[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JohnD [/i]
[B]IMO, that's far from funny. Of course, I don't believe in assaulting kids like that in order to make a point. Again IMO, all it does is teach the kids to fear adults and that violence is okay. [/B][/QUOTE]
What I find ironic is the more prevalent that theory on child rearing becomes, the more violent our society becomes.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JohnD [/i]
Since I don't want to repeat "IMO" 101 times in this reply, everything I say is my opinion.
NOW you don't. You didn't fear being spanked? You didn't avoid doing bad things as a child because you feared the punishment?
[b]Nope, I avoided them because my parents told me they were wrong. Fear of being spanked only occured if I was purposfully doing something I was told not to...[/b]
Why spank someone other than to put the fear into that child that if they do the same thing again, they will receive a painful punishment? Parents who spank kids to punish them aren't teaching those children to do what's right because it's right. They aren't being taught to avoid doing bad things because those things are bad and wrong. Spanking simply teaches them to avoid doing bad things in order to avoid a painful punishment.
[b]You spank them because it gets theer attention, and sends a distinct message, NO. 90% of the time spanking isn't needed. if it's overused, it loses it's purpose. And did you even read my previous messages? Spanking a kid involves telling them, multiple times, what they did wrong and NOT to do it. Spanking without that is useless and sends the wrong message[/b]
When parents use that approach, they aren't teaching their kids to do good and avoid doing bad. They're simply teaching them that pain awaits them when they do bad. The parents are teaching the child to fear doing bad, not that doing bad is the morally incorrect choice and so, to be avoided. Those are two different lessons.
[b]Wrong again...that only happens if the kid is spanked without being told why. That kid will also lack an understanding of what is wrong...[/b]
But you don't know if they turned out fine BECAUSE OF being spanked or DESPITE being spanked (emphasis is placed on those words for a reason). There is no way to know, since the spanking had already been applied in the past.
[b]If spanked properly (See previous post) It's because. If improperlly spanked (EG, spanked with no verbal backing up...) then it's despite.[/b]
Of course it teaches kids that violence is okay. Parents who spank are using violence and the physical pain/discomfort resulting from that violence as a negative reinforcement to curb their child's bad behavior. Are the parents right or wrong in using that violence (and yes, spanking is violence) towards that goal?
[b]How is PROPER spanking violent? I've never considered it so. I've seen parents spank their kids properly and applaud them for it. Conversly, I'd seen parents haul of and whack the kid so hard that I interveined. Theres a huge difference between spanking because they did something that needed correcting, INSTANT correcting, and spanking them becuase you are mad at them. If you spank them when your mad, it's most definately violence and child abuse. Unfortunetally, it's an unenforcable rule...thats the parents job. NEVER hit your kid out of anger. [/b]
Even if spanking is used for applications in which you think it's appropriate, if the application of violence as a negative reinforcement is right/correct, then the parents ARE teaching the child that violence is right and correct. After all, they are applying pain/discomfort via violence in a means they consider to be right/correct.
[b]See previous post. proper spanking isn't violent[/b]
If the application of violence as a negative reinforcement is incorrect, then the parents are teaching the child that violence is wrong and incorrect, but still a tactic they can and/or should use in life.
[b]Again, see previous post[/b]
The bad behavior for which spanking is reserved as a punishment really doesn't matter, as the lesson of the utility of violence as a response to disagreement or disagreeable behavior is still being taught.
[/QUOTE]
[quote][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
What I find ironic is the more prevalent that theory on child rearing becomes, the more violent our society becomes.
[/quote]
BINGO.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JohnD [/i]
[B]IMO, that's far from funny. Of course, I don't believe in assaulting kids like that in order to make a point. Again IMO, all it does is teach the kids to fear adults and that violence is okay. [/B][/QUOTE]
Wrong, there are those who become violent and agressive towards others without that... because they know that they can do anything to others (and that rules don't bound them) because there won't be punishment.
I've seen enough of those already.
Society were people don't obey any rules and laws is called anarchy.
Precisely! In fact, after seeing road rage and the blatant disregard for our traffic laws, I've been a heartfelt proponent of the idea that tickets and fines should be dispensed with entirely, and violators should instead be pistol-whipped by cops on the spot. Its the only way they'll learn.
