Did you get hit by your parents?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Abi wrote: »

It does get pretty tiring alright. I've no intention of feeding "it" either, sorry.

Reported the re reg already!

LH Pathe

Paddy Cow wrote: »

So your siblings were well behaved then? Maybe you're just the black sheep of the family and would have been a little sh!t either way

as the blackest of sheep I can tell you his issues are peanuts. and mere parental discipline a joy to receive.. Try all related havng it in for you too. A pair of uncles "on their way down" was always something to look forward to. Same beatdowns I witnessed em giving my father that fateful night even my own brother said he was "only following in footsteps" but then he also said it was due to apparently greater intelligence/looks. Every angle.

Folks don't go inheriting your ousted cheat fathers name and citeòg. I was pretty much christened "antichrist" wee discreet sheep tattoo is goon on my arm soon. Black ink.

Paddy Cow

LH Pathe wrote: »

as the blackest of sheep I can tell you his issues are peanuts. and mere parental discipline a joy to receive.. Try all related havng it in for you too. A pair of uncles "on their way down" was always something to look forward to. Same beatdowns I witnessed em giving my father that fateful night even my own brother said he was "only following in footsteps" but then he also said it was due to apparently greater intelligence/looks. Every angle.

Folks don't go inheriting your ousted cheat fathers name and citeòg. I was pretty much christened "antichrist" wee discreet sheep tattoo is goon on my arm soon. Black ink.

No offense but I can't make head nor tail of that

vixen chaser

logically caining is not as bad as it seems I suppose. In school it should be an option, but only be done perhaps by only an assigned individual, such as the principal, however is saying that certain principal's with grudges against certain kids would have a field day and that just not on. Tough love is required to set kids on the straight and narrow. Certainly the option of a cain should perhaps be looked at in the home. Kids are walking all over parents and teachers everyday of the week, huerting people in the process.But if the option of the cain was to be utilised then these kids may very well be put in their place. There's more people in the world than kids. They can't be allowed do what they want when they want, and they must know that. If an Adult tells them to be quiet, then they should do so immediately. Atleast it what I did when I was a kid. Make them fear a smack or a caining and the rest will come later.

Kosseegan

stimpson wrote: »

I think he's a troll who doesn't have kids...

http://www.gaire.com/e/p/profile.asp?id=50024

Good send up! Have kids, not a troll.

RussellTuring

vixen chaser wrote: »

In fairness, being afraid of authority is all part of growing up. Kids need to fear the person in authority. If there were to be no fear, Kids would do what they wanted, and they are bad enough with only a little fear, not to mind none at all. Besides, they are only human. Forget about adults obeying the law because of fear, the main thing is that they obey it. Some laws are utterly stupid, and make no sense, but we obey them because we would be be in trouble otherwise, and we are law abiding citizens.Teachers are at the end of their tether because parents are not keeping their kids inline, and bringing their bratiness in to the class room. Now in fairness some parents would love to keep their kids in line, but the over liberal socity that kids enjoy today doesn't allow them to.

Your opinion is predicated on the belief that fear makes people behave how you want them to and that using fear is a legitimate way to get people to bend to your will, both of which you will have to demonstrate. If you were no longer afraid of being punished for rape or murder, would you do it? I'd hope not. Similarly, the fact that these things are punishable now doesn't seem to prevent rapists or murderers doing as they please, with a lot of evidence to indicate that harsher punishments either have no effect on, or even exacerbate, crime.

stovelid

I'd slap this thread if I could.

Giselle

vixen chaser wrote: »

Tough love is required to set kids on the straight and narrow. Certainly the option of a cain should perhaps be looked at in the home. Kids are walking all over parents and teachers everyday of the week, huerting people in the process.

There is nothing loving about using a weapon to cold bloodedly and calculatedly inflict pain on children to make them conform to your ideas of proper behaviour.

How you can follow your claims with the statement thats its kids hurting people is gob-smackingly disconnected from what you consider to be caring behaviour.

This thread is starting to sicken me.

vixen chaser

RussellTuring wrote: »

Your opinion is predicated on the belief that fear makes people behave how you want them to and that using fear is a legitimate way to get people to bend to your will, both of which you will have to demonstrate. If you were no longer afraid of being punished for rape or murder, would you do it? I'd hope not. Similarly, the fact that these things are punishable now doesn't seem to prevent rapists or murderers doing as they please, with a lot of evidence to indicate that harsher punishments either have no effect on, or even exacerbate, crime.

