|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 24, 2010 14:53:13 GMT
[ How would a child know the difference between 'discipline' and mere 'violence'? i will ask yet again...why is discipline always construed as violence by some people..when in fact discipline does not equate to violence and what has bullying to do with discipline you have some strange ideas random Nobody has suggested that, mouse. This is about whether or not hitting a child can instill discipline.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 24, 2010 18:24:02 GMT
so, it's your contention that superhero cartoons damage children. i seem to recall virtually every batman cartoon had "pow, bam" etc flashing, especially in comic books, when batman caught a criminal. roy rogers, gene autry, even the lone ranger, who NEVER shot anyone, turned kids into criminals. the roadrunner turned kids into serial stalkers. that's absurd hon, but it is EXACTLY what you are saying with the violence bs I'm not sure what comic books have to do with anything. The simple contention that hitting someone constitutes violence seems such a basic explanation of the English language that I'm not sure why you object to it. Are you saying that hitting a child is NOT violence? That's just absurd. The debate is about when and in what circumstances it is appropriate to use violence as a method to discipline a child. you are claiming that if a kid sees violence, he will be violent, which is patently absurd. you are claiming that a paddle on a kid's azz is violence, again wrong. that leads you to claiming that kids who are spanked become violent, many criminal. when you start from an obviously false premise, everything derived from that premise is false. i've already proven that reality is against you. fifty years ago, when spanking was the rule, there was an infinitely smaller percentage of kids who were violent, or became criminals. it is the same idiocy that has led to not keeping score in sports, because poor johnny's feelings may get hurt because he lost. it is imbecillic on its face
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 24, 2010 18:30:19 GMT
There have always been dysfunctional families that span generations. It has nothing to do with discipline and you know it. What kind of spin is this? I see nothing about anyone objecting to "discipline" - the question is the type of discipline and the mind-set behind it. Violent, physical "chastisement", mentioned in this thread as justified, is a far extreme. I don't see anything appropriate or desirable about that - or, btw, the POV that would consider it acceptable. so, EVERY parent and school administrator fifty years ago who disciplined a kid was wrong. the fact that the kids then grew up to be upstanding citizens because they were taught right and wrong is truly horrific. i see. cool, but it doesn't fly
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 24, 2010 18:31:51 GMT
i will ask yet again...why is discipline always construed as violence by some people..when in fact discipline does not equate to violence and what has bullying to do with discipline you have some strange ideas random Nobody has suggested that, mouse. This is about whether or not hitting a child can instill discipline. since it was proven for thousands of years, it obviously does
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 24, 2010 18:38:53 GMT
since it was proven for thousands of years, it obviously does That was then, this is now.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Feb 24, 2010 19:38:53 GMT
What kind of spin is this? I see nothing about anyone objecting to "discipline" - the question is the type of discipline and the mind-set behind it. Violent, physical "chastisement", mentioned in this thread as justified, is a far extreme. I don't see anything appropriate or desirable about that - or, btw, the POV that would consider it acceptable. so, EVERY parent and school administrator fifty years ago who disciplined a kid was wrong. the fact that the kids then grew up to be upstanding citizens because they were taught right and wrong is truly horrific. i see. cool, but it doesn't fly Here again is the little twist to suggest you were only talking about the occasional swat to correct and instill guidelines - thus, bringing your POV back into the mainstream. But, that is not what you were talking about. You were talking about damage inflicting violence aka beating, plus keeping a healthy little boy in bed when not at school for days on end. There IS a line between discipline and abuse. Okay - another homily (true) because it fits. When I was in 6th grade, we had a class changing system among 3 teachers. One of them, the social studies teacher, Mrs. Conley, was a terror. She wielded a mean paddle (with holes) and obviously enjoyed it (remind you of anyone?) for everything from being late with homework to whispering in class. The girls got a break - the boys were always the target. And, they were not big, unruly boys - they were smallish 11 yr. olds. Before the holidays that year there had been a little dust-up because a boy had put his hand behind his back and she'd broken two of his fingers. At that point, the paddle should have been retired - but the boy was a foster child with parents who did not carry much weight in school affairs, so it came and went in the anticipation of Christmas vacation. Then, in the spring, she zeroed in on another boy and paddled him, in front of the class, until his nose bled - and would not stop bleeding. We heard the ambulance pull into the school yard and drive him away. He had a weak heart, and though he survived, he didn't come back to our school. Mrs. Conley was fired - didn't even get to finish out the year. The other teachers spoke out against her at the hearing, but the administration feigned surprise (shocked!). Needless to say, the parents were relieved. Jim, I think surely you know better than to beat a child, but you have advocated it so much you have to hold your ground. Either that or you're not the good guy I thought you were.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Feb 24, 2010 20:54:51 GMT
Jumbo,
Yes, 'paddling a kid's azz' is, of course violence in the commonly held English meaning of the word. Clearly the problem between us is that you are using some other language or some other definition of violence, and thus we can never agree.
