Teen attacks parents with knives after they take her cell phone

[flyersfan31]

Not a reply to your comment. You missed the reference to beating an animal being okay but not a child. Then there was the little matter of inferring my parents were monsters (although he did try to backpeddle on that one). That did get me a little torqued.

I'm amused that you are so are so quick to come to the defense of animals.

I did not "try" to backpedal from anything. YOU inferred that I was referring to your parents as monsters. I don't know why you would interpret it as such unless you had something on your conscience.

 

[gprellwitz]

If I make a fuss, my dad is going to hit me: CONSEQUENCE = FEAR and pain.

I don't want my kids to fear me. I'm their father, not a monster.

I'm amused that you are so are so quick to come to the defense of animals.

I did not "try" to backpedal from anything. YOU inferred that I was referring to your parents as monsters. I don't know why you would interpret it as such unless you had something on your conscience.

The first quote is, I presume, what makes people think that you're calling people who cause fear in their children a monster. The way you wrote it, there does seem to be an implied relationship there.

 

[silver-eagle]

I'm amused that you are so are so quick to come to the defense of animals.

I did not "try" to backpedal from anything. YOU inferred that I was referring to your parents as monsters. I don't know why you would interpret it as such unless you had something on your conscience.

You "inferred" it was okay to beat an animal. Anyone that would abuse an animal would also abuse a child or a spouse. They probably started by pulling the wings off flies then graduated to kicking the dog and smacking the wife. But I'm sure their children are well behaved.
Simply put, you also "inferred" that anyones parents that used physical discipline was wrong, misguided, and worse, a monster and they should be hated and feared. Whether that was what you meant or not, that's how it was received.

 

[flyersfan31]

You "inferred" it was okay to beat an animal. Anyone that would abuse an animal would also abuse a child or a spouse. They probably started by pulling the wings off flies then graduated to kicking the dog and smacking the wife. But I'm sure their children are well behaved.
Simply put, you also "inferred" that anyones parents that used physical discipline was wrong, misguided, and worse, a monster and they should be hated and feared. Whether that was what you meant or not, that's how it was received.

Hmm. I don't think you know what "inferred" means. You should double check that in the dictionary. I said "Using pain for conditioning behavioral responses is something you do to animals, not people." Show me where I mentioned beating, or abusing, animals. If you do not understand what I am saying, may I refer you to, among other things, cattle prods, boot spurs, and horse whips. None of which, I might add, would be appropriate for use on a child.

Now on the other hand, I believe you implied (which I believe is the word you confused with inferred earlier) that I grew up abusing animals, graduating to kicking dogs and smacking the wife. That's a pretty offensive, personal attack, if indirect. I've never abused an animal. I wouldn't hit a dog OR a child. Least of all my wife. Make me wonder where the boundaries for some people are, though.

Please show me where I, well, implied, since inferred is not the correct word, that parents who hit their children were to be hated. While I never said they were wrong to hit, I definitely implied it in one post. That is my opinion, and I won't apologize for it. You clearly disagree, and I accept that. I believe you can disagree with my opinion without being rude, but for some reason, chose not to.

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

 

[AuntPeggy]

Please....
"I'm glad your parents beat you. Seems like it did you good. Clearly you never engage in unwarranted outbursts or attacks."

 

[flyersfan31]

Please....
"I'm glad your parents beat you. Seems like it did you good. Clearly you never engage in unwarranted outbursts or attacks."

Sorry.

 

[dmccormack]

I said "Using pain for conditioning behavioral responses is something you do to animals, not people."

...and I doubt I ever inflicted one bit of "pain" in any "spanking" (There weren't all that many).

Anybody who's used "spankings" judiciously knows that all it takes is the displeasure of the parent to make the lightest tap a "spanking" -- though it would otherwise be playful rough-housing without the attached displeasure.

(Heck, half the times all we had to do was give "the look" and they broke down).

As far as animal conditioning -- we have dogs and horses.

Trust me -- you're not gonna inflict much pain on a horse with a snaffle bridle and no spurs. It's all about pereption of displeasure with well-trained horses and dogs as well.

I agree we should be precise in our terms -- thus "spanking" is not necessarily "pain."

 

[flyingcheesehead]

New age BS. One can use the same argument that depriving a child of their precious sleep toy is abuse, mental not physical, and FAR MORE devastating and longer lasting.

