Corporal Punishment

[Jake]

http://img216.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ig006905tr.gif

As you can see from the image above, most of the more liberal, secular
states are against corporal punishment (the beating of children). On
the other hand, however, In nearly all of the red states, corporal
punishment is allowed in public schools. Note that the southern,
religious fundamentalist states all have higher rates than anywhere
else.

The bible advocates the beating of children (Proverbs 13:24, 20:30,
23:13-14). It also tells you to murder your child if he talks back to
you (Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Mark 7:9-13,
Matthew 15:4-7).

So, if Christians, claiming to be the moral authorities of the
universe, are so moral, then why do they beat their children? Doesn't
seem very moral to me. And what's more, the Christian group, Focus on
the Family, seems to have the belief that beating your children is a
way to show them love and teach them what's right. I don't think that
beating your children is very right, nor is it very loving of parents.
Any parents who beat their children should have their children taken
away and put in a foster home, and the parents should be charged with a
felony.

What are everyone else's views on this matter?

[thedeviliam@hotmail.com]

What are Christians supposed to do to their kids? Reason with 'em? As
if.

[OldMan]

As a parent I have never beat my children, although I did occasionally
spank them. Just like I was spanked when I was growing up. I did not
think it was all that wonderful as a child, but later grew to really
appreciate the discipline and love my parents gave to me. And my son
has affirmed the same thing in his upbringing, that is he greatfull for
the training he received.

[Jake]

lol "training." There's better ways to teach your kids right and wrong
then inflicting violence upon them.

[OldMan]

Jake wrote:
> lol "training." There's better ways to teach your kids right and wrong
> then inflicting violence upon them.

I have seen a lot of attempts to try that but most of them result in
kids that are a pain to be around.

[Jase]

Thedeviliam: What are Christians supposed to do to their kids? Reason
with 'em? As if.

Jase: That was hilarious!

[Max]

Corporal punishment is nothing other than an exercise in attempted
behaviour modification. Religion and fear of non compliance to church
doctrine go hand in hand.

Max

[thedeviliam@hotmail.com]

Thanks. Spare the rod, spoil the child. Or just kill your kids because
they defied God and they'll spoil eventually on their own. Lying to
your kids is socially acceptable within contradictory limits. Not
logically defined standards and all. It's not okay to say leprechauns
want them to torture black people for example, but I think that's kind
of unfair considering the level of standards that has surely been
abandoned and are frankly a straw man. It's okay to make _some_ stuff
up why? Where do we draw the line? Maybe I'm being a little
heavy-handed, but it isn't like Christians aren't murderers or anything.

[zachbug@ameritech.net]

when you say that beating children doesn't seem very moral to you, I
get the impression that maybe Christians' morals (distinction between
right and wrong) are different than those who are against beating
children.

[thedeviliam@hotmail.com]

I think spanking is OK if you don't take any pleasure in it. Corporal
punishment seems to be too enjoyable for most adults, so I think they
aren't qualified to hit their kids. I realize it all comes down to you
being bigger and older. Time-outs, whatever, it all comes down to you
being able to kick their asses. But whatever you do to discipline your
kids, it should not be fun for you. This is why corporal punishment
bugs me. It's too easy for angry people to get off on.

> I did not
> think it was all that wonderful as a child, but later grew to really
> appreciate the discipline and love my parents gave to me. And my son
> has affirmed the same thing in his upbringing, that is he greatfull for
> the training he received.

Now, at this point I'd play Devil's Advocate if I wasn't the Devil
Himself. To what extent is violence acceptable?

[thedeviliam@hotmail.com]

I think this is a fair assumption. The Bible encourages the murder of
all people who disagree with you no matter what relationship you may
have with them. Dead kids of yours? So what?

[OldMan]

Do you have any kind of reference for this assertion? In Matthew 5:44
Jesus tells us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us.

[OldMan]

thede...@hotmail.com wrote:

> OldMan wrote:
> > I did not
> > think it was all that wonderful as a child, but later grew to really
> > appreciate the discipline and love my parents gave to me. And my son
> > has affirmed the same thing in his upbringing, that is he greatfull for
> > the training he received.
>
> Now, at this point I'd play Devil's Advocate if I wasn't the Devil
> Himself. To what extent is violence acceptable?

Define violence for me. I used an open hand to a clothed bottom. My
dad used a belt. Personally I was afraid to do that because I had no
way of knowing how much pain I might have inflicted. Punching out a
kid, or throwing them up against a wall, or hitting them in anger is
not acceptable to me.

[dfnj2006]

Forgiveness and punishment can coexist. However, I never hit my kids
although the thought does cross my mind!

[thedeviliam@hotmail.com]

Um, you can go to godhatesfags for the gay stuff--cracks me up. But
Deuteronomy is my favorite. It says to kill anyone without religious
faith if you read it end to end.

Oh, boo-yah. I wasn't going to bother but I just stumbled upon it:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deutoronomy%2013:6-9&version=31.
Nasty, scary shit.

[Jake]

OldMan wrote:

> Do you have any kind of reference for this assertion? In Matthew 5:44
> Jesus tells us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us.

Deuteronomy:
13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy
daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine
own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods,
which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh
unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even
unto the other end of the earth;
13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither
shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou
conceal him:
13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him
to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he
hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought
thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

[thedeviliam@hotmail.com]

The Buybull _shouldn't_ have any relevance but it changes a thing or
two from day to day. Did you look at the links?

[thedeviliam@hotmail.com]

Well, there you go Jake. You're just a little less lazy than I am. But
those were the quotes that crossed my mind.

[cathyb]

A nice euphemism. I gave up beating my kids the day I found myself
giving a four-year-old a "spank on the bottom" (beating him, in other
words) while saying words to the effect of "You never ever hit someone
smaller than you! Violence is not the answer to your problems!"

> Just like I was spanked when I was growing up.

Me too. It's awful how much of what you're brought up with strikes you
as normal and acceptable, even though it really isn't.

That's one of the reasons we're still saddled with racism and religion,
actually. It's hard to shake those early years.

> I did not
> think it was all that wonderful as a child, but later grew to really
> appreciate the discipline and love my parents gave to me. And my son
> has affirmed the same thing in his upbringing, that is he greatfull for
> the training he received.

Sure. And I bet he beats his kids too.

It's a hard cycle to break.

[Stephen]

On Jan 21, 2:49 pm, "OldMan" <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:

> thedevil...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > OldMan wrote:
> > > I did not
> > > think it was all that wonderful as a child, but later grew to really
> > > appreciate the discipline and love my parents gave to me. And my son
> > > has affirmed the same thing in his upbringing, that is he greatfull for
> > > the training he received.
>
> > Now, at this point I'd play Devil's Advocate if I wasn't the Devil

> > Himself. To what extent is violence acceptable?Define violence for me. I used an open hand to a clothed bottom. My

> dad used a belt. Personally I was afraid to do that because I had no
> way of knowing how much pain I might have inflicted. Punching out a
> kid, or throwing them up against a wall, or hitting them in anger is
> not acceptable to me.

S: And how about stoning? Is that acceptable or unacceptable?

[Ling]

I don't think corporal punishment has anything to do with our religion
but more to do with culture and traditions.

Chinese parents beat their kids when the kids are bad. They use fear of
getting beats to control our actions and it is an accepted practice
within Chinese families (although I think it also depends on
socioeconomic status - my dad grew up in a rich family and was never
beat so therefore did not believe in corporal punishment).

When I was young, I can remember feeling no remorse for what I had done
when I got beat for it; I felt anger and resentment.

Yet when I think about my mom (who did all of the physical punishment),
I understand that she has always and will always love me very much. But
that does not in any way lead me to believe that what she did was
acceptable. She never beat me to the point of bruising or anything
serious, but she did slap me around when I was bad up until I was about
16 years old. Those slaps were to the face and head - I've never been
spanked.

All of that slapping around (which only happened when I was especially
bad) actually had an adverse effect on me - I rebelled and became
somewhat of a delinquent and refused to go home a lot of the time. My
similarly delinquent friends had like issues with their parents.

I believe that parents should not hit their children based both on my
personal experiences and the research I have read about in my
psychology courses. Yet in every psychology course, the issue of
culture is brought up - what works for some cultures doesn't work for
all cultures.

The best parenting practices explored in psychological research do not
require parents to physically discipline their children.

[thedeviliam@hotmail.com]

dfnj2006 wrote:
> Forgiveness and punishment can coexist. However, I never hit my kids
> although the thought does cross my mind!

You ever see comedian Louie C.K.? He talks about his kids and all the
things he never knew before. Dumpster babies, for example, he said he
didn't used to get but does now. Funny guy.

[thedeviliam@hotmail.com]

Um, yeah, beating kids is mentioned in the Bible so it does have
_something_ to do with you religion.

[Ling]

On Jan 21, 6:15 am, "thedevil...@hotmail.com"

<thedevil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Um, yeah, beating kids is mentioned in the Bible so it does have
> _something_ to do with you religion.

But Christians are not the only group of people that beat their kids.

I'm not saying that I'm supporting the religion, but asserting that the
act of beating your kid is tied to the Bible sounds very narrow minded
as it does not take into account other cultural and traditional aspects
surrounding a person.

Although religion is a part of someone's culture, there are many other
factors. Like cathyb has posted, it also depends on how YOU are raised
and whether or not you can break the cycle of corporal punishment.

You don't have to be Christian to beat your kid. My mom is considered a
type of Buddhist. I bet I could find a friend with atheist parents that
beat them too.

All I'm saying is, this is one thing that you shouldn't "pin" on the
Christians because I believe whether or not a person uses corporal
punishment depends more on their education, socioeconomic status, and
upbringing.

[OldMan]

This passage does indeed say that anyone within the community of Israel
that would seek to entice others to follow different gods should be put
to death. The assertion that I was challenging is: "The Bible

encourages the murder of all people who disagree with you no matter

what relationship you may have with them." The assertion is that if I
do not like the color of my neighbors house I can kill him. And the
given reference to support this deals specifically with people who are
trying to lead us away from God. Am I missing something? I realize
that as a theist my logic and rational thought are suspect so you may
need to help me a little here.

[thedeviliam@hotmail.com]

Do you think there is any deniable of causation regarding theism and
corporal punishment, though?

[Baz]

thede...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Do you think there is any deniable of causation regarding theism and
> corporal punishment, though?

Baz
I'm sorry but this whole discussion is basically a load of bollocks. I
used to lay a hand on my kids when they were little, for these
(related) reasons:

a) to attract their attention (because other means were not working).
This generally took the form of a "clip around the ear", and yes, I
took all kinds of abuse from liberal ladies even then for the use of
it, but my kids are now teenagers and they don't mention it, and no,
not because they are afraid of me (I wish!)

b) This will get you going.... I used to use (minimal) violence with my
kids because it made ME feel better. To briefly lash out and give 'em
a clip round the ear or a slap on the bottom relieved MY frustrations
with them. I didn't really give a shit how they felt about it, they
were kids. You have to let kids know you are not happy with them. If
you are the kind of person that can endlessly talk to (fucking)
children, go for it, but for me a clip round the ear got their
attention and made me listened to. And again, my kids are older now,
they don't hate me, or think I was a bully.

I await the deluge of PC bull-shit I am probably about to receive with
resigned fortitude.

deviliam, you're a smart guy, but you don't have kids

[thedeviliam@hotmail.com]

I don't have kids, but I can understand why beating the shit out of
them could be appealing to angry folks. I think this could contradict
the fuck out of their better interests and I think that's bad
parenting. Call me "PC" (most regs on this group would disagree) but I
think the whole point of adults disciplining children is that they have
more self-discipline. I think beating children just because you like it
is somewhat reprehensible, that's all. Don't get me wrong, corporal
punishment is not an absolute evil. Getting off on it is.

[Jake]

Hey thedevil, check your email... I sent you one about 2 days back.

[cathyb]

I do, and your second reason is the other reason I gave up smacking
(beating) my kids (I described the other earlier in this thread).

Your kids might well not hate you or think you were a bully; they've
presumably absorbed the lesson that it's ok to lash out in frustration
as long as the person you're lashing out at is smaller than you. That
hitting someone is a good way of letting someone know you're not happy
with them. That a good way of getting someone to listen to you is to
slap them on the side of the head. That parents needn't give a shit how
their kids feel about being hit as long as it makes the parents feel
better.

Hopefully they will have learnt that you should never do this to
another adult, no matter how frustrated they make you, because if they
haven't, of course, they're an assault case waiting to happen.

No, if they reserve this behaviour for people who love them and are
smaller than them, they'll never be reported to the police, and some
people will actually pat them on the back for teaching their kids a
lesson.

And of course, they will be teaching their kids a lesson. That it's
okay to hit someone who frustrates you...

[thedeviliam@hotmail.com]

Well put, cathyb. Violence can be an answer, but you aren't supposed to
get off on it regarding someone you care about. Nobody should just hit
their kids because they cum from it or whatever. If you enjoy it, it
will infect your judgement and can sincerely not be the best thing for
Sally and Junior.

[Stephen]

On Jan 22, 3:29 pm, "thedevil...@hotmail.com" <thedevil...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

S: I find B.F. Skinner's experimental work on behaviour modification to
be quite interesting:

"A behavior followed by a reinforcing stimulus results in an increased
probability of that behavior occurring in the future.
A behavior no longer followed by the reinforcing stimulus results in a
decreased probability of that behavior occurring in the future.
A behavior followed by an aversive stimulus results in a decreased
probability of the behavior occurring in the future.
A behavior followed by the removal of an aversive stimulus results in
an increased probability of that behavior occurring in the future.

Skinner (contrary to some stereotypes that have arisen about
behaviorists) doesn't "approve" of the use of aversive stimuli --
not because of ethics, but because they don't work well!"

All quotes from http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/skinner.html

>From an experimental point of view, it seems that a parent is better
off rewarding their kids for doing the right thing rather than focusing
on telling them off for doing the wrong thing.

