The Case for Child Abuse (2261 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.38 on 86 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by sword (View user info) at 2005-05-24 04:19:19 EDT
"So... Your father hits you?" It was a slow, disbelieving kind of question.
In high school, for my government class, we had to do a project. What we had to do was describe in a paper how our families functioned and the type of government our families adhered to. As part of the project we had to describe responsibilities and chores that we, as the children, were forced to take as well as methods our parents used to make sure we did them. We then read our papers to the class.
In writing my paper I made a terrible mistake, namely I told the truth. You see, at my house you did whatever the fuck you were told or else your stupid ass got beat. We had a very ingenious way of deciding who did what chores around the house; my mother told you what chores to do. My mother also had a rather ingenious method of making sure we did them, it was a big stick and if you didn't do what you were supposed to she hit you with it.
After I finished reading my paper out loud to my class I had to stay after and have a nice long chat with my teacher who was very concerned for me and demanded that I report this as child abuse right away. In order to calm down my teacher I lied and told her I made everything in my paper up because I wanted attention, the real reason I lied (to my teacher) is because I didn't want my parents to get in trouble because by that time in my life I had realized a very important truth that my teacher was despicably ignorant of. Violence works.
My parents weren't cruel about their violent administrations but they weren't sparring with them either. When we needed a good hit they delivered and as a result our household was clean and industrious. Myself and my two siblings had academic careers marked with effort and good grades because we tried hard and studied hard and the reason we did is because our parents told us to. Initially we did what our parents told us to because it literally hurt to disobey them and later we learned that our parents knew what they were talking about.
It always surprises me to observe kids who grew up without my kind of upbringing, they seem universally and tragically failures. I was first offered marijuana at a rock concert and my answer there has been the same as my answer every time I have been since offered. No. As a child I didn't take up smoking weed because I was terribly afraid of what my parents would do if they found out and now that I have grown up I am glad I had that fear because I now realize marijuana is a terrible thing to be hooked on. I don't have any scientific evidence for this but I know quite a few stoners who have smoked themselves stupid, they have trouble exercising due to a shortness of breath and they seem addicted to their drug.
Parents should teach their kids right from wrong but more then that they should make sure their kids do right and not wrong. The best way to do this is a consistent policy of intimidation through violence. With this kind of upbringing people will become disciplined and effective, they will be firmly reared toward conformity and this will make a better society. Kids who are disciplined and raised in this manner won't shoot up their schools or peers and they won't shoot up on illegal drugs either. By employing these tactics we could eliminate illegal drug use and reduce violent crime with few, if any negative side effects. I have met non-conformists, free thinkers and hippies and frankly I wish I hadn't. To describe them in a few words: they are worthless losers who do no good to anyone. Disciplined hard working people wind up successful, non-conformist drug addicts wind up on welfare.
User Reviews
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2007-06-06 01:12:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Too bad your dad didn't beat you hard enough to teach you the difference between "then" and "than" and "sparing" and "sparring".
Submitted by the_mysterious_stranger (user info) at 2005-06-02 05:55:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I wish there were more people like your dad...
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2005-05-27 12:24:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Solid opinion, good writing, some contraversy. I think I smell a decent post.
Submitted by cuberat (user info) at 2005-05-27 12:09:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Do I think that kids need to be hit once in awhile if they do something wrong? Yes.
Do I think that your reasoning and all that garbage you wrote is right? FUCK NO.
It seems that your parents beat you so effectively that they caused serious brain damage. Its just too bad that they couldn't have gone a little farther and beat you retarded enough so we wouldn't have to read this garbage.
Submitted by Dead_0hi0_Sky (user info) at 2005-05-26 16:57:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
shennanigans.
Submitted by Kale (user info) at 2005-05-26 16:46:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"...because I now realize marijuana is a terrible thing to be hooked on."
hehe..
Submitted by dodahdave (user info) at 2005-05-26 14:55:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yes, far better to have a well-oiled machine than a happy home. Comformity is far more important than a sense of self-worth.
You don't smoke marijuana. Hooray for you. Too bad it's not out of any sense of right and wrong that you've developed personally, but out of training that you seem to still be living with.
It's called Stockholm Syndrome. People who are kidnapped often take on the cause of their kidnappers, sometimes growing to love them. It's a self-defense reaction and makes sense from that perspective.
You were hit as a kid. "Violence works." I agree, violence works, if your goal is brute intimidation. But there's no allowance for individual growth, no personal responsibility.
"It is all about taking personal responsibility," I hear you cry. It's not, though. You still do the things you do and feel the way you do in order to please your parents. Having never had to justify anything to yourself, you probably have no idea how YOU actually feel about anything. All you're doing is repeating the lines you were told as a child. How on earth is that about personal responsibility? Personal responsibility means being responsible to yourself. It means your actions must fit with your ethics. People who simply repeat what they've been told by parents have no ethics.
A family is NOT only a workforce, a nation is NOT only a military. The goal of raising children should not be to build atomatons that do whatever their superiors say. Think about this for a minute: what if your parents had raised you in the same environment but had trained you to hate blacks, or jews, or Chinese, or women, or men? You would likely behave in a way that makes them happy (hating whom you were told to hate) without ever thinking about whether it makes any sense to hate a group of people for no other reason than that you were told to. What sense does it make to hate men in general? None. But by the reasoning you've presented here you would hate men happily becuase it's what you were trained to do.
Wake up. You're going to need a sense of who you are that is separate from who your parents want you to be before you have children of your own. Do you want any children you have to mindlessly parrot the things you tell them, or do you want them to discover truths about life on their own?
Submitted by Bizdorph (user info) at 2005-05-26 13:43:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I think that, in actuality, the best way to get a kid to be disciplined is to be a styrict parent when the child is very young, because that makes the biggest impression on a child's personality. Don't let them mess you around with crying, don't be afraid to tell them "no" no matter how long they hold their breath or scream or anything like that. Keep the kid under your thumb (figuratively) and then they will remember forever that you are not someone they can push aroung with their tactics. Prove that you are smarter and more powerful than them, and that is all you need to do.
Submitted by MickGinny (user info) at 2005-05-26 10:45:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2005-05-25 20:45:40 (#)
Ranking: -2
People with degrees disagree with you.
_______________________________________
formally educated idiot.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-05-26 01:38:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Lisa (user info) at 2005-05-25 23:05:34 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-05-25 20:40:55 (#)
Ranking: 2
Little children do not understand logic and thus, consequence for actions must be applied. The only consequence a child understands is pain. People these days who weren't hit generally don't understand the consequences of their actions; and although educated, they are in some ways idiots.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The psychological capablities of children are highly underestimated, and this is a huge, ridiculous generalization to make. There are plenty of people who were never disciplined physically that become well-adjusted, "upstanding" adults who fully understand the consequences of their actions, and also a great number of people whose parents hit them and they turned into complete nutjobs. I wonder if on some level you feel resentful for having been hit and you were forced to rationalize it in your own mind in order to forgive your parents. Maybe, maybe not. This is a topic I'm interested in but don't feel like developing an argument right now.