One thing that I keep thinking of in reading this thread - I don't remember being spanked. I know I was, even with a paddle sometimes but I don't remember the blows landing. However, I remember vividly one time when we were driving out to PA to visit my grandparents. We'd stopped at a tollway oasis and gotten ice cream cones. Back in the car, I was a few licks in and did something to tick my mom off - I don't remember what. She took my cone away and said I had to apologize or something to that effect. I was very sure of my stance on whatever the subject was and refused to bend to her will. She threw my ice cream cone out the window.

I honestly don't think a spanking ever did me any good. I don't recall ever desiring to change my behavior because of one, it just made me madder and more sure that I was going to do the same thing next time. I was a stubborn little bastard (and now I'm a stubborn big bastard!).

Interestingly enough, I only remember my mom spanking me. I don't think my dad ever did. I don't know if that has anything to do with it, but I still get along great with my dad, and I still vehemently disagree with my mom about many things. And I still react to their requests differently, even if the request is the same.

Never thought about any of that until now... Hmmmmm.

FWIW, Andrew, I really admire your conviction on this, while still maintaining a dedication to discipline. If only the world had more parents like you, we'd be MUCH better off. And FWIW to those on the opposite side of the fence: I'd rather have parents discipline their children, even by use of spanking or other physical force with non-lasting effects, than to let the little whiners run the house - But I think that those who must resort to physical discipline are taking the easy way out and/or letting their kids frustrate them. It takes a lot more patience and effort to do as Andrew is doing, which is why I really admire it.

 

[gprellwitz]

One thing that I keep thinking of in reading this thread - I don't remember being spanked. I know I was, even with a paddle sometimes but I don't remember the blows landing. However, I remember vividly one time when we were driving out to PA to visit my grandparents. We'd stopped at a tollway oasis and gotten ice cream cones. Back in the car, I was a few licks in and did something to tick my mom off - I don't remember what. She took my cone away and said I had to apologize or something to that effect. I was very sure of my stance on whatever the subject was and refused to bend to her will. She threw my ice cream cone out the window.

I honestly don't think a spanking ever did me any good. I don't recall ever desiring to change my behavior because of one, it just made me madder and more sure that I was going to do the same thing next time. I was a stubborn little bastard (and now I'm a stubborn big bastard!).

Interestingly enough, I only remember my mom spanking me. I don't think my dad ever did. I don't know if that has anything to do with it, but I still get along great with my dad, and I still vehemently disagree with my mom about many things. And I still react to their requests differently, even if the request is the same.

Never thought about any of that until now... Hmmmmm.

FWIW, Andrew, I really admire your conviction on this, while still maintaining a dedication to discipline. If only the world had more parents like you, we'd be MUCH better off. And FWIW to those on the opposite side of the fence: I'd rather have parents discipline their children, even by use of spanking or other physical force with non-lasting effects, than to let the little whiners run the house - But I think that those who must resort to physical discipline are taking the easy way out and/or letting their kids frustrate them. It takes a lot more patience and effort to do as Andrew is doing, which is why I really admire it.

I know I frustrated my parents on more than one occasion, and remember breaking a few wooden spoons over my behind, too.

I also remember getting time-outs and getting the infamous countdown (you have until the count of three. One... Two..... and we'd sometimes settle down. ). I vividly remember one time being on a family driving vacation to DC where my brother and I were arguing in the back seat, not believing my dad's threat to turn the car around and go home early if we didn't settle down, we were astounded when he did just that.

 

[flyersfan31]

on a family driving vacation to DC where my brother and I were arguing in the back seat, not believing my dad's threat to turn the car around and go home early if we didn't settle down, we were astounded when he did just that.

Yeah, once you make the threat, you had better follow through with it.

That's what I think frustrates a lot of the folks who have chimed in on the subject -- they see the little miscreants at the mall or restaurant, screaming and carrying on, and a parent saying "One more time and," and never actually following through. What does that teach the kids? "One more time" means nothing. Unless they face the consequence for their action, which was clearly spelled out and also fair and in line with the transgression, they will learn NOTHING from discipline.

Again, (and thanks, Kent and Grant, for chiming in) I strongly support disciplining kids. It's one particular method (hitting) that I have issues with. Trust me, I also have issues with the "one more time, and" folks too.

