Warning: Undefined array key "HTTP_ACCEPT_LANGUAGE" in /var/www/minitokyo/www/includes/common.inc.php on line 360 Should children be hit as a form of punishment? - Minitokyo

Should children be hit as a form of punishment?

page 6 of 16 « Previous 1... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 16 Next » 371 total items

I think its real funny that you would dismiss research over your own opinions. Old man has written?! There are TONS research on this.
Its both reasearched on the mental and emotional aspect of this and YOU claim that this is unvalid?
tsk tsk - just an ignorant person would disqualify up to date research.
If you treat a child with respect and communicate in ways a
child understands from the very birth, it will not grow up spoiled. The reason many kids grow up spoiled today is because they have too much freedom and too little boundaries.
But with BOUNDARIES; its not meant physical punishment.
But understandment, reason, love and respect.
Not with fear and phsycial punishment.

And yes, PEOPLE need to edcuated to understand this! Have you gone into depth with what happens to a child who experiences punishment? Have you!? Have you watched over time what damages that come out of it?! I guess NO!
You have only concluded that you "supposedly" did not take damage of it - however you dont know that!
Because you have not researched this and the underlying effects of - LIKE RESEARCHERS HAVE!

Sorry - but I belive research and the fact that I've seen results of that - over people who clearly dont own any knowledge other that "I grew up fine" "Common sense" then real basic hard CONFIRMED facts.


Again - I can hand you so much confirmed facts on this that you will feel overwhelmed. Just say the word and I'll provide it. I have extensive facts and research about this to back me up, what do you have?

And btw- I think you misunderstood the law in Norway.
Its forbidden TO SPANK your child - you are sent to Jail if you do so! Its ruled as child abuse - know why!? Because most modern western countries are known with what child resarch says - we are educated in that when we are in educations that involve children.

I'm sorry Mrchak - but really - you can never get anywhere on this topic - beacuse I'm updated on this - I've 4 years on education on this matter.

Mrchak

Mrchak

Welcome to Oblivion

ofcourse in the books you can read what they want you to read... I know also a guy that works with kids and he is a skinhead. You know what skinheads are right? OK so i said that the reacism is wrong and he told me to read some books about hitler and how white ppl are the highest race... Those are also books from very high appriciated ppl also but i will not read that... And if i do its not going to influence me to hate every race than white... So if i read this it is education? And if i confirm what it says in those books i am educated then?

OK set up some boundaries but how will you control them... A child goes over those boundaries and how do you act... Just tell him what wrong? If you yell at him he will fear you more than just spanking it... Bruses fade but the mentally pain remains the same...

Facts and reasearch dont have anything to do with real life...
Is IQ the real measurment of our mind and smart? No it is not... Coz everywhere the IQ is different... You can do IQ test in US and be brilliant and you can take one in Zambia and make out as a complete retard...

What are the damages you were speaking of? You will not see a child hard damaged from just one spanking... You will see damages on violently abused children which is not spanking... You probably live in Norway so maybe there is different maybe the kids there are smart and can handle the boundaries and be polite without hitting but in the rest of the world it just doesnt work that way...
EDIT: And also maybe when you go to work with such children who were abused ofcourse you are gonna pitty them and feel sorry but how are the children that live normally? Are they spoiled? Dont they whine a lot? I can feel sorry for those kids but to see 20 kids in one place who are the so called victims and compare them to the spoiled brats that i see every day i am gonna say spank the thing. He is not going to be beaten up he will just be spanked and no bruse will be there...
And you didnt answer me what are your expiriences when you were a kid? Did you get spanked?

A spoiled child is not only the child who wants from his parents bought something. NO. A spoiled child is a child who will whine for every action that a parent takes. OK you can talk to reasonable children but what about those who are not blessed as the peaceful and reasonable ones? The kids that just dont listen... What will you do if you now go to a kid and tell him what he did wrong and kicks you in the leg? Are you gonna talk to him again and he kicks you again? And again and again?

Captain of the 1st devision in [MicroTokyo] group

1) Mentioning studies in an argument are useless unless you explain HOW they got those numbers. For certain studies, they are about children who are ABUSED -- meaning, they are repeatedly hit for no apprent reason or they are hit seriously. It is obvious that they will have mental scars no doubt about that. We are talking about normal situations between parent and child, not extremes -- we're not trying to make spoiled brats or abused children. Hitting a child once or twice should not constitute as abuse if it is used WISELY, not blatantly.

