He could be like, using the future tense because he hasn't done it yet. I don't know I'm grasping at straws I just don't want to believe a 1 year old is really getting physically hurt by the person they are supposed to trust and love.
I'm just assuming he was trying to side with Peterson and say he agrees with that method of punishment, but was live on the radio and not the most eloquent public speaker and said stuff he didn't fully mean, like how he walked back the switch comment.
At least I sure hope that's the case, I figure most people don't go on the radio and publicly announce they hit their baby
let's not apologize for him until he's at least apologized for himself
because he DID just go on the radio and publicly announce he does or would hit his baby
+1
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
FYI, the AAP says time outs are OK starting at 1 year. We just started with our 18 month old (based on previous experience with our oldest) and feel that's about the right age where they can grasp the basic concept. Of course, it's just 30 seconds or so removed from the situation but just wanted to note it's OK to do (very) mild punishment for a 1 year old.
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
It's the "try not to leave bruises" that is just disgusting.
Like, I'll give it a shot guys, but no guarantees that I won't physically injure my baby for doing things I don't like. It's pretty hard to discipline a baby without hurting her, y'know? Just tough for a full grown adult to accomplish. So, no promises.
what
Not that I agree with anything about a situation where you're hitting a 1yr old, but I didn't get that impression from it. To me he was just trying to explain what he sees as acceptable corporal punishment. If you start from the standpoint that some form of corporal punishment is ok, then there is a very legitimate question of how hard you should be hitting. Too soft and it's not a punishment. Too hard and it's unnecessary/abusive. Bush seems to think the line should be drawn at bruises. His aim is to hit as hard as possible without leaving a bruise. If you believe in corporal punishment, I'm not sure that seems completely insane as a metric to aim for.
Obviously all the points about a 1yr old being to young are completely valid.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
It's the "try not to leave bruises" that is just disgusting.
Like, I'll give it a shot guys, but no guarantees that I won't physically injure my baby for doing things I don't like. It's pretty hard to discipline a baby without hurting her, y'know? Just tough for a full grown adult to accomplish. So, no promises.
what
Not that I agree with anything about a situation where you're hitting a 1yr old, but I didn't get that impression from it. To me he was just trying to explain what he sees as acceptable corporal punishment. If you start from the standpoint that some form of corporal punishment is ok, then there is a very legitimate question of how hard you should be hitting. Too soft and it's not a punishment. Too hard and it's unnecessary/abusive. Bush seems to think the line should be drawn at bruises. His aim is to hit as hard as possible without leaving a bruise. If you believe in corporal punishment, I'm not sure that seems completely insane as a metric to aim for.
Obviously all the points about a 1yr old being to young are completely valid.
Yeah and that's just disgusting to me. Ugh.
+2
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
Greg Hardy was just put on the exempt list (same list Peterson is on).
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
y2jake215certified Flat Birther theoristthe Last Good Boy onlineRegistered Userregular
Reggie bush just clarified he "obviously" does not hit or spank his daughter, his only form of discipline is that when you do something she doesn't like she swings at you so he will talk to her and say that isn't okay
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
0
Options
y2jake215certified Flat Birther theoristthe Last Good Boy onlineRegistered Userregular
So, good for briseis avagyan bush I guess
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
+1
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
He could be like, using the future tense because he hasn't done it yet. I don't know I'm grasping at straws I just don't want to believe a 1 year old is really getting physically hurt by the person they are supposed to trust and love.
I'm just assuming he was trying to side with Peterson and say he agrees with that method of punishment, but was live on the radio and not the most eloquent public speaker and said stuff he didn't fully mean, like how he walked back the switch comment.
At least I sure hope that's the case, I figure most people don't go on the radio and publicly announce they hit their baby
FYI, the AAP says time outs are OK starting at 1 year. We just started with our 18 month old (based on previous experience with our oldest) and feel that's about the right age where they can grasp the basic concept. Of course, it's just 30 seconds or so removed from the situation but just wanted to note it's OK to do (very) mild punishment for a 1 year old.
