Parents Spanking Children -- Is it Child Abuse? [Archive]

shadowfax

Nov 14, 2003, 12:14 AM

Originally posted by tazo
there are plenty of other options for discipline than violently assaulting a child. sure there are. violently assaulting children is horribly wrong.

have you ever been spanked? it's not a violent assault. it's a slap on the wrist. sure, it hurts, but it's not even mentally scarring. equating it to domestic violence--hitting people for no reason in a gratuitious fashion--is an insult to domestic violence, an insult to all the kids who suffered real violent assault from raging alcoholic fathers and so on.

if you think that it's the parents' faults that kids behave wrong and fail to heed the voice of reason, then you fail to understand children. they are not always the logical little super-geniuses who are tortured by the use of force and would docilely obey your every word if you explained to them why they had to do everything they have to do in a calm, logical fashion. often, kids don't give a ***** what makes sense. they simply insist on getting what they think they want at whatever cost and misbehave until they get it. if you think you can tell them to go to their room, or ground them, or reason with them, well, you're obviously not a parent, and you're probably bitter about being spanked, on top of that.

equating spanking to a police state, by the way, is ludicrous. did you guys see when PETA compared the accidental killing animals in crop harvesters to the Holocaust? that's basically what manitoublack is doing. it's flagrant, excessive hyperbole--it's what you use when you realize you're not making any sense but you want to make a compelling statement :p

Powerbook G5

Nov 14, 2003, 12:14 AM

If you want to punish your kid, just threaten to replace their Mac with a PC and see how quickly they shut up and straighten up. :p

Foxer

Nov 14, 2003, 12:27 AM

I know I'm reapeating sentiments already stated, but if you think that ordinary, run-of-mill, spanking is anything remotly like child abuse, you're not even in the same ballpark.

Spanking is a punishment. I was spanked, from time to time, and the thing that I remember is not the trauma of the punishment, but the unbeleiveable stuff I had to do to drive my parents to reach that point.

Actual child abuse has very, very little to do with disciplining a child.

shadowfax

Nov 14, 2003, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by paulwhannel
better not to take the chance, i've known plenty of people who never were struck by their parents. i would argue that this point is explained by that some children tend to be more obedient than others. blaming spanking for what happens to children later on in life is just an easy way out of explaining a very complex causality. it may have nothing to do with the parents at all. my grandparents, for instance, raised 2 sons, my father and my uncle. my father was no angel, of course, but he was generally well-behaved; he went to college, got a graduate degree, raised a family, and is making 6 figures at Dell now, at 45 or so. my uncle, on the other hand, got into all kinds of trouble with drugs in his teenage years, went to a trade school (i believe), works as a welder/sprinkler system installer on big building construction. he's been in and out of several relationships, almost all with women who took advantage of him pretty badly. my grandparents spanked both of them.

to get to what you said, i certainly believe there are some kids that are most definitely receptive to less physical measures of punishment, but i think most children respond better to physical punishment than others at certain points in their development. spanking teenagers, for instance, is more than likely a bad, bad, bad idea, for various reasons. they tend to become vindictive about such things.

ultimately, i think it should be the parents' decision. there's one thing i am sure of in all this, and that's that every kid is different in highly complex ways. no one understands them better than a good parent. whether this good parent deems it necessary to punish them with spankings should be up to that parent.

when you get a bad parent--the kind that leave their children in the car outside till they overheat and die because the mother "forgot about them"--you can let the parent spank them or not, the kid is going to have crummy parents either way.

shadowfax

Nov 14, 2003, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by Foxer
Spanking is a punishment. I was spanked, from time to time, and the thing that I remember is not the trauma of the punishment, but the unbeleiveable stuff I had to do to drive my parents to reach that point. that's a really good point!

i remember that too. i was a practically incorrigible little @$$ when my parents finally deemed it necessary to spank me. we're not talking about getting spanked for walking into the living room here. I was spanked after bickering with my sister to no end, refusing to listen to commands to stop, even though i knew in my mind that i should stop--i remember being overtaken, as it were, by this desire to do something wrong, "just because." and it's annoying as hell to people (parents) with their heads on straight. i'm glad they spanked me, in retrospect--that was the only way to get to me, at the time.

LethalWolfe

Nov 14, 2003, 12:37 AM

Originally posted by paulwhannel
that spanking (and bdsm) can become fetishes later in life tell me that it's tremendously impactful to a child. so whichever the case may be, this is an important subject. i personally believe that the act is wholly without merit or benefit when compared to other forms of discipline. when compared to no discipline, of course it comes out ahead. that doesn't mean you should do it. just means that you're too stupid to find an effective method of conveyance to the child, and that you allow your immediate impulse to govern your actions with your child. i hear a lot of people say "i would never hit my child out of anger", but from what i've seen, there's always a little anger there... and anger is not an emotion that i personally would like to burden my child down with. especially since in my hectic lifestyle, anger gets shuffled and misplaced a lot. better not to take the chance, i've known plenty of people who never were struck by their parents.

of course all this is moot because i hate children and would never get one. still...

pnw

Can you link to any reliable sources that show a relationship between being spanked as a child and regularing engaging in BDSM activity as an adult?

Spanking I see no problem with. Abuse I have a sevre problem with. Now, should spanking be a daily kind of thing? No, if you are spanking your kid on a daily basis, IMO, you resort to spanking to easily (it should be a last resorts kind of thing). Personally I think the whole spanking issue is blown way out of proportion. I've seen parents use non-violent punishments on their kids are are surely going to ***** them up in the head. But hey, a temporarly red @ss is definetly worse than giving your child a pyschological scar that will be w/them until they day they die. Parent's lashing out in anger verbally can do more long term damage to their child than if they spanked their kid out of anger.

I was spanked a few times as a kid. Usually though all it took was a look from my dad, a then Ranger in the US Army, that could crush stone to get me to shape up.

Oh, and for the record Paul, my S/M tendencies do not have roots in me getting spanked as a child. ;)

Lethal

mymemory

Nov 14, 2003, 12:40 AM

I spank my girlfriends on their butt when ever they get really anoying.

For sure if I had a kid I would spank him on his head early in the morning just in case.

Sometimes I feel like spanking my mother too (but my father is always around).

And my older brother... I would like to spank him with a baseball bat just like Pol Pot used to do.

Sometimes I feel like calling the President of the US and tell him to test the next atomic bomb here in my city because I can not spank everybody at same time as hard as I would like to.

That is how I feel about spanking.

Powerbook G5

Nov 14, 2003, 12:41 AM

If only Freud were around right now...

shadowfax

Nov 14, 2003, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by mymemory
Sometimes I feel like calling the President of the US and tell him to test the next atomic bomb here in my city because I can not spank everybody at same time as hard as I would like to. better be careful what you wish for, he might just do that...

cb911

Nov 14, 2003, 02:04 AM

Originally posted by mymemory
I spank my girlfriends on their butt when ever they get really anoying.

For sure if I had a kid I would spank him on his head early in the morning just in case.

Sometimes I feel like spanking my mother too (but my father is always around).

And my older brother... I would like to spank him with a baseball bat just like Pol Pot used to do.

Sometimes I feel like calling the President of the US and tell him to test the next atomic bomb here in my city because I can not spank everybody at same time as hard as I would like to.

That is how I feel about spanking.

He he. :D goog stuff. so you're all for that type of spanking.;) :p

i'm a bit confused about people mentioning 'hitting'. i think spanking has it's place, but hitting, that is with a closed fit is just abuse/violence.

i was spanked as a child, and i learned really fast what to do and what not to do. other children though are either just slow or stupid and they misbehave so much that it seems like they enjoy being spanked and then crying.

children obviously get to an age where spanking is no longer effective, so hopefully they will be well behaved by then.

about others spanking children... only if they're relatives, close family. and only if they've done something wrong when in their house for example. you know - "rules of the house". i wouldn't like my kids to be spanked by a school teacher. it's just not their responsibility. sure kids might need a spanking, or they might need to be sent to down to the Principals office to get the cane, but it's the parents responsibility to disclipline their children. and if the parents aren't doing their job, then it isn't really possible for a schoolteacher or other person to fill that position.

BaghdadBob

Nov 14, 2003, 02:13 AM

Well, Shadowfax has pretty much come down with my points. Did I mention he looks kinda like me when I had my Omish beard goin on?

Anyway.

Child abuse is violently lashing out against your child. Part of the psychological damage comes from the complete irationality of the assault.

Think of yourself in high school. You're walking down the street, see a group of Mexican guys walking down the other side and you yell at them "Hey you ********** wetbacks, why don't you swim back to Mexico?"

Appropriately, you get your stupid ass beat. Does this give you an irrational fear of Mexicans, or walking down the street by yourself? Maybe....just maybe...you learned your lesson. Dumb ass.

Now, if you were walking down the street like butter would't melt in your mouth, and bugger, if a group of Mexicans didn't just run up behind you and jump you, given a few such incidents you might start being really paranoid about walking by yourself, a hatred for Mexicans, and a violent temper.

OK, I know it's not a great analogy, please don't pick it apart, it's just an example of how senseless violence can be easily distinguished from consequences.

That said, as has been pointed out, different kids need different levels of discipline. Raising kids is hard today, though. You have a lot of households that don't have a full-time parent, and many single-parent households. Kids have a fraction of the respect for their parents that they had twenty years ago, and pop culture does everything to encourage this. Tell me the next time a parent in a commercial isn't made to look like an idiot compared to their child. Really, let me know. So quite often, the biggest influence on children is their peers. That's bad.

The worst kind of abuse is neglect. A chile can have things happen to them that are a thousand times worse than even a serious ass-whupping. And to all the childless yappers out there: there isn't always a better way. The pest thing is to make sure that respect and discipline are instilled early. I'm not talking about spanking a four-year-old, but there comes a point when you need to recognize that the child is not letting normal discipline get through to them. A spanking is basically telling them "you're not getting away with a timeout when you intentionally do something wrong."

Kids are being taught in school these days that parents don't have a right to lay a hand on them. If you've never dealt with a defiant teenager you have no idea what kind of attitude problem this causes. Like I said, there are a lot worse consequences for stupidity than an ass-whupping. You could find a million parents out there that, if you asked them "would you rather have taken a belt to your child or see them go through what they have?" they would pick the belt.

I've never used a belt myself, but I have administered a couple of spankings. I stand by them and can proudly say they had the desired effects, being A: resolution of the issue at hand (having continued it for quite long enough) and B: respect. It aint pleasant, but I don't believe in neglect.

Now a raised voice or a look works pretty well most of the time.

themadchemist

Nov 14, 2003, 02:15 AM

nothin' wrong with gettin' slapped around a little bit.

of course, everything can be abused, but I think that most parents who use spanking as a disciplinary action don't abuse it...it's the "overly happy, oh I love my kids" ones that you've got to be worried about. cuz that's just plain weird. cuz kids can be annoying. man, I can understand how I could have been really annoying as a little kid, and I wasn't as bad as most of these crazy munchkins you see around.

oh, and this just applies to parents, really. maybe other REALLY close relatives, but I mean, they would have to be really close relation wise and contact/relationship wise.

mymemory--funny, yet somehow EXTREMELY disturbing. Dude, you scare me sometimes. :D

TimDaddy

Nov 14, 2003, 03:36 AM

My father spanked me a few times as a child. He only did it when I just wasn't getting it any other way, and when he did it, he really got the job done and the message across! It HURT! My mother, on the other hand, spanked me all the time. One example: I learned all of my fould language from my mother. One day, I used the word slut in the same manner that my mother always used it. I had never been told that is was a "bad word". It was I word that I heard my mother use on an almost daily basis. How did she reward me for expanding my vocablulary? She smacked me across the mouth. I said "I didn't know it was a cuss word!" She said "You do now." To this day, I want to beat her ass for things like that. She spanked me on an almost daily basis. Cursing and beating were the only ways she knew to discipline. And, spanking a kid the first time he does something that he never knew was wrong, something that you taught him to do, is not discipline, it is abuse. But, my mother beat me so much I got used to it and started laughing in her face, which made her hit harder. My God, I'm rambling. Anyway, she finally stopped beating me when I was about thirteen. I don't remember what had happended, but she had me down on the couch slapping me in my head. I little instinct called self-preservation kicked in, and I kicked her off of me. She then fell through our glass coffee table. She left that night, and my parents almost divorced. They were seperated for about two years. Anyway, if spanking is an every-day thing for you, you are either wasting your time or abusing your kids. Both, I guess.

Now, on to my kids and I. My six year old rarely needs spanked. He wants to be good to please his parents, kind of like an obedient dog. When he does something wrong, it is usually because he didn't know it was wrong. I just explain it to him and it usually doesn't happen again. Obviously, he is a child, so sometimes he gets excited and forgets a rule or two. A simple reminder will usually suffice. My four year old, on the other hand, is extremely stubborn. He gets spanked a couple of times a month. He gets out of control at daycare and they have to call me to come and get him. I work nights, so this really screws me up when I have to get up at nine or ten in the morning. At first, I tried all the explaining, raising my voice, time-out, etc. Eventually, it is just nagging to him. And, coming home form daycare is just a reward. Any of you ever get upset when school is out? I eventually just had to start wearing him out, and taking him back to daycare after he had missed snack and playtime. After a good burnt bottom, he's on his best behaviour for a couple of weeks. Then, he needs a reminder. He seems to remember a little longer after each spanking, so hopefully I'll get to quit doing it soon. But, when he is running wild, jumping, biting, spitting, and throwing things at daycare, he is a danger to himself and the other children. Nothing that I will do to him will hurt him as bad as some of the things that could accidentally happen to thim when he is out of control like that. And, spanking is not the last resort. Drugs are. I will not allow my child to be drugged up with Ritalin as long as I can control him. He is very well behaved when I am present, because he has the immediate threat of real discilpline. And, he is still happy. He's not cowering in the corner afraid I am going to spank him. He plays, occasionally forgetting and doing something wrong, and all it takes is a reminder just like my other child. As far as bad language goes, I have never spanked my children for it. I have made them taste soap, but that is only when they are using bad language intentionally and repeatedly. I know that it is all learned from adults, so they always get a warning before they get in trouble for it. And, I never hit my children anywhere other than there padded little bottoms.

shadowfax

Nov 14, 2003, 04:15 AM

thanks for that personal example, TimDaddy--you perfectly illustrate most of the different facets of spanking.

there's the abuse that comes from abject cruelty--it's not abuse because it's spanking. abuse is abuse. spanking, in your case, was just your mom's way of abusing you.

It sounds like your dad had spanking down. my dad was like that too. a spanking from my mother (who rarely did) became a brush-off for me. it didn't hurt. when my dad spanked... good lord. you don't forget that. but it's not like he did it much, and when he did, it really worked.

sounds like your children illustrate the person to person variance of disciplinary needs, to. again, thanks for the input.

edit: on another note, while i promote spanking, slapping children in the face is EXTREMELY questionable. i want to say it's downright unacceptable, and it probably is. while a spanking communicates to kids the pain resultant from their defiance, a slap in the face does much more--it conveys your disdain for them. it's hard for me to imagine someone lovingly slapping a child on the face. face slapping is for girls when guys are mistreating them, heh. ;)

caveman_uk

Nov 14, 2003, 05:51 AM

There is the school of thought that says it's never right to hit a child. 'Hit' is a very emotive word. When smacking is used as chastisement it is different. Those opposed say you wouldn't smack an adult when they were naughty why is it right to do it with children. Well, adults know better, they should know how to behave. I'd argue that shouting and swearing at a child is more scary and painful for a child that smacking them once on the bottom occasionally.

Personally I would smack a child on the bottom or on the hand only if they were being really really naughty. On the other hand using a belt, closed hand or hitting on the face is totally unacceptable. Many times though denying the child something (sending them to bed early, stopping them watching TV, no candies for a week etc.) may be more effective than routinely smacking the child.

It is arguable that since it became illegal for corporal punishment to be used in British state schools children here have become more unruly because they know the teachers can do nothing about it. When I was at school we still had the cane and I for one never messed about because I knew it was there.

manitoubalck

Nov 14, 2003, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by revenuee
This is why i'm not ready for fatherhood.. .. i wouldn't know how to discipline my kids.

a young child doesn't understand abstract concepts so i can't really explain the problem.

But then i don't like the idea of hitting someone smaller then me.

Weak minded fool, take the challenge if:
a) you can afford it.
b) have a wife/premenant partner who is willing to comit.
c) parent hood is a minimum 18 year comitment, buy a pet first.
d) although sometimes cruel, pain is still the best teacher.

manitoubalck

Nov 14, 2003, 06:55 AM

Originally posted by caveman_uk
When I was at school we still had the cane and I for one never messed about because I knew it was there.

My point exactly

Powerbook G5

Nov 14, 2003, 07:03 AM

I never believed in school punishments. My second grade teacher would hit me with a ruler nearly everyday because I was left handed and that was "the sign of a devil child". I told my dad and he didn't believe she did that and after months of being hit everyday I had to finally hit her back until she told my dad thinking he'd "set me straight". Once he came in and saw my teacher and she told him how she would hit me he told her he was a minister and if she ever hit me and accused me of crap like being a devil child for being left handed she'd know the meaning of hell on earth.

jefhatfield

Nov 14, 2003, 07:06 AM

Originally posted by shadowfax
a spin-off of the MR pics thread OT...

