Wrong in terms of any absolutes. You must understand, I dont believe in morality. Right and wrong are arbitrary classifications I believe.
How do you define right or wrong? I only believe in individual pain and pleasure as the qualifications for how to make choices. Only im also a determinist, so its not realy a choice. I believe everyone, just as a law of nature acts in persuit of pleasure and avoidence of pain. If you had to compare how I act to a moral system, I would have to say I most resemble an egoist, but again, I dont believe we SHOULD act in persuit of pleasure, I think we DO act in persuit of pleasure. Unless you think like me, give me your definition of right or wrong, and I will attempt to point out the logical problems.
Well, wouldn’t it follow then that the more pain you cause the greater the effect? If you really want a truly disciplined child… start breaking their bones.
I thought I saw you write, in a prior post, that you found yourself in agreement with Russia… our resident Thrasymachus.
I just wanted to make sure that you would agree that violence can be excessive. I think you would, honestly, also admit you wouldn’t want some stranger putting his or her hands on your child, but you have an argument going with Arendt about that, and I doubt I can trick you into it so I will stop trying. 
No, he wrote earlier that he would be afraid to mouth off to a cop.
he wrote:
As he would later write
Don’t bother looking for the next Anne Frank in his attic.
GTC,
Do you fear consequence? The negative sort I mean. And would you mouth off to a cop, knowing that he can legitamatly get you in much more trouble if he feels like it?
To Ucciscore:
The problem with artificial/unnatural consequences is that the consequences are not guaranteed. It seems more stable to rely on consequences which are guaranteed, that can only be guaranteed by the laws of nature or physics or human nature.
If what you AIM to teach a kid is “when people get pissed off, they hit” - then when the child gets pissed off, then THEY will begin to hit and see this is normal and justified. So teaching a kid that when people are pissed off, they hurt you - it doesnt teach them right and wrong, it just teaches them that violence and vengance are normal. That doesnt really accomplish the ends of getting them to avoid wrong and do whats right. It ingranes in them a vice.
By teaching a kid “my way or the highway” all you teach them is a power game. Are they going to play that same game with everyone they think they have power over? Thats not going to promote consideration and respect for others.
Okay good point about the fire stations and hospitals. Our solutions dont solve everything but we still use them because they work to some extent. But now I will make my point. If something in a hospital has a bad side effect, someone comes up with a new drug, or a new machine, or a new technique. If a product comes out which catches houses on fire, it is recalled. Steps ARE taken to improve what were doing, to make it better. Hitting your kids has bad side effects. They can learn to become violent. If a person relies on spanking rather than explaining why something is wrong, the kid will learn to avoid punishment rather than avoid doing wrong. Its not as good as some of the other ways of parenting. You may use it because it works to some extent - but if you want the best for your kids, you may want to look into the other parenting strategies.
Lambskin condoms worked to an extent. Shoving a ball of dung in there like cleopatra worked to an extent. But now that we have latex sheaths and the pill, and cervical caps, what the heck would we wanna use any of that old stuff for?
Spanking works to an extent. But now that there are books on child psychology, why do you want to use it?
ME: “There are a few people that get away from the obedient mindset theyve been put into.”
YOU: “Charles Manson comes to mind.”
REPLY: But he wouldnt have been so dangerous without his followers. He is a perfectly good example of my point. His followers were definitely the obedient types who could not think for themselves - and look who took advantage of this. If everyone were thinking for themselves, no one would ever blindly follow a charles manson, or a hitler, or any other similar freak.
Implying that I need to say something to defend my point of view after mentioning that I sound like a teenager to you does look like a subtle attempt at ad hominem. Telling me that youre not using ad hominem, and then using it is a good example of the non-thinking that I notice to be common among obedient people. By the way your very first “teenager comment” was this:
“You seem to be having a knee jerk “intelligence = rebelliousness” reaction. It’s popular to think that way among teenagers and such, but I see no merit in it.”
Just because you used wording that did not DIRECTLY state “You seem like a teenager therefore you are wrong” doesnt mean you werent using ad hominem. Admitting to being snippy doesnt change your motive, its always snippy to try to bash a persons credibility with name calling.
TO aspacia: Tent prisons, huh? Do you know what the return rate is?
You love your abusive father, as I love my often abusive father. I am not you, but will suggest counseling. This will not work for your father, but a counselor will objectively help you discover other avenues open to you. I took my son to counseling when he thought he was the man of the house as he was taller than me. The counselor helped us both find the middle ground.
Also, I am well aware of the laws. My son was shocked when I pulled his television, the television he purchased with his own allowance and birthday $, and locked it up. Legally, I owned his possessions until he was of legal age. He called the police department and they confirmed my claim. Funny, he quickly he conformed to my rules.
