|
On November 03 2011 08:31 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 08:20 SuddenlyRain wrote:
Punishment should be fitting for the crime. Parents should be able to smack their children if they fuck up. But lashing a 16 year old girl 15+ times with a belt is not ok. While cursing at her and physically throwing her down. Mom even attempted somewhat to limit the beating, only to make the Dad more angry and rush off to get a 2nd belt so he could continue the way he wanted to. If the punishment fits the crime why was she beaten for using the internet? Wouldn't a "fitting" punishment be to take away the internet? A "fitting" punishment of getting beaten would be fine if she beat some other person up. Not saying that hitting a child is EVER the right decision.
Didn´t he say that the punishment wasn´t fitting? Or do I understand you wrong?
|
On November 03 2011 08:27 FabledIntegral wrote:
Stop speaking in absolutes, every situation is different. You're being ridiculous at this point. Even if five million studies were conducted and 100% yielded the same result, you can't keep using "always" and "never" because there will always be unique situations that haven't been studied.
sometimes absolutes are true.
Anyway, on punishment from that reddit thread I linked to:
+ Show Spoiler +Now, punishment can work in some situations, such as if the punishment can be arranged to be big enough and immediate enough, and the need being met is not that urgent and/or an alternate way of meet that need is provided -- if you asked me for $1 and I immediately shoot you, you will stop asking (though you probably won't like me much).
In most cases, though, the punishment is not that big, and paradoxically, this type of punishment gets internalized as the "cost of doing business" - the child knows and accepts that they will get punished, and the unwanted behavior actually becomes more "legimatized" in their mind because they "paid" for it. It becomes "okay" to the child to lie, for example, because they "paid" for their lie with a spanking, and you've now inadvertently increased the very behavior you were hoping would go away. (Analogously, studies have shown that if a business has a mild late fee, many more items get returned late, because the person now feels "okay" about turning it in late because they "paid" for it with the fee.)
Or, if the punishment is a little bigger, the child becomes more invested in hiding the misbehavior so they don't get caught - just like people still speed, but they try to hide it by driving past speed traps really slowly.
Worse, corporal punishment is even less effective than other forms of non-corporal punishment (like yelling and grounding), because it also communicates the message that "when someone does something you really don't like, even if they had a good reason in their mind, it's cool to hit them - especially if you are bigger than they are."
This encourages aggression towards others, fear of the punisher, and resentment (no one wants to think they are in the wrong or had some reason to be punished, hence the old saw about being the "only guilty man in prison"). These reactions can occur even if the punishment happens quite infrequently. As an example, if you're like most people, you've probably only been "punished" by the traffic police (e.g., pulled over and fined for speeding) once or twice, or maybe even never -- and yet, whenever you see a police car while you're driving, I'd bet your autonomic nervous system immediately reacts with a signal of "danger" (e.g., your heart races, you get nervous, etc). Maybe even you think to yourself something angry along the lines of "screw the police!"
Most parents do not want their children feeling scared and angry and resentful around them, and since punishment barely works anyway unless you do it really fast and really big, corporal punishment is not the way to go.
|
On November 03 2011 08:27 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 08:10 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2011 08:03 Egyptian_Head wrote:On November 03 2011 07:51 Mohdoo wrote:
The question as to whether it is ever helpful to hit a child is a question which has been thoroughly answered, by very many different people, with the exact same conclusion: There is never a time where hitting a child will do as good or a better job than non-violent methods.
Using pain as a method of scolding or teaching a child is scientifically proven less effective. Its shocking to see some people defend their upbringing when this isn't something remotely controversial. You will never find a scientific paper which concludes it is even equal.
Because it really isn't that bad. People generally think there parents made the right call when they grow up. They realize they were at fault and there parents did there job. It's not weird at all that people defend there up bringing.
Me personally, my parents sent me to my room until they found out that is exactly what I wanted, I was not allowed in my room during the day. They were rather amused at discovering I misbehaved so I would be sent to my room so I didn't have to play any more sports with the neighborhood kids. They couldn't fathom that I would rather be reading than playing cricket. Physical punishment really is not as bad as a lot of you guys make it out to be, I was hit a few times, you learn your lesson and move on. It really is a non issue. What happened in this case however was not punishment. Although he didn't hit her that much, its more then environment it happen in. The bolded cannot be taken seriously. It is common for children to excuse the rash behavior of parents in a lot more extreme of cases than spankings. And your point of it not being "that bad" is also irrelevant. It is scientifically proven to be an inferior method of parenting. You will never meet a psychologist who says otherwise. Its honestly like saying the world is flat in the world of psychology. Pain/violence in parenting is plain and simply inferior and leaves the possibility of changing the child for the worse, even if only slightly sometimes, it can be much worse other times. Your single case where you can not even objectively view yourself is just silly. And it still neglects the fact that it isn't even debatable. This is a really big issue, of course, as physical punishment is really common in less educated/enlightened societies. There are also bits of it left over from people who just go about parenting the way their parents did. A couple generations ago, it was normal. But because it is such a big deal in the development of people, it has been THOROUGHLY studied. I'm not trying to be rude here. I am just trying to articulate just how transparent this issue is in the field of psychology. Just because it's not the optimal method doesn't mean it should be banned. And I'm speaking generally. Psychology has generally deemed it a less effective method, not a counterproductive method, I believe. .
Please source this claim. The evidence that has been presented in this thread, and ignored, would seem to contradict your perception of the research. If you cannot source your claim, I think your view that it shouldn't be banned is based on private bias, unsupported by evidence, and anecdote.
On November 03 2011 08:27 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 08:10 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2011 08:03 Egyptian_Head wrote:On November 03 2011 07:51 Mohdoo wrote:
The question as to whether it is ever helpful to hit a child is a question which has been thoroughly answered, by very many different people, with the exact same conclusion: There is never a time where hitting a child will do as good or a better job than non-violent methods.
Using pain as a method of scolding or teaching a child is scientifically proven less effective. Its shocking to see some people defend their upbringing when this isn't something remotely controversial. You will never find a scientific paper which concludes it is even equal.
Because it really isn't that bad. People generally think there parents made the right call when they grow up. They realize they were at fault and there parents did there job. It's not weird at all that people defend there up bringing.
Me personally, my parents sent me to my room until they found out that is exactly what I wanted, I was not allowed in my room during the day. They were rather amused at discovering I misbehaved so I would be sent to my room so I didn't have to play any more sports with the neighborhood kids. They couldn't fathom that I would rather be reading than playing cricket. Physical punishment really is not as bad as a lot of you guys make it out to be, I was hit a few times, you learn your lesson and move on. It really is a non issue. What happened in this case however was not punishment. Although he didn't hit her that much, its more then environment it happen in. The bolded cannot be taken seriously. It is common for children to excuse the rash behavior of parents in a lot more extreme of cases than spankings. And your point of it not being "that bad" is also irrelevant. It is scientifically proven to be an inferior method of parenting. You will never meet a psychologist who says otherwise. Its honestly like saying the world is flat in the world of psychology. Pain/violence in parenting is plain and simply inferior and leaves the possibility of changing the child for the worse, even if only slightly sometimes, it can be much worse other times. Your single case where you can not even objectively view yourself is just silly. And it still neglects the fact that it isn't even debatable. This is a really big issue, of course, as physical punishment is really common in less educated/enlightened societies. There are also bits of it left over from people who just go about parenting the way their parents did. A couple generations ago, it was normal. But because it is such a big deal in the development of people, it has been THOROUGHLY studied. I'm not trying to be rude here. I am just trying to articulate just how transparent this issue is in the field of psychology. . Even if five million studies were conducted and 100% yielded the same result, you can't keep using "always" and "never" because there will always be unique situations that haven't been studied.
Philosophical skepticism gone crackpot.
|
On November 03 2011 08:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 08:27 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 03 2011 08:10 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2011 08:03 Egyptian_Head wrote:On November 03 2011 07:51 Mohdoo wrote:
The question as to whether it is ever helpful to hit a child is a question which has been thoroughly answered, by very many different people, with the exact same conclusion: There is never a time where hitting a child will do as good or a better job than non-violent methods.
Using pain as a method of scolding or teaching a child is scientifically proven less effective. Its shocking to see some people defend their upbringing when this isn't something remotely controversial. You will never find a scientific paper which concludes it is even equal.