What do you think? should parents be able to spank their kids? should anyone else?

personally, i don't like the idea of anyone other than parents spanking children, especially not without express permission from parents.

but quite honestly, spanking children is a perfectly effective way of correcting them. It can be abused (and thus become child abuse), but it's not intrinsically abusive. at all.

you can say it's so, but then you'll have to face the hearty laughs of myself and the other people here who are reasonably well-adjusted but were spanked. my parents spanked me. they didn't abuse me. don't be ridiculous.

that's my $.02, anyway.

spanking, with a flat hand, it ok

using a fist is wrong

using a paddle is wrong

using a whip is wrong

inappropriate spanking which results in fondling of private parts or insertion is wrong and is sexual abuse and i have met women whose fathers did this to them and the mother, while fully aware of the sexual nature of the punishment, denied the action...even to this day 40 years later

DillHarris

Nov 14, 2003, 07:18 AM

I was spanked when I was a kid... Wooden spoon. Man did that sting. But to re-iterate, it was usually because all the other methods of discipline had failed. I'm glad my parents spanked... It has taught me that spanking in itself is not wrong, if used properly. I have a seven year old, and she rarley gets a spanking. Usually the "threat" of a spanking will get her to listen/behave/whatever.

patrick0brien

Nov 14, 2003, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by tazo
spanking by parents is abusive and unnecessary.

-tazo

Growing up, the pinnacle of punishment for my brother and I, was being spanked, it was a real pain in the ass at the time (was that a pun?), but now I look back and find myself better adjusted than my peers who weren't taught that there can be serious consequences for actions.

Growing up, being spanked (actually whacked across the back of the thighs - it's worse), was the worst possible consequence in a child's mind - but still nothing compared to blowing it in the Big World. For teaching me by action, I am grateful for the experience as I look at folks I grew up with, who are 30, still at keg parties, not understanding why they can't get a better job than Starbucks.

I would agree with you on the 'abusive' opinion if my brother and I didn't understand why we were spanked. My folks - who are still married BTW, told us exactly what would happen if we did certain things. So when we pushed, and got whacked, we learned in a hurry. I think I got whacked perhaps four times, over five years, and boy did I clean up my act.

Now look at me! I'm in Canada, attempting to speak French! Hmm.

scem0

Nov 14, 2003, 08:33 AM

Hell no its not!

Well, if the kid knows that they are doing something wrong, and they do it anyways, knowing that a spanking might happen, then by all means, a spanking is in order.

But you have to be semi-gentle, but harsh enough to get the point across.

I think spankings are a good thing (well, in a non-kinky way. I wouldn't know anything about kinky spankings.... :eek: :cool: :D). Ive always thought of my mom as having a 'no pain no gain' mentality about many things, and I think this is true. Some kids won't be disciplined by words alone. Parents with these types of kids have 2 options:
1) Bribe the kid - Ive seen this happen to MANY kids. I have a lot of stuck up friends whose parents still buy them things to keep them from doing stuff wrong.
2) Take charge and use a little physical disipline: spank the damn child! Unless you are a ****ing monster you won't really hurt the kid. If you look angry, and if you barely touch a kids bottom they will act like they have just been beaten by a 300 lbs. gorilla in the ass. Its all in their mind.

Spanking becomes physical abuse when it is just that - physical abuse. If you don't hurt the child physically, and let the child hurt themselves psychologically then it will get the point across, keep your kids from getting spoiled, and be a good thing.

It certainly was when I was a little kid. I'm thankful for my spankings (once again, in a non-kinky way :D).

scem0

Powerbook G5

Nov 14, 2003, 09:19 AM

Le français est un langage intéressant, bonne chance avec lui.

tazo

Nov 14, 2003, 09:29 AM

I simply feel that there are alternative means of dealing with discipline, as opposed to hitting or spanking a child.

shadowfax

Nov 14, 2003, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by scem0
Spanking becomes physical abuse when it is just that - physical abuse. If you don't hurt the child physically, and let the child hurt themselves psychologically then it will get the point across, keep your kids from getting spoiled, and be a good thing. i think you're mostly right, but not all the way right. a spanking still ought to hurt pretty darn good. i don't think having a parent be angry about it is necessarily helpful at all. my dad was usually pretty composed when he spanked me--granted, he'd yelled at me before i got the spanking and been mad, but not when he spanked me. hurting a child with a spanking still isn't abuse, though. it becomes abuse when you do it exhorbitantly, out of sheer malice, or when you do it in a permanent fashion (think scars)--in which case it's literally impossible not to do it out of malice and pretty messed up kinkiness that's flagrantly criminal.

phrancpharmD

Nov 14, 2003, 10:10 AM

This morning I heard on the news that a 10 year old in Arkansas died in a house fire because she was chained to her bed. Her parents and other brothers and sisters made it out alive. The parents have been charged with manslaughter, and police have not said why the parents chained her to the bed. Manslaughter? At least aggressive psychological evaluation and counseling should be mandated too; even in Arkansas I can't imagine that chaining a child to a bed for any reason is socially acceptable. . .

Encouraging positive reinforcement, using words instead of actions to explain yourself, and "time outs" are certainly the best way, I'm sure there are others. However, corporal punishment does, occasionally have its place. Occasionally being the key word. Even in public though, spanking does not equal abuse. It is quite disturbing the power other people have on parents ability to discipline their children. I hope, probably like all parents do, that we will never have to spank our little girl. However, I know that it will probably have to happen eventually, and I know I will feel like crap when it happens; I certainly don't need judgemental holier than thou's (ESPECIALLY teenagers with no point of reference who, in my opinion, have no authority to even comment on the matter of occasional spanking as punishment) expressing their displeasure with me.
:rolleyes:

Counterfit

Nov 14, 2003, 10:27 AM

I was spanked. Only a few times though, and I don't remember what I did, so I probably won't do it again...

I don't think I'll "spank" my kids, I'll probably be a bit more inventive with punishment, it's just the way I am.

1macker1

Nov 14, 2003, 10:38 AM

I agree
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
If you need to hit your kids to get them to behave, you probably screwed up at some point before. That's really all I have to say.

Juventuz

Nov 14, 2003, 11:08 AM

I see no problem with giving a spanking if the child misbeahves. I remember my father spanking me a few times and I also remember never doing it again.

There were times I did some incredibly STUPID things when I was a kid and it would be unfair to blame it on my parents. I had friends whos parents never spanked them and they got away with A LOT of crap I could never get away with. Their parents felt that spanking them would have been equal to abuse and my friends exploited it for what they could.

Rower_CPU

Nov 14, 2003, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by Powerbook G5
Le français est un langage intéressant, bonne chance avec lui.

Some (minor) corrections:

"Le français, c'est une langue intéressante. Bonne chance avec le."

Even then, the "avec le" is a little off to me...maybe a native speaker can chime in. :)

Powerbook G5

Nov 14, 2003, 11:14 AM

It's been a couple of years since my last French class, I'm surprised I can even spell at all at this point. :D

Rower_CPU

Nov 14, 2003, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by Powerbook G5
It's been a couple of years since my last French class, I'm surprised I can even spell at all at this point. :D

It's been a few years since I got my French bachelors degree, so I enjoy the chance to dust it off now and then. ;)

wdlove

Nov 14, 2003, 11:51 AM

I don't think that spanking is child abuse. I also was spanked as a child. Actually still to this day if I do something wrong I get that feeling of a spanking. When I was in school spanking was allowed as punishment. Our teachers didn't have the discipline problems that occur today. We respected our teachers and other students.

jefhatfield

Nov 14, 2003, 12:03 PM

LethalWolfe

Nov 14, 2003, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by tazo
I simply feel that there are alternative means of dealing with discipline, as opposed to hitting or spanking a child.

Of course there are alternate means. No one here is advocating spanking, spanking, and more spanking (in fact quite the opposite), but people like Shadowfax, myself, and others in this thread are not ruling out the possibility of spanking under certain circumstances when all other attempts at discipline <sp?> have failed.

Will I spank my kids? I don't know. Will I rule out the possibility of spanking my kids? No.

Lethal

Sun Baked

Nov 14, 2003, 12:08 PM

Beat the darling brats, make them cry, and make them squirm.

School & parent spankings were a deterent to some school activities.

Heck you can't even give a brat a stern talking to without causing a civil lawsuit these days.

I can see why there is zero tolerance -- making it criminal is now the only resort left.

Of course even in states that still allow child discipline, any parent that attempts to use it will incur the wrath of soccer moms calling CPS and turning the parent in for child abuse. :rolleyes:

Les Kern

Nov 14, 2003, 12:31 PM

Before I was a parent, I saw nothing wrong with it. Now I am, and after a careful look at the issue (reading, reading, asking, and reading some more), know that there is a better way. Children cannot protect themselves and require the parent to do it. When the parent spanks, it leads the child to believe that violence solves problems, which we know it doesn't... really. In my experience at home and talking and watching other parents, I have come to the grand conclusion that parents that rely on spanking are lazy, and don't want to spend their valuable time nurturing their own children.
So drop the selfish angle, and quit spanking. Learn to be a parent in a way that's in the best interest of the child, even if your football game is interrupted.

Les Kern

Nov 14, 2003, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by Sun Baked
Beat the darling brats, make them cry, and make them squirm.
School & parent spankings were a deterent to some school activities.
Heck you can't even give a brat a stern talking to without causing a civil lawsuit these days.
I can see why there is zero tolerance -- making it criminal is now the only resort left.
Of course even in states that still allow child discipline, any parent that attempts to use it will incur the wrath of soccer moms calling CPS and turning the parent in for child abuse. :rolleyes:

Hard to know where to start with this crap. If you're a parent, you shouldn't be. And if you want to be one one day, give it a few years so you can have time to grow up.
Your thoughts are not an opinion, they are a knee-jerk response to an issue you don't quite understand.

Les Kern

Nov 14, 2003, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by Powerbook G5
I never believed in school punishments.

Agreed. I will discipline my child the way I want, and the teacher WILL understand that. If I hear of a teacher using corporal punishemt on my child, the mother of all lawsuits will be filed the next morning. It's understood where my child goes to school, so there are no surprises if a teacher decides to do it. This goes for any other venue where another adult is in charge of my daughter's well-being. Bottom line: I raise my child. (Oh, and I'm not the litigeous sort, but some things demand it)

jefhatfield

Nov 14, 2003, 12:55 PM

Sun Baked

Nov 14, 2003, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by Les Kern
Hard to know where to start with this crap. If you're a parent, you shouldn't be. And if you want to be one one day, give it a few years so you can have time to grow up.
Your thoughts are not an opinion, they are a knee-jerk response to an issue you don't quite understand. Les it's called giving the parents a choice, it they feel they should spank the brat -- it's their choice. They are the parent after all.

If it works for them fine, but calling in CPS for them spanking their kid isn't solving the problem. It's just a knee jerk reaction from anti-spanking zealots.

Not everybody raises their kid the same way, not everybody can be the perfect parent.

What works for you may not work for another parent.

---

But the lawsuits do seem a tad out of hand, he said a bad word. :rolleyes:

rueyeet

Nov 14, 2003, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by paulwhannel
just means that you're too stupid to find an effective method of conveyance to the child, and that you allow your immediate impulse to govern your actions with your child. i hear a lot of people say "i would never hit my child out of anger", but from what i've seen, there's always a little anger there... and anger is not an emotion that i personally would like to burden my child down with....

...of course all this is moot because i hate children and would never get one.

For not liking or having kids, you're giving them a lot of credit for moral reasoning, there. :p

My two-year-old nephew has just gotten to the point where he understands enough to have that kind of conversation. But moral development proceeds along a continuum: The definition of what's "bad" has to cognitively develop from "what hurts" to "what makes others displeased with me" to "what the rules say is bad" to "what I wouldn't want done to me." According to Piaget, who advanced this theory, some people never reach that fourth stage, and my nephew's just about between stages one and two. He is not yet capable of understanding why things are wrong, except as they are unpleasant to him, or make people unhappy with him. Any "effective method of conveyance" has to utilize one or both of those principles in order for him to understand it. Appealing to higher moral concepts with small kids is irrelevant, and if you don't get it right when they're small, nothing's going to work when they're older.

It does seem that for many of us on this thread, how your parents used spanking has had a lot to do with your views on it. In my family, a spanking was the pinnacle of punishment, to be used only for the worst behavior, at the top of the "you wait until your father gets home" scale. It was preceded by a lecture and was thus a very solemn thing. By then, even a couple light slaps (which is all it ever was) was enough to get the message across: You Have Done Wrong, and There Are Consequences. Also, Dad only hit just hard enough to sting--after all, the punishment really didn't lie in the pain, or the violence. It was more of a reminder that yes, our parents were, in fact, in charge.

I think I required a few more spankings than my sister, but then I was also a kid who had figured out that if I was willing to take the consequences, I could do the deed. So in comparison to my relatively docile sister, I was a bit of a difficult case. :D

To encourage proper moral development in children, punishments should be fair, consistent, and appropriate to the offense, so that kids learn that bad behavior has consequences. I think that spanking can be used within that context. Like other things, it's HOW you use it that counts. It shouldn't be used as the first resort, nor as an uncontrolled expression of your own anger, or as a threat of violence or injury.

Whew. This turned out to be long. :o

BaghdadBob

Nov 14, 2003, 01:09 PM

Les, on one hand it's good to hear the other side represented by a parent, but it's just the same holier-than-thou attitude that has tied the hands of parents with kids that are out of control. Don't go assuming that verything can be resolved the Dr. Spock way, and don't believe everything you read.

EVERY PERSON IS DIFFERENT. That includes children. What works for you doesn't work for everyone elese. Remember that.

I don't demand that other parents spank their children, if they grow up well-adjusted, responsible, and realistic then the parents have done a good job. But many parents who have this tone of "oh, my poor defenseless children" raise kids with no respect or responisibility. Many parents who have children who feel that their rights supercede the rights of their parents to do the parenting find themselves unable to control them when their buddies at school start telling those kids how their parents are wrong about everything. Then they start bailing out of windows and ditching school. There's no law against running away in most states, and all the police will do is give them a mildly stern lecture. And they know that you can't lay a hand on them...oh, by the way, if you ground them they'll jsut jump out the window again. What are you going to do, stay up all night? Chain them to the bed? They can go out, party all night, come back in the morning, and if there's a police car outsid...oops, it's fake crying and lecture time again. Boy, what a harsh trade-off for a night of drinking and sex. In Washington, a parent has the right to physically restrain a child, but the police cannot pick the child up if reported as a runaway... Is your perfect little girl a teenager? If not, will you be able to give her everything she wants when she is? By that time, her friends will be her biggest influence, and she will have learned that while you have an obligation to take care of her, she has no obligation to listen yo you. I sure hope she has a very large amount of respect for you by that time, and you better hope she finds the right friends...just try to stop her from making the wrong ones. Go ahead.

In conclusion, what you have concluded from reading is ************. I'm glad it works for you, but get off your ****ing high horse. Not everyone has the luxury of good kids.

Les Kern

Nov 14, 2003, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by Sun Baked
Les it's called giving the parents a choice, it they feel they should spank the brat -- it's their choice. They are the parent after all.
SO WE HAVE TO DECIDE ON WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE. CAN A PARENT STARVE THEIR CHILD? NO? HEY, I'M THE PARENT.

If it works for them fine, but calling in CPS for them spanking their kid isn't solving the problem. It's just a knee jerk reaction from anti-spanking zealots.
SO YOU ADMIT A PROBLEM.... ZEOLOTS? THAT'S THE SAME TACTIC THE NEO-CONS USE!

Not everybody raises their kid the same way, not everybody can be the perfect parent.
WHY NOT??

What works for you may not work for another parent.
SURE IT DOES.

---

But the lawsuits do seem a tad out of hand, he said a bad word. :rolleyes:

wdlove

Nov 14, 2003, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by jefhatfield
hey wd, he he, next time you feel the need for a spanking, call in your wife and she can dress up like a cop or nurse...well ok, not a nurse, that would be you;)

oh, and i assume you saw "meet the parents":p

Actually my wife is a nurse also, she visits patients in their home.

Yes, I did see "Meet The Parents." :p

shadowfax

Nov 14, 2003, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by BaghdadBob
Les, on one hand it's good to hear the other side represented by a parent, but it's just the same holier-than-thou attitude that has tied the hands of parents with kids that are out of control. Don't go assuming that verything can be resolved the Dr. Spock way, and don't believe everything you read.

EVERY PERSON IS DIFFERENT. That includes children. What works for you doesn't work for everyone elese. Remember that.

I don't demand that other parents spank their children, if they grow up well-adjusted, responsible, and realistic then the parents have done a good job. But many parents who have this tone of "oh, my poor defenseless children" raise kids with no respect or responisibility. Many parents who have children who feel that their rights supercede the rights of their parents to do the parenting find themselves unable to control them when their buddies at school start telling those kids how their parents are wrong about everything.

In conclusion, what you have concluded from reading is ************. I'm glad it works for you, but get off your high horse. i couldn't agree more.

no one is promoting spanking as a universally useful thing, but some kids require that. it's not at all an issue of how much time parents are willing to spend with their kids. that's UTTERLY ASININE. my parents home schooled me and my siblings for at least a few years of our education. my mother hasn't worked outside the home but once since i was born. and she spanks, when it becomes necessary. my mother is not lazy, as anyone who's ever met her can tell you.

spanking children promotes the use of violence only inasmuch as respecting your kids makes them think the entire world revolves around them.

jefhatfield

Nov 14, 2003, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by wdlove
Actually my wife is a nurse also, she visits patients in their home.

Yes, I did see "Meet The Parents." :p

deniro from the movie:

i have nipples, does that mean you can milk me?!?

