Yea if it was my kid it'd unleash the Gran Torino in me...I can only imagine what this geezer is like if you trespass on his lawn. However crying/loud/obnoxious kids and people are pretty damn annoying and really shouldn't be in public areas (especially the melon-fething movie theater...kill yourself if you're one of those people that brings a friggin baby to the cinema).
Gotta love that mug shot too, damn fitting expression for the article.
I saw this story on the Drudge Report and I burst out laughing. But this does bring up a point: parents need to control their screaming kids. I know that if me or my siblings had been screaming in public our parents would have whipped our hides...but still, don't hit other peoples kids.
reminds me of when i was walking around tesco, a little girl was in the trolling and screaming with what could be described as a high pitched screech. Painful to be near the thing, yet the parents were casually walking down the aisles as though nothing was wrong.
Hells, that would be called being a parent After soo many sleepless nights of the child screaming with teething problems you tend to be immune to it after a while.
Yes, it does piss people off, but you cant slap someone elses kid without expecting to be hit back several times.
If I posted my true feelings about how most parents let their kids dart in front of you, screaming and yelling in most public places, with the response being something like "lol kids will be kids," I'd probably be banned.
However, slapping other people's kids is not good. Slapping the parent might be a reasonable compromise, however.
Am no way implying this guy had any right to do what he did and hope he gets punished severely.
As per my own experience I meant I was amazed at how casual they were acting and I was somewhat amused by it, afterwards I just guessed they were ignoring her to teach her she won't get attention everytime she balls. But your post makes me think it proberly was just teething so nothing they could have done anyway hence them ignoring
hellsguardian316 wrote:I just guessed they were ignoring her to teach her she won't get attention everytime she balls.
Yeah, you can't reward tantrums, or the kid learns that tantrums are a good thing.
IMO just ignoring kids when they flare up is vastly inferior to an actual punishment.
Surely just ignoring them is teaching them that whenever someone doesnt respond to them they have done something wrong?
hellsguardian316 wrote:But your post makes me think it proberly was just teething so nothing they could have done anyway hence them ignoring
Proberly... , nice.
Anyway, kids go through all sorts of crazy experiences on a daily basis. Everything is new and more often than not kids find that very frightening. I saw a documentary talking about the development of the human body at one point. It talked about how young kids senses are extremely powerful, and every little interaction is like encountering a tsunami of new information.
I am also the guy on the plane that tells you to just deal with the fact that a kid is being cooped up in a plane for hours on end without any respite. Recently I was behind a kid who had been stuck on a plane from India to England, then after sleeping in the airport the family got on another plane to the U.S.... think about that one for a minute, the parents looked like they were very worn out, and they could hardly keep their kids calm.
hellsguardian316 wrote:I just guessed they were ignoring her to teach her she won't get attention everytime she balls.
Yeah, you can't reward tantrums, or the kid learns that tantrums are a good thing.
Or you could just hit them and tell them to shut up, which both reinforces the idea that they should be quiet, and most likely is not the response they were trying to illicit.
I suggest you give the kid some candy to shut him up, but while you do so you warn him about the dead murderer who comes during the night to eat the skin of little children who throw tantrums.
Then, that night, put this mask on:
And go into his room and tell him you'll eat his skin if he throws another tantrum in the store.
hellsguardian316 wrote:I just guessed they were ignoring her to teach her she won't get attention everytime she balls.
Yeah, you can't reward tantrums, or the kid learns that tantrums are a good thing.
Or you could just hit them and tell them to shut up, which both reinforces the idea that they should be quiet, and most likely is not the response they were trying to illicit.
QFT! But every parent should be free to raise their child as they see fit.
I want to meet the kid that sets up a trap for the monster .
Yeah... I know it is coming... but it won't get the jump on me I tell ya'.
corpsesarefun wrote:Oh and wrex, if you hit a dog on its nose for doing something wrong it learns not to do it again.
Same applies to children.
I am of the frame of mind that you are provably wrong on the whole, and it actually breeds resentment and creates a barrier between the parent and their child in terms of future interaction... which most parents want the least amount possible.
Why even have kids if you feel like hitting them is necessary though? Send them to boot camp before you do that ffs.
In 24 countries around the world, it is illegal for a parent, teacher, or anyone else to spank a child, and 113 countries prohibit corporal punishment in schools.1 Yet in all of North America, physical punishment by a parent, as long as it is not severe, is still seen by many as necessary discipline, and condoned, or sadly, even encouraged.
9. Physical punishment gives the dangerous and unfair message that "might makes right", that it is permissible to hurt someone else, provided they are smaller and less powerful than you are. The child then concludes that it is permissible to mistreat younger or smaller children. When he becomes an adult, he can feel little compassion for those less fortunate than he is, and fears those who are more powerful. This will hinder the establishment of meaningful relationships so essential to an emotionally fulfilling life.
I am of the frame of mind that anything you do to your child, is good enough to be done to you. Next time you feel like smacking your kid, look around for a clown on a unicycle with a bat... because he is there... so beware.
Wrexasaur wrote:
I am of the frame of mind that you are provably wrong on the whole, and it actually breeds resentment and creates a barrier between the parent and their child in terms of future interaction... which most parents want the least amount possible.
Why even have kids if you feel like hitting them is necessary though? Send them to boot camp before you do that ffs.
The author of that article also states that spanking your kids will create an association in their minds between pain and sexual pleasure. WTF? Also, the whole "it breeds resentment/creates barriers" argument is not true for every case, just as spanking is not good for every child. Making blanket statements like this is woefully ignorant of the individuality of every child. My siblings and I were spanked as kids, and we all have very good relationships with our parents. I sure as hell needed to get spanked sometimes, but I didn't need to go to boot camp, and I really don't know how you jump to an extreme solution vs. giving your kid a couple of swats. I do not think that you, or anyone for that matter, has the right to tell someone how to raise their kids. That is up to the individual parent. But, I will say from my experience, the kids in our family never yelled at our parents or even treated them disrespectfully, but I was and still am shocked at the level of disrespect and anger I have seen between some of my friends and their parents. And BTW corporal punishment was considered "cruel" in those friends' house.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:I suggest you keep going with it as long as possible.
"Hey dad, check out this tattoo I got!"
"What? You never told me you were getting a tattoo!"
"Dad, I'm 17. Stop trying to control my life! I HAET U!"
"Alright, alright. It's just that... the ghost of the serial killer that ate people's skin really doesn't like tattoos."
corpsesarefun wrote:
Oh and wrex, if you hit a dog on its nose for doing something wrong it learns not to do it again.
Same applies to children.
Or the dog eventually decides that its better off simply eating your face, as opposed to trying to decipher what you want. Now, a child is probably not going to eat your face, but you also can't have him put down if you don't like the way he's turning out. There's a fine line in there which requires more thought than "My child is crying, I guess I should hit him".
corpsesarefun wrote:
Oh and wrex, if you hit a dog on its nose for doing something wrong it learns not to do it again.
Same applies to children.
Or the dog eventually decides that its better off simply eating your face, as opposed to trying to decipher what you want. Now, a child is probably not going to eat your face, but you also can't have him put down if you don't like the way he's turning out. There's a fine line in there which requires more thought than "My child is crying, I guess I should hit him".
O Lord, Dogma has come to draw out this post! But, you are absolutely right....anyone hearing that old song, "The World Turned Upside Down"?
corpsesarefun wrote:
Oh and wrex, if you hit a dog on its nose for doing something wrong it learns not to do it again.
Same applies to children.
Or the dog eventually decides that its better off simply eating your face, as opposed to trying to decipher what you want. Now, a child is probably not going to eat your face, but you also can't have him put down if you don't like the way he's turning out. There's a fine line in there which requires more thought than "My child is crying, I guess I should hit him".
Slapping/smacking/spanking are one of the more extreme methods of punishment, before that sound telling offs/warnings and withdrawel of things they enjoy doing (such as toys) as well as timed isolation are good punishments.
My father never lay a finger of me yet i rarely if ever speak to him, when i do its an argument or his birthday, but conversely my mum DID propperly punish me as a child an i get on well with her.
The whole violent punishment = resentment argument seems kinda moot in this situation.
corpsesarefun wrote:
Slapping/smacking/spanking are one of the more extreme methods of punishment, before that sound telling offs/warnings and withdrawel of things they enjoy doing (such as toys) as well as timed isolation are good punishments.
My father never lay a finger of me yet i rarely if ever speak to him, when i do its an argument or his birthday, but conversely my mum DID propperly punish me as a child an i get on well with her.
The whole violent punishment = resentment argument seems kinda moot in this situation.