Because it really isn't that bad. People generally think there parents made the right call when they grow up. They realize they were at fault and there parents did there job. It's not weird at all that people defend there up bringing.
Me personally, my parents sent me to my room until they found out that is exactly what I wanted, I was not allowed in my room during the day. They were rather amused at discovering I misbehaved so I would be sent to my room so I didn't have to play any more sports with the neighborhood kids. They couldn't fathom that I would rather be reading than playing cricket. Physical punishment really is not as bad as a lot of you guys make it out to be, I was hit a few times, you learn your lesson and move on. It really is a non issue. What happened in this case however was not punishment. Although he didn't hit her that much, its more then environment it happen in. The bolded cannot be taken seriously. It is common for children to excuse the rash behavior of parents in a lot more extreme of cases than spankings. And your point of it not being "that bad" is also irrelevant. It is scientifically proven to be an inferior method of parenting. You will never meet a psychologist who says otherwise. Its honestly like saying the world is flat in the world of psychology. Pain/violence in parenting is plain and simply inferior and leaves the possibility of changing the child for the worse, even if only slightly sometimes, it can be much worse other times. Your single case where you can not even objectively view yourself is just silly. And it still neglects the fact that it isn't even debatable. This is a really big issue, of course, as physical punishment is really common in less educated/enlightened societies. There are also bits of it left over from people who just go about parenting the way their parents did. A couple generations ago, it was normal. But because it is such a big deal in the development of people, it has been THOROUGHLY studied. I'm not trying to be rude here. I am just trying to articulate just how transparent this issue is in the field of psychology. Just because it's not the optimal method doesn't mean it should be banned. And I'm speaking generally. Psychology has generally deemed it a less effective method, not a counterproductive method, I believe. It's still up to the parents do decide what they think is best for their child given the circumstances, as long as it isn't taken too far. Of course, I'm speaking generally of physical punishment, not of this case in particular. On November 03 2011 08:27 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2011 08:20 SuddenlyRain wrote:
Punishment should be fitting for the crime. Parents should be able to smack their children if they fuck up. But lashing a 16 year old girl 15+ times with a belt is not ok. Have you missed the posts in this thread that outline the fact that smacking children is less effective and can even be detrimental to the behavior of a child? Parents should not be permitted to hit a child, as it is not an issue with 2 sides to it, scientifically speaking. There is a complete consensus among psychologists that physical punishment is not only less effective, but has the potential to damage a child, even if only in small ways. Physical punishment can harm a child a little, a lot, or not at all. But it will *never* yield better results than mature, proper parenting techniques. I challenge anyone in this thread to find a scholarly paper saying otherwise. Stop speaking in absolutes, every situation is different. You're being ridiculous at this point. Even if five million studies were conducted and 100% yielded the same result, you can't keep using "always" and "never" because there will always be unique situations that haven't been studied. The reason that the psychology deems is plain and simply bad is the fact that it has never been shown to be superior, and in fact has a chance at teaching children poor communication skills, having anger problems, being too relaxed about hitting people, or having poor self-esteem, as well as plenty of other issues. None of these issues are guaranteed, but the fact that these issues occur at all, when not a single one is necessary to parenting, makes it plain and simply stupid. Its like choosing to buy a package of candy where there is a 10% chance of there being a rock in one of the pieces, as opposed to the package of candy where there is a 0% chance of there being a rock in a piece of candy. Parents should not have the freedom to do something which can only hope to be as effective as other methods, never better, and with a chance of negative consequences. Especially when physical methods are shown to be less effective at changing child behavior as well as do a worse job at communicating, in detail, why what the child did was wrong. Never a benefit, always a risk. Its just silly. Also please read the article generously posted below: Thanks for posting this!
Well, quite simply, I disagree for you. Just because something has been proven to be a 100% better method doesn't mean that it should be implemented. Norway has shown amazing success with their prison rehabilitation system compared to ours, it doesn't mean we should do the same if we value criminal punishment in addition to rehabilitation. If it was scientifically proven that timeout for periods of more than 30 minutes would always yield less ideal results than something like doing chores, and that time outs, due to the solitary confinement, could yield to slightly less confidence than a child might otherwise exhibit, should we ban it too?
|
Epic evidence. A job well done.
|
On November 03 2011 08:43 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 08:38 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2011 08:27 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 03 2011 08:10 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2011 08:03 Egyptian_Head wrote:On November 03 2011 07:51 Mohdoo wrote:
The question as to whether it is ever helpful to hit a child is a question which has been thoroughly answered, by very many different people, with the exact same conclusion: There is never a time where hitting a child will do as good or a better job than non-violent methods.
Using pain as a method of scolding or teaching a child is scientifically proven less effective. Its shocking to see some people defend their upbringing when this isn't something remotely controversial. You will never find a scientific paper which concludes it is even equal.
Because it really isn't that bad. People generally think there parents made the right call when they grow up. They realize they were at fault and there parents did there job. It's not weird at all that people defend there up bringing.
Me personally, my parents sent me to my room until they found out that is exactly what I wanted, I was not allowed in my room during the day. They were rather amused at discovering I misbehaved so I would be sent to my room so I didn't have to play any more sports with the neighborhood kids. They couldn't fathom that I would rather be reading than playing cricket. Physical punishment really is not as bad as a lot of you guys make it out to be, I was hit a few times, you learn your lesson and move on. It really is a non issue. What happened in this case however was not punishment. Although he didn't hit her that much, its more then environment it happen in. The bolded cannot be taken seriously. It is common for children to excuse the rash behavior of parents in a lot more extreme of cases than spankings. And your point of it not being "that bad" is also irrelevant. It is scientifically proven to be an inferior method of parenting. You will never meet a psychologist who says otherwise. Its honestly like saying the world is flat in the world of psychology. Pain/violence in parenting is plain and simply inferior and leaves the possibility of changing the child for the worse, even if only slightly sometimes, it can be much worse other times. Your single case where you can not even objectively view yourself is just silly. And it still neglects the fact that it isn't even debatable. This is a really big issue, of course, as physical punishment is really common in less educated/enlightened societies. There are also bits of it left over from people who just go about parenting the way their parents did. A couple generations ago, it was normal. But because it is such a big deal in the development of people, it has been THOROUGHLY studied. I'm not trying to be rude here. I am just trying to articulate just how transparent this issue is in the field of psychology. Just because it's not the optimal method doesn't mean it should be banned. And I'm speaking generally. Psychology has generally deemed it a less effective method, not a counterproductive method, I believe. It's still up to the parents do decide what they think is best for their child given the circumstances, as long as it isn't taken too far. Of course, I'm speaking generally of physical punishment, not of this case in particular. On November 03 2011 08:27 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2011 08:20 SuddenlyRain wrote:
Punishment should be fitting for the crime. Parents should be able to smack their children if they fuck up. But lashing a 16 year old girl 15+ times with a belt is not ok. Have you missed the posts in this thread that outline the fact that smacking children is less effective and can even be detrimental to the behavior of a child? Parents should not be permitted to hit a child, as it is not an issue with 2 sides to it, scientifically speaking. There is a complete consensus among psychologists that physical punishment is not only less effective, but has the potential to damage a child, even if only in small ways. Physical punishment can harm a child a little, a lot, or not at all. But it will *never* yield better results than mature, proper parenting techniques. I challenge anyone in this thread to find a scholarly paper saying otherwise. Stop speaking in absolutes, every situation is different. You're being ridiculous at this point. Even if five million studies were conducted and 100% yielded the same result, you can't keep using "always" and "never" because there will always be unique situations that haven't been studied. The reason that the psychology deems is plain and simply bad is the fact that it has never been shown to be superior, and in fact has a chance at teaching children poor communication skills, having anger problems, being too relaxed about hitting people, or having poor self-esteem, as well as plenty of other issues. None of these issues are guaranteed, but the fact that these issues occur at all, when not a single one is necessary to parenting, makes it plain and simply stupid. Its like choosing to buy a package of candy where there is a 10% chance of there being a rock in one of the pieces, as opposed to the package of candy where there is a 0% chance of there being a rock in a piece of candy. Parents should not have the freedom to do something which can only hope to be as effective as other methods, never better, and with a chance of negative consequences. Especially when physical methods are shown to be less effective at changing child behavior as well as do a worse job at communicating, in detail, why what the child did was wrong. Never a benefit, always a risk. Its just silly. Also please read the article generously posted below: Thanks for posting this! Well, quite simply, I disagree for you. Just because something has been proven to be a 100% better method doesn't mean that it should be implemented. Norway has shown amazing success with their prison rehabilitation system compared to ours, it doesn't mean we should do the same if we value criminal punishment in addition to rehabilitation. If it was scientifically proven that timeout for periods of more than 30 minutes would always yield less ideal results than something like doing chores, and that time outs, due to the solitary confinement, could yield to slightly less confidence than a child might otherwise exhibit, should we ban it too?