There has been crime, rape, murder, unruly behaviour, etc. etc. for thousands of years, dating back to the time when people battered their weans. The actual rates of violent crime are decreasing in the UK, and, I believe, decreasing in states of the US. Indeed, if you cared to come up with a rough date when, in your world, people stopped hitting their children and we then tried to correlate that with various crime statistics, I believe that we would prove ABSOLUTELY NO RELATION AT ALL between bad public behaviour/crime and having violent punishments inflicted upon children.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 24, 2010 22:44:30 GMT
i will ask yet again...why is discipline always construed as violence by some people..when in fact discipline does not equate to violence and what has bullying to do with discipline you have some strange ideas random Nobody has suggested that, mouse. This is about whether or not hitting a child can instill discipline. hitting a child will not instill discipline..neither will any method of punishment in isolation what a smack does is reinforce the word NO...too many smacks or violence however will render the message meaningless discipline and helping a child become disciplined is not a one pronged or one off affair affair...it takes the childs childhood and beyond into the teenage years to become self disciplined but on the way the child learns what is and what isnt aceptable to not only his family but to and in society[that is if parents are doing their job properly]
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 24, 2010 22:53:34 GMT
Nobody has suggested that, mouse. This is about whether or not hitting a child can instill discipline. hitting a child will not instill discipline..neither will any method of punishment in isolation what a smack does is reinforce the word NO...too many smacks or violence however will render the message meaningless discipline and helping a child become disciplined is not a one pronged or one off affair affair...it takes the childs childhood and beyond into the teenage years to become self disciplined but on the way the child learns what is and what isnt aceptable to not only his family but to and in society[that is if parents are doing their job properly] You're wasting your time mouse.......
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Feb 25, 2010 2:26:14 GMT
This is a magazine ad from the 70s - when people were less easily scandalized . . . apparently. Of course older ads in the era where pedophile attacks on children were at least not made public there were even less inhibitions about explicit ads.
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Feb 25, 2010 3:21:51 GMT
The idea that you have to use violence in order to discipline children is just silly. It’s not silly, it’s medieval.
|
|
|
Post by chefmate on Feb 25, 2010 5:51:03 GMT
what do you consider violence?
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Feb 25, 2010 6:12:06 GMT
what do you consider violence? violence • noun 1 behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill. 2 strength of emotion or an unpleasant or destructive natural force.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 25, 2010 16:55:47 GMT
Jumbo, Yes, 'paddling a kid's azz' is, of course violence in the commonly held English meaning of the word. Clearly the problem between us is that you are using some other language or some other definition of violence, and thus we can never agree. There has been crime, rape, murder, unruly behaviour, etc. etc. for thousands of years, dating back to the time when people battered their weans. The actual rates of violent crime are decreasing in the UK, and, I believe, decreasing in states of the US. Indeed, if you cared to come up with a rough date when, in your world, people stopped hitting their children and we then tried to correlate that with various crime statistics, I believe that we would prove ABSOLUTELY NO RELATION AT ALL between bad public behaviour/crime and having violent punishments inflicted upon children. of course, you're wrong. just one little example of how refusal to punish wrongdoing increases crime, particularly in great britain. just for you, more will be forthcoming. there are a host of them out there www.civitas.org.uk/data/twoCountries.php
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 1, 2010 13:40:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Mar 11, 2010 17:13:57 GMT
I think that anyone, if they were deliberately slapped/struck/hit with sufficient force that is caused them to feel pain, would consider themselves to have been on the receiving end of a violent act. This doesn't change just because the recipient is below a certain age, or according to the motives (whether pre or post-rationalised) of the person performing the act.
