This is something of an IMHO, but I expect it to move into GD territory pretty quickly. So I ask: what are your stances on the place of corporal punishment in the four fora listed above?
My personal stance is it should not be tolerated in schools at all, and that kids that ‘require’ it to pay attention should be kicked out. I disapprove of its use in the household on general principles, although I feel that it should not be illegal. I am of two minds about a Heinleinian use of punishment in the judicial system as an alternative to fines. On one hand, I wonder if crooked CEOs and politicians would be as quick to engage in financial and political chicanery if there were beatings involved. On the other hand, walking the line between deterrant and cruel and unusual would be very difficult.
Also, what offences should warrant corporal punishment?
Dunno, I’m still trapped in the mental movie of “Corporal Punishment in the Workplace”, in which secretaries are flogged for not getting memos out on time.
Personally, I’m not opposed to it in three out of four of your fora - the exception being the workplace. Mostly for the reason Heinlein gave in Starship Troopers[sup]1[/sup] - nature has provided us this wonderful mechanism as a deterrent (pain). It’s silly not to use it.
Punishment in any form has to be ‘cruel’ enough so the offender does not want to endure it again, and ‘unusual’ enough so that it really stands apart from every day life.
As far as in the home goes, I suppose it’s up to the parent to decide the most effective means of punishing wrong doings. Some children respond better to a time out than a swat, some the opposite.
In the school, we’ve turned over responsibility for teaching our children several hours a day, but we’ve removed their ability to teach any form of discipline. We’ve charged them with maintaining order but removed most of their authority. This seems to me a recipe for disaster. As such, I could agree with allowing corporal punishment in schools, depending on specifics.
I could also agree with it in judicial system as a valid sentence, again depending on specifics.
The one place I don’t think corporal punishment is appropriate at all is in the workplace. Basically, because your employer has no authority over you. You can not be fined by your employer (though there are circumstances in which you may forfeit some pay - I see a difference). You can not be jailed by your employer - they can file charges against you and the case will be reviewed by the judicial system. Your employer is an organization with whom you’ve entered into contract - they pay you for certain services. But they have no authority over you, and as such have neither the right nor the responsibility to sentence you in any way.
[sup]1[/sup]I’m really not a member of the Cult of Heinlein - but he summarised my thoughts on the subject nicely.
I do not employ corporal punishment on my son, who is a delightful chap and a true treasure. Put another way, I would not do something to my son that, if a stranger were to do it, would lead me to reduce said stranger to a mound of mangled flesh. How’s that for a mixed message regarding the use of violence?
I do not permit anyone else to exercise a different philosophy to the extent that it affects my son (meaning, in school). Let me bottom line it: nobody hits my kid.
I tend to agree with the argument that corporal punishment is ultimately not a terribly effective way of altering behavior–i.e., it teaches children that violence is a solution, it’s less effective than temporarily withholding favor/affection, etc. But in my heart, none of the arguments matter. How could I strike such a beautiful boy?
Having been the victim of arbitrary coporal punishment in school and at home, I am steadfast against it. No one is to hit my child. I won’t forget that the reason I got hit by teaches and the principal in school was that I was unpopular enough to be hit by other children in school. I remember that more than once my step mother lied about my actions to get my father to spank me. I have cared for other’s children and of course never spanked them.
One thing no one has ever explained to my satisfaction is: how a child who allegedly needs parental corporal punishment in order to behave correctly, can be cared for by other adults that are not allowed to spank them?
Having been the victim of arbitrary coporal punishment in school and at home, I am steadfast against it. No one is to hit my child. I won’t forget that the reason I got hit by teaches and the principal in school was that I was unpopular enough to be hit by other children in school. I remember that more than once my step mother lied about my actions to get my father to spank me. I have cared for other’s children and of course never spanked them.
One thing no one has ever explained to my satisfaction is: how a child who allegedly needs parental corporal punishment in order to behave correctly, can be cared for by other adults that are not allowed to spank them?
Good arguments overall if one believes that those in possession of authority possess it rightfully and exercise it fairly.
When I was a teenager I stopped believing that the world was necessarily being run by people whose goodness and wisdom caused them to be promoted or recognized by the good and wise people who ran the world before them, and started thinking that maybe the world was mainly being run by people who were pushy-shovy assholes who liked to control other people and would do anything to end up on top.
I haven’t seen much to endear me to institutions of authority since then.
(That’s not to say that I might not prefer physical pain to some other popular forms of punishment currently considered acceptable).
Having been the victim of arbitrary coporal punishment in school and at home, I am steadfast against it. No one is to hit my child. I won’t forget that the reason I got hit by teaches and the principal in school was that I was unpopular enough to be hit by other children in school. I remember that more than once my step mother lied about my actions to get my father to spank me. I have cared for other’s children and of course never spanked them.
One thing no one has ever explained to my satisfaction is: how a child who allegedly needs parental corporal punishment in order to behave correctly, can be cared for by other adults that are not allowed to spank them?
