|
|
Post by New Fangled Ways on May 21, 2006 0:16:56 GMT -5
"I think I do understand" You said: "As many times as it takes" and "And your solution is to spank them after a given number of times?" My response is this: At times I have used spanking to overcome the stubborness of human will in my children. I will not badger my children with ineffective methods; THAT is abuse. I used to work with a man who would always explain that the reason jobs he did were not finished as well as they should be was because of the quality of his tools. It was never a matter of fear. I just did not feel compelled to give the child the attention that were inappropriately seeking. Some people feel to need to be in complete control and will use whatever is needed to gain that control. It will not happen over and over. No behavior is repeated if it does not yield the desired return. I guess in that case it falls into the same group of new-fangled ideas as antibiotics, telephones, angioplasty, integrated schools, women in the workplace, etc. New ideas are not something to be feared but something to be evaluated and used. No, it doesn't. It was an example. Let's get the facts straight. 1). I never compared spanking to beating. You are in error regarding this. 2). Spanking is hitting. You may not like to admit it but it is difficult to spank a child without hitting them. Spanking is a euphemism used by people when they want to deny that spanking involves hitting. It a rhetorical trick: trying to sound correct; not be correct. Spanking is hitting. 3). I never said spanking was physical abuse. You are in error regarding this. 4) I never compared it to capital punishment. I only stated that if the most severe physical punishment, death, was not sufficient to modify people's behavior then how could spanking be expected to modify people's behavior. Again you are in error. I have never called spanking abuse and have never said anyone was a bad parent or or person for spanking their child. I have not compared spanking to murder. I did mention spanking and abortion in one response to someone who said that if a person wants to spank their child it is their business. I wondered if they felt the same about abortion. Not a comparison, just a question. As far as negative spin goes spanking does no me to add negative spin. In simple words this is what spanking is: It is hitting a child with the intention of causing pain and using this negative reinforcement to modify the child's behavior. I did say spanking was exactly like capital punishment in that they both use negative reinforcement to modify behavior. As has been shown, neither is effective in accomplishing its goals. A more accurate comparison would be nuking a city or killing a hostage to get someone to yield to your demands. Both use the same method on different scales in an attempt to modify someone's behavior. {sarcasm on}Well, that proves it. Spanking works. This is a carefully controlled, double blind, peer reviewed study that removed all doubt. Not only has it proved that spanking works quickly and effectively but also proves that children will quickly thank the spanker for their punishment. It is a win-win situation. And as if this is not enough proof it is further supported by being passed down through the ages like astrology, blood letting, animal and human sacrifice, .......{sarcasm off} |
|
|
|
Post by Howard6 on May 21, 2006 3:05:18 GMT -5
"New Fangled Ways":
I would like to start off by saying that your post is not typical of your previous posts. Some of your responses seem irrelevant, incoherent, forced and poorly conceived. If someone has assumed your position in responding to me then I would like to preemptively apologize to you for the content of my responses that follow. (You responded to 8 segments.)
My response to segment 1: Can you please clarify what your coworkers defective tools have got to do with a parent badgering their children to behave?
My response to segment 2: You said "No behavior is repeated if it does not yield the desired return." This confirms my earlier suspicions; you have yet to deal with the irrational stubbornness that human nature can present at times, and if you have, you've used drugs or some other radical form of treatment (electro-shock?) to deal with it.
My response to segment 3: Your response lacks honesty. Some modern ideas are good and some are bad. You have attempted to portray me as one against all good modern ideas. You should be above these childish, petty games.
My response to segment 4: You said "It was an example." This is thoughtless. Your example was poorly conceived and largely impotent. I merely demonstrated it as such. If you have a more realistic example, please present it.
My response to segment 5a: You said "I never compared spanking to beating" and "I never said spanking was physical abuse." You use a different name each time you post. I suspect you do this to avoid accountability. IF YOU HAVE NEVER INFERRED that spanking was beating, then I apologize for accusing you of it. IF YOU HAVE NEVER INFERRED that spanking was physical abuse, then I apologize for accusing you of it.
My response to segment 5b: You said "Spanking is hitting". I disagree. The relationship between "spanking" and "hitting" is not one of equivalency. "Spanking" is a small subset of "hitting". If I punch a man in the jaw, it can be said that I "hit" him but not that I "spanked" him. Being a broader word, "hitting" can mean more things, many of them negative, which is why you, a spanking opponent, use the term "hitting" instead of "spanking" to further your agenda by casting dispersions on the act of "spanking".
My response to segment 5c: You said "I never compared it to capital punishment." Yes Sir, you did, unless you are claiming that you were not the author of replies 84, 89, 94, 106, and 112 in this very thread. (This is at least in part unlikely, since this reply is in response to reply 112, and in reply 112, you deny comparing spanking to capital punishment and then in the very next sentence you do it again.) Your paradoxical lies are catching up with you. Your integrity here is in serious question.
My response to segment 6a: You said " have never said anyone was a bad parent or or person for spanking their child." You have not said this explicitly, but you have inferred it. You have said of spanking that it is violent and inhumane. I think we could agree that any violent and/or inhumane parent would be categorized as a bad parent. Therefore, by association, you have said that spanking parents are bad parents.
My response to segment 6b: You said "I have not compared spanking to murder." Capital punishment is law in some areas and since the strict definition of murder includes the word "unlawful", please allow me to say instead "You have compared spanking to killing."
My response to segment 7: Spanking has been shown to be ineffective only by faulty studies. Your conclusions continue to be based on bad data. Your argument has no basis in reality so long as you continue to rely on lies. Furthermore, you continue in your desperation to associate spanking with killing. Your credibility is waning.
Your sarcastic response to my daughter's story plainly indicates your narrow-minded intolerance when it comes to the experiences of others that differ from your own. You sir, have a lot of growing up to do.
I have enjoyed this debate and I look forward to more, should you choose to continue. However, if you wish to continue, stop playing semantic games, stop attempting to put words in my mouth, stop spinning the truth to your liking, and engage in the debate like a mature, responsible adult. My children are raised and I have better things to do than to continually correct your behavior. Use your manners or I will discontinue this discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by I never hit on May 21, 2006 10:50:49 GMT -5
The anti-spanking advocates that frequent this thread would like to submit the following as an object lesson on how Howard should have handled the situation with his daughter.
My daughter was almost a year old and she was learning to crawl. She found an electrical outlet and began to play with it.
I told her "no". She persisted.
I told her "no" again. She persisted.
I told her "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity." She persisted.
I told her again "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity." She persisted.
I told her "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you." She persisted.
I told her again "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you." She persisted.
I told her "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die." She persisted.
I told her again "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die." She persisted.
I told her "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die. That is not good." She persisted.
I told her again "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die. That is not good." She persisted.
I told her "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die. That is not good. Please don't." She persisted.
I told her again "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die. That is not good. Please don't." She persisted.
I told her "no". I moved her to the center of the room. She persisted.
I told her "no" again. I moved her to the center of the room. She persisted.
I told her "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity." I moved her to the center of the room. She persisted.
I told her again "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity." I moved her to the center of the room. She persisted.
I told her "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you." I moved her to the center of the room. She persisted.
I told her again "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you." I moved her to the center of the room. She persisted.
I told her "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die." I moved her to the center of the room. She persisted.
I told her again "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die." I moved her to the center of the room. She persisted.
I told her "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die. That is not good." I moved her to the center of the room. She persisted.
I told her again "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die. That is not good." I moved her to the center of the room. She persisted.
I told her "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die. That is not good. Please don't." I moved her to the center of the room. She persisted.
I told her again "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die. That is not good. Please don't." I moved her to the center of the room. She persisted.
I told her "no". I moved her to the center of the room and distracted her with her favorite toy. She persisted.
I told her "no" again. I moved her to the center of the room and distracted her with her favorite toy. She persisted.
I told her "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity." I moved her to the center of the room and distracted her with her favorite toy. She persisted.
I told her again "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity." I moved her to the center of the room and distracted her with her favorite toy. She persisted.
I told her "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you." I moved her to the center of the room and distracted her with her favorite toy. She persisted.
I told her again "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you." I moved her to the center of the room and distracted her with her favorite toy. She persisted.
I told her "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die." I moved her to the center of the room and distracted her with her favorite toy. She persisted.
I told her again "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die." I moved her to the center of the room and distracted her with her favorite toy. She persisted.
I told her "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die. That is not good." I moved her to the center of the room and distracted her with her favorite toy. She persisted.
I told her again "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die. That is not good." I moved her to the center of the room and distracted her with her favorite toy. She persisted.
I told her "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die. That is not good. Please don't." I moved her to the center of the room and distracted her with her favorite toy. She persisted.
I told her again "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die. That is not good. Please don't." I moved her to the center of the room and distracted her with her favorite toy. She persisted.
I made a quick trip to the store and purchased a brand-new toy that I knew she would love.
I told her "no". I moved her to the center of the room and distracted her with the brand-new toy. She persisted.
I told her "no" again. I moved her to the center of the room and distracted her with the brand-new toy. She persisted.
I told her "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity." I moved her to the center of the room and distracted her with the brand-new toy. She persisted.
I told her again "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity." I moved her to the center of the room and distracted her with the brand-new toy. She persisted.
I told her "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you." I moved her to the center of the room and distracted her with the brand-new toy. She persisted.
I told her again "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you." I moved her to the center of the room and distracted her with the brand-new toy. She persisted.
I told her "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die." I moved her to the center of the room and distracted her with the brand-new toy. She persisted.
I told her again "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die." I moved her to the center of the room and distracted her with the brand-new toy. She persisted.
I told her "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die. That is not good." I moved her to the center of the room and distracted her with the brand-new toy. She persisted.
I told her again "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die. That is not good." I moved her to the center of the room and distracted her with the brand-new toy. She persisted.
I told her "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die. That is not good. Please don't." I moved her to the center of the room and distracted her with the brand-new toy. She persisted.
I told her again "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die. That is not good. Please don't." I moved her to the center of the room and distracted her with the brand-new toy. She persisted.
I told her "no". I moved her to another room. She persisted.
I told her "no" again. I moved her to another room. She persisted.
I told her "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity." I moved her to another room. She persisted.
I told her again "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity." I moved her to another room. She persisted.
I told her "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you." I moved her to another room. She persisted.
I told her again "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you." I moved her to another room. She persisted.
I told her "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die." I moved her to another room. She persisted.
I told her again "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die." I moved her to another room. She persisted.
I told her "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die. That is not good." I moved her to another room. She persisted.
I told her again "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die. That is not good." I moved her to another room. She persisted.
I told her "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die. That is not good. Please don't." I moved her to another room. She persisted.
I told her again "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die. That is not good. Please don't." I moved her to another room. She persisted.
I told her "no". I moved her to another room and distracted her with her favorite toy. She persisted.
I told her "no" again. I moved her to another room and distracted her with her favorite toy. She persisted.
I told her "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity." I moved her to another room and distracted her with her favorite toy. She persisted.
I told her again "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity." I moved her to another room and distracted her with her favorite toy. She persisted.
I told her "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you." I moved her to another room and distracted her with her favorite toy. She persisted.
I told her again "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you." I moved her to another room and distracted her with her favorite toy. She persisted.
I told her "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die." I moved her to another room and distracted her with her favorite toy. She persisted.
I told her again "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die." I moved her to another room and distracted her with her favorite toy. She persisted.
I told her "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die. That is not good." I moved her to another room and distracted her with her favorite toy. She persisted.
I told her again "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die. That is not good." I moved her to another room and distracted her with her favorite toy. She persisted.
I told her "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die. That is not good. Please don't." I moved her to another room and distracted her with her favorite toy. She persisted.
I told her again "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die. That is not good. Please don't." I moved her to another room and distracted her with her favorite toy. She persisted.
I told her "no". I moved her to another room and distracted her with the brand-new toy. She persisted.
I told her "no" again. I moved her to another room and distracted her with the brand-new toy. She persisted.
I told her "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity." I moved her to another room and distracted her with the brand-new toy. She persisted.
I told her again "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity." I moved her to another room and distracted her with the brand-new toy. She persisted.
I told her "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you." I moved her to another room and distracted her with the brand-new toy. She persisted.
I told her again "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you." I moved her to another room and distracted her with the brand-new toy. She persisted.
I told her "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die." I moved her to another room and distracted her with the brand-new toy. She persisted.
I told her again "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die." I moved her to another room and distracted her with the brand-new toy. She persisted.
I told her "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die. That is not good." I moved her to another room and distracted her with the brand-new toy. She persisted.