I do remember trying out for some baton thing when I was nine and not making the cut, and sitting in the backseat of my grandmother's car with tears in my eyes. She'd brought my cousin Michael to surprise me, who at the time was not even a year old. I remember this crystal clear--looking at me, he leaned over in his carseat and stretched out his tiny hand and patted my arm. I swear to God he was showing me compassion. Kids minds are incredible, they understand things on levels many adult can't even tap into anymore. That's what I believe, whether or not I can prove it. Just because they can't put their thoughts into a language you and I can interpret doesn't mean they don't have them. I think the truth is not so much that kids don't understand us as that we don't understand kids.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I'm not trying to rationalise being hit to justify my parents' actions. That sounds a lot like "I'm gonna kill dad and sleep with mum" freudian nonsense to me, to be completely honest. You'll probably think I'm in denial though.
Children are smart, i agree. But logical?
If you don't apply consequences to a child, they will think they are indestructible; ie. a god. They will consider themselves superiour to you and scream and cry when you won't buy them a freddo frog at the supermarket because THEY KNOW you will cave. See? They are smart.
Each child will need different types and different levels of punishment, when they do wrong. Smacking a kid is one way to do it. It teaches them consequences for their actions. If they don't understand consequences you'll have a generation of teen-pregnancies on your hands.
If my kid calls me an arsehole, I'll slap him, tell him why he was slapped, and send him to his room. If you would rather give your son a biscuit for doing so, be my guest.
I'm not advocating parental tyrannism. I'm advocating heirarchy, in that the parent is above (not equal) to the child authoritariatively.
Submitted by Lisa (user info) at 2005-05-25 23:09:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
*adults
Okay, I'm not checking for any more.
Submitted by Lisa (user info) at 2005-05-25 23:06:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
capabilities
Submitted by Lisa (user info) at 2005-05-25 23:05:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-05-25 20:40:55 (#)
Ranking: 2
Little children do not understand logic and thus, consequence for actions must be applied. The only consequence a child understands is pain. People these days who weren't hit generally don't understand the consequences of their actions; and although educated, they are in some ways idiots.
The psychological capablities of children are highly underestimated, and this is a huge, ridiculous generalization to make. There are plenty of people who were never disciplined physically that become well-adjusted, "upstanding" adults who fully understand the consequences of their actions, and also a great number of people whose parents hit them and they turned into complete nutjobs. I wonder if on some level you feel resentful for having been hit and you were forced to rationalize it in your own mind in order to forgive your parents. Maybe, maybe not. This is a topic I'm interested in but don't feel like developing an argument right now.
I do remember trying out for some baton thing when I was nine and not making the cut, and sitting in the backseat of my grandmother's car with tears in my eyes. She'd brought my cousin Michael to surprise me, who at the time was not even a year old. I remember this crystal clear--looking at me, he leaned over in his carseat and stretched out his tiny hand and patted my arm. I swear to God he was showing me compassion. Kids minds are incredible, they understand things on levels many adult can't even tap into anymore. That's what I believe, whether or not I can prove it. Just because they can't put their thoughts into a language you and I can interpret doesn't mean they don't have them. I think the truth is not so much that kids don't understand us as that we don't understand kids.
Submitted by maiorano84 (user info) at 2005-05-25 22:35:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I think what's pretty sad is that probably the majority of people here agreed with Sword on everything..... up until he mentioned weed. God forbid you say you never tried weed before. I think it's pretty fucking stupid to rate somebody on something they said that really has no bearing on their original argument in the first place.
Sorry about this, Sword.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-05-25 21:10:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2005-05-25 04:44:01 (#)
Ranking: 0
why the hell were you still getting beat in high school?
I learned to straighten up and fly right by the time I got to middle school.
-----------------
Why do I find that last sentence absolutely hilarious?
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2005-05-25 20:45:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
People with degrees disagree with you.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-05-25 20:40:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I was hit as a child when I fucked up, but I was quite a bright little tot and learnt to straighten up and fly right quickly.
Little children do not understand logic and thus, consequence for actions must be applied. The only consequence a child understands is pain. People these days who weren't hit generally don't understand the consequences of their actions; and although educated, they are in some ways idiots.
When I have kids and if they fuck up they will be slapped. People, even children, respect power. Use that power firmly but do not be tyrannical either. Only the respected can be good teachers. And only teachers can be good parents.
Submitted by TragicKingdom (user info) at 2005-05-25 19:32:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
We don't necessarily have to resort to violence and spanking with children. I was spanked as a child and it made me terrified of my dad. I was a good kid, and yelling at me and taking privelages away would have had more of an effect on me than spanking.
My brother, on the other hand, was a little bastard. The ONLY WAY you could get the kid to do what you needed him to do or to do the right thing, was to spank him. There are kids like that, who need the physical reinforcement.
There is really no right answer to the discipline issue. It depends on the kid, and it depends on the severity of their actions.
Submitted by Lisa (user info) at 2005-05-25 17:41:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
My mom never spanked or so much as yelled at me. She explained consequences to me. If there was something I was supposed to do, I did it. Things I knew I shouldn't do, I didn't.
Submitted by mles76 (user info) at 2005-05-25 17:19:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Sergeant Hulka: Lighten up, Francis.
Stripes
Submitted by lethron (user info) at 2005-05-25 16:43:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Your best arguement for your sad and repressed upbringing was that it kept you ignorant of marijuana?
Submitted by MickGinny (user info) at 2005-05-25 13:33:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I need to drop this as well because I feel it is key.
Physical correction should start as soon as the child begins to reason between right and wrong and starts to make conscious efforts to do wrong things despite being told not to. If you pussy out because they are so little and adorable and then try to be the heavy when they are 5 and out of control you are going to either fail or have a hard time bringing about proper behavior.
When they are toddlers and they engage in activities that can bring them or others harm, they need to be spanked. No,No.NO! Is not going to drive home the point with enough authority if they decide they want to pull away from you and run out in the street. They need to get their ass spanked. And it doesn't really matter and quite honestly it is not necessary for the spanking to actually cause them physical pain, kids who are spanked by a parent that loves them get their feelings hurt.
And that is what you have to fight through as a parent. The old saying that "this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you" is so painfully true. But you have to be strong enough to fight through that shit to ensure your kids learn to think about what they are contemplating instead of just reacting to their initial thoughts.
Submitted by MickGinny (user info) at 2005-05-25 12:50:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I am a parent w/ young children. So I am exposed to kids from all classes in varied situations nearly everyday.
The greatest distinction between kids now and kids 30 years ago is the blatant lack of mutual respect.
Example:
Recently a kid on my sons baseball team yelled "Just shut up Mom" from center field for everyone to hear after his Mom told him to turn around and pay attention to the game.
She shook her head disapprovingly and sat down. Embarrassed no doubt.
