Would Jesus condone corporal punishment?

[Debra F. II]

4 minutes ago, Debra F. II said:

Purple...

Some use it for rituals and a shape shifting medicine. Ask uncle about it? Plzzz

Maybe it's other tribes that use it, what did your sweat lodge look like?

Edited January 7, 2020 by Debra F. II

[Debra F. II]

1 minute ago, Piney said:

Ewwwhhhhh. 

I don't care what flavor it all smells like burning crap to me. 

: (  

[+Sherapy]

34 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

That's why I asked for her input. I don't know what her stance is. It's a rather ambiguous phrase, and as it stands it's actually a phrase I fundamentally disagree with - the role of a parent is not to protect a child from as much harm as they can; at least, this is not the primary role of a parent. The primary role of a parent is to equip a child with tools to suitably help them navigate life. This by necessity includes some protection from harm and age appropriate boundaries. But I believe that if you only focus on protection then you can easily deprive a child of the necessary skills they would develop just by interacting with a world that includes a certain level of inherent danger already. 

I don’t disagree, but until they are equipped there will be a lot of focus on protection from harm age appropriate etc. Our role as a parent is to transform a completely dependent being into a completely independent autonomous adult we would try and create an environment, a space that is as safe as we can manage in this world of unpredictability so they can flourish. 
 

 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Sherapy

[+Sherapy]

13 minutes ago, Debra F. II said:

Well... lol kind of, what's unbearable is over coming the feeling of wanting to give up and get out, it's the rewards of not giving up that consumes all unpleasant- ness : ) the sweat itself is rough but some of my hot flashes have been worse ; ) 

It’s the same with hot yoga at first it is about just staying in the room, 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Sherapy

[Debra F. II]

5 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

It’s the same with hot yoga at first it is about just staying in the  room, 

Oh, i see the ladies that I used when she had them, was a round, made with mud which of course hardened almost like cement. It had a dirt floor, with straw at the entrance and for our walk ways, we sat in a large circle about 12 -15 people with a stone bon fire area directly in the center and there was a large fire outside with stones in and they would keep bring the hot stones in as needed with large metal tongs and or shovels, and she would occasionally pour water on it. It was pitched black, no light what so ever, only when bringing in more hot stones. The roof was flat and I'd say the building itself was only about 4 feet tall.

[Golden Duck]

5 hours ago, Debra F. II said:

I know, I know...

Good topic! 

Just my opinion here and sorry to mention the bible but..

My guess would be no. There's a story in the bible about a women who was found guilty of shaming her family, I believe she had an affair if my memory serves me well; her punishment was death by stoning. Jesus stood by her and looked at the crowd ready to throw stones at her and he said, do not all of you sin? Or something to that effect, who here hasn't sinned? & basically made the point that everyone should be stoned to death, none of them at that point could stone her, the womens life was saved by Jesus himself.

So if he were to condone it, he wouldn't have stepped in and saved her live, he most likely would have picked up a stone and threw it at her but he did not and had the power in his words to stop the others.

Maybe some of you know the story that I am referring to.

There is the detail of Jesus drawing in the sand while the crowd made their case for the stoning.  It may, or may not, link Jesus to the supernatural.  Some interpret his drawings as detailing the indiscretions of the crowd; and, suitably embarrassed the crowd of sinners dropped their protests.

Was it the first example of whataboutism?

Edited January 7, 2020 by Golden Duck

[+DieChecker]

8 hours ago, Sherapy said:

I decided to start a thread on this and would like to continue exploring the pros and cons of corporal punishment as outlined biblically.

Would Jesus if he existed condone corporal punishment? Why and Why not? 

Jesus taught to submit to authority, and part of that, in the First Century, was corporal punishment. Just as with Slavery... Jesus doesnt support hurting, or enslaving, people, but in obeying the law, and those in authority.

Some say supporting the law is supporting any barbaric practices the law required. I'd disagree. Just as I can support a parents right to disciple, but not to burn the child, or murder them. Assault is still illegal.

Quote

A scenerio: a 3 year old child has been told that there are fire ants all over the front yard and his mother instructed him to watch out and then he was left  to play in the yard unsupervised, the little guy either  forgets or didn’t fully understand to begin with and then sits on a mound of fire ants and gets severely stung. The father a deeply religious man who advocates the use of corporal punishment spanks the boy for not following his instructions, his justification was his 3 year old was disobedient. 