And theft! I don't know why they stopped cutting off the hands of thieves, but I do know its been nothing but trouble since! Again, its the only way they'll learn, and if they don't, well, I'd like to see someone pick my pocket with their teeth.
theres that commercial in the US about a guy that talks about how he belongs to the golf club, drives the nicest car, has the nicest house...
and then finishes it by happily saying "I'm in debt up to my eyeballs. Somebody help me..."
It's true. a person that makes more money then spends more money, and winds up further in debt. They are dirt poor, just doing it in style. People lack a good finacial education here in the states for the most part as well...they may make a million a year, but they spend two million.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by A2597 [/i]
[B]It's true. a person that makes more money then spends more money, and winds up further in debt. They are dirt poor, just doing it in style. People lack a good finacial education here in the states for the most part as well...they may make a million a year, but they spend two million. [/B][/QUOTE]
Um, like you said, that guy is poor. I think they were speaking of people who are actually rich, and not faking it out of some deep psychological inferiority issues.
I guess I was refering to that webpage linked...where he was arguing based solely on the persons income...income is a poor judge of how wealthy they are :)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]What I find ironic is the more prevalent that theory on child rearing becomes, the more violent our society becomes. [/B][/QUOTE]
That's not a valid argument. We've been getting more and more violent since far before the 70s. Since the days of humanity creating the first tools, we've been creating a stream of more and more technologically advanced and destructive weapons. That allows us to be more and more violent.
I could just as easily take your route and logic and blame the violence in society on the following prevalent theories, since by your logic we've gotten more and more violent alongside the following theories becoming more and more prevalent as the years have gone by:
1. Transferring belief in God/gods to belief in the scientific process and science.
2. Violence in computer games and the media.
3. Tobacco causing cancer.
4. Importance of teaching sex education to kids.
5. Treating children like little people rather than children.
6. Equality of the races/sexes.
7. Genetic research having the most potential for curing many diseases, such as cancer.
8. Trickle-down economics (AKA at various times, Reaganomics, Bush Economics, etc.)
9. Globalizing the national economies of the world.
10. Disagreement of many nations with the Cold War style of diplomacy.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by A2597 [/i]
[B]you have one flaw in that argument...
rich people have many more expences.
theres that commercial in the US about a guy that talks about how he belongs to the golf club, drives the nicest car, has the nicest house...
and then finishes it by happily saying "I'm in debt up to my eyeballs. Somebody help me..."
It's true. a person that makes more money then spends more money, and winds up further in debt. They are dirt poor, just doing it in style. People lack a good finacial education here in the states for the most part as well...they may make a million a year, but they spend two million. [/B][/QUOTE]
Then that's just one more thing to encourage them not to speed.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by A2597 [/i]
[B]See previous post. proper spanking isn't violent[/B][/QUOTE]
Of course it is. The parent is spanking the child in order to cause physical pain (caused by generating damage) to the child to make a point. Your insistence that spanking can be proper doesn't change the fact that it is still the application of violence to make a point. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition, defines violence as:
1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
2. The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
3. Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
4. Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
5. Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
6. Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.
Spanking certainly meets definition #1. It causes pain in the child through damage (that IS how pain is caused in the body, after all) in order to make a point.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JohnD [/i]
Of course it is. The parent is spanking the child in order to cause physical pain (caused by generating damage) to the child to make a point. Your insistence that spanking can be proper doesn't change the fact that it is still the application of violence to make a point. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition, defines violence as:
1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
[b]If I spank my kids it will be because I love them enough to want to make certain the message gets though, not to violate them, hurt them, or abuse them. so, no, it doesn't meet this one[/b]
2. The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
3. Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
4. Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
[b]Spanking doesn't meet this one either, unless done for no reason....[/b]
5. Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
6. Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.
Spanking certainly meets definition #1. It causes pain in the child through damage (that IS how pain is caused in the body, after all) in order to make a point.[/QUOTE]
By your definition, if you walk under a woodpecker an a peice of bark hits you on the head, the bird just commited a violent act on you. It caused you pain, soo...
Idle curiosity, do you spank your kids? Do they listen to you at all? Take out the trash without being asked (Twice), do the dishes? Respect you at all?
My parent's never spanked me. I respect them because they're smart people, and because they want the best for me. I do what they ask me to do because of that respect, and because I know it's the right thing to do.
I'd respect them less if they'd ever hurt me, that's just the way I work.
I'm sure other people work differently.
