The problem with mental punishment is that when it goes overboard
I didn't suggest mental torture or anything of the like. And just like you can go overboard with physical punishments, you can go overboard with mental punishments, too. That is really no surprise.
If you think that a spanking is even in the same league as what is done on a regular basis to kids mentally, you are completely out of touch, and likely committing the abuses yourself.
As I said, it depends on what punishments are being used. And I'm "out of touch"? Really? For disagreeing with you? Doesn't that, as you implied before, depend on the child and the punishment?
But it would not be possible for me to be doing that myself; I do not have any children.
The spanking verses mental abuse argument also must take into account the amount of time that mental abuse takes to achieve any results.
I don't care about the time it takes. I think it's a way to force your beliefs on someone to a lesser extent. I'd rather not hit people for disagreeing with me.
I have no more evidence than anyone else. I only have my personal observations. Those observations have shown me far more people completely screwed up do to mental abuse than those screwed up do to physical abuse.
Well, I have a completely different experience. Anecdotal evidence is great.
Just because it doesn't leave marks doesn't mean it doesn't hurt.
You, on the other hand are implying that violence in never the answer. Do you really believe that?
For reasons stated in my other comment, yes, that is my opinion. Well, unless you're defending yourself from someone that is trying to physically harm you (and they actually stand a chance at harming you). Then I believe that it's fine.
I think it is. You might not agree, but I think it gives them a better chance to defend themselves (through words). If the adult is "wrong," then the kid will probably continue to disagree with them (even if they're not, but the issue is probably subjective, anyway). I like this way better simply because I believe that it forces your beliefs on them to a lesser extent, even if punishment still occurs. Of course, I have no doubt that some would disagree with me. That's fine. Physical punishment just isn't something that I would prefer to use.
Not only that, but I'd say that physical punishment is both mental (humiliation and feelings of powerlessness) and physical (and why stop at children when someone you know does something that you don't like and "stubbornly" refuses to change their ways?).
That produces WAY better people.
Do you have evidence to the contrary? Despite my obviously sarcastic comment, I won't claim that physical punishment never works. There are many situations, I'm sure, where it doesn't. But, even if it does, I still don't believe that it should be used.
I'd say that just because you can do something, that doesn't mean you should. In other words, just because they don't have any options left (which I very highly doubt), that does not mean that you need to go seemingly completely insane with the enforcement of rules. If they're going to do things like this, I'd rather them not do anything at all.
Yeah, what's with that? I should just be able to hit everyone that does something that I don't like. Only if I know them, though. Since violence is the greatest solution (it gets people who disagree with you to shut up), it should be used all the time. Fear will definitely make someone respect you. There's no doubt about that. Like those arrogant spouses who don't agree with everything you say like a child would do, children need to be swatted.
Yes. There must be something wrong with someone who disagrees with you (because you are 100% correct and 0% wrong). Their opinions are factually inferior to yours.
Please. Everyone knows that hitting someone because they do something that you don't like is a good thing (but only when the person being hit knows the person they were hit by, of course). It's very useful for getting them to shut up. Like your wife, for instance. Sometimes those things can be as arrogant as a child by disagreeing with you! In those situations, a few swats (if you don't leave any bruises, it's fine) usually does the trick.
That's different. Those are authority figures. Therefore, they always take the correct actions. Anyone who says otherwise will understand when they're older.
are at least as important as the basic math, reading, and writing skills that they spend their day learning.
Whether it's important or not is subjective, I think. I certainly don't think so. And the same probably goes for people who don't care much about socialization (which isn't necessarily factually good).
You cannot build a modern society without cooperation.
But you can build one where people don't need to constantly socialize with others beyond what society deems as necessary.
Shut up. I disagree with the looting and protests in the UK. Therefore, no one participating wanted to change anything. And "no one" means "not many people" (which, of course, makes complete sense).
I've always thought that relying solely on a piece of paper to determine whether or not you'll hire someone is a bit foolish. Knowledge isn't always gained in schools. There is such a thing as self-teaching or learning through other means. And since a degree doesn't necessarily show that the person who has it knows what they are doing, I think proving you actually know what you're doing (where possible, of course, as that would be difficult in some professions) should be a requirement (that way people who do know what they are doing but don't have a degree won't be turned down instantly).
Children don't have a fully developed frontal lobe and thus, while not actually incapable, are challenged when it comes to making rational long-term decisions.
That actually describes the behavior of plenty of adults that I've seen. Of course, that could just be because I disagree with their decisions. I guess I'll never know...
I think the best thing to do would be to force all children to be prepared for every single job in existence. Train them in every single area. As we all know, a human's memory is great at remembering things they don't care about, and this wouldn't increase the rate of failures at all.
All this will do is trivialize getting in trouble with the law, and show kids it's not the end of the world.
Well, I'd say that's because it usually isn't the end of the world (even when you commit an actual crime). There will be punishment, yes, but it's usually not the end of the world. And I'd rather not lie to them and pretend otherwise, anyway.
I'm sure these same schools also have all sorts of dress codes that prevent students from exercising their constitutional right to free speech while at school or attending school functions.
I'm sure that not everyone agrees with that, either (and how is that speech?).
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with mental punishment is that when it goes overboard
I didn't suggest mental torture or anything of the like. And just like you can go overboard with physical punishments, you can go overboard with mental punishments, too. That is really no surprise.
If you think that a spanking is even in the same league as what is done on a regular basis to kids mentally, you are completely out of touch, and likely committing the abuses yourself.
As I said, it depends on what punishments are being used. And I'm "out of touch"? Really? For disagreeing with you? Doesn't that, as you implied before, depend on the child and the punishment?
But it would not be possible for me to be doing that myself; I do not have any children.
