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

page: 26
56
<< 23  24  25    27  28 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAmused
I got a butt whopping from a man i thought was gonna kill me.

And that is why you are mentally disturbed now.


Originally posted by TheAmused
But whoop it's butt if it throw's it across the room at you while telling you to shut up or mad at you!!


It?You are calling a child 'it'?
You really need to get help.
You are recommending people assault a child for expressing their emotions.
Child abuse is illegal, I do not know if recommending that people abuse their children is illegal.
But I assume it might be.


[edit on 1-8-2009 by CaptainCaveMan]




posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainCaveMan
 


Yes, this man is officially nuts, and because he was abused he thinks it is ok.

IT IS NEVER OK TO ABUSE ANYONE, LEAST OF ALL YOUR INNOCENT CHILDREN AND THEREBY RUIN THEIR LIVES.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Has anyone looked at the world today and seen how crazy and insane it is?Does it do that all by itself? Is it not made by the thinking mind? If we dealt with situations (events,happenings) instead of the person, there would be no need for violence.
Discipline is what this thread is about. However the word discipline is just a word, how then do we define the word?
In the bible the word disciple was used to mean follower. To lead by example. If we choose to lead the way from the outset with violence and fear. We sow a seed of violence and fear and the tree that grows is one and the same.
The world is a very scary place for most people these days. Fear is rife, the opposite to fear is love. Choose to give love, which means be part of the situation (for the child, you and the enviroment are really one), make the best of it.
I have read from earlier posts that some believe you must break the child at a young age. To break a childs spirit is to crush or kill the divine within us, the part that allows us to have wings.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Personally I think this thread has run it's course, it's now down to around 4 sides, we have the unashamed child slappers looking for any reason to belt the child, on the other hand we have the devout non hitters who possibly have their kids running rings around them, and then we have the social observers, people who regard themselves experts on everything and anyone else is a lower being.

And lastly we have people like me, a good father, a nice person with traits from before my time such as giving my seat to a lady, saying please and thank you, showing respect for elders etc etc etc.

Like it or not those times taught us respect and manners, parents were hard but fair in MOST cases, sadly there were those who were overstrict which resulted in savage beatings from irate ignorant parents. But for most it was the odd clip around the ear, a smacked bum for being rude and that was that. Did that affect me and make me in turn a beating dad, NO, I used all of the things I'd been taught, passed them on to my child and we explained everything to our daughter, why things were bad, why swearing was bad etc etc.

She has never had a finger laid on her, she a natural sweet intelligent girl and I'm proud of her.

I saw someone say that there ALWAYS a non violent way out, and I totally agree with that BUT the big cheat on it is TIME & SITUATION. I've seen a mother in her huge 4x4 driving down the road with her spoilt kids throwing tantrums and lashing out at her while she's in control of a deadly vehicle.

She was obviously on of these non smackers and was asking them every so nicely to sit down while hands were slapping her face, now with the non violent / non abusive version you could leave the kids to tire while you pull over to the side of the road, maybe being late for school or work because of it. Sure the school and your boss won't mind 30 ir so mins every day for your kids tantrums.

Er right......

In those situation there MUST be a control placed upon the kids, they are not only disrespecting their parent but are dangerous to others. Do you need to beat the living hell out of them, er no but YES, they must be tamed and shown who is the adult and where boundaries lie. My choice would be a firm but authoritative verbal try, some on here would call that screaming at their kids but it's not, screaming at the kids is pointless and actually fuels the situation more because of that out of control intensity. If all else failed I would ask if they wanted a smack and if needed be I'd apply that.

But of course I would have savagely affected my childrens minds making them fearful of me and everyone for the rest of their lives, they would be bed wetters, suicidal, social outcasts all from that smack....

Get real folks..The kids would more likely be embarrassed and sorry and with an explanation as to why it happened afterwards would put the child at ease.

But of course, this make me a fully paid up child beater, just waiting to lash out at my daughter for any reason, I must prowl my room at night thinking of situations I can invent just so I can attack the child..

Er....I don't think that's the case but if that idea pleases those pocket psychologists on here then please enjoy it as a freebie from me. What makes me laugh about all this is that I am currently suffering from long term depression and pain from arthritic spinal issues, I live on a supply of Citalopram and tramadol plus other things like beta blockers and diclofenac, life for me is PAIN and I suffer from mood swings BUT never once has it been taken out on my wife or daughter as a beating of ANY kind. I'm not without some brain cells and I use them to remove myself from people when I'm down.

