Corporal Punishment of Children

Discussions for education, teaching & parenting.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron

Re: Corporal Punishment of Children

#261  Postby Onyx8 » Jan 15, 2014 4:37 pm

Except you can't think of any.
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 17520
Age: 64
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Corporal Punishment of Children

#262  Postby Agrippina » Jan 15, 2014 4:53 pm

I've been having a discussion with one of my kids about this today. Under what circumstances would it be necessary to "punish" a child under say 13? Stealing, lying, bullying? If your kids don't do that, what could a little kid do that was really terrible? Leave their toys lying around? Refuse to eat something you've prepared? Surely kids don't do anything criminal that deserves a beating?
Illegitimi non carborundum
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36690
Age: 110
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Corporal Punishment of Children

#263  Postby NamelessFaceless » Jan 15, 2014 4:57 pm

I personally don't think it's warranted or justified in any case, not even lying, stealing or cheating, or bullying. If anything, it would be counter-productive if used in any of those circumstances.
User avatar
NamelessFaceless
 
Posts: 6202
Female

Country: USA (Pensacola, FL)
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Corporal Punishment of Children

#264  Postby Agrippina » Jan 15, 2014 5:01 pm

I agree. I don't see any reason to smack a child for anything. Usually a firm talking-to stops any misbehaviour, in the case of lying, cheating, stealing, bullying, the parent needs to look to themselves to see what provoked the behaviour. For instance, kids who are given a reasonable amount of pocket money, don't need to steal. If a parent is giving them money, surely the kid can negotiate with the parent for an advance, or an increase, explaining the reason. A reasonable parent wouldn't deny them a little treat occasionally. If parents are themselves lying, cheating and stealing, then the kid doing the same thing, isn't unexpected.
Illegitimi non carborundum
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36690
Age: 110
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Corporal Punishment of Children

#265  Postby NamelessFaceless » Jan 15, 2014 5:19 pm

Also regarding lying, many times children lie in hopes of avoiding the harsh punishment. If there's no harsh punishment waiting for them, they will feel safe just telling the truth.
User avatar
NamelessFaceless
 
Posts: 6202
Female

Country: USA (Pensacola, FL)
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Corporal Punishment of Children

#266  Postby Mick » Jan 15, 2014 5:22 pm

Fallible wrote:

Mick, you're supposed to be thinking of a situation where only smacking will do. Don't get distracted.


No, that's not what I am "supposed" to do, and I never propagated that idea as true. As I mentioned earlier, I defend the idea that there are or could be circumstances where spanking is tenable, justified or understandable. You're trying to commit me to a much stronger idea.

So you only want the point driven home to a certain degree, only to the degree which smacking will provide, no more, no less. How convenient for you.


My point here is that a dog bite can be excessive, that's all. Hopefully I don't need to post pictures of what can happen to a child when he is bitten by a dog--its not pretty.

Try to grasp this: allowing the dog to bite the child drives the point home, but at the expense of traumatising the child. That for you is too much of a risk to take in order that the child learn not to play with the dog's testiclé. Congratulations on having a personal limit for how much you are prepared to drive the point home and what you are willing to risk in order to achieve this goal. For other people, smacking a child, causing pain to it, is beyond the limit of acceptable trauma to which they wish to expose their child for the pay-off of the learning that it is not a good idea to play with a dog's testiclé. You'll get compliance, but at the expense of other factors.


You could have said all of this in a much simpler way. We differ on where we draw the line, not the logic itself. Well, um, yeah. Any other grand insight?


That some people are prepared to draw the line at a point beyond subjecting the child to an experience which would earn the perpetrator a criminal conviction if it were carried out on an adult is not an argument in favour of its use.


Again, the parent-child relationship is very different from the adult-adult relationship. Parents can do many things to their children that they cannot do to a some adult. For instance, parents can ground their children or isolate them to a calming chair, or something like that. Yet, if a parent tried to do that to an adult, it would constitute the crime of forcible confinement. Thus, your point is laughable. Parents are given parental rights, period. These rights enable them to treat their children differently, ways that they could not treat an adult.


That's not what you said. What you said was ''nothing will make him think twice better''. You're swinging back and forth between immediate compliance and thinking twice in the future.


No, I am not, since I provided that analysis later in the paragraph from which you ripped my quote.

You mean this Elizabeth Gershoff?

