A Karenina wrote: We seem to be mourning the loss of old values even as we work to demolish those values.
Whoa! I really, really wish I had written that. :-2
Religion, Children and Whipping tools?
Religion, Children and Whipping tools?
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
-
A Karenina
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am
Religion, Children and Whipping tools?
Peace to you as well, Saintsman. 
I thought I had ripped out the part about how I would handle my son in various situations...mostly because the post became too long and heavy. You must've read it while I was editing it. Quick reader, I'll keep that in mind (grin) ~
Since it's gone now, I'd like to say that I would've spanked my son had he harmed an animal.
A clarification on spanking and discipline in general. It was not the first thing I tried. There is a whole series of steps beforehand.
First, the teaching stage - as you did with your daughter running across the street.
Second, a period where you watch your child to make sure they understand the rule, even if they don't always understand the reasons for that rule. (At 5, your daughter could reason out the dangers of crossing the street. At 3, I bet she wouldn't have been able to do that. Yet the rule is still necessary.)
Third, once you know your child understands that there is a rule and they insist on breaking it anyway, and if this rule is hugely important, and if no other method of teaching the principle reveals itself, then I'd spank them.
Obviously this last part is very fluid, and requires that you know your child very well. It also means that as the child grows up, the spankings become less and less, partly because the ability to reason increases, and partly because the trouble they get into can be "cured" another way...the punishment fitting the crime.
Ok, why didn't I use a belt on my son? It wasn't acceptable in the Midwest. That's important. Had corporal punishment been frowned upon when I was growing up, then surely I'd have had a different view on it. But since it was the accepted means of handling kids, I didn't look at my dad as a monster.
It's also important to point out that punishment of any kind should never be administered when you're angry or very upset.
I can relate to the rose bush thing. When I was very little, we'd have to take his pocketknife and cut a switch from a bush. That did leave marks on my skin, and my father quit using it. He was perfectly capable of thinking outside the accepted norms, and making his own decisions. I'm a bit defensive on this issue, as you can see. His parents beat the hell out of him, and discipline for him included being locked in a shed for days without food and water, being shot at, and other assorted abuses. To imply, however harmless and unintentional, that my father simply followed what he knew is not true. So I defend his memory and try to share a bit of his glory, his success, his courage.
I've got to add as well that any parent who uses punishment (corporal or not) as the major part of their interaction with their kids is going to have severe problems with their kids. Seems perfectly obvious to me that love is first; time and attention, keeping them clean, teaching them about the world, allowing them to find their own place in it, just rolling on the floor laughing together, showing what is expected of them - and that there is a consequence to everything we do.
Spanking is one tool in our arsenal (bad choice of words there)...so are bedtime stories, kisses, family traditions, and laughter.
I thought I had ripped out the part about how I would handle my son in various situations...mostly because the post became too long and heavy. You must've read it while I was editing it. Quick reader, I'll keep that in mind (grin) ~
Since it's gone now, I'd like to say that I would've spanked my son had he harmed an animal.
A clarification on spanking and discipline in general. It was not the first thing I tried. There is a whole series of steps beforehand.
First, the teaching stage - as you did with your daughter running across the street.
Second, a period where you watch your child to make sure they understand the rule, even if they don't always understand the reasons for that rule. (At 5, your daughter could reason out the dangers of crossing the street. At 3, I bet she wouldn't have been able to do that. Yet the rule is still necessary.)
Third, once you know your child understands that there is a rule and they insist on breaking it anyway, and if this rule is hugely important, and if no other method of teaching the principle reveals itself, then I'd spank them.
Obviously this last part is very fluid, and requires that you know your child very well. It also means that as the child grows up, the spankings become less and less, partly because the ability to reason increases, and partly because the trouble they get into can be "cured" another way...the punishment fitting the crime.
Ok, why didn't I use a belt on my son? It wasn't acceptable in the Midwest. That's important. Had corporal punishment been frowned upon when I was growing up, then surely I'd have had a different view on it. But since it was the accepted means of handling kids, I didn't look at my dad as a monster.
It's also important to point out that punishment of any kind should never be administered when you're angry or very upset.
I can relate to the rose bush thing. When I was very little, we'd have to take his pocketknife and cut a switch from a bush. That did leave marks on my skin, and my father quit using it. He was perfectly capable of thinking outside the accepted norms, and making his own decisions. I'm a bit defensive on this issue, as you can see. His parents beat the hell out of him, and discipline for him included being locked in a shed for days without food and water, being shot at, and other assorted abuses. To imply, however harmless and unintentional, that my father simply followed what he knew is not true. So I defend his memory and try to share a bit of his glory, his success, his courage.
I've got to add as well that any parent who uses punishment (corporal or not) as the major part of their interaction with their kids is going to have severe problems with their kids. Seems perfectly obvious to me that love is first; time and attention, keeping them clean, teaching them about the world, allowing them to find their own place in it, just rolling on the floor laughing together, showing what is expected of them - and that there is a consequence to everything we do.
Spanking is one tool in our arsenal (bad choice of words there)...so are bedtime stories, kisses, family traditions, and laughter.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
Aristotle
Aristotle
-
A Karenina
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am
Religion, Children and Whipping tools?
ok, two more notes on this topic.
I can't speak much from my son's perspective, but he has said that he will spank his own kids, and that, if anything, I didn't spank him enough. To put this in perspective, my son is very hard-headed. He absolutely insists on learning things the hard way. He admits that very openly.
From my own experience then...once I hit the early teen years, I wasn't spanked anymore. Children outgrow the need as they become more capable of rational thought. How did my dad control me as a teen?
I went to parties, we were in the south so drinking was very acceptable, I certainly had the opportunity to get into lots of trouble...But I didn't.
Growing up, my dad would use a certain tone when I had done something very wrong, which was linked to a spanking (because I already knew better even if I didn't udnerstand why), and so in my mind that tone represented serious stuff...better not even try it.
As a teen, my dad would use that tone, and I didn't even question it. Does tha make me a well-trained dog? No, not really...and if you knew me in person, you'd laugh at the thought. But it did kick off something in my brain, and I knew that whatever he was saying would have serious consequences for me.
Today, I can understand his rules. Back then, I didn't think it was any big deal if Bobby Joe was drunk as a skunk and was still willing to drive me home. Today I understand why my dad insisted on meeting every boy who wanted to date me, and how he'd have a private talk with those boys which usually involved cleaning his gun. Back then I just shrugged it off because Dad used his tone if I tried to argue about how embarrassing it was for me.
I never had a man disrespect me until my dad died...so the lessons are very tied together for me. Even if I didn't understand all the dangers, couldn't see half of them (I'm pretty trusting), I could recognize the seriousness of something based on years of my father's reactions.
Make sense?
I can't speak much from my son's perspective, but he has said that he will spank his own kids, and that, if anything, I didn't spank him enough. To put this in perspective, my son is very hard-headed. He absolutely insists on learning things the hard way. He admits that very openly.
