|
Post by Just Reread on Jul 6, 2007 23:49:06 GMT -5
If any of you persistent I-am-right ers would go back and read all the other 14 pages of drivel, you would see that you are repeating yourselves and each other. But then of course we would have a debate and not an argument. Heaven forbid.
Your tempers and obstinance is overwhelming. I am reminded of a third-grade quarrel I watched for three days straight. Each day the arguers would gather in the classroom, in the lunch hall, on the playground, and at the curb while waiting for the bus. I am sure the bus driver was entertained as well. Those kids never gave one inch to the other's opinion and they were both very positive they were right about their own opinions. And of course, each opinion was fact.
I do not remember the point of the argument, but I remember sending both of them to the principal on the third day at the end of class - they missed the bus and their parents had to pick them up. Into the second day, they were placed in separate corners of the room so their arguing would not affect the other students. Their arguing not only disrupted class, they fought about other issues which did not pertain to their points.
Through the third day, the other students had had their fill and were quite perturbed so the learning curve took a downward spill. The affected students had to listen to the bickering all day in other parts of the complex as well as before and after school. I realized this on the third day and asked the two students to report to the principal at the end of the day. The other students emitted sighs of relief. There was a load taken off every shoulder.
Whether their parents caused it or whether they came to some realization, the two students were best buds the fourth day. Those two became best of friends, played sports together through high school, graduated with high honors, and are now in the same college utilizing equal scholarships. Hopefully their bonding friendship will continue through adulthood.
Maybe you two will learn from each other as well . . . but fifteen pages later, I rather doubt it. You remind me of those students up to the point of the end of the third day. Have you repeated yourselves enough? Maybe you should aquire one another's address and phone number. Or better yet, meet somewhere in the middle at a small diner. Or . . . . just stay here and bicker and prove your opinions are factual. Good luck with that.
|
|
|
Post by FlyBall on Jul 7, 2007 8:03:36 GMT -5
To the poster "Back again":
The poster "Just Reread" is correct.
I've spent the last several hours reading the rest of this thread and have seen that this debate has been done before. Your viewpoint (in fact it looks like you've been here a while) has been repeated several times and IMO you've been handed a firm defeat.
It boils down to this:
Spanking is a personal decision. It is legal in most places though unfortunately, in some areas it has been outlawed. (But law doesn't always coincide with morality.) Some parents spank, some don't.
You don't spank which is your right as a parent and your decision not to spank is respected and tolerated by others.
On the other hand, you have no respect or tolerance for those that do spank. You pay lip-service to respect and tolerance but you only really show it to people that see things from your narrow viewpoint. You excuse your own judgmental condemnations with proclamations of "physical abuse" while being blind to the potential response that sees your parenting technique as "mental abuse". You further justify your desire to control the way others raise their children by misapplying poorly designed studies to the act of spanking. Your narrow-minded intolerance has blinded you to the beauty and diversity of the different thoughts, opinions, beliefs, religions, and cultures that grace this Earth.
It's not surprising that you're here. This board is sprinkled with religious control freaks driven by their thirst for control to push their beliefs on others at all costs. Your dogmatic Stalinist rhetoric is all to obvious. I'm sorry for whatever it is in your life that has made you such a bitter and hateful person. May God have mercy on your soul and those around you in future days.
For those that haven't, read the rest of this thread as "Just Reread" suggests. It is quite informative, even entertaining at times.
|
|
|
Post by withopeneyes (Mandy) on Jul 7, 2007 12:14:04 GMT -5
I personally don't agree with spanking. I feel guilty when I do because I realize there are better ways I could have handled it.
However, I have friends who spank, and my only concern is that, when they do, they don't do it out of their own anger.
|
|
|
Post by mental abuse on Jul 7, 2007 12:18:33 GMT -5
I personally don't agree with nagging. I feel guilty when I do because I realize there are better ways I could have handled it.
However, I have friends who nag, and my only concern is that, when they do, they don't do it out of their own laziness.
|
|
|
Post by withopeneyes (Mandy) on Jul 7, 2007 12:26:09 GMT -5
Haha! I don't agree with nagging either. This is a nag-free household.