RussianTank, you might consider reading regarding abuse and how the abused often make excuses for the abuser, as you seem to be doing because you love your father. Studies show that this cycle of violence will probably continue if you choose to have children.
Your replys to other posts also mention violence with friends and family members. There are other outlets such as boxing, karate, etc.
RussianTank, I was abused and now know the harm it caused as I am 52 year-old female,and raised a son for 11 years in a single family household. In spite of the odds against him, he turned out right and does not have the scars I have, and the emotional scars you have and probably always will have later in life.
I wish you the best.
To Russiantank:
The only reason that any of our posessions exist is because someone made them. People dont make these things for no reason - they make them because they will be paid for them. If enough people stole, the working people wouldnt see any reason to work anymore, because they wouldnt be getting paid, and theyd quit. Then since no one would be making anything, the economy would collapse. That is why stealing is wrong. If you start stealing, your friends might catch on and start stealing YOUR stuff. If you want the world to be a nice place, you have to be part of the nice, make yourself nice, do unto others what youd have them do to you, and then that helps make the world a nice place to live. If you steal, you make the person sad. They dont know where what they had went to, and they dont know if theyll ever get it back. If they buy another one, its as if they had to pay twice as much for it - and thats not right. If you steal from people, youre being a mean person.
Hitting is wrong because it hurts people. If you hit them hard enough, they can become disabled, and be a burden to the system, or else die. When people hit other people they defend themselves and hit you back. And if they dont hit you back, maybe someone that is near them who cares will hit you. Or maybe their friends will come after you later. So if you hit them, youre taking a big risk that they will break your nose or your arm or even kill you. If enough people go around hitting people, then everyone will start hitting back and there will be a big war. If everyone were to hit everyone, wed all be dead or blind or have a messed up nose. Wed all be spending a lot of time in the hospital instead of living.
Retaliation is different than spanking. People defend themselves. If you do something against a person, you do have to expect them to do something TO ATTACK a person, it is natural to expect them to defend themselves. Spanking is a deliberate control strategy and has nothing to do with retaliation. If a kid doesnt do well in school, they havent done anything against their parent, only against themselves - so why retaliate? I could fail every class any no one would ever hit me for it, because it is not an attack on another person. But Id have a hard time finding a job. In situations that dont attack another person, which dont provoke retaliation, there is some other consequence, and that should be explained.
The difference is this - you can punish a kid a whole lot while they live with you, but if you dont transmit some idea to them, then once you are gone, once the threat of punishment is gone, once they have moved out, or when you simply arent around, there is nothing to stop them from doing wrong.
Greetings, it is low. Sherriff Joe Arpaio, in Arizona created the tent city jail. He charges the inmates .40 a day for their meals. He prohited smoking, porno, weights, and coffee. Only allows G rated movies. He reinstituted chain gangs for both men and women to do community service.
When inmate complained Arpaio said “This isn’t the Ritz/Carlton. If you don’t like it, don’t come back.”
He has male inmates wear pink boxer shorts.
When inmate complained regarding the heat Arpaio replied " It’s 120 degrees in Iraq and our soldiers are living in tents too, and they have to wear full battle gear, but they didn’t commit any crimes, so shut your mouths."
Right On Sherrif. By the way he is elected, has been reelected sheriff,
and is very popular in Arizona.
He allows cable TV, but only the Disney and weather channels.
I dunno, if sending a kid to bed without dessert works, does that mean starving them for a week is better? What kind of foolish questions are these?
I agree with him about discipline, to a certain extent, but not at all about his characterization of morality.
Certainly it can. The problem is that the line of ‘excessive’ would depend on the wrong that was committed, the physical constitution of the child, and a bunch of other factors. I wouldn’t want to say that Russiantank’s upbringing is a standard we should all adopt, far from it. What I would say, is that Russiantanks account is evidence that even situations that we would call excessive violence can lead to productive results. To say that Russiantank’s upbringing was a failure, we’d either have to call him a liar, or pretend to know things about him that we simply don’t.
This certainly seems true in RussianTank’s case. On the other hand, if you teach a kid “when people get pissed off, they frown a lot but otherwise leave you alone” then they will begin to take advantage of others because there aren’t any consequences to their actions- or so they think, anyways.
Again, you seem to be making up scenarios when we have the facts. It still remains the case that almost every adult on the planet, violent, pacifistic, or otherwise, was spanked as a child. To say that spanking kids will lead to the disasterous results you’re talking about, you’d have to have a very low opinion of the world.
