Nothing can replace a good beating
-
Should the parents have the right to beat their children? My answer is Yes if the following are true: 1. It is used only when the child did something very bad and would not listen to reasoning. 2. It is not physically harming the child (no extreme pain, internal injuries, or scars). I know I am going to be beaten up for writing this, but just can't help it. ;P
-
Should the parents have the right to beat their children? My answer is Yes if the following are true: 1. It is used only when the child did something very bad and would not listen to reasoning. 2. It is not physically harming the child (no extreme pain, internal injuries, or scars). I know I am going to be beaten up for writing this, but just can't help it. ;P
I agree to a point. Spare the rod, spoil the child. Anything that leaves bruises is bad though. Brad Jennings
-
Should the parents have the right to beat their children? My answer is Yes if the following are true: 1. It is used only when the child did something very bad and would not listen to reasoning. 2. It is not physically harming the child (no extreme pain, internal injuries, or scars). I know I am going to be beaten up for writing this, but just can't help it. ;P
Black Cat wrote: 1. It is used only when the child did something very bad and would not listen to reasoning. The problem here is that this is very subjective. WHO determines if the child was not listening and what is deemed to be 'very bad'. The courts usualy error on the side of the child in 99.999% of abuse casses simply because it ends up being a child vs. adult struggle and the child has no advocate in a truly abusive situation.
-
Should the parents have the right to beat their children? My answer is Yes if the following are true: 1. It is used only when the child did something very bad and would not listen to reasoning. 2. It is not physically harming the child (no extreme pain, internal injuries, or scars). I know I am going to be beaten up for writing this, but just can't help it. ;P
I agree. Jeremy Falcon Imputek "In fact it is quite simple, men and women both only want one thing - what they can't have!" - phykell
-
Should the parents have the right to beat their children? My answer is Yes if the following are true: 1. It is used only when the child did something very bad and would not listen to reasoning. 2. It is not physically harming the child (no extreme pain, internal injuries, or scars). I know I am going to be beaten up for writing this, but just can't help it. ;P
From the rest of what you said I must assume you mean a simple smack or two and not a beating - there is a huge difference and the latter is abuse no matter how you look at it. So continuing with that in mind, yes I do, and I think a smack should come before reasoning, not require a serious "offense", and be issued from the earliest possible age. We train dogs in the same way (a simply smack on the nose to inform of wrongdoing and priase when they have been good), and it works. It works very well. In fact I have yet to see anything that even comes close. I can speak from experience (having been smacked up till around twelve myself) that when I made a fuss after being smacked it was not because it caused any distress - it was because I sought attention and that was the best way to do it. Smacking hurts no-one in life and from what I have seen all around me only helps to create discipline that outlives the pain. And that is good, humane, and the only effect way to train a child (after all that is what we are doing). My only prerequesite is that the child must be told WHY they have been smacked. While we are on the topic I also feel very strongly that teachers, child workers, etc, should be able to smack children, albeit (and this is sadly necessary) with the parent/guardians' permission. Too many kids nowadays are growing up with no respect for discipline, and that invariably equals serious trouble for all concerned.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Pro wrestling is entertainment for the unentertained unentertainable.
-
Should the parents have the right to beat their children? My answer is Yes if the following are true: 1. It is used only when the child did something very bad and would not listen to reasoning. 2. It is not physically harming the child (no extreme pain, internal injuries, or scars). I know I am going to be beaten up for writing this, but just can't help it. ;P
As a kid, I got quite a few hidings- and I thoroughly deserved them! However, they were disciplined affairs, bend over, hiding on behind with leather slipper (except the time I hid the slipper before my Dad got home so he had no choice but to use a belt :laugh: ). Slapping kids across the face, or hitting out in anger is another idssue altogether though. When we were older, it was revealed to us that my Dad almost cried after having to give us a hiding. I think he hated it more than we did. The following statement about your geekness is true. The previous statement about your geekness is false. GCS/IT/P d- s: a- C++++$ UL+>++++ P+ L++$ E- W+++$ N !o K+ w++$ O---- M-- PS- PE Y+ PGP--- t !5 X- tv b+++ DI++ D+ G++ e++ h--- r+++
-
Should the parents have the right to beat their children? My answer is Yes if the following are true: 1. It is used only when the child did something very bad and would not listen to reasoning. 2. It is not physically harming the child (no extreme pain, internal injuries, or scars). I know I am going to be beaten up for writing this, but just can't help it. ;P
No. No beating! Are you aware about the damage you inflict on this childs psyche? Grab an arm and stare them in the eyes instead. That usually works up to an age of 10. By that time, the child has developed a fully working conscience, thus the "disappointed look" will work. Violence will do nothing but breed violence. Woe to you, Oh Earth and Sea,for the Devil sends the beast with wrath, because he knows the time is short... Let him who hath understanding reckon the number of the beast for it is a human number, it's number is Six hundred and sixty six
-
From the rest of what you said I must assume you mean a simple smack or two and not a beating - there is a huge difference and the latter is abuse no matter how you look at it. So continuing with that in mind, yes I do, and I think a smack should come before reasoning, not require a serious "offense", and be issued from the earliest possible age. We train dogs in the same way (a simply smack on the nose to inform of wrongdoing and priase when they have been good), and it works. It works very well. In fact I have yet to see anything that even comes close. I can speak from experience (having been smacked up till around twelve myself) that when I made a fuss after being smacked it was not because it caused any distress - it was because I sought attention and that was the best way to do it. Smacking hurts no-one in life and from what I have seen all around me only helps to create discipline that outlives the pain. And that is good, humane, and the only effect way to train a child (after all that is what we are doing). My only prerequesite is that the child must be told WHY they have been smacked. While we are on the topic I also feel very strongly that teachers, child workers, etc, should be able to smack children, albeit (and this is sadly necessary) with the parent/guardians' permission. Too many kids nowadays are growing up with no respect for discipline, and that invariably equals serious trouble for all concerned.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Pro wrestling is entertainment for the unentertained unentertainable.
