|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 7:28 am
Valheita The tying them to a chair example was really only for if time-out type approaches didn't work because the child realised they didn't have to obey. I guess the next question becomes... what percentage of parents use it responsibly? The same percentage that are good parents in general, I suppose.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 7:09 pm
when i was younger and misbehaved/showed disrespect to my parents i was spanked. children don't exactly understand anything else, you can't reason with them. they aren't mature.
you don't spank adults because it's a violation of their rights, and you can reason with them.
anyone under 18 is considered an infant by law. you don't gain rights until then.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:44 pm
biggrin When I was little and misbehaved, I would get hit a lot and spanked... It got to the point where I wanted to run away o3o. Well, I also got locked out of the house once when it snowed ( I didn't do my extra homework and my daddy got mad at me) o3o I used to get bruises and my daddy would hit me while he was driving sometimes... Both parents would hit but daddy would hit harder.
>W< No wonder I almost went emo when I was as younger teen >W<
But from that as a kid, you learn a little more a long the way... For an adult, if they don't get it, make them get it, is the way I was taught. o3o.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 5:50 pm
Little Miss Fortune When I was little, my brothers and I used to get a drop of tabasco sauce on our tongues if we misbehaved. I only ever had it happen a couple of times, because I absolutely haaaaaaated it!
When I have kids, I'll probably just figure out something similar to punish them with. But I doubt that anything could make me resort to physically harming them. That reminds me of the "bar of soap in the mouth" treatment. I think something like that is a better option than hitting, because there is the chance that the child may begin to think that hitting a person is how you should deal with anybody you're angry with. Plus, even if you don't mean to really badly harm your child there's the possibility that you may not realize your own strength or hit them in a vulnerable spot (like the neck) on accident (especially if the child moves quickly). I think tabasco sauce, soap, or something similar that won't cause real harm but will hurt or be repulsive is a better option...just make sure the soap is non-toxic if you go with that option. As far as I know I was never spanked, but I had been threatened with possible spanks, and that was enough to get me to stop usually.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 5:32 pm
Valheita That one night And thats why every new generation of kids is more stupid and more of a brat then the last. Yes violence is wrong, but correcting your child with a spank or somethign like that, a stick or belt is good IMO. Aslong as you don't over do it. Kids need someone to give them tough love. Kids don't understand if you just talk to them, they are not mature enough, they NEED dicipline. Social decline huh? I contest that each successive generation is worse not because of a lack of discipline, but because of a lack of empathy generated by parents who resort to physical violence to get their point across. Not in some cases. I see many young moms with their kids in tow, screaming and crying to get what they want and the mom thinks it's okay - because /she/ never got what she wanted as a child. And this only creates bratty children who mouth off to teachers and do stupid things when they're older because they never got RESPECT taught to them. Valheita Divine_Malevolence Hitting is acceptable. Just when it doesn't go overboard. Punishment is far too light nowadays. People do bad s**t because they don't fear the punishment. People do stupid s**t because they know the medical system can make it all go away. Take away negative consequence and people go wild. Which.... shouldn't be allowed. "Joka kuritta kasvaa, se kunniatta kuolee." Or in english, "Who is raised without discipline, he shall die without honour". Of course, nobody ever said discipline had to be physical. I wonder though, how much stupid s**t is actually performed because of a lack of restrictions? Speaking here from personal experience, a person raised with heavy restrictions, will perform stupid s**t when freed from those restrictions. However! People raised without restrictions, they may make a few mistakes, but they tend to be less prone to stupid acts than those raised in a strict environment. 