Hatrack River
Home   |   About Orson Scott Card   |   News & Reviews   |   OSC Library   |   Forums   |   Contact   |   Links
Research Area   |   Writing Lessons   |   Writers Workshops   |   OSC at SVU   |   Calendar   |   Store
E-mail this page
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Knock-knock-knocking (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Knock-knock-knocking
GinetteB
Member
Member # 12390

 - posted      Profile for GinetteB           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I found this link on a Facebook Page: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/hell-houses_n_2012207.html

Combining this with what I see on a Page like Jesus Daily, and the weird belief they sell to (mostly young) people, accepting Jesus as the Saviour is 'free', i.e. no longer religion needed, no law of love, and even this strong conviction, life on earth is soon over and Jesus will come to take them to heaven, I wonder how this influences society in the USA. As it surely is not a small thing, there are millions and millions of people involved.

Having people give up on inner values, stopping to teach some basics for life, is it demoralizing society, or is this new belief - born and for the major part found in the USA - a result of a demoralized society and is it desperation?

Every 5 hours a child dies from child abuse in the USA, the highest rate in western industrialized countries. Spanking, beating up children in schools is still common practice. The economic costs of child abuse are 1% of the GDP (94 billion dollars, WHO)

What is the USA doing to the next generation, the future of the country?
Which party is using those kids, to tell them what to vote and what to support?

I think it's scary. But maybe I am wrong. What's your opinion?

Posts: 135 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bella Bee
Member
Member # 7027

 - posted      Profile for Bella Bee   Email Bella Bee         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It seems a bit like a modern mystery play but with lots more horror and hate.

I'm honestly surprised, looking at the pictures, that non-religious people (especially teens) would find it anything other than hysterically funny.

And anyone, religious or not, who sent a child younger than about eleven or so to something as creepy as that - live action smashed up bodies and suicide - should probably be done for child abuse.

Posts: 1515 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GinetteB
Member
Member # 12390

 - posted      Profile for GinetteB           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh yes, I agree with it being child abuse, those Hell Houses. And I would say, younger than 16. Or just completely forbid things like this.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And, now Bob Dylan is in my head thank you very much.
Posts: 10609 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AchillesHeel
Member
Member # 11736

 - posted      Profile for AchillesHeel   Email AchillesHeel         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In reference to the last picture of the slideshow, if that is heaven I don't want to go. I'd rather hang out with those two Gwar knock-offs.

Ginette, it would be really really difficult with the first defense being religious freedom. But California did just outlaw 'pray the gay away' camps on minors, so we seem to have room to protect children from their immediate culture.

Posts: 2294 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
“Jesus was so controversial that they killed him,” he said. “You can’t have an impact without a collision.”
Sure, but JC's message was love and understanding, and his audience was Romans, who enslaved people and crucified them if they tried to run to freedom.
Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bella Bee:
And anyone, religious or not, who sent a child younger than about eleven or so to something as creepy as that - live action smashed up bodies and suicide - should probably be done for child abuse.

Really? So you're also suggesting that parents that let their kids read Stephen King or R.L. Stine, or watch the Friday the 13th movies are culpable for child abuse?

Hell Houses are idiotic, IMO. And despite their claims, I suspect extremely ineffective. But calling them child abuse is way over the top.

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Presumably an easy line could be drawn between "letting" your kids go and "forcing" your kids to go when making that determination.
Posts: 7453 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DustinDopps
Member
Member # 12640

 - posted      Profile for DustinDopps           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I spank my kids and I'm far from a child abuser. To equate the two is ignorant and bigoted on your part, Ginette.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
Presumably an easy line could be drawn between "letting" your kids go and "forcing" your kids to go when making that determination.

Even so. Forcing a child to view something disgusting and distasteful is not child abuse, and claiming it as such lessens the meaning of abuse.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bella Bee
Member
Member # 7027

 - posted      Profile for Bella Bee   Email Bella Bee         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think intentionally traumatizing your kids is emotional child abuse. If you know something will make them really scared and you force them to do it, even though it's not actually necessary for them to go through it, it's emotional abuse. Which is not, perhaps, the most serious kind of abuse. Still abusive behavior, though.