I wasn't only talking about violent punishment; just the overuse of punishment. I only used the word 'hit' as a reference to your comment about dogs.
corpsesarefun wrote:
Slapping/smacking/spanking are one of the more extreme methods of punishment, before that sound telling offs/warnings and withdrawel of things they enjoy doing (such as toys) as well as timed isolation are good punishments.
My father never lay a finger of me yet i rarely if ever speak to him, when i do its an argument or his birthday, but conversely my mum DID propperly punish me as a child an i get on well with her.
The whole violent punishment = resentment argument seems kinda moot in this situation.
I wasn't only talking about violent punishment; just the overuse of punishment. I only used the word 'hit' as a reference to your comment about dogs.
Overuse of anything is bad, thats why the word is OVERuse
I've always seen spanking as barbaric. I never had any need for it (but my dad did it anyway because he was angry at my mother or drunk and depressed a lot of the time).
Jeb_stuart wrote:I do not think that you, or anyone for that matter, has the right to tell someone how to raise their kids.
Okay... I already said previously that you will and can do whatever your little mind deems fit, that is your role as a parent. Just do not expect people to agree with you because you managed to have a child, that action is quite simple to do, the next step is feeding them.
I do not talk to most parents because they take great offense that I even have an opinion about their actions. So what... live with the fact that I am not in your face about it, and move the feth on...
(n) corporal punishment (the infliction of physical injury on someone convicted of committing a crime)
HELL im going to say it. give this guy a medal. Keep your kid shut or lock them in the house till they do.
if i was this kids parents i would give him cash
corpsesarefun wrote:
Overuse of anything is bad, thats why the word is OVERuse
Obviously, but the trick is determining what actually constitutes overuse. Not every transgression needs to be punished, unless you consider a stern word to be punishment.
All of you that talk about kudos and pats on the back for this fool would be squawking out the other sides of your mouth if it was your two year old, or your nephew/niece, grandchild, whatever. I'm not happy about lazy and dim bulb parents that let their kids run wild, but that is only the parents fault. If a dirty look doesn't let them know exactly how you feel, it doesn't matter, because they are already in the hell of their own making. They took the easy road early when they had a baby and refused to learn how to raise and discipline a child. They will pay and pay all childhood long, and continue paying as they see what a sorry job they did after their child is an adult.
That said, if my child was assaulted like this, I would get my children out of his hands, then kick him and beat him with whatever was handy till he stopped trying to get up. Hell, if I saw any child assaulted by an adult, I would intervene, even if it meant threat directed at me.
hellsguardian316 wrote:reminds me of when i was walking around tesco, a little girl was in the trolling and screaming with what could be described as a high pitched screech. Painful to be near the thing, yet the parents were casually walking down the aisles as though nothing was wrong.
Good parenting advice is when your toddler is having a tantrum, they are seeking attention. By ignoring them you discourage tantrums.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrookM wrote:The face says it all really..
If I was in the supermarket and saw a 2-year-old who looked like that I would be tempted to hit him.
hellsguardian316 wrote:reminds me of when i was walking around tesco, a little girl was in the trolling and screaming with what could be described as a high pitched screech. Painful to be near the thing, yet the parents were casually walking down the aisles as though nothing was wrong.
Good parenting advice is when your toddler is having a tantrum, they are seeking attention. By ignoring them you discourage tantrums.
True, however it still takes a while for the child to understand and is not practical in a public place.
If a child is screaming while people are trying to quietly shop then the parents need to actively stop the child, whether its by a punishment or one parent taking the child outside of the shop - or both.
There seems to be some blurring of the topic. Some seem to be talking about parenting in general, and other seem to be talking about public behavior in regards to children.
I could care less how you want to raise your child. When I do start to care, is when you bring your rugrat to a public place, let him or her run around and/or scream, ignore your child as part of 'good parenting' (which I do agree on, btw) and expect all the strangers around you to "work with you" and take it in stride.
I didn't decide that you should have a kid. I don't want to deal with the noise. If your kid likes to run around, put him on a leash.
When I was a bratling, if I acted up in a public place, my mother yanked me out of the store immediately. Being hollered at and spankings usually followed, away from the people I was probably annoying.
Kilkrazy wrote:If I was in the supermarket and saw a 2-year-old who looked like that I would be tempted to hit him.
corpsesarefun wrote:True, however it still takes a while for the child to understand and is not practical in a public place.
If a child is screaming while people are trying to quietly shop then the parents need to actively stop the child, whether its by a punishment or one parent taking the child outside of the shop - or both.
Jeb_stuart wrote:I do not think that you, or anyone for that matter, has the right to tell someone how to raise their kids.
Okay... I already said previously that you will and can do whatever your little mind deems fit, that is your role as a parent. Just do not expect people to agree with you because you managed to have a child, that action is quite simple to do, the next step is feeding them.
I do not talk to most parents because they take great offense that I even have an opinion about their actions. So what... live with the fact that I am not in your face about it, and move the feth on...
(n) corporal punishment (the infliction of physical injury on someone convicted of committing a crime)
Totally acceptable...
Is that all you remembered from my response? Sorry, I hadn't noticed that you had already said that, I was just stating a point, and I shouldn't have singled you out like that.
No worries, this is the Webz, and my point/opinion (remember the webz does skew opinions quite profusely) was not specifically directed at yous'....
But in the future I recommend taking quick duck when you lay down claims that merit my ballista of whammy and serious pontification to lay waste you your previously "ignored" post... take offense because this tangent can take me onto the... you get the point.
JEB_Stuart wrote:QFT! But every parent should be free to raise their child as they see fit.
Well, no. I mean, no parent is free to punish their child by putting a cigarette out on their face. On the other hand, the state can't intervene to the point where parents are punished for buying their children too much junk food. At the end of the day people can't argue that the state cannot limit how parents can raise their children, nor can people argue that there must be a limit of the state's authority to intervene, what we can do is discuss exactly where that limit starts and ends.
Somewhere in between there's a whole lot of grey. A lot of folk argue that the 'banned' category should include spanking, but a lot of the research looks kind of dubious to me. On the other hand I'm not sure spanking is needed, parents have a lot of other effective tools at their disposal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
corpsesarefun wrote:Yeah! when a kid misbehaves, reward him with sugar treats?
Theres a flaw with this somewhere...
Oh and wrex, if you hit a dog on its nose for doing something wrong it learns not to do it again.
Same applies to children.
Don't hit a dog on the nose. It's like punching a dude in the junk. A dog responds more to disapproval than it does to pain, so it isn't necessary.
Lots of psychological research shows that reward is more effective than punishment as a way of influencing behaviour but punishment is easier to do and people often enjoy doing it.
corpsesarefun wrote:Oh and wrex, if you hit a dog on its nose for doing something wrong it learns not to do it again.
Same applies to children.
Don't fething hit a dog on it's nose. Ever. It's nose is highly sensitive and vulnerable to damage. You can permanently injure a dog that way.
If you want to demonstrate to a dog that you're pissed at it, place your hand over it's muzzle, fingers one side and tumb the other, applying very very little pressure. This mimics the way an alpha will place it's mouth over the muzzle of a subordinate in a wolf pack.
Don't hit animals unless they are making concerted effort to eat you.
Sebster wrote:Don't hit a dog on the nose. It's like punching a dude in the junk. A dog responds more to disapproval than it does to pain, so it isn't necessary.
Please note that morons will learn in due course... so the fall does make you hurt as you hit the ground... and you see the light of your truth... *angelic *
Yep... uh huh, sure, w/e... .
The dog... is totally serious and you should simply not mess with him... seriously though man.
"Note"
This is his Mom...
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Don't hit animals unless they are making concerted effort to eat you.
Yep... uh huh, w/e, sure, kinda... O SNAP!!!
Wait... are they dancing? Yes, I think they *squish*
I can see both sides to this. far too many aparthetic parents dont care what nuisances their kids become.
I reember an article in the press where some munter wouldnt stop her kid from screaming on a bus journey. The driver stopped the bus and threw them off as he couldnt concentrate on his driving. The drivers was suspended, but what was he to do, he stopped the bus and asked the mother to quieten the chidl, she did not do so. What next drive on and have an accident?
No its not normal for a child to cry or scream incessantly, it occurs because of bad parenting. Yes children cry, and even scream, but usually at responce to something, if the child is in pain that is one thing, but if the little brat is just wanting to vocalise its a sign of something else. Apathy and lack of parental discipline.
I above case shows what happens when things go too far, yes the man was out of order, but so was the mother.
Vladsimpaler wrote:I never did any of this crying or complaining in public stuff when I was a kid.
Why?
