City Revives Paddling, sees major improvement in Behavior

[iceaura]

Looking back on my grade school and high school administrations, maybe a couple of dozen people total, I think having given them advance permission to hit kids with wooden paddles would have been a very bad idea.

The good ones didn't need it. The bad ones lacked exactly that judgment necessary to manage it.

Every kid I knew then who was a serious discipline problem, or ended up in jail since, had been routinely "spanked" by their parents or whomever was raising them. And every advocate of spanking I have known in my life, then and now, has brought up the new - it's always new, not like things used to be - wave of badly behaved kids whose parents never spank them.

That would include the actually incarcerated advocates of spanking; because the jails of America are full of people who were routinely "spanked" as children, and listening to them one frequently hears the sentiment (this is more or less a quote) that their parents at least "taught me right from wrong" with judicious spankings - not like kids nowdays, who think they can get away with anything.

It stands to reason that physical punishment would result in an improvement of behavior.

Learning behavior? Study habits? Curiosity in science lab and interest in library research?

So what am I "defending"?
The right for every parent to discipline their child as they see fit.

That isn't at issue, here. It's the right of school officials - remember what they were like, in your childhood? - to hit kids with wooden paddles for "discipline".

Yeah, a restraint and a paddling are two different things, but the idea behind it, in the child's mind, is a form of physical consequence.

Hmmm. I wonder if you think that a school system wide policy allowing caning by every teacher and administrator they've hired appears (to the students) to be essentially the "same thing" as your restraint setup - in what is obviously not a normal school situation.

 

[Neverfly]

Every kid I knew then who was a serious discipline problem, or ended up in jail since, had been routinely "spanked" by their parents or whomever was raising them. And every advocate of spanking I have known in my life, then and now, has brought up the new - it's always new, not like things used to be - wave of badly behaved kids whose parents never spank them.

Anecdotal.
I know plenty that have turned out fine.

According to the Child Protective Services: Spanking is not deemed physical abuse and is an accepted form of discipline-- Even in Foster Homes.
You are simply applying your anecdotal opinion as fact.

That isn't at issue, here. It's the right of school officials - remember what they were like, in your childhood? - to hit kids with wooden paddles for "discipline".

How often and how hard?

Hmmm. I wonder if you think that a school system wide policy allowing caning by every teacher and administrator they've hired appears (to the students) to be essentially the "same thing" as your restraint setup - in what is obviously not a normal school situation.

Oh hell, I can one up ya: What if we say schools can take naughty children out back and shoot them?

Upping the ante only demonstrates that you cannot separate the punishments from one another.

Also, the position is that only Administrators can Paddle and they can ONLY do so after consulting the parent.

ETA: Part of the problem with this discussion is a lack of definition.

It might be helpful if definitions are laid out.

Spanking and Paddling are supposed to not leave Welts, bruising or red marks (that last longer than the few minutes a swat takes to fade.)

Spanking or paddling that damages is likely to be a result of anger from the punisher and not a form of discipline. I think it's safe to say that Most People would have an issue with that.

Caning almost always produces welts. Caning is a lighter form of Whipping.

 

[Bells]

Hmm no mention of open hand or closed fist, if you slap your wife (or husband) with an open hand you will STILL get a nice ride in a taxpayer paid for taxi with red and blues



Again no mention of if the hand is open or closed, strange that

You do realise that I am against corporal punishment, don't you?

No, he is not partially right.

You're both forming your own little opinions based upon your dreamy ideology.

Neverfly, we do not know you. Thus, any opinions that we may have on you is based solely on what you say. For example, someone asks you who you would allow to hit your son with a wooden paddle and you respond with this:

Who would you let hit your son with a wooden paddle, and why?

Apparently, school administration- After they call me to confirm and discuss his behavior.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...8&postcount=38

What else are we to assume?

I asked you, what happens if understanding the child (Determine why such was so) leads to a necessity for more severity in punishment in order to reach the child?

I can't believe this..

Tell me, what kind of understanding of a child would lead anyone to whack his or her backside with a paddle? I don't call that understanding. I call that not bothering to try to understand the child and simply resorting to violence against a child.

You are claiming that paddling is a primitive and uneducated approach and that understanding a child is a civilized approach.
Again- Only a Claim.

So you think it is civilised to utilise violence against a child? I have provided a link earlier on in the thread about what violence against children in the form of corporal punishment actually leads to. I would suggest you read it.

Can you only understand a child if you beat said child with a wooden paddle?

What happens when this ^ leads to the conclusion that spanking or paddling CAN be effective on children?

That's funny, because it has been found to be only temporarily effective sometimes and the long term effects are extremely detrimental.

http://www.psychpage.com/family/library/disc.htm


http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/students/fretzin/EPL3q2CorporalPunishment.htm


http://aapnews.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/7/3/17


http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/apr1210studies.htm

I'm seeing you justify a lot by Labeling someone who spanks as "Violent" and "Abusive."

If you have evidence that School Administration Abusing children with paddles is standard or commonplace- Present it already.

I need to ask this. What part of bending a child over and whacking that child on the backside with a slab of wood is not violent or abusive to you?

You claim that this statement is true. But it is not.
The odds of my son recieving a paddling are Very Slim considering that the behavior he would need to partake in to warrant it is not what he demonstrates.
Secondly, you are claiming that paddling is Violence. This is not demonstrated to be true.

Again, what part of hitting a child with a wooden paddle is not violent to you?

And his statement is based on what you said previously in this thread.

Ok, then, the evidence is in the article that behavior within that school improved after ONE instance of paddling.
If you want More Detailed Evidence than that, I have none.

So you can't search for it? Google? Anything at all?

Please provide some credible evidence that hitting a child with a wooden paddle is not violent and that it is somehow beneficial.

You are TWISTING reality based upon your own opinion.

You are painting an Inaccurate Image.

For one, where my son goes to school, there is no paddling.
Two, my son has no need for paddling.
Three, in order for a kid in school to get the paddle, they would REALLY need to mess up.
Four, paddling makes a noise. It's not something that hurts if done right.

Please, refer to what you previously wrote.

But lets have a look at this, shall we?

What if your so, being a child, really "messed up" and the school calls you and tells you that they will be giving your son 3-5 whacks with a wooden paddle. Lets just assume, shall we? Now, you have freely admitted to never having raised your hand against your son. So you ask the school what your son has done to warrant being whacked on the backside with a lump of timber. They tell you of his 'crimes'. What do you as a parent do? Would you request that you discipline your son your way? Or would you just say 'yes okay, you can hit my son'?

In saying yes, would you then ask the school if they know how to do it right so that it does not hurt? I mean, are there classes in how to hit someone with a piece of wood so that it doesn't hurt and just makes noise?

 

[Neverfly]

Neverfly, we do not know you. Thus, any opinions that we may have on you is based solely on what you say. For example, someone asks you who you would allow to hit your son with a wooden paddle and you respond with this:

What else are we to assume?

Assuming is improper no matter how you justify yourself.
You are not reading what I say as much as you are jumping to conclusions and inferring far more than what I say. It is THAT behavior that is frustrating.

I can't believe this..

Tell me, what kind of understanding of a child would lead anyone to whack his or her backside with a paddle? I don't call that understanding. I call that not bothering to try to understand the child and simply resorting to violence against a child.

That is what YOU call it. Your personal opinion which is not necessarily based upon hard scientific evidence.

And we don't really HAVE hard scientific evidence on this.

I, personally, have met kids that demonstrate that a whack is all that will keep them in line.

Believe me when I say, I do not LIKE spanking and would LIKE to disagree with it.

However, when I see that it is effective, I must question whether or not it has merit.

This article linked in the OP suggests that it has merit. I know many people that claim it has merit.

I, never have spanked my son, but he's also a good kid. I find it HIGHLY unlikely he would ever get paddled in a school and realistically, it would take something out of the ordinary for me to agree to such a thing simply because "Calling Dad" is more than enough to get him to straighten out.
He's not afraid of me. But he does fear disappointing me. It's something I love about him and something that I earnestly hope lasts into his adulthood.

So for this reason, much of my opinion in this thread is not based on experience with my own son.
It is based upon the observation of other peoples kids.

So you think it is civilised to utilise violence against a child?

One: Claiming it as "violence" does not make it so.
Two: WE and especially CHILDREN are NOT that civilized. If it is effective and it works, I would be supportive of it.
If you can provide evidence that it is NOT effective and does not work at all, I will protest it as stongly as you do.
I have not seen evidence in favor of your argument. Only evidence in favor of the OP.

I have provided a link earlier on in the thread about what violence against children in the form of corporal punishment actually leads to. I would suggest you read it.

I'm not sure where you posted it and I'm multi-tasking heavily and to be honest-- I still dislike reading much of your posts.
If you could Re-post that link, I would appreciate it.

Can you only understand a child if you beat said child with a wooden paddle?

Obviously not. But no one has made ANY such claim. Quit with the distortion already.

That's funny, because it has been found to be only temporarily effective sometimes and the long term effects are extremely detrimental.

http://www.psychpage.com/family/library/disc.htm


http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/students/fretzin/EPL3q2CorporalPunishment.htm


http://aapnews.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/7/3/17


http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/apr1210studies.htm

I will respond to this bit after reading those links.