As I said before, I think my wife and I are very goods parents, others seem to think so, my daughters school love us for the work that they obviously see from us.

But most important for us is that our daughter loves us and it's plain to see.

Not bad although I agree with a rare smack..

[edit on 1-8-2009 by Mclaneinc]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


Yes,

We should nurture this world and everyone in it.

There are terrible people in this world, who are taking away the rights of everyone.

Everyone could be fed and housed, but the rich of this world are not doing it. Let them be happy in Hell. That is where they going - those who help the poor will be blessed.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by spellbound
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


Yes,

We should nurture this world and everyone in it.

There are terrible people in this world, who are taking away the rights of everyone.

Everyone could be fed and housed, but the rich of this world are not doing it. Let them be happy in Hell. That is where they going - those who help the poor will be blessed.



That's if you go for all that tosh...

Good luck if it gives you comfort but I see religion for what it is, greedy men in control of you, telling you what to do while they break the rules.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
LMFAO ! I Remember 1 Time My Dad Was Woopin Da # Out Of Me With His Belt Buckle . I Tried To Dodge The Belt , Stupid Me Dove Into It ! Landed On The Top Of My Head , And The Buckle Swung Back And Hit Me On That Sweet Spot Right In Da Back Of My Skull . I Couldn't Hear # 4 A Few Minuits Other Than That Anoying Ringing In My Ear LMFAO ! Wow . . . Good Times , Goooood Times LoL !



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Mclaneinc
 


Nice post. Your daughter sounds like a real gem, very well done


You do realise though, that you fabricated an imaginary situation in order to illustrate your ideas. The woman in the SUV may just as likely have been a fervent slapper, having knocked the kids around a dozen times just before you witnessed the incident.

One assumption, and we are already well into the realm of imagination.

For the record, you sound like a highly compassionate, loving and caring parent, and it sounds from your post that you are doing a fantastic job raising your precious little girl.

Never once have you come across as abusive IMO.

My guess is that if you found an equally effective non-violent alternative to smacking, you'd abandon the latter in a hearbeat.

Keep searching, I promise it's worth it, if for nothing more than to never again have to feel the personal pain of striking your own child.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
child smacking is a no no. vviolent punishment imo is only for uneducated people who lived like 200 years ago. I like to think that as a society that we educate ourselves to better ourselves and child smacking just denotes the failure of the parent as being an educated person and as a role model for that child.

[edit on 1-8-2009 by loner007]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Mclaneinc
 


The problem inherant within the thread is that the anti-spanking contingent of the conversers, as demonstrated with Roger T, have an absolutist agenda.

Even while praising you for being a kind and thoughtful parent, they are stating that you are difficient in some capacity and need to learn ways not to utilize any sort of corporal punishment.

As evidenced again, Roger T's response praises you, and then turns around and says you need to keep working on finding non-violent solutions.

Here's a kicker for Roger T; I agree. I agree, every parent should always seek non-violent resolutions for any given situation. What I don't agree with is that every parent is required to be a perfect parent in order to be a loving parent.

What I don't agree with is that every parent that spanks their children are condemning them to a life of psychological trauma or addictive behavior.

Roger T equated my position to an absolutist, while ignoring the parody of absolutism that I'm sure he was keying on. I would no more expect an individual to come into his home and spank his Children than I expect anti-spanking parents to call the police on an individual for a firm swat to the rear of a child who is obviously misbehaving.

However, they are for this sort of social imposition because they believe their positions are an absolute good, irrelevant to the situations and unique variety of every individual upon the face of the planet.

There is never a catch all solution, not for human beings. Is it wrong to Spank? No more than it is right to spank... and I claim neither. I don't claim it is right or wrong, I claim it is sometimes necessary.

All the while, with some in this thread who have made compelling cases for the anti-spanking point of view, I keep an open door for the possibility that I am wrong in my viewpoint... but the person I am requires information to support that my view is wrong. I require reason free from passion.

And RogerT has essentially insinuated that I am but a mere troglodyte, unevolved and unaware of real spirituality. He makes the claim, like many have for many topics of an absolute nature, that somehow those that disagree are deficient or subhuman and deserve to have better men's morals put upon them.