:p

Les Kern

Nov 14, 2003, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by BaghdadBob
In conclusion, what you have concluded from reading is ************. I'm glad it works for you, but get off your high horse.

Man, I don't even own a horse. So let me get this straight.... I've read perhaps 50 books and article on both sides of the issue, and all that is to be dismissed? Let's recap:
I believe that a child has a right to be protected by the parent, and a parent has a duty to do so. I believe that a child is defenseless against any form of violence and relies on the parent to teach, raise and protect them. I believe that this type of violence solves nothing in the long run. I believe that parents who rely on spanking are lazy (rely being the key word). I believe that children are not beagles.
So please describe my high horse in words my simple mind can understand.

Sun Baked

Nov 14, 2003, 01:29 PM

Not everybody raises their kid the same way, not everybody can be the perfect parent.
WHY NOT?? >Les Kern

Since you are dictating what all parents "should' be doing.

Please tell us what religion we should be teaching them.

Should they learn evolution?

Should the kids be vegans, vegetarian, meat eaters, etc.?

What sport should they play?

What is the proper allowance?

Their second language?

Where parents should buy the kids clothes, Baby Gap, Sears, Designer (or knockoffs)?

Milk, soy milk, or breast milk?

--- and on and on...

Since YOU are now dictating how children should be raised.

Should we call you Doctor, God, Your Imperial Highness, etc.? ;)

Of course this type of thinking is one step away from taking all kids away from the parents and having the state raise them. :rolleyes:

Your kid is now assigned to State Creche xxxx.x

shadowfax

Nov 14, 2003, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by Les Kern
SO WE HAVE TO DECIDE ON WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE. CAN A PARENT STARVE THEIR CHILD? NO? HEY, I'M THE PARENT. oh come on. people use that line in the abortion debate all the time: oh, so we can kill the Fetal matter if we don't want it... how about 2 year old kids? isn't there still time to change your mind?

it's a really stupid argument, however you stand on abortion, and this controversy is no different. i could just as easily reverse the argument: so we can't spank our kids? what's next? we can't raise our voice? oh, it's probably too brutal to criticize children! what? damn! you didn't worship your kid tonight?you're going to hell for that, you brigund!SO YOU ADMIT A PROBLEM.... ZEOLOTS? THAT'S THE SAME TACTIC THE NEO-CONS USE!

"Not everybody raises their kid the same way, not everybody can be the perfect parent."
WHY NOT??

"What works for you may not work for another parent."
SURE IT DOES. hahahahahahahaha! wow... you are joking, right?

you think people can be perfect? you think KIDS can be perfect? hell, look at them! people do bad things, people make mistakes, and you're no exception. if you think the fact that you don't spank your kids makes you better than others, i'm sorry, you're dead wrong. it makes you a hypocrite.

shadowfax

Nov 14, 2003, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Les Kern

So please describe my high horse in words my simple mind can understand.

"Not everybody raises their kid the same way, not everybody can be the perfect parent."
"WHY NOT??" <--you

"What works for you may not work for another parent."
"SURE IT DOES." <--you

you're doing a better job than i could at showing off your high horse.

jefhatfield

Nov 14, 2003, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Sun Baked
>Les Kern

Since you are dictating what all parents "should' be doing.

Please tell us what religion we should be teaching them.

Should they learn evolution?

Should the kids be vegans, vegetarian, meat eaters, etc.?

What sport should they play?

What is the proper allowance?

Their second language?

Where parents should buy the kids clothes, Baby Gap, Sears, Designer (or knockoffs)?

Milk, soy milk, or breast milk?

--- and on and on...

Since YOU are now dictating how children should be raised.

Should we call you Doctor, God, Your Imperial Highness, etc.? ;)

i don't have kids, but i will chime in since this thread has got interesting

religion-christianity with a moderate point of view...nothing extreme like christian right or jehovah witness
evolution is science and proven as far as i can tell...if it is disproven i will disavow my college education and live in cave
diet- balanced with very little red meat, salt, or bad oils...no atkins diet...i want my child to outlive me afterall
sport- individual like hiking, golf, pool, bowling
allowance - none at first, then a small stipend like five dollars a week or whatever seems fair for the time
language- english, then spanish since i live in california
clothers- cheap but functional with occassional roxy or levi labels
milks-all types

yeah, and in the future, you can call me doctor...i like the ring of that one

shadowfax

Nov 14, 2003, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by jefhatfield
yeah, and in the future, you can call me doctor...i like the ring of that one can i call you doc hatfield?

Phil Of Mac

Nov 14, 2003, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by Les Kern
Man, I don't even own a horse. So let me get this straight.... I've read perhaps 50 books and article on both sides of the issue, and all that is to be dismissed?

Have you ever raised a child?

No?

Then shut up.

Powerbook G5

Nov 14, 2003, 01:46 PM

I just don't advocate physical punishment. It's your body and no one should have the right to violate it in any way. I almost got suspended permanently from school for hitting my teacher, but self defense is not a crime when you get beaten by someone every day and she had no right to touch me. I never got spanked as a child and can see the points raised by the parents who do, but there are so many other punishments out there. My parents would tell me no dinner (that was a good way of stopping me if I were acting up since I loooooved to eat), no dessert, withhold allowance, send me to my room, etc. Also, if there was something I really wanted and had been dropping hints of, they'd tell me not to expect any chance at getting it and that also let me know what not to do. I just don't see any situation where another person has the right to hurt you.

shadowfax

Nov 14, 2003, 01:47 PM

i thought he had kids, phil.

Rower_CPU

Nov 14, 2003, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Have you ever raised a child?

No?

Then shut up.

If everyone follows that advice then this discussion comes to an abrupt end as all the high school/college kids who think they know better than everyone else find their personal experience sorely lacking. :rolleyes:

jefhatfield

Nov 14, 2003, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by shadowfax
can i call you doc hatfield?

doctor dan would be fine, like doctor phil or doctor laura

only problem, i wouldn't be an MD or therapist, so i would most likely drop the doctor part because if someone anywhere in earshot fell down and got hurt and i was untrained to do anything, i could get sued for not doing anything medical...the sight of blood is not too bad for me since i did er support on friday and saturday nights, but that's the extent of it

i am trained to go into computers and know stuff about the hardware and software and i couldn't see myself sewing back a person's face after an accident or reattaching an eye that is sticking 12 inches out from an er patient that drove themselves to the hospital and is complaing about not being able to see too well

i can deal with bad cabling in a network that is sticking out but i would not know what to do with someone's grandparent who thought they passed gas and had all their intestines spill out in a major anal prolapse

i will leave the term doctor to those that do their doctoring for people and animals:p

shadowfax

Nov 14, 2003, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Powerbook G5
I just don't advocate physical punishment. It's your body and no one should have the right to violate it in any way. I almost got suspended permanently from school for hitting my teacher, but self defense is not a crime when you get beaten by someone every day and she had no right to touch me. I never got spanked as a child and can see the points raised by the parents who do, but there are so many other punishments out there. My parents would tell me no dinner (that was a good way of stopping me if I were acting up since I loooooved to eat), no dessert, withhold allowance, send me to my room, etc. Also, if there was something I really wanted and had been dropping hints of, they'd tell me not to expect any chance at getting it and that also let me know what not to do. I just don't see any situation where another person has the right to hurt you. pbg5--i can see where you're coming from, but again, i firmly believe that while there usually are much better deterrents and disciplines (which most parents use first), there are times, places, children, and stages in those children's life which really call for corporal punishment. it's not violent in a negative way--it's not torture or anything--it's simply a way to demonstrate to kids that there are consequences for behaving unacceptably, persistently, and they are much worse than the small offenses kids do that don't justify a spanking. for some kids, again, this method is very much necessary.

shadowfax

Nov 14, 2003, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
If everyone follows that advice then this discussion comes to an abrupt end as all the high school/college kids who think they know better than everyone else find their personal experience sorely lacking. :rolleyes: hehehe. we all have parents, though... i think everyone is qualified to give input, and everyone is qualified to critique that of others.

Rower_CPU

Nov 14, 2003, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by shadowfax
hehehe. we all have parents, though... i think everyone is qualified to give input, and everyone is qualified to critique that of others.

Which is exactly what some people are trying to stifle.

shadowfax

Nov 14, 2003, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Which is exactly what some people are trying to stifle. indeed. the best part of phil's comment is that the guy actually does have a kid, i believe he said.

wdlove

Nov 14, 2003, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by jefhatfield
doctor dan would be fine, like doctor phil or doctor laura

only problem, i wouldn't be an MD or therapist, so i would most likely drop the doctor part because if someone anywhere in earshot fell down and got hurt and i was untrained to do anything, i could get sued for not doing anything medical...the sight of blood is not too bad for me since i did er support on friday and saturday nights, but that's the extent of it

i can deal with bad cabling in a network that is sticking out but i would not know what to do with someone's grandparent who thought they passed gas and had all their intestines spill out in a major anal prolapse

i will leave the term doctor to those that do their doctoring for people and animals:p

It is best to do what one knows best. I defintely have a fear of messing around with computer hardware. So you can be IT doctor.

Sun Baked

Nov 14, 2003, 02:22 PM

Violence isn't the answer, lawyers are. http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?postid=158571

Why take responsibility for your actions and/or accept the consequences for them, when a lawyer will prove it's all somebody elses fault (most likely the parent or that mean teacher.)

Start teaching them young that all that will ever happen to them is a stern warning, and if the stern warning includes a bad word -- sue em for mental anguish.

Yay lawyers, they'll make it right and make you rich in the process. ;)

He spanked somebody, throw em in jail. Too crowded... just release that murderer to make room for a "real" criminal. :rolleyes:

http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?postid=158571

Powerbook G5

Nov 14, 2003, 02:24 PM

Having to look at those dancing bananas for more than a few seconds is punishment enough for anyone.

shadowfax

Nov 14, 2003, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by Powerbook G5
Having to look at those dancing bananas for more than a few seconds is punishment enough for anyone. does that mean that applemacdude should be sued for excessive punishment with his banana-a$$-ramming 'tar? ;)

Powerbook G5

Nov 14, 2003, 02:35 PM

It is just plain disturbing in a hilarious sort of way.

Les Kern

Nov 14, 2003, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Have you ever raised a child?

No?

Then shut up.

Yes I have. She's quite nice, cares for others, is well rounded and has an inquiring mind. I spanked her once when she was about 5 or 6, and I felt bad. That's what prompted me to spend some more time analyzing how I was raising her and investigate both sides of not only the spanking issue, but all other aspects of child-rearing. Was I working hard enough? did I fill her mind with rigid, black and white stereotypical resoponses?

Les Kern

Nov 14, 2003, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Sun Baked
>Les Kern

Since you are dictating what all parents "should' be doing.

Please tell us what religion we should be teaching them.

Should they learn evolution?

Should the kids be vegans, vegetarian, meat eaters, etc.?

What sport should they play?

What is the proper allowance?

Their second language?

Where parents should buy the kids clothes, Baby Gap, Sears, Designer (or knockoffs)?

Milk, soy milk, or breast milk?

--- and on and on...

Since YOU are now dictating how children should be raised.

Should we call you Doctor, God, Your Imperial Highness, etc.? ;)

Of course this type of thinking is one step away from taking all kids away from the parents and having the state raise them. :rolleyes:

Your kid is now assigned to State Creche xxxx.x

Sorry. By saying "WHY NOT" what I really meant is that folks should TRY to be perfect parents. And the subject was "spanking", which is trouble enough to understand besides all those other huge decisions parents make.

shadowfax

Nov 14, 2003, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Les Kern
If YOU were inquiring YOU would have known that. i can understand your urge to be retaliatory in response, but just because he failed to notice that doesn't mean he doesn't have an inquiring mind.

by the way, if your daughter has an inquiring mind, do you think that's because you didn't spank her?

Les Kern

Nov 14, 2003, 02:59 PM

it's a really stupid argument, however you stand on abortion, and this controversy is no different. i could just as easily reverse the argument: so we can't spank our kids? what's next? we can't raise our voice? oh, it's probably too brutal to criticize children! what? damn! you didn't worship your kid tonight?you're going to hell for that, you brigund! hahahahahahahaha! wow... you are joking, right?

I can't understand why the words I write are twisted around. I'm not telling anone how to raise their child.

you think people can be perfect? you think KIDS can be perfect? hell, look at them! people do bad things, people make mistakes, and you're no exception. if you think the fact that you don't spank your kids makes you better than others, i'm sorry, you're dead wrong. it makes you a hypocrite.

I never said that. What I advocate is that parents owe it to their children to make a complete effort. My child isn't perfect, and I certainly don't demand it. I'm sure not perfect, as obvious by reading my struggle to convey what I really mean in this very forum. As for other parents who spank their kids, that's up to them. But I will not socialize with them and I'm sure they don't mind. We all make choices. Your's seems to be missing every point.

BaghdadBob

Nov 14, 2003, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by Les Kern
Sorry. By saying "WHY NOT" what I really meant is that folks should TRY to be perfect parents. And the subject was "spanking", which is trouble enough to understand besides all those other huge decisions parents make.
Some people believe being a perfect parent involves knowing when to use corpreal punishment.

Like in any situation where there are unpleasant decisions to be made, the mark of greatness is the ability to go down that road when necessary.

I would rather kill a man if I had to to defend my loved ones than feel morally righteous and be able to say "I've never had to take a life."

In the same vein, I would rather have the end result of my child rearing to be wise children than children who have no reason to fear me because I'm so kind and well read.

Some things are just more important than feeling good about what you're doing.

Look, I'll give you some credit in that A: your child is not a teenager (right?) and B: you only have one. Raising one child versus multiple children, as is the situation in most households, is like playing golf versus polo. It's just completely different.

And as far as your "interrupting your football game" comment goes, in this line of thinking, as much as parents should spend plenty of time with their kids, all children should respect their parents' rights, and understand that they do not always come first. It's called humility and respect, and it's an important character trait...coincidentally enough, one that tends to be lacking with a much greater frequency in children who grew up in single-child households.

Les Kern

Nov 14, 2003, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by shadowfax
If your daughter has an inquiring mind, do you think that's because you didn't spank her?

Not sure. I know that when she first walked and actually left our house to go down the street with me, I would tell her about what she was seeing. Trees, grass, cars. And I would teacher her the words. When I'd say "Let's go see what we can see" she knew it was time to explore. So to answer your question, probably no.

Les Kern

Nov 14, 2003, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by BaghdadBob
Some people believe being a perfect parent involves knowing when to use corpreal punishment.

Like in any situation where there are unpleasant decisions to be made, the mark of greatness is the ability to go down that road when necessary.

I would rather kill a man if I had to to defend my loved ones than feel morally righteous and be able to say "I've never had to take a life."

In the same vein, I would rather have the end result of my child rearing to be wise children than children who have no reason to fear me because I'm so kind and well read.

Some things are just more important than feeling good about what you're doing.

Look, I'll give you some credit in that A: your child is not a teenager (right?) and B: you only have one. Raising one child versus multiple children, as is the situation in most households, is like playing golf versus polo. It's just completely different.

And as far as your "interrupting your football game" comment goes, in this line of thinking, as much as parents should spend plenty of time with their kids, all children should respect their parents' rights, and understand that they do not always come first. It's called humility and respect, and it's an important character trait...coincidentally enough, one that tends to be lacking with a much greater frequency in children who grew up in single-child households.

I can't not agree, except for the very act of corporal punishment, which I dislike. Well said.

BaghdadBob

Nov 14, 2003, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by Les Kern
I never said that. What I advocate is that parents owe it to their children to make a complete effort. My child isn't perfect, and I certainly don't demand it. I'm sure not perfect, as obvious by reading my struggle to convey what I really mean in this very forum. As for other parents who spank their kids, that's up to them. But I will not socialize with them and I'm sure they don't mind. We all make choices. Your's seems to be missing every point.
Children are owed responsible parenting. Not making every goddamned effort to make sure that under no circumstances should such parenting involve a spanking. Like I said in my last post, kids need to understand that they do not always come first. We, as parents, make huge sacrifices for our children (unless we are bad parents) but that doesn't mean that every second of our days should dedicated to finding non-violent solutions to a child's defiance. This kind of approach, quite simply, teaches a child how to be selfish.

Sorry, kid, I spend fifty hours a week supporting you and ten picking up after you and ten cooking for you and ten helping you with your homework. You can try a little harder to follow the rules, or occasionally you're going to get a whack on the butt, and if it's a chronic problem, there will be several. Bottom line.

And, ah, Mr. "I'm Not Telling People How To Raise Their Children," you are saying that you look down upon parents who don't do what you do. Hell, you won't socialize with them. How damned high is that horse, anyway??

Phil Of Mac

Nov 14, 2003, 03:11 PM

My point was, anyone and everyone can write books about raising kids. They might even make convincing arguments. But all in all, experience is going to be more important. Don't expect me to respect you for reading tons of books on the subject. Expect me to respect you for experience.

Also, it's really not a "yes or no" question. Some kids may not need it, some do. I did. Kids are human beings, and human beings are individuals. There's no "universal answer", despite how many books you read.

Sun Baked

Nov 14, 2003, 03:23 PM

I'm still waiting for Dennis Miller to write his thoughts down on raising the little beasts. ;)

BaghdadBob

Nov 14, 2003, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by Sun Baked
I'm still waiting for Dennis Miller to write his thoughts down on raising the little beasts. ;)
"If you don't have kids it's like...there's really no way to describe to you what it's like...it's like having drunken midgets running around your house..."

