What's The Worst You've Seen?

124»

Comments

  • Danno RedDanno Red Practical Man
    And I'm not sure where you guys got the notion that spanking means kids aren't human. Kids are humans. But the way they are cared for, treated, educated, rewarded, clothed, fed, entertained, loved, financially compensated, level of independence, privileges, etc. evolve as they get older. How can you not acknowledge that? How too can you not draw the distinction between family and strangers? You're responsible only for the upbringing of your children. And certainly none of you are responsible for other adults. I don't hit adults. I also don't spank them. I talk to them if I have a vested interest in the relationship as with my parents, friends, and spouse. It's also not my place to correct an adults behavior unless they ask for help or advice. It is my place to raise my children to be safe, respectable, responsible and educated adults some day and that is an evolution in which all sorts of aspects change as they age. And what's this of spanking causing people to be sheep? Bullshit...hitting a seven month old 11 times, 18 times a week until they're 18, sure they'll probably be perpetually bullyish or timid yesmen. I haven't come from a line of timid lapdogs nor bullies so while I don't have a study to say I'm right I have generations of proof that suggest what I've learned is a healthy way to raise a family. You also don't have a study that says I'm wrong. Your studies aren't talking about what I do.
  • Demon, I don't know you and I certainly don't know how you raise your children in your home.  That you are right about.  The tone of almost all of your posts on this thread sound violent.  That is where my issue lies.  Maybe this doesn't cross over into the way you parent at all (maybe you are just a very good fictional writer), and if that is the case, then I applaud you.  I understand that your last post was hyperbole, but it also casts people like Dan as violent aggressors who abuse their children every time they get the chance.  My point is that there are many parenting "tactics" that are just as harmful as, if not more harmful than, spanking.  Yelling, screaming, scaring children and violence, are the issues, in my mind.


    But what the hell makes you think I'm yelling, screaming or sharing violent stories with my kids? Lol. This is ridiculous. You're nit-picking my responses for instances of hyperbole or sarcasm, but not addressing the the actual points being made in the other posts. Yes-- there's a difference between the horrific and overblown violence in such stories and smacking your kid in the hand for some trespass. Your post here is almost as pointless as my own. I mean, except for that part with the bald eagle. That was totally legit. Step up your game.


     


    I don't like spanking, Demon, because I personally don't believe that it's right, so I don't do it.  On the same token, I don't believe that from a controlled, loving adult, it's evil.  For some, it can be a slippery slope, so I think it's best for MOST to avoid it altogether.  Like I said previously, I have a friend who spanks her children (very rarely) for specific offenses.  She doesn't spank in anger ever.  And she always discusses with her children before and after.  These are not drone children, but independent, thoughtful and well learned children.  I still don't think it's the best tactic, but I certainly wouldn't label what she does as abusive or evil.  And I have never seen her once raise her voice to or yell at her children.  I wish I could say the same for myself.  I have, on a couple of occasions, raised my voice in anger.


    I have also seen a mother in anger, in the supermarket, smack her child because he was being too loud and reaching for candies.  That's not parenting.  That's abuse.  Then you have the extreme of a parent beating the crap out of his child with a belt or his fists (evil as evil can be).  That parent, in my view, belongs in jail. 


    You say that you "Don't like spanking", healthymom. Why is that?


     


    Yes, there is a difference Noogis.  That's my point.  I'm not saying one is RIGHT and the other two are wrong.  I'm arguing degradations of evil here.  Let's not cast a parent who swats their child's hand away from a hot stove or who swats their child's bottom in a calm state for a dangerous act as the same as someone who gets into a rage and beats their child.  All of these "studies" show the latter, in my opinion.  We aren't comparing apples to apples here, but apples to GMO corn.


    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


    There is of course a difference. That doesn't mean that one is right and one is wrong. 


     


    Hitting my wife out of anger, and hitting her to teach her a lesson might be distinct, but either way isn't right. Kids aren't stupid, in fact, they learn at a rate much faster than adults. What they lack is experience. 


    So we can teach them that 


    A. An authority figure that you trust will hit you if you do wrong. Just like the electrodes on a rat in a maze, or a dinner bell for a dog, it imprints obedience to an authority figure based on punishment.


    B. Mutual respect. You can teach a kid, who's brain is a sponge, in a non violent, non punishment based way. 


     


    C. I am about done refuting, "well what if they run into the street" or beating kids while you are drunk is different!!" with statistics, facts, and ideas on non violence that can't really be argued in any sane way. Hitting people (kids are people) to get what you want is never ok.


    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________

  • I don't always beat horses, but when I do, it's usually a dead one.

    .....and it's always for their own good.

