we first evolved. by outlawing smacking we will not get rid of violence.

Wishy washy we must stop the violence thinking does more harm than good. We well never be rid of it. Where ever two people disagree their is capactiy for violence, it is inhernet to humanty, and it will never go away.

in this respect I say it is better to teach your kids to be better at it then others who may want to use it against them.

W... T... F... !?!?

someone got smacked upside the head to hard in their childhood...

I guess it was Peepelonia...

I guess it was Peepelonia...

sad that people think that way. :(

spanking with a belt... and shaking a child are NEVER appropriate. some of those things could and should land you in jail. spanking with a belt is more recomendable than with a bare hand.. could and should land you in jail.depends on your location.

spanking with a belt is more recomendable than with a bare hand...

This is said by people that hit so hard that their hand hurts so much after wards they decided to use a belt so it doesn't hurt anymore... :rolleyes:


The "loving hand" shouldn't hit myth is just that, a myth and mirthful story invention. Its the same parent doing the spanking in either case, the parent is the parent, belt or hand and the child knows it. On the hand side, it is the gauge for testing how hard to hit. If the hand hurts, you hit too hard. You can't feel through a belt and are liable to hit too hard even by honest mistake.

... again I was told that violence was normal and that we should hit our children to prepare them for life.

I read the quote you were commenting about now. I still stand by my post about yours but now I understand why you went too far in your response, it was in response to another person that went too far. I do that too sometimes, sometimes I need a fire-fighters suit afterwards so I won’t say anything further about yours in solidarity ;)

There are two kinds of child abuse. The first is hitting your child too hard. The second is not hitting your child hard enough (or at all). One is called abuse the other is called neglect. I think using a open hand on the butt is the perfect approach.

AMEN!

AMEN!


I'd prefer it if you didn't use that particular word, considering what it is and what it means, in response to violence (whatever you wanna call it, if it's violence on an adult then it's logically violence on a kid)

I was told that violence was normal and happened since the dawn of humanity and so it's good to smack your kids to prepare them for it, so I would assume that the person who told me that would agree that since violence is normal and acceptable that it should always be.

again I was told that violence was normal and that we should hit our children to prepare them for life.

Ohh you naughty girl you. I did say that violence was iherantly a part of humanity, in response to a post claiming that smacking is bad because it teaches our kids that violence solves problems. I said that smacking or not smacking has no effect on the violence of the human race .

And as an aside I suggested that it is better to teach your children how to be more violent than those that wish to do violence upon them.

At no time did I say that we should smack our kids to prepare them for life.

Just so you know, personal experience leads me to believe that that's not entirely true. My parents were abusive, and a great many of their attacks on me started out as slaps or spanks. When being hit did not magically make me repent of all my actions and do exactly what they wanted, they'd hit again, harder. And again, and again, and again. Had they never considered slapping me in the first place, it is not illogical to believe that they wouldn't have been nearly so quick to resort to trying to really hurt me. That's not to say that they would never have been abusive, but I strongly suspect that at least the physical abuse wouldn't have been nearly so frequent or severe.

Heyup,

Then I feel for you, but I stand by my statement. Abusive parents are abusive, whether they smack or not is not the point.

Ohh you naughty girl you. I did say that violence was iherantly a part of humanity, in response to a post claiming that smacking is bad because it teaches our kids that violence solves problems. I said that smacking or not smacking has no effect on the violence of the human race .

And as an aside I suggested that it is better to teach your children how to be more violent than those that wish to do violence upon them.

At no time did I say that we should smack our kids to prepare them for life.
Violence and the human species goes way back int time to when we first evolved. by outlawing smacking we will not get rid of violence.

Wishy washy we must stop the violence thinking does more harm than good. We well never be rid of it. Where ever two people disagree their is capactiy for violence, it is inhernet to humanty, and it will never go away.

in this respect I say it is better to teach your kids to be better at it then others who may want to use it against them.

oh, well, I guess you didn't then..... that's still what I am reading.

However, I would rather teach my children that violence is unacceptable, that if someone hits you they don't deserve your love or respect, and that if you are in a relationship of any kind with someone who thinks it's a good idea to use physical violence on you, that you shouldn't stick around.

I spank the ladies all the time. I hit them pretty hard too and they love it! I would not hit a child even close to as hard as I wail on the ladies. It is not violence. Just love taps although we are talking about two types of love here.

Gigitygigitygigitygoo Oh yeah!

oh, well, I guess you didn't then..... that's still what I am reading.

However, I would rather teach my children that violence is unacceptable, that if someone hits you they don't deserve your love or respect, and that if you are in a relationship of any kind with someone who thinks it's a good idea to use physical violence on you, that you shouldn't stick around.


Heh all very comendable ideas, but are you required to love your mugger, or have a relationship with the school bully.

I'm not talking abut violence between people that mean something to each other, but the very real everyday threat of violence we all face from muggers, bullies, drunken arseols, gangs of youth, etc...

Prepear your kids for the violence of the world, that is what I mean, that is what I said.

What do you teach your children on how to deal with this sort of thing?

Heh all very comendable ideas, but are you required to love your mugger, or have a relationship with the school bully.

I'm not talking abut violence between people that mean something to each other, but the very real everyday threat of violence we all face from muggers, bullies, drunken arseols, gangs of youth, etc...

Prepear your kids for the violence of the world, that is what I mean, that is what I said.

What do you teach your children on how to deal with this sort of thing?

right now I teach them to scream really loud and run, and tell me, you know since they are so young.

When they are older I would assume that I am going to put them in self defense class.

I don't really think that having someone who claims to love them physically hit them is any type of education I want my kids to have.

Ohh you naughty girl you. I did say that violence was iherantly a part of humanity, in response to a post claiming that smacking is bad because it teaches our kids that violence solves problems. I said that smacking or not smacking has no effect on the violence of the human race .

And as an aside I suggested that it is better to teach your children how to be more violent than those that wish to do violence upon them.

At no time did I say that we should smack our kids to prepare them for life.how? by carring knives and guns? by responding to threats and insults with punches and kicks? by ganging up and beating on kids that show a potential for violence?

How do you teach your child to be more violent without smacking them?

Heh all very comendable ideas, but are you required to love your mugger, or have a relationship with the school bully.

I'm not talking abut violence between people that mean something to each other, but the very real everyday threat of violence we all face from muggers, bullies, drunken arseols, gangs of youth, etc...

Prepear your kids for the violence of the world, that is what I mean, that is what I said.

What do you teach your children on how to deal with this sort of thing?
Muggers? I would teach my child to scream really loud and run away. my child will also be taught not to go to strange areas without an adult relative with them no matter what anyone says.

Bullies? they are ignored but if they become threatening, report them to the teacher/adult supervisor. they are the ones to deal out any punnishment and their responsibility is to keep order and dicipline.

Drunken assholes? if they see one, cross the street, give them as much room as you can. if it's not safe to cross the street, keep your head down and do not look at them.

gangs of youth? avoid them, most gangs would not bother kids, those that do, you scream and run and either tell the parents, other adult relatives, or the police... whomever they encounter first.

If you teach children to respond to threats or violence with more violence, you escalate things to the point where someone will get seriously hurt or worse.

I would rather teach my kids to be smart in the face of adversity and to use their brains.

Oh and when they are old enough, they will take learn martial arts.

When I was little, my parents used spanking.

Once I got to say 10 or 12, then they started grounding and taking away my priviledges.

I would take a spanking over a grounding anytime.

right now I teach them to scream really loud and run, and tell me, you know since they are so young.

When they are older I would assume that I am going to put them in self defense class.

I don't really think that having someone who claims to love them physically hit them is any type of education I want my kids to have.

As long as you do something I guess. What is this last line though. I have said it twice and I'll say it again.

I did not say hit the kids to educate them, that is not what I meant, that is not what I said.

My whole stance was one of dismising this idea that smacking kids, helps to promote violence in the human race.

It does not, we are violent, we have always been violent and it is my guess that we will always be so. Smacking children as a punishment has no bearing on the violence of humanity.

The examples could go on and on. A kid will not do anything just because it's the right thing to do.

Not true in the least, sure there are some kids but in every class there would be two or three kids that would hang back and help the teacher clean up, put up chairs and around the house, as young children they want to help "mommy" with everything and as they get into highschool there are kids that volunteer not just because they're required to but because they enjoy helping people. Children have different personalities and their responses will change accordingly.

how? by carring knives and guns? by responding to threats and insults with punches and kicks? by ganging up and beating on kids that show a potential for violence?


No by teaching them, that when you can't run, and you are in iminent danger of violence, to do it first, faster, and harder, before you get it done to you.


How do you teach your child to be more violent without smacking them?


I play fight with them, I show them grabs, and holds, and throws and trips, and strikes, and kicks, I teach them the value of hiting hard and running quick.

Muggers? I would teach my child to scream really loud and run away. my child will also be taught not to go to strange areas without an adult relative with them no matter what anyone says.

And when they reach 15, or 16, or 17?


Bullies? they are ignored but if they become threatening, report them to the teacher/adult supervisor. they are the ones to deal out any punnishment and their responsibility is to keep order and dicipline.

Hah ignore a bully, the only way to deal with being bullied, is to beat the living crap out of them. Bullies don't stop when they are told by grownups, they stop when given a taste of their own medicine.

Drunken assholes? if they see one, cross the street, give them as much room as you can. if it's not safe to cross the street, keep your head down and do not look at them.

Again, and if they can't get away?

gangs of youth? avoid them, most gangs would not bother kids, those that do, you scream and run and either tell the parents, other adult relatives, or the police... whomever they encounter first.

