Cenwood wrote:
Buncha dumbasses. What you are basically saying amounts to "I know one kid who got smacked, and one kid who didn’t, and the former kid is better! Therefore, this is conclusively proof that hitting children always makes them good! IR A GUNIUS!"
To be fair, thats one more example than you've ever given. I'm sorry, but shouting that you're right loud enough does not translate into being right. Grow up, and provide some evidence other than "I said so!"
Cenwood wrote:
It does not always work like that. There are a squillion people in the world who weren’t hit as children and amount to fantastic individuals.
Uhm, I'm sorry, once again, not taking your word for it. Sorry, but "random fucker on the internet" isn't something I'd cite on a paper, and I'm pretty sure there isn't a "squillion people" in the world. Hell, I'm pretty sure that isn't a number.
Cenwood wrote:
Your examples include one child who was occasionally hit and is now a functioning member of society, and one child who is NEVER made to do ANYTHING by his parents. In the last case, the fact that he is not hit is totally irrelevant; his parents are a bunch of pussies.
Ahh, now we get into the beginning of an actual (though convoluted) arguement! Unfortunately, its incredibly vague. I'm assuming that my "never made to do anything" you mean never punished. A quick chat with Grey (which you could have done yourself but, as your "debate" style shows, you're a bit too lazy to actually check sources) shows that he was sent to his room as punishment. But he wouldn't stay there. So they barricadeded the door once, and gave up when the kid ruined the door with kicking on it an such. So he was indeed punished, just not hit. Assertion proven false; stop assuming bullshit and not checking.
Cenwood wrote:
I’m willing to bet hitting him would only make the brat scream more. If my kid ever behaved like that, he would be in the shit, and he'd know it.
Sentence 1 I want a source, verifiable evidence that a kid in that state will in fact just scream more. On 2, so did the little kid above: he simply did not care. Your first assertion has no evidence to back it up: I don't
care if you would "bet on it," because I wouldn't put "this is true because Cenwood would bet on it" in a paper, either. PROOF, MOTHERFUCKER. DO YOU HAVE ANY?
Cenwood wrote:
But hopefully by then Id have built a relationship based on love and trust rather then "IM BIGGER THEN YOU SO WHAT I SAY IS RIGHT."
Ahh, the lovely innocence of a man who has never had to actually take care of a small human being. Lookie here, buddy, I may not be a dad but I know for a fact that love and trust go so far. You are not the only being in your child's life; there is all the other things, TV, books, friends etc that he or she will also get their value system from. (Source: Sociology in our Times, 115-117)
Not only this, but you're assuming your child is going to automatically obey your orders, or cooperate with your punishments when you do so. This is, as Grey's example showed, not exactly the safest bet in the world.
Cenwood wrote:
You also make smacking out to be such a well thought out, logical thing, whereas it clearly isn’t. What is actually the case is that the kid pisses the parent off, or the parent encounters a situation in which they aren’t sure what response is expected of them, or even if the parent is just pissed off from a bad day at work and the kid makes too much noise, and the kids gets hit.
Woah Cen, I am convinced. I mean, who would have thought you knew the EXACT REASON that ALL ADULTS who smack their kids EVERYWHERE actually smack their kids? I mean, with your credible testimony, I don't dare bring up that the above is child abuse, and what Grey was talking about is hitting to reinforce a lesson, rather than willy-nilly just for the hell of it. But with psychics like you on the job, you reached into everyone's mind and shut me down before I could even bring the point up.
Cenwood wrote:
Pain? Certainly. Humiliation? Definitely, it’s never nice to get completely pwned by someone larger then you, usually in front of people. NO kid then thinks "Well, I was kinda being a jerk and I deserved that", the kid thinks "FUCKING ASSHOLE, I HATE HIM".
More psychic powers in action. I won't bring up that psychologists and sociologists, and also several hundred years of child rearing and kids liking their parents just fine even though they hit him (ask some old folks around, I know its insane but they know some things, too.)
