Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Alfndrate wrote:
A switch?!

I'm 28 and I got the belt several times. Mom preferred wooden spoons, on account of the fact that when she finally hit too hard, they'd break.

Looking back on it, I think I deserved it every time, and still somehow usually got off to easy.

I fear for the well-being of any household that takes anything coming from the orifice that Chaley Scott makes noise from as anything other than entertainment.

Chongara wrote:
Indeed! Goddamn those wily scientists and their "Observations" and "Research". Why didn't I see it before!?!? all their "Facts" are nothing more than a liberal conspiracy to ruin america with undisciplined children!

You'd actually be surprised. The fields of sociology and psychology are at times highly politicized and just because someone is a scientist doesn't mean they don't fudge the results (consciously or otherwise) or create tests that bias towards their preferred outcome. Of course that should be a generally accepted rule of thumb for anyone dealing with research into highly political subjects.

I read a study once about the effects of film violence on someone's willingness to help others. The testers would stage an incident outside a movie theater and see how people reacted. They would have someone pretend to break their leg and see who came to help. They determined that violent movies reduce the willingness of people to help others. The two movies? The Descent, and the Nim's Island.

The flaw? Who do you think went to see the Descent? People who like don't queze from a violent flick, probably of college age, hanging out with their buddies. College kids are douche bags (I should know I was one ). The audience for Nim's Island? Families with children. Of course the audience coming from Nim's Island would be more likely to help, and it has nothing to do with violence but the presence of a reason to help; children. The study in no way addressed this eventuality, nor that there surely would have been other movies that could have produced similar audiences (romantic comedies?). The only conclusion I could draw is that the study overlooked this flaw, or willfully ignored it for its own benefit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aVxohAMmDs

Teach me oh great master!

Yeah, in my Hum320 class I am taking right now(Values, Media, and Culture) we actually discussed that very thing.

Violence on TV/movies and in Video games doesn't make a person more violent. It actually makes people more fearful, it creates a distorted view of the outside world as one full of violence. Thus a person like that is more likely to be fearful.

It may numb someone to violence, thats true, but it doesn't predispose them to be violent.

 d-usa wrote:
You gave that kid a warning for something, and my kid a suspension? What my kid did wasn't that much worse than the other kid! You discriminated against my kid, I am going to sue you!

=

Kid gets a warning for pointing a stick or using his fingers as a "gun". Another kid brings a toy gun and gets suspended. Parent: "that toy gun wasn't any more of a real gun than the stick. I am going to sue the pants of this school!"

=

Zero tolerance policies where everybody gets the same punishment for any level of breaking the rules.

Exactly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ratbarf wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
I think you are all somewhat unaware as to the purpose of a suspension. The punishment doesn't come from the having missed a day of school. The reason a child is suspended is because the punishment the Teachers/Principals deem suitable to the offence is too severe for them to legally administer, and thus the expectation is that when you get home your parents will administer said punishment. Colloquially known as, "a good old fashioned ass whoopin."

Unfortunately, most parents no longer believe in the benefits of said ass whoopin, so the punishment goes undelivered. I, however, had the good grace to be born into a family which did and does still recognize the educational benefit of an ass whoopin, and thus suspensions where the thing I feared the most when it came to disciplinary action by the school.

I never got an ass whoopin, and I never even got close to getting suspended from school. Never even got detention. So there might be a lot more to it than what you've considered.

I don't understand the point you're striving for. I was talking about the purpose of a suspension, which many people in the thread had called a positive experience, which is not the intention of a suspension. The fact that it can be a positive experience is solely at the feet of the parents.

The fact that you never got an ass whoopin, while at the same time seemingly staying out of trouble, doesn't make sense to me. I mean, were you expecting random ass whoopings? Ass whoopings must only be applied in cases of severe discipline and with a defined message and purpose. If you never got in trouble, you never should have received one.

I think he's saying he never got paddled. I can't tell is=f he's sad about that or not...

Chongara wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Then all available data from credible data sources is wrong.

Indeed! Goddamn those wily scientists and their "Observations" and "Research". Why didn't I see it before!?!? all their "Facts" are nothing more than a liberal conspiracy to ruin america with undisciplined children!

From now on, I'm only advocating the teachings of bender: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aVxohAMmDs

Based on the couple of courses i've taken on psychology, these sorts of science are really pseudo-science at best, and hocus-pocus magic at worst.

Purely anecdotally here, but in my near 9 yrs in the military, the best behaved/most disciplined soldiers are the ones who were spanked or otherwise physically punished (not abused, we all know there's a line and ANY punishment can become abusive)

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Chongara wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Then all available data from credible data sources is wrong.

