http://ca.news.yahoo.com/010729/6/84k2.html

Sunday July 29 5:15 PM EST

Ontario families may seek refugee status in U.S. over spanking beliefs

TORONTO (CP) - Dozens of religious families from southern Ontario may seek refuge status in the U.S. citing religious persecution in Canada over fears their children will be taken from them over religious beliefs about spanking, CTV Newsnet has reported.

About 30 women and 100 children who are Church of God members have fled their homes for the United States and Mexico and are considering seeking refuge status, the network reported Sunday. They left after child welfare workers took seven children from their parents in Aylmer, Ont. three weeks ago in a dispute over spanking.

The families are staying in Ohio and Indiana where state laws allow them to use corporal punishment dictated by their religious beliefs, reporter Samantha Shatzky told the Canadian television network.

The children were forcibly removed July 4 after their parents, firm believers that the Bible advocates spanking with a stick, twig or other object, refused to refrain from using a paddle for disciplinary purposes.

The kids were returned last week under a number of conditions imposed by a judge, including a promise not to use physical punishment.

The deal allows child-welfare workers to visit the children at home or at school, unannounced and unsupervised, in the company of a Low German interpreter.

The parents must also submit to counselling sessions with Family and Children's Services to discuss and learn "alternate methods of discipline."

They must also allow their children to visit a doctor at the behest of the agency and follow the doctor's medical advice.

In exchange, Family and Children's Services must "continue to learn about the religious tradition and cultural background of the family," the agreement says.

Currently, Section 43 of the Criminal Code allows spanking, but only within the bounds of what it calls "reasonable force." Canadian court cases over the years have interpreted the law as forbidding the use of inanimate objects such as paddles, sticks or wooden spoons.

Advocates of the section say it leaves discipline up to the discretion of the parents, where they say it should be. Opponents believe the section sanctions child abuse.

The law could be clarified by a case coming before the Ontario Court of Appeal in October, a lawyer for the family has said.

The family must return to court in September for a hearing.

Officials with the Church of God say they don't expect the other families to return home until the matter is finally settled.

-- (Spare@the.rod), August 03, 2001

Answers

They need to skip on down to Mexico. The U.S. is right behind Canada on that issue. There are ways to discipline that don't involve using a paddle, and I don't use one, but as long as the kids aren't bruised the government needs to stay out of it. Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and any adult could paddle any child with any level of force, kids didn't need drugs to stay in their desks and they didn't kill their teachers or classmates. Connection?

-- helen (prefer@the.guilt.trip.myself), August 03, 2001.

They need to skip on down to Mexico. The U.S. is right behind Canada on that issue...as long as the kids aren't bruised the government needs to stay out of it. Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and any adult could paddle any child with any level of force, kids didn't need drugs to stay in their desks and they didn't kill their teachers or classmates. Connection?

A contradictory answer, if ever I saw one! These people are using sticks to beat their kids, and the religious excuse is a ludicrous one. If the US allows them in, it is condoning child abuse, plain and simple. Three cheers for the social workers in Ontario for finally taking a stand. The religious nuts have been getting away with this abuse for centuries, and it is about time the state stepped in to stop them. NO child deserves to be beaten!

Your answer is contradictory, Helen, because you appear to support the Cdn decision, yet you go on to say that hitting a child is okay as long as it doesn't leave a mark. Trust me, having worked directly with battered women and kids, I can assure you that some of the most painful injuries these people receive does not leave a mark on the body. Some assailants are very skilled in the art of battering without bruising.

The last part of your statement appears to imply that it is the lack of child-beating that has led to more violent behaviours in children in recent times. One could as easily argue that children at present are being swayed through mass media/games, etc., produced by children who were beaten in the past, that might be leading to the present problems. Your mention of the "day of the dinosaur" reminds me of the old British law that a man could legally beat his wife and children with a stick just as long as the stick was no larger than the diameter of one of his appendages (rule of thumb). It wasn't a moral imperative then, and it isn't now.

Striking someone (anyone) has always been a way to get and to maintain quick authority. There is now and always has been other, non-violent, ways to accomplish the same objective.

-- tired (of@buse.ofwomenandkids), August 03, 2001.

I love to get spanked.

-- (lorelei@jiffy.lube), August 03, 2001.

Tired, you and I are probably in only mild disagreement on this issue.

