corporal punishment

Originally posted by Agerg
Reading ToO's arguments' (and recalling the farce he made of debating with me[hidden]i.e. dodging all my arguments[/hidden]that lying is [b]ALWAYS wrong (no exceptions) some time back) it is clear to see that he is irreparably tied to a black and white world.

All hail ThinkOfOne...the most wise and benevolent king of pointland :][/b]

What have we seen from Agerg on this thread?

stellspalfie: doesnt a sharp bark/shout have the same effect on a child. is it necessary to use violence?

Agerg: "I don't think so...if the sharp bark/shout carries no implicit threat of (transient yet still unpleasant) pain... "

Got to give Agerg credit for at least calling it what it is, instead of hiding behind euphemisms like so many others.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
What have we seen from Agerg on this thread?

stellspalfie: doesnt a sharp bark/shout have the same effect on a child. is it necessary to use violence?

Agerg: "I don't think so...if the sharp bark/shout carries no implicit threat of (transient yet still unpleasant) pain... "

Got to give Agerg credit for at least calling it what it is, instead of hiding behind euphemisms like so many others.

I make no secret of my stance on the greater good of causing small and transient pain in order to get the compliance of humans that are too young to be reasoned with. I might be talked out of it but I'd have to see a good argument first. (and no ThinkofOne, CP is immoral because hitting youngsters is immoral because hitting youngsters is immoral because ... because hitting youngsters is immoral ... does not constitute a good argument).

Moreover the type of CP I currently advocate (no not cat o' nine tails or the rack before you go down that road!) is quite different to the swatting advocated by bbarr (et al) and so your claim that unlike others, I am calling it what it is (unsurprisingly) narrow minded.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Is the following your idea of "reason"?

Googlefudge:

What I cannot condone in any way shape or form is the use of corporal Punishment where
you beat the child (use a cane, a belt, a slipper, whatever) for 'being naughty' as a punishment.

A quick smack to bring a kid back to reality before telling them off or sending them to their room or
whatever is fine.

Using violence AS a punishment.... Very not fine.

Given that I was arguing that in certain circumstances very small children loose it and go off
into a world of their own and don't pay attention to anything their guardian is saying and that
sometimes the only way to get their attention is to physically stop them/smack them.
After which you then sternly tell them off/whatever...

Then yes it's perfectly 'reasoned'.

Now you can contest various parts of it.

You could for example argue that small children are never beyond reason (you would be wrong however).
You could say that even if they are beyond reason it's still not ok to hit them to bring them back to reality.
Or that the tactic is ineffective at doing so. (although based on presently available evidence i would hold
that you would be again wrong on both counts)

You can attack any of my premises, and provide supporting evidence for doing so.

However the argument itself is perfectly sound and coherent.

I do not, and have not ever advocated for punishing children through the use of violence of any form.

However a quick sharp shock for those very rare (hopefully) circumstances where a very small child has
totally lost it, where you need to bring them back to reality and make them listen to you, is I think reasonable
and not in any way damaging to a child's development.

You have provided no evidence that contradicts this thus far, nor any valid arguments against this.

You have instead insulted me/us.
Used straw man arguments (arguing against using violence as a punishment which is not at all what I/we are advocating)
while accusing us (baselessly) of using straw man arguments against you.
And generally acted irrationally.

You may or may not be right. I think you are wrong but I admit that I could be wrong about that.
And I (among others) am more than willing to change my mind IF you present a decent argument.


Instead of doing so, you have repeatedly spent post after post attacking us and asking stupid questions like the
one in the post I am responding to.

If you have a valid argument for it being absolutely wrong in any and all circumstances to strike a child then
present those arguments, with the evidence that backs them up.

Don't reply to this, don't tell me I am stupid, irrational, ignorant, wrong-headed, or wicked, Just post your arguments.

I promise I will evaluate them with an open mind.


If however you simply continue to insult everyone in the thread who disagrees with you and post the really bad non-argument
emotional blackmail, straw men you have posted thus far I will assume it's because you have no argument.

And like Rank outsider I will simply ignore you.



If you want to win this argument, if you want to change minds, then post reasons and evidence that actually support your
claim and refute our position.

You have not yet done this.

Originally posted by Agerg
I make no secret of my stance on the greater good of causing small and transient pain in order to get the compliance of humans that are too young to be reasoned with. I might be talked out of it but I'd have to see a good argument first. (and no ThinkofOne, [i]CP is immoral because hitting youngsters is immoral because hitting youngsters is immoral because ... d so your claim that unlike others, I am calling it what it is (unsurprisingly) narrow minded.