My parents slapped me to stop me doing dangerous things when I was too young to understand reasoned argument. They also allowed me to watch Aliens at the age of six because I wanted to. They were not abusive.

There's a difference between giving your kids the freedom to make their own mistakes, and keeping them safe from harming themselves accidentally, and forcing them to experience something you actively hope will make them fearful long term when you could be teaching them about the good parts of your religion.

IMO, obviously.

Posts: 1515 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DustinDopps:
I spank my kids and I'm far from a child abuser. To equate the two is ignorant and bigoted on your part, Ginette.

Forcing a small child to go to a hell house as a lesson which causes them emotional trauma -is- abusive behavior. That happens, most likely a very small percent of the time. But to call some one harsh names like "bigoted" and "ignorant" when you disagree with them is truly and utterly uncalled for (not to mention against the TOS).

And just because -you- spanking your children doesn't make you a child abuser (I spank my kids too) doesn't mean that some abusers don't also spank their children as well. Had Ginette said something to the effect of "-all- parents who bring their children to hell houses are abusive" (which she clearly did not) then you might have a leg to stand on, but then only one leg, as you still are going too far with the name calling regardless.

quote:
Originally posted by Bella Bee:
I think intentionally traumatizing your kids is emotional child abuse. If you know something will make them really scared and you force them to do it, even though it's not actually necessary for them to go through it, it's emotional abuse. Which is not, perhaps, the most serious kind of abuse. Still abusive behavior, though.

Seconded.
Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Intentionally traumatizing your kids with a Hell House sort of thing, even if you excuse it to yourself as being part of a system of scaring them into following the correct tenets of the correct religion or whatever, is somewhat of an abusive act and a pattern of such things would be indicative of an abusive parent. It in and of itself is not sufficient to make a parent abusive. But I'd call anyone who sends their kids to a hell house to 'demonstrate god's love' through base, traumatic, emotional scare tactics is, to be frank, both a piss-poor parent and a piss-poor christian, so I don't care too terribly much for them strenuously objecting to people noting how it seems abusive to put them through a bigoted, homophobic, purposefully traumatizing indoctrination machine. Anyway.

quote:
Originally posted by DustinDopps:
I spank my kids and I'm far from a child abuser. To equate the two is ignorant and bigoted on your part, Ginette.

Quit hittin' your kids.

quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
And just because -you- spanking your children doesn't make you a child abuser (I spank my kids too)

You too, there's better ways
Posts: 14067 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Intentionally traumatizing your kids with a Hell House sort of thing, even if you excuse it to yourself as being part of a system of scaring them into following the correct tenets of the correct religion or whatever, is somewhat of an abusive act and a pattern of such things would be indicative of an abusive parent. It in and of itself is not sufficient to make a parent abusive.

I would agree with that.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Samp: without knowing any circumstance, offense, other techniques used -before- a spanking is administered, frequency, amount or force used or number of spanks, or even asking, I am fairly comfortable saying this:

Kick rocks.

Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't have to know any specifics, unless that specific is you pulling out some amazing proof that you know better than the American Academy of Pediatrics and can produce data showing that corporal punishment should be approved of as a preferable accompaniment to parenting, as opposed to a problematic parenting discipline technique which is best removed from parenting, by anyone who intends to make themselves a better parent as opposed to remaining reliant on a crutch which causes more problems than it solves.

But you are very welcome to provide this information.

Posts: 14067 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nah, I'm good with kick rocks.
Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Allow me to clarify. I am not advocating spanking as a parenting tool, I am simply utterly disinterested in unasked for parenting advice from someone who shows zero interest in and has zero knowledge of the circumstances surrounding discipline of my children.

You simply have no idea what you are talking about and are disdainful of relieving your utter ignorance of my situation.

If you would like to have an actual conversation about it, I'm willing, but just high handedly offering parenting instruction, with an absolute, generalized catch all only deserves one reply:


Kick rocks.

