219 réponses à ce sujet

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Vaern Sul wrote...

...So, they don't feel responsible for their acts, so we shouldn't punish them, because they apparently cannot learn lessons ?
Please tell me that's not what you're saying.

It's in their genes fallacy?

more than 9/10 of children could be disciplined and morally educated with correct (but different) methods, but with abolishing of corporal punishment and praising of children per se, actually around half of them are beyond control.

[ThatGamerWithSouvlaki285]

Imperial Sentinel Arian wrote...

Greece wasn't a great society in classic age. The philosophers like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Zeno and other stoics and few physicians and mathematics tried to create a minority of sage and moral people and teachers, but this country wasn't too great until the coming of Christianity.
 

Not going to argue on how great greek society, as a greek, well greek-cypriot, am not totaly unbiased on the subject. Greece was great before the coming of christianity, By the time christianity was born it was under roman occupation and wasn't made indepedent to develope until the 1830s even than it was under influene of world power and still is. They only exception if any was during the time of the Byzantine period were greece achieved much of its culture advances but that wasn''t realy greece but the Eastern Roman Empire. It was in the classical period where Greece gained her identity.

Modifié par steph285, 17 mai 2012 - 01:06 .

[The Jackal]

I feel that you can't base an entire child sole outcome on if you discipline them or not. Kids are different and react based on their personality. When I was a kid I got hit with something my step dad called the "Tail Blaser" and made us all stand in a line and swapped us with it and if we put our hands there he would hit that too.

Some kids I understand "need" that but aren't there more civil ways of doing it. Like instead of shouting at your child when it does something wrong, try to sit down and talk out the situation. My actual real dad never hit me and wanted to talk thing's out.

I'm just saying their are better ways for them to feel responsible them to hit them. Make them mow the lawn or stay in there room and ground them. If a child raised in a house with violence then it might become something they know. IMO, Hitting a child with a leather belt on their body is bad and can leave deep emotional scars.

[Vaern Sul]

Imperial Sentinel Arian wrote...
It's in their genes fallacy?

more than 9/10 of children could be disciplined and morally educated with correct (but different) methods, but with abolishing of corporal punishment and praising of children per se, actually around half of them are beyond control.

No, I think his/her point was 'kids don't compute lessons so hitting them is useless anyways', something along those lines. I wager it would be supported with 'their brain hasn't matured', the kind of pseudo-biological 'trust me I'm a doctor' argument.

Otherwise I agree with you.

JasonRocker wrote...
words.

I don't think any of us here advocate child abuse. Of course being overly violent does more harm than good, but so does no punishment at all. That's what the OP's conclusion is all about. I'd say a good education should be about mixing the two, and finding the right mix is what makes raising a child so hard.

[ThatGamerWithSouvlaki285]

i dont think anyone knows for sure which is better. As individuals are different even as children, you cant know for sure which forms of razing will help them grow to be socialy acceptable e.g poilite well mannered. Then again, a way a child is razed by his parents is not the only thing that determines the child's personality turns out when it grows. Also the crateria of what is social acceptable changes all the time and repeatly what was unacceptable behaviour 10-20 years ago is no fairly common and acccepted today. Who 's to say what method of parenting is right and who's a new form of parenting will form to replace the current accepted one? All i can say for sure is that when new idea's will form there will be some to complain against it and call for the return of the old ones.

Modifié par steph285, 17 mai 2012 - 01:07 .

[RedArmyShogun]

Alot of kids are spoiled little ****s that NEED a good beating.

Physical punishment is often the quickest way to establish dominace and gain respect which lays the ground work for discipline and given most people are only good as they fear retribution for bad deeds, a valuable life lesson.

The problem is crossing the line into abuse or un-needed hittings. For one too many parents strike there kids out of anger which can lead to mental issues, with stress, anger, etc etc. In fact such a beating is only out of hate and not of justice or a desire to teach one right and wrong. And thus it has no effect at all.

And don't give me that Poor kids are bad from there enviroment crap. Growing up I lived i na crappy trailer, watched my mother cry out of fear of not being able to feed us so she had to skip meals. I used to be given all sorts of **** for my position in life. Yet I was well disciplined at home, self disciplined, and had a motivation to improve my ****ty life. Most of those who turn to crime simply have no discipline at all, an use there woes as a cover for there misdeeds, rather than just openly doing it as they wish too. Which is the truth of the matter.

