Why then, are adults allowed to hit children without punishment?
Plato was mortal
Ducks are mortal
Plato was a duck
Loaded question. If children are animals then why the outrage over treating them like subhuman meat sacks?
False, all mortals are not ducks.Not what I said
All human beings are animals, and all children are human beings.Shifting goalposts. Not what you said and what I responded to
Why the outrage about treating them like subhuman meat sacks (animals, presumably), since all human beings are animals.That's my counter argument to your argument
If we are all subhuman, then there is no distinction among us.Who said kids are animals? Not me.
Human beings are animals
Children are human beings
Therefore, children are also animals
Penguin I must say I appreciate how you take the time to think things out unlike so many other kids. Unfortunately however, your logic system still has quite a few bugs to be ironed out.Nobody's perfect, remember that
Not what I said
Shifting goalposts. Not what you said and what I responded to
That's my counter argument to your argument
Who said kids are animals? Not me.
Plato was mortal
Ducks are mortal
Plato was a duck
Loaded question. If children are animals then why the outrage over treating them like subhuman meat sacks?
Penguin I must say I appreciate how you take the time to think things out unlike so many other kids. Unfortunately however, your logic system still has quite a few bugs to be ironed out.
Plato was mortal
Ducks are mortal
Plato was a duck
Well for one, man was made superior to animals.
This is exactly where all the crazy that is this world has come from. Definitions of "superiority" written by members of one species.
This implies that all mortals are ducks (false), Plato and ducks are members of the same group, not one and the same. Merely posting a fallacious piece of three-point-logic does not refute all points made by using that form.Penguin, your first post used syllogism. Syllogisms as you used em are fallacious. Look it up for yourself.
If we are all subhuman meat sacks, then none of us has any reason to claim superiority over the other.I didn't argue we're all merely animals, you did.
:headscratch:
Can you tell me one animal that has written such a thing?
Plato was mortal
Ducks are mortal
Plato was a duck
Loaded question. If children are animals then why the outrage over treating them like subhuman meat sacks?
The thread "Kids these Days" has been overrun by a flamewar. I won't name names but it isn't pretty. I'm here to carry on the legacy of the once great thread, and give it new life with this piece of logic.
Human beings are animals
Children are human beings
Therefore, children are also animals
The ASPCA will put you in jail/ fine you for hitting animals
Why then, are adults allowed to hit children without punishment? (Not by the ASPCA specifically...)
Discussion Rules:
- No dark humor about child beating
- The argument "a good spanking builds character" has been refuted, if violence is the only way to control children, either you or they are past hope
- For all those abused by their elders, your battle isn't here (feel free to post your stories though, the debaters need to know what happens when this stuff goes too far)
- Arguments about "changing times" have also been refuted. If children have been getting worse, we would have never gotten past homo habilis
-Penguin
There's a difference between spanking and abusing children.that's it!!!! you broke the rulse!!! go sit in the corner for a 5 minute time out!!!! :bolt:
But since spanking is apparently a "bad" thing to do, tell me some better ways to punish a kid? What exactly is the "best" way to punish your child.
I'm all ears.
(http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s35/68zoom/FunnyPenguin.gif):rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
There's a difference between spanking and abusing children.
But since spanking is apparently a "bad" thing to do, tell me some better ways to punish a kid? What exactly is the "best" way to punish your child.
I'm all ears.
(http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s35/68zoom/FunnyPenguin.gif)
im a good little boy :angel:, i swears
i do thank god every day for the family i was given though. although i'm still far from perfect, i tremble when i think of how bad i might have done without them. the only thing i wish, is that they were still here so i could thank them myself, and tell em they were right.
I wish my father had been tougher on me instead of pretty much letting me get away with anything I wanted, I decided to steal his car one night and got drunk crashing it leaving me in a wheelchair for life, I was 19 at the time and had just graduated from high school 2 weeks earlier, I think had my father been tougher on me this might not have happened.
Why then, are adults allowed to hit children without punishment?
Tough call. I'm proud of my parenting. Despite that I lost two kids in a car wreck no alcohol involved. Sometimes stuff just happens. I don't have any regrets that I didn't do my job, which is small comfort, but I know I didn't shortchange them.Yeah don't get me wrong, the whole thing was completely my fault, I've just wondered some times that if my father had been more strict with me that I would have never taken his car that night without him knowing, it's just that I felt like even if he found out I was taking his car I really wouldn't have gotten into any trouble to begin with, but again I do realize that it was completely 100% my fault, I've just wondered that if my dad had come down harder on me with things I would do that things might have been different.