A foolish son brings disgrace to his father. A nagging wife goes on and on like the drip, drip, drip of the rain. (Prov 19:13)
It's better to stay outside on the roof of your house than to live inside with a nagging wife. (Prov 21:9)
Proverbs talks a lot about nagging wives. I think thats a huge hint that God doesnt really like nagging.
|
|
|
Post by TMS on Jul 7, 2007 12:26:35 GMT -5
THIS is a very interesting topic. I have a toddler. I spank her once in a blue moon, not much because it is not so effective. Why do you think it does not work? Different things work with her. When she screams because she has to take a nap or get in trouble, so she is in time out or go to room and she screams for over 30 minutes, you know the attention type of screaming..she goes into the cold shower to calm down..this happens about once a month. Its a shock thing. She just gets so worked up no talking can calm her.Sounds like nurse Ratched from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. At a hospital I used to work the old the records show cold water treatments, much like you describe, and wrapping people in cold wet sheets. They were discontinued because it was ruled they were barbaric and inhumane. Just because something works it does not mean it is a good idea. When she throws tantrums = over food or toys, the food goes away and she has to go in time out...if she is being naughty - her favorite toys go on top of the refrigerator for a day or two. She hates that. Today she was being naughty so I threw her favorite toy in the garbage...and took it out already. (its form the $1 store.)
You cannot win a conflict over food. I cannot believe you took a child's favorite toy, put it in the garbage, and took the garbage out. What a loss for the child. Imagine someone taking your favorite object and discarding it. She is very spoiled acting, she screams if she doesnt like what I am fixing her to eat for a meal, so I just put it on the table, and after a few hours she eats it..I don't offer alternatives.I wonder if you would offer alternatives for an adult. Just out of curiosity, why not offer her some small selection to choose from so she has at least some say in her diet? Is it really important for you to be in control? She is pretty good overall. She minds, sometimes I have to raise my voice to get her to do something, but if she gets enough sleep she minds me after telling her 2X.She is probably worried something she likes will be taken from her. As far as dangerous items, I just have the house childproof, I took out all the nicknacks and things like that. I have small dogs in the house and between them and the toddler there are no throw rugs, no nicknacks, no nice furniture, its all easy to clean, and not breakable. I limit her toys to only really sturdy things, and if she breaks a toy or rips a book, I throw it away...She has very few toys which is fine. She is allowed to play in the tupperware drawer.
Did you ever think of sitting with her and repairing the damage? But then she has most likely learned by this time not to become too attached to anything or it will be taken away as a punishment. My husband spanks more than me, it works for him but I like to take things away and do time out.The more I read the more I think this is a put on. My parents spanked me until I was 14. I think that was too excessive, but we have a good relationship. I was quite the teen anyways.Did the spanking stop you from doing whatever it was you were doing wrong? I think spanking is OK, but it depends on the child and the parents needs to control their temper. Wow! Stunning report. Hi Jill, thank you for your questions. I will not answer them all but let you know that taking the toys away from her works for me, and she is very destructive. I was describing a toy I threw away. It was a toy cell phone that had a battery. She broke the phone and the wires were sticking out, so I threw it away because 1. I want to teach her not to break toys 2. It was dangerous. I realized now that I can only buyher really strong toys like those made by Fisher Price. (not ones from the dollar store). Yes, I absolutely have to be in control of my child when it comes to the food issue and other issues. She was raised in an orphanage for the first 2 yrs of her life and she had several destructive behaviors when I got her. In order to lay the framework for a happy healthy child , we have a reasonably controlled environment. Which is for example, she is not allowed to throw her food, she has to sit at the table for all meals, she is not allowed to kick mommy or daddy, she is not allowed to hit the dogs, or bite mommy or daddy. She is not allowed to throw toys at us or the dogs. Her time out chair is a large leather armchair for if she does any of the above things. The reason she is not given choices with food is because if given choices she would eat only two or three items, bread, bread, and cookies. I used to let her eat whatever she wanted and she had constipation for a week and cried all the time from the pain. As a loving parent it is my responsibility that she eats from all food groups and has a daily BM, and is not in pain. If that means she has to eat what I give her, so be it. Her health is more important to me than her decision about breakfast age age 2.5 going on 3 than anything else. Being a strict parent as a young age is an act of love and it gives the children boundaries so they don't grow into an unruly child. 2 or 3 yr olds cannot really make their own decisions you know. If my girl made her own decisions she would eat bread/cookies for all meals and go to bed at 2 am and wake up at noon. This does not fit with our schedule nor is it healthy for her. As a result of my boundaries and discipline, she has became a loving, happy and very healthy young child. Yes, I was spanked until I was 14. No it was not effective at that age, I dont think spanking should go beyond about 8 yrs of age, and it only works for some children. The 10 second cold shower works for us in cases where she screams too long, it is not brutal or harsh. Give me a break. I don't operate a prison here, I am a loving parent, if you think otherwise then that is your own opinion, but everyone who meets our kid says she is happy.