30 years ago that kid would have been pulled off the field by his hair and beat down all the way to the car.
There is a difference between child abuse which is unacceptable, and acceptable effective physical correction.
Despite my support of physical correction, I have only been required to administer it a handful of times divided between 3 kids ranging in age from 10- 19. But they know I will whip their ass without a second thought if they cross predetermined lines of acceptable behavior.
My kids do not fear me because of the chance the may get spanked ,they respect me. Not because I am their father and they have to, they respect me because I earn it from them. And I respect them because they earn it from me.
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2005-05-25 10:17:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'll respond more fully later, but I'll be clear on one thing. I'm striking an arrogant and condescending tone with you because you've earned it. I have absolutely no respect for you whatsoever and I wish that people like you did not exist.
Submitted by Bigmike (user info) at 2005-05-25 10:12:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"The best way to do this is a consistent policy of intimidation through violence. With this kind of upbringing people will become disciplined and effective, they will be firmly reared toward conformity and this will make a better society."
Classic old school philosophy.
There are maybe a handful of users on this site who may identify with what I am about to write. The reat of you can keep on being disillusioned and ignorant of the facts. I say that with respect, with nary a condescending undertone. No arrogance here. I lived through these times and know what I have experienced.
In the sixties, growing up was an adventure of keeping my old man's belt off of my ass. I wasn't the only one who had to deal with that kind of discipline. You see, the whole idea of child abuse back then didn't deal with how a parent chose to discipline a child. It was perfectly ok to hit a child in order to teach them a lesson in what was right and what was wrong. Plainly speaking, if it was wrong, you got hit. The severity of the beating hinged on your parents perspective of how wrong you actually were, and what kind of day that they had at work. Outside influences such as workday screw overs and binge drinking the night before always played a part in how much of a beating you received when you did something that you weren't supposed to do.
The standards of what is considered child abuse were different then. Principals had paddles in their offices that they actually used on the bottoms of students that strayed from what was considered to be acceptable behavior. If you were paddled, it was ok with your parents because school was teaching you to grow up to be a responsible human being.
Punishment? The idea of punishment was never a grounding or a taking away of video games (because there were none), or a session of time out. Time out was created by a generation of parents looking for a better way to discipline their children other than the laying on of fists or belts or whatever. I personally feel that time out is used solely to settle the child down and bring them to a more even level of excitement.
But let's get back to the main point, shall we?
The difference between then and now is simple. Beating your child to bring him or her into line and show them the difference between right and wrong is purely unacceptable in today's society because parents today were beaten when they were children and they didn't like it one bit. Also, it's acceptable for a child to bring the parent up on charges today for abuse. I personally feel that this is ridiculous, but on the flip side I never hit my children because I feel it is a bad thing. If I can't teach my children the difference between right and wrong without hitting them, then there is something wrong with me, not with them.
I want my children to become independent thinkers who make their own choices based on the priciples that I have taught them. I want them to be able to reason out the pros and cons of their decisions and the ramifications of their actions. I want them to be able to think on their feet, so to speak, and to make decisions based on what they have learned and their own personal experiences. This school of thought may be decidedly eighties and nineties, but as a society we have moved on from the old school, spare the rod spoil the child mentality.
Is it right that we have moved on? Hard to say. I will say this though, it is my generations fault that the whole "politically correct" movement has gained so much steam. Right now, and presumably moving forward, it will not be "politically correct" to beat/spank a child when he or she does something wrong.
Is this why we have children shooting up schools, planting bombs, and disrespecting each other to the point of violence.
Maybe.
Like I said, it's hard to say if more violence/discipline towards children can solve these issues. I know what choices I have made for my children and they have never been bullies or had violent natures.
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2005-05-25 04:44:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
why the hell were you still getting beat in high school?
I learned to straighten up and fly right by the time I got to middle school.
Submitted by AlwaysAnEagle (user info) at 2005-05-25 01:57:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Great debate!
My mom swatted me once, in terms of punishment, and hoo boy, I never forgot it. The thing is though? Can't remember why she did. So how effective was it? I remember that at it is in fact possible to cause enough trouble to get Ma to whack me...but I don't remember what the limit was. And the thing is, without being overdramatic, is that it's sort of like the death penalty...what irritates the parent enough one day to incite a bout of corporal punishment might be no big deal on another day. And if you can regulate it completely dispassionately, then it's sort of pointless. All it establishes is that your parents are willing to whomp you, which is not really, I think, a good thing.
I WILL say that the one form of corporal punishment I remember is my Grandfather's Knife of Doom. He would sit there like some kind of scary old man praying mantis holding the blade of his dinner knife, and if you put your elbows on the table while you were eating (it may sound weird but be aware of it next time you're eating, you'll be surprised) he'd whap you with the knife handle. Christ almighty that hurt.
Submitted by CoreaPeekay (user info) at 2005-05-25 01:04:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Yeah this is a pretty good approach, though my girlfriend didnt have violent parents and she turns down drugs and things, the only thing she really does thats 'bad' in some people's eyes is premarital sex, and thats with someone (me) who she might as well be engaged to (we both wear rings)
Submitted by peckerhead (user info) at 2005-05-25 00:40:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The post itself is well written. I'm giving a zero rating = worth reading... but people should take the time to read the reviews too. There are more "proper parenting" books and techniques than you can shake a stick at and as far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out regarding best discipline methods for parents. Until that jury comes back in, I prefer to err on the side of non-violence towards children.
My apologies to the author because I can see that you really believe what you posted to be true. However, I think the best points and counter points were made by missflibble, mrwolf, Berty, Circe, Natsukau and last but not least... Razor. I've done a good deal of reading on parenting and step-parenting; Almost no one (professional therapist, psychiatrist, social worker) condones hitting or striking children or teens anymore. Ironically, my home environment was more like Swords than like Razors. This is a tough issue and people should not underestimate the importance of it.
Submitted by maiorano84 (user info) at 2005-05-24 23:09:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Weed and cigarettes cure cancer.
Submitted by shitfuck (user info) at 2005-05-24 22:19:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by MickGinny (user info) at 2005-05-24 17:36:20 (#)
Ranking: 2
This kid is right...except for the part about weed.
all the rest are smart mouthed little brats who will grow up to be hippies and weasels.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BALD FAT FUCK ALERT! BALD FAT FUCK ALERT! BALD FAT FUCK ALERT! BALD FAT FUCK ALERT!
Submitted by MrSparkle847 (user info) at 2005-05-24 22:04:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by optide (user info) at 2005-05-24 18:50:59 (#)
Ranking: -2
Some kids just suck, end of story.
________________________________
But I liked this a LOT.
Submitted by MrSparkle847 (user info) at 2005-05-24 22:02:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
As for your metaphor it is slightly flawed. It would be correct if looking at a girl's ass was a sin in which case the problem would be solved and to everyone's satisfaction. I wouldn't look at girl's asses because it would hurt, as a result I wouldn't sin and as a result of that I would spend eternity in a bliss filled paradise. If the price of heaven is getting my eyes stung then sign me up right now.
