Only Spank the Bad Kids

[DinoDoc]

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?

[Jon Miller]

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.

And sometimes kids don't think. I know, I remember a little of when I was a kid.

You aren't slapping or smacking a kid around as people do in jails/etc situations. You are applying a punishment, just as the government does to people. There is nothing inherently wrong or barbaric about a punishment being physical.

The military uses physical punishments all the time. Even sports teams do.

Sweden is a strange place, culturally, from my perspective as an American. There is a lot of distance between people, but then the parents also spend a lot of time on their (often few) children.

The US doesn't give both parents a year of maternity leave (or whatever) like Sweden does. Often times in America children run around by themselves because their parents are working (I don't see this as much in Sweden). This means that american children have to function with lower supervision during some of the early years I think. I could be wrong, these are just observations.

JM

[Jon Miller]

*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

[Ecofarm]

There is nothing inherently wrong or barbaric about a punishment being physical.

Do you have a bone in your nose?


Physical punishment IS inherently wrong and barbaric... philosophically, intellectually and spiritually.

[Jon Miller]

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

[Ecofarm]

Physical consequences are natural =/ beating helpless people is natural.


I oppose the death penalty because it sets a bad example; it justifies the rationalization of killing a helpless and harmless person. If the government can come up with a good enough reason to kill someone who is totally helpless, then why cannot I? If the parents can come up with a good enough reason to beat a helpless and harmless someone, then why cannot I?


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.

[DinoDoc]

Helpless?

[Jon Miller]

What you are saying doesn't make sense. Every government kills people.

Every government executes consequences on people.

Why does helpless mean anything?

You are completely helpless to the government taking your money. You are completely helpless to the government incarcerating you. If the government can do it, why can't you?

Your argument is stupid.

Additionally, a beating is often not a measured response. Discipline is always a measured response. All physical discipline is a measured response.

JM

[Ecofarm]

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.

[Jon Miller]

The child is harming itself. That is why you discipline him or her. For their own good.

You are against all discipline? The arguments are exactly the same for physical discipline and other types of discipline.

There is nothing different, logically, between the two.

There is a difference between discipline and punishment. Children are disciplined, so that they learn. Whether it is by having a substitute physical consequence. Or having a non-physical consequence. Or something else.

People are punished at times too. Although there are currently people who don't think that punishment is fair or reasonable.

JM

[Ecofarm]

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.

[Donegeal]

A little "Shock and Awe" for the kids, ay? Nice.

Yes, it is nice. It makes the kids think "Holy crap! What I just did was so bad/dangerous that my parents actually spanked me!"

BTW... I don't recall seeing wether or not you said you have kids. Care to answer that?

[rah]

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.

[Donegeal]

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

No. It won't stop because this is percicely what very well could happen (except for the sword thing. Not too many parents have swords laying around).

[Ecofarm]

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...