Printable View
http://www.care2.com/causes/educatio...ty-u-s-states/
This article points out that in twenty states corporal punishment in schools is legal. It argues that this is unsafe, while others argue that with the behaviour of children it is nessecary.
What do you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thir
I remember when it was legal in the UK, because they were the days when all children under the age of 15 respected their elders. They respected their teachers and police priests and shop owners, the next door neighbour was called Mr or Mrs. Things have changed now the anti smacking people came and messed that right up, with their don’t hit your child it is assault, and right behind them come the police and the welfare people to take them into care. In care they are taught to look after themselves on the street, because the welfare said their parents never cared but then again their parents were never asked. I was punished with the cane and the slipper at school but I don’t think it did me harm, it upset me for that day but even then it gave you status in the school. Once you were home you got a crack around the back of the head for being a head ache to your parents but by ten that night it was all forgotten. It is not unsafe, it teaches respect and that is something that is lacking in young adults today, if you are not taught respect then you will never learn respect. I say three cheers to the twenty states in the USA where the school governors have still got their brains situated in their head.
Regards ian 2411
I grew up in the Catholic school system and somehow managed to get through it, despite corporal punishment. Of course, the worst thing I can remember happening, aside from having my parents informed of any bad behavior, is having my knuckles rapped with a ruler.
But there is a difference between corporal punishment and abuse. Beating a child until they require medical treatment (or a funeral) is abuse, pure and simple. Striking anyone, much less a child, in the head is dangerous and educators who do that should be prosecuted.
Being the father of two boys, who seemed to get through their school years with less problems than I had, I feel that eliminating all corporal punishment is a mistake. It should never be done in anger, and should probably be administered by someone other than the teacher. But "punishing" a kid by giving them in-school suspension, or even at-home suspension, is just giving them a holiday from classes. It might be boring for them, but they're unlikely to learn from it.
Let's face it, sometimes you have to treat kids like the proverbial mule: a proverbial carrot can entice them to get moving, and sometimes a proverbial stick can encourage them to get moving, but sometimes you need the proverbial 2x4 between the eyes just to get their attention.
I hear you. But what about safety?Quote:
Originally Posted by ian 2411
"Consider a couple of examples: a high school coach in Georgia knocked a student's eyeball out of its socket to punish the student for fighting with another student. In Texas, a 14-year-old autistic special education student was smothered to death by his teacher's "restraint." The kid was placed face down on the floor and when he struggled, his teacher sat on his shoulders to keep him still. He sufficated to death."
For the first time in over 18 years, Congress held hearings in April, 2010, on the use of corporal punishment in schools, and this bill was the result of those hearings.
Here's what was revealed: every twenty seconds of the school day, a child is beaten by an educator. Every four minutes, an educator beats a child so badly that she seeks medical attention. The U.S. Department of Education reported that in the 2006 - 07 school year, 223,190 students were the victims of such school violence, and over 20,000 of these young people had to seek medical attention."
I am aware that student violence against teachers is also an safety issue, I think this is also mentioned in this article. But I wonder if you can fight violence with violence. Or whether security guards should be in here.
Teaching should not be about having to physically restrain or punish the students, that is also not fair and likely no what you were taught how to handle during your teacher's education.
What to do? About both safety issues :dunno:
On a more general level: Is coporporal punisments really teaching respect?
As we say so often here, respect is earned, not demanded. So is respect learned by pain from someone bigger, or do you simply learn fear or hate?
A personal experience: I did not respect my teachers - many of them were incompetent or bad tempered. Some were darn good teachers, though, and that got my respect. There were a few sadists as well, and what they got was hate and fear, and, in me anyway, a lifelong scepticism of authority.
Maybe it would have worked, if the teachers were someone you could - respect.
