Religion, Children and Whipping tools?

Saintsman · Post by **Saintsman** » Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:52 pm

Striking a child with any object (including one's hand) by an adult

(who is two to three times larger than the child-victim)sucessfully

resigns one's rational intelligent process of communicating to that of

the most base and animalistic act of corrective measure. It is

morally, spiritually and humanely corrupt.

After years of debate, investigation and experience as a child and

as a parent, I have found NO logical and useful opinion to sway me to

any other position than the one stated above. I feel I have heard

most all of the arguments over the past 39 years, but am always

willing to re-examine my stance.

I am appalled that any religion who claims their spirituality for a

higher state of being relies on such rash and harsh behavior. To use

the Bible or any other form of doctrine to back a dysfuctional

interpertation justifing abusive means is an easy way out of using

one's capacity to reason and achieve the best end for everyone's

good ... morally, spirtituall and physically.

The following is an article from my brother who has been writing

for the Oakland Press for some time. He is a University of Michigan

jouralism graduate.

Where does our Catholic University's leaders and student body fall

when promoting doctrine on how a person (and faith) should practice

human dignity and moral ethics toward our little ones when properly

guiding their life and employing corrective measures?

Thank you,

Dan Groves.

-------------------------Forwarded Message-----------------------------

Brother Dan,

I saw this article and discovered a newfound appreciation for your

views on corporal punishment of children. The statistics related to

people who condone using hard objects with which to beat children are

astounding.

This "tool" has NOT been recalled, and the CPSC has found "no basis therefore". Boston Globe Article dated January 10, 2005 including letters to and from CPSC from Ms. Lawrence, protestor: http://nospank.net/n-n84r.htm

This promotion of corporeal punishment of children and infants is just plain sick. Please see also: http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/fileadmin/t ... /TTUAC.pdf

---------------------------Actual Article---------------------------------------------------------

CHRISTIANS CLASH OVER USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

By Anna Badkhen

c. 2005 San Francisco Chronicle

ARLINGTON, Mass.

-- To raise a child, one needs three invaluable allies: the Bible, the

help of an extended family and "biblical-based resources" -- 9-inch-

long spanking paddles of blue polyurethane, according to Steve Haymond

from Bakersfield, Calif., who sells the paddles online for $6.50

apiece. --

Twyla Bullock, in Eufaula, Okla., swears by the Rod -- a 22-inch, $5

white nylon whipping stick her husband designed and produced until

recently. Named after the biblical "rod of correction," the Rod

provides "a faith-based way to discipline children ... and train them

as Christians," Bullock explains.

Susan Lawrence, a devout Lutheran from Arlington, Mass., is appalled.

"Christians are supposed to listen to Jesus," Lawrence said,

bringing the Rod down with a thump on the seat of her living room

futon and looking at the resulting dent with incredulity. "Can you

imagine Jesus teaching to use the Rod?"

Corporal punishment has long been an accepted method of child

discipline among evangelical and fundamentalist groups, but an

increasing number of Christians are raising objections, arguing that

advocates of spanking wrongly cite Scripture to justify a practice

that should be banned. Lawrence, who peppers her conversation with

quotes from the New Testament, says striking children defies the

Golden Rule from the Gospel of Matthew: "In everything do to others as

you would have them do to you."

Last year, Lawrence, 49, launched her Parenting in Jesus' Footsteps

site on the Web (www.parentinginjesusfootsteps.org), which is critical

of corporal punishment being practiced by Christian parents.

She also took her case to the federal government, arguing that the

Rod should be outlawed just like flammable pajamas or toys that can

choke. Last month, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission turned

down her formal petition, saying it had found "no basis for

determining that the product constitutes a substantial product hazard."

Although the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American

Psychological Association strongly oppose the physical punishment of

children, the practice remains widespread among both religious and

secular Americans.

According to a 2002 national poll by ABC News, two-thirds of the

public approve of corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure. In a

1995 Gallup poll, one-third of parents who said they spanked their

children said they had hit them with "a belt, hairbrush, stick or some

other hard object."

Twenty-three states sanction spanking in schools. California does

not allow corporal punishment in school, but parents or guardians can

spank their children so long as it does not result in serious physical

harm, in which case it becomes child abuse.

"Americans have a strong belief in the parents' right to use it on

their children in the privacy of their home as they please," said

Ronald Rohner, an expert on corporal punishment at the University of

Connecticut. But he said many fundamentalist Christians, in their

literal reading of the Bible, regard spanking as a religious as well

as parental duty. The Book of Proverbs in the Old Testament, for

example, says that "the rod of correction imparts wisdom, but a child

left to himself disgraces his mother," and "he who spares his rod

hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him promptly."

Christian conservatives often quote such passages from pulpits, on

radio and television shows and on the Internet, and provide guidelines

for what they call biblical discipline.

The Family Research Council, a Christian advocacy group, warns that

physical discipline "is inappropriate before 15 months of age" and

suggests that parents spare the rod and slap children with a bare hand

instead.

The evangelical leader James Dobson recommends that parents use

a "swish or paddle" or other "neutral" object, reserving the hand

as "an object of love."

"Corporal punishment, when used lovingly and properly, is beneficial

to a child because it is in harmony with nature itself," Dobson, the

founder of Focus on the Family, which claims a mailing list of 2.5

million believers, wrote on the organization's Web site

(www.family.org).

Joey Salvati, a carpenter from New Kingston, Pa., and a father of

two, has been crafting wooden spanking paddles since 2002. The $5.75

implements come with a suggestion as to the number of swats for

various childhood misdemeanors: one for disrespectful behavior, two

for cursing, three for cheating, lying or "direct defiance." ... "None

of these paddles are perfect. Neither are we!" reads the slogan on

Salvati's Web site, www.spare-rods.com. "Use lovingly and NEVER in

anger."

Bullock called the rift among Christians over corporal punishment "a

division between people who disagree with biblical discipline, and

those who believe in it."

Bill Maier, a child psychologist and the vice president of Focus on

the Family, argued that Christian groups opposing spanking deviate

from "the orthodox interpretation" of the Bible, which, he said, lists

spanking as "one of many disciplinary methods that are at parents'

disposal." "There is no basis for saying that Scripture says spanking

is somehow evil or should not be used by parents," said Maier.

But equally observant Christians, such as Al Crowell, director of

the San Francisco-based Christians for Nonviolent Parenting, are

becoming increasingly vocal in their opposition to the practice.

"If taken literally, the Old Testament condones having slaves and

stoning women who have sex outside of marriage. But if you look at the

life of Jesus, it's pretty hard to imagine him hitting children," said

Crowell, a father of two who, along with 645 others, has signed

Lawrence's online petition to ban the Rod.

In addition to her petition to ban the Rod, Lawrence, who

homeschools her children, has so far obtained 300 supporters to sign

her online petition calling for a complete ban on corporal punishment

in the United States.