[cathyb]

Unfortunately, this is easier said than done:(

[Baz]

cathyb wrote:
> Baz wrote:

> Your kids might well not hate you or think you were a bully; they've
> presumably absorbed the lesson that it's ok to lash out in frustration
> as long as the person you're lashing out at is smaller than you. That
> hitting someone is a good way of letting someone know you're not happy
> with them. That a good way of getting someone to listen to you is to
> slap them on the side of the head. That parents needn't give a shit how
> their kids feel about being hit as long as it makes the parents feel
> better.
>
> Hopefully they will have learnt that you should never do this to
> another adult, no matter how frustrated they make you, because if they
> haven't, of course, they're an assault case waiting to happen.
>
> No, if they reserve this behaviour for people who love them and are
> smaller than them, they'll never be reported to the police, and some
> people will actually pat them on the back for teaching their kids a
> lesson.
>
> And of course, they will be teaching their kids a lesson. That it's
> okay to hit someone who frustrates you...

Baz
They were not "smaller" than me, cathyb, they were kids. I don't slap
dwarfs, or adults, at all, and never have, and neither do my kids.
Also, I'm a male, (shock, horror) and so I may have different, and
legitimate, emotional responses to children than you do. And I don't
get physical with them now they are teenagers (I have no desire to).
Look, if you don't see the need for the odd act of mild, non-gratuitous
child-directed violence, fine, don't do it. But as far as I can see, my
kids have not even registered it, let alone suffered from it, and, as I
said, it made ME feel better, and that was a good thing. So who are you
to tell me how I should have behaved? Who knows what acts of mental
cruelty I might have inflicted upon them if I wasn't allowed the clip
round the ear. The point is that that when you tar all apparently
similar, but actually very dissimilar, acts with the same pc brush, i.e
beating children = a clip round the ear, you end up with this
crypto-fascist, nanny-state fuck-wittism that you are trending to here.

[cathyb]

Baz wrote:
> cathyb wrote:
> > Baz wrote:
>
> > Your kids might well not hate you or think you were a bully; they've
> > presumably absorbed the lesson that it's ok to lash out in frustration
> > as long as the person you're lashing out at is smaller than you. That
> > hitting someone is a good way of letting someone know you're not happy
> > with them. That a good way of getting someone to listen to you is to
> > slap them on the side of the head. That parents needn't give a shit how
> > their kids feel about being hit as long as it makes the parents feel
> > better.
> >
> > Hopefully they will have learnt that you should never do this to
> > another adult, no matter how frustrated they make you, because if they
> > haven't, of course, they're an assault case waiting to happen.
> >
> > No, if they reserve this behaviour for people who love them and are
> > smaller than them, they'll never be reported to the police, and some
> > people will actually pat them on the back for teaching their kids a
> > lesson.
> >
> > And of course, they will be teaching their kids a lesson. That it's
> > okay to hit someone who frustrates you...
>
> Baz
> They were not "smaller" than me, cathyb, they were kids.

?? Are you sure they weren't smaller than you?

> I don't slap
> dwarfs, or adults, at all, and never have

That's socially unacceptable, isn't it, to say nothing of illegal?

>, and neither do my kids.
> Also, I'm a male, (shock, horror) and so I may have different, and
> legitimate, emotional responses to children than you do.

Oh, grow up, and stop trying to imply that my long-thought-out position
on this issue is some emotionally driven, hormonal girl-thing.

> And I don't
> get physical with them now they are teenagers (I have no desire to).

Not so much smaller than you any more, are they?

> Look, if you don't see the need for the odd act of mild, non-gratuitous
> child-directed violence, fine, don't do it. But as far as I can see, my
> kids have not even registered it, let alone suffered from it, and, as I
> said, it made ME feel better, and that was a good thing.

Indeed, you certainly have already explained that you used to hit your
kids to make yourself feel better.

Of course, any damage that has occurred may only surface when they
start hitting their kids to make themselves feel good.

> So who are you
> to tell me how I should have behaved? Who knows what acts of mental
> cruelty I might have inflicted upon them if I wasn't allowed the clip
> round the ear.

I don't know; are you naturally cruel to people?

> The point is that that when you tar all apparently
> similar, but actually very dissimilar, acts with the same pc brush, i.e
> beating children = a clip round the ear

You hit a child on the head, and yes, you're beating him. I'm aware
that you think the term "clip around the ear" makes it sound better,
but that will probably only work with stupid people.

>, you end up with this
> crypto-fascist, nanny-state fuck-wittism that you are trending to here.

You're very fond of using the term pc to dismiss points of view with
which you don't agree, aren't you? Does it save you having to actually
think about the argument?

But let's look at what you're actually saying: it's okay for you to hit
kids when they piss you off, because it makes you feel better; but you
would *never* treat an adult in the same way. (Well, let's face it,
you'd end up in prison, wouldn't you.)

[Baz]

Baz
Grow up yourself cathyb, and consider that your long-thought-out
position is might actually be an emotionally driven hormonal
girl-thing.

> > And I don't
> > get physical with them now they are teenagers (I have no desire to).
>
> Not so much smaller than you any more, are they?
>

Baz
Yeah, one of them is a 14 year old girl. I'm really dieing to slap her
around, but she does tae-kwon-do.... oh, just fuck off with this
Youre-a-bullying-bigger-than-them shit, cathyb. it doesn't fly. Don't
insult my civility or intelligence. Think about it a bit more deeply.

>
> > Look, if you don't see the need for the odd act of mild, non-gratuitous
> > child-directed violence, fine, don't do it. But as far as I can see, my
> > kids have not even registered it, let alone suffered from it, and, as I
> > said, it made ME feel better, and that was a good thing.
>
> Indeed, you certainly have already explained that you used to hit your
> kids to make yourself feel better.
>

Baz
Yes, I did.

> Of course, any damage that has occurred may only surface when they
> start hitting their kids to make themselves feel good.
>

Baz
Yes, they might

>
> > So who are you
> > to tell me how I should have behaved? Who knows what acts of mental
> > cruelty I might have inflicted upon them if I wasn't allowed the clip
> > round the ear.
>
> I don't know; are you naturally cruel to people?
>

Baz
No, I'm not.

> > The point is that that when you tar all apparently
> > similar, but actually very dissimilar, acts with the same pc brush, i.e
> > beating children = a clip round the ear
>
> You hit a child on the head, and yes, you're beating him. I'm aware
> that you think the term "clip around the ear" makes it sound better,
> but that will probably only work with stupid people.
>

Baz
No, cathyb, you can keep saying it, but it isn't true that a clip
around the ear = "beating". To keep stating that is a stupid position.
You cannot equate a slap with a beating, the words are not synonymous.

> >, you end up with this
> > crypto-fascist, nanny-state fuck-wittism that you are trending to here.
>
> You're very fond of using the term pc to dismiss points of view with
> which you don't agree, aren't you? Does it save you having to actually
> think about the argument?
>

Baz
Yeah right, it does. I'm obviously too thick to comprehend these really
difficult mental tasks you have set me here, and I have obviously never
thought about these issues at all.... you patronising $$##@%%! It's
you that needs to get beyond the platitudes here, cathyb!

> But let's look at what you're actually saying: it's okay for you to hit
> kids when they piss you off, because it makes you feel better; but you
> would *never* treat an adult in the same way. (Well, let's face it,
> you'd end up in prison, wouldn't you.)

Baz
Yes, that's exactly what I am saying, children are not afforded the
same rights and privileges as adults because they are not adult, they
are proto-adults, not-yet adults, primitive pre-adults, and, as such,
sometimes need to be dealt with in a more visceral manner, for the
mental health of all concerned.The behavior of animals in the wild
evidences that the young are swatted by adults to keep the social
order. And that is all we are talking about here, whether you accept it
or not.

[cathyb]

Mm. That sort of puts your position in an emotionally driven hormonal
male light, if you want to go there. I don't actually think
testosterone=bad and oestrogen=good, but if you insist that I think the
things I do simply because I'm female, you can get fucked; the converse
is simply that you think (and hurt) the way you do simply because
you're male. It's nonsense and it gets us nowhere.

>
> > > And I don't
> > > get physical with them now they are teenagers (I have no desire to).
> >
> > Not so much smaller than you any more, are they?
> >
>
> Baz
> Yeah, one of them is a 14 year old girl. I'm really dieing to slap her
> around, but she does tae-kwon-do.... oh, just fuck off with this
> Youre-a-bullying-bigger-than-them shit, cathyb. it doesn't fly. Don't
> insult my civility or intelligence. Think about it a bit more deeply.

There's really no need to go deeper than the fact that you hit your
kids to make yourself feel better, and because it's socially acceptable
and you can get away with it. There isn't anyone else you could get
away with treating that way (not even other people's kids), but you can
with your kids, and you take full advantage of the fact.

>
>
> >
> > > Look, if you don't see the need for the odd act of mild, non-gratuitous
> > > child-directed violence, fine, don't do it. But as far as I can see, my
> > > kids have not even registered it, let alone suffered from it, and, as I
> > > said, it made ME feel better, and that was a good thing.
> >
> > Indeed, you certainly have already explained that you used to hit your
> > kids to make yourself feel better.
> >
>
> Baz
> Yes, I did.
>
> > Of course, any damage that has occurred may only surface when they
> > start hitting their kids to make themselves feel good.
> >
> Baz
> Yes, they might
>
> >
> > > So who are you
> > > to tell me how I should have behaved? Who knows what acts of mental
> > > cruelty I might have inflicted upon them if I wasn't allowed the clip
> > > round the ear.
> >
> > I don't know; are you naturally cruel to people?
> >
>
> Baz
> No, I'm not.

Then why should you think you'll inflict mental cruelty on your
children if you have to give up the physical cruelty thing?

>
> > > The point is that that when you tar all apparently
> > > similar, but actually very dissimilar, acts with the same pc brush, i.e
> > > beating children = a clip round the ear
> >
> > You hit a child on the head, and yes, you're beating him. I'm aware
> > that you think the term "clip around the ear" makes it sound better,
> > but that will probably only work with stupid people.
> >
> Baz
> No, cathyb, you can keep saying it, but it isn't true that a clip
> around the ear = "beating". To keep stating that is a stupid position.
> You cannot equate a slap with a beating, the words are not synonymous.

Hitting someone is beating them, Baz. Pretending that a slap or a smack
isn't violence is simply a euphemism designed to divert from the fact
that you're using violence against a member of your family to make
yourself feel good.

>
> > >, you end up with this
> > > crypto-fascist, nanny-state fuck-wittism that you are trending to here.
> >
> > You're very fond of using the term pc to dismiss points of view with
> > which you don't agree, aren't you? Does it save you having to actually
> > think about the argument?
> >
>
> Baz
> Yeah right, it does. I'm obviously too thick to comprehend these really
> difficult mental tasks you have set me here, and I have obviously never
> thought about these issues at all.... you patronising $$##@%%! It's
> you that needs to get beyond the platitudes here, cathyb!

I'm terribly sorry for having pointed out the fact that you're using
the label "pc" to avoid actually thinking about the things people say
to you. Tough shit.

>
> > But let's look at what you're actually saying: it's okay for you to hit
> > kids when they piss you off, because it makes you feel better; but you
> > would *never* treat an adult in the same way. (Well, let's face it,
> > you'd end up in prison, wouldn't you.)
>
> Baz
> Yes, that's exactly what I am saying, children are not afforded the
> same rights and privileges as adults because they are not adult

Too right they're not. Which is not to say they should lose all of the
rights we adults take for granted as to the safety of our persons.

> , they
> are proto-adults, not-yet adults, primitive pre-adults, and, as such,
> sometimes need to be dealt with in a more visceral manner, for the
> mental health of all concerned.The behavior of animals in the wild
> evidences that the young are swatted by adults to keep the social
> order. And that is all we are talking about here, whether you accept it
> or not.

You'll find that adult animals also swat other adult animals to keep
them in line. We don't follow suit. In fact we put people in prison for
doing so.

And you are, of course, not talking about the mental health of all
concerned; you're talking about your own mental health, which you
apparently think is safeguarded by hitting small children.

[somebody]

Jake wrote:

> What are everyone else's views on this matter?

Ok, here's how I go about this. Whenever anyone makes a
recommendation I consider three questions. Is following through with
the recommendation likely to achieve the desired end? Are there any
undesirable effects of following through with the recommendation? Are
there any, perhaps more effective, ways of achieving the desired end?

Should we smack our children?

I don't think so. Not least because it's illegal where I'm from.

Is smacking children likely to achieve a desirable end?

If the desirable end is to teach children which behaviors are
unacceptable in a particular social setting, then I think it can and
has been effective. But if the desirable end is to teach children WHY
these ways of acting are unacceptable, then I think it fails. If the
end goal is to encourage reform, then smacking is only going to
encourage refraining from certain behaviors through fear of punishment,
which, at least for my wife and I, is not something we want. Unless
it's accompanied with an explanation and an attempt at trying to get
them to imagine what it's like to be on the receiving end of their
behavior. This is where I think many parents fail.

Are there any undesirable side effects than accompany smacking?

I think there are. Children often learn by mimicking their parents.
Sadly, they're not in any kind of position to know when acting like
their parents is appropriate. Here's an example. Not so long ago at
my daughters preschool, my daughter had mistook a boys coat for her own
and put it on. This lad then hit my daughter once with every syllable
of the sentence "Do not nick my coat!" After consoling my daughter
I went and found this boy's mother, who hit this lad with every
syllable of the sentence "Do not hit girls!"
I don't think I've ever seen a parent smack a child who hasn't
been angry at what their child has done. Almost as if the smacking
isn't anything to do with teaching the child, but rather a way of
releasing anger. Not that I believe that this is always the case, but I
think it sometimes is. The point is that, even if the purpose of the
smacking is to teach children, this isn't how many children see it.
Children can think that violence is acceptable as long as it's in
response to what they perceive to be unacceptable behavior. If things
are perhaps not going their way, then it's fine to lash out. When my
youngest daughter was just starting to toddle around, she'd have her
hands in all sort of things. Once she got hold of her cousin's brand
new Barbie horse and cart, only to be met with a tanned hide from her
older cousin. To which my sister in law responded with a tanning of her
own. It's far too confusing for children to understand why it's ok
for parents to hit, but not for them.

Are there any other, perhaps more effective, ways of teaching children
other than smacking?