David Wulff wrote: having been smacked up till around twelve myself Nah, this one is too easy! ;P David Wulff wrote: Too many kids nowadays are growing up with no respect for discipline Ditto. Jeremy Falcon Imputek "In fact it is quite simple, men and women both only want one thing - what they can't have!" - phykell
-
Should the parents have the right to beat their children? My answer is Yes if the following are true: 1. It is used only when the child did something very bad and would not listen to reasoning. 2. It is not physically harming the child (no extreme pain, internal injuries, or scars). I know I am going to be beaten up for writing this, but just can't help it. ;P
Black Cat wrote: Should the parents have the right to beat their children? Beat... ok... what eactly do you mean by beat... Because over here to beat someone is to quite literally "kick the living shit" out of them... I hope you mean a tap on the hand or a small slap. I don't have children so I'd prefer not to comemnt. All I know is that my parent very very rarley "slapped" any of us but when they did it normally worked. :omg: Regards, Brian Dela :-)
-
Black Cat wrote: Should the parents have the right to beat their children? Beat... ok... what eactly do you mean by beat... Because over here to beat someone is to quite literally "kick the living shit" out of them... I hope you mean a tap on the hand or a small slap. I don't have children so I'd prefer not to comemnt. All I know is that my parent very very rarley "slapped" any of us but when they did it normally worked. :omg: Regards, Brian Dela :-)
When I was a kid, my father needed to get his belt out only once. After a few semi-hard whacks on my ass/arse (notice the cool multi-national contraction :cool: ) he needed only hint at the belt in the future to get my full undivided attention and respect.
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
-
No. No beating! Are you aware about the damage you inflict on this childs psyche? Grab an arm and stare them in the eyes instead. That usually works up to an age of 10. By that time, the child has developed a fully working conscience, thus the "disappointed look" will work. Violence will do nothing but breed violence. Woe to you, Oh Earth and Sea,for the Devil sends the beast with wrath, because he knows the time is short... Let him who hath understanding reckon the number of the beast for it is a human number, it's number is Six hundred and sixty six
Do you have kids? Sometimes it takes a nice wack in the pants to get them to understand what the word "No" means.
Jason Henderson
start page
articles
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Sir Winston Churchill -
Black Cat wrote: 1. It is used only when the child did something very bad and would not listen to reasoning. The problem here is that this is very subjective. WHO determines if the child was not listening and what is deemed to be 'very bad'. The courts usualy error on the side of the child in 99.999% of abuse casses simply because it ends up being a child vs. adult struggle and the child has no advocate in a truly abusive situation.
Ray Cassick wrote: The problem here is that this is very subjective. WHO determines if the child was not listening and what is deemed to be 'very bad'. I agree that it is subjective, but most parents should be able to make the right decision. My typical example of "very bad" is that my old son keeps making the younger one cry and is enjoying it, despites my continuous warning and threats. For those children with abusive parents, a light beating/smacking is not the main problem. Ray Cassick wrote: The courts usualy error on the side of the child in 99.999% of abuse casses simply because it ends up being a child vs. adult struggle and the child has no advocate in a truly abusive situation. When the court is involved, it should be a much more serious situation than the parent trying to teach the child a lesson.
-
No. No beating! Are you aware about the damage you inflict on this childs psyche? Grab an arm and stare them in the eyes instead. That usually works up to an age of 10. By that time, the child has developed a fully working conscience, thus the "disappointed look" will work. Violence will do nothing but breed violence. Woe to you, Oh Earth and Sea,for the Devil sends the beast with wrath, because he knows the time is short... Let him who hath understanding reckon the number of the beast for it is a human number, it's number is Six hundred and sixty six
I agree, First a parent must gain a child's love and respect, And then when the parent appears upset at a child's actions, this is sufficient punnishment. When my kids have been naughty, they often ask me to smack them, which I refuse to do. This seems to hurt them more though. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
When I was a kid, my father needed to get his belt out only once. After a few semi-hard whacks on my ass/arse (notice the cool multi-national contraction :cool: ) he needed only hint at the belt in the future to get my full undivided attention and respect.
