Corporal punishment

[old_tony]

It worked fine for over 100 years, then we got rid of it because some parents were (apparently) okay with letting their kids act out in school and disrupt the teaching session.

Corporal punishment is fine, so that kids who act out can be sent to the assistant principal for a paddling.
It's behavior modification and it works.

As a teacher, I sure wish we could get it back in place. The kids have no repercussions as it is now, when they misbehave or act out.

A lot of this Ritalin and other junk that's being prescribed would not be necessary if the kids were to endure a paddling or two.
This discipline issue, BTW, is just one of the ways that education has been dumbed-down in the USA.

Kids and lots of adults need more tough consequences in their lives. Things would shape up in a hurry.

My girl starts kindergarten this fall and I'm fine with the school disciplining her if she acts out. I'll do it again when she gets home.

This.

The simple question always should be something along the lines of "since the changes, have things gotten better or worse." And since schools have lost the ability to discipline the kids, the schools have become nothing but warehouses for disfunction.

 

[Dick Whitman]

The poster who advocated corporal punishment in prisons is living somewhere in the 1800's

No, no, no, no, no, no, nooooooooo.

That's not what I was doing.

Sorry, ****, maybe I misinterpreted you.

I meant the opposite. We would never, ever, ever think that corporal punishment would be an OK choice for adults in prison. It's a non-starter. It sounds ridiculous to even say it. But we - or at least some of us - think it's OK for the most mentally, emotionally, and physically vulnerable members of our society. I was thinking aloud about how we reconcile that.

Which was already explained to you -- because you have to approach disciplining a child differently than you would approach disciplining an adult. It is a horrible comparison.

The part about them being physically vulnerable is irrelevant. We're not talking about caning or punching children here. We're talking about a spank, or some other corporal punishment that is meant to get their attention, not cause any real damage.

That physical vulnerability is also one reason that it is so essential that we find some manner of effective discipline. With the youngest of children --ones who are still learning to communicate and incapable of making rational decisions -- sometimes that's what it takes to keep them from harm. If a spank on the tush helps keep little Johnny from putting himself in danger, so be it.

Yes, they are mentally and emotionally vulnerable -- one more reason that finding an effective means of discipline is vital.

Do I think the idea of corporal punishment in school is a terrible one? Absolutely. But to dismiss it as a disciplinary tool in any situation and at any age is short-sighted at best. It may not be necessary for every child, but for some, it most definitely is.

I don't understand why this couldn't be your first answer.

One of my guiding philosophies is that no intuition should go unexplored, and that if something is "obvious," then we should be able to articulate why - and should. In this kind of case, there are plenty of times when there are parallels between two seemingly unrelated situations. Yes, there is most likely a difference in the way children react to corporal punishment and the way an adult would. Which is something I noted in multiple ways in the post that set you off in the first place. But I wanted to tease that out all the way. If everything is so "obvious," then why do we even have a field of behavioral psychology in the first place? I can't help but find it interesting that corporal punishment is a non-starter in one case (adults), but considered viable in another (children).

This is an even more interesting dichotomy when you consider that many other nations - and 30 states - have decided that corporal punishment is not effective in children, or certainly that the burden does not outweigh the benefit. So a minority of states and a minority of nations agree with you: That children are "different" in some significant way from adults that makes corporal punishment a viable and productive option, whereas it would not be for adult offenders. In other words, in 2011, I am the one in the majority here, not you. The burden is on you to reconcile the difference. Not on me. Which made it a perfectly valid issue to raise.

No, the majority does NOT believe that the same methods used to discipline children should be used for adults. Nice try at twisting things, but reality is getting in your way there.

Try disciplining your kids the way you would an adult. Please. Just be sure to report the utter failure when you're done, ok?

What is a "timeout" then, except adult punitive measures applied to children?

You obviously have no interest in defending your point of view. It's "obvious" to you, so it should be "obvious" to everyone, I guess.

 

[User 11148]

I think there are qualitative differences between a "timeout" and the punishment meted out to adult criminals. In our household, a timeout served two purposes: 1) it let the kid get himself/herself back under control; and 2) it let the parent get his/her emotions under control. Plus, the timeout duration remains constant across all infractions -- as I recall, it was one minute per year (e.g., eight minutes for an 8-yeard-old). All of this is to say that, on the surface, that might be a viable comparison, but it's really not.

I am a father of three and have been blessed with three kids who have rarely entered the territory in which corporal punishment would even be considered. To repeat: I have been blessed; not everyone has had as attractive a hand as I have been dealt. It's still my contention, however, that in almost every case, there are just-as-effective options within reach. They may not be as convenient, they may require some thought, but they're not as destructive (to either the punished or the punisher).

 

[Dick Whitman]

I think there are qualitative differences between a "timeout" and the punishment meted out to adult criminals. In our household, a timeout served two purposes: 1) it let the kid get himself/herself back under control; and 2) it let the parent get his/her emotions under control. Plus, the timeout duration remains constant across all infractions -- as I recall, it was one minute per year (e.g., eight minutes for an 8-yeard-old). All of this is to say that, on the surface, that might be a viable comparison, but it's really not.