From my own experience then...once I hit the early teen years, I wasn't spanked anymore. Children outgrow the need as they become more capable of rational thought. How did my dad control me as a teen?
I went to parties, we were in the south so drinking was very acceptable, I certainly had the opportunity to get into lots of trouble...But I didn't.
Growing up, my dad would use a certain tone when I had done something very wrong, which was linked to a spanking (because I already knew better even if I didn't udnerstand why), and so in my mind that tone represented serious stuff...better not even try it.
As a teen, my dad would use that tone, and I didn't even question it. Does tha make me a well-trained dog? No, not really...and if you knew me in person, you'd laugh at the thought.
But it did kick off something in my brain, and I knew that whatever he was saying would have serious consequences for me. Today, I can understand his rules. Back then, I didn't think it was any big deal if Bobby Joe was drunk as a skunk and was still willing to drive me home. Today I understand why my dad insisted on meeting every boy who wanted to date me, and how he'd have a private talk with those boys which usually involved cleaning his gun. Back then I just shrugged it off because Dad used his tone if I tried to argue about how embarrassing it was for me.
I never had a man disrespect me until my dad died...so the lessons are very tied together for me. Even if I didn't understand all the dangers, couldn't see half of them (I'm pretty trusting), I could recognize the seriousness of something based on years of my father's reactions.
Make sense?
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
Aristotle
Aristotle
Religion, Children and Whipping tools?
Saintsman wrote: shouting at children.
Honestly, a low controlled tone is infinitely more effective. I learned that the first week at school.
Honestly, a low controlled tone is infinitely more effective. I learned that the first week at school.
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
Religion, Children and Whipping tools?
In response to A Karenina's thread #53.
Thank you for your input. Your points are well considered and highly acknowledged, on my part that is. Per clarification of your father's discipline, I applaude him for advancing out of what he experienced as well as I applaude and appreciate your advancements out of what you experienced. I am doubting that you needed to clean a shot-gun while meeting any potential mates of your children. I understand the practice of tone implying future action, but if a child pushes those boundries and tests the tone, one must remain consistant and follow through as I don't see a threat meaningful if empty in the long-run ... and it is the following through with a threat that concerns me.
Of course, I have been arguing for non-corporeal means, but that is not to say that those of you who have read and responded are bad people. On the contrary, it is the violators, as Bill has defined in his posts, that are the ones who need to read this discourse. Although one may defend spanking, the ones writing in this forum have the intelligence to know how to use the "tool in their arsenal" much better than the ones who are not reading this article and do not know how to properly apply beneficial behaviors. There is no one right answer, just possibly some that when the day is done, fair out to be more constructive and overall beneficial for all. So far, I have not heard from anyone who has stated that it is okay to discipline a child with what your father went through. Today, there are U.S. social services and laws that don't even consider such behavior as in any light appropriate. I also understand and have to accept that there are still people and religions out there in today's society, such as the Amish, who partake is very similar means of discipline that you described you dad enduring. These are the people that need to engage in a deep discussion based on intelligence and enlightenment to achieve a better answer, but more times than not, their religious dogma keeps them trapped in tradition and conditioned behaviors that won't allow for such a rapport. Should an Amish person be reading this, I invite you to engage in such dialouge.
One last issue I wish to at least highlight for the promotion of non-corporeal punishment.
It seems to me that when Bill said the laws and their guidelines make sense and sound legitimate to him, or for anyone who takes the similar stance, that we become a people of reactive instead of proactive behavior. By any law allowing for spanking, the law puts the right of potential abuse in the hands of all and then waits for the ugly results of those who do abuse it to justly punish them in a courtroom. By then, the damage is done. If the law distinctly and clearly stipulated that no form of spanking is allowed, then no leeway is given and those who offend will be held to the utmost extent of the law's consequences.
The point is that it is more difficult to properly maintain and contain havok (sp?) once you put a potentially dangerous tool into the general publics hands than to proactively say, "No way! There is no way you are legally allowed to decipher, manipulate or misconsrew this law in order to suit your purpose. It is wrong and against the law .... period!"
Of couse, you would still have those who violate the law, but more severe legal punishments could help reduce the possible # of offenders as well as public consensus tells the purpetrator that soceity deems their actions or considerations of future actions as wrong and not acceptable. Based on this, I believe the number of children abused and killed would, over time, be greatly reduced and that is a goal and state of humanity I see as worthy and fulfilling in itself. Those who would complain that their rights as parents are being infringed upon and would probably be those who would partake in such activity. I do not include you, Jives or Bill in a group of abusers as you all have well pointed out, but if a precedence must be set for the utilitarian good of our children, I promote proactive means instead of enabling even the acceptability of a law that opens the flood-gate or slippery-slope to exist and directly affects one, two or 18.6 million children adversly every year in America.
If society's overall population could use the tools of spanking as you described in the manner you described and in the order of steps you described, I would not be as committed to the advocacy of the children victims, but clearly the statistics in America show otherwise. Maybe Bill can pull out the recorded number of hospitalized and murdered child victims from two years ago in the U.K for us. I would be interested to know, even though, unfortunately I know the U.S. has easily superceeded their totals year after year.
If you had the choice to outlaw spanking across the board and in doing so reduce the number of physically abused children by even 10% a year or let the laws stand and allow for the # of abused children to remain the same, or elevate, what would you choose. 10 percent of 18.6 million children is almost 2 million kids!
I think I used the words "one last issue" about six paragraphs ago, thus making a liar out of myself, aye! Someone once told me I think and talk too much!? Hmmmm......
Actually, I do it for a living.
Thank you for your fine posts. I love 'em ... and even some of Bill and Jive's too! :wah: Just kidding .... of course. I love them all.
Thank you for your input. Your points are well considered and highly acknowledged, on my part that is. Per clarification of your father's discipline, I applaude him for advancing out of what he experienced as well as I applaude and appreciate your advancements out of what you experienced. I am doubting that you needed to clean a shot-gun while meeting any potential mates of your children. I understand the practice of tone implying future action, but if a child pushes those boundries and tests the tone, one must remain consistant and follow through as I don't see a threat meaningful if empty in the long-run ... and it is the following through with a threat that concerns me.
Of course, I have been arguing for non-corporeal means, but that is not to say that those of you who have read and responded are bad people. On the contrary, it is the violators, as Bill has defined in his posts, that are the ones who need to read this discourse. Although one may defend spanking, the ones writing in this forum have the intelligence to know how to use the "tool in their arsenal" much better than the ones who are not reading this article and do not know how to properly apply beneficial behaviors. There is no one right answer, just possibly some that when the day is done, fair out to be more constructive and overall beneficial for all. So far, I have not heard from anyone who has stated that it is okay to discipline a child with what your father went through. Today, there are U.S. social services and laws that don't even consider such behavior as in any light appropriate. I also understand and have to accept that there are still people and religions out there in today's society, such as the Amish, who partake is very similar means of discipline that you described you dad enduring. These are the people that need to engage in a deep discussion based on intelligence and enlightenment to achieve a better answer, but more times than not, their religious dogma keeps them trapped in tradition and conditioned behaviors that won't allow for such a rapport. Should an Amish person be reading this, I invite you to engage in such dialouge.
