The Rod And The Child

[Spidey Revivey]

It's very likely that most of us grew up on the old adage "Spare the rod and spoil the child". Even moreso our parents enforced this saying by disciplinary actions; either physically or verbally. Having one's ass whooped for doing something wrong was once quite normal; we learned through it not to do whatever we got spanked for again. It is kind of the standard in some households.

But today's society has changed drastically since our parents' or even grandparents' time. What once was an average means of resolving bad behavior is mostly frowned upon by the majority as a whole. Spanking your child can even get you jailtime now, and often then naught a call from the Department of Human Services which would lead to having your children taken from you and put into foster homes.

So here are a series of questions for the viewer:

1. Do you consider physical action enthrusted upon a misbehaving child bad? If so why?

2. Is it fair to the disciplinarian to have their kids taken away for enforcing beatings that were passed down on them from parent to grandparent and so on?

3. What are your thoughts on today's stance on anti-spanking?

As for me, I have been disciplined as a child physically. I do not wish to do the same to my children but I do feel it prudent to pop a hind in or two if they are misbehaving to such a degree that I have no idea on what else to do. I don't think it makes me a bad person; I was brought up on it and it is definitely a bad habit for one to break since I grew up on it all of my life.

I wish to know what you guys think. Maybe advice can be swapped so it can better adults like me when it comes to showing my kids discipline.

 

[LigerBomb]

1. Do you consider physical action enthrusted upon a misbehaving child bad? If so why?

'Enthrusted'? Really? Anyway, yes, for the most part I do consider corporal punishment to be a negative and ultimately unnecessary part of child rearing. Ultimately, I find that when done often enough or strongly enough rather than preventing/correcting so called bad behaviour all it does is instill fear, resentment, hatred, and mistrust between the child and the authority figure/guardian.

2. Is it fair to the disciplinarian to have their kids taken away for enforcing beatings that were passed down on them from parent to grandparent and so on?

As times change and laws change so must society. Again circumstances and specifics will dictate what is and isn't harmful and deleterious to a child, but by and large, if a child's mental, emotional, and physical well-being are in danger due to their parents actions it must be at least considered and looked into further whereupon decisions can be made on a case-by-case basis.

3. What are your thoughts on today's stance on anti-spanking?

I think it's the right decision 99% of the time. Nothing is an absolute—save for death and taxes I suppose—so I'll never say never, but more often than not I think the "anti-spanking" route is the proper path to follow. Now I'm sure someone will come in here and talk a tough game, saying so-and-so smacked me around and "raised me right", "taught me respect", yadda yadda yadda, and I've no reason to doubt their stories or claims. What I will say, however, is that there will almost away be ways to get the same end-results while applying different child rearing techniques, thus making the corporal punishment choice an unnecessary and antiquated one.

 

[Ultra Awesome]

Hope you don’t mind, but I’ma stick to answering the first question only.

I would have to say that I am against disciplining a child via physically. I can understand that some parents think that with hitting a kid, it will cause them to think that whatever it is that they are doing is bad; but to the same time, I feel sorry for the kid because whatever action he did isn’t worth being hit over for. I always believed that no matter how wrong the deed, a child should never be punished in a physically hurtful manner. Chances are, the kid was just being a kid---something we could all relate to. Sure, maybe he was acting up or did something horribly bad. But there is no reason to hurt the kid over it.

I would think the method of “grounding” him (or her) to be more acceptable. When you take a look at this method through a psychological perspective, it’s easy to say why it has the same effect on a kid if not a greater one. When you “ground” the said child, it causes them to think about what they did; thus thinking that they should never do whatever it is that they did again because if they do, they will be even more grounded. However, the problem with this method is that, “children will always be children”; meaning that chances are the child is bound to do the same thing again.

Personally, I’d go for a far different method than the two above. My method would be to ACTUALLY talk to their kids about what they did. But I don’t mean scolding them. More like having a conversation with them; tell them what they did was wrong; tell them why it was wrong; tell them how to handle the said situation better next time---things like these is what I would tell my child. I find this method of disciplining a child to be far better than the other two because like this you are showing your child right from wrong and good from bad; not your typical, “Go to your room! Your grounded, mister!” or even, “Te voi a dar una nalgada!” (I’ma give you a spanking).

 

[Loveless]

1. Do you consider physical action enthrusted upon a misbehaving child bad? If so why?

Yes and because it's not needed and it's often more about the parent lashing out than actually teaching anything.