"We're a very violent, hitting society, a very child-unfriendly

society," said Lawrence, who has adorned the front door of her snow-

cocooned Colonial house with stickers that say "Kids Safe Zone."

"I have a saying: 'Peace begins at home."'

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:57 pm

Hello Saintsman, and welcome to Forum Garden.

..... the abuse of children is something i have encountered often, it is unbearable to witness the results, up to and including death of innocent victims.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Mon Feb 07, 2005 2:37 pm

I attended a parochial school for most of my grade school years, where corporal puishment was the standard. If you break a rule, you were taken into the "paddle room" and given 3 whacks on the backside with a wooden paddle 6 inches wide and 2 feet long. On the first day of school, of my first year, my father came to school with me and went to my teacher and the principal and said to them, "This is my daughter. She may not obey every day, she may do things to mess up, she is a child. Children do that. If you ever strike her with that paddle or any other object, I will come here and use that paddle on you myself." I thought my dad was the coolest. I never did get hit, and saw a lot of kids who did. Funny thing, the kids who did get hit a lot, KEPT getting hit. I was never a disciplinary problem. Hmmm...

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 2:25 am

posted by babyrider

I thought my dad was the coolest. I never did get hit, and saw a lot of kids who did. Funny thing, the kids who did get hit a lot, KEPT getting hit. I was never a disciplinary problem. Hmmm...

I would suggest you respected your dad, you can't respect someone you are also afraid of.IMO

Corporal punishment is banned in the UK as well now. If you hiyt an adult in the heat of the moment most people would view it in a different light from hitting someone in clod blood as it were. If you hit a child for their own good, personally I think it is abuse, especially done in cold blood. What kind of perversion is it to feel righteous about hitting a child?

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 2:49 am

Saintsman wrote: Striking a child with any object (including one's hand) by an adult

(who is two to three times larger than the child-victim)sucessfully

resigns one's rational intelligent process of communicating to that of

the most base and animalistic act of corrective measure. It is

morally, spiritually and humanely corrupt.

What rubbish. A smack, administered appropriately, can have an instant effect where rational explanation cannot succeed. It has ever been the case. Perhaps you're thinking of beating or other violent assault.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 2:56 am

gmc wrote: Corporal punishment is banned in the UK as well now.

No, it isn't. The law has been tightened, though:

"Parents in England and Wales who smack children so hard it leaves a mark will face up to five years in jail under new laws in force from Saturday (15th. January, 2005). Mild smacking is allowed under a "reasonable chastisement" defence against common assault.

But any punishment which causes visible bruising, grazes, scratches, minor swellings or cuts can face action."

(Source: the BBC.)

gmc wrote: If you hiyt an adult in the heat of the moment most people would view it in a different light from hitting someone in clod blood as it were.

True, of course - although people are prosecuted for this. Manslaughter is an extreme result of the above.

gmc wrote: If you hit a child for their own good, personally I think it is abuse, especially done in cold blood.

I don't understand what meaning you are assigning to "for their own good". An example might help.

gmc wrote: What kind of perversion is it to feel righteous about hitting a child?

Very odd. I don't understand "feel righteous", either.

Saintsman · Post by **Saintsman** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 7:36 am

Bill Sikes wrote: What rubbish. A smack, administered appropriately, can have an instant effect where rational explanation cannot succeed. It has ever been the case. Perhaps you're thinking of beating or other violent assault.

At what point does a person within their own home and in a state of anger begin rationalizing the difference between a "smack" and "other violent assault"? It is all the act of physical striking in any manner.

My point is when one relies on using a physical act that and not a cognitive act, they are moving backward in the process of evolution. Whether it be God or any other theory you subscribe to, we have been given the capacity and ability to think, rationalize and solve. These actions are of a mental process, not a direct physical one. If you avoid using the cognition and reason your brain (the greatest computer of all) can process, then of course, physical action becomes predominate and essential to survive and enforce one's heirarchy or authority.

My larger point is that those who do not rely on intelligence, rely on brut strength. Anger, too, is the best friend of physical abuse and when the two mingle, children end up abused.

For the sake of debate, I will grant you that a tap or gentle "smack" on a toddler's diaper does not carry severe physical consequences and can be seen as an eye-opener to immediately gain the child's attention. In that case, if the striking causes no harm and is only an attention getter, why use it? Are there not more rational ways to gain a child's attention through audible means than physical? If the child isn't capable of understanding language yet, the rapport one is beginning and exampling to the new human is that of aggression, seperation of relationship as the child's trust is now in a state of fear or apprehension, and the impression that humans hurt other humans as a common way of behaving, ie: "this is the norm as I, the child, have experienced it and this must be the correct way to achieve most anything I desire".

All in all, I cannot escape that when you use a negative repercussion toward a child or young adult, you are planting the seed that will harvest the same, if not worse, abuse and harsh type negative behavior in the future. It is a continuing cycle. Whereas, on the other hand, life experiences and experinents have proven that interaction of a positve nature usually always produce more benefit and peace than those of an aggressive or negative.

I found it interesting, once again, that another example and proof was given by the lady who posted earlier by saying, "those who got hit, continued to get hit." She, instead, was not allowed to be hit and never was hit. I see a pattern. If we, hypothetically do achieve such research, I would bet you a nickel that those who were struck repeatedly in her class advocate corporeal punishment and have more negative life experiences that they are involved in when considering corporeal punishment than to the student who was never "smacked". We already know, per her posting, that she does not subscribe nor support the idea of smacking children, so half the test has been proved to support what I have stated above.

Finally, what type of person does it take to aggressively and physically challenge, attack and/or smack another person who is considerably smaller, lighter in weight, void of life experience and self-defense abilities and whom is right-out incapable of posing any retaliation to the attacker? The battlefield is not equal. There is a clear advantage for the physical aggressor. This means that one must also believe that domination is appropriate in the case of forcing another to meet their demands and will or severe fear and pain will be administered. Even if the adult states that it is not their intent to instill such fear and pain upon the child or that they are doing it for the "good" of the child, I assure you, that is not the interpertation that the child is receiving or mentally subjected to (as a victim) from that point forward. Physical abuse is as psychologically damaging to the child as is physical harm and we, the intelligent adults, are going to use this as a means of rearing God's gifts of little human lives to us in forming our future generations? No thank you, not for me. I could not bear the shame and guilt of my actions toward the child, much less face my Creator.

Thank you for the lively discussion and input. It stimulates a provocative thought process!

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:43 am

Bill Sikes wrote: What rubbish. A smack, administered appropriately, can have an instant effect where rational explanation cannot succeed. It has ever been the case. Perhaps you're thinking of beating or other violent assault.
And what, may I ask, would you consider "administered appropriately"?