My dad spanked me when I did something stupid.
Kudos to the old dude.
On the other hand my mom did none of the spanking stuff so I never listen to her.
Do you even read before you post? The old fart hit someone else's kid.
Genghis Connie was known to thrown a tantrum or two during THE TWO's-earning the name Genghis...
I remember carrying her over my head out the pizza joint when she had a snot slinger. Whenever she had a fit, out she went.
But if some old man came up to She Who Must Be Obeyed and said he'd hit GC, I am reasonably sure She Who Must Be Obeyed would have beaten the old man to death, instantly.
Frazz wrote:But if some old man came up to She Who Must Be Obeyed and said he'd hit GC, I am reasonably sure She Who Must Be Obeyed would have beaten the old man to death, instantly.
Orlanth wrote:No its not normal for a child to cry or scream incessantly...
Dude.. did you read the frakking OP?!? I am surprised at your seriously demented approach to this.
A TWO YEAR OLD CHILD!!! Can you even imagine how lucky this guy is that he did not meet the Mother from hell? Seriously though... god freaking damn.
He already did meet the mother from hell, just a different sort. The sort that lets her brats scream incessantly.
No it isnt normal, a child cries it gets the needed attention and then stops, especially at 2 years old. If it was a 6 months baby or less then the child may qwell scream incessantly if unattended, even then they stop if attended iunless in physical distress.
A 2 year old that doesnt stop bawling has a problem, and that problem stems from either injury or bad parenting.
Orlanth wrote:No its not normal for a child to cry or scream incessantly...
Dude.. did you read the frakking OP?!? I am surprised at your seriously demented approach to this.
A TWO YEAR OLD CHILD!!! Can you even imagine how lucky this guy is that he did not meet the Mother from hell? Seriously though... god freaking damn.
He already did meet the mother from hell, just a different sort. The sort that lets her brats scream incessantly.
No it isnt normal, a child cries it gets the needed attention and then stops, especially at 2 years old. If it was a 6 months baby or less then the child may qwell scream incessantly if unattended, even then they stop if attended iunless in physical distress.
A 2 year old that doesnt stop bawling has a problem, and that problem stems from either injury or bad parenting.
I concurr, controlling your own kids is the responsibility of the parents and the parents alone. There are only a few rare instances where a stranger should attempt to control someone elses child, But going as far to as to willfully causing ANY physical harm to someone else's child is down right wrong and uncalled for.
(as an example I would class a rare instance as a small child running wild around a GW store, grabbing peoples prized models and playing soldiers violently with them and breaking things as the parents just watch saying "oh aren't you naughty" in a joking voice with no attempt to stop or punish him/her. I've had a young teenager throw a full deck of cards at my face from a metre away which i can promise you fething hurt as well as risking eye damage only to turn at the parent to await them to tell them off for them to joking say their name and then laughs. I can promise I'm not a violent person but I had to force myself to leave the room to stop myself decking two people)
As others have said, sometimes words have the best impact on children, and public disappoval can upset many adults too.
Once again we have lots of bad advice from people without any parenting experience.
As others have said, you don't always know WHY a given child is crying. The parent probably does. This is a hugely important factor. Additionally, you don't know the child's behaviorial patterns and why a parent may or may not be taking a particular course of action.
One great lesson you learn as a parent is that you as an outsider don't know jack about someone's else's kid or situation. That's why other parents are much more likely to give someone else the benefit of the doubt, while single people act perturbed because a misbehaving child is ruining their flow as they shop at friggin' Wal-Mart.
I mean, really. If you don't like kids, perhaps Wal-Mart ISN'T THE PLACE FOR YOU. But I digress.
Apparently, many of you were perfect angels even as toddlers because your parents spanked you once in a while. But I have some news for you. YOU WEREN'T. You were a miserable monster at times, spanking or not. Because that's how all children are from time to time. Yes, some kids are out of control far too often. But *all* kids are out of control once in a while.
Yeah, I'm a bad parent because my two-year-old -- who is by all accounts a well-behaved kid -- sometimes gets upset when he's tired or frustrated. Good god, some of you have a lot to learn.
My Grandad has raised 3 kids and also been very involved with 8 grandkids too. Though if its someone else child then he has no patience whatsoever
Parenting is something you learn from being a parent or at least by being invloved in the day to day lives of kids (looking after the kid for a few hours and changing their nappy does not count by far) Which is why as gorgon said, fellow parents are more understanding about these things. Clearly the guy in that report has no patience and was just a miserable old man
Its nice to see the view points from both parents and non parents in this thread
You don't let a darn kid cry in a freakin store. Other people are there to shop, not listen to some kid scream.
Yeah, I babysit, I babysit a 6,5, and a now 3year old all at the same time. Now, being only a babysitter, hitting is out of bounds. Instead I put them in time out. But what about stores? That's easy, take them out of the place as punishment.
If the kid was tired then wouldn't the best choice be to leave the store anyways?
Its a win-win, if the kids just being a monster then its punishment, if the kid's tired then its naptime.
P.S. I'm not a perfect "angel" because I was spanked "every once in a while" I'm a good kid because I was spanked whenever it was necessary.
halonachos wrote:You don't let a darn kid cry in a freakin store. Other people are there to shop, not listen to some kid scream.
Yeah, I babysit, I babysit a 6,5, and a now 3year old all at the same time. Now, being only a babysitter, hitting is out of bounds. Instead I put them in time out. But what about stores? That's easy, take them out of the place as punishment.
If the kid was tired then wouldn't the best choice be to leave the store anyways?
Its a win-win, if the kids just being a monster then its punishment, if the kid's tired then its naptime.
P.S. I'm not a perfect "angel" because I was spanked "every once in a while" I'm a good kid because I was spanked whenever it was necessary.
gorgon wrote:Yeah, I'm a bad parent because my two-year-old -- who is by all accounts a well-behaved kid -- sometimes gets upset when he's tired or frustrated.
Or teething.
Or trying to express himself (toddlers don't have an expansive vocabulary).
Or his schedule get interrupted.
Or overstimulated (kids get overwhelmed easily in loud/bright situations).
Or picking up on the hostility and tension from some ugly old man in a loud and busy store.
Or the 1,000,001 other reasons that set a toddler off as they still haven't really learned to express themselves clearly to others, get frustrated, and go with what they know (screaming uncontrollably).
Too many posters here assume that toddlers are as rational as a well-adjusted adult. They aren't. These people also assume that parents are always able to control their kids tightly - they can't. Even the best parents get so worn down that all they can hope is to get through their daily schedule without having an incident like this.
@ Halonachos/hellsguardian316 - Of course thats easy to say, but not so easy to do if you've driven twenty mins (or more, my nearest big store is 35mins away) and you need some stuff from the store in question that day.
Or if a single parent with no one else to look after the kiddies and you need dinner.
Oh and I ignore my kids the very rare time they do tantrum, usually in a store, and because they want something. For me its working as the best policy as right now the younger one is the ony one who does it, my 5yr old learned screming and wailing doesn't work ages ago.
edit - ninja'd by Gitkikka, and wanted to avoid the confusion he might have thought I was responding to him
@Morathi
Your right, it is easy to say. My view point is based on my own personal experiences when being with nephews or other peoples children so I can only go on what I have experienced. But there in lies the problem, we are not born with the knowledge of how to be parents, we all teach our kids differently and learn as we go. I might very well have a completely different attitude when I have my own kids and not other peoples to look after. 1st hand experience is priceless.
Also, children tend to react differently to correction from child to child, what works on one child does not alway work on another which depends on the upbringing and personality of each child.
This isn't in england though. Its america, "land of Wal-Mart and Processed Foods and evil guns" remember, theres a wal mart down every corner and 50+ stores around them. This was an "aunt" who was looking after the kid so she was babysitting and leaving the store was a great option.
@gitkikka- I don't see anything there that leaving the store wouldn't have resolved.
Toddlers can speak, sure they don't know the dictionary, but they can speak enough. If the toddler can't, then leave the store and teach him/her.
If the child was miserable, then why continue that misery by keeping the child in an unknown environment instead of a house where napping places, toys, or other accoutrements are located?
Also, spanking should be used when NECESSARY, not when the kid's teething, is there no middle ground for you? If the kids being a wretch, a good parent determines the cause of said wretchedness and then works to correct it. If its misbehaviour then spank them or put them in timeout, if they're tired, teething, overstimulated, then remove them from the environment and seek an environment that would fix these needs.
@ sin, man I would hate to be near your kids. Crying doesn't work for me, but I don't ignore it, I fix it.
halonachos wrote:You don't let a darn kid cry in a freakin store. Other people are there to shop, not listen to some kid scream.