[Smile]

Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
who shows zero interest in
- zero interest in your parenting methods would result in zero posts about parenting methods
- in actuality I am very activist and openly involved in telling people not to hit their kids whenever the subject of people hitting their kids comes up

quote:
and has zero knowledge of the circumstances surrounding discipline of my children.
- knows you use spanking as a parental tool
- this makes it not 'zero knowledge'
- knows parenting is better off without spanking, period
- can back that up based off the findings of people who know what they are talking about
- so will say 'don't spank your kids' to anyone who brings up that they spank their kids, for whatever reason or with whatever precautions they would like to assure me are used to make sure that they are doing it 'properly.'

quote:
You simply have no idea what you are talking about
- see above

quote:
just high handedly offering parenting instruction, with an absolute, generalized catch all
- I can offer absolute generalized catch-alls to many things related to parenting instruction, like "don't sell your children into slavery" — it being a catchall doesn't make it not true; one really should not sell their children into slavery

quote:
[Smile]
[Smile]


In closing, here is an entirely unassociated picture of Dwight Schrute

Posts: 14067 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Knowing that I use spanking as a tool does not give you any insight into the "circumstances surrounding the discipline of my children".

Knowing that an event has happened doesn't give any information about its circumstances.

And while not all catch alls are useless, as some are brain numblingly obvious (see your example), when it comes to real complex issues which effect individuals who react differently in specific circumstances, black and white generalities aren't rarely worth the hot air used to form them.

But, if you do want to discuss the particulars which have caused me to use spanking, well and effectively, we can.

As long as you insist that you are qualified to make this determination from arm chair cyber space with utterly no information other then what some MDs say about absolutely everyone, my response stays the same.

Rocks, kick them.

In closing, here is an entirely unassociated picture of Dwight Shultz

Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DustinDopps
Member
Member # 12640

 - posted      Profile for DustinDopps           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
[QB] But to call some one harsh names like "bigoted" and "ignorant" when you disagree with them is truly and utterly uncalled for (not to mention against the TOS)...

Had Ginette said something to the effect of "-all- parents who bring their children to hell houses are abusive" (which she clearly did not) then you might have a leg to stand on, but then only one leg, as you still are going too far with the name calling regardless.
/QB]

I apologize - to Ginette specifically - if it sounded like I was calling names. I meant those words literally, not as any sort of condescending epithet. This quote in particular is what I was responding to:

----
"Every 5 hours a child dies from child abuse in the USA, the highest rate in western industrialized countries. Spanking, beating up children in schools is still common practice. The economic costs of child abuse are 1% of the GDP (94 billion dollars, WHO)"
----

This quote includes spanking in the same context as child abuse and beating up children. I contend that anyone who considers spanking the same as these things is ignorant, because they don't understand spanking as a disciplinary tool. They assume I am beating my kids or hitting them harshly in anger. Since ignorance is a lack of knowledge, and since they don't know how or why I spank, the word 'ignorance' is appropriate.

In the same way, I used the word bigot literally: "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion." Spanking is (no matter how many links other people post citing "studies") a viable parenting tool. It is also legal where I live. Ginette's quote appears to show that she (by using the WHO quote as an example) is intolerant of my beliefs. That is bigotry.

Again - I wasn't trying to call names, and my word choice could have been better. If I offended anyone, please accept my apology. But my point still stands.

I understand that some people have been scarred for life by overzealous parents. I know that spanking - when done in anger - can be the same as child abuse. But lumping "parent who spanks" in the same group as "child abuser" is offensive to me.

Posts: 238 | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
Presumably an easy line could be drawn between "letting" your kids go and "forcing" your kids to go when making that determination.

Even so. Forcing a child to view something disgusting and distasteful is not child abuse, and claiming it as such lessens the meaning of abuse.
Well, I was under the impression that the houses were meant to be frightening rather than just distasteful. Even if I separate out the religious aspect, there probably is legislation that could be applied. i.e. if we were talking about a safe, but terrifying roller coaster

In fact, I think the word "abuse" has already been applied pretty often to things like bullying, for example, "half of all Canadian adults have been bullied and 30 per cent think that the abuse had a lasting impact on their lives."* In other words, if child-on-child bullying is described as abuse, I'm comfortable with it also being used to describe adult-on-child bullying.

(Although in fairness, I'd probably like to see a pattern of forcing your children into frightening situations rather than a single incident)

* http://www.canada.com/Childhood+bullying+affects+last+life+time/7474689/story.html

Posts: 7453 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DustinDopps: Thank you for the clarification.
Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DustinDopps:
... I used the word bigot literally: "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."