This sounds like a difference in degree, though, rather than kind. Another parent might choose to base duration on level of infraction. And, of course, recent "criminal" history (i.e. The "timeout" is lengthened because it is the third timeout of the day). At this point, it is starting to sound very familiar.

In other words, I think the principle carries: Incarceration as a punitive and utilitarian (i.e. used as a deterrent) response to bad behavior.

 

[MartinonMTV2]

This thread should be caned.

It needs a time out. Probably for several years.

 

[outofplace]

The poster who advocated corporal punishment in prisons is living somewhere in the 1800's

No, no, no, no, no, no, nooooooooo.

That's not what I was doing.

Sorry, ****, maybe I misinterpreted you.

I meant the opposite. We would never, ever, ever think that corporal punishment would be an OK choice for adults in prison. It's a non-starter. It sounds ridiculous to even say it. But we - or at least some of us - think it's OK for the most mentally, emotionally, and physically vulnerable members of our society. I was thinking aloud about how we reconcile that.

Which was already explained to you -- because you have to approach disciplining a child differently than you would approach disciplining an adult. It is a horrible comparison.

The part about them being physically vulnerable is irrelevant. We're not talking about caning or punching children here. We're talking about a spank, or some other corporal punishment that is meant to get their attention, not cause any real damage.

That physical vulnerability is also one reason that it is so essential that we find some manner of effective discipline. With the youngest of children --ones who are still learning to communicate and incapable of making rational decisions -- sometimes that's what it takes to keep them from harm. If a spank on the tush helps keep little Johnny from putting himself in danger, so be it.

Yes, they are mentally and emotionally vulnerable -- one more reason that finding an effective means of discipline is vital.

Do I think the idea of corporal punishment in school is a terrible one? Absolutely. But to dismiss it as a disciplinary tool in any situation and at any age is short-sighted at best. It may not be necessary for every child, but for some, it most definitely is.

I don't understand why this couldn't be your first answer.

One of my guiding philosophies is that no intuition should go unexplored, and that if something is "obvious," then we should be able to articulate why - and should. In this kind of case, there are plenty of times when there are parallels between two seemingly unrelated situations. Yes, there is most likely a difference in the way children react to corporal punishment and the way an adult would. Which is something I noted in multiple ways in the post that set you off in the first place. But I wanted to tease that out all the way. If everything is so "obvious," then why do we even have a field of behavioral psychology in the first place? I can't help but find it interesting that corporal punishment is a non-starter in one case (adults), but considered viable in another (children).

This is an even more interesting dichotomy when you consider that many other nations - and 30 states - have decided that corporal punishment is not effective in children, or certainly that the burden does not outweigh the benefit. So a minority of states and a minority of nations agree with you: That children are "different" in some significant way from adults that makes corporal punishment a viable and productive option, whereas it would not be for adult offenders. In other words, in 2011, I am the one in the majority here, not you. The burden is on you to reconcile the difference. Not on me. Which made it a perfectly valid issue to raise.

No, the majority does NOT believe that the same methods used to discipline children should be used for adults. Nice try at twisting things, but reality is getting in your way there.

Try disciplining your kids the way you would an adult. Please. Just be sure to report the utter failure when you're done, ok?

What is a "timeout" then, except adult punitive measures applied to children?

You obviously have no interest in defending your point of view. It's "obvious" to you, so it should be "obvious" to everyone, I guess.

I will ask you again -- are you seriously suggesting that we should use the same approach to disciplining children that we use with adults? You keep backing away from saying that, but it is exactly what you are arguing.

You asked why corporal punishment has been dismissed as a method of discipline for adult while it is used in some cases for children. I explained to you that people use different methods in disciplining children than they do adults. You STILL refuse to clarify if you are aruing that point or not.

 

[Dick Whitman]

The poster who advocated corporal punishment in prisons is living somewhere in the 1800's

No, no, no, no, no, no, nooooooooo.

That's not what I was doing.

Sorry, ****, maybe I misinterpreted you.

I meant the opposite. We would never, ever, ever think that corporal punishment would be an OK choice for adults in prison. It's a non-starter. It sounds ridiculous to even say it. But we - or at least some of us - think it's OK for the most mentally, emotionally, and physically vulnerable members of our society. I was thinking aloud about how we reconcile that.

Which was already explained to you -- because you have to approach disciplining a child differently than you would approach disciplining an adult. It is a horrible comparison.

The part about them being physically vulnerable is irrelevant. We're not talking about caning or punching children here. We're talking about a spank, or some other corporal punishment that is meant to get their attention, not cause any real damage.

That physical vulnerability is also one reason that it is so essential that we find some manner of effective discipline. With the youngest of children --ones who are still learning to communicate and incapable of making rational decisions -- sometimes that's what it takes to keep them from harm. If a spank on the tush helps keep little Johnny from putting himself in danger, so be it.

