Trial for Dad who paddled son.

[Gan]

The question of whether paddling a youngster is child abuse likely will be decided by a jury.


The child-abuse case involving a Poynette pastor who paddled his son hard enough to cause bruises as a form of discipline is headed for trial.
Barry W. Barnett Jr., 43, stood mute Thursday on a charge of felony physical abuse of a child after he appeared at a preliminary hearing.
Judge Daniel George entered a not guilty plea for Barnett after he ruled that the case will continue, saying that cases must head to trial when there is conflicting evidence about whether a felony was committed.


"It is the jury that will have the ultimate decision in this case," George said.
Barnett allegedly used a paddle - described as two feet long, four inches wide and 3/4 inch thick - to strike the boy on the buttocks twice - once on each cheek - on June 4, according to a criminal complaint. Barnett struck hard enough to cause purplish bruises about four inches in width, the complaint stated.


A jury trial date has not been set.


http://portagedailyregister.com/news/49a11bd6-a139-11dd-840c-001cc4c03286.html
__________________________________________________ ______


https://webspace.utexas.edu/warnerwt/picard-facepalm.jpg

[Kitsun]

Wow. So if he's found guilty, can he sue the state for not providing a manual on how to raise a child? When did the government start raising our kids for us?

[Moist Happenings]

Nanny State
A government perceived as having excessive interest in or control over the welfare of its citizens, especially in the enforcement of extensive public health and safety regulations.


We take things WAAAAY to far lately with all this bullshit. I mean, when I was a kid I got excessive beatings for doing anything remotely worthy of discipline, and that was taking it too far, but we're so far in the other direction now that anytime a parent even so much as threatens a kid with a beating they're wise enough to say "IF YOU TOUCH ME I'M CALLING DYFS (or DHS in some states) AND YOU'LL GO TO JAIL!". We need to get back to that middle ground somewhere. This country is seriously lacking in discipline and accountability and I really think that's going to show as this next generation gets older.

[TheEschaton]

I'm all for corporal punishment for kids when they misbehave. Strangely, none of my girlfriends have ever agreed.

[Moist Happenings]

I'm all for corporal punishment for kids when they misbehave. Strangely, none of my girlfriends have ever agreed.

Pssht, well if you didn't beat them so much they might see your side of things. Geez.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm all for hitting girls, but unless you say "Who's your daddy?!" afterwards it's just going too far. :grin:

[Nieninque]

I'm probably somewhat biased in all this, but I just dont get the arguments for corporal punishment.

"I used to get beat and it didnt do me any harm"
"It's the only way they learn"
"Kids need discipline"

All complete bollocks (although the last one isnt complete bollocks, except when used as a justification for physical assault/abuse/coporal punishment).

If you are at work and you make a mistake, is it OK for your boss to give you a slap round the head, to teach you a better way of doing something? Of course not.

Are you justified in beating up your partner because they overcooked the eggs that morning? They need to learn right? Of course not.

So why the fuck do people think it's OK to mistreat the most vulnerable group in society as a means of teaching them something?

I'm not into letting kids do whatever they want to do, but I just don't see that causing injury to them, constitutes any kind of protective or responsible parenting.

In the UK, it is lawful for parents to use "physical chastisement". Causing any injury crosses the fine line between "reasonable chastisement" and assault.
Suck it up.

[TheEschaton]

The difference, Nien, is that children don't understand reason. They only understand things dogs would understand, like getting their ass slapped enough to learn a lesson.

[Nieninque]

The difference, Nien, is that children don't understand reason. They only understand things dogs would understand, like getting their ass slapped enough to learn a lesson.

Maybe your children would have that level of thought. Most children are quite able to respond to positive methods of behaviour management, provided it is used appropriately and consistently.

Interestingly, the same arguments as yours have been used to condone mistreatment of Black people, women, disabled people and people with mental health problems in the past.

Luckily, we eventually realised that was wrong.

[Moist Happenings]

The difference, Nien, is that children don't understand reason. They only understand things dogs would understand, like getting their ass slapped enough to learn a lesson.

I was JUST about to post something to this effect before I saw that you already had. It sounds terrible to make that comparison, but really it's true.

My father for instance put an electrified fence around the edge of his dog kennel (Yes, I have a problem with keeping your dogs kenneled up no matter how big the kennel is, and his was like half an acre, but that's a different argument), turned it on for one day. He let the dogs get shocked once, and then never turned the fence on again. Those dogs never went anywhere near the edge of that fence ever again.

Children respond the same way. You don't have to beat them regularly, every time they do something wrong, but if you give them a few smacks early on, they learn that action = consequence, and they think twice before they do it again. If you never get it into their head that there's some consequence for their actions, and get it in there early, they will push the limit and in many cases go over it.

Yes, it's possible to express this without hitting them, but it's much more effective, and quicker if you do give 'em a few slaps.

[Keller]

The difference, Nien, is that children don't understand reason. They only understand things dogs would understand, like getting their ass slapped enough to learn a lesson.

Kids understand discipline.

A time-out or other prohibition is equally devestating as physical punishment.

With that said -- I intend to reserve spankings for times when my kids do seriously bad shit (ie - I spanked my niece when she ran toward the road after I told her not to go near it -- she was pushing boundries, but she also needed to know how serious I was).

At the same time -- I didn't bruise her butt and I'm not sure how I feel about using that much force.

[Moist Happenings]

Interestingly, the same arguments as yours have been used to condone mistreatment of Black people, women, disabled people and people with mental health problems in the past.


You're talking about extreme cases, and also cases which involve more malice and disrespect than a genuine desire to produce a positive effect. When I was a kid, I bit my nails constantly. How did I stop myself? I put a rubber band around my wrist, and every time I realized I was biting my nails, I snapped the rubber band and gave myself a little jolt. Could I have stopped without hurting myself? Probably. Would I have been able to stop it as quick as I did? Absolutely not. Did it cause any huge amount of trauma in my life because I snapped a rubber band on myself? No, of course not. Why? Because it wasn't excessive.

If every time I bit my nails I bashed my head into a wall, that would be excessive, and cause me lasting emotional and physical pain, but a little snap every now and then does nothing to harm me, and after a while, it's not needed at all.

[ElanthianSiren]

I tend to see a difference between spanking your kid and bruising your kid.

Children need varying levels of discipline. For some, just knowing a parent is displeased is enough. For others, they occasionally need that jolt. IMO I can't think of a reason why a child needs a big enough jolt to bruise their body.

[TheEschaton]

I would never advocate for a slap that was hard enough to leave a bruise. Maybe a red mark for 10 minutes, but that's it.

Edit: And never a closed fist. This case in particular I would probably be against, if he paddled his child with a real ass paddle.

[Nieninque]

Yes, it's possible to express this without hitting them, but it's much more effective, and quicker if you do give 'em a few slaps.

You can use this reasoning to justify the use of force against anyone else in the world. Why are children the only people who are not protected against this warped logic?

[TheEschaton]

Because children aren't as innocent as people would like to believe they are.

[Moist Happenings]

I would never advocate for a slap that was hard enough to leave a bruise. Maybe a red mark for 10 minutes, but that's it.

Edit: And never a closed fist. This case in particular I would probably be against, if he paddled his child with a real ass paddle.

Agreed.

There was probably a bit of excessive force used in this case, but excessive enough to send him to jail or take his kid away? I mean, come on. That's the same thing we're arguing against.

Spank your kid, leave a bruise. - Excessive.
Leave a bruise, send you to jail, take your children away. - Excessive.

[Moist Happenings]

You can use this reasoning to justify the use of force against anyone else in the world. Why are children the only people who are not protected against this warped logic?

Because we both live in nanny states and people that take things to extremes ruin good practices for the general populace.

Edited to add: I don't think anyone would argue that the way we handled World War II was incorrect. Without going into convoluted details about the situations that arose to cause it, Hitler did something bad, we smacked him in the face until he either realized what he did was wrong, or died. Just so happens he died first. Granted, one could make the argument that the way we ended World War I lacked the positive reinforcement after the discipline to prevent it from happening again, which is an argument I've made in other threads, but on a grand scale, World War II broke out, we doled out some discipline, and then we positively reinforced it. Reinforced it to the point that we're now allies with all of the axis countries. Action = Consequence, and I don't think we'll be having to discipline Germany, Japan, or Italy again anytime soon.

