StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Spandex, it's a privilige, not a right.

As for the other thing, the majority of people that I see going there aren't exactly up there on class.

I only go there because it is cheaper sometimes, the other times I use the Internet.

The way I figure it, the WT, etc. can want the cheap stuff so they go to Walmart, the richer people want the cheap stuff but use the Internet to get it.

Yup, it's always the fat spandex-wearing trash with dangling cigarettes and frequently with curlers. They then take their kids to McDonald's afterwards and order the MegaWhompBurger Supreme Continent Size and a Diet Coke...

There's nothing wrong with a spanking, especially if the kid deserves it-- and of course there is a world of difference between a spanking and child abuse.

I avoid WalMart like the plague after the Life Insurance scandal-- they had employees sign for life insurance, with a small premium deducted from their monthly paycheck, that made Wal-Mart the beneficiary in the event of their deaths.

Evil, evil, evil.

LMAO! Next they'll be demanding the immortal souls of their employees...

HemlockGrey wrote:LMAO! Next they'll be demanding the immortal souls of their employees...

You think that's not already included in the contract?

Coyote wrote:I avoid WalMart like the plague after the Life Insurance scandal-- they had employees sign for life insurance, with a small premium deducted from their monthly paycheck, that made Wal-Mart the beneficiary in the event of their deaths.

Evil, evil, evil.

You mean some of their employee sign the insurance that made wal-mart get the cash when they die,did they read it before signing or what.

There's a difference between a spanking and just grabbing the kid and whopping him a few times in the general vicinity of his backside.

AdmiralKanos wrote:...They have to learn that screaming, yelling, and even physical punishment lose their effectiveness if you overuse them...

That's an understatement... I know, cause my dad used to love whacking the snot out of me with his belt whenever I'd have issues at school (which was about weekly, usually amounting to a couple hundred dollars in damage to the school as well when I'd nuke off.) One day I'd had enough, put my hands over my ass and just glared at him, this pissed him off worse and he hit me harder than normal, he had no clue as to why I really put my hands there, and it sure as fuck wasn't to "piss him off" as he put it, nor was it to stop the pain, I didn't really get anything more than just greatly annoyed by the pain, I had thought that if I grabbed the belt and returned the favor that he'd stop it... I grabbed it, looked at him, yanked the belt with both hands and attacked him with it after ripping it out of his hands. The parents never spanked me again after that, partly because they knew I'd attack them for it, and partly because my mom realized that I didn't need it, she also realized I hadn't been joking for the year prior that all it did was make me madder and more likely to do something they wouldn't like...

Btw, I do think that spanking is a requirement for getting kids to not be total assholes later on, example was one guy I knew a few years back, parents never spanked him, most horrid personality, always expected to get what he wanted, and he'd stop just short of a 2-year-old's style of tantrum if he didn't. *shudder*

And out here, yeah wally world sucks ass, always full of fatasses, lousy stuff inside the store, parking lot full of beatermobiles as well.

I used to think that I would be a vigorous spanker as my dad used to beat the shit out of me regularly for being bad. (no folks not abuse, I deserved every spanking, it's a hispanic way of discipline) but I discovered that I did not need to spank my daughter. I only have to raise my voice and she instantly obeys. Its a matter of respect and discipline. Once you strike your child you have lost your pateinece and the battle. I have never touched my daughter and I don't think I could now. But frankly I don't need to and that gives a father a warm feeling.

BTW Yes fat people and spandex are a VERY BIG no no. I have absolutely no clue why these women do that

Montcalm wrote:

Coyote wrote:I avoid WalMart like the plague after the Life Insurance scandal-- they had employees sign for life insurance, with a small premium deducted from their monthly paycheck, that made Wal-Mart the beneficiary in the event of their deaths.

Evil, evil, evil.

You mean some of their employee sign the insurance that made wal-mart get the cash when they die,did they read it before signing or what.

I'm not sure if it was a "small print" deal where the employees were not aware of what they were signing, or if it was a implied threat of sign or find new work...

