Bible and Spanking Children

[Christian]

Paradox wrote:
It's right there in parentheses! Let 'naughtiness' equal [what you would consider to be actions meritous of CP].

Missed it completely. But I think we already covered this. As I said before, some kids never need CP. And most kids only need CP counted times. There are few kids that will need a little more attention in this matter but, CP is one of many tools available. Even with the most rebellious kids (yes, and I do believe every child is born with a particular temperament, like a very child is born with innate abilities, gifts)

Paradox wrote:
So, on that ground, is the predisposition towards being a child that 'needs' CP genetic/inborn?

I think so.

 

[Paradox]

Paradox wrote:
It's right there in parentheses! Let 'naughtiness' equal [what you would consider to be actions meritous of CP].

Missed it completely. But I think we already covered this. As I said before, some kids never need CP. And most kids only need CP counted times. There are few kids that will need a little more attention in this matter but, CP is one of many tools available. Even with the most rebellious kids (yes, and I do believe every child is born with a particular temperament, like a very child is born with innate abilities, gifts)

No prob. I don't disagree with you here, in terms of different 'types' of kids and their behaviors that is.

Paradox wrote:
So, on that ground, is the predisposition towards being a child that 'needs' CP genetic/inborn?

I think so.

So, in that case you're telling me that the kids who do 'need' and get CP...do so for a reason they have no control over?

If a child is born with a tendency for rebelliousness, which manifests, he receives CP because he wasn't lucky enough to be born with less of a disposition to actions that would get him spanked?

 

[Christian]

Paradox wrote:
So, in that case you're telling me that the kids who do 'need' and get CP...do so for a reason they have no control over?

I guess.

Paradox wrote:
If a child is born with a tendency for rebelliousness, which manifests, he receives CP because he wasn't lucky enough to be born with less of a disposition to actions that would get him spanked?

Yes, I think you can reason this way if you like. I guess I could reason that a child who was unlucky enough to be born lactose intolerance, can't drink normal milk.

 

[Paradox]

Paradox wrote:
So, in that case you're telling me that the kids who do 'need' and get CP...do so for a reason they have no control over?

I guess.

Kind of makes you think, doesn't it? The world around us has no requirement to be fair to us petty humans...but we, at least, should strive to uphold that balance between each other.

Paradox wrote:
If a child is born with a tendency for rebelliousness, which manifests, he receives CP because he wasn't lucky enough to be born with less of a disposition to actions that would get him spanked?

Yes, I think you can reason this way if you like. I guess I could reason that a child who was unlucky enough to be born lactose intolerance, can't drink normal milk.

Ah, but you see...like I just said, the world doesn't...and can't...change it's unfairnesses (or the consequences of them) to those who happen to possess them. We can. You have a choice of whether or not to punish your child for something that is fundamentally not his/her fault...for a reasoning that is not fair.

This is why we try to make accomodations for less fortunate people. This is why we bother to search for cures for deadly diseases and viruses...why we don't just say "well, too bad, that's your punishment for having a weak immune system" or "too bad, that's what happens when you're born with crippled limbs".

If we determine that such things are beyond the control of the person, it is understanding and effort towards finding a remedy, not 'punishment', that is necessary.

 

[Christian]

Paradox wrote:
Kind of makes you think, doesn't it? The world around us has no requirement to be fair to us petty humans...but we, at least, should strive to uphold that balance between each other.

Fairness is a subjective concept. What you may see as fair, I may see otherwise. To me it is a useless concept. What is useful to me, is the concept of productivity, results. God has created laws and rules by which humans obtain results. I may not decide which cards are dealt to me, but I can decide which hands to play.

Paradox wrote:
You have a choice of whether or not to punish your child for something that is fundamentally not his/her fault...for a reasoning that is not fair.

I can appreciate your logic. That is a different perspective from where I see it. To me, it is irrelevant if it is my child's fault or not. CP is the most effective tool in some particular instances.

I really don't care if my child does drink coke out of the fear of CP or because she understands it is bad for her. She just doesn't do it. (she is allergic to those types of drinks).

I'm not teaching her anything different than how the world operates. When she becomes an adult, she will (hopefully) become a law abiding citizen whether she agrees with the ordinances or not. By that time, she may already have learn that there must be respect for authority. And that transgression will (can) result in negative consequences.

I see the world around me, and I perceive that deterrence is the most compelling reason why people follow the law.

Look at the scandals in mayor US corporations. These are suppose to be educated and ethical people running them. The economic well being rests on the shoulders of them. Yet, the decide to lie, cheat and steal.

Why, because they can. US legislation allows them to do this. There are no negative consequences to their actions. I predict the legislation will change, and will impose stiff penalties on these actions. The deterrence factor will make a difference.

I'm not phylosophising here, it is a statistical fact that crime rates are in direct proportion to effectiveness of prosecution.

I want my child to have a full and happy life. I only have a small window of opportunity to teach her. So the vaccine stings a little, it is infinitesimal price to pay in exchange for a wholesome, happy adulthood.

 

[PotatoStew]

Paradox:

This has been an interesting discussion, and I've been content just to follow along and watch where it's going, but I wanted to comment on this:

Ah, but you see...like I just said, the world doesn't...and can't...change it's unfairnesses (or the consequences of them) to those who happen to possess them. We can. You have a choice of whether or not to punish your child for something that is fundamentally not his/her fault...for a reasoning that is not fair.

This seems flawed to me, and begs the question of the legitimacy of CP. If some children do in fact need CP to learn certain lessons, the fact that they are genetically disposed in that direction is not sufficient reason to withhold CP. In fact, if they need CP to learn the lesson, it would be unfair NOT to use it.

Furthermore, if that child is genetically predisposed to be rebellious, and he grows into a rebellious adult who breaks laws, should he not be punished at that point because of his genetic predisposition?

From your viewpoint, CP is bad and always unwarranted, therefore it is unfair to use it in the above-mentioned case. To Christian's viewpoint, when properly administered it is a useful tool that can actually help the child in the long run, and therefore it's definitely fair to use it, and it would be unfair to the child not to use it.

 

[Paradox]

Fairness is a subjective concept. What you may see as fair, I may see otherwise. To me it is a useless concept.

