Originally posted by ThinkOfOneLets look at the real context of one of the articles you post:
[b]That guy writing that is an idealist as are you.
"That guy" is Arthur Cherry, M.D., FAAP. The following explains what the FAAP after his name means:
[quote]The FAAP designation after a pediatrician's name stands for Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Pediatricians who maintain their FAAP designation have obtained board certification ...[text shortened]... uote]
Evidently there quite a few pediatricians in the US who are also just "idealists".[/b]
"If you don't behave I'll tell the doctor to give you a shot!" "I'm going to tan your hide if you do that again!" "When your father gets home, you're going to get a whipping!" This is the American way of child discipline. Threaten to hurt, give a little hurt to get their attention, or if it is a major offense (one that really makes us mad) let them have it! After all, we are not only smarter but bigger and stronger than they are and they should mind us! Besides, we get angry and frustrated when they are out of control. They need to know how we feel!"
You really should read the articles you post. You would learn something. Or at least avoid posting articles that support our position and undermine yours.
From what I can tell, some missed the meaning of the introduction to my previous post:
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.
The phrase in bold indicates that my previous post was to be a ‘start’. The implication there is that it wasn’t intended to be ‘complete’. How that clears things up for those that missed it.
That said, let’s continue by drilling down on part of what bbarr said immediately before and after 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… 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
Here bbarr essentially made a claim that given a “swift swat” a 2 year old experiences “surprise” rather than “pain”. He provided no evidence to back this claim other than his own judgment. It seems doubtful that he ever would be able to. This is when bbarr changed his claim to as follows:
…But my claim concerns swatting, which I'm claiming is only justifiable when it inflicts no pain.
The problem with merely contriving a claim such as this, is that implicit in the claim is a knowledge that is not realistically available to the parent delivering the blow – the knowledge that the “swift swat” to be delivered will in fact be experienced in the 2 year old as “surprise” rather than “pain”. Essentially it’s the same claim as the original – merely repackaged.
So far as I recall, bbarr has not provided any evidence that supports what he's "selling" other than his own opinion and "recollections".
Has he cited any expert opinions that support what he's "selling"?
Has he cited any studies that support what he's "selling"?
In case anyone didn't see this in my response to karoly:
The American Academy of Pediatrics strongly opposes striking a child for any reason.
Pasted from <http://www.healthychildren.org/English/family-life/family-dynamics/communication-discipline/pages/Where-We-Stand-Spanking.aspx?nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR%3a+No+local+token>
Originally posted by Rank outsiderI read it in it's entirety. In fact I even cited his summary statements from that article:
Lets look at the real context of one of the articles you post:
"If you don't behave I'll tell the doctor to give you a shot!" "I'm going to tan your hide if you do that again!" "When your father gets home, you're going to get a whipping!" This is the American way of child discipline. Threaten to hurt, give a little hurt to get their attention, or if g. Or at least avoid posting articles that support our position and undermine yours.
We need to tell parents of our patients about ways to discipline that will not cause physical and mental harm. We need to tell them that hitting may be a temporary expedient but can be harmful and counter-productive.
What's your point?
I notice you ignored the following:
The American Academy of Pediatrics strongly opposes striking a child for any reason.
Pasted from <http://www.healthychildren.org/English/family-life/family-dynamics/communication-discipline/pages/Where-We-Stand-Spanking.aspx?nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR%3a+No+local+token>
Do you also believe that it also "[supports your] position and undermines [mine]"?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
12 Nov 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieyou say failed to use smacking, but then say they pandered to their children's whims. obviously the problem is the pandering not the lack of smacking. you can be a firm,strict parent without resorting to violence.
Most of the families I know who have had problems with their children were those
families who failed to use smacking as a punishment and a deterrent and instead
pandered to their children's whims with insipid threats and punishments that were
ineffectual and dismissed by their children. I once has a midwife tell me that smacking
taught childr ...[text shortened]...
psychological hocus pocus, who read books on parenting and simply couldn't get it
together.
12 Nov 12
Originally posted by stellspalfieI wasn't smacked, I was swatted. I never said she swatted me because she was angry, and certainly never said that any anger of hers made swatting me necessary. Jesus Christ, learn to read. The occasion of my swatting was a tantrum. The original mode of intervention my grandmother used was requesting that I behave, then commanding I behave, and making clear the consequences. There were, infrequently, times when I just would not hear her; when I was upset for whatever reason (tired, bored, frustrated, etc., probably) and just did not listen. A swat brought me to attention, cut through whatever was going on, and indicated to me that she was serious, that I needed to pay attention and behave. And this was not done from anger (I'm not sure how many times I have to make this clear), and this neither hurt nor harmed. When I quieted down and began to listen, my grandmother would again tell me what was expected of me, what her (and my parents'😉 opinion of my behavior would be, what the consequences would be of my continuing to act out, etc. That's what did the work of behavior modification. So, if you have an actual, non-question-begging argument against this method, and if that argument has as premises actual data rather than armchair speculation or moralizing, please present it. If not, then color me unimpressed with your sentiments.
does it need to be an argument??? i asked questions to understand the situation in which you felt being smacked was necessary.you replied that she was angry, which i think is an important point. now you say it was because you were not doing as you were told, originally it was because you were having a tantrum, its hard to 'argue' when i have no idea wha ...[text shortened]... he point where you feel you need to hit them. its usually because youve made mistakes earlier.
12 Nov 12
Originally posted by stellspalfieGreat! Then ask your wife what the best available evidence is that swatting, as I've defined it here, is unjustified in circumstances that meet the conditions I've outlined in this thread. Your anecdotal speculation doesn't carry any justificatory weight with me.
not really, im the main care giver to my kids since they were babies, so i have a fair bit of experience and have talked to lots of other parents. also my wife is doing a phd in child behavior, so i learn a lot from her. i have a close family member who has adopted 4 children with behavior problems and seeing how she has dealt with her kids has been good to observe.
