Do you think corporal punishment is ever useful or good?
Do you approve of spanking children for misbehavior?
Do you think practices like public whipping would be better for society and the people in it, in terms of stopping crime etc.?
Printable View
Do you think corporal punishment is ever useful or good?
Do you approve of spanking children for misbehavior?
Do you think practices like public whipping would be better for society and the people in it, in terms of stopping crime etc.?
I absolutely believe that, but on the other hand I don't want to see it happen.
1. Yes.
2. My mom spanked me, & I turned out just fine.
3. I'm not qualified to answer that, as not everyone shares my opinion. I think that's more of a collective response question.
As with all violence and authority, it's useful to whomever succeeds in staying at the giving end, insofar as they value their selfish goals over a pleasant social climate.
When I look at 'modern' parenting I see mostly stressed and often visibly insecure people using their power over their kids in primarily self-serving and self-affirming ways. Coercion, which is defended with arguments that would require it to be used selectively and explained as being in the children's interest on every individual occasion, is instead a constant defended with absurd generalized statements of parents/caretakers being 'always right' - a phenomenon passed off by other adults as somehow 'deserved' by parental status even when it is clearly false.
It's really a pathetic and incredibly primitive practice. People that have never learned to interact as equals on a basis of reason creating vicious generational cycles in order to have their own rightful turn at the top. It is not good for anyone, but as with all power inequities: good luck getting the people that currently have it to give it up.
The main question is if society needs to take on the role of the parent.
My parents came up with *very* effective ways of training and punishing me,
that didn't involve much in the way of physical pain or injury.
I am not saying that the physical method does not work, because I know many
very well-behaved and well-adjusted adults, who had very strict parents.
And I see a lot of real asshole adults and children, who have very permissive parents.
So to me, the bottom line is that parents need to do a good job.
They need to set rules, and moral guidelines, and find ways to enforce them.
I generally think parents should be in charge of that.
BUT...
In the long run, those kids are going to end up in society.
If the parents do a crappy job of raising their kids, then society will have to deal
with those kids being criminals, murderers, abusers, crappy workers, going postal,
being molesters, or whatever. So in some ways, I think perhaps society needs to
step in to provide that discipline, if the parents can't do it. The problem is that it's
not really cool or ok to physically punish kids, since they are under age. Parents
are not going to like school beating or whipping their kids. But if you wait until they
are adults, it's usually too late. If someone is already abusive and violent, fear
of punishment usually doesn't work. We already have prison, which is far from fun.
But people still kill each other, beat each other up, etc. Even though they know
they may get in trouble with the law.
So I really think you need to learn these things as a kid. It's a lot less damaging
for a kid to get spanked or punished in school, than it will be for them to get
tossed in prison as an adult. Same thing with kids learning how to work.
I see a lot of spoiled kids who act like spoiled adults at work, and end up
getting fired. It's a lot less damaging for a kid to learn a lesson when they
are 8 years old. If they lose their job at 19, they may lose their apartment,
lose their car, or get in debt, etc. There are much greater consequences
to bad behaviors as an adult.
Lindsay Lohan comes to mind...
My parents spanked me. It didn't stop me from being a little shit. Just made be better at not getting caught.
Public whipping sounds great... Especially if it incorporates vinyl outfits, high heels, long blonde/brunette/red/black hair. Or am I off-topic?
But for real? No. We have an 8th Amendment for a reason. We believe in human rights and the possibility for reform (in some situations). At what point do you end up like the Taliban, stoning people to death at soccer matches and making spectacle out of suffering...? What lesson are you really trying to teach?
bah, human rights..........so, who gets to decide whats human?.
The crisp piercing auditory satisfaction of the female glute being met with my firm hand.... oh wait, you meant for social order and crime deterent...
