"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...



Where did society get the mistaken impression that sex is bad, but
violence is OK?

Nuns in Catholic grammar school routinely used violence on the kids, but
would
sure be upset about anything vaguely about sex....

Is that really what we want to teach our children?

I wouldn't want to subject kids to the crap I had to endure in said
school.


When you get right down to it, except for a few shameful and widely
publicized exceptions, todays kids suffer from too little rather than too
much
physical punishment. Worst form of abuse for todays kids is to let'em grow
up with no self control or discipline. That was true in earlier generations,
too.
Look at Bill Clinton and, for that matter, the younger days of our current
President. Sometimes they grow out of it and sometimes they don't.

HWB

In article , "Harold Burton"
writes:

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...



Where did society get the mistaken impression that sex is bad, but
violence is OK?

Nuns in Catholic grammar school routinely used violence on the kids, but
would
sure be upset about anything vaguely about sex....

Is that really what we want to teach our children?

I wouldn't want to subject kids to the crap I had to endure in said
school.


When you get right down to it, except for a few shameful and widely
publicized exceptions, todays kids suffer from too little rather than too
much physical punishment.

I disagree! Beating children simply means the beater can't think of
a better way to deal with the kid.

It also teaches the kid at a very primeval level that violence is a
legitimate method of getting what you want from others.

Worst form of abuse for todays kids is to let'em grow
up with no self control or discipline. That was true in earlier generations,
too.

I agree 100%, except that I'd call it "neglect" rather than "abuse". And in
some cases neglect is worse because it tells the kid he's not worth bothering
with.

Look at Bill Clinton and, for that matter, the younger days of our current
President.

Not just the younger days, either.

Sometimes they grow out of it and sometimes they don't.

Exactly!

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

In article , "Harold Burton"
writes:


"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...



Where did society get the mistaken impression that sex is bad, but
violence is OK?


Nuns in Catholic grammar school routinely used violence on the kids, but
would
sure be upset about anything vaguely about sex....


Is that really what we want to teach our children?


I wouldn't want to subject kids to the crap I had to endure in said
school.


When you get right down to it, except for a few shameful and widely
publicized exceptions, todays kids suffer from too little rather than too
much physical punishment.


I disagree! Beating children simply means the beater can't think of
a better way to deal with the kid.

It also teaches the kid at a very primeval level that violence is a
legitimate method of getting what you want from others.

And the argument is null anyway. If beating your kid worked, you would
only have to do it once or twice.

In fact, I was recently enlightened to the fact that (I hope this
doesn't invoke Godwin's law!) Saddam Hussein, Joseph Stalin, and Adolf
Hitler have one thing in common. They recieved regular beatings as children.


Worst form of abuse for todays kids is to let'em grow
up with no self control or discipline. That was true in earlier generations,
too.


I agree 100%, except that I'd call it "neglect" rather than "abuse". And in
some cases neglect is worse because it tells the kid he's not worth bothering
with.

And discipline doesn't have to be beatings! Sit a kid on the couch for a
couple hours with no entertainment, and they'll come around. Sounds
simple and a little stupid, but it works. I got "wailed" on occasion as
a kid, and while it hurt, once it was over, big deal. All it taught me
was it was a good idea to not get caught, and if I could delay the
punishment until the punisher cooled down, I wasn't as likely to get
hit. That last part is telling in itself.

Look at Bill Clinton and, for that matter, the younger days of our current
President.


Not just the younger days, either.


Sometimes they grow out of it and sometimes they don't.


Exactly!

And sometimes, despite getting beat, they still turn out bad. Kind of
makes you wonder what does work! ;^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:

N2EY wrote:


And the argument is null anyway. If beating your kid worked, you would
only have to do it once or twice.

You're on a slippery slope, Mike. If TALKING to your child did any
good, you'd only have to do it a couple of time, right? I can hear my
mother's voice now: "How many times to I have to tell you?"

In fact, I was recently enlightened to the fact that (I hope this
doesn't invoke Godwin's law!) Saddam Hussein, Joseph Stalin, and Adolf
Hitler have one thing in common. They recieved regular beatings as children.

So the secret seems to be, beat your children on an irregular basis and
they won't grow up to be tyrants and ogres. It'd be interesting to find
that Jeffrey Dahmer was never spanked and that his parents tried to
reason with him.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

N2EY wrote:


And the argument is null anyway. If beating your kid worked, you would
only have to do it once or twice.


You're on a slippery slope, Mike. If TALKING to your child did any
good, you'd only have to do it a couple of time, right? I can hear my
mother's voice now: "How many times to I have to tell you?"

