violence

[The Voice of Time]

I think the healthiest option is a smack on the hand or the butt, rather than a constant barrage of destructive verbal abuse.

Why either? You speak as if it's an option when both should be unthinkable.

[James Markham]

On the other hand what is more destructive.

Constant verbal abuse.

it is not always considered as serious as other forms of violence but the effects can be devastating,

and

Verbal abuse can leave scars

"Ultimately, it is the victim's self image and self-esteem that suffers, which can lead to physical and mental illness, and behavioural problems such as drug and alcohol abuse."

I tend to agree with this.

I think the healthiest option is a smack on the hand or the butt, rather than a constant barrage of destructive verbal abuse.

I agree, when my first child was still very little, I heard that if you tell a child they are naughty, rather than tell them that they are being naughty, they can start to belive they are simply a naughty child and behave accordingly. I've always tried to be very careful in this respect, lots of positive input, and telling them how much I love them, seems to make children want to do well.

[reasonvemotion]

TVoT wrote:

Why either? You speak as if it's an option when both should be unthinkable.

Well V, all of us have written many points of view on this subject and I am against violence/abusive treatment of children/anyone. In context of this argument, most responding in favour of smacking, have expressed that any physical punishment given, was a light smack on the hand or bottom. Most toddlers are heavily padded in the butt area and a smack on a little one's hand is usually a "light smack" and intense eye to eye contact with verbal accompaniment as to why this smack occurred, but most importantly, the adult never losing his or her temper. I think to be fair to the people advocating this, is they are not referring to child protection services type physical punishment and there is a difference.

On the other hand, constant verbal abuse, I think, is far more damaging and takes years, if ever to rectify, by the comparison to
a light smack, a bit of reasoning and when understanding is acknowledged, a hug and let's be on our way again.

What do you think about verbal/psychological abuse?

Are not the affects from this far more insidious and damaging.

[The Voice of Time]

Are not the affects from this far more insidious and damaging.

Did the hen or the chicken come first?

First of all, they are related, what's physical is also psychological, and in my experience what's psychological is also physical, as the mere threat of violence is enough to feel the pain of uncertainty and fear (and other less obvious psychological abuses might also lead the same way, as a threatening voice, or a situation which you associate to violence or associate to huge discomfort by other physical acts like putting you in a cold environment or refusing you food).

Second, both physical violence and psychological violence are scalable, so you seem to think that great psychological violence is worse than a little physical violence, and I would say "of course! how more obvious can it get?", because you first then already disproportionally scaled them. But at the bottom they are the same, because it pretty much starts being talk of violence when pain and/or suffering in any of its huge variety of forms, are present, and are intended in an act of hostility (like ones own desire for obedience, in other words, a kind of enforcement against another person's will).

Third, physical violence must not be thought to be simple, it's not. Even a single time leaves a mark, it seeds the idea of violence as "okay" and as something the kid can use against others (and it doesn't help if you try to tell the kid why you did it, it's not gonna make things much better, only tell the kid that you're an abusive asshole, I feel certain that it's how the kid's gonna think in the majority of cases they are not crying helplessly), it's also a bad seed of idea in the person who commits it, because of the inherent cowardice and abusiveness of the act. If you want the child's attention, you can talk to it, and there are a variety of ways in which you can get its attention otherwise if the child ignores you, for instance poking it (not on facebook, but a real life poke), or blow air into its face or ears until it surrenders, you can use very mild annoying methods, that's how it should be done, and I tell you, it'll work, unless you overuse it for no particular reason (just out of laziness or your own thoughtlessness), it's gonna work.

As for just giving tiny relatively fast hits on a little babies bum, like a slightly hardened patting, while you hold it to catch its attention, I still don't see the reason for why you should have to do it; it's cultivation of bad habit and demoralizing, it doesn't benefit anyone except a persons own laziness, you should start as early as possibly cultivating words and soft methods, the difficult but the good way. That said, in that case of slightly hardened patting, you are so far into the grey-zone of things it doesn't make much of difference whether you do it or not, it's not particularly wrong, but it's not beneficial, so you should still avoid it if you want to be optimal.

I think to be fair to the people advocating this, is they are not referring to child protection services type physical punishment and there is a difference.

Are you talking about the people here? Because what James Markham, SpheresOfBalance or henry quirk (at his last now deleted comment about seizing every opportunity) has described is absolutely violent behaviour and should be punished and made sure not to happen again.

