Conference back40::soapbox

    NPR recently had a conversation with a researcher that indicated that
    the amount of parent to child spanking that goes on is grossly
    underestimated by the spankers, oftne not remembered by the spankees,
    and may have long lasting negative effects on the spanked.  
    
    Brian

    
    
    	Oh puhleez. 
    
    

	Me - I think a well-executed little slap early on, to 
	establish who's boss, is the most honest way to go
	about it.  None of this paddle, or other weaponry, stuff. 

    Nope, that's what was reported.  He wrote a book on spanking.  
    Can't/won't speculate as to the validitiy though there are many who 
    now feel that less violence in child rearing is a good thing.  If 
    I remember the title of the book, I'll post it.

>    now feel that less violence in child rearing is a good thing.  If 

Spanking a child because they did something wrong is not, imho, a form
of violence...

/scott

    
    
    negative effects from a spanking???  ditto on jim's note...granted, i
    suppose it depends on how hard one is 'spanked', as in when does a
    spanking become a beating, but still, spankings are not a bad thing...at
    least in my opinion.  i only got them when i was little when i really
    deserved it...and as andy mentioned, a lot of times, even the mere
    MENTION of a spanking can work wonders...gramps used to threaten my
    brother and cousin (who, i might add never got enough spankings...talk
    about a rotten kid...tho admitedly, that was his mother's fault) with
    'going to the shed'...cuz down there was the paddle...usually
    worked...except with the cousin...i think after a while, he liked it...
    
    but still...i see nothing wrong with spankings...as long as they are
    spankings...
    

FWIW, my dad used to wield a yard stick for spanking.
Now *that* packs a sting.

    
    i agree with you di...tho i kinda also agree with what andy said about
    the hands also being what hugs, holds and helps the child...a small
    paddle isn't a bad thing...plus it doesn't hurt your hand... ;>
    
    

    My mother used a broom stick and my father the trusty belt. I never us
    more than a hand and never more than three wacks. Today, if it were for
    me, three wacks is only good for a warm up and get me in thge mood:').

    Spanking is a violent act though the severity may not be up to what is
    normally equated with other violent acts.  To a child, it is an attack
    by the parent or other disciplinarian.  
    
    Brian

	>>>To a child, it is an attack
        >>>by the parent or other disciplinarian.  

	If it's done right and early enough, it's more like a preemptive
	strike.

    ABSOLUTLEY WRONG.
    
    There is _never_ any reason that can justify violence against a child,
    wether it's your "average spanking" or your precious yardstick!  Anyone
    who thinks otherwise has some serious thinking to do.  So start doing
    it before you lay another hand on your children.

    Dr. James Dobson from Focus on the Family wrote a book called, "Dare to
    Discipline"  This is a very good book, even in the secular world.  
    Dobson is however, a big proponent of using a foreign object (Other
    than hand) to strike the childs rear.  I don't believe measuring the
    exertion of a stick is always accurate and therefore choose to use the
    hand.
    
    Striking a child anywhere other than the behind is not good.  The
    primary purpose is to hurt their feelings and break their will in a
    loving way.  Getting it to smart is a close second.  If implemented
    somewhat early, you may find spankings to become rare by the time they
    reach three!  Heck, my two year old laughs at me when I spank him now.
    But somehow he still gets the message...especially when I'm inclined
    more now to give him a time out in his room.  This is now done more
    often than spanking!
    
    -Jack

    .-1
    
    scenario - child wants to grab hold of something dangerous. you say
    "no". child persists. you say "no" again.
    
    one smack - no more trying to grab thing.
    
    no smack - child grabs thing and is very hurt.
    
    ric

    >	The primary purpose is to hurt their feelings and break their will in a
    >   loving way. 
    
    That's the most disgusting think I've ever heard.

    <---- Does seem contradictory to me as well.  
    
    Brian

	.12 

	cow doots.

    .15
    
    seconded
    
    ric

    
    Re: .12
    
    
    >ABSOLUTLEY WRONG.
    >There is _never_ any reason that can justify violence against a child,
    >wether it's your "average spanking" or your precious yardstick! 
    
    	What do you suggest then?
    
    
    

    Dear Mr./Ms Smith:
    
    This is apparently a very emotional subject with you.  Discipline is an
    art if you will.  It is something that has to be implemented correctly
    and lovingly.  We can't assume that because a percentage of parents are
    incompetent at discipline therefore everybody who spanks is
    demonstrating violence.  Simply not the case.
    
    -Jack

    
>>    	What do you suggest then?


    Let me guess - presenting a cogent argument to the child as to
    why it would be disadvantageous to continue along this particular
    behavioral path?  ;>
    
    
    

    Dear Mr./Ms. Smith:
    
    I have three children, I believe in corporal punishment.  Don't sit
    there and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.  If you had a
    problem with your parents, then I suggest YOU seek counceling.  My five
    year old no longer gets spanked because I implemented discipline
    tempered with love when he became 1 and a half.  I know what I'm doing. 
    I'm sorry you were perhaps exposed to somebody doing it incorrectly.
    
    -Jack  
    

    
    
    	Mrs. Smith, do you have children? Do they run your life?
    
    

    I have a feeling we're not going to hear from Mrs. Smith anymore!
    
    -Jack

    
    
    	I think you're right Jack....her kids are probably beating the
    stuffing out of her.
    
    
    

    Oh yes you will.
    
    Re.20 - I agree..but correctly and lovingly are two words which are not
    synonomous with violence.
    
    re. everyone else...
    
    There are other ways (and yes talking is one of them) to communicate 
    with your children.  In the case of a child that is in danger (ie about
    to touch a hot stove) get the child out of the way of that danger and
    explain why.  Children are not idiots!!!  They will understand. 
    
    Secondly - If you have a child that is hard to deal with, unruly, etc,
    I would try to determine some of the other factors that are making your
    children act that way.  My younger sister was a _horror_ child who put
    her hands through windows when she got angry, she was that out of
    control.  Doctors wanted to put her on Ridilin and recomended my mother
    spank her before she got that far.  My mother refused.  She had my
    sister tested for food allergies, yanked sugar out of her diet and
    watched my sister become a normal child who was easy to deal with,
    moderate in her temper and _listened_ when spoken to. She was five
    years old when all of this happened.
    
    We as people are FAR TO QUICK to raise a hand!  Take the time to
    investigate why your children act the way they do.  Then make the
    effort to help them.  That is the correct and loving thing to do.
    
    MJ

    
    
    <---  in your not so humble opinion, right???
    
    
    

    Just as humble as everyone else in this topic.

    IMHO I think that the youth of today are living proof that Dr. Spock
    and his ilk were way off track. I have a friend that went by  the book
    while raising his children and i can't stand to go over to his house and
    watch his children walk all over him. They don't understand the word
    no, they've never heard it.

    
>>    We as people are FAR TO QUICK to raise a hand!  Take the time to
>>    investigate why your children act the way they do.  Then make the
>>    effort to help them.  That is the correct and loving thing to do.

	We, as people, are far too quick to over-analyze the most basic
	of parenting skills - making a child understand, in an effective
	and loving manner, who's boss at a very early age so that little
	or no raising of hands or paddling of bottoms needs to be done
	later.  Jack, I agree with you.  I don't have children, but was
	raised in an environment where Dad made it clear he was king with
	only a tiny amount of discipline early on.  It worked, and I never
	considered it "violence".  It was very definitely for my own
	good.

    
    RE: .28
    
    Then don't shout...
    
    You have your opinion.. fine...
    
    Your experience (vis. food allergies etc.) is yours.. not someone
    elses.
    
      BTW... your use of the word(s) violent/violence is pretty much
    lame... If you look up the term in the dicitonary and understand there
    is a *proper* way to administer punishment, you might not be so quick
    to revile others here...
    

    >	there is a *proper* way to administer punishment, you might not be so
    >	quick to revile others here...
    
    Yes, there is a *proper* way...and IMHO, hitting your child is not it.
    
    I do apologise for the yelling...that is not necessary.
    

    .10
    
    > To a child, it is an attack...
    
    NO.  whether it is an attack or not depends on the people involved and
    their experience and communication.  a spanking delivered in cold blood
    (which should ALWAYS be the case) was for our children the natural
    consequence of their actions.  i'll assert here that were you to take
    either of my now-adult kids through hypnotic regression, you would not
    find spanking to have been considered as hostility.
    
    a spanking delivered in anger is quite likely an attack.

    Regardless of whether or not a spanking is effective, the act itself 
    is violent.  I do not care what the motiviation or the intent or 
    the context.  Coporal punishment is still a violent act whether it is a
    whack on the bottom with a hand or with a prop.  Ditto screaming at a
    child.  Not an expert on discipline and not advocating against the use
    of spanking, yet.  I cannot fathom how anyone would try to describe the
    act of hitting someone else as being non-violent.  Please do not try
    the "I'm doing it out of love." line either.  The underlying
    motiviation does not matter.  
    
    Brian  

    .34
    
    Here, here.

    .12
    
    > There is _never_ any reason that can justify violence against a child...
    
    CRAP.
    
    until you PERSONALLY know the situations of EVERY human being on this
    planet, you cannot possibly make such a flat assertion with anything
    approaching credibility.  and if you think i'm wrong, baby, it is YOU
    who have some serious thinking to do.  start with burning your copy of
    doctor spock.

    
    >We as people are FAR TO QUICK to raise a hand!
    
    Oh? I would love to see how you came to this conclusion.
    Most parents I Know agonize over any punishment metered out
    to their children, whether it's a scolding, time out,
    whatever. 
    
    
    

    .26
    
    > There are other ways (and yes talking is one of them) to communicate
    > with your children.
    
    only if they work.  some children refuse to communicate except when
    they are on the receiving end of a thoughtful crack across the bum.

    re. 36 - I've never read Dr.Spock
    
    re.37 - Same with most of the parent's I know.  And, yes it's true, I
    am certainly making a blanket statement.  But I am not
    against discipline/punishment.  I am against hitting people.
    

    re: -1
    
     Then may you have the children you truly deserve.

    .34
    
    the act is violent.  so is dying under a bookcase that you pulled over
    on yourself because your parent was afraid to whack you beforehand.  i
    am extremely fortunate that my son did not in fact die.
    
    being born is a violent act; violence is inherent to life, and it were
    better to acquaint children with this fact as early as possible.  else
    they risk learning it in less opportune circumstances.

        The title of this note in itself is interesting....

 I've heard of an interpretation that I like....


    The "rod" that is referenced is actually a shepherd's staff, used to
    guide the sheep.

    I prefer to "guide" my 7 yr old son. I have never used physical
    punishment, I personally don't believe in it (for my situation).

    Often, it is not easy. At times I must be very creative and exercise a
    tremendous amount of self-control.

    I have always felt that I would treat him the way that I would want to
    be treated - physical punishment for doing something wrong is not what
    I would want to happen to me.

    IMO,

    Jeff

    
    RE: .34
    
    From Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary
    
    Violence-exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse.
    
    
    
    Looks like you're pretty much off the mark on this one.  

>>    of spanking, yet.  I cannot fathom how anyone would try to describe the
>>    act of hitting someone else as being non-violent.

	Oh geez - here we go with the "violent" thing again.

	violent adj. 1. Marked by, acting with, or resulting from great force.
		     2. Having or showing great emotional force.
		     3. Marked by intensity; extreme
		     4. Caused by unexpected force or injury rather than by
		        natural causes: a violent death
		     5. Tending to distort or injure meaning, phrasing, or
		        intent.

	A little slap on the arm or on the bottom is _not_ violent.

>>  The underlying
>>  motiviation does not matter.  

        Wrong.    

    Dear Ms. Smith:
    
    I can't disagree with what you said.  This is all a part of loving your
    children.  Believe me, my children get every chance NOT to get spanked
    before they do and spankings are quite rare.  I'll find most times I do
    the time out route.  Spankings happen when the child is being willfully
    defiant.  This is what I meant by breaking the childs will.  
    
    -Jack

    >	being born is a violent act; violence is inherent to life, and it were
    >   better to acquaint children with this fact as early as possible. 
    
    By hitting them!?!?!
    

    All true Dick.  As I said, I was not advocating either way.  I was
    refuting the claim that spanking or other forms of coporal punishment
    are not acts of violence.  I think you agree.  The effectiveness of 
    such disciplinary action is being disputed in various scientific 
    circles.  I could not agree more that different environments will 
    require different techniques to insure a child's behavior is not 
    destructive to self or others.  In my case, it stopped being effective 
    when I could grab the wet wash rag out of my mom's hand......
    
    Brian

    
    
    You all should have watched this talk show I saw while I was home
    sick on wednesday.  I think it was Rikki Lake or some such person. 
    Might have even been Oprah (I was sick, remember?) :*)  It was all
    about children who were abusive to their parents.  One kid even started
    at the age of 2 1/2 with verbal abuse, and went from there to physical
    abuse.  The woman tried everything, including having him arrested.  The
    only thing she never did was raise a hand back to him.  It was the one
    thing that finally worked....
    
    I'm not saying that every child should be spanked at one time or
    another.  I am saying that each child has to be treated individually. 
    There are many children that will only respond to dicipline with a
    spank.  Not a hard one, but enough to know you mean business. 
    
    My son Justin, age 7, is one of them.  I've yelled at him, explained
    'why' or 'why not' to him, and talked to him till I'm blue in the face. 
    As a last resort, I slapped his hand one day for doing something
    unacceptable, and potentially dangerous...he never did it again.  Now,
    if he does something I still do the explaining, but I add the statement
    "If you ever do that again, I'll slap your hand."  It works.  I've only
    had to follow through on that threat about 4 times in the past 3 years.
    
    Parents need to learn to read a child's reactions to different
    punishments, and determine which one has the most possative affect on
    their own child, then mind their business about how other people handle
    their own children, unless there are real signs of abuse.
    
    
    Terrie
    

    
    
    RE: .43  So, those who spank don't have self control and aren't
    creative.....?

All you spanking advocates:  Why are you asking a _child_ to accept 
something you would not deliver to another adult???  Would you allow 
yourself to be treated as you're suggesting a child be treated????

Could it possibly be because spanking is quick and easy and doesn't 
require you to do any work around finding an alternative way???

I won't tell you that I haven't "spanked" my son - I once gave him a 
firm swat to the rear (thank god he had diapers on at the time!)  
once, it surely got his attention and it clearly broke my heart.

Think about it......


Pat

    .50
    
    > Why are you asking a _child_ to accept
    > something you would not deliver to another adult???
    
    er, ummm...  could it be that a child ISN'T an adult?
    
    children do not think the way adults do, because they haven't the
    experience on which to base adult-style value judgments.
    
    to all you anti-spankers, what do you answer to the following, from the
    curmudgeon's dictionary?
        
        juvenile delinquent, n.  A phrase much in vogue with bleeding-heart
        liberals, which permits adults to slap their miscreant children's
        wrists instead of administering a sound thrashing or other suitable
        lesson.
    
    
            Suppose you merely scolded your puppy, never punished him, let
            him  go  on  making  messes  in the house ... and occasionally
            locked him up in an outbuilding but soon let him back into the
            house  with  a  warning  not to do it again.  Then one day you
            notice that he is now a grown dog and still not  housebroken--
            whereupon  you  whip  out  a  gun and shoot him dead. Comment,
            please.
    
                            -- Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers

    
>>    er, ummm...  could it be that a child ISN'T an adult?

	I think you might be on to something here, Richard!  8^)

    Pat:
    
    R U saying it's okay to hit an adult if they are wearing diapers?
    :-)

    
    
    RE: .50  Heck, I'll spank you. ;')

    re. 51
    
    So now your child is a dog?

	.55

	how very predictable

    Di & Mike, I think spanking fits in 1-3 of the definition posted.  I
    fail to see how this misses the mark.  Please explain how smacking a
    kid on the butt with enough force to get their attention under a
    stressful situation for the parent would not be an act of violence.  
    If it were the same action taken against another adult, a stranger, 
    it could be construed as assault and battery which is a violent crime, 
    yes?  I'll leave arguing over the appropriateness of such punishment to
    the rest of the folks. 
    
    Brian

    re. 56
    
    True!  But I had to do it!!!! ;*)

>>    Di & Mike, I think spanking fits in 1-3 of the definition posted.

	I don't.  We're not talking about parents who beat their children
	here - we're talking about a simple slap or spanking.  That's
	not "great force".  It's not "extreme" - what nonsense.

    RE: .57
    
     Brian...
    
      >Please explain how smacking a  kid on the butt with enough force 
      >to get their attention under a stressful situation for the parent
      >would not be an act of violence.
    
     Of course that would be violent under your definition above. The
    object of any corporal discipline is to administer it in a calm,
    rational manner and not as you stated above. It defeats the whole
    purpose and can be considered abuse.
    
      My children knew well in advance (and I believe the expectation of it
    was more alarming than the actual physical act). I explained to them
    what was to occur and why...
    
      Afterwards, I immediately... I mean IMMEDIATELY took them and held
    them and consoled and comforted them and explained why I did what I did
    and had them understand why...
    
      It always worked out.... always...
    
      It's nice to have them, as adults, tell you that you did the right
    thing with them.... especially when they see the opposite happening
    with so many families today... 

    There was a news program on television not long ago that showed
    a fervent Christian couple whacking the hell out of their two year
    daughter -- while quoting Scripture and waxing philosophic on
    discipline, etc.
    
    Needless to say, it was sickening to witness.

    
>>    Needless to say, it was sickening to witness.

	yes, sure sounds it.

    
    <------
    
    Obviously there will be extremes on either end...
    
    Christians who apply biblical principles incorrectly are just as bad as
    parents who rely on Dr. Spock for complete guidance...
    

 There are, unfortunately, Christians who like non-Christians, have the
 wrong idea of the use of spanking.  




 Jim

    
    
    RE: .64
    
    Are you saying that 'all' non-christians have the wrong idea of the use
    of spanking???
    
    Please clarrify your statement.
    
    
    Thanks,
    
    Terrie
    

    
>>    er, ummm...  could it be that a child ISN'T an adult?
    
>>    children do not think the way adults do, because they haven't the
>>    experience on which to base adult-style value judgments.

	EXACTLY!   If you wouldn't hit someone who *can* make those
	judgments than WHY would you even think about hitting someone 
	who couldn't!!

	That doesn't make any sense.



Pat

>    Spanking is a violent act though the severity may not be up to what is

No, it isn't. It's a form of discipline... It's not violence.

/scott

>    ABSOLUTLEY WRONG.
>    
>    There is _never_ any reason that can justify violence against a child,

True... but spanking as a form of punishment/discipline is not violence
against a child.

/scott

RE:    <<< Note 290.65 by NETCAD::WOODFORD "Light dawns over marblehead...." >>>

    
    
       
   > Are you saying that 'all' non-christians have the wrong idea of the use
   > of spanking???
    
    
     No.  My apologies.  There are non-Christians who do a fine job and there
     are those who misuse spanking.      
    
   > Thanks,
    
    
     YVM

 Jim    

>>No, it isn't. It's a form of discipline... It's not violence.


	Not violent????  Please explain how this is NOT violent 
	behaviour.


Pat

    
    re: .70
    
    Did the dictionary definition back a few not clear the air a bit??
    

    From what others have shared in here;
     
    It is greater force when compared to normal everyday interaction with 
    the child (I hope!) 
    
    There is an emotive component driving the action.  Love, anger,
    whatever.
    
    It is an intense situation for poth parent and child.  Before, during,
    and after.  
    
    If we are still not in agreement, then I am willing to agree to
    disagree.  
    
    Brian

    .66
    
    > EXACTLY!   If you wouldn't hit someone who *can* make those
    > judgments...
    
    because the someone who can't make those judgments must learn that
    actions have consequences.  if my son had been willing to accept that
    climbing up on my wife's wall desk was dangerous and would bring the
    bookcase to which the desk was attached down on him, there would never
    have been any need for me to repair the desk, reshelve the books, and
    nurse the child's injuries.  we didn't spank him when he climbed up, we
    reasoned with him.  "come, let us reason together as men."  well, once
    too often he climbed up, and crash.  now then, he DIDN'T damage himself
    in several other ways, and the only difference was that WE learned a
    lesson, and in the other instances we accompanied our lectures with the
    palms of our hands.

     
>>    It is greater force when compared to normal everyday interaction with 
>>    the child (I hope!) 

    It takes greater force to pick up a pencil than it does to just
    sit there, but it's hardly a violent act - picking up a pencil.
    
>>    It is an intense situation for poth parent and child.  Before, during,
>>    and after.  

    Sitting around necking can be an intense situation to be in, but
    hardly a violent one.
    
>>    If we are still not in agreement, then I am willing to agree to
>>    disagree.  

    We aren't.  

    
    Probation on first offense; spanking on second offense; orphanage
    on third offense?

.50> All you spanking advocates:  Why are you asking a _child_ to accept 
>something you would not deliver to another adult???  Would you allow 
>yourself to be treated as you're suggesting a child be treated????
    
.66>	EXACTLY!   If you wouldn't hit someone who *can* make those
>	judgments than WHY would you even think about hitting someone 
>	who couldn't!!
    
    	Actually, I am in favor of physical punishment for certain adult
    	offenders.  To be truthful, I am more in favor of adult caning
    	than I am of child spanking!

.50>I won't tell you that I haven't "spanked" my son - I once gave him a 
>firm swat to the rear (thank god he had diapers on at the time!)  
>once, it surely got his attention and it clearly broke my heart.
    
    	So it worked!  What's the problem?  It sounds like you described
    	a fine conclusion to the incident.

    
    >> Sitting around necking can be an intense situation to be in
    
    i'll say!!!
    
    
    
    {ahem} 
    
    sorry...just thought i'd add that in here....now back to our regularly
    scheduled argument...
    

    
    
    	I say if you don't want to spank your kids, great. If you do,
    great. Just keep your nose out of the way *I* discipline my kids and I
    won't tell you how to discipline yours.
    
    	
    
    jim
                                                
    p.s. - my neighbors and I have an agreement. If my kids are giving them
    lip or being disrespectful, they have permission to spank them and send
    them home. Same goes for their kids at my house. Any neighbor that
    doesn't agree with that is ok, I just send the kids home if they're
    being bad. I'll tell you something tho', I send home the ones who never
    get spanked a lot more than I send home the kids that get spanked now
    and then (like probably 5-6 times per year).

.50>I won't tell you that I haven't "spanked" my son - I once gave him a 
>firm swat to the rear (thank god he had diapers on at the time!)  
>once, it surely got his attention and it clearly broke my heart.
    
>>    	So it worked!  What's the problem?  It sounds like you described
>>    	a fine conclusion to the incident.



	HERE is the difference then!!!   effective??? yes, it got his 
	attention.   The way I would care to treat another human being, no. 
	The way I would like to teach a child? No.   

	Pat

    
    re: .79
    
    Fine... no problem... as jim said.... You do what you want and he'll do
    what he wants...
    
    

    
    
    RE: .79  chicken.........

    
    
    re -1
    
    :*) instigator! :*)
    
    

>><<< Note 290.80 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>

>> re: .79
    
>> Fine... no problem... as jim said.... You do what you want and he'll do
>> what he wants...


	Oh, did I get the definition of "discussion" wrong again??
	silly me.
    
    

    
    
    RE: Jim..........moi? :')

    
    
    	this is like the abortion issue....there is no discussion possible.
    You either believe in it or you don't...strictly an emotional issue.
    
    
    

    Why because it's emotional is it undiscussable?  That's what makes it
    so invigorating!
    
    MJ

>>    Why because it's emotional is it undiscussable?  That's what makes it
>>    so invigorating!

	uh-oh.  are you gonna suggest rassling again?  ;>

    Anytime!!!!
    
    MJ

    
    
    
    
    I'll bring the chocolate pudding........

    Each child is different.  If we all responded the same way
    to authority there would be no need for prisons.  Perhaps
    some need a firmer hand than others.  I would not attempt
    to second guess those who blithely tread where I would
    fear to go (no kids). :-)
    
    That said, I never had a hand laid on me.  I don't doubt
    there were many times I deserved it, but I never got it.
    Should I ever have my own kids, I would not want to resort
    to it, and I do think of it as a last resort.  I do not 
    think it should be administered in anger, and I do not think
    it should be used as a substitute for the teaching of restraint,
    responsibility and respect for authority, which is really what
    this is all about anyway.
    
    I have a cat who acts up (yes, the 23 lb one) if he 
    doesn't get enough attention.  He knows he isn't supposed
    to claw the sofa, but if I come home and try to start dinner
    without picking him up and hugging him and talking to him,
    he'll run over to the sofa and start to claw, looking over
    his should every few seconds to see if I'm coming over.
    As soon as I do, he stops.  Children want to be first.
    They demand it.  They know nothing of work, or other
    personal responsibilities.  They only know what they want.
    You.  And sometimes any kind of attention is better than
    none at all.  Sometimes a spank isn't what's needed, a hug
    is.  I think it's important to realize the difference.  
    
    I read notes about expanding the school day and expanding the 
    school year and I start to wonder why people have children.  
    If you are just going to hand them off to other people to 
    raise, why bother?  I know with single parent families it
    is nearly impossible not to, but why spend more time away
    than you need to?  My mother was home when I was growing 
    up.  I always knew that if I needed anything I could call, 
    and my mother was always there.  My home was a rock for me. 
    Everything else could fall apart, but Mom or Dad was always 
    there.  You can always think about wanting to give your 
    kids the best, but the best thing you can give your kids 
    is you.  That will last a lot longer than all the new bikes, 
    karate lessons, and summer camps put together.  
    
    Mary-Michael

    
    
    	Mary-Micheal, that was a great note. I spend as much time as I
    possibly can with my kids and I try to enjoy every minute of it. Life
    is too short.....
    
    
    jim

    
    
    Amen Mary-Michael and Jim.

    I agree.  Kids are wonderful creatures!!!

    
    
    Parenthood is one of the most rewarding lifetime careers.
    
    
    
    Terrie
    

    
    I love it when people say something is "rewarding".  I read
    "underpaid".
    
    As fer the anklebiters, you're welcome to em.
    
      bb

    
    
    agreed on the last few notes...however...giving kids the attention they
    crave (so often) isn't necessarily always the answer either.     

    
    
    	re: raq
    
    	agreed. There's a fine balancing point. We all fall to one side or
    the other on occasion. If we didn't, we wouldn't be human.
    
    
    jim

    
    
    RE: Raq and Jim....Yup, that's for sure!
    
    
    I'm guilty of really 'baby'ing Justin on occasion.
    I'm guilty of over-praising Matthew's homework, or art work.
    
    Unfortunately, I'm also guilty of not giving them enough attention
    on rare occasions also.  You can't always put aside problems or stress
    and pretend to be a happy person when you get home.
    
    I agree with Jim, if I weren't guilty of it, I wouldn't be human.
    

    
    
    It's tough in todays society to give the kids all the attention they need. 
    I'm lucky in that my wife works only a couple days a week part-time and 
    then can spend the rest of the time with the kids. She goes out usually 
    once or twice a week with her friends (during the evening) and I take care
    of the kiddos during the evening and on the weekends (when she works).
    We go without a lot of things because she doesn't work full time (and
    my paycheck isn't very big), but it's worth it. You only get one shot
    at raising your children....I'd rather take only one class a semester
    than be a full time student and miss out on time with my family.
    Getting my degree is important, my career is important, but none of
    that supercedes the importance of my family....that transcends
    everything.
    
    
    jim

    
    
    You don't always have to be a "happy person" around your kids.  Reality
    does mean that we can be unhappy (angry, sad, whatever).  Just fill
    your kids in.  Kids are always asking questions.  If one of them
    is,"what's up?" just let them know, "I'm sad" (or angry, whatever).
    Kids want to know what's going on, and talking to them about your
    feelings is just as much "quality time" as a trip to the park.  