I don't think you've applied the definition correctly. You demonstrated that the other poster is intolerant of "your" belief. You also have to demonstrate that they are intolerant of *any* differing beliefs.

i.e. Using your application, anyone that disagrees with even one single belief, say the KKK's doctrine of racial superiority would be a "bigot"

Posts: 7453 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DustinDopps
Member
Member # 12640

 - posted      Profile for DustinDopps           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I disagree, Mucus. Ginette's comment wasn't directed at me - it was a condemnation of the idea of spanking (or at least that's how it reads to me).

Thinking that spanking is a poor choice for parenting is an opinion. Thinking that people who spank their kids are abusers is applying an opinion to a group and is thus bigotry.

But we all use language a bit differently, so it might mean something different to you and that's fine.

Posts: 238 | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GinetteB
Member
Member # 12390

 - posted      Profile for GinetteB           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In Europe, we have a European Convention protecting the rights of children. Spanking is forbidden. It has not so much to do with considering spanking a reasonable disciplinary tool, as well as with this:
. no parent can be 100% sure every spanking is justified, as a parent can misjudge a situation,
- it opens the door to use spanking as an outlet for the parents anger,
- if a child learns to obey by spanking, how do you get the child to obey others than the parents? So, then you'd have to give fx the school permission to spank them too, increasing the above dangers

Just a story from an anti-spanking website: http://nospank.net/fenimore.htm

So that was my perspective as a European. Take it for what you think it is worth, but don't call me names please. It is my right to call spanking abuse; by calling spanking abuse, I am by no means judging the PERSON who spanks, as I assume you do it to the best of your conscience. This might just not be good enough for the childs sake.

Posts: 135 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hobbes
Member
Member # 433

 - posted      Profile for Hobbes   Email Hobbes         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm in no way pro-spanking, but this: "no parent can be 100% sure every spanking is justified, as a parent can misjudge a situation," seems like a really foolish argument against. Parents can't discipline their children unless they're 100% sure? Parenting just took a big hit on that one.

Hobbes [Smile]

Posts: 10576 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dkw
Member
Member # 3264

 - posted      Profile for dkw   Email dkw         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Most parents who take/send their kids to these things have no idea what they're getting into. They tend to be marketed as "Haunted House with a Christian theme," and people assume that means they'll be more family-friendly and less scary than a regular haunted house, maybe with a "when you're scared remember that God is always with you" message at the end.

They've gotten enough negative publicity in the last decade or so that the bait-and-switch is less effective, but it still works, so they're still doing it. It's an "outreach" program to get people who wouldn't come and listen to the message otherwise.

Posts: 9792 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GinetteB
Member
Member # 12390

 - posted      Profile for GinetteB           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hobbes, a child can defend itself against a verbal accusation. But not against spanking. In my opinion, spanking is not ok, but spanking without reason is devastating for a child. And it destroys this 'disciplinary tool', as the kid can't make sense out of it anymore.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Parkour
Member
Member # 12078

 - posted      Profile for Parkour           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Knowing that I use spanking as a tool does not give you any insight into the "circumstances surrounding the discipline of my children".

You should really read what you just wrote here. Can you spot the giant error? The huge, practically unmissable error?
Posts: 696 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Parkour
Member
Member # 12078

 - posted      Profile for Parkour           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DustinDopps:
Thinking that spanking is a poor choice for parenting is an opinion. Thinking that people who spank their kids are abusers is applying an opinion to a group and is thus bigotry.

"I think that the KKK is racist and hateful."

There. I applied an opinion to a group. According to your *very stupid* definition of bigotry, I am now a bigot.

Posts: 696 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hobbes
Member
Member # 433

 - posted      Profile for Hobbes   Email Hobbes         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Hobbes, a child can defend itself against a verbal accusation. But not against spanking. In my opinion, spanking is not ok, but spanking without reason is devastating for a child. And it destroys this 'disciplinary tool', as the kid can't make sense out of it anymore.
I'm having difficulty seeing how this relates to what I said. I'm not pro-spanking so if you're just trying to convince me it's wrong... job well done I guess. But the original quote was saying that the problem with spanking is you can't be 100% sure you know exactly what happened. That has nothing to do with spanking, that has to do with life.

