Looks like you would just let your child starve and let them run into a road .alright, well I'm done here.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
Looks like you would just let your child starve and let them run into a road .alright, well I'm done here.
Looks like you would just let your child starve and let them run into a road .
Some kids literally don't listen time out doesn't work for all kids if you have kids and when they are naughty if all you have to do is put them in time out a few times you are just lucky. He said if his kid throws their dinner on the floor they can starve and I replied what if your kid does this with every meal? Obviously he would let them just starve I would like to know what he would do if the kid did this with every meal some kids literally won't eat dinner and only want junk food so ??You argue as if the child has literally a set in programm to just missbehave repeadiately without any possibility of learning.
And no he wouldn't let his kid starve, missing a meal does not equal starving the kid. I dont know why you reply this way towards him or what you think arguing lke this would accomplish. He just described one way of dealing with the situation and that is "behave like that and it will have this consequence".
Some kids literally don't listen time out doesn't work for all kids if you have kids and when they are naughty if all you have to do is put them in time out a few times you are just lucky. He said if his kid throws their dinner on the floor they can starve and I replied what if your kid does this with every meal? Obviously he would let them just starve I would like to know what he would do if the kid did this with every meal some kids literally won't eat dinner and only want junk food so ??
And you can't just remove a kid from roads in all situations like I said what if you are far from home and near loads of roads and the kid keeps running in the road and does this every time you go out? Now if your kid just listens when you speak to them then again you are lucky so I ask what do you do if this happens every single time you go out ??
What do I think this will accomplish well perhaps someone could convince me a light smack is never needed, but I've yet to hear any convincing arguments why kids don't need a little smack sometimes like I said if all you have to do is speak to your kid or put them in time out a few times well lucky you. It's all fine saying time out and speaking to the kid but when that doesn't work? No one seems to answer this .
But that's what I'm asking if someone who doesn't smack their kids is in this situation say the kid won't eat at all unless it's chocolate for instance what does he do?? And the situation with a kid who always runs in the road what would you do if speaking to them doesn't work and they just keep running in the road?? Don't try avoid the question by saying it's the worst case scenario just explain to me what you would do it that situation.He never said he would let the kids starve forever. The kid feeling hunger to much/to often gets rid of the attitude real quick. The problem often times is not the kid being a handful, but the parent not being able to take it. Also this is just a hypothetical, the question would be why the kid is not eating or misbehaving in that instance.
From my observation most parents are severely overwhelmed with their daily lifes ontop of their own personal issues/beings/relationships and that results in various ways of dealing with their kid's needs for boundaries/parenting in a ineffective manner.
Tone, posture, attitude, the way you carry, behave and approach the kid has more of an effect than people would think. I am pretty sure another person of authority could say/do something towards a misbehaving child the same way as the parent him/herself and have succes with the kid because the relationship/respect is a different one.
What you describe is literally the worst case scenario ever and often times, kids are mirrors of their parents, reflecting with their behaviour something they picked up in their family/social life or they do it as a respone to it. Kids are not stupid, they have reasons for what they are doing.
Noone says smacking isn't working, it is very, very effective. But imo it just means that the parent took the easy way out, one that has a big potential to realy mess up the kid.
But that's what I'm asking if someone who doesn't smack their kids is in this situation say the kid won't eat at all unless it's chocolate for instance what does he do?? And the situation with a kid who always runs in the road what would you do if speaking to them doesn't work and they just keep running in the road?? Don't try avoid the question by saying it's the worst case scenario just explain to me what you would do it that situation.
I see your point and yes most kids will just eat when hungry but some kids are literally so stubborn they will not eat untill they get their own way.I am not avoiding any questions. From the way you write i feel like this comes from a tough place.
The kid will eat eventually, noone realy likes starving and there is always a point where one will start eating because the hunger is to big. Also no parent would let the kid go without food for to long. One needs to access wether the measurement is in relation to the lesson one trys to teach. There is no black and white or bulletproof parenting. Parents need to learn and adjust along the way too.
