Only offensive if you don't believe in disciplining your children

Axe_meister

@Axe_meister yes your last para is a prime example of why some people think that corporal punishment doesn't work. IMO that's not proper discipline, neither is it a correct reaction to a kid going on and on and on. I suspect the kid goes on and on and on because of a past lack of appropriate discipline (whether that discipline was administered using corporal punishment or not).

My kids still goes on and on and on in the super market. He just gets ignored, show me one kids who does not want everything in sight. 

Great quote from the Simpsons when Lisa and Bart want a swimming pool

"OK Homer, you can get us a pool now, or we can ask you a million times a day until the end of the school holidays, Do we have a deal"

Drew_TNBD

Phil_aka_Pip said:

I have noted that often when someone seriously disagrees with someone else, that disagreement is often accompanied by some kind of slight on the intelligence. eg "politician x is an idiot". I have in the past been guilty of it. Although during the previous Tory years (pre- NewLabour), I would counter such a proposition with "No, he's not stupid, he knows exactly what he's doing and why he's doing it. The word you need is BASTARD".

I only called you stupid once I presented you with evidence and you refused to change your stance. Are you a religious person by any chance?

Col_Decker

Remember kids aren't little adults that can be reasoned with, they are kids ... who've not learnt to reason like adults. Also they are evil minions sent from the depths of Hell who will rip out you heart and test your nerves & patience to breaking point on a weekly / daily / hourly / every f**king minute-ly basis. Show them weakness, and they WILL exploit it.

 

 

Phil_aka_Pip

Drew_fx said:

Phil_aka_Pip said:

I have noted that often when someone seriously disagrees with someone else, that disagreement is often accompanied by some kind of slight on the intelligence. eg "politician x is an idiot". I have in the past been guilty of it. Although during the previous Tory years (pre- NewLabour), I would counter such a proposition with "No, he's not stupid, he knows exactly what he's doing and why he's doing it. The word you need is BASTARD".

I only called you stupid once I presented you with evidence and you refused to change your stance. Are you a religious person by any chance?

psychology and social science research is little different to economic research, and you'll get wide ranges of opinions. I don't regard any of it as "evidence". It's not like measuring the voltage across a pair of terminals.

frankus

the cause and effect isn't as simple to observe, no...

Drew_TNBD

Phil_aka_Pip said:

Drew_fx said:

Phil_aka_Pip said:

I have noted that often when someone seriously disagrees with someone else, that disagreement is often accompanied by some kind of slight on the intelligence. eg "politician x is an idiot". I have in the past been guilty of it. Although during the previous Tory years (pre- NewLabour), I would counter such a proposition with "No, he's not stupid, he knows exactly what he's doing and why he's doing it. The word you need is BASTARD".

I only called you stupid once I presented you with evidence and you refused to change your stance. Are you a religious person by any chance?

psychology and social science research is little different to economic research, and you'll get wide ranges of opinions. I don't regard any of it as "evidence". It's not like measuring the voltage across a pair of terminals.

Ah. Scientologist then.

RocknRollDave

Phil_aka_Pip said:

Drew_fx said:

Phil_aka_Pip said:

I have noted that often when someone seriously disagrees with someone else, that disagreement is often accompanied by some kind of slight on the intelligence. eg "politician x is an idiot". I have in the past been guilty of it. Although during the previous Tory years (pre- NewLabour), I would counter such a proposition with "No, he's not stupid, he knows exactly what he's doing and why he's doing it. The word you need is BASTARD".

I only called you stupid once I presented you with evidence and you refused to change your stance. Are you a religious person by any chance?

psychology and social science research is little different to economic research, and you'll get wide ranges of opinions. I don't regard any of it as "evidence". It's not like measuring the voltage across a pair of terminals.

Then you have a very condescending attitude towards the methods used in these sciences.

Bogwhoppit

Shall we break for tea ?

 

RocknRollDave

Bogwhoppit said:

Shall we break for tea ?

 

*slaps @Bogwhoppit across the back of the head* Elbows off the dining table, young man!

VimFuego

RocknRollDave said:

Bogwhoppit said:

Shall we break for tea ?

 

*slaps @Bogwhoppit across the back of the head* Elbows off the dining table, young man!