I need to ask this. What part of bending a child over and whacking that child on the backside with a slab of wood is not violent or abusive to you?

Later, you refer to the paddle as a Lump Of Timber.
Do you think you're exaggerating?
I DO.

Yes, it IS violent but by that standard; YELLING at children is violent abuse.
Threatening your child with ANYTHING is violent abuse- and you can do your exaggerations there too:
Claimant:"Yes, I yell at my child to get his attention"
Bells: "So you think it's Ok to scream and tirade at little children?!"

There is a large difference between raising ones voice and having a major temper fit. You seem unable to separate issues, Bells.

So you can't search for it? Google? Anything at all?

I could, but I didn't really feel the need to go on a goosechase. I'm not opposed to being convinced that I am wrong here...

Please provide some credible evidence that hitting a child with a wooden paddle is not violent and that it is somehow beneficial.

Whether it is beneficial is the current topic of debate. It MAY be and I'm advocating that possibility against the bleeding hearts.
If it's shown to be purely harmful- I will then agree with the "bleeding hearts" and conclude it is harmful.

This is Not a belief for me.

Credible Evidence:
Child Protective Services has deemed it to not be violent child abuse but to be Strict Discipline.
I'm not saying that CPS is an ultimate and all knowing authority, but CPS is KNOWN to be pretty damn strict on parents, complaining about some very trivial things, even.

What if your so, being a child, really "messed up" and the school calls you and tells you that they will be giving your son 3-5 whacks with a wooden paddle. Lets just assume, shall we? Now, you have freely admitted to never having raised your hand against your son. So you ask the school what your son has done to warrant being whacked on the backside with a lump of timber.

Yes... hit him with a Piece of a Tree... Ok, Bells.

They tell you of his 'crimes'. What do you as a parent do? Would you request that you discipline your son your way? Or would you just say 'yes okay, you can hit my son'?

As I have repeatedly stated, my son wouldn't NEED a paddle. Calling me would be more than enough for him to straighten up.

Once, I had a baby sitter call me and ask me if she had permission to slap his wrist. He was defiant, telling her off. I said, "I hired you because I trust you with my son. Do what you feel is appropriate."

When she went to him and said she had called me, his eyes got wide and he immediately said "Sorry" and behaved much better the rest of the day.
She did not slap his wrist, since it was not needed.

In saying yes, would you then ask the school if they know how to do it right so that it does not hurt? I mean, are there classes in how to hit someone with a piece of wood so that it doesn't hurt and just makes noise?

That IS how it's normally done- But you make a good point.

And reflecting, I think I'd rather handle matters before I trust someone else with a wooden paddle.

But that is just ME.

Those parents that have More Difficult Children apparently feel differently. And I cannot speak for them and neither can YOU.

 

[CutsieMarie89]

Should we paddle adults if embarrassing homo sapians is a good idea/pedagogy/lesson/punishment?

Adults are often threatened with humiliation to keep them in line. Say what you want but it works. At least it did in my unruly class full of delinquents who did far worse than just curse, backtalk, and chew bubblegum in class. It works with small children, it most assuredly works with teens (who think the whole world is watching them), and it works on adults. It obviously worked on these students in Texas, didn't it?

 

[Neverfly]

Adults are often threatened with humiliation to keep them in line. Say what you want but it works. At least it did in my unruly class full of delinquents who did far worse than just curse, backtalk, and chew bubblegum in class. It works with small children, it most assuredly works with teens (who think the whole world is watching them), and it works on adults. It obviously worked on these students in Texas, didn't it?

Yes and humiliation is agreeably, a terrible thing to do.

But if it works...

How much coddling can one do with a person that will USE that to their advantage?

 

[Bells]

Assuming is improper no matter how you justify yourself.
You are not reading what I say as much as you are jumping to conclusions and inferring far more than what I say. It is THAT behavior that is frustrating.

And that is the thing Neverfly. I am reading what you say.

Since asking you for any form of clarification will only result in being accused of misrepresenting you, I am taking what you say exactly at face value. Now, your response to Tiassa was quite clear. Are we wrong to assume based solely on what you said? Should we be putting on foil hats and trying to determine what you are actually thinking in your head and ignoring what you are writing?

That is what YOU call it. Your personal opinion which is not necessarily based upon hard scientific evidence.

I have provided links. You have failed to do so because you are apparently multi-tasking and have yet to provide any proof of your claims. You can't even bother to scroll back to the previous page to look up a link. Now, it is not for me to pander to your laziness.

And we don't really HAVE hard scientific evidence on this.

We do have evidence on this. Learn to google.

Believe me when I say, I do not LIKE spanking and would LIKE to disagree with it.

However, when I see that it is effective, I must question whether or not it has merit.

So you don't like it and doubt you'd ever do it to your son. But you would have no real issue with allowing someone else to do it for you if their reasons were valid enough, correct?

This article linked in the OP suggests that it has merit. I know many people that claim it has merit.

And the article that I posted showed that spanking may provide immediate 'relief' (for lack of a better term), however its long term effects are detrimental to the child.

One: Claiming it as "violence" does not make it so.
Two: WE and especially CHILDREN are NOT that civilized. If it is effective and it works, I would be supportive of it.
If you can provide evidence that it is NOT effective and does not work at all, I will protest it as stongly as you do.

Let me ask you a question. What if I bent you over and whacked you 3 times on the backside with a wooden paddle. That would not be violent? What if my husband did that to me for not taking the washing off the line? Not violent? Is it acceptable? Is it acceptable for your boss to give you three whacks with a wooden paddle for stuffing something up at work and being naughty in his/her eyes? Violent or not?

Would it be acceptable in your eyes for my husband to give me a few good whacks with the paddle for not doing as I was told at home? Would you deem it effective and therefore acceptable and not violent if I suddenly started doing what I was told at home?

I have not seen evidence in favor of your argument. Only evidence in favor of the OP.

You have not seen evidence in favour of my argument because you are either too lazy to do any research for yourself and too lazy to scroll up to the next page.

I'm not sure where you posted it and I'm multi-tasking heavily and to be honest-- I still dislike reading much of your posts.
If you could Re-post that link, I would appreciate it.

I did post it and reposted it again in this thread. If you dislike reading so much of my post, that is not my problem. If you cannot be bothered or don't like to read people's post, that is your problem, not mine and for you to claim that there isn't any evidence is absurd.

Obviously not. But no one has made ANY such claim. Quit with the distortion already.

Ah here we go. Claims of distortion.

"I asked you, what happens if understanding the child (Determine why such was so) leads to a necessity for more severity in punishment in order to reach the child?"​

And I responded with what kind of understanding can one have that it leads to hitting a child with a wooden paddle?

I will respond to this bit after reading those links.

I am surprised you actually found these ones in my post.

Later, you refer to the paddle as a Lump Of Timber.
Do you think you're exaggerating?
I DO.

What is a paddle? How about these ones?

Yes, it IS violent but by that standard; YELLING at children is violent abuse.
Threatening your child with ANYTHING is violent abuse- and you can do your exaggerations there too:
Claimant:"Yes, I yell at my child to get his attention"
Bells: "So you think it's Ok to scream and tirade at little children?!"

There is a large difference between raising ones voice and having a major temper fit. You seem unable to separate issues, Bells.

I don't yell at my children. I don't need to. As unruly as they sometimes are, one quiet word is enough to get them to stop. I also do not threaten my children. Threats do not work. I just take away their toy privileges or not let them watch TV or take away their treats. I also do not take out a piece of 2x4 and whack them on the arse with it and claim it is not violent.

I could, but I didn't really feel the need to go on a goosechase. I'm not opposed to being convinced that I am wrong here...

What is it with you and providing evidence for your own claims. I have provided mine. You have yet to show anything aside from your bleatings. If you cannot be bothered or do not feel the need to, then frankly, your argument in this discussion is moot in that you should be simply ignored. If you make a claim, you have to be prepared to back it up with evidence. If you cannot back it up with links or can't be bothered to do so, shut your trap, for lack of a better term.

Whether it is beneficial is the current topic of debate. It MAY be and I'm advocating that possibility against the bleeding hearts.
If it's shown to be purely harmful- I will then agree with the "bleeding hearts" and conclude it is harmful.

This is Not a belief for me.

Credible Evidence:
Child Protective Services has deemed it to not be violent child abuse but to be Strict Discipline.
I'm not saying that CPS is an ultimate and all knowing authority, but CPS is KNOWN to be pretty damn strict on parents, complaining about some very trivial things, even.

Links?

To create a link, you only need to copy what is in the web address bar and paste it in your document.

Yes... hit him with a Piece of a Tree... Ok, Bells.

What the hell do you think paddles are made of Neverfly?

What the hell do you think this is?

Or this (apparently favoured by Texans):

What about this one?

As I have repeatedly stated, my son wouldn't NEED a paddle. Calling me would be more than enough for him to straighten up.