Reading the stuff thir has quoted really makes my hackles rise. Tripe written by low grade middle managers trying to justify their existence by regurgitating their latest personal development training in order to protect child "victims" from the masses of perverse, paedophile teachers ... sorry, I meant to say "educators" (and I suppose I should include educatrices too, except to suggest all females might be perverts too would just be plain sexism) ... it's so vitally important to use the correct terminology ...
Sorry, was I ranting?
I speak from experience ... at school in Scotland in the mid 50's I had to watch as my elder sister received the strap from a vicious spinster teacher who knew someone had misbehaved, but not who. It certainly wasn't my sister. I remember the fear my sister displayed before the punishment was inflicted andthe tears afterwards. She died about 10 years ago, and having read how childhood abuse can last a lifetime, I'm convinced that what the teacher did must have been the cause ...
But then, I myself was brutally caned by sadistic "masters" for talking in class, for forgetting my homework, for arriving late, and for running along the corridor. I expect the violence I suffered must have warped my outlook on life. Perhaps I, too, am not much longer for this Earth.
No, never in anger, which is not punishment, but violence - hence the damages. I too think others should be doing it, if it should be done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
Mind you, I do think teachers should get a lot more support that they get - I would not hold their job for all the tea in China.
There was a case her in UK with a teacher who struck a student with an exercise weight which gave the student a concussion. It turned out that a group of students had been goading him for weeks to make him loose his temper, so they could film it and show it to the girls. He got a conviction, I think a light one, but I never heard what happened to the students, which should definitly also be accused.
Well, I was mostly home schooled, and the only school I ever attaneded for any length of time other than college was in japan, and they dont seem to have all that many issues with their corperal punishment policies, though I have to say they are not physical so much as pychological in their aplication there.
So maby there is a healthy medium.
the only time i was hit in class was in my third year of primary school, and it was a slap across the face by a teacher. i remember the shock, mostly, cause nobody had ever hit me before in my life--i don't remember what i'd done (but let's face it, it can't have been that bad, i was 7 for crying out loud), but the shock was horrific. i didn't tell my mum, because, as i think i read above, by the end of the school day i'd forgotten.
My mother never used corporal punishment, even though i was a difficult child at times, but i consider myself a respectful person, because i was taught respect. I can understand why some may think that being physically corrected will instill a sense of respect or obedience, but i disagree. on a regular basis, that sort of correction would lead to fear instead of respect, and 'going through the motions' instead of obedience. i would want my child to understand why manners, respect and obedience are important.
Explaining leads to understanding, that's the way my mother taught me and that's the way i'd like to teach my children one day.
By sending your child to school, you give the teacher the power to educate your child. Schooling is still too close to home for comfort, seeing that i finished three years ago, and i remember the good teachers, those teachers who are interested in their subject and in their students, who didn't need to raise their voices once, cause they grabbed the class's attention. They didn't demand respect, or obedience, or attention, simply because they had it by default. Fill schools with this kind of properly trained and inspiring teachers and you won't have to worry.
..my two pennies.
growing up i suffered from "adhd" [i hate that expression! were not attention seekers at all! its the chemical unballance that turned you into a werewolf!]
anyway. i was slippered for throwing a stone at someone, did i deserve it? yes!
i had no right to throw something that could of caused damage to another.
as i got older i matured [albiet slowly] but realised that the word discipline comes from the word diciple. [to teach]
i think political correctness has gone way to far and thats why kids get away with so much.
they dont understand "respect" or "manners" but as bipola said when i sat in a lesson where the teacher made the lesson come alive, i behaved.
when i sat in a class that lost me then my concentration wondered causing me to become disruptive!:eek:
p.c. do gooders should be buried up to their heads as the tide comes in:je
Corporal punishment has been banned in the UK for at least 30 years (though when I was at school, they were allowed, it seems, to threaten with it but not actually do it...). Having worked in schools, I am not sure corporal punishment would actually make that much difference to behaviour or learning. It does not correct the bad behaviour, in some cases it reinforces it (especially when the motivation for bad behaviour is attention seeking, common in children) and a relationship based on fear is not a good one on which to build a trusting basis for learning.