At 19 I gotta believe you knew right from wrong, despite Dad.
This topic annoys the crap out of me!
There are dopes on both sides. One side tries to change the argument by lumping a spanking in with a close fisted punch to the gut. The other side will try the label child abuse as "corporal punishment." They are both equally idiotic and as in all such arguments they detract from the real issue.
A good parents needs to know when natural consequences are sufficient or when there should be additional correction. Do you let the kid touch the hot burner and learn the "hard way" or, do you smack the hand or, do you try and reason with them? Having been in this situations (4 kids) I'm not letting my kids risk injury like that. My boy once was hell bent on touching the grill. First time i simply said no, but when he stared me down, little hand inching closer to the grill as I said no again, I knew he needed to understand what he was doing was wrong. My options? Let him fry his little hand on the side of a 500 degree grill or demonstrate with a calm but swift swat to the butt? I'm sure you can guess what I chose. You tell me, what is worse?
Like I mentioned earlier, I, in no way shape, or form condone child abuse but, don't tell me that, when properly applied, a spanking isn't an effective and humane for of correction given many of the alternatives.
flame on!
Why then, are adults allowed to hit children without punishment? (Not by the ASPCA specifically...)
Penguin, your first post used syllogism. Syllogisms as you used em are fallacious. Look it up for yourself.I didn't argue we're all merely animals, you did.
Let me draw it for you (not to scale):
_____________________________ _____________________________ _________
| Animals |
|Humans |
|Children|
Trace the path back, children are in fact animals. Why are some animals availible for beatings, (not as in the example of not letting your child touch a hot grill by slapping their butt, but by, as one poster noted, a "steady stream of knuckle sandwiches), but not others.
To clarify what I am against, I am against using violence as not a last resort, but the first option in punishment.
-Penguin
So, instead, we should send our kids to their room for timeout, and the kid might do the same thing again see that the punishment was bad; OR we could just give 'em a spanking and then they wont do it again.
Article 5
Cruelty to Children
16-5-70 Cruelty to Children
(a) A parent, guardian, or other person supervising the welfare of having immediate charge or custody of a child under the age of 18 commits the offense of cruelty to children in the first degree when such person willfully deprives the child of necessary sustenance to the extent that the child's health or well-being is jeopardized.
(b) Any person commits the offense of cruelty to children in the first degree when such person maliciously causes a child under the age of 18 cruel or excessive physical or mental pain.
(c) Any person commits the offense of cruelty to children in the first degree when such person with criminal negligence causes a child under the age of 18 cruel or excessive physical or mental pain.
False, all mortals are not ducks.
My boy once was hell bent on touching the grill. First time i simply said no, but when he stared me down, little hand inching closer to the grill as I said no again, I knew he needed to understand what he was doing was wrong. My options? Let him fry his little hand on the side of a 500 degree grill or demonstrate with a calm but swift swat to the butt? I'm sure you can guess what I chose. You tell me, what is worse?What's worse is the impossibly small margin of error in letting him see for himself (the root of the nonviolent reasoning approach to parenting) that the grill is hot as hell, by letting his hand touch it for long enough, but not too long either.
Let me draw it for you (not to scale):
_____________________________ _____________________________ _________
| Animals |
|Humans |
|Children|
Trace the path back, children are in fact animals. Why are some animals availible for beatings, (not as in the example of not letting your child touch a hot grill by slapping their butt, but by, as one poster noted, a "steady stream of knuckle sandwiches), but not others.
To clarify what I am against, I am against using violence as not a last resort, but the first option in punishment.
-Penguin
He is demonstrating the flaw in your logic.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism
An "Arse kicking/knuckle sandwiches" isn't necessarily "illegal" either, in the state of Georgia.
When someone states a "Arse beating" that could be a variety of different things. An "Arse kicking/knuckle sandwiches" isn't necessarily "illegal" either, in the state of Georgia.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Assault+and+Battery
Not a lawyer and things may be different in Georgia but what about that?
I'm not a big fan of corporal punishment but it has it's place and is sometimes, unfortunately, necessary.
In Ga it is legal to "spank" your children.
An "Arse kicking/knuckle sandwiches" isn't necessarily "illegal" either, in the state of Georgia.
:huh
Whats hard to understand? In Ga. you can legally "Spank/kick their arse/give them knuckle sandwiches". It just depends on the reasoning behind all of this. Of course if its to the face or something of that nature its different.
Well for one, man was made superior to animals.
