The Spank Poll

[A18]

Spanking a kid for hitting another kid might strike a three-year-old as a mite contradictory.  "It's not right to hit someone you like, so I'm going to hit you because of it"?  How do you answer questions about how that makes sense to a three-year-old?

How hard is it to distinguish between retaliation and initiation?

But what the kid sees is his or herself not liking what the other kid did and punishing them for that; to them, that's the same thing the parent is doing.  Your point is well-taken, though.

Well, and by hitting the kid, you make it pretty clear that he shouldn't be punishing people.

But the kid can't understand why it is not right for a kid to do it but it is for an adult.  Which, really, is not an easy distinction for me to make now.

The kid may or may not be smart enough to distinguish between offense and defense. To be honest, I don't know if I knew either.

But the point, as I see, is not to get the kid to understand, but to get him to stop. If that works, you no longer have a problem.

[Alcon]

Sympathy for the act and for the person are distinct concepts.  And sympathy does not mean "it's not your fault."  It can mean "if you keep doing this, you're going to screw your life up, and I don't want you to do that, so I have to punish you."  Which is the point of punishment in the first place.

What punishment? If there is no punishment, then what's the point?

Time out, grounding, verbal reenforcement.  Obviously, there is more than spanking.

How about a situation where the offenders trashed property that does not belong to them? What would you propose be done about that?

They should be arrested.

[Alcon]

But the point, as I see, is not to get the kid to understand, but to get him to stop. If that works, you no longer have a problem.

The problem, though, is that it may (or may not, granted) instill the belief that authority is something that is hypocritical.  Personally, whenever I was punished, it was explained to me; I appreciated this, because then I didn't feel like I was being unfairly punished.  When it wasn't explained, I resented it and didn't feel bad trying to get around it.  Obviously, this isn't true for everyone, but I imagine it isn't a rare sentiment.

After all, isn't one more likely to follow a punishment when you understand why it was given than when it seems entirely arbitrary?

[Alcon]

How about a situation where the offenders trashed property that does not belong to them? What would you propose be done about that?

They should be arrested.

You again failed to notice my sardonicism. Hyperbole maybe, but sardonicism nonetheless.

You demand I answer a question and then say it was sardonicism - why?  Besides, why do you need to be mocking me in the first place?  I'm not doing so to you.

[A18]

The thing is, you can't really 'explain' why something is 'wrong' anyway. All normative statements are just subjective preference. Thankfully, kids aren't smart enough to understand that, and by the time they're adults, hopefully they'll share your values to some real extent.

[Alcon]

In that case, let's stop talking about three-year-olds and start talking about fifteen-year-olds with the mental capacity of three-year-olds.

Explain to me why it is any more right for a parent to do it to a child under the banner "violence is always wrong."

[© tweed]

Boss, I would not be so sanguine as you are about the way cases of teacher assault are being handled.  Liberal judges have ruled against districts that have tried to take meaningful disciplinary action against these kids, on the grounds that such action would violate the 'rights' of the 'students.'

When have 'liberal judges' said that beating teachings is a right of the student?

And in certain types of school districts, generally urban ones with large minority populations, teachers live in daily fear of assault by the students they are charged with teaching, students who in a healthy environment would actually respect their authority.

Of course.  But, this is true of simply walking down a street in these neighborhoods also.  Having a teacher hit his/her students really wouldn't accomplish anything here and would just rile up the student body even more.  You think a strapping 17-year-old black wouldn't beat the living daylights out of a teacher if he was hit first?

[A18]

Explain to me why it is any more right for a parent to do it to a child under the banner "violence is always wrong."

It can not be done. Nothing is objectively 'right' or 'wrong.'

[Alcon]

Explain to me why it is any more right for a parent to do it to a child under the banner "violence is always wrong."

It can not be done. Nothing is objectively 'right' or 'wrong.'

Let's avoid Opebo Metaphysics here.  Why do you think it is right, if you do?  We can always agree to disagree.

[Everett]

In that case, let's stop talking about three-year-olds and start talking about fifteen-year-olds with the mental capacity of three-year-olds.

Explain to me why it is any more right for a parent to do it to a child under the banner "violence is always wrong."

Who suggested that parents who discipline always do "it" (what does "it" mean? spanking? removing privileges? grounding?) under the impression that violence is always wrong?

Also, by that logic, we might as well not punish anyone, including criminals, because, after all, violence is always wrong!

[A18]

Explain to me why it is any more right for a parent to do it to a child under the banner "violence is always wrong."

It can not be done. Nothing is objectively 'right' or 'wrong.'

Let's avoid Opebo Metaphysics here.  Why do you think it is right, if you do?  We can always agree to disagree.

Uh, you think opebo made this up?

You can not extract a normative statement from a descriptive statement. The way things are tells us nothing about the way they ought to be, and so facts are useless for this discussion.

I'm simplying arguing in favor of what I think works.

[Alcon]

In that case, let's stop talking about three-year-olds and start talking about fifteen-year-olds with the mental capacity of three-year-olds.