There is nothing wrong in general however with using physical force as punshiment so long as your clear to the child why they are being hit, your not doing it when your pissed, and your not going too far. I'll say right now I beat my kid. When they do wrong given I'm good at keeping my emotions down I use a commanding voice, then I tell them what they did and why not to do it, then I use the base of my hand and smack there theighs. When they get bigger I'll siwtch to belts and teaching them martial arts, along with reading times with philosphy and other martial works on the subject. I won't have a rable. We may be lower class, but at least we arn't scum.

However you can go too far, and if not fallowed up with moral lessons rather than pure violence it gets no where. Like my sister, her son she one day as he threw peas, beat him with a curtian rod. Frankly that horrified me. At worst all a small child like that deserves is a smack on the hand or told no to. And I don't mean one smack she litterally was just beating him with it. I took it from her and just went "what in the hell is wrong with you" to which she tried to beat me, I kicked her in the chest and got the hell out of there lol.

Anyways when he hit 16...god he became trouble and his mother always blames me or his dad for his actions. Heck the boy had horrible mood swings, turned to light drugs, almost killed his step dad with a shovel. Hes not my kid, not my buisness, might be family, but family is your worst enemy at times, so I can cut them off.

Anyways he was at my home and threw one of his fits, threw his hands around my throat, and attempted to choke the life out of me. I threw him down, stomped the **** out of him. Nearly would have killed him if I didn't find something else to hit. Funny enough its not the first time I had to strike him, not like that however. But that time he actully seemed to have learned some respect for me at the very least.

After his mom's 2nd divorce he seems to hate her given her BF about two weeks later was a two years older than him, understandable, and now that he's 18 he comes around here lifts weights with me, we bike ride, and I generally have talks with him on moral issues, teach him some wrestling . And that seems to have helped over the last 2 years, he has friends he trains and wrestles with. He still is a bit vain and has alot to figure out. But its clear his physical hobbies have gave him discipline.

When he was heading for the gang life and drugs.

The problem is too many people can't steel themselves to do what needs to be done. It hurts to beat those you love, and if it doesn't, well you shouldn't be doing it. The problem is too many people confuse discipline with abuse, or cross the line, and there is a line.

There is a time and a place for all things, and a limit as well.

Modifié par Confess-A-Bear, 17 mai 2012 - 01:19 .

[android654]

I'm curious how many advocating beating kids have kids or were beaten themselves.

[horacethegrey]

android654 wrote...

I'm curious how many advocating beating kids have kids or were beaten themselves.

Spanking a child for misbehaving does not qualify as a beating.

[android654]

horacethegrey wrote...

android654 wrote...

I'm curious how many advocating beating kids have kids or were beaten themselves.

Spanking a child for misbehaving does not qualify as a beating.

Spank to lightly and the message doesn't get across. So how hard do you have to "spank" a child for it to get the message across but it doesn't warrant the title of beating? I mean, the spanking has to hurt, right? By that definition of delivering pain to teach a lesson, it is a beating.

[Volus Warlord]

android654 wrote...

I'm curious how many advocating beating kids have kids or were beaten themselves.

Lol. It's a rite of passage. 

I mean, they are other ways to punish, but little kids are self-centered little buggers, and you gotta find ways to teach them certain things are unacceptable. 

For instance, when I was little once I stole a candy bar when my mother had us all grocery shopping. Don't get all self-righteous on me, I don't know anyone that didn't. When my mother shortly after we left the store saw me with the candy bar, she made me go to the cashier and give it back in front of my brothers and sisters. 

But what really made the lesson hit home? Was it the the going back to the cashier? Doubtful. She just about cracked up until my mother gave her one of her god awful death stares.  It was being humiliated in front of my brothers and sisters. 

Punishment by nature is negative reinforcement, but negativity where negativity is due.

[Volus Warlord]

horacethegrey wrote...

android654 wrote...

I'm curious how many advocating beating kids have kids or were beaten themselves.

Spanking a child for misbehaving does not qualify as a beating.

Indeed. Why do people compare spankings to giving the kid a black eye and a bloody nose?