One last issue I wish to at least highlight for the promotion of non-corporeal punishment.
It seems to me that when Bill said the laws and their guidelines make sense and sound legitimate to him, or for anyone who takes the similar stance, that we become a people of reactive instead of proactive behavior. By any law allowing for spanking, the law puts the right of potential abuse in the hands of all and then waits for the ugly results of those who do abuse it to justly punish them in a courtroom. By then, the damage is done. If the law distinctly and clearly stipulated that no form of spanking is allowed, then no leeway is given and those who offend will be held to the utmost extent of the law's consequences.
The point is that it is more difficult to properly maintain and contain havok (sp?) once you put a potentially dangerous tool into the general publics hands than to proactively say, "No way! There is no way you are legally allowed to decipher, manipulate or misconsrew this law in order to suit your purpose. It is wrong and against the law .... period!"
Of couse, you would still have those who violate the law, but more severe legal punishments could help reduce the possible # of offenders as well as public consensus tells the purpetrator that soceity deems their actions or considerations of future actions as wrong and not acceptable. Based on this, I believe the number of children abused and killed would, over time, be greatly reduced and that is a goal and state of humanity I see as worthy and fulfilling in itself. Those who would complain that their rights as parents are being infringed upon and would probably be those who would partake in such activity. I do not include you, Jives or Bill in a group of abusers as you all have well pointed out, but if a precedence must be set for the utilitarian good of our children, I promote proactive means instead of enabling even the acceptability of a law that opens the flood-gate or slippery-slope to exist and directly affects one, two or 18.6 million children adversly every year in America.
If society's overall population could use the tools of spanking as you described in the manner you described and in the order of steps you described, I would not be as committed to the advocacy of the children victims, but clearly the statistics in America show otherwise. Maybe Bill can pull out the recorded number of hospitalized and murdered child victims from two years ago in the U.K for us. I would be interested to know, even though, unfortunately I know the U.S. has easily superceeded their totals year after year.
If you had the choice to outlaw spanking across the board and in doing so reduce the number of physically abused children by even 10% a year or let the laws stand and allow for the # of abused children to remain the same, or elevate, what would you choose. 10 percent of 18.6 million children is almost 2 million kids!
I think I used the words "one last issue" about six paragraphs ago, thus making a liar out of myself, aye! Someone once told me I think and talk too much!? Hmmmm......
Actually, I do it for a living.
Thank you for your fine posts. I love 'em ... and even some of Bill and Jive's too! :wah: Just kidding .... of course. I love them all.
If you're not good for your word, what good are you? :yh_think :yh_flag Live & make a Difference!
-
A Karenina
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am
Religion, Children and Whipping tools?
You even love Bill's and Jive's posts? You are a soft touch! 
I'm just kidding; I love reading their thoughts as well.
Thank you for your respectful and kind reply.
I wholeheartedly agree with your aim. I don't know what the numbers of abused children in the US are, much less around the world, but even one is too many if we can do something about it.
I'm not sure that I'd strip any control away from the parents by outlawing corporal punishment as we've described it here in this thread...and I can expound on why, if you'd like me to.
In my mind, the first thing we need to do is to provide good alternative homes for these kids. Frankly, abuse is illegal today, but domestic violence is still a horrific and common thing. People who are willing to brutalize people to get their way are not too interested in the law, at least until the law comes knocking at the door. Where's LadyCop? (grin)
Seems to me that we'd be more effective if we had positive homes for these kids to go to. Abuse 'em, you lose 'em.
I realize that we'd have to define abuse, but we (the people) are in the midst of doing that anyway.
I've looked into taking in foster kids, and I know of several others who have as well. But the system can't guarantee that you get to keep the child. What's that all about?
The thing I find most interesting about how we solve problems is that different people take on different aspects, according to their views. So long as we use a combined approach, and target more than one specific item, I think we stand a good chance to succeed. Thoughts?
I'm just kidding; I love reading their thoughts as well. Thank you for your respectful and kind reply.
I wholeheartedly agree with your aim. I don't know what the numbers of abused children in the US are, much less around the world, but even one is too many if we can do something about it.
I'm not sure that I'd strip any control away from the parents by outlawing corporal punishment as we've described it here in this thread...and I can expound on why, if you'd like me to.
In my mind, the first thing we need to do is to provide good alternative homes for these kids. Frankly, abuse is illegal today, but domestic violence is still a horrific and common thing. People who are willing to brutalize people to get their way are not too interested in the law, at least until the law comes knocking at the door. Where's LadyCop? (grin)
Seems to me that we'd be more effective if we had positive homes for these kids to go to. Abuse 'em, you lose 'em.
I realize that we'd have to define abuse, but we (the people) are in the midst of doing that anyway.
I've looked into taking in foster kids, and I know of several others who have as well. But the system can't guarantee that you get to keep the child. What's that all about?
The thing I find most interesting about how we solve problems is that different people take on different aspects, according to their views. So long as we use a combined approach, and target more than one specific item, I think we stand a good chance to succeed. Thoughts?
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
Aristotle
Aristotle
Religion, Children and Whipping tools?
"I wholeheartedly agree with your aim. I don't know what the numbers of abused children in the US are, much less around the world, but even one is too many if we can do something about it. "
Agreed! And so shall we do something about it in one manner or another or the $$ symbolized by your name on you Avitar is being silenced ... and that is not good.
"In my mind, the first thing we need to do is to provide good alternative homes for these kids. Frankly, abuse is illegal today, but domestic violence is still a horrific and common thing. People who are willing to brutalize people to get their way are not too interested in the law, at least until the law comes knocking at the door. Where's LadyCop? (grin)
Seems to me that we'd be more effective if we had positive homes for these kids to go to. Abuse 'em, you lose 'em."
I agree, but to implement a successful program of housing, I believe the public and private school systems would have to play a much more active role in providing the information of the home's availability as an option since abusing parents don't usually (nor willingly) take their kids to these homes ... and ... I also believe the state (and federally funded program monies) must also play a larger role in awareness, prevention and interaction.
The awareness would be more commercials on T.V. and posters in public places; kind of like former First Lady Nacny Reagan's "Just Say No" slogan that (once it was backed and financially funded due to her being the First Lady) swept across the nation and spawned hundreds of city programs D.A.R.E, ect.
The prevention would have to elevate the current punishments tied to those who are found guilty so another clear message is sent out that not only are the criminal actions wrong and not tolerated, but there is a very heavy legal price and restriction of freedom that the guilty party will serve for partaking in such activity.
