O, such an air of injured innocence, Boaz!

>>I'm scratching my poor old noggin in wonder about 'which' bit in all my posts thus far to this thread, constitutes 'wicked judgementalism'?<<

I'm afraid the answer is, pretty much all of them. The tragedy is that you cannot, and will not, see it.

I can fully understand Romany's frustration with your constant stream of disingenuous put-downs, designed to put you in a holier-than-thou spot from which you can pour your faux-pity the rest of the world.

It doesn't worry me quite as much, though, as I long since came to the conclusion that it is vanity, rather than malice, that drives your condescension.

As we all know, the only reason you start these threads is to enable you to preach your, rather curious, form of evangelism.

In this case, it was simply to let us know that even disciplining a three year-old is actually all about god, enabling you to deliver your usual sermon.

>>"Do we teach children 'absolute' right and wrong.. or.. 'situational ethics'... Remember THREE yr olds for context here people... The Christian view is simple... our foremost thought in 'child compliance' is our cultural norms. But what is the moral 'framework' for that?"<<

I've stayed away from this, only to save repeating my observations from the previous discussion on the same topic, even with such obvious provocations as:

>>The tone of voice from a big 'daddy' is usually enough. The repeated or half hearted nagging from a mum is something kids tweak to VERY quickly, and they play as much as they can with it<<

Is that not an extraordinary statement, Boaz? And you wonder why the Romanys of this world happily despise you?

But I was heartened to see that beating your daughter had some effect:

>>Regarding my daughter.. she initially said "I'm not going to smack my kids"<<

Good for her.

So she did learn that beating children is degrading and dehumanizing after all.

I just hope she doesn't give in to the Dark Side, and turn into another Boaz.

BD,

First: a grammar lesson. Inverted commas are used to denote EITHER irony or a direct quote. (Not to give emphases to a word.)

You post that I said: "your a nasty piece of work". I did no such thing.

Apart from the fact that I know the difference between the words your and you're, what I said was that you can BEHAVE LIKE a nasty piece of work at times. Or did you presume it was only Christians who could see the difference between the sin and the sinner? As a parent wouldn't you think I had got that distinction down pat by now, too?

And yes, as was pointed out above, I took exception to your statement that "Daddy" provides the firm voice. While Mummy is only a nagging presence who is easily seen through for the ineffectual person she is?

You can't claim that you were unaware that any mothers read this. Furthermore I have made no bones about the fact that circumstances worked to find me bringing up my kids alone. If it is only Daddy who provides the firm voice, then ergo that remark imputes that I was an ineffectual parent. THAT is judgemental.

And, your "blessed with perfect children" remark was not meant to be taken at face value, was it? the imputation was that Celivia and I were doting mammas with no ideas of the tough realities of child-rearing.

Judgementalism being "wicked"? Its not honourable in the first place. But practiced by one who takes the moral high ground in all arguments because he thinks he represents god,(I refer back to your 'God is on my side' remark) then yes it is.

Jesus, according to your beliefs, took responsibility upon himself for the sins of humanity by dying on the cross. If you continue to claim you are his spokesperson then I repeat, take some responsibility.

Foxy gets an A once again. There is not much i can add to that. So I wont bother.

I wonder if it's ever occurred to Boazy to wonder why so many reasonable and intelligent people find his posts to this forum so objectionable that they regularly say so in their comments here.

Despite his interminable preaching, there hasn't been one OLO user yet who's been willing to say that they have been converted, or even brought closer to his God as a result of his sanctimonious prattling on OLO.

Interestingly, I detect a hint that he no longer regards beating children as desirable, which is certainly an improvement on his earlier rants on the subject. So I guess dumb threads like this might actually have some positive value (beyond Boazy's narcissism) after all.

BD, you asked,
“do you agree or disagree with the proposition that we can assign moral judgments to behavior?
…No.. thats 'BAD' (as opposed to simply 'hurtful, unproductive')…”

Well, I believe that morals rely a lot on empathy.
Parents need to help children learn to understand (rationally and emotionally) that others have feelings and how they might feel.
In short, if children can get the Golden Rule they have a good chance of displaying social behaviour, e.g. they will notice that others need help and offer their help.

To help a child understand how others might feel, I think it’s important to talk about that rather than stating that something is good or bad.
Assigning moral judgments to their behaviour won’t teach a child empathy.
”No, that hurts the cat” IMO is teaching a child more than “No, that is bad”.
I would also immediately show how the cat does like to be treated i.e. let her pet the cat softly or play with him to say sorry for hurting him.

And for the proponents of smacking:
how can one possibly teach empathy by beating a defenseless child?
You’re only teaching that it is justified to use violence in some cases.

We all desire a more peaceful world but how can the world become more peaceful if there are still parents out there who teach their children that violence is sometimes justified?

Just saying “NO” is meaningless to a 3 year old. Equally meaningless is spanking.

Up until the age of seven a child is capable of learning at a prodigious rate, a level that they will never experience again in their lives. Hence the Jesuit motto "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man."

What they learn during this period will stay for life. People claim that they teach that hitting is OK under specific circumstances – well that is completely subjective, open to a variety of interpretations. So a parent can never be sure that their child will adopt exactly the same criteria as the parent.

Far better to instil awareness of consequences for actions; empathy for others may well be a natural human trait and needs to be encouraged, but it is one that is easily over-shadowed by anger or greed. A child, who is made to feel powerless in the home, may well become a bully at school to compensate for their feeling of impotence. Bullies are insecure, they learnt to be insecure somewhere.

Every parent experiences anger at some point with their children. It is how that anger is used that makes the difference. No-one is 100% perfect and a smack on the behind is fast, but indicates a lack of patience and control on the part of the parent. We all feel anger for a reason, properly managed it gives us energy to cope with difficult situations. At worst, uncontrolled anger reinforces to children that it is permissible to lose control to the point that violence is the only means to an end.

The same applies to yelling – verbal abuse is no substitute and results in the same consequences as physical abuse.

Boaz has mentioned the golden rule “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Hypocritical that he never applies this rule to himself when either responding to others on this forum nor with his own children.

Violence begets more violence. Those are the consequences.