It was a very sarcastic post, thanks for noticing.
Offended by Christmas???
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
It was a very sarcastic post, thanks for noticing.
Did I demonize anyone? I just spoke the facts as plainly as they are before you. A spanking is striking your children by any definition of the word. When used as most who do in a proper manner, it is a measured, sobered part of the parenting repertoire.
It is not my fault that you must invent words and put them into a person's mouth to satisfy some sort of psychological need. To play the dime store psychologist, why are you so defensive of using the rod against the child?
Maybe it is you who should be submitting his resume to Fox News as you sure seem to want to inflate an offhand, neutral comment into some sort of controversy.
There was nothing wrong with what you said and I'm surprised that the poster took it that way as he's usually very level headed. I can also say that there are plenty of parents who have children of their own who have not turned to hitting them and are against it, something which that poster is also apparently unaware of.
Your complaints throughout this thread have been very inconsistent.
On the one hand you complain about people marginalizing the Christmas holiday, but on the other you consider the term "Happy Holidays" part of that marginalization, despite naming three holidays you want to celebrate during that time yourself (Christmas, Boxing Day, and New Years). Is it just acknowledging holidays that you don't personally celebrate that's the problem?
On the one hand you complain about the over-commercialization of Christmas, but on the other you seem enormously concerned with the lack of Christmas decorations in retail outlets. What do you think those are there for? Do you think they spend thousands or tens of thousands on decorations just for the hell of it? Some of it may be to just look festive, but mostly it's there to try and remind you and entice you to buy more Christmas gifts and decorations.
So if people dispute the rationality and veracity of your claims about an "agenda against Christmas" they're marginalizing your Christmas experience too? That's an awful lot of victimization going on there. Why is your Christmas experience so tied in to what everyone else does or says? Why not just celebrate and enjoy it in your own way instead of worrying about how everyone else spends their holidays?
For all your talk of a lack of holiday decorations this year, a Google search of 2010 Toronto Christmas decorations turned up plenty, along with a Santa Claus parade. I don't know what part of Ontario you live in, but I have trouble believing there was suddenly a massive decrease in the number of Christmas decorations, and even if there was, I would more likely attribute that to economic concerns than any type of agenda against Christmas.
As far as Walmarts not being decorated, I know for a fact that that's not true from having to run the gauntlet in a few different Walmarts in search of Christmas presents this year. Maybe Canada underwent some massive shift in the celebration of Christmas this year leaving their Walmarts Grinchified and barely adorned in decorations, but somehow I doubt it (not to mention there'd still be plenty of Christmas decorations for sale throughout the store). The far more likely scenario is that you've heard about The War on Christmas from various sensationalist media outlets, and since Christmas means so much to you, you ran with it and saw a widespread agenda where there was none.
Are there some miserable bastards who hate Christmas and thus set out to ruin it for everyone else? Probably. Is it a significant problem or movement that is in any danger of marginalizing Christmas? No. That's just paranoia. The only people who get "marginalized" this time of year in predominantly Christian nations are people of other religions who get treated like they're intruding on Christian territory if their holidays are even acknowledged, or atheists who get irrationally blamed for trying to remove Christian traditions and are distrusted by much of a society as a result over a completely made up issue. And I can back that up with statistics. Even then, it's not a huge problem for them either. Overall, people need to stop creating drama where none exists.
Complaining about businesses loving money is like complaining about plants loving sunlight. As far as consumers go, most of them are buying gifts for or gifts from (in the form of gift cards and so forth) other people, so I wouldn't characterize it as greedy. The people who go overboard and fight for gifts are, but as with everything you've been discussing, it's a relatively minor problem.
No one in this thread called people who spanked their misbehaving children reasonably child abusers or even implied that they were; not even the people who disagree with spanking, whose opinions you so casually dismiss above with an appeal to authority.
That being said, solely for me, if you caught the rambling Ben Stein screed from a few pages ago where the spanking issue was first raised, it's hard to divorce that from the insanity of his complaint that a lack of prayer in schools and spanking has led to rampant terrorism, school shootings, and crime from our "conscienceless" children in spite of crime rates being drastically down. When people hear him ranting about spanking children and tying it into that other nonsense it's difficult to associate him with parents who do it rarely and reasonably.