Children who are spanked as 1-year-olds are more likely to behave aggressively and perform worse on cognitive tests as toddlers than children who are spared the punishment, new research out of Duke University shows. Elizabeth Gershoff, associate professor in human development and family sciences, said the study adds to a growing body of research showing negative effects of spanking. “Almost all the studies point to negative effects of spanking,” Gershoff said. “It makes kids more aggressive, more likely to be delinquent and to have mental health problems.”


Yes, she is a critic of spanking, though that has nothing to do with my point of the reference.


We've been on this ride before. I said that inflicting pain might get compliance, but it affects the child adversely in other areas. You wanted studies backing that. It looks like you went ahead and provided your own. Well done you.


Actually, that's not what I asked for. Read what I asked for again.

In fact, the article makes it clear just how difficult it is to make such a claim, since conjoining methods like counselling or the relationship with the child affects which outcomes are actuated. Here she is:

"The act of corporal punishment itself is different across parents - parents vary in how frequently they use it, how forcefully they administer it, how emotionally aroused they are when they do it, and whether they combine it with other techniques. Each of these qualities of corporal punishment can determine which child-mediated processes are activated, and, in turn, which outcomes may be realized,"



There you go again, galloping off into the sunset with your pet belief. Provide evidence which shows that it adds more appreciation. You're flip-flopping again.


This is common sense. Think about these two scenarios with a 6 year old kid.

Scenario 1:

Parents stress the dangers of touching the stove top.

Scenario 2:

Parents stress the dangers of touching the stove top AFTER the kid has felt his finger sear on the stove top.



I'm only saying that scenario 2 will leave a greater learning impact on the kid than scenario 1, since he now has some real phenomenal understanding of its dangers-he felt the danger! He has all the parental guidance as the kid in scenario 1 and he has more understanding, since he actually endured its dangers. Your position seems to doubt that the searing of the skin teaches him anything extra than the kid in scenario 1, and I find that laughable, since the searing constitutes firsthand experience to its dangers.

Thus why we talk about kids having to learn the "hard way".


I don't act in any such way. I was smacked as a child for various things. What do you think happened? Do you think I stopped doing those things because the last time I did it I got smacked?


Again, why think it will suffice? You avoid my questions.

If that's the case, Mick, I'm interested to hear how that squares with their appreciation of the risk of getting their hide tanned if they do something for which they have been spanked previously.


I didn't say they have no appreciation of risks. One of the easiest appreciations to attain is the one that leads to pain.

But yes. Even we suck at it, and yet we were probably both smacked as children. Didn't work very well, did it.


it kept me in check, if that's what youre asking.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Re: Corporal Punishment of Children

#267  Postby Fallible » Jan 15, 2014 5:22 pm

Mick wrote:
Fallible wrote:I'm not entirely sure, because I've been away a while but I think it might have been you who admitted that you would kill someone if your god demanded it..?


No. What I said was that it'd be a moral duty to kill someone if God commanded it. That follows logically from what I believe what the morality and God's nature. For if God is omniscient and goodness itself, then whatever God commands is obligatory. His command need not be that which makes it obligatory, it could just be co-extensive.

When asked about what I would do, I said that I didn't know.


Back already?

Well that's some kind of relief at least, although I find the fact that you are hamstrung by your beliefs to this extent quite sad.

What you mean to say is that you can't provide an example of when only smacking will do so you're leaving now.


I did not commit myself to the idea that there are, were or could be circumstances where only spanking will do. I never once said that. You created it. My position is just that there are or could be circumstances where it is tenable, justified or understandable.


Ah, the No Man's Land of the English language must be sick of the sight of your writhing form by now. You have failed so far to produce any such circumstances. Name one.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 48
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Corporal Punishment of Children

#268  Postby Mick » Jan 15, 2014 5:27 pm

Onyx8 wrote:Except you can't think of any.



Question begging
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Re: Corporal Punishment of Children

#269  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jan 15, 2014 5:29 pm

Mick wrote:
Onyx8 wrote:Except you can't think of any.



Question begging

Nope a demonstrable fact, as even after repeated requests for examples, you fail to provide even one.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31087
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Corporal Punishment of Children

#270  Postby Mick » Jan 15, 2014 5:33 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Mick wrote:
Onyx8 wrote:Except you can't think of any.



Question begging

Nope a demonstrable fact, as even after repeated requests for examples, you fail to provide even one.



The dog-testicle example is one such intended example. Of course you and your ilk do not agree with it, for whatever reason, though merely stating that it is not a sufficient example is to beg the question against me.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Re: Corporal Punishment of Children

#271  Postby Onyx8 » Jan 15, 2014 5:35 pm

So you smack the kid who has his hand on the dogs balls and this prevents the kid from getting bitten how?

I think I would remove the child's hand from the balls and then make sure this dog was nowhere near my toddler.
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 17520
Age: 64
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Corporal Punishment of Children

#272  Postby NamelessFaceless » Jan 15, 2014 5:49 pm

Mick wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Mick wrote:
Onyx8 wrote:Except you can't think of any.



Question begging

Nope a demonstrable fact, as even after repeated requests for examples, you fail to provide even one.



The dog-testicle example is one such intended example. Of course you and your ilk do not agree with it, for whatever reason, though merely stating that it is not a sufficient example is to beg the question against me.


Except you've been given more effective alternatives that don't involve harming the child. I would say this disproves your belief that the spanking is tenable, justified, or even understandable.
User avatar
NamelessFaceless
 
Posts: 6202
Female

Country: USA (Pensacola, FL)
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Corporal Punishment of Children

#273  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jan 15, 2014 5:51 pm

Mick wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Mick wrote:
Onyx8 wrote:Except you can't think of any.



Question begging

Nope a demonstrable fact, as even after repeated requests for examples, you fail to provide even one.



The dog-testicle example is one such intended example.

Not really.
Mick wrote:Of course you and your ilk do not agree with it,

I don't have ilk. Snide comments like this won't get you anywhere Mick.

Mick wrote:for whatever reason, though merely stating that it is not a sufficient example is to beg the question against me.

People have already pointed out why it's not sufficient. Ignoring that fact is to present empty handwaving against them.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31087
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Corporal Punishment of Children

#274  Postby Fallible » Jan 15, 2014 6:44 pm

Mick wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Mick wrote:
Onyx8 wrote:Except you can't think of any.



Question begging

Nope a demonstrable fact, as even after repeated requests for examples, you fail to provide even one.



The dog-testicle example is one such intended example. Of course you and your ilk do not agree with it, for whatever reason, though merely stating that it is not a sufficient example is to beg the question against me.


You claimed that there are circumstances in which smacking is tenable, justified or understandable. You did not specify by whom. Clearly you cannot hope to show it is tenable, justified or understandable by some objective standard.The example you provided is judged to not be tenable, justified or understandable by several people, therefore fail. You really need to work harder to fortify your statements against such easy refutation. Woolly language can work just as easily against you as for you. Try again.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 48
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Corporal Punishment of Children

#275  Postby BlackBart » Jan 15, 2014 7:28 pm

Onyx8 wrote:So you smack the kid who has his hand on the dogs balls and this prevents the kid from getting bitten how?

I think I would remove the child's hand from the balls and then make sure this dog was nowhere near my toddler.


Smacking would probably be most fuckwitted thing to do in that situation regardless of it's odiousness.

The kid flinches and kids have those really small sharp fingernails...guess what happens next. :ill:

Quietly remove child's hand and explain why that's a bad thing to do. Risk of biting greatly diminished and you avoid looking like a creepy, abusive fucktard.

Job done. :coffee:
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Name: rotten bart
Posts: 12242
Age: 58
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Corporal Punishment of Children

#276  Postby Mick » Jan 15, 2014 8:13 pm

Fallible wrote:You claimed that there are circumstances in which smacking is tenable, justified or understandable.
There are or could be, yes.

You did not specify by whom.


By whom?

Clearly you cannot hope to show it is tenable, justified or understandable by some objective standard.


And yet you can show that it is not tenable, justified or understandable by some objective standard, or...?

The example you provided is judged to not be tenable, justified or understandable by several people, therefore fail.
That's laughable. Is that how we go about measuring success now?


You really need to work harder to fortify your statements against such easy refutation..


Right back at you.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Re: Corporal Punishment of Children

#277  Postby Mick » Jan 15, 2014 8:17 pm

Onyx8 wrote:So you smack the kid who has his hand on the dogs balls and this prevents the kid from getting bitten how?


I'd advise against spanking while the kid has his hand on the dog's testicles. I'd say that's a given.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Re: Corporal Punishment of Children

#278  Postby Fallible » Jan 15, 2014 8:59 pm

Mick wrote:No, that's not what I am "supposed" to do, and I never propagated that idea as true. As I mentioned earlier, I defend the idea that there are or could be circumstances where spanking is tenable, justified or understandable. You're trying to commit me to a much stronger idea.


Name one.

