11 Nov 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloI owe you a response on this one...might take a while though because I'm attending (and preparing for) far-away job interviews at the moment.
So you have answered in the negative, meaning, I gather, that by the action's being "performed ... to cause physical pain to some creature" you mean that some entity S does something that happens to bring about physical pain to another creature but through no actual intentionality to do so on the part of the S.
But now you it seems you are claiming t ...[text shortened]... discussion about the permissibility of humans engaging in corporal punishment.
Some seem to have no perspective of the ‘big picture’ and how we got here. As a start toward that end, I present the following.
Over the years I’ve seen the following scenario play out (or something similar):
A husband gives a swift “swat” to his two year old. The wife shoots him a look and he says something like, “I just swatted him to get his attention. It didn’t even hurt him.”
Based on the child’s pained expression, it seemed that the child would have differed with his father’s assessment and based on the wife’s look, it seemed that she would have also. The use of euphemisms such as “swat” and “get his attention” have been around a long time as has the knowledge of what’s behind them. As an example:
If we advocate doing away with corporal punishment, do we advocate doing way with discipline? Certainly not! Learning discipline is a very important part of maturing. There are alternative forms of discipline that are effective and safe. They may take more time and more self-control than striking out or threatening to hit. What about the occasional swat to "get the child's attention?" The swat gives the message that the parent has to hurt the child to change his behavior. "My parents spanked me, and I turned out all right!" Yes, many children survive the trauma of being hit by those who they love and respect. Many do not survive unharmed, however.
Arthur Cherry, M.D., FAAP,
American Academy of Pediatrics NEWS, September 1990
http://nospank.net/aap5-a.htm
It’s clear that Dr. Cherry understands all too well what underlies the word “swat” and the phrase “get the child’s attention”.
I wonder how many are “buying” everything that bbarr is “selling”.
Let’s look at what bbarr had to say before my first post.
There is nothing wrong with a swift swat on the butt to get a child's attention. You can't reason with a 2-yr old… My father hit me once and then started crying and never did it again. My grandfather, however, would regularly tell me to "pick your switch". Now, do you think I was better behaved at home, or at my grandparents' house?
Here bbarr is talking about applying SWIFT “swat” to a 2 year old to “get the child’s attention”. He tries to “justify” it by saying “You can’t reason with a 2 year old”. What does bbarr believe a 2 year old can understand? The last two sentences are particularly telling. The meaning is clear: The more pain that is inflicted, the better the results (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). To be clear, the “smiley face” is bbarr’s . It betrays bbarr’s cavalier attitude despite his subsequent denial.
BTW, My first post was meant to address this and similar posts. Some seem to think the intent was something else altogether.
After my first post, bbarr followed with more of the same:
Meh, there's nothing wrong with a swat to the bottom to get a child's attention. Hell, it doesn't even cause pain, just surprise. And, obviously, this should only be used when immediate compliance is very important, and then only with children who are too young to understand the rules or be reasoned with
It’s the same garbage that’s been repeated for years by those intent on keeping their "right" to hit defenseless children.
All we have is bbarr’s claim that it “doesn’t cause pain” to a 2 year old. This claim is specious. Just as it is specious in the husband’s claim in the scenario above. There is also an implication that hitting defenseless 2 year olds is necessary because "you can't reason" with them. This is also specious.
12 Nov 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI bothered to take the time to give you what I think was a particularly clear presentation of the scope of my inquiry and those claims and conclusions that comprised it. You can bother to respond in some actual substance; or I would rather you don't bother to respond at all.
Have 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?
If you fail to respond in actual susbtance to my claims and conclusions (recall that regarding question (A), they were (A.1) through (A.C) and regarding question (B) they were (B.1) through (B.C) ), I'll take it that you have no actual response on that front.
I also bothered to take the time to give you some of the "bigger picture", which is as follows. Despite the fact that your earlier reference blatantly does not itself justify the stance you have articulated and assumed in this discussion, you are perfectly free (and even encouraged, for Chrissakes) to offer up additional considerations for discussion that would cover the balance. This is something you simply have not yet done.
12 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneFAIL.
Some seem to have no perspective of the ‘big picture’ and how we got here. As a start toward that end, I present the following.
Over the years I’ve seen the following scenario play out (or something similar):
[quote]A husband gives a swift “swat” to his two year old. The wife shoots him a look and he says something like, “I just swatted him to get his olds is necessary because "you can't reason" with them. This is also specious.
The Cherry quote is simply question-begging in relation to bbarr's position. How can you still fail to see this at this point?
Let's face it here: you and wolfgang do not currently have what it takes to objectively consider a position like what bbarr has put forth on this issue. That's becoming painfully clear.