The content of those 200 posts was that people aren't offended by Christmas, whether they're atheists or of non-Christian religions. One person was kind of irritated by being wished a Merry Christmas because of the assumption that he celebrates your (general you) holiday, but he wasn't "offended" by Christmas itself.
Even arguably the most famous atheist in the world (or most infamous depending on who you ask) celebrates the secular aspects of Christmas. It's really not a problem for the vast majority of people, and if a few have a problem with it then so what? You can find a small number of people to complain about quite literally anything.
^^ I said STORES were not decorating. I didn't say municipal governments were not decorating. Where I live in Brockville the main street strip was decorated as usual, but all the big retailers didn't do a thing. Note that small privately owned retailers still decorated.
And it isn't that people are wished "Happy Holidays" or "Seasons Greetings," but that employers have instructed their staff specifically NOT to say "Merry Christmas."
And it isn't that people are wished "Happy Holidays" or "Seasons Greetings," but that employers have instructed their staff specifically NOT to say "Merry Christmas."
Last edited:
So what?
You summed it all pretty well.
Yeah. It seems to be the leit-motiv of this thread: people getting pissy for someone being offended at something (saying Merry Christmas, spanking children), when actually no people ever said they were offended by it. I guess I should go into a rant about those annoying people who always get offended at anchovies on pizza, because it would be as much as relevant to this discussion.
Did I miss when Lowes Hardware took over the governing of Toronto, OCP-style?
What you did say was that Christmas was under attack, and yet all the places that really matter are as festive as ever it seems by both your own accounting of your town and by the pictures I posted of Toronto.
So, the public buildings and main street are lit up as usual, the small businesses are lit up as usual, but the countless big retailers in a town of 22,000 took a break but still had decorations up on the inside, just not to your satisfaction.
Sounds less like an attack on Christmas and more like a politely worded expression of mild apathy on Christmas, at worst. All I'm trying to point out to you; which you seem unable to see no matter how much you contradict your own arguments or they're refuted by others, is that you're blowing a completely minor issue way out of proportion and seeing enemies of Christmas where they don't exist.
Yes, that's covered in there being multiple holidays and not just Christmas (which is what I said) and businesses wishing to be as inclusive for their customers as possible. We went over this before. It's inclusionary, not exclusionary.
What you have failed to show despite all your whining about it is that there is some kind of broad agenda against or attack on Christmas. Yet you persist in spreading this negative myth which is usually fueled by rumors passed in church and (generally conservative) sensationalist media outlets.
I apologize if I read too much into your comment, but I'm just sooo tired of certain of these discussions, and being insulted in them for doing something that I see not only as a valid method, but as a parental responsibility.
I'm not by any means going to say that it is impossible to raise a good kid without ever spanking them, but I will say that I consider a seeming prohibition against it a reason for societal decay. The parents you refer to may be making a neglectful mistake if peer pressure, or lingering resentment of parents that overused corporal punishment, is the reason they don't utilize it at all.
These days, I seem to see too many parents letting their kids get away with murder (metaphorically, of course) without any punishment, corporal or otherwise.
There is almost nothing that I agree with Ben Stein on. I think anyone who wants faculty led prayer is an idiot. And I certainly don't think a lack of spanking makes children "conscienceless". Like I said before, I believe in spanking to replace natural consequences that would've otherwise caused physical harm either to the child or to someone (including animals) that they were going to do something to.
I really don't see how it could be a reason for societal decay. I feel like you're mixing different issues here. You mention using it only in cases where the child was doing something which would be physically harmful. Those are specific situations and not really the type of thing that (if gone unpunished) would lead to social problems. It sounds more like you're teaching young children about physical danger.
The issue of parents neglecting to teach children about right and wrong, or how to behave, etc. is a different one. You're speaking here of perhaps a permissive (or perhaps neglectful?) parenting style. It doesn't really have anything to do specifically with an avoidance of corporal punishment.
Do you really think that many parents are basing their decisions on those choices? I doubt that peer pressure would have that high of an impact. People engage in a variety of parenting practices, many of them not approved of by their peers. If we even took the parents on this forum, I'm sure that most of you would disapprove of something another parent was doing. It's such an individual thing.