This discussion has fallen into generalities :p People work differenty, think differently, act differently, and react differently. It wouldn't surprise me if spanking is the only thing that works with some kids. That's why I don't greatly disagree with it being legal.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by A2597 [/i]
[B]Idle curiosity, do you spank your kids? Do they listen to you at all? Take out the trash without being asked (Twice), do the dishes? Respect you at all? [/B][/QUOTE]My parents' ability to take away my keyboard and mouse makes for great leverage. :)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by A2597 [/i]
[B]Idle curiosity, do you spank your kids? Do they listen to you at all? Take out the trash without being asked (Twice), do the dishes? Respect you at all? [/B][/QUOTE]
Quit being such a wussy! Kids these, days, no respect at all! They won't listen to you after a pat on the butt! God gave us second amendment rights for a reason! If the little bastards don't dance to your tune the first time, pull out your gun. Second time, shoot in the leg. If they don't get it the third time, right in the head. Damn, ungrateful little brats wouldn't be worth the trouble anyhow.
Anyway, not to stop being sarcastic or anything, do you refuse to follow anyone's guidance until they take physical action against you? If you were working at Burger King, would something like this have to happen before you followed directions.
Boss: A2597, take over the #2 drive-thru window, please.
A2597: Make me, bitch!
Boss: I'll make you, you little bastard! *Picks up A2597 bodily, lays him down on the counter, and swiftly paddles his ass until it's raw and bleeding*
A2597: Thank you, sir. I'll take over that window now, sir.
Or, since your older and less easily intimidated, would he have to, I don't know, break one of your arms to get your attention?
How about the President of the United States? You often expressed contempt bordering on the delusional with Former President Clinton. Would you change your tune if he showed up at your front door one night and gave you ten lashes with his belt for giving him such lip?
And about you wanting to see how a kid who wasn't spanked turns out, look no further. I was disciplined in other ways, most certainly, but not physically. And I tend to believe that I'm far more well adjusted and generally harmless than people who, for example, say its okay to hit babies as long as you have a good reason.
Hey, have you heard of [url=http://www.godawful.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=894&start=0]Gary Ezzo[/url] by any chance? He seems right up your alley in the child-rearing department.
The sad truth in the States education system is that on majority, most students don't want to learn, find learning challenging, don't care, and/or don't see a reason it is necessary...
They are only interested in the simplest of arithmetic to be able to count their income from drug sales.
All the emphasis on performance return has caused a Corprate mentality amoung educators and their administrations. Infighting and department ego's have replaced true eductors who loved to teach, and made it fun and challenging for those there to learn.
I live in California, and if you think I'm full of it, then come teach my classes for a week... ;)
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
That is precisely the root of the problem right there. Treating basic education like a commodity.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
[B]They are only interested in the simplest of arithmetic to be able to count their income from drug sales.
[/B][/QUOTE]
All sixty million of us? Really? You know, we could have a coup with numbers like that. Sixty million people in on the drug trade. No army in the world could stop us. To arms, fellow junkies!
(Not sure why I put "fellow" in there, actually. I'm not in on the drug trade. In fact, I'm the sort of person people like that make efforts to avoid because I may snitch)
Or, you know, it'll all work out in the end. They way it has been for the last ten thousand years of people bitching about how dumb, lazy, shiftless, and generally evil their children are.
In countries like Zimbabwe, education is important because the only way out of poverty is to be rich/smart enough to make it t America... in America, we're already here. No need to be smart if you can just be a janitor/corporate drone, right?[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by David of Mac [/i]
[B]How about the President of the United States? You often expressed contempt bordering on the delusional with Former President Clinton. Would you change your tune if he showed up at your front door one night and gave you ten lashes with his belt for giving him such lip?[/B][/QUOTE]About as much as it would if he informed me that he was "dissapointed" in me.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by David of Mac [/i]
[B]All sixty million of us? Really? [/B][/QUOTE]
My point being that since it is soooo much easier to get $ illegally, they don't want to work at an education and get a job that requires soo much more of them...
and why should they? What do we show them? That you have to bust your ass to get a College Diploma or Degree, only to have to work at McDonald's for minimum wage to pay the bills that you won't have enough money to cover anyway?
Our own success in free enterprise and greed is finally catching up with us...
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by the_exile [/i]
[B]About as much as it would if he informed me that he was "dissapointed" in me. [/B][/QUOTE]
That's nice, especially since I don't recall you making any dumb-assed statements that the only way to get children to listen to you was to hit them. So, you know, if you could kindly refrain from this kind of dick-headed behavior when you aren't being addressed, I think we could have a much nicer time.
