LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksIt's Hill-Billy justice, I don't see the issue ...Originally Posted by methodistgirl
It's Hill-Billy justice, I don't see the issue ...
You don't raise children anymore, ADHD drugs does it for you. That's the new world order
And I'm only partly kidding.
I couldn't agree more with what people have said here. When my daughter steps out of line, I bloody her nose and beat her legs until I can see the whip marks. I mean, if I can't see the blood and whip marks, how do I know that I got through to her? After that she knows who's boss. The other day she came home from school and turned the tv on before doing her homework! I back handed her so hard that she actually fell over the side of the couch and knocked her self silly. lol. It was awesome. When she finally came to, she was crying and carrying on and saying that her head hurt too much to do her homework, so of course I took off my belt and lifted it over my head and told her, "I don't care about your damned head, you do your homework right now or I'll REALLY make your head hurt!" That got her ass moving.
I treat my wife the same way. When ever she does something I don't like, I smack her across the face and beat her with my belt. Then she knows who's boss. Yesterday I came home from work and dinner wasn't even started so I hit her in the mouth. Split her lip open and nearly knocked out a tooth! Dinner got made REAL fast after that! What I don't get is people who think that beating your children is ok but that beating your wife isn't! I mean, what kind of sense does that make? At least my wife can put up a fight!
I mean, how else could we possible teach people not to do things we don't like? When a kid on the the street sticks his tongue out at me, I hit him. When a guy bumps into me on the street I hit him. When the maitre d at a restaurant rudely tells me that they have no tables open I hit him. Thank God we live in a country where people still understand that violence is the way of the world and that any parent that doesn't violently assault their children is a bad parent. I know in my heart of hearts that if Jesus were walking by and he saw me beating my daughter, he would smile and applaud...
The above appears to be missing a tongue in cheek emoticon.
No, Mike, you're wrong I think and I'm heartened to learn there's at least one Hill-Billy living in California.
Hi DorsetMike,
I have been meaning to ask you for a long time: Is your avatar a facsimile of the ruins of Corfe Castle? Just curious...
CD
I have seen the argument, "My parents spanked me and I turned out ok" over and over in this thread. Now, unless the person making that argument is emotionally perfect, the argument fails. If you are not emotionally perfect, then your argument is really, "My parents spanked me and I have emotional problems". Of course, we all have emotional problems to some degree, even those of us who weren't spanked as children. It is unfortunately part of the human condition in our flawed society. But until those of you who were spanked can show that none of your emotional problems were caused by spanking, you have absolutely no say in this. You are obviously not a good example of someone who was spanked but has no problems as a result.
Here are a few very short articles that give the gist of what we know about spanking and other forms of physically violent punishment. I hope that all of you have the courage and intelligence to bring yourselves to learn about this issue before continuing to support the cycle of abuse. Of course, this may mean accepting that you were abused -- even if only very mildly as I'm sure is true of most of you, Judy and a few others being exceptions of more brutal physical abuse of the kind depicted in my previous post -- and this is difficult for most. But the welfare of your children and all of our children is at issue here. A good parent puts aside their own emotional needs when they conflict with those of their children.
http://www.nospank.net/maurer1.htm
http://www.kidsource.com/kidsource/c...ing.morph.html
http://www.naturalchild.org/jan_hunt/tenreasons.html
These articles are very distilled rundowns of what we know about spanking. There are mountains and mountains of information about the results and effectiveness(or lack thereof) of spanking and the far more effective and less harmful alternatives. All of it shows that spanking is the least effective method of behavior modification while being the most harmful. It also shows that those who were spanked as children are not only accepting of the practice but usually do it to their own children while those who were never spanked are horrified at the thought of physically assaulting a child. This alone should make it obvious that spanking is a problem that needs to be fixed. It is the same with other forms of abuse. Those who witnessed their father beating their mother often grow up to do the same to their wife. Those who are sexually abused as children grow up to be sexual abusers, and so on. Wake up. The cycle needs to stop.
JLS - I agree, I was smacked as a child AND (most of the time) I had it coming to me. However, blood was never drawn nor were any bones broken. There is a fine line and it's impossible to define it, don't you think. Soooooo, it's better NOT to use physical punishment at all and to mandate it because some parents (guardians) just can't act responsibly.
