I read about "hot saucing" on the internet

For a strangely related story, go to "freehannah.com" and investigate the case via other sites. Hannah Overton is in jail. He husband, who copped a plea with a bit of a mea culpa, is not in prison and is able to keep raising their other children.

The whole situation is stuff I'd never do, nor ever consider doing.

Oh, and the kid died, which is part of why Overton is in jail.
 
Well here's an interesting development:

Russians Outraged Over 'Hot Sauce Mom'
Mom of Adopted Russian Twins in Alaska Charged With Child Abuse After 'Dr. Phil' Appearance

It's quite a bit more however than putting a little hot sauce on a kid's tongue. And kind of mild pain as discipline (which I'm still not advocating) can have an extreme form of the same thing which is clearly not the same thing.
she was seen forcing her adopted Russian son to drink hot sauce and take cold showers.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ktesibios said:
When, exactly, did the word "discipline" change its meaning to "punish"?
Click to expand...

Exactly.

If one needs to inflict severe pain to make a child obey, then his parenting skills are lacking, and probably he's a *********** prick, too.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I saw it before you deleted it. ;)

Let me just say, I've heard it before. I understand your point and your view. I don't happen to agree with it. I agree to disagree with you.
Click to expand...

I deleted because as soon as I posted I knew I wasn't up for a debate on the issue broadly.

I'm happy to agree to disagree.

Although I very much don't want to debate the effectiveness or downsides of spanking, one thing from the deleted post worth bringing up here is, that if you are interested in having discussions around punishments, you may want to be careful about using loaded language. Spanking is not hitting, it is not beating.
 
I Am The Scum said:
Yes, it is.
Click to expand...

No, it is not.


Unless you're going to argue that when I say I sipped a drink, you say it is the same as chugging a drink, or if I say I walked away, you say it is the same as running away. Or better yet, I bumped into you and you fell, but you tell everyone that I body slammed you to the ground.

It seems that some people know what a spank is, and some really don't.
 
Spanking does not imply a degree of force.

As somebody with a lot of experience with BDSM, I can tell you that it is absolutely possible to spank hard enough to leave deep bruises that take weeks to fade.
 
Someone I know was doing day care for another woman and her 10-year-old boy was starting to pick up some bad words from school. We had heard the idea of using hot sauce instead of the old 'soap in the mouth' technique and we thought it was a clever idea. We never would have considered putting soap in his mouth. The mom agreed to try it.

We picked out a relatively mild type of hot sauce, and the boy gave us an opportunity quickly enough.

He loved it. He had never had any kind of hot sauce before, and he asked if he could have some more. He put it on almost everything he ate. It became a running joke, and we told him we would give him hot sauce for his birthday, etc.

He never swore around us again.
 
BenBurch said:
Spanking does not imply a degree of force.

As somebody with a lot of experience with BDSM, I can tell you that it is absolutely possible to spank hard enough to leave deep bruises that take weeks to fade.
Click to expand...

True. However, there is a connotation when using the word spank that is much different than using the word hit or beat. It implies that it is much less severe.
 
Region Rat said:
No, it is not.


Unless you're going to argue that when I say I sipped a drink, you say it is the same as chugging a drink, or if I say I walked away, you say it is the same as running away. Or better yet, I bumped into you and you fell, but you tell everyone that I body slammed you to the ground.

It seems that some people know what a spank is, and some really don't.
Click to expand...

You'd really have a good point if the definitions of "spank" or "hit" implied degree or severity, but they don't.
 
Cavemonster said:
I deleted because as soon as I posted I knew I wasn't up for a debate on the issue broadly.

I'm happy to agree to disagree.

Although I very much don't want to debate the effectiveness or downsides of spanking, one thing from the deleted post worth bringing up here is, that if you are interested in having discussions around punishments, you may want to be careful about using loaded language. Spanking is not hitting, it is not beating.
Click to expand...
What I agree to disagree with you on is not about spanking, clearly that disagreement goes without saying. I disagree with trying to re-characterize hitting by pretending it is not. Claiming it is "spanking" and that somehow makes it "not hitting" is something I've heard the arguments for before. I don't buy it.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
What I agree to disagree with you on is not about spanking, clearly that disagreement goes without saying. I disagree with trying to re-characterize hitting by pretending it is not. Claiming it is "spanking" and that somehow makes it "not hitting" is something I've heard the arguments for before. I don't buy it.
Click to expand...

The fact that you don't buy it doesn't change anything about the truth.
"Hitting" is an emotionally charged word. Just like saying temporarily confiscating a toy is "stealing".

Yes, some parents who spank may do so out of anger, may do so with great force. But if we're talking about the permissability of spanking in general, we're not talking about people who do it in the worst way. That would be like a discussion on alchohol that only focused on binge drinking. Those who view it as discipline do it dispassionately, and with very little physical pain.