Like you, I am a parent who does their best to reason and speak with my child about dangerous situations and try to impart onto them a mind which can learn for itself what is and is not safe behavior.

I feel your analogy for the Mother with the screaming kids in a vehicle is an apt one. I've spoken to such people, and personally known such people in my family... and guess what? They never spanked their kids. The very idea horrified them. Is the child's behavior a result of that? I cannot comment beyond any personal experience... and anecdote is not evidence.

However, it does rebut RogerT's insinuation that the mother must have assuredly been a spanker; It is just as much assumption to assume she was than to insinuate she wasn't.

My mother ran daycares for almost a decade. I saw and grew up firsthand with many children who came from households that both spanked and did not spank. I won't comment beyond that, but it is a factor in what I believe to be the case.

Sidenote: Your daughter sounds like quite a blessing... I'm fortunate in many ways to have a very calm and level-headed son. I'm just as thankful to have such a good child as I am certain you are to have such a good daughter.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
reply to post by Mclaneinc
 


The problem inherant within the thread is that the anti-spanking contingent of the conversers, as demonstrated with Roger T, have an absolutist agenda.



Yes of course I do. There absolutely are more effective non-violent alternatives to striking children. To strike a child, you must be or become unconscious.

What's funny, is that you still think your accusations apply only to those you see as opponents in the discussion. Like I said, not really intentional hypocrisy, just normal egoic functioning (unconsciousness).



Even while praising you for being a kind and thoughtful parent, they are stating that you are difficient in some capacity and need to learn ways not to utilize any sort of corporal punishment.


Already replied to this one ... deficient only in knowlege and awareness, not capacity.

Personally, I didn't say anybody 'needs' to learn anything, so if that's referring to me, it's a misrepresentation.



As evidenced again, Roger T's response praises you, and then turns around and says you need to keep working on finding non-violent solutions.


Wrong. He doesn't need anything. However, as an obviously loving and caring parent, I feel sure that he suffers whenever he feels he must strike his daughter. My conviction is that this is unnecessary suffering for both of them. My suggestion was a recommendation, not a requirement.



What I don't agree with is that every parent is required to be a perfect parent in order to be a loving parent.


No argument with me on that one. However, if you write that you are disagreeing, it does infer that you are responding to some assertion somebody made that a parent must be perfect to be loving? I don't see any such statement in this thread.

So is this an inaccurate assumption you have made about my personal ideas, or a further misrepresentation of my comments? (I'm taking it personally because the paragraph is addressed to me by name)



What I don't agree with is that every parent that spanks their children are condemning them to a life of psychological trauma or addictive behavior.


No argument from me on that statement either. In fact, if we removed the superlative, and analysed the core of the statement, there could be some interesting discussion, but taken at face value, I agree whole-heartedly.



Roger T equated my position to an absolutist, while ignoring the parody of absolutism that I'm sure he was keying on.


Really, that sentence doesn't make much sense. Do you mean paradox? Even then, it still doesn't make sense - at least to me.

Either way, I'm certainly very aware of the absolute nature of some of my language. Can you say the same?



I would no more expect an individual to come into his home and spank his Children than I expect anti-spanking parents to call the police on an individual for a firm swat to the rear of a child who is obviously misbehaving.

However, they are for this sort of social imposition because they believe their positions are an absolute good, irrelevant to the situations and unique variety of every individual upon the face of the planet.


Who is the 'they' you are referring to. You named me several times in your post, so it is fair of me to assume that I am an example of the 'they', in which case this statement above is yet another inaccurate assumption.



There is never a catch all solution, not for human beings.


How could you possibly know that? Are you claiming omni-knowlege?

Anyway, why do you suggest non-violence is 'a' solution. It is simply a category of an infinite number of solutions.



Is it wrong to Spank? No more than it is right to spank... and I claim neither. I don't claim it is right or wrong, I claim it is sometimes necessary.


You see this is why I find your contributions so humorous.

In one sentence you falsely accuse others of declaring a 'catch all solution' and the very next sentence you argue for spanking to be a catch all solution (in certain circumstances) by use of the term 'necessary'.

Can you not see how funny that is? Genuine question.