I really don't find much wrong with public spankings if it gets the kid to behave. My problem is with the fat women in spandex. However, a whining kid who gets spanked just might whine even louder, from my experiences of being spanked as a little kid.

I never got hit after I was roughly twelve years old

After all, What do you do to the Kid who got sent from school after he was attacked by three fourteen year olds, Broke the kneecap and nose of one, and the Jaw and Coller-bone of the second before the third ran


Law of unintented consquences-Never send a Kid who you intend to use Physical Displine on to two years of Judo Classes
They might learn somthing

I wasn't spanked very often, but when I was, I made damn sure never to whatever it was that earned the spanking again. That being said, spankings worked on me because 1), they were rare enough that I knew mom meant business when I got one, and 2), I knew to respect my parents. That second one is the key. My parents got me and my sister to respect them by never taking bullshit from us, never letting infractions slide because they didn't feel like disciplining us, never making idle threats, and never, ever, ever negiotiating with us to get us to behave (i.e., "I'll do x if you behave yourself"). At the same time, they didn't expect us to act like little adults and didn't scream at us for doing basic kid shit, and when they punished us, they kept the punishment proportional to the misdeed (typically, a quick swat on the ass, a lecture, and five minutes of sitting on our hands in our rooms, followed by a "talk" where my mom would explain exactly why she punished us). I had a friend of mine in high school who's father didn't understand the whole "proportionality" concept. Every minor infraction earned him "total punishment"--no going out, no TV, no video games, extra chores around the house, the works. Then his father could do nothing but sputter and rage when his son really fucked up, or when my friend just strolled out the door and said, "I know I'm on total punishment, but what are you going to do? Ground me?"

I used to be one of those people who insisted if you didn't spank your kid, the kid would automatically turn out to be an asshole. I've mellowed somewhat on that. If you can get the kid's respect without needing to hit him, then more power to you (and it makes the spanking that much more effective if you ever are pushed to the point of using it). The key is respect. If you don't get that, you might as well give up.

Superman wrote:Storm, you must be a public spanker. Just please, don't wear spandex while you do it.

I wonder if these parents use Wal Mart as punishment. They tell their kid, "you had better stop or we're going to Wal Mart!" Then if the kid persists, "that's it! Get in the car, we're going to Wal Mart!"

Me as a 3-7 yr old, when my mom or dad were going to town: "Can we go to KMarts? I wanna ride on the horsies!!" (which was a little 3-horse carousel that cost a quarter to ride.)

My nephew, 3yrs old, when my brother mentioned going to WalMart: "Daddee!! I wanna ride the racecar!" (Again, a little quarter-ride, now costing 50cents.)

My nephew, misbehaving, and his mother's reaction: "Alex! One!"
Alex quits.

My nephew a week later, when I and my mom were babysitting him and my godson Frankie. I've herded them inside because we'd been outside for an hour playing, and it was close to time for them to leave. Frankie, the worst one, runs outside again, yelling that he wants to play more, and refusing to stop when I tell him no three times and ignoring me when I tell him to get back inside. Alex, seeing this, runs outside too. I chase Frankie down, wack his butt once and give him a push to the door, then call for Alex. Alex returns, and I wack his butt too.
Then I have to explain to Mom that I smacked Alex because he'd heard me telling Frankie not to go. Mom had me explain that to Alex, who was bawling because An'Katty spanked him.

The weird thing? Once I'd explained to Alex why I swatted him, he stopped crying and nodded in understanding, and APOLOGISED for running. ("Sorry An'Katty") Frankie, on the other hand, was unrepentant, but then again, his mother is more... lax... about disclipline.

Alex was raised understanding that if Mommy or Daddy said "three" he was getting his bottom swatted.
Frankie's mommy will count to three, and if that doesn't stop him, she'll just sigh "Oh Frankie, just Stop..." He's continue a couple minutes, and stop on his own when he's ready, unless Katty is around. He's learnt that when Katty's around, if mommy's counted three, Katty's coming after him and *will* swat him for not listening to his mommy.

