How is this even debatable? I can't believe people in this thread actually support ANY degree of CP. I drop a man if I ever saw him strike his child, I don't care who it is. It's immature, cowardly, and sets a horrible example for our future. To the idiots who take part in this crap, shame on you. I don't care if it's a smack in the face all the way to whipping your disabled child with a belt, it's fucked up and just pathetic.
If you want to debate it with me, I'd love to discuss so I can express how much it disgusts me.
Drop?
Are you saying if you see someone strike his child, you punch him in the face?
Legaly it would be hard to justify, but moraly? why not?
How is this even debatable? I can't believe people in this thread actually support ANY degree of CP. I drop a man if I ever saw him strike his child, I don't care who it is. It's immature, cowardly, and sets a horrible example for our future. To the idiots who take part in this crap, shame on you. I don't care if it's a smack in the face all the way to whipping your disabled child with a belt, it's fucked up and just pathetic.
If you want to debate it with me, I'd love to discuss so I can express how much it disgusts me.
Drop?
Are you saying if you see someone strike his child, you punch him in the face?
Legaly it would be hard to justify, but moraly? why not?
and stems from the selfish goal of one person feeling better by venting with their fist and enjoyment from hurting a jerk
and that the repercussions of such an event aren't benefitial to the victim -- the kid might enjoy watching his old man get decked, but that's no good to him or her in the long run
than no, it's not moral. It's someone with issues of their own finding an excuse to hit a guy they think is lesser than them in some way.
and stems from the selfish goal of one person feeling better by venting with their fist and enjoyment from hurting a jerk
and that the repercussions of such an event aren't benefitial to the victim -- the kid might enjoy watching his old man get decked, but that's no good to him or her in the long run
than no, it's not moral. It's someone with issues of their own finding an excuse to hit a guy they think is lesser than them in some way.
Well, I agree its selfish because the goal is for the one dropping the other is for him to feel better.
But how can we prove it won't do the kid any good? isn't seeing this massive bully that is terrorizing the shit out of you get some sort of rertribution good for you? That maybe, just maybe, you didn't deserve all that abuse, and people outside the house agree?
It's still a fantasy though, a thought exercise. I won't be throwing punches in super markets anytime soon.
and stems from the selfish goal of one person feeling better by venting with their fist and enjoyment from hurting a jerk
and that the repercussions of such an event aren't benefitial to the victim -- the kid might enjoy watching his old man get decked, but that's no good to him or her in the long run
than no, it's not moral. It's someone with issues of their own finding an excuse to hit a guy they think is lesser than them in some way.
Well, I agree its selfish because the goal is for the one dropping the other is for him to feel better.
But how can we prove it won't do the kid any good? isn't seeing this massive bully that is terrorizing the shit out of you get some sort of rertribution good for you? That maybe, just maybe, you didn't deserve all that abuse, and people outside the house agree?
It's still a fantasy though, a thought exercise. I won't be throwing punches in super markets anytime soon.
There are other ways to stop the person. If someone is beating their kid in front of you, you can: Call the police, attempt to restrain the person, and so on.
Hitting him is not solving anything and there are other, less violent solutions. If I saw someone beating the shit out of their kid in public, I would likely try to restrain the person after calling the police. I admit that trying to grapple with the guy would likely result in pain to him (or both of us), but the goal there is prevention, not to cause that person pain.
No, I don't think "A is causing pain to B, therefore I will cause pain to A" is a morally justified position.
and stems from the selfish goal of one person feeling better by venting with their fist and enjoyment from hurting a jerk
and that the repercussions of such an event aren't benefitial to the victim -- the kid might enjoy watching his old man get decked, but that's no good to him or her in the long run
than no, it's not moral. It's someone with issues of their own finding an excuse to hit a guy they think is lesser than them in some way.
Well, I agree its selfish because the goal is for the one dropping the other is for him to feel better.
But how can we prove it won't do the kid any good? isn't seeing this massive bully that is terrorizing the shit out of you get some sort of rertribution good for you? That maybe, just maybe, you didn't deserve all that abuse, and people outside the house agree?
It's still a fantasy though, a thought exercise. I won't be throwing punches in super markets anytime soon.
