"Spare The Rod And Spoil The Child"
#1
Posted 28 February 2008 - 06:17 AM
Discuss :joy:
oh, btw... we're talking about the literal meaning, not the figurative.
#4
Posted 28 February 2008 - 12:00 PM
#5
Posted 28 February 2008 - 12:53 PM
#6
Posted 28 February 2008 - 02:05 PM
#7
Posted 28 February 2008 - 02:09 PM
#8
Posted 28 February 2008 - 02:10 PM
#9
Posted 28 February 2008 - 02:23 PM
Dipset, on Feb 28 2008, 09:05 PM, said:
Jenna, on Feb 28 2008, 09:09 PM, said:
People like you need to be smacked.
I disagree with it to a certain extend. Sure the teacher shouldn't really hurt the child, but sometimes teachers get sued just because they nudged er palmed the back of child's head. That should be allowed, just a small forced pat should be enough.
I seriously doubt any of you put on your gangsta shoes on pop three bullets down that mother****er's ass for that. Seriously, most of you would just take and face it, you're already spoilt. I'm not saying that I always show respect, but children these days show way to little respect to elders these days. 8-year olds calling you (translation) "I hope you suffer cancer" are basically screaming for a punch. Sure, the parents won't like it because most of the time they're undereducated idiots to start with. It just the problem of modern society really. 10-year old girls with phone bills of 50 quid a month just because they ask all their "friends" how they're doing every hour doesn't help either. Parents need to start restricting things. Don't give your son/girl something just because some undereducated twat neighbour is doing it as well. Think for yourself, dammit.
Show some respect and they're will be no need of the rod in the first place.
Note: by respect I don't mean the gangster bling term, but just the normal respect.
#10
Posted 28 February 2008 - 02:53 PM
'' I've broken your hands, now WRITE!!''
#11
Posted 28 February 2008 - 03:09 PM
Saturos Striker, on Feb 28 2008, 03:23 PM, said:
I disagree with it to a certain extend. Sure the teacher shouldn't really hurt the child, but sometimes teachers get sued just because they nudged er palmed the back of child's head. That should be allowed, just a small forced pat should be enough.
I seriously doubt any of you put on your gangsta shoes on pop three bullets down that mother****er's ass for that. Seriously, most of you would just take and face it, you're already spoilt. I'm not saying that I always show respect, but children these days show way to little respect to elders these days. 8-year olds calling you (translation) "I hope you suffer cancer" are basically screaming for a punch. Sure, the parents won't like it because most of the time they're undereducated idiots to start with. It just the problem of modern society really. 10-year old girls with phone bills of 50 quid a month just because they ask all their "friends" how they're doing every hour doesn't help either. Parents need to start restricting things. Don't give your son/girl something just because some undereducated twat neighbour is doing it as well. Think for yourself, dammit.
Show some respect and they're will be no need of the rod in the first place.
Note: by respect I don't mean the gangster bling term, but just the normal respect.
You msut not have very good eyesight, or you are jsut retarded. There is a big difference from getting a tap on the head(like Snape gave Ron and Harry if the new HP movie), and getting hit with a cane. BIG ****nig difference. I have been "tapped" and sure, it doesn't bother me, but if a techer hit me full force with a cane, I wouldn't suck that **** up, I'd do something about it.
I show alot of repsect to elders, but if they think that becasue they are older, that they could hit me with a weapon, then they should think again.
#12
Posted 28 February 2008 - 04:26 PM
#13
Posted 28 February 2008 - 04:33 PM
Also, this issue don't encompass only schools, but parents/guardians as well.
Anyway, I didn't have enough time to elaborate this morning, so here I am.
Do you think spanking is good or bad? You know, hitting a child on his/her hand when they did something you told them not to, or a bit more extreme, using a belt to hit them on their buttocks or hand?
To anyone who do not know the origin of this saying, it is from the Bible.
#14
Posted 28 February 2008 - 05:25 PM
#15
Posted 28 February 2008 - 05:32 PM
Seriously, the other day I was waiting at the lunch line, and this kid was getting food from the lunch lady (I guess it was his friends mom, from what I could tell), and she was asking him, "Do you want some milk?" and he was like, "Whatever, Just f*cking give me the f*cking food you f*cking b!tch!". He walked away, and when I told him that he was so rude, he just told me to shut up.
I'm so disgusted with the level of disrespect teenagers have for adults. Not only does it give other teenagers a bad reputation, but it's just plain rude. I mean, at some point, the government and the ACLU have to stop being such pussies and start putting society in line, otherwise we'll become our own worst enemy.
And as for corporal punishment, I'm all for it. If a kid is continually disrespectful, its a sign that they're not getting enough punishment at home to know that what they're doing is wrong. In order for our society to not fall apart, someone has to step up and say "cut it out", and if corporal punishment is the answer, so be it.
There is no excuse, no reason for kids to be disrespectful, and if we don't stop it now, the problem will only get worse.
Edit:
And why do we always need a reward to do what has to be done? That only makes a kid more spoiled! It's like the kid in the grocery store, screaming that they want candy. The parent then says "if you stop it, then I'll let you play at so and so's house" Then the kid knows that if they throw a fit, they can get something out of it. And what's it going to come down to?
I just don't see how spoon feeding a kid rewards for doing stupid menial tasks or for not being disrespectful is going to help the problem at all. Point being, kids should be EXPECTED to behave and have respect. It's so sad that we have to put sugar on top of everything to motivate kids.
(Hey, now I know what to write my position paper on!)
#16
Posted 28 February 2008 - 05:36 PM
I jsut find that if parents/teachers are gonig to be allowed to hit people to keep them in line, why couldn't teenagers hit other teenagers to keep them in line, or hit each other becasue they felt what the other said was rude.
You can't really get one without the other.
#17
Posted 28 February 2008 - 05:47 PM
And yes you can, because our elders have this thing called "authority" and a few more years of wisdom than we do. They are more able to look at both sides of a situation then come to a conclusion, where kids and teenagers tend to get mixed up in rumors, exaggerate and bend the truth, and beat each other up because the other kid looks funny. Adults are much less likely to do that.
However, if we don't stop it, the rude and inconsiderate teenagers of today will turn into rude and inconsiderate adults with 5 year old mentalities. How fun that will be when world leaders will be killing each other because "he looked at me weird!". Now I know I'm exaggerating a bit, but honestly, what kinds of children will adults raise, if they were spoiled as a kid? It's a snowball effect, and it's only going to get worse.
#18
Posted 28 February 2008 - 05:52 PM
#21
Posted 28 February 2008 - 06:00 PM
#22
Posted 28 February 2008 - 06:05 PM
There have been many nights where my friend has coem to my hosue after his parents beating him up, and actually contemplating killing thme. And not just an in the moment thing where it will subside, but liek actually sitting in my house, thinking if he should kill them. If he did end up killnig them, then he would probably go to jail. Now we have 2 dead parents and a kid in jail. Yup, hitting him did some REALLLY good.
#23
Posted 28 February 2008 - 06:17 PM
#24
Posted 28 February 2008 - 09:35 PM
#25
Posted 29 February 2008 - 03:40 AM
This is more like a spanking. In a lot of cases, I think our society would have a heck of a lot more common sense and sense of right and wrong if this was still allowed. However, I'd probably get slapped a lot if this was implimented, yet I've got more common sense then a lot of people I know. Most of the time, though, the trouble I've gotten in has been from misunderstandings. I get misunderstood a lot. ):
You can thank the liberals for going soft and outlawing it, and sue happy parents who're trying to get some easy money at the expense of others, but I'm still indifferent. I can easily see who this would be abused/misused, but at the same time, our society would be a lot better than it is now if this was never abolished.
Dipset, on Feb 28 2008, 03:56 PM, said:
There's a difference between beating children, and giving the kid what he deserves. Snot nosed brats who disobey just because they don't get their way or because they feel like it, should have to go outside, cut off a thin branch from a tree, and let their parent/teacher whip them in the ass with it a few times, or until the kid is ready to co-operate.
Though if the teacher whips them three times, and the kid asks them to stop, they'd better or it'd be considered abuse in my book. After three swats, ask the kid if they're ready to co-operate. If yes, they go back inside the classroom. If not, three more swats.
#26
Posted 29 February 2008 - 03:46 AM
#27
Posted 29 February 2008 - 04:34 AM
But seriously. A lot of the time when you have disobediant kids, it's because their parents spoil them. If the parent isn't going to discipline the child, SOMEONE has to. This is one of the very few times that the government should have more power. But there's obviously a balance. But enough politics, that's for another topic.