There is a difference between child abuse and tough love. As it was stated by Raptor, a good spanking is nothing compared to what would have happened if his parents had let him play with fire. 'Tis a substitute for non-existent instinct on the subject of fire.
Sometimes comprehension cannot be gained through speech communication, especially in early childhood. Pain on the other hand does not have to be learned, the system for it is already there.
You learn that touching something hot is bad when you get burned. It's better to have your hand slapped than lose your finger.
Now I will say that I am pretty good at english communication, but even while typing this I can't stop thinking that I could have worded it better or etc, so please alert me if you feel you don't fully understand what I'm saying.
so a quick slap in the face for dropping the "F" bomb is illegal?
No, not a simple slap. Now if you close fisted punched your kid a couple times thats different. You can slap 'em all day as long as theres a good reasoning for the actions.
Whats hard to understand? In Ga. you can legally "Spank/kick their arse/give them knuckle sandwiches". It just depends on the reasoning behind all of this. Of course if its to the face or something of that nature its different.
So when my two year old moves towards the gas stove that's hot, I should skip over the get in there first and move them or explain to them it's hot and instead get right into smacking them?
LOL my little one is deaf yet he knows the sign for hot, and knows that it's not ok to touch the gas stove in the back room for that very reason. Have I had to get up off my backside and move him away on occasion? Sure. He's fascinated by it. Every day he comes into that room with me and looks at it and makes the sign for hot. It's part of the routine now. Haven't had to smack him for it though. It still comes down to active vs reactive parenting.
Way too many of the folks here seem to be of the reactive parenting mode and believe playing catch up by smacking their kids makes up for it.
so a quick slap in the face for dropping the "F" bomb is illegal?
No, not a simple slap. Now if you close fisted punched your kid a couple times thats different. You can slap 'em all day as long as theres a good reasoning for the actions.
CAP, it is elegal to hit someone period, unless you are defending yourself. It has nothing to do with what word they said. Can I slap you if you drop the F bomb? What if I feed you first? Can I slap you then? What if you did not fix my car properly? What is it that makes you think kids are exempt from the laws?
Wow, and you claim to be the person who is supposed to protect them? Please show me the law that explains what you wrote. Have you read the definition of assault and battery? Out of curiosity, does that apply to adults also? Could I slap my employees for showing up late?
Sounds like to you "Spank/kick their arse/give them knuckle sandwiches" is all the same?
A definition of significant trauma is any injury beyond temporary redness of the skin. A practical guideline to use is that any inflicted injury which lasts more than 24 hours constitutes significant injury and requires an investigation.
- Valarie J.
North Carolina Division of Social Services
This is exactly where all the crazy that is this world has come from. Definitions of "superiority" written by members of one species.
The ASPCA will put you in jail/ fine you for hitting animals
Why then, are adults allowed to hit children without punishment? (Not by the ASPCA specifically...)
What's worse is the impossibly small margin of error in letting him see for himself (the root of the nonviolent reasoning approach to parenting) that the grill is hot as hell, by letting his hand touch it for long enough, but not too long either.
My little brother (6 years younger) once did this with a clothes iron set to near-max temp. Most of his hand was inhumanly swollen for a while. He learned his lesson.. There's no better way to teach than to let someone "see for themselves".
Georgia
Colorado
Arkansas
Arizona
Alaska
Kentucky
Michigan
In all of the 50 states, you can legally spank your child.
Section 1631
Contents and limits of care for the person of the child
(...)
(2) Children have a right to non-violent upbringing. Physical punishments, psychological injuries and other degrading measures are inadmissible.
(...) The family court is to support the parents, on application, in exercising care for the person of the child in suitable cases.
[quote
Human beings are animals
Children are human beings
Therefore, children are also animals
It is valid I would challenge it as unsound. Your premise is based on your world view and is unproved/arbitrary.
1. Humans are not the same as animals they are different therefore different forms of discipline could apply. To many reasons that they are different to list.
2. Your world view says humans are animals. My world view says we are different than "animals" animals can't reason for one.
Tough call. I'm proud of my parenting. Despite that I lost two kids in a car wreck no alcohol involved. Sometimes stuff just happens. I don't have any regrets that I didn't do my job, which is small comfort, but I know I didn't shortchange them.
At 19 I gotta believe you knew right from wrong, despite Dad.
ok. i stand corrected in the other thread then. it is not the kids fault. it is the fault of laws. the kids are only being human and doing what humans do.....pushing as far as they can.
Georgia
Physical forms of discipline may be used as long as there is no physical injury to the child.