I don't condone beating kids. I merely pointed out that children used to be held accountable by the nearest adult. That accountability could include being spanked by that adult regardless of blood kinship. Instant accountability and consequences reinforce rules. It also promoted the concept of belonging to a group greater than oneself, a group that was a community and not a gang.

You assume that "Christians" beat their kids with sticks. Spanking is not beating. Beating with a stick is different from spanking with a paddle. Our state laws make this distinction. A state employee may legally paddle a child with a 1x6 piece of lumber in the school systems where I live. A parent ought to be allowed at least the same disciplinary methods as the state. The state ought not hold parents to a higher standard than that of their own employees.

The state does an admittedly poor job of parenting when they take children away from their parents. As long as the children are not bruised -- that's bleeding under the skin -- I think the state stepping in as a poor parent-substitute should be avoided. I'm against removing the child from the home, but I don't have an entirely hands-off attitude. Nearly any parent could make use of classes in parenting techniques.

Millions of Americans are useful, non-violent members of society in spite of being raised with physical discipline. Spanking didn't cause the school shootings in the national news, but there is some question that drugs and/or lax parental supervision may have.

As I said, these parents might as well move to Mexico. The U.S. is not far from outlawing corporal punishment. I see a clear distinction between disciplinary spanking and abusive beating, while apparently you do not.

Human psychological development should be taught in school before kids go on to become parents. Many parents resort to spanking because they do not adequately understand the cognitive level at which the child is operating.

I am opposed to drugging children into good behavior. That is abusive and physically dangerous in my opinion.

Your turn. :)

-- helen (hug@them.often), August 03, 2001.

Tired, you and I are probably in only mild disagreement on this issue.

From your response, it would appear that the disagreement is more than mild.

I don't condone beating kids.

Semantics. We differ on the definition of "beating." Other than on a hockey rink or in a boxing ring (where debates could rage as well about the violence perpetrated), it is illegal/not condoned for one adult to even strike another. So why should it be okay to hit kids? Do adults not step beyond boundaries of behaviour too?

I merely pointed out that children used to be held accountable by the nearest adult.

I have no problem with that. I'm simply saying that there is more than one way to achieve such accountability. I also believe that many children are accountable to others without being struck.

It also promoted the concept of belonging to a group greater than oneself, a group that was a community and not a gang.

Again, such a concept can be and is achieved without being struck.

You assume that "Christians" beat their kids with sticks.

No, I don't. I was referring to the Christians referred to in the article. The ones who acknowledged they were using a stick to strike their children. Spanking is not beating.

It becomes a thin line that is far too often crossed. Many children are raised without being spanked. And they don't join gangs, they respect others, and they belong to groups.

A state employee may legally paddle a child with a 1x6 piece of lumber in the school systems where I live.

Unreal. Such is not the case where I live (not a US state.) Our school employees are not allowed to strike a child. We are also advised not to touch a child in any way.

I'm against removing the child from the home, but I don't have an entirely hands-off attitude.

Finally, we agree. It's the abuser who should be removed from the home, not the child.

Nearly any parent could make use of classes in parenting techniques.

Parenting should be a privilege, not a right. And of course every societal support available should be at the call of those who choose to parent.

Millions of Americans are useful, non-violent members of society in spite of being raised with physical discipline.

How do you know? I've done much research on this in another country, and not much tracking is done of those who were abused in childhood but who seem to be living successful, non-violent lives. How do you know that at least some of the non-violent marriage break-ups, the long hours spent in therapy, the suicides, etc., are not at least partially attributable to a "rough" childhood? How do you know that the people around you who appear to be functioning quite normally are not dealing with their own private, personal demons? I say the research just is not there.

Let me clarify the above. When we examine prison populations, prostitutes, etc., we do indeed often find abusive childhoods. However, we don't bother to examine the histories of people who, on the surface, are not "getting into trouble" and who to appear to be living productive lives. That doesn't mean they are not suffering.

Spanking didn't cause the school shootings in the national news....

Again, how do you know? Every time I read about a school shooting, I have yet to find one reporter who really digs to find out what the child's actual upbringing was like. They tend to look at economic status and past history of getting into trouble on the part of the child or of the parents and not to examine closely what kind of childhood the shooter/s had.

...these parents might as well move to Mexico.

That will give the children even less protection from them.

Human psychological development should be taught in school before kids go on to become parents. Many parents resort to spanking because they do not adequately understand the cognitive level at which the child is operating.

