Teen Parents/ Parenting

[Piscivore]

Look lady/dude,

Dude.

...when I was 4 I already knew how to read music, and I knew first aid skills.

I knew how to read when I was three. Doesn't mean I was competent to self-analyse my own emotional state to the point I could articulate it to others.

And what kind of "first aid"? You knew how to put on a band-aid?

There is no excuse a 4 year old could not talk to me about what he felt.
Another case, I recently babysat a 2 year old who, in the time i went to the bathroom, was able to open a door, deadbolted, and chained, with a chair from the next room, undress and run 2 blocks down the street. If your going to mply a 4 year old isnt smart to express what they are feeling/ thinking, you have a very low standard for that age.

Physical actions are easy. There are monkeys, birds, and octopi that can accomplish similar tasks. When my son was two, he could put together an Escher-based puzzle just by looking at a picture; that doesn't mean he had a sophisticated enough understanding of emotional states to have a meaningful discussion about it. You spent a few hours with a toddler, I lived with two of them for years.

 

[Piscivore]

Alright peace for now, im going to go play a game and go to bed... Also Piscivore, if you have any good tips for parenting vs. what I stated above, please send me a copy via PM so I can read it faster and pick off from there, been fun discussing this with ya! ^^

I'm not going to, as I doubt your sincerity and your willingness to accept it. I will give you my first tip: your first sentence shows a lack of priorities. The kid is your only priority now. Everything you need to be doing- finishing school, growing up fast, and accepting your new responsibility is your priority now.

 

[Meadmaker]

Somehow I suspect that this would not be a management technique which would find acceptance in most work environments.

No, but "you're fired" is. Since you can't fire your kids, what would you do instead?

Children are not suffering from some sort of diminished capacity which precludes communication. They simply have less data to work with. If you find yourself resorting to pain as a communication device, most especially if you are in a hurry, it reflects more on your own ability to express yourself than it does on the child's ability to comprehend.

I agree. What's your point?

 

[Meadmaker]

Well if you must know, I drove my pregnant GF to the hospital for an ultrasound, shes 15 btw and very happy, then I drove her mother and twin sister to the airport(60-70 miles away), stopped at wollyworld the opressive retailer, picked up some reeds at a music store for my clarinet, got something to eat, and went to take a nap. Now whats been bugging me is what is a troll? Also I started this thread for opinions, and Information. For someone to provide me with some BETTER info then what ive been told, and experienced. Im 18 =p not a college professor, or old 40-50 year person. as stated in the OP, "Opinions?Explanations?anything?

Well, good luck. And congratulations. I guess.

And, seriously, what you are about to do is extremely difficult, more so than it seems right now. It would be somewhat easier if you were older, but that doesn't seem to be an option, so do your best.

One of the problems you will face is that people will be perfectly willing to criticize everything you do, and sometimes you will see in front of you a bad option and a worse option. Take the bad option, and be prepared for a bunch of people to tell you you're doing it wrong, because, you know, they would be perfect every single time.

 

[Meadmaker]

You didn't answer this question:Why is that unacceptable? What does it say about the person doing the hitting? Why is that not applicable to an adult hitting a child?

1. It depends on the goal.

2. Because in the case of two adults, it is almost always possible to walk away. In those rare cases where it is not, see number 1.

 

[Nihilianth]

Also, who cares about a 3 year differnce? Does a 40 year old date a 18 year old? yes. Though some arguments arise from that, normally nothing happens to them. Im not saying an 18 year old should date a 8 year old, or a 20 year old date a 14 year old. There are limits, and I believe within the 3 year range is perfectly fine.

It's not the "range" that's the problem- it's where the bottom limit falls.

Far as I know, SteveHamilton is right. I know in the state of PA, it is a four year difference is allowable. An 18 year old can go out with a 14 year old.

The reason they give such a leeway:

Imagine you turn 18 on July first, but your girlfriend is still 17 for another whole week. Should the 18 year old be guilty of "statutory rape," just because they are a week older?

Ok, so instead of a week, how about a month? 6 Months? A year? Where do we draw line to prevent such outrageous ridiculousness?

Well, most states decide to draw a line between 2 and 4 year difference. It avoids a terrible miscarriage of justice by throwing someone who just turns 18 into prison, just for kissing their 17 year old girlfriend who is a week younger.

