This is why we teach you not to play with matches, kids.

I have to agree that beating the children won't make them learn their lesson. If anything, they're going to keep doing it if they get beaten.
The primary accountable parties here are the parents, and the persons who gave these kids acess to matches. What parent in their right mind gives eight-year-olds matches? If the kids found them on the sidewalk (or something like that) then it's the fault of the person who left them there.
I do believe that the children should be made to help out some of the victims though. At minimum, they should be trained to think before they act, which is probably the real underlying cause of this problem. (That seems to be a big problem these days; people aren't being taught to think before they act.)

Lexin wrote:

grmblfjx wrote:

These kids need to be punished in an age-appropriate fashion. Neither beating them to within an inch of their lives nor sentencing elementary schoolers to a life time of crippling debt is age-appropriate.

Word. These kids were eight - I doubt that they have the capacity to understand the risk they were running by playing with matches.

That's sarcasm right? The not understanding at eight the damange fires cause. My cousin who's six knows better than that. Hell, I knew not to play with fire at the age of 3. Children in the 3rd grade are taught not to play with fire. I'm all for coporal punishment, these kids need there ass whooped in my humble opinion. They destroyed 2 buildings, put people's lives at risk and for what? Because it was fun. Okay yeah, sorry but I disagree.

ETA: Harley, shut up.

T.S.Orr wrote:

That's sarcasm right? The not understanding at eight the damange fires cause. My cousin who's six knows better than that. Hell, I knew not to play with fire at the age of 3.

I think there's a difference between understanding something in a basic sense and truly comprehending what it means. For instance, a lot of adults are aware that the equation E = mc^2 has something to do with Einstein's theory of relativity, but how many people really understand what it means or entails, unless they've studied physics?

Likewise, even up through the teen years (and beyond), it's not uncommon for people to be unable to fully anticipate consequences. But that's especially true with small children. Just because a child has been told that playing with matches is dangerous and "knows" not to do it doesn't necessarily mean that they have a good understanding of what could happen if they did play with matches. As I already mentioned, I was over cautious as a kid because that's generally my nature. I'm less paranoid about stuff like starting fires now because I have a more realistic and mature understanding of the actual risk. But other kids may not really think that playing with matches is that dangerous.

Quote :

I'm all for coporal punishment, these kids need there ass whooped in my humble opinion. They destroyed 2 buildings, put people's lives at risk and for what? Because it was fun. Okay yeah, sorry but I disagree.

And what will beating the children accomplish? Scaring them into submission? How does that teach them anything?

Wouldn't a better option be to show the children the effect of their actions, and have them compensate for it in an age-appropriate manner that might actually stick with them as they grow up, in a positive way?

One, a whooping aka a spanking =/= beating. God I swear I bet y'all are the kind of parents who have children that throw damn temper tantrums in the middle of the floor in Wal-mart when they don't get their way or something they want. Hmmm maybe it's because y'all only want to "ground" them by sending them to their rooms with every fucking game invented.

Sorry, like communism it's a good idea in theory but not in practice. I grew up getting spankings and you know what, it did me a hell of a lot of good. It stopped me from doing a lot of things that would have gotten me or others hurt. Like I don't know, playing with matches and setting shit on fire.

You disagree with my practices that's fine, I'll disagree with yours and that's fine.
I still stand by my "they need their asses whooped.

good god why can't we just slap toddlers on the mouth anymore nowadays

T.S.Orr wrote:

One, a whooping aka a spanking =/= beating. God I swear I bet y'all are the kind of parents who have children that throw damn temper tantrums in the middle of the floor in Wal-mart when they don't get their way or something they want.

And hitting a child =/= discipline. Also? Those kids throwing tantrums in Wal-Mart? More often than not, in my experience, they're the ones whose parents are threatening them with spankings if they don't start behaving. Doesn't seem to do much good.

This is one of the few things I am absolutely dead-set on. Spanking is abuse, not discipline. Maybe it 'works' for some kids. It doesn't make it a good thing to do.

Well DeeDee in MY experience the little brats that throw the tantrums are the one's that only get told "stop, don't do that, you're on time out."

Spanking is not abuse and when I have kids, I'll be dead-set on using it as discipline and I dare someone to call CPS.

Damnit, now I wish I knew where my mandated reporter's manual was. I think even most DCFS/CPS agencies make a distinction between spanking and abuse - IIRC, spanking is not abuse until it leaves a visible mark on the child or the child is unable to sit down because of pain.

Whether or not it works for a kid depends on the kid. Whether or not it is abuse depends on the parent's force and intent.

In this case? Hell yes, I probably would spank 'em. Then ground 'em - and yes, I would make sure that meant the game system was locked away or whatever. I might also make them write apology notes/apologize in person to everyone affected. They would definitely at least need to see what kind of damage they caused.