Yep.

The vast majority of children I've seen who have engaged in "acting out" behaviour have come from homes where they and/or their mother were being emotionally, physically, sexually, or psychologically abused; or all of the above. And, left unaided, they grow up to be abusers or victims themselves. Help the mother; you help the child. Refuse to give the child healthy support and you create another problem adult for the future.

-- tired (of@buse.ofwomenandkids), August 03, 2001.

Helen, Human psychological development should be taught in school before kids go on to become parents. Many parents resort to spanking because they do not adequately understand the cognitive level at which the child is operating.

So true in so many areas. Parent's don't seem to understand a child's ability to think and reason at differentstages. One of my sister-in-law's beat her 6 week old daughter because "she looked at me mean". ????????? Like duh! A baby doesn't "think" in words or have the ability to make a face that offends the mother. Also kids are not born knowing what is wrong and what is right, I have instilled into my kids and foster kids the fact that if they tell me the truth about what they have done they will not be punished, we will discuss it, but any instance of a repeat will be done with them knowing what they are doing is wrong. This has worked out well for me, they feel free to tell me all those little things most kids keep from their parents because they worry it will get them into trouble. Younger children don't have the ability to reason yet so it is better to remove them from a situation that is a problem, or remove the problem or distract them with something else. It amazes me how many parents think kids do things out of spite to the parents or with hostile intent, when the child is just expanding their little world by trying new things.

An adult hitting a child in anger is never a good thing. It is up to the adult to control their emotions so they don't hurt the child beyond reasonable and effective punishment. Spanking is legal here, on the butt, with an open hand. Kids talk to each other and think if they get spanked they can sent their parent to jail. My youngest came to me one day and said if I spanked her she could call the police on me. I just stared her down and said "Try it". I informed her that I had read the exact wording of the law and knew what I could and could not do. I explained why there was a need for the law and the fact that I had never gone beyond the word of the law. She seldom gets spanked, maybe twice a year at the most in her entire life. Other forms of punishment have been more effective, especially taking something away from her for a week, such as her scooter or bike. When I have done that she has actually asked me to spank her and get it over with, rather than making her suffer by being the only kid without her bike for a week. I believe the spanking should be a last resort, done seldom so when it is done the child knows how serious their "crime" was.

-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), August 03, 2001.

Tired, I lack the energy to debate with you much on this issue. I tell you we are basically in agreement.

Cherri, I knew a man and wife who bragged about spanking their one-week old baby -- for crying. They spanked him to teach him to be quiet, they said. Dumbasses abound.

Our parenting project starts in the delivery room. We kiss, cuddle, sing, rock, read, and count little fingers and toes a zillion times a day. We take them with us everywhere and let them participate in our daily activities as fully as they are able. We spend time playing outdoor games, board games, and silly games. We find cool places to go and neat things to do.

So when I'm standing there in livid silence, they notice the difference and pay attention. :)

-- helen (too@tired.to.raise.my.hand), August 04, 2001.

Thought I would chime in with a Johnny-on-the-spot report.

Most people I work and socialize with (the majority of whom are middle class; evenly split between Xtians and Heathens) do not condone spanking a child with anything other than one's hand. They think the people who had their children taken away (the kids have been returned, by the way) are wrong in belting their kids. Personally, I'm opposed to spanking (with an open hand on a backside) in all but the most extreme circumstances (when my 4 year old was about to stab her 1 year old sister with a dinner knife).

Hitting a child with a switch, belt or rod is assault. Period. Ya can't go around belting other adults with things - why should you be allowed to belt kids?

Since I've been a parent I've become even more anti-spanking. I grew up in Nothern Ireland in the 60s and 70s. Relatives and teachers were allowed to belt a kid when they thought the kid needed it. (Back then in Ireland it was the societal norm. And look how dysfunctional N Ireland is now. Hmm?)

The thought of a teacher using physical punishment against one of my kids now makes my blood boil for 2 reasons:

1) no-one should mete out physical punishment to a child that is not their own

2) what do we teach our kids when we hit them: "Bad little Johnny...I've told you a dozen times {slap} not to {slap} hit your {slap} sister". Kids are rather good at identifying the contradictions between adults' statements and actions. Of all adult sins, hypocracy is the worst.