Let's put it this way... a child is playing by the fire. A parent repeatedly tells the child that fire is hot and it will burn. The ignorant child ignores the parent and puts hand into fire anyways -- resulting in painful burn. Lesson learned, end of story -- the child knows that fire is hot and not to put an unprotected hand in there. If the child is somehow some sort of pyromaniac in this example, and repeatedly puts hand closer and closer to the fire again, then the effect of pain goes away, and so does the lesson. See the connection i'm making towards everyone's comments? You all have to know where you are in the balance of things -- the ultra-lenient, the middle-of-the-road, and the ultra-disciplinarian. Ultra lenient breeds spoiled brats, and ultra disciplinarians breed violent, socially inept kids.

2) Spoiled children are assuming the way they have grown up in is a household of too much entitlement -- reward for not doing something, reward for not breaking something. This form of entitlement is wrong -- it is stressing that the parent is weaker than the child, and that the child is able to think that they have the upper hand in negotiations... they'll "threaten" to break something if they don't get what they want. This is the start of having "spoiled" children. Just like how some people say that spanking is a lazy parent's way to discipline, this appeasement is also a lazy parent's way of attempting positive discipline. It creates a culture of entitlement... "if i do THIS now, i get this... but what if i go one step further and do THESE TWO things... i EXPECT to get TWICE as much rewards to NOT do it."

Instead, parents can practice positive reinforcement -- reward a child for doing something GOOD and continue rewarding that behavior. This is not that much different from the way employees are rewarded @ work. They are rewarded for exceptional work, customer service, etc. while employees can also be punished for doing bad acts at work like INTENTIONALLY stealing, abusing co-workers, etc. with the key word there being 'intentionally'. This is not much different from spoiled brats acting up -- they abuse their parents, they steal when they can, they throw enough tantrums in one day to drive anyone insane.

3) Please do not insult the intelligence of children, they are wiser than you think. Humans get stupider as they grow older because they get bogged down by the thinking of "if i do this that will happen"... they no longer think in straight lines. Children will still follow Ockham's Razor -- the direct path will be the most efficient path. This means that they think 1+1=2, not 1+1+100-10+50-140=2. Also, one single method is not good for disciplining children. They must get a mix of the two forms -- physical punishment and rewards. It depens on the child, and it is up to the parent to realize what proper mix between the two is necessary per child.

I do not approve of blatant abuse, but I also do not approve of appeasement. Both are methods that lazy parents employ to discipline their children. If parents don't have time, resources, and/or patience to properly raise their kids, then don't have unprotected sex or purposely try to have kids. Having children is a privilege and honor, not a right. The difference between children and employees is that children don't go to jail when they misbehave.

Right - Mrchak - this is going to be a BIG post.

"I know also a guy that works with kids and he is a skinhead. You know what skinheads are right? OK"
So we are comparing a skinhead with highly skilled, educated people who actually work with children in their daily life now?
A really valid comparison indeed.

The people who have written those books are people who work in kindergarten and school and are also extremely skilled
in what they teach. Some of them have done research in observering children in kindergarten and some have done research through
discussions and interviews with children - of course they know better than YOU - who do not work with children, who dont have several years in
enviroments with children - who's only experience is his own. Cause you can not put yourself in others experiences when you dont know all the facts to
their life.

"Facts and reasearch dont have anything to do with real life..."
This is were you fail so miserably it hurts. It has everything to do with real life.
Facts COME OF experiences and observations of things IN the real life - otherwise it would not be known as FACTS, but merely
presumptions.

So you dont think reserach has anything to do with real life? How do you think we have gotten so far in our day and age?
Namely through researching things and finding out facts.

I am not talking about abused children (hitting kids to a pulp), we are talking about normal children experiencing fear and anguish through parental control.
If you as a parent can't contain yourself -if you let your kid provokoe you so much that you actually use
force to control your child - than you as a parent have lost control and respect - you have removed yourself from the responsibility you have as an adult, as
a parental figure, as a rolemodel for your children.

I was not spanked as a child, I was talked to, explained why I should not do this and that.
And it worked like a charm. I respect my parents so much for that.
Knowing why I was not allowed to do stuff, either because it made mom/dad sad
or when the reasons were explained, made me feel safe and I knew the boundaries around me.
They were there for my own good. I never feared being hitted.