No I wouldn't murder or rape anyone because I have morals ans I have had so since childhood. I wasn't born with them, but they were instilled in me by my parents. While we are on the subject of murders, how can we account for a rapid increase in the last 15 years. When I was a young lad, a murder in my county or even he country was so rare that it equated to Al Quaeda carrying out a fatal terrorist attack. We used to be glued to the news if a murder occured, now that's all we see. My point is though that yes kids should fear, but with that morals will come eventually. It is not logic to yee that the reason a country have laws is to deter toerag scumbags from breaking the law, thus a child fearing chastisement is hardly the end of the world.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

vixen chaser wrote: »

No I wouldn't murder or rape anyone because I have morals ans I have had so since childhood. I wasn't born with them, but they were instilled in me by my parents. While we are on the subject of murders, how can we account for a rapid increase in the last 15 years. When I was a young lad, a murder in my county or even he country was so rare that it equated to Al Quaeda carrying out a fatal terrorist attack. We used to be glued to the news if a murder occured, now that's all we see. My point is though that yes kids should fear, but with that morals will come eventually. It is not logic to yee that the reason a country have laws is to deter toerag scumbags from breaking the law, thus a child fearing chastisement is hardly the end of the world.

You have no morals. No one has morals. We have fear. They're at opposite ends of the spectrum. Either we're good out of respect, or we're good out of fear.

RussellTuring

vixen chaser wrote: »

No I wouldn't murder or rape anyone because I have morals ans I have had so since childhood.

So then it's not the fear of punishment that makes you behave.

It is not logic to yee that the reason a country have laws is to deter toerag scumbags from breaking the law, thus a child fearing chastisement is hardly the end of the world.

I don't know what you mean by this.

vixen chaser

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

You have no morals. No one has morals. We have fear. They're at opposite ends of the spectrum. Either we're good out of respect, or we're good out of fear.

Of course I have morals. It beats me up if I ever accidently hit an animal on the road, even a rabbit or a hare. Why, because they are a living being and I never would intentionally hurt or kill anyone or animal. Hey, I would never be in court for running down an animal. Going by your last post, yo have issues. Good luck with counselling etc

RussellTuring

vixen chaser wrote: »

Of course I have morals. It beats me up if I ever accidently hit an animal on the road, even a rabbit or a hare. Why, because they are a living being and I never would intentionally hurt or kill anyone or animal. Hey, I would never be in court for running down an animal. Going by your last post, yo have issues. Good luck with counselling etc

You wouldn't hurt an animal but you'd hit a child? People are animals too.

vixen chaser

RussellTuring wrote: »

You wouldn't hurt an animal but you'd hit a child? People are animals too.

I'm only on about a piercing slap of a hand or even a cain, not breaking a kids arms or legs. No wonder kids are away too soft today, with poential parets like yee. Go on lets your kids do what they want and when the naughty corner or privelege dispossession don't work any more don't come crying back here when you don't know what else to do

Abi

vixen chaser wrote: »

I'm only on about a piercing slap of a hand or even a cain, not breaking a kids arms or legs. No wonder kids are away too soft today, with poential parets like yee. Go on lets your kids do what they want and when the naughty corner or privelege dispossession don't work any more don't come crying back here when you don't know what else to do

Rest assured if they do, they won't be coming back looking for any advice from you.

lividduck

RussellTuring wrote: »

Your opinion is predicated on the belief that fear makes people behave how you want them to and that using fear is a legitimate way to get people to bend to your will, both of which you will have to demonstrate. If you were no longer afraid of being punished for rape or murder, would you do it? I'd hope not. Similarly, the fact that these things are punishable now doesn't seem to prevent rapists or murderers doing as they please, with a lot of evidence to indicate that harsher punishments either have no effect on, or even exacerbate, crime.

Similarly, the fact that these things are punishable now doesn't seem to prevent rapists or murderers doing as they please.....
Actually you dont know that the rate of any given offence would not be higher but for the sanctions available, you only know that some people ignored the sanctions but you have no way of quantifying how many crimes were prevented because the potential sanction deterred the possible offender.
Such a silly and ill thought out post

Standard Toaster

vixen chaser wrote: »

RussellTuring wrote: »

You wouldn't hurt an animal but you'd hit a child? People are animals too.