Any grown person who cannot make a reasonable explanation as to inappropriate behavior to a child and instead feels the need to hit them, should not be a parent. My son is 15, and has NEVER been hit. For any reason. Not a whack on the diaper, not a smack on the hand, nothing. He is a great kid, he has wonderful manners, and is very respectful.

Bill, may I ask if you have kids?

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:47 am

I spanked my daughter once. One swift smack to her bottom. It was a last resort. She wouldn't go to a time out. She fought free when I tried to lead her to her room twice. I tried to bind her by holding her until she calmed down...nothing worked. I only had to resort to spanking once, and we discussed it afterwards. I don't think this was abuse.

jahamaa · Post by **jahamaa** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:58 am

I have to agree with Bill and koan. I don't understand it but sometimes a whack with the open hand on the butt accomplishes what talk cannot. And I repeat I don't understand it.

What I don't like is the sudden spanking. If one is going to use corporal punishment it dare not be in anger or frustraton. The adult should step back and take several long breaths before the deed.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:59 am

Originally Posted by Bill Sikes

A smack, administered appropriately, can have an instant effect where rational explanation cannot succeed. It has ever been the case. Perhaps you're thinking of beating or other violent assault.

Saintsman wrote: At what point does a person within their own home and in a state of anger begin rationalizing

Erm, in a state of anger? Why?

Saintsman wrote: the difference between a "smack" and "other violent assault"? It is all the act of physical striking in any manner.

Ah! your words say that there's no difference between a smack, as defined earlier, and a beating. Well, I think there is a difference. Don't you?

Saintsman wrote: we have been given the capacity and ability to think, rationalize and solve.

We have - small children have not (yet).

Saintsman wrote: Finally, what type of person does it take to aggressively and physically challenge, attack and/or smack another person who is considerably smaller, lighter in weight, void of life experience and self-defense abilities and whom is right-out incapable of posing any retaliation to the attacker? The battlefield is not equal. There is a clear advantage for the physical aggressor. This means that one must also believe that domination is appropriate in the case of forcing another to meet their demands and will or severe fear and pain will be administered. Even if the adult states that it is not their intent to instill such fear and pain upon the child or that they are doing it for the "good" of the child, I assure you, that is not the interpertation that the child is receiving or mentally subjected to (as a victim) from that point forward. Physical abuse is as psychologically damaging to the child as is physical harm and we, the intelligent adults, are going to use this as a means of rearing God's gifts of little human lives to us in forming our future generations? No thank you, not for me. I could not bear the shame and guilt of my actions toward the child, much less face my Creator.

Ho hum. If you are on about giving occasional smacks to small children, then I think it is clear that you analysing this to absolutely absurd depths that just don't tie in with reality. If you are talking about something else, then that's not what I'm talking about!

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:14 am

BabyRider wrote: And what, may I ask, would you consider "administered appropriately"?

See my earlier reference to the law from the BBC. IMO smacks are rarely required.

BabyRider wrote: Any grown person who cannot make a reasonable explanation as to inappropriate behavior to a child and instead feels the need to hit them, should not be a parent.

You will have to explain that.

BabyRider wrote: My son is 15, and has NEVER been hit. For any reason. Not a whack on the diaper, not a smack on the hand, nothing. He is a great kid, he has wonderful manners, and is very respectful.

If you really mean "NEVER", then I put it to you that he is in a tiny minority.

BabyRider wrote: Bill, may I ask if you have kids?

Of course you may.

Saintsman · Post by **Saintsman** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:23 am

koan wrote: I spanked my daughter once. One swift smack to her bottom. It was a last resort. She wouldn't go to a time out. She fought free when I tried to lead her to her room twice. I tried to bind her by holding her until she calmed down...nothing worked. I only had to resort to spanking once, and we discussed it afterwards. I don't think this was abuse.

Okay, in reading your response, and thank you for responding, per the original artaicle posted, my question is this: If a spanking with a hand is acceptable, is a spanking with a paddle acceptable? Why or why not?

Saintsman · Post by **Saintsman** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:34 am

I am left to assume by Bill's avoiding the question of having children or not must imply he does not have children or if he does, he doesn't want to openly admit it even though he condones spanking them. If I am way off on base on either assumption, then why the games, just answer the question. I think BabyRider's point is that those who have lived the experience have more depth of insight into it.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:35 am

Saintsman wrote: If a spanking with a hand is acceptable, is a spanking with a paddle acceptable?

What is a "paddle" ? To me, it meand a single or double ended oar used e.g. by

canoeists. I would regard smacking with one of these as very likely to be wrong.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:42 am

Saintsman wrote:

(with snips)

religion spirituality higher state of being Bible doctrine morally, spirtituall and physically Catholic University's leaders human dignity and moral ethics Brother Dan, CHRISTIANS CLASH OVER USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT "biblical-based resources" a devout Lutheran "Christians are supposed to listen to Jesus," the Rod down evangelical and fundamentalist groups

(many more snips)

Hang on. Whacko religious freaks. This seems to be coming from a particular angle.

"Saintsman" (the name!) - would you describe yourself as particularly religious?

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:45 am

Saintsman wrote: I am left to assume by Bill's avoiding the question of having children or not must imply he does not have children or if he does, he doesn't want to openly admit it even though he condones spanking them. If I am way off on base on either assumption, then why the games, just answer the question. I think BabyRider's point is that those who have lived the experience have more depth of insight into it.

Ha! Ha! Noob.

"Are you going to admit to being deeply religious".

rachelg · Post by **rachelg** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:48 am

Bill Sikes wrote: Ha! Ha! Noob.

"Are you going to admit to being deeply religious".
What does Noob mean? I've seen a picture with you and a son. Does it mean wrong? :-3

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:57 am

rachelg wrote: What does Noob mean? I've seen a picture with you and a son. Does it mean wrong?

No, noob does not mean "wrong", although in this instance "Saintsman" has made a some wild and wrong assumptions.

So, you've seen a pic. of the Young Master! He's a smasher, isn't he!

rachelg · Post by **rachelg** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:59 am

Bill Sikes wrote: No, noob does not mean "wrong", although in this instance "Saintsman" has made a some wild and wrong assumptions.

So, you've seen a pic. of the Young Master! He's a smasher, isn't he!
Very handsome

Saintsman · Post by **Saintsman** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 10:01 am

I wish to make some analogies here if I may. Per Bill's responses, would it not fall into place that if adults could not get their point across to another adult or if an adult could not get achieve their desired goal with another adult, they too, should maybe give them a little whack or smack to get their attention and have them better understand? I know the law says that we all of a sudden become "adults" on a particular birthday, but where is the line really drawn on who is not able to think, reason and solve problems and who is. Is it feasible that an eight year old child could possess such abilities while at the same time a thirty-four year old is simply lost, confused and in need of a smack to redirect their attention and get an immediate response from them? Do we depend on the law, not ourselves to determine that fine line of decision making for us?

