NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not entirely clear on how hitting your kids will prevent mental retardation. Could you tell me more?

It doesn't :rolleyes:

if they are not old enough for that all the physical punishment in the world isn't going to deter them from whatever it is you don't want them to do.

Perhaps I skipped the page where that was shown. I'll go back and re-read.

And yet that can only do so much. A child misbehaves he deserves to be punished. Not saying spanking on every little incident but big ones do deserve a good swift strike on the butt.

if a child is doing something unsafe, a lot of the responsibility for that lays on the parents for having unsafe conditions in the house (assuming a child under 3 or so that can't respond well to logical discourse about their misbehavior). If a child is old enough to talk to, then talk to them, if they are not old enough for that all the physical punishment in the world isn't going to deter them from whatever it is you don't want them to do.

I don't think people should ever spank their kids.

Don't think, and don't speak.

wow. I really see how respectful and intelligent and what an all around good debater you are! You have really changed my mind, I will go hit my kids now! Thanks!:rolleyes:
:D :fluffle:

Um yea.... this falls under the Stupidest Bills of all time folder.
Ah, you have such persuasive arguements as to why it does that :)

I could say only in California. Hopefully this gets shot down by the legislature or by the Governor.
Why?

Perhaps I skipped the page where that was shown. I'll go back and re-read.

it's logical, if a child is so young that they can't understand their actions (or the consequences of them) then hitting them is not really a good way to build that reasoning is it?

"oh, but they will feel the pain, even animals feel pain"

they will connect that pain to you, since you are the one that hit them

what do they learn exactly?

if a child is doing something unsafe, a lot of the responsibility for that lays on the parents for having unsafe conditions in the house (assuming a child under 3 or so that can't respond well to logical discourse about their misbehavior). If a child is old enough to talk to, then talk to them, if they are not old enough for that all the physical punishment in the world isn't going to deter them from whatever it is you don't want them to do.

*yawns*

I was spanked as a child for when I totally screwed up. And that was when I was able to talk, walk, run, etc. I was able to comprehend words but when I got a good swift swat on the butt, it drove the point home more than words. Face it Smunkee. You may have raised your kids without spanking but not all families can do that. Understand that right now.

:Why?

Because it is taking away a parent's right to discipline their kids.

I understand that most parents won't or don't want to take the time to.

My parents tried. Did not work.

I fully understand that, I mean it was easier for my parents to spank me than it was to talk to me, even though they thought that little "I had to spank you because you broke the rule, and I still love you" talk was sufficient.

Worked on me.

I fully understand that, I mean it was easier for my parents to spank me than it was to talk to me, even though they thought that little "I had to spank you because you broke the rule, and I still love you" talk was sufficient.is that the talk you got?

I got the whole "this is what you did wrong, this is what we expected of you when we told you... this is why you should really think about what you done...

most times, the pain of the spanking wore away before the lecture was done.

Because it is taking away a parent's right to discipline their kids.

Thank you.

And you forgot "...as they see fit" or "...using the methods they think is best". 'cause the parents still have a right to discipline their kids, just not using violence under that bill :)

*yawns*

I was spanked as a child for when I totally screwed up. And that was when I was able to talk, walk, run, etc. I was able to comprehend words but when I got a good swift swat on the butt, it drove the point home more than words. Face it Smunkee. You may have raised your kids without spanking but not all families can do that. Understand that right now.

I understand that most parents won't or don't want to take the time to.

I fully understand that, I mean it was easier for my parents to spank me than it was to talk to me, even though they thought that little "I had to spank you because you broke the rule, and I still love you" talk was sufficient.

People - this applies especially to the retarded lefties that seem to infest this forum (although admittably the jury is still out as to whether lefties have brains and thus can qualify as "people") - do everyone a favor and discipline your children, and yes hit them, because if you don't do it when they're 3, somebody is probably going to have to do it when they're 16 or 17, the only difference is you care about your children.

Also "Smunkeeville," when your children grow up to be disrespectful, undisciplined retards, you'll only have yourself to blame.

No - you're an idiot if you disagree with discipline, thus its a natural position for lefties to take, since you're all idiots.

I'll go away if you go live in a socialist economy that isn't a sham second-rate institution .. OH WAIT

Let's get one thing straight, lefties aren't 'brainless', nor are the ones who advocate abortion the same ones who want to make any form of discipline illegal, thus creating a society of ill-mannered, misbehaving heathens.

There is no lefty here who will disagree with discipline as a tool to maintain order. They will however disagree with the type of tool used. There is more than one tool in that fancy 'Punishment Toolbelt Playset' from Fisher-Price.

Secondly, you have no right to come on this forum and start parading around like you own the place because the 'lefties' that you claim infest this place will run you out of here so fast, it'll make your head spin, sending you teacup over saucer. You're playing with the big kids here, and we play for keeps.

Third, I'm one of those so-called 'lefties' and I have no problem with spanking, with the hand, and no other object. Of course, only as a last resort, unless the child is about to do something incredibly dangerous like take a cleaning product I have out while cleaning, or touching the stove.

You can't judge all of us with the same set of evidence because we all have different beliefs, even if we do fall into the same spectrum of the political belief system. In fact, there are a couple of non-lefties who are siding with the concept that spanking is nothing but a quick fix that will accomplish nothing in the end.

Fourth, you have no right to insult people for their methods. You can say why you don't agree with them on their ideas but telling them their children will end up a certain way because they're doing something wrong without any prior knowledge is just plain bald-faced ignorance.

If Smunkeeville thinks that her children are turning out all right with her methods then who are you to judge? If her children were running wild and free you could complain, but, as far as we know, they don't. Further, it isn't as if she doesn't punish her children. She had made it very clear that she isn't adverse to punishment. She just very much opposes any form of physical punishment, which is what spanking is.

The absence of one type of punishment doesn't mean that her children will turn out a certain way; it means nothing other than she believes her current methods are working and you can hold your breath until you turn blue in the face and it won't change a thing.

I think right now you need a time out, Expandonia. You've been insolent and ungrateful as well as rude and ineloquent. You should sit in the corner and think about what you did because your abusive language is not welcomed on this forum. It is never welcomed from anyone.

Not wanting to butt in to a conversation but...

The hell they're not. Time-outs were just about the worst punishment I could imagine when I was little. I hated the time-out chair. I had to sit and do nothing at all for minutes on end!!! I wasn't allowed to talk!!! It was absolute agony.
I liked time outs as a kid. I never thought of them as punishment. :D

Let's get one thing straight, lefties aren't 'brainless', nor are the ones who advocate abortion the same ones who want to make any form of discipline illegal, thus creating a society of ill-mannered, misbehaving heathens.

There is no lefty here who will disagree with discipline as a tool to maintain order. They will however disagree with the type of tool used. There is more than one tool in that fancy 'Punishment Toolbelt Playset' from Fisher-Price.

Secondly, you have no right to come on this forum and start parading around like you own the place because the 'lefties' that you claim infest this place will run you out of here so fast, it'll make your head spin, sending you teacup over saucer. You're playing with the big kids here, and we play for keeps.

Third, I'm one of those so-called 'lefties' and I have no problem with spanking, with the hand, and no other object. Of course, only as a last resort, unless the child is about to do something incredibly dangerous like take a cleaning product I have out while cleaning, or touching the stove.

You can't judge all of us with the same set of evidence because we all have different beliefs, even if we do fall into the same spectrum of the political belief system. In fact, there are a couple of non-lefties who are siding with the concept that spanking is nothing but a quick fix that will accomplish nothing in the end.

Fourth, you have no right to insult people for their methods. You can say why you don't agree with them on their ideas but telling them their children will end up a certain way because they're doing something wrong without any prior knowledge is just plain bald-faced ignorance.

If Smunkeeville thinks that her children are turning out all right with her methods then who are you to judge? If her children were running wild and free you could complain, but, as far as we know, they don't. Further, it isn't as if she doesn't punish her children. She had made it very clear that she isn't adverse to punishment. She just very much opposes any form of physical punishment, which is what spanking is.

I think right now you need a time out, Expandonia. You've been insolent and ungrateful as well as rude and ineloquent. You should sit in the corner and think about what you did because your abusive language is not welcomed on this forum. It is never welcomed from anyone.
and while there is a phrase that would suit this post perfectly, due to the topic of the thread, I would rather say to Expandonia,


Spanked! big time... by Smunkee, Kryozerkia, and everyone else!

Ask any teacher they will give you a million reasons why you are dead wrong. Kids have gotten wrose as irresponsible parents bought into that attitude. I swear Amercians are beoming spoiled babies. Anything remotely unpleasant that people have a duty to do is like not being done. I mean everything from saving for retirement to volunteering to join the army and kill infidels. Even spanking kids and people are supposed to love their kids and want them to grow up right. I am getting so frustrated with my people that it makes me want to rock back and forth in a corner of a padded room and mumble.

I was having a similar discusion with somebody the other day. And the concensus of opionion(note I say opionion) was that kids are already under the illusion that us parents acannot smack them.

In fact I was at a freinds house the other week and her youngest was telling me that parents where not alowed to smack their kids any more. heeh her face when I told her, the goverment are talking about it, but it aint law yet.

I don't think people should ever spank their kids.

Ask any teacher they will give you a million reasons why you are dead wrong. Kids have gotten worse as more and more irresponsible parents bought into that attitude. I swear Amercians are beoming spoiled babies. Anything remotely unpleasant that people have a duty to do is l not being done as often as it should be done. I mean everything from saving for retirement to volunteering to join the army and kill infidels. Even spanking kids. People are supposed to love their kids and want them to grow up right. I am getting so frustrated with my people that it makes me want to rock back and forth in a corner of a padded room and mumble.