Les Kern

Nov 14, 2003, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by BaghdadBob
Sorry, kid, I spend fifty hours a week supporting you and ten picking up after you and ten cooking for you and ten helping you with your homework. You can try a little harder to follow the rules, or occasionally you're going to get a whack on the butt, and if it's a chronic problem, there will be several. Bottom line.

Wow. Not sure I would include a dose of guilt with spanking as corporal punishment, but it is compelling. You SHOULD spend those 80 hours a week working for your child. How you deal with rules is another matter. As for not socializing with others who don't share my beliefs, well we do that all the time. Spend any time with rapists? Okay, clearly not in the same catagory, but I think you get the point. I SWEAR I am not a devil of a person, and I think we all care about our kids. I'll recap again, and if anyone wants to comment on THESE, feel free. And there is no high horse, I assure you. Quite a tangent from where we were.
I believe that a child has a right to be protected by the parent, and a parent has a duty to do so. I believe that a child is defenseless against any form of violence and relies on the parent to teach, raise and protect them. I believe that this type of violence solves nothing in the long run. I believe that parents who rely on spanking are lazy (rely being the key word). I believe that children are not beagles.

Les Kern

Nov 14, 2003, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
There's no "universal answer", despite how many books you read.

Agreed... mostly. I chose one path, my own. And I like it. I had to base my beliefs on something. Better than fence sitting. Could I be wrong? Not for me, but maybe others. Fine by me.

Phil Of Mac

Nov 14, 2003, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by Les Kern
Agreed... mostly. I chose one path, my own. And I like it. I had to base my beliefs on something. Better than fence sitting. Could I be wrong? Not for me, but maybe others. Fine by me.

Then why are you a jerk about it? It's not like I refuse to socialize with people who disagree with me on things like that.

If I had to guess, I'd say you read all those books to rationalize something that didn't need rationalization: you don't like to strike your children as a form of discipline. I don't blame you for it, but acting like it's a universal constant that everyone should abide by is just elitist.

LethalWolfe

Nov 14, 2003, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Powerbook G5
. My parents would tell me no dinner (that was a good way of stopping me if I were acting up since I loooooved to eat), no dessert, withhold allowance, send me to my room, etc.

So you are anti-spanking but in favor of denying growing children proper nutrition? Monster. ;)

Les, if you didn't feel bad for spanking your daughter that would have been a sign that something was wrong.

Lethal

Phil Of Mac

Nov 14, 2003, 04:01 PM

Another thing. One time, when I was being particularly obnoxious, my mother slapped me across the face. Now I'm sure that everyone, including her, would consider that excessive. Of course, I got a bloody nose, and it hurt, and she was quick to clean me up and help it feel all better, but you know what? It worked!

Les Kern

Nov 14, 2003, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Les, if you didn't feel bad for spanking your daughter that would have been a sign that something was wrong.

Thanks..... Trust me when I say there are times I'd like to smack the crap out her, but honestly, I know that (at least in our case) using words after the dust settles has been our answer. And it seems to have worked. But we could always go off in ANOTHER tangent called "nature vs. nurture".

Les Kern

Nov 14, 2003, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
....it hurt, and she was quick to clean me up and help it feel all better, but you know what? It worked!

I was spanked ONCE in my own life, and I never forgot it. Maybe it's the same with my daughter. Please understand that I ONLY mean I would not socialize with people who RELY on spanking as NOP.

Les Kern

Nov 14, 2003, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
...but acting like it's a universal constant that everyone should abide by is just elitist.

Can't find where I said anything like that. And if I come across as a jerk, I'm sorry. Maybe when video chat gets better, or I at LEAST try to use emoticons....?
And I'm not elitist. I was a member of the GOP, but moved to the more human side a few years ago. (Okay, who want's to respond to THAT little sentence? :)

Phil Of Mac

Nov 14, 2003, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Les Kern
Can't find where I said anything like that. And if I come across as a jerk, I'm sorry. Maybe when video chat gets better, or I at LEAST try to use emoticons....?
And I'm not elitist. I was a member of the GOP, but moved to the more human side a few years ago. (Okay, who want's to respond to THAT little sentence? :)

If you support either major party, then I hope it is only out of ignorance, as that is the only way I can forgive you for it.

manitoubalck

Nov 14, 2003, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
If everyone follows that advice then this discussion comes to an abrupt end as all the high school/college kids who think they know better than everyone else find their personal experience sorely lacking. :rolleyes:

True Rower, but never forget that it is these same college/Uni students who have just been raised as children

revenuee

Nov 14, 2003, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by wdlove
I don't think that spanking is child abuse. I also was spanked as a child. Actually still to this day if I do something wrong I get that feeling of a spanking. When I was in school spanking was allowed as punishment. Our teachers didn't have the discipline problems that occur today. We respected our teachers and other students.

I don't know how it looks right now where you are.... But in the School Charter here in Ontario; it says

"A teacher may discipline a student in the same manner as a judicial parents"

It is my understanding, that a judicial parent, should the need arise, has the right to physically reprimand a child.

Back in High-school, a teacher was saying that somethings that he has been exposed to and has experienced that has been done by teachers to students, was something even he could not stand for

The story that stuck out in my head was the student that after being constantly asked to settle down, and stay in his seat, was then approached by the teacher, forcefully placed in his seat, pushed into the desk, and his head slammed repeatedly against the desk..

The parents complained and the issue went to court... upon being in court the judge through out the case, and told the parents that if they did there job correctly there kid would not have to have been physically disciplined by the teacher in such a manner.

revenuee

Nov 14, 2003, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by BaghdadBob
Children are owed responsible parenting. Not making every goddamned effort to make sure that under no circumstances should such parenting involve a spanking. Like I said in my last post, kids need to understand that they do not always come first. We, as parents, make huge sacrifices for our children (unless we are bad parents) but that doesn't mean that every second of our days should dedicated to finding non-violent solutions to a child's defiance. This kind of approach, quite simply, teaches a child how to be selfish.

Sorry, kid, I spend fifty hours a week supporting you and ten picking up after you and ten cooking for you and ten helping you with your homework. You can try a little harder to follow the rules, or occasionally you're going to get a whack on the butt, and if it's a chronic problem, there will be several. Bottom line.

And, ah, Mr. "I'm Not Telling People How To Raise Their Children," you are saying that you look down upon parents who don't do what you do. Hell, you won't socialize with them. How damned high is that horse, anyway??

IF raising your kids is such a chore for you, why are you even a parent ... my parents didn't sacrifice anything... my dad even told me that if he had to, he would of never had me... he was damned determined to have his cake and eat it too... and he says he feels like he succeeded.

Rower_CPU

Nov 14, 2003, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by manitoubalck
True Rower, but never forget that it is these same college/Uni students who have just been raised as children

True, they'll have recent experience of the child's end of the bargain. But there's no guarantee that their experience will translate to a method for raising their own children.

BaghdadBob

Nov 14, 2003, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by revenuee
IF raising your kids is such a chore for you, why are you even a parent ... my parents didn't sacrifice anything... my dad even told me that if he had to, he would of never had me... he was damned determined to have his cake and eat it too... and he says he feels like he succeeded.
Not everyone can have kids and have everything they want in life at the same time. In fact, most don't. That's nice for you and your dad, but it's hardly a universal statement. So much so I consider it entirely irrelevant.

Phil Of Mac

Nov 14, 2003, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by BaghdadBob
Not everyone can have kids and have everything they want in life at the same time. In fact, most don't. That's nice for you and your dad, but it's hardly a universal statement. So much so I consider it entirely irrelevant.

But if having kids is worth the cost to you, it's still not a sacrifice, because you're still making a net gain.

Kids can be part of "everything you want in life".

BaghdadBob

Nov 14, 2003, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
True, they'll have recent experience of the child's end of the bargain. But there's no guarantee that their experience will translate to a method for raising their own children.
Oh, it can, but not necessarily a good one. I always find it particularly amusing when people without kids try to analyze the problems with them, and talk about what they would do if they had kids. Everyone thinks they would be a good parent until they are one, then they realize that drunken midgets are hard to understand.

And, in my experience, the parents who are young and see things too much from their child's perspective tend to be moderately successful at best.

BaghdadBob

Nov 14, 2003, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
But if having kids is worth the cost to you, it's still not a sacrifice, because you're still making a net gain.

Kids can be part of "everything you want in life".
Sure, otherwise why have them? But it's a lot of work and effort, and there is plenty of sacrifice. What I'm saying is that, while realistically your world does revolve around your kids, no child should take that for granted. Such a child is called a spoiled brat.

Sun Baked

Nov 14, 2003, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by Powerbook G5
Having to look at those dancing bananas for more than a few seconds is punishment enough for anyone. I guess I'll have to switch to dancing pickles now after these claim of cruel and unusual banana use. :p

Phil Of Mac

Nov 14, 2003, 07:15 PM

I think you should switch to a fruit that's not so phallic.

BaghdadBob

Nov 14, 2003, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
I think you should switch to a fruit that's not so phallic.
Yeah, howabout some dancing melons?

Powerbook G5

Nov 14, 2003, 07:33 PM

Damn, just when you thought it couldn't get any worse...

Sun Baked

Nov 14, 2003, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by BaghdadBob
Yeah, howabout some dancing melons? I got em tar sized, but they would cause more problems with the moderators than saying it's OK to spank the drunken midgets. :p

shadowfax

Nov 14, 2003, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by Les Kern
I can't understand why the words I write are twisted around. I'm not telling anone how to raise their child. i wasn't twisting your words around to misunderstand them--i was inverting them to show you the fundamental flaw in your argument.

you called my parents lazy, because they spanked me and my siblings--i take severe offense at that, because it's not even a tenable argument. my parents are not lazy, and have never skimped on communicating with us.I never said that. What I advocate is that parents owe it to their children to make a complete effort. My child isn't perfect, and I certainly don't demand it. I'm sure not perfect, as obvious by reading my struggle to convey what I really mean in this very forum. As for other parents who spank their kids, that's up to them. But I will not socialize with them and I'm sure they don't mind. We all make choices. Your's seems to be missing every point. you seem to be trying to say that people can make choices other than yours and be right, but at the same time, you said that parents who use corporal punishment are too lazy to think of something better to do--to your mind, it's inconceivable that someone could look at the "data" and have another interpretation. what am i missing about your argument?

then you say my choices seem to be missing every point. i'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.

manitoubalck

Nov 14, 2003, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
True, they'll have recent experience of the child's end of the bargain. But there's no guarantee that their experience will translate to a method for raising their own children.

I know that when I raise kids I'll do it alot like my parents raised me, except improve on what aspects I thought could have been handled better. That said I had loving and caring parents. If a childs parents were abusive, or worse yet not present at all, then that child may find loving and caring for a child very difficult as they have no role models.

We learn best from the mistakes others and ourselves make. Because mistakes cause pain (both physical and mental.)

Les Kern

Nov 14, 2003, 10:04 PM

...you called my parents lazy, because they spanked me and my siblings--i take severe offense at that

You interpreted that way wrong. Actually I said that about parents who rely on it. I've seen parents that smack their kids at every oportunity... in line at the store, in the car, etc. THAT is lazy and the sign of a selfish parent. I don't see anything wrong with an occasional smack on the bottom (by OTHER parents, not me). And to clear another thing up, if I meet other parents who constantly whip up on their children, NOT the occasional smack, I will not associate with them.

BaghdadBob

Nov 14, 2003, 10:33 PM

That seems like a much more reasonable stance.

I don't like knee-jerk smackings in public either. Generally, if you don't have a more civil way of getting your kid under control when you're in public it's an indication that you do rely on that at home. Kids who have no stages to their discipline don't react until the smack.

When not behaving in public mine tend to get a heavy dosage of the old Name and Glare. Threatening to put someone in the shopping cart seat, I've found, works pretty well, because kids like to touch everything, and they can't when they're stuck in the cart...basically it's letting them know that there's a middle ground. If they wanna touch stuff then need to stick with us and show restraint, or they won't get to touch anything at all.

The promise of an early bedtime when they get home is a god one too, but I've found the cart works best. They get really bored sitting and watching their siblings playing with stuff and sniffing flowers at Home Depot.

Anyway. They may act like monkeys when we go out, but they know their boundries pretty well, and that's a good thing.

Counterfit

Nov 14, 2003, 11:09 PM

Originally posted by Les Kern
You SHOULD spend those 80 hours a week working for your child. Slightly off topic, but I am a HUGE stickler for accuracy in the details :D. There are 168 hours in a week. Take away 40 for the standard work week, 56 for 8 hours of sleep every night, and 80 for your kids, that leaves you...

-8 hours. Hmmmm....

Okay okay, I know most people don't actually get 8 hours of sleep, but there are other things to be done, like housework, yardwork (where applicable), shopping for food/clothing/toys, commuting to/from work, giving time to your spouse (that's an important one). You get the idea.

Phil Of Mac

Nov 14, 2003, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by Counterfit
Okay okay, I know most people don't actually get 8 hours of sleep, but there are other things to be done, like housework, yardwork (where applicable), shopping for food/clothing/toys,

Those count as spending time on your kids.

Originally posted by Counterfit
commuting to/from work, giving time to your spouse (that's an important one). You get the idea.

8 hours is enough for that.

Jagga

Nov 14, 2003, 11:42 PM

Ok dont get mad but 6 plus pages is just too much for me to read on a Sat. Night before 8:30 am EST for work tomorrow.

Aside from beating any child to the point from being able to sit dodwn for three days without a cushion/pillow it COULD be seen as discipline.

Remember cultural differences will determine ANYONE's answer on this.

I'm from a black family native to Cuba & Jamaica.

When I got my a** whooped for lying & swearing to both parents, AND stealing rent money to buy junk food and toys for myself and 3 other close friends ALL in the same day at the same time ->when I was found out that is<-- I got the same whooping that I mentioned above (3 days to school with a cushion to sit on). I was 10 then, I'm 3 times older and I still remember it today!! Never did that again!

However, another time for taking my pops old cap-gun (this was amazing, loaded just like a .45, barrel movement just like one, caps were in plastic strip, hammer movement!) running down the hallway (17apartments) in pitch-black shooting terrifying all nieghbors that the cops were called......well my dads Kodak boot laces were the tool of statecraft that night (I hid his belt; what gives with that belt smacking sound anyway????). Immediately after 3 strikes and my seriously death screams my dad paused looked at the welts on my a** and cried and held me! I was 12 then. He NEVER EVER spanked me EVER again!!!!The cap gun was confiscated. Although I had the chance to buy one several times after I had no want for one.

I learned two things those particular times. Although I cursed in my head and during sleep those nights under my covers......I knew that I deserved the discipline - although harsh- even though I hated my parents for it. I learned that although they were mad at me, they didn't hate me, they just wanted me to feel the consequences of my wrongful actions, the need to pick proper actions (do the right things), the fear for me to become a horrible rotten person & a statistic; but mostly 1) that they always loved me (I never do get along with my mother - truth always arguing). and 2) Guess my dad feared the horrible things I could become because deep down inside He wanted me to be better than him, and HE knew a seperation between my mother and him was inevitable.:(

For all of you that have ever been spanked how did you feel then and after all these years looking back??!??!

I'm kinda glad I got beatings because I might be in jail right now for killing people because I didnt like what they said to me. (back then I had a bad temper and very impressionable basically a SUCK).

LOL.
CHeers.

MacAztec

Nov 14, 2003, 11:59 PM

Anyone notice that most children born in the 70s and before are disciplined? There aren't so many weirdos, and disobedient children.

I look at people at my school and wonder what the hell they are gonna do once they graduate. They are punks, dressed in crazy clothes, ditch class, etc.

Back in the day (<70s), schools would kick kids into order. Oh, Johnny doesn't have his homework? Put your hands out on your desk so I can slap then with my stick.

Johnny, what was that you just said? Oh, heres a spanking.

That kind of stuff works. Most people that disagree with it were brought up with no discipline from their parents.

scem0

Nov 15, 2003, 12:17 AM

Originally posted by shadowfax

spanking children promotes the use of violence only inasmuch as respecting your kids makes them think the entire world revolves around them.

exactly... You need to show respect for your kids, but not enough to where they become stuck up. Same with spanking. You need to spank them when they do something really bad, but if you spank them for every small misdemeanor then this happens:

Originally posted by Les Kern
When the parent spanks, it leads the child to believe that violence solves problems

but..

I was spanked as a child and I NEVER even considered violence being a problem solver. I was spanked only 2 times, but I was a relatively well behaved child. The first time was because I wanted to know how it felt, so I pestered my parents till I got one. I don't remember why I got the second one, but I know I deserved it ;).

Originally posted by Les Kern
Man, I don't even own a horse. So let me get this straight.... I've read perhaps 50 books and article on both sides of the issue, and all that is to be dismissed? Let's recap:
I believe that a child has a right to be protected by the parent, and a parent has a duty to do so. I believe that a child is defenseless against any form of violence and relies on the parent to teach, raise and protect them. I believe that this type of violence solves nothing in the long run. I believe that parents who rely on spanking are lazy (rely being the key word). I believe that children are not beagles.
So please describe my high horse in words my simple mind can understand.

I want you to understand that spanking isn't an act of violence. Or the spanking that I think is appropriate isn't at least. The two spankings that I got when I was little were little more than taps.

OK, let me ask you a question Kern:

How would you punish your child if he/she was trying to get your attention while you were talking on the phone, and they broke something expensive (like your phone or something) just because they knew it would get your attention?

And you keep saying that you just don't think its right when parents RELY on spanking. So do you think it is wrong at all to spank your kids when they do something really wrong? Maybe once a year or something.