Secs. 19-7-5/19-15- 1/49-5-180. [Civil Code]
Parent or person in loco parentis reasonably disciplining of a minor has a justification for a criminal prosecution based on that conduct.
§ 16-3-20. [Criminal Code]
Colorado
Parent/guardian/ person with care and supervision of minor can use reasonable and appropriate physical force, if it is reasonably necessary and appropriate to maintain or promote welfare of child.
§ 18-1-703. [Criminal Code]
Arkansas
Parent/teacher/guardian/other with care and supervision of a minor may use reasonable and appropriate physical force when and to the extent reasonably necessary to maintain discipline or promote the welfare of the child.
§ 5-2-605(l). [Criminal Code]
Arizona
A parent or guardian and a teacher or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a minor or incompetent person may use reasonable and appropriate physical force upon the minor or incompetent person when and to the extent reasonably necessary and appropriate to maintain discipline.
§ 13-403. [Criminal Code]
Alaska
When and to the extent reasonably necessary and appropriate to promote the welfare of the child or incompetent person, a parent, guardian, or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a child under 18 years of age or an incompetent person may use reasonable and appropriate non deadly force upon that child or incompetent person.
§ 11.81.430. [Criminal Code]
Kentucky
Parent/guardian/person/teacher with care and supervision of minor can use force if person believes force necessary for welfare of child and force is not designed to cause or known to cause a substantial risk of causing death, serious physical injury, disfigurement, extreme pain, or extreme mental distress.
§ 503.110. [Criminal Code]
Michigan
Parent/guardian/other person permitted by law, parent, or guardian can reasonably discipline a child, including the use of reasonable force.
§ 750.136b.. [Criminal Code]
In all of the 50 states, you can legally spank your child.
The thread "Kids these Days" has been overrun by a flamewar. I won't name names but it isn't pretty. I'm here to carry on the legacy of the once great thread, and give it new life with this piece of logic.
Human beings are animals
Children are human beings
Therefore, children are also animals
The ASPCA will put you in jail/ fine you for hitting animals
Why then, are adults allowed to hit children without punishment? (Not by the ASPCA specifically...)
Discussion Rules:
- No dark humor about child beating
- The argument "a good spanking builds character" has been refuted, if violence is the only way to control children, either you or they are past hope
- For all those abused by their elders, your battle isn't here (feel free to post your stories though, the debaters need to know what happens when this stuff goes too far)
- Arguments about "changing times" have also been refuted. If children have been getting worse, we would have never gotten past homo habilis
-Penguin
You can not imagine on any world both premiss's true and the conclusion as false.Not due to syllogism
Moot has the structure of...Retrospective crutch. Like pig finding acorn and then saying "see, I knew where to look"
..
You can imagine a world were premiss's are true and the conclusion is false.
Not due to syllogism
Retrospective crutch. Like pig finding acorn and then saying "see, I knew where to look"
You can't prove unknowns/unprovens with syllogisms.
And syllogism isn't what you want to use for this topic. Children aren't just animals, neither as far as education nor as far as human rights go.
I normally wouldn't mention it but in this case where people are seriously arguing topic, Penguin's a troll. So his arguments are null.
LOL at Alaska for having to specify "Non deadly force" :rofl
The word "force" could mean pull some one, force them to sit down, grabing their arm and taking them to the principals office etc. it DOES NOT mean "kick ass, knuckle sandwiches, getting knocked out, etc" (although I can see why think that). Assault and battery is elegal in all 50 states.
It is sad and scary really that you think force always means beatings. Sad that you see spanking and bellybutton kicking or knuckle sandwiches as teh same thing.
Article 3
Kidnapping, False Imprisonment, and Related Offenses
16-5-40 Kidnapping
(a) A person commits the offense of kidnapping when such person abducts or steals away another person without lawful authority or warrant and holds such other person against his or her will.
(b)(1) For the offense of kidnapping to occur, slight movement shall be sufficient; provided, however, that any such slight movement of another person which occurs while in the commission of any other offense shall not constitute the offense of kidnapping if such movement is merely incidental to such other offense.
(2) Movement shall not be considered merely incidental to another offense if it:
(A) Conceals or isolates the victim;
(B) Makes the commission of the other offense substantially easier;
(C) Lessens the risk of detection;
(D) Is for the purpose of avoiding apprehension.
(c) The offense of kidnapping shall be considered a separate offense and shall not merge with any other offense.