_________________________
Remember how I said "Bear with me?" And how I told you to "suppose" looking at a hot girl's ass was a sin. That means I don't think it's true. Basic reading comp doesn't get you far in understanding writings on Uber, and it only makes things more awkward when you take surface meaning and toss it about like it's the deeper meaning.
Since you threw to hell my first attempt to explain, allow me to reexplain more explicitly.
Negative reinforcement is a functional method of teaching, but it is greatly flawed: rather than understand the logic behind avoiding a behavior, the subject only knows to avoid the behavior. But this is NOT good enough - logic can apply to different situations with different pretenses, but with pain, you must reinforce with every different situation.
For example, you are teaching a kid it's wrong to club cats to death. If every time he clubs a cat to death you wordlessly grind a cheese grater against the head of his dick and hose him down with lemon juice and salt, he will learn not to club cats to death. However, you will not have taught him to not club dogs to death.
On the other hand, say that if he clubs a cat to death, but you verbally reprimand him instead. If you sit him down and explain that all creatures - including himself and cats - experience pain the same way, he will learn to not maim things to death.
Now, what have we learned? Logic is applicable to many things. Solutions are applicable to one.
Submitted by sword (user info) at 2005-05-24 19:04:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Razor
Effecting an arrogant and condescending tone does little to enhance your argument. In fact if you spent less time couching your prose with high-handed insults and more time devolping coherent arguments you would do far better. You are right about one thing though, you have completely "avoided actually embarrassing" me.
"This is a classic logical fallacy, assigning causality where it simply does not exist, and leaving the option of "no correlation" out of your argument, leading someone to assume that to refute your argument one must prove the not-case rather than the unrelated-case. "
It's funny, I believe you were the one who claimed the relationship between your rampant drug use and becoming a computer programer "I wound up doing plenty of drugs when I was younger, it led me down the horrendous path of being a successful computer programmer and parent". I was the one who suggested that the two weren't related. You were the one who commited this logical fallacy and it is mildly ironic that you were also the one to point it out.
"good parenting - my parents bought me an Apple II computer when I was a little kid"
So what you are saying is good parenting is soley determined by buying expensive things for your children? Don't get me wrong, it was a good parenting move for your parents to enable you to use educational tools like a computer, what was a bad move was raising you in such a way that you felt free to risk your life in drug expiramentation.
Because of your parents foolishness you could have killed yourself in an overdose, become addicted to serious drugs or faced severe legal ramifications that would have interefered with your life to say the least. Drugs are just one example I chose to use to show the wisdom in being obediant to your parents. Do you think it is a good idea for your child to expirament with drugs? Maybe you think it is a good idea for her to become a stoner or a crack whore?
"The specific regimen you speak of was developed by a series of nonconformists, who rejected the scientific and philosophical practices that held sway for thousands of years before them."
Nope, I am not talking about any specific regimen, like say the scientific method as you learned it in second grade but rather I am addressing the simple truth that knowledge is not efficiently obtained by any process other then rational and orderly thought. You can do everything better with hard work, careful planning and an efficient group of workers. People work together best when everyone does what is expected of them.
"Experimentation, by its very nature, is a nonconformist practice. You are trying something new that has not before been attempted"
Wrong again. Expiramentation occurs when someone observes or considers things that they don't understand. After this observation a carefuly planned exercise is then performed to simulate whatever is not understood so the results can be observed. Expiraments are repeated many times in the scientific community. Expiramentation is a conformist practice because, when done properly, it follows an accepted set of rules and patterns.
"Close minded reprobates like you " I like how you consider me close minded. After all I have defended my position with fact, experiance and reason I have listened to what other people have to say and brought up what I believe are reasonable counter arguments. I have not resorted to childish and pointless insults like you have and yet you still consider me close minded.
Submitted by optide (user info) at 2005-05-24 18:50:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Here's a thought, albeit as closeminded as the guy that wrote this. Some kids just suck, end of story. I could beat the hell out of one kid and he'd turn into an agressive misanthrope that keeps everyone at arms length, or he could end up just dandy, other than being avoidant of confrontation. Then again, I could just leave him alone until one day where he decides that my head would look better on a pike, or perhaps in several pieces. Regardless, it seems to rely more on how he is initially wired from birth rather than his upbringing.
Some kids will get screwed up by the situation they grow up in while others are steeled by it. In either case, their own faculties were the major contributing factor to how they turned out.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2005-05-24 17:58:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
violence should be used in big things...
like preventing your kid from drinking and driving...
or smoking cigarettes...
or dropping acid on a school day...
or not using a jimmy hat.
you know, stuff of that nature.
Submitted by MickGinny (user info) at 2005-05-24 17:36:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This kid is right...except for the part about weed.
Sure there are kids who don't need to get their ass beat to become respectful productive members of society. Id say there are about 15 of them total...Ghandi was one
all the rest are smart mouthed little brats who will grow up to be hippies and weasels.
If you don't have enough love for your children to follow through with a swift kick in the ass now and then, you are being selfish.
Submitted by Maddog (user info) at 2005-05-24 17:32:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I hope this post isn't for real. I'm all for discipline--kids need and and yes, the WANT it. Boundaries are a comfort zone for a kid. But, to raise a child on violence is only going to beget violence in the future. There is no better way than to crush creativity or individualism than to beat it out of your child and turn them into somone who puts their fist into every problem as a way to solve it. I hope you don't breed.
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2005-05-24 17:19:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
And by the way, don't tell me about "case studies" where you've seen people who turned out bad and whose parents didn't beat them.
I have known more than one person whose parents disciplined them the way yours did and they turned into brutal, violent, disgusting people with alcohol problems.
Submitted by SimianSidestep (user info) at 2005-05-24 16:41:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm with Razor on this one. Correlation does not imply causation. It's a case of nature vs. nurture. If I had smoked cigarettes while under my parents' roof I know that I would have gotten it with a switch. But their disapproval didn't keep me from forming the habit on my own. You need to go back to the drawing board on this argument.
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2005-05-24 16:18:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Are you deliberately being obtuse to have fun with me or are you simply so narrow minded because you have been beaten into submission and are afraid of having dangerous thoughts?
I'm assuming it's the latter, so now I have to go through the process of ripping your argument to pieces line by line <yawn>
"I would be much surprised if drugs actually led you down the path to becoming a computer programer, rather then say you managed to become a computer programer inspite of your drug use."
This is a classic logical fallacy, assigning causality where it simply does not exist, and leaving the option of "no correlation" out of your argument, leading someone to assume that to refute your argument one must prove the not-case rather than the unrelated-case.
The truth here is that drugs neither led me twoards or away from being a computer programmer. The source of that is a combination of genetics - I'm a math savant - and good parenting - my parents bought me an Apple II computer when I was a little kid even though almost no households had computers in 1980 and they encouraged me to use it.