Okay, my turn "this cannot be true". If the fairness in question was truly of no concern to you, you would not have preconceived ideas of how to have things done. I would find it interesting to see you support this position of yours on 'fairness' as a christian.

What I think you actually mean, is that you differentiate between what would be considered 'fair' on a sociological manner, because you have already subscribed to the notion that true 'fairness' is already inscribed by the words of men two millenia ago.

God has created laws and rules by which humans obtain results. I may not decide which cards are dealt to me, but I can decide which hands to play.

And you choose to play a card (as a parent) that punishes a child because their cards didn't turn out that great. I realize this twisted logic is inherent in the theism you espouse (i.e. punishment for a disposition towards sin that was put there in place originally by the punisher), but if you are so hopelessly lost in your capability to make decisions independent from the axioms of men whom you can't say for sure were or were not inspired by whatever deity you believe int, then this conversation is at an impasse. I do not mean this insultingly at all...it is just simply impossible to appeal to a person's sense of basic human justice when it has already been surrendered to a mythology.

I can appreciate your logic. That is a different perspective from where I see it. To me, it is irrelevant if it is my child's fault or not. CP is the most effective tool in some particular instances.

That is, not only, entirely of personal opinion, but completely situational. It is effective because you cannot possibly see it as not. Apparently, because a quotation (not even one attributed to Jesus himself!) makes mention of it as a means of discipline.

I really don't care if my child does drink coke out of the fear of CP or because she understands it is bad for her. She just doesn't do it. (she is allergic to those types of drinks).

Ah...better a child who doesn't do things because she fears being hit, than a child who understands why doing something might harm her. I have trouble not seeing remarkable similarities between these notions and those concerning sin in general: where, oddly, the greater majority of christian would hide sin from their children at all costs...as if naivete was a virtue, rather than a child who could face sin day in and day out, and resist. It's called trust in one's child, and trust in one's ability to actually teach them. CP fails miserably in this respect...at least the sort that you espouse for the reasons you are giving.

I'm not teaching her anything different than how the world operates.

Good point. In this case, she learns that the world operates in a such a manner that christians who have surrendered the ability to makes moral decisions on their own will probably hit her because of a verse in a book.

When she becomes an adult, she will (hopefully) become a law abiding citizen whether she agrees with the ordinances or not. By that time, she may already have learn that there must be respect for authority. And that transgression will (can) result in negative consequences.

And, all the while, the child has been robbed of the chance of arriving at those conclusions by herself. This is why many theists actually can make absurd comments such as "without a belief in god, why bother being good?"...because they have been bred to be led with reigns and blinders, not to walk for themselves.

I see the world around me, and I perceive that deterrence is the most compelling reason why people follow the law.

That's sad. Funny...the nihilist being the one who is lamenting a unfortunate inability by so many humans to live in a much more ideal set of circumstances. Well, heck...even Spock cried in the first movie.

Look at the scandals in mayor US corporations. These are suppose to be educated and ethical people running them. The economic well being rests on the shoulders of them. Yet, the decide to lie, cheat and steal.

Brilliant example. And why is that? Because they no longer feel the constraints of consequences to barricade their actions. Because they have no self-born concept of acting generally 'good' for 'good' itself. The movie Dogma is a wonderful movie in such a sense...the 'truth' taught is, that if you can cheat the rules, why not? That, after all, is the only thing keeping you from turning to bad things.

Why, because they can. US legislation allows them to do this. There are no negative consequences to their actions. I predict the legislation will change, and will impose stiff penalties on these actions. The deterrence factor will make a difference.

Someone will always be able to be in a position where they are above such restrictions. Now that is realistic. It is a much more self-fulfilling idea to have, in that place, someone who is good by their own decisions, not one who is so long as (s)he is being policed.

I'm not phylosophising here, it is a statistical fact that crime rates are in direct proportion to effectiveness of prosecution.

Not that this is even pertinent to anything to do with CP...but were I to entertain your non sequitur, could you even support it 'statistically'?

I want my child to have a full and happy life.

You just don't want her/him to be able to decide what 'happy' means for themselves.

I only have a small window of opportunity to teach her. So the vaccine stings a little, it is infinitesimal price to pay in exchange for a wholesome, happy adulthood.

You gamble more dangerously than most people who spend 15 hour days in casinos. Funny thing is, like them, I suspect you have this self-assurance that your 'method' by which to cash in big couldn't possibly leave you with a big empty hole in your pocket...metaphorically speaking. Is your child worth that gamble?

---

This seems flawed to me, and begs the question of the legitimacy of CP. If some children do in fact need CP to learn certain lessons, the fact that they are genetically disposed in that direction is not sufficient reason to withhold CP. In fact, if they need CP to learn the lesson, it would be unfair NOT to use it.

Ah-ah....what was concluded was not that "some children do in fact need CP to learn certain lessons", but that some children are born with disposition to commit acts that Christian, particularly, thinks would merit CP. If you do as well, then it would both of you finding yourself in hypocritical waters...which isn't a problem so long as you don't believe in 'fairness' either.

Furthermore, if that child is genetically predisposed to be rebellious, and he grows into a rebellious adult who breaks laws, should he not be punished at that point because of his genetic predisposition?

That usually isn't the case. Mental conditions (and other such issues) are always weighed heavily in the verdict. I'm not entirely well versed with legal issues, but sentencing mentally unstable people for crimes usually doesn't go over to well, from what I understand.

If they cannot help what they do, our immediate goal should be to help them, not chastise them. Although torturous methods were often used, at least this idea was supported by old theistic ideas of illnesses, where the goal was to free the body from the demon possessing it, not to fault the host for something out of their control.

From your viewpoint, CP is bad and always unwarranted, therefore it is unfair to use it in the above-mentioned case. To Christian's viewpoint, when properly administered it is a useful tool that can actually help the child in the long run, and therefore it's definitely fair to use it, and it would be unfair to the child not to use it.

Forget fairness (since it appears I can't even appeal to a basic sense of common human decency), it's simple hypocrisy. It's the equivalent slapping someone with Tourette's for insulting you, no matter what concept of 'fairness' you rationalize it to or justify it with. If I didn't know better, I'd think maybe you were being intentionally disengenuous.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Good point up there, Paradox, about punishment denying one the opportunity of making an ethical choice. In fact, I would go so far as to say that xians, on a very fundamental level, are denied the opportunity to develop ethically -- just as a man helping a little old lady across the street at gunpoint cannot be said to have performed an ethical act.