 

[Henning]

One thing I'm noticing here is the concept of "teaching your children violence" by hitting them. Well, yeah. You think if the parent doesn't teach the child that when you p-ss someone off, you might get your a-- kicked, that no one will? It may not be taught on the street with the same restraint as it is in the house, and it may be taught by an equally immature kid that picks up a steel pipe to hit with. The whole concept of "not teaching children violence" is ludicrous, violence is an integral part of humanity regardless if you like that fact or not. It's in our genes, has been there forever and will be there till the day we go extinct, and most likely beyond.

 

[jesse]

One thing I'm noticing here is the concept of "teaching your children violence" by hitting them. Well, yeah. You think if the parent doesn't teach the child that when you p-ss someone off, you might get your a-- kicked, that no one will? It may not be taught on the street with the same restraint as it is in the house, and it may be taught by an equally immature kid that picks up a steel pipe to hit with. The whole concept of "not teaching children violence" is ludicrous, violence is an integral part of humanity regardless if you like that fact or not. It's in our genes, has been there forever and will be there till the day we go extinct, and most likely beyond.

+1

Sometimes corporal punishment is justified (if not over used) and it should rarely ever need to be used if raised properly.

As far as teaching kids violence--you can't pretend that it doesn't exist--there are threats in this world and a child needs to be taught how to identify and avoid such threats. They also need to know to defend themselves if the avoid isn't on the table.

The mere action of someone making it clear that they will defend is often enough to terminate the conflict right there. There are always easier targets....

That said, I don't think beating a kid is the way to teach him how to defend himself, but if a kid does something incredibly stupid, a physical correction may be justifiable. I echo, you shouldn't have to do it but a couple times in their life. They will respect.

I one dated a girl, raised in a bubble, unaware of the real threats of the world. We were in Minneapolis, it was late (sometime past midnight), and we were lost trying to find a bus stop on foot. I was on my cell phone reading street signs to a friend so that he could vector me via Google Maps. I hung up and turned around and noticed that she had walked down an alley to ask some two NotFriendly looking guys for directions. One of them was holding her by the arm--I proceeded firmly in their direction honestly thinking that this could be the end of me because there are two of them. I was just waiting for them to raise a gun and drop me. Thankfully, they released her when they saw me coming in their direction.

It turns out that she had saw them, walked down to them, gave them a dollar and told them that we were lost. When I say these guys were not friendly looking--I mean--you knew damn well..they were not the guys you wanted to be around. I broke up with her the next day as that stupidity was going to get me killed.

She explained what her parents taught her. If she is nice to someone--they'll be nice back to her. Ha.

 

[flyersfan31]

One thing I'm noticing here is the concept of "teaching your children violence" by hitting them. Well, yeah. You think if the parent doesn't teach the child that when you p-ss someone off, you might get your a-- kicked, that no one will? It may not be taught on the street with the same restraint as it is in the house, and it may be taught by an equally immature kid that picks up a steel pipe to hit with. The whole concept of "not teaching children violence" is ludicrous, violence is an integral part of humanity regardless if you like that fact or not. It's in our genes, has been there forever and will be there till the day we go extinct, and most likely beyond.

That's a bit extreme. Yeah, it's a violent world. I think there are better ways to teach that than by hitting a kid. Again, my parents never hit me. I spent four yrs of college in the ghetto and have explored some seamy parts of large cities at late night. Never a victim. Jesse, cluelessness does not result from a lack of physical discipline.

 

[jesse]

Jesse, cluelessness does not result from a lack of physical discipline.

If you read my post, without jumping to conclusions, you'll notice that I said corporal punishment is not a method of teaching a child to defend themselves.

 

[AuntPeggy]

Henning - I have long admired your cool good sense and keen logic. However, I must admit you've left me in the dust here.

Henning: "You think if the parent doesn't teach the child that when you p-ss someone off, you might get your a-- kicked, that no one will?"

Are you suggesting that hitting your own child acts as a sort of anti-violence vaccine? No, I think you are suggesting that hitting your own child is the only way to teach them respect. I've been trying to suggest that there are a large number of ways to teach children. There are lots of good ideas in this thread.

Ted: "The facial expressions and tone of voice you use alone are frequently sufficient - kids ain't dumb."

Dan: "'Discipline' is correcting certain behavior and encouraging replacement behavior (at least it is so for horses, dogs, soldiers, and kids)."

Nick: "To not immediately correct is to not discipline at all."

I notice that Nick has made a point of saying his Dad made sure he knew why he was being smacked and made him repeat the reason. I believe that is the more pertinent method. The smack isn't necessary.

