I read about "hot saucing" on the internet

[sadhatter]

Did anyone say that spanking did not involve physical contact?

What are you getting at, you said i used a dodge in relation to non hitting spanking, i asked you to bold the dodge. For my own education as to where it was and so that i could understand my mistake and not use it again.

Either
A) Bold the dodge and show me to be a fool.
B) Admit you were thinking of another poster, and probably didn't even read my entire post.

 

[Region Rat]

What are you getting at, you said i used a dodge in relation to non hitting spanking, i asked you to bold the dodge. For my own education as to where it was and so that i could understand my mistake and not use it again.

Either
A) Bold the dodge and show me to be a fool.
B) Admit you were thinking of another poster, and probably didn't even read my entire post.

Looking back, I see my mistake. I admit I was thinking about another poster. My apologies.

 

[Rufo]

Yes, when you break the law. Is there a law against a parent spanking their child?

I may have expressed myself unclearly. I was basically restating my question from earlier in the thread, where I asked why corporal punishment is considered inappropriate in judicial systems, but appropriate for children. It appears to me to be a double standard.

 

[ponderingturtle]

By the same dictionary literal method, the first definition of"molest" is to annoy or bother. When you tell your child for the third time to stop playing video games and do their homework, I can assure you they are annoyed and bothered. Therefore, telling your kids to stop playing video games is a form of molesting your children.

We can argue about whether it's a beneficial form of molesting your kids, but I'm going to call you a child molester while we have the discussion.

Sure, of course this is because people fail to differentiate sexual molestation from acceptable forms of molestation.

 

[Roboramma]

Sure, of course this is because people fail to differentiate sexual molestation from acceptable forms of molestation.

And if we were to have a discussion about whether or not other "forms of molestation" are acceptable or not, do you think it would be useful to that discussion to insist on that particular phrase? Or would you be willing to simply accept the way that the word is treated in actual speech and instead talk about "bothering your children" rather than "molesting your children"?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Adding more false analogies to the discussion is not making the case that spanking is not hitting.

Bothering is to molesting as spanking is to hitting might pass muster as an SAT multiple choice answer, but it doesn't make the case that "hitting" is a not proper way but instead a distorted way of framing "spanking".

The problem is not lack of understanding of the point. The problem is differing underlying philosophies about hitting children.

The SuperNanny on Joy Beher last night agrees with the no spanking side. And despite the discrediting effect having a reality show imparts, SuperNanny really is very good at what she does. There's a right wing spanking supporter on the show who doesn't get the message spanking is not necessary. She only hears, "it didn't hurt me".

 

[sadhatter]

Adding more false analogies to the discussion is not making the case that spanking is not hitting.

Bothering is to molesting as spanking is to hitting might pass muster as an SAT multiple choice answer, but it doesn't make the case that "hitting" is a not proper way but instead a distorted way of framing "spanking".

The problem is not lack of understanding of the point. The problem is differing underlying philosophies about hitting children.

The SuperNanny on Joy Beher last night agrees with the no spanking side. And despite the discrediting effect having a reality show imparts, SuperNanny really is very good at what she does. There's a right wing spanking supporter on the show who doesn't get the message spanking is not necessary. She only hears, "it didn't hurt me".

In my opinion the problem is that people simply change the meaning of a word in order to say " see it is fine. " in this case, hitting.

And at that point, the conversation is stuck in the mud. When someone changes the definition of hitting to " Striking with enough force to cause permanent damage, with the intent to cause permanent damage. " , where can you really go? What they are essentially saying is " I have a different definition of this word, i know your definition, but if you cannot prove your case using my definition then i win. "

And anyone can see this is silly. I could change the definition of drunk to " Can't walk, and can't see straight. " and then, by the logic these people are using, drive around smashed all the time, but as long as i can walk and see straight, be perfectly fine.

But at the core of it, they know that playing word games isn't making their point, they are just attempting to frustrate the opposition into not replying.

 

[RSLancastr]

...when you consume Capsaicin from wiki:

Wow, I guess I should stop consuming Capsaicin from Wiki then!