|
|
|
Post by may b confused on Jul 7, 2007 12:36:21 GMT -5
However, I have friends who spank, and my only concern is that, when they do, they don't do it out of their own anger. I think interacting with a child in any capacity out of anger is a mistake. I wouldn't spank out of anger and I would punish at all out of anger. Am I misunderstanding you? Why is punishement out of anger ok if its' not spanking?
|
|
|
Post by POTHEAD on Jul 7, 2007 17:35:28 GMT -5
If you are burning your children to teach them not to play with fire you deserve to be sued. I think what you wanted to say was there are consequences for their actions. Have you put them in the road and run them over? I use fire, I use guns, I take drugs, and I do mix chemicals. Note that it is me doing it. Not me causing pain to someone else. It can be learned without being burned. Children can be taught correct behavior without hurting them. M - E - T - A - P - H - O - R LOOK IT UP! THIS IS A THREAD ON SPANKING! IF YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT PROMOTING DESIRED BEHAVIOR, START A NEW THREAD CAUSE THIS THREAD IS ABOUT DISCOURAGING BAD BEHAVIOR! OH LOOK! A SMARTASS! I DUNNO WHY THE GUY YOU ARGUE WITH CONTINUES TO ENTERTAIN YOU BY PUTTIN UP WITH YOUR STUPID WORD GAMES BUT IF IT WERE ME I'D LIKE TO KICK YOUR CLUELESS LITTLE ASS! WOW YOU ARE A CLUELESS F UCK AREN'T YOU! SAME GOES FOR YOU!
|
|
|
Post by simple truth on Jul 7, 2007 22:09:42 GMT -5
"There is also the control issue. Many parents think they need to have absolute control over their children. The question is - do we control or guide?"
How about some of both? Guide when possible, control when necessary.
"The spanking itself is not the issue (assuming it is with reasonable force) but the message being sent and the future ramifications. There is a reason why more and more health care professionals are pulling back from spanking."
Yes and that reason is that it is the politically correct thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by another thought on Jul 7, 2007 22:17:43 GMT -5
"There is a reason why more and more health care professionals are pulling back from spanking."
This brings up a good point. They've pretty much taken spanking out of schools these days. When I was a kid if you got far enough out of line it was a trip to the principals office for a butt warming. Now they don't do that. I wonder what kind of impact this has had on the youth we're turning out these days. Does anybody here even know what teachers do when they get that stubborn punk that won't listen to reason and logic - he's just hell-bent on making trouble?
|
|
|
Post by We all try on Jul 7, 2007 23:19:50 GMT -5
To the poster "Back again": The poster "Just Reread" is correct. I've spent the last several hours reading the rest of this thread and have seen that this debate has been done before. Your viewpoint (in fact it looks like you've been here a while) has been repeated several times and IMO you've been handed a firm defeat. I didn't realize this was a win or lose situation. No one has suggested that you should stop spanking your child. It was pointed out that you are controlling your child by inflicting pain and you seem to be angry when confronted by what is going on. Quite the paragraph. If you wish to spank your child - feel free. It is, after all, your child. But you are correct, I do fail to find beauty in an adult deliberately hurting a child. Let's look at the control aspect. Who is advocating that if all else fails in your effort to control your child that you will resort to inflicting pain? Yet in all of this you complain about equating spanking with hitting or striking yet have failed to explain how you spank your child without the physical act of contacting them with enough force to cause pain. Of course you don't want to acknowledge that you hit or strike your child. You feel much more comfortable with a nice soft word like spank. Perhaps you would share your definition of spank.