If a child kicks me, I will take him with me and put him in a room and say that he will stay there until he calms down. Thats
what we do in kindergarten - it works perfectly every time. After the kid has calmed down, we camly explain why he can not go around
kicking people - we appeal to how he would have felt if someone kicked him. Belive me, they get it right away.
Kids are not stupid, they
have the possibility to put themselves in others situations. A 1 year old can feel comfort for other children, a 2 year old can understand
other childrens perspective.
If you think that Rome was built in a day, you are wrong. It will repeat itself many times, but the more times they understand, the faster they will stop doing it.
If you as a parent let a child do as he wants too many times - he is will prolly get spoiled.
But there are kids who are uncontroallbly - they need professinonal
help which are provided by different child services.

"Corporal punishment in Europe and in the U.S.
Not one European country legally condones the hitting of schoolchildren, and nowhere is there any discernible movement within
European teachers' professional associations to repeal the prohibition. Moreover, in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Austria, Cyprus
and Italy, hitting children, even in the home by parents, is not legally permitted. This prohibition is now being considered
by the governments of several other European countries, and the number of nonhitters will likely increase in the near future."

"It is the information that all kind of corporal punishment (spanking, hitting, beating) of children by
their parents and teachers is profoundly immoral and dangerous for their future.
They have the right to protest against this humiliation since most of Governments (except the USA and Somalia)
signed the UN Convention that obliged them to protect children's rights.

Today, it is scientifically proven that beating children teaches them violence and creates fear.
It is also severely humiliating and induces destructive opinions into the brain of future parents.
Above all, it produces their emotional blindness.

Thus, the only reason why parents continue to believe in this misleading message and to beat their children
is the fact that they too were beaten and silenced when they were small children.
They learned this wrong lesson very early, and it is difficult for them to get rid of it.
They believe that children don't suffer because this was what they were told. Thus their sensibility for the suffering they inflict on them is frozen.

Then, over the following twenty years, I did research on childhood and wrote ten books to
let people know, that children are born innocent and that they need love, care and protection,
but never violence, to become compassionate adults."

For a long time, I was puzzled by the fact that even very intelligent people could
say children need to be spanked, so that they can better learn at school.
I wondered why it was not obvious to them that you can't learn anything of value in a state of fear.
Scared children learn only to suppress their strongest emotions, like rage and sorrow, to deal with fear, to lie, and to pretend."

By Alice Miller @ 2000.


Another:

"I've read some of your literature and I felt compelled to respond.
I was spanked as a child and I've paid close attention to the consequences and the effects it has on my parenting.
Spanking should not be confused with abuse. For parents who spank lovingly, and there is such a thing, it is a last resort to correct.
Some children require more firm discipline than others. Study the effects of adulthood on children raised with no discipline.
Parents should seek out healthy boundaries to spanking when in question.
I am an advocate for it because I have seen it change disrespect to respect and it can happen quickly.
Children who are loved unconditionally can be spanked and learn from it.
They go on to thank their parents for teaching boundaries and live life not crossing other peoples boundaries.
Spanking is a personal decision and should not be judged by others unless they are willing to do the disciplining for you.
Spare the Rod Spoil the Child.

Respectfully, T."

Alice Miller responds: To spank a child is a cruel, spiteful, ignoble, mean,
disrespectful and dirty act because it is carried out towards a powerless person who is not allowed
to defend herself / himself nor to escape from the aggressor and his ignorance.
It is also a most destructive act because it damages the brain of the
victims who will repeat their whole lives the lies and feeble mindedness of the King Solomon's
"Spare the rod, spoil the child." Exactly the opposite is true.
The rod spoils the child and leaves lingering effects for a whole life.
Solomon learned his lie from his own parents as you learned it from yours, as your children will learn it from you. "

This is just ONE of the reserachers - I have LOADS more and could probably write a whole essay on this.
(in fact I have LOL in one of my exams).

If you want more - I can provide more.

unicorn2006

Retired Moderator

unicorn2006

:.ICE:.:BIN.:

It seems like there isn't much of a distinction being made between abuse and physical punishment, which I think is key to this discussion. Perhaps a better way to frame the question is, "Do parents who truly love their child use physical punishment?"

And the Alice Miller that Sumomo- cites, is a practician and a psychoanalyst by training, and wrote on 'abused' children, which I think is different from 'punished' children of the initial question. Maybe 'abuse' should more clearly be defined - is laying hands on a child necessarily abuse?

The problem that I have with this type of research data is that they all come from correlational studies, not experiments. It's clearly unethical to see how spanking affects a child in an experimentally controlled environment, thus there's no way to prove that physical punishments lead to psychological problems. And so we're stuck with looking at theories and conclusions drawn from a biased and unrepresentative sample of subjects, who more often than not, come from unhappy and abusive backgrounds. Can we really take this as fact?

"Faith means believing in something that will only make sense in reverse."
"When men are the most sure and arrogant they are commonly the most mistaken..."

Unicorn - is it really necessary for me to cite even more sources?
Which provides even more information.
Because there is plenty to pick from. Different research methods, different ways to approach this matter - Alice Miller being just one of them.

Alice Miller mentions SPANKING - or did you choose to ignore that?

I could give an essay on just these things - on using spanking or slapping as punishment - how wrong and how damaging it is, even in the form of punished children.

So instead of actually being on the safe side (since you clearly have a problem with what research say) , you'd actually HIT YOUR CHILDREN and risk this?! Thats just sickening in my eyes - if you are willing to risk this, then you are really not capable of being a parent. All in all its just barbaric.

But I'm growing tired already of this.
There is no point in me trying to get some of you people to understand this.
Alice Miller said it perfectly when she said :

" Thus, the only reason why parents continue to believe in this misleading message and to beat their children
is the fact that they too were beaten and silenced when they were small children.
They learned this wrong lesson very early, and it is difficult for them to get rid of it.
They believe that children don't suffer because this was what they were told. Thus their sensibility for the suffering they inflict on them is frozen."

I only hope that when this knowledge reaches most countries outside Europe, and old traditions gets traded out with new knowledge - punishing children through physical treatment will stop.

I rest my case on this.

unicorn2006

Retired Moderator

unicorn2006

:.ICE:.:BIN.:

Sumomo- you need to calm down. There is no need for personal attacks. I do not have a clear stand on this issue, which is why I created this thread in the first place. I ask questions because I like discussions, not arguments. So don't come up with ridiculous extrapolations about how I'm going to hit my children because I have doubts about existing data.

All I did was point out the fact that abuse was being given too broad a definition. Make no mistake, I am adamantely against child abuse, which is no doubt horrible and traumatic for its victim. Why is it so wrong to think that children who receive one or two hits because of bad behavior (which I highly doubt go under the category of 'abuse'), should probably be viewed from a different perspective as children who receive repeated unnecessary blows from a hot-headed parent?

With regard to the data, I was merely stating the clear problem that not only I, but researchers in general, have with this type of correlational data. It doesn't matter how many of these sources are cited - they are still correlational, and not causal. Anyone who has taken a decent psychology course knows that such 'evidence' is not unchallengeable, and that there are other factors that are most likely unaccounted for. That does not mean I discount everything they say - but it is not unhealthy to have second thoughts about them.

"Faith means believing in something that will only make sense in reverse."
"When men are the most sure and arrogant they are commonly the most mistaken..."

I am calm, I just get very involved in this.
I have 4 years of education on this matter (children pedagogy) and everything I've read over those years (and lectures from different professors/lecuterers) all state that spanking your child is wrong, unhealthy and damaging to a child.

Like stated earlier - in some europeans countries its against the law (myown country - Norway) and spanking is here defined as child abuse.

So I do indeed have a very clear stand on this.

unicorn2006

Retired Moderator

unicorn2006

:.ICE:.:BIN.:

^^ Glad to hear that.

Your post just reminded me, that I don't think enough of different cultural perspectives are taken into account either, especially for a topic such as this, which is so heavily influenced by culture. Some cultures think it morally wrong to lay hands on a child, others think it retarded to not be able to - I don't think anyone can say either is wrong. And people from cultures that see spanking as acceptable do not seem to produce more people that are psychologically damaged and scarred.

Unlike you, I guess I am not as willing to accept everything that is said. I just don't think that correlational data should be the end-all and be-all; and that abundance of data does not make it the truth.

"Faith means believing in something that will only make sense in reverse."
"When men are the most sure and arrogant they are commonly the most mistaken..."

