Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2008 23:47:49 GMT -5
Johnny, how about just staying away from my children? Better yet, how about staying away from all children?
|
|
|
Post by ooT on Jun 30, 2008 23:53:09 GMT -5
Eph. 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. 2 Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; 3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.
Connected to: Deut. 21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: 19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; 20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. 21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
Now THERE is some motivation for being obedient.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny DeRaad on Jun 30, 2008 23:56:20 GMT -5
OPG and Johnny, I hope this isn't the best you have to biblically justify child beating. What good shepherd uses his rod to beat the sheep into line? Just like Christ the Good Shepherd? Hardly. A good shepherd will gently use his rod to form a boundary for the sheep. Good parents will do the same.Here's the one that parents and spiritual leaders will use to justify child beating: "Withhold not correction from the child: for [if] thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell." Pretty clear? Not so fast. The Hebrew for the word "beat" or "smite" can mean a whole range of actions from "strike to kill" down to "touch". There are a number of possibilities: 1.The original writer is a sadist who intended to convey beating the bejabbers out of children to somehow make them good citizens. 2.The original writer did not intend to convey violence to hurt a child but something much more gentle. 3.Some mad monk in the 3rd century rearranged the words to convey beatings for child discipline. What did he care? He didn't have any children. Beating children just doesn't line up with the Nature or teachings of Christ. Anyone who has studied the life of Christ, the One who taught and lived non-violence, knows that. Christ taught non-violence even against enemies, so how much more important is it to refrain from inflicting pain on your own children? evidently ya'int done much sheepherdin'. . ..sheep are dumb! . .flip one over on it's back and it don't know how to stand up again. .kids, on the other hand, are smart little devils...with reason and logic and common sense. . .. consciously and purposefully going out to do havok and mayhem on the citizenry . . . without sorrow or regret.. . .it takes a little rod bending on their less than delicate hienyakusses to gettem to pay attention!
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jul 1, 2008 1:45:40 GMT -5
evidently ya'int done much sheepherdin'. . ..sheep are dumb! . .flip one over on it's back and it don't know how to stand up again. Hi Johnny, I have to disagree. First, this wouldn't prove a sheep is dumb. It may just indicate a limitation in their balancing/orientation/perception. Put a person with vertigo on a very high ledge and see how well they do even if they are intelligent. But sheep are highly social, intelligent and have reasonable memories. www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1982024.htm
|
|
|
Post by no name on Jul 1, 2008 2:16:15 GMT -5
Depending on the situation, yes. But a hand whack (singular) on the butt and a cane-thrashing are totally different things, imo. I am opposed to the latter.
|
|
|
Post by aussiegal on Jul 1, 2008 2:34:17 GMT -5
I agree with that No-name. They've apparently passed a law - or about to pass a law - here in Australia on punishment of children. It's been deemed acceptable to give children a smack using your hand... but unacceptable to use any other "tool" such as a belt, stick etc.
I don't smack my kids often (and maybe not often enough!). But when I do it's for more than just being a slightly naughty/disobedient child. I do use reasoning... I do use time-out... and I do use other measures. Occasionally there is a need for a smack on the hand or even on the bottom.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Jul 1, 2008 5:13:29 GMT -5
Tired old cliches that have been peddled for donkey's years. How do you "teach fear"? How does the cane "teach fear"? What sort of fear; when and how? Fear of what? And that whole concept of "might makes right" is just 1960's agitprop all over again. No kid who gets disciplined physically grows up to believe this. My parents - meek and mild now in their older years - used to belt the holy terror out of me. And I grew up a radical commie, believing that authority needs to serve a function, and the people who give it.
I never learned fear or "might makes right" from my parents' frequent use of the rod. Nobody ever does.
Comparisons between corporally disciplined children and non-corporally disciplined children should be the starting point for formularising that opinion.
You're just being shrill and militant now. Slavery is in no way comparable to children getting the cane, or a smack from their parents. This silliness falls into the same category as the argument that NAZI Concentration Camps were as grim and evil as detaining illegal immigrants in detention centres until their applications can be processed (as some Australian socialists maintain).
H'mmm... I wonder if there is a linear association between non-slapping and being a hooker? Quick, let's get a bunch from the local brothel and do a questionaire!