But, let's get back to your question. I think that if you only know how to teach a child by hitting them, your bag of tricks is too small. And you are giving your child, by example, too small a bag of tricks for their lifetime.

Grant, you suggest hitting only small children: "Another problem I see is with very young kids who don't have the reasoning skills yet to understand an argument, but who can understand pain."

My God, man, how do you decide who is too young -- or too old? Do you start with day one when a colicky infant screams through the day and night? Of course not. When is a child old enough to be hit and yet sufficiently sophisticated to distinguish the love behind the act? I've honestly wondered this for years.

I really believe that the incident is already handled before a paddle is in hand. You put a stop to 'whatever' immediately. Then, if a fit ensues, you handle that as well. You make certain the child is aware of what the problem is. Then you have the responsibility as an adult to analyze the situation to see how it can be prevented in future.

In the case of hot pans on the stove, always turn all the handles away from the front whenever you cook. That is a habit I still have even though there hasn't been a small child in the home for over 20 years.

 

[flyersfan31]

If you read my post, without jumping to conclusions, you'll notice that I said corporal punishment is not a method of teaching a child to defend themselves.

I did. So I'm a little perplexed by the anecdote.

That said, I don't think beating a kid is the way to teach him how to defend himself, but if a kid does something incredibly stupid, a physical correction may be justifiable. I echo, you shouldn't have to do it but a couple times in their life. They will respect

She explained what her parents taught her. If she is nice to someone--they'll be nice back to her. Ha.

If you explain your point better (and I'm not being obnoxious, I just don't follow it) mayhaps I'll understand it.

 

[flyersfan31]

What is interesting to me, in this long thread, is how few of the commenters have actually borne responsibility for raising children. I don't mean being around at dinner. I mean, day in, day out, morning noon night. Folks are getting mighty ****ed at me for suggesting, and yes, I'll admit, pleading, that they choose something other than hitting to discipline their kids. In some cases, I've provoked outright anger. That in itself raises a question......

 

[jesse]

If you explain your point better (and I'm not being obnoxious, I just don't follow it) mayhaps I'll understand it.

You're confusing me. Those statements don't connect together.

I'm not saying that she did something stupid because her parents didn't use corporal punishment. I have *no* idea if her parents used corporal punishment.

I clearly stated: "That said, I don't think beating a kid is the way to teach him how to defend himself, but if a kid does something incredibly stupid, a physical correction may be justifiable. I echo, you shouldn't have to do it but a couple times in their life. They will respect"

Which means

1. Corporal punishment is *NOT* how you teach a kid about violence or how to defend themselves.
2. Sometimes, a physical (corporal punishment) correction may be justified. I almost got hit by a car once and I was hit for it. I remember that day and I never *EVER* did it again.
3. If you're using corporal punishment on a regular basis you are doing something *VERY* wrong.

 

[Henning]

Henning - I have long admired your cool good sense and keen logic. However, I must admit you've left me in the dust here.

Henning: "You think if the parent doesn't teach the child that when you p-ss someone off, you might get your a-- kicked, that no one will?"

Are you suggesting that hitting your own child acts as a sort of anti-violence vaccine?

I'm not advocating hitting the kids at all. I'm just confused by the line of thinking that it teaches them violence. Like if you don't hit them they won't learn it? What if they don't learn about violence as a possible reaction to bad action? Does that mean they won't be a victim of it? Even hitting kids won't necessarily teach them to equate violence as a way to deal with things, it can just as easily cause a completely different reaction in that they decide they don't want to be that way. It's like smoking, just because parents do or don't smoke doesn't dictate that their kids will or won't.

It wasn't the hitting kids or not that I had the issue with, it was the logic being used to argue against it. I don't think though that having poor judgment and acting on that poor judgment equating pain is all that bad of a thing in and of itself. It instills a caution that may save their life one day.

 

[gprellwitz]

Grant, you suggest hitting only small children: "Another problem I see is with very young kids who don't have the reasoning skills yet to understand an argument, but who can understand pain."

My God, man, how do you decide who is too young -- or too old? Do you start with day one when a colicky infant screams through the day and night? Of course not. When is a child old enough to be hit and yet sufficiently sophisticated to distinguish the love behind the act? I've honestly wondered this for years.