Finally, the interaction would be as mentioned earlier, the schools, libraries, police stations, fire stations, churches and so on more actively being involved if by at least only having the proper information for where the safehaven homes for the abused kids are located and the willingness to provide the child with a ride there in a time of need.
"I've looked into taking in foster kids, and I know of several others who have as well. But the system can't guarantee that you get to keep the child. What's that all about?"
I have seen far too many disappointing and straight-out ugly scenarios where abused children were temporarily taken from their parent's bad home, placed into foster care (for up to two years or more) and then, due to a judge's opinion, turned back over to the parents who resort back to their original abusive behaviors. First, it is the child who is most affected after being tossed from home to home void any real stability (especially emotional) or understanding in their life. Second, it is the child who is placed back into the hands of those who abused them without sufficient grounds to know that the parents will no longer be abusive. Third, it is the foster parents who also get the short end of the stick. If they desire to adopt the abused child, provide a decent environment and home for, they could be thwarted by a judge's screwed up decision who yanks the kid from the forster parents. [If interested, I could provide the ugly number of children who were returned to a parent or parents from foster care only to later be murdered via abuse by the natural parents throughout a one year period of time in Detroit alone.] All of this relates back to more severe laws that have to be initiated and, unfortunately, also relates back to some very liberal and incompetent judges ... but that is another post altogether.
"The thing I find most interesting about how we solve problems is that different people take on different aspects, according to their views. So long as we use a combined approach, and target more than one specific item, I think we stand a good chance to succeed. Thoughts?"
Yes. you are correct and definitely headed up the right path with such an approach as well as I concur that we, the adult population that is responsible for bringing these children into the world and overseeing their rearing, must represent all children's welfare.
Now, there is the option of going back to the old west where we all carry guns and if we see what we consider abusive action, we simply shoot and kill the wrong doer! I know that the south would be kind of "okay" with this idea, aye?
Or, you could send me $100 million dollars and I will single handedly start to resolve the problem! How about that? :sneaky:
Okay, I will stick with the idea of educating the general public with intelligent discourse while also actively seeking to change the current laws as the best remedy, which will take a bit longer, but be the best way. :-5
Nothing like dry humor, aye?
Peace to all! :-6
Agreed! And so shall we do something about it in one manner or another or the $$ symbolized by your name on you Avitar is being silenced ... and that is not good.
"In my mind, the first thing we need to do is to provide good alternative homes for these kids. Frankly, abuse is illegal today, but domestic violence is still a horrific and common thing. People who are willing to brutalize people to get their way are not too interested in the law, at least until the law comes knocking at the door. Where's LadyCop? (grin)
Seems to me that we'd be more effective if we had positive homes for these kids to go to. Abuse 'em, you lose 'em."
I agree, but to implement a successful program of housing, I believe the public and private school systems would have to play a much more active role in providing the information of the home's availability as an option since abusing parents don't usually (nor willingly) take their kids to these homes ... and ... I also believe the state (and federally funded program monies) must also play a larger role in awareness, prevention and interaction.
The awareness would be more commercials on T.V. and posters in public places; kind of like former First Lady Nacny Reagan's "Just Say No" slogan that (once it was backed and financially funded due to her being the First Lady) swept across the nation and spawned hundreds of city programs D.A.R.E, ect.
The prevention would have to elevate the current punishments tied to those who are found guilty so another clear message is sent out that not only are the criminal actions wrong and not tolerated, but there is a very heavy legal price and restriction of freedom that the guilty party will serve for partaking in such activity.
Finally, the interaction would be as mentioned earlier, the schools, libraries, police stations, fire stations, churches and so on more actively being involved if by at least only having the proper information for where the safehaven homes for the abused kids are located and the willingness to provide the child with a ride there in a time of need.
"I've looked into taking in foster kids, and I know of several others who have as well. But the system can't guarantee that you get to keep the child. What's that all about?"
I have seen far too many disappointing and straight-out ugly scenarios where abused children were temporarily taken from their parent's bad home, placed into foster care (for up to two years or more) and then, due to a judge's opinion, turned back over to the parents who resort back to their original abusive behaviors. First, it is the child who is most affected after being tossed from home to home void any real stability (especially emotional) or understanding in their life. Second, it is the child who is placed back into the hands of those who abused them without sufficient grounds to know that the parents will no longer be abusive. Third, it is the foster parents who also get the short end of the stick. If they desire to adopt the abused child, provide a decent environment and home for, they could be thwarted by a judge's screwed up decision who yanks the kid from the forster parents. [If interested, I could provide the ugly number of children who were returned to a parent or parents from foster care only to later be murdered via abuse by the natural parents throughout a one year period of time in Detroit alone.] All of this relates back to more severe laws that have to be initiated and, unfortunately, also relates back to some very liberal and incompetent judges ... but that is another post altogether.
"The thing I find most interesting about how we solve problems is that different people take on different aspects, according to their views. So long as we use a combined approach, and target more than one specific item, I think we stand a good chance to succeed. Thoughts?"
Yes. you are correct and definitely headed up the right path with such an approach as well as I concur that we, the adult population that is responsible for bringing these children into the world and overseeing their rearing, must represent all children's welfare.
Now, there is the option of going back to the old west where we all carry guns and if we see what we consider abusive action, we simply shoot and kill the wrong doer! I know that the south would be kind of "okay" with this idea, aye?
Or, you could send me $100 million dollars and I will single handedly start to resolve the problem! How about that? :sneaky: Okay, I will stick with the idea of educating the general public with intelligent discourse while also actively seeking to change the current laws as the best remedy, which will take a bit longer, but be the best way. :-5
Nothing like dry humor, aye?
Peace to all! :-6
If you're not good for your word, what good are you? :yh_think :yh_flag Live & make a Difference!
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Religion, Children and Whipping tools?
Saintsman wrote: Maybe Bill can pull out the recorded number of hospitalized and murdered child victims from two years ago in the U.K for us. I would be interested to know, even though, unfortunately I know the U.S. has easily superceeded their totals year after year.
That's quite a hard thing to find, mainly because of definitions. Maybe:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/E ... /D7795.xls
is of help. Unicef keep some sort of statistccs, too:
http://www.unicef.org.uk/press/news_det ... ews_id=180
An extract:
"In an attempt to address this the UNICEF study has taken the bold step of constructing a league table of child deaths which combines national totals of child deaths from known abuse and neglect with those child deaths that are recorded as being of “undetermined causeâ€. In the UK this more than doubles the death rate, increasing it from 0.4 deaths per 100,000 children to 0.9 deaths per 100,000 children."
So. it appears to be somewhere between 0.4 and 0.9 dearhs per 100,000. More later, I'm trying to register as an "accredited journalist"!