Ask any teacher they will give you a million reasons why you are dead wrong. Kids have gotten worse as more and more irresponsible parents bought into that attitude. I swear Amercians are beoming spoiled babies. Anything remotely unpleasant that people have a duty to do is l not being done as often as it should be done. I mean everything from saving for retirement to volunteering to join the army and kill infidels. Even spanking kids. People are supposed to love their kids and want them to grow up right. I am getting so frustrated with my people that it makes me want to rock back and forth in a corner of a padded room and mumble.

Hear hear.

Ask any teacher they will give you a million reasons why you are dead wrong. Kids have gotten wrose as irresponsible parents bought into that attitude. I swear Amercians are beoming spoiled babies. Anything remotely unpleasant that people have a duty to do is like not being done. I mean everything from saving for retirement to volunteering to join the army and kill infidels. Even spanking kids and people are supposed to love their kids and want them to grow up right. I am getting so frustrated with my people that it makes me want to rock back and forth in a corner of a padded room and mumble.

I teach kids, and not just my own, in fact tomorrow I will have a class of 35 of them, I don't see that spanking is necessary to discipline a child. Thanks for trying though.

I am getting so frustrated with my people that it makes me want to rock back and forth in a corner of a padded room and mumble.
Can I join you? That sounds like fun!

I teach kids, and not just my own, in fact tomorrow I will have a class of 35 of them, I don't see that spanking is necessary to discipline a child. Thanks for trying though.

Coaching sports is not what I had in mind. I mean real teachers in real public elementary and middle schools (I am not in favor of paddling high school students I think that is a little degrading. Go ahead call me a lefty pinko subversive I do nor care).

Coaching sports is not what I had in mind. I mean real teachers in real public elementary and middle schools (I am not in favor of paddling high school students I think that is a little degrading. Go ahead call me a lefty pinko subversive I do nor care).

not coaching sports, teaching.

An excerpt from wikipedia regarding academic studies on corporal punishment:

"The policy statement points out, summarizing several studies, that "The more children are spanked, the more anger they report as adults, the more likely they are to spank their own children, the more likely they are to approve of hitting a spouse, and the more marital conflict they experience as adults." [9] Spanking has been associated with higher rates of physical aggression, more substance abuse, and increased risk of crime and violence when used with older children and adolescents.[10]""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment#History_of_corporal_punishment

I have to agree with this bill, because I'm of the mind that very young children (and most animals as well) don't understand why they're being struck. If a parent is doing his or her job (barring any mental disorder, retardation, etc.), then he or she can use simple psychological conditioning methods to encourage good behavior, thus eliminating the need for corporal punishment. (Example: Instead of smacking the kid, yell "NO!" -- Loud noises will generally distract a child or animal from what they are doing, at least long enough for you to intervene.)

On the other side, Yelling No and simple psychological conditioning may have the same traumatic effect as Spanking (with a capital S). I can remind you on the 'little Albert' case study of behaviorist John Watson in the early 20th century: he asked a friend of his to 'borrow' his child for an experiment to note the consequences of loud noise when doing something. The child was presented a white rat where he could play with, after a time Watson hit the tables loud and chaotic with the obvious result the kid started crying. This conditioning was repeatedly done and resulted in a chronic stress situation every time he saw the white rat, a white coat and santa claus... So watch out with your yelling.

I have no clear statement whether spanking should be illegal or not. Truth is is that all societies (their morality) are based upon pain, corporal or emotional. The idea behind punishment is to learn the child that something is wrong hence braking for a second the flood of thoughts or the ambitious will (like the brother above who repeatedly tried to put something in a power- point) to prevent hazardeous situations. And altough even very young kids have a minor notion of understanding, whether it is recognising your grimace or even some words there are always very hard learning kids. Tapping (light tapping) may give them a moment of clarity or an 'aha-erlebnis'.
None the less I don't think the democrates are questioning the usefulness of spanking (light) but preventing a more harsh interpretation which gives some a free-conduct to extensively punish their children. Also on schools, in public, where-ever. No-one is blaming you for tapping your children as long as it leaves the kid bruiceless and is done consciously.

Then again I might be wrong on the democrats.

not coaching sports, teaching.

I thought you were a financial advisor. I did not know you were a teacher.

I thought you were a financial advisor. I did not know you were a teacher.

I am a financial advisor, I teach, I run a charity, I home school, I volunteer for charity organizations, etc.

I teach 4 classes right now, one for children in elementary school, 2 for junior high aged children, and one for adults.

if they need a "bad experience" there are a few possible reasons

1 they have been trained to ignore anything short of it

2 the parents are not consistent and things get to the point that only a shock will get the kids attention

3 the parents are too lazy to do anything else and have convinced themselves that they need to spank the kid.

Or it was the only way to reach them. Come on Smunkeeville. Get off it for once. Just because a kid got a spanking does not mean that they were trained to ignore anything short of it, that the parents have been consistent with punishment but it didn't work the way it has in the past, nor does it mean they are lazy.

not coaching sports, teaching.

Smunkee, if you're able to discipline your children without corporal punishment and if your children respond well to that, good for you: I'm glad you don't have to use it.

But 99.999...% of children don't respond well to just lectures or time-outs. They need to have a memory imprinted on them, and ususally that means a bad experience. Whether that is spanking, or embarrassment, or holding soap in the mouth or whatever, they need it. Can these things be taken to unhealthy and sinful extremes? Yes, and they are. But that's a problem with the person adminstering discipline not the method of discipline itself.

Smunkee, if you're able to discipline your children without corporal punishment and if your children respond well to that, good for you: I'm glad you don't have to use it.

But 99.999...% of children don't respond well to just lectures or time-outs. They need to have a memory imprinted on them, and ususally that means a bad experience. Whether that is spanking, or embarrassment, or holding soap in the mouth or whatever, they need it. Can these things be taken to unhealthy and sinful extremes? Yes, and they are. But that's a problem with the person adminstering discipline not the method of discipline itself.

if they need a "bad experience" there are a few possible reasons

1 they have been trained to ignore anything short of it

2 the parents are not consistent and things get to the point that only a shock will get the kids attention

3 the parents are too lazy to do anything else and have convinced themselves that they need to spank the kid.

But 99.999...% of children don't respond well to just lectures or time-outs. They need to have a memory imprinted on them, and ususally that means a bad experience. Whether that is spanking, or embarrassment, or holding soap in the mouth or whatever, they need it. Can these things be taken to unhealthy and sinful extremes? Yes, and they are. But that's a problem with the person adminstering discipline not the method of discipline itself.

...and 87% of all statistics are made up on the spot :)

So in other words: Care to back that up?

Or they could reserve it for appropriate times: harm of self or others and direct, consistent disobedience.

Again, if you've done so well, wonderful. The fact is that most children (regardless of parenting strategies) will not remember a lecture or a time out. I don't remember any time I was sent to the corner (I had to stand quietly with my nose facing the corner.), but I do remember many times when I was spanked.

I was running through the house screaming with my brother after my dad had told us several times that he and my mother were ill and trying to sleep. We disobeyed directly and consistently and he came out, made us turn around, and smacked our rear ends with his belt. I remeber that unpleasent experience and now that I'm older I can understand what I was doing wrong. And there are many examples of that in my life, and in many other persons' lives.

If your children are so blessed that they are able to respond to alternative forms of punishment, good. But most of us can't.



Blklaaargh, spank or don't it's your choice innit?

if they need a "bad experience" there are a few possible reasons

1 they have been trained to ignore anything short of it

2 the parents are not consistent and things get to the point that only a shock will get the kids attention

3 the parents are too lazy to do anything else and have convinced themselves that they need to spank the kid.

Or they could reserve it for appropriate times: harm of self or others and direct, consistent disobedience.

Again, if you've done so well, wonderful. The fact is that most children (regardless of parenting strategies) will not remember a lecture or a time out. I don't remember any time I was sent to the corner (I had to stand quietly with my nose facing the corner.), but I do remember many times when I was spanked.

I was running through the house screaming with my brother after my dad had told us several times that he and my mother were ill and trying to sleep. We disobeyed directly and consistently and he came out, made us turn around, and smacked our rear ends with his belt. I remeber that unpleasent experience and now that I'm older I can understand what I was doing wrong. And there are many examples of that in my life, and in many other persons' lives.

If your children are so blessed that they are able to respond to alternative forms of punishment, good. But most of us can't.

...and 87% of all statistics are made up on the spot :)

So in other words: Care to back that up?

It wasn't so much of a statistic as it was a hyperbole to make a point.

so you propose stopping a child from harming himself by hitting him?

from harming others by hitting him?

There's a time for talking but if that fails, a good swift swat on the butt is called for.

Smunkee, if you're able to discipline your children without corporal punishment and if your children respond well to that, good for you: I'm glad you don't have to use it.

But 99.999...% of children don't respond well to just lectures or time-outs. They need to have a memory imprinted on them, and ususally that means a bad experience. Whether that is spanking, or embarrassment, or holding soap in the mouth or whatever, they need it. Can these things be taken to unhealthy and sinful extremes? Yes, and they are. But that's a problem with the person adminstering discipline not the method of discipline itself.

I agree.

Or they could reserve it for appropriate times: harm of self or others and direct, consistent disobedience.

Again, if you've done so well, wonderful. The fact is that most children (regardless of parenting strategies) will not remember a lecture or a time out. I don't remember any time I was sent to the corner (I had to stand quietly with my nose facing the corner.), but I do remember many times when I was spanked.

I was running through the house screaming with my brother after my dad had told us several times that he and my mother were ill and trying to sleep. We disobeyed directly and consistently and he came out, made us turn around, and smacked our rear ends with his belt. I remeber that unpleasent experience and now that I'm older I can understand what I was doing wrong. And there are many examples of that in my life, and in many other persons' lives.

If your children are so blessed that they are able to respond to alternative forms of punishment, good. But most of us can't.

so you propose stopping a child from harming himself by hitting him?

from harming others by hitting him?

Blklaaargh, spank or don't it's your choice innit?

Wow Blklaaargh seems a chicken's sound.

Wow Blklaaargh seems a chicken's sound.