    I think that some of the most important "quality" time that I have
    spent with my child has been when I have disciplined him.  Yes, I do
    spank Brian at times.  When I do I always try to use the following
    rules:
    
    	1.  Never spank your child out of anger -- my judgement is usually
    rather poor when I am angry so I make every attempt to control it when
    I discipline my child.
    	2.  Always make sure that there is no question in the child's mind
    as to why the spanking has been administered -- I am continually amazed
    at what children do and do not understand about their actions.  I
    believe that if the point of the spanking is not understood, the child
    may eventually become angry and resent your actions.  However, I do not
    believe that children resent being disciplined when they understand
    why.
    	3.  Be consistent!  Don't spank your child one time and not
    another for the same offense.  This sends mixed signals, which plants the
    seed for mistrust and you will soon find your child become manipulative
    and spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to "get away with it"
    the next time.
    	4. Choose your battles carefully.  I try to only spank my child
    when he has deliberately disobeyed, lied, or done something that he
    knows perfectly well is not acceptable.  Every child makes mistakes and
    there are plenty of alternatives for handling the mistakes.
    	5.  Try to keep things in perspective.  I think that the point of a
    spanking is to teach a child that life has consequences.  A spank
    provides a consequence that is immediately apparent to the child,
    whereas consequences in real life are often more subtle.  Teach you
    child about life's conseqences.  If the spanking is more severe than
    the normal consequences of life that you are trying to save your child
    from, then you should rethink your approach.
    	6.  Don't make discipline a battle of wills.  One spanking should
    equate to one offense.  Be careful not to let your child's stubbornness
    (or your own, for that matter) cause an escalation that results in the
    purpose of the original punishment to be  superceded by a battle of
    wills.
    	7.  Always reassure your child that punishment is done out of love. 
    If you are sincere, they will be able to tell.  If you are not, they
    will also be able to tell.
    
    I believe that if these rules are followed, then spanking is an
    effective form of discipline.  I believe that if these rules are
    followed, then you will not be violent or otherwise abusive to you
    child.  I further believe that if these rules are followed, your child
    will grow up having a great deal of respect for you and for other
    figures of authority.
    
    If these rules are broken, however, the consequences can be
    catastrophic.  Children need leadership and teaching from their
    parents.  Friendship is important, but not at the expense of their
    respect for you as a parent or as their teacher.

    -1 i was going to suggest someone spank McBride, but it looks like
       you've taken care of that :-)
    
       Oh, your son is named Brian, sorry...
    
       Chip

    Watch it bub!  I don't take to spanking from strangers.  Unless of
    course they possess the right qualities that is.  :-)

    
    My experience (2d of six children, father of three) is that spanking is
    unnecessary. The first recipient of discipline must be the parent, in
    the form of self-discipline. For me, this means consistency (a brutal
    battle I fight with myself every day), and the use of my adult powers
    other than my physical strength. As an adult I have far more means for
    instilling discipline and good behavior than my hand. With hard work
    and patience I generally succeed. Occasionally (maybe once a year), I
    fail and end up giving a kid's butt a swat.
    
    I reject categorically the absurd slander of the spanking lobby that
    spanked children grow up well-behaved and un-spanked grow up
    trouble-makers. It may make the spankers feel better, but that doesn't
    make it true. It shows the ghastly limitation of imagination that some
    spankers have.
    
    If spanking is minimal, if parents treat their children with respect,
    if love is present, I don't think spanking is the end of the world. I
    do think it's unnecessay, can easily send the wrong message, and is
    clearly abused by many, many parents.
    
    As for why people spank their children but not other adults whose
    behavior they consider offensive, irrational and dangerous, one simple
    reason is that they can get away with the former but not the latter.
    
    Kit

    
>>    If spanking is minimal, if parents treat their children with respect,
>>    if love is present, I don't think spanking is the end of the world.

	That's what most of the people in here have been saying.

      Hi,
    
        I've only read up to .7.
    
        I can think of three ways to motivate right behaviors.
    
        1) Reward them to not do wrong.
              ex: "Son, stop hitting your sister.  I'll give you
                  ten bucks if you stop hitting your sister!"
    
        2) Threaten them with something they won't want to have happen
           (fear).
              ex: "If you hit your sister, I'm going to hit you!"
    
        3) Love.
              By this I mean that hopefully they will be motivated to
              not do wrong because they see your love for them and it
              hurts them to hurt you.
    
        I prefer #3, but I recognize that a lot of times it just doesn't
        work.  The reason it doesn't work is because the motivation does
        not appeal to selfishness.  #'s 1 and 2 do appeal to selfishness.
        I would never use #1; that is ridiculous.
    
        Sometimes you have to use #2.  If you're kid crosses a street 
        without looking, you have to put FEAR in their minds if nothing
        else will do.
    
        As far as what type of fear-motivation, without getting ridiculous
        (like you don't burn them or anything), the bottom line (to me)
        is that you are inducing fear-motivation regardless of the specific
        type.  Well, maybe having to sit in your bedroom all day isn't fear
        motivation, but it can be dreaded.  I much preferred a quick
        spanking to losing out of a full day.
    
        To summarize...
    
        Always try love.  Recognize that it often won't work.  Resort to
        fear.  And basically, I think the similarities of fear motivations
        as to the effect on the mind, the dynamics involved, are much more
        significant than the differences. Whether a paddle on the behind 
        or hollering or making a kid stay in their room.
    
        My daughters are 12 and 11.  I spanked one of them 2 or 3 times
        and the other once or twice.  They just didn't really need it.
        I've hollered at them a few times.  Thats scary too.
    
        As an aside, I think people really underestimate the negative 
        effects of too much hollering/verbal abuse.
    
                                                        Tony

    re: .106
    
    Good heavens, ma'am, you're like those 2d ammendment gunnuts who
    believe in only one clause of the 2d amendment!  The key point *I* was
    making is in the second clause...
    
    Kit

      re: .12
     
      How do you motivate right behaviors?

        Re:49

    I was trying to illustrate the difficulties in staying on the course
    that I have chosen.

    For *me*, the methods that *I* use, require *me* to be creative and
    exercise self-control.

    Make no mistake, guiding my son means:

    o consistency
    o finding punishment that suits the behavior
    o consistency
    o ensuring he understands that I love him, it's the behavior I don't
      like


    When I used the explanation of the rod as a shepherd's staff I
    envisioned it they way I use discipline - if he goes off track slightly
    to the left the staff comes down hard right next to him, if he goes off
    track to the right the staff comes down hard to the right. Course
    corrections....leading to good decisions.

    Kids need well defined boundaries. Constant, consistent reinforcement
    is the key (IMO). It is not easy, for me.

    For example, with my son, he hated being removed from any activity, so
    the "time-out" method worked well for him, it was the worst punishment
    imaginable. Today, I calmly discuss with him the consequences of his
    behavior/decisions. I give him an appropriate measure of respect for
    his station in life and he shows his parents respect. The respect for
    his parents is mandatory.


    Jeff
    

re: .3-.107

It's interesting to note that virtually NOBODY has caught on to the
little tidbit in .3; that most spankers "GROSSLY UNDERESTIMATE"
the amount of spanking that they perform.

But I'm SURE they're not talking about YOU, right spankers?

\john

    
    <------
    
    Right.... like people keep a chart on their walls and check it off
    after each "beating"...
    
     Sheeeeeeeesh!
    

    re: .12
    
    If it looks like a windup,  
       smells like a windup, 
           and acts like a windup...then
    
    
    It probably is a windup.
    
    8^)

    John:
    
    Amazingly, you look at this through liberal glasses...always assuming
    the worst in people.
    
    1. Vote for me cuz you're too stupid and ignorant to think for
       yourself.
    2. We need guns removed because the people are too stupid to defend 
       themselves.
    3. We need motor voter because the average responsible citizen is still
       too lazy to register on their own.
    4. We need affirmative action because people are too (fill in your
       favorite ist here) and we need to social engineer everything.
    
    AND FINALLY
    
    5. We should outlaw corporal punishment because the average responsible 
       parent doesn't admit how many times they discipline their child.  We
       know what's best for you and if you're a spanker, then you must be
       spanking too much.  
    
   -Jack

    
>>    Good heavens, ma'am, you're like those 2d ammendment gunnuts who
>>    believe in only one clause of the 2d amendment!  The key point *I* was
>>    making is in the second clause...

	You made a statement.  You ended it with a period.  Do _you_ not
	believe in every statement _you_ made?  I didn't make any judgment
	as to what your "key point" was.  I merely stated that most of the
	so-called "spankers" in here have been saying something similar
	to _your_ first statement.

    re: my last
    
    Guess not.  8^)

	.114  good note

	That's the problem with trying to discuss this topic.  Some of the
	people who think one should never strike a child start making
	all kinds of ridiculous assumptions about the amount or intensity
	of "spankings" that go on.  They seem to almost _want_ to believe
	the worst.

    re: .117
    
    And likewise, some of the people who think one should spank a child
    start making all kinds of ridiculous assumptions about the efficacy or
    effectiveness of non-spanking discipline that goes on. They seem to
    almost _want_ to believe the worst.
    
    Kit

    Well count me as one who must be raising "spoiled children."  We don't
    hit our kids.  We do remove them from situations, call on them to
    reflect on why they shouldn't be doing what they did, and have
    discussions when there are conflicts between other kids and themselves.  
    
    Learning not to yell and scream and hit takes self-discipline first,
    but it seems to instill that same self-discipline in children as well. 
    I have found in my dealings with kids that those kids who have also
    been raised without being hit respond to learning how to work as a
    team, how to negotiate and compromise effectively with others, and are
    more likely to follow direction.  
    
    Long ago, when my first child went to daycare, (she is now almost 21),
    I decided that if they could manage to discipline effectively without
    any more physical force than removing a child from a situation and
    some physical restraint, that I could learn to manage children in the
    same fashion.  It worked for Lolita, it is working for Carrie, and
    Atlehi
    
    60% of violent criminals were hit in their homes.  Also, over 40% of
    parents still believe in spanking, and over 75% of people have spanked
    or otherwise physically hit their children at one time or another.  I
    fail to see where non-violent parenting is the problem with society,
    since it never has been given a realistic chance.
    
    meg

    Jack,
    
    \john supported none of those things by his note.  He merely pointed
    out that according to research that has been done (I wish I could
    remember the reference), spankers often underestimate the number of 
    times it is done.  From your response though I get the feeling you 
    equate the use of corporal punishment as being a conservative.  Is this 
    correct?  Lemme see....
    
    Spanking = Good old fashioned conservative, morally correct phyisical 
    disiplinary action leading to strength of chracter.  Recipient will
    most likely vote right of center with a strong sense of right and
    wrong.   
    
    Alternative Disciplinary Measures (ADMs) = Non-violent, morally incorrect,
    liberalized disciplinary inaction.  Leads to voting left of center and
    other socially unacceptable attrocities such as wearing polyester clip on 
    ties in later life.  
    
    In the context of the 'box, he should be ashamed of himself to even hint
    that not everyone that advocates corporal punishment is a rational, 
    responsible, judicious individual capable of meting out a "loving" whack 
    to their children when conditions "warrant" physical discipline.  Shame 
    on you \john.  
    
    Brian

	re .119  sigh...and then there's the ever-popular "violent" word
	thrown in at regular intervals, of course.  ;>  

	It's as pointless as the "abortion" topic, there's no doubt.

    
      I didn't hit mine.  They were disappointments.  Most people are.
    
      My Dad hit me.  He was pretty disappointed with the results, too.
    
       bb

    Meg:
    
    I don't see all statistics and situations as black and white.  The man
    who I refer to as my discipler (teaching me in the faith some 11 years
    ago) had two little children.  He didsn't believe in spanking at all
    and to this day, his children are amongst the finest I have ever seen. 
    Therefore, I agree that both sides can be equally effective if done
    correctly.  And here is a man who taught me "He that spareth the rod
    hates his child".   I never got into the discussion with him at the
    time, not being married and really caring.  
    
    So, my teacher is a good example of one who knew how to discipline
    without spanking.  Here is the extreme of the other example.  My sister
    in law and her husband live in Wellesley Hills.  The house they live in
    was owned by a Hollywood producer and they didn't believe in
    spanking...in fact, they didn't believe in anything.  The children are
    now 11 and 13 with absolutely no concept of propriety.  By todays trend
    the younger of the two will face suicide, AIDS, or Jail...sorry, this
    is the fact!  They fell prey to the sensitivity crowd back in the 80's
    and now despartately wish they had done the route differently.  Now,
    the 11 year old is getting slapped in the face by the father who has no
    clue of proper parenting.  So, there is your statistic...the slippery
    slope argument that definitely holds water.  Kids are only young once
    and if you don't start correctly the first time, you will lose the
    kids.  My sister n law loves her child now even as incorrigable as he
    is.  I try to help by being a male role model for him.  But I am not
    his dad and there is only so much I can and am willing to do.  This
    child never learned the concept of limits because his parents were
    nincompoops and were caught up in the whirlwind of wealth.  They will
    probably be divorce within a few years.
    
    -Jack

    
                   
    
    Fatherhood is just a few months away... :)
    Since I never had to hit my dog to train it, I don't expect to hit my
    child. Repetion and praise worked with a "dumb animal", and it doesn't
    cower when I raise my hand up suddenly amd unexpectantly.
    
    Since, everyone can agree that spanking is a form of disipline. Then
    we can agree that its not the only form or method. Its not the method
    I plan to use.   
    
    

    Brian:
    
    Read the first ten replies.  Mz. Smiths tone toward me was less than
    cordial when I mentioned the hurting of a childs feelings and breaking
    their rebellious will.  I felt I had the label that the typical Tom
    Cottle disciple usually gives me.
    
    Yes, I do break the two groups.  The sensitivity crowd usually holds
    psychologists and liberal thinkers as their priests and priestesses.
    Haven't heard a liberal psychologist who believed in corporal
    punishment but I have seen right wingers who don't believe in spanking.
    The tone here was set by somebody else, not me!
    
    -Jack

    
    just maybe attempting to apply one approach to all children is the
    problem.  it is true that childrens' temperament and compliance may be
    placed upon a scale from extremely compliant to extremely rebellious, for
    example.  the more compliant child will require less of any type of
    discipline while the more rebellious child will require significantly
    more discipline than a compliant peer.
    
    as in all relationships, the parent, in this case, remains the same
    while his/her children are different.  it is just as difficult to
    approach diverse children differently as it is to approach diverse 
    co-workers differently to get the desired results.
    
    we have used physical discipline very effectively, always with some
    anguish but never with disappointment.  but then we use it with the
    right motive - training.  my first son required a good deal of physical
    discpline as a child but almost none now (he's six).  My first daughter
    was compliant compared to her brother and most times only a word would
    do though not at all times.  my second son is more compliant than his
    brother but not a whole lot.  my second daughter (2 months) shows all
    the signs of being compliant already (but i'm not convinced yet,
    naturally).
    
    spanking, as well as other non-physical methods, is a fine tool for 
    training children in self-control - a most important virtue in life.
    
    jeff

re: Jack

May I assume that spanking leaves you unable to read?

Jeez Louise!  I was simply referring to the note in .3.

I DID notice that you used the usual conservative defense:

    "You disagree with me, you must be a liberal"

and that's unfortunate, since we don't get to actually discuss
the issue, but instead get the tired "I'm conservative, you're
wrong" routine going.

Is there something that makes hitting a child a "family value"
such that the conservatives rally around it so much?

\john

    .126 methinks you're on to a valid point!
    
         the simple mention of one leads each camp to define each
         practice as unacceptable...
    
         there are very little "one size fits all" remedies in life.
    
         Chip 

    Beings as how my children are every bit as "compliant" as I was, (and
    still am) I still believe it is unnecessary to beat them into
    compliance.  They learn through (and this is important) CONSISTANT
    expectations surrounding behavior.  This doesn't mean ignoring them
    when they cross a boundry, it means reminding them that there are
    consequences and also pulling them out of the situation until they (and
    the person in charge) are ready to discuss the issue if the behavior
    persists.  
    
    To me if a surrogate caregiver can manage a large number of children
    without resorting to hitting them, the primary caregiver of a smaller
    number of children should be able to get the same results without
    resorting to violence.  (And yes I believe hitting a child to be
    violent behavior, just as hitting the dog would be.)  Dya-care
    providers are not permitted to hit children so they learn other methods
    to get their point across.  Outside of the huge amount of self-control
    it takes to deal with an out-of-control child without utilizing a quick
    swat, it doesn't take that much effort to use other methods.
    
    meg

>>>>    re: .3-.107
    
    John, I apologize.  I didn't see this!
    
    -Jack

>    Beings as how my children are every bit as "compliant" as I was, (and
>    still am) I still believe it is unnecessary to beat them into
>    compliance.  They learn through (and this is important) CONSISTANT
 
    Are all spankings beatings?
    
    
    >   expectations surrounding behavior.  This doesn't mean ignoring them
    >when they cross a boundry, it means reminding them that there are
    >consequences and also pulling them out of the situation until they (and
    >the person in charge) are ready to discuss the issue if the behavior
    >persists.  
    
    for some more rebellious children the consistent consequence of a 
    spanking is usually very effective.
    
    >To me if a surrogate caregiver can manage a large number of children
    >without resorting to hitting them, the primary caregiver of a smaller
    >number of children should be able to get the same results without
    >resorting to violence.  (And yes I believe hitting a child to be
    >violent behavior, just as hitting the dog would be.)  Dya-care
    >providers are not permitted to hit children so they learn other methods
    >to get their point across.  Outside of the huge amount of self-control
    >it takes to deal with an out-of-control child without utilizing a quick
    >swat, it doesn't take that much effort to use other methods.
   
    Discipline of children is not about controlling them necessarily. 
    Discipline is about teaching the child to control themselves.
    
    Daycare providers have no vested interest in the rest of the child's
    lives.  A parent cares what his/her child turns out to be.
    
    I think that cajoling and other such methods are significantly more
    taxing and labor intensive than spanking and from my experience
    significantly less effective with a rebellious child. 
    
    Its too bad that language has been hijacked here too.  Now "choice"
    equates to the option of violence toward the helpless unborn and
    "violence" equates to the option of using a harmless and most effective
    physical method for training children in the way they should go.
    
    Thankfully, those that purposefully confuse the language end up totally 
    confused themselves and can't sustain their momentum.
    
    jeff

 >            <<< Note 290.131 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanshauung" >>>
 >
 >   I think that cajoling and other such methods are significantly more
 
    This is offensive, as it is a misrepresentation of what those of us who
    are not spankers are saying.
    
    Most of us believe in the importance of discipline, and have the
    children to prove it. I'm sorry that you don't believe that, and that
    for you spanking is either the only or the ultimate way to teach a
    child self control.
    
 >   significantly more taxing and labor intensive than spanking
    
    You're damn right it is. This is what I and others have said repeatedly
    here. It requires a great deal more self-discipline on the part of the
    parent than spanking, because it's a lot harder. I, and many others,
    believe that it is ultimately worth it. I'm sorry that you can't see
    beyond your attachment to spanking to accept that it is not the only
    way, but so be it.
    
 >   significantly less effective with a rebellious child. 
    
    A rebellious child is already out of control, due to any number of
    things that relate largely to poor upbringing.  Anyone with a
    consistently rebellious child who can't be controlled other than by
    physical force had best look more closely at what is going on.
    
    Kit 

    Incidentally, for those who consistently try to equate non-spanking
    with non-discipline, either slyly or ignorantly, let me make this clear
    again:  I believe that the successful raising of a child depends upon
    consistent *adult* behavior, mutual respect, and love.
    
    I see scenes all the time in which parents alternate between whacking
    the kid and giving into their whims, yelling at them for ridiculous
    infractions and letting them run wild. But I would dream of suggesting
    that this appalling child-rearing is the *result* of spanking. It's the
    result of poor child-raising.
    
    As I said previously, while I think spanking is unnecessary, can lead
    to the wrong conclusions about human interaction, and is liable to
    misuse, I do not think that it is, in principle, central to the issue
    of raising I child well.
    
    Kit

    >    Are all spankings beatings?
    
    Yes, they are. 
    
    Brian

    
    <-------
    
    Nope.... IMHO...
    

    >    Are all spankings beatings?
    
    No, they're not.

    jeff,
    
    I don't know what kind of daycare you have been involved with, but the
    vast majority of day-care providers I know are in it for the kids, as
    much as for the money.  (This is over a 20 year period)  Those who
    aren't committed to helping kids in self-disclipline get out of the
    business, or don't have kids for any length of time because the kids
    run the household quickly.  
    
    Yes I equate spankings as something less than routine.  It isn't
    necessary to clobber a dog into submissiveness, and kids are much more 
    reasonable and intelligent then dogs.  Of course some of the more
    intelligent kids can really spin one up, calling on vast reserves of
    self-disclipline when dealing with them.  
    
    meg

	.137  ah yes... "clobber" - that's another good one. 
	The inflammatory terms mount.

    I find it interesting that non spankers are offended at insinuations;
    yet to the non spankers in this conference, spanking is synonomous with
    clobbering, beating, and violence.  
    
    My five year old and I are the best of friends.  He (Greg) feels very
    secure with me and he is a courteous, polite, and congenial little boy.
    Like all little boys, sometimes he forgets who he is and gets a time
    out, or spanked depending on the infraction.  Spankings are now very
    rare with Greg because he knows his boundaries and respects those
    boundaries.  When I spanked him, his (dry) diaper was still on him and
    a mark was never left.  Equating spankings with a beating is ludicrous.
    
    Now, some people don't know the concept of corporal punishment. 
    Archie Bunker, although fictitious, said to Meathead one day that
    his old man used to clobber him on the cheek (face) and lock him in the
    closet.  This Brian, is a beating, and child abuse.  Spankings on the
    bumb are discipline but you've heard this before!
    
    -Jack 

        Even the WLD (World's Lamest Dictionary) AKA the AHD equates a
    	spanking with a beating.  
    
        spank - to slap on the buttocks with an open hand.
    
        slap - a smacking blow made with an open hand.
    
        blow - a sudden, hard stroke.
    
        beat - a stroke, blow.
     	
    	Brian

> Spankings on the bumb

Now we're spanking Yastrzemski?

    re: .140
    
    You can play the definition-stretching game with almost any word, if
    you have enough time.
    
    I call it circular defining. 
    
    -steve

 >   I think that cajoling and other such methods are significantly more
 
>    This is offensive, as it is a misrepresentation of what those of us who
>    are not spankers are saying.
 
    I'm sorry.  I meant no offense.  Most often I see this as the method
    used in the absence of spanking.
    
    >Most of us believe in the importance of discipline, and have the
    >children to prove it. I'm sorry that you don't believe that, and that
    >for you spanking is either the only or the ultimate way to teach a
    >child self control.
    
    I'm glad you believe in the importance of discipline.  I didn't say I
    didn't believe this nor imply it.  i think i made it quite clear that
    spanking is an option, not a requirement in all cases.
    
 >   significantly more taxing and labor intensive than spanking
    
    >You're damn right it is. This is what I and others have said repeatedly
    >here. It requires a great deal more self-discipline on the part of the
    >parent than spanking, because it's a lot harder. I, and many others,
    >believe that it is ultimately worth it. 
    
    I don't give points to those who spend the most effort controlling
    their children.  efficiency has great value in family life.  i also
    suspect that families where both parents choose to work outside the
    home are in particular need of a non-spanking model for several
    reasons.
    
     >   significantly less effective with a rebellious child. 
    
    >A rebellious child is already out of control, due to any number of
    >things that relate largely to poor upbringing.  Anyone with a
    >consistently rebellious child who can't be controlled other than by
    >physical force had best look more closely at what is going on.
    
    most rebellious children are rebellious by nature, not by upbringing. 
    
    jeff
    
    

    Non violent discipline is not letting kids run wild.
    
    Nonviolent discipline takes lots of work on the part of the parent. 
    You can't just yell or slap a child when he or she is acting up. 
    
    Discipline must be consistant, no matter which method you use for it to
    be effective.  I know kids who are "spanked" regularly who are clueless
    as to why they get hit.  One parent ignores or even encourages
    behaviors the other person won't tolerate.  
    
    Nonviolent discipline also scares the heck out of kids who haven't
    experienced it.  One friend's child asked me to hit him instead of
    having him sit down with the kids he was fighting with in my home, and
    talking the problem out.  He had no clue on how to communicate his
    wants and needs other than in a physical manner.  Fortunately he is
    learning the boundries of behaviour in our house, how to negotiate,
    compromise (he didn't know what the word meant!) and that might doesn't
    make right.  
    
    To me it is sad to havbe a child around who has so little
    self-discipline he can't control his impulses around other children
    without threat of a beating.  
    
    meg

    Jack,
    
    I have never argued one way or the other as to the various merits of
    different forms of discipline.  Please show me where I have ever
    done so or worse yet, accused you or any other member of the file of 
    perpetrating child abuse upon their own or others children.  When you 
    are done searching for the non-existent reference we can talk about 
    what I have said.  
    
    The assertions I have argued against was that a spanking is not violent
    or a beating.  By dictionary definition, it equates.  If I were to 
    speculate, which I am quite loathe to do, I would venture to guess that 
    the majority of folks in here view their spankings (or other corporal 
    punishments), past and future as such mild acts that it cannot possibly 
    be construed as violent, beating etc.  In other words, it can't be 
    because there is no blood, bruising, red marks, outward signs of damage, 
    there was additional padding in the form of diapers etc. etc. etc.  
    
    I understand that the spanking is for discipline Jack.  How is the
    discipline administerd?  By an adult striking a child whether it be 
    a single attention getter or something more severe.  Taken at face value 
    I can see how this might upset someone who views themselves as a loving 
    guardian of their offspring's health and well being.  It was said before 
    that this is not a black and white situation.  There are degrees of 
    severity to be sure.  
    
    Brian

    
    
    
    This got me thinking also that I have two sister in-laws,
    both with boys and girls at equal age around 5 and 3.
    
    Both have excellent children. The best I have ever seen.
    
    One sister spanks the other doesn't.
    
    So far the only difference I have been able to notice is.
    The little girls discipline their dolls the same way.
    One spanks and the other scolds.
    

    Re. .140
    
    	Please say that you are trying to be funny by chaining these
    definitions?

    re: .147
    
    I'd say he was refuting the labored semantics of a variety of spanking
    proponents who postulated that spanking was not an act of violence.
    
    Whether such violence -- at a minimal level, administered consistently,
    cooly and with a specific purpose -- is a proper and efficacious means
    for bringing up a child, now that's the question.
    
    Kit

    I think it takes more labored semantics (circular definitions, to be
    exact) to equate a spanking with violence.  Unfortunately, society is
    turning into a bunch of mush-headed weirdos that try to equate proper
    discipline of children (though not all children NEED to be disciplined
    with a spanking, mind you) with child abuse/violence.
    
    This is most disingenuous indeed.
    
    -steve

    Beg to differ. The mush-headedness is in not having the imagination or
    self-discipline to imagine any other way.
    
    Kit

    Steve et al, I was not trying to be funny nor disingenious.  The AHD
    has been used to refute (incorrectly IMO) the inherently violent nature
    of corporal punishment.  
    