It's an argument against the death penalty. Not a great one (there plenty of better arguments) but spanking... I mean every form of discipline has consequences right? Otherwise it's pretty terrible discipline.

Hobbes [Smile]

Posts: 10576 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GinetteB
Member
Member # 12390

 - posted      Profile for GinetteB           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, always sad people can't make a distinction between action and actor. Causes a lot of unnecessary hate in the world.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GinetteB
Member
Member # 12390

 - posted      Profile for GinetteB           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
...just in case I need to explain: Incidentally doing something harmful to others, doesn't make someone a bad person. Continually doing a lot of harm to others doesn't make someone a bad person either: This person is sick and needs treatment, so in fact they deserve your pity and mercy as they surely have a miserable life.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GinetteB
Member
Member # 12390

 - posted      Profile for GinetteB           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry Hobbes, but I just don't get your point. Seriously trying though, maybe it's a misunderstanding? Do I have to read your comment like: People who spank their kids, always talk first with the kid. Then, if it's clear the kid deserves punishment in the form of spanking, it gets spanked.' Is that what you mean? Well, I would hope - if someone uses spanking - it is done like this. But I am afraid not [Frown]
Posts: 135 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's not what Hobbes is saying. He's saying that if uncertainty is an argument against spanking then it's an argument against any discipline at all.
Posts: 3263 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DustinDopps
Member
Member # 12640

 - posted      Profile for DustinDopps           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
People who spank their kids, always talk first with the kid. Then, if it's clear the kid deserves punishment in the form of spanking, it gets spanked.' Is that what you mean? Well, I would hope - if someone uses spanking - it is done like this. But I am afraid not [Frown] [/QB]
That's the point I was trying to make. This is exactly how spanking works in my household. If one of my children is doing something they shouldn't be, they get a warning first. "I'm going to spank you if you keep doing that." If they continue to do it, I explain that their decision to disobey is resulting in a spanking.

In other words, by the time they get a spanking, they know that it is a direct result of their decision to continue misbehaving.

I swat them hard enough so they feel it, but not usually hard enough that they cry. Then I hug them, reassure them that I love them, and say something like "I don't like spanking you, but it's my job as your dad to make sure you grow up knowing right from wrong. Today you chose to do something wrong so I had to punish you. Hopefully in the future you'll make better decisions."

Consider it like this: the first time you burn your hand on a hot oven or pan, you learn a lesson. It hurts a bit, but it teaches you to be more careful in the future. It is a negative reinforcement. Spankings, for me at least, serve the same purpose. They are a brief, momentary pain that teaches my kids that there is a consequence for every bad decision they make.

It is worlds away from beatings or abuse.

Posts: 238 | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Knowing that I use spanking as a tool does not give you any insight into the "circumstances surrounding the discipline of my children".

If you tell me that you spank your kids, this does give me insight into an element of your parenting methods. Namely, that it includes corporal punishment. That you use the deliberate infliction of pain on a child as a punishment tool. For a person who adamantly believes that people should never use the deliberate infliction of pain on a child as a punishment tool, this already qualifies a guaranteed answer to an announcement that you hit your kids, namely that I think you should not do that.

Since you enjoy digging yourself holes, let me give you a pointer: if you're going to dismiss someone and tell them to kick rocks, leave it at that. Dismiss them and quit diving in (especially don't do this while assuring the other party how much you don't care about their posts you're still responding to).

Repeatedly engaging while catchphrasing "i have no desire to engage you" at the end of your posts is a great non-starter.

Posts: 14067 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Knowing that I use spanking as a tool does not give you any insight into the "circumstances surrounding the discipline of my children".

You should really read what you just wrote here. Can you spot the giant error? The huge, practically unmissable error?
quote:
Circumstances
1. a condition, detail, part, or attribute, with respect to time, place, manner,agent, etc., that accompanies, determines, or modifies a fact or event; a modifying or influencing factor: Do not judge his behavior without considering every circumstance.