You have not presented any evidence that beating a child (even lightly) contributes to their development in any positive way.
Yet you believe that it should be legal to beat on a child.
Staggering.
|
Hope he never gets re-elected again. Absolutely horrible.
|
On November 03 2011 08:43 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 08:38 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2011 08:27 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 03 2011 08:10 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2011 08:03 Egyptian_Head wrote:On November 03 2011 07:51 Mohdoo wrote:
The question as to whether it is ever helpful to hit a child is a question which has been thoroughly answered, by very many different people, with the exact same conclusion: There is never a time where hitting a child will do as good or a better job than non-violent methods.
Using pain as a method of scolding or teaching a child is scientifically proven less effective. Its shocking to see some people defend their upbringing when this isn't something remotely controversial. You will never find a scientific paper which concludes it is even equal.
Because it really isn't that bad. People generally think there parents made the right call when they grow up. They realize they were at fault and there parents did there job. It's not weird at all that people defend there up bringing.
Me personally, my parents sent me to my room until they found out that is exactly what I wanted, I was not allowed in my room during the day. They were rather amused at discovering I misbehaved so I would be sent to my room so I didn't have to play any more sports with the neighborhood kids. They couldn't fathom that I would rather be reading than playing cricket. Physical punishment really is not as bad as a lot of you guys make it out to be, I was hit a few times, you learn your lesson and move on. It really is a non issue. What happened in this case however was not punishment. Although he didn't hit her that much, its more then environment it happen in. The bolded cannot be taken seriously. It is common for children to excuse the rash behavior of parents in a lot more extreme of cases than spankings. And your point of it not being "that bad" is also irrelevant. It is scientifically proven to be an inferior method of parenting. You will never meet a psychologist who says otherwise. Its honestly like saying the world is flat in the world of psychology. Pain/violence in parenting is plain and simply inferior and leaves the possibility of changing the child for the worse, even if only slightly sometimes, it can be much worse other times. Your single case where you can not even objectively view yourself is just silly. And it still neglects the fact that it isn't even debatable. This is a really big issue, of course, as physical punishment is really common in less educated/enlightened societies. There are also bits of it left over from people who just go about parenting the way their parents did. A couple generations ago, it was normal. But because it is such a big deal in the development of people, it has been THOROUGHLY studied. I'm not trying to be rude here. I am just trying to articulate just how transparent this issue is in the field of psychology. Just because it's not the optimal method doesn't mean it should be banned. And I'm speaking generally. Psychology has generally deemed it a less effective method, not a counterproductive method, I believe. It's still up to the parents do decide what they think is best for their child given the circumstances, as long as it isn't taken too far. Of course, I'm speaking generally of physical punishment, not of this case in particular. On November 03 2011 08:27 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2011 08:20 SuddenlyRain wrote:
Punishment should be fitting for the crime. Parents should be able to smack their children if they fuck up. But lashing a 16 year old girl 15+ times with a belt is not ok. Have you missed the posts in this thread that outline the fact that smacking children is less effective and can even be detrimental to the behavior of a child? Parents should not be permitted to hit a child, as it is not an issue with 2 sides to it, scientifically speaking. There is a complete consensus among psychologists that physical punishment is not only less effective, but has the potential to damage a child, even if only in small ways. Physical punishment can harm a child a little, a lot, or not at all. But it will *never* yield better results than mature, proper parenting techniques. I challenge anyone in this thread to find a scholarly paper saying otherwise. Stop speaking in absolutes, every situation is different. You're being ridiculous at this point. Even if five million studies were conducted and 100% yielded the same result, you can't keep using "always" and "never" because there will always be unique situations that haven't been studied. The reason that the psychology deems is plain and simply bad is the fact that it has never been shown to be superior, and in fact has a chance at teaching children poor communication skills, having anger problems, being too relaxed about hitting people, or having poor self-esteem, as well as plenty of other issues. None of these issues are guaranteed, but the fact that these issues occur at all, when not a single one is necessary to parenting, makes it plain and simply stupid. Its like choosing to buy a package of candy where there is a 10% chance of there being a rock in one of the pieces, as opposed to the package of candy where there is a 0% chance of there being a rock in a piece of candy. Parents should not have the freedom to do something which can only hope to be as effective as other methods, never better, and with a chance of negative consequences. Especially when physical methods are shown to be less effective at changing child behavior as well as do a worse job at communicating, in detail, why what the child did was wrong. Never a benefit, always a risk. Its just silly. Also please read the article generously posted below: Thanks for posting this! Well, quite simply, I disagree for you. Just because something has been proven to be a 100% better method doesn't mean that it should be implemented. Norway has shown amazing success with their prison rehabilitation system compared to ours, it doesn't mean we should do the same if we value criminal punishment in addition to rehabilitation. If it was scientifically proven that timeout for periods of more than 30 minutes would always yield less ideal results than something like doing chores, and that time outs, due to the solitary confinement, could yield to slightly less confidence than a child might otherwise exhibit, should we ban it too?
You're not disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with the scientific method and an entire field of research. If you trust in the scientific method in other applications, your disagreeing with the scientific method in this case can only be attributed to bias. Your insistence to use personal bias as reasoning to dismiss science is saddening, but has at least resolved this discussion. In the end, you prefer personal bias and experiences over the scientific method. There's really nothing more to be said, but I appreciate your collected and mature responses.
|
Fucking hell I want to stand up for everyone of those kids >< I dunno how but I managed to have my parents on a leash since I was little, Its like they knew they couldnt fuck with me if they dont want the house burned while they asleep.
|
On November 03 2011 04:46 Vehemus wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 04:43 Deadlyfish wrote:On November 03 2011 04:35 Vehemus wrote:On November 03 2011 04:29 Roeder wrote:On November 03 2011 04:14 Vehemus wrote:
I don't feel any sympathy for a sixteen year old girl in this situation. If she had listened to her parents, it wouldn't have happened at all. And if she had taken her whipping like she was asked to, none of this would have happened either. It's a little odd to still be giving spankings when someone's sixteen years old; but clearly this girl just wants to do whatever she wants and doesn't care what her parents tell her. And her father, being a judge, clearly has a very strong sense of what he believes is justice.
Getting hit with a belt on the ass isn't going to do anything but sting for a little while, and at worst swell up and leave a red mark. It's not going to cause any permanent damage at all, and while I don't agree with him swiping at her legs and hitting her over and over again, she should have just fucking listened and taken her spanking for clearly blatantly disobeying what her parents told her.
The second video is extremely disturbing. The child is extremely young and is still learning right from wrong. Making someone stand in a cold shower or hold hot sauce in their mouth is brutal, and is far more psychologically damaging than having to bend over and take a spanking, especially considering the age of the child. A sixteen year old knows the difference between right and wrong entirely. I really, really hope you're just a pathetic troll. Rational people can take care of children and STILL teach them respect without involving psychical OR mentally damage to them. By the time you'll eventually and naturally take respectful choices. It's having a proper morale. You don't need to harm kids to teach them how to behave. I think you deserves a spanking after what you posted. I think what you said and your opinion is wrong. I find this fair judgement, and obviously you will learn not to have such an opinion afterwards, am I right? This is your way of thinking. Also, did you get beaten by your parents? Never get kids, Vehemus. Never ever get fucking kids. And if you do, I will feel fucking sorry for your kids for having such a horrible father. You're really going to fucking compare disagreeing with someone on the Internet to blatantly disobeying your parents orders? I don't think anybody in the world would justify inflicting pain on someone because they disagree with them. Nobody should ever be fearful of their choice in sexuality, religion, politics or anything else. They should learn to respect their parents until they're old enough to be an adult unless their parents are actually criminal or unfit. When you're old enough to have kids, and you work hard to feed them, clothe them and provide them with a comfortable and enjoyable life, and then they steal from you, curse at you or damage your property, just remember what you posted here. You cant hit people just because they dont do what you tell them to do, how is that normal? "Do this!" "No" "oh well, time to get out my belt and beat you" Makes no fucking sense at all. Btw, everyone here is old enough to have kids, so yea. When kids curse at you or "damage your property" you hit them? What? Do you hit everyone who curses at you or just your kids? I honestly dont understand this. But yea, go against every study that has shown that hitting kids does more harm than good. Do you understand the difference between coexisting with people in society and raising a child? It's your responsibility to raise your child and teach them everything there is to know about life. This includes discipline among many other things. It's not your responsibility to discipline someone you disagree with on the Internet or meet on the street. If you cannot stick to the argument at hand then this conversation is over.