There are a few really mild things you can do and have an advanced 1 year old get it. Most of them wouldn't meet what would be called punishment though by most people. I would say few 1 year olds are remotely there since they are likely still in a phase of development where they literally cannot be spoiled since their brains just don't make connections between cause and effect. I get what ou are saying but I thought I would put his out there still because it helps reinforce how stupid what Bush said really is.
0
Options
Metal JaredMulligan WizardRhode IslandRegistered Userregular
Reggie bush just clarified he "obviously" does not hit or spank his daughter, his only form of discipline is that when you do something she doesn't like she swings at you so he will talk to her and say that isn't okay
He "obviously" shouldn't go on the radio if he admits multiple time that he "harshly" disciplines his 1 year old daughter on the radio. Also I "obviously" don't believe that he thinks that talking to her is "harshly" disciplining her and I "obviously" believe his PR crew/Agent told him "OMFG WHAT ARE YOU DOING FIX IT! FIX IT RIGHT NOW!".
BattleTag: MetalJared#1756
PSN: SoulCrusherJared
+1
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
I have a daughter that just turned one.
When trying to teach her what "No" means I lightly tap her hand and say no as she reaches for the thing she isn't supposed to be touching.
Sometimes I feel like that is crossing a line.
I can't imagine reaching the point where I have to worry about potential bruises.
Reggie bush just clarified he "obviously" does not hit or spank his daughter, his only form of discipline is that when you do something she doesn't like she swings at you so he will talk to her and say that isn't okay
He "obviously" shouldn't go on the radio if he admits multiple time that he "harshly" disciplines his 1 year old daughter on the radio. Also I "obviously" don't believe that he thinks that talking to her is "harshly" disciplining her and I "obviously" believe his PR crew/Agent told him "OMFG WHAT ARE YOU DOING FIX IT! FIX IT RIGHT NOW!".
I'm not sure why you would believe to a T everything he says at one time (which isn't even true, he never refers to "harshly" disciplining in anything other than a hypothetical, at some unspecified, vague future time) then refuse to believe anything he says at another time
But k
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
When trying to teach her what "No" means I lightly tap her hand and say no as she reaches for the thing she isn't supposed to be touching.
Sometimes I feel like that is crossing a line.
I can't imagine reaching the point where I have to worry about potential bruises.
At 1 years old or at any age? I mean I'm not really a supporter of corporal punishment, but I don't understand the sentiment that you're ok with hitting a child but not that hard. The whole point of corporal punishment is to cause pain. Obviously it is possible to go to far, and maybe your acceptable level is different then reggie bush's, but borderline bruising does not seem so far out there as to be patently ridiculous.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Well there hasn't been a 1 year old who understands enough to even know what right or wrong is, or that physical punishment can even be in the realm of administering a correction.
Holy shit that's awful.
There just aren't words. He thought it was ok to say this ON THE RADIO.
In a way its nice to get some sunlight on this issue, maybe we can put this bullshit to bed about physical punishment. Like I was spanked as a child but the funny thing is I remember the punishment but not the crime, most people who are adults have a similar issue from who I've talked with, so if the point of a spanking is to issue a correction, shouldn't I remember what I was being spanked for and not just the spanking?
Yes, the point of discipline is so that you should remember what you did and that it was wrong and why. Pretty much every study out there says that physically punishing your children is a bad idea because what happens is exactly what you experienced - kids don't actually remember what the crime was.
+1
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
Well there hasn't been a 1 year old who understands enough to even know what right or wrong is, or that physical punishment can even be in the realm of administering a correction.
Holy shit that's awful.
There just aren't words. He thought it was ok to say this ON THE RADIO.
In a way its nice to get some sunlight on this issue, maybe we can put this bullshit to bed about physical punishment. Like I was spanked as a child but the funny thing is I remember the punishment but not the crime, most people who are adults have a similar issue from who I've talked with, so if the point of a spanking is to issue a correction, shouldn't I remember what I was being spanked for and not just the spanking?