Yes, they are mentally and emotionally vulnerable -- one more reason that finding an effective means of discipline is vital.

Do I think the idea of corporal punishment in school is a terrible one? Absolutely. But to dismiss it as a disciplinary tool in any situation and at any age is short-sighted at best. It may not be necessary for every child, but for some, it most definitely is.

I don't understand why this couldn't be your first answer.

One of my guiding philosophies is that no intuition should go unexplored, and that if something is "obvious," then we should be able to articulate why - and should. In this kind of case, there are plenty of times when there are parallels between two seemingly unrelated situations. Yes, there is most likely a difference in the way children react to corporal punishment and the way an adult would. Which is something I noted in multiple ways in the post that set you off in the first place. But I wanted to tease that out all the way. If everything is so "obvious," then why do we even have a field of behavioral psychology in the first place? I can't help but find it interesting that corporal punishment is a non-starter in one case (adults), but considered viable in another (children).

This is an even more interesting dichotomy when you consider that many other nations - and 30 states - have decided that corporal punishment is not effective in children, or certainly that the burden does not outweigh the benefit. So a minority of states and a minority of nations agree with you: That children are "different" in some significant way from adults that makes corporal punishment a viable and productive option, whereas it would not be for adult offenders. In other words, in 2011, I am the one in the majority here, not you. The burden is on you to reconcile the difference. Not on me. Which made it a perfectly valid issue to raise.

No, the majority does NOT believe that the same methods used to discipline children should be used for adults. Nice try at twisting things, but reality is getting in your way there.

Try disciplining your kids the way you would an adult. Please. Just be sure to report the utter failure when you're done, ok?

What is a "timeout" then, except adult punitive measures applied to children?

You obviously have no interest in defending your point of view. It's "obvious" to you, so it should be "obvious" to everyone, I guess.

I will ask you again -- are you seriously suggesting that we should use the same approach to disciplining children that we use with adults? You keep backing away from saying that, but it is exactly what you are arguing.

You asked why corporal punishment has been dismissed as a method of discipline for adult while it is used in some cases for children. I explained to you that people use different methods in disciplining children than they do adults. You STILL refuse to clarify if you are aruing that point or not.

I believe that the fact that we have moved away from corporal punishment as a mechanism for disciplining adult offenders indicates that we do not believe that it is: (1) Productive; and/or (2) Dignified You keep telling me that this is because children are "different." You don't tell me why. Or cite to anything that would support this, other than your own anecdotal observations, I think. Which tell me nothing.

Why would a state abolish corporal punishment for adults in the criminal justice context, but maintain that it is still effective for children? That seems inconsistent to me. I have asked advocates to reconcile what seem like disparate expressions of our values within, allegedly, the same value system. You offer nothing but conclusory statements. I believe that this is because you haven't thought it through enough to support your belief effectively.

 

[outofplace]

The poster who advocated corporal punishment in prisons is living somewhere in the 1800's

No, no, no, no, no, no, nooooooooo.

That's not what I was doing.

Sorry, ****, maybe I misinterpreted you.

I meant the opposite. We would never, ever, ever think that corporal punishment would be an OK choice for adults in prison. It's a non-starter. It sounds ridiculous to even say it. But we - or at least some of us - think it's OK for the most mentally, emotionally, and physically vulnerable members of our society. I was thinking aloud about how we reconcile that.

Which was already explained to you -- because you have to approach disciplining a child differently than you would approach disciplining an adult. It is a horrible comparison.

The part about them being physically vulnerable is irrelevant. We're not talking about caning or punching children here. We're talking about a spank, or some other corporal punishment that is meant to get their attention, not cause any real damage.

That physical vulnerability is also one reason that it is so essential that we find some manner of effective discipline. With the youngest of children --ones who are still learning to communicate and incapable of making rational decisions -- sometimes that's what it takes to keep them from harm. If a spank on the tush helps keep little Johnny from putting himself in danger, so be it.

Yes, they are mentally and emotionally vulnerable -- one more reason that finding an effective means of discipline is vital.

Do I think the idea of corporal punishment in school is a terrible one? Absolutely. But to dismiss it as a disciplinary tool in any situation and at any age is short-sighted at best. It may not be necessary for every child, but for some, it most definitely is.

I don't understand why this couldn't be your first answer.

One of my guiding philosophies is that no intuition should go unexplored, and that if something is "obvious," then we should be able to articulate why - and should. In this kind of case, there are plenty of times when there are parallels between two seemingly unrelated situations. Yes, there is most likely a difference in the way children react to corporal punishment and the way an adult would. Which is something I noted in multiple ways in the post that set you off in the first place. But I wanted to tease that out all the way. If everything is so "obvious," then why do we even have a field of behavioral psychology in the first place? I can't help but find it interesting that corporal punishment is a non-starter in one case (adults), but considered viable in another (children).

