It sings a song of pain and death.

[Crow]

That's true, but please keep in mind that the parents who do abuse their children also believe that they love them and are not abusing them, even though they are.

Sometimes. But I suspect that is the minority of the time. Most abusers are well aware that what they do is wrong, and do it in a matter that lessens their chance of being caught. Some are mental cases. Some are sadistic. Some have screwed up their own lives, and take out their frustrations on kids. Some misplace their anger for their spouse onto their kids. Some are drug or alcohol addicts. Some are just miserable vicious jerks.

The majority of parents discipline their kids without ever abusing them, whatever method they use. The sick SOBs will abuse whatever method or methods they choose.

 

[PureX]

... There came a point that sometimes force was necessary. My father did not abuse it. Often just knowing that he was willing to act was a deterrent. He usually could stop misbehavior in the progress by using a certain tone in his voice. But we tended to push it, and we reaped the consequences.

My dad had a way of rapping us on the head with his knuckle that would really get our attention. That usually put a quick stop our screwing around. The funny thing was he had a way of doing it without our ever seeing it coming, so even though it didn't heart that much, it always scaired the crap out of us. My folks did use paddling when we were little (under 6 years old), only a couple of times that I can recall. But the punishment I remember best was when I stole some old coins from my friend's dad's coin collection and had to take them back, and apologize to him in front of his entire family (they were all sitting at the table eating dinner at the time). That made the point about stealing far better than any beating ever could have done.

 

[The Edge]

Sometimes the best punishment is to actually publically "undo" what you did. I stole money from my dad's coin jar, and then I had to estimate how much I had taken and then go to the bank with him, withdraw it from my savings account and give it to him.

 

[Yorzhik]

He told me how much he hated his father for beiing so violent. And then he astonished me by saying that he couldn't wait until he had kids, so he could beat the sh__ out of them the way his dad does him. I was shocked! And I asked John why he'd want to do that to his own kids when he hated it so much that his dad did it to him.

But John had no answer. He didn't really understand his own emotions. He just kept saying that he was going to beat the sh__ out of them (his own kids).

A) This child never said what you say he said. I know I cannot prove it, so we'll have to wait for judgement day, but I hope to check on this to see if I was right.
B) Even though he never said what you are claiming, it still would have no bearing on how he would treat his children years later.
C) Even though this boy's parent didn't believe in good spanking (at best, not knowing the boy's parent's intentions), the child turned out to be a great blessing to his own children if 'he became known as a "very strict" father'. Or did you mean that the boy grew up to actually abuse his children?

And the vast majority of parents who do not spank their kids are not practicing child neglect, either. It's not necessary to use physical violence to raise a child, nor does the lack of physical violence constitute neglect.

But the vast majority of child abuse comes from parents that don't believe in spanking. Their kids become such monsters from constantly being improperly raised that the parent's frustration finally reaches a point that they explode.

 

[Delmar]

Sometimes the best punishment is to actually publically "undo" what you did. I stole money from my dad's coin jar, and then I had to estimate how much I had taken and then go to the bank with him, withdraw it from my savings account and give it to him.

Restitution for stealing is certainly a Biblical principal.
:up:

 

[Gerald]

I resemble that remark!

I resemble that remark!

Some are just miserable vicious jerks.

I'll have you know I'm a happy and well-adjusted, er...

:noid:



:chuckle:

 

[Yorzhik]

Abuse is criminal.

1) When punishment is unwarranted.

That isn't abuse (in the context of this thread). It's just a mistake (assuming it is a normal spanking).

2) When the person punished did not know that what they did or did not do was wrong.

ditto

When the form of punishment is excessive for the infraction.

ditto

When punishment is not followed up by addressing the issue of the infraction.

ditto

When the amount of punishment is excessive. 5 or 6 swats is not excessive. 40 is over the top.

ditto

Grounding a kid for a month for being 5 minutes late is downright draconian.

Yes, draconian, but not abuse.

Broken bones, burns, sprains,

Ahhh... there's abuse. This

cuts

Actually, cuts may or may not be abuse. Occasionally a cut can result inadvertently from legitimate punishment. Of course, using knives for punishment wouldn't be legitimate.

 

[Yorzhik]

The second best place to hide it is homeschooling.