Secondly, if a car is parked in front of me and ignoring my horn beeping at them, should I drive forward and impact ... smack their back-end to achieve my desire to be able to get them to move out of my way? I don't see why not as the means fits the end per the argument above, correct? But, instead, reality dictates that adults are not allowed to determine other adult discipline, but because a child is a blank slate, we thus have the ability to guide them and teach them through a means that "we" or the law determines appropriate. I know some goofy adults that don't conform to the law. You will say they should be put before a judge and possibly be locked up then, but that does not address the argument that spanking achieves an immeidate result when other methods have failed. If so, it should be applied across the board to all.

In a nutshell, spanking, hitting, smacking and whipping all require one object being forcefully thrusted or directly contacting another. The result of two or more objects coliding in a forceful measure creates a deformation of the weaker objects structure unless both structure are equal in mass and not infringed upon when directly struck. In the case of the child and adult, it is clear that the child is the weaker person (or object per the above example) and the adult is the force of greater mass and force that will impact the child resulting in the wearer body (the child) being deformed (in any degree at all) from its original state of being. Such action does not create harmony, but instead creates force, velocity, impact, trauma and consequent damage.

Oh yeah, if I didn't mention it yet, I am a father of five children. I would be lying if I said I am strong in my stance due to my father's practice of "corporeal punishment" which taught me, the hard way, that I would never subject my children to such punishment. I just simply cannot see it. Once you go down one path, no matter how gently you tred down it or how harshly you abuse it, you have still choosen a path that is in oppostion to the other path possible. My path has been steered clear of any direction that incorporates forceful physical contact from me to my children. It is the best precedence to start, example toward them and have all soceity and humans benefit from.

Amen! I feel I should be a preacher now! Any votes?

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 10:16 am

rachelg wrote: Very handsome

Thank you very much. He's a little unwell at the moment, with a temperature, so I'm going to hurry off in a minute to see about it - however, that's a different topic altogether. I'll have to decide on whether to give him a nice dinner, if he's up to it, some medicine, warm milk, vitamin drops, or whatever - or whether to just apply the cricket bat, as usual (insert devilish smiley of your choice here).

Saintsman · Post by **Saintsman** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 10:22 am

Bill Sikes wrote: Hang on. Whacko religious freaks. This seems to be coming from a particular angle.

"Saintsman" (the name!) - would you describe yourself as particularly religious?

References to religion were made due to the original article being written to express both sides of the debate and both relying on religion to support their cause or belief. Further, it is a religious forum we are engaged in and not a pet store forum. Be that as it may, to answer your question, No, I do not subscribe to religion as religion directly relates to any man-made orginization of belief, rules, and expectations. Instead, I consider myself spiritual being that can be personnally derived and defined without conforming to any set standard of rules imposed by a governing religion. Thus far in my life, I have yet to find a man-made religion (whether they claim it was inspired by God or any other greater force) to be free from misguided concepts and judgments somewhere in their doctrine of dogma and rules. In not finding any such religion, I am told that I will have to accept the fact that I am doomed to Hell ... I guess. Hmmm, I don't think so.

The only angle I am promoting here is the welfare of the child or minor who should not be subjected to physical harm and that adults should use rational intelligent thought processes to direct these kids. I will grant you that I have wanted to beat the Hell out of my nephew, who I think was spawned from Hell, and certainly it is within my physical nature to desire such feelings as well as physically capable of carrying them out, but I have restrained myself for the greater good and not done so ... yet. Maybe I will wait until he is 18 and then I can call him an adult and then whoop him, but that is my irrational emotional side speaking right now. Thus, to be intelligent, I retain the stance that other methods, which there are quite a number of, will benefit both him and I in the long run instead of me smacking him ... even after the day he punched me in the face for making him turn off cartoons on T.V. (The little ****). I am not a Saint. My resolution was to tell my brother, his father, and let the chips fall where they may. I know that sounds very contradicting, but I am professing a ethic value here as well as admitting that I am not 100% free of wrong doing in my past.

I am a Saints fan though, thus my name "Saintsman". That would be the New Orleans Saints Football orginization in the National Football League of the U.S.A. (for all my friends who don't have a T.V. outside of the U.S.A. to know what the NFL stands for!)

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 10:23 am

I believe in grounding and other forms of non-corporal punishment, But in cases where the child is in danger, such as running out into traffic, or in cases where the child is being rude to other adults, I would definitely use a quick swat to the butt.

It has the effect of instant consequence and makes it memorable. Sure it's embarrassing, but some lessons have to be learned in an instant.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 10:28 am

Saintsman wrote: I wish to make some analogies here if I may. Per Bill's responses, would it not fall into place that if adults could not get their point across to another adult or if an adult could not get achieve their desired goal with another adult, they too, should maybe give them a little whack or smack to get their attention and have them better understand?

No, of course not. That's just bloody silly. If you really think that a child is equivalent in ability to make decisions, reason, etc. as an adult, then you must have a screw loose.

Saintsman wrote: Secondly, if a car is parked in front of me and ignoring my horn beeping at them, should I drive forward and impact ... smack their back-end to achieve my desire to be able to get them to move out of my way? I don't see why not as the means fits the end per the argument above, correct?

No, of course it's not correct.

Saintsman wrote: In a nutshell, spanking, hitting, smacking and whipping all require one object being forcefully thrusted or directly contacting another. The result of two or more objects coliding in a forceful measure creates a deformation of the weaker objects structure unless both structure are equal in mass and not infringed upon when directly struck. In the case of the child and adult, it is clear that the child is the weaker person (or object per the above example) and the adult is the force of greater mass and force that will impact the child resulting in the wearer body (the child) being deformed (in any degree at all) from its original state of being. Such action does not create harmony, but instead creates force, velocity, impact, trauma and consequent damage.

In a nutshell. Hmmm. The above paragraph is really quite extraordinary.

Saintsman wrote: Amen! I feel I should be a preacher now! Any votes?

I have just noticed that this thread is in "general religious discussion", which, to me, is telling. No - if I were you, I would not try to become any sort of "preacher".

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 10:37 am

Ummm...did I forget to mention that I regularly deal with children whose parents have decided to "spare the rod"?

The result is a child that has no respect for authority, is selfish in the extreme, and believes that there is no consequence to any action they may take. No limits, no rules apply to them. A total brat.

Trust me, you are not being kind to your child by never punishing them. Children want and need rules. It shows them you care.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 10:38 am

Saintsman wrote: References to religion were made due to the original article being written to express both sides of the debate and both relying on religion to support their cause or belief. Further, it is a religious forum we are engaged in and not a pet store forum.