This is an even more interesting dichotomy when you consider that many other nations - and 30 states - have decided that corporal punishment is not effective in children, or certainly that the burden does not outweigh the benefit. So a minority of states and a minority of nations agree with you: That children are "different" in some significant way from adults that makes corporal punishment a viable and productive option, whereas it would not be for adult offenders. In other words, in 2011, I am the one in the majority here, not you. The burden is on you to reconcile the difference. Not on me. Which made it a perfectly valid issue to raise.

No, the majority does NOT believe that the same methods used to discipline children should be used for adults. Nice try at twisting things, but reality is getting in your way there.

Try disciplining your kids the way you would an adult. Please. Just be sure to report the utter failure when you're done, ok?

What is a "timeout" then, except adult punitive measures applied to children?

You obviously have no interest in defending your point of view. It's "obvious" to you, so it should be "obvious" to everyone, I guess.

I will ask you again -- are you seriously suggesting that we should use the same approach to disciplining children that we use with adults? You keep backing away from saying that, but it is exactly what you are arguing.

You asked why corporal punishment has been dismissed as a method of discipline for adult while it is used in some cases for children. I explained to you that people use different methods in disciplining children than they do adults. You STILL refuse to clarify if you are aruing that point or not.

I believe that the fact that we have moved away from corporal punishment as a mechanism for disciplining adult offenders indicates that we do not believe that it is: (1) Productive; and/or (2) Dignified You keep telling me that this is because children are "different." You don't tell me why. Or cite to anything that would support this, other than your own anecdotal observations, I think. Which tell me nothing.

Why would a state abolish corporal punishment for adults in the criminal justice context, but maintain that it is still effective for children? That seems inconsistent to me. I have asked advocates to reconcile what seem like disparate expressions of our values within, allegedly, the same value system. You offer nothing but conclusory statements. I believe that this is because you haven't thought it through enough to support your belief effectively.

So, you do actually believe that children and adults should be disciplined the same way? You keep arguing the point, yet you refuse to actually admit to your belief. Why is that?

I believe this is because even you know how stupid it would be to try to discipline a three-year-old child the same way we would discipline an adult. Or a five-year-old child, even a 10-year-old. I feel fairly certain that the majority is with me on that one, in fact that any sane person who has spent any time around children is with me on that one. So the burden falls on YOU to prove otherwise.

So please, explain to us how it makes sense to discipline children and adults in the same manner. Never mind the physical, emotional and mental differences. Never mind that adults DO have rights that children do not have in our society. Never mind that everything we do with children shows that we don't trust them to make their all of own decisions while we expect that out of adults. I'm sure you've got SOMETHING you can toss out there, right?

Or are you just trying to cover up your initial foolishness by attacking me for daring to point it out?

 

[Dick Whitman]

The poster who advocated corporal punishment in prisons is living somewhere in the 1800's

No, no, no, no, no, no, nooooooooo.

That's not what I was doing.

Sorry, ****, maybe I misinterpreted you.

I meant the opposite. We would never, ever, ever think that corporal punishment would be an OK choice for adults in prison. It's a non-starter. It sounds ridiculous to even say it. But we - or at least some of us - think it's OK for the most mentally, emotionally, and physically vulnerable members of our society. I was thinking aloud about how we reconcile that.

Which was already explained to you -- because you have to approach disciplining a child differently than you would approach disciplining an adult. It is a horrible comparison.

The part about them being physically vulnerable is irrelevant. We're not talking about caning or punching children here. We're talking about a spank, or some other corporal punishment that is meant to get their attention, not cause any real damage.

That physical vulnerability is also one reason that it is so essential that we find some manner of effective discipline. With the youngest of children --ones who are still learning to communicate and incapable of making rational decisions -- sometimes that's what it takes to keep them from harm. If a spank on the tush helps keep little Johnny from putting himself in danger, so be it.

Yes, they are mentally and emotionally vulnerable -- one more reason that finding an effective means of discipline is vital.

Do I think the idea of corporal punishment in school is a terrible one? Absolutely. But to dismiss it as a disciplinary tool in any situation and at any age is short-sighted at best. It may not be necessary for every child, but for some, it most definitely is.

I don't understand why this couldn't be your first answer.

One of my guiding philosophies is that no intuition should go unexplored, and that if something is "obvious," then we should be able to articulate why - and should. In this kind of case, there are plenty of times when there are parallels between two seemingly unrelated situations. Yes, there is most likely a difference in the way children react to corporal punishment and the way an adult would. Which is something I noted in multiple ways in the post that set you off in the first place. But I wanted to tease that out all the way. If everything is so "obvious," then why do we even have a field of behavioral psychology in the first place? I can't help but find it interesting that corporal punishment is a non-starter in one case (adults), but considered viable in another (children).

This is an even more interesting dichotomy when you consider that many other nations - and 30 states - have decided that corporal punishment is not effective in children, or certainly that the burden does not outweigh the benefit. So a minority of states and a minority of nations agree with you: That children are "different" in some significant way from adults that makes corporal punishment a viable and productive option, whereas it would not be for adult offenders. In other words, in 2011, I am the one in the majority here, not you. The burden is on you to reconcile the difference. Not on me. Which made it a perfectly valid issue to raise.

