Kids

[Anaxogoras]

it is exactly what i typed. re-read it.  for me it was. i was not the picture perfect kid. not even close. it is what worked with me. it's not necessarily the same thing that'll work with other kids. since it isn't necessarily going to be needed, it is now optional. you already know that though. i'm thinking youi guys are just trolling at this point.

No, I'm not trolling at all.  I'm just trying to make sense of what you said.  I'm sorry it's not crystal clear to me.

So, to read you correctly, it is necessary to spank some kids, but also necessary not to spank some kids.  Is that right?

[dedalos]

stubborn. and i do not refuse to consider somethuing else. did you not read the post about where i never once in 10 years slapped/hit/spanked my step daughter?

Maybe I missed it.  Why not?  Don;t you want to use the method that works better?

What about my question though?

[Mar]

Maybe I missed it.  Why not?  Don;t you want to use the method that works better?

What about my question though?

Boy did you miss it.

[CAP1]

No, I'm not trolling at all.  I'm just trying to make sense of what you said.  I'm sorry it's not crystal clear to me.

So, to read you correctly, it is necessary to spank some kids, but also necessary not to spank some kids.  Is that right?

you gotta be trolling.........

 what it reads is this........

 you raise your kid how you feel is best for your kid. if you feel your kid may need to be spanked for doing something, or a quick slap for mouthing off to someone....then you do that.....IF it is what you feel will best get your point across to your kid.

 if you feel that you can accomplish the very same objective without doing the above....then you do that.

 the only people qualified to decide what is best for their kids are the parents.


 clear enough?

[CAP1]

Maybe I missed it.  Why not?  Don;t you want to use the method that works better?

What about my question though?

yea,,,,,,you must've breezed right on by that one.

 and which question? the one where my neighbor may be raising their kid to be a thief? if so, read back.....i did answer that one.

[trax1]

Knowing the differences and fearing the consequences are completely different.

Having fear of consequences (even if you don't know what they may be ala the "Darth Vader voice") adds a whole different dimension to the "should I or shouldn't I" decision making process.

Yeah thats what I was referring too, I knew that taking my fathers car that night was the wrong thing to do, but I really wasn't afraid of the consequences had I been caught taking it, had my dad been more strict with me in things I did then I might not have stolen his car that night & not been in the accident leaving me in a wheelchair, but as I also said I don't blame him in the slightest for what happen to me, it was 100% my fault, I've just often thought of what might have been had I had more consequences to my actions as a kid.

[FireDrgn]

You non-aggressive guys/parents missed this same debate a few years ago.  There must've been one or two others arguing non-violence, tops.

FireDrgn the syllogized argument in OP doesn't need syllogism for proof.  It's a simple set/subset relation between animals/humans/children.  Syllogism's a badly chosen device for the task.

I think the syllogism is irrelevant,but thats just me.  It wont work for the same reason that it is unsound.  Dang that stove is hot might get burned.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<troll<<<<<<<<<<<<

I just wonder if someone told someone else to be quite.  You know that has happened before.   <<<<<<<troll<<<<<<<<<<       

[lulu]

We can do something.

At the  bus stop ... kids who send and receive sms by cellular phone.

They are walking and they are sending sms again.

In classroom ... writing and receiving again sms.

And if you speak with them, they read the stupid sms too

Too bad !!!

They will grow with potatoes into their brains.


 

[Penguin]

Not to necro bump (I was away at a FIRST robotics competition in Rocester, New York), but do you guys realize that children are people, not property?

 
-Penguin

[Yossarian]

We can do something.

At the  bus stop ... kids who send and receive sms by cellular phone.

They are walking and they are sending sms again.

In classroom ... writing and receiving again sms.

And if you speak with them, they read the stupid sms too

Too bad !!!

They will grow with potatoes into their brains.


 

Yeah, and someday those same kids will think to themselves: "Hmmmm, I probably shouldn't be texting during my job interviews.  Ok, phone away."  Either that, or someone will get pissed at them, and tell them that there are other things to do as well.  In the same way, take a look at the more immature players on these forums - the one consistent pattern you see with them is (you'd better sit down before this next bit - it's REALLY surprising) that they MATURE!

And you said "We can do something", yet you fail to mention what that 'something' is.  How about the next time some kid tries to talk to you while texting, you tell them that it's impolite, and that they should not do it (or if they actually do have to check their messages, tell them to say 'excuse me for a few seconds, I need to do this quickly').  And if they get all snotty with you, then calmly explain to them why they're wrong.  Even if they act snotty to your face, they won't forget what you say.

Edit: Why do people have to assume that if all the children they see from day to day do something, therefore all children do that thing?  It's a stupid assumption to make - there's no way that the children you see from day to day are a fair sample of the entire population of children in the world.

[Sonicblu]

Not to necro bump (I was away at a FIRST robotics competition in Rocester, New York), but do you guys realize that children are people, not property?

 
-Penguin

Hey penguin little off topic but what age group?  My son and  team won robot performance at  reginals and state three years in a row 9 to 14 age. You are talking First Lego robotics aren't you?

[moot]

  It's a stupid assumption to make - there's no way that the children you see from day to day are a fair sample of the entire population of children in the world.

Not an assumption.  Human nature is the same across all cultures.  Lots of cultural variety, but the fabric under that paint is the same.

[crazyivan]

Alittle pat on the butt never hurt anybody.

[Yossarian]

Not an assumption.  Human nature is the same across all cultures.  Lots of cultural variety, but the fabric under that paint is the same.

True - to be more precise about what I meant: each of us will see individuals of certain groups in our day to day lives (i.e. depending on where you live, you may see people of a certain income group, social class, etc).  Each of those groups will show that human nature in different ways, as you said.  But if you generalise those groups, then that is an (incorrect) assumption.

[Penguin]

Hey penguin little off topic but what age group?  My son and  team won robot performance at  reginals and state three years in a row 9 to 14 age. You are talking First Lego robotics aren't you?

No, I'm talking about FIRST highschool robotics.  We've been here since 2005; we have our own metalshop and everything.  It's a great experience, and I'm the group's unofficial photographer.  I'm 14, and I love getting beautiful shots of fellow kids and our robots.

-Penguin