Incidentally, if guilt doesn't get you, and violence doesn't get you, what would? Incarceration? Mutilation? I'm only asking so I know what kind of criminal-justice system to support.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
[B]or about as much as the ass wipping he'd get from me for trying! :p [/B][/QUOTE]
Hm. One guy versus an ex-president with a couple of armed secret service agents. Which to put my money on?
Why, it seems to me, it would be the ones with the guns.
And, again, unless you specifically were being responded to with the hypothetical, It'd probably be best not to respond back to it. Unless you [i]also[/i] believe that the only way to gain respect is through physical force, which was the premise behind my original statement. If so, I have to wonder, would you fight against anyone attempting to discipline you? Would you, say, try to punch a highway patrolman who pulled you over to ticket you for speeding? Or take a flying leap at someone if they were to reproach you for interrupting them? Really, I am curious.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
[B]My point being that since it is soooo much easier to get $ illegally, they don't want to work at an education and get a job that requires soo much more of them...[/quote][/b]
Oh, happy day! Someone has finally responded to a statement that wasn't meant specifically for another person. I was worried the entire board had lost their abilities of association.
And I have to ask, what [i]is[/i] it that makes my generation so much more criminal than previous ones? What is this sudden increase in underage lawbreaking? How are we so lazy/violent/doped up now that the kids of yesteryear weren't? And how is so much easier to get cash through extralegal activities than it was before?
Because, you see, I happen to have heard of a little thing called the 1960s (free love, and free drugs). And, before that, the 1920s (easy money to being in bootleg booze, as long as you weren't too picky about whose cold, dead body you had to step over). And, hell, why not bring the old American Revolution into it as well, where such delightfully lawful things as the burglary and destruction of shipped goods simply because they were taxed was lauded (and is to this day!), and my personal favorite, citizens inciting to riot by walking up to British soldiers until they bumped against their bayonets, and then screaming at the top of their lungs "Police brutality! Police brutality!"
Yeah, we sure did some stupid shit over the course of human history. And, yet, here we are.
And can you truly, truly tell me that when you were in high school, there weren't any lazy or slow students who fell through the cracks? Not a single druggy? 'Cause I don't buy it. My own father went to the same high school as Sonny Capone (now there's a sad story. Son of a famous gangster, and the poor kid couldn't commit a crime to save his life. Got arrested the first time he tried to shoplift, if I remember right. Shoplifting, for God's sake!).
My guess is that, now, time and experience have put you in a position where you notice all the bad students, the dregs of our youth, to a far greater degree then when the dregs of youth were your peers.
Or, maybe the world really is going to hell in a handbasket. In which case, I suppose I should turn to a life of crime now before all the good places are taken.
It seems all the ambient cynicism in the topic has gotten to me. A pity. And I was so idealistic last week.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by David of Mac [/i]
[B]That's nice, especially since I don't recall you making any dumb-assed statements that the only way to get children to listen to you was to hit them. So, you know, if you could kindly refrain from this kind of dick-headed behavior when you aren't being addressed, I think we could have a much nicer time.[/B][/QUOTE]
We'd all have a much nicer time if you didn't swear at people or be generally rude. Try and stay calm. Everyone's being doing great so far, let's not ruin it now.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Biggles [/i]
[B]We'd all have a much nicer time if you didn't swear at people or be generally rude. Try and stay calm. Everyone's being doing great so far, let's not ruin it now. [/B][/QUOTE]
Well to be fair...
I have become a cynical smartass over the last couple of years...
:p
Still... David, you have become quite agressive over that same period of time...
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Demolished Man [/i]
[B]So far all well and good but the couple actually thought that Norway had its own sun and are now demanding a refund from the travel agency despite severl attempts to explain the situation.[/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by A2597 [/i]
[B]By your definition, if you walk under a woodpecker an a peice of bark hits you on the head, the bird just commited a violent act on you. It caused you pain, soo...
Idle curiosity, do you spank your kids? Do they listen to you at all? Take out the trash without being asked (Twice), do the dishes? Respect you at all? [/B][/QUOTE]
I was brought up legally (No spanking), and I listen to my mom and dad (even though I dont have to today), I took out the trash, and I respect them. Of course, we had an equal share in taking out the trash, my parents, my brother and I, but perhaps you want to have the power (small as it is) to be ruler of your own little kingdom of four?
