You have every right in the world to whoop ya kid's..PLZ start I am sick of all the punk's

page: 24
56
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Death_Kron

Originally posted by DGFenrir

Originally posted by Death_Kron
Oh yeah, forgot to mention Roger... violence is slapping your child on its wrist to prevent it touching an open fire?

Jesus mate, if you controlled the world we would all be in trouble...

The lesson would be better if the kid touched the fire!
He'd know the consiquenses of it better..


So you would rather have a permanently disfigured child with severe burn scaring for the rest of its life?

Whats going to hurt more? The pain of a slap to dissuade the kid from touching the fire? or the pain caused from actually touching it?


The kid will feel the pain will pull the hand away from the fire. The kid has to lack nociceptors for him to hold it in the fire long enough to get burn scars.




posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 05:18 AM
link   
[mod edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link
..............................................................................


Yes and in the process will still burn himself, do you want your 2 year old sitting there with a burnt hand?

What your suggesting is worse than what the do-gooders are suggesting!

Why don't we leave our scalpel blades on the floor and let our two years old play with them so they'll get cut and learn not to play with knifes?




[edit on 30-7-2009 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by aorAki
 


You'd call the police if a parent spanked their child? I'm not talking about a beating, I'm talking about a swat on the but to get their attention? You'd actually call the police and try to have the parent arrested over that? YES or NO?


In New Zealand, it is illegal as was proven in a recent case, so yes, I would have no qualms.
You see, I believe passionately that we need to break this cycle of violence that we ALL seem to be mired in. I don't see how using a violent action will aid that.


Luckily it's not illegal in the United States to raise and discipline your child. Glad I don't live in a police state like New Zealand.

Ha, that's funny. Well I've lived in the US for 30yrs and NZ for 12yrs, NZ enjoys freedoms Americans can only dream about. I suggest you visit here before making judgement and assumptions. Once I experienced what real freedom was I could never go back to the US.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by BarryZuckercorn
Originally posted by jfj123
Now I could have let my anger take over and EASILY beat them into a gooey paste but I didn't. I do think their parents should however. That type of behavior is inexcusable and taking away their iphone for a day won't correct the problem.



While I agree that this sounds like a frustrating situation, you're not just talking about a swat on the ass here. You're discussing wanting to administer a fairly extreme level of violence. You're also thinking in rigid black and white terms; you aren't restricted to either a violent response or an ineffectual one. There's an entire spectrum of behavior available that you seem blind to.

Oh really??? Well then oh wise one, how would you have handled it ? What spectrum of behavior would you use? Please do tell me and in detail.


That being said, anger is anger. Everyone who is angry reacts with some type of emotional violence whether it's exhibited or not.



I agree that everyone feels some form of extreme emotion. Not everyone reacts violently.

At some time and at some level, yes EVERYONE reacts violently.


I'm an adult and have full control of my faculties and can make decisions without psychologically dissecting my entire childhood.



While I agree that you certainly can make decisions without dissecting yourself, those decisions might not be as conscious as you may think.

Yes they are.


Our perceptions of the world (or our prejudices) are molded by our experiences all the way back to childhood,

If you're unaware of reality, yes this is possible. I'm aware of reality.


whether we like it or not and whether we're aware of it or not. That's why "whooping" children is a bad idea; you're imprinting them with the idea that violence is a valid option for solving problems in life.

Not really.


You're living proof of this imprinting. When faced with a frustrating situation you had to resist the urge to physically attack someone, or turn them into "a gooey paste." When you spank your child it contributes to that child having to deal with the same violent streak that you and I and everyone else who has imprinted violent trauma and fear have to resist.

Everyone in the same situation would have the same feelings based on the complete disregard those teens had for everyone including those poor elderly people. Did I mention that the woman on oxygen tugged my sleave as I walked by...she was crying and said, "thank you...I thought noone cared anymore.." Yep, I'm a bad person, you've convinced me !

The reality is that parents who refused to be parents, created those monsters and now society has to deal with them. If you think I'm going to apologize or rethink how I handled the situation, you're INSANE. But hey, you tell me how I SHOULD HAVE handled it. I'm just dying to know oh great one !


1. You don't HIT a child. As example, if I HIT you. You'd be unconscience.



You've made several references to your physical prowess. You can "EASILY" turn people into "gooey paste" and if you hit me, I'd be unconscious.

No, I'm not bragging at all. I'm explaining the difference between hitting and a swat on the butt. Sorry you have a problem with everything everyone says....TOO BAD.