I'm only on about a piercing slap of a hand or even a cain, not breaking a kids arms or legs. No wonder kids are away too soft today, with poential parets like yee. Go on lets your kids do what they want and when the naughty corner or privelege dispossession don't work any more don't come crying back here when you don't know what else to do

Wow. A Cain?
You posting from 1950?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

vixen chaser wrote: »

Of course I have morals. It beats me up if I ever accidently hit an animal on the road, even a rabbit or a hare. Why, because they are a living being and I never would intentionally hurt or kill anyone or animal. Hey, I would never be in court for running down an animal. Going by your last post, yo have issues. Good luck with counselling etc

Bit of a contradiction there.

If we follow your logic that people cannot act positively without fear, then your first sentence here is a lie. if your first sentence here is accurate, then all your previous staetments are lies.

I'm ending this here because I have shown your posts to be woefully inaccurate regarding non-smacking in other countries, philosphically flawed in your faith in a fear-based society and now, societally inconsistant when it comes to the source of your own personal morals.

You've lied about your time in Sweden and the fact that you "would intentionally hurt someone" in other to pretend that your flawed arguments are valid and have been caught red-handed. They are merely what you assume the case would be.

You STILL have not replied to my post about how kids in non-smacking countires develop morals, if not through fear; or explained how these countries are not overrun by hoards of insolent children.

There's really is nothing else for me to prove here.

vixen chaser

Says the one who couldn't even tell me who was in government when you were there, you are the one who wasn't there not me. OMG you are paranoid, believe it or not, there are Parents who till wish to physically discipline their kids.

lividduck

The Swedish anti-spanking failed miserably and actually led to a huge increase in child abuse!
http://humansciences.okstate.edu/facultystaff/Larzelere/sweden.html

"Although the Swedish anti-spanking law was intended to reduce child abuse, the best empirical study since then indicated that the rate of child abuse in Sweden was 49% higher than in the United States one year after the anti-spanking law was passed. Does this mean that the anti-spanking law increased the rate of physical child abuse in Sweden? Deley’s (1988) retrospective data indicates that the Swedish physical child abuse rate was 21% of the USA rate in the 1960s and 1970s. This suggests that the anti-spanking law not only failed to achieve its goal of reducing child abuse, but that the child abuse rate increased from 21% to 149% of the equivalent USA rate, a seven-fold increase relative to the decreasing rate in the United States"

vixen chaser

I suppose ickypoowho you think that lividduck is the same person aswell

RussellTuring

vixen chaser wrote: »

I'm only on about a piercing slap of a hand or even a cain, not breaking a kids arms or legs.

You said:

I never would intentionally hurt or kill anyone or animal.

That directly contradicts your previous statements about caning and otherwise hurting children. Both sets of statements can't be true.

Anyway, you said before this that people obey the law out of fear then, when I asked, admitted that it isn't fear of retribution that prevents you from committing horrible crimes but your own morals. Why then is it so hard for you to believe that people can do good without the threat of punishment?

lividduck wrote: »

Similarly, the fact that these things are punishable now doesn't seem to prevent rapists or murderers doing as they please.....
Actually you dont know that the rate of any given offence would not be higher but for the sanctions available, you only know that some people ignored the sanctions but you have no way of quantifying how many crimes were prevented because the potential sanction deterred the possible offender.
Such a silly and ill thought out post

I never claimed to know what the crime rates would be in a hypothetical situation; that's what vixen chaser was doing in claiming they would be higher if people weren't afraid of retribution from the law. All I said was that murder and rape still happen despite being illegal, which is a fact.

Additionally, my not knowing the hypothetical crime rates lends absolutely no credence to the assertion that they would be higher. To claim this with no reasoning other than the fact that I don't know them is just an argument from ignorance. The default position is to say "I don't know", not make a guess.

vixen chaser

RussellTuring wrote: »

You said:



That directly contradicts your previous statements about caning and otherwise hurting children. Both sets of statements can't be true.

Anyway, you said before this that people obey the law out of fear then, when I asked, admitted that it isn't fear of retribution that prevents you from committing horrible crimes but your own morals. Why then is it so hard for you to believe that people can do good without the threat of punishment?