Just as the threat of death robs that man of a chance to make an ethical choice, of a chance to act ethically, so the hell/heaven thing robs xians of a chance to develop true ethics.

Kinda turns the tables on the "no morality without god thing, eh?..

 

[Paradox]

Good point up there, Paradox, about punishment denying one the opportunity of making an ethical choice. In fact, I would go so far as to say that xians, on a very fundamental level, are denied the opportunity to develop ethically -- just as a man helping a little old lady across the street at gunpoint cannot be said to have performed an ethical act.

Just as the threat of death robs that man of a chance to make an ethical choice, of a chance to act ethically, so the hell/heaven thing robs xians of a chance to develop true ethics.

Kinda turns the tables on the "no morality without god thing, eh?..

 

[Loki]

Christian,

I'm not teaching her anything different than how the world operates. When she becomes an adult, she will (hopefully) become a law abiding citizen whether she agrees with the ordinances or not. By that time, she may already have learn that there must be respect for authority. And that transgression will (can) result in negative consequences.

Your point seems weak - you are trying to link "respect for authority" to "physical punishment". I would hope my daughter has (or will have) respect for authority, yet not suffer physical punishment. To make your case here, you need to so why the only way for your child to reach "respect for authority" was via the path of CP.

Please note that the points being made against you are not (a) children should not be disciplined; or (b) CP does not work at all. Rather the issue is "are there viable alternatives, that have the same or greater effectiveness without the negatives that CP carries". I'm agreeing with the destination you are striving for, I'm simply suggesting that I don't think you have explored the range of alternatives open to you in moving towards your goal - and it seems your reason for not wanting to consider alternatives is essentially "because the bible says it should be this way".

Note the highlighted portions in your quote. When you daughter becomes an adult, she will suffer negative consequences for transgressions. In Australia, those 'negative consequences' can *never* (legally) include physical punishment. Never. Not for any crime. As an adult, your daughter can gun down 36 innocent people, and yet the state cannot (legally) strike her body with any rod, cane or paddle (and in case you're wondering - yes, the death penalty was abolished in the 60's).

Do you agree that adults should be exempt from physical punishment for 'transgressions'? If not, then ignore this point - you are obviously in favour of 'CP' in a range of situations - (a few strikes of the cane for shoplifting adults perhaps?). If so, then why the contrast between child and adult?

 

[Christian]

Paradox wrote:
I would find it interesting to see you support this position of yours on 'fairness' as a christian.

There is a very old dilemma presented to law students. The question goes something like this: If you had to choose between justice and the law, what would you choose?

The correct answer from a jurisprudence point of view, believe or not is the law.

Paradox wrote:
What I think you actually mean, is that you differentiate between what would be considered 'fair' on a sociological manner, because you have already subscribed to the notion that true 'fairness' is already inscribed by the words of men two millenia ago.

No, I mean that fairness is an elussive concept. What is fair? A capitalist society where the rich get richer or a communist where everyone (expect the elite) is basically poor.

Is it fair that some people are born is Sweden and some in Somalia? The communist (socialist) have for decades tried to find this concept, balance, it does not exist.

The moment humans were given the gift to choose their response to the environment, fairness lost any meaning. You see, it's not what happens to you that matters, it's what you do with what happens to you.

The moment you say, "this is not fair", you are losing your ability to respond. In effect, you are saying, circumstance ultimately define my destiny.

So, phylosophically it is exactly the opposite of what you propose.

Paradox wrote:
And you choose to play a card (as a parent) that punishes a child because their cards didn't turn out that great. I realize this twisted logic is inherent in the theism you espouse (i.e. punishment for a disposition towards sin that was put there in place originally by the punisher), but if you are so hopelessly lost in your capability to make decisions independent from the axioms of men whom you can't say for sure were or were not inspired by whatever deity you believe int, then this conversation is at an impasse. I do not mean this insultingly at all...it is just simply impossible to appeal to a person's sense of basic human justice when it has already been surrendered to a mythology.

It sound to me like you are not ready to engage or resolve the paradoxes your philosophy of life present to you. This response says nothing. I have no idea what this is suppose to mean. It is a response from prejudice and not reason.

Paradox wrote:
Ah...better a child who doesn't do things because she fears being hit, than a child who understands why doing something might harm her.

There are fundamental differences between Christians and atheists. This is one. Atheist have this illusion that they can understand everything and that they have not need for obedience by faith. The irony is that whether you want to accept it or not, you do have masters and you obey them blindly. On of them is you own judment and understanding.

Paradox wrote:
I have trouble not seeing remarkable similarities between these notions and those concerning sin in general: where, oddly, the greater majority of christian would hide sin from their children at all costs...as if naivete was a virtue, rather than a child who could face sin day in and day out, and resist.

Another excellent example of a fundamental difference in approach. The Christian philosophy is the run away as far as possible from temptation because Christians understand that the humans are weak and that more times than not faced with temptation we will sucumb to it.

So, the Christian advice for an alcoholic is to run away from any activity that involves drinks. Your approach is to stare the drink in the face and develop the will power to say no. It is a sublime, romantic notion, and it doesn't work.

A person that day in and day out is exposed to drugs, believe me, will sooner or later become a drug user.

Paradox wrote:
It's called trust in one's child, and trust in one's ability to actually teach them. CP fails miserably in this respect...at least the sort that you espouse for the reasons you are giving.

Humans cannot be trusted. Systems are developed constantly to protect humans from themselves.

Here an illustration of the both phylosophies at work. For years the US government spend millions of dollars educating drivers on how to drive safely. In theory, if everyone followed the rules of safe driving, accidents would be minimal.

In practice, accidents skyrocked as car sales did. What was the solution? Let's create safer cars, airbags, antilock brakes, seatbelts. The system protects drivers.

I much rather trust that my child is driving a very safe car then her driving skills.

Paradox wrote:
Good point. In this case, she learns that the world operates in a such a manner that christians who have surrendered the ability to makes moral decisions on their own will probably hit her because of a verse in a book.

Yes, Christian surrender their will to the will of God. This is another fundamental difference. And again, you too surrender your ability to make moral choices. They are just of a different kind.