RedImperator wrote:I used to be one of those people who insisted if you didn't spank your kid, the kid would automatically turn out to be an asshole. I've mellowed somewhat on that. If you can get the kid's respect without needing to hit him, then more power to you (and it makes the spanking that much more effective if you ever are pushed to the point of using it). The key is respect. If you don't get that, you might as well give up.

And that is why Frankie is such trouble. Mommy let him get away with things. Her father had been a total disclipinarian, and she'd swore not to be. However, she went too far the other way.

I myself... weell.. I deserved every spanking, every 'grounded to the yard'. I got in trouble so often (I was THE tomboy of the block) that my father would get out the belt. Two licks from 2in of leather on your blue-jeaned behind, and you BEHAVE.

But the worst punishment my mother ever gave me was to tell me to sit on the couch and not move. No TV on, just me, on the couch, until the little hand reaches the six. That was the LOOONGEST ten minutes in the Universe.

It should be pointed out that while Spandex-related incidents of blindness are causing many loyal citizens to avoid Wal-Mart and other meeting places of white-trash fast food gobblers, there are worse things. Take for instance, the modern bikini. While generally providing young males (such as myself!) with an excellent reason for visiting the beach, this "itsy-bitsy, Teeny weeny" peice of swimwear is finding it's way into the wardrobes of many American females best described as "Huge Piles of glistening yellow adipose chicken fat." I can assure you, being beaten as a child won't screw you up half as much as allowing your eyes to linger for a second upon some fatso-american's beastly form.

oh, yeah, and spanking sucks. I can sort of see why folks do it, but it looks like a fucking shitty way to treat a little kid. There are lots of ways to punish someone, why physically assault them?







-this post has been a test of the Emergency Fancy Writing System. Thank you for baring with us in these verbiose times.

Hmm, I think they wear spandex in many cases (For the morbidly obese, at least) because it's cheaper than ordering your own custom clothing, which is kinda scary, because Walmart carries some of the biggest stocks of huge clothes I've seen.
Still, wouldn't it be possible to wear a bolt of cloth as a dress or something? At least that doesn't hug your thighs and...display your cellulite-clad legs to everyone.

I've never been spanked as a child, and I don't like to think of what I'd be like if I was. I was struck once in anger as a child by another child, and I just lost it. I was said to have taken "Hissy fit" to a new level, in that I actually hissed as I attacked him. I was slightly hurt afterwards, but more shaken by the fact that I had to dig skin from under a few of my nails. It wasn't that damaging to the kid, but I made a point never to lose control like that again...Now I'm pretty damned patient, but sometimes I still get fairly annoyed, .

What pisses me off is when I got out to dinner at my local pub and, bloody parents let their kids run around the place screaming as if the own the place. They don't even attempt to control the kid. It ruins a usually good night out.

Well, look, the evidence and data are VERY clear. Kids who were spanked are more likely to act out in an aggressive manner. I can show you countless studies. When you instill a schema into your child that violence is acceptable, your child will internalize it. There is another documented side effect as well; your child may become extremely frightened of confrontations, and this phobia may stick with them throughout their lives.

To say that, "I was spanked and turned out alright, so therefore it must be okay" is fallacious. You have no basis for comparison.

Superman wrote:Well, look, the evidence and data are VERY clear. Kids who were spanked are more likely to act out in an aggressive manner. I can show you countless studies. When you instill a schema into your child that violence is acceptable, your child will internalize it. There is another documented side effect as well; your child may become extremely frightened of confrontations, and this phobia may stick with them throughout their lives.

I have always wanted to look at these studies. It seems to me there are two factors they need to take into account. One is socio-economic class. The fact is poor people are more likely to be violent than suburbanites in all their relationships. If Johnny comes home to the suburb saying that a bully was picking on him, his parents are likely to tell him that the bully is just "jealous," and then they will call the school and the kid's parents and raise hell. When Billy comes home to the trailer park complaining of a bully, dad will probably tell him to beat the punk up. Johnny may never see his father get in a fight, while Billy very well may. Corporal punishment is generally frowned upon by the middle class in America, so the children being struck are more likely to poor and growing up in an environment that condones and even encourages violence as a socially acceptable means of problem solving. Are the youngsters violent because they were spanked, or because they were taught that violence is acceptable?