"While it might be possible to still succeed as a drug user it seems more likely to irreparably ruin yourself with drugs."
What information are you basing this on? Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign? I would agree that *ABUSING* drugs is likely to lead someone to ruin, the same can be said of abusing many things... being a compulsive gambler will lead to financial ruin, abusing food will lead to obesity and a slew of health problems, and so on.
However, it's perfectly acceptable to play a game of Texas Hold 'Em with your coworkers once a week, or have a piece of cheesecake here and there.
Success is a hard thing to measure, because like "good" and "fun" there is a lot of grey area left up to individual interpretation. I, for one, measure success not just in terms of material accomplishments like promotions but also in terms of the enjoyment one experiences in one's life along the way. Smoking pot led to a lot of interesting experiences for me, and although I do not do it any more because of antiquated laws that make it dangerous for me as a parent to do so, I do not regret even a minute of it.
If you want to measure success in terms of financial accomplishments, I make enough money at my job that my wife is able to stay at home and raise our children in their pre-school years. If you want to measure it in terms of authority, I have a staff that works under me. If you want to measure it in terms of status, I am the lead developer of a program and have a window ofice.
So, by what I'm guessing are your standards, I'm a smashing success.
"That your parents didn't discipline you and you had no problem using drugs could be used as the basic premise of my argument. Besides, without the drugs you could have been something awesome, like 2 computer programmers."
To me, the reverse argument makes more sense. Your point falls apart because although my parents did not hit me, I grew up to be a "success". Your argument about drugs is like saying to me "Your parent's didn't discipline you and you now prefer green cars to red cars."
The second sentence is nonsensical and therefore I will not address it.
"Also scientists follow a regimen of observation, study, expiramentation and recording their results. For the reason that so many scientists have been hard working and conformed to mainstream scientific practices is why we are no longer living in huts in Africa."
This demonstrates a complete lack of historical knowledge on your part. Allow me to explain the ways in which you suck:
1. The specific regimen you speak of was developed by a series of nonconformists, who rejected the scientific and philosophical practices that held sway for thousands of years before them.
2. Said regimen has only been in place for a few hundred years, yet mankind managed to go from hunter gatherers to farmers to building pyramids to building cities like Rome and Beijing without using that regimen. Egyptians performed advanced dental work thousands of years before the birth of Christ, while the scientific method came about in the second half of the second millenium AFTER the birth of Christ.
3. Experimentation, by its very nature, is a nonconformist practice. You are trying something new that has not before been attempted.
4. Hunter gatherers did not live in huts. Huts are semi-permanent residences, while HGs typically lived in quickly constructed shelters that were only designed to last for a few weeks while they were based out of a specific temporary camp. More advanced HGs carried tents that they set up as they migrated.
In conclusion, you have been completely owned. I have thus far avoided actually embarrassing you, but if you continue forth on your fruitless quest to refute even the most minor grammatical error I may have made, I will call your parents and have them beat you until you shut the fuck up. Close minded reprobates like you are less dear to me than the snot I left in a paper towel in the bathroom this afternoon, and in my opinion more of a threat to the well being of me and my offspring than any heroin laden junkie sucking dick or breaking into my car for twenty dollars will ever be. If I could throw people like you in jail... I wouldn't. That's one of the reasons I consider myself morally superior to people like you, and will oppose you at each & every turn.
Submitted by Ejryuu (user info) at 2005-05-24 15:54:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
People confuse discipline with abuse far too often. A good stearn talking administered to a child does nothing. We should obliterate everyone born in the past two decades because face it, [most] parents fucked up. Or we could just let 'em keep shooting each other. Tools.
Submitted by sword (user info) at 2005-05-24 15:35:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Natsukau
"I am an advocate for strict punishment, but child abuse?"
I meant the form of violence against children that is commonly mislabled as child abuse when I wrote the title of this article. I, in no way, condone senseless or pointless violence against children. That said it makes a terribly effective way of raising kids to use violence against them appropriately. It is a form of punishment that is simple, direct and above all understandable. If my parents had just sent me to my room as a child I would have never learned anything. In my room I could read or play with toys or sleep or do all kinds of crazy shit.
Circe talks about restraining privelages as a form of punishment, but that wouldn't really work either. Instead of learning this message "I DO NOT DISOBEY MY PARENTS" I would learn "Disobediance occasionally costs me" and after learning that message it would be a simple step to start weighing my pocket money against obediance. This is never a consideration I had while growing up.
So, if by "strict punishment" you mean the well reasoned and administrative teachings of the swift hand, belt or stick then we totally agree. If you mean time outs or yelling or some such then I am terribly afraid that your children will grow up to shoot mine during school.
Berty
I get the feeling that we would end up in a society with less violent crime and much more hard work. We could reestablish America's industrial and economic dominance and improve living conditions for ourselves heartily. I do not see stagnation as a likely outcome. By conformity I did not mean we should all think the same things or that we should all listen to a radio shouting "War is peace" all day. What I meant is that we should act in ways that are acceptable, we should do what is expected of us, we should work hard and try our level best.
CaptainThorns
Agreed
Vulva
EXACTLY
Razor
I would be much surprised if drugs actually led you down the path to becoming a computer programer, rather then say you managed to become a computer programer inspite of your drug use. While it might be possible to still succeed as a drug user it seems more likely to irreparably ruin yourself with drugs. That your parents didn't discipline you and you had no problem using drugs could be used as the basic premise of my argument. Besides, without the drugs you could have been something awesome, like 2 computer programmers.
Also scientists follow a regimen of observation, study, expiramentation and recording their results. For the reason that so many scientists have been hard working and conformed to mainstream scientific practices is why we are no longer living in huts in Africa.
firefly
Once I was over at a friends house and their mom told them to go do something. My friend responded with a casual "Fuck you mom" and I was shocked. If I tried that at my house I had no idea what would happen because it had never occurred to me to even think of such a thing. I am kind of smiling now as I think about the hell that would have crashed down upon if I ever had. By all means you should raise your daughter with love but you should also fulfil your basic duty as a parent and teach her right from wrong otherwise your daughter will wind up a disrepectful lout like my friend and a drug addict like your husband. The best way to teach your child and to make sure they adhere to your teaching is violence and that's all there is to it.
Circe
What shandythedog said
MrSparkle847
"The only violence I remember is spankings when I was very young. I obeyed the rules because I was raised with the belief that rules are to be kept,"
Noooo, like you just said the reason you kept the rules was because you got spanked as a child. I am not saying you should dragon kick children or beat them with a 2 x 4 or anything of that nature. What I am saying is that kids who are afraid of violence (like you were) are kids who obey the rules. Parents should make sure their kids are obediant and the best way to do that is with violence.
As for your metaphor it is slightly flawed. It would be correct if looking at a girl's ass was a sin in which case the problem would be solved and to everyone's satisfaction. I wouldn't look at girl's asses because it would hurt, as a result I wouldn't sin and as a result of that I would spend eternity in a bliss filled paradise. If the price of heaven is getting my eyes stung then sign me up right now.