All manner of authority, including parent/child, [i]is[/i] a power game, once disobediance has entered the picture.
Again, this seems to rely on me seeing the world the same way you do. If discipline, and child behavior is the issue, then all I can say is that it seems to have gotten [i]worse[/i] as parenting has gotten less strict. What you're saying would make a certain amount of sense if we didn't actually live in a world where spanking was endemic, in which we can see that it hasn't caused any crisis.
Also, not everybody is as shy or reluctant about violence as you seem to be. Russiantank and his friends/family apparently beat the crap out of each other for fun. I study martial arts, in which children younger than 10 are learning to break wrists and ribs and such. The idea that a spanked child may grow up and punch somebody someday just doesn’t move me like it seems to move you.
They also wouldn't follow anybody decent. For every Charles Manson, there's a Winston Churchill. Off the top of my head, I can't name any disobedient people who ever amounted to a hill of beans, but if there is one, there's also an example of a Jeffrey Dalmer who 'lived life by his own rules'. There's good people and bad people on either side of that issue, basically, so to say "Rebelling = Good, Obeying = Bad" is just silly. It depends [i]what[/i] a person is rebelling against, or [i]who[/i] they are obeying. Also, to equate obedience with non-thinking is incorrect as well.
Aspacia, im not trying to sound arrogent, but I honestly think my dad is far more intelligent than any counselor out there. Again, you can always say that I just make up excuses, because I love my father, and that in fact, he has caused me some serious psychological harm. And again, I say that if it is as you say, then I wouldnt even know I have this psychological harm. Well, I must ask, do you think it is even remotely possible that I have absolutely no negative side effects of getting beaten? If you dont think this is possible, than it becomes hard to argue at all. But if it is a possibility you accept, then I have to say that this possibility is in fact truth, as far as I know. Again, you can say its on a subconcious level, but if its on a subconcious level and I dont even know about it, how can you?
About your son. Like I said, my dad did exactly that. Only in your case, because you got lucky, your son reacted to this punishment. But like I always say, not everyone is the same, and in my case, I still dirrectly disobeyed my fathers rules even after he took away everything. I did not react to the types of punishments your son reacted to. So my father had to take more extreme measures.
And you say studies show that the violence will continue. Im telling you right now, you dont need any studies, im telling you, the violence WILL continue, because I am thorougly convinced that violence is the best way to discipline. And maybe I will get lucky too and have a child that responds to simple punishment like yours did, but in my experience, such situations are rare.
About violence with other family members, I have yet to meet a single human being that has not gotten physical with a sibling. About my friends, we are just horsing around. We enjoy the physical sport. Im not sure aspacia, but I get the feeling next thing you know your going to start campaigning against american football, because though the players dont know it, getting beat up by big strong men all the time is going to leave significant psychological damage.
Everything_Nothing
First of all, I would like you to explain these reasons to a 6 or 7 year old and see how they react. See what the economy collapsing means to them. The golden rule theory on the other hand, that can be explained. But by your verry logic, thats a bad reason. Because if you steal, your friends “might” catch on and start stealing your stuff. So given this explenation, according to you, the kid could possibly just grow up and get better at only stealing in situations where he thinks he can avoid the consequences you mention, that being people start stealing from him. He will steal from little whimps, that wont react, he will essentially become a bully, picking on those weaker than him, because they cannot enforce the consequence.
“If you steal, you make the person sad.”
“If you steal from people, youre being a mean person.”
Oh, so making people sad and being a mean person is something I shouldn’t do? Please explain why I shouldn’t make people sad or be mean. Again, is your reason the same as above, that sad people and the people you are mean to might retaliate? Or that other people might force some consequnce onto you because of your actions. Again, I agree, but these consequences are in no way universal. Just like getting spanked only 20/100 times, people that mug others and people that rob banks and steal cars, they get away with it too! So by teaching the kids not to do something because it might come back to harm you, well by your logic, your only turning them into a more effective criminal, because they will just get better at escaping the consequence, which we know is not universal. Or do you suggest telling the kids that “you will always get in trouble for stealing” In this case, you are just not telling the truth, and are dumbing down the child to the way the world actually works. And the children that accept these absolutes are more f*cked up than any child that has only been beaten in my opinion.