Considering we are on the peat forum i woudln't see chocolate as an issue. I would make sure it gets good quality ones with safe ingridients in reasonable amounts in the week. I would try to look at it from a perspective as to why my kid is craving this food in particular and see if there is a healthier option i could provide him/her. If the kid wants to eat mcdonalds i'd try to see if it wants/needs the starch from potatoes, or the red meat in the burger or something else in there. Then i would make sure to cook that food for the kids at home as healthy, nourishing and safe as possible. A kid doesn't crave mcdonalds, it was offered to the kid once to many times and they acquired its taste/craving. Idealy, one wouldn'T let it come to that in the first place, or atleast have led a life and supplied foods to create a fundament/habitat where the child doesn't want it in the first place.
Don't let the mainstream media force/guilt you into feeding the kid (or anyone else, realy) with advertised "health foods". If it is not eating the ******* brocolli then that may be a sign. Or if you realy insist on it find a way to prepare the food so that the kid eats what you want it to eat. Kids need/want sugar, use that to your advantage and go make a tasty smoothie where the fruit/sugar covers the food the kid doesn't want. But for the most part, see what the kid likes and supply it in the most nutritious/safes/healthiest way possible for optimal growth.
Why would the kid keep running on the street? Ask the child why. Not just yelling "no you cant do that". Most parents suffer from this realy bad fear that turns them into hyperaggresive, yelling helicopter parents. No kid just walks towards a busy street for the fun of it. If you tell them they can't, they'll probably want to know/find out why and check out what this "street" is all about they are supposedly not allowed to run onto. Again kids are not stupid, they see cars driving there. They also know getting hit by one of thoose is not... desirable.
The only thing you realy can do is to tell the kid that the cars can hurt/kill you and you need to be careful, to always look left and right when crossing the street and to never mindlessly run after a ball that is rolling/bouncing towards the street. What else is there to do? Slap the kids lifeforce out so it never even dares to go near a road ever again? That way the kid does not fear the road, but fears that being near a road will result in physical harm from the person that is supposedly there to love and care for it. Basicly the association is messed up and there is not the right lesson learned. It is one thing to be a little rough with a kid for being disrespectful, and another to hit a kid to enforce daily behaviours into them.
As hamster said you can't stop everything. These are little people that need to learn and experience things on their own. Having a car being dangerously close driving past you or ttouching a hot plate, burning the hand will teach the kid to not do that and to be careful with it on its own with the right association towards the respective situation/object.
Of course that's what they say. But then everything seemed to be bad so it's not like some great moral lesson was imparted, besides "do as I say because I said so and if you don't you'll get smacked/strap/wooden spoon".Was it only when you was bad?
I was spanked as a child. Due to that, I now suffer from a terrible psychological condition called respect for others.SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals
Subscription and open access journals from SAGE Publishing, the world's leading independent academic publisher.journals.sagepub.com
You sound like you are describing abuse how comes people who don't agree with spanking can't tell the difference between abuse and spanking? Next you will be telling me changing a babies nappy is molesting them.Of course that's what they say. But then everything seemed to be bad so it's not like some great moral lesson was imparted, besides "do as I say because I said so and if you don't you'll get smacked/strap/wooden spoon".
And then it was just used as a humiliation, imagine being 16+ and still getting threatened with "you're not too big for me to put you over my knee blah blah blah" for whatever dumb reason.
Anything you do to a child is backed up with violence. If, for example, you take his toys away, are you going to use your significant size and strength to then physically prevent that much smaller person from regaining them? What about if you send him to his room for a time out? Won't you be enforcing him staying in that room by the sheer advantage you have in size and strength? How exactly are you forcing him to keep his face so close to yours? No matter what you do, you are going to be teaching him that the bigger, older person gets his way. That's why a proper spanking, explained to the child, is better. Yes, it is reliant on your physical force, but it is not manipulative or passive. It is direct and clear.
That doesn't sound like a good studyI was spanked as a child. Due to that, I now suffer from a terrible psychological condition called respect for others.
I was spanked as a child. Due to that, I now suffer from a terrible psychological condition called respect for others.