If World War II broke out and we all went to Germany and said "Alright. Now you just listen here. You're in a timeout. Leave Poland alone.", the response would have been largely what we experienced in Bosnia. In Bosnia we attempted to stop a conflict without force. Yeah. That worked out great. We said "You can't buy weapons! What do you think of that?" and they said "Works for us. You already let us have these nifty tanks. Now the people we're trying to wipe out can't arm themselves. Thanks UN!"

[Nieninque]

You're talking about extreme cases, and also cases which involve more malice and disrespect than a genuine desire to produce a positive effect.

Please don't tell me what I'm talking about, because you have no clue.
You can talk about what you understand from what I'm saying, but you would be wrong in that too.

I was talking about the historical justification of abuse against other people. It is within the last hundred years that women have been protected from abuse using your fucked up reasoning (i.e. "it's the only way they learn"). Black people and disabled people have similarly only relatively recently been protected from abuse from others who felt that a slap or a beating or a whipping was the only way they learn.

We came to the understanding that they are actually quite able to respond to other behaviour management strategies and ways of learning and therefore outlawed assault against them. The only group of people we currently allow to be assaulted as a way of teaching, are the most vulnerable: children.


When I was a kid, I bit my nails constantly. How did I stop myself? I put a rubber band around my wrist, and every time I realized I was biting my nails, I snapped the rubber band and gave myself a little jolt. Could I have stopped without hurting myself? Probably. Would I have been able to stop it as quick as I did? Absolutely not. Did it cause any huge amount of trauma in my life because I snapped a rubber band on myself? No, of course not. Why? Because it wasn't excessive.

That is probably the stupidest argument you have put forward for anything. Grats.


If every time I bit my nails I bashed my head into a wall, that would be excessive, and cause me lasting emotional and physical pain, but a little snap every now and then does nothing to harm me, and after a while, it's not needed at all.

Please continue to beat your head against a wall. It might eventually knock some sense into you.

[Nieninque]

Because children aren't as innocent as people would like to believe they are.

An argument used by paedophiles the world over.

[AnticorRifling]

Pain retains. You tell the kid the fire/stove/etc is hot as nice as you want, it takes getting a 2nd degree burn to send it home.

I say put them in burlap sacks and beat them with reeds.

[Nieninque]

Because we both live in nanny states and people that take things to extremes ruin good practices for the general populace.

Edited to add: I don't think anyone would argue that the way we handled World War II was incorrect. Without going into convoluted details about the situations that arose to cause it, Hitler did something bad

Ching Ching, thread dead.

[Sean]

I'm not a parent and don't have any experience raising children. But my opinion after reading the article is that it seems ridiculous to send this to trial.

[Moist Happenings]

Ching Ching, thread dead.

How is it a dead thread? You equated disciplining children to a grander scale when you lumped it in with the mistreatment of women, blacks, and the mentally challenged. I just escalated it a little further to make the same point we were arguing on a smaller scale initially. This is still well on topic, and if you do have an argument against what I said, I'd like to hear it. Obviously your opinion differs, I'm just giving you a grander scale idea on why mine is the way it is.

Additionally, you make an argument against "assault" as you say on children, or anyone, it seems, under any circumstance. Yes, I agree that under a lot of circumstances, forceful disciplinary action isn't needed, or intelligent, but in extreme cases to get the point across it is the most effective method if not taken too far. The point I am trying to make is that if nobody ever smacked anyone else on the wrist for doing something stupid, you'd be speaking German, the Jews and any other minorities in your area would be dead, and Bosnia would be a war torn wreck of a country with a large part of its population having been killed. Oh wait, it is. Because we didn't do anything to stop it.

What the initial post doesn't state is the reason for the disciplinary action. If that father beat his kid for spilling his milk on the table, yeah, send him to jail, take his kids away. If that kid (I'm using an example from real life - My youngest half brother) in playing with his kitten tossed it up and down in the air and then dropped it, causing its death after being warned several times to be gentle with it, beat his fucking ass until he understands.

[Nieninque]

How is it a dead thread?

Godwins law

[Nieninque]

The point I am trying to make is that if nobody ever smacked anyone else on the wrist for doing something stupid, you'd be speaking German, the Jews and any other minorities in your area would be dead, and Bosnia would be a war torn wreck of a country with a large part of its population having been killed.

Your argument is stupid.
You are stupid.
Beware no-one tries to teach you better.

[Moist Happenings]

Godwins law

"However, Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction or diversion, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's Law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons.[7]"

Tell me how my comparisons aren't appropriate instead of just calling me stupid.


Your argument is stupid.


Why's that? Because you can't come up with a valid counterargument aside from "Lol ur dumb"?

[Nieninque]

However, Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction or diversion, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's Law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons.[7]

Tell me how my comparisons aren't appropriate instead of just calling me stupid.

This case is stupid. Parents should be able to paddle their kids.
Paddling kids is harmful and shouldnt be allowed.
I put an elastic band on my wrist and pinged it to stop myself biting my nails.
What about Hitler? And Bosnia?

See?

R E T A R D E D

[Faent]

Kids understand discipline. A time-out or other prohibition is equally devestating as physical punishment.

Keller has said something true.

[Moist Happenings]

This case is stupid. Parents should be able to paddle their kids.
Paddling kids is harmful and shouldnt be allowed.
I put an elastic band on my wrist and pinged it to stop myself biting my nails.
What about Hitler? And Bosnia?

See?

R E T A R D E D

Thank you for regurgitating the general comparisons from my argument and saying " R E T A R D E D" without giving any basis for your reasoning.

So in summation, your argument against my points are:

"lol ur dumb"

and

"R E T A R D E D"

Yes?

Okay, just making sure.

[TheEschaton]

For many kids, timeout is NOT equally devastating. Fuck timeout, that shit was easy.

[Moist Happenings]

For many kids, timeout is NOT equally devastating. Fuck timeout, that shit was easy.

Also in a lot of cases it has been tried before any sort of physical discipline came into effect. Maybe this father tried several times with the timeout route to get a desired effect, it wasn't working, and he escalated it to the next level to reinforce his point.

Whether or not the point he was trying to make was worth physical discipline, and whether or not he tried anything else first remains unseen in this case though.

I mean, if it comes out later that the reason for the father beating his kid was because he cut his sister purposely with a rusty knife after being warned and scolded (Yeah. I've seen this too.), he'd have been lucky to get away without bleeding, much less just bruises.

[Atlanteax]

Nothing like that "Oh SHIT, I shouldn't had done that" moment when you see the belt being brought out.

Corporal punishment... *works*.

No Pain (ie "timeout") means that the deterence factor dissipates quickly over the short-term.

[Moist Happenings]

Nothing like that "Oh SHIT, I shouldn't had done that" moment when you see the belt being brought out.

Corporal punishment... *works*.

No Pain (ie "timeout") means that the deterence factor dissipates quickly over the short-term.

Exactly. And it gets to the point where if you see your father going to his closet for ANY reason while you're doing something that might be construed as bad, you get that thought in your head that maybe you're doing something you shouldn't, and you straighten the fuck up whether his intentions were to get that belt or just change his pants.

[Nieninque]

Also in a lot of cases it has been tried before any sort of physical discipline came into effect. Maybe this father tried several times with the timeout route to get a desired effect, it wasn't working, and he escalated it to the next level to reinforce his point.

What if the beating didn't work? Would you escalate it again? Where would you say "enough is enough"?


Whether or not the point he was trying to make was worth physical discipline, and whether or not he tried anything else first remains unseen in this case though.

I mean, if it comes out later that the reason for the father beating his kid was because he cut his sister purposely with a rusty knife after being warned and scolded (Yeah. I've seen this too.), he'd have been lucky to get away without bleeding, much less just bruises.

And for this reason, as well as the obvious gene pool issues, I hope you never have children.

[Keller]

For many kids, timeout is NOT equally devastating. Fuck timeout, that shit was easy.

Not everyone lives in TheE's imaginary world and can entertain themselves at the age of 5 by dreaming of communist utopia.

[Moist Happenings]

What if the beating didn't work? Would you escalate it again? Where would you say "enough is enough"?