My point here is that a dog bite can be excessive, that's all. Hopefully I don't need to post pictures of what can happen to a child when he is bitten by a dog--its not pretty.


Dur. Smacking can be excessive as well. Fail.

You could have said all of this in a much simpler way. We differ on where we draw the line, not the logic itself. Well, um, yeah. Any other grand insight?


Lol, you think that diametrically opposing viewpoints class as not differing on the logic.

Again, the parent-child relationship is very different from the adult-adult relationship. Parents can do many things to their children that they cannot do to a some adult. For instance, parents can ground their children or isolate them to a calming chair, or something like that. Yet, if a parent tried to do that to an adult, it would constitute the crime of forcible confinement. Thus, your point is laughable. Parents are given parental rights, period. These rights enable them to treat their children differently, ways that they could not treat an adult.


The fact that there exist differences in the child-parent relationship does not mean that everything which we do to a child which cannot be done to an adult is allowable due to that different relationship, especially when alternatives exist. You're committing a fallacy here. Explain why violence against a person is allowable when that person is a minor, but not when it's another adult. "Because parental rights" won't do.


That's not what you said. What you said was ''nothing will make him think twice better''. You're swinging back and forth between immediate compliance and thinking twice in the future.


No, I am not, since I provided that analysis later in the paragraph from which you ripped my quote.


When I challenged what you said previously, you replied

That's actually not what I said. What I said was that nothing will make him think twice better (unless, I suppose, it was worse than a slap!)


You never seem to be saying what you've said.

I didn't rip your quote from anywhere, incidentally. Your words are there in their entirety. Calm down.

Yes, she is a critic of spanking, though that has nothing to do with my point of the reference.


We've been on this ride before. I said that inflicting pain might get compliance, but it affects the child adversely in other areas. You wanted studies backing that. It looks like you went ahead and provided your own. Well done you.


Actually, that's not what I asked for. Read what I asked for again.[/quote]

No, I'm bored.

In fact, the article makes it clear just how difficult it is to make such a claim, since conjoining methods like counselling or the relationship with the child affects which outcomes are actuated. Here she is:

"The act of corporal punishment itself is different across parents - parents vary in how frequently they use it, how forcefully they administer it, how emotionally aroused they are when they do it, and whether they combine it with other techniques. Each of these qualities of corporal punishment can determine which child-mediated processes are activated, and, in turn, which outcomes may be realized,"


So when you said
Elizabeth Gershoff's meta-analysis on the matter clearly states that there is a consensus that spanking is effective at producing immediate compliance


what you meant to say was that the administration of corporal punishment differs from parent to parent, and this affects outcomes, of which there are more than one.

The evidence as to its efficacy is much more complicated than you try to make out. You make several claims about smacking, how the pain of it makes children ''think twice'', how it helps them to ''appreciate'' risks, how it gets ''immediate compliance''. You haven't even bothered to define what you're talking about when you talk about smacking. And oh sure, you talk about ''counselling'' the child as well, but for you the thing that works is the pain, you're very clear on that, based on your understanding of behaviourism ( :lol: ). The pain is what brings the child up short, sears the incident into its memory with repeated administrations. Why then bother with "counselling" at all? It's the pain that does the business.

This is common sense. Think about these two scenarios with a 6 year old kid.

Scenario 1:

Parents stress the dangers of touching the stove top.

Scenario 2:

Parents stress the dangers of touching the stove top AFTER the kid has felt his finger sear on the stove top.

I'm only saying that scenario 2 will leave a greater learning impact on the kid than scenario 1, since he now has some real phenomenal understanding of its dangers-he felt the danger! He has all the parental guidance as the kid in scenario 1 and he has more understanding, since he actually endured its dangers. Your position seems to doubt that the searing of the skin teaches him anything extra than the kid in scenario 1, and I find that laughable, since the searing constitutes firsthand experience to its dangers.

Thus why we talk about kids having to learn the "hard way".


Is that supposed to be relevant? You're talking about smacking, remember? Not allowing the kid to get his finger seared on the stove. More likely is that the child will gain an appreciation of how painful it is to get smacked, and consequently shelve its investigations until a time when it can conduct them unobserved and uninterrupted. If you think getting his finger seared is that effective, why not just let him do it? It's not going to cause any long-lasting damage, not like a dog bite, because as soon as he touches it his reflexes will kick in and he'll involuntarily jerk his hand away. I'll tell you why, shall I? Because such a thing would exceed your arbitrary limit of acceptable/excessive pain. And undermine your comments about smacking.