Basically, it's good as long as it doesn't get out of hand. Unfortunately, it's easy for people to believe a spoiled brat who's over exaggerating things than a teacher who rightfully taught the kid a lesson and nothing more. That, and sometimes the teachers DO go out of line. But that's basically what got it banned in the first place.
#28
Posted 29 February 2008 - 04:46 AM
Caael, on Feb 29 2008, 10:25 AM, said:
I doubt it, since you'd want to comply in order to avoid further punishment.
#29
Posted 29 February 2008 - 06:48 AM
It is really dumb. Nobody should deserve PAIN in ANY situation, no matter how much of a prick they are being. If parents want to do something, lock them in their room, don't hit them. Their is ALWAYS other alternatives.
#30
Posted 29 February 2008 - 08:29 AM
Saturos Striker, on Feb 28 2008, 09:23 PM, said:
Dipset, on Feb 28 2008, 10:09 PM, said:
I show alot of repsect to elders, but if they think that becasue they are older, that they could hit me with a weapon, then they should think again.
It doesn't have to mean the whack with the cane. At least not what I was meaning, the "Spare the Rod" means that corporal punishments should be banned. Every kind of corporal punishment, not just the whack with the cane, but just smack on the back of the head too. I'm just taking it to a bigger perspective, and not being a retard.
#31
Posted 29 February 2008 - 08:51 AM
There is just no real way to controle it, and becasue of that, it should be kept illegal.
#32
Posted 29 February 2008 - 09:59 AM
Child abuse should be as illegal as rape or murder. Corporal punishment is a good thing if done with common sense, of course there are undereducated trailerparkpeople who will beat the crap out of their child, but they probably would hit their child with or without the ban.
#33
Posted 29 February 2008 - 11:29 AM
Dipset, on Feb 29 2008, 07:48 AM, said:
As a note, sending a kid to their room don't do sh!t. It's where all their toys are. That is where makeing them stand with their nose in the corner, away from tv, radio, and other distractions, is better.
And as was said, there is a difference between spanking a child, and beating them. I'm fine with spanking, as long as it's not taken to an extreme. like was said, three hits should do it, then make them stand in the corner.
#34
Posted 29 February 2008 - 12:38 PM
escout, on Feb 29 2008, 06:29 PM, said:
So you like a good spanking eh? .... perv.
[edit] Sorry, I couldn't resist.
#36
Posted 29 February 2008 - 02:06 PM
Plus, even with spankings there can be severe emotional trauma. I know it is jsut a cartoon, but look at Ned Flanders. He was spanked, and he ended up with emotional problems.
#37
Posted 29 February 2008 - 03:01 PM
Just because you hate somebody doesn't mean they can't motivate you to carry out their will. You can't just ignore pain. Why do you think torture chambers are so successful?
#38
Posted 29 February 2008 - 03:14 PM
Dipset, on Feb 29 2008, 02:06 PM, said:
Plus, even with spankings there can be severe emotional trauma. I know it is jsut a cartoon, but look at Ned Flanders. He was spanked, and he ended up with emotional problems.
My parents spanked me and I don't have any emotional problems. I respect them and I listen to them. Them spanking me, taught me that when you do something wrong, that you should be prepared for the consequences.
Split Infinity, on Feb 29 2008, 03:01 PM, said:
Just because you hate somebody doesn't mean they can't motivate you to carry out their will. You can't just ignore pain. Why do you think torture chambers are so successful?
I liked that example.
#39
Posted 29 February 2008 - 04:54 PM
#40
Posted 29 February 2008 - 06:21 PM
My brothers and I were all given physical punishment as children, and I see that we've turned out as well-balanced, down to earth, quiet type people. Yet I then see a lot of people out there who's parents just spoiled them and gave them very little harsh discipline and they are the most obnoxious, rude, loud-mouthed people I've ever met. I think that's the reason that so many adolescents these days are insubordinate, and physical punishment should be advocated in the earlier years of children's lives to teach them that acting out in public places, rudeness and generally being public pests is not appropriate, then I believe we'd see a much more civilised youth demographic.
Obviously there are going to be cases where parents go too far and the children end up hating their parents, but that doesn't make corporal punishment flawed all together.
#41
Posted 29 February 2008 - 06:28 PM
Toasty, on Feb 29 2008, 05:34 AM, said:
But seriously. A lot of the time when you have disobediant kids, it's because their parents spoil them. If the parent isn't going to discipline the child, SOMEONE has to. This is one of the very few times that the government should have more power. But there's obviously a balance. But enough politics, that's for another topic.
Basically, it's good as long as it doesn't get out of hand. Unfortunately, it's easy for people to believe a spoiled brat who's over exaggerating things than a teacher who rightfully taught the kid a lesson and nothing more. That, and sometimes the teachers DO go out of line. But that's basically what got it banned in the first place.
EXACTLY what I was thinking! Toasty, you must be my male clone :D
Elliott, on Feb 29 2008, 07:21 PM, said:
My brothers and I were all given physical punishment as children, and I see that we've turned out as well-balanced, down to earth, quiet type people. Yet I then see a lot of people out there who's parents just spoiled them and gave them very little harsh discipline and they are the most obnoxious, rude, loud-mouthed people I've ever met. I think that's the reason that so many adolescents these days are insubordinate, and physical punishment should be advocated in the earlier years of children's lives to teach them that acting out in public places, rudeness and generally being public pests is not appropriate, then I believe we'd see a much more civilised youth demographic.
Obviously there are going to be cases where parents go too far and the children end up hating their parents, but that doesn't make corporal punishment flawed all together.
Wow. I agree with Agatio. For once XD
I mean, there's a bible verse (and I'm not trying to promote religion here!) that says "Childeren, Obey your parents." then the verse after that goes on to say, "Parents, do not provoke your children to wrath"
I think that goes along with what skid is saying. There IS a point where punishment becomes abuse, and it becomes a whole 'nother topic. But at the same time, parents shouldn't be so lenient that their children become demoralized.
It goes hand in hand, and I think the family structure is becoming more and more broken apart as time goes on. I think we've spent enough time stressing individuality and now we need to start putting the emphasis on mutual family respect.
#42
Posted 29 February 2008 - 08:53 PM
3-9 year olds: No dessert, stand in corner/ time out
10-13 year olds: No TV, No phone, No computer, etc.
14-16 year olds: Grounded or any of the no's
Of course my personal favorite is actually talking out the problem. When I do something wrong (which I have on several occasions) me and my parents always talk about what happens. They make sure I understand what I did wrong and why I did it. This has brought us closer as a family. If my parents ever hit me, I would be very upset and we would grow apart. Also, parents are supposed to be setting an example for their child(ren), is violence something they should be showing as being okay??
#43
Posted 29 February 2008 - 10:08 PM
#44
Posted 29 February 2008 - 10:14 PM
#45
Posted 29 February 2008 - 10:28 PM
1. Children become more violent
2. Children are emotionally scarred
3. Children hit their kids when their parents (perhaps a bit too hard)
4. Parents start to hurt their kids when they've done nothing.
5. Parents stop spanking and go to hitting.
6. Parents and children have a heting relationship
All of those things could happen, making corporal punishment bad in the long run.
It being more effective doesnt always make it the best choice. For example: there is a teacher you hate in school who is always mean to you. The most effective measure to take is killing her, but that probably won't work out that well in the long run.
#46
Posted 29 February 2008 - 10:35 PM
#47
Posted 29 February 2008 - 11:00 PM
Quote
2. Children are emotionally scarred
3. Children hit their kids when their parents (perhaps a bit too hard)
4. Parents start to hurt their kids when they've done nothing.
5. Parents stop spanking and go to hitting.
6. Parents and children have a heting relationship
My parents punished me by spanking me. Here is how it turned out
1. I am not violent. I oppose violence for the most part and the only time I agree with violence is when I am threatened and have absolutely no other way to get out.
2. I am not emotionally scarred
3. I plan on spanking my kids. I plan on having them turn out the exact same way I did, hopefully better
4. My parents don't and never have hurt me. They have punished me.
5. My dad or mom have never hit me with a closed fist.
6. My parents and I have a great relationship and we are respectful of each other.
From about 4 to the age of 7 was about the span of time they would spank me, and at about 7 I learned that you reap what you sow, and I stopped disobeying.