DoM: What makes you think JackN is only talking about [I]your[/I] generation? He's also talking about a lot of folks from [U]my[/U] generation as well; I was going to high school in California when you were born and a lot of the students there [U]were[/U] that way (except for the "preppies"[sp?]). Perhaps the schools and the students in Florida aren't that bad; I sure as hell can't say the same for California, though. (I was born and raised there and spent most of my active duty time there, plus I keep in touch with friends there as well, so I know damn well what I'm talking about.) The problems JackN describes/mentions certainly aren't new or recent by any means (at least not in CA), nor is he singling out any particular generation; he's just commenting on what he's observed (as usual).
JackN: You're not full of it by any means (unfortunately); Atwater High School was (and probably still is) that way as were too many of the students (and yes, some of them [I]were[/I] dealing drugs; the "random searches" - complete with drug-sniffing dogs - weren't just to catch the users).
Comments
[B]IMO, that's far from funny. Of course, I don't believe in assaulting kids like that in order to make a point. Again IMO, all it does is teach the kids to fear adults and that violence is okay. [/B][/QUOTE]
What I find ironic is the more prevalent that theory on child rearing becomes, the more violent our society becomes.
Since I don't want to repeat "IMO" 101 times in this reply, everything I say is my opinion.
NOW you don't. You didn't fear being spanked? You didn't avoid doing bad things as a child because you feared the punishment?
[b]Nope, I avoided them because my parents told me they were wrong. Fear of being spanked only occured if I was purposfully doing something I was told not to...[/b]
Why spank someone other than to put the fear into that child that if they do the same thing again, they will receive a painful punishment? Parents who spank kids to punish them aren't teaching those children to do what's right because it's right. They aren't being taught to avoid doing bad things because those things are bad and wrong. Spanking simply teaches them to avoid doing bad things in order to avoid a painful punishment.
[b]You spank them because it gets theer attention, and sends a distinct message, NO. 90% of the time spanking isn't needed. if it's overused, it loses it's purpose. And did you even read my previous messages? Spanking a kid involves telling them, multiple times, what they did wrong and NOT to do it. Spanking without that is useless and sends the wrong message[/b]
When parents use that approach, they aren't teaching their kids to do good and avoid doing bad. They're simply teaching them that pain awaits them when they do bad. The parents are teaching the child to fear doing bad, not that doing bad is the morally incorrect choice and so, to be avoided. Those are two different lessons.
[b]Wrong again...that only happens if the kid is spanked without being told why. That kid will also lack an understanding of what is wrong...[/b]
But you don't know if they turned out fine BECAUSE OF being spanked or DESPITE being spanked (emphasis is placed on those words for a reason). There is no way to know, since the spanking had already been applied in the past.
[b]If spanked properly (See previous post) It's because. If improperlly spanked (EG, spanked with no verbal backing up...) then it's despite.[/b]
Of course it teaches kids that violence is okay. Parents who spank are using violence and the physical pain/discomfort resulting from that violence as a negative reinforcement to curb their child's bad behavior. Are the parents right or wrong in using that violence (and yes, spanking is violence) towards that goal?
[b]How is PROPER spanking violent? I've never considered it so. I've seen parents spank their kids properly and applaud them for it. Conversly, I'd seen parents haul of and whack the kid so hard that I interveined. Theres a huge difference between spanking because they did something that needed correcting, INSTANT correcting, and spanking them becuase you are mad at them. If you spank them when your mad, it's most definately violence and child abuse. Unfortunetally, it's an unenforcable rule...thats the parents job. NEVER hit your kid out of anger. [/b]
Even if spanking is used for applications in which you think it's appropriate, if the application of violence as a negative reinforcement is right/correct, then the parents ARE teaching the child that violence is right and correct. After all, they are applying pain/discomfort via violence in a means they consider to be right/correct.
[b]See previous post. proper spanking isn't violent[/b]
If the application of violence as a negative reinforcement is incorrect, then the parents are teaching the child that violence is wrong and incorrect, but still a tactic they can and/or should use in life.
[b]Again, see previous post[/b]
The bad behavior for which spanking is reserved as a punishment really doesn't matter, as the lesson of the utility of violence as a response to disagreement or disagreeable behavior is still being taught.
[/QUOTE]
[quote][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
What I find ironic is the more prevalent that theory on child rearing becomes, the more violent our society becomes.
[/quote]
BINGO.
[B]IMO, that's far from funny. Of course, I don't believe in assaulting kids like that in order to make a point. Again IMO, all it does is teach the kids to fear adults and that violence is okay. [/B][/QUOTE]
Wrong, there are those who become violent and agressive towards others without that... because they know that they can do anything to others (and that rules don't bound them) because there won't be punishment.