If you were talking about somebody else and they were using my last example, I would agree with you.

[James Markham]

If we're talking about smacking children, then I agree x should be clocked about the head. I have three children, and they've all had smacks from me, I have only one rule when it comes to disciplining children, and that is to give fair warning of consequence, I say very clearly, and if necessary loudly, "I'm going to count to three, if you don't stop by the time I say three, your going to get a smack", it seems to work well. My little girl is nine, and she's had less smacks than the number of her years, my boys are a bit braver, but I still rarely have to get to three, with my youngest, if I do get to three, I simply have to tap his hand with the force required to swat a mosquito.

Voice, the first sentence in this paragraph was worded in response to the op, the rest outlines my opinion on what is fair discipline, I can't see how this can be labeled violent behaviour, as I said in another post, my eldest has been given the choice of a smack or confiscation, he chose the smack on his hand.

You don't have your own children, so you don't understand what motivates them or drives them, I have a female friend whose husband died when her boy was young, as a result she tended to treat him in an excessively sympathetic manner, not much discipline, and never any smacking, when he got to fourteen he started smacking her.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Are not the affects from this far more insidious and damaging.

Did the hen or the chicken come first?

First of all, they are related, what's physical is also psychological, and in my experience what's psychological is also physical, as the mere threat of violence is enough to feel the pain of uncertainty and fear (and other less obvious psychological abuses might also lead the same way, as a threatening voice, or a situation which you associate to violence or associate to huge discomfort by other physical acts like putting you in a cold environment or refusing you food).

Second, both physical violence and psychological violence are scalable, so you seem to think that great psychological violence is worse than a little physical violence, and I would say "of course! how more obvious can it get?", because you first then already disproportionally scaled them. But at the bottom they are the same, because it pretty much starts being talk of violence when pain and/or suffering in any of its huge variety of forms, are present, and are intended in an act of hostility (like ones own desire for obedience, in other words, a kind of enforcement against another person's will).

Third, physical violence must not be thought to be simple, it's not. Even a single time leaves a mark, it seeds the idea of violence as "okay" and as something the kid can use against others (and it doesn't help if you try to tell the kid why you did it, it's not gonna make things much better, only tell the kid that you're an abusive asshole, I feel certain that it's how the kid's gonna think in the majority of cases they are not crying helplessly), it's also a bad seed of idea in the person who commits it, because of the inherent cowardice and abusiveness of the act. If you want the child's attention, you can talk to it, and there are a variety of ways in which you can get its attention otherwise if the child ignores you, for instance poking it (not on facebook, but a real life poke), or blow air into its face or ears until it surrenders, you can use very mild annoying methods, that's how it should be done, and I tell you, it'll work, unless you overuse it for no particular reason (just out of laziness or your own thoughtlessness), it's gonna work.

As for just giving tiny relatively fast hits on a little babies bum, like a slightly hardened patting, while you hold it to catch its attention, I still don't see the reason for why you should have to do it; it's cultivation of bad habit and demoralizing, it doesn't benefit anyone except a persons own laziness, you should start as early as possibly cultivating words and soft methods, the difficult but the good way. That said, in that case of slightly hardened patting, you are so far into the grey-zone of things it doesn't make much of difference whether you do it or not, it's not particularly wrong, but it's not beneficial, so you should still avoid it if you want to be optimal.

I think to be fair to the people advocating this, is they are not referring to child protection services type physical punishment and there is a difference.

Are you talking about the people here? Because what James Markham, SpheresOfBalance or henry quirk (at his last now deleted comment about seizing every opportunity) has described is absolutely violent behaviour and should be punished and made sure not to happen again.

If you were talking about somebody else and they were using my last example, I would agree with you.

You're delusional, I've never smacked that child, like I told you way back at the beginning, in the other thread, if you want a word that is descriptive as to degree, then 'kiss' is the word, and was violent, in no way shape or form, which doesn't mean that I haven't swatted a different child's bottom, just like my governments school system taught me, their word, their example, and their reasoning. You are projecting an unenlightened viewpoint, based upon your anger at your mother. You are not the definitive answer in this case, as nothing can be that certain. There are always variables, and like I said if it's only ever done as a last resort, only ever with the child's welfare in mind, and not that of the parents, then it can be well served. The fact that you're a coward has noting to do with it. You have said in a previous thread, that if war came to you, that you would belly up and die. So like Jesus Christ it is, for you, to turn the other cheek. But for many they want not to be victimized, and children can learn to victimize outside the home, and then bring it home, and then victimize the parents, and their siblings. EVERYTHING, is a case by case basis, there is no one definitive solution. And you are a nutter to think so.