I was at a family dinner a few months ago. My sister-in-law's stepfather was regaling us with tales of growing up in Glasgow during and after WW2 and how he was beaten for the most minor of transgressions. He maintained that it did him no harm and that he was better because of it. I almost choked on the irony, but held my tongue. The irony was that this guy's wife (my sister-in-law's mother) had considered breaking up because the guy was verbally and occasionally physically abusive with her.

Just my C$0.02

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), August 04, 2001.

>>hypocracy<<

Of all posters' sins, spelling incorrectly is the worst....

My bad

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), August 04, 2001.

I've heard the "spare the rod, spoil the child" arguments, but I didn't buy them. I think these folks have some unresolved anger that they feel free to take out on their kids. Unfortunately, some folks with these beliefs are running child-care and "rehabilitation" programs for kids in trouble. It's definitely something that folks should watch out for in the "faith-based-initiative" programs.

My mom claims that she was or would have been taken to the woodshed for many transgressions as a child, but I've actually received MORE calls from her assisted and independent living facilities regarding HER inappropriate behavior than I ever received from all three of my kids from their teachers or principals.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 04, 2001.

when my 4 year old was about to stab her 1 year old sister with a dinner knife My youngest going after her older sister with a pair of scissors was one of the times she got a spanking.

I have a routine, I would send her to my room to wait for the spanking. I would go in about ten minutes later, ask her to explain why she was getting her spanking, put her over my knee and spank her bottom. After I hold her and discuss what she had done and why it merited a spanking over other forms of punishment. The ten minutes before her spanking is the worse part of her punishment. I have never "changed my mind" after informing her of a spanking, I think long and hard before making the decision, as I hate spanking in the first place, but believe it is necessary once in a great while. I don't believe it hurts her physically very much the way I do it (I don't want it to) but the psychological effect is what makes her aware of the seriousness of her transgression. She has only been spanked once in the past two years, we are negotiating whether she is still eligible for one. At almost 11 and in the beginnings of puberty makes me feel that spanking would be an inappropriate action from now on.

-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), August 05, 2001.

You obviously didn't bother to read the details I wrote.

-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), August 05, 2001.

I read everything you wrote. You are only NOW thinking of not abusing your child. You make me want to puke.

-- (idiot@de.tector), August 05, 2001.

I'm going to teach you something fool, so listen up and listen good.

You owe your daughter an apology for damaging her psychologically. It's a good bet you're raising a psycho just like you.

In the future when you feel the urge to go psycho on her again, take a deep breath; remember a punishment should fit the crime. If her crime is breaking a dish, make her pay for it out of her allowance. If she leaves her bike out all night, take it away for a day. If she skips school, make her study on the weekend. Physical and mental violence only demonstrates YOUR inadequacies and makes your child mean and vengeful.

It's your choice. You are the "adult". Do the right thing, you fucking idiot.

-- (idiot@de.tector), August 05, 2001.

You can almost always tell which children are not spanked.

They are the ones with little or no self control.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 05, 2001.

You can almost always tell which children are not spanked.

They are the ones with little or no self control.

You really believe this, J? I never spanked my kids and just spent several days with my two girls [and the boyfriend of one]. *I* was never spanked either, J. Are you suggesting that *I* have little or no self control?

Personally, I think my kids have every reason to be proud of themselves. They're honest, hard-working citizens who can interact with the elderly or the very young with great tolerance. They can even interact with people of other cultures and learn from the experiences. In retrospect, I wouldn't have handled them in any other way. The proof of the pudding is in the final product.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 05, 2001.

Anita,

Certain children have a disposition that allows for them to be disciplined without the use of spanking; many children do not. It is possible that you, and both of your daughters, are of this disposition. It is also possible that you and/or they are not, and yet you are too biased to see the ill effects from inadequate discipline.

For many children, an absence of spanking equals an absence of discipline. I do not mean the failure of parents to try some other means of discipline such as grounding, time outs, taking away privileges, etc. I mean that for many children, those other means do not work. Without discipline, they are unable to learn self control. Without self control, life is a struggle for them, and definitely a struggle for those around them.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 05, 2001.

Idiot, maybe you need to reread.

-- helen the moron (too@tired.to.argue.with.idiot), August 05, 2001.

For many children, an absence of spanking equals an absence of discipline.