Think you completely missed the point or just surmised what you wanted to hear based on favoring that your held viewpoint that your way is the perhaps the only correct way and spanking is always bad.............Well, if a parent makes poor decisions, I'm not surprised that their child could inherit poor reasoning skills.
Thanks for the context. Yes, spanking can be effective as a last resort. If a child runs across the road when they're not supposed to, is cruel to parents/another child, etc etc etc...OccamzRazor is correct........... it's a nuanced subject. Used improperly it is abuse. There are parents who use it properly. I would even agree with him that it might not be ideal in most cases when other measures might suffice. It was always a last resort for my parents. But it was a tool in their varied toolbox they could use if needed to help their children learn and have a good life. Improper use of spanking is a great abuse. Giving a child no guidance or discipline is also a terrible abuse. The real disagreement between us, I surmise, is whether or not a parent should even be allowed to have physical means of disciplining a child or not. I can see where many don't trust other parents to administer this correctly and want to outlaw it based on that.
Agreed. Parents should be the decision makers, not government. There is already a way to criminally prosecute those who abuse and remove their children. Those who do not abuse should be rewarded and never have their parental authority taken away. Those who do abuse should be punished and have their children removed as the safety of a child is paramount.Thanks for the context. Yes, spanking can be effective as a last resort. If a child runs across the road when they're not supposed to, is cruel to parents/another child, etc etc etc...
Glad your parents used it correctly! I think mine did too.
"Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them." ~Proverbs
It's almost like the child should realize that they are NOT the boss, and spanking can and will be used if needed...
...while also realizing that their parents are full of love and never want to spank them.
Parents should definitely be allowed to spank their children. Gov't overreach is already bad enough.
Also @Homo Consumericus :Temporarily engaging a child to correct substandard behavior is in no way equivalent to striking a child. One involves intentionally inflicting physical pain; the other does not.
Resist the urge to equate dissimilar activities, lest you advertise your poor reasoning skills. If you are hell bent on striking your child or you genuinely believe both your child and you will benefit from the experience, there is a way to communicate this without the use of abysmal analogies.
Sorry friend. Your "temporary engagement" is brought to you by the overwhelming use of your physical force. You use it to back up all of your "engagement" with the smaller, weaker individual. Here's another analogy for you:Take the child aside, place your hands on either side of them and bring your face closer to theirs,
My father did similar things to my older brother up to his late teens and occasionally in his 20’s. My brother ended up with intellectual developmental delay and anger management issues, He’s 36 and still struggling with his mental health. Seeing him getting beaten up my father f…ed me up too even though my father liked me and never touched me. The other side was my enabler mothet who loved my brother (kind of an oxymoron), but didn’t liked me. It’s a big s..t show in a name of love backed by biblical morals. I think first and foremost we have to set an example for our kids since they mirror everything we do.Of course that's what they say. But then everything seemed to be bad so it's not like some great moral lesson was imparted, besides "do as I say because I said so and if you don't you'll get smacked/strap/wooden spoon".
And then it was just used as a humiliation, imagine being 16+ and still getting threatened with "you're not too big for me to put you over my knee blah blah blah" for whatever dumb reason.
They were control freaks too and I was never allowed to do anything or decide anything for myself, but was somehow still expected to magically "grow up" (my father's favourite put-down) and turn into a functioning adult all by myself. As I got older my father switched to mainly emotional means of control, i.e. having a tantrum and pretending to have been taken ill in order to guilt-trip me into wisely doing what he said, at which time he had a miraculous recovery. All "life decisions" had to be decided that way. Always because they loved me, of course, and always with frequent declarations about how "independent" I was (just lol). It was like that until I moved out in my mid 20s, and then he still tried to do it by phone and when I visit. It took years of living away from them just to start calming down a little bit.My father did similar things to my older brother up to his late teens and occasionally in his 20’s. My brother ended up with intellectual developmental delay and anger management issues, He’s 36 and still struggling with his mental health. Seeing him getting beaten up my father f…ed me up too even though my father liked me and never touched me. The other side was my enabler mothet who loved my brother (kind of an oxymoron), but didn’t liked me. It’s a big s..t show in a name of love backed by biblical morals.