NationStates

As a last resort. Thats my opinion on most things violent.

Salandriagado wrote:Assault does not stop being assault because the person you're assaulting happens to be a child.

Assault is unjustifiable physical harm for a selfish motive, such as revenge or vengeance.

Corporal punishment is justifiable. It's immediate aim is at correcting and deterring misbehaviour by which character is reformed in the long term.

George Orwell wrote: It is a mistake to think such methods do not work. They work very well for their special purpose.

Dr Samuel Johnson wrote:I would rather have the rod to be the general terror to all, to make them learn...The rod produces an effect which terminates in itself. A child is afraid of being whipped, and gets his task, and there’s an end on’t;

Proverbs 29:215 wrote: The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.

State of Turelisa wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:Assault does not stop being assault because the person you're assaulting happens to be a child.

Assault is unjustifiable physical harm for a selfish motive, such as revenge or vengeance.

Corporal punishment is justifiable. It's immediate aim is at correcting and deterring misbehaviour by which character is reformed in the long term.

You're wrong on two counts;

1. Assault is "Inflicting intentional or reckless harm towards another individual". Corporal punishment is clearly intentional harm inflicted on another individual, so is assault.
2. It doesn't fucking work, and we've known this for fucking decades.

State of Turelisa wrote:reformed in the long term.

Sure, reformed with the addition of antisocial traits that is.

Salandriagado wrote:

State of Turelisa wrote:
Assault is unjustifiable physical harm for a selfish motive, such as revenge or vengeance.

Corporal punishment is justifiable. It's immediate aim is at correcting and deterring misbehaviour by which character is reformed in the long term.

You're wrong on two counts;

1. Assault is "Inflicting intentional or reckless harm towards another individual". Corporal punishment is clearly intentional harm inflicted on another individual, so is assault.
2. It doesn't fucking work, and we've known this for fucking decades.

Um, last thread on this subject you brought evidence that it did work, but only in the black community.

Corporal punishment should only be administered on adults who are guilty of serious crimes but who are not necessarily dangerous to society. Prisons are far less humane.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Corporal punishment should only be administered on adults who are guilty of serious crimes but who are not necessarily dangerous to society. Prisons are far less humane.

I think you're confusing corporal punishment with capital punishment, UMN.

Dylar wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Corporal punishment should only be administered on adults who are guilty of serious crimes but who are not necessarily dangerous to society. Prisons are far less humane.

I think you're confusing corporal punishment with capital punishment, UMN.

No, capital punishment should not exist. I'm talking about flogging adults.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Dylar wrote:I think you're confusing corporal punishment with capital punishment, UMN.

No, capital punishment should not exist. I'm talking about flogging adults.

Well alright then, carry on

Dylar wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Corporal punishment should only be administered on adults who are guilty of serious crimes but who are not necessarily dangerous to society. Prisons are far less humane.

I think you're confusing corporal punishment with capital punishment, UMN.

No. He means corporal punishment should be a pragmatic substitute for imprisonment for dealing with people who make mistakes but 'are not necessarily dangerous to society.' The dangerous criminals are of course, recidivist criminals who cannot be reformed, and he's advocating imprisonment to contain them. I too advocate corporal punishment for minor criminality, especially for youth offenders. It's a better deterrent, and cheaper than imprisonment, which is a doddle really for the prisoner. As for recidivists, I firmly believe death is the right penalty.

State of Turelisa wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:Assault does not stop being assault because the person you're assaulting happens to be a child.

Assault is unjustifiable physical harm for a selfish motive, such as revenge or vengeance.

Corporal punishment is justifiable. It's immediate aim is at correcting and deterring misbehaviour by which character is reformed in the long term.

George Orwell wrote: It is a mistake to think such methods do not work. They work very well for their special purpose.

Dr Samuel Johnson wrote:I would rather have the rod to be the general terror to all, to make them learn...The rod produces an effect which terminates in itself. A child is afraid of being whipped, and gets his task, and there’s an end on’t;

Proverbs 29:215 wrote: The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.

I don't think I'm going to be sold by a playwrite from the 1700s or a bible verse. Not everyone here accepts the bible as credible and I don't think displine should stay in the 1700s. I was right though. You do justify this due to the bible. You admitted you believed in theonomy in your previous forum sig after all.

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:

State of Turelisa wrote:reformed in the long term.

Sure, reformed with the addition of antisocial traits that is.

That isn't really accurate. A lot of people experienced corporal punishment as children and were very successful later.

Geneviev wrote:

Sundiata wrote:I hope I never feel inclined to use violence towards anyone.

I don't know that I would even be able to do it.

I fought often as a younger man before becoming Catholic.

Dazchan wrote:

Political Geography wrote:
The kind of things little kids do are quite easy to judge right or wrong. Hitting your little sister is wrong, that gets a spanking. Running around the house with no clothes on, not so wrong, no spanking.

I’m sorry, but how exactly do you teach a child that hitting people is wrong by hitting them?

By showing them how it feels to be hit? Obviously.

The more effective method would be for me to take my kid's chair and saw off one of its legs to make it wobble. A fitting punishment for a misbehaving kid, is a wobbly chair, ah ha!

Jokes aside, I see that it's kinda a trend here in some of the countries here in SE Asia, even government schools, I'm afraid to say. Of course, this is NOT, in any way, a justification just because almost everyone is doing it. That was nearly 2 decades ago, and *might* be a relic of the past with hitting students on the hand with a ruler. Even in Singapore, I remembered there were shops that sell canes, like holy crap. Again, wayyyy back in 2006. I think the "number of parents who caned" might have decreased since then.