(d) A person convicted of the offense of kidnapping shall be punished by:
(1) Imprisonment for not less than ten nor more than 20 years if the kidnapping involved a victim who was 14 years of age or older;
(2) Imprisonment for life or by a split sentence that is a term of imprisonment for not less than 25 years and not exceeding life imprisonment, followed by probation for life, if the kidnapping involved a victim who is less than 14 years of age;
(3) Life imprisonment or death if the kidnapping was for ransom; or
(4) Life imprisonment or death if the kidnapped received bodily injury
(e) Any person convicted under this Code section shall, in addition, be subject to the sentencing and punishment provisions of Code Sections 17-10-6.1 and 17-10-7
17-10-6.1 Sentencing of persons convicted of serious violent felonies.
17-10-7 Repeat Offenders
CAP,you are correct. Not the kids fault. However, not the laws fault either. You said it before too. It is the parents fault. While blaming the kids for everything, they make sure they do not blame them selves. They will not spend the time to parent their kids, but they will take the few seconds it takes to hit them and pretend that that is parenting. BS! Totally their fault for not bothering to spend the time. Eventually, there comes a time that spanking is the only temporary solution.
That would also go as Kidnapping.
You are so confused, it is not even funny. The laws you described above (and I have to take your word for it that they are accurate) are talking about a parent or legal guardian. What does kidnapping have to do with a parent or legal guardian taking a kid to the principals office?
I was just making a point that force does not ALWAYS mean beating. Remember we are talking about kids, not criminals.
no, im not confused. You said force, you can force anyone to do anything, child or not. If you force someone out of a car or house or anything, that can be considered kidnapping.
this is one of those topics that ranks up there with the "other" two no no topics, Personal opinions can get heated, Parents are going to raise there children how they see fit, reguardless of what you or i say, Personally being a Parent ive done a good job without his mother around, hes a great kid, friendly and well liked in school and sure he still does dumb things now and then but WE all used to, it's part of the learning experence growing up as Kids
Now to the issue of spanking: While not the first means of discipline, it is clearly stated by the center of my worldview that sparing the rod spoils the child. Now God is also full of mercy and grace and does not immediately smote me for wrong doing.
FireDrgn
Not a sound argument because evidently (or I thought so anyway) the valid/sound criteria not what I was getting at.
Where is the evidence that penguin syllogism was meant as you point out rather than as quick and dirty syllogism proof? There isn't and that's why using a syllogism as he did isn't credible
Regardless of your worldview some things are evident, and that may be the best place to seek common understanding.
1. Effectiveness is important. If an approach doesn't work, it's not rational to continue it.
2. In real, adult life actions have consequences.
- You mouth off to the boss, you get in trouble.
- You get caught with cocaine, you're in trouble.
- You don't show up to work...you get the idea.
3. At least PART of raising a kid is teaching him/her the same principle adults need to understand, that actions have consequences.
- In order to do that, the kid needs to know that when he/she does A, then B will result.
- They will test that over and over, and they need to see predictable results in order to structure their view of the world appropriately.
- If they see wildly different outcomes for the same behavior, depending on how bad my day was or whether I was in a good enough mood that I didn't care, then they will not learn the connection - and their behavior will not change.
- Personally, I believe that this lack of consistency is FAR more important to outcomes than what particular intervention parents choose to make as the consequence (barring of course abusiveness...which leads to point 4)
4. When a parental intervention is influenced by the parent's state of mind, then bad stuff will follow.
- The intervention will be disproportionate, with either too little or too much consequence - and the kid will NOT learn the connection between actions and consequences effectively.
- If the kid learns over time that he/she cannot expect to understand the connection between what they do and what happens to them, then YOU can expect a lifetime of poor choices from that kid...
regardless of whether you believe in corporal punishment or not, if your discipline is about how ANGRY you are instead of what the kid did - if its about you instead of them - you're setting both of you up for a lot of trouble.
If you're mad - send the kid to their room, wait an hour, and THEN do what needs to be done.
[/list]
+1[/list]Amen, in particular that part about acting out of anger. The parents are supposed to be the adults, and act that way
"non-aggressive guys/parents"
Bzzt. Wrong!! Bad spin. It's "non-violent"
A lot of us don't think parental love means we need to be a six foot, two hundred pound
bully to a child, use the rod on them like they were a camel, knock JR's teeth out or send
them flying across the room to 'correct' behavior.
People that do IMO are knuckle dragging, shallow thinkers who just aren't unequipped to
deal with anyhting more complicated in life than how to open a beer by it's pulltab or
put on a wife beater 't' without it being on backwards.
I met your troll and raised you one. Although i'll bee 100% honest and say I really do feel
that way about "adults" who hit or patheticly try to justify hitting kids as being good for
them.