|
|
|
Post by So true on Jul 7, 2007 23:37:06 GMT -5
Yes and that reason is that it is the politically correct thing to do. It looks like you are right. Sweden, Finland, Austria, Norway, Croatia, Denmark, Hungary, Israel, Cyprus, Netherlands, Bulgaria, Germany, Latvia, Iceland, Romania, Greece, New Zealand, and Ukraine have legislated total bans on spanking. I am sure there is nothing behind this other than the fact that it is politically correct. 18 countries have pulled the wool over all of their citizens. And the list will possibly include Italy, South Africa, Scotland, Canada, and Ireland in the near future. Isn't there some possibility that these countries are on to something? Remember, at one time a husband had the right to use corporal punishment to discipline is wife. Corporal punishment is OK for a 4 year old but not a prisoner?
|
|
|
Post by culare on Jul 8, 2007 0:05:21 GMT -5
M - E - T - A - P - H - O - R LOOK IT UP! I don't think the trope you used is a metaphor. I would have to lean towards allegory. So you admit that spanking does not promote the correct behavior but just discourages the bad behavior. I wonder if spanking would discourage hitting. Stupid word games. You didn't like the definitions? I wonder why those who support spanking are the ones who make this type of post.
|
|
|
Post by wanttobewithGod on Jul 8, 2007 1:50:18 GMT -5
LOL I love the "nagging" stuff...I don't nag either....well, much.....'cause I don't think God likes sloth either... ;D LOL. M.
|
|
|
Post by Oh yes on Jul 8, 2007 2:38:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by FlyBall on Jul 8, 2007 12:06:59 GMT -5
I didn't realize this was a win or lose situation. Your arguments were flawed and demonstrated to be moot. So there. No mention of winning or loosing. Wrong. You should read the whole thread. Wrong. I just want you to call it what it is, "spanking" instead of choosing broad inflammatory words like "hitting". Wow! Progress. You're slipping. You are taking my statement out of context. I advocate ME controlling the behavior of MY children but not other adults. Nothing more nothing less. You seem hung up on this with me and in months past with other posters. It's been explained to you over and over and you just don't get it. Sorry but your lack of understanding is not my problem. I spank my children. Because that's what it is. Words mean things.There was one several pages back that wasn't to bad. Look at it.
|
|
|
Post by FlyBall on Jul 8, 2007 12:12:06 GMT -5
Sweden, Finland, Austria, Norway, Croatia, Denmark, Hungary, Israel, Cyprus, Netherlands, Bulgaria, Germany, Latvia, Iceland, Romania, Greece, New Zealand, and Ukraine have legislated total bans on spanking. I am sure there is nothing behind this other than the fact that it is politically correct. 18 countries have pulled the wool over all of their citizens. And the list will possibly include Italy, South Africa, Scotland, Canada, and Ireland in the near future. Popular opinion is not an indication of morality. Just as much as their is the possibility that they are on the wrong track. It wouldn't be the first time. So what? So what?
|
|
|
Post by FlyBall on Jul 8, 2007 12:39:53 GMT -5
So you admit that spanking does not promote the correct behavior but just discourages the bad behavior. Hmmm. This is interesting. Can I but in? I think spanking does discourage bad behavior but it also encourages good behavior. ----- I got a spanking for stealing gum as a child. I never stole again. Stealing is bad behavior. I've been discouraged from this bad behavior. Not stealing is good behavior. I've been encouraged toward this good behavior. ----- ----- I got a spanking for refusing to help my little brother when he was injured and in need of assistance. I now jump at the chance to help others in need of assistance. Refusing to help those in need is bad behavior. I've been discouraged from this bad behavior. Assisting those in need is a good behavior. I've been encouraged toward this good behavior. ----- Why you say spanking only works to discourage bad behavior is strange. Could it be you are the "glass half empty" type instead of the "glass half full" type? Excellent question and the answer is yes. I know from personal experience. Growing up we had this bully neighbor kid and his favorite thing was throat shots and groin shots. I learned the hard way how hitting like this was very effective. I kicked my younger brother in the groin once and dad spanked me for it. I never did it again. Oh and the bully kept it up until he was in fourth grade when he got caught kicking a girl in the groin. He got a board swat from the school principal for it. This caused a big stink because his parents didn't believe in spanking. I don't know for sure but I don't think he ever did it again. So it definitely worked for me and it may have worked for him. Oh come on. Do you really believe this? There are bad apples in every batch. Read this thread. There are hateful posts from both "sides". You should know better than to take a pot shot like this.
|
|
|
Post by culare on Jul 8, 2007 12:53:59 GMT -5
Your arguments were flawed and demonstrated to be moot. So there. No mention of winning or loosing. Wrong. You should read the whole thread. Let's see - There are peer reviewed studies posted showing the results of spanking. Nothing in support of spanking but various people's opinions. Is the flaw that I presented references? No, you want to call it spanking and blot out the fact that you are unable to explain how you could possibly spank someone without hitting them. Perhaps corporal punishment would suit you better. Or the definition of spanking - A number of slaps on the buttocks delivered in rapid succession, as for punishment. Does slap sit easier than hit? I am not the one hung up on the words. It is you that want to consider what is clearly hitting/striking/slapping only as spanking because you do not want to consider the fact that if you spank someone you have to, by definition, hit/strike/slap the person you are spanking. Good for you. Of course, it is. Words do mean things. And spanking means slapping/hitting/striking. There were many on those pages. I asked you what your definition was. I would be interested in the words you feel are OK to use.
|
|
|
Post by culare on Jul 8, 2007 13:06:07 GMT -5
Popular opinion is not an indication of morality. Morality? We are talking about corporal punishment for children. Over time what is considered normal changes. corporal punishment of a wife by her husband was considered normal. At one time, spanking children was considered normal. It seems this is still the case in great Midwest. If you see nothing amiss, then "So what" is the perfect answer.
|
|
|
Post by FlyBall on Jul 8, 2007 14:01:43 GMT -5
Let's see - There are peer reviewed studies posted showing the results of spanking. The studies mentioned in this thread are no good because they depend on defective data. They don't apply to spanking. This has been discussed several pages back already. Nothing in opposition to spanking but bogus studies. Again it's already been discussed. I thought you were one of the people discussing but maybe not. You'll have to read the thread. I can't do it for you. Which references are yours? You seem stuck on this, almost afraid to move on. I wonder why. You keep mis-characterizing what I've said. Simply put: Spanking is the subject.
I DO object when you SUBSTITUTE terms broader than "spanking" for "spanking". This is a political word game designed to mis-characterize genuine "spanking".
I DO NOT object when you USE terms broader than "spanking" and then SUBSEQUENTLY NARROW/QUALIFY THOSE terms for the purpose of providing a definition or description of "spanking".
Spanking is spanking.
Spanking is not hitting, punching, smacking, swatting, slapping, striking, banging, belting, slogging, smashing, swinging, walloping, and so on. But when, and only when, these terms have been qualified and narrowed, can they be used to define or describe spanking.
|
|
|
Post by Flyball on Jul 8, 2007 14:11:10 GMT -5
Morality? We are talking about corporal punishment for children. You've been derailed. Read the original quote. You use the extinction of one thing to make a case for the extinction of another related thing. This makes no sense. So it used to be acceptable for a husband to spank his wife. You think this means all spanking should be done away with. It used to be acceptable to paint with lead-based paint. Do you also think this means that all painting should be done away with? Or it could be that not even YOU know what you were talking about.
|
|
|
Post by withopeneyes (Mandy) on Jul 8, 2007 17:37:51 GMT -5
To answer the question directed toward me, No, I do not agree with punishing out of anger. Time outs are best used on parents. But in this thread, the subject is spanking.... which is the reason why I wrote it the way I did.
|
|
|
Post by culare on Jul 8, 2007 23:21:43 GMT -5
You seem stuck on this, almost afraid to move on. I wonder why. You keep mis-characterizing what I've said. Simply put: Spanking is the subject.
I DO object when you SUBSTITUTE terms broader than "spanking" for "spanking". This is a political word game designed to mis-characterize genuine "spanking".