Yes, the point of discipline is so that you should remember what you did and that it was wrong and why. Pretty much every study out there says that physically punishing your children is a bad idea because what happens is exactly what you experienced - kids don't actually remember what the crime was.
Or they internalize that physical aggression acceptable.
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
+3
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
When trying to teach her what "No" means I lightly tap her hand and say no as she reaches for the thing she isn't supposed to be touching.
Sometimes I feel like that is crossing a line.
I can't imagine reaching the point where I have to worry about potential bruises.
At 1 years old or at any age? I mean I'm not really a supporter of corporal punishment, but I don't understand the sentiment that you're ok with hitting a child but not that hard. The whole point of corporal punishment is to cause pain. Obviously it is possible to go to far, and maybe your acceptable level is different then reggie bush's, but borderline bruising does not seem so far out there as to be patently ridiculous.
At any age. That tapping thing is literally the only physical punishment I've done with either of my children. And its done mainly because they are unable to communicate at that age and I need a way for them to learn what "no" means since it could be vital due to them learning to walk and getting into more dangerous situations.
Timeout has been plenty punishment for my 4 year old so far in her life.
Reggie bush just clarified he "obviously" does not hit or spank his daughter, his only form of discipline is that when you do something she doesn't like she swings at you so he will talk to her and say that isn't okay
He "obviously" shouldn't go on the radio if he admits multiple time that he "harshly" disciplines his 1 year old daughter on the radio. Also I "obviously" don't believe that he thinks that talking to her is "harshly" disciplining her and I "obviously" believe his PR crew/Agent told him "OMFG WHAT ARE YOU DOING FIX IT! FIX IT RIGHT NOW!".
I'm not sure why you would believe to a T everything he says at one time (which isn't even true, he never refers to "harshly" disciplining in anything other than a hypothetical, at some unspecified, vague future time) then refuse to believe anything he says at another time
But k
I tend to believe what he says FIRST and not the "Holy fuck I'm getting killed I need to fix this" backtracking on what he already said. And how is "I discipline my kid" a hypothetical?
I most definitely discipline my daughter. I have a 1-year-old daughter, and I discipline her
That's not hypothetical. He has a 1 year old daughter and he discipline's her. Then he says:
I definitely will try to obviously not leave bruises or anything like that on her, but I definitely will discipline her, harshly, depending on what the situation is
So he says he defintely disciplines his kid and then he says he will try not to leave bruises. "Will" doesn't have to mean 'in the future.' Lets say I say "I have had pineapple on my pizza. I think it's delicious and I enjoy it. I will order a hawiian pizza if the situation arises." Just because that statement COULD mean I haven't ordered hawaiian pizza in the past, in the context of saying I have had pineapple on my pizza previously makes it seem like a good bet I've order hawiian pizza before. He already stated he disciplines his kid and I don't think it's a stretch to say he considers his discipline as harsh. I didn't manipulate his words. He said them, sorry if I'm not about to go "Oh well maybe he'll only beat and possibly leave marks on his kid IN THE FUTURE"
BattleTag: MetalJared#1756
PSN: SoulCrusherJared
0
Options
y2jake215certified Flat Birther theoristthe Last Good Boy onlineRegistered Userregular
Reggie bush just clarified he "obviously" does not hit or spank his daughter, his only form of discipline is that when you do something she doesn't like she swings at you so he will talk to her and say that isn't okay
He "obviously" shouldn't go on the radio if he admits multiple time that he "harshly" disciplines his 1 year old daughter on the radio. Also I "obviously" don't believe that he thinks that talking to her is "harshly" disciplining her and I "obviously" believe his PR crew/Agent told him "OMFG WHAT ARE YOU DOING FIX IT! FIX IT RIGHT NOW!".
