10 Nov 12
Originally posted by wolfgang59The problem is that you implore them to revise or reconsider their position without providing them any actual reasons to think their positions are in need of revision or reconsideration.
I have not been following the debate since it went along the path of personal
attacks and "arguing about arguing". I would just like to say that ThinkOfOne
is not alone. I cannot conceive of a situation where striking a child is justified
and do not understand the "hitting without hurting" argument.
A story:
My foster son came to us just over a ye ...[text shortened]... r kids are bad people - just asking
that you have a little re-think.
Thank you.
The swatting at issue clearly doesn't qualify as CP. It doesn't qualify as violent, either, given the intention involved and given the fact that it causes no pain. So, presumably, what you would need to provide is empricial evidence that shows that swatting is inferior, with respect to some appropriate rubric oriented at the child's proper care and wellbeing, to other competing non-violent, non-corporal methods. This is something neither you nor ToO has provided. And failing that, it doesn't seem warranted for you to censure others for their implementing it.
10 Nov 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloI would have thought the onus on providing empricial (sic) evidence is on those who think hitting children is a good for their well-being!
The problem is that you implore them to revise or reconsider their position without providing them any actual reasons to think their positions are in need of revision or reconsideration.
The swatting at issue clearly doesn't qualify as CP. It doesn't qualify as violent, either, given the intention involved and given the fact that it causes no pain. ...[text shortened]... failing that, it doesn't seem warranted for you to censure others for their implementing it.
And I am not imploring anyone, I was just giving an account from my own experience, as others have done, which may pursuade some to reconsider their position.
At least we can all (or mostly all) agree that CP is not a good idea.
10 Nov 12
I think it's all in the intent. If kids are hit because parents are frustrated or angry, then it's wrong. As long as the saying "This hurts me more than it hurts you" applies, then, and only then, is it okay. I think the only parents qualified to spank their kids, are the ones who thinks it's horrifying. But things like "time out" can only do so much. Children, like adults, will test how much they can get away with. Corporal punishment is the only thing, unfortunately, that can effectively deter "bad" behavior. That's just human nature.
10 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59Parents dont swat them for their well being. Follow the arguments presented please. No one is claiming that swatting them is good for their well being.
I would have thought the onus on providing empricial (sic) evidence is on those who think hitting children is a good for their well-being!
And I am not imploring anyone, I was just giving an account from my own experience, as others have done, which may pursuade some to reconsider their position.
At least we can all (or mostly all) agree that CP is not a good idea.
10 Nov 12
Originally posted by wolfgang59I do not know anyone who thinks hitting a child is good for the child's well-being. But if you bother to pay attention, you would see that some think it is in keeping with a regimen of proper care and entrustment of a child's interests and well-being that they apply mild, painless, infrequent swats, of course subject to a number of conditions that make the justifiability of such swatting quite a strict thing by seemingly any standards. It's not their problem if you lack the ability to consider their position in an objective manner. Given the strict necessary conditions they impose on the justifiability of the swatting, yes the onus is on you here to give actual reasons why you think these conditions are still not strict enough before you imply that their methods are "sickening".
I would have thought the onus on providing empricial (sic) evidence is on those who think hitting children is a good for their well-being!
And I am not imploring anyone, I was just giving an account from my own experience, as others have done, which may pursuade some to reconsider their position.
At least we can all (or mostly all) agree that CP is not a good idea.
Yes you were imploring, and you clearly have no basis for giving censure against a non-violent, non-corporal method that again places quite strict conditions on its justifiability. The experiences you relayed are ones involving violence and the swatting at issue obviously doesn't count as violence. But of course you'll continue to ignore that point.
I agree with your disapproval of CP.
10 Nov 12
Originally posted by wolfgang59My own thoughts are, why hit a child when you can use a good submission hold?
I have not been following the debate since it went along the path of personal
attacks and "arguing about arguing". I would just like to say that ThinkOfOne
is not alone. I cannot conceive of a situation where striking a child is justified
and do not understand the "hitting without hurting" argument.
A story:
My foster son came to us just over a ye ...[text shortened]... r kids are bad people - just asking
that you have a little re-think.
Thank you.