Start offering something up that actually merits my consideration, or I am done with you here.
12 Nov 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloI think ToO and wolfie think that parents who swat their kids need to pull up and have a good think about what is going on.
FAIL.
The Cherry quote is simply question-begging in relation to bbarr's position. How can you still fail to see this at this point?
Let's face it here: you and wolfgang do not currently have what it takes to objectively consider a position like what bbarr has put forth on this issue. That's becoming painfully clear.
Start offering something up that actually merits my consideration, or I am done with you here.
After telling them that I do "pause" (as they put it), to consider my actions and I still have come to the same conclusions as I had before.
And based on their appeal to some sort of 'higher morality' ,(or whatever it is they are trying to say), they have not swayed me in the slightest.
In fact I, like another poster, have felt more justified than ever toward my style of parenting.
Mind you I have mentioned that 'swatting' makes up a very miniscule part of a childs overall discipline and that we should see this 'swatting' proposal in context with one's overall parenting... seems to have fallen on deaf ears.
12 Nov 12
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIt's not about taking more time and having more self control.
Some seem to have no perspective of the ‘big picture’ and how we got here. As a start toward that end, I present the following.
Over the years I’ve seen the following scenario play out (or something similar):
[quote]A husband gives a swift “swat” to his two year old. The wife shoots him a look and he says something like, “I just swatted him to get his olds is necessary because "you can't reason" with them. This is also specious.
I am perfectly aware of my temper and would never strike anyone out of anger.
That guy writing that is an idealist as are you.
In a perfect world I wouldn't need to swat my kids at all.
But thats not what we face here.
The other thing is that kids need a real introduction into the physical world. As bbarr pointed out, kids are unreasonable. They have been treated like a baby (because they are former babies) their whole lives and now that suddenly they can walk and run does not mean they really understand all the basic physical laws that we take for granted (as understanding).
The quicker a child understands the physical world that they are inhabitting , the quicker they will become aware of the very real dangers of the physical world.
A simple 'swat' for a two year old who is about to run on the road in front of a car , and then an explanation as to why is fine by me. The child learns quickly and the swatting may be phased out in a couple of months with most toddlers.
As long as the parent follows through on all the verbal prompts that (s)he makes, the child will learn, (with consistency), that the parent only had the childs best in mind when making all those requests (which are largely misunderstood by the child in the beginning), all will be fine.
Of course parents need to take time and be very patient with young children. But to coat them in cotton wool and teach them about the basic world but not teach them about basic physicality is wrong and possibly quite counter-intuitive for the child.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneLike other posters, I will withdraw from this debate until the points that were actually being discussed reemerge.
Some seem to have no perspective of the ‘big picture’ and how we got here. As a start toward that end, I present the following.
Over the years I’ve seen the following scenario play out (or something similar):
[quote]A husband gives a swift “swat” to his two year old. The wife shoots him a look and he says something like, “I just swatted him to get his olds is necessary because "you can't reason" with them. This is also specious.
My only final reflection is that it is odd that TOO does not seem to be concerned that his arguments to date have had no impact on other posters, and indeed in some cases had moved them further away from his position.
Now often on this Forum, the consequences of not accepting a poster's point of view is simply a personal one. E.g. If you don't believe what I say, you will not get eternal life. So a poster shrugging their shoulders and saying 'You made your bed, you lie in it' is not pleasant but I can take that.
But here, as TOO would say, we are talking about 'poor innocent defenceless children' and he has posters here who are advocating something that he feels is seriously damaging to their welfare.
So you'd think he'd be more concerned that he is actually having the opposite reaction to what he intended and therefore put forward different arguments and respond directly to those being raised. Even withdraw himself from the debate before he hardens opinion further against his position. But he instead ducks all the questions asked of him and repeats the same old flawed arguments over and over again.
You'd almost think that TOO is not so much concerned with the welfare of children as exerting his self-proclaimed moral superiority over others.
Originally posted by Rank outsiderYou'd almost think that.
You'd almost think that TOO is not so much concerned with the welfare of children as exerting his self-proclaimed moral superiority over others.
Do a search of his posts (if you can be bothered) and you'll notice that his method doesn't differ from thread to thread - barring his interesting 'What JAZZ are you listening to?' thread.