Yeah but see, that's the thing right there. The selfishness of it and the enjoyment. A person feels morally superior to another, is violent toward them, and feels good. This isn't in service to the victim, not really; it's a revenge fantasy. Hit the Bad Guy, be a hero -- for all the good you haven't done.
There are plenty of ways to react to the proposed situation. Violence is one of them, and not one of the good ones. No one should feel happy about having to employ violence, it's a last resort. And someone looking for a reason to be violent isn't coming from a moral vantage.
How is this even debatable? I can't believe people in this thread actually support ANY degree of CP. I drop a man if I ever saw him strike his child, I don't care who it is. It's immature, cowardly, and sets a horrible example for our future. To the idiots who take part in this crap, shame on you. I don't care if it's a smack in the face all the way to whipping your disabled child with a belt, it's fucked up and just pathetic.
If you want to debate it with me, I'd love to discuss so I can express how much it disgusts me.
Drop?
Are you saying if you see someone strike his child, you punch him in the face?
Legaly it would be hard to justify, but moraly? why not?
"I'm gonna keep hitting you until you realise the VIOLENCE NEVER SOLVES ANYTHING!"
Incidentally, I got a whack from my mum a couple of times for acting like a little shit, but if you'd run up to her and punched her out for it, well let's just say that in my 10 year old eyes you wouldn't have been the hero in that situation.
To put it mildly.
V1m on
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Ethically it is dubious because that kind of thing would traumatize the kid. Even with the abuse the kid still looks up to and emulates their father and seeing them get beat up will damage the kid, probably more than being spanked or slapped.
My boss told me the other day "When I was a kid I was with my dad once when he got into a fist fight and the only thing I could think of was what if he loses this fight? That fist fight has stuck with me more than any other event from before I was ten"
0
Options
lu tzeSweeping the monestary steps.Registered Userregular
The kid could also blame themselves for their parent getting hurt, if they hadn't been naughty their dad wouldn't have got beaten up... I imagine that could probably fuck them up quite a bit.
I guess you think punching a wife beater is hypocritical too??
edit: Not that I think punching a person is a particularly good solution to any situation. Violence can buy time to solve problems but at the expense of creating more.
Kamar on
0
Options
Johnny ChopsockyScootaloo! We have to cook!Grillin' HaysenburgersRegistered Userregular
I guess you think punching a wife beater is hypocritical too??
Depends.
You see a mother slap her child in a store for cussing at her. Would you feel justified for hitting her?
That violence door only opens one way.
Using violence after the fact is kinda pointless and stupid. And as others have mentioned, smacking some kid's parent around in front of them, over them, is probably not good for a kid.
To clarify again, I don't support beating up people who use CP on their kids unless it's excessive and the violence will interrupt said excessiveness. I was just pointing out that the difference between hitting a helpless kid and hitting someone hitting a helpless kid are different enough to dispel the accusation of hypocrisy.
I guess you think punching a wife beater is hypocritical too??
Depends.
You see a mother slap her child in a store for cussing at her. Would you feel justified for hitting her?
That violence door only opens one way.
Using violence after the fact is kinda pointless and stupid. And as others have mentioned, smacking some kid's parent around in front of them, over them, is probably not good for a kid.
To clarify again, I don't support beating up people who use CP on their kids unless it's excessive and the violence will interrupt said excessiveness. I was just pointing out that the difference between hitting a helpless kid and hitting someone hitting a helpless kid are different enough to dispel the accusation of hypocrisy.
Of course, this brings up the question of whether corporeal dissuasion (hitting a hand with a spoon before it can reach the flame) is the same as corporeal punishment (using the spoon after the child has been stopped). A parallel is how the police can use fatal force to stop a crime, but only backwards cultures use capital punishment these days.
I guess what I've learned here is I'll let my kid stick a fork in an electrical outlet to learn cause and effect. Or baby proof the house. Which ever is more cost effective.
Or just don't leave your baby alone near sockets. Arm's reach, or a pack'n'play. That's sort of how it's supposed to be done.
80% of what you taught is also forgotten. I do not oppose the notion that CP does not work, or that it's less effective than other methods, but the idea that it always teaches them something bad is something that needs some very compelling evidence. Which I haven't seen yet.