Well, that’s really why I said I could support it, not necessarily that I endorse the idea unconditionally. You’re always going to have your total nut-jobs.
The problem with that line of reasoning is: Violence is a solution. Immediately upon the attack on the World Trade Center, we sent some marines to Afghanistan to kick some a…er, seek justice. We are threatening Iraq with violence if they don’t capitulate to our demands. McVeigh bombed a building and in turn we executed him. And, of course, my personal favorite, the dominant religion in this country is the biggest proponont of ‘violence as solution’ - “Because they brutally tortured and murdered this guy, you too can go to heaven.”
I find the “Violence is not a solution” mantra to be dishonest at best.
And ‘temporarily withholding affection’ - that comes across to me as teaching your child that love is conditional. This strikes me as a bad lesson to teach your children.
Yeah, that’s an effective argument. Since Marines were effective in Afghanistan, I should smack my kid. And anyone who disagrees with you is dishonest. Gotcha. OK, let me spend another second of energy trying to counter this brilliance. Wait, how 'bout not.:rolleyes:
Bob, you seem to have misunderstood me. It has never been my intent to tell people what they should and should not do with their children. Obviously, the vast majority of the parents out there are doing a good job, corporal punishment or no. It would be ridiculous of me to suggest that mine is The Way.
My point is not that you should go around beating children. You said ‘[corporal punishment] teaches children that violence is a solution’ - to which I respond: the world teaches children violence is a solution. So, as I said, I find the statement “Violence is not a solution” dishonest. I’m sorry if that read as a personal attack, it was not intended as such.
I have no interest in telling you how to parent your child. I’m here to debate whether or not corporal punishment is ever appropriate, per the OP. You presented an argument against, I presented a counter to that argument. I fail to see the problem.
I might add, you didn’t respond to my point re: withholding affection is teaching children love is conditional. In my experience, parental affection is the difference between happy and unhappy children. Granted, I’m not a psychologist, nor am I aware of any studies on the subject. But, as a concerned parent, I’ve spent a great deal of time examining myself and other parents. My casual observation is: Children who know their parents love is not conditional are happy well-adjusted children.
Children who occasionally receive corporal punishment can know that their parents love is unconditional.
Children who receive no corporal punishment can know that their parents love is unconditional.
Children with parents that punish by ‘withholding affection’ can not know their parents love is unconditional, and will be unhappy as a result.
If Jimmy World jumped off a cliff, would you go jump off a cliff too?
Pointing out that the nations of the world have used violence throughout history as a way to solve problems to justify using violence to solve problems in the home leads me to the obvious question: Did this use of violence throughout history lead us to a better behaved and more adjusted world? Immediate self-defense notwithstanding(i.e. World War II and the like), isn’t global violence used a lot for political expediency and propoganda, and what does it do to answer the underlying problem that the violence supposedly answered in the first place?
As far as the notion that some children need corporal punishment and some don’t, what if you have more than one child? I have never come across a family where children are punished differently for the same problems(with one child getting corporal punishment all the time, and the other child recieving non-corporal punishment all the time), which leads me to believe that corporal punishemnt is not tailored to the child, but tailored for the parent.
But Mom! All the kids are doin it!!! I mean, this is my life we’re talkin about!!!
**
I am not arguing that corporal punishment should be employed in the home. My point is ‘Violence is not a solution’ is a hollow argument against corporal punishment in light of it’s widespread use throughout the world.
But, to answer your questions:
It’s a mixed bag. The American Revolution, the Civil War, WWII surely lead to a ‘better behaved and more adjusted world’, while not so much with Korea and Vietnam. In the first three of these specific instances, it relieved a population of the tyranny of the crown, freed an entire race from slavery, and prevented genocide. I’d call those a big ‘Yes’ - the world is better behaved and well adjusted. In the cases of Korea and Vietnam, we seem to have accomplished little if anything good. So, it depends on specific circumstances.
As far as ‘answering the specific problem that lead to violence’, again in the cases of the revolution, the civil war, and wwii, it seems those issues were fairly well addressed. If you’re christian, then the violence which ended the saviors mortal life secured an eternal place by Gods side in the after-life. Another big ‘Yes’.
As for whether or not global violence is misused - it most certainly is, just as corporal punishment is misused a-la that woman in the recent parking lot incident. It may be a short step from one to the other, but there is a difference.
One might compare a hypothetical parenting situation with our current dealings in Iraq: US: Let us inspect your country Iraq: No! US: Do what we say or else! Iraq: No!
After a few exchanges the US bombs Iraq. We can argue whether or not the US possesses the authority over Iraq to issue such demands, but the processes is similar to that with a parent and child: Parent: Please clean your room Child: No! Parent: Clean your room. Child: No! Parent: Clean your room or else. Child: No! Parent: Smack
I think it’s safe to generalize that the parent has the authority to make the child comply in this case.