My input is it was a failure on the part of the parents, this is a clear cut case of a 3 year old unsupervised and put into harms way. Few would place this kind of trust in a 3 year old. The best option would be to remove the child  from the harm altogether find a place to play that was safe, there would never be a reason to subject a little one to such harm and pain. 

The parent felt it was the responsibility of the child that as sad at it was the boy was disobedient and deserved to be punished using corporal punishment, that maybe next time he would listen.

What are your thoughts? What about Jesus would he condone this? 

All comments welcome.

First off a three year old shouldnt be alone. So that's a parental fail ri ghb t there.

Second, the child's already been hurt. Already learned the lesson. If the child boldly strode over and was going to sit on the ants in purpose, then that would be a time to punish him.

I tend to agree that removing the child from ALL possible dangerous situations is a poor answer. It will raise a child who can not recognize danger. And/or a child who gets scared in nearly all situations. I've seen examples of both. Children should be exposed to danger but in a way that the chance of harm is minimal. For instance with fire, or knives. Show, allow the child to observe, then parent observe to keep safe. The fail in the example is the mom leaving the child alone.

[Debra F. II]

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

That's why I asked for her input. I don't know what her stance is. It's a rather ambiguous phrase, and as it stands it's actually a phrase I fundamentally disagree with - the role of a parent is not to protect a child from as much harm as they can; at least, this is not the primary role of a parent. The primary role of a parent is to equip a child with tools to suitably help them navigate life. This by necessity includes some protection from harm and age appropriate boundaries. But I believe that if you only focus on protection then you can easily deprive a child of the necessary skills they would develop just by interacting with a world that includes a certain level of inherent danger already. 

I spent 9.5 yrs with a family who thought that if you got bumps and bruises they were smart bumps and bruises, and man of the house was abusive and monkey see, monkey do, meaning some of their kids turned out to be abusive.

I don't agree with abuse and if you can sit a child in the corner rather then give them a spanking then by all means do it!  

But when a parent goes to jail for certain disciplinary actions in the case that the child had pushed them too far, or has serious behavior issues, not medical ones, then both behaviors are out of control to begin with and had the child been disciplined properly before hand then possibly it wouldn't have led to that....

I seen a sitter spank a 2 year old for crying while it was time for bed, the sitter wanted it quiet! Obviously the child wanted or needed something & obviously that was wrong! 

And some people also, unfortunately don't have the wits they should to be parents to begin with.

What would Jesus do, hard to tell but I think.it would depend on the situation....

Edited January 7, 2020 by Debra F. II

[+Sherapy]

25 minutes ago, Debra F. II said:

Oh, i see the ladies that I used when she had them, was a round, made with mud which of course hardened almost like cement. It had a dirt floor, with straw at the entrance and for our walk ways, we sat in a large circle about 12 -15 people with a stone bon fire area directly in the center and there was a large fire outside with stones in and they would keep bring the hot stones in as needed with large metal tongs and or shovels, and she would occasionally pour water on it. It was pitched black, no light what so ever, only when bringing in more hot stones. The roof was flat and I'd say the building itself was only about 4 feet tall.

Very Interesting,

[Piney]

30 minutes ago, Debra F. II said:

Oh, i see the ladies that I used when she had them, was a round, made with mud which of course hardened almost like cement. It had a dirt floor, with straw at the entrance and for our walk ways, we sat in a large circle about 12 -15 people with a stone bon fire area directly in the center and there was a large fire outside with stones in and they would keep bring the hot stones in as needed with large metal tongs and or shovels, and she would occasionally pour water on it. It was pitched black, no light what so ever, only when bringing in more hot stones. The roof was flat and I'd say the building itself was only about 4 feet tall.

That was built wrong. A sweat lodge should only be covered in boughs or blankets so it can breath. That's why it was too hot. 

[+Sherapy]

46 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Jesus taught to submit to authority, and part of that, in the First Century, was corporal punishment. Just as with Slavery... Jesus doesnt support hurting, or enslaving, people, but in obeying the law, and those in authority.