#48
Posted 29 February 2008 - 11:33 PM
escout, on Feb 29 2008, 11:35 PM, said:
Your right could does not mean will it means could, but even if there is a decent sized chance of any of those things happening, is spanking really worth it?
Gio, on Mar 1 2008, 12:00 AM, said:
1. I am not violent. I oppose violence for the most part and the only time I agree with violence is when I am threatened and have absolutely no other way to get out.
2. I am not emotionally scarred
3. I plan on spanking my kids. I plan on having them turn out the exact same way I did, hopefully better
4. My parents don't and never have hurt me. They have punished me.
5. My dad or mom have never hit me with a closed fist.
6. My parents and I have a great relationship and we are respectful of each other.
From about 4 to the age of 7 was about the span of time they would spank me, and at about 7 I learned that you reap what you sow, and I stopped disobeying.
Then you we're lucky. One example of a person who gets spanked doesn't really prove anything. With your last sentence, did you stop doing what you were doing because you knew why it was wrong or because you were getting spanked?? The chances are that at the time you didn't do it because you didn't want to get hurt.
#49
Posted 01 March 2008 - 12:28 AM
#50
Posted 01 March 2008 - 02:19 AM
#51
Posted 01 March 2008 - 03:41 AM
killercoz, on Mar 1 2008, 03:53 AM, said:
10-13 year olds: No TV, No phone, No computer, etc.
14-16 year olds: Grounded or any of the no's
Of course my personal favorite is actually talking out the problem. When I do something wrong (which I have on several occasions) me and my parents always talk about what happens.
Being 16 I'd get grounded or forbidden something. That wouldn't work with me.
And you've done 7 things wrong in your entire life? wtf? I do 7 things wrong per week.
killercoz, on Mar 1 2008, 05:28 AM, said:
1. Children become more violent
2. Children are emotionally scarred
3. Children hit their kids when their parents (perhaps a bit too hard)
4. Parents start to hurt their kids when they've done nothing.
5. Parents stop spanking and go to hitting.
6. Parents and children have a heting relationship
Point 5 is the difference we're talking about. Spanking won't lead to hitting and is ok if it's it not hitting in the sense of child abuse. The other points might occur ONLY if it's really abuse of the child. I know someone who was really hit hard by her parents when she was little, she's a grown-up and has her own family now. Ok, she doesn't talk to her dad (who did the abusing) anymore, but she does do stuff with her mom. She doesn't abuse her kids at all, she's a great mother for her family, she isn't violent and she isn't emotionally scarred (she's just as in touch with her emotions as any of us.)
Point 4 and 5 just come down to common sense on the parent's side though.
#52
Posted 01 March 2008 - 03:50 AM
#53
Posted 01 March 2008 - 09:22 AM
killercoz, on Feb 29 2008, 11:33 PM, said:
Then you we're lucky. One example of a person who gets spanked doesn't really prove anything. With your last sentence, did you stop doing what you were doing because you knew why it was wrong or because you were getting spanked?? The chances are that at the time you didn't do it because you didn't want to get hurt.
No basically it taught me that there would be good or bad consequences for fore every decision I made. I mean if getting hurt is a consequence then so be it, but I don't see a 7 year old kid sitting down and talking it out with their parents, and if you say that you did when you were 7, then you were a very weird 7 year old.
#54
Posted 01 March 2008 - 03:29 PM
#55
Posted 01 March 2008 - 04:30 PM
"Why are you here?"
"My art teacher Mr. @ASDADS sent me"
"Why?"
"I was kind of bored and decided to make giant paper aeroplane out of my neighbour's A1 drawing"
"... that's not very mature now, is it?"
"... no"
"So, next time, just be a little more mature and think twice before doing something like that"
"... whatever."
"What was that?"
"Yes, I'll give my actions a bit more thought next time, sir."
"Okay, you can go now"
And I'll be back next week, and have the same conversation. Different reason though. But, it doesn't work on teens, they don't give a shi- most of the time.
#56
Posted 01 March 2008 - 05:04 PM
#57
Posted 01 March 2008 - 06:01 PM
#58
Posted 01 March 2008 - 06:11 PM
#59
Posted 01 March 2008 - 06:18 PM
escout, on Mar 1 2008, 06:01 PM, said:
I had a similar situation
I got in trouble and went to the office once for squashing and ice cream sandwich in someones hair. He asked me why I did it, and I told him I did it because I thought it would be funny. He looked at me for about 5 seconds then started laughing, and told me that he thought it was funny to. lol
#60
Posted 01 March 2008 - 06:20 PM
#61
Posted 01 March 2008 - 06:28 PM
#62
Posted 01 March 2008 - 06:40 PM
#64
Posted 02 March 2008 - 12:29 AM
#65
Posted 02 March 2008 - 12:35 AM
I'd like to point out spanking kids has been made illegal here in alberta, so obviously there's a reason. And no I don't mean hitting or abuse, I mean any kind of physical punishment.
#66
Posted 02 March 2008 - 02:40 AM
Quote
Children under the age of 10 aren't going to understand "being spoken to". A sharp slap around the head / arse is much more effective than sitting a 6 year old down and trying to reason with them.
Quote
The fact of the matter is, a smack is the best way to "teach them from the start that they can't get away with things". It's not abuse, it's physical re-enforcement. It's only abuse if it's unwarranted, with a closed fist, or excessive.
#68
Posted 02 March 2008 - 09:25 AM
escout, on Mar 2 2008, 12:01 AM, said:
I'm seriously starting to think you have the mental age of an 11 year old.
Split said:
That was Elliott
#70
Posted 02 March 2008 - 10:28 AM
Parents are better at raising kids than the government is.
#71
Posted 02 March 2008 - 10:42 AM
kate, on Mar 2 2008, 07:35 AM, said:
... I'm going to be nice in saying this, but think for yourself plox.
The government did it, so obviously it has to be good, with reason, because otherwise they wouldn't ban it. I know your country lies next to America, but that doesn't mean you have to be as ignorant as them. Whatever your government's reasons are, other governments don't agree/aknowledge them. Since it's perfectly ok to spank your child over here.
#72
Posted 02 March 2008 - 10:45 AM
#73
Posted 02 March 2008 - 10:52 AM
Thought of editing it afterward... but I saw you were writing something thus your post would probably not make sense anymore thus I did not do it.
#75
Posted 02 March 2008 - 10:54 AM
#76
Posted 02 March 2008 - 11:26 AM
My parents just didn't put up with ****, if I made a scene in the grocery store, they never gave in, because it meant that next time we were there I wouldn't even bother. They didn't hit me either and I still got the point.
Maybe my sis and I are just smarter than other kids :rolleyes: jkjk
Really, on the whole canada banning it thing, I'm not saying that because our country is epic and all of yours fails, I'm saying it because this is the same government that legalized abortion and gay marriage and I couldn't agree more with them on those issues, so when they illegalize something like this, it makes me think they're not just being "stupid".
Still I agree some kids can become incredibly frustrating and a stern talking to won't get through to them, but then find other methods, or just ignore them. Granted ignoring them only really works for tantrums and if they do something like draw on the wall then that doesn't apply, but the majority of the time they do something for attention or because they think they can get their way. I dunno, to me just spanking them seems like a lazy approach to parenting, like you're not willing to try other options. Frankly if my parents did spank me, then it would create tension between us, but I can't guarantee that since gio obviously has a nice relationship with his parents.
#77
Posted 02 March 2008 - 11:46 AM
Elliott, on Mar 1 2008, 01:28 AM, said:
You're right in that talking to a young kid won't usually solve the problem. Although I feel there are methods other than spanking that are effective.
Split Infinity, on Mar 1 2008, 04:50 AM, said:
The thing is that I don't feel that pain is making them understand what they did wrong. You need to say to the kid "Because you did _____ when I told you not to, you are getting a time out." Why would that be a worse way of handling the situation?
Elliott, on Mar 2 2008, 03:40 AM, said:
The fact of the matter is, a smack is the best way to "teach them from the start that they can't get away with things". It's not abuse, it's physical re-enforcement. It's only abuse if it's unwarranted, with a closed fist, or excessive.
No they are probably not going to understand when an elder tells them something is wrong. I just feel that there are other reparcautions(spelled wrong) that can be made that will leave the child happier.