 

[Nihilianth]

I don't care at all. I'm just aware that some states do not have a "Romeo and Juliet" provision to age-of-consent laws. I know a guy who is a convicted registered sex offender for life because he was 18 and she was 17, and in Virginia that counts as an adult taking advantage of a minor.

And that is a gross miscarriage of justice. A great example of this terrible police state called a "democracy" we have here in the United States.

I know the law in PA was carefully crafted, in order to avoid such an idiotic foolish example of idiocy.

Rape to engage in sexual intercourse with a complainant who is less than 13 years of age.

Rape to engage in deviate sexual intercourse with a complainant who is less than (1) 13 years of age or (2) 16 years of age and the actor is four or more years older.

ETA: BTW:

Virginia, same source:

Sexual intercourse with a child under the age of thirteen

Carnal knowledge of a child between ages 13 and 15

Carnal knowledge of a child between ages 13 and 15 when the actor is a minor and the victim is three or more years younger

Carnal knowledge of a child between ages 13 and 15 when the actor is a minor and the victim is less than three years younger

Why the redundency? Why not just throw everyone in jail for having "carnal knowledge," even if they are exactly the same age between the ages of 13 and 15?[/quote]

It states that the actor cannot have "carnal knowledge" if the victim is more than and less than three years younger.

Well....uummm...ok. Redundant much? Unless the website I am posting from is just simply misprinted or something.

God, what a retarded state! (No offense to you at all, but that is the God's-honest truth.)

 

[Nihilianth]

Head shots are not the danger from an enraged four year old.

Heh, you;re wrong. But then, that's why I would wear both a cup, and a helmet in that case!

I look at my two AWESOME And ADORABLE twin boys, and I cannot imagine them growing up to be that enraged at this point. They are just too cute and sweet.

Of course, I am definitely ready to be resistant to their big brown eyes when they are a few years older.

I think that a quick smack wouldn't be all that bad. I know I won't put them over my knee and bash them. I may smack their hand, or their behind real quick if they are getting into something they shouldn't be. Especially if that something is dangerous.

 

[Piscivore]

I think that a quick smack wouldn't be all that bad. I know I won't put them over my knee and bash them. I may smack their hand, or their behind real quick if they are getting into something they shouldn't be. Especially if that something is dangerous.

Oh, yeah, that's not the same thing at all.

 

[Arcade22]

I think I am going to head to the local high school and find as many 16 year old girls to impregnate as possible. It really shouldn't be very hard. I do have to remember to give them a fake name so I am not on the hook for child support.

A man has got to secure his legacy!

 

[SteveHamilton]

I'm not going to, as I doubt your sincerity and your willingness to accept it. I will give you my first tip: your first sentence shows a lack of priorities. The kid is your only priority now. Everything you need to be doing- finishing school, growing up fast, and accepting your new responsibility is your priority now.

My first sentence is due to Im out of school for spring break. My daughter isnt even born yet, and my girlfriend is asleep. Im a gamer as you so kindly state 2ish posts above, but to a reasonable extent. I play after everything I needed to do is done(homework, chores, tasks assigned to me, research, and whatever that day may hold for me), till about 9pm. Thats what my father disiplined me into doing =p work then play. I go to bed at 10pm after taking a bath, and reading a book for the remainder. Dont base everything off about me because you read a few topics, as for the other thing I have considered more ways to disipline my child =p with little luck of finding a good way at all. I did ask you for some assistance because I can listen, and pick out the things I like and do not like, after ive tried them, I may not fully agree with the way you have tried telling me, but there might be other solutions I am willing to do.

 

[SteveHamilton]

Everything you need to be doing- finishing school, growing up fast, and accepting your new responsibility is your priority now.

Funny you should mention that, this thread was more of an experiment more then anything =p. I was debating if i should write my English research paper on Teen Parenting, or Parenting. Both are two controversies that my English teacher likes. Also serving another purpose to find out what would be the best method. The method I know, or whatever method someone else says. Though I didnt get any good research at all, ironic because this is an educational site.
Never started anything personal, was mainly trying to get information a different way, which didnt work out.

 

[Meadmaker]

Children are not suffering from some sort of diminished capacity which precludes communication. They simply have less data to work with. If you find yourself resorting to pain as a communication device, most especially if you are in a hurry, it reflects more on your own ability to express yourself than it does on the child's ability to comprehend.