I would also say that I am not all that sure behaviour is really not all that much worse than it was in the past. When a good teacher, one who has the respect of the class, walks into a classroom you can see the change in behaviour. This is not based on the promise of pain but rather on the respect and trust they have built with that class. Just as it is said that someone who swears has a poor vocabularly, I would say that someone who has to resort to physical punishment has a poor ability to relate to children.
Modern methods are nothing to do with child protection, risks of paedophillia or similar (these are separate issues...) but rather with understanding how learning is best achieved. The more you force someone to learn, the less inclined they are to actually want to do it. Instead you have to convince them that they want to do it for their own good. This is often a hard slog (I recently had to convince some girls whose dearest wish seemed to be limited to qualifying as hairdressers, despite some having the ability to do much more than that, that they did need science to learn hairdressing and that it was, in fact, central to the courses you have to do to be a hairdresser) but once you get that self motivation you have absolutely no problems in discipline or behaviour.
And the summers were always sunny, and you could get a ticket for the flicks, a fish supper and a couple of pints and still have change from a shilling.Quote:
Originally Posted by ian 2411
Meanwhile back in the real world, researchers for the past fifty years have been looking at actual figures and getting the same answer: the level of violent crime, and youth violence in particular, has been falling steadily in both Europe and America. (The change is probably more than the figures show, because in those Good Old Days, things that would nowadays involve the police were often settled by going round to tell someone's parents to take a belt to the offender: so there's a reporting bias in the other direction.)
And the other thing they consistently find is that violent crime is usually committed by people who were physically punished as children. As families with such childrearing practices have become more of a visible minority, it's become more evident that they are raising the next generation of criminals.
But of course this is just facts, and I don't expect it to change your beliefs.
Since I know a fair bit at first hand about the care system, I'd comment on this if I could make out what you're saying.Quote:
Things have changed now the anti smacking people came and messed that right up, with their don’t hit your child it is assault, and right behind them come the police and the welfare people to take them into care. In care they are taught to look after themselves on the street, because the welfare said their parents never cared but then again their parents were never asked.
That classic line is a very dangerous one, it invites the sort of comment the moderators would object to :)Quote:
I was punished with the cane and the slipper at school but I don’t think it did me harm
I went to a school that didn't use physical punishment even when they were still allowed to. We respected the teachers because they were good teachers, not because they might thump us. The only teacher we really didn't respect was one who came in as a substitute from the local grammar school for a couple of terms: he had no idea how to deal with kids he couldn't threaten with violence. As many other posters have said, anyone who can't teach without physical punishment is a bad teacher.Quote:
, it upset me for that day but even then it gave you status in the school. Once you were home you got a crack around the back of the head for being a head ache to your parents but by ten that night it was all forgotten. It is not unsafe, it teaches respect and that is something that is lacking in young adults today, if you are not taught respect then you will never learn respect.
Everyone from behavioural scientists to animal trainers knows that you teach better with rewards than punishments. Punishments are to break people down into obedient servants, and we don't any longer see that as the purpose of school, even for the lower classes.Quote:
Originally Posted by fetishdj
I think you have misunderstood the term: "attention deficit" doesn't mean you are an attention seeker, it means your attention shifts easily and it's hard to concentrate. Punishing such children for being restless is as unfair as punishing a dyslexic for not reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by rocco
Every child needs to be taught that, but physical punishment doesn't teach them it's wrong to hurt people, only that you have to be grown up before you're allowed to hurt people.Quote:
anyway. i was slippered for throwing a stone at someone, did i deserve it? yes!
i had no right to throw something that could of caused damage to another.
The question is, what does it teach?Quote:
as i got older i matured [albiet slowly] but realised that the word discipline comes from the word diciple. [to teach]
I would love to know what is in your mind when you say "do gooders". Presumably, not teachers who make lessons come alive, or people who make life easier for victims of such problems as ADDH. What have "do gooders" done to you? Or are you just quoting some tabloid?Quote:
i think political correctness has gone way to far and thats why kids get away with so much.
they dont understand "respect" or "manners" but as bipola said when i sat in a lesson where the teacher made the lesson come alive, i behaved.
when i sat in a class that lost me then my concentration wondered causing me to become disruptive!:eek:
p.c. do gooders should be buried up to their heads as the tide comes in:je
Whenever I got hit by a teacher, it was always at their angriest moment. I didn't learn anything, resented them and myself more, and I often didn't know what I did wrong. I've had moments where I felt bad about missing an assignment, misbehaving, etc, and learned from it, but not from a physical punishment.
My mom has been a teacher for decades, frequently bumping into students (halfway across the world) who have families of their own now, and still thank her for being their teacher. She never lay a hand, and was successful in teaching thousands of kids difficult subjects in their formative years.
I have never been hit as a child by my parents, but I respected them, and feared their anger (even though I always knew they'd never hit me and always love me). I have used the example of my own childhood to prove to myself that corporal punishment is a needless tool. Physical pain should not be associated with failure, nothing should....except maybe consensual sex :D
You open up a new angle here, which I think is important. Are some (I guess not the ones you mention above?) psychological methods more damaging than corporal punishment?Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
As far as I know, the best results are registered where the student feel most safe and relaxed.Quote:
Originally Posted by leo9
But, there is the whole problem of being sat down at the age where you are most physically active, and learn things you cannot at the time see the idea of.
That, among other things, is why teachers have to be so damn good!
I do not envy them their jobs. I would like to teach, but not to a captive audience. Rather to people who want to learn.
I have just come across a delightful experimental finding in Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" (required reading for anyone who aspires to be a sceptic.) This was a study on our tendency to see cause-effect relationships that aren't there. Subjects were presented every day with a figure purportedly representing a real-world event, and asked to recommend an intervention to make it better next day. By the end of the trial most of them reckoned they had found how to control the event concerned. The catch was, there was no event: the figures were a random string generated before the trial began. Nothing they did could possibly affect it, but they convinced themselves that they could and did.
So far, so interesting in general, but by accident the researchers also discovered something about our prejudices of another kind. The pseudo-variable they offered the subjects was supposedly a child's times of arriving at school, and they were asked to try whether rewards or punishments would do better at making the child arrive on time. By the end of the trial 70 percent of the subjects believed they had proved that punishments were more effective.
There was no child, just a random number table: any effect had to be in the subjects' minds. Yet a solid majority saw a benefit from punishment. Remember that next time someone says "I don't need research to tell me if caning works: I know from experience."
Bad Science ... are you using that to prove a point? I'm not sure ...
To be honest, I haven't really understood the point of the first two paragraphs, leo: if I were asked to try to come up with a way of protecting the population from the harmful effects of moonrays, I might try to do so, even though I am not sure that reflected sunlight is harmful. Perhaps an umbrealla made of Bacofoil?
There - I've come up with a proposal! I think it might have merit.
But I do understand the last paragraph, and I have to ask, isn't research based entirely on experience, the researcher's or the experiences he looks into?
It's a real book, and I really do recommend it. Though if you believe in homeopathy, you should keep a homeopathic remedy for high blood pressure to hand :)Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
No, it isn't, if by "experience" you mean people's intuitive impression of what works. The whole point of scientific research is to replace "experience" with hard facts, preferably quantitative so that they can be mathematically tested for significance: and the experiment I quoted showed in a beautifully elegant way why this is necessary if you want to know what really works.Quote:
To be honest, I haven't really understood the point of the first two paragraphs, leo: if I were asked to try to come up with a way of protecting the population from the harmful effects of moonrays, I might try to do so, even though I am not sure that reflected sunlight is harmful. Perhaps an umbrealla made of Bacofoil?
There - I've come up with a proposal! I think it might have merit.