I think there are. It's possible to create undesirable consequences
for actions without involving violence. Denying certain freedoms or
privileges (or even threatening doing so) seems to work for us. This is
something that children can't mimic. A child isn't able to say to
the boy who's just accidentally knocked them over "keep this up and
you're not going to the Zoo on Saturday." As long as the threat is
real, and we're going to follow through with it, this seems to work
wonders. Also explaining to children why behaving in a particular way
is unacceptable is vital. Whenever one of our daughters is the victim
of another's behavior we try to use the way they're feeling as an
example of why they shouldn't do exactly the same thing. Having
'timeouts' in 'the quiet corner' or even in their room (which
has no toys within reach) seems to work wonders. This is also what the
experts I've heard have recommended.

I've often heard in defense of smacking the argument 'I/you/my kids
were smacked, and it didn't do them any harm, so smacking is fine'
Apart from the implicit assumption that this argument is based on being
a very poor general principle (whatever does no harm to me/you/my kids
is acceptable), I very much doubt that it's true.
When I was nearly ten my father stopped hitting me because he knocked
me unconscious. I used to dodge and block attempted smackings. I used
to think it was quite a bit of fun doing so. Once when I'd rode my
bike through particularly dangerous traffic near our house, my dad
caught me and proceeded to attempt to 'teach me a lesson'. I
managed to evade him for quite a while but he eventually got me round
the back of the head (not what he intended). When I came around at a
neighbor's house, he realized he had to rethink things. I wasn't
allowed my bike for a month, and I don't think I ever did it again.
Especially after he told me he'd seen an old lady's leg crushed on
that road. I understood WHY he didn't want me riding there.
We've even had to stop hitting the dog (which wasn't easy I can
tell you, after he's given one of the kids a little nip or he's
jumped up on my very recently vasectomised lap) because my youngest
daughter had picked up on it, and would hit the dog just for being in
her way. Fortunately we just have to say his name in a particular tone
of voice and his ears are back and he's off to his bed. He's an old
dog, so far, he seems to be learning this new trick.
The point is that, although many people who were smacked as kids may
turn out to be perfectly ok, at the time of their upbringing, learning
is unnecessarily more difficult, and some kids will carry on thinking
violence is acceptable. On my wife's side of the family, for example,
it's still considered normal for the women to hit the men during a
disagreement, but absolutely unforgivable if a male hits a female. The
boys are smacked, but the girls are sent to their rooms. Shocking IMHO.

[somebody]

Here are a couple more thoughts on this.

1. There are laws that protect and prevent adults for being hit (at
all) so why should children be different?
2. The reasons for hitting children could just as easily be applied to
another group (say adults with learning disabilities.) Many would be
appalled to find out that a vulnerable adult with a learning age of 9
was being spanked for unacceptable behavior. But how would these two
groups be relevantly different to be able to justify smacking for one
but not the other? To be consistent, should pro-smacking carers of the
handicapped use smacking as a teaching method?

[Ken Denny]

It is totally unacceptable for my kids to get stoned. Unless they're
willing to share.

[Ken Denny]

OK. So it says you should kill people who are trying to lead you away
from God. It seems to me that atheists posting messages defending
atheism could be construed as trying to lead people away from God. Does
that mean that we should be killed? If not why not?

[thedeviliam@hotmail.com]

So it's okay to kill the antitheists, OldMan?

[Simpleton]

OldMan wrote:
>
> As a parent I have never beat my children, although I did occasionally
> spank them.

Classic!

[thedeviliam@hotmail.com]

Another good one, cathyb. You are on a roll, my Apisa-proclaimed lover.
(He is in fact "Frank Apisa, Guru" or "FAG" for short.)

I know I'll repeat myself a few times here so please bear with me. I
think what Baz is saying is very cowardly. He's basically saying it's
all good to take out his aggression on children because it is legal to
a certain extent and they are small and easy targets. If you need to
hit someone, be a man about it (sorry for the sexist expression) and go
to a bar. This is all kind of sickening to me. If you are angry and it
makes you feel better to hurt the kids it is not a give-in that said
children are 100% responsible for your anger. Maybe your boss was a
douchebag or your favorite crappy sitcom was cancelled. I think some
parents know how to utilize corporal punishment morally, but that I'm
too angry to ever be one of them and Baz probably is as well from the
sound of it. I would never want to misdirect my anger towards children
no matter _how_ good it felt. I don't think "it feels good" is ever a
legitimate excuse to hurt kids. And I'll bet most of the posters here
would agree with my assessment for once.

[scrunchythief@gmail.com]

Jake wrote:
> http://img216.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ig006905tr.gif
>
> As you can see from the image above, most of the more liberal, secular
> states are against corporal punishment (the beating of children). On
> the other hand, however, In nearly all of the red states, corporal
> punishment is allowed in public schools. Note that the southern,
> religious fundamentalist states all have higher rates than anywhere
> else.
>
> The bible advocates the beating of children (Proverbs 13:24, 20:30,
> 23:13-14). It also tells you to murder your child if he talks back to
> you (Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Mark 7:9-13,
> Matthew 15:4-7).
>
> So, if Christians, claiming to be the moral authorities of the
> universe, are so moral, then why do they beat their children? Doesn't
> seem very moral to me. And what's more, the Christian group, Focus on
> the Family, seems to have the belief that beating your children is a
> way to show them love and teach them what's right. I don't think that
> beating your children is very right, nor is it very loving of parents.
> Any parents who beat their children should have their children taken
> away and put in a foster home, and the parents should be charged with a
> felony.
>

> What are everyone else's views on this matter?\

My view: please, please, please don't base your opinion of all
Christians on this! I was raised Christian, and all of my Christian
friends and I are all against corporal punishment of any kind. We're
not all like that.

[Baz]

Baz
Dia, like cathyb, you utterly miss the point. What I am saying is that
there is qualitative difference between slapping a child and picking a
fight in a bar (or almost any other form of human aggression), not just
in the size of the opponent, but in the well-spring of where the
activity comes from in the human psyche. I believe it can be a
legitimate interaction between a parent and a child, has nothing at all
to do with cowardice, little to do with anger, does not come from a
desire to hurt kids, and has absolutely nothing to do with the
relationship with my boss. It's about establishing control and
maintaining social order with little persons, with whom the available
tool-set is very limited.

In short, I'm trying to describe this from an anthropological point of
view, but the only response that you guys can seem to come up with is
the utterrly knee-jerk one of calling me a child-beater.

It seems amazing to me that I had this long conversation with cathy
last night and now with you, dia, and nobody has asked me even what age
my kids were when I used to occasionally behave thusly. Clue, I wasn't
shaking infants to death, and I wasn't beating up my 10 year old. Also,
nobody has bothered to ask me WHY I did this. But such nuances are
unimportant to you, aren't they. You just want to revel in your
disdain, and make stupid unfounded judgements about the sort of person
I might be. That would the typical reaction of the close-minded
(remember, those people you claim to despise).

[somebody]

Hi Baz,

I'm guessing you come from a generation where such an activity was
the norm. I've plenty of sympathy for those parents who just
couldn't see any other way of controlling their (especially
difficult) children. It's not like these parenting issues were well
looked at back in the day. But I have to admit, I'm struggling to
understand your argument. Perhaps you ought to try and summarize it.
Why do you think that smacking is either morally permissible or
socially beneficial/benign? What desirable outcome do you think it
achieves, and do you not recognize any undesirable effects at all? Do
you not see any other, perhaps more effective, means to achieve the
same end?

Also, how can you distinguish between children and a similar group?
Let's say that a middle-aged lady is involved in an accident of some
sort and looses a large proportion of her memory. She behaves like a
five-year-old, but doctors are certain she'll make normal progress
(e.g. in five years she'll behave like a typical ten-year-old etc
etc.) Would it be ok for this lady get a clip round the ear for
misbehaving? If not, how are the two groups relevantly dissimilar? What
about the aged, handicapped, mentally ill, animals? If it's all about
"social order" then what's the problem here? How would refraining
from this type of response in these groups, but not with children,
avoid the charge of inconsistency?

[Baz]

Baz
Simpleton, since I seem to be being painted as the bad guy in this
thread, I would love love to answer your salient questions, that are
notably absent from the tirade of abuse I have been subjected to from
the other shrill critics, who are busily trying to hang me by the noose
of
their own presuppositions.

First, let me clarify what, in my view, is acceptable, and
what is not.

All forms of beatings are unacceptable, with or out instruments, (belts
canes, whatever). All repeated hitting is unacceptable. In fact the
only thing that is acceptable is a single smack (but you can try again
if you miss the first time, though :). Even this is not permissable
with infants or with kids over the age of about five. All smacking or
anything else administered by anyone other than by a parent is
unacceptable.

Now, as to the "why". The smack, or "swat", I think is a better
description of what I used to do, generally delivered fairly gently
around the back of the head, was, in my experience a very effective way
to get the attention of the child and to punctuate the importance of
what I thought I was saying, and that they were not listening to. More
often than not this didn't even lead to tears on the part of my kids,
just to silence for a moment, so I could get a word in edgewise through
the yelling.

Now, I said in earlier post that I used to do this because it was good
for my state of mind as much as for anything else I stand by this, and
I would respectfully suggest that there is nothing worse in
child-rearing than trying to deal with a small child who is pushing the
limits of your patience just because he/she can
(i.e you are letting them) and because you are not using the tools that
have been given to you, by evolution, to establish control.

As to your question of how do I distinguish between my children and all
other groups? Well you guessed it, because they are my children, and we
have a very particular relationship in both the lower and higher forms
of human interaction. We are bound not on only by genetics but the
overall expectations of child/parent social structures i.e. I'm
responsible for them and the way they turn out. These same
relationships don't apply to other groups, and it is my responsibility
to show only deference to other adults, if for no other reason than we
can expect no improvement in the condition of a mentally disabled
person, or an Alzheimer's patient, so the application of correctional
instruction is not helpful ( I know I sound like a 19th century
headmaster here, but I think you know what I mean). With children, we
are socializing them in everything we do...I hear the shrill voices
screaming already that "you're socializing them to hit people!".
Nonsense, if I was attacking a teenager with a baseball bat that would
be true, but this obviously not what I am referring to. I'll have to
ask them, but I seriously doubt that my kids, now in their teens,
remember ever being smacked by me.

Lastly, in answer to your question about my upbringing, my mother
assures me that I was spanked only once, but the clip round the ear was
administered on occasions. I really don't remember. Besides, I have an
older brother, who inflicted far more pain back then than a clip round
the ear, but has had to spend his adult life listening to me whine
endlessly about the way he treated me. We all love each other dearly
now (truly, we do).

Really, Mr S., thanks for actually asking some open-minded questions,
instead of just jumping on the pc band-wagon a la cathyb and DIA

Yours,

Child-beater Baz

P.S. This'll probably make Mike even more suspicious of our marital
status

[thedeviliam@hotmail.com]

Baz wrote:
> thede...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Another good one, cathyb. You are on a roll, my Apisa-proclaimed lover.
> > (He is in fact "Frank Apisa, Guru" or "FAG" for short.)
> >
> > I know I'll repeat myself a few times here so please bear with me. I
> > think what Baz is saying is very cowardly. He's basically saying it's
> > all good to take out his aggression on children because it is legal to
> > a certain extent and they are small and easy targets. If you need to
> > hit someone, be a man about it (sorry for the sexist expression) and go
> > to a bar. This is all kind of sickening to me. If you are angry and it
> > makes you feel better to hurt the kids it is not a give-in that said
> > children are 100% responsible for your anger. Maybe your boss was a
> > douchebag or your favorite crappy sitcom was cancelled. I think some
> > parents know how to utilize corporal punishment morally, but that I'm
> > too angry to ever be one of them and Baz probably is as well from the
> > sound of it. I would never want to misdirect my anger towards children
> > no matter _how_ good it felt. I don't think "it feels good" is ever a
> > legitimate excuse to hurt kids. And I'll bet most of the posters here
> > would agree with my assessment for once.
>
> Baz
> Dia, like cathyb, you utterly miss the point.

Who did understand your point? Do you think you failed at a certain
level of communication?

> What I am saying is that
> there is qualitative difference between slapping a child and picking a
> fight in a bar (or almost any other form of human aggression), not just
> in the size of the opponent, but in the well-spring of where the
> activity comes from in the human psyche. I believe it can be a
> legitimate interaction between a parent and a child, has nothing at all
> to do with cowardice, little to do with anger, does not come from a
> desire to hurt kids,

Okay, I'm going to stop you right now and point out that I clarified
that corporal punishment can be a moral act. I just don't think you
should do it if you enjoy it because it affects your judgement and
that's it. We can go back and look at the quotes if you like.

> and has absolutely nothing to do with the
> relationship with my boss.

All I'm saying is this: if your boss pissed you off and your kid pissed
you off then odds are it will affect the severity of the violence
towards the child. Cool, calm, distant emotion is best whenever you are
hurting another human being physically.

> It's about establishing control and
> maintaining social order with little persons, with whom the available
> tool-set is very limited.

If you are able to logically say "this is the best thing to keep the
kid within acceptable standards" and not get off on it then you're
probably justified in utilizing corporal punishment. You just plain
shouldn't like it because it will probably alter your judgement and not
for the better. That is all I am saying, and you did seem to contradict
it and I can dig up a few quotes to explain why you seemed to give that
impression from this very thread.

> In short, I'm trying to describe this from an anthropological point of
> view, but the only response that you guys can seem to come up with is
> the utterrly knee-jerk one of calling me a child-beater.

Who called you a child-beater first? I thought it was you. How is a
child-beater different from someone who simply utilizes corporal
punishment responsibly by your definition?

> It seems amazing to me that I had this long conversation with cathy
> last night and now with you, dia, and nobody has asked me even what age
> my kids were when I used to occasionally behave thusly.

I'm not sure this all matters. You behave as if being old makes it bad,
being too young makes it bad...you just have kind of a middling range
regarding minors.

> Clue, I wasn't
> shaking infants to death, and I wasn't beating up my 10 year old. Also,
> nobody has bothered to ask me WHY I did this.

Nope. Was it to save a life or something? This would be perfectly
acceptable.

> But such nuances are
> unimportant to you, aren't they.

I don't think it's healthy to like hurting your young offspring. That's
all I've been saying.

> You just want to revel in your
> disdain, and make stupid unfounded judgements about the sort of person
> I might be. That would the typical reaction of the close-minded
> (remember, those people you claim to despise).