Basically, I think parents should spank unruly children enough to keep their children in order, but not enough to preach violence to their children. And when you spank your child, you shouldn't be hitting them, you should be lightly tapping them... The child will invent the pain, you don't have to.

scem0

themadchemist

Nov 15, 2003, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by manitoubalck
Weak minded fool, take the challenge if:
a) you can afford it.
b) have a wife/premenant partner who is willing to comit.
c) parent hood is a minimum 18 year comitment, buy a pet first.
d) although sometimes cruel, pain is still the best teacher.

O.K. (c) and (d) make absolutely no sense. He should take the challenge of fatherhood if 'parenthood is a minimum 18 year cmmitment, buy a pet first'? I don't quite follow. (c) is a statement, not an if-clause to your then-clause being a father. The same is true of (d), which is clearly an expression of your opinion and is certainly not a reason he should become a father.

Sorry, I just felt that I should point that out. I wasn't really trying to be an ass or anything...Not like Stalin or anything. ;)

themadchemist

Nov 15, 2003, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by MacAztec
Anyone notice that most children born in the 70s and before are disciplined? There aren't so many weirdos, and disobedient children.

I look at people at my school and wonder what the hell they are gonna do once they graduate. They are punks, dressed in crazy clothes, ditch class, etc.

Back in the day (<70s), schools would kick kids into order. Oh, Johnny doesn't have his homework? Put your hands out on your desk so I can slap then with my stick.

Johnny, what was that you just said? Oh, heres a spanking.

That kind of stuff works. Most people that disagree with it were brought up with no discipline from their parents.

those craaazy kids and their craaaazy clothes. what the f!ck are they thinking anyway? you know, they haven't decided exactly where they're going to grad school once they have graduated. bastards! if teachers just beat the crap out of them a little bit more, then everything would be fine.

when my dad was growing up in India, it was still routine to punish kids corporally in school. One time, this little girl in the city in which my dad lived was punished by the teacher by being locked in a closet. The teacher forgot and she went home. The girl was stuck there. parents wondered what happened. they called the teacher, who realized what she'd done, and they all rushed to the school. they opened the closet and the girl was dead. the father killed the teacher on the spot.

but I bet she never forgot her homework again.

Phil Of Mac

Nov 15, 2003, 12:51 AM

Originally posted by themadchemist
O.K. (c) and (d) make absolutely no sense. He should take the challenge of fatherhood if 'parenthood is a minimum 18 year cmmitment, buy a pet first'? I don't quite follow. (c) is a statement, not an if-clause to your then-clause being a father. The same is true of (d), which is clearly an expression of your opinion and is certainly not a reason he should become a father.

Sorry, I just felt that I should point that out. I wasn't really trying to be an ass or anything...Not like Stalin or anything. ;)

Parenthood is a large commitment, one should take a similar, but smaller commitment, in owning a pet, to know whether one would enjoy having children.

BaghdadBob

Nov 15, 2003, 01:19 AM

Man, what kind of closet was that? Was it one of those sarcophahous-shaped closets with all the pointy clothes racks inside?

Deadly.

Phil Of Mac

Nov 15, 2003, 01:34 AM

Originally posted by themadchemist
when my dad was growing up in India, it was still routine to punish kids corporally in school. One time, this little girl in the city in which my dad lived was punished by the teacher by being locked in a closet. The teacher forgot and she went home. The girl was stuck there. parents wondered what happened. they called the teacher, who realized what she'd done, and they all rushed to the school. they opened the closet and the girl was dead. the father killed the teacher on the spot.

but I bet she never forgot her homework again.

omg! spanking is suddenly equivalent with negligent homicide! you have made such a good point! :rolleyes:

Hey, Stalin had a mustache, that must mean mustaches and mass murder are morally equivalent, maybe I should shave!

In other words:

Guilt by Association, 5-yard penalty.

agesaun

Nov 15, 2003, 01:53 AM

OK Child abuse is wrong. But disciplining a child is not. Spanking is just a higher form of punishment than "no apple pie tonight." Yes me and my brother were disciplined well and spanked a few times. But knowing that if I slip up I will be over the knee was enough deterrent to keep me from screwing up and getting spanked. Now that I am in college I see the difference between my brother who is disciplined and our neighbor's undisciplined child of the same age. My brother, while not perfect, is involved in school sports and is doing quite well in school.

Our neighbor's child, who as I long as I can remember growing up, was only put on time outs or sent to his room when he misbehaved has escalated to a menace in the neighborhood. He started at age 11 throwing heavy rocks at cars from a highway overpass (from which he was brought home by the police to serve his "grounded for a day" punishment) to now being a high school dropout, abusive to his parents (unbelievable!) and a heavy drinker ALL AT THE AGE OF 15!

I am not saying that all children need to be spanked, but ones who misbehave badly, do. It helps keep kids in line. Also sorry about any spelling/grammar, it's 2:45a and I am about to hit the sack. I only posted because I hear so many people here on campus who have a lack of respect for others and authority, say how they were not spanked and they turned out fine. Sometimes, I just feel like telling them "No, your not alright. You're a spoiled brat who needs to get a reality fix" Oh well goodnight my fellow Apple-lovers. Hopefully I am not arrested for exercising my first amendment right (not like that could happen in the good ol' USA )
:rolleyes:

Sun Baked

Nov 15, 2003, 02:13 AM

Polite? Polite? We don't need no stinking polite citizens.

That's almost like saying that the state doesn't need to worry about providing "behind the wheel" driver's training, because the parents can do it just as competently as the state.

Look how that turned out, nearly 20 years later people are just polite and competent behind the wheel as they were 20 years ago.

Yeah right... :rolleyes:

These are also the same schools that stopped beating the drunken midgets because it would scar them for life.

Now kids take guns to school and plan on wiping out their classmates in an orgy of blood and bullets.

But that's all right the school district will instantly call in the guy in rubber coats and send home with every wee brat an incident report, to sooth the parents frazzled nerves.

After all they called in the funny farm when a parent slapped the principal, and sent the parent to jail. Sort of funny that a principal's husband got sent to jail for the same thing a couple weeks later.

[this is dancing banana]

themadchemist

Nov 15, 2003, 03:13 AM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
8 hours is enough for that.

I wonder if you'll be singing the same tune when she divorces your butt.

themadchemist

Nov 15, 2003, 03:17 AM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
omg! spanking is suddenly equivalent with negligent homicide! you have made such a good point! :rolleyes:

Hey, Stalin had a mustache, that must mean mustaches and mass murder are morally equivalent, maybe I should shave!

In other words:

Guilt by Association, 5-yard penalty.

omg! someone suggested that corporal punishment in school is ok! you know what? when the deep personal bonds of parental love don't stay the hand every now and then, one thing leads to another, and you get cases like this.

Oh, I think my dad had his arm broken once by a teacher...The poster to whom I was referring suggested it would be good if teachers hit kids every now and then. But since the teachers don't care about the kids as much as the parents, it is far more likely that they will let things go too far...Directly this is seen in the case of my dad and his broken arm, and indirectly (because it is not an increasing degree of hitting, but a different physical manifestation of punishment) in my example regarding that girl.

Your attempt at being witty with that Stalin comment didn't really fly, dude. Maybe if your logic made any sense...But, no, your teacher didn't beat the crap out of you in debate/rhetoric class, so I guess that wouldn't be possible.

themadchemist

Nov 15, 2003, 03:20 AM

Originally posted by BaghdadBob
Man, what kind of closet was that? Was it one of those sarcophahous-shaped closets with all the pointy clothes racks inside?

Deadly.

yeah, suffocation can be one bad mother

Phil Of Mac

Nov 15, 2003, 03:22 AM

Originally posted by themadchemist
omg! someone suggested that corporal punishment in school is ok! you know what? when the deep personal bonds of parental love don't stay the hand every now and then, one thing leads to another, and you get cases like this.

Oh, I think my dad had his arm broken once by a teacher...The poster to whom I was referring suggested it would be good if teachers hit kids every now and then. But since the teachers don't care about the kids as much as the parents, it is far more likely that they will let things go too far...Directly this is seen in the case of my dad and his broken arm, and indirectly (because it is not an increasing degree of hitting, but a different physical manifestation of punishment) in my example regarding that girl.

Your attempt at being witty with that Stalin comment didn't really fly, dude. Maybe if your logic made any sense...But, no, your teacher didn't beat the crap out of you in debate/rhetoric class, so I guess that wouldn't be possible.

Jeez, I point out a logical fallacy, and I get jumped on. And knock off the multiple posts. It's a form of spamming.

themadchemist

Nov 15, 2003, 03:27 AM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Jeez, I point out a logical fallacy, and I get jumped on. And knock off the multiple posts. It's a form of spamming.

yeah, sorry about the multiple posts.

and unfortunately, you do get jumped on when the supposed logical fallacy is, well, not fallacious. Actually, it's pretty funny, I guess you didn't notice that top half of my post, you know, where I explain how my previous post was actually within the line of reasoning...Even more humorous that your tongue-in-cheek Stalin comment was really rather illogical, or so it seems.

Phil Of Mac

Nov 15, 2003, 03:37 AM

Originally posted by themadchemist
yeah, sorry about the multiple posts.

and unfortunately, you do get jumped on when the supposed logical fallacy is, well, not fallacious. Actually, it's pretty funny, I guess you didn't notice that top half of my post, you know, where I explain how my previous post was actually within the line of reasoning...Even more humorous that your tongue-in-cheek Stalin comment was really rather illogical, or so it seems.

It was designed to be illogical, to illustrate the logical fallacy being committed.

To state it bluntly so the rest of you can catch up, my point was, simply because corporal punishment can be excessive if misapplied does not mean that it is inevitably wrong. You can't tell me, "Don't grow a mustache, because Stalin grew a mustache, and he also committed mass murder, therefore mustaches are wrong." Similarly, you can't argue against corporal punishment by saying, "This one school in India used corporal punishment, and also committed negligent homicide, therefore corporal punishment is wrong."

themadchemist

Nov 15, 2003, 04:19 AM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
It was designed to be illogical, to illustrate the logical fallacy being committed.

To state it bluntly so the rest of you can catch up, my point was, simply because corporal punishment can be excessive if misapplied does not mean that it is inevitably wrong. You can't tell me, "Don't grow a mustache, because Stalin grew a mustache, and he also committed mass murder, therefore mustaches are wrong." Similarly, you can't argue against corporal punishment by saying, "This one school in India used corporal punishment, and also committed negligent homicide, therefore corporal punishment is wrong."

Your logical fallacy was not in your desire to be coy. That was blatant. I would argue (and do) that your logical fallacy was in the attempted correlation of your Stalin comment to my comment. Essentially, you suggest a parallelism between our statements that would implicate mine as pure nonsense. I forward that my statement is logical. Therefore, if you argue that our statements our parallel, then your argument is false unless your Stalin statement is logical. Since you freely declare that it is pure nonsense, then,

Stalin statement=nonsense!=logical=my statement

It is really quite simple. By contrast, I would suggest the following as being facts:
1. Spanking is a form of corporal punishment, despite severity
2. Teachers do not have the same concerns for limitation of punishment that parents have
3. The widespread use of corporal punishment in India has resulted in many cases of severe abuse.

"1." is a definition. "2." is substantiated by "3." If "2." is true, then it follows that any form of corporal punishment, which, according to "1.", includes spanking, could lead and has led to more serious sorts of punishment. These include, but are not limited to, negligent homocide and purposeful, severe physical injury.

In other words:

Because teachers are less concerned about their students than parents are about their children, they are more likely to inflict more severe punishments. By allowing any sort of physical punishment, including spanking, in schools, one is opening the gateway to a number of other sorts of physical punishments. These physical punishments lie on a broad continuum that begins at mild spanking and ends at actual homocide (usually accidental or negligent). Teachers have the propensity to move from one point on this continuum to another, generally from milder to more severe. This is demonstrated by the examples that I have provided. Therefore, to repeat, allowing teachers to participate in any sort of corporal punishment threatens to result in extreme use of that punishment beyond any reasonable measure. It follows that the prohibition of ANY corporal punishment would strongly limit the incidents of extreme corporal punishment. Thus, it can be inferred that to most effectively prevent teacher-induced, student-suffered tragedies, one must outlaw the practice of corporal punishment, as opposed to allowing it even on a strictly limited basis.

I hope this makes more sense to you.

Les Kern

Nov 15, 2003, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by Counterfit
Slightly off topic, but I am a HUGE stickler for accuracy in the details :D. There are 168 hours in a week. Take away 40 for the standard work week, 56 for 8 hours of sleep every night, and 80 for your kids, that leaves you...
-8 hours. Hmmmm....

Some weeks it feels like I take 180 hours taking care of the kid, the house, my job.... and I don't even want to get into what's left over for the wife. :(

TimDaddy

Nov 15, 2003, 01:03 PM

My previous post in this thread was in support of corporal punishment when all the reasoning, explaining, talking, and begging has failed. I do not, however, feel that teachers should be allowed to spank children. A teacher is responsible for 25-30 children. He/She does not know everthing that is going on in that classroom. I beleive we have all been punished in school when we weren't actually committing any offense. I think this is unfortunate, but sometimes necessary to maintain a safe and orderly evironment. The teacher has to punish a child and hope she is right, or punish the whole class knowing that not every single student was doing something wrong. I don't feel spanking is appropriate when it is someone else's child, and especially, when you can't be 100% sure of what actually happened. When I am at home and I have to spank my child, I will be there later to love my child and let him know that I still do. I don't think the people working at school are going to be able to cover that part. We have a friend, (who happens to be a state social worker and liberal democrat, if you are interested in stereotyping her), who entrusts her child with us a couple of weekends a month. He gets a very defiant sometimes, and I will drag him to the corner if I have to, but, I will not spank him. His mother and father have given us permission to spank him if he is refusing to cooperate, but I just don't think I'd feel right spanking this kid when nobody that is close to him (parents) is going to be around to give him the love he will need later. I actually think that may be a little traumatic for the kid.

shadowfax

Nov 15, 2003, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Les Kern
...you called my parents lazy, because they spanked me and my siblings--i take severe offense at that

You interpreted that way wrong. Actually I said that about parents who rely on it. I've seen parents that smack their kids at every oportunity... in line at the store, in the car, etc. THAT is lazy and the sign of a selfish parent. I don't see anything wrong with an occasional smack on the bottom (by OTHER parents, not me). And to clear another thing up, if I meet other parents who constantly whip up on their children, NOT the occasional smack, I will not associate with them. OK, glad to have that cleared up then. parents who habitually spank their children definitely are--i would qualify that as abuse. but i very, very rarely see people who are like that, fortunately. i wouldn't associate with them either.

scem0

Nov 15, 2003, 01:53 PM

I don't think teachers should be allowed to do anything that will cause a child pain. It is a parents choice on how to raise their child. Some parents might want to rely on only non-physical forms of punishment (which in turns has a chance of producing a brat, while other will spank the kid when it gets home from school.

But the teacher should not have the right to make that decision.

scem0

Les Kern

Nov 15, 2003, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by BaghdadBob
That seems like a much more reasonable stance....When not behaving in public mine tend to get a heavy dosage of the old Name and Glare. Threatening to put someone in the shopping cart seat, I've found, works pretty well, because kids like to touch everything...

My mom worked the "disappointment" angle, and it worked on me. Might not work for others.... Of course, some might say that's psychological abuse! Can't win.

revenuee

Nov 15, 2003, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by Les Kern
My mom worked the "disappointment" angle, and it worked on me. Might not work for others.... Of course, some might say that's psychological abuse! Can't win.

Guilt trip?

ya, kids get desensitized after a wile when the parent over does it...

Phil Of Mac

Nov 15, 2003, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by themadchemist
Because teachers are less concerned about their students than parents are about their children, they are more likely to inflict more severe punishments. By allowing any sort of physical punishment, including spanking, in schools, one is opening the gateway to a number of other sorts of physical punishments. These physical punishments lie on a broad continuum that begins at mild spanking and ends at actual homocide (usually accidental or negligent). Teachers have the propensity to move from one point on this continuum to another, generally from milder to more severe. This is demonstrated by the examples that I have provided. Therefore, to repeat, allowing teachers to participate in any sort of corporal punishment threatens to result in extreme use of that punishment beyond any reasonable measure. It follows that the prohibition of ANY corporal punishment would strongly limit the incidents of extreme corporal punishment. Thus, it can be inferred that to most effectively prevent teacher-induced, student-suffered tragedies, one must outlaw the practice of corporal punishment, as opposed to allowing it even on a strictly limited basis.

I hope this makes more sense to you.

Sure. You switched fallacies. Now it's a slippery slope argument.

JesseJames

Nov 15, 2003, 05:13 PM

When I was little I was a real brat. My relationship with my mother was like those old Tom and Jerry cartoons. I'd pull some asinine prank and haul ass for my room and she'd try to push her way in. Wed' be in a pushing war with the door. I'd win most of the time. If she did get in I'd dive for dear life under the bed. But she'd then get the broom and poke the living daylights out of me.
I got clobbered with just about everything but the kitchen sink. But most of time I was asking for it. I'm still a wiseass to this day but not as bad as when I was younger.
Thanks mom. :D

coolsoldier

Nov 15, 2003, 05:46 PM

Spanking Kids:

It it easy? Yes.
Is it effective? Sometimes
Is it right? Absolutely not. The best defense of it I've seen so far is that it works, well, that doesn't mean much on the morality scale. I don't see any positive effect of it. I have seen well- and poorly- behaved kids that were spanked and also well- and poorly- behaved kids that were not.
And as for the argument that kids were more routinely spanked for discipline in the past, that is not a particularly compelling argument either. At one point hanging was a routine form of punishment. Having been accepted in the past, or even being widely accepted now, or even being effective effective (although I am not entirely sure that it is) does not make it right.