'Course, this may just be that the test group in my particular case had an exquisite level of common sense. This all depends on the level of strictness. If you don't allow your children anything, they're wanting to do more. That's usually how it goes. You have to find the space where they can do things, and as a parent, it's your job to take them out to places and let them do things. Show them how stuff works, build rockets with them or fly kites. Neglect plays a huge part in bratty children as well. Valheita Vajapocalypse Sometimes fear is a good thing (that's the only thing that has kept her from trying to kill me and no I'm not kidding or exaggerating). Fear doesn't have to be of violence. Also, if a parent needs cow their child by hitting it, then they have failed as a parent. @Thread: Something proponents of spanking have neglected to address is the fact that, you cannot discipline an adult physically. You say that children need discipline, well news flash people, there are forms of discipline other than violence. Lock them in an empty room for a few hours (like a jail cell), tie them to a chair for a few hours. If my parents locked me in an empty room or tied me to a chair for a few hours I would have gone completely insane. I have enough fears as it is, I find those methods worse than spanking!!! Valheita Hell, even scolding them is enough. Let me tell you a story. I was raised by parents who spanked me, ONLY, when I did something very wrong. By your accounts this is fine. Now, something happened one day, when I was a teenager. I broke my dads ruler out of rage. I told him, and he was disappointed, but didn't scold me. The way I had been raised, -required- me to be punished for that though. So what did I do? I went to my bedroom, and cut my arm open with a knife (my first time doing it... I almost severed the tendons in the top of my arm). Being raised with physical violence, REQUIRED, me to hurt myself to punish myself. I almost lost the use of an arm, over a ruler, because that was how I was raised. I had to be physically hurt as punishment. Why didn't your dad scold you? Because you came to him and told him, you knew it was wrong and accepted any punishment. He didn't give you any- seeing that you were adult enough to show him what you did. Spanking was not necessary. I AM going to say that I think that's a slight mental issue there. But I don't want to go into that.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 5:40 pm
Aneyana Little Miss Fortune When I was little, my brothers and I used to get a drop of tabasco sauce on our tongues if we misbehaved. I only ever had it happen a couple of times, because I absolutely haaaaaaated it!
When I have kids, I'll probably just figure out something similar to punish them with. But I doubt that anything could make me resort to physically harming them. That reminds me of the "bar of soap in the mouth" treatment. I think something like that is a better option than hitting, because there is the chance that the child may begin to think that hitting a person is how you should deal with anybody you're angry with. Plus, even if you don't mean to really badly harm your child there's the possibility that you may not realize your own strength or hit them in a vulnerable spot (like the neck) on accident (especially if the child moves quickly). I think tabasco sauce, soap, or something similar that won't cause real harm but will hurt or be repulsive is a better option...just make sure the soap is non-toxic if you go with that option. As far as I know I was never spanked, but I had been threatened with possible spanks, and that was enough to get me to stop usually. Face full of soap - ahh, only used when we /said/ something wrong. And yes, I do believe it's a better option than hitting. My little brother hit his schoolmates because he thought that's how you dealt with things- although my brother is mentally ill. (Slightly, and we didn't know that) We've stopped hitting him (except in extreme cases) and my parents, I've noticed, are a lot less strict to him than they were with us. (My big brother and I are both a little mentally off too, but we were in a big city and nobody cared enough to catch it- now we live in a small country town where the teachers care more and can catch these things) EDIT: I'm not saying spanking/hitting my children is my first or only means of punishment. I don't like the idea and I will only use it after: 1. Verbal scolding (and a brief explanation why) 2. A time-out or similar activity (perhaps sit in a chair or in the corner, but NEVER tied up!!! 3. If they are old enough to understand WHY it's bad, then they get spanked. It makes no sense if the child doesn't understand it.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 5:52 pm
Current opinion: If the child decides to be violent, violence is acceptable to be used against said child to show it's wrong. Not too harsh, though. Only to a point where they'd understand. ninja
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:43 pm
My opinion is still, hit me, and I'll hit you back 2x as hard. I don't like bullies that use force to get what they want.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:57 am
It depends on the culture of the people involved.
