<Rant> Where has courtesy gone?

[green slime]

Meh. I guess if have children, I would try to find other method of parenting, but having been raised old-school (what you get for having a 49-year-old dad when you were born), I do see there are times, though rare, the need for discipline.

Such discipline would separate those who can criticize constructively over those who think it's cool to say "This sucks! You sucks!" but lack maturity and depth.

I was raised by my grandfather and grandmother, in a country that does not punish a woman for slapping a tiny baby for crying. So I come from old-school, but have definitely seen the advantages of this change in attitudes in Sweden (unfortunately not in the country in which I was raised).

I agree there is a need for discipline. I just don't see the need for physical violence. There are other ways of disciplining small children.

 

[green slime]

Yeah, it's working so well, isn't it. Letting little Johnny just express himself, or allowing them to empower themselves.

Violence is an acceptable solution to a situation when all other solutions have failed.

Except it is so seldomly resorted to in a situation where all other solutions have failed. It is usually resorted to as the first solution, because it is easiest.

Nobody was talking about letting "little Johnny express himself", or "empowering little Johnny". It seems you have already there run out of alternatives. Go fists!

 

[green slime]

Wow. I'm amazed he didn't sue your butt to kingdom come. You expressly don't have the right to use violence just because you've been offended.

Although I understand your sentiment, in this exchange it appears like you were the one more in the wrong.

joe b.

I agree completely with jgbrownings statement here. I understand completely, why you did it. The moron was running his own risks running his mouth off like that.

However, in my book there is something completely different going on with little children, and the physical violence inflicted upon them in the name of "discipline". They have no resource to turn to, in order to seek justice. They are completely in the hands of their parents.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

Wow. I'm amazed he didn't sue your butt to kingdom come. You expressly don't have the right to use violence just because you've been offended.

I'm sorry, I don't believe in letting some things slide.

So he has the right to say whatever he wants, in whatever situation, no matter what effect his words have, without repercussion?

It may be the law, but it's not right.

Although I understand your sentiment, in this exchange it appears like you were the one more in the wrong.

joe b.

He never said anything like that to my wife again, and we lived in the same small town for the next 5 years. He was polite to my wife, even though he was a wife-beating scumbag.


I'm sorry, but I FIRMLY believe that there are things that can be said that deserve a firm thrashing.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

Except it is so seldomly resorted to in a situation where all other solutions have failed. It is usually resorted to as the first solution, because it is easiest.

Nobody was talking about letting "little Johnny express himself", or "empowering little Johnny". It seems you have already there run out of alternatives. Go fists!

LOL

I have spanked ONE of my children ONCE in the last year. One time. Two swats, on the butt, followed by a hug, a reminder of what caused it, and sending her out to play.

I know where my kids are, they get good grades, they are polite, but they are disciplined.

It's nice to see that you automatically assume that any "violence" such as a spanking must be with a closed fist.

You don't slap a crying baby, that does no good. The child does not understand why (s)he is being put into pain.

Your past history is clouding your view, making you automatically assume the worst. While corporal, physical punishment should be the last resort, the opposite is just as much, if not moreso, abuse. Not only does it mentally screw the child up, they become nothing more than a clueless, selfish, worthless member of society.

But, the debate between "Never strike a child, or use harsh words, or any form of punishments, positive reenforcement only" crowd and the "sometimes, the child must be spanked" crowd still rages hot and heavy.

Suffice to say, I doubt we'll see eye to eye.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

However, in my book there is something completely different going on with little children, and the physical violence inflicted upon them in the name of "discipline". They have no resource to turn to, in order to seek justice. They are completely in the hands of their parents.

Well, that's not actually true here in the United States. (I'm assuming that you are not a US citizen, if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me)

Child protective services have been known to press abuse charges upon parents who have taken away video game systems when the child got bad grades, removed children from loving homes because of 3rd party allegations of possible abuse, and jailed parents for children that run wild.

There is a large, and growing, problem in many parts of the United States with parents being unable to enforce rules or boundaries upon a child. When a child is removed from the home, the burden of proof lies on the PARENT, not the state, to prove that no abuse was going on.