Once, I had a baby sitter call me and ask me if she had permission to slap his wrist. He was defiant, telling her off. I said, "I hired you because I trust you with my son. Do what you feel is appropriate."

Didn't you say earlier that your son has never needed to be hit? That he was such a well behaved child that the concept of his needing corporal punishment was not something you'd ever have to consider? Why didn't you administer the slap? Why delegate it to someone else? Is it because he doesn't want to disappoint you? Or because you don't want to disappoint him by using violence against him to get him to not be defiant or tell the babysitter off?

My question is why do you delegate hitting your child to other people?

When she went to him and said she had called me, his eyes got wide and he immediately said "Sorry" and behaved much better the rest of the day.
She did not slap his wrist, since it was not needed.

And? Your son, it seems, is afraid of you, for whatever reason.. But it still does not take away from the fact that you delegated hitting your son to someone else.

Those parents that have More Difficult Children apparently feel differently. And I cannot speak for them and neither can YOU.

But you are speaking for them.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

I'm not surprised behaviour has improved. Children love paddling.

 

[Neverfly]

And that is the thing Neverfly. I am reading what you say.

Sigh...

You cannot claim that reading what I say ALLOWS you and Tiassa to Jump To Conclusions. It is no more than a justification and that is simply how it is.

I can sit here all day trying to make you realize that. But it's deeply engrained-- only YOU can realize it on your own.

it's something we are all guilty of.

This issue is not black and white. There is not enough data to really make a STRONG case on it.

When people disagree, they will naturally try to use ANY attack against that disagreement.

As adults, we have minds that are capable of trying to control that...

Since asking you for any form of clarification will only result in being accused of misrepresenting you, I am taking what you say exactly at face value.

This is not true.

You were not asking for clarification in the past by stating ACCUSATORY questions or claiming I DEMAND that women do such and such, Bells.

It is that type of browbeating that I got tired of. That is NOT seeking clarification.

Let me provide examples:

Neverfly: " I think that a= b."
Bells: "So you are saying that you think c must devour d and then have wild monkey sex with a!? "

That's what you have been doing. And it's not right.

Now, your response to Tiassa was quite clear. Are we wrong to assume based solely on what you said? Should we be putting on foil hats and trying to determine what you are actually thinking in your head and ignoring what you are writing?

How strange.

If I say, "I would agree to administrative punishment if I feel that is warranted"

You are allowed to say, "That means Neverfly is a coward that pays other people to hit his son with a chunk of a tree."

You think that is taking my words at face value?!
Wake Up Bells.

I have provided links. You have failed to do so because you are apparently multi-tasking and have yet to provide any proof of your claims.

I've made very few claims to "prove."

You can't even bother to scroll back to the previous page to look up a link. Now, it is not for me to pander to your laziness.

True, I was being lazy. I'll get around to it when I check your other links.

I WILL read them and if they are convincing, I will say so.

So you don't like it and doubt you'd ever do it to your son. But you would have no real issue with allowing someone else to do it for you if their reasons were valid enough, correct?

As my son grows up, he may also learn to Break laws.

Should I interfere with Law Enforcement should they incarcerate my son?
Causation.

I will admit, I AM disturbed by the idea of my son being paddled. The problem is, how can I effectively state my case if I am wishy washy or show bias?

MY Son behaves such that he would be VERY Unlikely to ever be paddled. This allows me some safe ground.

I love my son to death. I literally took an entire abdomen of Boiling oil (And have the scars to show) to prevent him harm.

To have some little internet prick call me a Bad Parent simply because he's off on a personal BELIEF about Spanking of all things is Purely Out Of Line.

Let me ask you a question. What if I bent you over and whacked you 3 times on the backside with a wooden paddle. That would not be violent?

Might turn me on.


I'm so kidding...


Frankly, you never would, never will, never will have either grounds nor cause to.

Just as you will never discipline me in ANY way.

I'm an ADULT not a Child and Children are NOT adults. They are not developed and their minds are, for lack of a better term, still based on what we would consider to be primitive thinking.

What if my husband did that to me for not taking the washing off the line? Not violent?

Clearly that is spousal abuse and that argument is TOTALLY irrelevant in this case.

Is it acceptable? Is it acceptable for your boss to give you three whacks with a wooden paddle for stuffing something up at work and being naughty in his/her eyes? Violent or not?

All of these contexts are separate and different situations from the OP of this thread.

It's acceptable for me to beat the shit out of a Mugger, but not my next door neighbor for failing to return the ladder he borrowed.
Just because I will beat the shit out of a mugger does NOT make it acceptable to beat my neighbor.
You cannot cross reference totally different situations and then claim it's all the same just to make your point.

I did post it and reposted it again in this thread. If you dislike reading so much of my post, that is not my problem.

Eh, you DID influence me a bit...

Ah here we go. Claims of distortion

And I responded with what kind of understanding can one have that it leads to hitting a child with a wooden paddle?

No, you did not.
You asked:
"Originally Posted by Bells
Can you only understand a child if you beat said child with a wooden paddle? "
Let's look at this...

1.) Can you only understand a child if you beat said child with a wooden paddle?
2.) what kind of understanding can one have that it leads to hitting a child with a wooden paddle?

Two TOTALLY different questions there, Bells.

Further distortion and my claim is Demonstrated as Highly Accurate with the above quotes.

Deal With It.

I don't yell at my children. I don't need to.

But can you say that other parents do not need to? Can you choose that for them? Can You decide whether or not they should? Do you have experience with those children?

As unruly as they sometimes are, one quiet word is enough to get them to stop. I also do not threaten my children. Threats do not work. I just take away their toy privileges or not let them watch TV or take away their treats.

You punish them! OMG! How DARE you do that to little children?
C'mon Bells, you use what works.

If you cannot back it up with links or can't be bothered to do so, shut your trap, for lack of a better term.

Tell this to Tiassa as well, double standard.

Didn't you say earlier that your son has never needed to be hit? That he was such a well behaved child that the concept of his needing corporal punishment was not something you'd ever have to consider? Why didn't you administer the slap?

Obviously, I was not THERE To Do So, if I hired a Baby Sitter and that sitter had to CALL My Phone.

SHEESH!

Why delegate it to someone else?

See above, Bonehead.

Is it because he doesn't want to disappoint you? Or because you don't want to disappoint him by using violence against him to get him to not be defiant or tell the babysitter off?

It is because of the first one.
And violence of any kind, however you define it WAS NOT USED.
CALLING ME WAS ALL IT TOOK.

My question is why do you delegate hitting your child to other people?

What part of me not being there DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

And? Your son, it seems, is afraid of you, for whatever reason...

I'm sure your children must fear you too, for a QUIET word to be enough. They must be Trembling in fear...

How do YOU Like the accusation?

But it still does not take away from the fact that you delegated hitting your son to someone else.

One time- a slap on the wrist- which was never actually DONE.

So get off your highhorse and quit your exaggerating.

But you are speaking for them.

So are you. And you attack them as well.

 

[Neverfly]

As an aside Bells-- I will point out that you seem to be reading and remembering my responses, seem less accusatory and more calm in your delivery than previously. It IS appreciated.

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert Title Here)

No where's has Never fly said that he is offering up his son to other's violence. Show me where he said that. I looked and couldn't find it.

That would be #38 above.

In #36, Neverfly asserted, "I have never once raised my hand to my son," and stated he doubted he could even do it. He even reiterated the point that he has never spanked his son.

When asked who he would allow to hit his son with a wooden paddle, and why, he explained, "Apparently, school administration- After they call me to confirm and discuss his behavior."

That's pretty clear, YJ. Admittedly, it's a short statement, so I can see how you might have missed it.

My point of view ....

One thing you apparently have not seen is children who are spanked, and are still troublesome, out of control, &c. This would suggest your either that your sample is small or your representation thereof is skewed.

Part of what Never Fly's point was what I am referring to above.
There is no manual. Everyone does things differently.
Everyone is raised differently.
So what am I "defending"?
The right for every parent to discipline their child as they see fit. As long as it isn't physically, mentally, or emotionally scarring to the child. As long as it isn't abusive.

What you are defending is Neverfly's contrarian illogic. Which, in your opinion, is the extraordinary proposition:

• Parents who do not spank their children would not permit others to do so.

• Parents who do not spank their children will empower other people to do so.​

The latter flies in the face of observation, except, of course, for Neverfly, who doubts he could raise his hand against his child, but would outsource that response to school administrators.

That there is no manual is an overused cliché. As I explained to Neverfly about that threadbare argument:

[Human behavior] is extraordinarily complex, and there is always an element of unpredictability, but [for] those who actaully study human behavior, there are some general trends that can be predicted.

The problem is that many parents punish children (regardless of whether they use violence) for behavior that is natural and expected.​

• • •​

You are claiming that paddling is a primitive and uneducated approach and that understanding a child is a civilized approach.
Again- Only a Claim.

Are you suggesting that the process of smacking someone is harder to figure out than understanding developmental psychology?

Again- You are not supporting this with any evidence whatsoever.

It's not exactly what we would call an extraordinary claim.

Which did your kid figure out first? How to strike someone or something, or how to explain Piaget's Sensorimotor and Adaptive Model of Intellectual Development?

