Discipline for children

[Jokodo]

But you're ignoring free will. They're letting you do that. You're not forcing them at all.

Unlike a child.

But going back to some of your other points. You obviously comparing "things I can do to my kid as a parent" to "things I can do to any odd adult I meet in the street". That's not a useful comparison because I do have certain responsibilities towards and legal authority over my kid. What you have to compare is things I can do to my kid as a parent with things an adult can do to another adult over whom he/she has similar legal authority. When you do that, you'll find that yes, we can do to other adults (in appropriate contexts) all the other things you want to be comparable to spanking, but even in those contexts we are never allowed to wantonly inflict unnecessary pain.

And why, may I ask do you have the authority?

Because the people in question are non compos mentis.

IOW, children are not like adults.

Adults can only have their health and legal affairs looked after by another adult legally, but as another adult, you still cannot discipline them.

"subject them to our rules and regulations" - as far as I know, laws do apply to adults too; workplace rules mostly only apply to adults.

"Our" meaning our own personal rules and regulations, not the state's and not the employers unless you see toddlers being employed somewhere.

Children are not subject to the personal rules and regulation of any odd adult they meet in the street either, they're subject to rules and regulations of their parents. Adults in positions of authority or who are the legal wardens of other adults do in fact impose their rules and regulations on other adults. And yet, they're not allowed to inflict unnecessary pain.

Up until recently, corporal punishment was allowed in schools, so strangers WERE allowed to physically discipline children. So that argument is incorrect.

Whether corporal punishment is "unnecessary" is the argument here.

"feed them according to our desires" - the menues in many a hospital or for that matter jail sure qualify?

"Our" meaning our personal desires. When was the last time you made an adult sit at your dinner table until they finished their vegetables?

Never, but neither do I do that with my kid. At most I tell him this is what's for dinner tonight and if he doesn't want he'll go to bed hungry - and that's exactly what a hospital or jail menue with little to no choice and where the patients are unable to get food elsewhere if they disagree effectively does to adults.

So you withhold food from your child if they won't eat what you set out...like a prison?

It's hardly ever necessary, who always eats a lot. But more to the point: Prisons are occupied by adults. By saying "like a prison" to some treatment you earlier claimed was reserved only for children, you shoot down your own argument. Because in that case this treatment is already not parallel to spanking: if a prison administration spanks their inmates "as a form of disciplines" or otherwise, it's considered torture in civilised countries.

Not at all, the posters keep avoiding free will.

Children don't have it.

I'm not at all sure what you mean with "free will", but if it's supposed to be relevant at this point of the discussion, where we're talking about "withhold[ing] food from [a person] if they won't eat what you set out", prison inmates are not afforded the appropriate brand of "free will" either. And yet they are not legally subjected to corporeal punishment in civilised countries - if it happens, we call it "torture". So if you have an argument for why spanking should be OK for kids, free will can't be it.

- - - Updated - - -

I wonder if the debate would be more or less heated if I made a thread called "Discipline for dogs".

Is spanking a valid conditioning tool for any misbehaving entity with a guardian because of an inability to consent or be reasoned with? Are dog owners encouraged to use striking as part of training? Could the legal guardian of a mentally disabled adult be justified in spanking them?

Are dogs human?

- - - Updated - - -

Except children are not equal to adults.



Because they're adults not children.

You at least have to recognise that your argument of "there's all these other things that are exactly parallel to spanking in that we can do them to children but not adults" falls apart at this point though. Because all those other things can be done to adults under exceptional circumstances while spanking still can't.

How does it? I don't see that it does.

When you come up with a list of things that you claim are parallel in that we are allowed to do them to kids but not to adults and it turns out that all of those other things can be done to adults with diminuished legal rights (i.e. prison inmates) or mental capacities (i.e. Alzheimer patients) or both, but not spanking, than those other things are no longer parallel to spanking. It could hardly get any clearer than that.

 

[Davka]

argument by "it's illegal therefore it must be wrong"?

 

[RavenSky]

Except children are not equal to adults.

Many people ultimately end up as guardians for their alzheimer parents, for instance. This would be a situation wherein one adult will be doing for/to another adult almost exactly as a parent does for a child, yet hitting/spanking/swatting/slapping that elderly parent is still illegal.

Because they're adults not children.