    Yes or no, do you or do you not have to raise a hand to a child in order 
    to spank them?  Please do not try the "But I have to raise a hand to 
    confort and console blah blah blah" either.  The goal in spanking is 
    to discipline the child for unwanted or destructive behavior.  It is 
    supposed to be a negative experience, to be avoided by demonstrating 
    the correct behavior, yes?  A love pat or patting the back to burp or 
    tossling juniors hair or tickling etc. are all physical manifestations 
    of affection.  A spank may be motivated by love for the child (per at
    least one reply) but it is not meant to be a positive reinforcement as
    a hug may be.  It is supposed to smart, startle or otherwise forcefully
    get the idea across that the behavior was bad.  
    
    I already said it is a matter of degrees.  I never said it was
    child abuse.  That leap of logic has been made by many others in 
    here.  I believe there is definitely a line where a spanking
    does turn into something far more insidious.  This also applies to
    non-physical punishment which IMO can be just as violent and damaging
    than the extreme use of physical punishment.  
    
    I will go so far as to say that parenting is serious stuff and along
    with the joys of the experience (hopefully) there are the more
    difficult duties for a parent in instilling a sense of right and wrong. 
    Occasionally a child will need to be corrected.  The methods in which
    parents accomplish this are varied as evidenced in here.  
    
    Brian

    RE: .150
    
    As in realizing that spanking does not necessarily equate violence?

    re: .150
    
    P&K ??

    Sorry, Steve, the P&K is in your reply. You were quiet when spanking
    advocates used extremely selective and twisted definitions to somehow
    suggest hitting is not violence. Then, when they were called on it by
    someone who made a full citation, you jumped all over him.
    
    Call it P&K; call it hypocrisy.  But look in the mirror.
    
    As for the substance of the matter, you may recall that, as I usually
    do, I tried to characterize fairly the actions, motive, and arguments
    of those with whom I disagree.  Hence, I made it clear that I do not
    think spanking is such a dreadful thing, if done in the loving,
    consistent, mild form advocated by the spankers here. That said, I
    opined that it is unnecessary, liable to abuse, and is susceptible to
    teaching children the wrong things about how to get their way in life.
    
    Kit

>>    advocates used extremely selective and twisted definitions to somehow
>>    suggest hitting is not violence.

	"extremely selective and twisted definitions"?  straight
	from the dictionary?  aaagagagagag.  you're a piece of work.

    re: .last
    
    They carefully avoided any definitions or parts of definitions that
    described spanking as hitting, or as a blow, etc. The fact that you
    didn't recognize that tactic (or won't admit it), and that you
    apparently share the criticism of the one attempt to show the full
    meaning of the word, indicates a certain lack of candor, at the least.
    
    It is this manic defensiveness on the part of the spanking advocates
    that is part of what's so troubling.
    
    Kit

>>    advocates used extremely selective and twisted definitions to somehow
>>    suggest hitting is not violence.

  and then...
	    
>>    They carefully avoided any definitions or parts of definitions that
>>    described spanking as hitting, or as a blow, etc. The fact that you
>>    didn't recognize that tactic (or won't admit it), and that you
>>    apparently share the criticism of the one attempt to show the full
>>    meaning of the word, indicates a certain lack of candor, at the least.

    You're mixing apples and oranges here.  In your first claim,
    you talked about "hitting" vs. "violence".  I reacted to that because
    I posted, in .42, the definition of "violent" in its entirety from
    my dictionary.  No twisting whatsoever.      

    In your subsequent reply, you talk about comparing "spanking" and
    "hitting".  I have not commented on Brian's posted definitions, so
    you can take your assumptions about my response to them and stick
    'em.

    what's wrong with "carefully avoiding" "other" definitions? there
    are generally a number of definitions/slants on the words found
    (dictionaries) because there are generally a number of definitions/slants 
    on the words as they're properly used.
    
    

    Di, 
    
    ok, you're right -- I didn't go back to your original. 
    
    I still maintain that there has been a lot of unseemly selective choice
    of definitions to minimize the element of violence in spanking.
    
    Kit

    
>>    I still maintain that there has been a lot of unseemly selective choice
>>    of definitions to minimize the element of violence in spanking.

	But not to maximize it, I suppose?

    she's good at slipping that knife in when she wants, isn't she?
    
    DougO

    Interviewing my sons:
    
    Clayton 8 years old
    
    Clayton, how do you feel about spankings?
    
    Mostly, it hurts.
    
    Okay, would you say that spanking helps to change your behavior?
    
    Yes.
    
    Do you think that things are more peaceful, happier after your behavior
    has been changed by a spanking?
    
    Most of the time.
    
    Do you always know the reason why you are spanked?
    
    Yes, I do.
    
    Do you think that you deserve your spankings?
    
    If I did something wrong and my Mom knows about it, yes I do deserve a
    spanking.
    
    For what thinks do you deserve a spanking?
    
    If my Mom asks me to do something too many times.  When I argue too
    much.  Fighting with my brother and my mom tells us too many times to
    stop.  So she gives us lots of chances.
    
    After you've been spanked what does your Mom do?
    
    Hugs and kisses us.
    
    Why does she do this?
    
    To make us know that she loves us.
    
    Do you ever feel confused by this?
    
    Never.
    
    

    poifect

    Interviewing my sons:
    
    Matthew 12 years old
    
    Matthew, how do you feel about spankings?
    
    Pain.
        
    Okay, would you say that spanking helps to change your behavior?
    
    Yes.
        
    Do you think that things are more peaceful, happier after your behavior
    has been changed by a spanking?
    
    It depends on the mood I'm in.  If I'm tired or not tired.
        
    Do you always know the reason why you are spanked?
    
    Yes.
        
    Do you think that you deserve your spankings?
    
    Yes. 
       
    For what things do you deserve a spanking?
    
    Teasing my brother.  Not doing my homework.  Disobeying. 
    Disrespectful.
        
    After you've been spanked what does your Mom do?
    
    She makes sure I understand why I was spanked.  She hugs me even though
    I don't really like it.  :-)  
    
    Do you ever feel confused by this?
    
    No.
    
    What would you say is the most effective method of discipline that your
    Mom uses?
    
    She often takes away my video games or pogs for a time, but a spanking
    really is what is most effective. [which he said rather reluctantly
    because he doesn't want *more* spankings.] :-) :-)
    
    

    Did the kids do the typing, too?
    
    ME

| <<< Note 290.165 by REFINE::KOMAR "My congressman is a crook" >>>


| Did the kids do the typing, too?

	Surely not.... I'm sure they were behaving rather nicely, as with 
spankings fresh on mom's mind, they would not want to do anything to bring one
on!!!! :-)


Glen


(Nancy, I LOVED the, "she gives us many chances" part)

    okay, all you anti-spankers, where are the rebuttals to nancy morales'
    interview results?  c'mon, surely you have some solid, well researched,
    psychobabblous reasons why these two well-adjusted kids - who know they
    are loved and yet admit spanking to be effective - must be so confused
    they don't even know they're confused?

Well, I ain't an anti-spanker, but I have to admit that I take with a very
large grain of salt, testimony from someone who railed about not taking
a firm stand with one of her kids who happened to be "strong willed".

    .168
    
    just remember, delblasto, what she does works FOR HER AND HER KIDS.
    
    ymmv, and that's okay.  what's not okay is these idjits who stand there
    so pompously and insist that everybody'e mileage is the same - as long
    as it matches their own.

 Having personally met Nancy's kids, and having had subsequent conversations
 with them on the phone, I'd say they are very well adjusted kids, and 
 quite mature for their age (and well behaved I might add).




Jim

| <<< Note 290.167 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>

| okay, all you anti-spankers, where are the rebuttals 
                                             ^^^^^^^^^

	Was this one of those unintentional puns???

    If it works for Nancy and her kids fine.  However, I firmly believe
    there are better ways to disclipline that don't use violence, or
    something that would get a person jailed if they used the same strategy
    on an adult.  Nancy, out of curiosity would you stay with an SO who
    believed in spanking you if you did something he interpreted as
    disrespectful?  would you hit an so for this reason?
    
    My kids also know they are well-loved and that Mom and Dad aren't going
    to throw them out of the house with a suitcase, aren't going to lose
    control and clobber them, and that appropriate behavior is expected at
    all times.  Yes they act out, they are kids, and we have discussions
    about actions and consequences.  We also discuss how the misbehavior
    made them feel in the long run, and how they believe the misbehavior
    made others feel.  The longest term member of the no hitting leauge is
    truly irresponsible, she is in college in an environmental program that
    is heavy on courses that aren't fun.  She is carrying a 3.5 after three
    years.  the self discipline she learned at home is an asset when
    dealing with this, according to her.
    
    We alsio work on conflict resolution between kids and the hands-off
    methods there.  I work with a diverse troop of young girls, and I
    cannont use physical methods to enforce behavior with them either, I
    would lose my leadership position, and also probably my membership in
    the parent organization.  I could also be jailed.  
    
    Given the fact that hitting an unrelated child is considered assault,
    why would I do this with my kids?  If I didn't know alternatvie methods
    to physical enforcement how long do you think I would last with these
    kids?
    
    meg

    As soon as someone who isn't directly responsible for their well-
    being and support interviews Nancy's kids, let me know. Otherwise,
    this is about as anectodal as evidence gets.
    
    -b

    
    Meg
    
    	What are the consequences you talk about?

          Hmm I know someone who refuses to spank her kids yet is
    habitually kicked, punched and groped by her 8 and 11 year old boys.
    To me it all comes down to checks and balances. They know what they can
    get away with so they continue to dominate her. Some kids can be
    taught right from wrong without a pat on the butt every now and then.
    Count yourself lucky if you've been able to accomplish this. Other
    kids require a little stricter discipline every now and then. Either
    way I feel a parent that spends the time disciplining and or reasoning
    things out with their offspring are equally good parents. It's the
    parents that seemingly send their kids to school with the intent of
    letting the school system do the disciplining that frost my cookies.
    
    
    Bob
    

    
    rebuttal ...
    
    I haven't hit in 6 parent years so far and have no intention of
    starting.   Why not.  
    
    * I try to treat my kids like other people as much as possible.  I do
      not hit friends, I do not hit other people's kids, I do not hit other
      people over whom I have authority ... why should my kids be treated 
      differently?
    
    * I do not want to set the example of the "big" person hitting the
      "little" person to get them to comply.
    
    * I do not want to set the example of the person in authority hitting
      the subordinate to get them to comply.
    
    * I do not want to set the example of proactively starting physical
      interaction.
    
    * I do want to set the example of trying to find non-physical solution
      to situations if at all possible.
    
    
    Greg
                                       

    .176
    
    that's not a rebuttal.  a rebuttal would attempt to demonstrate that
    nancy is wrong in doing what she does.  but then you can't really do
    that, can you, because EVERY SITUATION IS DIFFERENT.

    natural consequences:
    
    Act like a pain in the neck to your friends and they won't be friends
    for long.  
    
    parental consequences:
    
    Acting out to get something, not only doesn't get you what you are
    acting out about, it will also get you removed from the situation until
    you are under control.
    
    Mistreating your sibling results in being removed from the situation
    until you are under control, and then discussion about why you
    shouldn't do this.  if both kids are verbal, they discuss it between
    themselves with a parent as facilitator.  If one or both children 
    aren't verbal, then it takes more work, but the isolation from each
    other is the direct consequence.
    
    Fighting over a toy results in the toy being removed if the kids can't
    negotiate a fair (to them) way to deal with it.  
    
    Discussion about acting out in other activities is also done, non
    judgementally and with a talk about how things could have been handled
    differently for future knowlege.
    
    With the girls I work with in a group, we allowed them to set up
    their own consequences for actions.  They agreed on a tell the person
    about the behavior, if it continues let a leader know to referee, then
    timeout, and if that fails a call to the parent to come collect said
    problem child(ren).  So far,  we haven't had to go beyond the reminding
    the kids about their chosen consequences.  Most of the kids enjoy the
    activities we work on.
    
    We also work with role playing and negotiation with the girls.  Claire
    uses this with the boy's group as well, and while it doesn't result in
    quiet, cowed behavior, for the most point the kids are good at
    self-policing, once they get the idea that they won't be hit, but they
    won't get to participate in a wanted activity as well.
    
    meg

    I never said spankings don't _work_.  If someone hit me when I did
    something they didn't want me to do I wouldn't do it again either.  I
    don't like to be hit.  So yes, you, as the hitter, have stopped me from 
    doing whatever it was I was doing.  Spanking is hitting.  I don't care 
    how hard or how gently you're doing it - it's hitting.  To me, it's 
    the wrong message to send to your kids.  Find another way to do it. 
    And if, as so many of you have pointed out, there are as many ways to 
    discipline as there are kids, why do so many parents resort to raising
    a hand? 

    Violence is a break-down in control, plain and simple. And the cost of
    violence does not lie solely with the victim. When a parent plays the
    "spank" card, they may have an effect on the short-term behavior that
    led to spanking, but they may also be doing more permanent damage to
    their relationship with their children.
    
    What spanking does, pure and simple, is clearly define the point
    where the parent's control breaks down, and when they consider
    violence the only resort. Having your children be so acutely aware
    of your weaknesses, even if subconciously, is hardly a good thing
    in the long run.
    
    And Blinder, per usual, seeks a moral high ground from whence he
    can cast his wisdom, completely avoiding any articulated stance.
    Every case is different. Yes, every case is, and I suppose that
    those parents who routinely beat the crap out of their kids are
    just another example of diversity. Ho ho.
    
    -b

    
>    that's not a rebuttal.  a rebuttal would attempt to demonstrate that
>    nancy is wrong in doing what she does.  but then you can't really do
>    that, can you, because EVERY SITUATION IS DIFFERENT.
    
    first the nit ... there are many ways I could try to rebut Nancy's
    reply besides proving her actions were incorrect ... for example, raise
    an issue about the credibility of a parent questioning their own child
    about how that relationship (kids try to please parents).
    
    next the meat ... of course I can't prove Nancy is wrong (I wouldn't
    use the term wrong ... how about non-optimal) ... that would
    require going back in time and having Nancy be firm, setting limits, be
    loving (just as she has) but foresaking the corporal punishment.  I
    can't prove Nancy is wrong ... then again Nancy can't prove she is
    right either ... no one knows what effect positive or negative corporal
    punishment has had on Nancy's kids especially given all the other stuff
    she apparently has done well for them!
    
    Greg
    

    	I just find it ironic that some of the people who say we shouldn't
    	spank our kids say it's OK to abort them.

    Yeah, I noticed that too...especially a particular woman here who is
    affiliated with Planned Parenthood but I won't mention any names!

    .180

    Horse puckey.


    If you like to have children climbing the walls and running your life
    that's fine. I can tell when children have never been spanked, it
    doesn't seem to bother the parents that much so it works for them. Good
    for them. I couldn't live like that, and my parents didn't live like
    that. Spanking works for me, and I'm pretty much at the end of that era
    and my oldest will be turning 7. I did not ignore or rebel against my
    upbringing and I decided that if what my parents did worked well on me,
    then I would do the same for my children. My children are well behaved
    and I can control them in public with my eyes, I don't have to stoop to
    rational pleading. I see other parents pleading and begging their
    children to listen and I realise that I just couldn't live like that.
    My children have learned that they're not the center of the universe.
    In the long run, they'll be able to cope better than the kids who think
    the world revolves around them.

    Glenn

    
    
    You know I've seen the light.  No more spanking (not that there was
    much to begin with).  From now on I'm going non violent.  Yup, I'm
    going to start locking the misbehaving kid in a dark closet for hours
    at a time.  At least it's non violent........

    
    Thanks for the reply Meg.
    And to tell the truth, we parent in much the same way.
    Though I wouldn't call myself a spanking advocate, I do believe
    that it is sometimes necessary for some children.
    I have had to spank my oldest once and once only. One open handed
    spank to the bottom, all noise, no intent to hurt. Never had to do so
    again. 
    
    On the topic in general..
    
    I's also like to say that I don't appreciate trying to label spanking
    as violence against children. If that is true, then let's go the whole
    distance and state that raising ones voice is verbal violence
    and lecturing a child is emotional abuse.
    
    							Hank

    I think berating a child is way more damaging than a spanking.

    .180
    
    horse puckey.  or has that already been said?
    
    > And Blinder, per usual, seeks a moral high ground from whence he
    > can cast his wisdom, completely avoiding any articulated stance.
    
    this being perhaps the most offensive piece of meadow muffin that you,
    as the south end of a northbound horse, have dropped here.  in case you
    missed my earlier remarks in an attempt to remain uninformed so you'd
    look clever with an ad hominem attack, i'll reiterate them.  you can go
    back and find the originals if you like to prove to yourself that i'm
    not shooting your most important product right back at you; i'm enough
    pressed for time today that i'm not going to do your homework for you. 
    anyway...
    
    i said that i have spanked and that i have found it to be, in some
    instances, the most (if not only) effective form of discipline for my
    offspring.  i did not say that spanking is the only thing that works,
    period, which would in effect be the same position smith_ma and others
    are taking wrt being nonspankers.

     <<< Note 290.184 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Weird Canadian Type Geezer" >>>

How many times were you spanked? How many personalities do you have? Hmmm, 
could there be a correlation? :)

You're depiction of children who are never spanked is about as accurate as 
describing the behaviors of a heavily abused child as one who has been 
spanked. In fact I've seen children who are spanked regularly who show the 
kind of behavior you describe.

I think Bender is prolly right, all circumstances are different. But I side 
with the hands-off crowd in that I think spanking should be a last resort, 
not a first option. Most children can go through their entire lives without 
ever requiring a swat on the backside. That isn't to say there'll never be 
a time when you don't WANT to. But some kids may have such deeply rooted 
behavioral problems that only corporal punishment will penetrate their 
psyche and get them under control. In which case, refusing to lay on the 
hand may be the crueler of the two options.

Fortunately, with our two children, we've been blessed, and we've never had 
to resort to spanking. But who am I to judge others?

Tom

    RE: 180
    
    Well, Glenn, you've answered horse puckey with horse puckey
    then...
    
    My son and daughter are both the top-rated students in their
    class in reading. My son is the top-rated student in his class
    in mathematics. My daughter appears to be a gifted artist.
    My children have never been allowed to crap on either their
    mother or me (or anyone else for that matter). We are routinely
    told the children are exceptionally well-behaved.
    
    The assertion that all children that are not spanked exhibit
    poor or wild behavior is false. I suppose you would conclude
    after meeting my children that they are spanked. You would
    be wrong.
    
    I am not saying that people who choose to spank their children
    are wrong. I _am_ saying that they are denying the potential
    negatives for some short-term positives. I am arguing against
    the assertion that spanking is the only reasonable alternative.
    
    I believe that the right to decide how to discipline children
    lies with the parent, but I also see spanking as a failure
    on the parent's part. Sorry, but there it is. An adult
    should be able to devise a strategy for dealing with the
    behavior of a child; a strategy that does not involve
    violence.
    
    In case you're interested in how I deal with my children: I
    use the large space invader approach. I can be physically
    intimidating without being physical. Most parents would
    have this size advantage during the time it is needed. I
    don't threaten the children, I just make sure they are
    aware that I am the adult, that I have the upper hand, and
    that I make the decisions. I don't let them divert their
    attention away from me, I make them repeat what I have
    said to them, and I speak to them in soft by very firm
    tone. Striking them is simply unnecessary, and since this
    is my basic approach to most situations, they are not
    able to manipulate _my_ behavior, which is where I feel
    the greatest danger in spanking lies.
    
    -b

    .190
    
    you are indeed fortunate in having children who will respond to your
    tactics.  not everyone is that lucky.  i know personally one woman who
    tried those tactics, from the kids' earliest ages, and produced one
    marvelous child (now adult) and one vicious brute who would just as
    soon kick her between the legs as look at her.  no two children will
    respond the same to a specific treatment.  you can posit guidelines,
    but you can't say that a given method will work in all cases, EVEN IF
    IT IS EXECUTED PERFECTLY.
    
    why is it so difficult for so many people to understand this essential
    fact of life?

    Perhaps it's not possible to see eye to eye then.

    I applaud your efforts and success. Yet you dismiss mine as a failure.

    Go bang your head.

 re: Tom

>>But I side 
>>with the hands-off crowd in that I think spanking should be a last resort, 
>>not a first option. 

	It's not just the "hands-off crowd" that has been saying that,
	and in fact, some of them are not saying that at all.

    >this being perhaps the most offensive piece of meadow muffin that you,
    >as the south end of a northbound horse, have dropped here.  in case you
    >missed my earlier remarks in an attempt to remain uninformed so you'd
    >look clever with an ad hominem attack, i'll reiterate them.
    
    Well, I guess I got your attention! :-) :-) Thank you sir, may I
    have another!
    
    Let's both take it down a notch now (sorry about what you interpret
    as an ad hominem attack), and I'll rephrase my point:
    
    You seem to be of the "what works for parent X is great for parent
    X" school, which I somewhat disagree with... you see, if parent X
    is being manipulated into a response than that hardly "works" for
    parent X, now does it? Your argument almost boils down to the "if
    it feels good do it" school, whereas I'm of the "if it feels good,
    think long and hard about it" school. After all, the argument here
    is not about whether you have the right to spank or not (I think
    you do), but whether spanking has the desired effect. I say it
    doesn't. Further, I say that you can rather conveniently avoid
    the real issue with the "parental rights" slight of hand. It's
    similar to the slight-of-hand I feel you put forth on the abortion
    issue (which I would be glad to discuss in the appropriate note).
    
    Hank: hitting _is_ violence. Not all violence is necessarily bad,
    but pretty much all violence does extract a price. I am arguing
    against spanking as a behavioral band-aid. If that's not what you
    feel you do, then you're certainly not under attack from me!
    
    -b

           <<< Note 290.193 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "too few args" >>>

As usual, Di, I didn't make my case clear.

What I meant was that I don't subscribe to the idea that spanking should be 
a standard part of the disciplining process: If you do x, you'll be 
spanked. I'm not saying that can't work, but it seems intuitively clear to 
me that it is not the best way, that it conveys some not-so-good messages 
to the child, and that most children's behavior can be well controlled 
using more respectful means. 

That said, with some children, reason, respect, without the backup of
corporal consequences simply won't work. And there I part with the 
hands-off-ALWAYS crowd.

    re. 182
    
    That's absurd.

    .194
    
    no, brian, you miss my point.  i don't say "what works for parent x is
    great for parent x."  what i'm saying is that what works for parent x
    may well be the only thing parent x has found that works.  and you can
    rest assured that i spent more time agonizing over every damn spanking
    i delivered than i did on explanations or on the spanking itself.  i do
    not take striking a child lightly - but i am not fool enough to believe
    that there is ALWAYS another way.
    
    i always approached discipline with "doing mumble is wrong, it can and
    most likely will have mumble consequences, some of which may be
    disastrous."  that worked sometimes - each of my kids touched my
    toddler-level stereo one time, after which they understood that if they
    did it again that might mean the end of the music.  it didn't work
    other times - as i found out when my son pulled the bookcase over on
    himself.  he had been told innumerable times what would happen, he had
    been disciplined in other ways, yet nothing would convince him short of
    trying it out.

    >Perhaps it's not possible to see eye to eye then.

    >I applaud your efforts and success. Yet you dismiss mine as a failure.

    >Go bang your head.
    
    Glenn,
    
    First, I apologize for the impression that I dismiss your efforts
    as a failure... poor choice of words on my part. I'm not trying
    to be inflammatory, but I have an overdeveloped flame gene that
    sometimes sneaks out of the closet... :-)
    
    Anyway, failure is a poor choice of words... break down? I
    dunno... All I'm saying (with a liberal sprinkling of IMOs) is
    that I firmly believe that spanking is an over-rated activity.
    In the example Dick gave, clearly one of the children has
    a behavioral problem. This is probably not corrected with
    spanking. On the other hand, unless spanking is dealt with
    very carefully, it can exacerbate behavioral problems, possibly
    in adulthood.
    
    I think a lot of parents get manipulated into spanking (if
    you don't, then I'm not talking about you). What happens is,
    the child gets used to the idea that with a moderate amount
    of physical pain, they can do such and such... reverse
    psychology at work. Oh, I know I can survive a whupping from
    Mom/Dad, so I can pretty much do what I want...
    
    -b

    Well, I haven't been paying attention, but it seems one thing is clear: 
    disciplining a child should be a conscious act, not an unconscious
    reaction.  Before the child is born, you need to agree on an approach
    to discipline (this is a big source of friction for couples, BTW) and
    work out the rules.  Of course, then you need to follow them....

    	re .196
    
    	My point exactly!

    re. 182 and others.
    
    violence on a  living breathing child is still violence.  It is
    improper.  We can work on the abortion issue in the abortion topic. 
    Or do you think one who supports women's reproductive choices also
    feels a need to club her kids constantly?  
    
    I have my kids by choice, and the grace of the Goddess for the length
    of time she chooses for me to have them.  Beating them into submission
    instead of teaching them self-discipline would be violating the core of
    my spiritual beliefs.  My children are a gift, not a chore, and raising
    them to reflect their spiritual origins and  respect for others is a
    requirement. 
    
    Odd how those who have their kids by chance and want to force that idea
    on others also seem to believe in beating children in a manner that
    would jail them if it was a strange adult is appropriate and loving. 
    Particularly those associated with "pro-life" movements and a certain
    authoritarian religion based on fear, guilt, and hell.
    
    Mike,
    
    I don't lock my kids in closets, or berate them.  I consider that to be
    violent parenting as well. It is every bit as bad as beating them.  
    It is instilling good behavior rather than encouraging self respect,
    esteem and disclipline.  As they won't always be with me, I want them
    to be able to control THEMSELVES in situations where I am not there.
    
    meg

    .201
    
    I applaud you.

    
>>    violence on a  living breathing child is still violence.

  well that's hardly a news flash.  who said it isn't?

| <<< Note 290.182 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>



| I just find it ironic that some of the people who say we shouldn't spank our 
| kids say it's OK to abort them.

	Joe, if someone truly believes that the aborted fetus is not a child,
it is very easy to understand why there is a difference. But this is something
that would have to be done on an individual basis. Why is that so hard for you
to understand? No one is asking you to AGREE with what they believe in, but to
understand the difference between what is or isn't truly believed.


Glen

| <<< Note 290.183 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>



| Yeah, I noticed that too...especially a particular woman here who is
| affiliated with Planned Parenthood but I won't mention any names!

	Jack, do me a favor. Tell me everything PP does. Give me % of each
thing they do every year. When you can do that, then you would see why taking
PP and equating it to abortion is wrong.


Glen

| <<< Note 290.192 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Weird Canadian Type Geezer" >>>


| Go bang your head.

	Ohhhh.... this is now a heavy metal topic..... way cool.... 

>    Particularly those associated with "pro-life" movements and a certain
>    authoritarian religion based on fear, guilt, and hell.
    
    The overriding characteristic of Christianity is the love of God for 
    humanity.  This is proven by the sacrifice (brutal, shameful death) of 
    Jesus (God) for the ungodly.
    
    jeff
    

    
    re: 201
    
    >violence on a  living breathing child is still violence.
    
    If you keep re-iterating that point and state is as such, then you'll
    find many people ignoring you, no matter how cogent and well
    intentioned you replies may be... myself included. 

| <<< Note 290.207 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanshauung" >>>

| >    Particularly those associated with "pro-life" movements and a certain
| >    authoritarian religion based on fear, guilt, and hell.


| The overriding characteristic of Christianity is the love of God for humanity.
| This is proven by the sacrifice (brutal, shameful death) of Jesus (God) for 
| the ungodly.