So, I should hate my mother for spanking me throughout my childhood? Should I view her as an unintelligent woman that should really only know how to open a beer, etc... Someone help me here. I am about to be 19 years old, and NEVER have I thought that my mother was abusing me or hitting me out of anger. It was apparent she always did it out of love and protection. I may be taking this thread too seriously or something, but someone fill me in here.
I can't have a selective memory of something I never lived through. I'm going off of my readings, studying, conversations and other forms of media about specific time periods. You know, history majors tend to do that.
Bad spin Cap1. Bad spin. Like a true righty. No one is telling anyone how to
raise their kids. It's a debate /argument over different parenting styles.
Bad spin.
"You know, history majors tend to do that."
Oh really. :rolleyes: So where is your line drawn. Just want to be clear on what
you consider to be the past when supposedly "...punishment was taken
seriously (where a spanking was not uncommon) that crime and just the
overall population of young "thugs" was far more uncommon than it is today?"
Odd you didn't live then (whenever "then" was) but have such recollections
from your readings (feel free to share the works) that you know so much about
the subject.
"So, I should hate my mother..."
Absolutely not. What a ridiculous statement.
But you're 19 now and as adult you should be able to reason
whats right and what's not. No need to hold it against her but
if you fail to understand that hitting kids is 'teH fail' then too
bad for the kids yuo may have some day.
wow.....i can't believe you realize this at such a young age. my hat is off to you sir. if only i had realized what you typed when i was that young/........but at least i realize it now.
oh yea....and happy early birthday!! :aok
"i'll be sure to tell her that when i talk to her tonight. i'm sure she'll be happy to hear that."
Does she hit her kids?
Translation: I can't believe you agree with me. Hats off to you sir for having the same opinion as I do. :lol
My kids believe the Easter Bunny is real. Well, the little one at list. They also look for a dollar from the tooth fairy and lets not forget the fat guy coming down the chimney we don't even have. My point is, they will believe anything if you tell them long enough that it is true. If your mom told you she hit you out of love, that is what you will believe. Did you also believe on the above to be true?
Don;t hate your parents. They probably did not know any better or were listening to other clueless people. But yes, she did hit you out of anger for doing what ever it is you did.
Only the parts dealing with hitting kids. I could care less if someone's
dad was Jesus Christ and he turned food stamps into steaks. If he hits
his kids in any way, shape or form then he'd be a bully and good deeds
in society mean squat and are completely irrelevant to the discussion
about hitting your kids
Here. This ought to keep some of you all warm and fuzzy for the weekend.
A veritable "love" page..
http://www.thehowdydoodyuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=beat
(http://www.thehowdydoodyuniverse.net/images/beatkid4.jpg)
non-aggressive guys/parents"Come again?
Bzzt. Wrong!! Bad spin. It's "non-violent"
I met your troll and raised you one.
Congrats. Honestly.
It's a reach to try and say your outcome is typical. My experience in
life and witnessing people where ever I've lived is that it isn't.
"difference between beating, and a spanking. "
If one were to read this topic and the other one then the talk
of spanking is the least of the issues. Still. Red welts from an
adult hand on a childs body IS a beating. Spanking is a poor
attempt at calling it something less vile.
moot - was reference to 'Thinking up a new and improved troll
will reply later"
"mom used the ping pong paddles"
Well that clarifies things a bit That you think it's fine and shows 'love
and protection' to get hit with a paddle makes me shake my head and
it confirms I'm wasting my time discussing this. As I commented to
dedalos earlier this is a no-win debate with some and so feel free
have the last word.
(btw the site above and the pic was for all who are on that side of
the topic. not you specifically. although I'd bet you agree with most
of what is written there. hasta la pizza!)
him agreeing with me doesn't matter........his realization of the truth on the other hand at the young age of 18........that's pretty impressive.
t confirms I'm wasting my time discussing this. As I commented to
dedalos earlier this is a no-win debate with some and so feel free
have the last word.
what the both of you are missing(or not) is that you're trying to tell others how to raise their kids.
those that have no problem with spanking a kid are simply saying to do what you think is right for your kid.....even if it has to include spanking them. you guys are trying to convince everyone that spanking a kid is wrong, no matter what.
i deserved every one i got. so did my brother. we both realize that. it was what was necessary for us in our situation. not for everybody.
we don't go around sticking our nose in other peoples business when their kids are running around being disrespectful, but if someones kid gets a quick slap because he was being disrespectful.....you guys feel that it is your business. i would think you've got enough of your own business to mind, without minding other peoples.......