Violence haunts a lot of your language, and I'd guess that fear in the form of aggression and anger appear a lot on the "inside." That's really hard to deal with, and I hope that you can learn to let it go one day.

Do you have a good view from that tower you look down at us from? You first try to put me down by explaining how I'm just some stupid thug that simply doesn't know any better but you do...because you're smarter then the rest of us. Do you attempt to put people down who stand up for themselves because you couldn't/didn't as a child and were thus abused?


NO ! THIS IS THE DIGITAL EQUIVALENT OF SHOUTING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Originally posted by jfj123
I'm explaining my position and you're trying to change the meaning of what I'm saying by using words that are inappropriate within the context of what I'm saying.
What would you rather have. A swat on the butt or a BEATING? This is a real question I'd like you to answer.



Again: I am not misrepresenting you.

This is funny

A little bit of advice. If you're going to lie to someone, make sure it's not the someone who knows that it's a lie



You are advocating violence as punishment. A swat on the butt is violence. It's hitting your child, and it carries with it the implication of more violence should the child continue misbehaving. It's mild violence with the implicit threat of more severe violence.

You seem to think that I'm advocating this as part of EVERY punishment. I AM NOT nor have I EVER, at any point, suggested it.
Obviously, not matter I say, you think I'm wrong and you're right because you believe you're smarter and more evolved them myself. If you turn your child into a serial killer, don't come crying to me.


Have you ever been attacked? Would you consider an ATTACK (your word) the same as a swat? YES or NO ?



Yes, I have been attacked, and as a child I was "swatted" and worse.

I notice that you didn't answer the question so I'll ask it again.
Would you consider an ATTACK (your word) the same as a swat? YES or NO ?


Consider as a metaphor that in your psyche is a weight scale, but instead of measuring how heavy something is, it measures psychic trauma. An attack is a big heavy rock; a swat can be from a grain of sand to a pebble. They clearly aren't the same thing, but they are both traumatic. The implicit threat of further violence (fear and intimidation) also registers on this scale.


That's like saying being honked at while driving by someone else, is not as bad as being pulled out of your car and beaten however if you're honked at enough times it adds up to be the same thing.

And a little fear can save your life.

When you get off your high horse, be careful, the first step is a doosey!

[edit on 30-7-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bombeni

Originally posted by RogerT
reply to post by DaMod
 


Never mind. I didn't have a lot of confidence that you would fully understand the post, but others may draw some value from it so I made the effort.

No personal attack was meant or intended, my sincere apologies for any offense/suffering I have caused you with my words.


Well don't take this hard, but DaMod, if he didn't fully understand your post, wasn't the only one.



I'd be surprised if anyone who is so pro spanking would understand my post, but I can hope




Are you a parent? What is your age? Since you seem to be so full of parental wisdom, please endulge us with some firsthand accounts of your parenting experiences.


Yes. Irrelevant. Could you be more specific?



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by RogerT
 


Mate, you really do have a very deluded opinion regarding the up-bringing of children.

When did I once mention violence?

Do you want the definition of violence?


an act of aggression (as one against a person who resists)



acting with or marked by or resulting from great force or energy or emotional intensity; "a violent attack"; "a violent person"; "violent feelings


Doesn't quite fit the bill pal about abusing kids does it?

If you want to be a do-gooder then fair play to you, I suppose you'll put your kids on the "naughty step" or give them a "cool off period"

Happy days pal, your the parent who am I to judge.

I would say though, open your eyes...

And again as I said before STOP likening discipline to physical violence, smacking a kid on its bum isn't the same as kicking the #e out of a child

Get off your high horse and accept what I'm saying



Hmmm. Looks like you cherry picked your quotes. How about including complete dictionary definitions.

Here's one you missed:
"the use of physical force"
Here's another:
"Violence is the expression of physical force against self or other, compelling action against one's will on pain of being hurt"


Sounds like spanking to me.

My eyes are quite open, mate. I don't have to close them in order to inflict violence on children.

I'll 'get off my high horse' when you grow the balls to admit that striking a child, against it's will, with the intent to cause physical or emotional pain, is violence.

Justify and sugar coat it all you like, but a spade is a spade, even if one spade is small and another is large, they both dig dirt.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by TheColdDragon
 


Man your post is hilarious.

You begin by berating a poster for writing in a way that "bestows an absolute on reality" and then proceed to bestow your personal 'absolute reality'.

