Beating Children Saves Lives

In 2001 America, it seems that not a day goes by without the media reporting on yet another horrific act committed by the hands of our children. In the past few years, nightly newscasts have grown grimmer and grimmer .. and there is no indication that this trend will change anytime soon. Every time a child violence tragedy occurs, the news media diligently gets the reactions from the bystanders, and the question that the bystanders invariably ask is: "How could this have happened?"

How, indeed.

The liberal definition of "punishment" is a far cry from what it was when I was growing up. These days, if you suggest that children should be physically punished, you are immediately labeled a "child abuser" and a "sociopath." Instead, you are encouraged to use "non-violent" methods of punishment, and you are assured that these methods are just as effective as their corporal cousins. I ask you, Adequacy Reader: based on the headlines of the past few years, does that theory hold any water?

When I was growing up, there were three levels of misbehavior in our household:

Hand
Belt
Fireplace Poker

Now, I was not a perfect child, and so I got my fair share of Level 1 and a little bit of Level 2. (In the case of Level 2, the severity of the misbehavior determined which end of the belt that we got.) There were even a few incidents of Level 3 here and there, but because of my parents' love, devotion, and dedicated parenting, those incidents were few and far between.

Now here's the thing that liberals can't stand to hear: I am a better man because of it. When I was in school, I never once opened fire on a cafeteria full of my peers. I didn't steal cars. I didn't shoplift. I've never spent a single night of my life in a jail cell. I treat people with respect, calling them "sir" and "ma'am" as the occasion dictates. My parents beat me until I didn't know what day it was, and I hated it (believe you me, I hated it.) But now that I am older and wiser, I understand that it was the single greatest thing that they ever could have done for me.

Getting back to the current outbreak of youth violence, it's easy to understand why "school shooters" do what they do if we apply the failed liberal thinking. These children were doubtless under the impression that when the police apprehended them after their murderous antics, they would take them back to the police station and make them do a "fifteen-minute timeout", wherein they would stand in the corner of the station and contemplate what Bad Boys they'd been. Then they would release them and they would be free to skateboard back to the video arcade where they could play Mortal Kombat and Zaxxon and all of the other games that the kids are playing.

This is the epitome of Failed Liberal Thinking. Children are wonderful, and they are a blessing from God, but let's face it; children are stupid. Without the proper administration of physical punishment, they will be under the impression that nothing they do is bad. Beating children is not something that we should particularly enjoy, but at the end of the day, a spirited beating is the only way that we can get the message across. Playing liberal mind games with kids will accomplish nothing.

At this point, it's worth mentioning that discipline does not necessarily have to be applied on a "case-by-case" basis. In fact, many experts believe that regularly-scheduled beatings can improve children's behavior even more effectively. Parents can decide on a designated "beating hour"; in my household, it is Thursday nights at 7:00 PM. Now, the common objection to this is "children should not be beaten unless they have done something wrong, and regularly-scheduled beatings violate this principle." I cannot swallow this argument, for the following reasons:

Children don't just misbehave in front of you. Often, they will do things that you know nothing about, and can know nothing about. For example, if your child goes over to an unsaved friend's house and watches MTV, you have no specific way of knowing about it. That doesn't mean that the behavior should go unpunished, though; scheduled beatings allow you to make sure that nothing slips through the cracks.
Regular beatings can help to extinguish thoughts about disobedience. For example, your child may be harboring ideas about going to the school library and checking out a Harry Potter book behind your back. A strict act of discipline should shatter such impudent thoughts into a million pieces and scatter them to the winds. This leads directly into the third reason:
Punishment is not the only purpose of disciplining children! Strict discipline also serves to remind your child that you are in charge, and that there are consequences for untoward behavior, even if no such behavior has occurred! Your child may be angelic for three straight years, but without periodic guidance, there is an overwhelming chance that he or she will slide at some point in time.

So now that we've established that beatings are an unfortunate but necessary part of parenting, we need to establish some ground rules to make sure that they do not get out of hand. Physical punishment, like most things, can be taken to an extreme level. There is a line that we dare not cross, and we need to make sure that when we dispense punishment, we do so in a responsible manner.