I'm not talking about small children I'm talking about how you teach your children to handle the violence in society. Of course a 3 year old has it's parents near to look after it. But what about your teenage age son out at the park with his mates, when the kids from the estate down the road turn up and surround them. What have you taught you kids to do when faced with this, what will you teach them?

If you teach children to respond to threats or violence with more violence, you escalate things to the point where someone will get seriously hurt or worse.

I would rather teach my kids to be smart in the face of adversity and to use their brains.

Oh and when they are old enough, they will take learn martial arts.

You really misunderstand what I'm saying, I teach my kids all of the run, use your brains, try not to get involved, but I know, I know without a shaodw of doubt that there will be times when violence is unaviodable. When this happens if your kids do not know how to be violent then they will suffer.

As long as you do something I guess. What is this last line though. I have said it twice and I'll say it again.

I did not say hit the kids to educate them, that is not what I meant, that is not what I said.

My whole stance was one of dismising this idea that smacking kids, helps to promote violence in the human race.

It does not, we are violent, we have always been violent and it is my guess that we will always be so. Smacking children as a punishment has no bearing on the violence of humanity.

you said that a good thing about smacking your kids is that you can teach them to be better at violence than others. don't act confused now.

even if not smacking my kid doesn't change the violence in the world, one thing I can control is not being the person who introduces violence into my home.

No by teaching them, that when you can't run, and you are in iminent danger of violence, to do it first, faster, and harder, before you get it done to you.
so if your child is on a bus and another child starts talking smack, you would rather have your child start puching and swinging and not ignoring it, or calling the teacher/chaperone?

that's responding to threats with punches and kicks...


I play fight with them, I show them grabs, and holds, and throws and trips, and strikes, and kicks, I teach them the value of hiting hard and running quick.and do you teach them to hit you has hard as they can?

and do they hit others while playing since it's obvious that it's ok to punch, kick, trip and throw people around.


And when they reach 15, or 16, or 17?then they are not children, they're teens and they should be making choices of their own.

and are you telling me you spank your 15+ teen?


Hah ignore a bully, the only way to deal with being bullied, is to beat the living crap out of them. Bullies don't stop when they are told by grownups, they stop when given a taste of their own medicine.how? by carring knives and guns? by responding to threats and insults with punches and kicks? by ganging up and beating on kids that show a potential for violence?No by teaching them, that when you can't run, and you are in iminent danger of violence, to do it first, faster, and harder, before you get it done to you.you're still contridicting yourself.



Again, and if they can't get away?
Drunk assholes tend to leave kids alone if kids don't draw attention to themselves. hence just give them room and walk on by. don't stare at them, and don't make eye contact. and running from a drunk is rather easy to do.


I'm not talking about small children I'm talking about how you teach your children to handle the violence in society. Of course a 3 year old has it's parents near to look after it. But what about your teenage age son out at the park with his mates, when the kids from the estate down the road turn up and surround them. What have you taught you kids to do when faced with this, what will you teach them?gang still tend not to bother individual people unless those people are part of another gang or doing something that bothers the gang. i.e. tagging gang property, stealing from the gang, talking smack etc.


You really misunderstand what I'm saying, I teach my kids all of the run, use your brains, try not to get involved, but I know, I know without a shaodw of doubt that there will be times when violence is unaviodable. When this happens if your kids do not know how to be violent then they will suffer.don't know how anyone can misunderstand this.
No by teaching them, that when you can't run, and you are in iminent danger of violence, to do it first, faster, and harder, before you get it done to you.

When this happens if your kids do not know how to be violent then they will suffer.

There are so many things wrong with this statement, I don't even know where to begin.

Not true in the least, sure there are some kids but in every class there would be two or three kids that would hang back and help the teacher clean up, put up chairs and around the house, as young children they want to help "mommy" with everything and as they get into highschool there are kids that volunteer not just because they're required to but because they enjoy helping people. Children have different personalities and their responses will change accordingly.

And the difference? I maintain that some have been taught to help there fellow man, and some have been taught to get paid for everything they do.

Pay for every good deed and no good deed gets done without pay.

I've dealt with both. Give me trained children rather than greedy --------- every time.

And the difference? I maintain that some have been taught to help there fellow man, and some have been taught to get paid for everything they do.

Pay for every good deed and no good deed gets done without pay.

I've dealt with both. Give me trained children rather than greedy --------- every time.

And why does that mean that striking children is acceptable? A) there are ways to discipline children without resorting to violence or "bribery", B) no onw is saying "bribe". Paying off your children need not be done either. C) "trained" children are beter than "greedy" children? Stipulated, but aren't happy, well-adjusted children that have been taught to be good, moral people that won't use violence or force to get their way even better?

And why does that mean that striking children is acceptable? A) there are ways to discipline children without resorting to violence or "bribery", B) no onw is saying "bribe". Paying off your children need not be done either. C) "trained" children are beter than "greedy" children? Stipulated, but aren't happy, well-adjusted children that have been taught to be good, moral people that won't use violence or force to get their way even better?

This thread within the thread started with someone saying s/he pays children for every chore around the house. Yes, it is a little off the subject of spanking.

I just commented that I have dealt with those children also. They have no compassion for anyone or any group to which they belong. They will do no voluteer work without getting paid. So, a well intended method (as with time out) causes far more problems than it cures.

OK, you may have a point. But I still maintain that hitting is no solution.

If the hand hurts, you hit too hard. You can't feel through a belt and are liable to hit too hard even by honest mistake.not all children are built the same.. some are very fragile.
By the time your hand is hurting.. you may have already broken Bonds -or if unchecked- cause gangrene.

that is why the hand can be more dangerous that the belt.

not all children are built the same.. some are very fragile.
By the time your hand is hurting.. you may have already broken Bonds -or if unchecked- cause gangrene.

that is why the hand can be more dangerous that the belt.

Aren't any of you bothered by the fact that this tread has devolved into a discussion on the best technique for hitting children? CHILDREN SHOULD NOT BE HIT OR SPANKED AT ALL. Quite frankly, GL, I don't care if my (admittedly hypothetical) children haven't been taught the most effective method of violent force. My children will be taught to be good people who respect others and treat people decently. And I'll do it without striking them.

Aren't any of you bothered by the fact that this tread has devolved into a discussion on the best technique for hitting children? CHILDREN SHOULD NOT BE HIT OR SPANKED AT ALL. Quite frankly, GL, I don't care if my (admittedly hypothetical) children haven't been taught the most effective method of violent force. My children will be taught to be good people who respect others and treat people decently. And I'll do it without striking them.

Gee, I thought it was a discussion of: Do we continue the methods that have proven effective for 10,000 years and brought about civilization to most of the world----or do we continue a 50 year old experiment that has, by all accounts (especially from the religious right), brought about lower values and actions to society in every realm of measurement?

Gee, I thought it was a discussion of: Do we continue the methods that have proven effective for 10,000 years and brought about civilization to most of the world----or do we continue a 50 year old experiment that has, by all accounts (especially from the religious right), brought about lower values and actions to society in every realm of measurement?
I am sure you can provide us with proof or a study to that effect?

I beat all 4 of my children daily, with a closed fist. Every day at 2/2:30, just to keep them in line. Just to make sure I get them for doing something I didn't catch them do. And to make sure they dont get any ideas. It also makes me feel better about myself, and releaves much stress on my life, my wife particularly loves to hit them (and the dog) with a leather belt.

I am sure you can provide us with proof or a study to that effect?

Do you want a study of drug use?

Do you want a study of school violence?

Do you want a study of the divorce rate?

Do you want a study of first time employees?

Do you want a study of youth criminal activity?

Do you want a study of overall criminal activity?

Do you want a study of educational achievment?

Do you want a study of church attendence?

Do you want a study of the abortion rate?

Do you want a study of the bastard birth rate?

Do you want a study of the shack-up rate?

Do you want a study of the teen sex rate?

Do you want a study of youth volunteer rates? (some schools actually force students to do volunteer to graduate---never dreamed of 50 years ago)

Do you want a study of __________________ (fill in blank with any social activity that may have changed over the last 50 years since "time out" was instituted in western civilization)

Do you want a study of drug use?

Do you want a study of school violence?

Do you want a study of the divorce rate?

Do you want a study of first time employees?

Do you want a study of youth criminal activity?

Do you want a study of overall criminal activity?

Do you want a study of educational achievment?

Do you want a study of church attendence?

Do you want a study of the abortion rate?

Do you want a study of the bastard birth rate?

Do you want a study of the shack-up rate?

Do you want a study of the teen sex rate?

Do you want a study of youth volunteer rates? (some schools actually force students to do volunteer to graduate---never dreamed of 50 years ago)

Do you want a study of __________________ (fill in blank with any social activity that may have changed over the last 50 years since "time out" was instituted in western civilization)

yes, studies on all of those that prove that the cause is NOT hitting your kids.

yes, studies on all of those that prove that the cause is NOT hitting your kids.
When did the decline start and what changed at that point?

Causal relationships are difficult over a lifetime. You can't even prove cigarettes cause cancer. There is just a historical relationship. What you can show is at this point this started happening. What was the change in society at that point? There is a historical relationship. Will you accept that?

If you look at when the decline started, the only major change in society from previous times in history is the Dr. Spock book that triggered a decline in the training of young children.

Everything else occured before and after the start of the decline. I can show you studies of when all of those things began to decline. The drop occured as the Spock children entered society at large. A 20 year delay from cause to efffect.

yes, studies on all of those that prove that the cause is NOT hitting your kids.You cannot prove him wrong.

Aren't any of you bothered by the fact that this tread has devolved into ...You can be bothered all you want..

this is the Internet.. threads have a life of their own.

I don't believe in the extreme stuff and would mostly use timeouts. But mild spanking I think has its place. Anything above that of course is pretty much child abuse.

Using an implement is unjustified IMHO.

