I'm of the opinion that when you decide to break the law, you've broken your contract with the constitution and now you're on your own.
Hey, if you want to negotiate with your kids, then that's your parenting style.
I'm with you....especially with Iran. Take out the big boys one by one until you get them all.
Where does this opinion come from? Because there's nothing in the constitution that suggests it's protections are conditional, as you suggest.
You THINK it worked well for you and for your kids, but the research would suggest that all of you would be better off had you not been spanked.
I never hit my kids.
Good point, Bone seems to think experiencing physical pain is the only thing that qualifies as a consequence (when there are clearly many other things that can serve that purpose) and that the only alternative to spanking is negotiation (which is also clearly not true).
All good. And to confirm that someone has broken the law they need to be convicted in a court of law, not summary-justice on Donald Trump’s “really violent day” where a President tells police to forget about the rule law and dole out beatings on the spot.
Bonefish even said that when he stopped being hit for misbehavior the subsequent consequences were worse.
Hmmmm. I spanked my two sons and lets take a look. Son # 1 has three kids...one who went to college on a Baseball scholarship, the other turned down collegiate basketball scholarships to attend Butler on academic scholarship, and the daughter who will go to college on a VB scholarship. He sold his business at the of 43 and never has to work again, though he does. He and his wife own a seven figure lake house in Tennessee. He spanked his kids when deserved.
And also with you, it's pretty telling that you dismiss scientific research as "liberal" because you don't agree with it. And to your story, one anecdote does not disprove the research.
Opinions are like ........well you know.
Because anytime you see a bunch of lefty libs protesting something, there's a bunch of them that have purple hair, etc.
Is a spank on the the butt considered hitting?
When the spankings stopped having the intended impact, which happens when a child reaches a physical size, then a parent has to switch tactics and implement new consequences. Often times, a kid would rather have the temporary sting on the butt as opposed to being grounded for a week.
Libs can't differentiate between spanking and beating. To them, any act of laying a hand on a child is an act of violence. When in reality, it's an act of getting their attention, quickly and on the spot and letting them know certain behavior will not be tolerated and will have consequences.
It's not my style, but it's fine. There are plenty of parental choices that can and do still equate to producing a fine adult.
That's why sentencing guidelines and multiple offense sentencing enhancements can and do exist.
I agree. Some spank, some don't and each has their reasons. But, people also have to understand the difference between a spanking and a beating.
Is one hit with a wooden spoon the same as a spanking? What about 3 or 4? Does it matter where you hit them with the spoon? Is hitting them on the head or the back the same as on the butt? You said after the spoon comes the belt. Is that on the butt? Is the child wearing pants or naked? If you hit them on the back with the belt but it leaves no marks is that just like a spanking? How many hits with the belt does it take to go from getting their attention to a beating? I assume you have a threshold. 10? Have you ever lost track of the number of hits because you were angry at what the child did or didn't do? Can you see how a spanking could easily turn into a beating for parents less disciplined than you are?
All spanking should always be on the butt (unless your child uses some really foul language, in which case, a soap bar in the mouth is appropriate). Yeh, it may sting for a second but you're not doing any physical damage.
Or, you could just take all electronics away and send them to their room with only homework to entertain them. I found that to be extremely effective.
Like I said: Do whatever style of discipline works for you. But don't condemn someone else's that works for them.
It's not so much my opinion as it is the fact of the matter.
That's for judges to decide. At no point should one's history cause them to forfeit the due process protections of the constitution.
That doesn't answer my question as to why the purple hair, in and of itself, is bad.
Ah, so you just discriminate based on appearance. Wonder how many great employees you've missed out on due this policy.
No it doesn't, you just don't like it. Hair dye and piercings have nothing to do with one's job performance, except in certain, very narrow, circumstances.
Purple hair, pink hair, blue hair, you know what I mean. Making yourself look like an alien shows a lack of judgement and professionalism. Again, unless you're applying for a job at Starbucks or someplace else where you're not necessarily judged by your appearance.
100% I judge based on appearance. How my employee looks, acts, dresses, etc is a reflection on the company and it's management. Looking like a clown is a bad impression.
Yes, they do. While you and other libs may look at hair dye and piercings as a person expressing their individuality, in the white collar professional work, it show's a person's poor decision-making, lack of conformity and a potential headache to manage.
Exactly...welcome to the real world!
It doesn't, you just think it does because you're not willing to consider that people who are different from you can still be good employees or, even, good people. Thankfully, this attitude seems to be gradually fading.
What industry do you work? Do your kids have purple hair and a nose ring?
It's well known that the DA's in major left wing areas are not prosecuting which is why a lot of this petty crime continues to go on.
Possibly. The concept he's talking about would work, but it's not something you do in a civilized society. Sometimes he talks in ways that you just cannot do here. He knows this, but I don't know why he continues to do it.
Chump continues to do it because of what I’ve been saying all along. He is an evil jackass. Similar when first became president. He spoke at an event where the audience were mostly law enforcement. He literally encouraged the officers to perform police brutality. He told them that when they are putting suspect into the car, don’t be so nice as they always put the suspect’s head down. The sad thing but not surprising is that some of the policers in the crowd were clapping.
Yes he's so evil that his evil deeds as president include.... Remind me again?
.
I'd be glad to. Here is a direct consequence of his repeated, constantly misguided, evil words:
So when the people were peaceful up until the CP started throwing and shooting munitions into the crowd didn't have anything to do with it?I'd be glad to. Here is a direct consequence of his repeated, constantly misguided, evil words:
And I truly hope