As for the legal issue, I don't think the law should get involved on this one. I believe it is wrong. I do not, however, believe that everything that is wrong should be illegal. There are some issues where people, even misguided people, should make ethical decisions for themselves, and as a general rule, parenting is one of those issues.

Sun Baked

Nov 15, 2003, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by coolsoldier
As for the legal issue, I don't think the law should get involved on this one. I believe it is wrong. I do not, however, believe that everything that is wrong should be illegal. There are some issues where people, even misguided people, should make ethical decisions for themselves, and as a general rule, parenting is one of those issues. Only problem is, the law may get involved with the issue. If an anti-spanker soccer mom sees the activity go on and immediately reports child abuse.

Yes, it's a moral issue that should be up to the parent to make. But some people think it's equivalent to child abuse.

Do I think it should be done by the parent immediately? Probably not, since emotions tend to make the hand swing harder. Cooling off period for both, or the let the emotionally relaxed parent do it.

BaghdadBob

Nov 15, 2003, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by coolsoldier
Spanking Kids:

It it easy? Yes.
Is it effective? Sometimes
Is it right? Absolutely not.

...

There are some issues where people, even misguided people, should make ethical decisions for themselves, and as a general rule, parenting is one of those issues.
It isn't always right, and it isn't always wrong.

Have you ever seen the show Trigun? Cool show, but the main character, a humanoid virtual killing machine, has this big fat problem with killing, and avoids it at all costs. Show gets kinda preachy with this "eveyone has a right to live/no person has the right to take the life of another..." But, what it completely fails to mention is the fact that, without this guy's superhuman abilities, not only would he have been killed in almost every combative situation he got into, but all the people he managed to protect would have been killed too.

Often, people died as a result of his pacifism anyway. Lots of them. But, hey, as long as he kept his promise to his long-dead ladyfriend and got to feel morally righteous about never taking lives himself...it's OK! Damn the fact that entire towns were destroyed due to his lack of will to finish his damned fights in a timely fashion (something he was capable of with ease 99% of the time).

Of course, there were times when he was right, and situations were resolved with everyone walking away. But he damned well wasn't always right.

My point is, as it has always been, that every child and household is different. Some situations, if you don't take a hand to your child you're doing them a disservice in the long run...but you can feel good about it!!! God knows administering a spanking doesn't feel good to any responsible parent.

Making decisions that feel good is becoming what our society is all about anyway. Why fight the future?

coolsoldier

Nov 15, 2003, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by BaghdadBob
It isn't always right, and it isn't always wrong.

Have you ever seen the show Trigun? Cool show, but the main character, a humanoid virtual killing machine, has this big fat problem with killing, and avoids it at all costs. Show gets kinda preachy with this "eveyone has a right to live/no person has the right to take the life of another..." But, what it completely fails to mention is the fact that, without this guy's superhuman abilities, not only would he have been killed in almost every combative situation he got into, but all the people he managed to protect would have been killed too.

Goodness, nobody is going to die if you don't spank your kid. I've never seen the show, but I do believe in unconditional morality (i.e. killing is wrong regardless of circumstances). But this is not about killing.

My point is, as it has always been, that every child and household is different. Some situations, if you don't take a hand to your child you're doing them a disservice in the long run...but you can feel good about it!!! God knows administering a spanking doesn't feel good to any responsible parent.

Making decisions that feel good is becoming what our society is all about anyway. Why fight the future?

I disagree that you are ever doing a child a disservice by not hurting them. There are precious few situations where there is only one solution, and ruling out one form of discipline on moral grounds will not prevent you from disciplining your child.

And the reasons for not spanking a child are not just "because it feels good". In my experience kids who are disciplined with corporal punishment tend to learn "it's only wrong if you get caught".

Phil Of Mac

Nov 15, 2003, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by coolsoldier
Goodness, nobody is going to die if you don't spank your kid. I've never seen the show, but I do believe in unconditional morality (i.e. killing is wrong regardless of circumstances).

What about self-defense? Defense of others?

coolsoldier

Nov 15, 2003, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
What about self-defense? Defense of others?

Since it's kind of off topic for this thread, I'll point you to this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=562405#post562405), where I think I made my position on self-defense pretty clear.

[edit: this (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=563682#post563682) is a more relevant post on the self defense topic]

BaghdadBob

Nov 15, 2003, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by coolsoldier
...I do believe in unconditional morality...
Well I don't.

coolsoldier

Nov 15, 2003, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by BaghdadBob
Well I don't.

You don't have to, and that's why (however wrong I may think you are ;) ) I believe that each parent is entitled to make moral parenting decisions for themselves.

However, regardless of whether you believe in unconditional morality, it seems obvious to me that:

Uncertain Benefit + Possible Harm = Bad Idea

As a parent, I would never subject a child to any more potential harm, however minimal, than necessary, particularly for something whose ultimate benefits are that uncertain.

coopdog

Nov 15, 2003, 10:17 PM

Hello.

coolsoldier

Nov 15, 2003, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by coopdog
SPANK YOUR KIDS! Sending them to their room works great. But don't lock the door. Your kids should obey you enough to atleast listen to your commands. NEVER treaten a spanking or "go to your room" and not follow through. Your kids will just be definant. I don't even remember why or when or anything about being spanked, just that I was and it works very well.

Certainly empty threats are useless for discipline, they only teach your children to ignore you. But I think that corporal punishment only teaches kids to avoid you; it instills an "It's only wrong if you get caught" mentality. Actually hurting a child is NOT the only means of active discipline.

Phil Of Mac

Nov 15, 2003, 10:37 PM

There are ethical absolutes, but they're not as simple as coolsoldier is making them out to be. And, quite frankly, spanking is not one of them. It is a tool that can be used or misused.

BaghdadBob

Nov 15, 2003, 10:46 PM

There is an uncertain benefit to any form of parenting. People who think they are doing their kids a favor by being pacifistic can raise children who face much worse dangers than the palm of a hand. Is it because they didn't spank their child? Well, it's because of something. If they didn't do a good job I guess it doesn't matter what they did or didn't do. On the other hand, if your children come out well -- as hundreds of millions of children (in this country alone) who have faced a few spankings have -- have you actually done harm by spanking the child? Really? What can you point to that is wrong with that, other than the fact that you, personally, don't like the means to the ends?

Hey, you know what? I didn't like the way the St. Louis Rams played football. High-flying circus BS. I hate that kind of football. I felt like their offense wasn't tough enough, and their defense wasn't strong enough.

Well, they won one Superbowl that proved me wrong...and lost another that proved me right.

No two football seasons are alike, and neither are any two children.

Look, I'm not an ass-whupping kind of guy, but I've known several people who owe their getting over doing stupid **** to getting their asses whupped by their dads. And they were pretty well-adjusted guys. Under normal circumstances I would consider a beating to be child abuse, and I would be hard-pressed to find myself in a situation where I found it at all appropriate. But you know what? I've seen the ends of a well-timed ass-whupping. So it's not the extreme I would go to, I don't like the means myself, but I refuse to state unequivocally that it's wrong, because obviously it worked, and it turned around some dangerously stupid kids. The fact that kids who would have gone on to be in jail or dead went on instead to be responsible, and that they don't feel bad about it...how am I supposed to say that it was wrong?? Am I smarter than their dads? Was I there? Most importantly, was it me who straightened them out? No. So I guess I'll have to concede that the ends justified the means.

It aint like they were molested into submission. I'll concede to "unconditional morality" on that one.

coolsoldier

Nov 15, 2003, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by BaghdadBob
I've seen the ends of a well-timed ass-whupping. So it's not the extreme I would go to, I don't like the means myself, but I refuse to state unequivocally that it's wrong, because obviously it worked, and it turned around some dangerously stupid kids.

You have a relatively good point here, except that you equate effective with ethical. If effectiveness is your only measure of ethics, I feel sorry for you, because the most effective method of accomplishing almost anything is often the least scrupulous. Success is not the greatest virtue. That said, there are usually virtuous means of being successful.

On the issue of child discipline I believe that spanking falls somewhere in the middle ground. It's not as bad as some of the more effective/less scrupulous methods (threatening murder, for instance), but IMO it is hardly ethical.

Les Kern

Nov 15, 2003, 11:45 PM

Oh yeah don't do the "point ************" system. Where you give your kids good points for good things like, "setting the table" "walking the dog." You shouldn't have to give your kids points to get them do basic chores. The point system just doesn't work.

I'd like to hear more how you know this to be fact. Of all the parents I know that religiously use the 1-2-3 system, it has worked flawlessly.For me it hasn't, but to be fair it's quite hard to adhere to the proper method as outlined in the books describing it. I use "conversation", which work well for our daughter. So, please expand on "just doesn't work", or just admit that it's your opinion and not based on any facts you know of.

shadowfax

Nov 15, 2003, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by coolsoldier
As a parent, I would never subject a child to any more potential harm, however minimal, than necessary, particularly for something whose ultimate benefits are that uncertain.
so, your child:

can never play sports
can't drive a car till he has no choice but to do so
can only get in the car with you or anyone else when it's absolutely necessary
must be home schooled

??

on a not about morality, here's what i believe:

1. disobeying parents is a sin. if you don't like the word sin, find a word you like that means the same thing and substitute it.

2. doing something wrong has consequences. at the most basic level, i mean, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." however, not just anyone can mete out this justice. in my paradigm, it is God who can do this, as well as the authorities he ordains--government... and parents. from a secular perspective, parents are responsible for their children and thus require authority over them. so, again, only those in authority can mete out justice--unless they are unjust, in which case... well, that's another topic.

3. thus, punishment is both a tool of justice and a tool of teaching--punishment teaches children that there are consequences for their actions--that you cannot hurt others and get away with just a stern warning. minor disobediences warrant relatively minor punishment. you don't spank your kid for using a curse word he didn't know was a curse word, and you don't spank your kid for, say, being too caught up in something to listen to you. but when your kid is repeatedly, openly defying you, or injuring another kid, for instance, he's crossed the line in a much more severe way, and the consequences of that action. spanking is then in order.

of course, as a parent, you have the prerogative to set up your "justice system." your system can be overridden by society's justice system as to harsh in the form of a domestic abuse crime or too lax--your kid grows up as an SOB and becomes a criminal and is imprisoned as such, but you as a parent get plenty of leeway to make your own justice system.

coolsoldier, you believe, it seems, in harm reduction--the judicial philosophy that puts child rapists back on the street before the children's rectums heal. ok, that was a hyperbole, but seriously: that concept completely defies the nature of humanity. the only reason your philosophy of justice ever fools kids into becoming good children is that there still is a remnant of justice. there are still consequences for actions, consequences that occur because the child did something wrong and must pay for that, in spite of your philosophy.

you cannot possibly presume to know the ramifications of harm reduction. when you advocate the "least possible pain to everyone involved"--analogous to the "greatest positive for the greatest number of people," you force a judge (whether that be a judge in court or a parent dealing with an unruly child) to predict the future: he must think, "hmmm, ok, if i give him a 30 minute timeout for slashing his brother with a fork, do i think he'll learn his lesson? how will i know if he learned his lesson?" you introduce this subjective, severe uncertainty to the determination of the punishment.

in a system where the idea of justice is upheld as i stated above, the parent can say: "you inflicted pain on another, therefore you must suffer the pain of punishment. it doesn't please me to do this, but such are the consequences of wrongdoing."

shadowfax

Nov 15, 2003, 11:57 PM

Phil Of Mac

Nov 16, 2003, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by shadowfax
when you advocate the "least possible pain to everyone involved"--analogous to the "greatest positive for the greatest number of people,"

Which lacks discernment. If, in a certain circumstance, someone is attempting to commit rape, and the father is witnessing and has a gun, there are two possibilities:

1. The daughter gets raped
2. The assailant dies.

Obviously, a death is more of a loss than a rape, so it's better for the father to do nothing. Right? Wrong.

You see, in attempting to commit a rape, the assailant is making a conscious choice to commit an act of destruction. Once someone does that, they have chosen force, and by defending ourselves, we are simply turning their choice to destroy against the only person whom they have the right to destroy--themselves.

If you aggress against another human being like that, your life is forfeit.

shadowfax

Nov 16, 2003, 12:14 AM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
You see, in attempting to commit a rape, the assailant is making a conscious choice to commit an act of destruction. Once someone does that, they have chosen force, and by defending ourselves, we are simply turning their choice to destroy against the only person whom they have the right to destroy--themselves.

If you aggress against another human being like that, your life is forfeit. good call, AYN RAND. ;)

coopdog

Nov 16, 2003, 01:04 AM

Certainly empty threats are useless for discipline, they only teach your children to ignore you. But I think that corporal punishment only teaches kids to avoid you; it instills an "It's only wrong if you get caught" mentality. Actually hurting a child is NOT the only means of active discipline.

it instills an "It's only wrong if you get caught" mentality. Thats the same with any punishment. A fine, jail time, spank, whatever. I don't see how a spank would, "Instill an "It's only wrong if you get caught" mentality." Any differently than a time out, or another un "corporal punishment."

coopdog

Nov 16, 2003, 01:08 AM

There are ethical absolutes, but they're not as simple as coolsoldier is making them out to be. And, quite frankly, spanking is not one of them. It is a tool that can be used or misused.

Totaly Agree.

revenuee

Nov 16, 2003, 01:14 AM

Seems to me like i don't know the first thing about raising kids...

good thing i know that now

BaghdadBob

Nov 16, 2003, 01:29 AM

Originally posted by revenuee
Seems to me like i don't know the first thing about raising kids...

good thing i know that now
Do you know anything about women? Either is about as likely -- although sadly unrelated...

Except I find disciplining a woman by spanking her to be not just conditionally acceptable, but the method of choice :D

coopdog

Nov 16, 2003, 02:06 AM

Originally posted by Les Kern
Oh yeah don't do the "point ************" system. Where you give your kids good points for good things like, "setting the table" "walking the dog." You shouldn't have to give your kids points to get them do basic chores. The point system just doesn't work.

I'd like to hear more how you know this to be fact. Of all the parents I know that religiously use the 1-2-3 system, it has worked flawlessly.For me it hasn't, but to be fair it's quite hard to adhere to the proper method as outlined in the books describing it. I use "conversation", which work well for our daughter. So, please expand on "just doesn't work", or just admit that it's your opinion and not based on any facts you know of.

I think anyone would be hard pressed to find an actual case study of using the point rewards program with kids. I don't know what you mean when you say. "1-2-3 system" You mean counting to 10 method? Well that one is just as bad because EVERYONE I have ever seen use it privitely and publicly never folows through, the parent counts to 10 counting slower and slower, then nothing. Most of the time I see this at the market, some frazzled mother with annoying kids. It mostly happens when a kid grabs something off the shelf and wants it. Then the mother says, "put it back." "But I want it!" Ect. Then the counting starts, and once the parent reaches 10 they just snatch the item out of the kid's hand and put it back. It's the same everytime. Why should you have to count to 10 anyways? It just allows your kids to be bad for 10 seconds longer. Pointless. What a bad way to deal with your kids.

Back to the question.

By having to create a paper for your kids and update the points, remember to take them away ect. Why is all that necessary?

The point system, or you get a star or any system where you get points on a paper for doing good things and points taken away for bad things, is not a good tool if you don't follow threw.

Three of my relatives use the point system, 10 points equal a star, so many stars equal a trip to "Colour me mine." And so on. In all the three situations it doesn't work. Mainly because your enforcing your child's behavor with something that really isn't real. I have spent a great deal of time in all three house holds and seen how the kids are dealt with and how the point system is used. Instead of sending them to their room, or a spank it's, "Thats going to be 10 points off." The problem with that is the child really isn't being punished. The kids easily take on the mentaliy, "Oh Ill just make 20 points tomorow when dad makes me walk the dog." Whats even worse is the parents even tell the kids this.

So pretty much the only thing keeping your kinds inline are a few stars. That really they control, if one day your kids come to you and say we don't want the points anymore, what are you going to do? Force them to keep it?

Also another major flaw with the point system is that all there is are rewards, even though the same system is used as punishment the kids are always rewarded. What?! Thats a good idea. It sends totaly the wrong message.

But ill never change your mind. So Good night.

revenuee

Nov 16, 2003, 02:24 AM

Originally posted by BaghdadBob
Do you know anything about women? Either is about as likely -- although sadly unrelated...

Except I find disciplining a woman by spanking her to be not just conditionally acceptable, but the method of choice :D

women confuse me. but i am getting better at figuring them out...

the one thing is, in my current situation i have the option of changing the woman i'm with, if i screw up to much ... can't really change your kids :D

as far as spanking your g/f ... if it's something she likes, who am i to argue :D - but i don't know how many kids like being spanked by there parents...

themadchemist

Nov 16, 2003, 03:31 AM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Sure. You switched fallacies. Now it's a slippery slope argument.

unfortunately, not everything you disagree with is a fallacy.

themadchemist

Nov 16, 2003, 03:42 AM

Originally posted by shadowfax
good call, AYN RAND. ;)

on a side note, the objectivist club here sought (and received) recognition by the student government. what's up with that?!

Phil Of Mac

Nov 16, 2003, 03:43 AM

Originally posted by themadchemist
unfortunately, not everything you disagree with is a fallacy.

