Are you saying that because the event I related would not be appropriate in dealing with adults who were caught drunk driving means it could not be effective in dealing with a child?
No. By substituting one "unacceptable behavior" for another "unacceptable behavior", your technique for dealing with "unacceptable behavior" becomes obviously inadequate.
LOL. I don't even want to know how you came up with that!
What about the "other cases" that don't fit under your "almost every"?
Some children don't give up on temper tantrums so easy. I've seen 10-15 year olds throw them. And they've learned how to get the attention they want. They break things (furniture, windows, etc.) and some resort to harming themselves. (I know the parents. They refuse to spank. They try to talk and "mentally manipulate" (my words, not theirs) their way out of the temper tantrum or just wait it out.)
Not easy I suppose when your child is harming themselves.
This puts the child in charge of the situation and teaches them that when they want to go off on someone or about something there are no consequences and everyone around them will wait until they are done throwing their fit then pretend it never happened. This is not a good lesson for a child to learn because the adult world won't put up with it. I know adults like this. They can't maintain a job, relationship, or even manage their own personal lives.
Be careful. Laughing (even
with the child) when they are feeling enraged or distraught can cause self esteem issues in a child. I know parents who tried to diffuse their daughter's temper tantrums by using humor. She's an adult now and has all kinds of self worth issues. She also hates her parents and won't speak to them, saying they never loved her enough to take her seriously as a child.
Children are not stupid. They know that their temper tantrums are having an impact on their parents regardless of how much the parents pretend not to be bothered by them. The very fact that a parent starts ignoring the child when they throw a fit is enough to tell them that their parent is being impacted. Like it or not, there is no way to show a child that their temper tantrums have absolutely no effect. The child is doing it to get attention and attention is exactly what they get. It is unavoidable.
This is why I think it's funny that you think ignoring the child will cause the behavior to stop.
To a child there is more than one positive result. Give in to the child on their initial request - that is a positive result - they got what they wanted. Distract the child with something else - that is a positive result - they got something equivalent to or better than what they wanted. Or tolerate a temper tantrum - that is a positive result - they've made their parent suffer for saying no.
How is a parent being made to suffer a positive result? Children know their parents want them to behave in a civilized manner. When a parent ignores their child's uncivilized behavior (temper tantrums) the child still understands that the parent doesn't like it. Children learn young that wrong actions are often followed by unpleasant consequences. Now the child has the power to punish their own parent. Talk about positive results! What's so sad is that parents often fool themselves into thinking that the child stopped the temper tantrum because they weren't getting positive results. Wrong! The child stopped because the punishment had run it's course and, if the parent dares to defy the wishes of the child again, more punishment (temper tantrums) will follow. So now the children are in control. They have learned to train and manipulate the parents the same way the parents used to train and manipulate (calling it parenting) the child.
The irony is that "ignoring" is a form of "attention" - something most parents don't pick up on but children do.
By debate tactic, I meant "taking things out of context" not "using child sexuality to make a point".
Accusing me of condoning the use of child sexuality to make a point is low, even for you.
I called you prudish because at the first mention of sex, you pitch a fit at its mention, ignoring the central point of the illustration, which was that by substituting one "unacceptable behavior" for another "unacceptable behavior", your technique for dealing with "unacceptable behavior" becomes obviously inadequate.
If you want to complain about the sexual reference, that is fine, but don't use it as cover for avoiding the real issue at hand.
Fine, then given my clarification regarding inappropriate behavior, take the sexual reference out and replace it with murder, theft, drug use, assault, drunk driving, lying under oath, and arson. Done? Good. Now address the issue. (I won't hold my breath.)
========================================
There is no need to enlarge the font.
It makes it no more understandable than yelling at someone who doesn't speak your language.
You seem to be pretty good with the language. What part are you having trouble understanding?
Here it is again for your convenience:
Spanking is the subject.
I DO object when you SUBSTITUTE terms broader than "spanking" for "spanking". This is a political word game designed to mis-characterize genuine "spanking".
I DO NOT object when you USE terms broader than "spanking" and then SUBSEQUENTLY NARROW/QUALIFY THOSE terms for the purpose of providing a definition or description of "spanking".
Spanking is spanking.
Spanking is not hitting, punching, smacking, swatting, slapping, striking, banging, belting, slogging, smashing, swinging, walloping, and so on. But when, and only when, these terms have been qualified and narrowed, can they be used to define or describe spanking.
No. Just properly qualified common words. It's a part of effective communication.
You are the one insisting on the use of common, broad, unqualified words.
You make the rules and blame me for the outcome. Typical.