Yeah, I babysit, I babysit a 6,5, and a now 3year old all at the same time. Now, being only a babysitter, hitting is out of bounds. Instead I put them in time out. But what about stores? That's easy, take them out of the place as punishment.
If the kid was tired then wouldn't the best choice be to leave the store anyways?
Its a win-win, if the kids just being a monster then its punishment, if the kid's tired then its naptime.
P.S. I'm not a perfect "angel" because I was spanked "every once in a while" I'm a good kid because I was spanked whenever it was necessary.
Oh FFS!
You don't let a child cry in a store, because other people are there to shop?
'Other people' need to learn that children actually exist and cry sometimes, and their parents still need to go to the store.
If it was a concert hall or cinema, it would be a legitimate complaint, but it would still not excuse a stranger slapping a small child..
You do not strike someone's child. Children cry all the time, if your in a fething supermarket, walk further away. What some people on this thread are condoning is child abuse. The old guy needs a serious fine and suspended sentance.
I don't want to advocate old men slapping two year olds, but parents and those watching kids need to know how to deal with crying kids. I understand that kids cry out of many reasons, but I don't condone letting some kid cry in a store.
I tend to avoid wal-mart because I think that they're an evil company, but I work in freaking toy store and get paid to put up with kids crying. That's another point, if you go to anystore besides a toy store, you don't really expect there to be too much crying unless someone slips on a wet floor and breaks his/her femur.
In a toy store or baby supply store, I would expect to hear kids cry. In K-mart I don't because its a supermarket, when I go to the Commissary I don't expect to hear kids cry because its a grocery store.
If their parents need to go to the store, there's a bathroom on the premises most of the time where a parent can take a child to either spank or to talk to them or get them to calm the feth down.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:You do not strike someone's child. Children cry all the time, if your in a fething supermarket, walk further away. What some people on this thread are condoning is child abuse. The old guy needs a serious fine and suspended sentance.
I'd prefer just letting him loose with a van full of soccer moms behind him. He gets smeared and the vultures get protein. Its win win!
halonachos wrote:
Also, spanking should be used when NECESSARY, not when the kid's teething, is there no middle ground for you? If the kids being a wretch, a good parent determines the cause of said wretchedness and then works to correct it. If its misbehaviour then spank them or put them in timeout, if they're tired, teething, overstimulated, then remove them from the environment and seek an environment that would fix these needs.
If your children are teething, you use brandy. Works like a charm.
I wonder how many posters here have parented 2-year-olds.
They're not entirely rational, and they don't speak very well. Some are still babbling. Their vocabularies are very limited. Playing 20-questions doesn't always work. And they change their minds. A lot.
In many ways, they're like Homer Simpson -- "ooh.. donuts!". Or a dog.
A lot of the expectations that some of the posters have seem to fly in the face of reality as I know it.
That said, per my initial post, if it's me, I'm going to jump to self defense of my kid, to the point that the old man is physically incapable of harming my kid. Ever.
JohnHwangDD wrote:I wonder how many posters here have parented 2-year-olds.
They're not entirely rational, and they don't speak very well. Some are still babbling. Their vocabularies are very limited. Playing 20-questions doesn't always work. And they change their minds. A lot.
In many ways, they're like Homer Simpson -- "ooh.. donuts!". Or a teenager
A lot of the expectations that some of the posters have seem to fly in the face of reality as I know it.
That said, per my initial post, if it's me, I'm going to jump to self defense of my kid, to the point that the old man is physically incapable of harming my kid. Ever.
Does babysitting a two year old 5 days a week for 10 hours a day for 3 months count at all?
Yeah, two year olds are like that, but he soon equated me coming to his mom leaving and so he cried. It was at home so I was ableto distract him enough, he also learned that mommy leaving meant getting pizza for dinner so all was good. And who says that they can't rationalize?
Frazzled, as a teen, I am offended by your remark. I don't get distracted by donuts I get distracted by shiny things.
And believe me, I've walked out of a restaurant or store more than once. Usually that's all it takes to settle my son down, and we're often able to return without incident. You get a surprising amount of empathetic looks from fellow parents when that happens. Then again, there are the folks with that can't stand even 10 seconds of an upset child, and grumble angrily because it's ruined the mood of their big night out at Dennys. I tend not to feel very apologetic to those people, because without question they behaved similarly when they were children. And to be in a kid-friendly environment and expect kids to behave like the Christ child is a bit unrealistic.
@Frazz -- Fortunately I have 11 more years to prepare for the teenage years. Although at least he's a boy. If #2 ends up being a girl, I'll probably require therapy when she hits her teens.
Teenagers...oh man...dear lord give me the patience to not kill them, and the good sense not to annoy everyone with prideful pics of their latest achievement.
I hope that I can look back at these years and think " what an idiot I was". In fact, I probably will. And then I will do my best to understand MY teenagers, and fail hopelessly.
Exactly so, guys - when the kid becomes too noisy, it's time for a walk, either inside or outside. If it's a lot of back-and-forth, that's how it goes.
But seriously, you just can't expect a little kid to sit at a table once the little belly is full, watching everybody else quietly.
frazzled wrote:Teenagers...oh man...dear lord give me the patience to not kill them, and the good sense not to annoy everyone with prideful pics of their latest achievement.
JohnHwangDD wrote:Exactly so, guys - when the kid becomes too noisy, it's time for a walk, either inside or outside. If it's a lot of back-and-forth, that's how it goes.
But seriously, you just can't expect a little kid to sit at a table once the little belly is full, watching everybody else quietly.
Actually, when my little brother makes too much noise I yell "Blood for the blood god!" and hit him. Then everyone at the table stares at me as I look nervously around, wondering why I'm not on dakka anymore.
JohnHwangDD wrote:Exactly so, guys - when the kid becomes too noisy, it's time for a walk, either inside or outside. If it's a lot of back-and-forth, that's how it goes.
But seriously, you just can't expect a little kid to sit at a table once the little belly is full, watching everybody else quietly.
Actually, when my little brother makes too much noise I yell "Blood for the blood god!" and hit him. Then everyone at the table stares at me as I look nervously around, wondering why I'm not on dakka anymore.
But you don't do it to someone else's kid. They might threaten to exterminate you and your entire family.
Gee I don't know anyone who's ever done that.
A police report says after the stranger hit the girl at least four times, he said: "See, I told you I would shut her up."
Roger Stephens of Stone Mountain is charged with felony cruelty to children. It was unclear if he had an attorney and a telephone call to his home Wednesday was unanswered.
He's been charged with FELONY cruelty. Good someone understands the seriousness of this. He struck the child 4 times. I'm seriously shocked bystanders didn't lay into him-assuming they didn't.
Frazzled wrote:Teenagers...oh man...dear lord give me the patience to not kill them, and the good sense not to annoy everyone with prideful pics of their latest achievement.
Frazzled wrote:
He's been charged with FELONY cruelty. Good someone understands the seriousness of this. He struck the child 4 times. I'm seriously shocked bystanders didn't lay into him-assuming they didn't.
They were probably worried that he was armed with a gun and...I kid, I kid, I kid...
..the difference being that a felony charge means he can do time AND lose certain privileges etc yes ?
The original story aside, there are FAR worse things a parent can do than smack their child.
1) Feed them junk food all of the time
2) Not encourage an active life style
3) Fail to support school by attending parents evenings, ensuring homework is done, etc..
4) Fail to offer encouragement and love
5) Argue incessantly with partners
6) Use the TV as a childminder
7) Allow their child to fall into poor personal hygiene habits
Of course, just as there is a scale for smacking that moves from acceptable to unacceptable and then into abuse, there are differing levels of each of the above, and it is not as simple as saying "do this, don't do this..."
A parent who smacks their child for bad things (within reason, of course) and praises and rewards them for doing well is infinitely better than one who does neither of those things. In my experience as a teacher, bad parents can improve, given help and advice. Disinterested parents are best off having their kids taken away from them.
Felonies are the serious crimes. Misdemeanors are usually penalties of one year or less jail time.
Felonies are generally one year or over and you get to go to a more serious full blown prison-unless you're and bilk people out of billions of course then its club fed.
Capital level felonies allow you to experience the thrill of hoping the governor calls...
So who gets to decide what level you can charge them with then ? I'm assuming there's obvious IT HAS TO BE crimes ( murder, rape, red wine with fish, that kind of thing) but from what you posted before there's at least 2 levels of cruelty as an option ? Call of the officers/people involved or established guidelines ?
halonachos wrote:This isn't in england though. Its america, "land of Wal-Mart and Processed Foods and evil guns" remember, theres a wal mart down every corner and 50+ stores around them. This was an "aunt" who was looking after the kid so she was babysitting and leaving the store was a great option.