Non-sequitur. Jeez, you never stop!

themadchemist

Nov 16, 2003, 04:28 AM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Non-sequitur. Jeez, you never stop!

actually, not really. I am just saying that I've noticed that you enjoy greatly pointing out so-called "logical fallacies" in the arguments of those with whom you disgree. Just because you disagree with it, calling it fallacious is not an adequate argument.

Indeed, instead of discussing the merits of a perspective on contextual terms of the conversation, you seek the shelter of your supposed logical superiority to take shots at people's points from a non-commital stance. For example, "jeez. I'm just pointing out a logical fallacy," allows you take a very comfortable ground in that you need not make any actual contributions to the conversation since you can babble on about your personal interpretation of the intricacies of logic...Clearly, this adds the most value to our discussion.

Anyway, you haven't done a very good job of even defending this position. Rather, you seek to prove your points through indignation and sarcasm, further guarding yourself from direct confrontation of that against which you argue.

Really, it's a rather poor technique that most people see through after a while.

I'd prefer not to continue this line of discussion from here on, because I'm seeing that it's not really that beneficial to the general discourse.

BaghdadBob

Nov 16, 2003, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by themadchemist
actually, not really. I am just saying that I've noticed that you enjoy greatly pointing out so-called "logical fallacies" in the arguments of those with whom you disgree. Just because you disagree with it, calling it fallacious is not an adequate argument.
Sorry, dude, but there are such things as logical fallacies. I believe it was an appropriate use of that. If a person is going to make an argument, they should use points that aren't ************.

Take a propaganda class sometime, if you have one available to you, and you will learn how people use fallacious arguments and techniques to get people to agree with them on something without making a logically convincing argument.

If something does not follow, it does not follow. Complaining about having someone point it out doesn't change facts.

coolsoldier

Nov 16, 2003, 02:56 PM

Prepare for a very long response.

Originally posted by shadowfax
so, your child:

can never play sports
can't drive a car till he has no choice but to do so
can only get in the car with you or anyone else when it's absolutely necessary
must be home schooled

??

Of course not. Everything a parent allows a child to do is a calculated risk. Sending a child to school, for instance, is a calculated risk that the potential harm for the child at school is less than the potential benefit of having a better education than I alone can provide.

on a not about morality, here's what i believe:

1. disobeying parents is a sin. if you don't like the word sin, find a word you like that means the same thing and substitute it.

Ok, we agree on the basic principle that kids should obey their parents. I think it would be just about impossible to find any sane person who disagrees with that. I am not advocating allowing children to do anything. I am saying that there are more appropriate methods than physical pain to accomplish this goal

2. doing something wrong has consequences. at the most basic level, i mean, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." however, not just anyone can mete out this justice. in my paradigm, it is God who can do this, as well as the authorities he ordains--government... and parents. from a secular perspective, parents are responsible for their children and thus require authority over them. so, again, only those in authority can mete out justice--unless they are unjust, in which case... well, that's another topic.

I'm tempted to quote Ghandi here, but I'll leave that to another thread ;).

A justice system imposed by an outside authority, even one as simple as "an eye for an eye," is hardly the "most basic level" of consequences. It turns out that in may cases, God has implemented his own system of consequences. The most basic level is the natural effect of your actions. Kick the cat, and it scratches you. Don't eat your vegetables, and you end up hungry. Obviously, that doesn't always work because some actions, if left unchecked, have consequences that children cannot understand or recognize (we cannot realistically let our children face outside consequences for criminal assault, for instance). Punishments like spanking, though, have no logical connection to the action you are punishing, so the spanking becomes a consequence of getting caught, not a consequence of the action. This can have the dangerous result of just making children sneaky. IMO punishments should be such that kids are not afraid to face their own actions.

3. thus, punishment is both a tool of justice and a tool of teaching--punishment teaches children that there are consequences for their actions--that you cannot hurt others and get away with just a stern warning. minor disobediences warrant relatively minor punishment. you don't spank your kid for using a curse word he didn't know was a curse word, and you don't spank your kid for, say, being too caught up in something to listen to you. but when your kid is repeatedly, openly defying you, or injuring another kid, for instance, he's crossed the line in a much more severe way, and the consequences of that action. spanking is then in order.

OK, I can see your point, except that spanking does not follow obviously from defiance or injury. There are a number of ways to deal with this, but a child relies on a parent for all of their needs and luxuries, which is the practical reason why children should obey their parents. By the time they grow to the point where they don't, they are generally too old to reasonably be spanked either. Denying your child his needs is antithetical to your duties as a parent, but denying luxuries seems to work pretty well when natural consequences don't work, particularly if there is a direct correlation between the infringement and the denied luxury. I'm not going to claim to be a discipline or child psychology expert, and I'm sure there are other ways, but this method seems to work reasonably well.

of course, as a parent, you have the prerogative to set up your "justice system." your system can be overridden by society's justice system as to harsh in the form of a domestic abuse crime or too lax--your kid grows up as an SOB and becomes a criminal and is imprisoned as such, but you as a parent get plenty of leeway to make your own justice system.

The fact that there is a such thing as a domestic abuse crime speaks to the fact that there is a point at which a punishment, even a "deserved" punishment, can objectively go too far to be moral. The law draws those lines pretty loosely. I happen to believe that the moral lines are a little more restricting, and that spanking falls outside of the moral lines that I adhere to for discipline.

coolsoldier, you believe, it seems, in harm reduction--the judicial philosophy that puts child rapists back on the street before the children's rectums heal. ok, that was a hyperbole, but seriously: that concept completely defies the nature of humanity. the only reason your philosophy of justice ever fools kids into becoming good children is that there still is a remnant of justice. there are still consequences for actions, consequences that occur because the child did something wrong and must pay for that, in spite of your philosophy.

OK, putting rapists back on the street hardly qualifies as "harm reduction". I think that you might have a different definition of the term than I do. I absolutely believe in consequences for actions, just that artificially imposing physical pain falls outside of the realm of acceptable consequences.

you cannot possibly presume to know the ramifications of harm reduction. when you advocate the "least possible pain to everyone involved"--analogous to the "greatest positive for the greatest number of people," you force a judge (whether that be a judge in court or a parent dealing with an unruly child) to predict the future: he must think, "hmmm, ok, if i give him a 30 minute timeout for slashing his brother with a fork, do i think he'll learn his lesson? how will i know if he learned his lesson?" you introduce this subjective, severe uncertainty to the determination of the punishment.

There is no uncertainty in your example. True harm reduction in the situation you presented would mean thinking, "hmmm, ok, if I take away the fork, he won't be able to do that again." IMO that goes a little too easy on the kid and make dinner a little too complicated, so we have to improvise, but a true "punishment equal to the crime" infringement would entail slashing him with a fork (or more aptly, allow his injured brother to slash him with a fork), which I think most people would agree is not an acceptable form of punishment. I think you would agree that "eye for an eye" punishments can go too far, and I believe that an adult hitting a child (who has no means of defending himself) is one of those "too far" punishments. Not to mention the inconsistency that nobody punishes *you* for hitting *him*. So, in his mind, when he's the biggest one around... ;)

in a system where the idea of justice is upheld as i stated above, the parent can say: "you inflicted pain on another, therefore you must suffer the pain of punishment. it doesn't please me to do this, but such are the consequences of wrongdoing."

Except that, like I said above, it is not the consequence of the wrongdoing. It is an unrelated consequence of getting caught. If spanking is your ultimate punishment for any variety of serious rule violation, then spanking is the consequence of getting caught for anything, not the consequence of the the specific action.

Phil Of Mac

Nov 16, 2003, 02:58 PM

I call people on logical fallacies because logical fallacies add nothing to the discussion, in fact, they are counterproductive, and by identifying them as logical fallacies I can neutralize that effect. If you think I'm incorrect in citing a fallacy, prove it. Simply lashing out at me personally is, well, quite frankly an ad hominem--another logical fallacy in and of itself.

revenuee

Nov 16, 2003, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by shadowfax

1. disobeying parents is a sin. if you don't like the word sin, find a word you like that means the same thing and substitute it.

2. doing something wrong has consequences. at the most basic level, i mean, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." however, not just anyone can mete out this justice. in my paradigm, it is God who can do this, as well as the authorities he ordains--government... and parents. from a secular perspective, parents are responsible for their children and thus require authority over them. so, again, only those in authority can mete out justice--unless they are unjust, in which case... well, that's another topic.

1. I don't like the idea of unquestionable loyalty to parents. Parents are human to and are subject to making mistakes, as that is what it means to be human. If a child feels that what a parent is doing is wrong, and what they order/request is unreasonable a child has every right to not obey ...

2. I resent the implication that i need to believe in a God to understand what is just and what is unjust.... "AN EYE FOR AN EYE" has got to be the most cliché example - i went to catholic school and the use of this argument was frowned upon.

BaghdadBob

Nov 16, 2003, 05:17 PM

When your children start openly questioning and defying you based on their own judgement you have a problem.

Kids always think their parents are wrong when they don't like it. They think it's not fair, etc, etc. And their friends will always agree with them.

So, no, they do not have every right to disobey based on their own judgement.

That's why they're children and not adults.

revenuee

Nov 16, 2003, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by BaghdadBob
When your children start openly questioning and defying you based on their own judgement you have a problem.

Kids always think their parents are wrong when they don't like it. They think it's not fair, etc, etc. And their friends will always agree with them.

So, no, they do not have every right to disobey based on their own judgement.

That's why they're children and not adults.

At which point is a child become an adult?

when they reach 18? 21?

if their parents never aloud them to decide anything for-themselves, they are no more prepared for the world then a 6 year old child who doesn't yet understands abstract concepts.

so if a child see's you shooting up, they have no right to question whether what your doing is right or wrong? - don't tell me i'm taking this to a extreme, i know exactly where i'm taking this.

if your old enough to be punished for your actions, your old enough to question the actions of others.

themadchemist

Nov 16, 2003, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
I call people on logical fallacies because logical fallacies add nothing to the discussion, in fact, they are counterproductive, and by identifying them as logical fallacies I can neutralize that effect. If you think I'm incorrect in citing a fallacy, prove it. Simply lashing out at me personally is, well, quite frankly an ad hominem--another logical fallacy in and of itself.

if commenting on your style of rhetoric is lashing out at you personally, well, then I better just never engage in another debate in my entire life, lest be guilty of ad hominem.

otherwise, I question the validity of your assessments as to logical fallacies. Clearly, it is a subjective and debatable point, since we are subjectively debating it (or, so I would hold)...I think that the method, though, can be of diminishing utility, if one wishes to indiscriminately search for what he deems logical fallacies. The utility in this case, I believe, has diminished to the point of essentially zero value.

So...Spanking...I think that in general, it's very much an act that lies on a continuum. It's not a binary question, but rather one with varying degrees of severity, which, at some difficult-to-ascertain point, can move from an effective means of punishment to an atrocious manner of child abuse.

Phil Of Mac

Nov 16, 2003, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by themadchemist
if commenting on your style of rhetoric is lashing out at you personally, well, then I better just never engage in another debate in my entire life, lest be guilty of ad hominem.

Except you weren't addressing my arguments or my style of rhetoric. You were addressing *me*. That is the definition of the ad hominem.

Originally posted by themadchemist
otherwise, I question the validity of your assessments as to logical fallacies.

Indeed. But why bother bringing this up for at least the third time without ever giving it backing?

Originally posted by themadchemist
Clearly, it is a subjective and debatable point, since we are subjectively debating it (or, so I would hold)

No, it isn't subjective. Either your arguments are fallacious, or they're not.

Originally posted by themadchemist
I think that the method, though, can be of diminishing utility, if one wishes to indiscriminately search for what he deems logical fallacies. The utility in this case, I believe, has diminished to the point of essentially zero value.

It's easy for you to say that. As soon as I point out the fallacy in your arguments, you give up and start claiming there is no fallacy, but you never address my point, you keep saying "there is no fallacy" as if we're going to accept it on faith. No, I don't, as you put it before, hold myself in a superior position because of my knowledge of logic. You're the one trying to abandon logic. You're the one putting me in that position.

Geetar

Nov 16, 2003, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac

Obviously, a death is more of a loss than a rape, so it's better for the father to do nothing. Right? Wrong.

If you aggress against another human being like that, your life is forfeit.

This ethical relativism is, I take it, meant to reflect your earlier statement that there are ethical absolutes..........

....hmmmmm

You can argue that these matters are "not as simple" as all that, but all you've done is set yourself up as judge and jury in your own personal ethical Universe. Er, isn't that your Deity-of-Choice's prerogative ? Your unintentional solipsism
is quite amusing, as usual.

BaghdadBob

Nov 16, 2003, 06:39 PM

@ Geetar:

Actually, there is Biblical basing for sinning in the protection of your family. I'm not a Christian, but I had a good friend who I spent a lot of time discussing Christian concepts with, and he was very studious and intelligent. Someone who knows the Bible better can point out where this is, but it's true.

If you don't know the Bible then...well, I've learned not to instruct those who do on what their religion is telling them.

@ Revenuee:

Did you say you did or didn't have children? There are better ways of having your children know how to make up their own mind than letting them defy you based on their own judgement. it's called loosing up the leash. You can let them make up their own minds on things, but as a parent, when you have instructed them without room for interpretation you should expect them to follow your instructions. If that sounds self-contradictory it isn't: if you tell them, they should follow, if you let them, they should decide.

When they are adults -- which is an abstract concept for which everyone has their own guidelines (no single set of requirements can be made for everyone) -- then they are free to do what they will. Until that time, when the parents foot is down, it must be respected. Once again, the mark of a good parent is knowing when to put their foot down and when not to. That doesn't make it the child's responsibility to decide when it's OK to defy their parents.

Your example is poor. We are talking about responsible parenting here, not extreme situations. That's the direction many of us have been trying to guide this conversation away from for a long time.

What you need to understand is that, especially with teenagers, they're about as likely to think you're wrong for grounding them as shooting up heroine. That doesn't mean they get to bail out the window, even if they think they don't deserve to be grounded.

manitoubalck

Nov 16, 2003, 06:54 PM

I find that setting an example of using force is good, because afterwards the threat of force/physical action can be used.
The best method to get my rowing crew to train effectivley is to get them to inflict pain upon themselves.

"Ok you mucked around all training, 20 hill sprints, 50 squats, 20 push up, 15 hand claps, hurry up; I've got to get home"

Works a treat, but I know I walk a fine line between abuse and teaching the kids a productive lesson.

coolsoldier

Nov 16, 2003, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by manitoubalck
I find that setting an example of using force is good, because afterwards the threat of force/physical action can be used.

I find that killing somebody in front of them is good, because afterwards death threats can be used ;)

So, can we assume that your definition of "good" is whatever is effective?

Geetar

Nov 16, 2003, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by BaghdadBob
@ Geetar:

Actually, there is Biblical basing for sinning in the protection of your family. I'm not a Christian, but I had a good friend who I spent a lot of time discussing Christian concepts with, and he was very studious and intelligent. Someone who knows the Bible better can point out where this is, but it's true.

If you don't know the Bible then...well, I've learned not to instruct those who do on what their religion is telling them.

Erm, aren't you rather assuming that the majority of the world's population exclusively follow the Old Testament for their moral compass:rolleyes:

Like there's a world outside of the USA (yes, there is, honest), there are texts both Christian and non-Christian outside the Old Testament that would find you and your ...er....learned friend egregiously in error. So once again, this time for your benefit, "A purely self-referential take on the views of others may be damaging to yours and your Nation's health."

Phil Of Mac

Nov 16, 2003, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by Geetar
This ethical relativism is, I take it, meant to reflect your earlier statement that there are ethical absolutes..........

....hmmmmm

You can argue that these matters are "not as simple" as all that, but all you've done is set yourself up as judge and jury in your own personal ethical Universe. Er, isn't that your Deity-of-Choice's prerogative ? Your unintentional solipsism
is quite amusing, as usual.

Uh...in a word, no.

You see, "killing people" is not an ethical absolute. There are, however, other ethical absolutes, the primary one being that it is wrong to initiate the use of physical force against others. Murder is an example of this: if I choose to kill my roommate simply because he is annoying and I don't like to live with him, that is wrong because it is murder, it is absolutely wrong, it is an ethical absolute. However, if my roommate is trying to rape my sister, *he* is the one initiating force, and if I kill him, it is not, ethically speaking, murder, it is defensive in nature. This is true for me or for anyone else.

BaghdadBob

Nov 16, 2003, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by Geetar
You can argue that these matters are "not as simple" as all that, but all you've done is set yourself up as judge and jury in your own personal ethical Universe. Er, isn't that your Deity-of-Choice's prerogative ?
Thus:
Originally posted by BaghdadBob
Actually, there is Biblical basing for sinning in the protection of your family. I'm not a Christian, but I had a good friend who I spent a lot of time discussing Christian concepts with, and he was very studious and intelligent. Someone who knows the Bible better can point out where this is, but it's true.
Therefore --
Originally posted by Geetar
Erm, aren't you rather assuming that the majority of the world's population exclusively follow the Old Testament for their moral compass:rolleyes:
-- shows that you aren't even paying attention to what you yourself are saying. Try to keep up, k?

Sorry I couldn't quote chapter and verse myself, but that's just the way it goes. I can talk Hindu philosophy with ya too, although I can't find the canto of the Bhagavad-Gita that backs up what I'm saying, I still know what I'm talking about.

And I can guarantee you that most world religions stress respect for your parents, and allow a man to defend his family in what would otherwise be a sinful manner.