I did copy it from a chikin, but i like to elongate the aaark bit!

so you propose stopping a child from harming himself by hitting him?

from harming others by hitting him?

I propose that the authority adminster punishment fitting the crime of unjustified violence.

Just as I support the death penalty for murderers.

I propose that the authority adminster punishment fitting the crime of unjustified violence.

"don't hit your sister, we don't hit in this family"
*smack*

Just as I support the death penalty for murderers.
because you have the right to kill people but they don't?

It wasn't so much of a statistic as it was a hyperbole to make a point.

Aha, but you see, since 99,7% of children respond well to just lectures or time-outs, there is no need for spanking so your point fails.


See what I did there?

Aha, but you see, since 99,7% of children respond well to just lectures or time-outs, there is no need for spanking so your point fails.


See what I did there?

Isn't .3% still a lot of children?

Isn't .3% still a lot of children?

Yup, and those are the kids that need more than just lectures or time-outs, like for example they would respond well to a a combination of lectrures and time-outs. Or so I would imagine ;)

Yup, and those are the kids that need more than just lectures or time-outs, like for example they would respond well to a a combination of lectrures and time-outs. Or so I would imagine ;)

timeouts, lectures, spankings...all negative punishments hasn't anyone here heard of positive reinforcements?...negative techniques only address unacceptable behaviour which indicates that the only time you acknowledge your child is when they do something you don't like...that only encourages the child to do something that will get your attention which is what they want, little kids crave love and attention


want to improve your child's behaviour try paying attention to them which is what they're after and reward them for being good, tell them you love them, tell them they've been good and then reward them with play time, cuddle time, a hug...

timeouts, lectures, spankings...all negative punishments hasn't anyone here heard of positive reinforcements?...negative techniques only address unacceptable behaviour which indicates that the only time you acknowledge your child is when they do something you don't like...that only encourages the child to do something that will get your attention which is what they want, little kids crave love and attention


want to improve your child's behaviour try paying attention to them which is what they're after and reward them for being good, tell them you love them, tell them they've been good and then reward them with play time, cuddle time, a hug...


Done this, did this, do this all the time.

Kids like all people are not perfect and like adults all sorts of ways are needed to deal with them.

Spanking does no long lasting harm if not abused, no more than grounding, or time outs or whatever.

timeouts, lectures, spankings...all negative punishments hasn't anyone here heard of positive reinforcements?...negative techniques only address unacceptable behaviour which indicates that the only time you acknowledge your child is when they do something you don't like...that only encourages the child to do something that will get your attention which is what they want, little kids crave love and attention


want to improve your child's behaviour try paying attention to them which is what they're after and reward them for being good, tell them you love them, tell them they've been good and then reward them with play time, cuddle time, a hug...

I primarily use positive reinforcement and it seems to work just fine, in fact I haven't had to punish my kids in about 4 months (waiting for the ball to drop on that.....it's scary good around here)

I hadn't mentioned it because most of the people around here can't understand the difference between discipline and punishment, and punishment and abuse.

Not wanting to butt in to a conversation but...

The hell they're not. Time-outs were just about the worst punishment I could imagine when I was little. I hated the time-out chair. I had to sit and do nothing at all for minutes on end!!! I wasn't allowed to talk!!! It was absolute agony.

I was one of those children who time-outs really didn't work on. I was supposed to be "thinking about what I did." What actually ended up happening was a I sat there and was angry at my parents for telling me to go to my room. I'd usually try to sneak a book so that I could do something, and then I'd get more angry when I was told I couldn't read.

Just another example of how things work differently. Some children really benefit from it. Me, not so much.

Smunkee, if you're able to discipline your children without corporal punishment and if your children respond well to that, good for you: I'm glad you don't have to use it.

But 99.999...% of children don't respond well to just lectures or time-outs. They need to have a memory imprinted on them, and ususally that means a bad experience. Whether that is spanking, or embarrassment, or holding soap in the mouth or whatever, they need it. Can these things be taken to unhealthy and sinful extremes? Yes, and they are. But that's a problem with the person adminstering discipline not the method of discipline itself.


Did you know that 75% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

I primarily use positive reinforcement and it seems to work just fine, in fact I haven't had to punish my kids in about 4 months (waiting for the ball to drop on that.....it's scary good around here)

I hadn't mentioned it because most of the people around here can't understand the difference between discipline and punishment, and punishment and abuse.

I discovered this as an adult...working for the same company for 25 yrs, the only time the boss ever spoke to the employees was when something screwed up and then hell would rain down, rarely were we complemented when the work was well done, it was a depressing environment, even adults need positive reinforcement and kids being insecure need it far more and some kids need more than others...

and despite positive rewards kids will still act out, but that's normal they're always looking for the limits of acceptable behaviour it's part of normal learning to socialize, at these times a little time out to cool off and think things over followed not by a lecture but 1 on 1 chat to discuss why that behaviour was unacceptable....it works for me, I've got awesome kids(though I complain about them all the time)...

timeouts, lectures, spankings...all negative punishments hasn't anyone here heard of positive reinforcements?

Indeed, but that isn't what's under discussion here. If someone were trying to outlaw a form of positive reinforcement, then you'd be hearing a lot more about allowance and privileges and hugs and such.

Umm why are my posts not showing!:confused:

Ohh that one did. Let me try again!

I discovered this as an adult...working for the same company for 25 yrs, the only time the boss ever spoke to the employees was when something screwed up and then hell would rain down, rarely were we complemented when the work was well done, it was a depressing environment, even adults need positive reinforcement and kids being insecure need it far more and some kids need more than others...

and despite positive rewards kids will still act out, but that's normal they're always looking for the limits of acceptable behaviour it's part of normal learning to socialize, at these times a little time out to cool off and think things over followed not by a lecture but 1 on 1 chat to discuss why that behaviour was unacceptable....it works for me, I've got awesome kids(though I complain about them all the time)...
I am reminded of a quote from a movie, a favorite of mine

That's my only real motivation is not to be hassled; that, and the fear of losing my job. But you know, Bob, that will only make someone work just hard enough not to get fired.

Done this, did this, do this all the time.

Kids like all people are not perfect and like adults all sorts of ways are needed to deal with them.

Spanking does no long lasting harm if not abused, no more than grounding, or time outs or whatever.

"Spanking does no long lasting harm if not abused"..how do you know that?
what you think is a harmless swat is a horrific experience to a child, where one will shrug it off the next child will develop deep mental scars...I had a talk with a client who is Neurologist who works with adults who issues from childhood experiences...he said we just don't know why some people have these problems and others do not....some people have endured horrific abusive childhoods and outwardly seem fine and fully functional, and there are others who had very minor abusive situations and are basket cases unable to function...so if we can't be sure if spanking is causing lasting harm or not why do it at all?

Hey, all I said was that time outs absolutely qualified as punishment for me. Sounds like they did for you, too, since you got pissed off about having to be in time-out.

I thought the point of punishment was supposed to be to get the child to realize that what they did was wrong - to teach them the appropriate way to behave? All this did was get me pissed off at my parents. I can't even tell you a single infraction for which I was ever put in time-out, although I can certainly remember it happening. The infraction didn't matter, because I wasn't even thinking about it.

Thus, it didn't work. Time-outs were thoroughly useless in teaching me anything.

Now, whether or not time outs are an effective means of getting a kid to behave better is a different matter. Plenty of things are punishment but are also not effective at getting kids to behave. Hitting me, for instance, was absolutely a punishment, but it wasn't a good one from the standpoint of trying to induce positive changes in my conduct.

Then it wasn't an effective punishment for you.

I was one of those children who time-outs really didn't work on. I was supposed to be "thinking about what I did." What actually ended up happening was a I sat there and was angry at my parents for telling me to go to my room. I'd usually try to sneak a book so that I could do something, and then I'd get more angry when I was told I couldn't read.

Just another example of how things work differently. Some children really benefit from it. Me, not so much.
Hey, all I said was that time outs absolutely qualified as punishment for me. Sounds like they did for you, too, since you got pissed off about having to be in time-out.

Now, whether or not time outs are an effective means of getting a kid to behave better is a different matter. Plenty of things are punishment but are also not effective at getting kids to behave. Hitting me, for instance, was absolutely a punishment, but it wasn't a good one from the standpoint of trying to induce positive changes in my conduct.

"Spanking does no long lasting harm if not abused"..how do you know that?
what you think is a harmless swat is a horrific experience to a child, where one will shrug it off the next child will develop deep mental scars...I had a talk with a client who is Neurologist who works with adults who issues from childhood experiences...he said we just don't know why some people have these problems and others do not....some people have endured horrific abusive childhoods and outwardly seem fine and fully functional, and there are others who had very minor abusive situations and are basket cases unable to function...so if we can't be sure if spanking is causing lasting harm or not why do it at all?

You can say the same thing about any form of punishment. A child highly prone to paranoia might become extraordinarily possessive if parents were to take away toys as punishment. A child highly prone to abandonment issues might develop problems from time-outs. A child like my brother might simply learn to completely turn people off when it comes to lectures. And so on....

This is why a parent must tailor their methods to their children, rather than just choosing one or two and assuming it will work for any child they might have.

"Spanking does no long lasting harm if not abused"..how do you know that?
what you think is a harmless swat is a horrific experience to a child, where one will shrug it off the next child will develop deep mental scars...I had a talk with a client who is Neurologist who works with adults who issues from childhood experiences...he said we just don't know why some people have these problems and others do not....some people have endured horrific abusive childhoods and outwardly seem fine and fully functional, and there are others who had very minor abusive situations and are basket cases unable to function...so if we can't be sure if spanking is causing lasting harm or not why do it at all?


Meh, how do you think I know it? Did you ever get into fights as a kid, if so has that violence done any lasting harm to your phsyche?

All of us has had violence done to them at some point in life, so why are not all of us fucked up?