Caael, on Mar 2 2008, 10:25 AM, said:
So what you're saying is that you aren't even going to take my points into consideration and that someone who doesn't believe in corporal punishment is a bad parent?
#78
Posted 02 March 2008 - 12:10 PM
killercoz, on Mar 2 2008, 11:46 AM, said:
Ok well since you just put down your only idea so far. What are the other methods that you find more effective?
#79
Posted 02 March 2008 - 12:46 PM
Just like Kate, if my parents spanked me, it would NOT make me want to listen.
#80
Posted 02 March 2008 - 01:36 PM
#81
Posted 02 March 2008 - 01:40 PM
Dipset, on Mar 2 2008, 05:54 PM, said:
The baby seal hunt legalised by canada that kills thousands if not millions of baby seals each year by batting them to death. Cruel no?
kate, on Mar 2 2008, 06:26 PM, said:
My parents just didn't put up with ****, if I made a scene in the grocery store, they never gave in, because it meant that next time we were there I wouldn't even bother. They didn't hit me either and I still got the point.
Really, on the whole canada banning it thing, I'm not saying that because our country is epic and all of yours fails, I'm saying it because this is the same government that legalized abortion and gay marriage and I couldn't agree more with them on those issues, so when they illegalize something like this, it makes me think they're not just being "stupid".
Still I agree some kids can become incredibly frustrating and a stern talking to won't get through to them, but then find other methods, or just ignore them. Granted ignoring them only really works for tantrums and if they do something like draw on the wall then that doesn't apply, but the majority of the time they do something for attention or because they think they can get their way. I dunno, to me just spanking them seems like a lazy approach to parenting, like you're not willing to try other options. Frankly if my parents did spank me, then it would create tension between us, but I can't guarantee that since gio obviously has a nice relationship with his parents.
I'd just like to say corporal punishment being illegal is just stupid to start with. There's no way the government can check if it was a punishing smack or just an accidental friendly smack. Should we legalise because of this, well no. But it's radical do actually illegalise the whole thing.
Sure there are other ways to punish a child for acting out of line, but why if corporal punishment is an effective and unharmful way of doing it. I think that corporal punishment does NOT traumatise or effect relationships negatively IF done with common sense. Common sense is a lot to ask these days but since Canada (Holland too btw) has legalised the use of soft drugs there should be no issue on corporal punishments. Both need to be handled with common sense.
killercoz, on Mar 2 2008, 06:46 PM, said:
Wha- wait, this last part doesn't make sense. You're saying that someone who doesn't believe in corporal punishment is a bad parent? Since you're doubting the consideration of that.
#82
Posted 02 March 2008 - 01:40 PM
EIDT-Saying that because drugs are legalized, that corporal punishment should be aswell, is a dumb aregument. Still no parent knows how the kid will react to a spanking. Even ONE spanknig could lead to trauma, and there shouldn't be a risk. And if you are gonig to say "well it could happen with drugs", don't. Drugs are the CHILD'S chocie, so if they have trauma from smokngi pot(which is VERY unlikely), it is THIER fault, not thier parents, wherein if they get emotional trauma fro mbeing spanked, it it the parent's fault.
#83
Posted 02 March 2008 - 01:41 PM
Dipset, on Mar 2 2008, 08:40 PM, said:
Violent youth much?
Snowball effect much?
Overreacting much?
No common sense and relativation of situation much?
#84
Posted 02 March 2008 - 01:48 PM
Snowball effect-it WILL happen though. You may not know what it's like, but alot of times, if somebdoy beats somebdoy else up, they will go get their friends and go after the guy
Overeacting-Not in the least
No common sense-I have perfectly good common sense. That COULD happen. The kid could get emotional trauam from ONE spanking. Yo uare jsut living in denail, but it can happen.
I have said this before, my friend when he was a child was spanked, which did NO good, and made him dislike hsi parents. Then, the spanknig didn't work, so they began to hit him, and many of times has he actually contemplated killing them. That right there is proof that spanknig can lead to violence of all sorts. If a kid still doesn't respond to spanking, are you saying true hitting?
Some of the peopel here may have been spanked, and turn out great, but it doesn't allways work that way, and sicne there are alot of cases like my friend, it should stay illegal.
#85
Posted 02 March 2008 - 01:49 PM
#86
Posted 02 March 2008 - 01:50 PM
#87
Posted 02 March 2008 - 01:57 PM
Dipset, on Mar 2 2008, 08:48 PM, said:
Snowball effect-it WILL happen though. You may not know what it's like, but alot of times, if somebdoy beats somebdoy else up, they will go get their friends and go after the guy
Overeacting-Not in the least
No common sense-I have perfectly good common sense. That COULD happen. The kid could get emotional trauam from ONE spanking. Yo uare jsut living in denail, but it can happen.
I have said this before, my friend when he was a child was spanked, which did NO good, and made him dislike hsi parents. Then, the spanknig didn't work, so they began to hit him, and many of times has he actually contemplated killing them. That right there is proof that spanknig can lead to violence of all sorts. If a kid still doesn't respond to spanking, are you saying true hitting?
Some of the peopel here may have been spanked, and turn out great, but it doesn't allways work that way, and sicne there are alot of cases like my friend, it should stay illegal.
Did he get spanked or down-right abused?
There's a major difference between the two.
#88
Posted 02 March 2008 - 01:59 PM
oh and i just looked up that seal thing, honestly i had no idea that was legal, it makes me very happy i'm leaving the country. However, at least from my research, that is decided and regulated by a different department of the government than corporal punishment, so I don't think the two are all that connected. And besides, what do you want them to say? "beat your kids like you beat your seals"? not a very strong arguement
I would like to know what evidence you have to back up your claims that spanking a child doesn't do any trauma, as I find that quite ludicrous.
By the way no, I have never punched someone out of anger, or kicked or inflicted physical harm in any way. See I was raised with morals, shown through my parents respect of my physical self, and so I treat others with the same respect, and the idea that conflicts can be solved through reason, or at least other methods.
"hitting someone with common sense" seems like an oxymoron to me.
#89
Posted 02 March 2008 - 01:59 PM
EDIT-Kate, wanna explain this seal thing, casue I can't research it.
#90
Posted 02 March 2008 - 02:04 PM
EDIT: the reason I'm against it is because I'm against all hunting, but they are being killed so they can be exported and used for different things, it's not just trophy hunting.
#91
Posted 02 March 2008 - 02:07 PM
But back ontopic, my friend is a GREAT example of why corporal punishment shouldn't be legal. Even if it only happened to 1 out of 100, that should be enough of a reason to keep it illegal.
#92
Posted 02 March 2008 - 02:13 PM
<.< ss is posting something epic apparently
#93
Posted 02 March 2008 - 02:15 PM
#94
Posted 02 March 2008 - 02:15 PM
kate, on Mar 2 2008, 08:59 PM, said:
I would like to know what evidence you have to back up your claims that spanking a child doesn't do any trauma, as I find that quite ludicrous.
By the way no, I have never punched someone out of anger, or kicked or inflicted physical harm in any way. See I was raised with morals, shown through my parents respect of my physical self, and so I treat others with the same respect, and the idea that conflicts can be solved through reason, or at least other methods.
"hitting someone with common sense" seems like an oxymoron to me.
I'm not replying in order, thus saying the say thing twice but meh. The seal issue wasn't supposed to be an arguement on my part but meh.
Gio was an example. I'm an example. Just a small smack is just noting you did something wrong. It's not like your beating someone up. It's just a way of learning. Trial and error stuff.
Hitting someone isn't per se a bad thing. You can go on about alternatives all you want, sure they're there, but there's no need to resort to them if the previous one doesn't have flaws. People being traumatised by spanking is a unique case for me, as not being traumatised for you. I just can't help thinking that you think corporal punishment is actually is really hurting the kid, but it's just reinforcing the "no" really.
Hitting someone with common sense being an oxymoron is a bias. You can use corporal punishment as reinforcing the "no" with common sense. If you push it too far into traumatising and bad relationships, you lack common sense.
Dipset, on Mar 2 2008, 08:59 PM, said:
EDIT-Kate, wanna explain this seal thing, casue I can't research it.
Canada allows hunters to poach baby seals for their fur and fat. They do this by clubbing them to death, so the fur stays nice and intact. A bullet would ruin the poor seals fur.
And he didn't listen to the spanking, do you think he would have listened if his parents had talked to him?