I told her again "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die. That is not good." I moved her to another room and distracted her with the brand-new toy. She persisted.
I told her "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die. That is not good. Please don't." I moved her to another room and distracted her with the brand-new toy. She persisted.
I told her again "Honey, the electrical outlet is a source of a dangerous form of energy known as electricity. It can harm you. It can even cause you to die. That is not good. Please don't." I moved her to another room and distracted her with the brand-new toy. She persisted.
I was starting to experience laryngitis. I was finding it difficult to speak. I knew it was time to up the ante!
I moved a recliner in front of the electrical outlet she was playing with. She found another electrical outlet and began to play with it.
I moved a chair in front of her newfound electrical outlet. She found yet another electrical outlet and began to play with it.
I moved another chair in front of her newfound electrical outlet. She found yet another electrical outlet and began to play with it.
I moved yet another chair in front of her newfound electrical outlet. She found yet another electrical outlet and began to play with it.
I moved the couch in front of her newfound electrical outlet. She found yet another electrical outlet and began to play with it.
I moved a love-seat in front of her newfound electrical outlet. She found yet another electrical outlet and began to play with it.
I moved a drawer chest in front of her newfound electrical outlet. She found yet another electrical outlet and began to play with it.
I moved a bed in front of her newfound electrical outlet. She found yet another electrical outlet and began to play with it.
I moved a vanity in front of her newfound electrical outlet. She found yet another electrical outlet and began to play with it.
I moved a bookshelf in front of her newfound electrical outlet. She found yet another electrical outlet and began to play with it.
I moved a chair in front of her newfound electrical outlet. She found yet another electrical outlet and began to play with it.
I moved a bed in front of her newfound electrical outlet. She found yet another electrical outlet and began to play with it.
I moved a bookshelf in front of her newfound electrical outlet. She found yet another electrical outlet and began to play with it.
I moved a chair in front of her newfound electrical outlet. She found yet another electrical outlet and began to play with it.
I moved a drawer chest in front of her newfound electrical outlet. She found yet another electrical outlet and began to play with it.
I moved a vanity in front of her newfound electrical outlet. She found yet another electrical outlet and began to play with it.
I moved a desk in front of her newfound electrical outlet. She found yet another electrical outlet and began to play with it.
I moved a small table in front of her newfound electrical outlet. She found yet another electrical outlet and began to play with it.
I moved a chair in front of her newfound electrical outlet. She found yet another electrical outlet and began to play with it.
I moved another chair in front of her newfound electrical outlet. She found yet another electrical outlet and began to play with it.
I moved yet another chair in front of her newfound electrical outlet.
THEN IT HAPPENED- She couldn't find anymore electrical outlets to play with. Hooray! I won. My daughter has learned her lesson. I sure showed her!
My muscles were sore from rearranging all the furniture in the house. I took some medicine to help deal with the pain.
Exhausted, I fell asleep in the recliner while my daughter played in the middle of the room. After some much-needed rest, I awoke. I couldn't see or hear her, so I set about to find her. I found her in the bedroom near one of the closet doors, asleep on the floor. But wait, on the wall near her is... an outlet I missed... but she didn't... dang she's thorough... and there's a hair-pin sticking out of the electrical outlet... wait... Oh my God... SHE'S NOT BREATHING... and NO PULSE!... Uhhh... phone, phone, I need the phone... 911... CPR while talking to the 911 operator... Help!... nothings working... I hear sirens...
Errmm. Uhhh. Hmmm. Let me compose myself here.
That was all it took. The entire ordeal was over in 9 hours (not counting the funeral). Sure, Howards ordeal only took 3 minutes, but he had to resort to violence to get there. I took the high road. My conscience is clear. I'm a good parent. I love my child. I never hit my child. I never struck my child. I never abused my child. I did nothing wrong. I raised my child with positive reinforcement, exactly as I was told to do by all the intellectuals that never had children. I did nothing wrong. My daughter died as a result of an accident in the home. Accidents in the home are common. It's nobody's fault, or at least not mine. I did nothing wrong. My daughter never again bothered the electrical outlets. I thank God that I'm a better parent than all those uneducated child-abusers out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by bullwhip on May 21, 2006 11:55:56 GMT -5
There is a noticable absence of formerly abused children posting here-those folks would have credible opposition to spanking if there was actual legaly defined abuse in there past. Y'all need to get off yer high horses! Spanking is not abuse. It is, however, inflicting pain to modify behavior. I don't think anyone has said spanking was abuse except bullwhip. Go back through the posts and you will see that the term 'abuse' is used to define spanking(along with 'hitting') by those who are opposed to spanking. Others are calling it abuse-not me-I,m in favor of using spanking to modify behavior. No one on this forum claiming that spanking is abuse(as defined by law) is claiming to have been spanked to the point of abuse-they are just whining with no apparent experience of the 'abuse' that they say is occuring when a child is spanked. |
|
|
|
Post by So Clear on May 21, 2006 12:07:49 GMT -5
THEN IT HAPPENED- She couldn't find anymore electrical outlets to play with. Hooray! I won. My daughter has learned her lesson. I sure showed her! You showed all of us. You are much more interested in winning than in teaching. You viewed it as a test of wills. The job of a parent is to protect their children from harm. You can decide how you want to do that job. |
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on May 21, 2006 13:03:09 GMT -5
to "I never hit"
Great story...even if I did read only every 15th line.
My view: parents are entitled to decide how to raise their OWN children. Everybody else can mind their own [deleted] business.
|
|
|
|
Post by I agree on May 21, 2006 20:25:38 GMT -5
to "I never hit" Great story...even if I did read only every 15th line. My view: parents are entitled to decide how to raise their OWN children. Everybody else can mind their own [deleted] business. People can do what they wish to their children, spouses, and pets. People will always do what is the best for their loved ones. |
|
|
|
Post by nitro on May 21, 2006 20:38:06 GMT -5
[quote author=I .[/quote] People can do what they wish to their children, spouses, and pets. People will always do what is the best for their loved ones.[/quote] I hope you don't believe this.You would have been the first to drink the KOOL-AID www.raptureready.com/rr-kool-aid.html |
|
narrow minded thinking
Guest
|
Post by narrow minded thinking on May 22, 2006 7:22:03 GMT -5
I guess in that case it falls into the same group of new-fangled ideas as antibiotics, telephones, angioplasty, integrated schools, women in the workplace, etc. you forgot scientology |
|
|
|
Post by Random Acts 0f Kindness on May 22, 2006 9:38:31 GMT -5
It was too difficult to sort out who write what and useless to defend what I did not write or believe. "New Fangled Ways": I would like to start off by saying that your post is not typical of your previous posts. Some of your responses seem irrelevant, incoherent, forced and poorly conceived. If someone has assumed your position in responding to me then I would like to preemptively apologize to you for the content of my responses that follow. (You responded to 8 segments.) I will take the blame. It was late and there were parts I was attempting to explain (as best I could) that were not from this keyboard. Parent often state that they resort to spanking because nothing else works. That is, they do not have the tools to do the right job. It reminded me of the phrase that the poor workman always blames his tools. I will stand by the original statement. Organisms continue behaviors that give them something in return. There are children that misbehave to get their parents to pay attention to them. In the absurd example regarding the child with the wall plug, they child had the undivided attention of the parent for hours. Easy to accomplish by 'being stubborn'. While most people wonder why the abused spouse will stay in the relationship, close examination will show that they are getting something out of it that they feel is worth the abuse. When that is no longer the case they take steps to leave. People continue to attend meetings because there are enough positive things that they will put up with the negative. When this is no longer the case, people will leave. The pain of leaving, the initeria of the situation, the fear of change, and the associated loss also are all factors as well. Children crave the approval and attention of their parents. But when they cannot get the approval they need and they feel they are not getting hte attention they want it is an easy discovery to get attention by acting out. At some point punishment is better than nothing. If a child throws a tantrum and the parents comes running, gives in, or does something, then the child will continue to use that approach. Even if the result is a spanking, that is better than nothing. And if the tantrum only works in a crowded public place - guess where it will happen. If, on the other hand, the child throws the tantrum and nothing happens, crowd or not, the child will have no reason to use that approach. Especially if the parent has hinted that had the request been made in an appropriate way the child would have a much greater chance to get the desires result. Let's not get into judging a poster's honesty. I was responded to your comment that spanking was a better choice because it was a time tested method. For me to say that you reject all newer advances is no different than you claiming spanking is better because it has been used longer. I unfortunately do no know to which point you are referring. I do not think spanking is abuse, in the legal sense, but I do think inflicting pain on a child is as inappropriate as kicking a dog. I do believe that what some people call spanking, as witnessed in stores and meetings, can border on child abuse and I have approached people in stores and suggested that they stop. In most cases the adult is frustrated and the chastisement has just gotten out of hand. Let's look at this another way. You cannot spank someone without hitting them. You can hit someone without spanking them. There is no case of spanking that does not involve hitting. If you spank your child, you have hit them. Would you like to pick another verb (box, buffet, bust, cuff, punch, slap, smack, swat, whack, etc.)? Of course people who support spanking would like to step as far away from words that accurately tell what is going on. It is a great marketing ploy. People no longer go and radiation treatments. They get therapeutic photon treatment. It sounds much more friendly. And it doesn't have the "R" word in the title. Read carefully. Spanking and capital punishment are not the same but they both rely on negative reinforcement to modify behavior. Most (all?) methods of torture also rely on negative reinforcement to produce results. Is spanking the same as torture? Certainly not but they do both use pain and pain avoidance to get their results. That would be you who infered it. Intentionally causing pain is a violent act. It may be done with the best of intentions. Whether someone who spanks their child is a good or bad parent is a value judgment. No, as I said above, it is not a comparison of spanking to killing (capital punishment)but a comparison of the methods, negative reinforcement, that was made. Spanking and capital punishment are associated. They are both forms of punishment that are meted out in hopes of modifying behavior. In the case of capital punishment it is always the threat of the punishment but there are parents who also use the threat of a spanking as well. It is true that the two, spanking and capital punishment are on opposite ends of the spectrum but they are both still forms of negative reinforcement. As far as the studies go, almost any study where the researchers are unable to control the experiment (you cannot take two groups of 1,000 children, raise them in the same controlled environment but subject only one group to negative reinforcement, and see the results in 20 years)there will be large margins of errors (flaws). Because of the inability to construct a study with a single variable, as was the case with smoking, second hand smoke, bad diets, etc., the studies have to rely on data collected over a longer time and from many sources. So, no, there is no single conclusive study. But if you look at the work that has been done to date you will see that there are many indications that children subjected to negative reinforcement tend to have a higher incidence of problems as adolescents and young adults. Are there other factors? Most likely. But there is something to be learned from the fact that there is very little data, flawed or not, that indicates spanked children fare better. It was, as noted, a sarcastic comment and was meant to be taken as such. It did have a purpose, however. People support spanking almost exclusively with anecdotal stories of how they were spanked and look how wonderful they turned out and how they spank their children and it hasn't hurt them. There were many stories about people who smoked and lived to be 103. When states tried to pass a seatbelt law there were stories about all the people (3) who died because they were trapped in the car by their seatbelt and drowned. People who oppose vaccination always bring out the stories of the 1 in 50,000 children who have a negative reaction and might die. In all fairness, you did mark it as an editorial. Perhaps I should have left it alone. I actually did delete it once but the Ctrl-V won out in the end! Semantic games. Who is playing? Explain how you can spank without hitting. Explain how the underlying method of spanking and any other form of negative reinforcement are different. I feel you like to use the euphemism spanking to cover the fact that it is hitting to inflict pain. I try very hard not to put words in your mouth by carefully quoting exactly what you said when responding. As far as spinning the truth, do you have any examples? What behavior of mine are you feeling the need to correct? Other than my sarcastic comment, where have my manners failed me? raok |
|
|
|
Post by Howard6 on May 22, 2006 20:16:16 GMT -5
"RandomActs":
You said: "Organisms continue behaviors that give them something in return."
Yes, and how long they CONTINUE is a function of STUBBORNNESS and COST vs PAYOFF.
You said: "In the absurd example regarding the child with the wall plug, they child had the undivided attention of the parent for hours. Easy to accomplish by 'being stubborn'."
The example to which you refer (the 9 hour ordeal) is, in my opinion, an illustration of abuse. The example I gave (regarding my daughter's spanking) is, according to you, an illustration of abuse. I find it ironic that my parenting style seeks to overcome stubbornness while your parenting style seeks to employ and teach it.
You said: "Children crave the approval and attention of their parents" and proceeded to say that they misbehave in order to get the attention that they need.