Now, should we get back to those quotes I was talking about or do you
have a better understanding?

[somebody]

> Baz

> Since I seem to be being painted as the bad guy in this thread, let me
> answer this by clarifying what, in my view, is acceptable and what is
> not.

I don’t think you’re the bad guy and I respect your honesty on such
a controversial subject. I’m not sure I’d always be so brave as to
go up against what’s considered to be politically correct. But in
this case, I think the PC’s well placed.

>
> All forms of beatings are unacceptable, with or out instruments, (belts
> canes, whatever). All repeated hitting is unacceptable. In fact the

> only thing that is acceptable is a single smack. All forms of hitting
> of infants and of kids over the age of about five is also unacceptable.
> All smacking or anything else administerd by anyone other than by the
 parents is unacceptable.

Ok, but why do you single out these very specific guidelines? Why do
you draw the line, for example, at “over the age of five”? I’m
guessing that you think at that age we’re more likely to be able to
reason with them. But if reasoning is the defining factor, why not
extend it to other groups where reasoning is unlikely/impossible? (I
realize you’ve responded to this below.)

>
> Having said that, the smack, or swat, I think is a better description
> of what I used to do (generally delivered around the back of the head)

> was, in my experience a very effective way to get the attention of the

> child and to punctuate the importance of what I thought I was saying.

> More often than not this didn't even lead to tears on the part of my
> kids, just to silence for a moment, so I could get a word in edgewise
 through the yelling.

Sure, this is how my parents were with me and I was particularly
overconfident and difficult. But I think there’s a more effective way
of dealing with this, which avoids many of the downsides to smacking
(such as inappropriate copying, coping with the perceived double
standard.) I guess I could say that at least two of my daughters have
now realized that we have the power to restrict their freedoms in ways
that they really don’t want to be restricted. We’ve stuck by our
threats of groundings, denying privileges, so that they know that
it’s a real threat and they’ve learned that a variety of behaviors
are unacceptable, and will lead to undesirable consequences on their
part. This has taken time but now we just have to give them the look or
point the finger and they pretty much get the message. We don’t even
have to raise our voices very often. It started out with “time
outs’, which were pretty effective if they were throwing tantrums,
and sometimes even restraining if there was a risk of them hurting
themselves. The important thing was that it gave them time to calm
down, so we could try our best to explain to them why what they did
isn’t allowed. Sure, it’s would be more convenient on my part to
have slapped them, but IMO not as effective and would carry various
downsides. Plus I’d hate to think of my kids, at any stage, fearing
me because of the violence I could potentially administer, whatever the
severity.

>
> Now, I said in earlier post that I used to do this because it was good

> for my state of mind as much as for anything else, as much as for the
 kid's.


I can understand perfectly that sometimes we just want to launch them
into next week. I’d be very skeptical of any parent who’d claim to
have never felt like that. I’m now a “live in Dad” for five days
a week, as my wife wanted to pursue her career in social services. On
most weekends I’m a climbing instructor (often with large groups of
kids). So I’d reckon I’m pretty well qualified to make the above
statement. But when things have gotten too much to handle, I’ve no
qualms about putting them in their room or cot and taking a time out
for myself. I’ve even abandoned full shopping trolleys to go and put
the kids in the car whilst I’ve bummed a cigarette off a passer by on
one occasion. I think it’s better to make the time to put things into
perspective (they’re just kids, my kids) rather than give them a
smacking and think about it later.

>I stand by this, and I would respectfully suggest that there is
> nothing worse in child-rearing than trying to deal with a small child

> who is just pushing the limits of your patience just because he/she can
> (i.e you are letting them) because you are not using the tools that
 have been given to you by evolution to do so.

Well, as is now hopefully obvious, I think that (especially in this day
and age) there are more effective and appropriate tools at our
disposal. You sound like a Brit. Did you ever catch those programmes
“House of Tiny Tearaways” with that clinical psychologist, Tanya
something or other? Probably not, as your kids sound older than that
particular age-group.

> As to your question of how do I distinguish between my children and all
> other groups? Well you guessed it, because they are my children, and we
> have a very particular relationship in both the lower and higher forms
> of human interaction. We are bound not on only by genetics but the
> overall expectations of child/parent social structures i.e. I'm
> responsible for them and the way they turn out. These same
> relationships don't apply to other groups, and it is my responsibility
> to show only deference to other adults, if for no other reason than we
> can expect no improvement in the condition of a mentally disabled
> person, or an Alzheimer's patient, so the application of correctional
> instruction is not helpful ( I know I sound like a 19th century
 headmaster here, but I think you know what I mean).



But what if those responsibilities were in place. Perhaps in situations
where parents/carers are responsible for their child who has a much
slower development, but development none-the-less? I used to work with
adults like this (how I met my wife.) This is what got me to thinking
about this very issue before my kids were born. I realized that, what
was considered the social norm in dealing with this type of challenging
behavior for this kind of mental age group, was smacking. I identified
an inconsistency within my own beliefs about this, and was unable to
distinguish between the two groups. If one of those adults were my
child, then it’d be illegal under the protection of vulnerable adults
act to discipline them in that way. So how could I justify the double
standard?

With children, we
> are socializing them in everything we do...I hear the shrill voices
> screaming already that "you're socializing them to hit people!".
> Nonsense, if I was attacking a teenager with a baseball bat that would
> be true, but this obviously not what I am referring to. I'll have to
> ask them, but I seriously doubt that my kids, now in their teens,
 remember ever being smacked by me.

I believe you, and I’d bet that’s true for countless other families
also. But memory of smacking is not (IMO) a necessary condition for it
to be justifiably considered harmful. It could have been harmful at the
time, but ceased to be harmful once you’d reached an age where you
could consider things with more experience, for example. I’d bet you
and your kids have turned out fine. But others haven’t. And who’s
to say what kind of effect a different method of punishment would have
had. Would you have learned appropriate behavior quicker? I don’t
know you, so I’m not in any kind of position to judge. But I have
seen the effects of a different method in my own kids and elsewhere. On
the TV programme that I referred to earlier, it had really difficult
children changing in a matter of days once their parents had learned
how to cope with them properly.

>
> Lastly, in answer to your question about my upbringing, my mother
> assures me that I was spanked only once, but the clip round the ear was
> administered on occasions. I really don't remember. Besides, I have an
> older brother, who inflicted far more pain back then than a clip round
> the ear, but has had to spend his adult life listening to me whine
> endlessly about the way he treated me. We all love each other dearly
 now (truly, we do).

I wouldn’t suggest for a moment that all parents who’ve smacked
their kids don’t love them, or that it’s evidence of a lack of real
love. On the contrary, I think it’s one way in which parents have had
to, in a way, make a sacrifice as a result of their love and concern
for them and their future. Perhaps that’s why we hear things like
“it hurts me more than it hurts you” or “it’s for their own
good.” The intention is a good one, but I think it’s by far no
longer the best method at achieving the desired end.

>
> Really, Mr S., thanks for actually asking some open-minded questions,
> instead of just jumping on the pc band-wagon a la cathyb and DIA

>
> Yours
>
 Baz (childbeater)

I wouldn’t go that far. Sadly things can flair up like that in forums
like these. Our posts are just as much subject to the way they’re
read, than as the way they’re written (as I’ve learned on more than
one occasion).

[cathyb]

Why would it matter, given the reasons you gave for hitting them?

> Clue, I wasn't
> shaking infants to death, and I wasn't beating up my 10 year old. Also,
> nobody has bothered to ask me WHY I did this.

Of course they haven't. There was no need to ask, since you stated it
quite clearly, and the reason people are criticising you is mostly for
the second reason you gave (although frankly, I can think of a number
of ways to get a child's attention other than hitting them, too):

"...because it made ME feel better. To briefly lash out and give 'em

a clip round the ear or a slap on the bottom relieved MY frustrations
with them. I didn't really give a shit how they felt about it, they
were kids. "

> But such nuances are
> unimportant to you, aren't they.

There is no nuance here: you hit your kids because it makes you feel
better. That's the reason you gave.

> You just want to revel in your
> disdain, and make stupid unfounded judgements about the sort of person
> I might be.

Nope, the judgment is founded in what you gave as your reasons for
hitting your kids.

> That would the typical reaction of the close-minded
> (remember, those people you claim to despise).

What, taking you at your word is being closed-minded?

[thedeviliam@hotmail.com]

Ling wrote:
> On Jan 21, 6:15 am, "thedevil...@hotmail.com"
> <thedevil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Um, yeah, beating kids is mentioned in the Bible so it does have
> > _something_ to do with you religion.
>
> But Christians are not the only group of people that beat their kids.
>
> I'm not saying that I'm supporting the religion, but asserting that the
> act of beating your kid is tied to the Bible sounds very narrow minded
> as it does not take into account other cultural and traditional aspects
> surrounding a person.

http://sandradodd.com/s/rod

Um, wow. I can call bullshit considering this omniscient document does
in fact encourage beating kids. People always jump on me without doing
any research. It just takes one Google search to get a grasp of these
concepts. It is always avoided because you don't really want to know.

> Although religion is a part of someone's culture, there are many other
> factors. Like cathyb has posted, it also depends on how YOU are raised
> and whether or not you can break the cycle of corporal punishment.

Sure. Abuse does become a generational thing. So much for free will. It
doesn't make religion not evil that is not the only factor in evil. I
don't see why this is so tricky for seemingly competent humans.

> You don't have to be Christian to beat your kid. My mom is considered a
> type of Buddhist. I bet I could find a friend with atheist parents that
> beat them too.

Yes. Not evidence that Christianity does not encourage and exacerbate
child abuse so no dice.

> All I'm saying is, this is one thing that you shouldn't "pin" on the
> Christians because I believe whether or not a person uses corporal
> punishment depends more on their education, socioeconomic status, and
> upbringing.

Religion is a part of a lot of peoples' education and upbringing and
maybe even socioeconomic status from time to time.

[Baz]

thede...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Baz wrote:
> > thede...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > Another good one, cathyb. You are on a roll, my Apisa-proclaimed lover.
> > > (He is in fact "Frank Apisa, Guru" or "FAG" for short.)
> > >
> > > I know I'll repeat myself a few times here so please bear with me. I
> > > think what Baz is saying is very cowardly. He's basically saying it's
> > > all good to take out his aggression on children because it is legal to
> > > a certain extent and they are small and easy targets. If you need to
> > > hit someone, be a man about it (sorry for the sexist expression) and go
> > > to a bar. This is all kind of sickening to me. If you are angry and it
> > > makes you feel better to hurt the kids it is not a give-in that said
> > > children are 100% responsible for your anger. Maybe your boss was a
> > > douchebag or your favorite crappy sitcom was cancelled. I think some
> > > parents know how to utilize corporal punishment morally, but that I'm
> > > too angry to ever be one of them and Baz probably is as well from the
> > > sound of it. I would never want to misdirect my anger towards children
> > > no matter _how_ good it felt. I don't think "it feels good" is ever a
> > > legitimate excuse to hurt kids. And I'll bet most of the posters here
> > > would agree with my assessment for once.
> >
> > Baz
> > Dia, like cathyb, you utterly miss the point.
>
> Who did understand your point? Do you think you failed at a certain
> level of communication?
>

Baz
Yeah, I did come on a bit strong at first, for the sake of opening the
conversation, and getting a real discussion going (didn't work, except
with Simpleton).

> > What I am saying is that
> > there is qualitative difference between slapping a child and picking a
> > fight in a bar (or almost any other form of human aggression), not just
> > in the size of the opponent, but in the well-spring of where the
> > activity comes from in the human psyche. I believe it can be a
> > legitimate interaction between a parent and a child, has nothing at all
> > to do with cowardice, little to do with anger, does not come from a
> > desire to hurt kids,
>
> Okay, I'm going to stop you right now and point out that I clarified
> that corporal punishment can be a moral act. I just don't think you
> should do it if you enjoy it because it affects your judgement and
> that's it. We can go back and look at the quotes if you like.

Baz
And I''m going to stop you right now and point out that right after
that your equivocal "corporal punishment can be a moral act" bit, you
immediately launched into me as "cowardly", "sickening" "angry", "not
being a man", and my children as "small and easy targets". Prick. In
what way do you think ""corporal punishment can be a moral act", DIA
because I didn't get that bit. What I did get was a lot ridiculous
over-the-topvitrio from you and cathyb. Actually, it's an interesting
insight into the mindset of some in this group. You have experienced it
yourself, dia, take a line that is not right down the line of the
prevailing super-liberal zeitgeist and you're are fucking pariah in a
second, and any and all insults can be hurled at you with complete
impunity, now matter how honest and, yes, nuanced, you were trying to
be. And here you are...........

>
> > and has absolutely nothing to do with the
> > relationship with my boss.
>
> All I'm saying is this: if your boss pissed you off and your kid pissed
> you off then odds are it will affect the severity of the violence
> towards the child. Cool, calm, distant emotion is best whenever you are
> hurting another human being physically.
>
> > It's about establishing control and
> > maintaining social order with little persons, with whom the available
> > tool-set is very limited.
>
> If you are able to logically say "this is the best thing to keep the
> kid within acceptable standards" and not get off on it then you're
> probably justified in utilizing corporal punishment. You just plain
> shouldn't like it because it will probably alter your judgement and not
> for the better. That is all I am saying, and you did seem to contradict
> it and I can dig up a few quotes to explain why you seemed to give that
> impression from this very thread.
>
> > In short, I'm trying to describe this from an anthropological point of
> > view, but the only response that you guys can seem to come up with is
> > the utterrly knee-jerk one of calling me a child-beater.
>
> Who called you a child-beater first? I thought it was you. How is a
> child-beater different from someone who simply utilizes corporal
> punishment responsibly by your definition?
>

Baz
No, cathyb first equated the "slap" as synonymous with "beating"...
repeatedly, unfoundedly, and despite my repeated requests of her to
justify it, which she ignored. Yes, she's a debating genius all right.