2. Usually, circumstances. the existing conditions or state of affairs surrounding and affecting an agent: Circumstances permitting, we sail on Monday.

Derp!
Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Samp:

I would think you would be at least passing familiar with if-then statements. If you want to have a real conversation, I'm happy to participate. If you continue to judge without any knowledge beyond the bare bone facts, then there is nothing to talk about.

You can be "right" all by yourself.

Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Knowing that someone intentionally inflicts pain on their children as a method of punishment is the only relevant information necessary to qualify my individual, currently provided opinion: that if you do that, you shouldn't do that. It even comes attached with links to the pediatric sciences talking about, specifically, why you shouldn't do that.

You are welcome to provide your individual story as to why you, like every other spanking parent, have justified the practice to yourself, how careful and 'properly' you apply pain discipline, or maybe even how it happened to you and but of course you turned out fine. But my position is that there is no 'proper' way to hit a child, only less wrong ways to hit a child. The caveats and anecdote people throw at that are irrelevant. One could only make a case that they are not irrelevant, which I would consider, but I won't weight them higher than, say, the informed scientific opinion of the AAP. Or you could ask me why I think there are no proper ways to intentionally inflict pain onto a child as punishment, if I haven't gotten around to it anyway.

Either way, I'm not right all by myself, I'm right with a qualified scientific opinion and I'll take any opportunity to soapbox 'don't hit your kids' because people should not hit their kids, no matter how Lovingly and no matter their Good Intentions.

And yes, I will soapbox every single time someone will talk about that they hit their kids.

Posts: 14067 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GinetteB
Member
Member # 12390

 - posted      Profile for GinetteB           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well Matt, that is surely not what Hobbes meant, as I didn't use the argument of uncertainty in ITSELF. I was talking about the DANGER spanking is used without talking first and unjustified, as then it is devastating (and abuse,imo). While other disciplinary measures like 'go to your room' without talking first are not devastating, as the child can refuse when it feels it is unfair - or come out of it's room a little later to discuss - anyway, it is not forced into a situation where it is powerless.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
People who spank:

Do you believe that spanking has unique benefit that can only be obtained through spanking? Or merely that there is so little harm in it that it's not necessary to consider alternatives?

Posts: 3263 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hobbes
Member
Member # 433

 - posted      Profile for Hobbes   Email Hobbes         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ginette, Matt was absolutley right. You now seem to be backing away from your argument. Which is fine by me, since I didn't think it was a good one, but you did make it. Here's the quote:

quote:
In Europe, we have a European Convention protecting the rights of children. Spanking is forbidden. It has not so much to do with considering spanking a reasonable disciplinary tool, as well as with this:
. no parent can be 100% sure every spanking is justified, as a parent can misjudge a situation,
- it opens the door to use spanking as an outlet for the parents anger,
- if a child learns to obey by spanking, how do you get the child to obey others than the parents? So, then you'd have to give fx the school permission to spank them too, increasing the above dangers

You provided a list in which the items weren't connected, thus they clearly weren't a series of steps, but rather individual arguments. This is made clear by the ending statement: "increasing the above dangers". If you don't think that uncertainty is a good argument against spanking, then we're in agreement and we can just move on, but that's the point I was making.

Hobbes [Smile]

Posts: 10576 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
People who spank:

Do you believe that spanking has unique benefit that can only be obtained through spanking? Or merely that there is so little harm in it that it's not necessary to consider alternatives?

Our bodies have developed pain as a warning system that **something is wrong, danger danger**...it is the foundation structure for the hard wiring of the human body. When a child can not understand intellectually the concepts, and therefore will not stop damaging/dangerous behavior, they can understand the temporary twinge of pain from their body and they learn from it.

As to how I spank: I only spank under one circumstance, if one of the children intentionally hurts the other, after being warned, and it was first hand witnessed. Then it is one smack to a clothed, diapered bottom, accompanied by a time out and an explanation of why. After the time out, another explanation, a request for an apology (both to the parent and the injured party) and then an acceptance of the the apology and a hug and reassurance.