P.S. I never said anything about 'seizing every opportunity,' it would seem that you seriously need an English dictionary, because you obviously don't understand basic English words.

[Arising_uk]

...
Are you talking about the people here? Because what James Markham, SpheresOfBalance or henry quirk (at his last now deleted comment about seizing every opportunity) has described is absolutely violent behaviour and should be punished and made sure not to happen again

But this is pretty much the argument the above are putting forward?

You are a touch naive as what they describe is not absolutely violent behaviour. Absolutely violent behaviour towards children is much more violent than a smack on the bottom.

However I agree that those who try to describe this action as a fairly painless action are in error as the action obviously has to be hard enough to cause pain otherwise its a pointless action so they are deluding themselves that its not violence towards another. The main problem with using this method I think is that if it doesn't work then it has to be escalated each time and given that humans can quickly become inured to a level of pain then its likely that it will escalate.

The arguments put forward that smacking stops bad behaviour from appearing in adults is pretty much nonsense I think and I'd like to see the evidence to back up such a claim.

On the whole the one thing that appears to be true is that those who've been smacked as a child smack their children and those who haven't don't. For myself I'm still raising three kids, youngest now fourteen and I've never had to hit them once to get them to behave and they seem, so far, pretty well adjusted.

[reasonvemotion]

It is not always about uncontrolled anger and violence.

Abuse can take the form of adults' exploitation of their power over a child, using the child as an object and not respecting his/her rights as a young person. There are parents who expect "perfectionism, this has to be the sort of abuse that sabotages the thing that they are trying to accomplish. It makes children become obsessed with success, but it also keeps them obsessively focused on failure, no doubt ensuring their lives will consist of doubt and depression.

[SpheresOfBalance]

...
Are you talking about the people here? Because what James Markham, SpheresOfBalance or henry quirk (at his last now deleted comment about seizing every opportunity) has described is absolutely violent behaviour and should be punished and made sure not to happen again

However I agree that those who try to describe this action as a fairly painless action are in error as the action obviously has to be hard enough to cause pain otherwise its a pointless action so they are deluding themselves that its not violence towards another.

You cannot say this, as it's not true reasoning. There is such a thing as a "fake spank" and a "fake cry," that I characterize as: "I'm disappointed in you" (fake spank) and "I know" (fake cry). In this case there is no pain, or violence, and there is no hurt other than ones feelings. This is NOT an argument as to whether you have experienced this, as you have stated that YOU NEVER HAVE!!!!!! Rather it is a FACT that I have experienced this!! Your logic in this case is non sequitur, as my proof dictates!

[The Voice of Time]

Voice, the first sentence in this paragraph was worded in response to the op, the rest outlines my opinion on what is fair discipline, I can't see how this can be labeled violent behaviour, as I said in another post, my eldest has been given the choice of a smack or confiscation, he chose the smack on his hand.

I have no understanding of your relationship with your son, I'd have to have more information in order to understand the situation. For instance, what year was this? How old was your son? As a person gets older, violent behaviour is gonna be felt less, depending on person, both physically and psychologically. I'm sure that had you used the same force on a 6 year old girl, that girl would not find it as easy. Now, 1 week without a computer? In our modern world, that is hugely excessive punishment. I don't know how old you are, but you sound very old in your head, and I'd wager 50+ years, but 40+ is not unlikely either. Unfortunately, old people are very stupid in our modern world, they have very little understanding for how people who grow up with technology feel about it. If you had done it this year, or last year or even 5 years back or further, 7 days without a computer (may, situations determine) feel like isolation to your child.

In other words, you have no understanding of what your threat will imply for your kid and how it would feel to your kid; anybody who takes away a kid's computer for an entire week does not have that understanding. Depending on the circumstances, you might offer the child a week of boredom, now a little boredom isn't particularly bad, but a week of it can in the kid's head be terrifyingly long (now I know many people like making fun of this, they think boredom is harmless, I can tell you that some of the worst moments of life s when I'm bored, because that can easily lead me to depression). But that's the less bad thing that can happen, other things can be a week without being able to talk to friends or be socially linked with people that matter to them, it can be a week where the way they've gone used to exploring and re-affirming their identity is lost and a healthy mind needs that opportunity to re-affirm themselves in comfortable environments, it might be that they need the computer to work on something they feel is important like working with creative software tools and this is something they've set forth for themselves to do and you threaten their interest, or they feel obligated in various ways to their friends and they'll feel that if they cannot meet this obligation they are slowly distanced from their friends.

I don't know if any of this is the case in this situation, but I wouldn't trust your words they are not, because I don't think you have an interest in truth, and that instead you only want to trivialize the situation so that you might get away with it. The most obvious answer I can come up with why your son chose for you to hit him, is because it's quickly over, while your second choice was to torture his mind and body for week. Seems to me, in that case, you gave him two very bad choices, and only because the one was really bad, he chose the one which was a little less bad.

My mother used to isolate people, make them feel alone and deserted by their friends, so as to give the impression of "us" versus "you", and thereby force the child either to attack their own psyche with the facts and the threats of isolation making them feel distanced and friendless, or make them submit to her power-perverted will.

You don't have your own children, so you don't understand what motivates them or drives them

It's not very long since I was a child myself and I remember it quite well, and I grew up with tons of children around me all the time, so don't suppose I don't know what drives them.

, I have a female friend whose husband died when her boy was young, as a result she tended to treat him in an excessively sympathetic manner, not much discipline, and never any smacking, when he got to fourteen he started smacking her.

And are you saying that if we are not violent against our children they'll end up violent? That's disgusting thinking. You're a perverted bastard to think like that. The kid had 14 years to find a reason to hit his mother, I'd rather look through 14 years than find the first most self-beneficial explanation I could.

[The Voice of Time]

You're delusional, I've never smacked that child,

I never said you did.

like I told you way back at the beginning, in the other thread, if you want a word that is descriptive as to degree, then 'kiss' is the word

But did you kiss the child? ... So why compare it thus? Wouldn't that be a lie? A kiss is an action and does not have inherent "degree", hard kissing can be painful.

, and was violent, in no way shape or form, which doesn't mean that I haven't swatted a different child's bottom

Well here you say you did swat the child's bottom. So I don't know what is the point of this talk.

, just like my governments school system taught me, their word, their example, and their reasoning.

Are you saying that because bad people told you it was correct you think it is correct?

You are projecting an unenlightened viewpoint, based upon your anger at your mother. You are not the definitive answer in this case, as nothing can be that certain.

I'm not certain what this is supposed to mean?

There are always variables

That there is certainly, and you'll be free to provide them.

, and like I said if it's only ever done as a last resort, only ever with the child's welfare in mind, and not that of the parents, then it can be well served.

That's never the case, now, is it. It's only ever in the greed of the parent who is incapable of mustering the willpower to do things properly and respectfully, or out of a misguided faith in the merits of violence against kids.

The fact that you're a coward has noting to do with it.

It has all to do with it, cowardice separates those who aspire to do right from those who do not care and would take the easy road to avoid the hardship of long be good road.

You have said in a previous thread, that if war came to you, that you would belly up and die. So like Jesus Christ it is, for you, to turn the other cheek.

Not really, that is more to do with mental preparedness than belief. I do not know what would happen, and I would want to fight, but I don't like fighting, and killing would kill my heart and maybe turn my mind mad because it's not made for such things.

But for many they want not to be victimized

Only people with problems want to be victimized, to feel victimized is a very sad feeling indeed, I don't think though that it would ever be a thought that would cross my mind.

, and children can learn to victimize outside the home, and then bring it home, and then victimize the parents, and their siblings. EVERYTHING, is a case by case basis, there is no one definitive solution.

Ay, so it is, but morals are quite resilient I'm afraid to the diversity of individual situations. They tend to want their presence to be felt across time and space.

And you are a nutter to think so.

My answers sums not up so much to a definitive solution, as to a almost definitive solution; you shall not commit violence against your kid, with the possible exception of the most extreme and fantastic situations.

P.S. I never said anything about 'seizing every opportunity,' it would seem that you seriously need an English dictionary, because you obviously don't understand basic English words.

I never said you did either, if you know grammar you would see I but the parenthesis behind henry quirk's name and not yours, and inside the parenthesis I wrote "his", so that would refer to the last person I named of male gender, which was henry quirk. Your paranoia is getting exceedingly annoying Spheres of Balance, and I'd like you to stop it.