I've seen enough of those already.
Society were people don't obey any rules and laws is called anarchy.
And theft! I don't know why they stopped cutting off the hands of thieves, but I do know its been nothing but trouble since! Again, its the only way they'll learn, and if they don't, well, I'd like to see someone pick my pocket with their teeth.
rich people have many more expences.
theres that commercial in the US about a guy that talks about how he belongs to the golf club, drives the nicest car, has the nicest house...
and then finishes it by happily saying "I'm in debt up to my eyeballs. Somebody help me..."
It's true. a person that makes more money then spends more money, and winds up further in debt. They are dirt poor, just doing it in style. People lack a good finacial education here in the states for the most part as well...they may make a million a year, but they spend two million.
[B]It's true. a person that makes more money then spends more money, and winds up further in debt. They are dirt poor, just doing it in style. People lack a good finacial education here in the states for the most part as well...they may make a million a year, but they spend two million. [/B][/QUOTE]
Um, like you said, that guy is poor. I think they were speaking of people who are actually rich, and not faking it out of some deep psychological inferiority issues.
[B]What I find ironic is the more prevalent that theory on child rearing becomes, the more violent our society becomes. [/B][/QUOTE]
That's not a valid argument. We've been getting more and more violent since far before the 70s. Since the days of humanity creating the first tools, we've been creating a stream of more and more technologically advanced and destructive weapons. That allows us to be more and more violent.
I could just as easily take your route and logic and blame the violence in society on the following prevalent theories, since by your logic we've gotten more and more violent alongside the following theories becoming more and more prevalent as the years have gone by:
1. Transferring belief in God/gods to belief in the scientific process and science.
2. Violence in computer games and the media.
3. Tobacco causing cancer.
4. Importance of teaching sex education to kids.
5. Treating children like little people rather than children.
6. Equality of the races/sexes.
7. Genetic research having the most potential for curing many diseases, such as cancer.
8. Trickle-down economics (AKA at various times, Reaganomics, Bush Economics, etc.)
9. Globalizing the national economies of the world.
10. Disagreement of many nations with the Cold War style of diplomacy.
[B]you have one flaw in that argument...
rich people have many more expences.
theres that commercial in the US about a guy that talks about how he belongs to the golf club, drives the nicest car, has the nicest house...
and then finishes it by happily saying "I'm in debt up to my eyeballs. Somebody help me..."
It's true. a person that makes more money then spends more money, and winds up further in debt. They are dirt poor, just doing it in style. People lack a good finacial education here in the states for the most part as well...they may make a million a year, but they spend two million. [/B][/QUOTE]
Then that's just one more thing to encourage them not to speed.
[B]See previous post. proper spanking isn't violent[/B][/QUOTE]
Of course it is. The parent is spanking the child in order to cause physical pain (caused by generating damage) to the child to make a point. Your insistence that spanking can be proper doesn't change the fact that it is still the application of violence to make a point. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition, defines violence as:
1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
2. The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
3. Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
4. Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
5. Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
6. Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.
Spanking certainly meets definition #1. It causes pain in the child through damage (that IS how pain is caused in the body, after all) in order to make a point.
Of course it is. The parent is spanking the child in order to cause physical pain (caused by generating damage) to the child to make a point. Your insistence that spanking can be proper doesn't change the fact that it is still the application of violence to make a point. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition, defines violence as:
1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
[b]If I spank my kids it will be because I love them enough to want to make certain the message gets though, not to violate them, hurt them, or abuse them. so, no, it doesn't meet this one[/b]
2. The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
3. Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
4. Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
[b]Spanking doesn't meet this one either, unless done for no reason....[/b]
5. Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
6. Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.
Spanking certainly meets definition #1. It causes pain in the child through damage (that IS how pain is caused in the body, after all) in order to make a point.[/QUOTE]
By your definition, if you walk under a woodpecker an a peice of bark hits you on the head, the bird just commited a violent act on you. It caused you pain, soo...
Idle curiosity, do you spank your kids? Do they listen to you at all? Take out the trash without being asked (Twice), do the dishes? Respect you at all?
I'd respect them less if they'd ever hurt me, that's just the way I work.
I'm sure other people work differently.
This discussion has fallen into generalities :p People work differenty, think differently, act differently, and react differently. It wouldn't surprise me if spanking is the only thing that works with some kids. That's why I don't greatly disagree with it being legal.