My children are a year and half apart. And my older son (who is now 3) was intentionally hurting my younger daughter. We were not spanking at that juncture, just using time outs. So we used time outs, but the smart little bugger knew how to manipulate the system too easily, and he kept hurting her. He would smile and laugh in time out and have a "sorry" ready once the time was up. It was a game to him. He knew he could get away with it. So we tried to remove toys or privileges, but that was like punishing the girl too and left them both crying and upset.

It took a few deep conversations with my wife, who is very anti-spanking, to convince her of the need.

So, after a warning that he would get spanked and get a time out for hurting his sister, I spank my son...once. He cries, and is put into time out. And it works. He doesn't hurt her much anymore. Mostly the warning is enough. I haven't had to spank in at least four months.

Often times I will come into a room where the girl is crying and the boy took off with a guilty look. I never punish him for that, only ask him if he hurt her and warn. Because sometimes babies just hurt themselves and you need to see with your own two eyes and not just assume the worst and punish. I have seen this happen where she hurt self (at times intentionally) and the boy had nothing to do with it, but still takes off as if he did.

The girl is starting to get a bit violent, and we have been using time outs, which have been effective. As long as they remain so, there will be no spanking.

Spanking CAN be a Bad Thing™ and should only be used carefully and never in anger or to excess. But it is bloody well effective if used properly, no matter what some neck beard MDs have to say about it.

Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But it is bloody well effective if used properly, no matter what some neck beard MDs have to say about it.
This is pretty much a straightforward demonstration of arrogant and aggressive ignorance. Have you even looked at what the "neck beard MDs" are saying in regards to spanking? Do you understand the argument of the AAP at all, or what it is based upon? Or are you going to sit here and just assume you know better?

For assistance, a related link to the AAP laying out the case.

Posts: 14067 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm happy to read the -first and only- thing you have included in the conversation beyond stating that the AAP is against it.

As to arrogant and aggressive ignorance...I'm start to feel a bit aggressive, but it has nothing to do with ignorance.

How many times did I have to implicitly invite you to discuss this before you agreed to do so? And even then I went first and before adding nearly anything to the conversation you start talking shmack about me?

You might consider checking your attitude.

Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GinetteB
Member
Member # 12390

 - posted      Profile for GinetteB           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hobbes: No. I am not backing away from my argument. If you insist on giving it a name and comparing it to the death penalty, then do that. If you then decide, it's not valid, fine with me.
I see a clear difference, yet I can't see an opening to make you see this difference, as you don't take my explanation into account.
And, I don't think it's very relevant for the discussion whether we agree or not. Besides, I am not here to improve my debating skills. Just wanted to hear different opinions from different perspectives. So, let's just leave it at that [Smile]

Posts: 135 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stephan
Member
Member # 7549

 - posted      Profile for Stephan   Email Stephan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Stone Wolf, my concern is about your son in the long term. I know he is only 3 now, but is he really learning that harming his sister is wrong? The impulse is still there. There is a reason he is doing it, and spanking is not getting at that reason. Most 3 year olds do not have the impulse to harm their siblings. Have you talked to your pediatrician about it? I am assuming he will be entering pre-school or kindergarten sooner than later, and they don't spank there. What happens if the violent impulses continue there?

Now, I am not opposed to spanking. I have been fortunate that time outs have been working for my 3 year old. My wife and I have discussed it, and agreed neither of us a philosophically opposed to spanking. We have just not had the need yet. As a teacher I know that every child is different, and every child needs a different type of discipline.

Posts: 3121 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stephan
Member
Member # 7549

 - posted      Profile for Stephan   Email Stephan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by Bella Bee:
And anyone, religious or not, who sent a child younger than about eleven or so to something as creepy as that - live action smashed up bodies and suicide - should probably be done for child abuse.

Really? So you're also suggesting that parents that let their kids read Stephen King or R.L. Stine, or watch the Friday the 13th movies are culpable for child abuse?

Hell Houses are idiotic, IMO. And despite their claims, I suspect extremely ineffective. But calling them child abuse is way over the top.

While I oppose most censorship, I find a flaw in your logic. I firmly believe that most children that can comprehend Stephen King or even R.L. Stine have a firm grasp of fact vs. fiction. I think Hell Houses could truly be harmful because children at a much lower level are still exposed to them.
Posts: 3121 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2