I am reminded of a quote from a movie, a favorite of mine

That's my only real motivation is not to be hassled; that, and the fear of losing my job. But you know, Bob, that will only make someone work just hard enough not to get fired.

coincidently my most recent client was so impressed by my performance that the praise was quite embarrassing(but I loved it) now I'm being rewarded with a bigger contract, happy day$...and the quality of my work will be top rate next time as well...adults are just big kids, we love positive reinforcement and reward, if the guy was nasty I'd decline to do business with him...

I thought the point of punishment was supposed to be to get the child to realize that what they did was wrong - to teach them the appropriate way to behave?

Punishment is the practice of imposing something unpleasant on a subject as a response to some unwanted or immoral behavior or disobedience that the subject has displayed.

Whether or not said punishment causes the subject to be less likely to engage in that behavior in the future is a different story.

Time outs are punishment for most kids, in my experience, because most kids find time-outs unpleasant. Similarly, hitting is a punishment for most kids, because most kids find it unpleasant to be hit.

The question is whether or not either of these is an effective means of discipline. Discipline is training to produce a specific character or pattern of behavior. You could punish a child constantly and still not be engaging in effective discipline.


All this did was get me pissed off at my parents. I can't even tell you a single infraction for which I was ever put in time-out, although I can certainly remember it happening. The infraction didn't matter, because I wasn't even thinking about it.

Thus, it didn't work. Time-outs were thoroughly useless in teaching me anything.

So, for you, time-outs were a form of punishment that was not effective at disciplining you.


Then it wasn't an effective punishment for you.
It was absolutely effective as a punishment, as it was for you, because neither of us enjoyed it in the least. We were punished quite effectively, as evidenced by our discomfort and anger.

It was not an effective form of discipline for you, as it did not cause you to be more likely to behave in the way your parents desired.

Being hit absolutely qualified as an effective punishment for me. It punished the hell out of me. However, it was a shit-ass form of discipline because it just pissed me off and made me more likely to do bad things whenever I could avoid getting caught. The punishment was very effectively delivered, but it did not produce any of the desired effects on shaping my behavior.

So, to sum up:

If you want to punish a kid, hitting them will probably work quite well, because 99.9% of kids find it unpleasant to be hit. However, if you wish to discipline a child, there is a great deal of debate as to whether hitting them will be effective.

Aha, but you see, since 99,7% of children respond well to just lectures or time-outs, there is no need for spanking so your point fails.


See what I did there?

I wasn't claiming a statistic though. I thought I made the exaggeration clear with the ridiculouos amount of 9's.

You can say the same thing about any form of punishment. A child highly prone to paranoia might become extraordinarily possessive if parents were to take away toys as punishment. A child highly prone to abandonment issues might develop problems from time-outs. A child like my brother might simply learn to completely turn people off when it comes to lectures. And so on....

This is why a parent must tailor their methods to their children, rather than just choosing one or two and assuming it will work for any child they might have.

I agree 100%, I just don't see physical punishment as ever being necessary...I look at my huge extended family and which kids were spanked and which were not...those that were physically punished the most generally have not succeeded in life as adults...

You can say the same thing about any form of punishment. A child highly prone to paranoia might become extraordinarily possessive if parents were to take away toys as punishment. A child highly prone to abandonment issues might develop problems from time-outs. A child like my brother might simply learn to completely turn people off when it comes to lectures. And so on....

This is why a parent must tailor their methods to their children, rather than just choosing one or two and assuming it will work for any child they might have.
I absolutely agree, but I think a lot of this current discussion is about the idea that there are some methods that should never be used by any parent.

For instance, I think most people here would agree that burning your child with an iron should never be considered as a potential parenting method. We draw a line, somewhere, and say that things past this line are simply unacceptable as parenting methods, no matter who your child is.

Some people in this discussion feel that any form of physical violence is equally inappropriate as a parenting method. Others feel that there are certain forms of physical violence that can be considered, under certain circumstances. Others feel that physical violence of one form or another is the most effective parenting strategy for all parents and children, and that non-violent forms of punishment are insufficient by themselves.

Meh, how do you think I know it? Did you ever get into fights as a kid, if so has that violence done any lasting harm to your phsyche?

All of us has had violence done to them at some point in life, so why are not all of us fucked up?

everything that happens to you shapes your personality, some of us are better at repressing the harm done to us than others.

did I get into fights as a kid? yes i endured some awful abuse from school bullies, teachers, pedo's, and family members...has it done harm to my psyche? absolutely the scars are very deep, I recall every incident like it was yesterday, it has shaped the person I have become...

am I fucked up?...I function in society normally but the memories do not fade, all the spankings, slaps, kicks, punches and humiliations are still very fresh...

everything that happens to you shapes your personality, some of us are better at repressing the harm done to us than others.

did I get into fights as a kid? yes i endured some awful abuse from school bullies, teachers, pedo's, and family members...has it done harm to my psyche? absolutely the scars are very deep, I recall every incident like it was yesterday, it has shaped the person I have become...

am I fucked up?...I function in society normally but the memories do not fade, all the spankings, slaps, kicks, punches and humiliations are still very fresh...


Well there ya go then.

Yes you are correct every thing that happens in our lives shapes us into the people we become. We are as a species very very resiliant(yeah I know there are exceptions) and so we normaly do not let the bad things that happen to us fuck us up. You have memories of bad times, but you do function as normal member of society.

Well then welcome to the club, in this respect you are no differant from everybody else.

So what exactly was your point?

Well there ya go then.

Yes you are correct every thing that happens in our lives shapes us into the people we become. We are as a species very very resilient(yeah I know there are exceptions) and so we normally do not let the bad things that happen to us fuck us up. You have memories of bad times, but you do function as normal member of society.

Well then welcome to the club, in this respect you are no different from everybody else.

So what exactly was your point?

my point?...physical punishment did not make me a better person, I was never a bad person to begin with, just a normal kid and I don't consider myself a normal adult...I function in society despite the abuse but I've been damaged by it so how was it worthwhile, why should I join this "club" and endure a lifetime of pain...

my point?...physical punishment did not make me a better person, I was never a bad person to begin with, just a normal kid and I don't consider myself a normal adult...I function in society despite the abuse but I've been damaged by it so how was it worthwhile, why should I join this "club" and endure a lifetime of pain...


Phyiscal punishment, as any punishment is not meant to make you a better person. It is to punish you for wrong doings.

My point though and the one you wanted to discuss was, smacking does no long term harm if not abused, the same as any other punishment.

I wasn't claiming a statistic though. I thought I made the exaggeration clear with the ridiculouos amount of 9's.

I did exactly what you did, just to make the point that you didn't have a point ;)

Phyiscal punishment, as any punishment is not meant to make you a better person. It is to punish you for wrong doings.

My point though and the one you wanted to discuss was, smacking does no long term harm if not abused, the same as any other punishment.

having endured only physical punishment I'll never know if time outs and lectures would have hurt me as much...as a parent who has in the past spanked my kids I know what damage it can cause and refuse to inflict any more on my kids(haven't done so in years)...it doesn't work, loving them does...

Some people in this discussion feel that any form of physical violence is equally inappropriate as a parenting method. Others feel that there are certain forms of physical violence that can be considered, under certain circumstances. Others feel that physical violence of one form or another is the most effective parenting strategy for all parents and children, and that non-violent forms of punishment are insufficient by themselves.

I'm glad we can manage at least three distinct groups.

I did exactly what you did, just to make the point that you didn't have a point ;)
You can't debate with a circle because it has no point! :p



*looks around and sees an overload of debating*


*flees into spam*

The question is whether or not either of these is an effective means of discipline. Discipline is training to produce a specific character or pattern of behavior. You could punish a child constantly and still not be engaging in effective discipline.

I see no point in discussing punishment outside its use as a part of discipline. Punishment for the sake of punishment - no matter what method is used - is unnecessary and most likely cruel. If the reason for the punishment is not to teach a lesson, there is no good reason for it at all.

I absolutely agree, but I think a lot of this current discussion is about the idea that there are some methods that should never be used by any parent.

Indeed. Like you said, I think we can all agree that parents should not engage in punishments that cause lasting harm or large amounts of pain - emotional or physical. The goal should be to impose discipline, not to cause pain.

There seems to be a huge lack of rationality in the discussion, however. You've either got the people affirming that anything physical is absolutely taboo and anyone who uses it is an evil, evil person who should never have kids, or that anyone who does not use physical forms of punishment is a horrible, lazy person who doesn't care if their child runs rampant. As with most discussions, the truth is most likely somewhere in between. I can't tell you what works best for Smunkee's children - I don't know them. I can tell you all about what I've seen with myself, my brother, my cousins, my friends' kids, etc. and its all been very different. Two children raised in the same household quite often respond in vastly different ways to the same methods of discipline.

In the end, outside of abuse, the decision needs to be left up to the parents. It is their responsibility to raise their children, and they are in the best position to determine the optimal way to do so.

I see no point in discussing punishment outside its use as a part of discipline. Punishment for the sake of punishment - no matter what method is used - is unnecessary and most likely cruel. If the reason for the punishment is not to teach a lesson, there is no good reason for it at all.
which is my point, if a child is too young to talk to then you are basically spanking them for your own pleasure or purpose, because they aren't going to get anything from it

which is my point, if a child is too young to talk to then you are basically spanking them for your own pleasure or purpose, because they aren't going to get anything from it

If a child is too young to talk to, they're infants (in most cases). I don't think there are many people here talking about spanking infants.

Physical punishment works. In light of augmenting juvenile delinquency, the discipline spanking, beating and caning brings is invaluable.

Physical punishment works. In light of augmenting juvenile delinquency, the discipline spanking, beating and caning brings is invaluable.

We could bring it all back. The courts should have that option again...

Judge to convicted citizen:
Mr Jaywalker, you have been convicted of your second offense for this crime, we sentence you to your choice of 30 days in Jail, or $3000 dollars or 30 lashes in the town square...