Thank you for proving what I was saying. Here is what you are missing. I am not telling you how to raise your kid. Even if I did you would still do what you know is right. What I am telling you is that hitting them is wrong. You still have not given me any reason why you think it is right. It is not a way of raising a kid. It is a way for you to get your anger and frustration out.
Please answer this for me. Why do you think it is right to hit a kid but wrong to hit an adult? If deserving it is your reason, can I hit your kids too (if they deserve it?) No, right? It is a property thing. My kids I do what I want. So, based on that, if you knew that your neighbor was raising his kids to be thieves, would you stick your nose in their business or you would you say it is OK since it is their kids and they will raise them the way they want.
I think I told you before. You hit them, I see you, you made it my business. You may not like it, but there are laws against hitting even things you consider your property. And since you will try to confuse things by going back to spanking, I am not talking about a tap on the butt. But all these cowardly actions take place where no one else can see them, right?
what the both of you are missing(or not) is that you're trying to tell others how to raise their kids.
those that have no problem with spanking a kid are simply saying to do what you think is right for your kid.....even if it has to include spanking them. you guys are trying to convince everyone that spanking a kid is wrong, no matter what.
i deserved every one i got. so did my brother. we both realize that. it was what was necessary for us in our situation. not for everybody.
as for doing that in front of you? it's only your business if you make it so. but then that is todays society too......mind everyone elses business, and never mind their own.....
You can't suggest in the same breath that spankings are optional, but that they were necessary for you and your brother. You add "in our situation. not for everybody." So which is it? If everyone were in your situation, would it be necessary to spank?
How much problems like dyslexia influence kids existence?
We must take care about this also.
:salute
i was not the picture perfect kid. not even close. it is what worked with me. .
I don't understand. If it worked why weren't you close to a perfect kid? If it worked, why did it have to be repeated? You are saying that what worked for you did not really work, but you refuse to consider something else because the only thing that worked for you was the thing that did not work.
Don't you think it is funny you have not answered my question yet? ;)
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.What led you to be not picture perfect as a kid? You must account for everything. Abusing a kid in its earliest days of infancy will probably lead to some temper trouble later on... and then it's easier to justify coercive correction of his behavior.
What led you to be not picture perfect as a kid? You must account for everything. Abusing a kid in its earliest days of infancy will probably lead to some temper trouble later on... and then it's easier to justify coercive correction of his behavior.
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.
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?
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?
Maybe I missed it. Why not? Don;t you want to use the method that works better?
What about my question though?
Knowing the differences and fearing the consequences are completely different.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.
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.
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.
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.
:salute
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?
:salute
-Penguin
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.
Not an assumption. Human nature is the same across all cultures. Lots of cultural variety, but the fabric under that paint is the same.
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?
Funny how it works Ink. I didn't spank my kids and got the same comments regarding their behavior on the bus, at school, at friends houses etc :)
Clearly there is no one right way.
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
my sister lived in an area that was "bad" so her kids were very much influenced by there surroundings and that has a lot to do with it I believe...
everyone is different.
that;'s what i tried saying earlier, before it got hijacked into a "if you touch your kids you're beating them" discusion.
some will do well without needing it....some will need it. only the parents can know what is good for their own kids. :aok
Parents NEED to be the primary influence in their child's life. If you cannot do that and do it in a positive way, please don't reproduce.
just when ya think it's dead.......the gift that keeps on giving :noid :bolt:
Herpes?
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.
:salute
No cell phones allowed in classrooms so you fail.
Of course they're not allowed in the classroom, but it hasn't stopped some kids. I see it every day, and I'm in a college that most of the professors will kick you out of class if they catch you. Same thing happened in high school (as a matter of fact, it was worse).
I definitely agree, dedalos. Back in my high school (total of 400 students, 9-12), it was not uncommon to see a few students texting. It was always a game with the teachers and the students--the students would try to find new ways to disguise themselves texting to fool the teachers. When the students were caught, it usually wound up with the prinicipal keeping the phone for the rest of the day--repeat offenders had their phone taken by the principle for a week or until the parent comes to pick it up for the student.
Edit:
Again, I agree that when we talk about college we are talking about adults. By the time we get to college we should have enough respect and responsibility to know when it is appropriate to have your cell phone out.
we didn't have cell phones in the 70's.
I know, the 70s was when kids were perfect and the world was a wonderful place. Not sure what happened after that :P
Non answer. Backing up your opinion with nothing but more of the
same. If you want to use what you've read to back your side up then
be prepared to cough something up that says youths of today are
more criminal and there are more thugs.