Spanking is like the basic trial and error test. You do this = bad, negative experience. It'll be remembered and later on, it'll choose an alternative. It's the basic labrat test.
#95
Posted 02 March 2008 - 02:24 PM
#96
Posted 02 March 2008 - 02:29 PM
I personally think they're two of the best parents in the world.
#97
Posted 02 March 2008 - 02:31 PM
#98
Posted 02 March 2008 - 02:35 PM
Everybody has the ability to choose. If the parents end up spanking their child to hell, that's not the governments fault.
#99
Posted 02 March 2008 - 02:35 PM
plus you're saying "why try other methods when spanking works?" you're sounding like spanking is the first thing a parent should do. That makes no sense, I thought we at least agreed we were only arguing about extreme cases of acting out by the child. Yeah spanking works, that doesn't make it right. Plus the saying is "spare the rod, spoil the child" which is quite literal in that many parents use things such as belts or rods or canes or branches. Tell me that doesn't cause pain.
#100
Posted 02 March 2008 - 02:39 PM
#101
Posted 02 March 2008 - 02:45 PM
kate, on Mar 2 2008, 09:35 PM, said:
3rd page already took things into a bigger perspective. Pain is wrong, that's what your body tells your brain, that's how they learn. I'm not saying that spanking should be the first choice, I'm saying that it's a choice. Illegalising it takes away the choice (freedom of choice arguement plox?) and per definition makes that bad. I'm saying it's an alternative that works.
Dipset, on Mar 2 2008, 09:39 PM, said:
Spanking leads to high school shootouts? Go join toasty with the Saddam building a super cannon ideas plox.
#102
Posted 02 March 2008 - 02:46 PM
Besides, sicne spanking causes pain, is that not assault?
Answer both of those please.
EDIT-IT CAN. Emotional problems from being spanked could lead to ANYTHING. Like I said, my friend has actualy contemplated killing his parents, and some other kid could have had WORSE emotional problems and not jsut stop at his parents.
#103
Posted 02 March 2008 - 02:52 PM
I will say it's different. I'm not trying to legalise murder, I'm trying to legalise a punishment.
Yeah, getting tackled on a football pitch is assault as well, right? No.
Edit - Your friend seriously thought of killing his parents? Send him to a shrink plox.
#104
Posted 02 March 2008 - 02:54 PM
First of all, to cause a internal primal instinct to not do something again because of the pain associated with it, the pain would have to be intense and frequent. Conditioning only works in extreme situations and must be done a certain way. Sooo somehow I don't think it's going to work on kids, especially since most parents send them mixed signals anyways. If they throw a tantrum you'll give them what they want, and then when they do something worse you spank them. Confusing much? Nip it in the bud from the start by not giving in and they'll never do anything that deserves a spanking. All these crying kids you see in public, you think that's just because they're the type of kid that cries? No it's because parents give them what they want when they complain, and kids will push that boundary until all of a sudden they get smacked for it.
Skippy is actually right about that assault thing. No one has the right to inflict physical pain on you, and you admitted spanking is pain.
EDIT: you consent to physical pain when you joined the football team, dur
#105
Posted 02 March 2008 - 02:58 PM
When you join a football team, you KNOW you may get hurt. IF you walk down the street, adn some guy stabs you, you didn't want that, nor did you agree for it to happen, and therefore the person should be punished, and when you get spanked, you didn't ask for it, and therefore the person who did it should be punished.
No, my friend should NOT go to a shrink. It is his parents fault for making him that way, adn they should go to jail for spanking/hitting him.
If even 1 out of 1'000'000 gets violent becasue of corporal punishment, it should not happen, because the violence that the person causes could have been prevented, by NOT spanknig the child.
#106
Posted 02 March 2008 - 03:15 PM
kate, on Mar 2 2008, 09:54 PM, said:
First of all, to cause a internal primal instinct to not do something again because of the pain associated with it, the pain would have to be intense and frequent. Conditioning only works in extreme situations and must be done a certain way. Sooo somehow I don't think it's going to work on kids, especially since most parents send them mixed signals anyways. If they throw a tantrum you'll give them what they want, and then when they do something worse you spank them. Confusing much? Nip it in the bud from the start by not giving in and they'll never do anything that deserves a spanking. All these crying kids you see in public, you think that's just because they're the type of kid that cries? No it's because parents give them what they want when they complain, and kids will push that boundary until all of a sudden they get smacked for it.
Skippy is actually right about that assault thing. No one has the right to inflict physical pain on you, and you admitted spanking is pain.
EDIT: you consent to physical pain when you joined the football team, dur
Saying "no" harshly to a child is conditioning as well. Seriously, I'm getting sick of all this jumping to conclusions crap. Can't you see that this kind of pain isn't like a punch in the face or being run over by a car? It's just sort of a knee bang against the door thing, you rub over it a bit, and walk on. Sure you can be moral about it and say you're not allowed to cause pain to anyone.
And seriously, wtf? Spoilt kids are the ones that get smacked?
Dipset, on Mar 2 2008, 09:58 PM, said:
When you join a football team, you KNOW you may get hurt. IF you walk down the street, adn some guy stabs you, you didn't want that, nor did you agree for it to happen, and therefore the person should be punished, and when you get spanked, you didn't ask for it, and therefore the person who did it should be punished.
No, my friend should NOT go to a shrink. It is his parents fault for making him that way, adn they should go to jail for spanking/hitting him.
If even 1 out of 1'000'000 gets violent becasue of corporal punishment, it should not happen, because the violence that the person causes could have been prevented, by NOT spanknig the child.
Anyone thinking about murdering someone should be sent to a shrink. Even if it's caused by parents or anything else. You can be moral about it, I'll handle it via law, as you've been doing it all this time. Person X has plans to murder someone, zing therapy/jail. The ones were going to be murdered have some hand in it, zing fine.
Stabbing someone in the street has no reason compared to the educating purpose of the punishment. It's all in the educating part.
#107
Posted 02 March 2008 - 03:23 PM
#109
Posted 02 March 2008 - 03:32 PM
By the way, using that logic means that if someone screws up at work the boss should spank them. But they don't because there are other punishments or ways to reason with them. Give your kid some credit, reasoning can work or other punishments. If not then you're just reinforcing the idea that violence solves things.
It's just never really rightfully necessary.
#110
Posted 02 March 2008 - 03:36 PM
You have to see that violene(no matter how little it is) towards a child can have consequences down the line.
#111
Posted 02 March 2008 - 03:39 PM
Skidz said:
Your friend was traumatized because he was abused, not spanked. It's also kinda his fault for ignoring the spankings. I guess it depends on the person. Some people are just naturally defiant like your friend but some realise when enough is enough. I'm not saying your friend deserved it, but he had it coming. If he'd stopped when he was spanked, he would have avoided trauma completely.
#112
Posted 02 March 2008 - 03:41 PM
#113
Posted 02 March 2008 - 03:47 PM
#114
Posted 02 March 2008 - 03:48 PM
#115
Posted 02 March 2008 - 03:50 PM
#116
Posted 02 March 2008 - 03:53 PM
as I said before, if it should only be used as a last resort, then you screwed up somewhere else to let it get this bad. If really you tried your damnedest and the kid just keeps getting worse, then indeed you need outside help, it's not like all of a sudden they'll stop from a spank. And if it keeps getting worse, where do you go after spanking? that's how abuse starts. It's a vicious circle (dane cook ftw)
#117
Posted 02 March 2008 - 03:56 PM
If you feel the need to spank your child, then maybe he needs help that you can not give. Most people who spank, spank from the start, and therefore should not give the aregument that it was a last resort. Like Kate said, if they are so out of controle that you have to spank them, they wont jsut stop.
#118
Posted 03 March 2008 - 02:00 AM
kate, on Mar 3 2008, 06:59 AM, said:
By the way no, I have never punched someone out of anger, or kicked or inflicted physical harm in any way. See I was raised with morals, shown through my parents respect of my physical self, and so I treat others with the same respect, and the idea that conflicts can be solved through reason, or at least other methods.
I was spanked as a child, so were my brothers, I don't see any evidence of trauma in any of us.
I've only every punched someone maybe 2 or 3 times out of anger, and that's because it was provoked. I see a lot of other people getting in fist fights who probably weren't spanked as child. You're using absolute and flawed logic here, saying that hitting a child will cause them trauma, or that spanking a child will make them violent. Pull your head out of your arse.