This is one of those stupid academic exercises that imagine that a single characteristic dictates and influences the entire course of an adult life. It is the fallacy that human beings are like billiard balls, and when snookered by forces beyond their control (eg, slapping when children), they will inevitably be set on a path of destruction they cannot stop.
Let us not imagine that alcoholism or addictions are CHOICES! Let us not imagine that reasoning adults intelligently opt to get themselves involved in certain lifestyles! Let us remove volition entirely; let us resurrect the doctrine of Predestination. By lacking the grace of liberal parents with enlightened sentiments, the poor bruised child is ordained - elected, as it were - to a life of ceaseless depression, guilt and addiction. There are no other factors here!
These sorts of studies are only taken seriously by half-wits who imagine that correlation is the same thing as causality. If that were the case, then the correlation of statistics suggesting that most car accidents occur less than 600 metres from a person's home would lead us to conclude that driving home is the CAUSE of such accidents. Therefore, don't drive home, and you won't have a car smash. Therefore, don't smack your children, and they won't become alcoholics.
Plainly stupid. Statistics are the tool of the academic to manipulate the feeble-minded. Bah!
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Jul 1, 2008 5:17:36 GMT -5
Argh! Militant and silly people who quote from Old Testament ceremonial laws and disregard the New! (Oh, and please, let's disregard history, culture and context while we're at it - wouldn't want intelligence to get in the way of our knee-jerk, liberal anti-religion hate fest)
Rational, you have proved yourself as silly and shrill as the "gays and shellfish" arguments presented by Ellen Degeres in defence of gay lifestyles. You really have no idea what you're talking about on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 1, 2008 8:52:52 GMT -5
Tired old cliches that have been peddled for donkey's years. How do you "teach fear"? How does the cane "teach fear"? What sort of fear; when and how? Fear of what? And that whole concept of "might makes right" is just 1960's agitprop all over again. No kid who gets disciplined physically grows up to believe this. My parents - meek and mild now in their older years - used to belt the holy terror out of me. And I grew up a radical commie, believing that authority needs to serve a function, and the people who give it. Would you like me to give you a reference to the CIA and their methods of teaching people to fear them? You cry out about the "tired old cliches" but support your arguments with things like the oldest cliché of them all - "Moreover, no intelligent person could possibly deny that if you ever take a passing moment to talk to older folks who can remember the paradigm of corporal discipline, the overwhelming majority will tell you it DID work." "It worked for my father and for my father;s father so it must be right" If you didn't learn fear from the rod, which you claim is how one comes to respect, then what is the purpose of corporal punishment? And that was exactly what I posted. Results from one of many studies that have been done concerning the long term effects of corporal punishment. I did not make a comparison. You have made that up from whole cloth. The comment I made was in response to following the bible regarding family values, not comparing slavery to hitting a child, or anyone, with a cane to correct their behavior. I don't recall making the claim but had I been making a comparison this would have had some merit. So after stating that a study would be a good place to start when an actual peer review study is presented that disagrees with your preconceived outlook you reject it out of hand? And before you bring it up, because it would have been a good argument, this study eliminated anyone who said they remembered being physically or sexually abused. I can see you have made the judgment without bothering to take the time to read the study. No one said that a single factor was the problem. They just pointed out the results of their study. You could point out a study that shows the positive results of corporal punishment. That would be a good way to defend your opinion regarding the matter. Of course they are choices. The question is why people who made that choice more often said they had been subjected to corporal punishment. I really expected better discussion from you. No one, except you, has said that corporal punishment makes a person do anything. The research only pointed out how people in the various categories had been raised. If you are disputing the collected data I am certain I could find another paper to discuss. For example: " Corporal Punishment by Parents and Associated Child Behaviors and Experiences: A Meta-Analytic and Theoretical Review." Psychological Bulletin, 2002 Jul;128(4) Gershoff, E. T., National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia University, New York, NY. Found that corporal punishment of children was related to decreased internalization of moral rules, increased aggression, more antisocial behavior, increased criminality, weakened parent-child relationships, decreased mental health outcomes, increased adult abusive behaviors, and increased risk of being victimized in abusive relationships in adulthood. This study is an analysis of 88 research studies on corporal punishment of children.