I was thinking about this post. Something struck me as wrong about it, but I couldn't put my finger on just what it was. Then it struck me. It really gets to the heart of a lot of real mistakes people make about child raising, I think.

I wrote my original post thinking about the few times that my son has experienced a hand smacking his behind. I think they were all cases where we were trying to get somewhere, and he didn't want to go. In those rare cases where we resorted to mild violence, i.e. a quick one or two swats to the butt, I would have to agree that there was probably a failing on our part, whether it was at that moment or prior to it. Nevertheless, I don't feel the least bit guilty. Although it may have indicated some sort of failure, I still don't see anything we could have done better at that moment in time under the actual circumstances that really existed.


Now to the mistake I think that quadraginta and many other people make in evaluating the quality of parenting of those of us who, once in a great while, resort to spanking. The implication is that the problem was somehow a lack of communication, as if the problem was my ability to "express myself", or that I thought there was a "failure to comprehend".

No, really. We understood each other perfectly. I wanted one thing. He wanted something else. We had expressed our opinions with great clarity and there was no misunderstanding on either part. It was in no sense a lack of communication, or a lack of comprehension, or a lack of expressive ability.

We each knew exactly what the other wanted, but only one of us was going to get what he wanted. On those days, I decided it would be me.

 

[Nihilianth]

I was thinking about this post. Something struck me as wrong about it, but I couldn't put my finger on just what it was. Then it struck me. It really gets to the heart of a lot of real mistakes people make about child raising, I think.

I wrote my original post thinking about the few times that my son has experienced a hand smacking his behind. I think they were all cases where we were trying to get somewhere, and he didn't want to go. In those rare cases where we resorted to mild violence, i.e. a quick one or two swats to the butt, I would have to agree that there was probably a failing on our part, whether it was at that moment or prior to it. Nevertheless, I don't feel the least bit guilty. Although it may have indicated some sort of failure, I still don't see anything we could have done better at that moment in time under the actual circumstances that really existed.


Now to the mistake I think that quadraginta and many other people make in evaluating the quality of parenting of those of us who, once in a great while, resort to spanking. The implication is that the problem was somehow a lack of communication, as if the problem was my ability to "express myself", or that I thought there was a "failure to comprehend".

No, really. We understood each other perfectly. I wanted one thing. He wanted something else. We had expressed our opinions with great clarity and there was no misunderstanding on either part. It was in no sense a lack of communication, or a lack of comprehension, or a lack of expressive ability.

We each knew exactly what the other wanted, but only one of us was going to get what he wanted. On those days, I decided it would be me.

Oh, but you didn't sit down with your little 6 year old child, and have a TRUE heart-to-heart! You didn't ask your child what the consequences would be for HIS choice if he got his way. You didn't negotiate with the child, by saying "if you do it my way right now, I will buy you a toy and some ice cream later! I love you! You know that, right?"

 

[quadraginta]

I was thinking about this post. Something struck me as wrong about it, but I couldn't put my finger on just what it was. Then it struck me. It really gets to the heart of a lot of real mistakes people make about child raising, I think.

I wrote my original post thinking about the few times that my son has experienced a hand smacking his behind. I think they were all cases where we were trying to get somewhere, and he didn't want to go. In those rare cases where we resorted to mild violence, i.e. a quick one or two swats to the butt, I would have to agree that there was probably a failing on our part, whether it was at that moment or prior to it. Nevertheless, I don't feel the least bit guilty. Although it may have indicated some sort of failure, I still don't see anything we could have done better at that moment in time under the actual circumstances that really existed.


Now to the mistake I think that quadraginta and many other people make in evaluating the quality of parenting of those of us who, once in a great while, resort to spanking. The implication is that the problem was somehow a lack of communication, as if the problem was my ability to "express myself", or that I thought there was a "failure to comprehend".

No, really. We understood each other perfectly. I wanted one thing. He wanted something else. We had expressed our opinions with great clarity and there was no misunderstanding on either part. It was in no sense a lack of communication, or a lack of comprehension, or a lack of expressive ability.

We each knew exactly what the other wanted, but only one of us was going to get what he wanted. On those days, I decided it would be me.

Are you saying you believe that in most situations it is the wrong thing to do?

 

[Meadmaker]

Are you saying you believe that in most situations it is the wrong thing to do?

"Wrong" is a pretty strong word.