Now imagine just not enforcing any consequence if your child steals. Explain whatever you want to the child, but Ide bet he will be smart enough to realize, hey, I managed to steal a PS2 game, AWSOME, and all that happend was that my parents gave me a big verbal explenation on why not to do it. Who gives a shit, PS2 game for a chat with the parents. Hell, thats well worth it. If you really think that you can convince the child not to steal using logical and rational reasons, then I think you are saddly mistaken. I do believe you can convince a child not to steal using absolutes, if these absolutes are ingrained at a very young age. But an explenation that people “just might get angry at you and cause you harm” will not suffice. Not to the young, arrogent, unknowledgable minds of most kids. Thus you have to actually show them what will happen when people get angry with you. They will much more readily respond to this. And again, this is no absolute you are making here. Dont tell them that everytime they steal, they will recieve physical punishment, thats not true at all. But tell them everytime you find out about it, you will beat them. This makes stealing RISKY for them. They dont want to feel pain, and the consequence of stealing looms over their head. And though you might even be right, that some kids, though I think very few, will just get more efficient at stealing without you finding out, I can almost guarentee you that they will steal far less often than the kid who only got a logical, rational explenation about why not to steal. And more importantly, even if your child goes on to live a life of a thief, the thief you tought to be more efficient is more likely to succeed as a thief, and not get cought. The other kid that never learned consequence, will try to rob the first 7 11 he comes across and will spend the rest of his life in and out of jail. So, I would rather have the effective thief as my child…
“Hitting is wrong because it hurts people. If you hit them hard enough, they can become disabled, and be a burden to the system, or else die.”
Not a rational, logical reason not to hit people.
“When people hit other people they defend themselves and hit you back. And if they dont hit you back, maybe someone that is near them who cares will hit you. Or maybe their friends will come after you later. So if you hit them, youre taking a big risk that they will break your nose or your arm or even kill you.”
Now theres a rational, logical reason. But its no universal law as you said. Not at all, especially if your child grows up a big strong man. He will be much more likely to do the bone breaking than someone else. So like I said, you can only convince someone not to do something by telling them how it will effect them. By showing them the CONSEQUENCE of the action. And in your experience, did you learn more about something when somebody told you about it, or when you actually experienced it? For example, do you learn more about how an apple tastes when somebody describes it to you, or when you actually taste the apple. So, which one will a child learn more about, when you describe the consequences of hitting others, or you actually give them the experience of the consequence. Your reason that if everybody starts doing it, we will have a broken society is not a good one, because it is not true. People still steal in our society, people still commit crimes, and our society still works. And some people get away with those crimes, and our society still works. Basicly, just because 1 person does it, does not mean everyone will start doing it. So if your child is smart, then when they grow up, they will quickly realize the fallicy, and it wont be much of a lesson at all.
What is retaliation, why woud you retaliate if someone hit you? What is the reason behind this retaliation. If it was only about defending yourself, you would just block the punches and run away. If someone were to attack me, I would not retaliate in defense. If it was, say someone really drunk, and I didnt want to hurt them, because they wernt aware of what they were doing, I would just tie them up, hold them so they couldnt hurt anyone, I would not inflict pain as retaliation. BUT, if some asshole came up and tried to start a fight, I would retaliate for a reason. Because I DONT LIKE HIM STARTING A FIGHT WITH ME, and I will give him a reason not to fight me, I will enforce a consequence upon him, mainly by breaking his arm. (I know some Jujitsu and im no good at throwing punches) Most fights end when someone thinks its no longer worth it. Ive seen so many kids try to act tough and start fights, and then when that kid gets clocked in the face once, they are no longer feeling very tough, and just back down. Yes, sometimes it is in the best interest of defense to subdue the attacker, because he wont stop until he harms you, so you should harm him first. But even if somebody bothers me, and annoys me, and I ask him to stop, and he doesnt, then I will retaliate. Not in defense, but to make him stop. Just a simple excercise in causality. You act that way, I react this way, so dont act that way.
Giving a child the experience of punishment IS the lesson you should be transmitting. My dad never beat me for having bad grades. He never beat me for any unjustified reason, he only beat me when I was being an asshole, because it was his house and his rules, and just like if some creep came into my house and started making a mess, and was disobeying the rules of my house, I would ask him to leave, and if he didnt, I would beat him till he did. This is the same situation, I am living in my fathers house, and I must obey his rules. If I dont, then I must recieve a punishment such that I WILL obey his rules. And since I did not respond to any verbal comunication and didnt respond to having my things taken away, then my dad only had 1 choice left. And that choice worked very effectivly with me. I was obeying in no time. And every time I didnt obey, I would recieve the punishment again, until I did obey.
Sorry to bump this thread one more time:
I really want an answer to this: Anyone? 
If you really believe that spanking children itself is a benefit and produces no harm to the children, then would you recommend that the elementary teachers be given the right to spank your children if they misbehave in class?—given that so many elementary school teachers are up to their eyeballs with misbehaving children.
