Gee whiz, there. I wasn't actually spanked since I was maybe 5, and I think I turned out well enough (e.g. never had any trouble with law, get along well with friends, did my chores, did well enough in school...you know, the works).
I always liked the punishment that was an obvious and direct consequence of the action. You know, like cleaning up the mess you made, paying for the dog's bill at the veterinarian (boy, that sure was a lot, eh?). Teaches them exactly what they need to know: the real consequences of their actions. Not some silly stuff about "emotion," unless it's an emotion of realization of what the actual consequence is.
Ryven wrote:
And for a little kid, especially one who's close to their parents, seeing their parents angry at them, then feeling the sting of a swat on the butt is going to make them think, or at least keep them from doing it again until they're able to think about it.
I don't know; myself, whenever my parents were genuinely angry with me, I felt, you know, less close to them, and in effect felt less loved, and in return loved them less.
And you know what? Because it hasn't been shown around enough, or payed attention to:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm wrote:
There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No
one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle. Here's the whole story.
Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.
After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.
The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused. Deacon's Note: this amount (instead of $600) was only at the urging of her attorney, who had been hired by her children, who had been forced to take a break from their jobs to look after her at home. It was also after she had requested McDonald's lower the temperature of their coffee, which they did not.
During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.
McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.
Deacon's note: During the trial, McDonald's also argued Liebeck deserved little money because she was old. Liebeck's defense, on the other hand, showed big color glossies of Liebeck's injuries to the jury. Is it any real wonder the jury made that famous punitive damages decision? Or that the judge refused to let the settlement stay in that many figures? Or that there was an appeal, and both sides later settled for an undisclosed amount?
Stupid of Liebeck to spill her coffee. Heh; I bet she didn't expect 180 fucking degrees of pain in her coffee.
Ryven wrote:
...stupid fucksticks who sue McDonalds because they didn't warn them that the coffee is HOT.
Or the stupid fucksticks like George Will, eh?
George Will (Newsweek, 12/26/94) wrote:
A jury awarded $2.9 million to a woman who burned herself when, in a moving car, leaving a McDonald's with a cup of coffee between her legs, she spilled it. She said the coffee was hot.