Guilty citizen: I'm broke your honor and I can't afford to be out of work that long, I might lose my job, so I choose the thirty lashes sir.

"Very good, then. Sentence is to be carried out this Saturday at noon, be there for your chastisement or else be found in contempt of court and a warrant will be issued you’re your arrest. *bangs gavel*"

All good stuff. ;)

If a child is too young to talk to, they're infants (in most cases). I don't think there are many people here talking about spanking infants.

from what I gather they are talking about kids under three who are "too young to understand reason"

We could bring it all back. The courts should have that option again...

Judge to convicted citizen:
Mr Jaywalker, you have been convicted of your second offense for this crime, we sentence you to your choice of 30 days in Jail, or $3000 dollars or 30 lashes in the town square...

Guilty citizen: I'm broke your honor and I can't afford to be out of work that long, I might lose my job, so I choose the thirty lashes sir.

"Very good, then. Sentence is to be carried out this Saturday at noon, be there for your chastisement or else be found in contempt of court and a warrant will be issued you’re your arrest. *bangs gavel*"

All good stuff. ;)

It would achieve more than "community service", a humane and not remotely perjorative prison sentence, or a fine for the poor.

You can't debate with a circle because it has no point! :p



*looks around and sees an overload of debating*


*flees into spam*

*Stalks*

from what I gather they are talking about kids under three who are "too young to understand reason"

Some people seem to be doing so. Personally, I do not think that punishment is necessary or acceptable if the child is unable to understand what the punishment is for.

Now, I do think that younger children understand punishment and rewards differently. Very young children are unlikely to understand precisely why something is right or wrong, even if they fully understand that you are telling them it is right and wrong. In young children, it may be necessary to discipline using more of a carrot-stick mentality, as your children will react to such discipline to please you even if they do not fully grasp the concepts you are trying to get across. Even with explanation, all they get may be, "This is bad because mommy said so."
As they age, they will begin to see given actions as right or wrong in and of themselves - and to understand why. At that point, a good talking-to might be *all* you need, without even worrying about rewards or punishments. Of course, the exact subject matter that may require either approach will be different with age and with different children.

Because your hearsay about your brother is proof...?

Show me some proof that spanking works. Then we can continue this discussion.

10,000 years of history vs. 50 years of history

10,000 years of history vs. 50 years of history

there have been a lot of things that have changed in the last 50 years, you got a study that proves that it is the use of non-physical discipline programs? no? you didn't last time you made this claim either.


maybe TV caused this "problem" you think we have, maybe there aren't statistics for the last 10,000 years of history, maybe it's because mom's go to work outside the home, maybe it's because someone invented soda pop.....I blame fast food!!!!!!

which is it?

timeouts, lectures, spankings...all negative punishments hasn't anyone here heard of positive reinforcements?...negative techniques only address unacceptable behaviour which indicates that the only time you acknowledge your child is when they do something you don't like...that only encourages the child to do something that will get your attention which is what they want, little kids crave love and attention


want to improve your child's behaviour try paying attention to them which is what they're after and reward them for being good, tell them you love them, tell them they've been good and then reward them with play time, cuddle time, a hug...

Thanks, I agree.

there have been a lot of things that have changed in the last 50 years, you got a study that proves that it is the use of non-physical discipline programs? no? you didn't last time you made this claim either.


maybe TV caused this "problem" you think we have, maybe there aren't statistics for the last 10,000 years of history, maybe it's because mom's go to work outside the home, maybe it's because someone invented soda pop.....I blame fast food!!!!!!

which is it?

According to all rules of debate the person changing the status quo has the burden of proof. The status quo is 10,000 years of human experience. Compare that experience to the 50 or so years of experience since Dr. Spock. Have the youth raised under the new system fared better or worse? Remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. In order to prove the affirmative you have to show extraordinary proof that the new system is an improvement over the status quo. According to most observation youth are not faring better under the proposed change.

According to all rules of debate the person changing the status quo has the burden of proof. The status quo is 10,000 years of human experience. Compare that experience to the 50 or so years of experience since Dr. Spock. Have the youth raised under the new system fared better or worse? Remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. In order to prove the affirmative you have to show extraordinary proof that the new system is an improvement over the status quo. According to most observation youth are not faring better under the proposed change.

actually you were the one who made the claim, so you have to provide evidence. I never said spanking doesn't work, I said it's unacceptable.

so, again I ask

where is your proof that there have been any actual changes in human behavior in the last 10,000 years vs. the past 50 and also your proof that any change is due to use of alternatives to spanking.

actually you were the one who made the claim, so you have to provide evidence. I never said spanking doesn't work, I said it's unacceptable.

so, again I ask

where is your proof that there have been any actual changes in human behavior in the last 10,000 years vs. the past 50 and also your proof that any change is due to use of alternatives to spanking.

Your claim is that what has been done over the entirety of human existence is unacceptable and that the new proposal of non-physical punishment should be the new norm. The new norm has the burden of proof over the status quo.

Have children been shown to be better behaved? Has crime lowered? Has learning improved? Have employers found their workers to better follow instruction? What are the advantages to society of your new method over the status quo?

An extraordinary claim (changing 10,000 years of tradition) requires extraordinary proof. Therefore the advantages of the claim must be overwhelmingly better than the status quo.

Your claim is that what has been done over the entirety of human existence is unacceptable and that the new proposal of non-physical punishment should be the new norm. The new norm has the burden of proof over the status quo.

Have children been shown to be better behaved? Has crime lowered? Has learning improved? Have employers found their workers to better follow instruction? What are the advantages to society of your new method over the status quo?

An extraordinary claim (changing 10,000 years of tradition) requires extraordinary proof. Therefore the advantages of the claim must be overwhelmingly better than the status quo.

your claim is that the downfall of humankind has been due to a minority of people who do not spank.

prove it.

Your claim is that what has been done over the entirety of human existence is unacceptable and that the new proposal of non-physical punishment should be the new norm. The new norm has the burden of proof over the status quo.

Have children been shown to be better behaved? Has crime lowered? Has learning improved? Have employers found their workers to better follow instruction? What are the advantages to society of your new method over the status quo?

An extraordinary claim (changing 10,000 years of tradition) requires extraordinary proof. Therefore the advantages of the claim must be overwhelmingly better than the status quo.

10,000 years of tradition? you know this for a fact? you know for a fact that not all cultures physically discipline their children?...you would be wrong,there are cultures that never strike their children...

*bangs gavel*"

:eek:


...

Wait, I thought that was about me... >.<

*Flees*

10,000 years of history vs. 50 years of history

I asked for you to show me proof, not give me 6 words, a few numerals and an abbrieviation of bullshit.

I primarily use positive reinforcement and it seems to work just fine, in fact I haven't had to punish my kids in about 4 months (waiting for the ball to drop on that.....it's scary good around here)

I hadn't mentioned it because most of the people around here can't understand the difference between discipline and punishment, and punishment and abuse.

Oh we can Smunkeeville. Most of us.

"Spanking does no long lasting harm if not abused"..how do you know that?

I'm proof of it, my dad is proof of it as is the rest of my family.

I'm proof of it, my dad is proof of it as is the rest of my family.

Which brings me to another point. I used to think that I had it pretty rough growing up, untill I realsied that all of my peers had had the same sort of childhood experiances. I fee that I won't be too far stretching things if I was to proclaim that for my age group, and growing up where I did at least 80% of kids where beaten by their parents. And I'm guessing that our parents probably had the same treatment.

My Dad went to see his dying father last month and was told that out of all of his kids, only my dad had been bothered to go and see him reguarly. So I guess the beatings my Dad took didn't ruin his life.

I love my dad, I know he had a hard time bringing up 5 kids, the beatings I took from him have not lessend this feeling nor have they ruined my life.

I can atulay count on my ten fingers the amount of times I have resorted to physical punishment of my two kids, and they are fine, well behaved and well ajusted boy and young man.

Smacking does work, and does no long term harm if you do not abuse it. There is a vast differance between punishment and abuse.

I never said spanking doesn't work.



Thank you!!! Point. Game. Match!!!!!!

I see no point in discussing punishment outside its use as a part of discipline. Punishment for the sake of punishment - no matter what method is used - is unnecessary and most likely cruel. If the reason for the punishment is not to teach a lesson, there is no good reason for it at all.

Forgive me, but I think any discussion about spanking or physical discipline methods will be pretty much irrelevant if it doesn't include discussion of the difference between punishment and discipline. I think we have seen plenty of examples, on this thread and others, of people who really don't seem concerned with actual discipline as much as they are interested in punishing a child who acts out.

The main point of this discussion, as I see it, should revolve around whether or not spanking is merely punishment or if it is effective discipline.


Indeed. Like you said, I think we can all agree that parents should not engage in punishments that cause lasting harm or large amounts of pain - emotional or physical. The goal should be to impose discipline, not to cause pain.

Some people believe that the one is not possible without the other. That is a central element to many of these spanking threads.


There seems to be a huge lack of rationality in the discussion, however. You've either got the people affirming that anything physical is absolutely taboo and anyone who uses it is an evil, evil person who should never have kids, or that anyone who does not use physical forms of punishment is a horrible, lazy person who doesn't care if their child runs rampant. As with most discussions, the truth is most likely somewhere in between. I can't tell you what works best for Smunkee's children - I don't know them. I can tell you all about what I've seen with myself, my brother, my cousins, my friends' kids, etc. and its all been very different. Two children raised in the same household quite often respond in vastly different ways to the same methods of discipline.

Right. But, again, where do we draw our absolute lines?

In the end, outside of abuse, the decision needs to be left up to the parents. It is their responsibility to raise their children, and they are in the best position to determine the optimal way to do so.
And how are we defining 'abuse'?

Is it abuse to tell your small child that they are responsible for ruining a family vacation? Is it abuse to tell your child they are a moron? Is it abuse to call your child a pathetic sack of shit who will never amount to anything?