Aunt Peggy,
First, as Chairman Mao (née Joseph Stalin ) notes, I have no practical experience at this. And I do not "suggest" hitting young children. I offer what I believe to be a fact that they react to the stimulus of pain, but cannot rationally interpret a logical argument. If I'm incorrect in my belief or if you have other alternatives, I'm certainly not going to discount it, and am very interested in hearing it. It may not have any practical use for me, but it may for others here. And I am extremely sensitive to examples such as the one you offered earlier, by which I am profoundly saddened.

 

[dmccormack]

What is interesting to me, in this long thread, is how few of the commenters have actually borne responsibility for raising children. I don't mean being around at dinner. I mean, day in, day out, morning noon night. Folks are getting mighty ****ed at me for suggesting, and yes, I'll admit, pleading, that they choose something other than hitting to discipline their kids. In some cases, I've provoked outright anger. That in itself raises a question......

Agreed.

Let's also posit that some children -- by nature/ temperment -- require less severe attention-getting techniques.

Our middle daughter would bust out in tears at the mere hint of displeasure. Usually, we would have to console her that "it's ok... it wasn't that bad..."

My son could have been paddled with a 8'x4"x4" (we never did, BTW, in case you're wondering)-- he'd smile and head right back out to play.

Our oldest daughter was also sensitive -- but very strong willed. From time to time there needed to be a bold course correction.

We've been parents for 25+ years -- the youngest is 18 now -- and though we used corporal punishment, it was never, ever painful. As I mentioned earlier, it was enough that Mommy of Daddy were upset -- it's all about perception.

As far as the hot stove -- you take precautions but at some point some children will push until life/limb is threatened.

Again -- not all children pose the same disciplinary challenge.

I agree with Peggy -- if your default mode is "spank," your toolkit is too small.

But -- we as parents need to be able to discriminate between children and situations and be willing to act accordingly. Life ain't fair and neither is parenthood.

 

[tdager]

Resorting to violence means you've run out of ideas. I hate seeing bad ideas perpetuated.

It's not hard to discipline kids without resorting to the whip. My kids know how to behave, at home and in public, and I wouldn't even THINK about hitting them. Be firm, fair, and and consistent and you'll never have to resort to violence. Plus, you'll never have to deal with a kid nailing you with 40 whacks from an axe.

Trying to reason with a 5-15 year old shows the lack of intelligence on the parents part at times. *shrug*

Sorry but sometimes a little "pain stimulation" is needed.

It is only this modern, post Dr. Spock movement that sees spanking as "resorting to violence". Sorry but trying to use the pejorative word "violence" in reference to spanking is simply trying to frame the argument in a negative tone from the start.

 

[flyersfan31]

Trying to reason with a 5-15 year old shows the lack of intelligence on the parents part at times. *shrug*

I don't think I said anything about reasoning with kids. That is, indeed, a dead end. You don't reason, or negotiate, or beg. You lay it out and them's the rules kids. People who reason or negotiate are not disciplining. I don't know what they're doing.

And that, I suspect, might be at the root of this whole "discipline" sub-discussion. I think some are mistaking what I say, and think I'm trying to negotiate. No. I lay out the expected behavior and the punishment in its absence, and follow through accordingly. I just don't hit them.

Sorry but sometimes a little "pain stimulation" is needed.

Because.....?

It is only this modern, post Dr. Spock movement that sees spanking as "resorting to violence". Sorry but trying to use the pejorative word "violence" in reference to spanking is simply trying to frame the argument in a negative tone from the start.

I'm not post Dr. Spock. I was raised that way. I'm an older parent. Doesn't mean that I'm not open to new ideas. In fact, I've found that these new ideas work pretty well, when APPLIED PROPERLY. Have any of the critics tried them???? I don't get the impression they have. All I hear is criticism of new age bs and modern post Spock parents.

Using the word "violence" is to get you thinking about what it is when you [hit, swat, whack, switch, pat, paddle, knock sense into] a kid. You can candy coat it, but ultimately that's what it is. You said yourself, "pain stimulation." Sounds like a euphemism. Pain hurts. I assume you were being flippant, so I won't get all indignant with you.:smile:

 

[flyersfan31]

You're confusing me. Those statements don't connect together.

And you're confusing me! But now, after rereading everything, I understand your confusion and my confusion, and am no longer confused, if that's not confusing.