I asked you, what happens if understanding the child (Determine why such was so) leads to a necessity for more severity in punishment in order to reach the child?

I stand by my answer. You can turn up the heat, or figure out why escalation seems the only route. Which brings us back to something in the topic source article:

A joint American Civil Liberties Union-Human Rights Watch report last year found that students with disabilities were disproportionately subjected to corporal punishment, sometimes in direct response to behavioral problems that were a result of their disabilities.

(Birnbaum)​

Or, to put it as simply as possible for you: If one concludes that violence is the only effective method, why is that the only effective method?

What happens when this ^ leads to the conclusion that spanking or paddling CAN be effective on children?

The next question is to identify the dysfunction creating such constraints.

I'm seeing you justify a lot by Labeling someone who spanks as "Violent" and "Abusive."

Non sequitur. To the other, what is striking someone if not violence?

If you have evidence that School Administration Abusing children with paddles is standard or commonplace- Present it already.

Again, that is already in the source article. Would you care to actually respond to that?

According to the articles YOU posted, only the Administration can administer it.
But they don't know the criteria?
Bullshit.

Obviously, you're not paying attention:

A Lincoln High School student was beaten so severely by a coach with a "canoe paddle" that the wood split – but it was taped up so the "licking" could continue.

The student suffered "severe bruising and welts to the lower back, buttocks and upper thighs" and was referred to a doctor for care, according to a Dallas ISD investigative report obtained by The Dallas Morning News ....

.... Several of the coaches wrote that they were not aware of the district's no-paddling policy.

(Hobbs)​

I don't say it often enough for you to claim that. I turned your own claims of people ignoring things back on you.

Yet you use it in the strangest way. You ignore the sources, ask if it's true, invoke a non sequitur, and then bust out that phrase as if it has any meaning? Yeah, at what point am I supposed to take that kind of half-assed chicanery seriously?

I did not hide behind my kid.

Well, you allegedly deviated from your alleged self to give me a big, "Fuck Your Punk Ass", according to a context that you then admitted you knew was false.

Sounds to me like you're hiding behind your kid.

You know, like, "Fuck Your Punk Ass for saying such a thing about my son (even though I know you're talking about me)!"

Stop making the personal attacks and using my Child as a basis for your personal attacks.

Oh, poor you.

You claim that this statement is true. But it is not.

Dude, you said it.

The odds of my son recieving a paddling are Very Slim considering that the behavior he would need to partake in to warrant it is not what he demonstrates.

Behavior that warrants it by whose standard? Yours, or the people you will rely on to mete out the punishment?

Secondly, you are claiming that paddling is Violence. This is not demonstrated to be true.

I do not think it an extraordinary claim to say that hitting someone with a piece of wood in order to inflict pain as a means to instruct a change of behavior is violence.

You make it sounds as though I'm paying someone to beat up my kid black and blue.

That sounds like your own conscience projecting as a means of ego defense.

Wow, when your argument fails, you resort to lying?
I did not say "I don't know" because that would not have been applicable.
I explained your Logical Fallacies Clearly and you claim that Meant I don't know?!?!

Seriously-- Is your brain broken or do you REALLY resort to LYING when you are shown to be in error?

I'm simply aware that you're tilting windmills, demanding of others evidence to address your own constructions.

You've been on an erroneous, defensive track from the moment you addressed me.

Ok, then, the evidence is in the article that behavior within that school improved after ONE instance of paddling.
If you want More Detailed Evidence than that, I have none.
You could ALWAYS say you're dissatisfied and keep asking for More Detailed evidence...

Do you know what the term "vested interest" means?

Do you have any evidence for how pronounced that change of behavior is? All I saw was a vague claim from someone who has vested interest.​

Additionally, to revisit the source article:

"The discipline problem is much better than it's been in years," Wright said, something he attributed to the new punishment and to other discipline programs schools are trying.

(Birnbaum)​

Mr. Wright has an interest in claiming success; he is the president of the school board that authorized the striking of students with a piece of wood.

Additionally, your argument overlooks a key phrase in the article: "... something he attributed to the new punishment and to other discipline programs schools are trying."

We might further consider James R's point that it, "Seems Steve and his buddies lack imagination." I mean, in the view of the school board president, there are no consequences for children unless they're being beaten with a stick.

Explain how this is is a problem?
I'm not disagreeing- I'm asking you to explain it in depth.

Pick a behavior. No, seriously, because that's a huge range, including exercise and demonstration of authority, testing of cause and effect, verbal expression, sexual development, emotional management including anger and fear ... the list goes on. Stunting any of these, constraining them through fear, also establishes the terms by which an individual will relate to those ideas.

For instance, and it is probably both more common in Texas than up here in the Pacific Northwest and also less common than it used to be, somewhere between some and many parents would teach children to sleep with their hands outside the blankets as a means of curbing masturbation well before the kids even had a clue why. I am not at all surprised at the recent eruption of sexual perversion and indiscretion among social conservaties who, while attempting to claim and enforce sexual propriety, spend a tremendous amount of their attention thinking about sex and other people's sexual activities. The sexual need will find its expression, and sometimes that is ugly.

When I think of the number of things my daughter does that I don't make a big deal about, some would suggest I should be mortified. But I'm not. I've seen what that sort of authoritarian treatment of human nature brings. It doesn't prevent certain behavior, only transfers its form and location, alters the child's relationship to the behavior. That is, the object isn't to behave properly, but to not get caught while misbehaving. There is a certain amount of transgression we must expect. And as it is, I prefer having my daughter feel secure telling me what's wrong or how she screwed up instead of withholding her troubles out of fear that I might punish her for them.

As a result, I know what she does and what she's up to. I know what curse words she knows. I know more about the status of her sexual development than I can legally discuss with you. I know that she just, within the last few minutes, lied to me in order to be generous and kind to neighbor kids. I can live with all of this; it is expected that she will use foul words, or seek certain bodily sensation, or attempt to deceive me. The only question is at what point such behavior becomes harmful to her, and those are the important boundaries. And I can certainly establish those more effectively through trust than fear.

I heard a segment of This American Life this week that recycled a 2001 episode covering the theme "Babysitting". The third act was a grown brother and sister recounting how differently they were treated by their mother; the elder sister was tremendously constrained, while the younger brother was not. You have to be more careful with daughters, the philosophy went at the time. The result, of course, was that the daughter concocted a wild story, with her brother's help, to escape her mother's tyranny, pretending to babysit for a nonexistent family. "It all had to do with protecting her chastity," explained Myron Jones, the brother. Carol Bove, the sister, explained of her mother:

She used to follow me. She had a friend; we called them 'Sam Spade and the Fat Man'. And they would follow us. And then, I'd go home, and she'd come in and say, "Where have you been?" And it was—it was really, really hard; she didn't believe anything I ever said .... You know, for a long time I thought that, oh, I was terrible. My mother started calling me a whore before I had any idea what the word was, and I couldn't look it up because I didn't know how it was spelled; I couldn't find it. And so it occurred to me that if I had a family—a nonexistent family—I could say I was going there.​

Carol spun a hell of a fantasy about the "McCreary" family, including the FBI agent father working a top secret project, so that he couldn't give out his phone number, and could only retain one babysitter for security purposes. Crazy stuff, that no parent should believe. The summer house, and so on. And their mother bought the story. One of the best summers of their lives, as a result. "It offered freedom that was just so wonderful to me."

Myron explained:

We really got all of this from our mother. This notion of fantasy people. My mother had, from the time we were young kids—younger than ten—my mother had three people that she went to see, none of whom existed, and we always knew they didn't exist .... One was a lawyer, and she wouldn't say what she was doing there, but she dropped little hints. What we were supposed to believe was that that was making arrangements to put us in the orphanage. The second person she saw was a psychiatrist .... And she went there because he would tell her that we were driving her crazy. And the third person was a doctor, who told her she was going to die. And we had no idea where, in fact, she went, but she was never gone long enough to see anyone at all.​

It's a tragic, neurotic, and above all, fascinating tale that describes an outcome of dysfunction. An entire family became wrapped up in the lie, with the mother claiming–and, apparently, believing—that she had met and talked with this nonexistent family. Mother Jones was ninety-four at the time of the broadcast. Myron, at the time of his interview with Ira Glass, was approaching his seventieth birthday:

Ira Glass: So, have you ever come clean with her on this?

Myron Jones: Oh, no, never. Do you want me to make my mother look like a liar?

Glass: (laughs warmly) Well, in a sense you already have. It's just a question of whether she's going to know it.

Jones: (laughs) Yeah, right. Yeah. No, I—it never crossed my mind to do it.

Glass: Are you serious? It's never crossed your mind?

Jones: Never.

Glass: Because she wouldn't be able to laugh about it, it sounds like.

Jones: Not in any way. She might simply say that we were lying now. That there were McCrearys. And, uh, we were just saying that for some reason.​

Fifty-three years, at least, the family remained wrapped up in the lie because it was the only way to hold their scarred and tattered remnants together. "Her best," Carol said of her mother, "was so bad. Her best was so empty."

