<:pepelaugh:544857300179877898>

people who have been "bad abused" do return from the darkness though

people who have seen none are doomed to fail

That's a bit far. I doubt any kids are born bulletproof.

might be just me but id atleast prefer some odds over no odds

don’t worry, you’ll be able to cut childcare costs

No... ***SOME*** people who have been badly abused return.

remember, the beating of kids ALSO has to do with information because when our dad said, "I brought you into this world and i can take you out of it" we BELEIVED him

Others shoot up schools, commit suicide and so forth.

Turn to criminality.

we didn't have no internet to show he couldn't do this

or no 1900 number

@ManAnimal the fact he didnt take us out of it is why he's admirable

that BELEIF was the most important element

its not a belief

and that is only possible in a vaccum

its completely true

if you dont think you could kill your child under any circumstance, youre the type of person that would

dont get me wrong i wouldnt encourage it, but having no good men is worse than having some bad men

where the kid doesn't have access to more infor than the parent

I don't personally believe doing that to a kid is wholly necessary... at least not until some cusp has been reached.

lol i wouldnt treat that axiomatically Boop but i agree with the sentiment

it isn't the actual beating, it's the effect the beleif that the threat has on the child

Where the kid has gone so far... so extremely far... that they need to be reminded of who is the boss.

cause in reality, there ARE things that can hurt them

I tend to agree with Boop.

consider that people in their mid 20s are basically children now

best to scare them straight when they are younger as the older they get the HARDER that becomes

If you don't think you can murder and be cruel, then you are the type who could easily slide into that because you are unaware of how dangerous you actually are.

and the more dangerous as well

@Zakhan pretty much summarizes why censorship is bad tbh

@ManAnimal Well, duh. But they need to go too far before it is reasonable to commit to "painful chastisement."

don't follow

i think hes linking my previous statements with yours inapropriately

they need? as in they should? is a prerequiste of...?

kind of a few parallel conversations goign on rn

yup

You don't beat your kids unless you have no other choice to exert obedience, which, in and of itself, is a failure of parenting, thou one you pretty much will certainly commit at some point or another. One does not apply physical punishment as means of asserting control over a student (unless, as I said, there is no other choice you can think of and the situation is grave), physical discipline can be applied to a student that *understands* that he is being though and accepts the physical punishment as means of education *willingly* - so this is a step above asserting control. For example: you have a kid (or adult for that matter) you're teaching the appropriate choreography for whatever. Dancing, martial arts, some start, whatever. They are doing some training routine, and they make a misstep - their leg went to far to one side or something. You smack that leg with a stick - hard, but not permanent damage hard. This general idea applies to other forms of pressure as well, not just physical.

You need to build them up, give them challenges to overcome and let them endure pain to get what they want. But you should never beat anyone, let alone a kid... unless it is truly necessary. They have to fulfill the criteria as having gone too far. And even then, you have to keep it to minimal necessary force.

are you pointing out that a penalty shouldn't be random?

disagree