I agree, but it is foolish to suggest that this is the only reason that children misbehave.
You said: "Let's not get into judging a poster's honesty."
When I am having a conversation with someone, I handle dishonesty in one of two ways: I either call them on it, or I abandon the conversation. I WILL NOT PRETEND that they were honest. Your statement was not honest, you know it, and I will identify it as such.
You said: "For me to say that you reject all newer advances is no different than you claiming spanking is better because it has been used longer."
Again you are being dishonest. I never said that spanking is better because it has been used longer. Furthermore, just because I am skeptical of ONE new idea does not mean that I am skeptical of ALL new ideas. If I were to emulate your dishonesty, I might accuse you of rejecting all old ideas (Christianity, marriage, sleep, etc.). I am certain that you do not reject these things and I will not tell lies to convince others otherwise. If you insist on being dishonest with me and the others reading this thread then I will call you on it and/or I will abandon this conversation.
There seems to have been some confusion. Allow me to clarify...
You said (A): "If 100 people look at a photograph and say it is out of focus, even though 75 of them need corrective glasses, it would be reasonable to conclude that the photo was out of focus."
I said (B): "If 100 people look at a photograph and say it is out of focus, and all 100 of them need corrective glasses, it is impossible to determine whether or not the photograph is out of focus. (Your analogy asserts that 25% of anti-spanking studies are not flawed.)"
You said (C): "No, it doesn't. It was an example."
I said (D): This is thoughtless. Your example was poorly conceived and largely impotent. I merely demonstrated it as such. If you have a more realistic example, please present it.
You said (E): "I unfortunately do no know to which point you are referring."
My response is: I was referring to your example which I quoted in "You said (A):".
You said: "I do not think spanking is abuse, in the legal sense".
I don't know how you could be more vague or evasive. The legalities of spanking and abuse vary from one location to the next.
You said: "I do believe that what some people call spanking [...] can border on child abuse".
This is one of the reasons that the debate over spanking is so complicated. The term "spanking" is frequently misused. One parent can beat their child to death and call it a spanking. Another parent can gently but firmly swat their child on the rear-end and call it a spanking. Anti-spanking advocates, in their emotionally-charged, narrow-minded, knee-jerk, condescending, one-size-fits-all mentality, adamantly refuse to acknowledge a difference between these two parents. Here's a thought: When a parent is CLEARLY ABUSIVE, DO NOT ALLOW them to call what they have done "spanking".
You said: "I have approached people in stores and suggested that they stop."
At what point to you choose to get involved?
1) "Please stop gently but firmly swatting your child on the rear-end".
2) "Please stop franticly, repeatedly, and without apparent end, swatting your child on the rear-end."
3) "Please stop pounding on your child, from head to toe, into a bloody pulp."
You said: "Let's look at this another way. You cannot spank someone without hitting them. You can hit someone without spanking them. There is no case of spanking that does not involve hitting."
We agree, then, that the term "hit" is broader than "spank". Broad terminology is more open to interpretation than narrow terminology. Why would you deliberately choose to be vague unless, unsure of the sound reason and logic behind your convictions, you fear that you may have to resort to corrections, retractions, and denial?
You said: "people who support spanking would like to step as far away from words that accurately tell what is going on."
You are wrong. Allow me to set the record straight. In this matter of words, people who believe that spanking can be of benefit in the raising of a child would appreciate it if those with a differing opinion would maintain civility and honesty in the debate and refrain from playing word games.
Why do you not seem to get my point regarding your capital punishment question? I have reviewed the entirety of our exchange on this issue and I think I know what has happened. I hope you find the following response useful: One of your earlier posts in our exchange led me to believe that you had training in a discipline of psychology. From that I assumed that your use of "negative reinforcement" was according to the proper/technical definition rather than the layperson definition. However, upon further review, I am fairly certain that I was mistaken. I now believe that you are using the term "negative reinforcement" according to the layperson definition. I apologize for the confusion. Hopefully now we are on the same page. I will re-answer your first question on this issue:
You said: "Spanking and Capital punishment both rely on negative reinforcement."
My response is this: Spanking and capital punishment are both forms of what you call "negative reinforcement". The purpose of capital punishment is to kill the adult offender. The purpose of spanking is to teach the child offender. Two things that share a common attribute are not necessarily identical. Gasoline and water are both liquids. The purposes of one is vastly different from the purposes of the other.
You said: "Spanking and capital punishment are associated."
Repeating it won't make it true.
You said: "there are parents who also use the threat of a spanking as well".
If a child understands that disobedience will result in punishment, that child is better prepared for adulthood where punishment is very real. If you don't pay your bills, you get punished. Within reason, the form of punishment is not important, as long as it is something that the offender understands. A child understands a spanking. You understand having your electricity shut off or your vehicle impounded.
Your considerable emotional investment in these studies is obvious. I do not share your allegiance to them. You have your studies and experience. I have my pragmatism and experience.
You said: "Semantic games. Who is playing?"
You. For example, see the next item.
You said: "Explain how you can spank without hitting."
When did I say that spanking could be done without, as you continue to spin it, "hitting"?
You said: "Explain how the underlying method of spanking and any other form of negative reinforcement are different."
See the 12th paragraph of this reply (regarding capital punishment).
You said: "I feel you like to use the euphemism spanking to cover the fact that it is hitting to inflict pain."
In one brief statement, you have managed to demonstrate not only your dishonesty but also your tendency to play semantic games. I am using the term "spanking" because WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SPANKING, it is THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD and THE SUBJECT OF OUR DISCUSSION.
You said: "I try very hard not to put words in your mouth by carefully quoting exactly what you said when responding."
<Biting my tongue>
You said: "As far as spinning the truth, do you have any examples?"
You took my statement: "The institutionalized support, in academia, medicine, and government, of withholding spanking in favor of simply "waiting it out" is new (experimental) relative to the long-held practice of spanking." and spun it to infer that I fear "new ideas" like antibiotics, telephones, angioplasty, integrated schools and women in the workplace.
You said: "What behavior of mine are you feeling the need to correct?"
It is not my place to correct your behavior. That job would have been your parents responsibility.
You said: "Other than my sarcastic comment, where have my manners failed me?"
I suppose that the notion of "good manners" is a bit subjective. I have no idea what your parents did or did not teach you. Only you know what manners you have neglected.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gene on May 22, 2006 20:36:29 GMT -5
This has become like reading War & Peace in installments.
|
|
|
|
Post by Random Acts 0f Kindness on May 23, 2006 0:49:03 GMT -5
"RandomActs": You said: "Organisms continue behaviors that give them something in return." Yes, and how long they CONTINUE is a function of STUBBORNNESS and COST vs PAYOFF. No, it is how long the payoff exceeds the cost. Sorry, I did not say you spanking your child was a form of abuse. In the example - what was the abuse? You are misquoting. I believe I said if they do not get the attention they need they often will misbehave to gain the attention of their parents. By the same token, some "tried and true" ideas have turned out to be good and some bad. Accusing me of rejecting your list is not being dishonest. It is expressing what you believe. There seems to have been some confusion. Allow me to clarify... You said (A): "If 100 people look at a photograph and say it is out of focus, even though 75 of them need corrective glasses, it would be reasonable to conclude that the photo was out of focus." I said (B): "If 100 people look at a photograph and say it is out of focus, and all 100 of them need corrective glasses, it is impossible to determine whether or not the photograph is out of focus. (Your analogy asserts that 25% of anti-spanking studies are not flawed.)"[/quote]My analogy asserts that 25% of the collected data is usable to form hypothesis. You said (C): "No, it doesn't. It was an example." I see. Well, it is your opinion. [/quote]You said: "I do not think spanking is abuse, in the legal sense". I don't know how you could be more vague or evasive. The legalities of spanking and abuse vary from one location to the next.[/quote]I am sorry you think the response is vague or evasive. The definition of abuse varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I take it you are not a state mandated reporter. Whether you think something is abuse or not is not the issue. Whether it could be legally considered abuse determines how you have to respond. As much as you seem to like the idea of controlling other people I do not think you can determine what they will call the means that they use to discipline their child(ren). I also notice that you do not mind stooping to name calling. Makes one wonder about manners, rudeness, and all. By law I have to get involved if it is abuse. And yes, there is that vague term again - legal abuse. As you have pointed out above - "One parent can beat their child to death and call it a spanking. Another parent can gently but firmly swat their child on the rear-end and call it a spanking." Why don't you come up with a definition that suits you? I think we can agree that the purpose of a spanking is to cause pain to modify behavior. OK. Spanking isn't hitting. It is____________. Spanking is not meant to cause pain. It will change a child's behavior by ___________________________. You fill in the blanks so I will have no chance at being dishonest. You are correct. I did use the lay definition. The purpose of spanking is not to teach but to modify behavior through the use of pain. The only thing the child learns is pain avoidance. |
|
|
|
Post by plainjane on May 23, 2006 11:05:54 GMT -5
I have been reading this debate with interest.
I was a "spanked child" (the word spank hardly describes my memory)... as were all of the children I knew growing up 2x2 during the 50-60's. I know first hand the psychological damage this does to a child, having spent years learning to heal from it.
While most people I meet justify hitting a child as discipline, I have to say that I totally agree with whomever this person is who writes against spanking. There are better ways to discipline children and I wish I would have had someone around such as RandomActs to teach these principles during the years I raised my own children. Thankfully, we had easy children to raise, but I could have used a mentor such as you Mister or Mrs. RandomActs.
The wisdom with which this person writes is joy to my heart.
I just want to say thank you for what you've written, and for the straightforward, no-nonsense intellectual and non-judgmental way in which you've expressed yourself. I personally appreciate you (whomever you are) and support what you are trying to teach.
There are better ways to teach our children how to respect others AND to respect them, we just need to be open to find better ways instead of justifying our parents dysfunctions---or our own dysfunctions. And using scripture to justify hurting our own flesh and blood in the name of love has never made sense to me.
This is just my opinion, but then I'm a woman, a mother, and a grandmother who helped raised at least 80 children during my Day Care years....
There HAS to be better ways than physically and psychologically hurting our children in order to control them. Thanks for suggesting better ways....
And to the person who says people who were spanked usually are not the ones who support not spanking.... I would like to say, here's one who was spanked that doesn't support hurting children......
Me, Jane
|
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on May 23, 2006 11:25:30 GMT -5
To take this back to the 2x2 connection, I think control is the heart of the issue...and it is arguably the underpinning of the entire 2x2 system. Control yourself. Control your children. Control each other. Obviously, self-control and mutual control are a part of every society to some degree, but I think in the 2x2s it is heightened due to the meeting-intensive lifestyle.
It is not developmentally normal for an infant or toddler or whatever young age to sit quietly for an hour or two hours (depending on the meeting) with all the attention being focused away from the child and onto a person standing in front of a microphone. That atmosphere is a recipe for attention-seeking behavior, and for the parent to feel the need to get that behavior under control as quickly as possible...voila--swat!
|
|
|
|
Post by Howard6 on May 23, 2006 15:13:05 GMT -5
"RandomActs"
I will start by answering: "Howard, what is your definition of 'spanking'?"
Spanking is the act of swatting a child on their rear-end in a controlled manner.
Spanking a child is one means of teaching him or her that poor decisions will result in unpleasant consequences. It is the responsibility of each parent to prepare their child for adulthood. One aspect of this preparation is to teach the child that there are consequences for every action we take in life; some of these consequences are pleasant, some are unpleasant.
Spanking is most effective during the most impressionable years of a child's life. Spanking begins when a child begins to assert their will (an emotional mechanism). Spanking begins to lose its effectiveness as a child begins to develop conscious reasoning skills.
As it relates to spanking, a 'controlled manner' means that a spanking is administered according to a number of criteria:
(1) In an age appropriate manner, the child must know what is expected of them and what the rules are regarding appropriate behavior.
(2) The child must be old enough to have a basic understanding of the language, even if the only word they understand is "no".
(3) The parent must make the decision to spank based on a reasonable and logical analysis of the situation. Furthermore, the parent must abandon the decision to spank should introspection reveal that an element of anger or revenge had a part in the decision to spank.
(4) Prior to the spanking, younger children must be reminded that what they did was wrong and older children must be told why they are being punished. This can range from a firm "no" for younger children to a firm "You were told to clean your room and you disobeyed" for older children.
(5) The number and intensity of swats must be controlled to impart a reasonable amount of pain appropriate for the size and build of the child.
This is the abbreviated version of my definition of 'spanking'.