I'm not sure why you would believe to a T everything he says at one time (which isn't even true, he never refers to "harshly" disciplining in anything other than a hypothetical, at some unspecified, vague future time) then refuse to believe anything he says at another time
But k
I tend to believe what he says FIRST and not the "Holy fuck I'm getting killed I need to fix this" backtracking on what he already said. And how is "I discipline my kid" a hypothetical?
I most definitely discipline my daughter. I have a 1-year-old daughter, and I discipline her
That's not hypothetical. He has a 1 year old daughter and he discipline's her. Then he says:
I definitely will try to obviously not leave bruises or anything like that on her, but I definitely will discipline her, harshly, depending on what the situation is
So he says he defintely disciplines his kid and then he says he will try not to leave bruises. "Will" doesn't have to mean 'in the future.' Lets say I say "I have had pineapple on my pizza. I think it's delicious and I enjoy it. I will order a hawiian pizza if the situation arises." Just because that statement COULD mean I haven't ordered hawaiian pizza in the past, in the context of saying I have had pineapple on my pizza previously makes it seem like a good bet I've order hawiian pizza before. He already stated he disciplines his kid and I don't think it's a stretch to say he considers his discipline as harsh. I didn't manipulate his words. He said them, sorry if I'm not about to go "Oh well maybe he'll only beat and possibly leave marks on his kid IN THE FUTURE"
His off the cuff remarks left room for interpretation, and he clarified after finding most people were interpreting them differently than he intended. With absolutely zero else to go on i dont see any reason not to believe what he's saying
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
0
Options
Metal JaredMulligan WizardRhode IslandRegistered Userregular
Reggie bush just clarified he "obviously" does not hit or spank his daughter, his only form of discipline is that when you do something she doesn't like she swings at you so he will talk to her and say that isn't okay
He "obviously" shouldn't go on the radio if he admits multiple time that he "harshly" disciplines his 1 year old daughter on the radio. Also I "obviously" don't believe that he thinks that talking to her is "harshly" disciplining her and I "obviously" believe his PR crew/Agent told him "OMFG WHAT ARE YOU DOING FIX IT! FIX IT RIGHT NOW!".
I'm not sure why you would believe to a T everything he says at one time (which isn't even true, he never refers to "harshly" disciplining in anything other than a hypothetical, at some unspecified, vague future time) then refuse to believe anything he says at another time
But k
I tend to believe what he says FIRST and not the "Holy fuck I'm getting killed I need to fix this" backtracking on what he already said. And how is "I discipline my kid" a hypothetical?
I most definitely discipline my daughter. I have a 1-year-old daughter, and I discipline her
That's not hypothetical. He has a 1 year old daughter and he discipline's her. Then he says:
I definitely will try to obviously not leave bruises or anything like that on her, but I definitely will discipline her, harshly, depending on what the situation is
So he says he defintely disciplines his kid and then he says he will try not to leave bruises. "Will" doesn't have to mean 'in the future.' Lets say I say "I have had pineapple on my pizza. I think it's delicious and I enjoy it. I will order a hawiian pizza if the situation arises." Just because that statement COULD mean I haven't ordered hawaiian pizza in the past, in the context of saying I have had pineapple on my pizza previously makes it seem like a good bet I've order hawiian pizza before. He already stated he disciplines his kid and I don't think it's a stretch to say he considers his discipline as harsh. I didn't manipulate his words. He said them, sorry if I'm not about to go "Oh well maybe he'll only beat and possibly leave marks on his kid IN THE FUTURE"
His off the cuff remarks left room for interpretation, and he clarified after finding most people were interpreting them differently than he intended. With absolutely zero else to go on i dont see any reason not to believe what he's saying
The off the cuff remarks about a national story that has been going on for a week that he absolutely should be prepaired to talk about?
Yeah it wasnt the smartest thing to say. With the AP issue currently abound we all see what AP did in our heads, although I am going by description from radio I dont ever want to see the picture, as the measuring stick of harsh. Which might be unfair but so is corporal punishment on a 1 year old. I only got whipped once. All it made me do is be very careful not to be caught again.