	Jeff, it's too bad it's humans who are doing the talking today. Because
of this fact, a lot of people DO fit the mold listed at the top of this note.
Your vision only shows us what God/Jesus did for us, while the one above shows
what has become of it for many since humans took over.


Glen

>    		Before the child is born, you need to agree on an approach
>    to discipline (this is a big source of friction for couples, BTW) and
>    work out the rules.  Of course, then you need to follow them....

Chelsea,
    While this approach may have limited success for offspring on the
    order of 2 through n,I doubt that it makes much sense for offspring
    at a value of 1. Prior to raising one's first child, one hasn't even
    the foggiest concept of what one will run into. Attempting to follow
    a course of action at that time, which was laid out in the presence
    of insufficient data, is foolhardy.

    This still applies, but to a slightly lesser degree, with subsequent
    offspring.

    If/When you become a parent, this will become vividly clear to you.

	thank you

| >    Particularly those associated with "pro-life" movements and a certain
| >    authoritarian religion based on fear, guilt, and hell.


| The overriding characteristic of Christianity is the love of God for humanity.
| This is proven by the sacrifice (brutal, shameful death) of Jesus (God) for 
| the ungodly.

>	Jeff, it's too bad it's humans who are doing the talking today. Because
>of this fact, a lot of people DO fit the mold listed at the top of this note.
>Your vision only shows us what God/Jesus did for us, while the one above shows
>what has become of it for many since humans took over.

    Me thinks you need a refresher in "reading comprehension".
    
    jeff

Glen

re: .178, Meg

>    natural consequences:
>    
>    Act like a pain in the neck to your friends and they won't be friends
>    for long.  


This brings to mind one of my favorite cartoons -

Father sitting in his easy chair reading the newspaper and talking to his
son, who stands next to him in short pants holding a smoking gun pointed
at the floor, where we see the toes of two shoes sticking up from extended
legs of a prostrate body (not visible past the knees). The father is saying -

	"And if you keep that up, you won't have any friends."

.204>	Joe, if someone truly believes that the aborted fetus is not a child,
>it is very easy to understand why there is a difference. 
    
    	That's part of my point.  
    
>But this is something
>that would have to be done on an individual basis. 
    
    	Individual belief, while it makes the difference, doesn't
    	invalidate the irony of the difference.
    
    	BTW, appropriate reply number you got there!

    Why is this degenerating into an abortion topic?
    
    Before you were woven in your mother's womb I spanked you?

    
    
    RE: .210  Well put, Jack.
    

>>    Why is this degenerating into an abortion topic?

	If people start talking about abortion here, independent of
	disciplining children, I promise to do the moderatorly thing
	and move the replies, okay, Rex?

    How did you know it was me?
    
    Rex

	Jeff, my reading comprehension is fine. But by comparing what God did
or does want intended for us to todays terms equates, in MANY cases, a sad
twisted watered down version. That's why what was said before rings so true.

    Re: .210
    
    >Prior to raising one's first child, one hasn't even the foggiest
    >concept of what one will run into.
    
    Hogwash.  Even if you've never had younger siblings, even if you have
    never done any time babysitting, even if your friends or relatives have
    never exposed you to their children, you have _still_ seen children in
    public places and have some idea of things they do.
    
    >Attempting to follow a course of action at that time,
    
    The planning is, in and of itself, a useful exercise.  It lets parents
    work out their philosophies on discipline, and it gets them thinking
    about what they might have to deal with.  Plans can be adjusted, but at
    least you have laid the groundwork for making changes.

>>    How did you know it was me?

	I noticed that Rex is the inquisitive one, somewhat given
	to extrapolation.

| <<< Note 290.215 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

| .204>	Joe, if someone truly believes that the aborted fetus is not a child,
| >it is very easy to understand why there is a difference.

| That's part of my point.

	Could you elaborate on that Joe? I reread your entry, and didn't pick
up on that part at all. 

| >But this is something that would have to be done on an individual basis.

| Individual belief, while it makes the difference, doesn't invalidate the irony
| of the difference.

	The irony only exists upon the belief of the individual. Otherwise, if
you call it an irony, all you have is a baseless assertion.

| BTW, appropriate reply number you got there!

	Huh?

| <<< Note 290.216 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Weird Canadian Type Geezer" >>>


| Before you were woven in your mother's womb I spanked you?


	Hmmmmm....... I'm older than you, so I doubt you spanked my baby fetus
bum!

      
  >  The planning is, in and of itself, a useful exercise.  It lets parents
  >  work out their philosophies on discipline, and it gets them thinking
  >  about what they might have to deal with.  Plans can be adjusted, but at
  >  least you have laid the groundwork for making changes.
    
    	This is certainly correct.  There is nothing mysterious about
    parenting.  Thinking about parenting, even planning and predicting,
    prior to the arrival of children is an indispensable help.
    
    My brother and his wife had their first child three years ago.  They
    thought they shared the same philosophy in parenting styles before the
    child arrived (but this was probably a stupid assumption).  They
    learned that they did not once she burst on the scene, especially where
    discipline is concerned.  This difference has been a springboard for
    nurturing other differences and has brought them to the brink
    of divorce.  And their kid is a brat.  Some pre-child planning, 
    discussion and philosphizing might have made a great difference in 
    their lives.
    
    My wife and I did discuss these things in some detail prior to marriage
    even.  We've had a remarkably parallel mindset with our four kids and
    discipline, though time consuming, is not itself a point of contention
    in our family.  I'm so glad!
    
    jeff

    	.223
    
>| BTW, appropriate reply number you got there!
>
>	Huh?
    
    	:^)

	How about addressing the rest of .223 Joe, so we can errrr... see what
your point was and how it partially = what I said?


Glen

>    Hogwash.

Not entirely. Come back to me after you've parented and we'll discuss the
flaws in your assumption.

You can plan until you're blue in the face based on your observations and
expectations. The reality of parenting is different. What you will find
is that the basis of your plans was not well thought out in all dimensions.
And that there are dimensions of which you weren't even aware. It's very
simple to say "if that were my kid doing that in these circumstance I'd
xyz". But the reality is that there's more to it than the confines which
you are observing.

    Can you be prepared for a possibly brain damaged child?
    
    No, everyone hopes everything will be perfect.

	My mother is STILL holding out for hope......

    Re: .228
    
    >Not entirely.
    
    Don't make absolute statements if you don't mean them.  You said I
    would have no idea.  That's wrong.  I have a reasonable idea, having
    undergone years of babysitting for several different families.
    
    >You can plan until you're blue in the face based on your observations
    >and expectations. The reality of parenting is different.
    
    So what?  A lot of plans are like that.  Planning is still a useful
    exercise.  You've at least gone over _some_ of the things that might
    happen, and you've worked out a process for dealing with things.  It's
    practice.  The first time you have to manage a project, you run into
    stuff you didn't anticipate.  That's no reason not to do planning.

    
    RE: .231
    
    >Don't make absolute statements if you don't mean them.  You said I
    >would have no idea.  That's wrong.  I have a reasonable idea, having
    >undergone years of babysitting for several different families.
    
    
    
    Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa!!!!! 

    I agree that talking with someone BEFORE you decide to start children
    about their ideas around child-raising is a wonderful idea.  If more
    people did that we might have fewer divorces and a lot fewer screwed up
    children.   
    
    While planning for every possible facet of childrearing is impossible,
    it certainly doesn't hurt  to have some idea on how you believe young
    people should be handled.  A person who believes in hitting and  one
    who never believes in it are likely to have problems and so are their
    kids.  The parents lose consistancy while fighting with each other
    over disciplinary methods, and the kids are left to figure this out on
    their own.  This can lead to manipulative behavior on the part of the
    kids, as well as a lot of confusion when they get bashed by one parent
    and the other turns and lets them do the same thing later.  
    
    Good for you Chelsea
    
    meg  

	Maybe it was just a wording thing, Chels, because I had the
	same reaction that Jack did to what you said, although I 
	agree it would be a great idea to have a general plan.
	I think it was the business about having rules and then following
	them that made it sound sort of inflexible.

	Jack, was that it?

    	Well, that's why they have parenting classes for first-time
    	parents -- so that they can get advice from, and set general
    	expectations based on experiences from people who've been there.

>	Jack, was that it?

That sums it up nicely, thankyou.

My advice would be more along the lines of having the discussions
(I'm not sure how one avoids them when considering raising a family),
reaching some general agreements regarding "beliefs" (I'm not sure
why anyone would raise a family if they couldn't come to agreement
at some level here), and then being prepared to have to change
tactics in midstream depending upon what you're dealt. Starting
with a "rule" to follow the plan is doomed to failure largely
because it's more likely to lead to future friction than is a
plan to readdress the matter if need be.

    This is like too cool folks. Are you like, gunna start hitting
    each other in a moment ?
    
    Bonus

    
    
    
    RE: .237  idjit......

 >    <<< Note 290.184 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Weird Canadian Type Geezer" >>>
 >   
 >   If you like to have children climbing the walls and running your life
 >   that's fine. I can tell when children have never been spanked, it
    
    No you can't. You simply define all ill-behaved children as growing up
    in non-spanking households.
    
>    and I can control them in public with my eyes, I don't have to stoop to
>    rational pleading. I see other parents pleading and begging their
>    children to listen and I realise that I just couldn't live like that.
    
    You don't stoop to rational arguments either. Your characterization of
    a non-spanking upbringing is a grotesque fantasy, a slander, and
    demonstrably untrue.  Pleading has nothing to do with it.
    
    And for every example in which you *suspect* that an ill-behaved child
    was brought up in a non-spanking environment, I can show you one in
    which I *know* the child was brought up being spanked -- because I can
    see him being swatted in the supermarket just after or before being 
    catered to in some appalling way. 
    
    The point is that spanking and non-spanking is not the key to raising a
    well-behaved kid, and you are absolutely clueless as to the possibility
    of doing it any way other than yours.
    
    Kit

    My son has ADD. It has been EXTREMLY difficult to deal with this
    without his medication. I have been telling my wife for years that more
    than medication is needed, i.e counceling, theropy or what ever.
    Finally on the news last night it is recommended that more than just
    medication is needed and what do you think my wife says..."how come you
    never told me that. Fortunatly, I have been sneaking him into help and
    still haven`t told my wife. All I said was yep. I wish there was more I
    could do for him but at least we are on the right track. I`m glad I
    didn`t get into really slapping him!

 >>    Finally on the news last night it is recommended that more than just
 >>    medication is needed 
    
    Is this in the context of corporal punishment?

    Re: .236
    
    >Starting with a "rule" to follow the plan
    
    I didn't say you had a rule to follow the plan.  I said you made rules,
    and then you tried to follow them.  For example, you might have a "no
    spanking" rule, or a rule that says both parents must agree before any
    spanking is done.  Or a rule that says talking back is a punishable
    offense (whatever the punishment might be).  You know, trying to
    instill a little consistency in the process.  There's no point in
    discussing the matter if you don't bother to even try out the results.

    |You don't stoop to rational arguments either. Your characterization of
    |a non-spanking upbringing is a grotesque fantasy, a slander, and
    |demonstrably untrue.  Pleading has nothing to do with it.

    Well, my experience tells me otherwise. Your characterization of a
    spanked upbringing is a grotesque fantasy, a slander and demonstrably
    untrue. I do not spank nor have I ever spanked my children in public.
    This would be humiliating. When I go out with my children, I'm in
    charge and they now it.

    Must you rationalize with your child every time or are you in charge?
    Must you have an argument every time the child wants to do something
    you don't want them to do? If this is how you want to live then great,
    talk until your blue in the mouth. I can't live like that.

    Being consistent is the key. If you see spanked children behaving like
    they're in a four alarm fire at an insane asylum, chances are the
    parents have never been consistent and only use spanking to vent their
    frustration.

    I have known *many* non-spanked children. I have been in *many*
    non-spanking homes. The children run the place and simply must be the
    center of attention at all times. I do not find this kind of
    environment enjoyable and I find these children to be incredibly self
    centered and quite disrespectful. I can't live like they do.

    So, my clueless approach works for me. My children are happy and I
    enjoy them, they enjoy me. We live a clueless life. My parents were
    clueless and now my children are receiving their clueless inheritance.

    Do you have children? I'm under the impression you don't.

    Perhaps you need a few clues of your own before you fire your cannon at
    point blank range.


    Glenn
    

    I'm with Chelsea. With or without children, people usually have a good
    idea of how they think children should be treated and raised -- based
    on their observations, their experience with siblings, babysitting, and
    general philosophy of life.  When people start raising their own, they
    start from that roadmap, making adustments as needed.
    
    I hear lots of people say they never talked about child-rearing before
    they had children, or at least before they were married.  I find that
    troubling. I think how people expect to treat their children is too
    fundamental to have ignored early in the relationship. And since it's
    really just a particular case of how they treat other people in
    general, I wonder how people can get to the point of making a serious
    committment without knowing this aspect of their partners, and being
    comfortable with it.
    
    Kit 

    re: .244
    
    Nice for you if it works.  I was not spanked.  My parents
    had no trouble controlling me either at home or in public.
    I was an exceptional student and they never received a bad
    report about me - in fact my mother told me recently that
    they heard "wish we had a whole class like her" so many 
    times her ears rang :-).  I was never sent home for 
    acting up at someone's house.  My parents were always
    told I was polite and well-behaved, and I never gave them
    reason to believe otherwise.
    
    Sorry to blow your theory, but I really do hate broad
    brushes.
    
    Mary-Michael

    Re: .244
    
    >Must you rationalize with your child every time or are you in charge?
    
    There's a wide range of choices between rationalizing and spanking. 
    One can always pick them up and invert them, after all....  For
    example, when a child is having a tantrum, one can spank the child, one
    can try to talk the child out of it, or one can simply ignore the
    little barbarian.  An interesting alternative is to have your own, far
    superior tantrum, which throws 'em for a loop.

    .244
    
  >  Well, my experience tells me otherwise. Your characterization of a
  >  spanked upbringing is a grotesque fantasy, a slander and demonstrably
  >  untrue. I do not spank nor have I ever spanked my children in public.
  >   This would be humiliating. When I go out with my children, I'm in
  >  charge and they now it.
    
    No, you seem incapable of paying attention. You characterized unspanked
    children as behaving badly. I said that that was demonstrably a false
    characterization. Some are, some aren't. Just as can be said of spanked
    children. I then gave an example.
    
    Example:
    
  >  Must you rationalize with your child every time or are you in charge?
    
    No, who said we did? And are you suggesting spankers don't? Most here
    have carefully said that they tell their kid why they are going to
    spank them -- i.e., they speak rationally to them. Maybe you don't.
    This is typical of your misrepresentation of what it means to bring up
    a child without spanking -- "rationalize", "pleading", etc. This is not
    what it means to teach a child proper behavior without hitting him or
    her.
    
    Clearly, you neither know any other way, nor accept the validity of any
    other way of disciplining and raising a child.  I'm sorry for you. But
    I will not allow you to misrepresent what I, or other non-spankers, are
    talking about because of your willfull or ignorant misrepresentations.
    
    Kit
    

    
    
    
    Well, this has been on fine merry-go-round we've been on.  If the
    discipline is not done out of anger, if the discipline does not do
    permenant physical or mental damage and if the child understands the
    reasons they are being punished, then I think you are doing a good job.
    
    
    Mike

	I feel sorry for you, Mikey, really I do.  8^)

    Do any of the parents out there find that there are different ways to
    train boys and girls, as far as discipline goes?
    
    I'm just curious, as most of the non-spankers (who never got spanked as
    a child) seem to be female, from my skim of this topic.  Perhaps girls
    and boys respond differently to different types of discipline, and
    that sex does make a difference as to how effective each mode of
    discipliine is (in a very broad sense...I understand that some children
    are born more stubborn that others, etc.).
    
    Perhaps taking a non-spanking stand when raising boys isn't the best way 
    to go (in general), and spanking girls isn't the best way (in general).
    
    I really don't have an opinion one way or the other, except that I take
    exception to those who continue to equate 'spanking' with 'violence'
    and 'impatience'.
    
    
    -steve
    

    re :.249
    
    That's about it, Mike. I think you have it right.
    
    Kit

    Kit, you obviously do not recognize that what I've done works for me. I
    compare what I have done to what I have observed. I have concluded that
    my course of action has been successful. You seem to think you're
    standing on some sort of moral high ground. And you without children.

    You seem to have a big chip on your shoulder about this. 

    If my statements seem to be a broad brush, they were not intended to be
    so. It is obvious that there are pros and cons to both methods, but
    from what I have observed with my stroke of the brush through life is
    that I prefer what I have done, not what someone else has. 

    If you can achieve good results without spanking, good. To dismiss
    spanking as a method even though it also achieves good results is 
    ignorant.

    If you think I can't tell my ass from my elbow and you're some sort of
    empirical expert on child rearing then voicing my opinion is rather
    pointless.

    Glenn

 >    <<< Note 290.253 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Weird Canadian Type Geezer" >>>
 >
    Kit, you obviously do not recognize that what I've done works for me. I
    
    No, again you are talking absolute blather.  I have said repeatedly
    that I don't think the spanking/nonspanking dichotomy is the key to
    whether kids are raised to be well-behaved. 
    
 >   If you can achieve good results without spanking, good. 
    
    This is the first time you have even faintly acknowledged that your One
    True Path is not necessarily that.
    
 >   To dismiss spanking as a method even though it also achieves good
 >   results is  ignorant.
    
    I never did so, as you should know. A cursory reading of this string would
    prove that.  You, on the contrary, made all kinds of characterizations
    that show that you believe non-spanking equals non-discipline, and that
    kids who are raised without spanking cannot possibly be raised
    properly.  
    
    You simply refuse to believe that yours is *not* the only way. 
    
 >  And you without children.
   
    Typical of the quality of your argument and the care with which you
    judge others.  Again, as you would find from reading this string (or
    any number of other over the last 9 years in which I have participated) 
    I am the father or 3 children, and before age 16 had more experience
    raising children than many parents, as the 2d of 6 in a family in which
    we all were expected to lend a hand.
                                                
    
    Kit

    I was spanked as a child (once); I definitely deserved it.  It left
    a lasting impression and it was never necessary for my Dad to dust
    my butt again.  I don't think this damaged my psyche.
    
    Last weekend I observed a sad and appalling sight.  I was in a
    crytal shop at a local mall.  A little boy (approx 3/4 years of age)
    practically gave the owner a heart attack and definitely did physical
    damage to his mother.  It started out with the child touching items
    for sale that he shouldn't - signs all over the place state "you
    break it you've bought it".  The mother tried the reasoning/discussion
    approach to no avail.  Personally I would have gotten the kid out of
    that store when I saw this wasn't working, but this woman seemed de-
    termined to reason with the kid.  It escalated to the kid having a
    full-blown tantrum, red in the face, screaming and KICKING his mother
    in the shins to hard the bruises were visible almost immediately!!!
    He was clearly out of control and she was still trying to reason with
    him "now dear, you and Mommy have discussed inappropriate behavior",
    etc. ad nauseum.
    
    Everyone else in the store seemed rooted in place, absolutely dumb-
    founded by this display.  Finally she scooped the kid up and went
    to pay for the 2 vases he'd broken.  An older woman looked at her and
    said "the good Lord put extra padding on our butts for a reason; you
    might give that some thought the next time he tries this".
    
    A hand to the butt is not child abuse.  The kid was *beyond* out of
    control; IMO the mother won't be doing this kid any favors if she
    tolerates this type of behavior.
    
    IMO, a well-placed {{{smaq}}}(tm) probably would have drawn a round
    of applause.
    
    

    Well, thanks for coming out the info. You seemed to be avoiding my
    question as to whether you had kids or not.

    I do not believe my way is the only way. It's obviously the only way I
    chose. Sorry for the absolute blather, but you seemed to come after to
    me with alacrity. If I missed your point, as it would seem that I have,
    I apologize.

    May I ask if you were spanked as a child?

    Glenn

    re .255 - Not only a round of applause, but the local cops, if you
    remember the Bruno's incident here in GA a while back.  
    
    Lady was disciplining her child, and the supermarket store employees
    called the cops, had the lady locked up, etc.  Charges were dropped,
    eventually.  Kid said he deserved what he was getting.
    
    Be careful what you do to your kids in public.
    
    Dan

    <---- Yes. Very true.

    re: .256
    
    What question about whether or not I have kids?
    
    As for being spanked as a child, I'm sure I (and my 5 siblings) got a
    swat once a year or so, but I don't recall it as an element in my
    upbringing.
    
    In my house, the parents ruled. Theirs was the ultimate judgment,
    adjusted for more latitude as we grew. But their authority derived from
    their example -- they were respectful of us, each other, and other
    people. They expected much of us, but they also did not condescend, so
    we were always accorded both the burdens and the pleasures of that next
    stage of life to which a child always aspires.
    
    Kit

    
>>    As for being spanked as a child, I'm sure I (and my 5 siblings) got a
>>    swat once a year or so, but I don't recall it as an element in my
>>    upbringing.

	Same here - only it was less often than that.  Based on that, I don't
	go around saying that people who spank their children lack imagination.

    .255
    
    Let's try this once again.  You, as have other spankers, are equating
    the poor behavior with lack of spanking.  Wrong. The poor behavior is
    the result of poor upbringing, spanking or no spanking.
    
    For every one of your examples (which I see also), I can cite one in
    which I see a kind wreaking all kinds of havoc, or begging and getting
    what he wants, until finally the parent decides he or she has had
    enough and spanks the kid.  Try to see if you can grasp this: That does
    *not* prove that spanking leads to ill-mannered kids, any more than
    your example shows that non-spanking leads to ill-mannered kids.
    
    I wouldn't dream of spanking my kids. For years I took them all three
    grocery shopping with me and I can assure you that you would find them
    models of excellent decorum. Not because they are saints, but because
    my wife and I have brought them up with love, respect, discipline and a
    sense of what is and is not appropriate behavior.
    
    Of course, you would just assume that I spank them.
    
    Kit

	Does spankin the monkey count as a spanker?

I am not opposed to occasional, warranted spanking. I had my bottom
warmed more than several times by my mother (NEVER my father) as a
youngster (under 10) and don't seem any the worse for it, although
other's opinions may vary. With my own children, the older one was
spanked once, and once only in her life, by me. And in retrospect,
it probably wasn't the most appropriate way of dealing with the
circumstances. Oddly, she doesn't even remember it at age 23+.

I suppose I should be concerned, as she'll likely turn out to be
an axe-murderer one of these days when we least expect it . . . 

    RE.238
    
    Oi!

    for those who think only women are non-spankers:
    
    Frank and I talked about this when we found out Carrie was on the way. 
    He has firm beliefs in child raising.  There are three things you can
    do that will almost guarantee a problem:
    
    1.  Lie to him or her
    
    2.  Beat them
    
    3.  Beat lies into them.  
    
    We also agreed that consistancy between both of us on boundries is a
    requirement.  this has worked well for Carrie, and so far, for Atlehi. 
    Our children are age-appropriately behaved.  We don't bargain in
    stores, or anywhere else.  I have never had to worry about taking a
    child over the age of 4 into any store.  
    
    As I said, my oldest has self-discipline, not instilled discipline. 
    This served her well the first year she was at college, and now
    continues to server her in her third year.  those who were intimidated
    into behavior went nuts their first year, according to her.
    
    meg

    I've discovered that "well behaved" is a very subjective thing.

Duke in today's Doonesbury: "Honey, there're few child care problems that can't
be solved with duct tape."

I was spanked as a child.

I was thinking about what I remember of the experiences....

Pain, humiliation, fear, anger, a feeling of hopelessness, upset, 
emotional drain, embarrassment, awful feeling in the pit of my stomach, hate

It is a terrible experience.

As I got older the disappointment my father showed when I misbehaved was 10 
times worse. I used the disappointment factor as soon as my son understood
it, for children naturally want to please their parents. I use this
motivation for my child in my situation. 

This note has gone all over the place. I think we can all agree that the 
goal of raising a child is to produce a happy, confident, sociable, 
responsible adult.

Given that, it boils down to this question -

Do you want to reach that goal through corrective action that involves pain?
    
    
    
    
    Jeff

    "corrective action that receives pain"?
    
    Sounds like a advert you get in a London telephone box. Usually with a
    female dressed in black leather holding a whip. Er,not that I hang 
    about London telephone boxes of course.
    

>As I got older the disappointment my father showed when I misbehaved was 10 
>times worse.

	So, using your logic, it was 10times worse to deal with the
disappointment factor than the spanking. Sounds like spanking is 10times better
to me.....


;*\

| <<< Note 290.269 by SUBURB::COOKS "Half Man,Half Biscuit" >>>



| Sounds like a advert you get in a London telephone box. Usually with a
| female dressed in black leather holding a whip. 

	Is that the new Dr. Who companion? :-)

    At church tonight my little rebel rouser caused quite a stir amongst
    the myn in charge. He was "ansy" and "disobeyed".  So they kicked him
    outta class for two weeks [actually that only entails 2 wednesdays
    since that's all this class meets, once a week on Wed].
    
    Clayton was brave enough to tell me before the teacher told me.  When I
    asked Clayton what his behavior should have been, he said "to obey". 
    I responded that since he knew what his behavior should have been, then
    he owes his teacher(s) an apology.  He began to balk saying he thought
    the teacher was too hard on him.  
    
    I told him that in order to be a good leader, you must learn to be a
    good follower.  That success comes from following authority and then
    learning from that experience to be a good leader.  He understood.
    
    The teacher then told me the things that Clayton had done that
    warranted his being kicked out for two weeks.  Well, well, well, this
    kid was rather er, um how can we say this... full of it tonight. 
    
    So, when we got home, I talked with him and explained that his behavior
    couldn't be tolerated and that this kind of disrespect warranted a
    spanking.  He bent over and I gave him two swats on the behind.  He
    cried for a small moment.  I quietly told him that he needed to take
    his bath now.
    
    He went undressed and just before he got in the bathtub, he came to me
    with his head held downward and said, "Mom, I'm sorry I disobeyed and
    I'm going down to Mr. G's house and apologize tomorrow." [Yes his
    teacher lives on the same street as us.]
    
    Clayton once again demonstrated to me that spanking makes the
    difference.  I causes him to think *seriously* about his behavior
    without anything more than a sting to the backside.
    
    The tears welled up in my sentimental ol' eyes.  Here I was standing in
    the hall in front of my oldest son's bedroom with my youngest son
    showing some strong character and my oldest lying on his bed [nearly
    grown out of it] holding his Bible and reading scripture.  
    
    I'm just a Mom in love. :-)
        
    Nancy
    

    Good job, Nancy.  Clayton KNOWS why you spanked him; I believe
    the lesson will be remembered (I think the fact that he's willing
    to apologize to his teacher indicates that).
    
    My grandmother used to say that if God hadn't intended kids to be
    spanked, he wouldn't have provided the additional padding on our
    posteriors.
    
    I applaud you for recognizing that Clayton was a little rebel rouser;
    I feel sorry for kids whose parents think they can do no wrong.
    
    

	Er, that's rabble-rouser, K.  
	James Dean's alarm clock - that was a rebel rouser.

    .274
    
    I wondered... thanks Di!

    Rebel rouser without a snooze?

    Grab my trouser and have some booze?

    NO, NO, STOP...not this again!
    
    Nab a mouser and play some blues?

    Rob a house and you lose!
    

    A slap on a childs hand or butt will not hurt the child, but it will
    make them think twice before they get the crayons out to write all over
    the new wallpaper etc etc.
    
    My mom used to whip out the yardstick and whack it on the table, yep
    made ya stop dead in your tracks.
    
    Lynne :-)

    
    Sheeeeeeesh Lynne!!!!
    