    TheMostInterestingManInTheWorld_1426.jpg
  • SkeletorSkeletor The Conqueror Worm ✭✭✭


    My latest workout:

    As many rounds as possible in 10 minutes:

    15x spanking babies

    12x kick the dogs

    9x step on bugs

    *all movements must be strict, no kipping*


    My score: 4 rounds and 9 spanks




    _______________


     


    gon git swole thar


     


    needs more screaming baby curls tho

    "I know how to despise mere cool intelligence. What I want is intelligence matched by pure, physical existence, like a statue." --Yukio Mishima

     

    Let's be friends on MyFitnessPal!

  • Dave RaelDave Rael
    edited May 2014


    And I'm not sure where you guys got the notion that spanking means kids aren't human. Kids are humans. But the way they are cared for, treated, educated, rewarded, clothed, fed, entertained, loved, financially compensated, level of independence, privileges, etc. evolve as they get older. How can you not acknowledge that? How too can you not draw the distinction between family and strangers? You're responsible only for the upbringing of your children. And certainly none of you are responsible for other adults. I don't hit adults. I also don't spank them. I talk to them if I have a vested interest in the relationship as with my parents, friends, and spouse. It's also not my place to correct an adults behavior unless they ask for help or advice. It is my place to raise my children to be safe, respectable, responsible and educated adults some day and that is an evolution in which all sorts of aspects change as they age. And what's this of spanking causing people to be sheep? Bullshit...hitting a seven month old 11 times, 18 times a week until they're 18, sure they'll probably be perpetually bullyish or timid yesmen. I haven't come from a line of timid lapdogs nor bullies so while I don't have a study to say I'm right I have generations of proof that suggest what I've learned is a healthy way to raise a family. You also don't have a study that says I'm wrong. Your studies aren't talking about what I do.




     


     




     


     


    accepting the proposition:


    [A] "it is morally acceptable to hit children"


     


    constitutes rejection of one of the following two propositions:


    "it is not morally acceptable to initiate the use of force against humans."


    or


    [C] "children are human."


     


    there has been evidence of acceptance of  - though not completely explicit - by the majority of the participants in the conversation.  if you do not accept  as a moral absolute, then [C] does not necessarily follow from [A].  i will concede that.


     


    however, statements about not hitting adults with implication of there being a moral element of the why but stating children are different than adults implies a status of being lesser individuals.  perhaps the term subhuman is hyperbole.  i don't don't withdraw it, but acknowledge it's and inflammatory term that invokes mental images of gas chambers, which are clearly greater in degree on the scale of immoral aggression.  nonetheless, there is certainly a tiering of humans as to those who are "more equal than others" if it is accepted that one cannot morally aggress against some humans but can against others.


     


    consistent application of principle (absolutism) is, at least any way i can view it, a virtue and not a slippery slope.  consistently applying principle is what prevents the horrific outcomes that result to viewing some humans as worthy of non-aggression and others as not.  the slippery slope applies when one starts deciding that moral absolutes are not absolute and that aggression becomes fine under some circumstances.  those "some circumstances" can mean a lot of things.  it's a slope that begins with "loving spankings", goes through the beatings we'd all agree are abuse, and continues all the way through concentration camps.  (please don't think i'm accusing anyone of anything that heinous.)


     


    yes, nuance is important and the parent-child relationship is unique - and for this reason the parent has greater moral responsibility and not less.


     


    i accept  and [C] as moral absolutes and therefore i have to reject [A].  you can come to a different conclusion and i cannot and will not enforce morality and certainly do not endorse nor even condone government thugs doing so.  i do not, though, believe this is subjective and think it applies to everyone.  i reject the idea of "not right for me".  i assert that moral absolutes exist and can be discerned via the application of logic (and not via mysticism, which is a whole other topic, but worthy of mention, lest anyone think i'm arguing for bible morality).  i will argue the truth of my conclusions but acknowledge that everyone must come to their own conclusions.  i think the opposite conclusion is illogical and even dangerous and therefore i reject it.  i do not, though, begrudge others the right to hold a different opinion and will only respond to force with force if the threat is against myself or those to whom i am closest.


  • SkeletorSkeletor The Conqueror Worm ✭✭✭

    Very well-stated and rational. Digital hugs, Dave Rael.


     


    Don't mind the thing pressing into your thigh. Just tell yourself it's my cellphone or something.


    "I know how to despise mere cool intelligence. What I want is intelligence matched by pure, physical existence, like a statue." --Yukio Mishima

     

    Let's be friends on MyFitnessPal!