These are, of course, the studies you first claimed didn't exist. Not that they show the possible negative results of corporal punishment they are simple for the stupid. Damn those clowns at Columbia, Harvard, Yale, and the other institutions of the stupid who publish their results. As far as I can see you are the only one, so far, who believes this is what the study is saying. Yet you so far have been unable to present a case where the statistics have been manipulated to show support for your contentions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2008 8:55:25 GMT -5
I agree with that No-name. They've apparently passed a law - or about to pass a law - here in Australia on punishment of children. It's been deemed acceptable to give children a smack using your hand... but unacceptable to use any other "tool" such as a belt, stick etc. I don't smack my kids often (and maybe not often enough!). But when I do it's for more than just being a slightly naughty/disobedient child. I do use reasoning... I do use time-out... and I do use other measures. Occasionally there is a need for a smack on the hand or even on the bottom. Here's an idea I employed when I first decided against smacking kids. I would put the back of my hand on their bottom and smack my hand with the other hand. It made a loud smacking noise (a clap actually) and got the focus I was looking for. That was only transitional though until I figured out how to discipline them without that or psychological coercion.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 1, 2008 9:11:26 GMT -5
Argh! Militant and silly people who quote from Old Testament ceremonial laws and disregard the New! (Oh, and please, let's disregard history, culture and context while we're at it - wouldn't want intelligence to get in the way of our knee-jerk, liberal anti-religion hate fest) Rational, you have proved yourself as silly and shrill as the "gays and shellfish" arguments presented by Ellen Degeres in defence of gay lifestyles. You really have no idea what you're talking about on this issue. Are we now discussing the gay lifestyle of the rich and famous or is a non sequitur you are throwing against the wall to see if it will stick? I quoted what you claim was a commandment from your god, one whom you claim is omnipotent and omniscient. The commandments about selling your daughter, buying a brother, the rules regarding slavery, etc. are not part of some ceremonial laws but were in force and and supported in the New Testament. Jesus used them as examples and Paul told the slaves (servants) how to behave. If I were a theist and was faced with an eternity in hell I would follow the commandments that the only entity that could send me to hell had proclaimed.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 1, 2008 9:17:00 GMT -5
Here's an idea I employed when I first decided against smacking kids. I would put the back of my hand on their bottom and smack my hand with the other hand. It made a loud smacking noise (a clap actually) and got the focus I was looking for. That was only transitional though until I figured out how to discipline them without that or psychological coercion. I whacked them in the head with a spoon to get their attention! Of course they were in their teens. It was a quick way to jar a disconnect from the TV or get through the earphones from their music station. And, or course, the rounded spoon left none of those troublesome bruise marks! And if it did, their hair hid it!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2008 11:32:53 GMT -5
Here's an idea I employed when I first decided against smacking kids. I would put the back of my hand on their bottom and smack my hand with the other hand. It made a loud smacking noise (a clap actually) and got the focus I was looking for. That was only transitional though until I figured out how to discipline them without that or psychological coercion. I whacked them in the head with a spoon to get their attention! Of course they were in their teens. It was a quick way to jar a disconnect from the TV or get through the earphones from their music station. And, or course, the rounded spoon left none of those troublesome bruise marks! And if it did, their hair hid it! What I do to get their attention with the iPod earbuds in place is start talking to them by moving my lips but not vocalize. They look at me and think they are going crazy because they can't hear anything at all so they yank the earbuds out to assure themselves that they are still sane. Then I have their attention.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny DeRaad on Jul 1, 2008 17:44:48 GMT -5
OK.. .guess it's kinda got going in the direction I was interested in opinions on..Biblical correction. . . . and before I get painted into too black of a corner..there was mainly some of my smartaleck humor in my responses here. .for the record..I do believe in corporal punishment but that does not include kicking, punching, burning, eye gouging, branding, etc., etc.,etc, .. . . .. I believe the Bible clearly supports disclipining children and I don't think that excludes spanking .. . .I am most certainly not opposed to many of the other than physical methods brought up here but to say that there doesn't come a time when a child needs a spanking is severely constricting the boundaries of discipline.. . . and yes, as many have already expressed their opinions here. .. .you are allowed to disagree with that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2008 18:16:25 GMT -5
That's a little better Johnny. I'm considering unbanning you.
I continue to maintain though that Jesus taught specifically against all violence.
|
|
|
Post by ooT on Jul 1, 2008 18:38:37 GMT -5
This lazy researcher is rather wondering if experts ever ask well-adjusted, non-dysfunctional people if they were spanked as children?