2. Is it fair to the disciplinarian to have their kids taken away for enforcing beatings that were passed down on them from parent to grandparent and so on?

So because it was done to you as a child, it's OK to do it to your children? It's well known that sexual abuse of children works in the same way but that's certainly not accepted so why should violence be?
Now is it fair to have your children taken away? That depends on the circumstances of each individual case.

3. What are your thoughts on today's stance on anti-spanking?

It is unquestionably the way we should be going. Absolutely NO-ONE should see violence against children as an ideal.

 

[People's Champ]

The way you word SAMCRO-you know, using the term beatings-I would disagree. I know what you meant, but poor word choice.

I have no problem spanking my children. It's a part of discipline. Its not my first resort, nor is it something I enjoy. However, I do find it to be an effective way of disciplining when nothing else work. Timeout is a stupid method as it does nothing to make the understand what they did or why. At any rate, I do "spank" my kids when necessary. Its not a beating, as that suggests, well, literally beating your child, which is a no-no. But a spanking here and there helps the child understand that their behavior is unacceptable. I was spanked and haven't turned out with hatred of anything like that. In fact, I love my parents and appreciate how they raised me.

 

[Loveless]

I do find it to be an effective way of disciplining when nothing else work. Timeout is a stupid method as it does nothing to make the understand what they did or why.

It doesn't help to make them understand if you fail to explain what they did. Any punishment without context will always fail.

 

[People's Champ]

It doesn't help to make them understand if you fail to explain what they did. Any punishment without context will always fail.

Agreed and I should have clarified that. I still don't like that form of punishment as it really isn't punishment. Bhaving a child stand in a corner or where ever does nothing. At any rate, you are correct that explanation is needed with any discipline.

 

[SalvIsWin]

It doesn't help to make them understand if you fail to explain what they did. Any punishment without context will always fail.

A child cannot comprehend a lot of things at varying ages. A lot of times you cannot simply explain something to a child, because they are immature in the most literal definition of the word. Spanking is a form of negative reinforcement, you're going to pair the behaviour you want to get rid of, or curb, with a negative event, being spanked. I haven't read any papers lately on the research, but I think it's important to realize that ideally we could all simply explain to a child why their behaviour is unacceptable, and that they would understand, remember, and act accordingly in the future, but this isn't reality.

 

[Davi323]

I think it's important to realize that ideally we could all simply explain to a child why their behaviour is unacceptable, and that they would understand, remember, and act accordingly in the future, but this isn't reality.

Yep. Its easy to claim well, when I am a parent, I am going to take them aside, and calmly explain to them why their behavior is wrong, and because my children will respect me, they will learn from my mistakes...But its completely, entirely, 100% bullshit. You know those kids who run down the aisles screaming at the grocery market, embarrassing their parents? Betcha those kids have been lectured about their behavior plenty of times, to no avail.

Positive reinforcement (ie bribes) may work to motivate a kid into working a little harder at school, but when it comes to eliminating negative behavior, it simply isn't up to the task. This is going to sound wrong, but you have to make them fear you before they will respect you. I am certainly not suggesting beating them with a stick, or physically abusing them, but I don't consider a swift swat to their ass because they had a temper tantrum to be physical abuse. I consider spanking to be a sometimes necessary form of discipline, done without malice, without anger, and alongside an explanation as to why they are receiving it.

Let me put it this way...if you were a chronic speeder, and the only thing the police officer did was issue a stern lecture about the dangers of driving above the speed limit, how quickly are you going to stop speeding? Now, same question, only in this case, the police officer has the ability to not only lecture you about the dangers of driving over the limit, but can also issue you a speeding ticket that will cost you money, possibly court costs, and a bump to your insurance premium? Chances are you will slow down. Talking to your kids about their bad behavior is great. However, sometimes it simply isn't enough to correct that behavior. Sometimes you need to punish them with something tangible.

Back when I was a kid, being grounded to our rooms actually meant something, because we didn't have portable game systems, we didn't have a TV in our room, we didn't have much of anything fun to do. Grounding a kid to his or her bedroom now means what, they have to watch their cartoons on a 21 inch TV instead of a 36 inch TV? Play on their Gameboy instead of the XBox 360? OOOOOOO Bet that taught them a lesson. Plus, if they wisened up, they would learn to smuggle fun things into the room in anticipation of the grounding. Me and my older brother used to do that, even without the extra entertaining crap kids have today, we subverted the entire concept of being grounded. What lessons were we learning? But the one sure fire, guarantee to get us to straighten up was a threat from mom that she would have dad spank us when he got home.

