Liberal communism continues to get more bold. Remember, liberals know what is best for you and your family. They know how to spend your money better than you do, they know what you should eat and drink. They know how you should discipline your child. The only thing they shouldn't tell you what to do is if you can murder your unborn baby.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
I am waiting for No-Test bill for students! Wouldn't it be nice to have no-tests, no-spanking, No-homework, no-responsibility bills.
Then all kids can play unlimited video games and put on weight. Kids would love it. ;)
Sorry people, but I think I’ve had all the PC – BS (that’s with a capital B and S!) I can stand for one week. Sira Nora
It takes a village! Don't you have the audacity of hope? /s
Say Game,
Do you think there might be a kid or two in your school that could've used a good beatin'? Or perhaps their parents?
Actually in the above case, Game is probably dealing with a lot of kids who were victims of the extreme, but for the average kid, a swat might be required every now and then, and 99% of the time they'll not only survive, but be better for it. In small children, it can also be the most effective way of teaching them that bad behavior has bad consequences. One understands pain pretty easily and the connection to the behavior is like magic.
I'd like to say, however, before it is used, that the Biblical verse of "spare the rod, spoil the child" is NOT a mandate for corporal punishment. The rod mentioned is the staff of a shepherd who uses it to guide the direction of the lead sheep, nudging him left or right as needed. Thus, the verse refers to guidance, not beatings. Sorry to burden with a religion lesson, but I just know that someone will mention that.
spanking should be done very little if it is to have an effect...but it it the FEAR, the THREAT of spanking that can teach lessons about proper behavior. I was only spanked a few times, I can only remember two by my dad, but that was all it took....and while I was too young to always reason right and wrong...the thought of pain and spankings helped me make the correct decisions...
the other point is that we have liberals, once again, telling the average person what is best for them in their personal lives...
Exactly! When I refer to “spanking” I also mean a swat on the ass.
But there’s a big difference between spanking and beating. Of course, to a liberal the terms are synonyms.
As Game stated, sparingly is the key. If you’re whipping a child’s buttocks for every little transgression, it loses its effectiveness.
Marshall
I’ve never really thought about the “spare the rod” passage in that light before. Makes perfect sense. But – in order to “guide the sheep” a little whack now and again may be in order.
I never gave a damn what the gov't said -- I gave the punishment to fit the crime. I think this is how it should go -- y'can't say use this sparingly or that a lot. It depends on the situation at the time, as to what you do. And no goddamn gov't, be they lib or con, is going to tell me what to do in any instance. I'll do what's appropriate in each one, to include with grandkids, and any other kid.
dedanna,
Government is correct in drawing limitations on behavior if the limiitations are based on proper notions with the imput of the population. A general consensus helps to determine what societal limits would be. It used to determine common decency until libs perverted the 1st Amendment to include pornography and the like. What this all means is that how you physically discipline your child can indeed be limited by statute in order to protect the vulnerable child from a parent who is over the top in their spanking philosophy. Some say a swat is sufficient. Others know in their cases it's not enough. But few believe and beating should leave welts or result in blood loss. So some "g-damned" (don't use that expression) government CAN tell you to some extent how to discipline your child, or rather, how far you can go in doing so.
Game,
My old man, who died when I was nine, beat the crap out of me on many an occasion. Ma says he was in the big beer drinking brotherhood and she feared he was an alcoholic. When he'd spank us, she was concerned he wasn't sober enough to stay behind the limits and no doubt he strayed beyond based on my memories. We always new back then not to piss him off on Sundays when the belt he wore was fashionably thin as they were back then. The wide construction belt he normally wore was far less destructive to our keesters. And a belt always hung over the phone in the kitchen above the chair in which he sat. All he had to do was reach behind his head, he didn't even have to look up from his meal, and we knew to shut the hell up and behave. Yes. The fear worked well. From there it was just a matter if we understood our new desire would result in a beating. By today's standards, and without question, social workers would intervene. But there was no doubt of his love for his children. None whatsoever. Different time indeed. Today, I've only swatted, never beat, though I've wanted to at times. I generally had the benefit of kids who hated being considered ill behaved that reminders are generally all that's necessary. I wasn't that type of kid.
Blamin,
I agree, as stated above, that certain occasions require more painful guidance.
I would oppose a non-spanking bill. I think that to spank or not to spank should be a parental perogative.
However, I personally oppose spanking. I think it teaches children that the way to deal with anger or displeasure is to hit someone. But that's my personal belief, and it should not be legislated.
In theory, I don't disagree with you, Jim. But in practice, it isn't so simple. I wasn't a bad kid, but I rarely thought beyond my curiosity. Most of what I was curious about was dangerous for a little kid. Eventually I began to think first on a more regular basis because I didn't want to get whacked again. But mostly, for the really small kids, it is useful due to the fact that they are unable to understand your reasoned admonishments. Really little kids want what they want when they want it and often a crack on the ass is the only thing that gets their attention. I recall a common threat made by both my parents when we threw tantrums. Maybe you've heard it: "Knock it off or I'll give you something to cry about!" Tantrum ended. Funny thing. The knowledge that force could be used because it was used before works on so many levels, both familial and international.
Mashall said...
Government is correct in drawing limitations on behavior if the limiitations are based on proper notions with the imput of the population
BULSHIT. If government is so correct in dawing limitations on behavio, then they can get up off their asses and put some behavior modification on the f*ing low life drug-dealing gang-banging brats who weren't spanked when they were kids, and spank the hell out of them now. It's the kids who need the spankings, not the adults who need the damned behavior modification.
Again, I will give any punishment that fits the crime. Some may require spankings, some may require talks, some may require other measures, but the damned gov't will NOT take the choice away from me to do what's appropriate to correct ANY action by ANY child. Period. The gov't can go to hell -- been thinking they could anyway for years.
Pooey no gov't telling me what to do with my right to parent as I should.
If you can't trust a parent to discipline correctly, then that parent shouldn't have the child. Period. And many, many parents these days shouldn't have them -- just for that reason.
Post a Comment