Sedistix;5590332The two girls aren't fictitious examples, they're my nieces. As for CKY2K, did I quote you? No, so obviously I wasn't responding to you alone.
Sedistix, getting negative reputation and the message "I Disaprove" from someone like you is an honor. :bows: I'm sure there are plenty of people including myself who will be happy to return to you the favor. :D
CKY2K;5590337Sedistix, getting negative reputation and the message "I Disaprove" from someone like you is an honor. :bows: I'm sure there are plenty of people including myself who will be happy to return to you the favor. :D
If you have reputation concerns. I'm not the one to discuss it with. However if you like I can contribute to yours if you're "in-need".
I don't want to go offtrack here, but perhaps you should re-read the rules. Discussing rep in threads is a no-no from what I understand. Applying, let alone threatening retaliatory reputation is also up there in the list of don't do's. Finally, don't foolishly over estimate your worth on a game forum by including others in your threats. Not everyone here is petty enough to give a shit about rep.
As for corporal punishment. I agree with it but only when applied by both parents or with both consenting and only when reasonable. Don't put forks into the outlet jimmy, slap hand. Don't feed your sister marbles lisa, spanking. Don't play with the rifles joey, spank. ect. Also a key factor with punishing. Never do it while mad. Err duh. It's not a method for the parent to vent, its a teaching device. Once communication barriers have fallen away and children can proerly express themselves, and understand input from others, well then that form of punishment isn't required anymore, the mere threat of it will do.
Voice of joy and sunshine
26th May 2003
Sedistix;5590284It has to be tempered and reasonable. There are these two girls I watched grow up, from birth to early adulthood, each individually. The first could do no wrong, and rightfully so was never punished, despite all the wrongs. As a prepubescent teen she was caught stealing vehicles, twice. In and out of juvie hall all the time. Mixed up in drugs, and petty crimes all the time. She's incarcerated even now.
The other, she was brought up under a reasonable threat of punishment for unacceptable behavior. Spanking, time outs that sort of thing. Nominal stuff for typical parents. She’s an honor role student, and hasn’t been in trouble. Will that ever change, maybe, but at least she’s not a minor looking at being charged as an adult because of lazy parents. Who thought communication was all verbal. [/QUOTE]
One had no discipline and the other had a mix of corporal and non-corporal discipline? Given that people don't seem to be arguing for the idea that you should give your kids no discipline; and do seem to be arguing for the idea that non-corporal discipline can work; I'm unsure why you think the second would serve as evidence for your position. Doubters are just as likely to assign the success of the discipline to the non-corporal aspect of the punishment as they are to the corporal part.
[QUOTE=Sedistix;5590284]If you can talk then you’re ahead of the game and can reason your fate to a degree. I’m more concerned with the time before this stage. The time where communication is only done thru tone of voice. At that time, punishment reinforced by pain is often the only way to get thru.
So, if there were evidence of children under the age of two behaving themselves without being hit, that would serve to falsify your position?
Where do you suppose comprehension of the word no comes from. That word we all learn right there along with mom and dad, some even argue "No" is understood even before the other two. Where does it come from ya suppose? A stern voice maybe. Is no, just understood, like an intrinsic give-in. Like migrating birds. Or does it require some kind of reinforcement, a consequence? The child eventually associates the word with the discomfort. Obedience found. So it was good enough once, but not again? Fear rules the world, parenting is just a smaller world.
Animal training has similar concepts as parenting. People are no different. They like to think they are though.
Voice of joy and sunshine
26th May 2003
I don't know where it comes from. One obvious possibility is that it's learned by observing others being told 'no' and then ceasing to do something - or at least from observing others being told things in that tone of voice and then ceasing to do things. Or, as you say, it might fear of some form. It may even be that we instinctively understand that that tone of voice expresses disapproval.
It may be all of the above - mutually reinforcing modes of learning.
To promote one of those causes, fear, above the others... well, if I'm honest, it does largely fit in with how I think the world works... but given that some people don't hit their kids; and those kids still learn the meaning of 'no'; I don't see how you can hold onto the claim that fear of pain must be required.
Even if I buy into the idea that fear is required, it doesn't necessarily seem to follow that the relevant fear that should be used is the fear of physical pain.
There are many types and degrees of fear, fear of disapproval from someone you love, fear of not getting something, fear of.... Well, we could go on for quite a while here. And while I agree, that all those fears are ultimately backed by force, not all force is ultimately backed by pain. You don't have to hurt a two year old to restrain them.
In my experience you don't often have to hurt a ten year old to restrain them - not unless some sort of weapon is involved - the difference in strength, skill and experience between a grown man and a child are like the difference between night and day. You've got a very long time, when you're so vastly stronger than the child that the claim that force must be backed by pain would be untenable.