Wait, wait, psychohistory doesn’t work on individuals…
Seriously, agreement. I know people who use the “time out; I’m ignoring you for five minutes” silent treatment as punishment. (It’s also how they train killer whales. Who’s gonna spank one of those?) The results are pretty good. The key is firmness and consistency, not physical pain.
That’s not correct. The “shepherd’s crook” is a staff, as in “thy rod and thy staff…” The rod is a short club, used to dissuade predators and drive frisky sheep back to the herd.
I’ve seen adults give preschoolers a swat on the behind in public in recent times. I don’t have a problem with that. Far more often, I’ve also seen them make extreme threats they cannot follow through on or call the kids horrible names, which I do have a problem with.
I have also been told that in some areas, it was permissible for a stranger to “correct” (i.e. hit) a child if s/he didn’t think the child was acting properly. :eek: There have been news reports about people who did do this and were arrested - and a surprising number of people who backed up what the adult did!
How about “the wacker’s remedy” for any situation where someone suggests that “one solid whack” would have cut the Gordian knot simply and easily.
The truth?
Well, not all problems, there would still be psychopaths and those that were just born “wrong”, etc, but it would certainly help. Actual proper spanking, which is nothing like a beating, BTW.
Maybe the causal arrow goes the other way. Spanking doesn’t create jerks, jerky kids are the ones who get spanked. No point in spanking well behaved kids.
Actually, Rule 34 is much simpler. It’s “if it exists, there will be porn about it”.
Isn’t it true that what would be good for some kids would be bad for others? Sometimes you hear people say “My parents beat me all the time, it kept me on the straight and narrow!” Okay, maybe that worked for you, or so you believe. That doesn’t mean it’s the “right” way to raise a kid. People are born with personalities. What might have served you well might have destroyed another kid. To me, this is so obvious I can hardly believe it needs to be said.
Irrelevant to my comment on the quality of your evidence.
Just for fun, here’s some equally coarse and useless statistics to back up my comment. Since 2012 there’s been 500 threads with Obama in the title, and only 110 with Hitler in the title. This “clearly” shows your google results as evidence Hitler is mentioned more often than he is relevant.
On a not-so-unrelated note, especially in the wake of the election, we could also use a “law” or “rule” for the following: People who assume that if something bad happens to a woman, or women, it’s automatically because they are women.
In most cases, not necessarily.
I’ve created the “Yeah, but…” idea. No idea is so outlandish that some poster won’t think of a way to justify it.
Someone is using the handicap bathroom stall as a private cell phone booth? “Yeah, but maybe she is handicapped, and had to use the stall and got into an important conversation.”
Someone is shaking and sweating and her symptoms disappear when she starts texting is obviously addicted to texting? “No, maybe she’s texting her drug dealer.”
I think it should be named after George Coles. He was likely a spanker and his kids never amounted to anything. Additionally, Once Cole’s Law is established we can place it where it belongs; next to the fish and chips.
Hmmm. Long ago, I made up the word pandeve. It’s a portmanteau of Pandora and Eve, and it describes someone who thinks that the world was meant to be a good and fair place, and it would be, too, if not for X. X is the problem. Or people who do or are X are the problem.
For this person, X would be people not spanking their children. If only people spanked their children, the world would be a fine and proper place. Other pandeves have chosen an ethnic or religious group and think that if only they were gone, everything would just fall into place.
Nice one, but it occurs to me that Candeve (Candide and Eve) might be more fortuitous.