Parenting

[obfuscator]

If you were religious - would you allow your child to choose his own belief, or would you force your child to follow your own religion?

You're an athiest. Do you plan on taking your children to church?

 

I wouldn't encourage them to go, but rather, to question the beliefs of the Christian doctrines.

Of course - in short, you'd raise them as atheists.

 

Just as a religious person will likely raise their children to be religious.

 

The job of parents is to teach their children what they believe to be correct; so you'd be doing the exact same thing a religious parent would.

[Assume Nothing]

Not necessarily - I would encourage them to be rational, but not reject their individual views of religion. This would be regardless of my religious beliefs - so even if I were Christian, I'd do the same.

[obfuscator]

Not necessarily - I would encourage them to be rational, but not reject their individual views of religion.

But you would raise them in your belief that the most rational conclusion is that a God does not exist. Just like I would raise my children in my belief that the most rational conclusion is that a God does exist.

[sees_all1]

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103440/drug-free-treatment

 

^Good parenting tips.

[joke_slayer]

after reading this topic I got a bit worried by the amount of people that would cause physical harm to their children

while spanking and stuff along those lines is one thing (which I disagree with), some people have suggested they would go way beyond that, which I found particularly disturbing after coming across this feature on the BBC yesterday, some people here would probably benefit from having a look at it

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15288865 (the last section is the most relevant to this topic)

 

personally I think that a good parent should never resort to causing physical harm to the child (this includes spanking), one does not have to resort to those tactics discipline a child:

suitable punishments would imo include

a time-out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-out_(parenting)

removal of privileges for a certain amount of time (e.g. confiscating his games console or toys for the rest of the day or something)

or making the child do extra chores

or a combination of these methods

 

this would of course depend on the age of the child, what they did and the seriousness of what they did

i.e. younger children may not be able to do chores

or if and older child has caused a mess which needs to be cleaned up, a suitable punishment imo would be to make them clean it up.

and of course the parent would need to make sure the child understands what he/she did wrong, the parent would need to explain it properly once the child has calmed down

 

another important aspect of parenting is the "conversations" on topics including sex, alcohol, drugs, what to do and not do on the internet and so on

and for this type of situation I'd say the best thing to do would be to be open, encourage the child to ask questions and give them an honest answers (though perhaps not in full detail), and DO NOT leave it too late (e.g. waiting for your teenager to come home drunk to have the conversation on alcohol would be leaving it too late)

 

then again I'm only 21 and don't plan on becoming a parent for at least another 8-9 years so I'm probably not a good source for tips on parenting, but this is what I think

[Randox]

I have to agree on the violence thing. If you think you need to physically intimidate your own children, then I think its pretty fair to say your a terrible parent and you shouldn't be allowed near children anymore.

 

It also makes me wonder how many people here we're beaten by their own parents, since child abuse is normally something someone learns from their own parents. The key is to realize that what they did was wrong, and try to be a better person.

 

I've resorted to intimidation once in my life, and it was while lifeguarding. Some of the kids from the local area hopped the fence (who weren't allowed in), and I grabbed one of them. Kinda funny in retrospect, because you could see the look on their faces. The "holy shit this adult isn't afraid to touch me" moment (being a lifeguard and swim instructor, you kinda need to know the laws on touching other people, since its part of your job). I didn't hurt them or anything (partly because that's illegal), just opened the door and threw them out. Got the standard "I'll phone the police" to which I replied "here, I'll do it for you". They stopped bugging me after that.

 

Then again, that's kind of a special circumstance for me. There wasn't anything else I could actually do that didn't involve me restraining them, and I am pretty sure they were getting beaten by their parents already (or at least super neglected). They also weren't my children.

 

But if they had been raised right I would have never thought I needed to do what I did. It's also scary how much you can enjoy having that kind of power over someone (the one I grabbed was terrified. You could see it in his eyes. I don't think an adult he didn't know had ever pinned him against a wall before). I'm not proud of what I did, and I never want to be in that situation again. It's much to satisfying, and that would be a very dangerous habbit.