I think he meant the drink and not the uncouth act of naming a meal after a drink. I can never tell with northerners if it's cos they were beaten too hard by their parents or not beaten hard enough.

RocknRollDave

We sit at the dining table for Afternoon Tea in this establishment, don't you know?

GuyBoden

The real question I want to ask is this: does beating your children make them better songwriters if they live to grow up?

Myranda

GuyBoden said:

The real question I want to ask is this: does beating your children make them better songwriters if they live to grow up?

Experiment time?! We need a few hundred thousand children, and the ability to split them into corporal punishment groups. We could have some form of placebo beating - perhaps with scary faces but inflatable hands. 

by the time we release them we'll know what happens with 20 year of raising childrens with/without slappings.

GuyBoden

Myranda said:

GuyBoden said:

The real question I want to ask is this: does beating your children make them better songwriters if they live to grow up?

Experiment time?! We need a few hundred thousand children, and the ability to split them into corporal punishment groups. We could have some form of placebo beating - perhaps with scary faces but inflatable hands. 

by the time we release them we'll know what happens with 20 year of raising childrens with/without slappings.

I'd guess that the best pop/rock songs were written in the 60's and 70's, an era of "corporal punishment", where hitting your kids was the norm.

VimFuego

thing is, all music in the future will be written by computers and performed by robots so I fail to see the purpose of beating good song writing skills into children if they're then gonna face a lifetime of frustrated career progression. You're far better off beating something useful into them.

frankus

GuyBoden said:

I'd guess that the best pop/rock songs were written in the 60's and 70's, an era of "corporal punishment", where hitting your kids was the norm.

You mean like Mark Lamarr's:

One born in a wooden shack at the height of the Depression, raised in absolute poverty, sent to a juvenile detention centre for three years. The other born into a middle-class family in Oxford .. which would go on to pen the lyrics "please stop the unborn chicken voices in my head" ... and which would pen the lyrics "I feel good, I knew that I would"?

The problem is that good song-writers write good songs, they're often miserable and dysfunctional people. Lorenz Hart - frankly one of the most amazing lyricists ever was an alcoholic and depressive - it's alleged he'd be locked in a bathroom for days on end by his musical partners in order to get a song out of him.. but what songs.

The problem with mistaking songwriters for insightful people is they capture moods that fleet past the rest of us too soon for us to explore, they help us feel a feeling we soon get distracted from and often they can do this because they get stuck in it for longer than is healthy and sometimes never work out how to avoid destructive emotions. Equally, despite being great for some of us ... other people can get stuck in those moods captivated by a song. Helter Skelter for instance.

jd0272

Mine have been 'bottom tapped', and not 'bottom tapped'. Neither works with any real affect. I now simply remove iPads, PS's, restrict pleasurable things (although the Main Offender finds not going to the cinema with siblings and Mother on a Saturday morning, or not going swimming/splashing/water sliding, and spending the day with Big Bad Dad doing DIY shit or sorting out guitar/rig set up shit quite enjoyable, GRR), and try to make things contemplatively retrospective.

Doesn't work. I've come to the conclusion that kids is kids, and as long as they behave when it matters (school, restaurants, public places), I'll settle for that. 

Phil_aka_Pip

Myranda said:

GuyBoden said:

The real question I want to ask is this: does beating your children make them better songwriters if they live to grow up?

Experiment time?! We need a few hundred thousand children, and the ability to split them into corporal punishment groups. We could have some form of placebo beating - perhaps with scary faces but inflatable hands. 

by the time we release them we'll know what happens with 20 year of raising childrens with/without slappings.

I'd guess that the best pop/rock songs were written in the 60's and 70's, an era of "corporal punishment", where hitting your kids was the norm.

Yes, they'd have been given corporal punishment in the 40s and 50s. Check the pop & rock songs of today, written by kids that didn't get corporal punishment in the 80s and 90s. How many times have I read on these very pages that news songs aren't up to much and the old ones were so much better?

hungrymark

A child who I teach was beaten to death yesterday and his father charged with manslaughter. Not trying to make a cheap point, it just made me think.

Phil_aka_Pip

Not what one would wish on people Mark. Seriously unpleasant. All the best with dealing with it.