So you keep saying, but you still have not shown why it is OK to hit children but not adults

 

[thebeave]

If we want to equate hitting and spanking, then we should do it with all types of spanking. Like, say, in sex. A spank on the ass (not hard enough to bruise) is now hitting? Do you gossip to your friends now that during the hot sex last night your boyfriend was hitting you? Isn't this assault?

 

[Jokodo]

argument by "it's illegal therefore it must be wrong"?

Argument by "it's considered wrong when done to adults even in cases where those adults have reduced mental capacities and legal rights comparable to those of a child, and when we're happy to allow all the other treatment usually reserved for children."

You're free to argue that spanking your elderly Alzheimer-struck parents should be legal too to maintain the parallelism, but then please do so explicitly.

 

[Jokodo]

If we want to equate hitting and spanking, then we should do it with all types of spanking. Like, say, in sex. A spank on the ass (not hard enough to bruise) is now hitting? Do you gossip to your friends now that during the hot sex last night your boyfriend was hitting you? Isn't this assault?

Because offering someone a drink is the same as forcing it down their throat, and all sex is rape? Come on, if that's your best argument, you've lost the debate and you know it. One word: "consent". Yes, it's a form of hitting, but if it's consensual that doesn't make it a problem.

 

[thebeave]

If we want to equate hitting and spanking, then we should do it with all types of spanking. Like, say, in sex. A spank on the ass (not hard enough to bruise) is now hitting? Do you gossip to your friends now that during the hot sex last night your boyfriend was hitting you? Isn't this assault?

Because offering someone a drink is the same as forcing it down their throat, and all sex is rape? Come on, if that's your best argument, you've lost the debate and you know it. One word: "consent". Yes, it's a form of hitting, but if it's consensual that doesn't make it a problem.

Consent has nothing to do with it. My point is just to show that people pick and choose how they want to define words to create an emotional response. People want to be able to do kinky sex without shame or stigma, so they call it spanking. Simultaneously, they don't want people to spank kids, so they resort to calling it hitting instead. They're both spanking. If you want to argue spanking a kid is wrong, then go for it, but don't call it "hitting". Or I'm going to say your "hitting" your girlfriend during sex and have you arrested for domestic violence.

 

[Jokodo]

Because offering someone a drink is the same as forcing it down their throat, and all sex is rape? Come on, if that's your best argument, you've lost the debate and you know it. One word: "consent". Yes, it's a form of hitting, but if it's consensual that doesn't make it a problem.

Consent has nothing to do with it. My point is just to show that people pick and choose how they want to define words to create an emotional response. People want to be able to do kinky sex without shame or stigma, so they call it spanking. Simultaneously, they don't want people to spank kids, so they resort to calling it hitting instead. They're both spanking. If you want to argue spanking a kid is wrong, then go for it, but don't call it "hitting". Or I'm going to say your "hitting" your girlfriend during sex and have you arrested for domestic violence.

Consent has everything to do with it. Go ahead and say that I'm hitting my girlfriend during sex. The reason there is nothing immoral about it and also the reason I'm not going to be arrested for it isn't what I call it, but that it's consensual. If it weren't consensual, I could call it "spanking" until the cows come home and it would still be assault. If it is consensual, you could call it whatever you want and her buttocks can be all sorts of blue for the next five days and it's still not assault.

Why are you folks so obsessed with names?

 

[credoconsolans]

Except children are not equal to adults.



Because they're adults not children.

So you keep saying, but you still have not shown why it is OK to hit children but not adults

Do you not know why adults are different than children?

I can't help you if you don't know the difference.

 

[credoconsolans]

But you're ignoring free will. They're letting you do that. You're not forcing them at all.

Unlike a child.

It's hardly ever necessary, who always eats a lot. But more to the point: Prisons are occupied by adults. By saying "like a prison" to some treatment you earlier claimed was reserved only for children, you shoot down your own argument. Because in that case this treatment is already not parallel to spanking: if a prison administration spanks their inmates "as a form of disciplines" or otherwise, it's considered torture in civilised countries.

Not at all, the posters keep avoiding free will.

Children don't have it.

I'm not at all sure what you mean with "free will", but if it's supposed to be relevant at this point of the discussion

It's relevant because adults have free will. They're expected to be responsible for their own actions.