To Russiantank,
A friendly advice, I really mean it: Try to get your shit together and things would be better. 
either that or have it so the parent of the misbehaving child must immediately retrieve their child from school on penalty of imprisonment of the parent and suspension/expulsion of the child…
parent working? not when junior is being a twit…
-Imp
Allright, Imp…luv ya!..I mean luv your answer.
Arendt, what shit do i need to get together. I think i have all my shit together… Anyways, if the kid is mibehaving and causing physical harm to others, then, yes, physical force may be neccisary. But if they are just breaking other rules, like talking in class or stealing other kids’ lunches or something, then as Imp said, the parents must be called to intervene. This is because the relationship between teacher and student is not sufficient enough to support physical punishment. The child might feel genuinly threatend and scared for their life. They do not know what this relative stranger is capable of if they try using physical force. It is up to a parent to use physical force in a manner where the child feels that it is as it should be, and they, like me, are never scared for their well-being.
I already answered this, I thought: Yes, I am in full support of teachers spanking kids. It may require a bit of training that they don't currently get, but I have no problem with it, except this one thing: there are enough parents out there that don't believe in spanking that it would no longer be appropriate to punish kids in a way that so many parents would object to.
Not from what I’ve been seeing in your posts.
Anyway, I agree with Uccisore.
If you agree, Tank, that teachers could spank kids, but you worry about teachers overdoing it or some other factors that might not make it okay for teachers to do it, hey there’s training. You could also explain to your kids that teachers are allowed to spank them, with your permission, if they misbehave. Wouldn’t it be nice, Tank? Now, you can be assured that the oh-so-right kid-spanking will be delivered efficiently by trained personnel. And since you will be getting support from other parents who spank, and since kids will understand that it will be part of their disciplining and would not be harmless, then all is fine with the world. Right, Tank?
Now, let’s have vodka. Chardonnay on the rocks. Rolled sushi. Wasabi paste. Sex. Wooo, baby. Let’s party, Tank.
What shit dont I have together arendt. Are you talking about me being disobedient as a child? You can blame that on American culture. The standards my parents set for me were far out of the norm of the standards I saw set for most American kids. And I also am naturally pretty lazy, that had a big hand in it. Actually, I wonder if I was lazy before the age of 5, thats a good question to ask my parents. Cuz if not, then I can blame my laziness on American culture as well
Anyways, if a parent can indeed convince their child to feel emotionally comfertable with getting spanked, then I guess why not. My only argument was that these circumstances seem much more conducive to the psychological harm you are all campaigning against, because the lack of a relationship between student and teacher can induce significant fear and emotional discomfert. Without these two factors, which I guess can be averted if the parents convince the children, then I would agree. I dont know how easy it would be to convince the children of that though…
Were you drunk when you wrote your comment? I would love some vodka…
RussianTank, intelligence has zip, zero, zilch to do with violent behavior. Many highly intelligent, creative individuals have commited violent acts and suicide.
What you describe is ABUSE and you do not recognize this as abuse. Your youth and the fact you have lived you whole life with abuse has created your myopic vision.
Have you the courage to talk with a trained professional regarding this? A professional may not be as “intelligent” as your father, actually your father does not sound like a rocket scientist, but a professional has studied the various types of abuse and knows numerous strategies to deal with this problem. That is, they simply have read and researched this problem far more than your father or mother or you.
You right, many sibling fight, but those who violently fight often have an abusive parent. My brother use to kick the shit out of me, when mom and dad were not around, and he was eight years older. Why, probably because father was abusive.
I am trying to stop the violent, abusive behavior I have often seen in public K-14 systems. That is, I have had adult battered women in class with shiners. Why? Because I did . . . whatever. Like you, they make excuses for their spouse. Similarly, I have young male and female adults in class who continually suffer abuse. Why? For economic reason.
You are in a viscious cycle. Please at least try to find some answers.
There are many parents that manage to get by without physical puinshment, and this number is growing. Why stick with physical punishment? Some nations have outlawed it, and they seem to be doing fine. Why stick with it, given the correlation of negative side-effects? You may not have been negatively effected, but that does not mean that your kids will turn out just fine from it.
Well, I wasn’t beaten a a child. I was spanked occasionally from ages 3 to 11, but not beaten, and I got negative side-effects from that nonabusive corporal punishment.
Well, right off the bat, I would say that "Things still seem fine in other countries" is not NEARLY enough justification to outlaw a behavior. Things seem to be doing fine in countries that [i]do[/i] allow spanking, too.
If you don't want to spank a kid, don't. Just be aware that you have precious little beyond personal preference and beliefs about 'violence' with which to convince someone else how to raise [i]their [/i] kids.