Indeed, and indeed.
Sorry, I just have to respond to it one more time regarding this:
which I posted in reply to this comment from post 192:
So I provided the context and defended my OP, and yet I’m still the one leaping tall conclusions from a single bound that there are no options in child rearing in general (somehow I neglected to mention that I was talking about Lynn’s comments regarding this one instance, oopsie me) other than the stinkeye and aggravated assault.
Oh, well, I’m going to take the advice of the old chestnut about teaching pigs to sing (it wastes your time and encourages trolls).
We’d all love to, probably, but Lynn hasn’t posted in 6 days (which itself seems highly unusual).
Yes. Indeed.
Been wondering about that myself.
Aaaand scene. Mince once again sidesteps the slightest danger that she might be shown to be wrong about something and attempts to turn the focus on someone else. Hopefully she will keep to her word this time to be done with her stubborn refusal to see any view but her own, and her extreme exaggerations in interpretation.
It depends on what you think the larger problem is. I tend to think that those who profess that the hands off approach to child bearing is not only the best way, but that any other method must be abusive is the most glaring issue here. A secondary issue, almost as big, is the tendency of people here to leap to conclusions based on little or faulty information, and then to stubbornly refuse to see anything else. Kinda like a toddler.
What do you think is the larger problem? The completely unverified slur that Lynn thinks children should be beaten?
How about that Bears game last night, huh? That really put us in a good position to make a playoff run. (I know it’s silly referring to a professional football team I’m not part of as “us,” but I just can’t help myself). Tough game next week against Detroit. How you feeling bout that one?
No, you haven’t. All you have done is the same thing you did in the OP - pointed to some of what Lynn said and provided your interpretation of it. You have added your refusal to believe anyone else’s interpretation and a reference to stinkeye for some reason, but really other than that all you do is repeat yourself. Which doesn’t add context nor clarification.
But, whatever. If the thread dies before Lynn gets back from where ever she is, she won’t have to be insulted by this, nor waste time trying to explain her words to you all. Win/win.
ETA: I see I’ve upset Mince. Oh well.
Who said that? I’m serious. I’m so completely confused about where you are coming from here. The unwarranted assumptions about Lynn I can see, but not this larger point you are trying to make. It seems like a lot of folks are saying that with physical discipline ‘‘it depends,’’ and that seems perfectly reasonable to me.
I’m male, FTR.
Hehe, she’s 0/2 on poster gender guessing.
Olives, no one said it. She’s latched onto one idea (that anyone who’s against corporal punishment of children is a mouthbreathing reactionary who thinks any kind of physical discipline==abuse, which no one has said) and you’re not going to get a straight answer out of her, just more personal attacks against those she doesn’t agree with.
She’s not being Lynn’s white knight out of regard for Lynn, it’s because she gets to argue the minority position rant and rave against the mostly unified opinions in this thread and the judge thread. In other words, trolling.
I was wrong that it’s technically incorrect.
You’re wrong for reading into it what you’re reading into it.
There, we’re even.
Yes, there are folks here who are saying it depends and it isn’t those that I am responding to. What I am seeing tho are some people leaping to the conclusion that any sort of physical discipline must be akin to a beating of some sort, beginning with the OP. This is going to get long, but I want to be clear -
OP - Lynn is quoted as saying that some folks swear to never physically discipline their kids, and the OP’s response is to talk about how his parents “never raised a hand to us”, as if physical discipline must equal striking a child. Later, Lynn talks about some kids who “simply shrug off groundings and non-physical discipline”, which causes the OP to jump to “the options are either grounding/ no computer time, or beating a teenager black and blue while screaming for them to submit”, as if there is no middle ground.
ZipperJJ says “Ever since Diogenes the Cynic has been banned, I feel like Lynn is getting sucked into the void that he left”, to which you respond 'Yeah, but Dio would never condone violence against children" as if that is what Lynn has done.
saoirse, in response to Lynn’s “A lot of non-parents vow to never physically discipline their kids. Then, they have kids. If they keep their vow, they usually end up with out of control kids who will do as they damn well please.” says "The absolute worst parents I’ve ever known were the ones who said this. There’s something about the attitude of “I’d like to not hit them, but they’re just so bad that brings out the worst in people.” as if physical discipline must mean hitting them.
**Hampshire ** says "People who defend physical discipline IMHO are just lazy. “Why take 5 minutes to put them in a 5 minute time-out when I can just smack em’ in 2 seconds?” as if physical discipline must equal smack a kid around.
And that is just the first page - do you really need more? Can you see how I got the idea that these folks and more think that any sort of physical discipline must mean the kid is getting abused? Add to that the number of parents who (at least claim they) are raising their children without ever using any physical discipline, and think that even a swat to a diapered butt is abuse, and can you see how I got to “I tend to think that those who profess that the hands off approach to child bearing is not only the best way, but that any other method must be abusive is the most glaring issue here”?
As is usual, the first problem is that most people, and I’d venture to say pretty much everyone in the thread given the context, use “physical discipline” to include spankings and beatings but NOT timeouts, restraining them gently, etc.
It’s certainly how I’d understand the term.
Ugh. You picked Detroit, didn’t you? Yeah, I admit that’s a bit upsetting. But I think the Bears have a solid chance here. That’s why they play the game, as they say.
I’d question which of the various and contradictory accounts you’ve given of when you received your education counts as the dark ages, but what would be the point?
Nah, I reckon Lynn’s paying her to leap on the grenade and distract attention.
Now you’re upsetting me because you’re reminding me of what an embarrasment the Eagles are this season :mad:
Anyway, I can’t stay mad because my Giants managed to beat the Patsies on Sunday (and not just because my boss is a big Patsies fan and I get to gloat about it for a while.)
Wait, you’re a Giants’ fan and you aren’t delighted that the Eagles had a collective nervous breakdown on national television? How is such a thing possible?
Also, the Bears are going to win. You heard it here… well, probably not first, but you heard it here.
Obviously my response is going to be shaded by my own interpretation of things, but I do think her comments crossed the line into blaming-the-victim territory. Maybe my particular response to Zipper was unwarranted but I’m still upset by **Lynn’**s comment and wish she would account for it.