You are talking about attacking a child with a fucking weapon...your honestly defending your opinion? Your a monster.
|
On November 03 2011 08:49 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 08:43 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 03 2011 08:38 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2011 08:27 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 03 2011 08:10 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2011 08:03 Egyptian_Head wrote:On November 03 2011 07:51 Mohdoo wrote:
The question as to whether it is ever helpful to hit a child is a question which has been thoroughly answered, by very many different people, with the exact same conclusion: There is never a time where hitting a child will do as good or a better job than non-violent methods.
Using pain as a method of scolding or teaching a child is scientifically proven less effective. Its shocking to see some people defend their upbringing when this isn't something remotely controversial. You will never find a scientific paper which concludes it is even equal.
Because it really isn't that bad. People generally think there parents made the right call when they grow up. They realize they were at fault and there parents did there job. It's not weird at all that people defend there up bringing.
Me personally, my parents sent me to my room until they found out that is exactly what I wanted, I was not allowed in my room during the day. They were rather amused at discovering I misbehaved so I would be sent to my room so I didn't have to play any more sports with the neighborhood kids. They couldn't fathom that I would rather be reading than playing cricket. Physical punishment really is not as bad as a lot of you guys make it out to be, I was hit a few times, you learn your lesson and move on. It really is a non issue. What happened in this case however was not punishment. Although he didn't hit her that much, its more then environment it happen in. The bolded cannot be taken seriously. It is common for children to excuse the rash behavior of parents in a lot more extreme of cases than spankings. And your point of it not being "that bad" is also irrelevant. It is scientifically proven to be an inferior method of parenting. You will never meet a psychologist who says otherwise. Its honestly like saying the world is flat in the world of psychology. Pain/violence in parenting is plain and simply inferior and leaves the possibility of changing the child for the worse, even if only slightly sometimes, it can be much worse other times. Your single case where you can not even objectively view yourself is just silly. And it still neglects the fact that it isn't even debatable. This is a really big issue, of course, as physical punishment is really common in less educated/enlightened societies. There are also bits of it left over from people who just go about parenting the way their parents did. A couple generations ago, it was normal. But because it is such a big deal in the development of people, it has been THOROUGHLY studied. I'm not trying to be rude here. I am just trying to articulate just how transparent this issue is in the field of psychology. Just because it's not the optimal method doesn't mean it should be banned. And I'm speaking generally. Psychology has generally deemed it a less effective method, not a counterproductive method, I believe. It's still up to the parents do decide what they think is best for their child given the circumstances, as long as it isn't taken too far. Of course, I'm speaking generally of physical punishment, not of this case in particular. On November 03 2011 08:27 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2011 08:20 SuddenlyRain wrote:
Punishment should be fitting for the crime. Parents should be able to smack their children if they fuck up. But lashing a 16 year old girl 15+ times with a belt is not ok. Have you missed the posts in this thread that outline the fact that smacking children is less effective and can even be detrimental to the behavior of a child? Parents should not be permitted to hit a child, as it is not an issue with 2 sides to it, scientifically speaking. There is a complete consensus among psychologists that physical punishment is not only less effective, but has the potential to damage a child, even if only in small ways. Physical punishment can harm a child a little, a lot, or not at all. But it will *never* yield better results than mature, proper parenting techniques. I challenge anyone in this thread to find a scholarly paper saying otherwise. Stop speaking in absolutes, every situation is different. You're being ridiculous at this point. Even if five million studies were conducted and 100% yielded the same result, you can't keep using "always" and "never" because there will always be unique situations that haven't been studied. The reason that the psychology deems is plain and simply bad is the fact that it has never been shown to be superior, and in fact has a chance at teaching children poor communication skills, having anger problems, being too relaxed about hitting people, or having poor self-esteem, as well as plenty of other issues. None of these issues are guaranteed, but the fact that these issues occur at all, when not a single one is necessary to parenting, makes it plain and simply stupid. Its like choosing to buy a package of candy where there is a 10% chance of there being a rock in one of the pieces, as opposed to the package of candy where there is a 0% chance of there being a rock in a piece of candy. Parents should not have the freedom to do something which can only hope to be as effective as other methods, never better, and with a chance of negative consequences. Especially when physical methods are shown to be less effective at changing child behavior as well as do a worse job at communicating, in detail, why what the child did was wrong. Never a benefit, always a risk. Its just silly. Also please read the article generously posted below: Thanks for posting this! Well, quite simply, I disagree for you. Just because something has been proven to be a 100% better method doesn't mean that it should be implemented. Norway has shown amazing success with their prison rehabilitation system compared to ours, it doesn't mean we should do the same if we value criminal punishment in addition to rehabilitation. If it was scientifically proven that timeout for periods of more than 30 minutes would always yield less ideal results than something like doing chores, and that time outs, due to the solitary confinement, could yield to slightly less confidence than a child might otherwise exhibit, should we ban it too? You're not disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with the scientific method and an entire field of research. If you trust in the scientific method in other applications, your disagreeing with the scientific method in this case can only be attributed to bias. Your insistence to use personal bias as reasoning to dismiss science is saddening, but has at least resolved this discussion. In the end, you prefer personal bias and experiences over the scientific method. There's really nothing more to be said, but I appreciate your collected and mature responses.
No, I'm not. Don't be an asshat about it. Nothing has been proven, so please, stop trying to shove such views down other people's throats, it's ridiculous. What you're saying is the equivalent of "if you don't believe in evolution, you don't believe in the scientific method." Completely, utterly, ridiculous. Stop trying to bring in your stupid bias arguments into the picture when using the scientific method as an argument isn't even applicable because I never said that physical punishment has ever shown to yield better results. I said I disagreed with YOUR interpretation of things, that were spoken in absolutes. Jesus.
And I can assure you that the scientific method does NOT back you up because that's not how it works. You can take five trillion studies that all show that physical punishment yielded worse results, but number of studies can never lead to proving something, which is what you're insinuating, and THAT was my point.
Also, there are SEVERAL studies which show that physical punishment yields better results than other sorts of punishment at achieving immediate, short term compliance concerning a particular act.
|
In Germany, these parents would lose their right to raise this girl, if the girl would press charges with this video. The parents would face a trial. Proud to be German.
Understandably most children refrain from doing so.
|
On November 03 2011 08:55 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 08:49 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2011 08:43 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 03 2011 08:38 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2011 08:27 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 03 2011 08:10 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2011 08:03 Egyptian_Head wrote:On November 03 2011 07:51 Mohdoo wrote:
The question as to whether it is ever helpful to hit a child is a question which has been thoroughly answered, by very many different people, with the exact same conclusion: There is never a time where hitting a child will do as good or a better job than non-violent methods.
Using pain as a method of scolding or teaching a child is scientifically proven less effective. Its shocking to see some people defend their upbringing when this isn't something remotely controversial. You will never find a scientific paper which concludes it is even equal.
Because it really isn't that bad. People generally think there parents made the right call when they grow up. They realize they were at fault and there parents did there job. It's not weird at all that people defend there up bringing.