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that when a person is a child, they need to know that punishment has to follow an incident of bad behavior, could you please atleast acknowledge that?. Firstly they will learn that punishment = doing something wrong. Secondly they will as they grow older begin to understand how society works, and usually a set of morals will come with it. For instance in a previous post I gave an example of when I was young I found 20 pounds while walking through the village. I spent it on sweets, and when my Dad found out from my sis I got a few strokes of his belt. At the time I knew why he administered the belts, but as I grew older I understood the fact that someone had worked hard for that amount of money, and I should have handed it in. It's exactly what I would do now, as I have done. There was alot of money in the wallet that I handed in to the Garda Station. I could have kept it, and no one would ever have known.

treborflynn

cattle prod-ed(?)

Jo King

vixen chaser wrote: »

RussellTuring wrote: »

You said:



That directly contradicts your previous statements about caning and otherwise hurting children. Both sets of statements can't be true.

Anyway, you said before this that people obey the law out of fear then, when I asked, admitted that it isn't fear of retribution that prevents you from committing horrible crimes but your own morals. Why then is it so hard for you to believe that people can do good without the threat of punishment?

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that when a person is a child, they need to know that punishment has to follow an incident of bad behavior, could you please atleast acknowledge that?. Firstly they will learn that punishment = doing something wrong. Secondly they will as they grow older begin to understand how society works, and usually a set of morals will come with it. For instance in a previous post I gave an example of when I was young I found 20 pounds while walking through the village. I spent it on sweets, and when my Dad found out from my sis I got a few strokes of his belt. At the time I knew why he administered the belts, but as I grew older I understood the fact that someone had worked hard for that amount of money, and I should have handed it in. It's exactly what I would do now, as I have done. There was alot of money in the wallet that I handed in to the Garda Station. I could have kept it, and no one would ever have known.

Your complaint is that being belted as a child has now deprived you of a substantial amount of money?

vixen chaser

Jo King wrote: »

vixen chaser wrote: »

Your complaint is that being belted as a child has now deprived you of a substantial amount of money?

No, I think you must have misread my post. The point atleast what I was trying to make was that I got belted as a child. I used one example of when I found 20 POUNDS while walking through my local village. I spent it on sweets and my Parents were livid because I didn't hand it in to the Parish Priest to announce it over the alter. My Father gave me a few belts. Now if I ever find money I hand it in, because my father instilled the morals in me to do so.

stovelid

Caning children is going much too far, whether in school or at home.

vixen chaser

stovelid wrote: »

Caning children is going much too far, whether in school or at home.

For young kids, yes I think it is. However for older kids I think it's not. Obviously only in certain cases, but some teenagers are fearless of present options regarding discipline. The problem with kids today is that they are too aware of their so called rights. If they get a smack, even if that is still legal, they'll threaten childline or go to the gards. That is pathetic, especially as they are making a mokery of kids that are genuinly being abused by psycho Parents

vixen chaser

vixen chaser wrote: »

No, I think you must have misread my post. The point atleast what I was trying to make was that I got belted as a child. I used one example of when I found 20 POUNDS while walking through my local village. I spent it on sweets and my Parents were livid because I didn't hand it in to the Parish Priest to announce it over the alter. My Father gave me a few belts. Now if I ever find money I hand it in, because my father instilled the morals in me to do so.

i hand in lost money because it's the right thing to do, not because someone beat it into me

Giselle

Kosseegan wrote: »

A teenager should only need one or two good canings a year. Caning should start around the age of 8 or 9. There are reports on this thread of parents using a bamboo. That is very dangerous. Rattan canes or a nylon one should always be used. Also the cane should not be used on the legs or feet as long term damage can be caused. Taking down the underwear humbles the teenager as well as maximising the pain. This teaches respect.

Get help.

RussellTuring

Kosseegan wrote: »

A teenager should only need one or two good canings a year. Caning should start around the age of 8 or 9. There are reports on this thread of parents using a bamboo. That is very dangerous. Rattan canes or a nylon one should always be used. Also the cane should not be used on the legs or feet as long term damage can be caused. Taking down the underwear humbles the teenager as well as maximising the pain. This teaches respect.

I think it's more likely to teach fear and shame. That's not respect.

Super-Rush

Kosseegan wrote: »

A teenager should only need one or two good canings a year. Caning should start around the age of 8 or 9. There are reports on this thread of parents using a bamboo. That is very dangerous. Rattan canes or a nylon one should always be used. Also the cane should not be used on the legs or feet as long term damage can be caused. Taking down the underwear humbles the teenager as well as maximising the pain. This teaches respect.