Indeed! Goddamn those wily scientists and their "Observations" and "Research". Why didn't I see it before!?!? all their "Facts" are nothing more than a liberal conspiracy to ruin america with undisciplined children!

From now on, I'm only advocating the teachings of bender: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aVxohAMmDs

Based on the couple of courses i've taken on psychology, these sorts of science are really pseudo-science at best, and hocus-pocus magic at worst.

Purely anecdotally here, but in my near 9 yrs in the military, the best behaved/most disciplined soldiers are the ones who were spanked or otherwise physically punished (not abused, we all know there's a line and ANY punishment can become abusive)

Right I know. Listen up people:

This guy has taken a couple of courses in psychology, so he knows it's hocus-pocus. I don't think anyone should be fooled by all those "universities" and "clear results" or "accurate predictions" supposedly backing up the field. You'd have to be a fool to buy into any of that mumbo jumbo, it doesn't speak to your gut. You know what does speak to your gut though? Anecdotes. Anecdotes are where the real reliable information is. Clearly this guy has delivered on that, case settled. Remember folks he's taken a couple of courses.

Behavioral Sciences: 0
DakkaDakka Forums: 163,539,362,846,289,120,018,236

Oh yeah, take look at how huge that score is. I don't think you could possibly take anything seriously after it loses by that many points.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
the best behaved/most disciplined soldiers are the ones who were spanked

What military were you in???

 Manchu wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
the best behaved/most disciplined soldiers are the ones who were spanked

What military were you in???

The kinky one?

 Manchu wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
the best behaved/most disciplined soldiers are the ones who were spanked

What military were you in???

US Navy obviously* HEY-O!


* - This statement is in jest, and I have the utmost respect for all members of the armed services, also you could like totally kill me with your thumbs right? I don't want that to happen.

 Manchu wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
the best behaved/most disciplined soldiers are the ones who were spanked

What military were you in???

So many nonDakka appropriate jokes here...

This one?

 Manchu wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
the best behaved/most disciplined soldiers are the ones who were spanked

What military were you in???

Lol, the Army actually... it's odd that when I ask people who I KNOW have had article 15s, most were raised by a family member who refused to beat them (whoop, spank, switch, whatever term folks want to call it)



@ Frazzled..... Wait, you mean there was a MARINE in the Village people!? holy feth balls, I never knew that.. I mean, I've seen the video for "in the navy" where they were all in seamen outfits (hehehe), but i didnt realize one went like that all the time

Chongara wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
That too. We need more ass woopin. it builds character.

All available data from credible sources contradicts this.

Actually, a study done in Canada roughly two years ago found that children from a family which employed spanking as a correctional action where more disciplined on average than children from families that did not spank their children. So your statement is false.

Correlation is not causation. Would be pretty hard to raise two control groups in exactly the same way and environment and only make spanking the difference.

Chongara wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Chongara wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Then all available data from credible data sources is wrong.

Indeed! Goddamn those wily scientists and their "Observations" and "Research". Why didn't I see it before!?!? all their "Facts" are nothing more than a liberal conspiracy to ruin america with undisciplined children!

From now on, I'm only advocating the teachings of bender: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aVxohAMmDs

Based on the couple of courses i've taken on psychology, these sorts of science are really pseudo-science at best, and hocus-pocus magic at worst.

Purely anecdotally here, but in my near 9 yrs in the military, the best behaved/most disciplined soldiers are the ones who were spanked or otherwise physically punished (not abused, we all know there's a line and ANY punishment can become abusive)

Right I know. Listen up people:

This guy has taken a couple of courses in psychology, so he knows it's hocus-pocus. I don't think anyone should be fooled by all those "universities" and "clear results" or "accurate predictions" supposedly backing up the field. You'd have to be a fool to buy into any of that mumbo jumbo, it doesn't speak to your gut. You know what does speak to your gut though? Anecdotes. Anecdotes are where the real reliable information is. Clearly this guy has delivered on that, case settled. Remember folks he's taken a couple of courses.

Behavioral Sciences: 0
DakkaDakka Forums: 163,539,362,846,289,120,018,236

Oh yeah, take look at how huge that score is. I don't think you could possibly take anything seriously after it loses by that many points.

And entire civilizations used to think that human sacrifice worked.

I never said i was an expert in psych...heck, even the textbook used at devry university for "intro to psychology" calls it a pseudo-science....i mean, how can on gather precise information if no two subjects are precisely the same?? As each person is different so is all of our upbringings, traditions and nearly everything else, sure we have similarities, but that doesnt make them the exact same.

