I also don't know why the belt has to be synonymous with a light smack on the tush. Probably a feeble attempt to lump in discipline with abuse.

MarQ-Boogie wrote:

I'm glad I'm not one that cares about the opinions of others.

I assure you, such an attitude will not serve you very well in the conversation chamber, nor in real life! If you don't respect the opinion of others, then it pretty much means you think you're always right, you're not open to constructive criticism, and there is really no point for you to be here "NEWBY".

captainbryce wrote:

MarQ-Boogie wrote:

I'm glad I'm not one that cares about the opinions of others.

I assure you, such an attitude will not serve you very well in the conversation chamber, nor in real life! If you don't respect the opinion of others, then it pretty much means you think you're always right, you're not open to constructive criticism, and there is really no point for you to be here "NEWBY".

I ♥ you

Forgiveness Man wrote:

I also don't know why the belt has to be synonymous with a light smack on the tush. Probably a feeble attempt to lump in discipline with abuse.

I rarely agree with you, and I actually don't believe in corporal punishment at all, but I agree with you here. Regardless of my feelings about spanking, there clearly is a difference between hitting a child with an object, and a light smack on the tush, IMO.

thepossiblepolice wrote:

Forgiveness Man wrote:

I also don't know why the belt has to be synonymous with a light smack on the tush. Probably a feeble attempt to lump in discipline with abuse.

I rarely agree with you, and I actually don't believe in corporal punishment at all, but I agree with you here. Regardless of my feelings about spanking, there clearly is a difference between hitting a child with an object, and a light smack on the tush, IMO.

I'll take what I can get!

JM130ELM wrote:

As soon as they reach the age of knowing better than to do something to warrant them getting their butts whooped, and not doing it.

Basically. I make no apologies about whooping the hell out of a 7 or 8 year old who decided that it would be fun to play with matches....especially if I know that they know better.

Marc™ wrote:

JM130ELM wrote:

As soon as they reach the age of knowing better than to do something to warrant them getting their butts whooped, and not doing it.

Basically. I make no apologies about whooping the hell out of a 7 or 8 year old who decided that it would be fun to play with matches....especially if I know that they know better.

That reminds me of the time i was 10 and played with matches out in our backyard and set the grass on fire. The fire department had to come and put it out. My dad almost murdered me that day . . . i deserved it but my dad was WAY too brutal. 5 mins more he probably woulda broke one of my bones.

Louis C.K. on hitting kids Scroll to 10:30 if you don't have time to watch the whole thing.

I am generally of the mindset that hitting doesn't solve much. I also think that if you are still hitting your kid when he or she is a teenager, that's further proof that hitting doesn't deter bad behavior. I also know some really good young people who have grown up without being beaten, so the notion that a kid needs to be hit in order to become a good person is incorrect.