TVeblen, please check your e-mail. I will not respond to this further until I am given permission, but I wanted to say that what I advocated is not child abuse.
Thank you.
holds head
Kel:
My father spanked me a couple of times when I was younger. You know what I got out of that? A sore bum, a few tears, and some brief-lived resentment.
My father also sat me down and lectured me when I brought home a bad report card, then took away some of my privileges around the house. You know what I got out of that? A real punishment–losing some of the things that mattered to me–and a new sense of direction at school.
It’s like the link says: guidance for the child to understand and do better, not corporal punishment for the child to be hurt and angry and afraid.
I apologize if this sounds like absolute shite, but it’s (closest to) what I wanted to say…
I’ve read it. And by all means quote the Illinois law if you wish, though your interpretation of hitting an infant with a rod wouldn’t '“cause injury” is disingeuous in the extreme.
Your warning stands, Kel. You’ve established a very unlovely pattern of behavior, much of it concering violence. We are not amused.
TVeblen
Pit mod
In Illinois (the state the Reader is located in), hitting a child with a rod is not per se child abuse. Physical child abuse requires some form of injury (bruises or broken bones, etc.). At not time did I recommend beating a child until it is bruised or its bones are broken. Hitting with a rod does not have to cause injury.
Hitting a child with a rod is an act of love as is meant to help the child not harm the child. Hitting a child until it is bruised or has abroken bone is wrong, but not hitting a defiant child is also wrong. Hitting a child with a rod is not child abuse and I would like to see you point to the law or case that states hitting a child with a rod is per se child abuse.
I am not sure what I said that was wrong in that thread. Men who are abusive show that behavior. I was pointing out that a woman should not have a child with an abusive man for the child’s sake. I can’t see how anyone could argue that it is a good idea for a woman to not be totally careful about avoiding having a child with an abusive man.
Forgot the link:
Nope, I kinda doubted he would.
Did you bother to read your own link?
[Bolding mine.]
So, is a rod not “an object”?
That is a warning sign to call about. It does not per se mean the child is abused.
I disagree with that meaning.
It’s a warning sign, but it doesn’t mean they’re being abused?
I’m really not following your logic here, Kel.
Just because a guy buys a one-way ticket with cash and has no luggage doesn’t mean he is a hijacker, but it sure is a warning sign. Further investigation is needed.
Dude…Karl…
I see absolutely nothing in that link that says “hitting a kid with a rod is OKey-dokey.” Aside from Uvula’s quote, there’s also:
Bolding mine. ISn’t hitting someone with a stick putting them at risk of injury?
So there’s a check mark beside two warning signs of abuse, perpetrated by an individual specifically indicated as a potential abuser, in a link you put forward to support your side.
Quit digging.
Not if doen properly.
It also doesn’t say it is per se illegal.
Um, in order to be defiant, a child must first be capable of understanding and following the parent’s instructions or, if you will, commands. You have already admitted in this thread that you are aware that a ten-month-old baby is not able to understand verbal instructions/commands. Obviously, a pre-verbal infant is not capable of following instructions if he is not able to understand them. Therefore, a ten-month-old is not capable of defiance.
I’m not totally against coropral punishment, but I believe that is should be used sparingly, and only in emergency situations (a smack on the hand when the child is about to grab a hot skillet) or if other, non-violent disciplinary measures have failed.
Hitting a pre-verbal infant is child abuse. Period.
Queen Victoria is here. Everybody straighten up.
…save our gracious Queen
God save the …
We’ve just received word that HRH is now browsing MPSIMS. Please carry on with the eviceration of Mr. Division.
Defiance does not require understanding.
defiance: willingness to contend or fight
Willingness, meaning knowing what is unwanted, and willingly doing the opposite.
Knowing, of course, meaning understanding.
Of course, this means I can’t even label YOU defiant, cause you clearly don’t understand a damn thing.
Damn.
I just got out my dictionary and looked up “defiance” and was just getting ready to post pretty much the same thing and you beat me to it. :wally
Well, just wait. Pretty soon the admin will correct our defiant friend Kel here with the ban rod, and we’ll all be happy.
And it will be an act of luuurve.