Child Silencer Device... Is it Ethical?

[Ifreann]

We're still in that era.

Depends, really. Most of Western Europe has banned it. Might take a while for families to follow suit (a study showed that the beatings continue until morale improves particularly over Christmas time in Germany), but it's better than in America where child abuse is considered a duty among some influental groups.

Well, children won't abuse themselves. And when they do, that's a sin!

[L Ron Cupboard]

Depends, really. Most of Western Europe has banned it. Might take a while for families to follow suit (a study showed that the beatings continue until morale improves particularly over Christmas time in Germany), but it's better than in America where child abuse is considered a duty among some influental groups.

Well, children won't abuse themselves. And when they do, that's a sin!

Luckily a Victorian era Infected Mushroom invented the perfectly ethical jugum penis to prevent that.

[Laerod]

Depends, really. Most of Western Europe has banned it. Might take a while for families to follow suit (a study showed that the beatings continue until morale improves particularly over Christmas time in Germany), but it's better than in America where child abuse is considered a duty among some influental groups.

Well, children won't abuse themselves. And when they do, that's a sin!

Ha. More "The White Ribbon" references. Great movie. It delves into the puritan punishment ethic in pre-WWI northern Germany and examines it's effect on society. Once scene has a kid tied to his bed for touching himself.

[Ifreann]

Well, children won't abuse themselves. And when they do, that's a sin!

Luckily a Victorian era Infected Mushroom invented the perfectly ethical jugum penis to prevent that.

Needs a good sturdy lock. *nods*

---

Well, children won't abuse themselves. And when they do, that's a sin!

Ha. More "The White Ribbon" references. Great movie. It delves into the puritan punishment ethic in pre-WWI northern Germany and examines it's effect on society. Once scene has a kid tied to his bed for touching himself.

I'm sure that child and his generation grew up to be very upstanding members of society and lead Germany into a golden age of peace and prosperity.

[Laerod]

Ha. More "The White Ribbon" references. Great movie. It delves into the puritan punishment ethic in pre-WWI northern Germany and examines it's effect on society. Once scene has a kid tied to his bed for touching himself.

I'm sure that child and his generation grew up to be very upstanding members of society and lead Germany into a golden age of peace and prosperity.

Answering this would spoil things, so I'm just going to urge you to watch it. It did earn a Palme d'Or and a Golden Globe, after all.

[Liberty and Linguistics]

I thought when I looked at the thread title that someone had invented it. I was going to say that it was a technological marvel.

Ethically it's abhorrent.

I invented a child silencer. Behold, the greatest technological marvel of the age!

What's even more effective, is this

[Laerod]

I invented a child silencer. Behold, the greatest technological marvel of the age!

What's even more effective, is this

Those can end up being positive reenforcement of bad behavior and may stunt the development of social skills.

[Liberty and Linguistics]

What's even more effective, is this

Those can end up being positive reenforcement of bad behavior and may stunt the development of social skills.

I'm merely joking....

[Laerod]

Those can end up being positive reenforcement of bad behavior and may stunt the development of social skills.

I'm merely joking....

Better I point it out than someone else =P

[Soldati Senza Confini]

There's always a time and place.

Nah.

My dad, for instance, used to threaten a swat on the bum after he repeatedly tried to tell us calmly not to do it and the reasons why and he also punished up. He never did it, but he had to once he had told us many times just so we learned that he meant what he said (which is why I got three times the good old swat on the bum).

That doesn't make my parent an abusive parent, really. The whole point of it wasn't to abuse or to exert power, but since he did warn us that he was going to spank us he thought if he didn't we'd disrespect him and trample over his authority if he didn't follow through with what he said he would do. We still had a lot of leeway to express our opinions, but he made sure to draw the line on tone.

This is entirely anecdotal. If used to support studies that show that there's no harm in it, using personal experience to drive the point home makes sense. On their own, your statements are irrelevant. A parent need not be an abuser to occasionally engage in abuse; the world isn't black and white and even good people do wrong. The point is, studies show that corporal punishment has only limited short term effectiveness and that it risks breeding some rather major disorders. That it won't always do so is not an argument in favor of doing it; rather, the extant risk included when using violence to discipline a child is an argument in favor of erring on the side of never hitting a child. And let's be honest: Anyone arguing in favor of hitting children to any degree better have a damn lot more than anecdotal evidence to support the claim that it does no harm.