Being an effective and loving parent is something that I feel is largely instinctive and a matter of common sense. I believe much of what I learned came from my parents. The rest came from prayer, experience, and study. I have no desire to write a book about parenting or spanking, so the above definition will have to do.
Now on with the rest of my post.
"RandomActs", you responded to 20 segments.
My response to segment 1: We will have to disagree on this because I believe that stubbornness is a factor.
My response to segment 2: It is my opinion that the example given in reply 114 demonstrates a form of abuse. It took 9 hours to teach a child something that could have been taught in minutes. I see this as abuse. I would never do this to my child. You disagree, which is fine with me.
My response to segment 3: We agree then that children misbehave for a number of reasons, not limited to a desire for attention.
My response to segment 4: I have never suggested that all "tried and true" ideas are good. You did infer that I fear "new ideas" like antibiotics, telephones, angioplasty, integrated schools and women in the workplace.
My response to segment 5: I think you missed my point. You inferred that I fear "new ideas" like antibiotics, telephones, angioplasty, integrated schools and women in the workplace. I called your inference dishonest and said that if I were to emulate your dishonesty, I might accuse you of rejecting all old ideas (Christianity, marriage, sleep, etc.).
My response to segment 7: This portion of our discussion will have to stop because you refuse to plainly state and stand by what you believe. Give me YOUR definition of 'spanking' and 'abuse' and we can continue.
My response to segment 8: This portion of our discussion will have to stop because you refuse to use the english language reasonably. Stop changing the definitions of words to suit your agenda and we can continue.
My response to segment 9: Do you obey all man-made laws? If you do, what do you do when a man-made law conflicts with your moral laws?
My response to segment 10: At the beginning of this post, I have posted my definition of 'spanking' as you requested.
My response to segment 11: I would love to play fill in the blanks, but your questions are leading. Let's try something simpler. Let's play True or False.
"Spanking" and "Hitting" are interchangeable terms: True or False?
Children learn from many things, including the experience of pain: True or False?
My response to segment 13: Let's play True of False again.
When children are taught something, they have learned it: True or False?
My response to segment 14: This portion of our discussion will have to stop because you refuse to plainly state and stand by what you believe. Give me YOUR definition of 'punishment' and we can continue.
My response to segment 15: Let's play True of False again.
Children learn from many things, including the experience of punishment: True or False?
My response to segment 16: Of the two, I prefer Peirce, who tended more toward the scientific than the political. I see your studies as scientific only to the point where politics allows them to be.
My response to segment 17: I have already addressed this matter in "My response to segment 11".
My response to segment 18: You said "You drew the inference." Can you please clarify this. What inference are you speaking of.
My response to segment 19: I said "My children are raised and I have better things to do than to continually correct your behavior." You replied "What behavior of mine are you feeling the need to correct?" I replied "It is not my place to correct your behavior. That job would have been your parents responsibility." Now I ask "When did I say that I FELT THE NEED to correct your behavior?" Observing something that is out of place is not an indication of responsibility to fix it.
My response to segment 20: I responded the way I did because I was under the impression that I'd already provided you with a description of the things you'd done that showed poor manners. Nonetheless, I will give you a more thoughtful answer according to my definition of "manners": "You lied. You twisted my words. You played politics with the truth. You put words in my mouth. You played semantic games." I hope this clears things up.
|
|
|
|
Post by ramdomposting on May 23, 2006 21:31:24 GMT -5
It was too difficult to sort out who write what and useless to defend what I did not write or believe. "New Fangled Ways": I would like to start off by saying that your post is not typical of your previous posts. Some of your responses seem irrelevant, incoherent, forced and poorly conceived. If someone has assumed your position in responding to me then I would like to preemptively apologize to you for the content of my responses that follow. (You responded to 8 segments.) I will take the blame. It was late and there were parts I was attempting to explain (as best I could) that were not from this keyboard. Parent often state that they resort to spanking because nothing else works. That is, they do not have the tools to do the right job. It reminded me of the phrase that the poor workman always blames his tools. I will stand by the original statement. Organisms continue behaviors that give them something in return. There are children that misbehave to get their parents to pay attention to them. In the absurd example regarding the child with the wall plug, they child had the undivided attention of the parent for hours. Easy to accomplish by 'being stubborn'. While most people wonder why the abused spouse will stay in the relationship, close examination will show that they are getting something out of it that they feel is worth the abuse. When that is no longer the case they take steps to leave. People continue to attend meetings because there are enough positive things that they will put up with the negative. When this is no longer the case, people will leave. The pain of leaving, the initeria of the situation, the fear of change, and the associated loss also are all factors as well. Children crave the approval and attention of their parents. But when they cannot get the approval they need and they feel they are not getting hte attention they want it is an easy discovery to get attention by acting out. At some point punishment is better than nothing. If a child throws a tantrum and the parents comes running, gives in, or does something, then the child will continue to use that approach. Even if the result is a spanking, that is better than nothing. And if the tantrum only works in a crowded public place - guess where it will happen. If, on the other hand, the child throws the tantrum and nothing happens, crowd or not, the child will have no reason to use that approach. Especially if the parent has hinted that had the request been made in an appropriate way the child would have a much greater chance to get the desires result. Let's not get into judging a poster's honesty. I was responded to your comment that spanking was a better choice because it was a time tested method. For me to say that you reject all newer advances is no different than you claiming spanking is better because it has been used longer. I unfortunately do no know to which point you are referring. I do not think spanking is abuse, in the legal sense, but I do think inflicting pain on a child is as inappropriate as kicking a dog. I do believe that what some people call spanking, as witnessed in stores and meetings, can border on child abuse and I have approached people in stores and suggested that they stop. In most cases the adult is frustrated and the chastisement has just gotten out of hand. Let's look at this another way. You cannot spank someone without hitting them. You can hit someone without spanking them. There is no case of spanking that does not involve hitting. If you spank your child, you have hit them. Would you like to pick another verb (box, buffet, bust, cuff, punch, slap, smack, swat, whack, etc.)? Of course people who support spanking would like to step as far away from words that accurately tell what is going on. It is a great marketing ploy. People no longer go and radiation treatments. They get therapeutic photon treatment. It sounds much more friendly. And it doesn't have the "R" word in the title. Read carefully. Spanking and capital punishment are not the same but they both rely on negative reinforcement to modify behavior. Most (all?) methods of torture also rely on negative reinforcement to produce results. Is spanking the same as torture? Certainly not but they do both use pain and pain avoidance to get their results. That would be you who infered it. Intentionally causing pain is a violent act. It may be done with the best of intentions. Whether someone who spanks their child is a good or bad parent is a value judgment. No, as I said above, it is not a comparison of spanking to killing (capital punishment)but a comparison of the methods, negative reinforcement, that was made. Spanking and capital punishment are associated. They are both forms of punishment that are meted out in hopes of modifying behavior. In the case of capital punishment it is always the threat of the punishment but there are parents who also use the threat of a spanking as well. It is true that the two, spanking and capital punishment are on opposite ends of the spectrum but they are both still forms of negative reinforcement. As far as the studies go, almost any study where the researchers are unable to control the experiment (you cannot take two groups of 1,000 children, raise them in the same controlled environment but subject only one group to negative reinforcement, and see the results in 20 years)there will be large margins of errors (flaws). Because of the inability to construct a study with a single variable, as was the case with smoking, second hand smoke, bad diets, etc., the studies have to rely on data collected over a longer time and from many sources. So, no, there is no single conclusive study. But if you look at the work that has been done to date you will see that there are many indications that children subjected to negative reinforcement tend to have a higher incidence of problems as adolescents and young adults. Are there other factors? Most likely. But there is something to be learned from the fact that there is very little data, flawed or not, that indicates spanked children fare better. It was, as noted, a sarcastic comment and was meant to be taken as such. It did have a purpose, however. People support spanking almost exclusively with anecdotal stories of how they were spanked and look how wonderful they turned out and how they spank their children and it hasn't hurt them. There were many stories about people who smoked and lived to be 103. When states tried to pass a seatbelt law there were stories about all the people (3) who died because they were trapped in the car by their seatbelt and drowned. People who oppose vaccination always bring out the stories of the 1 in 50,000 children who have a negative reaction and might die. In all fairness, you did mark it as an editorial. Perhaps I should have left it alone. I actually did delete it once but the Ctrl-V won out in the end! Semantic games. Who is playing? Explain how you can spank without hitting. Explain how the underlying method of spanking and any other form of negative reinforcement are different. I feel you like to use the euphemism spanking to cover the fact that it is hitting to inflict pain. I try very hard not to put words in your mouth by carefully quoting exactly what you said when responding. As far as spinning the truth, do you have any examples? What behavior of mine are you feeling the need to correct? Other than my sarcastic comment, where have my manners failed me? raok Seriously, 'random', I think you need a good ole whuppin' for how randomly serious you taking this SUBJECT and turning it UPSIDE DOWN!!!! Did not your mother teach you better manners than to preach preach preach and teach teach teach and beseech besceech, bescheech about SPANKING???!!!  !!! You need a good spanking and you're hankering for it right here right now, sonny so shape up or ship out , SPANKING is a very very personall subject that should only be discussed between the mamma and pappa of any potential recipient of said spanking. I think perhaps you have fixation about it; maybe you were spanked as a child and never got over it! Spanking ranks right up there with female appearance, modesty, dressing appropriately on 2x2 group dates and stuff like that. It is sooooooooooooooooooooo HIGHLY personal, how ca you EVE discuss it on this board. ? ?" |
|
|
|
Post by which howard on May 23, 2006 22:20:39 GMT -5
is this THE Howard? The Clayrandall howard??
|
|
|
|
Post by Random Acts 0f Kindness on May 23, 2006 22:53:24 GMT -5
Spanking is the act of swatting a child on their rear-end in a controlled manner. Howard, Howard,Howard. Swatting?!? To deliver a powerful blow to suddenly and sharply? Not exactly. It teaches that, if caught and only if caught, there will be pain. If not caught there are no consequences. We agree 100% on this point. We agree again. When children are most impressionable seems to be exactly wrong time to teach them that if someone does something they don't like/agree with that it is OK to spank/swat/hit them to get them to modify their behavior. This is known as human development. Children grow into independent beings. This is, in my mind, something to be fostered. this sounds interesting. Are you saying that once the child has reasoning skills that spanking is not a valid method of discipline? Spanking loses its effectiveness as soon as you are not able to observe. So they must have some level of conscious reasoning skills. Judging what a child can actually understand the meaning of even a single world can be somewhat difficult. In an ideal world this will be the case. In the real world this is a real weak point. I am without words. Spanking a child for not cleaning their room is .... Danger Will Robinson. How do you know how much pain you are imparting? What is reasonable amount of pain? Different people, even the same people on different days, sense pain differently. What may not be at all painful to one person is excruciatingly painful to another. It clearly explained your stand on the subject. Stubborn - Unreasonably unyielding. Doesn't it come down to a test of wills? Is only one person being stubborn? What was done to the child that would even remotely be abuse? The child was free to stop whenever it wished. No, I questioned if you did fear all new things directly. You, as the reader, infer. As the writer, I imply. But in this case I stated it directly. I am happy to stick by the dictionary definition: "To hit with a quick, sharp blow of the hand". In real life this is the case. While the buttocks may be one target bare legs and arms are often also targets. Also in real life the hand if often augmented by a strap, yardstick, paddle, hair brush, etc. A broader definition of spanking is to intentionally inflict pain by striking an individual for the purpose of modifying behavior. Hmmm. I wonder what non-English words I snuck in here. As far as I can tell, you are asking about a definition of abuse. Again, I an happy with the dictionary definition: "To hurt or injure by maltreatment". On the legal side there usually has to be some lasting physical or emotional damage or the real possibility of causing damage. For example, striking with enough force to cause bruising, grabbing and pulling an appendage with enough force to cause bruising, shaking in almost any form, and then all of the many non-spanking punishments that people inflict on their children. I am having a difficult time coming up with a law that would force me to do something that would conflict with my own morals. Do you have an example? And you talk about being honest. What was leading? You complained about me substituting the word hit for spank. I asked you for another word. that is leading? Complex? You did not like me saying that the purpose of spanking was to modify behavior through inflicting pain.What about a spanking does modify a child's behavior? I think in a logical sense all spanking is hitting but not all hitting is spanking. Phrased as it is, the answer is false because although all spanking is hitting not all hitting is spanking. True. False. I was in a class where French was taught but I did not learn French. It seems whenever you do not agree you exhibit what I am sure you would call stubbornness. I assume this little temper tantrum is because I disagreed that when the electric company turns off the power for non-payment that it is a punishment. Punishment - Something, such as loss, pain, or confinement, imposed for wrongdoing. Not paying for goods or services is not wrongdoing. The electric company is not punishing you it is simply not providing service because you are not paying for it. If you go to the grocery store and get to the checkout without money, the store does not let you take the goods. This is not a punishment. Another leading question. While it is strictly true the question should be what are they learning. Pain avoidance doesn't really need to be taught. Preservation is an instinct. My response to segment 17: I have already addressed this matter in "My response to segment 11". When I write I do not infer, I imply. When you read what I write you infer. You said that I inferred. I corrected you and said the inference was yours not mine. I guess I should apologize. You did say you had better things to do than continually correct my behavior. The use of the word continually threw me off. You have an odd sense of logic. You complain in this paragraph saying that I displayed bad manners(your definition) by playing semantic games just a few words away from a statement that the list of my poor manners are being listed in accordance to your definition of manners, a definition that you have never stated. It would seem logical that in this case using your new definition of manners would mean that the very act of redefining the meaning of a common word would put you in the poor manners box. |
|
|
|
Post by Howard6 on May 24, 2006 17:46:14 GMT -5
"RandomActs"
You keep focusing on this "only if the child gets caught" reasoning as it relates to spanking. You have said that you are not opposed to certain types of punishment. Can you describe a form of punishment that works even when the child doesn't get caught?