But they made it through. That they did, however, doesn't mean they should have had to.

You can try to suppress human nature, but it will always find alternate routes to expression. Asked what he thought would have happened without the McCreary's, Myron Jones explained:

The McCreary's seemed absolutely inevitable. I've never thought about what would happen if they hadn't been there. They had to be there. I still think—they would be, let's see, they would be fifty-six, fifty-seven years old. I've wondered where they would live, how they're doing .... I picture them doing very well, and kind of dull now .... I don't picture them as being terribly interesting; they're more conservative than their parents. But nice and pleasant. Good people.​

Mother Jones passed in 2002, at age ninety-five, without ever hearing her children explain the truth of the McCrearys for This American Life. To the end the fantasy persisted, because a mother did her "best", and tried to suppress her daughter's psyche against natural forces as she saw fit. *We don't always need a corpse, or an orphaned child to make the point.

Indeed, the McCreary fantasy also allowed Carol and Myron's mother an out. If she believed this, she was not violating her own principles. If she accepted the illusion, she could allow her daughter the necessary freedom that her own heart and memories pined after. That much ego defense. Would it not have been easier for everyone to deal truthfully? Perhaps not, given that this was 1948. But these are the effects of suppression.

So, yeah. Pick a behavior.

You ASSUME stupidly. You ASSUME traits of behavior.

When someone must construct straw men to argue against in order to feel they are responding effectively to me, the futility is rather quite apparent.

This is a damn good question!!

And there are, at a certain valence, fairly simple answers. Either they have been guided astray, or there is a fundamental dysfunction that must be addressed. Violence and fear will not properly address a fundamental dysfunction, or lead back to a more proper path.

You are painting an Inaccurate Image.

I'm working with the elements you give me.

For one, where my son goes to school, there is no paddling.
Two, my son has no need for paddling.
Three, in order for a kid in school to get the paddle, they would REALLY need to mess up.

In Temple, Texas, the mentality seems to be that things like being late to school, or wearing the wrong shirt, should warrant the paddle.

Four, paddling makes a noise. It's not something that hurts if done right.

(chortle!)

So what, in your opinion, is the effective correctional pathway of striking a child with a piece of wood? How is correction achieved through paddling? What is the negative reinforcement?

I read your article about some kid that was Beaten -- I would be furious if that was my son.

But the problem is that is ONE incident. Just as if another student beat up my son, I'd be outraged- but could assume that ALL Kids will beat him.

And as the source article noted:

Usually, a long, flat wooden paddle is used to give as many as three blows across the student's clothed rear end, although Farmer found students who had been hit many more times.

(Birnbaum)​

Let me ask you this: If my son acts up and a teacher smacks his wrist with her hand and he straightens up- Is she Violently Abusing my child? Should I be up in arms?
Would you call me a coward for that in some sick twisted way that you want to distort this argument?

Yes, you should be furious. The proposition that I would call you a coward for standing up for your kid only demonstrates your egocentric desperation.

You do Not Know me or my son Anywhere NEAR well enough for you to jump to personal Baseless Conclusions.

Well, then, perhaps you should learn how to represent yourself better. I can only work with the elements you give me.
____________________

Notes:

Birnbaum, Michael. "Texas city revives paddling as it takes a swat at misbehavior". The Washington Post. April 16, 2010. WashingtonPost.com. April 18, 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/15/AR2010041505964.html

Hobbs, Tawnell D. "DISD investigation finds Lincoln High School coaches paddled student up to 21 times". The Dallas Morning News. April 2, 2009. DallasNews.com. April 18, 2010. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/040209dnmetpaddling.4321f23.html

WBEZ. "Babysitting". This American Life. No. 175. 2001. KUOW, Seattle. April 16, 2010. Radio. ThisAmericanLife.org. April 18, 2010. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/175/babysitting

 

[PieAreSquared]

"He who spareth the rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him correcteth him betimes" (Proverbs 13:24)

"Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell." (Proverbs 23:13-14)

 

[Neverfly]

One thing you apparently have not seen is children who are spanked, and are still troublesome, out of control, &c. This would suggest your either that your sample is small or your representation thereof is skewed.

There are children like that. Apparently that form of punishment does not work on them.

The latter flies in the face of observation, except, of course, for Neverfly, who doubts he could raise his hand against his child, but would outsource that response to school administrators.

Cut the word play.

It's not being Outsourced.

Anymore than law enforcement is outsourced by parents of law breaking children.

That there is no manual is an overused cliché.

Irrelevant. It's applicable.

Are you suggesting that the process of smacking someone is harder to figure out than understanding developmental psychology?

No.

Did what I said suggest that?
No.

Let's give an example:

Neverfly: "Understanding Chemistry means that you will know what is volatile combinations"
Tiassa: "Are you suggesting that it's easier to just make volatile combinations than to understand chemistry?"

You cannot infer one thing as a certainty simply because one side allows the possibility.

I stand by my answer. You can turn up the heat, or figure out why escalation seems the only route. Which brings us back to something in the topic source article:

A joint American Civil Liberties Union-Human Rights Watch report last year found that students with disabilities were disproportionately subjected to corporal punishment, sometimes in direct response to behavioral problems that were a result of their disabilities.

(Birnbaum)​

Why are you referring to children with Disabilities?

We are talking about regular children here, not disabled ones.

You have avoided the question and provided an irrelevant source for your claims.

I'm sure no one here is advocating hitting disabled kids.

Or, to put it as simply as possible for you: If one concludes that violence is the only effective method, why is that the only effective method?

I have never made any such claim that it is the ONLY method. In fact, I think, as a method, it would be quite rare.

YOU are the one making claims about "only's" here, not me. And I have been calling you out on it.

The next question is to identify the dysfunction creating such constraints.

When that question has a satisfactory answer, what punishment is then administered that is effective?

Non sequitur. To the other, what is striking someone if not violence?

Point made.

There are degrees of violence.

Violence in itself, is often a result of anger. Whereas administrative striking is NOT angry physical attacks (or not supposed to be.)

Again, that is already in the source article. Would you care to actually respond to that?

You keep SAYING that it's in there.
Well, I haven't seen it...

And considering how I have observed you to read what you want to read and interpret it however you wish, I am certainly not going to trust your opinion about what you read.

Obviously, you're not paying attention

Obviously, neither were you.
The article in the OP states ONLY School Administration can paddle.
Also...:

.... Several of the coaches wrote that they were not aware of the district's no-paddling policy.

From what YOU, yourself had pasted.
Thanks.

Yet you use it in the strangest way. You ignore the sources, ask if it's true, invoke a non sequitur, and then bust out that phrase as if it has any meaning? Yeah, at what point am I supposed to take that kind of half-assed chicanery seriously?

When you ignore things, Tiassa, You Are Guilty of doing so. Turning the argument onto me, whether it applies or not, is irrelevant. You were accused of ignoring things for having done so.

Well, you allegedly deviated from your alleged self to give me a big, "Fuck Your Punk Ass", according to a context that you then admitted you knew was false.

No, I did not admit the context was false. Show me where I did.

Sounds to me like you're hiding behind your kid.

Sounds to me like you're doing everything you can to take personal jabs at me.

You know, like, "Fuck Your Punk Ass for saying such a thing about my son (even though I know you're talking about me)!"

So what? I did not word that perfectly for you?
I was emotionally compromised at the time.

So get up off my back about it.

Oh, poor you.

Maybe, but at least my character is not as poor as what you are demonstrating

Dude, you said it.

No, you took what I said and misapplied it.

Just as parents don't "Outsource violence" to police officers that throw their crime committing child on the ground and handcuff him.

You are playing wording and you can't claim I said something I did not in order to support your word play.

Behavior that warrants it by whose standard? Yours, or the people you will rely on to mete out the punishment?

Mine.

I do not think it an extraordinary claim to say that hitting someone with a piece of wood in order to inflict pain as a means to instruct a change of behavior is violence.

It is if violence is a result of anger and a desire to inflict physical harm from the emotions involved.

That sounds like your own conscience projecting as a means of ego defense.

No, it sounds like YOU Saying "Outsourcing violence against his child".

Stop projecting onto me what you distorted.

I'm simply aware that you're tilting windmills, demanding of others evidence to address your own constructions.

Asking others to support their claims with evidence is standard procedure.

You've been on an erroneous, defensive track from the moment you addressed me.

Yeah, ever since you ad hom attacked. HOW ODD. Must be something wrong with me, huh?


The rest of your post is long, It may have some good points in it.

But Tiassa, I'm aware I saw more personal attacks against me from you, simply because you disagree with a BELIEF.

You strike me as the Angry Fist pummeling on the Pulpit preacher, right about now.

It's not impressive, it's tiresome, I've refuted enough of your Bullshit Ad Homs.

You are unable to make an effective argument when you attack and belittle the character of the person you are debating.

It's absurd, considering the stance you take in this thread.

You might want to think about the difference between verbal abuse and spanking.


I'll just be ignoring you from here on out. Talking to you is a useless effort- You lack self control and it is interfering with my own self control. Yep, I resorted to personal insults through retaliation, too. Enough is enough.