Thanks, enjoyed the giggle.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by RogerT

Originally posted by Mclaneinc

When I was a kid if I gave my mum a bad mouthing I soon knew about it and it was never repeated, I wasn't beaten to a pulp but the smack HURT and the memory of that hurt made sure I didn't want another one, it taught me a word that's so miss used now ..RESPECT.

I get kids youths around here screaming about demanding RESPECT, I'm well known for standing my ground and I tell them that you earn respect, not the other way around.



I enjoyed your post but wanted to clear up the above ...

You seem to be saying that you earn respect by inflicting physical pain on someone who is less powerful than yourself. I find that quite strange. Are you sure you don't mean 'FEAR' instead of 'RESPECT' in your first reference to the word above?

[edit on 29/7/09 by RogerT]


What I'm saying is that I obviously didn't have respect for my parents or I would not have been soo bad as to abuse them. I could well of just been verbally reprimanded but I was well out of order and I respect that what was done was done because it was a thing done quite normally throughout families of those times and before.

I knew my dad wasn't just giving me that smack just because it pleases some people to think of a smack as a sadistic parent, i wasn't mentally scarred by the issue, it just made me realise that giving very rude cheek to mum was not a thing to do, it taught me a boundary and I'm glad it did, I was a better person for it.

Oh, I noticed just after my post someone refereed to possibly me as a religious nut. Erm, actually I'm an atheist, I grew up with parents of different religions and watched the pain it caused them in Belfast, I can honestly say it put me off religion forever. I'm sorry to that poster, you have been watching too many reruns of The Waltons and the spiteful minister who beat his son type episodes.

But back to the point, I think we need to divide the 'one smack once in a blue moon' from the 'I want to bust your butt on a daily basis' people. It makes all the difference, some parents think screaming and beating is the ONLY way to resolve differences but if the only way you communicate is thru violence then you are WRONG. So much of this could have been avoided if the kids were shown the rights and wrongs early on, a clip around the ear or a smack on the bum would not be out of place for me, if it was being done on a daily basis then it's obviously the wrong thing to be doing and is more destructive than the idea was in the first place.

Personally I don't have to use anything more than a firm but polite request to my daughter at the very worst times, nothing more, no beatings. She has been given her boundaries / freedoms which are fair and she's been and is being educated daily, not sir down work, just little quizzes, things being explained but all done in a playful way so it just seems like part of the conversation.

And before anyone says, NO, I'm not rich, we live as I said on a council estate with very basic finances, no fancy schools, no snooty friends, just the kids that live locally.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheColdDragon

I am surprised that NOBODY in this thread has mentioned how the criticisms of how people raise their children is a subtle but sharp stab that people who do such a thing are DEFICIENT PEOPLE, or DEFECTIVE in the eyes of those against it.



Well those that spank for pleasure or self satisfaction are clearly deficient in humanity.

Those that spank and feel bad about it are simply deficient in alternative, non-violent options, and maybe also the motivation or desire to learn.

My guess is that most are also deficient in awareness of their own conditioned mental processes, hence the frequent denials and delusions in the thread.

Very few are saying 'It's ok to hurt my child'. Most are saying 'it's necesarry to hurt my child for a greater good'. Of course, it isn't necessary at all. I find that very sad, for both the child and the parent.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by RogerT

Very few are saying 'It's ok to hurt my child'. Most are saying 'it's necesarry to hurt my child for a greater good'. Of course, it isn't necessary at all. I find that very sad, for both the child and the parent.


I'd hope I don't enter the 'most' stakes...

I'm not advocating the instant beating of children just to prove it needs to be done, I actually advocate TEACHING at an early age and being PART of your child's life ie show interest in them.

It's a weird world, some parents won't smack but will let their child fall off a swing saying 'they have to learn', either way the child gets harm and could have been prevented.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   
I grew up in Texas in the late '60s and early '70s. We had a row of bushes growing along a fence in the back yard. These bushes had between 2-3 foot-long, thin branches. I hated those bushes because when I was bad (which wasn't often, thank goodness) I was made to go pull off a branch and my mom or dad would use that to whip me. I shortly learned to not wear shorts that often.

I've been spanked with hand, belt, and switch. In school I was paddled by the principal with a board once. I turned out fine. I have a son that acts up occassionally and I've had to spank him before. But no big deal. I wouldn't be ok with a school official spanking him as I think that is the job of the parent.