Where are you getting this from? It was the girl and her mom - the aunt wasn't in the store. And call me crazy, but I didn't always call a relative to watch my kids everytime I had to go shopping. I will not speculate why she didn't hand the toddler off to the aunt, of if she has an S.O. to watch them or whatever, but sometimes us parents do like the company of our kids.
halonachos wrote:@gitkikka- I don't see anything there that leaving the store wouldn't have resolved.
Toddlers can speak, sure they don't know the dictionary, but they can speak enough. If the toddler can't, then leave the store and teach him/her.
It's a Wal-Mart - not a fancy restaurant, or movie theater. Even without kids, those stores are noisy and chaotic. If you want a relaxing shopping experience, go to a 24 hour WM after midnight when the children are in bed. And I didn't say toddlers can't speak, I said that they are poor at getting their point across. This alone can make a happy, cheerful kid bottom out on the frustration scale in no time at all, usually with no warning.
halonachos wrote:If the child was miserable, then why continue that misery by keeping the child in an unknown environment instead of a house where napping places, toys, or other accoutrements are located?
Wouldn't know - don't know the mom's situation. Also, see previous note on how quickly a toddler's mood can change.
halonachos wrote:Also, spanking should be used when NECESSARY, not when the kid's teething, is there no middle ground for you? If the kids being a wretch, a good parent determines the cause of said wretchedness and then works to correct it.
Is this directed at me? No gak, a parent should find what's causing their kid's problem. But guess what, unlike a relative or a babysitter, the parent is the one ultimately stuck with the kid and sometimes has to let a non-issue (even a noisy one) wash over them when there's no other option. Again, it was in a Wal-Mart, not a place designed for relaxation; and we don't know what the mom was doing for her kid. In her situation, I'd attempt to help the kid out, but I'm not going to abandon a cart full of groceries just because she's sounding off and some strangers are giving me the hairy eyeball.
Fifty wrote:The original story aside, there are FAR worse things a parent can do than smack their child.
1) Feed them junk food all of the time
2) Not encourage an active life style
3) Fail to support school by attending parents evenings, ensuring homework is done, etc..
4) Fail to offer encouragement and love
5) Argue incessantly with partners
6) Use the TV as a childminder
7) Allow their child to fall into poor personal hygiene habits
Of course, just as there is a scale for smacking that moves from acceptable to unacceptable and then into abuse, there are differing levels of each of the above, and it is not as simple as saying "do this, don't do this..."
A parent who smacks their child for bad things (within reason, of course) and praises and rewards them for doing well is infinitely better than one who does neither of those things. In my experience as a teacher, bad parents can improve, given help and advice. Disinterested parents are best off having their kids taken away from them.
i have to agree here. I got hit a lot as a child, and i think i can fairly say without fear of contradiction that i turned out all right, with a fair amount of respect for other people and not that large an ego. Not mentioning any names (you wouldn't know them anyway!) but I know several kids whose parents never hit them and they're all jerks. And its incurable. Unless their parents smarten up and hit them already.
Kilkrazy wrote:Why is it right to hit children and wrong to hit adults?
I would say it's wrong in both cases, with large but distinct exceptions.
It's ok to spank or hit a child if there is no other way to to communicate with them, especially when very young. Telling a 2 year old repeatedly not to touch glasses may or may not work, slapping their hand usually does.
A person is allowed to use force against another when they have a right to compel behavior and no other options are viable. So cops can hit a guy resisting arrest, and a parent can smack a kid that wont do what he's told.
Fifty wrote:The original story aside, there are FAR worse things a parent can do than smack their child.
1) Feed them junk food all of the time
2) Not encourage an active life style
3) Fail to support school by attending parents evenings, ensuring homework is done, etc..
4) Fail to offer encouragement and love
5) Argue incessantly with partners
6) Use the TV as a childminder
7) Allow their child to fall into poor personal hygiene habits
Nice, I'm in the plus points for not doing all of those, and I've elected to never hit them as well, do I get bonus points.
Kilkrazy wrote:So in effect, a person in lawful authority has the moral and legal right in particular circumstances to compel obedience by the use of force.
Was the old man in WalMart in a position of lawful authority over the child?
No he was not, as he had no legal status as guardian over said child.
On another note I have seen this degrade into a completely different argument. Instead of focusing on the issue of the man's moral and legal implications in hitting someone else's child, this has turned into a rather strange discussion on child rearing. I think we can all, or at least the vast majority, agree that no person should ever use corporal punishment on another person's child, unless it is with their express authority. That being said it is very obvious that not was this man violating this idea he was also NOT employing corporal punishment, but was very much assaulting that toddler. By doing so I do believe that he deserves prison time.
I am frustrated though by the constant back and forth in this thread. There is the one camp that is very much opposed to the use of corporal punishment and they believe they do so from a non-existent moral high-ground. The other is generally arguing for more traditional methods of discipline, with many not acknowledging the possibility that corporal punishment is not effective for every child. Judging from my own experience, corporal punishment is a very effective tool for raising children. My parents were both keen on using the belt, ladle, shoe etc. but always came in afterward and apologized for spanking us and explained why they hated doing something that was for our own good. I can tell you this, we generally deserved our swats, and I think that it helped to mold all of the kids in our family in to proper adults. That being said the parent must use sound judgment, which will come with experience, in deciding the best course of discipline for their own children. If they are a responsible caring parent then the child will definitely have a better chance of becoming a well-adjusted individual. But as always it is and always should be up to the individual parent. End rant.
Also, for all you parents out there, please don't talk down to us youngins. We may not have experience raising our own children, but that certainly doesn't mean we haven't observed others raising their kids, not to mention our own experiences with our parents. I know that I probably pissed everyone off in this thread with this post, but o well. KK will denounce me as an evil American, Frazzled will blather on about GK and her unstoppable hoards (ever built a great wall Fraz? Or just call Mulan if that doesn't work. ), and Wrex will continue to post nonsensical pictures. LOL, so much for my PR degree....
Kilkrazy wrote:So in effect, a person in lawful authority has the moral and legal right in particular circumstances to compel obedience by the use of force.
Was the old man in WalMart in a position of lawful authority over the child?
No. In classical parlance the oldman committed felony battery.
Here's the interesting legality
*One can use self defense to defend yourself or others
*One can use lethal self defense if you believe yourself or others are in imminent peril of grievous injury or death.
*A man can kill a child.
*Therefore mom could have blown the old fart away.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Also, for all you parents out there, please don't talk down to us youngins. We may not have experience raising our own children, but that certainly doesn't mean we haven't observed others raising their kids, not to mention our own experiences with our parents. I know that I probably pissed everyone off in this thread with this post, but o well. KK will denounce me as an evil American, Frazzled will blather on about GK and her unstoppable hoards (ever built a great wall Fraz? Or just call Mulan if that doesn't work. ), and Wrex will continue to post nonsensical pictures. LOL, so much for my PR degree....
Thats about a nine on the tension scale there Vern.
Also, for all you parents out there, please don't talk down to us youngins. We may not have experience raising our own children, but that certainly doesn't mean we haven't observed others raising their kids, not to mention our own experiences with our parents. I know that I probably pissed everyone off in this thread with this post, but o well. KK will denounce me as an evil American, Frazzled will blather on about GK and her unstoppable hoards (ever built a great wall Fraz? Or just call Mulan if that doesn't work. ), and Wrex will continue to post nonsensical pictures. LOL, so much for my PR degree....
Thats about a nine on the tension scale there Vern.
Also, for all you parents out there, please don't talk down to us youngins. We may not have experience raising our own children, but that certainly doesn't mean we haven't observed others raising their kids, not to mention our own experiences with our parents. I know that I probably pissed everyone off in this thread with this post, but o well. KK will denounce me as an evil American, Frazzled will blather on about GK and her unstoppable hoards (ever built a great wall Fraz? Or just call Mulan if that doesn't work. ), and Wrex will continue to post nonsensical pictures. LOL, so much for my PR degree....
Thats about a nine on the tension scale there Vern.
besides no Great Wall ever stopped no hoard baby!
And Mulan?
Communist propoganda! Trying to convince us Eddie Murphy is still funny. It ain't right I tell ya.
Kilkrazy wrote:So in effect, a person in lawful authority has the moral and legal right in particular circumstances to compel obedience by the use of force.
Was the old man in WalMart in a position of lawful authority over the child?
No. In classical parlance the oldman committed felony battery.