Explain to me why it is any more right for a parent to do it to a child under the banner "violence is always wrong."

Who suggested that parents who discipline always do "it" (what does "it" mean? spanking? removing privileges? grounding?) under the impression that violence is always wrong?

Also, by that logic, we might as well not punish anyone, including criminals, because, after all, violence is always wrong!

Hitting, which is what we've been talking about for a while.

We do not generally punish criminals with violence, by the way.  However, you have a good point.  However, it's clear to even a three-year-old that their friend Jimmy is not a criminal.

[Alcon]

Explain to me why it is any more right for a parent to do it to a child under the banner "violence is always wrong."

It can not be done. Nothing is objectively 'right' or 'wrong.'

Let's avoid Opebo Metaphysics here.  Why do you think it is right, if you do?  We can always agree to disagree.

Uh, you think opebo made this up?

You can not extract a normative statement from a descriptive statement. The way things are tells us nothing about the way they ought to be, and so facts are useless for this discussion.

I'm simplying arguing in favor of what I think works.

I call it that because Opebo won't shut up about it.  If we never argued about subjective matters, we'd never argue at all.

[A18]

Explain to me why it is any more right for a parent to do it to a child under the banner "violence is always wrong."

It can not be done. Nothing is objectively 'right' or 'wrong.'

Let's avoid Opebo Metaphysics here.  Why do you think it is right, if you do?  We can always agree to disagree.

Uh, you think opebo made this up?

You can not extract a normative statement from a descriptive statement. The way things are tells us nothing about the way they ought to be, and so facts are useless for this discussion.

I'm simplying arguing in favor of what I think works.

I call it that because Opebo won't shut up about it.  If we never argued about subjective matters, we'd never argue at all.

No, it is merely moral matters we would not argue over, along with things like what the 'best' color is.

We could still argue over what will get this kid to stop, since that issue deals with how things are.

[Everett]

My mother's explanation wasn't the "violence is always wrong" line, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. It was mostly "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"; id est, if you hit someone for no reason, someone else (whether it's the same person or a parent) is probably going to hit you back. Hence, hitting people is not beneficial to you in the long run.

[Alcon]

No, it is merely moral matters we would not argue over, along with things like what the 'best' color is.

We could still argue over what will get this kid to stop, since that issue deals with how things are.

I don't really think this is a matter of morality.  I think it is a matter of what is an effective balance of being a good deterrent and not screwing up the kid.

My mother's explanation wasn't the "violence is always wrong" line, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. It was mostly "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"; id est, if you hit someone for no reason, someone else (whether it's the same person or a parent) is probably going to hit you back. Hence, hitting people is not beneficial to you in the long run.

I already corrected that line.  It wasn't accurate to say that the mantra is "violence is always wrong."  However, the "eye for an eye" stuff is moving into the realm of subjective morality.

[Everett]

This isn't a matter of morality.

[Alcon]

This isn't a matter of morality.

What does "this" refer to?

[A18]

No, it is merely moral matters we would not argue over, along with things like what the 'best' color is.

We could still argue over what will get this kid to stop, since that issue deals with how things are.

I don't really think this is a matter of morality.  I think it is a matter of what is an effective balance of being a good deterrent and not screwing up the kid.

You asked why it was okay for a parent to hit the kid, but not for the kid to hit another kid. That's a moral question; a matter of 'right' and 'wrong.'

Pain is generally a good deterrent. That's why it exists.

[Everett]

This isn't a matter of morality.

What does "this" refer to?

You mentioned subjective morality in response to my "eye for an eye" statement right after tellking Philip that this isn't a matter of morality.

[opebo]

We could still argue over what will get this kid to stop, since that issue deals with how things are.

How about abortion?

[A18]

We could still argue over what will get this kid to stop, since that issue deals with how things are.

How about abortion?

That's going to be pretty late term. We're talking about three year olds.

[opebo]

We could still argue over what will get this kid to stop, since that issue deals with how things are.

How about abortion?

That's going to be pretty late term. We're talking about three year olds.

Of course, if opebo approves of late term abortions (of three-year-olds), I shall declare my enthusiastic support for very late term abortions (of thirty-seven-year-olds).

I wasn't advocating it - I don't mind if children misbehave.  But apparentely Philip does, and is willing to consider any practical solution - certainly murdering the child is one, and in terms of escalation of violence a logical extension of beating it.

[A18]

The difference is that one gets the kid not to do a few specific things, and the other gets the kid to do absolutely nothing.

[ilikeverin]

Spanking a kid for hitting another kid might strike a three-year-old as a mite contradictory.  "It's not right to hit someone you like, so I'm going to hit you because of it"?  How do you answer questions about how that makes sense to a three-year-old?

How hard is it to distinguish between retaliation and initiation?

But what the kid sees is his or herself not liking what the other kid did and punishing them for that; to them, that's the same thing the parent is doing.  Your point is well-taken, though.

Well, and by hitting the kid, you make it pretty clear that he shouldn't be punishing people.

You also make it clear that violence merits violence.