The next step if physical discipline doesn't work is a psychiatrist. If you get pushed to the point where you have to use physical discipline (and I'll agree that this is a last resort), and it doesn't work, it doesn't make any sense to continue along the same road, because you're not going to achieve the desired effect. In most cases however, this is the step that finally does achieve results when others haven't. Beyond this step there are usually emotional or mental disabilities involved, and it requires professional help.

[Nieninque]

Exactly. And it gets to the point where if you see your father going to his closet for ANY reason while you're doing something that might be construed as bad, you get that thought in your head that maybe you're doing something you shouldn't, and you straighten the fuck up whether his intentions were to get that belt or just change his pants.

Lawls...agreeing with Bad-tie is a bad sign.


Thank you for regurgitating the general comparisons from my argument and saying " R E T A R D E D" without giving any basis for your reasoning.

So in summation, your argument against my points are:

"lol ur dumb"

and

"R E T A R D E D"

Yes?

Okay, just making sure.

No, my argument against your points so far have been that they are ridiculous.
You have offered a bizarre example that you are too weak-willed to stop biting your nails without some form of masochistic Pavlovian trigger that you yourself administered and has nothing to do with the use of violence against a weaker or more vulnerable person. You then went on to talk about the second world war, which also has nothing to do with physical chastisement and then you use the situation of Bosnia as some sort of warped reasoning as to why physical chastisement is essential. None of it is relevant. The fact that you think it is, was my point.

[Gan]

I tend to see a difference between spanking your kid and bruising your kid.

Children need varying levels of discipline. For some, just knowing a parent is displeased is enough. For others, they occasionally need that jolt. IMO I can't think of a reason why a child needs a big enough jolt to bruise their body.

It would also need to be considered as to how easily the child bruises. There are medical conditions that allow for bruises to easily occur without any trauma occurring to the body . Presence of body fat is also a contributor in how easily bruising can occur.

With regards to corporal punishment and children. There is an age where the child learns to reason, which varies with each child. Whats effective for me as a parent is the sudden shout and sudden smack on the ass as a combined instance where strong negative reinforcement is required. Like the time my 5 year old decided it was ok to run into the street after a ball without looking or asking for help from an adult.

There are also times where negative reinforcement can be non-corporeal in nature and be just as effective. A lot depends on the situation and the child... and the parent.

As a rule, a parent has to be smarter than the child in order to undertake non-corporeal punishment as a means of reinforcing their children.

And then there are circumstances where nothing will suffice but a good ass whipping. I seem to recall being a very challenging child and the several severe beatings I received for doing some really stupid life endangering stunts. You tap that ass enough and you'll definitely reinforce the lesson needing learning.

A child's intellect will only go so far in teaching life's lessons to. I knew many smart people who spent time locked up for doing stupid things. The punishment needs to fit the attitude of the convicted (in terms of child rearing). Things that probably could have been reinforced differently when they were younger might have had a different outcome when the person got old enough to be locked up for said behavior.

[Nieninque]

It would also need to be considered as to how easily the child bruises. There are medical conditions that allow for bruises to easily occur without any trauma occurring to the body . Presence of body fat is also a contributor in how easily bruising can occur.

This is true, however those medical conditions are few and far between (i.e. I havve yet to come across someone who has it, in spite of parental claims that they do). It is also quite difficult to bruise the buttocks, so that would have had to have been a hell of a smack.


As a rule, a parent has to be smarter than the child in order to undertake non-corporeal punishment as a means of reinforcing their children.


And therein lies the problem.

[Nieninque]

The next step if physical discipline doesn't work is a psychiatrist. If you get pushed to the point where you have to use physical discipline (and I'll agree that this is a last resort), and it doesn't work, it doesn't make any sense to continue along the same road, because you're not going to achieve the desired effect. In most cases however, this is the step that finally does achieve results when others haven't. Beyond this step there are usually emotional or mental disabilities involved, and it requires professional help.

I work with a ton of families that use physical chastisement and their children behave horribly.
How does that work? I thought a good beating was better than all?

[Moist Happenings]

No, my argument against your points so far have been that they are ridiculous.
You have offered a bizarre example that you are too weak-willed to stop biting your nails without some form of masochistic Pavlovian trigger that you yourself administered and has nothing to do with the use of violence against a weaker or more vulnerable person. You then went on to talk about the second world war, which also has nothing to do with physical chastisement and then you use the situation of Bosnia as some sort of warped reasoning as to why physical chastisement is essential. None of it is relevant. The fact that you think it is, was my point.

You likened legitimate physical discipline of children to abuse of minorities, and women, in which the excuse of "physical discipline" was just that. An excuse. Not a legitimate route to take to achieve a desired effect.

I never said that I was too weak-willed to stop biting my nails without some sort of physical reinforcement. I merely pointed out that it was easier and quicker to achieve that desired effect.

The second World War, or any conflict is just the same argument on a grander scale. It too has potential for excessive use and abuse, such as in Sierra Leone, or Bosnia.

The point I was making regarding Bosnia was again, the same argument on a grander scale:

World War II breaks out -> America says "You should stop that" -> America says "No. Seriously. You should stop that, or else." -> America enters war -> Eventually, problem solved.

Bosnian Conflict breaks out -> UN says "You should stop that." -> Bosnia says "Or else what?" -> UN says "Or I shall taunt you a second time." -> Conflict never resolved.

Father warns his child not to do something stupid -> Child continues to do something stupid. -> Father gives his child a timeout. -> Child continues to do something stupid. -> Father gives child a smack on the behind. -> Child stops doing something stupid.

Or in some cases:

Father warns his child not to do something stupid -> Child continues to do something stupid. -> Father gives his child a timeout. -> Child continues to do something stupid. -> Father gives child a smack on the behind. -> Child continues to do something stupid. -> Father has exhausted his options, and takes child to see a professional.


Do you disagree with this process on the whole?

Edited to add:

And in a lot of cases it doesn't have to come to physical discipline. You never get past that step where the father warns the child not to do something stupid, or the step where the child gets a timeout, or gets some of his toys taken away. This case isn't really descriptive enough for us to see the whole picture. If the father's first step was to hit the kid, then he's wrong, and should be tried by jury.

[AnticorRifling]

Tell them you're going to count to 3 and then smack them when you get to 2 for waiting.

[Gan]

And therein lies the problem.

Which is why I think would-be parents should be required to pass a test before having children. ;)


Dont get me wrong. Everything is useful in moderation. I know kids who never had a hand laid on them but were so fucked up from mental abuse by their parents that they are a lost cause. It works both ways.

[AnticorRifling]

Which is why I think would-be parents should be required to pass a test before having children. ;)


Dont get me wrong. Everything is useful in moderation. I know kids who never had a hand laid on them but were so fucked up from mental abuse by their parents that they are a lost cause. It works both ways.
Mental beatings are the best.

[Moist Happenings]

Which is why I think would-be parents should be required to pass a test before having children. ;)

I don't know if that was a jab at me specifically or a general statement, but I agree completely either way.

[Nieninque]

You likened legitimate physical discipline of children to abuse of minorities, and women, in which the excuse of "physical discipline" was just that. An excuse. Not a legitimate route to take to achieve a desired effect.

Wrong. The exact same arguments were used. "It's the only way they learn" "They dont have the capacity to reason with you" IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME.


I never said that I was too weak-willed to stop biting my nails without some sort of physical reinforcement. I merely pointed out that it was easier and quicker to achieve that desired effect.

Really? I used to bite my nails. I found it quicker and easier to just stop biting them. Worked a treat. Saved on elastic bands too.


The second World War, or any conflict is just the same argument on a grander scale. It too has potential for excessive use and abuse, such as in Sierra Leone, or Bosnia.

It's a ridiculous argument and has no bearing on physical chastisement. The fact that you can't see that says more about your cognitive abilities, than the points you are making.


The point I was making regarding Bosnia was again, the same argument on a grander scale:

See above.


World War II breaks out -> America says "You should stop that" -> America says "No. Seriously. You should stop that, or else." -> America enters war -> Eventually, problem solved.

Bosnian Conflict breaks out -> UN says "You should stop that." -> Bosnia says "Or else what?" -> UN says "Or I shall taunt you a second time." -> Conflict never resolved.

Father warns his child not to do something stupid -> Child continues to do something stupid. -> Father gives his child a timeout. -> Child continues to do something stupid. -> Father gives child a smack on the behind. -> Child stops doing something stupid.

