ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 5:14 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 73 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2004 7:29 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:33 am
Posts: 187
Location: Undisclosed at this time.
A parent does not always leave physical marks when they lose it and hit a child because of anger instead of reactive punishment. If child abuse, as we both agree, is leaving marks, then my thoughts are perfectly gathered already. If your going to dismiss improperly administered hitting as abuse, thats one thing, but if your not, then I believe my previous argument stands.

_________________
I came to see the CIRCUS, not some half dressed tart spouting dire warnings. -BG2, Shadows of Amn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 6:11 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2003 7:12 pm
Posts: 731
Location: Central Coast, Colanirfia
Y'know, I never thought I'd see the day when MiB and Grey were both held in ad hominem check, and a good chunk of the rest of us can't pull down the tower of idiocy. Anyhoo, Cenwood, you've made several mistakes, most prominent among them sinking to the level of Grey. You will never actually beat Grey in a flame war, the only reason he's not still arguing, I'd guess, is because he's banned.

Also, it is intrinsically unbelievable that psycological punishment is less damaging than physical punishment, especially in light of all the nutter high-schoolers around today (evidence for nutters in high-school: I'm in Junior year of highschool, and I know or am acquianted with a number of nutters. Other evidence: the Columbine shootings several years back. Reasoning behind argument: psycological punishment [or simple lack of physical punishment] has increased in relation to corporeal punishment in the last fifty years, as has the number of nutters of highschool age. Ergo: Psycological punishment is just as bad [if not worse] than corporeal punishment).

Furthermore, you've failed to address one question: If a parent is angry enough to start hitting their kid for little or no reason, then they've gone beyond punishment, they're venting. Whether or not this is abuse doesn't really matter, the fact is that, whatever it is, it's not punishment anymore, and doesn't belong in this topic.

Now, the witholding privaledges method works, I believe, but only when the child is old enough to make the direct connection between the crime and the punishment, and by that age (I'd say nine or ten, sound good?), behavior patterns can already be set in an individual, so we have to start training people earlier. This is because once a person has formed the intellectual ability to make the connection, said person has already started forming their personality (some nine year olds are rude and boisterous, some are just boisterous, some are quiet, some like ballet, some like trucks). Now, if we're gonna start earlier than cogitative reasoning developes, what are we gonna do to signal "No, that was bad"? Well, we're probably gonna have to administer... spankings.

_________________
Quote:
"In real life, you don' have a Subterfuge skill above one." - Phill
"What?! You spent THREE YEARS believing that I didn't masturbate!" - Steven


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 6:24 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 6:38 pm
Posts: 3148
Location: Gay bar at the end of the universe
I think the moral of this is to never argue with idiots; they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2004 6:40 am 
Offline
Local

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:33 am
Posts: 187
Location: Undisclosed at this time.
Lucis Spei wrote:
it is intrinsically unbelievable that psycological punishment is less damaging than physical punishment, especially in light of all the nutter high-schoolers around today (evidence for nutters in high-school: I'm in Junior year of highschool, and I know or am acquianted with a number of nutters. Other evidence: the Columbine shootings several years back. Reasoning behind argument: psycological punishment [or simple lack of physical punishment] has increased in relation to corporeal punishment in the last fifty years, as has the number of nutters of highschool age. Ergo: Psycological punishment is just as bad [if not worse] than corporeal punishment).


I disagree with your logic that "Less children being hit + More school shooters=Children that arnt hit become school shooters." The rise in school shooters (even if there has been such a rise) could be attributed to anything, from the rising population (more people is going to mean more of any human behaviour) to the increased availability of guns, to just about any damn thing. Hell, if we are going to jump to conclusions, then I think that children who have been raised to believe that violence is an acceptable punishment and a good solution to any problem are far more likely to shoot up a school. Also, there IS no psychological profile of a school shooter. They come from different backgrounds and family situations, listen to different music, and watch different TV. So saying "They shot their class mates because they werent properly disciplined as children" is moronic.

Quote:
If a parent is angry enough to start hitting their kid for little or no reason, then they've gone beyond punishment, they're venting. Whether or not this is abuse doesn't really matter, the fact is that, whatever it is, it's not punishment anymore.


WORD. Im not convinced this is not how smacking normally occurs, though. It is definitely the standard for my father, but I guess I have just assumed that this is the case for a lot of parents. Are you telling me that smacking can be administered entirely emotionlessly and robotically, pure as a logical disciplinary measure, without anger clouding the issue? I have never seen a parent hit a child when the parent was calm or collected or thinking straight. What actually happens is the child pushes the parent until the parents loses it completely and just hits the child until the anger fades.