And again, you're not making a counter argument. You're on a skeptics forum, an argument is being presented and you're saying "I've seen it said before and it's wrong" with no justification.
 
I Am The Scum said:
You'd really have a good point if the definitions of "spank" or "hit" implied degree or severity, but they don't.
Click to expand...

There are connotations along with those denotations.

Yes, spanking can rise to a clearly abusive level, but in an argument about whether spanking can be appropriate, we're clearly not talking about an anger motivated act, extreme amounts of pain and danger of harm, anymore than an argument that people can enjoy alcohol responsibly is talking about getting blackout drunk.
 
Cavemonster said:
The fact that you don't buy it doesn't change anything about the truth.
Click to expand...
Neither does the fact you do buy it. In this case we have different underlying premises so we view the act of hitting a child differently.


Cavemonster said:
"Hitting" is an emotionally charged word. Just like saying temporarily confiscating a toy is "stealing".

Yes, some parents who spank may do so out of anger, may do so with great force. But if we're talking about the permissability of spanking in general, we're not talking about people who do it in the worst way. That would be like a discussion on alchohol that only focused on binge drinking. Those who view it as discipline do it dispassionately, and with very little physical pain.

And again, you're not making a counter argument. You're on a skeptics forum, an argument is being presented and you're saying "I've seen it said before and it's wrong" with no justification.
Click to expand...
I was trying to avoid this mulberry bush go round. It's like discussing circumcision with Ivor.

There is no counter argument on either side of the hitting/spanking argument except the argument it pisses spankers off to tell them you call it hitting. It's a personal view on using corporal punishment. I don't agree your stealing analogy applies.

I've heard the "not in anger" claim before. I'm sure that's the case some of the time, maybe even much of the time with some parents. I find it incredulous that is it consistently the case. I never used corporal punishment with my son and I certainly got angry on occasion.

But the point is, it doesn't matter how calm a parent is or how carefully they believe they are doling out the 'discipline'. "Obey or I will cause you pain" is not the best way to parent IMO, and that is all I am claiming, opinion. And a child learns hitting is OK no matter what the parent's state of mind was when they hit the child.

And I'm also not claiming every parent who 'spanks' their child damaged that child. Such a conclusion is a straw man.

It's my opinion that spanking is completely unnecessary, and since it is unnecessary there is no benefit that outweighs the drawbacks. It's a simple risk/cost benefit analysis.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Neither does the fact you do buy it. In this case we have different underlying premises so we view the act of hitting a child differently.


I was trying to avoid this mulberry bush go round. It's like discussing circumcision with Ivor.

There is no counter argument on either side of the hitting/spanking argument except the argument it pisses spankers off to tell them you call it hitting. It's a personal view on using corporal punishment. I don't agree your stealing analogy applies.

I've heard the "not in anger" claim before. I'm sure that's the case some of the time, maybe even much of the time with some parents. I find it incredulous that is it consistently the case. I never used corporal punishment with my son and I certainly got angry on occasion.

But the point is, it doesn't matter how calm a parent is or how carefully they believe they are doling out the 'discipline'. "Obey or I will cause you pain" is not the best way to parent IMO, and that is all I am claiming, opinion. And a child learns hitting is OK no matter what the parent's state of mind was when they hit the child.

And I'm also not claiming every parent who 'spanks' their child damaged that child. Such a conclusion is a straw man.

It's my opinion that spanking is completely unnecessary, and since it is unnecessary there is no benefit that outweighs the drawbacks. It's a simple risk/cost benefit analysis.
Click to expand...

We're not discussing whether spanking is necessary or damaging, read my posts again. I very deliberately avoided that wider topic. All we're talking about is whether using deliberately emotionally charged language is appropriate.
 
Cavemonster said:
There are connotations along with those denotations.
Click to expand...
It's a bitch, ain't it? But what if I agree with the connotation and didn't make it inadvertently?

I am sorry that my opinion of spanking insults people. I know there are issues when I call it hitting. The same as there are issues when I make the assertion if one had better parenting skills one would not need to use corporal punishment. That pisses spankers off even more.

I could pretend that isn't my opinion. I don't think I'd convince spankers they don't need to hit their kids to be effective parents whether I pretended I thought it was OK or not. But I do think that for young people who don't yet have children, or haven't yet established their parenting pattern, insisting hitting is unnecessary is a position that might influence them to investigate other means of raising children.

So I apologize for trading your disliking of my comments in exchange for potentially convincing one or more lurkers it's possible to learn parenting without hitting.


BTW, the 'drunk vs enjoying a sip' is an even worse analogy than the stealing. ;)
 
Cavemonster said:
We're not discussing whether spanking is necessary or damaging, read my posts again. I very deliberately avoided that wider topic. All we're talking about is whether using deliberately emotionally charged language is appropriate.
Click to expand...
I read your posts. Read mine. I'm discussing calling it hitting and why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom