Corporal Punishment of Children

Discussions for education, teaching & parenting.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron

Re: Corporal Punishment of Children

#281  Postby Nicko » Jan 15, 2014 9:48 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.


And everyone here would agree with you. Where we are going to disagree is that the little talk about not grabbing the scrotum of an animal needs to be preceded by belting the kid.

The problem for your position is that, once you have removed the child from the situation requiring "immediate compliance", your claimed justification for spanking the child vanishes.

Fuck, beaten to it by Onyx8.
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8641
Age: 44
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Corporal Punishment of Children

#282  Postby Mick » Jan 15, 2014 9:49 pm

Fallible, I'll give one more reply, and I'll leave it at that, but I just have this one residual issue aside from the reply. You inferred my "failure" from the basis that several people disagreed with me. How does that work exactly? Why would their disagreement matter?
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

#283  Postby Fallible » Jan 15, 2014 9:51 pm

No Mick, it's not that they disagreed with you per se. It's that your terminology was so woolly and full of holes that you left the door open for an exceedingly easy refutation. Just go back and tighten up what you were attempting to say.
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

#284  Postby Mick » Jan 15, 2014 9:54 pm

Fallible wrote:No Mick, it's not that they disagreed with you per se. It's that your terminology was so woolly and full of holes that you left the door open for an exceedingly easy refutation. Just go back and tighten up what you were attempting to say.


Clearly show how it works. I'm curious. I bet this is just more of your misreading and faulty attributions.
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

#285  Postby Fallible » Jan 15, 2014 9:56 pm

Whatever.
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

#286  Postby Mick » Jan 15, 2014 9:59 pm

Fallible wrote:Whatever.

Figures. You know that you got nothing there.
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

#287  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jan 15, 2014 10:02 pm

Mick wrote:
Fallible wrote:Whatever.

Figures. You know that you got nothing there.

Image
There's goes another meter...
"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

Ads by Google


Re: Corporal Punishment of Children

#288  Postby Fallible » Jan 15, 2014 10:03 pm

Mick wrote:
Fallible wrote:Whatever.

Figures. You know that you got nothing there.


Yep, that's it. You're all over the shop but I got nothing. Concentrate on providing substance rather than trying to divert and irritate.
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

#289  Postby Mick » Jan 15, 2014 10:10 pm

Nicko wrote:
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.


And everyone here would agree with you. Where we are going to disagree is that the little talk about not grabbing the scrotum of an animal needs to be preceded by belting the kid.

The problem for your position is that, once you have removed the child from the situation requiring "immediate compliance", your claimed justification for spanking the child vanishes.

Fuck, beaten to it by Onyx8.



When I first proposed the dog-testicle scenario, I stated just how I understand immediate compliance:

"Immediate compliance can be understood in a few ways. It is to get them to stop whatever they are doing then and there, or it could be understood to securely get them to stop any such behaviour in the future."

I have a broad understanding of it. What's more, I don't view events as if they were chopped with the axe-they are much more fluid than that. The child could have grabbed the testicles, let go and was about to grab with his other hand, or grabbed and then let go only to better his grip, or because his attention went elsewhere for a moment. If a parent pushes his son's hands away and then quickly smacks it, and then says 'do not touch!', no one would think himself a wise philosopher for replying 'Well, at that exact instant, he was not touching the dog's balls, since you moved his hand.'
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

#290  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jan 15, 2014 10:18 pm

Mick wrote:
Nicko wrote:
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.


And everyone here would agree with you. Where we are going to disagree is that the little talk about not grabbing the scrotum of an animal needs to be preceded by belting the kid.

The problem for your position is that, once you have removed the child from the situation requiring "immediate compliance", your claimed justification for spanking the child vanishes.

Fuck, beaten to it by Onyx8.



When I first proposed the dog-testicle scenario, I stated just how I understand immediate compliance:

"Immediate compliance can be understood in a few ways. It is to get them to stop whatever they are doing then and there, or it could be understood to securely get them to stop any such behaviour in the future."

I have a broad understanding of it.

Also a humpty-dumpty understanding apparently.
Immediate =/= in the future.
That's a clear distinction made also by Elizabeth Gershoff and in the metastudy she did,
"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

#291  Postby Onyx8 » Jan 15, 2014 10:20 pm

"Well, by 'immediate' I actually don't mean immediate, I mean something else that I will not really make clear for quite a few more pages if ever."
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

#292  Postby Mick » Jan 15, 2014 10:57 pm

Fallible wrote:

Name one.


