Spanking your child?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Again, I was not calling you wrong initially, though certainly implied I'll admit. Just not in a position of understanding. In the same way I could not understand some one who lost a loved one, a parent, very early in life.

Your insistence that this is an insult strikes me as central to why this thread was started. Please tell me this is stupid.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Implying qualifies under a Ad Hominem, in fact that is what I notice: implying I was wrong.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Funny that, I freely admit that I may have taken the wrong tac yet you refuse to answer my very blunt questions to you. Why is that?

You can still call me stupid, no offense taken.

 

and what was that quesion again?

 

We seem to be going around in circles. Yet you are not answering my questions or invites to call me stupid. Why did you ask the question?

 

WHAT QUESTION!

Please repeat I don't know what your talking about!

 

Well cooked :-

Very simply, Spanking your child?

I feel you are asking why you where spanked (read abused) as a child and why Ryan suffers the same. (Q) has seen the same I believe.

Again, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Tell me and I'll shut up. No harm done.

But to me spanking != abuse.

 

Ryan is not spanked so I don't see how he "suffered the same". also I still don't see what your getting at I will call you "vague" rather then stupid.

 

I think WCF argued fallaciously by presenting two extremes. There is an alternative between hitting (no euphemisms please) a child and raising him/her in a Skinner Box. Children tend to become narcissistic if they are ignored or abundantly idolized for qualities they do not possess. Use accordant negative reinforcements for undesirable qualities, and explain why they are undesirable and how the reinforcement reflects a natural deterrent. Only use negative reinforcements after the second violation if it’s relatively minor; always explain first.

I used to get hit as I child. My natural response was to commit the punishable offense almost as soon as the fear subsided. I saw no justice in my punishments; I merely resented its source; hence if I could get away with it- I would do it. I’m still like that now.

Negative reinforcements that illustrate real consequences and rationale motivate the subject to avoid doing undesirable things. Punishments that seek to shape behavior for no other reason than more punishment (even if accompanied by explanation) achieves little in that respect.

 

I think I have been advocating the middle ground this whole time: I do not recommend or believe in spanking as the answer to everything. My approach was that you talk to the child tell them what is good and bad and why, if they do things right they need to be rewarded, if they violate a rule or principle they need to be punished, spanking is something that I believe is a perfectly valid form of punishment, if needed or not is up to the child’s behavior.

Well that quite the opposite of how I responded, again I believe the parent should vary how they raise a child based on the personality of the child, some children never needed to be spanked others do. Also I would like to say how sorry I am that you never developed a sense of morals and are still willing to do things wrong as long as you can get away with it. Your parents most have never got you into the habit of thinking about the consequences independently, either that or your just a bad person.

 

I don't know.
The natural reaction of parents is to spank. Psychological knowledge still doesn't know shit compared to instincts.
There MUST be something beneficial about it.

I have an enormous family, not immediate but like 9 aunties and 3 uncles on one side and 5 uncles and 2 aunties on the other, add to that their spouses and I have scores of cousins.
Anyway, what I'm saying is I've spent alot of time observing parent-child interaction, something I've noticed is the time when parents really have a hard time controlling themselves is when their kids put their own life in danger.
When parents spank over their child being embarrassing or a brat its a different type of frustration.
I don't think spanking in those cases is warranted and its more of a conscious anger, it only happens because there is a society in which people are expected to act a certain way, when a kid doesn't a parent gets embarrassed or whatever, but this is not natural.
But when a kid is playing with a snake, or lying on train tracks I think taking the child away from the danger and then putting him in the danger of a wooping is beneficial.
This would have been a very important thing to do back when life wasn't so safe and easy and medical attention didn't exist.
As I said other animals do it, your child's survival is more important than its having a non-smacked-ass, or non-blowhole-burned pectoral or whatever your style is.

So I think spanking is right in some cases, I think everything we naturally have the urge to do must have spawned from a behaviour that was "right", not just right but required for survival.
From eating to murder.

 

I do not see the threat of punishment as a valid or legitimate deterrent in and by itself. This does not mean I have no conception of right and wrong. There are some deeds I can get away with and do, and some deeds that I can get away with and don’t do- depending on whether or not I find the actions just. In either case, the ability of some force to inflict pain on me in retaliation for my actions is not the standard by which I measure the permissibility of my behavior. If this is how you think, then I should be pitying you.

 

Inflict pain on me is not the limit of my consequences comprehension, doing things wrong harms others and yes they can retaliate buy imprisoning you, suing you, killing you, maiming you, ect, but harming others from a selfish genetic stand point is ill acceptable in societies as other may not help you in return, being a evil social organism won’t get you far, (being a total altruist is also not biologically sound) being a functional and reliable member of society is the best strategy to a good life.

 

I don’t know what you’re talking about. I merely pointed out that the threat of punishment is rarely considered a legitimate deterrent. I really don’t have the will or desire to unravel your archaic notions of “selfishness” and “altruism”. I’ll only say that your assessment is wrong: being violent, brutal, and hedonistic can be an effective survival strategy in some societies, and being fair and productive can be a major disadvantage.

 

read "The selfish gene" by Richard Dawkins my interpretation is very vague, I would advice this before you say things based off your own ignorance.

 

I am ignorant because I haven't read one book? Whereas you are intelligent for stating something centuries of human history negates? Okiedokie!

 

no but you said you did not know what I'm talking about thus you were ignorant of the subject. Selfish genetics does in fact accounts for the evil of humanity as selfishness with a genetic cause as only greedy animals that give a dam about them self’s survive, but then way do people or social animals even get along to begin with? Selfish genetic theory accounts for that as well in great detail, but this is all off topic.

 

Sorry. I don't speak Klingon.

 

So that another thing your ignorant off?: can't even tell sci-fi language from spiel on selfish genetic theory, maybe I should pity you?