 

[LSN80]

1. Do you consider physical action enthrusted upon a misbehaving child bad? If so why?

As someone who grew up with this type of disciplain, I think it's hard to simplify it to a yes or no answer. It's just not that subjective. It was something I feared, and yet, I didn't fear my parents. But I knew that if I did something bad enough, I was going to endure a "spanking", and it was that I feared.

I think that as with anything, if taken to the extreme, can be harmful. I don't believe that a spanking should under any circumstances be administered upon a child when the parent is angry. Anger enhances the chance for abuse, as with in any situation. I think a parent should be calm, rational, and able to have a mature conversation with their child about what happened(in the child's language) before a spanking should be even considered.

2. Is it fair to the disciplinarian to have their kids taken away for enforcing beatings that were passed down on them from parent to grandparent and so on?

I think these are two entirely different issues, to be honest. Just because something was passed down to you from a generation before you doesn't make it acceptable. If you are sexually abused as a child, should your child be taken away from you if you sexually abuse them? After all, you were just engaging in the behavior that was "passed down to you", right? So it's important to consider context.

The context of the situation is that spanking is being considered more and more to be an unnacceptable form of discipline. Would you want to take the risk of your child going to school and crying "abuse" because you spanked them? Fair or not, that's the context of the situation.

Why? Because we've had so many parents in the past who have "abused" their children through the use of corporal punishment, that any form of "hands on" discipline is seen as being abuse. So once a parent considers this, they should consider whether "using the rod" is worth the risk of losing their child, plain and simple. It's not fair, but it's the context of the society we live in.

3. What are your thoughts on today's stance on anti-spanking?

Im completely torn on this one. On one hand, I found it to be an effective form of discipline for myself when i was a child. I avoided doing things I knew that would "earn" me a spanking, not because I felt I was being abused, but because I feared the spanking.

On the other hand, is fear the emotion we want to instill in our children? As I stated, I didnt fear my parents, but I feared the spanking. But that was 15+ years ago, and times have radically changed. Abuse is more rampant(at least in the public's eye), and the chances of losing one's child over spanking them in anger, even one time, is looming and paramount.

So ask yourself a few questions. Do you want to possibly instill in your children the fear of you based upon a spanking? As I said, I didn't fear my parents, but i had friends who did fear theirs for that reason.

Also, do you want to risk your child crying abuse, and the thought of Child Welfare removing your child, or at least investigating your home because you spanked your child and they cried "abuse"? Even if you did everything right, such as waiting until you weren't angry, and explaining the reason why to your child, do you really want to chance it?

I don't like the restrictions and rules that are in place, necessarily, but I think they're a necessity due to the rampant abuse we've seen with parents upon their children. I just don't think corporal punishment is worth the inherent risks it purports and there are more effective ways of punishing your child rather then spanking them.

 

[Mino]

Only suitable for minors?:

Schoolchildrens' "spanking" related injuries (WARNING - These images may be deeply disturbing to some viewers. Do not open this page if children are present).
http://www.nospank.net/injuredkids.pdf

Reasonable and moderate? You decide.
(WARNING - This sound recording may be deeply disturbing to some listeners. Do not open this file if children are within listening range).
http://nospank.net/prj-006.wav

 

[Mino]

People used to think it was necessary to "spank" adult members of the community, college students, military trainees, and prisoners. In some countries they still do. In our country, it is considered sexual battery if a person over the age of 18 is "spanked", but only if over the age of 18.

For one thing, because the buttocks are so close to the sex organs, anal region, and so multiply linked to sexual nerve centers, striking them can trigger powerful and involuntary sexual stimulus in some people. There are numerous physiological ways in which it can be intentionally or unintentionally sexually abusive, but I won't list them all here. One can read the testimony, documentation, and educational resources available from the website of Parents and Teachers Against Violence In Education at www.nospank.net

Child bottom-battering vs. DISCIPLINE:

Child bottom-battering (euphemistically labeled "spanking","swatting","switching","smacking", "paddling",or other cute-sounding names) for the purpose of gaining compliance is nothing more than an inherited bad habit.

