Topic: Corporal Punishment (Re: Our response to Dmytri Kleiner's misunderstanding of money - page 16. (Read 24726 times)

You did not learned anything from this debate, did you?

His children are animals, rational animals.

Moreover, have you even heard of that phrase: "never give to the child the job of an adult"?

By the way, you are implying that irrational animals deserves punishment to be educated...

Oh dear... Myrkul cannot formulate his arguments in a coherent fashion without to misinterpret the meanings of well established words and concepts.

 

Distorting my words in order to fit your preconception of what I do doesn't alter the reality.


I'm fairly certain that last statement is correct, but irrelvent.


Best of luck with that theory.  I give you about even odds that your dauthers will hate you and your wife for reasons that you will never comprehend.

What a brilliant idea!

This is indeed a very good method to educate the involuntary responses of children. Something similar could be used to educate a child to not insert the fingers in his/her nose, which can provoke a minor affliction in the mucous membrane.

To paraphrase, we've already established that you're an abuser. That you wait until you run out of patience is just haggling over the price.

You strike a child as a preemptive measure to prevent future actions. That's initiating violence.
You subject your children to psychological torture as retribution for their actions. The same methods used by your parents. You're a very conscientious abuser, since you make sure to limit the time spent in a corner. That a judge hands out light sentences does not make his caging people right.
That you have a discussion after the baby jail shows that you understand that they can be reasoned with. Yet you hit them and apply... what was the phrase you used for torture? Oh yes... "judicious & immediate use of small levels of pain." I'm sure they're grateful that you only hurt them a little.

If you want to raise animals, treat your children like animals. If you wish to raise adults, treat your children like adults.

I have yes, but not in the manner proscribed by that link.  I've put vinegar onto my elder son's fingertips while he is asleep, to discourge him from bitting his nails.  Nothing that would cause pain, like hot sauce, just taste bad.


A timeout is always preferable to a spanking.  Again, pain as behavior conditioning should be the last resort for any behavior problem.  I've never had a child spend more than 10 minutes standing in a corner or more than 20 in a time out chair; and only that long because I got distracted while making lunch.  My rule of thumb is two minutes corner time per year of age, per infraction.  This gives them time to think about why it is that s/he is in trouble, and always ends with a quiz of why the child believes they are in timeout.  Unlike my own parents, I'm hyper-vigilant about leaving them in time-out for long periods, and I never go to bed, myself, without checking that each of my children is in bed and comfortable, so it would be practially impossible to do to my kids what my mother did to me.  I'd never be upset that my kid left time out if I forgot them anyway.  I'd feel really guilty about that.


If I use pain reinforcment for behavior modification, it's only after repeated events that strongly imply that my child in inclined towards that particular behavior, and other corrective measure have proven ineffective.  Children as at least as likely to gravitate towards self-destructive behaviors as adults are.  Even though you have girls, you are going to encounter this yourself.  Be strong, young man; for you will be put to the test.


I'm fine.  My accusation was correct, I stated it so that you would re-examine your core motives and convict yourself.  I'm fairly sure that I was successful.  The meme has been planted, it will take time to grow.

This thread has become punishing to read.

You pretend that your are not claiming that I am "incapable of making an argument", but soon after the comma you claimed that "English is not the language" that I "should be using".

A rare case of an ad hominem justified by another ad hominem!

Double ad hominem: "Your argument that my 'Come back when you understand English' statement is an ad hominem is invalid because you should not be using English language."

So, what forms of "behavior modification" do you use?
Do you force noxious substances into the child's mouth?
Do you prefer psychological torture, like forgetting them in a corner?
Are you beating your child because she might act in the future?

Is that better, or were you just setting up to exit the conversation, like you accused me of earlier?

I would if you tried to restate them independently and coherently.  As they are up above they are confused and comingled.  Which is why I suspect that you're upset, that's a common effect on prose.

I'm not upset. Perhaps that's you, projecting. Now, care to answer the questions I posed?

Myrkul, you should really take some time and examine yourself and your logic.  As well as your goals in this conversation.  Do you really desire to argue the semantics of my use of the term "defense"?  Is that conducive to your true goals?  I suspect that it is, but that your true goal is not to convince me of the error of my ways, but to convince yourself of the veracity of your position.

I'm not upset, and never have been while we are on this topic.  If you are getting upset by some words written by some guy on the Interent you have never met, perhaps you should examine why this makes yo so emotional.

No, not another ad hominem. I don't claim that you're incapable of making an argument, just that English is not the language you should be using. Since I don't savvy Portuguese, I'm afraid we're at an impasse, and can no longer communicate. My apologies.

How pathetic you are.

Another ad hominem...

Did you even read what you posted?

The definition number 3 clearly express:

"Caused by..."

In the case of your own example, the bus did not hit the distracted walker. So no "violent" action happened neither any action "caused" harm or destruction.

Then:


Of course, your pretension will not change the fact that "violent" in your statement means:



"If you're walking out in front of a bus violent".
"If you're walking out in front of a bus acting with or characterized by uncontrolled, strong, rough force."

Otherwise how would you justify that:

"If you're walking out in front of a bus caused by injurious or destructive force."

Back to your contradictory statement:


"In other words, defensive violence is a response to initiative behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. In the case we are speaking of, the man in the street "initiated" things by stepping out in front of the acting with or characterized by uncontrolled, strong, rough force"

Therefore:

Like whipping the slave? That's "behavior modification," is it not? So, what forms of "behavior modification" do you use? Electroshock therapy? Forcing noxious substances into the child's mouth? Perhaps you're more into the psychological torture, like forgetting them in a corner?

Tsk, tsk... You know as well as I do you can't defend against a future action. You can plan, but you certainly can't shoot someone because they might try to kill you in the future. You're beating your child because she might act in the future? Yeah, that's initiating violence.

Now who is cherry picking definitions to suit their argument?  Very well, I have used the term "corporal punishment" when I should have stuck with "behavior conditioning".  I used the term only because that is the common term, but I should have expected that, once cornered, you would use that poor use of precision against me.  I don't regard the judicious & immediate use of small levels of pain to be punishment, I consider to be behavior modification.  Try again.

And yes, it's in defense.  Defense against my own child's hazardous behavior in the future.  It's planning in the same way you plan to defend yourself by buying a weapon, it's concious pre-planning.

Tsk, tsk... I expected better of you, MoonShadow. Corporal punishment (hell, punishment itself) is retributive. It's even in the definition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment

Surely you're not going to claim it's in defense?

I though he was doing quite well, myself, considering English is a second language for him.  His understanding of the term "inititation" is apparently better tuned than your own.

And you're deliberately blurring the definition of "force" to make
grabbing the child the same as hitting.