To clarify: spanking should be used in EXTREME SITUATIONS ONLY - when other techniques have failed, and it should never go beyond the hand. I was personally spared - in my case that worked. However it obviously doesn't work for my brother.

So considering the individual child is important too. Different techniques work on different children.

I think the problem with modern parenting is the absence of a significant consequence. This does them a disservice - in the real world there ARE consequences to their actions - this lesson should be taught fairly early in life. Not too young of course (below about 3 spanking is most DEFINITELY unjustified.

There's a fine line between punishment and abuse.

It could be argued that the absence of punishment is also abuse, as it could very well lead to a very unstable young adulthood.

Having said this - these are merely my personal views. I am completely open to change my viewpoint on this given enough evidence.

I think the problem with modern parenting is the absence of a significant consequence.why do you call it "modern".?
Some very modern societies have NOT banned spanking.

I would call it "soft" parenting.

you said that a good thing about smacking your kids is that you can teach them to be better at violence than others. don't act confused now.

even if not smacking my kid doesn't change the violence in the world, one thing I can control is not being the person who introduces violence into my home.

Nope not right at all. Lookee here is what I posted unchanged and original.

'Violence and the human species goes way back int time to when we first evolved. by outlawing smacking we will not get rid of violence.

Wishy washy we must stop the violence thinking does more harm than good. We well never be rid of it. Where ever two people disagree their is capactiy for violence, it is inhernet to humanty, and it will never go away.

in this respect I say it is better to teach your kids to be better at it then others who may want to use it against them.'

Phrases and words to look out for: 'by outlawing smacking we will not get rid of violence' We can see for this, that my stance is one of negating somebodies post about smacking kids is harmfull to humainty, because it teaches them that violence solves all problems.

'and it will never go away' Followed by 'in this respect I say it is better to teach your kids to be better at it then others who may want to use it against them' Which clearly shows that again that what I am saying is in other words, violence will never go, we must teach our kids how to do it and deal with it.

Now as we can see I did not say that by smacking kids, it teaches them to be better at violence. For the third time I'll say that is NOT what I said, and that is NOT what I mean. Belive me now?:p

so if your child is on a bus and another child starts talking smack, you would rather have your child start puching and swinging and not ignoring it, or calling the teacher/chaperone?

Sheesh what is it with you people cann you not read, do you dilibritley decide to just ignore certian words, man you even quoted me, and put the relevan words in bold. WHEN YOU CANNOT RUN AND ARE IN IMMENENT DANAGER OF VIOLENCE, then yes hit first and hit hard. why do you propose I teach my kids to stand thre and get hit?


that's responding to threats with punches and kicks...

No that's responding to actual violence with violence. Remember when I said, WHEN YOU CANNOT RUN AND ARE IN IMMENENT DANAGER OF VIOLENCE


and do you teach them to hit you has hard as they can?

What when we play fight and they are in no actual danger? Are you actuly stupid, what would you do?

and do they hit others while playing since it's obvious that it's ok to punch, kick, trip and throw people around.[/QUOTE]

My children are actuly well behaved, pacifisticly minded, peacefull boys, who have run from more fights then thay have had to stand there and fight. So no are not in the habit of punching, kicking, throwing, tripping, or practiceing other martial skills, anywhere apart from in a adult suppervised place. Furthermore thay are like that in part coz they take after their Dad(me) and part becuase I am a very good father. If you are trying to suggest other wise, or that because I am a preponent of smacking I have violent children you are very very wrong indeed.


then they are not children, they're teens and they should be making choices of their own.

What you are clearly mad my friend. So you would let your 15 old, make all of there own choices, you would let them walk down that dark alley without any martial arts traing? Or let them spark up that spliff in the living room, in fromt of your Mum? I don't think you would, and if you can't see 15 year olds as still children, then I shudder for the safty of your children.

and are you telling me you spank your 15+ teen?

What where did you even get that?


you're still contridicting yourself.

Show me?


Drunk assholes tend to leave kids alone if kids don't draw attention to themselves. hence just give them room and walk on by. don't stare at them, and don't make eye contact. and running from a drunk is rather easy to do.

gang still tend not to bother individual people unless those people are part of another gang or doing something that bothers the gang. i.e. tagging gang property, stealing from the gang, talking smack etc.

don't know how anyone can misunderstand this.

What world do you live in then? I likethe useage of the phrase tends too, it implies to me that you don't actuly bel;ive what you are saying. heheh but even if people tend to do, or not do these things(in my experiance it is very differant BTW) what about those people out there who don't listen to tends too, and instead tend to behave oddly, by which I mean not the norm?

There are so many things wrong with this statement, I don't even know where to begin.

Sooo you think then that our kids should be protected, should learn nothing about violence, nor learn how to use it to defend themselves?

Aren't any of you bothered by the fact that this tread has devolved into a discussion on the best technique for hitting children? CHILDREN SHOULD NOT BE HIT OR SPANKED AT ALL. Quite frankly, GL, I don't care if my (admittedly hypothetical) children haven't been taught the most effective method of violent force. My children will be taught to be good people who respect others and treat people decently. And I'll do it without striking them.

Then what methoeds will you use?

Insidently saying that children should not be spanked or hit at all, means nowt, it is just a slogan, and a pretty shit one at that, unless you can show why should be the case, and also why this should not go for adults too?

Then what methoeds will you use?he is likely proposing "soft parenting."

soft parenting theory goes -more or less- like this..
If the kid does something mean/dangerous/forbiden.. you send him to his room.. to think about it.

and if the Kid says "NO. I WONT GO..." then you are suposed to use your Jedi Mind Control powers.

When did the decline start and what changed at that point?

Causal relationships are difficult over a lifetime. You can't even prove cigarettes cause cancer. There is just a historical relationship. What you can show is at this point this started happening. What was the change in society at that point? There is a historical relationship. Will you accept that?

If you look at when the decline started, the only major change in society from previous times in history is the Dr. Spock book that triggered a decline in the training of young children.

Everything else occured before and after the start of the decline. I can show you studies of when all of those things began to decline. The drop occured as the Spock children entered society at large. A 20 year delay from cause to efffect.
correlation does not imply causation


I am not buying what you are selling, you can't tell me that because I refuse to smack my kids that I am doing them disservice, and that they will be the downfall of the world because they are learning self control, respect, how to treat others and nonviolent forms of communication.

I need actual proof, until you can show it to me you have an opinion, and since I have heard your other opinions and they are so far off base with what I know to be true, I am going to have to dismiss it.

he will likely proposing "soft parenting."

soft parenting theory goes -more or less- like this..
If the kid does something mean/dangerous/forbiden.. you send him to his room.. to think about it.

and if the Kid says "NO. I WONT GO..." then you are suposed to use your Jedi Mind Control powers.

you can't control people, no matter how much you think you can.

you can't control people, no matter how much you think you can.so.. what do you do when your kid says "NO. I WONT GO TO MY ROOM..."
??

and What did your Dad/Mom do (If you ever gave him an absolute NO)

so.. what do you do when your kid says "NO. I WONT GO TO MY ROOM..."
??

my child won't say that to me, she respects me too much to yell at me, not that I ever send her to her room, why would I send her there? that's where the toys are.

All discussion of disobedience is handled immediately as possible, no reason to prolong the situation with sending her anywhere to "think about it" she knows what she did, and why and we can take care of it and move on.

my child won't say that to me...You are not answering the Question.

The question is.. what if he raises his voice and says "NO Mother, I will not do it. Period"

All discussion of disobedience is handled immediately as possible, no reason to prolong the situation with sending her anywhere to "think about it" she knows what she did, and why and we can take care of it and move on.oh.. wait.

actually you are answering the questiong.. with-out really answering.
you say "disobedience is handled immediately as possible"..

but now we are back at square 1.. because when you say "handled".. you bring us back to the original question.

how Would You "handle" it.. If you kid raises his voice and say "NO.. PERIOD"

correlation does not imply causation


I am not buying what you are selling, you can't tell me that because I refuse to smack my kids that I am doing them disservice, and that they will be the downfall of the world because they are learning self control, respect, how to treat others and nonviolent forms of communication.

I need actual proof, until you can show it to me you have an opinion, and since I have heard your other opinions and they are so far off base with what I know to be true, I am going to have to dismiss it.



heheh but it is aceptable to express and belive in the opposite opinion without proof?

Then what methoeds will you use?

Insidently saying that children should not be spanked or hit at all, means nowt, it is just a slogan, and a pretty shit one at that, unless you can show why should be the case, and also why this should not go for adults too?

http://personal-development.com/chuck/spanking.htm

http://www.cei.net/~rcox/nospan.html

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1530311

And what part of "hypothetical" did you not understand? I don't have children yet. If my relationship with my girlfriend works out long-term, then we'd get married and I'd have a pre-teen stepdaughter. How I will discipline her is by backing up her mother's decisions. My girlfriend does not strike her child, and she knows how I feel about this subject, and why.

oh.. wait.

actually you are answering the questiong.. with-out really answering.
you say "disobedience is handled immediately as possible"..

but now we are back at square 1.. because when you say "handled".. you bring us back to the original question.

how Would You "handle" it.. If you kid raises his voice and say "NO.. PERIOD"
It is unacceptable behavior to speak to me in that fashion, I haven't had them say that without backing down.

"you need to clean your room"
"I don't want to"
"I don't want to do a lot of things, but your room needs cleaned"
"I won't do it"
"fine"
"can I go outside?"
"nope"
"can I play on my computer?"
"nope"
"can I read?"
"nope"
"but I want to"
"I want a million dollars...give it to me"
"I don't have it"
"but I want it"
"maybe you should go earn it"
"maybe you should go clean your room"
"yes ma'am"

typical. I don't think my house fosters the type of rebellion that you speak of, I have never had the foot stomping yelling thing happen here, well, not since they were two.....that ended pretty quickly.

heheh but it is aceptable to express and belive in the opposite opinion without proof?

true, but, GL claims that all of the problems in the world are caused by not smacking your kids, he says he can provide studies, I want to see them.

I believe that God exists, I don't go around trying to say I can actually prove it.

I actually do have studies that say that smacking is harmful for children.

I'll just skip everything and agree with Smunkee. *nods*

I haven't had them say that without backing down.You are still dodging the question.

The question is.. what if he says "NO, I will not do it. Period"

You are still dodging the question.

The question is.. what if he says "NO, I will not do it. Period"

no he will not do what?

give me a senario, so I can think about the hypothetical situation.

true, but, GL claims that (God Exists)

I want to see the studies
(If GL cannnot prove it.. then God does not exist)
(until GL proves it to me.. God does not exist.) everything inside the brackets was added by me.. Just to give you some perspestive.

enjoy. ;)

no he will not do what?

give me a senario.Scenario#1

He will not go out of his room

only to pee or eat (but he is willing to pee inside his room and stop eating)
Not to do his duties.
Not to shower.
Not to go to School.
Not to go on with his life.
He just wants to stay in his Room untill you give him what he wants (a 5000 dollars toy) he is not willing to talk (negociate) at all. (basically its a long version of buy me that toy or I will stop breathing)

If he does not get the toy he will stay in his room.. for ever.

Scenario#1

He will not go out of his room

only to pee or eat (but he is willing to pee inside his room and stop eating)
Not to do his duties.
Not to shower.
Not to go to School.
Not to go on with his life.
He just wants to stay in his Room untill you give him what he wants (a 5000 dollars toy) he is not willing to talk (negociate) at all. (basically its a long version of buy me that toy or I will stop breathing)

If he does not get the toy he will stay in his room.. for ever.

call his bluff, leave him in his room, take everything else out of it. He gets a bed and a blanket, and if he wants to starve to death and live in piss then it's his choice.

call his bluff, leave him in his room, take everything else out of it. He gets a bed and a blanket, and if he wants to starve to death and live in piss then it's his choice.Ha!!! .. a mother would not take such a chance

But lets follop up on your starve him to death method.

<<You do let him starve to death.. you empty the Fridge (you have a Job) ..
7 weeks has passed and he is still not starving.

Do you quit your job? to figure if he is selling his body or stealing to buy himself some food?

You do and you empty the Fridge (you have a Job) .. but 7 weeks has passed and he is still not starving..

Do you quit your job? to figure if he is selling his body or stealing to buy himself some food?

I stay home with him, or I take him to the hospital because someone who would stay in a piss soaked room for 7 weeks obviously needs medical help.

what's your solution? beat him with a stick until he submits?

I stay home with him, or I take him to the hospital because someone who would stay in a piss soaked room for 7 weeks obviously needs medical help. scenario finale.

#1 almost lost your Job..

#2 the nurse at the hospital has called youth social services because the exam shows that your son is indeed starving.. close to permanent damage.

#3 they have to keep him at the Hospital for a while (the bill will be sent to you)

#3 You now need to expend money for the custody Lawyers.

scenario finale.

#1 almost lost your Job..

#2 the nurse at the hospital has called youth social services because the exam shows that your son is indeed starving.. close to permanent damage.

#3 they have to keep him at the Hospital for a while (the bill will be sent to you)

#3 You now need to expend money for the custody Lawyers.

sure.

let's look at your solution

"I won't"
*smack*
"I hate you"
*smacks harder*
"I want that toy"
*smacks harder again*
"I hate you"
*smacks harder yet again*

now your kid is bloody, bruised, and still has the same attitude

he calls child services, they take the kid away, you are put in jail for child abuse, during your jail stay you lose your job, you now have to pay for a criminal lawyer and ...... wow, you are just where I was only 7 weeks sooner, I seriously doubt a kid would last the whole 7 weeks without giving in, however, they surely can last a good 5 minutes, the amount of time it took you to beat the shit out of him, and nothing changed in his attitude.

sure.

let's look at your solution.
smack,smack,blood,smack.You are jumping the gun.

I have yet to submit a "solution"

I don't know if anyone's quoted Maddox yet but this seems quite relevant (Just in case anyone needs hints :p):
Beat Your Kids (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=beat)

I was hit as a child, but my parents could usually get me to do what they wanted just because I was scared that they would. Makes kids more considerate if you do it right, I think.

my parents could usually get me to do what they wanted just because I was scared that they would. Makes kids more considerate if you do it right, I think.I was belted one time in my life.. 3 all out shots to my behind.
I got the message loud an clear. The pain was unbearable. (that is why it never happened again... I never needed any kind of disiplinary action after that one)

You are jumping the gun.

I have yet to submit a "solution"

yes, give me the solution.

yes, give me the solution.I gotta think about it..
and I gotta ask my dad.. he has the experience. and he is very wise.

he may start like you.. and try to call a bluff.. but (I have no doubt) he would not wait weeks.. he would probably pull the belt by the second day. (after a clear ultimatum)

I gotta ask my dad.. he has the experience.

But I have no dout may start like you.. and try to call a bluff.. but he would not wait 3 weeks.. he would probably pull the belt by the second day. (after a clear ultimatum)

what happens when you hit the kid and they still don't submit?

my entire premise with children is that you can't control them, they have to learn to control themselves, if my kids want to draw a line and say "this is where I stop" I let them stop, I have no need to control them, I can control the environment around them, but that's where my sphere of influence stops. I can't make them respect me, I can't make them clean their room, I can't make them like me. They choose how to behave, they know 3 things about me

1. I don't lie, if I say no the answer is no

2. I am consistent, if last time they didn't clean their room they didn't go anywhere until it was done, that's going to happen again.

3. I am patient. If I say no TV, it's no TV. If they decide that they want to rebel, I take the TV out of the house. It bothers me not that I don't get to watch TV, I have better things to do, I worry about what I can control and I have enough self control to wait out just about anything.

what happens when you hit the kid and they still don't submit?I was a prety tough kid.. with my Mom

and a bit with my Dad untill I crossed a Line he gave my a Clear ultimatum with a clear consequence.. and I crossed the Line

the thing about my Dad was that once the pulled the Belt on you he did it with all his soul.. full swing.. he pulled all stops..

The pain was unbeleivable.. so
NO.. it neved crossed my mind to be belted again.

I guess If want to be able to "not submit" you need to have a behind of steel.. or titanium undewear :D

I was a prety tough kid.. with my Mom

and a bit with my Dad untill I crossed a Line he gave my a Clear ultimatum with a clear consequence.. and I crossed the Line

the thing about my Dad was that once the pulled the Belt on you he did it with all his soul.. full swing.. he pulled all stops..

The pain was unbeleivable.. so
NO.. it neved crossed my mind to be belted again.

I guess If want to be able to "not submit" you need to have a behind of steel.. or titanium undewear :D

my kids are very clear as to what consequences follow their behavior, without me having to hit them.

I was hit a lot as a child, tied up, shoved in the closet, flicked with hot grease, belted, got to pick my own switch, hit with spoons, hair brushes, burned with cigarettes......you can see why I am biased about smacking, it all started with a little pop on the butt, I didn't back down and my parents had nowhere else to go but to elevate the circumstances.

it all started with a little pop on the butt, I didn't back down and my parents had nowhere else to go but to elevate the circumstances.I never had a-little-pop-in-butt.. It was all privation (No desert, No going out, No TV, No Phone) untill one day it was not enough..
So the Belt it was.. It was the first time My Dad carried out the sentence.. and boy-oh-boy.. It was not a-little-pop-in-butt.. It was total anihilation.

I never had a-little-pop-in-butt.. It was all privation (No desert, No going out, No TV, No Phone) untill one day it was not enough..
So the Belt it was.. It was the first time My Dad carried out the sentence.. and boy-oh-boy.. It was not a-little-pop-in-butt.. It was total anihilation.

why do you think you got to the point where it wasn't enough?

I am curious.

why do you think you got to the point where it wasn't enough?

I am curious.I do not know .. but all of that (the reasons for my new found defiance).. did-not-matter-at-all once my skin was "on fire".

My defiance was extremely short lived.. and I decided I did not want any piece of that action anyways.

I stay home with him, or I take him to the hospital because someone who would stay in a piss soaked room for 7 weeks obviously needs medical help.

what's your solution? beat him with a stick until he submits?

the think you have to be asking yourselvs right about know is what actiion is the action of a bad parent.

Smacking the child, or leting him live in his own urine soak bedroom for 7 whole weeks?

I don't know if anyone's quoted Maddox yet but this seems quite relevant (Just in case anyone needs hints :p):
Beat Your Kids (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=beat)

I was hit as a child, but my parents could usually get me to do what they wanted just because I was scared that they would. Makes kids more considerate if you do it right, I think.

I agree totaly, I used to have to smaack my children, I have not had to for years now.

my kids are very clear as to what consequences follow their behavior, without me having to hit them.

I was hit a lot as a child, tied up, shoved in the closet, flicked with hot grease, belted, got to pick my own switch, hit with spoons, hair brushes, burned with cigarettes......you can see why I am biased about smacking, it all started with a little pop on the butt, I didn't back down and my parents had nowhere else to go but to elevate the circumstances.

I knew it had to be somthink like that. I'm sorry for your past pain, (whisper I sorta had it the same) but with me I learnt from my dad's mistake. I have said it already but I really don't mind repeating it.

Your parents did not beat you because they smacked their children, they done it because they where bad, child beating parents. There is a vast differance.

Seems like for some parents spanking isn't enough, so they resort to torture (http://kotaku.com/gaming/step2play/step2play-child-tortureexercise-device-212696.php).

It looks like 1 in 4 people do not agree with spanking. I guess this is why 1 in 4 kids is a total screw up.

the think you have to be asking yourselvs right about know is what actiion is the action of a bad parent.

Smacking the child, or leting him live in his own urine soak bedroom for 7 whole weeks?
I doubt the child would stay in the room for 7 weeks, after about a week I would take him to the doctor.

I have no doubt a child could stay defiant for about 10 minutes, and after the first smack what exactly do you do next? smack harder? leave him alone? throw him out on the streets? what exactly?



It looks like 1 in 4 people do not agree with spanking. I guess this is why 1 in 4 kids is a total screw up.

yes, all the problems in the world are caused by not hitting people. :rolleyes:

I never had a-little-pop-in-butt.. It was all privation (No desert, No going out, No TV, No Phone) untill one day it was not enough..
So the Belt it was.. It was the first time My Dad carried out the sentence.. and boy-oh-boy.. It was not a-little-pop-in-butt.. It was total anihilation.

I never had a "little pop in the butt" either. According to what relatives have told me, my parents were slapping me across the face by the age of 18 months (none of them ever explained why they didn't help me). I don't remember that, per se, but I don't ever remember a time when they weren't beating me; like say, by age 6 or so. And they didn't "lose control" -- the bruises were almost never where they could be seen, and they tended to stop just short of me needing medical attention. They knew precisely what they were doing. Now I would ask all of you out there who have advocated hitting children (and some of you have spoken of beating kids with belts, etc.) what could any 18 month old child, much less one in a wheelchair, have done to deserve that? Please note: I did not bring up my disability to suggest that it is worse to hit a disabled child; merely to illustrate that I didn't have the mobility to have "gotten into trouble".

so if your child is on a bus and another child starts talking smack, you would rather have your child start puching and swinging and not ignoring it, or calling the teacher/chaperone?Sheesh what is it with you people cann you not read, do you dilibritley decide to just ignore certian words, man you even quoted me, and put the relevan words in bold. WHEN YOU CANNOT RUN AND ARE IN IMMENENT DANAGER OF VIOLENCE, then yes hit first and hit hard. why do you propose I teach my kids to stand thre and get hit?
look at my scenario... on a bus, the child cannot run, and is being threatened by violence... so the situation matches. after all, you are teaching your child to HIT FIRST and HIT HARD. you also admitted to face violence by being more violent. so if the bully is larger, you are saying to pull out a knife or other weapon is perfectly fine.

that's responding to threats with punches and kicks... No that's responding to actual violence with violence. Remember when I said, WHEN YOU CANNOT RUN AND ARE IN IMMENENT DANAGER OF VIOLENCEWTF? that's responding to IMMENENT DANGER OF VIOLENCE with VIOLENCE. what you are saying should be done. Threats in and of themseves are not violent, and certainly don't warrent physical violence as a response. if you consider threats of violence to be Immenent Violence, then my bus situation matches yours even better.

and do you teach them to hit you has hard as they can?
What when we play fight and they are in no actual danger? Are you actuly stupid, what would you do?to a preteen child, what is done in play often times equates to being ok to be done in public and to others she is playing with. my Sister-in-law's neice play wrestles with her father, she acually hits him, jumps on him, elbows him... etc... and her usual greeting to me is a hard punch to the stomach (because I'm the same size as her father.) and her father has to constantly remind her that she cannot hit other people. but to her, because she does it in play with her father, she can do it to others she's playing with (she actually told me this straight to my face.) and she really doesn't mean any malice.

and do they hit others while playing since it's obvious that it's ok to punch, kick, trip and throw people around.My children are actuly well behaved, pacifisticly minded, peacefull boys, who have run from more fights then thay have had to stand there and fight. So no are not in the habit of punching, kicking, throwing, tripping, or practiceing other martial skills, anywhere apart from in a adult suppervised place. Furthermore thay are like that in part coz they take after their Dad(me) and part becuase I am a very good father. If you are trying to suggest other wise, or that because I am a preponent of smacking I have violent children you are very very wrong indeed.I am so happy that your philosophy of meeting violence with violence hasn't been ingrained in your children.

then they are not children, they're teens and they should be making choices of their own.
What you are clearly mad my friend. So you would let your 15 old, make all of there own choices, you would let them walk down that dark alley without any martial arts traing? Or let them spark up that spliff in the living room, in fromt of your Mum? I don't think you would, and if you can't see 15 year olds as still children, then I shudder for the safty of your children. I certainly won't treat my 15 year old as a child. and I certainly wouldn't teach them to answer immenent violence by first strikes.

by the age of 13, they would know what areas to keep out of, what their parents approve and dis-approve of, and they will also know it's better to be honest with their parents and not dis-honest. and should they need to be punnished, it won't be by spanking or any other form of physical violence.

What where did you even get that?the thread is about spanking as punishment for children.

What world do you live in then? I like the useage of the phrase tends too, it implies to me that you don't actuly bel;ive what you are saying. heheh but even if people tend to do, or not do these things(in my experiance it is very differant BTW) what about those people out there who don't listen to tends too, and instead tend to behave oddly, by which I mean not the norm?yes, I use the word "tends to" because I am no expert on all gangs, I can only speak about the gangs I encountered and those that I have, do not bother people unless thoes people are doing things on their turf that they do not approve of. but then if you are an EXPERT on gang behavior... :rolleyes:

oh, and I've been in many situations, in fact most of my classmates have been in many situations that would fit your "can't run and under threat of Immenent violence," where we didn't resort to violence. nor did we surrender our dignity nor capacity to THINK instead of swinging into violence and came out of those situations ok.

My child disobeyed me once, Then he talked back to me. After that I just go fed up and took him out behind the chemical shed and shot him. I'll have a new one to replace him that I just ordered from Africa.

Seeing as this got brought up on Naltir's B'day thread...


What do you think about spanking/corporal punishment for children?

It's TORTURE and must never be done..!!

(( Opinion of the left. ))

Hmmmm the Bible with its thousands of years of wisdom about sparing the rod and spoiling the child or Dr. Spock whose son killed himself? Hmmmmm.

You must be a troll to be opposed to the war right now. Sorry if you are Amish or Quaker. I guess if you were Amish you would probably not be using a computer though.

Hmmmm the Bible with its thousands of years of wisdom about sparing the rod and spoiling the child or Dr. Spock whose son killed himself? Hmmmmm.
a rod is used for guiding not beating, you don't beat a sheep, if you have ever been around them you would know that.

a rod is used for guiding not beating, you don't beat a sheep, if you have ever been around them you would know that.

No a staff is for leading sheep. A rod is used to beat wild animals attacking the sheep and baaaaad kids.

Hmmmm the Bible with its thousands of years of wisdom about sparing the rod and spoiling the child or Dr. Spock whose son killed himself? Hmmmmm.

two points.
one, the bible speaks of the rod as a shepards hooked staff that is never used to beat the sheep, but used to gently guide them. if you were to watch a shepard leading his flock, he does not beat them with the staff, but gently nudges them with it.

two, the myth about Dr. Spock's son killing himself is just that... A myth.

No a staff is for leading sheep. A rod is used to beat wild animals attacking the sheep and baaaaad kids.

There are many other mentions of a rod in the Bible that make it clear that the rod is metaphorical - not an actual rod for hitting people with, as this would be against the two most important commandments - Mark 12:30 and Mark 12:31: "...Love thy God..." and "...Love thy neighbour as theyself..."

No a staff is for leading sheep. A rod is used to beat wild animals attacking the sheep and baaaaad kids.

and the Rod is in reference to the shepards staff.

There are many other mentions of a rod in the Bible that make it clear that the rod is metaphorical - not an actual rod for hitting people with, as this would be against the two most important commandments - Mark 12:30 and Mark 12:31: "...Love thy God..." and "...Love thy neighbour as theyself..."

to expand on it, someone I correspond with through email sent me this.

I am a grandmother with two children of my own and am now helping to rear three granddaughters so from my own experience I can give you my answer to these questions. I have never been an advocate of child abuse but this needs to be defined in this society where bad is called good and good is called bad, clean is called unclean and unclean is called clean as the prophet Ezekiel and others have clearly predicted. Lev 10:10 "that you may distinguish between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean,...Ezek 44:23 "And they shall teach My people the difference between the holy and the unholy, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean.

I also do not adhere to the idea that discipline is somehow going to traumatize a fragile child's mind. The opposite is true from my experience. They need limits and will test the resolve of the parent to stick to those limits. This is the way man is or what human nature is. So with this in mind let us go over these verses you have provided and see just what the author intended to tell us.

Proverbs 10:13. In the lips of him that hath understanding wisdom is found: but a rod is for the back of him that is void of understanding. The word here used for rod is the following and was more in kind to a shepherd's staff with a hook on the top end used to control sheep in an open field. 07626 jbv shebet shay’- bet from an unused root probably meaning to branch off; n m; {See TWOT on 2314 @@ ‘2314a’} AV-tribe 140, rod 34, sceptre 10, staff 2, misc 4; 190 1) rod, staff, branch, offshoot, club, sceptre, tribe 1a) rod, staff 1b) shaft (of spear, art) 1c) club (of shepherd’s implement) 1d) truncheon, sceptre (mark of authority) 1e) clan, tribe

In another booklet I was given a few years ago with the ancient Hebrew script and their definitions because the ancient Hebrew was written in Word Pictures not just letters similar to Egyptian hieroglyphs. This script was used when Moses lived and we can decipher the specific meaning of a word with several different English renderings by looking to it. The letters used above are yood or J or Y and Beth or B and V or vav. This is interpreted as "makes or creates a house(hold) secure." If we understand the author of this Proverb correctly we see that he shows that understanding and wisdom comes from someone who has been disciplined or taught in order to gain it.