 

[Cavemonster]

And if we were to have a discussion about whether or not other "forms of molestation" are acceptable or not, do you think it would be useful to that discussion to insist on that particular phrase? Or would you be willing to simply accept the way that the word is treated in actual speech and instead talk about "bothering your children" rather than "molesting your children"?

Exactly, and the fact that some people insist on using an emotionally loaded phrase rather than a more emotionally neutral one shows that they're not interested in sober debate. Period.

 

[sadhatter]

Exactly, and the fact that some people insist on using an emotionally loaded phrase rather than a more emotionally neutral one shows that they're not interested in sober debate. Period.

Or it shows they are unwilling to accept " i want my definition to be the one we use" when said definition is not in the ballpark of the common use of the word.

Hitting, is not an emotionally loaded word. I can hit on a girl, i can hit a baseball , i can have a smash hit record, i can act in a hit film, i can hit my computer, i can hit my kids, i can hit my cat.

Some of these insinuate violence, others don't. No one hears " He hit on a girl." and gets all hot under the collar. And no one uses " He had a hit film" to insinuate that the film was violent.

Hit in the sense of , baseball, computer, kids and cat ( in the examples i gave.). All mean different things, but the key is, the application of force in order to get an outcome. People attempting to get the word " hitting" removed from the debate, are the ones attempting to obfuscate. If hitting was such an emotionally loaded word, one that meant, as some try to potray, a beating. Then it wouldn't make sense that i hit my computer, it would destroy it. But everyone here knows almost exactly what i mean when i say i hit my computer.

 

[Cavemonster]

Or it shows they are unwilling to accept " i want my definition to be the one we use" when said definition is not in the ballpark of the common use of the word.

Hitting, is not an emotionally loaded word. I can hit on a girl, i can hit a baseball , i can have a smash hit record, i can act in a hit film, i can hit my computer, i can hit my kids, i can hit my cat.

Some of these insinuate violence, others don't. No one hears " He hit on a girl." and gets all hot under the collar. And no one uses " He had a hit film" to insinuate that the film was violent.

Hit in the sense of , baseball, computer, kids and cat ( in the examples i gave.). All mean different things, but the key is, the application of force in order to get an outcome. People attempting to get the word " hitting" removed from the debate, are the ones attempting to obfuscate. If hitting was such an emotionally loaded word, one that meant, as some try to potray, a beating. Then it wouldn't make sense that i hit my computer, it would destroy it. But everyone here knows almost exactly what i mean when i say i hit my computer.

"Hitting your kids" has a very widely accepted emotional meaning in US english.

 

[Beth]

Exactly, and the fact that some people insist on using an emotionally loaded phrase rather than a more emotionally neutral one shows that they're not interested in sober debate. Period.

I agree.

Hitting, is not an emotionally loaded word.

When discussing the discipline of children, "hitting" is indeed emotionally loaded in ways that "spanking" is not.

When discussing parental discipline of children, I think it's best to say 'spanking' as opposed to 'hitting'. Spanking is more specific, communicating exactly what sort of hitting (yes, I agree that spanking is a form of hitting) is being discussed.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I agree.

When discussing the discipline of children, "hitting" is indeed emotionally loaded in ways that "spanking" is not.

When discussing parental discipline of children, I think it's best to say 'spanking' as opposed to 'hitting'. Spanking is more specific, communicating exactly what sort of hitting (yes, I agree that spanking is a form of hitting) is being discussed.

Its just bowing to their cognitive dissonance.

 

[sadhatter]

"Hitting your kids" has a very widely accepted emotional meaning in US english.

And it can mean anything from a light spank, to a full on beating. There is no emotional charge to the word, the emotional charge is in the description of the hit. I mean, i have seen the movie precious and on the back it doesn't say " A story of a girl who was hit by her mother." , and the move the Great Santini, does not have the caption " A father who hit his kids.", and no one would ever describe a scene in which a child is beaten in a film as " The kid was getting hit. ".

Again we show the word has varied meanings that only can only be quantified with a qualifying word or phrase. Such as " He hit his kid really hard". No one is saying everyone who hits their kids hits them very hard, but those who do hit their kids hate admitting they hit their kids so they want to change the definition of hit, when the word itself even when used specifically to denote a strike, has a huge amount of meanings.