Is it abuse to hit your small child with your hand? A switch? A bat?

Is it abuse to put your small child in a time-out for an hour? How about putting them in their room for a weekend? How about locking them in a closet for an hour? A weekend?

The whole problem is that we are not agreed on what does and does not constitute the line between "discipline" and "abuse."

10,000 years of history vs. 50 years of history
Well gee, slavery has been practiced by human cultures for at least several thousand years, but it's only been illegal in the US for like 150 years. I guess that means that slavery is the best way to maintain social order, yes?

The fact that something has been done for a long time does not constitute a solid argument for why humans should necessarily keep doing things that way. Inoculations for children are very new on the scene, so should we go back to the "traditional" way of life and let our kids die of measles?

Which brings me to another point. I used to think that I had it pretty rough growing up, untill I realsied that all of my peers had had the same sort of childhood experiances. I fee that I won't be too far stretching things if I was to proclaim that for my age group, and growing up where I did at least 80% of kids where beaten by their parents. And I'm guessing that our parents probably had the same treatment.

My Dad went to see his dying father last month and was told that out of all of his kids, only my dad had been bothered to go and see him reguarly. So I guess the beatings my Dad took didn't ruin his life.

I love my dad, I know he had a hard time bringing up 5 kids, the beatings I took from him have not lessend this feeling nor have they ruined my life.

I can atulay count on my ten fingers the amount of times I have resorted to physical punishment of my two kids, and they are fine, well behaved and well ajusted boy and young man.

Smacking does work, and does no long term harm if you do not abuse it. There is a vast differance between punishment and abuse.

Well Said my friend.

Is it abuse to tell your child they are a moron? Is it abuse to call your child a pathetic sack of shit who will never amount to anything?


My parents never seemed to think so.

Thank you!!! Point. Game. Match!!!!!!

Just because it works for children doesn't mean it's a good thing, or the most effective thing, or even the right thing.

If I hooked a kid up to an apparatus that would shock them every time they tried to speak, eventually they would quit talking. It worked! Is it a good thing? Is it right?

If you torture someone, eventually they will tell you what you want to hear, is it the most effective way to get the truth? is it right? is it good?

Spanking and any other form of punishment will not work for precognitive children. older kids? sure. Just because it works doesn't make it right.


There is nothing magic about spanking. (what is that the 5th or 6th time?)

any form of consistent discipline(even if it's only punishment) will work for children, the problem with spanking is that to be consistent with it, you end up hitting your kid day in and day out......and that's not right.

Just because it works for children doesn't mean it's a good thing, or the most effective thing, or even the right thing.

In whose mind? Yours?

If I hooked a kid up to an apparatus that would shock them every time they tried to speak, eventually they would quit talking. It worked! Is it a good thing? Is it right?

I think that goes against accepted measure of study and would not be approved to be studied.

If you torture someone, eventually they will tell you what you want to hear, is it the most effective way to get the truth? is it right? is it good?

No one will dispute that.

Spanking and any other form of punishment will not work for precognitive children. older kids? sure. Just because it works doesn't make it right.

According to you.

There is nothing magic about spanking. (what is that the 5th or 6th time?)

And sometimes it is the only way to get attention and therefore works. Is it right? In some cases, yes and in others, no. But who decides if it is right or not? The parents and not you.

any form of consistent discipline(even if it's only punishment) will work for children, the problem with spanking is that to be consistent with it, you end up hitting your kid day in and day out......and that's not right.

I am calling bullshit on this one.

In whose mind? Yours?



I think that goes against accepted measure of study and would not be approved to be studied.



No one will dispute that.



According to you.



And sometimes it is the only way to get attention and therefore works. Is it right? In some cases, yes and in others, no. But who decides if it is right or not? The parents and not you.



I am calling bullshit on this one.

I don't think you understand.

I am not trying to legislate anything.

I don't think it's right.

Just because I think something should be legal does NOT mean that I have to agree with it or think it's right.

My morals are not based on laws, and I don't believe laws should necessarily be based on morals.

I think abortion is wrong, I think it should be legal.

I think spanking is wrong, I think it should be legal.

I think having debt is wrong, I think it should be legal.

I think that letting your dog ride in the back of your truck is wrong, I think it should be legal.

I think that not wearing a helmet when you are riding your motorcycle is idiotic, I think it should be legal.

get it?

I don't think you understand.

I am not trying to legislate anything.

I don't think it's right.

Just because I think something should be legal does NOT mean that I have to agree with it or think it's right.

My morals are not based on laws, and I don't believe laws should necessarily be based on morals.

I think abortion is wrong, I think it should be legal.

I think spanking is wrong, I think it should be legal.

I think having debt is wrong, I think it should be legal.

I think that letting your dog ride in the back of your truck is wrong, I think it should be legal.

I think that not wearing a helmet when you are riding your motorcycle is idiotic, I think it should be legal.

get it?
Smunkee, my friend, you are a rare human indeed for being able to hold those two concepts in your head. You are able to believe something is wrong and yet also believe that other people should be permitted to make their own choices on the subject.

Smunkee, my friend, you are a rare human indeed for being able to hold those two concepts in your head. You are able to believe something is wrong and yet also believe that other people should be permitted to make their own choices on the subject.

I think it's something only highly intelligent people understand *smirk*

I know that my neighbor thinks a lot of things I do are wrong and had he his way they would be illegal, and it makes me wanna scream.......who is he to legislate my life?

there is a difference to me with him saying 'I think that's wrong and you are going to hell' which doesn't really bother me much, and him saying 'there should be legal recourse to keep you from doing that'

WTF?

you know?

I think it's something only highly intelligent people understand *smirk*

I know that my neighbor thinks a lot of things I do are wrong and had he his way they would be illegal, and it makes me wanna scream.......who is he to legislate my life?

EXACTLY.

Hell, I know plenty of people who pretty much want every single thing in my life to be illegal.

I choose not to believe in God. I am a female who is having a whole lot of premarital sex (not to mention living in sin for over a year now). I am a female who uses contraception and does not ever intend to have children. I am a female who works outside the home and plans to support myself financially. I am a white person who isn't planning to make lots of white babies to ensure the future of the "white race." I vote against Bush and all his cronies. I eat meat. I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU. I like having sex with other women.

I have personally met individuals who believe any and all of the above are wrong, and some of those individuals would be delighted to make any or all of the above illegal. I am very happy that their personal beliefs are not grounds for laws taking away my freedom to make these personal choices for myself.


there is a difference to me with him saying 'I think that's wrong and you are going to hell' which doesn't really bother me much, and him saying 'there should be legal recourse to keep you from doing that'

WTF?

you know?
Yeah, I think I'm with you on that.

If somebody says they think I deserve to go to Hell, then on an emotional level that is a lot more worrisome because they are saying that they believe I deserve to be tortured for the rest of eternity. That's pretty fucking sick, in my opinion, and it scares me if anybody sincerely feels that way. But since I don't believe that Hell actually exists, the bothersome feeling is really just about being freaked out by how twisted some of my fellow humans are.

When somebody says that they want to pass laws taking away my right to choose on some personal topic, that's a whole lot more...pragmatically bothersome. They are, essentially, making themselves my problem.

If somebody says I'm going to Hell, that's only my problem for as long as I'm around that person. I can just leave and it's no longer my problem. But if somebody is trying to pass laws that will force me to obey their personal standards, then they are making themselves my problem 24/7.

I think it's something only highly intelligent people understand *smirk*

I know that my neighbor thinks a lot of things I do are wrong and had he his way they would be illegal, and it makes me wanna scream.......who is he to legislate my life?

there is a difference to me with him saying 'I think that's wrong and you are going to hell' which doesn't really bother me much, and him saying 'there should be legal recourse to keep you from doing that'

WTF?

you know?

Yes -- this is the point missed by most of the posters. Just because an individual or group of people believes something is wrong -- that doesn't mean it should be illegal.

This law can directly effect me -- I live in California and have a 2 1/2 month old daughter. Shouldn't my wife and I be the one to deside how to raise our child?


Steve

Yes -- this is the point missed by most of the posters. Just because an individual or group of people believes something is wrong -- that doesn't mean it should be illegal.

This law can directly effect me -- I live in California and have a 2 1/2 month old daughter. Shouldn't my wife and I be the one to deside how to raise our child?


Steve

absolutely. I support your right to raise your own child and I applaud you and your wife for doing so.

Forgive me, but I think any discussion about spanking or physical discipline methods will be pretty much irrelevant if it doesn't include discussion of the difference between punishment and discipline. I think we have seen plenty of examples, on this thread and others, of people who really don't seem concerned with actual discipline as much as they are interested in punishing a child who acts out.

??? I haven't seen that.

The main point of this discussion, as I see it, should revolve around whether or not spanking is merely punishment or if it is effective discipline.

Indeed.

Right. But, again, where do we draw our absolute lines?

Lasting physical (bruises/cuts/etc) or emotional harm should do it.

Is it abuse to tell your small child that they are responsible for ruining a family vacation?

Not if it is true. They need to understand the consequence of their actions.

Is it abuse to tell your child they are a moron?

Most likely, yes. Once wouldn't really constitute abuse, although it would be a bad idea, but anything consistent would be.

Is it abuse to call your child a pathetic sack of shit who will never amount to anything?

Yes.

Is it abuse to hit your small child with your hand?

No.

A switch?

Probably.

A bat?

Yes.

Is it abuse to put your small child in a time-out for an hour?

No.

How about putting them in their room for a weekend?

No.

How about locking them in a closet for an hour? A weekend?

Yes.

The whole problem is that we are not agreed on what does and does not constitute the line between "discipline" and "abuse."

And that is because people are being, largely, unreasonable. You can disagree with a particular technique without pretending that it is going to scar the child forever. Those who can't tell the difference between a swat on the rear end and a beating are being completely irrational. Those who think that any form of punishment is ok (if there are any) are completely irrational.