The dog example.

The point remains, even if you disagree, that you've been trying to tie me to a stronger claim. admit it.


Dur. Smacking can be excessive as well.


Yes, I agree, but at least parents can control the severity and target area of the smack, since they are the ones who administer it. Parents have no such control over a dog's bite, as I am sure you know, but for some reason you act here as if the difference is not so transparent.

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


There are subtle distinctions here, though I am getting the idea that you're not interested in them. I won't bother.

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.


Granted, but when did I suggest otherwise? My only point here is this: that a parent cannot get away with smacking an adult does not itself suggest that the same parent smacking a child is wrong. Yet, you tried to imply that it was, since you outright mentioned it. The silly idea you tried to get away with is that what parents cannot get away with toward adults is something they cannot get away with for their own children. That's false.

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.


I was not trying to explain the idea that smacking one's own children is permissible but not adults with parental rights. I was only trying to show the point above. One might ask, why can parents forcibly confine their children but not other adults? :thumbup:



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.


If you want to really learn what I think, pay attention to the paragraph you from which you ripped the quote. I spoke about why I think a kid would think twice better than any other method. Look for it. I used italics on the word 'later' to emphasize it.


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.


No, I meant to say just what I said.

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.


Counselling secures the relationship between parent and child. Counselling emphasizes the rationale for the punishment, what went wrong, etc.. Do I need to mention this?


Is that supposed to be relevant? You're talking about smacking, remember?


Lol! It's directly pertinent to what you asked. I stated this concerning stove tops and teens in car accidents, and you were the one who asked me to defend it. Yet, when I do, you then ask, 'Is this really relevant?' lololololol. I take it you have a hard time with the rebuttal, eh?

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.


Discrimination, right. That's a problem for any consequence or punishment. Many people speed when no cops are around, amiright? Should we take away fines?

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.


Because burns are extremely painful and long-lasting. a smack on the hand need not be.


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?

Who says it doesn't suffice? You can't just say these things. I certainly didn't agree to that. I certainly didn't see an argument to that effect.

How often do we see children getting smacked for running down stairs? Running with scissors?

I don't see it ever. you?

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''.


Let it happen so that it won't happen again? That would be ok for minor things, but nothing like this.


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

That's actually not what I said either. Must you be so misleading about what I said?

You're not following. It requires several administrations for the child to ''appreciate'' that doing certain things will lead to smacking
.


That's false. It can be explained to them if they are of the appropriate age.

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.


Though I deny the first sentence is universally true, I see no reason why the last sentence is so troubling for you.


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.

That's actually not what I said. I said adults suck at appreciating risks well.

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.


haha. oh, god.


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.


I actually didn't say they "need" to do this. You just keep on strawmanning me.


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''.


Well, yes, they are. Words have different senses.
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

#293  Postby Mick » Jan 15, 2014 11:00 pm

Onyx8 wrote:"Well, by 'immediate' I actually don't mean immediate, I mean something else that I will not really make clear for quite a few more pages if ever."


Next we will hear that because there is a small time gap between the slap and the compliance, since the neurons need to fire and all, that the near instantaneous compliance was not immediate. Way to go guys! :thumbup:
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

#294  Postby Onyx8 » Jan 16, 2014 12:04 am

So do you have an example yet? You've had lots of time to think of one.
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

#295  Postby Fallible » Jan 16, 2014 12:21 am

Mick wrote:
Fallible wrote:

Name one.


The dog example.


The dog example failed. Try again.

The point remains, even if you disagree, that you've been trying to tie me to a stronger claim. admit it.


This is just false. I've already dealt with your claim that smacking can be ''tenable, justified or understandable''. You had issues with that also, or in any event you appeared to have a problem with it, given the quality of your response. That chain of posts quickly deteriorated into trademark attempts to irritate me.

Dur. Smacking can be excessive as well.


Yes, I agree, but at least parents can control the severity and target area of the smack, since they are the ones who administer it. Parents have no such control over a dog's bite, as I am sure you know, but for some reason you act here as if the difference is not so transparent.


As you clearly said, all you wanted to say was that dog bites can be excessive. Smacking can be excessive. Fail.