    You hadda go in here and light the fire again... huh???
    
    :) :)
    
    Next you'll be telling us you don't "abuse" your children!! 
    
    :)

    Where is Kitt Binns when you need him?

    
    Busy beating the kids, no doubt... :-) :-)
    

Spanking leads to arrest and debate on discipline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright � 1996 Nando.net
Copyright � 1996 N.Y. Times News Service

JEFFERSONVILLE, N.Y. (Jan 29, 1996 8:35 p.m. EST) -- Korey Wax had behaved
so badly in school that he was suspended, and when he got home, his father
punished the 8-year-old further, whacking him several times across the back
and chest with a three-foot rubber snake, the kind that people win in
carnival booths.

The incident might have gone unremarked, a private disciplinary matter
within a family, but two things have made the case the talk of this
close-knit village folded into a rugged pocket of the Catskills, 10 miles
west of Liberty. The father is the superintendent of the local school
system, and someone called the state's Child Abuse Hot Line, leading to the
father's arrest on charges of third-degree assault and endangering the
welfare of a child.

The extraordinary arrest on Jan. 17 of David M. Wax, the 43-year-old
superintendent of the Jeffersonville-Youngsville School District, has
touched off a sharp debate within the communities around here about the
rights of parents to discipline their children, the extent to which parents
can do so and the right of government to intrude. The argument is no
stranger to most American communities.

Some residents think that if the charges are true, the superintendent went
too far, and by his lack of self-control called into question his fitness to
run a system that serves 925 children, one of whom is his own son, a
third-grader. Others say hysteria has enveloped the case, fueled by people
who watch pop-psychology television shows that equate a deserved spanking
with child abuse.

"I think there's a definite debate in America as to where discipline has to
come in," said Paul Griffin, president of the local Chamber of Commerce, who
remembers with approval the spankings his own father administered when he
misbehaved. "I think everyone has to agree that there's a need for
discipline in America and that we're reaping the fruits of Dr. Spockism.
Certain types of punishment are justified, though not behavior that would
border on abuse."

Complicating the discussion is the nature of the punishment and the nature
of the misbehavior, which involved Korey Wax's carrying what school
officials said was a razor blade and what students described as a straight
razor.

Stephen Lungen, the Sullivan County district attorney, and Edward McKenna, a
senior investigator for the state police, said Wax did not just hit his
child lightly, but left several welts. School officials took photographs of
the marks, and they will be used as evidence in legal proceedings, which
will begin on Feb. 13 in Callicoon Town Court.

"Have you ever struck your 8-year-old with a rubber hose?" Lungen said. "I
haven't, and the line to be drawn is one of common sense. If you strike a
child in a manner that inflicts injury, that is not a spanking."

Lungen said the nature of Korey's behavior, which he would not discuss, is
irrelevant. Whatever the child did, it did not warrant a beating, he said.
The boy was suspended for five days.

Highlighting the seriousness of the case, Dr. Jacob Romo, commissioner of
the county's Social Services Department, the agency that referred the matter
to the police, said that in all of 1995 his department referred only 12
child-abuse cases to the police, and only 3 involved physical beatings.

Korey has not been removed from home, apparently because there were no
indications of a pattern of abuse by Wax. Acquaintances said the boy was
deeply upset, because he is worried that the incident had jeopardized his
father's job and career. "Whatever happens," Lungen said, "you don't want to
destroy the relationship between child and father."

Wax's lawyer, Henri Shawn of Monticello, said his client had no comment.
Lungen, the district attorney, said Wax, in statements to the police,
admitted "that he did feel he was excessive in his spanking of the child."

If convicted, Wax faces up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine, and
potentially the loss of his license as an educator. A state school official,
speaking on condition of anonymity, wondered whether the incident, which he
referred to as a momentary lapse, warranted the wreckage of Wax's career.

Wax, who has been on leave from the $65,000-a-year job since his arrest, is
a Brooklyn native and 1975 Brooklyn College alumnus who came to the district
from a California superintendency in July. Carol Nearing, president of the
school board, said Wax was hired over about 30 other candidates because of
his energy and credentials, and has done a good job in his few months at the
helm.

Wax's wife, Rennie, is a nurse. The couple also have a younger daughter.

The entire school system, made up of students from six Catskills towns, is
on a steep hill overlooking Jeffersonville, whose Main Street of shingled
houses has a gun shop, a video store and a hair salon. Parents of students
work for the state prisons or Nynex, and some own dairy farms or small
shops. The school district's average household income in 1989 was $26,000.

Distress has run so high within the school that on Friday, Kevin J. Colpoys,
superintendent for the county's Bureau of Cooperative Educational Services,
who is overseeing the system in Wax's absence, met with teachers for more
than an hour.

In an interview, Colpoys said the school, like others in America, is
adjusting to a change in disciplinary mores, one that now outlaws corporal
punishment in schools and looks with suspicion more readily on what may once
have been considered merely a spanking at home.

"We're living in a different age," he said. "Thirty years ago, if the child
had gotten disciplined at school, the father would have taken his turn as
head of the home."

Carol Slotkin, a high school social studies teacher for 27 years, said: "We,
like every school in New York state, are wrestling with what is appropriate
discipline. I've heard comments from parents who are very angry and believe
action should be taken. But as a social studies teacher, I have a commitment
to due process."

At Ted's Restaurant, a coffee shop that seems to be the town's social
center, the incident is less the subject of gossip than serious
soul-searching. "We're pretty isolated and pretty provincial, and it's a
shock to the population that something like this could happen in small
Jeffersonville, N.Y.," said the Rev. Jim Fedlam, pastor of the village's
First Presbyterian Church.

"The difficulty is defining discipline," he said. "What is discipline and
what is abuse, and it's a fine line. If it releases your frustration and
your anger, then it's not discipline."

Still, he said, whatever the outcome of the legal case, Wax will be working
under a cloud for a long time.

"I think the man is damned if he did and damned if he didn't," he said. "The
charge itself does damage."

    
    
    	well, that gents life is ruined. this just doesn't seem to compare
    to the parents who give their kids immersion burns by dipping them in
    scalding hot water, or the one girl whose father used to beat her with
    the buckle end of his belt. He beat her so badly that the reverse image
    of his buckle was permanently scarred into her back. A fellow EMT told
    me of this one (he had to transport her to the hospital).
    
    	jim

  i wonder if Jack D. thinks the guy should be executed.

Striking a child several times on the back and chest with a rubber snake
sounds like a pretty violent act to me, rather than simple disciplinary 
corporal punishment.

Does that answer your question, or should I elucidate further?

    
    
    Is it the fact that it's a rubber snake?  Would it be different if it
    was a belt?  Did the child have their shirt on or off?  
    
    I think it's where on the body the child is hit although I've seen a
    miss happen if the child is moving around, the parent was aiming for
    the rump, but missed.
    
    
    Mike

My personal belief is that using anything other than an open flat hand
on a finite subset a child's geography constitutes violence rather
than disciplinary corporal punishment. The object is not to inflict
pain and trauma on the child's body, but to teach a lesson. The flat
of the hand can do the latter without doing the former, provided it
is applied with proper constraint and in the right area. Other objects
and targets tend to belie that purpose.

    
    I never used an open hand when disciplining my children. I was told by
    an old and wise person that you should never hit a child with the same
    hands you reach with to comfort them.
    
    
    A small wooden spoon always did the trick (albeit infrequently)
    
    

    My mom used a wooden spoon. Once. For the next 5 years, all she had to
    do was rattle the drawer where the spoon was located.

    (with a sentence like that, I know you'll all start making up your own
    jokes. I'm just too tired to cover my ass at this point.)

    This doesn't seem violent to me.

    
    >I'm just too tired to cover my ass at this point.
    
    Then definitely watch out for the spoon.
    
    If my son was suspended from school for carrying a razor, a snake
    wouldn't be good enough.  I have had to spank my son once or twice, but
    the last time was over 3 years ago.  He knows what's what.
    
    Maybe, just maybe the snake was excessive.  But, without the history of
    child abuse, I doubt it.
    
    	Skip

    
    	Skip, maybe he's "12:00 shadow" conscious.
    
    	It's a peer pressure thing.
    

>Does that answer your question, or should I elucidate further?

	it doesn't answer my question.  i agree with you, btw,
	that it seems excessive.  should the parent be put to
	death?

    I tried spanking my daughter may years ago...she added so many extra
    undies that she never felt it and I never knew it until my son told me
    what she did several years after the incident. We still laugh whenever 
    we think of it.                                               

      I never once struck my kid in all the years that he lived 
    with me. He turned out fine. As a matter of fact, he was voted
    "Inmate of the Month" last December. 

    
    
    I agree, Jack.  To me, there is only one part of the anatomy that
    should be spanked and that is one's behind.  Also, I don't hit out of
    anger.  If I am angry, I deal with the problem later.  Actually I
    haven't spanked the kids in quite a while......now the wife, that's a
    different story ;')
    
    
    
    Mike

> should the parent be put to death?

It would appear that a decision needs to be reached as to whether or
not to charge Wax with commission of a violent crime. If it were up
to me, based on what I know so far, and assuming nothing contrary was
brought up to change my mind, I would so charge him.

Then it would be up to a jury to decide upon his guilt. If I were sitting
on said jury, given what I know at this point, and assuming I learn
nothing significant to the contrary, I would vote to convict.

And then, I would agree that he should be put to death.

Why should he be any different than anyone else whom I'd waste for
the commission of violence upon another? There were no mitigating
circumstances such as self defense, were there?

    could it be
    

    spanking snarf
    

    Yes, I finally got a snarf

    "Don't want to get lit? Then you shouldn't have hit!"

    An thr moral of the story is:
    
    	If Wax whacks ass, he won't get his ass waxed.
         

    
    re: .299,.300.301
    
    Too bad it don't count...
    
    
     Setting yourself up for such a wonderful accomplishment as a,
    blurgh!!!, snarf has to be done on its own "merits" (oxymoron time!)
    

    "Don't want them your life to take? Then you shouldn't have hit 'em
    with the snake!"

Feeling better today, Glenn?

    
    
    He must be...
    
     I guess his suspenders are tourqed to the proper foot-poundage...
    
    

   .298  er, yes, this man is clearly a danger to society and should
         be promptly snuffed.  okay, thanks - just checkin'.

    my mother whacked me with a brush once.  she said i had a
    smart mouth.  i was pissed for days.  then i got over it.

>                               -< unbelievable >-
>   .298  er, yes, this man is clearly a danger to society and should
>         be promptly snuffed.  okay, thanks - just checkin'.

You want I should special-case this guy? 

Tell me why?

See - we can all talk about how "his actions were excessive", and then
we feel justified in slapping his wrists and admonishing him not to
do it again. For crissakes, I'd be willing to snuff him just to make
an example of him.

    
    	I spanked my daughter once with a rolled up poster.
    
    	I'm sure it hurt less than it would have if I'd used my hand.
    
    	I think this guy was excessive, but I wasn't there to judge.
    
    	(Of course, my dad hit me with a brush when I was a kid.  I
    	deserved it, and I wouldn't have been pleased to see him locked
    	up for what he did!)
    
    

>        <<< Note 290.310 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>You want I should special-case this guy? 

	oh no, no, no.  it would be even worse if you were inconsistently
	homicidal. 

>See - we can all talk about how "his actions were excessive", and then
>we feel justified in slapping his wrists and admonishing him not to
>do it again. 

	i think his actions were probably excessive, though i wasn't
	there, obviously.  i don't think it means he's a danger to
	society, in general.  if i thought it meant he was a danger
	to his children, then i could see getting his children taken
	away from him.  i wouldn't be warming up the electric chair,
	however.

>For crissakes, I'd be willing to snuff him just to make
>an example of him.

	arrrgh.

    If I hit an adult hard enough to leave welts it is known as assault and
    battery.  why should I be permitted to do the same thing to my child?I
    personally believe if corporal punishment were effective then Charlie
    Manson, for one would be a model citizen.  As a Superintendent of a
    school district this person should be well aware of abuse laws and what
    is considered to be abuse.  He blew it.  
    
    meg
    
    

    
    >is known as assault and battery.
    
    
    I'd like to see a description of the statute that says this...
    
    
    Thanks
    

   .313  would you have him put to death?

    .313
    
    > If I hit an adult hard enough to leave welts
    
    If you raise a threatening hand against an adult, it is assault.
    
    If you touch an adult without his or her permission, it is battery.

> i don't think it means he's a danger to society, in general.

Whether or not he's a danger to society is almost immaterial if
you take the stance, as do I, that society needs to assume a firmer
and more definitive position in the swift and universal punishment 
and elimination of willful violent behavior.

I feel that even if I were charging this man and sitting on his jury,
my conviction to see him fry for his acts would no doubt be mitigated
by the opposing views of others involved in the decision making processes,
so you needn't fret that he'll get the limpwristed admonitions that
you'd like to see him receive.

Now, would we care to place odds as to whether or not he will again,
at some future point in his life, decide to resort to violence in
order to satisfy his desires?

    
    
    Jack Delbalso - Jury Balancer at Large!!
    

>Whether or not he's a danger to society is almost immaterial if
>you take the stance, as do I, that society needs to assume a firmer
>and more definitive position in the swift and universal punishment 
>and elimination of willful violent behavior.

	i do take that stance.  i don't take the stance that it
	must be accomplished by putting everyone and his brother
	to death for assault and battery.

>so you needn't fret that he'll get the limpwristed admonitions that
>you'd like to see him receive.

	that's not the point.  but what is "limpwristed" about taking
	his children away, for instance?

    The social worker could be limpwristed.
    
    "Hhhhiiiiii. I'm Suuuurge? I'm here to take your kidzzzz away?"

    
    re: .320
    
    One of them social worker types ever tried to take my kids away, he'd
    be trying to find his nads with that limp-wrist of his!!! *
    
    
    * - or the appropriate genitals if'n he were a she...
    

    
    ACtually they should bring back caning.  Then this guy could get a few
    strokes with the cane and call it even.
    
    Actually, public flogging would probably solve a whole lot of problems.
    
    	Skip

>    ACtually they should bring back caning.  

    Wouldn't boiling the guy on the stove top for a while, pouring him into
    jars, and then topping the jar off with melted paraffin be a little on
    the cruel and unusual side?

    -- Dave

    
    
    	All this talk of violence having no place in society....do you
    REALLY think so? Would you lay down and let a rapist have his way with
    you rather than fight back VIOLENTLY?
    
    	CONTROLLED violence has a place today. This guy lost control for a
    little while. I'm fairly certain that if he doesn't have a history of
    this kind of thing that he felt pretty badly after it happened. My
    parents and other parents I know of have lost control briefly. A sore
    cheek, a bruise on the butt etc was all that ever came of it....are my
    and others parents now suddenly to be put to death? The absurdity of
    this position is limitless.....
    
    
    jim

    No Dave, that would be canNing.  Unless of course you were kidding then
    never mind.  Preserve the reply as it is for all to see.  Then again if
    you were serious, you are certainly in a spelling jam.  

re: Jim

>    	All this talk of violence having no place in society....do you
>    REALLY think so? Would you lay down and let a rapist have his way with
>    you rather than fight back VIOLENTLY?

I don't believe I've ever heard it posited in here, by anyone, that
self-defence is other than a reasonable response to willful violence.
Neither have I heard it posited that self-defence, in and of itself
is violent behavior. It's the willful and unwarranted commission of
violence on others that's under discussion.

>    	CONTROLLED violence has a place today.  This guy lost control for a
>    little while. 

I fail to understand the concept of "controlled violence". Either someone
is "in control" in which case they do not commit violence, or they "lose
control" and commit violence. The first is a state of control - the second
is not.

    
    	If someone hits you and you "return the favor" by hitting him
    	once, that's "controlled violence".
    
    	If someone hits you and you turn around and beat him to a pulp,
    	that's "uncontrolled violence".
    

    "Not too happy about facing the chair? You shouldn't have paddled his
    derri�re."

    
    
    Yep... Glenn is really on a roll...
    
    
    
    Does anyone have a Jersey barrier to put at the bottom of the hill??

    
    	Or Bond's car from "For Your Eyes Only" with explosive shock
    	sensors.
    

    
    
    re: jack
    
    	semantics jack....you're arguing semantics. I call it controlled
    violence, you refuse to call it such and instead call it self-defense.
    I see self-defense as the act of defending oneself, VIOLENTLY. You do
    not. Oh well...
    
    
    jim

>    No Dave, that would be canNing.  Unless of course you were kidding then
>    never mind.  

    Someone pointed out by e-mail that I need to make it more clear when
    I'm joking.  I was kidding.

    -- Dave

    
    
    	I dunno Dave, I thought the smiley face in the subject kinda gave
    it away...:*)
    
    
    

>	i do take that stance.  i don't take the stance that it
>	must be accomplished by putting everyone and his brother
>	to death for assault and battery.

Dare I ask, yet again, how you _would_ propose to solve the problem
of willful violence?

But, perhaps more to the point, my contention is that if "everyone and his
brother" knew quite well what was in store for them were they to submit to 
their more base instincts and commit assault an abttery, we'd see far fewer
folks so doing. Do you disagree with this? Do you disagree that that's
a reasonable goal?


>	that's not the point.  but what is "limpwristed" about taking
>	his children away, for instance?

It's "limpwristed" insofar as it does nothing to _prevent_ him from
ever again committing violence upon the person of another. It says,
"You were bad and we're going to take away your toys". Which is not,
to my way of thinking, a means of providing him incentive not to, nor 
a means of preventing him from, committing violence again. Yes - it 
provides protection for the children, which is good. But that (harm 
to the children) was the effect, and not the cause.

I don't want to treat effects - I want to eliminate causes.

re:           <<< Note 290.332 by SUBPAC::SADIN "Freedom isn't free." >>>

Well, I guess the pertinent point is that no one (at least not ME), is
arguing against anyone's right to self defence with impunity, Jim. Does
that clarify matters?

    To get the proper Jersey baracade it must be molded by a special form
    that you might pick up or order through Home Depot but I like the Bond
    car idea better though...that should be the official Jersey baracade...

    maybe justifyable violence is closer than controlled. i do believe
    that there are degrees of violence, e.g. fists v. weapons.
    
    

    
    	Jack, here's the skinny;
    
    	Sometimes good people do bad things. Good people occasionally do
    violent things. You CANNOT put all people who have ever committed a
    violent act to death. I'm sorry, this discussion is ludicrous.
    
    
    jim

    Add me to the list of people that think that Jack is whacked in his
    position that this guy should be put to death for spanking his child.
    Hitting the child with the snake may or may not have been excessive.
    And the welts don't tell much of a story, any more than bruises do. My
    wife and my step-daughters bruise incredibly easily- to the point where
    they don't even know where they got their bruises. I always know where
    I got by bruises, 'cause it takes a lot to get one in the first place.
    Without knowing one's propensity to welt, it is not very informative to
    know that one received welts. Assumptions that welts ipso facto mean
    excessive force or violence could be terrible miscalculations.
    
     The fact that this has become an issue in the first place is likely
    more than sufficient punishment for what this man actually did, given a
    lack of evidence of a) actual damage and b) a history of excessive force.
    
     Society has rightly become concerned with physical abuse of children
    by their caregivers and parents. Unfortunately, this sensitization
    seems to have in many cases gone too far, to the point that parents are
    no longer allowed to discipline their children. There is definitely a
    difference between a spanking and a beating. There's no good reason to
    assume that the former is the latter- it ought to be proved.

    what about the snake? shouldn't the snake be put to death?

    
    
    	aye, melt the snake!!
    
    

| <<< Note 290.341 by SUBPAC::SADIN "Freedom isn't free." >>>


| aye, melt the snake!!


	Unless a snake is made of ice, how does one melt the snake? Put cheeze
and tuna on it? Hmmm... a snake tuna melt....

    
    	re: glen
    
    	the snake is made of rubber. Put a heat source to it and melt the
    bugger into a sticky pool. :)
    
    

| <<< Note 290.343 by SUBPAC::SADIN "Freedom isn't free." >>>


| the snake is made of rubber. Put a heat source to it and melt the
| bugger into a sticky pool. :)


	Eeeeeeeeuuuuuuuuu..... I don't think I want to swim in any pool that is
sticky...... 

    Rattle snake is pretty tasty but rubber might be a bit chewy.

| <<< Note 290.345 by MAIL1::CRANE >>>

| Rattle snake is pretty tasty but rubber might be a bit chewy.

	EEEEuuuuuu..... you're supposed to dispose of them, not eat them. 

    .346
    What better way to dispose of them than to eat them (rattle snakes that
    is). Snake bit man, man bite snake...either can/are fatel.

    RE: Controlled violence
    
    Spanking is a good example.  Premeditated, limited duration, hopefully
    restrained intensity.  
    
    Brian

    Re .313:
    
    > If I hit an adult hard enough to leave welts it is known as assault and
    > battery.  why should I be permitted to do the same thing to my child?
    
    If you took an adult home against their will, it is known as
    kidnapping.  Why should you be permitted to do the same thing to your
    child?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    
    edp
    
    Are you trying to make a point with your example.. yanking chains or
    being just plain ridiculous...??
    

>>    If you took an adult home against their will, it is known as
>>    kidnapping.  Why should you be permitted to do the same thing to your
>>    child?
  

	Eric  - watch!   Here' where they get up on their horses about
	the diffs between adulst and children - and how the same rules
	don't apply  blah, blah.....

    
    
    >Eric  - watch!   Here' where they get up on their horses about
    >the diffs between adulst and children - and how the same rules
    >don't apply  blah, blah.....
    
    
    
    You are just kidding... right??

    
    I caught a trailer that unfortunately I couldn't see the whole report. 
    The gist of the trail was "will the rest of the country follow
    California's lead".  It showed a child on a stage being restrained by
    one person while another was hitting him with a paddle.  It looks like
    California is reinstituting corporal punishment in schools.
    
    I remember in Florida when I was in second grade there was corporal
    punishment.  There was very little in the way of problems in the
    school, and even fewer repeat offenders.  
    
    Now, if only we were allowed to have corporal punishment in the homes.
    
    	Skip

>><<< Note 290.352 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Too many politicians, not enough warriors." >>>

>>    You are just kidding... right??


		No, I'm not kidding....

    
    re: .354
    
    >No, I'm not kidding....
    
    So.. please explain, how the same rules DO apply vs. what you obviously
    feel is an injustice done to children because they are not adults...
    
    This oughta be good...
    
    Take your time...
    

    When I carry a child home against her will it is not with intent to do
    physical violence to her, YMMV.  If I were intending to pound the crap
    out of my kid, or do other things too odious to mention in a file, or
    to steal her from her custodial parent, then it should be considered
    kidnapping, or worse.  
    
    Did I mention that I watch other people's kids on occaision, and am a
    scoutleader?  I can't hit those kids, by law.  There are other methods
    of age-appropriate discipline besides smacking children that are quite
    effective.  If there weren't you wouldn't have Sunday schools, daycare
    centers and homes or scouting, as the law of the state, and the by-laws
    of most organization forbid hitting children.  Paddling, smacking or
    spanking a child only teaches that violence is a way to get your way,
    and picking on people smaller or weaker than you is an acceptable way
    to enforce you superiority.  However restraining a 2-year-old from
    something she could hurt or that would hurt her, timeouts for toddlers,
    tedious chores for older kids......  require discipline on the part of
    the parent or caregiver to carry through.  It is certainly much easier
    to take a belt or spoon to a kid or slap her across the face than to
    oversee tasks, or time a person out, while expalining calmly why you
    are doing this.
    
    meg

>>    So.. please explain, how the same rules DO apply vs. what you obviously
>>    feel is an injustice done to children because they are not adults...
>>    This oughta be good...
>>    Take your time...


	Well, thank you so much for letting me know how open minded you 
	are on all of this.

	No, I don't believe that children should be treated any different
	than adults - by that i mean, that if I wouldn't wack you because
	of your behavior than I wouldn't wack a child.   
	I'm not saying that children are the same as adults, I'm saying 
	that if I wouldnt't do it to you, I wouldn't do it to a child.
	Children have dignity and the right to be treated with it -
	by hitting a child in anyway I believe that we take that away.

	Pain and fear are not a very responsible way to treat anyone.


	Hitting a child in anyway is a cowards way out - it's short, it's
	quick and you win - and you leave the child physically hurt
	(a red mark, a bruise whatever) and emotionally upset.


	We talk about how violent society is - and yet we propogate  it
	in our homes.      


	Shred away........

    
    
    Before I "shred away"...
    
     How many children do you have? Ages?
    

>>     How many children do you have? Ages?


	I have 2 boys.  Aged 3 and 4.
    

    Re .350:

    > Are you trying to make a point with your example.. yanking chains or
    > being just plain ridiculous...??

    My point is that the implication made by analogy in .313 is false:  An
    act upon a child cannot be deduced to be wrong because the same act
    upon an adult is wrong.

    Children must be taught.  And when the lesson is to avoid as dangerous
    an act as carrying a straight razor (which can easily result in severe
    injury or death), the lesson is very important.  Important lessons
    should be taught strongly.  A parent may use physical force upon a
    child to discipline the child.  In fact, this isn't very different from
    adults; physical force may be used upon an adult who commits a wrongful
    act too (the analogy in .313 neglected to include this; hitting an
    adult hard enough to leave welts is NOT battery when justified).  Aside
    from immediately-necessary force (self-defense), such discipline is
    typically imposed by the government.
    
    Children are governed by parents.

    Hitting the child strongly enough to bruise may not be the best way to
    teach that lesson.  I will address that below.  But even if it is not
    the best way, because lesser force would have sufficed, the child and
    society still may well be better off having learned the lesson at the
    expense of a few bruises than learning the lesson through death.  If it
    is true that the child is better off having learned the lesson even at
    the expense of bruises, then the parent has -- in net effect -- helped
    the child, not harmed them.  A complaint that the force was more than
    was necessary is then only a complaint that the parent did not help the
    child as much as could have been done.

    What should the government do about parents who use excessive force?  A
    parent who gives a child a few bruises only once in many years and does
    it for an important reason has clearly made only a marginal error at
    most.  There is no question that decisions have to be made about
    raising children, but there is a question about who should do it: 
    Parents or the government.  Parents will make mistakes.  Should the
    government then step in?  That is definitely not the solution, because
    we can be absolutely sure the government will make mistakes too.

    It is a fact that we will have to live with mistakes being made
    because, as human beings, we have no way to absolutely eliminate all of
    them.  The question is then who will make fewer mistakes.  In other
    words, who is better qualified to raise children?  The answer in almost
    all circumstances is the parents.  The parents care more, the parents
    know more about the children, the parents are more involved in the
    day-to-day lives of their children.  Add to that the facts that the
    parents are the parents biologically, emotionally, socially, and
    ethically, and you have a bond that should not be broken for anything
    but the most extreme reasons.

    If you say the child should be removed from the parent, you are really
    saying you and your neighbors should take the child and raise it
    yourselves, using the government as your agent.  If you rip apart a
    family to impose your own ethics on a child, you had damn well better
    be right.  The alternative is to have committed a gravely immoral act.


    				-- edp


Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    .356
    
    Absolutely right.
    
    It may be more difficult to think up effective ways to control kids'
    behavior, but forms of discipline that do not involve physical violence
    toward the kids are MUCH more effective both in short run and long run
    in raising good kids.
    