Or in some cases:

Father warns his child not to do something stupid -> Child continues to do something stupid. -> Father gives his child a timeout. -> Child continues to do something stupid. -> Father gives child a smack on the behind. -> Child continues to do something stupid. -> Father has exhausted his options, and takes child to see a professional.

LOL...let me know if you ever do have kids. I really really really wanna watch you parent. Sounds a laugh a minute.


Do you disagree with this process on the whole?

I think you have no clue about which you speak. How could you? It's not your fault. But you are deluded.

[Nieninque]

Which is why I think would-be parents should be required to pass a test before having children. ;)


Dont get me wrong. Everything is useful in moderation. I know kids who never had a hand laid on them but were so fucked up from mental abuse by their parents that they are a lost cause. It works both ways.

Totally. Abuse is abuse. I know kids who are fucked up who were physically abused/chastised as kids. I know incredibly balanced people/kids who have never been hit. My opinion is that the smacking isnt the discipline. It's what else is going on that helps the lessons hit home...and if it isnt the smacking that is the learning process, there is no need for the smacking.

[Gan]

I don't know if that was a jab at me specifically or a general statement, but I agree completely either way.

No jab at you. Its a sentiment that I've stated here many times before. Its even quoted in someone's sig (or was once upon a time).

Parenting is a full time job that requires effort and education. One has to want to be a good parent in order to be one. Its not a perfected science and not every child, parent, household, environment is the same - so there's no cookie cutter methodology for raising a child.

[Moist Happenings]

Wrong. The exact same arguments were used. "It's the only way they learn" "They dont have the capacity to reason with you" IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME.

It was also the first and only method tried to achieve this result. If you do want to liken it to physical chastisement, that should be noted.




Really? I used to bite my nails. I found it quicker and easier to just stop biting them. Worked a treat. Saved on elastic bands too.


That's good for you. As I have stated, in a lot of cases one method works better than another. Not every case is cut and dry and can be handled in the exact same manner. The point is that physical discipline can and should be considered an option, but only after other avenues have been exhausted.



It's a ridiculous argument and has no bearing on physical chastisement. The fact that you can't see that says more about your cognitive abilities, than the points you are making.


The argument boils down to discipline on the whole, not just physical chastisement. In this case the discipline came in the form of physical chastisement, yes, but my question is whether or not other avenues were tried first. If it would make you more comfortable, we can liken it to policing the general populace of a country.

First, the police try to ward off people breaking laws by having laws. If that doesn't work, they patrol areas in which people might be breaking laws in order to cut down on the anonymity of crimes, and hold people accountable for what they might do because someone is watching. If that doesn't work, they arrest the offenders. If the offenders go through the judicial system, go to jail, get paroled, go out and commit more crimes, the punishment is more harsh the second time around. This is where this part of the comparison ends because we seem to get set into a cycle here. Some places like California have instituted a flawed "3 strike" rule where on your third offense it's jail for good, but on the whole we haven't solved this problem.

You try one method -> if that doesn't work you try another -> If that doesn't work you try another -> if that doesn't work you use force. -> If that doesn't work, you try something else, like the aforementioned professional help for the child.



LOL...let me know if you ever do have kids. I really really really wanna watch you parent. Sounds a laugh a minute.

I think you have no clue about which you speak. How could you? It's not your fault. But you are deluded.

"lol ur dumb" again. Back to that are we?

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

My father used corporal punishment in situations where we disobeyed him directly.. i.e. if my father yelled stop and we kept going, that would mean you got a spanking for it. His reasoning was that if we were in a situation that could turn life-threatening, we needed to have the fear of God about getting our ass beat to follow his commands to keep us safe.

For me, my father simply raising his voice and yelling was enough to reduce me to sniffling Jell-o, so I never once got punished by my dad in that way. He yelled at me to stop and I froze in my tracks. My brother was relatively immune though and therefore disobeyed more and got punished like that more.

To my recollection it was never enough to leave a mark or bruise, always open hand and basically like a swat to get your attention. It was also never like, severely retroactive (i.e. my mom saying "Wait till your father gets home" and then ten hours later getting the shit beat out of you). Leaving bruises, using something other than your hand, and doing it excessively though do qualify as abuse to me.

When I have kids, I'll probably employ the same thing with them that my father did with us. I think there are times when it makes sense to strictly reinforce obedience for the sake of safety. That's not to say I grew up in an authoritarian type household (I didn't) and that I want an authoritarian household when I have my own family (I don't), but I don't view my father's method as abusive in any sense.

[AnticorRifling]

Totally. Abuse is abuse. I know kids who are fucked up who were physically abused/chastised as kids. I know incredibly balanced people/kids who have never been hit. My opinion is that the smacking isnt the discipline. It's what else is going on that helps the lessons hit home...and if it isnt the smacking that is the learning process, there is no need for the smacking.

The key is to smack them randomly even if they aren't doing anything wrong. You gotta keep them on their toes.

[Moist Happenings]

Parenting is a full time job that requires effort and education. One has to want to be a good parent in order to be one. Its not a perfected science and not every child, parent, household, environment is the same - so there's no cookie cutter methodology for raising a child.

Amen.

[AnticorRifling]

Parenting is a full time job that requires effort and education. One has to want to be a good parent in order to be one. Its not a perfected science and not every child, parent, household, environment is the same - so there's no cookie cutter methodology for raising a child.
See now that's a cop out. Just pick up a book from Borders and read everything you need to know. Hell cliff note that bitch. The more effort you put into it the more you're showing everyone that you don't know what you're doing and you're compensating. It's like people that talk loud to prove they are right.

And remember you can always smack them with the book.








I'm totally helping in this thread.

[Gan]

Hey, smacking with a book can be effective. ;)

[AnticorRifling]

As long as you don't bruise them or the book.

[Moist Happenings]

My father used corporal punishment in situations where we disobeyed him directly.. i.e. if my father yelled stop and we kept going, that would mean you got a spanking for it. His reasoning was that if we were in a situation that could turn life-threatening, we needed to have the fear of God about getting our ass beat to follow his commands to keep us safe.

For me, my father simply raising his voice and yelling was enough to reduce me to sniffling Jell-o, so I never once got punished by my dad in that way. He yelled at me to stop and I froze in my tracks. My brother was relatively immune though and therefore disobeyed more and got punished like that more.

To my recollection it was never enough to leave a mark or bruise, always open hand and basically like a swat to get your attention. It was also never like, severely retroactive (i.e. my mom saying "Wait till your father gets home" and then ten hours later getting the shit beat out of you). Leaving bruises, using something other than your hand, and doing it excessively though do qualify as abuse to me.

When I have kids, I'll probably employ the same thing with them that my father did with us. I think there are times when it makes sense to strictly reinforce obedience for the sake of safety. That's not to say I grew up in an authoritarian type household (I didn't) and that I want an authoritarian household when I have my own family (I don't), but I don't view my father's method as abusive in any sense.

This is extremely well thought out and well put. Your post also reminds me of something I'd like to note:

While I do advocate the use of physical discipline as a last resort to teach a lesson, I only advocate it as a last resort type of situation, and never excessive to the point where it can be called abuse. I grew up in a completely authoritarian situation where the first and only method to teach a lesson was to get a severe beating. However, I'm more like you Narciissia, and either of my parents simply raising their voice would have stopped me from doing what I was doing. Problem is it was never tried. That's where physical discipline is wrong.

[Nieninque]

It was also the first and only method tried to achieve this result. If you do want to liken it to physical chastisement, that should be noted.

The point being that the argument that "it's the only way they learn" was used to justify the assault of other groups in society. It was wrong in relation to them. It's wrong in relation to children.


That's good for you. As I have stated, in a lot of cases one method works better than another. Not every case is cut and dry and can be handled in the exact same manner. The point is that physical discipline can and should be considered an option, but only after other avenues have been exhausted.

Would you agree then, that the same options should be open to your boss, for instance? You screw up at work, your boss can punch you in the face. Sound good?


The argument boils down to discipline on the whole, not just physical chastisement. In this case the discipline came in the form of physical chastisement, yes, but my question is whether or not other avenues were tried first. If it would make you more comfortable, we can liken it to policing the general populace of a country.