Dipset, on Mar 3 2008, 07:15 AM, said:
And my brothers and I are examples why it should, as well as quite a few of my other friends.
Dipset, on Mar 3 2008, 07:46 AM, said:
No, it's not. It's physical conditioning, or physical re-enforcement. It's not beating, it's not torturing, it's a slap on the wrist, back of head, or backside to show the child that what they did was wrong. It's not lasting physical pain of any kind, and it's done with good intention to teach the child right from wrong, and it works in a lot of cases. Maybe it's not right for everyone, but to say it should never be done, or is never appropriate is completely fallacious.
Saturos Striker, on Mar 3 2008, 08:15 AM, said:
Completely correct. Saying no harshly, or raising your voice can do the exact same thing, it just depends on what you feel is appropriate for the situation at hand. It doesn't need to be a spontaneous thing either, it's a well-reasoned action that you employ to achieve a desired outcome.
Caael, on Mar 3 2008, 08:48 AM, said:
Not always, but it may be used as an alternative to verbal punishment, time-out or taking something away. It depends on what is appropriate. If you're in a shop with your kid and they're screaming, a sharp smack can stop them at once, but if it's an on-going issue, then perhaps grounding them / taking a toy away / banning television is more suitable.
#119
Posted 03 March 2008 - 02:56 PM
#120
Posted 03 March 2008 - 07:30 PM
physical conditioning or physical re-inforcement are just other words for abuse in this case. Put whatever happy name on it you want, if you touch someone when they don't want you to, you are in the wrong under the LAW and not just in happy go lucky canada.
Uhhh that quote fricken says in it "sure you can be moral about it and say you're not allowed to cause pain to anyone" oh ok then. I think I will be moral thank you very much. I kinda thought the point of this was deciding what was moral, so thanks for clearing that up :P
In all reality, look at your arguements and tell me your not just defending what's easy instead of what's right. True a slap in public will shut them up, and unless you've been handling them properly from the beginning (which really, who wants to put effort into raising kids? D:) then a harsh no won't work. You know it's wrong because inflicting pain (whether lasting or not) fundamentally goes against what your parents teach you when you're raised.
I don't doubt that you guys turned out ok despite the spanking, but we turned out ok without spanking. So since it can be done without spanking, why use it when, quite frankly, pain is bad? But if you are willing to let morals slide to do what's easier, then there's no talking to you and we'll just have to agree to disagree.
#121
Posted 03 March 2008 - 07:43 PM
And like Kate said, don't you teach your kids to not hit anybdoy no matter how light? Well if you spank your child, then you are a MAJOR hypocrite. Basically if you spank your child, you don't have the right to get mad if they get in a fight.
#122
Posted 03 March 2008 - 09:34 PM
Honestly everyone has their own personality and the way they end up is determined by their decisions. Now spanking can teach children that there are consequences for there actions if they do something bad, and spanking is a simple example of a bad consequence. Therefore your child has learned that something is wrong with a small consequence and they don't screw up in the future and have something worse happen.
kate, on Mar 3 2008, 07:30 PM, said:
physical conditioning or physical re-inforcement are just other words for abuse in this case. Put whatever happy name on it you want, if you touch someone when they don't want you to, you are in the wrong under the LAW and not just in happy go lucky canada.
Uhhh that quote fricken says in it "sure you can be moral about it and say you're not allowed to cause pain to anyone" oh ok then. I think I will be moral thank you very much. I kinda thought the point of this was deciding what was moral, so thanks for clearing that up :P
In all reality, look at your arguements and tell me your not just defending what's easy instead of what's right. True a slap in public will shut them up, and unless you've been handling them properly from the beginning (which really, who wants to put effort into raising kids? D:) then a harsh no won't work. You know it's wrong because inflicting pain (whether lasting or not) fundamentally goes against what your parents teach you when you're raised.
I don't doubt that you guys turned out ok despite the spanking, but we turned out ok without spanking. So since it can be done without spanking, why use it when, quite frankly, pain is bad? But if you are willing to let morals slide to do what's easier, then there's no talking to you and we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Now you say that if you have to spank a child to get them to shut up then you were a bad parent. I will have you know that I take that as an insult to my parents whom I respect very much. My new belief is that different parenting strategies work differently with different personalities. That would explain why you turned out the way you did without being spanked and likewise with me. All a parents job is, is to raise their children the best they know how, and then at a certain age let them go and hope to god that they fly. That is the best a parent can do. The ways they go about doing this are different but their goals are ultimately the same. My new opinion is that it just depends on the kid.
#123
Posted 03 March 2008 - 10:17 PM
What I meant about the proper parenting is that some (most even) use spanking to be strict. My parents were strict no matter what, and so they never had to spank me because I knew better. So I feel in spanking cases, it's because they've been lax beforehand that it comes to spanking. That being said, some people would rather have grave punishments for grave acts and more freedom in other areas, but the child is never given that option, as they don't choose their parents. That's why spanking's not right, you're imposing an ideal on a child that cannot resist it, or at least can't until later on where, in rare cases like skippy's friend, it culminates into something much worse.
#124
Posted 03 March 2008 - 10:25 PM
off to bed for now. I will reply in the morning.
#125
Posted 03 March 2008 - 11:06 PM
#126
Posted 04 March 2008 - 01:15 AM
#127
Posted 04 March 2008 - 10:56 AM
#128
Posted 04 March 2008 - 01:41 PM
Dipset, on Mar 4 2008, 05:56 PM, said:
First off, if you change the method you choose to educate your child with, it will just so that the parent has lost control. Makes the parent look weak, and the child will use that against them to put the situation to their hand. You tell your kid off when he yells at other people too, right? Since that's not proper either. Well that's just as hypocritical.
And stop saying that there's always another way to get there. Sure, there's another way, but I think the parent should have a choice in the way they choose to raise their child. The government shouldn't have any, ANY hand in choosing that for the parents. Unless there are negative effects. Which there aren't sufficiently. If it's 1 in a million case with children that it works badly, that's not enough.
#129
Posted 04 March 2008 - 02:49 PM
And so you are saying that because only a small number of people could go wrong because of spanking(and I KNOW it is mroe than the number you put down), then it is allright to do it, and if some kid gets violent over it, well **** it, let's let him kill somebody, let's not prevet it, let's be lazy and hit our children, because it MAY work.
Tell me truthfully that you wouldn't change your mind if your child killed somebdoy because he was spanked?
#130
Posted 04 March 2008 - 03:01 PM
#131
Posted 04 March 2008 - 03:08 PM
#132
Posted 04 March 2008 - 03:30 PM
Dipset, on Mar 4 2008, 09:49 PM, said:
And so you are saying that because only a small number of people could go wrong because of spanking(and I KNOW it is mroe than the number you put down), then it is allright to do it, and if some kid gets violent over it, well **** it, let's let him kill somebody, let's not prevet it, let's be lazy and hit our children, because it MAY work.
Tell me truthfully that you wouldn't change your mind if your child killed somebdoy because he was spanked?
Lay off the swear words, it doesn't improve arguements.
I don't see the harm in a bit of pain (aint that a paradox, eh?). I just don't. If my child killed someone in general I'd be shocked, I'd probably question myself and where it went wrong but I don't believe that would the reason he commited a murder would be because I slapped him on the wrist for telling him off every now and then.
As for the numbers, as long as I don't see numbers that it IS a problem, it isn't.
#133
Posted 04 March 2008 - 03:33 PM
Dipset, on Mar 4 2008, 03:08 PM, said:
With your logic you can't do that either, because then maybe the kid will think that every time he does something right he will get rewarded. Seriously different methods work in different situations and you can never rule any of them out.
Dipset, on Mar 4 2008, 03:08 PM, said:
Yes that is a bit extreme when all we are talking about is disipclining your kids. But your right murder is a punishment. Capital punishment to be exact and people in some country get it because they have murdering.
#134
Posted 04 March 2008 - 04:33 PM
SUre, not all spanked children turn out bad, some turn otu grea,t but some don't and that is why it shouldn't be allowed.
#135
Posted 04 March 2008 - 05:12 PM
Dipset, on Mar 4 2008, 05:33 PM, said:
Sure, not all spanked children turn out bad, some turn otu grea,t but some don't and that is why it shouldn't be allowed.
I'm fairly sure almost everyone was spanked as a child. People wouldn't even care, probably focusing on more recent trends, like drinking, "violent video gaming", etc. If it was all out abuse, then that's a different story.
