Child rearing.

[bluestarultor]

Since this has become an issue in the thread about the 14-year-old boy's arrest, I figured maybe a dedicated thread might be useful to see what page we're all on or maybe for the mods to dump that part of the conversation into if they see fit.

Some highlights:

I can describe most parents I run across in one word. "Defeated."

It takes gusto to raise a child, if you don't have that then don't even try!

You know, I can't find a story just like this to prove a point I had about people getting far too worked up about pedophilia in today's society.

It was a story about a father at a fairground, and his kids (along with several others) were going down a big slide, or something like that. Anyways, the father took a few pictures of his kids having fun while some other parents asked him to stop taking pictures. He asked why, and they told him they thought he was a pedophile. A comment which caused the guy to find the cops, or the nearest security guard, and get the guard to affirm that the father was in the right.

As someone who was raised in a small community where the concept of strangers, let alone of not trusting them, never really came up, I can say it's pretty awesome to be "far too trusting". Yeah, you get hurt some, and some people take advantage of you, but it's worth that as it turns out people in general are pretty good, and trust makes it easy to build very close friendships.

Just thought I'd throw that in with the parenting debate.

The problem is without teaching them not to trust strangers, if one of those child rapists does show up and the kid trusts him, the kid's fucked(both literally and figuratively).

Teaching your kids not to trust someone till they've earned it(in particular, at that age, pretty much just people you trust yourself) is not a bad thing and will probably help them in life later on when people like to take advantage of people who are far too trusting.

While that's partly true, there's a difference between teaching them to be discerning and paralyzing them with fear. What happens when they actually need to ask for help? Maybe it doesn't come up much, but then neither do kidnappings. By teaching them to be discerning, as in knowing what is and isn't appropriate, kind of like we used to when I was a kid, it's more for them to absorb, but it's ultimately better for them because they're not crying themselves to sleep every night over all the bad, bad men that are out to get them.


Edit: Actually, thinking more on it, no, that's not true at all. Not only are you paralyzing them with fear, but you're breeding a policy of mistrust, which probably makes for a very jaded individual and could hamper their ability to make connections for the rest of their lives. After all, if they're taught people are all assholes, they hold no faith in them and you end up with someone like (oh, the irony) me*. The fact of the matter is that pedophiles are incredibly rare, and they don't just stumble across kids to molest. They molest kids in their own families or neighborhoods, or go to places where kids congregate. A kid is more likely to get hit by a bus than meet one randomly walking down the street. By teaching kids when NOT to trust people instead of teaching them when TO trust them, you open up many more possibilities for them to interact, where if you close that all off, you likewise impose a limit on how far they can reach out to other people.


*note: I had other things teach me people could be jerks. My parents actually got the strangers thing right.

QFT

Caution is what kids should be taught. By insulating your children they won't be able to tell the difference between a safe and an unsafe situation, and will either end up trusting everyone or no one. The differences between these situations can be very subtle and if you aren't given an idea of what normal behaviour is, you have nothing to compare them against. Potentially you will blindly walk into danger because of your failure to recognize these cues. On the other end of the spectrum, you will potentially be fearful of people when 99.9% of them don't have ill intentions.

I could go on and on about how this relates to women specifically- about weird mixed messages that tell women to feel guilty if they are not polite and complacent, yet ever vigilant about the variety of rapists and serial killers that lurk around the corner. A common reaction among raped women isn't "how did this happen to me?" but "how did I let this happen to me?" Pretty fucked up that the blame is placed on the woman. Then they (the media) point out that she accepted a drink from a stranger, or wore a skirt on the bus, or whatever, so now it's HER fault for not heeding the sage advice of society to be fearful of everyone and never leave the house. Not very good tools to work with, yeah?

I think this was referenced before, but since Seil was kind enough to provide a link, I'm just going to drop this follow-up essay on the woman who let her kid ride the subway alone:

http://theweek.com/article/index/96342/the-last-word-advice-from-americas-worst-mom

Not an issue: his rape and murder after a year of doing so.





It's probably clear where I stand on the issue of child freedom. Kids can't be protected forever, because when they lose that protection, they can't function.

I also believe in spankings (pain is a good educator and spankings aren't exactly lethal), letting them go out and get scraped knees, and generally letting them be kids. I think we're doing far too much to protect them from bogeymen that aren't really there and letting lawyers decide how we can raise them. And I think that's utterly wrong.



But what do you all think? For current parents, how are you raising your kids every day? For future parents, what are your plans?

[krogothwolf]

I believe in punishing the kid. I believe you have to figure out what works for your child in the form of a punishment. Spanking,grounding,taking away privileges. Kids respond to different things. I was the only one of my parents 3 kids to get spanked because that's the only thing that worked on me. If Annabel needs to be spanked, she will, but I figure she'll be easy enough to figure out that privileges or groundings will work.

I'm not going to put her in bubble wrap and protect her. People think that doing that allows them to be "kids" longer, but I don't think that is really the case. I think doing that makes them unprepared for what will happen in the real world. Babying them doesn't really help them out and just seems to make things worse.

One thing for sure, I am not letting her have any sort of cell phone that calls more numbers then mine and wife's and 911, at least until she is between 16-18. Anything else is just moronic to me.

(Funny story, my company got a complaint from some 12 year old's mom because people were accidentally dialing his number instead of a supervisors cell phone a 9 instead of a 6. She was complaining because it was ringing in class and getting him in trouble, so I was wondering why she wasn't telling her son to turn of his damn phone when he's in class, instead of yelling at people for miss calling by accident.)

But yeah, she'll be punished, and she wont be spoiled. If she decides to have a hissy fit to try and get a toy she wants at a store, we are leaving. I don't care for what reason we're there for, the minute she does that we leave, she goes to bed when we get home or right after supper depending on the time.

I am so teaching her how to roller blade, ice skate and bike the hard way, the real way.

[Seil]

Okay here we go:

This is my link to the story that Blues attributes to me up there, the one about the father brandede a pervert for photographing his kids having fun at the fair. (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23516542-father-of-three-branded-a-pervert---for-photographing-his-own-children-in-public-park.do)

A thread Nique started about "Princess Parenting" that I found when I was searching for the above link. (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=34750)

A thread about third graders - being smart enough to organize and plan here - attempting to attack their teacher. (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=28202&highlight=father+fair+kids)

Just a thread about licensing parents. (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=14000&highlight=father+fair+kids)

Okay. That's all the links I have for today, I think. Now, to the issue at hand: I don't have kids. I have a few small relatives - my niece isn't one yet and my cousins are one and three respectively. I can see on one level how it would be hard to keep up with them; they're fast and love to explore.

But on the other hand, as I mentioned in the previous thread, they're smart. They don't have the experience to back up their decisions, but Quinn knows her name and number and has a general idea of who to trust. Colby is shy and doesn't hang around with anyone he doesn't trust - that being people he doesn't see every day. He is remarkably quick though, and gets around very well, problem solving to get from the floor to the chair to the counter to the cookie jar.