I get you now - I was trying to figure out what the anecdote about your girlfriend had to do with disciplining kids. Presumably, not much, other than the fact that dopey "peace, love and understanding" lessons don't prepare you for the real world (I think that might be Hennings point too, but ya never know with that guy.)

In that sense, I agree with you completely. Some folks lack common sense. There are bad people out there and pretending otherwise is foolish.

 

[docmirror]

I never hit my daughter. I spanked my son maybe twice, or three times. I found the spanking didn't achieve the behavior I wanted. All it did was hurt both of us. Both my kids are in their teens now and show model if not Stepford-like behavior.

I'll tell you this. It takes time. Lots of time. You have to be firm, and stick with your decisions. There's no value in hitting, spanking, whacking, violence by any other name.

Now, if anyone, including my kid came after me or my wife with knives, it would be that last time they ever see me. And I'd make damn sure they remembered that last time. We're talking major violence. I also think this girl has been hit regularly anyway.

 

[SkyHog]

One thing I'm noticing here is the concept of "teaching your children violence" by hitting them. Well, yeah. You think if the parent doesn't teach the child that when you p-ss someone off, you might get your a-- kicked, that no one will? It may not be taught on the street with the same restraint as it is in the house, and it may be taught by an equally immature kid that picks up a steel pipe to hit with. The whole concept of "not teaching children violence" is ludicrous, violence is an integral part of humanity regardless if you like that fact or not. It's in our genes, has been there forever and will be there till the day we go extinct, and most likely beyond.

This touches on another important point of growing up:

I got my ass kicked in high school a few times (I also kicked some ass in high school). Getting my ass kicked taught me important lessons, which I know others that have never been beat up don't understand.

You can see it in attitude. The disrespectful adults were never beat up in high school by others.

I've yet to see an example where this is wrong...

 

[SkyHog]

What is interesting to me, in this long thread, is how few of the commenters have actually borne responsibility for raising children. I don't mean being around at dinner. I mean, day in, day out, morning noon night. Folks are getting mighty ****ed at me for suggesting, and yes, I'll admit, pleading, that they choose something other than hitting to discipline their kids. In some cases, I've provoked outright anger. That in itself raises a question......

I was waiting for someone point this out....and I apologize for being blunt:

I'm probably younger than you. Maybe you're too old to remember being a kid. I am not too old to remember, and therefore, your ridiculous argument of "Well you aren't a parent" is plain out useless here. My father raised me, and I remember that.

I'll also say: I was raised day in, day out, morning noon night. I'm getting ****ed because you are referring to people like my father as a monster for doing the right thing, and not raising a child that is going to wind up too soft to deal with normal crisis in life, or worse, yet another criminal.

I'm not saying your children will be bad adults, but I am saying the liklihood is higher, since they don't fear punishment. No kid fears timeout, they're playing you because they know if they act a certain way, you'll drop it more quickly. Kids aren't as dumb as you (and the rest of the super soft new age "parents") think they are.

Stop getting personal about this, and you'll see that raising your kids to be horrible adults is not the way to go. At least Peggy recognizes the fact that my father made me repeat the ill before the punishment so I understood. She's not blinded by softness.

 

[SkyHog]

Using the word "violence" is to get you thinking about what it is when you [hit, swat, whack, switch, pat, paddle, knock sense into] a kid. You can candy coat it, but ultimately that's what it is. You said yourself, "pain stimulation." Sounds like a euphemism. Pain hurts. I assume you were being flippant, so I won't get all indignant with you.:smile:

You can't complain about candy coating on one side, but get offended on the other.

What you're doing is not punishment. Its the equivalent of White Collar "Club Fed" for certain criminals. If you're gonna resort to calling all physical punishment "violence" and "beating" then I'm going to call your style of "talking to them" a joke and not worth the time you've spent on it.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

This touches on another important point of growing up:

I got my ass kicked in high school a few times (I also kicked some ass in high school). Getting my ass kicked taught me important lessons, which I know others that have never been beat up don't understand.

You can see it in attitude. The disrespectful adults were never beat up in high school by others.

I've yet to see an example where this is wrong...

Same here. I'm the only person I've met who's been both on the giving and receiving end of an honest-to-God, sent-in-anger-not-in-jest flying elbow. Don't ask... It made sense at the time.

Anyway, I don't think there's a real meaningful comparison to be drawn between kids (and I mean kids) who get spanked/receive other forms of corporal punishment from their parents and high schoolers who've gotten a run-of-the-mill kid-to-kid ass-whoopin'. Two very different things.

 

[docmirror]

I'll also say: I was raised day in, day out, morning noon night. I'm getting ****ed because you are referring to people like my father as a monster for doing the right thing, and not raising a child that is going to wind up too soft to deal with normal crisis in life, or worse, yet another criminal.

I'm not saying your children will be bad adults, but I am saying the liklihood is higher, since they don't fear punishment. No kid fears timeout, they're playing you because they know if they act a certain way, you'll drop it more quickly. Kids aren't as dumb as you (and the rest of the super soft new age "parents") think they are.

Stop getting personal about this, and you'll see that raising your kids to be horrible adults is not the way to go. At least Peggy recognizes the fact that my father made me repeat the ill before the punishment so I understood. She's not blinded by softness.

You're welcome to come to Ft Worth and interview the product of the firm, but non-violent method anytime. My daughter is 16, she's already started college, is a level 10/Elite gymnast, has been accepted to several well-know universities, and is 4th in here graduating class and is learning to fly(slowly). My son is 18, is a musician/composer, plays first Clarinet and bass Clarinet in school wind ensemble, also plays Sax and Piano, teaches his schools Trig class when the teacher was absent, has a superb SAT score, also accepted to several well-known schools and has never been a problem growing up. I spanked him 2 or three times before his 4th birthday, but they were not worth the effort.

What if you could achieve the results you're looking for in child raising without the spanking? Would that be worth looking into? I didn't coddle my kids. They had high goals, were directed to positive results, and when they needed discipline I found an appropriate way to handle it without hitting. I recall putting one of them in a bathroom for several hours with four primer books after they misbehaved. I said they could read, or tear the books up, but they were staying put until they apologize and behave. It works. Another time, I started the nose-against-the-wall process. They have to stay in the same room with the rest of us but stand facing the wall with their nose on it until I say when. If they moved, I could escalate to the bathroom, or if that didn't do it, I could make them go to bed, any time day or night.

It's a polarizing debate, and one I'm not going to convert the hitters to without some effort. All I'm asking is that before a parent reverts to what they grew up with, try not hitting, but being firm, and fair with punishment that's not painful. Ostracization is powerful to an ornery kid who is looking for attention.

 

[flyersfan31]

I was waiting for someone point this out....and I apologize for being blunt:

I'm probably younger than you. Maybe you're too old to remember being a kid. I am not too old to remember, and therefore, your ridiculous argument of "Well you aren't a parent" is plain out useless here. My father raised me, and I remember that.

So, you are saying you've only experienced one side of the equation. Nick, i agree that many adults forget what it was like to be a kid. I don't. You have no idea how to discipline a kid; all you know is being on the receiving end. That's not good or bad, it just is, and makes it harder for you to understand how, in the split second you have to evaluate a behavior and decide whether to and how to correct it, a parent's mind works.

I'll also say: I was raised day in, day out, morning noon night. I'm getting ****ed because you are referring to people like my father as a monster for doing the right thing, and not raising a child that is going to wind up too soft to deal with normal crisis in life, or worse, yet another criminal.

Asked and answered, Nick. I wrote something that was a very personal feeling, and unfortunately that has detracted from the message I am trying to convey. Would it help you to if I stipulate for the record that hitting kids for punishment does not make you a monster? Done. FYI, as data points, my brothers and sister and I were never hit, we all went on to college and successful careers. My cousins were hit; all 4 have done jail time and have a number of bastard kids. So, I see your life experience, and raise you two.:smile:

I'm not saying your children will be bad adults, but I am saying the liklihood is higher, since they don't fear punishment. No kid fears timeout, they're playing you because they know if they act a certain way, you'll drop it more quickly. Kids aren't as dumb as you (and the rest of the super soft new age "parents") think they are.

Again, where did this new age stuff come from? And super soft? They are disciplined. They fear punishment - it doesn't have to hurt physically to make an impact. You seem to be saying that kids only understand pain. This is the kind of reasoning I'm trying to help people understand is wrong. Children need to associate consequences with actions. For crying out loud, do you remember being thrilled to death to get a sticker at the doctors office? Or a lollypop at the bank? Those little things mean a lot to kids. If you say, misbehavior = no sticker --- that is a real consequence to a little kid. Very real, and traumatic, without the pain. I'm not talking about inflicting mental anguish on the kids as someone else tried to pin on me. I'm saying the consequence of something that seems minor to an adult, not getting a sticker, is a real consequence to a kid - ENOUGH TO GENERATE A CHANGE IN BEHAVIOR. It's real, it's worked. Have you ever tried it? NO.