Me personally, my parents sent me to my room until they found out that is exactly what I wanted, I was not allowed in my room during the day. They were rather amused at discovering I misbehaved so I would be sent to my room so I didn't have to play any more sports with the neighborhood kids. They couldn't fathom that I would rather be reading than playing cricket. Physical punishment really is not as bad as a lot of you guys make it out to be, I was hit a few times, you learn your lesson and move on. It really is a non issue. What happened in this case however was not punishment. Although he didn't hit her that much, its more then environment it happen in. The bolded cannot be taken seriously. It is common for children to excuse the rash behavior of parents in a lot more extreme of cases than spankings. And your point of it not being "that bad" is also irrelevant. It is scientifically proven to be an inferior method of parenting. You will never meet a psychologist who says otherwise. Its honestly like saying the world is flat in the world of psychology. Pain/violence in parenting is plain and simply inferior and leaves the possibility of changing the child for the worse, even if only slightly sometimes, it can be much worse other times. Your single case where you can not even objectively view yourself is just silly. And it still neglects the fact that it isn't even debatable. This is a really big issue, of course, as physical punishment is really common in less educated/enlightened societies. There are also bits of it left over from people who just go about parenting the way their parents did. A couple generations ago, it was normal. But because it is such a big deal in the development of people, it has been THOROUGHLY studied. I'm not trying to be rude here. I am just trying to articulate just how transparent this issue is in the field of psychology. Just because it's not the optimal method doesn't mean it should be banned. And I'm speaking generally. Psychology has generally deemed it a less effective method, not a counterproductive method, I believe. It's still up to the parents do decide what they think is best for their child given the circumstances, as long as it isn't taken too far. Of course, I'm speaking generally of physical punishment, not of this case in particular. On November 03 2011 08:27 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2011 08:20 SuddenlyRain wrote:
Punishment should be fitting for the crime. Parents should be able to smack their children if they fuck up. But lashing a 16 year old girl 15+ times with a belt is not ok. Have you missed the posts in this thread that outline the fact that smacking children is less effective and can even be detrimental to the behavior of a child? Parents should not be permitted to hit a child, as it is not an issue with 2 sides to it, scientifically speaking. There is a complete consensus among psychologists that physical punishment is not only less effective, but has the potential to damage a child, even if only in small ways. Physical punishment can harm a child a little, a lot, or not at all. But it will *never* yield better results than mature, proper parenting techniques. I challenge anyone in this thread to find a scholarly paper saying otherwise. Stop speaking in absolutes, every situation is different. You're being ridiculous at this point. Even if five million studies were conducted and 100% yielded the same result, you can't keep using "always" and "never" because there will always be unique situations that haven't been studied. The reason that the psychology deems is plain and simply bad is the fact that it has never been shown to be superior, and in fact has a chance at teaching children poor communication skills, having anger problems, being too relaxed about hitting people, or having poor self-esteem, as well as plenty of other issues. None of these issues are guaranteed, but the fact that these issues occur at all, when not a single one is necessary to parenting, makes it plain and simply stupid. Its like choosing to buy a package of candy where there is a 10% chance of there being a rock in one of the pieces, as opposed to the package of candy where there is a 0% chance of there being a rock in a piece of candy. Parents should not have the freedom to do something which can only hope to be as effective as other methods, never better, and with a chance of negative consequences. Especially when physical methods are shown to be less effective at changing child behavior as well as do a worse job at communicating, in detail, why what the child did was wrong. Never a benefit, always a risk. Its just silly. Also please read the article generously posted below: Thanks for posting this! Well, quite simply, I disagree for you. Just because something has been proven to be a 100% better method doesn't mean that it should be implemented. Norway has shown amazing success with their prison rehabilitation system compared to ours, it doesn't mean we should do the same if we value criminal punishment in addition to rehabilitation. If it was scientifically proven that timeout for periods of more than 30 minutes would always yield less ideal results than something like doing chores, and that time outs, due to the solitary confinement, could yield to slightly less confidence than a child might otherwise exhibit, should we ban it too? You're not disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with the scientific method and an entire field of research. If you trust in the scientific method in other applications, your disagreeing with the scientific method in this case can only be attributed to bias. Your insistence to use personal bias as reasoning to dismiss science is saddening, but has at least resolved this discussion. In the end, you prefer personal bias and experiences over the scientific method. There's really nothing more to be said, but I appreciate your collected and mature responses. No, I'm not. Don't be an asshat about it. Nothing has been proven, so please, stop trying to shove such views down other people's throats, it's ridiculous. What you're saying is the equivalent of "if you don't believe in evolution, you don't believe in the scientific method." Completely, utterly, ridiculous. Stop trying to bring in your stupid bias arguments into the picture when using the scientific method as an argument isn't even applicable because I never said that physical punishment has ever shown to yield better results.
You have a narrow view of "proven". Nothing can be "proven" in scieince. READ THE RESEARCH
|
On November 03 2011 08:57 arbitrageur wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 08:55 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 03 2011 08:49 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2011 08:43 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 03 2011 08:38 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2011 08:27 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 03 2011 08:10 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2011 08:03 Egyptian_Head wrote:On November 03 2011 07:51 Mohdoo wrote:
The question as to whether it is ever helpful to hit a child is a question which has been thoroughly answered, by very many different people, with the exact same conclusion: There is never a time where hitting a child will do as good or a better job than non-violent methods.
Using pain as a method of scolding or teaching a child is scientifically proven less effective. Its shocking to see some people defend their upbringing when this isn't something remotely controversial. You will never find a scientific paper which concludes it is even equal.
Because it really isn't that bad. People generally think there parents made the right call when they grow up. They realize they were at fault and there parents did there job. It's not weird at all that people defend there up bringing.
Me personally, my parents sent me to my room until they found out that is exactly what I wanted, I was not allowed in my room during the day. They were rather amused at discovering I misbehaved so I would be sent to my room so I didn't have to play any more sports with the neighborhood kids. They couldn't fathom that I would rather be reading than playing cricket. Physical punishment really is not as bad as a lot of you guys make it out to be, I was hit a few times, you learn your lesson and move on. It really is a non issue. What happened in this case however was not punishment. Although he didn't hit her that much, its more then environment it happen in. The bolded cannot be taken seriously. It is common for children to excuse the rash behavior of parents in a lot more extreme of cases than spankings. And your point of it not being "that bad" is also irrelevant. It is scientifically proven to be an inferior method of parenting. You will never meet a psychologist who says otherwise. Its honestly like saying the world is flat in the world of psychology. Pain/violence in parenting is plain and simply inferior and leaves the possibility of changing the child for the worse, even if only slightly sometimes, it can be much worse other times. Your single case where you can not even objectively view yourself is just silly. And it still neglects the fact that it isn't even debatable. This is a really big issue, of course, as physical punishment is really common in less educated/enlightened societies. There are also bits of it left over from people who just go about parenting the way their parents did. A couple generations ago, it was normal. But because it is such a big deal in the development of people, it has been THOROUGHLY studied. I'm not trying to be rude here. I am just trying to articulate just how transparent this issue is in the field of psychology. Just because it's not the optimal method doesn't mean it should be banned. And I'm speaking generally. Psychology has generally deemed it a less effective method, not a counterproductive method, I believe. It's still up to the parents do decide what they think is best for their child given the circumstances, as long as it isn't taken too far. Of course, I'm speaking generally of physical punishment, not of this case in particular. On November 03 2011 08:27 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2011 08:20 SuddenlyRain wrote:
Punishment should be fitting for the crime. Parents should be able to smack their children if they fuck up. But lashing a 16 year old girl 15+ times with a belt is not ok. Have you missed the posts in this thread that outline the fact that smacking children is less effective and can even be detrimental to the behavior of a child? Parents should not be permitted to hit a child, as it is not an issue with 2 sides to it, scientifically speaking. There is a complete consensus among psychologists that physical punishment is not only less effective, but has the potential to damage a child, even if only in small ways. Physical punishment can harm a child a little, a lot, or not at all. But it will *never* yield better results than mature, proper parenting techniques. I challenge anyone in this thread to find a scholarly paper saying otherwise. Stop speaking in absolutes, every situation is different. You're being ridiculous at this point. Even if five million studies were conducted and 100% yielded the same result, you can't keep using "always" and "never" because there will always be unique situations that haven't been studied. The reason that the psychology deems is plain and simply bad is the fact that it has never been shown to be superior, and in fact has a chance at teaching children poor communication skills, having anger problems, being too relaxed about hitting people, or having poor self-esteem, as well as plenty of other issues. None of these issues are guaranteed, but the fact that these issues occur at all, when not a single one is necessary to parenting, makes it plain and simply stupid. Its like choosing to buy a package of candy where there is a 10% chance of there being a rock in one of the pieces, as opposed to the package of candy where there is a 0% chance of there being a rock in a piece of candy. Parents should not have the freedom to do something which can only hope to be as effective as other methods, never better, and with a chance of negative consequences. Especially when physical methods are shown to be less effective at changing child behavior as well as do a worse job at communicating, in detail, why what the child did was wrong. Never a benefit, always a risk. Its just silly. Also please read the article generously posted below: Thanks for posting this! Well, quite simply, I disagree for you. Just because something has been proven to be a 100% better method doesn't mean that it should be implemented. Norway has shown amazing success with their prison rehabilitation system compared to ours, it doesn't mean we should do the same if we value criminal punishment in addition to rehabilitation. If it was scientifically proven that timeout for periods of more than 30 minutes would always yield less ideal results than something like doing chores, and that time outs, due to the solitary confinement, could yield to slightly less confidence than a child might otherwise exhibit, should we ban it too? You're not disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with the scientific method and an entire field of research. If you trust in the scientific method in other applications, your disagreeing with the scientific method in this case can only be attributed to bias. Your insistence to use personal bias as reasoning to dismiss science is saddening, but has at least resolved this discussion. In the end, you prefer personal bias and experiences over the scientific method. There's really nothing more to be said, but I appreciate your collected and mature responses. No, I'm not. Don't be an asshat about it. Nothing has been proven, so please, stop trying to shove such views down other people's throats, it's ridiculous. What you're saying is the equivalent of "if you don't believe in evolution, you don't believe in the scientific method." Completely, utterly, ridiculous. Stop trying to bring in your stupid bias arguments into the picture when using the scientific method as an argument isn't even applicable because I never said that physical punishment has ever shown to yield better results. You have a narrow view of "proven". Nothing can be "proven" in scieince. READ THE RESEARCH
Fucking Christ people. How is this research even relevant. I never said I agree that physical punishment is better. In fact, it very well might not be, ever. I personally have NEVER been beaten by my parents, nor do I think parents should beat their children, nor will I ever beat my children. But none of this is relevant to the goddamn argument I was making. Fuck.
