Code of Discipline

[JesusWalks78]

In my Thread titled "MY DAY IN JAIL" an issue of discipline came up.

I have in my life been beaten severly in the name of discipline, tied up in a sack, hung from a tree, beaten with a stick and left outside overnight (standard punishment back in the day). I think that is pretty abusive and I would never do that to anyone.

I have also had some Ultra Traditional Masters that made us do some crazy things when we performed at less than our best...like cut sections of his lawn with a butter knife, blade of grass by blade of grass....and other ways of punishment that was to saythe least very creative and any drill instructor would be happy to know.

My Masters instilled in me Iron Discipline and showed me the need for it.

In my thread, I stated that I was against using fists to beat children, even open hand strikes (which do more damage then a closed fist).

I will however in the worst case, strap my childs buttocks with a leather belt......I believe that it is appropriate in terms of discipline.

What do you think is appropriate?

Note****

This thread is NOT about getting down on each persons disciplining techniques, but merely stating what yours are.

 

[christalee4]

In my Thread titled "MY DAY IN JAIL" an issue of discipline came up.

I have in my life been beaten severly in the name of discipline, tied up in a sack, hung from a tree, beaten with a stick and left outside overnight (standard punishment back in the day). I think that is pretty abusive and I would never do that to anyone.

I have also had some Ultra Traditional Masters that made us do some crazy things when we performed at less than our best...like cut sections of his lawn with a butter knife, blade of grass by blade of grass....and other ways of punishment that was to saythe least very creative and any drill instructor would be happy to know.

My Masters instilled in me Iron Discipline and showed me the need for it.

In my thread, I stated that I was against using fists to beat children, even open hand strikes (which do more damage then a closed fist).

I will however in the worst case, strap my childs buttocks with a leather belt......I believe that it is appropriate in terms of discipline.

What do you think is appropriate?

Note****

This thread is NOT about getting down on each persons disciplining techniques, but merely stating what yours are.

Sorry, I can't condone strapping a child with an implement, such as a leather belt. I work part time with a social service agency and have seen some cases in which children have been beaten with a belt, and that is abuse.

I am sorry that you were abused yourself; those circumstances seem to be pretty bad. Those are not normal for any period, time or if used in a particular culture, then that culture is brutal and should be judged.

Using verbal techniques, saying NO firmly and loudly, removing the child to another location, talking to them, giving them consequences that make an impact - all depends on how old they are and how much they understand. There are many ways to discipline a child - instead of a rigid code, I suggest discipline with love. With no hitting with a belt.

 

[Cerberus~]

Depends on the child.

 

[Bananafish]

Hitting a child with anything is unacceptable.

 

[michabo]

Putting a guy in the hospital when you have the power and control to control the situation, and now beating your own child with a strap?

Disgusting.


I can only say that I'm glad that people like you are fading in numbers through most of the world.



Hope that answers the question of how I think fully grown adults should treat children.

 

[The Nihilist]

What a bunch of wimps. I'm with JesusWalks78 on this; punishment by belt can be abusive, but it doesn't have to be. Besides, you're doing your kids no favors, that kind of physical punishment toughens kids up. His kids will be more resilient than the rest of your when push comes to shove, I bet.
Michabo, I would expect better from an atheist. What use is being an atheist is you still have the feeble sensibilities of a Christian? I mean really.

 

[seebs]

I think that, in nearly all cases, any kind of actual physical violence, even if it does no permanent harm, ultimately sends the message that "discipline" consists largely of not being caught, and of hitting only people who can't hit back. I'm all for careful use of language to explain things, and firm setting of boundaries, I just don't think corporal punishment is ultimately effective.

 

[michabo]

Michabo, I would expect better from an atheist. What use is being an atheist is you still have the feeble sensibilities of a Christian? I mean really.

Feeble sensitivities of a Christian? Where do you think 'spare the rod, spoil the child' comes from? It certainly isn't from a humanist manifesto.

Don't pretend that atheism should incline people towards violence.

 

[Lifesaver]

Physical punishment for unruly and misbehaved children can help them internalize that what they are doing is wrong even though they are not mature enough to understand the reasons why their behaviour is unnacceptable. Nothing that injures the child's health, of course!

As they grow older and more rational, spanking becomes, it seems to me, increasingly humiliating, and thus one ought not to resort to physical punishment to discipline them anymore.

 

[ebia]

Violence is never necessary, nor acceptable.

 

[mpshiel]

The way we treat children alters thier views of the world, themselves and thier place in it. Even the OP of this thread has placed a connection between the two (these are the limits of violence done to me and now these are the limits of my violence). I suppose the idea is that we teach them the connection between acceptance versus pain and then hope when they grow up, they learn to use that correctly (like not kicking a gay kid into a coma, for instance).