> > It seems amazing to me that I had this long conversation with cathy
> > last night and now with you, dia, and nobody has asked me even what age
> > my kids were when I used to occasionally behave thusly.
>
> I'm not sure this all matters. You behave as if being old makes it bad,
> being too young makes it bad...you just have kind of a middling range
> regarding minors.
>

Baz
Children of different ages need to be be communicated in different
ways. I'm not saying that everybody should do this, but I found it
worked, and I know my kids are not maimed by it. I think it's making a
mountain out of a molehill, not to say there aren't all kinds of awful
things done to children, but it's the very definition of pc to make
judgments about a particular type of act and baldly state that it
always in all case, implies a particular reason or necessarily demands
condemnation.

> > Clue, I wasn't
> > shaking infants to death, and I wasn't beating up my 10 year old. Also,
> > nobody has bothered to ask me WHY I did this.
>
> Nope. Was it to save a life or something? This would be perfectly
> acceptable.
>
> > But such nuances are
> > unimportant to you, aren't they.
>
> I don't think it's healthy to like hurting your young offspring. That's
> all I've been saying.
>

Baz
Once again, I did not "hurt" them in any sense other of an immediate
"stop!" which they generally did, which re-established order and made
me feel good.

> > You just want to revel in your
> > disdain, and make stupid unfounded judgements about the sort of person
> > I might be. That would the typical reaction of the close-minded
> > (remember, those people you claim to despise).
>
> Now, should we get back to those quotes I was talking about or do you
> have a better understanding?

Baz
Just remember your characterisation of me as "cowardly", "sickening"
"angry", "not being a man", and my children as "small and easy
targets" the next time someone is giving you a bullshit, over-the-top,
holier-than-thou reaction.

[Baz]

Baz
cathyb, You know, staking out a somewhat controversial position to try
and start a discussion is perfectly legitimate. But the argument
becomes more nuanced you are supposed to respond with nuances of your
own. Apparently you don't have any. You haven't dealt with any of the
points I've raised or questions I've asked. e.g in what way is the word
"slap" synonymous with "beating". Let's here from you on this, because,
otherwise I'll just have to conclude that you're just a block-headed,
born-again pc warrior

[Baz]

somebody wrote:
> > Baz
>
> > Since I seem to be being painted as the bad guy in this thread, let me
> > answer this by clarifying what, in my view, is acceptable and what is
> > not.
>
> I don’t think you’re the bad guy and I respect your honesty on such
> a controversial subject. I’m not sure I’d always be so brave as to
> go up against what’s considered to be politically correct.

Baz
Yeah, tell me about it

Baz
All kids are different. Every time you roll those genetic dice.... I'm
not saying my kids were particularly difficult, they weren't. Yes,
that's fine there's probably other ways you can achieve the same
result, but to be convinced I'd have to see evidence that what I did
was wrong, or damaging or that some other method was superior. That's
going to be hard to provve to you, because you don't know me or my
kids. And, it may not, when described in general terms, seem
recommendable to the masses, but I think blanket condemnation is, well,
pc, because it pre-supposes that we are unable to judge for ourselves
what is appropriate and need to be legislated for/against

> > Now, I said in earlier post that I used to do this because it was good
> > for my state of mind as much as for anything else, as much as for the
>  kid's.
> 
>
> I can understand perfectly that sometimes we just want to launch them
> into next week. I’d be very skeptical of any parent who’d claim to
> have never felt like that. I’m now a “live in Dad” for five days
> a week, as my wife wanted to pursue her career in social services. On
> most weekends I’m a climbing instructor (often with large groups of
> kids). So I’d reckon I’m pretty well qualified to make the above
> statement. But when things have gotten too much to handle, I’ve no
> qualms about putting them in their room or cot and taking a time out
> for myself. I’ve even abandoned full shopping trolleys to go and put
> the kids in the car whilst I’ve bummed a cigarette off a passer by on
> one occasion. I think it’s better to make the time to put things into
> perspective (they’re just kids, my kids) rather than give them a
> smacking and think about it later.
>

Baz
I never "gave them a smacking". That would imply that I beat them into
submission. Not what I did nor was it the intention.

> >I stand by this, and I would respectfully suggest that there is
> > nothing worse in child-rearing than trying to deal with a small child
> > who is just pushing the limits of your patience just because he/she can
> > (i.e you are letting them) because you are not using the tools that
>  have been given to you by evolution to do so.
>
> Well, as is now hopefully obvious, I think that (especially in this day
> and age) there are more effective and appropriate tools at our
> disposal. You sound like a Brit. Did you ever catch those programmes
> “House of Tiny Tearaways” with that clinical psychologist, Tanya
> something or other? Probably not, as your kids sound older than that
> particular age-group.
>

Baz
Yes, that show was after my time. This also irks me, though. I have
repeatedly said that my "crimes" were in the past, that no harm was
done, and I am a loving and loved father, no matter, I'm still a
fucking child-beater to the cathybs of this world. It's hugely arrogant
of people to judge other people simply on their prejudices and with no
evidence to the contrary.

Yes, I am a Brit. Ex-pat. With Fond memories of "Suicide Wall" in the
Ogwen (?) valley.

> > As to your question of how do I distinguish between my children and all
> > other groups? Well you guessed it, because they are my children, and we
> > have a very particular relationship in both the lower and higher forms
> > of human interaction. We are bound not on only by genetics but the
> > overall expectations of child/parent social structures i.e. I'm
> > responsible for them and the way they turn out. These same
> > relationships don't apply to other groups, and it is my responsibility
> > to show only deference to other adults, if for no other reason than we
> > can expect no improvement in the condition of a mentally disabled
> > person, or an Alzheimer's patient, so the application of correctional
> > instruction is not helpful ( I know I sound like a 19th century
>  headmaster here, but I think you know what I mean).
> 
>
> But what if those responsibilities were in place. Perhaps in situations
> where parents/carers are responsible for their child who has a much
> slower development, but development none-the-less? I used to work with
> adults like this (how I met my wife.) This is what got me to thinking
> about this very issue before my kids were born. I realized that, what
> was considered the social norm in dealing with this type of challenging
> behavior for this kind of mental age group, was smacking. I identified
> an inconsistency within my own beliefs about this, and was unable to
> distinguish between the two groups. If one of those adults were my
> child, then it’d be illegal under the protection of vulnerable adults
> act to discipline them in that way. So how could I justify the double
> standard?
>

Baz
No, there would be no situation in which acting physically toward an
adult is justified. Children are in a progression - from childhood to
maturity - and at some period I believe it's OK to chastise them
physically, within the confines I have described. There are no
circumstances I can conceive of where smacking an adult, no matter in
what mental state, could be justified. We could even move it back to
religion here. I think it was Dawkins who argues that the the whole
religious drive in humans stems from the Darwinistic survival thrust
that little children should obey their parents, so they run when they
are told to and don't get eaten by the sabre-tooth. I'm not sure I
wholly subscribe to that - I think there is more going on - but I do
see that there is a very special relationship at a certain age between
parent and child that supersedes the trivial complaints of the
super-liberal. That relationship obviously does not exist between any
adults and I, for one, would feel a visceral revulsion against smacking
a retarded child that has grown physically beyond the genetic
constraints that I was born with. Hhhmmm, can I say that these
constraints are genetic? Yes I think I can. As a parent, there's a lot
of stuff you "feel" your way through, isn't there, Isn't that the
authority of your genes?

Baz
Maybe not. I suppose I shouldn't advocate it, there's too much room for
misinterpretation. I just get mad when every damn human interaction is
turned into a psych-fest for the mentally-healthier-than-thou brigade.

> >
> > Really, Mr S., thanks for actually asking some open-minded questions,
> > instead of just jumping on the pc band-wagon a la cathyb and DIA
>
> >
> > Yours
> >
>  Baz (childbeater)
>
> I wouldn’t go that far. Sadly things can flair up like that in forums
> like these. Our posts are just as much subject to the way they’re
> read, than as the way they’re written (as I’ve learned on more than
> one occasion).

Baz
True

[Monza]

Baz, I have four kids ranging from 2yrs to 13yrs, I've never laid a
hand on them although at times I could have smacked them into next
week! We use the time-out, deny privileges etc followed by an
explanation method. My best mate, also a dad (2 kids) has taken your
approach, being a gentle slap on bum or the hand when he's kids where
young, his kids are the same age as my oldest two and both sets of kids
are pretty well adjusted (as far as pre-teens can be) with one
exception, during play which can get a bit rough at times my kids are
constantly checking the others aren't hurt and seem a bit more aware of
their actions, while he's kids are a bit more rough and tumble and tend
to be surprised when another starts to cry. Don't get me wrong he has
absolutely lovely kids but I wonder if he's slap and lack of
explanation has anything to do with it.

I don't think your wrong in your approach Baz, I was raised with
corporeal punishment and I dearly love my dad and am grateful for the
lessons he taught me.

Who knows what's right and wrong the whole pc parenting thing is quite
new, I don't think anyone can say either way which is better until
we've had a few generations go through it, then proper studies can take
place. We might find out all these pc kids become the prozac guzzling
nut cases of the future while the kids raised with a GENTAL slap get
over things quicker?????? who knows, I sure don't I just go with what
feels right.

[Baz]

Baz,
Monza. Good points. Having traveled quite a bit I've also seen the
immense resilience of kids to all kinds of abominable treatment (not
that mine was abominable), and I think it's important sometimes, to
remember that there are a million ways to bring up kids, some are which
are OK for some but not for others, and that individual nature of both
the kids and the parentsare an integral part of that relationship in
establishing "what feels right".

We seem to have got off the religion thing a bit here but I would posit
to you, in my opinion, that excessive doses of religious indoctrination
are far worse in the long run in to the development of a well-adjusted
adult than the kind of small-child disciplinary stuff we are talking
about here. Richard Dawkins goes so far as to claim that even his own
molestation by the clergy was trivial compared to the overall poisoning
afforded by his religious education.

[cathyb]

You know, Baz, if you were to stop using the euphemisms "smack",
"slap", "swat" (perhaps "tap" might be next?) to distract attention
from the fact that you were hitting your kids, I might stop using the
anti-euphemism "beating".

Where this started was here:

"...because it made ME feel better. To briefly lash out and give 'em
a clip round the ear or a slap on the bottom relieved MY frustrations
with them. I didn't really give a shit how they felt about it, they
were kids. "

I know exactly how you felt, except perhaps I did give a shit. It's why
I stopped hitting my kids. You just don't hit people to make yourself
feel better; you wouldn't do it to an adult (hell, we're protected by
law from having it done to us), and you shouldn't do it to a child.

There are arguments in favour of corporal punishment of children (or
adults, for that matter), but yours isn't one of them; yours is, in
fact, an argument in favour of banning corporal punishment. Adults
should not be allowed to make themselves feel better by hitting kids.

And please don't whine again about no-one asking you why you did
something when you have clearly told us already: in this case you
*told* us you hit your kids because it made you feel better. We took
you at your word.

[somebody]

Baz wrote:

> Baz
> All kids are different. Every time you roll those genetic dice.... I'm
> not saying my kids were particularly difficult, they weren't. Yes,
> that's fine there's probably other ways you can achieve the same
> result, but to be convinced I'd have to see evidence that what I did
 was wrong, or damaging or that some other method was superior.



I’m not an expert in this area, so I won’t pretend to be in
possession of all the facts here. But I will mention that all the
books, TV documentaries etc I’ve ever encountered recommend the
methods I’ve been harping on about for the reasons that I’ve given.
I’m not sure that ‘damaging’ would be the best word for what I
mean here, because it implies a permanent undesirable effect, and I
doubt that’s often the case. It is a case of speaking in general
terms because, as you rightly point out, all kids are different and
respond differently to different methods. But I’m pretty sure that
alternative methods are recommended because they are, on the whole,
more effective and carry less risk of possible negative effects.

That's
> going to be hard to provve to you, because you don't know me or my
 kids.



You don’t have to prove anything here. I’m the one making the claim
that one method is better than another. But the argument – X was
treated in this way, X turned out ok, So X is recommendable/permissible
– is based on a dubious unstated general principle. I don’t think
it works as a good defense. A bit like saying that my grandparents
smoked and lived till a ripe old age, so it can’t be all that bad. I
don’t think it even works if you’re arguing the lesser claim that
in some cases it’s recommendable/permissible. Because we’re not
experts in these areas, and I’ve seen how parents can be mistaken in
this regard, and how effective alternative methods are, contrary to
what they would have believed.

And, it may not, when described in general terms, seem
> recommendable to the masses, but I think blanket condemnation is, well,
> pc, because it pre-supposes that we are unable to judge for ourselves what is appropriate and need to be legislated for/against

I firmly believe that some parents don’t know, or aren’t in a
position to judge what’s appropriate. I’ve seen parents who are
clearly hitting kids because they’re mad as a mo fo. They get away
with it because it’s thought of as an acceptable form of discipline.
They perhaps aren’t even aware of what they’re doing, and would be
genuinely shocked if you were to video it and play it back to them. The
problem is that, whilst they’re that angry, they’re unaware of how
over the top there punishment is, and they forget to mention the
reasons why the childs behavior is unacceptable in the first place.
This happens time and time again, so I don’t think it’s overly PC
to think that there needs to be some measures put into place to protect
these kids. We have them for adults, why not for kids? They are, after
all, a vulnerable group. And since corporal punishment can be exploited
(often unintentionally), why not? You may think you’re able judge
what’s appropriate, but others clearly aren’t. And I think that a
child’s right to be protected from violence, supersedes our right to
use an outdated punishment method. Especially since there are different
ways of dealing with children which are just as, if not more,
effective.

>
> >
> Baz
> I never "gave them a smacking". That would imply that I beat them into
 submission. Not what I did nor was it the intention.

This is perhaps just the way we use language differently. Where I’m
from, a smack pretty much means “a clip round the ear”. The form of
discipline is referred to as smacking.

> Baz
> Yes, that show was after my time. This also irks me, though. I have
> repeatedly said that my "crimes" were in the past, that no harm was
> done, and I am a loving and loved father, no matter, I'm still a
> fucking child-beater to the cathybs of this world. It's hugely arrogant
> of people to judge other people simply on their prejudices and with no
 evidence to the contrary.

I agree. But I can understand why people might get upset when others
recommend smacking, or even defend it, on the premise that it worked
for them. A little like promoting base-jumping to kids. Sure, you may
have had the skills to do it safely, but others won’t have. Your
original post was shocking at first glance, but I could see what you
meant.

