Dear frostymug,

You go ahead and give a girl a yellow gold ring when she asks for white gold.

Also, I'm not a leftist, bitch face.

The primary means of transmitting social values is the family unit. Destruction of the family unit inhibits transfer of social values, and allows radical social change at a fast clip. Want to remake the face of society in a short time? Break up the family. Cripple parents and encourage divorce. Dope the kids so they never learn how to manage on their own. You'll see that kids are more likely to listen to 'talking points' than their own parents.

There's a reason that everything that is bad for our kids is becoming law. There's always a good argument for it on the surface, but it's never the real reason.

imo

Ah, Fleck, you just can't comprehend the real issue can you?

"You go ahead and give a girl a yellow gold ring when she asks for white gold."

Thing is, if she were my daughter to give gifts to there would be two fundamental differences, one: she would be a person who would be appreciative of getting something nice she didn't have before, and two: there would never be a time where she would dictate to me how things would be. People forget that kids aren't meant to have the same rights as adults because they aren't equipped to make decisions about any real life issues as they have not the life experience and that is why parents have to shelter kids. It's a product of nature and only in this overtly-retarded liberal world does the thing we're here to protect become the thing that dictates how we will act. Isn't that like letting the inmates run the asylum?

Syllogisms can be perfectly valid. There are ways to use a syllogism that are flawed, of course. Syllogisms with a fourth term are invalid. Or in your example, syllogisms with weak premises. But your example was a gross oversimplification for the actual argument.

While hitting a kid should not be done lightly, you need to understand that ALL discipline is ultimately rooted in force, or it is not effective once tested by the subject. No exceptions. Every effective form of discipline ultimately has force as a final fall-back.

In the world outside the family, you can't even refuse to pay a speeding ticket. If you refuse to pay you get a warrant. When caught, you're brought in on contempt. If you struggle, you are handcuffed. If you fight, you are tasered. Unless you can beat the system legally (which is quite common of course), you WILL pay the ticket. Ultimate force backs every rule of law, down to the smallest infraction.

The same thing applies to parenting. When a kid does something wrong, you can talk to him. If he doesn't listen, then give him a time-out. If he refuses, cut his allowance. If that doesn't work, ground him. If he sneaks out.. Then what? More talking? Repeat the loop? Just assume you failed, and let him do whatever he wants?

I hope for your sake that you will be a better parent, and consider using force to back the rules. Otherwise your kid, having tested your rules and finding them powerless, will develop habits that will cause serious issues right into his adulthood. And you could have stopped it with a 1 minute spanking, and a brief 20 minutes of crying.

I'm not saying that you beat the kid every time he does something wrong. I think you should exaust all other possibilities of behavioral correction first (so long as they aren't mentally abusive, like guilt-tripping etc). But when the kid refuses to abide by non-physical punishments, or when they have no effect, then the only option is physical punishments. Because to a loving parent, ineffective discipline is NOT an option. A kid will survive a spanking, and forget about it soon enough. But a bad upbringing can ruin his whole life.

Moreover, it's important that a child learns that force underlies discipline before they have the misfortune of having a police officer demonstrate this to them. If they grow up in a lawless home, what will happen when they enter a lawful society?

You know, there used to be a time when people had no trouble differentiating 'punishment' from 'abuse'. We knew the difference between a vicious smack, and a carefully considered and calculated spanking. It was obvious, just from looking at the face of the father, and the actions of the child. Now suddenly, no one can see the difference?

It's not rocket science man, billions of people have been raised this way in the past, with no problems. Looking at people today, and comparing them to the polite, hard working people 70 years ago (who grew up with corporal punishment), what on earth would possess anyone to conclude that our modern parenting methods are better??