Some say supporting the law is supporting any barbaric practices the law required. I'd disagree. Just as I can support a parents right to disciple, but not to burn the child, or murder them. Assault is still illegal.

First off a three year old shouldnt be alone. So that's a parental fail ri ghb t there.

Second, the child's already been hurt. Already learned the lesson. If the child boldly strode over and was going to sit on the ants in purpose, then that would be a time to punish him.

I tend to agree that removing the child from ALL possible dangerous situations is a poor answer. It will raise a child who can not recognize danger. And/or a child who gets scared in nearly all situations. I've seen examples of both. Children should be exposed to danger but in a way that the chance of harm is minimal. For instance with fire, or knives. Show, allow the child to observe, then parent observe to keep safe. The fail in the example is the mom leaving the child alone.

I wouldn’t give a knife to a 3 year old even supervised. I wouldn’t trust a 3 year old to navigate an environment and protect itself from dangers this is my job as the parent they do not have  the experience to go off as they mature and accrue experience things change. For a time, I don’t have any babies in the kitchen while I cooked not until they could understand basic things like no and hot etc. We gotta protect them a lot at first. 

A child is a child for a reason. 

As they mature things change and there are choices they make later  that we may it be able to protect them from, but we are talking about children.
Die you absolutely would protect your little ones from harm. I know you would and I’ve never met you. The idea that harm means they live in bubbles and do nothing is not what is even meant. 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Sherapy

[Debra F. II]

34 minutes ago, Piney said:

That was built wrong. A sweat lodge should only be covered in boughs or blankets so it can breath. That's why it was too hot. 

Well it did look like something was thrown over the top of it I don't know what it was or if it was attached all I know is that it was black, it must have had some type of ventilation. But I don't know those details it was so dark in there I cant tell you what the indie of the ceiling looked like or even what the walls on the inside looked like. But yeah, who knows! But she was full blooded so I really can't imagine it being built wrong. Idk

[+Hammerclaw]

1 hour ago, Piney said:

From a archaeological standpoint, that "lower class" did pretty well. Had decent housing, ate well, had some nice things. 

If you're talking Romans, the working class was a mixed bag. Working class people, from all over the Empire with a skill and ambition, flocked to Rome and opened shops and businesses. Unskilled labor was at the bottom of the pile and despised. People died very young, back then. Forty was old for a man, thirty for a women. There was no stage of life defined as "teenage". You worked once were able and girls married on reaching puberty. A shocking number died giving birth and a woman would be lucky if she bore eight children and one survived 'till adulthood. Infant and child mortality was terrible. There were no modern medicines and antibiotics. A serious infection was a death sentence. A very large number of plebeians were unemployed, wandering the streets by day and sleeping in wretched, crowded tenements at night. They were fed by an allotment of grain distributed every month. They would take it to a baker who would turn it into bread for them, keeping a portion for himself. They were kept occupied by gladiatorial entertainment and chariot races hence the term bread and circuses a circus being a racetrack. The Vatican was built on the site of one. The ruling class fed the population because they knew hungry citizens are rebellious citizens. No government pampered it's poor like Rome.

Edited January 7, 2020 by Hammerclaw

[Piney]

2 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

People died very young, back then. Forty was old for a man, thirty for a women.

That was worldwide. I've never seen a grave of a elderly person. Only read the papers on the ones that were rarely found. 

[Piney]

9 minutes ago, Debra F. II said:

But she was full blooded so I really can't imagine it being built wrong. Idk

There is no such thing. If your a member of a tribe your Indian. If your not, your not.

Also only Niipikniis and Meteiinuu were Lodge Keepers so she had to be a member of a "Medicine Family". 

[+Hammerclaw]

11 minutes ago, Piney said:

That was worldwide. I've never seen a grave of a elderly person. Only read the papers on the ones that were rarely found. 

Of course. Except for damage from stoneground flour, they usually had good teeth, too. You can't emphasize too much how big a draw a religion that promised a life after death was to so many, who had so few years to live. The well-to-do of the working class were the landed ones who own farms and vineyards or raised livestock and lived in the countryside. They advanced socially by taking careers in  the military and some rose to high status. Emperor Vespasian was one of such. He was nicknamed The Mule Skinner for that was his craft, raising mules on his family estate, just a few miles from Rome.  He's the one who restored order during that terrible year of four Emperors.