A rod or staff was used to separate lambs from their mothers for a time or to retrieve a stranded sheep from danger. The rod had a hook at the end to hook around the little legs of a lamb or sheep in trouble and then ever so gently this animal could be brought to where the shepherd needed him to be. The phrase "for the back of him" is where I would see some who would think that a beating is needed but if you have raised sheep or read of how they behave you would see that a beating them only causes them to become more confused and they scatter making it more difficult to get them to where you want them. We must look at this proverb in the light of what the author was really trying to convey, remembering these were collected by several different authors from their oral tradition.

A light tap on the back of an adult sheep might guide them into the pen or place where the shepherd needed them to go. Jesus is our Good Shepherd and if we look to him for guidance, he promised to deliver us from troubles of our own making which get us into trouble. Deut 28:15 "But it shall come to pass, if you do not obey the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all His commandments and His statutes which I command you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you: ...Does God really thunder down a severe punishment which he can not reverse when we are the ones who stubbornly refuse to follow his voice? Even in Chapter 16 of Revelation Jesus reveals to John what God's anger will cause him to do to those who are left after total deception has overcome us here on earth. God's punishment was designed to bring about pain not necessarily death in order to bring as many as possible to repentance. It is Satan who causes the Tribulation of the seven trumpet plagues when God turns his back as he said he would if we refuse to hear him. Deut 23:14 "For the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and give your enemies over to you; therefore your camp shall be holy, that He may see no unclean thing among you, and turn away from you. Isa 1:4 Alas, sinful nation, A people laden with iniquity, A brood of evildoers, Children who are corrupters! They have forsaken the LORD, They have provoked to anger The Holy One of Israel, They have turned away backward. But the outcome will still be that they would not repent. So what does it take for a child or a sheep going in the wrong direction to see the light? Sometimes a severe bit of discipline clears the air and at the very least makes everyone understand what the expectation is. My practice is to use the palm of my hand and if more is needed then something else needs to be tried that is more productive in achieving compliance with the rules of the house like limiting activities that they like.

One of my children would hide the paddle, or place a book in his seat but soon I Iearned that the best way to deal with him was a lecture of what is right and what I expected of him rather than using physical punishment. He later told me that those lectures were worse than a paddling any day which brought him to repentance and was more productive than physical punishment. The other one was a temper tantrum displayer and she often times was put into her room alone until she could come to her own senses because this kind of a display is a cry for attention but it is negative. hen she settled down a good dose of loving and hugging was in order but often times this was when a gentle instruction was helpful as well. After the age of 7 I found less useful the physical punishment or even the slap of a hand and when you think about it we tell them not to hit their brothers and sisters so why should we need to hit them especially after the age of reason around age 7.

The gist of all of these is the application of discipline which is likened to a rod or correcting staff of a shepherd. My American Heritage Dictionary, 1989 paperback, defines discipline in 5 points. Point 1. a. training intended to produce a specific character or pattern of behavior. b. Controlled behavior resulting from such training. Point 2. A state of order based on submission to rules and authority. Point 3. Punishment intended to correct or train. Point 4. A set of rules or methods. Point 5. A branch of knowledge or teaching.

If a child is undisciplined he or she is a danger to himself and to society at large. If you truly love your children you can not allow them to become so reprobate that they are a destructive force to themselves and others and this leads us to the second Proverb in your list. Proverbs 13:24. He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes. We should just substitute the word discipline for the word rod and we should see the concept that is being conveyed.

In the New Testament we are often told that the Father will prune or dig around his garden meaning us, his children, and that we are not to hate the correction or chastening of the Father because of what it will produce in us. Hebrews 12:11: Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. This is how we know that God loves us and this is the example we should show our children as well. They need limits set on their behavior because another of your listed Proverbs tells us that children are foolish. Proverbs 22:15: Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of correction will drive it far from him. Hebrews 12:8: But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons.

This then begs the question how does God chastise us? Many times it is under controlled conditions where we learn from our own mistakes that being a sinner does not pay out huge dividends to us or those around us. It brings death and destruction always. Prov 10:29 The way of the LORD is strength for the upright, But destruction will come to the workers of iniquity.Prov 19:18 Chasten your son while there is hope, And do not set your heart on his destruction. Prov 16:2 All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes, But the LORD weighs the spirits.Prov 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, But he who heeds counsel is wise. This is something we are all learning yet and will until we die this first death.

The second way God deals with us is to intervene in the affairs of man to prevent us from total destruction throughout history. The tower of Babel incident stopped the progress of iniquity or we would have invented the A-bomb then and be completely gone and that was not God's will for us. Those of us living today would not be here to enjoy the fruits of our labor and prepare to become sons and daughters of the Eternal God. God's mercy never fails as David sang in his Psalms over and over. Ps 106:1 Praise the LORD! Oh, give thanks to the LORD, for He is good! For His mercy endures forever.Ps 107:1 Oh, give thanks to the LORD, for He is good! For His mercy endures forever. Ps 118:1 Oh, give thanks to the LORD, for He is good! For His mercy endures forever. Will our children be able to say this about our discipline and correction?

Proverbs 23:13-14. Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell. If we look at the original word in Hebrew for "beatest" we find the following: 08686 Stem - Hiphil See 08818 Mood - Imperfect See 08811Count-4043 05221 hkn nakah naw-kaw’ a primitive root; v; {See TWOT on 1364} AV-smite 348, slay 92, kill 20, beat 9, slaughter 5, stricken 3, given 3, wounded 3, strike 2, stripes 2, misc 13; 500 1) to strike, smite, hit, beat, slay, kill 1a) (Niphal) to be stricken or smitten 1b) (Pual) to be stricken or smitten 1c) (Hiphil) 1c1) to smite, strike, beat, scourge, clap, applaud, give a thrust 1c2) to smite, kill, slay (man or beast) 1c3) to smite, attack, attack and destroy, conquer, subjugate, ravage 1c4) to smite, chastise, send judgment upon, punish, destroy 1d) (Hophal) to be smitten 1d1) to receive a blow 1d2) to be wounded 1d3) to be beaten 1d4) to be (fatally) smitten, be killed, be slain 1d5) to be attacked and captured 1d6) to be smitten (with disease) 1d7) to be blighted (of plants) To understand this we need to understand the way it was intended. It is in the imperfect mood and the underlined and bolded emphasis is mine to indicate that this is the definition that the author intended. This is how to differentiate the meaning by knowing the difference between the perfect and the imperfect mood. The perfect expresses the "fact," the imperfect adds colour and movement by suggesting the "process" preliminary to its completion. This shows me that the idea of beating as we know it in child abuse cases is not the intended meaning. To punish, to slap with the hand or even to applaud with the clap of a hand might be closer to the correct idea here. The idea is not to abuse or traumatize the child but to get their attention to show them this is not acceptable behavior and mom or dad is not happy with it. As I said this slap of the hand is usually reserved for the very very young who are just learning what "No, No!" means and if you allow them to play in traffic or touch something dangerous you would not be showing your love at all. As they grow up and are able to understand the spoken and written word then they are becoming ready to be taught and corrected by example and discussion of why it is necessary not to go in a certain direction. At first like the training of animals they need to know certain words will bring an instant painful slap to the hand and it does not take long for them to understand and bypass that particular behavior to avoid the pain. It is this pain that will bring repentance or change of behavior even if they do not know why.

Proverbs 26:3. A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool's back. As you can see there is a difference in tools to train different animals but for a foolish child God suggests correction that comes from a gentle direction change as the rod was used on sheep. Is this not similar to the sheep which he likens us to in the whole Bible to use a rod to hook the legs or to tap the back and correct in love or to beat or slay someone to the point of death or losing blood. i.e. bruising? Even in training horses the whip is not used to bring blood but to scare them into the proper direction. They are more sensitive to the crack of a whip next to their ears than humans are. I found that even gentle conditioning works on the more sensitive animals than does brute force. I have worked with very skittish horses as well and know what worked best for me to get the behavior I wanted from them.

29:15. The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame. Another passage shows this same thing but the father is grieved.
Prov 17:25 A foolish son is a grief to his father, And bitterness to her who bore him. Undisciplined and unruly children were stoned before the congregation under the Mosaic law so it behooved parents to bring them up in fear and admonition (friendly reproof and guidance) of God's way of life. Deuteronomy 20:18-21: "If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them,then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, to the gate of his city.And they shall say to the elders of his city, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.'Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear. The idea was not as cruel as it seems but it was a deterrent against bad behavior in the youth of the tribe.

20:30. The blueness of a wound cleanseth away evil: so do stripes the inward parts of the belly. This was difficult for me to understand in the KJV but when we use the translation called the Septuagint in English we see another entirely different meaning. 30 ¶ Bruises and contusions befall bad men; and plagues shall come in the inward parts of their belly. If this is the more correct thinking of the author then we might be able to see that it has nothing to do with child rearing at all. This word in English"stripes" translated from the Greek is the same word that is the root for plague and this is the meaning in another passage in the New Testament which was originally written in Greek. 2Cor 11:23 Are they ministers of Christ? I speak as a fool, am more: in labors more abundant, in stripes (plagues) above measure, in prisons more frequently, in deaths often. Each of these proverbs was a topic of themselves without context and in that condition we can only guess at what was meant from our more modern ethnocentric thinking. I tend to agree with the Septuagint to translate this passage's meaning.

The Septuagint was a translation from the ancient Hebrew by seventy elders assigned this task by Philadelphius Ptolemy in the period of Greek and Roman history just before the birth of Christ in circa 285 BCE. It is of great importance because the Christ read from this version in his synagogue appearances and the whole New Testament quotes frequently from this version because their people spoke a Koine type of Greek and were socially more akin to the Greek social order than the Hebrew. They were called Hellenized Jews and a large colony of them lived in Alexandria, Egypt where Ptolemy ruled. It clarifies the more modern versions like the KJV and this is probably what is needed to interpret this verse as well.