    Dick

    
    
    	re: .356-.357
    
    	Ah, how very convenient. What may work for you does not work for
    everyone, or are you so high-and-mighty that you believe your way is
    the only way? I'm not saying all children need to be spanked and that
    SOME children cannot be raised without ever raising a hand to them, but a
    spanking at the appropriate time can do much in the way of helping a
    child to learn that there are consequences to actions. I too watch
    other peoples children occasionally and I do not hit them. BUT, I watch
    them for short periods of time AND they are not MY children. I am not
    responsible for teaching them discipline or morals. Whatever little
    problems that come up are dealt with with timeouts (no toys, in a room 
    alone, etc). I also see the same behavior repeated week after week.
    
    	Unfortunately, many parents don't administer ANY discipline, and
    those are the little buggers you see running rampant and not listening
    to ANYONE (including teachers, sitters, etc), no matter if they give
    them timeouts or not. I see these kids as needing a fairly drastic
    punishment in order to make them respect authority. If their butts need
    to be paddled once in a while, so be it. Nobody's talking about bashing
    them in the head with a Louisville Slugger!
    
    	I do not believe that the occasional spanking (for more serious
    infractions) is harmful to the child, mentally or physically. I spanked
    my children occasionally when they were younger and I haven't had to do
    it again in at least 2yrs. And no, my children do not cringe when I
    raise my hand to scratch my nose...:)
    
    
    jim 
       

    
    re: .359
    
    >I have 2 boys.  Aged 3 and 4.
    
    
    Fine....  then you raise them the way you "want" to and allow me to do
    the same with mine.
    
    My two are 24 and 22... 
    
    I never considered myself to be a coward when physically disciplining
    them (which was infrequent).
    
     Actually it took a lot of time, since I never lost my temper and the
    procedure was very methodical, logical and as emotionless as possible.
    
    This "leading-up-to" was by far, more effective than the actual
    administration of the physical "violence" (agagagagag!!)
    
    It was always done rationally and more than a little time after
    whatever event precipitated the punishment. They were told why it was
    happening and throughout were asked if they understood that and the
    consequences...
    
     After the punishment, they were always... ALWAYS.. consoled, hugged,
    kissed and loved... and talked to some more... 
    
     You (and others) may think this cruel, and violent and abusive and
    cowardly and whatever else you want to call it...  That's fine... just
    don't have the affrontery to tell me otherwise...
    
    Enough shredding?
    

    >	I'm not saying that children are the same as adults, I'm saying 
    >	that if I wouldnt't do it to you, I wouldn't do it to a child.
    
     Do you send adults to their room when they misbehave? Do you force
    adults to take a nap when they're exhausted and cranky and not behaving
    appropriately?

    re: .364
    
    I wish we could.  I can think of at least 6 people who could
    use an afternoon nap on a regular basis.
    
    

    
    > Do you send adults to their room when they misbehave? Do you force
    >adults to take a nap when they're exhausted and cranky and not behaving
    >appropriately?
    
    She can't do that to me?

    Re .356:
    
    > Did I mention that I watch other people's kids on occaision, and am a
    > scoutleader?  I can't hit those kids, by law.
    
    What law says that?
    
    > Paddling, smacking or spanking a child only teaches that violence is
    > a way to get your way, . . .
    
    While physical discipline might teach undesired lessons, it is absurd
    to say that is ONLY what it teaches.  You could equally well write that
    ANY form of discipline ONLY teaches that that discipline is a way to
    get your way.  When you withhold a desired item from a child, does the
    child ONLY learn that withholding something wanted is a way to get your
    way?  Does the child not learn they have done something wrong?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .364:
    
    > Do you send adults to their room when they misbehave?
    
    Yes, there are adults who have been sentenced to house arrest.
    
    > Do you force adults to take a nap when they're exhausted and cranky
    > and not behaving appropriately?
    
    Nobody can be forced to take a nap; they can be forced to remain in
    place.  Yes, there are adults who have been so restrained.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

>>    	Ah, how very convenient. What may work for you does not work for
>>    everyone, or are you so high-and-mighty that you believe your way is
>>
	Calm down.....   looks who's being high-and-mighty.

	I don;t belive I said EVERYONE SHOULD DO IT MY WAY.  I told you 
	what *I* believe.

>>    child to learn that there are consequences to actions. I too watch
>>    other peoples children occasionally and I do not hit them. BUT, I watch
>>    them for short periods of time AND they are not MY children. I am not
>>    responsible for teaching them discipline or morals. Whatever little
>>    problems that come up are dealt with with timeouts (no toys, in a room 
>>    alone, etc). I also see the same behavior repeated week after week.

	We're all responsible for teaching children.  

	I can't and won't say whats right for other parents - I know nothing
	about their homes their backgrounds etc - but I do know that my
	responsibility is to care for and teach MY children.   I guess
	it's like anything else - you get out of it what you're willing to 
	put into it.    I do a lot of reading about different ways - I try
	new things with my children - I"m willing to set and hold boundries
	with my children - even when it gets hard to do that - I'm willing 	
	to tell my children the truth.   And ALL of those things are about
	teaching my children about this world - what expected of them, 
	what the rules are etc......  and I don't hit them.   I won't tell 
	you that I've NEVER hit them, I have, and I wanted to die - it was
	horrible.
    
>>    them timeouts or not. I see these kids as needing a fairly drastic
>>    punishment in order to make them respect authority. If their butts need
>>    to be paddled once in a while, so be it. Nobody's talking about bashing
>>    them in the head with a Louisville Slugger!
	
	Please  - you want to find reasons for this to be OK.  For me, 
	it's never OK - for you it is = OK, I'm willing to leave it there.

    There will NEVER be a GOOD reason for anyone to hit me = there
    will never be a GOOD reason to hit my children or any child in my care.

	My boys are wonderful KIDS (that;s what their suppose to be) they 
	have wonderful times, they have tough times, that have times
	when their off the wall, they have times when to push the boundry
	seems to be the order of the day - but we all get through and
	we all come through WHOLE - I've had people say to me how wonderful
	they are - and they are, and I've had people say "wow! what a 
	handful!" and they are.



	Back to your first statement - I believe that the high-and-mighty
	are actually the people who might see us for a moment in a mall or 
	a store - and without any other information make a decision that
	my child should be smacked - that's arrogant.

	
FWIW
Pat

>>     After the punishment, they were always... ALWAYS.. consoled, hugged,
>>    kissed and loved... and talked to some more... 
   


	Why would you do that???  "After the punishment, they were 
	always... ALWAYS.. consoled, hugged, kissed and loved... and 
	talked to some more..."

	What would you say???    you punish them and then hug them??

	What were you trying to teach with that????


Pat

    >> Do you send adults to their room when they misbehave?
    
    >Yes, there are adults who have been sentenced to house arrest.
    
     I wasn't asking about what the law can do, I was asking what Pat
    Bourgoine can do since she said that if she wouldn't do it to an adult
    she won't do it to her own kids.
    
    

    
    
    Pat...
    
    Are you trying to be dense on purpose???
    
    CHILDREN ARE NOT ADULTS!!!!!!!
    
    You have to do those things afterwards to show them that the punishment
    was a temporary thing and that it's over and done with and RETURN
    THINGS TO NORMALCY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!!
    
     There's the big difference in your hitting your kids and me... you
    thought it was "horrible", for whatever reason and however you did it. 
    
     I considered it necessary and approached it appropriately...
    

    
    re: CRONIC::BOURGOINE
    
    	I can respect the fact that you have your beliefs in how to raise
    children, and I have mine. That's good. The reason I came out with the
    high and might statement was this little passage from .357:
    
    
>	Hitting a child in anyway is a cowards way out - it's short, it's
>	quick and you win - and you leave the child physically hurt
>	(a red mark, a bruise whatever) and emotionally upset.
    
    
    	You did not follow this up with it being just your opinion....you
    state it as fact. You accuse all who spank their children of being
    cowards and bullies. In short, you make yourself and others like you out to
    be better parents/people than those who have ever raised their hand to
    their child. I find that arrogant.
    
    
    jim
                                                                     

    
    re: .369
    
    >I told you what *I* believe.
    
    You should have added that caveat somewhere along the line to avoid the
    back-peddaling...
    

>>     I wasn't asking about what the law can do, I was asking what Pat
>>    Bourgoine can do since she said that if she wouldn't do it to an adult
>>    she won't do it to her own kids.

	Oh, that's me!

	No, I don't send my children to their room.   If there needs to be
	a timeout it's with the rest of us - maybe on the couch or at the 
	kitchen table - but no, I don't send them to their rooms.  
	I the behavior warrants a timeout - it's a timeout it's not a
	seperation from.

	I know a lot of adults (have even seen it here in the 'box) of	
	adults who have temper tantrums - I even have them - oh, you 
	may not call them that but in essence that's all they are -
	and I treat them the same way "When you're under control, and when
	you can calm down, we can try this again"
    
    

    
    
    It has been MY experience that when you try and reason with a young
    child, the only thing accomplished is a higher caloric burn...
    

| <<< Note 290.347 by MAIL1::CRANE >>>

| What better way to dispose of them than to eat them (rattle snakes that
| is). Snake bit man, man bite snake...either can/are fatal.

	I was eluding to the rubber part..... like another word for condoms??? 

    Pat:
    
    Regarding the hugging and what not.  Believe it or not, children ARE
    looking for limits.  Children require parameters to which they can stay
    within or break.  When they choose to break, they incur discipline. 
    Spanking is not a tool for vindication but is there to reinforce the
    limits they are to stay within.  The hugs and kisses are very much
    needed to reinforce the parents authority and love for the child.  
    
    When a parent smacks their kid in the face and locks him in the closet,
    i.e. Archie Bunker, those are the people you need to be ticked off at,
    not us.
    
    -Jack 

>>    cowards and bullies. In short, you make yourself and others like you out to
>>    be better parents/people than those who have ever raised their hand to
>>    their child. I find that arrogant.
    
    
    	No, I never said "everyone" - you assumed I meant that.
	I will own up to the fact that I did not implicitly say MINE or MY
	so, I'll take 50% of that.

	I always find it very interesting (in MY view) to see how 
	defensive people get about hitting.    It's a choice, that's all.
	It's one that *I* would rather not make, It's one that *I* try
	hard to learn ways around.   That's all.

	The reailty is that we don't know each other - we don;t know 	
	anything about what we were taught, how we were brought up, what our
	experiences were - all of those things go into this decision, for me.

	
                                                                     

    >	No, I never said "everyone" - you assumed I meant that.
    
     You didn't say "some", so the default is "all". 

    Re .371:
    
    Please include response numbers in your responses.  I had to go back,
    and it was made more difficult because you didn't include numbers.
    
    >  I wasn't asking about what the law can do, I was asking what Pat
    > Bourgoine can do since she said that if she wouldn't do it to an adult
    > she won't do it to her own kids.
    
    But she made a statement about what she _would_ do, and you asked about
    what she _does_ do.  That's a non sequitur.  Maybe if she _were_
    (subjunctive mood, same as her statement) in a position of disciplining
    an adult (as a judge is), she _would_ send them to their room.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

>>    Regarding the hugging and what not.  Believe it or not, children ARE
>>    looking for limits.  Children require parameters to which they can stay
>>    within or break.  When they choose to break, they incur discipline. 
  
	If you'll go back and read my note - I do very strongly believe 
	in boundries - even when it's difficult.
    
>>    i.e. Archie Bunker, those are the people you need to be ticked off at,
>>    not us.
   

	I'm not ticked off at anyone.   Without discussion there is only
	stagnation.

Pat

    >But she made a statement about what she _would_ do, and you asked about
    >what she _does_ do.  That's a non sequitur.  Maybe if she _were_
    >(subjunctive mood, same as her statement) in a position of disciplining
    >an adult (as a judge is), she _would_ send them to their room.
    
     <yawn>

>                    <<< Note 290.380 by CRONIC::BOURGOINE >>>

>	I always find it very interesting (in MY view) to see how 
>	defensive people get about hitting.

	you tell people they're cowards and then find it "interesting"
	to see them get defensive?  yah, okay.

>>	you tell people they're cowards and then find it "interesting"
>>	to see them get defensive?  yah, okay.

	If the shoe fits.......   but I don;t believe I called anyone
	a coward.


	Touchy!   :-)


	Pat

>	If the shoe fits.......   but I don;t believe I called anyone
>	a coward.

	make up your mind.  you said hitting a child in any way is 
	a coward's way out.  there are people in here who have made it clear
	they hit their children.  therefore, you are calling them
	cowards.

>	Touchy!   :-)

	i don't have kids, so i'm not being "touchy".

    
    	Pat, in .357 you called people cowards for hitting their kids.
    

>>	make up your mind.  you said hitting a child in any way is 
>>	a coward's way out.  there are people in here who have made it clear
>>	they hit their children.  therefore, you are calling them
>>	cowards.


	Have it your way.  

>                    <<< Note 290.389 by CRONIC::BOURGOINE >>>


>>	Have it your way.  

	oh, that's _my_ way, is it?  so, in _your_ way, you're not
	calling them cowards?  so, people who hit their children
	aren't cowards and you're retracting what you said?

    Di-
    
     She meant what she meant, not what she said. How come you can't
    understand that?

    
    
    	re: .389
    
    	Pat, in .357 you say:
    
>	Hitting a child in anyway is a cowards way out - it's short, it's
>	quick and you win - and you leave the child physically hurt
>	(a red mark, a bruise whatever) and emotionally upset.
    
    	I'm not sure how this can be interpreted any other way than you are
    calling people who hit their kids cowards. "Hitting a child in any way
    is a cowards way out" seems pretty self explanatory to me. Whether you
    meant to say it that way is irrelevant...you said it that way.
    
    jim

>>    calling people who hit their kids cowards. "Hitting a child in any way
>>    is a cowards way out" seems pretty self explanatory to me. Whether you
>>    meant to say it that way is irrelevant...you said it that way.
   

	I think that it may be more reflective of the readers choice
	to associate themselves with it.   

	I someone said all women who blah blah blah are XYZ - I choose to 
	identify with it or not.   I may try to change your mind but it 
	doesn't mean that I identify myself with it.
	You have a choice you know.

	When I said it was a cowards way out - you chose to leap on it
	and claim it as your own.  

	

    You're just thrashing now, Pat. Anything to tavoid having to take
    responsibility for your words. A most unflattering development, I must
    say.

Z    Hitting a child in anyway is a cowards way out - it's short, it's
Z    quick and you win 
    
    Pat:
    
    Exactly what is hoped to be accomplished.  I want it to be short and
    quick, and I expect not only to win, I don't even want there to be a
    perception they could win...because they won't.  Pat, it seems to me
    you have a limited understanding of what discipline is really all
    about.  A child is NOT my equal Pat.  A child under my auspices is a
    person, a human being and a much wanted responsibility whose mind needs
    to be molded to understand what is expected, what is right, what is
    correct.  While I will always have a listening ear, I am not interested
    in getting into a battle of wits with an obstinent child.  I want
    his/her understanding of the limits I set to be reinforced in a quick
    and decisive matter.  I want the whole matter to be a learning
    experience tempered with love and instruction...but I want the child to
    understand the consequences of their actions.
    
    -Jack

    This is the second time I've seen the same reaction to suggesting that
    you don't need to hit kids to raise them well.  The other time was in
    the parenting notes file several years ago.  The reaction there makes
    this seem like nothing.  Obviously boxers have a highly developed
    ability to retain their cool.  :-)
    
    It seems as if our method of raising kids is even more central to our 
    beings than our religion or our politics.  Not surprising -- we learn
    how to raise kids from our parents who raised us, and we just naturally
    do whatever they did, and if we think about it at all, we think that is 
    the best way to do things.  More importantly, we are thoroughly 
    programmed to do as they did, so we don't need to think about it -- we
    just react as we're programmed.  That's not a bad thing, unless you
    were mistreated as a child.  Then you have a problem.  But you can deal
    with it.
    
    It doesn't really matter in the long run if you spank kids or if you
    never spank them, as long as they know they are loved, and as long as
    the spanking is done, as so many people here have said, with care and
    not out of anger or a desire to be a bully.  The kid knows the
    difference.  Kids are extremely intuitive when it comes to their
    parents' intentions.
    
    Personally, I was raised with plenty of spanking, and much of it was
    done out of anger.  It only stopped when I got big enough to physically
    prevent it, after which it never happened again.  This is not a major
    problem, but it is a problem, and it is not a good way to raise kids.
    
    I decided I would take a different tack with my own kids and use
    methods of discipline that do not involve spanking or other hitting. 
    It was the hardest thing I've ever done because I could no longer rely
    on my "natural" instincts.  Those instincts were the very 
    behaviors I wanted to filter out so they would not be inflicted on my
    kids or passed any further down through the generations of my family.  
    
    Every time I wanted to deal with misbehavior, I had to stop and think 
    about what I should do and why.  And when you're angry that is most 
    difficult to do.
    
    But my wife and I both decided that was the way we were going to do
    things, so when the kids were very little, after we made this decision,
    we never hit them again for any reason.
    
    I recommend it highly.  The kids are great.  They also have a hell of 
    a lot of respect for us for not spanking or hitting them.  Refraining 
    from hitting kids, especially when you are really angry with them, 
    is a great display of respect for them, and they appreciate it and 
    they respond positively.  
    
    We have a great relationship with both of them, and they are both
    happy, successful young adults (21 and 23 years old), so I can at 
    least testify that discipline without hitting not only can work very 
    well but also can produce warm, loving relationships with your kids
    that will last as long as you do.  I wish I could say the same for my 
    and my wife's relationships with our own parents.
    
                                           

    re: .396
    
     What a respectful note. A model for other participants.

    .397
    
    There you go again, misinterpreting my intentions.  :-)
    

    It's a problem, I must admit.

>>             <<< Note 290.394 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "memory canyon" >>>
>>
>>    You're just thrashing now, Pat. Anything to tavoid having to take
>>    responsibility for your words. A most unflattering development, I must
>>    say.

	thrasing???   not at all.   If I'm not taking responsibility for my 
words (and I think I am) why don't you have to take responsibility for your
ownership of it  - do you see how it works both ways????

If in fact you read that I said anyone who hits' a child is a coward - 
then, please accept my apologies.    My comment was about a behavior not 
to be taken as a personal statement of value.    

Again - I was talking about a behavior.   My apologies if you got your 
panites in a bunch about it and somehow togought I meant you.


	Better???

    I too have a warm and loving relationship with my father (had with my
    mother too) and yet I was spanked as a child.  While I obviously didn't
    like the spankings, I did recognize them as a consequence of my actions
    (and actually expected them on a couple of occasions and never got
    them)  In retrospect, I respect my parents for setting the boundaries
    and then staying true to their convictions and following through with
    the expected punishment.
    
    I think the point has been made that there is a great deal of
    difference between a spanking every now and then and a daily beating.

    
    
    	re: .393
    
    	I don't think thrashing is quite strong enough for what you're
    doing Pat. 
    
    	
>	I think that it may be more reflective of the readers choice
>	to associate themselves with it.   
    
    	You will note that nowhere have I referred to myself as a coward.
    The only thing I have said is that you have accused myself and other
    like-minded individuals of being cowards. I think your statement of
    "Hitting a child in any way is a cowards way out" is reflective of your
    bias. If someone calls me an @$$hole and I get offended, does that mean
    that *I* consider myself an @$$hole? No, it means I'm offended by
    someone saying such a thing to me. 
    
>	I someone said all women who blah blah blah are XYZ - I choose to 
>	identify with it or not.   I may try to change your mind but it 
>	doesn't mean that I identify myself with it.
    
    	If I said that all women who don't believe in spanking their
    children are morons with IQ's less than a walnut, would you be
    offended? You are obviously a woman who doesn't believe in spanking,
    therefore you would be included in that group I'm referencing (those
    who don't believe in spanking). You would have every right to be
    offended by my inference, whether you identify with it or not! I have
    insulted you. You may now be offended. :)
    
    	Is this really that difficult to understand?
    
    jim

    .396
    
    Great note.  Valuable advice. 

    
    
    RE: .396  Well done.  A very well written note and one that makes a lot
    of sense.
    
    Cheers,
    
    Mike

	Jim,
	
	Go back a few - I apologize.     

	If you were to say that woman who don't spank their children have
	the IQ of a walnut.    My response would have been:  "Man, it's too 
	bad this guy feels that way - I wonder why."  And I would have some 
	choices - I could ask about it - I could participate in somekind of 
	discusion about it or I could have said "what a goofball" and hit
	 <next unseen>, OR I could have attacked.   The fact that you may 
	believe this is NOT a reflection on me.....unless I want it to be.

	now I'm willing to admit that this might be a bit different from
	what we're used to but it is a valid option.

    Pat,
    
    I think the term you might be looking for and I believe in my structure
    around child discipline is lazyness, rather than cowardlyness.  It
    takes significant work to keep consitant boundries and consequences for
    the violation of those boundries, whereas a quick clout will stop the
    behaviour, at least temporarily.  
    
    Yes I have kids.  three girls, one is almost 22, one is almost 3 and
    one is 10.  They have all been raised with non-violent parenting
    methods.  They don't steal, beat up other kids, let alone attack them
    to get their way.  The girls I work with with one glaring exception
    understand not being hit annd consequences for acting out in groups. 
    The one glaring exception asked me why I didn't just hit her to gain
    respect like everyone else in her family did, after I sat her down with
    another girl and explained that pounding on each other was not a good
    idea.  
    
    EDP the law in Colorado for Daycare providers says that you will not
    hit a child in your care.  They do teach other methods of non-violent
    discipline in the training courses for providers.  The Girlscout
    by-laws are quite firm about this as well, and I am to report to the
    service center any obvious signs of abuse on one of the girls. (Moral
    don't bruise your kids up if they are going to be in scouting)  Since
    we have at least two leaders at every meeting one of us can handle the
    disrution problem while the other continues with what we are doing. 
    Usually a firm talk on the side settles things down.  Having to make up
    badge work on your own time is a pretty serious consequence to my badge
    -hungry girls.  It's much more fun doing it with the group.  
    
    Having another friend's son ask me why I didn't just hit him and then
    clean up the mess he had made of stuff, instead of talking to him,
    explaining why we don't leave my house in a shambles and having him
    clean it up himself makes me wonder just exactly the lessons  this kid
    is learning about personal responsibility from his parents.  (Oh I get
    it, pollute the earth, pay a whopping fine, if you can't declare
    bankruptcy, and leave the crap for taxpayers to clean up, very
    republican)  This kid gets hit and belittled daily and his mom wonders
    why she can't control him, but swears hitting him is the only way to
    get his attention and my kids are somehow "different."  (Yeah, they
    don't tear the house apart as they will be repairing or paying for the
    damage. they don't trash the house and expect someone else to pick up
    after them. that is a big DIFFERENCE)
    
    meg

    
    
    Why does it have to be a negative description at all?  You want to put
    yourselves as superior because you do not believe in this form of
    discipline which is a false premise.  Sometimes different is just
    different, not better or worse.
    
    
    Mike

    feels like its time for a time out...

    Re .406:
    
    Please include response numbers in your response.
    
    > EDP the law in Colorado for Daycare providers says that you will not
    > hit a child in your care.
    
    You said you watch other kids, not just that you do formal daycare.  I
    doubt there is any general law about parents or other people authorized
    to watch kids using physical discipline.
    
    > This kid gets hit and belittled daily and his mom wonders why she
    > can't control him, but swears hitting him is the only way to get his
    > attention and my kids are somehow "different."
    
    It is quite clear that constant force will teach nothing -- and equally
    clear that constant discipline of any sort will also teach nothing. 
    Your examples prove nothing about the use of force versus other
    techniques.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

>>    Why does it have to be a negative description at all?  You want to put
>>    yourselves as superior because you do not believe in this form of
>>    discipline which is a false premise.  Sometimes different is just
>>    different, not better or worse.
    
    
    Mike,


	If you'll go back and re-read my notes - you'll find just this.
	Better yet:
	
	....
        I don;t belive I said EVERYONE SHOULD DO IT MY WAY.  I told you
        what *I* believe.

	......
	I can't and won't say whats right for other parents - I know 
	nothing about their homes their backgrounds etc - but I do 
	know that my responsibility is to care for and teach MY children. 



	......
        Please  - you want to find reasons for this to be OK.  For me,
        it's never OK - for you it is = OK, I'm willing to leave it there.


	.....
	No, I never said "everyone" - you assumed I meant that.
        I will own up to the fact that I did not implicitly say MINE or MY
        so, I'll take 50% of that.
                                    

	.....
	The reailty is that we don't know each other - we don;t know
        anything about what we were taught, how we were brought up, what 
	our experiences were - all of those things go into this decision, for 
	me.



	.....
	 I'm not ticked off at anyone.   Without discussion there is only
        stagnation.
                     

	I even apologized .....

    
    >	I even apologized .....
    
    It's too late.  There's blood in the water and the Great Whites
    are finning in from all directions.
    
    
    Da Dum.
    
    Da Dum.
    
    Da Dum Da Dum Da Dum Da Dum Da Dum Da Dum Da Dum Da Dum Da Dum Da Dum Da Dum Da Dum
    

  .410  and yet you "find it interesting" when people get defensive
	about your generalization.  "find it interesting" is a very
	telling choice of words - the implication being that there
	is an underlying disingenuousness about the protests.

        "Convinced that you must spank? Now you'll walk the plank."

    re: .413
    
    Meter, meter, meter!!!!!!! It's driving me crazy!!! :-)
    
    Try:
    
    "Are you convinced that you must spank?
     Then lift your hand and walk the plank!"
    
    See?  Meter.  It sounds better. :-)
    
    Thank you.
    
    
    
    

    edp
    
    Beating another parent's child is regarded as assault on a child,
    whether formal daycare or not.  Maybe that law isn't enforced among
    people who agree to clobber each other's child, but I can guarantee I
    would press charges if one of my kids ws hit by an adult in charge of
    them, formal daycare situation or not.  I would also have to seriously
    restrain myself lest I teach my and their child about use of force on
    an adult to get them to behave.  
    
    meg

    "Convinced you must spank?  Then you'll walk the plank."
    
    Concise is good.

    
    	re: .415
    
    	Clobber. Beat. nah, no bias there...
    
    
    

    Re .415:
    
    Please include response numbers in your responses.
    
    > Maybe that law isn't enforced among people who agree to clobber each
    > other's child, . . .
    
    It is neither necessary nor appropriate for you to characterize people
    who practice beliefs differing from yours as "clobbering" their
    children.
    
    I believe it is likely you have characterized the law incorrectly;
    unless there is a general law against it, which you have not cited,
    then physically disciplining another person's child with the consent of
    the parent is not illegal.  So the law isn't "ignored" as you
    inaccurately portray; it just isn't against the law to spank children.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    RE: Pat
    
	....
        I don;t belive I said EVERYONE SHOULD DO IT MY WAY.  I told you
        what *I* believe.

> No, you did not say everyone should do it your way, but you istilled 
a judgement on those who don't do it your way by calling them cowards
	
        ......	I can't and won't say whats right for other parents - I know 
	nothing about their homes their backgrounds etc - but I do 
	know that my responsibility is to care for and teach MY children. 

>Exactly, and this is where the commonality, I believe, can be found.  
Most parents love and care for their children and have decided what 
way they think is best.  We've had this conversation before.  I think 
one of the determining factor is the motivator, is it anger or is it 
discipline so as to teach one's children that there are consequences 
to their actions.  

	......
        Please  - you want to find reasons for this to be OK.  For me,
        it's never OK - for you it is = OK, I'm willing to leave it there.

>Here's another little dig, "you want to find reason for this to be 
OK"  Very judgemental as it appears based on a premise that it is 
wrong to begin with and that one has to justify doing it.  In our 
previous discussions, I have changed my way of looking at spanking.  I 
try and avoid it as much as possible, but on rare occasion I do it but 
I make sure there is no anger there.  