 

[Kennyc]

Yes!

 

[Bells]

This is not true.

You were not asking for clarification in the past by stating ACCUSATORY questions or claiming I DEMAND that women do such and such, Bells.

It is that type of browbeating that I got tired of. That is NOT seeking clarification.

Let me provide examples:

Neverfly: " I think that a= b."
Bells: "So you are saying that you think c must devour d and then have wild monkey sex with a!? "

That's what you have been doing. And it's not right.

I don't believe I was being accusatory. I voiced my questions in line with how you posted.

How strange.

If I say, "I would agree to administrative punishment if I feel that is warranted"

You are allowed to say, "That means Neverfly is a coward that pays other people to hit his son with a chunk of a tree."

You think that is taking my words at face value?!
Wake Up Bells.

Is that what I said?

I would suggest it is you who wakes up. You are the one who has said that you would and have in the past delegated corporal punishment and/or the threat of such punishment to your son.

I've made very few claims to "prove."

You have failed to even substantiate the few claims you have made in this thread.

True, I was being lazy. I'll get around to it when I check your other links.

I WILL read them and if they are convincing, I will say so.

I await your links with great anticipation.

As my son grows up, he may also learn to Break laws.

Should I interfere with Law Enforcement should they incarcerate my son?
Causation.

It would be illegal for you to prevent the law from incarcerating your son, if you son has broken the law.

I will admit, I AM disturbed by the idea of my son being paddled. The problem is, how can I effectively state my case if I am wishy washy or show bias?

By stating your case clearly. How would you be wishy washy if you asked the school, for example, to detail exactly what your son had done to warrant such a punishment? Would you speak to your son first and get his side of the story? What if you deem the school's reasons to be unjust for the paddling they think your son needs? What if they tell you that they either whack your son on the arse with a piece of wood or suspend him for 3 days? Which would you choose? Do you think you should have a say in how third parties punish your son?

MY Son behaves such that he would be VERY Unlikely to ever be paddled. This allows me some safe ground.

You say that now, while your son is easily influenced by you. Can you say the same in 5 years time where your son starts to develop his own sense of right and wrong and he feels that your rules or the school's rules are wrong?

To have some little internet prick call me a Bad Parent simply because he's off on a personal BELIEF about Spanking of all things is Purely Out Of Line.

Spanking is a very contentious issue. But we aren't talking about parents giving their kids a little tap on the backside, now are we? We are talking about third parties, school staff administering whacks to a child's backside with a wooden paddle for behaviour they deem worthy of such punishment. I refer you again to post number 38 for what you said in regards to your son and corporal punishment at school.

Might turn me on.


I'm so kidding...

Your weird sexual preferences aside, whether you are kidding or not does not take away from the fact that I would be assaulting you.

Frankly, you never would, never will, never will have either grounds nor cause to.

Just as you will never discipline me in ANY way.

Because you are always a good boy who behaves?

I'm an ADULT not a Child and Children are NOT adults. They are not developed and their minds are, for lack of a better term, still based on what we would consider to be primitive thinking.

Interesting. So you are claiming that the minds of children are not as developed as that of an adult, correct?

And yet, you think it is somehow acceptable to hit a child with a piece of wood, a wooden paddle? Tell me, because children are less primitive than adults, hitting them with a wooden paddle is somehow acceptable? Would it be acceptable to go into the jungles of South America and whack the reclusive tribes there with a paddle because they are less primitive than you or I? What about the family dog? Should we whack that too because it is obviously much less primitive than human adults? Why is it less acceptable to hit an adult with a paddle, than it is a child?

Clearly that is spousal abuse and that argument is TOTALLY irrelevant in this case.

Ah, so hitting a spouse with a wooden paddle is spousal abuse, but hitting a child in the same fashion with the same paddle is not?

All of these contexts are separate and different situations from the OP of this thread.

It's acceptable for me to beat the shit out of a Mugger, but not my next door neighbor for failing to return the ladder he borrowed.
Just because I will beat the shit out of a mugger does NOT make it acceptable to beat my neighbor.
You cannot cross reference totally different situations and then claim it's all the same just to make your point.

Actually, they are not. I would like to know why it is not acceptable to hit an adult with a paddle or hit a spouse with a paddle because it would be abuse or assault, but it is somehow different when it comes to a child. I would like to know, why it's spousal abuse to hit a spouse with a wooden paddle, but not abuse to hit a child with said paddle.

Why is that Neverfly? Why is it abuse for one but not abuse for the other?

But can you say that other parents do not need to? Can you choose that for them? Can You decide whether or not they should? Do you have experience with those children?

Nope, and I never claimed to.

You punish them! OMG! How DARE you do that to little children?
C'mon Bells, you use what works.

Yes, I do. But if violence is the only thing that works, then I will have failed my children terribly and I would be a bad parent.

Obviously, I was not THERE To Do So, if I hired a Baby Sitter and that sitter had to CALL My Phone.

SHEESH!

So you delegated?

See above, Bonehead.

I will come to this in a bit.

It is because of the first one.
And violence of any kind, however you define it WAS NOT USED.
CALLING ME WAS ALL IT TOOK.

It still does not take away from the fact that you delegated it.

I'm sure your children must fear you too, for a QUIET word to be enough. They must be Trembling in fear...

How do YOU Like the accusation?

It is the truth. I don't threaten to take away my children's privileges. I just do it. And they know it.

Are my children terrified of me? Maybe. I don't know. They do know that if I ask them to quietly stop misbehaving and they do not stop, their treats and privileges will disappear for a period of time, sometimes a day and sometimes a week. I don't threaten them with it. I simply take it away.

So they rarely misbehave to the point where I do take it away from them. They are normal 3 and 4 year old boys who get up to all kinds of stuff. And that is normal. They are inquisitive and demand constant attention and they get it. For example, I didn't punish my children when they took all the eggs out of the fridge and broke each one to see if they could find a chicken. I like it when they do stuff like that, because it shows to me an intense curiosity about things, in this case chickens. I also did not take away their privileges and treats when they did a coke bomb in my walk-in robe, drenching all of my clothes in coke. I thought about it and decided against it. They saw it on a kids science show on TV and their grandfather gave them a packet of mentos (why, I still do not know since they don't eat mentos sweets). They were curious. Granted, I was so angry that I could not speak when I came from from work.. but they were curious... Sigh.. damn kids.. And damn father in law and damn husband for not being suspicious when he heard them go so quiet for 5 minutes and the fridge door open and close..

One time- a slap on the wrist- which was never actually DONE.

So get off your highhorse and quit your exaggerating.

You still delegated.

As an aside Bells-- I will point out that you seem to be reading and remembering my responses, seem less accusatory and more calm in your delivery than previously. It IS appreciated.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for you (ie the bonehead comment).

 

[Neverfly]

Is that what I said?

I would suggest it is you who wakes up. You are the one who has said that you would and have in the past delegated corporal punishment and/or the threat of such punishment to your son.

Yeah slap on the wrist that never happened.


I'm SOOO Terrible.

I await your links with great anticipation.

I was referring to your links.

It would be illegal for you to prevent the law from incarcerating your son, if you son has broken the law.

SHOULD people do it except for that pesky law?

By stating your case clearly. How would you be wishy washy if you asked the school, for example, to detail exactly what your son had done to warrant such a punishment?

Obviously. I would do this.

Would you speak to your son first and get his side of the story?

At 6 years old? Unlikely. Unless School administrators are proven to be utterly untrustworthy, it's a fair bet that the allegation will be accurate. I can discuss it to HIM when he gets home.

What if you deem the school's reasons to be unjust for the paddling they think your son needs?

Then they get told they can't, don't they?

What if they tell you that they either whack your son on the arse with a piece of wood or suspend him for 3 days? Which would you choose?

The suspension and get a long weekend with baby boy

Do you think you should have a say in how third parties punish your son?

Aside from normal and trivial punishment- Yes.
But I shouldn't expect nor demand that his custodian (Teacher, Principle, sitter) has to call me Everytime he needs corrective action.

You say that now, while your son is easily influenced by you. Can you say the same in 5 years time where your son starts to develop his own sense of right and wrong and he feels that your rules or the school's rules are wrong?

Of course I cannot say that now, predicting the future. What is your point? He may need a paddling later?

Spanking is a very contentious issue. But we aren't talking about parents giving their kids a little tap on the backside, now are we? We are talking about third parties, school staff administering whacks to a child's backside with a wooden paddle for behaviour they deem worthy of such punishment. I refer you again to post number 38 for what you said in regards to your son and corporal punishment at school.

And I refer that it is possible I spoke too quickly.

When I was in school, the paddle looked more like a paint stirring stick. Not the large and frankly, scary looking ones you posted.

But isn't that the point? It is not the USE of it that really has the effect.

It's the SIGHT of it.

Your weird sexual preferences aside,whether you are kidding or not does not take away from the fact that I would be assaulting you.

It was an attempt at humor. I'm not into getting spanked. The fact is, Bells, You would NEVER be in a position where such was required.
Secondly, WE ARE NOT CHILDREN.

The context is different.

Can you ground me?