How might a child get this opinion, J? Could it be through parents who had read to their children that sparing the rod spoiled the child? My children were always unhappy with the punishments I doled out to them for their transgressions. My mom didn't even wait for a transgression. She simply laid out the rules and consequences before- hand. 30 years later she tried to tell me what a good child I was and all I could say was, "Did I have a choice?"

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 05, 2001.

Thank God Cherri miscarried most of her babies. I would hate to see what kind of tribe she would have bred.

"They are the ones with little or no self control."

Your ignorance is showing. (The word is self-control. Learn to write, learn to think, or lose more credibility.)

Idiot detector is correct; this is all about power and not parenting. I would like to further that thought, and state there is a huge difference between discipline and punishment. Discipline is taking the time to teach children how to behave - while they are receptive. (Not when they are cowering waiting for their butts to get blistered!) Punishment is instilling fear in them, plain and simple. Once they learn fear, they react out of fear; not from any knowledge they've gained.

For example, spilt milk is the closest analogy I can think of at the moment - but consider this: A disciplined child will get up after spilling his/her milk, find a napkin and clean it up, placing the empty cup in the sink. A punished child will be spanked or sent to his/her room for spilling the milk.

Discipline is fitting the punishment to the crime (as stated by ID), and punishment is hitting, humiliation, or instilling fear. Punishment is also making a child sit for ten minutes waiting for the ax to fall and is one of the worst things I've ever heard someone admit to!

Children must be taught limits and rules. They must be explained and routinely discussed. It takes a lot of time, patience and love to raise a child, but it is your responsibility. If you don't, we (the collective "we") have the onerous task of cleaning up your mess.

-- (I @m .appalled), August 05, 2001.

Appalled, you and idiot abuse adults right here in this thread. You should not be allowed to teach children that this is proper behavior. You have no right to abuse anyone of any age. What you said to Cherri is abusive and cruel in the extreme and highly indicative of misplace hostility. Get some help.

-- helen (appalled@appalled.idiot), August 05, 2001.

Jesus! Everytime you open your mouth you say something even more stupid than before! Are you and Cherri related?

There is a huge difference between verbally abusing an "adult" advocating, or admitting to, violence towards children, and, physically abusing a child.

You hate that I called you on your shit, don't you? Don't you have a padded room to crawl back into?

-- (idiot@de.tector), August 05, 2001.

Idiot, there is no excuse to abuse anyone. I suppose you hate to be called on that.

-- helen (yeah@bring.jesus.into.this), August 05, 2001.

>>there is no excuse to abuse anyone. <<

What a hypocrite you are. YOU are the one that advocated abuse of children earlier in this thread. Sure, you stated you never used a paddle, but striking a person with a hand is violence just the same.

You are stupid beyond limits. I will not waste my time responding to you any more.

-- (idiot@de.tector), August 05, 2001.

You aren't going to respond because you have no defense. You cannot differentiate between abusing one human being and another based on age. Do you abuse the elderly too?

I do not advocate hitting children. I do not hit my children. Allowing the state to remove children from homes where they are "merely" being spanked when there are few good alternatives to that home is abusive. Allowing state employees to hit children with 1x6 pieces of lumber while other state employees are mandated to remove children from parents who spank is hypocritical.

I advocate education, communication, and trying to find middle ground in problem solving.

You call names and withdraw when your behavior is quantified. I know your kind. You don't care about kids. You look for a cause that will put you on the side of morality and use that position to excuse your inexcusable, abusive behavior.

-- helen (bring@jesus.in.again), August 05, 2001.

Anita,

Though it may be difficult, please try to thoroughly read what I have written before responding. Hopefully your response will make more sense that way.


anonymous coward,

Actually, it wasn't ignorance, but carelessness. However, I must laugh at you, an anonymous coward, spouting off about losing credibility.

Cherri is rarely correct in her views, in my opinion, but your cruel remark towards her says all that needs to be said about the quality of person that you are. One can only shudder at the thought of a cruel bastard like yourself raising children. God help them.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 05, 2001.

J: I don't understand your latest reply. I read your post several times. I don't know how many children YOU have, J, but I managed to raise three [two girls and one boy] without EVER spanking them. I confess that I DID slap my son in the face once after he'd thrown cookie crumbs in my face. My response was DEFINITELY in anger, and I feel guilty to this day about that one.

All in all, however, I think the three of them turned out just fine. They don't think like *I* do on every subject [for which YOU might be grateful], but they're pursuing interesting lives on their own and are interesting people, IMO.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 05, 2001.