The phrase "beating" your kids does have an emotional connotation. A beating is more akin to what you do in a fight. A beating, is what someone does to a lazy horse. But no one is saying beating, i know it would be much easier for you if they were, but you can't just say " The definition of hitting is now the definition of beating. And since beating is an emotionally loaded word, you can't use hitting." that is, at best playground esque logic, and at worst an obvious attempt to obfuscate the issue.

 

[sadhatter]

I agree.

When discussing the discipline of children, "hitting" is indeed emotionally loaded in ways that "spanking" is not.

When discussing parental discipline of children, I think it's best to say 'spanking' as opposed to 'hitting'. Spanking is more specific, communicating exactly what sort of hitting (yes, I agree that spanking is a form of hitting) is being discussed.

You say it yourself, spanking is hitting. And beyond that spanking is subject to the same losses of control, and mistakes that can be made with any type of hitting. To say spanking and demand that someone refrain from saying what it really is, is simply trying to polish a turd.

If you spank your kids, your hitting your kids. Maybe you do it lightly , maybe you do it heavily, but you are hitting your kids. You can't just say " but i don't like that word." and demand others don't use it when it is a perfectly accurate description of what you are doing.

No one is saying Beating, which implies brutality, damage, and abuse. they are saying hitting, which is a perfectly accurate description, and beyond that a word that has several other meanings, so to say it is an emotionally loaded word, the likes of Genocide, Murder, or Torture, is simply silly.

 

[sadhatter]

You know, in addition to the above points, i notice that a lot of the time, when someone does something crappy, and they know it , they always want to change the definition of the word. One of the best, shining examples comes from the first season ( or possibly second, i am sure fans will know which episode i am talking about. ) of the ultimate fighter.

One fighter dislikes another and decides to urinate on his pillow. The amount of urine was not enough to soak the pillow, but was quite obvious. When called on this, the urination explains " I didn't **** on his pillow, come on. I just sprinkled it. " and actually attempts to use this logic.

And i guess that makes it okay then. Your not hitting your kids your spanking them, your not peeing on a pillow, your just sprinkling it, your not dropping an upper decker, you made a slight fecal position miscalculation.

I see it all now, it is so clear. It is not the action that is important, it is the phrasing, heck i am going to go call my cigar a carrot right now, and watch my lungs get better!

 

[Beth]

Its just bowing to their cognitive dissonance.

I wouldn't call it that, but even if it is accurate, so what? What is your objection to using the word 'spanking' rather than 'hitting'? If you want to persuade people to stop spanking, it seems to me that you will have more success if you phrase things without using words that lack the negative emotional connotations.

 

[dirtywick]

You say it yourself, spanking is hitting. And beyond that spanking is subject to the same losses of control, and mistakes that can be made with any type of hitting. To say spanking and demand that someone refrain from saying what it really is, is simply trying to polish a turd.

If you spank your kids, your hitting your kids. Maybe you do it lightly , maybe you do it heavily, but you are hitting your kids. You can't just say " but i don't like that word." and demand others don't use it when it is a perfectly accurate description of what you are doing.

No one is saying Beating, which implies brutality, damage, and abuse. they are saying hitting, which is a perfectly accurate description, and beyond that a word that has several other meanings, so to say it is an emotionally loaded word, the likes of Genocide, Murder, or Torture, is simply silly.

Spanking is a specific type of hitting, open handed and to the buttocks. It's more perfectly accurate to use spanking when referring to spanking.

 

[Checkmite]

ETA: Hypothetical: How would you all feel if lemon juice/liver/broccoli was used instead? No pain will result, but it would surely be a negative stimuli. At the end of the day, punishment must be unpleasant (duh).

Interesting that this was just kind of blipped over.

Hot sauce is a food. It's edible, non-toxic, designed to be taken internally. The sensation and taste it creates in the mouth can be unpleasant for some but it's not "pain" in the sense of spanking or burning like some people here are calling it, any more than the extreme sour taste of a lemon is pain.

 

[Beth]

To say spanking and demand that someone refrain from saying what it really is, is simply trying to polish a turd.

Do you feel the same way about using the word 'abortion' rather than 'murder'?