[horacethegrey]

android654 wrote...

horacethegrey wrote...

android654 wrote...

I'm curious how many advocating beating kids have kids or were beaten themselves.

Spanking a child for misbehaving does not qualify as a beating.

Spank to lightly and the message doesn't get across. So how hard do you have to "spank" a child for it to get the message across but it doesn't warrant the title of beating? I mean, the spanking has to hurt, right? By that definition of delivering pain to teach a lesson, it is a beating.

You strike a child with your open hand that leaves a red mark on their skin, that's a spanking. Hit them with a fist that bloodies them or cause them serious injury, that is a beating and can qualify as abuse

Let me say out loud, I do not condone physical abuse of children in any shape or form. But a little physical discipline when raising your child is not a bad thing.

Modifié par horacethegrey, 17 mai 2012 - 01:29 .

[Homebound]

Volus Warlord wrote...

horacethegrey wrote...

android654 wrote...

I'm curious how many advocating beating kids have kids or were beaten themselves.

Spanking a child for misbehaving does not qualify as a beating.

Indeed. Why do people compare spankings to giving the kid a black eye and a bloody nose?

because its a slippery slope.

[Homebound]

horacethegrey wrote...

android654 wrote...

horacethegrey wrote...

android654 wrote...

I'm curious how many advocating beating kids have kids or were beaten themselves.

Spanking a child for misbehaving does not qualify as a beating.

Spank to lightly and the message doesn't get across. So how hard do you have to "spank" a child for it to get the message across but it doesn't warrant the title of beating? I mean, the spanking has to hurt, right? By that definition of delivering pain to teach a lesson, it is a beating.

You strike a child with your open hand that leaves a red mark on their skin, that's a spanking. Hit them with a fist that bloodies them or cause them serious injury, that is a beating and can qualify as abuse

Let me say out loud, I do not condone physical abuse of children in any shape or form. But a little physical discipline when raising your child is not a bad thing.

just because it doesnt leave a mark doesnt mean it wasnt abuse.

[Volus Warlord]

Hellbound555 wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

horacethegrey wrote...

android654 wrote...

I'm curious how many advocating beating kids have kids or were beaten themselves.

Spanking a child for misbehaving does not qualify as a beating.

Indeed. Why do people compare spankings to giving the kid a black eye and a bloody nose?

because its a slippery slope.

Life's a slippery slope. 

[horacethegrey]

Hellbound555 wrote...
just because it doesnt leave a mark doesnt mean it wasnt abuse.

How so? Abuse implies a continuous string of incidents when the child is struck physically by the parent, even when the child is not at fault. You can't call a parent spanking their child whenever they misbehave abuse, can you?

[android654]

horacethegrey wrote...

android654 wrote...

horacethegrey wrote...

android654 wrote...

I'm curious how many advocating beating kids have kids or were beaten themselves.

Spanking a child for misbehaving does not qualify as a beating.

Spank to lightly and the message doesn't get across. So how hard do you have to "spank" a child for it to get the message across but it doesn't warrant the title of beating? I mean, the spanking has to hurt, right? By that definition of delivering pain to teach a lesson, it is a beating.

You strike a child with your open hand that leaves a red mark on their skin, that's a spanking. Hit them with a fist that bloodies them or cause them serious injury, that is a beating and can qualify as abuse

Let me say out loud, I do not condone physical abuse of children in any shape or form. But a little physical discipline when raising your child is not a bad thing.

From Webster's Dictionary

Beating
: to strike repeatedly: a[/i] : to hit repeatedly so as to inflict pain —often used with up

So yes, Spankings are Beatings. So, if you think it's ok to turn a four or five yearold's skin red with hitting it repeatedly, then you're advocating beatings.

[The Jackal]

JasonRocker wrote...
words.


I don't think any of us here advocate child abuse. Of course being overly violent does more harm than good, but so does no punishment at all. That's what the OP's conclusion is all about. I'd say a good education should be about mixing the two, and finding the right mix is what makes raising a child so hard.

Then what is an accpectable punishment?

Is beating them with a folded belt on their backside a few times good? I remember the case of a Texas Judge a video of him whipping his daughter with a belt. The video was graphic. The people in the other thread "Did you see the video about woman and the child' would be upset at that.