If they follow the law and do nothing illegal, you can't put them in jail, you can't force them to follow your lesson plan in school.

You cannot force them to do anything they don't agree with.

Children are different.

Understand now? Adults =/= children.

You at least have to recognise that your argument of "there's all these other things that are exactly parallel to spanking in that we can do them to children but not adults" falls apart at this point though. Because all those other things can be done to adults under exceptional circumstances while spanking still can't.

How does it? I don't see that it does.

When you come up with a list of things that you claim are parallel in that we are allowed to do them to kids but not to adults and it turns out that all of those other things can be done to adults with diminuished legal rights (i.e. prison inmates) or mental capacities (i.e. Alzheimer patients) or both, but not spanking, than those other things are no longer parallel to spanking. It could hardly get any clearer than that.

I just pointed out how your examples don't apply. Free will of adults. If I don't break the law, you can't force me into prison where you control my actions. Alzheimers patients? You still do not treat them like children because they're adults, you can't just force them to do something. They had to give you PERMISSION (consent) to do so.

- - - Updated - - -

But you're ignoring free will. They're letting you do that. You're not forcing them at all.

Unlike a child.

It's hardly ever necessary, who always eats a lot. But more to the point: Prisons are occupied by adults. By saying "like a prison" to some treatment you earlier claimed was reserved only for children, you shoot down your own argument. Because in that case this treatment is already not parallel to spanking: if a prison administration spanks their inmates "as a form of disciplines" or otherwise, it's considered torture in civilised countries.

credoconsolans said: Not at all, the posters keep avoiding free will.

Children don't have it.

Jokodo said: I'm not at all sure what you mean with "free will", but if it's supposed to be relevant at this point of the discussion

It's relevant because adults have free will. They're expected to be responsible for their own actions.

If they follow the law and do nothing illegal, you can't put them in jail, you can't force them to follow your lesson plan in school.

You cannot force them to do anything they don't agree with.

Children are different.

Understand now? Adults =/= children.

You at least have to recognise that your argument of "there's all these other things that are exactly parallel to spanking in that we can do them to children but not adults" falls apart at this point though. Because all those other things can be done to adults under exceptional circumstances while spanking still can't.

How does it? I don't see that it does.

When you come up with a list of things that you claim are parallel in that we are allowed to do them to kids but not to adults and it turns out that all of those other things can be done to adults with diminuished legal rights (i.e. prison inmates) or mental capacities (i.e. Alzheimer patients) or both, but not spanking, than those other things are no longer parallel to spanking. It could hardly get any clearer than that.

I just pointed out how your examples don't apply. Free will of adults. If I don't break the law, you can't force me into prison where you control my actions. Alzheimers patients? You still do not treat them like children because they're adults, you can't just force them to do something. They had to give you PERMISSION (consent) to do so.

 

[RavenSky]

So you keep saying, but you still have not shown why it is OK to hit children but not adults

Do you not know why adults are different than children?

I can't help you if you don't know the difference.

Both are human beings. You have failed to demonstrate why hitting/spanking one is fine but hitting/spanking the other will get you arrested.

When you can explain that, perhaps you will have succeeded in explaining why human children are so vastly different from human adults that common decency doesn't apply to them.

 

[rousseau]

Do you not know why adults are different than children?

I can't help you if you don't know the difference.

Both are human beings. You have failed to demonstrate why hitting/spanking one is fine but hitting/spanking the other will get you arrested.

When you can explain that, perhaps you will have succeeded in explaining why human children are so vastly different from human adults that common decency doesn't apply to them.

Hell, considering studies show that hitting kids is actually ineffective at altering their behavior positively in the long term, or in other words they're basically not even able to reason out why they are being hit, it should be even more illegal to hit kids than adults.

As I said on about page one of this thread, the only reason it's not illegal is because doing so is not a popular enough political opinion yet. (and wait, isn't it's illegality actually starting to crop up in several countries?)

 

[Jokodo]

But you're ignoring free will. They're letting you do that. You're not forcing them at all.

Unlike a child.

It's hardly ever necessary, who always eats a lot. But more to the point: Prisons are occupied by adults. By saying "like a prison" to some treatment you earlier claimed was reserved only for children, you shoot down your own argument. Because in that case this treatment is already not parallel to spanking: if a prison administration spanks their inmates "as a form of disciplines" or otherwise, it's considered torture in civilised countries.

credoconsolans said: Not at all, the posters keep avoiding free will.

Children don't have it.

Jokodo said: I'm not at all sure what you mean with "free will", but if it's supposed to be relevant at this point of the discussion

It's relevant because adults have free will. They're expected to be responsible for their own actions.

If they follow the law and do nothing illegal, you can't put them in jail, you can't force them to follow your lesson plan in school.

You cannot force them to do anything they don't agree with.

Children are different.

Understand now? Adults =/= children.

You at least have to recognise that your argument of "there's all these other things that are exactly parallel to spanking in that we can do them to children but not adults" falls apart at this point though. Because all those other things can be done to adults under exceptional circumstances while spanking still can't.

How does it? I don't see that it does.

When you come up with a list of things that you claim are parallel in that we are allowed to do them to kids but not to adults and it turns out that all of those other things can be done to adults with diminuished legal rights (i.e. prison inmates) or mental capacities (i.e. Alzheimer patients) or both, but not spanking, than those other things are no longer parallel to spanking. It could hardly get any clearer than that.

I just pointed out how your examples don't apply. Free will of adults. If I don't break the law, you can't force me into prison where you control my actions. Alzheimers patients? You still do not treat them like children because they're adults, you can't just force them to do something. They had to give you PERMISSION (consent) to do so.

You still don't get it. It doesn't matter a thing if adults in general have "free will" and children don't - it just means that, for a meaningful comparison, we have to compare children not with adults in general but with adults who have been so to speak stripped of their free will. When we do that, we find that absence of "free will" is not in general a justification for spanking as you're trying to claim. If you do break the law, you can be forced into prison where others will control your action much as parents would for a kid, but they still can't spank you.

You've talked yourself into a corner. Just recognise it. There's nothing shameful about being wrong, stupidity starts where you insist on being wrong after you've been corrected.

 

[Davka]

Hell, considering studies show that hitting kids is actually ineffective at altering their behavior positively in the long term

Oddly enopugh, studies of SPANKING AS OPPOSED TO THE BROADER, less-accurate "HITTING" show precisely the opposite. But studies of SPANKING AS OPPOSED TO THE BROADER, less-accurate "HITTING" are few and far between, because making such a distinction is career suicide in the current atmosphere.

 

[Davka]

You still don't get it. It doesn't matter a thing if adults in general have "free will" and children don't - it just means that, for a meaningful comparison, we have to compare children not with adults in general but with adults who have been so to speak stripped of their free will.

No, it means that those attempting to equate the two are comparing apples and oranges, but don't want to admit it. Which is kind of sad, because

There's nothing shameful about being wrong, stupidity starts where you insist on being wrong after you've been corrected.

 

[Jokodo]

No, it means that those attempting to equate the two are comparing apples and oranges, but don't want to admit it. Which is kind of sad, because

There's nothing shameful about being wrong, stupidity starts where you insist on being wrong after you've been corrected.

You are the ones insisting that spanking is just like making food or clothing choices or restraining someone against their will. Turns out that, though we cannot impose our food or clothing choices or restrain adults in general, we can do those things under specific circumstances - and even then we can't spank them. That makes spanking not parallel with those other acts your side is trying to equate it with. There really is no ambiguity about this simple fact.

 

[rousseau]

Man I wish this thread would go away.

 

[Playball40]

Except children are not equal to adults.

Many people ultimately end up as guardians for their alzheimer parents, for instance. This would be a situation wherein one adult will be doing for/to another adult almost exactly as a parent does for a child, yet hitting/spanking/swatting/slapping that elderly parent is still illegal.

Because they're adults not children.

That's as circular as the Bible is the absolute truth because it's written by God. How do you know it's written by God? It's in the Bible.

 

[Sabine Grant]

TFT Moderation Team.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No one has mentioned giving out trophies for participation. You don't get on the honor role for participation. We shouldn't give out trophies in sports for participation. Well, at a very young age when the kids are just learning how to play the sport, that's fine.

Dancer's don't get "participation trophies" so I don't know how pervasive this practice is. Do you have examples of older, more experienced sports players receiving "participation trophies"?

Players on the Toronto Maple Leafs get millions of dollars every year despite rarely, if ever, showing any ability to play hockey.

Does that count?