Is it fair to arbitrarily increase punishment to your child?

reply to post by Greatest I am

Originally posted by Greatest I am
I take this to mean that an arbitrary increase is wrong.

It really depends upon who is defining the term 'arbitrary'. From my child's perspective, yes, some consequences will arrive without ample notice. From my perspective, I am assessing the severity of the 'crime' in real time and administering what I thereafter deem as the appropriate level of consequence.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Are you a theist?

No.

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 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)

I agree. Might makes right only fosters disrespect. It also shows that a parent is not willing to learn to outwit a child. That makes for rather stupid parents.

regards
DL

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 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.

No criticism here. You are doing not bad at all.
No self delusion though. Your computer snooping is an invasion of her privacy just like if she found and read your diary would be, even if she did not tell you.
Right?

Regards
DL

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?

I too believe in two way trust.

You are a theist or not?

Regards
DL

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Before having children, I would have agreed 100%.

But now that I'm actually a parent, it doesn't really always work that way.

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.

Is that arbitrary? Well, yes.

Does it teach that my word is not my bond? I don't really think so if such circumstances are the exception and not the rule.

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.

Life can be unpredictable...and very few things in life are actually spelled out.

I think those are equally important lessons to learn.

reply to post by Greatest I am


agreed
though the difference is that I'm doing it for her own safety

reply to post by Greatest I am


I am not a theist.

I take this to extremes, though. I wouldn't pretend that Santa is real, either. To me, that's the same thing. I still remember finding out that my parents lied to me about that one. I didn't know parents could lie until then.

And I don't have children.

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.

That would be MY error and I wouldn't let the kid suffer for my mistake. Next time.

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.

In the OP, the consequences were understood and clear.

I don't have kids, but I train dogs and a LOT of the ideas are the same.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Then you will know that if you discipline well, you will never have to punish. I guess that is my point here for humans.

Regards
DL

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That would be MY error and I wouldn't let the kid suffer for my mistake. Next time.

Easier said than done.

Dangerous activity always seems less severe in the hypothetical. For example, expressing to your child not to run out in the street or open doors in moving vehicles or sticking things into electric sockets...or many others...

Trust me. I've foolishly articulated an imposed consequence in some of these circumstances (beyond identifying the obvious underlying risks) in ways that I later realized were insufficient when the real thing happened.

No. I'd rather have my child be temporarily mad at me for the severity of the unexpected imposed consequence than deal with the possibility of something seriously happening to my child.

If your bond with your child is strong, and clearly built upon a foundation of love, they can take the inconsistencies without arriving at the dire conslusions implied by some in this thread.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
In the OP, the consequences were understood and clear.

I think you misunderstood my point.

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 Benevolent Heretic
I don't have kids, but I train dogs and a LOT of the ideas are the same.

They are.

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.

The same is true with children.

As is true with most things in life, extremes on either end never work. The answer often lies somewhere in the middle.

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 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.

That's fine, but in the OP, the violation AND the punishment were very precisely identified. The child did it anyway, and the parent loaded on a lot more punishment for the identified violation:

If you hit your brother again, I'm going to take away your TV privileges for a week.
Child hits his brother again.
Parent takes away TV privileges for a month, spanks the child and makes him clean up his room, all as punishment for hitting the brother.

Of course, if the punishment isn't identified ahead of time, there is no breach of trust.

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.

Agreed. But in the OP the punishment WAS specifically identified to the child. Then the parent went back on his word.

You can talk all day about general punishment, but that's not the situation I'm addressing.

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.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That's fine, but in the OP, the violation AND the punishment were very precisely identified.

No. The OP began with this and then provided a single example:

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...

I didn't think this thread limited me to discussion of the example only, and I too was addressing the notion of setting one expectation and then doing more...So not sure how we are talking past one another...

Originally posted by loam
...that's not the situation I'm addressing.

Fair enough. I'll move on.

reply to post by Greatest I am


hard to speculate that. I wouldn't judge how a parent chooses to discipline their child. Perhaps there are variables we do not know? Perhaps the child also lied to the parent when the parent confronted them about the misbehavior?

It's easy to "armchair QB", but it's never wise to second-guess an authority figure as to how they choose to punish their offspring. they brought them into the world, it's thieir job/right to punish them as they see fit to best correct their behavior.

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.

I understand your position, but I disagree with it. If I told my kid that he was going to receive a specific punishment for a specific infraction, I would keep my word. It's as simple as that. I would probably then tell him that the next time, the punishment will be worse and I wouldn't specify.

After you load the rest of it onto him do you think hes gonna do it again without thinking about it?

Probably not. But he's also going to know that he cannot trust what I say. And that's not something that I would want to teach my children. I would want to teach them that they can ALWAYS believe what I tell them. So that if they ever NEED the truth, they can come to me.

You set the consequence to ensure that they did not hit their brother not to find out how much they like watching the TV.

Actually, I set consequences to teach them that there are consequences to their actions. And if I make the mistake of setting the consequences too 'soft', that's MY mistake and I will learn from it.

It isn't a lie they got what they thought they were going to get and more.

If you can tell yourself that's not lying to your kid, then that's between you and your kid.

You aren't there to be their best friend you are their to discipline them when they do wrong.

I am there to guide them and to provide a stable, reliable and consistent support to them. Discipline is just ONE of a parent's jobs. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with wanting to be their friend. It's about keeping my word. It's about teaching them how important it is to keep THEIR word. What you're suggesting teaches them that it's OK to break one's word.

I believe in discipline. I am a strong disciplinarian, in fact. But I also stick to my word.

You wouldn't think twice about adding more rewards on them for doing well than you previously stated you would, would you?

I most certainly would not add reward! It's the same thing. If you get an A on the test, we'll go for ice cream. We'd go for ice cream and I'd make it clear that the reward was the consequence for getting an A. It goes both ways.

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.

I see the Santa thing as an issue that is lead by peer pressure and since all of society, ok most, is into it, I think it best to let society lead and react as required when the child starts to question the reality of Santa.

It worked in my past with my 4 boys and I will no screw with success.

I do not like this though. It leads to stupid adults who believe in real talking animals and a water walking immortal God who can somehow die. This is child abuse.

It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are Religionists.
They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Belief in fantasy is evil.

www.youtube.com...

They also do much harm to their own.

African witches and Jesus
www.youtube.com...

Jesus Camp 1of 9
www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL

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

I find your position as immoral as your God's.
I know your are just half a Christian and half a literalist and you have no clue as to how you read Genesis but will have a try at getting a straight answer out of you regardless.

Think of the myth of Adam and Eve. Or do you think it a Myth?

God’s warning and description of the consequences or punishment for eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was that they would surely die. That was it.
We can argue that it was the death of their innocence or their physical death but regardless of which, it was only death that was indicated as the punishment or consequence. In fact, we know that the penalty of physical death was only imposed later so we should be able to conclude with confidence that it was the death of innocence that God was alluding to.

After the infraction He arbitrarily adds much more punishment than what He indicated in His covenant with Adam and Eve.

God can't break a promise yet He does.
My covenant I will not break, nor alter the word that has gone out of my lips.
—Psalm 89:34

Genesis has God definitely breaking His covenant.

14And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
20And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
21Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

I call that an example of immoral parenting that no self respecting parent should follow. When they do not, they break the first commandment and rightfully place their moral views above God’s.

A catch 22 for any theist.

Thoughts.

Regards
DL