All of these versions can be downloaded with the OnlineBible.net modules for free use for those who want to understand the original meaning of the Scriptures and are open minded enough to see that we could be mistaken if we use just the KJV alone without verification. These tools you can have as well.

I do not feel it is necessary to beat or strike a kid with the full force of an adult arm to get the point across that they are behaving unacceptably. We are also told that the more important matters of the law require justice or the punishment must fit the crime, mercy or compassion for those smaller and weaker than we, and faith that our Father is teaching us in the right way so we might follow his lead in many of our decisions on how to deal with stubborn stiff necked humanity. Mt 23:23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. I have denied my son a place to call home for his unacceptable behavior as a teen and young adult due to drinking and carousing but beating him at that age would be quite inappropriate. Life is teaching him and his sister that we do not always get what we want and what we want is not always good for us. I will allow you the discretion to discipline your children in love so that you might be blessed with good citizens at least. My son is a hard working well trained young man who has Multiple Sclerosis since he was thirty. He no longer lives the party going life style he did as a youngster partly due to my own will to correct him. My daughter is working at her profession to do great things for the children's hospital here and both of them have returned great dividends to me. I still pray for their repentance to live fully the way God has shown me is the correct way to live to produce happiness. Review the blessings and cursings in Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26 to see that most of our trouble is brought on by our own rebellion against God's more genteel way to live. If we insist on getting the results of our own behavior in curses then we are not long for living on this planet as a people. God has a way to resolve that problem too but that is for another question or topic to discuss. May God show you the right way to correct your children in love.

My child disobeyed me once, Then he talked back to me. After that I just go fed up and took him out behind the chemical shed and shot him. I'll have a new one to replace him that I just ordered from Africa.

as a friend of mine once quoted...
"if you kill em, then they don't learn nuthing."

and the Rod is in reference to the shepards staff.

If they are the same item, then explain this...

Psalm 23:4
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me.

It looks like God has both a rod AND a staff.

If they are the same item, then explain this...

Psalm 23:4
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me.

It looks like God has both a rod AND a staff.and which is used for what purpose?

Rod (shepards rod to guide and protect)

Staff (walking staff to support and to assist)

and which is used for what purpose?

Rod (shepards rod to guide and protect)

Staff (walking staff to support and to assist)

Rod Examples:
2 Samuel 7:14
I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men.

Exodus 21:20
"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished,

Staff Examples:
Genesis 47:31
"Swear to me," he said. Then Joseph swore to him, and Israel worshiped as he leaned on the top of his staff.

1 Samuel 14:27
But Jonathan had not heard that his father had bound the people with the oath, so he reached out the end of the staff that was in his hand and dipped it into the honeycomb. He raised his hand to his mouth, and his eyes brightened.

It does indeed look like a staff is a walking aide, and also a tool. However, the rod is most definitely for hitting, a weapon used for floggings and punishment...

I blame most of the psychiatric problems the doctor diagnoses me with nowadays to my father beating me over the head with an iron bar.

Rod Examples:
2 Samuel 7:14
I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men.then why mention punishment with the rod of men and floggings inflicted by men as two seperate punnishments? Rod in the sense of a shepards crock can be guidance, or as discipline, can be jail.

Exodus 21:20
"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished,and what... I can hit you with a shepard's crock. its not the proper way to use that tool, but I can beat you with it. I can hit you with a shovel, they're not meant to be used that way, but I can still hit you with a shovel, or a belt, or a brush... all not meant to be used in that fashion. it doesn't prove that a shepard's crock is not meant for hitting someone.

Staff Examples:
Genesis 47:31
"Swear to me," he said. Then Joseph swore to him, and Israel worshiped as he leaned on the top of his staff.and if you've seen shepards staves, they are huge. so this probably referrs to a walking staff.

1 Samuel 14:27
But Jonathan had not heard that his father had bound the people with the oath, so he reached out the end of the staff that was in his hand and dipped it into the honeycomb. He raised his hand to his mouth, and his eyes brightened.and...

It does indeed look like a staff is a walking aide, and also a tool. However, the rod is most definitely for hitting, a weapon used for floggings and punishment...nope, read the other examples in the bible that mention a Rod. they all will make sense.

...
nope, read the other examples in the bible that mention a Rod. they all will make sense.


I still disagree with your conclussion.

Proverbs 26:3
A whip for the horse, a halter for the donkey, and a rod for the backs of fools!

Proverbs 23:14
Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death.

Isaiah 10:5
[ God's Judgment on Assyria ] "Woe to the Assyrian, the rod of my anger, in whose hand is the club of my wrath!

Isaiah 11:4
but with righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth. He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth; with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked.

Isaiah 30:32
Every stroke the LORD lays on them with his punishing rod will be to the music of tambourines and harps, as he fights them in battle with the blows of his arm.

There are measuring rods, spears that are called to be like a weavers rod (a beam holding all of the wool yarn up as a weaver weaves them into a rug or clothe etc.,), ruler’s rods for you to pass under in subservience and beating rods … A rod means the same thing then as it does now, a manufactured stick of some kind. Some rods have different purposes but I do not know of anywhere where a Shepard’s staff is called a rod though (not to say that there is none at all, only that I don’t know of any).

I doubt the child would stay in the room for 7 weeks, after about a week I would take him to the doctor.

I have no doubt a child could stay defiant for about 10 minutes, and after the first smack what exactly do you do next? smack harder? leave him alone? throw him out on the streets? what exactly?

I think the point is if used correctly, there needs not be any more than one smack. I certianly have never had to smack my kids more than once at any one time, and I can really count on one hand the ammount of times I have had to smack them.

I never had a "little pop in the butt" either. According to what relatives have told me, my parents were slapping me across the face by the age of 18 months (none of them ever explained why they didn't help me). I don't remember that, per se, but I don't ever remember a time when they weren't beating me; like say, by age 6 or so. And they didn't "lose control" -- the bruises were almost never where they could be seen, and they tended to stop just short of me needing medical attention. They knew precisely what they were doing. Now I would ask all of you out there who have advocated hitting children (and some of you have spoken of beating kids with belts, etc.) what could any 18 month old child, much less one in a wheelchair, have done to deserve that? Please note: I did not bring up my disability to suggest that it is worse to hit a disabled child; merely to illustrate that I didn't have the mobility to have "gotten into trouble".

Again I think we need to seperate smacking as a punishment or deterant, from beating up your kids. They are two totaly differant things. Your parents where not smackers but thugs.

I used to think that I had a hard childhood, and in truth is was, but as I get older and I talk to more people I realise that what I went through was about the norm for for the times, and for the social structure, and some people had it worse than me, and soem people had it better.

I'm fine though, most of my freinds who went through the same sorta things are fine also, as are the majority of adults who got both smacked and beaten as children that I know.

So lasting harm done, not a lot.

look at my scenario... on a bus, the child cannot run, and is being threatened by violence... so the situation matches. after all, you are teaching your child to HIT FIRST and HIT HARD. you also admitted to face violence by being more violent. so if the bully is larger, you are saying to pull out a knife or other weapon is perfectly fine..

Okay you said 'talking smack..' for a kid to say something like, 'I'm gonna smash your head in..' is not beyond normal behaviour, and I have taught my kids to ignore verbal threats. In you example though if the other kid took a swing at my child, then my child knows there is no running and no talking to be done, so I'd rather he beat this other child up, than get beat up himself.

Is that wrong then?

WTF? that's responding to IMMENENT DANGER OF VIOLENCE with VIOLENCE. what you are saying should be done. Threats in and of themseves are not violent, and certainly don't warrent physical violence as a response. if you consider threats of violence to be Immenent Violence, then my bus situation matches yours even better.

Have you ever been in a fight? I'm sure that you have, when in any sort of conffrontation, there comes a period of no going back, you know when violenbce is going to start, and you also know if there is a chance of talking your way out of it, or running away. when there is no other recourse, I have taught my kids to hit first, hit hard, and then run. Clearer for you?

Again is this wrong?

to a preteen child, what is done in play often times equates to being ok to be done in public and to others she is playing with. my Sister-in-law's neice play wrestles with her father, she acually hits him, jumps on him, elbows him... etc... and her usual greeting to me is a hard punch to the stomach (because I'm the same size as her father.) and her father has to constantly remind her that she cannot hit other people. but to her, because she does it in play with her father, she can do it to others she's playing with (she actually told me this straight to my face.) and she really doesn't mean any malice.

Really? Well I can only say it don't work that way in my family. I guess it must be how I have bought my children up. My kids would not dream of hitting an adult, unless in play or in defence.

I am so happy that your philosophy of meeting violence with violence hasn't been ingrained in your children.

Ohhh but it has, I am not a violent man, my children are not violent either, but equally I'm not stupid enough to stand there and let violence be done to me, nor are my children.

Again, am I wrong here, you you advocate total pacifism, whould you do if somebody attacked you? what would you teach your kids to do?

Am I really getting a hard time from you because I refuse to be assulted?

I certainly won't treat my 15 year old as a child. and I certainly wouldn't teach them to answer immenent violence by first strikes.

Then you are clearly mad, and I can only imagine the grief you will get from any teenage children you have. A 15year old is still a child, at 18 they arte a little bit more adult, but not untill a person is about 20-21 has the brain stopped growing and can be said to be an adult brain. Do you know nowt of teenage hormones, and the typical thought processes of a teenager? It's not there fault, it's just nature.

by the age of 13, they would know what areas to keep out of, what their parents approve and dis-approve of, and they will also know it's better to be honest with their parents and not dis-honest. and should they need to be punnished, it won't be by spanking or any other form of physical violence.