Paradox wrote:
And, all the while, the child has been robbed of the chance of arriving at those conclusions by herself. This is why many theists actually can make absurd comments such as "without a belief in god, why bother being good?"...because they have been bred to be led with reigns and blinders, not to walk for themselves.

The great lie here is that you walk by yourself. What conclusions have you arrived at that I could not find the source where you took them from. What actions do you take that are not dependent on the work or effort of others before you. It is silly to think we arrive at conclusions all by our lonesome.

No, the discussion is not if we can think for ourselves, it is which source is of greater wisdom when in conflict.

Paradox wrote:
That's sad. Funny...the nihilist being the one who is lamenting a unfortunate inability by so many humans to live in a much more ideal set of circumstances. Well, heck...even Spock cried in the first movie.

Well, learn to accept it. It is your reality as well. If you are of this world and live in this world, your ideal world is an illusion.

Paradox wrote:
Brilliant example. And why is that? Because they no longer feel the constraints of consequences to barricade their actions. Because they have no self-born concept of acting generally 'good' for 'good' itself. The movie Dogma is a wonderful movie in such a sense...the 'truth' taught is, that if you can cheat the rules, why not? That, after all, is the only thing keeping you from turning to bad things.

Yes, this human condition permeates all, poor, rich, black, white, tall, short. All humans are like this. Given the chance and with no restrictions, humans will ultimately choose the selfish act.

Paradox wrote:
Someone will always be able to be in a position where they are above such restrictions. Now that is realistic. It is a much more self-fulfilling idea to have, in that place, someone who is good by their own decisions, not one who is so long as (s)he is being policed.

Show me who is above the law and I will show you a tyrrant. Show me a human who is not accoutable to the system and I'll show you evil person.

It is funny that you should not be aware of these things. Your country is one of the most regulated and normed in America.

Paradox wrote:
Not that this is even pertinent to anything to do with CP...but were I to entertain your non sequitur, could you even support it 'statistically'?

You have got to be kidding, this one is so obvious i shouldn't have to support it. But ok, NYC with Guilliani is an excellent example of the phenomenon. Singapour is another example.

Paradox wrote:
You just don't want her/him to be able to decide what 'happy' means for themselves.

Well, if happy means being a drug addict or an alcoholic, no I don't.

Paradox wrote:
You gamble more dangerously than most people who spend 15 hour days in casinos. Funny thing is, like them, I suspect you have this self-assurance that your 'method' by which to cash in big couldn't possibly leave you with a big empty hole in your pocket...metaphorically speaking. Is your child worth that gamble?

Why a gamble? Mine is a sure thing. From my side of the fence, it is you who is glambling.

VD wrote:
Good point up there, Paradox, about punishment denying one the opportunity of making an ethical choice. In fact, I would go so far as to say that xians, on a very fundamental level, are denied the opportunity to develop ethically -- just as a man helping a little old lady across the street at gunpoint cannot be said to have performed an ethical act.

This is nonsense. What is this "denied the opportunity to develop ethically" rubbish. You are ethical or you are not. The motivation is irrelevant. In most cases, none can prove they would have acted but ethically. The system in most cases does not allow a choice.

If you don't pay your bills, someone is going to knock on your door. That you decide to pay on debts and say, you would not need anyone to knock on your door to pay is inconsequential.

Loki wrote:
Your point seems weak - you are trying to link "respect for authority" to "physical punishment". I would hope my daughter has (or will have) respect for authority, yet not suffer physical punishment. To make your case here, you need to so why the only way for your child to reach "respect for authority" was via the path of CP.

I'm linking that the act of defiance wherther a child or an adult brings consequences. As an adult, when you defy authority, CP is mostly used (i mean the penal system). CP on defiant attitudes are pertinent because a child understands the authority relationship if he or she does not want to accept it.

I find it hard to believe that it isnt obvious that sometimes "because that is the way things are" should be enough for a 5 year old". A 5 or 6 years does not have the capacity or authority to tell a parent what is right or wrong. The parent does.

You will give a sound explanation why, it is optional if the child accepts or not the explanation. What is not optional is obedence. A parent orders that you cannot go to the beach or pool without me. The child can argue that other adults will be there and that he can swim. The parent will say no, and that should be the end of it.

One day, maybe when he is 15, 20, 30, the once child will understand why. It doesn't really matter now, in this case, all that matters is that the child is safe from a possible drowning at a neighbor's pool or at the beach.

Loki wrote:
Please note that the points being made against you are not (a) children should not be disciplined; or (b) CP does not work at all. Rather the issue is "are there viable alternatives, that have the same or greater effectiveness without the negatives that CP carries".

Loki, the minute you do find viable alternatives that have the same or greater effectiveness you don't need CP. You are blessed with a child that corrects behavior without the need of CP. What I submit to you, is that there are children that leave you no choice. You have tried everything, timeouts, taking away a privileage, not giving a reward, but nothing works. I say it is time for a final warning.

Loki wrote:
I'm agreeing with the destination you are striving for, I'm simply suggesting that I don't think you have explored the range of alternatives open to you in moving towards your goal - and it seems your reason for not wanting to consider alternatives is essentially "because the bible says it should be this way".

I think I'm pretty well versed on the alternatives, and I can even categorized them by age, if you want. Distraction doesn't work very well for a 6 year old.

Loki wrote:
Note the highlighted portions in your quote. When you daughter becomes an adult, she will suffer negative consequences for transgressions. In Australia, those 'negative consequences' can *never* (legally) include physical punishment. Never. Not for any crime.

No transgression warrants people being handcuffed, there is no encarceration? I sorry, I can't believe that. Someone who murders only has to pay a fine?

Loki wrote:
As an adult, your daughter can gun down 36 innocent people, and yet the state cannot (legally) strike her body with any rod, cane or paddle (and in case you're wondering - yes, the death penalty was abolished in the 60's).

So, when a person is gunning these people down, the police just sits and waits till she is finished to politely ask her to put her weapon down. I don't want to live in Australia if this is the case.

I want to live in a state where if someone so much as pull a gun at me (and I don't have a gun) some officer if around can gun him down before he does me.

Hey, I want to live in a state (I do) where I can carry a weapon (I don't) to protect myself.