A child's will, or independence as you call it, can be modified by punishment. Do you believe that a child should be raised in such a way as to preserve all aspects of their independence?
You said "Are you saying that once the child has reasoning skills that spanking is not a valid method of discipline?" No, I am not saying this. Read again, closely: "Spanking begins to lose its effectiveness as a child begins to develop conscious reasoning skills." Note the first use of the word "begins". This is a gradual transition. Do you believe that a child develops all reasoning skills overnight?
You said "Spanking loses its effectiveness as soon as you are not able to observe." I do not agree. Do you believe this is true of all punishment? If yes, why punish at all? If no, why is spanking different?
You said "So they must have some level of conscious reasoning skills." I fail to see your point, but perhaps it is because you misunderstood me two paragraphs back. Can you clarify?
You said "Judging what a child can actually understand the meaning of even a single world can be somewhat difficult." Yes, but difficult does not mean impossible, and experience is a great teacher.
I said "The parent must make the decision to spank based on a reasonable and logical analysis of the situation. Furthermore, the parent must abandon the decision to spank should introspection reveal that an element of anger or revenge had a part in the decision to spank." You replied "In an ideal world this will be the case. In the real world this is a real weak point." Why is this not the case? What makes it weak? Could it be that you don't like this because it really steals your thunder? Whether anti-spanking advocates like it or not, many parents who spank understand the harm that can be done by a spanking motivated by anger or revenge. Anti-spanking advocates would like everyone to believe otherwise, that spanking parents are simpletons, too dense to understand these finer aspects of the issue. Anti-spanking advocates are wrong.
You said "How do you know how much pain you are imparting? What is reasonable amount of pain? Different people, even the same people on different days, sense pain differently. What may not be at all painful to one person is excruciatingly painful to another." I'm sorry, but this is a very detailed subject and I have neither the time nor the desire to provide you with the intricate details of something that you will just pick apart in one of your sick little games. Suffice it to say that it can be done, it is largely instinctive, it is not as hard as one might think, and it takes patience.
You said "Doesn't it come down to a test of wills? Is only one person being stubborn?" Yes, it is a test of wills and no, both the parent and child are being stubborn. So what? The child stubbornly wants to do something wrong and the parent stubbornly wants what's best for the child. The child is wrong. The parent is right. Why do you take such objection to this?
You said: "What was done to the child that would even remotely be abuse?" I will modify my previous statement in an attempt to make it more clear: "It is my opinion that the example given in reply 114 demonstrates a form of mental abuse. It took 9 hours to teach a child something that could have been taught in minutes. I see this as abuse. I would never do this to my child. You disagree, which is fine with me."
You said: "The child was free to stop whenever it wished." Do you believe this is justification for abuse? If no, why mention it?
In reply 112 you said "I guess in that case it falls into the same group of new-fangled ideas as antibiotics, telephones, angioplasty, integrated schools, women in the workplace, etc." Of this you now claim "I questioned if you did fear all new things directly." Please tell me how your original statement is both a question and direct?
In reply 112 you said "I guess in that case it falls into the same group of new-fangled ideas as antibiotics, telephones, angioplasty, integrated schools, women in the workplace, etc." Of this you now claim "in this case I stated it directly". Now you've said that it is both a question and a statement, and you've been giving me english lessons. Which is it really?
I would like to put the previous two paragraphs back on topic. The institutionalized support, in academia, medicine, and government, of withholding spanking in favor of simply "waiting it out" is a new (experimental) practice relative to the long-held practice of spanking. In my opinion, it would be irresponsible for a parent to experiment on their children with the new practice when their experience has taught them that the old practice is effective and successful. This is my opinion though. Parenting has never been, and never will be, an exact science. I understand that some parents do not have positive experiences with regard to spanking. It is their right as parents to seek an alternative. It is not their right, however, to impose their beliefs upon, and attempt to control, those of use who choose to spank.
You said "While the buttocks may be one target bare legs and arms are often also targets." You asked me to provide my definition of spanking and I did as you asked. Why are you asking me to justify something that clearly falls outside the definition I provided?
You said "in real life the hand if often augmented by a strap, yardstick, paddle, hair brush, etc." Which is worse: a hand, a strap, a yardstick, a paddle, or a hair brush? Doesn't it depend on the strength of the person behind it? In my definition of spanking, I stated "The number and intensity of swats must be controlled to impart a reasonable amount of pain appropriate for the size and build of the child." I concentrate on the destination (the level of pain) while you concentrate on the vehicle (hand, strap, yardstick, paddle, hair brush, etc.). Why is the 'vehicle' of more concern to you than the 'destination'?
You said "I wonder what non-English words I snuck in here." Where did I accuse you of sneaking non-english words into anything?
I would like to put the previous paragraph back on topic. Semantics have complicated our discussion but I believe I may be able to get it back on track. You have provided your definition of "spanking". You have also provided your definition of "abuse" in both common and legal terms. I have two questions: Do you believe that it is morally wrong for parents to spank their children in a non-abusive manner? Do you believe that parents should be allowed by law to spank their children in a non-abusive manner?
You said "I am having a difficult time coming up with a law that would force me to do something that would conflict with my own morals. Do you have an example?" I'm sorry, but I do not believe that your experiences in life are so narrow that you can't think of one example of this. I have no idea where you live or what the laws are in your area so try this: pretend that you live in China and give it some more thought; then you can answer my question: "Do you obey all man-made laws? If you do, what do you do when a man-made law conflicts with your moral laws?
You said "What was leading?" You said "Spanking is not meant to cause pain. It will change a child's behavior by _____" and asked me to fill in the blank. I do not agree with the first sentence (and if I've stated anything to the contrary, please point it out to me). You implying that I agree with the first sentence is YOU leading ME.
I would like to put the previous paragraph back on topic. In reply 121, you said "people who support spanking would like to step as far away from words that accurately tell what is going on". You are wrong. In the debate over spanking, spanking advocates want honesty while anti-spanking advocates do not want honesty. Please allow me to explain. Spanking advocates call a spanking a spanking and during the course of debate, when a description is needed, they provide an accurate definition of spanking by using a broader term and then qualifying it. (This is how many definitions are created.) Anti-spanking advocates, on the other hand, call a spanking something broader and less defined and then fail to qualify it. This is a political tactic, designed to take a simple, innocent thing and categorize it as part of a more complex, devious thing. This is akin to calling all people of German descent Nazis. Here is one example: I used the relatively narrow term "spank" then you recast it using the broad term "hit" then you recast it again using the even broader term "violence". At first, you failed to qualify your use of either of these broad terms. Only after pressure from me did you relent and qualify your use of the broad term "hit". Words mean things. This is a debate. Choose your words with care and thought and be prepared to defend them.
You said "You did not like me saying that the purpose of spanking was to modify behavior through inflicting pain." Did you really say that the purpose of spanking was to modify behavior through inflicting pain? I must have missed it. Where exactly did you say this in these terms?
I would like to put the previous paragraph back on topic. I think our discussion regarding my definition of spanking has done this.
I have considered what you have said regarding my use of the word "punishment" and have concluded that the way I used the word was incorrect. I apologize for the confusion.
Continuing, you said "Pain avoidance doesn't really need to be taught." I disagree. I believe that pain can be a very effective teacher and pain avoidance can be a very healthy motivator. For example: Both my wife and my doctor told me that I was getting too old to water-ski but I didn't listen to them. Then pain taught me that they were right. Now, I am motivated by pain avoidance to listen to my wife and my doctor. Is my being motivated by pain avoidance somehow unhealthy?
You said "Preservation is an instinct." Can you please tell me what this has to do with spanking?
I don't know why, but I have always gotten "imply" and "infer" confused. Thanks for setting me straight.
Regarding "manners": As if this debate isn't long engough... I have no desire to write a book on manners so I hereby apologize and withdraw my statement accusing you of bad manners.