“But”, you might say, “What will you do when a smack doesn’t work? Use a baseball bat?!?!?!?!” At least, I’ve found that’s the usual progression of these discussions. I think that’s a ridiculous argument. I mean, let’s say your ‘preferred’ method of punishment is to take something away. Well, if it doesn’t work at first, are you going to take everything your child owns away until he’s standing naked in the street with no food? I’d expect not, just as I’d expect your not about to beat your kid with a bat.
**
Believe it or not, I actually do tailor punishments to my children individually. Oh, sure I’ll yell at them equally in the ‘Quit making that damn racket!’ sense. But in terms of actual punishment - The point of punishment of any kind is to teach a child that wrongdoings have negative consequences. So I try to make them as effective as possible based on the child. With some, that’s a time out. With other, it’s taking away a toy. It depends on the kid. Though I don’t doubt you’re right in a general sense.
**Yeah, right. How could someone interpret being described as dishonest as a personal attack? Let’s try this on for size. How can you possibly believe that my statement meant that I did not understand that violence has been used, for good or for bad, to resolve problems? What world do you assume I live in? How can you possibly believe that this statement did not refer to teaching children that violence is an expedient but generally inappropriate way of resolving problems?
You are railing against a straw man, apparently because you find the sound of your own voice soothing. Please provide a single cite supporting the existence of this prevalent belief that violence has never, ever been used to prevail in any situation, since apparently my post was an example of this epidemic of belief. Talk about dishonest.
**I bet you fail to see a lot of things. Don’t let it slow you down, chief. But since you feel compelled to counter my argument, you might want to go back and read that I used this as an example of an argument that ultimately, for me, doesn’t matter. Again, don’t let this stand in the way of whatever it is you’re doing here.
**You don’t say. And in your universe affection = love, I guess? Why wouldn’t unconditional love be consistent with withholding affection? When I am angry, my child understands that condition, without taking it to mean I no longer love him. He knows I love him, always. “Withholding affection” can be as simple as saying, “Bobby, I am very upset with you right now, and I don’t feel like playing cards. We can play cards after you’ve had a chance to think about what you’ve done.” Have you ever made a statement such as this? Has your child been irreparably scarred? Gosh, I hope not.
Who’s railing here? Who seems to be unable to form a reply without heavy use of sarcasm and disparaging remarks?
Well, let’s rehash:
See, I’m not describing you as dishonest. Really. I’ve already apologized for the misunderstanding.
Exactly. So how could I be calling you dishonest if the argument doesn’t apply? If you insist on being insulted, that’s your choice.
Because that’s not what you typed. You typed
You stated directly that you’re reciting arguments that don’t matter to you. Why should I believe that you’ve put any more thought into them than getting the words on the page?
In my experience, no one ever attempts to express the more complex thought that you’re now saying you really meant. Only “Violence is not a solution” (hence my use of ‘mantra’). This has become a feel good catchphrase which has ceased to convey any real meaning.
I don’t think there is any such belief. I do believe that we’ve tried to boil down a rational thought into a soundbite, and have at the end come up with a short, catchy, meaningless slogan. I do believe that people recite it withing giving thought to the meaning that the literal phrase conveys, or to the somewhat more complex ideas that they really wish to convey.
A quick search on google turns up 332 hits for the phrase “violence is not a solution” and 471 hits for “violence is not the solution”. Most of the links list the phrase in some context or another - “Violence is not the solution to the Isreal / Palestine issues.” But some don’t. The phrase is quite popular, and as with any popular expression, widespread use leads to less actual thinking about the meaning behind it. When I see it used as an absolute outside of any context then I question it.
Then that’s a misunderstanding on my part. My idea of affection is a hug, a kiss, telling the children I love them. I had not considered not playing games with them as ‘withholding affection’. My idea of withholding affection is “No, I’m not going to hug you right now because I’m mad at you.” And, yes I do think that would be scarring.
**For the second sentence, that would be me. I’m not sure I’m railing, though. Perhaps tilting. Here’s a to restore the karma destroyed by my previous :rolleyes:.
**Dude, this is a silly distinction. If I advance a dishonest philosophy, I’m dishonest. A real apology would have been something along the lines of, “I was wrong to describe this as dishonest. Misguided, perhaps, though supported by an undeniable wisdom…”
**My insistence has nothing to do with it. Insult me, I’m insulted. You can later describe throwing rocks at me as a unique form of adulation; I’ll still be bloodied (sob!).
**Bud, I recited a short list of arguments that I identified as ultimately being less than meaningful for me as a cute way of leading to a statement regarding my love for my son. You responded with a dissertation on the efficaciousness of violence in resolving international political impasses and punishing crimes. Two words, fella: context, and lighten up. OK, that was three words. Four if you count the “and.”
**Thanks for eradicating this critical problem that isn’t really a problem since no one really believes it despite the fact that you have spent several hundred words debating it. Sheesh.
Perhaps next time you can ask for clarification instead of issuing a proclamation. Here’s another :), no extra charge.