But I do understand the last paragraph, and I have to ask, isn't research based entirely on experience, the researcher's or the experiences he looks into?
I tried to describe it in a way that separated the two findings, the one the researchers were after, and the other one they serendipitously came up with: and I can see that in doing so I made the first part incomprehensibly vague, so I'll put them back together.
The subjects were told they were taking part in an experiment to find the best way to improve children's behaviour. They were presented every day with a figure supposedly showing the time their experimental subject arrived at school - early, late or on time - and asked to recommend a result, reward or punishment, to see what would make them do better. By the end of the experiment, most of them believed they had found a way to improve the child's timekeeping... even though the figures were random and unaffected by anything they proposed.
The conclusion is that left to "experience," people see patterns that aren't there, based on what they expect and want to see and their instinctive belief that everything has patterns. To escape this trap you have to test the data objectively, not rely on intuition.
"The real purpose of the scientific method is to make sure nature hasn't misled you into thinking you know something you actually don't know." - Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
Well, you've come up with a hypothesis. Now design an experiment which will determine whether or not your hypothesis is valid. Step one would be to show, with statistical significance, that the moonrays are, indeed, harmful.Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
Research is based upon observation and experimentation, not on expectations and speculation. Experience is needed to actually implement the experimentation. For example, if you are doing research in chemistry, it would probably be helpful if you knew how to use a GC/MS or an IR Spectrophotometer.Quote:
But I do understand the last paragraph, and I have to ask, isn't research based entirely on experience, the researcher's or the experiences he looks into?
Sounds like my kind of book. I'll have to check into it, thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by leo9
And I keep a ready supply of HHBPM (Homeopathic High Blood Pressure Medication) to hand all the time. A dispenser at the kitchen sink, one in each bathroom, two outside the house. Why, there's even one connected to my refrigerator!
I used to work as a volunteer for a homeopathic consultancy in the Home Counties once, many years ago, for a 6 week period while I was out of work. I was impressed by the fact that - so far as I was aware - not one person was cured of anything while I was there, although everyone who became a member was committted to paying a fee for every visit, and a series of appointments were made for them stretching into the future. Perhaps I was participating in a cynical fraud on gullible patients. I hope not.
I console myself with the knowledge that on a few occasions, patients were told that homeopathy could not help them, and they should seek help from an aleopathic practitioner, because only their drugs would be of any help. You should have seen the incredulous looks on their faces.
Anyway, that's all beside the point.
I understand and accept what you say about research gathering demonstrable facts in order to provide complete understanding: so, the quality of the research must depend upon the accuracy of the facts gathered. When you seek solutions based upon wholly fictitious information (spurious research), therefore, no matter how sensible the answer proposed might be, it is meaningless, because it tries to answer a non-existent problem.
I find that hard to relate to the "real" problem of how to ensure children arrive at school on time. When I was at school - and I went to more schools than most people have done - I found that in some I faced playtime detention if I was late, and in others that, if I was late more than twice in a week, or some other period, I would be caned.
Detention was fun ... a camaraderie of rascals engaged in a perpetual struggle against the tyranny of the Masters, bravely resisting their cruel punishments. Always, the Detention Room was occupied by the same villains and miscreants.
The cane was something I would avoid as much as possible because of its inherent unpleasantness (I was uninitiated in the ways of my fellow posters here at the time, of course, and anyway, I would prefer to cane rather than be caned). I believe the other boys preferred not to receive it, too. Some of those who did even cried, but not I.
That summarises my experience, which was real, so far as I can remember. I would equate that experience with research that showed one particular course of action would be likely to succeed while another would be less likely to.
If not such experiences as I have related, what other research could provide any kind of answer to the problem?