However, I've just fount this PDF document which is publically available:
http://www.unicef-icdc.org/publications ... card5e.pdf
That's quite a hard thing to find, mainly because of definitions. Maybe:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/E ... /D7795.xls
is of help. Unicef keep some sort of statistccs, too:
http://www.unicef.org.uk/press/news_det ... ews_id=180
An extract:
"In an attempt to address this the UNICEF study has taken the bold step of constructing a league table of child deaths which combines national totals of child deaths from known abuse and neglect with those child deaths that are recorded as being of “undetermined causeâ€. In the UK this more than doubles the death rate, increasing it from 0.4 deaths per 100,000 children to 0.9 deaths per 100,000 children."
So. it appears to be somewhere between 0.4 and 0.9 dearhs per 100,000. More later, I'm trying to register as an "accredited journalist"!
However, I've just fount this PDF document which is publically available:
http://www.unicef-icdc.org/publications ... card5e.pdf
Religion, Children and Whipping tools?
Bill Sikes wrote: That's quite a hard thing to find, mainly because of definitions. Maybe:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/E ... /D7795.xls
is of help. Unicef keep some sort of statistccs, too:
http://www.unicef.org.uk/press/news_det ... ews_id=180
However, I've just fount this PDF document which is publically available:
http://www.unicef-icdc.org/publications ... card5e.pdf
A big "Kuddos" and appreciation :yh_clap to Bill for providing the above sites and info!
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/E ... /D7795.xls
is of help. Unicef keep some sort of statistccs, too:
http://www.unicef.org.uk/press/news_det ... ews_id=180
However, I've just fount this PDF document which is publically available:
http://www.unicef-icdc.org/publications ... card5e.pdf
A big "Kuddos" and appreciation :yh_clap to Bill for providing the above sites and info!
If you're not good for your word, what good are you? :yh_think :yh_flag Live & make a Difference!
Religion, Children and Whipping tools?
I was thinking ths morning that I didn't have to do a lot of discipline with my son, he aslways liked to be good. I think it had a lot to do with responsibility training.
If you put away your toys, you get a new one, if you don't one of them disappears for a while until you start to do that again.
If you mow the lawn, you get a larger allowance. If you can be trusted, you get to babysit yourself. If you get good grades, you may borrow the car on the weekend, etc.
Positive re-enforcement and responsibility breed good sefl-esteem and self image. It sure saved me a lot of trouble.
If you put away your toys, you get a new one, if you don't one of them disappears for a while until you start to do that again.
If you mow the lawn, you get a larger allowance. If you can be trusted, you get to babysit yourself. If you get good grades, you may borrow the car on the weekend, etc.
Positive re-enforcement and responsibility breed good sefl-esteem and self image. It sure saved me a lot of trouble.
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
Religion, Children and Whipping tools?
I was thinking ths morning that I didn't have to do a lot of discipline with my son, he aslways liked to be good. I think it had a lot to do with responsibility training.
If you put away your toys, you get a new one, if you don't one of them disappears for a while until you start to do that again.
If you mow the lawn, you get a larger allowance. If you can be trusted, you get to babysit yourself. If you get good grades, you may borrow the car on the weekend, etc.
Positive re-enforcement and responsibility breed good sefl-esteem and self image. It sure saved me a lot of trouble.
I agree on the positive re-enforcement.
Jives, I recall you saying that you are a teacher, in the educational sense and not the metaphorical. I am assuming you are a teacher of minor students too. If so, tell me how you, or how the state of New Mexico, handles a situation that you may encounter as follows:
(1) Jimmy comes to school with a large bruise on his arm. Soon, in the middle of summer, Jimmy is continually wearing long-sleeve shirts to possibly cover his arms. Finally, Jimmy comes to school with an obvious bruise or bump on his face and/or head. When Jimmy is asked what happened, he says he fell off his backyard swing at home.
(2) Suzy is telling Jane that she knows Jimmy was really bad at home and his dad punished him. (Same physical affects apply to Jimmy as in case 1). You ask Jimmy is everything is alright at home or if he has ever been hurt at home and he says "nope, not at all." What do you do ... what is the school's policy?
(3) Jimmy says, "yes", my dad hits me ofter because I am bad." You observe obvious bruises and even a cut on his arm. You speak to the father and he tells you to mind your own business and stay clear of interferring. What do you do ... what is school policy?
Thanks!
If you put away your toys, you get a new one, if you don't one of them disappears for a while until you start to do that again.
If you mow the lawn, you get a larger allowance. If you can be trusted, you get to babysit yourself. If you get good grades, you may borrow the car on the weekend, etc.
Positive re-enforcement and responsibility breed good sefl-esteem and self image. It sure saved me a lot of trouble.
I agree on the positive re-enforcement.
Jives, I recall you saying that you are a teacher, in the educational sense and not the metaphorical. I am assuming you are a teacher of minor students too. If so, tell me how you, or how the state of New Mexico, handles a situation that you may encounter as follows:
(1) Jimmy comes to school with a large bruise on his arm. Soon, in the middle of summer, Jimmy is continually wearing long-sleeve shirts to possibly cover his arms. Finally, Jimmy comes to school with an obvious bruise or bump on his face and/or head. When Jimmy is asked what happened, he says he fell off his backyard swing at home.
(2) Suzy is telling Jane that she knows Jimmy was really bad at home and his dad punished him. (Same physical affects apply to Jimmy as in case 1). You ask Jimmy is everything is alright at home or if he has ever been hurt at home and he says "nope, not at all." What do you do ... what is the school's policy?
(3) Jimmy says, "yes", my dad hits me ofter because I am bad." You observe obvious bruises and even a cut on his arm. You speak to the father and he tells you to mind your own business and stay clear of interferring. What do you do ... what is school policy?
Thanks!
If you're not good for your word, what good are you? :yh_think :yh_flag Live & make a Difference!
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Religion, Children and Whipping tools?
Saintsman wrote: [COLOR=PurleJives, I recall you saying that you are a teacher, in the educational sense and not the metaphorical. I am assuming you are a teacher of minor students too. If so, tell me how you, or how the state of New Mexico, handles a situation that you may encounter as follows:
(1) Jimmy comes to school with a large bruise on his arm. Soon, in the middle of summer, Jimmy is continually wearing long-sleeve shirts to possibly cover his arms. Finally, Jimmy comes to school with an obvious bruise or bump on his face and/or head. When Jimmy is asked what happened, he says he fell off his backyard swing at home.
(2) Suzy is telling Jane that she knows Jimmy was really bad at home and his dad punished him. (Same physical affects apply to Jimmy as in case 1). You ask Jimmy is everything is alright at home or if he has ever been hurt at home and he says "nope, not at all." What do you do ... what is the school's policy?
(3) Jimmy says, "yes, my dad hits me ofter because I am bad. You observe obvious bruises and even a cut on his arm. You speak to the father and he tells you to mind your own business and stay clear of interferring. What do you do ... what is school policy?
From the UK perspective, you inform the police and/or Social Services who will then investigate.