My whole point is that people need to stop being so irrational. No one is going to have lasting physical or emotional pain from a swat on the butt unless they have serious mental problems already. Pretty much anyone would if their parents hit them in the face with a baseball bat. Let's look at things for what they are, and discuss it rationally, rather than blowing things out of proportion.

Lasting physical (bruises/cuts/etc) or emotional harm should do it.

How lasting? And what about subjective differences in the child?

For instance, I bruise up if you look at me funny, but my brother used to bang his head against things for fun and never got so much as a red mark. A playful slug on the shoulder could leave me with a livid bruise for days, while my brother might not get any bruise at all.

Calling me a "slut" doesn't bother me in the least; it actually kinda makes me chuckle. But my cousin actually ended up in therapy when kids at her junior high took to calling her 'slut'.

Different people experience different levels of harm from various activities. How are we to set up an equal standard?


And that is because people are being, largely, unreasonable. You can disagree with a particular technique without pretending that it is going to scar the child forever. Those who can't tell the difference between a swat on the rear end and a beating are being completely irrational. Those who think that any form of punishment is ok (if there are any) are completely irrational.

Granted, those would be unreasonable positions.


My whole point is that people need to stop being so irrational.

And my whole point is that rational people may still have different notions of what does and does not constitute "abuse." Whose standard shall we use? How shall we decide where to draw the line?

Should we err on the side of caution for the child's welfare, or should we err on the side of caution for the parents' right to choose how to rear their children? Should we split the difference?


No one is going to have lasting physical or emotional pain from a swat on the butt unless they have serious mental problems already. Pretty much anyone would if their parents hit them in the face with a baseball bat. Let's look at things for what they are, and discuss it rationally, rather than blowing things out of proportion.
As I said before, it's very easy to know what to do about the extremes of the spectrum. The middle of the spectrum is where it becomes more problematic.

We can all agree about a bat to the face. We clearly cannot agree about spanking.

Furthermore, if I sincerely believe that something is abuse, shouldn't I do everything in my power to make sure that nobody is abusing kids that way? What do I do if my definition is not consistent with the legal definition of abuse in my society?

Hey Smunkee,


any form of consistent discipline(even if it's only punishment) will work for children, the problem with spanking is that to be consistent with it, you end up hitting your kid day in and day out......and that's not right.

You are right that is not right, but that is abuse. Also you do not need to smack your kids day in and day out.

Warn them what the consequense are.
Apply the punishemnt if needed.
Take them aside and calmly explain why they have just been punished.
Ask them 'can you tell me why you have just been punished?'

This is smacking, what you talk about is not.

Just because it works for children doesn't mean it's a good thing, or the most effective thing, or even the right thing.

And just because it hurts does not mean it's a bad thing.

Smunkee, my friend, you are a rare human indeed for being able to hold those two concepts in your head. You are able to believe something is wrong and yet also believe that other people should be permitted to make their own choices on the subject.


Hehe it aint that rare, isn't that what freedom of speech is about? I don't like racists or racism, but I'll fight for their right to spout their shit.

EXACTLY.

Hell, I know plenty of people who pretty much want every single thing in my life to be illegal.

I choose not to believe in God. I am a female who is having a whole lot of premarital sex (not to mention living in sin for over a year now). I am a female who uses contraception and does not ever intend to have children. I am a female who works outside the home and plans to support myself financially. I am a white person who isn't planning to make lots of white babies to ensure the future of the "white race." I vote against Bush and all his cronies. I eat meat. I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU. I like having sex with other women.

I have personally met individuals who believe any and all of the above are wrong, and some of those individuals would be delighted to make any or all of the above illegal. I am very happy that their personal beliefs are not grounds for laws taking away my freedom to make these personal choices for myself.


Yeah, I think I'm with you on that.

If somebody says they think I deserve to go to Hell, then on an emotional level that is a lot more worrisome because they are saying that they believe I deserve to be tortured for the rest of eternity. That's pretty fucking sick, in my opinion, and it scares me if anybody sincerely feels that way. But since I don't believe that Hell actually exists, the bothersome feeling is really just about being freaked out by how twisted some of my fellow humans are.

When somebody says that they want to pass laws taking away my right to choose on some personal topic, that's a whole lot more...pragmatically bothersome. They are, essentially, making themselves my problem.

If somebody says I'm going to Hell, that's only my problem for as long as I'm around that person. I can just leave and it's no longer my problem. But if somebody is trying to pass laws that will force me to obey their personal standards, then they are making themselves my problem 24/7.


Then you sound like an eminantly sensible woman. Hell shit! We all know you are.

Yes -- this is the point missed by most of the posters. Just because an individual or group of people believes something is wrong -- that doesn't mean it should be illegal.

This law can directly effect me -- I live in California and have a 2 1/2 month old daughter. Shouldn't my wife and I be the one to deside how to raise our child?

Yes, but as always, within certain limits.

Do you imagine hitting or swatting your 2,5 month old daughter will be a good way to discipline her? Would it benefit her?

You are right that is not right, but that is abuse. Also you do not need to smack your kids day in and day out.

Warn them what the consequense are.
Apply the punishemnt if needed.
Take them aside and calmly explain why they have just been punished.
Ask them 'can you tell me why you have just been punished?'

This is smacking, what you talk about is not.
what I hear from most of the smackers is "time out doesn't work, lectures don't work, only spanking works, so if my kids screw up I am going to spank them"

so either you don't spank them every time they break the rules, and are inconsistent, or you do spank them every time they break the rules. To be consistent with spanking you have to spank them consistently right?



And just because it hurts does not mean it's a bad thing.
I think it's wrong to hit people except in self defense.

what I hear from most of the smackers is "time out doesn't work, lectures don't work, only spanking works, so if my kids screw up I am going to spank them"

so either you don't spank them every time they break the rules, and are inconsistent, or you do spank them every time they break the rules. To be consistent with spanking you have to spank them consistently right?


Naaaa not at all. Personaly I view spanking at more of a last resort. Normaly just the threat of it does the job. Like I say I have not need to spank my kids for.... well it has to be 4 years by now? And I have never had to use it that frequently anyhow.




I think it's wrong to hit people except in self defense.

And I applued you for that. Heh but by the same token, and for the shock of it, I have no qualms about thumping a fiend of he is being out of order.

In reality a healthly placed dose of violence solves a lot of problems. Muwhahahah!

Naaaa not at all. Personaly I view spanking at more of a last resort. Normaly just the threat of it does the job. Like I say I have not need to spank my kids for.... well it has to be 4 years by now? And I have never had to use it that frequently anyhow.

so, when you are pressed for time, or can't think of anything else to do, it makes it okay to hit people?

so, when you are pressed for time, or can't think of anything else to do, it makes it okay to hit people?

Peeps said as a Last Resort, that doesn't mean Spanking needs to be done.

Even when pressed for time.

Then you sound like an eminantly sensible woman.

WHAT did you just call me?!

This insult will not stand. I demand satisfaction, sir. Pistols at dawn!!

so, when you are pressed for time, or can't think of anything else to do, it makes it okay to hit people?


Now now Smunkee where did you get that one from? I don't belive I said that at all?

WHAT did you just call me?!

This insult will not stand. I demand satisfaction, sir. Pistols at dawn!!

Hahah yeah as long as it's either the sex pistols, or some sorta alkeyhole!

WHAT did you just call me?!

This insult will not stand. I demand satisfaction, sir. Pistols at dawn!!

http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/ad/fence.gif

The pistols are at the dry cleaners...

Now now Smunkee where did you get that one from? I don't belive I said that at all?

explain to me a "last resort" situation where it's acceptable to hit a child.

explain to me a "last resort" situation where it's acceptable to hit a child.

When the child will just not do as you ask, or stop doing whatever naughty thing that he is doing, or testing his bounderes a little too forcefully, when all other methods don't work, and most importantly when you have threatend physical punishment.

Then you need to backup your threat.

When the child will just not do as you ask, or stop doing whatever naughty thing that he is doing, or testing his bounderes a little too forcefully, when all other methods don't work, and most importantly when you have threatend physical punishment.

Then you need to backup your threat.

so when you can't control your child, you choose to try to control them through violence.

I don't try to control my children, so I guess I won't ever be in that situation.

so when you can't control your child, you choose to try to control them through violence.

I don't try to control my children, so I guess I won't ever be in that situation.

Heh what are you like huh!

Now your just throwing your subjective belifes into the mix.

If you want to see it that way Smunkee, then I really can't stop you. Although obviously that is not the way I see it, nor the way I mean it.

I'm happy for you and your kids that you are anti smacking, I'm even happier that you can make that work.

Me and mine though, are a diffeant kettle of fish. I wish you could see my family together, I mean myself and wife and boys, then you could see that we are really good together. The boys are sweet well ajusted humans, we talk, we laugh, we love each other as much as a family should do. We go out together and do things, I talk to my oldest as befitting his age, I treat my youngest with the tenderness a parent should, as befitting his age.

Yet they do as I ask them, they rearly cheek me and they absolutly treat their mum with the respect she deserves.

Part of this has been achived with the correct use of spanking as a form of punishment and discipline, when nessicary.

Heh as the old saying goes I guess, horses for courses.

http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/ad/fence.gif

The pistols are at the dry cleaners...

you did tell them to add starch right... nothing worse than a floppy gun that can't perform! :D

again I never said that spanking doesn't work when a child is old enough to understand punishment.


Heh and I never said that you did say that.

One point though, don't you think that a parent should contol their children?

Heh what are you like huh!

Now your just throwing your subjective belifes into the mix.

If you want to see it that way Smunkee, then I really can't stop you. Although obviously that is not the way I see it, nor the way I mean it.

I'm happy for you and your kids that you are anti smacking, I'm even happier that you can make that work.