First, the police try to ward off people breaking laws by having laws. If that doesn't work, they patrol areas in which people might be breaking laws in order to cut down on the anonymity of crimes, and hold people accountable for what they might do because someone is watching. If that doesn't work, they arrest the offenders. If the offenders go through the judicial system, go to jail, get paroled, go out and commit more crimes, the punishment is more harsh the second time around. This is where this part of the comparison ends because we seem to get set into a cycle here. Some places like California have instituted a flawed "3 strike" rule where on your third offense it's jail for good, but on the whole we haven't solved this problem.

I'm not going to persist with your stupid arguments about wars and politics. They dont apply. STFU.


You try one method -> if that doesn't work you try another -> If that doesn't work you try another -> if that doesn't work you use force. -> If that doesn't work, you try something else, like the aforementioned professional help for the child.

Firstly, parenting and behaviour management is not just something you try for a bit and then use the next option. If you get it right in the first place, it becomes an attitude and a lifestyle choice. Most of the parents I work with, who have kids that behave badly, say "Oh, I tried that and it didnt work". The reason other methods don't work is that they need to be fair and consistent.

Secondly, the professionals in your neighbourhood are going to be fucking busy when you become a parent.


"lol ur dumb" again. Back to that are we?

Well, I've never actually said that, but now you have, I must admit, you do have a point.

[Moist Happenings]

Out of curiosity, how many children have you got Nieninque?

[AnticorRifling]

Commenting in threads like this without having kids is like me commenting in a thread about a lesbian encounter; sure I know theory and I've seen the videos but I have no personal experience.

[Gan]

As long as you don't bruise them or the book.

This is not the preferred method for bibliophiles. Unless its a cheap reprint.

[Gan]

Commenting in threads like this without having kids is like me commenting in a thread about a lesbian encounter; sure I know theory and I've seen the videos but I have no personal experience.

HAHA. And I thought your other post was the winner.


/end thread.

[Moist Happenings]

Commenting in threads like this without having kids is like me commenting in a thread about a lesbian encounter; sure I know theory and I've seen the videos but I have no personal experience.

I don't have any kids of my own, but I raised a nephew and a niece for about 4 years. They lived with me, and had no father figure to speak of because he was consistently stoned out of his mind.

It very rarely got to the point where I had to spank either of them, but with my nephew it did, and it didn't achieve the desired result, so my sister and I decided to go a different route. He was recently diagnosed as autistic, and is now getting the help he needs.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

This is extremely well thought out and well put. Your post also reminds me of something I'd like to note:

While I do advocate the use of physical discipline as a last resort to teach a lesson, I only advocate it as a last resort type of situation, and never excessive to the point where it can be called abuse. I grew up in a completely authoritarian situation where the first and only method to teach a lesson was to get a severe beating. However, I'm more like you Narciissia, and either of my parents simply raising their voice would have stopped me from doing what I was doing. Problem is it was never tried. That's where physical discipline is wrong.

My family was not very authoritarian at all. My grandfather believed the whole "spare the rod, spoil the child" thing with my dad and uncle, so my dad refused to have a home with that same tone.

His whole method of parenting was not to simply tell us what to do and we had to obey.. he made a genuine effort to foster critical thinking in us from a young age, and forced us early on to start making choices based on consequences rather than simply doing what we were told. If we asked why we had to do something, we were never punished or yelled at, "Because I said so." He was willing and happy to give an explanation to anything and if we disagreed, we were allowed to argue with him (as long as we kept it civil). Once he made a final decision though, there were no appeals (not immediately though). We were encouraged to speak our minds and my dad was also very big into word games and such, like using double meanings and forcing us to be articulate and listen carefully to what people say, understanding context, etc. One of my biggest annoyances with my boyfriend's family is that no one truly listens or pays attention to what everyone else is saying, so it's a big discordant mess.. it frustrates me that they repeat themselves to each other over and over and yet there's still confusion.

But yeah, even talking to my dad now, he told me his job as a parent was to keep me safe, and raise me to be a productive member of society who could function as an adult without the need of a parent moderating my life. And I agree with him on that front.

The spanking was a last resort when there was clear danger and we were disobedient. It was one of the harshest "consequences" and it was the last stop for punishment rather than the first. I just don't think anyone in their right mind could look at how my father parented and coin him as "abusive" because he swiftly gave my brother a few swats when he disobeyed and did something dangerous.

[AnticorRifling]

I don't have any kids of my own, but I raised a nephew and a niece for about 4 years. They lived with me, and had no father figure to speak of because he was consistently stoned out of his mind.

It very rarely got to the point where I had to spank either of them, but with my nephew it did, and it didn't achieve the desired result, so my sister and I decided to go a different route. He was recently diagnosed as autistic, and is now getting the help he needs.

Good story,

Tell it to me again when I'm trying to take a nap.

[Nieninque]

This is extremely well thought out and well put. Your post also reminds me of something I'd like to note:

While I do advocate the use of physical discipline as a last resort to teach a lesson, I only advocate it as a last resort type of situation, and never excessive to the point where it can be called abuse. I grew up in a completely authoritarian situation where the first and only method to teach a lesson was to get a severe beating. However, I'm more like you Narciissia, and either of my parents simply raising their voice would have stopped me from doing what I was doing. Problem is it was never tried. That's where physical discipline is wrong.

Your argument changes throughout.

The first post was about someone who bruised their child by hitting. You posted something about a Nanny State, implying that the state should butt-out.
You have stated your belief that parents should be able to chastise their kids, and use people who have stated that it should be used as a short-sharp-shock tactic to instantly hit a message home, as further support of your argument, but then you say smacking/hitting/chastisement should not be a first point of call.
You have stated that chastisement is a good thing, but not like you had, because that was too much.
You say that alternative options should have been tried first by your parents, but then say that children learn in much the same way as dogs.

I'm not sure you actually know what you do believe, to be honest. If you do, you certainly arent making it obvious.

[Moist Happenings]

My family was not very authoritarian at all. My grandfather believed the whole "spare the rod, spoil the child" thing with my dad and uncle, so my dad refused to have a home with that same tone.

His whole method of parenting was not to simply tell us what to do and we had to obey.. he made a genuine effort to foster critical thinking in us from a young age, and forced us early on to start making choices based on consequences rather than simply doing what we were told. If we asked why we had to do something, we were never punished or yelled at, "Because I said so." He was willing and happy to give an explanation to anything and if we disagreed, we were allowed to argue with him (as long as we kept it civil). Once he made a final decision though, there were no appeals (not immediately though). We were encouraged to speak our minds and my dad was also very big into word games and such, like using double meanings and forcing us to be articulate and listen carefully to what people say, understanding context, etc. One of my biggest annoyances with my boyfriend's family is that no one truly listens or pays attention to what everyone else is saying, so it's a big discordant mess.. it frustrates me that they repeat themselves to each other over and over and yet there's still confusion.

The spanking was a last resort when there was clear danger and we were disobedient. It was one of the harshest "consequences" and it was the last stop for punishment rather than the first. I just don't think anyone in their right mind could look at how my father parented and coin him as "abusive" because he swiftly gave my brother a few swats when he disobeyed and did something dangerous.

And that's a perfect example of a working system where physical discipline is an acceptable last resort to achieve a desired effect. I agree with it completely, and it's not at all unlike how I handled my niece and nephew.

[TheEschaton]

I work with a ton of families that use physical chastisement and their children behave horribly.
How does that work? I thought a good beating was better than all?

Hi, you're a social worker. You don't get to see the kids who fall into line after a good spanking.

That's like me being a criminal prosecutor and thinking that just because every defendant I meet seems guilty as hell of crime, that all people are criminals.

-TheE-

[RichardCranium]

I use a combination of things when I discipline my girls. Sometimes it's "time-out", sometimes a spanking. Regardless of what I do I always explain to them what they did that caused them to be disciplined. For one of them all it takes is the change in tone in Daddy's voice, the younger one usually needs a bit more convincing. The baby is only 18 months so she just gets a little swat on the diaper to get her attention and a no-no.

[Moist Happenings]

Your argument changes throughout.