[/i]C'mon. Read bbarr's initial posts. They weren't much different than yours except that he asserted that he was capable of determining whether or not a 2 year old, in fact, experienced pain. Of course, what he interprets as "shock" or "surprise" might very well be the "shock" or "surprise" of feeling "pain". It wasn't until later that he effectively built in the idea of "no pain" into the definition of "swift swat". Of course, this doesn't change anything in a practical sense, because the parent still doesn't know whether or not an intended "swift swat" will be experienced by the child as "pain".

Read the following article:

Pain is private. Unlike blood pressure or temperature or other symptoms easily measured and defined, the physical reaction to unpleasant stimuli is hard to quantify or predict. It varies from person to person, with each individual describing pain — and its intensity — differently.

Pasted from <http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/05/health/la-he-pain-differences-20100705>

With children it's even more difficult to ascertain "pain":

Elliot J. Krane, M.D., Director, Pain Management Service, Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford
August 20, 2008
Question: Do Infants And Children Experience Pain The Same As Adults?
Answer: Well, bearing in mind that the definition of pain is the unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with real or perceived tissue injury, children definitely do not perceive pain the same as adults do because the emotional experience is very very different. Even putting aside the fact that there may be some chemical differences in the neuroanatomy and the neurophysiology of children, and the way their central nervous systems act and behave compared to adults that changes the way pain is felt by their brains. They have a different emotional experience than do adults, and that emotional experience defines and drives how they experience pain.

Pasted from <http://abcnews.go.com/Health/LivingWithPain/story?id=4052319>

It was just a cheap device to try to obfuscate the facts.

Originally posted by Agerg
I make no secret of my stance on the greater good of causing small and transient pain in order to get the compliance of humans that are too young to be reasoned with. I might be talked out of it but I'd have to see a good argument first. (and no ThinkofOne, [i]CP is immoral because hitting youngsters is immoral because hitting youngsters is immoral because ... ...[text shortened]... d so your claim that unlike others, I am calling it what it is (unsurprisingly) narrow minded.

At least you state your position clearly!
I think this whole debate has got out of hand and shows the danger of debate by post. The time delays dont help either; I log on to find pages and pages of posts, which if I dont read in detail I risk forum ridicule!

I'd like to discuss this single point.

"greater good of causing small and transient pain in order to get the compliance of humans that are too young to be reasoned with"


Its a position I agreed with 20 years ago so have some sympathy with.
Can we take it to a new thread?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
At least you state your position clearly!
I think this whole debate has got out of hand and shows the danger of debate by post. The time delays dont help either; I log on to find pages and pages of posts, which if I dont read in detail I risk forum ridicule!

I'd like to discuss this single point.

"greater good of causing small and transient pain i ...[text shortened]... tion I agreed with 20 years ago so have some sympathy with.
Can we take it to a new thread?

I thought my position was fairly clear...

I for one would be perfectly happy with a new thread.

Any meaningful debate in this one has dissipated in a mudslinging match.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Given that I was arguing that in certain circumstances very small children loose it and go off
into a world of their own and don't pay attention to anything their guardian is saying and that
sometimes the only way to get their attention is to physically stop them/smack them.
After which you then sternly tell them off/whatever...

Then yes it's pe t actually support your
claim and refute our position.

You have not yet done this.

Before we get to the meat of your post, I have to say that your post is littered with too many misrepresentations to know what to do with and that much of it is a long illogical rant.

It seems like I should point out one example. Perhaps you can explain how the following is sensible.

You have instead insulted me/us...And generally acted irrationally...

don't tell me I am stupid, irrational, ignorant, wrong-headed, or wicked, Just post your arguments.

Seems like you take no issue with pointing out that you perceive me as having "generally acted irrationally", yet you believe that I on the other hand shouldn't be allowed tell you that you're "irrational".

Do you feel that you "just post[ed] your arguments"?

Originally posted by googlefudge
I thought my position was fairly clear...

I for one would be perfectly happy with a new thread.

Any meaningful debate in this one has dissipated in a mudslinging match.

Do you believe you aren't "mudslinging"?

Do you believe you are being "rational"?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Uh, he was responding to Agerg.

Do you believe you aren't "mudslinging"?

Do you believe you are being "rational"?

I know.

No.

Yes.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I know.

No.

Yes.

Care to respond to my previous post?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Before we get to the meat of your post, I have to say that your post is littered with too many misrepresentations to know what to do with and that much of it is a long illogical rant.

It seems like I should point out one example. Perhaps you can explain how the following is sensible.

[quote][b]You have instead insulted me/us...And generally acted ...[text shortened]... l you that you're "irrational".

Do you feel that you "just post[ed] your arguments"?[/b]

Sigh...