Loki wrote:
Do you agree that adults should be exempt from physical punishment for 'transgressions'?

Absolutely not. If I am witnessing a rape, I would like it to be legal that I can split the guys head open so that he stops.

Loki wrote:
If not, then ignore this point - you are obviously in favour of 'CP' in a range of situations - (a few strikes of the cane for shoplifting adults perhaps?). If so, then why the contrast between child and adult?

Well, if someone is running away with my hard earn money, I would like to have the right to tackle and submit the guy.

I do believe police officer all over the world have a cane where if someone defies them and resists the arrest, they can strike him as to make him comply. Man, if this were not so, I would think not many people would ever get arrested.

Police: Hey, you are under arrest.
Robber: Hey, you can't CP me.
Police: Put your hands behind your back.
Robber: No
Police: Oh, well, we are in Australia, have a nice day.

 

[PotatoStew]

Hi Paradox:

Ah-ah....what was concluded was not that "some children do in fact need CP to learn certain lessons", but that some children are born with disposition to commit acts that Christian, particularly, thinks would merit CP.

"Would merit CP" *if all other methods failed* ...unless I'm mistaken, Christian has been saying all along that CP is a last resort if all other methods failed (sorry to all if I've misunderstood). What I am saying is that it's possible that if there is a genetic predisposition in a child, and if no other method works, then it may in fact be "fair" to use CP to teach the child self-discipline (or are we not agreed that a certain amount of self-discipline is a good thing?) Mind you, I'm really not taking a side in the overall discussion (though it may seem that way), I just feel that the way you phrased your accusation of "unfairness" was not... um... fair.

That usually isn't the case. Mental conditions (and other such issues) are always weighed heavily in the verdict

Whoa! Who said anything about "mental conditions"? I'm still talking about a simple genetic predisposition towards rebelliousness, rabble-rousing, etc. Let's say there's a gang member who has always been rebellious since being a child (due to his genetic predisposition), and maybe he lives in a poor neighborhood with no good role-models (but hey, it's not his fault he was born poor)... if he gets a little carried away and commits a crime in the heat of some moment, and is otherwise mentally healthy, should he not be punished because his genetic predisposition and unfortunate circumstances led him to his situation? It wasn't his fault, after all.

It's the equivalent slapping someone with Tourette's for insulting you

No, it isn't. In your example, a slap won't cure the Tourettes. In that case it really truly is out of the person's control. In the case of a rebellious child, they can control their behavior, it may just be more difficult. Furthermore, if your analogy was valid, then you might as well say that sending a child to his room for (genetically predisposed) disobedience is the equivalent of sending someone with Tourette's to his room for insulting you. That analogy makes *any* form of punishment or discipline seem unfair.

If I didn't know better, I'd think maybe you were being intentionally disengenuous.

Nope... no disengenuousness (disengenuosity?)... just trying to work through the specific issue of fairness/unfairness that you brought up.

 

[Loki]

Christian,

I find it hard to believe that it isnt obvious that sometimes "because that is the way things are" should be enough for a 5 year old". A 5 or 6 years does not have the capacity or authority to tell a parent what is right or wrong. The parent does.

Not sure why you write this, since I addressed this already in my post - I have no problems with 'adults know more about right and wrong than children' and that sometims 'because that is the way things are' is a necessary response. As I said, the issue is not defiance, but consequences.

Loki, the minute you do find viable alternatives that have the same or greater effectiveness you don't need CP.

Agreed ... and those alternatives *always* exist.

You are blessed with a child that corrects behavior without the need of CP.

Because we choose to actively pursue alternatives.

What I submit to you, is that there are children that leave you no choice.

And I submit to you that the parent has failed to look hard enough.

You have tried everything, timeouts, taking away a privileage, not giving a reward, but nothing works. I say it is time for a final warning.

No, it's time to re-examine the nature of the relationship betwene the child and parents. Something's wrong and it's not working - why assume the child?

I think I'm pretty well versed on the alternatives, and I can even categorized them by age, if you want. Distraction doesn't work very well for a 6 year old.

But I'd suggest to you that you initial assumption that CP is both (a)valid and (b) necessary if poor behaviour reaches a certian point, means that you were/are not able to truly evaluate the alternatives - you start from a position that says "CP may be necessary". The very first time your daughter reached a "point of open defiance", did you think "well, I hoped it won't come to this, but CP's the ciorrect option now", or did you think "perhaps it's time for CP - no, I don't want to go there yet - lets try 'X'"?

No transgression warrants people being handcuffed, there is no encarceration? I sorry, I can't believe that. Someone who murders only has to pay a fine?

I am differentiating between physcially striking a human body, and physically restaining or limiting a human. I'm not sure why I need to point out the difference - I though it was clear. I've already said that moving children into another room (for example) can be a valid discipline tool - the equivalent of imprisonment, I guess. Do we really need to detail this any further - it seems self-evident what CP means (physically striking the body).

So, when a person is gunning these people down, the police just sits and waits till she is finished to politely ask her to put her weapon down. I don't want to live in Australia if this is the case.

Okay, sorry - sloppy writing! I was thinking only of "after the event", meaning the court system. You are quite correct - police officers, in that act of preventing a crime or arresting a suspect, have permission to use "reasonable force". But I think we are drifting a little off course with this adult/child analogy (which you brought up). CP is the child equivalent of the court system - it's a punishment delivered after a transgression. Referring to behaviour of arresting officers in a murder is going too far.

 

[Paradox]

There is a very old dilemma presented to law students. The question goes something like this: If you had to choose between justice and the law, what would you choose?

The correct answer from a jurisprudence point of view, believe or not is the law.

And what is the 'correct' answer from an ethical point of view? Or do you defer such things to mythological laws in all cases? In which case, if you have a son, have you (or would you, as case may be) have him stoned at his irreverence?

No, I mean that fairness is an elussive concept. What is fair? A capitalist society where the rich get richer or a communist where everyone (expect the elite) is basically poor.

I had/have already relinquished the 'fairness' point of view, as it appears a common notion was an, amazingly, incomprehensible concept. Although it says something, in that you feel no inling whatsoever to rethink views of yours which harm children for no reason of their own fault, when you have a choice.