	.....
	No, I never said "everyone" - you assumed I meant that.
        I will own up to the fact that I did not implicitly say MINE or MY
        so, I'll take 50% of that.
                                    
>You made a definitive statement that people who do A are B.  No 
qualifiers at all.  I see the interpretation as was taken by the 
others in the box as valid although they should know that it is your 
opinion because you are the one writing the note.  And to you, based 
on your life experience, what you had written is what you feel.  
Feelings aren't facts, however.

	.....
	The reailty is that we don't know each other - we don;t know
        anything about what we were taught, how we were brought up, what 
	our experiences were - all of those things go into this decision, for 
	me.

>True.
    
	.....
	 I'm not ticked off at anyone.   Without discussion there is only
        stagnation.
                     
>This is quite true although if we can avoid using negative terms such 
as coward and lazy, the discussion, I imagine, would proceed in a much 
more productive direction.

	I even apologized .....

>But you qualified your apology.  There is a difference between saying 
I'm sorry and I'm sorry, but.......



Mike

    .419
    
    What, you bought stock in a shark-repellent company?

    
    
    Nah, it's nothing that I wouldn't say to Pat were we to be standing
    face to face, I know she won't take it personally (and she didn't) and
    she knows it wasn't meant as an attack, just a different opinion. 
    She's a class act, to be sure.
    
    
    
    Mike

    .421
    
    Er, umm, are you trying to tell me something I didn't already know
    about Pat?

    
    
    Not at all, my esteemed colleague.

    re: .406
    
    
    >I think the term you might be looking for and I believe in my structure
    >around child discipline is lazyness, rather than cowardlyness.  It
    >takes significant work to keep consitant boundries and consequences for
    >the violation of those boundries, whereas a quick clout will stop the
    >behaviour, at least temporarily.  
    
    
     Evidently you didn't bother reading the description of my discipline...
    
    The Rock-man to Oblio:
    
    "You see what you want to see, and you hear what you want to hear..."
    

    Andy... what's the Point?

>> No, you did not say everyone should do it your way, but you istilled
>>a judgement on those who don't do it your way by calling them cowards

	Did you read any other notes of mine?   Check those and get back to 
	me.


>>>Here's another little dig, "you want to find reason for this to be 

	Did you read the entire statement???   It's not OK according to my 
	beliefs and I won't tell that it is - for me.  And I was being told 
	it is OK to hit a child beacuse x y z  - so yes, I still maintain that 
	reasons are/were being put forth to justify this behavior.   I 
	don't see that as a dig.

	You mentioned that your thoughts on spanking have changed since 
	we've had these kinds of discussions - you began very defensively,
	and you gave me what you thought were good reasons to do it -
	do you still believe that way???   You said you dont, that your 	
	views have changed - you began to think about what you were
	doing and way  - that all this is about.


>>You made a definitive statement that people who do A are B.  

	No, I made a statement about behavior - and yet it appears to
	be taken as a value statement about PEOPLE.   

>>But you qualified your apology.  There is a difference between saying 
>>I'm sorry and I'm sorry, but.......
	

	I qualified my apology - and I didn't try to hide that.  Where
	you looking for something different????

Jim,
    >> Evidently you didn't bother reading the description of my discipline...
    >>The Rock-man to Oblio:
    >>"You see what you want to see, and you hear what you want to hear..."

	Why isn't the same being said for you???
	I have yet to hear any other methods you tried, I've already told
	you that I have tried it your way - and that it was too much for 
	me.  I've admitted that the why I do this is sometimes very hard,
	and I'll even go a step further and say that sometimes I'm not even 
	very good at it - but I keep working at it.

	What can you tell me about your experience.  What have you tried,
	why do you believe this is OK???

	This would be an OK discussion to have off-line as well.

	Up to you

	Pat
    

           <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 290.426       Spare the rod, spoil the child (the sequel)        426 of 426
CRONIC::BOURGOINE                                    36 lines  31-JAN-1996 14:30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>> No, you did not say everyone should do it your way, but you istilled
>>a judgement on those who don't do it your way by calling them cowards

>	Did you read any other notes of mine?   Check those and get back to 
>	me.

Yup, I read them.  Still doesn't change my opinion of what was said.
    
>>>Here's another little dig, "you want to find reason for this to be 

>	Did you read the entire statement???   It's not OK according to my 
>	beliefs and I won't tell that it is - for me.  And I was being told 
>	it is OK to hit a child beacuse x y z  - so yes, I still maintain that 
>	reasons are/were being put forth to justify this behavior.   I 
>	don't see that as a dig.

    Yup, I read the entire statement and I still hold that it comes across
    as judgemental of the person.
    
>	You mentioned that your thoughts on spanking have changed since 
>	we've had these kinds of discussions - you began very defensively,
>	and you gave me what you thought were good reasons to do it -
>	do you still believe that way???   You said you dont, that your 	
>	views have changed - you began to think about what you were
>	doing and way  - that all this is about.

    Yes, if a person has gone over the motives and still come to the same
    conclusion, then they have done what they are obligated to do.  For me,
    it was to check and make sure that it wasn't out of anger and still is.

>>You made a definitive statement that people who do A are B.  

>	No, I made a statement about behavior - and yet it appears to
>	be taken as a value statement about PEOPLE.   

    Doing something is a behavior.  Cowards is a descriptive word ABOUT THE
    PEOPLE.
    
>>But you qualified your apology.  There is a difference between saying 
>>I'm sorry and I'm sorry, but.......
	

>	I qualified my apology - and I didn't try to hide that.  Where
>	you looking for something different????

    I cannot define the difference for you, but there is a difference. 
    Kind of like a "left ahnded compliment".
    

    
    
    	re: .426
    
    	there's enough spin in there to make you an honorary politician. 
    
    	I'm going to close by saying that I believe your statement was
    meant to call those who spank "cowards". All your posturing about how
    you meant it to be interpreted is just blowing smoke. 
    
    	'nuff said.
    
    	jim

    
    re: .427
    
    Errrr... Pat???  The name's "Andy"... I think I'd really, really know
    if I was Jim... I believe he's the one what can't run anymore??
    (Although I could be mistaken ;) ;)
    
    BTW... my reply was to meg and her assertion that hitting is plain
    lazyness...
    

    
    
    I'm fascinated, is this issue of whether to hit children an American thing
    ??
    
    When I was at school I was caned on several occaisions for various
    transgressions, it was most definately controlled violence, and we thought
    nothing of. We expected it. 
    
    Human beings are a very aggressive species, we're continually beating each
    other up in form or another (sport, war, etc)
    
    
    
    Conrad
    
    (brought up in England)

    Andy,
    
    It is very easy to me to smack a kid to stop a behaviour temporarily. 
    It is much harder to get same child to talk about what they did and why
    it is unacceptable behavior, and why they need to rectify same.  It is
    much harder to supervise an unwilling child while they pick up the
    stuff they spread around than it is to hit them and clean it up
    yourself.  
    
    I believe violent parenting methods lead to violence in society. 
    Almost every serial killer in the US was hit by a parent to make them a
    better person.  The people I have known who hit or otherwise tried to
    intimidate other adults to get their way, hit their kids and were hit
    my their parents.  Most of the people I know who don't believe there is
    room for compromise or a need for manners when relating to people were
    hit by their parents, and believe in hitting children.  Hmm, not hard
    to see a pattern here.  
    
    80% of violent inmates, according to a study a few years back were
    beaten by their parents.  I see a pattern here.
    
    nonviolent parenting does not mean no disclipine parenting.  It means
    working through and treating your children with respect, while
    enforcing that the things they learn also help them learn to surviv in
    the world.  Although with the majority opinions around here, maybe I
    should start hitting my kids as well.  It may give them a fighting
    chhance with all the violently raised children that will be out there.
    
    meg

    
    
    Sorry meg... my anecdotes are just as good as yours... I'm not trying
    to belittle you for the way you raised/are raising your family, and
    your broad-brush (and a continuance to do so) bothers me. 
    
      Your use of the terms "smack", "clobber" etc. show your obvious bias.
    
    I explained how and why I disciplined my children the way I did. They
    both have grown up to be loving and caring individuals.
    
     I was beaten quite often as a child. My father was an amatuer barber
    and often gave his friends and family haircuts. He bought the whole kit
    and kaboodle including a chair and razor strop. The strop hung in the
    pantry (it was two pieces of leather about 2 1/2 ft. long and 1/4"
    thick) and was used extensively during our upbringing. There was no
    "pattern" to continue in my family as I was determined that what he did
    to me and my brother wouldn't happen to my kids. 
    
     I don't feel superior to anyone for doing what I did and why, so I'd
    appreciate the same courtesy from you. 

    
    
    I have no problem with walloping children in the right circumstance.
    
    Both my brother and I were over 6 foot tall by the time we reached early
    teens, our mother was only 5ft tall, there were occaisons when we were both
    beyond rational discussion, so the natural alternative was for our mother to
    wallop us.
    
    Neither of us have any unnatural aggressive tendancies (just rugby), and if
    I ever have any children of my own, I'll have no hesitation in walloping
    them if I feel that rational discussion is not possible.
    
    
    
    Conrad

Conrad, aren't you the guy with the Prince Albert?  I guess you didn't spare
the rod either.

    
    
    Yes, that's me. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
    
    I figured that I could be ostentatious and wear a ring on my finger, or be
    violent and pierce my ear, or alternatively I could satisfy my curiosity and
    put a key fob in my knob. ;-) ! No chance of losing my keys that way .
    
    Conrad
    

>>>    I believe violent parenting methods lead to violence in society.    
    Almost every serial killer in the US was hit by a parent to make them a   
    better person.  The people I have known who hit or otherwise tried to   
    intimidate other adults to get their way, hit their kids and were hit   
    my their parents.  Most of the people I know who don't believe there is   
    room for compromise or a need for manners when relating to people were   
    hit by their parents, and believe in hitting children.  Hmm, not hard   
    to see a pattern here.  
    
    I just don't agree with any of this. I know of MANY people who
    were spanked as children who do not illustrate any of the
    characteristics you have indicated above.  They are not violent
    criminals, they are not unrational human beings, unable to listen to
    another opinion.  They are loving, kind people and are raising their
    children as they see fit - some of them following the example set by
    their parents and some who have chosen not to spank....  and you know,
    I bet there are even children who were never spanked by their parents
    who find that the discipline *their* children respond best to is a
    spanking every now and then.  Every case is different and neither is
    right or wrong (IMHO)
    
    

I think there is a difference between hitting and hitting.

I was subject to some parental corporal punishment, like many in my
generation. It was saved for occasions when we (me & my brother) really
deserved  it (regardless of your opinion of if/when such things are ever
deserved). As such, it really meant something. We have both grown up not
so bad.

OTOH, sometimes I see parents who swat their kits constantly, at the drop 
of a hat. For these kids, it's not hard to imagine that hitting becomes
a normal part of life.

    
    
    
    re .-1
    
    
    I whole heartedly agree. Corporal punishment, either in the school or in the
    home was the maximum penalty. Usually (IMHO) deserved.  
    
    If beating is a regular feature of discipline then it loses it's deterrent
    value.
    
    
    Conrad
                          

> No chance of losing my keys that way .

But, do you _really_ have to be in the mood to get the door open?

    in lucky jack's world:

	hitting child with open flat hand - no punishment
	hitting child with rubber snake   - death

    yes, that seems fair. ;>

    
    
    >do you _really_ have to be in the mood to get the door open?
    
    Well if course it depends on how tall you are, and the length of the
    flexible section ! 
    
    
    
    

>    Add me to the list of people that think that Jack is whacked in his
>    position that this guy should be put to death for spanking his child.

If he'd spanked the kid, even if a welt or two was raised, I doubt that
I'd be concerned. But it wasn't "a spanking". He picked up a foreign
object, and oddly one not customarily used for discipline by most folks,
and struck the kid multiple times on the back and chest. What kind of
instructive discipline is that? It's not. It's a violent act anyway
you measure it.

If nothing else, I will be consistent in my desire to see violence
treated consistently. It's not his desire to discipline his child that
yanks my cord, it's the violent nature of his actions.

Then again, I only wanted to fry the old man, and now I witness the uproar
in the last 80 responses or so about which-way/when/how/why to spank. It's
to laugh.

>Then again, I only wanted to fry the old man, and now I witness the uproar
>in the last 80 responses or so about which-way/when/how/why to spank. It's
>to laugh.

	why?  what does one thing have to do with the other?

    Re .432:
    
    > It is very easy to me to smack a kid to stop a behaviour temporarily. 
    > It is much harder to get same child to talk about what they did . . .
    
    Harder does not mean better.  It's just bragging.
    
    > 80% of violent inmates, according to a study a few years back were
    > beaten by their parents.  I see a pattern here.

    You cannot see a pattern until you know what percentage of people in
    general were "beaten" by their parents.  Without a comparison, you do
    not have a pattern; you have a prejudice.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

>	why?

'cuz I'm odd that way.

>  what does one thing have to do with the other?

Unsure, but it was certainly humorous to observe the intensity with which 
people have been at each other's throats over far less grievous matters
than what I was proposing.

>If nothing else, I will be consistent in my desire to see violence
>treated consistently. It's not his desire to discipline his child that
>yanks my cord, it's the violent nature of his actions.

	so if someone loses his temper with his child, he is as useless
	and dangerous to society as someone who goes out, kidnaps, rapes,
	and mutilates a child?  where is your sense of equity?

>in the last 80 responses or so about which-way/when/how/why to spank. It's
>to laugh.

Laughable perhaps, but not in the way you're thinking. 

> people have been at each other's throats over far less grievous matters
> than what I was proposing.

What could be nore grievous than what you're proposing? You're talking about 
a society that values life so little that a black eye is grounds for 
state-sanctioned murder. What if someone looses it and pops someone else? The
only way to escape death might be to go ahead and kill him, along with any
witnesses. Unless of course, the offender is like you and recognizes his
duty to pay for his act for the good of society. Some society. 

This is the most inane position that I've heard in the box, bar none, and there
have been some doozies. I have read your posts on other matters, and have
agreed with you on some. But for some time I have been wondering. Do you have
a brain? Get a life fer crissakes! Jeezus!!!

>	so if someone loses his temper with his child, he is as useless
>	and dangerous to society as someone who goes out, kidnaps, rapes,
>	and mutilates a child?  where is your sense of equity?

"Loses his temper" is putting it mildly from my perspective. I stated
somewhere many replies ago what my feelings were on this as to the guy's
"fate". IF I were expected to charge him and I didn't learn anything more
than what I read in the original article I _would_ charge him with violent
crime. And IF I sat on his jury and didn't learn anything more than what I
read in the original article I _would_ find him guilty. And if (no caps -
it goes without saying - I believe in treating all proven violent behavior 
the same) he's guilty he should fry.

Now, I don't have anything at this point to go on other than the article.

The article said that he struck the child multiple times on the back and
chest with a rubber snake. That was pretty much the content of the article
with respect to the assault/discipline/beating/lesson/whatever. If there was
something else significant about _the_act_ that I missed, then please point 
me to it. His previous "record" isn't pertinent relative to _the_act_.

Now, here's my take, not knowing anymore - "Father, being extremely pissed off
over offspring's behavior, IN A FIT OF RAGE, picks up nearest wieldable/
swingable foreign object, that happening to be a rubber snake, and mercilessly
beats child about the torso raising visible welts."

This is what _I_ assume happened, given what I read. You are more than free
to assume something different occurred. Without further information, my
expectation is that each of us are wrong to some degree. Please recall
that I said "IF I don't learn otherwise".

Now, my judgements, my verdicts, and my punishments with respect to this
are based on what I know. I expect that I know no more, nor no less, than
do you. But I'm comfortable that if I'm right in my assumptions, the SOB
should fry. If you'd prefer to slap his wrists, and I _AM_ right in my
assumptions, then I guess we don't have much more to say to each other
regarding the matter.

The punishment does have "equity" with the guy that kidnaps, rapes and 
murders. They are both reprehensible. They both deserve to fry.

How the hell can you socially excuse someone who beats a kid with a
rubber snake? Where's the justification for downplaying his actions
relative to any other violence? How many times to do I have to say
that it hasn't to do with his "dangerousness" or his "uselessness"?
It has to do with his violent antisocial behavior.

For crissakes, by that reasoning (how dangerous to society) it's fully
appropriate that OJ got off (assuming he actually did it), since he's
likely to be of "no danger to anyone else now that Nicole is out of the
way and he's satiated his rage".

>only way to escape death might be to go ahead and kill him, along with any
>witnesses.

Yes - I've been told that Thomas More proposed that theory. I don't buy it.
If anyone cares enough about their own life to prolong it, they will refrain 
from behaviors which put it at risk in a society which threatens to remove it
from them.

> Some society. 

Like this one is something to brag about? Folks get to have their way with 
each other, take a short vacation at society's expence, and come right back
and do it again. You like it, Bruce? You can have it. I'm fed up with it.



Look, pilgrim - as long as the likes of most of today's "compassionate"
society have the say about how we treat violence, we'll continue to have 
violence. And we'll deserve every bit of it. I've been railing in here for
years about the need to get tough on violence. I've proposed my draconian
counter-violent absolute solution. The only thing I get from anybody in
here that disagrees with me is "That's too drastic" and "You can't _DO_
that" and "You're daft" and "Never". Well, I'm here to tell you that 
"Never" have I received something in terms of a better approach which
eliminates the violence quickly, surely and at low cost to society. Why
on earth _shouldn't_ I continue to propose it? I don't think anyone else 
has sufficient sense to come up with a better solution.

You're comfortable with the staus quo. I ain't. If I'm mistaken about you
in this respect, GIVE ME A BETTER SOLUTION, DAMMIT!

    >	so if someone loses his temper with his child, he is as useless
    >	and dangerous to society as someone who goes out, kidnaps, rapes,
    >	and mutilates a child?  where is your sense of equity?
    
     But it makes things so much easier when they are reduced to a binary
    state. Why you can turn your brain completely off and still come up
    with a consistent answer. Doesn't seem to matter much whether the
    answer is sensible or not, so long as it's consistent.

Just in case you might be interested - I have more if you'd like:


		"Discipline Without Shouting or Spanking"
				by Jerry Wyckoff Ph.D.
				Barbara C. Unell

		Spanking and Shouting Are Counterproductive

	Severe punishment often generates more problems than it solves.  
For one thing, shouting and spanking give children all the wrong kinds of 
attention, and if it's the only kind we give them, they may misbehave just 
to get us to notice them.  Also, parents don't always know if spanking 
works because they don't actually observe its effects over time on a 
child's behavior.  Punishment often simply drives bad behavior 
underground: it stops it from happening in front of parents, but it does 
not stop the behavior altogether.  Children, in fact, become experts at 
not getting caught.  Parents may even say, "Don't let me catch you doing 
that again!"

But in the hierarchy of moral development (as defined by Lawrence 
Kohlberg), the lowest level is "Following rules only to avoid punishment."  
The highest level, however is "to follow rules because they are right and 
good."  When we consistently spank our children for their misbehavior, we 
tend to stop them at the lowest level of moral development - they are 
interested in avoiding the punishment, not in doing what is good or right.

Spanking is also the model for the earliest experience a child has with 
violence,  Children learn to behave in violent ways through our adult 
example.  It is difficult to justify the admonition "Don't hit!" while 
parents are hitting their children for hitting.

Since children see the work in concrete terms, a child who sees that it 
is permissible for an adult to hit a child, will assume it must be 
permissible for a child to hit an adult or another child.  Hitting begets 
hitting, as well as anger, revenge and the breakdown of communication 
between parents and their children.

    >I'm fascinated, is this issue of whether to hit children an
    >American thing??
    
    I believe it's actually against the law in some countries ... 
    Scandinavian countries, maybe?

    
    
    RE: .452  I see quite few flaws in that argument.  Nothing about what
    leads up to a spanking (child being told not to do a certain behavior)
    as well as what happens afterwards (any discussion about what happened).  
    The assumption is that there isn't any and, in my case and I imagine in
    many others, that is not the case.
    
    
    Mike

>Now, here's my take, not knowing anymore - "Father, being extremely pissed off
>over offspring's behavior, IN A FIT OF RAGE, picks up nearest wieldable/
>swingable foreign object, that happening to be a rubber snake, and mercilessly
>beats child about the torso raising visible welts."

	"IN A FIT OF RAGE", "mercilessly beats child"
	Sounds like you've been reading _The Dictionary of Inflammatory
	Terms_.  

>But I'm comfortable that if I'm right in my assumptions, the SOB
>should fry. If you'd prefer to slap his wrists, and I _AM_ right in my
>assumptions, then I guess we don't have much more to say to each other
>regarding the matter.

	I haven't suggested slapping his wrists.  I have suggested
	that taking his children away might be necessary as a last resort,
	if it were shown that they're really in danger from him.  
	(All the chest-thumping and huffing and puffing from parents who say
	they'd never let a social worker take their kids away notwithstanding.)
	That, perhaps coupled with time in prison, hardly constitutes
	a wrist-slapping.
	However, there is no in between for you, apparently.  Anyone
	who doesn't execute him is just plain soft.

>The punishment does have "equity" with the guy that kidnaps, rapes and 
>murders. They are both reprehensible. They both deserve to fry.

	Lots of behaviors are reprehensible.  But that doesn't mean
	they should be punishable by death.

>How the hell can you socially excuse someone who beats a kid with a
>rubber snake? 

	I'm not excusing him.  I'm just not taking his life.  Somewhere
	in the middle, you see.

>How many times to do I have to say
>that it hasn't to do with his "dangerousness" or his "uselessness"?
>It has to do with his violent antisocial behavior.

	So why do you care about his supposed "violent antisocial behavior"
	if not for the fact that it makes him dangerous?

>     But it makes things so much easier when they are reduced to a binary
>    state. Why you can turn your brain completely off and still come up
>    with a consistent answer. Doesn't seem to matter much whether the
>    answer is sensible or not, so long as it's consistent.

Look, Doctah, in the fourth paragraph I wrote in .449, I described what
I assume to have taken place, which in my mind justifies this as wanton
violence. I don't have ANYTHING to go on, other than the article which
was posted in this string regarding the incident. If you have something
else which lends clarity to the matter and disabuses that view of the
matter, then by all means please share it with me and I'll reconsider.
If you do not, you are certainly free to assume that it was "a simple
innocent loss of temper which warrants no interference from society",
however your assumption is no more valid than mine, in the absence of
more data. That's my contention.

I would prefer to expect the worst and be willing to be proven wrong,
than to assume the best and not bother to look any further. I have seen
no evidence of "the compassionate" looking any further. Have you?

>I was subject to some parental corporal punishment, like many in my
>generation. It was saved for occasions when we (me & my brother) really
>deserved  it (regardless of your opinion of if/when such things are ever
>deserved). As such, it really meant something. We have both grown up not
>so bad.

"My brother and I," not "me and my brother."  For such an egregious error,
you deserve corporal punishment.  It also leads me to question the last
sentence.

    
    
    Report to Gerald's office for your spanking.  And it's going to hurt
    him more than it's going to hurt you....

>Look, Doctah, in the fourth paragraph I wrote in .449, I described what
>I assume to have taken place, which in my mind justifies this as wanton
>violence. 
    
     Yes, I read your "mind's eye" view of the matter. I found it to make a
    number of questionable assumptions, and it seemed to be clearly biased
    towards making the biggest possible deal out of this. (Which would be
    consistent with one having been backed into a corner, and looking for
    something, anything that could be used as "justification" for one's
    extreme position.) 
    
     Like you, my only source of information is the quoted article. Unlike
    you, I am not willing to engage in conjecture for the purpose of making
    an extreme position seem somewhat less unreasonable. Having witnessed
    first hand the way that reporting can skew the perception and
    understanding if an incident, I am simply not willing to call for the
    guy's head based upon some unknown reporter's story. Calling for the
    man's execution, beyond the obvious disproportionate nature of the
    response even assuming the worst, based simply on a paragraph of
    information is reactionary and irresponsible. In fact, it is violence.
    For that, you should hang. :-)/2

    .452
    
    Good points there.  Dale Carnegie put it another way:  The only way to
    get somebody to do what you want is to instill that person with a
    burning desire to do whatever it is you want them to do.
    
    If a boss "motivates" people by fear and threats, then they may appear
    to perform well while he is watching, but as soon as he leaves the
    room, their hearts are not going to be in their job performance.
    
    Same with kids.  If you spank kids for running out in the street
    without looking for cars first, you may merely be teaching them to
    look out for you first.  It's much more effective if you can find some
    way to convince kids that looking out for cars is in their own best
    interest, so they'll do it when you aren't there.
    
    I couldn't figure out a good way to impress upon my own kids the
    danger cars and streets posed, until one day a dead frog (squashed nice
    and flat, but still recognizable) showed up at the end of our driveway.
    
    That got the message through in spades.  Their eyes got real big when
    they realized that a car did that to a frog, and could do the same
    thing to them.  They still talk about that frog to this day.  
    
    Hey, maybe we could market this thing -- Dead Frog Road Safety
    Instruction Kit   $19.95  + P&H   

>     Yes, I read your "mind's eye" view of the matter. I found it to make a
>    number of questionable assumptions, and it seemed to be clearly biased
>    towards making the biggest possible deal out of this.

As I said in the last graph of .456, I'd rather assume the worst and be willing
to be proven wrong, than assume the best and ignore it. I'm funny that way,
I guess.

>				I am simply not willing to call for the
>    guy's head based upon some unknown reporter's story. Calling for the
>    man's execution, beyond the obvious disproportionate nature of the
>    response even assuming the worst, based simply on a paragraph of
>    information is reactionary and irresponsible.

Please demonstrate how I've done that. At least twice in this very string
I have quite clearly conditionalized my intentions regarding his fate.
I even went so far as to spell "if" in capital letters lest the import
of the meaning be overlooked by the less zealous reader. Apparently
I misjudged the audience quite severely.

    I have a difficult time seriously considering the opinion of someone
    who routinely drives by miserably unfortunate, freezing, hitchhikers. 

>As I said in the last graph of .456, I'd rather assume the worst and be willing
>to be proven wrong, than assume the best and ignore it. I'm funny that way,
>I guess.
    
    Well, you've got company in that camp. Saddam, Adolph, Mussolini, any
    number of organized crime figures...
    
    

  .461  "misjudged the audience quite severely".  oh, that's rich.  so
	now we're somehow mentally impaired, while we question the rationality
	of executing people at the drop of a hat.  gee, maybe we should be
	removed from society too?

>	now we're somehow mentally impaired, while we question the rationality
>	of executing people at the drop of a hat.
I invite you, as well as the Doctah, to show where I proposed offing the guy
strictly on the evidence provided in the article. The misjudgement of the
audience had to do with their apparent lack of comprehension of a big 

	IIIIIIIII	FFFFFFFFF
	    I		F
	    I		F
	    I		FFFFF
	    I		F
	    I		F
	    I		F
	IIIIIIIII	F
or two.
Now, if you just want to argue just for the sake of arguing, I have other 
things to do.

   .465  I read every "IF" you wrote, thank you.  It made no difference to me.
	 It's still just as ludicrous to off the guy.  As it is to off someone
	 for getting into a barroom brawl.  Your level of irrationality
	 isn't mitigated, in my mind, by your "IF"s.    	 