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Jul 1, 2008 18:58:45 GMT -5
This lazy researcher is rather wondering if experts ever ask well-adjusted, non-dysfunctional people if they were spanked as children? If I ever find even one of these sort of people, I will be sure and ask them. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D fs
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Jul 1, 2008 18:59:27 GMT -5
Ah, the Rational we all know and love has returned from his adventure holiday of liberal sloganism. Welcome back.
You see, this is what I call hitting with a "crooked bat" (as we would say in Australia). You throw in a gobet here, just as you did previously about slavery, which is entirely beside the point. What does the CIA have to do with anything for goodness sake? The point in focus being, does corporal discipline work? You and I both acknowledge that it does, but you claim it is indefensible and causes lifelong damage. To prove your point, you have supplied statistics and created many a tangent of thought.
None of the older people I have spoken to - and I have spoken to many over the years - have ever regretted the use of the cane in their own experience. Some will say they needed it, others commend its use even now. Still others will say the cane brought a social order and discipline that is strongly lacking in some schools (I teach in a school where, in a typical DAY, a classroom is set alight, desks are thrown over balconies at other students, and a boy gets his head smashed open with a brick and his face kicked in.).
You have stated that caning "teaches fear" and "might makes right". Notwithstanding the open logic that no physical force can induce one's philosophical beliefs, you have gone as far as to cite figures that suggest that caning leads to lifelong anxiety disorders and alcoholism (a conclusion I simply do not support). Yet MY experience with real people who were caned does not show those results at all. None of them have anxiety disorders, and all of them believe the cane did them the world of good.
You attempt to ridicule my position through reductio ad absurdum - "it worked for my father and my father's father - therefore it must be right". However, there is even some truth in your sneering simplification of my position: yes I believe there is merit in looking at what has worked in the past. I am not into social experimentation. I am a Burkean conservative, who firmly believes that traditions and the wisdom of the past are important and relevant to contemporary circumstance, and not to be dispensed with. As your own American theorist Brookes Adams wrote, I disagree that the world of today is wiser than the world of yesterday.
I think we are in agreement at least on this point: the cane has been used for a long time, and during that time has been proven to work. It changes behaviour effectively. You question whether it holds long term benefit, and my response has been to point you to my experience with older people who had the actual experience.
Oh, I feared the rod all right. My mother was particularly dangerous as she would use any blunt object that came to hand. And I can tell you it bloody well hurt. But I did not "learn fear" as a lifestyle, or as a pattern of behaviour. I absolutely love my parents to death, whatever their deficiencies as parents might have been. And I am certainly not a fearful person.
You see, the problem with using handy-dandy liberal cliches like "learning fear" is the absence of thorough definition explaining just what the heck you are trying to say. I note you did not answer my question as to what or who we "learn to fear". What is the object or the source of our fear? If it is to fear the rod, then yes; I always feared the punishment, although I did not fear my parents.
You published statistics. And whether you like it or not, statistics do not support one conclusion. In fact, statistics never support any conclusion - as you should know if you took a research methodologies unit at college (as I have). I know you are well-educated, and I have no doubt that you would have covered the weaknesses of quantitative data as some point in your education.
You, therefore, are better positioned than the vast majority of people on this forum to know that statistics can be interpreted, but never held to definitively prove anything. If they did, then the plethora of statistics in advertising would be the equivalent of irrefutable scientific evidence!
And telling me that the statistics have come from Yale and Harvard (as if name dropping makes for a clincher argument) is nothing more than the genesis fallacy - that the originator of the data garantees its truth or lack of truth. Such as those who think every word the Pope speaks is a lie, because he is the Pope. Or those who think every word that Richard Dawkins speaks is universal truth, because he is an Oxford professr. And likewise, those who believe statistics are above reproach or scrutiny because they come from someone who works at Harvard or Yale!
You mentioned slavery right before your admission of statistics! I think that's a comparison, my friend.
Well I didn't know what you were saying. It made no sense.
Stop trying to be slippery. I never said you did make such a claim - that NAZI concentration camps are the equivalent of detention centres - however I was using this as an approximate example of your apparent comparison between slavery and caning. Both of them are ridiculous comparisons, and I would hope that yourself as a thinking person would never be tempted to employ them.
See above regarding data and its interpretation.