Fine. I will be happy to stay here and prove you wrong - again!

I said >>There is a huge difference between verbally abusing an "adult" advocating, or admitting to, violence towards children, and, physically abusing a child. <<

Since you can't see the difference mentioned in that statement, it is pointless to continue talking to a hollow head.

NOwhere did I say it was OK to abuse the elderly. That is as repugnant as hitting a child - or any one else who is defenseless. Your strawman shows your lack of character.

I'd also like to add that there is another HUGE difference between advocating violence toward a child, or actually spanking a child, and calling people names on a bulletin board. (Something that will elude those with a hollow head.) Hopefully, the extreme nature of my posts will catch the attention of those who need to wise up!

Let me ask you this. You said you don't hit your children. Is that because their grown up? Did you spend years of their life spanking them? If you didn't, I apologize. My venom isn't aimed at you if you didn't - and, it sounds to me like you might even realize now that it was wrong if you did.

Ultimately, my rage is directed toward people like Cherri and J, who don't seem to have a clue about the damage they cause. But, I realize I'm wasting my time. They have hollow heads too.

-- (idiot@de.tector), August 05, 2001.

Anita,

I should not have responded to you like that. I thought that you were being a smart-aleck. I am sorry for so doing.

It is my belief that a child doesn't get the opinion that an absence of spanking is an absence of discipline, it is simply a fact. In other words, it is not about what the child believes, but rather it is about that which he realizes.

For instance, while I truly admire your honesty in confessing to slapping your son, that act was a form of spanking, albeit an almost universally unapproved form.

It may have been at that very moment that your son learned by experience that his bad behavior had consequences attached to it. For him, a scolding, or grounding, or other form of discipline may not have been enough to cement the bad behavior = consequences relationship that needs to exist. For some children, none of those other forms of discipline are adverse enough to them to succeed in cementing that relationship.

As I said earlier, it is true that certain children have a disposition that allows them to be disciplined without being spanked. There are other children with dispositions that only need to be spanked rarely (like your son, maybe), and there are still many other children who need to be spanked more often.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 05, 2001.

>>there are still many other children who need to be spanked more often<<

Horseshit.

Bad behaviors are: aggressive behavior, endless teasing and practical jokes, etc. Parents can give the child a task or activity that makes the bad behavior impossible to perform at the same time as the assigned task or activity. For example, a child who is sitting down coloring a picture cannot be running around the room at the same time. A child who is eating an apple cannot bite other children. A child who is helping mom or dad around the house cannot be picking on their little brother or sister.

When you hit a child you teach him/her YOUR mental illness.

You and Cherri make a lovely couple.

A lovely couple of ASSHOLES!

-- (idiot@de.tector), August 05, 2001.

idiot,

You are giving us your opinions from books, not from real life, right? : )

What say you, when after telling little Johnny that he shouldn't bite his sister Mary, and giving him an apple (chuckle), he throws the apple down, looks you square in the eye, marches over to Mary, and bites her again?

Oh, and I wouldn't be too quick to speak about the mental illness of others. : )

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 05, 2001.

Idiot, abusive language directed at another human being or an animal is abuse. Period.

I do not spank my children. My children are known in our community for being cheerful, helpful, polite little people -- because that is all they know. One of the few things they get into trouble for is calling each other names. Calling anyone names is abusive, and we don't tolerate that. What do we do about it? I told you. Dead silence gets their attention that things are not ok. We follow that with a request for the child to repeat the remark more clearly to be sure we didn't misunderstand. This may cause the offending child embarrassment, but it is not a form of abuse. The child SHOULD be embarrassed about this behavior. If the child refuses to repeat the remark, the offended child is allowed to repeat the remark. Usually one or the other will speak up.

The awful punishment? "YOU don't have the right to call anyone names." Then both are given something else to do. Period. We're usually having a lovely time with each other, so this is enough to call attention to it. Whether it is their temperment or the way they've been raised, I don't know. It works.

Now please stop calling people names.

-- helen (jesus@said.not.even.fool.is.allowed), August 05, 2001.

If little Johnny does that, you've all ready screwed him up - infecting him with your bad attitude and parenting. Normal children don't do that. They give love and respect to those who give it to them.

-- (idiot@de.tector), August 05, 2001.

idiot,

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

As I said, opinions from books.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 05, 2001.