Check the previous threads. Plenty of compelling evidence. Makes them more likely to get in fights at school, more like to abuse a spouse or become the victim of spousal abuse, harder to teach through less violent methods, less likely to be capable of internalized morality, etc.
Are you saying if you see someone strike his child, you punch him in the face?
HItting a defenseless child who didn't instigate violence is worse than hitting the person who instigated violence and hit a defenseless child.
But in practicality, I just tell people they can't spank their kids in my house. Or that I'm not going to be hanging out at their house if they're spanking their kids.
Of course, this brings up the question of whether corporeal dissuasion (hitting a hand with a spoon before it can reach the flame) is the same as corporeal punishment (using the spoon after the child has been stopped). A parallel is how the police can use fatal force to stop a crime, but only backwards cultures use capital punishment these days.
Even this is unneecessary. Even at a very young age, kids learn very well through repetition. Whenever our baby picks up something that is a chokable, we run over and grab it from him. Before he was even a year old, he started immediately handing us any small item he found on the floor. Same goes for dangerous things. If every time he reaches for the socket, you say "no that's dangerous" and then move him away and distract him with something else to do, then typically it doesn't take long before they learn not to bother trying to touch the sockets at all, and also just saying "no that's dangerous" becomes effective in a variety of situations.
My roomate's kid blatantly refuses to stop getting into things she's not supposed to, over and over and over again.
To some extent, it is just a game to her. She goes up to the TV and starts mashing buttons until her Daddy comes and picks her up. It is a win/win situation.
So he'll put her in time out to make her stop.
And soon as that's done, she'd go right back to the TV.
Well, she eventually started getting the idea. But she still does it on occasion, and it's been ongoing for months. :?
Well yeah that's pretty much how babies are. All of mine, too. But to a significant degree, you can start teaching them at a very young age.
I frequently hear, "baby won't quit mashing buttons on mah TV while I'm watching NASCAR dammit, what else kin I do but spank?" Maybe stop watching TV and play with your kid.
But yeah, as you noted, she eventually started getting the idea. You can't expect perfect or immediate results, especially not at this age. Stuff works over time, and never perfectly.
I frequently hear, "baby won't quit mashing buttons on mah TV while I'm watching NASCAR dammit, what else kin I do but spank?" Maybe stop watching TV and play with your kid.
The kid is just trying to communicate that you have bad taste.
"My damn baby keeps changing the channel from Jersey Shore to reruns of The Wire!"
80% of what you taught is also forgotten. I do not oppose the notion that CP does not work, or that it's less effective than other methods, but the idea that it always teaches them something bad is something that needs some very compelling evidence. Which I haven't seen yet.
Check the previous threads. Plenty of compelling evidence. Makes them more likely to get in fights at school, more like to abuse a spouse or become the victim of spousal abuse, harder to teach through less violent methods, less likely to be capable of internalized morality, etc.
My google searching has provided me with very little evidence for the large claims you're making. It's easy to find evidence that suggests frequent spanking is very bad, yeah, but actual proof that very mild spanking has an effect, no.
80% of what you taught is also forgotten. I do not oppose the notion that CP does not work, or that it's less effective than other methods, but the idea that it always teaches them something bad is something that needs some very compelling evidence. Which I haven't seen yet.
Check the previous threads. Plenty of compelling evidence. Makes them more likely to get in fights at school, more like to abuse a spouse or become the victim of spousal abuse, harder to teach through less violent methods, less likely to be capable of internalized morality, etc.
My google searching has provided me with very little evidence for the large claims you're making. It's easy to find evidence that suggests frequent spanking is very bad, yeah, but actual proof that very mild spanking has an effect, no.
Yea all that evidence is for a consistent pattern of corporal punishment, not a spanking for certain extreme kinds of misbehavior at a very young age
Deniable. Statistics say something, or rather, are believed to say something they don't say. That is corporeal punishment is always worse than non-corporeal punishment. So, again, pinching your kid for misbehaving will turn them into a murderdeathkiller in a statistically favorable way above those that scream and verbally abuse their kids. Because, well, because numbers. Edit: That isn't to say you can't compare two situations where both are screaming at their kids and one adds a pinch. Which is to say it would affect it in a negligible way. But alas, I have no statistics to prove such a thing.
Just because one is corporeal punishment and the other isn't doesn't mean they're false dilemmas or don't overlap in their outcomes. That would be a strawman.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
80% of what you taught is also forgotten. I do not oppose the notion that CP does not work, or that it's less effective than other methods, but the idea that it always teaches them something bad is something that needs some very compelling evidence. Which I haven't seen yet.
Check the previous threads. Plenty of compelling evidence. Makes them more likely to get in fights at school, more like to abuse a spouse or become the victim of spousal abuse, harder to teach through less violent methods, less likely to be capable of internalized morality, etc.
My google searching has provided me with very little evidence for the large claims you're making. It's easy to find evidence that suggests frequent spanking is very bad, yeah, but actual proof that very mild spanking has an effect, no.
Yea all that evidence is for a consistent pattern of corporal punishment, not a spanking for certain extreme kinds of misbehavior at a very young age
Not true. We've had like three threads on this. I'm not going to dig it up right now, but I can later if I have to. In longitudinal studies, even a single instance of spanking is shown to have negative effects. More than one study looked at very mild, infrequent spanking, and others looking at spanking only at various age groups, and others looked at spanking used only as a rare last resort on top of otherwise reasoned, non-violent discipline. Lots of people like to claim that "oh yeah well you didn't look at this" but the truth is that the scientific body of evidence is overwhelmingly thorough and one-sided, much more so than you normally get on social issues like this. Everything that you think hasn't been studied... it actually has. And been published and reviewed by peers. The climate change denier is like 5 steps above the spanker in terms of scientific validity.
And "extreme misbehavior" doesn't even make sense once you acknowledge that it isn't a more effective way to discipline. "Extreme" misbehavior doesn't warrant it any more than mild misbehavior does.
Deniable. Statistics say something, or rather, are believed to say something they don't say. That is corporeal punishment is always worse than non-corporeal punishment. So, again, pinching your kid for misbehaving will turn them into a murderdeathkiller in a statistically favorable way above those that scream and verbally abuse their kids. Because, well, because numbers. Edit: That isn't to say you can't compare two situations where both are screaming at their kids and one adds a pinch. Which is to say it would affect it in a negligible way. But alas, I have no statistics to prove such a thing.
Just because one is corporeal punishment and the other isn't doesn't mean they're false dilemmas or don't overlap in their outcomes. That would be a strawman.
Your parents punished you by dropping you on you head, didn't they?
Of course, this brings up the question of whether corporeal dissuasion (hitting a hand with a spoon before it can reach the flame) is the same as corporeal punishment (using the spoon after the child has been stopped). A parallel is how the police can use fatal force to stop a crime, but only backwards cultures use capital punishment these days.
Even this is unneecessary. Even at a very young age, kids learn very well through repetition. Whenever our baby picks up something that is a chokable, we run over and grab it from him. Before he was even a year old, he started immediately handing us any small item he found on the floor. Same goes for dangerous things. If every time he reaches for the socket, you say "no that's dangerous" and then move him away and distract him with something else to do, then typically it doesn't take long before they learn not to bother trying to touch the sockets at all, and also just saying "no that's dangerous" becomes effective in a variety of situations.
I probably worded that badly. I meant as an alternative to the grab rather than as a lasting lesson. I can't remember seeing and studies on that.
Of course, this brings up the question of whether corporeal dissuasion (hitting a hand with a spoon before it can reach the flame) is the same as corporeal punishment (using the spoon after the child has been stopped). A parallel is how the police can use fatal force to stop a crime, but only backwards cultures use capital punishment these days.
No, corporeal dissuasion is when you discourage the spirits from manifesting. Corporeal punishment is when you smack the shit out of those ghosts for failing to abide by your wishes for them to remain intangible.
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
edited January 2012
Hey so here's a fun fact
I also post on something awful
when this whole thing blew up, whelp, it turned out that the girl in question was a goon!