(1) Jimmy comes to school with a large bruise on his arm. Soon, in the middle of summer, Jimmy is continually wearing long-sleeve shirts to possibly cover his arms. Finally, Jimmy comes to school with an obvious bruise or bump on his face and/or head. When Jimmy is asked what happened, he says he fell off his backyard swing at home.
(2) Suzy is telling Jane that she knows Jimmy was really bad at home and his dad punished him. (Same physical affects apply to Jimmy as in case 1). You ask Jimmy is everything is alright at home or if he has ever been hurt at home and he says "nope, not at all." What do you do ... what is the school's policy?
(3) Jimmy says, "yes, my dad hits me ofter because I am bad. You observe obvious bruises and even a cut on his arm. You speak to the father and he tells you to mind your own business and stay clear of interferring. What do you do ... what is school policy?
From the UK perspective, you inform the police and/or Social Services who will then investigate.
Religion, Children and Whipping tools?
Saintsman wrote: state of New Mexico, handles a situation that you may encounter as follows:
Realizing, of course, that New Mexico is a State without any emissions controls, where you can wear a gun on your hip to the the supermarket, and drive a car without doors, a hood, or a windshield if you wear eye protection, and drive without insurance.
(1) Jimmy comes to school with a large bruise on his arm. Soon, in the middle of summer, Jimmy is continually wearing long-sleeve shirts to possibly cover his arms. Finally, Jimmy comes to school with an obvious bruise or bump on his face and/or head. When Jimmy is asked what happened, he says he fell off his backyard swing at home.
No brainier. I have to report it to my adminstrator. He will interview the child, if the child says, " I fell." the investigation stops there.
(2) Suzy is telling Jane that she knows Jimmy was really bad at home and his dad punished him. (Same physical affects apply to Jimmy as in case 1). You ask Jimmy is everything is alright at home or if he has ever been hurt at home and he says "nope, not at all." What do you do ... what is the school's policy?
I can contact the police myself, but I run the risk of being sued. I once told a parent that I had overheard their child saying "I smoked crack last night." They sued me. As far as the school goes, my hands are tied.
(3) Jimmy says, "yes", my dad hits me ofter because I am bad." You observe obvious bruises and even a cut on his arm. You speak to the father and he tells you to mind your own business and stay clear of interferring. What do you do ... what is school policy?
Now I can finally act. As a matter of fact, we are required by law to act at this point. The police will investigate and the child will be removed from the home.
Once, I overheard a girl say that her mother had "picked her up by the neck and p[unched her in the stomach." I asked her if she was being abused. Realizing I would put her mother in jail, she replied, "No, she was just playing, we always play that way." Now, I could do nothing.
Sucks, huh? :-5
Realizing, of course, that New Mexico is a State without any emissions controls, where you can wear a gun on your hip to the the supermarket, and drive a car without doors, a hood, or a windshield if you wear eye protection, and drive without insurance.
(1) Jimmy comes to school with a large bruise on his arm. Soon, in the middle of summer, Jimmy is continually wearing long-sleeve shirts to possibly cover his arms. Finally, Jimmy comes to school with an obvious bruise or bump on his face and/or head. When Jimmy is asked what happened, he says he fell off his backyard swing at home.
No brainier. I have to report it to my adminstrator. He will interview the child, if the child says, " I fell." the investigation stops there.
(2) Suzy is telling Jane that she knows Jimmy was really bad at home and his dad punished him. (Same physical affects apply to Jimmy as in case 1). You ask Jimmy is everything is alright at home or if he has ever been hurt at home and he says "nope, not at all." What do you do ... what is the school's policy?
I can contact the police myself, but I run the risk of being sued. I once told a parent that I had overheard their child saying "I smoked crack last night." They sued me. As far as the school goes, my hands are tied.
(3) Jimmy says, "yes", my dad hits me ofter because I am bad." You observe obvious bruises and even a cut on his arm. You speak to the father and he tells you to mind your own business and stay clear of interferring. What do you do ... what is school policy?
Now I can finally act. As a matter of fact, we are required by law to act at this point. The police will investigate and the child will be removed from the home.
Once, I overheard a girl say that her mother had "picked her up by the neck and p[unched her in the stomach." I asked her if she was being abused. Realizing I would put her mother in jail, she replied, "No, she was just playing, we always play that way." Now, I could do nothing.
Sucks, huh? :-5
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
Religion, Children and Whipping tools?
Realizing, of course, that New Mexico is a State without any emissions controls, where you can wear a gun on your hip to the the supermarket, and drive a car without doors, a hood, or a windshield if you wear eye protection, and drive without insurance
Are you shi**in' me? I didn't know you could drive without car insurance in New Mexico. Your state rocks! Ah ... maybe until you get to the part about suing each other .... hmmmmm? I know there are several southern states where the gun-slinging hip holster practice is legally alive and "well"? That is so bizzare to me being I was born and raised in Michigan and no such activity takes place. In Detroit, they like to conceal their weapon before killing indiscriminately.
No brainier. I have to report it to my adminstrator. He will interview the child, if the child says, " I fell." the investigation stops there.
As you well know by now, I must play the devil's advocate here. How many times between the age of four and seventeen can the child state that he or she has fallen with the result being an immediate closure to the investigation?
I can contact the police myself, but I run the risk of being sued. I once told a parent that I had overheard their child saying "I smoked crack last night." They sued me. As far as the school goes, my hands are tied.
This is absolutely goofy! I am assuming first ammedment rights being utilized in the invasion of privacy for the reason the parents could sue???? How assinine, if your only intent was to bring it to the parent's attention and not accuse or punish the child yourself, what harm is done? In a somewhat related, but not really, case, I had the animal protection department city officer show up at my door one morning. She explained that there was a report filed against me anonimously that I had knocked all my dog's teeth out with a hammer! As if my dog would allow such a thing, especially at her size and demeanor. Anyhow, called my dog forward and she happily took the hard doggie treats from the officer and chewed them up instantly ... using all her teeth. Obviously the officer could see the report was false and assinine. BUT, I was the one bearing the burden of proof. I was being held to prove myself innocent before the person calling had to prove sufficient grounds for a legitimate complaint ... plus, I never was told who called with the report. It was an inconvenience to me, but I complied. Why not the same for teachers being able to call and parents bearing the burden of proof, especially when kids or involved as opposed to dogs? I know the obvious reason being a state's autonomy as an individual political body, but where is the sense in the politicians decisions? Probably somewhere with the windshieldless and doorless car theory! That cracks me up. I can't imagine a car driving down the road with no doors. Talk about preventitive safety measures! How about seatbelts, are you required to wear seatbelts? If not, the door situation could pose a serious dilema!
Now I can finally act. As a matter of fact, we are required by law to act at this point. The police will investigate and the child will be removed from the home.
Once, I overheard a girl say that her mother had "picked her up by the neck and p[unched her in the stomach." I asked her if she was being abused. Realizing I would put her mother in jail, she replied, No, she was just playing, we always play that way. Now, I could do nothing.
