|
Until disproved or improved, conclusions made by the scientific method are factual. Your main reason for misunderstanding seem to be lack of realization of the disconnect between fact and ultimate truth.
|
On November 02 2011 10:36 nooboon wrote:Same here  knew the southern states had a bad reputation but this kinda put it into a new light
I really hate these kind of generalizations, is one of the big reasons people think they have the right to do this. Please don't continue to perpetuate this stereotype.
|
On November 03 2011 09:08 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 09:04 h41fgod wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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?
The scientific method shouldn't necessarily dictate our legislation, which I think it what you're saying. However, beating kids is damaging, probably more damaging than banning it would be to poor parents who couldn't beat their children. Also, if you do not accept the major tenants of biological evolution (change in allele frequency over time through mutation and selective pressure) then yes, you do not believe the scientific method is correct. Unless you can present a scientific case.
|
On November 03 2011 09:11 wswordsmen 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. 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.
I didn't disagree with a large body of established research. I disagreed with him stating that it will NEVER (and he put emphasis on the word never) yield positive results, based on the studies already presented. Why are people attacking me for things I never said?
I already stated my viewpoint was that I don't condone it, I don't think it's productive, I've never been beaten, nor will I beat/hit my children.
On November 03 2011 09:26 Ancestral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 09:08 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 03 2011 09:04 h41fgod wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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? The scientific method shouldn't necessarily dictate our legislation, which I think it what you're saying. However, beating kids is damaging, probably more damaging than banning it would be to poor parents who couldn't beat their children. Also, if you do not accept the major tenants of biological evolution (change in allele frequency over time through mutation and selective pressure) then yes, you do not believe the scientific method is correct. Unless you can present a scientific case.
Maybe I should just bold it in caps one last time. I do not think that beating children is good. And no, just because you don't believe in evolution, does not mean you don't believe the scientific method is correct. You may decide to conclude there is not enough evidence currently to make a conclusion, or that the evidence is so weak that a conclusion should not be made or accepted at that point.
|
even if punishing children with violenece was smart, this guy didnt punish her, he beat her up.
He hit her uncontrolled while swearing a lot and threatening her like its a streetfight.
|
On November 03 2011 09:15 h41fgod wrote:
Until disproved or improved, conclusions made by the scientific method are factual. Your main reason for misunderstanding seem to be lack of realization of the disconnect between fact and ultimate truth.
Sorry but social science, or the inquiry method is NOT scientific at all. Behavioral psychology and social sciences have no real "evidence" to back them up. They only make correlations, but do not specify causation. When your child's IQ gets smaller if you beat them, maybe you beat them because they are too stupid to make normal decisions in the first place. Correlation does not mean causation, which is why those studies are trying to say. IF they explained how beating/spanking caused psychological trauma, and trauma is the causation for lower IQ values then I would accept it. I think its more like spanking reduces the child's freedom, and desire to explore and do things that will develop their learning under the threat of a little pain.
Spanking anyone under 4 years old is completely retarded, which half of those studies did. If they spanked 5-10 year old when they are really out of line, example would be screaming, crying and throwing a tantrum in the middle of public warrants a spanking. This is the case for a 16 year old teenager. I see highschoolers smoking weed, fighting each other, and getting drunk all the time and the parents are not responsible at all. Yet when a man of law (over spanks due to anger and lack of control) tries to discipline his daughter for committing an illegal act it's suddenly child abuse? Half of those studies show spanking a child that doesn't understand a 50ml glass full of water contains less water than a 1L bottle half full reduces their IQ by 4 points at most, and maybe might have sexual problems(I don't think hitting a child with a belt can anyway cause sexual problems later on in life. But hitting their butt with your hand, or light spanking might because it has a COMPLETELY different effect.) Consider embarrassment vs pain. Which will more effect psychologically in the future? I think embarrassment because it makes the person insecure about themselves and might cause their sexuality to change in one way or another.