This doesn't of course make it automatically wrong. I think that corporal punishment is just one of those things where that the very concept of it is wrong and in contradiction with everything else that civilised society says is the right way for people to do things, the right way for people to behave towards others, the right way for people to deal with their anger towards another person, and so on, but pragmatically what can you do? No-one needs to be taught how to smack someone a third of their size into submission, whereas there are no guarantees that any new parents will know the alternative techniques that are available. Nor can we expect new parents to all go on training courses to learn them, and even if they do attend such courses, there are no guarantees that they will 'pass' them. CP has to remain legal for pragmatic reasons, I think.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 11, 2010 19:56:21 GMT
I think that anyone, if they were deliberately slapped/struck/hit with sufficient force that is caused them to feel pain, would consider themselves to have been on the receiving end of a violent act. This doesn't change just because the recipient is below a certain age, or according to the motives (whether pre or post-rationalised) of the person performing the act. This doesn't of course make it automatically wrong. I think that corporal punishment is just one of those things where that the very concept of it is wrong and in contradiction with everything else that civilised society says is the right way for people to do things, the right way for people to behave towards others, the right way for people to deal with their anger towards another person, and so on, but pragmatically what can you do? No-one needs to be taught how to smack someone a third of their size into submission, whereas there are no guarantees that any new parents will know the alternative techniques that are available. Nor can we expect new parents to all go on training courses to learn them, and even if they do attend such courses, there are no guarantees that they will 'pass' them. CP has to remain legal for pragmatic reasons, I think. of course, it's a clearly established FACT that political correctness, in ANYTHING, is a synonym for stupid
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 11, 2010 20:56:09 GMT
I think that anyone, if they were deliberately slapped/struck/hit with sufficient force that is caused them to feel pain, would consider themselves to have been on the receiving end of a violent act. This doesn't change just because the recipient is below a certain age, or according to the motives (whether pre or post-rationalised) of the person performing the act. This doesn't of course make it automatically wrong. I think that corporal punishment is just one of those things where that the very concept of it is wrong and in contradiction with everything else that civilised society says is the right way for people to do things, the right way for people to behave towards others, the right way for people to deal with their anger towards another person, and so on, but pragmatically what can you do? No-one needs to be taught how to smack someone a third of their size into submission, whereas there are no guarantees that any new parents will know the alternative techniques that are available. Nor can we expect new parents to all go on training courses to learn them, and even if they do attend such courses, there are no guarantees that they will 'pass' them. CP has to remain legal for pragmatic reasons, I think. of course, it's a clearly established FACT that political correctness, in ANYTHING, is a synonym for stupid Octopus did not seem to be talking about 'political correctness' (however we're defining it today) to me. Rather Octopus was talking about the use of violence against children.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Mar 11, 2010 21:34:15 GMT
of course, it's a clearly established FACT that political correctness, in ANYTHING, is a synonym for stupid Not always: being racist and sexist is anti-PC, as an example. But what does PC have to do with the smacking debate?
|
|
|
Post by june on Mar 11, 2010 22:05:12 GMT
of course, it's a clearly established FACT that political correctness, in ANYTHING, is a synonym for stupid Not always: being racist and sexist is anti-PC, as an example. But what does PC have to do with the smacking debate? PC gets blamed for everything on here Octopus - I think PC shot Franz Ferdinand and started WW1
|
|