You try to sound like you've already made the comparisons and done the
research. So what were your sources? You're whipping supposed stats
out there. Back them up. 19 and you know all about it? lol. fer sure.
Better yet why don't you educate yourself as regards to the the long term,
negative effects of hitting a child. I doubt you will as you and others like
CAP1 obviously have your blinders on and refuse to even think that life
could be different and imo better.
but. If you do start with some facts. Read this (below) and then if your
eyes open even a little bit move on to the more detailed studies. Hell you
could even educate yourself more these days and use Google to look into
you and crime going back hundreds of years. It just might make you sound
like you actually know what you're talking about.
http://www.behavioralinstitute.org/FreeDownloads/Behavior%20Reduction/Spanking_fact%20and%20fiction.pdf
weren't perfect......just didn't have some of this stuff.
we used to run across the street to the quick mart and use the pay phone if we needed to make a call......
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?
:salute
-Penguin
Yep, we agree. That was better and safer.
So, some kids now and in college not in high school. At list we agree that texting at the bus stop is not a crime? I remember when we could smoke in college as long as we sat in the back and by a window but that was ok. I would think in college we are talking about adults? And as far as I know, no cells are allowed at my kids school period and the phones stay at home anyway. If high school was worse it is another fail for the adult teachers and parents.
Keeping the cell phones at home defeats their purpose- communication when a regular phone isn't availible. It's an hour walk home with 20+ kilos of school supplies on, and if I can get a ride from my mom, life is good.
-Penguin
My mom is home at all different times of day, though. She's a doctor, so if somebody's dying, no matter what time it is, she has to go.
Also, if something comes up in my day, how do I tell her to wait an hour or two? How will she tell me that she's there if she gets there early?
-Penguin
Keeping the cell phones at home defeats their purpose- communication when a regular phone isn't availible. It's an hour walk home with 20+ kilos of school supplies on, and if I can get a ride from my mom, life is good.
-Penguin
it seems funny how things worked so easily before cell phones. she gets there early, she waits for ya. nothing should come up kin school that's gonna keep ya that late.
if she's with a patient, then calling her or not calling her is going to do no good.
See leaving that Cell at home would lessen the weight you have to carry and you would get home faster :aok if not mistaken schools have phones in case of emergency's right?
That's silly. She's not willing to wait 20 minutes for me to get to her, she has more important things to do.
That's silly. She's not willing to wait 20 minutes for me to get to her, she has more important things to do. Also, how would I know whether or not to walk home, she could be 2 minutes or two hours away for all I know.
This isn't an emergency, this is routine.
-Penguin
nothing is more important to a mother than her son. or at least it should be that way.
how to know when to walk? pretty easy. plan. plan. plan.
mom? can you pick me up at the bus stop today? sorry kiddo......can't today. ok mom,......i'll just walk then.
kinda simple, eh?
More like-
"Mom, would you please pick me up from school at around 16:30 to 17:00?"
"I don't know, there may be a consult that I have to do"
She has more important things to do: keep track of people's hormones, if she doesn't they die. I also have a younger brother, who has CCD (I fought that decision tooth and nail) and after-school (if she picks him up late three times, he can't go there anymore).
I cannot plan, each day is vastly different, and we run a tight schedule. I applaud my mom for all the work she does to keep a roof above our heads and continue what has been her passion (although I wish she could have joined Doctors without Borders- that's been her biggest dream).
Both my parents get home late, and my mom has to work on her "days off" as well, she has to buy groceries, do paperwork for her private practice, clean, and a myriad of things that keep our household together. By the way, she runs her own practice, which results in quite a bit of work.
-Penguin
More like-
"Mom, would you please pick me up from school at around 16:30 to 17:00?"
"I don't know, there may be a consult that I have to do"
She has more important things to do: keep track of people's hormones, if she doesn't they die. I also have a younger brother, who has CCD (I fought that decision tooth and nail) and after-school (if she picks him up late three times, he can't go there anymore).
I cannot plan, each day is vastly different, and we run a tight schedule. I applaud my mom for all the work she does to keep a roof above our heads and continue what has been her passion (although I wish she could have joined Doctors without Borders- that's been her biggest dream).
Both my parents get home late, and my mom has to work on her "days off" as well, she has to buy groceries, do paperwork for her private practice, clean, and a myriad of things that keep our household together. By the way, she runs her own practice, which results in quite a bit of work.
-Penguin
how can each day in school be different? besides the weather?
you're so full of excuses, that you might actually learn something, should you put forth the same effort to learn.