Don't try to justify your position with studies you didn't even look at other than the title, or how they obtained the data and on what age groups. Saying some "social" scientists think something is true is no different than someone saying, tachyons are real. Please take a course in the social sciences before considering it a valid and completely prestigious science. The subject is too young to say that.
|
|
|
Yeah because the need for getting your 'lick in' isn't sadistic in any way? ...A Master Chief in the Navy was known for beating some of his seamen, guess what happened to him? They threw his decapitated body outside the front gate for everyone to see. Just sayin', karma is a motherfucker.
|
i hope that bastard will go in jail.
And i'm even more sickened by the fact that every fricking time there are people who like to rationalize and somewhat justify these actions, just for the sake of acting smart and thoughtful.
|
On November 03 2011 09:37 rel wrote:
Yeah because the need for getting your 'lick in' isn't sadistic in any way? ...A Master Chief in the Navy was known for beating some of his seamen, guess what happened to him? They threw his decapitated body outside the front gate for everyone to see. Just sayin', karma is a motherfucker.
Karma is for the people of lower class in soceity
A judge is above the law.
|
On November 03 2011 09:15 h41fgod wrote:
Until disproved or improved, conclusions made by the scientific method are factual. Your main reason for misunderstanding seem to be lack of realization of the disconnect between fact and ultimate truth.
If that's where I've been wrong, and this is indeed true, then I'll admit I was wrong. I've never heard that explanation though. The first thing I see under "fact" under dictionary.com is
something that actually exists; reality; truth:
So I don't know, if that's how it's treated, it doesn't make sense to me, but I'm open to the idea I've misunderstood the scientific method's conclusions about things.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On November 03 2011 09:35 Mafs wrote:
Sorry but social science, or the inquiry method is NOT scientific at all. Behavioral psychology and social sciences have no real "evidence" to back them up. They only make correlations, but do not specify causation. When your child's IQ gets smaller if you beat them, maybe you beat them because they are too stupid to make normal decisions in the first place. Correlation does not mean causation, which is why those studies are trying to say. IF they explained how beating/spanking caused psychological trauma, and trauma is the causation for lower IQ values then I would accept it. I think its more like spanking reduces the child's freedom, and desire to explore and do things that will develop their learning under the threat of a little pain.
Spanking anyone under 4 years old is completely retarded, which half of those studies did. If they spanked 5-10 year old when they are really out of line, example would be screaming, crying and throwing a tantrum in the middle of public warrants a spanking. This is the case for a 16 year old teenager. I see highschoolers smoking weed, fighting each other, and getting drunk all the time and the parents are not responsible at all. Yet when a man of law (over spanks due to anger and lack of control) tries to discipline his daughter for committing an illegal act it's suddenly child abuse? Half of those studies show spanking a child that doesn't understand a 50ml glass full of water contains less water than a 1L bottle half full reduces their IQ by 4 points at most, and maybe might have sexual problems(I don't think hitting a child with a belt can anyway cause sexual problems later on in life. But hitting their butt with your hand, or light spanking might because it has a COMPLETELY different effect.) Consider embarrassment vs pain. Which will more effect psychologically in the future? I think embarrassment because it makes the person insecure about themselves and might cause their sexuality to change in one way or another.
Don't try to justify your position with studies you didn't even look at other than the title, or how they obtained the data and on what age groups. Saying some "social" scientists think something is true is no different than someone saying, tachyons are real. Please take a course in the social sciences before considering it a valid and completely prestigious science. The subject is too young to say that.
If you are unwilling to accept correlation as evidence for not beating children I really don't think anyone is going to be able to suggest anything about the human experience which you could accept. Aside from medical documentation all psychological knowledge of human interaction is based on corollary science.
|
enraging..
on the bright side, that dude is fucked.
|
On November 03 2011 09:40 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 09:15 h41fgod wrote:
Until disproved or improved, conclusions made by the scientific method are factual. Your main reason for misunderstanding seem to be lack of realization of the disconnect between fact and ultimate truth. If that's where I've been wrong, and this is indeed true, then I'll admit I was wrong. I've never heard that explanation though. The first thing I see under "fact" under dictionary.com is something that actually exists; reality; truth:So I don't know, if that's how it's treated, it doesn't make sense to me, but I'm open to the idea I've misunderstood the scientific method's conclusions about things.