Is it fair that some people are born is Sweden and some in Somalia? The communist (socialist) have for decades tried to find this concept, balance, it does not exist.

Let's try this again: You DON'T have control over where someone is born (you can, obviously, choose where your child is born, but this is a different issue). You DO have control over whether or not to strike you child. The parallel is fundamentally flawed.

The moment you say, "this is not fair", you are losing your ability to respond. In effect, you are saying, circumstance ultimately define my destiny.

So, phylosophically it is exactly the opposite of what you propose.

Not only am I confused by whatever you're saying here, I am at a loss to find how it relates to the issue of CP at all.

It sound to me like you are not ready to engage or resolve the paradoxes your philosophy of life present to you. This response says nothing. I have no idea what this is suppose to mean. It is a response from prejudice and not reason.

No, I am not ready to resolve your paradoxes. My response was an exhaled sigh in realization of the futility of arguing the poorness of quality in the Detroit Tigers organization to a die hard fan who won't hear any differently.

There are fundamental differences between Christians and atheists. This is one. Atheist have this illusion that they can understand everything and that they have not need for obedience by faith. The irony is that whether you want to accept it or not, you do have masters and you obey them blindly. On of them is you own judment and understanding.

Okay, just keep backpedalling.

Another excellent example of a fundamental difference in approach. The Christian philosophy is the run away as far as possible from temptation because Christians understand that the humans are weak and that more times than not faced with temptation we will sucumb to it.

Psychologically speaking, we are what we believe ourselves to be.

So, the Christian advice for an alcoholic is to run away from any activity that involves drinks. Your approach is to stare the drink in the face and develop the will power to say no. It is a sublime, romantic notion, and it doesn't work.

A person that day in and day out is exposed to drugs, believe me, will sooner or later become a drug user.

Your approach is more effective only because the percentage of people who atrophy their self-control and intellect to fantasies is so great. There will always be more betas than alphas in pack species, unfortunately. I'm sorry of you fundamentally believe that your, and most people's, will is so horrificly weak.

Humans cannot be trusted. Systems are developed constantly to protect humans from themselves.

This, ironically, is an fantastic example to advocate protecting humans from themselves.

Here an illustration of the both phylosophies at work. For years the US government spend millions of dollars educating drivers on how to drive safely. In theory, if everyone followed the rules of safe driving, accidents would be minimal.

In practice, accidents skyrocked as car sales did. What was the solution? Let's create safer cars, airbags, antilock brakes, seatbelts. The system protects drivers.

I much rather trust that my child is driving a very safe car then her driving skills.

Maybe if you taught her how to drive properly, you'd feel less ompelled to belittle her driving ability. Aside from that, accidents are not always escapable precisely because YOU HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THEM! It's called precaution.You DO have control over whether you will abuse a child.

Yes, Christian surrender their will to the will of God. This is another fundamental difference. And again, you too surrender your ability to make moral choices. They are just of a different kind.

Not all christians no...only fanatical ones. There are plenty of christians that believe god gave them a brain for a reason...that reason not being to stuff it in the sock drawer.

The great lie here is that you walk by yourself. What conclusions have you arrived at that I could not find the source where you took them from. What actions do you take that are not dependent on the work or effort of others before you. It is silly to think we arrive at conclusions all by our lonesome.

Do you really expect me to take your overstretched parallel between self-dependence and acausality seriously? Do you?

Well, learn to accept it. It is your reality as well. If you are of this world and live in this world, your ideal world is an illusion.

I don't believe you are in any position to tutor me in gauging the difference sbetween illusions and empirical realities, although I appreciate the effort.

Yes, this human condition permeates all, poor, rich, black, white, tall, short. All humans are like this. Given the chance and with no restrictions, humans will ultimately choose the selfish act.

You are completely oblivious to your circular self-fulfilling growth cycle, aren't you?

Show me who is above the law and I will show you a tyrrant. Show me a human who is not accoutable to the system and I'll show you evil person.

It is funny that you should not be aware of these things. Your country is one of the most regulated and normed in America.

Which is why skeptics are in the minority.

Well, if happy means being a drug addict or an alcoholic, no I don't.

Sad. The degree of vain mania needed to be able to demand what makes another person happy is disturbing.

Why a gamble? Mine is a sure thing. From my side of the fence, it is you who is glambling.

Nevermind.

---

"Would merit CP" *if all other methods failed* ...unless I'm mistaken, Christian has been saying all along that CP is a last resort if all other methods failed (sorry to all if I've misunderstood).

Do you really even agree with his notion, or do you back him up only because you both are on the same side of the fence? I'm sorry if this sounds patronizing, but I've always found you to quite sensible in your positions...and am having a hard time believing you actually support this position under the obvious realizations to what it implies.

However, if you'd like to find where Christian mentioned specifically 'if all other methods failed' (...as if that really made any difference to it's case) you may feel free.

What I am saying is that it's possible that if there is a genetic predisposition in a child, and if no other method works, then it may in fact be "fair" to use CP to teach the child self-discipline (or are we not agreed that a certain amount of self-discipline is a good thing?)

So you do believe in 'fairness'...but have only skewed the definition to suit the conversation. Self-discipline is not CP, obviously, as it is not done to the self.

Whoa! Who said anything about "mental conditions"? I'm still talking about a simple genetic predisposition towards rebelliousness, rabble-rousing, etc.

The degree is not the important issue, only that the person is question has no control over what they do.

Let's say there's a gang member who has always been rebellious since being a child (due to his genetic predisposition), and maybe he lives in a poor neighborhood with no good role-models (but hey, it's not his fault he was born poor)... if he gets a little carried away and commits a crime in the heat of some moment, and is otherwise mentally healthy, should he not be punished because his genetic predisposition and unfortunate circumstances led him to his situation? It wasn't his fault, after all.

With adults considerably less leeway is obviously given, since they are asasumed to have the ability to counter their tendencies (and if they can't, they should be taking medication). We are talking about children. Besides, I'm sure no parent has used spanking as the 'last resort' because little Billy stabbed Suzie 13 times with the paring knife.

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is. Although, you did feel compelled to provide your rationalization/justification, I see.

In your example, a slap won't cure the Tourettes.