Sparrow, finally someone with their heads not in their asses. :lolinsane:

Why is the spank-wank so much less hysterical this time? Where's melissa?

T.S.Orr wrote:

One, a whooping aka a spanking =/= beating. God I swear I bet y'all are the kind of parents who have children that throw damn temper tantrums in the middle of the floor in Wal-mart when they don't get their way or something they want. Hmmm maybe it's because y'all only want to "ground" them by sending them to their rooms with every fucking game invented.

Or maybe their kid has special needs. But hey, if you want to jump to the "Well, obviously they don't discipline their children" idea, more power to you.

T.S.Orr wrote:

One, a whooping aka a spanking =/= beating. God I swear I bet y'all are the kind of parents who have children that throw damn temper tantrums in the middle of the floor in Wal-mart when they don't get their way or something they want. Hmmm maybe it's because y'all only want to "ground" them by sending them to their rooms with every fucking game invented.

Hooray for sweeping generalizations! You just keep on truckin' with your assumptions! Logically, if one does not spank a child, one must not understand how to discipline a child at all! Huzzah!

(For the record, I am a believer in spankings to a certain degree, but the above quote was really just asinine.)

Robots if the child has special needs then of course you wouldn't hit them. I was referring to the spoiled little kids who just throw temper tantrums because they aren't getting their way. I see it far too frequently. I also see parents who let their kids get away with god only knows what and think it's cute. Those are the types I was referring too.

Inkweaver, I never said that they didn't know how to discipline their children but calling spanking abuse is fucking asinine in and of itself. I get that some people feel that it is. That's their opinion and I respect that. I think they're wrong but then again that's me. I stand by my "I'll spank as discipline" stance. In this case where two kids set an entire building on fire and put people's lives in danger, they need their asses whooped not a damn grounding or time out. That's just my opinion as I've stated in previous posts.

I have never beaten a child nor will I ever but I have spanked them and it worked. That, is all I have to say.

That's a more reasonable stance, one I agree with to a certain point, but that was not what you were saying before. And I'll just leave it at that. Thank you for clarifying, though.

T.S.Orr wrote:

Robots if the child has special needs then of course you wouldn't hit them. I was referring to the spoiled little kids who just throw temper tantrums because they aren't getting their way. I see it far too frequently.

Just curious--how can you honestly tell unless you know all these kids well? You're probably right that most children who act up in public do so because they're undisciplined, and not because they have special needs. But in most situations, there is no way you can tell that for sure just by observing a family in a store.

And you haven't answered why you think children cannot be disciplined without spanking. If you want to talk about your observances, fine. I'll talk about mine: the only times I've seen parents threaten to spank their children, the parents have been frustrated and seemed desperate. I've yet to meet anyone who's quick to threaten a spanking who honestly seemed to be on top of things at all. On the other hand, I was never spanked and most of my friends never were. And we all had very happy, loving childhoods.

Quote :

I never said that they didn't know how to discipline their children but calling spanking abuse is fucking asinine in and of itself. I get that some people feel that it is. That's their opinion and I respect that.

If you think it's "fucking asinine," then obviously no, you do not respect it.

Do I think that all parents who spank are abusive? No. I think, hope, that most have good intentions. But I do not see spanking as being a responsible or healthy choice. The risks far outweigh the benefits when there are other, more respectful and disciplined alternatives that can easily be used as a first resort. And frankly, I would rather never have children than have one and spank them.

WARNING: BUTTHURT TL;DR APPROACHING. WARNING.

You have been warned.

Right then.

1) Children are generally not good at forseeing consequences. Even through the teenage years, kids tend to mentally treat each action as a separate thing. This is why children and teenagers do stupid stuff. Ever heard an adult moan at an errant teenager "Oh, I wish that you would just think before you do these things"? The truth is that they don't think. They are still learning to think ahead.
And don't tell me that "oh I never did that". If you knew that you were doing it, you would never have had the problem at all, now would you?

2) Children are not animals. Believe it or not, they are actually sentient beings with the ability to learn from their mistakes. In fact, children pick up things much faster than adults. They may not be fully emotionally developed, but this does not mean that they do not understand or acknowledge things that happen to other people. They are human beings, not idiotic, selfish monsters.


Personally, I think that seeing the result of what these children have done would be enough punishment for them. Come on, some of us must have been there - your parents have may yelled at you, punished you, whatever... but that point, the point where they no longer have words or punishments... the one where they just sigh or look away... that's when you, as a child, knew that some line had been crossed. Where you knew that you had done something truly hurtful or harmful. And for me, that was always the very worst punishment that I could have received.