|
|
|
|
Post by Howard6 on May 24, 2006 17:47:36 GMT -5
is this THE Howard? The Clayrandall howard?? No, I'm sorry, but I'm not the Howard you're looking for. |
|
|
|
Post by Random Acts 0f Kindness on May 25, 2006 2:21:59 GMT -5
"RandomActs" You keep focusing on this "only if the child gets caught" reasoning as it relates to spanking. You have said that you are not opposed to certain types of punishment. Can you describe a form of punishment that works even when the child doesn't get caught? I am not so big on punishment. I believe I already corrected my unfortunate choice of words in an earlier post. Discipline yes. Punishment no. That is one of the problems when attempting to modify behavior with punishment. The lesson is to avoid the pain. That can be accomplished by acting in the required way or by not getting caught. Any behavior can be modified by punishment. But very little can be taught. Whenever possible I believe that individuals should be allowed to develop that preserves their uniqueness rather than be forced into the mold of their parents. No, the skills do not develop overnight. I also do not believe they are fully developed until the child is an adult. From this do I understand that you believe spanking is appropriate for a 13 year old? Exactly. Why punish at all where there are other effective means of teaching and guiding. If a child has the reasoning skills to recognize that the punishment is because of earlier behavior they already have the ability to reason. You said spanking loses its effectiveness as soon as a child begins to reason. By the same token spanking is not effective unless the child has the ability to realize that the punishment is related to the behavior. I gather you have the skills to determine when the child has developed the cognitive ability to understand what you are telling them. Does a 2 year old fully understand? In the real world what makes this weak is the fact that in many cases spanking is not done in a completely rational way but is the result of a parent being frustrated, tired, angry, etc. with the child. Inflicting pain to your child when not angry doesn't seem to be a positive point. But refuse to see the damage that can be done by the same act when not angry or going for revenge. I wonder how the child can determine if the person spanking is angry or not? How does a two year know if it is being done out of revenge? I have not made a value judgment regarding the parents. I only see them as people who believe they can teach their children by hurting them. I do question what the children learn from that type of teaching. This is magical thinking on your part. Everyone has experienced bumping into things and sometimes it is very painful and other times it is not so painful. Be realistic. The only way you can tell if you are causing pain is to observe the reaction following the blow. And if it caused too much pain it is too late. Determining the amount of pain someone else is experiencing is not instinctive and not easily determined even in a carefully observed situation. The child wants to spend 10 more minutes playing with the puppy. The parent wants to leave now. Who is right? Why is leaving best for the child? The child is marching around the house banging on a pan and singing. The parent wants the child to be quiet. How is being quiet best for the child? It is a control issue. The parent wants the child to obey. The question remains: What was harmful thing was done to the child? How was it mental abuse? The child got to do just what they wanted until they either tired of it or ran out of options. What harm is there in allowing a child to explore all avenues before learning that there is no way to accomplish what they want to do? It was not abuse. If you want to call that abuse then allowing a child to sit in the middle of a room and attempt to open a locked box would also be abuse. Maybe you have a different meaning for abuse than: "To hurt or injure by maltreatment." It was put out as a guess on my part regarding how you felt about other new ideas. I viewed it as an implied question since I didn't know if my guess was accurate. I can see how it might not be viewed as a question. In this reply I was not addressing the content but was pointing out that I did not imply (I believe you used infer) as you said but stated the point directly. Do you think a person has the right to step in and prevent you from seriously hurting a child even though you refer to the punishment as spanking? The discussion is about spanking. Spanking in the real world involves other people as well. You defined what you considered spanking. But in defending spanking as a practice, don't you have to look at the reality of spanking? In the heat of administering a spanking with a tool, the feedback from the blow is not available. The additional length of the instrument means that the velocity, and therefore the momentum, is larger and difficult to accurately judge the pain or damage it will cause. If the tool presents a small footprint there will be more energy imparted over a much smaller area resulting in the possibility of inadvertently causing physical damage. If the implement is flexible, like a strap or cord, there is the possibility that it will strike in a whip-like manner and cause physical damage. I thought that my failure to use the English language correctly meant I has use non-english words. I believe it would be morally wrong for me to spank a child. I do not impose my values on others since I cannot know upon what they base their decisions. I believe children should be treated with kindness and respect. No. I do not think we need a law that allows people to hurt children. We need laws that define in specific terms where spanking stops and abuse starts. You can choose to believe as you wish. I live in the US and cannot think of any law that conflicts with my morals. The one time a law did conflict with my morals I petitioned the government and the issue was resolved. So I guess I would say "Yes" I obey the laws of the land. So you agree spanking is meant to cause pain? In your example not all Germans are Nazis so it would be incorrect. However, all spanking is hitting so it is not incorrect. You may not want to acknowledge that spanking is hitting but that does not change the facts. 1) "You said: "I feel you like to use the euphemism spanking to cover the fact that it is hitting to inflict pain." In one brief statement, you have managed to demonstrate not only your dishonesty but also your tendency to play semantic games. I am using the term "spanking" because WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SPANKING, it is THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD and THE SUBJECT OF OUR DISCUSSION." 2) "A broader definition of spanking is to intentionally inflict pain by striking an individual for the purpose of modifying behavior." |
|
|
|
Post by Howard6 on May 26, 2006 8:18:52 GMT -5
"RandomActs" After much consideration, I have decided to drop much of the discussion between you and I. I have come to this conclusion based on a number of observations, the most significant of which are as follows: (A) You have made it apparent that you expect me to defend definitions of spanking other than my own. I have provided my definition of spanking and I have been defending it willingly. I have no desire to defend alternate definitions of spanking. Some parents define spanking differently than I and I have no desire to defend their definition. Furthermore, anti-spanking advocates define spanking in the worst way possible and I certainly have no desire to defend their ridiculous definition. As I write my replies to you, I find myself continuously second-guessing what I am writing each time I use the word spanking because when I write "spanking", you read something else. (This is the problem with the spanking debate. Anti-spanking advocates refuse to reasonably define spanking. Ambiguity is their playground. They see no degrees in spanking. They put all spanking, good and bad, into the same category, then condemn it all. If they were to fairly define spanking, they would discover that spanking can be done without causing harm. This is not what they want though, since their opposition to spanking is based on their own moral principle, and they don't want to question their own moral principle.) (B) You seem to have trouble with one or more of the following: (1) the english language, (2) memory retention, (3) honesty, or (4) sadistic tendencies. For example: I said "Spanking begins to lose its effectiveness as a child begins to develop conscious reasoning skills." You asked "Are you saying that once the child has reasoning skills that spanking is not a valid method of discipline?" I replied, saying "No, I am not saying this", "Note the first use of the word "begins"", and "This is a gradual transition." You later said "You said spanking loses its effectiveness as soon as a child begins to reason." There are many more examples but I have neither the time nor the desire to write a book enumerating them. (C) You don't seem to know what you believe. For example: First you said that punishment was wrong, then you said that it was right, then, again, you said that it was wrong. First you said that abuse can be either mental or physical, then you said that abuse can be only physical. There are many more examples but I have neither the time nor the desire to write a book enumerating them. (D) You seem to think that your knowledge and experience in this matter represents the sum total of knowledge and experience to be had in this matter. For example: I said that when parents spank, they can administer a controlled and reasonable amount of pain appropriate for the size and build of the child. You responded by labeling this "magic thinking", then you took my words out of context, then you said that what I was speaking of couldn't be done. How arrogant! Your failure to perform a task is not an indication of its impossibility. I said that when parents spank, the focus should not be on the tool they use but rather on the the administration of a controlled and reasonable amount of pain appropriate for the size and build of the child. You responded by giving me a physics lecture. Your arrogance continues! Your condescending attitude toward others is amazing. You really must think you're the smartest person in the room. There are many more examples but I have neither the time nor the desire to write a book enumerating them. (E) You and I have reached a point of conclusion on many issues: I believe that children learn positive behavior from spanking. You disagree. You believe that children learn violence from spanking. I disagree. I believe that in some cases, spanking can be an important part of raising children. You disagree. You believe that in all cases, spanking is not an acceptable part of raising children. I disagree. I believe that parents must exert some control over their children's behavior. You disagree. You believe that parents must not exert any control over their children's behavior. I disagree. I believe that children must obey their parents. You disagree. I believe that children must learn to not be governed by their own self will. You disagree. I believe that parents must use whatever means necessary to protect their children from harm. You disagree. I believe that parents must have a place of authority over their children. You disagree. I believe that parents must have the right to choose whether or not to spank. You disagree. I believe that punishment is one of many effective behavior modification tools. You disagree. I believe that punishment is an important part of preparing a child for adulthood. You disagree. Now I will proceed with what remains. You said "From this do I understand that you believe spanking is appropriate for a 13 year old?" Once my children were about 6, spanking was rarely necessary. I'm not certain, but one of my boys may have been 8 when he got his last spanking. If I had a 13 year old and the only way to get through to him/her was with a spanking, I'd be concerned that I'd done something wrong. I'm glad I never had to face this. I guess my official answer is that I'd leave it up to the parents in charge. You said "spanking is not effective unless the child has the ability to realize that the punishment is related to the behavior." As worded, I disagree. I would say "spanking is not effective unless the child associates the punishment with the behavior." You said "I gather you have the skills to determine when the child has developed the cognitive ability to understand what you are telling them." Yes I do, and I think that any parent that not only spends time with but also pays attention to their children will acquire this ability. Note that when I say "spend time", I'm not talking about this new-age, feel-good-about-neglect 10 minute a day "quality time" garbage; I'm talking about the old-fashioned, act-like-they-matter hours (yes plural) a day, every day "quantity time". I think its a shame how parents don't spend time getting to know their children anymore. You said "But refuse to see the damage that can be done by the same act when not angry or going for revenge." Damage without anger or revenge is possible with any kind of punishment; it is not exclusive to spanking. In fact, I think that far more children are damaged these days by the words their parents use when addressing them. I heard a woman at the grocery store a few months ago say to her pre-teen daughter "Hey sh*thead, are you deaf? I'm talking to you! Get the f*ck over here!" This really bothers me. I think of it as mental abuse. The parent-police don't seem to care about things like this though because they're to busy accusing spanking parents of damaging their children. You said "I wonder how the child can determine if the person spanking is angry or not?" This has nothing to do with the child's perception of the parents anger; it has everything to do with the influence that anger can have on not only the determination to spank but also the administration of a controlled and reasonable amount of pain appropriate for the size and build of the child. You said "What harm is there in allowing a child to explore all avenues before learning that there is no way to accomplish what they want to do?" Often there is no harm but sometimes there is; these "avenues" can be dangerous. You said "Do you think a person has the right to step in and prevent you from seriously hurting a child even though you refer to the punishment as spanking?" I would like to say yes but I have to say no because "seriously hurting" is subject to broad interpretation. You said "You can choose to believe as you wish. I live in the US and cannot think of any law that conflicts with my morals. The one time a law did conflict with my morals I petitioned the government and the issue was resolved. So I guess I would say "Yes" I obey the laws of the land." I am amazed at how far you will go to avoid answering my original question. I'm sorry, but I don't believe you when you say that you obey all laws. You may think you do, but ignorance is no excuse. You insist on being stubborn, so I'll be ornery. I, Howard6, hereby accuse you, RandomActs, of annoying me on this discussion board. There, now I've done it, I've damaged your perfect record. How? Oh, you didn't know about that law? It seems that in the USA, it is illegal to annoy someone on-line using anything other than your real name. (Read about it here: news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html) As my neighbor kids say, "Busted!" You can find more laws you're breaking at www.dumblaws.com and use google to search for more. You said "So you agree spanking is meant to cause pain?" I believe that spanking teaches a child that poor decisions will result in unpleasant consequences. I believe that spanking does cause a child to feel physical pain. You said "You may not want to acknowledge that spanking is hitting but that does not change the facts" I believe, as I've said before and as I've never denied, that spanking is a small subset of hitting. Your continued insistence otherwise does not make it true. You said "You did not like me saying that the purpose of spanking was to modify behavior through inflicting pain." I replied "Did you really say that the purpose of spanking was to modify behavior through inflicting pain? I must have missed it. Where exactly did you say this in these terms?" You responded, giving two examples "I feel you like to use the euphemism spanking to cover the fact that it is hitting to inflict pain" and "A broader definition of spanking is to intentionally inflict pain by striking an individual for the purpose of modifying behavior." Your first example is invalid because it makes use of the broad, unqualified term "hitting". Your second example is invalid because it makes use of the broad, unqualified term "striking". You said: "Not if you like learning by being hurt." Just because an individual has to learn something the hard way does not make them a sadist. You said: "There is a better way to teach the same thing." Just because there is a better way to learn something does not mean that everyone will choose the easy route. |
|
|
|
Post by Random Acts 0f Kindness on May 29, 2006 7:12:42 GMT -5
I allowed you to define spanking anyway you wished. You responded with the verb "swat". I do not know you and have to assume that when you use a word without qualification that you are using that word with the common meaning. SWAT - To deal a sharp blow to; slap. I have no problem with this. The problem you have been having is that spanking is hitting. You cannot bring yourself to admit that you believe it is OK to hit your child.
You quibble over the meaning of the words but your arguments are meaningless. You have stated that in your mind spanking is a subset of hitting. From a logical standpoint it is therefor not possible, no matter how much you wish it were, to spank a child without hitting them. You have complained several times that I wish to use a different definition for spanking. This simply is not true. Spanking is swatting a child with the intention of causing pain. You can say it is swatting the child on the bottom or add whatever words you wish but you cannot honestly deny that spanking is hitting a child.
Again it is you who is doing the twisting. At what point after the child can reason do you stop spanking? It would seem to me that for the child to be able to understand why they were being spanked that they would have to have begun to reason. So as soon as it is time to spank a child it is beginning to lose its effectiveness.
You need to begin to understand the difference between punishment and discipline. I have never said abuse could be only physical.
I was speaking of real world examples. For the most part children and not spanked after a long consideration and thoughtful evaluation of the situation.
Let's see.
This is true. Do the really think that it is anything more than pain avoidance?
You tell your children not to hit their friends. You tell them that there is a non violent way to settle differences with their friends. And then you spank them. Children learn by observing their world. You settle differences by spanking. What are you teaching the child regarding how to deal with differences in opinion? Inflict pain to modify behavior?
Yes I do disagree
This is true.
This is completely wrong and I have never said anything remotely like this. I just do not believe you need to use pain to exercise that control. However, I do not believe you have to control every aspect of your child's life. Decision making and ten taking responsibility for that decision is also important.
And you talk about honesty. I have never said parents should not exert control. I have just suggested that a not violent way might yield better results.
Again, a completely dishonest reply. Children should obey their parents. Out of respect and not out of fear of being hurt.
A distortion. I believe children should learn that they are responsible for their actions. They should learn self control and not be controlled because they fear being punished.
Harm. Some believe that causing pain might be considered harm. In any case, your answer is dishonest. I believe it is the duty of adults to protect all children from harm and this would include the harm done by an adult who wants to control their behavior by hurting them. As much as you don't like to admit it, when you spank your child you are causing pain and that is hurting them.
You are being dishonest again. I believe parents do have authority over their children. But that does not mean the parents have to hurt their children in order to accomplish that.
You are being dishonest again. You do have the right to decide.
gain you are being dishonest. It is one of many effective ways of modifying their behavior. So is the use of a cattle prod but I would not suggest using it. Effective and good are no always the same.
This is true. I believe that the children will have enough pain inflicted on them as they grow into adults that they are not in need of being hurt by their parents.
Well, let's just hope you will be more honest.
Yet you do not see that getting through to a 13 year old and a 5 year old is the same thing? They are both reasoning beings. Would you swat a dog to teach it?
So you see a big difference between "relates" and "associates"? The words are synonyms.
I agree. But you seem to condone using pain rather than taking the time it would take to solve issues without the use of pain.
You are right. Why punish a child by any means? Abuse is abuse whether physical or emotional.