12 Nov 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneOut of morbid curiosity, what do you think I'm actually arguing in this thread? I've been clear, I've been clearly and accurately reconstructed by numerous other posters, so I hope you have a pretty good grasp on my position. The problem is that if I try to parse your posts as responses to my (or others'😉 arguments, I would have to conclude that you either haven't read my (or others'😉 arguments, or don't have a grasp on what constitutes an argument, or objection, or even valid inference. But it is simply beyond imagining that you don't have even a minimal grasp of these things. So the only conclusions that seems reasonable are that 1) you are so emotionally wrapped up in this issue that you can't rationally respond to challenges concerning it, and/or 2) you're arguing in bad faith, and using your hand-waving, "big picture" strategy to distract from the fact that you have no legitimate response to these challenges. It's unfortunate, because you hadn't seemed particularly dim or silly until now.
Some seem to have no perspective of the ‘big picture’ and how we got here. As a start toward that end, I present the following.
Over the years I’ve seen the following scenario play out (or something similar):
[quote]A husband gives a swift “swat” to his two year old. The wife shoots him a look and he says something like, “I just swatted him to get his ...[text shortened]... olds is necessary because "you can't reason" with them. This is also specious.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
12 Nov 12
Originally posted by bbarrwhy would you need to 'swat' a childs butt to gain their attention? i dont understand the example you gave of your grandma, what kind of thing where you doing?
If you'd like help conceiving of a situation where swatting a child's butt to gain his/her attention is justified, then maybe you should go back and actually pay attention to the thread.
Again, conceiving of it as violent is question-begging. Swats of the sort my grandmother gave me never hurt, they succeeded in making me pay attention in cases where I w ...[text shortened]... e important then their own empirically unsupported distaste for swatting.
Thank you.
12 Nov 12
3 edits
Originally posted by stellspalfieAs we are back on topic, here is a situation that my wife tells me a friend of hers actually faced.
has anybody actually come up with a situation in which hitting a child is the best thing to do yet?
She has three kids - one a baby in arms, one in a push chair and one a toddler. She was expecting her husband to collect her imminently in their car. However, he had forgotten about picking her up and she does not have a mobile phone.
As it was raining quite hard, and she had already waited for nearly an hour, she decided to walk to the bus stop which was some way off. She tells the toddler to stay by her side and not under any circumstances to go near the road, where there is a steady stream of traffic coming past with. He says he we will.
She starts walking to the bus stop, trying to both control the pushchair and carry the baby. The toddler suddenly breaks away from her and jumps into the puddles in the street within a few feet of the cars passing.
So, for the one and only time in the toddler's life, she swats him on the backside and tells him not to do that again. He complied instantly (he didn't even cry, he was that startled) and they got home safely. She took the toddler to one side, explained why she had acted in the way she did, that she still loved him etc.
Now, you may say that the parent should never have found herself in that position. You may say she should not have attempted to walk to the bus stop. None of that is relevant. If your position is that, if you do everything perfectly in life, then there would be no need for child swatting, then please see karoly azcel's comments above.
She faced an immediate threat to her child's life and she judged that it would be more effective to swat the child on the backside to obtain instant compliance to protect him against the threat.
Of course, she might have followed TOO's complete prohibition on child swatting, in which case she might have ended up with an extremely psychologically well-balanced child, albeit a dead one.
But at least then she would have had the great comfort of knowing she wasn't 'barbaric' and 'sickening' as per TOO's judgement.
12 Nov 12
Originally posted by stellspalfieI was throwing a temper tantrum in a shopping mall; screaming and being awful, and not responding to her telling me sharply to "Be quiet and behave" (which is what she usually did). I was pushing at boundaries, apparently. A quick swat on my butt shut me up because I realized how serious she was; that there would be consequences (I would get in big trouble with my mom, I would be sent to my room when I got home, etc.) I realized it was serious because of how rare it was for my grandmother to do anything other than talk to me. It wasn't that it hurt, and I certainly wasn't (and was never) scared of her being violent. The thought of her actually being violent is laughable. My fear was that I had upset her, that she and my mom would be disappointed with me, and so on. It was also embarrassing... It was a symbol, and it worked. When I quieted down, I got a good talking to about how I was expected to behave. For the record, my older sister never got a swat on the butt. She was, by all accounts, an angel as a child (but a nasty teenage girl, while I was nice and nerdy).
why would you need to 'swat' a childs butt to gain their attention? i dont understand the example you gave of your grandma, what kind of thing where you doing?
12 Nov 12
Originally posted by bbarrHow nerdy are we talking? 😛
I was throwing a temper tantrum in a shopping mall; screaming and being awful, and not responding to her telling me sharply to "Be quiet and behave" (which is what she usually did). I was pushing at boundaries, apparently. A quick swat on my butt shut me up because I realized how serious she was; that there would be consequences (I would get in big trouble w ...[text shortened]... accounts, an angel as a child (but a nasty teenage girl, while I was nice and nerdy).