  • Dave, I appreciate your response.  I appreciate that you do not wish for the government to intervene and raise other people's children for them.  I think you have made some good points and I'm glad you've made the decisions you have regarding spankings.  Personally, I don't understand spankings, as I believe they do not sharpen character.  I would argue; however, that the slippery slope does not apply to all.  There are parents who can swat on occasion and never graduate into full fledged beatings or concentration camps.  Never hitting another human being is a virtue that I hold for myself as well. 


    I am thankful that we can argue and have this discussion, as I believe it's an important one.  I know people whose parents did beat them, as I'm sure we all do, and I'm sure it's an awful thing to have to live with.  Here's what I worry about.  A trend that I've seen occurring is this: spanking has been made to be the worst thing a person can possibly do, so parents know, hey, I can't do this anymore; however they don't have the proper tools to effectively parent.  So there kid misbehaves and instead of hitting, they choose to let the child rule the home and to not parent at all, or they choose yelling, screaming, threatening and scare tactics.  And I would argue that kids raised that way turn out far worse than kids whose parents occasionally swat them on the butt.  I have no statistics to prove this.  It's just a belief I hold to.


     


    So maybe now we can talk about effective parenting tools we've implemented in our homes?


  • I meant *their kid*


  • StevoStevo Upgrade in Progress

    To summarise the thread so far:


    1. Thrashing your kids to sleep with a broken bottle = orange/red on the BP scale.


    2. Non-belt related punishments = green.

  • I would say punishment is orange, education and understanding is green.


  • Danno RedDanno Red Practical Man
    Because of the differing of opinions when it comes to threats of force and retaliation the safest and most moral course of action is to walk away. Or run. Spanking to me is not hitting, it's a way to grab the attention of the kid through physical stimulation. I've argued that from the beginning. Spanking can be part of play...it's not physically harmful and surely nobody has died of a single spank. It can be sexual...if uninvited among adults though it could be sexual harassment. Among sports teammates is equal to a high five. From parent to child it grabs the attention and breaks the emotional rush that captured that child to break into a run or reach for something at their own peril. It redirects their focus from their "mission" to what I am about to tell them. It's not hitting w the attent to be aggressive. At least not to me, which is why there is no second swat. Make eye contact and discuss the consequences of what just occurred and why they need to be more careful. As such I can accept B and C. I am also morally opposed to violence against strangers but I reserve the right to protect my and my family's safety but ultimately there are very few occasions where violence of any kind is necessary or even plausible: house being robbed? Most cases you just flee or call authorities or you're asking for an escalation so violence begets violence. Before you say because I can see the reply is that spanking as I do it is not violent as you suggest by using the word hit over and over. I gave this thread up but it just couldn't be left alone...more videos, more unprovoked rebuttals and more moral high ground high fiving among you guys prompted me off the sidelines like Bret Favre. Like I said the conversation has been enlightening and I've given more thought than ever regarding the topic but in the end I've come to the conclusion that what I do is for the good for my children, will be replaced w fully cognitive corrective actions as they age, and has caused no harm to them. They're not flinchy, shy around strangers, having dificulties at school or w friends, exhibiting violent or antisocial tendencies, etc. In a vacuum where one has their own experiences from which to base their own actions I feel I have sufficient proof that my kids will turn out as fine spanked occasionally as they would without it. Frankly I feel they're safer as a result...they have excellent street crossing habits and their safety in the kitchen is amazing. That doesn't mean my vigilance is over...there are many hazards in life and I will always be watching out for them as best as I can while granting them the independence they deserve as it is appropriate. Can we let this topic now unless you can share something new?
  • SkeletorSkeletor The Conqueror Worm ✭✭✭
    edited January 2015


    Spanking... is... a way to grab the attention of the kid through physical stimulation. 




    _________________


     


    I could put a hand on my kid's shoulder or something and raise my voice in a non-threatening manner to get his attention. You know, like I'd do to you if I wanted to get your attention during some dangerous situation.


     


    Yes, spanking can serve many functions-- it can be done in jest, it can be done in the bedroom or it can be done in an aggressive, abusive fashion. And anywhere in-between. The fact of the matter is that the intent of spanking a child is to cause enough physical pain (and it doesn't have to be a lot) to curb a particular behavior. The intent is to inflict just enough pain for it to "get their attention", therefore, the goal is violent, even if well-intended.


     


    If my wife asks me to spank her, or I know she likes it, that's one thing. Spanking of teammates can be considered inappropriate if the person on the receiving end doesn't share the jovial view of it, but I know a lot of guys who smack eachother's asses during or after a football game, say. But spanking a kid, no matter how noble the intent, is still an effort to curb certain behaviors through measured violence. It isn't playful in this case, it isn't sexual and it isn't morally defensible. If one spanks their kid and the intended result comes to pass and the kid isn't messed up by it, then that's one thing. But it still isn't a moral act. It is patently immoral. There isn't even a remotely moral argument to be made from proponents of spanking, I'm afraid.


    "I know how to despise mere cool intelligence. What I want is intelligence matched by pure, physical existence, like a statue." --Yukio Mishima

     

    Let's be friends on MyFitnessPal!

  • Aside from the topic of spanking...but still on the parenting topic...


     


    I work at a restaurant and I see some very poor parental food choices for young children. I understand that eating out at a restaurant could be a kind of treat or special occasion and that splurging and allowing your child to eat pancakes once in a blue moon isn't going to kill them. I'm just more shocked at the lack of basic nutritional knowledge that most people have, especially parents who are responsible for choosing what their children consume. Especially for breakfast.


     


    3 slices of white bread covered in "jam" (the 95% sugar kind), or 3 big pancakes drowning in syrup, ice cream and nutella already sounds like a poor choice but add to that 2 large chocolate THICKSHAKES (which are basically half a tub of ice cream in each) is clearly not a good choice for a 6 year old to start their day with. But I see it every single day.


     


    Let's just say that sometimes I have a hard time biting my tongue, especially if the child is already overweight at such a young age. It's sad really.


  • “Where did we ever get the crazy idea that in order to make children do better, first we have to make them feel worse? Think of the last time you felt humiliated or treated unfairly. Did you feel like cooperating or doing better?”-          Jane Nelsen


     


    http://peacefulparentsconfidentkids.wordpress.com/2014/01/12/respectful-parenting-have-i-made-a-mistake/


     

    Easy to say, Often hard to do!...


     


    http://www.janetlansbury.com/2013/05/toddler-discipline-that-works-its-about-our-attitude/


     


    I've been force fed this stuff for the last 4 years since kids came along... begrudgingly I think that there is a lot in it.


     


    Sometimes all it takes is getting down to their eye level  asking if they are out of hugs...  sometimes not of course. ha


     


    cheers

  • Danno RedDanno Red Practical Man
    edited May 2014


    _________________


     


    I could put a hand on my kid's shoulder or something and raise my voice in a non-threatening manner to get his attention. You know, like I'd do to you if I wanted to get your attention during some dangerous situation.


     


    Not exciting enough to break through, nor memorable enough.


     


    Yes, spanking can serve many functions-- it can be done in jest, it can be done in the bedroom or it can be done in an aggressive, abusive fashion. And anywhere in-between. The fact of the matter is that the intent of spanking a child is to cause enough physical pain (and it doesn't have to be a lot) to curve a particular behavior. The intent is to inflict just enough pain for it to "get their attention", therefore, the goal is violent, even if well-intended.


     


    I know you won't ever shift your view on it but my kids haven't cried from the spanks they received, nor were they embarrassed or humiliated...so surprised by it it's one of those genuine "what the f#@% was that?" moments. Admit it, you weren't ever there nor have you witnessed it. I'd hardly describe a spank in this situation as violent. 


     


    If my wife asks me to spank her, or I know she likes it, that's one thing. Spanking of teammates can be considered inappropriate if the person on the receiving end doesn't share the jovial view of it, but I know a lot of guys who smack eachother's asses during or after a football game, say. But spanking a kid, no matter how noble the intent, is still an effort to curb certain behaviors through measured violence. It isn't playful in this case, it isn't sexual and it isn't morally defensible. If one spanks their kid and the intended result comes to pass and the kid isn't messed up by it, then that's one thing. But it still isn't a moral act. It is patently immoral. There isn't even a remotely moral argument to be made from proponents of spanking, I'm afraid.


     


    Not violent. And it's moral, in my mind, as in causes no harm because I believe it doesn't. The spank pain doesn't last more than a couple seconds and the excitement of whatever was going on insulates (people don't remember fast "trauma" it gets erased by memory)...and yet I have the morality to provide a helping hand to a perfect stranger or to walk away from an angry individual over a parking spot disagreement rather debate who saw it first and watch things escalate. I also believe the psychological harm you keep saying is being done is non-existent or equally short-lived and shallow as the sting. Say what you want but I believe you're wrong about the particular shade of gray you lump me into the evils with. I'm not defending myself out of guilt but the practice that I feel is effective, engaged parenting. And again, the "well-intended" part is to be a part of that safety net should they escape my sight or grasp and make a bad decision to give chase...playing with my children this weekend,  since my wife worked 7AM-4PM both days, I saw how well they respect the streets both at a birthday party when other kids (and adults) took crossing for granted while my kids stopped and looked without being prompted. And I heard other parents telling their kids to do it but it was a clear case of in one ear and out the other. Hmmmm, they're gonna cross the street and be "in danger" more times without me than with so I'd like to have them possess a few instincts of survival built in around misleadingly dangerous places. 


