It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Greatest I am
I take this to mean that an arbitrary increase is wrong.
Originally posted by Greatest I am
Are you a theist?
Originally posted by GypsK
reply to post by Tribble
hm... I don't believe in spanking my kids. They don't learn anything from that except that disobeying equals physical pain, that's not the lesson I want to teach them.
What I do want them to learn is that there is a certain amount of hierarchy in life, where the highest rank sets the rules to be followed... they don't need to agree on those rules but they do have to follow them.
In my house, I'm the top of the hierarchy and they need to respect that. If they don't then there are concequences (which are not always punishment although they may see it as that)
I only ask them simple things like clean their room and keep their mess out of my livingroom, I'm not the slave of the house that will do anything for them, but they aren't my slaves either so I just ask them to keep their own things tidy
My parents spanked me as a kid and I have always disrespected them for that!edit on 8/10/2010 by GypsK because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Greatest I am
If you told your son, if you do not make your bed, I will ground you for 2 days.
That same day, he did not or refused to make his bed.
You confront him and say that he is grounded for 2 days. At the same time, you tell him that he is also grounded for a further week and also looses all T V privileges and must also do the dishes for a month.
Originally posted by GypsK
reply to post by Greatest I am
I'm not a theist
If my kid refuses to clean her room then she will sleep in a stinky room. If she doesn't put her dirty laundy where it belongs then I don't wash it. It happened that one morning there was a big panic because of no clean jeans to wear to school.... touch luck! I don't care! She can wear her pyjama's to school or find something else to wear.
and btw, she did learn that lesson and I never had to become angry about it.
She knows the rules and I stay consequent, someone will give in for sure but it won't be me.
Now before someone here will call me a bad mom, I do go into her room from time to time, when she's in school to make sure there isn't a health hasard going on in there! Just like I inspect her computer without her knowing to make sure she doesn't surf the wrong websites. (it's not an invasion of privacy when she doesn't know about it)
In my case I don't let her out of the house, but it might as well be something else like, no computer or no tv, you pick the punishment that you know will bother the child. Mine is bothered if I keep her inside.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by Greatest I am
If you told your son, if you do not make your bed, I will ground you for 2 days.
That same day, he did not or refused to make his bed.
You confront him and say that he is grounded for 2 days. At the same time, you tell him that he is also grounded for a further week and also looses all T V privileges and must also do the dishes for a month.
I would consider it a huge breach of trust to do that and I would never do it. If I don't keep my agreements with my child, why would I expect him to keep his agreements with me?
Originally posted by loam
Here's the problem. Sometimes as a parent you articulate a likely consequence to a hypothetical circumstance. When the circumstance arrives, you realize with the actual facts staring you right in the face that some previously expressed consequence just isn't going to cut it in terms of the severity of the real situation.
I think it more likely teaches that some behavior should not be explored when the scale of the possible consequences is not entirely understood or clear.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That would be MY error and I wouldn't let the kid suffer for my mistake. Next time.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
In the OP, the consequences were understood and clear.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't have kids, but I train dogs and a LOT of the ideas are the same.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Greatest I am
I take this to extremes, though. I wouldn't pretend that Santa is real, either. To me, that's the same thing.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I still remember finding out that my parents lied to me about that one. I didn't know parents could lie until then.
Originally posted by loam
Avoiding this problem now, I do not always identify the precise punishment before its arrival. Now I keep it general and implied. That is far more effective in deterring undesirable or dangerous behavior.
Originally posted by loam
Dogs can not be told to expect a precise consequence when they engage in dangerous or undesirable behavior. And when you do correct them, this absence of notice does not destroy the trust your animal has in you.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That's fine, but in the OP, the violation AND the punishment were very precisely identified.
Originally posted by Greatest I am
Is it fair to arbitrarily increase punishment to your child?
If you were to tell your child that if he or she did a certain sin or mistake, you would implement a certain punishment, and when that infraction took place, you added a number of extra punishment, would you think you were acting in a fair and just manner?
A scenario would go like this...
Originally posted by loam
...that's not the situation I'm addressing.
Originally posted by Jovi1
Because you identified a consequence for hitting their brother and they did it anyway? Yeah that is some pretty sound reasoning right there. Obviously the identified consequence was not a sufficient deterrent to the offense so clearly by adding more on to it you are rectifying that situation.
After you load the rest of it onto him do you think hes gonna do it again without thinking about it?
You set the consequence to ensure that they did not hit their brother not to find out how much they like watching the TV.
It isn't a lie they got what they thought they were going to get and more.
You aren't there to be their best friend you are their to discipline them when they do wrong.
You wouldn't think twice about adding more rewards on them for doing well than you previously stated you would, would you?
Originally posted by loam
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Greatest I am
I take this to extremes, though. I wouldn't pretend that Santa is real, either. To me, that's the same thing.
I've thought about that one long and hard too.
For me, I finally concluded there was real value in promoting such wonder and magic in a young child's life. The real world will impose itself soon enough.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I still remember finding out that my parents lied to me about that one. I didn't know parents could lie until then.
I know that sad day is coming. But rather than explain it as a lie, I will attempt to show how Santa Clause as a concept demonstrates the positive qualities of humanity.
I'll cross that bridge when I get there.
Originally posted by Jovi1
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
What breach of trust? Because you identified a consequence for hitting their brother and they did it anyway? Yeah that is some pretty sound reasoning right there. Obviously the identified consequence was not a sufficient deterrent to the offense so clearly by adding more on to it you are rectifying that situation. After you load the rest of it onto him do you think hes gonna do it again without thinking about it? You set the consequence to ensure that they did not hit their brother not to find out how much they like watching the TV. If they did it anyway clearly the deterrent had no effect.
It isn't a lie they got what they thought they were going to get and more. You aren't there to be their best friend you are their to discipline them when they do wrong. You wouldn't think twice about adding more rewards on them for doing well than you previously stated you would, would you?
Because if you gave more than the stated reward its the same lie.edit on 10/9/2010 by Jovi1 because: spelling