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
Mike Mullikin wrote: When I was a kid, my father needed to get his belt out only once. After a few semi-hard whacks on my ass/arse (notice the cool multi-national contraction :cool he needed only hint at the belt in the future to get my full undivided attention and respect. It's one way of doing it. But did you fear your father at that stage??? I don't think that a child should fear his/her parent... it's just not right IMO. Regards, Brian Dela :-)
-
Should the parents have the right to beat their children? My answer is Yes if the following are true: 1. It is used only when the child did something very bad and would not listen to reasoning. 2. It is not physically harming the child (no extreme pain, internal injuries, or scars). I know I am going to be beaten up for writing this, but just can't help it. ;P
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: When I was a kid, my father needed to get his belt out only once. After a few semi-hard whacks on my ass/arse (notice the cool multi-national contraction :cool he needed only hint at the belt in the future to get my full undivided attention and respect. It's one way of doing it. But did you fear your father at that stage??? I don't think that a child should fear his/her parent... it's just not right IMO. Regards, Brian Dela :-)
Brian Delahunty wrote: It's one way of doing it. But did you fear your father at that stage??? I don't think that a child should fear his/her parent... it's just not right IMO. No, I didn't fear my father. I respected him very much. The belt incident was well deserved on my part ;P and never required a repeat performance. I've had to do roughly the same with my own son. A few years ago (he was about 9 yrs old), he was in the middle of throwing a major temper tantrum. I used my hand (ouch! - should have used a belt) on his ass/arse. Problem solved! I've never had to lift a hand against him since. If he ever starts to "cross the line" I merely give him "the look" and call his name in my deepest voice. Problem solved! He's 12yrs old now and I rarely even have to do this.
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
-
Brian Delahunty wrote: It's one way of doing it. But did you fear your father at that stage??? I don't think that a child should fear his/her parent... it's just not right IMO. No, I didn't fear my father. I respected him very much. The belt incident was well deserved on my part ;P and never required a repeat performance. I've had to do roughly the same with my own son. A few years ago (he was about 9 yrs old), he was in the middle of throwing a major temper tantrum. I used my hand (ouch! - should have used a belt) on his ass/arse. Problem solved! I've never had to lift a hand against him since. If he ever starts to "cross the line" I merely give him "the look" and call his name in my deepest voice. Problem solved! He's 12yrs old now and I rarely even have to do this.
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
Mike Mullikin wrote: call his name in my deepest voice That still works on me.. All my friends call be Dela and whenever I've done something wrong a stern "Brian" will sort me out... Carried on from my parents too :-D Regards, Brian Dela :-)
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: When I was a kid, my father needed to get his belt out only once. After a few semi-hard whacks on my ass/arse (notice the cool multi-national contraction :cool he needed only hint at the belt in the future to get my full undivided attention and respect. It's one way of doing it. But did you fear your father at that stage??? I don't think that a child should fear his/her parent... it's just not right IMO. Regards, Brian Dela :-)
Respect comes with fear, IMHO (But fear doesn't obligatorily lead to respect) So I came to find To end up this way Feeling like I'm God Feeling there's no way KoRn, "No Way"
-
Ray Cassick wrote: The problem here is that this is very subjective. WHO determines if the child was not listening and what is deemed to be 'very bad'. I agree that it is subjective, but most parents should be able to make the right decision. My typical example of "very bad" is that my old son keeps making the younger one cry and is enjoying it, despites my continuous warning and threats. For those children with abusive parents, a light beating/smacking is not the main problem. Ray Cassick wrote: The courts usualy error on the side of the child in 99.999% of abuse casses simply because it ends up being a child vs. adult struggle and the child has no advocate in a truly abusive situation. When the court is involved, it should be a much more serious situation than the parent trying to teach the child a lesson.
I am sorry, I just do not see an end to it. Kid gets a good amck for doing something. Kid stars to fear his parrents. Kid fears parrents the one of two things happen: 1) They learn to fear all adults. This is bad because it ends up givinig them a problem with authority latter in life. I have seen this happen with some close freinds of mine. The end up in situations where they need to assert themselves but don't because they are afriad. 2) The learn to fear thier parrents, and with fear can come eventual hate. This is no way to run a family. I have a 12 year old right now that has been stretching his wings for the last 2 years. I can say that out of all the things he has done, I have never once been provoked to hitting him. Not when he was a child, and not now. My right to discipline ends at the end of my hand. How would I like it if my wife walked up to me and slapped me for ofgetting to take out the garbage. Now, are thier things that WOULD provoke me to clobber him? Yes. If he ever took a swing at me I would lay him out. I deserve the same respect I gave him, he breaks the rule, he get's it right back. If he ever tried to hit my wife, he's toast. he's my son and I love him but I will not tollerate hitting a woman. If you have a problem with hiim liking making the little one cry, then please get some outside advice before you raise hand to your child.
-
Should the parents have the right to beat their children? My answer is Yes if the following are true: 1. It is used only when the child did something very bad and would not listen to reasoning. 2. It is not physically harming the child (no extreme pain, internal injuries, or scars). I know I am going to be beaten up for writing this, but just can't help it. ;P
The only time I have ever spanked my children is when they were very young and insisted on doing something that was physically dangerous - i.e. running towards a busy intersection. I'm not a real reverend, I just play one on CP.