Beatings should always take place in the immediate vicinity of a telephone, should medical assistance be necessary. A cellular phone is an acceptable substitute.
Care should be taken to avoid breaking limbs whenever possible.
Skin should not be broken, but in cases where it is, a generous supply of Band-Aids (TM) and hydrogen peroxide should be on hand.
Discipline activities that will likely result in visible bruising should be done on "discreet" areas of the body that will be covered by clothing.

I don't like this any more than you do. But I look at today's generation of children, and I am saddened. The "modern" liberal thinking has resulted in a group of children that are hateful and impudent; these are kids who would just as soon shoot you dead than hold the door open for you. The truth is obvious; children should be beaten, and they should be beaten often. They should not be beaten savagely or maliciously, and (as I have said) we should take no undue pleasure in performing this duty. But the death toll that has resulted from leftist childraising techniques is quickly becoming incalculable, and it's time that we, as parents, realize that "political correctness" does not imply moral or logical correctness.

	The correct MTV link... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
	by CaptainZornchugger on Tue Jul 24th, 2001 at 10:16:45 AM PST

	is here Apparently sightings.com changed their domain name.

	We're just rediscovering ancient wisdom (5.00 / 1) (#6)
	by Adam Rightmann on Tue Jul 24th, 2001 at 10:17:01 AM PST

	Indeed, Proverbs 13:24 tells us Those who spare the rod, hate their children, but the one who loves their child disciplines them diligently. A. Rightmann

	A scheduled beating? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jul 24th, 2001 at 10:51:09 AM PST

	Ohh, yeah, sounds like a great idea. Can you give me your phone number so I can discuss this more indepth with you? Thanks... /me grabs phone book and starts looking for child protection services hotline

	You are so out of line... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
	by Slobodan Milosevic on Tue Jul 24th, 2001 at 11:03:38 AM PST

	<p>This is not the way to deal with children that do not do as they are told. Whenever a child disobeys you, it should be seen as an act of creative expression by the child. It is just trying to tell you in its own special way how much it appreciates the wonderful parent that you are. <p>If your child ever commits a crime, it should be seen as opportunity to sit down, and have a much needed chat with your child about what it has done wrong. Through this discussion your child can learn what behaviour is appropriate, and what behaviour is not appropriate. It will grow up with the understanding gained from loving parents that care enough to tell their children about things. <p>How is your child supposed to know what it is being punished for if you just beat it? It will grow up resentful towards you for treating it so poorly. <p>None of us want our children to end up like GWB, now do we?

	Sorry... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
	by Slobodan Milosevic on Tue Jul 24th, 2001 at 11:05:44 AM PST

	Please excuse the <p> tags. My preferences where suddenly changed to plain text.

	Where was that line again? (none / 0) (#10)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jul 24th, 2001 at 11:12:33 AM PST

	You're just as far from it as the author of this article. "Son, now you know that blowing up your school was a bad thing to do, and I'm sure you'll never do it again." "You're right Dad, I'm glad we had this talk." <BR> There is, in fact, a middle ground, and it doesn't involve anything that can be referred to as "beating" your children. It does include physical punishment, however. <BR> Luckily, the author here was simply trying to point out that the conservative Christian approach to child discipline is just as ill-conceived as the method you describe.

	Christian Beatings? (none / 0) (#26)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 10:35:52 AM PST

	Since when is violence christian. You fanatics like to put the word Christian in front of your crimes, and say it's Gods will. If it's so Christian, then why would Christ say, if someone hits you, show them your other cheek so they can hit you again? Have you intpreted this into some sort of theological S&M? He was trying to teach you to be the gentle lamb, not the administrator of beatings. When was the last time god beat you?

	You know, I was with you until.... (none / 0) (#12)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jul 24th, 2001 at 01:25:52 PM PST

	....you started talking about beatings with a fireplace poker, requiring band-aids and peroxide, regularly scheduled beatings at random for no reason, beatings for looking at a book you disapprove of, beating your kids over things of which they have no control - like what other parents allow their children to watch at their houses. Instead of beating your kids into submission as the world sees fit, how about loving your kids into obedience as God does? I could see if your child were exhibiting behavior that was a danger to him/herself and/or to others, or if they sassed you back or gave you a hard time. In cases of autism and other related disorders tough love is often recommended by experts even, unless you're talking about going at your child with a fireplace poker. But great scott! I would not want my kids to dwell within a spirit of fear but of Power and Knowledge. As soon as they get out from under your regime they're going to do all the things you forbade them as they will have learned NOTHING from your methods other than the fear. Once that fear is removed the sky's the limit. Also consider this: if your child were to see or witness something objectionable, you would want them to come to you to discuss these things so that you can teach them in the way that they should go. Why would any child come to you if they think they're going to be beaten with a fireplace poker?