Me and mine though, are a diffeant kettle of fish. I wish you could see my family together, I mean myself and wife and boys, then you could see that we are really good together. The boys are sweet well ajusted humans, we talk, we laugh, we love each other as much as a family should do. We go out together and do things, I talk to my oldest as befitting his age, I treat my youngest with the tenderness a parent should, as befitting his age.

Yet they do as I ask them, they rearly cheek me and they absolutly treat their mum with the respect she deserves.

Part of this has been achived with the correct use of spanking as a form of punishment and discipline, when nessicary.

Heh as the old saying goes I guess, horses for courses.

again I never said that spanking doesn't work when a child is old enough to understand punishment.

I think that children should be taught self control. Nobody can truly ever control someone else, it's pointless to try. (and manipulative to boot)

Yes I can agree with that, yet this takes time, and up until this is learnt do we parents not owe it to our kids to set bounderies, and make sure that they don't pass them?

I mean it is perfectly natural for a child to push at such boundries, and indeed we should let them push, but psycolgy shows us that children act, and react better when we set them.

Heh and I never said that you did say that.

One point though, don't you think that a parent should contol their children?

I think that children should be taught self control. Nobody can truly ever control someone else, it's pointless to try. (and manipulative to boot)

as a parent it is absolutely my job to set boundaries that are intelligent and logical and explain their worth to my children.

So... a logical and intelligent boundary would be this rule: no setting the house on fire and no Tom Cochrane. :D And if you think I'm joking, I'm not. This was one of two rules in my dad's house for the last three years... (that and 'call if you're not going to be home when you say you're going to be - aka, I'm too lazy to give my daughter a real curfew')

Yes I can agree with that, yet this takes time, and up until this is learnt do we parents not owe it to our kids to set bounderies, and make sure that they don't pass them?

I mean it is perfectly natural for a child to push at such boundries, and indeed we should let them push, but psycolgy shows us that children act, and react better when we set them.

as a parent it is absolutely my job to set boundaries that are intelligent and logical and explain their worth to my children.

as a parent it is absolutely my job to set boundaries that are intelligent and logical and explain their worth to my children.

And you would then agree that setting boundries is exceriseing control over them?

So... a logical and intelligent boundary would be this rule: no setting the house on fire and no Tom Cochrane. :D And if you think I'm joking, I'm not. This was one of two rules in my dad's house for the last three years... (that and 'call if you're not going to be home when you say you're going to be - aka, I'm too lazy to give my daughter a real curfew')

we have 3 basic rules in our house

1 be respectful of others rights
2 don't break anything on purpose
3 follow these rules outside the house too.

Smunkee The more we debate and the more I find out about you, the more I like you. I used to think you were a total right wing crackpot. Now I find you are a moderate rock music lover---WOW are first impressions wrong.

Ahhh bless her she has that effect.*whisper* and she's a hot babe too!;)

I don't think you understand.

I am not trying to legislate anything.

I don't think it's right.

Just because I think something should be legal does NOT mean that I have to agree with it or think it's right.

My morals are not based on laws, and I don't believe laws should necessarily be based on morals.

I think abortion is wrong, I think it should be legal.

I think spanking is wrong, I think it should be legal.

I think having debt is wrong, I think it should be legal.

I think that letting your dog ride in the back of your truck is wrong, I think it should be legal.

I think that not wearing a helmet when you are riding your motorcycle is idiotic, I think it should be legal.

get it?

Smunkee The more we debate and the more I find out about you, the more I like you. I used to think you were a total right wing crackpot. Now I find you are a moderate rock music lover---WOW are first impressions wrong.

Smunkee The more we debate and the more I find out about you, the more I like you. I used to think you were a total right wing crackpot. Now I find you are a moderate rock music lover---WOW are first impressions wrong.

I am a Libertarian, if that helps your view of me any.

you end up hitting your kid day in and day out......and that's not right.

Do you end up "time out"ing your child day in and day out?

I doubt it. In the same way spanking is only a time to time thing. Going to any extreme is wrong.

The question here is a second of sting vs. several minutes of jail.

Do you end up "time out"ing your child day in and day out?

I doubt it. In the same way spanking is only a time to time thing. Going to any extreme is wrong.

The question here is a second of sting vs. several minutes of jail.

ah, I don't put them in time out at all.

I don't try to control my children,

This is the problem every teacher and every boss has to deal with.

This is the problem every teacher and every boss has to deal with.

really? teachers and bosses look down on people who have self control? who take responsibility for their own actions?

really? teachers and bosses look down on people who have self control? who take responsibility for their own actions?

Teacher and bosses look down on people that have not learned control and authority. When a boss or teacher says to do something, they are and rightfully expect to be authority and they are and rightfully expect to have the control of the situation. A parent also should be authority. A parent should teach a child that some people have authority over them and thereby have control over them. And what the authority says is to be followed (as long as not immoral, illegal, or fattening). They have NO right to question that authority (except for immoral, illegal, or fattening). A child can voice his/her opinion and reasoning and the parent should listen to that opinion and reasoning----but in the end the ruling of the parent in non appealable and MUST be followed. At the same time they are teaching a child how to be an authority. Sort of like the way the military produces leaders from followers. When parents don't teach respect for authority, they are condemning their children to a life of hardship.

Then we have the children that have been taught "self-control". Ie., "I'll do what I D---N well please and no one can tell me what to do or how to do it!!!" Then when you fire them or give them an F they come totally unglued. "What right do you have to put me down like this? No one has ever told me that I had to follow the leader. I'm my own leader. I'll do the job the way I want to do it." etc., etc., etc.........

(as long as not immoral, illegal, or fattening).
:eek: :p Hihihi

They have NO right to question that authority (except for immoral, illegal, or fattening).
And then puberty hits...

A child can voice his/her opinion and reasoning and the parent should listen to that opinion and reasoning----but in the end the ruling of the parent in non appealable and MUST be followed. At the same time they are teaching a child how to be an authority. Sort of like the way the military produces leaders from followers. When parents don't teach respect for authority, they are condemning their children to a life of hardship.

Then we have the children that have been taught "self-control". Ie., "I'll do what I D---N well please and no one can tell me what to do or how to do it!!!" Then when you fire them or give them an F they come totally unglued. "What right do you have to put me down like this? No one has ever told me that I had to follow the leader. I'm my own leader. I'll do the job the way I want to do it." etc., etc., etc.........
I feel like you're missing something... Or I am... Your post confuses and frightens me... I don't get this at all. Are you claiming that individuality is a bad thing? Independence? The ability to question authority? :confused:

:eek: :p Hihihi

And then puberty hits...

I feel like you're missing something... Or I am... Your post confuses and frightens me... I don't get this at all. Are you claiming that individuality is a bad thing? Independence? The ability to question authority? :confused:

Moderation in all things. As a boss and former college teacher, I can pick out the employees, students that have been raised with the thought that they are totally independent, free will, self authority, etc. When I hire someone, I want to hire a brain not a robot. There is nothing worse than a class that sits and takes notes without ever questioning some of the far out ideas I throw out. BUT in the end, I make the decisions. Give me your ideas and we'll talk about them and if they are good, adopt them....but as GW says....I'm the decider. Know when you are expressing opinion, or advice and when you become insubordinate. When I give you a job or assignment I expect it to be done as I tell you to do it, when I tell you to do it.

That is the way the world works. So unless you have enough $$ to put your child in business so they can be the boss, they need to understand authority. Even then, There is always someone higher. Customers, bankers, police, government, voters, God,...... The world is not set up to allow anyone to totally make any decision they want to make because they are their "own authority". We all operate bouncing from THE authority to THE subordinate. Anyone (and there are a lot of them in school and the workforce) who doesn't understand "Do it because I said so." is going to have a sad future.

A "taser"??? You obviously don't have a clue what a "hotshot is.

yes.

A hotshot is typically cylindrical, and can carry an open electric current at the "shock end" when activated. The electric current at the shock end runs through two metal electrodes. Anything which touches the electric current receives a high-voltage low-current shock, not strong enough to kill a human or a large animal such as a cow or sheep from short-term exposure, but it is enough to cause significant pain.




"Uncle's Farm" A couple days and you're an expert on how to handle livestock. This is the problem. Every parent--before becoming a parent should be required to raise at least five animals of at least 3 species and show that those animals are able to function in human society.
I was only there for 22 months straight when I was in junior high, not "my whole life" other than that I was there on summers. I have raised animals for FFA, a pig, a goat, and a cow. Which btw has nothing to do with parenting.

significant pain.


I was only there for 22 months straight when I was in junior high, not "my whole life" other than that I was there on summers. I have raised animals for FFA, a pig, a goat, and a cow. Which btw has nothing to do with parenting.

I've been hit with a "hot shot" on several occasions. There is nothing significant about the pain. It certainly isn't a knock down like a taser. It is more like an attention getter. Less than licking the end of a 9 volt battery which we used to do for fun.

Raising animals is very good practice for raising young children. Virtually everything is the same except the animal will advance faster but never advance beyond a certain point. But when an animal is not feeling good it can't tell you what is wrong. When it wants or needs something it can't ask. When young they just eat, sleep and poop. They don't understand danger. They don't understand logic. They don't understand nutrition. They don't understand right and wrong. They understand relating small punishments to negative actions. They don't understand time, everything is now. Anything beyond now they don't relate to. They understand when an action results in an immediate negative and don't repeat the action. (I don't have to keep the electric fence on 90% of the time. One or two experiences and they never challenge it again.) If you train them young they will never lose that training. If you don't train them young they will never be fully trained. They live for the moment and think nothing of the future. They are greedy and demanding because they have no concept of others. They follow and mimic those who show leadership and challenge those that try to be a peer. (Look at a teen's clothing and you can tell who they consider their leader-teacher)

I challenge you to show any way that raising a young child (age 1-6) is much different than raising an animal. As I said above, an animal advances faster but hits a wall that they can't cross. A child advances slowly but eventually eats of the knowledge of right and wrong and continues to advance. Once they reach that point they are either civilized or they aren't. An animal will never be civilized.