It's easy to tell children not to play with matches, in the same way that it's easy to tell them not to climb trees too high or not to walk mud into the house. They'll still bloody do it, and you know why? Because they have never experienced burning themselves with a match, or falling from a tree, or having to get mud out of a white carpet. And as such, they don't know the dangers, the consequences that will follow their actions.

It's part of growing up.

Come on. Remember when you cut yourself playing with scissors, so never messed around with them again? When you fell down the stairs, so you stopped playing at the top? When your cat bit you, so you stopped pulling its tail? When you scalded yourself, so you stopped playing with the kettle? These things happen to everyone. They are life lessons, in the same way that learning to cook for yourself or to manage your finances are life lessons. They are simply the most basic ones.

Every child does dumb things in the name of adventure, of finding out more about the world around them. And sometimes it backfires badly, like my friend who broke her arm falling from a tree, like my brother who needed stitches after 'playing' with broken glass, like my cousin who set her bed on fire after mucking about with her overheated lamp. Sometimes it backfires horribly, like what happened to these little boys. They burned down a building. But don't forget, what they did were the same basic actions of the kid who burns their finger, who burns a hole in the carpet, who sets a napkin on fire. It's not like they purposely set out to set the building on fire. What they did was stupid, yes. But no more stupid than things that normal children do every fucking day. They were simply unlucky in that their actions backfired so terribly.

Finally, if you see an adult behaving like a cock - not even a stranger, maybe your spouse, your sibling, uncle, aunt, a parent, hell even a grandparent - what do you do? Do you go and give them a smack for being such an arsehole? And if not... why not?



P.S: My friend's little brother used to throw fucking awful temper tantrums all the time as a toddler and a young child. His parents thought that he was just very naughty. Fast forward to when he was a little older - turns out he's autistic.

P.P.S: The phrase "y'all", when typed, is really, really, REALLY fucking annoying.

T.S.Orr wrote:

In this case where two kids set an entire building on fire and put people's lives in danger, they need their asses whooped not a damn grounding or time out.

The kids either didn't understand the consequences of their actions, or they lacked the empathy to care about them. If they didn't understand the consequences of their actions, surely the guilt of burning down their apartment building would teach them. If they didn't care about others, spanking them wouldn't make them more empathetic. It would send the message that they should avoid hurting others in order to avoid punishment, but it wouldn't help them understand any further why it is wrong to hurt others.

Giving time-outs for the kids or having them write apologies forces them to stop and think about the implications of what they have done. Having them donate their time or possessions to the people they harmed helps them make amends for their mistake. Grounding them acknowledges that the child is not ready to handle the amount of freedom the parent has entrusted to them. But what does spanking do other than motivate the child with fear?

It depends on the child. For me, spankings were reserved for when I well and fully crossed the line, such as when I kicked the family cat on a dare from other nieghborhood kids (who I probably shouldn't have associated with, either, and that was the beginning of the end of the friendship). Sometimes it was because every other alternative had been tried, and I had kept up the behavior. Spankings were rare, and the lessons stuck because of that.

Seule had a point, that some kids learn they've crossed the line when the parents run out of punishment and go quiet. Others don't. Myself, I didn't catch on to that until I was closer to my teens.

Earlier, I gave my response about what I would do if I were the parent in this case. It's what I consider appropriate, but others may disagree. But the truth is, none of us know what sort of discipline the parents practice or what the kids respond best to (spanking, grounding, etc).

Are you all seriously suggesting that these kids who are undoubtedly old enough to have had the message of "FIRE IS BAD DON'T PLAY WITH MATCHES" drilled into their heads and that caused a condo to burn to the ground causing $2 million in damage, at the most, deserve a spanking?

The fuck is the matter with you people?!

And also:

Quote :

I doubt that they have the capacity to understand the risk they were running by playing with matches.

Quote :

and kids that young have trouble with risk-assessment and understanding potential consequences, sometimes.

Quote :

unless they're either very intelligent or their
parents have spent their whole lives pounding them over the head with
it, don't have a clear understanding of cause and effect.

NO NO NO NO NO
From the moment you can understand language we learn that fire is painful and we should not deliberately create said fire especially not with matches. "Don't play with matches" has been so ingrained in our culture that it's common sense.

These kids don't deserve to be beaten but they certainly need to have some goddamn sense knocked into them, so to speak.

Mafiosa wrote:

Are you all seriously suggesting that these kids who are undoubtedly old enough to have had the message of "FIRE IS BAD DON'T PLAY WITH MATCHES" drilled into their heads and that caused a condo to burn to the ground causing $2 million in damage, at the most, deserve a spanking?

Nah, that's just the point of discipline we all decided to quibble over.