I'd hope you like it. It's your design.
Thank you for trying.
So go on. You must think this is a big deal.
Great!
Yes.
I agree.
Probably around 12 or 13.
This may be a dumb question since you don't believe in it, but do you ever punish your children?
I don't think the thought crossed my mind. I was to angry to think or care about consequences. I know that at that point, I'd never been spanked for hitting. I do remember thinking later that hitting would get me a spanking and I do remember making a conscious effort to not hit so I didn't get the spanking. I had to learn other (more acceptable) ways of dealing with my anger.
Yes.
I see what you are getting at here. You think the two are equivalent because a spanking punishes a child for a wrong and hitting punishes ones "enemy" for a wrong.
On the surface they do seem to be the same but the difference is in the motivation.
I spank my son because I love him and care about the quality of his future. I want to train out of him the behaviors that will cripple him in adult society.
I hit my brother as a boy because I was angry at him and I wanted him to suffer the way he'd made me suffer. I didn't care about his future. I wanted him to suffer in the present.
The same takes place in the non-physical-contact world.
A parent rewards their child for good grades by taking them out for ice-cream. A child rewards another child for playing with her by giving her a bag of candy. These two examples share a common theme. A reward reinforces desired behavior.
The difference here too is in the motivation.
The parent rewards the child because they love them and care about the quality of their future. They want to reward the behaviors that will benefit them in adult society.
The child rewards her (superficial) friend to stick around because she believes that bribery is the best way to maintain the so-called friendship.
Punishment (spanking or other) is used by parents. Children pick up on it and learn to use it too.
Reinforcement (positive or negative) is used by parents. Children pick up on it and learn to use it too.
The motivation behind the use of punishment and reinforcement is key.
If you are talking about when I hit my brother then you are correct. Hitting my brother didn't seem to modify his behavior to my liking.
Different motivation. See how that works? Amazing! Children are so perceptive. This says so much. Thanks.
Sick stuff but what is your point?
I said "Well on the first offense it is often the case that the child doesn't know better. Other than that though, yes I do see punishment as a requirement for consequences."
How does this relate to Clockwork Orange, Government or anything else you said?
Of course.
Yes.
Oh. I thought we were discussing punishment and its place in society and its effectiveness.
So you don't believe in punishing children but you do believe in punishing adults?
And I'm confused - when did I say that we were talking about guards in a maximum security prison.
We were talking about punishment as a requirement for consequences. In making the case against this, you said "Think if the consequence was something positive rather than something negative?" I asked for an example and you give me "no praise" when they do wrong. Wow. If this is all it takes for your kids, I want to meet them.
I see what you're saying now. I agree, the success rate sucks. The question is why?
I was in an offender family support group (I had a couple family members in lockup) where they told us that most offenders who are truly reformed have loving, supportive (of their reform not the crime) family to encourage them in their reform. They were being punished (jail time, victim restitution) but at the same time were being loved and supported by people with a genuine interest in their future.
The recidivism rate is high and I think some of it is because it is hard to train some things out of some adults (you can't teach an old dog new tricks) but I also think it's because many inmates don't have the proper love, support, and encouragement to truly reform from close family members.
So you think the murder rate there is a direct result of capital punishment?
So what is your answer to correcting the high recidivism rate?
So what doesn't work on half of hardened criminals will also not work on half of impressionable children.
Ok. Then let's do it your way. Let's release all criminals and offer them a reward for being good - say a monthly payment from the government. Do you really think this will work? It's positive reinforcement. You say it will work for children so it must work for adults.
Yes we have lots of laws. Are they working? What is the recidivism rate again?
Good point. I'm curious, are you a fan of the three strikes laws?
Now there's a twist. Ask an inmate sometime if they consider their jail time as "punishment".
Whew. Thank you.
This thread is full of them.
True. But it is likely that it had at least something to do with the reform.
You broaden the discussion when you want. You narrow the discussion when you want. And you have no tolerance for illustrations by example not offered by you. You are a frustrating person to have a conversation with.
We agree where adults are concerned then. The question is does everything that is true for hardened adults translate exactly to impressionable children?
========================================
I am not sure I ever said punishment was wrong.
Sorry I thought I'd read you opposing it.
For children, adults, or both?
You don't want future generations to be aware of what? Punishment?
========================================
Perhaps presenting some situations where a child being spanked is the only solution would help.
What does this have to do with anything? She said "there are much better ways and methods than
resorting to spanking". Note the word "resorting" as in "falling back on when all else fails".
I don't see how "presenting some situations where a child being spanked is the only solution" would help. Please clarify.
It would be nice.