I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.
—Albert Einstein.
We disagree on one thing CT, no child ever has it coming to them.
JLS, I don't disagree with everything you say, but I think there may be some over-egging of the pudding going on, and I have to point out that this ....
is a totally invalid argument. You could use exactly the same line of reasoning to show that breast feeding was emotionally harmful! I also find the idea that I myself was abused quite ludicrous. My brother and I joke to this day about the time we got our bottoms walloped with a slipper for a late night fight in our bedroom. Such an experience could not have been farther removed from the real cases of abuse one sees in the media, the physical suffering was relatively minor, the emotional suffering was absolutely negligible. I am also dubious about some of the research quoted in the articles. If most violent criminals were spanked as children, does that prove that spanking makes people violent, or is it simply the case that such people showed violent, criminal tendencies at a young age and were punished more than their peers? And as for spanking causing sado-masochistic tendencies, I feel it is far more likely that such tendencies are (like homosexuality) an innate part of a person's sexuality, and not "caused" by anything.
I do agree with you that the sort of experiences described by Judy are entirely unacceptable, and to hit a child about the head or face is horrendous and criminal. On the other hand, I do not feel that responsible, loving parents should be criminalised for an occasonal moderate, safe smack when deserved. It may indeed be true that other methods are better and more effective. Children crave attention, so even being punished can seem like a sort of reward. Enlightened parents make sure children get far more attention when they are well-behaved than when they are not!
Last edited by jhnbrbr; Dec-05-2009 at 17:00.
Yes, one of the ruins that Cromwell knocked about a bit during the civil war way back before my time. I'll put a larger pic in the gallery.Hi DorsetMike,
I have been meaning to ask you for a long time: Is your avatar a facsimile of the ruins of Corfe Castle? Just curious...
CD
I don't think you understood my point. I was not making an argument, I was refuting the argument made by others in this thread. Their argument was, "I was spanked and there's nothing wrong with me". I simply pointed out that unless there really is nothing wrong with you, then your argument fails.
The problem here is that the word "abuse" has connotations in ordinary language that are unfounded. When most people hear the word, they imagine being beaten to a pulp or sexually molested or some other such severe attack. That is not what the word means. Abuse is simply any consistent mistreatment of another. Abuse can be extremely severe, as in the case of child molestation, it can be moderate as in cases similar to Judy's, and it can be mild as in the case of spanking. The key feature is that someone is being mistreated for a period of time. People are often abusive without being consciously aware of it and people are often abused without being consciously aware of it. This lack of awareness doesn't mean that the negative effects aren't occurring. It is quite common for abuse victims to believe that they deserved it or that it is simply the way of things. This is even true of people who were consistently sexually assaulted throughout their youth. You yourself describe your experience as "suffering" yet seem to believe that this suffering was deserved.I also find the idea that I myself was abused quite ludicrous. My brother and I joke to this day about the time we got our bottoms walloped with a slipper for a late night fight in our bedroom. Such an experience could not have been farther removed from the real cases of abuse one sees in the media, the physical suffering was relatively minor, the emotional suffering was absolutely negligible.
The reason that we can conclude that having violence enacted upon children results in more violent behavior, is for multiple reasons. First, the more violent the abuse, the more violent the victim becomes, not the other way around. This is a very clear indicator that violent abuse increases violent behavior. Second, children that show aggressive tendencies but are dealt with in more effective non violent ways have their aggressiveness reduced while those that are dealt with in violent ways have their aggressiveness increased. Third, it is an obvious fact that children learn their behaviors by having them modeled by their parents. The children of violent people are thus much more violent than the children of non violent people. When a child acts up or engages in a behavior that the parent doesn't approve of and the parent reacts, a conflict is created. When the parent "solves" this conflict through violent means, the behavior of problem-solving through violence is being modeled by the parent. The child thus learns on a very deep level that violence is the primary method of conflict resolution. Feelings of anger become much more prevalent and the child goes on to have a much greater tendency to react violently to conflict throughout their life. That last point should be obvious to anyone. Simply look around the world. The more violent the culture the more violent the people that come out of it and the more violence it produces overall.I am also dubious about some of the research quoted in the articles. If most violent criminals were spanked as children, does that prove that spanking makes people violent, or is it simply the case that such people showed violent, criminal tendencies at a young age and were punished more than their peers?