Again, why think it will suffice? You avoid my questions.


Oh noes, I avoid your questions. Tell me about that when you've stopped excising half of the content of my posts. Why think smack-and-chat will suffice? It didn't work the first time, so you had to do it again. It didn't work the second time, so you had to do it again. It didn't work the third time, so you had to do it again. It didn't work the fourth time... you see the problem? The method you're championing doesn't suffice, why act like it does? How often do we see children getting smacked for running down stairs? Running with scissors? You might as well just let the child injure themselves. Sure, the child will get more badly hurt, but it's bound to drive the point home more effectively than smacking in that case - we do talk about kids having to learn the ''hard way''.

I didn't say they have no appreciation of risks.


Oh no, silly me. You said they do not appreciate risks. That's clearly completely different.

One of the easiest appreciations to attain is the one that leads to pain.


You're not following. It requires several administrations for the child to ''appreciate'' that doing certain things will lead to smacking. Clearly then the claimed ''appreciation'' brought about by the ''sharp sting'' of the smack is somewhat lacking. It is repeated administration of pain to the child which is necessary. And yet weirdly, you claim to only advocate it as a last resort.

it kept me in check, if that's what youre asking.


You're hardly going to admit it had no effect even if it had no effect. I doubt very much it stopped your risk taking, because as you said, even adults are crap at not acting impulsively. This would suggest that getting smacked really didn't teach you or anyone much about taking risks - this is obvious, since you yourself admit that we adults suck at not acting impulsively - and at best it probably only served to make you better at being devious.

Yet, I would discourage it as a primary form of discipline, since it doesn't work all too well when they're older.


No, you need to inflict the pain while they're young. You need to inflict the pain, then ''counsel'' the child who is too young to take on board what you're saying (''if-then language''), hence the need to administer pain rather than just remove them and tell them not to do it. But by the time they can take the ''counselling'' into account, they've outgrown the smack-and-chat method, it doesn't work. Lol.

You need to go back and remind yourself what you've actually said by the way, because at the moment some of it's a bit of a mess. Take the following quotes as an example:

The spanking itself is not supposed to teach understanding-that's what the debriefing and counselling does. The spanking weakens the behavior, or so it is intended.


You clearly don't know what it is supposed to do, since you treated it as if it were supposed to give understanding.


In any case, the counselling is what gives understanding.


The issue here that I brought up was her muddled ideas about what it is intended to do and how it works. no one thinks it teaches understanding-how could it?


Compared with

Here, though, I am presuming the child cannot understand if-then language. If he can, then explain it too, and then the slap is just an added oomph marking the severity and seriousness of the situation, it adds more appreciation, just like the feeling of a hot stove adds a greater appreciation of the dangers of touching it. Likewise, many teens understand the danger of speeding, but getting into a severe crash causing harm to themselves often adds a little more appreciation of the dangers of speeding. Of course I am not arguing that we should let children touch stove tops or teens get into serious crashes! I am only pointing out that the experience of pain adds an appreciation, something we don't often get from descriptions and cautionary tales alone.


I suppose next, we can expect a lesson in how ''understanding'' and ''appreciation'' are completely different, like ''they have no appreciation of risks'' and ''they do not appreciate risks''.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 48
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Corporal Punishment of Children

#279  Postby Fallible » Jan 15, 2014 9:06 pm

Mick wrote: There are or could be, yes.


Name one.

By whom?


Is there an echo in here?

And yet you can show that it is not tenable, justified or understandable by some objective standard, or...?


Tu quoque fallacy. I'll take that as an admission.

That's laughable.


Of course you cannot hope to show that it is somehow objectively laughable. You mean you personally a) find it laughable or b) can't think of a better response.

Is that how we go about measuring success now?


Don't blame me for the sloppy way in which you present your statements.


Right back at you.


Ouch! You sure told me there!
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 48
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Corporal Punishment of Children

#280  Postby Onyx8 » Jan 15, 2014 9:44 pm

Mick wrote:
Onyx8 wrote:So you smack the kid who has his hand on the dogs balls and this prevents the kid from getting bitten how?


I'd advise against spanking while the kid has his hand on the dog's testicles. I'd say that's a given.



Ok, so you remove the hand from the testicles and at what point do you smack the kid to teach him that it is not a good idea to hold dogs balls? Remember that now that you have removed the hand there is no immediate danger to the child.
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 17520
Age: 64
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Parenting & Education

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest