EWTN since the death of Mother Angelica

  • Thread starter Thread starter JanR
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The above statements by Dr. Ray do make sense. A balance is needed when parenting, and a respect and consideration for the individuality of each child. However, I still don’t approve of “rolling blackouts”. Taking away one or two privileges, especially if they’re favorite privileges, is usually sufficient. Blitzing is extreme. Parents should avoid extreme discipline whenever possible.
 
I have no idea how you define “snarky” – or more importantly why your definition would differ from the dictionary’s – but no. I’m not exaggerating.

Yes. It is.

Obviously.

Is having more than one change of clothes a privilege?

Yes. It is.

Using a switch on a child has echoes of an “older style of parenting.” That doesn’t mean I’m going to adopt or support it.

I listened to his own explanation of what took place. Multiple times.

Teens very rarely openly explain what’s bothering them. It’s part of good parenting to engage and question them.

No child “needs” to be demeaned.

Again, I’m in no hurry to idealize disciplinary methods of the past.

I wasn’t discussing smartphones.
 
The term “liberal” used in the classical sense, as opposed to what is now more the common meaning, meant someone who valued and prized liberty, who promoted freedom, individual freedom and responsibility, autonomy, solidarity and limited government. Today’s “liberal” tends to mean someone who wants more centralized government authority, higher taxes, more regulation, class warfare, and so on. What the word liberal used to mean is now more in line with libertarian constitutionalism. But so as it goes, just like the liberals have tried to change the meaning of the word marriage, have they reinvented the word liberal to mean “anything goes”.
 
I agree, saying he is abusing his children is slanderous. His style may not be your style, but it is not abusive. I think too that his nature often does grind on people’s nerves and he can easily be taken out of context due to his inability (in my opinion) to believe people really understand his true context. His jokes often come across as actual advice and vice versa, so it is difficult to tell when he is joking or not. Maybe not the best approach for a psychologist. I think that is why people don’t like him, because he doesn’t fit the profile. I would think most people want their psychologist to be straight-forward. But he is a TV host and that gets in the way.
 
You’re right. There is nothing wrong with supporting President Trump. I didn’t know until the impeachment hearings that even Christ was afforded a fairer trial than Jesus under Pontius Pilate. I see the light.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top