Kids

[68ZooM]

this is one of those topics that ranks up there with the "other" two no no topics, Personal opinions can get heated, Parents are going to raise there children how they see fit, reguardless of what you or i say, Personally being a Parent ive done a good job without his mother around, hes a great kid, friendly and well liked in school and sure he still does dumb things now and then but WE all used to, it's part of the learning experence growing up as Kids

[moot]

There's very few aspects of parenting where one size fits all. Maybe this discussion can limit itself to those.

[dedalos]

this is one of those topics that ranks up there with the "other" two no no topics, Personal opinions can get heated, Parents are going to raise there children how they see fit, reguardless of what you or i say, Personally being a Parent ive done a good job without his mother around, hes a great kid, friendly and well liked in school and sure he still does dumb things now and then but WE all used to, it's part of the learning experence growing up as Kids

I agree with you.  Not really trying to tell anyone how to raise their kids.  I only have a problem with people talking about bellybutton kicking knuckle sandwiches, getting knocked out etc.  That has no place in raising anything even an animal.  It is abuse but they hide it under raising "my" kid.

After that we get lost in the arguments.

[Simaril]

Now to the issue of spanking:  While not the first means of discipline, it is clearly stated by the center of my worldview that sparing the rod spoils the child.  Now God is also full of mercy and grace and does not immediately smote me for wrong doing. 

Just for the record: the "rod" that is talking about is a shepherd's rod, which was used for steering the animal first, guiding, directing - but only as a last resort used for a whack.

It is not the same tradition as the far eastern rod used for "caning".

[Simaril]

Regardless of your worldview some things are evident, and that may be the best place to seek common understanding.

1. Effectiveness is important. If an approach doesn't work, it's not rational to continue it.


2. In real, adult life actions have consequences.

• You mouth off to the boss, you get in trouble.
• You get caught with cocaine, you're in trouble.
• You don't show up to work...you get the idea.

3. At least PART of raising a kid is teaching him/her the same principle adults need to understand, that actions have consequences.

• In order to do that, the kid needs to know that when he/she does A, then B will result.
• They will test that over and over, and they need to see predictable results in order to structure their view of the world appropriately.
• If they see wildly different outcomes for the same behavior, depending on how bad my day was or whether I was in a good enough mood that I didn't care, then they will not learn the connection - and their behavior will not change.
• Personally, I believe that this lack of consistency is FAR more important to outcomes than what particular intervention parents choose to make as the consequence (barring of course abusiveness...which leads to point 4)

4. When a parental intervention is influenced by the parent's state of mind, then bad stuff will follow.

• The intervention will be disproportionate, with either too little or too much consequence - and the kid will NOT learn the connection between actions and consequences effectively.
• If the kid learns over time that he/she cannot expect to understand the connection between what they do and what happens to them, then YOU can expect a lifetime of poor choices from that kid...

regardless of whether you believe in corporal punishment or not, if your discipline is about how ANGRY you are instead of what the kid did - if its about you instead of them - you're setting both of you up for a lot of trouble.

If you're mad - send the kid to their room, wait an hour, and THEN do what needs to be done.
[/list]

[FireDrgn]

FireDrgn
Not a sound argument because evidently (or I thought so anyway) the valid/sound criteria not what I was getting at.
Where is the evidence that penguin syllogism was meant as you point out rather than as quick and dirty syllogism proof?  There isn't and that's why using a syllogism as he did isn't credible

You are expressing What. I am expressing How.  We are looking at the same car crash from differant view points.

What do you mean was meant as I pointed out? I only pointed out it was deductively valid.  What would be the purpose of using an invalid argument on purpose.?   An invalid argument or an unsound one only negates its own argument not wether something is true or false.   Only a true argument can argue that a claim is true or false.  (Which is how i dont understand why you used a invlid syllogism)

I wanted more information is the reason I pointed out it was valid.    I want to recover the deleted information. YOur claim is correct and i agree with your claim.(that Penguins syllogism is false.)  Your syllogism is false ,but thats why you used it.
There is no such thing that i am aware of as a valid and sound syllogism that is false.

Where the heck is Penguin?    

[moot]

Thinking up a new and improved troll
will reply later

[Guppy35]

Regardless of your worldview some things are evident, and that may be the best place to seek common understanding.