No, the majority does NOT believe that the same methods used to discipline children should be used for adults. Nice try at twisting things, but reality is getting in your way there.

Try disciplining your kids the way you would an adult. Please. Just be sure to report the utter failure when you're done, ok?

What is a "timeout" then, except adult punitive measures applied to children?

You obviously have no interest in defending your point of view. It's "obvious" to you, so it should be "obvious" to everyone, I guess.

I will ask you again -- are you seriously suggesting that we should use the same approach to disciplining children that we use with adults? You keep backing away from saying that, but it is exactly what you are arguing.

You asked why corporal punishment has been dismissed as a method of discipline for adult while it is used in some cases for children. I explained to you that people use different methods in disciplining children than they do adults. You STILL refuse to clarify if you are aruing that point or not.

I believe that the fact that we have moved away from corporal punishment as a mechanism for disciplining adult offenders indicates that we do not believe that it is: (1) Productive; and/or (2) Dignified You keep telling me that this is because children are "different." You don't tell me why. Or cite to anything that would support this, other than your own anecdotal observations, I think. Which tell me nothing.

Why would a state abolish corporal punishment for adults in the criminal justice context, but maintain that it is still effective for children? That seems inconsistent to me. I have asked advocates to reconcile what seem like disparate expressions of our values within, allegedly, the same value system. You offer nothing but conclusory statements. I believe that this is because you haven't thought it through enough to support your belief effectively.

So, you do actually believe that children and adults should be disciplined the same way? You keep arguing the point, yet you refuse to actually admit to your belief. Why is that?

Of course not.

But there are analogous principles that are applicable to both. We don't use corporal punishment for adults. Why do we think it works for children? Or, more accurately, why do a minority of states and a minority of parents still think it works for children?

You think that your black-and-white answer satisfies everything: "Because children and adults are different."

That's not enough. How are they different? How does that guide how we treat them when they do wrong? Are there principles that nonetheless guide our punishment of both, even if the application may differ in degree? I think those are questions worth exploring, because I, personally, am seeking to form a coherent, consistent, defensible worldview. I don't claim to have all the answers right now. I was just raising the questions.

 

[outofplace]

The poster who advocated corporal punishment in prisons is living somewhere in the 1800's

No, no, no, no, no, no, nooooooooo.

That's not what I was doing.

Sorry, ****, maybe I misinterpreted you.

I meant the opposite. We would never, ever, ever think that corporal punishment would be an OK choice for adults in prison. It's a non-starter. It sounds ridiculous to even say it. But we - or at least some of us - think it's OK for the most mentally, emotionally, and physically vulnerable members of our society. I was thinking aloud about how we reconcile that.

Which was already explained to you -- because you have to approach disciplining a child differently than you would approach disciplining an adult. It is a horrible comparison.

The part about them being physically vulnerable is irrelevant. We're not talking about caning or punching children here. We're talking about a spank, or some other corporal punishment that is meant to get their attention, not cause any real damage.

That physical vulnerability is also one reason that it is so essential that we find some manner of effective discipline. With the youngest of children --ones who are still learning to communicate and incapable of making rational decisions -- sometimes that's what it takes to keep them from harm. If a spank on the tush helps keep little Johnny from putting himself in danger, so be it.

Yes, they are mentally and emotionally vulnerable -- one more reason that finding an effective means of discipline is vital.

Do I think the idea of corporal punishment in school is a terrible one? Absolutely. But to dismiss it as a disciplinary tool in any situation and at any age is short-sighted at best. It may not be necessary for every child, but for some, it most definitely is.

I don't understand why this couldn't be your first answer.

One of my guiding philosophies is that no intuition should go unexplored, and that if something is "obvious," then we should be able to articulate why - and should. In this kind of case, there are plenty of times when there are parallels between two seemingly unrelated situations. Yes, there is most likely a difference in the way children react to corporal punishment and the way an adult would. Which is something I noted in multiple ways in the post that set you off in the first place. But I wanted to tease that out all the way. If everything is so "obvious," then why do we even have a field of behavioral psychology in the first place? I can't help but find it interesting that corporal punishment is a non-starter in one case (adults), but considered viable in another (children).

This is an even more interesting dichotomy when you consider that many other nations - and 30 states - have decided that corporal punishment is not effective in children, or certainly that the burden does not outweigh the benefit. So a minority of states and a minority of nations agree with you: That children are "different" in some significant way from adults that makes corporal punishment a viable and productive option, whereas it would not be for adult offenders. In other words, in 2011, I am the one in the majority here, not you. The burden is on you to reconcile the difference. Not on me. Which made it a perfectly valid issue to raise.

No, the majority does NOT believe that the same methods used to discipline children should be used for adults. Nice try at twisting things, but reality is getting in your way there.

Try disciplining your kids the way you would an adult. Please. Just be sure to report the utter failure when you're done, ok?