The spanking verses mental abuse argument also must take into account the amount of time that mental abuse takes to achieve any results.
I don't care about the time it takes. I think it's a way to force your beliefs on someone to a lesser extent. I'd rather not hit people for disagreeing with me.
I have no more evidence than anyone else. I only have my personal observations. Those observations have shown me far more people completely screwed up do to mental abuse than those screwed up do to physical abuse.
Well, I have a completely different experience. Anecdotal evidence is great.
Just because it doesn't leave marks doesn't mean it doesn't hurt.
The same can be said of physical punishment.
Actually, I said, "the greatest solution."
You, on the other hand are implying that violence in never the answer. Do you really believe that?
For reasons stated in my other comment, yes, that is my opinion. Well, unless you're defending yourself from someone that is trying to physically harm you (and they actually stand a chance at harming you). Then I believe that it's fine.
Much better to punish them mentally.
I think it is. You might not agree, but I think it gives them a better chance to defend themselves (through words). If the adult is "wrong," then the kid will probably continue to disagree with them (even if they're not, but the issue is probably subjective, anyway). I like this way better simply because I believe that it forces your beliefs on them to a lesser extent, even if punishment still occurs. Of course, I have no doubt that some would disagree with me. That's fine. Physical punishment just isn't something that I would prefer to use.
Not only that, but I'd say that physical punishment is both mental (humiliation and feelings of powerlessness) and physical (and why stop at children when someone you know does something that you don't like and "stubbornly" refuses to change their ways?).
That produces WAY better people.
Do you have evidence to the contrary? Despite my obviously sarcastic comment, I won't claim that physical punishment never works. There are many situations, I'm sure, where it doesn't. But, even if it does, I still don't believe that it should be used.
Students are *supposed* to make mistakes.
I'm fairly certain that that applies to everyone.
I'd say that just because you can do something, that doesn't mean you should. In other words, just because they don't have any options left (which I very highly doubt), that does not mean that you need to go seemingly completely insane with the enforcement of rules. If they're going to do things like this, I'd rather them not do anything at all.
How do you know that the problem is that parents aren't "disciplining" their children enough? Is that a guess, or do you have proof?
Yeah, what's with that? I should just be able to hit everyone that does something that I don't like. Only if I know them, though. Since violence is the greatest solution (it gets people who disagree with you to shut up), it should be used all the time. Fear will definitely make someone respect you. There's no doubt about that. Like those arrogant spouses who don't agree with everything you say like a child would do, children need to be swatted.
Yes. There must be something wrong with someone who disagrees with you (because you are 100% correct and 0% wrong). Their opinions are factually inferior to yours.
Please. Everyone knows that hitting someone because they do something that you don't like is a good thing (but only when the person being hit knows the person they were hit by, of course). It's very useful for getting them to shut up. Like your wife, for instance. Sometimes those things can be as arrogant as a child by disagreeing with you! In those situations, a few swats (if you don't leave any bruises, it's fine) usually does the trick.
That's different. Those are authority figures. Therefore, they always take the correct actions. Anyone who says otherwise will understand when they're older.
are at least as important as the basic math, reading, and writing skills that they spend their day learning.
Whether it's important or not is subjective, I think. I certainly don't think so. And the same probably goes for people who don't care much about socialization (which isn't necessarily factually good).
You cannot build a modern society without cooperation.
But you can build one where people don't need to constantly socialize with others beyond what society deems as necessary.
Because they're kids, not fully-formed people
They're just a different species altogether.
Shut up. I disagree with the looting and protests in the UK. Therefore, no one participating wanted to change anything. And "no one" means "not many people" (which, of course, makes complete sense).
I've always thought that relying solely on a piece of paper to determine whether or not you'll hire someone is a bit foolish. Knowledge isn't always gained in schools. There is such a thing as self-teaching or learning through other means. And since a degree doesn't necessarily show that the person who has it knows what they are doing, I think proving you actually know what you're doing (where possible, of course, as that would be difficult in some professions) should be a requirement (that way people who do know what they are doing but don't have a degree won't be turned down instantly).
Children don't have a fully developed frontal lobe and thus, while not actually incapable, are challenged when it comes to making rational long-term decisions.
That actually describes the behavior of plenty of adults that I've seen. Of course, that could just be because I disagree with their decisions. I guess I'll never know...
But they surely aren't adults, and applying adult rules to them is just ridiculous.
That depends on who you ask.
Going to school is an important decision
But it isn't the only option. There's always self-learning or homeschooling (and whether they are effective or not would depend on the person).
I think the best thing to do would be to force all children to be prepared for every single job in existence. Train them in every single area. As we all know, a human's memory is great at remembering things they don't care about, and this wouldn't increase the rate of failures at all.
Correlation does not equal causation. But correlation can sometimes imply causation (depending on who you're asking).
You'll understand when you're older.
All this will do is trivialize getting in trouble with the law, and show kids it's not the end of the world.
Well, I'd say that's because it usually isn't the end of the world (even when you commit an actual crime). There will be punishment, yes, but it's usually not the end of the world. And I'd rather not lie to them and pretend otherwise, anyway.
When opinions and emotions are involved, probably.
(lets face it fb-friend != friend)
I'd say that would depend on the person. There's no reason that I see that someone on Facebook (or on the internet) can't be your "friend."
Teachers and students arn't friends, it isn't a friendship.
I don't see why not. If you can't be friends will people you like (even if the feeling is mutual), then I guess friendship simply doesn't exist.
I'm sure these same schools also have all sorts of dress codes that prevent students from exercising their constitutional right to free speech while at school or attending school functions.
I'm sure that not everyone agrees with that, either (and how is that speech?).
I'd say that depends on whether or not the person can learn fine without that.