Sorry, I did not at first realise that I was replying to something in a "religious forum" - I try, in general, to avoid that sort of thing, due to the disproportionate number of nutters involved. I am not saying that all religious people are nutters, by any means, however.

Saintsman wrote: The only angle I am promoting here is the welfare of the child or minor who should not be subjected to physical harm and that adults should use rational intelligent thought processes to direct these kids.

OK, OK.... I agree. However, I think there is a place for the occasional smack (guidelines in law). I think I have already said, it should be a great rarity. I can remember being smacked what - three times? I am sure I deserved it, and that it had a salutory effect, and that it was the best thing in the circumstances.

I might add to this, which might be better out of the "religious" arena, that I think that it's quite possible to do more harm to a child in ways other than "smacking".

Saintsman wrote: I will grant you that I have wanted to beat the Hell out of (snip)

Yup. Some do generate that desire!

Saintsman wrote: I am a Saints fan though, thus my name "Saintsman". That would be the New Orleans Saints Football orginization in the National Football League of the U.S.A. (for all my friends who don't have a T.V. outside of the U.S.A. to know what the NFL stands for!)

OK, sorry about thinking you were a religious nut-case. Sometimes "religion" can do lots of damage. The explanation of "football" is useful, American football isn't well known here (in the UK) at all! I don't even know whether it is televised here.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 10:41 am

Jives wrote: Ummm...did I forget to mention that I regularly deal with children whose parents have decided to "spare the rod"?

The result is a child that has no respect for authority, is selfish in the extreme, and believes that there is no consequence to any action they may take. No limits, no rules apply to them. A total brat.

Trust me, you are not being kind to your child by never punishing them. Children want and need rules. It shows them you care.

I can sympathise. "The rod" takes many forms - did you mean "the rod" in a general sense? - and to not apply any form of censure is extremely rash! Where would society be without any rules?

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 10:48 am

Saintsman wrote: Okay, in reading your response, and thank you for responding, per the original artaicle posted, my question is this: If a spanking with a hand is acceptable, is a spanking with a paddle acceptable? Why or why not?

I'm going to answer No. A paddle is not acceptable as an object kept specifically for the purpose of punishment. Spanking is a last resort, not something one should expect to do or plan on being prepared for.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 10:50 am

Yeah, you got it Bill. In the general sense (but in the context of this thread I do support a little swat on the butt, usually up to the age of five, then you will have to be more creative.)

I know all to many parents that have told me, "but I wanted to be their friend, I don't want my child to hate me!" Sorry, they've got friends, it's parents they need.

One mother once told me, "I can't tell my daughter to go to school. She'll throw a tantrum and bust a hole in the wall."

I laughed. Who's the adult in the house now?

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 10:53 am

koan wrote: A paddle is not acceptable as an object kept specifically for the purpose of punishment. Spanking is a last resort, not something one should expect to do or plan on being prepared for.

I've just read the OP in more detail! These things are purpose-made! Well I'll be jiggered, to use an expression.

Saintsman · Post by **Saintsman** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 10:58 am

Jives wrote: Ummm...did I forget to mention that I regularly deal with children whose parents have decided to "spare the rod"?

The result is a child that has no respect for authority, is selfish in the extreme, and believes that there is no consequence to any action they may take. No limits, no rules apply to them. A total brat.

Trust me, you are not being kind to your child by never punishing them. Children want and need rules. It shows them you care.

Whether you deal with children or not, you are incorrectly using infinitives and absolutes in your response. You state that "the result is a child that has NO respect for authority". "No" is an absolute. "There is NO consequence to any..." Again, "No" is an infinitive. "NO limits, No rules apply to them..." Do you really wish to stand by such statements? Are you asking me to believe that the child you mention has NO respect for anyone in the entire world or whom they have encountered as an adult as well as you wish me to believe that the same child has NO limits as home, at school, at church, at the grocery store, at any point of their existance..... because that is what is being said when a person uses infinitives. Your better statement was correctly expressed by saying, "they are selfish in the extreme" as that does not say they are "totally" (by definition, meaning 100% and not able to posses any other aspect) selfish. If one was a total brat, they would have had to be an "extreme and ultimate" brat fron their first breath on earth and never displayed any other characteristic in their entire existance. You are not asking me to believe that are you?

Thus far in my career and life, infinitives and absolutes have not proven out or won many debates or court cases.

I agree that children want and need rules, the question in debate is how we employ those rules and with what consequences.

Thanks for your response!

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 10:58 am

There's a good point there. Spanking should be the last step of what we call in education an "Assertive Discipline ladder".

My buddy saus that they only time he will spank his children (and he has sat down with them and made sure they understand this) is when they have willfully been disrespectful more than once.

First a light verbal reminder.

Then a sterner reminder.

Then grounding or isolation.

finally spanking.

That way the child as chosen the punishment for themselves. I think I remember the only time I was ever spanked was when I had been bad all day, was grounded to my room, then came out willingly to chop the kitchen counter with a pan. I deserved it big time that day! :wah:

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:05 am

You're right, I shouldn't be so absolute.

Let me change my terminology.

They aren't brats. They are sociopaths without a normal conscience. Trust me, taking away time-proven tools from parents isn't going to make our society better.

Sure there are parents that abuse the tools, but if you say no parents may spank their kids you are in league with someone saying, 'Since that man killed a person with a hammer, no one may use a hammer again."

Think about the past. This debate is new. Why? Because they had what we do not. Common sense. For centuries, children have been disciplined with corporal punishment. It didn't stop the creation of indivuals like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and many more.

Quick, decisive and consequence-matched discipline creates the individual, not destroys it.

Saintsman · Post by **Saintsman** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:09 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saintsman

I wish to make some analogies here if I may. Per Bill's responses, would it not fall into place that if adults could not get their point across to another adult or if an adult could not get achieve their desired goal with another adult, they too, should maybe give them a little whack or smack to get their attention and have them better understand?

Posted by Bill Sikes:

"No, of course not. That's just bloody silly. If you really think that a child is equivalent in ability to make decisions, reason, etc. as an adult, then you must have a screw loose."

Come on Bill! I am disappointed here. You only took part of my analogy to suit your purpose and did not address the question at the end. I did not say all kids have the same ability to make decisions, reason and resolve as adults, but did ask what of those adults who act like children? I want you to defend your theory and basic premise on that condition. Why does it not apply to people who are 21 years old who act like 6 year olds? If you tell me because the law won't allow for it, then .... well, I will reserve my answer on that until you say it or not. If you say that a 21 year old is able to make rational decisions to acheive maximum results in any situation, we know that has been proven incorrect countless times ... so why not employ your stance and principle to the 21 year old who needs an immediate attention getter?

Further, if you only take part of my analogy and then base your answer on the foundation of ... "you must have a screw loose" ... and while not directly addressing the full question, it is highly likely that you will not convince too many people of your position.