Its a good idea for people to take a look at what they are doing, and learn how to DISCIPLINE instead of hit.

There are several reasons why child bottom-battering isn't a good idea. Here are some good, quick reads recommended by professionals:

Plain Talk About Spanking
by Jordan Riak
http://www.nospank.net/pt2010.pdf

The Sexual Dangers of Spanking Children
by Tom Johnson
http://nospank.net/sdsc2.pdf

NO VITAL ORGANS THERE, So They Say
by Lesli Taylor MD and Adah Maurer PhD
http://nospank.net/taylor.htm

Just a handful of those helping to raise awareness of why child bottom-slapping/battering isn't a good idea:

American Academy of Pediatrics,
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
American Psychological Association,
Center For Effective Discipline,
Churches' Network For Non-Violence,
Nobel Peace Prize recipient Archbishop Desmond Tutu,
Parenting In Jesus' Footsteps,
Global Initiative To End All Corporal Punishment of Children,
United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child.

In 26 countries, child corporal punishment is prohibited by law (with more in process). In fact, the US was the only UN member that did not ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The US states with the highest crime rates and the poorest academic performance are also the ones with the highest rates of child corporal punishment.

There is simply no evidence to suggest that child bottom-battering instills virtue.

 

[ABMorales787]

1. Do you consider physical action enthrusted upon a misbehaving child bad? If so why?

No. Trial and error is the best way to perfect something. If you aren't penalized for the error, how do you judge the trial? Simply explaining it won't do.

2. Is it fair to the disciplinarian to have their kids taken away for enforcing beatings that were passed down on them from parent to grandparent and so on?

You tell me. When a parent says he/she will resort to physical action and and the child retaliates by threatening to call child services, who's the face and who's the heel? The parent is the authority figure. The parent should be the supreme law. Not a total stranger who causally feels the child is being abused without knowing the parent and child's lives.

Of course, there are limits. You can't just whale on a kid every single time. It's like with a dog. Spray or pat him in the nose. Don't go kicking him around just because he barks.

3. What are your thoughts on today's stance on anti-spanking?

It heavily reflex on today's youth. Lack of control, lack of discipline, lack of guidance, just watch MTV.

My sister has a terrible knack for defying my authority. She eats too much and even goes as far as to make phone calls behind my back. She's 7. I call her out whenever she does something wrong and verbally scold her. If she talks back at me, I grab her arm and remind her I'm the adult. Should it go any farther, well I take disciplinary action. Grabbing her arm or ONE SOFT spank followed by an angry look tends to get the message across.

However, at times, my parents disapprove and scold me. This proves to be a terrible problem, because if I'm being scolded for asserting my authority that just shows her that what I say mean's nothing. And it just places me right back in square one. She learns nothing.

 

[LigerBomb]

Negative Reinforcement isn't actually what some of you seem to think it is. It is not using a supposed "negative" conditioned stimulus—like physical pain—to deter behaviour. That's actually what you would call Punishment (which is another form of operant conditioning). That is to say, Punishment follows a response with an aversive consequence. Hence, punishment hopes to decrease the likelihood that a response will happen again.

On the other hand, Negative Reinforcement actually strengthens (or reinforces) a behaviour because something unpleasant is stopped (i.e. taken away or negated).

Interestingly, POV will influence the proper description of the conditioning situation. For Ex: A parent spanks his child in an attempt to end a the child's unpleasant temper tantrum. The child proceeds to stop the tantrum.

From the child's POV: An averse consequence (the spanking) is what follows their situational response/behavior (the child's tantrum). Hence, the child has been conditioned to not throw tantrums via Punishment.

From the parent's POV: The unpleasant event (child's tantrum) has been removed, or negated, due to their own response (the spanking). Hence, the parent has now been conditioned to spank their children via Negative Reinforcement.

Edit:

One last thing as to the concept of a "time out" and cops giving tickets. Despite what was said they are actually the same thing. It's a special type of Punishment known as response cost. It's when a positive state of affairs is removed or is ended. In a Time Out the child is removed from the situation that would normally give them reinforcement, the cost of course being their time. Tickets and fines etc. also remove the positive state/event and hopefully decrease the probability of recurrence in the same manner. Here the cost can be money, but it could additionally be the cost of their time e.g. going to court, paying fines and the time it takes to recoup the lost finances, and the ultimate "time-out", jail.