What is a "timeout" then, except adult punitive measures applied to children?

You obviously have no interest in defending your point of view. It's "obvious" to you, so it should be "obvious" to everyone, I guess.

I will ask you again -- are you seriously suggesting that we should use the same approach to disciplining children that we use with adults? You keep backing away from saying that, but it is exactly what you are arguing.

You asked why corporal punishment has been dismissed as a method of discipline for adult while it is used in some cases for children. I explained to you that people use different methods in disciplining children than they do adults. You STILL refuse to clarify if you are aruing that point or not.

I believe that the fact that we have moved away from corporal punishment as a mechanism for disciplining adult offenders indicates that we do not believe that it is: (1) Productive; and/or (2) Dignified You keep telling me that this is because children are "different." You don't tell me why. Or cite to anything that would support this, other than your own anecdotal observations, I think. Which tell me nothing.

Why would a state abolish corporal punishment for adults in the criminal justice context, but maintain that it is still effective for children? That seems inconsistent to me. I have asked advocates to reconcile what seem like disparate expressions of our values within, allegedly, the same value system. You offer nothing but conclusory statements. I believe that this is because you haven't thought it through enough to support your belief effectively.

So, you do actually believe that children and adults should be disciplined the same way? You keep arguing the point, yet you refuse to actually admit to your belief. Why is that?

Of course not.

But there are analogous principles that are applicable to both. We don't use corporal punishment for adults. Why do we think it works for children? Or, more accurately, why do a minority of states and a minority of parents still think it works for children?

You think that your black-and-white answer satisfies everything: "Because children and adults are different."

That's not enough. How are they different? How does that guide how we treat them when they do wrong? Are there principles that nonetheless guide our punishment of both? I think those are questions worth exploring, because I, personally, am seeking to form a coherent, consistent, defensible worldview. I don't claim to have all the answers right now. I was just raising the questions.

And you shifted your argument. You painted it as some kind of logical failure that corporal punishment would be accepted by some for children, but not adults. My point that children and adults must be treated differently DOES answer your question. You just don't like tha answer, so you play games.

You don't like my posting style? Well, I don't like when posters try to cover their bull**** in more bull****, so I guess we're even.

 

[Dick Whitman]

The poster who advocated corporal punishment in prisons is living somewhere in the 1800's

No, no, no, no, no, no, nooooooooo.

That's not what I was doing.

Sorry, ****, maybe I misinterpreted you.

I meant the opposite. We would never, ever, ever think that corporal punishment would be an OK choice for adults in prison. It's a non-starter. It sounds ridiculous to even say it. But we - or at least some of us - think it's OK for the most mentally, emotionally, and physically vulnerable members of our society. I was thinking aloud about how we reconcile that.

Which was already explained to you -- because you have to approach disciplining a child differently than you would approach disciplining an adult. It is a horrible comparison.

The part about them being physically vulnerable is irrelevant. We're not talking about caning or punching children here. We're talking about a spank, or some other corporal punishment that is meant to get their attention, not cause any real damage.

That physical vulnerability is also one reason that it is so essential that we find some manner of effective discipline. With the youngest of children --ones who are still learning to communicate and incapable of making rational decisions -- sometimes that's what it takes to keep them from harm. If a spank on the tush helps keep little Johnny from putting himself in danger, so be it.

Yes, they are mentally and emotionally vulnerable -- one more reason that finding an effective means of discipline is vital.

Do I think the idea of corporal punishment in school is a terrible one? Absolutely. But to dismiss it as a disciplinary tool in any situation and at any age is short-sighted at best. It may not be necessary for every child, but for some, it most definitely is.

I don't understand why this couldn't be your first answer.

One of my guiding philosophies is that no intuition should go unexplored, and that if something is "obvious," then we should be able to articulate why - and should. In this kind of case, there are plenty of times when there are parallels between two seemingly unrelated situations. Yes, there is most likely a difference in the way children react to corporal punishment and the way an adult would. Which is something I noted in multiple ways in the post that set you off in the first place. But I wanted to tease that out all the way. If everything is so "obvious," then why do we even have a field of behavioral psychology in the first place? I can't help but find it interesting that corporal punishment is a non-starter in one case (adults), but considered viable in another (children).

This is an even more interesting dichotomy when you consider that many other nations - and 30 states - have decided that corporal punishment is not effective in children, or certainly that the burden does not outweigh the benefit. So a minority of states and a minority of nations agree with you: That children are "different" in some significant way from adults that makes corporal punishment a viable and productive option, whereas it would not be for adult offenders. In other words, in 2011, I am the one in the majority here, not you. The burden is on you to reconcile the difference. Not on me. Which made it a perfectly valid issue to raise.

No, the majority does NOT believe that the same methods used to discipline children should be used for adults. Nice try at twisting things, but reality is getting in your way there.

Try disciplining your kids the way you would an adult. Please. Just be sure to report the utter failure when you're done, ok?

What is a "timeout" then, except adult punitive measures applied to children?

