Originally posted by FMF Which other developmental disorders in children, apart from ADHD, would you propose to handle with "very harsh" physical violence?
I never confined the discussion to ADHD and you know it, but you are attempting to. Stop omitting important parts of my quote. Your tactics are obvious to me and I won't allow you to omit important parts of my statement and get away with it.
Originally posted by FMF What if beating a child makes it more violent? What if it does not prevent a child from beating other children? What if it exacerbates the problem?
Interesting theory. Do you have any statistical data to confirm it?
Originally posted by Metal Brain I never confined the discussion to ADHD and you know it, but you are attempting to. Stop omitting important parts of my quote. Your tactics are obvious to me and I won't allow you to omit important parts of my statement and get away with it.
I am not omitting important parts of your quote. Here is your reference to ADHD in full and verbatim:
If you raised the child without corporal punishment and simply made a child stand in the corner when the child misbehaved he might grow up well behaved and respectful, but some children have ADHD or be extremely impulsive and will not listen and their parents. These parents may have their children desensitized to some forms of corporal punishment that are seemingly harsh. These children may need [what you may consider] very harsh corporal punishment to curb their bad behavior. If they don't they may laugh in your face and think they can get away with anything because they usually do.
Here is my question: Which other developmental disorders in children, apart from ADHD, would you propose to handle with "very harsh" physical violence?
Originally posted by Metal Brain Not really. Chain gangs are a form of slavery and that is physical punishment.
I didn't suggest you apply corporal punishment after a child murders another. I suggested using it to prevent children beating other children repeatedly and you know that.
A) Sorry, I forgot you're in the USA. I was thinking about Europe.
B) You're asking me what to do to about child murderers in the context of a thread on physical punishment and beating kids to learn them proper behaviour. By the way, you haven't shown how beating children will stop them beating other kids except by stating in a hypothetical that it will.
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.
* Bump for Metal Brain *
So you are only advocating corporal punishment in cases where the safety of one child is endangered by another?
Originally posted by Metal Brain What part of extreme abuse don't you understand? Whacks are not extreme abuse.
So beating had good effects in moderation (though you have yet to show that), but once you cross "a line" it may well turn kids into murders ? And that's a mode of education you're supporting, even though the positive effects for "light" punishment are not proven and it's unclear where the line is ? ...
Originally posted by FMF I am not omitting important parts of your quote. Here is your reference to ADHD in full and verbatim:
[b]If you raised the child without corporal punishment and simply made a child stand in the corner when the child misbehaved he might grow up well behaved and respectful, but some children have ADHD or be extremely impulsive and will not listen and their pare ...[text shortened]... n children, apart from ADHD, would you propose to handle with "very harsh" physical violence?
or be extremely impulsive
I did not limit myself to ADHD children in any way.
Originally posted by Barts So beating had good effects in moderation (though you have yet to show that), but once you cross "a line" it may well turn kids into murders ? And that's a mode of education you're supporting, even though the positive effects for "light" punishment are not proven and it's unclear where the line is ? ...
Fluoride is said to be good for your teeth in light amounts but will ruin your teeth in larger amounts. Is that logic much different?
Originally posted by Metal Brain Fluoride is said to be good for your teeth in light amounts but will ruin your teeth in larger amounts. Is that logic much different?
You seem to be disregarding the second part of my post. The comparison would be valid if we didn't know whether or not fluoride was good for you in low doses and if we didn't know where the line between good and bad was.
Originally posted by Barts You seem to be disregarding the second part of my post. The comparison would be valid if we didn't know whether or not fluoride was good for you in low doses and if we didn't know where the line between good and bad was.
Do we? Maybe fluoride is bad at any dose. Have you ever thought of that?
Originally posted by Metal Brain Do we? Maybe fluoride is bad at any dose. Have you ever thought of that?
http://www.fluoridation.com/fluorosis.htm
So, can you tell me why you're suddenly completely shifting the discussion to the health benefits or lack thereof of fluoride? It was a nice comparison to the topic at hand, but I don't really see any use of actually starting a discussion on it.
27 Jun '12 07:52
HS girl confronts bullies bullying another kid:
Back to Top