Nothing to do with the child's perception?? Are you serious? If the child believes you are punishing them because you are angry does that produce the same result if the child believes you are punishing them because they have not conformed to your immediate wishes? Or perhaps the child believes you consider them to be on the same level as the family dog since they are both corrected in the same way. The child's understanding of why they are being punished is all that matters.
Ad the parent protects the child from harm without preventing them from exploring their world.
Seriously hurting is not that difficult to determine. If the spanking causes lasting marks it is over the top. If the child is less than a year old you would have to question the reason for the spanking.
Well, if you only read part of the law this would be one conclusion you might draw. But there is that pesky word "intent" to deal with.
"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
I believe it is clear from my writing that it is not my intent to do more than explain my belief regarding hurting children to modify their behavior.
I didn't say I obeyed all laws. I said I could not think of one that would go against my morals.
This is the central point of the argument - teach by a means other than one that causes pain.
But it is already true. Spanking is hitting even though you have often denied it in these discussions.
You are tap dancing around the issue. Again - spanking it hitting. You have to strike a child to spank them. Or, to use your word - swat them.
No, if anyone is the sadist, it would be the person doing the teaching.
That is, to children, painfully obvious. But the problem is that spanking is the easy route. Talking are reasoning, especially with a young child, takes much more time than swatting them until their spirit is broken.
|
|
|
|
Post by Howard6 on May 30, 2006 23:32:33 GMT -5
"RandomActs": (Part 1of2)
Howard6 said
After much consideration, I have decided to drop much of the discussion between you and I. I have come to this conclusion based on a number of observations, the most significant of which are as follows:
(A) You have made it apparent that you expect me to defend definitions of spanking other than my own. I have provided my definition of spanking and I have been defending it willingly. I have no desire to defend alternate definitions of spanking. Some parents define spanking differently than I and I have no desire to defend their definition. Furthermore, anti-spanking advocates define spanking in the worst way possible and I certainly have no desire to defend their ridiculous definition. As I write my replies to you, I find myself continuously second-guessing what I am writing each time I use the word spanking because when I write "spanking", you read something else. (This is the problem with the spanking debate. Anti-spanking advocates refuse to reasonably define spanking. Ambiguity is their playground. They see no degrees in spanking. They put all spanking, good and bad, into the same category, then condemn it all. If they were to fairly define spanking, they would discover that spanking can be done without causing harm. This is not what they want though, since their opposition to spanking is based on their own moral principle, and they don't want to question their own moral principle.)
RandomActs said
I allowed you to define spanking anyway you wished. You responded with the verb "swat". I do not know you and have to assume that when you use a word without qualification that you are using that word with the common meaning. SWAT - To deal a sharp blow to; slap. I have no problem with this. The problem you have been having is that spanking is hitting. You cannot bring yourself to admit that you believe it is OK to hit your child.
You quibble over the meaning of the words but your arguments are meaningless. You have stated that in your mind spanking is a subset of hitting. From a logical standpoint it is therefor not possible, no matter how much you wish it were, to spank a child without hitting them. You have complained several times that I wish to use a different definition for spanking. This simply is not true. Spanking is swatting a child with the intention of causing pain. You can say it is swatting the child on the bottom or add whatever words you wish but you cannot honestly deny that spanking is hitting a child.
In my definition of spanking, I used the word "swat" then continued by further refining the word. Your failure to acknowledge and proceed with any refinement to the word "spanking" has proven my point. My statement stands.
Howard6 said
(B) You seem to have trouble with one or more of the following: (1) the english language, (2) memory retention, (3) honesty, or (4) sadistic tendencies. For example:
I said "Spanking begins to lose its effectiveness as a child begins to develop conscious reasoning skills." You asked "Are you saying that once the child has reasoning skills that spanking is not a valid method of discipline?" I replied, saying "No, I am not saying this", "Note the first use of the word "begins"", and "This is a gradual transition." You later said "You said spanking loses its effectiveness as soon as a child begins to reason."
There are many more examples but I have neither the time nor the desire to write a book enumerating them.
RandomActs said
Again it is you who is doing the twisting. At what point after the child can reason do you stop spanking?
Have you read my definition of spanking? Allow me to draw it out for you. I used spanking to combat the irrational and emotional self-will of my children. I stopped using spanking once irrational and emotional self-will had been replaced by rational and logical reasoning skills.
RandomActs said
It would seem to me that for the child to be able to understand why they were being spanked that they would have to have begun to reason. So as soon as it is time to spank a child it is beginning to lose its effectiveness.
I have said before, and I don't know how to make it more clear, that for punishment to be effective, a child must be able to associate the punishment with the behavior. Your failure to comprehend the process of conditioning has proven my point. My statement stands.
Howard6 said
(C) You don't seem to know what you believe. For example:
First you said that punishment was wrong, then you said that it was right, then, again, you said that it was wrong.
First you said that abuse can be either mental or physical, then you said that abuse can be only physical.
There are many more examples but I have neither the time nor the desire to write a book enumerating them.
RandomActs said
You need to begin to understand the difference between punishment and discipline.
I understand the difference between the terms "punishment" and "discipline". You are the one that got them confused. In reply 94, you said "an unfortunate misuse of words" to retract an earlier statement you had made regarding "punishment". Furthermore, your recent use of "discipline" rather than "punishment" is of little consequence because "discipline" is a broader term than "punishment". This particular word swap of yours is consistent with your behavior of replacing narrow terms with broad terms to confuse the issue and give yourself some more ambiguous ground to play on, but it is inconsistent with your desire to remove certain meaning from the word you are using. The first half of my statement stands.
RandomActs said
I have never said abuse could be only physical.
It is true that you have never said explicitly that abuse can only be physical and if you have never meant to imply this, then your statements seem to indicate that you define "mental abuse" much more narrowly than do I.
Howard6 said
(D) You seem to think that your knowledge and experience in this matter represents the sum total of knowledge and experience to be had in this matter. For example:
I said that when parents spank, they can administer a controlled and reasonable amount of pain appropriate for the size and build of the child. You responded by labeling this "magic thinking", then you took my words] out of context, then you said that what I was speaking of couldn't be done. How arrogant! Your failure to perform a task is not an indication of its impossibility.
I said that when parents spank, the focus should not be on the tool they use but rather on the the administration of a controlled and reasonable amount of pain appropriate for the size and build of the child. You responded by giving me a physics lecture. Your arrogance continues! Your condescending attitude toward others is amazing. You really must think you're the smartest person in the room.
There are many more examples but I have neither the time nor the desire to write a book enumerating them.
RandomActs said
I was speaking of real world examples. For the most part children and not spanked after a long consideration and thoughtful evaluation of the situation.
Your failure to acknowledge and proceed with the notion that others may have knowledge and experience beyond or contrary to your own has proven my point. My statement stands.
Howard6 said
(E) You and I have reached a point of conclusion on many issues:
RandomActs said
Let's see.
Howard6 said
I believe that children learn positive behavior from spanking. You disagree.
RandomActs said
This is true. Do the really think that it is anything more than pain avoidance?
Spanking is effective in part due to pain avoidance. There is nothing wrong with pain avoidance.
Howard6 said
You believe that children learn violence from spanking. I disagree.
RandomActs said
You tell your children not to hit their friends. You tell them that there is a non violent way to settle differences with their friends. And then you spank them. Children learn by observing their world. You settle differences by spanking. What are you teaching the child regarding how to deal with differences in opinion? Inflict pain to modify behavior?
Your assertions here are ludicrous. First, spanking is not violence. Second, children learn by way of more than just observation. Third, spanking is not the only way to "settle differences" between a parent and a child. Fourth, I taught my children to, when possible, settle their differences with rational and logical dialog. Fifth, I taught my children to respect the opinions and beliefs of others when settling differences was not possible. Sixth, I taught my children to learn to walk away when necessary and to defend themselves when the need was forced upon them. Seventh, I taught my children that I was the parent, they were the children, their friends were children, and children don't spank, or hit in any form, children. Eighth, my children did not spank, or hit in any form, other children because they had been taught and had learned better behavior. Your statement here is vacant of any intelligent consideration. My statement stands.
Howard6 said
I believe that in some cases, spanking can be an important part of raising children. You disagree.
RandomActs said
Yes I do disagree
Howard6 said
You believe that in all cases, spanking is not an acceptable part of raising children. I disagree.
RandomActs said
This is true.
Howard6 said
I believe that parents must exert some control over their children's behavior. You disagree.
RandomActs said
This is completely wrong and I have never said anything remotely like this.
It is true that you have never said explicitly that parents must exert no control over their children. My fault here is assuming this based on what you have written thus far. I apologize. When do you believe it is acceptable for parents to exert control over their children? Can you give an example?
RandomActs said
I just do not believe you need to use pain to exercise that control.
I disagree. I believe that at times, a spanking can be very necessary.
RandomActs said
However, I do not believe you have to control every aspect of your child's life.
I agree.
RandomActs said
Decision making and ten taking responsibility for that decision is also important.
I agree.
Howard6 said
You believe that parents must not exert any control over their children's behavior. I disagree.
RandomActs said
And you talk about honesty. I have never said parents should not exert control.
I addressed this above.
RandomActs said
I have just suggested that a not violent way might yield better results.
I believe that spanking is a "not violent" way and it often "does" yield better results. (Did you intend to use words other than "violent" and "might"?)
Howard6 said
I believe that children must obey their parents. You disagree.
RandomActs said
Again, a completely dishonest reply. Children should obey their parents. Out of respect and not out of fear of being hurt.
I see what is happening here. The definition of "obedience" is dependent on the definition of "acceptable behavior". My definition of "acceptable behavior" does not include an allowance for irrational and emotional self-will. Your definition of "acceptable behavior" does include an allowance for irrational and emotional self-will (though you, most likely, have a more "enlightened" name for it). The child wants to throw a temper-tantrum. You advocate waiting it out. I advocate stopping it. The child wants to play longer when the parent wants to leave. You advocate letting the child set the agenda. I advocate teaching the child that the parent knows best. The child wants to make noise when the parent wants quiet. You advocate letting the child determine what is appropriate. I advocate teaching the child that the parent knows best. You and I have different definitions of "acceptable behavior" and, by extension, "obedience". My fault here is that I failed to put all of the pieces of this puzzle together before making my statement. I apologize.
RandomActs said
Out of respect and not out of fear of being hurt.
Just as children are not born with debating skills and philosophy degrees, children are not born with an unwavering sense of respect for others.
Howard6 said
I believe that children must learn to not be governed by their own self will. You disagree.
RandomActs said
A distortion. I believe children should learn that they are responsible for their actions. They should learn self control and not be controlled because they fear being punished.
No, no, no, no, no. I am not distorting. You are changing the subject. Stop it. My statement stands.
Howard6 said
I believe that parents must use whatever means necessary to protect their children from harm. You disagree.
RandomActs said
Harm. Some believe that causing pain might be considered harm. In any case, your answer is dishonest. I believe it is the duty of adults to protect all children from harm and this would include the harm done by an adult who wants to control their behavior by hurting them. As much as you don't like to admit it, when you spank your child you are causing pain and that is hurting them.
No, no, no, no, no. I am talking about a parents duty to their child. You are changing the subject. Stop it. My statement stands.
RandomActs said
I believe it is the duty of adults to protect all children from harm and this would include the harm done by an adult who wants to control their behavior by hurting them.
This is nonsense. Which adults have this duty? Are they elected or appointed or are they volunteers? Who defines adults? Who defines children? Who defines protect? Who defines harm? Who defines control? Who defines behavior? Who defines hurt? This theoretical pipe-dream is unrealistic, impractical, and impossible. You may feel better about yourself after saying things like this but the fact of the matter is that it can't be done. Take your utopian fantasies elsewhere.
RandomActs said
As much as you don't like to admit it, when you spank your child you are causing pain and that is hurting them.
Will you ever tire of attempting to ensnare me with your abuse of broad terms?
Howard6 said
I believe that parents must have a place of authority over their children. You disagree.
RandomActs said
You are being dishonest again. I believe parents do have authority over their children. But that does not mean the parents have to hurt their children in order to accomplish that.
I think you may have misunderstood my statement. Allow me to state it differently: I believe that parents must have a place of power and influence due to knowledge and experience over their children. Do you agree?
Howard6 said
I believe that parents must have the right to choose whether or not to spank. You disagree.
RandomActs said
You are being dishonest again. You do have the right to decide.
You keep trying to have this both ways. Let's play True or False.
When you see a parent spanking their child, it is appropriate for you to intervene. True or False?
Howard6 said
I believe that punishment is one of many effective behavior modification tools. You disagree.