Also, as I mentioned before, there is a difference between disciplined spanking and a beating. I was spanked. My neighbors were beaten. Their father used green switches on them and left stripes all over their legs. Any study of corporal punishment should distinguish between different kinds of child-striking.

Well, here are a couple of references, and I would just like to post an entry from the May/June 2001 edition of the "Skeptical Enquirer." This appeared under an extensive article titled, "Common Myths of Children's Behavior."

"...empirical research indicates that, while most children who are spanked do turn out all right, children who are not spanked do better, and for a significant minority of children, spanking is harmful and abusive (Hyman 1990; Straus, Sugarman, and Giles-Sims 1997). So why are teachers and parents convinced? They are not aware of the necessity of an appropriate comparison group. They look to their own experiences without considering, 'what would I have been like if I hadn't been spanked as a child?' Of course, children can't be exactly equated. But when you randomly select large groups of children, you can compare the groups and draw some conclusions. As a group, children who are never spanked are in better shape psychologically-they are less likely to be aggressive and depressed later in life. Of course, we don't know if parents who spank are different in other ways from parents who don't-they might reason verbally with their children instead of spanking, or be more educated overall."

So, basically speaking, a correlation has been established here. Of course we cannot say with certainty that spanking causes maladaptive behavior, BUT we can look at the evidence and draw some conclusions.

Johonebesus wrote:

Superman wrote:Well, look, the evidence and data are VERY clear. Kids who were spanked are more likely to act out in an aggressive manner. I can show you countless studies. When you instill a schema into your child that violence is acceptable, your child will internalize it. There is another documented side effect as well; your child may become extremely frightened of confrontations, and this phobia may stick with them throughout their lives.

I have always wanted to look at these studies. It seems to me there are two factors they need to take into account. One is socio-economic class. The fact is poor people are more likely to be violent than suburbanites in all their relationships. If Johnny comes home to the suburb saying that a bully was picking on him, his parents are likely to tell him that the bully is just "jealous," and then they will call the school and the kid's parents and raise hell. When Billy comes home to the trailer park complaining of a bully, dad will probably tell him to beat the punk up. Johnny may never see his father get in a fight, while Billy very well may. Corporal punishment is generally frowned upon by the middle class in America, so the children being struck are more likely to poor and growing up in an environment that condones and even encourages violence as a socially acceptable means of problem solving. Are the youngsters violent because they were spanked, or because they were taught that violence is acceptable?

Also, as I mentioned before, there is a difference between disciplined spanking and a beating. I was spanked. My neighbors were beaten. Their father used green switches on them and left stripes all over their legs. Any study of corporal punishment should distinguish between different kinds of child-striking.

I think that's based on two factors as well: reactions to environmental confrontation and available public services. The first one is semi-dependent on the second. When public services become scarce, or are of poor quality, those normally offerred these services may believe themselves to be able to provide a better form of those services themselves. Additionally, a personal history of violence or hardship (Which is often common in low-income communities) may also contribute to it.

This is a chicken-and-egg situation. There is a broadly observed inverse correlation between socioeconomic class and the use of harsh discipline, and it doesn't really matter which causes which. The point is that it's a vicious cycle.

Go through any welfare district and look at the way the parents treat their kids. Then, make sure you don't do that

The point is, if a study says, "out of a group of 5,000 people who were "spanked" as children, 75% later had problems with violence or mental illness," the authors should first of all take class into account, perhaps by only looking at people of the same class. That is, instead of comparing all people who were spanked to the populace at large, they should only compare spanked and not-spanked groups from, say, the middle-class. Then, they should define spanking as most spanking advocates do, as a disciplined and controlled experience. Lumping me and those poor girls who lived next door to me as a child into the same group is ridiculous. It is like lumping together homosexuals and pedophiles. It is not a chicken-egg question, I just wonder if the people who claim spanking damages children have isolated or allowed for other possible factors. From my (admittedly limited) experience, child psychologists are generally idiots.

Of course, Wong's advice is probably best.