Nowadays bleeding-hearts would call that abuse but back then it was just what you did. The left just needs to get over themselves.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Mclaneinc
 


Anyone who believes that smacking is necessary or beneficial in order to educate or train a child, but does not actually enjoy the process, is included in my statement that you refer to.

There are ALWAYS non-violent alternatives, and IMO, many of these alternatives are far superior to violence in both process and result.

It's a good point about allowing kids to hurt themselves by their actions in order to learn. Some would argue that this is not the same or even in the same category as smacking, as 'allowing' and 'inflicting' are more opposite than similar, so no hypocrisy is apparent if one is implied by your comments.

And I disagree, you will not be able to prevent your child suffering pain via accidents - that is a normal learning process of life, and one of the biological reasons for pain IMO. You can however, prevent your child suffering pain and humiliation from impacting involuntarily with your hand as it is aimed at their butt !!

[edit on 30/7/09 by RogerT]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Someone said something about their kid eating dirt. I'm not sure who it was but here is why you should 100% let them eat dirt.


In studies of what is called the hygiene hypothesis, researchers are concluding that organisms like the millions of bacteria, viruses and especially worms that enter the body along with "dirt" spur the development of a healthy immune system. Several continuing studies suggest that worms may help to redirect an immune system that has gone awry and resulted in autoimmune disorders, allergies and asthma.


NY Times - Source



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by contemplator
There is no shortage of studies out there from unbiased sites. The fact is the smackers have made up their minds and no form of proof whatsoever will ever change their mind so I'm wasting my time. I suggest a smacker do some googling and hard research. I work 2 full time jobs so can't sit here all night citing studies for you. Maybe someone else will step up and post direct links. Until then happy smacking..


Wait, so because I asked you for more information you suddenly don't have the time or feel it is a wasted effort because I've already made my mind up?

There goes my interest in knowing more, congratulations, now I think your head has been inserted in your rectum.

If you can't be bothered to back up your argument sufficiently (And I'm sorry, I really WAS interested in hearing more about these studies), then your OPINION isn't worth the time and consideration you waste in typing up rhetoric for three hours in response to things I've said.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by RogerT
Man your post is hilarious.

You begin by berating a poster for writing in a way that "bestows an absolute on reality" and then proceed to bestow your personal 'absolute reality'.

Thanks, enjoyed the giggle.


Which particular part do you find funny?

People that involve the authorities when a child's parents are just disciplining them (Which is fundamentally different from child abuse) and succeed in removing the child to State custody have just RUINED that child's life. FOREVER.

If you are from the U.S.A, are you not aware of how traumatic a child (Any child) being taken from their parents is? There is a required video by court law in the state I live in (Alaska) that is shown to all divorcees and people in child custody battles. It is a tape about how children felt about the arguments and other things from various situations involving their parents... universally the children want to love their parents, there is an inherant need to do so.

Taking a child away from their parents when all the parents have done is swat their hind-sides? That is monstrous and should not be allowed unless actual child abuse can be proven. I've spoken with Child Services representatives and Social Workers, and universally from those I've spoken with, they agree that all Children are different and that SPANKINGS are NOT a form of Child Abuse unless carried to an illogical extreme (Spankings every day, or spankings for any imagined or perceived slight by the child is emotional child abuse and can cause severe Psychological damage).

Spankings are NOT a catch all solution, should NOT be used in every instance of punishment when there are alternatives present. Nobody, and I do mean NOBODY on this thread, has advocated beating the hell out of a child or foregoing ANY OTHER FORM of discipline and teaching tools just because they Looooove spanking their children!

Secondly, none of you anti-spanking people have provided any PROOF of your opinions, just very strong personal feelings that people who Spank are terrible people in general, and worthless, lazy, good for nothing parents.

Meanwhile, the Spankers have REPEATEDLY CONCEDED that there are much more effective methods of teaching in MOST SITUATIONS, but that isn't enough; it is either no spanking your children and you are a saint, or you swat your child once and you're a demon.

THAT is the joke. THAT is the hypocrisy that you and others are not seeing.

SIDE NOTE: Amaterasu is a special case, and I respect her greatly for treating those in the thread on either side with respect and decency. While she has been advocating against Spanking, her method is probably the most convincing out of all of you. She hasn't directly attacked or demeaned the people, she's cited her own personal experience, deferred that hers may be a unique case, and given her own reasons for her views without attacking other posters. While I may disagree, largely because I believe hers is a very unique case (I've met few people like her on the web), I can at least recognize when someone takes the high road and appreciate it.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheColdDragon

Originally posted by RogerT
Man your post is hilarious.

You begin by berating a poster for writing in a way that "bestows an absolute on reality" and then proceed to bestow your personal 'absolute reality'.

Thanks, enjoyed the giggle.


Which particular part do you find funny?


The fact that you begin by berating a poster for writing in a way that "bestows an absolute on reality" and then proceed to bestow your personal 'absolute reality'.

Do I have to repeat it a third time or should I give you a slap to teach you to pay more attention next time


What's even funnier is that now you're pointing the finger and making accusations of hypocrisy



[edit on 30/7/09 by RogerT]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheColdDragon

There goes my interest in knowing more, congratulations, now I think your head has been inserted in your rectum.

If you can't be bothered to back up your argument sufficiently (And I'm sorry, I really WAS interested in hearing more about these studies), then your OPINION isn't worth the time and consideration you waste in typing up rhetoric for three hours in response to things I've said.


I call BS.

It took me a total of 23 seconds to find these references for you:




Dillenburger, K. & Keenan, M. (1994). Smacking children: The dangers of misguided and outdated applications of
psychological principles. The Irish Psychologist, Jan.,

Holland, J. G, (1978). Behaviorism: Part of the problem or part of the solution. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,

Lynn, R. (1993). Smacking children. The Irish Psychologist, Nov.,

Newan (1992). The reluctant alliance: Behaviorism and
humanism. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books


granted it took me a bit longer to copy and paste them.

Here's some more, another 60 seconds or so of googling:




"...there appears to be a linear association between the frequency of slapping and spanking during childhood and a lifetime prevalence of anxiety disorder, alcohol abuse or dependence and externalizing problems." Dr. Harriet McMillan, in a Reuters article "Punished for life: Canadian study links spanking to addiction and psychiatric disorders."

"Study links spanking to future alcohol abuse," The Globe and Mail, Toronto, 1999-OCT-5, Pages A1 & A13.

# E. Larzelere, "A review of the outcomes of parental use of non-abusive or customary physical punishment," Pediatrics 98:824-831

# Ben Harder, "Spanking: When parents lift their hands -- It's better not to use corporal punishment, researchers agree. But, in fact, people do. Now we're learning the consequences," Los Angeles Times, 2007-FEB-19, at: www.latimes.com...



I'm not expressing any opinion on any of the studies, just challenging your so-called interest in the subject.

If you can't be bothered to spend even 2 minutes in google, I suggest you're not really as interested as you claim.

[edit on 30/7/09 by RogerT]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Death_Kron

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by TheColdDragon


Ahhh, educators. So, do I hold you and your family responsible for the rampant stupidity and abysmally mind-twisting idiocy of the modern youth?

[]


Nope, blame the parents. The educators have a hard enough time of it as it is.

Yes, I would call the police. Why wouldn't I?

Violence is laziness. It is ignorance and it breeds violence.


You would call the police? Thats because your a do-gooder, what business is it of yours?

Would you like it if I started prying into your life? Telling you how you should run it?

I also suppose from your post that you've never been violent or angry yourself??? No... didn't think so.



Well, because it happened in the public area, it is public property

Yes, I am aware that I have the capacity for agression, anger and violence, I just choose not to exercise it and prefer to find and use more non-violent techniques.
If you started prying into my life and telling me how to run it, I would talk to you. My response would not be an angry one. I would rather try to work out why we view things differently and why I do the things I do. I have done this in the past. You know what, talking worked!

Go figure


[edit on 30-7-2009 by aorAki]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Oh really??? Well then oh wise one, how would you have handled it ? What spectrum of behavior would you use? Please do tell me and in detail.


I don't know, I wasn't there. It's entirely possible that I would have behaved similarly to how you did, but you missed my point. My point is that you had to resist the violent urges at all, most likely because of your conditioning to behave violently when pushed. A better adjusted person wouldn't necessarily feel the urge to turn anyone into a "gooey paste." In fact, they might not take it personally at all, since it's never personal. Those kids were following their (apparently lousy) conditioning, and you were following and resisting yours.


Originally posted by BarryZuckercorn
While I agree that you certainly can make decisions without dissecting yourself, those decisions might not be as conscious as you may think.



Originally posted by jfj123
Yes they are.


Your method of argument seems to be to just say "no" to everything that you disagree with. You don't seem to have anything to say in response apart from that.


Originally posted by BarryZuckercorn
Our perceptions of the world (or our prejudices) are molded by our experiences all the way back to childhood...



Originally posted by jfj123
If you're unaware of reality, yes this is possible. I'm aware of reality.


I don't see how that could be true, since our nervous systems are not set up to allow us to see "reality." Our nervous systems are wired to keep us alive by reacting quickly to danger. Our brains do this by taking on imprints and then feeding emotional data to the "conscious" mind, which responds based on the data that it's being presented with. That data, which we think of as "reality" is most certainly not reality. That goes for me, it goes for you, and it goes for every other person on the planet.

The imprinting process is the reason why it matters how we treat our children; hitting children as punishment imprints them with fear and violence, since every "swat" carries with it the implication of further violence should their behavior not change.


Originally posted by BarryZuckercorn
That's why "whooping" children is a bad idea; you're imprinting them with the idea that violence is a valid option for solving problems in life.



Originally posted by jfj123
Not really.


Try presenting the reasons why you disagree. That would be a much more effective debate technique than just saying some variant of "no" all the time.


Originally posted by jfj123
Everyone in the same situation would have the same feelings based on the complete disregard those teens had for everyone including those poor elderly people.


I disagree. Everyone who shares a similar psychological makeup to you would feel the way you did. We humans have a tendency to project our emotional and intellectual state onto others. We assume that the way we see the world is the way everyone sees it, therefore anyone who disagrees with us must be stupid, crazy, or lying. That's why you have repeatedly accused me of lying and misrepresenting you.


Originally posted by jfj123
No, I'm not bragging at all. I'm explaining the difference between hitting and a swat on the butt.


Yes, and the way that you have chosen to describe that difference is by telling everyone on the board how "EASILY" you could turn people into "gooey paste," and how if you hit me, I'd be unconscious. Based on your language choices you seem have constant thoughts of violence. If not, why do you decide to present yourself that way? You and a large portion of the other people here who are arguing from a pro-spanking position seem to have a more violence-oriented semantic approach.


[edit on 30/7/2009 by BarryZuckercorn]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Do you attempt to put people down who stand up for themselves because you couldn't/didn't as a child and were thus abused?


I'm not putting you down, I'm arguing with you. You're taking it personally. And why do you choose to say "couldn't/didn't?" (Emphasis mine, obviously.)

Are you seriously suggesting that there is something that I could have done to "stand up for myself" when I was being abused as a young child?



You seem to think that I'm advocating this as part of EVERY punishment. I AM NOT nor have I EVER, at any point, suggested it.


I don't think that you're advocating violence as a punishment for every situation. I think that you're advocating light corporal punishment in some instances. I also think that this is child abuse, since every blow, no matter how light, caries with it the implied possibility of further violence. Once you hit a child as punishment you are making that child aware of the possibility that worse might happen if they do not co-operate. It's what so many in the pro-spanking camp call teaching your children "respect."

The problem is that it does nothing of the kind. The "respect" that you receive after smacking your child is the same sort of thing as the "respect" that a gang-banging thug receives after flashing his pistol at someone. That's not respect, it's just a fear based reaction to someone threatening a violent response if "respect" is not shown.

Relying on that "respect," or fear, to control a child is lazy parenting. It also teaches the child that violence is an acceptable way to solve interpersonal problems.



I notice that you didn't answer the question so I'll ask it again.
Would you consider an ATTACK (your word) the same as a swat? YES or NO ?


Actually, I did answer your question. You even quoted my answer in your reply. I will re-post my answer:


Originally posted by BarryZuckercorn
Consider as a metaphor that in your psyche is a weight scale, but instead of measuring how heavy something is, it measures psychic trauma. An attack is a big heavy rock; a swat can be from a grain of sand to a pebble. They clearly aren't the same thing, but they are both traumatic. The implicit threat of further violence (fear and intimidation) also registers on this scale.


To which you said:


Originally posted by jfj123
That's like saying being honked at while driving by someone else, is not as bad as being pulled out of your car and beaten however if you're honked at enough times it adds up to be the same thing.


To which I say:

No, of course being honked at isn't the same as being beaten. If you're going to use that metaphor though, in parenting terms being honked at would equate to a verbal interaction of some sort, not striking the child. In your metaphor smacking the child would be if that motorist, rather than honking at you, walked up to your car and slapped you.





new topics
top topics
 
56
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join