Here's the interesting legality
*One can use self defense to defend yourself or others
*One can use lethal self defense if you believe yourself or others are in imminent peril of grievous injury or death.
*A man can kill a child.
*Therefore mom could have blown the old fart away.
Exactly.
A 2-year-old weighs something like 20-30 pounds. A typical full-grown man weighs 150-200 pounds. That means the man weighs 5 to 10 TIMES as much as the kid. A 2 year old stands less than 3 feet tall, most are probably around 2.5' tall, so that adult mal stands easily twice the height of the kid. I would be reasonable, mortal fear for a 2-year-old's life if he is attacked by an adult male.
A 2-year-old has no chance of defending himself (or herself) against such a large attacker. Heck, no pre-teen does.
Thus lethal force against that man is easily justified and his death would be an unfortunate, justifiable case of manslaughter by reason of self-defense on behalf of an endangered innocent.
The guy should have hit the parent. Parents need to control thier kids when they are in public places. There has been several instances when I've wanted to smack someones kid, but instead I just tell the store manager. One instance, I was in the electronics department and a kid was pulling CDs off the rack. No parent around. I politely told the kid to stop, he said "NO". I told the guy working back there and the kid and his parents (once they found them in another department) were asked to leave. Problem solved.
But parents till have to keep there kid queit. I remember i went to see SAW 4 or 3 cant remember which. This mother(looked like she was 20-somthing brought in her 6-month old child. I didnt say anthing cause its her own problem if she want to screw up her kid. But when we got to the good parts of the movie(ya know what i mean.) the kid kept screaming first i ask her if she could keep her child quiet politly. she just flipped me off and the i shouted at her then we she cursed me out. then i told the managet she was banned from the theater and i got a free ticket since i missed most of the film. Point being if you know you kid is a screamer the keep them out of public areas.
Jeb_stuart wrote:My parents were both keen on using the belt, ladle, shoe etc. but always came in afterward and apologized for spanking us and explained why they hated doing something that was for our own good.
This is really what I am against, but I am hardly going to yell at you for it.
I feel that a tap on the knuckles is about as effective as it gets, and (while this may not apply to all) I feel that most kids do not get the second part of explanation, so they are just left in the fact that they were wrong. You can go all sorts of directions from here, but I would have fought back if anyone had tried to hit me with a spoon... Call me crazy, but a person attacking me with a spoon is a clear and present danger, and I will react to it. It obviously is not going to kill me, but I do not take kindly to being attacked without prior explanation, and even then I find it to be out of left field and totally uncalled for.
This stuff is all very personal, and I tend to avoid this kind of thing because I have pretty strong feelings about it. You may see me as backwards, but I do feel that verbal discipline and various forms of non-physical punishment will always be more effective than assorted smacks. Kids tend to like things, such as a book, or a toy, etc... you take these things away and you put them in a position where they have to think about what they have done.
You will do as you will do though.
JohnHwangDD wrote:Thus lethal force against that man is easily justified and his death would be an unfortunate, justifiable case of manslaughter by reason of self-defense on behalf of an endangered innocent.
JEB_Stuart wrote:I am frustrated though by the constant back and forth in this thread. There is the one camp that is very much opposed to the use of corporal punishment and they believe they do so from a non-existent moral high-ground. The other is generally arguing for more traditional methods of discipline, with many not acknowledging the possibility that corporal punishment is not effective for every child. Judging from my own experience, corporal punishment is a very effective tool for raising children. My parents were both keen on using the belt, ladle, shoe etc. but always came in afterward and apologized for spanking us and explained why they hated doing something that was for our own good. I can tell you this, we generally deserved our swats, and I think that it helped to mold all of the kids in our family in to proper adults. That being said the parent must use sound judgment, which will come with experience, in deciding the best course of discipline for their own children. If they are a responsible caring parent then the child will definitely have a better chance of becoming a well-adjusted individual. But as always it is and always should be up to the individual parent. End rant.
I pointed out the fallacy in this a few pages back, and you seemed to have ignored that. People don't get to raise their kids however they see fit - you aren't entitled to punish your child for throwing a tantrum by putting a cigarette out on his face. At some point the state needs to come in to protect children.
So the issue becomes a question of exactly what is child abuse. While a lot of reports have been published saying spanking is child abuse I have my doubts, personally. But it is important to realise that it is on the merits of spanking itself that the issue should be decided, not the idea that it is up to the individual parent, because that isn't true.
Also, for all you parents out there, please don't talk down to us youngins. We may not have experience raising our own children, but that certainly doesn't mean we haven't observed others raising their kids, not to mention our own experiences with our parents. I know that I probably pissed everyone off in this thread with this post, but o well. KK will denounce me as an evil American, Frazzled will blather on about GK and her unstoppable hoards (ever built a great wall Fraz? Or just call Mulan if that doesn't work. ), and Wrex will continue to post nonsensical pictures. LOL, so much for my PR degree....
It's a balance. Those of us without kids shouldn't be automatically dismissed, but we should also pay credit to those who've been there, and give proper weighting to their experiences.
I pointed out the fallacy in this a few pages back, and you seemed to have ignored that. People don't get to raise their kids however they see fit - you aren't entitled to punish your child for throwing a tantrum by putting a cigarette out on his face. At some point the state needs to come in to protect children.
So the issue becomes a question of exactly what is child abuse. While a lot of reports have been published saying spanking is child abuse I have my doubts, personally. But it is important to realise that it is on the merits of spanking itself that the issue should be decided, not the idea that it is up to the individual parent, because that isn't true.
Sorry Sebster, I hadn't noticed that you posted that. I should have clarified my point. I am naturally referring to responsible parents. The only thing that worries me about state involvement is what happens when traditional methods are deemed cruel and therefore outlawed? You yourself agree that the research on that matter is dubious at best, and I even pointed out that in one of the articles that Wrex referenced, the woman theorized that children who are spanked begin to associate pain with sexual pleasure. (Again: WTF? That is just twisted) I guess the real hard part is where to draw the line. As for that problems and it solutions, I think that it is very hard to draw an absolute line, but I will admit: gray areas in the realm of law scare me.
sebster wrote:
It's a balance. Those of us without kids shouldn't be automatically dismissed, but we should also pay credit to those who've been there, and give proper weighting to their experiences.
I would like to point out that I do not completely agree with all the points made in that article. On top of which the lady did "theorize" as people in those positions tend to do, nothing new there. The research behind spanking is loosely based on fact, and I have absolutely no doubt that a simple spanking will not turn someone into a bit of a weirdo by default... many people are weirdos by default to begin with.
Child abuse is an extremely serious issue on all counts, and I do understand why some people would worry about being stigmatized by such laws being forced upon them. In my opinion, if it helps the majority of the worst cases of abuse to be that much easier to prosecute, I am all for it; but I will note that not all laws are fair, and in fact many of them force you to change your behaviors, sometimes for the better, sometime for the not so better.
To be entirely direct, I think that any article used to punish a child should be classified as a type of abuse, albeit not as serious as the more obvious cases. I have absolutely no qualms about some parents losing the right to belt or "spoon" their children, it is just wrong, regardless of how effective it "may" be for "some" kids. It does set a bench-mark for people to take it way too far.
I have heard the arguments on both sides, and at the core of it, it is very unfair to the parents that do not ultimately accept such measures as socially acceptable. You can provide anecdotal evidence to be sure, but none of it points to a successful and healthy form of discipline on the whole. People do not like to be hit, and this is enough to trump any mediocre results from such actions.
People also do not like to lose their dinner... and denying food is a classic form of child abuse, especially when it becomes a regular approach to a kids behavior. No dinner, no dessert = going to school the next day in a really bad state of mind. Does a moderate amount of success with this approach really amount to being okay with the application of "torture" techniques to put it bluntly. You could also scare the kid into never sleeping, that should work just fine...
JEB_Stuart wrote:Sorry Sebster, I hadn't noticed that you posted that. I should have clarified my point.
Not a problem. I apologise if my post above sounded harsh, it wasn't meant to be.
I am naturally referring to responsible parents. The only thing that worries me about state involvement is what happens when traditional methods are deemed cruel and therefore outlawed? You yourself agree that the research on that matter is dubious at best, and I even pointed out that in one of the articles that Wrex referenced, the woman theorized that children who are spanked begin to associate pain with sexual pleasure. (Again: WTF? That is just twisted) I guess the real hard part is where to draw the line. As for that problems and it solutions, I think that it is very hard to draw an absolute line, but I will admit: gray areas in the realm of law scare me.
True. My point is really that we do accept state involvement with things we identify as child abuse, so if after sufficient research a strong case is made that spanking really is child abuse, I think it would be reasonable to ban it. But I do agree with you that state involvement should be applied conservatively, so the standard for a 'strong case' should be very high.