Quote:
Now, the witholding privaledges method works, I believe, but only when the child is old enough to make the direct connection between the crime and the punishment, and by that age (I'd say nine or ten, sound good?)


A child can make a connection between crime and punishment WAY before nine or ten. I can remember being sad because my mum was upset when I broke all her thimbles back when I was four. And I disagree that a child who cant understand that he isnt getting ice cream because he threw his food at his mother, can fully understand that he got yelled at and hit by his dad because he threw his food at his mother.

And its Ad Hominem nothing. Just because I disagree with someone doesnt mean their points dont stand. I disagree with gray for obvious reasons, and I disagree with MiB because he totally underates the effective of anything but hitting someone, and thinks anyone that isnt hit as a child is a total failure as a human being.

_________________
I came to see the CIRCUS, not some half dressed tart spouting dire warnings. -BG2, Shadows of Amn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2004 11:42 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2428
Location: In the ether, Hand of DM poised for enervation at will
It's nearly impossible to do anything without emotion, without the proper training to do so. And let me tell you that unless one's father or mother was trained to be an interrogator in the military, they don't have the proper training. ANYTHING done with the intent of venting, instead of punishing, can be damaging. You can send a kid to bed without supper in anger, and it's just as damaging psychologically as hitting the kid upside the head with a wooden spoon.

You cannot assume that every parent who spanks is angry and is doing it because of that fact. With that you group a lot of good parents into a group they'd rather not be in. Now, I realize your situation at home was different, but at the same time, you can't let THAT cloud your judgement either (Horrible as they are, I'm sorry if it is/was truly that bad). There are plenty of different situations that are unlike those at your household that prove our points as well, and can't be brushed aside because the same didn't happen to you.

_________________
The scent of Binturong musk is often compared to that of warm popcorn.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: After much reflection...
PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 1:23 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 210
It's really an easy question to answer if you're talking about United States law.

Premise 0: Deciding weather or not another sentient being lives or dies is the most important act one can make.
Premise 1: Serving on a jury requires a fully developed mind capable of understanding and drawing conclusions based on US laq. A mature mind. A mind capable of deciding on premise 0.
Premise 2: The United States has recognized the arbitrary age of 18 as the age at which all citizens are mature enough to serve on a jury.

Conclusion: Anyone under the age of 18 does not have a mind mature enough, in the eyes of the law, to decide if someone lives or dies. Therefor they, in the eyes of the law, cannot be held completely responsible for their actions--their minds are not mature enough to make such imporant decisions. Therefore no matter the crime they should only be prosecuted under child crime statues and released at the age of 18.Because of this they do not have many of the rights of those over 18 either.

A more vauge way to think of it is: At what age would you let someone begin to serve on a jury? Trials include murder, death penalty, etc. At what age would they be mature enough?

Set your own limit, I personally think it's 16. 16 year olds should be full citizens will all rights, and all responsibilities. Not one or the other. No government I can't vote for change in that views me (Well, not any more, but still) as a non-citizen with reduced 'rights' (as if a government can reduce rights, ha. They can only violate them, but I digress...) should be able to sentence me to death or make me rot away in captivity.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:51 am 
Offline
Local

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:33 am
Posts: 187
Location: Undisclosed at this time.
Obviously you want emotionally mature, fully intellectually developed people to serve on something as important as a jury. It has been determined that those people who are 18 years of age or more are statistically more likely to fit these requirements then someone who is younger. Sure, a child prodigy would do better then a 30 year old fuckwit, but even so, generally the age limit is a good general rules. Would that we could do it on a case by case basis, but we cant. Its the same with laws, but I disagree that the age is 18 in that case. Im 17, and if I killed you without justifable reason, I damn well should be arrested and imprisoned for life, or killed. For me, I think the age of reponsibility should be around 13-14, but we should have some kind of system for punishing anyone younger who commits a very serious crime: They should probably be taken into care away from whatever parents that fucked them up that bad, for instance.

_________________
I came to see the CIRCUS, not some half dressed tart spouting dire warnings. -BG2, Shadows of Amn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 10:29 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2003 7:12 pm
Posts: 731
Location: Central Coast, Colanirfia
Well, Cenwood, you seem to be arguing with Superkuh, but don't really seem to have anything to say about his point. Lemme break it down a little (Sups, you did it clearly and succintly, I'm just thinking maybe Cen needs to read it again).

1) There are two types of people: those mature enough to decide about life and death, and those not.

2) If you are considered mature engough to be held accountable, then you should also be considered mature enough to judge.

Now, I don't see as Superkuh really made an argument about the actual age at which one should transfer from "not mature enough" to "mature enough." I personally think it depends a lot on the level of education an individual has recieved. Someone who's spent every afternoon since they were six with these parents, playing these games, is at a great disadvantae when it comes to reasoning and empathizing with other human beings than, say, someone who spent their childhood reading stories, even just fantasy or mythology.


And about the earlier topic of "Laying the Smackdown vs. Spoiling the Brat," I'll try one last time to make you see the other side, Cenwood. Just as you are concerned about "I'm gonna smack this kid 'cause I've got a bunion and I'm in a mood" parents, we are worried about spinless, gutless, "I'm gonna spoil this little monster because I don't care" parents. This is the last I'll say on the matter, though I'd be interested in hearing if maybe you see things with better balance now.

_________________
Quote:
"In real life, you don' have a Subterfuge skill above one." - Phill
"What?! You spent THREE YEARS believing that I didn't masturbate!" - Steven


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:10 am 
Offline
Local

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:33 am
Posts: 187
Location: Undisclosed at this time.
Im not arguing with him. Iam agreeing with him.

And yes, I would agree with that. Parents who never punish their children are bad, and so are parents who hit their children for any reasons other then punishment.

The problem was, the moment I said "I disagree with smacking" everyone instantly concluded that I said "Everyone should not discipline their children at all, and without smacking, you get the kids from the Spineless Parent scenario". I disagreed. I do not cite parents who use branding irons to discipline as reasons why smacking is bad, because I know that these people constitute the extreme, and a fairly small percentage at that. You could do me the same courtesy by not citing the "No discipline at all, ever" parents to me.

And yes, I think the answer lies fairly central. A strict parent who nevertheless doesnt hit their children (Atticus Finch from "to kill a mockingbird" being the ideal here,) or a parent who does occasionally hit their children in extreme circumstance, and who does not allow anger anywhere near the decision making process.

If you remove the embarassment, humiliation, extreme pain, betrayal of trust and sense of righteous indignation and powerlessness from smacking, then yes, smacking would not be so bad. In fact, it would be an effective punishment as it can be administered instantly and is sure of being punishment unlike withdrawing privileges.

However, I have not yet seen a case where the parent was giving the child a mild slap as a direct response to a certain stimuli. More often, the parent just ignores or mildly scolds the child, unti the anger level reaches an invisible limit, upon which the parent loses it and slaps the shit out of the poor little brat.

_________________
I came to see the CIRCUS, not some half dressed tart spouting dire warnings. -BG2, Shadows of Amn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2004 3:16 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2428
Location: In the ether, Hand of DM poised for enervation at will
Um, the last time I checked, humiliation and pain were part of being punished. That's why it's a punishment. There's no sense in punishing someone if they're not going to feel the sting, mental or otherwise. It's like a a child touching the burner on the stove while it's on. Once she gets burned, she's not going to do it again. Likewise with the punishment. If she kicks the dog over and over again, and mommy yells at her and spanks her, she's not going to do it again (Unless she's the beginning of stupid fucksticks who sue McDonalds because they didn't warn them that the coffee is HOT.)

Punishment is about emotion anyway. Punishment is supposed to evoke emotions like grief and shame, which makes us think about our actions. 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.

Yeah, spanking is a humiliating experience. And often times I did hate my parents afterwards (not so much my dad as my mom, but that's another story, and not relevant), but I'm glad they did it, or else I would have been a little hellion, growing up thinking that the only consequences for my actions were shouts now and then, and having my TV taken away.

_________________
The scent of Binturong musk is often compared to that of warm popcorn.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: You know, the whole reason of this was to be a coffee pedant.
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:50 am 
Offline
Tourist
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 9:47 pm
Posts: 38
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: You know, the whole reason of this was to be a coffee pedant.
PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2004 9:33 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2003 7:12 pm
Posts: 731
Location: Central Coast, Colanirfia
Deacon wrote:
And you know what? Because it hasn't been shown around enough, or payed attention to:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm wrote:
Big, long, and unrelated

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.


Alright, like, dubleyou tee eff, mate? I don't get the relevance.

_________________
Quote:
"In real life, you don' have a Subterfuge skill above one." - Phill
"What?! You spent THREE YEARS believing that I didn't masturbate!" - Steven


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: You know, the whole reason of this was to be a coffee pedant.
PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2004 1:51 pm 
Offline
Tourist
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 9:47 pm
Posts: 38
Lucis Spei wrote:
Alright, like, dubleyou tee eff, mate? I don't get the relevance.

Abunai wrote:
The exact same story.
IcyMonkey wrote:
The exact same story.
Ryven wrote:
...stupid fucksticks who sue McDonalds because they didn't warn them that the coffee is HOT.


I am being an angry coffee pedant.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 73 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group