[Fenris]

One thing for sure, I am not letting her have any sort of cell phone that calls more numbers then mine and wife's and 911, at least until she is between 16-18. Anything else is just moronic to me.

I'm not going to tell you how to raise your kid, but it seems to me that in an increasingly cell-phone connected world amongst teens, that 16-18 is quite a bit too old to get your first cell phone. I'd wait until her freshman year of high school at the latest, 7th grade at the earliest. Fact is that kids these days use their phones for organizing every bit of social interaction and by neglecting to give your kid a phone until her junior year of high school (or after she graduates) you could accidentally end up raising a hermit.

But hey, she's your kid- these are just my 2 cents from somebody who grew up in a time more similar to the one she'll be growing up in.

[krogothwolf]

Kids aren't stupid, far from it(though knowing a name doesn't seem that smart since I;m fairly sure Annabel knows hers already because when you say it she looks at you. They are pretty much bombarded with their name from birth so it would take an incredibly stupid kid to not know their name.)They're just naive, innocent and inexperienced and uneducated, and unprepared.

Edit @ Fenris: Freshman highschool is 15-16 so that about fits the bill. I just don't see a point for a 12 year old to be walking around texting people and calling everyone. We'll have a landline(or mine or the wife's cell) and a computer. But I don't see a point in her needing a cellphone to do all that. I really didn't have much when I was growing up. Video games and toys I got mostly from garage sales. So I got an NES well after it's release, same with and SNES and Genesis. We had one TV for everyone. One computer with craptacular internet we weren't really allowed to use. It wasn't untill I was 16 that we got anything worthwhile. Didn't really care cause I still had fun.

[Azisien]

Well kids are basically like dogs in intelligence, you can rear them pretty well with a slew of simple behaviourist techniques. And then you can start throwing in more abstract, logical techniques like, a decade later or so.

I'm kind of on the fence at times with safety and stuff. I'd say in general there's over-protection of kids, but then I think of... Pretty much half of all the girls I know either have been raped, assaulted, or been in a situation where a pedophile is propositioning them.

So I guess my conclusion is, inevitably, men are gross.

[Fenris]

Edit @ Fenris: Freshman highschool is 15-16 so that about fits the bill. I just don't see a point for a 12 year old to be walking around texting people and calling everyone. We'll have a landline(or mine or the wife's cell) and a computer. But I don't see a point in her needing a cellphone to do all that. I really didn't have much when I was growing up. Video games and toys I got mostly from garage sales. So I got an NES well after it's release, same with and SNES and Genesis. We had one TV for everyone. One computer with craptacular internet we weren't really allowed to use. It wasn't untill I was 16 that we got anything worthwhile. Didn't really care cause I still had fun.

In Canadaland does freshmen year start at 10th grade or 9th grade? Here in the US, 9th grade signifies the beginning of high school, so our age references might be a bit off.

[Seil]

One thing for sure, I am not letting her have any sort of cell phone that calls more numbers then mine and wife's and 911, at least until she is between 16-18. Anything else is just moronic to me.

When my folks left for a few weeks a while back, they made sure that we had phone numbers. Phone numbers for family friends. Phone numbers for family. Phone numbers for emergency contacts. Whatever. My sister and I had large lists of numbers.

So if for whatever reason - you forget to turn your phone on, you lose your phone, it gets stolen, it breaks, it runs out of battery power, whatever. Any one of a thousand reasons that your kid can't reach you and she needs a ride home from wherever. Is she going to call the police for one?

In Canadaland does freshmen year start at 10th grade or 9th grade? Here in the US, 9th grade signifies the beginning of high school, so our age references might be a bit off.

I think it starts in grade nine. It did for me. It was kindergarten through to grade five for elementary school, grade six to eight in middle school and nine through twelve in high school.

[Azisien]

9th grade is the first year of high school in Canada, except for perhaps crazy places in Canada. Who would go there though?

[krogothwolf]

Well, in Alberta it's 10th grade, but I think every province can be slightly different. But yeah, I'm going by Alberta schooling anyways. The 16-18 depends on what she's like and how she behaves and her marks.

Alberta Schooling
Elementary: 1-6
Junior High: 7-9
HighSchool: 10-12

Edit @ Seil: Change for a pay phone. I don't lose my phone, plus like I said, wife has one too. Plus you can add extra numbers if needed.

[Krylo]

Guys, it's a moot point.

By the time his kid is ten we'll all have microchip sized 'cell phones' implanted in our brains or some shit anyway.

[bluestarultor]

Well kids are basically like dogs in intelligence, you can rear them pretty well with a slew of simple behaviourist techniques. And then you can start throwing in more abstract, logical techniques like, a decade later or so.

I'm kind of on the fence at times with safety and stuff. I'd say in general there's over-protection of kids, but then I think of... Pretty much half of all the girls I know either have been raped, assaulted, or been in a situation where a pedophile is propositioning them.

So I guess my conclusion is, inevitably, men are gross.

I think that says more about what happens in your part of town than it actually says about anything in a general sense. 50% are abnormally shitty odds.


Also, kids are way smarter than dogs. Dogs don't devise elaborate plans to steal goodies and then go through with them and have them actually work. Nor do they have the ability to coordinate the way human siblings often do. Brothers may fight, but God help you if you manage to get them both against you.

[krogothwolf]

By the time his kid is ten we'll all have microchip sized 'cell phones' implanted in our brains or some shit anyway.

Hmmm, this could lead to some interesting things....If this allows me to control her actions so I can make her do the mexican hat dance down the hallway so she gets in detention like I did, that would be awesome.

[bluestarultor]

Hmmm, this could lead to some interesting things....If this allows me to control her actions so I can make her do the mexican hat dance down the hallway so she gets in detention like I did, that would be awesome.

I may not be the most connected person, not having a working cell phone, myself, but I somehow don't think they work that way.


When it comes to my own kids and technology:
- gaming consoles are a go
- cell phones are a no-go until at LEAST 12, and more likely 15, but I'll play it by ear based on their responsibility (plus it gives me something to take away as punishment)
- any implants will go in them over my dead body, and I will tell them my reasons why when they're old enough to ask

[Azisien]

I think that says more about what happens in your part of town than it actually says about anything in a general sense. 50% are abnormally shitty odds.


Also, kids are way smarter than dogs. Dogs don't devise elaborate plans to steal goodies and then go through with them and have them actually work. Nor do they have the ability to coordinate the way human siblings often do. Brothers may fight, but God help you if you manage to get them both against you.

Naw, they really ain't much smarter. And I don't live in a bad area. It's not a utopia, but... Lots of worse places to be.

[CABAL49]

Since my sister and brother-in-law have to be at work most of the day, I have kinda taken over raising my nieces and nephew until things settle down for them. A twelve year old girl, nine year old girl, and a five month boy. While the girls are schemers, it is pretty easy to redirect their focus. But Krogo is right. Punishment depends on the kid. The older one enjoys video games, so she gets rewarded with game time for being good and denied when not. The younger one has no interest. My nephew is too young to get into trouble, and only makes noise when he is hungry or uncomfortable.