I know you can do better Bill. I wish to be educated by your stance so I can review my own position to see whether I am mistaken or not.

Thanks.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:16 am

Saintsman wrote: Why does it not apply to people who are 21 years old who act like 6 year olds?

If a 21 year old is still acting like a 6 year old, the parent has already failed their responsibility. It's too late and now society and the law will have to deal with them. This is my point, if you use a little corporal punishment, you won't have as many of these kinds of people.

So Saintsman....you have done much to belittle those who believe in disciplining their children and making sure they grow up to be respectful polite adults.

it's almost as if you are against that idea.

If you don't want to use corporal punishment (and I remind you that almost everyone here has said that should only be the last step of a complete discipline plan) what's your idea of punishment?

Or are you for no punishment at all? Nothing meaningful anyway?

jahamaa · Post by **jahamaa** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:20 am

[QUOTE=Saintsman]Quote:

Originally Posted by Saintsman

I wish to make some analogies here if I may. Per Bill's responses, would it not fall into place that if adults could not get their point across to another adult or if an adult could not get achieve their desired goal with another adult, they too, should maybe give them a little whack or smack to get their attention and have them better understand? }

Works for me!!! Good left hook and a straight right should be taught in every debate club. And there would never be any doubt as to the winner :wah:

Just kidding don't lynch me!!! :-4

Saintsman · Post by **Saintsman** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:26 am

Jives wrote: You're right, I shouldn't be so absolute.

Let me change my terminology.

They aren't brats. They are sociopaths without a normal conscience. Trust me, taking away time-proven tools from parents isn't going to make our society better.

Sure there are parents that abuse the tools, but if you say no parents may spank their kids you are in league with someone saying, 'Since that man killed a person with a hammer, no one may use a hammer again."

Think about the past. This debate is new. Why? Because they had what we do not. Common sense. For centuries, children have been disciplined with corporal punishment. It didn't stop the creation of indivuals like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and many more.

Quick, decisive and consequence-matched discipline creates the individual, not destroys it.

I respond by saying that if we look at the past as our basis and foundation, we must, for the most part, stagnate the process of evolution and all the progress we have made in all fields. If we examine that of science, technology, theology, philosophy and humanity, we have, by in large, moved forward. It has been a very slow progression with many former ills being repeated over and over again in particular areas (such as war and killing), but overall, we have evolved from caveman mentality to current mentality. We have evolved from the wheel to the space-shuttle. We have evolved from addition to geometry and trigonometry and so on and so on and so on ..... You get the point. Life is a progression of forward thinking and forward movement. Notice we cannot stay stagnant at one particular age, we inevitably move to the next sequencial age. Thus, it follows and has been proven that all substance and being we are aware of moves forward and never prepetually backward. In using your time-tested methods of the past, I say they may have created some benefit, but overall, they too, need to move forward and become more advanced, enlightened and better understood in their employment.

What do you think? :-6

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:36 am

OK, so you're for more creative discipline. Me too. When a kid litters in my classroom, I usually give them a broom and they help me clean the school grounds. Make a mess, clean it up.

But you still haven't answered the question:

What's your idea of discipline? What would you do to a kid that runs out into the street, or is rude to another adult in your presence, or steals, or hurts another child deliberately, or hurts an animal?

Or...and it will happen...willfully disobeys you and does something dangerous?

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:26 pm

Jives wrote: If a 21 year old is still acting like a 6 year old, the parent has already failed their responsibility. It's too late and now society and the law will have to deal with them. This is my point, if you use a little corporal punishment, you won't have as many of these kinds of people.

So Saintsman....you have done much to belittle those who believe in disciplining their children and making sure they grow up to be respectful polite adults.

it's almost as if you are against that idea.

If you don't want to use corporal punishment (and I remind you that almost everyone here has said that should only be the last step of a complete discipline plan) what's your idea of punishment?

Or are you for no punishment at all? Nothing meaningful anyway?

I am compelled to mention that I have known a number of twenty year olds who act like they are six. In all cases that I can recall, the people in question were beaten or abused some way when they were young and so were frozen at the age they were traumatized.

The key word is "little" A little coporal punishment and as little as possible. In a way does not teach violence as a solution to anger and frustration.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 1:43 pm

Bill Sikes wrote:

If you really mean "NEVER", then I put it to you that he is in a tiny minority.

I REALLY mean NEVER. I am known for saying exactly what I mean and meaning what I say.

My son has been raised to respect. To respect his parents, his teachers, his friends. He has been raised knowing that there are consequences for actions and that in our house, you are held accountable for your own actions. It is the standard, it's what he's grown up with and the only way he knows. I accomplished this by being honest with him. I made mistakes as a young adult and I paid for them. I have told him the stories of the stupid things I've done and what happened to me as a result. I have always respected my parents, so THAT was the norm for him. I led by example. On the rare occasions he has stepped out of line, the punishment has fit the action. I have NEVER raised a hand to my son because I haven't needed to. He was taught from the earliest age what is acceptable and what is not. He's learned from MY mistakes. And being honest with him was all the lesson he needed about the repercussions for making those mistakes. I now have a thoughtful, respectful, well-mannered, kind-hearted young man, who I am very proud of. Accomplished without ever having had to hit him.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 1:52 pm

BabyRider wrote: He has been raised knowing that there are consequences for actions and that in our house, you are held accountable for your own actions.

So what consequences? You haven't listed any alternatives.

I led by example.

I agree, this is always a good idea, and is my philosophy too.

On the rare occasions he has stepped out of line, the punishment has fit the action.

For example? Name a crime and your idea of punishment for it. Or I'll give you one, you just found out your child shoplifted. What would you do?

Actually here's a couple more:

2. You just found out your child swore at a teacher.

3. Your child intentionally hurt an animal, to be cool with his friends.

4. Your child bullied another child.

No fair saying, "My child would never do that."since that implies that your child has never misbehaved and you just admitted that he has.

I'm just interested in your personal disciplinary ladder.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 2:23 pm

Jives wrote:

For example? Name a crime and your idea of punishment for it. Or I'll give you one, you just found out your child shoplifted. What would you do?

Actually here's a couple more:

2. You just found out your child swore at a teacher.

3. Your child intentionally hurt an animal, to be cool with his friends.

4. Your child bullied another child.

No fair saying, "My child would never do that."since that implies that your child has never misbehaved and you just admitted that he has.

:o
If my son shoplifted, I'd hope he got caught by store security. Ironically, this is one of the things I'd done as a younger person, and he knows what would happen. Because it happened to me. If the store presses charges, chances are very good he'd get community service, which he would do without complaint. (He wouldn't complain to ME, anyway.) He would also have to take out of his bank account the value of whatever it was he'd stolen and give it to me. He'd lose computer and TV priveleges, and be given extra work around the house. And no driving.