0
Options
Metal JaredMulligan WizardRhode IslandRegistered Userregular
edited September 2014
Here's Reggie Bush's full response:
"Obviously I'm not going to be spanking a 1-year-old girl," Bush said. "We do discipline her a little bit because she does this thing now where if she doesn't like something of if you say something to her she doesn't like, she kind of swings at you.
"So we're already starting to implement little things like talking to her and saying that's not OK. I think obviously people took it too far and [said] I was doing much worse and that's not the case."
No, Reggie Bush, people didn't take it to far, you're the person who said those things. It's not their job to explain away your dumb bullshit. Maybe youth services should check out his home just in case, I'd rather be safe than sorry
"Obviously I'm not going to be spanking a 1-year-old girl," Bush said. "We do discipline her a little bit because she does this thing now where if she doesn't like something of if you say something to her she doesn't like, she kind of swings at you.
"So we're already starting to implement little things like talking to her and saying that's not OK. I think obviously people took it too far and [said] I was doing much worse and that's not the case."
No, Reggie Bush, people didn't take it to far, you're the person who said those things. It's not their job to explain away your dumb bullshit. Maybe youth services should check out his home just in case, I'd rather be safe than sorry
I'm ... I feel like you're on a silly vendetta here. Maybe it's because I'm an educator, but I prefer when people speak their ignorance out loud. If you're going to get all, "Let's pile on Reggie Bush because it was his own fault for saying something like that without full preparation," well... the result's just going to be chilling. The Reggie Bushes of the world will just say, "No comment," or arrange through their publicist for the subject not to come up, or start doing media training so they all learn to say words that sound like they mean a lot but actually mean nothing like all politicians do.
I think we can chastise him for being saying stupid things, but it's not like Bush has a history of saying horribly offensive shit. Lay off just a bit, man.
+3
Options
Metal JaredMulligan WizardRhode IslandRegistered Userregular
"Obviously I'm not going to be spanking a 1-year-old girl," Bush said. "We do discipline her a little bit because she does this thing now where if she doesn't like something of if you say something to her she doesn't like, she kind of swings at you.
"So we're already starting to implement little things like talking to her and saying that's not OK. I think obviously people took it too far and [said] I was doing much worse and that's not the case."
No, Reggie Bush, people didn't take it to far, you're the person who said those things. It's not their job to explain away your dumb bullshit. Maybe youth services should check out his home just in case, I'd rather be safe than sorry
I'm ... I feel like you're on a silly vendetta here. Maybe it's because I'm an educator, but I prefer when people speak their ignorance out loud. If you're going to get all, "Let's pile on Reggie Bush because it was his own fault for saying something like that without full preparation," well... the result's just going to be chilling. The Reggie Bushes of the world will just say, "No comment," or arrange through their publicist for the subject not to come up, or start doing media training so they all learn to say words that sound like they mean a lot but actually mean nothing like all politicians do.
I think we can chastise him for being saying stupid things, but it's not like Bush has a history of saying horribly offensive shit. Lay off just a bit, man.
Anything that makes child abuse seem like not a big deal, is a big deal to me. Fine I'm on a silly vendetta. I don't care. I won't lay off. Period.
BattleTag: MetalJared#1756
PSN: SoulCrusherJared
+3
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
It breaks my heart when parents use corporal punishment on their kids, especially young ones.
I've worked with plenty of "broken" children, and it's actually not all that hard to get them to do what you want. All it requires is patience and the understanding that they literally don't have the self-control required to control when they take a dump, let alone when not to do something that every fiber of their being is screaming at them to do.
I recall one boy in particular who was in therapy (he was 3) and would regularly talk about terrible things like grabbing knives and stabbing you or telling his mom to shoot you. Everyone was terrified of this kid, and his fucker of a father only showed up once in a while to beat him and his mom. His favorite form of "play" was basically running over other kids and pushing them on the ground. I was able to get him to stop doing that after a few hours, and all it took was a few time outs. This isn't to say that he didn't relapse or that I magically "fixed" him. Or even that I'm all that superior to everyone else, because I'm generally an asshole.