Spanking teenagers is a horrible idea, because teenagers are rebellious enough as they are, and they think it would super rebellious if they hit back. The problem should be remedied before the teen years, or else you are gonna have to come with a different solution.
But for children in second grade and under, they need to learn that there are consequences to their actions, and if that consequence is getting hurt, then so be it. What if "John" was never spanked or learned anything about accountability and consequences? He could grow up thinking that nothing could ever happen to him, and then get beat up some day for doing something out of line and have no idea why. I'd rather have my kids know the consequences of their actions.
I think spanking should be used when the child knows he has done something wrong. Children do know when they've misbehaved, and expect to be punished, unless they have a track record of getting away with things. Whether it be anything from time-out in a corner to spanking, children need to know to expect not to be able to get away with misbehavior.
Saying a child should never experience pain is a reason why our culture is as overprotected as it is. It sounds sort of sadistic, but pain builds character. Getting a therapist if your kid doesn't listen is a pretty weak solution, when taking the matter into your own hands would build respect and a relationship. People generally don't like people they can walk over. The same goes for parents and children.
And we don't spank babies because they don't know any better. Most of the time.
#136
Posted 04 March 2008 - 05:16 PM
#137
Posted 04 March 2008 - 05:23 PM
Dipset, on Mar 4 2008, 06:16 PM, said:
It's different when someone has authority over someone else. Kids shouldn't hit each other, because they are all on the same playing field, but adults need to control their kids. It's two completely different scenarios.
#138
Posted 04 March 2008 - 05:51 PM
oook I don't even know where to start on the people who posted while I was gone. Agatio first, you made alot of claims about the things I was saying that made me seem like an extremist, when in fact I wasn't saying things to that degree at all.
flamingduck, I was never spanked as a child, so there goes that.
SS, I agree, I don't think you can stop spanking them once you've started or they will undermine your authority. That's why I said if you're spanking your kid you went wrong somewhere else, and parents should start off right from the beginning. Also, it's good you brought that up, because the reason why some spanking cases lead to beatings is because kids start to get used to it and the parents can't stop so they get more and more severe. Speaking of beatings, you mentioned the government has no say in how parents raise their children? So then you don't think abused children (and I mean broken limbs and whatnot) should be taken away from their parents? Tell that to my friend who was nearly killed by her mother.
From reading your posts it seems to me the main part where we're disagreeing is whether spanking is seen as causing pain, or if it's more of an annoyance that should be acceptable. Really I suppose that's mostly a matter of opinion, but as someone said, you don't hit teenagers because they can fight back and be rebellious. Well why would they be fighting back so physically if you weren't physically harming them? Anywho, it seems the morals of some people here are somewhat skewed in favor of doing something that is easy and effective. Hey, stealing candy from babies is easy and effective too but I'm pretty sure you'd all frown on it...
#139
Posted 04 March 2008 - 06:10 PM
FlamingDuck, on Mar 4 2008, 06:23 PM, said:
So by your theory, Eugine is allowed to hit me, because he is an adult, and I am still a teenager.
Kate, I love you. :P. You are making the most valid points, and honestly, proving every single other person here wrong.
Sure, spanknig is easy and effective, but if you have to spank your child, then you did somethig wrong whilst parenting them.
And you are saying that spanking is a last resort. What do you do after spanking. What if your 7 year old still doesn't listen after you have spanked them countless times, do you hit them? PLEASE try adn tell me what coems after the spanking?
#140
Posted 04 March 2008 - 07:28 PM
LEARN YOUR PLACE BOY!! XD
i'm not very good at these kind of debates as most of my solutions for problem children involve the gallows or a gas chamber :/
in my high school we had the "exit room", where if you pissed about then you got sent there to be in isolation for the rest of the day, sounds okayish in theory, but in practice alot of people just went there on purpose to avoid lessons they hadnt done homework for >>
getting sidetracked, corporal punishment is okay when applid to actual crimes but snotty prick school kids should just be
#141
Posted 04 March 2008 - 08:01 PM
kate, on Mar 4 2008, 06:51 PM, said:
That's a different kind of authority. You are still on the same level intellectually and physically.
Quote
I guess I sorta sounded like I thought everyone had to be spanked as a child to grow up well, which is ridonkulous.
#142
Posted 04 March 2008 - 09:13 PM
#143
Posted 04 March 2008 - 11:51 PM
#144
Posted 05 March 2008 - 12:50 AM
kate, on Mar 5 2008, 06:51 AM, said:
Yeah, because those are two totally comparable situations. :P
Since I'm getting pissed off typing the same thing over and over again as you two are doing. I'll just quote the post that has the best things to say on the pain issue.
Elliott, on Mar 4 2008, 08:15 AM, said:
#145
Posted 05 March 2008 - 01:15 AM
Elliott, on Mar 3 2008, 11:15 PM, said:
I'm going to continue to quote that until Skidz understands that most children learn what's right and wrong best through punishment. :D
#146
Posted 05 March 2008 - 01:52 AM
kate, on Mar 5 2008, 04:51 PM, said:
And being punched in a face is the same as a sharp open-hand slap across the backside? Awesome.
Your failure to make definitions between the different forms of physical pain is the undoing of your entire argument. Maybe when you understand that a quick slap is different to a punch, or an excessive slapping, then you'll be able to grasp the concept of 'physical re-enforcement with good intentions' (that works in a hell of a lot more cases than it doesn't).
#147
Posted 05 March 2008 - 02:06 AM
#148
Posted 05 March 2008 - 03:36 PM
Toasty, on Mar 5 2008, 02:15 AM, said:
I was never spanked, and I went to a public school. A majority of public school children weren't spanked.
But I'm probably gonig to stop posting in this topic, becasue the more I read the posts in here, the more angry I get on how ridiculious you all sound.
#149
Posted 05 March 2008 - 03:43 PM
You do drugs, you sell drugs, you always swear, you fight in school, you know gang members.
*sigh*
Maybe you should have got spanked =)
Anyway, let me repeat my position -
I do not believe spanking should be the first option, but a last resort. I think it is extremely effective though with children less than 10, (who are still learning reasoning skills), but not for teenagers.
I strongly believe in living by example, and all parents should try their best to set a good example, so that spanking never becomes an option.
Honestly, I was not spanked as a child ;_;
My parents should have though! x3
#150
Posted 05 March 2008 - 03:58 PM
.eugine, on Mar 5 2008, 04:43 PM, said:
You do drugs, you sell drugs, you always swear, you fight in school, you know gang members.
*sigh*
Maybe you should have got spanked =)
So ya I said I wouldn't post in here again, but that made me laugh. Cookie for you. *Gives .eugine a cookie.*
But really, even if I was spanked, I probably still would have done all those things.
#151
Posted 05 March 2008 - 08:06 PM
Anywho, skippy and I have kinda made all our points, and so have you, seeing how we keep saying the same stuff over and over again. But really you can say it sixty different ways and we'll still disagree. It's not like I can magically make you see the light.
...doesn't mean I'm going to stop saying it though, so here we go again!
punch in the face, kick in the groin, slap across the cheek, paddle on the backside, all forms of viol-oh I'm sorry "physical reinforcement" u.u m'bad. Because really, what is the definition of physical reinforcement? Using physicalness (my vocabulary is vast and amazing) to...reinforce a point XD Ok so, if someone sleeps with your gf, you beat the **** out of them to "reinforce" that they should not have done that. Bad cheating whore and betraying ****, no cookie. Some call it violence though (crazy people). So please just let me call it violence, because physical reinforcement takes way too long to type, and I'm getting tired of this.
Soooo (gonna jump to a conclusion here, so watch out ss) violence (unless completely unprovoked and you're just a jackass)=physical reinforcement.
BUTBUTBUT violence is wrong
a = b, a = c therefore something something. Point is, spanking is wrong (omfg go back 10 pages and it's like deja vu) and if there's other ways to solve it, why resort to it? However most problems can be solved with talking and people still use violence, so I'm kinda trying to bleed a stone or something.
Btw I patronize because I care <3
#152
Posted 05 March 2008 - 08:11 PM
kate, on Mar 5 2008, 09:06 PM, said:
Kate and me-1
Everybdoy else-BIG FAT ****ING ZERO.
:o.
She tells it how it is. Especially the fact that psyically reinforcment is use pshyical harm to reinforce a point, and therefore beating somebody up becasue they slept with your gf is pysicall reinforcement. Oh and didn't you guys say spanknig is pysicall reinforcement. Hold the phone. Wait, does that not mean that they are the same thing? Hmmm.