If my son swore at a teacher, I would have him apologize, in writing and in front of the entire class. He also knows this. He would not put himself in a situation to bring that kind of embarrassment on him.

The hurting an animal scenario is moot, because that is one thing I do know he wouldn't do. He is as big an animal lover as I am, and very sensitive. That refers more to character than discipline. He is also not as concerned with how he looks to his peers as most his age.

As for bullying, if it was just maliciously being a snot to someone, again, he would be made to apologize to the person he bullied, AND that child's parents. And not just a mumbled "Sorry..." A believeable, heartfelt apology. Why it was wrong, what it was that came over him to do it, and that it won't happen again.

Disobedience results in loss of priveleges. How many, which ones and for how long, would depend on how serious the wrong that was done. My son happens to REALLY like his privileges, and doesn't do things to get them taken away. He toes the line, tests his boundaries, as all kids do. But when he understands why things are wrong, and what will happen if he disregards the rules, it makes things very simple.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 6:19 pm

Many Religious were the whipping tools in Ireland from the 1930s to 1980s www.paddydoyle.com

Some Christians, should be sent to the Loins

A Karenina · Post by **A Karenina** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:00 pm

For the record, I was spanked growing up. My dad was very strict, very fair, and never angry when he hit me. Down south, the leather belt is very popular to use. It stings pretty bad, but he never left a mark on me.

Around 8 or 9 years old, I started weighing out whether the "crime" I was about to commit was worth the spanking when I got home. I never had a doubt in my mind that my father would already know about my mischief. He always knew! Equally, I never had a doubt about the punishment I would receive for various transgressions - he was always clear about that.

My sister and I were very well trained, if you want to call it that. We knew how to behave in every situation, from school to church to visiting sick folks in the hospital. We worked hard, did our chores without a fight - though we did mumble a lot, we did well in school, and thought highly of ourselves.

See, in my mind as I grew up, I knew my dad loved me enough to take his belt to me. I knew he didn't enjoy it. I knew I hurt and disappointed him at times. I also knew that he loved me enough to do this anyway, so that I would turn out well. I never doubted any of that, nor was I afraid of him. I was afraid of hurting him, but never afraid of him.

I turned out ok, if I do say so myself. What my father did was not abuse...I know very well because I was abused by various step-parents. I feared them. They made no sense. They enjoyed inflicting pain...and even a child can understand the difference.

I look at kids today, and at how proud their parents are for never spanking them. That's well and good, and is a wonderful statement about both parent and child when it turns out like BabyRider's son. But I'd say that's pretty rare. So many kids are rude, thoughtless, loud, vulgar, and I suppose we were too at that age. But worse than that, they are lazy, virtually stupid, and seem completely unable/unwilling to cope with the realities of life.

We seem to be mourning the loss of old values even as we work to demolish those values. Spanking is just a small part of it.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:06 pm

capt_buzzard wrote: Many Religious were the whipping tools in Ireland from the 1930s to 1980s www.paddydoyle.com

Some Christians, should be sent to the Loins
LOINS? whose loins? sounds illegal. :-2 ...just jiving you Capt.!

Saintsman · Post by **Saintsman** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 6:31 am

capt_buzzard wrote: Many Religious were the whipping tools in Ireland from the 1930s to 1980s www.paddydoyle.com

Some Christians, should be sent to the Loins

I, for one, would be very happy to be sent to the "Loins", that is, depending on whose loins they were, of course!!! :sneaky:

As far as being sent to the "lions", hopefully that would not be the "Detroit Lions" of the U.S. National Football League ... seeing that they are more like little kitty cats and would end up doing NO harm to anyone! :wah:

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 7:04 am

Saintsman wrote: I know you can do better Bill. I wish to be educated by your stance so I can review my own position to see whether I am mistaken or not.

I can't get all that excited about it, really - within current UK guidelines, from the BBC, as before:

"Parents in England and Wales who smack children so hard it leaves a mark

will face up to five years in jail under new laws in force from Saturday (15th.

January, 2005). Mild smacking is allowed under a "reasonable chastisement"

defence against common assault.

But any punishment which causes visible bruising, grazes, scratches, minor

swellings or cuts can face action."

I can't see a problem. All this stuff about using special implements, beating,

that sort of thing is IMO quite wrong - but not at all what I'm talking about.

Vast passages of pseudo-physics, with objects colliding and deforming, etc.,

don't really explain much. If a an ordinary slap offends our sensibilities so

much, then what about shouting at children, sending them to their rooms,

not letting them out of the house, depriving them of food, television, or the

ritual humiliation recommended earlier in this thread?

Saintsman · Post by **Saintsman** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 7:34 am

In response to thread #45 by A Karenina:

I appreciate your reply. What I got from it is that you are thankful for your Dad's method of rearing you, which was successful, but I also noticed that you listed all non-corporeal punishment techniques when describing how you dealt with your son's misjudgments. I did not read that you had spanked him with a leather belt at any point in time. Although you appreciate your Dad's means of using a belt, would you (or did) you use the same method ... and if not, why not?

I guess I am more optimistic when I evaluate the overall population of children today before coming to the conclusion that they are all, or even the majority of them, are vulgur, rude, disobedient, foul-languaged hooligans. As with anything in life ... and at most at time period in life ... the is quite the variety. Surely you can conceive of and more than likely know several, if not many children who do not fit that charicature. There are plenty of wonderful kids who don't fall into that mold who have never been subjected to a leather belt as well.

With no disrespect toward your father, I believe that the tradition of old values you mentioned were conditioning values that people did not question, were taught not to question and simply became part of their routing without serious consideration to what the practice entailed. For example, I have seen so many times where people go to church out of obligation, guilt and fear instead of their own personal reasons. I see this as defeating the very intent of attending church. Likewise, many parents [especially in the south where manners, respect and tradition (I believe) was closely held to a higher and more important significance (family name being tarnished and all) than what the north practiced] ... many new parents simply followed their life long example when incorporating how they reared their children without question. As time has moved forward, especially with all the civil right movements of the sixties and all the awareness brought to public attention of former laws and practices that had ill effect, people began to question and re-evaluate their positions on many issues, including how to correct a child's ill-concieved behavior. Thus, whew ... I need to take a breathe here ... I think of the example that my grandmother told me of concerning how she would have to go outside a pick a branch off the rose-bush to be used as a switch or tool to punish her. As we all know, rose branches have thorns on them. She said that her parents were subjected to the same treatment and so on back and so on back. Today, the chain has been broken and my family does not employ the same tactics. We have moved forward without jeapordizing the rearing of our children. I have never spanked my son and he has a heart of gold. Now, what if he was a little demon? Luckly I haven't had that happen, but my nephew is a bit of a tester for sure and I do babysit him often. In situations where he, or any child is out of line, I have taken them aside and talked to them in a stern voice or in a common voice. I let them know the consequences of their behavior and stick to those consequences that do not include a leather belt. I let them understand the error of their way, which usually imposes guilt on them when they understand everything involved with their actions. My oldest daughter deplores my lectures at this point, but much like you mentioned about your rapport with your father, my children are more upset in feeling they dis-served my wife and I, or they bear the guilt for disappointing us at a level where they avoid most negative acts so as not to bring shame upon themselves nor hurt their parent's level of expectation and esteem for them. I am not saying I would lessen my esteem for them, but they do that almost naturally when they are caught in mischievious deeds and confronted with them.