In my opinion, there is usually something better to do, and it is not what I chose to do, but I'm very reluctant to condemn those who make a different choice. Each person is stuck with the job of raising kids, and there isn't one, single answer about the "right" response to bad behavior. It's a complicated question.

 

[Piscivore]

I wrote my original post thinking about the few times that my son has experienced a hand smacking his behind. I think they were all cases where we were trying to get somewhere, and he didn't want to go. In those rare cases where we resorted to mild violence, i.e. a quick one or two swats to the butt, I would have to agree that there was probably a failing on our part, whether it was at that moment or prior to it. Nevertheless, I don't feel the least bit guilty. Although it may have indicated some sort of failure, I still don't see anything we could have done better at that moment in time under the actual circumstances that really existed.

As I said upthread. I don't consider a quick, light swat to the bottom "spanking" (or, when they are older, a light slap to the back of the head). Especially with younger kids, sometimes you just need to get their attention: like if they are dawdling or about to do something dangerous. Stevie-boy is talking about wailing on a kid with a belt. That's a whole different category.

Now to the mistake I think that quadraginta and many other people make in evaluating the quality of parenting of those of us who, once in a great while, resort to spanking. The implication is that the problem was somehow a lack of communication, as if the problem was my ability to "express myself", or that I thought there was a "failure to comprehend".

No, really. We understood each other perfectly. I wanted one thing. He wanted something else. We had expressed our opinions with great clarity and there was no misunderstanding on either part. It was in no sense a lack of communication, or a lack of comprehension, or a lack of expressive ability.

We each knew exactly what the other wanted, but only one of us was going to get what he wanted. On those days, I decided it would be me.

This the failure I see. You've turned the situation into a struggle between competeing ideologies. A struggle that implicitly makes the kid an equal, and the only reason your "side" wins out is because you are bigger and stronger. What happens when the kid is a teenager and he (or she) is bigger and stronger? What's going to happen when your wife has to lay down the law to him?

What "spanking", "grounding", "time outs" and other forms of punishment do is show a kid that force is the reason to follow a rule. It's far more important to get them to understand why the rule exists, and get them on board with the idea that the rules parents set are intended to help them- because we the parents are responsible for what happens to them, we are responsible for what happens because of them, and we are responsible for who they become. Even if the rules seem unfair, aren't the most fun, or are sometimes flawed, if they understand why rules have to exists and the motivations behind them, they do get on board- at least, mine did, very early on. If one is spanking a kid because one cannot articulate to the kid why the rule exists and why it is important (beyond "because I'm the parent, that's why!") then that is a failure of communication.

As for obedience- I don't even care if the kids break many of the rules if they have good, well thought out reasons for doing so. I have no use for the "rules are rules" mindset, it's enshrined and formalised stupidity. I'm not as concerned, as a parent, that my kids unquestionably obey all the rules I set (because I'm certainly not infallible) as much as I am concerned they are thinking about why they do what they do and they are considering the consequences of their actions- because these are the skills they are going to need as responsible adults. If the kids understand the goal of the parent-child relationship is developing them into a fully-functioning adult, not only do they more readily follow the parent's rules, they end up creating their own- at least, mine did. If one is spanking a kid simply to reinforce one's position of authority over the child, that authority exists only because of force, and that's a much greater failure.

 

[Nihilianth]

As I said upthread. I don't consider a quick, light swat to the bottom "spanking" (or, when they are older, a light slap to the back of the head). Especially with younger kids, sometimes you just need to get their attention: like if they are dawdling or about to do something dangerous. Stevie-boy is talking about wailing on a kid with a belt. That's a whole different category.



This the failure I see. You've turned the situation into a struggle between competeing ideologies. A struggle that implicitly makes the kid an equal, and the only reason your "side" wins out is because you are bigger and stronger. What happens when the kid is a teenager and he (or she) is bigger and stronger? What's going to happen when your wife has to lay down the law to him?

What "spanking", "grounding", "time outs" and other forms of punishment do is show a kid that force is the reason to follow a rule. It's far more important to get them to understand why the rule exists, and get them on board with the idea that the rules parents set are intended to help them- because we the parents are responsible for what happens to them, we are responsible for what happens because of them, and we are responsible for who they become. Even if the rules seem unfair, aren't the most fun, or are sometimes flawed, if they understand why rules have to exists and the motivations behind them, they do get on board- at least, mine did, very early on. If one is spanking a kid because one cannot articulate to the kid why the rule exists and why it is important (beyond "because I'm the parent, that's why!") then that is a failure of communication.

