Were you beaten as a kid?

[czhe]

Hi all,

I'm just curious as to if you received beatings or any sort of physical punishment as a child from your parents or other adult figures of authority.

[Furiae]

From my parents, and i'm glad they did now that i'm older.

[Dash]

my teacher once hit my ass with a book when I was in grade 8.

[Shaner]

I wasn't beat by any means, but yeah, I did get a smack every now and then (never in the face though).

I didn't vote, because your poll options are a bit misleading. I don't consider what I received a "beating."

With that said, I agree with giving kids the odd smack, but I won't do it when I have kids just because of the politics of society these days.

[molala]

our family doesn't believe in spanking kids...especially girls!

[stealth]

1 parent did, due to her own emotional shortcomings...the other never did.

[untaka]

Yeah ...Like others have said I wasn't "beaten" just ..someone got a hurt real bad.

[icebar]

From my parents, and i'm glad they did now that i'm older.

+1

from my teachers too...

I wonder if I had to do the same to my children if they don't study well?? :confused: :confused:

tbh, I prefer having that kind of parents (strict, 'killer', like what I have),rather than the ones that gives too much freedom.

[Dash]

my dad used intimidation and threats of a beating, but never actually hit me.

My mom smacked me around sometimes, until I got bigger, and then she used to chase me around with a pair of scissors or a knife, until one day I had enough, grabbed my baseball bat and told her to bring it on. I'm not sure, but I think that might have been the last time she did that. all I know is that it eventually stopped.

[ronny1980]

Mom used to beat me with a feather duster til about 7 yrs old. Then I started breaking them in half which, in hindsight, wasn't a very clever move because then she upgraded to belts.

[ronny1980]

I once threatened to call childrens aid and even picked up the phone and started talking to someone. Parents called my bluff by pressing the speaker buttong and all they heard was dial-tone. I then got beat.

[i6s1]

Spanking and beating are two different things.

[molala]

Mom used to beat me with a feather duster til about 7 yrs old. Then I started breaking them in half which, in hindsight, wasn't a very clever move because then she upgraded to belts.


I once threatened to call childrens aid and even picked up the phone and started talking to someone. Parents called my bluff by pressing the speaker buttong and all they heard was dial-tone. I then got beat.

HAHAHAHA.....i'm sorry but it just sounds really funny to me...

[LegiT]

I once threatened to call childrens aid and even picked up the phone and started talking to someone. Parents called my bluff by pressing the speaker buttong and all they heard was dial-tone. I then got beat.

Russell Peters?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn5jlrxcpkI

[Peckerwood]

Spanking and beating are two different things.
I was just thinking the exact same thing.

[Zephyr22b]

I've been whipped by small tree branches and sticks and once my mom used the blade end of a butcher knife to hit my hand lol

[icebar]

well, I think the OP means spanking...

[Furiae]

When i was 'beaten' it was with the wrong end of a feather duster.

I didn't even know it was supposed to be a feather duster till i got older.

[sexpuppet6000]

I only remember being hit on the hand.

[board123]

Rarely, but it did set me straight. I think it's safe to say that I turned out much better than most kids nowadays who never got beat.

[licious]

IMO, there is never any reason to spank and/or hit a child. When I have kids, I will definitely discipline them, but I can't even imagine hitting a child.

[board123]

IMO, there is never any reason to spank and/or hit a child. When I have kids, I will definitely discipline them, but I can't even imagine hitting a child.
It really depends on the child. There are some children who grow up with zero discipline (verbal or physical) and could use some old fashioned asskicking to fix them up. This is usually due to bad parenting.

If your child grows up as a decent human being, then obviously there's no need to resort to corporal punishment.

[fboybcb]

Got my ass whooped during gr.7 and 8 then after that it was me who did the beatings. Oh btw, those kids that got me when I was young had their paybacks.:lol:

[blarg]

http://file039a.bebo.com/5/large/2008/02/11/23/2520322177a6857632818l.jpg

[FazerRider]

all the time, tons of fun!

[molala]

obviously spanking is not a way to discipline a child as there is a good real life example in this thread

[superock]

a smack here and there will do wonders

[zydus]

"Spare the rod..spoil the child"

I won't say beaten, but definitely a slap here and there and like someone else said above, i'm glad i got them. My bro had a much easier time, and he's a spoilt brat.

[corrupt123]

I wasn't beat by any means, but yeah, I did get a smack every now and then (never in the face though).

I didn't vote, because your poll options are a bit misleading. I don't consider what I received a "beating."

With that said, I agree with giving kids the odd smack, but I won't do it when I have kids just because of the politics of society these days.

+1

Up till I was maybe 10-12 I remember my mom tossing me (and/or my brother) a smack if we were bad. I'd say maybe 4-5 times a year we got a smack. Shouting was usually enough back then for us :lol:

What really shaped me into who I am today though, was spending 1-2 weeks a year with my (very wealthy) grandparents. I saw the lifestyle you can get if you work hard and set your priorities, and that made me want to be successful more than any beating would have.

[thechampion116]

"Spare the rod..spoil the child"

I won't say beaten, but definitely a slap here and there and like someone else said above, i'm glad i got them. My bro had a much easier time, and he's a spoilt brat.

+1.

if its done right, the message will get sent.

my cousins use to get hit with bamboo sticks so they definitely learned their lessons the first time.

Like now, whenever I go to the mall, kids are just running around and whenever their parents tell them to stop, it just leads to more ridiculous foulishness. If I ever kept running, I'd get whats coming to me, and I'd make sure to not go wild again if yelled at.

[wisdom_kid]

When ever some says if they were beaten as a kid, I assume that their parents left bruises.

I myself was never "beaten", got hit on the ass a couple of times for doing something stupid. Other than that, it was the yelling, and the constant "I am disappointed" lecture.

[board123]

Like now, whenever I go to the mall, kids are just running around and whenever their parents tell them to stop, it just leads to more ridiculous foulishness. If I ever kept running, I'd get whats coming to me, and I'd make sure to not go wild again if yelled at.
There are some really wild kids in my neighborhood who could use a little bamboo.

[nahim.a.a]

Children who get beaten grow up thinking violence works and therefore are more likely to beat other kids in school or their siblings or even when they grow up they might beat their spouse or kids.

[originalnutta]

Hell yeah.

I'm still in next week.
:lol:

And i'm gonna beat my kids too. Just out of vengeance.

[gilboman]

Children who get beaten grow up thinking violence works and therefore are more likely to beat other kids in school or their siblings or even when they grow up they might beat their spouse or kids.

this is ur own personal opinion which you seem to think or imply is the actual truth which it isnt.

[poedua]

Children who get beaten grow up thinking violence works and therefore are more likely to beat other kids in school or their siblings or even when they grow up they might beat their spouse or kids.

I'd agree.

Striking a child simply teaches them to accept violence over reason.

And ignores the fact that virtually every situation can be solved peacefully and without any physical force whatsoever.

[monty613]

Children who get beaten grow up thinking violence works and therefore are more likely to beat other kids in school or their siblings or even when they grow up they might beat their spouse or kids.

And what kind of example are you setting by returning used deodorant? rofl!

[molala]

Children who get beaten grow up thinking violence works and therefore are more likely to beat other kids in school or their siblings or even when they grow up they might beat their spouse or kids.


this is ur own personal opinion which you seem to think or imply is the actual truth which it isnt.

kids who got spank as might not grow up thinking violence is the solution to everything BUT majority of abuser do report history of being abused when they were a kid....it might sounds kinda silly but I think genetics plays a small part too

[board123]

I'd agree.

Striking a child simply teaches them to accept violence over reason.

And ignores the fact that virtually every situation can be solved peacefully and without any physical force whatsoever.
You can use force to get their attention, and then explain the reason why you had to use force. If they see the reason, then it has worked.

The thing is, for some kids their minds don't up to reason unless you beat them open. The window of opportunity for developing a child who accepts reason without any force is fairly small, and it requires careful parenting. Once the window has closed, you need to beat it open.


kids who got spank as might not grow up thinking violence is the solution to everything BUT majority of abuser do report history of being abused when they were a kid....it might sounds kinda silly but I think genetics plays a small part too
Hitting your child does not necessarily infer abuse. These abusive people were given much more than a spank on the butt when they were young.

[poedua]

kids who got spank as might not grow up thinking violence is the solution to everything BUT majority of abuser do report history of being abused when they were a kid....it might sounds kinda silly but I think genetics plays a small part too

And - sadly - this is how many parents who favor hitting their kids often think IMO.

I suspect these sorts of parents opt for violence simply because they have no clue how to achieve the behavior they want from their kids without having to resort to violence IMO.

[manixc]

yes >:(

[board123]

And - sadly - this is how many parents who favor hitting their kids often think IMO.

I suspect these sorts of parents opt for violence simply because they have no clue how to achieve the behavior they want from their kids without having to resort to violence IMO.
Or that they've spoiled their kids to the point where the only way to get them to listen to you is to hit them.

[FazerRider]

what's wrong with violence?

[molala]

And - sadly - this is how many parents who favor hitting their kids often think IMO.

I suspect these sorts of parents opt for violence simply because they have no clue how to achieve the behavior they want from their kids without having to resort to violence IMO.


Agree, if people don't have the patience to discipline a child, invest in birth control in the first place! I suspect one of my cousins has ADHD (can't help it when the parents denied it) and he's active as hell. He was never spanked once in his life and he is the most disciplined kids who will ask permission for things that he knows he is suppose to..

[poedua]

You can use force to get their attention, and then explain the reason why you had to use force. If they see the reason, then it has worked.

There is no need to resort to gratuitous physical violence simply in order to get a child's attention IMO.

Using gratuitous physical violence in this manner simply means one accepts violence to become an option - when it needn't be.


The thing is, for some kids their minds don't up to reason unless you beat them open.

Sorry, but I have a zero tolerance for beating - i.e " beat them open " - kids.


The window of opportunity for developing a child who accepts reason without any force is fairly small, and it requires careful parenting. Once the window has closed, you need to beat it open.

That's nonsense IMO.

Sorry, but force / gratuitous physical violence isn't a necessary pre requisite for developing reason.

[poedua]

Or that they've spoiled their kids to the point where the only way to get them to listen to you is to hit them.

Thanks - you just made my point for me.

That statement speaks to shortcomings in parenting.

Parents have allowed violence to become an option when it needn't be one at all IMO. They've arrived at a false conclusion that violence is some sort of measure of last resort - i.e " only way to get them to listen to you ".

As I said before, these types of parents simply opt for violence simply because they don't know how to achieve the behavior they want without it.

[molala]

Thanks - you just made my point for me.

That statement speaks to shortcomings in parenting.

Parents have allowed violence to become an option when it needn't be one at all IMO. They've arrived at a false conclusion that violence is some sort of measure of last resort - i.e " only way to get them to listen to you ".

As I said before, these types of parents simply opt for violence simply because they don't know how to achieve the behavior they want without it.

agree...if you hit your kids when they're young, don't be suprised that they will hit you back when you're old...elderly abuse is very common and what comes around goes around!

[poedua]

what's wrong with violence?

The problem is what parents like these ( who endorse violence ) think they are " teaching " their kids when they opt to repeatedly hit them and force them to endure violence in the parents' attempts to control their behavior.

I think violence against defenseless children is wrong because it teaches children is that this sort of violence & intimidation is the way you gain power & control & respect - which, of course, as any mature adult will tell you - is a complete joke.

I think parents like these have a " violence " skill set more suited to a canine obedience school....than raising kids.;)

[the_fm]

nope, never got beaten. my mom doesn't believe in that but i did get my share of going in the corner and being still on my knees for hours on end >:(

[bionicbadger]

spankings are not beatings. Too many kids today are coddeled and medicated instead of spanked. Its laughable that so many parents feel they are helping their their kids by not spanking them, yet seem to feel that medicating/drugging them to control their is better. No wonder society is so screwed up.

[board123]

Sorry, but force / gratuitous physical violence isn't a necessary pre requisite for developing reason.
I never said anything about gratuitous violence. Of course you should try to reason with kids first. If nothing you try verbally works, then the kid clearly needs a slap or two. You don't just go up to the kid and give 'em a punch, then say, "Okay, listen up..."

Words first, and if all else fails, then use force. You never start with force. I don't know how I can make myself more clear.


Thanks - you just made my point for me.

That statement speaks to shortcomings in parenting.

Parents have allowed violence to become an option when it needn't be one at all IMO. They've arrived at a false conclusion that violence is some sort of measure of last resort - i.e " only way to get them to listen to you ".

As I said before, these types of parents simply opt for violence simply because they don't know how to achieve the behavior they want without it.
Why don't you suggest some alternatives then? All you've been saying is that hitting kids is wrong. What else can you do? If words don't get through, then what?

[poedua]

spankings are not beatings.

Correct - spankings are just another form of physical violence upon a defenseless child


Too many kids today are coddeled and medicated instead of spanked. Its laughable that so many parents feel they are helping their their kids by not spanking them, yet seem to feel that medicating/drugging them to control their is better..

And I would say its laughable that so many parents feel they are helping their their kids BY spanking them.


No wonder society is so screwed up.

Too funny !

Yea that's right - society is screwed up because not enough kids are being spanked.:rolleyes:

[board123]

You're saying very idealistic things here. If you were a parent, what would you do?

Let's say your child is just going absolutely wild and refused to calm down. What would be your procedure to get your child to settle down and do whatever he's supposed to be doing?

[chrza]

Spankings were easy, IMO. I even got the belt a few times. I was a mouthy kid. But, I mean I would get "beat", cry, and it would be over with. It was the few times that my parents forbid me from going out or getting something cause I was bad that it really hurt. Not that my parents did a horrible job raising me, cause they were and are good people and raised me to be a good person, but I think there were more effective ways to discipline me.

Of course, it's a different story for everyone. While I believe hitting your kid only teaches them that violence is the solution, some kids are too smart (or maybe the parents too dumb, i dunno) that a physical force/discipline is in order.

[Atheral]

nope, never got beaten. my mom doesn't believe in that but i did get my share of going in the corner and being still on my knees for hours on end >:(

Same here! Although I also had to hold my ears :D

[i6s1]

Some parents just happen to have kids that listen. Then they think they're good parents and other parents who spank their kids are savages.

[poedua]

I never said anything about gratuitous violence. Of course you should try to reason with kids first. If nothing you try verbally works, then the kid clearly needs a slap or two. You don't just go up to the kid and give 'em a punch, then say, "Okay, listen up..."

Words first, and if all else fails, then use force. You never start with force. I don't know how I can make myself more clear.

I disagree.

In fact, I find the whole argument that you can't teach obedience to your kids without eventually resorting to corporal punishment - i.e " all else fails, then use force " - a weak one at best.

I have 4 kids and we never struck our kids. We never used any physical force whatsoever and can testify to the fact that - in reality - every situation can be solved peacefully and without any physical force whatsoever. As I said before, striking a child simply teaches them to accept violence over reason IMO.

The " last resort "argument is a bogus one as well IMO, and it simply speaks to the shortcomings of the person dishing out the physical punishment - not to the conditions at hand.

Parents strike kids because parents feel " they can't take it anymore ", or they are seething with anger or fear and strike out in a ( preventable ) knee jerk reaction IMO. Striking a child is a conscious rational choice IMO - there is no in inevitability in it.


Why don't you suggest some alternatives then? All you've been saying is that hitting kids is wrong. What else can you do? If words don't get through, then what?

In a nutshell, simply anything but hitting / spanking.

Just adopt a " spanking / hitting is not an option " philosophy and find other non-violent means of enforcing discipline.........be it ' time out ' , withdrawing privileges, setting boundaries and limitations ahead of time, actively rewarding good behavior etc.

But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt...can you provide me some examples of scenarios which you think represent the ' proper conditions ' for a parent to strike a child ?

[poedua]

You're saying very idealistic things here. If you were a parent, what would you do?

Let's say your child is just going absolutely wild and refused to calm down. What would be your procedure to get your child to settle down and do whatever he's supposed to be doing?

Any combo of distracting them, ignoring them, removing them, holding them and or waiting them out.

[i6s1]

Any combo of distracting them, ignoring them, removing them, holding them and or waiting them out.

What if it's at the grocery store, you've got two other kids that start acting up, and you have very little time?

[chrza]

What if it's at the grocery store, you've got two other kids that start acting up, and you have very little time?

lol, so you hit your kids in a grocery store so they start crying out loudly? Sounds like the last thing you want to resort to in that situation.

[ali123]

Mom used to beat me with a feather duster til about 7 yrs old. Then I started breaking them in half which, in hindsight, wasn't a very clever move because then she upgraded to belts.

hahaha +1 my mom used to beat me with clothing hangers, then I started breaking them! and it got upgraded to kitchen tools! :mad:. Anyways I'm glad that they did that and I'm still in HS. :cheesygri

[manho]

i think different age group would varies in the different catagories.

i think i can safely assume that those that were never beaten are under 20 years old.

[molala]

What if it's at the grocery store, you've got two other kids that start acting up, and you have very little time?

threaten them that next time they would go to a relative/friend's that they don't like instead of coming along to the grocery store....i helped to raise 7 of my cousins and it worked on all of them

this should be the way to raise a child, balance between threats and reward when it comes down to discipline issues

besides...spanking a kid in the public is the stupidest move....except violence is not right...but there are always nosy people who would call the cop/child support and get you arrested right away

[molala]

i think different age group would varies in the different catagories.

i think i can safely assume that those that were never beaten are under 20 years old.

I wish! hahah!!

[i6s1]

lol, so you hit your kids in a grocery store so they start crying out loudly? Sounds like the last thing you want to resort to in that situation.

Not really. If they're the type that spaz, they need to understand that something unfortunate will happen if they spaz in the grocery store. For example, when dad gets home from work he's gonna whip an ass or two. Some households don't need to take kid(s) grocery shopping (doctor's office, etc.) where they get bored and misbehave in public, so they have the luxury of many carrots and (non-violent) sticks. And that's great that it works for them.

Other households don't have that luxury. There are simply times when kids must behave in boring situations. Depending on age/development/personality/genetics/other, some kids will behave, some won't. For those that won't, there's always pain.

Really what I'm getting at is the automatic assumption that since *my* kids didn't get spanked and turned out fine, it means that spanking is unnecessary and those who use it aren't as good at parenting. They assume that they didn't extensively try various other methods.

[ali123]

I disagree.

In fact, I find the whole argument that you can't teach obedience to your kids without eventually resorting to corporal punishment - i.e " all else fails, then use force " - a weak one at best.

I have 4 kids and we never struck our kids. We never used any physical force whatsoever and can testify to the fact that - in reality - every situation can be solved peacefully and without any physical force whatsoever. As I said before, striking a child simply teaches them to accept violence over reason IMO.

The " last resort "argument is a bogus one as well IMO, and it simply speaks to the shortcomings of the person dishing out the physical punishment - not to the conditions at hand.

Parents strike kids because parents feel " they can't take it anymore ", or they are seething with anger or fear and strike out in a ( preventable ) knee jerk reaction IMO. Striking a child is a conscious rational choice IMO - there is no in inevitability in it.



In a nutshell, simply anything but hitting / spanking.

Just adopt a " spanking / hitting is not an option " philosophy and find other non-violent means of enforcing discipline.........be it ' time out ' , withdrawing privileges, setting boundaries and limitations ahead of time, actively rewarding good behavior etc.

But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt...can you provide me some examples of scenarios which you think represent the ' proper conditions ' for a parent to strike a child ?


Actually for me, even when my parents tried using tactics like grounding me and stuff it would fail because I wouldn't respond, I was the type of kid that used to think "who cares, why do I have to listen to them anyways" so beatings

we're the only thing that made me come to my senses and eventually as I got older, i started realizing my parents were working their buts off everyday just so I can go to school and eat food and I slowly started responding to their commands. :)

Edit: I guess it depends on the child, some are born to be obedient lolz

[chrza]

Not really. If they're the type that spaz, they need to understand that something unfortunate will happen if they spaz in the grocery store. For example, when dad gets home from work he's gonna whip an ass or two. Some households don't need to take kid(s) grocery shopping (doctor's office, etc.) where they get bored and misbehave in public, so they have the luxury of many carrots and (non-violent) sticks. And that's great that it works for them.

Other households don't have that luxury. There are simply times when kids must behave in boring situations. Depending on age/development/personality/genetics/other, some kids will behave, some won't. For those that won't, there's always pain.

Really what I'm getting at is the automatic assumption that since *my* kids didn't get spanked and turned out fine, it means that spanking is unnecessary and those who use it aren't as good at parenting. They assume that they didn't extensively try various other methods.

Well, threatening to spank them is far different than spanking them right there on the spot.

In anycase, I would argue that most of those parents have that luxury for a reason, not just cause they "lucked out" with having good kids. I often find when I see kids acting out it's apparent why just by looking at the parents and how they are handling the situation. I mean, i'm by no means a parenting expert, but I sometimes wonder why some people reproduce. Seeing bad behaviour being reinforced, almost encouraged.

I'll agree that no method is universal, but I do doubt that most parents actually extensively try various methods.

[CheapScotsman]

What if it's at the grocery store, you've got two other kids that start acting up, and you have very little time?Do what our society models to us:

the first line of "intervention" are the cops ... and they would either taser or pepper spray them to get them under control.

then give them a "free" timeout (free food, free accommodations, etc)

Then apply the full weight of the law and give them a suspended sentence (let them off the hook with no consequences ... okay maybe a small fine).

[Siefer999]

i was diciplined with the feather duster. i understand why. if there is one thing that getting a beatdown taught me, it's that certain actions have consequences.

[poedua]

What if it's at the grocery store, you've got two other kids that start acting up, and you have very little time?

Been there done that - I have 4 kids within 5 years of age,

Again, any combo of distracting them, ignoring them, removing them, holding them etc. etc.

Violence isn't required.

[poedua]

i was diciplined with the feather duster. i understand why. if there is one thing that getting a beatdown taught me, it's that certain actions have consequences.

I taught my kids that ALL actions - good or bad - have consequences

And it certainly doesn't take a ' beatdown ' - physical violence - for kids to clue in to this fact.

That is my point.

[Emancipated]

Chinese people need not respond because we've all got it!

[board123]

I taught my kids that ALL actions - good or bad - have consequences

And it certainly doesn't take a ' beatdown ' - physical violence - for kids to clue in to this fact.

That is my point.
So the primary basis of your entire argument is that since your kids respond well to non-physical discipline, everyone kid should. You believe that whatever you're doing works universally for every kid because it was worked great for all 4 of your kids. And that your kids, and your family, is perfectly representative of every family in the world.

That's such a flawed argument that I'm not even going to go any further with this.

[Dash]

I also go by the philosophy that kids don't need to be hit in order to be disciplined. my dad never hit me, unlike my mom (which wasn't even that often), and I rebelled against her more than anything. I also took courses in child psychology and learned that there are ways to punish children without the use of negative reinforcement. that's my personal philosophy anyways.

[boonjaca]

I also go by the philosophy that kids don't need to be hit in order to be disciplined. my dad never hit me, unlike my mom (which wasn't even that often), and I rebelled against her more than anything. I also took courses in child psychology and learned that there are ways to punish children without the use of negative reinforcement. that's my personal philosophy anyways.

My dad was the same, he never hit me but when he got mad I was afraid. My mom used anything and everything on me and I rebelled against her a lot in my teenage years. I'm still glad she did it otherwise I'd still be going over to people's houses and throwing their pots and pans everywhere and breaking stuff. :twisted:

[Nikita]

spankings are not beatings. Too many kids today are coddeled and medicated instead of spanked. Its laughable that so many parents feel they are helping their their kids by not spanking them, yet seem to feel that medicating/drugging them to control their is better. No wonder society is so screwed up.

That's a really good point, and one that nobody has yet responded to. It seems to be the 'new age' way of disciplining a child is to put them on drugs. When I was in school I didn't know a single kid who had ADD or ADHD or any of those 'conditions' and who were on drugs. I really believe that it's a simple lack of discipline with most kids today who are put on drugs. I don't believe so many kids need drugs, it's just an easy, way too easy, way of keeping kids in order. Personally I find doing that more offenseive than the occassional swat on the butt or the back of the head.

[board123]

That's a really good point, and one that nobody has yet responded to. It seems to be the 'new age' way of disciplining a child is to put them on drugs. When I was in school I didn't know a single kid who had ADD or ADHD or any of those 'conditions' and who were on drugs. I really believe that it's a simple lack of discipline with most kids today who are put on drugs. I don't believe so many kids need drugs, it's just an easy, way too easy, way of keeping kids in order. Personally I find doing that more offenseive than the occassional swat on the butt or the back of the head.
Just because you didn't know of any kids with ADD or ADHD doesn't mean those conditions didn't exist back then. It just means that they weren't diagnosed with those conditions. A hundred years ago, nobody knew anyone who had autism, but it clearly existed. It just wasn't diagnosed.

As medicine advances, you get more and more people diagnosed and labeled with conditions. The lack of a label does not infer the lack of medical conditions.

I'm not supporting the idea of putting kids on drugs if they act up. I'm just saying that not knowing of people who were diagnosed with ADD or ADHD back in the day is not a valid argument here.

[Nikita]

Just because you didn't know of any kids with ADD or ADHD doesn't mean those conditions didn't exist back then. It just means that they weren't diagnosed with those conditions. A hundred years ago, nobody knew anyone who had autism, but it clearly existed. It just wasn't diagnosed.

As medicine advances, you get more and more people diagnosed and labeled with conditions. The lack of a label does not infer the lack of medical conditions.

I'm not supporting the idea of putting kids on drugs if they act up. I'm just saying that not knowing of people who were diagnosed with ADD or ADHD back in the day is not a valid argument here.

I think the fact that not a single kid 'back in the day' (not really sure why you bolded that) needed to be on drugs, vs. the tremendous amount of kids these days who are regularly medicated IS indeed a valid argument that parents (and teachers and doctors) turn to drugs as a form of discipline. And that form of discipline is IMO more offensive than the occassional spanking.

[Dash]

My dad was the same, he never hit me but when he got mad I was afraid. My mom used anything and everything on me and I rebelled against her a lot in my teenage years. I'm still glad she did it otherwise I'd still be going over to people's houses and throwing their pots and pans everywhere and breaking stuff. :twisted:

but you could have been taught to not break pots and pans without getting hit. I definitely hear ya on being afraid of your dad. even when I got to the point where I was bigger than him, I still have it in my head that he could kick my @ss.


I think the fact that not a single kid 'back in the day' (not really sure why you bolded that) needed to be on drugs, vs. the tremendous amount of kids these days who are regularly medicated IS indeed a valid argument that parents (and teachers and doctors) turn to drugs as a form of discipline. And that form of discipline is IMO more offensive than the occassional spanking.

bolded cause your old. ;)

well, I think back in the day, they couldn't properly assess ADD and ADHD, and that's why no one was medicated. I don't particularly like the idea of putting children on drugs myself, however, for some cases, it's unfortunately necessary to help them focus their energy better. i don't doubt that that some kids are probably misdiagnosed though.

[FazerRider]

violence is bad? c'mon, we all loved 300.

[JAGpilot]

I have heard Chinese parents beat their kids with bamboo and feather dusters. Nothing more scary than a 90 lb 4 foot asian mom coming after you with a feather duster. LOL

[ricoboxing]

my parents weapons of choice!
http://www.partydomain.co.uk/d-commerce/media/main/2/22681.jpghttp://www.sovaleather.com/Eslipfrntbig1.jpg

[poedua]

So the primary basis of your entire argument is that since your kids respond well to non-physical discipline, everyone kid should.

Not at all.

It has nothing to do with my kids per se.

I simply don't believe in inflicting physical violence by an adult on a defenseless child - or agree with the arguments that justify that form of parenting / discipline.

I just practice what I preach - i don't the believe in the inevitability of violence against children - and I would hold that view whether I had kids or not.


You believe that whatever you're doing works universally for every kid because it was worked great for all 4 of your kids.

Nope . Not at all - see my comments above.



And that your kids, and your family, is perfectly representative of every family in the world.

Nonsense.

I never suggested - or even insinuated - that.


That's such a flawed argument that I'm not even going to go any further with this.

Trouble is - that's not my argument.;)

( Nice try though :) )

[Dash]

man, alot of parents had feather dusters. maybe if we had a feather duster my mom wouldn't have come at me with scissors.

[Lone_Prodigy]

Corporal punishment is just another form of punishment. Sometimes inflicting physical pain can trump logic and reason by appealing to our baser instincts and conditioning (it hurts when I do this, so I shouldn't.) Everyone talks about "physical abuse" but what about neglect and restraint? Emotional abuse is huge too.

And I agree about all the overdiagnosis of ADD/ADHD/etc. Seems like the only solution for kids these days is a prescription of Ritalin. My parents have a friend whose child is (not was: I refuse to believe she's beyond help) normal. She is almost constantly medicated and is hardly alert most of the time. It's affected her development and education negatively. And all this because her mother insists that there's something wrong with her due to her misbehaviour.

[mgronqui]

I got my ass whooped by hangers, belts, etc. Toughened me up.

[Eyies]

I definitely hear ya on being afraid of your dad. even when I got to the point where I was bigger than him, I still have it in my head that he could kick my @ss.


Haha, now that I think about it.. It seems that way for me too. Though I'm definitely more sized and fit.

[ronny1980]

I was pretty bad when I was young. I stole ALOT. Stole money from parents, siblings, grand parents and even including our maid at one point. Im not talking about a loonie here and there but in large denominations. $20s and up -sometimes up to $100. For 11-14 yr old, this was ALOT of money. Me and my friends would go into grocery stores and come out school bags full. We did it for the thrill, didnt need any of the loot.

Parents took me to the police station once to try and scare me straight - did nothing. I had huge balls when I was a kid.

It got to the point where my dad had to put add extra locks inside the house on certain cabinet doors and shelves. He would also cover the ATM key-pad if Im standing there watching him punch out cash.

If I didnt get beat I would probably be a drug dealer or in jail right now.

With that said, I dont think I could beat my kids. Spankings sure but definitely not the extent that my parents punished me.

I'll leave the beatings to my wife.

[i6s1]

Been there done that - I have 4 kids within 5 years of age,

Again, any combo of distracting them, ignoring them, removing them, holding them etc. etc.

Violence isn't required.

And do you think that this works for every kid?

[red120]

My parents slapped me upside the head when I gave them lip, and I'm damn glad they did it, too. None of this 'go to your room' or 'timeout' BS that we see nowadays.