If I had a near total monster to deal with that I could not get through to, I would seek professional guidance.

You see, for me, that is the difference. Being a parent is a privledge that should be well thought out before engaging in any pursuit of making it happen. It takes time to be a parent. Time spent in rearing them verbally, not physically when they do wrong. If someone is not willing or able to put the time in, then they should not sign up for the program and process. I have heard how others talk about needing instant results. That tells me there is a gap from rearing and demand for instantanious high expectations and results. That is not realistic nor should be imposed on the child. Much like most everything in life, there are no automatic results that bear perfection nor anything close to perfection. Everything needs to be groomed, honed and reared into a greater state of being or masterpiece, if you will.

I also realize that what I am saying about people really considering the obligation they are embarking on as a serious one that entails many responsiblities of time and effort is not realistic either. Instead, the sex drive compell many pregnancies without any established ground rules between the couple, other forms of domination that we have seen for years where the man calls the shots and the women simply follows his lead being he is the "father" and "man of the house" and men handle discipline while women handle cooking and cleaning and applying band-aids ... these long-practiced traditions simply continue in a cyclicle manner until finally someone questions and challenges them and seeks a better result for everyone involved.

Finally, if I may, "Jives" (who has had some compelling arguments in earlier posts on this subject) asked me a question yesterday that I have yet to answer. So, I will do so now. He asked what I would do if my child swore, was rude, ran into traffic and so on. First, swearing (this will incite a whole new debate and controversay) is not a very big deal to me. At its root, "swearing" is the use of words within a language as a tool to express a specific point or argument and not much more. Once my child or anyone is educated to a better and more significant manner of languare, speech and expressing themself for greater impact, swearing takes a backseat and no longer holds much ground. Some kids do it to be cool, but that is a stage. Society doesn't tolerate such behavior and their stage in school will equal a lost job in the future if they continue to utilize such base methods of language. I don't beat this idea into my kids, I discuss it with them and tell them all the future ramificatioins of such speech patterns while I also guide them to better ways to more efficiently communicate. With all that being said, I will now say that sometimes "swearing" is very essential and significant in expressing the emotion and importance of one's stance. That I have experienced to be damn true!

Okay, now for another real life incident that scared the Hell out of me! At the age of five, my daughter ran across my mother's driveway to greet me on the otherside. Unfortunately, my mother happen to be backing out of the driveway at the time and luckly noticed her darting behind her vechical to stop in time. Immediately, my mother exited the car and grabbed my daughter to spank her. Now, don't get me wrong, I love my mother and respect her autonomy as a parent and grandparent too, but I intervened and did not allow for the spanking to occur. My child's intent was not a negative or bad one, but her judgment was that of not fully realizing the devestating consequences to what could have happened to her.

My solution was to let her see the fear and tears in my face in considering she might have died. Then I sat her down in the kitchen and explained the situation and what could have happened. I asked her if she understood what I was telling her. She said yes, but I wasn't convinced so I continued. I took some green grapes out of the refriderator and borrowed my son's toy dump truck. I explained how the grape represented a kid, which could have been her, and the truch ... a really big and dangerous thing. I proceeded to show her what she did not experience outside on the driveway. She saw the grape get squished, several grapes met their ugly demise that day. Then I had her run the truck over the grape to see if the results would be any different for her per her first-hand experience. Of course, they were not and I think she got the message. All in all, I spent time with her. I addressed the issue in a intellectual manner instead of my mom's instant spanking void of verbal explanation.

How many times does a kid get spanked and although they know they have upset their parent, really know why they upset their parent? Even so, again, my five year old daughter's intent was to run and be with her daddy. That is a good intent. Her judgment on when to run and see her daddy was flawed as she was not yet educated to the logic involved. I educated her and as of today, she is sixteen years old and hasn't run into the street since nor been struck by a vehical. I am confident my time spent at the kitchen table as a parent better served her than my mother swatting her butt and yelling at her. Yelling isn't always the best communication unless the house is on fire and other similar situations.

Based on the idea of a child not yet know a concept, but being hit with a hand or belt to help them learn the concept ... (negating any form of child abuse as determined by law) I would have to conclude that if a child in first grade cannot grasp the conprehention of reading ... he or she should be hit so that they do understand they have upset the teacher and their behavior must change until they do conprehend on how to read, aye? The theory seems the same to me. Instead, we continue to educate the child and not hit them until they read. Why the difference in method? One may say that "bad" behavior is not the same as learning to read. I would respond by saying that "bad" behavior is behavior that has not been educated, much like words not yet learned to be read. Repeated bad behavior needs addtional education with consequences just as repeated inability to read needs addtional attention with stipulated consequences, the biggest being that the child be shown how not being able to read will put them a great disadvantage in their future life.

I have gone on for quite some time now and hopefully not bored you too extensively. I am most appreciative for the many responses over this topic and hope that some third-party reading all this has taken it ALL in and now better educated with ALL aspects of the issue to come to their best conclusion. This end is much better than that of the reality being so many parents rarely initiate any conversation on how they will raise their kids and settle for the fact that it is simply something that happens and one must deal with it as it comes.

P.S. I apologize for any typo's or ill constructed sentences as I do not have time to proof read these and I don't see any spell check as of yet on the Gardenforum.Com reply screens. But, feel content in the fact that it is the thought that counts and I am sure you get my basic thoughts and ideas.

Cheers!

Saintsman · Post by **Saintsman** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:14 am

"If a an ordinary slap offends our sensibilities so much, then what about shouting at children, sending them to their rooms, not letting them out of the house, depriving them of food, television, or the ritual humiliation recommended earlier in this thread?"

I say, in a non-vast passage:

1. Sending children to their room is fine.

2. Not letting them out of the house (grounding them) is fine.

3. Depriving them of food is NOT fine.

4. Depriving them of televison is fine.

5. The ritual of humiliation and shouting at children both are questionable at

a minimum, but (depending on what degree employed) they are better than

the physical striking, smacking, belting (ect.) of a child.

And "pseudo-physic" laws are completely unbiased. They apply to material objects as equally well to human beings. It, therefore, is concluded that the affects of physics do not discriminate between objects or humans and produce the same ends or consequences ... or damage.

Peace.