[penpizdes]

If they can't have reasoned through that the stove is hot. But can take aversion (which very young kids can't), than yeah... I would rather have a light swat to teach aversion rather than a possible scarring (and much more painful) burn.

JM

You should be able to say "stop" and your kid stops still because it knows you are serious and looking out for them.

This whole idea that we need to slap kids around to keep them away from stoves and electrical outlets is retarded. What if one has a particularly dangerous house, then the kid gets smacked alot? That beyond retarded, it's fkn ridiculous. Sweden outlawed spanking and there was not a spike in kids touching stoves.

[glagoliska]

You should be able to say "stop" and your kid stops still because it knows you are serious and looking out for them.

Thi whole idea that we need to slap kids around to keep them away from stoves and electrical outlets is retarded. What if one has a particularly dangerous house, then the kid gets smacked alot? That beyond retarded, it's fkn ridiculous.

[opdirorg]

As OT Mod I do not spank Asher and he's much better behaved. Conclusive evidence.

How do you know it's not just because he knows where your hand has been?

[TaliaJack]

*enter stage left: kid with messed up face*


Hey dude, why is your nose crooked, your ear deformed, some teeth chipped, an eyeball floating about in its socket and your neck angled?!

My parents collected ancient weapons and then protected me from them.

Are you capable of discussing things as a rational person?

JM

[Lenkapuppia]

How so? Punishment is meant to be a consequence, to be in place of other 'natural' consequences that might not work as well for society. There exists natural, societal, and other forms of physical consequences. Everywhere from touching a hot stove to getting mauled by bears.

As an example. If family A member kills family B member, then family B kills a family A member, and so on... we get barbarism. A continual feud that solves nothing.

If instead the state mets out consequences. Lets say sending the family A member to prison for a while, justice is served... family B members have no reason/need to act.

Additionally, many actions don't have the consequence right than, but might in the future. By giving negative reinforcement/'unnatural' consequences, we can discourage the actions to go.

As example, littering. It doesn't have a consequence right than, at least not much of one. But over time, as everyone litters, there is a lot of consequences, from beauty to health/etc. So the state mets out a consequence, to discourage this action.

Since physical consequences are natural. And the imposing of consequences as punishment or behavior modification by authority figures (either adult or government) is desirable (and necessary). Therefore physical punishment is not inherently philosophically, intellectually, or spiritually wrong.

The main reason why people don't like the death penalty isn't because it is physical and therefore wrong, it is because it doesn't allow for people to change themselves and far too often permanently ends things when the wrong person was tried and convicted (which is an error of justice).

JM

[cristmiff]

Helpless?

[Pateeffelty]

I edited this:

I should note: killing a helpless (as in, cannot fight back) person who is about to kill innocent people is ok. Killing and beating for the defense of the weak is fine. I should have always noted with helpless a perhaps more important quality, harmless.

The child is not only helpless (unable to fight back) but harmless (not in the act of harming anyone).



Every government kills people? That's irrelevant. Killing people who would harm others for sure (and collateral damage) that serves the greater good is fine.


Not all governments have capital punishment, killing helpless and harmless people on purpose.

[luffyplayaz]

OH FKN PLZ STOP with this "the kid was about to throw itself onto a sword or into traffic" BS.





Beating or killing or otherwise physically harming someone who is helpless (unable to fight back) and harmless (not going to hurt others in the future) is WRONG. End of fkn story.

[estuapped]

I have no problem with corporal punishment. (not the type intended to hurt or maim)
My parents used in sparingly, and I used it on my daughter very sparingly. The results have been good.
It's also the main reason why catholic schools were able to handle larger class sizes and produced better students than the public schools in our area that were not allowed to use it.

[tuszit]

How many times, out of a hundred, would you say that children are spanked because they were about to touch a hot stove or stick their fingers in a socket...

[jojocomok]

Ecofarm, you assume that physical punishment of any time is evil. Obviously you can't come to another conclusion, and can't convince anyone who doesn't share your assumption, so why do you continue this discussion?

JM

[Toninvell]

How many times, out of a hundred, would you say that children are spanked because they were about to touch a hot stove or stick their fingers in a socket...

Most the time?

Once more, abuse is something very different. The situations it occurs in are different. The responses are different. And the results are different.

You seem to not be able to see this.

Someone who disciplines their child, including with physical means, has no causation with someone who abuses their child.

Abuse is things like cig burns on a 20 (or 3) month old baby and bruises/etc. Someone disciplining a 20 month old won't have any similarity in actions, effects, causes, or situations.

JM

[CGECngjA]

What kind of sick personal rationalization could possibly lead to such a preposterous conclusion??

Years and years of data that showed in our area that of all the schools that fed into our high school that that catholic feeder students always outperformed the public feeder school students.

The NUNS used corporal punishment to enforce discipline. The public school teachers could not. The catholic class sizes were twice that of the public schools but they performed better. So either the catholic students were smarter to start with or had a better home enviornment. Or the method the nuns used were better. Since we were in an exclusive suburb, there were no minorities dragging down the public school averages and almost everyone came from two parent families so I think all the kids came from a similar pool.
The public schools also outspent the catholic schools 2 to 1 per student. They had fancy labs while we built all of our science project using milk cartons and straws. Yet we scored considerably higher on standardized science tests.

Class room discipline was the difference.

[Navzrrqt]

Beating or killing or otherwise physically harming someone who is helpless (unable to fight back) and harmless (not going to hurt others in the future) is WRONG. End of fkn story.

WTF do people use to spank where you come from?

[Shiplyopidomi]

In today's society we have become soft, and instead of chosing to reprimand a child we give them a "syndrom" and a pill. Yeah, that's much better; medicate and forget.
Or a parent could behave in such a manner that their kid respects them and not their slap.



And don't you guys give me this "if we outlaw hitting then we might outlaw all repercussions!" BS. There's a clear line between hitting and punishing, for those who have evolved.

[corolaelwis]

Or a parent could behave in such a manner that their kid respects them and not their slap. I think we view spanking as different things. One should never slap their child. Slapping, in my mind, relates to an instinctive response to a behavior; the kid p1ssed me off so "slap". In many of the homes of those of us who support spanking this type of 'punishment' is also viewed as abuse. Spanking is not something taken lightly nor is it something used in lieu of earning respect.

[mensforyouthis]

Hitting at all, other than to protect directly, is neanderthalic.