Sucks, huh? :-5[/QUOTE]
Here again, this sounds simply assinine and unintelligent. I know it is not a direct reflection of you ... unless you voted it into being, but if we are saying a child does not possess the ability to think, reason and solve issues at their young and inexperienced ways, how can we all of a sudden rely on what the same child is determining to be playing or abuse. I can see where legitimate playing may cause accidental harm ... I have both occurred such accidental harm and recieved it too ... anyone who thinks playing with a four-year old can not cause you pain hasn't played with a four-year old long enough! But ... when a child lies out of fear or embarrassment or shame ... we, the adults, have to intervene based on a pattern of continual observations and basic proofs of reason. You rendered unable to act on the above case simply due to the kid saying "we were playing" is an injustice. SO, yes, it does "suck". Now, I am empowering you, as a fine upstanding citizen of New Mexico to change that goofiness. You have the power! Political power and influence that is! I need to clarify when speaking to those in a state where open possession of hand-held weapons is the legal norm.
Oh boy, the stories I am sure you could tell about guns in New Mexico! 
Thanks for your response. You have enlightened me. I must say, New Mexico is one of the most beautiful geographic locations I have visited. Its natural beauty, colors, open mountain range and vast skies are unparrelled. I think it is due to the actual location and how the elliptical rotation plays out over there as compared to other parts of the Rockies. I have been debating whether to voice my opinion on my dismay with Dublin, Ireland during a recent visit, but afraid that would only incite Capt. Buzzard to no end and put me on his black list. I will say that Cork and Galway were extremely beautiful and fascinating! :-6
Are you shi**in' me? I didn't know you could drive without car insurance in New Mexico. Your state rocks! Ah ... maybe until you get to the part about suing each other .... hmmmmm? I know there are several southern states where the gun-slinging hip holster practice is legally alive and "well"? That is so bizzare to me being I was born and raised in Michigan and no such activity takes place. In Detroit, they like to conceal their weapon before killing indiscriminately.
No brainier. I have to report it to my adminstrator. He will interview the child, if the child says, " I fell." the investigation stops there.
As you well know by now, I must play the devil's advocate here. How many times between the age of four and seventeen can the child state that he or she has fallen with the result being an immediate closure to the investigation?
I can contact the police myself, but I run the risk of being sued. I once told a parent that I had overheard their child saying "I smoked crack last night." They sued me. As far as the school goes, my hands are tied.
This is absolutely goofy! I am assuming first ammedment rights being utilized in the invasion of privacy for the reason the parents could sue???? How assinine, if your only intent was to bring it to the parent's attention and not accuse or punish the child yourself, what harm is done? In a somewhat related, but not really, case, I had the animal protection department city officer show up at my door one morning. She explained that there was a report filed against me anonimously that I had knocked all my dog's teeth out with a hammer! As if my dog would allow such a thing, especially at her size and demeanor. Anyhow, called my dog forward and she happily took the hard doggie treats from the officer and chewed them up instantly ... using all her teeth. Obviously the officer could see the report was false and assinine. BUT, I was the one bearing the burden of proof. I was being held to prove myself innocent before the person calling had to prove sufficient grounds for a legitimate complaint ... plus, I never was told who called with the report. It was an inconvenience to me, but I complied. Why not the same for teachers being able to call and parents bearing the burden of proof, especially when kids or involved as opposed to dogs? I know the obvious reason being a state's autonomy as an individual political body, but where is the sense in the politicians decisions? Probably somewhere with the windshieldless and doorless car theory! That cracks me up. I can't imagine a car driving down the road with no doors. Talk about preventitive safety measures! How about seatbelts, are you required to wear seatbelts? If not, the door situation could pose a serious dilema!
Now I can finally act. As a matter of fact, we are required by law to act at this point. The police will investigate and the child will be removed from the home.
Once, I overheard a girl say that her mother had "picked her up by the neck and p[unched her in the stomach." I asked her if she was being abused. Realizing I would put her mother in jail, she replied, No, she was just playing, we always play that way. Now, I could do nothing.
Sucks, huh? :-5[/QUOTE]
Here again, this sounds simply assinine and unintelligent. I know it is not a direct reflection of you ... unless you voted it into being, but if we are saying a child does not possess the ability to think, reason and solve issues at their young and inexperienced ways, how can we all of a sudden rely on what the same child is determining to be playing or abuse. I can see where legitimate playing may cause accidental harm ... I have both occurred such accidental harm and recieved it too ... anyone who thinks playing with a four-year old can not cause you pain hasn't played with a four-year old long enough! But ... when a child lies out of fear or embarrassment or shame ... we, the adults, have to intervene based on a pattern of continual observations and basic proofs of reason. You rendered unable to act on the above case simply due to the kid saying "we were playing" is an injustice. SO, yes, it does "suck". Now, I am empowering you, as a fine upstanding citizen of New Mexico to change that goofiness. You have the power! Political power and influence that is! I need to clarify when speaking to those in a state where open possession of hand-held weapons is the legal norm.
Oh boy, the stories I am sure you could tell about guns in New Mexico! Thanks for your response. You have enlightened me. I must say, New Mexico is one of the most beautiful geographic locations I have visited. Its natural beauty, colors, open mountain range and vast skies are unparrelled. I think it is due to the actual location and how the elliptical rotation plays out over there as compared to other parts of the Rockies. I have been debating whether to voice my opinion on my dismay with Dublin, Ireland during a recent visit, but afraid that would only incite Capt. Buzzard to no end and put me on his black list. I will say that Cork and Galway were extremely beautiful and fascinating! :-6
If you're not good for your word, what good are you? :yh_think :yh_flag Live & make a Difference!
Religion, Children and Whipping tools?
Saintsman wrote: Are you shi**in' me? I didn't know you could drive without car insurance in New Mexico. Your state rocks!
Sure. We all do it. There are laws that say you are supposed to have it, but there's is no enforcement whatsoever.
Did I mention the fact that we are the drunk driving captial of the US? 400 people died last year of DWI wrecks, mostly in my county. We sit right next to the largest Indian Reservation in the country. And guess what? They have to drive into town to buy it. It makes our highways similar to the "RoadWarrior" movie. Survival of the fittest.
As you well know by now, I must play the devil's advocate here. How many times between the age of four and seventeen can the child state that he or she has fallen with the result being an immediate closure to the investigation?
Infinity. There is no investigation unless the abuse is witnessed or the kid dies. (Which seems to happen a lot, there's one death this week as a matter of fact.
How assinine, if your only intent was to bring it to the parent's attention and not accuse or punish the child yourself, what harm is done?
A lot of harm was done to my bank account. I now prepay my lawyers.
I can't imagine a car driving down the road with no doors. Talk about preventitive safety measures! How about seatbelts, are you required to wear seatbelts? If not, the door situation could pose a serious dilema!