But this is all getting off the original topic, imo

 Ratbarf wrote:
Okay, I think I see where you're coming from now.

Cool.

PhantomViper wrote:
Then all available data from credible data sources is wrong.

That sentence there is perhaps the most perfect example of anti-intellectualism I've ever seen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:
I've never met a child from those "progressive parents" that didn't believe in any form of corporal punishment that wasn't a badly behaved monster, some of them even going so far in their lack of respect as to raise their hands against their parents (and I'm talking about 3 to 5 year old children).

There is a millions miles between 'you don't have to hit your kids' and 'progressive parenting'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Spankings have a place in disciplining children, to cut them out completely is a major mistake. And some people can abuse thise punishment, of course they are also probably people that shouldn't be parents period(which is a seperate issue)

No. Spankings are, for some parents, an effective way of raising their children. They are not something that every parent needs to use.

For other parents the gap between spanking a child out of discipline and spanking a child out of anger is just too fine, and they're much better off using other methods. And then there's the kids themselves, a whole lot don't respond that well to direct physical punishment, either spiralling further or just seeing it as the price you pay (and therefore removing the moral cost of the act).

But, of course, for other parents it works fine.

The point, of course, being that it is beyond stupid to make a sweeping statement on how all children should be raised. It's a complicated thing, and every parent needs to find their own.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
You'd actually be surprised. The fields of sociology and psychology are at times highly politicized and just because someone is a scientist doesn't mean they don't fudge the results (consciously or otherwise) or create tests that bias towards their preferred outcome. Of course that should be a generally accepted rule of thumb for anyone dealing with research into highly political subjects.

Absolutely, it is not only highly politicised but also an inherently subjective field. But that means you have to read not just the newspaper heading of the survey, but the methods and full results of the study itself and do that for a range of studies.

Not saying every person has to do that, but whether they do or not, it simply isn't acceptable to say the stuff we've seen in this thread along the lines of 'I don't care what findings are out there, I've got an opinion that I'm just going to assume is completely correct'.

 Ouze wrote:
Nah, you only think that as an adult. In my experience kids that age (kindergarten etc) love going to school.

Ehhh.
No.

I hated school until 8th grade.

He was talking about kindergarteners and the lower grades of public school.

Fighting with sticks? I fought my friends with cricket bats (I'm not even joking)!

This is a stupid, stupid case.

PhantomViper wrote:
I've never met a child from those "progressive parents" that didn't believe in any form of corporal punishment that wasn't a badly behaved monster, some of them even going so far in their lack of respect as to raise their hands against their parents (and I'm talking about 3 to 5 year old children).

I don't advocate in applying ass whoopings for just about everything, but in the most extreme cases a well applied hand to the behind does wonders for a child's behaviour.

Well, I can't speak to your anecdotal evidence, but let me contrast with some of my own. My mother and her sisters used to be beaten severely by her mother (in this year, she would almost certainly have had her kids taken away from her, I believe she broke my aunt's arm once). As a result, my mother didn't hit any of her children, my sister brother or I. None of us turned out poorly - all have stable careers, happy families, and so on; and weren't especially poorly behaved.

My friend Carl was on the receiving end of some ass-beatings as a child (not abuse, just what I suspect you'd consider to be "reasonable" disciplinary beatings). He has remained a huge mess ever since he was a child and to this day is a severe alcoholic and drug addict. Eventually he'll go to prison, I suppose, for too many DUIS - he already has spent x weekends in for it.

I think being reasonable, reliable, and consistent with your children will engender better results then physical violence. The only time I'd even consider hitting a child would be for an activity that posed substantial threat to their life or health (playing with matches, maybe? I dunno).

I mean, if you go back through the history of the country when physical discipline was much more commonplace, we had no shortage of rapists, criminals, etc etc. So I'm dubious on the value of it.

 d-usa wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Or just go with, oh I don't know, common sense policies and stop punishing children for being children.

It's a legal liability to have common sense when the people that sue you don't have it.

I would argue its more a case of "common sense" not really being a thing. People judge things in different ways, and some will consider an action "common sense" while another will not. It is why appealing to common sense is roughly equivalent to assuming your own position as the default position of everyone; which is plainly not the case.

To use Breotan's statement as example: We punish children for being children all the time. Indeed, that's a big part of turning children into adults. However, questions arise when we start discussing what sorts of childishness should be punished, in what way, and at what time.

 d-usa wrote:
Correlation is not causation. Would be pretty hard to raise two control groups in exactly the same way and environment and only make spanking the difference.

Also, no ethics board in the world would approve that. Researchers get a fair amount leeway when performing experiments on consenting adults but it would be very, very difficult to get approval to allow a consenting adult to, essentially, perform experiments on their children.

 Ouze wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
I've never met a child from those "progressive parents" that didn't believe in any form of corporal punishment that wasn't a badly behaved monster, some of them even going so far in their lack of respect as to raise their hands against their parents (and I'm talking about 3 to 5 year old children).

I don't advocate in applying ass whoopings for just about everything, but in the most extreme cases a well applied hand to the behind does wonders for a child's behaviour.

Well, I can't speak to your anecdotal evidence, but let me contrast with some of my own. My mother and her sisters used to be beaten severely by her mother (in this year, she would almost certainly have had her kids taken away from her, I believe she broke my aunt's arm once). As a result, my mother didn't hit any of her children, my sister brother or I. None of us turned out poorly - all have stable careers, happy families, and so on; and weren't especially poorly behaved.

My friend Carl was on the receiving end of some ass-beatings as a child (not abuse, just what I suspect you'd consider to be "reasonable" disciplinary beatings). He has remained a huge mess ever since he was a child and to this day is a severe alcoholic and drug addict. Eventually he'll go to prison, I suppose, for too many DUIS - he already has spent x weekends in for it.

I think being reasonable, reliable, and consistent with your children will engender better results then physical violence. The only time I'd even consider hitting a child would be for an activity that posed substantial threat to their life or health (playing with matches, maybe? I dunno).

I mean, if you go back through the history of the country when physical discipline was much more commonplace, we had no shortage of rapists, criminals, etc etc. So I'm dubious on the value of it.

The issue is that you need to distinguish between properly administered physical punishment, and abusive punishments. What you described is abuse.

It also must be combined with other disciplinary measures.


Properly administered, it is a very effective technique that a child understands.

I think I pretty clearly did distinguish between the two. The first example was simply background for my mother's motivations as to why she eschewed physical discipline.

 CuddlySquig wrote:
some people were traumatized by Sandy Hook is all.

You can't blame the Sandy Hook shootings for idiocy like this, which has been happening in public schools since way before that incident.

Mattman154 wrote:

Chongara wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Chongara wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Then all available data from credible data sources is wrong.

Indeed! Goddamn those wily scientists and their "Observations" and "Research". Why didn't I see it before!?!? all their "Facts" are nothing more than a liberal conspiracy to ruin america with undisciplined children!

From now on, I'm only advocating the teachings of bender: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aVxohAMmDs

Based on the couple of courses i've taken on psychology, these sorts of science are really pseudo-science at best, and hocus-pocus magic at worst.

Purely anecdotally here, but in my near 9 yrs in the military, the best behaved/most disciplined soldiers are the ones who were spanked or otherwise physically punished (not abused, we all know there's a line and ANY punishment can become abusive)

Right I know. Listen up people:

This guy has taken a couple of courses in psychology, so he knows it's hocus-pocus. I don't think anyone should be fooled by all those "universities" and "clear results" or "accurate predictions" supposedly backing up the field. You'd have to be a fool to buy into any of that mumbo jumbo, it doesn't speak to your gut. You know what does speak to your gut though? Anecdotes. Anecdotes are where the real reliable information is. Clearly this guy has delivered on that, case settled. Remember folks he's taken a couple of courses.

Behavioral Sciences: 0
DakkaDakka Forums: 163,539,362,846,289,120,018,236

Oh yeah, take look at how huge that score is. I don't think you could possibly take anything seriously after it loses by that many points.

And entire civilizations used to think that human sacrifice worked.

And it did until guys with metal hats and guns came and messed everything up...

 Frazzled wrote:


And it did until guys with metal hats and guns came and messed everything up...

School systems appear to show that pretend guns might have been almost as effective.

Wow, they must be some messed up kids! I remember when I was their age we used to do play football, using the trees as goal posts or play with trading cards.

Trading cards are now longer allowed in schools.
Why? Because fights get started over them. I remember yu-gi-oh caused fist fights in my middle school.

Not surprised. We saw similar stories immediately after Columbine.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Trading cards are now longer allowed in schools.
Why? Because fights get started over them. I remember yu-gi-oh caused fist fights in my middle school.

Why would printed cardstock result in fistfights?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm not being rhetorical when I ask that either. I really don't get it.

I wagered my Sliver Queen back when I played Magic, in Junior High. I lost it at one point.

That was the cornerstone to my magic deck, but I never attacked the person responsible for me losing it.