I don't know if cynical applies, but it was certainly fraud, even if unintentional. It's possible that some practitioners of homeopathy really do believe their own fantasies.Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
In truth, homeopathy couldn't help any of them beyond the placebo effect. The incredulity arises from the fact that they bought into the 'magic water' story hook, line and sinker.Quote:
I console myself with the knowledge that on a few occasions, patients were told that homeopathy could not help them, and they should seek help from an aleopathic practitioner, because only their drugs would be of any help. You should have seen the incredulous looks on their faces.
The problem may not be non-existent, but the solution you are trying to bring about may be. Homeopathy is a perfect example of that. Study after study, by reputable scientists, have shown that homeopathy is bogus. The basic concept of water having 'memory' is without evidence of any kind.Quote:
I understand and accept what you say about research gathering demonstrable facts in order to provide complete understanding: so, the quality of the research must depend upon the accuracy of the facts gathered. When you seek solutions based upon wholly fictitious information (spurious research), therefore, no matter how sensible the answer proposed might be, it is meaningless, because it tries to answer a non-existent problem.
This kind of research is tricky because you are dealing with human responses and emotions. And not being a researcher I would have difficulty designing a line of inquiry about it anyway. But basically you would have to record a lot of information taken from various schools and teachers, stating the kinds of punishments issued, the infractions they were issued for, the uniformity of the punishments, the numbers of repeat offenders, and much, much more. And even then your results will be tentative since you are dealing with individuals. One person's response to punishment may be quite different from another. Walter the wimp might be sufficiently affected by a note home to his parents, while Mary the masochist might go out of her way to receive a caning a week.Quote:
If not such experiences as I have related, what other research could provide any kind of answer to the problem?
In short, I doubt there is one specific answer to the problem. Personally, I don't see something as minor as tardiness to be a caning offense in the first place. And most discipline can be taken care of by getting the parents involved. But whatever code the school applies, it has to be done uniformly and fairly. Caning one child for arriving five minutes late while assigning detention to another child for striking a teacher will only confuse the kids and lead to worse problems.
A lot of Bad Science (and the online forums and newspaper column that goes with it - it appears regularly in the Guardian and most of the book is actually reprints from the articles) revolves around analysis and understanding of the placebo effect. It is a real effect that can have a significant effect on physiology. Both the expectations of patients AND researchers/clinicians can influence the results of a trial which is why we do double blinding (where neither the patient/subject nor the researcher/clinician know who has got which drug) in order to eliminate the effect of placebo because EVERYONE in the trial beleives that the pill is going to be effective (and it has been shown that clincians change their whole demeanour when they give out a known placebo which influences the manner of the patient in so many subtle ways). It is interesting to note that a noted homeopathist did state publically that the reason they did not submit their remedies to double blind testing was because these trials did not work... so effectively admitting that they only rely upon the placebo effect.
Bad Science is quite an eye opening book in many ways. It showed me, a hardened scientist who has worked in the field and seen the effects of badly applied experiments first hand, a few scary truths. Homeopathy is only a minor thing in comparison to the horror that was the 'South African potato which cures HIV' scandal.
But this is an aside...
The problem with corporal punishment is that it teaches the wrong lessons and does not build good social reasoning skills. It is better to have a system of carefully worked out consequences for actions and make sure that these are clearly stated and understood. Also, such a system needs to be collaborative rather than authorative - the rules worked out in co-operation with the class rather than in competition with them.
QUOTE=fetishdj;876898]The problem with corporal punishment is that it teaches the wrong lessons and does not build good social reasoning skills. It is better to have a system of carefully worked out consequences for actions and make sure that these are clearly stated and understood.[/QUOTE]
Having been the victim of corporal punishment on more than one occasion I have to differ with you fetishdj. It was in the school as a deterrent against violence, but the only down side it had at my school was the fact that both offenders were punished. I mean both the attacker and the person defending himself, and that does teach the wrong lessons. I defended myself three times and got punished three times along with my attacker. It was on the fourth time that things went from bad to worse, and I refused the punishment and would not bend over the desk. The head master grabbed my ear and twisted and i mean it was so hard he nearly ripped my ear off, I pulled away and kicked him in the balls and walked 8 miles home. I had to have hospital treatment on my ear and it damn near sent me deaf. I was expelled from all schools for one year, now there is some sense for you.