HELEN YOU GODDAMNED IDIOT! There is something more important going on here than you can comprehend!

J: No, experience. How ever, you won't be laughing when your children end up on drugs or in jail.

-- (idiot@de.tector), August 05, 2001.

I comprehend that you abuse adults who were children and who will become the elderly.

-- helen (abuse@is.abuse), August 05, 2001.

Don't think most people know the difference between a child, the elderly, and an adult who should be able to fend for them self.

Don't think I didn't notice you said >>I do not spank my children.<< AFTER I asked you if you DID. I'm not asking if you spank them now, I'm asking if you EVER did.

O, and btw. Fuck you, and your "xianity."

-- (idiot@de.tector), August 05, 2001.

idiot,

Earlier you said, "Normal children... give love and respect to those who give it to them". You do realize that if this were the case, then there would never be a need to discipline children at all, by spanking or by other means, don't you? Also, does this mean that you are asserting that children don't bite unless they are first spanked? : )

Don't worry about my children; just be sure that if you ever have any kids of your own, that you make sure that you discipline them, by spanking if necessary, so that they don't "end up on drugs or in jail".

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 05, 2001.

You have to give children love, respect AND discipline. Discipline should come in the form of activity that fits the crime - not physical or mental punishment.

Why can't you understand that?

-- (idiot@de.tector), August 05, 2001.

I forgot your other question.

>>does this mean that you are asserting that children don't bite unless they are first spanked? <<

Of course not. Now you're acting stupid. You can quit with the stupid smiley faces too.

I'm saying that IF children bite, it is wrong to hit them for it. If you do, your teaching them violence with your violence. You are, in a sense, infecting them with your mental illness. The way to handle this is to redirect their anger, or, if their old enough, talk to them about it. Children of every age want their parents praise and not their anger. A concerned look and an authoratative voice is enough to get the attention of most children.

You will learn from your mistakes soon enough. Bye now. :)

-- (idiot@de.tector), August 05, 2001.

Idiot, you don't really care. You just want an excuse to be abusive.

-- helen (liar@liar.liar), August 05, 2001.

My God,it's a bottom feeder. No it's a loony! Hell no, it's an idiot detector. And proud to be one he is! Stand up and be accounted for, you little yellow anonymous loony coward! Let your spoiled little brat stand in the grocery store and scream his head off cause he wants a popsickle and you ain't got balls big enough to spank him or her in front of the line of people. Coward! Or the time when your junior said 'shit' at six and you just couldn't find soap that tasted sweet enough for his pallet. Coward! Or how bout the time when your 14 year old told you to 'get fucked' when you "asked" him to be home at midnite and you just stood there in total disbelieve as he went out the door. You should have backhanded him right then and there into the coat closet you whiny coward. Back in the days when kids knew their place, they respected the butter paddle and their mother that was swingin it. And when their father pulled that belt out of the pant loops, it meant the red ass and payin the price of misbehavin. They didn't have to shoot up drugs to ease the pain because these folks kept you workin and got your mind off of it. These young kids got too damn much money and free time on their hands and nobody at home to show em what's right and wrong! Hell know, there's too many self-proclaimed idiot detectors out there that went to college and learned all about how to raise kids from some pot smokin professor and attempt to tell the rest of us how to discipline our kids. Good God Almighty!

-- Boswell (fundown@thefarm.net), August 05, 2001.

>>(liar@liar.liar)<<

>>abusive language directed at another human being or an animal is abuse. Period. <<

You are a flaming hypocrite.

I would like to point out that taking an adult to task for their wrongs is different than abusing them. Just because I call them names in the course of conversation does not constitue abuse. Heck, I can introduce you to a dozen employees at work who would be arrested several times a day if that were the case.

Keep ducking my question, helen. That way, you won't have to defend yourself against the stupidity of your actions if you did hit them. I strongly suspect you defend Cherri and J because you did. Prove me wrong. Put in writing that you never hit any of your children.

-- (idiot@de.tector), August 05, 2001.

We all knew it was only a matter of time before John showed up with his own particular brand of abuse.

Too many moronees. Too few brain cells between them.

-- (idiot@de.tector), August 05, 2001.

Heh, this is the guy you want to visit in person with, huh Anita?

If what he wrote isn't a perfect example of what I've been saying, I don't know what is.

-- (idiot@de.tector), August 05, 2001.

idiot,

Oh, I understand perfectly that which you assert, it's just that I disagree with that which you assert.