Thats your view.
I however, take facts into account and analyze them with the results I see myself in my work with children.
I dont take it as end-all, be-all - but when it coincides with that I myself observe - I make up my mind about it.

I'm certainly moreso willing to step lightly when it comes to children and how we raise them.

You (and some others here) and me dont see eye to eye on this matter, so lets just agree to the fact that we disagree ;)

SierriusBlack

SierriusBlack

Atheistic Debater

Quote by Sumomo-You (and some others here) and me dont see eye to eye on this matter, so lets just agree to the fact that we disagree ;)

Hence why it should always be legal. If someone doesn't want to spank their children, then obviously, they don't have to. And if someone does spank their children, they shouldn't be arrested for it. :/

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
-Albert Einstein

Quote by SierriusBlack

Quote by Sumomo-You (and some others here) and me dont see eye to eye on this matter, so lets just agree to the fact that we disagree ;)

Hence why it should always be legal. If someone doesn't want to spank their children, then obviously, they don't have to. And if someone does spank their children, they shouldn't be arrested for it. :/

Well maybe you should go against the goverments that has decided that then.

As i stated earlier in my post, this question can only be decided on a per-child/parent basis. Not all children are born the same way, with the same temperaments. Some children may respond very well to words and logic, while other children learn with a hands-on type (they have to make the mistake in order to learn).

The form of discipline depends on a number of factors:
1) How is the temperament of the child?
2) Has the child been spoiled before? Perhaps a little bit of background history?
3) What is the child-parent relationship? Is the parent being respected by the child? Is the child being respected by the parent?

One cannot fit every person into a general conclusion from a study since there are many factors that have to be taken into account.

My point is that if the child is already spoiled, then different tactics must be used to correct that behavior. Depending on the degree of being spoiled, there are also varying degrees of punishment to correct that behavior. Of course, if the level is not that bad, then enriching any positive behavior is the ultimately best form of discipline.

Before some people ignore me because they haven't understood what i've been saying, rewards for positive behavior is like... child/adult does something good, give them a reward and verbal praise but ignore them if they do something bad... vs appeasement which is to give child/adult something in order to NOT do something... which is bad and leads to a mentality of entitlement.

For some who are interested, check out Supernanny and Nanny911 (based on British shows) -- both are reality shows in the U.S. that deal with some troubled children... I caught an episode once and it was erm... interesting.

cifiryn

cifiryn

~ Erase & Rewrite ~

Quote by FizzyboyViolence is not nessesary to discipline a child.
Though I think it would be applicable for some adults though....


lol that is so right ^_^'

No, seriously, I think that paerents should be able to discipline their children without having to hit them... I also think that getting kids to understand why what they did was wrong and what could happen if they do that again and bla bla is much better than anything else...

it depends how bad the child has been, but i think that some parents are way too linient. i know one persone who used to be my friend but now he's an asshole used (and as far as i know stilll does) steal and deliberetly vandalize cars. his mothers response was to say it was part of growing up and nearly always let him go unpunished. now i hear he is a drug addict with no hope.

http://futurama-fan-group.minitokyo.net/ for all those who like futurama

Dufoe88

Dufoe88

Dressed to kill! BLAH!!..

i'm 100% against of hitting kids.. grounded them will be good.. yea ?

My last work "The Art Of Dufoe "

no i dont think they should hit their children as punishment because what exactly does it solve in fact i think it hurts the child mentally more than physically

Merely citing research results is simply an appeal to authority. What is the validity of such research? Is it universally applicable and by universal, I mean applicable to every continent, region and country on this planet? Does it cover all races & demography? Does it take into account the influences of religion, environment, customs, cultural norms, etc. being intangible elements that will certainly affect the nature and method of disciplining children?

Unless all those elements are brought into focus, defined and verified to conclusively say that mere physical punishment is detrimental to children, I can similarly say that the authors of those research papers simply have no idea what they are writing about and equate discipling by way of corporal punishment with physical abuse. In other words, their entire premise of research and finding was all based on conjectures & simple correlation without taking entire elements into the picture resulting in entirely slippery slope arguments.

To put my points above in better view, let me copy, paste & highlight the relevant part:

"Corporal punishment in Europe and in the U.S.[/u]
Not one European country legally condones the hitting of schoolchildren, and nowhere is there any discernible movement within [u]European teachers' professional associations to repeal the prohibition. Moreover, in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Austria, Cyprus and Italy, hitting children, even in the home by parents, is not legally permitted. This prohibition is now being considered by the governments of several other European countries, and the number of nonhitters will likely increase in the near future."

Now, does the result(s) that study equally apply in Africa, S. America, Asia, Australia, etc. after taking into account the peculiarities of each country, its people + all intangible elements aforementioned? Is it or is it not? That research is only valid if shown to be universally applicable without regard to race, religion, creed, etc. & unless shown to be conclusive, IMHO the ones who wrote those research papers are the ones without a case to stand on.

IMHO, if I may note, kenrich7 is hitting the right notes. Disciplining a child is basically a 'per case' basis.

I think it's a matter of what works best for individual children. Some children might be effectively reprimanded as a result of physical punishment; for others, not only would it teach them nothing, they would just remember the pain of being hit or smacked.

Overall, there's nothing wrong with a small amount of physical discipline as long as it's not over the top. Light smacking on the hand or bottoms might be fine, but parents shouldn't be using whips or hard objects to hit their children. There's a difference between punishment and discipline, and I'm sure any level-headed person knows that.

I agree with izumi-chan, anything to hard or too much counts as physical abuse, not discipline.

' I like the wind, when I stand against the wind,It sweeps over me and makes me wanna fly...\'

Volvrath - children that come to kindergarten in Norway - who come from other contients - show less development and cognitive/emotional progress.
They tend to show very submissive traits, almost fear in some cases when they do something that is frowned upon.
These types of children have been followed up by observers and researches over a great period of time (both in the kindergaten enviroment and their home enviroment through observation and video) and they among other things conclude that these children suffers from parents who use physical punishment.

YOU (or others) might want to dismiss facts and conclusions, its only natural when you dont know better or have read and seen all that I have.
I also dont have the capabillity to say all I want in english, its not my native tongue.
Neither can I show the connections and where - how - why these researches have come to their conclusions because there are so many to pick from.
I just recommend you to read up on or take the education I have taken, so understand the whole picture.
Because all you get from me are bits and pieces and I'm well aware that you dont grasp everything (or most of it) because of it.

I have basically said all that is valid in this thread - so I dont really care if you dismiss it or not. Or if you choose to dismiss this on different reasons.
That is entirely up to you.
Ï aslo see you are from Malaysia, a typical asian country which use physical discpline towards their children - of course you are not so ready to dismiss the traditions of your country. Its only natural.

I will say this tho - I'd rater listen to people who have gone into depth and used years to study children - then to you or others who have either no such education to base your own opinions from/on or have studied children over a long period of time. Really...its quite self explanatory.

I do not beleive in coropral punishment, but I do beleive hitting a child is a form of discipline.

I know myself that if I am told to sit somewhere and not move it is a far greater punishment that being hit. Seeing how as I have ADHD. It depends on a child, I was hit much as a child by my former stepdad and it dosent do good to a persons psyke (sp?). It makes people submissive and more likaly to flinch and runaway than to stand up to anything. Also makes them more vulnerable to other kinds of abuse.

It all depends on the child, their mental state, and the form that works. I don't beleive its good and if I ever have a child (I don't, I wouldn't be good parents.) I know I would never hit them.

You all have no right to speculate on the effects of hitting on a child repetedly until you have been. Granted some of you may have but Sumomo's points are valid and true, I can see most in myself.

You know what, my parents spanked me when I was bad, and they didn't have to do it past the age of five. I've never been in trouble with the law, and I've got a wife and a steady job. But my younger brother they didn't spank, and he's now in jail for drug possession and theft of checks.
Hardly conclusive, but very suggestive.

There is a difference between phsyical punishment, taking away rights and priviliges and explaining things properly so that a child understands why not do things - and doing nothing at all.

First is going to an extreme, second is the golden middleway, and last is the other extreme.
Children who grow up without any boundries, usually end up spoiled and very ego centric. And not very seldom - trouble with distinguishing between whats not right and whats wrong.

Meaning - children need discipline yes - need boundries - yes.
But creating fear and pain in a child in order to implent those things - NO.

page 6 of 16 « Previous 1... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 16 Next » 371 total items

Back to General Discussions | Active Threads | Forum Index

Only members can post replies, please register.

Warning: Undefined array key "cookienotice" in /var/www/minitokyo/www/html2/footer.html on line 73
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Read more.