It just boggles my mind that people think hitting a kid is actually going to accomplish something constructive. If you spend more than like, a day with a kid, it becomes really apparent that hitting them just makes them learn to avoid you and hide bad behavior, rather than actually change what they are doing.
In actual football news, the new drug policy has been instated officially now. Wes Welker, Orlando Scandrick and Stedman Bailey have had their suspensions dropped.
And the comments on the PFT article are all about how this policy change, that has been 3 years in the making, is all because of the league bending backwards for Peyton Manning.
"Obviously I'm not going to be spanking a 1-year-old girl," Bush said. "We do discipline her a little bit because she does this thing now where if she doesn't like something of if you say something to her she doesn't like, she kind of swings at you.
"So we're already starting to implement little things like talking to her and saying that's not OK. I think obviously people took it too far and [said] I was doing much worse and that's not the case."
No, Reggie Bush, people didn't take it to far, you're the person who said those things. It's not their job to explain away your dumb bullshit. Maybe youth services should check out his home just in case, I'd rather be safe than sorry
I'm ... I feel like you're on a silly vendetta here. Maybe it's because I'm an educator, but I prefer when people speak their ignorance out loud. If you're going to get all, "Let's pile on Reggie Bush because it was his own fault for saying something like that without full preparation," well... the result's just going to be chilling. The Reggie Bushes of the world will just say, "No comment," or arrange through their publicist for the subject not to come up, or start doing media training so they all learn to say words that sound like they mean a lot but actually mean nothing like all politicians do.
I think we can chastise him for being saying stupid things, but it's not like Bush has a history of saying horribly offensive shit. Lay off just a bit, man.
Anything that makes child abuse seem like not a big deal, is a big deal to me. Fine I'm on a silly vendetta. I don't care. I won't lay off. Period.
Or or, he wasn't trying to minimize child abuse at all, and what he was saying was that he would never hit his child (and leave bruises) but that he does believe in harsh discipline, not necessarily physical, and that he will one day have to figure out how to implement them, which he hasn't yet because his child is 1. And maybe he didn't pick his words properly, because it was in a phone interview, not an essay, and he's a football player, not a philosopher.
Bush's words were ... on the spectrum of ignorant statements made in sensitive times, so not even close to being egregious.
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
I agree that 90+ in full pads does seem dangerous but you can sub a lot more in football than in other sports (and dudes were straight up getting IVs on the sidelines) so maybe it's not so terrible
Johnson called the discipline of a child a "private matter." He says no one can tell him how to discipline his kids, and feels bad for Peterson that this case has come to light.
"Talking about Adrian, and going from that to the domestic cases we have with putting your hands on a woman, are two totally different things to me."
I'm going to discipline my kids, and can't no one tell me how to discipline my kids.
"Like I say, that's not my situation right now. My situation would be private. It's not a public matter when you discipline your family. But unfortunately for him, it has become that. Like I say, I don't think there's anything wrong with disciplining your child."
Holy mother of fuck, why? Why is not ok to hit your wife, but it's ok to hit children? Because you're bigger than your kids? Because your kids don't know any better and you're trying to teach them? Not only are those not good reasons for hitting your kids, they're the best possible arguments for not hitting them. "Disciplining" someone and feeling justified because they're smaller than you and you want to teach them a lesson is a morally and ethically indefensible position, not one that we should be coming to each other's defense over.
Everyone's gonna be shocked when Suh comes out and says he'd only punish kids with words and taking away toys.
Lawrence Taylor sits the kid down and patiently uses the Socratic method to have the child work through why their actions were wrong, helping them build critical thinking and develop empathy for others.