The other way to fix your metaphor is to say that whenever I felt lust an angel flew down from heaven and punched me in the skull. Since lust is controllable I would stop feeling it and as a result everything would be the same as in the above paragraph.
Sin is like drinking the stuff under the kitchen sink. Who cares why I don't so long as I don't.
Submitted by MrSparkle847 (user info) at 2005-05-24 14:44:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Parents should teach their kids right from wrong but more then that they should make sure their kids do right and not wrong. The best way to do this is a consistent policy of intimidation through violence.
____________________________
Who the hell raised you? Maddox?
The only violence I remember is spankings when I was very young. I obeyed the rules because I was raised with the belief that rules are to be kept, not because my parents beat me. Sure, you learned not to be bad, but for the completely wrong reasons.
Bear with me and pretend lust is a controllable thing and is a sin. Imagine every time you looked at a hot chick's ass with lust in your mind, your eyes stung. You would stop looking at her ass, but the lust still be there; thus, the problem would not be solved.
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2005-05-24 13:47:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Just a thought:
If there were never any non-conformists we'd all be living in central africa hunting wildebeest and gathering berries.
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2005-05-24 13:44:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-05-24 13:07:38 (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2005-05-24 11:37:48 (#)
Ranking: 0
This is well written but wrong! As a teacher of teenagers in an inner city school I have to get them to do stuff every single day without resorting to physical violence. If I can manage to make 200 15 year olds sit on the floor and listen to my assembly every week without belting (or the threat of it), then all you parents should be able to get little Jimmy to do the washing up or wash his pants or whatever.
---------------
I would question whether you are actually controlling anyone there, cindy. Chances are it is the threat that any misbehavior will get back to their parents that leads 200 15 year olds to sit quietly, not anything you could do. You can reason with kids all you want, but the fact is, the world is going downhill fast without the ability to even spank a child in public....20 years ago, no kids were shooting up schools and there wasn't the gang violence there is today. While part of that is the growing prevalence of guns, it is also because people my age (27) were just about the last who could be spanked in public when they fucked around.
241-kids (for my locality) was the WORST idea ever. Parents were rendered incaoable of discipline and had to resot to "sit in the corner" as a form of punishment.
------
I forgot to say that my parents used to hit me all the time (and I'm of your generation, I'm 29) I can't remember being that bothered or sorry.
The parents of the kids at my school aren't massively supportive. I have never met phoned or written to anyones mum to say that they were talking in assembly. If I did they would probably tell me to fuck off and stop wasting their time. I also manage to control kids whose parents can't control them, and also kids who are in foster care or childrens homes, negating your parental influence argument. You are right that kids behave because they want to please you (or don't want to upset you) You don't have to hit them to get them to do that.
(I will also add that the children at my school do really terrible things sometimes too, as have all kids through the ages, hit or not)
Submitted by strider (user info) at 2005-05-24 13:23:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
It was prolly a mistake to include the drug stuff, but on the whole I agree with what you wrote.
You had a stick. I had the hand then the belt (spanking).
The main thing to consider with this violent discipline is the motives, attitude and consitancy of the parents. If they are spanking them because they love them and it pains them inside to hurt them, then this is the right motive. Violent discipline becomes abuse when the parent spanks because they enjoy it or because of their own personal failures.
I learned very early on that my parents spankings were motivated to protect me. But they also gave me enough leeway to learn on my own but not permanently injure myself.
Case in point: We lived in Florida , I was 1-2 years old, had a box fan (with plastic blades) and my grandmother was visiting. She kept pulling me away so my fingers wouldn't get cut off by the blades (plastic, not gonna happen). My dad said she should let me do it and she was appalled. My fingers got buzzed and I never did it again.
It's all a balance. Let them fail so they can deal with failure when you're not there. But bring them in line when they go too far. And do this all with love and their best interests at heart.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-05-24 13:07:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2005-05-24 11:37:48 (#)
Ranking: 0
This is well written but wrong! As a teacher of teenagers in an inner city school I have to get them to do stuff every single day without resorting to physical violence. If I can manage to make 200 15 year olds sit on the floor and listen to my assembly every week without belting (or the threat of it), then all you parents should be able to get little Jimmy to do the washing up or wash his pants or whatever.
---------------
I would question whether you are actually controlling anyone there, cindy. Chances are it is the threat that any misbehavior will get back to their parents that leads 200 15 year olds to sit quietly, not anything you could do. You can reason with kids all you want, but the fact is, the world is going downhill fast without the ability to even spank a child in public....20 years ago, no kids were shooting up schools and there wasn't the gang violence there is today. While part of that is the growing prevalence of guns, it is also because people my age (27) were just about the last who could be spanked in public when they fucked around.
241-kids (for my locality) was the WORST idea ever. Parents were rendered incaoable of discipline and had to resot to "sit in the corner" as a form of punishment.
Submitted by Sinistral (user info) at 2005-05-24 12:48:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
You make a very good point about hitting you child to make him disciplined, but I disagree with one thing. Non-conformists aren't always bad and they don't always fail. I, for instance, hate doing what everyone else is doing. When people grow their hair out, I shave mine. When people walk around with popped collars and aviators, I walk around in a dirty t-shirt and jeans. However, I have not done drugs and will not, and I am deathly afraid of my parents and what sort of reprocussions my wrong doings will have. Drug addicts, not necessarily non-conformists, fail. By the way, conformity isn't always good.
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2005-05-24 12:35:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i should probably also point out that the ratio of hugs to smacks is probably 100 - 1, and as the little cunt's powers of reasoning develop and he gets bigger and less annoying smacking has become less and less frequent.
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2005-05-24 12:29:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Circe (user info) at 2005-05-24 10:33:26 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2005-05-24 10:01:17 (#)
Ranking: 2
I disagree, Circe.
Now, I'm not for an out and out whooping, and I think the stick is a bit much, but a swift swat to the ass is a good deterent.
__________
So is:
Removing priveleges
Reparation
Grounding
Cancellation of planned events
Time-out
Explaining the reasons behind your decision
Witholding pocket money
Non-corporal punishment (chores, pointless busywork)
Calling his friends to explain WHY he can't come over today (because I told my Mum I didn't want to clean my room) -very embarrassing
etc
etc
etc
You know the difference? My way takes effort. Spanking a child is easy, and it's weak, and it's the choice of lazy and ignorant parents. Put some thought into it.
---
so humiliating a child in front of friends is better than a smack on the bottom? teaching him that work is a form of punishment is a good idea? i'm glad you have the wisdom and authority to pronounce so confidently on these things. i find them less black and white. frankly circe, you should know better than to be so judgemental and self-righteous. weren't you ridiculing other parents not long ago for their concerns about violent toys?
just for the record, and to demonstrate diversity, my approach to violence towards children is different to some mentioned here. i have never cuffed or smacked the boy over serious issues like crossing the road or poison etc. i seem to be able to convey the seriousness in other ways.
the only time he gets a cuff or a smack is if he's giving me the shits. i see myself as as the daddy animal (lion actually) who cuffs away a cub that has annoyed him.
also of course we have play fighting which can get quite painful at times.