From what I've read, there isn't enough decent research out there to establish spanking as abuse, and from a purely personal POV I remain skeptical there ever will be.
I really don't think that spanking is the issue here, that has been a classic form of reprimand for negative actions since god knows when, and I will admit that it seem to work on occasion for some children.
The main issue I see in this does involve a weapon of some kind: switches (whips), spoons (clubs), belts (which are used as whipping clubs), and the list goes on and on...
There are many ways to present physical beatings (this obviously does not apply to all cases, so cool your jets) as a form of discipline. In most cases it is much too obvious to hide, but in many others some parents will pass of their actions as totally acceptable given the circumstances and etc... Kid gets hurt, you go to jail, thems the brakes... and I feel that it is truly fair on all counts. I remember seeing kids come in with welts on their backs from punishment when I was in school... the parents hit them there because they think that no one will notice, and if they do it is none of their business.
My father learned quite quickly that such actions put him a a much larger risk of reprimand than I would if I reacted as I saw fit. My Mother would also have taken him into a new kind of hell, and I think more than anything, that is what made him change his mind. I was not severely beaten, but I have friends that were, and they came to recognize it as okay, when it was clearly not appropriate. When I see a person take heavier and heavier hits, it is obvious that the punishment is not working, and in essence the parent is clearly a sadistic individual (yet again, this is not directed at all parents, so cool your jets again).
garret wrote:But parents till have to keep there kid queit. I remember i went to see SAW 4 or 3 cant remember which. This mother(looked like she was 20-somthing brought in her 6-month old child. I didnt say anthing cause its her own problem if she want to screw up her kid. But when we got to the good parts of the movie(ya know what i mean.) the kid kept screaming first i ask her if she could keep her child quiet politly. she just flipped me off and the i shouted at her then we she cursed me out. then i told the managet she was banned from the theater and i got a free ticket since i missed most of the film. Point being if you know you kid is a screamer the keep them out of public areas.
I know that situation Garret, it is not all that uncommon, but usually parents will NOT behave like that. In a movie theater it is totally and absolutely rational to kick someone out and even ban them for that kind of disruption.
Generalizing and saying all public areas is... ummm... ridiculous? Just a bit? Yeah... just a bit. Next all elevators will be reserved for people that do not have the ability to fart... and I think that everyone would be pretty happy about that one .
Wrexasaur wrote:Child abuse is an extremely serious issue
People also do not like to lose their dinner... and denying food is a classic form of child abuse, especially when it becomes a regular approach to a kids behavior.
No dinner, no dessert
The main issue I see in this does involve a weapon of some kind: switches (whips), spoons (clubs), belts (which are used as whipping clubs), and the list goes on and on...
Yes, child abuse is a serious issue.
Starving a child is abusive, yes.
Denying a fed child dessert is hardly going to be classified as "abuse" by any stretch of the imagination. There is no human right to sweets that I am aware of.
Beating a child with something that bruises is probably a bit much, and certainly, anything that breaks the skin is over the top.
But dessert? Heck, I deny myself dessert more nights than not. I don't think refraining from sweets is some masochistic form of self-abuse.
I didn't mean dessert specifically, I meant denying an entire meal in general.
No, dessert is not a problem, obviously; but if a parent denies any meals on principle regularly, there is obviously a problem.
The same goes the opposite direction in fact, dessert can be a way to keep your kid in line more or less. Treats and the like, you know... I want some ice cream now . Denying that piece of pie or what have you, in unison with requiring them to finish their main meal first is always a good thing. Mental conditioning .
hellsguardian316 wrote:I just guessed they were ignoring her to teach her she won't get attention everytime she balls.
Yeah, you can't reward tantrums, or the kid learns that tantrums are a good thing.
Totally agree.
I've got a two year old daughter (and one on the way) and luckily she doesn't create when we are out all that often. If she does it's usually because she wants to get out of her stroller and walk around or that she is hungry or something.
What that guy did was inexcuseable. It was none of his business.
Kilkrazy wrote:Lots of psychological research shows that reward is more effective than punishment as a way of influencing behaviour but punishment is easier to do and people often enjoy doing it.
People who spank are just bad parents. They haven't the time, energy, or ability to control their children except through violence. As Tacitus noted with the Roman Empire, it is much easier to control people with rewards, privileges, and honors than through violence. It's a basic lesson of empire that is also applicable to child rearing. It does, however, require a lot of time and effort.
olympia wrote:As Tacitus noted with the Roman Empire, it is much easier to control people with rewards, privileges, and honors than through violence. It's a basic lesson of empire that is also applicable to child rearing. It does, however, require a lot of time and effort.
Tangential? As in at an angle and a bit off to the side... there you go right there... NO!!! Not at all .
Article A.)
Article B.)
I see... these must be the Goths then? What type of conquest is this good sir... I fail to see... oh... yes indeed... you do have a solid point.
Kilkrazy wrote:Lots of psychological research shows that reward is more effective than punishment as a way of influencing behaviour but punishment is easier to do and people often enjoy doing it.
People who spank are just bad parents. They haven't the time, energy, or ability to control their children except through violence. As Tacitus noted with the Roman Empire, it is much easier to control people with rewards, privileges, and honors than through violence. It's a basic lesson of empire that is also applicable to child rearing. It does, however, require a lot of time and effort.
Careful on what you say there cowboy...My parents did spank me and are very good and loving parents. I continue to have a great relationship with them today, and I am sure that others here on Dakka might say the same thing.
JEB_Stuart wrote:My parents did spank me and are very good and loving parents. I continue to have a great relationship with them today, and I am sure that others here on Dakka might say the same thing.
I dunno, maybe Legoburner can run a Dakka Poll?
- My parents spanked/beat me, and I'm good with them
- My parents spanked/beat me, and I still resent them for it
- My parents spanked/beat me, and I spit on their graves!
- My parents never spanked/beat me, and I'm good with them
- My parents never spanked/beat me, and I'm alright with them
- My parents never spanked/beat me, and I hate them
- pie?
And then he can do one on whether we spank our kids:
- My parents spanked/beat me, and I'm spanking/beating mine
- My parents spanked/beat me, and I'm NOT spanking/beating mine
- My parents never spanked/beat me, and I'm spanking/beating mine
- My parents never spanked/beat me, and I'm NOT spanking/beating mine
- pie!
Look, take two rats and teach them a maze. For one rat shock the hell out of it every time it fails. For the other rat give it a treat pellet every time it succeeds. Both rats will learn the maze, but rat that gets the pellets will be the happier of the two. I hate to give such a blunt endorsement of behaviorism but the same principle applies to raising children, basically.
JEB_Stuart wrote:My parents did spank me and are very good and loving parents. I continue to have a great relationship with them today, and I am sure that others here on Dakka might say the same thing.
I dunno, maybe Legoburner can run a Dakka Poll? - My parents spanked/beat me, and I'm good with them - My parents spanked/beat me, and I still resent them for it - My parents spanked/beat me, and I spit on their graves! - My parents never spanked/beat me, and I'm good with them - My parents never spanked/beat me, and I'm alright with them - My parents never spanked/beat me, and I hate them - pie?
And then he can do one on whether we spank our kids: - My parents spanked/beat me, and I'm spanking/beating mine - My parents spanked/beat me, and I'm NOT spanking/beating mine - My parents never spanked/beat me, and I'm spanking/beating mine - My parents never spanked/beat me, and I'm NOT spanking/beating mine - pie!
How about no, because you are automatically lumping in spanking with beating. Not comparable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
olympia wrote:Look, take two rats and teach them a maze. For one rat shock the hell out of it every time it fails. For the other rat give it a treat pellet every time it succeeds. Both rats will learn the maze, but rat that gets the pellets will be the happier of the two. I hate to give such a blunt endorsement of behaviorism but the same principle applies to raising children, basically.
Wow, I am soooo glad that children are just as good as rats nowadays. They also found that rats that smoke don't always get cancer, but they still got the endorphins. I guess we could to the same to our kids!
Kilkrazy wrote:Lots of psychological research shows that reward is more effective than punishment as a way of influencing behaviour but punishment is easier to do and people often enjoy doing it.
People who spank are just bad parents. They haven't the time, energy, or ability to control their children except through violence. As Tacitus noted with the Roman Empire, it is much easier to control people with rewards, privileges, and honors than through violence. It's a basic lesson of empire that is also applicable to child rearing. It does, however, require a lot of time and effort.
Your post made me so angry, I used the belt on my boy. And he blames you.
