Sociopath Community

Xadem said: 

delora... said: 

Lena said: 

delora... said: 

Tryptamine said: 

Was meant @Lena.

 oh. good because make no mistake i will beat a kids ass if they need it.

 What would qualify as "needing" it?

 for example, if a child hurts another child, or steals, or lies, the first time they get a warning, but if they do it again they will need a firm but not harmful smack on the ass, so they can grow up to not do things harmful to themselves and others.

So you will hurt your child to teach it that it's wrong to hurt other children? 

Makes sense. 

 a spanking isnt the same as being hit. 1 smack on the but, is just like smacking a child on the hand but better because it hurts less on the butt.

Lena said: 

delora... said: 

Lena said: 

delora... said: 

Tryptamine said: 

Was meant @Lena.

 oh. good because make no mistake i will beat a kids ass if they need it.

 What would qualify as "needing" it?

 for example, if a child hurts another child, or steals, or lies, the first time they get a warning, but if they do it again they will need a firm but not harmful smack on the ass, so they can grow up to not do things harmful to themselves and others.

 If they are doing those things then a warning isn't what the child needs. Being hit isn't what the child needs either, you need to a non physical way to get them to understand why what they did isn't right or have them explain to you why they did it but you can't just hit a kid and think it's gonna be hunkydory afterwards. Also, children lie all the time or otherwise tell stories. Like almost every child has done this, no need to punish them for it so harshly. 

 further more, yes anytime someone does something for the first time they deserve a warning because they have never done it before and dont know any better

delora... said: 

can i have your baby?

That question is oddly haunting on it's own. 

Xadem said: 

delora... said: 

Lena said: 

delora... said: 

Tryptamine said: 

Was meant @Lena.

 oh. good because make no mistake i will beat a kids ass if they need it.

 What would qualify as "needing" it?

 for example, if a child hurts another child, or steals, or lies, the first time they get a warning, but if they do it again they will need a firm but not harmful smack on the ass, so they can grow up to not do things harmful to themselves and others.

So you will hurt your child to teach it that it's wrong to hurt other children? 

Makes sense. 

Thank. You. 

We have more life experience than said child, why go the low road? There is perfectly fine psychological warfare that can get similar points across without it being a smack-down. 

Turncoat said: 

Xadem said: 

delora... said: 

Lena said: 

delora... said: 

Tryptamine said: 

Was meant @Lena.

 oh. good because make no mistake i will beat a kids ass if they need it.

 What would qualify as "needing" it?

 for example, if a child hurts another child, or steals, or lies, the first time they get a warning, but if they do it again they will need a firm but not harmful smack on the ass, so they can grow up to not do things harmful to themselves and others.

So you will hurt your child to teach it that it's wrong to hurt other children? 

Makes sense. 

Thank. You. 

We have more life experience than said child, why go the low road? There is perfectly fine psychological warfare that can get similar points across without it being a smack-down. 

 ever see a smack on the hand when a child misbehaves? is that abusive? no one ever says that is. so why is a LESS PAINFUL smack on the butt which is MOSTLY FAT BTW and hurts LESS than a smack on the hand? its not a smack down. a smack down is beating them with a shoe or something. 

delora... said: 

Turncoat said: 

Xadem said: 

delora... said: 

Lena said: 

delora... said: 

Tryptamine said: 

Was meant @Lena.

 oh. good because make no mistake i will beat a kids ass if they need it.

 What would qualify as "needing" it?

 for example, if a child hurts another child, or steals, or lies, the first time they get a warning, but if they do it again they will need a firm but not harmful smack on the ass, so they can grow up to not do things harmful to themselves and others.

So you will hurt your child to teach it that it's wrong to hurt other children? 

Makes sense. 

Thank. You. 

We have more life experience than said child, why go the low road? There is perfectly fine psychological warfare that can get similar points across without it being a smack-down. 

ever see a smack on the hand when a child misbehaves? is that abusive?