And if an "overuse" of corporal punishment is the reason an individual would choose not to use it with their own child, I think that's valid. It means that they are aware of the potential negative consequences of it and choose not to engage in it for that reason. You might say "well they only know the wrong way to do it" but I think that's even more of a reason to find a different method. If they have a bad model of that behavior, it could be very difficult (and in this case, unnecessary) for them to adapt their own behavior to a healthy model.
It seems to me that when children don't learn that hurting others is wrong, in a way that gets the message across, when they are young, they will be more inclined to abuse others later, without any real idea of what they are doing. Of course, the same result for a different reason can happen to children that are overspanked or abused - they can become desensitized and used to violence.
I think the point I consider most important in this is this one that I stated before:
Joyful & Triumphant said:
Oh no, I get that. I saw that statement. I just think it's irrelevant to the discussion about corporal punishment. It's a separate assertion entirely.
Oh yes, you're right. And I totally admit that I'm drifting.
So Wal-Mart and other big chains are saying, "Everyone can decorate their locations except for those in small town Ontario?" 
No one likes what I've said or seen with my on eyes then goody for you. You're content with things as they are then goody for you.
Forgive me for remembering a better time and simply sharing what I've observed.
No one likes what I've said or seen with my on eyes then goody for you. You're content with things as they are then goody for you.
Forgive me for remembering a better time and simply sharing what I've observed.
I agree with your second part, but I just have to point this out....
How do you teach "hurting is wrong" by hurting? It escapes all reason.
No worries. I do think that spanking is not a necessity and when I have children I would like to avoid it. But parent's need all of the tools that they can get (without going overboard). However, simply saying that children need to spanked more seems to be as simplistic a response to the complexities of child rearing as saying that children should never be spanked.
i feel like this topic has gone far off track...
i work retail and we aren't required to say "happy holidays" or even wish them a merry christmas at all. i usually say happy holidays now though because its more general and applies to everyone.
i work retail and we aren't required to say "happy holidays" or even wish them a merry christmas at all. i usually say happy holidays now though because its more general and applies to everyone.
Oh, no you didn't! If you think that the past was better times then you're kidding yourself and your remembrance of a better time is flawed.
I am done arguing in this thread... but I do respond to personal attacks and snarky remarks. One more, and sidious will be the proud winner of a report to the Mods.
It is only OK to be snarky if you agree with one certain viewpoint. If you disagree or try to present a reasoned debate... now you are just asking for a snarky remark.
In my younger days, I worked retail, too. Hearing the same few songs over and over and over and... you get the idea.
Now that my little girl is a mommy, she no longer believes that I was unreasonably strict when she was a child. While she received very few spankings, she still remembers the worst spanking she ever received:
- When she was around 4 or 5, while at the county fair, she wiggled her hand out of mine and disappeared into a large crowd of people. I enlisted a couple of sheriff's deputies to help me search for her. When I found her I grabbed her by the hand and with the other hand warmed her bottom.
- I looked at the deputies and said, "I suppose I'll be arrested for child abuse now?"
- One of them said, "Arrest you? I'd do the same thing!" He had children the same age as mine. We became friends... we still are.
- She was not spanked often, when she was younger a small tap on her bottom would break her spirit and she would apologize for whatever she did. Standing in the corner and not talking was her usual punishment. It took an act of stubborn disobedience to earn the bottom pop.
- She also remembers the time I broke her of stomping hard whenever she did not get her way. One day I tired of it enough that I made myself comfortable in my easy chair... then made her stomp until her little leg muscles were shaking and she promised never to do it again. She kept her word and never had a stomping tantrum again!
Teaching a child right from wrong, by showing that punishment follows wrongdoing, is not abuse. It is love. My child is a responsible mother of four who also teaches her children right from wrong. Odds are that my grandchildren will never see the inside of a jail cell, will also be responsible parents and lead productive lives because they know right from wrong.
Kids, especially small kids, may be ignorant of the full ramifications of what they were doing to someone else - like punching Uncle Mark in the nuts and laughing (because, hey, a good nutpunch is funny to an immature mind - see also, "Jackass"
) whenever the opportunity presents itself. A small example of what it is like when someone inflicts undesired contact and pain on them (no, not by punching them in the nuts 
) is frequently enough to deter behavior like that, because they will learn empathy, consequences, or both.Similar threads