I unfortunately sold back that particular textbook so I can't provide you with the references (too lazy to try to google them xP), but attitudes and reactions to spankings differ across cultural backgrounds. The studies I've seen show that in general, black children are likely to view a spanking as for their own good and a sign that their parents love them and want them to do the right thing, whereas white children are more likely to be angry and will have a higher tendency to become violent adults and react violently when angered. These studies were obviously limited because they only took into account two racial backgrounds, and in the US only, but it was still interesting how so many of them came to this exact conclusion.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:11 am
After reading through this thread, I have to say that I feel like most of you that were "spanked" weren't what I'd call "spanked." To me, a spanking was a very rare thing that was never, ever, EVER used lightly or over something trivial, and it was never done while either of my parents were angry. I was usually warned at least seven times that I was getting close to the point that they would spank me before they did, and immediately afterwards they talked to me and made sure I understood exactly what I had done wrong and exactly why they had chosen that course of action. After that, I was hugged and invited to join them in whatever they were doing. What happened to some of you sounds like something for which your parents should be locked away for the rest of their lives. Valheita Speaking here from personal experience, a person raised with heavy restrictions, will perform stupid s**t when freed from those restrictions. However! People raised without restrictions, they may make a few mistakes, but they tend to be less prone to stupid acts than those raised in a strict environment. People raised completely without restrictions are raised by parents who don't care about them. My experience points to the exact opposite of what you're saying for people raised without restrictions, i.e. people raised under the permissive or neglectful parenting styles. Children without restrictions do whatever they want to do, be it eating three bags of cookies and washing it down with an entire pizza, playing games the entire day long and not doing any of their homework, or the extreme of joining gangs to get the direction and feeling of belonging that their parents refuse to give. Many of these people grow up to be people who have no self control, since they never needed to learn it in the first place, and give into their impulses, whether it's cussing out a boss the first time they get instructions they don't like, doing drugs because they're available, having unprotected sex with many, many partners because they feel like it, or other destructive and possibly illegal activities like stealing because they just don't feel like paying for something. You're right on the money with the authoritarian style, but don't forget there is a middle ground. It is possible to give a child restrictions without suffocating him and dictating his every move. Children raised under the authoritative style have better outcomes than either the permissive/neglectful or authoritarian styles.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:24 am
Dystopian Lover Valheita Speaking here from personal experience, a person raised with heavy restrictions, will perform stupid s**t when freed from those restrictions. However! People raised without restrictions, they may make a few mistakes, but they tend to be less prone to stupid acts than those raised in a strict environment. People raised completely without restrictions are raised by parents who don't care about them. My experience points to the exact opposite of what you're saying for people raised without restrictions, i.e. people raised under the permissive or neglectful parenting styles. Children without restrictions do whatever they want to do, be it eating three bags of cookies and washing it down with an entire pizza, playing games the entire day long and not doing any of their homework, or the extreme of joining gangs to get the direction and feeling of belonging that their parents refuse to give. Many of these people grow up to be people who have no self control, since they never needed to learn it in the first place, and give into their impulses, whether it's cussing out a boss the first time they get instructions they don't like, doing drugs because they're available, having unprotected sex with many, many partners because they feel like it, or other destructive and possibly illegal activities like stealing because they just don't feel like paying for something. ...What? Just because parents don't give rules doesn't mean they don't care. Just because children aren't given any rules doesn't mean their parents didn't teach them right from wrong. My sisters and I never needed rules because we wouldn't break them. We never had a rule saying "Don't run around the house with knives" but we never did it because we were taught it would end badly.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:59 pm