Haha soo by age 13 you never went anywhere your parents forbade you to go?


yes, I use the word "tends to" because I am no expert on all gangs, I can only speak about the gangs I encountered and those that I have, do not bother people unless thoes people are doing things on their turf that they do not approve of. but then if you are an EXPERT on gang behavior... :rolleyes:

I don't know how old you are so I cannot assume any lifes experiances you may have had. When I say gangs I mean predominatly teenage males. The thing with these gangs, is that they won't bother you if you are sooo much younger, or if you have reached your 20's(normally) Their normal pray are small groups or pairs of like aged males, especily if the type of music they listen to is differant from the norm.

There comes a time in a boys life when it gets very dangerous, from about 13 to about 20, the capacity for boys to meet with violence is high, do i know this as an expert on gangs? No of course not, this comes from my lifes experiance, from what I see out of my window, from the gansg on the street that I have to pass by and through every day. I don't live in a nice neat comfatable area, I live in a poor run down place which is indicitive to every poor run down place you'll every read about, violence from strangers is a very real part of my life, and I'll be damned if my kids grow up not knowing how to deal with it.


oh, and I've been in many situations, in fact most of my classmates have been in many situations that would fit your "can't run and under threat of Immenent violence," where we didn't resort to violence. nor did we surrender our dignity nor capacity to THINK instead of swinging into violence and came out of those situations ok.

Ohh really did you get the granny beat out of you, or talk your way out then?

I still disagree with your conclussion.

Proverbs 26:3
A whip for the horse, a halter for the donkey, and a rod for the backs of fools!

Proverbs 23:14
Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death.

Isaiah 10:5
[ God's Judgment on Assyria ] "Woe to the Assyrian, the rod of my anger, in whose hand is the club of my wrath!

Isaiah 11:4
but with righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth. He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth; with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked.

Isaiah 30:32
Every stroke the LORD lays on them with his punishing rod will be to the music of tambourines and harps, as he fights them in battle with the blows of his arm.

There are measuring rods, spears that are called to be like a weavers rod (a beam holding all of the wool yarn up as a weaver weaves them into a rug or clothe etc.,), ruler’s rods for you to pass under in subservience and beating rods … A rod means the same thing then as it does now, a manufactured stick of some kind. Some rods have different purposes but I do not know of anywhere where a Shepard’s staff is called a rod though (not to say that there is none at all, only that I don’t know of any).

Okay, lets say I buy your explanation, do you use the entire old testament in it's' literal translation to guide your entire life?

Okay, lets say I buy your explanation, do you use the entire old testament in it's' literal translation to guide your entire life?

Interesting question...
If you don't, how do you decide which parts you take literally and obey, and which to regard as metaphors or clearly invalid?

Interesting question...
If you don't, how do you decide which parts you take literally and obey, and which to regard as metaphors or clearly invalid?

I happen to be a Christian, I follow Christ, He gave a few commandments I follow them.

Okay, lets say I buy your explanation, do you use the entire old testament in it's' literal translation to guide your entire life?

Oh no. Make no mistake about it, I'm not advocating a restoration of the authority of the old testament laws for Christians. In fact, I'm theologically against that concept at all.

I was only pointing out that the OT is not an anti-corporal punishment message for raising children. As the poster I addressed was trying to say (acting like the OT never advocated corporal punishment at all but that we misunderstood it). I was simply postin my opinion that to take the 'rod' concept and to try and reinvent it as something new, something non-corporal punishment, is a mere fancy, a twisting of the words to match the desired outcome. It simple words, the claim that using the rod is NOT a corporal punishment description is erroneous.

Okay you said 'talking smack..' for a kid to say something like, 'I'm gonna smash your head in..' is not beyond normal behaviour, and I have taught my kids to ignore verbal threats. In you example though if the other kid took a swing at my child, then my child knows there is no running and no talking to be done, so I'd rather he beat this other child up, than get beat up himself.

Ah... but you said Immenent threat of violence, Threatening violence is Immenent threat of violence, taking a swing at someone isn't Immenent threat of violence, that IS INITIATING violence. and once someone takes a swing at you, you cannot hit first, hit hard as you said. that's the contradiction I mentioned. as long as you say you will Hit First Hit Hard under threat of Immenent Violence you are initiating the violence. someone threatens, you hit first. that's what you're arguing.

Is that wrong then?to initiate the Violence... YES! to teach people to start swinging first? yes.

Have you ever been in a fight? I'm sure that you have, when in any sort of conffrontation, there comes a period of no going back, you know when violenbce is going to start, and you also know if there is a chance of talking your way out of it, or running away. when there is no other recourse, I have taught my kids to hit first, hit hard, and then run. Clearer for you?yes, I've been in my share of violence, and I NEVER hit first. I never take the first swing, I even turn my back to them to walk away. and you know what? I don't have a record yet.

Again is this wrong?see previous answer.

Really? Well I can only say it don't work that way in my family. I guess it must be how I have bought my children up. My kids would not dream of hitting an adult, unless in play or in defence.... unless under THREAT of IMMENENT VIOLENCE...

Ohhh but it has, I am not a violent man, my children are not violent either, but equally I'm not stupid enough to stand there and let violence be done to me, nor are my children.

Again, am I wrong here, you you advocate total pacifism, whould you do if somebody attacked you? what would you teach your kids to do?to defend oneself is different than initiating the violence that you so often advocated here in this thread... all the while excusing it as being "Human Nature."

Am I really getting a hard time from you because I refuse to be assulted?refusing to be assulted is one thing, starting the fight because you FEEL that you cannot avoid the violence is something different.

Then you are clearly mad, and I can only imagine the grief you will get from any teenage children you have. A 15year old is still a child, at 18 they arte a little bit more adult, but not untill a person is about 20-21 has the brain stopped growing and can be said to be an adult brain. Do you know nowt of teenage hormones, and the typical thought processes of a teenager? It's not there fault, it's just nature.and I feel sorry for your teens if you treat your 15 yr old the same way you treated them when they were 1, 5 or 10. do you still cut their meat for them? read them bedtime stories? I hope you did potty train them...

Haha soo by age 13 you never went anywhere your parents forbade you to go?nope. and you know what? they trusted me then and now to make the right choices ever since I turned 10. I never betrayed that trust. I'm sorry to hear that you don't place that same trust in your teens.

I don't know how old you are so I cannot assume any lifes experiances you may have had. When I say gangs I mean predominatly teenage males. The thing with these gangs, is that they won't bother you if you are sooo much younger, or if you have reached your 20's(normally) Their normal pray are small groups or pairs of like aged males, especily if the type of music they listen to is differant from the norm.small groups of how many? and how loud is the music being played?

Gangs that bother the civies for no legit reason tend to be watched by the authorities. so report em in. a non-violent (on your end) solution to a violent problem.

There comes a time in a boys life when it gets very dangerous, from about 13 to about 20, the capacity for boys to meet with violence is high, do i know this as an expert on gangs? No of course not, this comes from my lifes experiance, from what I see out of my window, from the gansg on the street that I have to pass by and through every day. I don't live in a nice neat comfatable area, I live in a poor run down place which is indicitive to every poor run down place you'll every read about, violence from strangers is a very real part of my life, and I'll be damned if my kids grow up not knowing how to deal with it.wow, I'm glad I live in an area where there is no war-time called the Teenage years. man the violence was soo great, it would even sometimes make the rumor mill here. :rolleyes: and it must be really bad to live in downtown Bahgdad... I mean, with all that violence being done around you everyday that requires you to wear a bullet proof vest all the time. [/sarcasm]

sounds more like you are looking for an excuse to start violence, blaming everything from Human Nature to Poor Rundown Communities...

Ohh really did you get the granny beat out of you, or talk your way out then?I'm still here... and I still advocate not throwing the first punch. They know I'm no threat to them, so any action against me is a waste of energy. I leave them alone, they leave me alone.

Heck, I walk through areas where drug dealers and gangs roam. they don't bother me, I don't bother them.

I still disagree with your conclussion.

Proverbs 26:3
A whip for the horse, a halter for the donkey, and a rod for the backs of fools!go watch how shepards use their staffs... they nudge them by laying the staff (or Rod in this case) on the back of the sheep. they don't beat them with the staves.

Proverbs 23:14
Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death.and the verse before that talks of Discipline and likes that to a rod, to spare the child discipline won't kill the child, and so to save his soul, you punish him with discipline. not with a beating.

Isaiah 10:5
[ God's Judgment on Assyria ] "Woe to the Assyrian, the rod of my anger, in whose hand is the club of my wrath!and if you note, why make the distinction between a rod and a club? unless both are different items used differently.

Isaiah 11:4
but with righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth. He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth; with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked.the Rod of his mouth a.k.a. words. again, not a beating.

Isaiah 30:32
Every stroke the LORD lays on them with his punishing rod will be to the music of tambourines and harps, as he fights them in battle with the blows of his arm.and since the chapter talks about the laying to waste of a NATION. it's in reference to his Judgement.

Isaiah 30:32There are measuring rods, spears that are called to be like a weavers rod (a beam holding all of the wool yarn up as a weaver weaves them into a rug or clothe etc.,), ruler’s rods for you to pass under in subservience and beating rods … A rod means the same thing then as it does now, a manufactured stick of some kind. Some rods have different purposes but I do not know of anywhere where a Shepard’s staff is called a rod though (not to say that there is none at all, only that I don’t know of any).[/QUOTE]
don't forget, you are talking about a translation that went through at least two different languages before English. historical translations of the text do have the word Rod (used today) meaning the shepards tool for guiding sheep.
it's explained in my earlier post.