For some reason, they think that since they are out of school they don't have to learn new things. I have been trying to teach them Organic Chemistry, but they simply are uninterested. Although trying to teach them what bits of other languages I know has been pretty effective. They can at least understand my German commands.

But they know where to not let people touch them. I have tried to establish the you-can-tell-me-anything and I won't immediately run off and tell your parents relationship. I won't let them do anything that could harm them, but I have known kids who won't tell their parents vital information because they are afraid of being punished. Kids will do a lot of silly things.

I absolutely agree with the phone thing too. I didn't get a phone until I was in High School, nor did I need one before that. I hear about kids from my nieces who have Iphones. That just seems dumb to me.

[krogothwolf]

But they know where to not let people touch them. I have tried to establish the you-can-tell-me-anything and I won't immediately run off and tell your parents relationship. I won't let them do anything that could harm them, but I have known kids who won't tell their parents vital information because they are afraid of being punished. Kids will do a lot of silly things.


I think it's important for kids to have someone they trust that's either a family friend or a family member that they can have that kind of relationship with. It's hard for a kid to tell their parents everything regardless of what relationship you have with them because sometimes they worry about things upsetting you, or you getting mad, or you being disappointed and they keep their mouth shut. Someone else they can talk to who wont "judge" them(in their eyes) is always a great thing for a kid.

[Seil]

Punishment depends on the kid.

I thought it was interesting when my Pysch prof talked about Mental Conditioning. He talked about Pavlov's dogs, and forced us to do and assignment realted to the whole MC idea.

I came across a few sources that said that punishment was bad. Not bad as in bad things happen to bad kids, but bad as in a terrible idea. The best way to condition a child, according to the sources I can't link right now due to laziness, is to reinforce good behavior with a reward system.

The idea behind this was that if a child does something good and gets rewarded for it, either from release of chores or an extra helping of dessert, they will want to do the good action again because they were rewarded for it. Adversely, if a child does something bad and gets punished for it, they will grow to resent or fear the person punishing them. (I'm pretty sure I'm getting the punishment part wrong here, though.)

[bluestarultor]

I think it's important for kids to have someone they trust that's either a family friend or a family member that they can have that kind of relationship with. It's hard for a kid to tell their parents everything regardless of what relationship you have with them because sometimes they worry about things upsetting you, or you getting mad, or you being disappointed and they keep their mouth shut. Someone else they can talk to who wont "judge" them(in their eyes) is always a great thing for a kid.

I disagree with this. My mom STILL has an open-door policy on everything and her dad raised her the same way. She knew with her dad and we know with her that no matter how badly we screw up, we can always be totally honest, and while things might be really, REALLY bad, coming home will always be an option and the problem will be dealt with as a family.

[krogothwolf]

The idea behind this was that if a child does something good and gets rewarded for it, either from release of chores or an extra helping of dessert, they will want to do the good action again because they were rewarded for it. Adversely, if a child does something bad and gets punished for it, they will grow to resent or fear the person punishing them. (I'm pretty sure I'm getting the punishment part wrong here, though.)

I always thought of that then realized that it seems like a naive way to look at things. Yeah you're rewarding a child because they did something good, but then what do you do when they do things bad? They get nothing but they don't expect anything anyways because they didn't do anything good to begin with. Or they get used to rewards and then when they do something good and don't get a reward they can start resenting that, feeling they're being cheated. It's a fine line to go about things. A reward system would not have worked on me, because it doesn't remove something for being bad, so I would have just been bad anyways and would have figured I got away with it, I just wouldn't have been rewarded. I could have lived with that. Like I said, everything ends up depending on the personality of your kid.

I disagree with this. My mom STILL has an open-door policy on everything and her dad raised her the same way. She knew with her dad and we know with her that no matter how badly we screw up, we can always be totally honest, and while things might be really, REALLY bad, coming home will always be an option and the problem will be dealt with as a family.

See, you hope to have that, my mom thought she had that, so did my dad. But there were some things I would never have told them. Embarrassment or fear of disappointing or angering them. It would have been nice to have someone else to look up to. Sometimes there just isn't a way to get a kid to tell the parent because they are scared or embarrassed. Happens all the time, even though you stress with the kid they can. They still can't Something's a girl can't tell a dad and vice versa. So it's still a good thing to have someone else they can talk to. Being able to talk to people that aren't your family is a good thing blues, that's why they have psychiatrists.

[Amake]

I also believe in spankings (pain is a good educator and spankings aren't exactly lethal) I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there, like most of the civilized world since the 1950s. It's stupid, it's cheap, and it teaches that using violence to fix things is okay.

Yeah, that there are always situations that one really can't deal with any other way, there may be stress, hysteria and all sorts of obstacles for more subtle, engaging means of education, but those should be exceptional situations. I believe resorting to violence of any kind is to fail as a parent. When that's happened to me, I have later found it necessary to talk to my kids about it, explain how I have failed them, ask them to forgive me and to trust me again.

Not even because of the pain I've inflicted, which has been mostly minimal, but because the very instant you use force to assert physical dominance all respect anyone may have had for you as a person turns into fear of you as an object. I think.

PSEdit: Also I was never spanked myself. Funny how that works out eh.

[Seil]

Maybe something like this? (http://childparenting.about.com/cs/behaviorproblems/a/behaviormod.htm) I have to catch me bus right now, so I'll find a proper link once I get home.

[Tev]

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there, like most of the civilized world since the 1950s. It's stupid, it's cheap, and it teaches that using violence to fix things is okay.

I believe resorting to violence of any kind is to fail as a parent. I don't know if I wholly agree. Having been subjected to physical punishment as a child, I didn't immediately grow up resenting or hating both of my parents. As a matter of fact I respect and love them.

Now far be it from me to argue that anecdotal evidence should trump science. I'm just saying that I know how I turned out and I know how my friends turned out. You can tell who was beaten as a child and who wasn't. Those of us who were didn't turn out so bad. Our parents taught us to cope with the world that we grew up in.

[krogothwolf]

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there, like most of the civilized world since the 1950s. It's stupid, it's cheap, and it teaches that using violence to fix things is okay.

Yeah, that there are always situations that one really can't deal with any other way, there may be stress, hysteria and all sorts of obstacles for more subtle, engaging means of education, but those should be exceptional situations. I believe resorting to violence of any kind is to fail as a parent. When that's happened to me, I have later found it necessary to talk to my kids about it, explain how I have failed them, ask them to forgive me and to trust me again.

Not even because of the pain I've inflicted, which has been mostly minimal, but because the very instant you use force to assert physical dominance all respect anyone may have had for you as a person turns into fear of you as an object. I think.

I understand where you're getting at, but the more I look back, the more I understand why my parents had to, everything else they did, which worked with my older sister and younger brother. Was lost on me, the only time I ever didn't repeat doing something bad was when I was spanked. It was the only way I learned. So honestly, if it comes down to it, sometimes its what you have to do. It's based on the kid's personality in the end and what they understand. They tried everything, even those silly reward things once or twice. I went without allowance because I didn't do my chores, didn't teach me anything.