>
> Yes, I am a Brit. Ex-pat. With Fond memories of "Suicide Wall" in the
 Ogwen (?) valley.

That’s a nice area. I’m partial to the Llanberis Pass myself.

> Baz
> No, there would be no situation in which acting physically toward an
> adult is justified. Children are in a progression - from childhood to
> maturity - and at some period I believe it's OK to chastise them
> physically, within the confines I have described. There are no
> circumstances I can conceive of where smacking an adult, no matter in
> what mental state, could be justified. We could even move it back to
> religion here. I think it was Dawkins who argues that the the whole
> religious drive in humans stems from the Darwinistic survival thrust
> that little children should obey their parents, so they run when they
> are told to and don't get eaten by the sabre-tooth. I'm not sure I
> wholly subscribe to that - I think there is more going on - but I do
> see that there is a very special relationship at a certain age between
> parent and child that supersedes the trivial complaints of the
> super-liberal. That relationship obviously does not exist between any
> adults and I, for one, would feel a visceral revulsion against smacking
> a retarded child that has grown physically beyond the genetic
> constraints that I was born with. Hhhmmm, can I say that these
> constraints are genetic? Yes I think I can. As a parent, there's a lot
> of stuff you "feel" your way through, isn't there, Isn't that the
 authority of your genes?

Yes, but to conclude that it’s the right thing to do from a fact that
there’s a natural urge/feeling to behave in that way (that’s not
always true, some parents would vomit at the thought) would be to fall
foul of a naturalistic fallacy. It doesn’t follow. Perhaps if we were
looking just at individual families here, or groups of animals in the
wild, I might possibly agree. But if the issue is a wider social one,
which I think it is, we have to adopt a more dispassionate viewpoint.
Looking at the facts rather than going with what feels right. We just
haven’t evolved to take society in general into consideration. I get
what you mean, and it is possible that just such a special relationship
is real, but it bares no effect on the undesirable effects of smacking
that I’ve mentioned. Especially the problems that it causes, not
within the children directly, but on the ways they interact with other
children, and the ways they learn what’s socially acceptable. There
just not going to understand why it’s ok for adults to smack kids,
but not for kids to smack other kids for example. And getting them to
understand the consequences of their behavior is the most important
part of preparing them for the future IMO.

>
> Baz
> Maybe not. I suppose I shouldn't advocate it, there's too much room for
> misinterpretation. I just get mad when every damn human interaction is
 turned into a psych-fest for the mentally-healthier-than-thou
brigade.

Me too. Where my wife works they’re discouraged from using the word
‘black’ in any phrase with negative reference. Blackmail, Black
Market, Black sheep of the family etc. This is clearly going over the
top. But where real negative effects are recognized, and the issue is
a serious one that concerns a very vulnerable portion of society, I
think it’s warranted.

[Baz]

cathyb wrote:

> You know, Baz, if you were to stop using the euphemisms "smack",
> "slap", "swat" (perhaps "tap" might be next?) to distract attention
> from the fact that you were hitting your kids, I might stop using the
> anti-euphemism "beating".
>

Baz,
No, these words are not euphemisms, a euphemism is a word that is
actually synonymous, but may not appear so. On the contrary these are
words with specific meanings, that you keep twisting, making them more
violent, to try and validate your predjudices.

[cathyb]

Baz wrote:
> cathyb wrote:
>
> > You know, Baz, if you were to stop using the euphemisms "smack",
> > "slap", "swat" (perhaps "tap" might be next?) to distract attention
> > from the fact that you were hitting your kids, I might stop using the
> > anti-euphemism "beating".
> >
>
> Baz,
> No, these words are not euphemisms, a euphemism is a word that is
> actually synonymous, but may not appear so.

Nope.

Euphemism: the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression
for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant; also : the
expression so substituted

> On the contrary these are
> words with specific meanings

All of which mean hitting kids.

>, that you keep twisting, making them more
> violent, to try and validate your predjudices.

Simply to try and negate your euphemisms, actually.

Noted that you ignored the point, of course, in order to misunderstand
the word "euphemism":

[Baz]

On Jan 23, 5:31 pm, "cathyb" <cathybees...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > cathyb wrote:

Baz
> No, cathyb, you can keep saying it, but it isn't true that a clip
> around the ear = "beating". To keep stating that is a stupid position.
> You cannot equate a slap with a beating, the words are not synonymous.

>>Cathyb
>> Hitting someone is beating them, Baz.

> > > You know, Baz, if you were to stop using the euphemisms "smack",
> > > "slap", "swat" (perhaps "tap" might be next?) to distract attention
> > > from the fact that you were hitting your kids, I might stop using the
> > > anti-euphemism "beating".
>
> > Baz,
> > No, these words are not euphemisms, a euphemism is a word that is
> > actually synonymous, but may not appear so.Nope.
>
> Euphemism: the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression
> for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant; also : the
> expression so substituted
>
> > On the contrary these are

> > words with specific meaningsAll of which mean hitting kids.

Baz
I am not referiing to use of the word "hit". I am talking about your
use of the "beating", which is not a euphemism for "slap", or even
"hit". It implies repetition and brutality, which is of course the
image you'd like to pin on me, and the one to which I am objecting.

And you are WRONG in your use of the word euphemism. A proper example
of a euphemism, since you don't seem to be clear what the word means,
is when use something vague and innocuous instead of the actual term,
like "passed on" for "died". The use of real words with real meaning,
for actions that actualy describe an action, like "slap", cannot be
construed as a euphemism, even though you want it to. The only
euphemism I can see here is your use of the non-word "anti-euphemism",
which is itself a euphemism for "lie"! However, the definition of
"straw man", cathy, is when you use introduce highly emotive terms,
like "beating", to try and put words in people's mouths.

Anyway, this is a pointless discussion to have with you, cathyb. I
have had a good and civil airing of views with other posters -
"somebody" and "monza" - on this, but you're just completely
close-minded and, quite franky, unnecesarily vicious. You have not once
weighed in on the anthopological issues I raised, you just played the
pc attack-dog. As a father, I resent you continually trying to push me
into the role of a thuggish child-abuser. I know I shouldn't let it get
to me, but it does. So if it's OK with you I'll just tell you to fuck
off and have done with it.

[Morpheal]

On Jan 20, 5:17 pm, "Jake" <jake3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://img216.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ig006905tr.gif
>
> As you can see from the image above, most of the more liberal, secular
> states are against corporal punishment (the beating of children). On
> the other hand, however, In nearly all of the red states, corporal
> punishment is allowed in public schools. Note that the southern,
> religious fundamentalist states all have higher rates than anywhere
> else.
>
> The bible advocates the beating of children (Proverbs 13:24, 20:30,
> 23:13-14). It also tells you to murder your child if he talks back to
> you (Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Mark 7:9-13,
> Matthew 15:4-7).
>
> So, if Christians, claiming to be the moral authorities of the
> universe, are so moral, then why do they beat their children? Doesn't
> seem very moral to me. And what's more, the Christian group, Focus on
> the Family, seems to have the belief that beating your children is a
> way to show them love and teach them what's right. I don't think that
> beating your children is very right, nor is it very loving of parents.
> Any parents who beat their children should have their children taken
> away and put in a foster home, and the parents should be charged with a
> felony.
>
> What are everyone else's views on this matter?

Why ?

Parents often believe that they do it so that their children can better
enjoy their adult lives when they will be, at least psychologically,
beaten more regularly. Not supposed to flinch or cry out either. It's
the rules. Otherwise you get beaten some more until you learn it.

Actually I have frequently witnessed parents whacking their children
just to toughen them up so they are better prepared for sports and
rough play with others. Even with a nice hefty stick. I am sure all
those were Xtians. None of them looked indigenous or foreign to me.

It's just another belief that some believe in.

I didn't say I agree with it. Actually I do not agree with it. I only
am saying that it is quite commonplace.

R. Morpheal

[Jake]

Well it's nearly universal among christians to derive satisfaction from
beating their children. They think that they're "saving" their kids or
something.

http://www.fgsfds.org/phpwiki/index.php/What%20The%20Bible%20Says%20About%20Child%20Abuse

[cathyb]

You are ignoring the definition of euphemism as provided by Merriam
Webster.

You prefer to think of yourself as smacking, swatting, slapping your
kids because that's more socially acceptable than hitting your kids,
even though they are exactly the same thing: a smack, swat, etc. are
hits. But *hitting* kids sounds nowhere as innocuous. And beating, of
course, is a whole lot worse. I'm sorry you were unable to grasp this
point.

>However, the definition of
> "straw man", cathy, is when you use introduce highly emotive terms,
> like "beating", to try and put words in people's mouths.

It's not actually, Baz, but that probably won't worry you.

>
> Anyway, this is a pointless discussion to have with you, cathyb. I
> have had a good and civil airing of views with other posters -
> "somebody" and "monza" - on this, but you're just completely
> close-minded and, quite franky, unnecesarily vicious. You have not once
> weighed in on the anthopological issues I raised, you just played the
> pc attack-dog.

pc--there it is again. I did indeed comment upon the anthropological
issues you ,er, raised, but you are apparently unable to look at this
issue in anything other than a "I've got the right to do what I like
with my kids and anyone who disagrees is being pc, so there" manner.

As a father, I resent you continually trying to push me
> into the role of a thuggish child-abuser. I know I shouldn't let it get
> to me, but it does. So if it's OK with you I'll just tell you to fuck
> off and have done with it.

Yes, of course. That will save you having to actually address the point
of the post:

'Where this started was here:

"...because it made ME feel better. To briefly lash out and give 'em
a clip round the ear or a slap on the bottom relieved MY frustrations
with them. I didn't really give a shit how they felt about it, they
were kids. "

I know exactly how you felt, except perhaps I did give a shit. It's why
I stopped hitting my kids. You just don't hit people to make yourself
feel better; you wouldn't do it to an adult (hell, we're protected by
law from having it done to us), and you shouldn't do it to a child.

There are arguments in favour of corporal punishment of children (or
adults, for that matter), but yours isn't one of them; yours is, in
fact, an argument in favour of banning corporal punishment. Adults
should not be allowed to make themselves feel better by hitting kids.

And please don't whine again about no-one asking you why you did
something when you have clearly told us already: in this case you
*told* us you hit your kids because it made you feel better. We took

you at your word.'

[Baz]

> "...because it made ME feel better. To briefly lash out and give 'em
> a clip round the ear or a slap on the bottom relieved MY frustrations
> with them. I didn't really give a shit how they felt about it, they
> were kids. "
>
> I know exactly how you felt, except perhaps I did give a shit. It's why
> I stopped hitting my kids. You just don't hit people to make yourself
> feel better; you wouldn't do it to an adult (hell, we're protected by
> law from having it done to us), and you shouldn't do it to a child.
>
> There are arguments in favour of corporal punishment of children (or
> adults, for that matter), but yours isn't one of them; yours is, in
> fact, an argument in favour of banning corporal punishment. Adults
> should not be allowed to make themselves feel better by hitting kids.
>

Baz
Ok, one more time, since you are such a little terrier on this one.
Yes, it did me make feel better to slap, hit or otherwise get my kid
uder control, because, as I 've said repeatedly, it restored the social
oder and put me back in control of the situation. I did not do it
because I enjoy hurting little children. The act was to regain control,
and, once control was regained, I felt good about it, because it was
restored, and I was less frustrated. The child was not hit hard, but
was chastened. Maybe the child even felt good about too, a sort of
"instant time-out", I don't know. I know it was not then nor is now a
problem with these toddlers, for that's what they were, (thank you for
never asking). I'm OK with that, law or no fucking pc law.

Cathyb, my kids are now 17 and 14, and if you've been reading my other
posts in this thead (which I doubt) are not suffering from any kind of
mental trauma, and, in fact, don't even remember these infrequent
events (I asked them). So just what the hell is the point you are
trying to make about me? Let me ask you, how old are your kids, and
since you're so goddam rude and opinionated about what my motivations
are/ were, let me ask what do, what do your kids really they think of
you? Because to me you seem like the most pedantic, ill-mannered and
tedious pain in the ass alive, and I suspect they probably do too, or
will do when they are old enough.

[thedeviliam@hotmail.com]

Baz has screwed up a few times in this thread.

(1) He said that his kids weren't smaller than him. I mean, c'mon. I do
acknowledge that I'm pretty sure this was just badly phrased but
seriously. What he should have said was "that isn't the issue because I
wouldn't have hit a dwarf because I don't own any of those" or whatever
which seems to be what he meant to have said. His intention, _I think_,
was that the fact that they were smaller wasn't the issue. Of course,
if they were ten feet tall I suspect things might have gone
differently.

(2) He said he hit his kids because he enjoyed it and then whined about
being some kind of a victim in this thread.

(3) He said it wasn't okay to hit adults, which kind of contradicts the
idea that hitting people for fun is acceptable anyway. It seems more
acceptable to hit an adult that acts like a child because they should
know better and are more of a potential threat.

(4) He said we all missed the point when we replied to what he said
exactly but still hasn't exactly clarified what the point was, I don't
recall, to anyone if we really are wrong.

(5) He called thedeviliam "Politically Correct". I think we can all see
the problem with this one.

[cathyb]

On Jan 24, 12:26 pm, "Baz" <bcli...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > "...because it made ME feel better. To briefly lash out and give 'em
> > a clip round the ear or a slap on the bottom relieved MY frustrations
> > with them. I didn't really give a shit how they felt about it, they
> > were kids. "
>
> > I know exactly how you felt, except perhaps I did give a shit. It's why
> > I stopped hitting my kids. You just don't hit people to make yourself
> > feel better; you wouldn't do it to an adult (hell, we're protected by
> > law from having it done to us), and you shouldn't do it to a child.
>
> > There are arguments in favour of corporal punishment of children (or
> > adults, for that matter), but yours isn't one of them; yours is, in
> > fact, an argument in favour of banning corporal punishment. Adults
> > should not be allowed to make themselves feel better by hitting kids.Baz
> Ok, one more time, since you are such a little terrier on this one.
> Yes, it did me make feel better to slap, hit or otherwise get my kid
> uder control, because, as I 've said repeatedly, it restored the social
> oder and put me back in control of the situation. I did not do it
> because I enjoy hurting little children. The act was to regain control,
> and, once control was regained, I felt good about it, because it was
> restored, and I was less frustrated. The child was not hit hard, but
> was chastened. Maybe the child even felt good about too, a sort of
> "instant time-out", I don't know.

