__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
Also, to some people's perception of reality, the sky is blue.
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
No I did not miss your point. However, you did miss my point.
No I did not miss your point. However, you did miss my point.
You implied that the rights and obligations of a parent are the same for their child as they are for a random stranger. This is why I called the comparison "socially akward and silly."
The parent has a moral, legal-and for some theists-a spiritual obligation to discipline their children. One of those humane, effective, and mostly legal methods is spanking.
The socially awkward and silly comparison comes in when you equated the rights and social situation of punching a "misbehaving" adult in the face with spanking a misbehaving child.
In other words:
Rights !=
Moral Obligations !=
Social Obligations !=
Indeed.
But take it one step further: an very effective method for preventing your child from running into the street again is a spanking. In fact, my "parental" observation has lead me to believe that this is the most effective method for anything less than absurd interrogation/brainwashing of the child in a dark room like you'd see on the show 24. Data shows that doing this 2-3 times nets a behavioral turn-around. Contrast this with other common parental control methods:
Time-out would be difficult to enforce in any sort of immediate fashion, losing it's efficacy for younger children (the longer you wait to enforce the consequence, the harder it is for the child to understand and correct their actions, especially if they are young). The yelling option, IMO, is one of the worst discipline options a parent can do in any situation: it shows a loss of control or lack of ability as a parent. Verbal abuse, which I see quite commonly used by parents to obtain compliance, is a really bad option: the worst one there. Privilege deprivation also falls into the category of "time-sensitive" failure: not very effective for younger children. Bribery can be effective but can be difficult to use with negative behaviors: it can serve as a reminder such as a three-strike rule (three strikes and the ice-cream store trip gets cancelled or something similar.) This one is effective for some children and it represents, not immediately, but real consequences. I do not think this method is appropriate for some actions such as a child endangering his or her life.
Spanking seems like the best choice in that situation because it is immediate. However, just spanking alone is not sufficient: the child MUST understand what the spanking is for or else it is just like an alpha-male snapping at a younger male in a wild-dog pack, IMO.
Incorrect: spanking my child is legal. You punching me in the face is not legal. Not disciplining my children is illegal (and can result in them being taken away, depending on the circumstances). Not disciplining poor behavior of an adult is not illegal.
Additionally, disciplining your children BECAUSE misbehavior is a common occurrence for young children, is exactly the reason you should do it. This can include spanking your child.
I agree: a parent should discipline their child and that should include spanking if it works for that child.*
Incorrect: that's exactly what this is about. If it were not effective, I would not want it illegal. Keep in mind that when I refer to spanking, I refer to swatting a child on the bottom with your open hand which ALWAYS accompanies an explanation* (before or after, doesn't matter). Other types of spanking I consider a bit too harsh such as with a belt, some paddles, no explanation, and so forth.
Privilege deprivation is a form of torture. So is time out. Torture is in the eye of the beholder. You definitely support torture if you think that privilege deprivation and things such as time-out are one of the few methods of discipline.
Unless you're referring to the Geneva Convention defined torture. In which case I would argue that that is a very faulty comparison because torture causes psychological damage, especially to young children. Obviously, it WOULD work, but cause other problems. This is why those tortures are illegal and spanking your child is not.
Let's make this clear:
You actually mean to say: " hitting a child is not only a clear violation of what I believe should be heir rights."
Because it is NOT a violation of their rights (from where I come from.)
That's a very difficult point to back up considering the other options also require little creativity. Placing a child in time out, against their will, seems to be less creative than spanking your child and explaining the object lesson.
I would prefer that both methods contain an explanation and reason. However, a child that is literally spazing out because they do not want to go to their room can hurt themselves as they flail about. Have you ever tried to place a freaked out child into time out? Both you and the child can get hurt: it's not a good idea. Privilege deprivation? That often makes the situation worse. It also depends on the child.
Additionally, you should not be getting creative when you discipline a younger child: confusing the child will cause the object lesson to be lost on the child.
I can also say that other methods reinforce the spanking. I can also say that spanking with explanations is it's own method. I can also say that certain situations call for a spanking and other situations call for alternative methods. I can also say that spanking can be effective without those other methods.
Again, it is not a violation of that child's rights. The justification is creating a socially acceptable child and teaching your children what society deems as right and wrong behaviors. That's a REALLY big justification and is quite sufficient...because...that's...like...the reason for disciplining your children to begin with.
*If spanking your child does not result in a positive behavioral change, then spanking (which includes an explanation) is not what should be used. This also applies, in the same way, to time-outs and privilege deprivations: discontinue that mode of discipline and try something else if it is not working. Most of all, don't forget to consult a child-psychologist and/or reading materials.
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Jan 8th, 2011 at 12:39 PM
-- Time-out: can be astoundingly effective, depending on the child/situation.
-- Yelling / verbal abuse: I agree with your summation...though there is the 'Rubinfeld Effect'.