I said if you had any arguments to ignore my post and just present them.

You didn't do this.

I am ignoring you on this topic until you just present your arguments and evidence.

Till then I am assuming you have none and I am just wasting my time.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Sigh...

I said if you had any arguments to ignore my post and just present them.

You didn't do this.

I am ignoring you on this topic until you just present your arguments and evidence.

Till then I am assuming you have none and I am just wasting my time.

Let me see, you go off on a lengthy rant complaining about how you perceive me, you misrepresent me, you show your blatant hypocrisy....and somehow feel that I shouldn't be allowed to respond to it?

To top it off, you don't even have the decency to admit your blatant hypocrisy when it's pointed out to you...and feign exasperation with me to boot.

Truly fascinating.

If nothing else, GF has shown an ongoing penchant for "playing the victim".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Let me see, you go off on a lengthy rant complaining about how you perceive me, you misrepresent me, you show your blatant hypocrisy....and somehow feel that I shouldn't be allowed to respond to it?

To top it off, you don't even have the decency to admit your blatant hypocrisy when it's pointed out to you...and feign exasperation with me to boot.

Tr ...[text shortened]... fascinating.

If nothing else, GF has shown an ongoing penchant for "playing the victim".

What blatant hypocrisy???

And that rather short post contained little 'rant' and it wasn't about 'how I perceive you'.
I was categorising your arguments. (as being bad/non-existent)

You are making a claim (that it is never in any circumstances ok to hit a child).

I want you to present arguments/evidence to justify that claim.

I don't think you have yet done so (a view that others seem to share).

You HAVE insulted/emotionally attacked those who disagree, right from that first post.

I am (as are others hear) open minded, and will change my mind IF you present arguments and
evidence to justify doing so.

You seem to want to change my mind and so I ask for arguments and evidence.

Instead of doing so you have for 22 pages complained about the people disagreeing with you and
posted emotional blackmail/bad/logically flawed arguments, and evidence not relevant to the
question at hand.

I am not interested in any of that, I just want your actual properly thought out arguments and
the supporting evidence.

If you have them, for f sake post them.

If you don't then you don't have a rationally justifiable position.


My position is that it's ok to strike a child in VERY limited circumstances to bring the back to reality and
make them pay attention to the responsible adult.

I see as yet no evidence that this causes any significant harm in either the long or short term and experience
that this is an effective method of getting a child's attention when nothing else is working.

If something else IS working then you don't do it.

I am well aware that using violence as punishment (CP) DOES have both short and long term significant negative
effects. And thus am strongly opposed to the use of violently Punishing children.


This position seems to me to be perfectly justified given the evidence/experience I currently have.


I fully admit I could be wrong, And thus I ask you as you seem to think I am to convince me that you are
right and that I am not.


If you can do this then WHY THE HELL DON'T YOU DO IT?

If you can just present evidence and reasons why you are right that I/we can review... Why do anything else?



So I admit no hypocrisy because thus far you have not 'pointed ANY out to me'. And I can't see any on my side.

And my exasperation is completely genuine.


And as for playing the victim???? Seriously???? I don't play the victim, it's what others do when I beat the crap out of
them (metaphorically of course).


I think you need to look in the mirror.

Atm your arguing style looks like Robbies...

Originally posted by googlefudge
What blatant hypocrisy???

And that rather short post contained little 'rant' and it wasn't about 'how I perceive you'.
I was categorising your arguments. (as being bad/non-existent)

You are making a claim (that it is never in any circumstances ok to hit a child).

I want you to present arguments/evidence to justify that claim.

I don't think y you need to look in the mirror.

Atm your arguing style looks like Robbies...

You're "playing the victim" even now.

What blatant hypocrisy???

You don't see the hypocrisy in what I pointed out earlier? Seriously?

Here it is once again. The inner quote box contains YOUR words from YOUR little rant.

It seems like I should point out one example. Perhaps you can explain how the following is sensible.

[quote]
Googlefudge:
You have instead insulted me/us...And generally acted irrationally...

don't tell me I am stupid, irrational, ignorant, wrong-headed, or wicked, Just post your arguments.

Seems like you take no issue with pointing out that you perceive me as having "generally acted irrationally", yet you believe that I on the other hand shouldn't be allowed tell you that you're "irrational".
[/quote]

Sorry to break it to you, but you're the one acting like RC - even his tactic of "pretending" not to understand what's blatantly obvious when it comes to his actions.

You really need to get a grip, bub.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne


Sorry to break it to you, but you're the one acting like RC - even his tactic of "pretending" not to understand what's blatantly obvious when it comes to his actions.

You really need to get a grip, bub.

Your talent for self-parody is sublime.