- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Jan 12
Originally posted by JS357Good post. I agree entirely.
I am not who you asked, but in my 60s, with one daughter in her 30s, who is doing well. I swatted her to get her away from an electrical outlet she was playing with one time, but there no other use of physical force or so-called corporal discipline in her upbringing.
When I was 14 I told my father right after his latest striking of me, that the next time, I ...[text shortened]... s and training in parenting. At least, the ones who are forgiveable, do it for this reason.
Morals and behaviour learned only to avoid threatened punishment will be abandoned the
moment such threat is removed, be it god and hell, or a wrathful parent.
Morals and behaviour learned with the reasons for it and the skills and abilities to understand
and apply that reasoning hold without the need of threats.
I respect my parents hugely, I don't drink, I don't do drugs, I don't get in trouble with the law, or start fights,
and I work hard.... and my parents never used corporal punishment on me.
I intend to follow their fine example if and when I have a family of my own.
10 Jan 12
4 edits
Originally posted by googlefudge
Again, bull****.
First, not all children who respect their parents were 'physically disciplined' by them. (I would say the majority in fact)
Second, not all children 'physically disciplined' by their parents respect their parents.
Third, not all children who were 'physically disciplined' thank their parents for it.
Fourth, 'physically discipl nt, more fair, and safer that society is (than an otherwise comparable theistic society)
Fifth, The more secular a society the less violent, more fair, and safer that society is (than an otherwise comparable theistic society)
BOULDER DAAAAAASH !
Were you asleep throughout the 20th Century ?
Ever hear of Hitler's Germany , Stalin's Soviet Union, Pol Pot's Cambodia ?
I know, I know, Hitler was a Fundamentalist Catholic Christian. Why should I even bother.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
10 Jan 12
Originally posted by jaywill
The first sentence in that post read like this:
As with most things there are extremes on either side. One should not fall into either extreme.
My real purpose was to tell a very sad and true story of the wrong kind of "love" which failed to control a kid's wild behavior.
If the life could have been saved without spankings, tha ...[text shortened]... 's OK by me. I think that is great. If spankings could have played a part, that is good too.
If the life could have been saved without spankings, that's OK by me. I think that is great. If spankings could have played a part, that is good too.
Sure. In an earlier situation, she finds that he has been hitting or threatening littler (read: helpless) kids. While spanking her helpless little boy, she says, "This'll teach you not to use violence on helpless kids!" Whack!
10 Jan 12
Originally posted by jaywillWell I suppose. Still sounds like you're trying to support corporal punishment though, which I just think is wrong. What makes you think that somebody who so clearly wasn't able to fulfil her role as parent in any remotely adequate way would have utilised corporal punishment 'correctly' though?
The first sentence in that post read like this:
As with most things there are extremes on either side. One should not fall into either extreme.
My real purpose was to tell a very sad and true story of the wrong kind of "love" which failed to control a kid's wild behavior.
If the life could have been saved without spankings, tha ...[text shortened]... 's OK by me. I think that is great. If spankings could have played a part, that is good too.
10 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatnv
Well I suppose. Still sounds like you're trying to support corporal punishment though, which I just think is wrong. What makes you think that somebody who so clearly wasn't able to fulfil her role as parent in any remotely adequate way would have utilised corporal punishment 'correctly' though?
10 Jan 12
Originally posted by JS357The idea is that if you hit him on the behind you might just save him from worse consequence in the future.If the life could have been saved without spankings, that's OK by me. I think that is great. If spankings could have played a part, that is good too.
Sure. In an earlier situation, she finds that he has been hitting or threatening littler (read: helpless) kids. While spanking her helpless little boy, she says, "This'll teach you not to use violence on helpless kids!" Whack!
A cop won't hit him on the butt. The cop will probably aim for the skull.
Maybe he didn't read Dr. Spock, you see.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Jan 12
Originally posted by jaywillI said an 'otherwise comparable theistic society'.Fifth, The more secular a society the less violent, more fair, and safer that society is (than an otherwise comparable theistic society)
BOULDER DAAAAAASH !
Were you asleep throughout the 20th Century ?
Ever hear of Hitler's Germany , Stalin's Soviet Union, Pol Pot's Cambodia ?
I know, I know, Hitler was a Fundamentalist Catholic Christian. Why should I even bother.
You just named a load of totalitarian dictatorships, what theistic societies do you think were otherwise comparable?