It's a tad unlikely that a child's going to feel good about being hit,
really. Of course, they're not going to feel good if they're punished
in some other way either. The point is that punishment is not there to
make you feel better, and using corporal punishment in that way is
dangerous.

> I know it was not then nor is now a
> problem with these toddlers, for that's what they were, (thank you for
> never asking)

Why would I ask? The arbitrary time limits you put on whether it's ok
to hit your kids or not are of no interest to me.

>. I'm OK with that, law or no fucking pc law.

What "pc law" are you referring to? The idea that corporal punishment
isn't there to make the inflicter feel better?

>
> Cathyb, my kids are now 17 and 14, and if you've been reading my other
> posts in this thead (which I doubt) are not suffering from any kind of
> mental trauma, and, in fact, don't even remember these infrequent
> events (I asked them). So just what the hell is the point you are
> trying to make about me?

I'm trying to make the point that even proponents of corporal
punishment are going to take a step away at your statement that you hit
your kids "...because it made ME feel better. To briefly lash out and

give 'em a clip round the ear or a slap on the bottom relieved MY
frustrations with them. I didn't really give a shit how they felt about
it, they were kids. "

That last statement is particularly unpleasant.

>Let me ask you, how old are your kids

Between 8 and 14. Why?

>, and
> since you're so goddam rude and opinionated about what my motivations
> are/ were

Actually, I've just repeated *your* statement of your motivation, and
frankly, it would be difficult for anyone to look at that statement and
not form a pretty rude opinion of it. And all you've done in this post
is dressed it up a little to make it seem more acceptable.

>, let me ask what do, what do your kids really they think of
> you? Because to me you seem like the most pedantic, ill-mannered and
> tedious pain in the ass alive

You're not really used to having your parenting methods questioned, are
you? I suggest you not write crap like the above if you expect people
not to query you on it or criticise you for it. Better still, try
questioning them yourself occasionally, like most other people do.

>, and I suspect they probably do too, or
> will do when they are old enough.

Oh, I suspect not. They know I *do* care how they feel, you see, and
they seem to return the compliment.

[Baz]

On Jan 23, 9:47 pm, "cathyb" <cathybees...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 12:26 pm, "Baz" <bcli...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > "...because it made ME feel better. To briefly lash out and give 'em
> > > a clip round the ear or a slap on the bottom relieved MY frustrations
> > > with them. I didn't really give a shit how they felt about it, they
> > > were kids. "
>
> > > I know exactly how you felt, except perhaps I did give a shit. It's why
> > > I stopped hitting my kids. You just don't hit people to make yourself
> > > feel better; you wouldn't do it to an adult (hell, we're protected by
> > > law from having it done to us), and you shouldn't do it to a child.
>
> > > There are arguments in favour of corporal punishment of children (or
> > > adults, for that matter), but yours isn't one of them; yours is, in
> > > fact, an argument in favour of banning corporal punishment. Adults
> > > should not be allowed to make themselves feel better by hitting kids.Baz
> > Ok, one more time, since you are such a little terrier on this one.
> > Yes, it did me make feel better to slap, hit or otherwise get my kid
> > uder control, because, as I 've said repeatedly, it restored the social
> > oder and put me back in control of the situation. I did not do it
> > because I enjoy hurting little children. The act was to regain control,
> > and, once control was regained, I felt good about it, because it was
> > restored, and I was less frustrated. The child was not hit hard, but
> > was chastened. Maybe the child even felt good about too, a sort of

> > "instant time-out", I don't know.It's a tad unlikely that a child's going to feel good about being hit,

> really. Of course, they're not going to feel good if they're punished
> in some other way either. The point is that punishment is not there to
> make you feel better, and using corporal punishment in that way is
> dangerous.
>
> > I know it was not then nor is now a
> > problem with these toddlers, for that's what they were, (thank you for

> > never asking)Why would I ask? The arbitrary time limits you put on whether it's ok

> to hit your kids or not are of no interest to me.
>

> >. I'm OK with that, law or no fucking pc law.What "pc law" are you referring to? The idea that corporal punishment

> isn't there to make the inflicter feel better?
>
>
>
> > Cathyb, my kids are now 17 and 14, and if you've been reading my other
> > posts in this thead (which I doubt) are not suffering from any kind of
> > mental trauma, and, in fact, don't even remember these infrequent
> > events (I asked them). So just what the hell is the point you are

> > trying to make about me?I'm trying to make the point that even proponents of corporal

> punishment are going to take a step away at your statement that you hit
> your kids "...because it made ME feel better. To briefly lash out and
> give 'em a clip round the ear or a slap on the bottom relieved MY
> frustrations with them. I didn't really give a shit how they felt about
> it, they were kids. "
>
> That last statement is particularly unpleasant.
>

> >Let me ask you, how old are your kidsBetween 8 and 14. Why?

>
> >, and
> > since you're so goddam rude and opinionated about what my motivations

> > are/ wereActually, I've just repeated *your* statement of your motivation, and

> frankly, it would be difficult for anyone to look at that statement and
> not form a pretty rude opinion of it. And all you've done in this post
> is dressed it up a little to make it seem more acceptable.
>
> >, let me ask what do, what do your kids really they think of
> > you? Because to me you seem like the most pedantic, ill-mannered and

> > tedious pain in the ass aliveYou're not really used to having your parenting methods questioned, are

> you? I suggest you not write crap like the above if you expect people
> not to query you on it or criticise you for it. Better still, try
> questioning them yourself occasionally, like most other people do.
>
> >, and I suspect they probably do too, or

> > will do when they are old enough.Oh, I suspect not. They know I *do* care how they feel, you see, and

> they seem to return the compliment.

Baz,
OK, you asked for it. I'll bet you $50 that you have the last word in
this discussion.

[Jake]

Yeah, because she's obviously going to win, and then you will leave to
avoid further humiliation AMIRITE

[Baz]

Dia

> Baz has screwed up a few times in this thread.
>
> (1) He said that his kids weren't smaller than him. I mean, c'mon. I do
> acknowledge that I'm pretty sure this was just badly phrased but
> seriously. What he should have said was "that isn't the issue because I
> wouldn't have hit a dwarf because I don't own any of those" or whatever
> which seems to be what he meant to have said. His intention, _I think_,
> was that the fact that they were smaller wasn't the issue. Of course,
> if they were ten feet tall I suspect things might have gone
> differently.
>

Baz
Since you actually understood what I wrote why do you question it? I
said and I quote, "they were not "smaller" than me..., they were kids"
meaning that there's a whole different dynamic at work, not that they
were bigger than me. They were toddlers! Anybody smaller or bigger
would not have been appropriate and smacking would't have been an
option.

> (2) He said he hit his kids because he enjoyed it and then whined about
> being some kind of a victim in this thread.
>

Baz
I never hit anyone for fun, bro. Re the whining, guilty

> (3) He said it wasn't okay to hit adults, which kind of contradicts the
> idea that hitting people for fun is acceptable anyway. It seems more
> acceptable to hit an adult that acts like a child because they should
> know better and are more of a potential threat.
>

Baz
I never hit anyone for fun, bro. (sigh). Here is my rationale about
this question again, since you apparently missed it...

"how do I distinguish between my children and all
other groups? Well you guessed it, because they are my children, and we

have a very particular relationship in both the lower and higher forms
of human interaction. We are bound not on only by genetics but the
overall expectations of child/parent social structures i.e. I'm
responsible for them and the way they turn out. These same
relationships don't apply to other groups, and it is my responsibility
to show only deference to other adults, if for no other reason than we
can expect no improvement in the condition of a mentally disabled
person, or an Alzheimer's patient, so the application of correctional
instruction is not helpful ( I know I sound like a 19th century

headmaster here, but I think you know what I mean). With children, we

are socializing them in everything we do...I hear the shrill voices
screaming already that "you're socializing them to hit people!".
Nonsense, if I was attacking a teenager with a baseball bat that would
be true, but this obviously not what I am referring to. I'll have to
ask them, but I seriously doubt that my kids, now in their teens,
remember ever being smacked by me. "

> (4) He said we all missed the point when we replied to what he said

> exactly but still hasn't exactly clarified what the point was, I don't
> recall, to anyone if we really are wrong.
>

Baz
Don't know how you missed this, since it was in reply to you (also,
note the mea culpa on coming on strong initially, which you ignored)

"Baz
Yeah, I did come on a bit strong at first, for the sake of opening the

conversation, and getting a real discussion going (didn't work...),
except
with Simpleton (sic, I meant "somebody").

What I am saying is that there is qualitative difference between
slapping a child and picking a fight in a bar (or almost any other form
of human aggression), not

in the size of the opponent, but in the well-spring of where the
activity comes from in the human psyche. I believe it can be a
legitimate interaction between a parent and a child, has nothing at all

to do with cowardice, little to do with anger, does not come from a
desire to hurt kids, and has absolutely nothing to do with the
relationship with my boss. It's about establishing control and
maintaining social order with little persons, with whom the available
tool-set is very limited."

> (5) He called thedeviliam "Politically Correct". I think we can all see

> the problem with this one.

Baz
Sorry, but your little pc knob peeks out from those bad-boy trousers.
You say you admire Bukowski...but you sir, are no Charles.

Anyway Dia, I thank you for your interest...but not for your gratuitous
and ungracious criticisms over the last couple of days. I hope you are
tired as I am of this thread. I've spent all my available online time
with this and now I want to go and beat up some Christians
(metaphorically, of course). So if you'll excuse me.....

[Baz]

On Jan 23, 9:59 pm, "Jake" <jake3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, because she's obviously going to win, and then you will leave to
> avoid further humiliation AMIRITE
>

Baz
Jake, If you've read all my posts in this thread, which I seriously
doubt, I think you'll see Ii've covered everything thrown at me.
You'll even find a mea culpa on coming on a bit strong to begin with
(that kind of thing is ignored by certain people, though, because it's
more fun just to straw-man them than move the discussion on).

Now Jake, do you actually have something to say, or am I just required
to just sit back and marvel at your blindingly insightful mee-tooism?

[Monza]

WOW this thread is still going! a touchy subject..... and a good one.

I think dependant on a persons upbringing, people will react
differently to the arguments you've posted baz, while I don't have a
problem with your parenting style I'm guessing there may be some folks
in this group who where subject to prolonged physical abuse by a parent
or care giver whilst they where too young to defend them selves and I'm
also guessing that perhaps they find it very hard to see a difference
between a gentle tap and a full blown punch in the face.

I think this issue will go deeper (for some people) than religion, and
some may never come to terms with a violent past which would definitely
cloud one's judgement on this topic. For that reason I think we need
to exercise tact and try to be aware of why some folks take the stand
they do.

I honestly think baz is NOT a child basher, he has given good argument
for his actions and I think they are justified, sure perhaps he's
wording is a bit off at times, but over the last 5 months I've seen
some real gems come from great folk when their pushed to far. I feel
for any kid who has been a victim of abuse and do not condone it, but
in this case I think baz's kids don't fit the bill.

[cathyb]

Neither do I, given his backtracking and explanations for his initial
post. I do think, however, that he's wilfully refusing to understand
the point that any sort of punishment of a child is or should be
intended to punish (and hopefully benefit) the child, not to vent the
adult's frustration, and that venting one's frustration on a child
physically is particularly dangerous.

[thedeviliam@hotmail.com]

On Jan 22, 8:31 pm, "Baz" <bcli...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> thedevil...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Baz wrote:

> > > thedevil...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > Another good one, cathyb. You are on a roll, my Apisa-proclaimed lover.
> > > > (He is in fact "Frank Apisa, Guru" or "FAG" for short.)
>
> > > > I know I'll repeat myself a few times here so please bear with me. I
> > > > think what Baz is saying is very cowardly. He's basically saying it's
> > > > all good to take out his aggression on children because it is legal to
> > > > a certain extent and they are small and easy targets. If you need to
> > > > hit someone, be a man about it (sorry for the sexist expression) and go
> > > > to a bar. This is all kind of sickening to me. If you are angry and it
> > > > makes you feel better to hurt the kids it is not a give-in that said
> > > > children are 100% responsible for your anger. Maybe your boss was a
> > > > douchebag or your favorite crappy sitcom was cancelled. I think some
> > > > parents know how to utilize corporal punishment morally, but that I'm
> > > > too angry to ever be one of them and Baz probably is as well from the
> > > > sound of it. I would never want to misdirect my anger towards children
> > > > no matter _how_ good it felt. I don't think "it feels good" is ever a
> > > > legitimate excuse to hurt kids. And I'll bet most of the posters here
> > > > would agree with my assessment for once.
>
> > > Baz
> > > Dia, like cathyb, you utterly miss the point.
>
> > Who did understand your point? Do you think you failed at a certain
> > level of communication?

Goddammit, I have to reformat this shit to make it coherent. This is
part of why I'm an advocate for the new group.

Baz
> Yeah, I did come on a bit strong at first, for the sake of opening the
> conversation, and getting a real discussion going (didn't work, except
> with Simpleton).

I think you got a hell of a conversation going. You got a lot of
attention on you in this thread. I especially like the part where you
said you liked to hurt kids. You're just in kind of a weird discussion,
Baz. It does sound like you're on trial here and I'm sorry for that but
you kind of walked into it.

> > > What I am saying is that
> > > there is qualitative difference between slapping a child and picking a
> > > fight in a bar (or almost any other form of human aggression), not just
> > > in the size of the opponent, but in the well-spring of where the
> > > activity comes from in the human psyche. I believe it can be a
> > > legitimate interaction between a parent and a child, has nothing at all
> > > to do with cowardice, little to do with anger, does not come from a
> > > desire to hurt kids,
>
> > Okay, I'm going to stop you right now and point out that I clarified
> > that corporal punishment can be a moral act. I just don't think you
> > should do it if you enjoy it because it affects your judgement and
> > that's it. We can go back and look at the quotes if you like.Baz

> And I''m going to stop you right now and point out that right after
> that your equivocal "corporal punishment can be a moral act" bit, you
> immediately launched into me as "cowardly", "sickening" "angry", "not
> being a man", and my children as "small and easy targets". Prick.

Not corporal punishment. Was I wrong that the toddlers were small and
easy targets for you? If so, I apologize.

> In
> what way do you think ""corporal punishment can be a moral act", DIA
> because I didn't get that bit.

Because it can make the world a better place.

> What I did get was a lot ridiculous
> over-the-topvitrio from you and cathyb. Actually, it's an interesting
> insight into the mindset of some in this group. You have experienced it
> yourself, dia, take a line that is not right down the line of the
> prevailing super-liberal zeitgeist and you're are fucking pariah in a
> second, and any and all insults can be hurled at you with complete
> impunity, now matter how honest and, yes, nuanced, you were trying to
> be. And here you are...........

Since when have I jumped on any bandwagon for the sake of being there?
I could have been a lot nicer and pissed fewer atheists off. I don't
hold it all against people because they're out-of-the-mainstream. I
just have convictions, that's all. Sorry. If you ask Howard Stern, Bill
Maher, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly if it's okay to hurt toddlers
for fun their diverse and politically incorrect asses will probably
give the same answer. It's not because they all agree on everything.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > and has absolutely nothing to do with the
> > > relationship with my boss.
>
> > All I'm saying is this: if your boss pissed you off and your kid pissed
> > you off then odds are it will affect the severity of the violence
> > towards the child. Cool, calm, distant emotion is best whenever you are
> > hurting another human being physically.
>
> > > It's about establishing control and
> > > maintaining social order with little persons, with whom the available
> > > tool-set is very limited.
>
> > If you are able to logically say "this is the best thing to keep the
> > kid within acceptable standards" and not get off on it then you're
> > probably justified in utilizing corporal punishment. You just plain
> > shouldn't like it because it will probably alter your judgement and not
> > for the better. That is all I am saying, and you did seem to contradict
> > it and I can dig up a few quotes to explain why you seemed to give that
> > impression from this very thread.
>
> > > In short, I'm trying to describe this from an anthropological point of
> > > view, but the only response that you guys can seem to come up with is
> > > the utterrly knee-jerk one of calling me a child-beater.
>
> > Who called you a child-beater first? I thought it was you. How is a
> > child-beater different from someone who simply utilizes corporal
> > punishment responsibly by your definition?

Baz
> No,

It wasn't a "yes or no" question, though.

> cathyb first equated the "slap" as synonymous with "beating"...

You can't explain why slapping isn't beating or even if you have a
definition. What if you slapped a kid so hard his head fell off? I'd
call that a beating.

> repeatedly, unfoundedly, and despite my repeated requests of her to
> justify it, which she ignored. Yes, she's a debating genius all right.

Never said she's a genius. But she's one of the smarter posters here
and doesn't seem to get off on hurting toddlers if anything she said
about the subject is true.

> > > It seems amazing to me that I had this long conversation with cathy
> > > last night and now with you, dia, and nobody has asked me even what age
> > > my kids were when I used to occasionally behave thusly.
>
> > I'm not sure this all matters. You behave as if being old makes it bad,
> > being too young makes it bad...you just have kind of a middling range
> > regarding minors.

> Baz
> Children of different ages need to be be communicated in different
> ways. I'm not saying that everybody should do this, but I found it
> worked, and I know my kids are not maimed by it. I think it's making a
> mountain out of a molehill, not to say there aren't all kinds of awful
> things done to children, but it's the very definition of pc to make
> judgments about a particular type of act and baldly state that it
> always in all case, implies a particular reason or necessarily demands
> condemnation.

I think hurting kids out of educated discipline for their own sake is
fine. You just seem to think hurting them as what was frankly a hobby
for you is fine and I think it's pretty normal to find that
reprehensible.

> > > Clue, I wasn't
> > > shaking infants to death, and I wasn't beating up my 10 year old. Also,
> > > nobody has bothered to ask me WHY I did this.
>
> > Nope. Was it to save a life or something? This would be perfectly
> > acceptable.
>
> > > But such nuances are
> > > unimportant to you, aren't they.
>
> > I don't think it's healthy to like hurting your young offspring. That's
> > all I've been saying.

> Baz
> Once again, I did not "hurt" them in any sense other of an immediate
> "stop!" which they generally did, which re-established order and made
> me feel good.

You seem to redefine the word "hurt" here. How much do you have to hurt
somebody to "hurt" them?

> > > You just want to revel in your
> > > disdain, and make stupid unfounded judgements about the sort of person
> > > I might be. That would the typical reaction of the close-minded
> > > (remember, those people you claim to despise).
>
> > Now, should we get back to those quotes I was talking about or do you
> > have a better understanding?

> Baz
> Just remember your characterisation of me as "cowardly", "sickening"
> "angry", "not being a man", and my children as "small and easy
> targets" the next time someone is giving you a bullshit, over-the-top,

> holier-than-thou reaction.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

There's the Google Monster again...I've been trying to control his dumb
ass. Anyway, how were your kids not "small and easy targets"? Were they
flying demonic fire-breathing snake-bats that couldn't be destroyed or
were you taking your aggression that was undoubtedly influenced by
larger targets that made you more sensitive to the desire regarding
taking anger out on them?

"Angry" is a give-in, and that's fine--nobody on this group who says
otherwise about their own damn self can be trusted. Anger is a part of
what brings everyone to this group no matter how much it is lied about.
"Sickening", well, I've sickened a few people myself and been sickened
by a lot of them. So have you. So that's a give-in, too. "Not a man",
well, that might be sexist but since the meanings are understood I
thought it worked (another reason you should stop calling me "PC" or
whatever). I just say you should pick on someone your own size--that's
all.

[Baz]

Baz
Thanks, Monza.

[Baz]

On Jan 24, 12:35 am, "cathyb" <cathybees...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Neither do I, given his backtracking and explanations for his initial
> post. I do think, however, that he's wilfully refusing to understand
> the point that any sort of punishment of a child is or should be
> intended to punish (and hopefully benefit) the child, not to vent the
> adult's frustration, and that venting one's frustration on a child

Baz
I understand the point (jeez, Iought, it's been bludgeoned into me
enough) and I don't agree.

M'lud,
the defence would respectfully conclude that, using these words within
the careful confines of what has heretofore been described, and
notwithstanding the propensity of the prosecution to either
misconstrue, mischaracterise, or even substitute other terminology than
which my client (aka, me) has used, I would contend that certain acts
of minimal violence, to whit, a slap around the bonce or bum, of his
children, was a legitimate and positive way for he, as parent, to vent
his frustration with/upon said child, and that such action may not
necessarily be construed as (nor was in fact) a beating of said child,
nor can be considered cruelty thereto, nor act of sadism, but was,
rather, a legitimate mitigation of the frustration inherent in the
position of said parent, and was efficacious in the relief of the
aforementioned frustration of said parent, and was also, in his
opinion, notwithstanding that no parties can contest nor confirm this,
to the betterment of the aforementioned child's attitude, not only
toward the parent, but also to the known universe around
aforementioned child. Furthermore, my client would argue that these
customary controls normally and typically afforded in the child/parent
relationship are genetically arrived within us, and, as such, not to be
dismissed lightly, and not to be equated with other acts of violence
involved any and all other human relations, and that therefore his
actions in the propagation of such actions in no way constitutes an
admission of moral turpitude on his part.

This really is my last post on this issue.

[cathyb]

In other words, you think it's just fine and dandy for you to hit your
kids to make yourself feel better.

>
> This really is my last post on this issue.

I'm not surprised.

[Baz]

Dia,
I've said I'm not going to keep posting on this more, and I'm really
not. But since you were gracious to provide me with a lengthy answer
I'd like to acknowledge that you did, and maybe just comment that, yes,
I think it's impossible to try and maintain a proposition, here, that
can be so easily "spun" into "hurting kids", whatever one is actually
trying to say.

Peace.

BTW, I agree that this new interface totally mangles everything you try
and compose. How could they have had this in beta for so many months
and then just foist this total piece of shit on users whether they like
it or not.... isn't Google supposed to be a smart company?

On Jan 24, 1:14 am, "thedevil...@hotmail.com"

> > > level of communication?Goddammit, I have to reformat this shit to make it coherent. This is

> part of why I'm an advocate for the new group.
>
> Baz
>
> > Yeah, I did come on a bit strong at first, for the sake of opening the
> > conversation, and getting a real discussion going (didn't work, except

> > with Simpleton).I think you got a hell of a conversation going. You got a lot of

> attention on you in this thread. I especially like the part where you
> said you liked to hurt kids. You're just in kind of a weird discussion,
> Baz. It does sound like you're on trial here and I'm sorry for that but
> you kind of walked into it.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > What I am saying is that
> > > > there is qualitative difference between slapping a child and picking a
> > > > fight in a bar (or almost any other form of human aggression), not just
> > > > in the size of the opponent, but in the well-spring of where the
> > > > activity comes from in the human psyche. I believe it can be a
> > > > legitimate interaction between a parent and a child, has nothing at all
> > > > to do with cowardice, little to do with anger, does not come from a
> > > > desire to hurt kids,
>
> > > Okay, I'm going to stop you right now and point out that I clarified
> > > that corporal punishment can be a moral act. I just don't think you
> > > should do it if you enjoy it because it affects your judgement and
> > > that's it. We can go back and look at the quotes if you like.Baz
> > And I''m going to stop you right now and point out that right after
> > that your equivocal "corporal punishment can be a moral act" bit, you
> > immediately launched into me as "cowardly", "sickening" "angry", "not

> > being a man", and my children as "small and easy targets". Prick.Not corporal punishment. Was I wrong that the toddlers were small and

> easy targets for you? If so, I apologize.
>
> > In
> > what way do you think ""corporal punishment can be a moral act", DIA

> > because I didn't get that bit.Because it can make the world a better place.

>
> > What I did get was a lot ridiculous
> > over-the-topvitrio from you and cathyb. Actually, it's an interesting
> > insight into the mindset of some in this group. You have experienced it
> > yourself, dia, take a line that is not right down the line of the
> > prevailing super-liberal zeitgeist and you're are fucking pariah in a
> > second, and any and all insults can be hurled at you with complete
> > impunity, now matter how honest and, yes, nuanced, you were trying to

> > be. And here you are...........Since when have I jumped on any bandwagon for the sake of being there?

> > No,It wasn't a "yes or no" question, though.
>
> > cathyb first equated the "slap" as synonymous with "beating"...You can't explain why slapping isn't beating or even if you have a

> definition. What if you slapped a kid so hard his head fell off? I'd
> call that a beating.
>
> > repeatedly, unfoundedly, and despite my repeated requests of her to

> > justify it, which she ignored. Yes, she's a debating genius all right.Never said she's a genius. But she's one of the smarter posters here

> and doesn't seem to get off on hurting toddlers if anything she said
> about the subject is true.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > It seems amazing to me that I had this long conversation with cathy
> > > > last night and now with you, dia, and nobody has asked me even what age
> > > > my kids were when I used to occasionally behave thusly.
>
> > > I'm not sure this all matters. You behave as if being old makes it bad,
> > > being too young makes it bad...you just have kind of a middling range
> > > regarding minors.
> > Baz
> > Children of different ages need to be be communicated in different
> > ways. I'm not saying that everybody should do this, but I found it
> > worked, and I know my kids are not maimed by it. I think it's making a
> > mountain out of a molehill, not to say there aren't all kinds of awful
> > things done to children, but it's the very definition of pc to make
> > judgments about a particular type of act and baldly state that it
> > always in all case, implies a particular reason or necessarily demands

> > condemnation.I think hurting kids out of educated discipline for their own sake is

> fine. You just seem to think hurting them as what was frankly a hobby
> for you is fine and I think it's pretty normal to find that
> reprehensible.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Clue, I wasn't
> > > > shaking infants to death, and I wasn't beating up my 10 year old. Also,
> > > > nobody has bothered to ask me WHY I did this.
>
> > > Nope. Was it to save a life or something? This would be perfectly
> > > acceptable.
>
> > > > But such nuances are
> > > > unimportant to you, aren't they.
>
> > > I don't think it's healthy to like hurting your young offspring. That's
> > > all I've been saying.
> > Baz
> > Once again, I did not "hurt" them in any sense other of an immediate
> > "stop!" which they generally did, which re-established order and made

> > me feel good.You seem to redefine the word "hurt" here. How much do you have to hurt

> somebody to "hurt" them?
>
> > > > You just want to revel in your
> > > > disdain, and make stupid unfounded judgements about the sort of person
> > > > I might be. That would the typical reaction of the close-minded
> > > > (remember, those people you claim to despise).
>
> > > Now, should we get back to those quotes I was talking about or do you
> > > have a better understanding?
> > Baz
> > Just remember your characterisation of me as "cowardly", "sickening"
> > "angry", "not being a man", and my children as "small and easy
> > targets" the next time someone is giving you a bullshit, over-the-top,

> > holier-than-thou reaction.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -There's the Google Monster again...I've been trying to control his dumb

> ass. Anyway, how were your kids not "small and easy targets"? Were they
> flying demonic fire-breathing snake-bats that couldn't be destroyed or
> were you taking your aggression that was undoubtedly influenced by
> larger targets that made you more sensitive to the desire regarding
> taking anger out on them?
>
> "Angry" is a give-in, and that's fine--nobody on this group who says
> otherwise about their own damn self can be trusted. Anger is a part of
> what brings everyone to this group no matter how much it is lied about.
> "Sickening", well, I've sickened a few people myself and been sickened
> by a lot of them. So have you. So that's a give-in, too. "Not a man",
> well, that might be sexist but since the meanings are understood I
> thought it worked (another reason you should stop calling me "PC" or
> whatever). I just say you should pick on someone your own size--that's

> all.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

[dkw12002@yahoo.com]

Correct. Beating children is just one of many ideas rooted in ancient
times that appear in the Bible and have been discarded by most. I would
add the supression of women, owning of slaves, marrying your brother's
widow, not working on the Sabbath, not eating certain forbidden foods,
sacrifices (including human), mandatory circumcision, doweries, fear of
witches and demons, and devils. Admittedly, there are a few who
practice all of these still, but they are slowly being replaced with
reason. Just give it another 2,000 years. dkw

[Monza]

Yes cathyb, I agree with you on that point.

> > in this case I think baz's kids don't fit the bill.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -