Bible and Spanking Children

[dimossi]

I received an e-mail reply from an individual, named John, with whom I had sent a link to an article regarding an analysis of the effects of spanking. This is the article I sent:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020625/hl_nm/kids_spanking_1

John's reply basically had the illogical reasoning of:

A: The bible says to spank children
B: Everything the bible says must be true
C: Thus A + B = Spanking children is right

Here is my reply to John's reply. Any constructive criticism of my response would be appreciated.

------------
Did this article line up more on your belief?

Did you read the article? First of all, this article is about an analysis of 88 different studies on spanking and smacking, not just one new study. You seem to be implying that this article is against spanking and that my "belief" against spanking is mirrored in the article. The second paragraph of the article reads:

"Spanking has become controversial in recent years, but in the United States, especially, remains a widely used form of discipline. Many studies on the effects of spanking have been done, but the findings vary."

This statement as well as the rest of the article is unbiased toward a particular "belief". The article is about scientific results, not some dogmatic statement. If you had said that the article's conclusion was in agreement with my logical conclusion that spanking is harmful, then you would have been correct.

The article admits that spanking is strongly linked with immediate compliance but also with 10 negative behaviors such as aggression. So it isn't like the article is saying that spanking doesn't have any positive results. I admit that continuing research is definitely needed, but I think that if you can have two forms of punishment that work equally well, the less violent approach would always be the one to use. In my opinion, non-spanking methods of punishment are the most reasonable, humane, compassionate ways of disciplining children.


Seems like every year the research says something different.

This is true and their are many variables that can be involved in how a child reacts to corporal punishment. The best we can do is continue to have more critical research done and analyses of the results. Since the research this article is referring to is an analysis of 88 different studies I would conclude that the results should be considered accurate and of value.

For myself I would rather go with something thats has been tried and proven.

What do you think research does? Don't these studies involve analyzing methods of punishment that have been "tried"? What does it take for something to be "proven" by your standards? Anecdotal evidence from a few family members and friends is not a scientific study that "proves" anything. Stating that oneself was spanked and still turned out OK, is not a logical means by which to spank one's own children either. There are many children throughout this world and history that were beaten, abused, molested, enslaved, and tortured, yet they turned out OK as well. I wouldn't expect any thinking person to use this reasoning to justify the continued use of these violent actions. Would you?


Obviously, this is a personal decision that each parent must make and be responsible for.

In this country it is currently a personal decision. As further evidence shows us the negative results of corporal punishment, this will probably change in the near future.

I think everyone will agree, that they want the best for their children.

I would hope so. But the "best for their children" is subjective. For example, about a month ago there was a story in the news about a child, named Samuel, who's parents belonged to a religious sect that, after having a bizarre prophecy, deprived Samuel, who was almost a year old, of solid food. These parents felt they were doing the "best for their child", because they felt that "God commanded it". Samuel died of starvation. Read the whole story here: http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/157/metro/Witness_opens_windows_on_sect_life+.shtml

This is just one example. There are numerous stories like this where the parents believe they are doing the "best for their children" based on dogmatic revelation, but instead they were torturing and/or killing innocent children.

I would hope that you would agree then that to decide what form of punishment is the most effective and humane involves using reason, critical thinking, and the scientific method; not superstition.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Does the Bible Say About Spanking Children?

You are contradicting yourself here. Did you completely read what you cut-n-pasted in to this e-mail? Regarding spanking you said, "For myself I would rather go with something thats has been tried and proven." Then you cut-n-paste this bible-thumping bunk about what the bible says about spanking children. How is this "tried and proven"? The last thing the bible does is prove anything. Plus the bible can be used to justify just about anything (slavery, denying medicine, torture, killing, not eating certain foods, etc.) It is all subject to interpretation. Let's look at some examples:

Lu 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Does this verse justify hating your family?

Lu 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Does this mean that marrying someone that has been divorced is committing adultery?

Lu 12:47 And that servant [slave], which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes."

Jesus encouraged the beating of slaves. Does this justify slavery and the beating of slaves? Speaking of slavery, I challenge you to show me ONE piece of scripture that states that slavery is wrong.

Lev. 11:10-12 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you. They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Does this justify that clams, oysters, crabs, shrimp and lobsters are an abomination to eat?

According to Jehovah's Witnesses (JW), God forbids blood transfusions. Many JWs have needlessly died because the governing body considers blood transfusions to be "eating blood." Of course, their view on this has recently changed to allow some use of blood. But the governing body is careful not to explain its new, complicated rules on blood to its followers. The JWs justify this warped thinking using: Gen.9:3-4; Lev.17:10, 13-16; Acts 15:19-20, 28-29

What makes their use of scripture to justify forbidding blood transfusions any different than your use of scripture justifying spanking of children?

Ex.21:17 "he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death." Lev.20:9 "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him." Pr.30:17 "The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it." Mt.15:4 " God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death."

Great examples of "The Bible's guide to Punishing Children". Are you sure that you really base your beliefs regarding child discipline on a literal reading of the bible? Scary.


Proverbs 13:24(KJV): "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes."

Proverbs 13:24(AMP): "He who spares his rod (of discipline) hates his son, but he who loves him diligently disciplines and punishes him early."

Well isn't that nice. If you don't spank your child then you must hate him. This seems to contradict your statement, "I think everyone will agree, that they want the best for their children." There must be an awful lot of children that are "hated" by their parents in Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Austria, and other countries where spanking is illegal. My wife and her siblings were never spanked. I guess it is a "miracle" that they managed to make it to adulthood and are compassionate and ethical people. Don't you find it odd that Sweden, Denmark and Norway contain relatively low percentages of "Christians" and have laws against spanking, yet their human rights records, their generosity, their average education levels, their quality of life, lengthy life spans, low crime rates, and low poverty rates, put the rest of the world to shame, including the far more "Christian" United States. Scandinavians also have the lowest rates of unplanned pregnancies in the world. They instituted comprehensive teaching in birth control in their schools, and it worked.

The practical wisdom found in these verses in the book of Proverbs covers the subject of child rearing and corporal punishment. Children who are not properly disciplined, are among the most miserable of children.

You got to be kidding. What is the source of this statistic? Obviously, it is just made up.

Unruly and spoiled children are not the blessings that the Bible says they should be to parents.

Parents that abuse their children are not a blessing to those children.

When a child is given no boundaries, they feel lost. If they have been given boundaries, yet those boundaries are not maintained, it causes great harm to a child, as they will not only be in dangerous territory, they will also lose respect for authority. This is where we find so many of the children and youth of today.

Holy crap, a statement that is actually right. I agree here. Notice it doesn't say anything about needing to discipline a child physically, only that consistency is needed. Please inform me where might I find this stated in that bible of yours.


They are rebels, who not only disrespect authority, but openly defy all authority figures such as teachers, policemen, clergy, and their own parents. The blame rests upon the parents of these children, if they have not heeded the advice given in this and other verses found in Proverbs.

Like this advice from Proverbs:

Pr.30:17 "The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it."

This brings us to the subject of how we should discipline a child who disobeys the rules. There has been much debate on the subject of corporal punishment (the spanking of a child). Corporal punishment simply means bodily punishment while the definition of spank in Webster's Dictionary is: 1.) to strike with something flat, as the open hand, especially on the buttocks, as in punishment. 2.) to move along swiftly or smartly, a smack given in spanking. This is what the Bible says about spanking:

Proverbs 22:15: "Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him."

Proverbs 23:13-14: "Withold not discipline from the child, for if you strike and punish him with the (reed-like) rod, he will not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell."

Physical punishment gives the message that "might makes right," that it is okay to hurt someone smaller and less powerful than you are. The child then feels it is appropriate to mistreat younger or smaller children, and when he becomes an adult, feels little compassion for those less fortunate or powerful than he is, and fears those who are more so. Thus it is difficult for him to find meaningful friendships.

Spanking can be physically damaging. Blows to the lower end of the spinal column send shock waves the length of the column, and may cause subdural hematoma. The prevalence of lower back pain among adults may have its origins in early corporal punishment. Paralysis has occurred through nerve damage, and children have died after relatively mild paddlings, due to undiagnosed medical problems. Many parents are unaware of alternative approaches to try, so that when punishment doesn't accomplish the parent's goals, it escalates, easily crossing the line into child abuse.


First of all, discipline of children should begin at an early age, whenever a child begins to defy the parent. Remember the old saying, "He who spares the rod, spoils the child." Notice that the Bible says that all children have foolishness in their hearts. The Bible definition of a fool means one who is a rebel, so this is saying that all children have rebellion in them and when it surfaces, it is our duty as parents to drive it out of them.

Amazing how in this age of science we still have people that take the bible literally and think we can "drive out certain behaviors" out of children using physical abuse like driving "demons" out of accused witches by burning them at the stake.

We are to do this by punishing them with a whack on the buttocks with a small reed-like rod. This rod could be a switch from a fruit tree branch or a willow tree branch or a small wooden spoon. It is not to be a large heavy rod or anything that would cause permanent physical damage.

Why not a heavy rod? Where in the bible does it give the specs for the rod to use when spanking?

While you are answering that question how about answering these as well:

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed posses slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27 How should they die?

The purpose of a spanking is not to cause any lasting bodily harm, but to cause spiritual correction.

Humor me and define "spiritual correction" for me please.

A spanking should be swift and cause short lived pain that makes a point. That point is that the small pain they feel now will prevent them from feeling great pain by the act they are committing, which could cause them loss of their lives in some cases. (For instance, if a child tries to run across the street, they could be run over and killed.)

This is a great example of the slippery slope fallacy. There is no evidence that spanking would prevent the loss of life. On the other hand there is plenty of evidence that spanking is harmful.

Perhaps the most important problem with corporal punishment is that it distracts the child from the problem at hand, as he becomes preoccupied with feelings of anger and revenge. In this way the child is deprived of the best opportunities for learning creative problem-solving, and the parent is deprived of the best opportunities for letting the child learn moral values as they relate to real situations. Thus corporal punishment teaches a child nothing about how to handle similar situations in the future. Loving support is the only way to learn true moral behavior based on strong inner values rather than superficially good behavior based only on fear. Strong inner values can only grow in freedom, never under fear.


Some people say that all spanking is child abuse, but this is totally wrong. The real abuse to the child is not to spank them when they need correction. Of course, some parents, who themselves are out of control, can abuse their children by beating them in angry rages. This is child abuse, however, it does not justify doing away with spanking children if it is done properly, and for the right reasons.

What is there to worry about? According to your bible the child won't die.

Proverbs 23:13-14: "Withold not discipline from the child, for if you strike and punish him with the rod, he will not die.

Won't this omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity of yours protect the child?

Parents who beat their children, need help themselves. They are sinful people and they not only will abuse their children by beating them, but will hurt them in other ways as well.

Physical punishment gives the message that hitting is an appropriate way to express one's feelings and to solve problems. If the child rarely sees the parent handle anger and solve problems in a creative and positive way, he can never learn how to do that himself. Thus inadequate parenting continues into the next generation.

Many times, these same children are left to go hungry and uncared for.

Speaking of hunger, read this again: http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/157/metro/Witness_opens_windows_on_sect_life+.shtml

They have no love. These kind of homes need the love of Christ so that the whole family can be healed.

I could write a book full refuting this statement. I would say that the evidence lately has been clear that the "love of Christ" hasn't had much "healing effect" on physical and sexual abuse. Look at a newspaper instead of the bible once in a while and you'll see what I mean. The only "healing effect" the abused are getting, is the settlement they receive in the secular courts from the "Christ loving" abusers.

We are not to spank our children with uncontrolled anger, and thus hand out unjust punishment.

Anger which cannot be safely expressed becomes stored inside. Anger that has accumulated for many years can come as a shock to parents whose child now feels strong enough to express this rage. Thus corporal punishment may produce "good" (more like obedient) behavior in the early years, but at a high price, paid by the parent and society, during adolescence and adulthood.

Proverbs 19:18(AMP): "Discipline your son while there is hope, but do not (indulge your angry resentments by undue chastisements and) set yourself to his ruin."

By the way how did King Solomon's methods work on his own son, Prince Rehoboam?

Proverbs 22:6: "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."

Godly discipline will keep children from being dysfunctional later in life.

This couldn't be farther from the truth. Come on, use some common sense....whoops....I forgot...your bible doesn't like wisdom. 1 Cor.1:19 "For I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

We are told as Christian parents to train our children in the ways of the Lord and when he grows up, he will not depart from that training.

Ways of the Lord? Well, they can learn that genocide and other atrocities are acceptable if you are powerful enough, based on the Old Testament. And let's see what they can learn from Jesus:

* If you do something wrong with your eye or hand, cut/pluck it off (Matthew 5:29-30, in a sexual context).
* Marrying a divorced woman is adultery. (Matthew 5:32)
* Don't plan for the future. (Matthew 6:34)
* Don't save money. (Matthew 6:19-20)
* Don't become wealthy. (Mark 10:21-25)
* Sell everything and give it to the poor. (Luke 12:33)
* Don't work to obtain food. (John 6:27)
* Don't have sexual urges. (Matthew 5:28)
* Make people want to persecute you. (Matthew 5:11)
* Let everyone know you are better than the rest. (Matthew 5:13-16)
* Take money from those who have no savings and give it to rich investors. (Luke 19:23-26)
* If someone steals from you, don't try to get it back. (Luke 6:30)
* If someone hits you, invite them to do it again. (Matthew 5:39)
* If you lose a lawsuit, give more than the judgment. (Matthew 5:40)
* If someone forces you to walk a mile, walk two miles. (Matthew 5:41)
* If anyone asks you for anything, give it to them without question. (Matthew 5:42)

Is this wise? Is this what you would teach your children?

Notice it says "train" not "teach." Many parents teach their children right from wrong, but have failed to "train" them to obey. Spanking is part of the training.

Training and spanking do not need to be involved in order for children to obey. Training can be thought of as specialized instruction without reason while teaching is to provide knowledge of and condition to a certain action or frame of mind. But if you want to "train" your children like they are pets then that is your obligation, but I pity your children.


Many parents yell and threaten their children, but never follow through with the proper punishment and therefore their children get their own way. A disciplined child will bring great delight to parents, while the child left alone will bring shame to the home.

Proverbs 29:15 &17(AMP):

15 The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left undisciplined brings his mother to shame. 17 Correct your son, and he will give you rest; yes, he will give delight to your heart.

Ephesians 6:1-4:

1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. 2 Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; 3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. 4 And, ye fathers, provoke

More scripture.....you got it:

Jg.11:29-39 "Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah.... And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.... And the LORD delivered them into his hands.... And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances.... And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed."

Jg.19:24 "Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you."


Of course, as you'd expect I base my beliefs on the Bible.

That is both scary and sad.

I have a feeling it is more accurate to state that you base your beliefs on selective interpretations of selective verses from a selected version of the bible from a selected sect of a selected religion.


So it might be different from yours.

You think? ...........I mean........"you faith"....."I think".


"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion." [Steven Weinberg]

"The Bible is such a gargantuan collection of conflicting values that anyone can prove anything from it." [Robert Heinlein]

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." [Benjamin Franklin]

"Science together with critical thinking is the antidote to the poison of fanaticism and superstition." [Dimossi]

[PotatoStew]

My opinion is that you should have stuck more to the facts and arguments relating directly to spanking, and left out all the unrelated parts where you imply that the bible in general has lots of silly stuff in it. Those items water down your argument and distract from the main point being debated. Especially since some of your "questions" were irrelevant/way off base, such as the ones about owning Mexicans or Canadians and about killing your neighbor who works on the sabbath. Those laws applied to the ancient Jews under their covenant with God at the time. Unless you and your neighbors are ancient Jews, they don't apply to you. But again, that's neither here nor there with regard to spanking.

[Paradox]

Originally posted by PotatoStew
My opinion is that you should have stuck more to the facts and arguments relating directly to spanking, and left out all the unrelated parts where you imply that the bible in general has lots of silly stuff in it. Those items water down your argument and distract from the main point being debated. Especially since some of your "questions" were irrelevant/way off base, such as the ones about owning Mexicans or Canadians and about killing your neighbor who works on the sabbath. Those laws applied to the ancient Jews under their covenant with God at the time. Unless you and your neighbors are ancient Jews, they don't apply to you. But again, that's neither here nor there with regard to spanking.
True. Although when the person's arguments boil down to:
A: The bible says to spank children
B: Everything the bible says must be true
C: Thus A + B = Spanking children is right
...you come to realize the only way to counter said belief is to demonstrate where the bible falters in other aspects (iow, demonstrate source of morality for said issue to be faulty). Even if there were thousands of studies done which showed, for instance, that spanking was directly linked to homocidal behavior, it appears this person would not flinch, so long as it was still supported by biblical verse.

[Stig]

Hi folks,

I just came across this discussion and thought I would like to contribute. I have a daughter who will be three in October. She has never been punished physicly for anything she has done, bar the time that she pinched my face, just below my eye once (ouch!) and I pinched her back on the arm to show her it hurt.
The answer for me is simple. I know how I would feel if somebody hit me every time I did something wrong, in fact I would be devastated, and that is how kids must feel when they are "spanked". I don't particularly like the word "spanked" much either, it is just another word for hitting someone.
For this reason my daughter and future children won't ever be punished with violence.

I also was never hit as a child and I have no problems with dicipline or anything else to do with morality.

Stig

Edited for spelling correction............

[PotatoStew]

you come to realize the only way to counter said belief is to demonstrate where the bible falters in other aspects (iow, demonstrate source of morality for said issue to be faulty).

I disagree, Paradox. You can also try to show how the person may be misapplying or misunderstanding the point of scripture in question. At any rate, the scattershot, mocking, carpet-bombing approach that was taken is only likely to make the other person get defensive and tune the poster out, or turn the discussion into a wide-ranging debate on every topic except for spanking.

[Martin]

Dimossi - you might want to pay closer attention to your sig. Thomas Paine was a smart guy :D

[PotatoStew]

Originally posted by Martinm
Dimossi - you might want to pay closer attention to your sig.

But not the Steven Weinberg quote above it, which makes no sense. :p

[Paradox]

Originally posted by PotatoStew


I disagree, Paradox. You can also try to show how the person may be misapplying or misunderstanding the point of scripture in question.
Out of curiousity (this is a serious query), have you actually ever gotten into a debate with another christian about the 'proper interpretation' of a particular verse and ended up convincing said person that their original interpretation was misapplied?

At any rate, the scattershot, mocking, carpet-bombing approach that was taken is only likely to make the other person get defensive and tune the poster out, or turn the discussion into a wide-ranging debate on every topic except for spanking.
Probably, yes....if only because trying to rattle the foundation is much more dangerous to them than shaking a branch.

[juryjone]

Originally posted by PotatoStew

I disagree, Paradox. You can also try to show how the person may be misapplying or misunderstanding the point of scripture in question. At any rate, the scattershot, mocking, carpet-bombing approach that was taken is only likely to make the other person get defensive and tune the poster out, or turn the discussion into a wide-ranging debate on every topic except for spanking.

PS,
You are obviously more well-versed in scripture than many of us. Tell me, what would you think if I told you you were misapplying or misunderstanding scripture? I'm sure that would not make you get defensive - having someone that has not studied a subject nearly as thoroughly as you have tell you that you "just don't understand".:rolleyes:

How am I to prove that a person misunderstands scripture by NOT looking at the big picture, the entirety of scripture - by only looking at the verses in question? Do you interpret the validity of verses based on the verses themselves, or by your belief in the whole of the Bible?

Believers defend themselves using the whole of the Bible, why shouldn't I be able to argue against them using the whole of the Bible?

[dimossi]

Originally posted by Martinm
Dimossi - you might want to pay closer attention to your sig. Thomas Paine was a smart guy :D

LoL..... nice point.

[dimossi]

I agree with Paradox when he said:

you come to realize the only way to counter said belief is to demonstrate where the bible falters in other aspects (iow, demonstrate source of morality for said issue to be faulty). Even if there were thousands of studies done which showed, for instance, that spanking was directly linked to homocidal behavior, it appears this person would not flinch, so long as it was still supported by biblical verse


As for what PotatoStew posted:

Originally posted by PotatoStew

... At any rate, the scattershot, mocking, carpet-bombing approach that was taken is only likely to make the other person get defensive and tune the poster out, or turn the discussion into a wide-ranging debate on every topic except for spanking.

I admit I may have been a bit aggressive and deviated from the subject, but as you can see from John's reply, he didn't get defensive and actually seems inquisitive about my views.

Here is his reply:


Wow you could have been an investigative reporter. Very, Thorough and detailed. Regarding what I sent you. I did cut and paste the article.

You seem to know a lot of scripture. However when you read the Bible and not pick or go to verses, don't you see it in another context?

I'm not able to interpret all aspects of the bible and continue to study and read it on a regular basis. I do try to apply it to all areas of my life. Although sometimes it is scary :)

Have you researched the validity of the bible?

I did some research on whether or not the New Testament can be considered reliable, and it was amazing how much evidence there is out there to support it as a factual piece of history.

Here is the million dollar question,

If you don't believe in the bible and Jesus's message, what do you believe will happen when you die?

John

[Martin]

Here is the million dollar question,

If you don't believe in the bible and Jesus's message, what do you believe will happen when you die?

John



And why is that the million dollar question? Because John, I suspect, cannot accept the possiblility that there is nothing beyond death. Hence his need for religion. Either that or he's going to switch to the 'why live morally if there is no judgement?' line.

[Paradox]

Originally posted by Martinm


And why is that the million dollar question? Because John, I suspect, cannot accept the possiblility that there is nothing beyond death. Hence his need for religion. Either that or he's going to switch to the 'why live morally if there is no judgement?' line.
The catch is most of the times these folks don't realize the inherent fallacies in their arguments. If you've already grown up your whole life believing that rabbits live in top hats, having a magician pull one out at a demonstration doesn't provide anything you feel the need to scrutinize.

[PotatoStew]

Out of curiousity (this is a serious query), have you actually ever gotten into a debate with another christian about the 'proper interpretation' of a particular verse and ended up convincing said person that their original interpretation was misapplied?

Hm... not that I recall. One of the main reasons is probably that I don't currently hang out with many people who would generally claim to follow scripture or who actually talk about scripture. Most of my discussions about religion and scripture these days are on this board, with non-Christians.

juryone:


Tell me, what would you think if I told you you were misapplying or misunderstanding scripture?

If you had a coherent argument, rather than "hey that stuff's just plain silly" I would be inclined to listen and consider if you could be right.

I'm sure that would not make you get defensive - having someone that has not studied a subject nearly as thoroughly as you have tell you that you "just don't understand".

(assuming you were being ironic here) True, I may get defensive, but not nearly as much as if you began willy-nilly attacking everything you could think of to attack.

How am I to prove that a person misunderstands scripture by NOT looking at the big picture, the entirety of scripture - by only looking at the verses in question?

You can certainly refer to other scripture, but it should be related to the subject. You can also look at the context of the culture that it came out of... what would the original recipients of the text have understood by it?

To be sure, dimossi's tactics are "allowed" ...he's basically turning it from a discussion about spanking to a discussion about the validity of the bible, which I suppose is fine. It's just my opinion that his argument was stronger and more convincing when he actually stuck to the topic of spanking. Of course, if the person he was writing to doesn't understand the fallacy of some of his arguments (such as the point I mentioned about the misapplication of Jewish law) then he may indeed be overwhelmed by dimossi's apparent knowledge of scripture, and may be convinced to ditch the whole thing. :(

[Paradox]

Originally posted by PotatoStew

Hm... not that I recall. One of the main reasons is probably that I don't currently hang out with many people who would generally claim to follow scripture or who actually talk about scripture. Most of my discussions about religion and scripture these days are on this board, with non-Christians.
Was just curious. In my experience, it's never happened, although i'll admit I was never arguing from the position of a theist in the first place. The pointlessness of it, to me, is that when you start arguing interpretations, it's no more than discussing opinions. Like two people debating over whether Poem A is meant to be interpreted in manner Y, or manner Z. In the case of a poem, however, if we're lucky, the author is still alive to refer to...or the author has left notes mentioning what the theme of said poem was. With neither of these two aspects available for scriptural passages, there is no way to discern which interpretation is closest to that which was originally envisioned. With that in mind, I find people will usually not change their 'opinions' about something when the only opposition is another's 'opinion'.

Come on!...Try and convince me purple's not the coolest color! :D ;) :cool:

[Martin]

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/biology/kprestwi/behavior/ESS/ESS_Site_GIFs/BARNEY~2.GIF

I rest my case.

[dimossi]

Originally posted by PotatoStew


To be sure, dimossi's tactics are "allowed" ...he's basically turning it from a discussion about spanking to a discussion about the validity of the bible, which I suppose is fine. It's just my opinion that his argument was stronger and more convincing when he actually stuck to the topic of spanking. Of course, if the person he was writing to doesn't understand the fallacy of some of his arguments (such as the point I mentioned about the misapplication of Jewish law) then he may indeed be overwhelmed by dimossi's apparent knowledge of scripture, and may be convinced to ditch the whole thing. :(

Due to the fact that 99% of John's belief that spanking was "right becasue the bible said so"; gave me the inclination toward attacking the supposed "infallible" bible.

If John's conclusion that spanking was a correct method of punishment, was based on scientific studies and analysis then the debate would have stuck to the subject of spanking.

[Paradox]

Originally posted by Martinm


I rest my case.
AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
sacrilege...that aberration is most definitely PINK, not purple. Damn you...i'm gonna be seeing that horrid thing for the rest of the day...

[Stig]

I've just been taking part in another thread on the "souls" and have a reason for not believing in the possibility of soemething "more than the sum of my parts". To save me typing it again I'll paste it in here to read, if anyone is interested in my thoughts...........

There are many reasons why a person may stop breathing. There is always a physical cause for this happening i.e. cancer cells multiplying out of control and damaging processes and functions vital for the survival of the brain. You might stop breathing because cancer cells have displaced vital nerves telling your heart to beat or diaphram to move. Even if people die of "natural causes" or old age, or even poisoning, then something physical has gone wrong with the body and the bodies chemistry or physical strucure is in some way damaged beyond its normal function and it can no longer support the brain. I understand that you may have a different view of the working of the "mind" and "soul" to my own but I respect your view. I am coming from the viewpoint that the body is like an incredibly complex machine, in the sense that it has different systems and physical structures that all work together to provide the right conditions for the brain to survive. The brain is where it's all happening as far as the soul is concerned. The brain is everything. Stop its functioning by physical means, and that includes diseases and injury and the brain dies and the flame that is consciousness, goes out.

Stig

[juryjone]

Originally posted by PotatoStew

You can certainly refer to other scripture, but it should be related to the subject. You can also look at the context of the culture that it came out of... what would the original recipients of the text have understood by it?


So I'm "allowed" (sorry, I know you're not the final arbiter af what's allowed in these arguments; it's just the word we've been using) to use the premise that scripture was only valid for the culture in which it was written, but may not be valid for today's culture? I don't know - I've never been able to get very far with that argument. Believers, especially in this part of the world, seem to think that the "inspired word of God" means the same thing now that it did then.

[PotatoStew]

Originally posted by juryjone


So I'm "allowed" (sorry, I know you're not the final arbiter af what's allowed in these arguments; it's just the word we've been using) to use the premise that scripture was only valid for the culture in which it was written, but may not be valid for today's culture? I don't know - I've never been able to get very far with that argument. Believers, especially in this part of the world, seem to think that the "inspired word of God" means the same thing now that it did then.

Not exactly... in the phrase of mine that you quoted I didn't mean that a scripture was valid then but not now. I meant that an awareness of the culture is needed, because a given phrase or concept may have meant something different to the ancients than it does to us now.

For an issue of such debate, there are often arguments for both sides. These 2 links have a lot of information which also seems to be related to the "method" of arguing the point, using science and religion:

www.northforest.com/christianwritings/spanking.html

And if you read some of this, and more specifically about 1/4 to 1/3 of the way into the link regarding "Corporal Punishment / Discipline:"

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/infores/clergy/chldabus.htm

[Christian]

dimossi wrote:
Physical punishment gives the message that "might makes right

This cannot be true. The logic is flawed here. I don't see the necessary connection.

dimossi wrote:
Perhaps the most important problem with corporal punishment is that it distracts the child from the problem at hand, as he becomes preoccupied with feelings of anger and revenge.

Again, here I don't see the necessary connection.

dimossi wrote:
In this way the child is deprived of the best opportunities for learning creative problem-solving, and the parent is deprived of the best opportunities for letting the child learn moral values as they relate to real situations. Thus corporal punishment teaches a child nothing about how to handle similar situations in the future.

This is false.

dimossi wrote:
Loving support is the only way to learn true moral behavior based on strong inner values rather than superficially good behavior based only on fear. Strong inner values can only grow in freedom, never under fear.

This is also false. The only way?

dimossi wrote:
Physical punishment gives the message that hitting is an appropriate way to express one's feelings and to solve problems.

This is not true.

Stig wrote:
She has never been punished physicly for anything she has done...

This cannot be true.

[Smalso]

What I have a problem trying to figure out is why (in this state at least) it is perfectly legal and acceptable to do to a child that for which you can be arrested for doing to a dog.

[Stig]

Originally posted by Smalso
What I have a problem trying to figure out is why (in this state at least) it is perfectly legal and acceptable to do to a child that for which you can be arrested for doing to a dog.

That's intersting. Is your state run by sane people, or are they bible bashing loons?

Stig

[Loki]

Christian,

Given the following bible quotes from dimossi :

Proverbs 13:24(KJV): "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes."

Proverbs 13:24(AMP): "He who spares his rod (of discipline) hates his son, but he who loves him diligently disciplines and punishes him early.

Are you saying that *you* believe that corporal punishment is

1. the preferred method for disciplining a child?
2. approved and encouraged by the bible?

[Paradox]

Originally posted by Christian
dimossi wrote:
Physical punishment gives the message that "might makes right

This cannot be true. The logic is flawed here. I don't see the necessary connection.
Psychology does not always neatly follow the rules of logic. This can indeed be true, and children that grow up being taught by physical punishment will naturally incorporrate that into not only their view of the world but with their views of the best way to fix a problem (as parents themselves, or otherwise). It's ridiculous to pretend this doesn't/cannot happen.

dimossi wrote:
Perhaps the most important problem with corporal punishment is that it distracts the child from the problem at hand, as he becomes preoccupied with feelings of anger and revenge.

Again, here I don't see the necessary connection.
The connection is, simply: something dad/mom doesn't like ---> being hit. Pavlovian reactions are not merely reserved for canines. Violence does not explain why something is 'wrong', only that it merits physical pain. For both reasons, it is an improper tool of discipline.

dimossi wrote:
In this way the child is deprived of the best opportunities for learning creative problem-solving, and the parent is deprived of the best opportunities for letting the child learn moral values as they relate to real situations. Thus corporal punishment teaches a child nothing about how to handle similar situations in the future.

This is false.
Could you regurgitate a more generic response to something based purely on the fact that you don't like the viewpoint?

Sure, you'll find numbers of sources that aren't in condemnation of corporal punishment...particularly because the original arguments proposed against it were so far-fetched, that it was rather easy to support, statistically, that spanking does not directly lead to 'homicidal/suicidal behavior' or 'severe depression'. Regardless of the purpose intended, there is no difference between 'spanking' and 'abuse'. If you cannot understand this, ask yourself what your reaction would be to see your dad slap your mom in the face after finding out she's had an affair.

dimossi wrote:
Loving support is the only way to learn true moral behavior based on strong inner values rather than superficially good behavior based only on fear. Strong inner values can only grow in freedom, never under fear.

This is also false. The only way?
Of course, it's not the only way! :rolleyes: How disingenuous can you get...

dimossi wrote:
Physical punishment gives the message that hitting is an appropriate way to express one's feelings and to solve problems.

This is not true.
To be sure, only the children in question can answer that. However, that you disagree is ridiculously silly...considering that spanking is, in effect, a parent trying to "to express one's feelings and to solve problems". That the obvious logical deduction will translate to anything beyond the child's notions of 'proper rearing' is questionable, perhaps...but the message is clear.

Stig wrote:
She has never been punished physicly for anything she has done...

This cannot be true.
You, sir, draw new horizons in the definitions of the words 'hypocrite' and '*******' with your above statement. I suppose you have hidden cameras which have been monitoring Stig's every moment as a parent?!? With what delusional ineptitude do you suppose your demand that (s)he could not have raised his/her daughter without spanking/hitting is factual...against his/her word no less?!


[edited to add: Apologies to Stig for not knowing your gender. :o At least, however, I have not presumed to know more about your personal life than I actually do. ;)]

[Mossy]

Christian,
Rather than go through each comment you made on this post, I'll just address this one since it kinda sums up what you were saying.
Originally posted by Christian

dimossi wrote:
Physical punishment gives the message that hitting is an appropriate way to express one's feelings and to solve problems.

This is not true.


Have you not seen the studies that clearly show a link between a child that grew up in an abusive family, and later goes on to be an abusive parent/spouse/member of society?

Do you honestly not believe that being violent with children encourages violence in children?

-Ed

Originally posted by Mossy
Christian,



Have you not seen the studies that clearly show a link between a child that grew up in an abusive family, and later goes on to be an abusive parent/spouse/member of society?

Do you honestly not believe that being violent with children encourages violence in children?

-Ed

"Being violent" and spanking are arguably quite different. Punching or hitting on the face etc. would not be viewed the same way as spanking by many including the courts, and myself for what that is worth. Did you see the sites I offered above?

[Paradox]

Originally posted by Pscott


"Being violent" and spanking are arguably quite different. Punching or hitting on the face etc. would not be viewed the same way as spanking by many including the courts, and myself for what that is worth. Did you see the sites I offered above?
Could you explain to me the logic that leads to the conclusion that a slap on the face and a slap on the ass (of equal intensity) are in any way different (aside from, perhaps, the amount of nerve endings and/or the percentage of fatty tissue in a particular area of the body :confused: ?)

[Stig]

Originally posted by Paradox

Psychology does not always neatly follow the rules of logic. This can indeed be true, and children that grow up being taught by physical punishment will naturally incorporrate that into not only their view of the world but with their views of the best way to fix a problem (as parents themselves, or otherwise). It's ridiculous to pretend this doesn't/cannot happen.

The connection is, simply: something dad/mom doesn't like ---> being hit. Pavlovian reactions are not merely reserved for canines. Violence does not explain why something is 'wrong', only that it merits physical pain. For both reasons, it is an improper tool of discipline.

Could you regurgitate a more generic response to something based purely on the fact that you don't like the viewpoint?

Sure, you'll find numbers of sources that aren't in condemnation of corporal punishment...particularly because the original arguments proposed against it were so far-fetched, that it was rather easy to support, statistically, that spanking does not directly lead to 'homicidal/suicidal behavior' or 'severe depression'. Regardless of the purpose intended, there is no difference between 'spanking' and 'abuse'. If you cannot understand this, ask yourself what your reaction would be to see your dad slap your mom in the face after finding out she's had an affair.

Of course, it's not the only way! :rolleyes: How disingenuous can you get...

To be sure, only the children in question can answer that. However, that you disagree is ridiculously silly...considering that spanking is, in effect, a parent trying to "to express one's feelings and to solve problems". That the obvious logical deduction will translate to anything beyond the child's notions of 'proper rearing' is questionable, perhaps...but the message is clear.

You, sir, draw new horizons in the definitions of the words 'hypocrite' and '*******' with your above statement. I suppose you have hidden cameras which have been monitoring Stig's every moment as a parent?!? With what delusional ineptitude do you suppose your demand that (s)he could not have raised his/her daughter without spanking/hitting is factual...against his/her word no less?!


[edited to add: Apologies to Stig for not knowing your gender. :o At least, however, I have not presumed to know more about your personal life than I actually do. ;)]



Thankyou Paradox, (I'm a father by the way;) ).

Christian,
I said that my child has never been punished physicaly for anything she has done. Seeing as the topic in question is "spanking" are you suggesting to me that, contrary to what I have just told you, I have hit my child? How the hell would you know?

Stig

[Refus de Sejour]

Originally posted by Paradox

Could you explain to me the logic that leads to the conclusion that a slap on the face and a slap on the ass (of equal intensity) are in any way different (aside from, perhaps, the amount of nerve endings and/or the percentage of fatty tissue in a particular area of the body :confused: ?)

From personal experience, I can say that a slap on the face has much stronger psychological impact than one of equal strength elsewhere on the body. I mean.... it's 'IN YOUR FACE'....so to speak. There is an added dimension of insult to the blow.


For the record though, I would never slap a child on any part of their anatomy.



Refus

[PotatoStew]

Originally posted by Paradox

Could you explain to me the logic that leads to the conclusion that a slap on the face and a slap on the ass (of equal intensity) are in any way different (aside from, perhaps, the amount of nerve endings and/or the percentage of fatty tissue in a particular area of the body :confused: ?)

You just explained a large part of the difference yourself! :p Refus has a valid point as well.

[Paradox]

Originally posted by Refus de Sejour


From personal experience, I can say that a slap on the face has much stronger psychological impact than one of equal strength elsewhere on the body. I mean.... it's 'IN YOUR FACE'....so to speak. There is an added dimension of insult to the blow.


For the record though, I would never slap a child on any part of their anatomy.



Refus
I think I'd agree. Of course, IMO, the question would be is a slap on the buttocks more acceptable because it provides a lesser 'dimension of insult'? Especially considering that usually (although some may argue otherwise as to the frequency) when things get to the 'spanking point', the hitting is not so much a tool of discipline as it is an expression of anger and frustration.
Originally posted by PotatoStew


You just explained a large part of the difference yourself! :p Refus has a valid point as well.
:p

So it seems that the reduction of pain is what makes a spank more permissible than a slap in the face. Now, when I hear the word 'spank' (and perhaps it may be good to clarify this) I don't get the image of a football buddy's smack on the rear, or the tush-equivalent of holding a kid's wrist and patting the back of their hand. To me, spanking is such that it actually involves pain. Sure, we can say that the pain is perhaps the equivalent of someone high-fiving you a bit too hard (at least), but whether it be on the most or least sensitive part of the body, how do we deny the fact that we are still using pain as a form of discipline? Do we convince ourselves, instead of 'hitting is okay', that 'hitting is okay if it's somewhere that won't hurt as much'?

At very least, can we say that no one in their right might would do this as anything other than a very last-ditch resort?

[Mossy]

Originally posted by Pscott


"Being violent" and spanking are arguably quite different. Punching or hitting on the face etc. would not be viewed the same way as spanking by many including the courts, and myself for what that is worth. Did you see the sites I offered above?

(I posted this earlier, or thought I did, but apparently something went wrong, so I will try to recreate what I "meant" to post earlier!)

They are "arguably quite different"? The only arguable difference, according to the links you posted, confirms my belief exactly: the less violent you are with your children, the less violent (or generally screwed up) they will become.

A couple statements found in your second link, in the area you recommended, that sum it up nicely:


"Many hidden problems inherent in spanking can have a serious impact upon the lives of children, their families, and society in general. There are as many definitions of spanking as there are people who do it. Parents tend to define spanking by their own experience. If what they are doing falls within the range of their own childhood experience, then -- regardless of its severity or effect upon the child -- it is not child abuse."


And, more to the point of the thread:


"Not all child abusers are Christian and not all Christians are child abusers. But a surprisingly high number of cases of reported child abuse occur in Christian families. Moreover, the abuser often bases the justification of their behavior on Christianity. A father, when confronted by state child protection workers resisted their assistance and said, 'What do you mean I can't beat my child? I'm a Christian.' This Christian father, who had paddled his child with such force that he caused injury, had not sought help to control his anger and violence. He had been taught his responsibility as a parent involves the regular use of corporal punishment and had used it to the extent that it was abusive. Herein lies the problem."


If I only swat my child twice on the bottom, I believe it is reasonable to conclude that that will have less of a negative impact on child than if I beat him into unconsciousness. Is that really an advocacy of spankings: because it will have less of a negative impact?

If it weren't intended to cause pain, it wouldn't be called corporeal punishment. On the spectrum of violence, it may lay on one side, while walking into a high school with a gun and shooting people might lay on the other. But as a parent, why would a person choose to use any punishment on the spectrum of violence as a "parenting tool".

"My parents spanked me, and I didn't turn out bad" is not an argument.

-Ed

[juryjone]

Originally posted by PotatoStew

Not exactly... in the phrase of mine that you quoted I didn't mean that a scripture was valid then but not now. I meant that an awareness of the culture is needed, because a given phrase or concept may have meant something different to the ancients than it does to us now.

OK then, let's look at the verses cited that condone the physical disciplining of children:

Proverbs 13:24(KJV): "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes."

Proverbs 13:24(AMP): "He who spares his rod (of discipline) hates his son, but he who loves him diligently disciplines and punishes him early."

Where in these verses is spanking condoned, yet not other forms of physical punishment? In Singapore, as we all know, they use caning of the upper body as a form of punishment. Nuns (from personal experience) are fond of the ruler on the knuckles. They are literally using rods of discipline. How do we get from that to a slap on the buttocks only with the flat of the hand?

Is this an example that means "something different to the ancients than it does to us now"? Or is it perfectly OK now to use whatever object comes to hand to beat our children? If there is a difference, why? What scripture has moved us to change our views on how this should be interpreted?

If you're going to use scripture to justify your views on spanking, you'll obviously have to do a lot of heavy interpreting. If you have to change the meaning that much, why use scripture in the first place?

[Christian]

Loki wrote:
Are you saying that *you* believe that corporal punishment is
1. the preferred method for disciplining a child?
2. approved and encouraged by the bible?

2 is correct.

Paradox wrote:
This can indeed be true, and children that grow up being taught by physical punishment will naturally incorporrate that into not only their view of the world but with their views of the best way to fix a problem (as parents themselves, or otherwise).

I don't think this is a correct flow of thought.

Paradox wrote:
It's ridiculous to pretend this doesn't/cannot happen.

Here, I absolutely agree. My objection is the either/or (black or white) stance on the issue.

Paradox wrote:
The connection is, simply: something dad/mom doesn't like ---> being hit. Pavlovian reactions are not merely reserved for canines. Violence does not explain why something is 'wrong', only that it merits physical pain. For both reasons, it is an improper tool of discipline.

Please understand that the oversimplification plus the wrong assumptions in your statements is what I'm objecting to.

If you were to put forth the Methodology of punishment by Christians according to Christian psychologist and from it, raised the objections, then I would consider them valid one, nstead of biased ones.

Paradox wrote:
Could you regurgitate a more generic response to something based purely on the fact that you don't like the viewpoint?

I'm just pointing out the obvious. No one has seriously put out the specific points. The arguments are non-arguments because they are not informed. To have a serious discussion, we need to know methodology. Who know, those who have children will take a second look at how they educate their children.

Paradox wrote:
Sure, you'll find numbers of sources that aren't in condemnation of corporal punishment...particularly because the original arguments proposed against it were so far-fetched, that it was rather easy to support, statistically, that spanking does not directly lead to 'homicidal/suicidal behavior' or 'severe depression'. Regardless of the purpose intended, there is no difference between 'spanking' and 'abuse'. If you cannot understand this, ask yourself what your reaction would be to see your dad slap your mom in the face after finding out she's had an affair.

The problem Paradox is that your notions are not quiet there yet. What I mean is that you first need to know the methodology to refute it.

Paradox wrote:
Of course, it's not the only way! How disingenuous can you get...

Don't dismiss me to quickly. What dimossi is saying is that to educate a child it more a matter of intent and substance than of form (particularly negative reinforcement). I believe he is mistaken.

Paradox wrote:
To be sure, only the children in question can answer that. However, that you disagree is ridiculously silly...considering that spanking is, in effect, a parent trying to "to express one's feelings and to solve problems". That the obvious logical deduction will translate to anything beyond the child's notions of 'proper rearing' is questionable, perhaps...but the message is clear.

You must let the possibility that logic can demonstrate that the statement is false. Once the mechanism of how humans learn is understood, then it is easy to see why the statement is false.

Paradox wrote:
You, sir, draw new horizons in the definitions of the words 'hypocrite' and '*******' with your above statement. I suppose you have hidden cameras which have been monitoring Stig's every moment as a parent?!? With what delusional ineptitude do you suppose your demand that (s)he could not have raised his/her daughter without spanking/hitting is factual...against his/her word no less?!

I do not use these words and definately not towards anyone. I believe I deserve your respect sir. If you think this is not acceptable to you, please feel free to ignore my posts.

Let me quote again what Stig wrote:

She has never been punished physicly for anything she has done...

If Stig has said "I have never physically punished her for anything she has done" your comment would be warranted. Stig didn't say that. He said she has never been punished physically.

This simply cannot be true. Let me give 3 specific reasons why this is not true.

1- If she has ever been with other kids, and she was hit, pushed, stepped on, biten, punched, scratched, etc. by any other kid because of any action she did, she was punished phisically. (the most common example is when fighting over a toy)

2- If she was ever running too fast or not right or any other motion that when against the laws of phisics (with regards to her physical proctection) and she fell, bumped into something. She was punished phisically for her actions (it hurt her phisically to violate these laws)

3- If someone else was in motion and she was not aware of how to avoid contact. She was also punished phisically. Just like you or I would be *punished* if we ran a red light without paying attention and got into an accident.

Mossy wrote:
Have you not seen the studies that clearly show a link between a child that grew up in an abusive family, and later goes on to be an abusive parent/spouse/member of society?

Yes I have seen some. They are correct. What is not correct is to equate physical punishment with abuse.

Mossy wrote:
Do you honestly not believe that being violent with children encourages violence in children?

I absolutely believe this.

Paradox wrote:
Could you explain to me the logic that leads to the conclusion that a slap on the face and a slap on the ass (of equal intensity) are in any way different (aside from, perhaps, the amount of nerve endings and/or the percentage of fatty tissue in a particular area of the body ?)

It is quite different. And as I said before, we first need to address methodology.

Stig wrote:
Christian,
I said that my child has never been punished physicaly for anything she has done. Seeing as the topic in question is "spanking" are you suggesting to me that, contrary to what I have just told you, I have hit my child? How the hell would you know?

Asked and answered above.


Refus de Sejour wrote:
For the record though, I would never slap a child on any part of their anatomy.

Neither would I. The hands must not be used ever. There is a reason for this.

Paradox wrote:
how do we deny the fact that we are still using pain as a form of discipline?

Pain is an efective form of discipline. Humans didn't invent this. They are natural mechanisms.

[Mossy]

Originally posted by Christian
Mossy wrote:
Have you not seen the studies that clearly show a link between a child that grew up in an abusive family, and later goes on to be an abusive parent/spouse/member of society?

Yes I have seen some. They are correct. What is not correct is to equate physical punishment with abuse.


Can you explain what you believe the difference between corporeal punishment (we're talking about parent->child here, not child->other child) and abuse is?

As I mentioned earlier, just because a swat on the butt isn't as painful as, say, a beating with a leather belt, doesn't mean that they aren't both violent acts - one is simply more violent than the other. The intent is the same: to inflict pain.


Mossy wrote:
Do you honestly not believe that being violent with children encourages violence in children?

I absolutely believe this.


Then where do you draw the line? What is acceptable? Is it the biblical rod?

-Ed

[Paradox]

Originally posted by Christian
Paradox wrote:
This can indeed be true, and children that grow up being taught by physical punishment will naturally incorporrate that into not only their view of the world but with their views of the best way to fix a problem (as parents themselves, or otherwise).

I don't think this is a correct flow of thought.
Perhaps. However, expressing to a child that how they are feeling happens to be a non sequitur won't change how it has affected them. We are, after all, dealing with children.
Paradox wrote:
It's ridiculous to pretend this doesn't/cannot happen.

Here, I absolutely agree. My objection is the either/or (black or white) stance on the issue.
I understand that the issue is not simply a dichotomy...that there are varied ranges of physical discipline that can be administered. As I mentioned in another post, the moment it crosses the pain barrier (and not just a painless smack to get the attention of the kid) it doesn't matter how frequent or harsh it is...it's still pain. Knowing this, can you say you are comfortable with this idea?
Paradox wrote:
The connection is, simply: something dad/mom doesn't like ---> being hit. Pavlovian reactions are not merely reserved for canines. Violence does not explain why something is 'wrong', only that it merits physical pain. For both reasons, it is an improper tool of discipline.

Please understand that the oversimplification plus the wrong assumptions in your statements is what I'm objecting to.

If you were to put forth the Methodology of punishment by Christians according to Christian psychologist and from it, raised the objections, then I would consider them valid one, nstead of biased ones.
Um...I may be reading this wrong (feel free to correct me if I am)...are you saying that you don't consider any study on corporal punishment not done by a christian to be fruitless/unobjective (to you)? :confused:
Paradox wrote:
Could you regurgitate a more generic response to something based purely on the fact that you don't like the viewpoint?

I'm just pointing out the obvious. No one has seriously put out the specific points. The arguments are non-arguments because they are not informed. To have a serious discussion, we need to know methodology. Who know, those who have children will take a second look at how they educate their children.
In this case, by virtue of having been a kid, everyone is at least partially informed. If no one has, according to you, as of yet provided 'specific points', what would these be?
Paradox wrote:
Sure, you'll find numbers of sources that aren't in condemnation of corporal punishment...particularly because the original arguments proposed against it were so far-fetched, that it was rather easy to support, statistically, that spanking does not directly lead to 'homicidal/suicidal behavior' or 'severe depression'. Regardless of the purpose intended, there is no difference between 'spanking' and 'abuse'. If you cannot understand this, ask yourself what your reaction would be to see your dad slap your mom in the face after finding out she's had an affair.

The problem Paradox is that your notions are not quiet there yet. What I mean is that you first need to know the methodology to refute it.
Methodology of what? The studies? Of spanking itself?
Paradox wrote:
Of course, it's not the only way! How disingenuous can you get...

Don't dismiss me to quickly. What dimossi is saying is that to educate a child it more a matter of intent and substance than of form (particularly negative reinforcement). I believe he is mistaken.
For what reasons? Are you saying you would feel inadequate to raise a child without spanking at your disposal? Are you saying the same holds true for everyone?
Paradox wrote:
To be sure, only the children in question can answer that. However, that you disagree is ridiculously silly...considering that spanking is, in effect, a parent trying to "to express one's feelings and to solve problems". That the obvious logical deduction will translate to anything beyond the child's notions of 'proper rearing' is questionable, perhaps...but the message is clear.

You must let the possibility that logic can demonstrate that the statement is false. Once the mechanism of how humans learn is understood, then it is easy to see why the statement is false.
Practical means of IVing lessons into children is not the issue. Whether corporal punishment is efficient poses no bearing on whether or not it is dertrimental, if not unecessary. If you intend to defend this efficiency, you will no doubt be gloriously supported: fear is a strict and powerful teacher.
Paradox wrote:
You, sir, draw new horizons in the definitions of the words 'hypocrite' and '*******' with your above statement. I suppose you have hidden cameras which have been monitoring Stig's every moment as a parent?!? With what delusional ineptitude do you suppose your demand that (s)he could not have raised his/her daughter without spanking/hitting is factual...against his/her word no less?!

I do not use these words and definately not towards anyone. I believe I deserve your respect sir. If you think this is not acceptable to you, please feel free to ignore my posts.
We each deserve the respect we earn. Making presumptions about people's lives and, in effect, calling them liars to their faces is not the best way to go about amassing it.
Let me quote again what Stig wrote:
quote:

She has never been punished physicly for anything she has done...

If Stig has said "I have never physically punished her for anything she has done" your comment would be warranted. Stig didn't say that. He said she has never been punished physically.

This simply cannot be true. Let me give 3 specific reasons why this is not true.

1- If she has ever been with other kids, and she was hit, pushed, stepped on, biten, punched, scratched, etc. by any other kid because of any action she did, she was punished phisically. (the most common example is when fighting over a toy)

2- If she was ever running too fast or not right or any other motion that when against the laws of phisics (with regards to her physical proctection) and she fell, bumped into something. She was punished phisically for her actions (it hurt her phisically to violate these laws)

3- If someone else was in motion and she was not aware of how to avoid contact. She was also punished phisically. Just like you or I would be *punished* if we ran a red light without paying attention and got into an accident.
:rolleyes: I don't buy it.
If we are going into dissections of posts, let's go one further...either:

1) You are back-pedalling now after the realization that you made a profoundly inappropriate comment.

2) You intended the 'meaning' of the comment to be as you've described above, which must mean, either:

a) You intentionally worded it in an inflammatory manner so as to rile up the poster (and perhaps others)(aka trolling).

b) You actually had/have not the foresight/tact/common sense to notice that you worded something in a way that would be taken negatively.

Considering the fact that the sub-topic of how Stig's daughter reacts to the world around her (supposedly what you were really addressing) is really irrelevant to the discussion, I cannot possibly see how you felt compelled (otherwise) to comment on it. But that is only my opinion.

In any case, intentional or not, your comment was rude. I find it hard to see any other way, regardless of how attractively the post hoc dress-up is.
Paradox wrote:
how do we deny the fact that we are still using pain as a form of discipline?

Pain is an efective form of discipline. Humans didn't invent this. They are natural mechanisms.
I'm sure this may not have occured to you, but that argument collapses when 'nature' is not considered a sentient entity. I find it ridiculous that you actually suggest something akin to "Gravity punishes me with a concussion when I jump off a 3 story building" ergo "Giving a child a concussion can be an effective method of teaching a child".

Torture is also an effective form of discipline. Your arguments appear to be one-dimensional. They would indeed be most appropriate/efficient...if we wanted unquestioning automatons with no concept of self-worth and individuality.

[Christian]

Mossi wrote:
Can you explain what you believe the difference between corporeal punishment (we're talking about parent->child here, not child->other child) and abuse is?

Abuse implies going beyond the limit. The fine for running a red light is $500 (assume). Abuse is to be fined $2,000.

Corporeal punishment is appropriate in certain instances. This punishment administered for the wrong offense is abuse, just as getting thrown in jail is abuse if you violation is being parked in a restricted area.

Mossi wrote:
Then where do you draw the line?

Where do you draw the line of 90 days in jail versus 1 year in jail. There is specific criteria used here. The purpose of physical punishment is to create an effect. This effect can be created without any abuse involved.

Mossi wrote:
What is acceptable? Is it the biblical rod?

Yes, the rod is correct.

Paradox wrote:
Knowing this, can you say you are comfortable with this idea?

Very much so. Children in some instances must experience physical pain.

Paradox wrote:
Um...I may be reading this wrong (feel free to correct me if I am)...are you saying that you don't consider any study on corporal punishment not done by a christian to be fruitless/unobjective (to you)?

No, I'm not saying this. The incorrect assumption is that children are like animal in the sense that they cannot make a mental construct of the why.

Paradox wrote:
In this case, by virtue of having been a kid, everyone is at least partially informed. If no one has, according to you, as of yet provided 'specific points', what would these be?

The methodology of how Christians should administer corporal punishment.

Paradox wrote:
Methodology of what? The studies? Of spanking itself?

Of corporal punishment.

Paradox wrote:
For what reasons? Are you saying you would feel inadequate to raise a child without spanking at your disposal? Are you saying the same holds true for everyone?

Correct on 1. Not true on the second.

Paradox wrote:
We each deserve the respect we earn. Making presumptions about people's lives and, in effect, calling them liars to their faces is not the best way to go about amassing it.

Please sir, be decent and admit you were wrong.

Paradox wrote:
I don't buy it.
If we are going into dissections of posts, let's go one further...either:

1) You are back-pedalling now after the realization that you made a profoundly inappropriate comment.

2) You intended the 'meaning' of the comment to be as you've described above, which must mean, either:

a) You intentionally worded it in an inflammatory manner so as to rile up the poster (and perhaps others)(aka trolling).

b) You actually had/have not the foresight/tact/common sense to notice that you worded something in a way that would be taken negatively.

Considering the fact that the sub-topic of how Stig's daughter reacts to the world around her (supposedly what you were really addressing) is really irrelevant to the discussion, I cannot possibly see how you felt compelled (otherwise) to comment on it. But that is only my opinion.

In any case, intentional or not, your comment was rude. I find it hard to see any other way, regardless of how attractively the post hoc dress-up is.

I don't want to think you are giving all these explanations to justify your insults. But I will explain further.

If someone said. "No, man has ever touched my penis". And someone else said "this is not true". The correct response to that, would be to ask why not or how so not true.

The person saying not true wants to create an a Socratic effect of, "I see what you mean after the response.

You have blown it completely out of proportion. And have not let me explain why I say this.

I may be wrong in my views, but physical pain is central to the reason why I believe in corporal punishment. The specific example with other kids is also central in my justification. If you do stick around, we will probably get to that.

Hey, maybe it is just that you have a very low tolerance for me, and any hint of impropriaty (spelling) generates from you the harshest response.

Why it's not true no man has touched the penis. The doctor did when he was him out when he was born.

The person that gets the response understands that what they are telling him is that he overlooked a piece of information, not that he was being a liar.

In this case, the piece of information Stig was missing is central to the whole case for corporal punishment.

Paradox wrote:
I'm sure this may not have occured to you, but that argument collapses when 'nature' is not considered a sentient entity

Cause and effect is the perfect teacher regardless of being sentient or not. Corporal punishment is a tool to teach just as bump on the head from a solid object is a teacher.

[Stig]

Originally posted by Christian
Loki wrote:

Let me quote again what Stig wrote:


If Stig has said "I have never physically punished her for anything she has done" your comment would be warranted. Stig didn't say that. He said she has never been punished physically.

This simply cannot be true. Let me give 3 specific reasons why this is not true.

1- If she has ever been with other kids, and she was hit, pushed, stepped on, biten, punched, scratched, etc. by any other kid because of any action she did, she was punished phisically. (the most common example is when fighting over a toy)

2- If she was ever running too fast or not right or any other motion that when against the laws of phisics (with regards to her physical proctection) and she fell, bumped into something. She was punished phisically for her actions (it hurt her phisically to violate these laws)

3- If someone else was in motion and she was not aware of how to avoid contact. She was also punished phisically. Just like you or I would be *punished* if we ran a red light without paying attention and got into an accident.




You have really screwed up here. You have taken the argument completely out of context. The discussion is about hitting your child. Not "Your child falling over by accident and learning from running too fast"

What a poor argument:rolleyes:

Stig

[Christian]

Stig wrote:
The discussion is about hitting your child. Not "Your child falling over by accident and learning from running too fast"

Ok, let's see if I can explain the connection here. By the same principles that a child learns when hurting herself by running too fast, we can use corporal punishment. This is the argument.

I hope you will at least listen to the argument before stating it is poor.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Christian
Stig wrote:
The discussion is about hitting your child. Not "Your child falling over by accident and learning from running too fast"

Ok, let's see if I can explain the connection here. By the same principles that a child learns when hurting herself by running too fast, we can use corporal punishment. This is the argument.

I hope you will at least listen to the argument before stating it is poor.

I don't think anyone is denying that corporal punishment WORKS. That's not the issue.

The question is whether it is justified.

[Loki]

Christian,

(Loki wrote) :Are you saying that *you* believe that corporal punishment is
1. the preferred method for disciplining a child?
2. approved and encouraged by the bible?

2 is correct.

(Mossi wrote): What is acceptable? Is it the biblical rod?

Yes, the rod is correct.
Just wanted to be clear - you have unambiguously stated that beating a child with a rod is (a)acceptable and (b) approved and encouraged by the bible. You add the qualifier that such an action is okay only if the degree of beating matches the 'crime' - if the beating goes "too far" then it becomes abuse. I don't see that I can add much to this, Christian - your basic stance is so far removed from my own personal experiences that I doubt we have much common ground here (again!).

However, I'm interested to hear your justification for why a beating with a rod is suitable discipline. I hope there's more to it than "the bible says so" - perhaps you should explain the "methodology of how Christians should administer corporal punishment", and how exactly this methodology has been derived and tested?

One question - at what age is a beating with a rod applicable? Four? Two? Six months?

Oh, and pure curiousity forces me to ask - why is a hand not suitable?

I don't want to think you are giving all these explanations to justify your insults. But I will explain further.

If someone said. "No, man has ever touched my penis". And someone else said "this is not true". The correct response to that, would be to ask why not or how so not true.

The person saying not true wants to create an a Socratic effect of, "I see what you mean after the response.

You have blown it completely out of proportion. And have not let me explain why I say this.
The point Christian is that this is a common trait of your posts - you make short statements that declare something (often apparently controversial) and offer *no* explanation whatsoever. A response (often angry) is then posted, and only then do you bother to explain. There seems to be three main possible explanations for this style of posting :

1. You are deliberately seeking to provoke a response. You make a short statement that you believe you can back up, but you choose not to offer the explanation. You wait until the 'bait' is taken before you spring your trap. If this is what you are doing, it is self-defeating, since often your explanation actually involves changing the nature or 'tone' of the conversation.

2. You do not realise that your short comments can be taken as an insult. I guess this is possible, since you seem to have a worldview that occasionally differs greatly from the majority of posters here.

3. You assume that the explanation you have in mind is either obvious or well lnonw, and therefore doesn't need to be stated. Again, given the sometimes vast differences in worldviews I'd advise you to stop assuming that everyone else knows what you mean.

Children in some instances must experience physical pain.
I would dispute this from purely personal experience, but I admit that there's always a danger in trying to generalise. My children are never forced to suffer physical pain for misbehaviour.

One thing I would add to your comments - I believe that hitting a child sends *two* messages. The first is "my behaviour has brought me pain". The second is "physical force is a valid solution to (some) everyday issues". It's the second that I have real problems with - I certainly don't want my daughter to grow up believing that any man in her life has the right, under any circumstances whatsoever, to use physical force against her. I think you tread a *very* fine line when you seek to send the first message but not the second. But I guess that's where you assume the "methodology" comes into play, right?

[Paradox]

Originally posted by Christian
Very much so. Children in some instances must experience physical pain.
That is fundamentally sadistic, no matter which way you twist it. (Unless you're using that nifty 'must' word again when you really mean 'will'. :rolleyes: )
Paradox wrote:
Um...I may be reading this wrong (feel free to correct me if I am)...are you saying that you don't consider any study on corporal punishment not done by a christian to be fruitless/unobjective (to you)?

No, I'm not saying this. The incorrect assumption is that children are like animal in the sense that they cannot make a mental construct of the why.
You contradict you position here. By saying they are capable of making a mental construct, it is even more the reason to defer to verbal explanations for mistakes, rather than abuse (aka spanking, if you actually fancy a difference between the two).
Paradox wrote:
In this case, by virtue of having been a kid, everyone is at least partially informed. If no one has, according to you, as of yet provided 'specific points', what would these be?

The methodology of how Christians should administer corporal punishment.
Are you saying that christians are/should be permitted to castigate their children in ways that would otherwise be considered abusive?
Paradox wrote:
Methodology of what? The studies? Of spanking itself?

Of corporal punishment.
Well, which is it? First it's chrsitians', now it is 'in general'.
Paradox wrote:
For what reasons? Are you saying you would feel inadequate to raise a child without spanking at your disposal? Are you saying the same holds true for everyone?

Correct on 1. Not true on the second.
Concerning 1, You don't see the as a shortcoming of yours? That other parents can raise perfectly healthy children without corporal punishment does not interest you in the least? It sounds like you prefer spanking for reasons other than disciplinary.
Paradox wrote:
We each deserve the respect we earn. Making presumptions about people's lives and, in effect, calling them liars to their faces is not the best way to go about amassing it.

Please sir, be decent and admit you were wrong.
That I was wrong or not shall be weighed by how many people interpreted your idiocy as the rude presumption it was. I need not admit to an error I didn't commit because your delusional notions have perceived it as such. I'm pretty damn sure you are alone on this.

I don't want to think you are giving all these explanations to justify your insults. But I will explain further.

If someone said. "No, man has ever touched my penis". And someone else said "this is not true". The correct response to that, would be to ask why not or how so not true.
Play ring-around-the-rosey with the your reconstructions of previous insults all you want. You're fooling no one.
If someone said. "No, man has ever touched my penis". And someone else said "this is not true". The correct response to that, would be to ask why not or how so not true.

The person saying not true wants to create an a Socratic effect of, "I see what you mean after the response.

You have blown it completely out of proportion. And have not let me explain why I say this.
You had your chance to explain it. I didn't buy your reasoning. Not that any of this really matters. What does matter is whether Stig was offended by your nonsense. If that is the case, it is to whom who you owe an apology.
I may be wrong in my views, but physical pain is central to the reason why I believe in corporal punishment. The specific example with other kids is also central in my justification. If you do stick around, we will probably get to that.
That you require pain as a tenet for child upbringing is disturbing. In any case, I may not get the chance to reply until later this evening, but I will still be following the thread.
Hey, maybe it is just that you have a very low tolerance for me, and any hint of impropriaty (spelling) generates from you the harshest response.
Actually, that is not the case. I just had never encountered so insulting a comment as yours, whatever intentions you desired or not aside. I could as easily construct such alibis for the words I used.

For instance: (hypothetically) ~When I used the term '*******' I was actually referring to the anatomical thing...as in, we all have one, of course. This, being directly related to the buttocks region, expressed, in a clever double entendre, my displeasure with spanking.~
Why it's not true no man has touched the penis. The doctor did when he was him out when he was born.
Then it seems I was on target when suggesting that you were setting a semantic trap. Unless one intends to provoke such hostility, one does not leave such otherwise obvious insults in plain view.
The person that gets the response understands that what they are telling him is that he overlooked a piece of information, not that he was being a liar.

In this case, the piece of information Stig was missing is central to the whole case for corporal punishment.
I fail to see how your pitfall in any way relates to the issues at hand, although I'm sure you'll find ways to string them together. If you could avoid intentionally setting mousetraps at the feet of the posters in the future, I'm sure it would do wonders for the progress of the debate.
Paradox wrote:
I'm sure this may not have occured to you, but that argument collapses when 'nature' is not considered a sentient entity

Cause and effect is the perfect teacher regardless of being sentient or not. Corporal punishment is a tool to teach just as bump on the head from a solid object is a teacher.
Again, you argument is one-dimensional. You decry the mental processed of the children when they suit your position, but you don't consider them to be sufficient enough that spanking is not necessary. You see (I feel almost silly having to explain this to you), 'cause and effect', 'the laws of physics' do not have voices. What they impart, they firstly do so without intent (something you cannot say for yourself), and they do so out of lack of any other alternative (something you also cannot say for yourself). Characterising inanimate forces with human desires is silly! Even more silly is the moral parallel you espouse between the indifferent acts of nature and those you may feel free to do! Hurricanes kill hundreds of people...I suppose, by this logic then, that Tim McVeigh had morality on his side?!

[Ed]

First off, negative reinforcement is a short term learning tool

Second, would any adult on this board justify inflicting violence on a child? Really? If you feel you have to strike, your parenting skills suck.

Third: this quote

Proverbs 13:24(KJV): "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes."

Proverbs 13:24(AMP): "He who spares his rod (of discipline) hates his son, but he who loves him diligently disciplines and punishes him early.


"rod" in this case refers to the male genitalia and has been used by generations as a justification for pedophilia

Ummmmm are supposed to kill witches?

[Christian]

Loki wrote:
You add the qualifier that such an action is okay only if the degree of beating matches the 'crime' - if the beating goes "too far" then it becomes abuse.

No, this is not what I mean. The use of the word *beating* is loaded. I pefer to use corporal punishment (CP). There is no degree in the CP, CP is the same in all instances it is administered. When to use CP depends on the offense.


Loki wrote:
However, I'm interested to hear your justification for why a beating with a rod is suitable discipline. I hope there's more to it than "the bible says so" - perhaps you should explain the "methodology of how Christians should administer corporal punishment", and how exactly this methodology has been derived and tested?

It is a consequence of a particular *crime*. Dobson's "Dare to Discipline" explains it fairly well.

Loki wrote:
One question - at what age is a beating with a rod applicable? Four? Two? Six months?

CP is aplicable from age 3 to 8.

Loki wrote:
Oh, and pure curiousity forces me to ask - why is a hand not suitable?

1) The hand is not a neutral object.
2) The use of a specific object asures that the method will be correct
3) The ritual is the most important part of CP. The rod is part of this ritual.

Loki wrote:
The point Christian is that this is a common trait of your posts - you make short statements that declare something (often apparently controversial) and offer *no* explanation whatsoever. A response (often angry) is then posted, and only then do you bother to explain. There seems to be three main possible explanations for this style of posting :

1. You are deliberately seeking to provoke a response. You make a short statement that you believe you can back up, but you choose not to offer the explanation. You wait until the 'bait' is taken before you spring your trap. If this is what you are doing, it is self-defeating, since often your explanation actually involves changing the nature or 'tone' of the conversation.

2. You do not realise that your short comments can be taken as an insult. I guess this is possible, since you seem to have a worldview that occasionally differs greatly from the majority of posters here.

3. You assume that the explanation you have in mind is either obvious or well lnonw, and therefore doesn't need to be stated. Again, given the sometimes vast differences in worldviews I'd advise you to stop assuming that everyone else knows what you mean.

I'm trying to establish were exactly I have a disagreement, showing a point of focus. But fine, this is easely fixed. I'll take note of the observation for future posts.

Loki wrote:
One thing I would add to your comments - I believe that hitting a child sends *two* messages. The first is "my behaviour has brought me pain". The second is "physical force is a valid solution to (some) everyday issues". It's the second that I have real problems with - I certainly don't want my daughter to grow up believing that any man in her life has the right, under any circumstances whatsoever, to use physical force against her. I think you tread a *very* fine line when you seek to send the first message but not the second. But I guess that's where you assume the "methodology" comes into play, right?

Yes, this is were methodology comes into play.

Paradox wrote:
That is fundamentally sadistic, no matter which way you twist it. (Unless you're using that nifty 'must' word again when you really mean 'will'. )

It is not sadistic, no loving parent feels pleasure in this.

Paradox wrote:
You contradict you position here. By saying they are capable of making a mental construct, it is even more the reason to defer to verbal explanations for mistakes, rather than abuse (aka spanking, if you actually fancy a difference between the two).

Mental understanding is equivalent to verbal skills. This same argument could be used for thieves, don't you think? Instead of throwing them in jail, why don't we just give them motivational speeches?

Paradox wrote:
Are you saying that christians are/should be permitted to castigate their children in ways that would otherwise be considered abusive?

No.

Paradox wrote:
Well, which is it? First it's chrsitians', now it is 'in general'.

You lost me here.

Paradox wrote:
Concerning 1, You don't see the as a shortcoming of yours? That other parents can raise perfectly healthy children without corporal punishment does not interest you in the least? It sounds like you prefer spanking for reasons other than disciplinary.

No I do not. Many parents do, and that would not be inconsistent with my views on CP. CP depends on the type of child one has.

Paradox wrote:
That I was wrong or not shall be weighed by how many people interpreted your idiocy as the rude presumption it was. I need not admit to an error I didn't commit because your delusional notions have perceived it as such. I'm pretty damn sure you are alone on this.

I can see now that you are fond of this type treatment. If this is one of the way you use to feel superior, I can understand that. Yes Paradox, please forgive me for being and idiot. I was not blessed with your intellect or education.

With all the comments you have made, I have now understood the errors of my ways. I will not do it again, you have taught me a valuable lesson.

Ed wrote:
First off, negative reinforcement is a short term learning tool

Yes, this is why the whole penal system all over the world uses it.


Ed wrote:
Second, would any adult on this board justify inflicting violence on a child? Really? If you feel you have to strike, your parenting skills suck.

Paradox, will you defend me too or do you think I deserve everything that's coming to me.

Oh, one quick question. When does my punishment become abuse? Or any transgression (you perceive) warrants whaever your heart desires.

[Christian]

Paradox wrote:
Actually, that is not the case. I just had never encountered so insulting a comment as yours.

True or not Stig, I apologize.

[Mossy]

Just to avoid potential confusion: Mossy is not dimossi
Originally posted by Christian
Mossy wrote:
Can you explain what you believe the difference between corporeal punishment (we're talking about parent->child here, not child->other child) and abuse is?

Abuse implies going beyond the limit. The fine for running a red light is $500 (assume). Abuse is to be fined $2,000.

Corporeal punishment is appropriate in certain instances. This punishment administered for the wrong offense is abuse, just as getting thrown in jail is abuse if you violation is being parked in a restricted area.


The granularity I was hoping to get to with this question was: specifically when does it become abuse (who defines that limit)? Do you believe that under some circumstances it would be okay to leave bruises on your child? Under some circumstances, would it be okay to make them bleed?

If these questions sound absurd to you (I'm honestly not sure if they do), then please take it as my attempt to get you to elaborate on what, specifically, would consitute abuse.

You have stated to Loki that CP is only appropriate for children between 3 and 8 years old. Two quick questions: how did you determine these ages - there is nothing in the Bible that limits CP to only 3-8 year olds, so why not with a newborn infant, or a 12 year old? Who set these limits?

Again, I'm attempting to get you to draw some clear lines. I can't pretend to draw any, because I don't see any difference between the varying degress of violence (other than the obvious, "one isn't as bad as the other" - which isn't exactly an advocacy).

Mossy wrote:
Then where do you draw the line?

Where do you draw the line of 90 days in jail versus 1 year in jail. There is specific criteria used here. The purpose of physical punishment is to create an effect. This effect can be created without any abuse involved.



Who defines the specific criteria concerning the difference between child abuse and "legitimate" corporeal punishment?

What is this specific criteria?




Mossy wrote:
What is acceptable? Is it the biblical rod?

Yes, the rod is correct.


You believe it is okay to hit a child with a stick (if you have a different/biblical definition for "rod", please clarify)? So apparently when you are talking about a specific criteria (above) and using analogies about other legal situations and punishments, you aren't implying that you agree with the legal definition.

Is there any legal definition of child abuse that excludes hitting your child with sticks?

-Ed

[Ed]

Originally posted by Christian
Ed wrote:
First off, negative reinforcement is a short term learning tool

Yes, this is why the whole penal system all over the world uses it.


sorry, I miss the point. Are you talking about incarceration or beating?


Ed wrote:
Second, would any adult on this board justify inflicting violence on a child? Really? If you feel you have to strike, your parenting skills suck.

Paradox, will you defend me too or do you think I deserve everything that's coming to me.

Oh, one quick question. When does my punishment become abuse? Or any transgression (you perceive) warrants whaever your heart desires.

my belief is that an adult hitting a child is loathsome, regardless of imagined pretext.

It is about on a par with a husband chastizing his wife with a beating.

It illustrates a failure on the part of the parent/husband.

What ever happened to turn the other cheek, or does that refer to methodology.

[Paradox]

Originally posted by Christian
It is not sadistic, no loving parent feels pleasure in this.
If it doesn't give you pleasure to do it, and it is not fundamentally necessary, what is forcing your hand?
Mental understanding is equivalent to verbal skills. This same argument could be used for thieves, don't you think? Instead of throwing them in jail, why don't we just give them motivational speeches?
Do I really have to deconstruct an argument that parallels a child's mistake with crimes perpetrated by crooks?!
Paradox wrote:
Are you saying that christians are/should be permitted to castigate their children in ways that would otherwise be considered abusive?

No.
Okay. your reference to specifically christian instances confused me.
Paradox wrote:
Well, which is it? First it's chrsitians', now it is 'in general'.

You lost me here.
See above.
No I do not. Many parents do, and that would not be inconsistent with my views on CP. CP depends on the type of child one has.
Do you believe certain children are genetically predisposed towards 'naughtiness'?
I can see now that you are fond of this type treatment. If this is one of the way you use to feel superior, I can understand that. Yes Paradox, please forgive me for being and idiot. I was not blessed with your intellect or education.

With all the comments you have made, I have now understood the errors of my ways. I will not do it again, you have taught me a valuable lesson.
Do I take you seriously at your word this time, or do I try to dig for your actual intent as before? My purpose with this issue was not to be 'superior' in any way. I was concerned that a poster was assailed by what seemed to be a blatantly unfair remark. It is my opinion (although I may be wrong) that the way your worded your comment, it was near impossible not to take insultingly. Basic intellect and education would be able to pick this out. I have made no claim about mine.

I could care less if I 'win' or lose this sub-debate. I felt compelled to mention what I thought was a rude comment to a poster who had seemingly done nothing to deserve it. If you're telling me you honestly meant no ill by what you posted, I will trust your word. Do you at least see how easily those words could have been interpreted as offensive?
Ed wrote:
Second, would any adult on this board justify inflicting violence on a child? Really? If you feel you have to strike, your parenting skills suck.

Paradox, will you defend me too or do you think I deserve everything that's coming to me.
No I don't think you 'deserve everything that's coming' to you. Although I don't think Ed's comment was necessarily directed at you. If you said, for instance "I love my child." and someone retorted with '********', I would have a problem. I'll admit that I would have a hard time reconciling said 'love' when pain is made an acceptable part of the relationship, but I would accept your sincerity.
I don't normally react that extremely, but I think it is evident what my reasons were.
Paradox wrote:
Actually, that is not the case. I just had never encountered so insulting a comment as yours.

True or not Stig, I apologize.
Taking for granted, then, that you honestly intended no insult to Stig, I apologize for the comments I made. I made careful notice to mention that I felt that particular comment of yours was what had prompted my reaction (not anything else). Although I did/do not agree with your position concerning the debate, I personally don't consider that to be an excuse for attacking someone. If your intent was not negative in the first place, then the comments don't even apply anyways. In any case, I extend my apologies.

Hopefully we can continue this discussion with, perhaps stern (considering the topic) but not hateful, sentiments.

[Smalso]

"He that spareth his rod hateth his son..."

So, if I don't beat the **** out of my son from time to time with a rod for crying out loud (whatever a "rod" is) then I hate my son. Interesting.

I note also that the quoted verse refers to father-son. Nothing is said about father-daughter, mother-daughter, or mother-son. And it certainly does not address teacher/principal-student.

If I come home from work tomorrow and smack the wife around, then tell the judge, "I was just expressing my love for her," I wonder how that would wash.

Sorry, but I just can't see how beating the crap out of somebody can be an expression of love. Seems sick to me.

[Stig]

Originally posted by Christian
Paradox wrote:
Actually, that is not the case. I just had never encountered so insulting a comment as yours.

True or not Stig, I apologize.

No worries. I may have taken what you meant the wrong way, but you must be careful how you word things sometimes. It is easy to misunderstand the written word at times....

Stig

[Christian]

I have a question.

This is directed to all non-Christians.

If you already know (in case you did not know) that the Christian position is that CP is correct. Why bring the subject up and insult Christian parenting?

I didn't bring the subject up. But these are the comments:
And please note that these are comments on a discipline practice that is done by Christian all over the world. (not that that makes it right or wrong) but that enough people practice it as to warrant a more respectful stance than the following.

Sorry, but I just can't see how beating the crap out of somebody can be an expression of love. Seems sick to me.

my belief is that an adult hitting a child is loathsome, regardless of imagined pretext.

Second, would any adult on this board justify inflicting violence on a child? Really? If you feel you have to strike, your parenting skills suck.

Now, if the matter is so clear cut and you have already decided on it. What is the purpose of bringing the subject up? Specially if it is known that it is a practice performed by most Christians.

Because of the strict adherence to protocol and respect in the thread, I would have to exclude the possibility that it is only brought up as bait so to have the excuse to insult and ridicule the practice thus insulting anyone who does practice it.

And again, I repeat, no atheist poster has demonstrated that they have a working knowledge of the Christian practice, principles involved, etc.

And with the comments to my attempt to make an introduction to the subject, I only get biased and pejorative remarks.

Before I go any further, I'm will discuss with posters that have the sincere purpose to first understand or can show respect for parents that do believe in this practice. I will ignore all other posters (besides, to them is so clear and evident that why would they even want to bother with the subject)

[Smalso]

While you're at it, you may as well ignore all the non-Christians who like to smack their kids around. I disagree with them, too. And no matter how many quotations from the Bible you want to throw in, I can find quotations from other books with a lot more credibility than the Bible. While you're at it, why not quote Ex. 21:15, Lev. 20:9, and Dt. 21:18-21; which command that disobedient and disrespectful children be put to death? That would REALLY show your love for them.

[Paradox]

Originally posted by Christian
I have a question.

This is directed to all non-Christians.

If you already know (in case you did not know) that the Christian position is that CP is correct.
I did not know this. Is this actually the case? Do all sects of christianity openly espouse this view? Certainly it's crazy to say that, definitely, all christians do.
Why bring the subject up and insult Christian parenting?
If any portion of 'christian parenting' supports the use of a dubious method of discipline, it should be appropriately criticized. This goes for parenting of any description.
Now, if the matter is so clear cut and you have already decided on it. What is the purpose of bringing the subject up? Specially if it is known that it is a practice performed by most Christians.
The point of any debate, IMO, is to think about why things the way they are, and whether current standards happen to be logical if not simply decent. An argumentum ad populum does not credibly support the sensibility of a position.
Because of the strict adherence to protocol and respect in the thread, I would have to exclude the possibility that it is only brought up as bait so to have the excuse to insult and ridicule the practice thus insulting anyone who does practice it.
It may seem that way. You have to realize you are dealing with a very volatile and sensitive issue. A lot of people do not distinguish between abuse and spanking. Their position may very well be justified. Would you be surprised to see potentially aggressive reactions to people who condone slapping their spouses as ways to solve arguments? Even if you personally don't consider the parallel to be acurate, others may.

Simply put, violence in any fashion is disturbing. This is especially the case if it involves children.
And again, I repeat, no atheist poster has demonstrated that they have a working knowledge of the Christian practice, principles involved, etc.
This is entirely irrelevant. Unless you condone such judgments as the one described in the "Girl Gang-Raped by Order of Pakistani Tribal Jury (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5259)" thread in the Politics and Current Events board. Considering the decisions there were made within the confines of certain cultural mores (and/or religious ideas) this should be a permissible means of discipline, no?

Whether the bible directly and specifically tells you to beat your children or not is absolutely unimportant to the issue of whether it is a satisfactory method of either discipline, or of plain behaviour at all.
And with the comments to my attempt to make an introduction to the subject, I only get biased and pejorative remarks.
For the same reason that someone advocating any sort of violent behavior would be. Take a meander over to any of the 'death penalty' threads that come up. It is not bias towards you so much as it is distaste for the methods you espouse.
Before I go any further, I'm will discuss with posters that have the sincere purpose to first understand or can show respect for parents that do believe in this practice.
First, I think, it should be determined if such actions warrant respect in the first place.
I will ignore all other posters (besides, to them is so clear and evident that why would they even want to bother with the subject).
Sure, maybe someone not seemingly willing to change their mind about something may not be open-minded (assuming that sensible arguments criticising their position have even been proposed in the first place), however that doesn't mean this person cannot still contribute information to the discussion.

As with most other debatable claims, what will be ascertained is the logic, or lack thereof, of a certain position. This will not show who has changed their mind or not...but it will show who abandons said logic in order to retain their views.

[Christian]

Paradox wrote:
did not know this. Is this actually the case? Do all sects of christianity openly espouse this view? Certainly it's crazy to say that, definitely, all christians do.

I can't speak for all Christians, I'm sure it is the position of the Protestant and Catholic church and the US Supreme Court.

Paradox wrote:
If any portion of 'christian parenting' supports the use of a dubious method of discipline, it should be appropriately criticized. This goes for parenting of any description.

To criticizes is one thing, to insult is another. The position is not being criticized, it is being insulted, attacked, chasticed.

Paradox wrote:
The point of any debate, IMO, is to think about why things the way they are, and whether current standards happen to be logical if not simply decent. An argumentum ad populum does not credibly support the sensibility of a position.

You are forgetting one important aspect, as I said before, I'm not using the argument of the masses in this case, I'm stating that the practice is widespread because it is a sanctioned practice not only in Churches but in secular legislation.

This is a US statistic taken from
Statistic on Spanking (http://www.cee.odu.edu/sunny/in/stat.html):
Over 50% believe in spanking---but only a child over 2 years old

If you want to talk strict shop, your's is just an uninformed opinion, a poor one at that. Jurisprudence is not on your side. It is your views that are seen as extremist or radical, not mine. If the Supreme Court of the US agrees with my position, I think I have a fair handle on the issue.

That you don't like it or don't agree with it is just noise on the grand scale of most world's legislation. And this is not an argument of the masses. This is how the law of most countries in the world see it, including the one where you post you live.

US legislation on CP (http://www.pacificjustice.org/articles_2.html)

From there:
Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court has stated, "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first with the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944).

A corollary to this fundamental principle is that parents have broad discretion in the disciplining of their children and are allowed to use corporal punishment. Under California state law, a parent has the right to reasonably discipline a child by physical punishment and may administer reasonable punishment without being liable for battery. People v. Whitehurst, 9 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1050 (1992). In order to be considered disciplinary the punishment must be necessary (i.e. there must be behavior by the child deserving punishment), and the punishment must be reasonable (i.e not excessive). Id. It is important to remember that the reasonableness of the punishment will be judged by a third party and it does not matter if the parent believes the punishment was reasonable.

So as you can see, my initial comparisons to criminal actions was appropriate. The law already imposes criteria including being reasonable or it being necessary.

So, if anybody wants to ask what is reasonable, there is a legal standard. This means people, the are objective elements that determine what is reasonable or when it is appropriate.

The law is on my side in this regards, and it is not a matter of social customs or religious rituals.

Paradox wrote:
It may seem that way. You have to realize you are dealing with a very volatile and sensitive issue. A lot of people do not distinguish between abuse and spanking. Their position may very well be justified. Would you be surprised to see potentially aggressive reactions to people who condone slapping their spouses as ways to solve arguments? Even if you personally don't consider the parallel to be acurate, others may.

We don't have wonder about the validity of these types of ridiculous comparisons (I'm sorry, this is not my view, it is the view in your country). The law already provides us with strict guideliness, whether you like it or not. CP to children is very much legal, CP to wife is not. It doesn't get any more objective than this.

Paradox wrote:
Simply put, violence in any fashion is disturbing. This is especially the case if it involves children.

This is just your opinion, it is not backed up by any legislation in your country. Which means not only are you out of touch with the legal system in your country in this specific issue(anything disturbing to most viewers would probably be deemed offensive thus illegal in your country, if you didn't know this) but the community of judges and appointed guardians of society don't agree with you.

Paradox wrote:
This is entirely irrelevant. Unless you condone such judgments as the one described in the "Girl Gang-Raped by Order of Pakistani Tribal Jury" thread in the Politics and Current Events board. Considering the decisions there were made within the confines of certain cultural mores (and/or religious ideas) this should be a permissible means of discipline, no?

Another ridiculous comparison, your government does not see it as irrelevant either. It makes clear distintions between discipline to children with CP and rape. If you can't see the distinction, it is your shortcoming.

Paradox wrote:
Whether the bible directly and specifically tells you to beat your children or not is absolutely unimportant to the issue of whether it is a satisfactory method of either discipline, or of plain behaviour at all.

The US Supreme Court specifically allows it. So you are right, the Bible is unimportant in the matter of whether it is satisfactory or not.

Paradox wrote:
First, I think, it should be determined if such actions warrant respect in the first place.

Your legal system has a very specific standard of what is decent and what is obscene. Your society as a whole says it warrants respect. And in this case, the argument of the masses is valid.

What this means is that if you were to try to stop a parent from administering CP to his child, the parent could theoretically put you in jail for violating his right to privacy. It does not any more clear cut than this.

Paradox wrote:
but it will show who abandons said logic in order to retain their views.

Clearly.

[Ed]

I am not sure that I understand this.

It is alright to beat a child with a rod because the Bible says so? Is this correct?

An adult can beat a child because the bible says so?

This is a yes or no.

[Loki]

Christian,

If you already know (in case you did not know) that the Christian position is that CP is correct. Why bring the subject up and insult Christian parenting?

I was not aware that the Catholic church has an 'official' stance on this - your comments have come as a surprise to me (not for the first time). I will do some investigfatin to see what I think the view might be within the Australian religious community - that is, is there (a) no official postion; (b) an official 'yes'; or (c) and official 'no'. I would expect to find the anser is 'a', but your comments suggest I am wrong. Leave it with me.

On the subject of US law regarding CP...

Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court has stated, "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first with the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944).

A corollary to this fundamental principle is that parents have broad discretion in the disciplining of their children and are allowed to use corporal punishment. Under California state law, a parent has the right to reasonably discipline a child by physical punishment and may administer reasonable punishment without being liable for battery. People v. Whitehurst, 9 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1050 (1992). In order to be considered disciplinary the punishment must be necessary (i.e. there must be behavior by the child deserving punishment), and the punishment must be reasonable (i.e not excessive). Id. It is important to remember that the reasonableness of the punishment will be judged by a third party and it does not matter if the parent believes the punishment was reasonable.
You need to note Christian that the law clearly saws that 'reasonable' is *not* the parent's domain - the '3rd party' is the state. And this changes over time. This clearly means that whether *you* consider a 'rod' reasonable or not is immaterial - if the state decides the "rod" is not acceptable, then it's not.

That's the issue under discussion here - what does society consider 'reasonable', and why. One extreme is that the only reasonable level is "none". The other extreme is "anything goes". US law currently draws a line somewhere between these extremes. The line moves over time. Which way should it move, and why? Your position seems clear - the line must never be positioned in such a way that prevents you from administering CP with a 'rod', and you justification for this is that the bible says it's the correct thing to do.

By the way, could you describe what you use as a 'rod' when you administer CP?

[Loki]

Christian,

A first quick search has thrown up little information - I suspect this is becasue there is no official church stance on Corporal Punishment within the family, but I'll keep looking (a little). There *is* an official stance in Australia for CP in Catholic private schools :

Catholic Schools In Australia (http://www.ceo.syd.catholic.edu.au/html/faq.html#no.8)

Catholic schools expect high standards of student behaviour and appearance. It is the partnership between students, staff and parents, plus a common value system, that promote harmony in Catholic schools.
Each school develops a pastoral care policy which encourages positive discipline, involving programs which develop high self-esteem and self-discipline in students. In some cases, the students themselves contribute to discipline policies.
Corporal punishment is not used in Catholic schools.

This is a far cry from my days in a Catholic private school in the 70's - the use of the strap and even the cane was almost a daily event. Times have changed, and the church no longer accepts CP within it's educational institutions.

(Edited to add):

Found this on "religiousTolerance.org". It would appear that the change in the Catholic school position has been taken under duress, rather than willingly.

2000-DEC-12: Australia: Spanking of students being phased out: Prior to 1995, schools in this country were allowed to use straps, canes, or lightweight wooden paddles to hit students as a method of discipline. Since 1995, a new state law has forbidden such corporal punishment. 51 private Christian schools in the state have complied with the law, with some reluctance. The remaining two private Christian schools in New South Wales, Sunderland Shire Christian School and Nambucca Valley Christian Community School, refuse to conform to the law. They state that they are simply disciplining children according to biblical principles, and that state interference outlawing this practice is unacceptable. The government has given Sunderland Shire Christian School until 2001-MAR to comply with the law; the deadline for Nambucca Valley Christian Community School is the end of December. If they do not comply, then they will be de-certified. This would mean a loss in funding and denial of the right for their students to take public examinations. The latter are necessary for students to obtain an official graduation certificate.
Duncan McInnes, heads the New South Wales Parent’s Council. He said that corporal punishment is "... a moral issue and schools should have the right to decide for themselves. There are enough safeguards in the child protection legislation to ensure they are not being abused physically." , Neville Pollard, education director for Christian Community Schools, a state umbrella organization, defended corporal punishment. He said: "If given lovingly and carefully, it’s a very viable method of punishment."

[Paradox]

Originally posted by Christian
I can't speak for all Christians, I'm sure it is the position of the Protestant and Catholic church and the US Supreme Court.
According to some catholics, the church's position "is not as obvious or immediate." A view on CP by a christian:
http://www.nospank.net/popcak.htm

In addition, it appears not to be supported at all by Methodists...
http://www.indcatholicnews.com/methodists.html

..and although this particular issue revolves specifically around the allowance of such practices in schools (not necessarily in the home) you can also feel free to add:
"Anglican; Apostolic; Assemblies of God; Associated Churches of Christ; Baptist; Brethren; Congregational; Churches of Christ...New Life Churches; Presbyterian; Salvation Army; Religious Society of Friends"

to the list of denominations who seem to have at least some problem with the issue.

http://www.socialissues.godzone.net.nz/submissions/smedcorp92.htm
To criticizes is one thing, to insult is another. The position is not being criticized, it is being insulted, attacked, chasticed.
The position, yes. As it should be if it merits such responses. So long as the position is being attacked, and not the person. (Although, the irony of this is, that, applying this idea in general, those who do support CP should not feel bothered by being punished for their positions! It is an acceptable form of discipline, after all! :D )
You are forgetting one important aspect, as I said before, I'm not using the argument of the masses in this case, I'm stating that the practice is widespread because it is a sanctioned practice not only in Churches but in secular legislation.

If you want to talk strict shop, your's is just an uninformed opinion, a poor one at that. Jurisprudence is not on your side. It is your views that are seen as extremist or radical, not mine.
That 'widespread', commonplace notion is dwindling year after year.

http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/familydevelopment/components/7266b.html

Seems 'my' 'extremist or radical' views are gaining popularity, and it is you who are (or at least, if trend follows, will be) in the minority.
If the Supreme Court of the US agrees with my position, I think I have a fair handle on the issue.
Even using the U.S. Supreme Court as the pillar for an appeal to authority won't strengthen your argument. Just in case you wanted to rely on this, though

"Mrs. Sweaney appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the theory that qualified immunity was not applicable because of the deputy's conduct violated an alleged parental right, under the U.S. Constitution's Court and Fourteenth Amendments, to inflict corporal punishment upon the parent's child. Mrs. Sweaney predicated her theory on federal court cases which deal with various aspects of parental rights under the Constitution but none of which specifically consider the right to strike a child without being the subject to criminal investigation and charges. The Court of Appeals refused to find that more general parental constitutional rights- such as the right to bring the children or a right to privacy- clearly establish a federal constitutional right in parents to corporally punish their children." (emphasis mine)

http://www.stophitting.com/laws/legalNews.php

That you don't like it or don't agree with it is just noise on the grand scale of most world's legislation. And this is not an argument of the masses. This is how the law of most countries in the world see it, including the one where you post you live.
I thought we were abandoning the arguments of popular opinion...?
So as you can see, my initial comparisons to criminal actions was appropriate. The law already imposes criteria including being reasonable or it being necessary.

So, if anybody wants to ask what is reasonable, there is a legal standard. This means people, the are objective elements that determine what is reasonable or when it is appropriate.

The law is on my side in this regards, and it is not a matter of social customs or religious rituals.
As seen above, the law is not necessarily on your side.
We don't have wonder about the validity of these types of ridiculous comparisons (I'm sorry, this is not my view, it is the view in your country).
I've deconstructed your repeated references to popular opinions, either in this country or not, to the point of irreducibility. Not that they provided anything solid in the first place. However, if you fancy these majority opinions so much, why don't I make a poll as to how many posters here would consider that 'ridiculous' analogy to be actually ridiculous?
Another ridiculous comparison, your government does not see it as irrelevant either. It makes clear distintions between discipline to children with CP and rape. If you can't see the distinction, it is your shortcoming.
What my government sees as irrelevant IS irrelevant. We are speaking of what 'ought' to be, not what is. The anaology was not meant to specifically draw parallels in the degree of 'punishment', but the reasons that a punishment is allowed in the first place. If you were not able to see this, "it is your shortcoming".
Your legal system has a very specific standard of what is decent and what is obscene. Your society as a whole says it warrants respect. And in this case, the argument of the masses is valid.
No, we have not determined that the legal system has a 'very specific standard' at all. Even if it did, you're still using the same tired argument. For pete's sake, segregation and slavery used to be supported by legal systems and popular opinion. That you rest the brunt of your case on the infallibility of the modern judicial system is sad.Particularly the case, when studies focused not necessarily on the detriments of spanking, but the positives of non-spanking seem to show such methods as more fruitful:

http://silcon.com/~ptave/straus3.htm
Paradox wrote:
but it will show who abandons said logic in order to retain their views.

Clearly.
2 points for witty rebuttal, -8 for substance.

[Smalso]

This just in:

Two Texas Christian preachers loved an eleven-year-old boy so much that one held him down while the other beat him with what could be considered a "rod" causing severe damage to the boy's kidneys. Warrants have been issued for the arrest of the two.

Film at eleven.

[Smalso]

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47187-2002Jul9.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47187-2002Jul9.html)

[Mossy]

Originally posted by Smalso
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47187-2002Jul9.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47187-2002Jul9.html)

Wonderful:


"My son would've used a thin switch, that I'm positive of," he told the television station. He added: "My policy would've never been on the back like that ever. It would've been on the bottom."


Well that's nice, isn't it? Beat him? Sure that's fine, just do it somewhere that won't leave him in a hospital. That makes it okay.

This is the problem, Christian, both you and the men in this story use the same biblical justification. Specifically, it sounds like you're saying that you agree with the father who I quoted above.

If you don't want to continue the discussion with me, because I find this morally (yes, morally) nauseating, that's your choice. I won't pretend to "respect" the rights of these men, or their father that taught them "a thin switch... on the bottom" is a good teaching tool. A thin switch leaves bruises, it can sometimes leave blood - is that okay? You never answered my questions earlier and haven't provided the specific line between CP and abuse:

(in the context of CP)
Is it sometimes okay to leave bruises on your child?
Is it sometimes okay to cause bleeding?

Do you honestly now want to use the current American legal standard as the definition of what is "okay" (let's ignore, for a second, the fact that the current legal standard is dramatically changed from where it was just 30 years ago)? The difference between morality that evolves with society, and morality sent down from God is that men can learn they were mistaken. Happens all the time. Can I beat my slaves now? Oh wait, I can't even OWN slaves now, why? Because man's law has evolved, become more humane. Human morality can do that. God's law only changes when the men interpreting change.

I won't pretend, even for a second, to respect anyone (yes, I'm addressing the person now) who believes it is okay to hit a 3-8 year old child with a stick to teach them the error of their ways.

Rather than be indignant with us for pointing out the cruelty and hypocrasy in the position, defend your position.

If my puppy ***** on the carpet, can I legally hit him with a stick to the point of causing pain? No. Don't believe me? Try it. Will he learn if I do hit him with the stick? Certainly, but who cares? Of course cruelty is an effective way to teach, but is it a humane way? Is it there not a better way?

Now, if I can't legally hit my puppy with a stick (with the intent of causing pain), then why should I be allowed to hit a child?

-Ed

[Christian]

Loki wrote:
You need to note Christian that the law clearly saws that 'reasonable' is *not* the parent's domain - the '3rd party' is the state. And this changes over time. This clearly means that whether *you* consider a 'rod' reasonable or not is immaterial - if the state decides the "rod" is not acceptable, then it's not.

This is mere speculation on your part with regards to the rod. *Reasonable* is a clear legal standard that is considered understood by any normal person. I didn't make this up. A third party (this case a judge) will intervene if there is a dispute over what is reasonable.

And we don't have to guess what the judge's elements of judment will be. They are clear and objective.

Loki wrote:
That's the issue under discussion here - what does society consider 'reasonable', and why.

Only if you are ignorant of the standard. If you are not, the discussion can also include a critizism of the standard.

Loki wrote:
One extreme is that the only reasonable level is "none". The other extreme is "anything goes". US law currently draws a line somewhere between these extremes. The line moves over time. Which way should it move, and why? Your position seems clear - the line must never be positioned in such a way that prevents you from administering CP with a 'rod', and you justification for this is that the bible says it's the correct thing to do.

1) US laws does not allow any distinction of extremes, the standard is clear and objective
2)There is no somewhere between extremes in US law.
3) I believe there is a right to privacy that allows me to use CP as long as I don't violate the standards of Law.
4) My justification is that it works. It is a positive effective tool in child rearing.

Loki wrote:
By the way, could you describe what you use as a 'rod' when you administer CP?

I use a paddle.


In case you are wondering about the standard, this is the US standard:

The factors usually taken into consideration to determine whether a punishment is excessive are:

1) Whether a mark is left and the length of time the mark remains after the punishment.
2) Whether the physical force was applied out of anger.
3) The age of the child.
4) Whether the punishment had a traumatic impact on the child.

In addition, section 273d of the California Penal Code prohibits willful infliction of a traumatic condition by cruel or inhuman corporal punishment. "Traumatic condition" is defined as "a wound or abnormal bodily condition resulting from the application of some external force." People v. Stewart, 188 C.A.2d 88, 91 (1961).

The law appears more concerned with the reasonableness of the punishment under the circumstances, and whether the child is physically injured, than with what is used to spank a child. The likelihood of injury (traumatic condition) is not automatically determined by whether an empty hand or an object is used to spanking a child. A fist can be used to inflict a "traumatic condition" if the blow results in a swollen eye, a cut and swollen lip on a child. See People v. Thomas, 65 C.A.3d 854 (1977).

Finally, although spanking a child in public may result in complaints being filed with Child Protective Services by third parties, there is no state law prohibiting spanking in public.

If you note the standard, the right to privacy is even upheld in public. This is extremely rare and it's a testament to the validity of the practice.

Loki wrote:
A first quick search has thrown up little information - I suspect this is becasue there is no official church stance on Corporal Punishment within the family, but I'll keep looking (a little). There *is* an official stance in Australia for CP in Catholic private schools :

I'm not interested or care to debate on CP in schools. It is a non-issue. I believe no one but the parent has the authority to administer CP on a child.


Paradox wrote:
So long as the position is being attacked, and not the person.

I'm going to be nicer to you than you were to me, and say that it should be obvious to you that by attacking the position, you are attacking the practitioners of the position. You are insulting them when you compare them to rapists or wife beaters.

From your link:
In terms of actual practice, studies generally show corporal punishment (especially spanking) to be widely used, with some 90% of parents (or children) reporting having used it at least once.

So according to your link, 90% of parents in the US are comparable to rapists and wife beaters.

Paradox wrote:
As seen above, the law is not necessarily on your side.

Yes, it is. Your link clearly shows that.

Paradox wrote:
if you fancy these majority opinions so much, why don't I make a poll as to how many posters here would consider that 'ridiculous' analogy to be actually ridiculous?

They are ridiculous whetever you see it or not. And that is the softest word at the risk of offending you. The penalty for rape in some states (Massachusetts e.g.) is 20 years in prison. In your link a mother stricking a child with a belt 6-7 times was considered a possible misdemeanor and after admitting to it was acquitted. This meaning that the jury and judge agreed that these actions did not constitute even a misdemeanor.

Paradox wrote:
What my government sees as irrelevant IS irrelevant.

Please forgive if I disagree with you. Who said that the debate will show who abandons said logic in order to retain their views.

I for one, am very interested in what my government considers relenvant or irrelevant. They have the powet to throw in jail if I don't agree to abide by its rules.

Paradox wrote:
That you rest the brunt of your case on the infallibility of the modern judicial system is sad.

This is a strawman. I have never said that modern judicial system is infallible.

The only reason why I have brought all these facts out is bring down the pejorative tone from your side.

I think it only has served as a buffer. And I think it is working, now posters are starting to concentrate on the pros and cons of the practice in an objective way. With a loaded atmosphere it is impossible to bring out the positive aspects of any subject.

Paradox wrote:
Particularly the case, when studies focused not necessarily on the detriments of spanking, but the positives of non-spanking seem to show such methods as more fruitful:

Now we are on to the right track. I very much like to discuss the pros and cons. As I said at the beginning: Methodology. I assure you, if you have an open mind you will find the ideas interesting and educational. Not that you are not or can't be fully knowledgable in child rearing but, I mean the Christian perspective of child education.

Paradox wrote:
2 points for witty rebuttal, -8 for substance.

Coming from you, this is the highest compliment :D. I prefer this much better than anus ;)

[Christian]

Mossy, I'm trying (very hard) not to ignore you. I think in my last post I responded to some of your questions in my responses to Loki and Paradox.

I really want to continue on to methodology if we can get passed this.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Christian
I for one, am very interested in what my government considers relenvant or irrelevant. They have the powet to throw in jail if I don't agree to abide by its rules.



Argumentum ad Baculum? :D

[Mossy]

Originally posted by Christian
I really want to continue on to methodology if we can get passed this.

Regardless of my distaste for the position you hold, the methodolgy is exactly what I'm trying to get at. You have stated:

- The Bible does advocate spanking children with an object (for you, you interpret this to be a paddle).
- The appropriate age range for CP is 3-8 years old.
- The current American legal standard supports your right to discipline your children using this method (as long as you don't inflict a traumatic condition).

The specific questions I'm asking, in an attempt to get a better idea of what this exactly means to you is:

- Are there certain circumstances that make it okay to leave bruises on your child (which paddles have been known to do)?
- Are there certain circumstances that make it okay for you to draw blood (which switches and rods have been known to do)?
- How did you ascertain the ages 3-8 as the appropriate ages (it says nothing about this in the Bible, unless I am mistaken)? Why is it not okay to paddle a 2 year old child or a 9 year old child?
- Since you have used to the current American legal standard: if that standard continues to change as it has been over the last thirty years, will you change your position? If the courts decide that spanking is abuse, will you discontinue your practice of it?

-Ed

[Christian]

Martinm wrote:
Argumentum ad Baculum?

Interesting you mention this. A fun fact in jurisprudence is that the State is the only sanction authority that can *legally* coerse anyone. :(

[Christian]

Mossy wrote:
Regardless of my distaste for the position you hold, the methodolgy is exactly what I'm trying to get at.

I think I need to explain this a little further. When I say methodology, I don't mean CP methodology, I mean child rearing methodology. CP may constitute 5% of the methodology. Once you understand how it fits in the whole structure then you can ascertain its effectiveness.

Oh by the way, I'm sorry for having confused you with another poster.

Mossy wrote:
Are there certain circumstances that make it okay to leave bruises on your child (which paddles have been known to do)?

No.

Mossy wrote:
- Are there certain circumstances that make it okay for you to draw blood (which switches and rods have been known to do)?

No.

Mossy wrote:
- How did you ascertain the ages 3-8 as the appropriate ages (it says nothing about this in the Bible, unless I am mistaken)? Why is it not okay to paddle a 2 year old child or a 9 year old child?

To answer this question properly we need to get into methodology. Then, the answer will make more sense.

The Bible is a guide. It gives us principles. A book on general human anatomy will not be as precise as a specializes book on the heart.

Mossy wrote:
Since you have used to the current American legal standard: if that standard continues to change as it has been over the last thirty years, will you change your position? If the courts decide that spanking is abuse, will you discontinue your practice of it?

I don't think the standard has changed that much. Remember school CP is not comtemplated anywhere in the Bible. Throughtout history up till today, the right to parenting is a cornerstone of the right to privacy in most States in the world.

But, I will humor you. I suppose if I lived in Denmark where it is not allowed, the Bible teaches that I must obey the laws of the land.

[Paradox]

Originally posted by Christian
I'm going to be nicer to you than you were to me, and say that it should be obvious to you that by attacking the position, you are attacking the practitioners of the position. You are insulting them when you compare them to rapists or wife beaters.
I don't want to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to determine who is or is not at fault for the way arguments are attacked. Simply, I cannot control what positions you choose to espouse. If I find the notion of dowsing to be preposterous and infantile, this does not mean I am attacking dowsers. I find it hard to balance the debate in such a way as to not censure my opinions (which I shall endeavor to substantiate at every turn), yet at the same time not performing an act you have delineated as insulting (to yourself and to CP practitioners). I don't find violence necessary ever and my comments about CP may very well showcase this. At least, for the puspoes of civility in the debate, if you would understand that, at least to me, there is a clear line of permissibility between attacking a position and attacking a person, it would be appreciated. (I think I may just have spent an inordinate amount of time with this...*sigh*...figures!)
So according to your link, 90% of parents in the US are comparable to rapists and wife beaters.
No...according to the link, "70-90% (a bit generous, if not selective, in highlighting the higher extreme, maybe...weren't you?) of parents believing it is sometimes "necessary to discipline children with a good, hard spanking".

Now, if you were making mention of how you thought I intepret this, as per my analogies, no. According to the link, in my point of view, 70-90% of parents commit acts of violence which they consider excusable.
Yes, it is. Your link clearly shows that.
Did you miss the part that dismisses your supposed 'standard'? Here it is again:

"The Court of Appeals refused to find that more general parental constitutional rights- such as the right to bring the children or a right to privacy- clearly establish a federal constitutional right in parents to corporally punish their children."
They are ridiculous whetever you see it or not. And that is the softest word at the risk of offending you. The penalty for rape in some states (Massachusetts e.g.) is 20 years in prison. In your link a mother stricking a child with a belt 6-7 times was considered a possible misdemeanor and after admitting to it was acquitted. This meaning that the jury and judge agreed that these actions did not constitute even a misdemeanor.
1) You've, again, missed the point I was trying to make with said analogy, but since my explanations of it don't seem to be working, I'll just let it go as far as that aspect is concerned.
2) That it could even be considered a 'possible misdemeanor' is enough to provide reason for generous introspection.
3) That it was acquitted or not...or found to be a misdemeanor or not, do not, still, say anything as to whether they should be.
Please forgive if I disagree with you. Who said that the debate will show who abandons said logic in order to retain their views.
Are you saying an appeal to authority is a logical form of debate?
Can the government be 'wrong' about something? If it can, then using their supposed support as a method by which to strengthen an argument is pointless. We are here to debate if CP is an appropriate method of child-rearing, not if the government currently espouses such ideas. In this respect, it is as pertinent to the discussion as whether L. Ron Hubbard espoused CP.
I for one, am very interested in what my government considers relenvant or irrelevant. They have the powet to throw in jail if I don't agree to abide by its rules.
Argument from adverse consequences? Wasn't it the claimed messiah of your religion/spirituality that defied the law of his time (at the expense oh his life) to further a cause? Not to say that the first person to martyr themselves for a position concerning CP will automatically grant victory for his/her 'side', but that my government can jail me for something STILL does not establish if it is logical and sensible. If I had a bit more energy right now, I'd pick out some of the references to 'Silly Laws' (a thread in banter) to showcase some nonsense that I can be jailed for, which would be ludicrous to agree with.
This is a strawman. I have never said that modern judicial system is infallible.
True, you didn't. However, your continued references to it's claimed support of the position lead me to believe you consider it to be a boon to your cause...inferring, indirectly, that it must indeed be 'right' about it's position, for no reason other than that it is the judicial system/government.
The only reason why I have brought all these facts out is bring down the pejorative tone from your side.
In that case, in hopes that you feel this 'tone' is no longer disparaging to the point of fruitless debate, can we dispense with irrelevant 'facts' and get to the issues?
I think it only has served as a buffer. And I think it is working, now posters are starting to concentrate on the pros and cons of the practice in an objective way. With a loaded atmosphere it is impossible to bring out the positive aspects of any subject.
So long as everyone is starting to feel more comfortable and less personally threatened, wonderful.
Now we are on to the right track. I very much like to discuss the pros and cons. As I said at the beginning: Methodology. I assure you, if you have an open mind you will find the ideas interesting and educational.
Are you suggesting that if I don't agree with your ideas and/or find them educational or interesting, I don't have an open mind? Can we forego (as you suggested earlier) the comments concerning what the opposition 'is' if they don't agree with the 'other side's' position, and just try to present the points in favor of each view?
Not that you are not or can't be fully knowledgable in child rearing but, I mean the Christian perspective of child education.
Okay. Call it a pet peeve of mine, but let's start by clarifying what it is you're debating. My position, is, simply, that:

CP is an unecessary and antiquated form of discipline. It is an accepted form of violence...one that isn't even prompted by an initial act of violence (it's not defensive). There is no reason why a competent parent should have to resort to CP. I think it healthier for all parties involved if child-rearing is performed sans CP.

Now, what exactly are you saying? Are you supporting the reason for which CP is acceptable, period? Are you supporting why it is logical for christians to espouse this view? Your switching from 'christian' examples to general ones is confusing me as to what your basic point is. I would appreciate it if you could clarify which (if any) you are supporting and, if necessary, we'll separate the topics into two (or more, as necessary) sub-discussions.
Coming from you, this is the highest compliment :D. I prefer this much better than anus ;)
:p Noted...and agreed. :) On a side note, does this mean you ocassionally do prefer 'anus'..."jelly or syrup"?

(Disregard comment if you are unfamiliar with the comedy routine to which the comment refers...and maybe also in case you find it, for some reason, to be repulsively offensive.)

[Ed]

Am I the only one to find this thread bizarre? Here we have a christian espousing violence against children and at least one atheist that finds it repugnant. How curious.

So, the bottom line is that a 160 pound man is justified in beating a 35 pound child. And perform such beatings as the result of considered judgement. And the bible justifies this.

I find it sick. Perhaps some classes in effective parenting might be in order.

[Christian]

Paradox wrote:
Are you suggesting that if I don't agree with your ideas and/or find them educational or interesting, I don't have an open mind?

You are good for my communication skills. I could have worded that better.

Paradox wrote:
Now, what exactly are you saying? Are you supporting the reason for which CP is acceptable, period? Are you supporting why it is logical for christians to espouse this view? Your switching from 'christian' examples to general ones is confusing me as to what your basic point is. I would appreciate it if you could clarify which (if any) you are supporting and, if necessary, we'll separate the topics into two (or more, as necessary) sub-discussions.

According to Christian teaching, CP should be used rarely, but it is a necessary tool. The less it is used, the more effective it is. With some children, it is never warranted, with some children it is.

There are specific guideliness for CP. Let me give you 2 important ones.

1) The only instance where CP should be used is when there is defiance from the child in your presence. Defiance is the specific time when a child disregards with full intention your authority in your face and challenges you.

2) CP must never be used for any spontenous misbehavior in presence or absense of parent.

[Paradox]

Originally posted by Christian

According to Christian teaching, CP should be used rarely, but it is a necessary tool. The less it is used, the more effective it is. With some children, it is never warranted, with some children it is.
This brings up an important question, IMO.

Do you believe certain children are genetically predisposed to being 'naughty'?

[Paradox]

Originally posted by Ed
Am I the only one to find this thread bizarre? Here we have a christian espousing violence against children and at least one atheist that finds it repugnant. How curious.
:D

[Loki]

Christian,

In the limited time available at the moment I have not been able to find any info that the Catholic or Anglican churches in Australia actively promote/teach CP as a parenting style. I have never heard of this before, and can't find any 'official' support - but that doesn't mean it isn't so, so I'm going to drop it for now (I doubt you or I are all that interested in pursuing this?).

This is mere speculation on your part with regards to the rod. *Reasonable* is a clear legal standard that is considered understood by any normal person. I didn't make this up. A third party (this case a judge) will intervene if there is a dispute over what is reasonable.
...
1) US laws does not allow any distinction of extremes, the standard is clear and objective
2)There is no somewhere between extremes in US law.
...
You misunderstand my point in regard to 'extremes'. I agree that as far as the law is concerned, CP is not a 'range' of behaviours. What I was trying to convey is that there is a range of possible behaviours that a parent can choose from - from "no CP" to "beat the child unconscious". The current US law is a line somewhere in that range - as you point out, there are guidelines to establish what this is. My point is simply that this line moves, and is moving. Why does it move, and in what direction should it move?

I'm not interested or care to debate on CP in schools. It is a non-issue. I believe no one but the parent has the authority to administer CP on a child.
Once again, you put yourself at odds with the established christian churches. The only direct support for CP from the major Australian churches that I can find relates to their belief that CP is "valid and acceptable" within private schools. This position is clear, and the practise has only been stopped since specific laws were passed to prevent it. The Catholic and Anglican church organisations in Australia are still unhappy about this, and are actively trying to get an 'exemption' from the law. You believe they are wrong, and that they have no right to administer CP.

Okay - a non-issue then, since you and I both believe that CP is inappropriate in schools. But again, you should note that the Catholic and Anglican churches disagree with you (and I).

This thread is really about 'biblical support for CP', and we see that :
(a) you claim biblical support for parental CP,
(b) the major Australian christian churches claim biblical support for school CP (which you reject).
This seems to demonstrate a key point - the inherent dangers of biblical interpretation to establish acceptable behaviour.

When I say methodology, I don't mean CP methodology, I mean child rearing methodology. CP may constitute 5% of the methodology. Once you understand how it fits in the whole structure then you can ascertain its effectiveness.
And here's the irony - I suspect that you and I might agree on as much as 95% of your 'child rearing methodology' (well, maybe 80%?). But no matter how string a disciplinarian you wish to be as a parent, CP is *not* necessary.

The only instance where CP should be used is when there is defiance from the child in your presence. Defiance is the specific time when a child disregards with full intention your authority in your face and challenges you.
Been there, and didn't use CP to resolve it. I read the 'summary' on Amazon for the book you suggested Christian ("Dare to Discipline"). This is exactly the example given there - a child openly defying the mother. The author paints a picture of two possible appraoches - CP, or the mother capitulating. It's a false dilemma. There are any number of alternatives that will produce the same positive outcome but minus the side effect of the implied "initiating violence can be acceptable" message that CP sends.

My daughter has done this, and I can assure you that (a) CP was not needed and (b) the lesson was learned (by her) that she loses far more than she gains through such behaviour.

(From Paradox) : CP is an unecessary and antiquated form of discipline. It is an accepted form of violence...one that isn't even prompted by an initial act of violence (it's not defensive). There is no reason why a competent parent should have to resort to CP. I think it healthier for all parties involved if child-rearing is performed sans CP.

Perfectly summed up Paradox - 100% agreement.

(Edited to correct the spelling of 'Paradox')

[Ed]

Originally posted by Christian

According to Christian teaching, CP should be used rarely, but it is a necessary tool. The less it is used, the more effective it is. With some children, it is never warranted, with some children it is.

I can see that, violence is effective. Ask any terrorist

There are specific guideliness for CP. Let me give you 2 important ones.

Guidelines for beating? There is a Christian book on beating children? OMG

1) The only instance where CP should be used is when there is defiance from the child in your presence. Defiance is the specific time when a child disregards with full intention your authority in your face and challenges you.

A ****ing 3 year old?

"Go to bed" "no" Beating
"eat your peas" "no" beating


Good lord, what kind of parenting is that?
Are you that hung up on authority?

My child just called mt a "poopyhead" cuz I told him to put my chess set back on the board. Shall I beat him? (inciidentially, he did it, properly, with no beating)

Remember, consistancy is the key to behavior mod. So, you beat every time? Also, it is not "CP" (though an acronym might make you feel better) it is beating.



2) CP must never be used for any spontenous misbehavior in presence or absense of parent.

suppose the kid is spontaniously defiant? Smacko?

Were you beaten as a child? I understand that that is often the justification.

[headscratcher4]

The only instance where CP should be used is when there is defiance from the child in your presence. Defiance is the specific time when a child disregards with full intention your authority in your face and challenges you.

What if the "definence" is based on a child's honest belief that the parent is mistaken, or the parent is in fact mistaken?

Example:

Parent: "You were horsing around in the livingroom when I told you not to. You broke the table. Now, go to your room and think about what you've done..."

Child: "That's not fair, I was nowhere near the livingroom, I didn't even know the table was broken,,,"

P: "Go to your room now! Are you defying me!"

C: "But dad, you are wrong! I didn't do anything!....I won't go to my room for something I didn't do"

P (To the room crowded with other siblings, spouse, relatives): "Do yo see this, this child is defying me! I hate to do this but the bible allows me to beat you know...."

Simplistic, sure, but it is easy to see where one parent's vision of an act of defience, is a child's worst nightmare -- lack of belief and trust. How does a parent, using CP, distinguish? When is defience real, vs. petty and giving? When is defience real, vs. an honest belief in an injustice? Are parents who practice CP incapable of an act of injustice? When is an "act of defience" a convient excuse for shutting down an argument that the parent perfers not to deal with rationally and calmly and without hitting?

Can a parent really loose their self-respect if a 4 year-old defies them? How about ignoring the 4 year-old rather than beating them?

Just looking for clarification on how a 4 year old can be so defient as to require that they be hit....

P.S. In all of the representations of Jesus and his ministry that I've seen -- including the modern statues being sold of Jesus playing football with the kids -- I've never seen one of Jesus hitting a child, or (again, the modern take) Jesus standing "spiritually" behind a parent as they beat a child.

Do you think Jesus, while he walked among us as a "man" ever had cause to hit a child?

In his 33 year life, for example, was there ever a time when he was left watching the children of his brother James, or other brothers (while they were out in the carpentry shop), and one of the little nephews or nieces defied him, do you think Jesus spanked little Bar-James? Or, maybe he told James...."Brother James, Little James here defied me while you were away, I fear you must spank them..."

I only pose this, because I am interested in how you think Jesus might have acted in the very human situation where a small child "defies" a parent....

[Mossy]

Originally posted by Christian
According to Christian teaching, CP should be used rarely, but it is a necessary tool. The less it is used, the more effective it is. With some children, it is never warranted, with some children it is.

There are specific guideliness for CP. Let me give you 2 important ones.



Christian,

Just a quick point of order, and perhaps one that is generating some confusion (or repulsion, depending on how you look at it) on my part. There aren't "specific Christian guidelines" regarding CP - there may be rules that you follow, or guidelines that a specific book (other than the bible) recommends, but these are hardly the guidelines that all Christians espouse.

I am willing to avoid attacking strawmen, but you need to stop putting me in a position where I need to. Specifically, if you are arguing "Christian guidelines", and then I am responding with arguments against various "Christian guidelines" that perhaps don't apply to you (for example, the men in the news article posted earlier) - it may be seen as me attempting a strawman attack.

If there are specific rules that you follow, that is good - please present them, but to suggest that these are the Christian guidelines puts me in a position where I'll need to point out the error/hypocrisy/cruelty in the application of those guidelines (and again, this might not apply to you), and then you'll be offended at my accusation and in turn ignore me.

-Ed

[edited because I finally learned how to spell hypocrisy]

[Mossy]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
I only pose this, because I am interested in how you think Jesus might have acted in the very human situation where a small child "defies" a parent....

I agree with what you're saying here, but just wanted to point out that Jesus wasn't above violence. He pulled out the whip when people were selling things in the Temple - so perhaps he might have grabbed a rod and "trained" little Bar-James.

-Ed

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Mossy


I agree with what you're saying here, but just wanted to point out that Jesus wasn't above violence. He pulled out the whip when people were selling things in the Temple - so perhaps he might have grabbed a rod and "trained" little Bar-James.

-Ed

Agreed, Jesus wasn't above violence or calling for violence -- I guess what I am trying to get to is where you justify the violence...Christian sited defience, but what is the standard and what is the proof that justifies the claim that the child has been defient? So, I agree that I may have been carried away in my domestic picture of the Christ family at home, though it also is a jarring image...i.e. Jesus resorting to personal violence. WHile he called for justice and violence to be brought down on those in "defience" of god or god's order (again, with the "defience"), I am not familiar with instances of Jesus engaging in personal acts of violence.

I am familiar with the gospels, but no chapter and verse expert... did Jesus ever engage in an act of violence directed against a child (willful, defient or otherwise)? An individual (as opposed to an institution such as the money lenders in the Temple court yard)?

Thanks for any clarification.

[headscratcher4]

I suspect that what the preacher and his brother are being accused of in the article falls outside of permissible punishment....


http://www.austin360.com/aas/metro/071002/0710pastors.html

[Mossy]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
I suspect that what the preacher and his brother are being accused of in the article falls outside of permissible punishment....


I certainly agree with that statement, and since the boy ended up in a hospital I doubt there are many that would disagree. But if they had used a smaller switch and hit him a few inches lower (on the bottom) would that, then, fall within the guidelines of acceptable punishment?

The biblical guideline only says that you should do it if you love your children - it doesn't say where, when, how often or how hard. So over time these things have slowly (much too slowly) become more humane in many places in the world, but that has to do with society becoming more humane, not because of some "Christian guideline" that has existed for 2000 years. If there is a universal christian guideline that explains this, I've never heard of it - and the fact is, most christians haven't either (because they certainly don't all agree with each other).

-Ed

[LillyThePink]

Christian, how old are your kids?


Also - fascinating debate, people, now that the pedantic niggling has stopped.

I don't have kids myself, but my boyfriends 18 month old son comes over every other weekend. If he's naughty, or defiant, I stand him in the corner of the room and tell him he can come back and play when he finds his nice manners again. The exclusion is painful for him and he usually says sorry within 2 minutes.

I also have a 4yr old nephew (smackable age, by Christian standards) and a 3yr old nephew. I tapped the 3yr old on the hand once for running into the road (literally, with 2 fingers) and he's never done it again. I don't shout often, since this would cause it to lessen the effect when I do. Exclusion from the activity we're involved in usually prompts an apology, at which point all is forgotten.
I negotiate with all 3 children as to why their behaviours are unacceptable (such as, that isn't safe, that is rude, that hurts people's feelings, that is not nice manners etc) and clearly state the improvement I would hope for. I hope when I have my own kids full time I can have as good a relationship with them as with the 3 boys I care for now.

Edited to add something relevant!:

UK Baptists view:
Children also need to be trained to habits of obedience and subjection to parental authority, but not by harshness and severity, which makes children lie to their parents to hide their faults. ‘A Christian parent should be a king to rule, as well as a prophet to instruct, in his own house. In domestic government, corporeal punishment should be avoided as much as possible, and never employed in anger, or without reluctance; but the authority of the parent must be established and maintained with firmness and decision.’31 Both parents must agree and co-operate in the education of their children, and their example must line up with their instructions.

Source: http://www.rpc.ox.ac.uk/bq/elwyn_4.htm

Reference to Christian Proverbs (I particularly like Number 4)

II. WISDOM IN RAISING CHILDREN
A. INSPIRED WISDOM IS EXPLICIT IN THE PROPER USE OF "CORPOREAL PUNISHMENT"...
1. Used properly, it is a demonstration of true love - Pr 13:24
2. Proper discipline has proper objectives...
a. To remove foolishness from the child - Pr 22:15
b. To save the soul of the child - Pr 23:13-14
c. To impart wisdom and to avoid shame - Pr 29:15
3. Proper discipline has its rewards - Pr 29:17
a. Such as "rest" and "delight"
b. A child who will love you and live in such a way as to bring
you delight
4. Of course, there must be the proper application of corporeal
punishment - Pr 19:18
a. To be applied before the situation gets of out hand ("while there is hope")
b. To be applied under controlled circumstances ("do not set
your heart on his destruction")
1) I.e., do not put it off until you strike in anger
2) There IS a difference between proper "spanking" and
"child abuse"!
c. Corporeal punishment should never be a vent for letting off steam...
1) Rather, a controlled use of one method to discourage bad behavior
2) To be accompanied with love! - cf. Ep 6:4 (as implied
by the word "nurture")

Source: http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/pr/pr_04.htm

Some possible further reading for the Christian Parent out there:

The Child's Song: The Religious Abuse of Children, by Donald Capps. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1995. This book poses disturbing questions concerning ways that Christian religious doctrine and education have served to justify the physical and psychological abuse of children. Donald Capps, the William Harte Felmeth Professor of Pastoral Theology at Princeton Seminary, draws on diverse sources to argue his haunting theses in this compellingly redemptive plea on behalf of children. Among these are the writings of psychotherapist Alice Miller, an ardent critic of culturally sanctioned but child-damaging parenting practices; Augustine's Confessions, in which the mature bishop labors theologically to justify his boyhood beatings and shaming; the biblical narrative of Abraham and Isaac and the New Testament Letter to the Hebrews, in which religious sacrifice comes to legitimize corporeal punishment; and even musings on the childhood of Jesus, whose theological perception of God as loving Father may have emerged from shame and confusion concerning the circumstances of his birth and the identity of his human father.

Source: -http://www.ptsem.edu/read/inspire/3.2/onshelves.htm

[LillyThePink]

A non-Christian (indeed, non-Western) perspective: -

"The High Court ruled last month that every form of corporeal punishment which parents administer to their children is in effect illegal. The judges based their decision on two ideas. The first is that every form of corporeal punishment is harmful to children. (Of course there is no study which proves this). The second is the Basic Law of Human Dignity and Freedom. With that, they relied on a regular criminal appeal, on a "constitution." They did this, even though in Israel, no founding meeting for the enactment of a constitution has ever been convened, and no constitution or document of legal consequence has ever been written or approved by any sort of electoral body.

"The court explained that even a slight tap of a parent eats away at our aspiration to be a non-violent society. Therefore, corporeal punishment by parents is today forbidden in our society."

The article then goes on to say that the High court was basically out of order for doing this.

Source: - http://www.shemayisrael.com/chareidi/PKpkl.htm

Curious about this, so I'll ask... why is smacking with the hand not punishment enough?

Incidentally, my parent used to smack me, but had tennis elbow, so it hurt them more. It didn't work and just pissed both of us off, so it ceased.

[Smalso]

Spanking is not the appropriate punishment for a "stubborn and rebellious son." According to Deuteronomy 21:18-21, he is to be put to death, by stoning. Since the infliction of physical pain seems to appeal to so many Christians, this should be particularly satisfying. (Naughty daughters are not mentioned.)

[Christian]

Paradox wrote:
This brings up an important question, IMO. Do you believe certain children are genetically predisposed to being 'naughty'?

I think all humans are born selfish.

Loki wrote:
And here's the irony - I suspect that you and I might agree on as much as 95% of your 'child rearing methodology' (well, maybe 80%?). But no matter how string a disciplinarian you wish to be as a parent, CP is *not* necessary.

As I said before, CP is sometimes not necessary with certain kids.

Loki wrote:
The author paints a picture of two possible appraoches - CP, or the mother capitulating. It's a false dilemma. There are any number of alternatives that will produce the same positive outcome but minus the side effect of the implied "initiating violence can be acceptable" message that CP sends.

It is not a false dilemma. If the alternatives are there, there is no defiance.

Loki wrote:
My daughter has done this, and I can assure you that (a) CP was not needed and (b) the lesson was learned (by her) that she loses far more than she gains through such behaviour.

If you are blessed with a daughter where CP is not needed to make her obey, that is great.

There are many children who will defy a parent and there will be no negotiation or alternative method that will make them give in. (Of course, bribing is not an alternative)

So, if defiance happens, what do you do?

Ed wrote:
My child just called mt a "poopyhead" cuz I told him to put my chess set back on the board. Shall I beat him? (inciidentially, he did it, properly, with no beating)

With your mouth, I would never let you near my daughter. So, if you doesn't put the chess set back?

If he ever curses at you, I'm sure you wont mind at all.

hs4 wrote:
What if the "definence" is based on a child's honest belief that the parent is mistaken, or the parent is in fact mistaken?

Who is the parent and who is the child?

hs4 wrote:
How does a parent, using CP, distinguish? When is defience real, vs. petty and giving? When is defience real, vs. an honest belief in an injustice? Are parents who practice CP incapable of an act of injustice? When is an "act of defience" a convient excuse for shutting down an argument that the parent perfers not to deal with rationally and calmly and without hitting?

1) Criteria
2) Defiance is an act of willful disobedience where a child challenges you (the child sets up a winner takes all approach)
3) No
4) In the relationship between a parent an a child, the last word is of the parent.

hs4 wrote:
Can a parent really loose their self-respect if a 4 year-old defies them? How about ignoring the 4 year-old rather than beating them?

There are consequenses of letting the child win. And they have nothing to do witht the silly notion that parents get a kick out of bossing children around.

hs4 wrote:
Just looking for clarification on how a 4 year old can be so defient as to require that they be hit....

All posters here have perfect children, it seems. 4 year olds can be defiant to the point of a win or loose situation.

hs4 wrote:
Do you think Jesus, while he walked among us as a "man" ever had cause to hit a child?

No, He was never a parent.

Mossy wrote:
If there are specific rules that you follow, that is good - please present them, but to suggest that these are the Christian guidelines puts me in a position where I'll need to point out the error/hypocrisy/cruelty in the application of those guidelines (and again, this might not apply to you), and then you'll be offended at my accusation and in turn ignore me.

I don't see why there should be any confusion. When I say Christian guidelines, I mean what is taught to Christian parents by Christian institutions. These guidelines are for the most part homogenous.

I don't even want to bother with your article because it is a non-issue. If a muslim were to say her views of peace are according to Islam guidelines, I wouldn't cite the WTC attack, to refute her. ( I can't talk for you, because honestly I'm not even sure you wouldn't)

hs4 wrote:
Christian sited defience, but what is the standard and what is the proof that justifies the claim that the child has been defient?

Defiance is to attitude were a child says in no uncertain terms, you will not make me obey. He will prevail and you will loose this battle.

Mossy wrote:
If there is a universal christian guideline that explains this, I've never heard of it - and the fact is, most christians haven't either (because they certainly don't all agree with each other).

The Christian literature on parenting is extensive, most Christians parents are avid readers and particularly of this material. Believe me, there are general guidelines.

LTP wrote:
Christian, how old are your kids?

I have a 4 year old daughter.

LTP wrote:
If he's naughty, or defiant, I stand him in the corner of the room and tell him he can come back and play when he finds his nice manners again. The exclusion is painful for him and he usually says sorry within 2 minutes.

Timeouts are appropriate for any child below three. And this is very good example why. You can actually pick (take) him up and put him in the corner.

A 5 year old can kick you, slap you, spit on you, punch you, etc.


LTP wrote:
I tapped the 3yr old on the hand once for running into the road (literally, with 2 fingers) and he's never done it again.

You CP him. The important principle you used here was that he understood there are certain limits that cannot be crossed. At that time he probably didn't understand why, he understood the limit. The why will come later.

This another perfect example of correct parenting. There is no explaining or negotiation here, I'm not interested if you want to understand the order, the order is strict and absolute, you will not cross the street alone.

If anyone has kids that are not defiant ever, fine, CP is not needed.

This is the same as using nuclear weapons, the whole point of having them is not to use them, it is a tool of deterrence.

But, CP must be understood by the child no uncertain terms that will be used if defiance is encountered.

[Mossy]

Originally posted by Christian
All posters here have perfect children, it seems. 4 year olds can be defiant to the point of a win or loose situation.



Nobody here has said they have perfect children, and that is what you are (perhaps) missing. What we are saying is that regardless of how imperfect the child, CP is never required. Sure, it might make things easier, but it is not necessary.



Mossy wrote:
If there are specific rules that you follow, that is good - please present them, but to suggest that these are the Christian guidelines puts me in a position where I'll need to point out the error/hypocrisy/cruelty in the application of those guidelines (and again, this might not apply to you), and then you'll be offended at my accusation and in turn ignore me.

I don't see why there should be any confusion. When I say Christian guidelines, I mean what is taught to Christian parents by Christian institutions. These guidelines are for the most part homogenous.


Do these Christian institutions include Catholic institutions, Southern Baptist institutions, etc? If so, then there are definitely differing views on the level a violence a parent should use - do you agree with that observation?


I don't even want to bother with your article because it is a non-issue. If a muslim were to say her views of peace are according to Islam guidelines, I wouldn't cite the WTC attack, to refute her. ( I can't talk for you, because honestly I'm not even sure you wouldn't)


No, but perhaps if a Muslim woman were trying to elaborate her views of when terrorism is acceptable according to Islamic guidelines, you might feel (rightly) inclined to mention the WTC attack.


Mossy wrote:
If there is a universal christian guideline that explains this, I've never heard of it - and the fact is, most christians haven't either (because they certainly don't all agree with each other).

The Christian literature on parenting is extensive, most Christians parents are avid readers and particularly of this material. Believe me, there are general guidelines.


The statement "most Christian parents are avid readers and particularly of this material" definitely can not be backed up (if it can, please prove me wrong). I've known some that were, and many that were not. If there are, in fact, general guidelines that are used by all Christian institutions - I would like to see some examples of that.

-Ed

[Loki]

Christian,

If you are blessed with a daughter where CP is not needed to make her obey, that is great.
I have a great daughter, but she certainly practises defiance on occasion. Yet, strangely enough, CP is *not necessary* to curb this.

There are many children who will defy a parent and there will be no negotiation or alternative method that will make them give in. (Of course, bribing is not an alternative)
Well, I suspect we simply must agree to disagree on the "there will be no ... alternative" part. There are clear, simple and effective alternatives.

So, if defiance happens, what do you do?
Develop a strategy that works, rather than strike a child!

At the moment you pick up the paddle to administer CP to your child, what do you see in their eyes? They realise they have pushed you too far, and now there is no escape from the 'nuclear deterent' of CP. Doesn't that moment when the fear enters their eyes have some effect on you? Aren't you at all concerned that, just for moment, the nature of your relationship with your child is totally based upon the fact that your child is physically afraid of *you*?

Oh, and in case that last paragraph sounds like a personal experience, in a way it is. We have several friends (non-christian) who are happy to use CP. I've seen the 7 year old son fall to floor of our house as his father strode towards him to bring an end to a particularly bad bout of "defiance". I don't know what the father thought, but I could see the pure terror in the boy's eyes.

Sorry Christian, but I don't want any part of my relationship with my child to be based, even temporarily, on her being afraid of how much I will physically hurt her.

A simple question - have you experience with parents that do not use CP? How do you judge whether your approach is working better than their approach?

(From mossy) : If there are, in fact, general guidelines that are used by all Christian institutions - I would like to see some examples of that.
Again, the issue here really is "biblical support for CP" - please, peel another layer of skin from the bible and show how the book explains these guidelines you use. You seem to be saying "I draw my guiidelines from general literature, written by other christians". Yet you have always said that the truth is in the bible, not in any particular person's interpretation.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Christian
Paradox wrote:
his brings up an important question, IMO. Do you believe certain children are genetically predisposed to being 'naughty'?

I think all humans are born selfish.


Loki wrote:
My daughter has done this, and I can assure you that (a) CP was not needed and (b) the lesson was learned (by her) that she loses far more than she gains through such behaviour.

If you are blessed with a daughter where CP is not needed to make her obey, that is great.

actually, it is a result of competent parenting.... And it is not CP, it is beating

There are many children who will defy a parent and there will be no negotiation or alternative method that will make them give in. (Of course, bribing is not an alternative)

So, if defiance happens, what do you do?

you parent, moron. 5 minutes alone for a 4 year old is an eternity. loss of a toy (for 10 minutes) is an eternity of loss. So, when you are in doubt, as you clearly are, you get violent. Excellent, see you on the news sometime

Ed wrote:
My child just called mt a "poopyhead" cuz I told him to put my chess set back on the board. Shall I beat him? (inciidentially, he did it, properly, with no beating)

With your mouth, I would never let you near my daughter.
ummmm.......WTF????? Was this an issue? Frankly, I'd rather my kids hear an occasional vulgarity than be exposed to your cold blooded, violent, incompentant, bible based, medieval notions of "child rearing". Least I would never hit her

So, if you doesn't put the chess set back?
he does not get to play chess with me. my children are more concerned with the withholding of intellectual stimulation than with physical violence. A good thing, I believe.

If he ever curses at you, I'm sure you wont mind at all.

I would, perhaps. It depends upon the situation. We are distingushing between a curse and a vulgarity here, no?

hs4 wrote:
What if the "definence" is based on a child's honest belief that the parent is mistaken, or the parent is in fact mistaken?

Who is the parent and who is the child?

In your case, I wonder. You seem to need to be correct and to beat when confronted. Sometimes the parent admits to a mistake. You get respect that way. Honesty is a Christian virtue too, no? You might also find out what is going on in their little minds, that gets respect too. That is also honesty and respect.

hs4 wrote:
How does a parent, using CP, distinguish? When is defience real, vs. petty and giving? When is defience real, vs. an honest belief in an injustice? Are parents who practice CP incapable of an act of injustice? When is an "act of defience" a convient excuse for shutting down an argument that the parent perfers not to deal with rationally and calmly and without hitting?

1) Criteria
2) Defiance is an act of willful disobedience where a child challenges you (the child sets up a winner takes all approach)
again, this is parenting. if you find yourself in a "winner takes all" situation with a child, you are an idiot. have you never negotiated? Guess not. Before you jump on this, and perhaps spank me, let me point out that negotiation does not mean giving in, necessarily. It does mean listening and explaining, rationally.

3) No
4) In the relationship between a parent an a child, the last word is of the parent.

undeniably. But....you seem to wish to be correct and dominate. That seems to be what you are inculcating. Just a thought.

hs4 wrote:
Can a parent really loose their self-respect if a 4 year-old defies them? How about ignoring the 4 year-old rather than beating them?

There are consequenses of letting the child win. And they have nothing to do witht the silly notion that parents get a kick out of bossing children around.

you pick your fights. sometimes you give in, sometimes not. and this is less an issue of bossing children around than it is of domination.

hs4 wrote:
Just looking for clarification on how a 4 year old can be so defient as to require that they be hit....

All posters here have perfect children, it seems. 4 year olds can be defiant to the point of a win or loose situation.

no children are perfect. a competent, rational, intellegent parent does not have to resort to brutality

hs4 wrote:
Do you think Jesus, while he walked among us as a "man" ever had cause to hit a child?

No, He was never a parent.

wouldn't touch that one with a rod


Mossy wrote:
If there are specific rules that you follow, that is good - please present them, but to suggest that these are the Christian guidelines puts me in a position where I'll need to point out the error/hypocrisy/cruelty in the application of those guidelines (and again, this might not apply to you), and then you'll be offended at my accusation and in turn ignore me.

I don't see why there should be any confusion. When I say Christian guidelines, I mean what is taught to Christian parents by Christian institutions. These guidelines are for the most part homogenous.

wait, christian institutions teach parents to beat their kids? might there be a reference to any of this? Is this a weird sect thing like where that chick drowned her kids to "save" them? Is this idea mainstream? sounds very odd

I don't even want to bother with your article because it is a non-issue. If a muslim were to say her views of peace are according to Islam guidelines, I wouldn't cite the WTC attack, to refute her. ( I can't talk for you, because honestly I'm not even sure you wouldn't)

hs4 wrote:
Christian sited defience, but what is the standard and what is the proof that justifies the claim that the child has been defient?

Defiance is to attitude were a child says in no uncertain terms, you will not make me obey. He will prevail and you will loose this battle.

maybe, maybe not. is it that important to your ego to always prevail? now, when it is a danger:

kid: I am four and I an filleting this fish with this very sharp knife
Parent: like hell. give me that knife this instant

K: no, look a perfect fillet
P: Nevermind

OR:

K:NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO (Bigfig, methinks)
P:(Taking knife away) To your room, now, no Smurfs (or whatever crap they watch)
Parent picks up recalcitrant kid, escorts said kid to room, plants kid in bead and leaves. Done.

PS. Wise parent teaches kid next day how to fillet a fish on his own terms.

Nary a beating. Parent makes point, gets cheap kitchen help to boot.

Mossy wrote:
If there is a universal christian guideline that explains this, I've never heard of it - and the fact is, most christians haven't either (because they certainly don't all agree with each other).

The Christian literature on parenting is extensive, most Christians parents are avid readers and particularly of this material. Believe me, there are general guidelines.

OK

LTP wrote:
Christian, how old are your kids?

I have a 4 year old daughter.

Ah, so you beat a four year old girl when she defies you. Got it. Because you cannot parent, you beat a four year old girl. That is loutish.

LTP wrote:
If he's naughty, or defiant, I stand him in the corner of the room and tell him he can come back and play when he finds his nice manners again. The exclusion is painful for him and he usually says sorry within 2 minutes.

Timeouts are appropriate for any child below three. And this is very good example why. You can actually pick (take) him up and put him in the corner.

absolute nonsense. i shot my 15 year old up to her room the other day for some transgression. She listens cuz she respects me, maybe cuz I never hit her.

A 5 year old can kick you, slap you, spit on you, punch you, etc.

goodness, how is it there in that trailor park? So, you physically attack a child and then they give it back and you are pissed so you beat them up some more? Where did this "hypothetical" 5 year old learn that violence is appropriate? From you, perhaps?
LTP wrote:

I tapped the 3yr old on the hand once for running into the road (literally, with 2 fingers) and he's never done it again.

You CP him. The important principle you used here was that he understood there are certain limits that cannot be crossed. At that time he probably didn't understand why, he understood the limit. The why will come later.

This another perfect example of correct parenting. There is no explaining or negotiation here, I'm not interested if you want to understand the order, the order is strict and absolute, you will not cross the street alone.

If anyone has kids that are not defiant ever, fine, CP is not needed.

This is the same as using nuclear weapons, the whole point of having them is not to use them, it is a tool of deterrence.

But, CP must be understood by the child no uncertain terms that will be used if defiance is encountered.

you seem very hung up on defiance. So, if your perceived position is threatened you will strike out to preserve it. You might try talking. And, you know, you have that position and a 4 year old cannot take what you will not give.

Do you really beat a 4 year old girl. Seems bruteish to me. And you don't like my language. What a laugh. I, at least, never beat a child

[Christian]

Loki and Mossy, I'll respond tomorrow.

Ed, your responses are so out there, they become comical. Thank God you are only alive to me in this forum. I'm saying this with a smile on my face, stay as far away from me as it is physically possible :D .

And I grant you and only you to insult me the way you do. Ah and don't forget, you were appointed a moderator :confused:.

[Smalso]

by Christian: "Ah and don't forget, you were appointed a moderator..."

Cheap shot.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Smalso
by Christian: "Ah and don't forget, you were appointed a moderator..."

Cheap shot.

Nah.

I am attempting to make a separate peace..

There are some areas that set me off and I get a bit over the edge.

Christian has been a wise and considered poster here for a while and I went a bit over the top with him, for which I apologise.

Is he "beating" his little girl, of course not. It sounded good when I wrote it. Stupid on my part. A terrible insult.

Anyhoo, I feel a bit contrite.

People like Christian, who have religious beliefs, serve as a countervailing force here. He is not a nut (Ahem, like some I might mention....I would but I can't see my keyboard....Just joking) and adds immeasurably. ****, otherwise we'd be talking to ourselves.

So, what is the point of this silly post?

None, just self awareness.

The odd thing, that just occurred to me, is that I feel that I have insulted a family member. Very, very odd.

This is an odd place, no?

[Christian]

Ed:

You are way over me in maturity. The family member comment, I understand exactly what you mean.

I think I have learned a valuable lesson too. Some personal subjects are way too sensitive to discuss in a forum.

Thanks for your comments. The thing I like most about this place is that I comfronted with my shortcomings in the most evident ways. Man, I tell you, it humbles me. And that I need lots.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Christian
Ed:

You are way over me in maturity. The family member comment, I understand exactly what you mean.

I think I have learned a valuable lesson too. Some personal subjects are way too sensitive to discuss in a forum.

Thanks for your comments. The thing I like most about this place is that I comfronted with my shortcomings in the most evident ways. Man, I tell you, it humbles me. And that I need lots.

Sir, I am simply another human idiot. Wish that I were smarter, I'm not.

[Darat]

By Christian
Defiance is to attitude were a child says in no uncertain terms, you will not make me obey. He will prevail and you will loose this battle.

Before I go onto comment I should mention that I come from a "Christian" family that has not practiced hitting for 4 generations (that I know of) because of their "Christian" beliefs.
So I don't have first hand experience of either being hit myself or observing other family members hitting their children. With that caveat in place I'll go onto my main point.


You’ve stated that "defiance" is "wrong" and warrants punishment by the infliction of physical harm and pain.

I find this very strange as I have to ask what is wrong with defiance?

Surely children should be taught to respond to reason and logic? If this is the case there are times when a child is presented with unreasonable requests that cannot be supported with reason and logic and therefore "defiance" is the appropriate response.

[Paradox]

Originally posted by Christian
Paradox wrote:
This brings up an important question, IMO. Do you believe certain children are genetically predisposed to being 'naughty'?
I think all humans are born selfish.
Please answer my original question. To facilitate this:

A) Yes, children are born with a genetic predisposition for naughtiness (iow, doing things which would merit CP)

B) No, children are not born with a genetic predisposition for naughtiness

A or B, please.

[edited to provide an easier answering format]

[LillyThePink]

I don't really consider tapping a childs hand with 2 fingers the same as paddling a 4yr olds arse with a weapon, Christian.

The running in the road was not a defiant act. he was over excited about something.

Defiance, to me, would be a child not wanting to do as they were told. Should the parent have done their job correctly, the child should be able to explain a reason why they are unwilling to comply.

A 5 yr old who kicks and fights has learnt violence from somewhere.... I'm thinking maybe a rod or paddle-wielding parent has taught that this is the way to make others submit to your will. (?)

[Christian]

Darat wrote:
I find this very strange as I have to ask what is wrong with defiance?

Countless things. If you want to be a well adjusted individual in society, this is a must. Suppose you want to defy the standard that you must wait your turn in line for the movies. You say, I don't want to follow the rules, I want to go in right now. What will likely happen.

Suppose you want to defy the ordinance of not urinating on the street, or you simply don't feel like wearing cloths, or you think it is nobody business if you snort cocaine (I'm sure you don't and I'm not suggesting in any way, shape or form you do anything ilegal, I'm just putting a hypothetical example of an imaginary person, the use of the word you is not meant as you Darat). What would happen to you?

Darat wrote:
Surely children should be taught to respond to reason and logic?

Sure, but in the real world there are many things we must conform to whether we find them logical or not. I don't find it logical that the government spend billions of dollars fighting the war against drugs. If people want to ruin their lives by that habit, let them. Hey, the industry should be heavely taxed and the money used for social programs. But, that's not the way it is, if one is caught intoxicated with controlled substances, one can go to jail, period.

Darat wrote:
If this is the case there are times when a child is presented with unreasonable requests that cannot be supported with reason and logic and therefore "defiance" is the appropriate response.

A child must learn that many times she will be presented with unreasonable and unjust requests, and that she wont be able to argue or disagree, she is going to have to conform. If I happen to look like someone from the Middle East, and I am singled out at the airport for inspection, I'm not going to protest and reason with the officials. I'm just going to let them search me, ask me, etc. and be on my way.

I might not like the tax bracket I'm in. But if I don't pay my taxes, and conform to the law, bad things may come to me.

Paradox wrote:
Please answer my original question. To facilitate this:
A) Yes, children are born with a genetic predisposition for naughtiness (iow, doing things which would merit CP)
B) No, children are not born with a genetic predisposition for naughtiness
A or B, please.

I did answer your original question. I was very specific. I have no idea what your definition of naughtiness is. The negative trait that I think all humans are born with (innate, genetically, hard wired) is selfishness.

LTP wrote:
don't really consider tapping a childs hand with 2 fingers the same as paddling a 4yr olds arse with a weapon, Christian.

This is strange. My understanding of the definition of CP is any action that inflicts physical pain on a person. Your tapping fits the definition.

Posters here have argued that absolutely no action to inflict pain is necessary. I understand you want to minimize the action and I suppose the pain, but there is no way around the definition.

I have used the paddle on my 4 year old 4 times. The pain she has felt is minimal (just like probably your two finger tap). The effect of the action was just like the effect of your tap.

LTP wrote:
A 5 yr old who kicks and fights has learnt violence from somewhere

This is a fallacy. And suppose this were true, the sources are so varied and extensive, there would be no way to stop a child from being exposed to them, unless of course you totally isolated him from the world. (other kids in school, neighbors, TV, movies, etc)

LTP wrote:
I'm thinking maybe a rod or paddle-wielding parent has taught that this is the way to make others submit to your will. (?)

Oh, but adults too must accept they have to submit to other's will. Try not stop if a police car orders you to. Protest at not allowing an appointed official to strip search you at the airport. You will find that you must submit your will to others countless times.

[Paradox]

Originally posted by Christian
Paradox wrote:
Please answer my original question. To facilitate this:
A) Yes, children are born with a genetic predisposition for naughtiness (iow, doing things which would merit CP)
B) No, children are not born with a genetic predisposition for naughtiness
A or B, please.

I did answer your original question. I was very specific. I have no idea what your definition of naughtiness is. The negative trait that I think all humans are born with (innate, genetically, hard wired) is selfishness.
It's right there in parentheses! Let 'naughtiness' equal [what you would consider to be actions meritous of CP].

The context in question is in reference to your comment:
"With some children, it is never warranted, with some children it is."

So, on that ground, is the predisposition towards being a child that 'needs' CP genetic/inborn?

[Christian]

Paradox wrote:
It's right there in parentheses! Let 'naughtiness' equal [what you would consider to be actions meritous of CP].

Missed it completely. But I think we already covered this. As I said before, some kids never need CP. And most kids only need CP counted times. There are few kids that will need a little more attention in this matter but, CP is one of many tools available. Even with the most rebellious kids (yes, and I do believe every child is born with a particular temperament, like a very child is born with innate abilities, gifts)

Paradox wrote:
So, on that ground, is the predisposition towards being a child that 'needs' CP genetic/inborn?

I think so.

[Paradox]

Originally posted by Christian
Paradox wrote:
It's right there in parentheses! Let 'naughtiness' equal [what you would consider to be actions meritous of CP].

Missed it completely. But I think we already covered this. As I said before, some kids never need CP. And most kids only need CP counted times. There are few kids that will need a little more attention in this matter but, CP is one of many tools available. Even with the most rebellious kids (yes, and I do believe every child is born with a particular temperament, like a very child is born with innate abilities, gifts)
No prob. :D I don't disagree with you here, in terms of different 'types' of kids and their behaviors that is.

Paradox wrote:
So, on that ground, is the predisposition towards being a child that 'needs' CP genetic/inborn?

I think so.
So, in that case you're telling me that the kids who do 'need' and get CP...do so for a reason they have no control over?

If a child is born with a tendency for rebelliousness, which manifests, he receives CP because he wasn't lucky enough to be born with less of a disposition to actions that would get him spanked?

[Christian]

Paradox wrote:
So, in that case you're telling me that the kids who do 'need' and get CP...do so for a reason they have no control over?

I guess.

Paradox wrote:
If a child is born with a tendency for rebelliousness, which manifests, he receives CP because he wasn't lucky enough to be born with less of a disposition to actions that would get him spanked?

Yes, I think you can reason this way if you like. I guess I could reason that a child who was unlucky enough to be born lactose intolerance, can't drink normal milk.

[Paradox]

Originally posted by Christian
Paradox wrote:
So, in that case you're telling me that the kids who do 'need' and get CP...do so for a reason they have no control over?

I guess.
Kind of makes you think, doesn't it? The world around us has no requirement to be fair to us petty humans...but we, at least, should strive to uphold that balance between each other.

Paradox wrote:
If a child is born with a tendency for rebelliousness, which manifests, he receives CP because he wasn't lucky enough to be born with less of a disposition to actions that would get him spanked?

Yes, I think you can reason this way if you like. I guess I could reason that a child who was unlucky enough to be born lactose intolerance, can't drink normal milk.
Ah, but you see...like I just said, the world doesn't...and can't...change it's unfairnesses (or the consequences of them) to those who happen to possess them. We can. You have a choice of whether or not to punish your child for something that is fundamentally not his/her fault...for a reasoning that is not fair.

This is why we try to make accomodations for less fortunate people. This is why we bother to search for cures for deadly diseases and viruses...why we don't just say "well, too bad, that's your punishment for having a weak immune system" or "too bad, that's what happens when you're born with crippled limbs".

If we determine that such things are beyond the control of the person, it is understanding and effort towards finding a remedy, not 'punishment', that is necessary.

[Christian]

Paradox wrote:
Kind of makes you think, doesn't it? The world around us has no requirement to be fair to us petty humans...but we, at least, should strive to uphold that balance between each other.

Fairness is a subjective concept. What you may see as fair, I may see otherwise. To me it is a useless concept. What is useful to me, is the concept of productivity, results. God has created laws and rules by which humans obtain results. I may not decide which cards are dealt to me, but I can decide which hands to play.

Paradox wrote:
You have a choice of whether or not to punish your child for something that is fundamentally not his/her fault...for a reasoning that is not fair.

I can appreciate your logic. That is a different perspective from where I see it. To me, it is irrelevant if it is my child's fault or not. CP is the most effective tool in some particular instances.

I really don't care if my child does drink coke out of the fear of CP or because she understands it is bad for her. She just doesn't do it. (she is allergic to those types of drinks).

I'm not teaching her anything different than how the world operates. When she becomes an adult, she will (hopefully) become a law abiding citizen whether she agrees with the ordinances or not. By that time, she may already have learn that there must be respect for authority. And that transgression will (can) result in negative consequences.

I see the world around me, and I perceive that deterrence is the most compelling reason why people follow the law.

Look at the scandals in mayor US corporations. These are suppose to be educated and ethical people running them. The economic well being rests on the shoulders of them. Yet, the decide to lie, cheat and steal.

Why, because they can. US legislation allows them to do this. There are no negative consequences to their actions. I predict the legislation will change, and will impose stiff penalties on these actions. The deterrence factor will make a difference.

I'm not phylosophising here, it is a statistical fact that crime rates are in direct proportion to effectiveness of prosecution.

I want my child to have a full and happy life. I only have a small window of opportunity to teach her. So the vaccine stings a little, it is infinitesimal price to pay in exchange for a wholesome, happy adulthood.

[PotatoStew]

Paradox:

This has been an interesting discussion, and I've been content just to follow along and watch where it's going, but I wanted to comment on this:

Ah, but you see...like I just said, the world doesn't...and can't...change it's unfairnesses (or the consequences of them) to those who happen to possess them. We can. You have a choice of whether or not to punish your child for something that is fundamentally not his/her fault...for a reasoning that is not fair.


This seems flawed to me, and begs the question of the legitimacy of CP. If some children do in fact need CP to learn certain lessons, the fact that they are genetically disposed in that direction is not sufficient reason to withhold CP. In fact, if they need CP to learn the lesson, it would be unfair NOT to use it.

Furthermore, if that child is genetically predisposed to be rebellious, and he grows into a rebellious adult who breaks laws, should he not be punished at that point because of his genetic predisposition?

From your viewpoint, CP is bad and always unwarranted, therefore it is unfair to use it in the above-mentioned case. To Christian's viewpoint, when properly administered it is a useful tool that can actually help the child in the long run, and therefore it's definitely fair to use it, and it would be unfair to the child not to use it.

[Paradox]

Originally posted by Christian
Fairness is a subjective concept. What you may see as fair, I may see otherwise. To me it is a useless concept.
Okay, my turn "this cannot be true". :D If the fairness in question was truly of no concern to you, you would not have preconceived ideas of how to have things done. I would find it interesting to see you support this position of yours on 'fairness' as a christian.

What I think you actually mean, is that you differentiate between what would be considered 'fair' on a sociological manner, because you have already subscribed to the notion that true 'fairness' is already inscribed by the words of men two millenia ago.
God has created laws and rules by which humans obtain results. I may not decide which cards are dealt to me, but I can decide which hands to play.
And you choose to play a card (as a parent) that punishes a child because their cards didn't turn out that great. I realize this twisted logic is inherent in the theism you espouse (i.e. punishment for a disposition towards sin that was put there in place originally by the punisher), but if you are so hopelessly lost in your capability to make decisions independent from the axioms of men whom you can't say for sure were or were not inspired by whatever deity you believe int, then this conversation is at an impasse. I do not mean this insultingly at all...it is just simply impossible to appeal to a person's sense of basic human justice when it has already been surrendered to a mythology.
I can appreciate your logic. That is a different perspective from where I see it. To me, it is irrelevant if it is my child's fault or not. CP is the most effective tool in some particular instances.
That is, not only, entirely of personal opinion, but completely situational. It is effective because you cannot possibly see it as not. Apparently, because a quotation (not even one attributed to Jesus himself!) makes mention of it as a means of discipline.
I really don't care if my child does drink coke out of the fear of CP or because she understands it is bad for her. She just doesn't do it. (she is allergic to those types of drinks).
Ah...better a child who doesn't do things because she fears being hit, than a child who understands why doing something might harm her. I have trouble not seeing remarkable similarities between these notions and those concerning sin in general: where, oddly, the greater majority of christian would hide sin from their children at all costs...as if naivete was a virtue, rather than a child who could face sin day in and day out, and resist. It's called trust in one's child, and trust in one's ability to actually teach them. CP fails miserably in this respect...at least the sort that you espouse for the reasons you are giving.
I'm not teaching her anything different than how the world operates.
Good point. In this case, she learns that the world operates in a such a manner that christians who have surrendered the ability to makes moral decisions on their own will probably hit her because of a verse in a book.
When she becomes an adult, she will (hopefully) become a law abiding citizen whether she agrees with the ordinances or not. By that time, she may already have learn that there must be respect for authority. And that transgression will (can) result in negative consequences.
And, all the while, the child has been robbed of the chance of arriving at those conclusions by herself. This is why many theists actually can make absurd comments such as "without a belief in god, why bother being good?"...because they have been bred to be led with reigns and blinders, not to walk for themselves.
I see the world around me, and I perceive that deterrence is the most compelling reason why people follow the law.
That's sad. Funny...the nihilist being the one who is lamenting a unfortunate inability by so many humans to live in a much more ideal set of circumstances. Well, heck...even Spock cried in the first movie.
Look at the scandals in mayor US corporations. These are suppose to be educated and ethical people running them. The economic well being rests on the shoulders of them. Yet, the decide to lie, cheat and steal.
Brilliant example. And why is that? Because they no longer feel the constraints of consequences to barricade their actions. Because they have no self-born concept of acting generally 'good' for 'good' itself. The movie Dogma is a wonderful movie in such a sense...the 'truth' taught is, that if you can cheat the rules, why not? That, after all, is the only thing keeping you from turning to bad things.
Why, because they can. US legislation allows them to do this. There are no negative consequences to their actions. I predict the legislation will change, and will impose stiff penalties on these actions. The deterrence factor will make a difference.
Someone will always be able to be in a position where they are above such restrictions. Now that is realistic. It is a much more self-fulfilling idea to have, in that place, someone who is good by their own decisions, not one who is so long as (s)he is being policed.
I'm not phylosophising here, it is a statistical fact that crime rates are in direct proportion to effectiveness of prosecution.
Not that this is even pertinent to anything to do with CP...but were I to entertain your non sequitur, could you even support it 'statistically'?
I want my child to have a full and happy life.
You just don't want her/him to be able to decide what 'happy' means for themselves.
I only have a small window of opportunity to teach her. So the vaccine stings a little, it is infinitesimal price to pay in exchange for a wholesome, happy adulthood.
You gamble more dangerously than most people who spend 15 hour days in casinos. Funny thing is, like them, I suspect you have this self-assurance that your 'method' by which to cash in big couldn't possibly leave you with a big empty hole in your pocket...metaphorically speaking. Is your child worth that gamble? :(

---
Originally posted by PotatoStew
This seems flawed to me, and begs the question of the legitimacy of CP. If some children do in fact need CP to learn certain lessons, the fact that they are genetically disposed in that direction is not sufficient reason to withhold CP. In fact, if they need CP to learn the lesson, it would be unfair NOT to use it.
Ah-ah....what was concluded was not that "some children do in fact need CP to learn certain lessons", but that some children are born with disposition to commit acts that Christian, particularly, thinks would merit CP. If you do as well, then it would both of you finding yourself in hypocritical waters...which isn't a problem so long as you don't believe in 'fairness' either.
Furthermore, if that child is genetically predisposed to be rebellious, and he grows into a rebellious adult who breaks laws, should he not be punished at that point because of his genetic predisposition?
That usually isn't the case. Mental conditions (and other such issues) are always weighed heavily in the verdict. I'm not entirely well versed with legal issues, but sentencing mentally unstable people for crimes usually doesn't go over to well, from what I understand.

If they cannot help what they do, our immediate goal should be to help them, not chastise them. Although torturous methods were often used, at least this idea was supported by old theistic ideas of illnesses, where the goal was to free the body from the demon possessing it, not to fault the host for something out of their control.
From your viewpoint, CP is bad and always unwarranted, therefore it is unfair to use it in the above-mentioned case. To Christian's viewpoint, when properly administered it is a useful tool that can actually help the child in the long run, and therefore it's definitely fair to use it, and it would be unfair to the child not to use it.
Forget fairness (since it appears I can't even appeal to a basic sense of common human decency), it's simple hypocrisy. It's the equivalent slapping someone with Tourette's for insulting you, no matter what concept of 'fairness' you rationalize it to or justify it with. If I didn't know better, I'd think maybe you were being intentionally disengenuous.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Good point up there, Paradox, about punishment denying one the opportunity of making an ethical choice. In fact, I would go so far as to say that xians, on a very fundamental level, are denied the opportunity to develop ethically -- just as a man helping a little old lady across the street at gunpoint cannot be said to have performed an ethical act.

Just as the threat of death robs that man of a chance to make an ethical choice, of a chance to act ethically, so the hell/heaven thing robs xians of a chance to develop true ethics.

Kinda turns the tables on the "no morality without god thing, eh?..

[Paradox]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Good point up there, Paradox, about punishment denying one the opportunity of making an ethical choice. In fact, I would go so far as to say that xians, on a very fundamental level, are denied the opportunity to develop ethically -- just as a man helping a little old lady across the street at gunpoint cannot be said to have performed an ethical act.

Just as the threat of death robs that man of a chance to make an ethical choice, of a chance to act ethically, so the hell/heaven thing robs xians of a chance to develop true ethics.

Kinda turns the tables on the "no morality without god thing, eh?..
:D

[Loki]

Christian,

I'm not teaching her anything different than how the world operates. When she becomes an adult, she will (hopefully) become a law abiding citizen whether she agrees with the ordinances or not. By that time, she may already have learn that there must be respect for authority. And that transgression will (can) result in negative consequences.
Your point seems weak - you are trying to link "respect for authority" to "physical punishment". I would hope my daughter has (or will have) respect for authority, yet not suffer physical punishment. To make your case here, you need to so why the only way for your child to reach "respect for authority" was via the path of CP.

Please note that the points being made against you are not (a) children should not be disciplined; or (b) CP does not work at all. Rather the issue is "are there viable alternatives, that have the same or greater effectiveness without the negatives that CP carries". I'm agreeing with the destination you are striving for, I'm simply suggesting that I don't think you have explored the range of alternatives open to you in moving towards your goal - and it seems your reason for not wanting to consider alternatives is essentially "because the bible says it should be this way".

Note the highlighted portions in your quote. When you daughter becomes an adult, she will suffer negative consequences for transgressions. In Australia, those 'negative consequences' can *never* (legally) include physical punishment. Never. Not for any crime. As an adult, your daughter can gun down 36 innocent people, and yet the state cannot (legally) strike her body with any rod, cane or paddle (and in case you're wondering - yes, the death penalty was abolished in the 60's).

Do you agree that adults should be exempt from physical punishment for 'transgressions'? If not, then ignore this point - you are obviously in favour of 'CP' in a range of situations - (a few strikes of the cane for shoplifting adults perhaps?). If so, then why the contrast between child and adult?

[Christian]

Paradox wrote:
I would find it interesting to see you support this position of yours on 'fairness' as a christian.

There is a very old dilemma presented to law students. The question goes something like this: If you had to choose between justice and the law, what would you choose?

The correct answer from a jurisprudence point of view, believe or not is the law.

Paradox wrote:
What I think you actually mean, is that you differentiate between what would be considered 'fair' on a sociological manner, because you have already subscribed to the notion that true 'fairness' is already inscribed by the words of men two millenia ago.

No, I mean that fairness is an elussive concept. What is fair? A capitalist society where the rich get richer or a communist where everyone (expect the elite) is basically poor.

Is it fair that some people are born is Sweden and some in Somalia? The communist (socialist) have for decades tried to find this concept, balance, it does not exist.

The moment humans were given the gift to choose their response to the environment, fairness lost any meaning. You see, it's not what happens to you that matters, it's what you do with what happens to you.

The moment you say, "this is not fair", you are losing your ability to respond. In effect, you are saying, circumstance ultimately define my destiny.

So, phylosophically it is exactly the opposite of what you propose.

Paradox wrote:
And you choose to play a card (as a parent) that punishes a child because their cards didn't turn out that great. I realize this twisted logic is inherent in the theism you espouse (i.e. punishment for a disposition towards sin that was put there in place originally by the punisher), but if you are so hopelessly lost in your capability to make decisions independent from the axioms of men whom you can't say for sure were or were not inspired by whatever deity you believe int, then this conversation is at an impasse. I do not mean this insultingly at all...it is just simply impossible to appeal to a person's sense of basic human justice when it has already been surrendered to a mythology.

It sound to me like you are not ready to engage or resolve the paradoxes your philosophy of life present to you. This response says nothing. I have no idea what this is suppose to mean. It is a response from prejudice and not reason.

Paradox wrote:
Ah...better a child who doesn't do things because she fears being hit, than a child who understands why doing something might harm her.

There are fundamental differences between Christians and atheists. This is one. Atheist have this illusion that they can understand everything and that they have not need for obedience by faith. The irony is that whether you want to accept it or not, you do have masters and you obey them blindly. On of them is you own judment and understanding.

Paradox wrote:
I have trouble not seeing remarkable similarities between these notions and those concerning sin in general: where, oddly, the greater majority of christian would hide sin from their children at all costs...as if naivete was a virtue, rather than a child who could face sin day in and day out, and resist.

Another excellent example of a fundamental difference in approach. The Christian philosophy is the run away as far as possible from temptation because Christians understand that the humans are weak and that more times than not faced with temptation we will sucumb to it.

So, the Christian advice for an alcoholic is to run away from any activity that involves drinks. Your approach is to stare the drink in the face and develop the will power to say no. It is a sublime, romantic notion, and it doesn't work.

A person that day in and day out is exposed to drugs, believe me, will sooner or later become a drug user.

Paradox wrote:
It's called trust in one's child, and trust in one's ability to actually teach them. CP fails miserably in this respect...at least the sort that you espouse for the reasons you are giving.

Humans cannot be trusted. Systems are developed constantly to protect humans from themselves.

Here an illustration of the both phylosophies at work. For years the US government spend millions of dollars educating drivers on how to drive safely. In theory, if everyone followed the rules of safe driving, accidents would be minimal.

In practice, accidents skyrocked as car sales did. What was the solution? Let's create safer cars, airbags, antilock brakes, seatbelts. The system protects drivers.

I much rather trust that my child is driving a very safe car then her driving skills.

Paradox wrote:
Good point. In this case, she learns that the world operates in a such a manner that christians who have surrendered the ability to makes moral decisions on their own will probably hit her because of a verse in a book.

Yes, Christian surrender their will to the will of God. This is another fundamental difference. And again, you too surrender your ability to make moral choices. They are just of a different kind.

Paradox wrote:
And, all the while, the child has been robbed of the chance of arriving at those conclusions by herself. This is why many theists actually can make absurd comments such as "without a belief in god, why bother being good?"...because they have been bred to be led with reigns and blinders, not to walk for themselves.

The great lie here is that you walk by yourself. What conclusions have you arrived at that I could not find the source where you took them from. What actions do you take that are not dependent on the work or effort of others before you. It is silly to think we arrive at conclusions all by our lonesome.

No, the discussion is not if we can think for ourselves, it is which source is of greater wisdom when in conflict.

Paradox wrote:
That's sad. Funny...the nihilist being the one who is lamenting a unfortunate inability by so many humans to live in a much more ideal set of circumstances. Well, heck...even Spock cried in the first movie.

Well, learn to accept it. It is your reality as well. If you are of this world and live in this world, your ideal world is an illusion.

Paradox wrote:
Brilliant example. And why is that? Because they no longer feel the constraints of consequences to barricade their actions. Because they have no self-born concept of acting generally 'good' for 'good' itself. The movie Dogma is a wonderful movie in such a sense...the 'truth' taught is, that if you can cheat the rules, why not? That, after all, is the only thing keeping you from turning to bad things.

Yes, this human condition permeates all, poor, rich, black, white, tall, short. All humans are like this. Given the chance and with no restrictions, humans will ultimately choose the selfish act.

Paradox wrote:
Someone will always be able to be in a position where they are above such restrictions. Now that is realistic. It is a much more self-fulfilling idea to have, in that place, someone who is good by their own decisions, not one who is so long as (s)he is being policed.

Show me who is above the law and I will show you a tyrrant. Show me a human who is not accoutable to the system and I'll show you evil person.

It is funny that you should not be aware of these things. Your country is one of the most regulated and normed in America.

Paradox wrote:
Not that this is even pertinent to anything to do with CP...but were I to entertain your non sequitur, could you even support it 'statistically'?

You have got to be kidding, this one is so obvious i shouldn't have to support it. But ok, NYC with Guilliani is an excellent example of the phenomenon. Singapour is another example.

Paradox wrote:
You just don't want her/him to be able to decide what 'happy' means for themselves.

Well, if happy means being a drug addict or an alcoholic, no I don't.

Paradox wrote:
You gamble more dangerously than most people who spend 15 hour days in casinos. Funny thing is, like them, I suspect you have this self-assurance that your 'method' by which to cash in big couldn't possibly leave you with a big empty hole in your pocket...metaphorically speaking. Is your child worth that gamble?

Why a gamble? Mine is a sure thing. From my side of the fence, it is you who is glambling.

VD wrote:
Good point up there, Paradox, about punishment denying one the opportunity of making an ethical choice. In fact, I would go so far as to say that xians, on a very fundamental level, are denied the opportunity to develop ethically -- just as a man helping a little old lady across the street at gunpoint cannot be said to have performed an ethical act.

This is nonsense. What is this "denied the opportunity to develop ethically" rubbish. You are ethical or you are not. The motivation is irrelevant. In most cases, none can prove they would have acted but ethically. The system in most cases does not allow a choice.

If you don't pay your bills, someone is going to knock on your door. That you decide to pay on debts and say, you would not need anyone to knock on your door to pay is inconsequential.

Loki wrote:
Your point seems weak - you are trying to link "respect for authority" to "physical punishment". I would hope my daughter has (or will have) respect for authority, yet not suffer physical punishment. To make your case here, you need to so why the only way for your child to reach "respect for authority" was via the path of CP.

I'm linking that the act of defiance wherther a child or an adult brings consequences. As an adult, when you defy authority, CP is mostly used (i mean the penal system). CP on defiant attitudes are pertinent because a child understands the authority relationship if he or she does not want to accept it.

I find it hard to believe that it isnt obvious that sometimes "because that is the way things are" should be enough for a 5 year old". A 5 or 6 years does not have the capacity or authority to tell a parent what is right or wrong. The parent does.

You will give a sound explanation why, it is optional if the child accepts or not the explanation. What is not optional is obedence. A parent orders that you cannot go to the beach or pool without me. The child can argue that other adults will be there and that he can swim. The parent will say no, and that should be the end of it.

One day, maybe when he is 15, 20, 30, the once child will understand why. It doesn't really matter now, in this case, all that matters is that the child is safe from a possible drowning at a neighbor's pool or at the beach.

Loki wrote:
Please note that the points being made against you are not (a) children should not be disciplined; or (b) CP does not work at all. Rather the issue is "are there viable alternatives, that have the same or greater effectiveness without the negatives that CP carries".

Loki, the minute you do find viable alternatives that have the same or greater effectiveness you don't need CP. You are blessed with a child that corrects behavior without the need of CP. What I submit to you, is that there are children that leave you no choice. You have tried everything, timeouts, taking away a privileage, not giving a reward, but nothing works. I say it is time for a final warning.

Loki wrote:
I'm agreeing with the destination you are striving for, I'm simply suggesting that I don't think you have explored the range of alternatives open to you in moving towards your goal - and it seems your reason for not wanting to consider alternatives is essentially "because the bible says it should be this way".

I think I'm pretty well versed on the alternatives, and I can even categorized them by age, if you want. Distraction doesn't work very well for a 6 year old.

Loki wrote:
Note the highlighted portions in your quote. When you daughter becomes an adult, she will suffer negative consequences for transgressions. In Australia, those 'negative consequences' can *never* (legally) include physical punishment. Never. Not for any crime.

No transgression warrants people being handcuffed, there is no encarceration? I sorry, I can't believe that. Someone who murders only has to pay a fine?

Loki wrote:
As an adult, your daughter can gun down 36 innocent people, and yet the state cannot (legally) strike her body with any rod, cane or paddle (and in case you're wondering - yes, the death penalty was abolished in the 60's).

So, when a person is gunning these people down, the police just sits and waits till she is finished to politely ask her to put her weapon down. I don't want to live in Australia if this is the case.

I want to live in a state where if someone so much as pull a gun at me (and I don't have a gun) some officer if around can gun him down before he does me.

Hey, I want to live in a state (I do) where I can carry a weapon (I don't) to protect myself.

Loki wrote:
Do you agree that adults should be exempt from physical punishment for 'transgressions'?

Absolutely not. If I am witnessing a rape, I would like it to be legal that I can split the guys head open so that he stops.

Loki wrote:
If not, then ignore this point - you are obviously in favour of 'CP' in a range of situations - (a few strikes of the cane for shoplifting adults perhaps?). If so, then why the contrast between child and adult?

Well, if someone is running away with my hard earn money, I would like to have the right to tackle and submit the guy.

I do believe police officer all over the world have a cane where if someone defies them and resists the arrest, they can strike him as to make him comply. Man, if this were not so, I would think not many people would ever get arrested.

Police: Hey, you are under arrest.
Robber: Hey, you can't CP me.
Police: Put your hands behind your back.
Robber: No
Police: Oh, well, we are in Australia, have a nice day.

[PotatoStew]

Hi Paradox:

Ah-ah....what was concluded was not that "some children do in fact need CP to learn certain lessons", but that some children are born with disposition to commit acts that Christian, particularly, thinks would merit CP.

"Would merit CP" *if all other methods failed* ...unless I'm mistaken, Christian has been saying all along that CP is a last resort if all other methods failed (sorry to all if I've misunderstood). What I am saying is that it's possible that if there is a genetic predisposition in a child, and if no other method works, then it may in fact be "fair" to use CP to teach the child self-discipline (or are we not agreed that a certain amount of self-discipline is a good thing?) Mind you, I'm really not taking a side in the overall discussion (though it may seem that way), I just feel that the way you phrased your accusation of "unfairness" was not... um... fair. :)

That usually isn't the case. Mental conditions (and other such issues) are always weighed heavily in the verdict

Whoa! Who said anything about "mental conditions"? I'm still talking about a simple genetic predisposition towards rebelliousness, rabble-rousing, etc. Let's say there's a gang member who has always been rebellious since being a child (due to his genetic predisposition), and maybe he lives in a poor neighborhood with no good role-models (but hey, it's not his fault he was born poor)... if he gets a little carried away and commits a crime in the heat of some moment, and is otherwise mentally healthy, should he not be punished because his genetic predisposition and unfortunate circumstances led him to his situation? It wasn't his fault, after all.

It's the equivalent slapping someone with Tourette's for insulting you

No, it isn't. In your example, a slap won't cure the Tourettes. In that case it really truly is out of the person's control. In the case of a rebellious child, they can control their behavior, it may just be more difficult. Furthermore, if your analogy was valid, then you might as well say that sending a child to his room for (genetically predisposed) disobedience is the equivalent of sending someone with Tourette's to his room for insulting you. That analogy makes *any* form of punishment or discipline seem unfair.

If I didn't know better, I'd think maybe you were being intentionally disengenuous.

Nope... no disengenuousness (disengenuosity?)... just trying to work through the specific issue of fairness/unfairness that you brought up.

[Loki]

Christian,

I find it hard to believe that it isnt obvious that sometimes "because that is the way things are" should be enough for a 5 year old". A 5 or 6 years does not have the capacity or authority to tell a parent what is right or wrong. The parent does.
Not sure why you write this, since I addressed this already in my post - I have no problems with 'adults know more about right and wrong than children' and that sometims 'because that is the way things are' is a necessary response. As I said, the issue is not defiance, but consequences.

Loki, the minute you do find viable alternatives that have the same or greater effectiveness you don't need CP.
Agreed ... and those alternatives *always* exist.

You are blessed with a child that corrects behavior without the need of CP.
Because we choose to actively pursue alternatives.

What I submit to you, is that there are children that leave you no choice.
And I submit to you that the parent has failed to look hard enough.

You have tried everything, timeouts, taking away a privileage, not giving a reward, but nothing works. I say it is time for a final warning.
No, it's time to re-examine the nature of the relationship betwene the child and parents. Something's wrong and it's not working - why assume the child?

I think I'm pretty well versed on the alternatives, and I can even categorized them by age, if you want. Distraction doesn't work very well for a 6 year old.
But I'd suggest to you that you initial assumption that CP is both (a)valid and (b) necessary if poor behaviour reaches a certian point, means that you were/are not able to truly evaluate the alternatives - you start from a position that says "CP may be necessary". The very first time your daughter reached a "point of open defiance", did you think "well, I hoped it won't come to this, but CP's the ciorrect option now", or did you think "perhaps it's time for CP - no, I don't want to go there yet - lets try 'X'"?

No transgression warrants people being handcuffed, there is no encarceration? I sorry, I can't believe that. Someone who murders only has to pay a fine?
I am differentiating between physcially striking a human body, and physically restaining or limiting a human. I'm not sure why I need to point out the difference - I though it was clear. I've already said that moving children into another room (for example) can be a valid discipline tool - the equivalent of imprisonment, I guess. Do we really need to detail this any further - it seems self-evident what CP means (physically striking the body).

So, when a person is gunning these people down, the police just sits and waits till she is finished to politely ask her to put her weapon down. I don't want to live in Australia if this is the case.
Okay, sorry - sloppy writing! I was thinking only of "after the event", meaning the court system. You are quite correct - police officers, in that act of preventing a crime or arresting a suspect, have permission to use "reasonable force". But I think we are drifting a little off course with this adult/child analogy (which you brought up). CP is the child equivalent of the court system - it's a punishment delivered after a transgression. Referring to behaviour of arresting officers in a murder is going too far.

[Paradox]

Originally posted by Christian
There is a very old dilemma presented to law students. The question goes something like this: If you had to choose between justice and the law, what would you choose?

The correct answer from a jurisprudence point of view, believe or not is the law.
And what is the 'correct' answer from an ethical point of view? Or do you defer such things to mythological laws in all cases? In which case, if you have a son, have you (or would you, as case may be) have him stoned at his irreverence?
No, I mean that fairness is an elussive concept. What is fair? A capitalist society where the rich get richer or a communist where everyone (expect the elite) is basically poor.
I had/have already relinquished the 'fairness' point of view, as it appears a common notion was an, amazingly, incomprehensible concept. Although it says something, in that you feel no inling whatsoever to rethink views of yours which harm children for no reason of their own fault, when you have a choice.
Is it fair that some people are born is Sweden and some in Somalia? The communist (socialist) have for decades tried to find this concept, balance, it does not exist.
Let's try this again: You DON'T have control over where someone is born (you can, obviously, choose where your child is born, but this is a different issue). You DO have control over whether or not to strike you child. The parallel is fundamentally flawed.
The moment you say, "this is not fair", you are losing your ability to respond. In effect, you are saying, circumstance ultimately define my destiny.

So, phylosophically it is exactly the opposite of what you propose.
Not only am I confused by whatever you're saying here, I am at a loss to find how it relates to the issue of CP at all.
It sound to me like you are not ready to engage or resolve the paradoxes your philosophy of life present to you. This response says nothing. I have no idea what this is suppose to mean. It is a response from prejudice and not reason.
No, I am not ready to resolve your paradoxes. My response was an exhaled sigh in realization of the futility of arguing the poorness of quality in the Detroit Tigers organization to a die hard fan who won't hear any differently.
There are fundamental differences between Christians and atheists. This is one. Atheist have this illusion that they can understand everything and that they have not need for obedience by faith. The irony is that whether you want to accept it or not, you do have masters and you obey them blindly. On of them is you own judment and understanding.
:confused: Okay, just keep backpedalling.
Another excellent example of a fundamental difference in approach. The Christian philosophy is the run away as far as possible from temptation because Christians understand that the humans are weak and that more times than not faced with temptation we will sucumb to it.
:rolleyes: Psychologically speaking, we are what we believe ourselves to be.
So, the Christian advice for an alcoholic is to run away from any activity that involves drinks. Your approach is to stare the drink in the face and develop the will power to say no. It is a sublime, romantic notion, and it doesn't work.

A person that day in and day out is exposed to drugs, believe me, will sooner or later become a drug user.
Your approach is more effective only because the percentage of people who atrophy their self-control and intellect to fantasies is so great. There will always be more betas than alphas in pack species, unfortunately. I'm sorry of you fundamentally believe that your, and most people's, will is so horrificly weak.
Humans cannot be trusted. Systems are developed constantly to protect humans from themselves.
This, ironically, is an fantastic example to advocate protecting humans from themselves.
Here an illustration of the both phylosophies at work. For years the US government spend millions of dollars educating drivers on how to drive safely. In theory, if everyone followed the rules of safe driving, accidents would be minimal.

In practice, accidents skyrocked as car sales did. What was the solution? Let's create safer cars, airbags, antilock brakes, seatbelts. The system protects drivers.

I much rather trust that my child is driving a very safe car then her driving skills.
Maybe if you taught her how to drive properly, you'd feel less ompelled to belittle her driving ability. Aside from that, accidents are not always escapable precisely because YOU HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THEM! It's called precaution.You DO have control over whether you will abuse a child.

Yes, Christian surrender their will to the will of God. This is another fundamental difference. And again, you too surrender your ability to make moral choices. They are just of a different kind.
Not all christians no...only fanatical ones. There are plenty of christians that believe god gave them a brain for a reason...that reason not being to stuff it in the sock drawer.
The great lie here is that you walk by yourself. What conclusions have you arrived at that I could not find the source where you took them from. What actions do you take that are not dependent on the work or effort of others before you. It is silly to think we arrive at conclusions all by our lonesome.
Do you really expect me to take your overstretched parallel between self-dependence and acausality seriously? Do you?
Well, learn to accept it. It is your reality as well. If you are of this world and live in this world, your ideal world is an illusion.
I don't believe you are in any position to tutor me in gauging the difference sbetween illusions and empirical realities, although I appreciate the effort.
Yes, this human condition permeates all, poor, rich, black, white, tall, short. All humans are like this. Given the chance and with no restrictions, humans will ultimately choose the selfish act.
You are completely oblivious to your circular self-fulfilling growth cycle, aren't you?
Show me who is above the law and I will show you a tyrrant. Show me a human who is not accoutable to the system and I'll show you evil person.

It is funny that you should not be aware of these things. Your country is one of the most regulated and normed in America.
Which is why skeptics are in the minority.
Well, if happy means being a drug addict or an alcoholic, no I don't.
Sad. The degree of vain mania needed to be able to demand what makes another person happy is disturbing.
Why a gamble? Mine is a sure thing. From my side of the fence, it is you who is glambling.
Nevermind.

---
[QUOTE]Originally posted by PotatoStew
[B]"Would merit CP" *if all other methods failed* ...unless I'm mistaken, Christian has been saying all along that CP is a last resort if all other methods failed (sorry to all if I've misunderstood).
Do you really even agree with his notion, or do you back him up only because you both are on the same side of the fence? I'm sorry if this sounds patronizing, but I've always found you to quite sensible in your positions...and am having a hard time believing you actually support this position under the obvious realizations to what it implies.

However, if you'd like to find where Christian mentioned specifically 'if all other methods failed' (...as if that really made any difference to it's case) you may feel free.
What I am saying is that it's possible that if there is a genetic predisposition in a child, and if no other method works, then it may in fact be "fair" to use CP to teach the child self-discipline (or are we not agreed that a certain amount of self-discipline is a good thing?)
So you do believe in 'fairness'...but have only skewed the definition to suit the conversation. Self-discipline is not CP, obviously, as it is not done to the self.
Whoa! Who said anything about "mental conditions"? I'm still talking about a simple genetic predisposition towards rebelliousness, rabble-rousing, etc.
The degree is not the important issue, only that the person is question has no control over what they do.
Let's say there's a gang member who has always been rebellious since being a child (due to his genetic predisposition), and maybe he lives in a poor neighborhood with no good role-models (but hey, it's not his fault he was born poor)... if he gets a little carried away and commits a crime in the heat of some moment, and is otherwise mentally healthy, should he not be punished because his genetic predisposition and unfortunate circumstances led him to his situation? It wasn't his fault, after all.
With adults considerably less leeway is obviously given, since they are asasumed to have the ability to counter their tendencies (and if they can't, they should be taking medication). We are talking about children. Besides, I'm sure no parent has used spanking as the 'last resort' because little Billy stabbed Suzie 13 times with the paring knife.
No, it isn't.
Yes, it is. Although, you did feel compelled to provide your rationalization/justification, I see.
In your example, a slap won't cure the Tourettes.
Spanking doesn't 'sure' anything...it only enforces a fear that ends up emotionally overriding the tendency. If the tendency is sufficiently pronounced, it won't work anyway. I'm sorry, I still find it repugnant that you're (this time, it was Christian last time) supporting the notion of physical abuse because of it's supposed efficiency.
In that case it really truly is out of the person's control.
OH! So the child's actions aren't truly out of their control! Even though we just went over this as being the case...those silly kids, they're faking again! :rolleyes:
In the case of a rebellious child, they can control their behavior, it may just be more difficult.
Ah... :rolleyes:
Furthermore, if your analogy was valid, then you might as well say that sending a child to his room for (genetically predisposed) disobedience is the equivalent of sending someone with Tourette's to his room for insulting you. That analogy makes *any* form of punishment or discipline seem unfair.
Sending a child to their room does not physically harm them. And if that was your only response, then it still wouldn't be construvtive...granted it wouldn't be specifically destructive either. This isn't advanced calculus here.
Nope... no disengenuousness (disengenuosity?)....
Not intentionally, at least?

[dimossi]

Wow, this thread has taken on a life of its own.

And to think I had ended the debate on spanking with my very first post. :p

[PotatoStew]

Paradox:

Do you really even agree with his notion, or do you back him up only because you both are on the same side of the fence? I'm sorry if this sounds patronizing, but I've always found you to quite sensible in your positions...and am having a hard time believing you actually support this position under the obvious realizations to what it implies.


I honestly hadn't thought about it much before this discussion. All in all, I have no intention of ever using CP, if that makes you feel any better. As I said, I am not giving a blanket backing-up of his entire position, I am merely addressing this specific issue of fairness, and that only under certain assumptions (and also begining to wish I hadn't said anything, because I'm really starting to spend too much time here again).

And thank you for the backhanded compliment... :p

So you do believe in 'fairness'...but have only skewed the definition to suit the conversation.


Ok, withdraw the claws for a second, and let me try to clarify, as I don't seem to be getting my point across.

-- Assuming that a given child is habitually rebellious, and
-- Assuming that said child has been disciplined in all other reasonable manners to no avail, and
-- Assuming that CP is delivered in a controlled, moderated manner,

-- I think that it may possibly be fair to administer CP.

I think "fair" is an appropriate word here because in the situation outlined above, the alternative is to let the child be rebellious and suffer no consequences for his actions. Let me ask you this: Give the exact assumptions I just described (that is, you have tried everything except CP, do you think it would be better to administer CP, or let the child run amok?

Now here is the fine print to try to avoid further misunderstandings: I think that in most cases, something will work before you get to the CP option, as many of you are saying. However, in this discussion, I am more or less taking Christian at his word that he has tried everything else. I also am assuming that when he uses CP, he uses a minimum of force, and it would probably be a stretch to term it "abuse" while still allowing that word to retain any real meaning.

Self-discipline is not CP, obviously, as it is not done to the self.

I didn't say CP was self-discipline, I said that CP (or any form of punishment for that matter) can be a means of *teaching* self-discipline.

I'm sorry, I still find it repugnant that you're (this time, it was Christian last time) supporting the notion of physical abuse because of it's supposed efficiency.


I'm doing nothing of the sort. Disengage from attack mode for a moment and read what I'm writing. I never said anything about CP being efficient.

Yes, it is.

No, it isn't. (Your turn...)

OH! So the child's actions aren't truly out of their control! Even though we just went over this as being the case...those silly kids, they're faking again!

I don't think I ever said that the child's actions were totally out of their control. Children most definitely have control over their actions. Even if a genetic predisposition for rebelliousness does exist (which I was assuming for the sake of the discussion), the child still has control, it just may be more difficult at times. Tourette's on the other hand, leaves *no* control, if I'm not mistaken. Is it really your position that a child has no control over her actions? How can you justify any sort of punishment, if that's the case?

Sending a child to their room does not physically harm them.

That's beside the point... you still wouldn't send a Tourette's sufferer to her room for insulting you. So if your analogy is valid, then you shouldn't send a child to his room for disobeying you. Again, if a child has no control over her actions, how do you justify any sort of punishment as being fair?

[Mossy]

Christian,

I've been pretty much staying out of this conversation lately because I think Paradox and Loki are making much better points than I would, and also the conversation seems to be full enough without my (repetitive) input.

But -

With regard to evolution, I asked you once what it would take to change your mind, and you were able to give me a clear answer. So now, I'll ask the same question of this topic: What would it take to convince you that you're wrong? Is there anything that would cause you to step back and say, "Okay, perhaps CP really isn't necessary. If it isn't necessary, and it is the intentional infliction of physical pain on my children, then maybe I shouldn't do it."?

If you could show me enough clear evidence (conclusive studies, etc.) that CP was necessary to raise certain children (you've stipulated that isn't necessary for some children), then I would reconsider my belief.

-Ed

[Mossy]

Christian,

I wanted to elaborate a little bit on my question above.

Since this discussion started, I've been trying to familiarize myself with the various studies and information relevant to the discussion and have found:

- The overwhelming majority of studies in the last 20 years have shown a link between abuse (choosing this word because it seems more appropriate) and negative effects on children. Specifically, the worse the abuse, the worse the damage. Ranging from anti-social behavior, to increased violence, and (ironically) to decrease in respect for authority.

- The sites/information available against CP include religious and non-religious institutions, as well as government and private organizations.

- The only sites/information I could find supporting corporeal punishment of children were from Christian sites/organizations.

It seems clear (to me) that the evidence supports the belief that coporeal punishment is detrimental to the development of children, although I recognize the fact that maybe there is information available that I couldn't find.

Regardless, I didn't ask whether or not it was "harmful", only whether or not it was "necessary", because it could be argued that the effect of not using CP is worse than the effect of using CP.

On that note, are there any studies that show (in people who were not subjected to CP as children):
- an increase in criminal behavior
- a decrease in IQ
- a decrease in social interactivity
- an increase in violent behavior
- a decrease in respect for authority

It would go a long way toward encouraging me to change my mind (and perhaps be more tolerate of those who use CP) if you could show anything that would support the belief that using CP is necessary (i.e. that the damage done by not using it is worse than the damage done by using it).

Now that I've clearly stated what it would take for me to reconsider my beliefs, and with that in mind, what would it take for you?

-Ed

[Victor Danilchenko]

Christian,

This is nonsense. What is this "denied the opportunity to develop ethically" rubbish. You are ethical or you are not. The motivation is irrelevant.In that case you should be happy to live in a police state which forces everyone to act "ethically" -- contribute to charities, help the elderly, etc. Well, I lived in such a state (USSR), and I don't want any part of it.

Seriously, if you meant what you said -- if you see no difference between the ethical values of an act performed foluntarily and an act performed under threat -- there is little more we can speak about. Just stay the hell away from me, in case your faith collapses while you are near a loaded gun.

In most cases, none can prove they would have acted but ethically. The system in most cases does not allow a choice.of course it does. Nobody forces an atheist to contribute to charity to help the old lady across the street; so we can tell an atheist's ethical status by her actions. Xians, on the other hand, always act under duress, and thus cannot be known to be ethical. Sorry.

If you don't pay your bills, someone is going to knock on your door. That you decide to pay on debts and say, you would not need anyone to knock on your door to pay is inconsequential.Yeah. That is why paying your bills is not considered a highly ethical act -- as you said, just doing the needful thing to avoid being tossed in the slammer. And when helping old ladies across the street becomes legally mandated, that act will cease to have any discernible ethical value as well.

Seriously, do you sincerely fail to understand the ethical difference between a voluntary act and a forced one?

[Christian]

Potato wrote:
"Would merit CP" *if all other methods failed* ...unless I'm mistaken, Christian has been saying all along that CP is a last resort if all other methods failed

Yes.

Loki wrote:
Agreed ... and those alternatives *always* exist.

Ok, I think we can pinpoint the main difference in our position. You say alternatives always exist. I say no.

Loki wrote:
Because we choose to actively pursue alternatives.

Or you have a child that does not need CP.

Loki wrote:
And I submit to you that the parent has failed to look hard enough.

So, avoid CP at all cost even when it is the obvious effective tool.

Loki wrote:
No, it's time to re-examine the nature of the relationship betwene the child and parents. Something's wrong and it's not working - why assume the child?

Remember, you already agreed about the child parent relationship, who is authority.

So if some students get bad grades, the teacher is at fault (some proponents foward this view) or the students who get the bad grades.

Loki wrote:
But I'd suggest to you that you initial assumption that CP is both (a)valid and (b) necessary if poor behaviour reaches a certian point, means that you were/are not able to truly evaluate the alternatives - you start from a position that says "CP may be necessary". The very first time your daughter reached a "point of open defiance", did you think "well, I hoped it won't come to this, but CP's the ciorrect option now", or did you think "perhaps it's time for CP - no, I don't want to go there yet - lets try 'X'"?

The rules are pretty much set. There are standards of behavior the I expect from my daughter, she has learned to accept the limits and she is productive.

I know CP has worked because I don't have to use it. The times I have, the results have been achieved and the problems have been corrected. The process has been shift, to the point and effective.

I don't have to second guess about results. It has been an effective tool. To me it is just nonsense the way you have to bend over backwards to avoid such a simple tool. That is just what it is.

Please understand my point of view, to me the other side is arguing that you should never grab a child by the arm and take him to a time out. Someone could very well take the position that it is humiliating for a child to be grabbed by the arm and taken to isolation.

Paradox wrote:
And what is the 'correct' answer from an ethical point of view?

The law.

Paradox wrote:
Or do you defer such things to mythological laws in all cases? In which case, if you have a son, have you (or would you, as case may be) have him stoned at his irreverence?

I'm sorry but I have to understand you have no more arguments left to support your position.

Paradox wrote:
Not only am I confused by whatever you're saying here, I am at a loss to find how it relates to the issue of CP at all.

That independence like you see really makes you dependent. And the surrender to High Authority sets you free.

Paradox wrote:
No, I am not ready to resolve your paradoxes. My response was an exhaled sigh in realization of the futility of arguing the poorness of quality in the Detroit Tigers organization to a die hard fan who won't hear any differently.

Your characterization (attacking the messenger thing) is distracting from the issue. I think the discussion is of substance.

Paradox wrote:
Your approach is more effective only because the percentage of people who atrophy their self-control and intellect to fantasies is so great. There will always be more betas than alphas in pack species, unfortunately. I'm sorry of you fundamentally believe that your, and most people's, will is so horrificly weak.

I have always said that most atheist are elitist. And it doesn't get any more evident than this.

The irony is that when I consider myself weak, I become strong, and those who think themselves strong most times are really weak.

Paradox wrote:
I don't believe you are in any position to tutor me in gauging the difference sbetween illusions and empirical realities, although I appreciate the effort.

Well, your comments warrant the response.


I'm not going to comment on the other stuff you write because for some reason you seem to raise the tone again. I don't want to speculate.

And I really don't want to get into a negative discussion again.


Mossy wrote:
What would it take to convince you that you're wrong?

That it hadn't worked for me.

Mossy wrote:
On that note, are there any studies that show (in people who were not subjected to CP as children):
- an increase in criminal behavior
- a decrease in IQ
- a decrease in social interactivity
- an increase in violent behavior
- a decrease in respect for authority

The problem here is isolating variables. A parent who has not subjected a child to CP might also be lousy at positive reenforcement or at other forms of discipline.

Also a parent might not have enoug resources to work on cognotive abilities. I think these types of studies are hard to find and if found are inconclusive.

So the question is, why then have I used it. Well, empirically it has worked for me.

I see no detrimental features, quite the contrary. I think my child is well on her way to being a happy, productive, member of society.

Mossy wrote:
It would go a long way toward encouraging me to change my mind (and perhaps be more tolerate of those who use CP) if you could show anything that would support the belief that using CP is necessary (i.e. that the damage done by not using it is worse than the damage done by using it).

Tolerance is a weird term here. If you mean it like you have no choice but to tolerate the Christians exist or that rap music exists. I can understand that, you have to tolerate them (it) because you have no choice.


I really don't want to change anyone's mind. I was naive again in thinking I could exchange views on child rearing from the Christian point of view (there is so much more, CP is a very small part of it), but I see that that is not possible.

Mossy wrote:
Now that I've clearly stated what it would take for me to reconsider my beliefs, and with that in mind, what would it take for you?

As I said before, that it didn't work. And that the prediction of atheists came true regarding the consequences of CP. I don't see those predictions coming true in the Christian community I know.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Christian,

Mossy wrote:
On that note, are there any studies that show (in people who were not subjected to CP as children):
- an increase in criminal behavior
- a decrease in IQ
- a decrease in social interactivity
- an increase in violent behavior
- a decrease in respect for authority

The problem here is isolating variables. A parent who has not subjected a child to CP might also be lousy at positive reenforcement or at other forms of discipline.Ummm, actions of one parent have zero relationship to isolating variables. Now if you can show that parents who avoid CP tend to in general also come up short on positive reinforcement, you might have a case -- but I think the situation is quite the opposite, parents who avoid CP tend to do so as a conscious choice, and compensate for lack of negative reinforcement with higher quantity (and hopefully quality) of positive reinforcement.

Also a parent might not have enoug resources to work on cognotive abilities. I think these types of studies are hard to find and if found are inconclusive.Those studies are plentiful, and quite conclusive -- you just don't like their conclusion. Multiple studies have shown that CP has a detrimental effect on various aspects of the child's social adjustment and behavior.

Herte's two links you might find curious:

Crime and religiosity (http://www.cs.umass.edu/~danilche/texts/crime_and_religion.txt)
Intelligence and religiosity (http://www.cs.umass.edu/~danilche/texts/intelligence.txt)

have fun.

So the question is, why then have I used it. Well, empirically it has worked for me.Empirically, driving without the seatbelts worked for me -- I am still alive! Screw the studies about the seatbelt usefulness, my "empirical experience" trumps 'em all!

P.S. I have three kids, and i don't administer CP. the two who are old enough to actually have meaningful behavior patterns, are both wonderful children. I also helped raise my sister (13 years my junior) with similarl methods and results. Personal experience against personal experience, eh?..

[Mossy]

Originally posted by Christian
Mossy wrote:
What would it take to convince you that you're wrong?

That it hadn't worked for me.


Again, the question isn't whether or not it is effective - it certainly is effective, you can beat any animal into submission. The question I asked was what would it take to convince you it isn't necessary.


Mossy wrote:
On that note, are there any studies that show (in people who were not subjected to CP as children):
- an increase in criminal behavior
- a decrease in IQ
- a decrease in social interactivity
- an increase in violent behavior
- a decrease in respect for authority

The problem here is isolating variables. A parent who has not subjected a child to CP might also be lousy at positive reenforcement or at other forms of discipline.

Also a parent might not have enoug resources to work on cognotive abilities. I think these types of studies are hard to find and if found are inconclusive.


According to your answer, the studies would be biased in your favor (a parent who doesn't use CP and is lousy at other forms of discipline). I haven't seen any studies - biased or not that suggest this is the case.

Are there any studies which indicate that a lack of CP produces any of the above listed effects?


So the question is, why then have I used it. Well, empirically it has worked for me.


That isn't the question. The fact that you aren't in prison (due to your parents using CP) isn't an advocacy. My step-father used to beat me into unconsciousness and I'm not in prison either - is that an advocacy of his parenting technique? Of course not, and I'm sure you agree.


I see no detrimental features, quite the contrary. I think my child is well on her way to being a happy, productive, member of society.


I am sincerely happy for you, but that isn't the question. The question is, "is it necessary".

If it is not necessary, why would any parent willingly inflict pain on their child.


Mossy wrote:
It would go a long way toward encouraging me to change my mind (and perhaps be more tolerate of those who use CP) if you could show anything that would support the belief that using CP is necessary (i.e. that the damage done by not using it is worse than the damage done by using it).

Tolerance is a weird term here. If you mean it like you have no choice but to tolerate the Christians exist or that rap music exists. I can understand that, you have to tolerate them (it) because you have no choice.

I thought it was clear what I meant, but just to clarify: I meant tolerant in that I might be less morally outraged, less revulsed, etc.

I really don't want to change anyone's mind. I was naive again in thinking I could exchange views on child rearing from the Christian point of view (there is so much more, CP is a very small part of it), but I see that that is not possible.


It is possible, at least with me. And I have stated very clearly what it would take, show me anything that indicates a child raised without CP is at a disadvantage in life (specifics mentioned above) and I will, at the very least, reconsider my beliefs.

So now I ask again, is it possible that you will reconsider your beliefs? Or is there absolutely nothing that will even give you cause to validate your beliefs on something as important as child rearing?



Mossy wrote:
Now that I've clearly stated what it would take for me to reconsider my beliefs, and with that in mind, what would it take for you?

As I said before, that it didn't work. And that the prediction of atheists came true regarding the consequences of CP. I don't see those predictions coming true in the Christian community I know. [/B]

Effective is not the same as necessary. You can beat any puppy into submission, does that mean that it isn't more beneficial to use more humane methods?

I'm not sure what you mean with the "predictions" comment.
-Ed

[edited to fix typo]

[Paradox]

Originally posted by Christian
Paradox wrote:
And what is the 'correct' answer from an ethical point of view?

The law.
http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~jimella/laws01.htm
I'm sorry but I have to understand you have no more arguments left to support your position.
And how many would I have to present before you even blink?
That independence like you see really makes you dependent. And the surrender to High Authority sets you free.
Your detouring the issue with vague oxymorons. Coercion is not freedom. A local stop by your nearest dictionary should help.
Your characterization (attacking the messenger thing) is distracting from the issue. I think the discussion is of substance.
Then, by all means, explain to me the substance of your stance aside from:
1- It's written in the bible...once.
2- It 'works'.
I have always said that most atheist are elitist. And it doesn't get any more evident than this.
This is not elitist in the least because it is not simply concerning me. If there is a vanity that seems to exude, then it's simply because I'm rather content not being a self-belittling person...and in not having the sort of mindset that would view other people with the same tint.
The irony is that when I consider myself weak, I become strong, and those who think themselves strong most times are really weak.
That these oxymorons are, as well, contained in biblical scripture does not magically make them true. Although there is some psychological pertinence to the comment, I think maybe you've been watching The NeverEnding Story a bit to often (which isn't really a bad thing, although...).
Well, your comments warrant the response.


I'm not going to comment on the other stuff you write because for some reason you seem to raise the tone again. I don't want to speculate.

And I really don't want to get into a negative discussion again.
Whose concept of 'negative' yours? Maybe it's not 'negative' at all...it certainly doesn't need to be 'fair', we've dispensed with such trivialities.
Loki wrote:
Agreed ... and those alternatives *always* exist.

Ok, I think we can pinpoint the main difference in our position. You say alternatives always exist. I say no.
So you would actually attempt to exhaust all other 'possible' (in your opinion) alternatives before resorting to CP?

In addition, if you do believe that some children may never need it, and hypothetically saying one may be a child of yours, then how does your biblical quote come into play? It says nothing of the reasons for which the 'rod' should be used, only that it should not be spared. Would you pull it out without exhausting other options for the purpose of filling a 'quota'?
Loki wrote:
And I submit to you that the parent has failed to look hard enough.

So, avoid CP at all cost even when it is the obvious effective tool.
The effective tool?

[Victor Danilchenko]

That independence like you see really makes you dependent. And the surrender to High Authority sets you free.War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

[Christian]

VD wrote:
Nobody forces an atheist to contribute to charity to help the old lady across the street; so we can tell an atheist's ethical status by her actions. Xians, on the other hand, always act under duress, and thus cannot be known to be ethical. Sorry.

The problem is that our actions must speak louder than our words. The argument can be made that Christians contribute because it is a mandate and out of the selfish act of avoiding heavenly retribution. But the point is that Christians contribute heavely and make a difference around the world for the less fortunate. For those, it doesn't matter the motivation, what matters, is that they are getting help.

Now, take atheists. Most say they contribute. There is very little evidence of this. Where are tons and tons of atheist charitable organizations around the world. Furthermore, atheist make a very small part of the population as a whole, there is no way to know any significant impact from them as a group.

Take a look at statistics around the World:

Atheist in the World (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#Nonreligious)

From there:Atheists actually make up less than one-tenth of one percent of the population in many countries where large numbers claim no religious preference, such as the United States (7.5% nonreligious) and Australia (15% nonreligious).

VD wrote:
Ummm, actions of one parent have zero relationship to isolating variables. Now if you can show that parents who avoid CP tend to in general also come up short on positive reinforcement, you might have a case -- but I think the situation is quite the opposite, parents who avoid CP tend to do so as a conscious choice, and compensate for lack of negative reinforcement with higher quantity (and hopefully quality) of positive reinforcement.

Mine are not examples from real data. I was just pointing out the difficulty in ascertaning what caused a child to be successful or not as an adult. I could have used the opposite examples.

Now, where is the data to your conclusions?

VD wrote:
Those studies are plentiful, and quite conclusive -- you just don't like their conclusion. Multiple studies have shown that CP has a detrimental effect on various aspects of the child's social adjustment and behavior.

This is absolutely false. Here a sample of some conclusions from:
On Research (http://people.biola.edu/faculty/paulp/Larzelere602.html)

From there:Dr. Gershoff herself noted the first problem, that there is no scientific basis for any detrimental outcomes being causeda by corporal punishment: "parental corporal punishment cannot be identified . . . as the cause of these child behaviors" (p. 550). She cites spanking as guilty by association, which would never hold up in a court of law. The article explains much better what I am not as clear or eloquent to express.

VD wrote:
Herte's two links you might find curious:

You might want to be careful when posting statistics, they are not as impressive as you think:
In "The New Criminology", Max D. schlapp and Edward E. Smith say that
two generations of statisticians found that the ratio of convicts without
religious training is about 1/10 of 1%. With the current atheist population, the ratio seems just about right.

So, with the other link, what is your conclusion? Atheist are smarter that religious people? If this is the case, what inferences are you drawing from that. Atheists are more successful? happier? what? they are just better?

Mossy wrote:
The question I asked was what would it take to convince you it isn't necessary.

The problem with your question is that there is no significant statistical evidence that answers it as you pose it. Here, let me show you, are time outs necessary. Is kissing a child, instead of just hugging necessary? I can have inferences, but I can't answer it that way.

Mossy wrote:
Are there any studies which indicate that a lack of CP produces any of the above listed effects?

Read and judge for yourself:

people.biola.edu/faculty/paulp/Larzelere602.html

Mossy wrote:
I thought it was clear what I meant, but just to clarify: I meant tolerant in that I might be less morally outraged, less revulsed, etc.

I think your reaction (response) is irrational. Once you look at the statistics, you will find that you are overeacting and that your response is unfounded.

Lets look at this:
people.biola.edu/faculty/paulp/Larzelere02.html

From there Detrimental child outcomes are associated with the frequency of any disciplinary tactic, not just physical punishment.

So, it seem that CP is beneficial and necessary just because the frequency disciplinary actions diminishes with it.

Feel free to read the whole site (the Sweden study is very interesting)

Mossy wrote:
So now I ask again, is it possible that you will reconsider your beliefs? Or is there absolutely nothing that will even give you cause to validate your beliefs on something as important as child rearing?

You are making it sound like, I have this irrational, out of left field belief based on superstition or similar. This is not the case. If you care to read a little, you will find that my position (although no doubt debatable) is well ground in sound knowledge.

Here read another example:
www.corpun.com/benatar.htm

Paradox wrote:
In addition, if you do believe that some children may never need it, and hypothetically saying one may be a child of yours, then how does your biblical quote come into play? It says nothing of the reasons for which the 'rod' should be used, only that it should not be spared. Would you pull it out without exhausting other options for the purpose of filling a 'quota'?

This is a fair question. I think the spirit of the text is that children must be disciplined when they are young so that they will live a happy life. If you have been paying attention, I have not given my interpretation of the text or made reference to it. From the very beginning, my position on CP has been based on it's effectiveness. If you can please read the links.

[Paradox]

Originally posted by Christian
This is a fair question. I think the spirit of the text is that children must be disciplined when they are young so that they will live a happy life.
Do you consider happiness anything more than a relative interpretation of events by an individual?
If you have been paying attention, I have not given my interpretation of the text or made reference to it. From the very beginning, my position on CP has been based on it's effectiveness. If you can please read the links/
Very well. Then, in this context, do you believe any act to be improper if it is sufficiently efficient?

This is to say, do you firmly believe that there are no hazardous side-effects to CP, hence it's efficacy isn't hampered by any drawbacks, or do you believe that the efficiency of the method overrules whatever grievances could be raised about it. Basically, at the moment you are administering CP, do you say:

"This isn't harming him/her in any way, and it is constructively disciplining them."

or

"This may harm them, but at least it will surely show them the proper way."

Also, if you do favor CP as a 'last resort' method, how do you, personally, know when you have exhausted all other available options?

---
Originally posted by PotatoStew
I honestly hadn't thought about it much before this discussion. All in all, I have no intention of ever using CP, if that makes you feel any better. As I said, I am not giving a blanket backing-up of his entire position, I am merely addressing this specific issue of fairness, and that only under certain assumptions (and also begining to wish I hadn't said anything, because I'm really starting to spend too much time here again).
Is that a bad thing?

And thank you for the backhanded compliment...:p
Point taken. :p
Paradox: So you do believe in 'fairness'...but have only skewed the definition to suit the conversation.

PotatoStew: Ok, withdraw the claws for a second, and let me try to clarify, as I don't seem to be getting my point across.
I didn't intend the comment to appear that aggressive and/or derogatory. I simply found it hard to reconcile the term 'fair' with hitting a child because, in effect, they are unlucky. Of course this only digs deeper into a discussion debating the stability of a relative term, so I'll stop.
-- Assuming that a given child is habitually rebellious, and
-- Assuming that said child has been disciplined in all other reasonable manners to no avail, and
-- Assuming that CP is delivered in a controlled, moderated manner,

-- I think that it may possibly be fair to administer CP.
So as to avoid this 'fair' word, would you still agree with you comments with the word 'appropriate' in its place?

If so, I posed this question to Christian as well...when does one know if "all other reasonable manners" have been used? Especially considering that it is CP that treads the line of 'unreasonable' more than most methods.
I think "fair" is an appropriate word here because in the situation outlined above, the alternative is to let the child be rebellious and suffer no consequences for his actions.
Again, this deals directly with how deep we consider the reservoir of non-physical methods to be.
Let me ask you this: Give the exact assumptions I just described (that is, you have tried everything except CP, do you think it would be better to administer CP, or let the child run amok?
One cannot know they have 'tried everything'. I find it implausible to suggest that there aren't always ways to psychologically enforce discipline that does not rely on physical hitting.

Depending upon the child's age, something akin to (as I mentioned long ago) a pat on the hand may indeed serve as the best method only because the child may not acutally understand any verbal explanation. This, I can understand, but there should never be an actual infliction of damage. What would get the point across in this sort of situation is not so much the pat (which would be equivalent to playfully playing the drums on the child's tush), but the look given when the pat is done. Children can understand this.

At the moment that a child develops sufficient cognisance and the ability to express and understand it, CP should never have to be an alternative. If it comes to that point, I suggest that there is are issues in the quality of communication between the parent and the child, or that there are issues in the relationship itself...both these issues being thing which will not be made any better with discipline by physical force (aka fear).
Now here is the fine print to try to avoid further misunderstandings: I think that in most cases, something will work before you get to the CP option, as many of you are saying. However, in this discussion, I am more or less taking Christian at his word that he has tried everything else. I also am assuming that when he uses CP, he uses a minimum of force, and it would probably be a stretch to term it "abuse" while still allowing that word to retain any real meaning.
I place that line at being able to say that the hitting hurt the child. At the moment there is pain, it is abuse, no matter to what ends it is used for (which, true, says nothing of its efficacy...but I find it bothersome to believe anyone would discard the ethical aspect of the act in favor of how well it works).
I didn't say CP was self-discipline, I said that CP (or any form of punishment for that matter) can be a means of *teaching* self-discipline.
Well, of course. But CP focuses on the cessation of the act firstly, and prominently. Only when CP is combined with other non-physical methods (communication-based) can a fruitful explanation of the events (and thus, an actual learning process) occur.
I'm doing nothing of the sort. Disengage from attack mode for a moment and read what I'm writing. I never said anything about CP being efficient.
Attack-Mode disengaged.
No, it isn't. (Your turn...)
Yes it is (tag). On a serious note, the difference is the intent of the action. In the case of my analogy, the reaction was not performed in order to 'teach' per se, but to respond to something that was not approved of. In the case of a parent, it can be said that there is an intent to 'teach', but it is still a matter of it being something the parent doesn't approve of.
Now if the slapper genuinely believed their action would help the insulter, then the parallel would fit better.
I don't think I ever said that the child's actions were totally out of their control. Children most definitely have control over their actions. Even if a genetic predisposition for rebelliousness does exist (which I was assuming for the sake of the discussion), the child still has control, it just may be more difficult at times.
well, we didn't delve all that deeply into this aspect. Yes, for the purposes of the conversation it is assumed that 'naughtiness' is inborn, and thus, not within the control of the child (whether this is actually the case or not, I'm not entirely sure, but this was Christian's take on the question, and I responded within that context).

Even if they can control it to a certain extent, they are still in a position where they are at a disadvantage to other children. Now as mentioned before, these are indeed the 'fact of life' and we cannot plead to the universe to change them (although in the case of theism, there is presumably, someone to appeal to...which, I should think, should precede CP as a 'last resort', but I digress...). However, as humans we live in a world constructed by ethics (be they situational and/or meaningless or not). For this reason, we are compelled to review carefully any actions that would fault someone for something they do not necessarily have complete control over.
Tourette's on the other hand, leaves *no* control, if I'm not mistaken. Is it really your position that a child has no control over her actions?
I don't know, specifically. I'll probably do some research as to the issue. I would think the presidposition, as most things, is a mix of nature and nurture.
How can you justify any sort of punishment, if that's the case?
Why should I justify any punishment in this case? It's hard really to give a blanket answer, as different situations present different variables. I would support a 'punishment' if there was an understanding, aforehand, that certain actions would indeed lead to it.
That's beside the point... you still wouldn't send a Tourette's sufferer to her room for insulting you. So if your analogy is valid, then you shouldn't send a child to his room for disobeying you. Again, if a child has no control over her actions, how do you justify any sort of punishment as being fair?
Think I've managed to cover this. Although what my methods are/would be are not actually the issue, as I don't condone CP.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Xian,

Now, take atheists. Most say they contribute. There is very little evidence of this. Where are tons and tons of atheist charitable organizations around the world.Why would there be? First of all atheists are a minority, and secondly, atheism is a lack of a belief system -- having an atheist organization is silly, and having an atheist charity is even worse.

I donate to charities. Most of them are xian charities -- I don't care, my purpose is to help people rather than to bring loud kudos to my ideology. Phah.

Furthermore, atheist make a very small part of the population as a whole, there is no way to know any significant impact from them as a group.But that's not the point, bnow -- don't try to change the subject, naughty, naughty! The point is that it's impossible for a xian to be known to be ethical, because they always act under duress. In USSR, for example, various charitable actions were mandatory -- and people performed them; that didn't mean that your average Soviet was significantly more ethical than your average american xian.

Why don't you argue the point, instead of erecting strawmen? Or perhaps you can't do so?..

This is absolutely false. Here a sample of some conclusions from:
[...]
Dr. Gershoff herself noted the first problem, that there is no scientific basis for any detrimental outcomes being causeda by corporal punishment: "parental corporal punishment cannot be identified . . . as the cause of these child behaviors" (p. 550). She cites spanking as guilty by association, which would never hold up in a court of lawBS. Isolating causation out of correlation is an extrenmely complex task, and it's fundamentally impossible in the case of CP because of ethical concerns. Yes, studies in psychology and sociology tend to be much weaker statistically than, say, experiments in physics -- that's all you get; this is no reason for disregarding psychology, you just have to remember that the studies are much less conclusive.

Still, the evidence for dangers of CP, indirect though it may be, is strong; furthermore, and from the review you cited, the only evidence that could possibly be construed to favor CP, is evidence that very mild and very restrained spanking does so... certainly not the biblical rod, eh, Xian?..

You could look at http://www.religioustolerance.org/spankin5.htm for references to some relevant studies... Note that this link specifically addresses some of Dr. Larzelere's work on the subject.

With the current atheist population, the ratio seems just about right.Note that the paragraph you cited spoke not of those who explicitly identify themselves as atheists, but rather of those without religious training -- certainly a number higher than 1%; and yet the presence of such people in jails is less that one tenth of their representation in the population. Furthermore, that link provides many more references, all pointing to the same fact.

So, with the other link, what is your conclusion? Atheist are smarter that religious people?That's a simple observed fact; trhe question is why they are smarter.

If this is the case, what inferences are you drawing from that. Atheists are more successful? happier? what? they are just better?Well, I didn't present any inferences, but here are two more hypotheses for you:

1) Atheism is true, and religion is cultural; people who are smarter are more likely to discern the truth and overcome their cultural conditioning.

2) Xianity suppresses one's critical thinking facilities during the developmental years, which are in turn critical to one's intelligence and education development. In effect, xianity makes people dumber.

Which causal model to pick?.. Decisions, decisions...

[Darat]

By Christian



Now, take atheists. Most say they contribute. There is very little evidence of this. Where are tons and tons of atheist charitable organizations around the world.


By Victor:

Why would there be? First of all atheists are a minority, and secondly, atheism is a lack of a belief system -- having an atheist organization is silly, and having an atheist charity is even worse.


I can think of several "atheist" charities, in the sense that they are not controlled or inspired by a religious belief system.

What about SCOPE?

http://www.scope.org.uk/cgi-bin/eatsoup.cgi?id=958063124x195x40i185b130
Scope is a national disability organisation whose focus is people with cerebral palsy. With a committed and enthusiastic team of over 3,500 staff and an annual turnover of around £70 million, we lead the way in providing a range of services for people with cerebral palsy, offering them the opportunity to lead fulfilling and rewarding lives.

The organisation now known as Scope was founded in 1952 by a group of parents - Ian Dawson-Shepherd, Eric Hodgson and Alex Moira - and a social worker, Jean Garwood. Together, they wanted to improve and expand services for people with cerebral palsy and founded the National Spastics Society, which merged with the British Council for the Welfare of Spastics in 1963 to become the Spastics Society.

[Mossy]

Originally posted by Christian
Mossy wrote:
The question I asked was what would it take to convince you it isn't necessary.

The problem with your question is that there is no significant statistical evidence that answers it as you pose it. Here, let me show you, are time outs necessary. Is kissing a child, instead of just hugging necessary? I can have inferences, but I can't answer it that way.


Okay, so there is no statistical evidence that could possible convince you, is there anything at all?


According to the above, are you suggesting there is no way to demonstrate that, for example, locking a child in a closet and only feeding him through a slot in the door for a week is unnecessary?

I submit that the simple answer is: that is obviously unecessary because you can accomplish the same results without that extreme measure. All of the parents I know who do not use CP would use this same criteria: they can accomplish the same results without needing to inflict physical pain on their child. Now there is only one question: Are these parents (that don't practice CP) more skilled at parenting (perhaps because they have forced themselves to seek options other than CP, and found that it was equally effective) than those that use CP, or do they simply have better children (which don't require CP - as you said earlier)?


Mossy wrote:
I thought it was clear what I meant, but just to clarify: I meant tolerant in that I might be less morally outraged, less revulsed, etc.

I think your reaction (response) is irrational. Once you look at the statistics, you will find that you are overeacting and that your response is unfounded.


It isn't irrational, it is rational, you just don't agree with me. My position is: the willful infliction of pain on a child is barbaric, unnecessary and destructive. I have plenty of reasons for believing this, and the studies I've seen support my belief.

Am I mistaken? I fully accept that possibility. But until I've changed my position (which is possible), then it is completely rational for me to be revulsed at the practice and defense of something that I believe is barbaric. You don't agree with the studies, but do you really believe I am being irrational?


Mossy wrote:
So now I ask again, is it possible that you will reconsider your beliefs? Or is there absolutely nothing that will even give you cause to validate your beliefs on something as important as child rearing?

You are making it sound like, I have this irrational, out of left field belief based on superstition or similar. This is not the case. If you care to read a little, you will find that my position (although no doubt debatable) is well ground in sound knowledge.


I asked my question because that is exactly what I believe (about your practice of CP). We don't agree with each other on the necessity of CP, and in the context of this discussion, is it not reasonable for me to ask if there is anything that would make you change your mind? Obviously you don't think there is anything wrong with your practice (otherwise I assume you wouldn't do it), so I'm not asking you to admit to something you don't believe - I'm just asking if there is anything that would cause you to rethink your position. It seems like a valid question to me.

Thank you for the links, I'll give them a read (honestly!). Incidentally, I was talking with a friend of mine who is a christian (sidenote, he doesn't believe in CP - he thinks the biblical rod is metaphorical for "discipline": if you love your children, you should discipline them) and a question came up regarding something you said earlier. With so many atheists against CP, and certainly some of these atheists have children - have they all just been lucky enough to have children that didn't require it?

-Ed

[Christian]

Paradox wrote:
Do you consider happiness anything more than a relative interpretation of events by an individual?

I consider happiness (formal definition) a state of mind. In the context I'm using I mean someone who is fulfilled by the service and accomplishments in her life.

Paradox wrote:
Very well. Then, in this context, do you believe any act to be improper if it is sufficiently efficient?

When I use the word efficient it includes the concept of it being proper (no negative side effects). If CP has negative side effects, it would not be efficient for me to use.

Paradox wrote:
Also, if you do favor CP as a 'last resort' method, how do you, personally, know when you have exhausted all other available options?

There aren't that many.

VD wrote:
Why would there be? First of all atheists are a minority, and secondly, atheism is a lack of a belief system -- having an atheist organization is silly, and having an atheist charity is even worse.

Why silly? There are atheist organizations. And I believe there are atheist charity organizations. Just not very many.

And I disagree, atheism is a belief system.


VD wrote:
The point is that it's impossible for a xian to be known to be ethical, because they always act under duress.

I disagree with your analysis. Being ethical is an external behavior. If I can see the behavior, I can describe it. The motivation in this strict technical sense is irrelevant.

One more thing, there is no way to know what the motivations are for doing an action. That you say you do it because of the goodness of your heart (this might well be true) does not prove it is true. I can never know what motivates you. What I can know is that you contribute to a charity. That external behavior can be proved.

VD wrote:
BS. Isolating causation out of correlation is an extrenmely complex task, and it's fundamentally impossible in the case of CP because of ethical concerns.

I think this is what I said and you argued against. Here let me refresh your memory:


me:The problem here is isolating variables. A parent who has not subjected a child to CP might also be lousy at positive reenforcement or at other forms of discipline...Also a parent might not have enoug resources to work on cognotive abilities. I think these types of studies are hard to find and if found are inconclusive.

you:Those studies are plentiful, and quite conclusive -- you just don't like their conclusion. Multiple studies have shown that CP has a detrimental effect on various aspects of the child's social adjustment and behavior.

And now from the link you present:

A number of researchers have attempted to link spanking with problems in the "spankees'" later behavior -- either during childhood, or adulthood. Some seem to have found links between "corporal punishment and lower IQs, teenage delinquency, adult criminality, marital conflict and spousal abuse." 1 Other research papers found no such relationships. As in many studies of this type, objectivity is often diminished; the results frequently confirm the researchers original beliefs.

None of the studies that we have examined prove a cause-and-effect link between spanking and later problems. A "chicken and egg" situation may exist:

There is little empirical research on the link between childhood corporal punishment and depression.

VD wrote:
Still, the evidence for dangers of CP, indirect though it may be, is strong;

Strong? It is not very strong. There aren't that many studies. Show me the volume of studies that propose what I have been advocating and the correlation to negative consequences.

The real strawman here is your attempt to equate my position with abuse. It is evident that I child who is spanked 5 to 7 times a week will develop aggresive tendencies. I don't need a study to tell me this. This is not my position. I have been absolutely clear about it.

VD wrote:
That's a simple observed fact; trhe question is why they are smarter.

Let me see if I got this straight? Any person that arrives at the conclusion there is no god, must be smarter than the rest who do? Is that it? I really don't have to tell you what I think of this logic.

VD wrote:
Well, I didn't present any inferences, but here are two more hypotheses for you:

1) Atheism is true, and religion is cultural; people who are smarter are more likely to discern the truth and overcome their cultural conditioning.

2) Xianity suppresses one's critical thinking facilities during the developmental years, which are in turn critical to one's intelligence and education development. In effect, xianity makes people dumber.

Which causal model to pick?.. Decisions, decisions...

You have spoken like a true elistist, you know, like the Mussolini, Hitler type. Oh yes, I remember, in the USSR they used to teach a lot about this stuff, Marx, Lenin. Too bad that system didn't work.

The next step according to your model, is to rid the world of *xianist* teach and views, right? Hey, it only makes people dumber.

Let's label them (a star on their cloths maybe) as to know for sure who are the smart ones and who are the dumb ones. So this way, we can expedite productive processes.

The people without the stars on them can opt for special (better, higher) positions in private and public entities (hey, they are the smarter ones, they should be able to do a better job than the people with stars).

Within some generations, humans would recognize that breeding with other smart ones is better than with the dumb ones, right. So, eventually, the world would be mostly made up of smart people.

How am i doing so far?

Hey, Hitler had a better one. Why wait generations to achieve this elite world. Why don't we just cremate all xiants, (that's your label of me, right, you don't even want to use my nick, to you I'm just a xian. I can understand that, Nazis used to call Jews not by their name but by their race, "jew, come over here").

So, decisions, decisions, do want to wait a couple of generations or should we be more expedient?

Mossy wrote:
Okay, so there is no statistical evidence that could possible convince you, is there anything at all?

Ok, I think the most compelling reason why I use it is this. I seldom discipline my 4 year old. When I say this I mean all forms of discipline. She just doesn't misbehave that much. Positive reinforcement works.

As I read more I keep learning more, what I mean is that I'm also learning in this discussion as I go. I got to wonder why is it that I don't have to discipline her that much. The answer is that most of her offenses that warrant discipline are almost none existent.

I think the reason is this (please read the link) from there:

people.biola.edu/faculty/paulp/Larzelere02.html

Detrimental child outcomes are associated with the frequency of any disciplinary tactic, not just physical punishment. Therefore, it is the excessive misbehavior that is the actual cause of detrimental outcomes in children. Parents realize that excessive misbehavior will hinder their children’s success in life and want to minimize excessive misbehavior with the best disciplinary methods. They need better information about how to discipline their children in the most effective manner

So my best argument for CP would be that I don't have to discipline my child that much and since the excessive misbehavior is the cause of detrimental outcomes in children, CP curtails detrimental outcomes.

Mossy wrote:
According to the above, are you suggesting there is no way to demonstrate that, for example, locking a child in a closet and only feeding him through a slot in the door for a week is unnecessary?

Common sense would dictate that this is not right. Also if not common sense, the police breaking down the door would.

Ok, but how do you know a time out is necessary. How do you know that leaving a child alone for 5 to 10 minutes isn't harming him psychologically. One could argue that the isolation and abandonment could make the child feel unloved or rejected, that he is not worthy of your presence. Can you honestly argue that a 4 year will *ponder* what he has done and understand the errors of his ways.

Please, I'm not arguing against time outs, I believe they are necessary, good and they work. What I'm trying to show is that it is very easy to take a negative position against a form of discipline.

Hey I could even say I am revulsed at parents who leave their child alone in a room without love and attention for punishment sake. Would that be sensible?

Mossy wrote:
Are these parents (that don't practice CP) more skilled at parenting (perhaps because they have forced themselves to seek options other than CP, and found that it was equally effective) than those that use CP, or do they simply have better children (which don't require CP - as you said earlier)?

I consider myself a skillful parent, i think I'm as versed as the next person trying to raise children. I think that the situation tells you what methods to use.

Let me give you an example. Would you withhold a meal as punishment? Maybe some parents would be outraged at the idea that sending a child to bed without having dinner is a cruel act. But one would have to look at the circumstances before making a judgment.

I remember a trial where a 15-17 year old daughter pressed charges against a mother for slapping her. On first impressions, one would scold the mother for slapping the daughter. It turns out the mother for years had given this child all the love, affection and support that any child could reasonably need. The girl unfortunately got with bad company, and on one incident cursed the mother. The slap was a sponteneous reaction to the outraged of her daughter's disrespect. At least, that what the jury concluded.

Mossy wrote:
It isn't irrational, it is rational, you just don't agree with me. My position is: the willful infliction of pain on a child is barbaric, unnecessary and destructive. I have plenty of reasons for believing this, and the studies I've seen support my belief.

No, the studies do not support your beliefs. Ok, if you can show me the studies that show that what I advocate has been proven to be destructive. I will reconsider my position. In the mean time, your belief is solely based on an internal prejudice. It is irrational because there is no rational basis to sustain it, I mean the belief that it is barbaric, unnecessary and destructive.

Mossy wrote:
Incidentally, I was talking with a friend of mine who is a christian (sidenote, he doesn't believe in CP - he thinks the biblical rod is metaphorical for "discipline": if you love your children, you should discipline them)

I agree with that interpretation. I just don't think CP should be ruled out as a tool.

Mossy wrote:
With so many atheists against CP, and certainly some of these atheists have children - have they all just been lucky enough to have children that didn't require it?

Well, I have to take their word for it right? It seems that way, doesn't it. It seem that no one has ever used a physical action to discipline their children.

From what I can gather, it only takes verbal commands, and maybe looks I guess to make children comply???

[max]

Dimossi

Hope I got thename right. Cut the bible crap even if the info was ok 2000 years ago, it's a bit out dated now huh? Listen to one who is experienced....i.e....moi. My three daughters are 39 41 and 43 years old. All are wonderfully sucessful women,well balanced and happy.

I never spanked, hit, smacked any of them at any time in their upbringing.
Why would you want to hit a defenceless child? You are responsible for teaching them about life,what is right and wrong how to socialise, etc. etc. etc.

The basic rule is to praise a child for good acts, good deeds and to explain to them why their wrong doings are not the way to go. We would not as a manager, hit a new employee would we? He/she is learning, learning how to do the job at hand. Why would we strike them if they don't do it correctly? We surely would show them again and again until they get it right. And so it is with offspring...patience, tolerance, teaching, guiding....no need to spank that is cruel, humiliating and borders on paedophilia

[Darat]

By Christian

VD wrote:
Why would there be? First of all atheists are a minority, and secondly, atheism is a lack of a belief system -- having an atheist organization is silly, and having an atheist charity is even worse.

Why silly? There are atheist organizations. And I believe there are atheist charity organizations. Just not very many.

And I disagree, atheism is a belief system.



You say it is a belief system. There is an argument for saying it indicates one belief e.g. "There is no God", which is a belief because as they say "you can't prove a negative".

However I am at a total lost how that translates to a "belief system".

If it is a belief system when someone says “I am an atheist" what system are they saying they believe in?

(PS Don't forget that to the majority of humans beings that have ever lived or are living today Christians are atheists e.g. Christian don't believe that the majority of the world's "god(s)" exists.)

[Victor Danilchenko]

Xtian,

Why silly? There are atheist organizations.Which exist for the purpose of political action usually -- since USA for example is rather heavily biased against atheism. Atheists are thus bound not by atheism itself, but rather by the society's reaction to atheism.

On the other hand, havinga skeptical organization is IMO quite reasonable -- skepticism is a coherent component of experimental methodology, rather than a lack thereof.

Lastly, I have never heard of explicitly atheistic (as opposed to secular) charities.

And I disagree, atheism is a belief system.You are wrong. Most atheists have their own belief systems, but there's nothing that unites all atheists except for a lack of belief in god.

I disagree with your analysis. Being ethical is an external behavior. If I can see the behavior, I can describe it. The motivation in this strict technical sense is irrelevant.So you see no difference between helping someone freely, and doing so on gunpoint? Riiiight. How 'bout some honesty? It's better to change your stance than to deceive yourself, I think.

Strong? It is not very strong.Why don't you read that whole page?..

You have spoken like a true elistist, you know, like the Mussolini, Hitler type.<LOL> Internet law -- you compared your opponent to Hitler, you lose. :D

The next step according to your model, is to rid the world of *xianist* teach and views, right?Yes -- but through education, never through force or some other sort of compulsion.

The people without the stars on them can opt for special (better, higher) positions in private and public entities (hey, they are the smarter ones, they should be able to do a better job than the people with stars).Dude, you really have nothing substantial to go by, eh?..

How am i doing so far?LIke a typical xian who feels the fundamental valuation of his beliefs threatened -- you demonize your opponents.

[Christian]

Darat wrote:
You say it is a belief system. There is an argument for saying it indicates one belief e.g. "There is no God", which is a belief because as they say "you can't prove a negative".
However I am at a total lost how that translates to a "belief system".
If it is a belief system when someone says “I am an atheist" what system are they saying they believe in?

Darat, to believe *there is no god* has implications. This premise leads ot all sort of conclusions. Remember, premise have the nasty habit of leading to conclusions. The logical conclusion that follow from this premise, I call the compilation of these, belief system.

That some atheists don't realize all or most of conclusion that can be derived from this premise is irrelevant. If a premise is correct, one can draw many conclusions.

VD wrote:
Atheists are thus bound not by atheism itself, but rather by the society's reaction to atheism.

Care to show any evidence of this?

VD wrote:
Lastly, I have never heard of explicitly atheistic (as opposed to secular) charities.

You know what, you might be right.

VD wrote:
You are wrong. Most atheists have their own belief systems, but there's nothing that unites all atheists except for a lack of belief in god.

So you are contradicting yourself from one phrase to the other?

VD wrote:
So you see no difference between helping someone freely, and doing so on gunpoint? Riiiight. How 'bout some honesty? It's better to change your stance than to deceive yourself, I think.

Again, you are creating a strawmen here. And you are also using an absurd example. I see no difference between someone saying that they will donate because of the goodness of their heart and someone that says his religion compels him to. How about some sharpness on the issues?

VD wrote:
Why don't you read that whole page?..

How about you reading it. Here again, let me repeat it. There is no evidence or link with what I'm advocating and detrimental outcomes.

Here from the very bottom:
Abusive punishment - There were none among the parents examined.
"Red zone" - About 4 to 7% of parents studied impulsively used overly severe, frequent hitting. This included using a paddle or other device to strike the child, hit the child on the face or torso, or "lifted to throw or shake the child." However, punishment by these parents did not reach the level of abuse, in the judgment of the researchers.
"Orange zone" - Parents who spanked frequently but with low intensity.
"Yellow zone" - Parents who spanked moderately.
"Green zone" - Parents who spanked rarely or not at all.

No parents who went beyond hitting into actual abuse were included in the study. They found a major correlation between spanking and long-term harm to children among "Red zone" parents. Among the remaining parents, they found small but significant correlations between the level of physical punishment and later misbehavior among the children at age 8 to 9. Ms. Baumrind said that "the children of parents in the green zone who never spanked were not better adjusted than those, also in the green zone, who were spanked very seldomly." She emphasized that her study did not study how abusive physical punishment harms children. She said that she and other researchers have found ample evidence of that in other studies.

To put you up to speed, I'm advocating green zone.

VD wrote:
Internet law -- you compared your opponent to Hitler, you lose

I wasn't aware of that law, what I am aware of, is the phylosophy you propose is fundamentally the same as his.

VD wrote:
Yes -- but through education, never through force or some other sort of compulsion.

Yes? I am not wrong to compare you to him. And I'm sorry but I have to call you on your intellectual dishonest in this specific comment. How can you educate dumb(er) people? Or are you changing your position that education will rid the world of religion and religious pleople and shying away from this original stance:
{atheists are smarter} That's a simple observed fact; trhe question is why they are smarter. Atheism is true, and religion is cultural; people who are smarter are more likely to discern the truth and overcome their cultural conditioning.

VD wrote:
LIke a typical xian who feels the fundamental valuation of his beliefs threatened -- you demonize your opponents.

With your elitist comments you have demonized yourself.

I can't believe you have the audacaty to come straight out say, "atheist are smarter than religious people or religious pleople are dumb and made dumber by the conditioning" and don't expect to be called on the evil source (premise) of that statement.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Christian
Darat wrote:
You say it is a belief system. There is an argument for saying it indicates one belief e.g. "There is no God", which is a belief because as they say "you can't prove a negative".
However I am at a total lost how that translates to a "belief system".
If it is a belief system when someone says “I am an atheist" what system are they saying they believe in?

Darat, to believe *there is no god* has implications. This premise leads ot all sort of conclusions. Remember, premise have the nasty habit of leading to conclusions. The logical conclusion that follow from this premise, I call the compilation of these, belief system.

That some atheists don't realize all or most of conclusion that can be derived from this premise is irrelevant. If a premise is correct, one can draw many conclusions.


That isn't a belief system, there is no "creed" or dogma that an atheist must follow to call themselves an atheist.

And Christian which "god" is it that an atheist doesn't believe in? Is it your God? Is it the Hindu God(s)? The Ancient Egyptian Gods? Odin or Loki ;) ?

You are an atheist to the majority of the world's population because they believe your god doesn’t exist but theirs does. Therefore, as far as they are concerned, when you say you believe in “God” you are saying that “I don’t believe in God”.

Yet you seem to believe that your belief system is different from an “atheist”. This is a contradiction.

(Edited for spelling.)

[Loki]

Darat,

And Christian which "god" is it that an atheist doesn't believe in? Is it your God? Is it the Hindu God(s)? The Ancient Egyptian Gods? Odin or Loki?
Are you saying I don't exist? Or that I'm not a god? Well, I have been feeling a little 'transparent' lately. :D

[Paradox]

Originally posted by Christian
I consider happiness (formal definition) a state of mind. In the context I'm using I mean someone who is fulfilled by the service and accomplishments in her life.
Which sorts of accomplishments, and to whom the 'services' are performed are variables, not constants.
When I use the word efficient it includes the concept of it being proper (no negative side effects). If CP has negative side effects, it would not be efficient for me to use.
What would it take to demonstrate to you at least one negative side-effect of CP?
Paradox wrote:
Also, if you do favor CP as a 'last resort' method, how do you, personally, know when you have exhausted all other available options?

There aren't that many.
I didn't ask how many there were/are. I asked how you personally would know when you've exhausted all others.
I disagree with your analysis. Being ethical is an external behavior. If I can see the behavior, I can describe it. The motivation in this strict technical sense is irrelevant/
Aside from the fact that the realm of ethics, by nature, deals specifically with the issue of motivation...
I can't believe you have the audacaty to come straight out say, "atheist are smarter than religious people or religious pleople are dumb and made dumber by the conditioning" and don't expect to be called on the evil source (premise) of that statement/
No more audacity than it takes to say that people who frequently excercise their bodies are more althetic than people who don't.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Christian,

Care to show any evidence of this?Of society's attityude to atheism? Sure. In a number of states, atheists are constitutionally forbidden to hold office -- any elected official is required to affirm the existence of the supreme being, or something similar. Bush Sr. (that's the man us used to be POTUS!) said that atheists can';t be patriots and shouldn't be citizens. I can dig up plenty more, if you care.

So you are contradicting yourself from one phrase to the other?care to be more specific about where the contradiction is?

Again, you are creating a strawmen here. And you are also using an absurd example.Yes, I am using an absurd example -- it's called reductio ad absurdum. I am showing how absurd your position is when taken to its logical extreme -- a position which you found yourself defending due to lack of careful consideration of your beliefs.

Yes? I am not wrong to compare you to [Hitler]Care to back up this insane allegation?

And I'm sorry but I have to call you on your intellectual dishonest in this specific comment. How can you educate dumb(er) people?Oh yeah, people of average intelligence can't be educated -- half of America is full of people who can't write their own name... Oh wait...

You really are grasping at straws here. First of all, it's not clear whether intelligence or faith come first, or indepently; secondly, the difference is significant but not humongous -- it'as not like the top 1% of population intelligence-wise are all atheists; and lastly, vast majority of people can be educated, and in fact good education can improve one's intelligence (or at least one's IQ scores).

You are spilling ad hominem after ad hominem here.

With your elitist comments you have demonized yourself.<LOL> The wheel is turning but the hampster's dead. :D

I can't believe you have the audacaty to come straight out say, "atheist are smarter than religious people or religious pleople are dumb and made dumber by the conditioning" and don't expect to be called on the evil source (premise) of that statement.I said nothing of the sort, you little liar. I proposed such as one possible explanatory hypothesis -- I explicitly said that I am not comitted to any causal model of the observed correlation between IQ and religiosity.

You seem to be quite big on ad hominems and confabulations, xian. How becoming!

[Mossy]

Originally posted by Christian
Mossy wrote:
Okay, so there is no statistical evidence that could possible convince you, is there anything at all?

Ok, I think the most compelling reason why I use it is this. I seldom discipline my 4 year old. When I say this I mean all forms of discipline. She just doesn't misbehave that much. Positive reinforcement works.

I think there is a misunderstanding with my question. I haven't, with this question, been attempting to get you to justify your use of spanking, or to defend it in any way. Rather, I was trying to find out if there is anything at all that could make you change your mind, anything at all that would cause you to rethink your position. (you addressed this later in the post, I'll address that in a second)

Mossy wrote:
According to the above, are you suggesting there is no way to demonstrate that, for example, locking a child in a closet and only feeding him through a slot in the door for a week is unnecessary?

Common sense would dictate that this is not right. Also if not common sense, the police breaking down the door would.

This would be the criteria I would use as well, with one exception - I don't need the police breaking down my door (or any law for that matter) to decide that if I can accomplish the same thing, with less violent means, then that is a preferable solution (when it comes to raising my children).

I've raised my children without spanking, I know many people that have - and in my limited observation, their children are at least as well adjusted as those children who are subjected to various levels of CP (of course, including what you would call abuse). This isn't scientific evidence, and I'm not claiming that it is, what I am claiming is that I have personally seen evidence that CP is not a necessary component to child rearing. And that is really the only point I'd like to make.

I don't believe that those parents who don't use CP are lying (about their non-use), nor do I believe that they were somehow just blessed with perfect children, or children that didn't require it for some genetic reason. And, although I don't know you, I doubt that you really believe that most people who claim not to use CP are lying or blessed in some way that Christians aren't.

As I've said several times, there is a world of difference between necessary and effective. And while CP may be effective, I've never seen any evidence in my daily life that it is necessary (my observations above).

Ok, if you can show me the studies that show that what I advocate has been proven to be destructive. I will reconsider my position. In the mean time, your belief is solely based on an internal prejudice. It is irrational because there is no rational basis to sustain it, I mean the belief that it is barbaric, unnecessary and destructive.

Finally, I concede that the type of CP you claim to use, according to the studies, doesn't show much (if any) increase in negative behavior.

I stated this earlier, but will restate: All of the studies indicate one thing: the more severe the "CP", the worse the effects. If you truely advocate a light paddling (2 times?) on the bottom, and if you almost never resort to this method - then the difference between your method, and the method of a non-CP parent is negligable (in terms of negative effect on the children that can be identified with a study). The more you administer CP, the worse the negative effects - nearly every study shows the same thing.

There definitely is a range of damage that is proportionate to the amount of CP delivered (according to the overwhelming majority of studies). I guess you could say that I'm playing it safe with respect to my parenting choices. Although, it would be more accurate to say that I honestly believe it is wrong to willfully inflict pain on children as a method for teaching them a lesson.

Mossy wrote:
With so many atheists against CP, and certainly some of these atheists have children - have they all just been lucky enough to have children that didn't require it?

Well, I have to take their word for it right? It seems that way, doesn't it. It seem that no one has ever used a physical action to discipline their children.

From what I can gather, it only takes verbal commands, and maybe looks I guess to make children comply??? [/B]

Do you really question the integrity of any parent that claims to not use physical pain as a parenting device?

If you're interested, the are plenty of books available that discuss disciplinary solutions that don't involve inflicting pain. Time-outs have been mentioned, there are others, most non-religious (and some religious, according to my friend) parenting organizations offer classes and information on this.

-Ed

[juryjone]

Christian,

You said:
To put you up to speed, I'm advocating green zone.
and yet if you look at the paper:
"Red zone" - About 4 to 7% of parents studied impulsively used overly severe, frequent hitting. This included using a paddle or other device to strike the child, hit the child on the face or torso, or "lifted to throw or shake the child." However, punishment by these parents did not reach the level of abuse, in the judgment of the researchers.
It would seem that you fall squarely in the red zone, since you use a paddle, an "overly severe" form of punishment.

So my best argument for CP would be that I don't have to discipline my child that much and since the excessive misbehavior is the cause of detrimental outcomes in children, CP curtails detrimental outcomes.

Did I misss something here? Where have you proved that your daughter's behavior that drew the paddling would have escalated into "excessive misbehavior" if you used another, less violent, form of discipline? Where have you proved that the reason your child needs infrequent discipline is due entirely to the fact that you paddled her? (Oh, and that's what you did; calling hitting a child with a piece of wood "CP" is like calling the Vietnam war a "police action".)

How do you know that leaving a child alone for 5 to 10 minutes isn't harming him psychologically. One could argue that the isolation and abandonment could make the child feel unloved or rejected, that he is not worthy of your presence. Can you honestly argue that a 4 year will *ponder* what he has done and understand the errors of his ways.

I know you meant this ironically, but on the other hand, you are saying that a 4 year old will ba able to make the distinction between your Biblically-sanctioned use of physical pain and her totally unacceptable use of hitting on the playground to achieve the results she wants. "She took my toy and then smarted off to me so I hit her." "Oh, it's OK for you to do that to me, but I can't do that to her..." Good luck getting a 4 year old to make that distinction.

You are using physical pain to solve a problem. Don't tell me that doesn't teach the child something about how to solve problems.

[Christian]

Darat wrote:
That isn't a belief system, there is no "creed" or dogma that an atheist must follow to call themselves an atheist.

Conclusions from for an atheist:

1. There are no supernatural events
2. All can be (will be able to be) explained through the natural world
3. Morality is subjective (it emanates from humans)
4. There are no consequences of our actions after death
5. The subject's intelligence is all that allows him to arrive at the truth.
6. Any entity that reaches our level of consciousness will be qualitative the same as humans.

I call these a belief system.

Paradox wrote:
Which sorts of accomplishments, and to whom the 'services' are performed are variables, not constants.

Ok.

Paradox wrote:
What would it take to demonstrate to you at least one negative side-effect of CP?

That I see at least one negative side-effect of CP

Paradox wrote:
I didn't ask how many there were/are. I asked how you personally would know when you've exhausted all others.

When I have. When you'd you know you already eat your three cookies?

Paradox wrote:
Aside from the fact that the realm of ethics, by nature, deals specifically with the issue of motivation...

Ok, you are the scientific thinker here. What is the methodology to prove motivation?

Paradox wrote:
No more audacity than it takes to say that people who frequently excercise their bodies are more althetic than people who don't.

I wouldn't be surprised if you also held the view that more blacks play in the NBA because they can jump higher than whites (you know, the view that blacks are stronger and genetically more althetic than whites)

VD wrote:
Of society's attityude to atheism? Sure. In a number of states, atheists are constitutionally forbidden to hold office -- any elected official is required to affirm the existence of the supreme being, or something similar. Bush Sr. (that's the man us used to be POTUS!) said that atheists can';t be patriots and shouldn't be citizens. I can dig up plenty more, if you care.

I repeat, care to show any evidence of this? (you know evidence, as opposed to opinion, I assume you know the difference) I wasn't aware a person's opinion (if he really said this) constitutes a society.

VD wrote:
care to be more specific about where the contradiction is?

Sure, you say:
there's nothing that unites all atheists[/quotes]

and then you say:
[quote] except for a lack of belief in god.

Doesn't that unite all atheists? Furthermore, all the conclusions that can be derived from that premise must logically unite all atheists as well.

VD wrote:
Yes, I am using an absurd example -- it's called reductio ad absurdum.

You are admitting to a logical flaw in your thinking. It is not a device to prove a point. It is a mistake to use it.

Reductio ad absurdum is a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable. It is a style of reasoning that has been employed throughout the history of mathematics and philosophy from classical antiquity onwards.

And give me a break. You think is that hard to come up with latin expressions for logical flaws. Here, let me give it to you in spanish *reducido a lo absurdo*. Sound catchy I think.

Oh, this is fun, let's cite some other that sound marketable:

hoc ergo propter hoc

That one sounds really smart.

VD wrote:
I am showing how absurd your position is when taken to its logical extreme -- a position which you found yourself defending due to lack of careful consideration of your beliefs.

No, what you are showing is your lack of knowledge in the understanding of the terms. Yes, I understand the tactic, it is called strawman. Here, want the definition:

The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.

How smart does one need to be to understand this concept!

VD wrote:
Care to back up this insane allegation?

Certainly. Although I'm still giving you the benefit of the doubt that you don't understand the connection (haven't realized it) your view is exactly the view that Hitler popularized.

In essence, it is this idea that humans are born qualitatively different. If this premise is correct, then all sorts of conclusions can be drawn.

One is that people are born smarter than others or alpha and beta or whatever.

I've explained many times why this mentality is the source of most evil in human history. It undermines the fundamental freedoms and the sublime idea of democracy. (wanna poke fun of the word sublime, be my guest)

VD wrote:
Oh yeah, people of average intelligence can't be educated -- half of America is full of people who can't write their own name... Oh wait...

For someone who claims to be smarter than 99% of the population in the world, you are sloppy in your thought processes.

Are you claiming half of US citizens (residents) are iliterate?

Nevermind, you claimed atheism was the proof of someone's superior intelligence. You gave two models as possible explanations. These are your models:

1) Atheism is true, and religion is cultural; people who are smarter are more likely to discern the truth and overcome their cultural conditioning.

2) Xianity suppresses one's critical thinking facilities during the developmental years, which are in turn critical to one's intelligence and education development. In effect, xianity makes people dumber.

You called them causal models, and asked me to choose.
Which model do you choose?

VD wrote:
You are spilling ad hominem after ad hominem here.

Where are they, I don't see them, unless of course I'm a mirror.

VD wrote:
I said nothing of the sort, you little liar. I proposed such as one possible explanatory hypothesis -- I explicitly said that I am not comitted to any causal model of the observed correlation between IQ and religiosity.

You are saying explicitly that you are not committed to any of the causal models you brought up. Why would you bring them up in the first place?

Maybe you can wiggle your way out of that one but please wiggle your way out of this comment:

That's a simple observed fact; trhe question is why they are smarter.

So, why are they (you) smarter.

VD wrote:
You seem to be quite big on ad hominems and confabulations, xian. How becoming!

xian? You are fond of using labels in a pejorative sense. Any parallels come to mind?

Mossy wrote:
This would be the criteria I would use as well, with one exception - I don't need the police breaking down my door (or any law for that matter) to decide that if I can accomplish the same thing, with less violent means, then that is a preferable solution (when it comes to raising my children).

I'm sick of the condescension. Also please get off the moral high horse will you.

Mossy wrote:
I've raised my children without spanking, I know many people that have - and in my limited observation, their children are at least as well adjusted as those children who are subjected to various levels of CP (of course, including what you would call abuse). This isn't scientific evidence, and I'm not claiming that it is, what I am claiming is that I have personally seen evidence that CP is not a necessary component to child rearing. And that is really the only point I'd like to make.

Your point is taken. And as you can well see, it is based on your limited experience and subjective perception. It is and opinion as valid as the next person.

Mossy wrote:
Finally, I concede that the type of CP you claim to use, according to the studies, doesn't show much (if any) increase in negative behavior.

Please note the wording *claim*. What is a fact is that there are no studies that show any correlation from the type of CP I advocate and *any* negative consequence. I'm stating this as a fact, not an opinion.

Mossy wrote:
I guess you could say that I'm playing it safe with respect to my parenting choices.

All discipline requires negative consequences. Using your logic, why don't we play it completely safe and not use any. What if the time out is too long, too traumatizing. What if the taking away of a priviledge is devasting to the self-esteem of the child.

Mossy wrote:
Although, it would be more accurate to say that I honestly believe it is wrong to willfully inflict pain on children as a method for teaching them a lesson.

But there is no other way. Let's look at another argument. What is worse phisical pain or mental pain? What is worse to child in terms of anguish, to be left alone in a room for 5 to 10 minutes or to have to stings in the bottom. What is worse, a disaproving look or a two finger sting on the hand?

I'm not sure what you are saying, are you saying children should only be reinforced positively.

Mossy wrote:
Do you really question the integrity of any parent that claims to not use physical pain as a parenting device?

No. All I know is that 9 out 10 parents in the US do it. So if I where to ask 10 people at ramdom, I should expect to get roughly the same proportion. In here, maybe the conclusion is that the sample size is atypical. I can't say.

Oh, in terms of the world is about 50%-50% I understand. Gotta look it up.

Mossy wrote:
If you're interested, the are plenty of books available that discuss disciplinary solutions that don't involve inflicting pain. Time-outs have been mentioned, there are others, most non-religious (and some religious, according to my friend) parenting organizations offer classes and information on this.

Condescension again. Here, let me list you the options:
removing privileges, time out (isolation), reasoning, restraint, ignoring, scolding, love withdrawal, brief room isolation, diverting, child-determined release from time out, and reasoning combined with nonphysical punishment

If I'm missing any, please feel free to add to the list.

juryjone wrote:
It would seem that you fall squarely in the red zone, since you use a paddle, an "overly severe" form of punishment.

What seems is that you are not reading that portion very well.

"Red zone" - About 4 to 7% of parents studied impulsively used overly severe, frequent hitting. This included using a paddle or other device to strike the child, hit the child on the [b]face or torso, or "lifted to throw or shake the child." However, punishment by these parents did not reach the level of abuse, in the judgment of the researchers.

Paradox, are you going to feel offended that a poster tells me I hit my child on her face? Would that be the most insulting thing you ever heard?

juryone wrote:
Where have you proved that your daughter's behavior that drew the paddling would have escalated into "excessive misbehavior" if you used another, less violent, form of discipline? Where have you proved that the reason your child needs infrequent discipline is due entirely to the fact that you paddled her? (Oh, and that's what you did; calling hitting a child with a piece of wood "CP" is like calling the Vietnam war a "police action".)


Did I miss something here? When did I have to prove anything to you or any poster in here about my parenting methods? And you are nobody to judge me.

juryone wrote:
You are using physical pain to solve a problem. Don't tell me that doesn't teach the child something about how to solve problems.

Ok, this is what I taught my daughter. There is always a kindergarten bully. He took it as a task to bite and scratch my daughter weekly. I spoke to the teacher about it, and she said she would take a look at it (she also said it was normal that once in a while these things happened). The problem didn't stop.

I told my daughter to tell the teacher when this happened. She did, but the problem didn't stop.

I spoke to the parents of the child, and they insisted it was my daughter's fault (why is she playing with the toys that our little boy wants to play with).

One day, she came home with a big ugly scratch on her cheek (she still has a small mark from that). I had it. I told her, if he bothers you, defend yourself. Even if he wins, you make sure to put up a good fight. Kick him, punch him, bite him, do whatever is necessary to defend yourself.

She followed my instructions, and you know what, the boy never bothered her again. They are good buddies now.

That boy learned a valuable lesson. He learned that his negative actions brought pain to him. I speculate that when he thought of bothering my little girl again, he remembered that pain is right around the corner.

Was I wrong in telling her this? I don't know. What I do know is that the bullying stopped.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Xian,

I repeat, care to show any evidence of this? (you know evidence, as opposed to opinion, I assume you know the difference) I wasn't aware a person's opinion (if he really said this) constitutes a society.I just did -- I cited the official -- constitutional -- discrimination against atheists, and a statement made by Bush. These are not opinions. You could ask for specific references, but it takes an idiot to claim that these are merely opinions.

Doesn't that unite all atheists? Furthermore, all the conclusions that can be derived from that premise must logically unite all atheists as well.<sigh> Yeah, being human also unites all atheists. SO what? I was obviously speaking in cultural and ideological context -- I was saying that there is no ideology that unites atheists, since mere lack of belief in god ios not an ideology. Skeptics have a uniting belief, xians do, feminists do, nazis do -- atheists don't. They can be united through external factors, such as the society's reaction to them, but this is not a property of atheism, but rather a property of the society (in many European countries, for example, the american atheists' reasons for uniting don't exist).

You are admitting to a logical flaw in your thinking. It is not a device to prove a point. It is a mistake to use it.Dude, you have no idea about basic logic if you don't understand what reductio ad absurdum is, do you?.. Somehow I am not surprised.

And give me a break. You think is that hard to come up with latin expressions for logical flaws. Reduction as absurdum is not a flaw, dude, it's a standard and valid mode of argumentation. You really know nothing about logic, huh?.. Being able to use a search engine is not a substitute for understanding.

No, what you are showing is your lack of knowledge in the understanding of the terms. Yes, I understand the tactic, it is called strawman.Nope, no strawmen here. You said that for the purposes of determining the ethicality of an action, only the act itself matters, not its motivation. This means that, under your own assumption, an act comitted because you wish to help someone, is exactly as good as the same act comitted because you were threatened with death otherwise. After all, only the act (helping) matters, not its motivation, whether that motivation is altruism or fear of death or fear of eternal torment!

Sheesh...

In essence, it is this idea that humans are born qualitatively different. If this premise is correct, then all sorts of conclusions can be drawn.Of course humans are born qualitatively different -- some are born stronger or weaker, some are born healthier or more frail, and some are born with better cognitive capacities than others. Hitler's views were that the differences are aligned with ethnic and racial delineation -- that aryans werre superior, jews evil, etc. that is what makes Hitler's views evil, you moron, the granting of genetically privileged status to certain ethnic or social groups.

I never claimed that xians are born less intelligent than atheists. In fact, "xianity" is a purely cultural delineation rather than a biological one, so any such claim would be kinda silly, except inasmuch as genetic traits are inherited along the same lines of descent as the cultural ones.

But come on, don't let reason stand on the way of a juicy accusation, no matter how idiotic!

One is that people are born smarter than others or alpha and beta or whatever.

I've explained many times why this mentality is the source of most evil in human history.Some people are born smarter than others -- intelligence is partially genetic, this is a simple indisputable fact of psychology. Separated monozygotic twin studies and all that. Still, don't let facts stand on your way.

Are you claiming half of US citizens (residents) are iliterate?Ah, another slow one...

No, dude, I am saying that thefact that half of US population is below average intelligence, does not prevent them from being educated.

Nevermind, you claimed atheism was the proof of someone's superior intelligence.Really, liar? Lying is a sin, you know.

You called them causal models, and asked me to choose.
Which model do you choose?First of all, even if I held one of those models as true, it wouldn't be enough to claim that atheism is proof of superior intelligence. Of course you would actually have to think a little to realize that -- and being familiar with statistical analysis would help as well. Lacking either ability, you are reduced to unintelligible babble.

Secondly, I specifically said that these are two more causal hypotheses, in addition to the ones you already presented.

Thirdly, I specifically said that I don't hold any specific causal model for the correlation.

Liar, liar, pants on fire...

You are saying explicitly that you are not committed to any of the causal models you brought up. Why would you bring them up in the first place?Because you brought up some first, but your list was woefully incomplete.

So, why are they (you) smarter.Well, I am smarter than you for obvious reasons -- I am a genetically engineered superman, and you are Mundane. [/sarcasm]

As a more general case, I honestly don't know which causal model is responsible for the correlation (there is BTW another one that could explain the correlation, which I haven't listed -- both religion and intelligence could be causally affected by ah third independent factor). What I do know is that, on average, atheists are more intelligent than xians.

xian? You are fond of using labels in a pejorative sense. Any parallels come to mind?"X" being the abbreviation for "Christ" commonly used by the xians up until a couple of centuries ago (Christ = XPICTOC is Greek, so the first letter "X" is used for "Christ", same as in "xmas"), the label is a perfectly legitimate one, not in any sense perjorative. I use it because it's shorter than "christian" -- and I call you specifically "xian" because you keep calling me "VD".

How does your foot taste?

---------------------------------
Dude, you are SOOO outclassed here, it's not even funny...

[Paradox]

Originally posted by Christian
Paradox wrote:
What would it take to demonstrate to you at least one negative side-effect of CP?

That I see at least one negative side-effect of CP.
How about: "Daddy, it hurts!"
Paradox wrote:
I didn't ask how many there were/are. I asked how you personally would know when you've exhausted all others.

When I have. When you'd you know you already eat your three cookies?
Don't know the answer, do you? You just give up looking when whim strikes or patience wears thin?
Paradox wrote:
Aside from the fact that the realm of ethics, by nature, deals specifically with the issue of motivation...

Ok, you are the scientific thinker here. What is the methodology to prove motivation?
Degree of coercion. The more coercion, the less ethical the act is.

(As an aside, much as I would fancy myself a scientific thinker, I have no place to do so. I think, I can fill the shoes of 'logical thinker' decently, though.)
I wouldn't be surprised if you also held the view that more blacks play in the NBA because they can jump higher than whites (you know, the view that blacks are stronger and genetically more althetic than whites)
There is little else I can add to this sub-topic than the substance Victor has already provided.
Paradox, are you going to feel offended that a poster tells me I hit my child on her face? Would that be the most insulting thing you ever heard?
As per juryjone:
"Red zone" - About 4 to 7% of parents studied impulsively used overly severe, frequent hitting. This included using a paddle or other device to strike the child, hit the child on the [b]face or torso, or "lifted to throw or shake the child." However, punishment by these parents did not reach the level of abuse, in the judgment of the researchers.
Now, there are a lot of 'or's in there, suggesting that this Red Zone includes, but is not exclusive to, the acts mentioned. I do not know specifically how you physically punish your children. I don't consider this insulting because you have already admitted you use CP, now we're just trying to discern the degree to which you take it.

(Ever heard the story about the wealthy man who approaches the attractive woman in a casino and asks her if she will sleep with him for $5 million? "Sure, baby." she winks. After a few hours at the games, he's lost nearly all of his fortune via his gambling. He returns to the woman and asks "How about for $10?"
"Just what do you think I am!?!" she snorts.
"That, my dear, we have already established...now we're just haggling over prices.")

If you say that, according to how you have administered CP, you do not fall in the Red Zone (thus, don't perform the actions delineated there), then I would take your word for it.

[Christian]

Victor Danilchenko wrote:
just did -- I cited the official -- constitutional -- discrimination against atheists, and a statement made by Bush.

You cited no constitutions. Which states? That you say he made this statement doesn't make it so. If he did, it was his opinion. What else could it be.

Victor Danilchenko wrote:
You could ask for specific references, but it takes an idiot to claim that these are merely opinions.

Whatever Bush said was his opinion. You have tried to cleverly put both statements together. I did not say both of your statement were opinions, I said Bush (if he did say it) was an opinion.

Victor Danilchenko wrote:
Yeah, being human also unites all atheists. SO what? I was obviously speaking in cultural and ideological context -- I was saying that there is no ideology that unites atheists, since mere lack of belief in god ios not an ideology.

I believe it is an ideology. This is a trait that stems from a belief, a big premise of how the world works.

Victor Danilchenko wrote:
Dude, you have no idea about basic logic if you don't understand what reductio ad absurdum is, do you?.. Somehow I am not surprised...Reduction as absurdum is not a flaw, dude, it's a standard and valid mode of argumentation. You really know nothing about logic, huh?.. Being able to use a search engine is not a substitute for understanding.

First, there is a reductio ad absurdum. The argument about the message implicit in violence seems to prove too much. If we suggest that hitting a wrongdoer imparts the message that violence is a fitting means to resolve conflict, then surely we should be committed to saying that detaining a child or imprisoning a convict conveys the message that restricting liberty is an appropriate manner to deal with people who displease one. We would also be required to concede that fining people conveys the message that forcing others to give up some of their property is an acceptable way to respond to those who act in a way that one does not like. If beatings send a message, why don't detentions, imprisonments, fines, and a multitude of other punishments convey equally undesirable messages? The argument proves too much because it proves that all punishment conveys inappropriate messages and so is wrong. It is a reductio because this conclusion is absurd.

Victor Danilchenko wrote:
You said that for the purposes of determining the ethicality of an action, only the act itself matters, not its motivation. This means that, under your own assumption, an act comitted because you wish to help someone, is exactly as good as the same act comitted because you were threatened with death otherwise.

This is incredible, you bring up the strawman on the refutation of strawman. I never ever said *is exactly as good as the same act comitted because you were threatened with death otherwise.*

You insert that yourself to make your argument valid. Strawman.

Victor Danilchenko wrote:
Of course humans are born qualitatively different

Please, remember these words. This is the root of most evil in human history. And it usually follow this logic as well:

Victor Danilchenko wrote:
except inasmuch as genetic traits are inherited along the same lines of descent as the cultural ones.

I'm speaking to the bigger audience here. Elitist camouflage (intentionally or unintentionally) the negative (evil) part of this reasoning by saying there is no link between this belief and race. Yet in there comments they clearly imply it.

Victor, you are wrong, humans are not born qualitavely different.

Victor Danilchenko wrote:
No, dude, I am saying that thefact that half of US population is below average intelligence, does not prevent them from being educated.


Here a prime example of that.

Victor Danilchenko wrote:
Well, I am smarter than you for obvious reasons -- I am a genetically engineered superman, and you are Mundane. [/sarcasm]

And suppose you are smarter than me, this is the way a superior being treats an inferior one, calling him a moron, and an idiot.

You will say, I have compared you to Hitler, and I did, and I will say i again, what you believe is exactly what he did. In that way I compare you to him.

Victor Danilchenko wrote:
X" being the abbreviation for "Christ" commonly used by the xians up until a couple of centuries ago (Christ = XPICTOC is Greek, so the first letter "X" is used for "Christ", same as in "xmas"), the label is a perfectly legitimate one, not in any sense perjorative. I use it because it's shorter than "christian" -- and I call you specifically "xian" because you keep calling me "VD".

No, no, no. It is pejorative. Christians don't call themselves xians, atheists do it all the time in a pejorative way. It is not acceptable to me, I have seen the way it is used. It is not a legitimate term.

Now, using the initials of the name of someone is and has been universally acceptable by most people, no has ever complained to me about (I did, to you several times). Now, I can accept that you don't like or prefer me to use your full name when addressing. But, if you didn't like it, you should have said so from the start.

Victor Danilchenko wrote:
How does your foot taste?

Quite well.

Paradox wrote:
How about : "Daddy, it hurts!"

Really. So, when a child is getting a flu shot and says it hurts, you are certain it causes a negative side-effect. Wonderfull

Paradox wrote:
Don't know the answer, do you? You just give up looking when whim strikes or patience wears thin?

Yes I do. Are you projecting?

Paradox wrote:
Degree of coercion. The more coercion, the less ethical the act is.

Ok. So, coercion is an external element. How do you determine an ethical act when no coercion is involved? Unless you believe God is the external force coercing the person.

Paradox wrote:
Now, there are a lot of 'or's in there, suggesting that this Red Zone includes, but is not exclusive to, the acts mentioned. I do not know specifically how you physically punish your children. I don't consider this insulting because you have already admitted you use CP, now we're just trying to discern the degree to which you take it.

(Ever heard the story about the wealthy man who approaches the attractive woman in a casino and asks her if she will sleep with him for $5 million? "Sure, baby." she winks. After a few hours at the games, he's lost nearly all of his fortune via his gambling. He returns to the woman and asks "How about for $10?"
"Just what do you think I am!?!" she snorts.
"That, my dear, we have already established...now we're just haggling over prices.")

If you say that, according to how you have administered CP, you do not fall in the Red Zone (thus, don't perform the actions delineated there), then I would take your word for it.

I have stopped believing you are a serious poster. You are just someone who is bitter, and you want to take it out on others for your lot in life. I feel sorry for you.

[Mossy]

Hey Christian,

Can you do something real quick? Re-read my last post to you, then re-read your response to me.

I was not being condescending in the least, nor was I being a smart-ass of any kind. In fact, I conceded the argument to you about the type of CP you say you administer.

Regarding my statement:
If you're interested, the are plenty of books available that discuss disciplinary solutions that don't involve inflicting pain. Time- outs have been mentioned, there are others, most non-religious (and some religious, according to my friend) parenting organizations offer classes and information on this.


Was in direct response to your statement:
Well, I have to take their word for it right? It seems that way, doesn't it. It seem that no one has ever used a physical action to discipline their children.

From what I can gather, it only takes verbal commands, and maybe looks I guess to make children comply???


It wasn't condescension, it was a reply to your question about what it "takes" to discipline a child without using CP.

My statement:
This would be the criteria I would use as well, with one exception - I don't need the police breaking down my door (or any law for that matter) to decide that if I can accomplish the same thing, with less violent means, then that is a preferable solution (when it comes to raising my children).


Was not a case of condescension. I originally asked how one determines that a certain punishment is unecessary, you responded with "common sense" and the "police breaking down the door". My response, in that light, is most certainly not condescending. It should be clear that I was clarifying that I only agree with you on the first answer (common sense).

At the beginning of this thread you asked that people not attack you for your beliefs and since then, I have tried to avoid intentionally offending you (for example, using "CP" instead of "abuse", when the fact is - I consider the latter to be more indicative of what it is). I am on no "moral high horse", I simply disagree with you (about something that I consider very important) and I thought we were having a discussion about those disagreements.

[edited to add "avoid" between "to" and "intentionally"]
-Ed

[Paradox]

Victor Danilchenko wrote:
Yeah, being human also unites all atheists. SO what? I was obviously speaking in cultural and ideological context -- I was saying that there is no ideology that unites atheists, since mere lack of belief in god ios not an ideology.

I believe it is an ideology. This is a trait that stems from a belief, a big premise of how the world works.
Atheism is not a belief. It is the expression of a lack of a belief. That the term is normally adopted after philosophical introspection brings the atheist back to their original point (no god concept) does not make it a positive position. You can tell nothing about what a person is by the term atheist, only what they are not.
Victor Danilchenko wrote:
Of course humans are born qualitatively different

Please, remember these words. This is the root of most evil in human history. And it usually follow this logic as well:

Victor Danilchenko wrote:
except inasmuch as genetic traits are inherited along the same lines of descent as the cultural ones.

I'm speaking to the bigger audience here. Elitist camouflage (intentionally or unintentionally) the negative (evil) part of this reasoning by saying there is no link between this belief and race. Yet in there comments they clearly imply it.

Victor, you are wrong, humans are not born qualitavely different.
Really? You think that continual practice will enable you to jump like Spud Webb or play chess like Kasparov? :rolleyes:

The 'evil' born is not of the admittance that humans are born qualitatively different, but that those differences somehow impart a greater right to basic human liberties.
Victor Danilchenko wrote:
No, dude, I am saying that thefact that half of US population is below average intelligence, does not prevent them from being educated.


Here a prime example of that.
Need a course or two it statistics? http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/laugh.gif
Victor Danilchenko wrote:
Well, I am smarter than you for obvious reasons -- I am a genetically engineered superman, and you are Mundane. [/sarcasm]

And suppose you are smarter than me, this is the way a superior being treats an inferior one, calling him a moron, and an idiot.
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=joke
Paradox wrote:
How about : "Daddy, it hurts!"

Really. So, when a child is getting a flu shot and says it hurts, you are certain it causes a negative side-effect. Wonderfull
Partially-clever analogies do not answer the question. We are speaking specifically of CP here. The child say it hurts. Is this a negative side-effect? A) Yes B) No
Paradox wrote:
Don't know the answer, do you? You just give up looking when whim strikes or patience wears thin?

Yes I do. Are you projecting?
No, I'm being forced to come up with potential answers, as you seem incapable of providing a concise one without tapdancing around the issue.
Paradox wrote:
Degree of coercion. The more coercion, the less ethical the act is.

Ok. So, coercion is an external element. How do you determine an ethical act when no coercion is involved? Unless you believe God is the external force coercing the person.
An ethical act with no coercion (aside from being ethical in the lack of coercion) is ethical to the degree that the receiver of the action will appreciate it. Although ethical usually deals with the current socio-cultural ideas of morality, only in this manner can its purity be maintained.

In the case of theism, god is indeed providing the coercion.
I have stopped believing you are a serious poster. You are just someone who is bitter, and you want to take it out on others for your lot in life. I feel sorry for you.
:confused: I'm curious what it is you think I'm bitter about...but, in the meantime, would you like sponge cake, or ice cream cake for your pity party?

[Victor Danilchenko]

Christian,

Victor Danilchenko wroteThanks, but "Victor" or "Vic" would do just as well, and require less typing on your part.

You cited no constitutions. Which states?Well, I named one -- Texas (short attention span, eh?..); and there are 6 others. See more info at http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas.htm for example -- the link contains specific references.

Whatever Bush said was his opinion.True -- but it was an opinion of POTUS, an opinion which guided his decisions, and a similar opinion guides Bush Jr's decisions now (witness his theistic zeal in affecting legislation and administration)

I believe it is an ideology.It's not. Many atheists are humanists, many aren't many atheists don't believe in the supernatural, but many do. many are liberals, and many are otherwise. There is no actual belief, much less a belief system (=ideology) that unites all atheists.

Re: reductio ad absurdum: You are learning. Good boy.

First, there is a reductio ad absurdum. The argument about the message implicit in violence seems to prove too much. If we suggest that hitting a wrongdoer imparts the message that violence is a fitting means to resolve conflict, then surely we should be committed to saying that detaining a child or imprisoning a convict conveys the message that restricting liberty is an appropriate manner to deal with people who displease one. We would also be required to concede that fining people conveys the message that forcing others to give up some of their property is an acceptable way to respond to those who act in a way that one does not likeNote that we specifically speak about conveying such messages to children during their formative years -- and given that third parties have no responsibility to one's children, even the fining of the child's parent cannot be considered a modifiable aspect of upbringing.

Now you could potentially have a point with timeouts and detention -- the only one in your entire passage that approaches cogency -- except that you misreprent the nature of detention. The message that should be sent is not that restriction of liberty is an appropriate method of dealing with displeasure, but rather that it's an appropriate nmethod of dealing with violation of the rules. This is why books that recommend timeouts, also usually recommend that such punishment (and other punishments, for that matter) be dealt out only when there are previously established rules that have been violated -- that is, timeouts (and other punishments) are explicitly advised to not be used as means of handling parent's mere displeasure.

See? You almost made a sound argument there. Just excercise a bit more care, think precisely, and keep working at it -- some day you might succeed.

This is incredible, you bring up the strawman on the refutation of strawman. I never ever said *is exactly as good as the same act comitted because you were threatened with death otherwise.OK, let's go back to the drawing board:

Is the act comitted on a purely voluntary basis, of the same ethical value as identical act comitted under duress of some sort (say, threat of death or promise of eternal reward)?

Your oroiginal answer is that yes, they are the same -- that only the act itself matters, not the motivation. In fact, here are your own words:

I disagree with your analysis. Being ethical is an external behavior. If I can see the behavior, I can describe it. The motivation in this strict technical sense is irrelevant.Now mind you, you can change your views -- you can concede that yes, motivation does matter; or you can continue to maintain that it doesn't; but please, pick a position and stop wiggling.

Please, remember these words. This is the root of most evil in human history.it's also a simple fact. people are born with different potential for muscle growth, metabolism speed, genetic and congenital disorders, and yes -- cognition. This is an observed fact. You may not like it, but some people are genetically gifted bodybuilders, some are have genetically endowed superior metabolism, and some have been gifted with potential for higher cognitive abilities. I repeat, this is a scientific fact.

There is no amount of workout that will allow an average man achieve the physique of Schwartzenegger, and there is no amount of study that will allow an average person achieve the cognitive abilities of Feynman. Doesn't mean that a hardgainer can't have an awesome bod, or that an average-intelligence person can't learn more and think better; but there are genetic biases.

I'm speaking to the bigger audience here. Elitist camouflage (intentionally or unintentionally) the negative (evil) part of this reasoning by saying there is no link between this belief and race. Yet in there comments they clearly imply it.They do? They would if I claimed that race is directly causally connected to intelligence (it is thusly indirectly connected, obviously), and intelligence is directly causally connected to religiosity (it is thusly indirectly connected, obviously). You must be profoundly ignorant of statistics, if you draw the conclusions you do.

Your own ignorance drives you to make wildly incorrect assumptions in order to avoid the ethical pitfall that in reality is not where you see it. You assert that all humans are born with equal potential as a way to avoid bigotry, but you set up a conflict between "good" and "true" -- a conflict that's not there. You try to choose "good" rather than "true" (your belief that all are born with equal genetic potential) because you, in your ignorance, think that these two are jointly exhaustive alternatives in this situation.

William Sidis, the highest-known-IQ human (estimated to be about 300) was reading -- reading Times Magazine -- by the advanced age of 2 years old; and exceeded his father's knowledge of math (his father was a PhD psychologist) by the age of 9. This, dude, is pure genetic giftedness... and make no mistakes, it came at a tremendous price. People who have IQ of 80 but can memorize entire phone books are also genetcially different, gifted and cursed -- they are not born with the same genetic potential as others.

Victor, you are wrong, humans are not born qualitavely different.perhaps you hinge this on the word "qualitatively", so I will ask you straight up: Do you agree that people are born with different genetci potentials, or do you deny it?

And suppose you are smarter than me, this is the way a superior being treats an inferior one, calling him a moron, and an idiot.No, that's how I treat someone who accused me -- me, a liberal verging on libertarian, with deep egalitarian tendencies, someone who ends up defending freedom and equality in virtually any political argument -- of holding Hitler-like views. If you want to accuse me of a political sin, accuse me of being freedom extremist -- the charge of bigotry and totalitarian tendencies is so ridiculous, it's beyond words. In the meantime, I will hang a few profoundly warranted expletives on your sorry ass.

You will say, I have compared you to Hitler, and I did, and I will say i again, what you believe is exactly what he did. In that way I compare you to him.See, moron and idiot? Here you go again, *******. (keep going, I have more).

See, it works like this: you falsely accuse me of holding Hitler-like beliefs, I correctly accuse you of being a moron and an *******.

No, no, no. It is pejorative. Christians don't call themselves xians, atheists do it all the time in a pejorative way. It is not acceptable to me, I have seen the way it is used. It is not a legitimate term.Take that up with the Catholic Church which used it that way for many centuries. I have no interest in pandering to your historical naivete and insecurities. I will call you personally 'Christian" because that's your nick, but I don't really care how you feel about my use of "xian" in the general case, it's not in fact perjorative.

Now, using the initials of the name of someone is and has been universally acceptable by most people, no has ever complained to me about (I did, to you several times).Previous post was the first time I recall you complaining to me about calling you "xian".

[Christian]

Paradox wrote:
You can tell nothing about what a person is by the term atheist, only what they are not.

I can tell nothing about a person who is an atheist?

Atheist's Manifesto (http://www.wonderfulatheistsofcfl.org/Int_Manifesto.htm)

Paradox wrote:
Really? You think that continual practice will enable you to jump like Spud Webb or play chess like Kasparov?

You are going to the very end of the bell curve. You are using the exceptions to disprove the rule.

Paradox wrote:
The 'evil' born is not of the admittance that humans are born qualitatively different, but that those differences somehow impart a greater right to basic human liberties.

It is the root. Those differences are tha basis. The jump is automatic. I can predict your answer if you believe this. Do you believe in affirmative action, why or why not? This goes directly to the issue what are basic human liberties.

Paradox wrote:
Need a course or two it statistics?

Maybe more. How is this US population intelligence measured?

Paradox wrote:
The child say it hurts. Is this a negative side-effect? A) Yes B) No

Absolutely not. Just as saying it hurts from a vaccine is not.

Paradox wrote:
No, I'm being forced to come up with potential answers, as you seem incapable of providing a concise one without tapdancing around the issue.

If you read my posts you will see I clearly listed the possible options. They can be counted. So when you ask how do I know if I have exhausted all other options, I implied it is just a matter of simple elimination. (like: how do you know when you have eaten the three cookies, when you have.)

Paradox wrote:
An ethical act with no coercion (aside from being ethical in the lack of coercion) is ethical to the degree that the receiver of the action will appreciate it.

So now ethical is not only something done with the right motivation but there must be a perceiver and receiver (both at the same time) who appreciates the act.

So, when I return a wallet to a lost and found, by your definition, this is not an ethical act. You are clearly wrong.

Paradox wrote:
In the case of theism, god is indeed providing the coercion.

How can you prove this? Suppose the person returning the wallet is a Muslim. Can you say his act of returning the wallet is not ethical because he fears Allah. That is nonsense.

Returning a wallet is an ethical act. The act itself provides the elements of the definition.

Motivation is only required to be proved in a court of law, and he way jurisprudences proves motivations is by actions. In other words, the acts provide the evidence for motivation.

Paradox wrote:
I'm curious what it is you think I'm bitter about...but, in the meantime, would you like sponge cake, or ice cream cake for your pity party?

Sure.

Victor wrote:
Well, I named one -- Texas (short attention span, eh?..); and there are 6 others. See more info at http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas.htm for example -- the link contains specific references.

I thought you meant countries, not states of the US. I think it is my turn to teach you. The US is a republic. The supreme document above all is the US constitutions and its ammendments. When contradictions arise from lower laws and the Constitution, the Constitution prevails. This is where an legal entity can claim a law is *unconstitutional* meaning it has no legal effect.

The Texas law is unconstitutional, and I doubt ever enforced. If effect, there is no legal discrimination (sanctioned) in the US for being an atheist.

Victor wrote:
True -- but it was an opinion of POTUS, an opinion which guided his decisions, and a similar opinion guides Bush Jr's decisions now (witness his theistic zeal in affecting legislation and administration)

Well, again, Bush can believe anything he wants, but he cannot pass legislation that goes against the magna carta. It is impossible. The US legal system is configured in such a way that the checks and balances curtail State sactioned discrimination based on personal beliefs on religion.

Victor wrote:
It's not. Many atheists are humanists, many aren't many atheists don't believe in the supernatural, but many do. many are liberals, and many are otherwise. There is no actual belief, much less a belief system (=ideology) that unites all atheists.

I disagree. Explain to me how the supernatural is reconciled with atheism. And let's do this so you can see how your tactic of diversion work. (e.g. I never said atheism was incompatible with humanism, but you may throw that in now to attack me on that later, I never said anything about liberal or conservative. I did provide a list. On that list i did include the beliefs about the supernatural. I say atheists can believe, I don't see how. But I'm sure you will educate me)

Victor wrote:
Re: reductio ad absurdum: You are learning. Good boy.

Thank you. You see, that is just one more down and maybe some more to go. It is not a matter of intelligence but proficiency. After a little while, there will be no more tricks left.

Victor wrote:
except that you misreprent the nature of detention.

I misrepresent nothing. You don't read links I gather, this is a passage from a link.

Victor wrote:
The message that should be sent is not that restriction of liberty is an appropriate method of dealing with displeasure, but rather that it's an appropriate nmethod of dealing with violation of the rules.

Ok, now we are back on track. So a time out is given for violation of a rule. What is the purpose of a time out? Why is it effective or necessary?

Victor wrote:
This is why books that recommend timeouts, also usually recommend that such punishment (and other punishments, for that matter) be dealt out only when there are previously established rules that have been violated -- that is, timeouts (and other punishments) are explicitly advised to not be used as means of handling parent's mere displeasure.

Forget about the displeasure. Do you agree a time out is a punishment? What is the purpose of a punishment? Let me rephrase that, what is the essence of a punishment?

Victor wrote:
See? You almost made a sound argument there. Just excercise a bit more care, think precisely, and keep working at it -- some day you might succeed.

Don't dismiss me just yet. You see I believe persistence is much more valuable. We are not through, of course you pull the stunt that you will retreat because you can't argue with an ignorant person.

Victor wrote:
OK, let's go back to the drawing board:

Is the act comitted on a purely voluntary basis, of the same ethical value as identical act comitted under duress of some sort (say, threat of death or promise of eternal reward)?

Your oroiginal answer is that yes, they are the same -- that only the act itself matters, not the motivation. In fact, here are your own words:

I said yes to another premise, not the one you put forth. (strawman)

And thank you for quoting me. Let's get back to the drawing board and compare your statement to mine:

Yours Is the act comitted on a purely voluntary basis, of the same ethical value as identical act comitted under duress of some sort

MineBeing ethical is an external behavior. If I can see the behavior, I can describe it. The motivation in this strict technical sense is irrelevant.

So now the magic trick revealed. By having the premise that the motivation is already known, you construct a situation that show my position to be false.

Now, we can go back to the drawing board. Humans can only infer or deduce motivation from the acts themselves. So the real chicken here is the act and the egg is the motivation, from an analysis point of view.

So the only thing that really matter is the external behavior. If I can see it, I can describe it to be ethical and yes after I see it I can infer or deduce the motivation. So in a strict technical technical sense, motivation is irrelevant because our actions determine of they are ethical or not, not our motivations.

I can kill someone accidentally motivated by an ethical sense but my actions may not be ethical. (Hitting the a bystandard when attempting to save a family member from an assalaint)

Victor wrote:
Now mind you, you can change your views -- you can concede that yes, motivation does matter; or you can continue to maintain that it doesn't; but please, pick a position and stop wiggling.

Wiggling?? see you are also learning from me.

Victor wrote:
it's also a simple fact. people are born with different potential for muscle growth, metabolism speed, genetic and congenital disorders, and yes -- cognition. This is an observed fact. You may not like it, but some people are genetically gifted bodybuilders, some are have genetically endowed superior metabolism, and some have been gifted with potential for higher cognitive abilities. I repeat, this is a scientific fact.

Aha, another bait and switch. Are you doing this on purpose Victor? And also there is a logical fallacy here is called Complex Question. The switch here is from to qualitative to quantitative and you have conjoined them with cognition. Which is a totally different thing.

I'm on to you Victor.

Victor wrote:
You must be profoundly ignorant of statistics, if you draw the conclusions you do.

And now magic trick is complete. Statistic on quantitative things are joined with qualitative. Excellent Victor.

Victor wrote:
William Sidis, the highest-known-IQ human (estimated to be about 300) was reading -- reading Times Magazine -- by the advanced age of 2 years old; and exceeded his father's knowledge of math (his father was a PhD psychologist) by the age of 9. This, dude, is pure genetic giftedness... and make no mistakes, it came at a tremendous price. People who have IQ of 80 but can memorize entire phone books are also genetcially different, gifted and cursed -- they are not born with the same genetic potential as others.

Ah and here another magic trick. This one is called Unrepresentative Sample. Paradox did the same thing.

The sample used in an inductive inference is relevantly
different from the population as a whole.

Victor wrote:
perhaps you hinge this on the word "qualitatively", so I will ask you straight up: Do you agree that people are born with different genetci potentials, or do you deny it?

And so Victor, you might know that you are doing tricks, right?

Victor wrote:
No, that's how I treat someone who accused me -- me, a liberal verging on libertarian, with deep egalitarian tendencies, someone who ends up defending freedom and equality in virtually any political argument -- of holding Hitler-like views.

Well, Victor, if what you say is true, then you will correct the errors of your views because I will repeat it to you again, you are holding Hitler-like views.

Victor wrote:
In the meantime, I will hang a few profoundly warranted expletives on your sorry ass.

And that is the most you can do, Victor. Isn't that wonderful.

Victor wrote:
See, moron and idiot? Here you go again, *******. (keep going, I have more).

I'm sure you do. That is all the power you have in here. So, if on a whim, you can use the most power you can, I have no doubt that there is more in common than these views with Hitler. The great thing about it is that, once you have exhausted them, you have nothing left. ;)

Victor wrote:
See, it works like this: you falsely accuse me of holding Hitler-like beliefs, I correctly accuse you of being a moron and an *******.

See, how it works. Nothing happens after I correctly accuse you of holding Hitler-like beliefs.

Victor wrote:
Take that up with the Catholic Church which used it that way for many centuries.

Well, I'm not a Catholic.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Christian
Darat wrote:
[b]That isn't a belief system, there is no "creed" or dogma that an atheist must follow to call themselves an atheist.

Conclusions from for an atheist:

1. There are no supernatural events
2. All can be (will be able to be) explained through the natural world
3. Morality is subjective (it emanates from humans)
4. There are no consequences of our actions after death
5. The subject's intelligence is all that allows him to arrive at the truth.
6. Any entity that reaches our level of consciousness will be qualitative the same as humans.

I call these a belief system.


Christian I sort of agree that this is a belief system, however this seems to be your belief system not an atheists!

I'm afraid this is derailing this thread - do you want to take this to a new thread?


(Edited to add)

PS your PM mailbox is full

[Christian]

Darat wrote:
Christian I sort of agree that this is a belief system, however this seems to be your belief system not an atheists!
I'm afraid this is derailing this thread - do you want to take this to a new thread?

Ok, you are right, that belongs in another thread.

Thanks Darat, I have emptied the mailbox.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Christian,

I thought you meant countries, not states of the US. I think it is my turn to teach you. The US is a republic. The supreme document above all is the US constitutions and its ammendments. When contradictions arise from lower laws and the Constitution, the Constitution prevails. This is where an legal entity can claim a law is *unconstitutional* meaning it has no legal effect.<sigh> The excerpts are from State constitutions, not from the extra-constitutional body of law. Besides, you wanted examples of anti-atheism bias in USA -- I gave it to you. I can give you a huge list, this was just the most obvious.

The Texas law is unconstitutional, and I doubt ever enforced.It's not "a law", it's Texas Constitution. Constitution trumps any other law, but not state Constitutions -- otherwise the state constitutions would have been amended, the way laws are re-written to not conflict with Constitution.

If effect, there is no legal discrimination (sanctioned) in the US for being an atheist.Ah, so now you backed down to "there is no legal discrimination"... Use your ****ing mind for once, eh?..

Well, again, Bush can believe anything he wants, but he cannot pass legislation that goes against the magna carta. It is impossible.No, he can instead place pressure on Congress (which he does) and issue executive orders (which he also does).

The US legal system is configured in such a way that the checks and balances curtail State sactioned discrimination based on personal beliefs on religion.Yes, I know civics, dude -- what you don't know is reality. Think about McCarthy and the Pledge, think about the influence POTUS has on the federal policy, etc. The fact that USA is in theory supposed to have church/state separation hasn't stopped Shrub, has it?..

I disagree. Explain to me how the supernatural is reconciled with atheism.Very easily -- you believe in supernatural but not in god. Many NewAgey beliefs are like that for example; in fact, I used to believe something like that -- I believed in occult and supernatural but not in god. There are plenty of atheists who believe in the supernatural.

Ok, now we are back on track. So a time out is given for violation of a rule. What is the purpose of a time out? Why is it effective or necessary?It is effective because it teaches that rules should be respected, while at the same time not teaching violence as an acceptable means of dealing with a problem. Basically, if you do need negative reinforcement at all (which you sometimes do), it should be a method of reinforcement that doesn't teach socially unacceptable attitudes, such as violence predisposition.

What is the purpose of a punishment? Let me rephrase that, what is the essence of a punishment?Correction of inappropriate behavior -- but it should be correction with minimal negative side effects. Cutting off a hand is for example a very effective method of preventing future theft, but it does so at too high a price. SImilarly, there are methods of negative reinforcement in child's education which does not teach violence. In fact, the method should be used which is the most effective for least detrimental side effects.

Now, we can go back to the drawing board. Humans can only infer or deduce motivation from the acts themselves.Fine. From acts (plural). So you have two cases -- Case A has two acts (being threatened unless offer help, helping) and Case B has one act (helping, without being threatened). Nothing changes -- the threat renders the act's ethical value much reduced, and xians still have inherent trouble with ethics.

I can kill someone accidentally motivated by an ethical sense but my actions may not be ethical. (Hitting the a bystandard when attempting to save a family member from an assalaint)Exactly. So if you kill someone by accident, you are not evil (perhaps criminally negligent), but if you kill someone on purpose, you are evil. See? Trivial. Motivation (when known, of course) does matter. The trick here is that we know that xians always act ethically under duress, while we generally know the opposite for atheists. In short, you can know, with reasonable degree of certainty, than an atheist is acting in a truly ethical manner; but you can know no such thing about the xian.

Aha, another bait and switch.No, a legitimate point wehich you can't deal with honestly.

And so Victor, you might know that you are doing tricks, right?I see that you curiosly refused to answer a simple and straight-forward question. Somehow, I am not surprised.

So, let's try again.

You accused me of Hitler-like attitudes because I stated the fact that intelligence and religiosity are inversely correlated. You did so because you assume that my stance entails the assumption that intelligence and other traits are genetically determined (it's partially so, yes) and that this was the key point of Hitler's ideology (it wasn't). Your objection is that belief that humans are born "qualitatively" different is fascist.

Fine. If by "qualitatively" you mean that some people are born inherently inferior to others, and that the delineation runs along the ethnic or raqcial lines, then this is indeed Hitler's position -- but it certainyl is not mine. If on the other hand you mean that it's evil to believe that some people are born with different genetic potential (for intelligence, for example -- the only point remotely related to my intelligence/religiosity point), then you are simply rejecting a trivial fact.

Either way, I think you are too tangled here, making a really idiotic argument. Believe me, a charge of being Hitler-like ideologically is one thing that you will never be able to hang me me -- you will only expose your own stupidity and bigotry.

Well, Victor, if what you say is true, then you will correct the errors of your views because I will repeat it to you again, you are holding Hitler-like views.Ah, you are still a moron and an *******...

Try is again idiot: Tell me specifically what makes my views Hitler-like. Try to avoid using the word "qualitatively", instead explaining what you mean by that, ****nagle.

Well, I'm not a Catholic.Which has zero relevance to the correctness of the "xain" abbreviation (the point is that the word "xian" has a long history of being applied to xians by themselves, without perjorative connotations) -- but we already established that you are too stupid and bigoted to deal with fact straight-up, so I am not surprised at your reaction.

So, dude, go ahead: tell me specifically in what respects my ideology is Hitler-like. Flex your brain -- you need the excercise.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Christian,

Now, you your atheistic list...

1. There are no supernatural eventsFalse. As I said, there are atheists who believe in the supernatural -- just not in god.

2. All can be (will be able to be) explained through the natural worldSee above.

3. Morality is subjective (it emanates from humans)Yeah. Try passin gthat off with objectivists (followers of Ayn Rand) -- they are atheists but believe in objective ethics.

4. There are no consequences of our actions after deathIn fact, the dualist atheists (as per #1) often believe in reincarnation, and "karma" as being the ultimate law of the Universe, akin to laws of physics but more pervasive. Still no god.

5. The subject's intelligence is all that allows him to arrive at the truth.No, sorry. There are atheists who believe in mysticism, intuition, supernatural knowledge, etc.

6. Any entity that reaches our level of consciousness will be qualitative the same as humans.This is a statement I am not sure about the meaning of; if you are speaking about the "person value", then this may be a premise of certain forms of humanism, but there are plenty of atheists who don't believe in equal human rights and somesuch -- take modern satanists for example, many of whom are explicitly atheists; they often believe in "might makes right" and rule of law, recognizing themselves (each individual) as being supreme.

Nothing left, eh?.,.

[Paradox]

Originally posted by Christian
Paradox wrote:
You can tell nothing about what a person is by the term atheist, only what they are not.

I can tell nothing about a person who is an atheist?

Atheist's Manifesto (http://www.wonderfulatheistsofcfl.org/Int_Manifesto.htm)
Read the link you just posted again. This time more carefully.

The title? "International Manifesto for Atheistic Humanism. A quick refresher course in basic english tells us that 'atheistic' is an adjective in the above phrase. The noun, on the other hand, is 'humanism'.

Yes, humanism is a positive stance.
Paradox wrote:
Really? You think that continual practice will enable you to jump like Spud Webb or play chess like Kasparov?

You are going to the very end of the bell curve. You are using the exceptions to disprove the rule.
Exceptions? http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/laugh.gif
You mean 'extremes'? Yes. There are plenty of instances of differentiation that are not as prominent. These are still qualitiative differences.
Paradox wrote:
The 'evil' born is not of the admittance that humans are born qualitatively different, but that those differences somehow impart a greater right to basic human liberties.

It is the root. Those differences are tha basis.
No. Let's try this again...the ethical/emotional values applied to the differences are what create racism and idiocy, not the differences themselves.
The jump is automatic.
If your shoes are 'Air Non-Sequiturs'.
. I can predict your answer if you believe this.
You've got psychic powers, now do you? :D
Do you believe in affirmative action, why or why not? This goes directly to the issue what are basic human liberties.
Well, it's easy to predict what my answers are going to be after you've asked me to explain them to you! Why not use that precognitive intuition and tell me what my answers will be?
Paradox wrote:
Need a course or two it statistics?

Maybe more. How is this US population intelligence measured?
You are seriously saying you think the sentence...

"I am saying...that half of US population is below average intelligence"

...is logically if not statistically flawed?
Paradox wrote:
The child say it hurts. Is this a negative side-effect? A) Yes B) No

Absolutely not. Just as saying it hurts from a vaccine is not.
Quit lying through your teeth just so you can solidify a crumbling foundation. A child saying "it hurts" to a vaccine is indeed a negative side-effect. In that case, the benefit outweighs it. But the question wasn't whether the benefits of spanking outweigh the negatives, it was simply if you could be intellectually honest enough to admit that there is a negative side-effect. You failed.
Paradox wrote:
No, I'm being forced to come up with potential answers, as you seem incapable of providing a concise one without tapdancing around the issue.

If you read my posts you will see I clearly listed the possible options. They can be counted. So when you ask how do I know if I have exhausted all other options, I implied it is just a matter of simple elimination. (like: how do you know when you have eaten the three cookies, when you have.)
I must have missed where you provided the list of methods to be used before resorting to CP. Could you point out to me where they are listed in the thread, or could you delineate them for me?
Paradox wrote:
An ethical act with no coercion (aside from being ethical in the lack of coercion) is ethical to the degree that the receiver of the action will appreciate it.

So now ethical is not only something done with the right motivation but there must be a perceiver and receiver (both at the same time) who appreciates the act.
Huh? I said nothing of a 'perceiver'. In a purely ethical sense, the receiver of the act must appreciate it.

So, when I return a wallet to a lost and found, by your definition, this is not an ethical act. You are clearly wrong.
You don't listen very well. In a strict sense, the act is not ethical until the wallet's owner receives it back and is appreciative. In the sense of socio-cultural norm, the act is considered ethical because it is expected that 1) the owner will receive it back, and 2) the owner will be happy to have it returned. This is expected because it is commonplace.

You, on the other hand, suggest that the act is ethical even if the person who returns it does so only because (s)he expects a healthy reward.
Paradox wrote:
In the case of theism, god is indeed providing the coercion.

How can you prove this?
Hell.
Suppose the person returning the wallet is a Muslim. Can you say his act of returning the wallet is not ethical because he fears Allah. That is nonsense.
Your analogies are the nonsense.
His act is not ethical if he performs it because he fears the wrath of Allah or because he specifically expects to be rewarded for the action.
Returning a wallet is an ethical act. The act itself provides the elements of the definition.
You're confused. Returning a wallet to someone who you know has intentionally gotten rid of it, someone who doesn't want it, is not ethical.
Motivation is only required to be proved in a court of law, and he way jurisprudences proves motivations is by actions. In other words, the acts provide the evidence for motivation.
You support the death penalty?
Paradox wrote:
I'm curious what it is you think I'm bitter about...but, in the meantime, would you like sponge cake, or ice cream cake for your pity party?

Sure.
Both? Excellent! I too like having multiple options available to me. It decreases the degree of coercion. Although, to be honest, I'm only offering you cake because it's soaked with laxitives, and I'll enjoy the practical joke at your expense. But the fact that I'm offering you a free cake makes it ethical nonetheless! I'm such a nice guy!

[Christian]

Victor wrote:
The excerpts are from State constitutions, not from the extra-constitutional body of law. Besides, you wanted examples of anti-atheism bias in USA -- I gave it to you. I can give you a huge list, this was just the most obvious.

You continue to use your bait and switch. I never said I wanted examples fo anti-atheism bias in USA. I said to show me evidence that this(yours) statement is true:
Atheists are thus bound not by atheism itself, but rather by the society's reaction to atheism.

Thus far you have shown nothing. You have just switched the argument to your convience. Of course there is bias against atheists in the US. I asked you to show me evidence that the bias curtails atheists actions. (specifically impedement to form charitable organizations). You see, that was your excuse for there being none. You are very smart.

Oh US constitution is above State Constitutions.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Victor wrote:
It's not "a law", it's Texas Constitution. Constitution trumps any other law, but not state Constitutions -- otherwise the state constitutions would have been amended, the way laws are re-written to not conflict with Constitution.

I don't know if you know why you are right, but technically are correct in stating that a Constitution is not law. I'm not going to get into that now, but the First amendment to the US Constitution would render the Texas Constitution inoperant in this respect. There is no way Texan atheists could not hold office based on that norm.

Victor wrote:
Ah, so now you backed down to "there is no legal discrimination"... Use your ****ing mind for once, eh?..

The magic trick revealed. Once you switched my position to *there is no bias in the US*, now you accuse me of changing it yet again to legal discrimination. Nice trick.

Your tactic has been uncovered. So, I ask you again, can you show any evidence that atheists do not create organizations based on societies (what was your word againg) reaction.

Victor wrote:
No, he can instead place pressure on Congress (which he does) and issue executive orders (which he also does).

Sorry, Congress cannot enact laws that go against the first amendment. They could try. But the supreme court would render it unconstitutional and inoperant.

Victor wrote:
Yes, I know civics, dude -- what you don't know is reality. Think about McCarthy and the Pledge, think about the influence POTUS has on the federal policy, etc. The fact that USA is in theory supposed to have church/state separation hasn't stopped Shrub, has it?..

Now, we are on the right track. If we were living in the McCarthy era, that could be your evidence. Step forward in time and show me evidence now.

Victor wrote:
Very easily -- you believe in supernatural but not in god. Many NewAgey beliefs are like that for example; in fact, I used to believe something like that -- I believed in occult and supernatural but not in god. There are plenty of atheists who believe in the supernatural.

Forgive me for not taking your word for it, and if this is so, then it is logically inconsistent. Maybe that's why don't believe it anymore.

Victor wrote:
It is effective because it teaches that rules should be respected, while at the same time not teaching violence as an acceptable means of dealing with a problem. Basically, if you do need negative reinforcement at all (which you sometimes do), it should be a method of reinforcement that doesn't teach socially unacceptable attitudes, such as violence predisposition.

Ok. We are doing fine so far.

Victor wrote:
Correction of inappropriate behavior -- but it should be correction with minimal negative side effects. Cutting off a hand is for example a very effective method of preventing future theft, but it does so at too high a price. SImilarly, there are methods of negative reinforcement in child's education which does not teach violence. In fact, the method should be used which is the most effective for least detrimental side effects.

Ok, so what causes the child to correct the inappropriate behavior is *negative reinforcement*? Can you define the general meaning of negative reinforcement?

Victor wrote:
Fine. From acts (plural). So you have two cases -- Case A has two acts (being threatened unless offer help, helping) and Case B has one act (helping, without being threatened). Nothing changes -- the threat renders the act's ethical value much reduced, and xians still have inherent trouble with ethics.

Another magic trick. You want to equate an external physical threat with an internal belief (or if you want external unobservable, supernatural threat). No cigar dude. This is called:
False Analogy:
In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to
be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so
also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two
objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether
they both have property P.

Your whole argument on Christians not being ethical rests on this fallacy.

But lets see the fallacy in its full range here (your words):
The trick here is that we know that xians always act ethically under duress, while we generally know the opposite for atheists. In short, you can know, with reasonable degree of certainty, than an atheist is acting in a truly ethical manner; but you can know no such thing about the xian.

And there is one more fallacy here. It is a beauty. It is called:
Argument from Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam):
Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes that all propositions must either be known to be true or known to be false.) As Davis writes, "Lack of proof is not proof."

So, because I can't prove the atheist's motivation is not from duress or any other ill motivation, then it must be true that the motivation is pure. Another nice trick.

Victor wrote:
No, a legitimate point wehich you can't deal with honestly.

The Billy Joel song comes to mind.

Victor wrote:
You accused me of Hitler-like attitudes because I stated the fact that intelligence and religiosity are inversely correlated.

That should be enough. If you can't see it, I'm sorry. You come into this thread, derail it, evently looking for a quarrel, (yes, you are bitter too) and out of the blue you say religion makes people dumb and that atheists are smarter. Then when I call you on it, you pretend (magic trick) like I'm the agressor, when all along you are the bully who comes to pick a fight (and totally unrelated to the topic at hand).

Then you find yourself in the position to show off your verbal range (you know, baddy words). Let me ask you a question, have you taught your children (by the way, that is the subject) to use these words too? Have you taught them to curse at people who say negative things about them?

Victor wrote:
Believe me, a charge of being Hitler-like ideologically is one thing that you will never be able to hang me me -- you will only expose your own stupidity and bigotry.

I think you are doing an excellent job all by yourself.

Let me show you the Hitler bullylike similarity:
Ah, you are still a moron and an *******...
Try is again idiot: Tell me specifically what makes my views Hitler-like. Try to avoid using the word "qualitatively", instead explaining what you mean by that, ****nagle.

I really like this, can you do some more?


Ok, now to the serious posters. Victor, you can become one if you like. I will disengage from the other discussions and focus on the CP part. I think I have another angle that can help the discussion along. If Victor answer my questions related to the topic on the thread, we will get somewhere.

Paradox, sorry man, I'm only going to address questions of CP. Ok? (except for one that I must clarify)

Paradox wrote:
"I am saying...that half of US population is below average intelligence" ...is logically if not statistically flawed?

This is Victor's comment not mine. Please go back in the thread and see how it is he who offends have the US population.

Paradox wrote:
Quit lying through your teeth just so you can solidify a crumbling foundation. A child saying "it hurts" to a vaccine is indeed a negative side-effect. In that case, the benefit outweighs it. But the question wasn't whether the benefits of spanking outweigh the negatives, it was simply if you could be intellectually honest enough to admit that there is a negative side-effect. You failed.

You know what, you are right about the *it hurts* in the vaccine example. It is a negative side effect, I agree. But I think you baited me (unintentionally) when you joined the situations. So let me correct here my position. That a child says *it hurts* when receiving CP is a *positive effect*. That's the reaction I'm looking for.

Paradox wrote:
I must have missed where you provided the list of methods to be used before resorting to CP. Could you point out to me where they are listed in the thread, or could you delineate them for me?

Sure: Removing privileges, time out (isolation), reasoning, restraint, ignoring, scolding, love withdrawal, brief room isolation, diverting, child-determined release from time out, and reasoning combined with nonphysical punishment.

[Paradox]

Originall posted by Christian
Paradox, sorry man, I'm only going to address questions of CP. Ok?
:D "Oops" accepted.
Paradox wrote:
"I am saying...that half of US population is below average intelligence" ...is logically if not statistically flawed?

This is Victor's comment not mine. Please go back in the thread and see how it is he who offends have the US population.
I know it was Victor's comment. I was asking if you actually think the comment is logically and/or statistically flawed. Do you?
Paradox wrote:
Quit lying through your teeth just so you can solidify a crumbling foundation. A child saying "it hurts" to a vaccine is indeed a negative side-effect. In that case, the benefit outweighs it. But the question wasn't whether the benefits of spanking outweigh the negatives, it was simply if you could be intellectually honest enough to admit that there is a negative side-effect. You failed.

You know what, you are right about the *it hurts* in the vaccine example. It is a negative side effect, I agree. But I think you baited me (unintentionally) when you joined the situations. So let me correct here my position. That a child says *it hurts* when receiving CP is a *positive effect*. That's the reaction I'm looking for.
Is hitting someone to the point of pain an ethical act?

[edited to add:]

I'm kind of disappointed you chose not to respond to this portion:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motivation is only required to be proved in a court of law, and he way jurisprudences proves motivations is by actions. In other words, the acts provide the evidence for motivation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You support the death penalty?
I would have been interested in hearing your explanations...

[Christian]

Paradox wrote:
I know it was Victor's comment. I was asking if you actually think the comment is logically and/or statistically flawed. Do you?

Yes, it is.

Paradox wrote:
Is hitting someone to the point of pain an ethical act?

Yes. I want to get away from the ethical theme. And get back to CP. CP is intended cause pain, physical pain. It is suppose to hurt.

Oh one small comment on the list, love withdrawal simply means, withdrawal of acts of affection. "I'm not going to give you a hug until you put away those toys". So, please don't read to much into it.

[Christian]

Paradox wrote:
I would have been interested in hearing your explanations...

I don't believe in the death penalty.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Christian,

You continue to use your bait and switch. I never said I wanted examples fo anti-atheism bias in USA. I said to show me evidence that this(yours) statement is true:
Atheists are thus bound not by atheism itself, but rather by the society's reaction to atheism.

Thus far you have shown nothing.I have shown trhat US society is biased against atheists, and blatantly discriminates against them -- this is exactly what binds atheists together, if anything at all does.

I asked you to show me evidence that the bias curtails atheists actions. (specifically impedement to form charitable organizations).I neevr claimed that it does. What I did say was that if atheists form an organization, it's not because they are bound by atheism itself, but because they need to take political action against the anti-atheist discrimination. Societry's discrimination is what binds atheists together, in common defense -- nothing more.

I will assume that this was an honest misunderstaning on your part, rather than a deliberate deception.

There is no way Texan atheists could not hold office based on that norm.Yes, there is. He could try, he would be denied, he would take it up to the Supreme Court, Supreme Court would rule on the 1st amendment issue as you say -- but SCOTUS has no power to amend State constitution, and thus cannot force the state of Texas to allow the atheist to hold office. Only Texas legislature can do that.

Your tactic has been uncovered. So, I ask you again, can you show any evidence that atheists do not create organizations based on societies (what was your word againg) reaction.Since I assume that you honestly misunderstood me (surprise, surprise!), I will explain my claim once more.

Atheists generally do not form societies because there is nothing binding them together -- atheism has no common ideology. Atheists do sometimes bind together as a mean of common defense, because they can be united by the society's discriminatory reaction to atheism. I specifically said that I know of no explicitly atheist charities (as opposed to secular ones), and you, as I recall, agreed; I would further say that I would be kinda at a loss to explain an existence of an exoplicitly atheist charity, unless it was formed for the reaosn of furthering the goal of atheists' equality in society, through improving atheists' public image.

I never claimed that society denies atheists a chance to band together.

Sorry, Congress cannot enact laws that go against the first amendment. They could try. But the supreme court would render it unconstitutional and inoperant.Congress can in fact do so, and has done so. SCOTUS can do nothing more than rule a law unconstitutional after it is passed -- but th elaw has to be passed first; and many unconstitutional laws exist and aren't challenged (or are challenged and SCOTUS refuses to hear the case, or are challenged and SCOTUS rules law OK anyway).

I, a foreigner, have to give you a lesson in civics? How ****ing embarrassing...

Now, we are on the right track. If we were living in the McCarthy era, that could be your evidence. Step forward in time and show me evidence now.the pledge is there now, it's clearly unconstitutuinal with "under god" McCarthyism, and yet it has stood so far, and will probably stand in the future, given the Congress's indignant reaction. There is "under god" on our money, also due to a law passed during the McCarthy era. Shrub pushes for granting religions privileged status in a variety of forms (from school vouchers to charitable choice). Hell, how about the laws prohibiting sale of alcohol on Sundays?

There are very many laws which discriminate against atheists, and against various rnon-xian religions as well.

Forgive me for not taking your word for it, and if this is so, then it is logically inconsistent.Why? Why does belief in the supernatural, in spirit and spheres of existence and psychic powers and karma and all that, entail a belief in god? There is nothing inherently contradictory about being a dualistic atheist, outside the problems with dualism itself.

As to inconsistency -- there are plenty of inconsistent beliefs that people hold cheerfully and with firm conviction. Humans are often deeply irrational, and being an atheist is not a guarantee against it.

Ok, so what causes the child to correct the inappropriate behavior is *negative reinforcement*? Can you define the general meaning of negative reinforcement?Take Psych 101, dude. I am getting sick of holding others' wittle teeny hands here.

Another magic trick. You want to equate an external physical threat with an internal belief (or if you want external unobservable, supernatural threat). No cigar dude.Why not? I think it's a great analogy. However, if you don't like it, here's a different motivator for you:

Person A has been told by someone that their uncle will leave them $1M upon death, if person A performs lots of charitable deeds; and if he doesn't, his uncle will call in all debts and render A bankrupt. A goes out and starts helping little old ladies across the street, because he thinks this will let him avoid bankruptcy and earn him $1M.

Are actions of person A as ethically good as the same identical actions of person B, if B performs them out of altruism?

And there is one more fallacy here. It is a beauty. It is called:
Argument from IgnoranceAh, you show yourself to be an ever-improving fool...

I very specifically avoided saying that my argument is for xians being unethical -- I repeated, over and over, that what happens is that xians cannot be known to be ethical, while atheists can.

[the claim that intelligence and religiosity are inversely correlated] should be enough [to accuse you of holding Hitler-like attitudes]It's a ****ing fact, you moron! FACT, get it? FACT! You cannot accuse someone of bigotry simply because they accept the truth -- truth is th eultimate defense, remember?..

I am wasting my time. If you are willing to subjugate the truth in the serrvice of your prejudices, then you aren't worth talking to.

out of the blue you say religion makes people dumb and that atheists are smarter.I didn't say that religion makes people dumb, dude -- that is but one of possible causal models, and I explicitly said that I do not hold to any specific causal model here. Why don't you ****ing stop lying so much? it's a sin, after all!

Have you taught them to curse at people who say negative things about them?If the people call them nazis, sure. You bnasically accused me of being nazi-like in some critical respects, and so you profoundly deserve any and all abuse I can heap on you. I am holding back here, buddy.

Ok, now to the serious posters. Victor, you can become one if you like.With you, given how much you lie? No, I don't think it's possible to seriously talk to someone who basically admitted to holding ideology above truth; nevermind your lunatic accusations and blatant ignorance.

[Paradox]

Originally posted by Christian
Paradox wrote:
I know it was Victor's comment. I was asking if you actually think the comment is logically and/or statistically flawed. Do you?

Yes, it is.
I am no mathematician, so pardon my crude example...but:

Take the following set of numbers: 2, 7, 8, 20, 21, 34.
What is the 'average'? 15.333...
What percentage of the numbers provided are 'below average'?

(with a set of fewer items, the results can lean prominently to one side or the other, but when dealing with millions of examples, the variance from 1/2 and 1/2 is negligible.)

Does the comment make a bit more sense now? Just a common-sense fact. Not really the 'insult' you though it was, is it? Similar to the comment you made early on in the thread that seemed insulting, but was actually not.
Paradox wrote:
Is hitting someone to the point of pain an ethical act?

Yes.
:confused: So I come up to you and smack you in the face hard enough for it to hurt. You're telling me I've just comitted an ethical act?

I want to get away from the ethical theme.
If we can determine that CP is unethical (or not), doesn't this provide useful information to the discussion?

And get back to CP. CP is intended cause pain, physical pain. It is suppose to hurt.
Really? I thought it was just supposed to teach. Now you're saying the primary purpose of CP is to cause pain?

Oh one small comment on the list, love withdrawal simply means, withdrawal of acts of affection. "I'm not going to give you a hug until you put away those toys". So, please don't read to much into it.
I didn't see positive reinforcement as an option among your list. That's just one method that you, according to your list, fail to try. So you spank before exhausting this perfectly sensible method of discipline?

[Victor Danilchenko]

Christian,

Paradox wrote:
"I am saying...that half of US population is below average intelligence" ...is logically if not statistically flawed?

Yes, it is. I rest my case. If someone rejects basic scientific facts, such as the fact that intelligence scales are calibrated normally, and that therefore by definition exactly half the population is below the mean, then there is no reasoning with such a person.

[Loki]

Christian,

(Talking about Atheism and the supernaturla) Forgive me for not taking your word for it, and if this is so, then it is logically inconsistent. Maybe that's why don't believe it anymore.
Sorry Christian, but you can (a) be an atheist, (b) believe in spiritual or supernatural elements to reality and (c) be logically consistent.

From here (http://www.geocities.com/gotaro/Page19.html)

Buddhism is essentially an ethic; some have gone so far as to call it the world's only "atheist" or "agnostic" religion; certainly the Buddha never promised a man rewards in any afterlife.
The Dalai Lama is, strictly specking, an atheist. He also a spiritualist. You really need to lift you view above the top of the bible that's permananetly parked in front of your eyes. There's a world out there you know. Hmm, and bhuddism's an ethic, and an objective one at that, but without a god? Well, who would have thunk it?

From here (http://www.gotaro.homestead.com/)
As long as you are a human being, a member of the human family, you need others' warm feeling, and therefore it is most important that you try to get more warm feeling, be warm-hearted. If someone lives with these qualities, even an extreme atheist, the Buddhist viewpoint is that when life ends, if a person has lived within this life very honestly and as a good person, then because of that behavior he will get a good result in the next life. On the contrary, one who has talked about the future life and Nirvana very much without that practice, although that person belonged to the category of spiritual groups, in reality he will face more problems.
Interesting - rewards to those who do good, no matter what they believe. Not very christian-like!

I think you are *heavily* overloading the word 'atheist' with any number of attributes that are "probable", but certainly not "required".

[PotatoStew]

Victor:

The trick here is that we know that xians always act ethically under duress, while we generally know the opposite for atheists.

What do you think Christians think will happen to them if they commit an unethical act?

I, a foreigner, have to give you a lesson in civics?

Look at the "Location" listed under Christian's name by one of his posts. It seems you two have something in common.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Potato,

What do you think Christians think will happen to them if they commit an unethical act?It's more like what happens to them if they don't live a life striving for righteousness and all that -- they will have displeased god, aided the devil, and may play themselves into the devil's hands.

Look at the "Location" listed under Christian's name by one of his posts. It seems you two have something in common.Erm... I see... ****ing embarrassing indeed -- unless of course Christian is an US expatriate, in which case my point still stands (are you, Christian?).

Still, you are right, I made an unwarranted assumption. Sorry.

[gentlehorse]

PotatoStew to Victor Danilchenko:
Look at the "Location" listed under Christian's name by one of his posts. It seems you two have something in common.

Another thing you two "foreigners" may have in common is that you have a better understanding of the US Constitution than the average US citizen. :D

Sorry to interrupt-- Carry on!

[PotatoStew]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko

It's more like what happens to them if they don't live a life striving for righteousness and all that -- they will have displeased god, aided the devil, and may play themselves into the devil's hands.


Hmm... I don't know that the majority of Christians base their ethical/kind acts on that kind of thinking. I know that personally, when confronted with a decision to perform an ethical act, I simply say "This would be the right thing to do, and I should do what's right."

The fact is that no Christian fears (or should fear) punishment for commiting an unethical act or failing to commit an ethical act. Our beliefs say that no one can merit heaven by doing good works, therefore, I think you are overrating the amount of duress present in the decisionmaking of most Christians.

My second point is that, according to what Loki posted about Buddhist beliefs:

As long as you are a human being, a member of the human family, you need others' warm feeling, and therefore it is most important that you try to get more warm feeling, be warm-hearted. If someone lives with these qualities, even an extreme atheist, the Buddhist viewpoint is that when life ends, if a person has lived within this life very honestly and as a good person, then because of that behavior he will get a good result in the next life. On the contrary, one who has talked about the future life and Nirvana very much without that practice, although that person belonged to the category of spiritual groups, in reality he will face more problems.

it seems that they would have a high degree of duress to do good acts, as they believe that your results in the next life are directly tied to your behavior in this one. Since Buddhists are (or can be) atheists, it seems that your statement (emphasis added):

I very specifically avoided saying that my argument is for xians being unethical -- I repeated, over and over, that what happens is that xians cannot be known to be ethical, while atheists can.


is false... buddhists are atheists, buddhist beliefs may cause them to act ethically under duress, therefore we can't know that atheists act ethically. You seem to have commited the same mistake Christian was accused of: that of believing that atheists hold other beliefs in common other than merely a disbelief in God.

Not to mention that there are other forms of "duress"... the desire to appear to be a good person, the desire for recognition for good acts, etc. I don't think you could ever be certain that any person's ethical act is done totally out of pure benevolence.

[Victor Danilchenko]

PotatoStew,

Hmm... I don't know that the majority of Christians base their ethical/kind acts on that kind of thinking.perhaps not; but that's th epoint -- we an't know.

Anyway, I would like to put off this question until I hash out with Christian whether acting under duress actually affects the ethical value of one's action. You seem to agree that it does (a rather obvious point IMO), but Christian doesn't; so wait a bit please, would you?

it seems that they would have a high degree of duress to do good acts, as they believe that your results in the next life are directly tied to your behavior in this one.Buddhism is not a monolisthic body of belief -- much less monolithic than xianity. Buddha in fact said nothing about reincarnation -- as Siddhartha Gautama taught, the Four Noble Truths and The Eight-fold Path were vehicles for escaping suffering and leading a good life, this life. Various buddhist sects later came to acquire various other beliefs, including beliefs in gods and reincarnation. The buddhists who believe in reincarnation but not gods are indeed atheists, yet are in the same category as xians with regard to ethical valuation. So are non-buddhist atheists who believe in karma.

I was trying to be concise. As you may have noticed, the posts are already pretty damn long. Yes, my point only applies to atheists who do not believe in some form of external metaphysical pressure to act ethically, such as karma.

Not to mention that there are other forms of "duress"... the desire to appear to be a good person, the desire for recognition for good acts, etc.The desire to appear to be a good person is one such motivator, but it's a rather weak one, and more importantly, it's one that can be easily tested -- observe how a person acts when he or she believes that their acts will become public knowledge; do they for example act anonymously, or do they ensure that their acts will be connected to their person? On the other hand, the desire to feel like a good person is a part and parcel of altruism, not not such a skewing motivator.

Victor :


-------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't pay your bills, someone is going to knock on your door. That you decide to pay on debts and say, you would not need anyone to knock on your door to pay is inconsequential.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah. That is why paying your bills is not considered a highly ethical act -- as you said, just doing the needful thing to avoid being tossed in the slammer. And when helping old ladies across the street becomes legally mandated, that act will cease to have any discernible ethical value as well.



The trouble is that we live in an entire civilisation that has failed to pay its bills, environmentally, spiritually and otherwise. Everyone wants more than their rightful slice of the cake. If there is no slammer at all then the whole system degenerates.

Paying your bills may not 'be considered to be highly ethical', but at the end of the day total bill-payment and bill-non-payment must cancel each other out. On balance, All Bills must be paid, eventually, by someone.

Question is, by who? :)



Multiple studies have shown that CP has a detrimental effect on various aspects of the child's social adjustment and behavior.


Such as?

Might it be that too much parental 'punishment' (physical/ emotional / ......) causes lack of self-confidence and fear of social interaction etc...
Might it be that none at all allows unbridled growth of egotism and unpleasant anti-social behaviour that in the long-term is detrimental to the child (and society) as well.

This isn't black and white. There has to be an overall balance. ;)



Yes -- but through education, never through force or some other sort of compulsion.



What if education fails?



Really, liar? Lying is a sin, you know


Is lying a sin, Victor? What do you believe?



Very easily -- you believe in supernatural but not in god. Many NewAgey beliefs are like that for example; in fact, I used to believe something like that -- I believed in occult and supernatural but not in god. There are plenty of atheists who believe in the supernatural.



Those atheists who believe in such things tend to believe in another realm, a 'divine' realm. The real question is about whether there is a consciousness in that realm that corresponds to an externally aware Father-figure God. The question regards whether or not there is a legitimate source of discipline from that realm.


This is quite fascinating. You are a highly intelligent man who got into Occultism, believing it to be true, but not believing in a superior authority figure. Now you are violently anti-NewAge. You have a very high opinion of yourself - you openly display an immense EGO.

You arrived in this forum in a thread about how the central theme of New Age and Occultism isn't the desire for personal power and control but the conquering of that desire for personal control. So as you came to understand the true meaning of Occultism you found it to be confirmation of your Ultimate nightmare. The goal of esoteric spirituality is the annhialation of the ego. EGODEATH, Victor. Union with GOD.

And now we are discussing the Bible and spanking children. You, more than anyone-else I have ever encountered, has reason to be fearful of the existence of God. Maybe that is why you have gone to such extraordinary lengths to use your intelligence to justify your continued disbelief (?) in God.

YOU shall be the judge of whether or not you have justifed in logically explaining the existence of I AM under your philosophy.

Your philosophy explains everything (EGO included) except for I AM. The central them of New Age philosophy, the WHOLE POINT of New Age philosophy is the explanation of I AM, the ONE THING that your 'philosophy' lacks.

Get into Occultism for personal power and you may wish you hadn't done so.

So back to discipline.....

What if (HYPOTHETICALLY OF COURSE).....God exists.
What if somebody is fully aware of the existence of God, and still chooses to publicly and vehemently deny it.
What if that person simultaneously preached intellectual honesty as the same time?

This question is not about spanking of children.

It is about whether it is justified that a person who is not an atheist (becuase he is fully aware of the existence of God/Infinity/Will/Divinity), but pretends to be one, deserves interventional punishment by God.


It's more like what happens to them if they don't live a life striving for righteousness and all that -- they will have displeased god, aided the devil, and may play themselves into the devil's hands.


Interesting statement from an ex-(?)Occultist with a high IQ and an enormous ego.

.....

Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long long year stolen many man's soul and faith
I was around when Jesus Christ had His moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that Pilate washed his hands and sealed His fate
Pleased to meet you hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you is the nature of my game

[PotatoStew]

Victor:

Anyway, I would like to put off this question until I hash out with Christian whether acting under duress actually affects the ethical value of one's action. You seem to agree that it does (a rather obvious point IMO), but Christian doesn't; so wait a bit please, would you?


That's fine... I'd like to respond while the matter is fresh in my mind, but please don't feel compelled to respond to me until you're ready to continue this leg of the conversation.

perhaps not; but that's th epoint -- we an't know.

I agree; however, my point is that with atheists (or anyone else), we *still* can't know. Not only that, but if we were certain that a person was actually believing and following Christian teachings, we *could* be certain that they were *not* acting under duress... so any problem is not with Christianity, but rather with human weakness, or lack of understanding.

Buddhism is not a monolisthic body of belief

I understand. That particular "flavor" of Buddhism was but one example. As you said, there are New Agers who may believe in similar rewards/punishments, and atheists who believe in Karma. Or any number of other atheistic beliefs that may involve reward or punishments for actions. The point is that -- as you said -- atheists have no standard set of beliefs, therefore we cannot know that any given atheist is acting ethically without duress, as you claimed. You can't have it both ways.

I also stand by the claim that non-metaphysical motivations are always a possibility in anyones actions. The desire to appear to be a good person may indeed be a "weak" motivation to you, but it may be very strong for other people. I'm sure there are other motivators as well.

My main point is that it is incorrect to say that you can know that an atheist (or anyone else) is acting ethically without "duress" of some sort.

Again, please feel free to delay answering if you want to hash out other issues with Christian first.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Juggler,

I thought you'd gone! Too bad... Couldn't stay away, huh?

Well, I killfiled you in private correspondence anyway; haven't you learned anything?..

I will answer only two points of yours, the only one I consider to be actually interesting.

What if education fails [to eradicate xianity]Then it will fail. Coersion or deception or somesuch are not acceptable means of changing others' beliefs. I would rather the world be full of xianity, than xianity be eradicated coersively.

Now you are violently anti-NewAge.No, I am very much (but not violently) anti-irrationality and anti-faith. Yes, this includes NewAge, but frankly, I think xianity to be far worse than any NewAge belief I can think of that I have personally encountered so far. On my list of "people who **** up the world", you are not very high at all.

As a personal aside, I am on the verge of putting you on the ignore list. You know what to avoid, if you wish to continue to be able to talk to me -- and you obviously do.

[Victor Danilchenko]

PotatoStew,

I also stand by the claim that non-metaphysical motivations are always a possibility in anyones actions. The desire to appear to be a good person may indeed be a "weak" motivation to you, but it may be very strong for other people. I'm sure there are other motivators as well.There can be, but you seem to have missed a critical point I made. I Mentioned it only in reference to the desire for recognition, but it applies to other 'worldly" motivations as well: see how a person acts when the chance of their desired reward (say, others' recognition) is removed. Since we are talking about natural rewards, this is something that can actually be controlled for the purpose of determining one's motivations.

Therefore, if we suspect that person A's motivation for doing ethical deeds is the desire for recognition, see how the person acts when he thinks there is no reasonable chance the acts will be widely known -- see how he acts in private for example. Sure, it's theoretically possible that someone plays an act all the time, but this is both highly unlikely and extremely hard to pull off, so it's not a possibility that we should feel compelled to apply to the population as a whole.

Similar approach can be used to analyze any other natural (as opposed to supernatural) motivation.

Contrast this with the fact that many xians express bewilderment at atheists' ethical behavior, stating that they see no motive for ethical action in the absence of god, thus implicitly admitting that their belief in god (an external motivator) is their reason for comitting the acts that would be considered ethical.

[Paradox]

Juggler,

Attempts to restrain the (perhaps unintentional) aggressive derailing of the theme of the thread would be appreciated.

How about starting a 'Psycho-Analyzing Victor Danilchenko' thread? I've seen it done before...it would at least provide some humor...

[Titanpoint]

Yes! I win my $5 bet with myself!:D

[Christian]

Victor wrote:
Yes, there is. He could try, he would be denied, he would take it up to the Supreme Court, Supreme Court would rule on the 1st amendment issue as you say -- but SCOTUS has no power to amend State constitution, and thus cannot force the state of Texas to allow the atheist to hold office. Only Texas legislature can do that.

constitution:
n. the fundamental, underlying document which establishes the government of a nation or state. The U.S. Constitution, originally adopted in convention on September 17, 1787, ratified by the states in 1788, and thereafter amended 27 times, is the prime example of such a document. It is the basis for all decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court (and federal and state courts) on constitutionality. The case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) firmly established the power of the Supreme Court to strike down federal statutes it found unconstitutional, making the Supreme Court the final arbiter of constitutional interpretation. The "equal rights" provision of the 14th Amendment established that the rights in the first ten amendments ("Bill of Rights") applied to state governments. Unfortunately, state constitutions have gathered tremendous amounts of baggage of detail by amendment over the years, and it is more difficult to "fine tune" state constitutions by further amendment than it is to enact statutes (pass new laws). However, state courts are bound by their state's constitution on fundamental issues.

Toscano vrs. Watkins (http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/torc_v_watk.html)

From there:
“We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.”...This decision prevented states from using religious faith as a prerequisite for holding public office. The Court rejected the argument that holding such jobs is a privilege that can be restricted to people of faith.

Victor wrote:
I very specifically avoided saying that my argument is for xians being unethical -- I repeated, over and over, that what happens is that xians cannot be known to be ethical, while atheists can.

Trying to switch again. The argument from ignorance is that because I cannot prove or know what motivates an atheist to be ethical, you say the motivation must be pure (no duress as you say).

Victor wrote:
It's a ****ing fact, you moron! FACT, get it? FACT! You cannot accuse someone of bigotry simply because they accept the truth -- truth is th eultimate defense, remember?..

No, Victor. Open your mind for second. It is not a fact. It is a fact that someone can score higher on an IQ test than someone else. That does not make that person more intelligent. Someone can have a comprehension level in reading certain type of material than others, that does not mean that person is smarter. Intelligence does not a quantitive characteristic. It is qualitative.

This is like saying, some people are more beautiful than others. Maybe I can give an example. I probably am (maybe not) much more proficient in Spanish than you are. Does that make me more intelligent. I'm definately more proficient in knowing the real estate market in El Salvador than you (if you were more than me, I would know who you are), does that make me smarter?

You might be more proficient in forums and debating and with certain subjects and issues, does that make you smarter?

Intelligence cannot be objectively measured. Whatever you measure will be biased toward the proficiency of the area. Someone that takes 100's of IQ tests (studies the elements of that make for a higher grade) will undoubtely outperform someone who is taking one for the first time. (please don't bring out the exceptions)

The root of the evil (Hitler-like view) is that you can measure intelligence and by measuring it you can make valuations on people. Intellectual elitism is wrong, it is the same as racial or any other type of elitism.

Victor wrote:
If the people call them nazis, sure. You bnasically accused me of being nazi-like in some critical respects, and so you profoundly deserve any and all abuse I can heap on you. I am holding back here, buddy.

*Any and all abuse you can heap*. There is no abuse you can heap on me Victor. All you can do is punch keys. Isn't that wonderful. And if that is what you teach your children, then I think you have bigger problems than a discussion on discipline.

Victor wrote:
Take Psych 101, dude. I am getting sick of holding others' wittle teeny hands here.

Can you answer the questions? I know my answers.

Victor wrote:
With you, given how much you lie? No, I don't think it's possible to seriously talk to someone who basically admitted to holding ideology above truth; nevermind your lunatic accusations and blatant ignorance.

Bye, bye Victor. :D

Paradox wrote:
I am no mathematician, so pardon my crude example...but:

Take the following set of numbers: 2, 7, 8, 20, 21, 34.
What is the 'average'? 15.333...
What percentage of the numbers provided are 'below average'?

(with a set of fewer items, the results can lean prominently to one side or the other, but when dealing with millions of examples, the variance from 1/2 and 1/2 is negligible.)

Does the comment make a bit more sense now? Just a common-sense fact. Not really the 'insult' you though it was, is it? Similar to the comment you made early on in the thread that seemed insulting, but was actually not.

I'm not a mathematician either, but aren't those numbers? Explain to me how is it possible to measure the the intelligence of the population in the US.

I understand you don't find it offensive at all, ( I can only speculate).

Would you find this statement statistically flawed (and/or offensive): Half the population in US is below average beaty.

Someone has been nice enough to alert me of the the trap you and Victor have set. Although I didn't see it, because my premise is true, the trap didn't work.

But, is this the ethics you propose, setting traps on people as to have the excuse to exploit their weaknessess and mock them?

Paradox wrote:
So I come up to you and smack you in the face hard enough for it to hurt. You're telling me I've just comitted an ethical act?

If a snipper has told me he will spare the life of the one slap for it to hurt, yes.

Paradox wrote:
Really? I thought it was just supposed to teach. Now you're saying the primary purpose of CP is to cause pain?

The purpose is to cause pain, the end (objective) is to teach.

Paradox wrote:
I didn't see positive reinforcement as an option among your list. That's just one method that you, according to your list, fail to try. So you spank before exhausting this perfectly sensible method of discipline?

Oh, Paradox, you've solved the mystery, I don't use positive reinforcement.

Victor wrote:
I rest my case. If someone rejects basic scientific facts, such as the fact that intelligence scales are calibrated normally, and that therefore by definition exactly half the population is below the mean, then there is no reasoning with such a person.

You are not as smart as you think. Please answer the question, how is intellegence measured as to be able to statistically quantify it? The trap does work Victor.

And I have news for you, there are posters who are more proficient than myself in traps and trolls, they see right through your tactics and strategies.

Let me tell, I come with my hands open and in front. The contributions that I make to the forum are honest and from my sincere beliefs. That may not mean much to you, but it is invaluable to me. (and I believe most of my friends).

Loki wrote:
Sorry Christian, but you can (a) be an atheist, (b) believe in spiritual or supernatural elements to reality and (c) be logically consistent.

I don't think so, but I wont go into it.

Victor wrote:
Erm... I see... ****ing embarrassing indeed -- unless of course Christian is an US expatriate, in which case my point still stands (are you, Christian?).

No.

Victor :


I thought you'd gone! Too bad... Couldn't stay away, huh?


I came back to pay off an unpaid debt to Reality.


Well, I killfiled you in private correspondence anyway; haven't you learned anything?..


You *washed your hands of me*, I believe, having failed to explain I AM.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now you are violently anti-NewAge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, I am very much (but not violently) anti-irrationality and anti-faith. Yes, this includes NewAge, but frankly, I think xianity to be far worse than any NewAge belief I can think of that I have personally encountered so far. On my list of "people who **** up the world", you are not very high at all.

As a personal aside, I am on the verge of putting you on the ignore list. You know what to avoid, if you wish to continue to be able to talk to me -- and you obviously do.


No, I don't. But I have a little story to tell you about Christianity.

I am very like you, Victor. My mother was also a Christian, and I was also lucky enough to be born with a very high IQ. I also had ADD which meant my behaviour was often very out of control and I had continual run-ins with authority figures of all sorts. Unsurprisingly I did not care much for Christianity. After all, who believe that **** about crucified saviours and resurection. No. I went for science. I instinctively avoided all faith-based beliefs. I never believed any of them. I also had an ego the size of a house.

By my mid-twenties it became clear that the world was a pretty ****ed up mess, and it looked to me like faith-based beliefs had a lot to do with it. Combined with humanitys innate stupidity it a recipe for disaster. And the state of the world is pretty disastrous. It's a ****ing mess. But what's anyone to do about it? Hopeless.

Then a couple of years back I was searching for information to help me deconvert a young Christian friend of mine, a person with no ego at all - one of the most caring, loving, gentle people I have ever met, but very confused about her religion and fearful of going to hell, which she considered to be a very real place. That led me to the secular web, www.infidels.org. There, I found a document about the pagan origins of Christianity, and various other documents on the history of religion. These I successfully used to deconvert my Christian friend.

I also became part of the online community at www.infidels.org. I was the science and skepticism moderator. There I learned about philosophy and the history of religion and I put this information together with my scientific understandings, gathered over many years as a scientific materialist atheist skeptic, and I began to understand that all religions had similar themes and that mysticism seemed to lie not only at the root of Christianity but of all true religion and spirituality - it was just that most of those religions had been taken over by dogmatic control freaks who twisted the message and used it to co-erce and control people. Thus I ended up where you started - with an interest in mysticism, the Occult and the New Age. I saw them as a means of bringing people together - clearing away the detritus of the old past-it religions. ESPECIALLY Christianity, which I retained a sharp dislike for.

Now, I have a confession to make. I never really understood Christianity. I always thought it was about controlling people, making them fear hell and promising them eternal life in heaven if they were good sheep. And in its modern form that is what it is. But it wasn't always like that.

Why is the word REALLY in a mess?

Well it is quite simple really. Everybody wants more than their fair share of everything. That means not everybody can have free will. So the history of humanity has been one of almost continual warfare and misery, as ego competes with ego and nation compete with nation. So long as we continue to act in an unrestrained self-serving and self-centred manner the world will continue to be ****ed up.

This is the message of CHRISTIANITY!

Christ VOLUNTARILY submitted his will to the will of God. Even though he gained nothing but his own death on the cross, he was still willing to do this as a symbolic act to show what could be done and what was the solution to the worlds problems.

So at the end of the day Christianity is not the source of the worlds problems. The abuse of Christianity by the roman authorities and subsequent control-freaks for centuries turned it into a bit of an abberation, but the underlying message, if it can be explained clearly instead of abused to control people, is EXACTLY what is needed to start sorting out the worlds problems.

You do not have to experience ego-death and commit yourself to a life of Service. You do not have to do that because it has already been done, by Christ.

I am not surprised you despise Christianity, Victor. Rather than being the size of a mere house, your ego is the size an aircraft carrier. You do not seem to think this is a problem.

In this world are all sorts of people. Some have large egos, some small. Some have large IQ, some small. Now imagine a world populated entirely by people with a high IQ and an ego the size of yours. Can you imagine it?

What kind of world would it be like?

Would you like to live in a world where Christianity was eradicated but every-one else had an ego the size yours is?

Victor : Christianity is not the source of the worlds evil.

Unbridled, uncontrolled self-serving EGOTISM is the source of the worlds evil, and Christianity is a system for dealing with precisely that problem. Which pretty much makes you the anti-Christ, q