As for obedience- I don't even care if the kids break many of the rules if they have good, well thought out reasons for doing so. I have no use for the "rules are rules" mindset, it's enshrined and formalised stupidity. I'm not as concerned, as a parent, that my kids unquestionably obey all the rules I set (because I'm certainly not infallible) as much as I am concerned they are thinking about why they do what they do and they are considering the consequences of their actions- because these are the skills they are going to need as responsible adults. If the kids understand the goal of the parent-child relationship is developing them into a fully-functioning adult, not only do they more readily follow the parent's rules, they end up creating their own- at least, mine did. If one is spanking a kid simply to reinforce one's position of authority over the child, that authority exists only because of force, and that's a much greater failure.

Ok, but what about when they are older, and they much follow the law to the T? No matter what one's intentions are, and how well-thought-out their actions might be, the law is the law. You should take a peek at the one thread titled "Is this illegal in the UK?" The poses the questions about the legality of one ambiguous pamphlet that is handed out on the streets, urging cancer patients (among other people with different types of illnesses) to come in, take a few minutes out of their day, sit down, and pray.

Apparently, such a pamphlet is supposedly illegal under the Cancer Act of 1939, and these church members are the complete scum of the earth of deserve to be thrown in prison.

No, I think that if a rule is a rule, there is probably good reason for that rule. Especially if you are talking about a 6 year-old. I can see what you are saying for a child 12 or older. But a kid under 12? No, I think it is far more important you teach/establish respect, especially for one's elders. Call me "old school" on this if you like, but I do think that respect is incredibly important.

There's a huge difference...a WORLD of difference.... between a 6 year-old, and 33 year old parent. (I'll be 33 by the time my kids are 6.) Their opinions are not equal to my own. They don't even a tenth of all that I know. They have not experienced what I have experienced. They have no way of weighing several different options, and making a well-informed decision.

In fact, that is true up until between the ages of 17 and 22, depending on how quickly a young person matures into an adult. Kids, up until the ages specified, do not, and cannot make well-informed decisions. I suppose they CAN, but statistically, they don't have that capability very often. There's a reason why there is an alcohol age limit. A voting age limit. An age limit to drive, and get a job. Why all the different age limits vary for each increasing level of responsibility society gives to young people.

No, when it comes to a 6 year old, I WILL have my way! There is going to be no ifs, ands, or buts. If I tell my kids to eat what is on their plate, they will eat what is on their plate. I will have no discussion with them whatsoever about their choice of food, outside the options we may give them. If they want a candy bar for dinner, they will not have a candy bar for dinner. Period. End of story. I know what is best for them. They do not. And a candy bar for dinner just is not going to fly. I will feed them the best and healthiest foods, that will taste pretty damned good anyway.

If I tell them they have to go to their grandparents, they will go to their grandparents. If I say they must go to church, they're going to church. If I tell them they cannot go to a friends house as punishment for something, they will not go.

Obviously, as they get older, they will obtain more leeway, a little more trust, and I will be a little more flexible. But that doesn't start until around the age of 12.

ETA: If the kid does something, or refuses to do something which deserves punishment, they will be punished first. once the punishment is over, then I will sit down and talk with the kid and ask them "why do you think I punished you? Why do you think I have that rule in place? Do you understand why I was angry?" But under no circumstances will there be any sort of negotiation.

 

[bigred]

Is it wrong?

By golly no! Teenagers becoming parents is a brilliant idea!

Common sense: the ultimate oxymoron.

 

[Piscivore]

Ok, but what about when they are older, and they much follow the law to the T?

Who said they 'must'? I don't "follow the law to a 'T'", why should they?

No matter what one's intentions are, and how well-thought-out their actions might be, the law is the law.

"One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. "
Martin Luther King

Just because "a law is a law" doesn't mean it's good, adequate, reasonable, or beneficial. I've raised humans, not slaves.

You should take a peek at the one thread titled "Is this illegal in the UK?" The poses the questions about the legality of one ambiguous pamphlet that is handed out on the streets, urging cancer patients (among other people with different types of illnesses) to come in, take a few minutes out of their day, sit down, and pray.