No. That were true then we'd find a number of abused children had been homeschooled. This isn't what we find. What we find is most abused kids are in public or private school. In fact, a good way to get rid of a lot of abuse would be to get rid of public school. I'd go into the reasons for this but we've talked about it before and you have an inability to reason on this subject.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

The second best place to hide it is homeschooling.

What a complete asinine thing to assert.

These are sort of brainless comments that deserved to be challenged.

Please provide evidence that home-schooled children are more likely to be abused than non-home-schooled children. And if you can't.... please retract your idiotic comment.

 

[PureX]

A) This child never said what you say he said. I know I cannot prove it, so we'll have to wait for judgement day, but I hope to check on this to see if I was right.
B) Even though he never said what you are claiming, it still would have no bearing on how he would treat his children years later.
C) Even though this boy's parent didn't believe in good spanking (at best, not knowing the boy's parent's intentions), the child turned out to be a great blessing to his own children if 'he became known as a "very strict" father'. Or did you mean that the boy grew up to actually abuse his children?

I don't tell lies, dude. This really did happen.

But the vast majority of child abuse comes from parents that don't believe in spanking.

That's ridiculous.

 

[PureX]

No. That were true then we'd find a number of abused children had been homeschooled. This isn't what we find. What we find is most abused kids are in public or private school. In fact, a good way to get rid of a lot of abuse would be to get rid of public school. I'd go into the reasons for this but we've talked about it before and you have an inability to reason on this subject.

I don't believe that most home-schooled kids are being especially abused, but your comment, here, is as ridiculous as your previous one. Public schools have nothing whatever to do with who abuses their kids any more than home-schooling does. Crow was right. People who want to abuse their kids will, and no religious dogma, public school, private school, or home-school is going to stop them.

 

[Lighthouse]

That's true, but please keep in mind that the parents who do abuse their children also believe that they love them and are not abusing them, even though they are.

Not always. There are some abusers who do not believe that they love their children. In fact, they will honestly admit that they hate their children.

 

[Lighthouse]

But the vast majority of child abuse comes from parents that don't believe in spanking. Their kids become such monsters from constantly being improperly raised that the parent's frustration finally reaches a point that they explode.

:BRAVO:

 

[BillyBob]

What a complete asinine thing to assert.

These are sort of brainless comments that deserved to be challenged.

Please provide evidence that home-schooled children are more likely to be abused than non-home-schooled children. And if you can't.... please retract your idiotic comment.

I think Mr. 5020's remark bothered a lot of us. Before jumping on him, I would like to know exactly what he meant by it???

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I think Mr. 5020's remark bothered a lot of us. Before jumping on him, I would like to know exactly what he meant by it???

Can I jump on him after he tells us what he meant?

 

[Mr. 5020]

:down: Only the media believes the vast majority of homeschoolers have something to hide. In reality, nearly all homeschooling parents love and care about their children and would not dream of abusing them.

I agree. I just said it was a good place to hide, which apparently makes me a dork, right Knight?

 

[Husband&Father]

Christians seem to think that because they're Christians they are suddenly immune to their own sins. And it's this imaginary immunity that the bigot and abuser will hide his sins and his crimes behind.

What? The Christian life is about accepting the fact that sins must be paid for.

 

[SOTK]

I don't believe that most home-schooled kids are being especially abused, but your comment, here, is as ridiculous as your previous one. Public schools have nothing whatever to do with who abuses their kids any more than home-schooling does. Crow was right. People who want to abuse their kids will, and no religious dogma, public school, private school, or home-school is going to stop them.

I agree with this. Abuse can happen with the rich, poor, white, black, purple, etc.

 

[PureX]

What? The Christian life is about accepting the fact that sins must be paid for.

Well paid for or not, Christians still sin. And some of them still abuse and beat their children, or abuse and beat their wifes, just like some still cheat on their husbands or wives, and tell lies, and do all the other sinful things that human beings do. But for some reason, it seems to me that a lot of Christians think that Christians don't do these things just because they're Christians. But of course that's not true. Christians do these things just like any other group of people do. But this denial can become a good cover. Just like being a priest can provide a good cover for men who want to molest children. Parents think that because a man is a priest, he couldn't possibly be a pedophile, and so they trust him unreasonably (or used to). And I think this happens among other kinds of Christians, too, besides Catholics.

 

[The Edge]

this is a good post. (#79)

Why is PureX in the red?