And if nothing can be proven, then that's exactly why his point is validated in the goddamn first place.
|
On November 03 2011 08:47 Treva wrote:
Hope he never gets re-elected again. Absolutely horrible.
He was re-elected last year and has three more years remaining on this term. However if this continues to escalate I would imagine he will be forced to resign.
|
On November 03 2011 09:00 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 08:57 arbitrageur wrote:On November 03 2011 08:55 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 03 2011 08:49 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2011 08:43 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 03 2011 08:38 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2011 08:27 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 03 2011 08:10 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2011 08:03 Egyptian_Head wrote:On November 03 2011 07:51 Mohdoo wrote:
The question as to whether it is ever helpful to hit a child is a question which has been thoroughly answered, by very many different people, with the exact same conclusion: There is never a time where hitting a child will do as good or a better job than non-violent methods.
Using pain as a method of scolding or teaching a child is scientifically proven less effective. Its shocking to see some people defend their upbringing when this isn't something remotely controversial. You will never find a scientific paper which concludes it is even equal.
Because it really isn't that bad. People generally think there parents made the right call when they grow up. They realize they were at fault and there parents did there job. It's not weird at all that people defend there up bringing.
Me personally, my parents sent me to my room until they found out that is exactly what I wanted, I was not allowed in my room during the day. They were rather amused at discovering I misbehaved so I would be sent to my room so I didn't have to play any more sports with the neighborhood kids. They couldn't fathom that I would rather be reading than playing cricket. Physical punishment really is not as bad as a lot of you guys make it out to be, I was hit a few times, you learn your lesson and move on. It really is a non issue. What happened in this case however was not punishment. Although he didn't hit her that much, its more then environment it happen in. The bolded cannot be taken seriously. It is common for children to excuse the rash behavior of parents in a lot more extreme of cases than spankings. And your point of it not being "that bad" is also irrelevant. It is scientifically proven to be an inferior method of parenting. You will never meet a psychologist who says otherwise. Its honestly like saying the world is flat in the world of psychology. Pain/violence in parenting is plain and simply inferior and leaves the possibility of changing the child for the worse, even if only slightly sometimes, it can be much worse other times. Your single case where you can not even objectively view yourself is just silly. And it still neglects the fact that it isn't even debatable. This is a really big issue, of course, as physical punishment is really common in less educated/enlightened societies. There are also bits of it left over from people who just go about parenting the way their parents did. A couple generations ago, it was normal. But because it is such a big deal in the development of people, it has been THOROUGHLY studied. I'm not trying to be rude here. I am just trying to articulate just how transparent this issue is in the field of psychology. Just because it's not the optimal method doesn't mean it should be banned. And I'm speaking generally. Psychology has generally deemed it a less effective method, not a counterproductive method, I believe. It's still up to the parents do decide what they think is best for their child given the circumstances, as long as it isn't taken too far. Of course, I'm speaking generally of physical punishment, not of this case in particular. On November 03 2011 08:27 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2011 08:20 SuddenlyRain wrote:
Punishment should be fitting for the crime. Parents should be able to smack their children if they fuck up. But lashing a 16 year old girl 15+ times with a belt is not ok. Have you missed the posts in this thread that outline the fact that smacking children is less effective and can even be detrimental to the behavior of a child? Parents should not be permitted to hit a child, as it is not an issue with 2 sides to it, scientifically speaking. There is a complete consensus among psychologists that physical punishment is not only less effective, but has the potential to damage a child, even if only in small ways. Physical punishment can harm a child a little, a lot, or not at all. But it will *never* yield better results than mature, proper parenting techniques. I challenge anyone in this thread to find a scholarly paper saying otherwise. Stop speaking in absolutes, every situation is different. You're being ridiculous at this point. Even if five million studies were conducted and 100% yielded the same result, you can't keep using "always" and "never" because there will always be unique situations that haven't been studied. The reason that the psychology deems is plain and simply bad is the fact that it has never been shown to be superior, and in fact has a chance at teaching children poor communication skills, having anger problems, being too relaxed about hitting people, or having poor self-esteem, as well as plenty of other issues. None of these issues are guaranteed, but the fact that these issues occur at all, when not a single one is necessary to parenting, makes it plain and simply stupid. Its like choosing to buy a package of candy where there is a 10% chance of there being a rock in one of the pieces, as opposed to the package of candy where there is a 0% chance of there being a rock in a piece of candy. Parents should not have the freedom to do something which can only hope to be as effective as other methods, never better, and with a chance of negative consequences. Especially when physical methods are shown to be less effective at changing child behavior as well as do a worse job at communicating, in detail, why what the child did was wrong. Never a benefit, always a risk. Its just silly. Also please read the article generously posted below: Thanks for posting this! Well, quite simply, I disagree for you. Just because something has been proven to be a 100% better method doesn't mean that it should be implemented. Norway has shown amazing success with their prison rehabilitation system compared to ours, it doesn't mean we should do the same if we value criminal punishment in addition to rehabilitation. If it was scientifically proven that timeout for periods of more than 30 minutes would always yield less ideal results than something like doing chores, and that time outs, due to the solitary confinement, could yield to slightly less confidence than a child might otherwise exhibit, should we ban it too? You're not disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with the scientific method and an entire field of research. If you trust in the scientific method in other applications, your disagreeing with the scientific method in this case can only be attributed to bias. Your insistence to use personal bias as reasoning to dismiss science is saddening, but has at least resolved this discussion. In the end, you prefer personal bias and experiences over the scientific method. There's really nothing more to be said, but I appreciate your collected and mature responses. No, I'm not. Don't be an asshat about it. Nothing has been proven, so please, stop trying to shove such views down other people's throats, it's ridiculous. What you're saying is the equivalent of "if you don't believe in evolution, you don't believe in the scientific method." Completely, utterly, ridiculous. Stop trying to bring in your stupid bias arguments into the picture when using the scientific method as an argument isn't even applicable because I never said that physical punishment has ever shown to yield better results. You have a narrow view of "proven". Nothing can be "proven" in scieince. READ THE RESEARCH Fucking Christ people. How is this research even relevant. I never said I agree that physical punishment is better. In fact, it very well might not be, ever. I personally have NEVER been beaten by my parents, nor do I think parents should beat their children, nor will I ever beat my children. But none of this is relevant to the goddamn argument I was making. Fuck. And if nothing can be proven, then that's exactly why his point is validated in the goddamn first place.