Can you take away my Playstation?

Can you send me to bed without eating?

Because you are always a good boy who behaves?

Refer to the obvious, above.

Interesting. So you are claiming that the minds of children are not as developed as that of an adult, correct?

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....................

YES.
Are you going to claim otherwise? This might get interesting.

And yet, you think it is somehow acceptable to hit a child with a piece of wood, a wooden paddle? Tell me, because children are less primitive than adults,

Less?

hitting them with a wooden paddle is somehow acceptable? Would it be acceptable to go into the jungles of South America and whack the reclusive tribes there with a paddle because they are less primitive than you or I? What about the family dog? Should we whack that too because it is obviously much less primitive than human adults?

many trainers whack dogs.

Why is it less acceptable to hit an adult with a paddle, than it is a child?

Because adults are expected to have Grown UP by the time they reach adulthood.

Children do NOT Have adult minds and if you are going to try claiming otherwise- that IS an extreme claim.

Ah, so hitting a spouse with a wooden paddle is spousal abuse, but hitting a child in the same fashion with the same paddle is not?

See above.

Actually, they are not. I would like to know why it is not acceptable to hit an adult with a paddle or hit a spouse with a paddle because it would be abuse or assault, but it is somehow different when it comes to a child. I would like to know, why it's spousal abuse to hit a spouse with a wooden paddle, but not abuse to hit a child with said paddle.

Why is that Neverfly? Why is it abuse for one but not abuse for the other?

You failed to address the inconsistency I explained above.
For this question you asked-- See Above.

Nope, and I never claimed to.

Not directly, no. But your advocacy AGAINST certain actions suggests that you would, if you could.
Would you write a law into effect for the world that bans all spanking if you had the power to do so?

Yes, I do. But if violence is the only thing that works, then I will have failed my children terribly and I would be a bad parent.

How idealistic.

So you HONESTLY BELIEVE that a child is so malleable that a parent can MAKE Them so Good they never need severe punishment?!

Utterly Amazing! Please-- WRITE BOOKS!!!

So you delegated?

To a Baby Sitter when I was not there?
DUH!
What ELSE should I do?

Tell her to not associate with My son at all?

Tell me, seriously- WHAT ELSE would a parent do?

Do YOU delegate to baby sitters and schools?

That is NOT "Outsourcing."

For example, I didn't punish my children when they took all the eggs out of the fridge and broke each one to see if they could find a chicken. I like it when they do stuff like that, because it shows to me an intense curiosity about things, in this case chickens.

I find this completely agreeable.
Although, I admit that after talking to him about it, I'd also point out that he just wasted a lot. I am aware he would understand that.
However, at two years old, for example, he did not. And punishment at that time was required instead of explanations he would not grasp. NO NOT BEATING, either, so don't act like I Punished a two year old horribly. That will set me off again.

I also did not take away their privileges and treats when they did a coke bomb in my walk-in robe, drenching all of my clothes in coke. I thought about it and decided against it. They saw it on a kids science show on TV and their grandfather gave them a packet of mentos (why, I still do not know since they don't eat mentos sweets). They were curious.

Here, I disagree.
They were old enough to know they should do that outside.
They are your kids and you made a choice- I can totally respect that.
Just showing my side.
I would have punished Nick had he done that.
Fortunately, with me-- Nick requires little punishment for things to take effect, so my punishments tend to be short and weak.

Again- I HOPE it lasts...

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for you (ie the bonehead comment).

Let me quote myself:

You lack self control and it is interfering with my own self control. Yep, I resorted to personal insults through retaliation, too. Enough is enough.

It's HARD not to blow up at someone that attacks me as a parent.

I am unable to even apologize for my words at this time. He had No Business doing that.

To you Bells, I was wrong to say it. With the frustration of the personal attacks in this thread, it came out on you. Not an excuse...
As I noted, you have NOT acted that way in this discussion and I apologize for calling you a bonehead.

 

[Pandaemoni]

Paddling is an effective punishment, and that is why I'd suggest employers use it on their uncooperative employees. We'd need to change the "assault" laws first, but that is a no brainer.

My business, my rules. You don't like it, then show up on time and behave. Hell, business owners could just fire them, so employees should THANK the ones that offer them the lesser corrective punishment of paddling, and then kiss the paddle when the punishment is done.

Employers beating employees is far more moral than beating children for a variety of reasons. First, as mentioned, it saves their job. Second, the employees have the option of quitting, which is more than the school children have. Third, no power differential. It's just the boss and the similarly sized employee, not an adult teacher looming over a small child. Finally, the employees are full grown adults (or at least late teens) who can more fully evaluate the consequences of their misbehavior before engaging in it, unlike children, who may not.

So, clearly, paddling employees is far more morally justified than paddling children.

Q.E.D. [/sarcasm]

The truth is that schools should alert parents of bad behavior and parents should discipline the kids. That may include a spanking. Parents who let government bureaucrats hit their children are just too fucking lazy to discipline their own, and should not have any kids.

 

[PieAreSquared]

all this bickering.. spankings all around

How about some ages , genders and numbers of ones children.

 

[Bells]

Yeah slap on the wrist that never happened.


I'm SOOO Terrible.

You still delegated to another adult to hit your son. Whether that actually occured or not is really beside the point.

I was referring to your links.

And I was referring to your yet to be supplied links to your claims, as weak as those claims might be. If you make a claim, you have to be in a position to back it up.

SHOULD people do it except for that pesky law?

I have yet to meet a parent who has not done everything they can to keep their children out of jail.

Obviously. I would do this.

Of course. But..

At 6 years old? Unlikely. Unless School administrators are proven to be utterly untrustworthy, it's a fair bet that the allegation will be accurate. I can discuss it to HIM when he gets home.

Do you not trust your son to be truthful and honest to you? Is it because he is 6 years of age? What kind of message does that send to a child in such a circumstance?

Then they get told they can't, don't they?

But would you? You have so much as said you would find it unlikely that you'd even ask your son before he got the 'paddlin' about his role or what he did. You would be going solely on the words of the school staff. You would have to ask your child's school if they ever do allow corporal punishment, whether you have the right and grounds to refuse before they act.

The suspension and get a long weekend with baby boy

Fair enough.

So you would elect to not have your child hit with a piece of timber, but would rather have him home with you as his punishment?

Aside from normal and trivial punishment- Yes.
But I shouldn't expect nor demand that his custodian (Teacher, Principle, sitter) has to call me Everytime he needs corrective action.

What if said corrective action involved hitting your son with a paddle?

Of course I cannot say that now, predicting the future. What is your point? He may need a paddling later?

I am curious as to how you would handle it.

And I refer that it is possible I spoke too quickly.

Really..

When I was in school, the paddle looked more like a paint stirring stick. Not the large and frankly, scary looking ones you posted.

A paddle is a paddle. There are other kinds. Some are bigger and created to provide more 'sting' and pain.

But isn't that the point? It is not the USE of it that really has the effect.

It's the SIGHT of it.

Until you're being told to hold onto the back of a chair or the desk and they whack you on the arse with it. Apparently it does not hurt but only makes noise, that is what you claimed, wasn't it?

Having been hit with a paddle, a cane and a hand as a small child (usually for getting answers on my maths quiz wrong.. my teacher was a psycho), I can assure you, it hurt like hell. The paddle made noise and stung like a bitch. The sight of said paddle did not make me get my answers correct on my quiz. It just made me panic that little bit more and that ensured I got the answers wrong. But you claim, the mere sight of it should be enough. I find that interesting.

It was an attempt at humor.

Which I responded in kind.

I'm not into getting spanked. The fact is, Bells, You would NEVER be in a position where such was required.

No. Because you are assured that I would not use violence against you unless you directly threatened my family or myself with physical harm and that harm was imminent (ie you're standing in front of us and about to harm one of us).

Secondly, WE ARE NOT CHILDREN.

Because of course, the only people we can physically hit with a piece of 2x4 are children and get away with it.

The context is different.

Actually it is not. It is assault to hit someone with a piece of 2x4 if that someone is an adult. But in some areas of the world, it is not assault if that someone is a child. Tell me the difference? Ah yes, the child is more primitive and thus, can be hit with a stick. You'll excuse me if I sneer.

Can you ground me?

Can you take away my Playstation?

Can you send me to bed without eating?

If, heaven forbid, I were your mother, that is what I would do instead of hitting you with a paddle.

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....................

YES.
Are you going to claim otherwise? This might get interesting.

Nope. I was merely clarifying your comments.

Less?

Sorry, I meant "more".

many trainers whack dogs.

I would suggest you ask Fraggle about his opinions about whacking a dog with a wooden paddle in a bid to train it.

In Australia, if you are caught hitting a dog with a wooden paddle, you would most likely be arrested and charged with animal cruelty.

Because adults are expected to have Grown UP by the time they reach adulthood.

Children do NOT Have adult minds and if you are going to try claiming otherwise- that IS an extreme claim.

So we show children that acting "grown up" also involves whacking the backsides of children with a wooden paddle.. because they don't have adult minds and we do.. Yes, I can see how that makes sense. Again, that was sarcasm.. You know, just in case you simply don't get it yet.