Ahh, but talking DOESN'T work! You can't always reason with a child.
You have to deprive them of something that they value for a little
while. Then you give it back to them until the next time they misbehave.
I'm not advocating talk, and I'm not advocating beatings, I'm advocating
something I've found that works.

In fact, I was recently enlightened to the fact that (I hope this
doesn't invoke Godwin's law!) Saddam Hussein, Joseph Stalin, and Adolf
Hitler have one thing in common. They recieved regular beatings as children.


So the secret seems to be, beat your children on an irregular basis and
they won't grow up to be tyrants and ogres. It'd be interesting to find
that Jeffrey Dahmer was never spanked and that his parents tried to
reason with him.

Read:

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_k...er/naked1.html

for an interesting if horrible accounting of Jeffrey Dahmer.

Indeed, he was not raised in an abusive environment. But it is unfair
to attibute anything to a pathological serial killer's upbringing
compared to a normal person. But there is a difference between Dahmer
and the nasties I mentioned above. Many people call them all madmen, but
there is a huge difference between Dahmer and the others.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

N2EY wrote:


And the argument is null anyway. If beating your kid worked, you would
only have to do it once or twice.


You're on a slippery slope, Mike. If TALKING to your child did any
good, you'd only have to do it a couple of time, right? I can hear my
mother's voice now: "How many times to I have to tell you?"

Ahh, but talking DOESN'T work! You can't always reason with a child.

Take my word, my folks never attempted reason when we were younger. My
sister and I were issued edicts in no uncertain terms. If we argued or
talked back, we could expect some time in a corner or in our rooms or
were grounded.


You have to deprive them of something that they value for a little
while. Then you give it back to them until the next time they misbehave.
I'm not advocating talk, and I'm not advocating beatings, I'm advocating
something I've found that works.

My dad called it "giving us a little more leash". He retracted some
leash when we demonstrated that we couldn't handle the extra freedom.

In fact, I was recently enlightened to the fact that (I hope this
doesn't invoke Godwin's law!) Saddam Hussein, Joseph Stalin, and Adolf
Hitler have one thing in common. They recieved regular beatings as children.


So the secret seems to be, beat your children on an irregular basis and
they won't grow up to be tyrants and ogres. It'd be interesting to find
that Jeffrey Dahmer was never spanked and that his parents tried to
reason with him.

Read:

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_k...er/naked1.html

for an interesting if horrible accounting of Jeffrey Dahmer.

Indeed, he was not raised in an abusive environment. But it is unfair
to attibute anything to a pathological serial killer's upbringing
compared to a normal person. But there is a difference between Dahmer
and the nasties I mentioned above. Many people call them all madmen, but
there is a huge difference between Dahmer and the others.

I'll check out the link.

Dave K8MN

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

ike Coslo wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

N2EY wrote:

And the argument is null anyway. If beating your kid worked, you
would only have to do it once or twice.

You're on a slippery slope, Mike. If TALKING to your child did any
good, you'd only have to do it a couple of time, right? I can hear my
mother's voice now: "How many times to I have to tell you?"

Ahh, but talking DOESN'T work! You can't always reason with a
child.

Take my word, my folks never attempted reason when we were younger.

Yup. In many cases it's counterproductive. For example, if you want a kid
to go to bed at 7 and he wants to go to bed at 8, and you spend half an hour
or even half a minute after 7 trying to reason with him, he's "won", because
his bedtime wasn't 7.

My
sister and I were issued edicts in no uncertain terms. If we argued or
talked back, we could expect some time in a corner or in our rooms or
were grounded.

Which today is called "time out" and which works very well if done right.

You have to deprive them of something that they value for a little
while. Then you give it back to them until the next time they misbehave.
I'm not advocating talk, and I'm not advocating beatings, I'm advocating
something I've found that works.

Bingo. And for most kids, what they value most are freedom and attention.
Deprive them of either or both, and the message gets through.

My dad called it "giving us a little more leash". He retracted some
leash when we demonstrated that we couldn't handle the extra freedom.

And the lesson was that the *kid's* behavior is what caused it.

In fact, I was recently enlightened to the fact that (I hope this
doesn't invoke Godwin's law!) Saddam Hussein, Joseph Stalin, and Adolf
Hitler have one thing in common. They recieved regular beatings as
children.

So the secret seems to be, beat your children on an irregular basis and
they won't grow up to be tyrants and ogres. It'd be interesting to find
that Jeffrey Dahmer was never spanked and that his parents tried to
reason with him.