So at first, the whole thread was behind her, raah raah how dare your father do that blah blah blah
then goons, being the horrible internet neckbeards they are, started digging into her personal life and whoops she's a big time furry. Which is a little weird, but whatever
Then they found out she was like into beastiality and shit? Like fucking dogs and shit? Not even just furriness, like full on creepy fucking shit. She was also really unhealthily into digimon. it got really fucking weird
Then people started questioning why she sat on the video for seven years or however long it was before she released it. Then she told a completely opposite story on SA that she told the news about why she released the video, and people sniffed that it really seemed like she released the vid because her dad cut her off financially (he was paying for her car and apartment and maybe cell phone, i think?) there was a heavy implication that she was blackmailing him, too- iirc, she told him to start paying for her stuff again or she'd release the video on youtube, which he said something along the lines of "release it, then"
eventually the thread devolved into a bunch of assholes being misogynist pricks and trolling her, people who hate furries and other shit like that mocking her, and internet white knights defending her with a zeal and passion that was just really fucking creepy
me personally, i'm a product of ten years of heavy physical, emotional, and verbal abuse so the story really resonated with me. but now, knowing she basically released the vid because her gravy train stopped flowing really made me lose any real sympathy i had for her situation
ed: the reason why this info is so late is is because i was banned when all this shit went down
when this whole thing blew up, whelp, it turned out that the girl in question was a goon!
So at first, the whole thread was behind her, raah raah how dare your father do that blah blah blah
then goons, being the horrible internet neckbeards they are, started digging into her personal life and whoops she's a big time furry. Which is a little weird, but whatever
Then they found out she was like into beastiality and shit? Like fucking dogs and shit? Not even just furriness, like full on creepy fucking shit. She was also really unhealthily into digimon. it got really fucking weird
Then people started questioning why she sat on the video for seven years or however long it was before she released it. Then she told a completely opposite story on SA that she told the news about why she released the video, and people sniffed that it really seemed like she released the vid because her dad cut her off financially (he was paying for her car and apartment and maybe cell phone, i think?) there was a heavy implication that she was blackmailing him, too- iirc, she told him to start paying for her stuff again or she'd release the video on youtube, which he said something along the lines of "release it, then"
eventually the thread devolved into a bunch of assholes being misogynist pricks and trolling her, people who hate furries and other shit like that mocking her, and internet white knights defending her with a zeal and passion that was just really fucking creepy
me personally, i'm a product of ten years of heavy physical, emotional, and verbal abuse so the story really resonated with me. but now, knowing she basically released the vid because her gravy train stopped flowing really made me lose any real sympathy i had for her situation
ed: the reason why this info is so late is is because i was banned when all this shit went down
Wait a minute...
Clawshrimpy?
Anyway, good on her for finding a way to actually get a little bit ahead on her misfortune.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
You're saying that someone who grew up in an abusive household has unorthodox/abusive sexual proclivities and a skewed sense of right and wrong?
Has anyone had the thought that black people in the states are descended from slaves, who were pretty much forbidden education, and were bred for physical ability? This explains perfectly their horrible record in schools and their "pack mentality", and why they're so good at sports.
Remember how they were shooting and raping each other during the Katrina disaster?
ed: to be fair, this might be a trollpost she made, however the thread where she posted this every other post she made was an in good faith post (where she cited MLK as why affirmative action should be abolished lololololol)
Rent on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Who said anything about justifiable or acceptable?
Posts
Legaly it would be hard to justify, but moraly? why not?
Why not assault someone for hitting a child?
Is that the question?
To be fair, the victim of the force in question is not at all comparable, so it's not quite a tautology like you're saying.
"I can't believe anyone here supports corporal punishment, and I will beat the fuck out of anyone that does."
Reminds me of "There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch."
Considering how it wouldn't solve anything
and stems from the selfish goal of one person feeling better by venting with their fist and enjoyment from hurting a jerk
and that the repercussions of such an event aren't benefitial to the victim -- the kid might enjoy watching his old man get decked, but that's no good to him or her in the long run
than no, it's not moral. It's someone with issues of their own finding an excuse to hit a guy they think is lesser than them in some way.
Well, I agree its selfish because the goal is for the one dropping the other is for him to feel better.
But how can we prove it won't do the kid any good? isn't seeing this massive bully that is terrorizing the shit out of you get some sort of rertribution good for you? That maybe, just maybe, you didn't deserve all that abuse, and people outside the house agree?