	Well Duh (none / 0) (#16)
	by specom on Tue Jul 24th, 2001 at 03:40:43 PM PST

	You know, idiots like you only encourage them. These stupid essays are not for real and are only satire posted here to ridicule christians. This and the posts attacking Wicca and Goths are meant to make christians look like ignorant simpletons. Follow some of the links in his post to see some of the foulest left wing hatred of christians on the web. The "St. Barmees" link has a link on it that leads to a site of images ridiculing Christ and his crucifiction, including devils sodomizing Jesus. It has become quite fashionable to attack and ridicule christians on the web in ways that would bring howls of protest from pressure groups were it applied to any other group. I often wonder if the people behind this really consider what the world would be like if they ever got their way and Christianity and christians ever disappeared. If they got their world with no moral absolutes (Do as thou wilt!?). Sorry if this sounds like preaching but if the Bible is right you are about to get it. I only hope you people can endure the world you so fervertly hoped for. This place only reinforces my belief that the web is populated by adolescent simpletons. Most of the "essays" on this site are weak transparent attempts at satire, but poster after slack jawed poster replies to them as if they were deadly serious. At the risk of becoming one of them I can only say that your so called "no-trolling policy" is a sick joke. This entire site is one big troll. Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.

	Theology (none / 0) (#18)
	by Peter Johnson on Tue Jul 24th, 2001 at 04:17:24 PM PST

	Sorry if this sounds like preaching but if the Bible is right you are about to get it. I only hope you people can endure the world you so fervertly hoped for. I hate to dissapoint you, but the dominant religions on this site are Scientology, Islam and Mormonism. None of these religions considers the Bible to be literally true. As a result, the editors of this site are unlikely to be impressed with threats of hellfire and damnation. As a Mormon, I do not believe in the existence of hell. Sure, there are a few benighted souls such as Judas Iscariot that are doomed to a realm known as "eternal darkness," but the inhabitants of that realm can be numbered on the fingers of one hand - it is reserved for those who have a perfect knowlege of God's goodness and wisdom, yet choose to deny that knowledge. It's one of the most inspiring features of Mormonism. Even Hitler goes to a better place on the day of judgement - it's just that some people go to better places than others. Frankly I consider the idea of eternal punishment to be incompatible with the entire concept of a just and loving God. --Peter Are you adequate? --Peter Are you adequate?

	I like this so much (none / 0) (#23)
	by jsm on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 04:49:42 AM PST

	I'm putting it in the FAQ ... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors ... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

	Crowley is not immoral (none / 0) (#30)
	by Peter Johnson on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 12:58:25 PM PST

	I don't follow the path of Wicca, but I know a few of them. They aren't the kind to simply go out and "do what they will" without regard for consequences. I'll agree with that. I consider Wiccans to be silly but hardly immoral. An it harm none, do what thou wilt is quite similar to the golden rule and Wiccans seem to try to follow it. If you think I was saying differently, you missed my point. When I say that An it harm none, do what thou wilt is a watering down of Aleister Crowley's Do what though wilt is the whole of the law I mean that it is a distortion of his teachings meant to convey a simple morality adapted to even the meanest understanding. That doesn't make it wrong at all. I'll be the first to agree that letting people go about their buisness as long as they ain't hurtin' nothin' is a solid moral stance. It's also a much less interesting and powerful statement than the phrase of Crowley's from which it is derived. Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law does not mean do whatever you damn well please. The wilt that Crowley uses refers to magic will. Disciples of Crowley are supposed to cultivate their magic will until it transcends both their conscious will (I will quit smoking) and their unconscious will (I'd kill for a cigarette right now) and becomes their true will. Through a hodgepodge of teachings borrowed from Freemasonry, Kaballah, Gnosticism, various Eastern doctrines and medieval Christian heresies, you are supposed to rise above the plane of consciousness and become truly enlightened. At this point no one can have power over you and you do not wish dominion over others. You are beyond good and evil, your will is to acheive perfection, not to improve or destroy others. This is what Crowley means by Do what thou wilt. Have I cleared things up for you? There are also interesting parallels between Crowley and Joeseph Smith, but I don't have time to go into them. --Peter Are you adequate? --Peter Are you adequate?