You're one sick puppy if you believe in this.

stovelid

Kosseegan wrote: »

A teenager should only need one or two good canings a year. Caning should start around the age of 8 or 9. There are reports on this thread of parents using a bamboo. That is very dangerous. Rattan canes or a nylon one should always be used. Also the cane should not be used on the legs or feet as long term damage can be caused. Taking down the underwear humbles the teenager as well as maximising the pain. This teaches respect.

Assuming you're not on a wind-up, if my father had did this to me, the minute I got big enough, I would have kicked the shit out of him.

My name is URL

I'm gonna guess that he isn't on a wind up.. if he is; he's committed to it =(

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=64381276

stovelid

At best, it's child cruelty; at worst, it's perverted.

stimpson

And apparently the mods don't give a ****.

Potentially libellous statements - bad.
Tips on how to abuse your children - good.

Super-Rush

stimpson wrote: »

And apparently the mods don't give a ****.

Potentially libellous statements - bad.
Tips on how to abuse your children - good.

Hold onto your horses there chief. Just because you can't see it, it doesn't me theres nothng being done. You've reported it so just leave it to us now ok.

stimpson

El Pistolero wrote: »

Hold onto your horses there chief. Just because you can't see it, it doesn't me theres nothng being done. You've reported it so just leave it to us now ok.

Sorry - but I had reported him before and nothing happened. A quick scan of his other posts on this thread and on Parenting shows he has made similar statements in the past.

Truley

stimpson wrote: »

Sorry - but I had reported him before and nothing happened. A quick scan of his other posts on this thread and on Parenting shows he has made similar statements in the past.

I know. It's disturbing and the worst of it is, even if/when he does get banned from the forum he and others like him are still free to carry out this twisted behaviour on their children. I hate knowing it's happening and feeling so helpless to do anything about it

vixen chaser

bluewolf wrote: »

i hand in lost money because it's the right thing to do, not because someone beat it into me

And so do I hand it in because it's the right thing to do, who's going to give me a beating at my age for not handing money in. I could easily keep it and no one would know, but I hand it in because it is the right thing to do. Can't honestly see where you are getting confused.

BO-JANGLES

Once I was really misbehaving and my ma took of her slipper and threatened to slap me with it. I legged it and got chased all over the house, me laughing all the way. Ran into my room and locked myself in. Fell asleep shortly afterwards. She watched her soaps in peace. That was 30 years ago and still makes me laugh when I think about it. Aulwans can't run!::D

RussellTuring

vixen chaser wrote: »

And so do I hand it in because it's the right thing to do, who's going to give me a beating at my age for not handing money in. I could easily keep it and no one would know, but I hand it in because it is the right thing to do. Can't honestly see where you are getting confused.

The point is that the rest of us didn't need our morals beaten into us so we'd like to know what was the relevance of your story.

Super-Rush

Kosseegan banned.

RussellTuring

El Pistolero wrote: »

Kosseegan banned.

Stopping people like that from talking isn't going to make them stop harming their children.

vixen chaser

RussellTuring wrote: »

The point is that the rest of us didn't need our morals beaten into us so we'd like to know what was the relevance of your story.

So the two of yee were never smacked as children?

nope

vixen chaser

bluewolf wrote: »

nope

As if

Super-Rush

RussellTuring wrote: »

Stopping people like that from talking isn't going to make them stop harming their children.

I can't do anything else.

Thread is coming to a close soon, so if anyone has anything else to add then now would be the time to do it.

stimpson

RussellTuring wrote: »

Stopping people like that from talking isn't going to make them stop harming their children.

I agree, but I'm not sure he was adding anything to the conversation beyond encouraging people to develop their technique.

I find it deeply disturbing that someone like that can think it's normal to use weapons to discipline children, then come online to share it with others as if it was the most natural thing in the world.

RussellTuring

vixen chaser wrote: »

So the two of yee were never smacked as children?

Some of us were, others weren't and we still manage to become rational people whether or not we're beaten, showing that it's unnecessary. That's what's so wrong about it: people like you think the world will fall apart if you don't do it even though it's plain to see that it's just another area of life where people are abusing what little power they have at the expense of others, in this case it's children who are stuck with the people who are harming them.

El Pistolero wrote: »

I can't do anything else.

Thread is coming to a close soon, so if anyone has anything else to add then now would be the time to do it.

I understand. What good did it do though?