Sparrow wrote:

It depends on the child. For me, spankings were reserved for when I well and fully crossed the line

This. I'm pretty sure I was spanked six times because I doubt I forgot ANY of the times I was. I was spanked when I put myself and/or others in danger, like when I threw a hand mirror at someone. I was spanked when nothing else worked, like to break my habit of running off and hiding from my parents because "it was funny" and grounding me wasn't stopping me from doing it. I wasn't spanked for ordinary acting out. That was what grounding and time-out was for. Burning down people's homes is definitely crossing the line, on purpose or not.

Seule, if I saw an adult I knew about to burn down people's houses because they're doing something stupid like playing with matches, I would hit them for being ridiculously stupid. And have. When some moron threw fireworks on a campfire at a party I went to as a teenager, I whapped him multiple times on the arms and back after the rest of us ran around stomping out the little fires it set in the grass. Thank fuck it had rained recently or there could have been a godawful grass fire and no telling how many people and livestock would have been lost. At seventeen yeas old, he still didn't get that he shouldn't be starting a bunch of fires like that because it could be dangerous, but he sure as hell caught on to "doing this makes people hit me. Maybe I shouldn't do this."

If these were my kids, they'd be getting a spanking and they'd be grounded. They'd be writing apologies and they'd be giving up some of their own things to replace things that were lost. Yes, this comes from the same place as accidentally burning a finger, but the consequences this time to other people was so huge that a greater punishment is in order.

Seule wrote:

Personally, I think that seeing the result of what these children have done would be enough punishment for them.

QFT. Honestly, what would a spanking accomplish at this point? What would they learn from it that they haven't learned from two buildings and numerous homes being destroyed because of what they did? Do those who are endorsing it really think that they'll take something away from it, or do they just want the kids to suffer some physical, tangible negative consequences for their actions? Somehow, I think it's the latter.

For myself, I can only remember three spankings in my life (from my mom, anyway - wouldn't really call what I got from dad a "spanking"). All of them are associated with feelings of anger, humiliation and resentment. After one, I specifically remember going out into the backyard and pacing with clenched fists for an hour afterward, because the desire to hit something or lash out was so intense. I was absolutely furious and felt violated. I don't remember having particularly learned any lesson, and don't even remember the reason behind one of them.

I haven't decided whether or not I'll spank my children in extreme circumstances or not. I don't think I can make that call until I'm a parent in that situation. But I do think I'll remember how I felt about them, and really think hard about whether I felt it did any good for me or not.

Mafiosa wrote:

[...]These kids don't deserve to be beaten[...]

Personally, I disagree, but I'm not exactly parent material. I know that the opinion is potentially inflammatory, though, so I won't pursue it further.

VB wrote:

Do those who are endorsing it really think that they'll take something away from it, or do they just want the kids to suffer some physical, tangible negative consequences for their actions? Somehow, I think it's the latter.

This.

Quote :

I was absolutely furious and felt violated. I don't remember having particularly learned any lesson, and don't even remember the reason behind one of them.

And this.

VB wrote:

Do those who are endorsing it really think that they'll take something away from it, or do they just want the kids to suffer some physical, tangible negative consequences for their actions? Somehow, I think it's the latter.

It think that tangible negative consequences for bad actions are a perfectly fine way of discipline, and not just for children, as long as the person being disciplined isn't seriously injured*. But then again, I always took something away from it when I got spanked, and the reason for this was because I knew that I had done something so bad that my parents saw no other way fit to punish me.

*In this case serious injury means serious bruising and beyond, and any bruising on a child.

Quote :

I was absolutely furious and felt violated. I don't remember having particularly learned any lesson, and don't even remember the reason behind one of them.

Personally I felt that way more about being sent to my room (not violated, but furious) and I never learned my lesson. The reason for this was because I could get sent to my room for pretty much anything that my parents didn't want me to do. Hell, I got sent to my room for the night once for saying a weapon in Final Fantasy sucked because my parents didn't like us using the words that way. (The only reason that one stuck with me was because of how utterly ridiculous I thought, and still think, it was.) The lessons they tried to instill by sending me to my room or grounding me never really stuck, but the lessons that I learned on the rare occasions that they spanked me were the ones that really stuck with me, even if I may not remember them now, because I know that I always avoided repeating that action.

To simplify my stance on spanking: Pain is a deterrent. We learn not to play with fire by getting burned, not to play with sharp objects by cutting ourselves, and I think that in the case of a child severely misbehaving the best way for them to learn not to do it again if all else has failed is a spanking. I do think that spanking should be a last resort, but I don't feel that it should be considered abuse or ineffective, because I know that for me it was probably most effective than anything else my parents ever did.