I think when it comes to spanking, there is a big difference between that and beating the living shit out of your kid. One is to teach "guidelines" and I think the other is due to a parent with fierce aggression problems. I can only imagine that those that are against spanking maybe see it as a "gateway" to worse beatings the same way lawmakers always whine how pot is a "gateway" to worse drugs. In the end, neither makes any sense. Given a kid a spanking does not mean the parent is going to move on from there to beating their kids with fists and of course, smoking pot does not mean you'll end up in a dank alley somewhere shooting up.
It's Babies First Bondage Set!
Needs either more leather or a hello kitty theme. Central area could do to be a bit more form-fitting, too.
Christians could sell this as "Your child's first crucifixion playset."Quote:
Originally Posted by OliX
good god, I'm glad I grew up in more civilized times when a shlup to the head was all it took to control a kid
I feel the same way about punishment as I do about gun control. it's pretty simple logic. less guns mean less guns. less criminals mean less crime.
by that I mean the only valuable punishment to deter crime is the death penalty. It won't stop anyone from committing crimes, but it will lower the crime rate because there are now less people to commit them.
I know some people are going to say that areas that have the death penalty don't have lower crime rates and often they have higher ones because if someone figures they are going to get killed for something, they better really make it count. But that's because they don't execute enough people. They only execute murderers, and murders still happen. If they executed everyone for all crimes, then potential murderers would probably be killed for something else before they got to it.
In fact, if your goal is to kill people then it doesn't make a lot of sense to execute murderers. They are working toward the process. They should be given government jobs, or at least left alone. What about innocent victims? Says the guy that wants to fuckin execute people. If you didn't want to have innocent victims , maybe you shouldn't sanction killing people in the first place. No, it's a slippery slope and we shouldn't think about it.
Back to gun control. Since I brought that up, the two should be combined. Anyone who owns a gun should be shot. What about the person that does the shooting? Yup, kill him too. It's a really effective process.
Anyway, as to the subject of the the thread, naw I don't think that we should kill children.
We should kill parents. Seems like a fair trade to me. If you are so concerned with seeing your genetic legacy continue into the future, then go right ahead. But we have got to balance the equation.
Now I guess that really won't have any effect on kids misbehaving will it? But it's still a good idea.
They say that you should train a pet by giving it a positive reaction and rewarding with a treat when it does good and giving it a negative reaction and ignoring it when it does bad. Seems like this is a good way to treat kids.
Only problem is that if your kid is an asshole all the time and you ignore him all the time he'll grow up to be a serial killer or a corporate executive. If your kid is good all the time she'll be an over-achiever, find out that no one gives rewards in adulthood, be a complete failure and probably have an obesity problem from all those treats.
Kids are fucked up.
I think the reason the death penalty worked in ancient times, is the fact that it was your community who would rise up against you. You have to realize that a lot of criminals are not that smart. So just like kids, you need to make things simple. You rob a store, people come after you and beat you up, and chop off your hand. That's simple enough to understand. So you knew that if you killed someone, their relatives would come after you and kill you. But in modern society it doesn't work that way. You deal with the police, the courts, years and years of appeals, before someone actually gets the death penalty. And by then they pretty much forgot what they did, and are often totally different people by then. And none of it is public. None of it happens in the community where the criminal element exists. The kids who might be thinking of robbing or killing aren't aware of some guy in prison somewhere, getting executed. They don't know them, see them, or see what happens to them. All they know is that when they do kill, some cops come to try to get them. They don't know how the system works. They don't know about the real consequences.
The short answer to the question is "yes" to all, but we have a system that fails to allow such acts to be prompt or well received. A "logic bomb" I love to refer to is this.... history teaches appreciation.... appreciation teaches respect. This can be applied to several scenarios, a simple one... I touched a hot pan on the stove, hence I will be more careful next time. Perhaps, someone was convicted (with absolute proof) of killing a family of four on Friday and was put to death on Saturday. (no appeal process), such demonstration may "encourage" wrong doers to think twice before comitting such premeditated acts. (if that was the case).
I'd have to give a qualified no to corporal punishment. It may work in some instances, but I think you hit a really fuzzy line with what is and is not acceptable. I do *believe* criminal justice should be more public, but can the system accomplish this in a just and impartial way? I would not be terribly optimistic. The judiciary has its limitations.
OEC
In general, I agree that the modern death penalty is often flawed. Mistakes are made, etc. But the main reason I think we should ban it, is because it costs more than keeping someone in jail for life. So it would just be easier to keep people locked up forever. And if something like DNA proves they did not do it, then let them out. As long as a punishment isn't permanent, it seems ok. Like if I was unjustly accused of something, and had to spend some time in jail, I would be pissed about it, but it would not ruin my life. But if I was going to accept punishment for something I did not do, I would want it to be because the punishment really helped to convince other people not to commit crimes. And that's where the whole public thing comes into play. I'd rather we whip people in public, so that the other people in the community see it, and realize they do not want the same thing to happen to them. The way it is now, people get sent to jail, and come out a while later, and are looked up to for being tough guys, bad-asses. There is nothing embarrassing about jail time for a lot of people. So if it isn't having an effect, why do it?
The real problem is that we live in a "Feel Good" society. For example, wars feel good (look at the Geneva Convention and Protocol) and genocide feels good (hence ethnic cleansing). Punishment also doesn't feel good, so it's largely non-existent. Yes, the prison systems aren't fun but they are absolutely cushy compared to what they should be--medieval style constructions where prisoners are served stale bread and tepid water. And beaten. No public TVs and dining opportunities at the expense of taxpayers that didn't commit a crime. What does feel good? The notion of reform, which is largely a defunct theory. Reform is nigh impossible, whereas prevention is actually achievable. And this leads me to the topic at hand: discipline.
I think it is perfectly acceptable to physically discipline children. After all, humans are animals, especially at such a young age when sentience isn't fully developed. Pain is a good indicator to a being with burgeoning sentence. And it's also quick and easy. Positive/negative reinforcement works, but it's a slow process. If one's child does something that would be a detriment to either himself or someone else, you hit him. He will learn rather quickly not to do that again, in theory, at least. Whether or not a child responds to discipline is another issue.
But it doesn't really even need to reach that point. What really needs to happen is controlled breeding where a non-biased panel decides who should reproduce based on intelligence, awareness, and financially stability. (I shouldn't have to clarify but I will: It will have nothing to do with race as there is little biological evidence for separate races--all people form one human race.) These parents will be way less likely to let technology raise their kids. And that's really a root cause of bad behavior: neglect. Most parents these days are lazy. They don't want to raise their kids. They just want to have kids to have an extension of themselves that they can direct through a life that they want for them. In a good portion of cases, they didn't even want their kids. Growing up in that environment is going to cause some developmental issues. A lot of people who commit crimes had environmental problems when they were children. A lot of problems would be solved if only parents who could actually properly raise children were allowed to procreate.
Of course, that doesn't feel good, and thus will never happened. So our society is essentially doomed. And it's ironic, isn't it? Our society is being led into oblivion because of a "feel good" mentality.
Do I think Corporal punishment is ever useful or good?
Depends upon the situation involved.
Do I approve of spanking children for misbehavior?
Again, depends upon the situation or child. Some kids, (even though I do not have any) unfortunately, that would be the "only language" they understand. Other kids are smarter.
Do I think practices like public whipping would be better for society and the people in it, in terms of stopping crime, etc.?
Well, that would depend upon what kind or brand of whipping cream you're using.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Someone else said:
These parents will be way less likely to let technology raise their kids. And that's really a root cause of bad behavior: neglect. Most parents these days are lazy. They don't want to raise their kids. They just want to have kids to have an extension of themselves that they can direct through a life that they want for them. In a good portion of cases, they didn't even want their kids. Growing up in that environment is going to cause some developmental issues.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That someone who posted that... shares my opinion. I see this more and more these days. Oh, don't even get me started on THAT one. Go to your local Wal-Mart. There you'll see all KINDS of these people. Yuk. Oh, just don't get me started.