But for every kid? Heck no.
-Φ
[B]Idle curiosity, do you spank your kids? Do they listen to you at all? Take out the trash without being asked (Twice), do the dishes? Respect you at all? [/B][/QUOTE]My parents' ability to take away my keyboard and mouse makes for great leverage. :)
[B]Idle curiosity, do you spank your kids? Do they listen to you at all? Take out the trash without being asked (Twice), do the dishes? Respect you at all? [/B][/QUOTE]
Quit being such a wussy! Kids these, days, no respect at all! They won't listen to you after a pat on the butt! God gave us second amendment rights for a reason! If the little bastards don't dance to your tune the first time, pull out your gun. Second time, shoot in the leg. If they don't get it the third time, right in the head. Damn, ungrateful little brats wouldn't be worth the trouble anyhow.
Anyway, not to stop being sarcastic or anything, do you refuse to follow anyone's guidance until they take physical action against you? If you were working at Burger King, would something like this have to happen before you followed directions.
Boss: A2597, take over the #2 drive-thru window, please.
A2597: Make me, bitch!
Boss: I'll make you, you little bastard! *Picks up A2597 bodily, lays him down on the counter, and swiftly paddles his ass until it's raw and bleeding*
A2597: Thank you, sir. I'll take over that window now, sir.
Or, since your older and less easily intimidated, would he have to, I don't know, break one of your arms to get your attention?
How about the President of the United States? You often expressed contempt bordering on the delusional with Former President Clinton. Would you change your tune if he showed up at your front door one night and gave you ten lashes with his belt for giving him such lip?
And about you wanting to see how a kid who wasn't spanked turns out, look no further. I was disciplined in other ways, most certainly, but not physically. And I tend to believe that I'm far more well adjusted and generally harmless than people who, for example, say its okay to hit babies as long as you have a good reason.
Hey, have you heard of [url=http://www.godawful.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=894&start=0]Gary Ezzo[/url] by any chance? He seems right up your alley in the child-rearing department.
They are only interested in the simplest of arithmetic to be able to count their income from drug sales.
All the emphasis on performance return has caused a Corprate mentality amoung educators and their administrations. Infighting and department ego's have replaced true eductors who loved to teach, and made it fun and challenging for those there to learn.
I live in California, and if you think I'm full of it, then come teach my classes for a week... ;)
[B]They are only interested in the simplest of arithmetic to be able to count their income from drug sales.
[/B][/QUOTE]
All sixty million of us? Really? You know, we could have a coup with numbers like that. Sixty million people in on the drug trade. No army in the world could stop us. To arms, fellow junkies!
(Not sure why I put "fellow" in there, actually. I'm not in on the drug trade. In fact, I'm the sort of person people like that make efforts to avoid because I may snitch)
Or, you know, it'll all work out in the end. They way it has been for the last ten thousand years of people bitching about how dumb, lazy, shiftless, and generally evil their children are.
[B]How about the President of the United States? You often expressed contempt bordering on the delusional with Former President Clinton. Would you change your tune if he showed up at your front door one night and gave you ten lashes with his belt for giving him such lip?[/B][/QUOTE]About as much as it would if he informed me that he was "dissapointed" in me.
[B]About as much as it would if he informed me that he was "dissapointed" in me. [/B][/QUOTE]
or about as much as the ass wipping he'd get from me for trying! :p
[B]All sixty million of us? Really? [/B][/QUOTE]
My point being that since it is soooo much easier to get $ illegally, they don't want to work at an education and get a job that requires soo much more of them...
and why should they? What do we show them? That you have to bust your ass to get a College Diploma or Degree, only to have to work at McDonald's for minimum wage to pay the bills that you won't have enough money to cover anyway?
Our own success in free enterprise and greed is finally catching up with us...
:rolleyes:
[B]About as much as it would if he informed me that he was "dissapointed" in me. [/B][/QUOTE]
That's nice, especially since I don't recall you making any dumb-assed statements that the only way to get children to listen to you was to hit them. So, you know, if you could kindly refrain from this kind of dick-headed behavior when you aren't being addressed, I think we could have a much nicer time.
Incidentally, if guilt doesn't get you, and violence doesn't get you, what would? Incarceration? Mutilation? I'm only asking so I know what kind of criminal-justice system to support.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
[B]or about as much as the ass wipping he'd get from me for trying! :p [/B][/QUOTE]
Hm. One guy versus an ex-president with a couple of armed secret service agents. Which to put my money on?