	Crowley's law (none / 0) (#31)
	by SpaceGhoti on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 01:54:06 PM PST

	Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law does not mean do whatever you damn well please. Perhaps not, but as this discussion has amply demonstrated, the mistake is easily made and misunderstood, particularly by people eager to go burn them some witches. The wilt that Crowley uses refers to magic will. It certainly does. But the full quote also sums up his philosophy and life, as suggested through this research. "...all (sexual) acts are allowed, if they injure not others; approved, if they injure not self. This liberty, far from fomenting lust, destroys sex-obsession..." This quote may enough to inspire violence in some pious individuals, and was more than enough to earn him a bad reputation in his community. While I tend to take the history about Crowley with a grain of salt, I understand that his reputation tends to sully any wisdom from his lips. The "bastardisation" of "do as thou wilt" is therefore acceptable to me, particularly when it helps to clarify a moral stance without necessarily changing it. True scholars and students of Crowleyism will catch what the unwashed masses have missed, and given time for the scandal of his behavior to pass, the truth will emerge. A troll's true colors.

	Uhh, Bitter are we? (none / 0) (#24)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 08:00:11 AM PST

	Good grief, why do you stay? Go elswewhere to feed, gees!

	Context (none / 0) (#19)
	by SpaceGhoti on Tue Jul 24th, 2001 at 04:22:33 PM PST

	...If they got their world with no moral absolutes (Do as thou wilt!?). If you're gonna quote it, quote the whole thing: An it harm none, do as thou wilt. A troll's true colors.

	Clue Time (none / 0) (#21)
	by Peter Johnson on Tue Jul 24th, 2001 at 04:30:39 PM PST

	An it harm none, do as thou wilt. I very much doubt that this is what he was quoting. That particular sentence is the attempt by Wiccans to water down the teachings of Aleister Crowley. You can tell it's Wiccan by the self conscious use of archaic English in an attempt to make their religion seem more than 70 years old (which it isn't). Crowley's argued that do what you will is the whole of the law. It was Rabelais' slogan before it was Crowley's. Also, it doesn't mean what the original poster seems to think it does. --Peter Are you adequate? --Peter Are you adequate?

	I'll see your clue (none / 0) (#29)
	by SpaceGhoti on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 12:10:37 PM PST

	I very much doubt that this is what he was quoting. I, of course, bow to your superior wisdom and telepathic powers. That particular sentence is the attempt by Wiccans to water down the teachings of Aleister Crowley. And this invalidates the statement? Bear in mind I don't follow the path of Wicca, but I know a few of them. They aren't the kind to simply go out and "do what they will" without regard for consequences. Most of them are very keen on watching out for feedback from the Threefold Law. Furthermore, what I know of Crowley isn't very pleasant, and if watering down "do what you will" makes people more comfortable and gives them a better moral guideline, I say go for it. It's not like the Mormons didn't have to go back to "correct" a few mistakes in their own scripture, or the Catholics perform endless meetings to decide what got kept and what got tossed out in their book of wisdom. A troll's true colors.

	*rolls eyes* (none / 0) (#22)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jul 24th, 2001 at 05:46:24 PM PST

	I don't know if the article is serious or not (I am leaning towards not) but this is just outrageous. It has become quite fashionable to attack and ridicule christians on the web in ways that would bring howls of protest from pressure groups were it applied to any other group. Yup, good thing the Christians don't attack and ridicule groups themselves.... if the Bible is right you are about to get it. Of course it never occured to you that perhaps the reason that Christians find themselves the target of scorn is the whole "turn or burn" thing. Normally when people go around and threaten innocent people with eternal torture it's a crime and the perpetrator goes to jail, but when christians do it we're supposed to tolerate it and say "oh, thank you for threatening me." Jesus tapdancing Christ the self-martyrdom is sickening. If you had a single thought other than for yourself you would know that there are real people in other countries who are imprisoned and killed because of their religious views. Poor you, you have to put up with St. Barmees and this whole first amendment thing (a freedom which brave men have fought for and died for, by the way.) Grow up and get a life.

	your cowardice is most un-Christian (none / 0) (#25)
	by jsm on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 08:19:37 AM PST