>I invite you, as well as the Doctah, to show where I proposed offing the guy
>strictly on the evidence provided in the article. 
    
    from .449 :
    
>IF I were expected to charge him and I didn't learn anything more
>than what I read in the original article I _would_ charge him with violent
>crime. And IF I sat on his jury and didn't learn anything more than what I
>read in the original article I _would_ find him guilty. And if (no caps -
>it goes without saying - I believe in treating all proven violent behavior 
>the same) he's guilty he should fry.
    
    So based on nothing more than the evidence in the article, you would
    vote to see him executed. That's moronic.

> It made no difference to me.

Then I guess there's nothing more to say.

        How about gene therapy to alter the violent tendencies BEFORE strapping
    these maniacs to the chair?

 Who's Gene Therapy..some kinda ballplayer?

>    So based on nothing more than the evidence in the article, you would
>    vote to see him executed. That's moronic.

No - it's not. If I were in those positions, I fully assume that I WOULD 
learn something more than what was in the article. If there WERE nothing
more to learn, and my assumptions were borne out, that would be it.

This isn't rocket science, is it?

    Not every violent dude has an extra y chromosome m'boy.  Perhaps
    we could use ECT, bit of cosmetic brain surgery, or extreme aversion
    therapy.
    
    I'd go for the latter as it's least likely to leave us with a surfeit
    of unemployable mannikins.  Of course, you'd have these liberal
    goo-dooder types who will want to deprogram them because we've "removed
    their free will", so deprogramming must incur an automatic death
    sentence.

>and my assumptions were borne out, 
    
    That's not what you said in the quoted paragraph. There was no mention
    whatever of your assumptions. You didn't stop to examine your
    assumptions on your way to the execution.
    
    But you're correct about one thing. There is nothing more to say. You
    believe in executing anyone you're convinced has perpetrated any
    violent behavior, without regard to the nature of the behavior. You do
    not believe in degree of severity. It's all the same to you. Black and
    white. On and off. Discrete digital values in an analog world.
    
    "Your wisdom is like vision from the corner of the eye. It seems to exist, 
    but disappears when examined."

   the Doctah accepted your invitation and showed that you indeed
   said you would execute the guy based on no evidence other than that
   in the article.  now you're still asserting we're braindead.
   can't win, it looks like.

>>    RE: .452  I see quite few flaws in that argument.  Nothing about what
>>    leads up to a spanking (child being told not to do a certain behavior)
>>    as well as what happens afterwards (any discussion about what happened).  
>>    The assumption is that there isn't any and, in my case and I imagine in
 >>   many others, that is not the case.

	
	Becuase it's not about when and if it's OK.  It's about 
	other ways of parenting.

>        How about gene therapy to alter the violent tendencies BEFORE strapping
>    these maniacs to the chair?

Calling Dr. Haag!

    What about that hitchhiker then? Was he a spanker? Is that why you let
    him freeze?

    Re .452:
    
    > For one thing, shouting and spanking give children all the wrong
    > kinds of attention, and if it's the only kind we give them, they may
    > misbehave just to get us to notice them.
    
    Since that is true for ANY form of discipline, it is an argument
    against any form of discipline just as much as it is an argument
    against spanking and shouting.
    
    > Also, parents don't always know if spanking works because they don't
    > actually observe its effects over time on a child's behavior.
    
    Same thing.
    
    > Punishment often simply drives bad behavior underground: it stops it
    > from happening in front of parents, but it does not stop the behavior
    > altogether.
    
    Same thing.
    
    > Children, in fact, become experts at not getting caught.
    
    Same thing.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

>now you're still asserting we're braindead.

Oh, brother ....

"...and I didn't learn anything more..." was stated twice. I conceded
just a few replies back that I fully expect if involved that I WOULD
learn something more, and only if I DID NOT learn anything to mitigate
my assumptions would I procede to execute. That was implied in my
original contention for crissakes.

Who's twisting whose words, here?

    Eric, your recipe for reinforcing appropriate behavior is?  

>>           <<< Note 290.462 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Captain Dunsel" >>>

>>    I have a difficult time seriously considering the opinion of someone
>>    who routinely drives by miserably unfortunate, freezing, hitchhikers. 

	No doubt you would advocate your daughters (do you have any?)
	to pick up hitchhikers, especially on rural backroads......
	A very caring parent, I can see......


;-)

Glenn, do your female personalities pick up hitchhikers?

    Only in the camaro of my mind.

>and only if I DID NOT learn anything to mitigate
>my assumptions would I procede to execute. That was implied in my
>original contention for crissakes.

	exactly.  that's what you said, and that's why this challenge
	was easily met:  

  >>I invite you, as well as the Doctah, to show where I proposed offing
  >>the guy strictly on the evidence provided in the article.

	not that you wouldn't listen to any arguments or other evidence,
	but that that would be _enough_ evidence for you to execute him.
	you would be willing to off him strictly on that evidence, if you
	had to.
 
>Who's twisting whose words, here?

	i'm not twisting your words.  you're willing to execute the
	guy based on the evidence in the article, even if you're willing
	to listen to any and all arguments presented.  _that_ is 
	what's incredible (for starters).  

    
    	RE: .480
    
    	Brian, Eric doesn't answer questions.  He questions answers.
    

Teacher in Springfield MA is in trouble for having a cop handcuff an unruly
student to a chair and then taking pictures of him.

  .486  cops hate having their pictures taken.

The kid, Di, the kid!

 It was kinda dumb taking pictures of the kid.

    More like Kinky.  

    
    More like cya evidence for later on... when the kid accuses everyone
    and their brother for abuse, and mayhem, and sodomy, and mutilation..
    and... and... and...
    

    cigar abuse.

    
    
    That's it!!!! I knew I forgot one!!!
    

    
    	Jack would have you executed, if it were up to him.  And that's
    	for the 1st offense.
    
    	The 2nd offense would get you executed AND tortured.
    

    
    I'd let you in my video store, though.
    

>   <<< Note 290.495 by BUSY::SLABOUNTY "Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448" >>>

Nah.

I gave up on executions for first (minor) offenses some time ago. I even
conceded that convictions based strictly on circumstantial evidence were
exempt.

>	i'm not twisting your words.  you're willing to execute the
>	guy based on the evidence in the article, even if you're willing
>	to listen to any and all arguments presented.  _that_ is 
>	what's incredible (for starters).  

What's incredible is that you and the Doctah both appear to have interpreted 
what I wrote as you've stated it above.

Now, we can take the time and effort for me to once again attempt to clarify
what you've apparently misunderstood, or not. It's really up to you.

Taking the following paragraph from my .298, would we be having this
protracted discussion if I'd originally provided the emphasis indicated
below?


	"If I were sitting on said jury, given what I know at this point, 
	 and assuming I learn _*NOTHING*_ significant to the contrary, I 
	 would vote to convict."

    You just don't seem to get it, Jack. What I'm saying (and I think Diane
    agrees with me) that given the evidence presented in the article, even
    if entirely true and objective, the "crime" does not in any way justify
    a punishment even in the same area code as execution. YMOV, and that's
    the big difference here. Then again, we both consider execution for bar
    fighting to be similarly disproportionate punishments.

I got the sense that there were two issues, Doctah.

The first, that we disagree on the necessity for execution for the offence.
We will continue to disagree on that matter.

The second, that there was some assumption that I was deaf to anything other
than what was in the article. This was not my statement, nor my intention.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

>The second, that there was some assumption that I was deaf to anything other
>than what was in the article. This was not my statement, nor my intention.
    
    No, I never thought you meant that. What you said that I objected to
    (in addition to the disproportionate nature of the punishment) was that
    you would find the man guilty of a violent crime based upon nothing
    more than the evidence in the article. In other words, if you sat on
    the jury at the trial and that was the only evidence presented, you'd
    vote to convict. I find that to be "reactionary and irresponsible." To
    me, the evidence in the article is insufficient to find a verdict of
    guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 

   all that stuff the Doctah said - ditto for me.
   thank you, Doctah. ;>

    I don't know, Jack is being consistant in his beliefs on how to end
    violence.  I may not agree with his methods but I do understand the
    sentiment.
    
    meg

    Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

    > I may not agree with his methods but I do understand the
    > sentiment.

	well, same here - it's his methods we've been calling
	ludicrous, not the sentiment.

    
    Kids get all kinds of scrapes and bruises just from playing, and
    they get into fights with other kids that do more immediate physical
    damage than any rubber snake could do, without suffering any lasting
    damage.
    
    Spanking kids is just one way of expressing your parental feelings
    toward your kids, and if you don't overdo it, you certainly aren't
    going to do them any major harm.
    
    It's not so much the spanking per se that hurts kids, IMO, it's the
    demeaning nature of the act that does damage, little by little over
    the years, to your relationship with the kids, and to the kids'
    feelings about themselves -- their self-confidence and self-esteem.
    
    Much more damage can be done by what you say and by how you treat
    kids.  If you demean them in other ways, tell them they are stupid,
    dumb, bad, nasty, hateful, or any other words that tear them down,
    especially if you do those things often, kids eventually will
    establish a deep-rooted belief that those things are true, and that
    can do lifelong damage.
    
    If you never let them do things on their own, always "rescue" them
    from their own ineptness, prevent them from trying new things and
    from making their own mistakes, never trust them, never listen to
    their points of view, if you always have to win arguments with them,
    you are telling them they are helpless and worthless, and don't
    count for anything, and they can eventually come to believe it so
    stongly that no amount of therapy in adult life can make them well
    again.
    
    Don't get hung up about spanking -- be more concerned with how
    your kids feel about themselves.  If you do a good job of that,
    spanking just won't be an issue one way or the other.  In fact,
    if you always help your kids to maintain their self respect, you
    probably will find that you don't need all that much discipline
    at all, beyond the normal guidance kids need to know what the
    boundaries and rules are.
    
    An interesting implication of that is that if you involve your
    kids in the process of establishing boundaries, rules, and limits,
    then they will be much more willing to obey them than if you
    impose arbitrary rules on them without regard to their feelings.
    
    Kids who feel good about themselves, and who feel respected by
    
    their parents, are going to try very hard to behave in ways that
    they feel will win their parents' approval.  It's a whole lot
    easier to raise kids when their upbringing is a cooperative
    effort among all concerned, rather than a constant series of
    confrontations and battles of wills.
    
    IMO.
    
    Dick
    

    re: Dick
    
>    Much more damage can be done by what you say and by how you treat
>    kids.  If you demean them in other ways, tell them they are stupid,
>    dumb, bad, nasty, hateful, or any other words that tear them down,
>    especially if you do those things often, kids eventually will
>    establish a deep-rooted belief that those things are true, and that
>    can do lifelong damage.
    
    
    	Amen! I was running the GOAL airgun table at a local sportsmans
    show this weekend, and I met some *real* winners. One gent telling his
    kid he shot awful, another mother saying about the same thing, jeesh! I
    tried to buddy up with these kids and give them some encouragement, but
    there's not much one can do.  
    
    	The MAJORITY of the parents were great and encouraged/supported the
    kids, even when they didn't get any shots on the paper. We had them
    from as young as 3yrs old, to college kids shooting for the first time.
    Very satisfying overall.
    
    jim

    Re .480:
    
    > Eric, your recipe for reinforcing appropriate behavior is?  
    
    I have not prescribed ONE method for disciplining children, reinforcing
    behavior, or other aspects of raising children.  It does not matter
    whether I prefer method A, B, C, or D.  I have argued that we should
    ACCEPT people who choose method A, people who choose method B, people
    who choose method C, and people who choose method D.  Only the most
    extreme parental behaviors warrant government intervention -- one
    severe spanking on one occasion when the child did something extremely
    dangerous is in no way cause for government involvement.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Eric,
    
    And losing it ONCE at one's spousal unit or at a total stranger should
    be okay too?  Oh good I have a list of people I would like to really
    unload at ONCE, and if I could avoid consequences for that action.....
    
    
    meg

    
    <------
    
    Meg, our female counter-part for Jack Martin...
    

    Re .511:
    
    > And losing it ONCE at one's spousal unit or at a total stranger should
    > be okay too?
    
    Let's see -- spouse unknowingly steps in front of a bus.  You
    unthinkingly apply emergency corrective action that leaves bruises. 
    Yes, I would say that "losing it" like that once would be okay too.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

re:             <<< Note 290.503 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "memory canyon" >>>

>						In other words, if you sat on
>    the jury at the trial and that was the only evidence presented, you'd
>    vote to convict.

Well, not wanting necessarily to reopen this foul can of worms, but since 
you've apparently missed the point, please expound as to how you conclude
from anything that I've said that I would have _ANY_ expectation that as
a juror I wouldn't be presented with other evidence. I specifically stated
this in a previous reply. Perhaps you missed it. If not, you _ARE_ 
misinterpreting my words.

    Eric,
    
    How about if your spousal unit comes home after picking up a traffic
    ticket and you clobber them hard enough to leave bruises?  How about a
    stranger refusing to acknowlege your presence, is it all right to lose
    it at them too, as long as you only do it once?  
    
    The kid was not running in front of a bus.  He made a stupid error of
    judgement, resulting in a suspension.  IMO this is no excuse for
    leaving welts.
    
    

>        <<< Note 290.514 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

  >re:             <<< Note 290.503 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "memory canyon" >>>

  >>						In other words, if you sat on
  >>    the jury at the trial and that was the only evidence presented, you'd
  >>    vote to convict.

   Is this not true?  If it's not true, then you have clearly misrepresented
   _yourself_.

>  >>						In other words, if you sat on
>  >>    the jury at the trial and that was the only evidence presented, you'd
>  >>    vote to convict.
>
>   Is this not true?  If it's not true, then you have clearly misrepresented
>   _yourself_.

Sigh.

Yes - that's true insofar as I've already qualified it, several times now,
indicating that I fully expect that as a juror I _WOULD_ learn something
different and that that would _NOT_ be the only thing I'd have to go on. As 
a matter of fact, with nothing more than that as evidence, I doubt very 
seriously that you could get anyone to indict and arraign the guy, so I guess 
the act of sitting as a juror, given nothing more, would be kinda outta the
question, wouldn't it?

  .517  well, of course it's not very likely that you would be sitting
	on such a jury and/or that if you were, no other evidence
	would be presented.  but this is a hypothetical situation.  what
	matters is what you would do.  you have stated that you would
	vote to convict.  that's what's mind-boggling.

    Re .515:
    
    >     How about if your spousal unit comes home after picking up a
    > traffic ticket and you clobber them hard enough to leave bruises?  How
    > about a stranger refusing to acknowlege your presence, is it all right
    > to lose it at them too, as long as you only do it once?  
    
    Why are you asking such stupid questions?  Did I say it was all right
    to hit somebody, even once, in ANY situation?  No, I did not.  Did I
    even say it was all right to hit somebody even in marginal situations? 
    No, I did not.  I said "losing it" would be okay -- meaning I would
    forgive the person for losing their control in a situation where the
    temptation to use force was understandable.  That includes situations
    where the force saves a person from harm, but it certainly does not
    apply to any stupid situation you make up.
    
    > He made a stupid error of judgement, resulting in a suspension.  IMO
    > this is no excuse for leaving welts.
    
    Nobody said that is an excuse.  But your apparently inability to
    comprehend the notion of forgiveness compels me to wonder if your
    previous wonderful self-praise of your parental abilities are lies.
    If you never forgave your kids the way you will not forgive other
    people, you would be a terrible parent.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

Somersworth, NH (AP) -- The principal of a private Christian school was
charged yesterday with simple assault after disciplining a 4-year-old pupil
with a paddle, bruising his buttocks.  Paul Edgar, 45, of Dover was charged
with paddling the boy on the buttocks at the Tri-City Christian Academy
Feb. 28 after the boy was unruly, said Somersworth Detective Russell Timmons.
The boy, who suffered minor bruising, was treated at Salmon Falls Family
Physicians in Somersworth, police said.

>The boy, who suffered minor bruising, was treated at Salmon Falls Family
>Physicians in Somersworth, police said.
    
    Treatment consisting of what? The kid walks in, drops his drawers and
    the physician says, "Yep, that's a bruise all right."

    
    	Maybe the physician kissed it to make it better.
    

    Why didn't they take him to the divine physician?

I wonder if the principal paddled one buttock and then told the tot to turn
the other cheek.

    Now he's up crap creek without a paddle.

    So much for that brand spanking new house he always dreamed of.

    
    	"Of life you didn't want to be rid?  Should have refrained from
    	whacking the kid."
    

    "Want to be knocked out of the saddle?  Give the nipper a really hard
    paddle."

    
    No more cracks...

    "Didn't expect from a rope you would swing? You should have avoided
    that paddling thing."

    
    	RE: ABUGOV
    
    	The serious part apparently refers to the part about making a
    	big deal out of what is very probably a paddling that was well-
    	deserved, yes?
    

Shawn, do you really think a wooden paddle should ever be used on a 4-year-old?

    Well, wood is a renewable resource. 

    agagagagagagag

    
    	Whatever it takes.
    
    	I'm sure the kid wasn't hit hard enough to send him to the hosp-
    	ital ... just enough for the kid to remember it.
    

    
    >	RE: ABUGOV
    >
    >	The serious part apparently refers to the part about making a
    >	big deal out of what is very probably a paddling that was well-
    >	deserved, yes?
    
    Well, I'm really trying to think of what a 4 year old can do that makes
    him/her deserve to be paddled.  I'm coming up empty.  It is certainly
    serious in that someone is in deep doo-doo as a result of the paddling.
    
    
    

	 a wooden paddle?  no excuse for it, imo.
	 a rubber snake - now that would be a little different. ;>

    >Well, I'm really trying to think of what a 4 year old can do that makes
    >him/her deserve to be paddled.  
    
     At what age is paddling an appropriate punishment?

    The kid probably acted like a 4 year old.
    
    (My son was 4 years old when he went to kindergarten and they put on
    his report card after the first term: "Tends to run wildly from room
    to room.")
    

    It's no excuse to paddle a kid, though, agreed.

    re .538

    at the age of accountability of course.

    
    Perhaps he ran out in traffic, Suzanne.
    

    
    ><<< Note 290.538 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "scratching just makes it worse" >>>

    >>Well, I'm really trying to think of what a 4 year old can do that makes
    >>him/her deserve to be paddled.  
    
    >At what age is paddling an appropriate punishment?
	
    I'm not sure.  I've never hit my son (who is 7�).  I can't think of
    what he would have to do to get whacked.
    

    
    	Ahah, so you're saying that your son is representative of all
    	7.5-year olds in the world, and if your son could do nothing to
    	provoke a paddling then no other 7.5-year old could either?
    
    	Wasn't there a little kid [8-9 or so] who threw his little sis-
    	ter out a window within the last couple years?  Would that des-
    	erve a paddling?
    

    >I'm not sure.  I've never hit my son (who is 7�).  I can't think of
    >what he would have to do to get whacked.
    
     Well, then. If you can't imagine what a child could do at 7� that
    would warrant a paddling, doesn't it stand to reason that you'd have
    difficulty imagining what a 4 year old could do to get paddled? Which
    is to say, don't you think your inability to imagine what the child
    could have done is more closely related to your general views on child
    discipline than it is to the age of the child?

 The Christian school we operate at my church paddles those children who
 misbehave..there are guidelines of course and parents (and children) are
 well aware when the register, that paddling is used in certain cases.  However,
 I believe paddling to the extent that bruising results is a bit extreme.



 Jim

    
    re:.544 and .545
    
>    	Ahah, so you're saying that your son is representative of all
>    	7.5-year olds in the world, and if your son could do nothing to
>    	provoke a paddling then no other 7.5-year old could either?
>   
>    	Wasn't there a little kid [8-9 or so] who threw his little sis-
>    	ter out a window within the last couple years?  Would that des-
>    	erve a paddling?
    
    
>     Well, then. If you can't imagine what a child could do at 7� that
>    would warrant a paddling, doesn't it stand to reason that you'd have
>    difficulty imagining what a 4 year old could do to get paddled? Which
>    is to say, don't you think your inability to imagine what the child
>    could have done is more closely related to your general views on child
>    discipline than it is to the age of the child?
    
    
    Actually, my son is really good.  I haven't made a promise to myself or
    anyone else to never hit him.  I would say there probably are reasons
    to hit a child.  So if you folks have ideas as to why you should paddle
    a 4 year old, please post them.  Someone previously mentioned running
    into the road - that might do it for some folks, but if it was me and
    this happened in a day-care situation, I'd get new day-care.
    
    Another question - is it the parents who press charges or is there some
    law that if a bruised child comes to the doctor's office then the
    police are involved if the damage involves hitting?

    I wuz reading the other weekend about a group of kids who are
    terrorizing a garage in Manchester. It`s the last petrol garage before
    a long stretch of motorway. As the cars wait to re-join the traffic,
    a gang of kids break in and steal portable computers,phones,bags etc.
    If the owner of the car gives chase,a back up gang stone the driver
    with bricks and stones.
    
    All the kids are under 15,some as young as 8 or 9. They know they
    cannot be reprimanded until 15,so they just carry on and on. All the
    Police can do is caution them,which they laugh heartily at. The only
    time they speak (their right to remain silence) is to give the name of
    a solicitor.
    
    I think kids like this should be paddled. Actually,I think they should
    be shot.
    

    >However, I believe paddling to the extent that bruising results is a 
    >bit extreme.
    
     You might think so, but maybe this kid bruises easily. I don't bruise
    easily. My step-daughters bruise on command. They get bruises they
    don't even remember getting just from bumping into things, etc. So to
    me the bruises in and of themselves are not indicative of criminal
    behavior. I'm sure some of the spankings I received as a child would
    have left some pretty grotesque looking bruises on my step-daughters,
    had they been the ones to receive them.

>    All the kids are under 15,some as young as 8 or 9. They know they
>    cannot be reprimanded until 15,so they just carry on and on. All the
>    Police can do is caution them,which they laugh heartily at. The only
>    time they speak (their right to remain silence) is to give the name of
>    a solicitor.

Eh, sounds like you folks had the right ideas back in Dickensian times, Stu.

    "Are you amazed you're in the news? You shouldn't have given him that
    big fat bruise."

    
    	"50,000 volts of electricity you felt?  Shouldn't have given
    	him that horrible welt."
    

    
    
    parents tend to generalize their experiences with children.
    it's a natural tendency, but because it is anecdotal, the
    conclusions parents derive from their experiences really
    do not cover the spectrum of child behaviour and appropriate
    responses.  i can only offer my own anecdotes without any
    hard conclusions.
    
    in my house we seem to have the alpha and omega when it comes
    to child behaviour.  my eldest daughter, julianne, was very
    physical with us and her sister long before she got whacked
    on the fanny.  i remember her less than eighteen months sitting
    in her high chair mad about us not getting her down immediately.
    her response was to take off a shoe a throw it at my head.
    actually i was very impressed by its velocity.  this was not
    a lob, but a sizzling pitch right across my nose.  there were
    lots of temper tantrums with overturned furniture, books being 
    thrown, doors slammed in faces and so on.  julianne is as stubborn
    as the day is long and there were countless timeouts and other
    punishments.  i remember one night putting her to bed seventeen
    times (from about 8 o'clock to about 12).  she was not afraid
    of anything, she was simply not tired and wanted to play. sometimes 
    she would get spanked because we were simply exhausted and nothing else 
    worked.
    
    my youngest, alison. probably has been spanked a handful of times
    in her life and most of these were token smacks when she and her
    sister were acting out of control and only one parent was around
    to deal with the situation.  i'm sure alison had been are only child
    spankings would not have occured at all.
    
    one thing i never quite achieved with jules was the ability
    to put the fear of god into her when i was mad.  actually she
    enjoys pushing me off the edge.  i remember one time when we
    were arguing and she was being extremely difficult and contrary
    and i told her that i honestly thought she enjoyed seeing her
    parents contorted with anger.  she smirked a little, then rolled
    around laughing.  i asked her what was so funny.  she said that
    when i get mad and yell little bits of foam get in the corners
    of my mouth.  that seemed to fascinate her and was one of many
    motivations for giving us a hard time.
    
    i'm glad she is not afraid of me, but i remember the ability of
    my father, just through the anger in his voice causing us to
    freeze in my tracks.  the times julianne has been in a potentially
    dangerous situation (not many, but they certainly occured) made
    me sometimes wish i had my father's control.
     
    
    
    

    
    	What's a "timeout"?
    
    	Might as well ask, since I've been seeing this for a few weeks
    	now and still don't know what it means.
    

    
    
    it's a form of passive punishment.  basically you tell your
    child that she has to sit in a chair or stay in her bedroom
    for some fixed period of time.  sometimes it worked very
    effectively, other times it wasn't an alternative (e.g.
    driving cross country with the kids).
    

    A timeout is something similar to standing in the corner.  In our
    house, a timeout can last from a minute to three minutes, lest they
    forget why they are there.  It usually calms down a child who may have
    had too much candy!  It sets a new tone when they are free to do as
    they want.  
    
    -Jack

    You basically make the child sit in a chair off to the side when they
    misbehave. Sometimes it works. Sometimes when a child is being
    particularly recalcitrant they won't sit quietly off to the side and
    the timeout is merely the precursor to more drastic measures.

    It's what childless smartasses who write books like "How to Raise Good
    Children" recommend instead of a smacked botty.

    Is that before or after the spanking?

    
    The timeout must be before the spanking, because we all know what comes
    AFTER the spanking.
    
    
    

    Deb must be singing "Queen of the Nightie" these days.

    In my case, it is an alternative to spanking when a spanking is not
    warranted.  As the child gets older, spanks are less required since the
    child is able to discern right and wrong intellectually.  Timeouts or
    being sent to the room teach the youngster that there are ramifications
    to their actions where a spank would probably instill fear.  I believe
    a spank is solely to hurt the childs feelings.  Many children five or
    over won't get their feelings hurt through corporal punishment.
    
    -Jack

    Well, if someone wants to send their child to bed 17 times, that's
    their choice. I couldn't live like that, sorry. And I didn't.

Let's get back to the story of the principal who paddled a 4-year-old.
Will anyone here admit to using a wooden paddle on a child that young?
I have no problem with spanking a 4-year-old with an open hand if less
drastic measures don't work.  My current thinking is that something like
a paddle should never be used on a child, but ask me again in a few years
when my kids are older.

    
    what would you have done?
    

I'm not sure that it's appropriate for _anyone_ other than a parent of
a four year-old to administer _any_ sort of corporal punishment.

>Will anyone here admit to using a wooden paddle on a child that young?
    
    I don't use anything but my bare hand, because I find this gives me the
    control in the amount of force I use. Besides, my kids don't get
    "spankings" like I got spankings as a kid. They get a swat or two on
    the backside, which serves mostly to get their attention after
    timeouts and being sent to their room have proved fruitless. I have
    heard others claim that a paddle is better to use. One claimed it was
    better because the child should not associate their parent's hand with
    punishment. Another claimed it gave her better control because hitting
    with her bare hand was too painful for her.
    
    >My current thinking is that something like a paddle should never be 
    >used on a child, but ask me again in a few years when my kids are older.
    
     I'm not philosophically against using a paddle (or belt). I just don't
    find it necessary at this point to effect the desired outcome. My
    experience has been that if a swat or two didn't do the trick, a more
    involved spanking wasn't going to either. It's time to find some other
    way.

    The child should have been sent home for his parent(s) to deal with. 
    School officials have no business with excersising violence against 
    pupils.  

All we know of the boy was that he "was unruly."  That's insufficient
information for me to say what I would have done.

>    The child should have been sent home for his parent(s) to deal with. 
>    School officials have no business with excersising violence against 
>    pupils.  


  Parents who enroll their children in Christian schools are aware of the
  form of discipline used and sign agreements to that effect.



 Jim