Fair enough; that was why I said it depends on the situation and on the child. Some will respond to time out; some won't. Some respond to spanking; some don't. However, you should never throw a valid tool out of the parenting bag just because others don't use it correctly!
A translation in keeping with the original language and the nuances of meanings of words actually says exactly that. Something more like "On the first epoch."
Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is just flat-out wrong. The original Hebrew speaks of a one-day period for each Creation day, and then clarifies by saying "it was an evening and a morning", just to be sure we understood that He was talking about ONE real, actual day. Example:
Genesis 1:5 "And the evening and the morning were the first day". The Hebrew word for "evening" is "`ereb", which means "evening" or "the period of a day between sunset and sunrise". The Hebrew word for "morning" is "Boqer", which means "beginning of the day" or "the period of a day between sunrise and sunset". The last word, "day", is the Hebrew word "Yowm", meaning "a 24-hour period comprised of one evening and one morning".
Now then, you are free to believe or dismiss the Bible as you see fit, and that is every man's choice. However, the meaning for those that DO believe is made very clear: when God speaks of one day, He meant ONE DAY, as perceived by Man, and consisting of one evening and one morning.
Hitting them only teaches them to hit. Don't hit your kid.
Wrong. Punching your child when he hits someone would be abuse, and is excessive force. However, giving your kid a smack on the bottom while telling them "NO" firmly teaches them that "I hit someone = I get punished". It is a perfectly acceptable deterrent to bad behaviour, at least when they're young. Spanking a child does no harm whatsoever, whereas NOT spanking a child may harm them a great deal in the long run, when they grow up without limitations and unable to understand simple behaviour/consequence actions.
That being said, it also depends on the situation and the child. I have spanked my two-year-old before, and then immediately hold him while he cries, and explain that I love him very much but that hitting is NOT tolerated. Once he calms down, I ask him "Why did you get spanked?" His response: "I hit Mom." "That's right, buddy; what happens if you hit Mommy?" "Daddy spank." "Right."
However, most of the time he simply gets a time-out in his room, in a big stuffed chair he has. He's two, so he gets two minutes. I set a clock, and he can hear when it beeps; he know that he can't play or look at his books in time out, and he HATES it. He is a very people-oriented child, and the time by himself is normally much worse than a smack on the hand would be. Again, when the time out is done, I go pick him up, hug him, and ask him what he did. He can almost always tell me, and he rarely needs reprimanded for the same thing more than once or twice.
Kids are brighter than you think, and much more resilient; try and make the punishment fit the crime, but don't be afraid to spank a kid if they need it. It's one of MANY tools at a parent's disposal to raise their child correctly.
Teach your kids birth control and responsibility but also realize that when they mature sexually they are sexual creatures just like everyone else. Let them grow up for chrissake.
What kind of psychopath are you? You're not talking about little Johnny being 18 and having a girlfriend who is 17. The girls are 14 years old. I don't know ANY thinking adult that would consider 14 as "sexually mature". Wait...you don't like in Kentucky, perchance, do you?
You know, you're not going to get very far around here with woman analogies. You're going to end up having to make analogies to explain your analogies.
Sup, dawg! We heard you like analogies, so we put an analogy in your analogy so you can analogize while you analogize!
The point was that the poster didn't know what "rough" is. Entitlement is simply a selfish illusion of grandeur, nothing more. When you spend some time in an impoverished Nation, then you can gripe about how "rough" life is, not when you get to grow up in one of the most free Countries in the world, with some of the best benefits anywhere.
How about you try moving to a backwater village in North Korea for the next 23 years? Then you can come back and let us all know how that whole "entitlement" thing works when you have real consequences for your actions.
The founders (perhaps for pragmatic reasons--no public education at the time) considered "common" people to be too dumb to vote.
We now have public education and mass media.
You're obviously not familiar with the current state of mass media or of public education, if you consider those statements anything but contradictory!
When did I write that doing abortions is the same as taking care of children? You need to get back to your Logic101 classes.
Um, how about right HERE:
That includes not preventing pregnancy, not doing abortions and not taking care of their children properly.