I find it funny how much I think about these things now, I never thought I'd have a kid, but now I'm thinking about stuff like this, it's amazing what a kid does to your life, plus scarier then anything I've ever had happen.

[Tev]

Now, to be more on topic with the thread:

How I raise my future children will greatly depend on a few things. I know for a fact that even though I try not to be, I will be over-protective of my future daughter. Not as much as some people, as I am a full supporter of learning through mistakes, but far more than I would be of a son.

But yeah, I don't see why kids need cell-phones until their teen years. I'm still kinda on the fence about saving up large libraries of what will then be "old" cartoon DVDs for my kids to watch or if I trust subjecting them to standard cable. There will be bedtime story reading every week night. And there will be youth sports until at least the Jr. High level. At that point, if my kids want to be lazy that's their decision, but until that point they will be active outside the house.

[bluestarultor]

IQ, I think you're mistaking my words for saying it's a first line of defense. It's not. You don't just go around spanking kids. That would be stupid. There are other options to work with.

I was raised on spankings. But I was also raised with rewards, time-outs, lost toys/privileges, and verbal warnings. If you are scooping up a kid every five seconds to paddle them, you ARE a failure as a parent, but spankings are not the reason for it.

Every punishment has a time and place so long as it doesn't cause lasting harm. Spankings don't cause lasting harm. I find the assertion that spanking your children makes you a monster woefully uneducated and misguided. The fact is that you cite people from the 1950s forward calling it barbaric, but before then, people were spanked all the time and it didn't cause the devolution of man. Ruling out spankings as a roadblock to an enlightened era is, pardon me, but, hippie talk with zero backing if you take a common-sense look at all of human history.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

All children should be raised by commune. Families are imperialist propaganda designed to subvert the priorities of workers into protecting their family over the welfare of the future and to distract them from the injustices at hand.
I'm just saying.

[Tev]

All children should be raised by commune. Families are imperialist propaganda designed to subvert the priorities of workers into protecting their family over the welfare of the future and to distract them from the injustices at hand.
I'm just saying.
I thought you were on vacation?

[Krylo]

you cite people from the 1950s forward calling it barbaric, but before then, people were spanked all the time and it didn't cause the devolution of man. Ruling out spankings as a roadblock to an enlightened era is, pardon me, but, hippie talk with zero backing if you take a common-sense look at all of human history.

In so much as spanking doesn't really blow my skirt up one way or the other in that I was spanked but hope to never have to spank a child myself, I still feel the need to point out that this line of logic is fallacious.

We've done a lot of fucked up things in our history that haven't caused the devolution of man. We've beaten women, enslaved people of other colors, slaughtered people of other other colors, burned people alive for their religious views, mutilated men, women, and children, performed invasive human experiments, used torture as a form of therapy, etc. etc.

By your own logic all of these things should also be totally ok.

On the other hand I could just link this (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-common-practice.html) and call it good. You know, without committing mountain to a molehill/slippery slope fallacies of my own.

That's less fun, though.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I thought you were on vacation?
I am but the revolution is not! Also I'm up all night because early morning plane.

[Geminex]

So, is europe left-wing yet?

[Archbio]

You know, without committing mountain to a molehill/slippery slope fallacies of my own.

I don't think your demonstration was fallacious. Applying the "did it cause the devolution of man" metric to other practices in history is a logical (and fair) extension of blue's argument. Since nobody argued that accepting spanking would cause a resurgence of slavery, I don't think there's any "slippery slopes" in sight.

Not that every argument deemed a slippery slope is fallacious, but anyway.

"Hippy talk," eh.

[bluestarultor]

In so much as spanking doesn't really blow my skirt up one way or the other in that I was spanked but hope to never have to spank a child myself, I still feel the need to point out that this line of logic is fallacious.

We've done a lot of fucked up things in our history that haven't caused the devolution of man. We've beaten women, enslaved people of other colors, slaughtered people of other other colors, burned people alive for their religious views, mutilated men, women, and children, performed invasive human experiments, used torture as a form of therapy, etc. etc.

By your own logic all of these things should also be totally ok.

On the other hand I could just link this (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-common-practice.html) and call it good. You know, without committing mountain to a molehill/slippery slope fallacies of my own.

That's less fun, though.

Fair enough. I'll admit I might have gotten a bit melodramatic and I do regret some of my language.



On the other hand, the argument still doesn't hold up. To provide my own sample size of one (to no one in particular/IQ if she needs it):

There was a boy of six. His name was John-Arthur, and he was the son of my CCD (child religious education) teacher. He'd never been spanked in his life. Sally said she didn't believe in them and would never use them on her son. In fact, she had a poor attitude towards my mom having implemented them. Through a series of circumstances I won't describe, he and his mother ended up living in our guest room. The boy was an absolute terror. He wrecked my stuff, acted like he owned the house, got his mom to play my mom like my brother and I were causing the trouble, and held a policy that everything that he could not have, from games to toys, were his to destroy. If he could not have it, nobody could. This went on for a month. When our mothers finally actually caught him doing something, with my brother and I standing right there and saying "we told you so," Sally ended up giving him his first spanking. His reaction was, essentially, "OH MY GOD I ACTUALLY GOT PUNISHED!" This had never happened before. Everything she'd done before then had had no effect on the little terror. He'd just always gotten better at hiding things. The kid literally had no idea what to do.

Sally turned to my mother and said with a revelation, "It DOES work!" John-Arthur has since been raised into a well-adjusted individual.

Spankings are not necessary for everyone. They are, however, a valid punishment when there is a need for them.




Edit:

Okay, this just got me:
I don't think your demonstration was fallacious. Applying the "did it cause the devolution of man" metric to other practices in history is a logical (and fair) extension of blue's argument. Since nobody argued that accepting spanking would cause a resurgence of slavery, I don't think there's any "slippery slopes" in sight.

Not that every argument deemed a slippery slope is fallacious, but anyway.

"Hippy talk," eh.

Like I said, I regret some of my language, but I stepped aside from pointing out the fallacy inherent in a poor comparison. Looking through Krylo's site for the name at the moment, but comparing spankings to genocide doesn't hold much water, either.

Edit: False analogy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy)

[Amake]

I'm pretty sure the road to a more enlightened era would have to involve less violence on every level of society, but I'm thinking less violence is a goal in itself. Of course, and I'm absolutely not sarcastic here, parents do have different priorities. Doing the right thing for your kids is expected to be more important than the future of the world.


Also I'm with Smarty. A family of 20-30 people will have a hella lot easier job raising kids than two. Actually, if we want to get a bit conspiracy theory, you might ask where the ideal of the nuclear family comes from.

At least up until the industrial revolution, it was unheard of. It's no tradition with religious basis as one might think. What it is, regardless if this was discovered by design or accident, is good business. Of all possible family configurations, a nuclear family consumes the most goods. This (http://losemindfindsoul.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/traditional-nuclear-family.jpg) is an image sold by people who want nothing more noble than to scrape every last possible buck from us.