This was badly abused in the 1990's, as children used (and still do) the system in order to get revenge upon parents. Meanwhile, people are insisting that children should be able to express themselves in public (usually through screaming and acting up) or are acting up due to some fault of the parents giving them enough love and attention, and many other things.

You come from one end of the spectrum, where it sounds like it was honest and true abuse.

I deserved EVERY SINGLE BEATING my father gave me. We're not talking getting a whipping for dropping a plate while doing the dishes. I'm talking 10 stripes with a belt for gluing my twin sister to the toilet seat and then spraying her with a hose.

Before I lay my hands on my child, I make sure that I am clear headed, explaining exactly why this will be done, and asking if there is any other punishment that would be more fitting. The last spanking I gave, my 13 year old told me: "No, you've been telling me all winter, and this time I hurt someone doing what I've been punished for doing before."

She was throwing the wood into the wood stack next to the stove when she brought it in, and a piece bounced off, hit her sister in the mouth, and split her lip. She had written sentences, done pushups, been grounded, had to take the wood back and forth 10 times, stood in the corner, ran around the block 15 times, and other punishments.

She didn't throw the wood again, strangely enough.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

Hmmm, I think I see where civility might have gone...

Either there is no discipline, where the person grows into an adult with the belief they can do as they please with no repercussions.

Or there is abuse, where the person grows up angry and lashing out before someone hits them first.

Combine that with the fact that apparently it's horrible that I clocked a foul mouthed rednecked white trash loser in the mouth.

He can saw whatever he wants, to whomever he wants, wherever he wants, and nobody can do anything about it.

But when I take steps to introduce him to common decency the only way he's going to understand (we've all met the type, don't pretend you haven't) I'm the bad guy. I'm the ogre and the horrible person.

He has the right to verbally abuse my family, in a public place, bringing shame and embarrassment for nothing more than his own amusement and the amusement of his cronies.

But I'm in the wrong for taking him to task on it and making his words and gestures have a price.

I've always found that interesting.

Want to know where civility went?

Lack of personal responisibility and repercussions have killed it.

 

[jgbrowning]

I'm sorry, I don't believe in letting some things slide.

So he has the right to say whatever he wants, in whatever situation, no matter what effect his words have, without repercussion?

It may be the law, but it's not right.

He never said anything like that to my wife again, and we lived in the same small town for the next 5 years. He was polite to my wife, even though he was a wife-beating scumbag.

I'm sorry, but I FIRMLY believe that there are things that can be said that deserve a firm thrashing.

And there are people who FIRMLY believe that those who disagree with them deserve a firm thrashing on principle. It is because of these people that we have the laws we have.

These types of people think the statement, "If anyone hits me, I have the right to shoot them" is morally correct. Some of them even think "If anyone bad-mouths me, I have the right to shoot them" is morally correct.

This is why using violence as a response to a verbal comment is expressly forbidden. It takes away the ability of each individual to determine how much violence is appropriate because each indidual's response will vary in severity. Or let me rephrase that, it gives those agressed upon violently the legal right to seek restitution against those who do not follow our laws.

In other words, It's to protect your family from people who are like yourself, but willing to use more violence.

I had my own encounter with rudeness today. Someone was waiting in a parking lot for someone to park. I waited for about a minute and honked. Nothing. I waited a bit longer and when they finally pulled in, I pulled in next to them and opened my window and yelled. "How rude!" They didn't hear so I yelled again, "How rude! You think everyone else can wait for you because you think you're more important that other people! How rude!" They got huffy like I was the rude one to mention it, but oh well.

joe b.

 

[green slime]

As always Warlord Ralts, truth lies in the middle ground.

You made it seem like I was advocating molly-coddling children through their faults and ego-trips. Far from it.

Discipline is required for children to learn boundries. And while I may sincerely believe that you would not use your position to abuse your children, there are others who would, and do.

In Sweden, physical violence against minors is forbidden, but other methods of disciplining are not. Do not your courts have a hard time trying to adjudicate what is a reasonable amount of force to discipline a child with, as opposed to abusing the child, and for society to deem what is "deserved" physical punishment for minor transgressions against good behaviour?

 

[green slime]

Want to know where civility went?

Lack of personal responisibility and repercussions have killed it.

I can agree with this sentiment. Part of the problem is that we expect "society" to be there to provide the repercussions, yet it fails in many cases to do so.