Are you saying that no conclusion other than "strong correlation between X and Y" was drawn? If so then the study does not prove anything, does it? Such studies about. I remember reading studies about the correlation of hair colour to employment; I have read studies about the correlation of car colour to marriage stability - such studies abound, and many of them come from respected institutions. And I reject out of hand any XY correlation as the basis of arriving at an absolute conclusion.
Qualitative research is indicated here, not quantitative.
Maybe. When I have that much time up my sleeve...
So what? It still comes down to blaming nurture for an action of personal volition.
Oh no you don't! Don't you come up with this nonsense.
I was pointing to the logical conclusion from your argument - the logical conclusion is that our lifestyle choices can be blamed on our upbringing, thence excising the matter of personal volition from adult behaviour. If this is not your argument, then you have no grounds for saying that corporal discipline has long-term negative effects on people's lives. Your argument is emptied of any substance entirely.
You cannot have it both ways. Either you agree with me that alcoholism and anxiety disorders cannot have their causality fixed on nurture (at least, not exclusively, and perhaps in the case of the former, not at all), thus removing the grounds for saying that caning has long-term detrimental effects on people, or you disagree with me by saying that yes, caning has a profound, life-altering affect on people to the point that it is an agent of causation that leads to destructive lifestyle patterns. If the caning did not happen, the destructive lifestyle pattern would not follow - that is the logical product of your argument.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2008 19:00:24 GMT -5
This lazy researcher is rather wondering if experts ever ask well-adjusted, non-dysfunctional people if they were spanked as children? ooT, if you look at the chart of stats from the previous page reply #19, I think it answers your question. For example, 1. there are more than 100% more drug and alcohol addicts amongst those who were spanked often versus those never spanked. 2. there were about 50% more who suffered major depression. 3. there were about 30% more who suffered from anxiety. 4. there were more than 100% more who suffered more than one of the above. These are remarkable statistics. Even in families where there were minimal spankings, those who were not spanked at all fared significantly better as healthy well adjusted non-dysfunctional adults. These stats don't surprise me one bit as spanking did me no good and would have really impacted me if I got more than just a few. For Christians, we need to look to Christ for guidance on this.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 1, 2008 19:01:22 GMT -5
This lazy researcher is rather wondering if experts ever ask well-adjusted, non-dysfunctional people if they were spanked as children? Generally speaking, you select your subjects at random, question them and gather all the data, and then study the results.
|
|
|
Post by were on Jul 1, 2008 22:47:48 GMT -5
This lazy researcher is rather wondering if experts ever ask well-adjusted, non-dysfunctional people if they were spanked as children? Generally speaking, you select your subjects at random, question them and gather all the data, and then study the results. most people that were never spanked as children, do not understand the bennifit of spanking children. my parents were good parents, I donmt care what the phycos say about spanking, ....it can be a great tool of discipline when used sparingly.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 2, 2008 18:38:19 GMT -5
I had responded in my usual fashion, point by point, but then I realized that there were very few points. They were just repeated over and over. I mentioned the CIA and their ability to teach someone to fear because you had stated fear could not be taught. When questioning they teach people to fear one team and trust other teams in attempts to extract information. I posted one of many studies that show that there is a correlation between corporal punishment and longterm problems. There are a number of studies that support this premise and so far there have been no results that show this to be coincidental. While we can only perceive correlation scientific method can be used to rule out false causes. And if you think they are false - show the studies that support your belief. To be blunt, I do not believe that what you described was a typical day. That would result, in a 180 day school year, that 180 desks be thrown and 180 children be hit by the falling desk. 180 children would have had their head bashed open with a brick while having their face kicked in. Sounds like 360 children a year needing medical attention. I too have worked in the inner city. You claim you have taken a Research Methodologies (sounds like a case of word inflation - shouldn't it be Methods research?) yet you seem upset that the anecdotal stories you mention are not accepted as data. You might want to review that course. You claim you fear the rod but not the people who wielded the rod. Does this make sense? An inanimate object cannot be much of a threat. I hope I have addressed your concerns. If not please forgive me and restate. Ah, the Rational we all know and love has returned from his adventure holiday of liberal sloganism. Welcome back. <snip> you can read his post above <snip> If the caning did not happen, the destructive lifestyle pattern would not follow - that is the logical product of your argument.
|
|