Read:

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_k...er/naked1.html

for an interesting if horrible accounting of Jeffrey Dahmer.

Indeed, he was not raised in an abusive environment. But it is
unfair
to attibute anything to a pathological serial killer's upbringing
compared to a normal person. But there is a difference between Dahmer
and the nasties I mentioned above. Many people call them all madmen, but
there is a huge difference between Dahmer and the others.

I'll check out the link.

Me too.

I would point out that *most* kids, beaten or not, will not grow up to be
serial killers. But the legacy of violence plays out in other ways.

And there's even a connection to amateur radio policy in all this:

Dave's dad's analogy of "leash" is very accurate. FCC gives its licensees a lot
of "leash" (freedom) in exchange for proper behavior. Violate that agreement,
and the "leash" is shortened. As in the cases of licenses not renewed for
"character" issues (meaning the licensee was convicted of serious crimes
that were not violations of the license itself). The kid who talked back or got
into a fight at school might find he wasn't allowed to watch TV, even though
the offense had nothing to do with TV. Same principle with FCC licenses.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Nuns in Catholic grammar school routinely used violence on the kids, but
would
sure be upset about anything vaguely about sex....



Is that really what we want to teach our children?



I wouldn't want to subject kids to the crap I had to endure in said
school.


When you get right down to it, except for a few shameful and widely
publicized exceptions, todays kids suffer from too little rather than too
much physical punishment.



I disagree! Beating children simply means the beater can't think of
a better way to deal with the kid.

It also teaches the kid at a very primeval level that violence is a
legitimate method of getting what you want from others.

It also delivered a message that people in authority are likely to abuse
their positions
and cannot be trusted. As the teachers often punished kids that didn't
misbehave
as the ones that did. Throw in it being the Vietnam era and .....

Sometimes teachers try to "teach respect" with violence. Well, if "fear and
hatred" = "respect" then it worked.... But I don't think respect does
equal
that.

We also had male nuns, called "brothers". CFX was their callsign, stood
for -something-something-Xavier. One of them was an ex marine drill
seargent,
and thought nothing beating on a kid 20 minutes non-stop. Another was from
the Navy, and also could beat on a kid even longer.

Not suprizing that some kids tried to burn the school down. No
real damage, something like a wastepaper basket on fire. We
always hoped it was the real thing whenever they did a fire drill
(after the fire dept made them not pre-announce that there'd be a
drill today).

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

Nuns in Catholic grammar school routinely used violence on the kids, but
would sure be upset about anything vaguely about sex....

Is that really what we want to teach our children?

I wouldn't want to subject kids to the crap I had to endure in said
school.

When you get right down to it, except for a few shameful and widely
publicized exceptions, todays kids suffer from too little rather than too
much physical punishment.

I disagree! Beating children simply means the beater can't think of
a better way to deal with the kid.

It also teaches the kid at a very primeval level that violence is a
legitimate method of getting what you want from others.

It also delivered a message that people in authority are likely to abuse
their positions and cannot be trusted.

WOW - good point, Robert!

As the teachers often punished kids that didn't misbehave
as the ones that did.

IHM nuns were big on punishing the whole class.

Throw in it being the Vietnam era and .....

Bingo.

Sometimes teachers try to "teach respect" with violence. Well, if "fear and
hatred" = "respect" then it worked.... But I don't think respect does
equal that.

We also had male nuns, called "brothers". CFX was their callsign, stood
for -something-something-Xavier. One of them was an ex marine drill
seargent,
and thought nothing beating on a kid 20 minutes non-stop. Another was from
the Navy, and also could beat on a kid even longer.

We didn't have those until high school. None of them were as sadistic as nuns.

Not suprizing that some kids tried to burn the school down. No
real damage, something like a wastepaper basket on fire. We
always hoped it was the real thing whenever they did a fire drill
(after the fire dept made them not pre-announce that there'd be a
drill today).

We were told that if someone attacked the school or a "religious person" they'd
burn in hell. And would probably have other consequences, like having their arm
fall off when they tried to raise it to hit a nun. Nobody ever tried to find
out if such things were true...

All that's changed now. Catholic schools are now more like private academies,
and most of the teachers are lay people because nuns and brothers are too few.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:


All that's changed now. Catholic schools are now more like private academies,
and most of the teachers are lay people because nuns and brothers are too few.

Well DUH, Jim! Since we don't let them beat the kids any more, what fun
is it for them now? ;^)

- Mike KB3EIA -