response 181 of 241:

Aug 26 16:30 UTC 2003

This seems to fit in:  There are the "Pink Pistols", homosexuals who think
it's a good idea for them to have guns.  They either did or are setting up
a "chapter" in Michigan.  Somebody of the triangle foundation said this is
a bad idea, homosexuals should be at the forefront of gun control.

response 183 of 241:

Aug 26 17:06 UTC 2003

Haven't some gays been shot just because they are gay? That would make
the two issues somewhat less than totally separate. 

response 185 of 241:

Aug 26 17:46 UTC 2003

No, your's is. Others being shot also establishes a connection between
them and the issue of gun control. 

response 187 of 241:

Aug 26 18:08 UTC 2003

re180:  so you advocate a return to the humiliation
of corporal punishment in our public schools?

like maybe when a kid misbehaves the admin. could take him/her
to the local laundry-mat and *shake* them.

perhaps they could hire YOU to do that, heck...maybe they'd
hire a second lookout to keep an eye peeled for pesky
social workers, eh?


moron.

response 189 of 241:

Aug 26 18:46 UTC 2003

There is a difference between punishment adn assault in my mind.  Spanking
a child on his rump will make an impression and get him motivated to change
his behavior.

Stomping on toes, or slapping them, shaking them, or making them eat wierd
concotions fall under abuse.  But you posterior is designed to take a few well
placed whacks without injury to anything other than your ego.

No whips, no chains, and no kicks to the groin.  This isn't torture, nor is
it rocket science.

It is punishment designed to change an attitude.  same goes with standing in
a corner or making you wear a dunce cap.  It causes the individual
humiliation, adn gives them incentive to change their behavior.  

Time outs, trips to the councillor, and reason have only minimal effect on
a mind that hasn't learned to reason yet.

response 191 of 241:

Aug 26 19:39 UTC 2003

Fortunately most kids don't have much independent income, or a driver's
license.  While just bitching at them might not work, being grounded, not
getting to go to the amusement park, etc. can be a big deal.

response 193 of 241:

Aug 26 20:40 UTC 2003

I dont know. I think that my parent's calm manner of talking about 
issues including their evil "make up your own punishment" thing was 
pretty effective and probably was *more* effective than beatings. I 
used to wish they would beat me because it would be over fast and would 
be better than the whole sitting in the living room trying to explain 
why I had done what I had done thing. Of course my parent's method 
taught me to reason and to think about my actions. 

There is an important difference between kittens and children. Children 
*understand* language which is why punishment doesnt have to be 
physical. You can say to a child, "you must not go into the street and 
if you do, you will have a time out or you will have a toy taken away 
or whatever the punishment is. Physical punishment might work but I 
dont think it works as well as other forms of behavior modification and 
*certainly* isnt worth the other lessons it teaches (like whomever is 
biggest and can hit hardest has the most power). 

response 195 of 241:

Aug 26 21:07 UTC 2003

I'm talking about two and three year olds. They don't understand. Believe me,
I've dealt with them enough that I can safely say they don't GET I have to
do x because it's safer. I did this whole conversation on Saturday with Katie,
about how Griffin and I couldn't play on the high bars of the playset even
if she wanted us to, because I'm too big and Griffin can't balance. She was
very unhappy about it, although I explained it to her. While this was
non-problematic, she still didn't understand why it wasn't safe, really. 

response 197 of 241:

Aug 26 21:55 UTC 2003

If a child is old enough to learn right and wrong by pain he or she is
most certainly old enough to get the same message through language and
other non-violent means.  I feel real sorry for the two year old in
your care, Twila. 

Kids get hit because the hitting adults are out of ideas and smacking is
much easier than figuring out better parenting skills. 

Too, if hitting is so effective why does it have to be repeated, often,
and only stops when the child is big enough to hit back?

response 199 of 241:

Aug 26 23:06 UTC 2003

You do not beat children.
you do not hit children.

you may spank children.  

there is a difference.

response 201 of 241:

Aug 27 01:07 UTC 2003

I think spanking may have its place before children are old enough to be
talked to reasonably.  On the other hand, as I recall, what spanking taught
me as a kid is "getting caught hurts."  It wasn't until my parents started
explaining to me why what I did was bad that I started to feel guilty about
doing stuff that was wrong, which is a much better motivation against doing
things than fear of getting caught.

Cats have no sense of guilt, so the best you can hope for is to teach them
that getting caught doing something bad is painful. ;>

response 203 of 241:

Aug 27 02:10 UTC 2003

I think that what I am trying to say, for those of you who are missing my
point, is that at some times, and with some kids, spanking can be a tool in
discipline. I am not going to say it's effective with every kid, and I'm
certainly not going to say that it's what I'd do except in certain very
defined circumstances and my definition of spanking is a swat with my hand
on a child's butt -- not hard. Not enough to bruise, nor do anything except
get his or her attention. Kind of the equivalent of the squirting with water.
But it would only be with MY kid, for goodness's sake, and I'm not in the
kid-raising business anymore. 

As I have said before, I know the difference between being beaten (which I
WAS, as a child) and a spank. There's a world of difference between abuse and
discipline. I'm not advocating abuse. Ever.