All the while, with some in this thread who have made compelling cases for the anti-spanking point of view, I keep an open door for the possibility that I am wrong in my viewpoint... but the person I am requires information to support that my view is wrong. I require reason free from passion.


I respect your respect for intellect but this is not IMO the best access to information of the kind we are discussing here (or that I am discussing).

Like I said before, if you can find a way (and there are several ways) to switch off your mental chatter for a moment or two, the insanity of violence towards children becomes an 'is', not just some more mental garbage or silly scientific study.



And RogerT has essentially insinuated that I am but a mere troglodyte, unevolved and unaware of real spirituality. He makes the claim, like many have for many topics of an absolute nature, that somehow those that disagree are deficient or subhuman and deserve to have better men's morals put upon them.


Well that is almost eloquent, but completely inaccurate, sorry. If you were to edit the above and add in a couple of 'I think' and 'in my perception' and stuff like that, then it could stand as something to discuss. If not, then it is just more imaginary garbage you are attempting to assert as reality.



... and anecdote is not evidence.

so why bother including it as corroboratory evidence to support the other posters imaginary view?



However, it does rebut RogerT's insinuation that the mother must have assuredly been a spanker; It is just as much assumption to assume she was than to insinuate she wasn't.


firstly, no it doesn't because it is just more imagination
secondly, I didn't insinuate that the mother must have assuredly been a spanker. I said, "it is just as likely that the mother is a fervent spanker".

Do you really think your statement and my statement are the same?

I didn't assume she was or wasn't. You guys did the assuming, I merely pointed this out by offering a comment about possibility.

On reflection, a more accurate and less inflammatory response would have been to say 'it is also possible', and leave it at that.

[edit on 2/8/09 by RogerT]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 03:21 AM
link   
And I am sick of authoritarians.
You have the right to do everything and that doesn't mean anything.
By whooping your kids without making them understand why they are being whooped will only make them become slaves of themselves - living through expectations and fear.
The world is already full of slaves, are you going to enslave another innocent?



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Geladinhu
 


I again do not believe anyone in this thread has advocated spanking without expressing reasoning to the child being punished. Everyone deserves to know the reasons behind any punishment they receive. Punishment without reason is psychological torture.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by RogerT
 


You have asserted the following,

1) Those who would spank are unconcious beings, that people are delusional and in denial.



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.

...

Of course, it isn't necessary at all.

...

No conscious parent could possibly strike their child. The act requires unconsciousness.



2) Those that spank are deficient in the will(motivation) to learn other means.



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.


3. Those that spank are unreasoned, ignorant and belligerant.




The demeanour, class and grace apparent in your posting should be all the pro-spankers need to 'see the light'.

...

Reason over reaction, compassion over belligerence.


4. Logical deduction based upon Science is inferior to "Awareness", an ambiguous terminology often self-defined. Also that thinking is antithetical to awareness, equating people that don't think to a superior status over thinkers.




Awareness trumps scientific study every time.

...

To become conscious, you have to suspend thought ...


5. Inferred that evolving world views and the ability to change ones mind on a subject is a negative quality while also inferring such as again something outside of what you define as "Awareness"



Your beliefs are irrelevant and will continue to flip flop around for the rest of your life as different information comes into your focus.

If you manage to gain a moment of awareness, all your current beliefs will dissolve anyway. The insanity of violence towards children will then not be a belief but just plain obvious.


6. Failed to understand what the word "CAPACITY" means, and how Knowledge and Awareness ARE each a "Capacity".



Already replied to this one ... deficient only in knowlege and awareness, not capacity.


7. That spanking children is some form of "Insanity".



Like I said before, if you can find a way (and there are several ways) to switch off your mental chatter for a moment or two, the insanity of violence towards children becomes an 'is', not just some more mental garbage or silly scientific study.

and in response to...



How could you possibly know that? Are you claiming omni-knowlege?


No. I only claim that the Universe is chaotic and unpredictable, and all emergent lifeforms display the same... including humans. No two humans are identical in behavior, psychology, mannerisms, personality and what does and doesn't work for them as both persuasive learning mechanisms and dissuasive ones.



Can you not see how funny that is? Genuine question.


There is no absolute in declaring something neither right or wrong, stating something "IS" is not declaring a value about something. Stating something is at times necessary is also not a statement of absolutes, it is a consideration of conditional variables and the fine limitations of existence as a whole in allowing ALL possible solutions to be explored at any given moment in time.

