Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 hours ago, formerlyofCtown said:

No you didnt.

The dude reads what he wants to get out of words. Helps him feel like he's advancing his argument misconstruing what anybody says.

 

So basically illiterate

1 hour ago, BringBackOrton said:

Prove that what AP said in the story you posted in the OP isn't about the occasional swat.  

He'd have to read it critically first. Fill in a 9th grade bubble sheet test on it, and get back to you ?. He didn't do too well first go around.

Posted

Getting spanked with a belt and beaten with a belt are two totally different things. I’ve gotten both. 

 

I see nothing wrong with a spank on the bum with a belt, anywhere else and id be upset. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
5 hours ago, buffalo2218 said:

Ok here’s the problem I have, and it’s not Adrian Peterson I have the problem with. The problem I have is the people complaining about spanking a child. Ok, I got spanked with a belt, switch, toy race car track, just about whatever. Now the extent of what Peterson’s tactics were the first time was way too much. But as far as using a belt? I have zero issues with it. 

 

Because it seems to me that not using a belt today is part of the problem: Growing up, I never saw or even heard of kids killing other kids and teachers in school, how many times has that happened recently? There’s what’s called right to parent in the law itself. I don’t in any way advocate child abuse, using a belt is not the same. 

 

But back to Peterson, I don’t have any issues with him using a belt for corporal punishment, but the line is drawn there.

I appreciate your honesty.  Just knowing the research of the negative long term effects of such an act I used light spankings of my two kids until they turned six and then grounded them and made them do manual labor all the way through their teenage years.  It was a strong enough deterrent to stop the behavior.  My father did the same and he always told me not to punish your child while you're in a fit of rage because that's when they go to the hospital.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Read the quote above from the first time he was caught.

 

Then tell me what your definition of abuse is.

People don't read...they just want to argue.

Posted

I actually agree with WEO on the principle of discipling children physically but, within the bounds of reasonableness, I think the way people parent is a deeply personal choice. 

 

That said Adrian Peterson is someone who has proven he doesn't understand the bounds of reasonableness previously. What I would say is Peterson's son obviously isn't being taught anything because even though he has been physically assaulted for bad behaviour by his dad he is still behaving badly and is now getting belted. And that is the crux of my issue with physically disciplining children - more often that not it is in the absence of educating them. 

  • Like (+1) 3
Posted
3 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

I actually agree with WEO on the principle of discipling children physically but, within the bounds of reasonableness, I think the way people parent is a deeply personal choice. 

 

That said Adrian Peterson is someone who has proven he doesn't understand the bounds of reasonableness previously. What I would say is Peterson's son obviously isn't being taught anything because even though he has been physically assaulted for bad behaviour by his dad he is still behaving badly and is now getting belted. And that is the crux of my issue with physically disciplining children - more often that not it is in the absence of educating them. 

I'd have to agree with this wherever you find yourself on the corporal punishment debate Adrian Peterson has proven himself to be a poor judge of its use.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Avisan said:

No, but there is boatloads of evidence that non-physical discipline has better outcomes in a variety of categories

 

On the flip side there isn't a whole lot of research into any downsides of avoiding physical discipline, since that angle hasn't been much of a target of study

 

Given nature's disciplinary response across mammals usually involves nips/swats/etc., and despite our cognition we're mostly just animals, I would be surprised if there were zero positive benefit.  It likely would have weeded itself out if physical feedback were only harmful.  Beyond that, kids under a certain age literally cannot be reasoned with because they lack the necessary cognitive development for it.

 

If physical discipline is your go-to/something you enjoy, however, you're almost definitely just messing up your kids

Mammals dont use tools to inflict harm. If the child cant understand reason the child wont understand why their parent is hurting them.

You cant defend this. Its child abuse. End of story. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted

When an adult hits a kid, the adult has failed at adult-ing. 

 

Maybe you can make an argument that oarents have the “right” to beat their kids, just like they have “right” to patent poorly, but in every case, adults hitting children is a failure. 

Posted
9 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

The inclusion of "blonde" in the Mixon incident is a bit suspect. Not quite sure of the relevance.

See the hair? 

hqdefault.jpg

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Dadonkadonk said:

Mammals dont use tools to inflict harm. If the child cant understand reason the child wont understand why their parent is hurting them.

You cant defend this. Its child abuse. End of story. 

Pretty sure you didn't actually read/digest my post(s), like at all

Posted

Honestly.   This is a private matter that there are a wide range of attitudes on.  Do I hit my kids no.   Do I think it's right to do it. No.  Do I think I am high and mighty enough to judge people I dont know on how they treat their kids.  No. 

Posted
9 hours ago, formerlyofCtown said:

Well appearantly you dont read very well because I said I wonder.  I can actually decipher your political party by your behavior.  Its a shame you helped re-elect Cuomo.  You are also an exstremely unbalanced individual because you started getting upset and formulating your response before you finished reading or you would have seen that I didnt say I used a switch on my kids and you wouldnt infere that i concluded they hadnt been beaten.  This thing getting heated is exactly why this content doesnt belong here.

 

I do believe there is such a thing as abuse and I also believe that when possible, reinforcement is a more effective tool.  I heard that somewhere.  Oh wait,  It was when I was taking Psychology in college.  Youre probably picking an argument with someone that you shouldnt on the subject.

You sir have some amazing powers there. You can decipher voting patterns based on what one considers abuse to a child? Do me a favor and toss your bones and let me know what numbers I should play.

 

Now myself, having "known" WEO for years would guess that he's voted with you as much as against you.  If I were backed into a corner I would guess he's voted with you more often.  None of that matters to the topic at hand and why on god's green earth you decided to include it is beyond my powers of comprehension.  

 

There is a line between abuse and strict parenting.  That line differs from person to person. If the "collective" you are not concerned about a man who once beat his kid bloody & is now admitting to belting that same kid then I don't know what to tell you.  

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
8 hours ago, eball said:

Isn’t there boatloads of evidence out there that “physically” disciplining children has no beneficial effect whatsoever?

 

Yes, but some people like to trust "instinct" over evidence.

 

 

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...