There was nothing wrong with the corporal punishment, but the proof of guilt was the thing that was wrong. I remember that it did act as a good deterrent but without some sort of legislation it was more dangerous to the attacker and victim than the actual fight. I will say this though in the school the teachers were respected, there was never unruliness in the class room. If a teacher said quiet get on with your work that has been set out, you could hear a pin drop. No student that I can remember lifted his/her hand to a teacher, unlike today where the teachers in some schools in the UK fear reprisals from students.
Think about it you sent adults to prison for theft, mugging, assault, rape, murder, one punishment to fit a multitude of crimes. Some reoffend but a great number with the right help on the outside don’t. So if you can teach a violent child with regulated violence to show that it does not pay, and in the mean time only a small minority reoffends it cannot be bad.
Regards ian 2411
The potential for abuse, as you describe above, is one major objection. It has been shown that punishment (of any form) applied arbitarily and without fairness or evidence (which is what happened to you) only leads to problems. It is hard to know for certain who is guilty in many cases in schools - you are relying on shaky evidence (usually it is one kid's word against another) and a teacher cannot be everywhere at once to be able to see all that goes on. Now, it is better to send both pupils to a time out zone (seperate time out zones) where they can think about thier actions than to apply a rather severe penalty to both which at least one of them is going to regard as unfair.
From my experience in schools, deterrents do not work. Not at all. Any more than capital punishment or the possession of nuclear weapons act as a deterrent against violence in the adult world. Humans have emotions and make mistakes and sometimes act without thinking about the consequences. Often the only thought is the short term reward rather than the nebulous possible future consequence. So, misbehaviour will still happen because it is more fun than work and punishment is something that happens in the future (and most children have a very arrogant 'it will never happen to me' attitude). And, even if you do get caught and beaten, hey - all the cool kids get caned, you can lord it over the other kids for a while.
Let us get something straight. There is obviously a difference between Punishing a child and abuse. Growing up and before i had my first born I was on the side line saying talk to your children and spare the rod. As a child I got my ass kicked only once by my Ol' man. Not because of my disobedience, but because my father was a man who believed insanely about the use of lying....he hated it. Compared to it to stealing. Thus when I forged my grade report with his signature, and was quickly found out. Point blank holding the note from my teacher he asked did I forge his signature? To which, an idiot child that I was at that moment decided, I'd lie. My father waited until I'd taken my bath and promptly tore into my hide. As my mother stood helplessly by crying " You'll kill him Robert!!! To which he shouted back " Damn straight, helped to bring him into this world got the right to take his ass out!!! No son of mine lies to me!!!" For almost a year My father never trusted me checking everything I said was the truth. I think that hurt more than anything else. I learned more from my fathers distrust in me. Thus I discovered my love for pain also. He wailed me so that my entire body was covered in welts......I was turned on by the sight of my body. But only after the pain and my initial screaming in agony had subsided! I wanted so badly after that, to be whipped, but dared not tke the chance, for fear I'd not make it out alive. I knew the one button to push, on my father. But I feared his wrath more so than the love of being whipped. Instead here in America if a kid got his ass whipped and the others found out, you were the laughing stock of the neighborhood. " Dude, heard you got yo' ass whooped haahaahaahaahaaa!!!
"I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent onQuote:
Originally Posted by ian 2411
frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond
words... When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and
respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise
[disrespectful] and impatient of restraint" (Hesiod, 8th century BC).
Sorry, I just came across that quote and couldn't resist sharing it...
There's another one by Socrates (I think, been a long time since I looked at this) which says something similar - something about youth having no respect and spending all their time in the gym or bathhouse...
I remember those 13 years well. Depending on how you look at it my worst was an eraser in the eye, or getting kicked out of school.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne