Dems want to control how we disicpline our children

[Dos Equis]

I thought corporal punishment and spanking were the same thing?

It is.  You're injecting some link between George Bush and corporal punishment/spanking.  That's bizarre.

[240 is Back]

Beach, I noticed that in you and hedge's case, your stance on US aggression matched your stance on the use of corp. punishment on children.

I wondered if the stance was constant on home violence and global violence.  Do people who abhor spanking also tend to be anti-war?  Do those same folks who want to invade iran also tend to spank their kids more?

i think I stumbled upon an interesting tangent of this topic - the application of corporal punishment in global terms (IE: We needed to punish sadaam).

I see you don't understand the potential correlation.

[Hedgehog]

Well, "violence" as you call it, or discipline, as I call it, does have positive effects on children.  It has allowed me to use lesser forms of punishment to affect my kids' behavior and help develop their character.  I rarely spank these days, but they know they face the supreme sanction if they don't comply with the lesser forms of punishment.  In addition, all punishment, including corporal punishment helps kids understand the link between choices, actions, and consequences. 

I am a firm believer in discipline, and teaching kids that they will have to face consequenses of their action.

Parents these days are generally too insecure. Just check out the average kid, he/she will have 200-300 toys by the age of 5.

The parents think they give their kids good opportunities when they by them expensive gear and new clothes, tons of toys.

All they do is spoil them.

And these are usually the same idiots (I'm not referring to you now, Beach) who complain that they'll have no control of their kid unless they use force.

It's about teaching values.

And one of these values, is that violence leads to no good.

You've heard the saying "Kids do as you do, not as you say", I suppose. I believe it to be true to some degree.

Putting your kid in some expensive sport camp...

Chances are that kid will never learn to appreciate or learn how to work hard for something of their own.

This ain't a rant directed at you Beach, just trying to explain my point of view.

I really don't consider myself "soft" when it comes to this issue, I really don't.

I believe that it's better to avoid using force, violence, call it what you want, because that is something you cannot do in adulthood, the biggest reason though, it has been proven that it's not necessary.

-Hedge

[Dos Equis]

Beach, I noticed that in you and hedge's case, your stance on US aggression matched your stance on the use of corp. punishment on children.

I wondered if the stance was constant on home violence and global violence.  Do people who abhor spanking also tend to be anti-war?  Do those same folks who want to invade iran also tend to spank their kids more?

i think I stumbled upon an interesting tangent of this topic - the application of corporal punishment in global terms (IE: We needed to punish sadaam).

I see you don't understand the potential correlation.

That's because it's a stupid "potential correlation."  HTH. 

[Dos Equis]

I am a firm believer in discipline, and teaching kids that they will have to face consequenses of their action.

Parents these days are generally too insecure. Just check out the average kid, he/she will have 200-300 toys by the age of 5.

The parents think they give their kids good opportunities when they by them expensive gear and new clothes, tons of toys.

All they do is spoil them.

And these are usually the same idiots (I'm not referring to you now, Beach) who complain that they'll have no control of their kid unless they use force.

It's about teaching values.

And one of these values, is that violence leads to no good.

You've heard the saying "Kids do as you do, not as you say", I suppose. I believe it to be true to some degree.

Putting your kid in some expensive sport camp...

Chances are that kid will never learn to appreciate or learn how to work hard for something of their own.

This ain't a rant directed at you Beach, just trying to explain my point of view.

I really don't consider myself "soft" when it comes to this issue, I really don't.

I believe that it's better to avoid using force, violence, call it what you want, because that is something you cannot do in adulthood, the biggest reason though, it has been proven that it's not necessary.

-Hedge

Hedge I respect your opinion and agree with some of what you say.  I know parents who don't spank their kids.  I have no problem with them or their methods at all.  It's just about different parental philosophies.  There is more than one way to properly raise a child. 

You make some excellent points about values and parents spoiling their kids.  A very good friend of mine just bought her eight-year-old son a cell phone.  The kid's grandmother said to me, "what do you buy for him when he turns 16, a space ship?"    

I think the vast majority of people in the criminal justice system were not properly raised by their parents.  I believe plethora of dishonest people in the business community were not properly raised by their parents.  Much of that stems from the lack of discipline (whether that is spanking or some other form of punishment).  Some relates to the parents setting the right example, the presence of a strong father in the home, etc. 

I think we pretty much agree on most of this topic (except for the spanking part).

[gtbro1]

I am a firm believer in discipline, and teaching kids that they will have to face consequenses of their action.

Parents these days are generally too insecure. Just check out the average kid, he/she will have 200-300 toys by the age of 5.

The parents think they give their kids good opportunities when they by them expensive gear and new clothes, tons of toys.

All they do is spoil them.

And these are usually the same idiots (I'm not referring to you now, Beach) who complain that they'll have no control of their kid unless they use force.

It's about teaching values.

And one of these values, is that violence leads to no good.

You've heard the saying "Kids do as you do, not as you say", I suppose. I believe it to be true to some degree.

Putting your kid in some expensive sport camp...

Chances are that kid will never learn to appreciate or learn how to work hard for something of their own.

This ain't a rant directed at you Beach, just trying to explain my point of view.

I really don't consider myself "soft" when it comes to this issue, I really don't.

I believe that it's better to avoid using force, violence, call it what you want, because that is something you cannot do in adulthood, the biggest reason though, it has been proven that it's not necessary.