But anyway. A bit radical as far as parenting goes, and it's not like most people can go and start a commune with 30 of their closest friends, but I'm sure it'd be awesome.

[Krylo]

An anecdote isn't proof, nor is the plural of anecdote data.

That one person failed to raise their child without spanking them, or two, or three, does not mean that there were no ways to raise those children adequately without using physical force.

[Amake]

They are, however, a valid punishment when there is a need for them.
Self-fulfilling justification there. You're assuming there is a time when spanking is needed. Which I'm sure would contribute to creating situations where it is.

Edit: "All known options"? From your story it sounded like the kid had never been caught before and had no insight in how his behavior was problematic.

[bluestarultor]

An anecdote isn't proof, nor is the plural of anecdote data.

That one person failed to raise their child without spanking them, or two, or three, does not mean that there were no ways to raise those children adequately without using physical force.

No, but it does show that the practice is effective, and, in a case when all other known options were expended, needed. It's a counterexample. Also, welcome to a burden of proof fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html). ;)

To put it this way, I don't want this to turn into a spankings thread. On the other hand, I fail to see how spankings are really as bad as people are trying to portray them. Maybe another topic is in order.



Edit: IQ: No, the kid had been caught before, just not doing the things my brother and I described. While he lived with us, he saw positive rewards, time-outs, verbal warnings, grounding, and loss of items/privileges. But again, that's a burden of proof fallacy. I shouldn't HAVE to list everything she tried.

[Kim]

I hate children and hope to never have any of my own. Avoiding parenthood should be a fairly easy task.

On the subject of parenthood, I truly, honestly don't understand why so many people think you have to have kids, let alone more than one. I have four siblings, and even though I love them, I should not have four siblings. Parents continuing to have children is quite often a short-sighted, selfish decision.

[Token]

I'm not going to tell you how to raise your kid, but it seems to me that in an increasingly cell-phone connected world amongst teens, that 16-18 is quite a bit too old to get your first cell phone. I'd wait until her freshman year of high school at the latest, 7th grade at the earliest. Fact is that kids these days use their phones for organizing every bit of social interaction and by neglecting to give your kid a phone until her junior year of high school (or after she graduates) you could accidentally end up raising a hermit.

I dunno. I got my first cellphone a year ago, and I'm not any more of a "hermit" than your typical aspie kid. Besides, with facebook and what not, we can still have social lives without phones.

[pochercoaster]

One example is not proof of how a particular technique works amongst a wide range of individuals. When questioning the validity of spanking it should be examined from the the perspective of principles.

Many children are spanked and turn out fine.
Many children are spanked and turn out maladjusted.
Many children aren't spanked and turn out fine.
Many children aren't spanked and... turn out maladjusted.

It's not hard to fuck up your children even before resorting to physical force. The kids who are spanked and end up as visibly abused individuals are the ones who were in an environment where spanking was an addition to emotional abuse, neglect, and probably other forms of physical abuse. You only really need emotional abuse or neglect to stunt someone's development, though.

If I see a parent give a quick swat to their child's behind, I will not deem them bad parents.

That said, I still disagree with spanking, on principal, because force teaches children to fear their parents. Time-outs or the silent treatment are pretty effective on kids because they desire their parent's attention. It just requires a steely will. (That doesn't mean I think a good parent who spanks their child, gently, on rare occasions is a bad parent.)

Parenting requires lots of patient and effort unless you're born with a child who is naturally quiet and not disruptive, which is, well... unlikely. That's why I'm not ever having kids. I'll probably get my tubes tied when I'm 30, srsly. Fuck patience and effort!

Edit:
No, but it does show that the practice is effective, and, in a case when all other known options were expended, needed.

Effective in one instance. If you want to use anecdotes, I'll use myself: I was spanked as a kid, and it didn't work. Most kids tire out when they throw tantrums. I didn't. I actually wrecked my vocal cords as an infant, before I was able to even speak a sentence, because I screamed constantly. I had to go to speech therapy for 5 years before anyone other than my immediate family understood what I was saying.

This doesn't prove that spanking isn't effective for anyone. And, you also must define "effective:" many parents define it as getting their kid to shut the fuck up, which shouldn't always be the aim. Especially if you've been dragging your kid around department stores for hours and hours and they're tired and it's not unreasonable for them to be upset. (I worked in retail...)

Edit 2: In addition to not spanking my hypothetical future children, I would...

1. Accept whatever religion they chose to follow. I'm an atheist, and I would "raise" my kids as atheists- that is, if they asked if God exists, or somesuch, I would respond with an atheistic answer. However, when they got older, if they decided that another religion or ideology is what they believe, then I would not let it affect our relationship. It is far more important to raise a child as an individual who can think critically and come to their own conclusions than to try to make them into miniature versions of yourself.

2. Educate them about sex and birth control. My parents failed at this, hard. When I got older I realized it was because somewhere along the line neither my mother or father had been properly educated as children. In fact, when the subject of sex did come up, when I was an older teenager, I was baffled by their ignorance. My father actually thought, up until he was 50, that the urethra and the vagina were the same canal. I am not shitting you.

Having to educate yourself about sex kind of sucks. It's not hard, nowadays, with google (lulz), but it still sucks.

[Mondt]

I got my cell phone in 10th grade. I was perfectly fine. Home phones work too, and you can use AIM to text people.

I still barely use it. I use less than 1000 texts a month. I have plenty of social life. I think.

[Aerozord]

I dont know about most children, but do you know what would work on me when I was little.

An explaination.

Behavior modification only conditions responces reguardless of the method of punishment you use you only teach the child to not do something out of fear of a punishment. Rewards have a simular flaw as the kid only does something because he gets something else out of it. All this does is condition people that mindlessly follow what those of influence tell them to follow out of fear or greed. Again maybe I wasn't a normal child, but I was fully capable of understanding why I shouldn't wonder away, play in the house, or throw a tantrum. But no, average parent just smacks the kid and tells him to stop. Does this get the kid to stop? Yea, but doesn't let him know why you are doing it, why he shouldn't do it, why you are upset or teach how to make better choices. All it teaches is "do what I say or you get hit", simular can be said for other forms of punishment

[bluestarultor]

Pocheros, the only reason I used an anecdote was to provide a counterexample to IQ's own sample size of one.

I'm sorry this has devolved so far, but I've been saying everything you've "countered" me with. Spanking is NOT the end-all-be-all, but it's also not, or in my opinion, shouldn't be, off the table in cases where it's the best solution. Punishment should always be tailored to a child's individual needs and I have never said otherwise.

[pochercoaster]

Oh, I skimmed IQ's posts, so I didn't realize that. (I also just finished an 11 1/2 hour short-staffed shift, so brain's kinda not worky.) My bad.