Sometimes, kids can be lectured. Sometimes, they need to get hit.

I'm sure as hell gonna hit my kids when I grow up.

[Dash]

I was pretty bad when I was young. I stole ALOT. Stole money from parents, siblings, grand parents and even including our maid at one point. Im not talking about a loonie here and there but in large denominations. $20s and up -sometimes up to $100. For 11-14 yr old, this was ALOT of money. Me and my friends would go into grocery stores and come out school bags full. We did it for the thrill, didnt need any of the loot.

Parents took me to the police station once to try and scare me straight - did nothing. I had huge balls when I was a kid.

It got to the point where my dad had to put add extra locks inside the house on certain cabinet doors and shelves. He would also cover the ATM key-pad if Im standing there watching him punch out cash.

If I didnt get beat I would probably be a drug dealer or in jail right now.

With that said, I dont think I could beat my kids. Spankings sure but definitely not the extent that my parents punished me.

I'll leave the beatings to my wife.

haha, wait...you leave the wife to beat the kids, or you beat your wife?

[selpats]

No beatings. I only 'beat' myself... :lol:

[board123]

Not at all.

It has nothing to do with my kids per se.

Then why even mention your family of 4 kids to begin with? You clearly stated that to exemplify your notion of not using force against children because it's not required. It's the classic, "If I can do it, you can do it" argument.

Sorry, it doesn't work. Kids aren't manufactured on an assembly line. Kids are human beings too, each with a different mind. Discipline is a mental process, and not all minds will accept discipline the same way. There is no universal treatment that will work with every single kid.

Basically, what you're saying is that...

For every child, if you follow the process of

Do A
Then do B
Then do C
If C fails, then do D
If D fails, then do E

then your child will grow up to be a wonderful human being. Unfortunately, human beings aren't that simple.

[molala]

Corporal punishment is just another form of punishment. Sometimes inflicting physical pain can trump logic and reason by appealing to our baser instincts and conditioning (it hurts when I do this, so I shouldn't.) Everyone talks about "physical abuse" but what about neglect and restraint? Emotional abuse is huge too.

And I agree about all the overdiagnosis of ADD/ADHD/etc. Seems like the only solution for kids these days is a prescription of Ritalin. My parents have a friend whose child is (not was: I refuse to believe she's beyond help) normal. She is almost constantly medicated and is hardly alert most of the time. It's affected her development and education negatively. And all this because her mother insists that there's something wrong with her due to her misbehaviour.

I truly agree with you ADHD are overly disagnosed these days. As I mentioned earlier, I truly suspect one of my cousins have ADHD (he have every single symptoms ever listed) and his parents never suspected it (traditionally thinking he's just a naughty one) and he never received any medical treatment or anything. I do admit sometimes it get on our nerves trying to sit him down, but violence never exists in our family and he's one of the most disciplined child in our family as in he knows what he should and should not do and ask for permissions for things he know that needed to be ask for...

i'm pretty sure ADHD exists back in the days, but there aren't people who "need" to be on drugs or anything and they're still surviving...

[board123]

I truly agree with you ADHD are overly disagnosed these days. As I mentioned earlier, I truly suspect one of my cousins have ADHD (he have every single symptoms ever listed) and his parents never suspected it (traditionally thinking he's just a naughty one) and he never received any medical treatment or anything. I do admit sometimes it get on our nerves trying to sit him down, but violence never exists in our family and he's one of the most disciplined child in our family as in he knows what he should and should not do and ask for permissions for things he know that needed to be ask for...

i'm pretty sure ADHD exists back in the days, but there aren't people who "need" to be on drugs or anything and they're still surviving...
It's not overly diagnosed. If the condition exists in a child, then it's the psychiatrist's job to identify it and inform the parents of the problem. Whether or not the parents choose to put the child on medication is completely up to them. It just so happens that in most cases, if parents are told that their child has a problem that can be suppressed by drugs, they will most definitely resort to drugs.

I'm sure that if your cousin is professionally diagnosed with ADHD, then his/her parents will put the child on drugs too.

[molala]

It's not overly diagnosed. If the condition exists in a child, then it's the psychiatrist's job to identify it and inform the parents of the problem. Whether or not the parents choose to put the child on medication is completely up to them. It just so happens that in most cases, if parents are told that their child has a problem that can be suppressed by drugs, they will most definitely resort to drugs.

I'm sure that if your cousin is professionally diagnosed with ADHD, then his/her parents will put the child on drugs too.

Do you know that psychiatrist diagnose are very subjective? Not only ADHD but also mental illness. In many cases of ADHD, they make the diagnosis based on the parent's story not their actual observations...i agree it's the parent's decision whether or not to put the child on drugs, but i'm skeptical how many of these diagnosis are actually true..

perhaps a doctor told my uncle and aunt that my cousin have ADHD, they will put him on drugs. BUT, this is not the case now and he's living happily, healthy, and disciplined under no violence at all

[Sazafraz]

My mom hit me sometimes with sandals lol.

[board123]

Do you know that psychiatrist diagnose are very subjective? Not only ADHD but also mental illness. In many cases of ADHD, they make the diagnosis based on the parent's story not their actual observations...i agree it's the parent's decision whether or not to put the child on drugs, but i'm skeptical how many of these diagnosis are actually true..
I'm sure that a psychiatrist would make the diagnosis based on more than just the parents' story. There's a standard diagnostic manual, called the DSM IV, that psychiatrists use to diagnose disorders. The final word is not based heavily on intuition. I don't think you, nor most people on this forum, are credible enough to dispute what professional psychiatrists do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disord ers



perhaps a doctor told my uncle and aunt that my cousin have ADHD, they will put him on drugs. BUT, this is not the case now and he's living happily, healthy, and disciplined under no violence at all
That's irrelevant and beside the point. I'm just saying your cousin isn't on drugs because he is not diagnosed with ADHD, not because he is well disciplined.

[mingyang]

my teacher once hit my ass with a book when I was in grade 8.


LMAO

[Peckerwood]

I remember the strap in school...and it got used.

:)

[blazing24]

I got beat with chopsticks and rulers =/

[salabanzi]

Got hit with feather dusters, sandals, and clothing hangers. :cheesygri

[lagzor]

Chinese people need not respond because we've all got it!

+1 lol

[molala]

I'm sure that a psychiatrist would make the diagnosis based on more than just the parents' story. There's a standard diagnostic manual, called the DSM IV, that psychiatrists use to diagnose disorders. The final word is not based heavily on intuition. I don't think you, nor most people on this forum, are credible enough to dispute what professional psychiatrists do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disord ers
.

DSM IV is the most subjective thing ever...it have been changed many times over the years...they used to categorize alcohol addicts in Axis I which is the same Axis as clinical disorders (in case you don't know what that means, it's the same Axis as psychosis) I don't have to read your wiki link. I spend 2 years in school learning about the DSM IV. I might not be credible to dispute what a psychiatrist do. But I do have the creditential to carry the actual treament for psychiatric disorders. I've said this here before, there are experiments in the past where psychology students pretend they have disorders on the DSM IV and see whether or not they will and how long will they hospitalized them during their initial visit with th psychiatrist. They all ended up got hospitalized and even they pretend normal during the stay, the psychiatrist still thinks they are crazy. If you want proof, I'm more than glad to email it to you.

Besides, many parents thinks putting an ADHD kid on drug will make the kids feel better. It does not make the kid feel better and should only be used as the last solution. Given your body build tolerance and the adverse effects of drugs when used in a long period. ADHD is an incurable lifelong disaibility which one should learn how to cope with.


That's irrelevant and beside the point. I'm just saying your cousin isn't on drugs because he is not diagnosed with ADHD, not because he is well disciplined

irrlevant point? did you forget this thread was about spanking of children?

[board123]

DSM IV is the most subjective thing ever...it have changed many times over the years...they used to categorize alcohol addicts in Axis I which is the same Axis as clinical disorders (in case you don't know what that means, it's the same Axis as psychosis) I don't have to read your wiki link. I spend 2 years in school learning about the DSM IV. I might not be credible to dispute what a psychiatrist do. But I do have the creditential to carry the actual treament of psychiatric disorders. I've said this here before, there are experiments in the past where psychology students pretend they have disorders on the DSM IV and see whether or not they will and how long will they hospitalized them during their initial visit with th psychiatrist. They all ended up got hospitalized and even they pretend normal during the stay, the psychiatrist still thinks they are crazy. If you want proof, I'm more than glad to email it to you.

Besides, many parents thinks putting an ADHD kid on drug will make the kids feel better. It does not make the kid feel better and should only be used as the last solution. Given your body build tolerance and the adverse effects of drugs when used in a long period. ADHD is an incurable lifelong disaibility which one should learn how to cope with.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt about the subjectivity of psychiatrists. I'm not arguing that drugs are good for kids. I'm just saying parents are putting their kids on drugs because the number of diagnosed cases is increasing. Saying that nobody took drugs for ADHD several decades ago is a totally flawed argument since ADHD, as a diagnosed disorder, barely existed and drugs for it weren't invented much later.


irrlevant point? did you forget this thread was about spanking of children?
It's an irrelevant point because spanking your cousin has nothing to do with giving him drugs. He's not diagnosed with ADHD so drugs never became an option. Saying he wasn't given drugs for ADHD is meaningless if his parents were never given the option of drugs. I have no doubt that he's well disciplined despite his supposed disorder.

I said that if his parents were presented with the option of giving him drugs, then they probably would have done it. Then you said yes, that's true, but he's not on drugs and is doing just fine. It has nothing to do with the hypothetical scenario of his parents being aware of the potential disorder.

[Gloaming]

Only as many as I deserved

[Octavius]

I got the belt, wooden spoon, and the slipper as a kid.

That was mostly when I was young...as I grew older, I better behaved myself the less ass whoopin's I got.

I'd say I turned out alright.

[molala]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt about the subjectivity of psychiatrists. I'm not arguing that drugs are good for kids. I'm just saying parents are putting their kids on drugs because the number of diagnosed cases is increasing. Saying that nobody took drugs for ADHD several decades ago is a totally flawed argument since ADHD, as a diagnosed disorder, barely existed and drugs for it weren't invented much later.


It's an irrelevant point because spanking your cousin has nothing to do with giving him drugs. He's not diagnosed with ADHD so drugs never became an option. Saying he wasn't given drugs for ADHD is meaningless if his parents were never given the option of drugs. I have no doubt that he's well disciplined despite his supposed disorder.

benefit of doubt? i don't need that for facts

ADHD haven't been known for a long time but it doesn't mean it does not exists. ADHD is genetic, if the past generations doesn't have it, why would the current generations do? If people with ADHD were able to live without drugs in the past decades, why can't it be the case now?

The reason that ADHD was brought up in this thread because there were posters who argue how parents would rather drug their kids than spank them to discipline them. When some people are not aware of ADHD, they would just thinks their kids are going out of control and need some violence. My cousin wasn't diagnosed with ADHD by a psychiatrist doesn't mean he doesn't have it. And, I don't know you ever seen any kids with ADHD, but making them to keep their bump on the chair during a 15 minutes dinner session and making sure they stay with you in the grocery store is a pain in the a$$. If my family believe in violence will discipline a kid, that boy would be spank all day long.

[board123]

I got the belt, wooden spoon, and the slipper as a kid.

That was mostly when I was young...as I grew older, I better behaved myself the less ass whoopin's I got.

I'd say I turned out alright.
According to many people, you will grow up to be an abusive person who has a high chance of spousal and/or child abuse.

:rolleyes:

[Octavius]

According to many people, you will grow up to be an abusive person who has a high chance of spousal and/or child abuse.

:rolleyes:

Yeah...I don't really see myself doing that :|

[BadAim]

I've been whipped by small tree branches and sticks and once my mom used the blade end of a butcher knife to hit my hand lol

i used to get beat by tree branches by my dad all the time when I was young. several occasions my siblings and I would find the tree branch he was gonna use and hid it before he came home from work. then there were also broomsticks, slippers and him slapping us. i dunno about my brothers but i learned to wear lots of layers at home to cushion the beatings! i would never want to do that to my kids though (if I have kids in the future)...

[board123]

ADHD haven't been known for a long time but it doesn't mean it does not exists. ADHD is genetic, if the past generations doesn't have it, why would the current generations do? If people with ADHD were able to live without drugs in the past decades, why can't it be the case now?
I think it's more than just genetics. However, I'm no expert in this field so I'm not going to argue about this point.



The reason that ADHD was brought up in this thread because there were posters who argue how parents would rather drug their kids than spank them to discipline them. When some people are not aware of ADHD, they would just thinks their kids are going out of control and need some violence. My cousin wasn't diagnosed with ADHD by a psychiatrist doesn't mean he doesn't have it. And, I don't know you ever seen any kids with ADHD, but making them to keep their bump on the chair during a 15 minutes dinner session and making sure they stay with you in the grocery store is a pain in the a$$. If my family believe in violence will discipline a kid, that boy would be spank all day long.
And I'm just saying that if his parents were presented with the option of drugs, I'm absolutely sure that they would have used it. It's a great thing that they were able to get him to behave without drugs or physical force.

I'm just saying that if they were presented with the choices of:

a) No physical force
b) Physical force
c) Drugs

They would have chosen drugs just like many other parents nowadays. You know why? Because they think it's the easy solution. Your cousin's family is not special because they didn't need to use drugs. They were simply never given the choice of using drugs.

I'm just saying...you know? A hypothetical scenario.

[molala]

I think it's more than just genetics. However, I'm no expert in this field so I'm not going to argue about this point..

It is more than JUST genetics but genetics plays a part.



And I'm just saying that if his parents were presented with the option of drugs, I'm absolutely sure that they would have used it. It's a great thing that they were able to get him to behave without drugs or physical force.

I'm just saying that if they were presented with the choices of:

a) No physical force
b) Physical force
c) Drugs

They would have chosen drugs just like many other parents nowadays. You know why? Because they think it's the easy solution. Your cousin's family is not special because they didn't need to use drugs. They were simply never given the choice of using drugs.

I'm just saying...you know? A hypothetical scenario

Just like I said earlier, I wouldn't doubt they would put him on drugs if they realize it and were offered the opportunity. BUT many parents have a misconception that drug will help the kids, but it does not. The body build tolerance and disease from adverse effects of drugs developed after prolonged use. They should develope a strategy for the kid to cope with it instead.

I brought my cousin up as an example of you don't need violence to discipline a reckless kids.

[board123]

Just like I said earlier, I wouldn't doubt they would put him on drugs if they realize it and were offered the opportunity. BUT many parents have a misconception that drug will help the kids, but it does not. The body build tolerance and disease from adverse effects of drugs developed after prolonged use. They should develope a strategy for the kid to cope with it instead.

It seems we finally agree on something.........

In fact I never argued against this. It's like taking a whole bunch of OTC drugs for the cold, even though none of them actually cures the cold. Ignorant people who know nothing about medicine thinks it actually helps, when in fact all you're doing is putting foreign chemicals in your body where they don't belong. In today's day and age, lots of (ignorant) people think drugs can cure everything.

[Dash]

LMAO

I'm serious. she was kind of a flirt....

[poedua]

Then why even mention your family of 4 kids to begin with?

To simply point out, that with respect to my stand on this issue, I also happen to " walk the talk ".


You clearly stated that to exemplify your notion of not using force against children because it's not required..

Even if I didn't have kids, I would still believe that force against children is not required.


It's the classic, "If I can do it, you can do it" argument.

Actually........anyone can do it IMO.....too many people simply choose not to.

Opting to strike your kid by means of physical violence is a rational premeditated choice IMO.


Sorry, it doesn't work. Kids aren't manufactured on an assembly line.

I never said they were.

In fact, I'd say each kid has a unique personality.

[poedua]

And do you think that this works for every kid?

I think it does ...but that's just me.:)

[board123]

I never said they were.

In fact, I'd say each kid has a unique personality.
Yet they will all still respond to non-physical discipline equally well. How else can this be true if not all kids shared traits that allow them to process the concept of discipline in similar ways?

You've stopped making sense, and bolding/underlining my sentences don't help in that regard.

You're essentially saying that there is absolute NO exception to this. Every single child on this planet, regardless of age, environment or any other surrounding factors, can and will behave properly without you ever having to resort to corporal punishment. No exceptions whatsoever.

This is a ridiculous claim on so many levels.

[poedua]

Yet they will all still respond to non-physical discipline equally well.

Actually, I suspect some may respond better than others.

Nonetheless, regardless of how they respond, I don't believe in the inevitability of physical violence on children in the context of administering discipline.


How else can this be true if not all kids shared traits that allow them to process the concept of discipline in similar ways?

You simply tailor various forms of non-violent discipline to best fit the traits of the child .

This isn't rocket science.:rolleyes:


You've stopped making sense, and bolding/underlining my sentences don't help in that regard..

I'm going to continue to bold and underline - guess you're just going to have to get used to it.:)


You're essentially saying that there is absolute NO exception to this.

Having 4 kids of my own, I can't think of any scenario - with any child - in which a desired behavior can't be addressed or a given situation can't be resolved without having to resort to violence.

Again, I don't believe in the inevitability of physical violence on children - regardless of their unique personality traits.

So, I guess I do believe in the " violence is not an option " approach to parenting.


Every single child on this planet, regardless of age, environment or any other surrounding factors, can and will behave properly without you ever having to resort to corporal punishment. No exceptions whatsoever.

I can't think of any exceptions - can you ?

[board123]

I'm going to continue to bold and underline - guess you're just going to have to get used to it.
I'm already used to it. It doesn't make it any less annoying.


Having 4 kids of my own, I can't think of any scenario - with any child - in which a desired behavior can't be addressed or a given situation can't be resolved without having to resort to violence.
Because once again, your kids, along with your parenting skills, are totally representative of every human being on the planet.



I can't think of any exceptions - can you ?
http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7541579&postcount=88

Right here we have a poster who comes out and admits that corporal punishment was the only solution. I'm sure that he knows himself better than anyone else, and if he says corporal punishment was the only way for him, them corporal punishment was the only way for him.

http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7542114&postcount=90

Here's another one who appreciates the corporal punishment he received as a kid.

http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7539143&postcount=28

Here's a third one just on this thread alone.

By the way, how old are your kids, poedua?

[Defiant]

My dad is from the Caribbean so you know I got good licks when I was a kid. It was usually the belt, but generally, anything hard that was around would work. Once in a blue moon I got the slipper; they were nice and padded at least.

I see too many kids nowadays who control their parents. They misbehave and their parents sit there with a hopeless look on their faces. These kids need some corporal punishment. I'm not advocating beating your kid in public by any means, but since spanking has been frowned upon in recent years, kids have been acting up far more. Timeouts are a joke.

[poedua]

Because once again, your kids, along with your parenting skills, are totally representative of every human being on the planet.

That's your claim - not mine.;)


Right here we have a poster who comes out and admits that corporal punishment was the only solution. I'm sure that he knows himself better than anyone else, and if he says corporal punishment was the only way for him, them corporal punishment was the only way for him.

Well, that person may have that view - but I for one - certainly don't happen to share it.

Given I have 4 kids and as a result have probably seen most types of behaviors any kid might display, in my view, there is no need to opt for physical violence in order to discipline children....but that's just me.

Sorry. but I can't think of any examples in which violence is absolutely necessary for discipline.

If you can - let me know.


By the way, how old are your kids, poedua?

14,16,18, & 19.

[mgronqui]

I think "physical violence" should be used as a last resort, followed by a hug and kiss with a verbal explanation why what they did was wrong. Sometimes, violence is necessary.

[Halifax55]

I was beaten as a child...not just the back of my father's hand. My mom was beaten, I was beaten...my siblings were beaten. I received the brunt of the beatings. My father split my head open on many occasions and then made me get the cloth to clean up the blood. He also, had a very large belt with a huge buckle...you can imagine the rest. Once a baton was broken over my back. CAS was involved as their office was across the street, nothing came of it.

I spent a great deal of my childhood 'running away'...being sent to 311 Jarvis Street (Detention Centre). My father preferred the Chimpanzees and other animals that he 'owned' and said so to everyone that would listen...including doing a full interview with the 'Telegram' newspaper...A publication before the Sun newspaper. Most of what happened could/should not be printed here!

This is not meant to shock. I am no longer "in the story" I am the narrator. I am doing well, except for chronic migraines due to the number of head injuries my dad inflicted.

Along with the beatings came the verbal assaults...My brother and sisters have not recovered or faired very well. Difficult to overcome the childhood stuff for so many.

[poedua]

I think "physical violence" should be used as a last resort,

Sorry, I don't buy " last resort " arguments to validate the need to hit a child - that is more of a parent problem being expressed, not a behavior problem.

If you like the " last resort " term then simply resort to non-violent means of " last resort ".

As I said before, the " last resort "argument is a bogus one IMO, and it simply speaks to the shortcomings of the person dishing out the physical punishment - not to the conditions at hand.

Parents strike kids because parents feel " they can't take it anymore ", or they are seething with anger ( or fear ) and strike out in a ( preventable IMO ) knee jerk reaction IMO.

Striking a child is a conscious rational choice IMO - and since there is no inevitability in it - it isn't necessary IMO.


followed by a hug and kiss with a verbal explanation why what they did was wrong.

Coupled with a non-violent approach, a hug and kiss with a verbal explanation why what they did was wrong is just as effective IMO.


Sometimes, violence is necessary.

I would completely disagree...I'd say violence is never necessary.

But, I'll bite.

Got some examples of when - absolutely, without question - violence is ' necessary ' in order to discipline children ?

[mgronqui]

Sorry, I don't buy " last resort " arguments to validate the need to hit a child - that is more of a parent problem being expressed, not a behavior problem.

If you like the " last resort " term then simply resort to non-violent means of " last resort ".

As I said before, the " last resort "argument is a bogus one IMO, and it simply speaks to the shortcomings of the person dishing out the physical punishment - not to the conditions at hand.

Parents strike kids because parents feel " they can't take it anymore ", or they are seething with anger ( or fear ) and strike out in a ( preventable IMO ) knee jerk reaction IMO.

Striking a child is a conscious rational choice IMO - and since there is no inevitability in it - it isn't necessary IMO.



Coupled with a non-violent approach, a hug and kiss with a verbal explanation why what they did was wrong is just as effective IMO.



I would completely disagree...I'd say violence is never necessary.

But, I'll bite.

Got some examples of when - absolutely, without question - violence is ' necessary ' in order to discipline children ?

I respect your stance on not advocating physical violence and am open to learning. Physical violence is all I've known and have been led to believe it is necessary as a last resort. Hell, I don't want to hit my own kids when I have them. So tell me, what would you do if they just weren't getting the message? Would you talk to them or ground them to death? Would you send them to counselling or boot camp? I think you have to instill some degree of fear in them. Fear will lead to respect. I don't know, help me understand your point of view and if you can suggest a way to get kids in line without hitting them then more power to you. :)

[Chigu]

I didn't get 'Beat', but definitely got smacked quite a bit if I got out of line too much. In retrospect it was definitely a good thing. I'm 27 right now, a CA with a great job, and lots of close friends.

I think kids need to have a beating once in a while, otherwise they will just get out of control. Adults have jail instead of beatings, kids dont' have to worry about jail, and to a kid a 'potential' beating from a Dad is worse than jail!

[board123]

I respect your stance on not advocating physical violence and am open to learning. Physical violence is all I've known and have been led to believe it is necessary as a last resort. Hell, I don't want to hit my own kids when I have them. So tell me, what would you do if they just weren't getting the message? Would you talk to them or ground them to death? Would you send them to counselling or boot camp? I think you have to instill some degree of fear in them. Fear will lead to respect. I don't know, help me understand your point of view and if you can suggest a way to get kids in line without hitting them then more power to you. :)
I second this request.

[gordholio]

Hi all,

I'm just curious as to if you received beatings or any sort of physical punishment as a child from your parents or other adult figures of authority.

Different than how your poll is worded. The only physical punishment I received was once in Grade 6 by the principal. I got the strap 10 times on each hand for doing something bad.
The thing is that today I run into this principal once in a while and tell him how much I respected him. After receiving the strap in Grade 6, I straightened out.

[gordholio]

spankings are not beatings. Too many kids today are coddeled and medicated instead of spanked. Its laughable that so many parents feel they are helping their their kids by not spanking them, yet seem to feel that medicating/drugging them to control their is better. No wonder society is so screwed up.

+1

[poedua]

I respect your stance on not advocating physical violence and am open to learning. Physical violence is all I've known and have been led to believe it is necessary as a last resort

That's because you were probably spanked as a kid I suspect.

Actually, I think this is the reason a lot of new parents will embrace a policy of using hitting to discipline their own kids - because their parents did it to them.

Speaking for myself, I feel attitudes have evolved a great deal from the time of my parents - be it about the role of women in a marriage and in society, when women should marry, how late to wait to have kids, issues of child & spousal abuse, health concerns pertaining to diet, smoking , exercise etc - and of course, parenting / spanking.

That said, doing something - i.e spanking- simply because one's parents did it isn't a good enough reason to embrace any practice ...... at least for me.


Hell, I don't want to hit my own kids when I have them. So tell me, what would you do if they just weren't getting the message? Would you talk to them or ground them to death?

It depends on the age of the child and the nature of the discipline / behavior issue that needs to be addressed.

Do you have an example of an age of child and discipline / behavior in mind ?


Would you send them to counselling or boot camp? I think you have to instill some degree of fear in them. Fear will lead to respect.

I couldn't disagree more.

My job as a parent is to guide and teach my kids - and hopefully, garner their respect along the way - and not have them ' fear ' me and not trust me. In other words, my goal as a parent is to develop a relationship with my kids that is respectful and not only puts the primary focus focuses on acceptable behavior but encourages it.

If the only way my kids can become self disciplined is to be ' fearful ' and not trust of me as a result - then I've failed as a parent IMO.


I don't know, help me understand your point of view and if you can suggest a way to get kids in line without hitting them then more power to you. :)

Read my posts in this thread - my point of view on spanking is self-evident IMO.

And the way to way to get kids in line without hitting them is simply to embrace non-violent forms of discipline.

[Nikita]

It's not overly diagnosed. If the condition exists in a child, then it's the psychiatrist's job to identify it and inform the parents of the problem. Whether or not the parents choose to put the child on medication is completely up to them. It just so happens that in most cases, if parents are told that their child has a problem that can be suppressed by drugs, they will most definitely resort to drugs.

I'm sure that if your cousin is professionally diagnosed with ADHD, then his/her parents will put the child on drugs too.

I agree it's the shrink's job to diagnose and that that diagnosis is made in accordance with the medical protocol of the day. But shrinks aren't always right; the basis used to determine the diagnosis is not something any layparent understands, nor is it necessarily right, as it is subjective and a clinical diagnosis i.e. if beahviours x,y and z exist = ADHD. There's no blood test or other absolute test to determine which factors will lead to the diagnosis of ADHD. So, in other words, it's an educated guess at best and parents too often put all of their faith into a shrink who say's their kid should be on drugs because x, y and z are observed in the child.

You seem to imply that that should not be questioned i.e. 'the shrink says Johnny has ADHD and we should put him on drugs so of course we will do that'. Too easy, and IMO the diagnosis are well too often made with less and less tolerance for differences in children, their personalities, their upbringing, and both biological and environmental reasons for beahviours x,y and z exhibiting themselves.



Do you know that psychiatrist diagnose are very subjective? Not only ADHD but also mental illness. In many cases of ADHD, they make the diagnosis based on the parent's story not their actual observations...i agree it's the parent's decision whether or not to put the child on drugs, but i'm skeptical how many of these diagnosis are actually true..

perhaps a doctor told my uncle and aunt that my cousin have ADHD, they will put him on drugs. BUT, this is not the case now and he's living happily, healthy, and disciplined under no violence at all

I agree, with the subjective nature of these diagnoses, as you can see from my comments above.


benefit of doubt? i don't need that for facts

ADHD haven't been known for a long time but it doesn't mean it does not exists. ADHD is genetic, if the past generations doesn't have it, why would the current generations do? If people with ADHD were able to live without drugs in the past decades, why can't it be the case now?
The reason that ADHD was brought up in this thread because there were posters who argue how parents would rather drug their kids than spank them to discipline them. When some people are not aware of ADHD, they would just thinks their kids are going out of control and need some violence. My cousin wasn't diagnosed with ADHD by a psychiatrist doesn't mean he doesn't have it. And, I don't know you ever seen any kids with ADHD, but making them to keep their bump on the chair during a 15 minutes dinner session and making sure they stay with you in the grocery store is a pain in the a$$. If my family believe in violence will discipline a kid, that boy would be spank all day long.

As I was the first to raise this issue of ADHD being practically non-existent diagnoses 'back in the day' and was told (as though I wouldn't know this) that that it existed but simply wasn't a diagnosed condition at athe time. You're statement that I bolded above was exactly my point...that of course these conditions existed, yet people lived without living on drugs anyway. My point was NOT (contrary to some posters opinions) that it these conditions didn't exist.


I think it's more than just genetics. However, I'm no expert in this field so I'm not going to argue about this point.


And I'm just saying that if his parents were presented with the option of drugs, I'm absolutely sure that they would have used it. It's a great thing that they were able to get him to behave without drugs or physical force.

I'm just saying that if they were presented with the choices of:

a) No physical force
b) Physical force
c) Drugs

They would have chosen drugs just like many other parents nowadays. You know why? Because they think it's the easy solution. Your cousin's family is not special because they didn't need to use drugs. They were simply never given the choice of using drugs.

I'm just saying...you know? A hypothetical scenario.

And that's the point I've been making all along, that parents often opt for 'drug therapy' because it's easier, and not because it's necessarily the best thing for the child. Often it's simply the best thing for the parent.



It seems we finally agree on something.........

In fact I never argued against this. It's like taking a whole bunch of OTC drugs for the cold, even though none of them actually cures the cold. Ignorant people who know nothing about medicine thinks it actually helps, when in fact all you're doing is putting foreign chemicals in your body where they don't belong. In today's day and age, lots of (ignorant) people think drugs can cure everything.

+1....couldn't agree more.


Yet they will all still respond to non-physical discipline equally well. How else can this be true if not all kids shared traits that allow them to process the concept of discipline in similar ways?

You've stopped making sense, and bolding/underlining my sentences don't help in that regard.

You're essentially saying that there is absolute NO exception to this. Every single child on this planet, regardless of age, environment or any other surrounding factors, can and will behave properly without you ever having to resort to corporal punishment. No exceptions whatsoever.

