This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
The QOTD Thread: Goodbye
Return to board index
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Haxzor
That can also be a bad thing though, it can lead to them thinking that in order to get that loving embrace they have to act like a right %^&*.
Hitting a child for not putting on pants is a wrong use of the positive punishment.(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##You can't say that here.
twat
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Nathanyal
Usually, its just saying that you are going to spank them that will make them listen. You don't even have to go near them.
We have a little boy, and for simplicity let's just say he is my mother's adoptive grandson. When he comes over we let him play on our phones and on my DS. When he has played it enough we take those from him. If he throws a fit we say "Calm down or you're going to get a spanking", if that doesn't work we usually start counting. By time we go "1...2..." and he stops. If he doesn't then he gets a light tapping on his behind. And this works for everything, from him picking up his toys to getting him to come to us to put his pants/socks/shoes on so we can leave somewhere.
And this is after we try talking to him. There is no "sitting him down and hugging it out". He will squirm and throw his hands and feet around, and if you're not careful you will get hit. Even picking him up and playing around with him can cause you to get hit.
Post by
Squishalot
I agree with Nathanyal - it's not quite as simple as hugging it out, because it's not physically possible to do so without getting hurt at times, or hurting the child either.
I think taking your kids internet away and making them do something else works, it doesn't really hurt them but it does make them regret whatever they did.
Again - what makes you think they'll do something else when they're not doing the first thing? The concept of a naughty corner or isolation from the family, I would think, leaves equally as many emotional scars as a light spanking leaves physical scars.
I myself find it very easy to make kids happy, and if you make the kid happy, he's going to put his pants on.
Some people are naturally good with children - that doesn't mean that their solution is a one-size-fits-all one. Resisting the urge to comment about the concept of keeping his pants on when he's happy, it doesn't always work that way. The child may have a reason why they don't want to have pants on - it might feel tight or restrictive, or too warm inside (even if the parent knows it'll be cold outside). Rationalising things with children doesn't always work. Hell, rationalising things with adults often doesn't work, what makes you think it works better with children (of any age)?
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Rankkor
This is a touchy subject, and good lord, 5 pages worth of comment :P I wish more questions were this juicy.
My stance on this, and I'm sticking to it, is that its a necessary evil that a lot people tend to abuse.
Its only appropriate as a last resort, after every other form of discipline has been tried and failed to yield results, only for the most severe cases of child misbehavior (come on, hitting your kid for every single act of disobedience? NOT COOL) and only when they're at a really young age and their minds are not developed enough to understand the concepts of discipline and authority.
There is an age (I believe above 10 years old) where physical punishment not only stops being an effective way to discipline your children, it can actually become detrimental and cause more harm than good. But at the really young ages, contrary to what so many believe, it is not anything that will cause irreversible damage, or teach bad morals to the child.
Again, Physical punishment is only acceptable if the following conditions are met.
A: Everything else has already been tried and the child refuses to behave.
B: The kid is young enough to still not comprehend the concept of authority and discipline.
C: The misbehavior of the child is something really bad, like, the most severe absolute worst things a child can do.
D: It must never be meant to damage the child, just enough to cause a small amount of pain, because pain is something every human mind, no matter how undeveloped, understands, therefore, no punches, no hitting with blunt objects, no sharp objects, hell, its easier to list what IS acceptable as a form of phisical punishment: A hit with your open palm, with only a small amount of force, in the buttocks, or the back, or the arm, or the hand. NEVER in the head, or any other sensible area. Nothing good comes out of causing permanent damage to the child.
and E: And this is the biggest one of all:
NEVER
use physical punishment while you're angry. If the kid did something bad, you tried other methods of discipline, and the kid still continues doing something bad, first off, take a chill pill. Punch a pillow if it makes you feel better. And only when you're absolutely calmed, apply the physical punishment.
Post by
MyTie
I do think it is somewhat noteworthy, that there are those who would fight for a woman's right to abort her baby, don't think that mothers should have the right to spank her child.
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
asakawa
I think everyone is well aware of the difference but people simply see the topic differently to others.
For instance (since, it seems, we're going there), there is a clear difference between a foetus and a toddler but, for some, that doesn't matter and aborting a foetus is the same as killing a child. In this case I'm against corporal punishment and, while I am well aware of the broad difference between discipline and abuse, I still think it's wrong to hurt a child (any age of human really) on purpose, even with good intentions.
@MyTie, if that is noteworthy then so is the opposite. You think that a foetus has the basic human right to life but doesn't have the right not to be assaulted?
Post by
1069282
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Thror
I have been hit a few times, by my parents. A lot more as a teenager than as a kid. I don't actually remember any physical violence done to me before I was like, 12+ let's say. I remember threats of violence though, and those usually worked against me pretty well, as Nathanyal says.
I wouldn't be against using some light form of physical punishment on my children, but only as a last resort thing.
Honestly though, I have never met a child that doesn't calm down when you hug them. Yes I know some are superviolent and you might get hit, but a child shouldn't be strong enough to be able to squiggly out of your arms. Hold them long enough and they will run out of energy.
Couldn't it also be seen as a light form of physical violence when you use your superior strength to hug a child like that?
Post by
1069282
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
There is a line between discipline and abuse.
Some people on both sides of the argument can't see the difference.
Like I said. The people who cannot see the difference should not discipline their children with any sort of physical punishment. I wonder about their ability to discipline with psychological punishments as well, or any sort of discipline. That makes me wonder about their ability to be a parent all together, if they are unable to discipline their children, which children need to grow. If a person cannot distinguish between beating a child, and spanking a child, that person lacks... something.... maybe common sense, maybe empathy... that I think makes them ineffective and perhaps even dangerous parents. Whether they look at a child being spanked and see that child being beat, or they look at a child being beat and see it as nothing more than a spanking, there is something lacking there in their parental ability.
Post by
Rankkor
#352: Which videogame character outfits have the coolest design?
Ok, so we discussed handsomeness on the last question, this time we discuss simple "Rule of Cool".
Characters that while not necessarily attractive in any way, still look incredibly cool. It could be their shiny gold armor, it could be their uniform, whatever it is, it looks extravagant, impossible to replicate in real life, and cool as frick. Like the Krogan Battlemaster Armor in Mass Effect, or the S.P.A.R.T.A.N. (subtle) armor in Halo.
So this is a question more about wardrobe than actual characters
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Riot Security Suit in Dead Space 2
Missaglias Armor with ebony dye from Assassin's Creed 2
The various power armors from the Fallout universe. Fallout 3's Tesla armor might be my favorite of the lot.
NCR Ranger combat armor from Fallout NV
Abyssal Armor from Darksiders (War's version, not Death's)
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.