-Hedge

   It isn't hard to understand. If I color on the kitchen wall with a crayon...my parents spank my butt....I think "OUCH! I didn't like that,it hurt"....I do it again a few days later...SWAT! and another "OUCH!"  Sooner or later I am going to put 2 and 2 together
 
                Draw on the wall = swat on the bottom.

  My father whipped my ass when I was little and it never hurt me any. I do feel that as the child gets older you can get better results by putting them in the corner or taking something away that they really like;However,if the kid acts like a brat and throws a fit in WalMart they need their ass spanked(not beaten).

                                            http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=beat
   

[ieffinhatecardio]

Lawmaker Proposes No-Spanking Law
Sponsor Says Measure Would Help Young Children

UPDATED: 8:47 am PST January 19, 2007

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- A California legislator introduced a bill Thursday that would make it illegal for parents to spank their young children.

Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, authored the bill, which would make it a misdemeanor for parents to spank a child age 3 years or younger, television station KCRA reported.

The crime would carry a punishment of up to a year in jail or a $1,000 fine.
 

Lieber said the bill is long overdue.

"This bill is absolutely not big mother government coming in to tell parents what to do," Lieber said. "But it is creating a line in the law that stands on the side of very young children. Children that are 3 years old or younger are really sitting ducks for physical punishment, and they're no match with the speed or size or force of an adult who's beating them."

Opponents said the government shouldn't tell adults how to be parents.

If the bill passes and is signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Lieber said it would make California the first in the nation to have a no-spanking law.


This might be the dumbest piece of legislation I've ever heard of. 

No doubt trying to police a parents right to spank his child is ridiculous it's also rather amusing that you would call this dumb considering you think anyone under the age of 30 that isn't married should abstain from having sex.

That is what you said you believe isn't it? Didn't you say you agree that anyone under 30 that isn't married shouldn't have sex?

[Dos Equis]

No doubt trying to police a parents right to spank his child is ridiculous it's also rather amusing that you would call this dumb considering you think anyone under the age of 30 that isn't married should abstain from having sex.

That is what you said you believe isn't it? Didn't you say you agree that anyone under 30 that isn't married shouldn't have sex?

Go away son.  This discussion is too complicated for you.  You might hurt yourself. 

[ieffinhatecardio]

Go away son.  This discussion is too complicated for you.  You might hurt yourself. 

LOL, notice how you didn't answer the question. LOL

So you're saying you didn't post that you thought anyone under 30 that isn't married shouldn't be having sex?

[Dos Equis]

LOL, notice how you didn't answer the question. LOL

So you're saying you didn't post that you thought anyone under 30 that isn't married shouldn't be having sex?

LOL.  These kinds of psychological ploys don't even work with my little ones (who are in elementary school).  Give me a break.    

I'm saying you're not smart enough to discuss this topic and you should leave before you wind up with a headache.     Better keep your Midol handy.

Now scram. 
 

[ieffinhatecardio]

LOL.  These kinds of psychological ploys don't even work with my little ones (who are in elementary school).  Give me a break.    

I'm saying you're not smart enough to discuss this topic and you should leave before you wind up with a headache.     Better keep your Midol handy.

Now scram. 
 

I'll ask again, are you saying that you didn't post that you agree that anyone under the age of 30 that isn't married should not have sex?

I realize owning up to what you've posted is difficult especially when the post in question is asinine but at least be honest enough to at least acknowledge what you have posted. 

[Dos Equis]

I'll ask again, are you saying that you didn't post that you agree that anyone under the age of 30 that isn't married should not have sex?

I realize owning up to what you've posted is difficult especially when the post in question is asinine but at least be honest enough to at least acknowledge what you have posted. 

Remember we have had exchanges before.  You've proved to be dishonest, intellectually dishonest, and just a plain terd.  Oh, and not very bright.  That means I don't dignify your dumb questions by answering them.  I just slap you around a little.  From what I recall, that really bothers you.  But it's okay.  You'll get over it.  Maybe when you grow up and get better educated you will learn to discuss and debate like a man, like many of the posters on this board.  You're not there yet.  But you keep trying son.  Don't give up.

You’re starting to bore me again.   

[ieffinhatecardio]

Remember we have had exchanges before.  You've proved to be dishonest, intellectually dishonest, and just a plain terd.  Oh, and not very bright.  That means I don't dignify your dumb questions by answering them.  I just slap you around a little.  From what I recall, that really bothers you.  But it's okay.  You'll get over it.  Maybe when you grow up and get better educated you will learn to discuss and debate like a man, like many of the posters on this board.  You're not there yet.  But you keep trying son.  Don't give up.

You’re starting to bore me again.   

Wow, that's the worst attempt at deflecting attention away from your own moronic point of view that I've ever seen. Did you really think that would work? That's just sad. Clearly you give yourself way too much credit.

So you're saying that you didn't agree that anyone under the age of 30 that isn't married should NOT have sex?

By the way, the whole ignore thing works better when you don't actually post anything directed to me. I realize that's a tough concept to understand but someone of your vast intelligence should probably be able to grasp it.  If I remember correctly you used to say that all you did was ignore me while posting responses to my posts.

[gtbro1]

LOL.  These kinds of psychological ploys don't even work with my little ones (who are in elementary school).  Give me a break.    

I'm saying you're not smart enough to discuss this topic and you should leave before you wind up with a headache.     Better keep your Midol handy.

Now scram. 
 

   
   "scram "   hahahaha