The first post was about someone who bruised their child by hitting. You posted something about a Nanny State, implying that the state should butt-out.
You have stated your belief that parents should be able to chastise their kids, and use people who have stated that it should be used as a short-sharp-shock tactic to instantly hit a message home, as further support of your argument, but then you say smacking/hitting/chastisement should not be a first point of call.
You have stated that chastisement is a good thing, but not like you had, because that was too much.
You say that alternative options should have been tried first by your parents, but then say that children learn in much the same way as dogs.

I'm not sure you actually know what you do believe, to be honest. If you do, you certainly arent making it obvious.

My first posts gave a general idea of my beliefs, and then I elaborated on them when questioned about it. That's how constructive conversations work, but I understand that's a foreign concept to you. I doubt that anyone who has read through this entire thread and taken all of my opinions and their elaborations into account cannot get a fairly firm grasp of my feelings on the matter. Aside from you, of course. Perhaps if you actually read my posts instead of just looking for something to quote to take a shot at me, you would grasp that concept.

And again, how many children do you have, or have you raised?

[Nieninque]

My first posts gave a general idea of my beliefs, and then I elaborated on them when questioned about it. That's how constructive conversations work, but I understand that's a foreign concept to you. I doubt that anyone who has read through this entire thread and taken all of my opinions and their elaborations into account cannot get a fairly firm grasp of my feelings on the matter. Aside from you, of course. Perhaps if you actually read my posts instead of just looking for something to quote to take a shot at me, you would grasp that concept.

And again, how many children do you have, or have you raised?

One. You?

[AnticorRifling]

One. You?
She just pulled your sit the fuck down shut the fuck up card right there. Counter pwnt.

FYI Father or the year here I was watching the twins the other day, went down stairs to talk on the phone, came upstairs both hellions are butt ass naked the floor is covered in push pins they got off my desk, and one of them had written all over my LCD with a highlighter.

I, of course, beat them with a rubber hose because laughing at the situation is not tolerable.

[Nieninque]

Hi, you're a social worker. You don't get to see the kids who fall into line after a good spanking.

Children don't learn how to behave by being hit/smacked/spanked/paddled. The same as wives don't become better wives after a good beating and Black people don't become good citizens after a good flogging. "Falling into line" isn't the aim of behaviour management. Teaching children right from wrong and how to be productive members of society is the aim. Smacking isn't the answer in my opinion.


That's like me being a criminal prosecutor and thinking that just because every defendant I meet seems guilty as hell of crime, that all people are criminals.

-TheE-

I have yet to meet someone (adult) who has never committed a crime of some sort...so you could be right.

[Atlanteax]

I have yet to meet someone (adult) who has never committed a crime of some sort...so you could be right.

Seriously???

No wonder you're so Jaded...

[TheEschaton]

I've never committed a crime as an adult.

[TheEschaton]

And like was said before, children are different from adults. Wives and black people don't learn from getting beaten, and it is not justifiable ever. But kids are literally like animals, they work best that way.

[Nieninque]

And like was said before, children are different from adults. Wives and black people don't learn from getting beaten, and it is not justifiable ever. But kids are literally like animals, they work best that way.

And then you wonder why you're single...

[Nieninque]

I've never committed a crime as an adult.

Never taken a pen or some paper home from work?
Never exceeded the speed limit?

No crimes ever?

I don't believe you.

[TheEschaton]

I had a speeding ticket when I was 16, and last I checked, I haven't taken anything from work cause who would want to?

[Jorddyn]

I had a speeding ticket when I was 16

Is that truly the last time you sped, or is it just the last time you got caught? Maybe went through a light as it was changing to red? Jaywalked? Missed a trashcan when tossing something?

Much as it may pain me to say I agree with Nieninque, I pretty much do. Everyone breaks the law. It's all about degrees.

[Nieninque]

I didnt say everyone I know has been convicted an offence. I said everyone I know has committed a crime. Two different things. You are telling me that the last time you exceeded the speed limit was when you were 16?

[Drakam]

As a one time day care teacher I was taught many ways to discipline a child without having to hit said child (ie. timeouts). From experience I can rightly state that timeouts don't work with all children when they realize they have the choice to listen to you or not and thus go do whatever they wish.

Do I encourage hitting children? NO

Do I support a quick tap on the head or elsewhere to get their attention? Yes

The key I feel is to quickly back up WHAT you want them to do instead with positive reinforcement.

Spankings and such should be a last resort and then have a positive used to encourage that child. You end it with a negative reinforcement and that child might not know whats the better choices ahead of him.

Also I feel the parent must be absolutely calm and control before they decide to use spankings. Anger just makes it worse and turns it into abuse.

[TheEschaton]

Well, fine. Break the law that it required a session in court? Nope.

[Methais]

Seriously???

No wonder you're so Jaded...

I have nothing to add to this thread (other than my support for beating kids that get out of line), so instead I'll just ask...why did you capitalize "Jaded"?

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Also I feel the parent must be absolutely calm and control before they decide to use spankings. Anger just makes it worse and turns it into abuse.

I totally agree with this.

[Moist Happenings]

I totally agree with this.

As do I.

[Necromancer]

Dude, the guy *bruised* his child. If anyone else had done it, it would be assault. Sorry if you can't seem to discipline your child without beating, but your crisis of imagination is not a justification for abuse.

[Drakam]

Actually I feel he should go to court over this. As you just mentioned he bruised his child. Obviously he hit his child far too hard.

[Danical]

All the research I've done/read while in college and working for CASA demonstrates that punishment works but it should always be coupled with the reinforcement of an alternative behavior.

Punishment to remove or reduce the frequency an undesirable behavior and reinforcement to replace the undesirable behavior.

Sadly, most parents use the proper amount of punishment but don't reinforce alternative behaviors; they don't explain anything to their kids on why they were punished and what alternative behaviors should be in the future. There's a ton more variables in behavior modification but that's the one that jumps out at me most with regards to parenting.

[Gan]

Do I support a quick tap on the head or elsewhere to get their attention? Yes

If you were my child's daycare teacher and I found out you were 'tapping' my child on the head - I'd be tapping on your head.

God invented butts for 3 things. Sitting, shitting, and beating.

The last place you want to strike a child is on the head. Period. For any reason.


If you're Tayre then its (the butt) 4 things...

[Nieninque]

She just pulled your sit the fuck down shut the fuck up card right there. Counter pwnt.

It's amazing how quiet it got all of a sudden.

[Moist Happenings]

It's amazing how quiet it got all of a sudden.

Yeah, kinda like when I asked you if you had or had raised any children.

[Warriorbird]

Neff already lost this thread for us when he Godwinned... but I'll enter it anyways.

This was a case of excessive force. At the same time I feel like there are times when physical force from parents is justified. My Dad only struck me three times but they were all warranted and made an impact.

First time I'd lit a kid on fire.
Second time I'd beaten a girl with a textbook.
Final time I'd decked a kid during a summer program that both my parents taught at.

[Nieninque]

Yeah, kinda like when I asked you if you had or had raised any children.

L2read

[Brattt8525]

Spanking/thwapping the back of a kids head does not teach them to not disobey. It simply teaches them to be sneakier the next time!

[Warriorbird]

The same can be said about time outs. I was way too mischevious and imaginative for them to do much.

[Jorddyn]

First time I'd lit a kid on fire.
Second time I'd beaten a girl with a textbook.
Final time I'd decked a kid during a summer program that both my parents taught at.

Maybe if they'd just lit you on fire the first time, they wouldn't have had to beat you two more times.

Capital punishment > corporal punishment

[Warriorbird]

I was a pretty bad kid at times.

[kookiegod]

This is true, however those medical conditions are few and far between (i.e. I havve yet to come across someone who has it, in spite of parental claims that they do). It is also quite difficult to bruise the buttocks, so that would have had to have been a hell of a smack.

And therein lies the problem.

I planned to stay out of this thread, but this is simply just wrong.

Having a great deal of experience in this (and no, not with children, but consensting women), it can be very easy to bruise or impossible. It depends on the person.

Lets just stay away from things you don't know.

As far as the argument goes, my dad took his belt to me when I needed it, I didn't regret it, hate him for it, turn into a serial killer. It also worked for 1000s of years of 'childhood education' and its only the last 50 years its evil, and look at the crime rate, youth crimes, rapes, dropout rates, teen pregnancies, etc., and tell me that this is all for the better?

I simply don't believe it.


~Paul

[thefarmer]

If you were my child's daycare teacher and I found out you were 'tapping' my child on the head - I'd be tapping on your head with a crowbar.