	These stupid essays are not for real and are only satire posted here to ridicule christians. That's a pretty serious, not to mention potentially libellous accusation to make. Would you care to back it up with evidence, or would you prefer it if I just deleted your post before a less level-headed and more litigious (ie American) adequacy editor see it? This and the posts attacking Wicca and Goths are meant to make christians look like ignorant simpletons Yeh, and the Black bloc in Seattle were all corporate agents put there by the FBI. Shuuure. It has become quite fashionable to attack and ridicule christians on the web in ways that would bring howls of protest from pressure groups were it applied to any other group What are you doing right now? Oh yeh, howling with protest. Hypocrite. Jesus had a few words for your sort. I often wonder if the people behind this really consider what the world would be like if they ever got their way and Christianity and christians ever disappeared. If they got their world with no moral absolutes (Do as thou wilt!?). What do you mean? There are only a few moral relativists on adequacy.org. Most of us are highly religiously devout (we count Mormons, Scientologists, Muslims and one Satanist among our ranks). manifold is the only editor who seriously does not believe in moral absolutes, and he hasn't had a story posted recently. Sorry if this sounds like preaching but if the Bible is right you are about to get it Perhaps so, but if "Dianetics" is right, you've already got it. This place only reinforces my belief that the web is populated by adolescent simpletons. Most of the "essays" on this site are weak transparent attempts at satire, but poster after slack jawed poster replies to them as if they were deadly serious Oh yeah, take the easy way out. Face facts, the articles posted on adequacy.org are sincere attempts to provide a home for controversial points of view which are regularly dismissed elsewhere on the Web. Pretending that they are anything other than serious is a cowardly way of avoiding having to face up to the arguments and refute them in their own terms. Did Jesus Christ say unto the moneychangers "oh, they're just doing it to get a reaction"? No, he took them on. How about the Gentiles, the Hypocrites, the Midianites and the Ammonites? In each case, the Church Militant took an attitude with rather more backbone than you're showing now. WWJD? ... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors ... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

	*lmao* (none / 0) (#13)
	by Harvey Black on Tue Jul 24th, 2001 at 02:29:58 PM PST

	I'm reminded of a Monty Python sketch. "When we got home, our parents would kill us and dance on our graves singing 'Halelujah'!" Firepoker? Why stop there? Here are some of my own handy impudence-prevention devices. Belt Sander Band Saw Cement Rats My house looks like an episode of "Fear Factor", but my kids behave goddammit!

	Alright.. (none / 0) (#14)
	by Husaria on Tue Jul 24th, 2001 at 02:31:26 PM PST

	Beating children? Granted, every child needs a good spanking once in a good awhile, but regularly scheduled beatings? Beatings with a red hot poker? Thats assualt. Beating, taken to the extreme, even moderately, scars the child for life, I am an example of this. When i was little, (7 years of age), my mother and I would do my homework together. If I got an answer wrong, she would slap me silly and call me a dumbfuck and question my very existence. This did wonders on my approach to others in my life. Later on, I would still accept these beatings, but in the process, my intelligence was questioned and once more, why am i living, and, added on later, "you will be nothing in life". Well now: I am quite a speech problem. I stutter now when I talk on occasion like answering a question or answering an important question or to authority and I can directly attribute this to the homework beatings. Now, you can tell me to quit whining and get over it, which I have done to an extent, its the fact that it did happen and what it has done to me so far that lingers in me. So, beating children may save troubles in the future, but you're going to have many emotional problems if you abuse your child. What am I saying? Be moderate with your child. Don't make the child feel worthless in the beating. Love the child. Sig sigger

	Wait a minute (5.00 / 2) (#15)
	by seventypercent on Tue Jul 24th, 2001 at 02:44:04 PM PST

	It appears that I'm getting some flak over the whole fireplace poker thing. Let me clear a couple of things up: I did not once suggest that the poker should be "red hot!" Anybody who would beat a child with a red-hot poker is a sadistic son of a bitch and deserves to be reported with the authorities. A "cold" poker is more than enough to get the point across. As I stated, a fireplace poker is Level 3 punishment and therefore should be reserved for only the severest incidents of misbehavior. I got it three times when I was a child .. only three times out of thousands of beatings. That says something about how sparingly it should be used. Some of you are putting words in my mouth, methinks. By all means, beat your children .. but do it responsibly! -- Red-blooded patriots do not use Linux.