Lacking perfection and omniscience, it is necessary to resort to violence at times. Is there a way at all times? Yes. Is it a feasible way? Probably not the case in all circumstances.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Originally posted by TheColdDragon
reply to post by RogerT
 


You're getting closer, but not quite there yet.




You have asserted the following,

1) Those who would spank are unconcious beings, that people are delusional and in denial.



Here are my assertions clarified:

One must become unconscious in order to inflict violence on a child in the form of spanking.

Most people are, for the most part, delusional and in denial, (including me btw)



2) Those that spank are deficient in the will(motivation) to learn other means.



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.



Why do you continue to insist upon replacing my 'maybe's' and 'possibly's' with 'is' and 'are'?

You even quoted my actual statement and still managed to misrepresent it one line above.





3. Those that spank are unreasoned, ignorant and belligerant.



Reason over reaction, compassion over belligerence.




No, this is a case of you taking a comment out of context in order to strengthen your position.

My reference is to the exchange between 2 ATS members. One is pro spanking, the other pro non-violence.

My perception of their discussion is expressed in my statement. If I need to spell it out for you, the pro-spanker IMO posted reactively and belligerently, whilst the non-violence advocate displayed a reasonable nature and compassion. Of course that's just my perception.




4. Logical deduction based upon Science is inferior to "Awareness"


Bingo, you nailed one.


... an ambiguous terminology often self-defined.


like 'logical deduction', or 'science'?

Every term can be ambiguous if the individuals in the conversation don't share an identical perspective and the same dictionary




Also that thinking is antithetical to awareness,


Bingo, that's 2 for you.



equating people that don't think to a superior status over thinkers.


I don't think there are many people on the planet who don't think, but there are plenty that have managed to experience the suspension of thought, if only for a moment or two.

In fact, I'll bet you've spontaneously had this experience also, maybe during an intense moment of sport or some extremely scary life threatening moment.

Satori, enlightenment, inner peace, being in the now, awareness, fully conscious, a state of presence, there are many terms for it. None of the terms 'are' it, they are just pointers. As the Tao Teh Ching states, 'that which can be named is not it!' (loose translation)

Of course, the assertion that it is superior is a sign that awareness has already been lost, so even though my mind says it is so, that's only my ego's evaluation.

Some may feel it is not better to be awake than asleep, to feel fully alive and one with everything rather than numb and sedated, to have access to right action in any moment rather than simply reacting according to mental programming at the push of a button.

Is it superior, well yes, I definitely believe so, but that's just my own limitations talking.




5. Inferred that evolving world views and the ability to change ones mind on a subject is a negative quality while also inferring such as again something outside of what you define as "Awareness"



No, you'll have to work harder at this one. I don't mean to infer a negative quality, I was attempting to paint a completely different paradigm for you.

Inside the egoic mind structure, you can change your mind as often as you like, but you are still stuck in an illusion. You may think you have dropped an inferior belief for a superior one, but all you've done is traded your baggage from samsonite to gucci - it's still baggage.




Your beliefs are irrelevant and will continue to flip flop around for the rest of your life as different information comes into your focus.

If you manage to gain a moment of awareness, all your current beliefs will dissolve anyway. The insanity of violence towards children will then not be a belief but just plain obvious.





6. Failed to understand what the word "CAPACITY" means, and how Knowledge and Awareness ARE each a "Capacity".



Already replied to this one ... deficient only in knowlege and awareness, not capacity.



Bro' sometimes I think your intellectual self importance really gets the better of you. Who's definition of the word am I failing to understand?

"Innate potential for growth, development, or accomplishment; faculty"
"The power to learn or retain knowledge; mental ability"
"A measure of this ability; volume"

I can't find a single source that supports your idea that knowlege and awareness 'are' a capacity. Everything seems to point in my favor, that we actually have a capacity for them.

A jug has a capacity to hold water. If it is only half full it still has the same capacity compared to when it is empty or even full.

I'm puzzled that you're trying this one on, to be honest. Are you retaliating for my comment about your misuse of the word parody?




7. That spanking children is some form of "Insanity".



Ding ding, another one correct.



and in response to...