     


    And like Jason Miller was saying, there were plenty of good kid lifting exercises to be had this weekend, except without actually harming any babies...this happy dad wouldn't do anything differently given the opportunity to go through those spanking moments again because it seems it worked and caused no harm. This debate has surely done one thing for me, it's given me the time to really think this over and decide what I believe is right...so if your intent was to persuade me to the contrary, I hate to break it to you, it didn't work. But, fear not, the worst thing that should happen as a result is that another two people will grow up and probably believe the same principles as us (but they'll be free to parent as they see fit within the legal limits and I'll advise when requested)...and we won't ever step in the way to deter you from your parenting techniques, and heck, I won't even try to sell you on mine, because clearly I've probably only galvanized your resolve like you have to me. But, in internet infamy/immortality, the debate will be here for people to see both sides of the debate AND some of the middle ground which I believe is morally defensible and non-harmful to the fragile, impressionable minds that our 2-5 year olds possess. (yet sometimes those minds are truly impenetrable--I still can't get the kids to stop spilling milk no matter how many times I talk it over with them that they have to pay attention to their elbows at the dinner table! I won't spank for spilled milk, but at today's prices I do want to cry sometimes!) 


     


    And now, I do promise to be done here ...I've said more than enough, but that's my piece. FWIW And please, if you find that study that shows my shade of gray is harmful, PM it to me in addition to posting it here.



  • NoogisNoogis
    edited May 2014
    "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.

    The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of DOUBLETHINK he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt

    To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary."

    -George Orwell


    I believe this is why people so rabidly defend hitting children.
  • When we quote books, shouldn't we quote the CHARACTER and the BOOK, not the author.


     


    What if I wrote a fictional book and a character at some point in the book said, "I hate children and think they should all be spanked".


     


    Then people could go;


     


    "I hate children and think they should all be spanked"


    -Desp


     


    Sorry, it's a little pet peeve.


  • Well the quote was from a book inside of the book, not really a character.
  • Greg CarletGreg Carlet ✭✭
    edited July 2014
    Update: So, I am NOT saying it is to blame, but I found out today that the kid (who is now almost 3 years old) that drank Strawberry Nesquik in their bottle as a baby has been diagnosed in the autism spectrum. Again, I am not saying it is related, but I found it interesting and sad. All I know is that whether or not it had anything to do with developing autism, I am certain that putting Strawberry Nesquik into formula, that already isn't the best choice to begin with, didn't help the baby's brain develop as best it could.
  • ACH85ACH85 ✭✭


    I saw a mom mixing Strawberry Nesquik in with her kid's formula.   :???:






    Update: So, I am NOT saying it is to blame, but I found out today that the kid (who is now almost 3 years old) that drank Strawberry Nesquik in their bottle as a baby has been diagnosed in the autism spectrum. Again, I am not saying it is related, but I found it interesting and sad. All I know is that whether or not it had anything to do with developing autism, I am certain that putting Strawberry Nesquik into formula, that already isn't the best choice to begin with, didn't help the baby's brain develop as best it could.




     


    Oof. That's rough. 


     


    But hold on... your first statement about this made me think it was a one-time thing, like a misguided treat for the baby. Are you saying this kid consistently got Nesquik in formula over a long period of time? Because wow. 

  • Sorry about the confusion in my initial post.

    This is a former co-workers' kid. I hung out with him and his family a few times a few years back, and saw his wife putting the strawberry stuff in the kid's bottle. This was well before I knew about Bulletproof, but even back then I questioned it. I happened to talk to my old co-worker earlier today and he mentioned to me about the autism thing.

    Again, not saying it is the cause, but obviously it is not smart to add that stuff to a baby's diet with so many parts still developing.
  • WalterWalter ✭✭✭


    Update: So, I am NOT saying it is to blame, but I found out today that the kid (who is now almost 3 years old) that drank Strawberry Nesquik in their bottle as a baby has been diagnosed in the autism spectrum. Again, I am not saying it is related, but I found it interesting and sad. All I know is that whether or not it had anything to do with developing autism, I am certain that putting Strawberry Nesquik into formula, that already isn't the best choice to begin with, didn't help the baby's brain develop as best it could.




     


    I guess if you give your child that crap, you also won't think much about all other variables in his/her development. Add to that some misguided doctors and soon your kid is on medication.

124»
Sign In or Register to comment.