Doesn't the scientific method mean that everything could be proven wrong. I don't think it means however that we should go around doubting everything. In a way I can't know that Washington exists as long as I haven't been there, but I would be stupid to doubt that it does exist. In the same way I would be stupid to doubt the existence of evolution or the bad implications of child abuse.
|
On November 03 2011 09:50 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 09:40 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 03 2011 09:15 h41fgod wrote:
Until disproved or improved, conclusions made by the scientific method are factual. Your main reason for misunderstanding seem to be lack of realization of the disconnect between fact and ultimate truth. If that's where I've been wrong, and this is indeed true, then I'll admit I was wrong. I've never heard that explanation though. The first thing I see under "fact" under dictionary.com is something that actually exists; reality; truth:So I don't know, if that's how it's treated, it doesn't make sense to me, but I'm open to the idea I've misunderstood the scientific method's conclusions about things. Doesn't the scientific method mean that everything could be proven wrong. I don't think it means however that we should go around doubting everything. In a way I can't know that Washington exists as long as I haven't been there, but I would be stupid to doubt that it does exist. In the same way I would be stupid to doubt the existence of evolution or the bad implications of child abuse.
Ok? What's your point?
|
|
|
This is disgusting.I feel bad for the girl,I can't believe they can actually call themselves human beings.
|
God this shit ruined my night
This is just downright wrong and having hearing stories from my mother about how her father use to do these things to her it just hits even harder.
I for one will next physically disciple my child. This just adds to the reasons why.
|
Lol at the people saying its "disgusting, horrible, despicable ect...". Its a beating what do you expect? Beatings aren't suppose to be pretty.What's funnier - for me at least- is that those posts are primarily coming from the US. It was a house RULE - no matter how stupid we make it out to be - it was put in place. She broke it - she got punished. The end.
Also this brought back memories. *Sigh* good times lol. I remember doing the exact same thing she did. Took 15-20 lickings to my legs because I wouldn't give my parents my ass to be beat. Legs hurt 10x more so I don't know why I ever did it. This isn't bad at all. There's really no mental scars. You'll be hurting for the next 2-3 days but really that's all. She's not even really crying at all towards the end. And the parents do explain why she got beat and why they were upset with her.
Its not as big of a deal as people are making it out to be. Last beating I had was 14. My younger sister was 16 because she did something really stupid. All in all instilled discipline/made me learn. Have nothing against my parents for beating me. 99% of the beatings I got I KNEW I did something wrong.
I'd say 75% of my CLOSE family members cousins/uncles/aunts are heavy into drugs or in prison doing LONG sentences. Varying from drug trafficking to killing of their wife. Grew up in a bad part of town. I remember hearing jokes when I was younger from family about me being beat with the belt by my dad and how they were going to send their kids to live with us so they would learn to behave. I actually thank my parents for beating me looking back at things and comparing myself to the people I grew up with that were never touched.
<3 Rearing the Asian stories btw.
|
On November 03 2011 09:52 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 09:50 Elroi wrote:On November 03 2011 09:40 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 03 2011 09:15 h41fgod wrote:
Until disproved or improved, conclusions made by the scientific method are factual. Your main reason for misunderstanding seem to be lack of realization of the disconnect between fact and ultimate truth. If that's where I've been wrong, and this is indeed true, then I'll admit I was wrong. I've never heard that explanation though. The first thing I see under "fact" under dictionary.com is something that actually exists; reality; truth:So I don't know, if that's how it's treated, it doesn't make sense to me, but I'm open to the idea I've misunderstood the scientific method's conclusions about things. Doesn't the scientific method mean that everything could be proven wrong. I don't think it means however that we should go around doubting everything. In a way I can't know that Washington exists as long as I haven't been there, but I would be stupid to doubt that it does exist. In the same way I would be stupid to doubt the existence of evolution or the bad implications of child abuse. Ok? What's your point?
My point was that your argument that the scientific method means that we cannot know anything is absurd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