And my evidence is numerous studies (I have linked before) looking at pretty much ever social indicator you can think of
(alcoholism violence poverty ect) and plotting them against levels of secularism and across the board the more secular
the nation the better it did.
It even applied within countries (say looking at different states/regions in the USA) where large variations in the level
of theosity between different areas.
And yes, claiming Hitler was an atheist is pretty dim. He wasn't, and the relevant factor is that he was a fascist.
OTT political philosophies can indeed do just as much damage as religious ones, regardless of theistic belief.
The fact that I (and many other atheists) claim that religions do a lot of harm, doesn't mean that religions are the only
things that do harm.
10 Jan 12
Originally posted by avalanchethecatSorry. It means never mind.
nv?
Raising kids is a kind of personal thing.
Staying in touch with others who are in the same experience or who are a little more experienced, I think is helpful.
I have no "THOU SHALT SPANK" laws.
The example you set is probably the biggest factor.
You ARE going to make mistakes no matter what.
I applied a lot of prayer in my raising my family.
I have custody of some kids now - ages 4 - 12. Three.
My own kids are now in their low 30s.
I'd tell you how old I was but I had to Carbon Date my birth certificate last time someone asked.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
10 Jan 12
Originally posted by jaywill
Sorry. It means never mind.
Raising kids is a kind of personal thing.
Staying in touch with others who are in the same experience or who are a little more experienced, I think is helpful.
I have no "THOU SHALT SPANK" laws.
The example you set is probably the biggest factor.
You ARE going to make mistakes no matter what.
I applied a ...[text shortened]... tell you how old I was but I had to Carbon Date my birth certificate last time someone asked.
I have custody of some kids now - ages 4 - 12. Three.
You are to be commended for your concern in the upbringing of the next generation.
Would you care to describe the frequency and nature of the spankings, and the frequency of warnings or threats of spankings, that occur, for each of these children? Also, the nature of the infractions that merit, or would merit, such spankings?
Also is this custody under the supervision of a child welfare agency such as a foster care program?
Do you know if your own kids do, or will, use spankings?
I don't want to pry, so it's OK to say no thanks.
10 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillYou mean "school principal". Remember: the principal is your "pal".
As with most things there are extremes on either side. One should not fall into either extreme.
A very sad story was personally told to me by a [b]school priniciple in Boston, Mass. USA. There was a woman with son whom she never disciplined. When he got in trouble in school she would go and fight with the teachers. She stuck up for the child no matte ...[text shortened]... l punishment is always the answer. But if you love your child you have to discipline your child.[/b]
Beyond that, I think you are missing the point. RB/RJH were conflating discipline with corporal punishment. And you are apparently doing the same here. But whether or not corporal punishment justifiably belongs in a regimen of discipline would be the relevant issue.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Jan 12
Originally posted by jaywillRaising kids is indeed a personal thing.
Sorry. It means never mind.
Raising kids is a kind of personal thing.
Staying in touch with others who are in the same experience or who are a little more experienced, I think is helpful.
I have no "THOU SHALT SPANK" laws.
The example you set is probably the biggest factor.
You ARE going to make mistakes no matter what.
I applied a ...[text shortened]... tell you how old I was but I had to Carbon Date my birth certificate last time someone asked.
But that doesn't mean that while there may be no perfect, fits all circumstances, ways of doing it,
that there are not objectively and demonstrably wrong ways of doing it.
It's like chess, you can have several grand masters look at a board and all decide to make a
different move, but the fact that they didn't agree on what the best move is doesn't mean that
there aren't really, and objectively, bad moves, that they would all agree are Not the best move.
I consider corporal punishment for kids, ie striking them for punishment, to be a universally bad move.
And the fact that I can't tell you what the absolute best move is, doesn't mean I am not justified an
claiming that as a bad one.
(my one caveat is that sometimes very young kids can go into screaming tantrums where they are not
paying any attention to you or the rest of the world at all... I don't have a problem in that situation with
mild slap on the backside to get their attention back on you and back on reality.
However striking a child as a punishment (come into the hall so I can hit you with my cane style of thing)
is absolutely abuse and should never be contemplated.)
10 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillDouble Post. 😕
As with most things there are extremes on either side. One should not fall into either extreme.
A very sad story was personally told to me by a [b]school priniciple in Boston, Mass. USA. There was a woman with son whom she never disciplined. When he got in trouble in school she would go and fight with the teachers. She stuck up for the child no matte ...[text shortened]... l punishment is always the answer. But if you love your child you have to discipline your child.[/b]