How could you possibly know that? Are you claiming omni-knowlege?


No. I only claim that the Universe is chaotic and unpredictable, and all emergent lifeforms display the same... including humans. No two humans are identical in behavior, psychology, mannerisms, personality and what does and doesn't work for them as both persuasive learning mechanisms and dissuasive ones.



Yet if you cut any human, they will bleed. Perhaps we are not as different as you think


Anyway, it's good to see you finally admit that something you said was just a guess and nothing more than your imaginary version of reality.




There is no absolute in declaring something neither right or wrong, stating something "IS" is not declaring a value about something. Stating something is at times necessary is also not a statement of absolutes, it is a consideration of conditional variables and the fine limitations of existence as a whole in allowing ALL possible solutions to be explored at any given moment in time.


I read this paragraph 3 times and still couldn't understand it.
Sorry, but if you say something is 'necessary' then that is an absolute in my book. If not, then where is the option?



Lacking perfection and omniscience, it is necessary to resort to violence at times. Is there a way at all times? Yes. Is it a feasible way? Probably not the case in all circumstances.


Again, this is a confusing paragraph. Did you leave out a key word or two? Are you saying it is necessary to sometimes use violence on children to get them to do what you want or it isn't?


[edit on 2/8/09 by RogerT]

[edit on 2/8/09 by RogerT]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by TheAmused
 



That's not reason why kids are punks these days. They're punks because of all the junk they consume, violent TV, movies, video games. Worshiping of consumerism. A lot of parents suck at parenting, who knows what kids are exposed to at home.

Kids grow up exposed to a lot more violence than we did when we were their age. Their idols, rappers, etc. preach violence, womanizing, degrading women, treating them as sex objects. It's cool to act indifferent, treat women like crap and act disrespectful.

Hitting your kids will teach them that they can solve problems with physical violence.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   

It?You are calling a child 'it'?
You really need to get help.
You are recommending people assault a child for expressing their emotions.
Child abuse is illegal, I do not know if recommending that people abuse their children is illegal.
But I assume it might be.

Not To Sound Racist But If I Had To Guess This Person Is Probably White . Im Spanish And I Got Da Platano Smacked Outa Me For The Smallest Stupidest Things . Alota White People Don't Like To Hit Their Children And That's Why They Keep Doing All Types Of Crazy Drugs Like Extacy , Cocaine , Heroin , etc .

My Point Is

Smack Tha Madula Ablangada Out Yur Kids But Dont Leave Any Bruises And Your Child Will Turn Out Ok



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by TheAmused
 


I assume you would call the cops if a gang of punks decided to take a belt to your ass right?

You'd report it as a battery, which is exactly what it is.

Spankings=cool, a belt to the ass= not cool and a violation of law.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Electro38
 


I'm 17 and not a punk. Whenever I did something bad I got switched or spanked and it didn't negatively effect me in any way, neither did the violent movies and metal I listen to.

I think it has to do with if the parents are around their children. My mom was and still is a housewife and was with my sister and I ever since we were babies.

Also I believe spanking is necessary. Haven't you ever been in the store when a little kid starts throwing a huge fit because they weren't getting something they wanted? If I were to have done that I would have got my rear worn out!



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   
After reading this thread (with the exception of 2 or 3 pages somewhere in the middle), I've decided that I do not want or need to know how people choose to raise their children. It's none of my business and I almost wish I hadn't read it.

I think Ghandi said "Be the change you want to see in the world." That certainly seems more progressive to me than judging others and telling them what they should or should not do. After all, we have absolutely no control over others, and this line of thinking is just begging for the government to interfere even more in all of our lives.

Some people will not turn out quite right for any number of reasons. I personally think that the influence of the media and society (for instance, a teenager's peers) will be stronger than the parents (whether they are 'disciplined' at home or not) since kids who go to school spend 3/4 of their waking hours not with their parents.

I don't really like to get out of my car at a gas station and hear teenage skateboarders across the street shouting near-obscenities at me. Respect for others (not just authorities) is surely lacking. When society gets to a point where I fear for my safety in public because people are not quite right, I'll start carrying a gun. Hopefully I will still have that right.

Personally, I think the less I know about other people's personal lives the better. I'll concern myself with my own kids and let other people worry about theirs.





new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 23  24  25    27  28 >>

log in

join