I DO NOT object when you USE terms broader than "spanking" and then SUBSEQUENTLY NARROW/QUALIFY THOSE terms for the purpose of providing a definition or description of "spanking".
Spanking is spanking.
Spanking is not hitting, punching, smacking, swatting, slapping, striking, banging, belting, slogging, smashing, swinging, walloping, and so on. But when, and only when, these terms have been qualified and narrowed, can they be used to define or describe spanking.
You are right. I am waiting for you to define spanking so we can all be on the same page. Spanking is spanking is not a definition. Qualify the terms any way you wish. Just define your understanding of spanking.
|
|
|
Post by FlyBall on Jul 9, 2007 11:33:53 GMT -5
You are right. I am waiting for you to define spanking so we can all be on the same page. The one by Harold6 is kinda wordy but okay with me. Spanking is hitting is not a definition either. Now it's your turn so define your alternative to spanking and provide it's definition.
|
|
|
Post by FlyBall on Jul 9, 2007 11:58:37 GMT -5
To answer the question directed toward me, I think they were just a troll. Plenty of them here. I don't either. The point here is that some people (this isn't directed at you withopeneyes) think spanking is a result of anger so the two cannot be separated. This is bogus. Parents who don't believe in spanking are just as prone to anger as parents who do spank. I know a family that never spanked their children. They ate anger three meals a day though. They yelled, threw things, and played some of the cruelest mind games. One time the dad slashed his daughters tires for getting home an hour late and told her that she might have a stalker who did it. She was a nervous wreck for weeks. Spanking is not an anger problem. Anger, however it's exhibited, is a problem. Oh how true. Timeouts were usually effective with my oldest girl. But I knew timeouts wouldn't be effective with my first boy when he repeatedly didn't want to get out of the chair when the egg-timer went off. He'd sit there for the mandatory 5 minutes then voluntarily sit there for another 15. I always enjoy your input. Don't let the trolls scare you off.
|
|
|
Post by withopeneyes (Mandy) on Jul 9, 2007 18:17:55 GMT -5
Thanks. (And how funny, about your son. I believe children teach us A LOT more than we teach them. We just like to think we're the smarter ones.)
And trolls can't scare me off. I just go in and out of my "TMB" posting moods.
|
|
|
Post by culare on Jul 9, 2007 21:50:44 GMT -5
The one by Harold6 is kinda wordy but okay with me. I can see you are dancing around the question. Is this the quote you are agreeing with? SPANKING IS A FORM OF PUNISHMENT THAT TEACHES CHILDREN THAT THIER ARE CONSEQUENCES FOR BAD BEHAVIOR; IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TEACHING THEM VIOLENCE. IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH PREPARING THEM FOR LIFE!Stating what you are think you are accomplishing by spanking does not define spanking. You still have not defined spanking. How about just looking at some dictionaries to see how spanking is defined? 1) To strike (a person, usually a child) with the open hand, a slipper, etc., esp. on the buttocks, as in punishment. 2) To slap on the buttocks with a flat object or with the open hand, as for punishment. 3) A blow given in spanking; a smart or resounding slap. 4) A slap on the buttocks. 5) To strike or slap with the flat of the hand, especially on the buttocks, usually as a punishment. Odd they all use those descriptive words you don't acknowledge as being a part of spanking. Are you going to provide your definition of the verb to spank or just continue with your word games and avoid the issue? Or should we avoid the word spank altogether and use corporal punishment? There are numerous alternatives to spanking. I am much more apt to modify behavior by either positive or negative reinforcement than by punishment. I resort to explanations rather than threats of physical punishment. I drop out of power struggles. When my exceptionally stubborn child began to resort to 'temper tantrums' I told her that I would not be in the same room because I did not enjoy that behavior but also offered her advice about the proper method of having a good temper tantrum including a reminder that she needed to scream, throw herself on the floor but from time to time she should get up and stamp her feet. I also added that I would be around if she had any questions. Even a three year old quickly realizes that without an audience a temper tantrum is useless. Stop and think - do kids even have temper tantrums when they are alone? It's a power struggle. Like any behavior, if it does not yield the desired results it will be extinguished. The goal is to encourage desired behavior through reinforcement rather than trying to extinguish unwanted behavior by punishment or fear of punishment.
|
|