It surprised me too in the 70's , but now I'm used to it. We call them "Rez Rockets" since they are usually driven by Native Americans. Who, by the way, can buy a new car, take it to the reservation and never make a payment again. They cannot be repo'ed unless they are caught in town due to sovereignity.
Now, I am empowering you, as a fine upstanding citizen of New Mexico to change that goofiness. You have the power! Political power and influence that is!
All the teachers here vote together and we do swing quite a few votes that way. But of course we have no power outsie our own county, and none on the reservation.
Oh boy, the stories I am sure you could tell about guns in New Mexico!
I've been shot at five times, one bullet riffled my hair. But that's a story for another thread!
I must say, New Mexico is one of the most beautiful geographic locations I have visited. Its natural beauty, colors, open mountain range and vast skies are unparrelled.
It's so true. 277 days of sunshine, no high temps, no lows. Mountains, and deserts and huge amounts of room. Extremely low crime and extremely low rent and prices. It's a wonder the whole country is not moving here.
Personally, I feel safe knowing the Terroristist haven't any idea we even exist out here.
Sure. We all do it. There are laws that say you are supposed to have it, but there's is no enforcement whatsoever.
Did I mention the fact that we are the drunk driving captial of the US? 400 people died last year of DWI wrecks, mostly in my county. We sit right next to the largest Indian Reservation in the country. And guess what? They have to drive into town to buy it. It makes our highways similar to the "RoadWarrior" movie. Survival of the fittest.
As you well know by now, I must play the devil's advocate here. How many times between the age of four and seventeen can the child state that he or she has fallen with the result being an immediate closure to the investigation?
Infinity. There is no investigation unless the abuse is witnessed or the kid dies. (Which seems to happen a lot, there's one death this week as a matter of fact.
How assinine, if your only intent was to bring it to the parent's attention and not accuse or punish the child yourself, what harm is done?
A lot of harm was done to my bank account. I now prepay my lawyers.
I can't imagine a car driving down the road with no doors. Talk about preventitive safety measures! How about seatbelts, are you required to wear seatbelts? If not, the door situation could pose a serious dilema!
It surprised me too in the 70's , but now I'm used to it. We call them "Rez Rockets" since they are usually driven by Native Americans. Who, by the way, can buy a new car, take it to the reservation and never make a payment again. They cannot be repo'ed unless they are caught in town due to sovereignity.
Now, I am empowering you, as a fine upstanding citizen of New Mexico to change that goofiness. You have the power! Political power and influence that is!
All the teachers here vote together and we do swing quite a few votes that way. But of course we have no power outsie our own county, and none on the reservation.
Oh boy, the stories I am sure you could tell about guns in New Mexico!
I've been shot at five times, one bullet riffled my hair. But that's a story for another thread!
I must say, New Mexico is one of the most beautiful geographic locations I have visited. Its natural beauty, colors, open mountain range and vast skies are unparrelled.
It's so true. 277 days of sunshine, no high temps, no lows. Mountains, and deserts and huge amounts of room. Extremely low crime and extremely low rent and prices. It's a wonder the whole country is not moving here.
Personally, I feel safe knowing the Terroristist haven't any idea we even exist out here.
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
Religion, Children and Whipping tools?
"It surprised me too in the 70's , but now I'm used to it. We call them "Rez Rockets" since they are usually driven by Native Americans. Who, by the way, can buy a new car, take it to the reservation and never make a payment again. They cannot be repo'ed unless they are caught in town due to sovereignity."
That is hillarious! ... unless you are a bank owner or car dealer. In any case, good for them, they have successfully minipulated the system without bringing harm to anyone else except the capitalist who have taken quite a bit from eveyone anyhow! All is fair in love and war ... of the economy. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em! Oh, they have brought harm to others by driving drunk, but that is why you carry guns, right?
One can never tell when I am serious or not I guess!
That is hillarious! ... unless you are a bank owner or car dealer. In any case, good for them, they have successfully minipulated the system without bringing harm to anyone else except the capitalist who have taken quite a bit from eveyone anyhow! All is fair in love and war ... of the economy. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em! Oh, they have brought harm to others by driving drunk, but that is why you carry guns, right?
One can never tell when I am serious or not I guess!
If you're not good for your word, what good are you? :yh_think :yh_flag Live & make a Difference!
Religion, Children and Whipping tools?
I agree that abuse is wrong. I agree that talking things over is the best way to solve most problems. The qualm I have is that "administered properly" seems to be misunderstood. Thats not trying to define how hard to hit them, or when, or for what act, but to be used only out of love and concern for the child. Here's an example that my youth pastor once told:
"When I was a kid I remember sitting in the middle of the street playing with a pile of ants. My father, came out on the front porch and calmly called me over to him. I remember just smiling and waltzing over by his side. As soon as I came closer, he braced me with his arm and gave me a swift, but strong whap on the butt. Tears immediatly stung my eyes, but I noticed there were tears in his as well. "Dont you EVER play in the street again, do you understand me?" he said. Then, he took me in his arms and brought me inside. That day I remember screaming in my head that I didnt understand, but at the same time, I knew I would never go in the street again for fear of the same consequence. Had he simply called me over and sweetly cooed "Honey, please dont play in the street" I know that being the jovial, naive six year old that I was, I wouldve run out into the street as soon as an interesting bug came by. He loved me enough to want to scare me out of doing something that could harm me. Thats love. Thats parenting."
Children at most young ages dont see the full spectrum of consequences that their actions have. Parents jobs, as the adult, is to help them understand as best they can. Kids dont have the intellect and reasoning most times to understand and make use of an intellectual conversation about right, wrong and what to do. Sometimes feelings have to be used as a substitute. If a spank saves my kids from being harmed, so be it.
"When I was a kid I remember sitting in the middle of the street playing with a pile of ants. My father, came out on the front porch and calmly called me over to him. I remember just smiling and waltzing over by his side. As soon as I came closer, he braced me with his arm and gave me a swift, but strong whap on the butt. Tears immediatly stung my eyes, but I noticed there were tears in his as well. "Dont you EVER play in the street again, do you understand me?" he said. Then, he took me in his arms and brought me inside. That day I remember screaming in my head that I didnt understand, but at the same time, I knew I would never go in the street again for fear of the same consequence. Had he simply called me over and sweetly cooed "Honey, please dont play in the street" I know that being the jovial, naive six year old that I was, I wouldve run out into the street as soon as an interesting bug came by. He loved me enough to want to scare me out of doing something that could harm me. Thats love. Thats parenting."
Children at most young ages dont see the full spectrum of consequences that their actions have. Parents jobs, as the adult, is to help them understand as best they can. Kids dont have the intellect and reasoning most times to understand and make use of an intellectual conversation about right, wrong and what to do. Sometimes feelings have to be used as a substitute. If a spank saves my kids from being harmed, so be it.