[Assume Nothing]

The Religion thread is getting a little overlay on this very own thread. I saw a post by SirParagon and wondered whether this could be agreeable:

 

 

The conflict between atheist and agnostics is essentially whether we should choose to assume some sort of meaningful reason behind the origin of the universe - this is the true philosophical discussion. As soon as people start introducing holy-books to the argument the atheists tend to exclusively target silly fantasies instead of the core concept of universal intent. Both sides are at fault. In this day and age there's no need to discuss why the stories embedded within organized religion are false.

 

...but fine.

 

If someone wishes to hold on to the stories told by religion by all means do so. My only real problem is how the religious so adamantly mount their high horse when it comes to morality. Have a good read through your holy book then tell me your beliefs do not violate the non-aggression principle. You explain to me why morally would not exist without religion. Is it pure coincidence that the most religious western nation (the US) is also the most involved in foreign wars? Please rationally explain why you believe some people are innately evil? (I would like to point out that a person's behaviour is almost solely determined by their upbringing).

 

Don't you dare corrupt your children's minds before they have the chance to rationalize what is being proposed to them. Children will believe anything they are told and it is truly monstrous for any institution to take advantage of this.

 

Altruism exists in nature without coercion, it is always mutually beneficial for two parties to cooperate without threatening each other.

 

 

@CrustyGoblinFoot

 

At this point I'm quite sure we've both conveyed our respective sides well enough, I can see the argument going in circles if we continue. There's still a part of me that wants to believe the universe isn't a freak occurrence.

 

Thoughts?

[Vezon Dash]

after reading this topic I got a bit worried by the amount of people that would cause physical harm to their children

while spanking and stuff along those lines is one thing (which I disagree with), some people have suggested they would go way beyond that, which I found particularly disturbing after coming across this feature on the BBC yesterday, some people here would probably benefit from having a look at it

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15288865 (the last section is the most relevant to this topic)

 

personally I think that a good parent should never resort to causing physical harm to the child (this includes spanking), one does not have to resort to those tactics discipline a child:

suitable punishments would imo include

a time-out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-out_(parenting)

removal of privileges for a certain amount of time (e.g. confiscating his games console or toys for the rest of the day or something)

or making the child do extra chores

or a combination of these methods

 

this would of course depend on the age of the child, what they did and the seriousness of what they did

i.e. younger children may not be able to do chores

or if and older child has caused a mess which needs to be cleaned up, a suitable punishment imo would be to make them clean it up.

and of course the parent would need to make sure the child understands what he/she did wrong, the parent would need to explain it properly once the child has calmed down

 

another important aspect of parenting is the "conversations" on topics including sex, alcohol, drugs, what to do and not do on the internet and so on

and for this type of situation I'd say the best thing to do would be to be open, encourage the child to ask questions and give them an honest answers (though perhaps not in full detail), and DO NOT leave it too late (e.g. waiting for your teenager to come home drunk to have the conversation on alcohol would be leaving it too late)

 

then again I'm only 21 and don't plan on becoming a parent for at least another 8-9 years so I'm probably not a good source for tips on parenting, but this is what I think

 

 

Ok. Here is where I find a fault with anyone saying that physical punishment is a 100% no go.

 

 

Say you have a kid who doesn't know any better than to go and play in the street. You can tell them "No" and put them in "time out" as much as you like, but they won't know why you did it. They don't understand that they become roadkill once they get hit by a car.... Say you give them a spanking instead. They will mentally associate playing in the street with pain, and therefore they will not play in the street.

 

This applies to a a wide variety of situations such as touching the stove, or something of that sort.

[joke_slayer]

after reading this topic I got a bit worried by the amount of people that would cause physical harm to their children

while spanking and stuff along those lines is one thing (which I disagree with), some people have suggested they would go way beyond that, which I found particularly disturbing after coming across this feature on the BBC yesterday, some people here would probably benefit from having a look at it

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15288865 (the last section is the most relevant to this topic)

 

personally I think that a good parent should never resort to causing physical harm to the child (this includes spanking), one does not have to resort to those tactics discipline a child:

suitable punishments would imo include

a time-out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-out_(parenting)

removal of privileges for a certain amount of time (e.g. confiscating his games console or toys for the rest of the day or something)

or making the child do extra chores

or a combination of these methods

 

this would of course depend on the age of the child, what they did and the seriousness of what they did

i.e. younger children may not be able to do chores

or if and older child has caused a mess which needs to be cleaned up, a suitable punishment imo would be to make them clean it up.

