6431hoho

Macroscopic, why don't yousay your point? You want the kid to fight back so that they can get beaten up by their parent. No no, aruging back doesn't always lead to getting beaten up. However, those horrible ways of abuse mentioned before wouldn't count right now would it? Then try rewording the rest of your post, because I can't understand your point; if you have one. By thw way, why do you have the word "then" over there? Does it make you seem more sophisticated?

1. I would prefer fighting back or being abused over being a slave. 2. How is that an encouragement for child abuse? You don't get it do you? 1) when it say possibility of stressed, it means a possiblility of abuse 2) if you fight back...1) 3) you are encouarging the kids to fight back, so that they can get beat up...or did you mean those macho children?

Coral Rehd, reply to the recent comment 1. Parents need power/authority to convince the child that they need to obey them. Without it, it just doesn't work 2. If parent gives child away that they are equal as the parent, then the child will disobey more easily. Children will grow up to be ungrateful to the parents. 3. We should not fear that our children will grow up to be a criminal. Parents have the every right to stop their child from becoming a criminal. Stop them from the start. With the right atmosphere and hit on their hands, it will do the trick. 4. Without strong words and highly assertive attitude, it is close to impossible conving the children. It just doesn't give the right atmosphere to be persuaded by. And impossible to convince when they don't feel like listening.

"So, in other words, 'For children to avoid abuse, they must be their personal slave'. Seriously, getting abused for talking back?! You've got to be kidding me!" Actually... -Well, if you know your parent well enough and think that it's a possiblity, then you should be a personal slave (that means giving up your dignity? then yes) Let's look who is actually encouraging child abuse right now. I say if it's a possibility that your parent is stressed and mad at you, give up your dignity to avoide getting abused. But you say "you've got to be kidding me," which intentionnally or unintentionally shows willingness to fight back.

is quark the smallest particle? Then what would happen to it

Quote: Originally Posted by Newtonian How can a child possibly know its parent is in the wrong.I have 4 children in their late teens, they may disagree with some of my decisions.But never disobey. So you think that all kids are incapable of questioning their parents just because yours are? You can't judge a large number of people based on only four of them. Do you think that kids think that their parents know everything? Because if you do, you're wrong. And some kids are capable of having superior judgement, and if you think none can, then you're wrong. Incapable of questioning? How can one not question if one is disagreeing? You are saying that kids know that parents don't know everything and therefore know that parent is wrong?

People discpline their childs so that they'll distinguish between right and wrong. If they cross the line and kept doing wrong, they ought to be taught again. Having a previous experience of being grounded doesn't deter a thing. And talking to teenagers when they don't want to listen, doesn't help a thing. No sort of "Abuse" should be allowed, to Children or Otherwise. -we have too many reasonings like these please support with something

People who resort to hitting: 1. believe that nothing else worked 2. they need to discpline their child "Haven't tried everything else" -talking doesn't always work. "Begin to use it as first choice" -please share with us the resoure you got this from "Have not acquired patience" -patience has its limits and it's laziness just to let them think "I've given up"

This topic seems to cycle over and over. Sometimes, hitting is required when nothing else works. Sometimes it's not required (so you don't hit)

Would you consider a hard smack on a child’s (Toddler) hand child abuse? Would you consider a cane (Teen) at school as child abuse? ...*sigh* hard smack on child's hand is not a child abuse when it's required cane at school is not a child abuse when it's used for the right reasons. yea yea...it's still the same thing. But it's conducted with purpose (good one)

I agree everything (p.s. there should be a line) but the parent wouldn't brutally kill the child if their intentions were to discpline them.

It seems to me that their standard is whether the action result in harm. But I can assure you all that if a child protection investigator finds that a parent has punished in such a way as to cause bruises, wound, fractures, or scars that child may be removed from parental custody. Now that you all have a definition perhaps you can also have more clarity. More light, less heat. -point was that the child protection investigator won't do this. **sorry, change "won't" to "shouldn't"

you should define "discipline." "Child abuse is the process of disciplining but only for those who need it." so are you saying that disciplining those who do not need discipline is not child abuse? i think child abuse is unnecessary in every case. who are these "illed" you speak of? 1. Just look at the word after "only for those who" 2. in this thread, you can guess that illed are those who aren't guilty for child abusing.

Child abuse is the process of disciplining but only for those who need it. Child abuse isn't always discplining but it certain'y is most of the times unless you count the illed

I've given up on this. Reasons: 1. your values for things are different than others 2. no facts or studies listed. Pure opinions of non-experts. 3. Everything you say is true but it comes down to intensity If you still want me to reply then tell me.

Benson, this post is about discpline and if it's worth it. 1. It's logical enough that a parent who cares about their children would mimize the abuse (and not use it if it's not necessary) 2. stop using "just because ____ doesn't mean_____" anyone can make this crap. I was saying that developed countries have child abuse

"This is a science forum. Not a place where preaching is generally accepted. Most of us here prefer reasoning and logic. If you want to preach, find a different forum, because no one here wants to see it." Anyone can make this kind of crap. Please tell me how it is preaching if it's that's any troube to you.

Macroscopic, I read everything you said and I remain that: "So it's ok just because some countries allow it? You are aware that countries used to make it legal to torture someone for not believing a certain religion, right? So then, by your logic, that was ok?" 1. is this "someone" a child? Also, I remain true 2. Defend means being able to bypass in that sentence 3. Give me one study that says violence can be deterred in small time. Maybe there is but I have never seen it. 4. Nice observations but what is your point and supports

1.Bud, the only possible pro for child abuse is discpline (unless if you can find another one) 2. what's wrong with preaching? It looks cliche and I guess that's your hate it 3. if you can understand my english, then I think we will be fine 4. I never used extreme cases 5. Obviously, unless you think I'm an illed person, communication should come before hitting. 6. I don't understand what you're talking about 7. admission system, please explain what admission system is.

From my understanding, Japanese, Singaporean and Indian teachers and parents are allowed to child abuse. And probably many more and I think there are schools in Canada that allows it. The parents get to choose if their child should be a fool or a civilized citizen

"*Smack* - Wow, I feel better! How about you?" -I guess those are things you have to sacrifice if thats what it takes.

line: e.g. steals chocolate bar (should be prohibited before) -hit their hands with wooden stick 5 times

I think I'll discipline them enough that they will be able to see the boundaries and to get them into the college/university they want to get in.

"Did they decide that it was inappropriate to hit a teenager or was there some other reason they stopped." -un-necessary

If you use your imagination, you can find what the pro for abusing a child might be Douglas. And second, if i used the word discipline, it's not as exciting.