-- Privilege deprivation: again, depends on the child/situation, but generally not one of the better methods. Kids can be very 'adaptive'.
-- Bribery: counterproductive long-term; teaches the wrong reason for doing the right thing, ie, there's no internalization.
-- Spanking: can also be very effective, but IMO should be a last resort, done with as minimal force/frequency as possible.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
Last edited by Mindship on Jan 8th, 2011 at 01:22 PM
Gender: Female Location: When in Doubt, Go to the Library.
One of the main problems is overpopulation, which leads to over-agriculture... There's this book that everyone should read on this [changing the world] subject.
"Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn. It was written in the 70's, so is a lot about the problems then, but everything sort of applies.
__________________
It does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live.
Gender: Unspecified Location: Elysian Fields, Blue planet
The key to change is a fundamental symbol, a mere idea, an infinity of meaning within a single line of text, learn of inception and you need not make sense to bring about untold order.
citations: alice in wonderland, plato, zeno, leonardo dicaprio, romeo and juliet, crest of the stars, there's an infinity of citations and some prefer citations even to the comments themselves
The red queen dilemma progress in a static world, ultimate change within the sea of information, where thought itself is warfare of the final kind, and a single bit can decide the outcome of a battle.
Critic comments: recommended works shiki,braid, nausicaa
infinite relevance without rewarrd is rewarding in an of itself
Ones mistakes may be used by others to learn the meaning s of the rules, and the rules of meaning. See Noam Chomsky, literal and abstract interpretation seem valid
__________________ I AM THE LAW!-Judge Dredd
Last edited by En Sabah Nur X on Jan 8th, 2011 at 10:37 PM
Gender: Unspecified Location: Elysian Fields, Blue planet
Question (s)of the week doe s the internet hat e noobs? Is there ultimate noobism? And in this day and age can a rookie still beat an expert without experience?
Moon walking may yet again be mastered and take the world for a spin.
Time-out is usually what I use for all discipline.
Privilege deprivation works very well only if the child was/is aware of the loss of those privileges before you take them away. I think you have to give a warning first so they are aware of why they lost that privilege. However, many parents are just mean-spirited and illogical about this particular form of discipline...just the same as they are with spanking.
I think spanking should be used rarely and usually as a last resort. I don't remember the last time I spanked any of my children.
While I agree that the lack of rights or the posession of "bad" rights can be a flaw, what inimalist was doing was passing off non-existant rights as rights.
I feel it is my right and obligation to discipline my children which can and should include spanking. He doesn't believe I should have that right. That's really what our discussion was about.
The next time I see someone's kid in the supermarket throwing a fit by screaming and lashing like a rabid animal at the last stages of their life, I will wonder why the parent does not resolve the problem with a spanking and an explanation for the spanking (as a spanking, in my observation, is the absolute best form of discipline for that particular form of behavior...for most chidlren.)
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Jan 9th, 2011 at 04:24 AM
no I'm not. You child has the right not to be hit. Nothing you postedd addressed that, you simply rambled about your rights, never talking about the child
well, your consitution doesn't give "parent's rights" afaik, but does say you can't hit people.
All I've said is that there is no justification for hitting a child as a form of behavioural modification. Whether or not you think it is your "right" to be able to.
My parents also had a paddle with something written on it and two children boy and girl bending over.I manger to hid it and as far as I remember they never found it.But I have nothing against parents spanking there kids.
It seem to work alot better then being sent to your room or sitting in a corner.Now adays kids are alot worst and I blame the parents for not being there for them and not spankign them when they were younger.
My children still have the right not to be abused. I still have the right properly discipline them which includes spanking.
This was clearly explained in my post in much more "wind-baggish" terms.
Incorrect: my constitution does not say that I can't hit people. (Generally, that's a misdemeanor unless you can prove that they were trying to kill, had the potential to kill, or caused permanent physical damage(loss of limb, mobility, etc)). In fact, it implies that I can slaughter the utter living shit out of my government if I feel they've become tyrannically oppressive. (Provision of he second amendment for the militias.)
If I do not cause physical damage to the children (if you want to get pedantic, just touching the child causes "damage", which would rule placing your children in timeout, as out of the question. But let's not get pedantic.), then it does not qualify as physical abuse (domestic abuse). If the discipline, however, causes psychological damage, that is a form of abuse. This includes-what I have seen parents who refuse to spank their children-putting your child in the closet, locked, without any light causing phobias such as clausterphobia, achluophobia, vestiphobia, cleisiophobia, isolophobia, etc. That's considered domestic abuse and can be criminal, depending on the state. Again, that's not from the constitution.
I provided that justification from a reputable source in addition to my own justifications. You can ignore those parts if you wish and I will not mind: we can move on and I won't press the issue further.
KMC Community Forums
Jan 8th, 2011 02:50 AM