RandomActs said
gain you are being dishonest. It is one of many effective ways of modifying their behavior. So is the use of a cattle prod but I would not suggest using it. Effective and good are no always the same.
Your abuse of broad terms has confused this issue. I will attempt to clear it up. Let's play True or False.
Punishment that causes pain (ie pain avoidance) is one of many effective behavior modification tools. True or False?
Howard6 said
I believe that punishment is an important part of preparing a child for adulthood. You disagree.
RandomActs said
This is true. I believe that the children will have enough pain inflicted on them as they grow into adults that they are not in need of being hurt by their parents.
For some time, your verb of choice was "hit" but now you seem to prefer "hurt". I'm curious, why the switch?
|
|
|
|
Post by Howard6 on May 30, 2006 23:33:40 GMT -5
"RandomActs": (Part 2of2) Howard6 said
Now I will proceed with what remains.RandomActs said
Well, let's just hope you will be more honest.Ditto. Howard6 said
You said "From this do I understand that you believe spanking is appropriate for a 13 year old?"
Once my children were about 6, spanking was rarely necessary. I'm not certain, but one of my boys may have been 8 when he got his last spanking. If I had a 13 year old and the only way to get through to him/her was with a spanking, I'd be concerned that I'd done something wrong. I'm glad I never had to face this. I guess my official answer is that I'd leave it up to the parents in charge.RandomActs said
Yet you do not see that getting through to a 13 year old and a 5 year old is the same thing? They are both reasoning beings.Wow. You are a bit shy on experience. I won't set you straight here; I'll let time do it. RandomActs said
Would you swat a dog to teach it?I have no experience in training dogs. However, if I were to try to train a dog, I would probably use my parental experience as a guideline, even though I am sure dogs are much simpler creatures than humans. Howard6 said
You said "spanking is not effective unless the child has the ability to realize that the punishment is related to the behavior."
As worded, I disagree. I would say "spanking is not effective unless the child associates the punishment with the behavior."RandomActs said
So you see a big difference between "relates" and "associates"? The words are synonyms.Wow again. You do have a lot to learn about the english language. "Discipline" and "punishment" are also synonyms; remember them? I chose to use the word "associates" rather than "relates" because I understood the meaning of both words and "associates" more effectively related my intended thought. My statement stands. Howard6 said
You said "I gather you have the skills to determine when the child has developed the cognitive ability to understand what you are telling them."
Yes I do, and I think that any parent that not only spends time with but also pays attention to their children will acquire this ability. Note that when I say "spend time", I'm not talking about this new-age, feel-good-about-neglect 10 minute a day "quality time" garbage; I'm talking about the old-fashioned, act-like-they-matter hours (yes plural) a day, every day "quantity time". I think its a shame how parents don't spend time getting to know their children anymore.RandomActs said
I agree. But you seem to condone using pain rather than taking the time it would take to solve issues without the use of pain.What have I said that led you to this conclusion? Howard6 said
You said "But refuse to see the damage that can be done by the same act when not angry or going for revenge."
Damage without anger or revenge is possible with any kind of punishment; it is not exclusive to spanking. In fact, I think that far more children are damaged these days by the words their parents use when addressing them. I heard a woman at the grocery store a few months ago say to her pre-teen daughter "Hey sh*thead, are you deaf? I'm talking to you! Get the f*ck over here!" This really bothers me. I think of it as mental abuse. The parent-police don't seem to care about things like this though because they're to busy accusing spanking parents of damaging their children.RandomActs said
You are right. Why punish a child by any means? Abuse is abuse whether physical or emotional.We are already discussing this above. Howard6 said
You said "I wonder how the child can determine if the person spanking is angry or not?"
This has nothing to do with the child's perception of the parents anger; it has everything to do with the influence that anger can have on not only the determination to spank but also the administration of a controlled and reasonable amount of pain appropriate for the size and build of the child.RandomActs said
Nothing to do with the child's perception?? Are you serious? If the child believes you are punishing them because you are angry does that produce the same result if the child believes you are punishing them because they have not conformed to your immediate wishes? Or perhaps the child believes you consider them to be on the same level as the family dog since they are both corrected in the same way. The child's understanding of why they are being punished is all that matters.Will you please pay attention to the focal point of the discussion. We were discussing spanking and its relationship to physical (not emotional) harm. My point was this: When a parent spanks, motivated by anger or revenge, the physical damage that can occur has nothing to do with the child's perception of anger or revenge. Given your lack of focus, I should probably add this: When a parent spanks, motivated by anger or revenge, the emotional damage that can occur has almost everything to do with the child's perception of anger or revenge. My statement stands. (I hope that my new posting format/method will help us avoid these misunderstandings in the future. My 9 year-old granddaughter showed me how to do it this way. She's a computer genius! :-)) Howard6 said
You said "What harm is there in allowing a child to explore all avenues before learning that there is no way to accomplish what they want to do?"
Often there is no harm but sometimes there is; these "avenues" can be dangerous.RandomActs said
Ad the parent protects the child from harm without preventing them from exploring their world.We have been here before so it is best we stop. Howard6 said
You said "Do you think a person has the right to step in and prevent you from seriously hurting a child even though you refer to the punishment as spanking?"
I would like to say yes but I have to say no because "seriously hurting" is subject to broad interpretation.RandomActs said
Seriously hurting is not that difficult to determine.Do you really believe this? Okay, let's give it a go. RandomActs said
If the spanking causes lasting marks it is over the top. If the child is less than a year old you would have to question the reason for the spanking.Nope. We didn't make it. First, "lasting marks" is open to interpretation. Second, you and I already do not agree on "how young is too young?" My statement stands. Do you honestly believe that both sides of this debate will ever agree on a definition of "acceptable spanking"? By definition, anti-spanking advocates oppose spanking and believe that there is no such thing as "acceptable spanking". Howard6 said
You said "You can choose to believe as you wish. I live in the US and cannot think of any law that conflicts with my morals. The one time a law did conflict with my morals I petitioned the government and the issue was resolved. So I guess I would say "Yes" I obey the laws of the land."
I am amazed at how far you will go to avoid answering my original question. I'm sorry, but I don't believe you when you say that you obey all laws. You may think you do, but ignorance is no excuse. You insist on being stubborn, so I'll be ornery. I, Howard6, hereby accuse you, RandomActs, of annoying me on this discussion board. There, now I've done it, I've damaged your perfect record. How? Oh, you didn't know about that law? It seems that in the USA, it is illegal to annoy someone on-line using anything other than your real name. (Read about it here: news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html) As my neighbor kids say, "Busted!" You can find more laws you're breaking at www.dumblaws.com and use google to search for more.RandomActs said
Well, if you only read part of the law this would be one conclusion you might draw. But there is that pesky word "intent" to deal with.
"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
I stand, corrected.
RandomActs said
I believe it is clear from my writing that it is not my intent to do more than explain my belief regarding hurting children to modify their behavior.
Reading all that you have written, I don't believe this, but I digress.
RandomActs said
I didn't say I obeyed all laws.
In reply 133, you said "So I guess I would say "Yes" I obey the laws of the land."
RandomActs said
I said I could not think of one that would go against my morals.
You may not be able to think of any laws that violate your morals but trust me when I say that they're there. Again, I am amazed at how far you will go to avoid answering my original question.
Howard6 said
You said "So you agree spanking is meant to cause pain?"
I believe that spanking teaches a child that poor decisions will result in unpleasant consequences. I believe that spanking does cause a child to feel physical pain.
RandomActs said
This is the central point of the argument - teach by a means other than one that causes pain.
We are already discussing this above.
Howard6 said
You said "You may not want to acknowledge that spanking is hitting but that does not change the facts"
I believe, as I've said before and as I've never denied, that spanking is a small subset of hitting. Your continued insistence otherwise does not make it true.
RandomActs said
But it is already true. Spanking is hitting even though you have often denied it in these discussions.
We are already discussing this above.
Howard6 said
You said "You did not like me saying that the purpose of spanking was to modify behavior through inflicting pain."
I replied "Did you really say that the purpose of spanking was to modify behavior through inflicting pain? I must have missed it. Where exactly did you say this in these terms?" You responded, giving two examples "I feel you like to use the euphemism spanking to cover the fact that it is hitting to inflict pain" and "A broader definition of spanking is to intentionally inflict pain by striking an individual for the purpose of modifying behavior." Your first example is invalid because it makes use of the broad, unqualified term "hitting". Your second example is invalid because it makes use of the broad, unqualified term "striking".
RandomActs said
You are tap dancing around the issue. Again - spanking it hitting. You have to strike a child to spank them. Or, to use your word - swat them.
We are already discussing this above.
Howard6 said
You said: "Not if you like learning by being hurt."
Just because an individual has to learn something the hard way does not make them a sadist.
RandomActs said
No, if anyone is the sadist, it would be the person doing the teaching.
Allow me to rephrase my statement: Just because an individual has to learn something the hard way does not mean they enjoy learning from pain.
Howard6 said
You said: "There is a better way to teach the same thing."
Just because there is a better way to learn something does not mean that everyone will choose the easy route.
RandomActs said
That is, to children, painfully obvious. But the problem is that spanking is the easy route. Talking are reasoning, especially with a young child, takes much more time than swatting them until their spirit is broken.
Allow me to rephrase my statement: Just because there is a better way to learn something does not mean that every "student" will choose the easy route. |
|
|
|
Post by Random Acts 0f Kindness on May 31, 2006 2:07:26 GMT -5
I am going to attempt to tighten this up.
The areas that seem to be causing the problems are the use of words.
Here is the first definition, except where noted, of some of the words from the American Heritage Dictionary.
spank - (v. tr.) To slap on the buttocks with a flat object or with the open hand, as for punishment.
hurt - (v. tr.) to cause pain
hit - (v. tr.)To come into contact with forcefully; strike
discipline - (v. tr.) To train by instruction and practice, especially to teach self-control to.
punish - (v. tr.) To subject to a penalty for an offense, sin, or fault.
associate - (v. tr.) 3. To connect in the mind or imagination.
Add any words that you feel are not being used correctly.
Spanking is inflicting pain to modify behavior.
Like any organism, children will modify their behavior to avoid the pain.
The behavior will only be modified if there is the possibility of being caught.
Rather than punishing a child for their bad behavior, a parent can discipline their children to teach the child the expected behavior.
Children do have minds of their own. They, like adults, want to do things their own way. It is the job of their parents to guide them and teach them. It is also the job of the parent to listen to the child and perhaps change their own expectations if the child can articulate a valid reason for doing something their way.
It is the job of adults to protect children. Abuse, even if cloaked under the guise of spanking, needs to be stopped.
Howard6 said:
The most famous example of conditioning was salivation in dogs in response to a tone or bell.
What you are suggesting is using spanking and the related pain as the conditional stimulus and obedience as the unconditional response. This does not teach anything other than pain avoidance.
I guess that the upside of this is that since a planaria can be conditioned this will work on a newborn and, if the pain is great enough, on adolescents and adults as well.
Howard6 said:
I think this might not be the case.
Howard6 said:
Not as long as you want your children to learn pain avoidance rather than the correct behavior.
Howard6 said:
So it is "Do as I say and not as I do". Seems like telling your children not to steal while you are shoplifting.
Howard6 said:
If the child is placing themselves in danger, walking into the road, for example. Exactly the same as an adult walking into a road. In either case you would get them out of the road. I would not spank the child nor the adult.
Howard6 said:
Not sure about the relationship here. A child obeys if they do as you wish.
Perhaps you are referring the fact that I believe children should be allowed to exert their will and from that learn the folly of their ways rather than just be conditioned to obey to avoid pain.
I believe these are the central points. If I have overlooked some please bring them up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Howard6 on May 31, 2006 7:48:45 GMT -5
"RandomActs"
I have decided that further discussion between you and I is pointless.
In many ways, your most recent reply was essentially a "pass". This matters little though, since we had already gone full-circle on many issues.
Putting a lot of thought and effort into a discussion like this can take a considerable amount of time. At this point in my life, my obligations are few. You, on the other hand, most likely have a number of responsibilities to tend to. I can afford to spend a fair amount of time here. For you to do so would most likely be less than responsible.
I have enjoyed our discussion; it has been thought-provoking, educational, fun, and enlightening.
Issues like spanking may divide us but it is a comfort to know that we have something infinitely greater that unites us - our salvation through the blood of Christ Jesus.
Thank you, RandomActs, for your time. I pray for the best for you, your family, your friends, and your loved ones.
Love always in Christ Jesus,
Howard6
|
|
!!! You need a good spanking and you're hankering for it right here right now, sonny so shape up or ship out ,