Spanking doesn't 'sure' anything...it only enforces a fear that ends up emotionally overriding the tendency. If the tendency is sufficiently pronounced, it won't work anyway. I'm sorry, I still find it repugnant that you're (this time, it was Christian last time) supporting the notion of physical abuse because of it's supposed efficiency.

In that case it really truly is out of the person's control.

OH! So the child's actions aren't truly out of their control! Even though we just went over this as being the case...those silly kids, they're faking again!

In the case of a rebellious child, they can control their behavior, it may just be more difficult.

Ah...

Furthermore, if your analogy was valid, then you might as well say that sending a child to his room for (genetically predisposed) disobedience is the equivalent of sending someone with Tourette's to his room for insulting you. That analogy makes *any* form of punishment or discipline seem unfair.

Sending a child to their room does not physically harm them. And if that was your only response, then it still wouldn't be construvtive...granted it wouldn't be specifically destructive either. This isn't advanced calculus here.

Nope... no disengenuousness (disengenuosity?)....

Not intentionally, at least?

 

[dimossi]

Wow, this thread has taken on a life of its own.

And to think I had ended the debate on spanking with my very first post.

 

[PotatoStew]

Paradox:

Do you really even agree with his notion, or do you back him up only because you both are on the same side of the fence? I'm sorry if this sounds patronizing, but I've always found you to quite sensible in your positions...and am having a hard time believing you actually support this position under the obvious realizations to what it implies.

I honestly hadn't thought about it much before this discussion. All in all, I have no intention of ever using CP, if that makes you feel any better. As I said, I am not giving a blanket backing-up of his entire position, I am merely addressing this specific issue of fairness, and that only under certain assumptions (and also begining to wish I hadn't said anything, because I'm really starting to spend too much time here again).

And thank you for the backhanded compliment...

So you do believe in 'fairness'...but have only skewed the definition to suit the conversation.

Ok, withdraw the claws for a second, and let me try to clarify, as I don't seem to be getting my point across.

-- Assuming that a given child is habitually rebellious, and
-- Assuming that said child has been disciplined in all other reasonable manners to no avail, and
-- Assuming that CP is delivered in a controlled, moderated manner,

-- I think that it may possibly be fair to administer CP.

I think "fair" is an appropriate word here because in the situation outlined above, the alternative is to let the child be rebellious and suffer no consequences for his actions. Let me ask you this: Give the exact assumptions I just described (that is, you have tried everything except CP, do you think it would be better to administer CP, or let the child run amok?

Now here is the fine print to try to avoid further misunderstandings: I think that in most cases, something will work before you get to the CP option, as many of you are saying. However, in this discussion, I am more or less taking Christian at his word that he has tried everything else. I also am assuming that when he uses CP, he uses a minimum of force, and it would probably be a stretch to term it "abuse" while still allowing that word to retain any real meaning.

Self-discipline is not CP, obviously, as it is not done to the self.

I didn't say CP was self-discipline, I said that CP (or any form of punishment for that matter) can be a means of *teaching* self-discipline.

I'm sorry, I still find it repugnant that you're (this time, it was Christian last time) supporting the notion of physical abuse because of it's supposed efficiency.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. Disengage from attack mode for a moment and read what I'm writing. I never said anything about CP being efficient.

Yes, it is.

No, it isn't. (Your turn...)

OH! So the child's actions aren't truly out of their control! Even though we just went over this as being the case...those silly kids, they're faking again!

I don't think I ever said that the child's actions were totally out of their control. Children most definitely have control over their actions. Even if a genetic predisposition for rebelliousness does exist (which I was assuming for the sake of the discussion), the child still has control, it just may be more difficult at times. Tourette's on the other hand, leaves *no* control, if I'm not mistaken. Is it really your position that a child has no control over her actions? How can you justify any sort of punishment, if that's the case?

Sending a child to their room does not physically harm them.

That's beside the point... you still wouldn't send a Tourette's sufferer to her room for insulting you. So if your analogy is valid, then you shouldn't send a child to his room for disobeying you. Again, if a child has no control over her actions, how do you justify any sort of punishment as being fair?

 

[Mossy]

Christian,

I've been pretty much staying out of this conversation lately because I think Paradox and Loki are making much better points than I would, and also the conversation seems to be full enough without my (repetitive) input.

But -

With regard to evolution, I asked you once what it would take to change your mind, and you were able to give me a clear answer. So now, I'll ask the same question of this topic: What would it take to convince you that you're wrong? Is there anything that would cause you to step back and say, "Okay, perhaps CP really isn't necessary. If it isn't necessary, and it is the intentional infliction of physical pain on my children, then maybe I shouldn't do it."?

If you could show me enough clear evidence (conclusive studies, etc.) that CP was necessary to raise certain children (you've stipulated that isn't necessary for some children), then I would reconsider my belief.

-Ed

 

[Mossy]

Christian,

I wanted to elaborate a little bit on my question above.

Since this discussion started, I've been trying to familiarize myself with the various studies and information relevant to the discussion and have found:

- The overwhelming majority of studies in the last 20 years have shown a link between abuse (choosing this word because it seems more appropriate) and negative effects on children. Specifically, the worse the abuse, the worse the damage. Ranging from anti-social behavior, to increased violence, and (ironically) to decrease in respect for authority.

- The sites/information available against CP include religious and non-religious institutions, as well as government and private organizations.

- The only sites/information I could find supporting corporeal punishment of children were from Christian sites/organizations.

It seems clear (to me) that the evidence supports the belief that coporeal punishment is detrimental to the development of children, although I recognize the fact that maybe there is information available that I couldn't find.

Regardless, I didn't ask whether or not it was "harmful", only whether or not it was "necessary", because it could be argued that the effect of not using CP is worse than the effect of using CP.

On that note, are there any studies that show (in people who were not subjected to CP as children):
- an increase in criminal behavior
- a decrease in IQ
- a decrease in social interactivity
- an increase in violent behavior
- a decrease in respect for authority

It would go a long way toward encouraging me to change my mind (and perhaps be more tolerate of those who use CP) if you could show anything that would support the belief that using CP is necessary (i.e. that the damage done by not using it is worse than the damage done by using it).

Now that I've clearly stated what it would take for me to reconsider my beliefs, and with that in mind, what would it take for you?

-Ed

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Christian,

This is nonsense. What is this "denied the opportunity to develop ethically" rubbish. You are ethical or you are not. The motivation is irrelevant.