 

[Loveless]

Dear me, where to start on this one...

No. Trial and error is the best way to perfect something. If you aren't penalized for the error, how do you judge the trial? Simply explaining it won't do.

You don't know what you're talking about but I'll go along with it for a moment.
OK so you're for trial and error, yep that's a good start but you're look at trial and error for the child, instead of for the parent where it should be used first. It's the parents responsibility to use trial and error to get non-violent punishment right, and in your own words trial and error is the perfect way to teach this yes? Good, get non-violence right and violence isn't needed.

"Simple explaining won't do it"

* Facepalms *

You leave me speechless sometimes. Talking to a child and explaining what they did wrong won't work? Yeah, you're right, to hell with communication and talking to your children, lets just slap them around a bit, they'll work out why we're hitting them for themselves!

You tell me. When a parent says he/she will resort to physical action and and the child retaliates by threatening to call child services, who's the face and who's the heel? The parent is the authority figure. The parent should be the supreme law. Not a total stranger who causally feels the child is being abused without knowing the parent and child's lives.

And it continues...
Firstly, you speak about the calling the child authorities like it's some magical situation that just happens out of nowhere, no parent gets to the point unless they're majorly failed their child multiple times.
Secondly... parents should be the surpreme law? I mean, I've been trying not to swear recently but Jesus fucking Christ. You do realise that there are god knows how many thousands of children who get legitimately abused by their parents, and you want to give these people ultimate authority, over the child protecting services and the law?

Of course, there are limits. You can't just whale on a kid every single time. It's like with a dog. Spray or pat him in the nose. Don't go kicking him around just because he barks.

Oh I dunno, kick a dog around enough and eventually they'll believe they deserve it.
"You can't just whale on a kid every single time" Every single time? How about fucking never?

It heavily reflex on today's youth. Lack of control, lack of discipline, lack of guidance, just watch MTV.

Ah now it's starting to make sense. If your view of the world is shaped by what you're watching on TV it's no wonder you're so deluded.

My sister has a terrible knack for defying my authority. She eats too much and even goes as far as to make phone calls behind my back. She's 7. I call her out whenever she does something wrong and verbally scold her. If she talks back at me, I grab her arm and remind her I'm the adult. Should it go any farther, well I take disciplinary action. Grabbing her arm or ONE SOFT spank followed by an angry look tends to get the message across.

Your authority? You don't have any. You're way overstepping your boundaries. You're not the adult, this is not your child, it's not even a child in your care. This is your sister, your equal, you have absolutely no right to discipline her whatsoever.

However, at times, my parents disapprove and scold me. This proves to be a terrible problem, because if I'm being scolded for asserting my authority that just shows her that what I say mean's nothing. And it just places me right back in square one. She learns nothing.

And they're damn right to scold you, you're their child, just like her. You're trying to assert authority that you don't have and they're 100% right to undermine you.

And now I'm red repping you because your post was one of the most arrogant and stupid things I've ever read on this board. You may think that being aged 19 makes you an adult, I'm sorry but you're nowhere near.

 

[ABMorales787]

Dear me, where to start on this one...



You don't know what you're talking about but I'll go along with it for a moment.
OK so you're for trial and error, yep that's a good start but you're look at trial and error for the child, instead of for the parent where it should be used first. It's the parents responsibility to use trial and error to get non-violent punishment right, and in your own words trial and error is the perfect way to teach this yes? Good, get non-violence right and violence isn't needed.

You can tell a child a thousand times not to run around the house. If at first they don't listen, they'll just keep doing it until they finally fall and see my point.

"Simple explaining won't do it"

* Facepalms *

Oh, yeah. Because by just telling you how to do math, you learn it.

You leave me speechless sometimes. Talking to a child and explaining what they did wrong won't work? Yeah, you're right, to hell with communication and talking to your children, lets just slap them around a bit, they'll work out why we're hitting them for themselves!



And it continues...
Firstly, you speak about the calling the child authorities like it's some magical situation that just happens out of nowhere, no parent gets to the point unless they're majorly failed their child multiple times.
Secondly... parents should be the surpreme law? I mean, I've been trying not to swear recently but Jesus fucking Christ. You do realise that there are god knows how many thousands of children who get legitimately abused by their parents, and you want to give these people ultimate authority, over the child protecting services and the law?

I said there were boundaries, but I don't see you addressing that. I'm speaking under the premise of a good parent. Who's the child supposed to address then? Child services? The district judge?