The position I'm espousing often an incredibly uncomfortable position for someone to switch to. If hitting children is never ok, what does that say about one's own parents? For parents that have used corporal punishment, what does that say about them? As I said, occasional abusive acts do not necessarily make someone an abuser. The point is to stop treating physical punishment as something that should be done. This is incidentally why most countries that have banned corporal punishment don't readily prosecute parents that still engage in it.

You're right in that corporal punishment hardly does anything when used, which is why my dad almost never did it. He knows this, but he still had to do it.

As for myself? I hope I never have to use it. But, matter of fact is that nobody gets into parenthood knowing how to deal with their children, and I don't know how my children are going to turn out to be if I ever have any. I know the studies your side often quotes, but the studies I've seen when put in my face do not say "physical punishment is abusive", no, what they do say is that it is an ineffective form of punishment that can lead to abuse if used as the only tool of punishment because the intensity of the punishment has to increase. That's kind of the reason why you also have punishments that require timeouts and whatnot. In a sense a timeout is also abusive, but do we call it abuse? No.

I agree with you that corporal punishment shouldn't be used as a tool for punishment, but I see it more as it shouldn't be used as the only method of punishment and if anything it should be left as last resort, sort of how here in NS a DEAT is the last resort to make someone understand they are not welcome if they keep with their antics.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

We're still in that era.

Depends, really. Most of Western Europe has banned it. Might take a while for families to follow suit (a study showed that the beatings continue until morale improves particularly over Christmas time in Germany), but it's better than in America where child abuse is considered a duty among some influental groups.

Yea, no.

The article states that the people writing that book are idiots -- which they are, who the fuck gives a child food they won't eat so they like it anyways?

[Laerod]

You're right in that corporal punishment hardly does anything when used, which is why my dad almost never did it. He knows this, but he still had to do it.

As for myself? I hope I never have to use it. But, matter of fact is that nobody gets into parenthood knowing how to deal with their children, and I don't know how my children are going to turn out to be if I ever have any. I know the studies your side often quotes, but the studies I've seen when put in my face do not say "physical punishment is abusive", no, what they do say is that it is an ineffective form of punishment that can lead to abuse if used as the only tool of punishment because the intensity of the punishment has to increase. That's kind of the reason why you also have punishments that require timeouts and whatnot. In a sense a timeout is also abusive, but do we call it abuse? No.

I agree with you that corporal punishment shouldn't be used as a tool for punishment, but I see it more as it shouldn't be used as the only method of punishment and if anything it should be left as last resort, sort of how here in NS a DEAT is the last resort to make someone understand they are not welcome if they keep with their antics.

Yeah, no. Comparing a rather useful technique such as time outs with hitting? Not that nonphysical punishment can't be abusive as well (it most certainly can be), but time outs? Not comparable.
So anyway, here's some reading material.

Depends, really. Most of Western Europe has banned it. Might take a while for families to follow suit (a study showed that the beatings continue until morale improves particularly over Christmas time in Germany), but it's better than in America where child abuse is considered a duty among some influental groups.

Yea, no.

The article states that the people writing that book are idiots -- which they are, who the fuck gives a child food they won't eat so they like it anyways?

Once the books are bestsellers, it's not just the authors anymore.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You're right in that corporal punishment hardly does anything when used, which is why my dad almost never did it. He knows this, but he still had to do it.

As for myself? I hope I never have to use it. But, matter of fact is that nobody gets into parenthood knowing how to deal with their children, and I don't know how my children are going to turn out to be if I ever have any. I know the studies your side often quotes, but the studies I've seen when put in my face do not say "physical punishment is abusive", no, what they do say is that it is an ineffective form of punishment that can lead to abuse if used as the only tool of punishment because the intensity of the punishment has to increase. That's kind of the reason why you also have punishments that require timeouts and whatnot. In a sense a timeout is also abusive, but do we call it abuse? No.

I agree with you that corporal punishment shouldn't be used as a tool for punishment, but I see it more as it shouldn't be used as the only method of punishment and if anything it should be left as last resort, sort of how here in NS a DEAT is the last resort to make someone understand they are not welcome if they keep with their antics.

Yeah, no. Comparing a rather useful technique such as time outs with hitting? Not that nonphysical punishment can't be abusive as well (it most certainly can be), but time outs? Not comparable.
So anyway, here's some reading material.

Yea, no.

The article states that the people writing that book are idiots -- which they are, who the fuck gives a child food they won't eat so they like it anyways?

Once the books are bestsellers, it's not just the authors anymore.

Notice that it says "increased risk of physical abuse", increased -- not "it will inevitably lead to physical abuse".

This is what I don't get with people: you keep citing the same things, even if rehashed, and you fail to understand what it's saying. It's not saying "physical punishment is abusive", what it's saying is that it is ineffective and has an increased risk for such punishments to evolve into abuse, huge difference. An increased risk =/= inevitability. I have an increased risk of getting my shinbone fucked up if I skateboard rather than walk, does that mean I will inevitably break my shinbone against a curb?

[Camelza]

What monster would do that to a child? Screaming children are annoying for a reason, it is a defense mechanism to get their parents' immediate support which is absolutely normal and natural, furthermore if your child screams and shouts more than it is normal somewhere you have been wrong in your parenting. Also, causing technical muteness might have extremely bad psychological side-effects to your child ...not to mention that a child with a freaking muteness collar is an image right out of the ninth pit of hell.
For fuck's sake.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

What monster would do that to a child? Screaming children are annoying for a reason, it is a defense mechanism to get their parents' immediate support which is absolutely normal and natural, furthermore if your child screams and shouts more than it is normal somewhere you have been wrong in your parenting. Also, causing technical muteness might have extremely bad psychological side-effects to your child ...not to mention that a child with a freaking muteness collar is an image right out of the ninth pit of hell.
For fuck's sake.

I'm glad most of this thread looks at this thought experiment and go "the fuck?"

[The Emerald Dawn]

What monster would do that to a child? Screaming children are annoying for a reason, it is a defense mechanism to get their parents' immediate support which is absolutely normal and natural, furthermore if your child screams and shouts more than it is normal somewhere you have been wrong in your parenting. Also, causing technical muteness might have extremely bad psychological side-effects to your child ...not to mention that a child with a freaking muteness collar is an image right out of the ninth pit of hell.
For fuck's sake.

I'm glad most of this thread looks at this thought experiment and go "the fuck?"

It's really only the trolls or the 3edgy5me crowd doing otherwise.

[Camelza]

What monster would do that to a child? Screaming children are annoying for a reason, it is a defense mechanism to get their parents' immediate support which is absolutely normal and natural, furthermore if your child screams and shouts more than it is normal somewhere you have been wrong in your parenting. Also, causing technical muteness might have extremely bad psychological side-effects to your child ...not to mention that a child with a freaking muteness collar is an image right out of the ninth pit of hell.
For fuck's sake.

I'm glad most of this thread looks at this thought experiment and go "the fuck?"

That's nice, however I'm still shocked that even a minor support for such a device exists.

[The Leodensian Republic]

I'm glad most of this thread looks at this thought experiment and go "the fuck?"

That's nice, however I'm still shocked that even a minor support for such a device exists.

The supporters of the device are most likely children trying to look 3edgy5me.

[New Ashkelon (Ancient)]

That's nice, however I'm still shocked that even a minor support for such a device exists.

That's the goal of supporting this, to be edgy and shock people.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

My dad had a 'child silencer device'... it's called a belt. Often effective after only one application.

[United Russian Soviet States]

It may cause psychological problems for the child.

[United Earthlings]

Now imagine if I came up with an old invention. It's a type of plug you can harmlessly attach to one's own ear(s), instead of you know violating the personal space of another individual say like a child. Once the plug is inserted, the child's screams are Muted. Whenever the child screams, no sound will be heard by me as the individual but the parent will still get the message (Scream... *looks at child... Message: ''Your child wants something''...).

It's much less of a hassle RIGHT? Simple and Practical, furthermore I took personally responsibility for my own well being.

But is it ethical? Not that it matters, I'm miserable and misery loves company so I want to propose a solution that will make as many people as miserable as I am now.

I think it's great though because it doesn't harm the child physically while it makes everybody's life easier including mine, furthermore it doesn't cost a whole lot. Also, you shouldn't have to worry about developmental problems if there is sufficient testing and regulation by the government. The parents are also less likely to be irritated (sounds you can't hear are much better than the bawling) and so this should lead to better parenting. I think this solution is bloody brilliant. What do you think?

*I Fixed your OP for you, welcome*

[Imperializt Russia]

I may cause psychological problems for the child.

Might you? That's not very nice.

[Torisakia]

My dad had a 'child silencer device'... it's called a belt. Often effective after only one application.

But muh violence.

[Ama Town]

I don't really get why crying toddlers are such a big problem. Kids cry, deal with it. If it is such a huge deal to you that you need to fit silencers to kids perhaps you should look at your own problems because you sound a bit fragile.