12 Nov 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
From what I can tell, some missed the meaning of the introduction to my previous post:Some seem to have no perspective of the ‘big picture’ and how we got here.[b] As a start toward that end, I present the following.
The phrase in bold indicates that my previous post was to be a ‘start’. The implication there is that it wa ...[text shortened]... 0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR%3a+No+local+token>
[/quote][/b]Is there an argument anywhere in this muddle of yours? If so, what are the premises, and what's the conclusion? Because all I see is an attempt to shift the burden of proof to me, as though I'm advocating swatting. But nowhere in this thread have I said that swatting is better than not-swatting; I'm not selling anything. If swatting doesn't work, then don't swat! If swatting works, then swatting is fine. You are failing to recognize a basic distinction between claiming of something that it's permissible, and claiming of something that it's recommended or obligatory. It's frankly astounding how poorly you and your ilk in this thread deal with contrary points of view. Honestly, I expected better.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
12 Nov 12
Originally posted by bbarr"I wasn't smacked, I was swatted"
I wasn't smacked, I was swatted. I never said she swatted me because she was angry, and certainly never said that any anger of hers made swatting me necessary. Jesus Christ, learn to read. The occasion of my swatting was a tantrum. The original mode of intervention my grandmother used was requesting that I behave, then commanding I behave, and making ...[text shortened]... n or moralizing, please present it. If not, then color me unimpressed with your sentiments.
swatted
Verb:
Hit or crush (something, esp. an insect) with a sharp blow from a flat object.
Hit (someone) with a sharp blow.
smacked
Verb:
Strike (someone or something), typically with the palm of the hand.
right, swat - smack no difference.
I never said she swatted me because she was angry, and certainly never said that any anger of hers made swatting me
neither did i, you mentioned she was probably angry with you. i didnt suggest she hit you because she was angry. i think anger is an important issue when talking about smacking.
Jesus Christ, learn to read
the same criticism could be pointed your way. im not exactly sure what you think ive misread?
So, if you have an actual, non-question-begging argument against this method, and if that argument has as premises actual data rather than armchair speculation or moralizing, please present it. If not, then color me unimpressed with your sentiments
again with the 'argument' chat. two differing opinions doesnt need to be an argument. im not totally against what you are saying, i just dont see the point in resorting to hitting when there are perfectly good other ways of dealing with children. by asking you questions im not arguing, im trying to understand the situations you think smacking was the best option and offer you my opinion if i think the situation could be dealt with differently.......i think its called a discussion, if you want to argue about this subject then i suggest you look elsewhere (or say something i strongly disagree with).
data? why do you want data? what data do you want? have i claimed something that requires data???
my, youre a spiky little fckr.
13 Nov 12
Originally posted by bbarrBut then, so far as I know, you've done nothing but voice your opinion and cite some dubious "recollections" in support of some ridiculously contrived claim that isn't rooted in reality. Is that what you're "expect[ing]"?
Is there an argument anywhere in this muddle of yours? If so, what are the premises, and what's the conclusion? Because all I see is an attempt to shift the burden of proof to me, as though I'm advocating swatting. But nowhere in this thread have I said that swatting is better than not-swatting; I'm not selling anything. If swatting doesn't work, then don' ...[text shortened]... your ilk in this thread deal with contrary points of view. Honestly, I expected better.
For all your calls for 'proper argumentation', you've served up nothing but drek.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
13 Nov 12
Originally posted by bbarras does your anecdotal 'it never did me any harm' story hold no weight either. i could easily cut and paste a bunch of links to reports and studies that say it makes children more aggressive (judging how you like to interact it looks like it causes aggressive adults as well). but im not trying to make that point. im just asking is there ever a senario in which smacking is the best option.
Great! Then ask your wife what the best available evidence is that swatting, as I've defined it here, is unjustified in circumstances that meet the conditions I've outlined in this thread. Your anecdotal speculation doesn't carry any justificatory weight with me.
Originally posted by stellspalfie[/b]Unfortunately academia tends to attract those whose greatest skill is bullying students off of their positions, so that they can congratulate themselves on how "intelligently" they approached an argument. It would seem that bbarr is one such individual.
[b]"I wasn't smacked, I was swatted"
swatted
Verb:
Hit or crush (something, esp. an insect) with a sharp blow from a flat object.
Hit (someone) with a sharp blow.
smacked
Verb:
Strike (someone or something), typically with the palm of the hand.
right, swat - smack no difference.
I never said she swatted me because she was angr you want? have i claimed something that requires data???
my, youre a spiky little fckr.
Once can only wonder from whence his need to bully arose.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMy experience is contrary to this. Troubled kids come from families where CP is the norm. Violence breeds violence and the school bullies are often the ones who are physically disciplined at home.
Most of the families I know who have had problems with their children were those families who failed to use smacking as a punishment and a deterrent
I would be interested to hear from other teachers on here and what their experience is.
13 Nov 12
I was pulled up early in the debate for not knowing what "swatting" was. As I said before I genuinely have not come across it in this context before and can find no dictionary definition compatible with what is being that discussed.
So - has anyone got an online definition that we can all make use of so that we are talking about the same thing?
Until then I'll take the dictionary definitions.
13 Nov 12
Originally posted by karoly aczelLemonJello post 10th Nov.
Parents 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.
"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"
implicitly implying that "swatting" is as good or better than alternatives for the "child's proper care and wellbeing"
Perhaps you should follow the arguments better?