Stop getting personal about this, and you'll see that raising your kids to be horrible adults is not the way to go.

When you point your finger..... I'm perplexed by this claim that I am raising my kids to be horrible adults. Read Docmirrors comment. My kids are extremely well behaved. I will repeat: I have been complimented numerous times on their public behavior in restaurants, airplanes, etc.

At least Peggy recognizes the fact that my father made me repeat the ill before the punishment so I understood. She's not blinded by softness.

And I am not blinded by the notion that somehow non-physical punishment is worthless and ineffective. I'm not trying to write a primer on child development here, Nick, but suffice it to say, it is made very clear to my kids why they are being punished. I too ask them if they know what they did and whether it was wrong. It can't come out of the blue - that doesn't help anyone.

 

[flyersfan31]

What if you could achieve the results you're looking for in child raising without the spanking? Would that be worth looking into?

That is my point, in a nutshell. The answer, IMHO, is yes.

 

[tdager]

That is my point, in a nutshell. The answer, IMHO, is yes.

Perhaps....but only TIME will tell if it worked.

Sorry but even at 16-18 the timeframe is too short to see.

Are you "helicopter" parents? Are you all in your kids business? Do they confide in you?

Perhaps I am simply anachronistic, but kids and parents should have a certain relationship and "Best Friend's Forever" is not one of them.

 

[docmirror]

Perhaps....but only TIME will tell if it worked.

Sorry but even at 16-18 the timeframe is too short to see.

Are you "helicopter" parents? Are you all in your kids business? Do they confide in you?

Perhaps I am simply anachronistic, but kids and parents should have a certain relationship and "Best Friend's Forever" is not one of them.

I don't know what "helicopter" parents are, but I don't think we are. I'm not in all my kids business. I'm in their business to the extent I know what they do, and who they hang out with regularly. They confide in me about everything.

I agree about the relationship. I am not my kids BFF. I'm the parent. very different. And I am pretty sure if there were going to be discipline or behavior problems they would show up by now. Again, you're welcome to come over and meet them and judge for yourself.

 

[dmccormack]

Using particular examples ("my/your kids") to prove a universal rule ("Spanking is good/bad") is pretty bad logic.

 

[flyersfan31]

Perhaps I am simply anachronistic, but kids and parents should have a certain relationship and "Best Friend's Forever" is not one of them.

I don't understand what this has to do with anything I've said. I'm talking about disciplining kids.

 

[flyersfan31]

Perhaps....but only TIME will tell if it worked.

Sorry but even at 16-18 the timeframe is too short to see.

I thought we were talking about ensuring that kids have good behavior in public (and private) for that matter. Seems to me it would be pretty obvious, pretty quickly. As for these extrapolations that somehow well-behaved kids would turn out bad later in life because they weren't disciplined physically, I don't really follow that argument; it certainly didn't come from me.

 

[docmirror]

Using particular examples ("my/your kids") to prove a universal rule ("Spanking is good/bad") is pretty bad logic.

Yes, it's a bad policy. But when the child-beaters defend their decision with sweeping blanket statements about kids who are not 'disciplined' right as a universal rule(e.g. spare the rod, spoil the child), I like to step in and show that it cuts both ways. The proof is my pudding, no matter how small the sample, it can be done successfully. In general your statement is spot on.

 

[SkyHog]

The proof is my pudding, no matter how small the sample, it can be done successfully. In general your statement is spot on.

"put" ing....

Anywho, I'm done. I'm getting way to angry at y'all for something that doesn't matter.

My kids will be physically punished. My kids will be well adjusted adults.

Your kids will not be phsyically punished. They may turn out to be well adjusted adults.

We haven't accomplished anything here but get mad at each other.

 

[docmirror]

"put" ing....

Anywho, I'm done. I'm getting way to angry at y'all for something that doesn't matter.

My kids will be physically punished. My kids will be well adjusted adults.

Your kids will not be phsyically punished. They may turn out to be well adjusted adults.

We haven't accomplished anything here but get mad at each other.

I'm not remotely mad at you. Good luck with your plan. Show your kids this thread in 20 or so years. BTW, you still can come visit and meet my kids if you like.