Why, it seems to me, it would be the ones with the guns.
And, again, unless you specifically were being responded to with the hypothetical, It'd probably be best not to respond back to it. Unless you [i]also[/i] believe that the only way to gain respect is through physical force, which was the premise behind my original statement. If so, I have to wonder, would you fight against anyone attempting to discipline you? Would you, say, try to punch a highway patrolman who pulled you over to ticket you for speeding? Or take a flying leap at someone if they were to reproach you for interrupting them? Really, I am curious.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
[B]My point being that since it is soooo much easier to get $ illegally, they don't want to work at an education and get a job that requires soo much more of them...[/quote][/b]
Oh, happy day! Someone has finally responded to a statement that wasn't meant specifically for another person. I was worried the entire board had lost their abilities of association.
And I have to ask, what [i]is[/i] it that makes my generation so much more criminal than previous ones? What is this sudden increase in underage lawbreaking? How are we so lazy/violent/doped up now that the kids of yesteryear weren't? And how is so much easier to get cash through extralegal activities than it was before?
Because, you see, I happen to have heard of a little thing called the 1960s (free love, and free drugs). And, before that, the 1920s (easy money to being in bootleg booze, as long as you weren't too picky about whose cold, dead body you had to step over). And, hell, why not bring the old American Revolution into it as well, where such delightfully lawful things as the burglary and destruction of shipped goods simply because they were taxed was lauded (and is to this day!), and my personal favorite, citizens inciting to riot by walking up to British soldiers until they bumped against their bayonets, and then screaming at the top of their lungs "Police brutality! Police brutality!"
Yeah, we sure did some stupid shit over the course of human history. And, yet, here we are.
And can you truly, truly tell me that when you were in high school, there weren't any lazy or slow students who fell through the cracks? Not a single druggy? 'Cause I don't buy it. My own father went to the same high school as Sonny Capone (now there's a sad story. Son of a famous gangster, and the poor kid couldn't commit a crime to save his life. Got arrested the first time he tried to shoplift, if I remember right. Shoplifting, for God's sake!).
My guess is that, now, time and experience have put you in a position where you notice all the bad students, the dregs of our youth, to a far greater degree then when the dregs of youth were your peers.
Or, maybe the world really is going to hell in a handbasket. In which case, I suppose I should turn to a life of crime now before all the good places are taken.
It seems all the ambient cynicism in the topic has gotten to me. A pity. And I was so idealistic last week.
[B]That's nice, especially since I don't recall you making any dumb-assed statements that the only way to get children to listen to you was to hit them. So, you know, if you could kindly refrain from this kind of dick-headed behavior when you aren't being addressed, I think we could have a much nicer time.[/B][/QUOTE]
We'd all have a much nicer time if you didn't swear at people or be generally rude. Try and stay calm. Everyone's being doing great so far, let's not ruin it now.
[B]We'd all have a much nicer time if you didn't swear at people or be generally rude. Try and stay calm. Everyone's being doing great so far, let's not ruin it now. [/B][/QUOTE]
Well to be fair...
I have become a cynical smartass over the last couple of years...
:p
Still... David, you have become quite agressive over that same period of time...
:)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Demolished Man [/i]
[B]So far all well and good but the couple actually thought that Norway had its own sun and are now demanding a refund from the travel agency despite severl attempts to explain the situation.[/B][/QUOTE]
...
Regards,
Morden
[B]By your definition, if you walk under a woodpecker an a peice of bark hits you on the head, the bird just commited a violent act on you. It caused you pain, soo...
Idle curiosity, do you spank your kids? Do they listen to you at all? Take out the trash without being asked (Twice), do the dishes? Respect you at all? [/B][/QUOTE]
I was brought up legally (No spanking), and I listen to my mom and dad (even though I dont have to today), I took out the trash, and I respect them. Of course, we had an equal share in taking out the trash, my parents, my brother and I, but perhaps you want to have the power (small as it is) to be ruler of your own little kingdom of four?
JackN: You're not full of it by any means (unfortunately); Atwater High School was (and probably still is) that way as were too many of the students (and yes, some of them [I]were[/I] dealing drugs; the "random searches" - complete with drug-sniffing dogs - weren't just to catch the users).
Being that I see it everyday, I really am not shaken by DoM's counter reply...
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
welll... you know...
:D