You obviously have no interest in defending your point of view. It's "obvious" to you, so it should be "obvious" to everyone, I guess.

I will ask you again -- are you seriously suggesting that we should use the same approach to disciplining children that we use with adults? You keep backing away from saying that, but it is exactly what you are arguing.

You asked why corporal punishment has been dismissed as a method of discipline for adult while it is used in some cases for children. I explained to you that people use different methods in disciplining children than they do adults. You STILL refuse to clarify if you are aruing that point or not.

I believe that the fact that we have moved away from corporal punishment as a mechanism for disciplining adult offenders indicates that we do not believe that it is: (1) Productive; and/or (2) Dignified You keep telling me that this is because children are "different." You don't tell me why. Or cite to anything that would support this, other than your own anecdotal observations, I think. Which tell me nothing.

Why would a state abolish corporal punishment for adults in the criminal justice context, but maintain that it is still effective for children? That seems inconsistent to me. I have asked advocates to reconcile what seem like disparate expressions of our values within, allegedly, the same value system. You offer nothing but conclusory statements. I believe that this is because you haven't thought it through enough to support your belief effectively.

So, you do actually believe that children and adults should be disciplined the same way? You keep arguing the point, yet you refuse to actually admit to your belief. Why is that?

Of course not.

But there are analogous principles that are applicable to both. We don't use corporal punishment for adults. Why do we think it works for children? Or, more accurately, why do a minority of states and a minority of parents still think it works for children?

You think that your black-and-white answer satisfies everything: "Because children and adults are different."

That's not enough. How are they different? How does that guide how we treat them when they do wrong? Are there principles that nonetheless guide our punishment of both? I think those are questions worth exploring, because I, personally, am seeking to form a coherent, consistent, defensible worldview. I don't claim to have all the answers right now. I was just raising the questions.

And you shifted your argument. You painted it as some kind of logical failure that corporal punishment would be accepted by some for children, but not adults. My point that children and adults must be treated differently DOES answer your question. You just don't like tha answer, so you play games.

I initially asked if it was a logical failure. And if not, why not? "Children and adults are just ... different!" is not an acceptable answer. Not when 30 states have banned corporal punishment in schools and many nations have banned it within the home.

You seem to think - and I'm not sure of this, because you just say it's obvious and not worth fully articulating - that corporal punishment simply WORKS for children and not for adults. Why? Do you not believe that physical torture would deter future crime by adults? So what makes you believe that the same isn't true for children? Society, by the way, is moving in my direction, and away from yours.

 

[outofplace]

And you just keep shoveling more bull**** on the pile. "Physical torture?" Please. Think before the next time you post. If you can't tell the difference between a spank on the butt and physical torture, you are truly beyond help.

But maybe you do get the difference and you just rely on misrepresenting the other side of an argument to make your point. It's called intellectual dishonesty.

I already explained to you why it is not a logical failure. You are just to stubborn to admit it. When you are ready to have an honest discussion, then I'm sure this will be a lot more productive. For now, I'll just continue to call you out on your bull****.

What states have actually banned corporal punishment in the home? And are they really banning a smack on the tush for a 3-year-old?

 

[Dick Whitman]

Of course there is a difference between physical torture and a "smack on the tush."

But it is worth asking whether it is a difference in kind of a difference in degree.

That infuriates you for some reason and causes you to ridicule me as the village idiot.

 

[outofplace]

Of course there is a difference between physical torture and a "smack on the tush."

But it is worth asking whether it is a difference in kind of a difference in degree.

That infuriates you for some reason and causes you to ridicule me as the village idiot.

More dishonesty. I never questioned your intellect. I don't know enough about you to say whether or not you are intelligent. There is a difference between saying that you made a stupid argument and saying that you are stupid.

You, on the other hand, did attack my intellect directly. Funny how things go when people hold you accountable for your posts, isn't it?

And just because I'm calling you out on your bull**** does not mean I am angry. Again, you were the one who went straight for the personal attack, not me. You are clearly the one who is getting angry.

You characterized corporal punishment as physical torture. More dishonesty. You misrepresented what the other side is talking about to try to make your point.

Again, please try to be more honest in your posts. It will make for a much more civil and productive conversation.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Of course there is a difference between physical torture and a "smack on the tush."

But it is worth asking whether it is a difference in kind of a difference in degree.

That infuriates you for some reason and causes you to ridicule me as the village idiot.

More dishonesty. I never questioned your intellect. I don't know enough about you to say whether or not you are intelligent. There is a difference between saying that you made a stupid argument and saying that you are stupid.

You, on the other hand, did attack my intellect directly. Funny how things go when people hold you accountable for your posts, isn't it?

And just because I'm calling you out on your bull**** does not mean I am angry. Again, you were the one who went straight for the personal attack, not me. You are clearly the one who is getting angry.

You characterized corporal punishment as physical torture. More dishonesty. You misrepresented what the other side is talking about to try to make your point.