[krogothwolf]

See, I can't stand the parents that have no idea how to raise or punish a kid. This family in my neighbourhood doesn't feel like punishment is right for kids, and their children are little fucking hellions. Seriously, I was bad as a kid, but I didn't go running down the street with a Hockey stick smackin peoples bushes and shit to pieces. Or run through a store knocking everything over. These kids do, and the mom just goes "tut tut tut, don't do that dear." Kid laughs and breaks more stuff and she just shrugs her shoulders and pretty much gives up. Gah, they drive me nuts. GAAAAAAH

Also, my Wife's friend has kid, and does the whole "reward" thing. Work's great on her oldest son but is lost on her youngest. She tells him not to eat any snacks before supper, he does it anyways and she just goes no. He's been told in my house not to pick up anything without asking. He picked up my finally finished painted and Glued Warhammer Dragon Rider and fucking breaks it, then tries to hide it as he goes to play the Wii. I yelled at him and told him he's not allowed to play the game anymore. He whines and the mom comforts him like he did nothing bad. Lady, he did do something bad. Then he starts eating my snack food even though his mom keeps going "no don't do that" over and over again. So I go in a loud voice "Bowen, don't eat anymore" And he sulks and wants to go home cause he got yelled at.

My wife disagrees with what I did because I shouldn't be discipline someone's kid for them because that's not how the mom raises them. I contend that when it comes to my stuff and my house, if the mom isn't going to keep her kid in line, I will.

On spanking, again, I hope to god I never have to but If I have a kid that's like me, He'll probably need to be. I'll try everything before hand but it'll happen if it's needed.

Also, raising kids in a commune could be cool, but could also fail due to many different opinions and ideas the kids would be so confused with what to do. Plus it would start destroying the bond parents have with their children. Which is a great feeling if you ask me and should never be removed.

And NonCon should totally have a kid!

[Archbio]

Looking through Krylo's site for the name at the moment, but comparing spankings to genocide doesn't hold much water, either.

Edit: False analogy.

But... Krylo wasn't drawing an analogy. How can it be a false analogy?

Look. My problem was with Krylo calling his own demonstration of the flaw in your argument a fallacy, because it superficially appears to belong in the same category, something which I've been seeing online a good deal (for example any insult will be called an ad hominem fallacy, which is a mistake that I've made in the past myself, but that's nevertheless a mistake.)

It's not because you craft an argument to defend spankings and that slavery is brought up doesn't mean that there's a fallacy in action. The two things being connected aren't spanking and slavery: it's your argument to defend spanking and a very hypothetical, yet identical (which is the point,) argument to defend slavery.

The examples chosen are strong, but that doesn't invalidate the point (see: Amnesty International's Gulags and the misapplication of Godwin's Law.)

Peoples of the net, please stop using fallacies fallaciously.

[bluestarultor]

But... Krylo wasn't drawing an analogy. How can it be a false analogy?

Look. My problem was with Krylo calling his own demonstration of the flaw in your argument a fallacy, because it superficially appears to belong in the same category, something which I've been seeing online a good deal (for example any insult will be called an ad hominem fallacy, which is a mistake that I've made in the past myself, but that's nevertheless a mistake.)

It's not because you craft an argument to defend spankings and that slavery is brought up doesn't mean that there's a fallacy in action. The two things being connected aren't spanking and slavery: it's your argument to defend spanking and a very hypothetical, yet identical (which is the point,) argument to defend slavery.

The examples chosen are strong, but that doesn't invalidate the point (see: Amnesty International's Gulags and the misapplication of Godwin's Law.)

Peoples of the net, please stop using fallacies fallaciously.

Pardon me, but I really don't see how spankings, if we are viewing them as an evil, are nearly as harmful as witch burnings, genocide, and slavery.

Yes, they are vaguely related (if one boils it down to the simple concept of violence, and the concept of slavery doesn't even qualify for that). No, they are not comparable. They are not identical because nobody is being killed, enslaved, or otherwise subjected to crimes against humanity in a spanking. A false analogy is a fallacy in which a comparison is made between two unlike objects. A spanking is unlike the atrocities he listed by virtue of a vast difference in both scale and severity. It stands.

[krogothwolf]

They are not identical because nobody is being killed, enslaved, or otherwise subjected to crimes against humanity.

That's not overly true. At most it should be a firm smack on the butt that's not hard enough to leave a mark. The problem is that Spanking is a tool for bad parents to control their kids, and it can lead to those 3 things if it's taken to extremes, which some parents do.

[Kim]

Blues, you're missing the entire point of the argument, which is "That it was okay fifty years ago does not mean that it should be okay now." Just because it isn't as bad as those things does not change that fact. "It was okay fifty years ago" is in no way anything resembling a legit argument. Hell, let's throw out "Gays can't get married."

"Well, gays haven't been able to get married for freakin ever, and society hasn't collapsed, obviously that means it's okay." That is the argument you are making, and it is an absolutely terrible one. If you want to say spankings are okay, you're more than welcome to, just try to use less terrible arguments to "prove" it.

[bluestarultor]

That's not overly true. At most it should be a firm smack on the butt that's not hard enough to leave a mark. The problem is that Spanking is a tool for bad parents to control their kids, and it can lead to those 3 things if it's taken to extremes, which some parents do.

That's not what I'm arguing, though. That's a slippery slope argument. I'm talking specifically about spankings, not how spankings can lead to one thing or another and it's not my fault that New York got hit with a nuke, officer, honest! ;)

If we want to talk about beatings, that's an entirely different topic. And no, I will never condone beatings.



Edit:

Blues, you're missing the entire point of the argument, which is "That it was okay fifty years ago does not mean that it should be okay now." Just because it isn't as bad as those things does not change that fact. "It was okay fifty years ago" is in no way anything resembling a legit argument. Hell, let's throw out "Gays can't get married."

"Well, gays haven't been able to get married for freakin ever, and society hasn't collapsed, obviously that means it's okay." That is the argument you are making, and it is an absolutely terrible one. If you want to say spankings are okay, you're more than welcome to, just try to use less terrible arguments to "prove" it.

Again, not comparable. I'm going to step away from this and cool down, because people aren't listening to what I'm actually saying and I need to chill until I can find clearer terms that will be harder to misunderstand or skirt around.

[Kim]

Again, not comparable.

Yes, it is. What is spanking? It's physically hurting someone because you don't like what they're doing. How is that not a violation of another person's rights?

[bluestarultor]

Yes, it is. What is spanking? It's physically hurting someone because you don't like what they're doing. How is that not a violation of another person's rights?

Okay, Noncon, I suppose we're going around spanking all the gays, then, all day, every day, aren't we? Because they're gay.



A spanking is not infringing on anyone's rights because it is a punishment. Or rather, it is, because all punishments DO. A spanking, in and of itself, is a quick, safe form of punishment that is not comparable to wide-scale, long-term subjugation.

[krogothwolf]

That's not what I'm arguing, though. That's a slippery slope argument. I'm talking specifically about spankings, not how spankings can lead to one thing or another and it's not my fault that New York got hit with a nuke, officer, honest! ;)

If we want to talk about beatings, that's an entirely different topic. And no, I will never condone beatings.