Fixed.

This thread made me think of that scene in 'Shoot 'em up' (an overall funny movie) where Clive Owen is in this museum and sees this mother whaling on her son. He strides over to her, muttering 'I hate when parents beat their children', grabs the mother by the arm and starts whacking her ass, all the time yelling 'How do you like it!" while she's screaming for help and the son is laughing his ass off.


There's a big difference between bruising your child and spanking them. The first has no place, while the moderation of the second can, at times, be helpful. I haven't spanked my daughter yet, though if the situation calls for it, I will.

[Nieninque]

I planned to stay out of this thread, but this is simply just wrong.

Having a great deal of experience in this (and no, not with children, but consensting women), it can be very easy to bruise or impossible. It depends on the person.

Lets just stay away from things you don't know.

I have. This is definitely something I do know. Through my job and through my professional education. Thanks for your input, but I stand by my assertions, just the same.


As far as the argument goes, my dad took his belt to me when I needed it, I didn't regret it, hate him for it, turn into a serial killer.

Congratulations.
It also didn't teach you to behave. It didn't teach you right from wrong. It didn't make you into the fantastic, law-abiding, balanced individual you are today. If it did, anyone who was beaten would be the same. It was the other stuff that your dad did that did the work.


It also worked for 1000s of years of 'childhood education' and its only the last 50 years its evil, and look at the crime rate, youth crimes, rapes, dropout rates, teen pregnancies, etc., and tell me that this is all for the better?

Yes, clearly all of those social ills exist because people are no longer able to thrash their children. Clearly, there has never been any such thing as crime, youth crime, rape or teen pregnancy until the last fifty years.

[Moist Happenings]

L2read

Hmm, my bad. I usually click "last page" when I see a new post in the thread and someone must have posted after you before I saw to start a new one.

Any any rate my stance here has been talked through several times over now. I'm glad you were able to raise your child without any sort of physical discipline. It's not a cookie cutter for every child in the world though. What works for one doesn't work for all.

You're great at debating, but lacking in common sense and the ability to see any other points of view besides your own very narrowminded ones. I might state that it wouldn't surprise me if you didn't have any friends, but that wouldn't be true. There are just too many narrowminded single track people out there. Catholic church is full of 'em.

[Drakam]

Obviously you came to the wrong conclusion of my teaching and ways of reinforcing children I taught. I never laid a hand on any child I taught using negative reinforcement. If anyone is to "spank" a child it should be their parent or guardian no if ands or buts.

[kookiegod]

I totally agree with this.

Goes for any relationship really.

If your angry, walk away, take a walk, play a game, go for a run.

Only when you are calm can you decide the right course of action.

~Paul

[kookiegod]

>I have. This is definitely something I do know. Through my job and through my professional education. Thanks for your input, but I stand by my assertions, just the same.

So you have actually spanked people? So you have an actually idea how easily or not easily the bottom is to bruise. If you haven't, your job means nothing, your education means nothing. I've done it, 1000s of time, I know HOW it works. Sheesh, narrow minded.

>Congratulations. It also didn't teach you to behave. It didn't teach you right from wrong. It didn't make you into the fantastic, law-abiding, balanced individual you are today. If it did, anyone who was beaten would be the same. It was the other stuff that your dad did that did the work.

Actually, I disagree again. I learned limits, and I learned consequences when I crossed those limits. You are correct, my dad was a great man, and he taught me a lot, but he also loved me enough to punish me when it was needed which made me who I am.

>Yes, clearly all of those social ills exist because people are no longer able to thrash their children. Clearly, there has never been any such thing as crime, youth crime, rape or teen pregnancy until the last fifty years.

Of course there was, but was also reform schools, school paddling (and got it twice as bad when you got home), neighbors could spank others kids (in small town America, this was VERY common), and a lot more morality, discipline and consequences. I don't think everything about the old days was good, but the you had a lot less of these social ills, you didn't have children assaulting teachers, disobeying parents, or needed metal detectors in schools.

You are living in a fantasy land if you think that things have changed for the better. I will concede its a LOT of factors, single parent homes, drugs, the 'hood', etc, but it starts at home. If your brought up with even a modicum of respect for authority, you don't do these things.

~Paul

[g++]

There is something circular and awsome about Nien berating the fuck out of Neff, obviously enjoying the suffering shes causing him in an effort to win an argument about how bad abuse is. I feel like im witnessing abuse right now.

[Gan]

Fixed.

This thread made me think of that scene in 'Shoot 'em up' (an overall funny movie) where Clive Owen is in this museum and sees this mother whaling on her son. He strides over to her, muttering 'I hate when parents beat their children', grabs the mother by the arm and starts whacking her ass, all the time yelling 'How do you like it!" while she's screaming for help and the son is laughing his ass off.
I saw that scene. I loved it.



There's a big difference between bruising your child and spanking them. The first has no place, while the moderation of the second can, at times, be helpful. I haven't spanked my daughter yet, though if the situation calls for it, I will.
It was said earlier but the prevailing frame of posts seem to have forgotten that some children bruise easier than others.

Using bruising as a means of determining how a child was spanked is not the best indicator.

And as it was mentioned earlier by someone, follow through with reasoning why the spanking occurred, how to correct the problem that led to the spanking, and of course positive reinforcement (lots of hugs afterwards) will go a long way in making spanking a very rare occurrence.

I call them leave it to beaver sessions. Its where the father sits on the bed and discusses what when wrong, why, and what to do about it.

When parents are angry and spank while angry, that follow through gets left off almost every time. I know it did with my parents. Therefore I know it wont with me. ;)

[Gan]

As a one time day care teacher I was taught many ways to discipline a child without having to hit said child (ie. timeouts). From experience I can rightly state that timeouts don't work with all children when they realize they have the choice to listen to you or not and thus go do whatever they wish.

Do I encourage hitting children? NO

Do I support a quick tap on the head or elsewhere to get their attention? Yes

The key I feel is to quickly back up WHAT you want them to do instead with positive reinforcement.

Spankings and such should be a last resort and then have a positive used to encourage that child. You end it with a negative reinforcement and that child might not know whats the better choices ahead of him.

Also I feel the parent must be absolutely calm and control before they decide to use spankings. Anger just makes it worse and turns it into abuse.


Obviously you came to the wrong conclusion of my teaching and ways of reinforcing children I taught. I never laid a hand on any child I taught using negative reinforcement. If anyone is to "spank" a child it should be their parent or guardian no if ands or buts.

That conclusion was based off the context of your post. If thats not accurate then you might consider rewording. Or following up with a clarification.

[thefarmer]

It was said earlier but the prevailing frame of posts seem to have forgotten that some children bruise easier than others.

Using bruising as a means of determining how a child was spanked is not the best indicator.

When I said bruise a child, it meant use enough force to bruise a normal child. I'm aware the people bruise at different rates, my wife gives herself a bruise just lightly bumping herself.

[Stretch]

All minorities beat their male children.

[Danical]

Spankings and such should be a last resort and then have a positive used to encourage that child. You end it with a negative reinforcement and that child might not know whats the better choices ahead of him.

Spanking is not Negative Reinforcement. You're thinking Positive Punishment.

Negative Reinforcement increases the likelihood of a behavior by removing an adverse stimulus.

[kallindra]

After reading this thread I realize I have a lot of opinions.

I also realize I don't post here often so no one's likely to pay attention.

I also believe Neff would make a good parent, in his own way.

In the end, it would just be a bunch of stories about my fucked up childhood and the fact I still managed to become a productive, intelligent individual. (One of those people who WERE hit/mentally abused and manages to operate in the word)

[ESSA]

How's that saying go?

Spare the rod and you will spoil the child?

[Gan]

Spanking is not Negative Reinforcement. You're thinking Positive Punishment.

Negative Reinforcement increases the likelihood of a behavior by removing an adverse stimulus.

You are correct. I believe I have been using the term incorrectly for a while now with regards to the behaviorism approach. The correct application would be the removal of a privilege (such as taking away the xbox, etc.) as a consequence to the bad behavior/action. And thus would be the mental alternative to physical punishment as mentioned here in this thread.

I believe spanking could be classified as a negative stimuli.

Either way I'm going to go pull my old child psychology text and correct my misconception.