1. Effectiveness is important. If an approach doesn't work, it's not rational to continue it.


2. In real, adult life actions have consequences.

• You mouth off to the boss, you get in trouble.
• You get caught with cocaine, you're in trouble.
• You don't show up to work...you get the idea.

3. At least PART of raising a kid is teaching him/her the same principle adults need to understand, that actions have consequences.

• In order to do that, the kid needs to know that when he/she does A, then B will result.
• They will test that over and over, and they need to see predictable results in order to structure their view of the world appropriately.
• If they see wildly different outcomes for the same behavior, depending on how bad my day was or whether I was in a good enough mood that I didn't care, then they will not learn the connection - and their behavior will not change.
• Personally, I believe that this lack of consistency is FAR more important to outcomes than what particular intervention parents choose to make as the consequence (barring of course abusiveness...which leads to point 4)

4. When a parental intervention is influenced by the parent's state of mind, then bad stuff will follow.

• The intervention will be disproportionate, with either too little or too much consequence - and the kid will NOT learn the connection between actions and consequences effectively.
• If the kid learns over time that he/she cannot expect to understand the connection between what they do and what happens to them, then YOU can expect a lifetime of poor choices from that kid...

regardless of whether you believe in corporal punishment or not, if your discipline is about how ANGRY you are instead of what the kid did - if its about you instead of them - you're setting both of you up for a lot of trouble.

If you're mad - send the kid to their room, wait an hour, and THEN do what needs to be done.
[/list]

Amen, in particular that part about acting out of anger.  The parents are supposed to be the adults, and act that way

[moot]

You non-aggressive guys/parents missed this same debate a few years ago.  There must've been one or two others arguing non-violence, tops.

FireDrgn the syllogized argument in OP doesn't need syllogism for proof.  It's a simple set/subset relation between animals/humans/children.  Syllogism's a badly chosen device for the task.

[clerick]

Amen, in particular that part about acting out of anger.  The parents are supposed to be the adults, and act that way

+1[/list]

[CAP1]

thought better of what was originally here.....

[Westy]

"non-aggressive guys/parents"


Bzzt. Wrong!!  Bad spin.  It's "non-violent"

A lot of us don't think parental love means we need to be a six foot, two hundred pound
bully to a child, use the rod on them like they were a camel, knock JR's teeth out or send
them flying across the room to 'correct' behavior.

People that do IMO are knuckle dragging, shallow thinkers who just aren't unequipped to
deal with anyhting more complicated in life than how to open a beer by it's pulltab or
put on a wife beater 't' without it being on backwards.


I met your troll and raised you one. Although i'll bee 100% honest and say I really do feel
that way about "adults" who hit or patheticly try to justify hitting kids as being good for
them.

[dedalos]

"non-aggressive guys/parents"


Bzzt. Wrong!!  Bad spin.  It's "non-violent"

A lot of us don't think parental love means we need to be a six foot, two hundred pound
bully to a child, use the rod on them like they were a camel, knock JR's teeth out or send
them flying across the room to 'correct' behavior.

People that do IMO are knuckle dragging, shallow thinkers who just aren't unequipped to
deal with anyhting more complicated in life than how to open a beer by it's pulltab or
put on a wife beater 't' without it being on backwards.


I met your troll and raised you one. Although i'll bee 100% honest and say I really do feel
that way about "adults" who hit or patheticly try to justify hitting kids as being good for
them.

 

[Banshee7]

So, I should hate my mother for spanking me throughout my childhood?  Should I view her as an unintelligent woman that should really only know how to open a beer, etc...  Someone help me here.  I am about to be 19 years old, and NEVER have I thought that my mother was abusing me or hitting me out of anger.  It was apparent she always did it out of love and protection.  I may be taking this thread too seriously or something, but someone fill me in here. 

[CAP1]

So, I should hate my mother for spanking me throughout my childhood?  Should I view her as an unintelligent woman that should really only know how to open a beer, etc...  Someone help me here.  I am about to be 19 years old, and NEVER have I thought that my mother was abusing me or hitting me out of anger.  It was apparent she always did it out of love and protection.  I may be taking this thread too seriously or something, but someone fill me in here. 

wow.....i can't believe you realize this at such a young age. my hat is off to you sir. if only i had realized what you typed when i was that young/........but at least i realize it now.

 oh yea....and happy early birthday!!