This is a ridiculous claim on so many levels.

What world are you living in? Look around you... LOTS of people hold this view, that corporal punishment is never necessary, NO exceptions. I'm surprised you find it so 'ridiculous' or shocking that any one person holds this worldview.

[board123]

What world are you living in? Look around you... LOTS of people hold this view, that corporal punishment is never necessary, NO exceptions. I'm surprised you find it so 'ridiculous' or shocking that any one person holds this worldview.
No rational statement involving human behavior should ever include the "no exceptions" clause.

[molala]

And that's the point I've been making all along, that parents often opt for 'drug therapy' because it's easier, and not because it's necessarily the best thing for the child. Often it's simply the best thing for the parent.

I'm 50/50 on that opinion. Now we are talking about it rationally, we know that calming a kid's behaviour by drug is better for the parents. BUT if the parents have the ability to reamin objective and research about the diagnosis, weight the pros and cons of drugs and coping strategy. I believe they rather choose latter. I have read a lot of case studies where parents regret putting their kids with developmental delay, mental illness, etc. on drugs because disease from prolong use of drugs. vs. learning about a coping strategy. People should be more educated on drug. There's no one safe drug and every drug available on the market is still in testing stage.

[_Allan_]

when I was 7 or 8, step dad left marks on me - handmark on chest, belt buckle imprint on my back etc - and tossed me up stairs.

Mom broke 8" long, 1/4" thick wooden spoon over my behind.

[CSK'sMom]

Ok, against my better judgement I am going to weigh in on this ADHD debate. If for no other reason than to hopefully educate some posters that are making assumptions that are the furthest thing from reality as well as some blatently false information.

I will begin by saying that we have 2 kids that are ADHD. In our case there is a strong family history. Not only is their father ADHD but so is their paternal grandfather. Of the 5 grandsons, 3 have ADHD, of the grandaughters only 1 has it. We do use medications with both of our kids. It was not a decision we made rashly and certainly didn't jump at. In fact we resisted it for several years. We did not start our son on it till he was in grade 5. By that time he was lagging behind in school significantly and was diagnosed with other learning disabilities. We only ever used medication for school, never on weekends or school breaks. Hindsight being 20/20 we started our daughter on meds earlier. She has faired much better in school and isn't behind significantly at this point, unlike her brother. Ironically they both have many of the same learning disabilities and issues. They both find their ADHD meds (Concerta in their cases) helps with their CAPD (central auditory processing disorder). They find with their meds they don't need to wear an FM system to cope and do well in a classroom setting. Fianancially meds are expensive. Many do not use them for that very reason. Our son's meds alone are roughly $500/month if he chooses to use them. I say choose in his case because he's now 19 and in college. He knows himself well enough to know when he needs to use his meds and when he doesn't at this point. He is also fully aware that ADHD meds and alcohol do not mix, there is a chemical reaction that intensifies alcohol effects. He also is fully aware of all the stats around ADHD and alcoholism, drug abuse, fatal car accidents, etc. as he should be.

Now I will say for the poster that stated ADHD are addictive (*cough molala cough*) that is total BS. Please learn how the meds work. The meds activate the lazy frontal lobe of the brain. There is also no tolerance built up over time to the drugs either. By your "reasoning" our oldest would be taking 200+ mg a day which just isn't the case. Meds are adjusted by weight usually and only adjusted if they become less effective due to growth spurts. Oh, and for those that didn't know there is a definitive test for ADHD now. It involves brain scans and brain waves and clearly shows the over active section of the brain and the underactive frontal lobe. ;)

Now I'll say that ADHD is nothing new. As I said both my hubby and father in law are ADHD'ers. They both were at the mercy of a school system that could not deal with them. In my father in laws case that meant he dropped out in grade 8 after basically being kicked out by the Nuns for typical ADHD behaviours. In my hubby's case it meant repeating a grade, dropping out of highschool in his last year and then finally going back to finish. Both did not have an easy time or a good experience with a system that could not and would not deal with them. Many ADHD'ers in the 45-65 yr age range will tell you they ended up in the behaviour classrooms and treated as if they were mentally challenged. Definitely not the case as many, if not most of them have gone on to tailor their lives to their ADHD strengths and become very successful. Coping skills are learned over time and come with maturity...

[hitman047]

When we were kids, me and my sister used to get into a lot of arguments and often it used to end up in me using physical means to "settle" the argument. Ofcourse, that meant she ended up physically being hurt.

Like this one time where I ended up pulling her hair so hard that it hurt her all day (anyone with long hair will tell you how bad that is). That evening, when dad came home, I got the beating of my life. Yup, a good ol' asskicking that ended only when my mom interfered to save my ass (as always .. thank you mom :D ).

I was 10 back then. I'm 21 now. And I've come to realize that his beating was fully justified.

"Never ever put your hands on a female again" is all I recall from that evening.

[molala]

Now I will say for the poster that stated ADHD are addictive (*cough molala cough*) that is total BS. Please learn how the meds work. The meds activate the lazy frontal lobe of the brain. There is also no tolerance built up over time to the drugs either. By your "reasoning" our oldest would be taking 200+ mg a day which just isn't the case. Meds are adjusted by weight usually and only adjusted if they become less effective due to growth spurts. Oh, and for those that didn't know there is a definitive test for ADHD now. It involves brain scans and brain waves and clearly shows the over active section of the brain and the underactive frontal lobe. ;)

Can you please help me to find which one of my posts said ADHD are addictive? I'm having a hard time finding it. Thank you. No tolerance build up towards drug? are you kidding me? Your body build tolerance to EVERYTHING, it just the matter of how long. Depending on which drug and the person, sometimes it takes 10+ years for someone to build tolerance..besides..are you suggesting there is a safe drug with no adverse effects over prolong period of use?

There are scans where you can detect clinical disorders (that's why they are grouped under the same Axis) but it won't tell you how severe it is and whether or not drug is needed.

[CSK'sMom]

[QUOTE=molala;7544865] BUT many parents have a misconception that drug will help the kids, but it does not. The body build tolerance and disease from adverse effects of drugs developed after prolonged use. They should develope a strategy for the kid to cope with it instead.
QUOTE]

How's that for you? I really don't think I will respond to any more of your posts in this thread though. For the record I really find it incredibly frustrating dealing with you and your lack of reading comprehension skills. :| And do some research into the new scans. They do indeed tell how severe the ADD/HD is and can indeed be a very useful tool in determining which drug(s) may be useful or even ruled out as ineffective.... <sigh>....

[molala]

BUT many parents have a misconception that drug will help the kids, but it does not. The body build tolerance and disease from adverse effects of drugs developed after prolonged use. They should develope a strategy for the kid to cope with it instead.


How's that for you? I really don't think I will respond to any more of your posts in this thread though. For the record I really find it incredibly frustrating dealing with you and your lack of reading comprehension skills. :| And do some research into the new scans. They do indeed tell how severe the ADD/HD is and can indeed be a very useful tool in determining which drug(s) may be useful or even ruled out as ineffective.... <sigh>....

I don't really understand what you are trying to say? Where is the word addictive? AND it's not me that said your body build tolerance towards a drug, why do you think the dosage have to increase over the years? Go do a google search with the med your kids are taking with the word tolerance behind it.

Tolerance is NOT addictive. Tolerance means reduced response to a given amount of a drug after previous exposure which typically caused by repeated exposure to a drug. It could be related to dependence but last i checked, it's still two different word.

Besides, did I said ALL parents have this misconception? I never did, did I? I don't know you are menopausal or whatever, but if offending me personally can ease your symptoms which save you some money to see a psychologist, you're more than welcome to do so

[CSK'sMom]

You know what molala, I used to think you had such poor reading comprehension skills because maybe you have english as a second language but now I think it's far more than that. You have repeatedly in many, many threads stated things that are blatently false (ahem*regional gov't does not fund school boards or individual schools*ahem, wanna argue that's correct some more?). ADHD meds are not addictive and the body does not build a tolerance to them, period! Saying so does not make it true, it makes you look embarassing uninformed. Meds are adjusted because they are prescribed by the patients weight. The only time either of our kids have had their meds adjusted is when they have gained at least 25 lbs and even then if the meds were still effective a dose adjustment was delayed until it became necessary to do so. To put that in perspective hoping that you just might understand the concept, our daughter has been on the same dose for almost 5 years now and it's still as effective as it was the day she started this dose. Do you get it yet?

Personally I really don't give 2 *****s about offending you. I think you are embarassingly ill-informed with little to absolutely no reading comprehension let alone an intelligent thought of your own or any real world experience or parenting experience. Do I care what you think of me? Hell no! I have far more important things to occupy my time than to worry about someone who is so ill-informed about the world around them...

[gordholio]

Believe it or not, there are no actual definitive tests for any psychiatric illness.
Diagnoses are totally dependent upon what the doctor says (from his estimation of the situation).
Some people call mental illness a chemical imbalance, but it is not. It's just a nice way of putting it.
Anyways, I believe that a lot of kids are put on drugs - including Ritalin - unnecessarily.

[the_fm]

Same here! Although I also had to hold my ears :D

you had to hold your ears? :lol:
at least i didn't have to do that but i had to stay still otherwise, i had to start all over again.. :o

[KorruptioN]

Personally I really don't give 2 *****s about offending you. I think you are embarassingly ill-informed with little to absolutely no reading comprehension let alone an intelligent thought of your own or any real world experience or parenting experience. Do I care what you think of me? Hell no! I have far more important things to occupy my time than to worry about someone who is so ill-informed about the world around them...

You're going to start beating your kids if you stay this mad :lol:

I don't know if anybody else is noticing, but pretty much all your posts in Off Topic have some mentioned your kids in one way or another (mostly boasting ;)). Nothing wrong with loving your kids, but remember, this is RFD...

[molala]

You know what molala, I used to think you had such poor reading comprehension skills because maybe you have english as a second language but now I think it's far more than that. You have repeatedly in many, many threads stated things that are blatently false (ahem*regional gov't does not fund school boards or individual schools*ahem, wanna argue that's correct some more?). ADHD meds are not addictive and the body does not build a tolerance to them, period! Saying so does not make it true, it makes you look embarassing uninformed. Meds are adjusted because they are prescribed by the patients weight. The only time either of our kids have had their meds adjusted is when they have gained at least 25 lbs and even then if the meds were still effective a dose adjustment was delayed until it became necessary to do so. To put that in perspective hoping that you just might understand the concept, our daughter has been on the same dose for almost 5 years now and it's still as effective as it was the day she started this dose. Do you get it yet?

Personally I really don't give 2 *****s about offending you. I think you are embarassingly ill-informed with little to absolutely no reading comprehension let alone an intelligent thought of your own or any real world experience or parenting experience. Do I care what you think of me? Hell no! I have far more important things to occupy my time than to worry about someone who is so ill-informed about the world around them...

Nice try! First of all, I do know that schools are not funded by the municiple government. For some reason I mixed up YRDSB and YR government. I know damn well that the provincial government fund school because I'm still paying my lovely OSAP loan. AND I feel no shame of admitting any mistakes I made, I even did it in that thread.

I NEVER said ADHD meds are addictive. It could be but there's no shown fact because the med have only been around for 10+ years. Just in case you don't know, drugs that are available on the market are STILL in the testing stage. You think a drug company would spend 20+ years to test a drug? Why do you think drugs like Vioxx are banned after years on the market and not earlier? Your daughter's dosage haven't been increase in the last 5 years, does it mean she would not build tolerance towards it? Does your daughter represent the whole ADHD population? Like I said earlier, sometimes it takes more than 10 years for someone to build tolerance. A lot of mental illness survivors reported tolerance to a drug after 20+ years of use. Besides, I never said people with ADHD should not be put on drugs. I said drugs should be the last solution if there's no alternative. If I were your daughter, I would rather use a FM transmitter.

ALL drugs have adverse effects, prolonged use of them cause damages to your body. AND, I don't know what does that have to do with parenting experience. I'm talking about science in here.

ill-informed? Sure, I'd rather be labelled as ill-informed than living in denial.

[poedua]

You're going to start beating your kids if you stay this mad :lol:

I don't know if anybody else is noticing, but pretty much all your posts in Off Topic have some mentioned your kids in one way or another (mostly boasting ;)). Nothing wrong with loving your kids, but remember, this is RFD...

So what ?

There are a least a half dozen members on RFD, in which pretty much all their posts focus on one theme - i.e all things China / Chinese come to mind.

[poedua]

No rational statement involving human behavior should ever include the "no exceptions" clause.

Well, I don't think the disgusting human behavior of raping children or woman should be tolerated - "no exceptions".

I also don't think the disgusting human behavior of spousal abuse should be tolerated - "no exceptions".

And, I also don't the human behavior of inflicting physical violence on defenseless children in the interest of discipline should be tolerated - "no exceptions".

But that's just me.:)

[Frankie3s]

Lots of times with belts, wooden spoons, piece of wood, hand to the head, back, behind, etc. My parents use to buy the wooden spoons from Honest Ed's in bulk.

[poedua]

Lots of times with belts, wooden spoons, piece of wood, hand to the head, back, behind, etc.

My parents use to buy the wooden spoons from Honest Ed's in bulk.

It's a shame they didn't sell any books on ' positive parenting ' at Honest Ed's. ;)

[CSK'sMom]

Nice try! First of all, I do know that schools are not funded by the municiple government. For some reason I mixed up YRDSB and YR government. I know damn well that the provincial government fund school because I'm still paying my lovely OSAP loan. AND I feel no shame of admitting any mistakes I made, I even did it in that thread.

I NEVER said ADHD meds are addictive. It could be but there's no shown fact because the med have only been around for 10+ years. Just in case you don't know, drugs that are available on the market are STILL in the testing stage. You think a drug company would spend 20+ years to test a drug? Why do you think drugs like Vioxx are banned after years on the market and not earlier? Your daughter's dosage haven't been increase in the last 5 years, does it mean she would not build tolerance towards it? Does your daughter represent the whole ADHD population? Like I said earlier, sometimes it takes more than 10 years for someone to build tolerance. A lot of mental illness survivors reported tolerance to a drug after 20+ years of use. Besides, I never said people with ADHD should not be put on drugs. I said drugs should be the last solution if there's no alternative. If I were your daughter, I would rather use a FM transmitter.

ALL drugs have adverse effects, prolonged use of them cause damages to your body. AND, I don't know what does that have to do with parenting experience. I'm talking about science in here.

ill-informed? Sure, I'd rather be labelled as ill-informed than living in denial.

Get a mitt and get in the game. Do the damn math, I'll even give you a hint that our oldest is 19, almost 20. Do you even know what CAPD is, quick do a google and figure it out. We know lots of kids, now young adults, who have been on meds for 10+ years, still no tolerance because it just doesn't happen with ADD/HD meds. DO you also know that ADD/HD meds are some of the most heavily tested controlled drugs on the market? I thought not. Did you know that it took an additional 2+ years to get Concerta on the market in Canada after it was heavily tested and approved in the US? Do you know why and what was required to get it on the market here in Canada? I thought not. Do another google and check when ritalin was actually approved and for how long it's been marketed. I'll even give you a hint and tell you it's more than 20 years and ritalin is not the actual name of the drug. ;)

Oh and honey, do some research on student loans as well. Just because it's called OSAP does not mean that it's funded entirely by the provincial government. ;) This is exactly the type of stuff that you post that is just plain wrong.

As much as I have never felt the need to use the ignore button I am seriously starting to understand why some feel the need to use it! :-0 :cheesygri

[poedua]

Believe it or not, there are no actual definitive tests for any psychiatric illness.

Diagnoses are totally dependent upon what the doctor says (from his estimation of the situation).

Some people call mental illness a chemical imbalance, but it is not. It's just a nice way of putting it.

Anyways, I believe that a lot of kids are put on drugs - including Ritalin - unnecessarily.

Really ?

Then why have meds like selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors - SSRIs - been helpful in treating things like depression, anxiety disorders etc. ?

[CSK'sMom]

You're going to start beating your kids if you stay this mad :lol:

I don't know if anybody else is noticing, but pretty much all your posts in Off Topic have some mentioned your kids in one way or another (mostly boasting ;)). Nothing wrong with loving your kids, but remember, this is RFD...

Korruption, I am far from mad and beating our kids is the farthest thing from even a remore possibility that it isn't even funny. :| I guess you don't read too much in off topic other than maybe the homework thread huh? If you honestly think posting what I did in this thread is "boasting" you need a dictionary dude. Most parents unfortunately feel stigmatized by the whole to medicate or not medicate debate so much so that they very seldom tell anyone outside of their immediate family and the school of a ADD/HD diagnosis let alone their choice. I post about so much more and in several forums. Just remember what you post can always be turned to fit another poster's motive and use . ;)


I don't know if anybody else is noticing, but pretty much all your posts in Off Topic have some mentioned your computer, car or camera in one way or another (mostly boasting ;)). Nothing wrong with loving your big boy toys, but remember, this is RFD...

[board123]

Well, I don't think the disgusting human behavior of raping children or woman should be tolerated - "no exceptions".

I also don't think the disgusting human behavior of spousal abuse should be tolerated - "no exceptions".

And, I also don't the human behavior of inflicting physical violence on defenseless children in the interest of discipline should be tolerated - "no exceptions".

But that's just me.:)
I think you're misinterpreting what I meant by the "no exceptions clause."

[molala]

Get a mitt and get in the game. Do the damn math, I'll even give you a hint that our oldest is 19, almost 20. Do you even know what CAPD is, quick do a google and figure it out. We know lots of kids, now young adults, who have been on meds for 10+ years, still no tolerance because it just doesn't happen with ADD/HD meds. DO you also know that ADD/HD meds are some of the most heavily tested controlled drugs on the market? I thought not. Did you know that it took an additional 2+ years to get Concerta on the market in Canada after it was heavily tested and approved in the US? Do you know why and what was required to get it on the market here in Canada? I thought not. Do another google and check when ritalin was actually approved and for how long it's been marketed. I'll even give you a hint and tell you it's more than 20 years and ritalin is not the actual name of the drug. ;)

Here comes the google search result:

http://ezinearticles.com/?History-of-ADHD&id=217254


The next event that occurred in relation of ADHD was that new symptoms
were added to the realm of the disorder. Along with hyperactivity,
added symptoms were lack of focus and spaceyness associated with
impulsiveness. Impulsiveness now included verbal, cognitive and motor
impulsiveness.
In 1980, the disorder was given its current name of Attention Deficit
Disorder, with or without hyperactivity. This was documented in
the DSM-III put out by the American Psychiatric Association. ADD
and ADHD were two different diagnoses.
Next, in 1987, ADD was changed to Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder. The American Psychiatric Associated noted that this was
a medical diagnosis, and not purely psychological. They also
noted that ADHD could cause behavioral issues.
In 1996, a new medication called Adderall was approved by the FDA for
the treatment of ADHD. After a period of time, it was deemed to
be better at treating the disorder since it lasted longer and was
easier to come down off of. In 1999, other medications were added to
treat ADHD such as Concerta and Focalin. In 2003, Strattera was
introduced as the first ADHD medication that was not a stimulant.

Of course, the body haven’t build tolerance yet because it wasn’t even the same drug that was used during that period of time. It has nothing to do with whether or not ADHD drugs are heavily tested. New ADHD drugs were developed in the past years because of new discovery of symptoms. Come back and tell me in 20 years if your son is taking the SAME drug and the SAME dosage and no tolerance. I’m going to say this one last time, your body builds tolerance towards EVERYTHING!

As for drug approval in Canada, there are 4 phases of drug testing. The first 3 phases involve only carefully selected subjects for approval (selected subjects means whether or not the drug is treating the disorder it intended to treat, toxicology, dosage range, safety, and therapeutic effect, and safety profile), a small population and a limited period of time. The last phase is known as post-marketing surveillance. Which means, all the drugs you see on the market is still under testing. (O..I’m talking about Health Canada btw)

The name you’re talking about is probably Methylphenidate, which is the generic name of ADHD drug. There’s only one generic name for all. Ritalin, Concerta, etc. are trade names, which Methylphenidate is the generic name for both as drugs in Canada only have one generic name. O, by the way, I don’t need to do a google search on drug approval in Canada. I walked out of my college pharmacology class with 95% average.


Oh and honey, do some research on student loans as well. Just because it's called OSAP does not mean that it's funded entirely by the provincial government. ;) This is exactly the type of stuff that you post that is just plain wrong.

I didn’t said OSAP was funded by the provincial government did I? I was referring to elementary and secondary school funding which you used to pick on me. The reason I said OSAP because it stands for Ontario Student Assistance Program, and I was referring to education is looked after by the provincial government. Just that you’re smart enough to interpret it in your own way.


As much as I have never felt the need to use the ignore button I am seriously starting to understand why some feel the need to use it! :-0 :cheesygri

Do you think I care? It would be grateful if you could do that! :)

[dummyaccountban]

Got beat often because i was a troublemaker, had my father slap me across the face for spilling milk.. The only solace I have is nothing was permanent, so to speak. The beatings stopped when I was old enough to defend myself and use my own weapons. I developed an extremely short temper, and when I was old enough to defend myself, i actually paid them back the favour with knives and bats.

My parents were beaten themselves. My father got the worst of it because his father would beat him with a variety of tools, he would even burn him with an iron.

My parents stopped hitting my sister early (prolly 6 or 7). I actually ended up inflicting the damage on her because of my short temper. When I'm angry it's very difficult to control myself. I broke her arm when I swing a dumbell at her for not listening to me.

I don't know how much tbhe beatings have contributed to my bad temper, violent mood swings, and feelings of rage and violence when I feel insulted or slighted. It all comes down to the individual. My sister came out of it fine but I am still dealing with it.

I tell myself I won't do the same to my kids or wife but I can't be sure, which is frightening.

Anyway, I don't condone violence as a means to teach your children...but that's my opinion.

[theamazingoreo]

I got hit a few times, but i can understand because my dad had a pretty hard life. The best i can hope is to suck it in and not do that to kids.

[molala]

Got beat often because i was a troublemaker, had my father slap me across the face for spilling milk.. The only solace I have is nothing was permanent, so to speak. The beatings stopped when I was old enough to defend myself and use my own weapons. I developed an extremely short temper, and when I was old enough to defend myself, i actually paid them back the favour with knives and bats.

My parents were beaten themselves. My father got the worst of it because his father would beat him with a variety of tools, he would even burn him with an iron.

My parents stopped hitting my sister early (prolly 6 or 7). I actually ended up inflicting the damage on her because of my short temper. When I'm angry it's very difficult to control myself. I broke her arm when I swing a dumbell at her for not listening to me.

I don't know how much tbhe beatings have contributed to my bad temper, violent mood swings, and feelings of rage and violence when I feel insulted or slighted. It all comes down to the individual. My sister came out of it fine but I am still dealing with it.

I tell myself I won't do the same to my kids or wife but I can't be sure, which is frightening.

Anyway, I don't condone violence as a means to teach your children...but that's my opinion.

wow....i'm sorry for you experience..you really made a point...violence is not the way to teach kids

[Shaner]

I tell myself I won't do the same to my kids or wife but I can't be sure, which is frightening.



You can be sure, don't kid yourself. You should definitely consider going to anger management and perhaps even some form of counseling. If you're already telling yourself that you can't be sure you won't abuse your wife and kids, then you should definitely seek help. Don't me wrong, I'm not judging you, I just think it's only a matter of time before your anger gets the best of you, unless you get help.

[aquariaguy]

Children who get beaten grow up thinking violence works and therefore are more likely to beat other kids in school or their siblings or even when they grow up they might beat their spouse or kids.

hahaha...Right.

[aquariaguy]

Here comes the google search result:

http://ezinearticles.com/?History-of-ADHD&id=217254




If you're gonna post a link, at least make it a research article :lol: Ever heard of PubMed? Web of science? Not some dude from the internet with his own opinion.

[board123]

wow....i'm sorry for you experience..you really made a point...violence is not the way to teach kids
It depends on how severe you get beat. As it's evident from this thread, some people were beat fairly lightly (spank on the butt occasionally), while some got their asses kicked (like the guy you just quoted). You can't put everyone in the same group.

[molala]

If you're gonna post a link, at least make it a research article :lol: Ever heard of PubMed? Web of science? Not some dude from the internet with his own opinion.

Did you read the text that I quoted? It wasn't an opinion, it listed the history of ADHD

What opinion are you referring to?

[custy]

I've been beaten by my parents (Chinese). Some things they have used to show dominance in the house include:

Belt with the heavy buckle
Bamboo Stick
Traditional "Chicken Feather Stick"
Oranges, Apples and Pears (Used to get thrown @ me)

I think one time I was beaten across the head with a shower faucet or a garden hose.. Don't remember much after that incident.

[Mattones]

i use to get spanked with a big spoon or a leather belt. When i got old enough i just hit back. thats when they stopped ha.

[weedb0y]

I got the random spanks on my butt from my mom and slap here and there from dad and it served me right.

I learned to behave, act proper and respect elders at a early age. I don't see anything wrong with it and I don't think that violence solves anything either.

However, little spanking is not violence in my books. I loved the chase as well when my mom used to run after us with our plastic toys..lol She even told us that she would never hit us on the head..but ass was the prime target..

As I grew older, my parents stopped the spanking lol..I know my mother stopped when her hands started to hurt while we kept on smiling ;) But as I grew older, I realized my wrong doings and learned to behave properly and understand life from different perspective.

[Nikita]

What world are you living in? Look around you... LOTS of people hold this view, that corporal punishment is never necessary, NO exceptions. I'm surprised you find it so 'ridiculous' or shocking that any one person holds this worldview.


No rational statement involving human behavior should ever include the "no exceptions" clause.


Well, I don't think the disgusting human behavior of raping children or woman should be tolerated - "no exceptions".

I also don't think the disgusting human behavior of spousal abuse should be tolerated - "no exceptions".

And, I also don't the human behavior of inflicting physical violence on defenseless children in the interest of discipline should be tolerated - "no exceptions".

But that's just me.:)

+1, +1, +1.


I think you're misinterpreting what I meant by the "no exceptions clause."

Since this exchange started by my being quoted, perhaps you might enlighten us what you DID mean by the 'no exceptions clause' statement then. :confused: :confused:


Besides, did I said ALL parents have this misconception? I never did, did I? I don't know you are menopausal or whatever, but if offending me personally can ease your symptoms which save you some money to see a psychologist, you're more than welcome to do so

Well, that was kind of uncalled for IMO. As a women I'm offended by your use of menopause as a reason to imply someone is whacky or something. You're perpetuating a myth and, really molala, as a women, I'd think you could have found some other insult dontcha think...:)

[moebius]

Spanking kids is ok. You have to train them and sometimes that is the only solution. I don't agree on excessive force, but a slap here and there early on and then you don't need to spank them anymore since they will fear you. Children need to learn respect. And they need to be trained, taught.

I received a few slaps, nothing big, but it was all ok and I deserved it. I think I am a better person for it.

Feminists introduced this ridiculous idea that kids are like adults and should be treated the same, ie. talked to as adults. This is when society went downhill, in my opinion. It is in fact these kids, the spoiled brats, that come totally unprepared for the world we live in. They are unable to survive in this hostile environment.

I have seen so many spoiled kids that it's really starting to irk me. For example a group of high school kids eating at local McDonalds left a complete mess on their table. The cleaning lady told them to clean up and they just left. Where is the respect of others? These kids were certainly never slapped.

The other example: this annoying kid in restaurant was all over the place, until he broke the glass. The parents did nothing at all. This kid deserved a slap for what he did as he continued to disbehave. How can you tell a kid who is screaming to behave? Certainly not by trying to scream louder than them... If I as an adult broke the glass not by accident, I would expect the restaurant to bill me for the glass. That would be a form of punishment for an adult (as well as the embarrassment). The kids don't understand embarrassment or the value of money.

Ignoring, threats and grounding only works so far. Sometimes you need to use a little bit of force. I am afraid people won't like my analogy: but little kids are much like little dogs. Why are some dogs better behaved than others? Certainly not by some magic... they were trained better. Same with kids.

[board123]

Since this exchange started by my being quoted, perhaps you might enlighten us what you DID mean by the 'no exceptions clause' statement then. :confused: :confused:
By "no exceptions," I was referring to the way humans behave, not whether or not we tolerate certain behaviors. Tolerance is a purely subjective measure, and it delves into the gray area of "right" and "wrong." Tolerance is merely a subjective reaction to actions.

How we behave, on the other hand, is something more instinctive and intrinsic. Every human being thinks and behaves differently. Because of this, there is no one set of disciplinary methods that works on every human being with no exceptions. There are always exceptions for how humans respond to discipline. You can never say, with absolute certainty, that every human being in the world will respond well to non-physical discipline. Is it possible? In theory, yes. In theory, many things are possible. However, this is something that you can never be absolutely certain about simply due to the way the human psyche works. In fact, there are almost always exceptions.

If you've studied any psychology at all, you would have noticed the lack of the terms "no exceptions" in every theory pertaining to human behavior. Most theories use words such as "high probability" and "very unlikely," but none of them will state any absolutes.

[Setz]

I've never been hit as far back as I can remember. I've been given some bizarre punishments, but never physically hit.

[Logos88]

Have I ever been "spanked"?

No, not as a kid. :twisted:

[hitman047]

Have I ever been "spanked"?

No, not as a kid. :twisted:

"not as a kid"
lol :lol:

[poedua]

Spanking kids is ok. You have to train them and sometimes that is the only solution.

Really.

That is pure and utter nonsense IMO.


I don't agree on excessive force, but a slap here and there early on and then you don't need to spank them anymore since they will fear you. Children need to learn respect. And they need to be trained, taught.

That's right....teach your kids to ' fear ' you as parents ...brilliant.:rolleyes:


I received a few slaps, nothing big, but it was all ok and I deserved it. I think I am a better person for it.

No surprise there.:)


Feminists introduced this ridiculous idea that kids are like adults and should be treated the same, ie. talked to as adults. This is when society went downhill, in my opinion. It is in fact these kids, the spoiled brats, that come totally unprepared for the world we live in. They are unable to survive in this hostile environment.

I have seen so many spoiled kids that it's really starting to irk me. For example a group of high school kids eating at local McDonalds left a complete mess on their table. The cleaning lady told them to clean up and they just left. Where is the respect of others? These kids were certainly never slapped.

Too funny.

So, the only way to have well behaved kids that aren't spoiled is to slap / spank them ?

Brilliant logic ....simply brilliant.