It's still a fantasy though, a thought exercise. I won't be throwing punches in super markets anytime soon.
There are other ways to stop the person. If someone is beating their kid in front of you, you can: Call the police, attempt to restrain the person, and so on.
Hitting him is not solving anything and there are other, less violent solutions. If I saw someone beating the shit out of their kid in public, I would likely try to restrain the person after calling the police. I admit that trying to grapple with the guy would likely result in pain to him (or both of us), but the goal there is prevention, not to cause that person pain.
No, I don't think "A is causing pain to B, therefore I will cause pain to A" is a morally justified position.
Yeah but see, that's the thing right there. The selfishness of it and the enjoyment. A person feels morally superior to another, is violent toward them, and feels good. This isn't in service to the victim, not really; it's a revenge fantasy. Hit the Bad Guy, be a hero -- for all the good you haven't done.
There are plenty of ways to react to the proposed situation. Violence is one of them, and not one of the good ones. No one should feel happy about having to employ violence, it's a last resort. And someone looking for a reason to be violent isn't coming from a moral vantage.
This is a great reaction and satisfy the need to do something about it when you see it while not contributing to the loop of anger->violence->anger.
Thats the end of that then
Except the reasoning was that force can't change behaviour in any positive way and actually always changes it in a negative way.
Well probably for the same reason that one argues that hitting the kid doesn't do any good.
"I'm gonna keep hitting you until you realise the VIOLENCE NEVER SOLVES ANYTHING!"
Incidentally, I got a whack from my mum a couple of times for acting like a little shit, but if you'd run up to her and punched her out for it, well let's just say that in my 10 year old eyes you wouldn't have been the hero in that situation.
To put it mildly.
My boss told me the other day "When I was a kid I was with my dad once when he got into a fist fight and the only thing I could think of was what if he loses this fight? That fist fight has stuck with me more than any other event from before I was ten"
I guess you think punching a wife beater is hypocritical too??
edit: Not that I think punching a person is a particularly good solution to any situation. Violence can buy time to solve problems but at the expense of creating more.
Depends.
You see a mother slap her child in a store for cussing at her. Would you feel justified for hitting her?
That violence door only opens one way.
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
Using violence after the fact is kinda pointless and stupid. And as others have mentioned, smacking some kid's parent around in front of them, over them, is probably not good for a kid.
To clarify again, I don't support beating up people who use CP on their kids unless it's excessive and the violence will interrupt said excessiveness. I was just pointing out that the difference between hitting a helpless kid and hitting someone hitting a helpless kid are different enough to dispel the accusation of hypocrisy.
Of course, this brings up the question of whether corporeal dissuasion (hitting a hand with a spoon before it can reach the flame) is the same as corporeal punishment (using the spoon after the child has been stopped). A parallel is how the police can use fatal force to stop a crime, but only backwards cultures use capital punishment these days.
Or just don't leave your baby alone near sockets. Arm's reach, or a pack'n'play. That's sort of how it's supposed to be done.
Check the previous threads. Plenty of compelling evidence. Makes them more likely to get in fights at school, more like to abuse a spouse or become the victim of spousal abuse, harder to teach through less violent methods, less likely to be capable of internalized morality, etc.
HItting a defenseless child who didn't instigate violence is worse than hitting the person who instigated violence and hit a defenseless child.
But in practicality, I just tell people they can't spank their kids in my house. Or that I'm not going to be hanging out at their house if they're spanking their kids.
Even this is unneecessary. Even at a very young age, kids learn very well through repetition. Whenever our baby picks up something that is a chokable, we run over and grab it from him. Before he was even a year old, he started immediately handing us any small item he found on the floor. Same goes for dangerous things. If every time he reaches for the socket, you say "no that's dangerous" and then move him away and distract him with something else to do, then typically it doesn't take long before they learn not to bother trying to touch the sockets at all, and also just saying "no that's dangerous" becomes effective in a variety of situations.
My roomate's kid blatantly refuses to stop getting into things she's not supposed to, over and over and over again.
To some extent, it is just a game to her. She goes up to the TV and starts mashing buttons until her Daddy comes and picks her up. It is a win/win situation.
So he'll put her in time out to make her stop.
