I just realized that this email client replies to the individual by default... apoligies, Mark, I meant to reply to the group, not you personally.
Here's the text of our conversaton: >In all honesty, no. > >>Don't you guys think that slapping around an already (obviously) >>disturbed 3 year is >>a) immoral - hes just a baby really regardless of his behaviour >Baby or no, children *must* be taught the difference between right and >wrong. At 3 years old he is already starting to make those >associations. Being told "it's okay if you physically abuse these >strangers" tells him that it's not against the rules his parents have >set for him. Society has a name for these people later in life: >convicts. > >>b) impractical - it'll probably turn him into a psycho >Doubtful. Children have to be guided and disciplined. I'm personally >not one that believes that all children can be talked into behaving. >I have a second cousin that is 4 years old and because his mother >tried to "talk discipline" him, he will constantly scream and throw >temper tantrums and misbehave. The times that he is around someone he >knows will not tolerate his tantrums (my mother-in-law has given him >public spankings) he is angelic. > >"Spare the rod and spoil the child" is still a true statement. > >Hatton I understand what you're saying Moderate stuff e.g. spanking does really not pose a problem, trouble is moderate is different to everyone In fact on occasion, our extreme is another persons moderate If we except the moderate, we open the door to the extreme ------------------------------------- "Spare the Rod and Spoil the Child" >it simply means that a child *must* learn the rules of society and >family. I endorse the second statement, but i'm not sure that the saying equates to that. Mark -----Original Message----- From: C. Hatton Humphrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 25 February 2002 16:01 To: Mark Smyth Subject: Re:RE: RE: Come see the violence inherent in the system! Did I in any way, shape or form indicate physical abuse? Broken bones? Bruising? No. A spanking (also known as a disciplinary action), yes. I do get your point that the words we are using may sound excessive, but words do not always equal deeds, especially where children are concerned. There is a point in time when a child must be disciplined, and in a way that will remove the stimulus, satisfaction and assumption of approval. Also, "Spare the Rod and Spoil the Child" does not mean "Punish abusively" it simply means that a child *must* learn the rules of society and family. This child obviously is lacking in that department, because he was able to successfully fracture a woman's skull and injure another woman. Here there would be a good chance for a case of assault charges coming up... but the parents would have to be charged because they don't make 3 year old sized hand cuffs. Hatton Mark Smyth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 2/25/2002 10:49:44 AM: > >>children *must* be taught the difference between right and wrong > >Taught yes, terrorised no. I never said the child should not be >taught, he should, that is whats lacking now >That in no way advocates the use of force against the child > >"Spare the rod and spoil the child" is still a true statement. > >What if the rod does not work? By that logic you need to increase the >violence. >So what is the acceptable level, slight brusing, broken bones? > >See what i'm getting at... > >I've seen cases where severe violence has been "justifed", i used to >work with disturbed kids > >trust me i know what i'm talking about Mark Smyth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 2/25/2002 11:08:10 AM: > >where did I say that? > >Everyone has the right to defend themselves, 3 year olds can be >restrained, by virtually anybody... > >I'm taking exception to the swift right hand remarks and the general >consenus taken by you also that violence is acceptable against young >children. > >The comparison between being attacked by a 3 year old child and a 30 >year old adult is ridiculos, they are absolutely different situations. > One is an adult totally responsable for his actions, the other is >little more than a baby. > >If you thnk you can justify violence against young children, you'll >have to try harder than that..... > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: William Wheatley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: 25 February 2002 16:01 >To: CF-Community >Subject: Re: Come see the violence inherent in the system! > > >AHHh so if a 30 year old fractures your skull you fight back but if >its a 3 year old you just smile and let him keep fracturing until >you're dead > >Sounds like a good idea to me > > > >Bill Wheatley >Director of Development >AEPS INC >www.aeps.com >Macromedia ColdFusion Alliance Consulting Partner >Macromedia ColdFusion 5.0 Certified Developer >954-472-6684 X303 >ICQ: 417645 >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Mark Smyth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 10:26 AM >Subject: RE: Come see the violence inherent in the system! > > >> Don't you guys think that slapping around an already (obviously) >> disturbed >3 >> year is >> a) immoral - hes just a baby really regardless of his behaviour >> b) impractical - it'll probably turn him into a psycho >> >> >>>One swift right hand and all fracturing stop. >> Not true, it will just reinforce his believe that violence is >> acceptable >and >> an effective way of resolving conflict >> >> This kind've behaviour does happen all over the world, and its >> normally >down >> to bad parenting, or a traumatised childhood. >> >> I'm not saying his behaviour is acceptable, if any of you think >> imposing violence of a 3 year old child is acceptable, take a good >> look in the >mirror >> >> M >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ledwith, Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: 25 February 2002 15:20 >> To: CF-Community >> Subject: RE: Come see the violence inherent in the system! >> >> >> As tempting as it is, with so many Americans being so lawsuit-happy, >> we >have >> to think twice (or 3 or 4 times) before we do that. Although, if >> that kid started assaulting me...... >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 2:24 AM >> To: CF-Community >> Subject: RE: Come see the violence inherent in the system! >> >> >> One swift right hand and all fracturing stop. >> >> I cannot believe an adult would allow themselves to be attacked by a >> damned three year old in the first place. Utterly rediculous, and I >> think only in America. In Trinidad the child would have been soundly >> smacked.All tantrums stop Fas Fas. >> >> -Gel >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Beth Fleischer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> >> <sigh> I used to judge kids throwing violent tantrums in the >> supermarket - but then I saw this show on HBO about some poor family >> who adopted a FAS kid. The kids is incredibly volatile and can >> attack with incredible force, biting, kicking - his mom has to sit >> on him and hold his arms down, away from his face to stop his >> tantrums. He is only 7. When he is not tantruming, he tells the >> camera he hates himself for how he acts but he cant' stop it. >> >> I expect there is something really wrong with a three year old who >> fractures an adult skull with a toy truck. >> >> >> > > ______________________________________________________________________ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