See, this is where you were talking about the poor, ignorant masses that are all too fatalistic to either:
a)not have children
b)abort those unwanted children
or c)take care of those children they DO have.
Right there would be where you were setting up implied equality in the situation, by listing all the alternatives in a grammatical structure of balance.
I'll use an example you should relate to easier: Now that Obama is in office, we'll have less taxes, more money, and a better economy!*
See, that sentence created a progressive equality, just as yours did. With mine it was: Less taxes leads to more money which leads to a better economy! Yours was that if those poor folk had any sense they'd: prevent pregnancy, abort the ones that DO happen, and take care of the select few that they decided were "keepers."
* The above statement is not representative of FishAdmin, his associates, or any sane person. It is merely used as an example, along the lines of "If frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their butts every time they hopped."
Ah, marked Flamebait, due to having an unpopular opinion; and here I thought the servers resided in a free Country! Disagreeing with me is NOT a reason to mark me Flamebait; I used no language more inflammatory than any OTHER opinionated poster, but since I am pro-life, it gets me modded down. If you think you have a REAL argument FOR abortion, I'd love to discuss it here; otherwise, ignore me because I'm simply uninformed, right?
That includes not preventing pregnancy, not doing abortions and not taking care of their children properly.
The fact that you can use the phrase "not doing abortions" beside the phrase "not taking care of their children" makes me sick. So, KILLING a child that hasn't been born yet and has had NO INPUT into it's circumstances is a way to TAKE CARE of the children? That is the kind of "care" that ends with a baby in a dumpster, or a mother drowning her kids in a bathtub. Your mentality is so wrong it's almost painful.
Not really; you just have to be a REALLY good shot, and have some great upper-body strength.
Don't read too often about the 7 year old who accidentally killed his playmate when he found his dad's toolbox unlocked.
It wouldn't be as sensational, now, would it? You could still VERY easily kill someone with a screwdriver, nail gun, hammer, cat's paw...not to mention power tools.
school children are almost never killed in the crossfire in drive by nailings
Now that, right there, made your comment worth the 5 mod...funny, though, not insightful.
so guns are in fact more dangerous than hammers.
That would be a point of opinion, still. Is it easier to accidentally kill someone with a gun? Yes. Are guns inherently more dangerous? No.
Those that own them should take more precautions, to be sure, but it doesn't make the gun any more dangerous than any other common tools/hobby paraphernalia in homes. Why not complain about electricity? You want to talk about something that's easy to accidentally abuse; all you have to do is touch a frayed cord, or stick a penny in an electrical outlet, and the kid can be dead! We should insist on Electricity Control Laws that make it more difficult for children to injure themselves! How about mandatory Outlet Guards with a lock, so that only the parents can use the keys to access this dangerous resource! Won't somebody think of the children?!!
With EGM gone, the only print game publication worth reading remaining is Edge...in truth, a much superior magazine than EGM ever was, even though it suffers from the same problems that exist in any industry controlled press.
Really? I've always liked GI (Game Informer), actually. They tend to have good reviews, cover all the systems including PC, and if a game sucks, they make a point of telling you that it sucks.
I served a four year apprenticeship repairing and aligning 100 watt UHF power amplifier modules on a daily basis, among other RF devices. All this was done on a test bench at approximately groin level. Despite the warnings I received at the time, it certainly has not affected my ability to reproduce.
I have three normal children to prove this.
...and five little mutant children in the basement. But let's not talk about them!
Slashdot Mirror
Fair enough; that was why I said it depends on the situation and on the child. Some will respond to time out; some won't. Some respond to spanking; some don't. However, you should never throw a valid tool out of the parenting bag just because others don't use it correctly!
A translation in keeping with the original language and the nuances of meanings of words actually says exactly that. Something more like "On the first epoch."
Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is just flat-out wrong. The original Hebrew speaks of a one-day period for each Creation day, and then clarifies by saying "it was an evening and a morning", just to be sure we understood that He was talking about ONE real, actual day. Example: Genesis 1:5 "And the evening and the morning were the first day". The Hebrew word for "evening" is "`ereb", which means "evening" or "the period of a day between sunset and sunrise". The Hebrew word for "morning" is "Boqer", which means "beginning of the day" or "the period of a day between sunrise and sunset". The last word, "day", is the Hebrew word "Yowm", meaning "a 24-hour period comprised of one evening and one morning".
Now then, you are free to believe or dismiss the Bible as you see fit, and that is every man's choice. However, the meaning for those that DO believe is made very clear: when God speaks of one day, He meant ONE DAY, as perceived by Man, and consisting of one evening and one morning.
Hitting them only teaches them to hit. Don't hit your kid.
Wrong. Punching your child when he hits someone would be abuse, and is excessive force. However, giving your kid a smack on the bottom while telling them "NO" firmly teaches them that "I hit someone = I get punished". It is a perfectly acceptable deterrent to bad behaviour, at least when they're young. Spanking a child does no harm whatsoever, whereas NOT spanking a child may harm them a great deal in the long run, when they grow up without limitations and unable to understand simple behaviour/consequence actions.
That being said, it also depends on the situation and the child. I have spanked my two-year-old before, and then immediately hold him while he cries, and explain that I love him very much but that hitting is NOT tolerated. Once he calms down, I ask him "Why did you get spanked?" His response: "I hit Mom." "That's right, buddy; what happens if you hit Mommy?" "Daddy spank." "Right."
However, most of the time he simply gets a time-out in his room, in a big stuffed chair he has. He's two, so he gets two minutes. I set a clock, and he can hear when it beeps; he know that he can't play or look at his books in time out, and he HATES it. He is a very people-oriented child, and the time by himself is normally much worse than a smack on the hand would be. Again, when the time out is done, I go pick him up, hug him, and ask him what he did. He can almost always tell me, and he rarely needs reprimanded for the same thing more than once or twice.
Kids are brighter than you think, and much more resilient; try and make the punishment fit the crime, but don't be afraid to spank a kid if they need it. It's one of MANY tools at a parent's disposal to raise their child correctly.
I don't think you have children. In fact, I think you are probably 16, 17 or so?
This is only funny because your nickname is "passthecrackpipe"!
Teach your kids birth control and responsibility but also realize that when they mature sexually they are sexual creatures just like everyone else. Let them grow up for chrissake.
What kind of psychopath are you? You're not talking about little Johnny being 18 and having a girlfriend who is 17. The girls are 14 years old. I don't know ANY thinking adult that would consider 14 as "sexually mature". Wait...you don't like in Kentucky, perchance, do you?
...because I monitor what they are doing daily as well as other parents and kids.
Why are you monitoring what other parents and kids are doing daily, pervert?!
You know, you're not going to get very far around here with woman analogies. You're going to end up having to make analogies to explain your analogies.
Sup, dawg! We heard you like analogies, so we put an analogy in your analogy so you can analogize while you analogize!
Eddies in the space time continuum.
So THAT'S where Eddie went! Hey, Eddie, your mom was looking for you earlier!
I want my LDS to be busy.
What do your Mormons have to do with the Lasers? And aren't they a generally productive folk on their own?
The point was that the poster didn't know what "rough" is. Entitlement is simply a selfish illusion of grandeur, nothing more. When you spend some time in an impoverished Nation, then you can gripe about how "rough" life is, not when you get to grow up in one of the most free Countries in the world, with some of the best benefits anywhere.
Sorry for the rant, it's been a long 23 years.
How about you try moving to a backwater village in North Korea for the next 23 years? Then you can come back and let us all know how that whole "entitlement" thing works when you have real consequences for your actions.
BTW, don't lick your mod chip before you insert it... they taste funny.
That comment is so wrong, on so many levels.
I can fit my entire porn collection on just 4 discs
Pfft, amateur.
No, no; I think he meant the professional videos, too, not just the amateur stuff.
Obligatory Userfriendly: http://www.userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/99oct/uf001156.gif
The founders (perhaps for pragmatic reasons--no public education at the time) considered "common" people to be too dumb to vote.
We now have public education and mass media.