It should be noted, "child abuse" has only been identified as a social problem and hitting kids as a punishment has only begun to stop in the past 30 or so years (Sociology in Our Times, Ch 15.) If things were as you said, one would suppose that society would have fallen apart by now, or that a lot more kids would be devient then rather than now. There has been no such great fall in statistics that I can see (if you have any proof that child devience rates have dropped drastically since, say, the 50s or 30s, I'd be happy to see it.)
But see, all of the above is wrong, because your psychic powers have circumvented all those crazy 'fact' things. Way to go, I'm beat.
Cenwood wrote:
The actual moral lesson for that moment gets totally eclipsed in righteous indignation and outrage.
All of the people I know who've been raised by parents who hit (not abusive hit, but actually hit in a "you're bad" way) disagree with you there. If you can come up with some sort of servey, proof, etc etc., you know something besides "Well I said so!" to back up your assertion, that would be great, but this song and dance of "I need some proof Cenwood" is getting a bit tiring."
Cenwood wrote:
That’s the truth, whether or not all the poor bastards who have not only conditioned to have quick, short-fuse tempers, but ALSO conditioned to the fact that once you have kids its perfectly acceptable use them to vent your frustrations can accept it.
What you are describing not only not always happens, due to the fact that a lot more than parents socialize what is acceptable to do (Sociology in our Times, pg 115, "Agents of Socialization" for details on what else does) but also is in fact
abuse, not just hitting. Apparently you're having trouble telling the difference between the two. Let me help you out here.
Abuse is hitting your child not because they did something wrong that you wish to show in a way nobody can doubt that it was indeed bad, but for being in the way, being in the wrong place when the parent is in a bad mood, etc etc. This is classified as child abuse.
Hitting is a method of child rearing where physical punishment (ie a smack on the backside) is applied to reinforce that what the child just did is bad.
Cenwood wrote:
So the allure of illicit substances is decreased, and your knowledge of the ill effects of said substances is magically increased by getting hit?
In short, no. The problem isn't knowledge; everyone I know who does drugs knows that they're "bad." The problem is lack of respect for authority, which is done by lack of proper reinforcement of "disobeying authority without a damn good reason = bad." Hitting does this, as evidence by the fact that kids were a lot more respectful, on the whole, about 50 years ago than they are now.
(I have no study to back this up, but I think we can all agree with that. If you have evidence showing that this view of how kids were back then was false, feel free to show it.)
Cenwood wrote:
I agree with you that somewhere along the line her parents have severely fucked up, probably in failing to educate her about sex and drugs, but I don’t think it’s hitting.
Knowledge has nothing to do with if children, who are not
logical creatures all or even most of the time, will do this or that. I don't know a single junkie, gang member, etc etc who doesn't
know and who hasn't
known that what they are doing isn't in their best interest in a larger view. The problem is they don't
care.
The problem is they refuse to obey their parents, or the parents just don't care. Assuming they participate, the parents need to get respect from their children. How do you get respect, or at the very least obedience? One way is, ubdoubtably, to hit your kids when they disobey you. Empirical evidence is, uhm, society up till about the 70s not falling apart. It may not be the way you
like but it fails to produce a productive member of society a lot less than trying hands-off.
Cenwood wrote:
The reason the "Bleeding heart liberals" are often singled out for mockery by you "Completely retarded emotionally fucked psychos" is because the basic philosophy behind not smacking is not ONLY held by people who are really interested in raising their children, but also by the type of parents best depicted here:
Thats the end result of not
disciplining your child at all. And its also true.
Cenwood wrote:
Please believe, not all people who don’t believe violence is some kind of 100% cure-all disciplinary action are like that, just as we bleeding hearts don’t believe all you fuckwits are all completely deprived maniacs who use heavy metal implements, cigarettes, and lit stoves to "make their children learn a lesson".
Woah, thats respect right there. Your utter contempt for anyone with disagrees with your loud, annoying assertions, demanding we believe you because you're of course right, I mean how could you be wrong, right?
Wait, isn't that the exact mentality that needs to be reined in by parents with
some sort of disciplinary action?
Irony is so much more fun when the other guy doesn't know he's being ironic.
-MiB