If you want to talk about Spankings, you sort of have to talk about what they can lead to due to neglect or just someone not really making an effort and deciding spankings are the best tool. You can't just ignore the fact that some parents eventually take spankings to far. I'm blessed my parents did it, but in the same boat I know a friend who's parents did, and he still has scars, mentally and physically from that. It's a good thing he's a well adjusted person for the most part, but he jumps at noises sometimes due to what he went though. You can't ignore it just because it hinders your argument.

[Lumenskir]

ITT: Discussions about potential ways to raise children devolves into a discussion on spanking, which devolves into spanking all the gays.

[bluestarultor]

If you want to talk about Spankings, you sort of have to talk about what they can lead to due to neglect or just someone not really making an effort and deciding spankings are the best tool. You can't just ignore the fact that some parents eventually take spankings to far. I'm blessed my parents did it, but in the same boat I know a friend who's parents did, and he still has scars, mentally and physically from that. It's a good thing he's a well adjusted person for the most part, but he jumps at noises sometimes due to what he went though. You can't ignore it just because it hinders your argument.

Okay. But I'll counter-argue that parents who are taking spankings too far are taking them far past spankings and have other issues. The spanking is not the problem; the parent is.

Words aren't a bad thing, either, but those same parents could, being bad parents, use them on their children for verbal abuse.

I'm talking about spankings. A spanking, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. Like anything else, it CAN be misused by bad people. But the same can be said for a gun, kitchen knife, or even a pillow. Pillows are not in and of themselves bad because people have been smothered with them. Abuse is a terrible, terrible thing, but the things being abused, such as spankings, words, and pillows, are not the problem.

[Kim]

How is teaching your children that if someone does something you don't like you should hit them not a bad thing?

[bluestarultor]

How is teaching your children that if someone does something you don't like you should hit them not a bad thing?

And you can argue that. But it's not, y'know, as bad as burning someone alive, which is why I'm irked.

If you have a real problem with this, you don't need to spank your kids. If that simplification of what a spanking is bothers you, then by all means, it is your choice to do without it.

If, however, you factor in the complexity of punishment by authority, that makes it different. If a cop imprisons you, it is okay. If you imprison a random person, it is not, and you will be imprisoned by a cop. The difference is authority.

[krogothwolf]

How is teaching your children that if someone does something you don't like you should hit them not a bad thing?

It depends on the kids personality in the end. It may have to be used to make them understand things. Using myself as an example. I don't go out and fight people, nor do I think violence solves problems. But when I was a kid, the only way I learned my lesson was getting spanked. My parents only needed to spank me. Any other method didn't work. Grounding, silly reward systems, taking away privileges. Nothing else worked on me but spanking.

The thing is, how is spanking overtly different then a policeman smacking you down because you refused to cooperate and got belligerent?

[Eltargrim]

Because, presumably, it's done with the child's best interests.

I wasn't spanked as a child. I'm not a fan of using it as a first resort, but I'm not about to take it out of a parent's options. However, if it is used, it should be used properly.

In my experience, punishments don't work as well as consequences. The difference is that the consequence flows naturally from the action. If you spill the milk, you clean it up. If you break someone's property, you fix or replace it. If you misbehave as a guest, you don't get to be a guest any more. Spankings don't fit well into this model, which is unfortunate. Anecdotally, motivation and implementation of corrective behaviour matters just as much, if not more, as the method itself.

[krogothwolf]

A spank should be, 1 open hand firm slap to the butt, not hard enough to leave a mark or anything like that. That's all a spank should be, and it should be when all else fails.

[Kim]

The thing is, how is spanking overtly different then a policeman smacking you down because you refused to cooperate and got belligerent?

Well, the latter case, provided it was actually justified and not an abuse of authority, is much less likely to cause mental trauma, because adults can handle a fuckton more than kids can.

There are plenty of other ways to punish kids that don't resort to violence, though I'd want to look into possible psychological effects of those as well. Not that I'll ever need to use them personally, but it's worth looking into.

[krogothwolf]

Well, the latter case, provided it was actually justified and not an abuse of authority, is much less likely to cause mental trauma, because adults can handle a fuckton more than kids can.

There are plenty of other ways to punish kids that don't resort to violence, though I'd want to look into possible psychological effects of those as well. Not that I'll ever need to use them personally, but it's worth looking into.

Not necessarily true, some adults can't handle much more from kids, and some adults aren't prepared for that because they've been sheltered and just got a taste of authority from that.

You know what sort of bugs me about all this. It's not bad to have an opinion on this and feel strongly about it, but why are you arguing about this when you personally don't wish to have kids, yet feel the need to tell someone who wants to, or has kids, that what they want to do is just wrong because they view spanking as something that could work?

[Kim]

It's not bad to have an opinion on this and feel strongly about it, but why are you arguing about this when you personally don't wish to have kids, yet feel the need to tell someone who wants to, or has kids, that what they want to do is just wrong because they view spanking as something that could work

So the only people allowed to be upset about child abuse are people with children?

[Azisien]

Kids need psychological trauma. It'll prepare them for the psychological trauma they'll face as teenagers and adults!

[bluestarultor]

So the only people allowed to be upset about child abuse are people with children?

Oh, God, I knew it was going to come to this load.

Spankings aren't child abuse. Beatings are child abuse. If you do lasting damage, it is abuse. If you don't do lasting damage, it is not abuse. A spanking is not a beating. If you beat your children, you don't deserve to keep them, but the two are not the same.

[Kim]

If you do lasting damage, it is abuse.

Define lasting damage. Studies have shown that spanking your child can cause psychological trauma. In what way is that not lasting damage?

[krogothwolf]

So the only people allowed to be upset about child abuse are people with children?

No, it just bugs me that you're telling people are wrong for spanking. It's not child abuse if done correctly and properly. Seriously, saying that any form of spanking is child abuse is to much. The law in Alberta is a firm single smack to the butt with an open palm that is not strong enough to leave a mark. That's spanking and that's not child abuse. Telling someone they are wrong for doing that when you aren't actually a parent or have no plan to is a stretch. You aren't the kids parent and you don't know what they are like or their personality. A spank done correctly isn't a bad thing. Done improperly or to much it is.

Studies have shown a lot of things can cause a kid trauma, are we going to shelter them from everything because that might happen?

[bluestarultor]

Define lasting damage. Studies have shown that spanking your child can cause psychological trauma. In what way is that not lasting damage?

If you're giving your children psychological trauma, you are doing lasting damage. You are also likely doing a hell of a lot more than spanking.

Also, define "trauma." People in the scientific community use it a bit differently than most laymen.


Studies have shown a lot of things can cause a kid trauma, are we going to shelter them from everything because that might happen?

We already are. :(

[Kim]

That's spanking and that's not child abuse.

Just because you say so doesn't make it true.

[krogothwolf]

Just because you say so doesn't make it true.

Actually because the law says so it makes it true. Jesus christ man, stop being such a bullheaded jerk on this. You can be wrong once in a while, live with it.

[Kim]

Actually because the law says so it makes it true.That's... That's not how that works. It used to be okay to beat your children with a belt or worse. Just because it was okay legally doesn't mean it was right.