For myself, I would use touch, for instance a hand on the shoulder as a calming technique. I would likely use selective choice and training techniques, pattern behaviour building and limited isolation, but no, I wouldn't use corporal punishment, and hopefully I wouldn't resort to it, because if I did it wouldn't be because it was the best choice, but because I would be falling back to what was done to me. And to me, that means making decisions based on a child's mind - which is not a good place to be making decisions from (I can vividly remember wanting so badly to grow up, so I could have kids of my own...so I could spank them!).

 

[ebia]

(I can vividly remember wanting so badly to grow up, so I could have kids of my own...so I could spank them!).

I think that's the sadest thing I've heard this week.

 

[sparklecat]

I don't plan to hit my children when I have them. I think that would send the message to them that if someone is weaker than they are and they want them to do as they say, or the weaker person displeases them, they should hit them. How I do plan to discipline, I'm still working out - I'd prefer consequences where there is some logical connection, or that mimic how society might punish certain actions in some cases - you hurt someone or damage property, you're kept away from it, for example.

 

[Chajara]

I'm creative enough to think of other ways to discipline my kids. And you have to take into account that kids are going to be kids. They do stupid things. They can be selfish. Not all of those things deserve a strap across the rear end. As a matter of fact I'd never use an instrument to spank my kid with.

The most my kid is going to get in the way of corporal punishment is a quick swat on the butt, and only for the most outrageous offense. The rest of the time they'll get extra chores, priveledges taken, and so forth. When you outline exact consequences and then stick to those consequences, it tends to work.

For example, if my 10 year old wanted to go to his friend's house after school, I'd say "Alright, but you need to be back an hour before dinner so we can get your homework done." If he doesn't show up until dinnertime or later, then guess what he gets to do? Homework! No matter how starved he is, he can sit at the table and do his homework while the rest of us eat.

Wouldn't that be better than simply taking a belt to him as soon as he got in the door? His homework would still need to be done and he'd still need to eat, but he'd probably be angry and hurt and unable to focus at all, and he sure probably wouldn't want to sit there and eat with the ones who put the stripes on his rear.

 

[Robinsegg]

We use a single swat on the butt for direct defiance/rebellion only. The child has a warning to make sure they know what they're choosing with the action. Most of the time, we use "time outs", extra work, or loss of priviledges. We talk to the child, to make sure the child understands the rule in question, and how to deal with a similar situation better in the future. Next time, we bring up that solution, hoping the child will choose it instead of whatever discipline measure would have to follow the inappropriate action.

Rachel

 

[Mling]

Adults have every advantage over a child, in terms of emotional, moral and psychological development, patience, abstract reasoning skills, strength and wisdom. I will accept physical violence in response to a problem only if there is the risk of immediate and dire consequences which need to avoided at all costs, or if all other resources have been completely exhausted. If an adult is capable of raising a child (not severely mentally retarded or otherwise ill), then their intellectual, emotional and moral resources should never be exhausted on childish problems, and there should never be a need to respond violently (a strong desire maybe, but never a need). Get creative, try to uncover the root of the problem and find a real solution. The only time I can possibly imagine that it might be appropriate to deal with a child violently would be something like pouncing on the kid to keep him from setting something on fire.

 

[Cerberus~]

Violence is never necessary, nor acceptable.

Now this is just stupid. If you wish to be a walking mat, so be it. While you quietly let yourself be killed, I'll give my killer a fight.

 

[shye]

depend on the child. if the kid learns from his or her mistakes and is repectful towards everyone,then no, discipline the child with abusive tactics would just scar the child emotionally. if the child is corrupt and respects noone eccept for him or herself needs to be discipline.

 

[yasic]

In my life I have been physically punished 3 times by my parents (And it is pretty safe to assume that no more are comming anytime soon.)

In each of those times, I deserved it fully, and when I have children, I plan on having them have a similar experience. I would almost never use violence at all, however in the MOST extreme of all cases (Where the child would disobey direct commands from me, I will have to resert to spanking (possibly useing a belt).

When I parent, I wish to show my dominance, however this would not be through violence. My general strategy is "I am your friend, I wish only what is best for you, and will do everything in my power to make you happy. I will live for my children. However, under no circumstances will you EVER disobey a direct command from me (at least not until you grow up and become more powerful (Not physicsally) then I), and if you try, I will use force.


If I have a child that disobeys me constantly (as in more then once a month min) then I see it as my fault for not being adult enough to show superiority over the children. If I have to use violence more then 2 times in any given year, I have failed to be a good parent.

 

[sparklecat]

depend on the child. if the kid learns from his or her mistakes and is repectful towards everyone,then no, discipline the child with abusive tactics would just scar the child emotionally. if the child is corrupt and respects noone eccept for him or herself needs to be discipline.

And sometimes hitting someone will yield only bad results. I think the chance of permanently damaging your relationship with your child isn't worth the risk.