In that case you should be happy to live in a police state which forces everyone to act "ethically" -- contribute to charities, help the elderly, etc. Well, I lived in such a state (USSR), and I don't want any part of it.

Seriously, if you meant what you said -- if you see no difference between the ethical values of an act performed foluntarily and an act performed under threat -- there is little more we can speak about. Just stay the hell away from me, in case your faith collapses while you are near a loaded gun.

In most cases, none can prove they would have acted but ethically. The system in most cases does not allow a choice.

of course it does. Nobody forces an atheist to contribute to charity to help the old lady across the street; so we can tell an atheist's ethical status by her actions. Xians, on the other hand, always act under duress, and thus cannot be known to be ethical. Sorry.

If you don't pay your bills, someone is going to knock on your door. That you decide to pay on debts and say, you would not need anyone to knock on your door to pay is inconsequential.

Yeah. That is why paying your bills is not considered a highly ethical act -- as you said, just doing the needful thing to avoid being tossed in the slammer. And when helping old ladies across the street becomes legally mandated, that act will cease to have any discernible ethical value as well.

Seriously, do you sincerely fail to understand the ethical difference between a voluntary act and a forced one?

 

[Christian]

Potato wrote:
"Would merit CP" *if all other methods failed* ...unless I'm mistaken, Christian has been saying all along that CP is a last resort if all other methods failed

Yes.

Loki wrote:
Agreed ... and those alternatives *always* exist.

Ok, I think we can pinpoint the main difference in our position. You say alternatives always exist. I say no.

Loki wrote:
Because we choose to actively pursue alternatives.

Or you have a child that does not need CP.

Loki wrote:
And I submit to you that the parent has failed to look hard enough.

So, avoid CP at all cost even when it is the obvious effective tool.

Loki wrote:
No, it's time to re-examine the nature of the relationship betwene the child and parents. Something's wrong and it's not working - why assume the child?

Remember, you already agreed about the child parent relationship, who is authority.

So if some students get bad grades, the teacher is at fault (some proponents foward this view) or the students who get the bad grades.

Loki wrote:
But I'd suggest to you that you initial assumption that CP is both (a)valid and (b) necessary if poor behaviour reaches a certian point, means that you were/are not able to truly evaluate the alternatives - you start from a position that says "CP may be necessary". The very first time your daughter reached a "point of open defiance", did you think "well, I hoped it won't come to this, but CP's the ciorrect option now", or did you think "perhaps it's time for CP - no, I don't want to go there yet - lets try 'X'"?

The rules are pretty much set. There are standards of behavior the I expect from my daughter, she has learned to accept the limits and she is productive.

I know CP has worked because I don't have to use it. The times I have, the results have been achieved and the problems have been corrected. The process has been shift, to the point and effective.

I don't have to second guess about results. It has been an effective tool. To me it is just nonsense the way you have to bend over backwards to avoid such a simple tool. That is just what it is.

Please understand my point of view, to me the other side is arguing that you should never grab a child by the arm and take him to a time out. Someone could very well take the position that it is humiliating for a child to be grabbed by the arm and taken to isolation.

Paradox wrote:
And what is the 'correct' answer from an ethical point of view?

The law.

Paradox wrote:
Or do you defer such things to mythological laws in all cases? In which case, if you have a son, have you (or would you, as case may be) have him stoned at his irreverence?

I'm sorry but I have to understand you have no more arguments left to support your position.

Paradox wrote:
Not only am I confused by whatever you're saying here, I am at a loss to find how it relates to the issue of CP at all.

That independence like you see really makes you dependent. And the surrender to High Authority sets you free.

Paradox wrote:
No, I am not ready to resolve your paradoxes. My response was an exhaled sigh in realization of the futility of arguing the poorness of quality in the Detroit Tigers organization to a die hard fan who won't hear any differently.

Your characterization (attacking the messenger thing) is distracting from the issue. I think the discussion is of substance.

Paradox wrote:
Your approach is more effective only because the percentage of people who atrophy their self-control and intellect to fantasies is so great. There will always be more betas than alphas in pack species, unfortunately. I'm sorry of you fundamentally believe that your, and most people's, will is so horrificly weak.

I have always said that most atheist are elitist. And it doesn't get any more evident than this.

The irony is that when I consider myself weak, I become strong, and those who think themselves strong most times are really weak.

Paradox wrote:
I don't believe you are in any position to tutor me in gauging the difference sbetween illusions and empirical realities, although I appreciate the effort.

Well, your comments warrant the response.


I'm not going to comment on the other stuff you write because for some reason you seem to raise the tone again. I don't want to speculate.

And I really don't want to get into a negative discussion again.


Mossy wrote:
What would it take to convince you that you're wrong?

That it hadn't worked for me.

Mossy wrote:
On that note, are there any studies that show (in people who were not subjected to CP as children):
- an increase in criminal behavior
- a decrease in IQ
- a decrease in social interactivity
- an increase in violent behavior
- a decrease in respect for authority

The problem here is isolating variables. A parent who has not subjected a child to CP might also be lousy at positive reenforcement or at other forms of discipline.

Also a parent might not have enoug resources to work on cognotive abilities. I think these types of studies are hard to find and if found are inconclusive.

So the question is, why then have I used it. Well, empirically it has worked for me.

I see no detrimental features, quite the contrary. I think my child is well on her way to being a happy, productive, member of society.

Mossy wrote:
It would go a long way toward encouraging me to change my mind (and perhaps be more tolerate of those who use CP) if you could show anything that would support the belief that using CP is necessary (i.e. that the damage done by not using it is worse than the damage done by using it).

Tolerance is a weird term here. If you mean it like you have no choice but to tolerate the Christians exist or that rap music exists. I can understand that, you have to tolerate them (it) because you have no choice.


I really don't want to change anyone's mind. I was naive again in thinking I could exchange views on child rearing from the Christian point of view (there is so much more, CP is a very small part of it), but I see that that is not possible.

Mossy wrote:
Now that I've clearly stated what it would take for me to reconsider my beliefs, and with that in mind, what would it take for you?

As I said before, that it didn't work. And that the prediction of atheists came true regarding the consequences of CP. I don't see those predictions coming true in the Christian community I know.