Yes, and it teaches all the wrong lessons. All you're demonstrating is how scale and individual privilege allow for and enable physical aggression as a solution. 

It just tells them that they are too small to win against you. 

no one ever says that is. so why is a LESS PAINFUL smack on the butt which is MOSTLY FAT BTW and hurts LESS than a smack on the hand?

They're both bad. 

its not a smack down. a smack down is beating them with a shoe or something. 

It's assaulting a child because you can't think of what to say. The child is liable to model off of this, seeing might makes right instead of using one's words. 

Turncoat said: 

delora... said: 

Turncoat said: 

Xadem said: 

delora... said: 

Lena said: 

delora... said: 

Tryptamine said: 

Was meant @Lena.

 oh. good because make no mistake i will beat a kids ass if they need it.

 What would qualify as "needing" it?

 for example, if a child hurts another child, or steals, or lies, the first time they get a warning, but if they do it again they will need a firm but not harmful smack on the ass, so they can grow up to not do things harmful to themselves and others.

So you will hurt your child to teach it that it's wrong to hurt other children? 

Makes sense. 

Thank. You. 

We have more life experience than said child, why go the low road? There is perfectly fine psychological warfare that can get similar points across without it being a smack-down. 

ever see a smack on the hand when a child misbehaves? is that abusive?

Yes, and it teaches all the wrong lessons. All you're demonstrating is how scale and individual privilege allow for and enable physical aggression as a solution. 

It just tells them that they are too small to win against you. 

no one ever says that is. so why is a LESS PAINFUL smack on the butt which is MOSTLY FAT BTW and hurts LESS than a smack on the hand?

They're both bad. 

its not a smack down. a smack down is beating them with a shoe or something. 

It's assaulting a child because you can't think of what to say. The child is liable to model off of this, seeing might makes right instead of using one's words. 

 all a child knows is "this is good because it feels good, this is bad because it feels bad" as they develop. and every no spank family i have ever seen, has been filled with rip roaring brats who never seem happy

delora... said:

all a child knows is "this is good because it feels good, this is bad because it feels bad" as they develop.

and every no spank family i have ever seen, has been filled with rip roaring brats who never seem happy

How would you know? Do you ask everyone if they were spanked as a kid? 

Delora just don't raise your hand at your kids, it's unneeded and lazy. Being a parent is tough and hard work, you can perfectly raise one without even a hint of violence. This goes for most if not all human interaction. Violence is often a sign of weakness. 

delora... said: 

Turncoat said: 

delora... said: 

Turncoat said: 

Xadem said: 

delora... said: 

Lena said: 

delora... said: 

Tryptamine said: 

Was meant @Lena.

 oh. good because make no mistake i will beat a kids ass if they need it.

 What would qualify as "needing" it?

 for example, if a child hurts another child, or steals, or lies, the first time they get a warning, but if they do it again they will need a firm but not harmful smack on the ass, so they can grow up to not do things harmful to themselves and others.

So you will hurt your child to teach it that it's wrong to hurt other children? 

Makes sense. 

Thank. You. 

We have more life experience than said child, why go the low road? There is perfectly fine psychological warfare that can get similar points across without it being a smack-down. 

ever see a smack on the hand when a child misbehaves? is that abusive?

Yes, and it teaches all the wrong lessons. All you're demonstrating is how scale and individual privilege allow for and enable physical aggression as a solution. 

It just tells them that they are too small to win against you. 

no one ever says that is. so why is a LESS PAINFUL smack on the butt which is MOSTLY FAT BTW and hurts LESS than a smack on the hand?

They're both bad. 

its not a smack down. a smack down is beating them with a shoe or something. 

It's assaulting a child because you can't think of what to say. The child is liable to model off of this, seeing might makes right instead of using one's words. 

 all a child knows is "this is good because it feels good, this is bad because it feels bad" as they develop. and every no spank family i have ever seen, has been filled with rip roaring brats who never seem happy

 You think being hit might make them happy?