1. You do not understand the scientific method.
2. We already shove the principle of only permitting violence in self defence down peoples throats. Why should children not be included?
|
On November 03 2011 09:04 h41fgod wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 09:00 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 03 2011 08:57 arbitrageur wrote:On November 03 2011 08:55 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 03 2011 08:49 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2011 08:43 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 03 2011 08:38 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2011 08:27 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 03 2011 08:10 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2011 08:03 Egyptian_Head wrote:
[quote]
Because it really isn't that bad. People generally think there parents made the right call when they grow up. They realize they were at fault and there parents did there job. It's not weird at all that people defend there up bringing.
Me personally, my parents sent me to my room until they found out that is exactly what I wanted, I was not allowed in my room during the day. They were rather amused at discovering I misbehaved so I would be sent to my room so I didn't have to play any more sports with the neighborhood kids. They couldn't fathom that I would rather be reading than playing cricket.
Physical punishment really is not as bad as a lot of you guys make it out to be, I was hit a few times, you learn your lesson and move on. It really is a non issue. What happened in this case however was not punishment. Although he didn't hit her that much, its more then environment it happen in. The bolded cannot be taken seriously. It is common for children to excuse the rash behavior of parents in a lot more extreme of cases than spankings. And your point of it not being "that bad" is also irrelevant. It is scientifically proven to be an inferior method of parenting. You will never meet a psychologist who says otherwise. Its honestly like saying the world is flat in the world of psychology. Pain/violence in parenting is plain and simply inferior and leaves the possibility of changing the child for the worse, even if only slightly sometimes, it can be much worse other times. Your single case where you can not even objectively view yourself is just silly. And it still neglects the fact that it isn't even debatable. This is a really big issue, of course, as physical punishment is really common in less educated/enlightened societies. There are also bits of it left over from people who just go about parenting the way their parents did. A couple generations ago, it was normal. But because it is such a big deal in the development of people, it has been THOROUGHLY studied. I'm not trying to be rude here. I am just trying to articulate just how transparent this issue is in the field of psychology. Just because it's not the optimal method doesn't mean it should be banned. And I'm speaking generally. Psychology has generally deemed it a less effective method, not a counterproductive method, I believe. It's still up to the parents do decide what they think is best for their child given the circumstances, as long as it isn't taken too far. Of course, I'm speaking generally of physical punishment, not of this case in particular. On November 03 2011 08:27 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2011 08:20 SuddenlyRain wrote:
Punishment should be fitting for the crime. Parents should be able to smack their children if they fuck up. But lashing a 16 year old girl 15+ times with a belt is not ok. Have you missed the posts in this thread that outline the fact that smacking children is less effective and can even be detrimental to the behavior of a child? Parents should not be permitted to hit a child, as it is not an issue with 2 sides to it, scientifically speaking. There is a complete consensus among psychologists that physical punishment is not only less effective, but has the potential to damage a child, even if only in small ways. Physical punishment can harm a child a little, a lot, or not at all. But it will *never* yield better results than mature, proper parenting techniques. I challenge anyone in this thread to find a scholarly paper saying otherwise. Stop speaking in absolutes, every situation is different. You're being ridiculous at this point. Even if five million studies were conducted and 100% yielded the same result, you can't keep using "always" and "never" because there will always be unique situations that haven't been studied. The reason that the psychology deems is plain and simply bad is the fact that it has never been shown to be superior, and in fact has a chance at teaching children poor communication skills, having anger problems, being too relaxed about hitting people, or having poor self-esteem, as well as plenty of other issues. None of these issues are guaranteed, but the fact that these issues occur at all, when not a single one is necessary to parenting, makes it plain and simply stupid. Its like choosing to buy a package of candy where there is a 10% chance of there being a rock in one of the pieces, as opposed to the package of candy where there is a 0% chance of there being a rock in a piece of candy. Parents should not have the freedom to do something which can only hope to be as effective as other methods, never better, and with a chance of negative consequences. Especially when physical methods are shown to be less effective at changing child behavior as well as do a worse job at communicating, in detail, why what the child did was wrong. Never a benefit, always a risk. Its just silly. Also please read the article generously posted below: Thanks for posting this! Well, quite simply, I disagree for you. Just because something has been proven to be a 100% better method doesn't mean that it should be implemented. Norway has shown amazing success with their prison rehabilitation system compared to ours, it doesn't mean we should do the same if we value criminal punishment in addition to rehabilitation. If it was scientifically proven that timeout for periods of more than 30 minutes would always yield less ideal results than something like doing chores, and that time outs, due to the solitary confinement, could yield to slightly less confidence than a child might otherwise exhibit, should we ban it too? You're not disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with the scientific method and an entire field of research. If you trust in the scientific method in other applications, your disagreeing with the scientific method in this case can only be attributed to bias. Your insistence to use personal bias as reasoning to dismiss science is saddening, but has at least resolved this discussion. In the end, you prefer personal bias and experiences over the scientific method. There's really nothing more to be said, but I appreciate your collected and mature responses. No, I'm not. Don't be an asshat about it. Nothing has been proven, so please, stop trying to shove such views down other people's throats, it's ridiculous. What you're saying is the equivalent of "if you don't believe in evolution, you don't believe in the scientific method." Completely, utterly, ridiculous. Stop trying to bring in your stupid bias arguments into the picture when using the scientific method as an argument isn't even applicable because I never said that physical punishment has ever shown to yield better results. You have a narrow view of "proven". Nothing can be "proven" in scieince. READ THE RESEARCH Fucking Christ people. How is this research even relevant. I never said I agree that physical punishment is better. In fact, it very well might not be, ever. I personally have NEVER been beaten by my parents, nor do I think parents should beat their children, nor will I ever beat my children. But none of this is relevant to the goddamn argument I was making. Fuck. And if nothing can be proven, then that's exactly why his point is validated in the goddamn first place. 1. You do not understand the scientific method. 2. We already shove the principle of only permitting violence in self defence down peoples throats. Why should children not be included?
The scientific method is only used to make conclusions about the world around us. As new evidence comes in, it is considered, and we use it in an attempt to get a better understanding. At no point does the scientific method ever attempt to determine something is factual. Previous poster I'm arguing with was stating it was factual information. All I did, in essence, was state that you cannot determine it to be completely factual information with absolutes. Can you explain to me more about the scientific method then and elaborate on what I'm mixing up?
|
On November 03 2011 09:00 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 08:57 arbitrageur wrote:On November 03 2011 08:55 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 03 2011 08:49 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2011 08:43 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 03 2011 08:38 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2011 08:27 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 03 2011 08:10 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2011 08:03 Egyptian_Head wrote:On November 03 2011 07:51 Mohdoo wrote:
The question as to whether it is ever helpful to hit a child is a question which has been thoroughly answered, by very many different people, with the exact same conclusion: There is never a time where hitting a child will do as good or a better job than non-violent methods.
Using pain as a method of scolding or teaching a child is scientifically proven less effective. Its shocking to see some people defend their upbringing when this isn't something remotely controversial. You will never find a scientific paper which concludes it is even equal.
Because it really isn't that bad. People generally think there parents made the right call when they grow up. They realize they were at fault and there parents did there job. It's not weird at all that people defend there up bringing.
