Canada: Man decapitated on bus

[RedskinRat]

In 1960 we had a population of 179,323,175, a crime total of 288,460.
This gave us a 'Violent Crime' rate of 160.9.
Murder was 5.1
Rape 9.6
Robbery 60.1
Ag. Assault 86.1

In 2006 we had a population of 299,398,484 and the crime total was 1,417,745.
This gave us a 'Violent Crime' rate of 473.5.
Murder was 5.7, so 'Yay!'
Rape 30.9
Robbery 149.4
Ag. Assault 287.5

That's a nice chart though, OnlyDarKSets, shame it doesn't tell the whole truth.

This does, however:

Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime & Justice Data Online

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

In 1960 we had a population of 179,323,175, a crime total of 288,460.
This gave us a 'Violent Crime' rate of 160.9.
Murder was 5.1
Rape 9.6
Robbery 60.1
Ag. Assault 86.1

In 2006 we had a population of 299,398,484 and the crime total was 1,417,745.
This gave us a 'Violent Crime' rate of 473.5.
Murder was 5.7, so 'Yay!'
Rape 30.9
Robbery 149.4
Ag. Assault 287.5

That's a nice chart though, OnlyDarKSets, shame it doesn't tell the whole truth.

This does, however:

Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime & Justice Data Online

Yet you conveniently ignore the decline in all categories since 1992. The kids that enjoyed your "spare the rod" mentality in the 1950s were the adults committing crimes in the peak 1980-1990 years. The "hippie love children" of the 70s and 80s are the ones committing less crime now.

Of course, we don't need statistics to know that beating a child is an ineffective way to raise a kid.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

Yet you conveniently ignore the decline in all categories since 1992. <SNIP>

Are you suggesting that a slight decline is evidence that hippies haven't f**ked s**t up? Oh, and I lay a lot of the blame at Benjamin Spock's doorstep.

Look at the numbers again and try to spin them all you can, they are still MUCH higher.

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

Of course, we don't need statistics to know that beating a child is an ineffective way to raise a kid.

That's a typical limp wristed attitude. 'Of course...'. What a pathetic statement, right up there with other hollow assertions like 'As we all know..' and 'It's common knowledge..' when you fail to back up said statement with any facts.

For sure raising a child has to be dependent on the child, there is not one solution for all kids. There has to be a balanced attitude, carrot/stick, if you will. It's not about beating a child to a pulp, it's about fair and rational discipline.

This has transitioned way off my original point which was about people being more socially responsible. The plane going into a field in Somerset County was the highest level that we may see in our lifetime and it gives me hope, this was a low point. From my perspective.





Isn't this fun?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

Of course, we don't need statistics to know that beating a child is an ineffective way to raise a kid.

On this point, I will engage.

First, the word beating needs to be defined. If you're talking about some kind of strike to a child that can inflict bodily harm, cause bruises, bone bruises, break skin, or even break bones, then yes beating is entirely unnecessary, ineffective, and flat out wrong.

But if you're talking about a spanking - an open hand on the rear end or other soft tissue causing a stinging sensation - then that can be extremely effective and is not scarring. IF DONE PROPERLY.

First, when children are in the 1-3 year old range, they do not yet understand consequences. Their brains are also not yet developed enough to understand reason. You can't sit them down and say "Johnny, I do not want you to pull the dog's tail because it hurts the dog." He won't understand, the toddler brain is not capable of putting himself in another's shoes. A spanking creates a connection, a neural pathway, in the child's brain. Pull the dog's tail = pain on my hiney from a spank. That neural pathway is created that there is a negative consequence for doing that. This is how children come to understand consequences.

Consequences can be taught using other methods, though. Time out is extremely effective. Child pulls the dog's tail, you pick them up immediately and put them in the corner, or on a time-out chair, or wherever. You stand there and you don't allow them to get up. Usually they don't like being confined, and they don't like you being upset with them, so stern looks and a harsh tone of voice are also a must. You don't want to let timeout last too long or they forget what they were there for. You allow them to get up after about a minute, come over to you and make them apologize for pulling the dog's tail.

I use timeout on my 2-year old all the time. It's what I go to first. But she has a habit of just getting up in the middle of it. I put her back and yell at her and all that stuff. But if she keeps doing it, I go to the spank on the hiney. It's the last line of defense, and it always gets through to her.

Now, spanking must be done properly. If you look scary to the child when you're administering it, or if you do it rashly out of anger or frustration, you can inadvertently teach the child that it's ok to express anger or frustration by hitting. You must be completely calm, you must tell them it's coming, and even if they don't understand you must tell them why you're doing it. A calm demeanor also helps assure the child that you are not some scary monster.

Spanking runs the risk of teaching a child that it's OK to hit. But as long as you're not teaching that it's OK to hit out of anger, then the benefits of spanking (teaching consequences) outweigh the negatives. The negatives are minimized when a child never sees you come with a knee jerk reaction.

Sorry to preach on parenting, I recognize it can be very annoying to hear someone tell you how to raise your kids. So let me just disclaim that this is just my opinion and what seems to work well in my house. Each kid is different, some need a firmer approach and some need more encouragement.