I love the picture of the perpetrator. If ever a man looked like he would smack a two-year old in the face, it's that guy.
I suppose I fit Olympia's definition of a bad parent...I use the Teddy Roosevelt principle.
And fear will keep the star systems in line. It's show business, not show friends.
olympia wrote:People who spank are just bad parents. They haven't the time, energy, or ability to control their children except through violence. As Tacitus noted with the Roman Empire, it is much easier to control people with rewards, privileges, and honors than through violence. It's a basic lesson of empire that is also applicable to child rearing. It does, however, require a lot of time and effort.
While I think that violence should be used as sparingly as possible, children aren't always rational. The younger they are, the more wound up they are, the less likely you can persuade them with words or rewards. A little smack on the hands or bottom will get their attention a lot quicker.
I was trying to find a funny, but all I could find was cutesy .
Yes... they do remind me of children... so very very much, how did I not see that before...
Behaviorism is all nice and well to do, but a lot of those experiments are designed FOR those animals, and having a brain the size of the moon makes a teency bit of a difference when you determine how and if someone is reacting to something in the pre-assumed manner.
If you gave me a banana, I would eat it, but I have absolutely no qualms breaking the button when I get tired of bananas...
dienekes96 wrote:Well, why did they make him do that?
I'll have to ask them. Usually they were too slow when he screamed at them to change the channel on the TV. They didn't have a remote control and the children would be playing outside and Uncle Stan would be sitting on the couch drinking Falstaff and watching T.V. He would scream, "Sal! Sal! Get your ass in here and change the channel for me!" If they were too slow...off came the belt.
p.s. the more you tighten your grip, dienekees96, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
That is child abuse, and you are clearly using that experience to dogmatically force your zeal on other people. If your uncle was a total douche, I see no reason to even compare him to all of the other parents so liberally. It is completely clear if you get out into the world that most parents are simply not like that regularly, and everyone vents there emotions in different ways (yes... parents have emotions, can you imagine that!). All of the things you described add up to your uncle being wrong to be sure, but yet again, I will say that is clearly unfair to use those ground to group all actions into the same bucket.
It is the old Charlie Manson is in all of us nonsense, which is provably ignorant logic.
Bad and good are one thing. Good and evil is an entirely different story, especially in the context of parenting...
You do have to keep social perspective on this whole conversation though. I have absolutely no doubt that centuries ago it might have actually been necessary to be so harsh as to actually beat sense into a young person, even then though, no small child was considered to expect that level of punishment. This is all a matter of context, but we should all realize that violence is not something you willfully inflict on children.
dienekes96 wrote:I suppose I fit Olympia's definition of a bad parent...I use the Teddy Roosevelt principle.
And fear will keep the star systems in line. It's show business, not show friends.
As to keep my hands clean of this whole argument, I simply cannot agree (on principle) that using any physical tool of punishment to get your points across is entirely necessary.
Raising a child and working in show business? I am really missing the point of some of these arguments...
Something along the lines of that I think... and I could extrapolate deeper, but I know the image will just not hold it's integrity.
My parents used the belt and a ruler or spoon on us when my bro and I acted up. My mom didn't like to dole out the punishment so dad did mostly.
25+ years later and not once have I ever committed a violent crime, nor has my brother. Hell, the worst offense I've committed is a speeding ticket. Neither one of us has ever been to jail or prison, and both of us love our parents to death and we know they raised us right and proper.
It sickens me that people abuse their children such as torture, closed fist beatings, using a blunt (or sharp) object to inflict as much pain as possible, even going so far as to break bones. The ones that beat their children till they die ought to have the same done to them.
I too am offended by the sweeping generalization that parents who spank are bad parents. A swat or 2 on the ass with a belt hurts but it is not in the same caliber as a parent breaking a 2x4 across the kids back.
I learned real quick not to put my hands on my ass to try to stop the belt or catch it in my hand. A slap on the palm is a hell of a lot worst than across a buttcheek and my dad gave us 5 slaps. Every time we tried to stop him he'd restart the count.
olympia wrote:Look, take two rats and teach them a maze. For one rat shock the hell out of it every time it fails. For the other rat give it a treat pellet every time it succeeds. Both rats will learn the maze, but rat that gets the pellets will be the happier of the two. I hate to give such a blunt endorsement of behaviorism but the same principle applies to raising children, basically.
But that's the thing, you can't be blunt with behaviorism. Children are too insanely difficult to comprehend. Some are impatient others can wait. I'll give you the marshmallow test. Even though it was to test for other things it just shows that children come in a variety. The tes put children in a room with a marshmallow and a scientist told them that if they would leave for 5 minutes, during that time the child could eat the marshmallow, but if they waited then they would get two marshmallows. The result concluded that some kids waited and others wanted instant gratification.
I will also go with my babysitting again. I was associated with pizza to the two year old and here was his thought process, I believe; babysitter= mom leaving, mom leaving= pizza for dinner, ergo babysitter=pizza.
I would declare that rational. You also have to include culture of the childs' ancestors.
For me, spanking worked. I was spanked whenever I did something bad or when I failed in class(which I didn't do much afterwards). Now the instrument used for spanking is always different; for me it was a wooden paddle, for others it was a switch or a bare hand.
Beating usually involves, well, beating with fists or other objects that lead to bruising or long term damage. Hitting a kid on the rump with an open hand does little damage compared with a fist to the chest.
To conclude my counter argument I will go with macchiaveli and say that people are fickle. If you treat them good, then they'll turn on you when you do anything wrong; if they fear you, then you can do just about anything you want.
Fateweaver wrote:25+ years later and not once have I ever committed a violent crime, nor has my brother. Hell, the worst offense I've committed is a speeding ticket. Neither one of us has ever been to jail or prison, and both of us love our parents to death and we know they raised us right and proper.
To be fair, there are plenty of people whose parents didn't spank them that could claim the same thing.
My parents spanked my sibling and I, and we both turned out fine. But I dunno that spanking was really the thing. The important points are really that we were punished effectively and in a timely way when we misbehaved.
While both my wife and I had parents that used corporal punishment, we have no real plans to spank our son. It might happen later -- we reserve that right -- but IMO corporal punishment has its limitations. You can't use it when they're little. And it reaches a point when they'll outgrow it too. Way I see it, the only punishment you can apply at all ages is loss of privileges/freedom/stuff/etc.
People may laugh at time outs, but my son HATES them. Just hates every second. And so when he acts up, all it takes is a "do you want a time out" and he shapes up fast. Obviously, we won't be doing time outs when he's older, but we sure as heck can ground him, take away his console games, and strip him of basically every freedom he has, lol. Really, the concept is no different from how school and society will punish him for misbehaving later in life (detention, jail time, etc.). *shrug*
Just so I'm clear here, I'm not gonna judge others on this. My parents and in-laws obviously used corporal punishment effectively, and they were good parents in pretty much every sense. This just seems like the right approach for *our* family.
But I do believe what some are getting wrong in this thread is that it's less about the form of punishment than it is its application. A bad parent can use corporal punishment *very* ineffectively. A good parent can use noncorporal punishment very effectively. In the end, it's about the parenting.
I will agree with that. But either way you are punishing a child so of course I support it.
Ask my parents and they'll tell you that I have a healthy fear of God and mom. (my mom punished me thanks to my dad being in the navy)
Automatically Appended Next Post: I would also like to say that I rather enjoy it when people say "If it was MY kid...". I mean if you see this going on are you just going to stand around and let it happen or are you going to go after the guy?
I babysit and I work in a toy store. If a guy tries anything funny with the kids I'm babysitting, then I'm going to break his arm. If a guy tries to harm a child in the toy store(I'm talking serious injury) I'm going to do something. If its the legal guardian I'm going to ask him to stop, if he's not the legal guardian, I'm going to the sporting goods section and then I am going to proceed smashing his ribs(same if its a female, I'm not a sexist).
The lack of response seen is rather revolting, I guess that people who shop at wal-mart have no morals.
Halonachos, you were "spanked" when you failed at chess? Could you elaborate if you are comfortable? What it a case of just losing or not knowing the correction version of the Sicilian Defense that got you hit?
Chess was never a class. However, failing to turn in homework, forgetting to do projects, getting D's in class were all unacceptable. Hell, C's were pushing it, although the spanking has ended as of when I was 14. I now get grounded.
And no I wasn't "spanked" I was spanked with a wooden paddle on the rump.
olympia wrote:Halonachos, you were "spanked" when you failed at chess? Could you elaborate if you are comfortable? What it a case of just losing or not knowing the correction version of the Sicilian Defense that got you hit?
, nice.
fficial&client=firefox-a
*