Me personally, my parents sent me to my room until they found out that is exactly what I wanted, I was not allowed in my room during the day. They were rather amused at discovering I misbehaved so I would be sent to my room so I didn't have to play any more sports with the neighborhood kids. They couldn't fathom that I would rather be reading than playing cricket. Physical punishment really is not as bad as a lot of you guys make it out to be, I was hit a few times, you learn your lesson and move on. It really is a non issue. What happened in this case however was not punishment. Although he didn't hit her that much, its more then environment it happen in. The bolded cannot be taken seriously. It is common for children to excuse the rash behavior of parents in a lot more extreme of cases than spankings. And your point of it not being "that bad" is also irrelevant. It is scientifically proven to be an inferior method of parenting. You will never meet a psychologist who says otherwise. Its honestly like saying the world is flat in the world of psychology. Pain/violence in parenting is plain and simply inferior and leaves the possibility of changing the child for the worse, even if only slightly sometimes, it can be much worse other times. Your single case where you can not even objectively view yourself is just silly. And it still neglects the fact that it isn't even debatable. This is a really big issue, of course, as physical punishment is really common in less educated/enlightened societies. There are also bits of it left over from people who just go about parenting the way their parents did. A couple generations ago, it was normal. But because it is such a big deal in the development of people, it has been THOROUGHLY studied. I'm not trying to be rude here. I am just trying to articulate just how transparent this issue is in the field of psychology. Just because it's not the optimal method doesn't mean it should be banned. And I'm speaking generally. Psychology has generally deemed it a less effective method, not a counterproductive method, I believe. It's still up to the parents do decide what they think is best for their child given the circumstances, as long as it isn't taken too far. Of course, I'm speaking generally of physical punishment, not of this case in particular. On November 03 2011 08:27 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2011 08:20 SuddenlyRain wrote:
Punishment should be fitting for the crime. Parents should be able to smack their children if they fuck up. But lashing a 16 year old girl 15+ times with a belt is not ok. Have you missed the posts in this thread that outline the fact that smacking children is less effective and can even be detrimental to the behavior of a child? Parents should not be permitted to hit a child, as it is not an issue with 2 sides to it, scientifically speaking. There is a complete consensus among psychologists that physical punishment is not only less effective, but has the potential to damage a child, even if only in small ways. Physical punishment can harm a child a little, a lot, or not at all. But it will *never* yield better results than mature, proper parenting techniques. I challenge anyone in this thread to find a scholarly paper saying otherwise. Stop speaking in absolutes, every situation is different. You're being ridiculous at this point. Even if five million studies were conducted and 100% yielded the same result, you can't keep using "always" and "never" because there will always be unique situations that haven't been studied. The reason that the psychology deems is plain and simply bad is the fact that it has never been shown to be superior, and in fact has a chance at teaching children poor communication skills, having anger problems, being too relaxed about hitting people, or having poor self-esteem, as well as plenty of other issues. None of these issues are guaranteed, but the fact that these issues occur at all, when not a single one is necessary to parenting, makes it plain and simply stupid. Its like choosing to buy a package of candy where there is a 10% chance of there being a rock in one of the pieces, as opposed to the package of candy where there is a 0% chance of there being a rock in a piece of candy. Parents should not have the freedom to do something which can only hope to be as effective as other methods, never better, and with a chance of negative consequences. Especially when physical methods are shown to be less effective at changing child behavior as well as do a worse job at communicating, in detail, why what the child did was wrong. Never a benefit, always a risk. Its just silly. Also please read the article generously posted below: Thanks for posting this! Well, quite simply, I disagree for you. Just because something has been proven to be a 100% better method doesn't mean that it should be implemented. Norway has shown amazing success with their prison rehabilitation system compared to ours, it doesn't mean we should do the same if we value criminal punishment in addition to rehabilitation. If it was scientifically proven that timeout for periods of more than 30 minutes would always yield less ideal results than something like doing chores, and that time outs, due to the solitary confinement, could yield to slightly less confidence than a child might otherwise exhibit, should we ban it too? You're not disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with the scientific method and an entire field of research. If you trust in the scientific method in other applications, your disagreeing with the scientific method in this case can only be attributed to bias. Your insistence to use personal bias as reasoning to dismiss science is saddening, but has at least resolved this discussion. In the end, you prefer personal bias and experiences over the scientific method. There's really nothing more to be said, but I appreciate your collected and mature responses. No, I'm not. Don't be an asshat about it. Nothing has been proven, so please, stop trying to shove such views down other people's throats, it's ridiculous. What you're saying is the equivalent of "if you don't believe in evolution, you don't believe in the scientific method." Completely, utterly, ridiculous. Stop trying to bring in your stupid bias arguments into the picture when using the scientific method as an argument isn't even applicable because I never said that physical punishment has ever shown to yield better results. You have a narrow view of "proven". Nothing can be "proven" in scieince. READ THE RESEARCH Fucking Christ people. How is this research even relevant. I never said I agree that physical punishment is better. In fact, it very well might not be, ever. I personally have NEVER been beaten by my parents, nor do I think parents should beat their children, nor will I ever beat my children. But none of this is relevant to the goddamn argument I was making. Fuck. And if nothing can be proven, then that's exactly why his point is validated in the goddamn first place.
Actually science can only not prove things because there is always the possibility current findings might be wrong. Disagree with a large body of established research without a damn good reason is an invalid viewpoint.
|
DAMN NATURE, YOU SCARY!
No on a serious note, this is a pretty shocking video, i was just wondering why was the recorder their in the exact spot to see it. Has this been repetitive or just a coincidence? or maybe she planned it all along for her hatred of her parents ?
...
|
On November 03 2011 08:54 nathangonmad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 04:46 Vehemus wrote:On November 03 2011 04:43 Deadlyfish wrote:On November 03 2011 04:35 Vehemus wrote:On November 03 2011 04:29 Roeder wrote:On November 03 2011 04:14 Vehemus wrote:
I don't feel any sympathy for a sixteen year old girl in this situation. If she had listened to her parents, it wouldn't have happened at all. And if she had taken her whipping like she was asked to, none of this would have happened either. It's a little odd to still be giving spankings when someone's sixteen years old; but clearly this girl just wants to do whatever she wants and doesn't care what her parents tell her. And her father, being a judge, clearly has a very strong sense of what he believes is justice.
Getting hit with a belt on the ass isn't going to do anything but sting for a little while, and at worst swell up and leave a red mark. It's not going to cause any permanent damage at all, and while I don't agree with him swiping at her legs and hitting her over and over again, she should have just fucking listened and taken her spanking for clearly blatantly disobeying what her parents told her.
The second video is extremely disturbing. The child is extremely young and is still learning right from wrong. Making someone stand in a cold shower or hold hot sauce in their mouth is brutal, and is far more psychologically damaging than having to bend over and take a spanking, especially considering the age of the child. A sixteen year old knows the difference between right and wrong entirely. I really, really hope you're just a pathetic troll. Rational people can take care of children and STILL teach them respect without involving psychical OR mentally damage to them. By the time you'll eventually and naturally take respectful choices. It's having a proper morale. You don't need to harm kids to teach them how to behave. I think you deserves a spanking after what you posted. I think what you said and your opinion is wrong. I find this fair judgement, and obviously you will learn not to have such an opinion afterwards, am I right? This is your way of thinking. Also, did you get beaten by your parents? Never get kids, Vehemus. Never ever get fucking kids. And if you do, I will feel fucking sorry for your kids for having such a horrible father. You're really going to fucking compare disagreeing with someone on the Internet to blatantly disobeying your parents orders? I don't think anybody in the world would justify inflicting pain on someone because they disagree with them. Nobody should ever be fearful of their choice in sexuality, religion, politics or anything else. They should learn to respect their parents until they're old enough to be an adult unless their parents are actually criminal or unfit. When you're old enough to have kids, and you work hard to feed them, clothe them and provide them with a comfortable and enjoyable life, and then they steal from you, curse at you or damage your property, just remember what you posted here. You cant hit people just because they dont do what you tell them to do, how is that normal? "Do this!" "No" "oh well, time to get out my belt and beat you" Makes no fucking sense at all. Btw, everyone here is old enough to have kids, so yea. When kids curse at you or "damage your property" you hit them? What? Do you hit everyone who curses at you or just your kids? I honestly dont understand this. But yea, go against every study that has shown that hitting kids does more harm than good. Do you understand the difference between coexisting with people in society and raising a child? It's your responsibility to raise your child and teach them everything there is to know about life. This includes discipline among many other things. It's not your responsibility to discipline someone you disagree with on the Internet or meet on the street. If you cannot stick to the argument at hand then this conversation is over. You are talking about attacking a child with a fucking weapon...your honestly defending your opinion? Your a monster.
Vehemus I would like you to tell the no lasting effect to my father who has massive scars and large cords of scar tissue all over his legs back and ass, he is also an alcoholic who has bi polar/depression, he has continued to ruin his life because he cannot function in normal society because as a child before his father left he and my uncles were all belted on a regular basis. Incase you are stupid which I believe you are (not trying to attack your character but use some fucking common sense) What is a whip for? Hurting animals to get them to do what you want right? What are they made of? Leather? Yes. What is a belt made from? Leather? Yes. Now wouldn't hitting someone witha leather cord be the same as hitting them with a leather whip? Yes. If you have ever seen someone actually get beaten with a leather belt or an animal whipped with a whipe or been beaten yourself you would understand how much it hurts and the fact that is is extremely easy to break skin when whipping someone with anything. Fuck I have had broken skin from towel whipping in locker rooms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