Unbelievable :rolleyes:


The other example: this annoying kid in restaurant was all over the place, until he broke the glass. The parents did nothing at all. This kid deserved a slap for what he did as he continued to disbehave.

Garbage.

There is no need to slap / spank a kid simply because they may misbehave in public.


How can you tell a kid who is screaming to behave? Certainly not by trying to scream louder than them... If I as an adult broke the glass not by accident, I would expect the restaurant to bill me for the glass. That would be a form of punishment for an adult (as well as the embarrassment). The kids don't understand embarrassment or the value of money.

Ignoring, threats and grounding only works so far. Sometimes you need to use a little bit of force.

No you don't any force at all ...that's nonsense IMO.


I am afraid people won't like my analogy: but little kids are much like little dogs. Why are some dogs better behaved than others? Certainly not by some magic... they were trained better. Same with kids.

Little kids are much like dogs eh ?

Like dogs.

Sadly, that comment speaks for itself.:rolleyes:

[poedua]

How we behave, on the other hand, is something more instinctive and intrinsic. Every human being thinks and behaves differently. Because of this, there is no one set of disciplinary methods that works on every human being with no exceptions. There are always exceptions for how humans respond to discipline. You can never say, with absolute certainty, that every human being in the world will respond well to non-physical discipline. Is it possible? In theory, yes. In theory, many things are possible. However, this is something that you can never be absolutely certain about simply due to the way the human psyche works. In fact, there are almost always exceptions.

O.K....could you give me a couple of ' theoretical examples ' of when one has to use physical violence on a child instead of non-violent options ?

Cause as a parent of 4 kids ( all 4 teens ) myself, I can say categorically that in my view, there is no need to have to ever resort to physical violence to discipline a child - " no exceptions " .

However, if you think there are some examples of exceptions that require physical violence - I'd be interested to know what those might be.

[Peckerwood]

There are three types of people in the world:
1) Those that read about it, and learn how not to do it
2) Those that watch others screw up, and learn how not to do it
3) Those that absolutely have to piss on the electric fence to find out for themselves.

My roommate's 14 yr old niece ran from her Mom's home 2 weeks ago because she got grounded for not wearing her helmet while dirtbiking...didn't take any clothes with her...no money...no food...nothing at all.

All predicated over a grounding. And she still rides without a helmet.

She moved in with us for a couple of weeks, and while she was here I tried engaging in semi intelligent discussion with her...stuff that could be considered current events or stuff at her school...etc

Nothing was "cool" or "interesting". Anything intelligent was considered to be stupid...anything current was boring...washing clothes and dishes was considered to be "crap".

Her 15 yr old boyfriend seemed to be on the same level although somewhat more engaging in stuff that was current(banking crisis and where to find work and food in a potential depression etc).

I personally have never met dumber teenagers. My sisters at that age were very astute and altogether alert. I discussed the topic with her Mom, and found that even her mother is amazed at just how dumb she is...as well as other kids equal to her age.

She never spanked her...she always used timeouts and groundings...she always made sure her kid had space...privacy etc.

I was spanked...so were my sisters...both of my sisters were in University at ages 17 and 18...One is already a grad working in her studied field...the other is working towards archaeology in aspects of religious history.

I distinctly remember being able to have semi-intelligent discussions with my sisters when they were the same age as this girl. Is it just me or are kids getting dumber?

:|

[molala]

Well, that was kind of uncalled for IMO. As a women I'm offended by your use of menopause as a reason to imply someone is whacky or something. You're perpetuating a myth and, really molala, as a women, I'd think you could have found some other insult dontcha think...:)

I apologize that I offended you. That was not my intention. Perhaps I should say chemical imbalance instead? But Hey, don't forget that I am ill-informed, naive, dead wrong, delusional with reading comprehension problem!:rolleyes:

[Setz]

There are three types of people in the world:
1) Those that read about it, and learn how not to do it
2) Those that watch others screw up, and learn how not to do it
3) Those that absolutely have to piss on the electric fence to find out for themselves.

My roommate's 14 yr old niece ran from her Mom's home 2 weeks ago because she got grounded for not wearing her helmet while dirtbiking...didn't take any clothes with her...no money...no food...nothing at all.

All predicated over a grounding. And she still rides without a helmet.

She moved in with us for a couple of weeks, and while she was here I tried engaging in semi intelligent discussion with her...stuff that could be considered current events or stuff at her school...etc

Nothing was "cool" or "interesting". Anything intelligent was considered to be stupid...anything current was boring...washing clothes and dishes was considered to be "crap".

Her 15 yr old boyfriend seemed to be on the same level although somewhat more engaging in stuff that was current(banking crisis and where to find work and food in a potential depression etc).

I personally have never met dumber teenagers. My sisters at that age were very astute and altogether alert. I discussed the topic with her Mom, and found that even her mother is amazed at just how dumb she is...as well as other kids equal to her age.

She never spanked her...she always used timeouts and groundings...she always made sure her kid had space...privacy etc.

I was spanked...so were my sisters...both of my sisters were in University at ages 17 and 18...One is already a grad working in her studied field...the other is working towards archaeology in aspects of religious history.

I distinctly remember being able to have semi-intelligent discussions with my sisters when they were the same age as this girl. Is it just me or are kids getting dumber?

:|

+1

http://quizfarm.com/images/1114324055girl4.jpg

[board123]

O.K....could you give me a couple of ' theoretical examples ' of when one has to use physical violence on a child instead of non-violent options ?

Cause as a parent of 4 kids ( all 4 teens ) myself, I can say categorically that in my view, there is no need to have to ever resort to physical violence to discipline a child - " no exceptions " .

However, if you think there are some examples of exceptions that require physical violence - I'd be interested to know what those might be.
The fact that you're asking this of me shows you still failed to understand what I tried to explain. I'm not going to explain it a third time, because it's obvious that you just don't get the message (with regards to psychology) that I'm trying to get across.

I'm not going to bother giving you any examples since you're already predisposed to the idea that corporal punishment is NEVER right. With any situation, it's entirely possible to claim that you can handle it in a "non-violent way." However, everything you see is obviously from your perspective. Only the child knows how he/she responded to what you did to resolve the conflict. Conflict resolution is one thing, but discipline is another. Ideally, they would go hand in hand but this is not always the case. Is it possible to resolve everything in a "non-violent way?" Probably. Is the child going to benefit from this method many years down the road? You never know. Whether or not the child learned the lesson is entirely up to the child, and the child is not going to tell you whether or not they've learned the lesson. In fact, they probably don't even understand what just happened until many years later when they realize, "Oh yeah, that incident made me a better person."

You're clearly not going to accept any examples of corporal punishment as being valid, since doing so would undermine your entire stance on parenthood and you just can't have that. Your kids are already reaching adulthood, so you believe that whatever you've done as a a parent has been right. I'm not going to question this, since I have no idea how you raised your kids. I'm just saying this is one cause for your strong stance on this matter, and why I'm probably not going to change your mind on this no matter what.

However, I believe you're viewing this in an overly-simplified manner, and you're using words such as "violence" to further predispose yourself of the idea that corporal punishment is wrong. Everything must be so black and white for you, with absolutely no room for any gray area.

PS: I don't mean to be nosy, but you said your oldest three are 16, 18 and 19 years old. I'll be turning 20 next month (yeah I'm only a "kid"), so you could very well be older than my own parents. My parents certainly share very different views from you, but they're definitely not the extreme, leather belt and wooden spoon, kind of parents. I'll admit though, I got spanked pretty badly a few times when I was young, but I still turned out pretty okay. A couple of those spankings were probably unnecessary, but they didn't leave any mental scars on me. Your kids are at a similar age as me, so how are they doing with respect to life and school?

[moebius]

Nonsense and lots of garbage comments, underlined words out of context and nothing to say really

Let me ask you: Do you believe your model to be representative of all the families all around the world? Let me also ask you are you a feminist (this may or may not explain a few things)? Are you an immigrant/minority or white Canadian (I apologize for asking this question but it will explain also a few things)?

Just fyi, I read that in Canada slapping a kid is allowed (without excessive force and yes there is a difference between a slap and beating the kid, I was never beaten as a kid, but I learned to respect my parents by receiving very few slaps).

Anyway, you can continue to believe in whatever you want, but you have to admit that when it comes to other people's lives and families you can say absolutely nothing (as neither can I). So some people slap their kids, some don't - in YOUR OPINION the slapping is wrong, in THEIR OPINION slapping is the right thing to do. Are you going to parent all the kids in the world?

Enjoy your weekend! :lol:

[molala]

Let me ask you: Do you believe your model to be representative of all the families all around the world? Let me also ask you are you a feminist (this may or may not explain a few things)? Are you an immigrant/minority or white Canadian (I apologize for asking this question but it will explain also a few things)?

Just fyi, I read that in Canada slapping a kid is allowed (without excessive force and yes there is a difference between a slap and beating the kid, I was never beaten as a kid, but I learned to respect my parents by receiving very few slaps).

Anyway, you can continue to believe in whatever you want, but you have to admit that when it comes to other people's lives and families you can say absolutely nothing (as neither can I). So some people slap their kids, some don't - in YOUR OPINION the slapping is wrong, in THEIR OPINION slapping is the right thing to do. Are you going to parent all the kids in the world?

Enjoy your weekend! :lol:

I don't mean to interrupt your debate...but where did you get this information from?? ever heard of children aid society??

[moebius]

I don't mean to interrupt your debate...but where did you get this information from?? ever heard of children aid society??

I remember reading in Metro a few years ago that slapping (but obviously not beating) is allowed. I think there might have been discussion at the time if it should be allowed or not, but as many immigrants do slap their kids they must have gone that way. FYI, I have indeed heard of Children Aid Society.
Ever heard of google?
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/fv-vf/facts-info/mcb-cce.html

"Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances."

[poedua]

The fact that you're asking this of me shows you still failed to understand what I tried to explain. I'm not going to explain it a third time, because it's obvious that you just don't get the message (with regards to psychology) that I'm trying to get across.

I'm not going to bother giving you any examples since you're already predisposed to the idea that corporal punishment is NEVER right.

Well, if you also agree with me that corporal punishment is NEVER right then that's fine. Either you agree with that proposition - or you don't.

However, if you disagree ( i.e that corporal punishment is NEVER right ) and you happen to think there are certain situations in which it is either appropriate or inevitable to impose physical violence upon a defenseless child, then tell me what those sorts of situations might be.

Simply me a few examples ( 3 examples will do ) in which - in your view - imposing physical violence upon a defenseless child is either appropriate and or inevitable.


With any situation, it's entirely possible to claim that you can handle it in a "non-violent way."

Correct.

Imposing physical violence upon a defenseless child is neither appropriate and or inevitable in my view.



However, everything you see is obviously from your perspective. Only the child knows how he/she responded to what you did to resolve the conflict. Conflict resolution is one thing, but discipline is another. Ideally, they would go hand in hand but this is not always the case. Is it possible to resolve everything in a "non-violent way?" Probably.

In terms of a parent resolving issues with defenseless children - absolutely - it is possible.


Is the child going to benefit from this method many years down the road? You never know. Whether or not the child learned the lesson is entirely up to the child, and the child is not going to tell you whether or not they've learned the lesson. In fact, they probably don't even understand what just happened until many years later when they realize, "Oh yeah, that incident made me a better person."

Fair enough.

Give me an example of a situation a child might get into that best illustrates this point you made above.


You're clearly not going to accept any examples of corporal punishment as being valid, since doing so would undermine your entire stance on parenthood and you just can't have that.

Tell you what - I'll keep an open mind.

Give me 4 or 5 specific examples in which you think corporal punishment as being valid.



Your kids are already reaching adulthood, so you believe that whatever you've done as a a parent has been right.

Correct...it's called having principles.

And it's also called doing research on the pros and cons of imposing physical violence upon a defenseless child and siding with the The American Academy of Pediatrics which strongly opposes striking a child and concludes that striking a child is the least effective way to discipline.


I'm not going to question this, since I have no idea how you raised your kids. I'm just saying this is one cause for your strong stance on this matter, and why I'm probably not going to change your mind on this no matter what.

Well, if you think there is a case in which imposing physical violence upon a defenseless child is either appropriate and or inevitable - and I think it makes sense - then I'll change my mind.

Give me some examples.


However, I believe you're viewing this in an overly-simplified manner, and you're using words such as "violence" to further predispose yourself of the idea that corporal punishment is wrong.

Yes, I think it's wrong.

But if you think its right - fair enough.

I'm listening - make your case that that corporal punishment isn't wrong in all cases.


Everything must be so black and white for you, with absolutely no room for any gray area.

It IS black and white IMO.

I have 4 teens and after almost 20 years of parenting and I can't think of one single case in which there is any need to impose physical violence upon one of my kids. I have zero tolerance for physical violence against kids - you're right, no gray area.

I also have zero tolerance for physical violence by one spouse against another - no gray area.

I also have zero tolerance for sexual assault by one spouse against another spouse, and sexual assault by an adult against child - no gray area.

So, I have no problems with ' no gray area ' whatsoever.


PS: I don't mean to be nosy, but you said your oldest three are 16, 18 and 19 years old. I'll be turning 20 next month (yeah I'm only a "kid"), so you could very well be older than my own parents. My parents certainly share very different views from you, but they're definitely not the extreme, leather belt and wooden spoon, kind of parents.

I couldn't care less.

[molala]

I remember reading in Metro a few years ago that slapping (but obviously not beating) is allowed. I think there might have been discussion at the time if it should be allowed or not, but as many immigrants do slap their kids they must have gone that way. FYI, I have indeed heard of Children Aid Society.
Ever heard of google?
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/fv-vf/facts-info/mcb-cce.html

"Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances."

Define reasonable? My friend's son school have a little girl that told her teacher that her mom hitted her...it wasn't even a slap...they called the cop and got the mom arrested right away...was there charge? i have no idea...but for a subjective matter as such...i wouldn't go by it!

[poedua]

My parents certainly share very different views from you, but they're definitely not the extreme, leather belt and wooden spoon, kind of parents. I'll admit though, I got spanked pretty badly a few times when I was young, but I still turned out pretty okay.

I think this pretty much explains - at least to me - why you find a ' zero tolerance ' approach towards using physical violence against defenseless children so difficult to comprehend.

btw - what sorts of things did you do that resulted in you getting " spanked pretty badly " ?


A couple of those spankings were probably unnecessary, but they didn't leave any mental scars on me.

No comment.:rolleyes:

[poedua]

Let me ask you: Do you believe your model to be representative of all the families all around the world?

Nope.


Let me also ask you are you a feminist (this may or may not explain a few things)?

Nope.


Are you an immigrant/minority or white Canadian (I apologize for asking this question but it will explain also a few things)?

I was born and raised in Canada by immigrant parents - neither fact of which is a ' relevant fact ' in support of my stance of ' zero tolerance ' when it comes to imposing physical violence on defenseless children for the purposes of discipline.


Just fyi, I read that in Canada slapping a kid is allowed (without excessive force and yes there is a difference between a slap and beating the kid, I was never beaten as a kid, but I learned to respect my parents by receiving very few slaps).

Funny ...my kids learned to respect their parents ( so they tell me ) ...and they were never slapped .;)


Anyway, you can continue to believe in whatever you want, but you have to admit that when it comes to other people's lives and families you can say absolutely nothing (as neither can I).

Well, if other people behaved in a manner in which I take exception - spanking and or abusing kids, abusing spouses, abusing animals etc. etc. - I can say a lot, and I will.

[moebius]

Well, if other people behaved in a manner in which I take exception - spanking and or abusing kids, abusing spouses, abusing animals etc. etc. - I can say a lot, and I will.

Well, that is what I like about people like you. In order to defend your theory you resort to expanding slapping to something completely else. Who was talking about child abuse or spousal abuse? That is not relevant to SPANKING AND NOT BEATING of kids.

Anyway, thanks for answering the only relevant question: "YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL THE FAMILIES ALL AROUND THE WORLD"

[Nikita]

By "no exceptions," I was referring to the way humans behave, not whether or not we tolerate certain behaviors. Tolerance is a purely subjective measure, and it delves into the gray area of "right" and "wrong." Tolerance is merely a subjective reaction to actions.

How we behave, on the other hand, is something more instinctive and intrinsic. Every human being thinks and behaves differently. Because of this, there is no one set of disciplinary methods that works on every human being with no exceptions. There are always exceptions for how humans respond to discipline. You can never say, with absolute certainty, that every human being in the world will respond well to non-physical discipline. Is it possible? In theory, yes. In theory, many things are possible. However, this is something that you can never be absolutely certain about simply due to the way the human psyche works. In fact, there are almost always exceptions.

If you've studied any psychology at all, you would have noticed the lack of the terms "no exceptions" in every theory pertaining to human behavior. Most theories use words such as "high probability" and "very unlikely," but none of them will state any absolutes.

So what I'm getting (and if I'm understanding you right, ty for clarifying) is when you say 'zero tolerance' re: violence doesn't always work as a disciplinary method, you're saying it doesn't always have the desired result in changing behaviours, in which case you and poedua are really arguing apples and oranges. And of course you're right, the lack of hitting a child may not change their behaviour. Again, that's very different than saying when non-violent means fail, it's ok to resort to violent means. But I don't think that's the entire point here. Many many people are against hitting children regardless of whether or not it's effective. On moral grounds alone. And there's more and more people adopting that attitude toward not hitting kids. But to say 'You can never say, with absolute certainty, that every human being in the world will respond well to non-physical discipline' is a reason to use corporal punishment, is disingenious IMO.

Poedua seems to be against hitting for reasons of morality, you seem to be against 'no hitting, no exceptions' for it for reasons of efficacy. Neither position is right or wrong, but I think you're basing your arguments on the point of hitting vs. the intended results of hitting.

(K..I'm having a hard time clarifying what I'm trying to say right now, so I hope it's understandable, but have a feeling people will be disagreeing because it's not as clear as I'd like to make it, sorry.)


I apologize that I offended you. That was not my intention. Perhaps I should say chemical imbalance instead? But Hey, don't forget that I am ill-informed, naive, dead wrong, delusional with reading comprehension problem!:rolleyes:

Yeah, chemical imbalance is better, because it's gender neutral, ty. And...lol...no I don't see you as 'ill-informed, naive, dead wrong, delusional with reading comprehension problems'.


Let me ask you: Do you believe your model to be representative of all the families all around the world? Let me also ask you are you a feminist (this may or may not explain a few things)? Are you an immigrant/minority or white Canadian (I apologize for asking this question but it will explain also a few things)?

Just fyi, I read that in Canada slapping a kid is allowed (without excessive force and yes there is a difference between a slap and beating the kid, I was never beaten as a kid, but I learned to respect my parents by receiving very few slaps).

Anyway, you can continue to believe in whatever you want, but you have to admit that when it comes to other people's lives and families you can say absolutely nothing (as neither can I). So some people slap their kids, some don't - in YOUR OPINION the slapping is wrong, in THEIR OPINION slapping is the right thing to do. Are you going to parent all the kids in the world?

Enjoy your weekend! :lol:

Twice now you've used 'feminists' as the scapegoat here...what's with that? Just an insult or do you have something to back that up other than your sexist opinion? Cuz last time I checked fathers are just as able to play an equal role in raising their children and using their own 'non=feminist' methods. It's not just the women, and this whole thing about spanking or not surely can't be attributed to 'feminists' only...:rolleyes:

[Setz]

So what I'm getting (and if I'm understanding you right, ty for clarifying) is when you say 'zero tolerance' re: violence doesn't always work as a disciplinary method, you're saying it doesn't always have the desired result in changing behaviours, in which case you and poedua are really arguing apples and oranges. And of course you're right, the lack of hitting a child may not change their behaviour. Again, that's very different than saying when non-violent means fail, it's ok to resort to violent means. But I don't think that's the entire point here. Many many people are against hitting children regardless of whether or not it's effective. On moral grounds alone. And there's more and more people adopting that attitude toward not hitting kids. But to say 'You can never say, with absolute certainty, that every human being in the world will respond well to non-physical discipline' is a reason to use corporal punishment, is disingenious IMO.

Poedua seems to be against hitting for reasons of morality, you seem to be against 'no hitting, no exceptions' for it for reasons of efficacy. Neither position is right or wrong, but I think you're basing your arguments on the point of hitting vs. the intended results of hitting.

(K..I'm having a hard time clarifying what I'm trying to say right now, so I hope it's understandable, but have a feeling people will be disagreeing because it's not as clear as I'd like to make it, sorry.)



Yeah, chemical imbalance is better, because it's gender neutral, ty. And...lol...no I don't see you as 'ill-informed, naive, dead wrong, delusional with reading comprehension problems'.



Twice now you've used 'feminists' as the scapegoat here...what's with that? Just an insult or do you have something to back that up other than your sexist opinion? Cuz last time I checked fathers are just as able to play an equal role in raising their children and using their own 'non=feminist' methods. It's not just the women, and this whole thing about spanking or not surely can't be attributed to 'feminists' only...:rolleyes:

I'm in no way supporting moebius' opinions, but I don't think he means women when he says feminists. I think he's referring to the "extreme feminists" who hate men. If one of these were to conceive a male child, don't you think they'd be more likely to abuse them? Just my two cents. Saying feminists beat their children isn't necessarily sexist.

[moebius]

Define reasonable? My friend's son school have a little girl that told her teacher that her mom hitted her...it wasn't even a slap...they called the cop and got the mom arrested right away...was there charge? i have no idea...but for a subjective matter as such...i wouldn't go by it!

That is because our system (from school all the way to the government) is run (or overrun more correctly) by feminists.
The school has unfortunately become a second parent for kids these days - as with both parents working and the kid spending third of the day at school being thought this kind of ********. So I can't really blame either the kid or the mom in this case - it is just the way it is.

I remember a time when I was in primary school and our professor used a stick to hit you in the palms of your hand if you were not behaving. He was feared, but his classes were the most excellent of all - such peace and quiet - a bliss. Many years later most of us - his students agreed that he was a great man (he died), even if he was of the old school. You know thinking about it now, it wasn't the pain that was really causing you to fear, it was the fear of the consequences of your misbehaving that were causing you to behave (I may have been hit only once or twice). So I think you learn to respect the professors, you learn to respect your parents and so on.

These days I look at the high school kids and it looks to me they are totally wild - they get pampered everywhere they go - they get driven to school, they may or may not do their homework (didn't I read somewhere it will be optional), they are not respectful of elders, of professors, of people. They live in a bubble world where everything they wish for is bought, where wearing Hilfiger clothes has replaced the knowledge of maths, the sex has become just another word and smoking is up (newsflash** - they reported that although the general population is smoking less, the smoking amongst teenagers is on the increase). I sometimes see parents with kids where kids are in control - they are commanding the parents what to do and how - WHAT NONSENSE! Heck look at who is entering professional workforce - it is mostly immigrants or their kids. They learn harder and they work harder. Not all immigrant kids have been slapped of course, but I bet far more percentage than Canadian ones. Maybe there is something there?

[poedua]

Well, that is what I like about people like you. In order to defend your theory you resort to expanding slapping to something completely else. Who was talking about child abuse or spousal abuse? That is not relevant to SPANKING AND NOT BEATING of kids.

Learn to read.:rolleyes:

I never made direct comparisons or correlations between child abuse or spousal abuse and spanking.

I simply cited child abuse, animal abuse, spousal abuse and spanking as examples of pre-mediated behaviors for which - and I am speaking for myself here - I have ' zero tolerance ' , ' no exceptions ' and ' no gray area '.


Anyway, thanks for answering the only relevant question: "YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL THE FAMILIES ALL AROUND THE WORLD"

Boy...you're a quick study.:rolleyes:

I never claimed our family was - that was your erroneous conclusion - not mine.

Once again, learn to read.

[moebius]

Twice now you've used 'feminists' as the scapegoat here...what's with that? Just an insult or do you have something to back that up other than your sexist opinion? Cuz last time I checked fathers are just as able to play an equal role in raising their children and using their own 'non=feminist' methods. It's not just the women, and this whole thing about spanking or not surely can't be attributed to 'feminists' only...:rolleyes:

Indeed I have used it twice or more times. It is not sexist opinion, believe it or not. In fact, feminist are all for use of non violent methods of raising kids and for talking to kids like they are adults. Also, many men these days have become feminist, so if I do not like feminism I also do not like those men's beliefs as well. And that's the main thing - I do not like the feminism like someone else may not like liberalism. Nothing to do with sex.

I am totally in opposition of these beliefs, in fact. I support spanking but not beating or hitting a kid (I hate to always add this, but this poedua guy is just taking things out of context. And I afraid he is also equating spanking to abusing - last time I checked my English dictionary they are not synonyms).

[poedua]

That is because our system (from school all the way to the government) is run (or overrun more correctly) by feminists.

Too funny !

Yet another conspiracy theorist:lol:

Our entire system is ' overrun ' by ' feminists " ????:rolleyes:

Not only is that complete and utter nonsense......it's hilarious !:lol:

[Nikita]

I'm in no way supporting moebius' opinions, but I don't think he means women when he says feminists. I think he's referring to the "extreme feminists" who hate men. If one of these were to conceive a male child, don't you think they'd be more likely to abuse them? Just my two cents. Saying feminists beat their children isn't necessarily sexist.

Huh, you don't think he means women when he says feminist. So you think he's talking about the minute amount of men who would be called feminist and blame those few men for the failure of the system? Nahhh, he was referring to women.

And holy crap, are you seriously saying that (or asking if) being feminst ('one of these' no less....yikes) makes one 'more likely to abuse' male children? Wow, where'd that idea come from??:confused: That's one of the biggest non-rational leaps I've heard yet!

And yes, saying feminists beat their children most certainly IS sexist! Explain to me how it could be otherwise?


That is because our system (from school all the way to the government) is run (or overrun more correctly) by feminists.The school has unfortunately become a second parent for kids these days - as with both parents working and the kid spending third of the day at school being thought this kind of ********. So I can't really blame either the kid or the mom in this case - it is just the way it is.



Uggggh...seriously? Again, blame the 'feminists' for the failure of discipline in the schools! Overrun by feminists?? Wow, just wow.

BTW, all that follows that first sentence...that's all because of the 'rise of feminism' in the school system, or something? Where are you getting these ideas? Seriously? I've heard a lot of stuff being a so-called feminist supposedly gets blamed for, but sounds like you're pulling this stuff out of your butt IMO.

[moebius]

Learn to read.:rolleyes:


Ok, over and out. Whatever, guy. Had 15 minutes to waste on you, like i have those 15 minutes to waste on people like you. Good luck arguing with yourself!

[Varos]

Mom would spank us with her hand some time, or at the very most use a wooden cooking spoon. Either way it was very mild and more annoying than anything.

Dad would kinda go nuts with the belt and lose all control till we were screaming and sobbing. He'd also slap and restrain. I hated him for it. Mom would cry when he did this.

[Setz]

Huh, you don't think he means women when he says feminist. So you think he's talking about the minute amount of men who would be called feminist and blame those few men for the failure of the system? Nahhh, he was referring to women.

And holy crap, are you seriously saying that (or asking if) being feminst ('one of these' no less....yikes) makes one 'more likely to abuse' male children? Wow, where'd that idea come from??:confused: That's one of the biggest non-rational leaps I've heard yet!

And yes, saying feminists beat their children most certainly IS sexist! Explain to me how it could be otherwise?

I'm sorry, I should have clarified. All feminists are women, right? All women aren't feminists, though. I'm guessing moebius has some beef with feminists, but it doesn't mean he doesn't like all women. Surely he doesn't mean every woman when he says feminist, only the % that are feminist.

Well, think about it. There are some extreme feminists out there who worship themselves and don't like men. If they don't like men, why would they care to treat a boy any better?

I don't know why I'm defending that scumbag moebius, and I really shouldn't.

[Happy13178]

Mom would spank us with her hand some time, or at the very most use a wooden cooking spoon. Either way it was very mild and more annoying than anything.

Dad would kinda go nuts with the belt and lose all control till we were screaming and sobbing. He'd also slap and restrain. I hated him for it. Mom would cry when he did this.

My dad used to do something to that effect, too. Until we got big enough to hit him back and broke his nose and leg for it. Mom was more into the psychological attacks, which are more effective, but she's an alcoholic now and has no access to her children or grandchildren. Neither of them are or were decent human beings.

[poedua]

Indeed I have used it twice or more times. It is not sexist opinion, believe it or not. In fact, feminist are all for use of non violent methods of raising kids and for talking to kids like they are adults.

You don't have to talk to kids like adults at all times per se ...but you DO need to talk / communicate / explain / teach - call it what you will.

And as far as advocating non violent methods of raising kids - I would consider it a much healthier long term approach as opposed to embracing violent methods of raising kids.

' Violence begets violence ' IMO.


Also, many men these days have become feminist, so if I do not like feminism I also do not like those men's beliefs as well.

Please.:rolleyes:

Men aren't becoming feminists, many men simply support many of the issues the feminist movement deal with - such as sex-based discrimination, abortion rights, sexual harassment, marital rape laws etc. etc.

What is wrong with that ?


I am totally in opposition of these beliefs, in fact. I support spanking but not beating or hitting a kid (I hate to always add this, but this poedua guy is just taking things out of context.

Do you think a spanking can ever evolve into a beating ?

And if so, tell me, when does a spanking become a beating in your view ?

How young an age can you start spanking in your view ?

And up to what age is it still appropriate to spank in your view


And I afraid he is also equating spanking to abusing - last time I checked my English dictionary they are not synonyms).

Nonsense.

You need to brush up on your English Language comprehension.

I never equated spanking with abuse - I am simply against spanking / imposing violence on defenseless children as a form of discipline.

Learn to read English.

[poedua]

Uggggh...seriously? Again, blame the 'feminists' for the failure of discipline in the schools! Overrun by feminists?? Wow, just wow.

BTW, all that follows that first sentence...that's all because of the 'rise of feminism' in the school system, or something? Where are you getting these ideas? Seriously? I've heard a lot of stuff being a so-called feminist supposedly gets blamed for, but sounds like you're pulling this stuff out of your butt IMO.

+1

Couldn't agree more.:)

[N1Hawk]

I got "Beaten" by Belts and 2X4's in my past when I was a bad little boy they always hit my butt, well not really bad, just not listening to my parents. It happened a lot when I was younger!

[Happy13178]

That is because our system (from school all the way to the government) is run (or overrun more correctly) by feminists.
The school has unfortunately become a second parent for kids these days - as with both parents working and the kid spending third of the day at school being thought this kind of ********. So I can't really blame either the kid or the mom in this case - it is just the way it is.

I remember a time when I was in primary school and our professor used a stick to hit you in the palms of your hand if you were not behaving. He was feared, but his classes were the most excellent of all - such peace and quiet - a bliss. Many years later most of us - his students agreed that he was a great man (he died), even if he was of the old school. You know thinking about it now, it wasn't the pain that was really causing you to fear, it was the fear of the consequences of your misbehaving that were causing you to behave (I may have been hit only once or twice). So I think you learn to respect the professors, you learn to respect your parents and so on.

These days I look at the high school kids and it looks to me they are totally wild - they get pampered everywhere they go - they get driven to school, they may or may not do their homework (didn't I read somewhere it will be optional), they are not respectful of elders, of professors, of people. They live in a bubble world where everything they wish for is bought, where wearing Hilfiger clothes has replaced the knowledge of maths, the sex has become just another word and smoking is up (newsflash** - they reported that although the general population is smoking less, the smoking amongst teenagers is on the increase). I sometimes see parents with kids where kids are in control - they are commanding the parents what to do and how - WHAT NONSENSE! Heck look at who is entering professional workforce - it is mostly immigrants or their kids. They learn harder and they work harder. Not all immigrant kids have been slapped of course, but I bet far more percentage than Canadian ones. Maybe there is something there?

Here's the thing. I agree that a lot of kids these days seem spoiled and generally going to hell, but I'm willing to concede that the view may be a generational one, that all people think about the generation that follows them. I agree that a lot of new immigrants probably have a better work ethic than kids born privileged here.

My issue is that spanking, while in itself not necessarily physically harmful (I'm leaving the psychological argument out for now), sets a dangerous precedent. Not all, but some people are prone to stepping over the line when it comes to issuing discipline or "corporal punishment". Not everyone knows when they've gone too far, and when the physical is combined with psychological or emotional attacks you have a very bad situation on your hands. I don't consider myself a feminist, just an unwilling recipient on the receiving end of punishment like that from someone who professes the same views as you. He used violence and anger frequently, and when he finally raised his hand one too many times a bat was raised against him, and then a shovel. In any number of other situations, it could have been a knife or a gun. It caused too many problems to count, and the fact that some people came through that sort of punishment unscathed is not realistically a good reason to use it on everyone else.

[board123]

*quote removed due to irrelevance*
poedua, you managed to respond to pretty much every sentence of mine, as usual, except for the last one, where I asked about your kids. You can just tell me if you don't want to talk about them here in an open discussion. Don't give me the silent treatment on this one.

How are they doing? The eldest one is roughly the same age as me. How's that one doing?


So what I'm getting (and if I'm understanding you right, ty for clarifying) is when you say 'zero tolerance' re: violence doesn't always work as a disciplinary method, you're saying it doesn't always have the desired result in changing behaviours, in which case you and poedua are really arguing apples and oranges. And of course you're right, the lack of hitting a child may not change their behaviour. Again, that's very different than saying when non-violent means fail, it's ok to resort to violent means. But I don't think that's the entire point here. Many many people are against hitting children regardless of whether or not it's effective. On moral grounds alone. And there's more and more people adopting that attitude toward not hitting kids. But to say 'You can never say, with absolute certainty, that every human being in the world will respond well to non-physical discipline' is a reason to use corporal punishment, is disingenious IMO.

Poedua seems to be against hitting for reasons of morality, you seem to be against 'no hitting, no exceptions' for it for reasons of efficacy. Neither position is right or wrong, but I think you're basing your arguments on the point of hitting vs. the intended results of hitting.

(K..I'm having a hard time clarifying what I'm trying to say right now, so I hope it's understandable, but have a feeling people will be disagreeing because it's not as clear as I'd like to make it, sorry.)
I can sort of see what you're saying here, and I agree with most of it, but you need to make room for some gray area. There are many different levels of corporal punishment, just as there are many different levels of non-physical punishment. Is it possible to severely hurt a child without ever laying a finger on him/her? Sure it is. Is it possible to severely hurt a child by hitting him/her? Of course it is.

From this thread alone, it's evident that some people were beat very extensively. We got the big leather belts, the wooden spoons and the feather dusters. All of these fall under the category of corporal punishment, but you'd only be fooling yourself if you say there aren't other kinds of corporal punishment.

For any sort of punishment, it's all about how you apply it. Is a light slap on a 6-year-old's butt more wrong than screaming curse words in his/her face? Is starving a child a more just punishment than slapping his/her butt? The issue of morality comes into play for both cases, and are the ones that involves spanking the child the immoral ones by default?

It's this lack of gray area in poedua's point of view that I'm arguing against. Every discussion regarding human behavior needs a very large gray area, and it's poedua's outright denial of this gray area that I'm having trouble comprehending.

PS: I think one thing nobody has mentioned so far is that for most people, hitting your own child is extremely difficult. You don't want to hit your own child. It's your own flesh and blood, your own little baby. You would throw yourself in front of a truck to save that child. A lot of people so far seem to have the crazy idea that parents who administer corporal punishment enjoy doing it, that they enjoy instilling fear into their own children and watching them squirm under the might of the belt. Those are only the very extreme examples of corporal punishment, and most parents are not sadistic like that. I'm obviously not a parent, but I know how parents think.

[Happy13178]

PS: I think one thing nobody has mentioned so far is that for most people, hitting your own child is extremely difficult. You don't want to hit your own child. It's your own flesh and blood, your own little baby. You would throw yourself in front of a truck to save that child. A lot of people so far seem to have the crazy idea that parents who administer corporal punishment enjoy doing it, that they enjoy instilling fear into their own children and watching them squirm under the might of the belt. Those are only the very extreme examples of corporal punishment, and most parents are not sadistic like that. I'm obviously not a parent, but I know how parents think.

Some parents are, and thats the problem. It's a similar argument as for the death penalty, in that while it may be acceptable in some cases, its the risk of catching the innocent exception that makes it not allowable.

[board123]

Some parents are
That's why I said most are not, which implied that some are. I'm not looking to analyze the consequences of this. I'm only looking at the parents' behaviors and nothing more. I hope you're not comparing spanking your child to the death penalty...

Using extreme examples is very tempting, but you gotta be careful. Do I agree that some parents use unnecessary force? Yes, I fully agree. But...don't compare it to the death penalty. It's not a similar argument at all.

[Nikita]

I can sort of see what you're saying here, and I agree with most of it, but you need to make room for some gray area. There are many different levels of corporal punishment, just as there are many different levels of non-physical punishment. Is it possible to severely hurt a child without ever laying a finger on him/her? Sure it is. Is it possible to severely hurt a child by hitting him/her? Of course it is.

From this thread alone, it's evident that some people were beat very extensively. We got the big leather belts, the wooden spoons and the feather dusters. All of these fall under the category of corporal punishment, but you'd only be fooling yourself if you say there aren't other kinds of corporal punishment.

For any sort of punishment, it's all about how you apply it. Is a light slap on a 6-year-old's butt more wrong than screaming curse words in his/her face? Is starving a child a more just punishment than slapping his/her butt? The issue of morality comes into play for both cases, and are the ones that involves spanking the child the immoral ones by default?

It's this lack of gray area in poedua's point of view that I'm arguing against. Every discussion regarding human behavior needs a very large gray area, and it's poedua's outright denial of this gray area that I'm having trouble comprehending.

PS: I think one thing nobody has mentioned so far is that for most people, hitting your own child is extremely difficult. You don't want to hit your own child. It's your own flesh and blood, your own little baby. You would throw yourself in front of a truck to save that child. A lot of people so far seem to have the crazy idea that parents who administer corporal punishment enjoy doing it, that they enjoy instilling fear into their own children and watching them squirm under the might of the belt. Those are only the very extreme examples of corporal punishment, and most parents are not sadistic like that. I'm obviously not a parent, but I know how parents think.

I definitely agree that when it comes to humans and human behaviour there's likely more grey area than black & white. At the same time, I also completely agree that there are certain things that people can have zero tolerance about. I have zero tolerance (as do I'm sure a lot of people) when it comes to rape, child sexual abuse etc all the way to dissing your parents (something I've never done as an adult and never will do). I can absolutely understand someone taking the position that hitting a child is never ever acceptable...iow, zero tolerance. Just as I'd never ever hit my mother. There is no gray area there...it's simply not an option for me.

And I don't think it's fair to be asking Poedua how his kids are doing as a way of making some sort of point. Even if one of his kids turned out bad...are you going to attribute that to his not hitting his children? I'm sure you realize just how disingenious that kind of argument is. I just really don't get why it's so hard for some people to believe that, yes, lots of parents these days take that position and with no difficulty or adverse consequences to the child later in life.

My parents never hit us (well I might have gotten a spanking or two when I was little, but it surely didn't have any effect big enough on me that I can even recall whether or not I was hit). I turned out just fine, yet my brother was a hellion...go figure. Was it because they didn't spank me (which is the other side of your coin)that I turned out just fine? Who knows? Did my brother have issues because he wasn't spanked? Who knows? Four kids, all treated the same way (no hitting), yet we all turned out differently. That's the gray area.

Anyway, I'm kind of rambling now, but my primary point is that there indeed can be certain behaviours that parents will NOT engage in...and I don't get why that is such a difficult concept to at least accept, even if you don't agree with it. My secondary point is that hitting a child has no known beneficial effects (other than to scare the crap out of them at one particular moment in time) and, more importantly, not hitting children has no known detrimental effect. So while there IS a lot of grey area, sometimes we can find absolutes in life.

[Happy13178]

That's why I said most are not, which implied that some are. I'm not looking to analyze the consequences of this. I'm only looking at the parents' behaviors and nothing more. I hope you're not comparing spanking your child to the death penalty...

Using extreme examples is very tempting, but you gotta be careful. Do I agree that some parents use unnecessary force? Yes, I fully agree. But...don't compare it to the death penalty. It's not a similar argument at all.

I'm not going to nitpick over the arguments' comparison, but I'm going to have to side with the others and say you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. You've never been a victim of abuse or you wouldn't be sitting there sugarcoating it, and you're not a parent, so you don't have a clue how they do and don't think, especially given that different sets of parents are frequently nothing alike at all. People who abuse their children use and hide behind the exact argument you're tossing out right now, which pretty much makes you an enabler, so unless your parents beat the crap out of you, or you become a parent and get to choose what form of discipline to use with your own children, you have nothing to add to this conversation other than baseless opinion and heresay. To be advocating the use of any corporal punishment to children without the basic knowledge that you've openly admitted to lacking is ignorant.

[board123]

I definitely agree that when it comes to humans and human behaviour there's likely more grey area than black & white. At the same time, I also completely agree that there are certain things that people can have zero tolerance about. I have zero tolerance (as do I'm sure a lot of people) when it comes to rape, child sexual abuse etc all the way to dissing your parents (something I've never done as an adult and never will do). I can absolutely understand someone taking the position that hitting a child is never ever acceptable...iow, zero tolerance. Just as I'd never ever hit my mother. There is no gray area there...it's simply not an option for me.
I already stated that I'm not interested in the tolerance side of this issue. Tolerance is purely subjective and differs in every family. I have zero tolerance towards the things you listed above as well, but I'm not going to use that in any sort of morality argument.



And I don't think it's fair to be asking Poedua how his kids are doing as a way of making some sort of point. Even if one of his kids turned out bad...are you going to attribute that to his not hitting his children? I'm sure you realize just how disingenious that kind of argument is. I just really don't get why it's so hard for some people to believe that, yes, lots of parents these days take that position and with no difficulty or adverse consequences to the child later in life.
No I wouldn't. I simply wanted to know how the "kids" were doing since poedua comes off as a self-righteous parent who has done no wrongs in terms of parenting. poedua continuously brings up the issue of his (is poedua a man...?) 4 kids in this discussion. I actually expect poedua's kids to be doing quite well in life based on the way he talks about them, and I was just asking for reassurance on this. The kids doing well would go a long way in supporting poedua's argument here.



My parents never hit us (well I might have gotten a spanking or two when I was little, but it surely didn't have any effect big enough on me that I can even recall whether or not I was hit). I turned out just fine, yet my brother was a hellion...go figure. Was it because they didn't spank me (which is the other side of your coin)that I turned out just fine? Who knows? Did my brother have issues because he wasn't spanked? Who knows? Four kids, all treated the same way (no hitting), yet we all turned out differently. That's the gray area.
Exactly, this is the gray area that inevitably exists in parenting. Even though hindsight is 20/20, there is still no way to know what caused what many years ago. Did your brother turn out that way because he wasn't spanked? Maybe...but you'd have no way of knowing. You and your siblings all turned out differently under similar parenting conditions, which goes to show how different humans behave to different treatments. This is why you can't just say, "No, it absolutely would not have helped him." I'm not arguing that it would have helped him, I'm arguing that there exists some level of uncertainly where it's possible that it would have helped. The denial of this possibility is what I'm arguing against, not whether or not hitting him would have been the right thing to do.



Anyway, I'm kind of rambling now, but my primary point is that there indeed can be certain behaviours that parents will NOT engage in...and I don't get why that is such a difficult concept to at least accept, even if you don't agree with it. My secondary point is that hitting a child has no known beneficial effects (other than to scare the crap out of them at one particular moment in time) and, more importantly, not hitting children has no known detrimental effect. So while there IS a lot of grey area, sometimes we can find absolutes in life.
I completely agree that there are certain behaviors that some parents will not engage in. I've never rejected that idea. I fully accept that fact. Do I agree with it? It depends on the kid and the parent. What I don't accept is the suggestion that ALL parents should not engage in corporal punishment because it is wrong.

And I'm not sure about the benefits and detriments of hitting your children that you mentioned. I've already quoted several posters on this thread who claim that they turned out to be better people due to corporal punishment. In particular, Ronny1980 claimed to be a kleptomaniac and corporal punishment fixed him up. I'm not analyzing what they said, I'm simply paraphrasing them. Was corporal punishment necessary for them? I don't know. I wasn't there.


I'm not going to nitpick over the arguments' comparison, but I'm going to have to side with the others and say you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. You've never been a victim of abuse or you wouldn't be sitting there sugarcoating it, and you're not a parent, so you don't have a clue how they do and don't think, especially given that different sets of parents are frequently nothing alike at all. People who abuse their children use and hide behind the exact argument you're tossing out right now, which pretty much makes you an enabler, so unless your parents beat the crap out of you, or you become a parent and get to choose what form of discipline to use with your own children, you have nothing to add to this conversation other than baseless opinion and heresay. To be advocating the use of any corporal punishment to children without the basic knowledge that you've openly admitted to lacking is ignorant.
I don't even know what you're trying to say here. Are you insinuating that I support child abuse...? I have no idea how parents think because I'm not a parent?

Why are you jumping on me like this anyway? Now you're just going off on a tangent about my supposed lack of knowledge on this topic. Nothing you've said here has anything to do with what you originally responded to. First you agreed with me that some parents have issues, but I disagreed with you on the death penalty comparison. Because of this little disagreement, you're tossing everything else out the window and calling everything I've said "baseless opinion and heresy?"

Wow...talk about hitting a nerve...

[Nikita]

I'm not going to nitpick over the arguments' comparison, but I'm going to have to side with the others and say you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. You've never been a victim of abuse or you wouldn't be sitting there sugarcoating it, and you're not a parent, so you don't have a clue how they do and don't think, especially given that different sets of parents are frequently nothing alike at all. People who abuse their children use and hide behind the exact argument you're tossing out right now, which pretty much makes you an enabler, so unless your parents beat the crap out of you, or you become a parent and get to choose what form of discipline to use with your own children, you have nothing to add to this conversation other than baseless opinion and heresay. To be advocating the use of any corporal punishment to children without the basic knowledge that you've openly admitted to lacking is ignorant.

Crap! I'm referring to the bolded statement. To think that unless you have kids, you know nothing about them is just crap. People don't live in a vacuum (well, ok, some do), we see, read, listen to and in many cases study issues relating to children. People who don't have children still do interact with children, with parents, with family members who are children, with the world in general, which includes children. You're statements in that regard are nothing more than an red herring.


I already stated that I'm not interested in the tolerance side of this issue. Tolerance is purely subjective and differs in every family. I have zero tolerance towards the things you listed above as well, but I'm not going to use that in any sort of morality argument.

I don't even know what your saying here, perhaps you could clarify? How can you even be having this discussion if you're 'not interested in the tolerance side of this issue'. It's part and parcel OF this issue...:confused:


I completely agree that there are certain behaviors that some parents will not engage in. I've never rejected that idea. I fully accept that fact. Do I agree with it? It depends on the kid and the parent. What I don't accept is the suggestion that ALL parents should not engage in corporal punishment because it is wrong.

I don't see where anyone voiced the opinion that ALL parents should refrain from corporol punishment, I just see people giving reasons why THEY wont.

[board123]

I don't even know what your saying here, perhaps you could clarify? How can you even be having this discussion if you're 'not interested in the tolerance side of this issue'. It's part and parcel OF this issue...:confused:
I meant that one person's tolerance is not an accurate measure of what other people should or shouldn't do. For some issues, such as rape and murder, I think it's safe to say that very few people tolerate those issues and they can be considered "wrong" by most intents and purposes. However, tolerance is something that each person develops over the course of an entire lifetime. It's one set of realizations derived from personal experience. Because of this, one person's tolerance shouldn't be given much weight in what other people should or should not tolerate. It's simply too subjective. Everyone has different tolerances, but we also share many similar tolerances. It's just that for the topic of corporal punishment, it's evident that people have drastically different tolerance levels.

I'm not interested in yours, poedua's or my own tolerance on this matter because you'd need the person's full personal history to fully understand where the tolerance comes from. I'm sure that all of us have led different lives, so many factors attribute to our different tolerance levels on this topic. I just don't think it's worthwhile to use your own tolerance as an argument in a topic where almost everyone has different tolerances. Everyone can make the argument that their own tolerance is the "correct" level. It doesn't really help to advance the discussion.



I don't see where anyone voiced the opinion that ALL parents should refrain from corporol punishment, I just see people giving reasons why THEY wont.
poedua has made it very clear that corporal punishment is not the way, and that no parent should ever resort to using force against a "defenseless child." poedua is not speaking just for his or herself, but for all parents and all future parents. It's this relentless, self-righteous and black and white preaching that I'm arguing against.


Well, if you also agree with me that corporal punishment is NEVER right then that's fine. Either you agree with that proposition - or you don't.
Using such terms as "embrace violence" and "defenseless children" makes the argument that much worse. Unless they're abusive people, nobody embraces violence towards children. What is this? An election campaign?

[molala]

That is because our system (from school all the way to the government) is run (or overrun more correctly) by feminists.
The school has unfortunately become a second parent for kids these days - as with both parents working and the kid spending third of the day at school being thought this kind of ********. So I can't really blame either the kid or the mom in this case - it is just the way it is.

I remember a time when I was in primary school and our professor used a stick to hit you in the palms of your hand if you were not behaving. He was feared, but his classes were the most excellent of all - such peace and quiet - a bliss. Many years later most of us - his students agreed that he was a great man (he died), even if he was of the old school. You know thinking about it now, it wasn't the pain that was really causing you to fear, it was the fear of the consequences of your misbehaving that were causing you to behave (I may have been hit only once or twice). So I think you learn to respect the professors, you learn to respect your parents and so on.

These days I look at the high school kids and it looks to me they are totally wild - they get pampered everywhere they go - they get driven to school, they may or may not do their homework (didn't I read somewhere it will be optional), they are not respectful of elders, of professors, of people. They live in a bubble world where everything they wish for is bought, where wearing Hilfiger clothes has replaced the knowledge of maths, the sex has become just another word and smoking is up (newsflash** - they reported that although the general population is smoking less, the smoking amongst teenagers is on the increase). I sometimes see parents with kids where kids are in control - they are commanding the parents what to do and how - WHAT NONSENSE! Heck look at who is entering professional workforce - it is mostly immigrants or their kids. They learn harder and they work harder. Not all immigrant kids have been slapped of course, but I bet far more percentage than Canadian ones. Maybe there is something there?


are you referring to gender when you said feminist or you said that to mean anti-oppression? Regardless which definition you are referring to..you fail!

You have a teacher that spank kids to make the mark better....shame on him!!! That was totaly selfish...teachers do that to make them look better and more valuable as a teacher...it looks like to me the kids are better because of all the torture...what happened when they left their environment? there's no such thing as reasonable violence...NONE AT ALL....if you use violence to teach a kid...you are teaching them violence could resolve problems....FAILED!!

[notatoad]

i got a spanking when i deserved one, but that doesn't count as "being beaten". i voted never.

[poedua]

poedua, you managed to respond to pretty much every sentence of mine, as usual, except for the last one, where I asked about your kids. You can just tell me if you don't want to talk about them here in an open discussion. Don't give me the silent treatment on this one. How are they doing? The eldest one is roughly the same age as me. How's that one doing?

Actually, I don't want to talk about them.

But if you must know, they are all ' doing ' exceptionally well and exceeding even my most optimistic expectations - even my one child with special needs.

I'll just leave it at that.

[trixstar]

i'm vietnamese... yess i has horribly beaten.. and drowned..

[Tyler70]

I was spanked as a young teen.

But only on my request.

The girls were only slightly older than I.

Oh, what a summer.

[poedua]

poedua has made it very clear that corporal punishment is not the way, and that no parent should ever resort to using force against a "defenseless child."

I don't believe there is any reason to use violence against a "defenseless child " in an effort to impose discipline.


poedua is not speaking just for his or herself, but for all parents and all future parents.

No I'm not .

You have no clue what you're talking about. I'm am simply speaking for myself - expressing my own opinion. I simply don't think there is any reason for a child to be spanked, be subject to corporal punishment etc.

Now if others want to spank their kids, then that is their choice. Do I agree that choice - no. Would I criticize / judge that choice - yes.


It's this relentless, self-righteous and black and white preaching that I'm arguing against.

What can I say.

Certain behaviors are very black and white to my way of thinking - i.e corporal punishment against defenseless children, spousal abuse, child abuse,animal abuse, rape, sexual assault etc. etc. - all of which I have ' zero tolerance ' for.

That said, I make no apologies for being against behaviors I find unacceptable / reprehensible - in 100% of the cases.


Using such terms as "embrace violence" and "defenseless children" makes the argument that much worse. Unless they're abusive people, nobody embraces violence towards children. What is this? An election campaign?

This is where you and I differ I suppose.

I view spanking and corporal punishment as forms of ' violent acts '.

And if you embrace corporal punishment as an effective an valid form of discipline, then - at least in my view - you are also embracing violence.

And so you know, a 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 year old etc. etc. is quite certainly ' defenseless ' against a grown adult intent on spanking / striking them with an open hand, or a belt, or wooden spoons, or a slipper, or a hairbrush, or a ruler etc.

[Logos88]

Now if others want to spank their kids, then that is their choice. Do I agree that choice - no. Would I criticize / judge that choice - yes.

Certain behaviors are very black and white to my way of thinking - i.e corporal punishment against defenseless children, spousal abuse, child abuse,animal abuse, rape, sexual assault etc. etc. - all of which I have ' zero tolerance ' for.

Hmmm isn't that a contradiction? If it is "their choice", then I assume you acknowledge they have the legal right to spank them. Yet "zero tolerance" would imply it must not be allowed under any circumstances.

Would you push for criminalization of corporal punishment of children?

[board123]

Actually, I don't want to talk about them.

But if you must know, they are all ' doing ' exceptionally well and exceeding even my most optimistic expectations - even my one child with special needs.

I'll just leave it at that.
That's good. That's what I hoped to hear. It would have been highly hypocritical of you to discuss this topic like this if you were actually a failure as a parent. I just wanted to get this out of the way, and I mean no disrespect to you or your family.


I don't believe there is any reason to use violence against a "defenseless child " in an effort to impose discipline.
Yes, you've been quite clear about this point so far.



No I'm not .

You have no clue what you're talking about. I'm am simply speaking for myself - expressing my own opinion. I simply don't think there is any reason for a child to be spanked, be subject to corporal punishment etc.

Now if others want to spank their kids, then that is their choice. Do I agree that choice - no. Would I criticize / judge that choice - yes.
How is this not speaking on the behalf of others? When you make a stand like

I don't believe there is any reason to use violence against a "defenseless child " in an effort to impose discipline.
are you not saying that on the behalf of all parents? If you're only talking about yourself, then there would have been no reason for you to discuss this topic at all. It would only make sense, from everything you've said, that you're addressing all parents on what they should or shouldn't do based on your experience and parenting expertise. Of course you're stating an opinion, but whether or not the opinion addresses yourself is another matter. Just because you're stating an opinion doesn't mean the opinion is about yourself. It's probably derived from your way of thinking, but that doesn't make you the subject of the opinion. You're clearly not addressing this opinion to yourself; you're addressing it to everybody. If you're judging other people, you are not addressing yourself...

An opinion such as, "I don't think people should smoke because it's bad for their health," addresses other people. The opinion is about what you think everyone shouldn't do.



What can I say.

Certain behaviors are very black and white to my way of thinking - i.e corporal punishment against defenseless children, spousal abuse, child abuse,animal abuse, rape, sexual assault etc. etc. - all of which I have ' zero tolerance ' for.

That said, I make no apologies for being against behaviors I find unacceptable / reprehensible - in 100% of the cases.
See one of my previous posts regarding tolerance.



This is where you and I differ I suppose.

I view spanking and corporal punishment as forms of ' violent acts '.

And if you embrace corporal punishment as an effective an valid form of discipline, then - at least in my view - you are also embracing violence.

And so you know, a 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 year old etc. etc. is quite certainly ' defenseless ' against a grown adult intent on spanking / striking them with an open hand, or a belt, or wooden spoons, or a slipper, or a hairbrush, or a ruler etc.
Once again with the "embrace." You need to write speeches for our election candidates.

[ShopSmart]

I know a lot of adults who need a beating. The kind who walk around thinking that the world is theirs and no one else's.

For most people humility is only taught through the realization that their actions can have immediate consequences - namely a good beat down. Very few people are born with an innate adultness.

Unfortunately, most parents I see today have little to no control over their bratty kids. It's a direct reflection of their gene pool and their own incompetence, immaturities and insecurities. I find it really sad sometimes.

[Peckerwood]

The neighbours downstairs just finished letting their kid, and the other neighbour's kids bang the hell out of their apartment for two hours straight(7pm to 9pm). This is the same lady from across the way that lets her three kids (age 2yr - 7yr) run around unsupervised around the small brook up until 10:30 pm.(sometimes later...but always well into the night, as the sun is down by 7pm now)

Absolutely no discipline whatsoever...none. I went downstairs to get a better listen as to what was going on, and overheard the mother trying to get them to calm down...but her words were falling on deaf ears.

p.s. when I say "bang the hell out of"; I mean that literally. You could feel the impacts through the floor. It sounded like they were moving or taking down drywall etc.

[poedua]

Hmmm isn't that a contradiction? If it is "their choice", then I assume you acknowledge they have the legal right to spank them.

People can choose to raise their kids any way they want.

But I don't necessarily have to agree or endorse the principles and practices they embrace when doing so.

And if I choose to mock, criticize, challenge or condemn any of these principles and practices I happen to strongly disagree with, then, if appropriate, I'll do it. :)


Yet "zero tolerance" would imply it must not be allowed under any circumstances.

I don't think there is any circumstance that justifies imposing some form of physical violence upon a defenseless child in an effort to administer discipline.


Would you push for criminalization of corporal punishment of children?

No

[poedua]

How is this not speaking on the behalf of others? When you make a stand like are you not saying that on the behalf of all parents?

One more time.

I'm am simply speaking for myself - expressing my own opinion.

Now if others want to spank their kids, then that is their choice.


If you're only talking about yourself, then there would have been no reason for you to discuss this topic at all. It would only make sense, from everything you've said, that you're addressing all parents on what they should or shouldn't do based on your experience and parenting expertise. Of course you're stating an opinion, but whether or not the opinion addresses yourself is another matter. Just because you're stating an opinion doesn't mean the opinion is about yourself. It's probably derived from your way of thinking, but that doesn't make you the subject of the opinion. You're clearly not addressing this opinion to yourself; you're addressing it to everybody. If you're judging other people, you are not addressing yourself.

We all make choices.

And if I happen to vehemently disagree with choices others make, then it's certainly fair game to mock, criticize, challenge or condemn any of these choices I happen to strongly disagree with if I deem it appropriate.

And, others can challenge my choices as well.:)


An opinion such as, "I don't think people should smoke because it's bad for their health," addresses other people. The opinion is about what you think everyone shouldn't do.

I don't think there is any circumstance that justifies imposing some form of physical violence upon a defenseless child in an effort to administer discipline - no exceptions - IMO of course:)

Draw your own conclusions.

[poedua]

That's good. That's what I hoped to hear. It would have been highly hypocritical of you to discuss this topic like this if you were actually a failure as a parent. I just wanted to get this out of the way, and I mean no disrespect to you or your family.

And you've managed to respond to pretty much every question of mine put to you, except when I asked you ( a couple of things in fact ) to provide examples in which spanking is an appropriate form of discipline - you couldn't provide any examples.

[J W]

i haven't read most of the thread, but this is an interesting topic.

for one, a beating and spanking are two different things. i did get the occasional spank/smack, and i must say, it definitely worked. when i think about it nowadays, whenever i was out of control as a kid, a good smack and yelling did a lot to keep me under control. sometimes, a smack and yelling does a lot more than simple mouth talk. i see too many times where parents let their childrens go all wild in the public and out of control and i think about if i did the same thing as a kid, i would get a whole lotta hurt real bad.

[Lone_Prodigy]

And you've managed to respond to pretty much every question of mine put to you, except when I asked you ( a couple of things in fact ) to provide examples in which spanking is an appropriate form of discipline - you couldn't provide any examples.

Spanking can be appropriate or inappropriate in any situation.

Question: since you equate corporal punishment with "physical violence against a defenseless child", then would you agree that ignoring them is neglect, grounding them is a form of house arrest, and sending them to their room is solitary confinement? I'm not a lawyer, but isn't it illegal for a parent to deprive their child of necessities, or subject them to cruel and unusual punishment?

[poedua]

Spanking can be appropriate or inappropriate in any situation.

I would say spanking is never appropriate - but then, that's just me.:)


you equate corporal punishment with "physical violence against a defenseless child"

Correct.


then would you agree that ignoring them is neglect, grounding them is a form of house arrest, and sending them to their room is solitary confinement?

No...........I would not.


I'm not a lawyer, but isn't it illegal for a parent to deprive their child of necessities, or subject them to cruel and unusual punishment?

I think the term you are looking for is ' child abuse '.

[board123]

One more time.

I'm am simply speaking for myself - expressing my own opinion.

Now if others want to spank their kids, then that is their choice.



We all make choices.

And if I happen to vehemently disagree with choices others make, then it's certainly fair game to mock, criticize, challenge or condemn any of these choices I happen to strongly disagree with if I deem it appropriate.

And, others can challenge my choices as well.:)



I don't think there is any circumstance that justifies imposing some form of physical violence upon a defenseless child in an effort to administer discipline - no exceptions - IMO of course:)

Draw your own conclusions.
You keep insisting that this is your opinion, which I agree with. It is your opinion, but it is not about yourself. It is about what you think other people should be doing. No, you're not looking to change how other parents behave, but you are still judging their actions. When you say

I don't think there is any circumstance that justifies imposing some form of physical violence upon a defenseless child in an effort to administer discipline - no exceptions - IMO of course:)
You are saying that about other people. If you just want to talk about yourself, then address your own family. Instead of saying "a child," say "my child."

However, doing so would undermine your stance here because then it shows you're willing to tolerating what other parents might do. It is essential that you address other parents in order for anything you've said up to this point to make any sense whatsoever.

I don't know why you can't comprehend the simple concept of what an opinion is. Yes, you are simply stating an opinion, but you are addressing this opinion to other people. Do not deny this fact. Just like my smoking example, the subject of your opinion is other people, not yourself. You are speaking on behalf of other parents. Denying this simply shows your lack of understanding for what an "opinion" is.


And you've managed to respond to pretty much every question of mine put to you, except when I asked you ( a couple of things in fact ) to provide examples in which spanking is an appropriate form of discipline - you couldn't provide any examples.
It would only make sense that I can't provide any examples because doing so would imply that I know whether or not the child actually learned discipline. The only thing that the parent can immediately gauge is conflict resolution. I've already said that it's probably possible to resolve every conflict without physical force. But that's all it is -- conflict resolution.

What you and I are interested in is actual discipline. Discipline is not something the parent can immediately gauge. It is something the child learns, accepts and adopts over an extensive period of time. Discipline is an abstract concept that doesn't have immediate and tangible results as conflict resolution. Just because the conflict is gone doesn't mean the child became more disciplined.

Conflict resolution is not the same as discipline, and this misconception is the fundamental fallacy in your entire stance on parenthood.

[Nikita]

poedua has made it very clear that corporal punishment is not the way, and that no parent should ever resort to using force against a "defenseless child." poedua is not speaking just for his or herself, but for all parents and all future parents. It's this relentless, self-righteous and black and white preaching that I'm arguing against.



I never read a 'should' in any of poedua's post, as in 'no parent should ever hit a child'. IMO that would be him 'speaking for all parents'. Throughout this whole thread I never got the impression he was trying to tell others what to do, simply stating his own personal position on the issue. To say 'there's never a good reason to hit a child is NOT necessarily being self-righteous or preachy. It's just an obviously strong opinion he holds but I don't see him telling other parents what to do. Sure he said he would judge those who do hit (and don't we all make little judgments of others' behaviours in our mind?), but that's a whole lot different from preaching. That's nothing more than an opinion that those who do hit kids are wrong...and, like all of us, he's certainly entitled to that opinion.


Hmmm isn't that a contradiction? If it is "their choice", then I assume you acknowledge they have the legal right to spank them. Yet "zero tolerance" would imply it must not be allowed under any circumstances.

Would you push for criminalization of corporal punishment of children?

Poedua's point is really being twisted around here IMO. One can have zero tolerance for a certain behaviour while at the same time acknowledge that his opinion doesn't dictate, or impose upon others' 'choices'. He didn't say he would or could tolerate this choice, but sounds more to me like he's simply saying 'do want you want, I don't agree with it, I think it's wrong, and I have no tolerance for your behaviours, but I recognize that it's your choice'. What's so hard to understand about that?

BTW, corporal punishment, while not illegal, is already regulated. The amount of force must be reasonable and most importantly, must be for the purpose of correction of a behaviour. Case law is showing that courts are interpreting 'reasonable force' very narrowly e.g. spanking on the butt is pretty well safe, as long as you don't use a belt or other weapon or leave marks or injuries (sounds reasonable to me), stuff like that.


Spanking can be appropriate or inappropriate in any situation.

Question: since you equate corporal punishment with "physical violence against a defenseless child", then would you agree that ignoring them is neglect, grounding them is a form of house arrest, and sending them to their room is solitary confinement? I'm not a lawyer, but isn't it illegal for a parent to deprive their child of necessities, or subject them to cruel and unusual punishment?

Yes of course it's illegal to deprive a child of necessities of life (though I don't know what that has to do with corporal punishment). To be picky, the term 'cruel and unusual punishment' is a constitutional phrase that addresses actions of governments and government entities only. For real people, it's simply called assault.

And though I find your analogies amusing, I don't know what purpose those comparisions serve except to point out that the parallels are amusing.

[Logos88]

Poedua's point is really being twisted around here IMO. One can have zero tolerance for a certain behaviour while at the same time acknowledge that his opinion doesn't dictate, or impose upon others' 'choices'. He didn't say he would or could tolerate this choice, but sounds more to me like he's simply saying 'do want you want, I don't agree with it, I think it's wrong, and I have no tolerance for your behaviours, but I recognize that it's your choice'. What's so hard to understand about that?

I think people are throwing around the phrase "zero tolerance" too loosely around here. "Zero tolerance" usually pertains to authoritative policies that affect others. If you see a child being spanked by their parents and do nothing, then it is not zero tolerance -- you're already tolerating it!

Yeah, I could say I have "zero tolerance" for durians. What's the point? If it is personal to you only, then "I don't like" or "I will never..." will suffice.

[board123]

I never read a 'should' in any of poedua's post, as in 'no parent should ever hit a child'. IMO that would be him 'speaking for all parents'. Throughout this whole thread I never got the impression he was trying to tell others what to do, simply stating his own personal position on the issue. To say 'there's never a good reason to hit a child is NOT necessarily being self-righteous or preachy. It's just an obviously strong opinion he holds but I don't see him telling other parents what to do. Sure he said he would judge those who do hit (and don't we all make little judgments of others' behaviours in our mind?), but that's a whole lot different from preaching. That's nothing more than an opinion that those who do hit kids are wrong...and, like all of us, he's certainly entitled to that opinion.
I think you're reading a bit too much into the semantics here. No, poedua never used the word "should," but that word has been implied by the stance itself.

Saying "There's never a good reason to hit a child" is analogous to saying "You shouldn't do it." It is derived from the most fundamental concept of rational logic -- that is, "If A causes B, and you don't want B, then you shouldn't do A." In this context, if there is no good reason to hit a child, and if you are a rational human being, then you should not hit a child.

Just because the word "should" isn't in there doesn't mean the message doesn't exist.

Plus, I don't see why the word "should" is necessary for the opinion to address other parents. This opinion is stated on the behalf of other people, and whether or not the specific word "should" is present is of no concern.

I'm aware that poedua is entitled to his/her own opinion. I just happen to disagree with it because it is addressed to me and infringes on what I believe in. I would have no reason to dispute this opinion if it only addressed to poedua him/herself, because that would imply the opinion is tailored to suit poedua's own family and I'd have no problems with that. However, that's not the case. poedua is clearly addressing everyone with this opinion because he/she claims to know what's best for every family on this planet.

[Nikita]

I think you're reading a bit too much into the semantics here. No, poedua never used the word "should," but that word has been implied by the stance itself.



I think you're reading way too much into a simple personal opinion. The same could be said about your posts, that 'should' is implied and imposing your opinion on others, 'by the very stance itself'. But I don't agree at all that there is any such implication in either of your positions.

As an aside, IMO I'd rather someone outright 'say' or 'imply' that people shouldn't hit children (or anyone for that matter) than to say they should. In the latter nobody gets hurt. But I don't see that here and I don't agree that just because you perceived that meaning to his post, that the implication actually exists, or was meant.

[board123]

I think you're reading way too much into a simple personal opinion. The same could be said about your posts, that 'should' is implied and imposing your opinion on others, 'by the very stance itself'. But I don't agree at all that there is any such implication in either of your positions.
I'm not reading too much into a simple opinion. I'm reading too much into the subject of this opinion because, to my surprise, people don't agree that it's addressed to the general audience. I'm simply attempting responding to everyone else in a clear manner.

These implications exist by definition. If not, then there would be no reason for any of us to discuss this topic. If poedua's family works one way, my family works one way and your family works one way, then there would be no disagreements. It would simply mean that different families operate differently, and we all acknowledge that these differences exist. Whether or not we tolerate each other is another matter, but we wouldn't be imposing our own views upon each other.



As an aside, IMO I'd rather someone outright 'say' or 'imply' that people shouldn't hit children (or anyone for that matter) than to say they should. In the latter nobody gets hurt. But I don't see that here and I don't agree that just because you perceived that meaning to his post, that the implication actually exists, or was meant.
I'm quite surprised that you don't see it. If someone says, "Smoking gives you lung cancer," you don't take that as advice not to smoke? or that if someone says, "The stock market is a buyer's market right now," you don't take that as a suggest to buy stock instead of sell stock?

IMO, poedua's message is quite clear and I don't think I'm just making things up. If poedua's message truly doesn't exist, then why is poedua responding to everyone who supports corporal punishment in such a gung-ho way as to change their minds on the topic? Let's take the following conversation as an example:

Person A: I wear leather gloves in winter.
Person B: There's reason to wear leather gloves. There are better alternatives.

Person C: I wear leather gloves too. They're durable.
Person B: Look... I disagree with that. There are better gloves out there.

Person D: I don't really care what gloves I wear as long as they keep my hands warm.
Person B: Anything is fine as long as they're not leather gloves. No reason to wear leather gloves.
Person D: But...why not? I don't see anything wrong with leather gloves...
Person B: No buts. From all my experience, there has never been a reason for leather gloves. There is never a need to wear leather gloves.

Person E: Look guys, Person B is not telling you what you should or shouldn't do. He's just stating an opinion.

I hope this example seems somewhat familiar.

[poedua]

You keep insisting that this is your opinion, which I agree with. It is your opinion, but it is not about yourself. It is about what you think other people should be doing. No, you're not looking to change how other parents behave, but you are still judging their actions.

Anytime someone has a choice among 2 alternatives, then I - and anyone for else that matter - has a right to make a comment about that choice if they so choose.

So you can endorse someone's choice or you may condemn it - i.e you can ' judge ' other people's actions any way you wish.


You are saying that about other people. If you just want to talk about yourself, then address your own family. Instead of saying "a child," say "my child."

Nonsense - what for ?

I'm talking about all children - not just my children.

Just as when I condemn all acts of rape ( i.e zero tolerance ) I am talking about all women who may be raped - not just the possibility my 2 daughters may be raped.

The fact remains, I don't think there is any circumstance that justifies imposing some form of physical violence upon a defenseless child in an effort to administer discipline.

And I would still hold that opinion - whether I had kids or not.


I don't know why you can't comprehend the simple concept of what an opinion is. Yes, you are simply stating an opinion, but you are addressing this opinion to other people.

Correct - I am simply stating my opinion - addressing it to other people who are willing to listen.

I don't think there is any circumstance that justifies imposing some form of physical violence upon a defenseless child in an effort to administer discipline.

That said, I can't control or tell what other parents should do.

If another parent opts to spank / use corporal punishment on their kids - that is their choice - they have to do what they think is right. It has nothing to do with me - I can't tell what to do.

But if you ask me what my opinion is of using corporal punishment on kids I will tell you I am vehemently against it - no exceptions.


Do not deny this fact.

I deny this fact.


Just like my smoking example, the subject of your opinion is other people, not yourself. You are speaking on behalf of other parents.

No I'm not - not even close.

Learn to read.


Denying this simply shows your lack of understanding for what an "opinion" is.

In know what an opinion is - in fact, I've given my ' opinion ' on this issue in this thread for a least a dozen times now.

If you can't recognize when someone is simply giving a personal opinion - that is your ( comprehension ) problem - not mine.


It would only make sense that I can't provide any examples because doing so would imply that I know whether or not the child actually learned discipline. The only thing that the parent can immediately gauge is conflict resolution. I've already said that it's probably possible to resolve every conflict without physical force. But that's all it is -- conflict resolution.

I'm simply asking you if you can think of any ' hypothetical ' situation / scenarios ( examples ) that justifies imposing some form of physical violence upon a defenseless child in an effort to administer discipline.

And if it's probably possible to resolve every conflict without physical force - then when is physical force required in your view ? Under what ' hypothetical ' situation / scenarios ( examples ) would physical force be required in your view ?

If you can't think of any examples - admit it - and simply say so.



Conflict resolution is not the same as discipline

I have not been focusing on or repeatedly referencing ' conflict resolution ' - or comparing it discipline in some way - you have.

My focus has been squarely on the inappropriateness of using violence - in all circumstances - in order to establish discipline.


and this misconception is the fundamental fallacy in your entire stance on parenthood.

I've made no comparison / distinction involving ' conflict resolution ' and violence / discipline - you have.

When if comes to discipline and violence as it pertains to my kids, my compass reading on this particular issue has not wavered one bit in close to 20 years of parenting, so there is no ' fallacy ' in my stance on parenthood.

That ' fallacy ' conclusion is on your part is not only naive - but pure and utter garbage.

When it comes to my parenting principles I ' mean what I say and I say what I mean ' which means I ' walk the talk ' on this whole discipline and violence issue as it pertains to my 4 kids - and have been doing so for almost 20 years.

[board123]

You are saying that about other people. If you just want to talk about yourself, then address your own family. Instead of saying "a child," say "my child."
Nonsense - what for ?

I'm talking about all children - not just my children.

...

I don't know why you can't comprehend the simple concept of what an opinion is. Yes, you are simply stating an opinion, but you are addressing this opinion to other people.

Correct - I am simply stating my opinion - addressing it to other people who are willing to listen.

...


Do not deny this fact. (i.e. addressing other people)
I deny this fact.

...

Just like my smoking example, the subject of your opinion is other people, not yourself. You are speaking on behalf of other parents.
No I'm not - not even close.

Learn to read.
I rest my case :lol::lol:

Oh, and you're still not seeing the difference between conflict resolution and discipline. You know why you've never made the distinction between the two? Because you've failed to see the distinction in the first place.

[poedua]

These implications exist by definition. If not, then there would be no reason for any of us to discuss this topic. If poedua's family works one way, my family works one way and your family works one way, then there would be no disagreements.

Of course - there would be disagreements - it's inevitable IMO.

If your family smacks around kids on a regular basis and your family boasts this smacking is the most effective means available and or the healthiest means available in order to achieve discipline - then I would certainly disagree - and welcome any debate to defend my rationale as to why I disagree.


It would simply mean that different families operate differently, and we all acknowledge that these differences exist.

Correct.

And you can either endorse what these families do, or condemn them.


Whether or not we tolerate each other is another matter, but we wouldn't be imposing our own views upon each other.

Why not simply share our views then ?

If some person comes on this thread and they tell me that they spank their kids often with things like wooden spoons, belts etc. etc. because they think it is the most effective form of discipline, then I'll eagerly give my views to the contrary.


I'm quite surprised that you don't see it. If someone says, "Smoking gives you lung cancer," you don't take that as advice not to smoke?

No...I'd view it as a fact.

That said, any person can smoke if they wish - it's their choice.

I can't tell someone else what to do or how to run their life - but i can certainly have an opinion on the choices they make - like their choice to smoke.

I think people who choose to smoke are making extremely poor - possibly fatal - choices.


or that if someone says, "The stock market is a buyer's market right now," you don't take that as a suggest to buy stock instead of sell stock?

Not at all.

I can't tell someone what they should do with their money.

I CAN tell them what I would do and why I think other options are a mistake - but in the end - they have to decide for themselves.



IMO, poedua's message is quite clear and I don't think I'm just making things up.

Just in case ...here it is again.......

I don't think there is any circumstance that justifies imposing some form of physical violence upon a defenseless child in an effort to administer discipline.

;)


If poedua's message truly doesn't exist, then why is poedua responding to everyone who supports corporal punishment in such a gung-ho way as to change their minds on the topic?

Because I disagree with them - I don't support corporal punishment.

But that's just me. ;)

[board123]

poedua, you've argued yourself into an excellent position and I have nothing further to add.

:o

[poedua]

I rest my case :lol::lol:

Oh, and you're still not seeing the difference between conflict resolution and discipline.

I'm not discussing the specific relationship between conflict resolution and discipline - you are the one obsessed with having this conflict resolution / discipline debate.

In fact I agree with you " it's probably possible to resolve every conflict without physical force ".

That said, I am discussing the broader issue of violence vs. non-violence and discipline.


You know why you've never made the distinction between the two?

Earth to board123.........earth to board123.

That's because the distinction you've fixated upon is irrelevant to my argument.

[board123]

Now I do have something further to add.




Oh, and you're still not seeing the difference between conflict resolution and discipline.
I'm not discussing the specific relationship between conflict resolution and discipline - you are the one obsessed with having this conflict resolution / discipline debate.

In fact I agree with you " it's probably possible to resolve every conflict without physical force ".

That said, I am discussing the broader issue of violence vs. non-violence and discipline.


You know why you've never made the distinction between the two?
That's because the distinction you've fixated upon is irrelevant to my argument.
So what you've basically admit just now is that you don't understand the difference between conflict resolution and discipline. You want to focus on the discipline side of things, but you equate your method of non-violent conflict resolution to discipline. When you talk about discipline, you need to start with the conflict resolution because that's where it often begins.

You know why I'm fixating on this point? The reason is that this is the fundamental problem with your viewpoint. I'm making it clear to you what you're lacking in terms of understanding the discussion. It is impossible to immediately gauge the effectiveness of different disciplinary methods, whether they involve the use of force or not. What you are gauging is conflict resolution only.

Conflict resolution is the short term result, while discipline is the long term result. Is it possible to accomplish both through non-physical means? Of course it is. However, this association is not always true. Sometimes you have no immediate conflict resolution but long-term discipline, while sometimes you have conflict resolution but no disciplinary results down the road.

You can't just say, "I sat down with my child last night and had a good talk with him. Now he's disciplined."

It doesn't work that way, and neither does hitting the child. No matter what you attempt to do in effort to administer discipline, you will not see immediate results. I disagree with you that there is never a need to use force in order to achieve discipline because I want to be open to the idea that anything can attribute to discipline. How can you know that there is never a need to use force? You don't know how your child will develop in the years following the conflict resolution. You don't know what your child will encounter in the future that might affect his disciplinary standing. Your rejection of this uncertainly is what I disagree with. You cannot speak in hindsight.

I know what you're really saying is that corporal punishment is never needed in order to achieve long-term disciplinary results. How do you know this is true? There is no way to prove this, nor to disprove this. There are people on this thread who said they turned out to be better people due to corporal punishment. Are you saying they could have turned out the same way without corporal punishment? Could ronny1980's kleptomaniac personality be remedied without corporal punishment? WE DON'T KNOW! The only way to find out is to go back in time and try other disciplinary methods on these same people. However, we can't do that. We can't build a time machine and see if alternative methods would have worked our not. I'm not denying that they wouldn't have worked, nor am I agreeing with you that they would have surely worked. The fact remains: these people became better disciplined through corporal punishment, which means that corporal punishment does work. Is it necessary? We don't know, but it's one thing that has proven to work.

Because we can't travel back in time, we can only administer one type of disciplinary method on a child. Whether alternatives would have the same result or not will always remain uncertain. This is the fundamental difference between conflict resolution and discipline, and why your stance is constructed purely on the basis of conflict resolution whether you're aware of it or not.

[poedua]

So what you've basically admit just now is that you don't understand the difference between conflict resolution and discipline. You want to focus on the discipline side of things, but you equate your method of non-violent conflict resolution to discipline. When you talk about discipline, you need to start with the conflict resolution because that's where it often begins.

However, in this case, there is no need to start with conflict resolution in the context of discussing discipline and violence, because as you yourself said....


" it's probably possible to resolve every conflict without physical force "


You know why I'm fixating on this point? The reason is that this is the fundamental problem with your viewpoint..

There is nothing at all wrong with my viewpoint.

I don't think there is any circumstance that justifies imposing some form of physical violence upon a defenseless child in an effort to administer discipline.

That is my viewpoint - very simple, and very black and white - no exceptions.

If you disagree - fine.

Then we should simply agree to disagree.


I'm making it clear to you what you're lacking in terms of understanding the discussion. It is impossible to immediately gauge the effectiveness of different disciplinary methods, whether they involve the use of force or not. What you are gauging is conflict resolution only.

I am not discussing ' conflict resolution ' with you - this is something you dug up, - not me, so you're having this discussion with yourself.


Conflict resolution is the short term result, while discipline is the long term result. Is it possible to accomplish both through non-physical means? Of course it is. However, this association is not always true. Sometimes you have no immediate conflict resolution but long-term discipline, while sometimes you have conflict resolution but no disciplinary results down the road..

I'm not discussing the separate issue of ' conflict resolution ' - you are.

My stance is simply as follows - I don't think there is any circumstance that justifies imposing some form of physical violence upon a defenseless child in an effort to administer discipline.

That is my viewpoint - very simple, and very black and white - no exceptions.


You can't just say, "I sat down with my child last night and had a good talk with him. Now he's disciplined."It doesn't work that way, and neither does hitting the child. No matter what you attempt to do in effort to administer discipline, you will not see immediate results. I disagree with you that there is never a need to use force in order to achieve discipline because I want to be open to the idea that anything can attribute to discipline..

O.K....pick any hypothetical situation / age of child you wish.

Since you disagree with me that that there is never a need to use force in order to achieve discipline..........give me 2 or 3 examples of when YOU THINK there IS A NEED to use force in order to achieve discipline.


How can you know that there is never a need to use force?.

Because I have never experienced - nor can I even remotely envision - any circumstance that justifies imposing some form of physical violence upon a defenseless child in an effort to administer discipline.

If you can think of an example when there IS an unequivocal need to use force - then enlighten me - give me some examples.

I keep asking your for examples, and you keep refusing to provide any examples - which speaks for itself IMO.


You don't know how your child will develop in the years following the conflict resolution. You don't know what your child will encounter in the future that might affect his disciplinary standing. Your rejection of this uncertainly is what I disagree with. You cannot speak in hindsight.

You're right - I don't know.

How would I know any of that ? No parent can predict the future.

Nonetheless, I still refuse - and refused - to hit my kids.


I know what you're really saying is that corporal punishment is never needed in order to achieve long-term disciplinary results..

Nice to see it finally sunk in.


How do you know this is true?

I don't - it's simply my personal opinion.


There is no way to prove this, nor to disprove this.

I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, nor do I claim I can prove anything - I'm simply trying parent based on principles in believe in.



There are people on this thread who said they turned out to be better people due to corporal punishment.

Good for them.

People can believe whatever they want.


Are you saying they could have turned out the same way without corporal punishment?

I have no idea.



Could ronny1980's kleptomaniac personality be remedied without corporal punishment? WE DON'T KNOW! The only way to find out is to go back in time and try other disciplinary methods on these same people. However, we can't do that. We can't build a time machine and see if alternative methods would have worked our not. I'm not denying that they wouldn't have worked, nor am I agreeing with you that they would have surely worked. The fact remains: these people became better disciplined through corporal punishment, which means that corporal punishment does work. Is it necessary? We don't know, but it's one thing that has proven to work.

Nonsense...it's not even close to a fact ...it's an opinion. .

There is no evidence in these personal anecdotes that " these people became better disciplined through corporal punishment ".

The only way to find out is to go back in time and try other disciplinary NON-VIOLENT methods on these same people. However, we can't do that. We can't build a time machine and see if various other NON-VIOLENT methods would have worked our not.



Because we can't travel back in time, we can only administer one type of disciplinary method on a child. Whether alternatives would have the same result or not will always remain uncertain.

Quite right - but when you are faced with having to make a choice in a form of disciplinary response in the here and now - today, this hour, this minute, not in the future - your choice come to one of 2 alternatives....violent or non-violent.

And as I have said before, I don't think there is any circumstance that justifies imposing some form of physical violence upon a defenseless child in an effort to administer discipline.


This is the fundamental difference between conflict resolution and discipline, and why your stance is constructed purely on the basis of conflict resolution whether you're aware of it or not.

No ..........it's not.

My god...you're not a quick study are you ?

This is my stance - just so you're clear - I don't think there is any circumstance that justifies imposing some form of physical violence upon a defenseless child in an effort to administer discipline.

[board123]

Wow, poedua, your post just screams of poor reading comprehension. It seems like we've been talking in circles. In fact, we are. This is going nowhere because I keep finding myself having to re-explain everything just when I thought I finally got through to you.

I'm going to ignore everything you said just now and pretend as if it never happened. It's apparent that your petty need to break down every sentence of mine and get the "last word" on everything is hindering your ability to comprehend abstract concepts.

I actually found your post appalling.

Hint: My post had pretty much nothing to do with whether or not hitting children is wrong, yet that's still what you attempted to argue against :lol:

[Nikita]

I'm not reading too much into a simple opinion. I'm reading too much into the subject of this opinion because, to my surprise, people don't agree that it's addressed to the general audience. I'm simply attempting responding to everyone else in a clear manner.

These implications exist by definition..

How do these implications exist by definition, exactly? Saying so doesn't make it so. Stating an opinion, 'by necessary implication', addresses everyone... and necessarily implies your opinion is actually a statement of what you think they should do? What am I (and others it appears, by your own statement above) missing here?


If not, then there would be no reason for any of us to discuss this topic.

So in your world, the only reason to discuss anything is to persuade others that you're right and that they should do what you do and think how you think? Wow...just wow. In my world discussions are had for many reasons, but primarily is simply an exchange of opinions and not at all intended to prove any one way of behaving is wrong.


If poedua's family works one way, my family works one way and your family works one way, then there would be no disagreements. It would simply mean that different families operate differently, and we all acknowledge that these differences exist. Whether or not we tolerate each other is another matter, but we wouldn't be imposing our own views upon each other.


I'm quite surprised that you don't see it. If someone says, "Smoking gives you lung cancer," you don't take that as advice not to smoke? or that if someone says, "The stock market is a buyer's market right now," you don't take that as a suggest to buy stock instead of sell stock?

No and no. Statements of fact OR statements of opinion are NOT always meant to change someone's behaviour. I really don't know where you get this idea. I'm having a really hard time wrapping my brain around your idea of conversations or discussions in general and I guess that's where we really part ways. To you there's only one reason to have discussions - to change someone else's behaviour. To me there are many reasons to have discussions, which may or may not include trying to change someone's behaviour...but usually not.


IMO, poedua's message is quite clear and I don't think I'm just making things up. If poedua's message truly doesn't exist, then why is poedua responding to everyone who supports corporal punishment in such a gung-ho way as to change their minds on the topic? Let's take the following conversation as an example:

Person A: I wear leather gloves in winter.
Person B: There's reason to wear leather gloves. There are better alternatives.

Person C: I wear leather gloves too. They're durable.
Person B: Look... I disagree with that. There are better gloves out there.

Person D: I don't really care what gloves I wear as long as they keep my hands warm.
Person B: Anything is fine as long as they're not leather gloves. No reason to wear leather gloves.
Person D: But...why not? I don't see anything wrong with leather gloves...
Person B: No buts. From all my experience, there has never been a reason for leather gloves. There is never a need to wear leather gloves.

Person E: Look guys, Person B is not telling you what you should or shouldn't do. He's just stating an opinion.

I hope this example seems somewhat familiar.

And you're having a hard time with what exactly, the last statement? Because, I don't. And I think most people would agree that the majority of their conversations have nothing whatsoever to do with changing someone's behaviour, or even someone's opinion. Have you never had a simple exchange of ideas, concepts, opinions etc, without trying to accomplish anything except perhaps seeing a different point of view? Cuz if not, I see why you're having such difficulty with this concept, but I also feel like you're discussions must most often be pretty confrontational if you have an expected outcome that others don't. Simply put, not all conversations (or conversationalists) have an agenda.



I know what you're really saying is that corporal punishment is never needed in order to achieve long-term disciplinary results. How do you know this is true? There is no way to prove this, nor to disprove this. There are people on this thread who said they turned out to be better people due to corporal punishment. Are you saying they could have turned out the same way without corporal punishment? Could ronny1980's kleptomaniac personality be remedied without corporal punishment? WE DON'T KNOW! The only way to find out is to go back in time and try other disciplinary methods on these same people. However, we can't do that. We can't build a time machine and see if alternative methods would have worked our not. I'm not denying that they wouldn't have worked, nor am I agreeing with you that they would have surely worked. The fact remains: these people became better disciplined through corporal punishment, which means that corporal punishment does work. Is it necessary? We don't know, but it's one thing that has proven to work.


Do you even see the contradiction in your own argument?

At the beginning of this paragraph you say there is no way to prove or disprove that corporal punishment does or doesn't work. At the end you say corporal punishment has been proven to work (which it hasn't at all, but that's just my opinion, not one that's meant to change your behaviour or your opinion, just my opinion). How can both statements possibly stand side by side??:confused: :confused:

[hitman047]

In fact I agree with you " it's probably possible to resolve every conflict without physical force ".



Physical force yields quick results. Its hard to sit down and explain a 5yr old why he shouldn't run behind a moving vehicle, mostly because of his limited understanding and your limited patience.

A smack in time saves nine!

I do agree that physical force shouldn't be your first choice. However, it shouldn't be a "last resort" either. Use it when you need it. Your "need" will be dictated by your circumstance and your perception of what force can do.

[board123]

Skipping all the preceding stuff because it's sort of old and irrelevant. If you must need to know some of my thoughts on it, well...

I'm actually quite aware of the different usages of discussion. It just happens that in the context of this particular discussion, people are stating their opinions with the intention of influencing the opinions of others. In this discussion, people are stating their stand on the issue and reasons for why they believe what they believe in. What do you think happens when other people read these? Most people will not just go, "Psht, whatever." They will compare these opinions with their own and sort out the similarities and differences.

No, this is not a "Hey how's the weather" kind of discussion. I'm not sure where you got the idea that in "my world," all discussions are meant to be confrontational in nature and must have some sort of agenda associated to them. I'm actually quite surprised that I had to write all this stuff out, but whatever... If that's how I come off as to you, then I'm sorry. I can't help it.



Do you even see the contradiction in your own argument?

At the beginning of this paragraph you say there is no way to prove or disprove that corporal punishment does or doesn't work. At the end you say corporal punishment has been proven to work (which it hasn't at all, but that's just my opinion, not one that's meant to change your behaviour or your opinion, just my opinion). How can both statements possibly stand side by side??:confused: :confused:
The contradiction only exists because you decided to misquote me and put words in my mouth. The bolded/underlined sentence never existed in my post. It's a complete and utter fabrication.

No, there is no contradiction what I actually said (i.e. the real quote):

...what you're really saying is that corporal punishment is never needed in order to achieve long-term disciplinary results. How do you know this is true? There is no way to prove this, nor to disprove this.
While the end said:

The fact remains: these people became better disciplined through corporal punishment, which means that corporal punishment does work. Is it necessary? We don't know, but it's one thing that has proven to work.
Just because it works doesn't mean it's needed. Whether or not it works has no bearing on whether or not it's needed. Eating rice can keep you full, but it has nothing to do with whether or not you need to eat rice to stay full.

[poedua]

Wow, poedua, your post just screams of poor reading comprehension.

Not at all.

You're the one who seems to have some chronic inability to comprehend even my rather simplistic black and white stance when it comes to violence and discipline.

For the umpteenth time, I don't think there is any circumstance that justifies imposing some form of physical violence upon a defenseless child in an effort to administer discipline. That is my viewpoint - very simple, and very black and white - no exceptions.

If you can't comprehend this simple notion, then I can't help you.


It seems like we've been talking in circles. In fact, we are. This is going nowhere because I keep finding myself having to re-explain everything just when I thought I finally got through to you.

That's because you insist on yapping incessantly on something which has nothing to do with anything I put forward in support of my basic stance on violence and discipline.


I'm going to ignore everything you said just now and pretend as if it never happened. It's apparent that your petty need to break down every sentence of mine and get the "last word" on everything is hindering your ability to comprehend abstract concepts.

Tell you what - forget ' abstract ' concepts and focus on concrete examples. At least provide some examples of why you think my ' no exception stance ' of using violence as a means of discipline is something you can't agree with.

Pick any hypothetical situation / age of child you wish.

Since you disagree with me that that there is never a need to use force in order to achieve discipline..........give me 2 or 3 examples of when YOU THINK there IS A NEED to use force in order to achieve discipline.

I have never experienced - nor can I even remotely envision - any circumstance that justifies imposing some form of physical violence upon a defenseless child in an effort to administer discipline.

If you can think of an example when there IS an unequivocal need to use force - then enlighten me - give me some examples. I keep asking your for examples, and you keep refusing to provide any examples.

Provide some examples that support your notion that there may be a place for violence when disciplining a child.


I actually found your post appalling.

I really couldn't care less.:)



Hint: My post had pretty much nothing to do with whether or not hitting children is wrong, yet that's still what you attempted to argue against :lol:

Well, I happen to think that hitting children is wrong in all cases - no exceptions.

There - you have my stance on this issue.

Now, let's have your stance on this issue.

Do you think hitting children is wrong in all cases ?

YES or NO ?

[poedua]

So in your world, the only reason to discuss anything is to persuade others that you're right and that they should do what you do and think how you think?

Wow...just wow. In my world discussions are had for many reasons, but primarily is simply an exchange of opinions and not at all intended to prove any one way of behaving is wrong.

I really don't know where you get this idea. I'm having a really hard time wrapping my brain around your idea of conversations or discussions in general and I guess that's where we really part ways.

To you there's only one reason to have discussions - to change someone else's behaviour. To me there are many reasons to have discussions, which may or may not include trying to change someone's behaviour...but usually not.

And I think most people would agree that the majority of their conversations have nothing whatsoever to do with changing someone's behaviour, or even someone's opinion. Have you never had a simple exchange of ideas, concepts, opinions etc, without trying to accomplish anything except perhaps seeing a different point of view?

Cuz if not, I see why you're having such difficulty with this concept, but I also feel like you're discussions must most often be pretty confrontational if you have an expected outcome that others don't. Simply put, not all conversations (or conversationalists) have an agenda.:

Well said.

[board123]

Not at all.

You're the one who seems to have some chronic inability to comprehend even my rather simplistic black and white stance when it comes to violence and discipline.

For the umpteenth time, I don't think there is any circumstance that justifies imposing some form of physical violence upon a defenseless child in an effort to administer discipline. That is my viewpoint - very simple, and very black and white - no exceptions.

If you can't comprehend this simple notion, then I can't help you.



That's because you insist on yapping incessantly on something which has nothing to do with anything I put forward in support of my basic stance on violence and discipline.



Tell you what - forget ' abstract ' concepts and focus on concrete examples. At least provide some examples of why you think my ' no exception stance ' of using violence as a means of discipline is something you can't agree with.

Pick any hypothetical situation / age of child you wish.

Since you disagree with me that that there is never a need to use force in order to achieve discipline..........give me 2 or 3 examples of when YOU THINK there IS A NEED to use force in order to achieve discipline.

I have never experienced - nor can I even remotely envision - any circumstance that justifies imposing some form of physical violence upon a defenseless child in an effort to administer discipline.

If you can think of an example when there IS an unequivocal need to use force - then enlighten me - give me some examples. I keep asking your for examples, and you keep refusing to provide any examples.

Provide some examples that support your notion that there may be a place for violence when disciplining a child.

http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n287/maxwellz2000/picard-facepalm.jpg

I'm no longer replying to you, poedua. I've given up on speaking to a wall.

[onexeyed]

I was never "beaten" but I got wacked with coat hangers, smacked in the tush, or got one of those long wooden dowel sticks to the hand a few times usually for little things like spitting in my parents' face, throwing milk across the room, knocking over my parents' red wine on purpose on the brand new carpet, drawing on the walls after the house was redone, stealing matches and trying to burn down trees, and starting a little mini fire outside the house which almost turned into a large fire. I was a little rebel between ages 5-9. My parents sent me to summer or after-school camps to keep myself occupied. That seemed to do the trick.

Looking back on my punishments, I think I deserved it my punishment in some cases - I mean, everyone plays with matches as a kid, right? I never got more than 2 wacks. They never hurt, just stung.

Should parents hit their kids? No. But my parents have apologized for it.

[poedua]

Physical force yields quick results. Its hard to sit down and explain a 5yr old why he shouldn't run behind a moving vehicle, mostly because of his limited understanding

If the 5 year old is behind a moving vehicle you either remove the child out of harms way, or tell / yell at the child to get out of harms way on it's own ( assuming the moving vehicle scenario isn't an imminently dangerous one for some reason of course ).


and your limited patience.

You don't exercise ' patience ' when a child is running behind a moving vehicle - you act - and try to remove them from harms way asap.


A smack in time saves nine!
I do agree that physical force shouldn't be your first choice. However, it shouldn't be a "last resort" either. Use it when you need it.

Which is never - there's never a good reason to use violence on a child IMO.

But that's just me.:)

[poedua]

I'm no longer replying to you, poedua.

I've given up on speaking to a wall.

My, my..........you'll no longer reply to me in this violence / discipline debate ?

How very Sarah ' Palinesque ' of you .;)

Smart move though........when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.

Either way, as I said before..........I really couldn't care less.:cheesygri

[poedua]

Should parents hit their kids? No.

But my parents have apologized for it.

Nice to see your parents realized they'd made a mistake.

[najibs]

If the 5 year old is behind a moving vehicle you either remove the child out of harms way, or tell / yell at the child to get out of harms way on it's own ( assuming the moving vehicle scenario isn't an imminently dangerous one for some reason of course ).



You don't exercise ' patience ' when a child is running behind a moving vehicle - you act - and try to remove them from harms way asap.



Which is never - there's never a good reason to use violence on a child IMO.

But that's just me.:)

I actually agree with you. For once :twisted:

[Lone_Prodigy]

Yes of course it's illegal to deprive a child of necessities of life (though I don't know what that has to do with corporal punishment). To be picky, the term 'cruel and unusual punishment' is a constitutional phrase that addresses actions of governments and government entities only. For real people, it's simply called assault.

And though I find your analogies amusing, I don't know what purpose those comparisions serve except to point out that the parallels are amusing.

I just wanted to say that since poedua equates corporal punishment with "physical violence against a defenseless child" (which bears an illegal connotation bordering on child abuse) then I can employ analogies as well. Tomato, tomato.

[sweet_gal_23]

YEA...somtimes...cos i was a mean spoilt kid..
being eldest..i got what i wanted..which made me..impatient...and greedy:)

i dont mind all that..cos if that was not done..i wud be in a very wrong situation.after all our first teachers are always parents..who hold...experience in life..

i did do the biggest mistake in life..without taking into consideration the warning of parents..and i suffer till date:) but i still take it all as..
u can be never be wise and old..if u werent young and CRAZY!!!

[poedua]

I just wanted to say that since poedua equates corporal punishment with

"physical violence against a defenseless child" (which bears an illegal connotation bordering on child abuse) then I can employ analogies as well. Tomato, tomato.

Just so we're clear.

I've never suggested or even insinuated spanking / corporal punishment is in any way an illegal act and or an act akin to child abuse.

That's your erroneous conclusion - not mine.

[poedua]

YEA...somtimes...cos i was a mean spoilt kid..

being eldest..i got what i wanted..which made me..impatient...and greedy:)

And you can blame your parents for that.;)

[Lone_Prodigy]

Just so we're clear.

I've never suggested or even insinuated spanking / corporal punishment is in any way an illegal act and or an act akin to child abuse.

That's your erroneous conclusion - not mine.

:confused:

You call it "physical violence against a defenseless child", right? Not only that, but you constantly refer to corporal punishment/spanking as such. Why would you call it that if you didn't want to insinuate child abuse? Physical abuse is maltreatment, including striking someone. Child abuse is abuse of a child.

[mgronqui]

Cliff notes anyone?

[board123]

:confused:

You call it "physical violence against a defenseless child", right? Not only that, but you constantly refer to corporal punishment/spanking as such. Why would you call it that if you didn't want to insinuate child abuse? Physical abuse is maltreatment, including striking someone. Child abuse is abuse of a child.
Just do yourself a favor and follow in my footsteps.

http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n287/maxwellz2000/picard-facepalm.jpg

I'm no longer replying to you, poedua. I've given up on speaking to a wall.

[Nikita]

Skipping all the preceding stuff because it's sort of old and irrelevant. If you must need to know some of my thoughts on it, well...
I'm actually quite aware of the different usages of discussion. It just happens that in the context of this particular discussion, people are stating their opinions with the intention of influencing the opinions of others. In this discussion, people are stating their stand on the issue and reasons for why they believe what they believe in. What do you think happens when other people read these? Most people will not just go, "Psht, whatever." They will compare these opinions with their own and sort out the similarities and differences.


How can you possibly say, let alone know, what people's intentions are when voicing their opinions?? What do I think happens when people read these? The reality is I can't possibly know, neither can you. Nor does it matter what people will do in the context of this discussion, because what we're talking about is not what people will do with others' opinions, but why people are saying what they're saying (iow, IYO, it's all being said to change peoples' opinions and behaviours = agenda). But since you ask, my guess is some will pay attention and try to determine for themselves what's right, some will accept a different opinion but not agree with it, some will indeed go "Psht, w/e", some will disagree, some will do nothing at all. So, what exactly is your point? You're going to stick with what you seem to think you know, being what people's intentions are in posting their opinions...which you don't, pure and simple. To say otherwise necessarily implies you have the power to read people's minds....and I'm sure even you know how ridiculous that sounds.

Old and irrelevant? LOL...responding to your post of maybe a few hours earlier at most is hardly old and irrelvant. More like something you wish you hadn't said so you're just ignoring any response to it.



No, this is not a "Hey how's the weather" kind of discussion. I'm not sure where you got the idea that in "my world," all discussions are meant to be confrontational in nature and must have some sort of agenda associated to them. I'm actually quite surprised that I had to write all this stuff out, but whatever... If that's how I come off as to you, then I'm sorry. I can't help it.

I got it from your own comments:

No, poedua never used the word "should," but that word has been implied by the stance itself.

and:


Saying "There's never a good reason to hit a child" is analogous to saying "You shouldn't do it." It is derived from the most fundamental concept of rational logic -- that is, "If A causes B, and you don't want B, then you shouldn't do A." In this context, if there is no good reason to hit a child, and if you are a rational human being, then you should not hit a child.

Just because the word "should" isn't in there doesn't mean the message doesn't exist.
and:


However, that's not the case. poedua is clearly addressing everyone with this opinion because he/she claims to know what's best for every family on this planet.

and:


IMO, poedua's message is quite clear and I don't think I'm just making things up. If poedua's message truly doesn't exist, then why is poedua responding to everyone who supports corporal punishment in such a gung-ho way as to change their minds on the topic?

and:


It just happens that in the context of this particular discussion, people are stating their opinions with the intention of influencing the opinions of others.


The contradiction only exists because you decided to misquote me and put words in my mouth. The bolded/underlined sentence never existed in my post. It's a complete and utter fabrication.
No, there is no contradiction what I actually said (i.e. the real quote):
While the end said:
Just because it works doesn't mean it's needed. Whether or not it works has no bearing on whether or not it's needed. Eating rice can keep you full, but it has nothing to do with whether or not you need to eat rice to stay full.



Wow, now you're really splitting hairs in what appears to be a desperate way to save a failed argument. To paraphrase (not misquote) you're saying we don't know if CP is necessary to long term discipline but 'we do know that it works', when you can't possibly know that! Some people were hit as children, some of those people turned out just fine, so you make the leap that because they turned out just fine, the hitting 'worked'. That's nothing more than a leap....and a huge one at that. It's just like me saying I wasn't hit as a kid and I turned out just fine, so now we know for sure that not hitting works. You're logic is contradictory, flawed and based on nothing except your opinion. The bottom line is we don't know one way or the other that hitting 'works' so you can't say so with any credibility.

And BTW, First of all, I didn't misquote you, I didn't even quote you, I paraphrased you. And read again, it is most certainly not a complete and utter fabrication, at most you may see it as an improper paraphrase, but it sure as hell didn't get pulled out of thin air...:rolleyes:



My, my..........you'll no longer reply to me in this violence / discipline debate ?
How very Sarah ' Palinesque ' of you .;)
Smart move though........when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.
Either way, as I said before..........I really couldn't care less.:cheesygri

+1....some people need to learn to accept that sometimes we're all wrong, and admit when you are. If you can do that, everything you say will at least be listened to as possibly having value. Splitting hairs the way you do to save a lost argument and acting childish with the 'I'm not talking to you anymore' (PARAPHRASED) attitude only shows a lack of credibility for everything you've said before and an inability to continue to defend your position. IOW, that attitude tells me you know you're wrong AND that you can't seem to admit it.

[board123]

How can you possibly say, let alone know, what people's intentions are when voicing their opinions?? What do I think happens when people read these? The reality is I can't possibly know, neither can you. Nor does it matter what people will do in the context of this discussion, because what we're talking about is not what people will do with others' opinions, but why people are saying what they're saying (iow, IYO, it's all being said to change peoples' opinions and behaviours = agenda). But since you ask, my guess is some will pay attention and try to determine for themselves what's right, some will accept a different opinion but not agree with it, some will indeed go "Psht, w/e", some will disagree, some will do nothing at all. So, what exactly is your point? You're going to stick with what you seem to think you know, being what people's intentions are in posting their opinions...which you don't, pure and simple. To say otherwise necessarily implies you have the power to read people's minds....and I'm sure even you know how ridiculous that sounds.
You can tell from the person's tone, diction and behavior.



Old and irrelevant? LOL...responding to your post of maybe a few hours earlier at most is hardly old and irrelvant. More like something you wish you hadn't said so you're just ignoring any response to it.
It was irrelevant by the time you posted because poedua had already admitted to addressing other people, which was what you were focusing on. poedua had already admitted that I was right in saying he/she was addressing other people, so for you to further dwell on my "misunderstanding" is irrelevant and pointless. There was no need to respond to those comments of yours because that discussion was over.



Wow, now you're really splitting hairs in what appears to be a desperate way to save a failed argument. To paraphrase (not misquote) you're saying we don't know if CP is necessary to long term discipline but 'we do know that it works', when you can't possibly know that! Some people were hit as children, some of those people turned out just fine, so you make the leap that because they turned out just fine, the hitting 'worked'. That's nothing more than a leap....and a huge one at that. It's just like me saying I wasn't hit as a kid and I turned out just fine, so now we know for sure that not hitting works. You're logic is contradictory, flawed and based on nothing except your opinion. The bottom line is we don't know one way or the other that hitting 'works' so you can't say so with any credibility.

And BTW, First of all, I didn't misquote you, I didn't even quote you, I paraphrased you. And read again, it is most certainly not a complete and utter fabrication, at most you may see it as an improper paraphrase, but it sure as hell didn't get pulled out of thin air...:rolleyes:
You were completely misquoting me before. Your new paraphrasing of what I said was mostly accurate though. However, that was the old, and this is the new. You're twisting what you originally said in an attempt to recover from your own little mix-up. Your claim was:

At the beginning of this paragraph you say there is no way to prove or disprove that corporal punishment does or doesn't work. At the end you say corporal punishment has been proven to work (which it hasn't at all, but that's just my opinion, not one that's meant to change your behaviour or your opinion, just my opinion). How can both statements possibly stand side by side??
And now, you've changed what you "said" to:

To paraphrase (not misquote) you're saying we don't know if CP is necessary to long term discipline but 'we do know that it works', when you can't possibly know that!......
The bottom line is we don't know one way or the other that hitting 'works' so you can't say so with any credibility.
I guess this is what they call revisionism. You've now omitted the necessity part of the "contradiction" and why it contradicts with my [faulty] claim that CP works.

Even in your new argument, it's still not contradictory because my original explanation still stands -- whether CP is necessary and whether it works are two completely separate issues. I just don't see the contradiction. If it isn't necessary, but it works (let's just pretend it does for now), then the two statements contradict each other? Now, let's say you're right -- that we have no idea whether CP works or not. Does that make CP unnecessary? We don't know, which is my original stance on this. We don't know, which means there exists a possibility that it is.

I just don't understand what contradicts what here... Contradictions can only exist in mutually exclusive items, and these two things are certainly not mutually exclusive.



+1....some people need to learn to accept that sometimes we're all wrong, and admit when you are. If you can do that, everything you say will at least be listened to as possibly having value. Splitting hairs the way you do to save a lost argument and acting childish with the 'I'm not talking to you anymore' (PARAPHRASED) attitude only shows a lack of credibility for everything you've said before and an inability to continue to defend your position. IOW, that attitude tells me you know you're wrong AND that you can't seem to admit it.
I actually think it's a very mature move to simply give up when you know the argument is going nowhere. I don't want to argue for the "childish" intent of disagreeing with others for the sake of disagreeing. I don't have a need to get the last word no matter what. If the discussion is going nowhere because the opposition disagrees with everything regardless of content, then I'm just going to stop talking. I don't think this is childish at all.

In no way do I admit that I am wrong. I simply don't want to argue this with poedua anymore because it's obviously never going to end. If this goes any further like this then I might not want to argue with you either. You accuse me of acting childish for dropping out, but you're the one who seems to be arguing just for the sake of disagreeing with me instead of trying to reach some sort of compromise (if there exists one).

[board123]

Okay...to put an end to this meaningless quarrel of logic and semantics, here's my final stance on this topic, which has been my stance all along buried under the mountain of cryptic text:

We don't know if whether or not corporal punishment is never necessary.

Agree or disagree? (This time it's just your opinion and I won't refute it)

[Nikita]

Originally Posted by Nikita
How can you possibly say, let alone know, what people's intentions are when voicing their opinions??


You can tell from the person's tone, diction and behavior.

Exactly my point. You don't have tone, diction or behaviour here. You don't even have context...



Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikita
Old and irrelevant? LOL...responding to your post of maybe a few hours earlier at most is hardly old and irrelvant. More like something you wish you hadn't said so you're just ignoring any response to it.


It was irrelevant by the time you posted because poedua had already admitted to addressing other people, which was what you were focusing on. poedua had already admitted that I was right in saying he/she was addressing other people, so for you to further dwell on my "misunderstanding" is irrelevant and pointless. There was no need to respond to those comments of yours because that discussion was over.

You're having a problem seeing the distinction between 'addressing other people' (which, everyone does in a conversation obviously, that goes without saying, unless you talk to yourself) and addressing other people 'with the intention of changing their opinions/behaviours'.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikita

And BTW, First of all, I didn't misquote you, I didn't even quote you, I paraphrased you. And read again, it is most certainly not a complete and utter fabrication, at most you may see it as an improper paraphrase, but it sure as hell didn't get pulled out of thin air...


You were completely misquoting me before. Your new paraphrasing of what I said was mostly accurate though. However, that was the old, and this is the new. You're twisting what you originally said in an attempt to recover from your own little mix-up.

No, I'm not twisting anything. Unlike you I admitted I may not have paraphrased you properly and corrected myself. See it's really not that hard to admit when you're wrong, or might have been.


Your claim was:

Quote:
At the beginning of this paragraph you say there is no way to prove or disprove that corporal punishment does or doesn't work. At the end you say corporal punishment has been proven to work (which it hasn't at all, but that's just my opinion, not one that's meant to change your behaviour or your opinion, just my opinion). How can both statements possibly stand side by side??

And now, you've changed what you "said" to:

Quote:
To paraphrase (not misquote) you're saying we don't know if CP is necessary to long term discipline but 'we do know that it works', when you can't possibly know that!......
The bottom line is we don't know one way or the other that hitting 'works' so you can't say so with any credibility.

I guess this is what they call revisionism. You've now omitted the necessity part of the "contradiction" and why it contradicts with my [faulty] claim that CP works.

Nope,again, not revisionism, but admitting I may have inaccurately paraphrased you and correcting myself in case I had.


Even in your new argument, it's still not contradictory because my original explanation still stands -- whether CP is necessary and whether it works are two completely separate issues. I just don't see the contradiction. If it isn't necessary, but it works (let's just pretend it does for now), then the two statements contradict each other? Now, let's say you're right -- that we have no idea whether CP works or not. Does that make CP unnecessary? We don't know, which is my original stance on this. We don't know, which means there exists a possibility that it is.

And now you've changed your stance from 'we know that it works' (and that IS a direct quote of yours) to 'there exists a possibility that it is unnecessary'.



In no way do I admit that I am wrong. I simply don't want to argue this with poedua anymore because it's obviously never going to end. If this goes any further like this then I might not want to argue with you either. You accuse me of acting childish for dropping out, but you're the one who seems to be arguing just for the sake of disagreeing with me instead of trying to reach some sort of compromise (if there exists one).

I have a feeling that 'in no way do [you] ever admit that you're wrong.

Of course I must be disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing. I guess you're the only one who's disagreeing for a legitimate reason. Uh huh.You can tell from the person's tone, diction and behavior...which, again, you don't have here.



Okay...to put an end to this meaningless quarrel of logic and semantics, here's my final stance on this topic, which has been my stance all along buried under the mountain of cryptic text:

We don't know if whether or not corporal punishment is never necessary.

Agree or disagree? (This time it's just your opinion and I won't refute it)

I hate double negatives. Change that to 'we don't know whether or not corporal punishment is ever necessary' and I'll answer correct we don't know that. But since this is not a court of law and I don't have to give just a 'yes' or 'no' answer' I'll add that in the absence of knowing if it works, many people legitimately refuse to use it as a tool for disciplining their children and there is absolutely nothing wrong with holding that position.

[Dash]

good god. is this thread still alive?

and you can totally have tone and dictation here through emoticons. I forgot who it was that was adament about that. :cheesygri :| :D :evil: >:( :-0:mad: :confused: :lol:

how can that be misinterpreted? :rolleyes:

[board123]

Exactly my point. You don't have tone, diction or behaviour here. You don't even have context...
So it's impossible to have those unless you're talking face to face? How can you not have tone? Tone is an an essential part of writing (neutral tone is still tone). How can you not have diction through writing? Writing IS diction. Diction is your choice of words. The only way to have no diction is to not write anything at all. How can you not have behavior? Posting is a behavior in itself. The way you post and the way you respond is behavior. If you don't have behavior, you're not posting. We don't even have context? I guess the title of the thread must be invisible on your browser.

I guess thousands of years of literature is all for naught then.


You're having a problem seeing the distinction between 'addressing other people' (which, everyone does in a conversation obviously, that goes without saying, unless you talk to yourself) and addressing other people 'with the intention of changing their opinions/behaviours'.
I think I'm making this distinction just fine. I've already tried to explain this, but if you don't want to accept my views, that's fine.



No, I'm not twisting anything. Unlike you I admitted I may not have paraphrased you properly and corrected myself. See it's really not that hard to admit when you're wrong, or might have been.

Nope,again, not revisionism, but admitting I may have inaccurately paraphrased you and correcting myself in case I had.
You admitted nothing and now you're trying to act like the golden standard of morality here. You simply reworded your claim without notice and attempted to use that against me, which had the same logical faults as the original. In fact, you even insisted that your original was indeed correct and not mis-paraphrased, if that is such a word. This is what you said in defense of your original claim:

And BTW, First of all, I didn't misquote you, I didn't even quote you, I paraphrased you. And read again, it is most certainly not a complete and utter fabrication, at most you may see it as an improper paraphrase, but it sure as hell didn't get pulled out of thin air...


And now you've changed your stance from 'we know that it works' (and that IS a direct quote of yours) to 'there exists a possibility that it is unnecessary'.
I never changed my stance because both are part of my stance since the start. I already said it earlier, but I'll say it again: they're not mutually exclusive, and they're not directly related. I don't know why you keep insisting that it must be one or the other. They don't have to go hand in hand.



I have a feeling that 'in no way do [you] ever admit that you're wrong.
I'm not going to comment much on this. You could be right. Maybe I never admit I'm wrong. I can't really remember when was the last time I did admit, but there stands the possibility that I have. I don't even know.



Of course I must be disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing. I guess you're the only one who's disagreeing for a legitimate reason. Uh huh.You can tell from the person's tone, diction and behavior...which, again, you don't have here.
We have all of those, and that's the conclusion I came to. Am I wrong? I hope I'm wrong. It would be good if I'm wrong.



I hate double negatives. Change that to 'we don't know whether or not corporal punishment is ever necessary' and I'll answer correct we don't know that. But since this is not a court of law and I don't have to give just a 'yes' or 'no' answer' I'll add that in the absence of knowing if it works, many people legitimately refuse to use it as a tool for disciplining their children and there is absolutely nothing wrong with holding that position.
I agree. If you don't want to hit your own kids, that's fine. You have your own principles and I have no problems with that. Just don't argue that you know what's best for every other kid in the world... or that you can see the future.

[Nikita]

So it's impossible to have those unless you're talking face to face? How can you not have tone? Tone is an an essential part of writing (neutral tone is still tone). How can you not have diction through writing? Writing IS diction. Diction is your choice of words. The only way to have no diction is to not write anything at all. How can you not have behavior? Posting is a behavior in itself. The way you post and the way you respond is behavior. If you don't have behavior, you're not posting. We don't even have context? I guess the title of the thread must be invisible on your browser.

I guess thousands of years of literature is all for naught then.


I think I'm making this distinction just fine. I've already tried to explain this, but if you don't want to accept my views, that's fine.


You admitted nothing and now you're trying to act like the golden standard of morality here. You simply reworded your claim without notice and attempted to use that against me, which had the same logical faults as the original. In fact, you even insisted that your original was indeed correct and not mis-paraphrased, if that is such a word. This is what you said in defense of your original claim:



I never changed my stance because both are part of my stance since the start. I already said it earlier, but I'll say it again: they're not mutually exclusive, and they're not directly related. I don't know why you keep insisting that it must be one or the other. They don't have to go hand in hand.


I'm not going to comment much on this. You could be right. Maybe I never admit I'm wrong. I can't really remember when was the last time I did admit, but there stands the possibility that I have. I don't even know.


We have all of those, and that's the conclusion I came to. Am I wrong? I hope I'm wrong. It would be good if I'm wrong.


I agree. If you don't want to hit your own kids, that's fine. You have your own principles and I have no problems with that. Just don't argue that you know what's best for every other kid in the world... or that you can see the future.

Ugggh, this is really getting old! You're going around and around and around and frankly, I'm bored with your repetition.

If you really believe that the written word gives the same indicators of meaning as the spoken word, you must not socialize much or actually talk to people other than online.

The bolded statement says it all and says there's no point in having a discussion with someone who readily states the ridiculous, that you can't even remember the last time you admitted to being wrong (yes, I realize you were being clever in your wording by NOT saying you're never wrong, but meh, what you did say still says it all.

Your last paragraph is the only sense you've made so far, but even at that, you have to admit that I never did "argue that you know what's best for every other kid in the world... or that you can see the future". You might want to direct that order to someone else.

[poedua]

:confused:

You call it "physical violence against a defenseless child", right?

That's right.


Not only that, but you constantly refer to corporal punishment/spanking as such.

Right again......you're on a roll.


Why would you call it that if you didn't want to insinuate child abuse?

I call it that, because that it what I view it as - i.e "physical violence against a defenseless child"

I am in no way making - nor did I at any time - make any sort of connection between corporal punishment/spanking and child abuse.

You dreamed that gem up all on your own.;)


Physical abuse is maltreatment

Actually, I'd say any form of ' abuse ' is probably a form of maltreatment.


, including striking someone

One human being striking another - usually with the intent to inflict some measure of pain or discomfort - is what I'd probably call a ' violent act '.

However, I don't think you could say all and any ' acts of violence ' are synonymous with being acts of abuse.


Child abuse is abuse of a child.

You have an truly stunning grasp of the obvious and self-evident.

:rolleyes:

[poedua]

+1....some people need to learn to accept that sometimes we're all wrong, and admit when you are. If you can do that, everything you say will at least be listened to as possibly having value.

Splitting hairs the way you do to save a lost argument and acting childish with the 'I'm not talking to you anymore' (PARAPHRASED) attitude only shows a lack of credibility for everything you've said before and an inability to continue to defend your position.

IOW, that attitude tells me you know you're wrong AND that you can't seem to admit it.

Well said.

Couldn't agree more.

[mgronqui]

Well maybe the poster doesn't want to continue the argument since they aren't on the same wavelength and have had enough. Not saying any party is guilty of doing this, but I find it that someone who pushes their opinions with little regard for considering other possibilities off putting.

[poedua]

I agree. If you don't want to hit your own kids, that's fine. You have your own principles and I have no problems with that.

Just don't argue that you know what's best for every other kid in the world... or that you can see the future.

No one is arguing what other people ' should ' do, or arguing they can predict the future.

People - such as myself - are simply giving opinions / arguing on the ' necessity ' of spanking / corporal punishment in order to discipline children.

In my case, I have been crystal clear on my position on this issue. That being, that in my view, there is never a ' necessity ' in using spanking / corporal punishment in order to discipline children - no exceptions. But again, that's just me, that's just my personal opinion.

Others disagree with me, and argue that at times, there is a ' necessity ' - some might even categorize it as an ' inevitability ' - in using spanking / corporal punishment in order to discipline children. Fair enough.

In the interest of getting this discussion back toward the spanking / corporal punishment vs. non-violent forms of discipline debate topic - what is your stance on this issue board123 ?


board123 - would you agree that - at times - there is a ' necessity ' in using spanking / corporal punishment in order to discipline children ?


YES or NO ?

[board123]

If you really believe that the written word gives the same indicators of meaning as the spoken word, you must not socialize much or actually talk to people other than online.
I don't believe that, and never have. The thing is, if you write one thing but actually mean something else, you can't accuse others of understanding what you said. That's why you choose your words carefully and try to represent your ideas the best way you can. It doesn't matter what the spoken word means because these words are not spoken. We're communicating through writing, and how others interpret you depends purely on how you craft your words. If I misunderstood you because you don't actually mean what you wrote, then you can't put the blame on me.


Your last paragraph is the only sense you've made so far, but even at that, you have to admit that I never did "argue that you know what's best for every other kid in the world... or that you can see the future". You might want to direct that order to someone else.
No need to be sly. You and I both know what I meant by that, so all is well.

[poedua]

Well maybe the poster doesn't want to continue the argument since they aren't on the same wavelength and have had enough. Not saying any party is guilty of doing this, but I find it that someone who pushes their opinions with little regard for considering other possibilities off putting.

In this case it's an issue of only 2 alternatives IMO.

Either you endorse the use of spanking / corporal punishment in order to discipline children in at least some cases - or you don't accept spanking / corporal punishment in order to discipline children in ANY cases - i.e. no exceptions.

So, to my way of thinking at least, there are only 2 possibilities which are mutually exclusive you can side with.

[Eyies]

Wow, very heated argument.. but this last page doesn't seem very promising.

Petty breakdown of quotes, picking at sentences, pointing out meaningless contradictions that don't support or disprove anything, and arguing about semantics.

Add a debating forum, to the listing of other subforums that RFD needs (relationship). :lol:

[board123]

Add a debating forum, to the listing of other subforums that RFD needs (relationship). :lol:
I don't approve of this.

[Eyies]

I don't approve of this.

(Not serious.)

It'll just be a breeding ground for trolls and flaming.

[board123]

(Not serious.)

It'll just be a breeding ground for trolls and flaming.
Ban everyone who posts in that section.

[PsioniC]

I now understand where so much of the mentality on this board comes from.

[Lone_Prodigy]

That's right.
Right again......you're on a roll.

I call it that, because that it what I view it as - i.e "physical violence against a defenseless child"

I am in no way making - nor did I at any time - make any sort of connection between corporal punishment/spanking and child abuse.

You dreamed that gem up all on your own.;)

Actually, I'd say any form of ' abuse ' is probably a form of maltreatment.

One human being striking another - usually with the intent to inflict some measure of pain or discomfort - is what I'd probably call a ' violent act '.

However, I don't think you could say all and any ' acts of violence ' are synonymous with being acts of abuse.

You have an truly stunning grasp of the obvious and self-evident.

:rolleyes:

I'm starting to understand why board123 gets so frustrated with you. I'm simply trying to understand why you don't call a spade a spade, only to have you belittle me with your holier-than-thou attitude and condescending emoticons. The reason I state the "obvious and self-evident" is because I do not wish to be misquoted or have you say I took your words out of context. Perhaps I am reading too much into simple words and emotes, but I find it disrespectful and completely irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

Oh, let me guess, this is another one of my "erroneous conclusions", right?

[poedua]

I'm starting to understand why board123 gets so frustrated with you.

So do I. ;)


I'm simply trying to understand why you don't call a spade a spade

But I do.

In fact, I've been crystal clear in both establishing and defending - numerous times - my stance on this issue.


only to have you belittle me with your holier-than-thou attitude and condescending emoticons. The reason I state the "obvious and self-evident" is because I do not wish to be misquoted or have you say I took your words out of context. Perhaps I am reading too much into simple words and emotes, but I find it disrespectful and completely irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

You certainly are IMO - big time.


Oh, let me guess, this is another one of my "erroneous conclusions", right?

I'd say so.

[Nikita]

I don't believe that, and never have. The thing is, if you write one thing but actually mean something else, you can't accuse others of understanding what you said. That's why you choose your words carefully and try to represent your ideas the best way you can. It doesn't matter what the spoken word means because these words are not spoken. We're communicating through writing, and how others interpret you depends purely on how you craft your words. If I misunderstood you because you don't actually mean what you wrote, then you can't put the blame on me.


No need to be sly. You and I both know what I meant by that, so all is well.

Don't believe what? That the spoken word conveys a lot more than the written word? Wow, you really must not have up-close-and-personal conversations much. Even when you 'choose your words carefully and try to represent your ideas the best way you can', there's always going to be fewer indicators of meaning, most especially tone of voice and facial expressions. If you can't agree with that simple concept, then I have to think you're either clueless or trolling, sorry, but I doubt anybody would disagree with that simple statement. And no matter 'how you craft your words', those important elements which convey meaning are still missing.

If you 'misunderstood you [me] because you don't actually mean what you wrote, then you can't put the blame on me" I agree. But that isn't the case here, I said exactly what I meant, you simply misinterpreted it. Why? Well gee, maybe because those important indicators of meaning and context are ALWAYS missing in the written word. And I'm not blaming you or anyone else, I don't even know why you're injecting the concept of blame into the conversation. It's just the nature of conversation that the written word and the spoken word very often come across differently to different people because they simply are not conveyed in the same way nor are they able to be.

Anyway, this has gotten sooooo off-topic and since you've already conceded that you've never admitted you're wrong, like you I see no point to engage with a brick wall (in your words, and appropriately so here)...which is exactly what one is when they can't admit when they're wrong about anything.
It's obviously of utmost importance to you to be 'right' that it colors everything you say AND everything you perceive or understand others to be saying. Sorry for you, cuz there's a lot to be said for being open to other points of view and amenable to admitting other PsOV are sometimes right (meaning yours are necessarily sometimes wrong).

EDIT: Wow, how timely and topical to this discussion. This was posted today in the following thread, totally unrelated to this one:

http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=648772&page=2


Written comments have different meanings depending on who is reading/interpreting them.

and this...same thread:


It's all how you perceive it.
[I]Many non-verbal cues are missing in a forum which are heavily relied upon during face to face communication.

Anyone is entitled to an opinion within forum rules. So don't sweat what you might think is personal when it is someone frankly stating their own opinion.

[pollox]

My boss didn't like something I did at work yesterday so he smacked me in the back of the head.

[board123]

Don't believe what? That the spoken word conveys a lot more than the written word? Wow, you really must not have up-close-and-personal conversations much.
I don't believe this:


If you really believe that the written word gives the same indicators of meaning as the spoken word, you must not socialize much or actually talk to people other than online.
Notice the difference between these two quotes. In the second one (i.e. your previous post), you wondered if I thought "the written word gives the same indicators of meaning," to which I disagreed with. Then, in your follow-up, you thought I actually disagreed with "the spoken word conveys a lot more than the written word" instead of what you originally posted earlier.

So yeah, you just wasted a good 10 minutes writing out this long and well-constructed tirade by misinterpreting the first 7 words of my post. In your own words, I said exactly what I meant, you simply misinterpreted it. Why?

Well gee, because you were too eager to look for something to disagree with that you just had to jump on me the first chance you got. There was no reason for you to make this simple mistake if you actually took the time to see why I responded to your question the way I did, and how the response fits the question.

You, ma'am, are a scholar and a gentlewoman.


Even when you 'choose your words carefully and try to represent your ideas the best way you can', there's always going to be fewer indicators of meaning, most especially tone of voice and facial expressions. If you can't agree with that simple concept, then I have to think you're either clueless or trolling, sorry, but I doubt anybody would disagree with that simple statement. And no matter 'how you craft your words', those important elements which convey meaning are still missing.
Since when did I refer to tone of voice and facial expressions? Of course I agree that those are missing in writing. That's why I said you need to use other indicators such as tone and diction. No, in the context of writing, "tone" does not mean tone of voice. If you deny the existence of tone and diction in writing, then in your words again, you're either clueless or trolling.

I also don't know if I can agree that writing has less indicators than speech. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, and it's not always about quantity over quality.

[Nikita]

I don't believe this:

Notice the difference between these two quotes. In the second one (i.e. your previous post), you wondered if I thought "the written word gives the same indicators of meaning," to which I disagreed with. Then, in your follow-up, you thought I actually disagreed with "the spoken word conveys a lot more than the written word" instead of what you originally posted earlier.

So yeah, you just wasted a good 10 minutes writing out this long and well-constructed tirade by misinterpreting the first 7 words of my post. In your own words, I said exactly what I meant, you simply misinterpreted it. Why?

Well gee, because you were too eager to look for something to disagree with that you just had to jump on me the first chance you got. There was no reason for you to make this simple mistake if you actually took the time to see why I responded to your question the way I did, and how the response fits the question.

You, ma'am, are a scholar and a gentlewoman.


Since when did I refer to tone of voice and facial expressions? Of course I agree that those are missing in writing. That's why I said you need to use other indicators such as tone and diction. No, in the context of writing, "tone" does not mean tone of voice. If you deny the existence of tone and diction in writing, then in your words again, you're either clueless or trolling.

I also don't know if I can agree that writing has less indicators than speech. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, and it's not always about quantity over quality.

Holy hell...lol. If you really think those two sentences of mine DON'T mean the same thing, than you have serious comprehension problems! Or, you're looking so hard for something to distinguish those comments that you can't see the forest for the trees. You've also just proved the point I've been making all along, and which you've been disagreeing with all along...that the written word and the spoken word can, and usually do, convey different meanings.

Annnnnd, this is my last post on this subject, as I said earlier, you're going around and around and around the same old crap, you have nothing new to add, so there's nothing more to respond to. As an aside, have you noticed that in all these pages nobody seems to agree with you? Now that might simply be that those that do haven't bothered posting, or it might be that you simply make no sense. In any event, unless you post something different and interesting, I'm bored with your posts.

[board123]

Holy hell...lol. If you really think those two sentences of mine DON'T mean the same thing, than you have serious comprehension problems!
LOLWUT...?


As an aside, have you noticed that in all these pages nobody seems to agree with you? Now that might simply be that those that do haven't bothered posting, or it might be that you simply make no sense. In any event, unless you post something different and interesting, I'm bored with your posts.
On the flip side, who has agreed with you? poedua? We're the only 3 people posting here. Nobody else dares to agree (and post) with me because they know that you and poedua will just fling the same garbage at them like you've done to me.

Okay, yeah I'm done too. I'm gonna go and work on my reading comprehension skills, thank you very much.

[idk-bart]

Its interesting that some people here think that justified beatings are ok and some people even say that the beatings they received as a result of them being naughty as kids helped them in the long run.

While this is true in some cases, sometimes the beatings become abusive and have a negative effect on the child. of course, while you may know the "proper" way to beat a child, other parents might not.

I'll use myself as an example. I'm from a single parent family with just my dad taking care of me and two older sisters. when i was 7-12 years old my dad would always lecture me about what needs to be done, being responsible, being organized, and planning ahead. being the youngest sibling with everything done for and handed to me for all my life and also my young age i simply wasn't mature enough to understand all that and adjust my behavior accordingly. That was the reason for every single time my dad beat me.

I was not a "naughty" kid. Quite the contrary, I was a very well behaved kid. I never did anything wrong but i also didn't do anything right. I was sort of just cruising through life as a kid without any direction or motivation. This forced my dad to use violence because it didn't matter how many times he lectured to me about how he thought i should be managing my life, I never did what he told me to. keep in mind how young i was at that time.

The beatings were done with a belt most of the time. and to the person that said he/she padded up with extra layers before his/her parent came home to cushion the blow, i laughed because my dad would make me take off my pants so im just in my underwear to make sure i received the full pain. there would be huge bruises all over my back thighs and he hits the same spot several times in a row at full force to make sure i feel maximum pain. at the same time he hits me, he would ask me to recall all the things he's told me to do in the past that i haven't done. i give him the answer he wants to hear but he hits me again anyways.

This, I think, psychologically damaged me. I was, according to my older sister, borderline autistic when i was a child. There was just something not right about me and I'm sure it was because of the severe beatings. Just think about it, my dad beats me so I become emotionally dissociated from him. but i don't have a mother who can comfort me afterward. so I had to hold every confusing or fearful feelings to myself.

I am happy to say I'm a very normal and successful individual today. And I believe that I was able to become mentally healthy again because after 12 years old my dad had to go back to his country for financial reasons. Which means, from that point on, I was living without the pressure of him being around me all the time and i could be myself finally. Of course, now that I'm matured I understand completely where my dad is coming from when he talks to me and we get along just fine; we are like buddies now.

There are some regrets that i have as a result of that chapter of my life though. Sometimes I feel like I've missed out on many things when I was a kid and therefor lacked experience in life. To this day, I'm still working hard to get up to speed with my life.

So the moral of the story is, I was beat for things that I didn't do rather than for things that I've done.

For the people who support giving kids a beating, do you think that is right?

[board123]

For the people who support giving kids a beating, do you think that is right?
In your case, I think your dad stepped a bit too far over the line. I certainly don't see the justification in what happened to you. Fortunately you turned out okay, because it could have been much worse.

With that said, I do believe some kids can use a slap or two. There are some real brats out there as a result of poor parenting. For them, I think corporal punishment should at least be allowed as one method they can try. Whether it's right or wrong is something that's really hard to gauge because there are way too many circumstantial factors that come into play.

I try to stay away from the word "beating" as much as I can because corporal punishment does not have to involve smacking your child with a belt or other blunt objects. It carries with it a very negative connotation and can impede the objectivity of what you're actually trying tos ay.

[poedua]

With that said, I do believe some kids can use a slap or two. There are some real brats out there as a result of poor parenting. For them, I think corporal punishment should at least be allowed as one method they can try. Whether it's right or wrong is something that's really hard to gauge because there are way too many circumstantial factors that come into play..

That's interesting , cause as a parent myself ( in my personal opinion ) I can't think of ANY " circumstantial factors " - NONE - either that I have actually experienced with my 4 kids or that I could even envision that calls for corporal punishment - not one.

Obviously, you think there ARE some cases in which " corporal punishment should at least be allowed "

Under what sort of circumstances do you " believe some kids can use a slap or two " ?

Got any ' hypothetical ' example(s) that illustrate when you think corporal punishment should be allowed ?



I try to stay away from the word "beating" as much as I can because corporal punishment does not have to involve smacking your child with a belt or other blunt objects. It carries with it a very negative connotation and can impede the objectivity of what you're actually trying tos ay.

It's simpler than that IMO.

" Beating " a defenseless child is simply ' wrong ' 100% of time - no exceptions.

[poedua]

That was the reason for every single time my dad beat me.

The beatings were done with a belt most of the time.

my dad would make me take off my pants so im just in my underwear to make sure i received the full pain.

there would be huge bruises all over my back thighs and he hits the same spot several times in a row at full force to make sure i feel maximum pain.

give him the answer he wants to hear but he hits me again anyways.

I'm sure it was because of the severe beatings.

Clearly, you were a victim of child abuse - your dad was an A- hole.

Some people should never be parents IMO.


I am happy to say I'm a very normal and successful individual today.

For the people who support giving kids a beating, do you think that is right?

Glad to hear you've somehow managed to overcome the violent physical and physiological abuse you endured as a child.

Kudos.

And thanks for taking the time to share your story in a such a detailed post - hopefully it will make some people on this forum sit and take notice and hopefully give them pause for thought.

And, it should go without saying - beating a child is reprehensible and unacceptable - it should never be allowed to occur ....no exceptions IMO

[poedua]

while you may know the "proper" way to beat a child, other parents might not.

i simply wasn't mature enough to understand all that and adjust my behavior accordingly.

That was the reason for every single time my dad beat me.

I am happy to say I'm a very normal and successful individual today. And I believe that I was able to become mentally healthy again because

after 12 years old my dad had to go back to ' his country ' for financial reasons.

Which means, from that point on, I was living without the pressure of him being around me all the time and i could be myself finally. Of course, now that I'm matured I understand completely where my dad is coming from when he talks to me and we get along just fine; we are like buddies now.

Curious - when you say " his country " - what country are you referring to ?

[idk-bart]

Curious - when you say " his country " - what country are you referring to ?

Taiwan, I was born there.

[darincm]

Believe it or not, there are no actual definitive tests for any psychiatric illness.
Diagnoses are totally dependent upon what the doctor says (from his estimation of the situation).
Some people call mental illness a chemical imbalance, but it is not. It's just a nice way of putting it.
Anyways, I believe that a lot of kids are put on drugs - including Ritalin - unnecessarily.

really? ever see an MRI of someone who is depressed? it is quite well known now that people who suffer from depression have a serotonin shortage in their brain. once they are put on serotonin, they can actually see the difference in the brain on an MRI.

Hang out with Tom Cruise much?

back on topic..i was beaten with belts, fists, etc & yes it screwed me up for a very long time

and btw...any parent who has to beat a child=failed parent

[Nikita]

That's interesting , cause as a parent myself ( in my personal opinion ) I can't think of ANY " circumstantial factors " - NONE - either that I have actually experienced with my 4 kids or that I could even envision that calls for corporal punishment - not one.

Obviously, you think there ARE some cases in which " corporal punishment should at least be allowed "

Under what sort of circumstances do you " believe some kids can use a slap or two " ?

Got any ' hypothetical ' example(s) that illustrate when you think corporal punishment should be allowed ?



Aww Spidey, don't bother, you've asked her that question a number of times and all she does is dodge it...likely cause she has no answer to it...and never will.

[Jeffo]

I've read the whole thread as this is an interesting discussion. But a lot of the discussion has just been theoretical, so let's do a "case study".



Under what sort of circumstances do you " believe some kids can use a slap or two " ?

Got any ' hypothetical ' example(s) that illustrate when you think corporal punishment should be allowed ?


Part 1)
You have two sons, Billy who's 8, and John who's 7, who got angry over each other about some argument or something. You and your spouse were not there when this started and when you two get to the scene, these two boys are duking it out (ie. punching and kicking each other, screaming, choking, etc.). Basically out of control and obviously too acted up to pay attention to either of you.

What would you do in this situation?

Part 2)
Assume you've managed to split the two boys with you and your spouse each holding one of your sons. But they're still both very angy so both of them turn onto you and your spouse and they start to punch, kick and whatever else to you and your spouse so that both of you would let go of them so that they could continue their fight.

What would you do in this situation?

[board123]

I've read the whole thread as this is an interesting discussion. But a lot of the discussion has just been theoretical, so let's do a "case study".



Part 1)
You have two sons, Billy who's 8, and John who's 7, who got angry over each other about some argument or something. You and your spouse were not there when this started and when you two get to the scene, these two boys are duking it out (ie. punching and kicking each other, screaming, choking, etc.). Basically out of control and obviously too acted up to pay attention to either of you.

What would you do in this situation?

Part 2)
Assume you've managed to split the two boys with you and your spouse each holding one of your sons. But they're still both very angy so both of them turn onto you and your spouse and they start to punch, kick and whatever else to you and your spouse so that both of you would let go of them so that they could continue their fight.

What would you do in this situation?
I don't think there's enough information given here to straight up say, "I would do this and that."

However, if this is all the info you have when you get home, then the first thing is to find out how it all started. Everything that follows will be purely circumstantial.

This is why I don't like "theoretical cases" and why I refuse to give any. They're always circumstantial and it's impossible to judge how well people would handle these issues theoretically.

[poedua]

Part 1)
You have two sons, Billy who's 8, and John who's 7, who got angry over each other about some argument or something. You and your spouse were not there when this started and when you two get to the scene, these two boys are duking it out (ie. punching and kicking each other, screaming, choking, etc.). Basically out of control and obviously too acted up to pay attention to either of you. What would you do in this situation?

You simply pull them apart, take them home, talk to them and then start withdrawing privileges as a consequence of their unacceptable behavior.


Part 2)
Assume you've managed to split the two boys with you and your spouse each holding one of your sons. But they're still both very angy so both of them turn onto you and your spouse and they start to punch, kick and whatever else to you and your spouse so that both of you would let go of them so that they could continue their fight. What would you do in this situation?

My kids did this once a upon a time...it's called a form of temper tantrum....dealt with it dozens of times.

If they start to kick and punch you just hold onto to the kid ( from behind to avoid being kicked ) and immobilize their arms and you tell them you're going to let them go just as soon as they settle down. The key to success is - you have to be willing to wait them out. And also helps if you ask them to scream louder, try and punch and kick harder - as this really ticks them off that you're actually encouraging them - after which they eventually quit pretty quickly.

And as above, you then keep them apart, take them home, talk to them and then start withdrawing privileges as a consequence of their unacceptable behavior.

Dead simple - and no violence on behalf of the parents required either - a piece of cake. .;)

[poedua]

Aww Spidey, don't bother, you've asked her that question a number of times and all she does is dodge it...likely cause she has no answer to it...and never will.

I suspect you're right.;)

( seems board123 is stealing pages right out of Sarah Palin's play book :lol: )

[poedua]

I don't think there's enough information given here to straight up say, "I would do this and that."

O.K........ I'll bite.

What sort of other critical bit(s) of information are missing in the hypothetical examples that were provided that you'd need in order to determine whether corporal punishment is warranted or not ?


However, if this is all the info you have when you get home, then the first thing is to find out how it all started. Everything that follows will be purely circumstantial.

Well, I gave my answer to what I would do ( and have done ) based on the limited information provided in the example. I would never resort to corporal punishment in this example.

Assuming no other info is available apart from what was provided in the example, would you have resorted to corporal punishment ?

YES or NO ?


This is why I don't like "theoretical cases" and why I refuse to give any. They're always circumstantial and it's impossible to judge how well people would handle these issues theoretically.

But in a ' hypothetical case ' - in which YOU can control and assume any additional extenuating circumstances YOU deem appropriate in order to support your answer as to what YOU would do - it's not impossible to say what YOU would do - not what other people would do - but what YOU would do.

It's not impossible to guess what YOU would do when YOU define the circumstances of a given ' hypothetical example ' - in fact, it's dead simple.

[poedua]

.i was beaten with belts, fists, etc & yes it screwed me up for a very long time

and btw...

any parent who has to beat a child=failed parent

Couldn't agree more.

[Nikita]

O.K........ I'll bite.

What sort of other critical bit(s) of information are missing in the hypothetical examples that were provided that you'd need in order to determine whether corporal punishment is warranted or not ?



Well, I gave my answer to what I would do ( and have done ) based on the limited information provided in the example. I would never resort to corporal punishment in this example.

Assuming no other info is available apart from what was provided in the example, would you have resorted to corporal punishment ?

YES or NO ?



But in a ' hypothetical case ' - in which YOU can control and assume any additional extenuating circumstances YOU deem appropriate in order to support your answer as to what YOU would do - it's not impossible to say what YOU would do - not what other people would do - but what YOU would do.
It's not impossible to guess what YOU would do when YOU define the circumstances of a given ' hypothetical example ' - in fact, it's dead simple.

I suspect she can't do that because she doesn't have children. And she probably shouldn't until she thinks these very important issues through. Otherwise she'll be winging it, which is often what leads to hitting out of frustration and anger...and out of not having considered other alternatives or taken a firm stance ahead of time. Not to mention that winging in when raising kids is just bad practice.

[Jeffo]

I don't think there's enough information given here to straight up say, "I would do this and that."

However, if this is all the info you have when you get home, then the first thing is to find out how it all started. Everything that follows will be purely circumstantial.

This is why I don't like "theoretical cases" and why I refuse to give any. They're always circumstantial and it's impossible to judge how well people would handle these issues theoretically.

The question was deliberately made to be as ambiguous as possible so whoever was answering the question could use the ambiguity to their advantage to support their case of why they would handle the situation they like that. But I have given enough information for you to adequately answer the question.

For instance, the question could have been answered as follows:

If my spouse and I got to the scene, because we heard a lot of noise coming from upstairs, and we find Billy choking John (like how Homer chokes Bart in the Simpsons lol), we would try to separate them. But if Billy's choke hold is so strong on John that we can't split them (hypothetical situation, I know), then a smack or two on Billy's arm would loosen his grip enough so we can separate them. It is better to have one child with a sore arm for a few minutes than a dead child and a murderer right?

For part B, I would have done what poedua said and my spouse would be calling 911 as John would probably be lying there unconcious (hypothetical situation)

The point of the question was basically to answer the question in such a way that most people after reading your answer would find what you did reasonable (like a jury). ie. "I would have done the same thing too or something similar in that situation", "that action was necessary under these circumstances", etc.



You simply pull them apart, take them home, talk to them and then start withdrawing privileges as a consequence of their unacceptable behavior.



My kids did this once a upon a time...it's called a form of temper tantrum....dealt with it dozens of times.

If they start to kick and punch you just hold onto to the kid ( from behind to avoid being kicked ) and immobilize their arms and you tell them you're going to let them go just as soon as they settle down. The key to success is - you have to be willing to wait them out. And also helps if you ask them to scream louder, try and punch and kick harder - as this really ticks them off that you're actually encouraging them - after which they eventually quit pretty quickly.

And as above, you then keep them apart, take them home, talk to them and then start withdrawing privileges as a consequence of their unacceptable behavior.

Dead simple - and no violence on behalf of the parents required either - a piece of cake. .;)

This is also a reasonable response to the question.

I think that both viewpoints are reasonable and there may have been slight miscommunication on getting the respective points across. However, since one side shied away from giving a hypothetical situation/answer, they lose some credibility in my opinion. But I think if the two ideas are combined, we would get this as the main point: Children can be disciplined without corporal punishment but that may not be the best way for everyone.

Don't try to argue that point as there is no way anyone can ever prove or disprove that statement as one can only look back on one's actions and never forward.

I think this discussion is over.

[Nikita]

I think this discussion is over.

LOL@thinking this discussion is over. Maybe for you...

[cheeseshredder]

This discussion again...

There are different ways to handle parenting, using physical discipline is one of them. As with another other method, there are advantages and disadvantages. If done properly, physical discipline works, but a lot of people don't do it properly. But then again, those who don't do it properly aren't good enough parents to do it any other way, so it's hopeless to tell them alternative methods of discipline when they're bad parents to begin with.

These debates go no where because these topics attract very stubborn opinions. Why? Because it deals with children, anything that deals with infants, children, and parenting will always be a topic where people are relentlessly stubborn.

With physical discipline, there are tons of ways that it can go wrong. But, you can say that about any other punitive method. This is obvious if you consider how spoiled some kids are. Don't forget that there is also an additional factor that complicates disciplinary methods even more, the child. Every child is different and will respond to things differently. Every child also responds to different people differently, a lot of it is dependent on your personality, your voice, and so on. In a nutshell, there are way too many variables to say that one method is better than another. If your method works, then do it. As I said before, those who screw up badly, will probably screw up regardless of what disciplinary method they use.

In any case, I would wager that if most people put their personal opinions aside, and do some research on the effects of physical discipline, you might find that it's not as bad as you think. If you have a subscription to any academic search indexes, use it and read some psychological studies on the matter. At least then you can avoid using anecdotal "evidence" and personal opinions to support your ideas.

[board123]

Don't try to argue that point as there is no way anyone can ever prove or disprove that statement as one can only look back on one's actions and never forward.
I completely agree. In fact, it seems like I said the exact same thing several pages ago but it got buried under all the other crap. This is why I refuse to give any examples even with the open examples you've given. You can make up all the missing components to the story to suit your response and make it reasonable, but the only way to know if what you did was effective or not is to wait a long time and then look back on the incident. You cannot say, with certainly, that what you do at this instant will be effective down the road and your kids will become better people as a result of what you did.

You can make the assumption that what you do right now is the right thing to do, but that's all it is -- an assumption in a hypothetical scenario involving kids whose behaviors and responses are all according to what you assume. You then do something to them, and then assume that they respond to you in one certain way. Then you do something else and assume their response again. In the end, everything you do turns out to be the right thing, otherwise your entire response would make no sense.

You assume that everything you are doing is the right thing. What does that prove? Absolutely nothing.



I think this discussion is over.
Never assume.


This discussion again...

There are different ways to handle parenting, using physical discipline is one of them. As with another other method, there are advantages and disadvantages. If done properly, physical discipline works, but a lot of people don't do it properly. But then again, those who don't do it properly aren't good enough parents to do it any other way, so it's hopeless to tell them alternative methods of discipline when they're bad parents to begin with.

These debates go no where because these topics attract very stubborn opinions. Why? Because it deals with children, anything that deals with infants, children, and parenting will always be a topic where people are relentlessly stubborn.

With physical discipline, there are tons of ways that it can go wrong. But, you can say that about any other punitive method. This is obvious if you consider how spoiled some kids are. Don't forget that there is also an addition factor that complicates disciplinary methods even more, the child. Every child is different and will respond to things differently. Every child also responds to different people differently, a lot of it is dependent on your personality, your voice, and so on. In a nutshell, there are way too many variables to say that one method is better than another. If your method works, then do it. As I said before, those who screw up badly, will probably screw up regardless of what disciplinary method they use.

In any case, I would wager that if most people put their personal opinions aside, and do some empirical research on the effects of physical discipline, you might find that it's not as bad as you think. If you have a subscription to any academic search indexes, use it and read some psychological studies on the matter. At least then you can avoid using anecdotal "evidence" and personal opinions to support your ideas.
Whoa...a completely reasonable and sensible post? Didn't expect that on a Sunday night. I agree with everything here.

[KineticLogic]

I use to recieve beatings almost every day. Now that I reflect on the past. Never did the same "wrong" thing twice