Edited January 7, 2020 by Hammerclaw

[Piney]

Just now, Hammerclaw said:

Of course. Except for damage from stoneground flour, they usually had good teeth, too.

In the Northeast the corn eaters had some cavities. The maygrass and rice eaters, none.

And there were hardly cavities in the Andronovo Horizon at all. 

[+Hammerclaw]

Just now, Piney said:

In the Northeast the corn eaters had some cavities. The maygrass and rice eaters, none.

And there were hardly cavities in the Andronovo Horizon at all. 

Processed sugar was the primary destroyer of teeth that the ancients didn't have and didn't have to deal with. I'll never for get that line in the Movie Never Cry Wolf, where the almost toothless Inuit grins and says, This is what happens when a meat eater becomes a sugar eater.

[Mr Walker]

12 hours ago, Sherapy said:

I decided to start a thread on this and would like to continue exploring the pros and cons of corporal punishment as outlined biblically.

Would Jesus if he existed condone corporal punishment? Why and Why not? 
 

@Mr Walker and @Festina Lente we can continue  our discussion from the Does Jesus exist thread. 
 

Quote

You simply cannot live your lives protecting a child from all harm, by removing the harm. 

You have to teach the child to  avoid the harm, itself. [sage advice]  (Walker).

“Please do give some examples of removing “harm”. This will be useful.  TY

Perhaps you misunderstood. I thought his post was quite clear.  (Festine Lemte).”

Thank you for the response but what are your examples of you cannot live your life protecting children from harm by removing them.

How would you teach a child to protect themselves from harm if not by removing them? 
 

A scenerio: a 3 year old child has been told that there are fire ants all over the front yard and his mother instructed him to watch out and then he was left  to play in the yard unsupervised, the little guy either  forgets or didn’t fully understand to begin with and then sits on a mound of fire ants and gets severely stung. The father a deeply religious man who advocates the use of corporal punishment spanks the boy for not following his instructions, his justification was his 3 year old was disobedient. 
 

My input is it was a failure on the part of the parents, this is a clear cut case of a 3 year old unsupervised and put into harms way. Few would place this kind of trust in a 3 year old. The best option would be to remove the child  from the harm altogether find a place to play that was safe, there would never be a reason to subject a little one to such harm and pain. 

 

The parent felt it was the responsibility of the child that as sad at it was the boy was disobedient and deserved to be punished using corporal punishment, that maybe next time he would listen.

 

What are your thoughts? What about Jesus would he condone this? 
 

All comments welcome.
 

 

I wouldn't punish the child.  The natural consequence of disobedience was severe enough 

However for example in our family we do NOT remove fragile and precious things from a childs reach We teach them not to touch them 

Never had anything broken yet 

I understand why all pools in australia must  be childproofed. But, again, it would never have been needed in our family 

we would have been trained and disciplined from an early age not to go near the pool, and /or taught to survive if we fell in 

We never had a pool, but played and swam on a beach from infancy . for at least 100 days out of a year. 

That is my point.

Parents cannot childproof the world, or even their home, and really that shouldn't be their aim.

The aim should be to teach a child from infancy not to do things which are dangerous (of course for a while a child needs supervision but we had a 3/4 acre yard and roamed it freely as soon as we could walk )  There was a fence and a gate but they were not locked even though we were on a busy road We were trained not to go out of the yard  We never did (except for my youngest sister who would walk up the road knocking on doors and selling her"paintings" for 20 cents each, when she was a few years old, or dress up in mum's clothes and go 200 yards down to the main shopping street to "go shopping" 

 I reckon that was because mum and dad had gone all soft by then, but she was a most wilful child  

Not surprisingly, she became the multimillionaire in the family, and is now worth probably 100 million aussie dollars  with a house that cost 5 million.. 

Jesus loved children and their innocence.

 I believe he would condone loving discipline of a child, designed to educate it and keep it safe, even as an adult, by giving it strong self  discipline and self control  .  I think he would strongly condemn abuse of any kind, which was designed to crush, not empower a child and simply to make a child obedient.  .

He said the laws were made from  love, to be obeyed in love. ie laws are designed for our safety and protection, by those who care about us.