You're obviously not familiar with the current state of mass media or of public education, if you consider those statements anything but contradictory!
I love you.
When did I write that doing abortions is the same as taking care of children? You need to get back to your Logic101 classes.
Um, how about right HERE:
That includes not preventing pregnancy, not doing abortions and not taking care of their children properly.
See, this is where you were talking about the poor, ignorant masses that are all too fatalistic to either:
a)not have children
b)abort those unwanted children
or c)take care of those children they DO have.
Right there would be where you were setting up implied equality in the situation, by listing all the alternatives in a grammatical structure of balance.
I'll use an example you should relate to easier: Now that Obama is in office, we'll have less taxes, more money, and a better economy!*
See, that sentence created a progressive equality, just as yours did. With mine it was: Less taxes leads to more money which leads to a better economy! Yours was that if those poor folk had any sense they'd: prevent pregnancy, abort the ones that DO happen, and take care of the select few that they decided were "keepers."
* The above statement is not representative of FishAdmin, his associates, or any sane person. It is merely used as an example, along the lines of "If frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their butts every time they hopped."
Ah, marked Flamebait, due to having an unpopular opinion; and here I thought the servers resided in a free Country! Disagreeing with me is NOT a reason to mark me Flamebait; I used no language more inflammatory than any OTHER opinionated poster, but since I am pro-life, it gets me modded down. If you think you have a REAL argument FOR abortion, I'd love to discuss it here; otherwise, ignore me because I'm simply uninformed, right?
That includes not preventing pregnancy, not doing abortions and not taking care of their children properly.
The fact that you can use the phrase "not doing abortions" beside the phrase "not taking care of their children" makes me sick. So, KILLING a child that hasn't been born yet and has had NO INPUT into it's circumstances is a way to TAKE CARE of the children? That is the kind of "care" that ends with a baby in a dumpster, or a mother drowning her kids in a bathtub. Your mentality is so wrong it's almost painful.
Last I checked neither my condo nor my office has a piped in supply of cryogenic gasses...
That's funny; mine does! Then again, I work in a chemical laboratory...
http://punditkitchen.com/
Hard to kill someone at ten yards with a hammer
Not really; you just have to be a REALLY good shot, and have some great upper-body strength.
Don't read too often about the 7 year old who accidentally killed his playmate when he found his dad's toolbox unlocked.
It wouldn't be as sensational, now, would it? You could still VERY easily kill someone with a screwdriver, nail gun, hammer, cat's paw...not to mention power tools.
school children are almost never killed in the crossfire in drive by nailings
Now that, right there, made your comment worth the 5 mod...funny, though, not insightful.
so guns are in fact more dangerous than hammers.
That would be a point of opinion, still. Is it easier to accidentally kill someone with a gun? Yes. Are guns inherently more dangerous? No.
Those that own them should take more precautions, to be sure, but it doesn't make the gun any more dangerous than any other common tools/hobby paraphernalia in homes. Why not complain about electricity? You want to talk about something that's easy to accidentally abuse; all you have to do is touch a frayed cord, or stick a penny in an electrical outlet, and the kid can be dead! We should insist on Electricity Control Laws that make it more difficult for children to injure themselves! How about mandatory Outlet Guards with a lock, so that only the parents can use the keys to access this dangerous resource! Won't somebody think of the children?!!
Excellent reply, but I'd have gone with "Go cry, emo kid" rather than "God cope." But then again, I'm a jerk.
With EGM gone, the only print game publication worth reading remaining is Edge...in truth, a much superior magazine than EGM ever was, even though it suffers from the same problems that exist in any industry controlled press.
Really? I've always liked GI (Game Informer), actually. They tend to have good reviews, cover all the systems including PC, and if a game sucks, they make a point of telling you that it sucks.
I served a four year apprenticeship repairing and aligning 100 watt UHF power amplifier modules on a daily basis, among other RF devices. All this was done on a test bench at approximately groin level. Despite the warnings I received at the time, it certainly has not affected my ability to reproduce. I have three normal children to prove this.
...and five little mutant children in the basement. But let's not talk about them!