[Drew]

For many kids, timeout is NOT equally devastating. Fuck timeout, that shit was easy.


Agreed. I was a stubborn kid. Timeout did nothing to me. That wasn't punishment. Timeout probably works for stupid and meek kids, but not all kids are stupid or meek. One time my mom prevailed on my dad to let her use her methods instead of a spanking. I had refused to eat my peas. Dad would have spanked me. Mom went the timeout route and made me sit there until I ate my peas. I sat at the table for 2 days, eventually she gave up. I won. After that in my childish ways I had less respect for my mom.

I probably got spanked a dozen times in my childhood but I'm glad I did. Kids will test boundaries. I got spanked for defiance mostly, and I needed it. Think of all the kids/young people these days who don't have any respect for authority, there is a reason for that and it starts at the home. People who can't put that together boggle my mind. The type of teenage hooligans running around the UK are probably the same type of kids who were put on timeout.

[AnticorRifling]

Timeout is where you got to plot your next action.

[Gan]

Timeout is like a shot of ketchup. It makes a great accompaniment to putting hand to ass.

[Methais]

Once again...


http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/beatkid1.jpg
How come everyone today is too much of a pussy to smack their kids around? That's what I want to know: why are parents afraid to beat their kids? When I was a kid and I screwed up, my parents beat my ass. We didn't have a conversation about it. I didn't have a "time out." In fact, I've never even once been grounded in my life. What's the point? Send your kid to his room and make him play video games and read comic books all day? Great idea, why don't you take him to a psychiatrist while you're at it so she can pull some disorder out of her ass to hide the fact that you're a bad parent?

Kids today need a good beating every now and then. If you don't beat your kids when they fall out of line, the next thing you know your son will go off and bang some dude in the ass just out of spite. You tell them to clean their room, they say "no," you smack them. It's simple; it works. Don't listen to these assholes on TV with their bullshit hippy psycho babble; if they had it their way, every child would be raised in a pastel colored room with Philip Glass pumped through the speakers 24 hours a day. Then again, it might not be all that bad because it will make your kids complacent, so it won't be as hard for them to swallow when they realize that they'll be spending the rest of their lives chained to a desk in a cubicle writing reports to make someone else rich.

The problem is that kids today think their opinions matter. By not beating your kids, they get a skewed perspective of reality where they start thinking that they have it rough and that they can get away with dying their hair and listening to Insane Clown Posse. That's where you need to come in and put the law down. To help you, the negligent parent, I've put together a guide to smacking your kids for your convenience (hint: you may want to even print this guide up and hang it on your fridge as a reminder to both you and your kids). Here are some useful techniques:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/beatkid2a.jpg
Five across the eyes. This is a very basic maneuver and usually enough to cover most situations when your child is out of line. Simply put four fingers tightly together and either leave the thumb off to the side or fold it behind the other four fingers. Then smack your kid across the face with the back of your hand. Now this is the tricky part: make sure to snap your wrist just before contact otherwise you won't get a stinging effect. Very important because you don't want to risk letting your kid think you're a pussy.

#
The sucker punch. Just ask the question "hey, what's that on your shirt?" and when they look down, bust their lip. You need to do this every now and then to keep them guessing. Don't ever let them off the hook. Just because they're not doing anything wrong doesn't mean that they didn't do something wrong earlier that you weren't aware of.

#
The yard stick. Or for those of you who don't use the arbitrary American system, this is also known as "the meter stick." This is a good general purpose beating because the stick usually doesn't last beyond three or four good whacks--usually enough to send the message.

#
The one-two shut-the-hell-up. This is priceless when you're shopping and your kid won't shut the hell up: "I'm hungry, I want toys, I need my Insulin..." etc. First smack your kid (the 5 across the eyes technique works). Wait a few seconds for your kid to start crying, then smack your kid again to let him know that you mean business. This usually shuts them up because they see that the amount of crying is proportional to the amount of beatings.

#
The 2 x 4 / PVC pipe. If you do your job as a parent, this should never have to be administered. This is for heavy duty jobs only (ie. any time your kid comes home and begins a sentence with "she might be pregnant..." or "I can _____ if I want to..." where the blank can be any of the following: smoke, have sex, experiment with drugs, watch Oprah, etc). Usually the threat of this beating is enough to keep your kid from screwing up.

#
The Dragon Kick. If you're interested in a permanent solution to your child giving you lip about washing the dishes, cleaning his or her room or filing your tax return, then the Dragon kick might be the technique for you. I guarantee that you will only have to ask once after the Dragon kick has been administered.

#
The skull thump. A quick blow usually dealt to the side or back of the head. Simply flick them in the head with your finger. An alternative is to smack your child up side the head with your palm. Very useful for teaching your child to read when he or she makes a mistake. Hitting your child when he or she is learning builds confidence, or undermines confidence--I can't remember which.

#
The one-handed chauffeur reach around. A quick reach around while you're driving to smack your kid and his friends too if they disrespect. Swerve the car back and forth for the full effect.

#
The cane intercept. If you're too old to chase your kid around the house, use the handle of your cane to trip him if he tries to get away. When he gets up, poke him in the head a few times to let him know who's boss.

There you have it. Use these basic techniques to discipline your child if you want him or her to turn out to be a success story like me. Here's how to tell if you've fulfilled your obligations as a parent:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/beatkid4.jpg

Remember: never take shit from your kids. You make payments on the house, utilities, their clothes, school, and their food. You own them. If they don't like it, they can move out. If you love your kids, love them enough to beat them so that they don't grow up to be idiots.

1,813,254 people don't know the difference between discipline and child abuse.


http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=beat

[Danical]

CD people say timeout is a good time for the child to reflect on what you've said about the explanation for punishment and the alternative behaviors you suggested.

At the end of timeout, the child is supposed to explain (in their own words if possible) back to you what you've explained for the sake of accountability and internalization. The timeout is supposed to be long enough so the child actually internalizes the thought processes and transitions from short to long term memory.

This obviously doesn't work with every child and it also generally doesn't work with any single child every time. This process also takes an incredible amount of patience.

Ultimately, patience is probably the single best parent virtue.

[Gan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en899MXOrvc

Irma Brown's Ass Whupppin Academy

[Keller]

CD people say timeout is a good time for the child to reflect on what you've said about the explanation for punishment and the alternative behaviors you suggested.

At the end of timeout, the child is supposed to explain (in their own words if possible) back to you what you've explained for the sake of accountability and internalization. The timeout is supposed to be long enough so the child actually internalizes the thought processes and transitions from short to long term memory.

This obviously doesn't work with every child and it also generally doesn't work with any single child every time. This process also takes an incredible amount of patience.

Ultimately, patience is probably the single best parent virtue.

I couldn't have said it better.

[Nieninque]

I've been working with a family where there have been concerns about chastisement and appropriate behaviour management issues. They were the kind of people that would announce their right to smack their kids. They were hard to work with and resisted any attempts to work with them on learning better strats to manage behaviour.

I found out today that they moved up north and that their 6 month old baby has a (suspected non-accidentally) broken leg.

I can just envisage them "taking it to the next step."

Poor baby. Today sucks.

[Methais]

I've been working with a family where there have been concerns about chastisement and appropriate behaviour management issues. They were the kind of people that would announce their right to smack their kids. They were hard to work with and resisted any attempts to work with them on learning better strats to manage behaviour.

I found out today that they moved up north and that their 6 month old baby has a (suspected non-accidentally) broken leg.

I can just envisage them "taking it to the next step."

Poor baby. Today sucks.

Do you think beating the parents would be an acceptable recourse? Or should they be put in time out?

[Gan]

Do you think beating the parents would be an acceptable recourse? Or should they be put in time out?

Touche

(I vote for beating the parents, since its a language they already understand)

[Methais]

I think criminals should be sentenced to X consecutive days of beatings, instead of being put in jail, which is basically adult time out, but with ass fucking.

[Garnet Doyle]

See, this guy needs to take a page from the policeman's book of beating suspects.

You don't do shit that can leave marks which can later be shown as evidence. Sure, you might want to grab your nightstick and beat the shit out of this guy since he spat on you, but that'd leave marks.

Instead, tie/cuff him down, then put a phone book on him, and then beat the phonebook. All the discomfort of a beating, with none of the marks to prove it happened later on.