Personally, absolutely no way I am hitting my kids, if I have any. If it is a minor thing, like forgetting to do the chores, breaking something, I think a talk is just fine.

If it is something like underage smoking, drinking, stealing, much more serious stuff, probably time for me and the kid to have a rather long pep talk stern lecture, and obviously to deal with underlying issues, if any (e.g. did my hypothetical kid just got into peer pressure?). Underlying issues are always a thing, or they're just gullible, like father like son.

What too many people don't understand these days, is that some problems only have force as a solution. That is why corporal punishment is seen as valid for some situations. Personally, I'd rather take some temporary pain if it otherwise means getting off scott free in all other ways.

I wasn't beaten as a child. One of my best friends was. Said best friend hates his parents beyond belief and ran away multiple times. I currently still live with my parents and love them more than many other things in this world.

There's quite the piece of evidence for you.

Valentine Z wrote:If it is something like underage smoking, drinking, stealing, much more serious stuff, probably time for me and the kid to have a rather long pep talk, and obviously to deal with underlying issues, if any (e.g. did my hypothetical kid just got into peer pressure?). Underlying issues are always a thing, or they're just gullible, like father like son.

A "pep talk" is an inspirational or encouraging talking-to. I think you mean the opposite. Maybe a stern lecture?

Wrong

/Thread

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Valentine Z wrote:If it is something like underage smoking, drinking, stealing, much more serious stuff, probably time for me and the kid to have a rather long pep talk, and obviously to deal with underlying issues, if any (e.g. did my hypothetical kid just got into peer pressure?). Underlying issues are always a thing, or they're just gullible, like father like son.

A "pep talk" is an inspirational or encouraging talking-to. I think you mean the opposite. Maybe a stern lecture?

Yeap, what I was going for. Thanks for the correction! ^^"

Atheris wrote:I wasn't beaten as a child. One of my best friends was. Said best friend hates his parents beyond belief and ran away multiple times. I currently still live with my parents and love them more than many other things in this world.

There's quite the piece of evidence for you.

I'd say that that's an anecdote which doesn't really work.

After all, I was beaten as a child, one of my best friends wasn't. He's now in jail for hacking into a few government servers.

Or maybe there's multiple factors involved that lead to various outcomes.

State of Turelisa wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:Assault does not stop being assault because the person you're assaulting happens to be a child.

Assault is unjustifiable physical harm for a selfish motive, such as revenge or vengeance.

Corporal punishment is justifiable. It's immediate aim is at correcting and deterring misbehaviour by which character is reformed in the long term.

George Orwell wrote: It is a mistake to think such methods do not work. They work very well for their special purpose.

Dr Samuel Johnson wrote:I would rather have the rod to be the general terror to all, to make them learn...The rod produces an effect which terminates in itself. A child is afraid of being whipped, and gets his task, and there’s an end on’t;

Proverbs 29:215 wrote: The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.

Is the Orwell quote from 1984?

"The rod produces an effect which terminates in itself" is just blatantly untrue. There are lasting effects of corporal punishment.

"The rod and reproof" together, are not the opposite of "left to himself". This is a basic fallacy (fallacy of the missing middle). Other options are just-the-rod (very bad) and just-the-reproof (quite good).

Sundiata wrote:

Geneviev wrote:I don't know that I would even be able to do it.

I fought often as a younger man before becoming Catholic.

I never liked violence, personally. If I were to ever have children, I wouldn't be able to hit them. It would probably make it harder to teach them, but I just think kids are too small and mostly harmless for that sort of thing.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

State of Turelisa wrote:
Assault is unjustifiable physical harm for a selfish motive, such as revenge or vengeance.

Corporal punishment is justifiable. It's immediate aim is at correcting and deterring misbehaviour by which character is reformed in the long term.

Is the Orwell quote from 1984?

"The rod produces an effect which terminates in itself" is just blatantly untrue. There are lasting effects of corporal punishment.

"The rod and reproof" together, are not the opposite of "left to himself". This is a basic fallacy (fallacy of the missing middle). Other options are just-the-rod (very bad) and just-the-reproof (quite good).

It comes from "Orwell's England". It goes onto say that this treatment was only for the poorer boys. The wealthy boys would be "[goaded] along in a competitive fatherly way, with jokes and digs in the ribs, and perhaps the odd tap with the pencil, but no hair-pulling and no caning. It was the poor 'clever' boys who suffered."

And, as Orwell refers to corporal punishment as suffering, which doesn't sound like a glowing review of its practise, that leaves us with the Bible and the perspective of a man who lived in the 1700s (long before any of the multitude of research condemning corporal punishment came out).

So, in favour, we have the subjective opinion... largely of people long dead. Against, we have modern research which cites it as harmful and counter-productive.

I'm going to have to put my faith in the research.

I believe that no matter what society you are in, for a middle-aged person, when you are young, you will probably have the memory of receiving corporal punishment.I think corporal punishment as a means of education is useful for children before the age of five.It's similar to Pavlov's conditioned reflex training. Corporal punishment and candy can help develop some habits. Because children are too young to understand complex concepts.But Pavlov was experimenting with his dog and brother at the same time. When he rings the bell and doesn't give food, the dog drools and his brother jumps up and fights with him.So when a child goes to school, he should be given enough respect and use verbal criticism instead of corporal punishment.
Of course, corporal punishment for educational purposes and domestic violence are fundamentally different.