And soon as that's done, she'd go right back to the TV.
Well, she eventually started getting the idea. But she still does it on occasion, and it's been ongoing for months. :?
I frequently hear, "baby won't quit mashing buttons on mah TV while I'm watching NASCAR dammit, what else kin I do but spank?" Maybe stop watching TV and play with your kid.
But yeah, as you noted, she eventually started getting the idea. You can't expect perfect or immediate results, especially not at this age. Stuff works over time, and never perfectly.
The kid is just trying to communicate that you have bad taste.
"My damn baby keeps changing the channel from Jersey Shore to reruns of The Wire!"
My google searching has provided me with very little evidence for the large claims you're making. It's easy to find evidence that suggests frequent spanking is very bad, yeah, but actual proof that very mild spanking has an effect, no.
Yea all that evidence is for a consistent pattern of corporal punishment, not a spanking for certain extreme kinds of misbehavior at a very young age
Just because one is corporeal punishment and the other isn't doesn't mean they're false dilemmas or don't overlap in their outcomes. That would be a strawman.
Not true. We've had like three threads on this. I'm not going to dig it up right now, but I can later if I have to. In longitudinal studies, even a single instance of spanking is shown to have negative effects. More than one study looked at very mild, infrequent spanking, and others looking at spanking only at various age groups, and others looked at spanking used only as a rare last resort on top of otherwise reasoned, non-violent discipline. Lots of people like to claim that "oh yeah well you didn't look at this" but the truth is that the scientific body of evidence is overwhelmingly thorough and one-sided, much more so than you normally get on social issues like this. Everything that you think hasn't been studied... it actually has. And been published and reviewed by peers. The climate change denier is like 5 steps above the spanker in terms of scientific validity.
And "extreme misbehavior" doesn't even make sense once you acknowledge that it isn't a more effective way to discipline. "Extreme" misbehavior doesn't warrant it any more than mild misbehavior does.
Your parents punished you by dropping you on you head, didn't they?
That's certainly why I do it when my GF's watching TV :P
I probably worded that badly. I meant as an alternative to the grab rather than as a lasting lesson. I can't remember seeing and studies on that.
No, corporeal dissuasion is when you discourage the spirits from manifesting. Corporeal punishment is when you smack the shit out of those ghosts for failing to abide by your wishes for them to remain intangible.
I also post on something awful
when this whole thing blew up, whelp, it turned out that the girl in question was a goon!
So at first, the whole thread was behind her, raah raah how dare your father do that blah blah blah
then goons, being the horrible internet neckbeards they are, started digging into her personal life and whoops she's a big time furry. Which is a little weird, but whatever
Then they found out she was like into beastiality and shit? Like fucking dogs and shit? Not even just furriness, like full on creepy fucking shit. She was also really unhealthily into digimon. it got really fucking weird
Then people started questioning why she sat on the video for seven years or however long it was before she released it. Then she told a completely opposite story on SA that she told the news about why she released the video, and people sniffed that it really seemed like she released the vid because her dad cut her off financially (he was paying for her car and apartment and maybe cell phone, i think?) there was a heavy implication that she was blackmailing him, too- iirc, she told him to start paying for her stuff again or she'd release the video on youtube, which he said something along the lines of "release it, then"
eventually the thread devolved into a bunch of assholes being misogynist pricks and trolling her, people who hate furries and other shit like that mocking her, and internet white knights defending her with a zeal and passion that was just really fucking creepy
me personally, i'm a product of ten years of heavy physical, emotional, and verbal abuse so the story really resonated with me. but now, knowing she basically released the vid because her gravy train stopped flowing really made me lose any real sympathy i had for her situation
ed: the reason why this info is so late is is because i was banned when all this shit went down
Wait a minute...
Clawshrimpy?
Anyway, good on her for finding a way to actually get a little bit ahead on her misfortune.
Shocked, sir, shocked.
I don't think trauma of any sort makes immoral actions justifiable or acceptable, tho
oh also she is/was a horrible racist:
ed: to be fair, this might be a trollpost she made, however the thread where she posted this every other post she made was an in good faith post (where she cited MLK as why affirmative action should be abolished lololololol)
sorry i thought that was the tangent you were takin that arguement
my apologies