If no one cared, there would be no push/requirement  for laws (or family rules) , and people could do as they wished  

Edited January 7, 2020 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

11 hours ago, Sherapy said:

An add too on one of your points that corporal punishment is a form of revenge on the child.

"The point of discipline is to transmit values to children. The purpose of punishment is to coerce compliance and secure control, and failing that, to inflict pain as a form of revenge ... "

http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/parent.pdf

The biggest con of authoritative parenting is time investment and patience. I will say it is very hands on, 

 

That (bolded bit)  Might be the motive of a certain type of sick human being, but it is NOT the primary purpose of punishment 

if you expand that argument you  would end up saying no one should be punished for anything  eg what is the purpose of laws and punishments for drug dealing?   yep it is to try and coerce compliance and secure control  but the compliance is necessary for public safety 

I've never encountered an adult in my family who tried to use pain as revenge.  We are all too secure in ourlseves to need to play those sorts of games in order to feel better about ourselves 

It is almost impossible for parents to be effective these days .

First, both are often working  Parents often have severely limited time to spend with their kids 

quote

The time mothers spend with their infant decreases as the number of hours worked increases. Full-time employed mothers with an infant spend an average of 6 hours 1 minute with the infant—three hours per day less than non-working mothers Not-employed mothers with a 4-5 year old spend, on average, 6 hours 38 minutes per day with their child while the child is awake. Those working full-time spend 4 hours 17 minutes per day with their child

https://aifs.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/familytime.pdf

I would have to guess from  memory but i would say that as a preschooler i spent   10 hours a day either with my mother or my grandmother;  possibly a little more inthe longer summer days 

 

Second, many do not have intergenerational support for learning  or to to help them  Eg There were 4 children in our family born 1951 1955  1958 and 1962  My mother did not work until the youngest was at school,  by which time i was 15 or so, She spent every day with us as preschoolers and she also had her mother with whom we were all living, to teach and support her We spent hours together every week as a  whole family (unless dad was "up the line", working)  going to the beach for picnics, mushrooming or picking blackberries, flying powered ,home built model aircraft,  out on drives,  visiting aunts uncles and cousins, or down to our shack, for weekends and holidays ,

Third   Many are afraid to discipline their kids, and  social media increases that fear, and takes away the confidence of parents to BE parents to their children 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

11 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Why would a 3 year old be playing in the street or to close to a river? Why would a 3 year old be unsupervised at all?

Because in real  life, this happens.

Today, we are used to monitoring our kids, even while in bed. My nephew  not only has a camera in his 4 year old's bed room  but a device which detects if he gets out of bed and turns the camera on so they can check if he is ok .

Three is on the borderline but, as stated, we were allowed to roam a large back yard basically from  when we could walk.

Things we did included; playing in the  sand pit, using the homemade swings, slippery dip, and see saw,   collecting  duck eggs, picking fruit and veges to eat, climbing  a smallish tree, (or the lower parts of a very big one)  making dams, roads and playing with toys,   We were also riding tricycles around by then. There were a few minor hazards  ( spiders, lizards and sharp objects mostly) but, by then, we had been taught to identify and avoid them    There was a lot to explore, places to hide and material for cubby houses (and tree houses)  It was the first step in independence, which was followed by being allowed to go up the back lane and into neighbor's houses, and then to going out onto the front road /footpath by ourlseves and riding a push bbike around the town.

We walked or rode a bike to school from about the age of 5   but we could get here, again, down a lane without facing much traffic. Like the front street, the schools were all only a few hundred yard/metres form our front gate  I remember in the mid 60s donkeying my little sister to school on the handlebars of my bike She put her shoe in the front  wheel by mistake and we came a cropper.

However we went to school,anyway,  despite some grazes and bruises 

My smallest sister would hide up in a big pepper  tree when she started school and mum couldn't get her down, so dad told her to squirt my sister with a garden  hose She came down, was captured, and taken to school Not sure if she was allowed to change her clothes, but she has  always been highly fashion conscious, and this might have been the biggest punishment of all, having to go to school bedraggled  

[Mr Walker]

11 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

Yes, nowadays they would be.  When I was a teenager we lived across the street from a family that had 4 kids.  The youngest was a baby and we never saw him.  The other 3 were locked out of the house every day that they did not have school.  Their mother would give them a sandwich and a glass of kookaid at the back door, they had to knock to give her the dishes back, then the door was locked until dinner time.  My family had 4 kids and we were all over the neighborhood but we had access to come and go and we fixed our own lunch, also baked cookies and other things.  My mom never knew what we were up to.  Two different types of neglect I think.  The other mother did not work, my mom worked or went to school so that was part of the difference.  Both families would be in trouble nowadays. 