#153
Posted 05 March 2008 - 09:07 PM
Quote
You do drugs, you sell drugs, you always swear, you fight in school, you know gang members.
*sigh*
Maybe you should have got spanked =)
Quote
You don't know because it didn't happen.
#154
Posted 06 March 2008 - 01:29 AM
kate, on Mar 6 2008, 03:06 AM, said:
Anywho, skippy and I have kinda made all our points, and so have you, seeing how we keep saying the same stuff over and over again. But really you can say it sixty different ways and we'll still disagree. It's not like I can magically make you see the light.
...doesn't mean I'm going to stop saying it though, so here we go again!
punch in the face, kick in the groin, slap across the cheek, paddle on the backside, all forms of viol-oh I'm sorry "physical reinforcement" u.u m'bad. Because really, what is the definition of physical reinforcement? Using physicalness (my vocabulary is vast and amazing) to...reinforce a point XD Ok so, if someone sleeps with your gf, you beat the **** out of them to "reinforce" that they should not have done that. Bad cheating whore and betraying ****, no cookie. Some call it violence though (crazy people). So please just let me call it violence, because physical reinforcement takes way too long to type, and I'm getting tired of this.
Soooo (gonna jump to a conclusion here, so watch out ss) violence (unless completely unprovoked and you're just a jackass)=physical reinforcement.
BUTBUTBUT violence is wrong
a = b, a = c therefore something something. Point is, spanking is wrong (omfg go back 10 pages and it's like deja vu) and if there's other ways to solve it, why resort to it? However most problems can be solved with talking and people still use violence, so I'm kinda trying to bleed a stone or something.
Btw I patronize because I care <3
We're talking about children, not about adults, teens, babies, adolescents, grown-ups. Thus we say, that's not the same thing.
Yeah... I'm kind of waiting for new news to bump the topic too. Since it's kind of recycling now.
Dipset, on Mar 6 2008, 03:11 AM, said:
Pro - spanking - BIG FAT caking 2
It's a draw much? Aint I the compromiser.
:o .
She tells it how it is. Especially the fact that psyically reinforcment is use pshyical harm to reinforce a point, and therefore beating somebody up becasue they slept with your gf is pysicall reinforcement. Oh and didn't you guys say spanknig is pysicall reinforcement. Hold the phone. Wait, does that not mean that they are the same thing? Hmmm.
This post is full of fail since it's all been said in the post above you. But lemme correct.
#155
Posted 06 March 2008 - 01:55 AM
Not everything is black and white here, so please stop making stupid comparisons and analogies, because that, along with typing like a 6 year old, isn't helping whatever case it is your trying to present here.
Sure, it's physical pain, big deal. It's not lasting physical pain, nor even lasting psychological pain (I'm actually grateful I was spanked as a kid, and I'm certain quite a lot of others out there are thankful for it as well).
The bottom line of my argument is: it's quick, it's effective, and in 95 cases out of 100, there's only good to come from it.
Sometimes counseling etc. can just exacerbate the problem, how do you think a 3 or 4 year old kid is going to respond to sitting down and trying to reason with a full-grown, unfamiliar adult about their inappropriate behavior?
#156
Posted 06 March 2008 - 01:02 PM
If you hadn't spanked them, then they still might have turned out great. You jsut don't know.
And don't jsut say NO to every example we put out there. You are jsut mad becasue we are saying very valid points, but you are jsut to stubborn to even take them into account.
*Smack myself*. I said I wouldn't post in here again.
#157
Posted 06 March 2008 - 01:37 PM
Dipset, on Mar 6 2008, 08:02 PM, said:
If you hadn't spanked them, then they still might have turned out great. You jsut don't know.
And don't jsut say NO to every example we put out there. You are jsut mad becasue we are saying very valid points, but you are jsut to stubborn to even take them into account.
*Smack myself*. I said I wouldn't post in here again.
It's bit arrogant to say that all your points are good and valid. Most of them are exaggerating, twisted, uncomparable situations. You're both seeing it black and white as Agatio pointed out.
And the 5 people where it didn't work on, don't have to turn in psyco killers. They could just have a bad relationship with their parents. Limited to no or limited contact, not murder. Another example of how you both exaggerate.
#158
Posted 06 March 2008 - 02:35 PM
Which is not to say we're right. Maybe we're completely wrong, and you've yet to give us some sort of golden argument that will end this all, but so far all I've seen from you is the same old thing.
#159
Posted 06 March 2008 - 02:39 PM
Also why I'm not going to say my 0.02$ again, becasue jsut like you guys, me and Kat are just saying the same things over and over.
Nothnig anybody can say in this topic will be new anymore, it will jsut be the same thing over and over again, jsut reworded.
#160
Posted 06 March 2008 - 03:12 PM
Dipset, on Mar 6 2008, 02:39 PM, said:
Also why I'm not going to say my 0.02$ again, becasue jsut like you guys, me and Kat are just saying the same things over and over.
Nothnig anybody can say in this topic will be new anymore, it will jsut be the same thing over and over again, jsut reworded.
Of course we keep saying to same things, because all you are doing is giving the worst possible scenario that could happen, when in reality the chances that your outlandish ideas are really going to come to pass are very slim. That would be the reason we say the same thing every time. Your ideas are exaggerated. And that is the reason we can use the same argument over and over again.
#161
Posted 06 March 2008 - 03:42 PM
#162
Posted 06 March 2008 - 04:04 PM
@ Caael-Well your parents should not have gave in. Ignore when he yells or when he acts out, adn take away all the things he likes. Make him stay in his room with no TV, Computer, or Video games. Sooner or latter, that WILL make him learn.
#163
Posted 06 March 2008 - 04:12 PM
#164
Posted 06 March 2008 - 04:24 PM
But once again, you will find something to make that invalid.
#165
Posted 06 March 2008 - 04:29 PM
Quote
The point of a debate is to prove your opponents point invalid and make your own valid point and last time I checked this was a debate forum so stop complaining.
#166
Posted 06 March 2008 - 10:49 PM
I love how every time I try to lighten a situation by writing something in a fun way (not any less valid, just quirky) someone's so quick to insult it "omfg you write like 6 year old".
It's kinda like those commercials of pepsi where they find very stupid and trivial flaws in coke so that they can try and bring it down, when really it's just because they have no good points to make about their own product, and coke remains the victor :o (there, now I've pissed off a bunch of pepsi drinkers too XD)
if you don't like how I type, go suck a duck, because I lose all respect for you when you resort to name calling because you can't prove your point. (technically telling you to go suck a duck is derrogatory too, but i'm a hypocrite so it's more fun that way)
at least I'm having fun with it. You're all *angst*. omg you're totally an example of how spanking goes wrong. Don't spank your kids, they'll turn out like agatio. (...not really)
Really though, while I find it funny you say our examples and analogies are outlandish and then keep changing your stats on how many kids are damaged by spanking, I'm only speaking of things in terms of black and white because really, it's a black and white situation.
And what we're doing now is just silly. We're picking at the semantics of each others arguements, when obviously these analogies and examples are neither concrete nor backed by solid evidence. We know each others main theories, and now you're just covering your ears and going "no no lalalalalalala" and really, so are we. Honestly, I think your arguement is dumb and lazy, but it is not without some truths, and neither is ours. So stop acting like children...or I'll spank you.
(and since that typing comment really does piss me off, I have a 95% in english 30I and 98% in world literature 35I, so I'm not too worried about my writing skills. Don't you fret your pretty little head about them either)
#167
Posted 06 March 2008 - 11:53 PM
#168
Posted 06 March 2008 - 11:56 PM
#169
Posted 07 March 2008 - 01:39 AM
The worst part is that he's 11, not 4.
#170
Posted 07 March 2008 - 02:44 AM
Furthermore, most of you seem to excuse the fact that kids who aren't spanked can turn out just as violent as kids who are. On the other side of the spectrum, kids who either are or aren't spanked can also turn into social recluses, never being outgoing. Like I said before, it's not all black and white. A won't always equal B. If it works, do it, if it doesn't then yes, try an alternative method.
But yes, both sides have depleted their arguments and we're resorting to nit-picking here, so I'll take my leave here also (and yes, I will actually take my leave) because I've said I'll I've got to say, if you want to hear it again, just re-read the thread, all my points are there.