Posted on 08/31/2017 9:19:47 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan
"How to Lower Your Child's IQ," "Why Spanking Does Not Work," and other videos.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Daughters and sons should be taught that there are adversaries in the world, but not that their parents numbers amongst those adversaries, for their parents should be their most faithful allies.
I’d trade a few IQ points for a populace that knows how to behave itself.
I think threats of afterlife retribution are counterproductive to most non-believers.
But just to moderate the debate a little, let me tell you my own belief about spanking. I prefer, always, to use reason over brute force. If the child *understands* why I made my directive, perhaps he/she won’t need to be disciplined next time. This particularly works when establishing standards of behavior within the family that must be observed (i.e. “A McGowan would never do such a thing. A member of our family would do this instead...”).
However, children who are willfully disobedient or simply too young to know the danger they are causing may need brute force as a means of enforcing discipline and this includes spanking as a last resort. The pain to the buttocks is brief but the lesson learned can stay a long time.
In addition, you reinforce parental love later so the fear is tempered with reassurance that the parent still loves the child. Only, the spanking bullet remains in the holster for future use when necessary.
Reasoned minds can disagree with spanking policies. My niece’s family use “time outs” and have never had to resort to more. However, just like nuclear weapons, I’d rather have them as an option and not use them than be told I can’t use them because they’ve been banned by a bunch of do-gooders raising little Johnny to be a purple-haired pierced transgendered little snowflake.
Doggone, Els. Ae you sure the guy who translated this had the right set of goggles?
The feeding schedule of an infant is whenever they are hungry.
They often go through growth spurts and NEED more nurishment at those times.
When adults are hungry they go and feed themselves. They can do that.
The child is completely at the mercy of the adult in that regard and forcing them to go hungry to teach them “discipline” is child abuse.
There are plenty of other arenas in which to teach them self-discipline.
Using food is NOT one of them.
The feeding schedule of an infant is whenever they are hungry.
They often go through growth spurts and NEED more nurishment at those times.
When adults are hungry they go and feed themselves. They can do that.
The child is completely at the mercy of the adult in that regard and forcing them to go hungry to teach them “discipline” is child abuse.
There are plenty of other arenas in which to teach them self-discipline.
Using food is NOT one of them.
Your example of your cousin is equally worthless then.
Nope.
Arthur has indeed claimed in the past to be a Catholic priest and has recently made reference to refusing to remit the sins of someone he didn’t feel was repentant.
On a regular schedule, the child may have all the required nourishment needed at the established time for dispensing it. Whole armies function on the basis of scheduled activities, mess time included. Your hypothesis of what adults do when they are "hungry" simply would not work in the office, the factory, or wherever personal discipline supersedes self-gratification as the governing operational principle of fulfilling the conditions of employment.
Your argument here won't hold water where self-control is necessary for people to get along with each other, and I refuse any further debate about this issue. Do whatever you want in your home, but somewhere along the line take an inventory to determine whether it fosters family unity and personal maturity to the degree you were hoping for.
Me too. I wasn’t whipped too often because my mother would store stuff up for months so when I really stepped over the line at school and got sent to the Principal’s office, she’d use my horse quirt on me.
But I managed to score in the 99.9 percentile of the SATs back in the day before they were dumbed down. I guess I would have been Einstein if it weren’t for that danged quirt.
Iff’n ya not been a sassy mouthed squirt;
you’d gotten way less of the quirt.
A switch would suffice,
or a pillow’d be nice.
You’d keep on wearing your shirt.
"FOR THOSE WHOM THE LORD LOVES HE DISCIPLINES, AND HE SCOURGES EVERY SON WHOM HE RECEIVES."Hebrews 12:6
You said infant, not child.
There’s a difference and if you or your kids don’t see that then nobody can help you.
As far as having raised them “successfully”, that remains to be seen.
The IQ of one who readily believes this would quantify a quality that has failed to inform an understanding of where the anti- spanking movement comes from and what its purpose is.
Then you are a mocker who raised mockers.
Duly noted.
People have killed children through this feeding schedule crap. Starved them to death.
There's a world of difference between an infant crying form hunger and a toddler pitching a temper tantrum to have their own way.
If you can't see that, then I question your ability to parent.
And I cannot imagine the callousness of a parent who would let an infant scream in hunger just to fit their convenience.
And what if the child isn't hungry when it's time to eat? What do you do? Shove the food down their throats and force them to eat to show them who's boss?
Yeah, that'll teach them who's in charge alright.
And if they get hungry early, you let them scream for 2-3 hours?
All you are teaching that infant is that its' parents cannot be trusted to meet its needs.
Do you change them on a schedule, too? Ooops, you pooped 2 hours before your scheduled changing. Too bad for you. Lay in your own filth. That'll show you who's in charge around here.
Good points.
You have issues. That much is abundantly clear. I’m sorry for whatever happened. Physical punishment is a tool that should rarely be used when raising children.
‘
It's not clear to me what your point is here. If it means being aware of the progressive stages of development of a child. When I said "babe," or "infant." I meant what I said. "Child" is the more general term covering all the developmental stages. In another sense it refers to the relationship. My youngest child is now age fifty-six, but she is not childish in deportment.
So, what are you getting at? If you think that I mean that it is important to start training the child as a newborn babe as to whether he/she or the caretaker is setting priorities, you would be absolutely correct.
If you haven't learned this from theory and/or experience as valid, then you will have simply hosted free-range juveniles, not "raised" them. If your children are as independent, demanding, and self-serving as those you described, then it's you that brought it about through a false representation as to "how to meet their needs." (But I hope this is not really the case.)
Even a gardener likes to have his vegetables or flowers learn to keep their places through cultivation. Otherwise he only has well-born uncontrolled weeds from good seeds.
As far as having raised them “successfully”, that remains to be seen.
It doesn't "remain to be seen." The method has been proven by results in my grandchildren, some of whom are now in their mid-twenties. In them I see both the method you choose and the one I have described. The difference is starkly clear, especially in which familial environments allegiance to the Lord thrives and where it does not.
If you wish to have some details, we can do that privately, not here. I don't think you read through what I already wrote. Apparently you've got yourself so worked up that you miss the points. I'm 80, raised my own 4 children, and have observed what they have done with theirs, all 19 of them. And my experience and education is broad enough to have observed and analyzed the history of many other families.
I can assure you that the plan I described really works, despite the irrational exaggerations you've characterized my discussion with. I see that what I wrote contradicted your beliefs so firmly that you've gone ballistic. Reading through what you've written, it seems clear that you are so entrapped by misplaced compassion and distorted caricaturization that your position is ludicrous, not real.
Your reaction surprises me.
I didn't think so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.