Shiori Miko Dystopian Lover Valheita Speaking here from personal experience, a person raised with heavy restrictions, will perform stupid s**t when freed from those restrictions. However! People raised without restrictions, they may make a few mistakes, but they tend to be less prone to stupid acts than those raised in a strict environment. People raised completely without restrictions are raised by parents who don't care about them. My experience points to the exact opposite of what you're saying for people raised without restrictions, i.e. people raised under the permissive or neglectful parenting styles. Children without restrictions do whatever they want to do, be it eating three bags of cookies and washing it down with an entire pizza, playing games the entire day long and not doing any of their homework, or the extreme of joining gangs to get the direction and feeling of belonging that their parents refuse to give. Many of these people grow up to be people who have no self control, since they never needed to learn it in the first place, and give into their impulses, whether it's cussing out a boss the first time they get instructions they don't like, doing drugs because they're available, having unprotected sex with many, many partners because they feel like it, or other destructive and possibly illegal activities like stealing because they just don't feel like paying for something. ...What? Just because parents don't give rules doesn't mean they don't care. Just because children aren't given any rules doesn't mean their parents didn't teach them right from wrong. My sisters and I never needed rules because we wouldn't break them. We never had a rule saying "Don't run around the house with knives" but we never did it because we were taught it would end badly. Shi, we're under 21, we're supposed to be evil little idiots, just play along ninja play along... Most people that do stuff like that, do it to defy the people who punished them to extremes, as Val said, they're free, so to prove it they go and do idiotic things, it's like when people turn old enough to drink and in their time growing up their parents kept reminding them that they would never let them drink and stuff, they're like "OMG I CAN DRINK NOW AND YOU CAN'T STOP ME", so then they go and get so drunk they die, which is extremely common actually when people reach the drinking age. You want to know what type of people do the things you mentioned? People who were violently beat by their parents, or felt they had no control for all of their lives from living in fear one way or another. People without restrictions usually tend to grow up smarter and in better condition, since they shouldn't feel threatened by their parents and see them as beings with the sole purpose being to hurt them, they can talk to them without fear and see them as friends, so when the parent DOES tell them something like "that type of tree has leaves that are sharp, be careful if you touch it" they don't see it as somebody who likes to hurt them saying it, they see it like if their best buddy said it, and therefor will probably remember it better. Not to mention all the good effects of low stress (from feeling safe, not in danger) and good relations with parents (as friends, not as tormentors) brings.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 1:48 am
Shiori & CH0Z0, I think we are not saying the same thing when we're saying "without restrictions." I'm talking about parents who don't even tell their children that drinking antifreeze is bad, or not to play in the street, or don't even tell their children to wear a coat or socks when it's below freezing outside. Yes, most of those things are common sense from our perspective, but not to three or four year old children. That kind of neglect early on has ramifications later on in life. I have several friends who were raised this way, whose parents who let them do absolutely whatever they wanted, without interference, and not only do they not love their parents or see them as their friends, but two of them have run away from home and one was pregnant at 16 (intentionally, her boyfriend was becoming distant and she wanted to force him to stay with her... needless to say that didn't end very well). Not all rules are unfair or extreme. For example, when I first was able to drive, my parents asked me to be home before 2 AM since the bars close in my state at 2, and so shortly thereafter I'd be more likely to run into drunk drivers. Those are the types of restrictions I'm talking about. I consider them to be highly reasonable; my having been exposed to this rule has given me no great urge to just drive around at 2 for no reason. These are the sorts of rules I'm talking about, which is why I mentioned that authoritative styles have better outcomes than authoritarian styles. Should've explained the terminology, I guess. I'm definitely NOT in support of authoritarian parenting, which is what you are talking about. Wikipedia has a pretty good explanation of the difference styles, if you are interested.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 5:06 pm
Personally due to how I was raised if someone hits me I hit them back. So aggressive babysitters and my parents didnt try to "punish" me after I hit the age where I could hurt them whenever they tried hitting me or stealing my college money. In any case I turned out fine raising myself. But I know for a fact that some people in the same situation ended up dead or in jail. so since the result varies depending on person to person along with region I would have to say that making a choice like that is kind of..Silly.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:12 pm
I'd argue that physical punishment is not the same as assault. The problem is many, many adults do not draw the line where level-headed people would draw the line at reasonable. So therein lies a problem, do you impose authority to prevent the bad or allow to promote the good. Personally, I'm starting to see what the effects of living in a restrictive world to prevent the bad is like (the US is sliding towar security > freedom), and I don't particularly like it. You gotta have some faith in people and get them to learn common sense rather than cradling them their whole lives. I'd rather allow physical punishment and promote the good (and subsequently deal with the potentially fraudulent claims of people going too far).
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|