See above.

A yes or no will suffice. Why is it assault or domestic abuse to hit one's spouse with a wooden paddle, but not assault to hit one's child with it?

You failed to address the inconsistency I explained above.
For this question you asked-- See Above.

I did not. You have failed to address why you as an adult should get protection from being hit with a wooden paddle, but children should not get the same protection? Why is it an act of violence against an adult but not against a child?

Not directly, no. But your advocacy AGAINST certain actions suggests that you would, if you could.
Would you write a law into effect for the world that bans all spanking if you had the power to do so?

Yes.

How idealistic.

So you HONESTLY BELIEVE that a child is so malleable that a parent can MAKE Them so Good they never need severe punishment?!

Utterly Amazing! Please-- WRITE BOOKS!!!

You are claiming that a child's brain is more primitive than an adult's and therefore it is acceptable to hit said child with a piece of timber shaped like a paddle.

To a Baby Sitter when I was not there?
DUH!
What ELSE should I do?

Tell her to not associate with My son at all?

Tell me, seriously- WHAT ELSE would a parent do?

Do YOU delegate to baby sitters and schools?

That is NOT "Outsourcing."

I don't delegate to anyone what I dare not or would not do myself. I would never, ever, tell someone that it was okay for them to hit my children. Call me strange, but that's just me.

Here, I disagree.
They were old enough to know they should do that outside.
They are your kids and you made a choice- I can totally respect that.
Just showing my side.
I would have punished Nick had he done that.
Fortunately, with me-- Nick requires little punishment for things to take effect, so my punishments tend to be short and weak.

They did it in my walk-in because they thought they would get into trouble for taking a full bottle of coke from the fridge. It wasn't the act of blowing up said coke in bottle that was the issue for them. They know they are not allowed to drink soft-drinks. They thought they'd get into trouble for taking it, not for the bomb itself.

It's HARD not to blow up at someone that attacks me as a parent.

I am unable to even apologize for my words at this time. He had No Business doing that.

To you Bells, I was wrong to say it. With the frustration of the personal attacks in this thread, it came out on you. Not an excuse...
As I noted, you have NOT acted that way in this discussion and I apologize for calling you a bonehead.

How can I put this. You give as good as you get.

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert Title Here)

There are children like that. Apparently that form of punishment does not work on them.

And?

Cut the word play.

It's not being Outsourced.

Anymore than law enforcement is outsourced by parents of law breaking children.

Oh, I see. So you're allowed to point a gun at your child when he breaks your rules?

And, just to explore your analogy a bit further, in which jurisdictions are things like vandalism, rape, armed robbery, or murder legal? For starters, at least.

Irrelevant. It's applicable.

It is also a convenient excuse for pretending there are no predictable patterns in the development of the human psyche.

No.

Did what I said suggest that?
No.

Actually, yes:

"You are claiming that paddling is a primitive and uneducated approach and that understanding a child is a civilized approach.
Again- Only a Claim.

Again- You are not supporting this with any evidence whatsoever."​

As I said, it's not exactly what I would call an extraordinary claim. But, apparently, you disagree.

Why are you referring to children with Disabilities?

We are talking about regular children here, not disabled ones.

Well, by the time we're getting down to violence being the only effective method, we're not talking about "regular" children. Indeed, you seem to disdain the implications of investigating the reasons for a child's stubbornness. There comes a point when that behavior is significant of dysfunction. Attend the next couple of points for clarification.

I have never made any such claim that it is the ONLY method. In fact, I think, as a method, it would be quite rare.

YOU are the one making claims about "only's" here, not me. And I have been calling you out on it.

So who was it that asked me:

"What happens when understanding the child concludes that only a more severe punishment will get through to them?"​

Couldn't have been you, since you say you're not making claims about "only".

So that only could have no possible relationship to—

"I asked you, what happens if understanding the child (Determine why such was so) leads to a necessity for more severity in punishment in order to reach the child?​

—your use of the word necessity, right?

I mean, you're not the type of person to contiunally revise his question and then pretend that the revision represents what he has been saying from the outset, right? I mean, you say, "never", so you must mean never.

When that question has a satisfactory answer, what punishment is then administered that is effective?

You seem to presume that the answer prescribes punishment. Therein lies part of the problem you're having comprehending the issue.

Violence in itself, is often a result of anger. Whereas administrative striking is NOT angry physical attacks (or not supposed to be.)

Would you propose, then, that violence is okay as long as its commission is dispassionate? Or is it okay because, as long as the act is dispassionate, it's not violence?

You keep SAYING that it's in there.
Well, I haven't seen it...

And considering how I have observed you to read what you want to read and interpret it however you wish, I am certainly not going to trust your opinion about what you read.

You ought to try something more affirmative.

Rules about paddling vary from district to district, but typically only administrators, not teachers, can mete out the punishment, which is done in private. Usually, a long, flat wooden paddle is used to give as many as three blows across the student's clothed rear end, although Farmer found students who had been hit many more times. Boys are overwhelmingly the target.

(Birnbaum)​

It's not like I haven't quoted that bit before. But you magically seem to miss it so widely that you can't even offer up an alternative interpretation. So I would recommend the following two sources:

Farmer, Alice. A Violent Education: Corporal Punishment of Children in US Public Schools. New York: Human Rights Watch, 2008. ACLU.org. April 18, 2010. http://www.aclu.org/human-rights-ra...orporal-punishment-children-us-public-schools

—————. Impairing Education: Corporal Punishment of Students with Disabilities in US Public Schools. New York: Human Rights Watch, 2009. HRW.org. April 18, 2010. http://www.hrw.org/en/node/84946/ ​

You'll find all sorts of nifty tales about the absurdity of corporal punishment. Students beaten bloody. Students paddled for being late to class, or even having a shirt that wasn't properly tucked in.

The article in the OP states ONLY School Administration can paddle.

There was another important word in there:

... but typically only administrators, not teachers, can mete out the punishment ....

(Birnbaum; boldface accent added)​

From what YOU, yourself had pasted.
Thanks.

Well, at least we settled up one of your mistakes:

"According to the articles YOU posted, only the Administration can administer it.
But they don't know the criteria?
Bullshit."​

So, yes, you're welcome.

When you ignore things, Tiassa, You Are Guilty of doing so. Turning the argument onto me, whether it applies or not, is irrelevant. You were accused of ignoring things for having done so.

This is one of those things where you ought to attempt some sort of affirmative demonstration of your point. Because at this point, you're just flinging stones.

No, I did not admit the context was false. Show me where I did.

#49 above:

"No shit, Sherlock."​

At this point I'm starting to wonder if you're paying attention to the things you are posting.

Sounds to me like you're doing everything you can to take personal jabs at me.

I can only work with what you give me.

So what? I did not word that perfectly for you?
I was emotionally compromised at the time.

So get up off my back about it.

What does wording it perfectly have to do with it? Something about reading comprehension goes here. Again, see #49 above, Sherlock.

And if your emotions are so easily compromised, perhaps you should choose your fights more carefully.

Maybe, but at least my character is not as poor as what you are demonstrating

You should probably worry more about what you are demonstrating.

Just as parents don't "Outsource violence" to police officers that throw their crime committing child on the ground and handcuff him.

I see. So tell me, what facilities have you for the arrest, prosecution, and incarceration of your child if he should ever commit a crime?

Mine.

So what we're left with is that you probably wouldn't raise your hand against your child, but would approve of other people doing it under circumstances you think warrant it?

Poor kid, indeed.

It is if violence is a result of anger and a desire to inflict physical harm from the emotions involved.

Ah, again, the merits of dispassionate action.

No, it sounds like YOU Saying "Outsourcing violence against his child".

When I opt for more neutral terminology in deference to people's delicate egotism, that's sort of the result. I figure it sounds better than, "having other people beat his kid for him".

Asking others to support their claims with evidence is standard procedure.

In the first place, you should probably be sure it's their claim you're asking them to support, and not some projected construction of your own.

Secondly, some of the things you've asked evidence for are just ridiculous.

Yeah, ever since you ad hom attacked. HOW ODD. Must be something wrong with me, huh?

Such a disingenuous response. To agree with me ("Yeah") and then set a different advent? I'm referring to the moment you addressed me with a vapid post full of distortions, presumption, and, yes, a haughty defensive tone.

But Tiassa, I'm aware I saw more personal attacks against me from you, simply because you disagree with a BELIEF.

You strike me as the Angry Fist pummeling on the Pulpit preacher, right about now.

It's not impressive, it's tiresome, I've refuted enough of your Bullshit Ad Homs.

You are unable to make an effective argument when you attack and belittle the character of the person you are debating.

It's absurd, considering the stance you take in this thread.

You might want to think about the difference between verbal abuse and spanking.

Do you feel better now, having said that?

I'll just be ignoring you from here on out. Talking to you is a useless effort- You lack self control and it is interfering with my own self control. Yep, I resorted to personal insults through retaliation, too. Enough is enough.

Oh, poor you.
____________________

Notes:

Birnbaum, Michael ... (Oh, hell? How many times have I already listed this citation?)