[James Markham]

Voice, you really do sound like an irritating little p****, first I'd get 3 months in prison for a smack on the hand, now taking away a child's computers is even worse, so how long do you think I should serve for that, because taking away a child's parent is obviously a phycologicaly neutral act, yes? You should grow up and live a bit of life before you give your opinion to people who clearly know better. If your mum used to beat you and lock you in the cupboard, it sounds like it was an act of self preservation, there's possibly not an adult in the world that could remain placid around such an opinionated kid as you. If you was my kid, I'd smack you, take your computer, and lock you in the cupboard, or alternatively I'd give you the option, either except my right of authority in my house, and except my right to punish as I see fit, or phone social services and get yourself put into care, where you'll get the counciling you need.

[SpheresOfBalance]

You're delusional, I've never smacked that child,

I never said you did.
Maybe my mistake, but you have used words other than the ones I've used, to characterize my actions, as stronger than they were, to suit your own desires.

like I told you way back at the beginning, in the other thread, if you want a word that is descriptive as to degree, then 'kiss' is the word

But did you kiss the child? ... So why compare it thus? Wouldn't that be a lie? A kiss is an action and does not have inherent "degree", hard kissing can be painful.

Again we see your problem with not understanding definitions. Take note of the two below in red.

kiss kiss [kis]
verb (used with object)
1. to touch or press with the lips slightly pursed, and then often to part them and to emit a smacking sound, in an expression of affection, love, greeting, reverence, etc.: He kissed his son on the cheek.
2. to join lips with in this way: She kissed him and left.
3. to touch gently or lightly: The breeze kissed her face.
4. to put, bring, take, etc., by, or as if by, kissing: She kissed the baby's tears away.
5. Billiards, Pool. (of a ball) to make slight contact with or brush (another ball).
verb (used without object)
6. to join lips in respect, affection, love, passion, etc.: They kissed passionately.
7. to express a thought, feeling, etc., by a contact of the lips: They kissed good-bye at the station.
8. to purse and then part the lips, emitting a smacking sound, as in kissing someone.
9. Billiards, Pool. (of a ball) to carom gently off or touch another ball.
noun
10. an act or instance of kissing.
11. a slight touch or contact.
12. Billiards, Pool. the slight touch of one ball by another.
13. a baked confection of egg whites and confectioners' sugar, served as a cookie.
14. a piece of toffeelike confectionery, sometimes containing nuts, coconut, or the like.
15. a small, sometimes conical, bite-size piece of chocolate, usually individually wrapped.
Verb phrases
16. kiss off, Slang.
a. to reject, dismiss, or ignore: He kissed off their objections with a wave of his hand.
b. (used to express contemptuous rejection or dismissal).
c. to give up, renounce, or dispense with: Leaving Tulsa meant kissing off a promising job.
Idioms
17. blow / throw a kiss, to indicate an intended kiss from a distance, usually in bidding farewell, by kissing one's own fingertips and moving the hand toward the person greeted.
18. kiss ass, Slang: Vulgar. to be obsequious; fawn.

, and was violent, in no way shape or form, which doesn't mean that I haven't swatted a different child's bottom

Well here you say you did swat the child's bottom. So I don't know what is the point of this talk.
You're not paying attention, blinded by your fervor.

, just like my governments school system taught me, their word, their example, and their reasoning.

Are you saying that because bad people told you it was correct you think it is correct?
Not at all, you do know that Norsemen used to be known as vikings, right??? And do you know how violent they were?

You are projecting an unenlightened viewpoint, based upon your anger at your mother. You are not the definitive answer in this case, as nothing can be that certain.

I'm not certain what this is supposed to mean?
Your fervor, born at your mothers hand, blinds your view. You are not the authority.

There are always variables

That there is certainly, and you'll be free to provide them.
Situations are only ever variable.

, and like I said if it's only ever done as a last resort, only ever with the child's welfare in mind, and not that of the parents, then it can be well served.

That's never the case, now, is it. It's only ever in the greed of the parent who is incapable of mustering the willpower to do things properly and respectfully, or out of a misguided faith in the merits of violence against kids.
Your misguided belief, to ensure your safety, as one that fears fighting.

The fact that you're a coward has noting to do with it.

It has all to do with it, cowardice separates those who aspire to do right from those who do not care and would take the easy road to avoid the hardship of long be good road.
No, by your own admission, you are a coward, that's what I meant, you fear to fight, for your right to live, or so you said in another thread.

You have said in a previous thread, that if war came to you, that you would belly up and die. So like Jesus Christ it is, for you, to turn the other cheek.

Not really, that is more to do with mental preparedness than belief. I do not know what would happen, and I would want to fight, but I don't like fighting, and killing would kill my heart and maybe turn my mind mad because it's not made for such things.
OK, you have changed your mind, surely. At least you admit that you don't know, and how could anyone know, how they would react to any particular instance of violence. So if a GANG of children, (under the decided age of adulthood) came at you with knives, you might snap, and smite them, with your fists, because you would want to defend yourself.

But for many they want not to be victimized

Only people with problems want to be victimized, to feel victimized is a very sad feeling indeed, I don't think though that it would ever be a thought that would cross my mind.
OK, then you would defend yourself against children that meant to do you bodily harm, if you had no other way to escape.

, and children can learn to victimize outside the home, and then bring it home, and then victimize the parents, and their siblings. EVERYTHING, is a case by case basis, there is no one definitive solution.

Ay, so it is, but morals are quite resilient I'm afraid to the diversity of individual situations. They tend to want their presence to be felt across time and space.
Not at all, once all of mankind is dead and buried, his morals shall be far more than gone, it would be as if they never existed at all.

And you are a nutter to think so.

My answers sums not up so much to a definitive solution, as to a almost definitive solution; you shall not commit violence against your kid, with the possible exception of the most extreme and fantastic situations.
But violence is relative, as I tried to show you with my Grizzly Bear analogy. You nor I could handle a swat of a grizzly bear cub, at play, yet they can. To a lessor degree, but still the case, is that of a relative pat on the back, between two huge men of the same strength compared to one big and strong, and one small and weak. For instance I have shook hands with another man where my hand was hurt to some degree. Violence??? I hardly think so!!!

P.S. I never said anything about 'seizing every opportunity,' it would seem that you seriously need an English dictionary, because you obviously don't understand basic English words.

I never said you did either, if you know grammar you would see I but the parenthesis behind henry quirk's name and not yours, and inside the parenthesis I wrote "his", so that would refer to the last person I named of male gender, which was henry quirk.
My mistake, possibly!


Your paranoia is getting exceedingly annoying Spheres of Balance, and I'd like you to stop it.
You'd do well to not mimic Arising_uk, as she has no idea what she's talking about. And what you'd like, is of no consequence to me. What, do I make you paranoid?

[The Voice of Time]

Again we see your problem with not understanding definitions. Take note of the two below in

Please don't tell me you let the dictionary tell you what kiss is... that's so sad and so pathetic.

[The Voice of Time]

Voice, you really do sound like an irritating little p****, first I'd get 3 months in prison for a smack on the hand, now taking away a child's computers is even worse, so how long do you think I should serve for that

None, it's not part of a widespread view that children need computers, and they do not strictly speaking need them either except in moments. It's about how the child feels about it rather than how it could be for them.

A child might get anxious to not loose or simply afraid to loose their opportunity because that's what they are accustomed to (my big brother once gave me a stolen computer and I can remember how much I cried and despaired the moment the police came to collect it), a computer can be a bit like a teddy-bear or a doll (for a girl) even to old kids and even adults (though adults tend to act less emotionally than children), because it provides so much of what they want and desire and have needs for (like socializing, identity-reinforcement and entertainment so as to alleviate their minds from the problems or challenges of everyday life).

In the kid's mind, they need a computer because the computer is how they know to run (parts of) their life, and it gives an enhancing feeling whereas no computer makes one feel depraved of ability, kinda "disabled". However, taking away the computer they might find other ways, depending on person, they might even go for something more stimulating, like taking a bicycle ride over to their friends, or they may find themselves depressingly bored and looking out the window at the rain, slowly having their brains rot over the course of the week. It all depends.

But prison shouldn't happen, most definitely, unless the manners of which you take it is overly abusive (which then would mean you are psychologically abusing your children, and it would not really be about the computer itself). I find it quite worrisome that you only had those two options to give him though, it sounds a bit to me like as if you like to hit your children... why didn't you have other more sensible options on the table? Or never-mind, you're just gonna rage that I ask.