10 Nov 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloI am not imploring anyone.
I do not know anyone who thinks hitting a child is good for the child's well-being. But if you bother to pay attention, you would see that some think it is in keeping with a regimen of proper care and entrustment of a child's interests and well-being that they apply mild, painless, infrequent swats, of course subject to a number of conditions that make th ...[text shortened]... of course you'll continue to ignore that point.
I agree with your disapproval of CP.
I am not arguing with anyone.
I have put forward my position.
Why are you so aggresive?
Were you physically disciplined as a child?
Perhaps you need to talk openly about the abuse you received.
10 Nov 12
Originally posted by wolfgang59This is interesting. You unjustifiably equate swatting with violence, and you unjustifiably equate the presentation of an argument with aggression. You seem to be the one with issues here, not LJ. Just remember, it's not your fault. It's not your fault. It's not your fault.
I am not imploring anyone.
I am not arguing with anyone.
I have put forward my position.
Why are you so aggresive?
Were you physically disciplined as a child?
Perhaps you need to talk openly about the abuse you received.
10 Nov 12
2 edits
Originally posted by wolfgang59It's not that anecdotal evidence means little. It's that the anecdotal evidence you posted was not relevant to what we are discussing.
I have not been following the debate since it went along the path of personal
attacks and "arguing about arguing". I would just like to say that ThinkOfOne
is not alone. I cannot conceive of a situation where striking a child is justified
and do not understand the "hitting without hurting" argument.
A story:
My foster son came to us just over a ye r kids are bad people - just asking
that you have a little re-think.
Thank you.
So your example states that the use of CP was the norm, by which I take to mean regularly practised and one of the main forms of discipline used. Posters have been very clear that they would only use it very sparingly and would not allow it to become a habitual practice.
None of the posters would tolerate the situation where the foster son would be allowed to hit siblings and parents. They would also not use child swatting to make a long-term change to the child's behaviour.
Finally, they would all abhor the idea that a parent would hit a child back in retaliation for the boy hitting them.
So I have taken the time to have a rethink and simply conclude that your post was not relevant to the debate.
I was also add that, as I made clear in my opening post, that I was far from certain whether the idea of using child swatting was acceptable or not in some circumstances. Having listened to TOOs arguments, and yours, and the other posters, and read quite a lot of Murray Straus' work, I have become more convinced than I was before that child swatting is acceptable in some circumstances.
I would hope that might give you and TOO pause to rethink how you are approaching this question. Even now I am open to persuasion the other way if the arguments can be found and made.
10 Nov 12
2 edits
Originally posted by wolfgang59Why would you not be interested?
No thanks
If I were to take TOO's comment on his complete opposition to child striking at its absolute strict literal meaning, it would be facile for me to find a situation where both you and TOO would agree that the use of child swatting is acceptable.
I am not going to do this, as clearly TOO and you are talking about child swatting as part of a regime of child discipline.
However, even here, why would you want to close your mind off to the possibility that another poster can convince you that it is acceptable in some circumstances?
TOO takes what googlefudge refers to as the reverse slippery slope position, which really is inadequate as a justification against child swatting. If this not your position, then what is your reason for simply ignoring scenarios that may demonstrate that your position is not correct?
10 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Rank outsiderLooks like sticking fingers in the ears and putting out the tongue ... Or is it a classical case of "schöne Seele"?
TOO takes what googlefudge refers to as the reverse slippery slope position, which really is inadequate as a justification against child swatting. If this not your position, then what is your reason for simply ignoring scenarios that may demonstrate that your position is not correct?
11 Nov 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeThis is a straw man attack. Reread what I actually wrote. Reread your response.
This is an internet forum where I have no admin privileges so there is literately no way
for me to prevent you from 'explaining' anything you like.
You can't put the blame on us for the fact that you have not yet explained yourself adequately
because you can just do it. We can't stop you even if we wanted to.
So this post of yours is total bull ...[text shortened]... lain your
position.
If this is not the case then stop thrashing around and just do it.
11 Nov 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloHave you considered that your single-mindedness gets in the way of gaining perspective on issues? That it not only gets in the way of seeing the "big picture", but can distort the "picture" that you do have?
I lack the patience to deal with someone who introduces a reference that has the term 'corporal punishment' in the title and that clearly deals centrally with that term throughout, and yet systematically obscures clarification of how that term is even defined in the reference when others ask for it.
To your questions, those didn't factor. As I made ex ...[text shortened]... u would want to raise those concerns. I'm not yet convinced you actually have any, though.