Submitted by Bizdorph (user info) at 2005-05-24 11:48:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Any case is the case for child abuse.
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2005-05-24 11:37:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This is well written but wrong! As a teacher of teenagers in an inner city school I have to get them to do stuff every single day without resorting to physical violence. If I can manage to make 200 15 year olds sit on the floor and listen to my assembly every week without belting (or the threat of it), then all you parents should be able to get little Jimmy to do the washing up or wash his pants or whatever.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-05-24 11:14:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I have to say that from a personal perspective, with the benefit of hindsight, that if I had been smacked, beaten, whatever as a child then it would have ruined me. I'd have grown up to be a thug and a bully.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-05-24 10:35:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Circe (user info) at 2005-05-24 09:47:44 (#)
Ranking: -2
"I was hit, and it didn't do me any harm." Well, it turned you into a man who believes that inflicting pain on children is the right thing to do.
If you cannot control a child without resorting to violence, then you do not deserve to have a child.
Period.
--------------------------------------------------------
I have yet to meet a little kid that I could tolerate being around that did not get spanked. I know for a fact that my parents could not have controlled me when I was little unless I got spanked. I do think there is a line though, you can go overboard.
Submitted by Circe (user info) at 2005-05-24 10:33:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2005-05-24 10:01:17 (#)
Ranking: 2
I disagree, Circe.
Now, I'm not for an out and out whooping, and I think the stick is a bit much, but a swift swat to the ass is a good deterent.
__________
So is:
Removing priveleges
Reparation
Grounding
Cancellation of planned events
Time-out
Explaining the reasons behind your decision
Witholding pocket money
Non-corporal punishment (chores, pointless busywork)
Calling his friends to explain WHY he can't come over today (because I told my Mum I didn't want to clean my room) -very embarrassing
etc
etc
etc
You know the difference? My way takes effort. Spanking a child is easy, and it's weak, and it's the choice of lazy and ignorant parents. Put some thought into it.
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2005-05-24 10:30:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Circe (user info) at 2005-05-24 09:47:44 (#)
Ranking: -2
"I was hit, and it didn't do me any harm." Well, it turned you into a man who believes that inflicting pain on children is the right thing to do.
If you cannot control a child without resorting to violence, then you do not deserve to have a child.
Period.
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2005-05-24 10:14:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
My parents never hit me, I wound up doing plenty of drugs when I was younger, it led me down the horrendous path of being a successful computer programmer and parent.
-2 for content, +2 for writing.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2005-05-24 10:01:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I disagree, Circe.
Now, I'm not for an out and out whooping, and I think the stick is a bit much, but a swift swat to the ass is a good deterent.
I'm all for spanking, but not beating.
Submitted by missflibble (user info) at 2005-05-24 10:00:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
BTW, I don't smoke pot. tried it once, didn't like it. Tried smoking banana skins too, they were fun.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-05-24 09:59:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Circe (user info) at 2005-05-24 09:47:44 (#)
Ranking: -2
"I was hit, and it didn't do me any harm." Well, it turned you into a man who believes that inflicting pain on children is the right thing to do.
If you cannot control a child without resorting to violence, then you do not deserve to have a child.
Period.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've often wondered about that, parents perspectives on corporal punishment I mean.
Submitted by Vulva (user info) at 2005-05-24 09:52:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Children who are not repremanded in a way that affects them either phisically or emotionaly, turn out to be like DRIPPING ABCESS...so beat their asses when they need it. Then there will be no need for black nail polish and blue hair dye.
Submitted by Circe (user info) at 2005-05-24 09:47:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"I was hit, and it didn't do me any harm." Well, it turned you into a man who believes that inflicting pain on children is the right thing to do.
If you cannot control a child without resorting to violence, then you do not deserve to have a child.
Period.
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2005-05-24 09:40:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Wow, I am typing this review and still haven't decided how to rate the post.
I think your views are a little harshed, meaning you don't seem to see that there is a difference between smacking your kids ass and beating them with a stick. There is a difference.
My philosphy is that a good smack on the ass or hand when needed is ok. As the child gets older maybe a crack on the mouth for those lippy types, but that is about the extent of it.
How you are raised determines who you turn out to be, you seem slightly confused. Something like the woman who gets beaten by her husband and rationalizes it to herself and others as "her fault".
As far as drugs go I think you are confusing pot smokers with druggies. See I smoke pot, and have for a long time. You are right I want to smoke pot and I like it. However I see nothing wrong with that as it does not effect me in any negative way. I am succesful in my feild, I am living in my second house and have a third I am fixing up for resale. I have a wife and child, new cars, and all the toys I could ever want. I am trully happy and I am up at 5 am everyday. If for some reason pot jeopordized any of this in any way I would stop. I am not the only one either, many of my friends smoke pot and are in the same position I am with life. Life is good.
Druggies or whatever you want to call them tend to start with pot and move to harsher drugs thus leading to thier eventual downfall.
Open mind man...work on it.
Peace Outside!
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2005-05-24 09:37:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2005-05-24 09:24:34 (#)
Ranking: 1
There's a difference between discipline and abuse. A big difference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. Hitting a living being on a consistent basis, especially humans after they are old enough to reason and discern logic, is NOT discipline. Please break the cycle.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2005-05-24 09:24:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
There's a difference between discipline and abuse. A big difference.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-05-24 07:28:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
With all due respect Sword the corporal punishment in your childhood has brutalised you. One simply needs to glance over your previous posts to note that you have a somewhat detatched view of human suffering. It can be argued, and argued well, that this is a desirable state of affairs. Afterall it has helped you to 'knuckle down' and be disciplined (as you say) so fair play to you.
That said, what we are talking about here is applying that to all of society. I'm not sure that's such a good idea, you'll end up with a society with a 'help those that help themselves' attitude which has an inherent danger of failing to actualise the maximum potential of it's populace. You'd also run the risk of rigid thinking and living in the shadow of the dreaded spectre of conformity; thus increasing stagnation, oppression and community.
Submitted by Natsukau (user info) at 2005-05-24 07:06:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm a social worker, and in my professional experience, you are extremely wrong. I am an advocate for strict punishment, but child abuse? That's a little extreme. A couple of your points are way off base. The majority of the children I work with who were abused wind up becoming drug users and prostitutes, or dead by 20.
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2005-05-24 07:04:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
i love how people give you a -2 just because they're smokers of the shibby. t hats just crazy.
my dad used to lay out a stick, a belt, and a wrench. "pick one" he said. i used to go with the wrench. cuz fuck him, thats why.
chris rock said what you said better in Head of State.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-05-24 06:48:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Yes it would make me feel better. I now feel better.