For instance, you said, "Normal children... give love and respect to those who give it to them". As I said earlier, if this were the case, then why would a child ever need to be disciplined? My question was, of course, rhetorical. Your assertion is faulty, and even you know it. My question about children biting only if they have been spanked was also to point out the stupidity of your assertion.

You are quite hypocritical. Earlier you said that the punishment should fit the crime. By that reasoning, you should bite a biter. And yet, you say that "the way to handle biting is to redirect their anger". Well which is it? Get your book out and tell us! : )

I am certain that you have very sincere intentions and that you will love your children very much. Just be careful about putting too much stock in what "some pot smokin' professor" says, because that which Boswell posted was right on the money. And by the time your child is 14 and you finally realize that the professor and his textbook were both full of crap, it will be too late.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 05, 2001.

>>Earlier you said that the punishment should fit the crime. By that reasoning, you should bite a biter.<<

Once again you are being ridiculous. If you're not any smarter than this, your head is as hollow as helens. If a child spit on you, you shouldn't spit back either. A more fitting punishment would be to take away some thing he/she values - such as a computer game or trip to the mall. Not every thing is tit-for-tat and to assume I meant that, is beneath you.

Don't worry about my sons. To you and Boswell they would probably have been considered nurds when they were 14. Today they are fine adults in the medical field. They are married, and made me a grand father 3 times now. I could go on about their accomplishments, but why bother? You probably wouldn't believe me anyway. The bottom line is I learned hitting was wrong when my parents hit me. I was an angry young man my entire life until the court made me take anger management courses. I learned then that violence begets violence and anger produces anger. Hitting me didn't earn my respect, it just pissed me off royal. You can't tell me you and Boxwell aren't two of the angriest men on this board, and that Cherri isn't psycho. All of you need an attitude adjustment and I'm here to try.

We can compare notes when yours grow up.

-- (idiot@de.tector), August 05, 2001.

Idiot, you are an abuser.

-- helen (hey@boswell.hey), August 05, 2001.

Hell, I'm not an angry guy. I have a lot of fun takin literary swings at a bloomin nut case. How come just in the past few years all the nuts jumped on the abuse bandwagon. Everybody needs an excuse nowadays and it's so easy to blame someone else for your actions. The quote of the last 25 years 'THE DEVIL MADE ME DO IT!'

-- Boswell (fundown@thefarm.net), August 05, 2001.

" The bottom line is I learned hitting was wrong when my parents hit me. I was an angry young man my entire life until the court made me take anger management courses. I learned then that violence begets violence and anger produces anger. Hitting me didn't earn my respect, it just pissed me off royal. You can't tell me you and Boxwell aren't two of the angriest men on this board, and that Cherri isn't psycho. All of you need an attitude adjustment and I'm here to try. " -- idiot

I can't believe they left out the part about how abusive language is a signal that you're losing it. I can't believe they said, "Ok, don't abuse kids or old people, but abusing people on an anonymous bulletin board is healthy." Name calling is a classic signal of an abuser starting to do his thing.

-- helen (have@some.more.therapy), August 05, 2001.

idiot,

So you were "an angry young man your entire life until the court made you take anger management courses"? And then the psychobabblers convinced you that it was all your parents' fault for spanking you?

Well that's funny, but my parents spanked me, and I have never done anything that required court mandated anger management classes. Of course, I believe (like Boswell does) that I am responsible for my own actions, and that if I can't control my anger and I find myself in court because of it, that it's my own fault, not my parents' fault. You may feel free to think otherwise. After all, it seems to be all the rage these days to play the victim rather than take responsibility for yourself.

One last thing, are you Tarzan's Dad? : )

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 06, 2001.

. For example, a child who is sitting down coloring a picture cannot be running around the room at the same time.

Funny that you should mention this. My mom bowled in a league on Thursday afternoons when I was a child. She made it clear that she would NOT be placed in a position where she had to worry about where I was while she bowled, and that if I WERE to go beyond the chair provided [complete with coloring book and crayons], I would not be allowed to accompany her again.

I remember well that bowling alley. I sat quietly, coloring in my book, but I was well aware of the action around me. I heard the other children talk of putting cherry bombs in the toilet and watched while they ran around together. There was no way I would relinquish my "privilege" of accompaniment by joining in.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 06, 2001.