Again, please try to be more honest in your posts. It will make for a much more civil and productive conversation.

It is hilarious that you, of all posters, would be lecturing people about being more "civil."

I didn't characterize corporal punishment as we know it and think of it as physical torture. I said that surely "physical torture" - corporal punishment taken to its logical extreme - would deter crime, no? And surely it would serve as a punishment for wrongdoing, no?

So why don't we use it on adults? Since we think it's OK to use on children. Why?

 

[outofplace]

Of course there is a difference between physical torture and a "smack on the tush."

But it is worth asking whether it is a difference in kind of a difference in degree.

That infuriates you for some reason and causes you to ridicule me as the village idiot.

More dishonesty. I never questioned your intellect. I don't know enough about you to say whether or not you are intelligent. There is a difference between saying that you made a stupid argument and saying that you are stupid.

You, on the other hand, did attack my intellect directly. Funny how things go when people hold you accountable for your posts, isn't it?

And just because I'm calling you out on your bull**** does not mean I am angry. Again, you were the one who went straight for the personal attack, not me. You are clearly the one who is getting angry.

You characterized corporal punishment as physical torture. More dishonesty. You misrepresented what the other side is talking about to try to make your point.

Again, please try to be more honest in your posts. It will make for a much more civil and productive conversation.

It is hilarious that you, of all posters, would be lecturing people about being more "civil."

I didn't characterize corporal punishment as we know it and think of it as physical torture. I said that surely "physical torture" - corporal punishment taken to its logical extreme - would deter crime, no? And surely it would serve as a punishment for wrongdoing, no?

So why don't we use it on adults? Since we think it's OK to use on children. Why?

Wait, now which one of us engaged in personal attacks on the other? Please. Referesh everybody's memory for us.

And yes, you did equate corporal punishment with physical torture. Of course, you are doing more backpedaling on this thread than most NFL cornerbacks do in a season, so why stop now?

Why do you keep asking questions that have been answered repeatedly? Oh, I know. Because your argument was exposed as foolish two pages ago and you can't admit it.

 

[93Devil]

I'm not reading all of this, but a school should not be hitting kids.

I spank Lil 93, and I have no problem doing it. She gets a fair warning when it is coming, and a chance to correct behavior before it happens. And it is three quick open handed smacks on the ass. No fewer. No more.

So a school should not spank my child, but I will spank my child when they tell me my kid is ****ing around.

 

[Azrael]

This thread needs to be waterboarded. Then electrocuted with a tractor battery, shot in the head and pushed out of a helicopter.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Of course there is a difference between physical torture and a "smack on the tush."

But it is worth asking whether it is a difference in kind of a difference in degree.

That infuriates you for some reason and causes you to ridicule me as the village idiot.

More dishonesty. I never questioned your intellect. I don't know enough about you to say whether or not you are intelligent. There is a difference between saying that you made a stupid argument and saying that you are stupid.

You, on the other hand, did attack my intellect directly. Funny how things go when people hold you accountable for your posts, isn't it?

And just because I'm calling you out on your bull**** does not mean I am angry. Again, you were the one who went straight for the personal attack, not me. You are clearly the one who is getting angry.

You characterized corporal punishment as physical torture. More dishonesty. You misrepresented what the other side is talking about to try to make your point.

Again, please try to be more honest in your posts. It will make for a much more civil and productive conversation.

It is hilarious that you, of all posters, would be lecturing people about being more "civil."

I didn't characterize corporal punishment as we know it and think of it as physical torture. I said that surely "physical torture" - corporal punishment taken to its logical extreme - would deter crime, no? And surely it would serve as a punishment for wrongdoing, no?

So why don't we use it on adults? Since we think it's OK to use on children. Why?

Wait, now which one of us engaged in personal attacks on the other? Please. Referesh everybody's memory for us.

And yes, you did equate corporal punishment with physical torture. Of course, you are doing more backpedaling on this thread than most NFL cornerbacks do in a season, so why stop now?

Why do you keep asking questions that have been answered repeatedly? Oh, I know. Because your argument was exposed as foolish two pages ago and you can't admit it.

You have not answered any questions.

You have said that adults and children are "different."

You have not explained why. You have not explained to what degree. You have not explained why corporal punishment works - supposedly - on children, but not adults. Your answer is that it is obvious and not even worth discussing. That's not an answer. That's not an argument.

Also: I'm not "backpedaling." I don't know what I would even be "backpedaling" about. My stance was that it feels inconsistent to me that we punish children physically, but not adults. I asked people to try to reconcile that - or whether it can be reconciled at all.

You ask questions like: "Just tell me: Do you think children and adults are the same???!!!"

And when I say, "No, they aren't the 'same," you call that "backpedaling."

I call it nuance.

 

[secretariat]

Your answer is that it is obvious and not even worth discussing. That's not an answer. That's not an argument.

Don't really care about this particular argument, but this is correct. Might as well just quote ****'s posts and post Inarguable Among The Sane beneath a picture of Simon Cowell giving a thumbs-down.