	My apologies (none / 0) (#17)
	by Husaria on Tue Jul 24th, 2001 at 03:46:38 PM PST

	Usually, when were thinking of pokers, we're thinking they're hot, sorry bout that Sig sigger

	Still assault (none / 0) (#27)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 10:40:18 AM PST

	It's still assault. Whether it's a hot poker, or a cold poker - it's a long thick metal rod. Didn't you ever think that if you weren't being beaten your whole life, you'd still grow up to be a well adjusted individual, and probably advocate that beating your children is barbaric. but who is to blame? obviously your parents, who should be put behind bars, so they can get a taste of what a REAL "poker" is.

	Upon further thought I've decided ... (none / 0) (#20)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jul 24th, 2001 at 04:24:00 PM PST

	You really are a sad, sick little monkey, aren't you? If anything, it's the adults that need a good beating - and NOT in a good way, mind. True, there's a lack of discipline in today's world, but honestly. much rolling of eyes here If I didn't know any better (ha) I'd think that a lot of you folk post here just to shake things up & see what reactions you'll get. grin

	Read the essay (none / 0) (#28)
	by Sir Asul on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 10:41:00 AM PST

	Did anybody read to the end of the essay, or did everyone start criticizing after the first few? At the end of seventypercent's essay it's clearly stated: "They should not be beaten savagely or maliciously, and (as I have said) we should take no undue pleasure in performing this duty. But the death toll that has resulted from leftist childraising techniques is quickly becoming incalculable, and it's time that we, as parents, realize that "political correctness" does not imply moral or logical correctness." I fully and totally agree with this statement. You damn Psychiatrists have had your way with raising children "Don't touch them, you'll hurt them....just talk". Well, guess what...it's not working. I say go back to the belt and inflict some pain when the child does something wrong. The one and only, Sir Asul

	Why use such anachronistic means of punishment? (none / 0) (#32)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 10:38:58 PM PST

	I feel that taking advantage of current technology, if you really want to punish someone _and_ have him learn something from it, electric shocks are the best. Why punch someone who pisses you off in the face, and not just buzz him with your electric shock gun? It leaves no permanent damage to the body (& soul) as well as literaly shakes the person back into a nicer human being. On a more serious note, IMHO the problem isn't really parents not beating their children that's causing the moral decay of our society, It's actually the parents being busy & not raising their children at all, because they are SO busy with their important careers & egos. I for one simply do not understand, Why have a child if you know that you would'nt have the time to raise him? He'd end up raising himself and it's most likely that you would'nt like the way that he turnes out. (Or, in a good instance, just ignore you as you've ignored him) There is nothing that physical punishment can achieve that cannot be achieved using alternative means of education. Even a single shout from an otherwise calm parent can put a child back into proportions after he's done something wrong. Furthermore, truely wise upbringing of children is done while spending the time & effort in order to have the child develop a healthy concious. I believe that if you can tell the difference between good and bad, your concious would do the dirty work of punishing you. We are not in the middle ages, it's not about being afraid of our parents or society, it's about truely understanding our actions & as a consequence feeling content with them or ashamed of them. If there is any justification for physical punishment, it may be for abusive children only and to a _very_ limited degree. However , what I do find positive in this article is the very positive discussion of how to raise children, who have not been the center of public interests for years, so I feel. Besides, It may sound like a disgusting thing to say, but any type of parenting is better than ignoring children at all.

	Woah. (none / 0) (#35)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 05:53:36 AM PST

	Woah. Thats Deep. So, i should beat my children more? Or should i use my stun gun on them? maybe som mace. What about the iranian guy across the street named Phill? Have him beat the 'ol kids with a stick? Perhaps a guard dog to keep them in thier rooms? I hear purebread Dobermen are quite cheap this year. Thanks for the insight!

	Pardon my spelling... (none / 0) (#33)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 10:40:36 PM PST

	It's "conscious" rather than "concious" not a native english speaker...

	You're weird (none / 0) (#34)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jul 31st, 2001 at 12:43:14 PM PST

	Judging from your past stories, I have the impression that you are an ultra-conservative, biggoted klansmen who believes that we should not even consider evolution was possible. Please confirm or deny my suspicions. Thank you.