Oh I dunno, kick a dog around enough and eventually they'll believe they deserve it.
"You can't just whale on a kid every single time" Every single time? How about fucking never?

Let me put a visual here. Today I saw a little boy and his dad at a McDonalds Playplace. The kid was kicking, screaming and yelling at his dad to lend him a cell phone. And all daddy did was say "no" in a very mellow voice over and over again. That didn't stop the child from throwing tantrums in public and making daddy-o look like he has no control. That's when a parent should assert his authority and show discipline. A not too tight grab of the arm and a serious look followed by an emphatic "NO!".

You make it sound like if I was implying a beating.

Ah now it's starting to make sense. If your view of the world is shaped by what you're watching on TV it's no wonder you're so deluded.

I just made a witty joke while placing a vague example. That happens to represent the majority of America's youth.

Your authority? You don't have any. You're way overstepping your boundaries. You're not the adult, this is not your child, it's not even a child in your care. This is your sister, your equal, you have absolutely no right to discipline her whatsoever.

No, but if I am placed under charge, I expect to get the same respect as the parent. If she respects our parent's and they tell me to watch her, I expect to be treated as an authority figure, not an equal.

If a general manager places one particular employee to take charge while he's gone, are you gonna treat him like an equal, or like an authority figure?

And they're damn right to scold you, you're their child, just like her. You're trying to assert authority that you don't have and they're 100% right to undermine you.

So you are saying my sister should be free to disrespect me simply because I'm not the parent? That me trying to be a good older brother is wrong? That I'm not older I'm equal? "Respect your elders" doesn't seem to mean anything to you, right? Should she treat her teachers and other relatives the same way too? Should an older person tell her not to do something, should she not listen because he's not the parent? I said the parent is the supreme law, but that doesn't mean a child should be free to do what they want when their parent's aren't around.

And now I'm red repping you because your post was one of the most arrogant and stupid things I've ever read on this board. You may think that being aged 19 makes you an adult, I'm sorry but you're nowhere near.

I come here and give my opinion from my perspective and with my experience. And you berate me for it. I never said I claim to be an adult. I said I have more experience than others from my age group. But somehow, that's wrong and I'm wrong for giving an opinion. In that case I apologize. From the bottom of my arrogant heart.

 

[Davi323]

Your authority? You don't have any. You're way overstepping your boundaries. You're not the adult, this is not your child, it's not even a child in your care. This is your sister, your equal, you have absolutely no right to discipline her whatsoever.

Obviously, you have never been an older sibling to anyone. Because if you had, you would understand that parents sometimes delegate authority to the older children to help them out when they aren't in the same room, or whatever. I am not even talking about babysitting, in which the babysitter, whether its an older brother or sister or friend of the family, would carry the full authority of the parents, but just in regards to every day life. I have three brothers, for a total of four boys in the family. The difference between the oldest and the youngest in my family is 8 years. I am the second born, and I am 6 years older than my youngest sibling. By the time my baby brother was 5, I was 11, the oldest was 13. We were expected to help keep the youngest from misbehaving, because we knew the rules of the house. We already knew what mom and dad expected. As such, if we were outside playing, and the youngest acted up, we were expected to control the situation, because mom was indoors and didn't see it. Even at 11 and 13, we had a responsibility, an obligation to our parents to help with the youngest.

Rent a clue. It may be easy to say that all children are equal, but in reality, its complete bullshit. Older children have more expectations than the younger ones do, older children are often given mini-parental authority over the smaller children, as kind of a deputy. I wonder, loveless, do you have any brothers and sisters, or are you an only child? You come across as someone who either has no experience with siblings, or someone who was the baby, and grew up resentful of the authority your parents placed in your older brothers or sisters hands.

And now I'm red repping you because your post was one of the most arrogant and stupid things I've ever read on this board. You may think that being aged 19 makes you an adult, I'm sorry but you're nowhere near.

being legally adult doesn't necessarily make you mature. The Killjoy has shown a lot more adult level maturity than you have. Announcing to the world that you are going to red rep someone is just a douchebag move. It assumes that they give a shit what you think of them, and it assumes that everyone else reading the thread gives a shit as well. What were you trying to accomplish with that? To embarrass them? That making your intention to red rep them publicly would somehow humiliate them? Here is a tip...nobody gives a shit.