This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
When I was a teenager I was babysitting my impossible to control cousin. The first night he got out of bed every five minutes and started running around. The second night I bought him a new nightlight and told him that it was a bomb that would explode and kill him if he got up in the night.
My aunt was PISSED when she found out. Still though, it was a violence free way of controlling him.
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
Discipline does not equal violence...
That seems to be the main distinction that a lot of people fail to grasp.
Physical discipline does. I'm not saying that makes it wrong, but under the definition, smacking or spanking is a form of violence.
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magician22773
For me, physical discipline is fine, assuming that it "works" for a specific child.
A couple people here know that I am struggling with a child with a fairly severe behavioral disorder. With him, physical discipline is completely ineffective, so using it is not only worthless, but is borderline "abuse" in my mind. I could spank him for something, and 1 hour later, he would likely do the same thing. Since it is not effective, I don't use that form of punishment.
On the other hand, my oldest son did respond to spanking. This meant that while growing up, he probably only got spanked maybe 6 times, because when he did get spanked, he KNEW that behavior was not tolerated, and he didn't do it again.
Parents need to know what their children respond too, and use what is effective.
Post by
wrlwnd
For me, physical discipline is fine, assuming that it "works" for a specific child.
A couple people here know that I am struggling with a child with a fairly severe behavioral disorder. With him, physical discipline is completely ineffective, so using it is not only worthless, but is borderline "abuse" in my mind. I could spank him for something, and 1 hour later, he would likely do the same thing. Since it is not effective, I don't use that form of punishment.
On the other hand, my oldest son did respond to spanking. This meant that while growing up, he probably only got spanked maybe 6 times, because when he did get spanked, he KNEW that behavior was not tolerated, and he didn't do it again.
Parents need to know what their children respond too, and use what is effective.
The crux of the response here, as I read it, is the reality of the situation. In most cases physical discipline can work, but it should be used sparingly. There are those cases where it does not work and should then not be used.
I believe that any physical punishment that leaves a mark for more than moments is excessive, and if there is pain in the hand administering the punishment, yes I said the hand, that is excessive.
Post by
Squishalot
Nothing we didn't know already, but good to hear official confirmation that
we're getting screwed over
down here in Australia.
Edit: I forgot to put forward my view on the physical punishment article.
My personal view, and one that has changed over the years, is that there are plenty of ways of getting the point across to children without hitting. As Magician points out, in some cases, it's simply because physical punishment doesn't work, and you are required to look for alternatives. For the more lucky of us who don't have children with those sorts of issues, using physical punishment is just 'lazy' parenting, fueled by a lack of desire to look for the alternatives that are equally effective.
In essence, I believe that physical punishments is an easy way out for parents, and something that good parents shouldn't need to resort to, when there are other alternatives that don't involve setting the example that 'hitting is a method of getting your way'.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
So
this
is something I would like to hear from practicing Catholics who have previously been very openly in shunning and excluding homosexuals from churches, schools, etc. (Not that I think anyone on the forums will qualify by those standards- it's more of something I'm curious about in general). Note- I'm not bringing up marriage or anything here. Just the concept that they should be treated like everyone else, welcomed in the church, and not judged. I imagine many practicing Catholics already feel this way, but many don't.
According to the Catholic faith, the Pope is infallible. So if the current pope says that homosexuals are to not be judged or excluded, do you think that will be more likely to change devout anti-gay Catholic's attitudes about homosexuals or about Catholicism?(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##ElhonnaDS##DELIM##
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I can address that later. I'm running out the door right now.
Post by
Squishalot
It's not that the Pope is infallible, but I think there are specific rules that condition when a statement is made infalliably (not a word, but...).
That said, given the Pope has made a statement on it, there will be a number of Catholics who will sit up and listen and act on that change of message. Similarly though, there will be a number of Catholics who will disagree and be stuck in their beliefs, just as there were those who disagreed with Benedict and other past Pontiffs.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Squishalot is correct on the first point. The Catholic idea of Papal infallibility is not much like the concept that gets thrown around. To put it into perspective, apart from Ecumenical Councils (which can make infallible statements of doctrine), only two Popes have officially made
ex cathedra
infallible statements.
Now regarding the message itself, the Pope said nothing that isn't already core Catholic teaching. "Hate the sin, love the sinner" and "judge not lest you be judged" have always been Catholic teaching, including in the case of homosexuality. There is literally nothing new in his message there.
Post by
asakawa
http://www.stephenfry.com/2013/08/07/an-open-letter-to-david-cameron-and-the-ioc/single-page/
I'm sure that many of the non-Brits here are still aware of Stephen Fry, someone for whom the phrase "national treasure" has found new meaning here. He's funny, erudite, self-effacing, flawed yet perfect. He's, rightly, concerned about the state of affairs in Russia and has written an open letter to our Prime Minister and the Olympic Committee about those concerns. I urge you all to read it.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
asakawa
Yup, he's brilliant. I hope he has the celebrity power to force some change here but, like you, I'm not optimistic that anything can be done. I'm vehemently supportive of the cause here though.
Post by
Skreeran
I wholeheartedly support Fry on this matter.
Post by
asakawa
A follow up to the recent thing I posted from Stephen Fry. A piece in the Daily Mail sums up that
rag
paper nicely.
http://boingboing.net/2013/08/09/stephen-fry-explains-what-a-ha.html
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.