Sorry I knew that your post wasn't really about drugs, it was just a vehicle. I just felt that you were unneccesarily attacking a drug that really has no major effects. I don't know whether it effects the young worse than the old but it has had no effect on my social skills, motor skills, or academic skills to date.
I started smoking it when I was about 18 I think. I'm now nearly 24. I was totally against it till then too by the way.
Submitted by Wazza (user info) at 2005-05-24 06:15:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Well done! "Spare the rod and spoil the child."
Submitted by sword (user info) at 2005-05-24 05:43:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
mrwolf
Until you reach the age of 21 it is illegal to purchase or consume alchool in the United States. There is a reason for this, prior to this age the body and mind of the average person are still undergoeing devolpmental processes and alchool is known to conflict with these processes.
You, I would hazard a guess, are over the age of 21. Perhaps the effects of such illegal drugs on a person of age similar to your own are not as noticeable as they would be to a younger person. I am not going to do research because their is a hell of a lot of information on the subject and almost all of it is biased or flawed in such a way as to be totally meaningless. What I know to be unbiased is what I have observed and what I have observed leads me to believe that illegal drugs are bad for you.
Like I mentioned earlier perhaps the fact that you are a fully developed man means that smoking weed won't effect you mentally. Either way you are still routinely filling your lungs with smoke and I don't need research to realize that that is not a good thing.
"to say 'I'm not gonna re-search- there's no point' is not going to help your argument,"
Drugs aren't really pertinent to my argument at all. They merely serve as a useful example of making good choices. If it makes you feel better replace the word "marijuana" wherever I use it with the word "LSD" or "Heroin".
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-05-24 05:29:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
I coulda swore from your previous posts that you were on the level... The writing is fine, I also got beat as a kid, albeit not with a stick.
Your opinion that "drugs are bad mmkay" based not on research but of the few individuals that you know and already have preconceptions of is ludicrous.
I smoke pot, my friends smoke pot. We are all succesful people with partners, jobs, and always pay the rent on time. Lets not get confused here, I smoke at least a couple of joints every single night curled up on the sofa with my missus watching movies. I wake up the next morning at 6am and go to work without fail every day. I know a hell of a lot of people that do the same.
Our upbringing makes us who we are. Yours unfortunately has made you exceedingly narrowminded; to say "I'm not gonna re-search- there's no point" is not going to help your argument, it's going to make you look wrong.
Submitted by funk_boy (user info) at 2005-05-24 05:13:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
No Comment
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2005-05-24 05:09:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I was going to go off on a tangent here about the double-edged sword that is drug use, but I think http://www.ubersite.com/m/32932 says pretty much everything I want to say. You gain a lot from it, but you lose much, much more.
As for the violence, I don't think there is anything wrong with giving your kid a smack on the arse - notable occasions from my childhood: setting fire to my brothers bed, running accross a main road at 4 years old when I promised I wouldn't - usually times when I'd put myself in extreme danger and was too stupid to realise it. It certainly brought the message home. But the second you use your fist on a child, you have very seriously crossed the line, I think. My stepdad tried to beat the shit out of me once, but he made the mistake of doing it while I was grownup and very, very angry and as such he got his arse handed to him. That still makes me smile. I thoroughly endorse extreme violence against cuntish stepparents.
+2 for inciting debate.
Submitted by Williams_2004 (user info) at 2005-05-24 05:03:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
So your a beaten child hey!, Well done.
Submitted by missflibble (user info) at 2005-05-24 04:58:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
I'll level with you, I like the writing style but not the content- hence why you got a -1 not a -2 from me.
I was brought up in your kind of environment, yet I ended up more fucked up than most people I know. I failed educationally, I rebelled against I have no idea what...everything I suppose.
recently, I mean in the last three years, I've started becoming a normal human being again and it is with no help from my parent(s). I now have a good job; despite only having crap qualifications, husband, roof over our heads etc and I swear if I didn't have brothers and sisters I would have ceased contact with my parents for a while just to let me (and them) get their heads together.
so sod your idea.
but like I said, I like the style. You write well.
Submitted by sword (user info) at 2005-05-24 04:49:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Bellebrown
Explain to me why drugs are good? Despite my adamant policy of zero drug use I know many people who do drugs and I have to say, from an objective standpoint I have a feeling I am pretty much completely correct about drug use.
shandythedog
art, literature and music sucks
Also on the internet somewhere I read transcripts of a man who was tripping on acid. In addition he drew pictures while the drug was effecting him. His speech was reduced to non-sensical blather and his pictures lost all definition and coherency. In general the entire thing seeemed to prove that people on drugs aren't visionary artisans but rather blathering morons.
Submitted by Siren (user info) at 2005-05-24 04:48:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Eh, reviews below seem to have summed up my thoughts.
Submitted by sword (user info) at 2005-05-24 04:41:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
SilvrWolf
Your post is exactly the point.
Sounsexy00
" Bud is not addictive, and it is proven to have less adverse effects on the body than alcohol or cigarettes"
I have known people before they start smoking and then while they are smoking and they all get dumber, they lose their wind faster and none of them want to quit. I'm not going to bother trying to do research on the subject because I have first hand experiance with it. Marijuana is addictive, maybe not in the sense that it rewires your brain like other addictive substances, but in the sense that once people smoke for a while they tend to want to keep smoking. That is to say stoners don't often quit.
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2005-05-24 04:41:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
nice writing style - very crisp
i agree with a small fraction of this - a bit of violence has it's place.
as for what becomes of the drug users - you will find most art,literature, music of any worth has some drug influence involved.
also, being on welfare is a triumph, not a failure, you have things back to front.
Submitted by Bellebrown (user info) at 2005-05-24 04:39:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
See I'm all for smacking kids...
I'm even more in favour of administering beatings to you.
So, I'm torn on this one. You do know what you're talking about on the violence works chat, but you don't have a SCOOBIE on the drugs bit... and with that in mind I will be awarding a 0 on this post.
Submitted by Sounsexy00 (user info) at 2005-05-24 04:34:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I was with you all the way until you started blathering about the tumbleweed. I'm no stoner, but my twin brother sure is. And so are like 85% of the people out there, by your standards. Bud is not addictive, and it is proven to have less adverse effects on the body than alcohol or cigarettes. You've seen people smoke themselves into oblivion? I bet you've seen way more people successful that you didn't even know were tokers.
But yeah... if your kids are disrespectful, teach them to respect.
-hads
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2005-05-24 04:28:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The problem is that too many people don't know when they've crossed the line until it's too late.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/41492 - about my experiences as an abused child
http://www.ubersite.com/m/41969 - lojope's post about abuse; there's a lot of good discussion on that post.
Submitted by metroidkillah (user info) at 2005-05-24 04:25:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Zounds! A post with some real worth! Too bad it's on Ubersite...
Submitted by BigBad-2Train (user info) at 2005-05-24 04:25:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Most Heated
WOOO WOOOOOO