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


There are subtle distinctions here, though I am getting the idea that you're not interested in them. I won't bother.


No, probably too much to expect you to start bothering now.

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.


Granted, but when did I suggest otherwise? My only point here is this: that a parent cannot get away with smacking an adult does not itself suggest that the same parent smacking a child is wrong. Yet, you tried to imply that it was, since you outright mentioned it. The silly idea you tried to get away with is that what parents cannot get away with toward adults is something they cannot get away with for their own children. That's false.


Your whiffling about how relationships are different, therefore smacking does not in itself show that smaking a child is acceptable. What on earth are you talking about? Surely you must be aware that parents frequently ''get away with'' smacking their children.

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.


I was not trying to explain the idea that smacking one's own children is permissible but not adults with parental rights. I was only trying to show the point above. One might ask, why can parents forcibly confine their children but not other adults? :thumbup:


Or one can, you know, stick to the matter under discussion, which is inflicting physical pain upon a child.

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.


If you want to really learn what I think, pay attention to the paragraph you from which you ripped the quote.


Again, your quote was not ''ripped'' from anywhere. Your entire paragraph was present in my post. What you have hold of there is the insertion of a reply to a specific part of your post, much like those which have been occurring daily, nay, hourly since the inception of the forum.

I spoke about why I think a kid would think twice better than any other method. Look for it. I used italics on the word 'later' to emphasize it.


I am no longer interested in following your convoluted breadcrumb trails while you hover and jig excitedly at the end waiting to yank the prop away from the delicately poised box. You can't even offer a cogent explanation of what ''immediate'' means.

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.


No, I meant to say just what I said.


Sticking with it, eh? Good for you.

Counselling secures the relationship between parent and child. Counselling emphasizes the rationale for the punishment, what went wrong, etc.. Do I need to mention this?


No, you need to explain it, since you admit that this method does not work on older children who can actually understand the ''counselling''.


**crickets**


Is that supposed to be relevant? You're talking about smacking, remember?


Lol! It's directly pertinent to what you asked. I stated this concerning stove tops and teens in car accidents, and you were the one who asked me to defend it. Yet, when I do, you then ask, 'Is this really relevant?' lololololol. I take it you have a hard time with the rebuttal, eh?


Ah, Mick. Go back and look. I'm directly asking you to show that SMACKING adds appreciation in the way that direct experience does. Please, I realise you think this is all beneath you, but try not to trip yourself up in your haste to make sure everyone knows it. You certainly did introduce the idea of the hot stove, by claiming that smacking works in the same way to get the child to ''appreciate'' the ''seriousness of the situation'', this much is beyond dispute. You did it over and over again. The problem is you just went right ahead and claimed that.

Again, for clarification - you are claiming that smacking a child works the same to get them to ''appreciate'' the severity and seriousness of the situation as them burning themselves on a hot stove or getting into a car wreck. That's the claim I'm trying to get you to substantiate. Would you like to?

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.


Discrimination, right. That's a problem for any consequence or punishment. Many people speed when no cops are around, amiright? Should we take away fines?


No, Mick, look. My point was not that children will avoid getting smacked and because of that smacking needs to stop. It was that children will avoid getting smacked by doing things where parents can't see, and because of that it's clearly not effective at getting them to appreciate risk. It was a challenge to your claim that it is effective in stopping children doing things. It doesn't stop them, it just stops them doing the things when the parents are around. Y'know, it's ineffective, the opposite of it being effective, which is what you claim it is.

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.


Because burns are extremely painful and long-lasting. a smack on the hand need not be.


But surely the extreme pain will serve even better to help him ''appreciate'' the problem with touching a stove. I'm perfectly sure you're over-stating the the severity of the burn a child could receive under these circumstances, by the way. Your language suddenly becomes very rigid and clear when you describe it in a way that it rarely approaches when you are trying to wriggle your way out of providing a clear and concise explanation of the things you champion. BURNS ARE EXTREMELY PAINFUL AND LONG LASTING. A smack on the hand need not be. See how that sogginess creeps in when you're attempting to make a statement in favour of your view? Burns are not necessarily painful and long lasting. You know yourself that the instant you touch something hot you flinch away from the source of pain involuntarily, and the skin on the pad of the finger is tougher than that on most of the rest of the body. A smack on the hand, administered forcefully enough, can be extremely painful, and of course when reacting quickly in a situation like that, it's entirely possible to fail to regulate the force successfully.