Jesus calvin, people use to think beating your wife was also a private matter.
people still think this
This is true, like after Janay came out in support of Ray people thought that was that and if she was ok with it we should be too. And that's fucked up.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Posts
let's not apologize for him until he's at least apologized for himself
because he DID just go on the radio and publicly announce he does or would hit his baby
pleasepaypreacher.net
Not that I agree with anything about a situation where you're hitting a 1yr old, but I didn't get that impression from it. To me he was just trying to explain what he sees as acceptable corporal punishment. If you start from the standpoint that some form of corporal punishment is ok, then there is a very legitimate question of how hard you should be hitting. Too soft and it's not a punishment. Too hard and it's unnecessary/abusive. Bush seems to think the line should be drawn at bruises. His aim is to hit as hard as possible without leaving a bruise. If you believe in corporal punishment, I'm not sure that seems completely insane as a metric to aim for.
Obviously all the points about a 1yr old being to young are completely valid.
Yeah and that's just disgusting to me. Ugh.
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
There are a few really mild things you can do and have an advanced 1 year old get it. Most of them wouldn't meet what would be called punishment though by most people. I would say few 1 year olds are remotely there since they are likely still in a phase of development where they literally cannot be spoiled since their brains just don't make connections between cause and effect. I get what ou are saying but I thought I would put his out there still because it helps reinforce how stupid what Bush said really is.
He "obviously" shouldn't go on the radio if he admits multiple time that he "harshly" disciplines his 1 year old daughter on the radio. Also I "obviously" don't believe that he thinks that talking to her is "harshly" disciplining her and I "obviously" believe his PR crew/Agent told him "OMFG WHAT ARE YOU DOING FIX IT! FIX IT RIGHT NOW!".
PSN: SoulCrusherJared
When trying to teach her what "No" means I lightly tap her hand and say no as she reaches for the thing she isn't supposed to be touching.
Sometimes I feel like that is crossing a line.
I can't imagine reaching the point where I have to worry about potential bruises.
I'm not sure why you would believe to a T everything he says at one time (which isn't even true, he never refers to "harshly" disciplining in anything other than a hypothetical, at some unspecified, vague future time) then refuse to believe anything he says at another time
But k
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
At 1 years old or at any age? I mean I'm not really a supporter of corporal punishment, but I don't understand the sentiment that you're ok with hitting a child but not that hard. The whole point of corporal punishment is to cause pain. Obviously it is possible to go to far, and maybe your acceptable level is different then reggie bush's, but borderline bruising does not seem so far out there as to be patently ridiculous.
Yes, the point of discipline is so that you should remember what you did and that it was wrong and why. Pretty much every study out there says that physically punishing your children is a bad idea because what happens is exactly what you experienced - kids don't actually remember what the crime was.
Or they internalize that physical aggression acceptable.
At any age. That tapping thing is literally the only physical punishment I've done with either of my children. And its done mainly because they are unable to communicate at that age and I need a way for them to learn what "no" means since it could be vital due to them learning to walk and getting into more dangerous situations.
Timeout has been plenty punishment for my 4 year old so far in her life.
I tend to believe what he says FIRST and not the "Holy fuck I'm getting killed I need to fix this" backtracking on what he already said. And how is "I discipline my kid" a hypothetical?
That's not hypothetical. He has a 1 year old daughter and he discipline's her. Then he says:
So he says he defintely disciplines his kid and then he says he will try not to leave bruises. "Will" doesn't have to mean 'in the future.' Lets say I say "I have had pineapple on my pizza. I think it's delicious and I enjoy it. I will order a hawiian pizza if the situation arises." Just because that statement COULD mean I haven't ordered hawaiian pizza in the past, in the context of saying I have had pineapple on my pizza previously makes it seem like a good bet I've order hawiian pizza before. He already stated he disciplines his kid and I don't think it's a stretch to say he considers his discipline as harsh. I didn't manipulate his words. He said them, sorry if I'm not about to go "Oh well maybe he'll only beat and possibly leave marks on his kid IN THE FUTURE"
PSN: SoulCrusherJared
His off the cuff remarks left room for interpretation, and he clarified after finding most people were interpreting them differently than he intended. With absolutely zero else to go on i dont see any reason not to believe what he's saying
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
The off the cuff remarks about a national story that has been going on for a week that he absolutely should be prepaired to talk about?
PSN: SoulCrusherJared
No, Reggie Bush, people didn't take it to far, you're the person who said those things. It's not their job to explain away your dumb bullshit. Maybe youth services should check out his home just in case, I'd rather be safe than sorry
PSN: SoulCrusherJared
Christ, fantasy football?
I'm ... I feel like you're on a silly vendetta here. Maybe it's because I'm an educator, but I prefer when people speak their ignorance out loud. If you're going to get all, "Let's pile on Reggie Bush because it was his own fault for saying something like that without full preparation," well... the result's just going to be chilling. The Reggie Bushes of the world will just say, "No comment," or arrange through their publicist for the subject not to come up, or start doing media training so they all learn to say words that sound like they mean a lot but actually mean nothing like all politicians do.
I think we can chastise him for being saying stupid things, but it's not like Bush has a history of saying horribly offensive shit. Lay off just a bit, man.
Anything that makes child abuse seem like not a big deal, is a big deal to me. Fine I'm on a silly vendetta. I don't care. I won't lay off. Period.
PSN: SoulCrusherJared
I've worked with plenty of "broken" children, and it's actually not all that hard to get them to do what you want. All it requires is patience and the understanding that they literally don't have the self-control required to control when they take a dump, let alone when not to do something that every fiber of their being is screaming at them to do.
I recall one boy in particular who was in therapy (he was 3) and would regularly talk about terrible things like grabbing knives and stabbing you or telling his mom to shoot you. Everyone was terrified of this kid, and his fucker of a father only showed up once in a while to beat him and his mom. His favorite form of "play" was basically running over other kids and pushing them on the ground. I was able to get him to stop doing that after a few hours, and all it took was a few time outs. This isn't to say that he didn't relapse or that I magically "fixed" him. Or even that I'm all that superior to everyone else, because I'm generally an asshole.
It just boggles my mind that people think hitting a kid is actually going to accomplish something constructive. If you spend more than like, a day with a kid, it becomes really apparent that hitting them just makes them learn to avoid you and hide bad behavior, rather than actually change what they are doing.
And the comments on the PFT article are all about how this policy change, that has been 3 years in the making, is all because of the league bending backwards for Peyton Manning.
...I don't even...
Or or, he wasn't trying to minimize child abuse at all, and what he was saying was that he would never hit his child (and leave bruises) but that he does believe in harsh discipline, not necessarily physical, and that he will one day have to figure out how to implement them, which he hasn't yet because his child is 1. And maybe he didn't pick his words properly, because it was in a phone interview, not an essay, and he's a football player, not a philosopher.
Bush's words were ... on the spectrum of ignorant statements made in sensitive times, so not even close to being egregious.
i'm terrible and immediately thought "exp share?"
pleasepaypreacher.net
Everyone's gonna be shocked when Suh comes out and says he'd only punish kids with words and taking away toys.
Steam
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Holy mother of fuck, why? Why is not ok to hit your wife, but it's ok to hit children? Because you're bigger than your kids? Because your kids don't know any better and you're trying to teach them? Not only are those not good reasons for hitting your kids, they're the best possible arguments for not hitting them. "Disciplining" someone and feeling justified because they're smaller than you and you want to teach them a lesson is a morally and ethically indefensible position, not one that we should be coming to each other's defense over.
pleasepaypreacher.net
people still think this
Lawrence Taylor sits the kid down and patiently uses the Socratic method to have the child work through why their actions were wrong, helping them build critical thinking and develop empathy for others.
This is true, like after Janay came out in support of Ray people thought that was that and if she was ok with it we should be too. And that's fucked up.
pleasepaypreacher.net