There's a world out there beyond the US. Most of it follows a religion of some sort. Honest.

BaghdadBob

Nov 16, 2003, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by coolsoldier
So, can we assume that your definition of "good" is whatever is effective?
Is your definition of "good" without regard to effacity?

If so, don't you consider that, in the context of parenting, if "good" and "effective" don't coincide, you have to make a choice?

Sun Baked

Nov 16, 2003, 07:37 PM

Wow! Look at all these quotes in this thread. :p

coolsoldier

Nov 16, 2003, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by BaghdadBob
Is your definition of "good" without regard to effacity?

If so, don't you consider that, in the context of parenting, if "good" and "effective" don't coincide, you have to make a choice?

My definition of "good" does not necessarily preclude effectiveness, but I believe whether something is good or not must be determined based on ethics, independently of effectiveness. Then, and only then, should the most effective solution from all of the acceptably moral solutions should be chosen. But the topic of this thread placed a moral/legal tone on the question of spanking (i.e. "is it child abuse", not "is it effective").

Of course parents have to make choices between "good" and "effective" when there are no solutions that are both good and effective, but the fact remains that the possibilities for methods of discipline are limitless, so you can always come up with a different way if none of the ways you've thought of so far are both ethical and effective.

Geetar

Nov 16, 2003, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
if my roommate is trying to rape my sister, *he* is the one initiating force, and if I kill him, it is not, ethically speaking, murder, it is defensive in nature. This is true for me or for anyone else.

Indeed, it might not be murder, since the law requires premeditation/"mens rea" for a murder verdict and would probably exhonerate you if you could show that you had NO timely alternative.

But what does any of this have to do with your earlier point, the one I was actually referring to- your assertion, in case you have already forgotten, that we enjoy the moral right (or as your colleague above would perhaps have it, a duty) to end the life of a rapist, without further recourse to legal niceties?

Straw everywhere:rolleyes:

Phil Of Mac

Nov 16, 2003, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by Geetar
But what does any of this have to do with your earlier point, the one I was actually referring to- your assertion, in case you have already forgotten, that we enjoy the moral right (or as your colleague above would perhaps have it, a duty) to end the life of a rapist, without further recourse to legal niceties?

Straw everywhere:rolleyes:

I only asserted that there is the moral right to kill a rapist to prevent or stop a rape in progress. I was also speaking in moral, not legal terms. The two are not the same.

themadchemist

Nov 16, 2003, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Except you weren't addressing my arguments or my style of rhetoric. You were addressing *me*. That is the definition of the ad hominem.

Indeed. But why bother bringing this up for at least the third time without ever giving it backing?

No, it isn't subjective. Either your arguments are fallacious, or they're not.

It's easy for you to say that. As soon as I point out the fallacy in your arguments, you give up and start claiming there is no fallacy, but you never address my point, you keep saying "there is no fallacy" as if we're going to accept it on faith. No, I don't, as you put it before, hold myself in a superior position because of my knowledge of logic. You're the one trying to abandon logic. You're the one putting me in that position.

Yes, I simply say "there is no fallacy"...I guess that would explain the pages of explanation I have already poured out demonstrating how one conclusion can follow from another...I am not saying that every single one of my conclusions is the only possible result of the previous, but each is a reasonable explanation, verified by significant anecdotal information. If you require that each statement must follow unequivocally from the previous, then certainly, every statement I have made, as well as most statements of others, is a logical fallacy. All I contend is that there is a reasonable chance that a teacher would be less concerned with the welfare of a student than that student's parent. Therefore, the use of physical punishment would be more likely to be abused by a teacher than by a parent. Thus, I find it more pressing to legislate against such activity by teachers than by parents. This is perhaps the third or fourth time that I have tried to explain this to you...It's really not that complex and it's not that much of a stretch, either.

If you need further rumination on this topic, please refer to previous posts. Now I'm going to really follow my comment about truncating this line of discussion.

coolsoldier

Nov 16, 2003, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac Which lacks discernment. If, in a certain circumstance, someone is attempting to commit rape, and the father is witnessing and has a gun, there are two possibilities:

1. The daughter gets raped
2. The assailant dies.

False. In most cases there is a third, possibility, however remote, of "None of the Above", which is in any case better than either 1 or 2. This possibility is based on the fact that there is always a chance that the father could prevent the rape without killing the rapist.

You see, in attempting to commit a rape, the assailant is making a conscious choice to commit an act of destruction. Once someone does that, they have chosen force, and by defending ourselves, we are simply turning their choice to destroy against the only person whom they have the right to destroy--themselves.

If you aggress against another human being like that, your life is forfeit.

There are two problems with this line of argument:

1. When you kill in defense, you are not just "turning their choice to destroy against ... themselves". You are making a conscious choice to kill in response, which, by your logic would in turn permit the rapist to kill you.
2. You are assuming that you personally have moral authority over another human being -- that you have the right to determine when another individual deserves to die.

(this thread has become three aguments: self-defense, child discipline, and logical fallacy)

BaghdadBob

Nov 16, 2003, 08:15 PM

The following post was constructed previous to my viewing of the above.

@ Coolsoldier:

It seems that the only piece of the equation that I need to bring you around to my way of thinking (which is that corpreal punishment is not absolutely wrong in all circumstances) is to make the logical step from where we are to the realization that not all circumstances (households and children) have the luxury of infinite creative solutions. Thus, one may, or may not, depending entirely on situation, have the luxury of always dealing with discipline in a non-corpreal fashion. When that is the case one is then faced with the conundrum: do I take action I do not feel is ideal, just to reach an effective conclusion, or do I ignore that path in the face of having no effective solutions at my disposal?

The problem with child discipline is in practicality. Sometimes what is practical and what is ideal do not coincide, leaving you with more practical and less ideal solution vs. no solution. Trust me -- I've been in that situation. Then you make a choice, and at that point, I do believe that the outcome determines whether you were right or wrong.

coolsoldier

Nov 16, 2003, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by BaghdadBob
@ Coolsoldier:

It seems that the only piece of the equation that I need to bring you around to my way of thinking (which is that corpreal[sic] punishment is not absolutely wrong in all circumstances) is to make the logical step from where we are to the realization that not all circumstances (households and children) have the luxury of infinite creative solutions.

I see your point here, however, infinite solutions are not necessary. Only one solution that is both ethical and practical is needed. Also, you have made the assumption that between an ethical, impractical solution and a practical unethical one, I would choose the former ;)

Sometimes what is practical and what is ideal do not coincide, leaving you with more practical and less ideal solution vs. no solution. Trust me -- I've been in that situation. Then you make a choice, and at that point, I do believe that the outcome determines whether you were right or wrong. [/B]

I might be misunderstanding you, but if I'm not, you have left out the less practical, more ethical solution. With something like discipline, practicality (and to some extent, outcome) is not a continuum. An less practical solution is not ideal, but it is a solution, that will produce some positive outcome (simply because of the definition of solution). The ideal solution is both ethical and practical, and I firmly believe that there are in almost any conceivable situation possible solutions that fit both. Only one (not infinite) is needed. Given the choice, though, I firmly believe that the set of solutions from which you choose is the set of possible solutions that you have already determined to be ethical.

Phil Of Mac

Nov 16, 2003, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by coolsoldier
There are two problems with this line of argument:

1. When you kill in defense, you are not just "turning their choice to destroy against ... themselves". You are making a conscious choice to kill in response, which, by your logic would in turn permit the rapist to kill you.

Not at all. The rapist's choice is still the root cause, and is the evil that I am defending against. By defending against it, I am not committing an evil that he could legitimately defend himself against.

Originally posted by coolsoldier
2. You are assuming that you personally have moral authority over another human being -- that you have the right to determine when another individual deserves to die.

Not at all. I am simply stating that, universally, another individual would deserve to die in this situation. The only thing left to determine after that is, are we actually in this situation?

coolsoldier

Nov 16, 2003, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Not at all. The rapist's choice is still the root cause, and is the evil that I am defending against. By defending against it, I am not committing an evil that he could defend himself against.

But just as the rapist has chosen a violent solution to the problem of uncontrollable sexual desires, you have chosen a violent solution to the problem of your daughter being assaulted. Your choice of a violent solution when you could have chosen a nonviolent one makes you an aggressor. Every action you take is a choice, whether or not it is the root cause.

Not at all. I am simply stating that, universally, another individual would deserve to die in this situation. The only thing left to determine after that is, are we actually in this situation?

OK. So, according to you, another individual would deserve to die in this situation. You have consulted no authority, and have no basis on which to claim that it is uncontested. Hence, you are personally determining (you must make the determination before you can make the statement) that this individual deserves to die. That is your own moral judgment. If you are talking about the law, the law in most states gives you the legal ability to kill him in the rare event that you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that your daughter *would have been* raped, but even the law does not set execution as the unconditional consequence for rape. In your situation, though, you are declaring that you have the moral authority to determine (a)This man is guilty of something that you think he would have done, (b) the appropriate punishment for planning to commit that crime is death, and (c) you are authorized to exact that punishment.
This is not an issue of whether he should be stopped. He should. BUT, he should not be killed, because you do not have the moral authority to decide what he *deserves*

Sun Baked

Nov 16, 2003, 10:13 PM

Phil Of Mac

Nov 16, 2003, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by coolsoldier
But just as the rapist has chosen a violent solution to the problem of uncontrollable sexual desires, you have chosen a violent solution to the problem of your daughter being assaulted. Your choice of a violent solution when you could have chosen a nonviolent one makes you an aggressor.

Letting my daughter being raped is a nonviolent solution? No. I have every right to prevent that.

Originally posted by coolsoldier
OK. So, according to you, another individual would deserve to die in this situation. You have consulted no authority, and have no basis on which to claim that it is uncontested.

What do you mean?

Originally posted by coolsoldier
Hence, you are personally determining (you must make the determination before you can make the statement) that this individual deserves to die. That is your own moral judgment.

My own moral judgment happens to be accurate in this case.

Originally posted by coolsoldier
If you are talking about the law

I already said that I wasn't.

Originally posted by coolsoldier
In your situation, though, you are declaring that you have the moral authority to determine (a)This man is guilty of something that you think he would have done, (b) the appropriate punishment for planning to commit that crime is death, and (c) you are authorized to exact that punishment.
This is not an issue of whether he should be stopped. He should. BUT, he should not be killed, because you do not have the moral authority to decide what he *deserves*

You've made numerous mistakes here.

I am not exacting punishment by killing a man as he attempts to rape a female relative of mine. I am simply stopping him. I have the right to use lethal force in this situation. Of course, if I don't have to, I'd better kick him in the head instead, but if I can't do that, and I shoot to kill instead, I at least have moral justification.

Something I think you're touching on, but not explaining as well as you should, is the difference between the issue of ethics--given this situation, is that this reactions justified--and certainty--are we sure we're actually in this situation? I am only addressing the issue of ethics.

The issue of certainty, however, is important. In terms of the death penalty, for instance, I don't think we can ever reach the level of certainty *after the fact* to apply the death penalty. But while the act is actually in process, it's much easier.

coolsoldier

Nov 16, 2003, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac Letting my daughter being raped is a nonviolent solution? No. I have every right to prevent that.
Yes. You have every right to prevent that. You do not, however, have the right to kill another person in the process.

What do you mean?

Your determination that the rapist deserves to die is based on your own moral prerogative. In the passage I was responding to, you implied that there is a moral consensus that he deserves to die. My assertion that he doesn't disproves that implication.

My own moral judgment happens to be accurate in this case.

1. Moral judgment is not factual in the sense that it cannot be accurate of inaccurate. The fact that you are trying to stop a rape does not preclude the moral imperative not to be an aggressor as long as there are other solutions (and there always are)
2. You are a poor judge of your own moral judgment. Everybody believes that what they believe is right.

I am not exacting punishment by killing a man as he attempts to rape a female relative of mine. I am simply stopping him. I have the right to use lethal force in this situation. Of course, if I don't have to, I'd better kick him in the head instead, but if I can't do that, and I shoot to kill instead, I at least have moral justification.

You are exacting punishment by choosing to kill instead of some other means of stopping the rape. You are perfectly justified in stopping the rape by some other means.

Something I think you're touching on, but not explaining as well as you should, is the difference between the issue of ethics--given this situation, is that this reactions justified--and certainty--are we sure we're actually in this situation? I am only addressing the issue of ethics.

There is no reasonable separation of the two. In the case of preventing a crime, there is no way to determine with absolute certainty that something that hasn't happened yet is going to happen, so you are ethically obligated to proceed with uncertainty in mind.

The issue of certainty, however, is important. In terms of the death penalty, for instance, I don't think we can ever reach the level of certainty *after the fact* to apply the death penalty. But while the act is actually in process, it's much easier.

If it is actually in progress, there is a reasonable certainty in some cases (although there are still uncertainties: for instance, how can you be absolutely sure it wasn't consensual), but in terms of preventing something from happening, there is no way to be certain that it would have happened. In the pressure of the moment, it is easy to misconstrue situations, even while they are in progress.

Phil Of Mac

Nov 16, 2003, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by coolsoldier
Your determination that the rapist deserves to die is based on your own moral prerogative. In the passage I was responding to, you implied that there is a moral consensus that he deserves to die. My assertion that he doesn't disproves that implication.

I never claimed there was a moral consensus that lethal force would be acceptable in such a situation. I only claimed that it's a moral truth. Moral consensus means nothing. The moral consensus in North America circa 1700 was that it was unconditionally acceptable to kill Native Americans. That doesn't make it right.

Originally posted by coolsoldier
1. Moral judgment is not factual in the sense that it cannot be accurate of inaccurate. The fact that you are trying to stop a rape does not preclude the moral imperative not to be an aggressor as long as there are other solutions (and there always are)

Let my daughter get raped. Yeah, that's one hell of a solution.

And no, I am not being an aggressor, he is the aggressor, I am simply acting in defense.

Originally posted by coolsoldier
There is no reasonable separation of the two.

Yes there is. You have to consider both aspects in an actual situation, but when we're considering it in the abstract, it's useful to separate the two aspects as to avoid confusion.

The death penalty, for instance, is a good example. For the sake of illustrating this example, let's accept that if someone committed a murder, it is acceptable to put that person to death. We can decide that while that is true on an ethical level (thus resolving the ethical aspect), we may never be certain enough, after the fact, to determine whether or not any given individual is guilty of murder. If you chose to take that position (I do), that is qualitatively different reasoning than if you asserted that if someone committed a murder, it is not acceptable to put that person to death.

BaghdadBob

Nov 16, 2003, 11:18 PM

aggressor

\Ag*gres"sor\, n. [L.: cf. F. agresseur.] The person who first attacks or makes an aggression; he who begins hostility or a quarrel; an assailant.

The insolence of the aggressor is usually proportioned to the tameness of the sufferer. --Ames.

Phil Of Mac

Nov 16, 2003, 11:22 PM

On another note, it appears the moderators can't tell the subtle difference between a political discussion and an ethical discussion...

BaghdadBob

Nov 16, 2003, 11:23 PM

Ezekiel 25:17. "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you."

:D

Not making any kind of argument with this, but, as isn't particularly remarkable, I love this scene...

Rower_CPU

Nov 16, 2003, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
On another note, it appears the moderators can't tell the subtle difference between a political discussion and an ethical discussion...

That's your opinion.

Keep it up and we won't be able to distinguish it from a wasteland discussion.

coolsoldier

Nov 16, 2003, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
I never claimed there was a moral consensus that lethal force would be acceptable in such a situation. I only claimed that it's a moral truth. Moral consensus means nothing. The moral consensus in North America circa 1700 was that it was unconditionally acceptable to kill Native Americans. That doesn't make it right.

Well, in that case, you could declare that it is a moral truth that <insert attrocity here> is your duty to perform, and I am supposed to simply take that at face value?

Let my daughter get raped. Yeah, that's one hell of a solution.

I think I've said this before, but you are oversimplifying your options. You can always come up with a second solution (although what exactly that solution is depends entirely on the specifics of the situation in most cases).

And no, I am not being an aggressor, he is the aggressor, I am simply acting in defense.

Using the first sense of aggressor (I love WordNet), you are an aggressor if you attack him. Even if you use BaghdadBob's definition, you need two people to "start a quarrel". If you did not attack him, there would be no quarrel ;)

Yes there is. You have to consider both aspects in an actual situation, but when we're considering it in the abstract, it's useful to separate the two aspects as to avoid confusion.

OK. I will concede that in a hypothetical situation that could not possibly occur (the situation where there is exactly one possible solution and there is some mystical means of absolute certainty) killing could possibly be justified, but the fact that that is a hypothetical situation that could not possibly occur make arguing about it pointless.

The death penalty, for instance, is a good example. For the sake of illustrating this example, let's accept that if someone committed a murder, it is acceptable to put that person to death.

Disagree. But that is an argument I do not want to have tonight.

We can decide that while that is true on an ethical level (thus resolving the ethical aspect), we may never be certain enough, after the fact, to determine whether or not any given individual is guilty of murder. If you chose to take that position (I do), that is qualitatively different reasoning than if you asserted that if someone committed a murder, it is not acceptable to put that person to death. [/B]

OK. I see your point. But I would say that if anything the opposite is true. It is much more difficult to be certain of something before it happens rather than after. As they say, hindsight's always 20/20. And as for while it is actually happening, a rational interpretation can easily be clouded by the pressure of the moment. Hence absolute certainty does not exist before, during, or after the event is taking place. If you can come up with another temporal possibility, I will consider it.