I'm curious why you think your feelings have anything to do with what is true about this. You actually think that your personal feelings are more relevant than decades of research conducted by professionals in a vast array of fields? There are entire areas of study dedicated to sexual issues, human development, abnormal psychology, cognitive neuroscience, et al. Thousands, if not tens of thousands of papers have been published regarding these issues. Do you have any knowledge of these areas whatsoever? Do you have any reason at all to claim that sexual tendencies are entirely biologically based?And as for spanking causing sado-masochistic tendencies, I feel it is far more likely that such tendencies are (like homosexuality) an innate part of a person's sexuality, and not "caused" by anything.
Why is this "horrendous and criminal" while spanking is absolutely acceptable? Isn't the former merely a more aggressive form of the latter? I really can't understand people's incapacity for rational thinking regarding this. If I am severely violent against someone, I cause them severe harm. If I am moderately violent against someone, I cause them moderate harm. If I am mildly violent against someone, I cause them mild harm. This is true in general. Why would you believe that it is not true regarding children?I do agree with you that the sort of experiences described by Judy are entirely unacceptable, and to hit a child about the head or face is horrendous and criminal.
Parents can be loving and responsible most of the time and still be hurtful and irresponsible some of the time. Such is the case with most parents who spank their children I would imagine. I don't really advocate the criminalization of responsible, loving parents who occasionally spank their kids. The trauma of being taken from your parents and thrust into foster care(where abuse is routinely more severe and rampant) is far, far greater than the MILD(don't miss this word, please) trauma of being spanked. But the results are very, very clear: spanking is the least effective and most harmful form of behavior modification. If this is true -- and anyone who actually has knowledge of the fields I mentioned agree that it is true -- then should it be done?On the other hand, I do not feel that responsible, loving parents should be criminalised for an occasonal moderate, safe smack when deserved.
This is only the tiniest little fraction of everything that is relevant to how a child develops. I am assuming that you are not a professional in any field related to human development, but the responsible thing for the everyday parent to do is to listen to the people who do understand these things. The people who have dedicated their entire lives to understanding these things. At the very least, it should be obvious to any intelligent person that flat out denial of issues regarding the welfare of their children based solely on their selfish immature feelings is irresponsibility of the highest caliber...Children crave attention, so even being punished can seem like a sort of reward. Enlightened parents make sure children get far more attention when they are well-behaved than when they are not!
Here, you are mischaracterizing the position taken by others in the thread, and, based on your earlier contributions, I'm impelled to conclude that the mischaracterization is deliberate.
No-one said there's nothing wrong with them. Their position is better reflected by their assertion that occasional corporal consequences to their bad behavior made them much less likely to pursue that bad behavior in the future.
Since the title of the thread is "whatever happened to discipline" and corporal discipline is only one element to this, I think some remark should be made that there is a wide variety of discipline many of us have received independent of the most obvious (and occasionally controversial) corporal form. One of my more memorable mideeds in Boy-Scouting had some 'hard-labor' as its punishment. Of course, we ALL know about denial of privileges as a ramification (e.g.: 'grounding,' restrictions on use of desired household possessions).
One thing I think most of us can agree on, though, and that's different people (children included) are motivated by different rewards and punishments. I don't doubt that there are those who can shrug off a spanking and resume their misdeeds, and for those folks, corporal punishment is obviously contraindicated.
I'd hazard a guess that, generally speaking, not only is corporal punishment for children on the wane, punishment of all types is on the wane, as well- and that's the biggest element in what's led to our musings about comportment, these days...
JLS is entitled to his/her opinion, it's just by now those opinions (to me at least) are tedious and boring.
It's understandable, CT. It is the rare individual who is bright enough and honest enough to have their beloved beliefs challenged and to respond with enthusiasm.
Funny how you find the only person to stand against the repetition in 5 pages of backpatting fools to be tedious...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