IMO you were not neglected; you were allowed to learn and grow and take risks.

As a child gets older it needs to go beyond its home yard, exploring, learning new physical skills, playing with others, and learning how to take risks  This was how ALL children were brought up in the fifties( at least where i lived and from reading it was pretty universal across Australia )

Ps where i live, in a small country community this is  still the norm  On weekends and school holidays,  kids all go off together and play around the sporting complex or swimming pool (not in it )   while adults and older siblings play sport   They are apparently unsupervised  There are often a dozen young kids aged 4 to 10 playing in the vacant land and trees next to our house, which adjoins the sporting complex  You can see kids as young as 4 or 5 riding scooters or skateboards around the town every day 

Of course the community is helping with the parenting.  Both  now, and when we were kids, someone was watching and knew what the kids were doing (as i do today ) if i see inappropriate behaviour( from unsafe to bullying)  I intervene.

Otherwise i just let them play It is great to see modern children playing the same sort of games, and having the same sorts of adventures i did as a kid,  

[Mr Walker]

9 hours ago, joc said:

God had no problem telling the Israelites to kill everyone...men, women, children...everyone.  And..he asked Abraham to sacrifice his only son.  And...God sacrificed his only son.

And God is a Holy Trinity...they are one...that means that when Jesus said, Before Moses was, I am!...what he was really saying is that he is God, has always been God and will always be God.

The Transferative Property of Equality tells us that:  If  A = B and B = C  then  A = C.  Which means that God IS Jesus.   Therefore it was Jesus who told the Israelites to kill them all...even the little babies.  I would gather from all that, that Jesus doesn't have a problem with corporal punishment...seeing as how he flogged the money lenders himself.

Jesus has no problem with Corporate Punishment.

Problem with the spell checker, or  a very funny pun? 

[+Desertrat56]

7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

IMO you were not neglected; you were allowed to learn and grow and take risks.

As a child gets older it needs to go beyond its home yard, exploring, learning new physical skills, playing with others, and learning how to take risks  This was how ALL children were brought up in the fifties( at least where i lived and from reading it was pretty universal across Australia )

Ps where i live, in a small country community this is  still the norm  On weekends and school holidays,  kids all go off together and play around the sporting complex or swimming pool (not in it )   while adults and older siblings play sport   They are apparently unsupervised  There are often a dozen young kids aged 4 to 10 playing in the vacant land and trees next to our house, which adjoins the sporting complex  You can see kids as young as 4 or 5 riding scooters or skateboards around the town every day 

Of course the community is helping with the parenting.  Both  now, and when we were kids, someone was watching and knew what the kids were doing (as i do today ) if i see inappropriate behaviour( from unsafe to bullying)  I intervene.

Otherwise i just let them play It is great to see modern children playing the same sort of games, and having the same sorts of adventures i did as a kid,  

Yes, we had a lot of freedom, but when a 12 year old has to deal with a younger brother with a broken arm because the parents are no where to be found, not at work, just off somewhere, that is neglect.  When I left home I knew how to take care of myself in all areas but financial and I am glad of that, I learned about money.  The scars of unnecessary beatings and having to cope with adult issues before I hit puberty left scars.  There has to be balance.

[+DieChecker]

11 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Die you absolutely would protect your little ones from harm. I know you would and I’ve never met you. The idea that harm means they live in bubbles and do nothing is not what is even meant.

Absolutely. But there is keeping a child locked away, and there is letting them learn. It appears we both want them to learn. I think perhaps it is a matter of how much protecting is done we're actually discussing.

Obviously I'm not giving a 3 year old a steak knife and letting them experiment. But, I might let them hold the handle as I use it to cut some veggies. Training them is what I advocate. And not completely shielding them.

I've seen completely shielded people and as adults they generally have a harder time and require much "help".

That said, I still blame the mom.