[Seil]

My mum spanked my brothers and I when we were kids and we turned out okay.

[Kim]

My mum spanked my brothers and I when we were kids and we turned out okay.

An anecdote isn't proof, nor is the plural of anecdote data.

That one person failed to raise their child without spanking them, or two, or three, does not mean that there were no ways to raise those children adequately without using physical force.

.

[krogothwolf]

That's... That's not how that works.

Pretty sure it does. Pretty sure the laws of society are how we go about things. Can't call someone a child abuser when the law says they aren't.

Here is the supreme court of Canada's decision on that in a case.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc4/2004scc4.html

you can read it if you want, it's long and boring. But yeah, it's not child abuse so you shouldn't toss that around just because you feel it is.

[Kim]

Pretty sure it does. Pretty sure the laws of society are how we go about things. Can't call someone a child abuser when the law says they aren't.

Here is the supreme court of Canada's decision on that in a case.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc4/2004scc4.html

you can read it if you want, it's long and boring. But yeah, it's not child abuse so you shouldn't toss that around just because you feel it is.

It used to be okay to beat your children with a belt or worse. Just because it was okay legally doesn't mean it was right.

We change the laws to match what is right; not change what is right to match the laws. Just because the law says you aren't [insert pretty much anything] doesn't mean much.

[Azisien]

We gon' need some mods in here to do some spanking soon!

[krogothwolf]

We change the laws to match what is right; not change what is right to match the laws.

Yeah, right now what is right is that, not only that, some studies show that it's not trauma if it's done correctly. So yeah, it's not a bad thing. You can't call someone a child abuser just because you feel like it. The law right now says someone who does that isn't. right now, that is what is right in the society I live in, till it changes you can argue till the cows come home but you have no right to call someone a child abuser for spanking if done correctly with how it is seen right now. It's ignorant, mean spirited and bullshit and it speaks of an assholic way to argue when you seem to have nothing else to say but to start throwing terms like that around.

[Kim]

I didn't call anyone a child abuser at any point in this conversation. I said that I considered spankings to be a form of child abuse. If you are going to continue that line of thought and make it personal, that's your deal, not mine.

Also, are you seriously arguing that what is considered right by the law is right until it's changed? That's... I don't have words for that... Can I borrow a thesaurus? I mean, I could follow that to its natural conclusion, showing that by your logic you're saying tons of terrible things that are legal are right, but do I really need to?

[bluestarultor]

Hey, Non, buddy? Krogo's pretty much right. Maybe you disagree with the law, but until it gets changed, no, it's not child abuse in that jurisdiction and performed by those means.

I suggest you toss in your hat on that one, because the argument "but it should be because I say so" is a really weak one.

[Premmy]

You're making the exact same argument, the only difference is you're on the side with the money and the old white men.

[Lumenskir]

Now, I've been hesitant to throw out an anti-spanking study link because the last time I did that someone (krylo?) threw out a study that basically said that due to genes kids are pre-fucked from birth regardless of what parents do, but in searching for the link I stumbled on this page (http://www.nospank.net/straus-a.htm) of nothing but anti-spanking studies. So yeah.

Also, this one section (http://www.nospank.net/straus9.htm#a2) might be of particular interest to blues and krogo and others along those lines.

[Kim]

Hey, Non, buddy? Krogo's pretty much right. Maybe you disagree with the law, but until it gets changed, no, it's not child abuse in that jurisdiction and performed by those means.

Child abuse is the physical, sexual or emotional mistreatment of children.

I consider it physical mistreatment of children. He asked why I was arguing about it when I don't have and don't want kids. I said it was because I considered it child abuse. All that I have been doing is justifying my participation in the discussion after he questioned it.

I suggest you toss in your hat on that one, because the argument "but it should be because I say so" is a really weak one.

I'd disagree that that's the argument I'm using but for the sake of discussion...

That's more or less been your argument this whole time. Why, might I ask, is it a weak argument when I use it but not when you do?

[krogothwolf]

I didn't call anyone a child abuser at any point in this conversation. I said that I considered spankings to be a form of child abuse. If you are going to continue that line of thought and make it personal, that's your deal, not mine.

Also, are you seriously arguing that what is considered right by the law is right until it's changed? That's... I don't have words for that... Can I borrow a thesaurus? I mean, I could follow that to its natural conclusion, showing that by your logic you're saying tons of terrible things that are legal are right, but do I really need to?

By saying you consider spanking to be child abuse, it means you consider people who spank child abusers. You can't say you feel that way but then go "oh, but I didn't call anyone a child abuser, I just consider them that if they spank, but I didn't go out and call them that." It doesn't really work that way.

Until it is changed, it is right in the society you are living in. You may not like it, but till the law is change there is fuck all you can do about it. If the law says it's right you can't really go out of your way and start proclaiming everyone who does that wrong because it goes against your line of thinking. It doesn't work that way either. So yeah, it is right because how it goes, you can't stop someone from doing it because you feel it isn't right, that's your feeling that doesn't actually make it right either. A feeling or opinion doesn't make something right by itself you have to have things backing you up to make sure its right. Saying "well I have studies." Well guess what, those studies aren't going to help you because they don't make how the court system sees the law that's written out. That is how things work NonCon, whether it's the right thing or not, till things change in the legal system you have no leg to stand on in an argument of whats right and wrong if your stance isn't backed by the courts because that's what will judge someone in the end.

I don't really care if you have a personal thing against spanking. I don't really care if it affect you in the end and you went through a bad experience. I really don't. I do take offense that you feel any form of spanking as child abuse because you'd label my father as that, and my father is anything but a child abuser.

The fact is, I don't see a problem with it and quite frankly there is dick all you can do about it besides shout from the sidelines. If you tried to stop someone from doing something that's well within the law you would be the one in the wrong in the end. There is nothing you could say or do to change that, and unless it becomes against the law and I deem it necessary to have to spank my child, even though I hope in hell I don't, I will do that.

[Kim]

You're the one personalizing everything. I'd advise against doing that. It makes it rather difficult to see the discussion clearly, and makes you feel as though you personally are under attack, which is a bad direction to take this thread.

there is dick all you can do about it besides shout from the sidelines.
Who's shouting? You tried to tell me off for participating in a discussion. I explained why I was participating. You took it personally and got upset, despite the fact I had no intention of trying to upset you. Your argument has devolved into "The law says I'm right, so I am." I don't think that's a valid argument, and have stated why.

[Premmy]

I'd disagree that that's the argument I'm using but for the sake of discussion...

That's more or less been your argument this whole time. Why, might I ask, is it a weak argument when I use it but not when you do?
v
money and the old white men.
Sha-BAM! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority)

[Yumil]

Just throwing this out here, basically anything you do as a parent could be considered some kind of abuse by someone.

[Fenris]

Word on the street is that this thread is a fucking mess.

I'll sift through it in a bit and hand out punishment accordingly but goddamn.

[Fenris]

My decision:

Jesus christ dudes take a chill pill.