Apparently, such a pamphlet is supposedly illegal under the Cancer Act of 1939, and these church members are the complete scum of the earth of deserve to be thrown in prison.

I'm not interested in your disputes from other threads.

No, I think that if a rule is a rule, there is probably good reason for that rule.

This is veering off topic, but while I'll conceed there are almost always reasons for rules, whether they are "good" reasons- and especially who they are "good" for- is highly subjective.

Especially if you are talking about a 6 year-old. I can see what you are saying for a child 12 or older. But a kid under 12? No, I think it is far more important you teach/establish respect, especially for one's elders. Call me "old school" on this if you like, but I do think that respect is incredibly important.

I've taught them to respect people, not institutions- including governments, religions, laws, and traditions. And I've taught them to respect people's actions more than their attributes. And I've taught them to respect themselves first and foremost. I don't believe anyone "deserves" more respect than anyone else does simply because they were born first.

There's a huge difference...a WORLD of difference.... between a 6 year-old, and 33 year old parent. (I'll be 33 by the time my kids are 6.) Their opinions are not equal to my own. They don't even a tenth of all that I know. They have not experienced what I have experienced. They have no way of weighing several different options, and making a well-informed decision.

Exactly, that's why you're the one with the responsibility- including the responsibility to teach the kid what you know so they know it too. Where did I say otherwise?

In fact, that is true up until between the ages of 17 and 22, depending on how quickly a young person matures into an adult. Kids, up until the ages specified, do not, and cannot make well-informed decisions.

Not on their own. But contrariwise, they are not dim little robots that are only capable of ignorant obedience. It's like the old apprenticeship system. A master blacksmith doesn't take on a young apprentice assuming he can forge a master blade, but neither does he have the boy do nothing but pump the forge bellows for 10 or more years and then expect him to be able to shoe a horse the next day. You make them do what they can- maybe even a little more than you think they can- every day, so their abilities and skills improve.

I suppose they CAN, but statistically, they don't have that capability very often.

Do you have those statistics, or are you just borrowing a science-y sounding word to lend your statement credibility?

There's a reason why there is an alcohol age limit. A voting age limit. An age limit to drive, and get a job. Why all the different age limits vary for each increasing level of responsibility society gives to young people.

Yes, convenience. It is too expensive- in terms of manpower, time, and effort- to determine each person's limits on an individual basis. Some people can handle alcohol at a very young age- my kids have tried it and they don't care for it. Some adults, even into their twilight years, are demonstrably unable to handle it at all. Some farm kids drive around their private property as early as ten- as my father did. As an insurance worker, I assure you there are thousands of adults that shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a motor vehicle. Same with every one of your other examples. there is a reason these "age limits" vary so much from country to country, state to state, county by county- sometimes even city to city.

Don't mistake ad-hoc social age limits for biological facts about development.

No, when it comes to a 6 year old, I WILL have my way!

Wait, who is the six year old here? I can just see your little fists balled up when you say that.

There is going to be no ifs, ands, or buts. If I tell my kids to eat what is on their plate, they will eat what is on their plate. I will have no discussion with them whatsoever about their choice of food, outside the options we may give them. If they want a candy bar for dinner, they will not have a candy bar for dinner. Period. End of story. I know what is best for them. They do not. And a candy bar for dinner just is not going to fly.

If I tell them they have to go to their grandparents, they will go to their grandparents. If I say they must go to church, they're going to church. If I tell them they cannot go to a friends house as punishment for something, they will not go.

Where did I say otherwise?

Obviously, as they get older, they will obtain more leeway, a little more trust, and I will be a little more flexible. But that doesn't start until around the age of 12.

Why so late? I let my kid go to California with a friend and his family when he was eight.

ETA: If the kid does something, or refuses to do something which deserves punishment,

What sort of thing "deserves punishment"?

they will be punished first. once the punishment is over, then I will sit down and talk with the kid and ask them "why do you think I punished you? Why do you think I have that rule in place? Do you understand why I was angry?"

And why can't you do that without the "punishment"? What form of "punishment" do you mean? What do you think the "punishment" accomplishes?

But under no circumstances will there be any sort of negotiation.

You keep mentioning "negotiation". You have even suggested that it is the only alternative to "punishment"- by which I gather from the context you mean corporal punishment- is mollycoddling and bribery (another false dichotomy- why are spankers so fond of this fallacy?)

Where have I suggested either "negotiation" or bribery?