However.

Majority in this thread are saying corporal punishment is alright. But at the same time, without knowing the child's action's and if they were to see a clip of this corporal punishment. My guess is they would cringe at the video and ask the accuser be thrown in jail for natural born life.

I think not hitting a child doesn't make them a jerk, being a jerk makes them a jerk. It's so 90's era to coutinue to hit kid's with belt's and what not. Shouldn't we open the lines of speaking to the child, find out why they did what they did instead of resorting to violence.

Modifié par JasonRocker, 17 mai 2012 - 01:38 .

[grregg]

If it's not allowed to hit an adult, why would it be acceptable to hit a child? Are they somehow less human?

[Volus Warlord]

horacethegrey wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...
just because it doesnt leave a mark doesnt mean it wasnt abuse.

How so? Abuse implies a continuous string of incidents when the child is struck physically by the parent, even when the child is not at fault. You can't call a parent spanking their child whenever they misbehave abuse, can you?

Look, this is not about spanking. They just want to feel above you because you support spanking as a means of discipline. They want to feel like they have a moral high ground.

[Chromie]

android654 wrote...

I'm curious how many advocating beating kids have kids or were beaten themselves.

<--- My mom could never beat me!

Frankly when I was younger I would prefer to get hit with a belt then say having something taken from me not that I was given a choice what form my punishment took.

[android654]

Volus Warlord wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

horacethegrey wrote...

android654 wrote...

I'm curious how many advocating beating kids have kids or were beaten themselves.

Spanking a child for misbehaving does not qualify as a beating.

Indeed. Why do people compare spankings to giving the kid a black eye and a bloody nose?

because its a slippery slope.

Life's a slippery slope. 

If you think that, then doesn't it make sense to think about what you do and the reprecussions of what you do, as to best ensure the best outcome? You can't possibly think that and think hitting a three year old who probably can't comprehend why they're being hit is better than explaining to them the situation and why it's wrong.

[Vaern Sul]

android654 wrote...

I'm curious how many advocating beating kids have kids or were beaten themselves.

Again, no one here advocates beating kids, just measured physical corrections that drive the point home. And yes, there is a difference.

But to answer your question, I had my fair share of spanks, slaps and yells in my time, and I'm a better person thanks to it. And I fully support everything Confess-A-Bear said.

 Hellbound555 wrote...
because its a slippery slope. 

Dropping the matter entirely and not teaching your kid to behave, on the other hand, isn't a slippery slope, it's a goddamn cliff. One with sharp rock formations and lashing waves in the bottom.

grregg wrote...
If it's not allowed to hit an adult, why would it be acceptable to hit a child? Are they somehow less human?

For god's sake, no one here is advocating beating a child to a pulp for the sake of it.
It's about raising a kid and not having him become a brat who throw chairs at teachers. When a bloody thief is caught, you punish him.
What would you do when a kid throws rocks at other kids because he finds it funny ? Applaud ? Do nothing ? make him sit through an hour-long seminary about how violence is wrong ? I guess the latter would bore him to death so it would kind of work.

Modifié par Vaern Sul, 17 mai 2012 - 01:48 .

[RedArmyShogun]

Volus Warlord wrote...

horacethegrey wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...
just because it doesnt leave a mark doesnt mean it wasnt abuse.

How so? Abuse implies a continuous string of incidents when the child is struck physically by the parent, even when the child is not at fault. You can't call a parent spanking their child whenever they misbehave abuse, can you?

Look, this is not about spanking. They just want to feel above you because you support spanking as a means of discipline. They want to feel like they have a moral high ground.

And the moral high ground is only useful for spotting for your artillery and then should only be taken with a night assualt via killing the sleeping soldier on watch.

[horacethegrey]

android654 wrote...
From Webster's Dictionary

Beating
: to strike repeatedly: a[/i] : to hit repeatedly so as to inflict pain —often used with up

So yes, Spankings are Beatings. So, if you think it's ok to turn a four or five yearold's skin red with hitting it repeatedly, then you're advocating beatings.

Whoa whoa whoa... When did I say you had to hit them repeatedly? Disciplining a child usually requires one slap to send the message. 

I think you're taking things way to literally.