and of course the parent would need to make sure the child understands what he/she did wrong, the parent would need to explain it properly once the child has calmed down

 

another important aspect of parenting is the "conversations" on topics including sex, alcohol, drugs, what to do and not do on the internet and so on

and for this type of situation I'd say the best thing to do would be to be open, encourage the child to ask questions and give them an honest answers (though perhaps not in full detail), and DO NOT leave it too late (e.g. waiting for your teenager to come home drunk to have the conversation on alcohol would be leaving it too late)

 

then again I'm only 21 and don't plan on becoming a parent for at least another 8-9 years so I'm probably not a good source for tips on parenting, but this is what I think

 

 

Ok. Here is where I find a fault with anyone saying that physical punishment is a 100% no go.

 

 

Say you have a kid who doesn't know any better than to go and play in the street. You can tell them "No" and put them in "time out" as much as you like, but they won't know why you did it. They don't understand that they become roadkill once they get hit by a car.... Say you give them a spanking instead. They will mentally associate playing in the street with pain, and therefore they will not play in the street.

 

This applies to a a wide variety of situations such as touching the stove, or something of that sort.

 

I disagree, as a parent you would need to explain why you took certain action, and also if simply doing a time-out wouldn't work, confiscating they're toys, and not letting them out to play with their friends would also give this negative association of "playing in the street = bad", it just won't be associated with pain

[Randox]

 

I disagree, as a parent you would need to explain why you took certain action, and also if simply doing a time-out wouldn't work, confiscating they're toys, and not letting them out to play with their friends would also give this negative association of "playing in the street = bad", it just won't be associated with pain

 

I'm not exactly sure how my parents did it, but they never needed to resort to inflicting pain to make me understand why I shouldn't play on the street or why I needed to make sure the stove wasn't hot before I planted my hand on it (I feel like watching me to make sure I didn't play in the street/kitchen before I was old enough to understand the danger was part of it).

 

Now, I was a pretty compliant child by nature. If I can understand the reasoning, I am inclined to do as I'm told, and that streak is still with me. But then you have my brother who is much more defiant than I am, and I don't think my parents ever even resorted to a single spanking, even though he was a trouble child in his early years as I understand it.

 

Children shouldn't fear their parents, and that's all you'll ever get if you hurt them. Your supposed to be their protector. You protect them, you don't abuse them.

[Giordano]

^Correct

 

If you don't explain why you beat them, they're still as confused if you give them a time out by your reasoning, Vezon. Besides, children cannot reason as well as we do - don't think they can. Also, if you punish them with something they love (you gotta pay attention to what they dislike/like, maybe that's why parents resort to beating because they're too lazy to do this?) it's worse to them than getting beat up.

[obfuscator]

 

I disagree, as a parent you would need to explain why you took certain action, and also if simply doing a time-out wouldn't work, confiscating they're toys, and not letting them out to play with their friends would also give this negative association of "playing in the street = bad", it just won't be associated with pain

 

I'm not exactly sure how my parents did it, but they never needed to resort to inflicting pain to make me understand why I shouldn't play on the street or why I needed to make sure the stove wasn't hot before I planted my hand on it (I feel like watching me to make sure I didn't play in the street/kitchen before I was old enough to understand the danger was part of it).

 

Now, I was a pretty compliant child by nature. If I can understand the reasoning, I am inclined to do as I'm told, and that streak is still with me. But then you have my brother who is much more defiant than I am, and I don't think my parents ever even resorted to a single spanking, even though he was a trouble child in his early years as I understand it.

 

Children shouldn't fear their parents, and that's all you'll ever get if you hurt them. Your supposed to be their protector. You protect them, you don't abuse them.

I basically agree with this, except I do think limited physical discipline can be effective at a very young age.

 

I can count the number of times I was spanked/slapped on two hands, all before the age of 6-7. It very rarely happened and was never aggressive, but if it happened, I knew I'd [bleep]ed up bad. And I never made the same mistake twice.

[Randox]

Seems reasonable to me Obfuscator. While my parents never subscribed to spanking, I know the parents of some of my friends did, and even witnessed it a couple time (not against my friends, but their younger siblings). I don't really have anything against it myself as long as its used, like you said, to symbolise that you really messed up, rather than to put the fear of god into your child, or actually try to harm them. But that's as far as I'd ever take it.

 

Another one I learned from the parents who did the spanking, is that you shouldn't give into temper tantrums. I'm not sure how your supposed to deal with them, since I can't actually ever remember throwing any myself (I was a big fan of sulking instead), but it looks to me like giving in just creates monsters (to put it nicely). Or little self absorbed, self centred, entitled [wagon] (to put it not so nice). They gave into their youngest daughter all the time (she was the one getting spanked), probably because she was the most annoying, whiny excuse for a person I have ever seen in my life (they moved away before I got to see her grow out of it, so I have to assume she is exactly the same, unless her peers beat it out of her). But then, even when I was 10 I could figure out she only complained so much because it eventually worked. Her parents either gave in to shut her up (most of the time) or gave her spankings.

[transcript80]

 

 

Also... if I ever have kids, it will be accidental. :mellow:

 

That's not a good thing. Luckily, that attitude will probably change once you get married.

 

I find that offensive. And what has marriage to do with it? Our child came "ahead of scedule", we got married when she was 1,5 years old. Best thing that ever happended to me.

 

From 2 years of experience, these are the guidelines I have:

 

Set the example as a parent.

Be consistent.

Set rules and abide to them.

The parents set the rules, not the children.

Stimulate your child in its intrests, but also introduce them to other possibilities. Example: if they want to do sports, let them choose which one. If they are reluctant to engage in sports, introduce them to them, tell them to try it. Same goes for music and other hobbies.

Stimulate education, but let them make their own choices. A college degree is not a guarantee for happiness. Money does not mean the world.

In general, let them make their own decisions (within set rules/boundaries) and learn them that decisions and actions have consequences, and teach them that they are to live up to them.

 

I intent to give her a good financial upbringing. I was raised with the beliefs that debt is a bad thing. That one should not spend money one does not have (yet). I think this is a new concenpt for (mainly USA :-) ) people nowadays, who buy far too much based on credit (cards).

 

As for religion, our child was baptised and she'll receive a liberal (Catholic) upbringing. She'll be introduced to church. Our attending frequency is low to begin with, (5-6 times a year) but it's the values religion represents that count. If, on a later age, she decides to never go there again, or convert to whatever religion, that's up to her. I'd like to note that I do NOT live up to the bible literally, I do it the "Captain Sparrow way": It's not rules, actually, it's more like.... guidelines. I'm a scientist, after all.

 

As for physical punishment, I find it an expression of frustration. I do not intend to ever use it, but I can imagine being frutrated and give a slap on the wrist or so. To parent a child through violence, a reign based on oppression/fear/abuse is never good in my opinion.

[Ags_K0]

Does childhood bullying build character or 'knocks someone down'?

[kamykazee]

Does childhood bullying build character or 'knocks someone down'?

 

From my experience it knocks them down. I would say if you're getting bullied severely that will instill a 'shy and reclusive' attitude. I know this because i was bullied in middle school, which caused me to be reclusive all through highschool, and only starting with University did i begin to recover.

[SirParagon]

I want to share this, just something to consider regarding physical discipline.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONNRfflggBg

[IGoddessI]

I have a 3 year old boy. I find I don't need to smack because I'm able to explain things to him in ways he mentally understands. I have tried smacking, it doesn't work for my child, he laughs at me and tells me to do it again. I think every child is different and needs to be punished accordingly. You wouldn't punish all of your children the same as they all have different personalities and learn differently. You wouldn't teach a kinetics learner with audio or visual if you get my drift. I'm not against smacking so long as its done lawfully; no objects, below the shoulders and doesn't leave a mark. It just personally doesn't work for child number 1 in my house hold.

 

While I'm here I want to have a whinge about all the stupid parents who let their children play on the road outside their houses. Haven't you heard of a backyard before? Maybe get off your arse and take your kids to a park so they can ride their bikes, skateboard, roller blades, scooters. And invest in a helmet for f... sake. I am so tired of driving down the street, waiting for 2 year olds to get off the road with no parent in sight, or the 5 year old riding with no helmet. Too bad if I came around the corner and didn't see them, BANG. A ROAD IS NOT A PLAY GROUND!!! IT IS NOT OKAY FOR YOUR KIDS TO RIDE WITHOUT SUPERVISION AND A HELMET.

 

Rarrrrrrrrrrr..... done :mrgreen:

 

I always point at them and show my 3 year old.... "Look at that silly boy riding with no helmet, he could get hurt on the road"

 

-----------------------------------------------

 

Also I had my child before I was married. It doesn't make me any less of a parent and if you knew my circumstances you'd understand why I'm so thankful that I didn't get married to that loser and found a better father for my child. Both are blessings and I wouldn't change a thing.

[Riku3220]

I agree that the kids need to stay on the sidewalk, but screw helmets. Those things suck. A helmet didn't protect me when I flew head first over my handlebars. A helmet didn't protect my friend when he rode into a parked car and broke his arm. A helmet didn't protect my cousin when she fell into a cactus.

 

Plus they make you look like a nerd who seems incapable of riding without somehow landing on your head every 5 minutes.

[IGoddessI]

Helmets are the law here matey. I teach my son to be law abiding and sensible. I know a little boy who was run over by a car and snapped his helmet clean in half, otherwise he would have been DEAD. A broken arm heals, brain injury is irreversible. I thought that was just common sense but seems teenagers these days care more about how they look in one lol Which I understand of course... I used to be one ;) but it did sink in eventually. In fact... wearing a helmet prevents up to 88% of brain injuries in bad falls.

 

Here's a few horror stories where a bike helmet saved a life:

 

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Bike-Helmet-Saved-My-Life-Child-123847204.html

 

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/general-cycling-discussion/helmet-saved-my-life-181245.html

 

http://deerfield.patch.com/articles/bike-helmet-saves-doctors-life

[Vezon Dash]

A helmet didn't protect my cousin when she fell into a cactus.

 

What do?

 

I think that at an early age, having a helmet is a good thing for kids. When they first learn to ride a bike without training-wheels, they might fall over and hit themselves. However, once they know what they are doing, I think that a helmet becomes rather unnecessary.

[Zierro]

Plus they make you look like a nerd who seems incapable of riding without somehow landing on your head every 5 minutes.

 

Yes, they do give that effect but you still never know what to expect in the crazy physical world we live in. Often times, crashes aren't even the fault of the injured person. Just a few videos of 4chan changed by mind completely when it comes to safety precautions.

[transcript80]

Does childhood bullying build character or 'knocks someone down'?

 

Based on the degree of bullying, it's either one.

 

"Mild bullying": They are kids after all, they make fun of others because he/she is different. This builds charackter and teaches a child to defend itself.

 

This mild bullying can very easily revert to "sever bullying:

 

"Severe bullying": Systematic abuse, being picked on 24-7, either in a group or 1-on-1, knocks children down, possibly for the rest of their lives. It should be stopped at any cost.

 

A little side note: Some children seem to be a "natural target" for bullying. Even if they change schools, villages and so one, they are still the target. Always be careful and observant thatyour child's behaviour does not make it prone to bullying. Surely, it is never their FAULT, but it never hurts to make them aware of certain behavioral traits that might make it easier for others to pick on them.

[Ags_K0]

Here's an interesting scenario;

 

A potentially abusive drug addicted, alcoholic father had impregnated his partner. His decision were to, instead of raise his child (a daughter in this case), run away from the child of the tender age of 3 (I'm uncertain on this, the audio on the video is really quiet). The mother, whom were a single parent, raised her alone - but without a loving father to protect her, she was molested at the age of 9 (raped too, I believe?). Her mother called the father of the child at the time of the allegation, whom responded 'What am I supposed to do?'

 

Now, the question is - was it the right decision for the father to run away? Would it be better for both parents to have raised the child together, despite potential family issues such as having an abusive father? Would the burden of liability shift, if the cause of pregnancy were say - refusal of contraceptives, as opposed to contraceptive failure? Should the child be aborted in that scenario, or should it be adopted?

 

It illustrates the grey lines of morality - an ethical dilemma one may say.

 

Here's the video pertaining to this:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAPA3RePQYI

 

Is it good parenting to raise a child alone, in this scenario?

[obfuscator]

I think single parenting is rarely preferable - it's basically statistical fact that children do better when having two parents. However, it isn't always feasible (like in the situation you mentioned).