Originally posted by Metal Brain I agree those methods are preferable, but what if the child victim of the other child is sibling and the beatings continue despite your best efforts?
They have to live together. You can't keep them separated forever. Would you allow the beatings to continue because you are convinced your ineffective methods might work eventually? What about fairness t ...[text shortened]... sk that child getting a concussion because you insist on prolonged trial and error experiments?
Would you risk that child getting a concussion because you insist on abusing them?
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Would you risk that child getting a concussion because you insist on abusing them?
A spanking on the butt is not a risk of concussion. Your assertion that corporal punishment is abuse is a bit warped. That is kind of like calling capital punishment murder. One man's crime is another man's justice.
You are leaving out the part where the child is being abusive. Would you risk that abuse continuing because the offending child does not fear the soft punishment enough? What about fairness for the victim? You are conveniently leaving that out like FMF was.
Originally posted by Metal Brain A spanking on the butt is not a risk of concussion. Your assertion that corporal punishment is abuse is a bit warped. That is kind of like calling capital punishment murder. One man's crime is another man's justice.
You are leaving out the part where the child is being abusive. Would you risk that abuse continuing because the offending child does not ...[text shortened]... nough? What about fairness for the victim? You are conveniently leaving that out like FMF was.
I don't think your need violence for a "harsh" punishment. In any case children tend not to respond much to punishment as a behavioural conditioning technique. So while punishment is certainly required in some cases, the best results will come from rewarding good behaviour.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra I don't think your need violence for a "harsh" punishment. In any case children tend not to respond much to punishment as a behavioural conditioning technique. So while punishment is certainly required in some cases, the best results will come from rewarding good behaviour.
Spanking on the butt is harsh punishment? I don't think of that as being harsh.
I am talking about a child that you didn't raise. The child has been desensitized to most forms of punishment and has not experienced positive reinforcement because the parents are morons. Now imagine that you are a teacher or babysitter and have to deal with this problem child. Do you risk letting him abuse his younger sister because you think your trial and error methods might work in time?
Originally posted by Metal Brain Spanking on the butt is harsh punishment? I don't think of that as being harsh.
I am talking about a child that you didn't raise. The child has been desensitized to most forms of punishment and has not experienced positive reinforcement because the parents are morons. Now imagine that you are a teacher or babysitter and have to deal with this problem ...[text shortened]... im abuse his younger sister because you think your trial and error methods might work in time?
You think teachers and babysitters should beat other peoples' children?
Originally posted by AThousandYoung You think teachers and babysitters should beat other peoples' children?
I'll give you a non violent punishment situation. My oldest daughter was in a 6th grade class, when the teacher left the room, and chaos erupted. A few instigators started throwing stuff, until roughly half the class was involved. My daughter, and the other half remained in their seats.
The teacher returned, and angrily sentence the whole class to an hour's detention. No violence, but no justice either. My daughter, not involved, missed her chess club, and felt that an injustice was done. People doing the right thing were punished along with the jerks throwing stuff.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung You think teachers and babysitters should beat other peoples' children?
If a child is beating another child repeatedly I think a spanking on the butt is warranted as a last resort. The hypothetical situation I presented earlier in this thread is that a boy kept hitting his younger sister in the head with a toy truck and no other punishment stopped him from doing it again. To prevent the young girl from getting injured (concussion) corporal punishment was applied as a last resort.
I believe in this hypothetical situation it would be acceptable to spank the offending child (for beating a smaller and weaker child) to prevent harmful injury that would require medical attention.
Originally posted by Metal Brain If a child is beating another child repeatedly I think a spanking on the butt is warranted as a last resort. The hypothetical situation I presented earlier in this thread is that a boy kept hitting his younger sister in the head with a toy truck and no other punishment stopped him from doing it again. To prevent the young girl from getting injured (concu ...[text shortened]... ting a smaller and weaker child) to prevent harmful injury that would require medical attention.
I went back and read your hypothetical, it's a bit ridiculous. You basically state "if nothing works except a beating, would you hand out a beating ?". It's a completely useless hypothetical, because the situation is so far removed from any normal situation that it has no place in a discussion on whether or not physical punishment should be part of normal ways to raise a child.
Originally posted by normbenign I'll give you a non violent punishment situation. My oldest daughter was in a 6th grade class, when the teacher left the room, and chaos erupted. A few instigators started throwing stuff, until roughly half the class was involved. My daughter, and the other half remained in their seats.
The teacher returned, and angrily sentence the whole class to a ...[text shortened]... ice was done. People doing the right thing were punished along with the jerks throwing stuff.
And how does this relate to this discussion ? That you can use non-physical punishments unjustly as well doesn't make physical punishment any better.
Originally posted by Barts I went back and read your hypothetical, it's a bit ridiculous. You basically state "if nothing works except a beating, would you hand out a beating ?". It's a completely useless hypothetical, because the situation is so far removed from any normal situation that it has no place in a discussion on whether or not physical punishment should be part of normal ways to raise a child.
I never claimed it should be a normal way to raise a child. Not even close.
I'm saying some children are sociopaths and borderline psychopaths that cannot be dealt with in a normal way for risk of allowing harm to another child. It is rare but real.
Corporal punishment should not be ruled out completely. That is all I am saying. Your methods will work fine for the 95%, but exceptions should be allowed for the 5%. It could save a child a trip to the hospital. Maybe even the morgue/grave yard.
Originally posted by Metal Brain I'm saying some children are sociopaths and borderline psychopaths that cannot be dealt with in a normal way for risk of allowing harm to another child. It is rare but real.
So you are only advocating corporal punishment in cases where the safety of one child is endangered by another?
Originally posted by Barts And how does this relate to this discussion ? That you can use non-physical punishments unjustly as well doesn't make physical punishment any better.
The point is that either physical or nonphysical punishment is ineffective if it is unfairly or improperly administered.
Originally posted by Metal Brain I never claimed it should be a normal way to raise a child. Not even close.
I'm saying some children are sociopaths and borderline psychopaths that cannot be dealt with in a normal way for risk of allowing harm to another child. It is rare but real.
Corporal punishment should not be ruled out completely. That is all I am saying. Your methods will ...[text shortened]... wed for the 5%. It could save a child a trip to the hospital. Maybe even the morgue/grave yard.
Yep, you said exactly what I thought you said. You made up a (being generous) highly unlikely hypothetical and are basing your argument around it. You have yet to show that even in the case of "sociopaths", physical punishment is the only (or best) thing that'll work.
Originally posted by normbenign The point is that either physical or nonphysical punishment is ineffective if it is unfairly or improperly administered.
Well, of course. I just don't see how that's new information to anyone on this thread or or how it relates to the discussion. It certainly doesn't answer ATY's question about whether or not you think teachers should be allowed to beat people.
(Though looking back a bit trough the thread that's also a silly question to ask to you, you seem to think that the physical punishments when you were in school were for the most part just and helpful)
Originally posted by Barts Yep, you said exactly what I thought you said. You made up a (being generous) highly unlikely hypothetical and are basing your argument around it. You have yet to show that even in the case of "sociopaths", physical punishment is the only (or best) thing that'll work.
Children have murdered other children. There are documented cases of it. Do you think corporal punishment is why they turned out to be murderers? Do you think it is possible that they got away with too much without being punished enough? Is it nurture or nature?
How do you think these murdering children should be punished? Counseling? 5 years in jail? 10 years? 20? The death penalty? I'm curious how a mind like yours thinks.
HS girl confronts bullies bullying another kid:
24 Jun '12 08:08
Back to Top