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?


Who says it doesn't suffice? You can't just say these things.


I just showed you how it doesn't suffice, hence I did not just say it. Mind you, you want to take that on board. All you've done is ''just say things''.

I certainly didn't agree to that.


Too fucking bad.

I certainly didn't see an argument to that effect.


Oh, you didn't see an argument. I can definitely relate there, Mick. I haven't seen an argument from you either. I've seen lots of pretty dancing and coquettish fan-fluttering, but nothing that you'd actually call an argument. I doubt you don't understand. If the evidence points to the fact that it doesn't suffice (repeated smacking necessary, by your own admission), then it's reasonable to assume that it doesn't suffice.

How often do we see children getting smacked for running down stairs? Running with scissors?

I don't see it ever. you?


Way to miss the point.

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''.


Let it happen so that it won't happen again? That would be ok for minor things, but nothing like this.[/quote]

WOOSH

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

That's actually not what I said either. Must you be so misleading about what I said?


Your precise words were ''do not appreciate risks like we do''. Either deliberately misleading, or a failure to articulate properly, leading others to misinterpret your words. Still, it seems to serve you better to assume dirty tricks in others.

You're not following. It requires several administrations for the child to ''appreciate'' that doing certain things will lead to smacking
.

That's false. It can be explained to them if they are of the appropriate age.


Hoo boy. Firstly it was you who claimed that they might not get it at first but that repetition will get them to understand. Secondly, the reason you're smacking them to begin with is because it's the pain which leads to ''appreciation". At least that's the latest incarnation of your claim. At one point it was the opposite. The pain doesn't aid understanding, that's what the counselling's for...no hang on, the pain aids appreciation, which cautionary tales can't achieve...no wait... :yawn:

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.


Though I deny the first sentence is universally true,


It's what you claimed. No one is interested in your writhing around.

I see no reason why the last sentence is so troubling for you.


And I see no reason for you to overstate its impact on me. That's not true. Of course I see a reason.

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.


That's actually not what I said. I said adults suck at appreciating risks well.


And this helps you how?

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.


haha. oh, god.


Weak.

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.


I actually didn't say they "need" to do this. You just keep on strawmanning me.


That's fantastic! No, that's actually great Mick. The pain is unnecessary, you've re-thought your claims that it's the pain which does the trick. Yes?

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''.


Well, yes, they are. Words have different senses.


Oh, they are completely different. And yet they're synonyms.
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

#296  Postby Mick » Jan 16, 2014 12:54 am

Just a note, for those confused by words 'understanding' and 'appreciation'. When I spoke about them understanding, I mean the comprehension of the relation between action and punishment. That's not something pain itself can give, abstraction is needed to infer the relationship. When I speak about pain offering an appreciation, an added oomph, I mean here that there is an additional perceptive grasp attained only by first-hand experience. For instance, I heard Jamaica was beautiful, but it wasn't until I experienced it myself that I had a real appreciation of its beauty. I heard skydiving was scary and beautiful, but when I did it, I appreciated it all that much more. I had something, an appreciation, that I did not have before. We can all relate, I'm sure.

Now we can see that appreciation and understanding could be used as interchangeably, as I often use them, though here as I described, one concerns an act of abstraction, and the other, a phenomenal grasp. Here, then, they are not interchangeable.

With that, I'm out.
Last edited by Mick on Jan 16, 2014 12:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
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

#297  Postby Fallible » Jan 16, 2014 12:55 am

:rofl: Bye, Mick.
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

#298  Postby Agrippina » Jan 16, 2014 5:39 am

NamelessFaceless wrote: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.


Yep if you tell them that no matter how bad the truth, they should tell it and avoid punishment. The punishment will be for lying, and then you should never lie to them either. Although how you do that about Santa Claus and the tooth fairy I don't know.
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

#299  Postby Onyx8 » Jan 16, 2014 6:46 am

Mick why is it do you think that so many get confused by how you use words when so many others understand what is meant by them so easily?
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

#300  Postby The_Metatron » Jan 16, 2014 6:58 am

I think it's because of carefully crafted posts that allow just enough ambiguity to weasel and worm his way out of casually obvious idiotic positions.

Something along the lines of: "Oh, I didn't mean that..."
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 21076
Age: 58
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Parenting & Education

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest